| Literature DB >> 25276861 |
Amir Falamarzi1, Muhamad Nazri Borhan1, Riza Atiq O K Rahmat2.
Abstract
Lack of traffic safety has become a serious issue in residential areas. In this paper, a web-based advisory expert system for the purpose of applying traffic calming strategies on residential streets is described because there currently lacks a structured framework for the implementation of such strategies. Developing an expert system can assist and advise engineers for dealing with traffic safety problems. This expert system is developed to fill the gap between the traffic safety experts and people who seek to employ traffic calming strategies including decision makers, engineers, and students. In order to build the expert system, examining sources related to traffic calming studies as well as interviewing with domain experts have been carried out. The system includes above 150 rules and 200 images for different types of measures. The system has three main functions including classifying traffic calming measures, prioritizing traffic calming strategies, and presenting solutions for different traffic safety problems. Verifying, validating processes, and comparing the system with similar works have shown that the system is consistent and acceptable for practical uses. Finally, some recommendations for improving the system are presented.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25276861 PMCID: PMC4171048 DOI: 10.1155/2014/757981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
List of major sources used in knowledge acquisition.
| Number | Title | Year | Publisher |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets [ | 2011 | AASHTO |
| 2 | The Handbook of Road Safety Measures [ | 2009 | Emerald |
| 3 | Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices | 2003 | FHWA |
| 4 | Traffic Calming: State of the Practice [ | 1999 | FHEA |
| 5 | TDM encyclopedia [ | 1999 | VTP |
| 6 | Alaska Traffic Calming Manual | 2001 | DOWL |
| 7 | Pennsylvania Traffic Calming Manual | 2001 | PDOT |
| 8 | Traffic Calming for Bus Routes | 2005 | TFL |
| 9 | International Approaches to Bicycles and Pedestrian Facility Design [ | 2006 | FHWA |
| 10 | A Guide to Managing Truck Traffic on Local Streets [ | 1985 | PVPC |
Figure 1The structure of CALMSYS.
Classification of traffic calming measures.
| Strategies | Measures |
|---|---|
| Vertical deflections | Speed bumps, speed humps, speed tables, speed cushion, rumble strips, and raised crosswalks/intersections |
| Horizontal deflections | Chicane, lateral shift, central chicane, and traffic circle |
| Narrowing | Choker, neck-down, road-diet, sidewalk widening, pedestrian refuge island, hatched marking, turn lane, and median |
| Pavement treatment | Brick paving, stone paving, and colored surface |
| Parking management | Parking restriction/prohibition, nonparallel parking |
| Volume control | Half closures, full closure, diagonal diverters, and turn prohibition |
| Streetscaping | Street furniture, tree planting, and gateway |
| Changes in speed limit | School zone, speed limit reduction, and truck speed limit |
| Enforcement | Police enforcement, increased punishment, and speed cameras |
| Special zones | Truck exclusion zone, shared space, pedestrian zone, and school zone |
| Traffic signs | Warning signs, regulatory signs, school signs, bicycle signs, pedestrian signs, residential signs, truck signs, special zone signs, and traffic calming signs |
| Improvement of street infrastructure | Crosswalk, sidewalk, bike lane, and street lighting |
| Network analysis | Changing street direction from one-way to two-way (or vice versa) and changing direction of a one-way street |
Results from the questionnaire about the importance of the parameters.
| Category | Parameters | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| Traffic parameters | Speeding in urban streets | 3.80 | 0.45 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 0.074 |
| Through traffic | 3.60 | 0.55 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.20 | 0.45 | 0.262 | |
| Accident rate | 4.20 | 0.84 | 3.80 | 0.84 | 4.00 | 0.71 | 0.735 | |
| Parking occupancy | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 4.00 | 0.70 | 0.679 | |
| Heavy vehicle | 4.40 | 0.55 | 4.00 | 0.70 | 4.00 | 0.70 | 0.557 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Geometric design parameters | Width of streets | 4.00 | 0.70 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 0.503 |
| Length of streets | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.00 | 0.70 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 0.420 | |
| Grade | 4.20 | 0.45 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 1.000 | |
| Curves | 4.40 | 0.55 | 4.00 | 0.71 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 0.503 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Infrastructure parameters | Sidewalk | 3.80 | 0.84 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 0.462 |
| Bike lane | 4.00 | 0.70 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.20 | 1.10 | 0.921 | |
| Crosswalk | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 0.516 | |
| Intersection | 4.20 | 0.84 | 3.80 | 0.84 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 0.691 | |
| Street lighting | 4.00 | 0.71 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 4.20 | 0.84 | 0.420 | |
| Bus stops | 4.00 | 0.00 | 3.80 | 0.84 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 0.284 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Land-use parameters | Density | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 0.641 |
| School | 4.40 | 0.89 | 3.60 | 0.89 | 4.00 | 0.70 | 0.351 | |
| Trip generators | 4.00 | 0.70 | 3.80 | 0.84 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 0.914 | |
| Residential complexes | 4.20 | 0.84 | 4.40 | 0.55 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 0.641 | |
Conditions of traffic safety parameters.
| Traffic safety parameters | Condition |
|---|---|
| Traffic speed | Speed differential more than 8 km/h |
| Through traffic | Thru traffic more than 50% of total traffic |
| Accident rate | Number of accident resulted from speeding more than three per year |
| Parking occupancy | Parking occupancy more than 50% in narrow street |
| Heavy vehicle | Heavy vehicle volume more than 25% of total traffic |
|
| |
| Width of streets | More than one on each direction or the width of traffic lanes more than 3 meters |
| Length of streets | Unimpeded length more than 200 m in local streets and 300 m in collector street |
| Grade | Grade more than 8% |
| Horizontal or vertical curves | Sharp curves or Visibility problems |
|
| |
| Sidewalk | No sidewalk or usable shoulders |
| Bike lane | No bike lane in street with cycle volume more than 200 per day |
| Crosswalk | Uncontrolled crosswalk with pedestrian volume more than 200 per day |
| Intersection | Uncontrolled intersections with speeding problems |
| Street lighting | No street lighting |
| Bus stops | Existence of bus stops |
|
| |
| Density | Residential areas with more than 90 dwelling units per hectare |
| School | Existence of primary schools or kindergartens |
| Trip generators | Existence of more than three major trip generators or commercial streets in 300 m length of a street |
| Residential complexes | Lack of safety measures |
Solutions for dealing with traffic safety problems.
| Problems | Solutions | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vert. def. | Hor. def. | Narrowing | Pavement treat. | Parking manag. | Volume control | Streetscaping | Spd. limit chang. | Enforcement | Special zones | Traffic signs | Network analysis | Infrast. develop. | |
| Speeding | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||
| Thru Tr. | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||||
| Accident | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| Parking | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||
| Trucks | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||||||
| Width | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||||
| Length | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||||||
| Grade | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||
| Curves | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||||
| Sidewalk | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||
| Bike lane | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||||
| Crosswalk | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||
| Uncon. inter. | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||
| St. lighting | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||||
| Bus stops | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||||
| Density | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||
| School | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | |||||
| Trip gen. | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||
| Res. complex | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ||||||||
Figure 2Hierarchical structure of the model.
Figure 3The composite priority weights of traffic calming strategies.
Figure 4A screenshot of the CALMSYS main menu.
A screenshot of the traffic calming strategies page.
| Strategy | Measure | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Vertical deflection | Speed bump | Making slow points on residential complexes |
| Speed hump | Making slow points on roadways | |
| Speed table | Making slow points on roadways | |
| Speed cushion | Making slow points on roadways suitable for bus routes | |
| Rumble strip | Alerting unaware drivers to the changes in traffic condition and environment | |
| Raised Crosswalk/intersection | Enforcing drivers to give way to pedestrians at crosswalks to intersections | |
|
| ||
| Horizontal deflection | Chicane | Making slow points on roadways |
| Lateral shift | Making slow points on roadways | |
| Center island Chicane | Making slow points on roadways | |
| Traffic circle | Making slow points at intersections | |
|
| ||
| Narrowing | Choker | Reducing the width of roadways at midblock locations |
| Bus bulb | Curb extension to improve the safety of passengers | |
| Neck-down | Reducing the width of roadways at intersections | |
| Road diet | Reducing the number of lanes and the effective width | |
| Sidewalk widening | Widening sidewalk to improve pedestrian activities | |
| Pedestrian refuge island | Improving the safety of pedestrian when crossing wide streets | |
| Hatched markings | Reducing the effective width of roadways | |
| Turn lane | Assigning a turn lane in the middle of roadways to reduce effective width of roadways | |
| Median | Constructing raised median to reduce the effective width of roadways | |
|
| ||
| Pavement treatment | Pavement treatment | Using alternative materials to alert drivers to changes in traffic condition and environment |
|
| ||
| Parking management | Parking Restriction/prohibition | Restricting or prohibiting on-street parking to improve the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road-users |
| Nonparallel parking | Different types of parking to reduce the effective width of roadways | |
|
| ||
| Volume control | Full closure | Closing streets to thru traffic |
| Half closure | Closing one-half of roadways | |
| Diagonal diverter | Managing streets to discourage thru traffic | |
| Turn prohibition | Closing streets at particular times to discourage thru traffic | |
|
| ||
| Streetscaping | Street furniture | Enhancing the social aspect of streets |
| Tree planting | Enhancing the environmental aspect of streets | |
| Gateway | Inform drivers about changes in traffic zone | |
|
| ||
| Changes to speed limit | Speed limit reduction | Reducing current speed limit |
| Heavy vehicle speed limit | Different speed limits for trucks | |
| School zone | Reducing speed limit at school times | |
|
| ||
| Network Analysis | Converting one-way to two-way | Reducing effective width of streets and encouraging drivers to lower their speed |
| Changing direction of streets | Managing streets to discourage thru traffic | |
Figure 5A screenshot of speed hump design.
Figure 6A screenshot of the problems and solutions page.
Figure 7A screenshot of the speeding problems page.
Figure 8A screenshot of the solutions for speeding page.
Figure 9A screenshot of the toolbox for prioritizing traffic calming strategies.
Experts' responses to the system verification questions.
| Questions for computer professionals | Scores | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Av. | |
| (1) The user interface is user friendly |
|
| 4.3 | |||
| (2) The system is easy to use |
|
| 4.67 | |||
| (3) The system runs commands quickly |
|
| 4.67 | |||
| (4) The system has no bugs |
|
| 4.3 | |||
| (5) The system has correct codes |
| 4 | ||||
| (6) Access to different parts of the system is easy |
|
| 4.67 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Questions for domain experts | Scores | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Av. | |
|
| ||||||
| (1) The user interface is user friendly |
|
| 4.67 | |||
| (2) The system is easy to use |
|
| 4.3 | |||
| (3) The system runs commands quickly |
|
| 4.3 | |||
| (4) The problems are well defined |
|
| 4.67 | |||
| (5) The solutions are clear |
|
| 4.3 | |||
| (6) Strategies are well organized |
|
| 4.67 | |||
| (7) Measures are well described |
|
| 4.67 | |||
| (8) The whole system is useful |
|
| 4.67 | |||
Summary of percentage of similarity between evaluators' responses and those of the system.
| Items | Similarity percentage |
|---|---|
| Function of TC measures | 75% |
| Suitable places for TC measures | 85% |
| Design process of TC measures | 65% |
| Prioritization of TC strategies | 60% |
| Solutions for safety problems | 70% |
|
| |
| Average | 71% |