Active and Passive Bus Priority Strategies in Mixed Traffic Arterials Controlled by SCOOT Adaptive Signal System

Abstract

In recent years, bus priority techniques for signals controlled by traffic management centers have become a viable alternative to reduce passenger delays at signalized intersections, especially in mixed traffic corridors. However, before any bus signal priority strategy is deployed in such corridors, the impacts on the different users of the system should be evaluated. The main objective of this work was to assess the operational performance of passive and active bus priority techniques in fixed and real-time signal systems of one of the main arterial corridors in Fortaleza, Brazil. As a secondary objective, it also evaluated the operational benefits of a SCOOT adaptive signal control system, comparing it with well-adjusted fixed-time plans optimized by TRANSYT, for periods of medium and high traffic volumes. In the evaluation of alternative scenarios, the following performance measures were considered: vehicle delay and number of stops simulated by SCOOT, as well as bus and automobile travel times observed in the field during the operation of each scenario. The results did not favor the adoption of passive and active priority schemes in the studied corridor; this led to the conclusion that SCOOT's real-time control, programmed for a good signal progression of the general traffic (buses and automobiles), is the best signal control strategy for an arterial corridor similar to the one under analysis.

State‐of‐the‐art and ‐practice review of public transport priority strategies

“…[58,59]) into the new-generation signal controllers. It is also offered as complementary element of the well-known signal control strategies split cycle offset optimisation technique (SCOOT), Sydney coordinated adaptive traffic system (SCATS), realtime advanced priority and information delivery (RAPID), balancing adaptive network control method (BALANCE), microprocessor optimised vehicle actuation (MOVA), and traffic-responsive urban control (TUC): † SCOOT [60,61] grants priority according to a schedule-adherence condition, mainly via green extensions and stage recalls; recent versions allow also for stage skipping. † SCATS' [3,53,62] PT priority logic includes green extension, stage recall, introduction of special stages, stage skipping and stage reordering to serve late-running buses and trams [36].…”

An Improved Transit Signal Priority Strategy for Real-World Signal Controllers that Considers the Number of Bus Arrivals

“…Different active TSP strategies have a different impact on the TSP implementation efficiency [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Therefore, there are many studies that try to improve the TSP implementation efficiency for active TSP strategy.…”

“…With these conditional or partial priority improvements, the active TSP can significantly improve the bus travel times with little effect on crossing street delays. Secondly, the signal compensation strategy for non-priority approaches is considered after giving active TSP to buses [19,25,26]. With green time compensation, the service level of non-bus-priority approaches will be maintained at an acceptable level.…”

“…With green time compensation, the service level of non-bus-priority approaches will be maintained at an acceptable level. Thirdly, bus information, general vehicle information, arterial phase design, arterial signal timing, and green time compensation after giving active TSP to buses are considered to keep the arterial coordination control [21,25,27]. With the algorithm improvements, the active TSP can apply for arterial coordination control to meet the traffic demands of buses and general vehicles.…”

Bus Dwell Time Modeling Using Gene Expression Programming

“…Bus dwell time (BDT) is defined as the amount of time a bus spends at bus stops to serve passengers, including the total time spent to open and close the bus doors (Highway Research Board, 1965). A great proportion of transit travel time is contributed by dwell time for passengers boarding and alighting (Levinson, 1983;Oliveira et al, 2009). It has a significant influence on travel time variability (Mazloumi et al, 2010), headway regularity (Janos and Furth, 2001), and reliability of transit services (Bates et al, 2001).…”