Bus priority in SCOOT

Similar documents
Traffic Management and Emissions

Raised Rib Markings. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/95 March Introduction

Road humps: discomfort, noise, and groundborne

Chicane Schemes. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/97 December Introduction

Improved cycle parking at South West Trains' stations in Hampshire

Entry Treatments. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/94 August Introduction. Design. Vertical Deflections. Locations

Cyclists at road narrowings

Cycle Routes. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/95 March Introduction. Implementation. Project aims. Design

Traffic Calming Regulations

The SCOOT Urban Traffic Control System

Improving the Bus Network through Traffic Signalling. Henry Axon Transport for London

TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLET

Traffic calming regulations (Scotland)

Cycling to work. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 11/97 November Introduction. Government perspective. Workforce

SCOOT: Basic Principles

Cycle parking - examples of good practice

Bikerail - combined journeys by cycle and rail

TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLET

RESPONSIVE ROUNDABOUTS MYTH OR REALITY

TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY The Toronto Experience

SPRUCING UP YOUR ITS. Sheffield City Council - August Brent Collier Stephanie Cooper Ben Hallworth

Transit Signal Preemption and Priority Treatments

Monitoring Local Cycle Use

Self-Organizing Signals: A Better Framework for Transit Signal Priority

Junction Design with Traffic Signals

Vehicle Security Barriers within the Streetscape Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/11. Vehicle Security Barriers within the Streetscape

Motorway-to-motorway: a potential technological solution to motorway congestion

TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLET

LIGHTING CONTROL EQUIPMENT PART 1 TA 12/07 TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON HIGH SPEED ROADS SUMMARY

Know Your TRAFFIC SIGNS. Official Edition. London: TSO

Mathematics of Planet Earth Managing Traffic Flow On Urban Road Networks

Traffic Engineering and Operations for BRT in Los Angeles

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 UPDATE HISTORY

Bus Priority at Traffic Signals Evaluating Strategy Options

Transit Signal Priority: Help or Hype? Peter G. Furth Northeastern University

Report to Cabinet. 18 May 2016

ROUNDABOUT MODEL COMPARISON TABLE

Operational Comparison of Transit Signal Priority Strategies

Road to the future What road users want from Highways England s Route Strategies Summary report November 2016

WP3.4: Trial Area Case Studies

PIMMS CAPITAL Import Visit 2012 Ostrava Czech Republic 17 th January 2012

Vehicle Security Barriers within the Streetscape

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR BUS PRIORITY ABSTRACT

Traffic Sensitive Streets. Guidance Notes. GeoPlace Streets Team. Traffic Sensitive Streets. Guidance Note Page 1 of 7.

Impacts of Bus Priority in Coordinated Traffic Signals

A REAL-TIME SIGNAL CONTROL STRATEGY FOR MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF BUS STOPS ON URBAN ARTERIALS

Municipality of Sofia Traffic Master Plan. Intelligent Transport Systems Strategy Andrew Walsh

New Directions in Street Auditing: Lessons from the PERS Audits. David Allen, Transport Research Laboratory. Spencer Clark, Transport for London

BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Simulation of Arterial Traffic Using Cell Transmission Model

MoPac South: Impact on Cesar Chavez Street and the Downtown Network

MILTON ROAD ~ MITCHAM'S CORNER PARAMICS MODEL INITIAL OPTION TESTING

TS 109 DURHAM ROAD QTC PHASE 4 PROJECT PROPOSAL. Page 1

IMPACT OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY (TSP) ON BUS TRAVEL TIMES, LATE BUS RECOVERY, DELAY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)

Projections of road casualties in Great Britain to 2030

Congestion Evaluation Best Practices

Low Level Cycle Signals used as repeaters of the main traffic signals Appendices

RIVER CROSSINGS: EAST OF SILVERTOWN CROSSINGS

Capacity and Performance Analysis of Roundabout Metering Signals

INTERIM ADVICE NOTE 150/12. Guidance for Alternative Temporary Traffic Management Techniques for Relaxation Schemes on Dual Carriageways.

Introduction to the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

Bus and Transit Lane Review Update

Multilane Roundabouts

Streets for All : 9 Use of white lines

Aiming for Zero Road Worker Safety. Mark Pooley Highways Agency Road Worker Safety Programme Manager Monday 11 June 2012

21/02/2018. How Far is it Acceptable to Walk? Introduction. How Far is it Acceptable to Walk?

Giving Cyclists the Green Light: Prioritising Cycles at Traffic Signals

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

A New Lane-Based Model for Platoon Patterns at Closely-Spaced Signalised Intersections

CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS PROVISION PART 1 TD 46/05 MOTORWAY SIGNALLING SUMMARY

Cycle Track Design Best Practices Cycle Track Sections

The environmental impacts of traffic management schemes J.Cloke,R.E.Layfield

1 This technical note considers the issues associated with the use of tidal flow bus lanes on key public transport corridors in Cambridge.

Chapter Capacity and LOS Analysis of a Signalized I/S Overview Methodology Scope Limitation

Design and Installation of Low Level Cycle Signals

Queue analysis for the toll station of the Öresund fixed link. Pontus Matstoms *

Contents Location Map Welcome and Introduction Travel Plan Management Science Park Accessibility Walking Cycling Bus Rail Car Sharing Contact Details

Utilization of the spare capacity of exclusive bus lanes based on a dynamic allocation strategy

Special Provisions for Left Turns at Signalized Intersections to Increase Capacity and Safety

What do Passenger Transport Services do?

Smart motorways: all lane running on the M25. Guidance for EEAST crews

COMPRESSOR PACK SUCTION CONTROLLER TYPE: LP41x

Tony Radalj & Brian Kidd Main Roads Western Australia

Purpose and Need. Chapter Introduction. 2.2 Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Need

OLDER PEOPLE INDEPENDENT MOBILITY FOR LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES. Christopher G B (Kit) Mitchell

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CRITERIA

NRA MANUAL OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR ROAD WORKS. Introduction to the NRA Manual of Contract Documents for Road Works. Volume 0 Section 0 Part 1

Signal Priority near Major Bus Terminal

INTERIM ADVICE NOTE 150/11. Temporary Traffic Management Signing: Simplification of lane change zone signing for relaxation schemes.

APPENDIX F: TECHNICAL NOTE 22 (VICARAGE ROAD JUNCTION)

ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY: THE UK EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY

NRA MANUAL OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR ROAD WORKS

Roadways. Roadways III.

Technical Memorandum. Subject: Interchange Ramp Terminal Configuration. Expiration. Implementation. Introduction

ROUNDABOUT MODEL COMPARISON TABLE

Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Study Area

Data Driven Decisions for Centralised Bus Priority in Dublin City. Dublin City Council ITS Bus Priority James Calvey, Maggie O Donnell, Niall Bolger

COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM FOR BUSES, MANAGING PEDESTRIAN DETECTION AND ALERTS NEAR BUS STOPS

Civil Parking Enforcement of Bus Lane Contraventions. Yes. Yes

TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL GUIDELINES FOR HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

Transcription:

Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/00 December 2000 Bus priority in SCOOT Introduction This leaflet should be read in conjunction with TAL 7/99. It expands some of the information provided in the general guidance on the SCOOT Urban Traffic Control System. More information on SCOOT is available at www.scoot-utc.com. Priority features The SCOOT UTC system has a number of facilities that can be used to provide priority to buses or other public transport vehicles. Passive priority can be given using the split and offset weighting parameters that can be applied to give priority to links or routes. Passive priority does not differentiate between vehicles. As all vehicles on the weighted link receive a similar benefit, the level of priority that can be given is generally quite low. SCOOT Version 3.1 and subsequent versions incorporate a facility to provide active priority. For active priority to operate buses need to be separately detected and priority is then given to the individual bus. The method of doing this is described overleaf. Bus detection The SCOOT kernel software allows for buses to be detected either by selective vehicle detectors (SVD),i.e. using bus loops and bus-borne transponders, or by an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system. Bus loops, or AVL systems where bus detection points can be specified, have an advantage as they can be placed in optimum positions. The best location for detection will usually be a compromise between the need for detection as far upstream as possible and the need for accurate journey time prediction. Also, bus detectors need to be located downstream of any bus stop, as SCOOT does not attempt to model the time spent at bus stops. Depending on site conditions, a location giving a bus journey time of 10 to 15 seconds to the stop line is recommended. Modelling Buses are modelled by SCOOT as queuing with other vehicles. This allows buses to be given priority even though other vehicles may delay them. The effect of bus lanes can also be modelled, including those, which end before the stop line.

Optimisation The signal timings are optimised to benefit the buses, either by extending a current green signal (an extension) or causing succeeding stages to occur early (a recall). Extensions can be awarded centrally, or the signal controller can be programmed to implement extensions locally on street (a local extension). For example, for the three stage junction illustrated in Figure 1, if a bus is detected towards the end of Stage 1 (which is a green period on Link A) it will receive an extension (i.e. Stage 1 is extended) as shown in Figure 2. Figure 1 If the bus is detected during a red period e.g. Stage 2,it will receive a recall (i.e. Stage 2 and Stage 3 are shortened so that Stage 1 starts earlier), as shown in Figure 3. Figure 2

Figure 3 Local extension Extensions awarded in the controller can be advantageous, as they eliminate 3 to 4 seconds transmission delay between outstation and instation. That allows the system to grant extensions to buses that arrive in the last few seconds of green. The feature is especially important where link lengths are short, or where bus stops are located near to the stop line. SCOOT is still in control as it sends a bit each second to permit local extensions only when the saturation of the junction is sufficiently low. Techniques for programming the signal controller have been developed and implemented in London. Figure 4

Figure 5 Recovery Once the bus has passed through the signals, a period of recovery occurs to bring the timings back into line with the normal SCOOT optimisation. Several different methods are available for use. Figure 4 offers examples of how recovery might work after an extension and figure 5 after a recall. Restrictions on priority One of the main advantages of providing priority through SCOOT is that the extent of priority given to buses can be controlled. Priority can be restricted depending on the saturation of the junction as modelled by SCOOT. This is managed by specifying target degrees of saturation for extensions and recalls. Non-priority stages can be run to these target saturation values, in the case of a priority extension or recall respectively. Normally the target saturation limits are set so that the junction is not allowed to become over saturated, although some degree of oversaturation may be allowed to service an extension. This means that bus priority will be most effective at junctions that have spare capacity. Likely benefits of bus priority The benefit to buses gained through providing active SCOOT priority varies considerably, and is dependent on the scope for increasing or decreasing the lengths of signal stages. At junctions where the non-priority stages are already at or close to their minimum length, there is little scope for providing priority through recalls. Assuming that stages are not running close to their minimum length, the benefits of priority are then very dependent on the traffic conditions. Reductions in delay as high as 50% are achieved when the degree of saturation is low, whereas at high degrees of saturation the reduction in delay is of the order of 5-10%. The increase in delay to general traffic is similarly dependent on the degree of saturation. At low degrees of saturation the increase in delay to other traffic is small and insignificant, whereas at high degrees of saturation the increase in delay to general traffic can be large. The disruptive effect of providing priority by recalls is much greater than by extensions. Giving recalls to buses on a side

road can be particularly detrimental as it reduces the green time as well as disrupting the coordination along the main road. The number of buses being given priority is also an important factor, particularly at higher degrees of saturation. Benefit per bus decreases as bus flow increases, due to competing/conflicting priority calls, but total passenger benefit remains substantial at bus flows as high as 120 buses/hr/junction. Providing priority also offers a small but significant improvement in the regularity of buses. Providing priority only to those buses that are behind schedule can increase the improvement to regularity. Providing priority to late buses only, and therefore to fewer buses, will also tend to increase the level of benefit to those late buses. However, considering all buses, the total benefit is likely to be reduced. Very high priority If it is desired to provide higher levels of priority than by using the active priority facility described above then it is possible to do this by overriding SCOOT. This can be done by using the controller hurry call facility or by other means. It is recommended that this is only used for emergency vehicles and other important but infrequent services, such as Light Rail Transit. Frequent uncontrolled overriding of SCOOT is likely to be very disruptive and can be counterproductive, particularly at high levels of saturation. New recovery logic in SCOOT version 4.2 enables SCOOT to recover efficiently from such a request. Contacts for SCOOT systems (web site: http://www.scoot-utc.com) Industry Richard Pearce Peek Traffic Ltd Elstree Way, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, WD6 1RX Tel: 020 8207 7100 Fax: 020 8953 5262 Email: rpearce759@aol.com Geoff Maynard Siemens Traffic Controls Ltd Sopers Lane, Poole, Dorset, BH1 7ER Tel: 01202 782170 Fax: 01202 782434 Email: geoff.maynard@poole.siemens.co.uk Research David Bretherton Transport Research Laboratory Ltd. Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG45 6AU Tel: 01344 773131 Fax: 01344 770356 Email: dbretherton@trl.co.uk Other advice Traffic Management Division Department for Transport Zone 2/06 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR Tel: 020 7944 2974 Traffic Advisory Leaflets (TAL) are available to download free of charge on the Department for Transport website www.dft.gov.uk Sign up for a free e-mail alert to receive notification when a new TAL is published by sending an e-mail to tal@dft.gsi.gov.uk with the subject line "subscribe". To obtain a printed copy of this and/or other TAL's, contact: DfT Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7NB. Telephone 0870 122 6236. Fax 0870 122 6237. E-mail: dft@twoten.press.net The Department for Transport sponsors a wide range of research into traffic management issues. The results published in TAL's are applicable to England, Wales and Scotland. Attention is drawn to variations in statutory provisions or administrative practices between the countries. Within England, enquiries should be made to: Traffic Management Division, Department for Transport, 2/07 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR. Telephone 020 7944 2478. E-mail: tal@dft.gsi.gov.uk