Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T21:09:33.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vehicle Location Systems in Urban Traffic Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

Greg Marsden
Greg Marsden
Affiliation:
(University of Nottingham Transport Research Group)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This short paper discusses briefly the role of the current forms of bus priority used in the United Kingdom and how these strategies are incorporated within our urban traffic control systems.

The philosophy behind the SCOOT (Split, Cycle and Offset Optimization Technique) demand-responsive signal timings program is discussed, and the latest results from the bus priority trials carried out in London by the University of Southampton and London's Traffic Control Systems Unit (TCSU) are appraised. The system installed in London is compared with current dead reckoning vehicle location systems and the major differences highlighted.

Keywords

1. Land navigation.2. Urban traffic control.3. Traffic signalling.
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , May 1996 , pp. 203 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Hunt, P. B.Robertson, D. I.Bretherton, R. D. and Winton, R. I. (1981). SCOOT–A traffic responsive method of co-ordinating signals. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Environment, Department of Transport, TRRL Report No LR 1014. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.Google Scholar
2Robertson, D. I. (1969). TRANSYT: A traffic network study tool. Road Research Laboratory, Ministry of Transport, TRRL Report No. LR 253, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.Google Scholar
3Heyes, D. S. and Jenkins, R. (1980). Benefits from bus priority. Proceedings P.T.R.C. Summer Conference.Google Scholar
4Robertson, D. I. and Vincent, R. A. (1975). Bus priority in a network of fixed-time signals. Road Research Laboratory, Department of Environment. TRRL Report No. 666. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.Google Scholar
5Bell, M. C. and Bretherton, R. D. (1986). Ageing of fixed-time traffic signal plans. Department of Transport, TRRL Report No. LR 879. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.Google Scholar
6Hounsel, N. and Landles, J. (1995). Bus priority in SCOOT: Results of the PROMPT trials in London. Proceedings P.T.R.C Summer Conference, 1995.Google Scholar
7Bowers, D. J.Palmer, J. P. and Wall, G. T. (1995). Automatic incident detection and improved traffic control in urban areas. Proceedings P.T.R.C. Summer Conference, 1995.Google Scholar
8Carden, P. J. CHounsell, N. B.MacDonald, M. and Bretherton, R. (1989). The accuracy of SCOOT data. Department of Transport, TRL Contractor Report 153. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.Google Scholar