12
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY ECIV 542 CLASS PROJECT BLOSSOM AT PICKENS Omor Sharif Muchun Song Narges Kaveshgar Quyen Pham Chih-Yao Lin

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

  • Upload
    cooper

  • View
    68

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

ECIV 542 CLASS PROJECT. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY. BLOSSOM AT PICKENS. Omor Sharif Muchun Song Narges Kaveshgar Quyen Pham Chih -Yao Lin. Table of Contents. Introduction. 1. Intersection characteristics. 2. Proposed improvement. 3. Conclusion. 4. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

ECIV 542 CLASS PROJECT

BLOSSOM AT PICKENS

Omor SharifMuchun SongNarges KaveshgarQuyen PhamChih-Yao Lin

Page 2: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Table of Contents

Introduction1

Intersection characteristics2

Proposed improvement3

Conclusion4

Page 3: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Introduction

Why improvement? Past design can’t fit in current situation

Where to improve? Blossom @ Pickens

Page 4: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Intersection Characteristics

Downtown Columbia35mph

30mph

C=134Y=3R=2

Page 5: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Data Collection & Analysis

JAMAR Traffic CounterSynchro 6

Page 6: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

JAMAR & Synchro Report

Page 7: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Level of Service Criteria – Signalized Intersections (TRB, HCM2000)

LOS SecondsDelay/Vehicle Description

A ≤10 Most vehicles do not stop at all.

B >10 and ≤20 More vehicles stop than for LOS A.

C >20 and ≤35 The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many pass through without stopping.

D >35 and ≤55 Many vehicles stop. Individual cycle failures are noticeable

E >55 and ≤80 Considered being the limit of acceptable delay. Individual

F >80 Unacceptable delay.

Page 8: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Proposed Improvements

Increase lane widthIncrease lane width on minor St. from 10’ -> 12’ (insignificant)

Right turn channelization Introduce channelized right turns with yield control on minor St.(LOS: E->D)

Additional lanesProvide an additional travel lane to minor street.(LOS: E->D)

Signal Timing Optimization Use Synchro-suggested (62,64) phase than current (80,54) (LOSM: E->F; LOSm: F->D)

Page 9: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Conclusion

Improvement of this intersection is neededMore aspects should be considered (safety, cost)

Page 10: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

ECIV 542 CLASS PROJECT

Omor SharifMuchun SongNarges KaveshgarQuyen PhamChih-Yao Lin

Page 11: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Reference

1. Intersections Improvements Study, Prepared for the City of Piqua Ohio, January 2009, Kleingers & Associates, Inc.2. Oldham county intersection improvement study report oldham county, Kentucky, December 2006, DLZ Kentucky, Inc.3. Intersection Improvement Study Hendricks County Road 100 South & Dan Jones Road Avon, Indiana, November 2003, DLZ Indiana, LLC4. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of transportation, Washington DC, December 2009.

Page 12: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

2010.11.29

Reference (continued)

5. Highway Capacity Manual, 4th Edition, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, 20006. A policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington DC, 2004. 7. Traffic Engineering, 4th Edition, R. P. Roess, E. S. Prassas and W. R. McShane, Prentice Hall New Jersey, 2008. 8. SYNCHRO 6, Synchro plus SimTraffic User Guide, Trafficware Ltd., www.trafficware.com