Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
= standard speed deviation of element 1 and 2.
The steadily accepted measure 85( V ) is quite different
from
85
V in that 85( V ) first does the subtraction based on
paired individual vehicle speed, and then calculates the 85
th
percentile value from the subtraction set. The static 85
th
percentile value is the speed differential that 85% vehicles do
not exceed. This measure allows dependency between speeds
GUO Tangyi et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2010, 10(6), 7681
of an individual vehicle over two successive elements.
85( V ) can be expressed as:
1 2 |0.85|
1 2 |0.85|
2 2
1 2 1 2
85( ) ( )
( )
2cov( , )
V V V
Z
V V
=
= +
+
(2)
where cov(V
1
, V
2
)= the covariance term that reflects the
correlation between V
1
and V
2
. Other variables have the same
meaning as in Eq. (1).
Define as the correlation coefficient between V
1
and V
2
.
possesses the following property:
1 2
1 2
cov( , )
| | 1
V V
=
or
1 2 1 2 1 2
cov( , ) V V (3)
If V
1
and V
2
are independent, then =0; if V
1
and V
2
are
positively (negatively) correlated, then =1 (-1). According to
Eq. (3),
1 2 1 2 1 2
2 2cov( , ) 2 V V
2 2 2 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 2cov( , ) V V + +
1 2
( )
2 2
1 2 1 2
2cov( , ) V V +
V
85
85( V )
The fundamental difference between
85
V and 85( V ) is
that 85( V ) rather than
85
V allows dependency between
V
1
and V
2
over two elements. In reality, the speed distribution
is not necessarily normally distributed. Speed varies from
tangent to curve due to different alignments, and varies from
one drivers habit to anothers due to their diverging personal
characteristics (e.g. age, gender, trip purpose, fatigue). Last
but not least, vehicle attributes (make, model, delivery
capacity) have noticeable effect on operating speed. Thus, the
85
th
percentile driver at the upper element is not necessarily
the same as the 85
th
percentile driver at the following element.
So a simple subtraction of the two operating speeds is
arbitrary. As alternatives, McFadden et al. (2000) suggested
85MSR and P. Misaghi et al. (2005) recommended 85( V ) to
evaluate the design consistency
[10]
. Previous researches mainly
focus on two-lane rural highways, rare has been found for
freeway exit ramps. In this paper, we introduced a new
measure, the individual speed reduction rate 85( V )R, to
appraise the safety performance of freeway exit ramp. This
measure considers not only the individual speed and aggregate
speed, but also the base speed on upstream element.
3 Data Collection
3.1 Exiting Behavior Analysis
The traffic stream approaching freeway exit becomes two,
one driving straight along the mainline and the other leaving
the mainline through the exit. The speed of straight flow
decreases slightly near the deceleration lane and then
increases to their desired driving speed after they pass the exit
taper. The speed of exiting flow begins to decrease when they
see the exit sign. Drivers may continue to slow down to adjust
to the change of curvature and super elevation on ramps. The
speed changing profile is illustrated in Fig. 2. The entire
exiting process can be divided into five stages.
In stage 1, drivers drive at their desired operating speed V
0
on freeway.
At the end of stage 1 and the beginning of stage 2, exiting
drivers see the exit sign or the deceleration lane and then
begin to take lane-changing action to move onto the
deceleration lane. During this process, drivers may reduce
their speed to obtain a safe and comfortable driving workload.
In stage 3, the speed of exiting traffic decreases steadily
from V
0
to V
1
, the speed at the beginning of ramp.
In stage 4, speed continues to decrease and reaches the
speed at the middle of the curve.
In the last stage, drivers adjust their speeds to coordinate
with speed V
2
on crossing roads.
3.2 Investigation Plan
The study area is divided into four segments: freeway
section, deceleration lane, upper ramp, lower ramp. The
procedure for collecting individual point speed is designed as
follows:
(1) Pre-investigation: search the candidate exits on Google
Earth. Remove the sites that do not meet the criteria. Shot the
individual speed of exiting vehicles with radar guns at the
locations form to , as shown in Fig. 2.
(2) Observer assignment: assign two observers at each
location. The radar-gun holder is in charge of taking speed,
remembering the last three digits of the plate number, and
informing his partner of these information immediately. The
observers are hidden to minimize the effect of their presence
on passing vehicles.
(3) Record match: The last three digits are for record match.
The record is valid if and only if the observation that has the
same three digits recorded at the four locations. Otherwise, it
is a mismatch, which should be discarded.
37 freeway exits were selected for the data collection,
through which we obtained both the individual speed and the
operating speed for each segment. After removing 766
mismatch record, a total of 6 972 individual speeds were
collected, 189 for each site on an average. Meanwhile, 829
records of heavy vehicles, 22 for each exit, were also
collected.
4 Model
Totally 37 exit ramps were investigated, among which 30
are for modeling and the remaining 7 for validation. Site
selection and model development are based on the following
assumption: (1) the state of exiting traffic is free-flow or
pseudo-free-flow, among which the interference is minor; (2)
The sight condition is good, so as not to cause abrupt driving
behavior; (3) Roads are asphalt paved and dry, with a grade
less than 5%; (4) only one lane on ramp; and (5) the
deceleration type is direct as shown in Fig. 2, without
paralleled type.
GUO Tangyi et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2010, 10(6), 7681
I, II, III, IV, V: Driving stages for exiting traffic : Speed profile for exiting traffic
Speed profile for through traffic on mainline , , , : Speed taking point
Fig. 2 Diagram of driving stages and speed profile during exiting
Table 2 Models of V
85
and 85( V ) on different elements
Predictor Model R
2
Variable explanation
Decel. Lane: V
85_0
=-62.642+2.021V
85_FW
-0.215L
DL
+0.073SL
RP
0.993
Upper Ramp: V
85_1
=56.735-1312.095/R
1
0.946
Operating
speed V
85
Lower Ramp: V
85_2
=53.590-1174.699/R
2
0.867
FM-DL: 85(V)
_0
=61.597-1.032V
85_FW
+0.245L
DL
0.884
DL-UR: 85(V)
_1
=24.085-0.010R
1
-1.921D
1
0.845
Speed differential
85(V)
UR-LR: 85(V)
_2
=5.092+1578.647|1/R
1
-1/R
2
| 0.779
V
85_FW
: V
85
on mainline
L
DL
: length of deceleration lane
SL
RP
: post speed on ramp
R
1
: radius of upper ramp
R
2
: radius of lower ramp
D
1
:deflection of upper ramp
The operating speed differential can be obtained by simply
subtract the operating speed on successive elements. Taking
ramp length, ramp radius and base speed on upstream element
into consideration, the models for operating speed, and the
85
th
percentile individual speed reduction are developed as in
Table 2.
According to our survey, the operating speed on freeway
mainline is about 10 km/h higher than the post speed. So the
base speed on freeway mainline can be replaced by 1.10 times
of post speed. The models in Table 2 are validated using the
data of the remaining 7 exit ramps. Results show that the
model fit the data well under the confidence level of 90%.
5 Safety Evaluation
The speed reduction on the linkage of deceleration
lane-upper ramp is larger than that on the linkage of upper
ramp-lower ramp. However, this is not a necessary indication
that the latter linkage is safer, as the base speed on the
upstream element is different. Take the following case for
instance. Case A: Speed reduces from 60 km/h on deceleration
lane to 45 km/h on ramp. Case B: On an urban arterial, speed
reduces from 40 km/h on a tangent to 25 km/h on a curve. In
both cases, the absolute speed reductions are the same (15
km/h). The speed reduced by 25% in case A compared with
37.5% in case B. One can see that drivers on the arterial need
to take more driving workload to reach their desired comfort
and safety. From this point of view, Case B may be dangerous.
To consider base speed, we use the 85
th
percentile speed
reduction rate 85(V)R as safety evaluation measure. 85(V)R
is computed dividing the 85
th
percentile speed reduction
85(V) by the base speed on upstream element. The criterion
is given in Table 3.
Table 3 Safety evaluation criterion based speed reduction ratio
Measures Criterion Safety level
20% Good
20~40 % Fair
(V
85-1
-V
85-2
)/ V
85-1
(V
85
-V
D
)/V
85
(V
1
-V
2
)/V
1
40 % Poor
According to Tables 1 and 3, we can appraise the safety
level of the 37 exits by means of V
85
, 85(V) and 85(V)R.
To show all the results of the three measures in one figure, we
halved the value of 85(V)R. Take the linkage of freeway
mainline-deceleration lane as an example. The safety level
evaluated using three different measures are distributed in
three safety zones, namely, Safe Zone, Fair Zone and Poor
Zone, as shown in Fig. 3. It also shows the relationship
between V
85
and 85(V), which indicating the overestimation
of conventional measure V
85
.
GUO Tangyi et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2010, 10(6), 7681
Fig. 3 Safety zone distribution (freeway mainline-deceleration lane
linkage)
From Fig. 3, and our data analysis, we can draw the
following conclusions: (1) Two lines, 10 km/h (20%) and 20
km/h (40%) divide the zone into three levels, Safe Zone, Fair
Zone and Poor Zone. (2) There are 20 consistent evaluation
results from the three different measures for freeway
mainline-deceleration lane linkage (the vertical lines in Fig. 3).
They are site 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 28,
29, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 37. There are 16 and 17 consistent
results for deceleration lane - upper ramp linkage and upper
ramp lower ramp linkage, respectively. (3) The fact that the
line of 85(V) is higher than V
85
indicates the overestimation
of V
85
. The ratio of 85(V)/V
85
is 1.42 for freeway mainline
- deceleration lane linkage. The value is 1.69 and 2.02 for
deceleration lane - upper ramp linkage and upper ramp
lower ramp linkage, respectively. (4) The safety level of a
target linkage can be determined if the results are consistently
located. (5) if there is one result located in Poor Zone, the
target exit should be classified as poor safety level. Evaluation
results for the other two linkages are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 Safety evaluation for different elements using three measures
Mainline-deceleration lane Deceleration -upper ramp Upper ramp-lower ramp
Safety level
V
85
85(V) 85(V)R V
85
85(V) 85(V)R V
85
85(V) 85(V)R
Good 10 3 9 20 8 13 28 19 15
Fair 24 20 23 12 15 12 9 11 14
Poor 3 14 5 5 14 12 0 7 8
It can be seen from Fig. 3 and Table 4 that conventional
measure V
85
has the most Good sites compared with the
other two measures. The result of 85(V)R is between the
other two. We can also see that with the decrease of speed,
speed reduction becomes smaller.
6 Conclusions
The 85
th
percentile value of individual speed reduction,
85(V), is introduced to evaluate the safety performance of
freeway exit ramp. The finding that 85(V)V
85
implies there
is overestimation of safety appraisal using conventional
measure V
85
. Another measure, speed reduction rate
85(V)R, proposed in this paper considers the base speed on
upstream element, which leads to its superiority over other
measures. Point speeds of individual vehicle on deceleration
lane, upper ramp and lower ramp were collected using radar
guns at 37 exits in Nanjing, China. Models were built to
predict the operating speed, speed reduction and speed
reduction rate. Based on the proposed models and evaluation
criteria, the safety level of the three linkages is determined in
terms of zone distribution. The recommended measure
85(V)R avoids pitfalls of ecological fallacy and
overestimation possessed by conventional ones, and it can be
adopted in practice conveniently.
References
[1] Global Road Safety Partnership. Speed management: a road
safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners. Geneva,
Global Road Safety Partnership, 2008.
[2] Lamm R, Choueiri E M. Recommendations for evaluating
horizontal design consistency based on investigation in the
state of New York. Transportation Research Record 1122,
Washington D.C., 1987, 6878.
[3] Lamm R, Choueiri E M, Mailaender T. Comparison of
operating speed on dry and wet pavement of two lane rural
highways. Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington
D.C., 1990, 199-207.
[4] Islam M N, Seneviratne P N. Evaluation of design consistency
of two-lane highways. ITE Journal, 1994: 64(2), 2831.
[5] Krammes R A, Rao K S, Oh H. Highway geometric design
consistency evaluation software. Transportation Research
Record 1500, Washington D.C., 1995, 1924.
[6] McFadden J, Elefteriadou L. Formulation and validation of
operating speed-based models using bootstrapping.
Transportation Research Record 1579, Washington D.C., 1997,
97103.
[7] Leisch J E, Leisch J P. New concept in design speed
applications, as a control in achieving consitent highway
design. Transportation Research Record 631, Washington D.C.,
1977, 414.
[8] Guo T Y. Research on investigation methods based on
disaggregate model. School of Transportation, Nanjing, 2005.
[9] McFadden J, Elefteriadou L. Evaluating horizontal alignment
design consistency of two-lane rural highways: Development
of new procedure. Transportation Research Record 1737,
Washington D.C., 2000, 917.
[10] Misaghi P. Modelling operating speed and speed differential
for design consistency evaluation. M.Sc. Thesis, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2003.