Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Chapter Seven. Delay
Pages 75-82

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 75...
... The delay model predicts the same LOS as the field observations in about 50 percent of Me cases and is within one level difference in about 90 percent of the cases. In the F level of service range, there is a slight bias towards the model producing a worse LOS Can in the field This may be due to the field sites having higher capacities than modeled due to effects such as upstream signals, two-stage gap acceptance, and flared minor approaches.
From page 76...
... Delay Model Results for Standard Sites; Site Specific Critical Gaps and Follow-Up Times Table 40. Summary of l relay Model Results Using Capacity Model 1.1 and Different Critical Gap and Follow-Up Time Values ~ -- -- - - .
From page 77...
... Delay Model Result for T=S min (Recommended Critical Gap and Follow-Up Time)
From page 78...
... 78 Table 43. Summary of Delay Model Results for Phase I Validation Sites in Terms of LOS I Car ~ ~ Cat ~ it ~mp.T.
From page 79...
... ICADY ~ Macroscopic |.b' ;edonlefr-handedtrafEic · not based on gap acceptance · only for British capacity experience · maximum 6S feet width for major street · no consideration of pedestrians and cyclists · no consideration oftemporary blocking to major street through vehicles by major street left tums · no consideration of upstream signals ~. TEXAS | Microscopic |.o'~tisnein~valofmaximurn60rninutes Time Scan · no consideration of pedestrians and cyclists · no consideration of upshcarn signals rRAF-NETSIM I Microscopic ~ · nt consideration of pedestrians and cyclists Time Scan · no consideration of grade, or curve radii 1000 100 o Its 10 co 1 1 O ~ O ~ 0: 0~ 00 ~ ° ,0 O' O ~ ,'0 0,^ ~.
From page 80...
... Obs 30 11 68 Deg Freedom 28 9 66 X Coef. 0.96 O.S4 7.76 Std Err Coe£ 0.11 0.09 7.08 MAE 4.S 11.2 36.4 MAPE 30.2% 41.4% 126.S% S.63 2.30 0.12 9 7 0.03 0.03 19.8300.1 Eleven intersections were tested with PICADY, and average delay values for the complete observation and simulation p~iods were compared.
From page 81...
... The following features should be considered: more variations of intersection geometry, e.g., multi-lane major streets, central refuge areas, flared approaches.. modified major street headway distribution to account for signal control at adjacent intersections.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.