An Approach Towards the Integration of Bus Priority, Traffic Adaptive Signal Control, and Bus Information/Scheduling Systems

  • Pitu Mirchandani
  • Anna Knyazyan
  • Larry Head
  • Wenji Wu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 505)

Abstract

This paper addresses the integration of adaptive traffic signal control and bus priority. In bus priority, several possible approaches are used for giving more “weight” to the buses: (1) passive priority, when signal timings are set, ahead of time, so that buses incur less delays, (2) active priority, where buses are detected at approaches to the intersection and phase splits are adjusted to accommodate the bus, and (3) “optimization-based” priority where the current state of the system is estimated and the signals are changed as per active priority schemes. Our work is related to the last approach where the signals are set based on real-time optimization of the phasing that considers all the vehicles on the network, the passenger counts in the buses, and the schedule status of the buses.

The architecture for phase optimization is based on the RHODES ™ traffic adaptive signal control system developed at the University of Arizona. RHODES ™ (Real-time, Hierarchical, Optimized, Distributed, and Effective System) takes second-by-second data from loop-detectors at the intersections as input, and outputs the durations of the phases. Objectives for optimizing phase durations include, among others, “minimize average delay per vehicle.”

When bus priority, referred to as “BUSBAND,” is introduced into RHODES ™, it is assumed that exact locations of buses are available in the network, as well as passenger counts through an advanced communication/information system. In this way, the bus is given a weight that depends on the number of passengers, and whether the bus is behind schedule. The RHODES™ /BUSBAND scheme was analyzed using a micro-simulation modeling package known as CORSIM.

RHODES ™, with and without bus priority, significantly increases average travel speeds and decreases total traffic delays as well as average and variance of bus delays. With BUSBAND there is an additional decrease in bus delays and passenger travel times with little effect on the rest of the traffic.

On-time performance of the buses will depend on how well the route travel times and ridership are estimated when the bus schedules are developed. Future efforts are planned on developing the bus schedules with consideration of ridership and traffic adaptive control.

Keywords

Queue Length Transportation Research Record Cross Street Vehicle Arrival Average Travel Speed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Bretherton, D. (1996). SCOOT Current Developments: Version 3. Technical Report no. 960128, Transportation Research Board, 75th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Chang, G.-L., M. Vasudevan, and C.-C. Su (1995). Bus-preemption under adaptive signal control environments. Transportation Research Record 1494, 146–154.Google Scholar
  3. Cornwell, P.R., J.Y.K. Luk, and B.J. Negus (1986). Tram priority in SCATS. Traffic Engineering and Control 27, 561–565.Google Scholar
  4. Gartner, N.H. (1983). OPAC: A demand-responsive strategy for traffic signal control. Transportation Research Record 906, 75–81.Google Scholar
  5. Gartner, N.H., P.J. Tarnoff, and C.M. Andrews (1991). Evaluation of the optimized policies for adaptive control (OPAC) strategy. Transportation Research Record 1324, 105–114.Google Scholar
  6. Head, K.L. (1995). An event-based short-term traffic flow prediction model. Transportation Research Record 1510, 45–52.Google Scholar
  7. Head, K.L., P.B. Mirchandani, and D. Sheppard (1992). Hierarchical framework for real-time traffic control. Transportation Research Record 1360, 82–88.Google Scholar
  8. Hunt, P.B., D.I. Robertson, R.D. Bretherton, and R.I. Winton (1981). SCOOT: A Traffic Responsive Method of Coordinating Signals. Lr 253, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K.Google Scholar
  9. Khoudour, L., J.-B. Lesort, and J.-L. Farges (1991). PRODYN: Three years of trials in the ZELT experimental zone. Recherche-Transports-Sécurité, English Issue 6, 89–98.Google Scholar
  10. Knyazyan, A. (1998). Application of RHODES to Provide Transit Priority. Master’s thesis, Systems and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Arizona, Arizona, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Luk, J.Y.K. (1984). Two traffic-responsive area traffic control methods: SCAT and SCOOT. Traffic Engineering and Control 25, 14–19.Google Scholar
  12. Mauro, V. and D. Di Taranto (Eds.) (1990). UTOPIA: Proceedings of the 6th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS Symposium on Control and Communication in Transportation, Paris, France. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Mirchandani, P.B. and K.L. Head (2001). RHODES: A Real-Time Traffic Signal Control System: Architecture. Algorithms, and Analysis. To appear in Transportation Research C.Google Scholar
  14. Robertson, D.I. (1969). TRANSYT: A Traffic Network Study Tool Lr 253, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K.Google Scholar
  15. Sen, S. and K.L. Head (1997). Controlled optimization of phases at an intersection. Transportation Science 31, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sunkari, S.R., P.S. Beasley, T. Urbanik, and D.B. Fambro (1995). Model to evaluate the impacts of bus priority on signalized intersections. Transportation Research Record 1494, 117–123.Google Scholar
  17. Yagar, S. (1993). Efficient transit priority at intersections. Transportation Research Record 1390, 10–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pitu Mirchandani
    • 1
  • Anna Knyazyan
    • 1
  • Larry Head
    • 2
  • Wenji Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Systems and Industrial Engineering DepartmentThe University of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.Siemens-Gardner Transportation Systems, Inc.Tucson

Personalised recommendations