Comparative Evaluation of Delay Estimation

Using Models and By Using Sensor Data Under

Mixed Traffic Conditions
Abstract. Intersections are the most common places in a road network where
vehicles face significant delays while traveling. Traffic in developing nations
such as India is highly heterogeneous with poor lane discipline. As a conse-
quence, conventional delay estimation approaches developed for homogeneous
counterparts tend to provide erroneous results. This paper compares the delays
estimated by three different methods in addition to the delays estimated from
the Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) sensors. The delays were estimated at a
pre-timed signalized intersection under mixed traffic conditions. Based on the
results, it was observed that the delay estimated by RFID sensors best replicates
the actual delay computed using Simpson’s one-third rule. Mean Absolute Per-
centage Errors (MAPE) was observed to be 9.4 %, indicating a good estimation
of delay by this method. The delay estimation from models requires numerous
traffic variables that are often tedious to obtain from the field under mixed traf-
fic conditions. The delays estimated from sensor data in an automated manner
will help develop Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) strategies
for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) application in real-time under
mixed traffic conditions.

Keywords: RFID sensors, delay, mixed traffic conditions, HCM delay model,
Indo-HCM delay model, Modified HCM model, Simpson’s one-third rule.

1 Introduction

Traffic network performance measurement is key to determining the effectiveness of

investments made in urban traffic management and control infrastructure. Typically,
travel times and delays are the performance measures that are considered. The queue
and delay estimation have been carried out using various approaches such as plan-
ning-oriented approaches, operation-oriented approaches, delay estimation using
model-based schemes, HCM delay models, and its modifications and delay estimation
using probe vehicles.
Planning oriented approaches for intersection design are commonly performed of-
fline during the preliminary phase of the project. There have been several queuing
theory-based analytical methods [1-9] and shockwave-based methods [10-11]. These
planning-oriented approaches are widely used for offline signal timing optimization,
level of service estimation during the planning phase, turn bay sizing, etc. However,
these methods are not suitable for operational analysis that deals with real time data.
Operations-oriented approaches commonly use real-time traffic characteristics and
phase display information to estimate delay and queue lengths [12-14]. These real-
time measurements at intersections are made using an advance detector and stop bar
2

detector. These detectors provide presence-absence information from which a variety

of location-based information, such as vehicle count, headway, phase information,
etc., can be inferred. However, these methods do not explicitly incorporate the detec-
tor errors in the estimation schemes. Model-based estimation schemes address the
detector errors and develop sufficiently accurate estimation models to process the
location-based data into the spatial variables in real-time [15-18].
In the absence of sensor data, the most commonly used delay estimation models are
Webster’s delay model and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) model [19]. These
models were developed for homogeneous and lane-based traffic conditions. Modified
Webster’s method, [20] and Indo-HCM, [21] approach demonstrates delay estimation
models for mixed traffic conditions. [20] modified Webster's delay formula for non-
lane-based heterogeneous traffic conditions by introducing an additional adjustment
factor according to observed field delay. In the Indo-HCM method, the delay is esti-
mated by converting different vehicles into a single Passenger Car Unit (PCU). HCM
model was calibrated according to the mixed traffic condition, and a control delay
estimation model was developed. Numerous modifications have been made to HCM
delay models by various researchers in the past to determine delay under mixed traffic
conditions.
Different methods for determining the control delay at a signalized intersection were
compared by [22]. Field delay was estimated by using Simpson's one-third method
because of the non-uniform arrival pattern of vehicle. A new delay model was pro-
posed by considering the platoon ratio. Delay obtained from various models such as
the HCM model, Webster's model, proposed model, and modified Webster's model
were compared with the field delay. It was observed that the proposed model yielded
better results than other models. Different methods for determining the control delay
at a signalized intersection were compared by [23]. For the determination of field
delay, Simpson's one-third method is preferred since the arrival or departure rate of
the vehicle is not uniform. Various delay methods such as the HCM method, Web-
ster's delay methods, modified Webster's methods, etc. were compared with the actual
delay obtained from Simpson's method. A model was proposed by considering the
capacity, flow rate, and platoon ratio for the determination of delay for mixed traffic
conditions, which yielded better results. Different delay models such as the HCM
model, Webster's model, Reilly's delay model, and Canadian delay model were com-
pared by [24]. HCM control delay model was found to be in close agreement with the
observed delay of the study intersection. Adjustment factors were made to HCM
models for the representation of mixed traffic by considering stopped delay and con-
trol delay. Webster's delay model was modified by considering the Taylor series ex-
pansion and compared it with Webster's delay and field delay [25]. Passenger Car
units were adopted for the estimation of delay for different vehicle classes such as
two-wheeler, car, minibus, and buses. Based on the study results, it was observed that
modified Webster's delay model gave more accurate results than the conventional
Webster’s delay model. New delay estimation models were developed for signalized
intersections using a differential evolution algorithm that was better than analytical
delay models [26].
 3

Another popular means of estimating performance measures is by using probe vehi-

cles. In India, probe vehicles have been used to obtain GPS traces of vehicles that are
made to crisscross the network. However, there is wide variability in the data received
based on the driver's unique characteristics and a shallow sampling rate. Alternatively,
data from Google Maps is increasingly used. However, there can be wide variations in
the estimates as the sample size is unknown, and in the absence of an adequate sam-
ple, Google Maps uses historical averages. Data collection using Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) system [27], Bluetooth sensors [28-29], and Wi-Fi sensors [30]
would allow for identifying a large sample of vehicles across the network along with
their timestamps. A realistic picture of the network's performance can be obtained by
deploying these systems at all major junctions and matching the unique RFID tag
across multiple locations. A comparative study of delay estimation methods at signal-
ized intersections using Wi-Fi sensors, cumulative count curves and simulation was
made by [31]. It was observed that the Wi-Fi sensor-based delay estimate and
VISSIM based delay estimate were in close agreement. However, the cumulative
curve-based method overestimated delay when a lower volume traffic state followed a
period of higher volume traffic state.
Based on the literature review, it can be observed that numerous models were pro-
posed for delay estimation, including Webster’s model, Modified Webster’s models,
Reilly model, HCM model, etc., for analysis of delay in the traffic network. Several
modifications were proposed to the HCM model by researchers, such as [22], by con-
sidering various parameters such as platoon ratio, traffic flow rate, the capacity of
approach, etc. They were found to be effective in delay estimation under mixed traffic
conditions. Under Indian traffic conditions, which is highly heterogeneous with poor
lane discipline (referred to as mixed traffic conditions), the traffic variables required
for estimation models are commonly extracted from a recorded video feed, which is a
tedious and time-consuming process. Under such conditions, sensor data plays a vital
role in measuring the travel time or delay of vehicles in real-time in an automated
manner. The data obtained from these sensors can be analyzed and utilized to develop
efficient and reliable traffic management measures. Few studies have explored the
reliability of sensors such as RFID sensors, Bluetooth sensors, and Wi-Fi sensors as
data collection devices under mixed traffic conditions. The applicability of RFID
sensors for delay estimation under mixed traffic conditions has not been explored in
previous studies.
The study's objective is to identify the applicability of RFID sensors for delay estima-
tion under mixed traffic conditions. Specifically, the paper compares the delay esti-
mates from the 2010 version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Indo-HCM,
2017 model, and the delay model proposed by [22] (referred to as Modified HCM
model) in addition to the delays estimated from the RFID sensors at an approach of a
pre-timed signalized intersection. Simpson’s one-third rule was assumed to replicate
the actual delay of the intersection. Figure 1 shows the study methodology.
4

Figure 1 Study Methodology

2 Study Stretch and Data Collection

The road stretch, namely the Pattom - Plamoodu approach of a four-legged signalized
intersection at Pattom (Figure 2) in the Trivandrum district of Kerala, India, was se-
lected for the study. The approach is a four-lane road with a median and operated with
a pre-timed signal control. In this study, the delay of the study approach is estimated
from two methods (i) Using delay estimation models and (ii) Using travel time data
from RFID sensors.
 5

Figure 2. Map of study stretch showing the data collection points.

2.1 Data collection for delay estimation models

To evaluate delay using estimation models, data collection was carried out using vid-
eo graphics technique for 80 minutes from 2:50 PM to 4:10 PM on a typical weekday.
A video camera was positioned on a high-rise building near the intersection such that
the vehicles joining and exiting the queue from the approach were visible. Due to the
non-availability of any automated image processing solutions, data were extracted by
manual means for five seconds intervals to evaluate delay. A virtual trap extending
from the stop line up to 70 m upstream of the intersection covering the two lanes of
the approach under observation was considered for data extraction from the video
feed. The moment a vehicle enters the trap was considered its entry, and the moment
the vehicle completely crosses the stop line was considered the exit of that vehicle.
Data extracted include geometric details of intersection, vehicle arrival and departure
count at 5-second intervals, signal timings, traffic count (volume), saturation flow,
and capacity. The classified exit counts, such as right turns, U-turns, left turns, and
straight moving vehicles, were extracted separately. Five vehicle classes were consid-
ered, viz., Two-wheelers (TWs), Three wheelers (ThWs), cars, Heavy Motor Vehicles
(HMVs) (buses and trucks), and Light Motor Vehicles (LMVs). The common practice
to analyze mixed traffic flow is to convert all vehicles into the equivalent number of
Passenger Car Units (PCU). The arrival and departure count of vehicles were extract-
ed at five second intervals for every signal cycle.
A total of twenty cycles were analyzed to extract the required data. The arrival and
departure count were extracted for all the signal cycles in terms of the number of ve-
hicles. Based on the entry and exit of vehicles into and from the virtual trap in the
video feed, different vehicle classes' arrival and departure count were extracted at five
6

second intervals. They were converted to PCU units as suggested in Indo-HCM. The
number of vehicles in the queue in PCU units determined at five seconds was plotted
against cycle time to determine the actual delay.

2.2 Data collection using RFID sensors.

Measurement of travel time using RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) sensors is a

novel technology in the field of travel time studies. RFID sensors detect vehicles
which have RFID tags affixed to them. In India, RFID tags have been installed in cars
manufactured after the year 2014. For data collection, units comprising of an RFID
reader, Raspberry Pi, and GPRS connectivity (Figure 3) were deployed at the study
location. One set of data collection units was located at the downstream (stop bar) of
the intersection approach and the other at a distance of 70 m upstream of the intersec-
tion, as shown in Figure 2. Data was collected for the same duration as that of the
video graphic data collection.

Figure 3. Data collection unit

3 Data Extraction

The data obtained from the video feed and RFID sensors were extracted and analyzed
to receive the following information.

3.1 Data extraction from the video feed

Based on the analysis of the data extracted from the video feed, the following obser-
vations were made. The signal timings were 40 s green, 78 s red, and amber time of 2
s. The traffic flow rate of the study approach was observed to be 1342 PCU/hr. The
saturation flow, capacity, and degree of saturation were 4178 PCU/hr, 1393 PCU/hr,
and 0.97, respectively. The average platoon ratio was 1.05, with the percentage of the
vehicle during green of 33.33 % and percentage of green time as 35%. The analysis
period was 2 minutes, which is the cycle time of the signal.
 7

A traffic composition analysis (Figure 4) was carried out to identify the percentage
composition of cars installed with RFID tags in the traffic stream by comparing the
video feed data and the data from RFID sensors. It can be observed that motorized
two-wheelers constituted the significant portion (about an average of 45%) of the total
traffic, followed by 17% of non-RFID cars and motorized three-wheelers and 12% of
RFID cars. The proportion of heavy vehicles such as buses and trucks constituted less
than 5% of the traffic volume. The proportion of cars with RFID tags included 12%,
indicating that the composition of RFID cars in the traffic stream provides a realistic
sample to replicate the delay of the traffic stream.
3% 1%
5%

12%
45%
17%

17%

Two-wheeler Three-wheeler Non-RFID Cars

RFID cars Bus LCV
HCV
Figure 4. Traffic composition of vehicles

3.2 Data extraction from RFID sensors

RFID sensors detect the unique ID of vehicles with RFID tags in the traffic stream
along with the timestamp at which they were detected and sends it to a cloud-based
server called Traffic Intelligence Server (TIS), [32]. It is a logical server built, hosted,
and delivered through a cloud platform over the internet. It has the properties and
functionality of a typical server but can be accessed remotely from a cloud service
provider. The recorded data are sent to the database through 4G connectivity. The
data can be accessed by logging on to the TIS by using a unique user ID and pass-
word.
The matching of unique IDs of a vehicle at the two locations and finding the differ-
ence between their timestamps at the two locations would yield the travel time be-
tween the two locations. The same RFID tag would repeatedly get detected by a par-
ticular RFID sensor as long as the vehicle is in the sensor's vicinity. In such cases, the
timestamp corresponding to the first detection was used at the upstream location. The
timestamp corresponding to the last detection was used for the downstream (stop bar)
location to calculate travel time. The free flow travel times of vehicles were subtract-
8

ed from the actual travel time obtained by RFID sensors to compute the delay experi-
enced by each of the detected vehicles. For data analysis, the data recorded in TIS was
downloaded in Microsoft excel format. The data included the unique ID of RFID tags
of the cars in the vehicle stream and the time at which these IDs were detected. The
raw data from RFID sensors are as shown in Figure 5. Table 1 indicates the descrip-
tive statistics of the delay estimated from RFID sensors.

Figure 5. A detector data report from TIS

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of delay from RFID sensors

Descriptive Statistics Delay (sec/PCU)

Mean 28

Standard Error 0.74

Standard Deviation 3.24

Sample Variance 10.49

Count 20

Penetration rate and match rate were calculated to evaluate the suitability of RFID
sensors for data collection under mixed traffic conditions. The penetration rate of the
 9

sensors indicates the percentage of vehicles identified by the sensor concerning all
vehicles in the traffic stream and for cars only using Eq. (1) and (2).
𝑁
Penetration rate with respect to all vehicles = 𝑠 (1)
𝑉
where Ns = Total number of vehicles detected by the sensor,
V = Total number of vehicles in the traffic stream, including cars
𝑁
Penetration rate with respect to cars = 𝑠 (2)
𝑉𝑐
where Vc = Total number of cars.
The average penetration rate of the RFID sensor was 11.9 % for the total vehicles in
the traffic stream and 40.0 % for the cars. This indicates the capability of RFID sen-
sors in detecting the RFID tags of cars in the traffic stream and hence can be used as a
data collection device for mixed traffic conditions.
The match rate was determined using Eq. (3) to check the percentage of vehicles be-
ing matched at the two points along the selected road stretch using Eq. (3)
𝑁
Match Rate, MR= 𝑀 (3)
𝑁𝑠
where Nm = number of vehicles matched.
The match rate was observed to be 42%, indicating the potential of using RFID for
delay measurement.

4 Data Analysis and Results

Simpson’s one-third rule that provides area between the number of vehicles in queue
and time of individual cycle was used to determine actual delay. The number of vehi-
cles in the queue in PCU units was determined at five-second intervals, and the queue
was plotted against cycle time. The Input-Output method [33] was used to determine
the queue at the end of a five-second interval for every signal cycle. The initial vehi-
cles in the queue between the entry and exit were first counted. To this count, vehicles
continuing to enter the section were added, and those leaving the section were contin-
ually subtracted to obtain the number of vehicles in the queue at any point in time.
After constructing the queue accumulation curve, the area under the curve was calcu-
lated to determine the total delay of that cycle in seconds. The average delay of indi-
vidual vehicles was obtained by dividing the total delay by the total number of vehi-
cles arriving in a cycle. Based on this, the field delay was determined to be on an
average of 31.8 sec/PCU for the approach under consideration.

4.1 Delay Estimation Models

In the absence of sensors, delay estimation is often carried out using delay estimation
models. The HCM model, Indo-HCM model, and Modified HCM model were evalu-
ated to identify a suitable estimation model for mixed traffic conditions. These models
use flow rate (V), capacity(c), V/c ratio (X), effective green ratio (g/C), analysis peri-
od (T), and platoon ratio (𝑅𝑝 ) for estimation of delay.
HCM 2010 calculates the average control delay per vehicle (dc) as per Eq. (4)
𝑑𝑐 = 𝑑1 (𝑃𝐹) + 𝑑2 + 𝑑3 (4)
10

where 𝑑1 = Uniform control delay assuming uniform arrival

𝑔 2
[(1− ) ]
𝐶
𝑑1 = 0.5 × 𝐶 𝑔 (5)
{1−[min (𝑋,1)× }
𝐶
PF = Progression adjustment factor, which accounts for effects of signal progression
(1−P)fp
PF= g (6)
1−
C
𝑓𝑝 = Supplemental adjustment factor for platoon arriving during green
𝑑2 = Incremental delay to account for the effect of random arrivals and observations
assuming no initial queue at the start of analysis period and calculated by using Eq.
(7)
8𝐾𝐼𝑋
𝑑2 = 900𝑇[(𝑋 − 1) + √(𝑋 − 1)2 + (7)
𝑐𝑇
where K= Incremental delay factor (0.5 for pre-timed signals) and I = upstream filter-
ing adjustment factor (1 for an isolated intersection), and P is the proportion of vehi-
cle arriving during the green time interval.
𝑑3 =Initial queue delay, it is assumed to be zero.
Indo HCM calculates the average control delay per vehicle (d) as per Eq. (8). The
HCM 2010 delay model is calibrated to estimate the value of PF. The calibration re-
sulted in an equivalent progression adjustment factor of 0.9.
d = 0.9𝑑1 + 𝑑2 + 𝑑3 (8)
𝑑1 and 𝑑2 are computed by using Eq. (5) and (7), respectively.
[22] modified HCM delay equation by considering the Platoon ratio. The model was
developed based on the assumption that the incremental delay of vehicles at the sig-
nalized intersection is primarily attributable to the arrival pattern of the platoon. The
developed model calculates the delay by Eq. (9)
𝑑 = 𝑑1 + 6.23 − 15.35 × 𝑅𝑝 (9)
where d1 was computed by using Eq. (5).
The delays for every signal cycle were computed and based on the analysis, it was
observed that the average delay calculated using the HCM model and Indo-HCM
model were 46.43 sec/PCU and 43 sec/PCU, respectively, indicating an overestima-
tion of delay. The average delay obtained using the Modified HCM model was 29
sec/PCU indicating a perfect match with the field delay. Figure 6 compares delays
estimated by the HCM model, Indo-HCM model, and Modified HCM model with
actual delay.
The Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) as given by Eq. (10) was used as a
performance measure to determine the accuracy of the methods.
1 |𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠 (𝑘)− 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡 (𝑘)|
𝑀𝐴𝑃𝐸 = ( ∑𝑁 𝑖=1 (𝑘)
) × 100 (10)
𝑁 𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠

where dmeas(k) and dest(k) are the measured and estimated delay of the intersection
approach during the kth signal cycle, with N being the total number of cycles. Ac-
cording to Lewis' scale of the judgment of forecasting accuracy, any forecast with a
MAPE value of less than 10 % can be considered highly accurate, 11%-20% is good,
and 21% - 50% is reasonable, and 51% or more is inaccurate [34]. The MAPE for
delay estimation was 51.5 %, 41.9 %, and 12.2 %, respectively, respectively, for the
HCM model, Indo-HCM model, and Modified HCM model [22], indicating lesser
 11

accuracy of HCM and Indo-HCM model and good accuracy for the Modified HCM
model [22]. The HCM delay model for uniform control delay in Eq. (5) applies to
protected movements in exclusive lanes. This may be the reason that HCM is not a
good predictor of delay under mixed traffic conditions.
HCM Delay Indo-HCM delay

60 Modified HCM Delay Actual Delay

50
Delay (sec/PCU)

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cycle Number

Figure 6. Comparison of delay estimated by various methods.

4.2 Delay computation from RFID sensors

Delay computation from RFID sensors was carried out by matching the unique IDs
detected by the sensors located at the upstream and downstream of the intersection
approach. The average travel time for the matched vehicles was found to be 35.8 sec-
onds. The average approach delay was then computed as the difference of actual trav-
el time and free-flow travel time as 30.8 sec/PCU, which is in close agreement with
the field delay. Figure 7 shows the comparison of the delay obtained from RFID sen-
sors with actual delay. The MAPE was 9.4 %, indicating that the delay obtained from
RFID sensors is in close agreement with the field delay.

5 Comparison Between Delay Estimation Methods

The field delay was compared with the delay obtained from the various models as
shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that the HCM model and Indo-HCM model overes-
timates delay, and the delay obtained from the modified HCM model [22] for mixed
traffic conditions and RFID sensors are in close agreement with the field delay. The
MAPE obtained for the HCM model, Indo-HCM model, Modified HCM model, and
RFID sensors were 51.5%, 41.9%, 12.2%, and 9.4%, indicating the applicability of
12

RFID sensors as a reliable data collection method under mixed traffic conditions.
RFID delay Actual Delay

50
Delay (sec/PCU)

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cycle Number

Figure 7. Comparison of delay estimated by RFID sensors with field delay

60
Actual Delay

50

HCM Delay
40
Delay (sec/PCU)

30 Indo-HCM
Delay
20
Saha Model
10

RFID Delay
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Cycle Number

Figure 8. Comparison of delay by different methods

6 Conclusions

Intersections are the most common places in a road network where vehicles face sig-
nificant delays while traveling. Traffic in developing nations is mixed in nature, and
lane discipline is poorly maintained. As a consequence, conventional approaches tend
to provide erroneous results. In this study, vehicle arrival and departure were ob-
served from the field at an interval of five seconds to develop a queue accumulation
 13

curve for every signal cycle, and delay was determined using Simpson’s one-third
rule. The field delay was compared with delay obtained from RFID sensors. It was
observed that the delay estimated was in close agreement with the field delay indicat-
ing the applicability of RFID sensors for delay estimation under mixed traffic condi-
tions. However, the delay estimated by HCM and Indo-HCM models indicated an
overestimation of delay. The modified HCM model for mixed traffic conditions was
found to estimate delay accurately. For operational analysis of intersections, the delay
measurement using RFID sensors can be used where sensors are available for data
collection, and delay estimated by Modified HCM model can be used at places where
sensors are not available. The delays estimated by these methods are comparable and
can be used to evaluate the performance of signalized intersections. The delays esti-
mated using sensors in an automated manner will help develop Advanced Traffic
Management Systems (ATMS) strategies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
application under mixed traffic conditions.

Scope For Future Work

The study results were developed for the traffic scenario where the queue formed
during the red period is within the detector located upstream of the intersection. How-
ever, for scenarios where queue extends the upstream detector, estimation models can
be developed that utilize the sensor data for delay estimation, or suitable delay estima-
tion methods can be identified for mixed traffic conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support for this study by Transportation Research Cen-
tre (TRC) set up at College of Engineering, Trivandrum, Kerala through State Budget
allotment 2016-17 by the Kerala Government vide letter no. L4/30202/16/DTE dated
23/09/2016.

References
1. Webster, F. V. (1958) Traffic Signal Settings. Road Research Laboratory, Paper No. 39,
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, England.
2. Akçelik, R., 1980. Time-dependent expressions for the delay, stop rate and queue length at
traffic signals. Australian Road Research Board, Internal Report, AIR 367-1
3. Akcelik, R. (1981) Traffic Signals: Capacity and Timing Analysis, Australian Road Re-
search Board, Research Report 123, Melbourne, Australia
4. Viti, F. and van Zuylen, H.J., 2004. Modeling queues at signalized intersec-
tions. Transportation Research Record, 1883(1), pp.68-77.
5. Viti, F. and Van Zuylen, H.J., 2010. Probabilistic models for queues at fixed control sig-
nals. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(1), pp.120-135.
6. Highway Capacity Manual (2000) Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC.
14

7. Mulandi, J. and Martin, P.T., 2011. Modifications to the incremental queue accumulation
method for complex left turn phasing. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research.
8. M. Keita, Y. and Saito, M., 2011. Remote data collection for the IQA delay estimation
method. In Transportation and Development Institute Congress 2011: Integrated Transpor-
tation and Development for a Better Tomorrow (pp. 142-151).
9. Cheng, Y., Qin, X., Jin, J., Ran, B. and Anderson, J., 2011. Cycle-by-cycle queue length
estimation for signalized intersections using sampled trajectory data. Transportation re-
search record, 2257(1), pp.87-94.
10. Lighthill, M.J. and Whitham, G.B., 1955. On kinematic waves II. A theory of traffic flow
on long crowded roads. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathemati-
cal and Physical Sciences, 229(1178), pp.317-345.
11. Richards, P.I., 1956. Shock waves on the highway. Operations research, 4(1), pp.42-51.
12. Sharma, A., Bullock, D.M. and Bonneson, J.A., 2007. Input–output and hybrid techniques
for real-time prediction of delay and maximum queue length at signalized intersec-
tions. Transportation Research Record, 2035(1), pp.69-80.
13. Chang, J., M. Talas and S. Muthuswamy (2012) A simple methodology to estimate queue
lengths at signalized intersections using detector data. Proceedings of the 91th Annual
Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
14. Qian, G., Lee, J. and Chung, E., 2012. Algorithm for queue estimation with loop detector
of time occupancy in off-ramps on signalized motorways. Transportation research rec-
ord, 2278(1), pp.50-56.
15. Vigos, G. and Papageorgiou, M., 2010. A simplified estimation scheme for the number of
vehicles in signalized links. IEEE Transactions on intelligent transportation sys-
tems, 11(2), pp.312-321.
16. Lee, J., Jiang, R. and Chung, E., 2013. A Kalman filter based queue estimation algorithm
using time occupancies for motorway on-ramps. Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
17. Anusha, S.P., Sharma, A., Vanajakshi, L., Subramanian, S.C. and Rilett, L.R., 2016. Mod-
el-based approach for queue and delay estimation at signalized intersections with errone-
ous automated data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 142(5), p.04016013.
18. Anusha, S.P., Vanajakshi, L., Subramanian, S.C. and Rilett, L., 2017. Cycle-by-Cycle
Analysis of Signalized Intersections for Varying Traffic Conditions with Erroneous Detec-
tor Data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, 143(8), p.04017033.
19. TRB (Transportation Research Board), Highway Capacity Manual - 2010, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, 2010
20. Raval, N. G., and Gundaliya, P. J. (2012). “Modification of Webster’s delay formula using
modified saturation flow model for non-lane based heterogeneous traffic condition.”
Highway Res. J., New Delhi, 5(1), 41–47.
21. Indo-HCM, 2017. Indian highway capacity manual (Indo-HCM).
22. Saha, A., Chandra, S. and Ghosh, I., 2017. Delay at signalized intersections under mixed
traffic conditions. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, 143(8),
p.04017041.
23. Sharma, R., Patel, P., Umrigar, N. and Zala, L.B., 2018. Delay estimation at signalized in-
tersections under heterogeneous traffic conditions. International research journal of engi-
neering and technology (IRJET).
24. Othayoth, D. and Rao, K.K., 2018. Estimation of Stopped Delay to Control Delay Conver-
sion Factor and Development of Delay Model for Non-lane Based Heterogeneous Traf-
fic. European Transport-Trasporti Europei, 69, pp.1-21.
 15

25. Minh, C. C., T. H. Binh, T. T. Mai and K. Sano (2009) The Delay Estimation under Heter-
ogeneous Traffic Conditions, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Stud-
ies, 7.
26. Korkmaz, E. and AKGÜNGÖR, A.P., 2017. Delay estimation models for signalized inter-
sections using differential evolution algorithm. Journal of Engineering Research, 5(3).
27. Jayan, A. and Anusha, S.P., 2019. Evaluation of Effectiveness of RFID and Bluetooth
Sensors for Travel Time Studies under Mixed Traffic Conditions (No. 19-04397).
28. Abbas, M., Rajasekhar, L., Gharat, A. and Dunning, J.P., 2013. Microscopic modeling of
control delay at signalized intersections based on Bluetooth data. Journal of Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 17(2), pp.110-122.
29. Mathew, J.K., Devi, V.L., Bullock, D.M. and Sharma, A., 2016. Investigation of the use of
Bluetooth sensors for travel time studies under Indian conditions. Transportation Research
Procedia, 17(December 2014), pp.213-222.
30. Gore, N., Arkatkar, S., Joshi, G. and Bhaskar, A., 2019. Exploring credentials of Wi-Fi
sensors as a complementary transport data: an Indian experience. IET Intelligent Transport
Systems, 13(12), pp.1860-1869.
31. Khadhir, A., Himabindu, M., Sreedhar, S., Chilukuri, B.R. and Vanajakshi, L., 2018. A
Comparative Study of Delay Estimation Methods at Signalized Intersections. Third Na-
tional Conference on Recent Advances in Traffic Engineering (RATE).
32. Traffic Intelligence Server, ITS Planners and Engineers, Hyderabad, India
33. May, A.D., 1990. Traffic Flow Fundamentals Prentice Hall. Inc. Ebglewood Clieffs, NJ,
USA.
34. Klimberg, R. K., Sillup, G. P., Boyle K. J. and and Tavva V. (2010) Advances in business
and management forecasting. Emerald books, UK.