Simulation-Based Impact Analysis of Signalized Intersections Research Study

Simulation-Based Impact Analysis of Signalized Intersections Research Study Site: Intersection of Martin Luther King Drive and Clifton Avenue Kelli Lee S. S/Science Todd Bonds S. S/Science

GOAL: Improve vehicular delay and CO emissions at signalized intersections. Objectives: • Identify relationship between vehicles’ delay and CO emission; • Identify existing delay and CO emission; • Propose solutions to minimize delay & CO emission.

Data Collection

Methodology

Delay and CO Results • Correlated patterns on the peaks and valleys; • Delay has an obvious impact on the CO concentration.

Existing Conditions Movement WB LT WB RT EB LT EB RT NB LT NB RT SB LT SB RT • LOSs of the different movements are unbalanced • Overall emitted CO is 44. 97 g/hr. This is Overall Average Existing Condtions LOS Delay D 42. 43 C 29. 23 B 15. 42 C 29. 52 B 17. 42 A 9. 47 D 41. 81 D 39. 69 B 17. 31 F 101. 80 D 39. 15 B 16. 83 C unacceptable! This is good! 33. 19

Alternative Solution 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 G: 6. 0 s Y: 3. 0 s R: 1. 0 s G: 38. 0 s Y: 3. 6 s R: 2. 4 s G: 11. 0 s Y: 3. 0 s R: 1. 0 s G: 15. 0 s Y: 3. 6 s R: 2. 4 s Cycle length remains 90 seconds Phase 1 Phase 2 G: 4. 0 s G: 9. 0 s Y: 3. 0 s R: 1. 0 s Phase 3 Phase 4 G: 24. 0 s G: 11. 0 s Y: 3. 6 s Y: 3. 0 s R: 2. 4 s R: 1. 0 s Phase 5 Phase 6 G: 0. 5 s Y: 3. 0 s R: 1. 0 s G: 13. 5 s Y: 3. 6 s R: 2. 4 s

Alternative Solution 1 Movement Existing Condtions Alternative One LOS Delay WB LT D 42. 43 D 38. 62 WB T C 29. 23 C 29. 68 WB RT B 15. 42 B 15. 04 EB LT C 29. 52 D 43. 60 EB T B 17. 42 C 30. 71 EB RT A 9. 47 B 13. 96 NB LT D 41. 81 D 40. 37 NB T D 39. 69 D 43. 32 NB RT B 17. 31 B 19. 30 SB LT F 101. 80 D 35. 45 SB T D 39. 15 C 32. 39 SB RT B 16. 83 B 13. 00 Overall Average C 33. 19 C 30. 60 Satisfactory (from “F”) 2. 59 s/veh better More Balanced

Alternative Solution 2 • Alternative Solution 1 +

Alternative Solution 2 Movement WB LT WB RT EB LT EB RT NB LT NB RT SB LT SB RT Overall Average Existing Condtions LOS Delay D 42. 43 C 29. 23 B 15. 42 C 29. 52 B 17. 42 A 9. 47 D 41. 81 D 39. 69 B 17. 31 F 101. 80 D 39. 15 B 16. 83 C 33. 19 Alternative One LOS Delay D 38. 62 C 29. 68 B 15. 04 D 43. 60 C 30. 71 B 13. 96 D 40. 37 D 43. 32 B 19. 30 D 35. 45 C 32. 39 B 13. 00 C 30. 60 Alternative Two LOS Delay C 26. 69 C 25. 18 B 12. 04 D 42. 71 C 29. 91 B 12. 65 D 43. 41 D 41. 88 B 19. 66 C 34. 17 C 33. 58 B 13. 90 C 28. 32 BEST!

Conclusions • Correlated patterns on the peaks and valleys • Existing LOS unbalanced; Southbound left turn unacceptable LOS F. • Alternative Solution 1: delay 7. 78%, CO emission 4. 26%, • Alternative Solution 2: delay 14. 68%, CO emission 9. 68%, • Recommendations: Alternative Solution 1 short-term solution Alternative Solution 2 long-term plan

Questions? ? ? THANK YOU!!

Lane Group Delay and LOS Rating Acknowledgements Andrea Burrows, RET Grant Coordinator Dr. Anant Kukreti, RET Project Director Dr. Heng, Wei, Associate Professor, Ph. D. , P. E. Zhixia Li, Ph. D. Student and Research Assistant Zhuo Yao, Ph. D. Student, Research Assistant Project RET is funded through NSF Grant # EEC-0808696