Research Article
Signal Timing Optimization for Corridors with Multiple Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Using Genetic Algorithm
Table 8
Comparison of multiple run results between optimization and baseline scenarios.
(a) Average delay of 3 intersections near HRGCs. |
| | Number of trains | Simulation scenarios |
Average delay
(s/veh)
Baseline scenarios |
Average delay
(s/veh)
Optimization scenarios |
Difference (%) | | :
: |
| | 1 train in EB | Scenario 0-E-1 versus
scenario 1-E-1 | 60.27 | 48.30 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in EB | Scenario 0-E-3 versus
scenario 1-E-3 | 66.93 | 61.82 | | 0.01 | Reject | | 5 trains in EB | Scenario 0-E-5 versus
scenario 1-E-5 | 89.96 | 76.48 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 1 train in WB | Scenario 0-W-1 versus
scenario 1-W-1 | 62.73 | 51.86 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in WB | Scenario 0-W-3 versus
scenario 1-W-3 | 71.10 | 68.46 | | 0.07 | Accept | | 5 trains in WB | Scenario 0-W-5 versus
scenario 1-W-5 | 96.91 | 83.50 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 1 train in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-1 versus
scenario 1-B-1 | 68.28 | 57.27 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-3 versus
scenario 1-B-3 | 69.30 | 57.23 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 5 trains in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-5 versus
scenario 1-B-5 | 129.67 | 108.29 | | 0.00 | Reject |
| | Average | 79.46 | 68.14 | | | |
|
|
at the 5% significance level. |
(b) Average corridor delay. |
| | Number of trains | Simulation scenarios |
Average delay
(s/veh)
Baseline scenarios |
Average delay
(s/veh)
Optimization scenarios |
Difference (%) | | :
: |
| | 1 train in EB | Scenario 0-E-1 versus
scenario 1-E-1 | 72.57 | 65.12 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in EB | scenario 0-E-3 versus
Scenario 1-E-3 | 77.27 | 73.60 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 5 trains in EB | Scenario 0-E-5 versus
scenario 1-E-5 | 88.41 | 85.15 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 1 train in WB | Scenario 0-W-1 versus
scenario 1-W-1 | 74.77 | 69.90 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in WB | Scenario 0-W-3 versus
scenario 1-W-3 | 77.95 | 75.52 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 5 trains in WB | Scenario 0-W-5 versus
scenario 1-W-5 | 91.46 | 84.59 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 1 train in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-1 versus
scenario 1-B-1 | 77.27 | 66.30 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in EB &WB | Scenario 0-B-3 versus
scenario 1-B-3 | 86.12 | 70.56 | | 0.00 | Reject | | 5 trains in EB &WB | Scenario 0-B-5 versus
scenario 1-B-5 | 108.05 | 86.42 | | 0.00 | Reject |
| | Average | 83.76 | 75.24 | | | |
|
|
at the 5% significance level. |
(c) Average network delay. |
| | Number of trains | Simulation scenarios |
Average delay
(s/veh)
Baseline scenarios |
Average delay
(s/veh)
Optimization scenarios |
Difference (%) | | :
: |
| | 1 train in EB | Scenario 0-E-1 versus
scenario 1-E-1 | 325.51 | 356.70 | 9.6% | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in EB | Scenario 0-E-3 versus
scenario 1-E-3 | 346.20 | 375.99 | 8.6% | 0.00 | Reject | | 5 trains in EB | Scenario 0-E-5 versus
scenario 1-E-5 | 384.98 | 414.63 | 7.7% | 0.00 | Reject | | 1 train in WB | Scenario 0-W-1 versus
scenario 1-W-1 | 330.45 | 364.08 | 10.2% | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in WB | Scenario 0-W-3 versus
scenario 1-W-3 | 352.17 | 377.88 | 7.3% | 0.00 | Reject | | 5 trains in WB | Scenario 0-W-5 versus
scenario 1-W-5 | 403.77 | 429.83 | 6.5% | 0.00 | Reject | | 1 train in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-1 versus
scenario 1-B-1 | 335.90 | 358.91 | 6.8% | 0.00 | Reject | | 3 trains in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-3 versus
scenario 1-B-3 | 376.58 | 369.28 | | 0.03 | Reject | | 5 trains in EB & WB | Scenario 0-B-5 versus
scenario 1-B-5 | 472.22 | 450.10 | | 0.00 | Reject |
| | Average | 369.75 | 388.60 | 5.1% | | |
|
|
at the 5% significance level. |
