Citation

Bunker JM. J. Adv. Transp. 2014; 48(6): 542-555.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Institute for Transportation, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/atr.1204

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Most unsignalised intersection capacity calculation procedures are based on gap acceptance models. Accuracy of critical gap estimation affects accuracy of capacity and delay estimation. Several methods have been published to estimate drivers' sample mean critical gap, the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) technique regarded as the most accurate. This study assesses three novel methods; Average Central Gap (ACG) method, Strength Weighted Central Gap method (SWCG), and Mode Central Gap method (MCG), against MLE for their fidelity in rendering true sample mean critical gaps. A Monte Carlo event based simulation model was used to draw the maximum rejected gap and accepted gap for each of a sample of 300 drivers across 32 simulation runs. Simulation mean critical gap is varied between 3s and 8s, while offered gap rate is varied between 0.05veh/s and 0.55veh/s. This study affirms that MLE provides a close to perfect fit to simulation mean critical gaps across a broad range of conditions. The MCG method also provides an almost perfect fit and has superior computational simplicity and efficiency to the MLE. The SWCG method performs robustly under high flows; however, poorly under low to moderate flows. Further research is recommended using field traffic data, under a variety of minor stream and major stream flow conditions for a variety of minor stream movement types, to compare critical gap estimates using MLE against MCG. Should the MCG method prove as robust as MLE, serious consideration should be given to its adoption to estimate critical gap parameters in guidelines. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Language: en