Useful estimation procedures for critical gaps

185Citations
Citations of this article
157Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Many different methods for the estimation of critical gaps at unsignalized intersections have been published in the international literature. This paper gives an overview of some of the more important methods. These methods are described by their characteristic properties. For comparison purposes a set of quality criteria has been formulated by which the usefulness of the different methods can be assessed. Among these one aspect seems to be of primary importance. This is the objective that the results of the estimation process should not depend on the traffic volume on the major street during the time of observation. Only if this condition is fulfilled, can the estimation be applied under all undersaturated traffic conditions at unsignalized intersections. To test the qualification of some of the estimation methods under this criterion, a series of comprehensive simulations has been performed. As a result, the maximum likelihood procedure (as it has been described by Troutbeck) and the method developed by Hewitt can be recommended for practical application ©.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A decision model for gap acceptance and capacity at intersections

111Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Factors influencing the probability of an incident at a junction: Results from an interactive driving simulator

108Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cellular automata simulation of traffic including cars and bicycles

98Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Brilon, W., Koenig, R., & Troutbeck, R. J. (1999). Useful estimation procedures for critical gaps. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 33(3–4), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0965-8564(98)00048-2

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 71

74%

Researcher 13

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 7

7%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 85

89%

Social Sciences 4

4%

Psychology 4

4%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 3

3%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free