学术文献库

This study evaluated the performance of pedestrian-bicycle crossing alternatives at Continuous Flow Intersections (CFI). Further, a comparison was also performed of CFI crossing types against a standard intersection designed to provide an equivalent volume-to-capacity ratio. Three CFI crossing alternatives were tested, namely Traditional, Offset, and Midblock crossings. In total, 12 alternative scenarios were generated by incorporating two bicycle path types and two right-turn control types. These scenarios were analyzed through microsimulation on the basis of stopped delay and number of stops. Simulation results revealed that the Offset crossing alternative incurred the least stopped delay for all user classes, including motorized traffic. The Traditional crossing generated the least number of stops for most route types. The Midblock crossing can be considered as a supplement to either the Offset or Traditional crossing depending on the specific origin-destination patterns at the intersection. The exclusive bicycle path performed better than the shared-use path in most cases. When compared with an equivalent standard intersection, aggregated results showed significant improvement for all CFI crossing types with respect to stopped delay, but the standard intersection had an equal or fewer number of stops for most routes investigated. Regarding the effect on vehicular movement, the lowest volume-to-capacity ratio of the main intersection was incurred by the Offset crossing. Future research includes incorporating pedestrian-bicycle safety, comfort, and the relative effects of these crossing alternatives on additional vehicular performance measures.