Hız kesici tümseklerin toplu taşıma araçları üzerindeki etkileri

Abstract

Bu çalışmada 5, 10 ve 15 cm yüksekliklerdeki Hız Kesici Tümseklerin (HKT) toplu yolcu taşıma faaliyetlerinde sıklıkla kullanılan minibüs, midibüs ve otobüs sınıfındaki taşıtlar üzerinde hızı azaltma konusundaki performansları değerlendirilmiştir. HKT’lerin taşıt hızlarını azaltma konusundaki performansları, kamera görüntüleri aracılığıyla taşıtların mesafe ortalamalı hız değerleri okunarak araştırılmıştır. Öncelikle, HKT’lerin sürücülerin hızlarını azaltma konusunda etkilemediği bir mesafede taşıt hızları (Etkilenmemiş Hız, EH) belirlenmiştir. Hız azaltma performanslarını belirlemek amacıyla her bir HKT’den geçen taşıtların -60 m, -40 m, -20 m, 0 m (üzerinden geçişte), +20 m, +40 m ve +60 m’lerdeki hızları belirlenmiştir. Tüm hız ölçümleri Serbest Akım ve Doygun Akım olmak üzere iki faklı trafik akım rejiminde ayrı ayrı yapılmıştır. Hızlar ve EH’ya göre her bir noktadaki Yavaşlatma Oranı (YaO) değerleri grafikler yardımıyla görselleştirilerek sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Ayrıca, değerlendirilen her bir HKT için hız ölçülen farklı ölçüm noktaları arasında ve her bir hız ölçüm noktası için taşıt türleri arasında istatistik benzerlikler araştırılmıştır. Yalnızca sınırlı sayıda araştırmanın bulunduğu bu konuda literatüre katkı sağlanmıştır.

Keywords

• Trafik
• trafiği sakinleştirme
• hız kesici tümsek.

Effects of speed control undulations on public transport vehicles

Abstract

In this study, Speed Control Undulations (SCU) performance at heights of 5, 10, and 15 cm in reducing speed on a minibus, midibus, and bus type vehicles, which are frequently used in public passenger transportation activities, were evaluated. SCU's performance in reducing vehicle speeds was investigated by reading vehicle distance average speed values through video records. First, vehicle speeds (Unaffected Speed, US) are determined at a distance where the SCUs does not affect drivers to reduce their speed. To determine the speed reduction performances, the speeds of the vehicles passing through each SCU at -60 m, -40 m, -20 m, 0 m (passing over), +20 m, +40 m, and +60 m were determined. All speed measurements were made separately in two different traffic flow regimes, Free Flow and Saturated Flow. The rate of deceleration (RoD) values at each point according to speeds and SU were visualized with the help of graphs and the results were compared. In addition, statistical similarities were investigated between different speed measurement points for each evaluated SCU and between vehicle types for each speed measurement point. Contribution to the literature has been made on this subject, where only a limited number of studies are available.

Keywords

• Traffic
• traffic calming
• speed control undulation.

References

1. WHO., Global Status Report on Road Safety, 340, Italy: World Health Organization, (2015).
2. Antić, B., Pešić, D., Vujanić, M., ve Lipovac, K., The influence of speed bumps heights to the decrease of the vehicle speed – Belgrade experience, Safety Science, 57, 303-312, (2013).
3. OECD., Speed Management, 286, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris, France, (2006).
4. Chadda, H.S., E., C.S., Speed (Road) Bumps: Issues and Opinions, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 111, 4, 410-418, (1985).
5. Parkhill, M., Sooklall, R., ve Bahar, G., Updated guidelines for the design and application of speed humps, ITE 2007 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Pittsburgh, USA: Institute of Transportation Engineers, (2007).
6. Cottrell, W.D., Kim, N., Martin, P.T., Perrin, H.J.Jr., Effectiveness of traffic management in Salt Lake City, Utah. J Safety Res, 37, 1, 27-41, (2006).
7. Mak, K.K., A further note on undulation as a speed control device, Transportation Research Record, 1069, 13-20, (1986).
8. Vis, A.A., Dijkstra, A., Slop, M.. Safety effects of 30 km/h zones in the Netherlands, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 24, 1, 75-86, (1992).

9. Ewing, R., Impacts of traffic calming, Transportation Quarterly, 55, 1, 33-46, (2001).
10. Evans, D., Traffıc calming: The fırst fıve years and the oxfordshire experience. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 103, 1, 9-15, (1994).
11. Watts, G., Road humps for the control of vehicle speeds, Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, (1973).
12. Agerholm, N,, Knudsen, D., Variyeswaran, K., Speed-calming measures and their effect on driving speed – Test of a new technique measuring speeds based on GNSS data, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 263-270, (2017).
13. HCM., Highway capacity manual, Washington, DC: Transportation Reseach Board, (2000).
14. Weber, P.A., Braaksma, J.P., Towards a North American geometric design standard for speed humps, Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Journal, 70, 1, 30-34, (2000).
15. Pau, M,, Angius, S., Do speed bumps really decrease traffic speed? An Italian experience, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 585-597, (2001).
16. Ess, J., Antov, D., Unified methodology for estimating efficiency of traffic calming measures – example of Estonia, The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 11, 4, 259-265, (2016).
17. Özel Tüketim Vergisi (II) Sayılı Liste Uygulama Genel Tebliği. 29330. Ankara: Resmi Gazete; 18.04.2015.