Unit D: Traffic Analysis at Signalized Intersections

Lecture 21: Control Delay and Level of Service Determination for Signalized
Intersections
Maya Abou Zeid
April 16, 2024
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

POWERED BY ABDULLA AL GHURAIR HUB FOR DIGITAL TEACHING AND LEARNING

Outline

• Control delay
• Concept
• Example

• LOS determination
• Theory
• Example
• Interpretation of results

Required Reading: MW 7.5.3, 7.5.4

Control Delay
Control Delay Control Delay

• Measure used for determining LOS for signalized intersections

• Also known as signal delay

• Is the total delay experienced by the driver as a result of the control, i.e. due to:
• Deceleration time
• Queue move-up time
• Stop time
• Acceleration time
Control Delay Illustration Control Delay

MW Fig. 7.20
Control Delay Determination Control Delay

• Determined for each lane group, and then aggregated for the intersection as a whole

• For a given lane group, split control delay into three parts
• Part 1: Delay calculated assuming uniform arrivals (d1). This is essentially a D/D/1
analysis.
• Part 2: Delay due to random arrivals + delay due to individual cycle failures (d2)
• Part 3: Delay due to initial queue at start of analysis time period (d3). Often assumed
zero.
Control Delay Determination (cont.) Control Delay

𝑑 = 𝑑1 + 𝑑2 + 𝑑3

𝑑 = average signal (control) delay per vehicle in seconds

𝑑1 , 𝑑2 , 𝑑3 = delay as defined on previous slide (sec/veh)

Uniform Delay (𝒅𝟏 ) Control Delay

• Assuming uniform arrivals, stable flow, and no initial queue

𝑔 2
0.5𝐶 1 −
𝑑1 = 𝐶
𝑣 𝑔
1− ×
𝑐 𝐶

𝑑1 = average delay per vehicle due to uniform arrivals (s/veh)

𝐶 = Cycle length (seconds)

𝑔 = effective green time for lane group (seconds)

𝑣 = arrival flow rate for lane group (veh/s or veh/h)

𝑔
𝑐 = capacity of lane group = 𝑠 × (veh/s or veh/h)
𝐶
Random Arrivals Delay (𝒅𝟐 ) Control Delay

𝑣
• 𝑑1 provides reasonably accurate results for low to moderate flow rates ( = 0.5).
𝑐

• As traffic intensity increases (near capacity), probability of signal failure (not all vehicles
queued clear) increases.

• These cycle failures are random occurrences and must be accounted for in the estimation
of overall delay.

• 𝑑2 accounts for random arrivals, adjusted for duration of analysis period, and type of signal
control.

• Assumes there is no initial queue for lane group at beginning of analysis period.
Random Arrivals Delay (𝒅𝟐 ) (cont.) Control Delay

2
8𝑘𝐼𝑋
𝑑2 = 900𝑇 𝑋−1 + 𝑋−1 +
𝑐𝑇
𝑑2 = average incremental delay per vehicle due to random arrivals and occasional
oversaturation (s/veh)
𝑇 = duration of analysis period (hours). If the delay analysis is based on the peak
15-min. flow, then T=0.25 hrs.
𝑋 = v/c ratio for lane group
𝑐 = lane group capacity (veh/h)

𝑘 = delay adjustment factor that is dependent on signal controller mode. For pretimed intersections, k=0.5.
For more efficient intersections, k<0.5, resulting in reduced delay.

𝐼 = upstream filtering/metering adjustment factor. Adjusts for the effect of an upstream signal on the
randomness of the arrival pattern. 𝐼 =1.0 for completely random, 𝐼 < 1.0 for reduced variance.
Random Arrivals Delay (𝒅𝟐 ) (cont.) Control Delay

• Upstream filtering/metering factor to adjust for the effect that an upstream signal has on
the randomness of the arrival pattern at a downstream signal.

𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

𝐼=
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

• Upstream signal will reduce the variance of the number of arrivals at downstream
intersection.

• For Poisson; variance = mean; 𝐼 = 1.0

• Typically the case for isolated signalized intersection

• For non-isolated intersections, 𝐼 < 1, due to reduced variance of vehicle arrivals.

Initial Queue Delay (𝒅𝟑 ) Control Delay

• Accounts for delay caused by initial queue of vehicles at the beginning of analysis period.

• Applied in cases where X>1.0 for the analysis period.

• Vehicles arriving during the analysis period will experience an additional delay because there is
already an existing queue.

• When no initial queue 𝑑3 = 0

Example Control Delay

• Pretimed isolated signalized intersection

• One approach has a saturation flow rate = 2400 veh/h
• g = 24 sec
• C = 80 sec
• Flow (arrival rate) at the approach = 500 veh/h
• Assume traffic flow accounts for the peak 15-min period and that there is no initial queue
at the start of the analysis period.
• Compute average approach delay per cycle.
Example: Uniform Delay (𝒅𝟏 ) Control Delay

𝑔 2
0.5𝐶 1−
𝐶
𝑑1 = 𝑣 𝑔
1− ×
𝑐 𝐶
𝑔 = 24 𝑠
𝐶 = 80 𝑠

𝑣 𝑣 500
𝑋= = 𝑔 = = 0.694
𝑐 𝑠× 24
𝐶 2400 ×
80
2
24
0.5 × 80 1 −
80
𝑑1 = = 24.76 𝑠
24
1 − 0.694 ×
80
Example: Random Arrivals Delay (𝒅𝟐 ) Control Delay

2 8𝑘𝐼𝑋
𝑑2 = 900𝑇 𝑋 − 1 + 𝑋−1 +
𝑐𝑇

𝑇 = 0.25 hr
𝑋 = 0.694
𝑘 = 0.5 (pretimed control)
𝐼 = 1.0 (isolated mode)
𝑔
𝑐 = 𝑠 × = 720 (veh/h)
𝐶

8 × 0.5 × 1.0 × 0.694

𝑑2 = 900 × 0.25 0.694 − 1 + 0.694 − 1 2 + = 5.46 𝑠
720 × 0.25
Example: Initial Queue Delay (𝒅𝟑 ) Control Delay

𝑑3 = 0 𝑠 (given)
Example: Total Control Delay Control Delay

𝑑 = 𝑑1 + 𝑑2 + 𝑑3 = 24.76 + 5.46 + 0 = 30.22 s/veh

LOS Determination
Service Measure LOS Determination

• Service measure: control delay

• Can compute LOS at the level of lane group, approach, or intersection
• Aggregation of delay:
Delay for an Approach LOS Determination

σ𝑖 𝑑𝑖 𝑣𝑖
𝑑𝐴 = σ𝑖 𝑣𝑖

𝑑𝐴 = Average delay per vehicle for approach A (seconds)

𝑑𝑖 = Average delay per vehicle for lane group 𝑖 on approach A (seconds)

𝑣𝑖 = Analysis flow rate for lane group 𝑖 (veh/h)

Delay for an Intersection LOS Determination

σ𝐴 𝑑𝐴 𝑣𝐴
𝑑𝐼 = σ𝐴 𝑣𝐴

𝑑𝐼 = Average delay per vehicle for the intersection (seconds)

𝑑𝐴 = Average delay per vehicle for Approach A (seconds)

𝑣𝐴 = Analysis flow rate for Approach A (veh/h)

LOS Determination LOS Determination

• Measure of the acceptability of delay levels to motorists

• Use the total control delay for the given intersection

(Source: HCM, 2000)

Example: 3-Phase Signal at Maple and Vine
Street LOS Determination

EBL / WBL, 𝑔1 = 12.5 sec

EBT/R, WBT/R 𝑔2 = 24.6 sec
N/S LTR 𝑔3 = 15.8 sec
Example (cont.) LOS Determination

• Assume no initial queue at the start of the analysis period

• Compute the control delay for every lane group on every approach using the signal
settings determined for the minimum cycle time (ignore in this example the
adjustments in green time that need to be made for pedestrians)

• Eastbound Approach (Maple St):

• 2 lane groups: consider each separately
Example (cont.) LOS Determination

• Left-turn lane group on Eastbound approach (EBL):

𝑔 2
0.5𝐶 1−
𝐶
Uniform Delay: 𝑑1 = 𝑣 𝑔
1− ×
𝑐 𝐶
𝑔 = 12.5 𝑠
𝐶 = 65 𝑠

𝑣 𝑣 300
𝑋= = = = 0.891 → d = 25.6 s
𝑐 𝑠 × 𝑔 1750 × 12.5 1
𝐶 65
Example (cont.) LOS Determination

• Left-turn lane group on Eastbound approach (EBL):

2 8𝑘𝐼𝑋
Random Delay: 𝑑2 = 900𝑇 𝑋 − 1 + 𝑋−1 +
𝑐𝑇

𝑇 = 0.25 hr
𝑋 = 0.891
𝑘 = 0.5 (pretimed control)
𝐼 = 1.0 (isolated)
𝑔
𝑐 = 𝑠 × ≈ 337 (veh/hr)
𝐶

⇒ 𝑑2 = 27.9 𝑠
Example (cont.) LOS Determination

• Left-turn lane group on Eastbound approach (EBL):

• Delay due to initial queue: 𝑑3 = 0 𝑠

• Total delay (per vehicle):

𝑑 = 𝑑1 + 𝑑2 + 𝑑3
𝑠
𝑑 = 25.6 + 27.9 + 0 = 53.5 ⇒ LOS D for EBL lane group
𝑣𝑒ℎ
Example (cont.) LOS Determination

• Eastbound Approach (EB):

𝒅𝒊 (s/veh) 𝒗𝒊 (veh/h)
EBL 53.5 300
EBT/R 25.7 1100

53.5 × 300 + 25.7 × 1100

𝑑𝐸𝐵 = = 31.7 𝑠/𝑣𝑒ℎ
300 + 1100
⇒ LOS C for EB approach
Example (cont.) LOS Determination

• Overall intersection:

𝒅A (s/veh) 𝒗A (veh/h)
EB 31.7 1400
WB 30.2 1400
NB 49.7 480
SB 42.3 440

31.7 × 1400 + 30.2 × 1400 + 49.7 × 480 + 42.3 × 440 𝑠

𝑑𝐼 = = 34.7
1400 + 1400 + 480 + 440 𝑣𝑒ℎ
⇒ 𝐿𝑂𝑆 𝐶 for intersection
Interpretation of Results LOS Determination

• LOS measure is somewhat subjective

• “What might be acceptable in a large city is not necessarily acceptable in a smaller city or rural
area” (HCM p. 18-57)

• Even if intersection LOS may be acceptable, LOS for certain lane groups may be
unacceptable
• Verify that each lane group provides acceptable operation
v/c Ratio LOS Determination

• A critical v/c ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the signal and geometric design cannot
accommodate the combination of critical flows at the intersection.
• The condition may be ameliorated by increased cycle length, changes in the phasing plan, and
basic changes in geometrics.

• When the critical v/c ratio is acceptable but the v/c ratios for critical lane groups vary
widely, the green time allocation should be reexamined, because disproportionate
distribution of available green is indicated.
Delay LOS Determination

• When delay levels are acceptable for the intersection as a whole but are unacceptable for
certain lane groups, the phase plan, allocation of green time, or both might be examined
to provide for more efficient handling of the disadvantaged movement(s)
v/c Ratio and Delay LOS Determination

• When delay levels are unacceptable but v/c ratios are relatively low, the cycle length may
be too long for prevailing conditions, the phase plan may be inefficient, or both.

• When both delay levels and v/c ratios are unacceptable, the situation is critical. “The full
range of potential geometric and signal design changes should be considered.” (HCM p.
18-59)