Republic of the Philippines

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY

Don Severino de las Alas Campus
Indang, Cavite
 (046) 4150-010 / (046) 4150-013 loc. 206
www.cvsu.edu.ph

CENG105
HIGHWAY DESIGN AND TRAFFIC SAFETY

Submitted by:

MIGUEL II M. ESCUTIN
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Submitted to:

ENGR. JOE RIENZI BENCITO

Instructor

College of Engineering and Information Technology

Department of Civil Engineering

In partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

April 18, 2019

Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

Design Guides for Elderly Drivers

A. What is the importance of driving for older populations?

The importance of the car has traditionally been linked to its utilitarian or practical value, including the ability to get
from A to B as quickly, efficiently and safely as possible (see for example, Dargay and Hanley, 2002; Jansson, 1993). Older
people, in particular, describe the ease of carrying items and the door-to-door nature of the journey reducing the physical
effort,
“It’s the convenience isn’t it? You’re carrying shopping and goodness what. You can’t carry that much when you’re
walking, not at my age” (Female, driver, aged 85) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007)
“I don’t want to be sat around waiting for the bus at my age. The convenience of getting where you want to go so
quickly is only satisfied by the car” (Male, driver, aged 70) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007)
The mobility that the car brings is vitally important in an increasingly hypermobile society where day to day needs
including accessing shops, services, work and healthcare are located in places that assume the use of a car,
“I mean how do you go on now without a car now everything – the hospital, the banks, the post-office is geared
around them?” (Male, driver, aged 75) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007)
Being mobile is important in maintaining community, through attendance at community events and activities. The car
is often seen as vital for this role, especially in rural settings and especially for older people who could not otherwise engage
in such activity (Shergold et al., 2011).
In addition, recent research has highlighted the importance of affective and psychosocial needs as motivation for car
driving, including identity, self-esteem, autonomy and prestige, (Ellaway. et al., 2003; Guiver, 2007; Steg, 2005). Siren and
Hakamies-Blomqvist (2005) suggest driving is linked to personal identity and is associated with masculinity, youthfulness,
status and power. For older people, driving can be seen as an example of staying young or warding off old age (Esienhandler,
1990) and can be linked to showing personal and financial status, especially amongst male drivers (Musselwhite and
Haddad, 2007, 2010b; Rothe, 1994),
“I worked hard all my life. My cars show how well I did. My father didn’t have a car, so I suppose I was proud and
still am of having a decent car” (male, driver, aged 85) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007)
The car also gives older people the chance to look after and provide for other people, giving them a role and identity
with their community, family and friends (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2010b).For females, travel was linked more closely to
roles and owing a car helped them show their role, especially in terms of being a mother or grandmother,
“I can help the family out by collecting and taking my granddaughter to school. Without the car, I couldn’t do that.
I wouldn’t be able to help out so much and wouldn’t see my grandkids as much”. (female, driver, aged 70) (Musselwhite
and Haddad, 2007, 2010b)
The independence the car gives older people is important,
“My own car is really important. It’s my independence and although I go with my husband to most places and we
then use his car, I really love having my own car, like today if I am on my own, I am not stuck so that is really important
to me”. (Female, driver, aged 71) (Shergold et al., 2011)
Sometimes this independence comes even if the individual does not use the vehicle often. Just the very “potential for
travel” the vehicle provides is crucial in case of an emergency, for example (Metz, 2000; Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007,
2010b).
Being able to drive was linked to feeling part of society and feeling normal,
“It is the one thing that allows me to compete with youngsters. It is something I can probably still do as well as
when I was a young man. I feel able to be part of society” (Male, focus group 1) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2010b)
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

Finally, older people also mention the importance of discretionary travel in later life. It is common for older people to
mention the importance of the journey itself. And older people often choose certain routes or certain roads to travel or drive
down to be view certain scenery,
“Until I moved into my *retirement+ flat, I loved looking at my garden, how it changes throughout the seasons.
With my car, at least, I can still visit parks and the forest regularly to watch them change” (Female, driver, aged 78)
(Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007, 2010b)
“We go down to the coast regularly to see the sea. I love being by the sea. We couldn’t do it if we didn’t have a
car.” (Male, driver, aged 80) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007, 2010b)
“Sometimes I take the long way round to drive past the forest and see the trees, especially in Autumn” (Male,
driver, aged 75) (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2010b)
The need for human contact with nature, termed biophilia, has been well-documented (see Kellert and Wilson, 1993).
Research suggests that interaction with certain types of nature can create restorative responses and as such can reduce stress
(Ulrich, 1979), anxiety (Ulrich, 1986) and improve health (Ulrich, 1984). Since reduced physical mobility to engage with
nature is more apparent in older people, travel by car allows these important interactions to take place
Based on these findings, Musselwhite and Haddad (2010b) propose a three tier model of car driver needs for older
people, based on the findings outlined above, utilitarian (primary), affective(secondary) and aesthetic (tertiary) needs, which
could be placed in a hierarchy (see figure 1). The level of participants’ self-awareness or consciousness of these needs
varied. They immediately discussed and hence were very conscious of utilitarian needs, but less aware of affective needs
and even less aware of aesthetic needs.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

B. Enumerate and discuss briefly four age-related driving issues.

Stiff Joints and Muscles. As you age, your joints may get stiff, and your muscles may weaken. Arthritis, which is
common among older adults, might affect your ability to drive. These changes can make it harder to turn your head to look
back, turn the steering wheel quickly, or brake safely.
Trouble Seeing. Your eyesight can change as you get older. It might be harder to see people, things, and movement
outside your direct line of sight. It may take longer to read street or traffic signs or even recognize familiar places. At night,
you may have trouble seeing things clearly. Glare from oncoming headlights or street lights can be a problem. Depending
on the time of the day, the sun might be blinding.
Eye diseases, such as glaucoma, cataracts, and macular degeneration, as well as some medicines, can also cause vision
problems.
Trouble Hearing. As you get older, your hearing can change, making it harder to notice horns, sirens, or even noises
coming from your own car. Hearing loss can be a problem because these sounds warn you when you may need to pull over
or get out of the way.
Slower Reaction Time and Reflexes. As you get older, your reflexes might get slower, and you might not react as
quickly as you could in the past. You might find that you have a shorter attention span, making it harder to do two things at
once. Stiff joints or weak muscles also can make it harder to move quickly. Loss of feeling or tingling in your fingers and
feet can make it difficult to steer or use the foot pedals. Parkinson's disease or limitations following a stroke can make it no
longer safe to drive.

C. What are the visibility improvement methods for overhead signs for elderly drivers?
Traditional Methods
The design of traffic signs has traditionally been the work of traffic engineers. Only in the past 2 or 3 decades have
behavioral scientists and human factors specialists also played a part in their design and evaluation. One of the most
commonly used approaches to symbol sign design has been to create a committee composed primarily of traffic engineers,
or use the services of existing ones (e.g., the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), as done in the
United States, which examines alternate symbol versions of a message and recommends sign designs to be used. The
decision have often been based largely on subjective input of committee members. Consequently, the design of symbols in
places such as Australia, Canada, and the United States, has for many decades been based primarily on non-scientific
information from traffic engineers and other “traffic experts” (e.g., police, planners). More recently, however, the need for
scientific data to support the development of a symbol has been recognized, and human factors experts are now more often
involved in the relevant research. Even then the procedures for symbol design are not consistent, and evaluation research
typically involves a single measure--comprehension. The need to make use of a number of measures, and if possible, to
combine them in some meaningful way, has been discussed earlier.
Symbol versions of traffic signs which become candidates for evaluation in the development of a symbol are often taken
from existing systems, used on a trial basis by one or more jurisdictions (e.g., a city or State), or are the product of the
imagination of an engineer or graphics artist. Seldom is proper consideration given to the task requirements of driving and
the information processing capabilities of drivers, especially the older driver. The lack of scientific input to symbol design
and the need for more research on this topic have been outlined by Shapiro, et a1.
A useful approach to the development of symbols is that used by the International Organization For Standardization
(ISO) Committee on Public Information Symbo1s. Once the need for a symbol to represent a specific message has been
determined, the first step is to gather a number of candidate symbols that might be appropriate. This can be done by
reviewing signing practices elsewhere to determine whether some existing symbols (if any) merit consideration. Additional
ideas come from using the “production” method, whereby a number of relevant experts and users (drivers) generate possible
designs for the intended message. These two approaches will typically provide several candidate symbols for further
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
evaluation. However, it is generally necessary to reduce their numbers to three or four substantially different versions (e.g.,
a bus viewed from the side or from the front, with several windows, or only a few) for further testing. The selection of a
few versions from among many is a matter of judgment, ensuring that no two versions are very similar, and that none is
likely to be incomprehensible, or contains a great deal of small detail. This is often done by having sign experts rate the
appropriateness of each version.
The next step is to conduct a series of studies to determine how well each version meets the major criteria for a good
symbol. The practice of the IS0 has been to evaluate comprehension using a sample of people of different ages from around
the world (usually 6 to 8 countries) The data are then analyzed and decisions made concerning which version is best and
whether this one meets minimum standards of understandability (often taken as 2/3 correct).
Unfortunately, the evaluation of symbols often stops at this point with no effort to test any of the other important criteria
such as legibility distance, glance legibility and recognition time. The need for these additional measures and some of the
procedures for implementing them are outlined by Dewar and El1s. In the past, sign stimuli have often been evaluated using
color slides, tachistoscopically presented in the case of glance legibility, to which drivers make a verbal or manual (e.g.,
button press) response indicating recognition. A variety of methods are also available for determining levels of
comprehension: write the meaning of a symbol on an answer sheet, select the most appropriate answer in a multiple choice
format, or rate the clarity a symbol’s meaning. Having subjects write out the meanings of symbols is the most time
consuming method, but it provides the richest data, allowing determination of the nature of the errors and confusion among
symbols within the same signing system. of
Signs may be shown in isolation, in an artist’s rendition of the roadway context in which they normally appear, or in a
photograph, film, or video of the actual roadway environment in which they appear. The presence of context appears to aid
drivers in getting the correct response. Reaction time measures generally present the stimulus in the form of a slide and have
subjects indicate its meaning as quickly as possible.
Legibility distance measures may have subject move toward the sign or the sign toward the subject, to determine the
distance at which the sign message is legible. Other approaches involve increasing the size of the image on a screen until
the subject can describe its contents or identify the message. Glance legibility procedures present the sign for a very brief
duration (e.g., 30 ms to several hundred ms, depending on stimulus complexity) to determine what proportion of the time
the message can be identified, or to increase the stimulus duration until the message is identified.
Emerging Technologies
The use of computers and driving simulators has seen the application of more sophisticated techniques for sign
evaluation. These devices make the study of several sign criteria more efficient than in past decades, and permit the
introduction of additional variables such as subsidiary loading tasks, vehicle handling characteristics, environmental
conditions, etc. However, this is somewhat more expensive than other methods and has the problem of simulator sickness,
especially with older subjects.
Another method that has shown success in designing more effective symbol signs is the low-pass optical technique of
Kline and Fuchs, who were able to increase the legibility distances of symbol highway signs for young, middle-aged and
older drivers. To identify and thus avoid the problems of contour legibility and interaction between. adjacent contours in
regulation symbol highway signs, the experimenters viewed versions of them blurred by strong positive sphere lenses. The
resulting legibility distances and comprehension of standard text, standard symbol, and the “improved” symbol highway
signs were then compared among young, middleaged, and older observers. The average distance at which standard symbol
signs could be identified was about two times that of standard text signs. The legibility distances of their improved symbol
signs, however, were about three times those of standard text signs, and 50 percent greater than those of standard symbol
signs, demonstrating that their optical approach can be used to enhance the legibility of symbol highway signs for drivers
of any age.
Although only in the initial stage of its application to the design of highway signs, an image-processing linear systems
approach may offer an even more powerful design tool than the low-pass optical approach for optimizing the legibility of
highway signs. The linear systems approach is based on the premise that an image can be equivalently represented in both
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
a spatial and a frequency domain making a linear (i.e., a Fourier) transformation between the two domains possible. Using
this approach, it is possible to quantify a complex 2-dimensional image, such as a symbol sign, in terms of its Fourier
components (spatial frequency, orientation, amplitude and phase angle), and to specify the particular Fourier characteristics
that produce themost legible signs. In addition, forward and inverse transform procedures, in conjunction with contrast
sensitivity procedures, allow the designer to display a sign on-screen as it might be seen by a particular design observer.
The forward transform of a digitally-represented image involves modifying its digitally-represented image using some
particular weighting or modulation transfer function (MTF). The resulting product image can then be inverse transformed
and displayed on-screen. It has been shown recently that the contrast sensitivity functions (CSF’s) of drivers of different
ages can be used as weighting functions to yield age-group-specific predictions of the legibility of different symbol highway
signs. These investigators reasoned that among young and middle-aged observers the legibility distances of symbol signs
filtered using an older observer’s CSF should be similar to those of older observers viewing unfiltered versions of the same
signs, and that the legibility of images filtered through the observer’s own CSF should not be different than if the sign’s
image was not filtered at all. To evaluate these hypotheses, the CSF’s of young, middle-aged and older observers were
determined along the three principal orientations (vertical, horizontal, and diagonal) Legibility distances were then
determined for symbol signs classified in terms of their Fourier power spectrum as low, medium, and high-spatial frequency,
each filtered in one of three different ways: not at all (Unfiltered), through the observer’s own CSF (Self-filtered) and
through the median CSF of another age group (Other-filtered). For young and middle-aged observers, the Other-filtered
condition was based on the median CSF of the older group, while for older observers, the Other-filter condition was based
on the median CSF of the young group. As predicted, the legibility distances of the Unfiltered and Self-Filtered versions of
the signs were not different in any of the three age groups. Among young and middle-aged observers, legibility distances in
the Other-Filtered condition were reduced dramatically compared with the Unfiltered and Self-Filtered conditions. Further,
the reduction in legibility was greatest for high spatial frequency signs, and least for low spatial frequency signs. No such
differences, however, occurred among older observers; legibility distances were almost identical in the Unfiltered, Self-
Filtered, and Other-Filtered conditions. These findings demonstrate that image-processing techniques can be employed to
“look through the eves of other observers” and to optimize the legibility of complex spatial displays such as symbol traffic
signs.
D. What are the solutions for improving roads to enhance population’s safety?
Reduce Speed. Speed influences both the risk of a crash and its consequences. At 35mph (56km/h) you are twice as
likely to kill someone you hit as at 30mph (48km/h). In Europe alone, driving according to speed limits and wearing seat
belts could save about 12,000 lives and prevent 180,000 injuries per year.
There are a variety of ways to reduce vehicle speeds, including legislation, road design, and stricter enforcement (e.g.
speed cameras). One innovative idea is Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), a system in which the vehicle 'knows' the speed
limit for the road it is driving on, and activates visual and audio signals if speeds are exceeded.
A three-year ISA project was carried out in Sweden, with various systems installed in 5000 cars, buses and trucks. The
Swedish National Road Administration reported a high level of driver acceptance of the devices, suggesting that they could
reduce crash injuries by 20% to 30% in urban areas.
Wear Seatbelt. Today, you are half as likely to be killed in a car crash as 30 years ago. Various improved safety features
such as airbags and advanced electronics help to keep you safe in your car.
Probably the best safety device ever developed, however, is the seat belt: it can reduce the risk of death in the event of
a crash by up to 60%.
The introduction of mandatory seat belt laws in many countries has increased their usage; the World Health Organization
(WHO) reports that in the UK, usage of the front seat belt increased from 37% to 95% after the introduction of compulsory
use, followed by a reduction of 35% in hospital admissions for road traffic injuries. Unfortunately, up to 50% of cars in
developing countries may lack functioning seat belts.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
Use Child Safety Seats. The use of child safety seats has been shown to reduce the risk of vehicle deaths by 71% in
young children, and by 54% for children ages one to four years, according to the United States Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).
Cost and availability can be barriers to using child safety seats in developing countries, while even in high-income
countries, use can be limited; a CDC study in the US found that in one year, more than 618,000 children ages 0-12 rode in
vehicles without the use of a child safety seat or booster seat or a seat belt at least some of the time.
Wear a Helmet. For cyclists, helmets are the most effective protection in the event of an accident: they reduce the risk
of head and brain injuries by up to 88%. Some countries have made bicycle helmets mandatory. In countries where helmet
wearing is not regulated by law, the wearing rate is generally less than 10%.
Helmets are also hugely important for motorcyclists, especially in developing countries where motorcycle usage is very
high and helmet usage is low. For example, in Thailand, in the year following the enforcement of a law on wearing helmets,
their use increased five-fold, while motorcycle head injuries decreased by 41% and deaths by 21%, according to research
cited by the WHO.
Driverless Cars. Human error is the top cause of road accidents. If you remove that variable, our roads could potentially
be a lot safer – which is why researchers and engineers are perfecting designs for cars that drive themselves. Computer-
steered vehicles could improve traffic flows, reduce accidents, and increase fuel efficiency.
The Importance of Education, Information, and Publicity: Raise Awareness. According to the UK Department of
Transport, you are four times as likely to crash when using a mobile phone while driving. This poster is only a small part of
the bigger campaign ‘THINK!’ that was launched by the UK Government to improve road user behavior.
Increase Visibility. Many crashes result from road users failing to see each other. Poor visibility is a serious problem
in low-income and middle-income countries, where roads are often badly lit at night and motorized traffic is not separated
from cyclists and pedestrians.
The WHO recommends enforcing daytime running lights for motorcyclists, which reduces visibility-related crashes by
up to 15 percent. Furthermore, cyclists should protect themselves by wearing bright, reflecting clothing that increases their
visibility in poor daylight and in darkness. Cyclists should use front, rear and wheel reflectors, and bicycle lamps.
Enforce Drink Driving Laws. Zero tolerance for drink-driving offenders helps reduce traffic injuries. Cutting the legal
blood-alcohol level from 0.10 percent to 0.05 percent reduces the risk of a crash by two thirds.
The level of enforcement of drink-driving laws has a direct effect on the incidence of drinking and driving, according
to the WHO, which cites random breath testing as one of the most effective deterrents.
Improve Roads and Infrastructures. Modern road traffic systems and roadside design can significantly reduce injury
in the event of an accident. Roundabouts, for example, can reduce collisions by up to 40% and serious injuries and fatalities
by up to 90%. Other potential improvements are controlled crossings for pedestrians, rumble strips and adequate street
lighting.
Separating road users using sidewalks, crosswalks for pedestrians, and separate traffic lanes are effective approaches to
improve the most vulnerable road user's safety.
Driver Assistance Systems. Automakers continue to develop intuitive integrated safety features that can help mitigate
some of the most common driving risks. In addition to existing features like seatbelts, cruise control and airbags, more
sophisticated technology like motion sensors and alcohol detectors, even vehicles that can communicate with one another,
are the wave of the future in road safety.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

Signal Timing
A. Basic Timing Elements
Signalized intersections permit conflicting traffic movements to proceed efficiently and safely through space that is
common to those movements. This is accomplished by separating the individual movements in time rather than in space.
The various movements are collected and allowed to move in turn, or in phases. Each phase of a signal cycle is devoted
to only one collection of movements. These movements are those that can proceed concurrently without any major conflict.
For example, the straight-through and right-turn movements of a street can be permitted to use an intersection
simultaneously without any danger to the motorists involved. This might be one phase of a multi-phase cycle.
Some movements are allowed to proceed during a phase even though they cause conflicts. Pedestrians are commonly
allowed to proceed across intersections even though right-turn movements are occurring. These movements are called
permitted, while protected movements are those without any conflicts.
In any case, the movements at an intersection can be grouped, and then these groups can be served during separate
phases.
The basic timing elements within each phase include the green interval, the effective green time, the yellow or amber
interval, the all-red interval, the intergreen interval, the pedestrian WALK interval, and the pedestrian crossing interval.
Each of these elements is described below.

• The green interval is the period of the phase during which the green signal is illuminated.
• The yellow or amber interval is the portion of the phase during which the yellow light is illuminated.
• The effective green time is contained within the green interval and the amber interval. The effective green time, for
a phase, is the time during which vehicles are actually discharging through the intersection.
• The all-red interval is the period following the yellow interval in which all of the intersection's signals are red.
• The intergreen interval is simply the interval between the end of green for one phase and the beginning of green for
another phase. It is the sum of the yellow and all-red intervals.
• The pedestrian WALK interval is the portion of time during which the pedestrian signal says WALK. This period
usually lasts around 4-7 seconds and is completely encompassed within the green interval for vehicular traffic.
Some pedestrian movements in large cities are separate phases unto themselves.
• Finally, the pedestrian crossing time is the time required for a pedestrian to cross the intersection. This is used to
calculate the intergreen interval and the minimum green time for each phase.
• This brief look at the basic signal timing elements should help you navigate through the rest of the signal timing
design concepts. Please remember to visit the glossary if you aren't sure about a definition.

B. Queuing Theory
Queuing theory provides the design engineer with a traffic flow model that can be used in the design of signalized
intersections. Consider a simple situation in which traffic is arriving at an intersection approach in a uniform manner, with
equal and constant headways between each vehicle. This constant flow rate is shown in the figure below.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
During the red interval for the approach, vehicles cannot depart from the intersection and consequently, a queue of
vehicles is formed. When the signal changes to green, the vehicles depart at the saturation flow rate until the standing
queue is cleared. Once the queue is cleared, the departure flow rate is equal to the arrival flow rate. Figure 2 illustrates this
behavior.

The combined effect of the arrival and departure flow rates is illustrated by graphing queue length versus time. During
the red interval, the line of vehicles waiting at the intersection begins to increase. The queue reaches its maximum length
at the end of the red interval. When the signal changes to green, the queue begins to clear as vehicles depart from the
intersection at the saturation flow rate. See the figure below.

There is another graph that allows us to glean even more information from our model. Imagine a plot where the x-axis
is time and the y-axis contains the vehicle numbers according to the order of their arrival. Vehicle one would be the first
vehicle to arrive during the red interval and would be the lowest vehicle on the y-axis. If you were to plot the arrival and
departure (service) times for each vehicle, you would get a triangle as shown in figure 4 below.

While this graph may not seem informative at first, a second look reveals its insights. For a given time, the difference
between the arrival pattern and the service pattern is the queue length. For a given vehicle, the difference between the
service pattern and the arrival pattern is the vehicle delay. In addition, the area of the triangle is equivalent to the total
delay for all of the vehicles. See figure 5 below.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

As you would expect, the first vehicle to be stopped by the red signal experiences the most delay. In addition, the
queue is longest just before the green interval begins. Queuing theory provides a foundation for the optimization of signal
timing.
C. Design Process Outline
Pre-Design Data Collection
The design of signal timing schemes is a fairly simple, though multi-step process. First, you need to know most of the
roadway conditions surrounding the intersection you are working on. This includes the number of lanes, the width of the
lanes, the width of the intersection, the width of the shoulders, and more. Second, you need to have information regarding
the composition of the traffic, such as the percentage of busses and the percentage of trucks within the traffic stream. You
also need to know the peak hour volumes and peak fifteen-minute volumes for all of the various movements.
The Design Process
The basic steps in the design process (assuming you are using Webster's method – see Cycle Length Determination
module) are listed below. While this particular listing is oriented toward Webster's method, most of the other methods
incorporate the same concepts, but in a slightly different way.
1. Decide on a phasing plan.
2. Calculate the length of the intergreen period for each phase of your cycle.
3. Calculate the minimum green time for each phase based on the pedestrian crossing time.
4. Calculate or measure the saturation flow rate for each approach or lane.
5. Calculate the design flow rate for each approach or lane using the peak hour volume and peak hour factor.
6. Find the critical movements or lanes, and calculate the critical flow ratios.
7. Calculate the optimum cycle length.
8. Allocate the available green time using the critical flow ratios from step six.
9. Calculate the capacity of the intersection approaches or lanes.
10. Check the capacities/design flow rates and green intervals/minimum green intervals. Adjust your cycle timing
scheme if necessary.
Even though this outline is tailored for Webster's method, you'll find that most of the other design methods involve
many of the same calculations. Refer to this roadmap frequently as you proceed through this chapter, so that you can see
how each calculation is related to the design process.
D. Intergreen Time
The intergreen period of a phase consists of both the yellow (amber) indication and the all-red indication (if applicable.
This phase is governed by three separate concepts: stopping distance, intersection clearance time, and pedestrian crossing
time, if there are no pedestrian signals.
The yellow signal indication serves as a warning to drivers that another phase will soon be receiving the right-of-way.
The intergreen interval, therefore, should be long enough to allow cars that are greater than the stopping distance away from
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
the stop-bar to brake easily to a stop. The intergreen interval should also allow vehicles that are already beyond the point-
of-no-return to continue through the intersection safely.
This issue is called the"dilemma zone" concept. If the intergreen time is too short, only those vehicles that are close to
the intersection will be able to continue through the intersection safely. In addition, only vehicles that are reasonably distant
will have adequate time to react to the signal and stop. Those who are in between will be caught in the "dilemma zone," and
won’t have enough time to stop or safely cross the intersection. Figure 1 shows this situation graphically.

The only responsible thing to do, it seems, is to eliminate the dilemma zone. This would allow any vehicle, regardless
of its location, to be able to safely stop or, alternatively, safely proceed during the intergreen period. This is done by making
sure that any vehicle closer to the intersection than its minimum braking distance can safely proceed through the intersection
without accelerating or speeding.
First, we calculate the minimum safe stopping distance. The equation for this distance is given below and a more detailed
discussion of this distance can be found in the geometric design portion of this website.
Minimum Safe Stopping Distance:
SD = 1.47*Vo*tr + (1.47*Vo)2/(30*[f ± G])
Where:
SD = Min. safe stopping dist. (ft)
Vo = Initial velocity (mph)
tr = Perception/Reaction time (sec)
f = Coefficient of friction
G = Grade, as a percentage
Next, we calculate the time required for a vehicle to travel the minimum safe stopping distance and to clear the
intersection. This is simple kinematics as well.
Intersection Clearance Time:
T = (SD + L + W)/(1.47*Vo)
Where:
T = Intersection clearance time (sec)
Vo = Initial velocity (mph)
L = Length of the vehicle (ft)
SD = Min. safe stopping dist. (ft)
W = Width of the intersection (ft)
Now that you’ve determined the first two elements of the intergreen period length—stopping distance and intersection
clearance time—you need to consider the pedestrians. The intergreen time for intersections that have signalized pedestrian
movements is the same as the intersection clearance time.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
If you have an intersection where the pedestrian movements are not regulated by a separate pedestrian signal, you need
to protect these movements by providing enough intergreen time for a pedestrian to cross the intersection. In other words,
if a pedestrian begins to cross the street just as the signal turns yellow for the vehicular traffic, he/she must be able to cross
the street safely before the next phase of the cycle begins. The formula for this calculation is shown below.
Pedestrian Crossing Time:
PCT = W/V
Where:
PCT = Pedestrian crossing time (sec)
W = Width of the intersection (feet)
V = Velocity of the pedestrian (usually 4 ft/sec)
Once you have considered the safety of both the vehicular traffic and the pedestrian traffic for the given phase, you can
choose the intergreen time. The intergreen time is equal to whichever is larger, the pedestrian crossing time or the
intersection clearance time.
As you know, the intergreen period is composed of the yellow interval and the all-red interval. The allocation of the
intergreen time to these separate intervals is a question that is answered best by referring you to your local codes. In some
areas, the yellow time has been standardized for several speeds. This would make the all-red time the difference between
the standard yellow time and the intergreen time. One other option is to allocate all of the intergreen period as calculated to
the yellow interval. You could then tack on an all-red period as a little extra safety. This, however, might increase delay at
your intersection.
E. Pedestrian Crossing Time, Minimum Green Interval
The pedestrian crossing time serves as a constraint on the green time allocated to each phase of a cycle. Pedestrians can
safely cross an intersection as long as there are not any conflicting movements occurring at the same time. (Permitted left
and right turns are common exceptions to this rule.) This allows pedestrians to cross the intersection in both the green
interval and the intergreen interval. Thus, the sum of the green interval and the intergreen interval lengths, for each phase,
must be large enough to accommodate the pedestrian movements that occur during that phase.
At this point, two separate conditions arise. If you have an intersection in which the pedestrian movements are not
assisted by a pedestrian signal, you need to make sure that the green interval that you provide for vehicles will service the
pedestrians as well. In this case, the minimum green interval length is somewhere between 4 and 7 seconds. You already
took care of the pedestrian crossing time considerations when you calculated the intergreen period length. (See the module
on the intergreen period.)
If, on the other hand, you plan to provide a pedestrian signal, you need to calculate the pedestrian crossing time as
described below. This will not only give you the information you need to program the pedestrian signal, but it will also
allow you to find the minimum green interval for your vehicular movements as well.
We only need a few assumptions to calculate the pedestrian crossing time.
Assumptions:
The WALK signal will be illuminated for approximately 7 seconds.
A pedestrian will begin to cross the street just as the DON'T WALK signal begins to flash.
Pedestrians walk at an average pace of 4 feet/second.
The WALK interval must be completely encompassed by the green interval of the accompanying vehicle movements.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
Calculations:
The total time required for the pedestrian movements (T) is the sum of the WALK allowance (Z) and the time required
for a person to traverse the crosswalk (R).
R = (width of intersection, in feet)/(4 ft/sec)
T=Z+R
The pedestrian crossing time governs the minimum green time for the accompanying phase in the following way. If the
time it takes the pedestrian to traverse the crosswalk (R) is greater than the intergreen time(I), the remainder of the time
(Z+R-I) must be provided by the green interval. Therefore, the minimum green interval length (gmin) for each phase can
be calculated using the equation below.
gmin = T - intergreen time(I) or gmin = Z + R – I
If the above equation results in a minimum green interval that is less than the WALK time (Z), the minimum green
interval length is equal to the WALK time (Z).
gmin = Z
You now have the minimum length of the green interval for the vehicular movements, as governed by the pedestrian
movements. The WALK interval for the pedestrians is whatever you assumed, and the DON'T WALK flashes for the
remainder of the green and intergreen intervals.
Many design manuals suggest that the distance the pedestrian is assumed to travel can be reduced to the distance between
the curb and the center of the farthest lane. On another note, if the vehicular traffic requires an extended green period, feel
free to let the pedestrains partake of the extra time as well.
F. Saturation Flow Rate and Capacity
Saturation Flow Rate
Saturation Flow Rate can be defined with the following scenario: Assume that an intersection’s approach signal were to
stay green for an entire hour, and the traffic was as dense as could reasonably be expected. The number of vehicles that
would pass through the intersection during that hour is the saturation flow rate.
Obviously, certain aspects of the traffic and the roadway will effect the saturation flow rate of your approach. If your
approach has very narrow lanes, traffic will naturally provide longer gaps between vehicles, which will reduce your
saturation flow rate. If you have large numbers of turning movements, or large numbers of trucks and busses, your saturation
flow rate will be reduced. Put another way, the saturation flow rate (s) for a lane group is the maximum number of vehicles
from that lane group that can pass through the intersection during one hour of continuous green under the prevailing traffic
and roadway conditions. The saturation flow rate is normally given in terms of straight-through passenger cars per hour of
green. Most design manuals and textbooks provide tables that give common values for trucks and turning movements in
terms of passenger car units (pcu).
Determining the saturation flow rate can be a somewhat complicated matter. The saturation flow rate depends on
roadway and traffic conditions, which can vary substantially from one region to another. It’s possible that someone in the
area has already completed a measurement of the saturation flow rate for an approach similar to yours. If not, you'll need to
measure it in the field. One other possibility, which is used quite frequently, is to assume an ideal value for the saturation
flow rate and adjust it for the prevailing conditions using adjustment factors. A saturation flow rate of 1900
vehicles/hour/lane, which corresponds to a saturation headway of about 1.9 seconds, is a fairly common nominal value.
Design manuals usually provide adjustment factors that take parameters such as lane-width, pedestrian traffic, and traffic
composition into account.
Capacity
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
Capacity is an adjustment of the saturation flow rate that takes the real signal timing into account, since most signals are
not allowed to permit the continuous movement of one phase for an hour. If your approach has 30 minutes of green per
hour, you could deduce that the actual capacity of your approach is about half of the saturation flow rate. The capacity,
therefore, is the maximum hourly flow of vehicles that can be discharged through the intersection from the lane group in
question under the prevailing traffic, roadway, and signalization conditions. The formula for calculating capacity (c) is given
below.
c = (g/C) · s
Where:
c = capacity (pcu/hour)
g = Effective green time for the phase in question (sec)
C = Cycle length (sec)
s = Saturation flow rate (pcu/hour)
Capacity can be calculated on several levels, depending on the amount of information you want to obtain. You could
calculate the capacity for each individual lane, or you could lump the lanes together and find the capacity of an entire
approach. You need to decide what makes sense for your situation.
Capacity can be used as a reference to gauge the current operation of the intersection. For example, let us assume that
you know the current flow rate for a lane group and you also know the capacity of that lane group. If the current flow rate
is 10% of the capacity, you would be inclined to think that too much green time has been allocated to that particular lane
group. You'll see other uses for capacity as you explore the remaining signal timing design concepts.
G. Peak Hour Volume, Peak Hour Factor, Design Flow Rate
Peak Hour Volume
The peak hour volume is the volume of traffic that uses the approach, lane, or lane group in question during the hour of
the day that observes the highest traffic volumes for that intersection. For example, rush hour might be the peak hour for
certain interstate acceleration ramps. The peak hour volume would be the volume of passenger car units that used the ramps
during rush hour. Notice the conversion to passenger car units. The peak hour volume is normally given in terms of
passenger car units, since changing turning all vehicles into passenger car units makes these volume calculations more
representative of what is actually going on.
The peak hour flow rate is also given in passenger car units/hour. Sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably
because they are identical numerically.
Peak Hour Factor
The peak hour factor (PHF) is derived from the peak hour volume. It is simply the ratio of the peak hour volume to four
times the peak fifteen-minute volume. For example, during the peak hour, there will probably be a fifteen-minute period in
which the traffic volume is more dense than during the remainder of the hour. That is the peak fifteen minutes, and the
volume of traffic that uses the approach, lane, or lane group during those fifteen minutes is the peak fifteen-minute volume.
The peak hour factor is given below.
Peak Hour Factor:
PHF = Peak hour volume/(4*Peak fifteen minute volume)
Design Flow Rate
The design flow rate or the actual flow rate, for an approach, lane, or lane group is the peak hour volume (flow rate) for
that entity divided by the peak hour factor. A simpler way to arrive at the design flow rate is to multiply the peak fifteen-
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

minute volume by 4. However you derive the figure, most calculations, such as those that measure the current use of
intersection capacity, require the actual flow rate (design flow rate).
H. Critical Movement or Lane
While each phase of a cycle can service several movements or lanes, some of these lanes will inevitably require more
time than others to discharge their queue. For example, the right-turn movement of an approach may service two cars while
the straight-through movement is required to service 30 cars. The net effect is that the right-turn movement will be finished
long before the straight-through movement. What might seem to be an added complexity is really an opening for simplicity.
If each phase is long enough to discharge the vehicles in the most demanding lane or movement, then all of the vehicles in
the movements or lanes with lower time requirements will be discharged as well. This allows the engineer to focus on one
movement per phase instead of all the movements in each phase.
The movement or lane for a given phase that requires the most green time is known as the critical movement or critical
lane. The critical movement or lane for each phase can be determined using flow ratios. The flow ratio is the design (or
actual) flow rate divided by the saturation flow rate. The movement or lane with the highest flow ratio is the critical
movement or critical lane. You will see how this concept is applied in the cycle length and green split discussions.
I. Cycle Length Determination
Once you know the total cycle length, you can subtract the length of the amber and all-red periods from the total cycle
length and end up with the total time available for green signal indications. Efficiency dictates that the cycle length should
be long enough to serve all of the critical movements, but no longer. If the cycle is too short, there will be so many phase
changes during an hour that the time lost due to these changes will be high compared to the usable green time. But if the
cycle is too long, delays will be lengthened, as vehicles wait for their turn to discharge through the intersection. Figure 1
provides a graphical portrayal of this phenomenon.

Several methods for solving this optimization problem have already been developed, but Webster’s equation is the most
prevalent. Webster's equation, which minimizes intersection delay, gives the optimum cycle length as a function of the lost
times and the critical flow ratios. Many design manuals use Webster's equation as the basis for their design and only make
minor adjustments to suit their purposes. Webster's equation is shown below.

Where:
Co = Optimum cycle length (sec)
L = Sum of the lost time for all phases, usually taken as the sum of the intergreen periods (sec)
V/s = Ratio of the design flow rate to the saturation flow rate for the critical approach or lane in each phase
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

After you have calculated the optimum cycle length, you should increase it to the nearest multiple of 5. For example, if
you calculate a cycle length of 62 seconds, bump it up to 65 seconds. Once you have done this, you are ready to go. If you
know the intergreen times for all of the phases, you can then calculate the total available green time and allocate it to the
various phases based on their critical movements. (See the module entitled green split determination.)
J. Green Split Calculations
Once you have the total cycle length, you can determine the length of time that is available for green signal indications
by subtracting the intergreen periods from the total cycle length. But, the result is useless unless you know how to allocate
it to all of the phases of the cycle.
As explained in the module about critical movement analysis, the critical movements or lanes are used to distribute the
available green time among all of the phases. The flow ratio for a movement or lane is the actual (design) flow rate, for that
entity, divided by the saturation flow rate. The critical flow ratio, which is the one that is important for this calculation, is
the flow ratio for the critical movement or lane.
Green time is allocated using a ratio equation. Each phase is given a portion of the available green time that is consistent
with the ratio of its critical flow ratio to the sum of all the critical flow ratios. This calculation is simple to do and hard to
say, which makes it refreshingly different from most of the other calculations we encounter in engineering.
The proportion of the available green time that should be allocated to phase "i" can be found using the following equation:
gi=(V/s)i/S(V/s)*GT
Where:
gi = The length of the green interval for phase "i" (sec)
(V/s)i = The critical flow ratio for phase "i"
GT = The available green time for the cycle (sec)
You now have the length of the green interval for each phase of your cycle. At this point, you might want to look at the
timing adjustments module.
K. Timing Adjustments
Once you have calculated the lengths of the minimum green intervals, green intervals, and intergreen intervals, as well
as the design flow rates and capacities for each of your phases; it is time to ask yourself whether or not your results actually
work.
The first and most obvious check involves the green intervals. Check the length of the green interval for each phase. If
it is not greater than the length of the phase's minimum green interval, you need to bump up the cycle length and add green
time to that phase until the green interval is equal to or greater than the minimum.
The second check involves capacity. If the capacity of a particular phase is below the design flow rate for that phase,
you should back-calculate the effective green time that would allow the phase to run at the design flow rate. Once again,
simply increasing the cycle length and allocating more time to the green interval of the troubled phase will solve the problem.
Webster noted that the cycle length can vary between 0.75Co and 1.5Co without adding much delay, so don't worry too
much about adding a second or two to the nominal cycle length.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368
L. Computing Delay and LOS
One way to check an existing or planned signal timing scheme is to calculate the delay experienced by those who are
using, or who will use, the intersection. The delay experienced by the average vehicle can be directly related to a level of
service (LOS). The LOS categories, which are listed below, contain information about the progression of traffic under the
delay conditions that they represent. This allows you, as a designer or evaluator, to visualize and understand the traffic
flow conditions surrounding an intersection, even though the intersection might still be on the drawing board.
The first step in the LOS analysis is to calculate the average delay per vehicle for various portions of the intersection.
You might be interested in the LOS of an entire approach, or alternatively, you might be interested in the LOS of each
individual lane. The equation for the average vehicle delay is given below.
Average Stopped Delay Per Vehicle:
d= [0.38C(1-g/C)2]/[1-(g/C)(X)] + 173X2[(X-1) + [(X-1)2 + (16X/C)]1/2]
Where:
d = Average stopped delay per vehicle for the lane or lane group of interest (sec)
C = cycle length (sec)
g/C = green ratio for the lane or lane group
g = The effective green time for the lane or lane group (sec)
X = V/c ratio for the lane group
V = The actual or design flow rate for the lane or lane group (pcu/hour)
c = Capacity of the lane group (pcu/hour)
This equation predicts the average stopped delay per vehicle by assuming a random arrival pattern for approaching
vehicles. The first term of the equation accounts for uniform delay, or the delay that occurs if arrival demand in the lane
group is uniformly distributed over time. The second term of the equation accounts for the incremental delay of random
arrivals over uniform arrivals, and for the additional delay due to cycle failures.
As was mentioned before, the level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average stopped delay
per vehicle. This delay is directly related to the driver's level of discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and loss of
travel time. The following paragraphs describe the various LOS categories.
Level of Service A - Operations with low delay, or delays of less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This LOS is reached
when most of the oncoming vehicles enter the signal during the green phase, and the driving conditions are ideal in all
other respects as well.
Level of Service B - Operations with delays between 5.1 and 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This LOS implies good
progression, with some vehicles arriving during the red phase.
Level of Service C - Operations with delays between 15.1 and 25.0 seconds per vehicle. This LOS witnesses longer
cycle lengths and fair progression.
Level of Service D - Operations with delays between 25.1 and 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At this LOS, congestion is
noticeable and longer delays may result from a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/c
ratios.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

Level of Service E - Operations with delay between 40.1 and 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This LOS is considered
unacceptable by most drivers. This occurs under over-saturated intersection conditions (V/c ratios over 1.0), and can also
be attributed to long cycle lengths and poor progression.
As you can see by now, the LOS illuminates the qualitative aspects of signal operation.
Miguel II M. Escutin BSCE 5-2
201411368

References:
Signal Timing Design Theory and Concepts. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2019, from https://www.webpages.uidaho.e
du/niatt_labmanual/Chapters/signaltimingdesign/TheoryAndConcepts/index.htm
Musselwhite, C. (2011). The importance of driving for older people and how the pain of driving cessation can be reduced.
Signpost: Journal of Dementia and Mental Health, 15(3), 22-26. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
Dewar, R., Kline, D., Scheiber, F., & Swanson, A. (1997). SYMBOL SIGNING DESIGN FOR OLDER DRIVERS.
Retrieved April 17, 2019.
Ten ways to improve road safety. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2019, from https://www.allianz.com/en/press/extra/knowledg
e/mobility/130221-ten-ways-to-improve-road-safety1.html?fbclid=IwAR2RhGMHxFzjI3kKgbg0zZGlnceP7hWxCPr
UPpeac07t_dwqhvU-JQkREUk
Older Drivers. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2019, from https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/older-drivers?fbclid=IwAR1IkBkCX
KynO_kNHOAzvknh96R4gatf5tm9m116mWuc-sI6isYaWAMwSC8