Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.

7, 2009

The Delay Estimation under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions

Chu Cong MINH D.Eng., Lecturer Department of Bridge and Highway Engineering School of Civil Engineering Hochiminh city University of Technology 268 Ly Thuong Kiet street, District 10 Hochiminh city, Vietnam Fax: +84-58-524241 Email: ccminh@hcmut.edu.vn Tran Thanh MAI University graduate Hanoi University of Technology No.1, Dai Co Viet Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Fax: +84-58-3524241 Email: ttmai209@gmail.com Tran Hoai BINH Graduate Student Department of Bridge and Highway Engineering School of Civil Engineering Hochiminh city University of Technology 268 Ly Thuong Kiet street, Dist. 10 Hochiminh city, Vietnam Fax: +84-58-524241 Email: tranhoaibinhcd@yahoo.com Kazushi SANO Associate Professor School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Nagaoka University of Technology Kamitomioka1603-1, Nagaoka Niigata 940-2188, Japan Fax: +81-258-47-9650 E-mail: easts_isc@trip.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract: Delay is an important factor in the optimization of traffic signals and the determination of the level of service of a signalized intersection. The paper proposes the modified Websters formula to estimate the delay of vehicles at pre-timed signalized intersections under mixed traffic conditions. Traffic volumes approaching signalized intersections are classified into four groups: Motorized two-wheeler, Car, Minibus, and Bus. The passenger car unit is estimated by using the multiple regression analysis. Distributions of the saturation flow are developed and proved to follow the normal distributions at three studied intersections. The expectation function method and Taylor series expansion are then utilized to estimate the mean and variance of delay. A comparison between the proposed model and (i) the conventional Websters model and (ii) observed delays are performed to present the improvements of this model. Key Words: Delay, traffic operation, mixed traffic

1. INTRODUCTION A system of signalized intersections is a critical element in the smooth operation and control of traffic streams in a transportation network. Vehicles approaching a signalized intersection and stopping at the stop line during red lights produce traffic delays. Traffic delays at signalized intersections increase travel time, travel costs, as well as reduce speeds of vehicles. The increase of delay may bring about air and noise pollution. The ability to quantify vehicle delays at signalized intersections accurately is, therefore, a critical and important component in planning, designing and analyzing traffic signal controls. Several studies have been conducted to estimate the traffic delay at signalized intersections in the existing literature. Most of them were based on homogeneous traffic characteristics. In

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

developing countries, many types of vehicles including motorized and non-motorized, twowheeled and four-wheeled vehicles have the same right of traveling on roadways. Intersections with heavy traffic are usually controlled by the pre-timed signalized systems. Various vehicles with different shapes and sizes and different static and dynamic characteristics cause a variety of lateral and longitudinal distances among them on the carriageway. The conventional methodologies to estimate delay for homogeneous traffic if applied directly may lead to a biased estimation. The proposed methodology deals with the stochastic characteristics to estimate the delay of vehicles at signalized intersections under mixed traffic conditions. The saturation flow, which is defined as the maximum number of vehicles passing the stop line of an intersection approach, is a key factor when computing delay. Since heterogeneous traffic conditions with various static and dynamic characteristics, the saturation flow distributions are developed. Then, an expectation function method and Taylor series expansion are utilized to estimate the mean and variance of delay. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Many researchers have conducted delay studies at signalized intersections. Webster (1958) developed the delay formula, which can be considered as the foundation for most delay models developed afterwards, as follows:

c C(1 ) 2 X2 + 0.65 [ X 2+ 5 ] d= 2(1 X) 2q(1 X ) q

1/ 3

(1)

where d : average overall delay per vehicle (sec); C : cycle time (sec); g : effective green time (sec); q : traffic volume (vehicle/sec); = g/C : proportion of the cycle that is effectively green for the approach (g/C); X = q/c= q.C/(S.g) : degree of saturation; c = S.: capacity of the lane group (vehicle/sec); S : Saturation flow (vehicle/sec). The first term of the above formula expresses the average delay assumed that all vehicles are uniform arrivals. The second term represents the additional delay due to random arrivals and signal time failures. The third term is an adjustment factor to compare theoretical with practical data for specific field conditions. The model has been commonly used in delay estimation at signalized intersections for under-saturated traffic conditions. The improvements of this model were developed by several studies sequentially such as Miller (1963), Hurdle (1984). Several studies has focused on developing models to estimate the mean delay but very few works have been done to quantify the variability of delay or to propose methods of estimating the variance delay at a signalized approach. Park et al (2003) developed an analytical methodology that estimated the HCM delay confidence interval (2000). The authors applied an expectation function method to estimate the variance of the HCM delay. Since the expectation function method was applicable only to power functions, the HCM delay equation was approximated by using Taylor Series expansion. Applicable input distributions included normal, triangle, uniform, lognormal, and gamma distributions. The output was mean, variance and higher moments of HCM delay, which were used to estimate the HCM delay confidence interval. Their model was based on the assumed volume distribution and therefore it might not match actual demand variations. Arasan et al (1995) developed a probabilistic approach based on first-order second-moment method to estimate the saturation flow and

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

delay at signalized intersections under mixed traffic conditions. The different types of vehicles in traffic streams were divided into five groups, pedal cycles, motorized two-wheelers, autorickshaws, cars, and buses. To take the random composition of vehicles in heterogeneous traffic into account, the authors applied a truncated Taylor series to estimate stream parameters at an intersection approach. The results obtained by the model represented that traffic delays were better estimated by the probabilistic method than the conventional Websters method at studied intersections. Akgungor (2008) proposed a methodology and a new formulation to identify the delay parameters in the delay model. In this approach, random delays were drawn from total delay which was obtained from simulation or observed in the field. The delay parameters were calculated by using random delays. The delay model was developed by means of estimated results. A comparison between the proposed time-dependent model and four existing models was performed to present the improvements in this model. Olszewski (1993) developed a numerical method to calculate the average delay and time-dependant distribution of the average cyclic delay. He stated that for the uniform delay part, the delay ratio was a function of red time signal and acceleration-deceleration delay was fluctuant. This model required substantial and computational resources for calculating and storing data and therefore is not well suited practical situations. Fu and Hellinga (2000) developed an analytical model to estimate the variance of overall delay, including the variance of uniform delays and the variance of random delays. The variance of delays was directly calibrated from the simulation data. A discrete cycle-by-cycle simulation model was used to generate data for calibrating and validating the model. Because their model was developed on the basis of simulation data, it might not take actual demand variations into consideration. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Expansion of Taylor Series If Y = f(X) is a nonlinear function, in which X is the random variable and X is the mean, f(X) can be expanded by Taylor series (Ang et al, 1979) as follows:

Y = f(x) + (X - x)

df 1 d 2f + (X X ) 2 + ... dX 2 dX 2

(2)

The expectation value of Y = f(X) approximating to the second order can be represented as:

E(Y) f(x) +
where

1 d 2f Var (X) 2 2 dX

(3)

Var(X) : the variance of X; Var(X) = E(X2) - x2

The variance of Y = f(X) approximating to the second order can be expressed as:
2 d2 f df 1 3 df d f 2 Var ( X ) + E ( X ) + Var(Y) Var (X) X dX 2 dX dX 2 dX 4

d 2f 1 + E(X X ) 4 dX 2 4

(4)

The expectation function method is an analytic procedure that overcomes shortcomings of

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

sampling procedures. It is used to estimate functions, which include random variables. In this study, the uncertain variable is considered as a random variable following a given distribution. Tyagi and Haan (2001) developed expectation functions, which are functions of the mean and coefficient of variance (COV) of an input random variable. The input random variable can be a uniform, triangular, lognormal, gamma, exponential, or normal distribution. With a prior knowledge of the mean, variance and distribution of the input random variable, the expectation value of the higher power of a variable can be computed. In this study, because the degree of saturation of all locations follows normal distributions, the expectation value under various power of input variable X that follows a normal distribution with the mean value of x and the coefficient of variance of CVx is obtained as follows:
r/2 r 2n E[X r ] = rX CVX E[z 2 n ] where r is an even number n =0 2n

(5)
( r 1) / 2

E[X r ] = rX

n =0

r 2n 2n 2n CVX E[z ] where r is an odd number

(6)

where, r : Power value of input variable X and a positive integer; z = (X - x)/x; CVx = x/ x; n = r + 1. 3.2 Estimation of Saturation Flow Saturation flow is defined as the maximum number of vehicles passing through the stop line of an intersection approach. In heterogeneous traffic conditions, traffic volumes approaching a signalized intersection are classified into four groups: Motorized two-wheeler (Motorcycles, Mopeds and Scooters); Car (Passenger cars, jeeps); Minibus (less than 25 seats); and Bus (more than 25 seats). According to Turner and Harahap (1993), the passenger car unit (PCU) is estimated by a multiple regression analysis. The regression function expresses the relationship between the saturated green time and the total number of vehicles for all groups passing the approach. Assumed that the relationship between dependent and independent variables is linear, the regression function can be represented as follows:

ts = a1n1 + a2n2 + a3n3 + a4n4

(7)

where ts : the saturated green time (sec); a1, a2, a3, a4: Parameters of groups of motorized two-wheeler, car, minibus and bus, respectively; n1, n2, n3, n4 : Number of vehicles passing the stop line at time t at the subject approach for each group of motorized two-wheeler, car, minibus and bus, respectively. In order to estimate the saturated green time, all vehicles passing an approach are counted for every five-second interval. They are converted into passenger car unit briefly in Table 1. It is noted that the values in this table are not the result of this study. Those values are used only to estimate the saturated green time. From the survey, in every five seconds in green time if more than 3 PCUs passing through the stop line for an approach with 6 (m) width, more than 4 PCUs passing through the stop line for an approach with 7 (m) 7.5 (m) width, more than 5.8 PCUs passing through the stop line for approach with 9 (m) width, and more than 6 PCUs passing through the stop line for an approach with 12 (m) width, then that time is considered as the saturated green time. The saturated green time in this study varies from 5(sec) 25 (sec).

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

Table 1 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) for Vehicle Groups Vehicle group Motorized two-wheeler Car Minibus Bus Adopted from Vinh (2006) PCU 0.15 1.0 2.0 2.5

From the regression analysis, PCU values of each group are obtained by the ratio of the coefficient of each group to the coefficient of the car group as below: PCU(Motorized two-wheelers) = a1/a2 PCU(Minibuses) = a3/a2 PCU(Buses) = a4/a2 (8) (9) (10)

In mixed traffic, vehicles of different types may cause various headways. Especially, motorcycles and bicycles move abreast in a single lane, creating a significant number of zero headways. Therefore, the average headway in the paper is also known as the imaginary headway. It is defined as the ratio of a saturated green time to the total number of vehicles of different types which are converted into passenger car unit. The formula for estimating the average headway is shown as below:

H=

ts (sec) n 1 p1 + n 2 p 2 + n 3 p 3 + n 4 p 4

(11)

where, ts : Saturated green time (s); p1, p2, p3, p4 : PCUs values of motorized two-wheeler, car, minibus and bus group, respectively; n1, n2, n3, n4 : Number of vehicles passing the stop line at time t at a intersection approach of motorized two-wheeler, car, minibus and bus group, respectively. The saturation flow is then obtained: S =

3600 (PCU/hr) H

(12)

3.3 Estimation of delay In Websters formula (1963), the degree of saturation (X) is estimated by the traffic volume which is a random value. The degree of saturation is the ratio of the traffic volume (q) to capacity (c). Assuming that at an approach, the green time (g), the cycle time (C) and the saturation flow (S) are constant; the degree of saturation (X) depends only on the random variable, the traffic volume (q). Therefore, the degree of saturation (X) is also the random variable and may follow some distribution, such as a normal distribution, lognormal distribution, etc. In order to estimate the distribution of the degree of saturation, the degree of saturation is classified into groups with interval (max min)/(1+3.322log10n), where n : number of samples; max, min : maximum and minimum values, respectively (Arasan and Koshy, 2003). In Websters formula, the average overall delay is computed from three terms. The first term

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

expresses the average delay assuming that all vehicles are uniform arrivals. The second term represents the additional delay due to random arrivals and signal time failures. The third term is adjustment factor to compare theoretical with practical data for specific field conditions. Among three, the first term mainly contributes to the average overall delay. In the present study, all vehicles were assumed uniform arrivals. In order to apply the concept of Taylorseries expansion, the conventional Websters formula was simplified by removing the second and third terms. The first term of Websters formula, the average delay to vehicles, is expressed as:

C(1 ) 2 d= 2(1 X)

(13)

where, C : Cycle time (s); X = q/(S): Degree of saturation; = g/C : Green ratio; S : saturation flow (PCU/h); q : Vehicles approaching the subject approach (PCU/h). In other words, it can be rewritten as: d = f(X). Since the degree of saturation (X) is the stochastic variable, Taylor series expansion can be applied to the delay estimation. From (2) and (3), the expectation value of the delay can be written as:

C(1 ) 2 1 d 2 (d ) E(d) = + Var (X) 2(1 X) 2 dX 2

where,

(14)

d 2 (d ) C(1 ) 2 * 2 = dX 2 (1 X) 3
and Var (X) = E(X2) - x2

(15)

(16)

From equation 4, the variance of the delay is given by:

2 d 2 (d ) d (d ) 1 2 3 d (d ) d (d ) Var(d) Var (X) - Var (X ) dX 2 + E (X X ) dX dX 2 + dX 4 2 2

d 2 (d ) 1 + E (X X ) 4 dX 2 (17) 4
When the degree of saturation follows a normal distribution, using (5) and (6) one can obtain the followings: E(X2) = x2 (1 + CV2) E(X3) = x3 (1 + 3*CV2) E(X4) = x4 (1 + 6*CV2 +CV4) According to the characteristics of expectation value: E(X - x)3 = E(X3) - 3xE(X2) + 2x2 E(X - x)4 = E(X4) - 4xE(X3) + 6x2E(X2) - 3x4 (21) (22) (18) (19) (20)

and

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

where, X : Degree of saturation; x : Mean of degree of saturation X; CV = /. 4. DATA COLLECTION In order to evaluate the proposed methodology, data with regard to delay, volume, etc. of three signalized intersections which are advantageous to observing in Hochiminh city, Vietnam were applied. The locations are not near any bus stop or gasoline station, etc. to eliminate modification maneuvers from road users. The entire data were collected under a condition of clear weather, dry pavement, and low magnitude of wind on February 2008. All study approaches have two lanes in each direction with raised medians. The lane widths for all locations are 3.50 (m), 3.50 (m) for the inner and outer lanes, respectively. The first location has the fixed-time signalized control installed with 62 (sec) of a cycle time, including 24 (sec), 3 (sec), and 35 (sec) for green, yellow, and red times, respectively. There is no all-red time for this signalized intersection. The second location is the pre-timed signalized control with 67 (sec) of a cycle time, 28 (sec), 4 (sec) and 35 (sec) for green, yellow and red times, respectively. It also has no all-red time. The third location is the pre-timed controlled intersection with the cycle time of 65 (sec), including 36 (sec), 3 (sec), and 26 (sec) for green, yellow, and red times respectively. A digital video recorder was set up at the top of the high buildings nearby the studied sites and captured over 30 (m) long of roadways. The camera recorded traffic streams during green, yellow and red times. From the video images, vehicle types and passing time are captured later by interpreting in the traffic laboratory. These observations with varying saturated green times (from 5 seconds to 45 seconds) are recorded to estimate PCUs, average headway, and saturation flow. More than thirty of such observations were taken at each approach. The measurement of delay was made by observing the traveling of vehicles to intersections. According to Canadian Guideline for Intersection (2005), it needs at least two people for measuring average delay. The first one stood at the head of the queue and the second one stood at the stop line. The first one counted the number of vehicles approaching the intersection, while the second one counted the number of vehicles passing the stop line. Both of them started counting simultaneously and in the same time interval, usually 10 (sec). Figure 1 illustrates the method for measurement of delay. From Canadian Guideline for Intersection (2005), average delay at a signalized intersection is computed by the formula given as: d = [tm (Xi, in - Xi, out )/ Xi, in ] tt (23)

where, d : Average delay at an intersection, (s/vehicle); tm : Observing time (sec), usually 10 30 (sec); Xi, in : Number of vehicles approaching an intersection; Xi, out: Number of vehicles passing the stop line; Xi, in : Total accumulating vehicles approaching the intersection at observing time; Xi, out : Total accumulating vehicles passing the stop line at observing time; tt : Travel time from vehicles location to the stop line (sec).

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

First observer (Counting the coming vehicles)

Second observer (Counting at the stop line)

Figure 1 Measurement of Average Delay 5. ESTIMATION RESULTS The degree of saturation for heterogeneous traffic is evaluated using the multiple linear regression analysis, in which the saturated green time is a function of vehicles passing the stop line during that green time. Assuming that the relationship between dependent and independent variables is linear, the regression formula, therefore obtains by using SPSS software for all study intersections with 30 observations for each location. The first intersection: t = 0.21n1 + 1.06n2 + 2.12 n3 + 2.76n4, R2 = 0.99 The second intersection: t = 0.17n1 + 1.00n2 + 2.18 n3 + 2.88n4, R2 = 0.98 The third intersection: t = 0.16n1 + 1.11n2 + 2.25 n3 + 2.95n4, R2 = 0.99 (24) (25) (26)

Where, t : Saturated green time (s); n1, n2, n3, n4 : Number of vehicles passing the stop line at time t at the subject approach for each group of motorized two-wheeler, car, minibus and bus, respectively. Estimated results with t value of the models are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Parameter Estimates for Regression Functions Intersection 2-wheeler 1 Car Minibus Bus 2-wheeler 2 Car Minibus Bus Coefficient 0.21 1.06 2.12 2.76 0.17 1.00 2.18 2.88 Std. Error 0.0034 0.1197 0.2028 0.1496 0.0071 0.2109 0.3202 0.1538 tstatistic 62.36 8.85 10.44 18.48 24.48 4.74 6.79 18.75 1.697 1.697
95% t critical

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

2-wheeler 3 Car Minibus Bus

0.16 1.11 2.25 2.95

0.0040 0.0559 0.1484 0.1073

41.18 19.82 15.16 27.52 1.697

From regression analysis, the PCU value of each group is obtained when the coefficient of that group is divided by the coefficient of the car group. Table 3 represents PCU values and the traffic composition at studied sites. Table 3 Traffic Composition and Passenger Car Unit (PCU) of Vehicle Groups Location 1 2 3 Average PCU Two-wheeler % PCU 97.87 97.15 91.84 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.15 Car % 1.40 1.81 6.92 1.00 PCU 1.00 1.00 1.00 Minibus % PCU 0.27 0.19 0.25 2.07 2.00 2.18 2.03 Bus % 0.47 0.86 0.99 2.72 PCU 2.61 2.88 2.66

The average headways and the average saturation flows are obtained as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Headway and Saturation Flow Intersection 1 2 3 Headway (sec) Have H 1.07 1.01 1.12 0.056 0.067 0.043 Save 3384.87 3565.12 3226.83 Saturation flow (PCU/hr) S Save 1.28S Save + 1.28S 175.38 226.89 124.39 3160.40 3274.70 3067.60 3609.35 3855.53 3386.05

where, Have and Save: average headway and average saturation flow, respectively; H and S: standard deviation of headway and saturation flow, respectively. By using SPSS software, according to KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test for assumed saturation flow distribution, the maximum discrepancy of locations 1, 2, and 3 are 0.69, 0.64, and 0.9, respectively. The critical value at the 5% significance level is 0.24, 0.25, and 0.30. Since the maximum discrepancies are less than the critical value, all frequency distributions of saturation flows at intersections 1, 2, and 3 correspond to normal function at the 5% significance level as shown in Table 5. Table 5 K-S test for Assumed Headway Distribution as a Normal Distribution with 5% Level of Significance Intersection 1 2 3 Observations 32 30 20 (K- S)statistic 0.69 0.64 0.90 (K-S)critical 0.24 0.25 0.30

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

The values of average delay with various degrees of saturation at different intersections by using the proposed model, conventional Websters method and surveying are presented in Table 6, 7 and 8. Table 6 Estimated and Observed Data for Delay at Intersection 1 X q(PCU/hr) d Proposed Websters Observed 0.76 1042 0.78 16.56 20.57 15.44 0.84 1104 0.93 17.30 23.92 16.83 0.88 1150 1.87 17.83 26.87 17.62 0.93 1217 1.11 18.24 35.30 19.67 0.98 1284 0.65 18.78 83.79 20.45 1.01 1318 1.28 19.16 4.23 21.23

where, X: Degree of saturation; q (PCU/hr) : Average traffic volume at subject approach in an hour; d : Standard deviation of delay in the proposed method; Proposed: Delay of proposed method (sec); Websters: Delay of Websters method (sec); Observed: Delay from observation (sec). Table 7 Estimated and Observed Data for Delay at Intersection 2 X q(PCU/hr) d Proposed Websters Observed 0.58 874 1.10 15.12 16.61 16.06 0.61 914 0.93 15.32 17.01 16.77 0.63 947 0.59 15.48 17.38 17.01 0.69 1035 0.38 16.00 18.49 17.69 0.99 1481 1.51 19.53 199.16 21.03 1.07 1592 1.76 20.74 1.92 21.87

Table 8 Estimated and Observed Data for Delay at Intersection 3 X q(PCU/hr) d Proposed Websters Observed 0.68 843 0.842 19.48 22.35 20.00 0.72 884 0.72 19.83 23.19 20.90 0.74 913 0.50 20.09 23.91 21.89 0.76 939 1.03 20.36 24.60 22.05 0.812 1000 0.870 0.974 1200 1.275

20.939 23.173 26.732 76.860 22.76 24.04

The comparisons of estimated data from proposed model, conventional Websters model and observed data at intersection 1, 2 and 3 are shown respectively in Figure 2, 3 and 4 as below.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009
90 80 Overall Average Delay 70 60 50 40 Webster's 30 20 10 0 0.7 0.8 0.9 Degree of Saturation 1 1.1 Estimated Observed

Figure 2 Comparison of Estimated, Observed and Websters Delay at Intersection 1

90 80 Overall Average Delay 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 Estimated Observed Webster's

Degree of Saturation

Figure 3 Comparison of Estimated, Observed and Websters Delay at Intersection 2

90 80 Overall Average Delay 70 60 50 40 Webster's 30 20 10 0 0.6 0.7 0.8 Degree of Saturation 0.9 1 Estimated Observed

Figure 4 Comparison of Estimated, Observed and Websters Delay at Intersection 3 The estimation resulting from the proposed model is comparatively close to the observed data

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

at all studied intersections. When the degree of saturation (X) is less than 1, average delay can be estimated by either the conventional Websters model or the proposed model. The results obtained from two methods at that time are reasonably similar. When the degree of saturation approaches 1 or is greater than 1, the conventional Websters model has a problem. When the degree of saturation is approximately equal to 1, average delay becomes considerably high but when the degree of saturation is greater than 1, average delay falls to a small value. This makes the denominator of Websters formula become unidentified. It is contradictory to the practice that, average delay is directly proportional to the traffic volume. This problem has not occurred in the proposed model. When the traffic volume approaching the intersection is low, average delays of the proposed model, the conventional Websters model and observation are inconsiderably different. However, when the traffic volume approaching the intersection is moderately high, average delay of the proposed model is better than the conventional Websters model since it is closer to the observed data. 6. CONCLUSION The paper proposes the modified Websters model to estimate delay for heterogeneous traffic conditions at pre-timed signalized intersections. Traffic volumes approaching the signalized intersection are classified into four groups: Motorized two-wheeler, Car, Minibus, and Bus. The passenger car unit (PCU) is estimated by using the linear multiple regression analysis. The regression function expresses the relationship between the saturated green time and the total number of vehicles of all groups passing the approach. Saturation flows are estimated with the consideration of different types of vehicles traveling together. Distributions of saturation flow are computed to follow the normal distribution at all observed intersections. Then, an expectation function method and Taylor series expansion are utilized to estimate the mean and the variance of delay. The model is evaluated at three pre-timed signalized intersections, then compared with the conventional Websters and observed delays. The results identify that the output of the proposed methodology is close to the observed data and better than that of the conventional Websters, especially when the degree of saturation is close to 1.

REFERENCES Webster, F. V. (1958) Traffic Signal Settings. Road Research Laboratory Technical Paper No. 39, HMSO, London, U.K. Miller, A. J. (1963) Settings for Fixed Cycle Traffic Signals. Operations Research Vol. 14, 373-386. Hurdle, V. F. (1984) Signalized Intersection Delay Models A Primer for the Uninitiated, In Transportation Research Record 971, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 96-105. Park, B., Kamarajugadda, A. D. (2003) Estimating Confidence Interval for Highway Capacity Manual Delay Equation at Signalized Intersections. CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Highway Capacity Manual (2000) (CD-ROM), Version 1.0, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Arasan, V. T., and Jagadeesh, K. (1995) Effect of heterogeneity of traffic on delay at signalized intersections. Journal of Transportation Engineering, September/October, 397- 404.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.7, 2009

Akgungor, A. P. (2008) A new delay parameter dependent on variable analysis periods at signalized intersections. Part 1: Model development. Transport. Vilnius: Technika, Vol. 23, No. 1, 31-36. Olszewski, P. (1993) Overall delay, stopped delay and stop at signalized intersections. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 6, 835- 842. Fu, L. and B. Hellinga. (2000) Delay Variability at Signalized Intersections. In the Transportation Research Record 1710, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 215-221. Ang, A. H., and Tang, W. (1979) Probability concepts in Engineering planning and design. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Tyagi, A. and Haan, C. T. (2001) Reliability, Risk and Uncertainty Analysis Using Generic Expectation Functions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, 938945. Turner, J., and Harahap, H. (1993) Simplified saturation flow data collection methods, Overseas Centre Transport Research Laboratory. Vinh, N. X. (2006) Highway design and signalized intersections. Hochiminh city National University, Hochiminh city. Arasan, V. T., and Koshy, R. Z. (2003) Headway Distribution of Heterogeneous Traffic on Urban Arterials. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Vol. 84, 210 215. Canadian Guideline for Intersection (2005) Institute of Transportation Engineers.. .