1 / 22

Guidelines for the Planning and Deployment of EVP and TSP

Guidelines for the Planning and Deployment of EVP and TSP. Presented by: Hesham Rakha Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Director, Center for Sustainable Mobility Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Overview What is EVP?. Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) entails:

charo
Download Presentation

Guidelines for the Planning and Deployment of EVP and TSP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Guidelines for the Planning and Deployment of EVP and TSP Presented by: Hesham Rakha Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Director, Center for Sustainable Mobility Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

  2. OverviewWhat is EVP? • Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) entails: • Preempting a traffic signal controller by providing a green phase for an emergency vehicle • Conditional on the absence or completion of pedestrian phases • May involve either green extension or red truncation • Ignores traffic signal coordination requirements (maintaining cycle length) H. Rakha

  3. OverviewWhat is TSP? • Transit Signal Priority (TSP) entails: • Providing preferential treatment to transit vehicles to facilitate their flow • TSP requests may be conditional on: • Absence of a pedestrian phase • Presence of a green interval • Prescribed level of transit vehicle occupancy • Degree of bus lateness • Level of congestion at signalized intersection H. Rakha

  4. PlanningInstitutional Issues • Institutional issues include: • Identification of important stakeholders • Assessment of local EVP and TSP needs • Formulation of local EVP and TSP objectives and requirements • Compile a document that provides a structured approach to aid in addressing these institutional issues and local needs H. Rakha

  5. PlanningPre-Deployment Impact Analysis • Stakeholders should conduct a local impact analysis • Assess the anticipated consequences of alternative EVP and TSP strategies under consideration • Consequences may be the impact on traffic flow and vehicular and pedestrian safety • Empirical analyses and the use of microscopic traffic simulation • CORSIM, INTEGRATION, VISSIM, Paramics, & AIMSUN2 H. Rakha

  6. EVP EvaluationsState-of-Art Evaluations • EVP can produce significant savings in emergency vehicle travel times • Response times reduced by • 14-23% in Denver, Colorado (1978), • 50% in Addison, Texas (BRW, 1997), • 16-23% in Houston, Texas (Traffic Engineers Inc., 1991) H. Rakha

  7. EVP EvaluationsState-of-Art Evaluations • System-wide impacts: • Increase non-EV vehicle delay by less than 3% along Route 7 (Bullock et al., 1999) • Multiple preemptions result in significant delay increases (Nelson and Bullock, 2000) • Travel time increases decrease from 12.2% over normal travel times after 15 minutes to 3% over normal travel times 60 minutes later (McHale and Collura, 2001) H. Rakha

  8. EVP EvaluationsState-of-Art Evaluations • Between 1994 and 2000: • More than 643 EV crashes involving one or more fatalities nation-wide (USDOT, 2002) • EVP can decrease the number and severity of crashes: • 70% reduction in accident rate at 285 traffic signals in St. Paul, MN between 1969 and 1976 • Louisell et al. developed a conflict analysis tool to quantify the likelihood of crashes H. Rakha

  9. EVP EvaluationsState-of-Art Evaluations H. Rakha

  10. Transit Priority EvaluationsRoute 1 Network Configuration • US Route 1 arterial in Fairfax, Virginia • 8.1 mi over 27 signalized intersections • Total demand of 16,000 veh/peak period • Fixed-time time-of-day signal timings H. Rakha

  11. Transit Priority EvaluationsField Evaluation Results • The findings of the field evaluation study are summarized as follows: • The study demonstrated that a WAAS-enabled GPS receiver is an effective technology in the evaluation of TSP. • The study found that dwelling times are not affected by TSP operation. • Green-extension TSP may reduce delay to transit vehicles at intersections (3 to 6% reductions but were not statistically significant). • The benefits provided by TSP are highly dependent on the level of congestion and can be maximized under moderate-to-low levels of congestion. H. Rakha

  12. Transit Priority EvaluationsModeling Evaluation Results • TSP has no impact on transit vehicle travel times, system-wide travel times, and side street queues. • An increase in Route 1 demand results in increases in system-wide dis-benefits of TSP. • Maximum system-wide increase in delay is minimal (less than 1.37%). • An increase in the side-street demand does not result in any statistically significant system-wide disbenefits. • An increase in transit vehicle frequency results in reductions in bus delays by up to 3.20%. • No system-wide benefits are observed when TSP is operated. • TSP operations are impacted by the location of bus stops: • Near-side bus stops result in a 2.85% increase in delay, • Far-side bus stops result in network-wide delay savings of 1.62%. H. Rakha

  13. Transit Priority EvaluationsColumbia Pike Network Configuration • Columbia Pike arterial in Arlington, Virginia • 1.2 mi arterial carrying 26,000 vehicles per day • 16 SCOOT and 5 fixed-time intersections N H. Rakha

  14. T=0 T=T+1 N Transit Vehicle Detected? Y Y Priority Provided in Cycle? N Other Calls for Priority on Y Conflicting Approaches? N Truncate Conflicting Phase N N Y Green Displayed > Minimum?` Subject Approach Green? Y Subject Green Requires N Extension? N Y Y Phase Exceeds Extend Phase by 5s Set to Maximum Maximum? H. Rakha

  15. Transit Priority EvaluationsSummary Results • Impacts on prioritized vehicles: • Delay, stops, fuel consumption, and emission reductions for all strategies considered • No clear impact on travel time variability • Impacts on general traffic: • AM peak: Negative impacts due to high congestion at a few intersections • Midday: Negligible negative impacts as a result of spare signal capacity • Increasing negative impacts with increasing number of prioritized buses • Difficult for traffic along prioritized routes to benefit from priority due to differences in traffic and transit behaviors H. Rakha

  16. Transit Priority EvaluationsSummary Results • Effect of adaptive traffic signal control • Transit vehicles: similar benefits under all types of signal control strategies • General traffic: less negative impacts under adaptive control as system is able to automatically adjust to temporary queuing or congestion caused by transit priority H. Rakha

  17. TSP General Conclusions • Rakha and Zhang (2004) concluded the following: • Generally, TSP provides benefits to transit vehicles that receive priority. • Traffic demand increase results in larger system-wide dis-benefits. • Bus frequency increase results in larger system-wide dis-benefits. • Bus arrivals on • heavily congested approaches may result in system-wide benefits if conflicting approaches are not congested. • lightly congested approaches may produce significant system-wide dis-benefits if conflicting approaches are heavily congested. H. Rakha

  18. TSP General Conclusions • Transit vehicle arrivals during the early phases produce minimum disruptions to the general traffic • The system-wide benefits of TSP are highly dependent on the optimality of the base signal timings. • Transit vehicle dwell times at near-side bus stops can have significant system-wide impacts on the potential benefits of TSP. H. Rakha

  19. Implementation RecommendationEconomic and Financial • EVP and TSP projects may: • Have short life span, lower upfront costs, and higher operating costs than traditional physical infrastructure projects • Traditional B/C may not be appropriate: • Multi criteria analysis should be used (Leviakangas and Lahesmaa, 2002). H. Rakha

  20. Implementation RecommendationProcurement • Identification of system objectives • A clear understanding of the project scope can reduce future misunderstandings • RFP preparation • A single integrator should be responsible for the design, procurement of components, system integration, installation, testing, and user training H. Rakha

  21. Implementation RecommendationSystem Installation • These systems have 3 major components: • In-vehicle subsystems • Emitter, power system, and microprocessor • May also include GPS and APC devices • Road-side subsystems • Detectors mounted in the vicinity of traffic signals, microprocessors, and communication systems • Center subsystems • Contractor should be responsible for quality control of all subsystems H. Rakha

  22. References • References: • Ahn K., Rakha H., and Collura J. (2006), Evaluation of Green Extension Transit Signal Priority Strategies using Portable GPS Receivers, Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., CD-ROM [Paper 06-0641]. • Rakha H. and Zhang Y. (2004), Sensitivity Analysis of Transit Signal Priority Impacts on Operation of a Signalized Intersection, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 130(6), pp. 796-804. • Dion F., Rakha H., and Zhang Y. (2004), Evaluation of Potential Transit Signal Priority Benefits Along a Fixed-Time Signalized Arterial. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 130(3), May/June, pp. 294-303. • Chang J., Collura J., Dion F., and Rakha H. (2003), Evaluation of Service Reliability Impacts of Traffic Signal Priority Strategies for Bus Transit. Transportation Research Record 1841, pp. 23-31. • Electronic documents: www.filebox.vt.edu/users/hrakha. H. Rakha

More Related