Investigation of the North Attleborough Route 1 Route 1A Elmwood St Intersection

By: Christopher Cabral UMass Dartmouth 285 Old Westport Rd N. Dartmouth, MA 02747

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the CEN 519 course in Advanced Traffic Engineering Spring Semester 2012

Words: 6,423 Tables: 16 Total Word Count: 15,173

Figures: 19

(250 words per figure & table)

Table of Contents I. II. III. IV. i. ii. Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 5 Background ......................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 Intersection Data ................................................................................................................. 9 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 9 Signal Phases and Timing ................................................................................................. 11

iii. Accident Information ........................................................................................................ 13 V. i. ii. VI. i. ii. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 14 Adequacy of Current Signal Phasing and Timing ............................................................ 14 VISSIM Simulation of Existing Conditions ..................................................................... 16 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 20 Proposed Alternatives to the North Attleborough BPW ................................................... 20 New Proposal .................................................................................................................... 21

iii. VISSIM Simulation of Proposed Design .......................................................................... 26 VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................ 28 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 29 References ......................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 34

[2]

List of Tables and Figures Table 1 - Peak Hourly AM Vehicle Volumes (4) ........................................................................... 9 Table 2 - Peak Hourly PM Vehicle Volumes (4) ............................................................................ 9 Table 3 - Signalized Intersection Approach Volumes .................................................................. 10 Table 4 - Signal Phasing and Timing Abbreviation Legend......................................................... 11 Table 5 - Loss Time Measurements (s) for the Route 1 NB Direction ......................................... 12 Table 6 - Loss Time and Saturation Headway .............................................................................. 13 Table 7 - Crash Report Totals from 2006-2008 (4) ...................................................................... 13 Table 8 - Calculated and Measured Critical Lane Flow and Capacity (vehicles per hour) .......... 15 Table 9 - Simulated Existing Mean Peak AM Delay Times, (s) ............................................... 19 Table 10 - Simulated Existing Mean Peak PM Delay Times, (s) .............................................. 19 Table 11 - Level of Service Delay Times for Signalized Intersections (11) ................................ 19 Table 12 - Cycle Length and Green Time Determination for Peak AM Volumes ....................... 24 Table 13 - Cycle Length and Green Time Determination for Peak PM Volumes ........................ 24 Table 14 - Peak AM Signal Phasing and Timing Sequence ......................................................... 25 Table 15 - Peak PM Signal Phasing and Timing Sequence .......................................................... 26 Table 16 - Simulated Proposed Design Mean Peak AM Delay Times, (s) ............................... 27 Table 17 - Simulated Proposed Design Mean Peak PM Delay Times, (s) ................................ 27 Table 18 - Comparing Peak AM Proposed vs Existing Delay Times........................................... 28 Table 19 - Comparing Peak AM Proposed vs Existing Delay Times........................................... 28

Figure 1 - Google Maps (6) Current Satellite Image of the Intersection (Zoom Out) .................... 7 Figure 2 - Google Maps (6) Current Satellite Image of the Intersection (Zoom In) ...................... 8 Figure 3 - Signalized Traffic Flow................................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 - Startup Loss Times and Saturation Headway Determination ...................................... 12 Figure 5 - VISSIM Lane and Routing Decision Layout for Existing Conditions ........................ 17 Figure 6 - Route 1A Traffic Queuing for Existing Conditions ..................................................... 18 Figure 7 - Proposed Intersection Layout ....................................................................................... 22

[3]

Figure A1 - BETA Group, Inc Proposed Concept C-3.......31 Figure A2 - BETA Group, Inc Proposed Concept E...32 Figure A3 - BETA Group, Inc Proposed Concept F....33 Figure B1 - Proposed Intersection Design......34 Figure B2 - Phase 1 (Route 1A SB, All Movements) on VISSIM......35 Figure B3 - Phase 2 (Routes 1 and 1A, NB and SB Straight) on VISSIM...35 Figure B4 - Phase 3 (Route 1 NB, All Movements) on VISSIM.36 Figure B5 - Phase 4 (Route 1 SB and Route 1A NB Right Turns) on VISSIM..36 Figure B6 - Phase 5 (Elmwood St, All Movements) on VISSIM....37

[4]

I.

Abstract This research investigates the traffic operations at the intersection of Route 1, Route 1A,

and Elmwood St in North Attleborough, MA. Route 1 and Route 1A run parallel to each other and connect at the junction of Route 1 and Elmwood St, which forces vehicles to approach the intersection from five directions. This awkward intersection has been responsible for high accident rates and long queue lengths, especially during peak hours. The Town Board of Public Works has addressed the need for improvements and has acquired traffic engineering consultation from engineering firms in the area. The town has not yet made any decisions on the future of the intersection due to the costly and complex proposals submitted. In this study, VISSIM traffic simulation software from PTV Vision was used to simulate traffic flow for existing peak AM and PM hours. The purpose of this report is to present the quantitative analysis of the current state of operations at the intersection, and propose an alternative in which the VISSIM analysis of the simulation yields improved operations. The proposed alternative has shown promise and will be provided to the North Attleborough Board of Public Works and the employed engineering consulting firm. It is anticipated that this research will facilitate progress on the improvement of operations at the intersection.

Keywords: Five-way signalized intersection, VISSIM analysis, North Attleborough Route 1

[5]

II.

Background The Town of North Attleborough was established in 1694 along Old Post Road, which

provided the major transportation link along the east coast northward to Boston. As the center of town expanded, Old Post Road through the downtown area was renamed to Main Street and is known today as North Washington Street or Route 1A. Main Street intersected with local streets at the northern end of town and formed a Y intersection. As transportation evolved from horse drawn carriages to motorized vehicles, the volume of traffic through Main Street, which was the main transportation link to Boston, resulted in severe downtown congestion. To alleviate the congestion, a downtown bypass road was installed on the east side of downtown and runs parallel to Main Street, which is now identified as Route 1 (2). The newly constructed Route 1 became the main south to north thoroughfare which bypassed the downtown area, but created a unique intersection on the northerly section of town. The original Y intersection became an X intersection with an intersecting local street on the east side, Elmwood Street (2). As the economies of the Boston and Providence areas expanded from the 1950s to today, the traffic volumes and traffic speeds expanded significantly, yet the basic geometry of the intersection is based upon the horse drawn carriage patterns of the 1800s and a bypass road of 1949 (2). Growth in the region was further enhanced with the construction of Interstate 95 in the 1960s. The construction of I-95 and two interchanges in North Attleborough provided opportunities for businesses and promoted residential growth. These factors further compounded the traffic growth through an unusually shaped intersection which does not conform to current highway design geometric standards (2).

[6]

III.

Introduction

The intersection of Route 1, Route 1A, and Elmwood Street outside of the center of North Attleborough has been a congested, problematic, and dangerous junction for drivers. This intersection experiences high volumes of traffic for the businesses surrounding the area, including a Dunkin Donuts at the merging southbound directions of Route 1 and Route 1A. Elmwood Street consists primarily of residential properties, but controls access to the towns largest recreation center, the Hockomock YMCA. Route 1A similarly holds hundreds of residential properties, but also experiences high volumes of traffic for drivers commuting to the center of town. Route 1 holds the heart of business for North Attleborough and surrounding cities and is responsible for the majority of transportation through this intersection. Routes 1 and 1A run parallel to one another and intersect at the junction of Route 1 and Elmwood Street. The traffic signals for the intersection direct traffic flow travelling through Route 1, but do not control vehicles remaining along Route 1A at this location. The connection between these roadways is one of the major factors for traffic queuing, delay times and frequent accidents. See Figures 1 & 2. Figure 1 Google Maps (6) Current Satellite Image of the Intersection (Zoom Out)

[7]

Figure 2 Google Maps (6) Current Satellite Image of the Intersection (Zoom In)

The Town of North Attleborough has addressed the need for action to fix this troublesome intersection. Their department of public works has been working to come up with a plan to improve traffic flow in the area, but has not made any decision on how to proceed (5). Beta Group, an engineering firm, has proposed several ways for the town to improve the intersection, but negotiating these improvements have been challenging for several reasons. The suggested solutions so far appear to be costly and complex, questioning how this project will be funded and the state Department of Transportations approval (5). The purpose of this research is to quantitatively investigate the existing situation of the intersection and seek out alternatives not yet proposed by Beta Group. Using VISSIM, a microscopic multi-modal traffic flow simulation software (12) existing peak AM and PM traffic volumes will be analyzed to examine the current quality of service. This software will also assist in determining the effectiveness of proposed improvements by comparing the simulated results of any design changes to the existing conditions. The proposed solutions will be heavily influenced by the restructured designs of other intersection improvement projects of similar scenarios. All or any proposed improvements will follow the state intersection design guidelines (8) before being subjected to the modeling software. [8]

IV.

Intersection Data The first step in analyzing the current state of the intersection of Route 1, Route 1A, and

Elmwood Street begins with data collection. Jason DeGray, P.E., of BETA Group (4) has provided the existing peak AM and PM hourly traffic volumes as well as the signal phasing and crash reports. i. Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes presented in the study are the quantities of vehicles approaching and leaving all 5 directions of this location. See Tables 1 & 2 for the 2010 peak hourly AM and PM vehicle volumes, respectively. Table 1 - Peak Hourly AM Vehicle Volumes (4) To From Route-1A NB Route-1 NB Elmwood St Route-1 SB Route-1A SB Route-1A NB 5 15 60 170 Route-1 NB 20 25 230 85 Elmwood St Route-1 SB Route-1A SB 60 70 20 0 160 715 80 5 260 175 20 5

Table 2 - Peak Hourly PM Vehicle Volumes (4) To From Route-1A NB Route-1 NB Elmwood St Route-1 SB Route-1A SB Route-1A NB 10 80 205 405 Route-1 NB 45 80 735 145 Elmwood St Route-1 SB Route-1A SB 50 75 50 50 70 380 30 55 205 120 25 5

As stated previously, the signal only controls traffic flow for cars travelling through Route 1. Figure 3 shows the number of lanes and traffic directions of each lane through the signalized intersection. The peak AM and PM quantities of vehicles approaching the signalized intersection (combining the Route 1A NB and SB volumes) are displayed in Table 3, and will be later used to identify if the signal can adequately handle these peak volumes.

[9]

Figure 3 Signalized Traffic Flow

Table 3 Signalized Intersection Approach Volumes Approach Route 1 NB Route 1 NB LT Route 1 SB Route 1 SB LT Elmwood St (WB) Route 1A (EB) Peak Flow ( vph ) AM PM 785 455 180 130 295 945 20 50 140 215 330 415

[10]

ii.

Signal Phases and Timing The traffic signals at this intersection only control the vehicles travelling and crossing

through Route1. All vehicles remaining along Route 1A at this location are not controlled by the traffic signals, but experience conflict points from the vehicles leaving and entering Route 1. The traffic signal times and phasing are provided in Table 3. Neglecting the small pedestrian volume, the signal sequence consists of a 3 phase system with actuators on the east and west bound directions of the intersection (Route 1A and Elmwood St, respectively). The cycle length, without the pedestrian phase, is 88 seconds and follows the same sequence every cycle. The legend for the abbreviations within Table 3 is provided in Table 4. Table 3 Signal Phasing and Timing (4)

Table 4 - Signal Phasing and Timing Abbreviation Legend Symbol GLA YLA G Y Signal Green Left Arrow Yellow Left Arrow Green Yellow [11] Symbol R W FDW DW Signal Red Walk Flash Don't Walk Don't Walk

In order to determine important traffic parameters, there are several other timing measurements that must be recorded. These measurements: startup loss time ( l1 ), clearance loss time ( l2 ), total loss time ( tL ), and saturation headway ( hs ), are computed using a stop watch program. The saturation headway ( hs ) was the horizontal asymptotic average time between vehicles to cross the stop line. The startup loss time ( l1 ) was the sum of the time the first four vehicles to cross the stop line minus 4 saturation headways. The clearance loss time ( l2 ) was the time between the last vehicle in queue crossing the stop line and the next movement receiving a green light. The total loss time ( tL ) equals the sum of l1 and l2. Four loss time measurements were taken during a peak hour from the Route 1 North Bound direction for the first 8 vehicles in the queue crossing the stop line. The values for determining the loss time parameters can be found in Table 5 and Figure 4. Table 5 Loss Time Measurements (s) for the Route 1 NB Direction Measurement # 1 2 3 4 1 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 Vehicle # Crossing Stop Line 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0

Figure 4 Startup Loss Times and Saturation Headway Determination

Loss Times & Saturation Headway

4.5 4.0 Time (seconds) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vehicle # Crossing Stop Line Measurement #1 Measurement #2 Measurement #3 Measurement #4

[12]

From the previous Table and Figure, the approximate average values for startup loss time ( l1 ), clearance loss time ( l2 ), total loss time ( tL ), and saturation headway ( hs ) can be determined. See Table 6 for these parameters: Table 6 Loss Time and Saturation Headway Parameter l1 l2 tL hs iii. Accident Information The following table contains the crash totals from the MassDOT crash reports at the North Attleborough Route 1-Route 1A-Elmwood St Intersection from 2006 to 2008; provided by DeGray (4). Time (s) 3.3 4.5 7.8 2.0

Table 7 - Crash Report Totals from 2006-2008 (4) Year 2006 2007 2008 Total Number of Accidents 15 16 17 48 Number of Vehicles Involved in Accidents 30 31 35 96 Injuries 4 4 3 11

[13]

V. i.

Data Analysis Adequacy of Current Signal Phasing and Timing Referring to Table 3, we can obtain the critical volumes approaching the signal for the

peak AM and PM conditions. This measured critical volume is equal to the sum of the vehicles approaching the intersection from the maximum volume directions (i.e. if Route 1 northbound has a larger volume of traffic than the southbound direction, the northbound volume is used in the calculation and the southbound direction is neglected). Refer to Equation 1. Measured Critical Volume Equation 1 = Max of [ (Route 1 NB + Route 1 NB LT) / 2 Lanes + (Route 1 SB + Route 1 SB LT) / 2 Lanes ] + Max of [ (Route 1A (EB) + Route 1A (EB) RT) / 2 Lanes + Elmwood St] Measured Critical Volume (AM) = (Route 1 NB + Route 1 NB LT) / 2 + (Route 1A (EB) + Route 1A (EB) RT) / 2 = (785 + 180) / 2 + (225 + 105) / 2 = 648 vph Measured Critical Volume (PM) = (Route 1 SB + Route 1 SB LT) / 2 + Elmwood St = (945 + 50) / 2 + 215 = 713 vph After determining values for the total loss time and saturation headway, the intersection capacity and critical lane-flow can be computed. Comparing the measured critical volumes to the critical lane-flow, we can establish whether or not the existing signal phasing is adequate in handling the peak volumes of traffic. Also, the capacity of each approach can be computed to determine if each individual phase can handle the specific direction peak volumes. See Equations 2 and 3. Critical Lane Flow, Vc ( ) Equation 2

Where, = Saturation Headway (seconds / vehicle) N = Number of Phases [14]

= Total Loss Time (seconds) C = Cycle Length (second) Vc = (1 / 2.0) (3600 3 phases (7.8)(3600/88)) = 1,321 vph Capacity, ci Equation 3

Where, G, y, ar = Green, Yellow, and All Red Time for i approach C = Cycle Length (seconds) = Saturation Headway (seconds / vehicle) Route 1 NB ( Route 1 SB ( ) = 675 vph ) = 1,002 vph

Route 1A (EB) and Elmwood St ( ) = 470 vph

Table 8 Calculated and Measured Critical Lane Flow and Capacity (vehicles per hour) Direction Critical Lane-Flow All Approaches Approach Capacity Route 1 NB Route 1 SB Route 1A (EB) Elmwood St Calculated Maximums 1,321 1,002 675 470 470 Measured AM PM 648 713 483 158 165 140 293 498 208 215

Table 8, above, shows the calculated theoretical maximum values for critical lane-flow and approach capacities. The measured values appear to be significantly smaller than the calculated maximums because there are two lanes at each approach of the intersection, with the [15]

exception of Elmwood St. The additional lane alleviates half the volume of traffic and allows the measured peak values to stay below the theoretical maximums. Since the critical lane flow and capacities for all approaches exceed the measured critical volumes, the existing signal phasing is adequate in handling the peak volumes of flow. This confirms that changing the phasing and timing sequence of the traffic signals would not significantly fix the intersection.

ii.

VISSIM Simulation of Existing Conditions The simulation software was used to model the current conditions of the Route 1, Route

1A, and Elmwood St Intersection. The existing signal phasing and timing sequence and peak vehicle volumes (for AM and PM conditions) were input into the program to better understand the present situation. Since the peak volumes were simulated using this software, the maximum signal times were used for all approaches and the pavement detectors were neglected to simplify programming of the model. From the previous signal timing analysis, it is concluded that the existing sequence and timing of the lights are adequate in handling traffic flowing through the intersection. The goal of modeling the intersection using simulation software is to identify the problems that intersection capacity and signal time equations fail to see. The first step was importing a Google Earth (4) image of the intersection into the software, drawing travel lanes to scale of the dimensions of the intersection. Figure 5 shows the VISSIM display of the intersection with blue centerlines for travel lanes and pink lines for turning decisions. Once the intersection was drawn out, the peak approach volumes were input for both AM and PM conditions (2 individual simulations). Then, the percentages of the approach volumes with their corresponding routing decisions (i.e. Elmwood St to Route 1 NB) were programmed into the model followed by the given existing signal phasing and timing sequence. Numerous other inputs were also input to account for roadway type, lane widths, vehicle acceptable acceleration, simulation speed, etc. Once everything was input into the model, the simulations were conducted. The vehicle types travelling through the simulated intersection were in default percentages generated by the software and shown in random colors. The green, yellow, and red lines at the perimeter of the intersection represent the traffic signal colors for each approach.

[16]

Figure 5 VISSIM Lane and Routing Decision Layout for Existing Conditions

The simulations were conducted for both AM and PM volumes, and each showed similar problems; the unregulated traffic flow on Route 1A causes long queuing. Vehicles trying to turn from both northbound and southbound Route 1A to Route 1 created substantial queuing problems. When vehicles at the front of the line for Route 1A were waiting for their signal to turn green, vehicles travelling behind them are forced to wait for the Route 1A (EB) movement to receive a green signal before they can advance even if they are staying on Route 1A. See Figure 6 for a screen shot of the queuing problem described above.

[17]

Figure 6 Route 1A Traffic Queuing for Existing Conditions

This queuing issue along Route 1A also causes backup on Route 1 for both northbound and southbound approaches, when vehicles are trying to turn from Route 1 to Route 1A southbound. Vehicles coming from Route 1A SB frequently block the box waiting for the Route 1A (EB) approach to receive a green signal and prevent traffic from flowing onto Route 1A. This halt in traffic flow creates queuing on Route 1 which has the heaviest flow of traffic coming into the intersection and subsequently causes long delay times. For both AM and PM peak conditions, the simulation ran 5 times to acquire 85% confidence intervals of the mean delay times. See Equation 4 for the determination of the confidence bounds following a normal distribution. From these mean delay times, the current level of service can be determined for this intersection for both peak AM and PM scenarios. See Tables 9 and 10 for the mean delay times and corresponding levels of service from the simulation.

Equation 4 (

[18]

Where, = Probability (85%) = Mean Delay Time (s) = Standard Deviation = Number of Trials 1.44 = Z-value corresponding to 85% Probability

Table 9 - Simulated Existing Mean Peak AM Delay Times, (s) Approach Route 1 NB Route 1 SB Route 1A (EB) Elmwood St Mean (s) 6.0 3.1 71.0 10.2 Standard Dev 0.6 0.7 10.9 0.9 85% Confidence Bounds for Mean Delay (s) 5.6 6.4 2.6 3.5 64.0 78.0 9.6 10.8 LOS A A E A - B

Table 10 - Simulated Existing Mean Peak PM Delay Times, (s) Approach Route 1 NB Route 1 SB Route 1A (EB) Elmwood St Mean (s) 3.4 64.1 104.1 14.0 Standard Dev 0.6 16.3 18.1 0.6 85% Confidence Bounds for Mean Delay (s) 3.0 3.8 53.6 74.6 92.4 115.8 13.6 14.3 LOS A D - E F B

Table 11 Level of Service Delay Times for Signalized Intersections (11) Level of Service A B C D E F Delay (s/veh) 10 10 - 20 20 - 35 35 - 55 55 - 80 80

As shown in the Tables 9 and 10, the current quality of service of this intersection is not optimal especially for the Route 1A approaches. Because of the high delay times during peak traffic volumes, the town has sought out solutions to fix this intersection, which are discussed in the following section. [19]

VI.

Alternatives

As of February, 2012, BETA Group has delivered several possible alternatives to amend this intersection. Three of these alternatives will be discussed and their design plans provided in the following section. The town has yet to make any decisions for permanent solutions, but short term improvements such as upgraded pavement markers and road signs have been suggested. After analyzing these proposals submitted to the Board of Public Works, a new alternative was discovered through this study.

i.

Proposed Alternatives to the North Attleborough BPW The three submitted alternatives discussed in this section are all viable solutions to

amending this intersection, but require eliminating traffic movements and or land acquisition. The design plans for these three alternatives can be found in Appendix A. All of these solutions have their pros and cons, which need to be weighed to determine the optimum solution. The first concept, or Concept E, eliminates all traffic movements from Route 1A southbound through the existing signalized intersection. Vehicles approaching from Route 1A SB are given a straight only pavement marker, forcing drivers to maintain travel along Route 1A. This movement elimination suggests that drivers may use the Dunkin Donuts parking lot as a potential cut through for those whom need to get from Route 1A SB to Route 1 or Elmwood St. Concept E shifts the sidewalks and curbing to allow for a Route 1SB right turn lane and Route 1A NB right turn lane onto Route 1 SB. This proposal also includes a second signal to be installed at the Route 1-Route 1A merge to better regulate traffic flow. See Figure A1 in the Appendix. The second concept, Concept C-3, is very similar to the previous alternative, but requires more construction and land acquisition. This concept eliminates the same movement from Route 1A southbound, but does not call for a signal to direct flow at that point. Route 1A NB will also have the separate right turn lane onto Route 1 SB, but the Route 1 SB added right turn lane to Route 1A from the previous concept is not included. The major difference is the land acquisition on the northern side of the intersection. The town would have to purchase the land behind the Dunkin Donuts property and construct a separate signalized intersection to allow traffic to move from Route 1A SB to Route 1. See Figure A2 in the Appendix. [20]

The third concept, Concept F, appears to be the most costly and complex of the solutions discussed in this study. First this proposal eliminates the connection between Routes 1 and 1A at the existing intersection. The current intersection will have signalized traffic flow for the junction of Route 1 and Elmwood St only. Approximately 400 feet south on Routes 1 and 1A from the existing intersection, two more signalized intersections are called for installation as well as substantial land acquisition between the two new intersections. See Figure A3 in the Appendix.

ii.

New Proposal The new alternative designed in this study shows promise of improvements in traffic

operations by including Route 1A NB and SB traffic flow in the signalized intersection. The unregulated traffic flow coming from those directions have been determined to be one of the main contributors for large queue lengths, long delay times, and high accident rates. Including all Route 1A traffic into the existing signal phasing and opening up the intersection into one 5phased intersection, shows potential to be a legitimate solution to this problem. Originally in the new design, each approach had its own phase and appropriate green times were designated based on incoming volumes. This method at first seemed like a viable solution until the software ran the simulation, and extremely large traffic queues and delays occurred. The next step in altering this design was figuring out how to properly manage the signal phasing and timing sequences to minimize traffic back up. This proposal calls for four additional lanes to be constructed in the already limited area of the intersection. The high peak volumes cannot be successfully managed with the current number of lanes in attempt to include all the Route 1A traffic into the signalized system. Right turn lanes are to be constructed for the Route 1 SB and Route 1A NB approaches, and left turn lanes for the Route 1 NB and Route 1A SB approaches. From trial and error of designing how to direct traffic and their corresponding volumes, the previously described lane additions allow for more evenly distributed traffic. With appropriate sidewalk and curb adjustments, the additional lanes called for in this design can be successfully constructed within the limited area of the intersection. For both peak morning and evening existing traffic volumes, only 5 vehicles per hour travelled from Route 1 southbound to Route 1A north, so this movement was eliminated or sacrificed in this design. See Figure 7 for the simplified Microsoft Excel drawing of the proposed [21]

intersection layout. From the 2010 peak AM and PM approach volumes, the number of vehicles per hour for each lane are shown in Figure 7 as well. The peak PM volumes are shown in parentheses below the peak AM volumes. The solid and dashed lines represent protected and unprotected traffic movements, respectively. Refer to Figure B1 in Appendix B for the proposed layout over the existing intersection. Figure 7 Proposed Intersection Layout

Now that the number of lanes and corresponding vehicle volumes have been determined, the signals can be phased and timed. The heaviest volumes of non-conflicting traffic are the Route 1 and Route 1A NB to SB and SB to NB approaches. Those movements were grouped together and designated Phase 2. Since Route 1 NB has such a large approach volume, the next [22]

phase (Phase 3) consists of all Route NB protected movements. Phase 4 allows for Route 1 SB and Route 1A NB protected right turns. Phase 5 allows traffic from Elmwood St to freely move in all directions. Phase 1 accommodates the last approach for all Route 1A SB left turns, and also gives the Route 1A SB straight approach a green signal. The phases move in numeric order from lowest to highest, and then cycle from Phase 1. Standard pedestrian buttons are to be included to accommodate a phase for pedestrian volumes. The appropriate green times for each phase can be calculated now that the movements of each phase have been determined. Typically the critical approach volume would be used for green time calculations, but since this system has overlapping phases, the maximum volumes were neglected for phases 1 through 3. Using equations 5 and 6, the design green times can be determined. See Tables 12 and 13 for the peak AM and PM green time analyses, respectively.

Cycle Length, C

Equation 5

Where, = Saturation Headway (seconds / vehicle) N = Number of Phases = Total Loss Time (seconds) Vc = Critical Lane-Flow (vph) Note values for Vc calculated in Tables 11 and 12 Peak AM Cycle Length

Peak PM Cycle Length

Available Green Time, G

Equation 6

Where, [23]

C = Cycle Length (second) N = Number of Phases y = Yellow Time (s) ar = All Red Time (s) Peak AM Available Green Time Peak AM Available Green Time Table 12 Cycle Length and Green Time Determination for Peak AM Volumes Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Total Max Vol. (vph) 170 393 393 240 140 1,123 Design Use (vph) 90 260 180 240 140 910 Cycle Length (s) Total Available Green Time (s) % of Total Design Use (%) 9.9 28.6 19.8 26.4 15.4 100.0 Green Time (s) 4.945055 14.28571 9.89011 13.18681 7.692308 50.0 Design Green (s) 5.0 14.0 10.0 13.0 8.0 50.0

80.0

50.0

Table 13 - Cycle Length and Green Time Determination for Peak PM Volumes Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Total Max Vol. (vph) 405 395 228 205 215 1,448 Design Use (vph) 250 395 130 205 215 1,195 Cycle Length (s) Total Available Green Time (s) % of Total Design Use 20.9 33.1 10.9 17.2 18.0 100.0 Green Time (s) 18.82845 29.74895 9.790795 15.43933 16.19247 90.0 Design Green (s) 19.0 30.0 10.0 15.0 16.0 90.0

120.0

90.0

From Tables 12 and 13, different cycle lengths and green times were computed for the AM and PM conditions. Since the PM volumes generated a larger critical lane flow in this phasing design, the cycle length calculated from Equation 5 is 40 seconds larger. This means that the morning green times need to increase accordingly for the necessary green times to handle the evening peak volumes. During the morning commute, green times will follow the lengths provided in Table 12 and in the evening, green times should follow the values provided in Table 13. These tabulated green times are designed to handle peak flows so, detectors are [24]

recommended for all approaches to help facilitate the flow of traffic by decreasing waiting time of drivers when there are smaller approach volumes. The signal phasing and timing sequences are compiled in Tables 14 and 15. The green times shown in the following tables are the maximum green times allotted to each phase. The green, yellow, red, and all red signals are represented with the symbols G, y, R, and ar, respectively. Minimum green times were not determined in this study since the analysis was conducted using fixed signal times for peak volumes. If this design were to be implemented, the traffic engineer should calculate appropriate minimum green times and vehicle extensions for pavement detectors when there are smaller traffic volumes. Table 14 Peak AM Signal Phasing and Timing Sequence Approach Route 1 NB Straight Route 1 NB Left Route 1 SB Straight Route 1 SB Right Route 1A NB Straight Route 1A NB Right Route 1A SB Straight Route 1A SB Left Elmwood St 1 R 11 R 11 R 11 R 11 R 11 R 11 G 11 G y ar 5 4 2 R 11 2 G 20 R 20 G y 14 4 R 20 G y 14 4 R 20 G y 14 4 R 20 R 20 Phase 3 y 4 y 4 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 4 R 19 R 19 R 19 G y 13 4 R 19 G y 13 4 R 19 R 19 R 19 5 R 14 R 14 R 14 R 14 R 14 R 14 R 14 R 14 G y ar 8 4 2

G 10 G 10 R 2

ar 2 ar 2

ar 2

R 2

ar 2

R 2

Cycle Length = 80 seconds

[25]

Table 15 Peak PM Signal Phasing and Timing Sequence Approach Phase 3 y 4 y 4 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16 R 16

1 Route 1 NB R Straight 25 Route 1 NB R Left 25 Route 1 SB R Straight 25 Route 1 SB R Right 25 Route 1A NB R Straight 25 Route 1A NB R Right 25 Route 1A SB G Straight 25 Route 1A SB G y Left 19 4 R Elmwood St 25

R 2

2 G 36 R 36 G y 30 4 R 36 G y 30 4 R 36 G y 30 4 R 36 R 36

G 10 G 10 R 2

ar 2 ar 2

R 2

R 2

4 R 21 R 21 R 21 G y 15 4 R 21 G y 15 4 R 21 R 21 R 21

5 R 22 R 22 R 22 ar R 2 22 R 22 ar R 2 22 R 22 R 22 G y 16 4

ar 2

Cycle Length = 120 seconds

iii.

VISSIM Simulation of Proposed Design

This proposed intersection design was drawn into VISSIM similarly to the existing conditions. The same peak AM and PM volumes were input for both scenarios, but the new signal phasing and lane design replaced the existing system. New calculations had to be done to determine what percentages of approach vehicles were making which routing decisions for the added lanes. In order to fit the additional lanes into the intersection, the Route 1 SB stop lines had to be pushed back roughly 100 feet, which eliminated the Route 1SB to north on Route 1A movement. Once the layout and inputs were programmed into VISSIM, the simulations were initiated and ran smoothly. Unlike in the existing conditions of peak volumes, traffic appeared to be flowing at a smoother pace with much less backup. Refer to Figures B2 through B6 for screen shots of the model running, during phases 1 through 5, respectively. [26]

Similarly to the simulations of the existing data, the program output average delay times for the proposed design with the peak AM and PM volumes. The mean delay times were then used to compute the expected delay times within the 85% confidence bounds, as shown in Equation 4. These delay times from the simulations of the morning and evening peak flows are shown in Tables 16 and 17, respectively.

Table 16 - Simulated Proposed Design Mean Peak AM Delay Times, (s) Approach Route 1 NB Straight Route 1 NB Left Route 1 SB Straight Route 1 SB Right Route 1A NB Straight Route 1A NB Right Route 1A SB Straight Route 1A SB Left Elmwood St Mean (s) 9.6 14.1 11.3 5.4 20.3 19.0 9.3 22.7 17.5 Standard Dev 4.6 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.6 3.4 2.0 85% Confidence Bounds for Mean Delay (s) 6.7 12.6 13.4 14.8 10.6 12.1 4.3 6.5 19.4 21.2 17.8 20.1 8.3 10.4 20.5 24.9 16.2 18.8 LOS A B B A B B A C B B

C C B

Table 17 - Simulated Proposed Design Mean Peak PM Delay Times, (s) Approach Route 1 NB Straight Route 1 NB Left Route 1 SB Straight Route 1 SB Right Route 1A NB Straight Route 1A NB Right Route 1A SB Straight Route 1A SB Left Elmwood St Mean (s) 18.9 29.5 45.5 51.9 22.4 31.8 35.9 74.9 37.1 Standard Dev 1.0 4.6 2.6 5.7 1.3 6.5 3.2 3.0 3.2 85% Confidence Bounds for Mean Delay (s) 18.2 19.5 26.6 32.5 43.8 47.2 48.2 55.5 21.6 23.2 27.6 36.0 33.9 38.0 72.9 76.9 35.1 39.2 LOS B C D D C C - D C - D E D

[27]

VII.

Discussion of Results The proposed design of the Route1, Route 1A, Elmwood St intersection more evenly

distributes traffic than the current design. Opening up the signalized intersection, adding protected turning lanes, and altering the signal phasing and timing sequence has shown significant results through the simulation software. For both peak AM and PM volumes, these improvements have alleviated traffic congestion and dispersed the delay times somewhat evenly for all approaches. Refer to Tables 18 and 19 for the 85% confidence bounds for the quality of service comparisons for the proposed versus existing conditions for both peak AM and PM volumes.

Table 18 - Comparing Peak AM Proposed vs Existing Delay Times Approach Route 1 NB Straight Route 1 NB Left Route 1 SB Straight Route 1 SB Right Route 1A NB Straight Route 1A NB Right Route 1A SB Straight Route 1A SB Left Elmwood St Proposed Design Delay (s) 6.7 12.6 13.4 14.8 10.6 12.1 4.3 6.5 19.4 21.2 17.8 20.1 8.3 10.4 20.5 24.9 16.2 18.8 LOS A B B A B B A C B B Existing Design Delay (s) 5.6 2.6 C C B 6.4 3.5 LOS A A

64.0 9.6

78.0 10.8

E A- B

Table 19 - Comparing Peak AM Proposed vs Existing Delay Times Approach Route 1 NB Straight Route 1 NB Left Route 1 SB Straight Route 1 SB Right Route 1A NB Straight Route 1A NB Right Route 1A SB Straight Route 1A SB Left Elmwood St Proposed Design Existing Design LOS Delay (s) Delay (s) B 18.2 19.5 3.0 3.8 C 26.6 32.5 D 43.8 47.2 53.6 74.6 D 48.2 55.5 21.6 23.2 C - C 27.6 36.0 C - D 92.4 115.8 33.9 38.0 C - D E 72.9 76.9 D 35.1 39.2 13.6 14.3 [28] LOS A D - E

F B

VIII. Conclusions The new design shows promise as an alternative solution to improving traffic operations at this intersection. Based on the simulations with peak volumes, this design is effective in regulating traffic through this intersection. The proposed changes require little construction and land acquisition compared to some of the alternatives submitted to the North Attleborough Board of Public Works. Obviously how improving this intersection will be funded has been a great concern for the BPW, and this approach to upgrading the intersection should be less expensive than other alternatives. This new proposal will be given to the Board of Public Works as well as the hired engineering firm, BETA Group, for analysis and comparison against the previously submitted alternatives. As previously mentioned, minimum green times and detector vehicle extensions were not determined in this study. This proposal was able to determine how well this design was able to handle the measured peak volumes with maximum fixed green times. If this proposal were to be used as a solution to fix this intersection, the traffic engineers will have to determine the appropriate lengths for these other signal parameters. The exact locations for stop lines and curb adjustments for the proposed lane additions were also not determined. In order to accommodate these additional lanes, the median between southbound approaches and the Route 1SB approach stop line must be moved back roughly 100 feet northbound of the existing location. The limited amount of space does not allow for additional lanes in both the Route 1 and 1A SB directions without this adjustment. This new design will also require appropriate pavement markers directing traffic to eliminate movement confusion and increase safety. The balance of minimal construction costs to improved traffic operations for this proposal appears to be a viable solution to amending this intersection.

[29]

IX.

References 1. Intersection Design. Massachusetts Highway Department, 2006. 2. Cabral, Steven P.E. Crossman Engineering, Inc. Town of North Attleborough Board of Public Works. 2012 3. Chaudhary, N., C. Chu, S. Sunkari, and K. Balke. Guidelines for Operating Congest Traffic Signals. Texas Transportation Institute, 2010. 4. DeGray, Jason. BETA Group, Inc. 2012 5. DeMelia, A. At a Dead End - Proposals to Fix Busy North Intersection Proving Complicated and Costly. Sun Chronicle, Vol. News, No. http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2012/02/14/news/10969045.txt , 2012. 6. Google Inc. Google Earth. , Vol. 5.1.3533.1731, 2009. 7. Last, M., G. Avrahami, and A. Kandel. Using Data Mining Techniques for Optimizing Traffic Signal Plans at an Urban Intersection. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 26, No. 7, 2011, pp. 603-620. 8. Massachusetts Highway Department. Project Development and Design Guide. http://www.vhb.com/mhdGuide/mhd_Guidebook.asp , Accessed February, 2012. 9. MassDOT. Average Crash Rates. http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/traffic/crashrate&sid=about , Accessed February, 2012. 10. McShane, W., E. Prassas, and R. Proses. Traffic Engineering. Pearson, New Jersey, 2011. 11. NCHRP. Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2001. 12. PTV Vision. VISSIM. , Vol. 5.3, 2010.

[30]

X.

Appendix A Figure A1 BETA Group, Inc Concept C-3

[31]

Figure A2 BETA Group, Inc Concept E

[32]

Figure A3 BETA Group, Inc Concept F

[33]

XI.

Appendix B Figure B1 Proposed Intersection Design

[34]

Figure B2 Phase 1 (Route 1A SB, All Movements) on VISSIM

Figure B3 Phase 2 (Routes 1 and 1A, NB and SB Straight) on VISSIM

[35]

Figure B4 - Phase 3 (Route 1 NB, All Movements) on VISSIM

Figure B5 Phase 4 (Route 1 SB and Route 1A NB Right Turns) on VISSIM

[36]

Figure B6 Phase 5 (Elmwood St, All Movements) on VISSIM

[37]