Development of Composite Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions

  • Ammu GopalakrishnanEmail author
  • Sewa Ram
  • P. K. Sarkar
Original Article


Level of Service (LoS) is the easiest and widely used method for the assessment of quality of service provided to the road users. Depending upon the measure of LoS, appropriate actions may be initiated by the decision makers to enhance the better function of the system if necessary. But intersections are the critical location, where improvement measures for motorized vehicle users might affect the non-motorized vehicle users undesirably. This study focuses on controlled intersections and the efficiency measures of the signalized intersection. Many guidelines have provided the values of LoS of motorized and non-motorized traffic separately, even though they share the same space and time at the intersection. But to understand the efficiency of the whole intersection, all the users should be quantitatively measured with respect to a single unit. This research identifies performance parameters namely, vehicular volume, vehicular delay, pedestrian volume and pedestrian delay which directly influence the cycle time and the operating characteristics of signalized intersection. Empirical traffic models were developed between these performance measures and the best fit relationships were established. A Composite Level of Service (CLoS) which quantitatively measures all the users of an intersection irrespective of mode of transport is estimated using stopped delay of the motorized vehicles and pedestrians of the intersection. This CLoS helps to identify the efficiency of the whole signalized intersection in a single unit. The empirical models and CLoS was validated and application of this study was explained further using ground data.


Composite level of service Empirical models Cluster analysis Vehicular level of service Pedestrian level of service 



  1. 1.
    Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (2010) Highway capacity manual. Washington, D. C, pp 18.1–18.84Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Transportation Research Board (2000) National Research Council, Highway capacity manual. Washington, D. C, pp 16.1–16.37Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Indian Road Congress (1994) IRC:SP 41-1994. Guidelines for the design of At-grade intersections in rural and urban areas. New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Indian Roads Congress (1985) IRC: 93-1985. Guidelines on design and installation of road traffic signals. New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhuyan PK, Nayak MS (2013) A review on level of service analysis of urban streets. Trans Rev Transnatl Transdiscipl J 33(2):219–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tiwari G, Singh N, Fazio J, Khatoon M, Choudhary P (2011) Modification of a highway capacity manual model for evaluation of capacity and level of service at a signalized intersection in India. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud 9:1558–1571Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teply S, Allingham DI, Richardson DB, Stephenson BW, Gough JW (2008) Canadian capacity guide for signalized intersections, 3rd edn. Institute of Transportation Engineers, District 7—Canada. Transportation Association of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    State of Florida Department of Transportation, Systems Planning Office, Quality/level of service handbook. State of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Report 616 (2008) Multimodal level of service analysis for urban street. Transportation Research Board of the National Academics, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Directorate General of Highways, Ministry of Public Works (1993) Indonesian highway capacity manual. Part I urban roads, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Archana G, Reshma EK (2011) Analysis of pedestrian level of service for crosswalk at Intersections for urban condition. Int J Stud Res Technol Manag 1(06):604–609Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilke A, Ward J, McLaughlin S (2011) Improving pedestrian LOS at traffic signals. Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) transportation conference, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 0–12Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jensen SU (2007) Pedestrian and bicycle level of service on roadway segments. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2031:43–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JYS, Lam WHK, Tam ML (2005) Calibration of pedestrian simulation model for signalized crosswalk in Hong Kong. Proc East Asia Soc Transp Stud 5:1337–1351Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muraleetharan T, Adachi T, Hagiwara T, Kagaya S (2005) Method to determine pedestrian level-of-service for Crosswalks at urban intersections. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud 6:127–136Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh K, Jain PK (2011) Methods of assessing pedestrian level of service. J Eng Res Stud II(I):116–124Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang X, Tian Z (2010) Pedestrian delay at signalized intersections with a two-stage crossing design. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2173:133–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (2011) Annual report–National Transportation Planning and Research Centre. ThiruvananthapuramGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaipur Development Authority (2010) Comprehensive mobility plan for Jaipur, WilburSmith Associates, January 2010Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2015) Traffic management scheme for ITO intersection. New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Central Road Research Institute (2017) Indian highway capacity manual (INDO-HCM). Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). New Delhi, pp 6.1–6.43Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transport PlanningSchool of Planning and ArchitectureNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations