Welcome to ROSA P |
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Calibration of automatic performance measures - speed and volume data: volume 2, evaluation of the accuracy of approach volume counts and speeds collected by microwave sensors.
  • Published Date:
    2016-05-01
  • Language:
    English
Filetype[PDF-5.05 MB]


This document cannot be previewed automatically as it exceeds 5 MB
Please click the thumbnail image to view the document.
Calibration of automatic performance measures - speed and volume data: volume 2, evaluation of the accuracy of approach volume counts and speeds collected by microwave sensors.
Details:
  • Corporate Contributors:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
  • Resource Type:
  • Geographical Coverage:
  • Abstract:
    This study evaluated the accuracy of approach volumes and free flow approach speeds collected by the Wavetronix

    SmartSensor Advance sensor for the Signal Performance Metrics system of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT),

    using the field data collected by JAMAR counter boards for free flow approach volumes and a TruCam LiDAR gun for approach

    speeds. The Advance sensor is primarily designed for dilemma zone reduction. It does not have the capability to differentiate

    vehicles between lanes, but the Advance sensor currently used has a detection range of up to 600 ft. and has the capability to

    track vehicles approaching the intersection. UDOT wanted to use this capability to get added values from their investment in the

    Advance sensors. The approach volume accuracy was analyzed with three factors: sensor position, number of approach lanes, and

    approach volume level. The results showed that the high accuracy is achieved when the number of approach lanes is low, or

    closer to one-lane, and the approach volume level is low. The overall range of accuracy for the approach volume counts was

    found to range from approximately 77.8% (22.2% undercount) to 105.7% (5.7% overcount). The accuracy of approach speeds

    was analyzed with two factors: the number of lanes and offset position of the lanes relative to the location of the speed gun. The

    offset position was first tested and found not to affect the accuracy of approach speeds. In general, the difference in means was

    approximately ±2 mph and was not considered practically significant. The 85th percentile speed for sites with more than 50

    samples were then evaluated. For these sites, the average difference in 85th percentile speed was -0.43 mph, the biggest negative

    difference being -1.6 mph, and the biggest positive difference being 1.5 mph. A Bootstrapping analysis was then performed to

    predict the expected distribution of speed differences in 85th percentile speeds. This analysis also showed the 85th percentile

    speeds by the LiDAR gun and the Advance sensor were not significantly different for practical traffic engineering applications.

  • Format:
  • Funding:
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Supporting Files:
    No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like:
Submit Feedback >