Project presentation

the analysis and optimization

of the signal timing for the LRT
corridor along 111street
Group 10
Members:
Yongfeng Ge (Michael)
Lintao Cui
Saifi Azmi
November 30, 2010

outline
1. Introduction
2. HCS simulation result analysis
3. Synchro simulation result
analysis
4. Special consideration
5. Conclusion
6. Executive summary

Introduction
111Stre
et
60AVE

61AVE

57AVE

54AVE
51AVE

Corridor 2 is along 111Street

The operation of Corridor 2 is
seriously interrupted by LRT at a
high frequency of 5mins during
the peak hour
If considering both directions of
LRT, it is a 2.5mins frequency
interruption

Introduction
Traffic volume AM (vph)
60AVE

61AVE

57AVE

54AVE
51AVE

60AVE 61AVE 57AVE 54AVE 51AVE

EBL

106

35

28

80

EBT

184

569

19

207

EBR

281

57

28

136

WBL

293

13

93

WBT

95

375

19

118

WBR

902

57

23

86

NBL

692

30

40

92

NBT

1340

1996

1251

NBR

701

15

267

SBL

695

33

240

SBT

502

1159

468

SBR

71

41

31

PHF

0.94

0.95

0.89

0.86

0.87

Introduction
Traffic volume PM (vph)
60AVE

61AVE

57AVE

54AVE
51AVE

60AVE 61AVE 57AVE 54AVE 51AVE

EBL

46

22

42

EBT

95

533

21

206

EBR

645

14

105

WBL

842

59

203

WBT

59

445

21

270

WBR

805

88

161

NBL

434

16

99

NBT

1322

780

666

NBR

368

69

193

SBL

991

96

30

140

SBT

709

1359

1211

SBR

52

30

91

PHF

0.88

0.9

0.89

0.94

0.94

Introduction
Cycle Length AM (s)
60AVE

61AVE

Cycle
(s)

60AVE
136

61AVE
125

57AVE
150

54AVE 51AVE
102
98

Cycle Length PM (s)

57AVE
Cycle
(s)

54AVE
51AVE

60AVE
136

61AVE
125

57AVE
217

54AVE 51AVE
102
98

Introduction
Objective
Optimization of signal timing
for LRT corridor using
simulation software
Synchrocorridor network
HCS-single intersection

HCS result analysis

Input vehicle and pedestrian
volume, heavy vehicles percentage,
signal timing data etc
simulation and optimization

HCS result analysis

Intersection 113street & 60avenue
AM-peak time analysis
Intersecti
on

Approach
Unit of
delay
(sec/veh)
Before
optimizati
on
After
optimizati
on

EB
del
ay

WB

LOS

del
ay

36.
8

21.
6

SB
LOS

dela
y

LOS

11.4

21.3

18.7

18.2

LOS

dela
y

27.
0

15.
9

HCS result analysis

Intersection 113street & 60avenue
AM-peak time analysis
We take the geographic flexibility into consideration
Intersecti
on

Approach
Unit of
delay
(sec/veh)
Before
optimizati
on
After
optimizati
on
Further
optimizati
on

EB
del
ay

WB

LOS

del
ay

36.
8

21.
6
12.
7

SB
LOS

dela
y

LOS

11.4

21.3

18.7

18.2

18.7

16.6

LOS

dela
y

27.
0

15.
9

15.
9

HCS result analysis

Intersection 111street & 57avenue
AM-peak time analysis
Intersecti
on

Approach
Unit of
delay

EB

(sec/veh)

dela LO
y
S

Before
optimizat
ion
After
optimizat
ion

WB

NB

SB

del
ay

LO
S

dela
y

LO
S

dela
y

LOS

dela
y

LOS

18.
4

67.
7

57.6

26.7

47.5

27.
1

61.
6

3.6

14.6

8.5

Semi-actuated control
is used for the EB-WB
movements

HCS result analysis

Intersection 111street & 57avenue
AM-peak time analysis
Intersecti
on

Approach
Unit of
delay

EB

(sec/veh)

dela LO
y
S

WB
del
ay

LO
S

NB
dela
y

SB
LO
S

dela
y

LOS

dela
y

Before
18.
67.
optimizat
B
E
57.6 E 26.7
C
47.5
4
7
ion
After
27.
61.
optimizat
C
E
3.6
A 14.6
B
8.5
1
6
ion
The improvement is not significant, but I
Further
still consider
using it because of the
27.
59.
optimizat
C
E
3.4
A 14.4
B
8.2
1
7
existence
of
public
transit,
route
9
and
55.
ion

The objective is also to provide priority for

transit

LOS

HCS result analysis

Intersection 111street & 54avenue
PM-peak time analysis
Intersecti
on

Approach
Unit of
delay

EB

(sec/veh)

dela LO
y
S

WB
del
ay

LO
S

NB
dela
y

SB
LO
S

dela
y

LOS

Before
18.
67.
optimizat
B
E
57.6 E 26.7
C
4
7
ion
We change the phase plan for this
After
particular
intersection
23.
31.
optimizat
C
C
6.6
A
4.3
A
1
7
ion

dela
y

LOS

47.5

8.5

Synchro result analysis

build the road network
Input vehicle and pedestrian
volume, heavy vehicles percent, signal
timing data
simulation and optimization

Synchro result analysis

Synchro result analysis

AM peak hour
Network performance analysis
Before
Optimization

After
Optimization

Improveme
nt

27.4

17.4

36.5%

109.9
7.4

71.4
8.9

35.0%
20.3%

19

22

15.8%

41.9

31.9

23.9%

1259

17.4%

Total Delay
(hr)
Delay/Veh (s)
Fuel Eff.(kpl)
Avg Speed
(kph)
Travel
Time(hr.)
Total Stops

Level of
Service
Before
Optimization
After
The network
Optimization

significantly

1524

60AV
E
B

Intersection
61AV 57AV 54A
E
E
VE
B

performance
improved
B
B
A
C

51A
VE
D
C

Synchro result analysis

PM peak hour
Network performance analysis
Before
Optimization

After
Optimization

Improveme
nt

35.6

13.6

61.8%

148.7
6.6

49.4
8.4

66.8%
27.3%

16

23

43.8%

49.2

29

41.1%

Total Delay
(hr)
Delay/Veh (s)
Fuel Eff.(kpl)
Avg Speed
(kph)
Travel
Time(hr.)
Total Stops

Level of
Service

Before
Optimization
After
Optimization

1463

60AV
E

1429
2.3%
Intersection
61AV 57AV 54AV 51AV
E
E
E
E

Synchro result analysis

PM peak-hour performance analysis
At intersection 111street & 51avenue
Total Delay (hr)

Before
Optimization
10.5

After
Optimization
5.0

Delay/Veh (s)

75.5

32.8

Avg Speed (kph)

11

Travel Time(hr.)

12.1

6.8

Signal Delay

41.3

18.7

v/c Ratio

0.89

0.90

Avg Queue (m)

49.8

30.3

Level of Service

Special consideration
--pedestrian safety
Field observation
-More than 50% pedestrians cross the 111street
illegally

Reason-the waiting time is too long; from 2 to 4 minutes

Maximum limitation-study indicates 50 seconds of waiting

Special consideration
--pedestrian safety
Solution-pedestrian phase plan

Waiting
interval
decreas
es

Special consideration
--pedestrian safety
Other related potential issues

Install an automatic door, which is locked when

the detector is called by the arrival of the LRT
and is cancelled when the LRT passed
To prevent pedestrians, especially children
from climbing, the door is better to be taller than
1.4m
Provide the safe standing zone for the crossing
pedestrians at the side of the LRT trail
It is a better solution than doing nothing,
pedestrian bridges and underpass

Conclusion
1. The simulations give us some clue about
how to improve the performance of the
intersections at individual and network
levels, and the optimization is applicable
2. Because LRT operation mechanism is not
known, the simulation analysis is just
preliminary result. Further research is
needed
3. Pedestrian safety along the LRT corridor
also needs attention

Executive summary
Highlight points
We use Excel macro command to do the
data collection for volume, headway
In HCS, we try to improve performance by
increasing lane numbers, changing phase
plan and using semi-actuated control
method
For 111Street & 51AVE intersection,
pedestrian safety is considered
In Synchro, we use 4 steps to run the
optimization, as indicated in the Guide

Thank you!
Group 10

Members:
Yongfeng Ge
(Michael)
Lintao Cui