Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 28
28
CHAPTER FIVE
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION much more detectorization than conventional traffic-actuated
signal systems.
There are many system requirements that define the quality of
an ATCS, its deployment, and success. Even the best adaptive Responding agencies reported that their ATCSs utilize
traffic control algorithms will not function properly if their anywhere from 4 to 24 detectors (8 to 12 detectors on aver-
operations are not supported by adequate hardware, software, age) to cover a single four-leg intersection with one through
communications, and system integration. This chapter identi- lane and two turning bays (left and right) for each leg. Although
fies those system or operational requirements that are consid- these results might be viewed with some caution, because var-
ered critical for ATCS operations. ATCS users were asked to ious agencies deploy detectors differently for their traffic-
describe their experiences with ATCS requirements. Their actuated operations, the findings do not fully support the
descriptions were captured through a set of questions regard- notion that ATCSs require much more detection coverage
ing detection requirements, hardware, software, integration than operations of traffic-actuated signal systems.
with legacy systems, and communications. In addition to dis-
cussing the agencies' practices, this chapter reviews some of Various ATCSs use a combination of detection layouts to
the implementation problems and some lessons learned in estimate the current state of traffic, which is later used to adjust
practice. traffic control in a network. There are generally four major
detector locations used by most ATCSs:
DETECTION
· Stop-line detectors (e.g., as seen in common actuated
Any traffic-responsive control system depends on its ability operations in the United States and SCATS).
to detect traffic either for local intersection control or for · Upstream detectors located close to the stop-line (10
network-wide adjustment of timing plans. ATCSs rely heavily 15 m), which cannot be used (owing to their proximity to
on the quantity and quality of traffic data available from detec- the stop-line) to easily estimate queue length (e.g., as
tors. Poor or improperly installed detectors can affect ATCS used in Germany by BALANCE and MOTION).
performance, which can eventually lead to the removal of · Upstream (mid-block) detectors, which can be used to
ATCS operations. estimate reasonably long queue lengths (e.g., as seen at
some Californian intersections and used by ACS Lite).
Historically, ATCS predominantly used inductive loops as · Upstream (far-side) detectors located at the exit point of
a detection technology. Over the past several decades video the upstream intersection (as used by SCOOT, UTOPIA,
detection has emerged as a cost-efficient and reliable replace- and optionally by RHODES).
ment for the inductive loops. This trend was also observed in
the analysis of the survey conducted for this project. Some of Detection layout used by an ATCS correlates with the
the ATCS agencies almost exclusively use video detection and adaptive control logic that is used to adjust signal timings for
are quite satisfied with its performance. On the other hand, the prevailing traffic conditions. Sometimes detection layout
some ATCS users overseas expressed reservations about the is established to provide good measures for the adaptive con-
quality and reliability of video detection and exclusively use trol logic [e.g., in SCOOT--upstream detectors selected to
inductive loops. However, the survey showed that most of accommodate for Traffic Network Study Tool (TRANSYT)
the agencies use a mixture of various detection technologies logic]. Other times, adaptive traffic control logic is developed
for their ATCS deployments. Although approximately 93% of for the existing detection layouts (e.g., SCATS logic for stop-
the agencies use inductive loops, almost half (43%) also use line detectors).
video detection. Approximately 18% of the agencies use radar
detection, whereas only 9% use other types of detection not When asked which of the four detection types they use, the
contained in any of these three major technologies. responding agencies were not able to make a clear distinction
between mid-block and upstream detectors on one side and
Detection coverage is very important for the success of an stop-line and near stop-line detection on the other side.
ATCS. One of the most significant barriers for widespread Therefore, aggregated results were provided for these two
deployment of ATCSs is a notion that such a system requires major detection placement categories. Approximately 42% of
OCR for page 29
29
interviewed agencies reported that their systems use upstream to short-term inputs from detectors tend to be more robust and
detection. Distance between these detectors and the down- work better when minor detection failures occur. However,
stream intersection varies anywhere from 10 to almost 300 m these ATCSs may sometimes be insensitive to the changes in
(40 to 800 ft). On the other hand, approximately 50% of traffic flows. Most of the ATCSs provide some features that
the respondent's ATCSs use stop-line detection exclusively. allow for replacement of the missing detection data using
The rest of the respondents (approximately 8%) use various historic traffic records. Therefore, if a certain detector fails,
combinations of the upstream and stop-line detection in their the system finds and uses data from the respective day and
ATCS operations. time of day, which will approximate current operations.
Such ATCS use of historic traffic data may reduce the
Left-turn detection is handled by 50% of the interviewed impact of the detector malfunction on overall performance
agencies at stop-lines. The other 50% of the respondents use of the ATCS.
upstream detection for left-turn movements, but a wide variety
of solutions is applied. Some agencies use common (for the Minor detector failures are relatively frequent events in
United States) queue detectors located two to three car lengths everyday ATCS operations. Although these minor failures
behind the stop bars, whereas others use combinations of may have a significant impact on ATCS performance (e.g.,
upstream detectors and filter detectors based on the local con- detectors for a major signal group fail at the critical inter-
ditions at each left-turn movement. Placement of the upstream section), their impact is usually limited. Low impact of minor
left-turn detectors varies from approximately 20 m (50 ft) to detection failures on overall operations may not trigger a
the full length of the left-turn bay. Filter detectors are usually quick response from the agency and detection repair time
not placed in the storage bay of the left-turn movement but in might be prolonged. For this reason, it is important to find out
the through exiting lane of the intersection leg that receives how major ATCS users perceive the quality of ATCS opera-
left-turn traffic. tions during the minor (by its scope) detection problems. The
results from the survey are shown in Figure 7. Fewer than
Depending on the sensitivity of ATCS operations on detec- 20% of interviewed ATCS users reported that their systems
tion inputs, the system may have more or less significant prob- perform poorly (or very poorly) during the minor detection
lems when certain detectors fail. ATCSs that are less sensitive problems.
Very poorly; 1; 2%
Very well; 7; 16%
Poorly; 7; 16%
Neutrally; 7; 16%
Acceptably; 21; 50%
FIGURE 7 ATCS operations with minor detection malfunction.
