2.2. luís gonçalo campos, paulo fernandes, margarida c. coelho
TRANSCRIPT
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 1
Safer cycling routes to the university: Analysis of conflicts between motor
vehicles and bicycles
Luís Gonçalo Campos, Paulo Fernandes, Margarida C. CoelhoUniversity of Aveiro, R&D Group on Transportation Technology, Centre for
Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA) / Department of Mechanical Engineering
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 2
IntroductionCyclists in cities?
Portugal recorded 7,697 accidents involving bicycles in 2010-2014 period, which resulted in 307 fatalities (ANSR, 2016)
The increasing number of bicycles on the road infrastructure causes more conflicts with motor vehicles;
An argument concerning the use of bicycles in cities deals with safety and concerns with the presence and unexpected behaviors of motorized users.
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 3
Objectives
How do the number of conflicts and the probability of collisions between vehicles and bicycles vary with different bicycle facilities, and variations in bicycle demands and speeds?
How do the design features of a specific bicycle route affect the spatial distribution of road safety indicators?
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 4
Methodology – Case Study
Source: https://maps.google.com/
Route A 2.4 km Route B 2.3 km Route C 3.95 km
Origin: Aveiro Train StationDestination: University of Aveiro (Rectory)
Origin
Destination
Origin
Destination
Origin
DestinationDedicate bicycle path
Route A
Dedicate bicycle path
Route B
Dedicate bicycle path
Route C
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 5
Methodology – Data Collection
• Traffic and Bicycle volumes;• Vehicle GPS traces;• Origin-Destination Matrices;• Road and Intersection
geometry.Dedicate
bicycle path Bicycle
counts point
Source: https://maps.google.com/
Origin
Destination
Morning peak conditions(7:30-9:00 a.m.)
780 vehicles13 cyclists
690 vehicles17 cyclists
630 vehicles25 cyclists
490 vehicles15 cyclists
650 vehicles25 cyclists
340 vehicles18 cyclists
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 6
Methodology – Traffic and Safety Modeling
• Time to Collision (TTC)• Post-Encroachment Time (PET);• Initial Deceleration Rate (DR);• Maximum speed (MaxS);• Maximum relative speed difference
(DeltaS);• Types and location of the conflicts.
SSAM Model
Vehicles Trajectories(Files *.trj)
• Car Fleet;• Bicycle Volumes;• Routes Definition;• Driving behavior patterns;• Speed and Acceleration;
Inputs(VISSIM)
• Delay• Vehicle
Stops
Traffic Outputs (VISSIM)
Safety Outputs (SSAM)
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 7
Methodology – Safety Modeling
If during an interaction TTC and PET drop below 1.5 s and 5.0 s
Types of Conflicts
if 0º < conflict angle < 30°
if 30º <conflict angle < 85°
if 85º <conflict angle < 180°
Rear endCrossing
Lane Changing
Conflict
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 8
Methodology – Alternative Scenarios
Baseline Network-specific traffic and bicycling demands
Scenario 1 (S1) Dedicated bicycle lanes along the entire routes and = number of bicycles;
Scenario 2 (S2) Increase the number of bicycles in 10x and = number of bicycles;
Scenario 3 (S3) Speed limit of 30 km/h on the roads alongside of routes and = number of bicycles.
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 9
Results – Traffic Performance
Baseline Scenario
S1 S2 S30
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
7072747678808284868890
Number of stops Number of Vehicles Delay
Num
ber o
f sto
ps
Dela
y [S
econ
ds]
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 10
Results – Number of Conflicts
Route Scenario Crossing Rear End Lane Change Total
A
Baseline 7.7 244.1 61.1 312.9S1 -3% -29% -23% -27%S2 -4% 17% 20% 17%S3 0% 1% -3% 0%
B
Baseline 7.7 244.1 61.1 312.9S1 -10% -29% -24% -28%S2 -6% 20% 22% 20%S3 1% 4% -4% 2%
C
Baseline 7.7 244.1 61.1 312.9S1 29% -5% -3% -4%S2 243% 12% 39% 19%S3 143% 28% 22% 27%
Lowest value among scenariosHighest value among scenarios
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 11
Results – Hotspot Conflicts LocationRoute A Route B Route C
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 12
Conclusions
S2 and S3 resulted in more delay and vehicles stops while S1 improved traffic performance compared to the baseline;
There was not a consensus about the safest route;
S1 reduced the number and the severity conflicts for all routes, but S3 was associated with the lowest severity of resulting crashes;
Hotspot conflicts locations were located near multi-lane roundabouts and signalized intersections.
Scientists for Cycling Colloquium November 17-19, 2016
01-05-2023 13
Transportation Technology Research Group - Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA), University of Aveiro,
Thank you for your attention.