Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Availableonline
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000
Transportation
TransportationResearch
ResearchProcedia
Procedia00
21(2016)
(2017)000–000
141–153 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

2016 International Symposium of Transport Simulation (ISTS’16 Conference), June 23~25, 2016
2016 International Symposium of Transport Simulation (ISTS’16 Conference), June 23~25, 2016

Design and Evaluation of an Adaptive Traffic Signal Control

Design and Evaluation of an Adaptive Traffic Signal Control
System – A Case Study in Hefei, China
System – A Case Study in Hefei, China
Rongrong Tian aa, Xu Zhang b,b, a,*
Rongrong Tian , Xu Zhang a,*
a
Key Laboratory for ITS System Integration and Optimization , Ministry of Public Security, People’s Republic of China, Hefei 230088,
a
Key Laboratory for ITS System Integration and Optimization , Ministry
China of Public Security, People’s Republic of China, Hefei 230088,
b China Zhengzhou 450052, China
Henan University of Technology,
b
Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450052, China

Abstract
Abstract
As a part of developing an adaptive signal control system using VS-PLUS method for optimal network traffic
As a part
control, of developing
a study was carriedanout adaptive
along thesignal control system
Huangshan Road in using VS-PLUS
Hefei, China, tomethod for this
evaluate optimal network
system. This traffic
paper
control,
describeda study waswhich
the study carriedincluded
out alongfieldthesurvey
HuangshanaboutRoad
trafficinperformance;
Hefei, China,development
to evaluate this system.
of trip This
matrix paper
using an
described the studymethod;
improved Furness which included
using thefield
TRANSYTsurvey about
traffictraffic performance;
modelling software development of tripfixed-time
to find the optimal matrix using an
signal
improved Furness method; using the TRANSYT traffic modelling software to find the
plan and VISSIM micro-simulation software to affirm and evaluate the TRANSYT model and to help assess the optimal fixed-time signal
plan andsignal
optimal VISSIM micro-simulation
plan; building adaptive software to affirm
frame signal planand
andevaluate
refiningtheandTRANSYT
evaluating model
the planand to help
using assesswith
VISSIM the
optimal signal plan; building adaptive frame signal plan and refining and evaluating the plan
VS-PLUS emulator. The results indicated that average delay per vehicle was reduced significantly with consequent using VISSIM with
VS-PLUS
improvement emulator. The results
in network indicated
performance. that average
Adaptive delay
signal per vehicle
control plan waswasthen
reduced significantly
designed with consequent
for the VS-PLUS signal
improvement
control systeminbased
network performance.
on the Adaptive
optimal fixed-time signal
signal control
plan. Throughplan micro-simulation,
was then designedit for wasthe VS-PLUS
shown signal
that delay in
control system
the adaptive basedcontrol
signal on thewasoptimal fixed-time
shortened signal than
noticeably plan.that
Through
in themicro-simulation,
fixed time control. it was
Thisshown that been
study has delaythe
in
the
veryadaptive
first forsignal controlFurther
this system. was shortened
and more noticeably than that
comprehensive in theare
studies fixed time control.
expected to followThis
to study has been and
fully evaluate the
very first for
appreciate thisthis system.
system. Further
This study and
has more
filled comprehensive
some of the gaps studies are expected
in evaluating to follow to fully
the performance of andevaluate
providedanda
appreciate
benchmarkthis system.
for such This study
an adaptive has signal
traffic filled control
some ofsystem
the gaps
in aintypical
evaluating
urban the performance
setting in cities inofChina.
and provided
The studya
benchmark for asuch
has also raised an adaptive
number trafficinsignal
of questions settingcontrol systemframe
the optimal in a typical urban setting
plan regarding driverinbehaviour,
cities in China.
safetyThe study
concerns
has also raised a number of questions in setting the optimal frame plan
and tradeoffs between shorter cycles and higher responsiveness to traffic variations. regarding driver behaviour, safety concerns
and tradeoffs between shorter cycles and higher responsiveness to traffic variations.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B. V.
Copyright
© 2016 The © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection andAuthors.
Selection and
Published
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under
by Elsevier
responsibility
B. V.
responsibility of Dept
of Dept. of Transportation
of Transportation Engineering
Engineering, University
University of Seoul. of Seoul.
Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of Dept of Transportation Engineering University of Seoul.
Keywords: traffic simulation; traffic model; adaptive control; network signal optimization; evaluation
Keywords: traffic simulation; traffic model; adaptive control; network signal optimization; evaluation

2214-241X © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B. V.

2214-241X © Peer-review
Selection and 2016 The Authors. Published by of
under responsibility Elsevier B.Transportation
Dept of V. Engineering University of Seoul.
Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of Dept of Transportation Engineering University of Seoul.

Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of Dept. of Transportation Engineering, University of Seoul.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.084
2142 Rongrong
Rongrong Tian/Tian et al. / Transportation
Transportation Research00
Research Procedia Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153
(2016) 000–000

1. Introduction

Rapid growth in car ownership and car use have resulted in serious traffic congestion in many cities in China
and the congestion is spreading fast from major large cities to other lower tier of cities even towns. Road traffic is
also the major sources of air pollution which has become the major source of public complain along with road
congestion. Advanced Urban Traffic Control (UTC) system can play an important role in alleviating traffic
congestion and reducing air pollution by maximizing capacity and minimizing emission.
Static and dynamic traffic signal control systems emerged around and after the 1970s and examples of which
include the widely used Traffic Network Study Tool (TRANSYT), Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique
（SCOOT）and Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS). Much work has been done to evaluate and
compare the performance of these systems. For example, Park and Chang (2001) utilized delay time to compare
TRANSYT and a SCOOT control system with a pre-timed signal system. Abdel-Rahim and Taylor (1999) utilized
average travel time, intersection delay and average intersection approach delay for the major and minor streets, to
compare the performance between fixed-time system and actuated-coordinated system. In their work both a SCATS
system and a SCOOT system were simulated utilizing the CORSIM microscopic simulation model. In these
evaluations traffic delay has been the most commonly used indicator for comparing network performance.
In China, researches on traffic signal control started fairly recently and most of the researches were either on the
functionality of these systems or rather theoretical on topics such as neural network fuzzy control model, genetic
algorithms. Examples can be found in Dongling Xu (1992) and Huixian Huang (2001). SCOOT and SCATS
systems were introduced in recent years in China. However, few papers and reports can be found on measuring and
evaluating the benefit which the advanced UTC systems could bring to China either as research studies or as
applications of commercial UTC systems. Moreover, the domestically developed control systems used in China at
present are generally lack of sophistication to meet the demanding traffic requirements. A number of factors have
made the situation worse which include generally less well considered intersection design; inability to manage
heavily mixed traffic including pedestrians, electric mopeds, cars and other vehicles; lax driving standard and short
of expertise in traffic engineering.
The Key Laboratory of the Ministry for Public Security of China for System Integration and Control at the
Anhui Keli Information Industry Co. Ltd has teamed up with the Verkehrs-Systeme AG of Switzerland (VSAG)
to develop a new generation of UTC system for China based on VSAG’s versatile parameterized adaptive control
method VS- PLUS, a name which can be found in the literature by Susan Dickey et al.(2008) and Tom Urbanik et
al.(2003). This paper describes a study to evaluate this developed system. It uses a combination of VISSIM micro-
simulation and empirical traffic modelling tool TRANSYT to demonstrate what can achieve by coordinating and
optimizing a three node real traffic network using fixed time control and further by adopting traffic responsive
control. The study has included field survey; development of trip matrix using a specially designed and improved
Furness method; using the TRANSYT 14 traffic modelling software and VISSIM 5.4 micro-simulation software
to find and assess the optimal fixed-time signal plan; building adaptive frame signal plan and refining and
evaluating the plan using VISSIM with VS-PLUS emulator. Micro-simulation played critical role in a number of
ways. Firstly, the existing signal settings at the concerned intersections had different fixed cycle times and were
not coordinated. This made accurate evaluation using TRANSYT difficult if possible and micro-simulation became
a suitable tool for this task. Secondly, it helped the development of the optimised TRANSYT models. The third
critical role micro-simulation played in this study was to evaluate the dynamic performance of the adaptive signal
control which is inherent in the VS-PLUS control method.

2. Study Procedure

The full evaluation study for the developed adaptive signal control system includes two parts, network
coordinated control and single intersection adaptive control which also include pedestrian as well as vehicle
actuation. This paper describes the former. The study procedure is shown in Figure 1.
 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153
Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000
143
3

Traffic Survey and Data Analysis

Base TRANSYT and VISSIM Model

Development

Control Plan Design and Optimisation

Evaluation and Assessment of the Optimised

Control Plan

Vehicle Detection Plan Design

Design for Adaptive Control Scheme

Adaptive Control Scheme Testing and Evaluation

Figure 1 Study procedure

3. Traffic Survey

The test network consisted of three core intersections, Huangshan Road-Xiangzhang Avenue (1001), Huangshan
Road-Tianzhu Road (1005), Huangshan road-Kexue Avenue (1003), and their adjacent upstream intersections. .
Field study was carried out at these intersections which included mainly manual traffic counting, Traficam
automatic video detection survey and travel time survey. The data acquired included intersection layouts and
channelization, existing signal timing plans, flows and routes of different vehicle types, speeds, saturation flows,
queue lengths and pedestrian and travel times. Figure 2 shows the schematic diagram for the extent of the study
area. The numbers 11, 12……and 1001, 1003 and 1005 are node numbers used for matrix development and other
analysis.

Figure 2 Schematic diagram showing the extent of traffic survey

4. Trip Distribution Matrix

To develop the TRANSYT traffic model and VISSIM micro-simulation model, trip distribution matrices were
developed from the surveyed traffic counts. An improved Furness method was employed to derive the distribution
4 144 Rongrong
Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation
Tian/ Transportation Research
Research Procedia 00 Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153
(2016) 000–000

matrices between each traffic zones with the surveyed traffic counts set as trip generation and attraction values
or constraints between groups of zones and the observed flow routes between origins and destinations served as
another set of constraints.
Table 1 shows the surveyed traffic generation and attraction values for each node in the morning peak. The
improved Furness model was developed using VBA in Excel. This followed an iterative process. At each
iteration, the results and the differences between the surveyed generation and attraction values and the
corresponding values from the Furnessing process were examined; if the differences were too large which were
usually due to vehicles following illogical routes, more constraints were added to the Furness process. In the end,
all the errors were successfully controlled to be less than 10% and the matrix met all the predefined conditions.
Table 2 gives the network trip distribution matrix derived for the morning peak.

Table 1 The network trip generation and attraction in the morning peak

Node 11 12 13 21 22 23 31 32 33 41 42 51 52 60 70 80 90
Generation 190
296 237 320 67 38 24 954 107 46 516 355 140 771 530 100 168
(vel·h-1) 7
Attraction
250 450 288 110 850 122 57 968 101 119 812 378 510 385 531 100 5
(veh·h-1)

Table 2 Network trip distribution matrix in the morning peak

Zone 11 12 13 21 22 23 31 32 33 41 42 51 52 60 70 80 90 Generation
11 0 0 0 94 14 10 93 10 0 23 0 25 0 0 0 0 269
12 0 0 0 75 11 8 74 8 0 19 0 20 0 0 0 0 215
13 0 0 0 0 0 17 168 18 0 42 0 45 0 0 0 0 290
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 2 0 8 7 8 2 12 2 0 61
22 175 314 0 0 0 0 399 42 0 155 149 165 49 242 41 2 1733
23 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 1 6 1 0 33
31 2 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 20
32 54 98 219 42 261 40 0 0 0 0 35 39 11 57 10 0 866
33 6 11 25 5 29 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 6 1 0 96
41 0 0 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 5 22 4 0 0 44
42 2 4 9 8 52 0 0 0 0 0 54 60 249 46 0 0 484
51 3 5 11 10 64 10 4 41 4 15 69 0 22 56 18 1 333
52 1 2 4 4 25 4 2 16 2 6 27 0 8 22 7 0 130
60 0 0 0 8 47 7 3 30 3 86 396 49 54 42 0 1 726
70 0 0 0 18 113 17 7 72 8 14 64 62 68 20 17 1 481
80 0 0 0 7 45 7 3 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
90 2 4 8 8 48 7 3 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 157
250 450 286 111 858 122 57 973 103 121 807 370 499 385 538 97 5
It can be seen that the differences between the generation and attraction values in table 1 and 2 are small.
To further verify the reliability of OD matrix in Table 2, the existing network traffic performance was
simulated using VISSIM5.40. From the base VISSIM model developed based on this OD matrix, the modeled
link flows were collected through node evaluation file. Comparing the output flows from VISSIM simulation
model with the actual surveyed traffic flows, all the links were found to have met the flow and GEH criteria as
set in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DMRB and summarized by Dave KEENAN (2005). Details
were provided in Table 3. Together with other parameter calibration such as for queue lengths, the base
simulation model was considered to be suitable for assisting the development and evaluation of TRANSYT
models to be described later.
 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153 145
Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 5

Table 3 Comparison of flows from simulation model and survey at road sections

Output flow from Flow standard

Survey flow V2<700veh·h-1， 700<V2<2700veh·h-1，
Link No. VISSIM GEH<5
V2(veh·h-1)
V1(veh·h-1) \V2 V1 \ 100 \V2 V1\/ V2  15%
2 453 482 1 - 1.3
4 1083 1127 - 1 1.3
5 1067 1063 - 1
6 790 816 - 1 0.9
7 57 69 1 - 1.5
8 35 39 1 - 0.7
9 505 528 1 - 1.0
10 710 771 - 1 2.2
13 1020 1082 - 1 1.9
15 1284 1341 - 1 1.6
16 1126 1147 - 1 0.6
19 470 530 1 - 2.7
22 1855 1975 - 1 2.7
23 1913 2011 - 1 2.2
25 746 732 - 1 0.5
35 982 988 - 1 0.2
37 214 237 1 - 1.5
38 266 296 1 - 1.8
39 94 100 1 - 0.6
40 291 320 1 - 1.7
42 157 168 1 - 0.9
44 1169 1226 - 1 1.6
48 22 24 1 - 0.4
49 950 954 - 1 0.1
51 43 46 1 - 0.4
53 97 107 1 - 1.0
57 806 888 - 1 2.8
63 131 140 1 - 0.8
66 322 355 1 - 1.8
10020 747 758 - 1 0.4
10021 48 57 1 - 1.2
10036 798 804 - 1 0.2
10037 253 275 1 - 1.4
Coincidence Rate 100% 100%
Note: value 1 means that indicators had met the corresponding requirement.

5. Network Signal Optimization Scheme

When optimizing control for an intersection, ideally, all means of traffic management method should be
considered, such as layout change, signal control phase and stage settings as well as timings, and consideration
of its wider network management. For the purpose of testing the control system being developed, only signal
settings were allowed to change and the stage and phase sequence were kept as close to the current settings as
possible for safety concerns. This not only made comparing the performance with the base easier but also made
the proposed test more acceptable to the traffic management authority. However, these did put a limit to what
could be achieved in improving the network performance.
TRANSYT is one of the most widely used software tools for traffic signal optimization (the TRANSYT 14
was used in the study). It optimizes signal settings through an objective function which is a linear combination
of delay time and the number of stops experienced by vehicles in the network of signalized intersections. The
optimization results were the optimal green split and offset. The cycle time may be optimized too but as a
separate process.
The design for optimized network signal control was composed mainly of two parts:
 Establishing the base VISSIM and TRANSYT network models. For the TRANSYT model, instead of the
surveyed traffic flows, flows from the VISSIM model were taken as the input to the TRANSYT model. Both
of the two models were calibrated by bringing the modeled Mean Max Queue (MMQ) in line with the
 146 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153
6 Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000
surveyed MMQ and achieving consistency between the TRANSYT and VISSIM models.
 Optimizing the signal timings by TRANSYT and applying VISSIM to assess and evaluate the effectiveness
and robustness of the TRANSYT optimal signal timings.

5.1. TRANSYT Base model

Using the surveyed vehicle composition (0.9 for car, 0.05 for medium and heavy-goods vehicles respectively)
and the corresponding vehicle conversion factors (1, 1.5, 2 for car, medium and heavy-goods vehicle respectively
as specified in the Chinese guideline GB50220-95), the OD vehicle matrix in Table 2 was converted to matrix in
PCUs. This converted matrix together with the existing signal timing plans for each intersection (shown in Table
4) and the intersection layout plans, surveyed saturation flows and intergreen matrix, they were fed into
TRANSYT and calibrated to form the base network model for the morning peak. Figure 3 shows the model
structure.

Table 4 Existing signal timing plan for intersections

Intersection Stage Direction Green time(s)(including green flashing 3s) Yellow time(s) Ped-light(s)
Stage1 E-W and W-E 10 3 10
E-W and W-E
Stage2 E-N and W-S 40 3 40

1001 E-S and W-N

Stage3 29 3 -
E-N and W-S
NS all
Stage4 47 3 47
E-N and W-S
E-W and W-E
Stage1 68 3 68
1005 E-N and W-N
Stage2 N-E and N-W 56 3 56
E-W and W-E
Stage1 8 0 8
E-W and W-E
E-N and W-S
Stage2 N-W and S-E
28 3 28
E-W and E-S
E-N and W-S
Stage3 E-N and W-S
E-S and W-N 56 3 -
1003 E-S and W-N
Stage4 E-N and W-S
N-W and S-E
20 3 -
N-S and S-N
E-N and W-S
N-W and S-E
Stage5 35 3 35
N-E and S-W
E-N and W-S
25 3 -
N-W and S-E
 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153 147
Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 7

Figure 3 Base model network in TRANSYT

Mean max queues were used as an indicator to check whether the TRANSYT base model was in accord with
the actual traffic situation. With the assistance from the calibrated VISSIM base model, parameters in the
TRANSYT base model were continually modified and verified until the deviations between the TRANSYT
MMQ and the surveyed MMQ were generally less than 25%, which was considered acceptable given the
uncoordinated nature of the existing time settings in the study network. Table 5 shows the comparison between
the MMQ from TRANSYT model and the surveyed MMQ for intersection 1001 in the morning peak. It should
be noted that the error for the left turn at the eastern entrance (phase G) is large. This was mainly due to a problem
in the manual survey caused by a U-turn immediately before the stop line. Furthermore, as TRANSYT 14 could
not model a network with different cycle times, when it was used to model intersection individually as
uncoordinated, it assumed random vehicles arrival at the stop lines. However, as the distances between the three
intersections were rather small, the platoons at the upstream exits would be kept in varying degrees when arriving
at the downstream stop lines, which would cause larger fluctuation in queue length. This fluctuation was further
aggravated by different cycle times at the adjacent intersections.

Table.5 Comparison of MMQ from TRANSYT model and survey for intersection 1001 in the morning peak

Phase Surveyed MMQ(m) TRANSYT MMQ(m) Difference

A - - -
B 20.3 15.18 25%
C 2.2 2.7 23%
D 72.5 76.59 6%
E - - -
F 47.8 43.53 9%
G 42.7 158.13 270%
H 55.2 49.77 10%
Note: Phase is defined as a cyclic variation of signal light colors for one or more traffic flows in a cycle.
148
8
Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153
Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

5.2. Network signal optimization based on TRANSYT

As mentioned above, for the purpose of testing the control system being developed, only signal settings were
allowed to change and the stage and phase sequence were kept as close to the current settings as possible to alleviate
safety concerns. Based on the calibrated TRANSYT base model, optimized signal timings were obtained using the
TRANSYT by minimizing the objective function. The obtained optimal signal timing plan was checked and
evaluated visually using VISSIM, which had led to some adjustment made to certain factors in TRANSYT. Again,
this was an iterative process which was stopped when an optimal signal timing plan was found giving consistent
performance both in TRANSYT and VISSIM.
In this study, the optimal cycle times for the network were found to be 73s and 82s respectively for AM and PM
peak periods. As examples, the optimal signal timing and stage diagrams for intersection 1001 for the AM and PM
periods are showed in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. Comparing with the results in table 4, it can be observed
that green times for each phases, stages and stage sequences were all adjusted.

Figure 4 AM signal timing and stage diagram for intersection 1001

 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153 149

Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 9

Figure 5 PM signal timing and stage diagram for intersection 1001

6. Evaluation and Assessment of the Optimized Signal Control Plan

To assess and evaluate the effectiveness and robustness of the optimal signal plan, the results from the
TRANSYT and VISSIM models before and after optimization were compared and analyzed in this section.

6.1. Optimization analysis in TRANSYT

MMQ and DOS (Degree Of Saturation) were used as the evaluation parameters. Comparing their resultant
values before and after optimization generated from the TRANSYT models as shown in Table 6 and Table 7, it
can be found that after optimization the MMQ lengths decreased significantly and the DOS values were more
balanced indicating more effectively use of green times and giving a clear improvement to the base.

Table 6 Comparison of evaluation parameter values before and after optimization – AM period

MMQ(m) Improved(%) DOS(%)

Phase
Base Optimised Base Optimise
A - - - 15% d
12%
B 15.18 11.5 -24% 18% 47%
C 2. 1.61 -40% 21% 8%
D 7
76.59 44.48 -42% 78% 77%
E - - - 6% 8%
F 43.53 16.22 -63% 33% 49%
G 158.13 41.86 -74% 153% 76%
H 49.77 27.95 -44% 54% 56%
150 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153

10 Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

Table 7 Comparison of evaluation parameter values before and after optimization – PM period

MMQ(m) Improved(%) DOS(%)

Phase
Base Optimised Base Optimise
A - - - 17% d
21%
B 11.78 10.34 12% 29% 47%
C 2.93 2.08 29% 32% 34%
D 12.13 7.19 41% 47% 37%
E - - - 12% 16%
F 11.16 6.26 44% 26% 42%
G 5.26 5.11 3% 62% 66%
H 26.44 15.14 43% 83% 66%

6.2. VISSIM Simulation model and analysis

In order to validate the results and feasibility of the optimal timings from TRANSYT and to evaluate the
efficiency of the network performance, traffic operations before and after signal optimization were simulated
and analyzed using VISSIM.
Under the optimal fixed-time signal plan the simulations showed good signal coordination between the
intersections with vehicles passing through the whole network with less stops. Time delays and speeds and travel
times were used to assess the effectiveness of the optimized plan. To counter the statistical variation in the
simulation results, multi-simulation runs were carried out for both the base and optimized VISSIM models. In
each run, simulation time was set for 4 hours with results were generated every 300 seconds starting from the
time at 300s to 14700s. These results are shown in Table 8 and Table 9.

Table 8 Comparison of performance indicators before and after network signal optimization – AM period
Car HGV Medium Truck
Indicator
Base Optimized Improved Base Optimized Improved Base Optimized Improved
Average Delay
-25% 96.99 72.81 -25% 93.9 69.99 -25%
Time(s·veh-1) 93.91 70.03
Total Delay Time(h) 601.73 448.42 -25% 33.01 24.77 -25% 31.51 23.46 -26%
1215.1
Total Travel Time(h) 5 1062.58 -13% 75.16 67.22 -11% 64.99 56.94 -12%

Average Speed(km·h ) -1
27.17 31.11 17% 23.31 26.25 13% 26.72 30.5 14%

Table 9 Comparison of performance indicators before and after network signal optimization – PM period
Indicator
Car HGV Medium Truck
Base Optimized Improved Base Optimized Improved Base Optimized Improved
Average Delay
76.16 71.46 -6% 78.22 73.53 -6% 77.22 72.13 -7%
Time(s·veh-1)
Total Delay Time(h) 441.96 414.65 -6% 26.81 24.35 -9% 22.76 22.11 -3%
Total Travel Time(h) 1047.74 1020.1 -3% 70.52 66.95 -5% 53.57 52.9 -1%
Average Speed(km·h ) -1
29.02 29.79 3% 25.88 26.57 3% 26.72 30.50 3%

It can be observed from these results that all the indicators pointed to an improvement for the optimized time
settings with average delays per vehicle, total delays and total travel times all reduced and average speeds
increased in both periods.
 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153 151
Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 11

7. Design for Adaptive Control Scheme

On the basis of the optimal fixed-time signal plan, frame signal plan used in VS-PLUS signal control method
was designed for dynamic control. There are different ways to design how to respond to vehicle actuation
depending on the objectives and vehicle detection plan. A fundamental assumption employed in the frame design
in this study is the hypothesis that the real time traffic variations are pivoted around their means and these were
reflected in the parameter settings in the frame plan.
Application of the VS-PLUS vehicle actuated signal control system requires the ability to accurately sense
the road traffic operation. By placing microwave detectors at appropriate locations, relevant traffic information
can be obtained. These include queuing vehicles, whether a car is coming after the tail of the queue, whether
there is traffic congestion at the downstream exit and whether the bus or non-motorized vehicle is arriving.
The VS-PLUS based signal control system processes the traffic information collected from all the detectors
from every direction and send out appropriate instructions, such as switching to green, extending the green time,
or omitting a phase to name a few, to realize effective adaptive control.
As examples, Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively show the detector location plans for intersection 1001 and
the adaptive frame signal control plan for this intersection for the morning peak.

Figure 6 Detector location diagram for intersection 1001 (pink squares show detector locations)
152 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153

12 Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

Figure 7 The frame signal plan of adaptive signal control for intersection 1001 for the morning peak

The frame signal plan consists of a number of frames and each is associated with its corresponding traffic stream.
A signal frame is split into a call range and an extension range. Calls by vehicle detection are dealt with in the call
range and are assessed as to whether and when to start green. A phase green in the extension range may or may not
be extended according to vehicle detection and other constraints. For safety reasons the tested frame plan followed
strict stage/phase sequences obtained from TRANSYT and only limited extension or reduction in green times were
allowed and jumping over or omitting any phase was prohibited even if there was no vehicle presence detected for
that phase.
The frame plans were designed based on the optimized signal timings obtained from TRANSYT. To test the
performance of VS-PLUS adaptive control system and the frame plans, traffic was simulated by VISSIM with
VS- PLUS simulator. Visual examination of the simulation showed that the system responded as expected to
vehicle calls, say by extending or cutting green times of different phases. For analysis of the effect of the adaptive
control, delay time was chosen as the measure to compare the adaptive control plan with the fixed-time plan and
the results for 10 simulation runs are shown as averages in Table 10 and Table 11 for AM and PM time periods.

Table 10 Comparison of delay time between adaptive control and fixed time control in the AM period (unit: h) – average of 10 simulation runs

Node Fixed Time Adaptive Signal Improve

C l C l d
Networ 103.70 101.84 -1.8%
k
1001 35.57 35.12 -2.8%
1003 51.03 51.84 1.6%
1005 16.53 14.88 -10.0%

Table 11 Comparison of delay time between adaptive control and fixed time control in the PM period (unit: h) – average of 10 simulation runs

Node Fixed Time Adaptive Signal Improve

C t l C t l d
Networ 114.45 111.24 -2.8%
k
1001 35.52 36.04 1.5%
1003 53.35 53.18 -0.3%
1005 25.58 22.01 -13.9%

From the data shown in Tables 10 and 11, the network delays in adaptive control were noticeably lower than
that in the fixed time control at -1.8% for the AM time period and considerably lower at –2.8% for the PM period.
The results are fairly consistent with the respective confidence values calculated from the 10 simulation runs at
0.84% and 1.07% giving confidence intervals (-0.95%, -2.63%) and (-1.72%, -3.86%) respectively. However,
 Rongrong Tian et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 21 (2017) 141–153 153

Rongrong Tian/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 13

they are not as much as we expected initially. This was believed to be due to the following reasons. Firstly, the
frame plans were not designed to make use of the full potential of the system due to the experimental nature of
the study and safety concerns. Secondly, the network tested was small, having 3 nodes with 1005 in the middle
and the other two at the border and whose neighboring intersections were close and had very different cycle
times. This were shown in the very different results at the level of individual intersections where the intersection
at the centre 1005 has much better performance and the improvement on the other two intersections were not
obvious.
The study has also raised a number of questions in setting the optimal frame plan. Firstly it was found that the
driver responses to the start of green could be very slow. It was observed regularly that some drivers started their
vehicles as late as 6 seconds after signal turned to green, with implications to setting the optimal timing
particularly when cycle time was short. Secondly, it was found that the platoons could be quite loose with
frequent large gaps. This made the detection of tail ends as difficult as it is to define. Thirdly, the roads in the
studied network were wide which required large clearance time for pedestrians. The current practice allowed
some undesirable conflicts in the network. However, the intricacies of efficiency, safety and responsibility made
deviation to current accepted practice difficult. Last but not least, there appeared to be a tradeoff to make between
shorter cycles and higher responsiveness to traffic actuation in frame setting. The optimized cycle times from
TRANSYT did not give much room to respond to varying traffic conditions particularly when coordination of
signals was required. However, larger cycle times while giving more flexibility to respond to fluctuating traffic
would sacrifice some efficiency particularly when traffic was steadier and matched well with the optimized green
times obtained from TRANSYT.

8. Conclusion

The paper described a case study in Hefei city in China to evaluate the newly developed VS-PLUS based
urban adaptive signal control system. Based on surveyed data and assisted by VISSIM, the optimal fixed time
signal timing plans were found first using TRANSYT. The adaptive frame signal plans were then developed and
evaluated using VISSIM and VS-PLUS emulator. The optimal fixed time signal control plan gave much of
improvement to the network traffic performance and the improvement by further introducing vehicle responsive
control was also noticeable. The study was limited in that there was no change proposed to the road and junction
layout; that for safety concerns only signal settings were allowed to change and the stage and phase sequence
were kept as close to the current settings as possible and that only limited extension or reduction in green times
in the tested frame plan were allowed and jumping over of any phase was prohibited even if there was no vehicle
presence detected for that phase. This study filled some of the gaps in evaluating the performance of and provided
a benchmark for such an adaptive traffic signal control system in a typical urban setting in cities in China. The
study has also raised a number of questions in setting the optimal frame plan regarding driver behavior, safety
concerns and tradeoffs between shorter cycles and higher responsiveness to traffic variations.

References

Park, Byungkyu and Myungsoon Chang, 2001. Realizing benefits of adaptive signal control at an Isolated intersection. Transportation
Research Board, 2002 Annual Meeting, Compendium of Papers.
Adel-Rahim, Ahmed and William Taylor, 1999. Potential travel time and delay benefits of using adaptive signals. Transportation Research
Board, 2000 Annual Meeting, Compendium of Papers.
Dongling Xu, Jian-an Fang, Shihuang Shao, 1992. A fuzzy controller of traffic system and ITS neural network implementation. Information
and Control, 21(2): 74-78.
Huixian Huang, Zhongke Shi, 2001. Real-time control of traffic signal with genetic algorithms optimizing in urban intersection. Systems
Engineering-theory &Practice, 21 (3):102-106.
Susan Dickey, Meng Li, Jonathan Yee, Marco Zennaro, 2008. Development of hardware in the loop simulation and Paramics/VS-PLUS
integration. Path research report.
Tom Urbanik, Scott Beaird, Doug Gettman, et al, 2003. Traffic signal state transition logic using enhanced sensor information. Transportation
Research Board.
Dave Keenan, 2005. M62-M1 interchange – a combined TRANSYT/VISSIM micro-simulation assessment. Traffic Engineering and Control,
5:178-187.
Code for Transport Planning on Urban Road GB50220-95[S].