Scribd
Upload
23 views1 page

Copy Part1

Uploaded by

lucian_matei_2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
23 views1 page

Copy Part1

Uploaded by

lucian_matei_2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1
of feeder ross 5 Nee | aes Fic. 14, Simplified diagram of widened approaches at signal-controlled intersection where queueing takes place, to be wider than the roads which feed these approaches (sce simplified layout in Fig. 14), in order to pass the required flow. If the intersection already exists, the timing of the signals can be adjusted for a given flow pattern to make the best use of the existing layout (sce ‘Opraumt Serrixos: FIXeD-Tie SIGNALS). If the intersection is in its design stage, or if some changes can be made to the layout of an existing intersection, then & choice of approach widths may be available, after selection of which the green times can be adjusted to give the correct capacities for those approaches. Tn selecting approach widths, one criterion which can be used is the minimization of the area occupied by the intersection. The selection of approach widths (w, and w2 as in Fig. 14) was considered by Webster and Newby, who assumed in their model that the maximum possible rate ‘of flow past the stop line was proportional to the width of the approach (ry, w2) and also that the widened sections of the approaches (lengths dy, da) were just long enough to accommodate the queues which could pass through the intersection during fully saturated green periods. They ignored the area which ‘would be taken up, in practice, by tapers between the feeder roads and the widened approaches. With these assumptions they concluded that over the practical range of the ratio w y/i there was little difference in the required area of carriageway, and they suggested a rule for determining the width ratio which (@) gave greater widths as well as longer green times to the approaches carrying the higher flows, and (b) minimized the sum of the approach widths at the intersection. By virtue of (a), extreme ratios of either approach width or green time are avoided and the intersection is more adaptable to changes in flow pattern in the surrounding area. The results of (b) are that it is more convenient (and perhaps safer) for pedestrians crossing the road, clearance distances are reduced and encroachment on pavements and frontage development is reduced. Recently the Laboratory has constructed a more realistic theoretical model ‘which includes tapers of | in 10 between the feeder roads and the widened parts of the approaches, and the Laboratory's Pegasus IT computer has been used in 2 wide variety of cases to find the signal settings and the ratios of approach ‘widths which minimize the areas occupied by the intersections. The optimum Tatios of approach widths were found to be materially the same as those given by the simple rule proposed by Webster and Newby.03)* ‘The rule may be stated as follows: For a normal two-phase cross-roads the approach widths should be pro- portional to the square roots of the flows. The green times and lengths ‘widened should be in the same ratio as the widths, Le. Boa e 1 wa ga Na aD where ¢, and q are the maximum flows on phases 1 and 2 respectively. ‘Thus, a major toed carrying four times a8 mich traffe as its minor cross-road Should have approaches Which are twice as wide as the minor approaches and have green times which are twice as long. ‘Any approach width deduced from the application of this rule is subject to a minimum equal to that of the associated feeder road. Thus, where the rule Suggest a width less than that ofthe feeder road the width of the latter is used dnd the green time made correspondingly less. The extra green time thus allocated to the other phase results in less widening being necessary on those approaches. Generally, the maximum flows on the two (or more) arms of the same phase are approximately equal (though often occurring at different times of the day owing to tidal effects), but where this is not so the highest flow should be used with the above formula to determine the approach width and then, after the teen time for the phase under consideration has been determined, the width ofthe arm with the lower low ean be determined. ‘The rule ean be extended to cover forks and other intersections controlled by 3-phase signals by making the ratios of the widths Wy We Ws = Var? Vda: V9. 2) [As before, the green times and lengths widened have the same ratios. The rule can in a similar way be extended to four or more phases. For T-junctions with 2-phase control the ratios of widths, green times and lengths widened should be wi 91 and ft = 41 [a1 Mie [Handi G—, [7 .. we N2q2 82 d2 N a2 3) where the suffix 2 refers to the stem of the T-junction, Thus, a major road through a T-junction carrying four times as much traffic as the stem should have a width 1-4 times that of the stem, 2 length of widening 28 times and a green period 2-8 times as long as that of the stem. (See worked example No. 1 in Appendix 7.) A diffcent approach to the minimization of the area needed at signals has been given by ‘Smeed and Hiller 29

You might also like