See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329613662

A Dynamic Signal Control Approach for Integrated Ramp and Mainline

Metering*

Conference Paper · November 2018

DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569567

CITATIONS READS
0 75

5 authors, including:

Amir Ghiasi David Kivilcim Hale

Leidos, Inc. Leidos, Inc.
17 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joe Bared Alexandra Kondyli

U.S. Department of Transportation University of Kansas
62 PUBLICATIONS   792 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cooperative Vehicle-Highway Systems to Improve Speed Harmonization View project

Fundamentals of Travel Time Reliability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amir Ghiasi on 01 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Dynamic Signal Control Approach for Integrated Ramp and
Mainline Metering*
Amir Ghiasi1 , David Hale1 , Joe Bared2 , Alexandra Kondyli3 , Jiaqi Ma4
Abstract—Freeway merges are one of the most significant
sources of traffic congestion. This study proposes a dynamic
signal control algorithm for an integrated ramp and mainline
metering control strategy to improve freeway operation and
reduce environmental impacts at freeway merging areas. The
presented algorithm uses real-time traffic sensor information to
predict the future status of downstream queue and dynamically
control the signal. For safety reasons, the mainline signal
control is activated only when a significant speed drop is
detected at all lanes of the mainline and the traffic has been
already almost stopped. The results of the simulation analyses
on a real-world calibrated network show a maximum of 15.7%
improvement in average speed, 20.9% reduction in average
delay, and 13.7% decrease in CO emission.
Keywords: Mainline Metering; Ramp Metering; Dynamic
Signal Control; Traffic Control; Traffic Prediction
I. I NTRODUCTION
Freeway merge areas are one of the primary sources of
congestion and traffic breakdown. These areas are typically
associated with increased turbulence due to the increased
lane changing and slowing down to accommodate the ve-
hicles that want to enter the freeway. This turbulence is
associated with the beginning of congestion (i.e., break-
down) at those segments. In most cases these breakdowns
initiate on the right side of the mainline, as incoming
ramp vehicles produce excessive weaving maneuvers, and
then spread to all lanes. Once a breakdown has begun, the
resulting shockwaves and queue spillback can eventually
stretch back for miles, causing area-wide traffic operational
and environmental problems. Given the prevalence of such
problems, a low-cost solution to reduce the friction associ-
ated with vehicle maneuvers, or facilitate smoother merging
operations, could produce great savings. A potential cost-
efficient solution to the freeway merge bottleneck problem
is to develop an effective signal control strategy to reduce
the frictions between the mainline and merge traffic.
One of the well-known approaches in this category is
ramp metering that regulates the inflow ramp traffic using
*This work was supported by the FHWA Saxton Transportation Opera-
tions Laboratory.
1 Amir Ghiasi and David Hale are with Transportation Solutions Division,
Leidos, Inc., Reston, VA 20190, USA amir.ghiasi@leidos.com
and david.k.hale@leidos.com
2 Joe Bared is with the Office of Operation Research and Devel-
opment, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA 22101, USA
joe.bared@dot.gov
3 Alexandra Kondyli is with the Department of Civil, Environmental
and Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045,
USA akondyli@ku.edu
4 Jiaqi Ma is with the Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering
and Construction Management, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
45221, USA jiaqi.ma@uc.edu
traffic signals at freeway on-ramps. Numerous studies have
been conducted to design and implement ramp metering
approaches to mitigate freeway bottlenecks (e.g., [1]–[3]).
While these studies were successful in reducing the weaving
frictions between the mainline and the ramp traffic to some
extent, some oversaturated traffic conditions on the mainline
approach may require a more effective approach to keep
the traffic from flowing into the existing downstream queue
and allow the bottleneck traffic speed to recover. This idea
is basically applied in variable speed limit (VSL) or speed
harmonization approaches that aim to reduce traffic speed
variations by limiting the mainstream traffic flow when it is
necessary. Numerous studies have developed VSL and speed
harmonization to improve traffic (e.g., [4]–[8]). A number
of studies have further improved traffic performance by
integrating VSL techniques with ramp metering approaches
(e.g., [9]–[11]). While these methods have been providing
notable successes in freeway operations all around the world,
they mainly suffer from users’ compliance that can limit
the control benefits. Other possible solutions are mainline
metering strategies that control the amount of traffic entering
a freeway section using traffic lights. This approach can
be considered as a special case of VSL, where the speed
limit is set to zero for a limited time. Although simulation
experiments may show better improvements with a gen-
eral VSL method than a special mainline metering one,
these experiments mainly assume that most users observe
the posted speed limit. Therefore, with a proper mainline
metering technique, we can make sure that the majority of
users comply the rules provided by the control strategy. The
freeway mainline metering strategy with traffic lights has
not received significant attention in the literature. Although
some research findings appear to indicate that mainline
metering can improve freeway operations, such a scheme
is only implemented in special situations such as tunnels
and bridges [12], [13]. One of the first mainline metering
systems has been introduced by the Port Authority of New
York during the late 1950s and 1960s. They implemented
a traffic control system to increase the throughput of the
tunnels under the Hudson River [14]–[16]. Later, a signal
control system was installed on Oakland Bay Bridge in San
Francisco, CA to increase the westbound throughput [17].
These traditional systems mainly implement a fixed control
logic or a basic feedback-based control algorithm that might
be suitable for limited applications, however, may not obtain
satisfactory outcomes for freeways specially nearby critical
merging traffic. A possible solution to address freeway traffic
congestion near merging areas that could ensure users’
compliance is the integration of mainline and ramp metering
approaches. An effective and efficient dynamic mainline and
ramp metering system for freeway congestion near merging
areas is yet to be discovered.
This study proposes a dynamic signal control algorithm
that could be applied in an integrated ramp and mainline me-
tering control strategy. This algorithm is activated only when
the downstream traffic queue spills back to the merging point
of the freeway. For safety reasons, the mainline traffic signal
will not be turned into red unless a significant speed drop is
detected at all lanes of the mainline. Activating the mainline
signal control when the traffic has been already almost
stopped shall address the safety concerns regarding the usage
of traffic lights on freeways. When the signal control is
activated, the future downstream queue status will be pre-
dicted with a reliable and efficient real-time algorithm that
is further used to determine the mainline signal red interval.
Simulation analyses with a real-world calibrated network are
performed to evaluate the algorithm performance and test the
effects of different traffic conditions and parameter settings.
The findings reveal that the proposed dynamic signal control
approach significantly improves traffic speed and reduces
travel delay and total emission.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the
problem setting. Section III describes the algorithm design
and explains the necessary modules. The simulation analyses
and results are presented in Section IV, and finally, Section
V concludes the paper with a summary of the findings and
a brief discussion of future research directions.
II. P ROBLEM S ETTING
This study considers a merging area of a freeway that
connects the freeway mainline and ramp traffic. A lon-
gitudinal coordinate system is defined along the freeway
that increases downstream. The origin of the coordinate
system is set right at the merging location of the freeway
and the ramp. Let N denote the number of lanes of the
freeway mainline upstream of the merge point (i.e., location
0). Without much loss of generality, the ramp roadway
is assumed to have one lane. An acceleration lane begins
after merging location 0, and ends at a point downstream
of the merge. Let L denote the length of the acceleration
lane. Therefore, a lane drop occurs at L, and thus traffic
congestion may occur at this point of the freeway, which
can be propagated backwards to the upstream sections. We
consider a stream of vehicles enter the merging section at
location 0. Let v̄ and ā denote the maximum traffic speed
and maximum acceleration, respectively. v̄ parameter can be
set equal or a little greater than the posted speed limit and
ā can be set to an average of various possible acceleration
values from standstill acceleration to accelerations at higher
traffic speeds.
A traffic signal is deployed at location 0 with two signal
groups, one for the mainline approach and the other for the
ramp traffic. Let Itmain , Itramp ∈ {0, 1} , ∀t denote the signal
status of the mainline and ramp approaches, respectively,
Fig. 1: Problem setting.
where 0 and 1 states represent the red and green signal states
at time t, respectively. Let g main and g ramp denote the start
time of the most recent mainline and ramp green intervals,
respectively. Similarly, rmain and rramp are defined as the start
time of the most recent mainline and ramp red intervals,
respectively.
A number of traffic sensors (e.g., loop detectors) are
deployed right before and downstream of the traffic signal to
measure traffic flow and speed. We assume that these traffic
sensors can send real-time information to a local traffic
controller. These traffic sensors are indexed as s ∈ S :=
{1, 2, . . . , S} and ls , ∀s ∈ S denotes the location of traffic
sensor s. The first traffic sensor is set at location 0 at the
mainline approach (i.e., l1 = 0) and the last one is located
somewhere downstream of the bottleneck (i.e., lS > L),
where traffic speed is relatively recovered. After every ∆T
time period, these sensors aggregate the measured traffic and
send the information to the traffic signal controller. Fig. 1
illustrates the problem setting.
III. DYNAMIC S IGNAL C ONTROL A LGORITHM
This section presents the dynamic signal control algorithm
design. The information provided by the traffic sensors are
used to monitor traffic status at the merge area. When
the downstream traffic queue is propagated all the way to
the merge point and causes a certain speed drop at this
point, the dynamic signal controller is activated to prevent
the upstream mainline traffic from joining the downstream
queue until it dissipates. The proposed dynamic signal
control algorithm includes three main modules. In the first
module, the traffic flow and speed are updated by each traffic
sensor s at current time t, which are denoted by qs (t) and
vs (t), respectively. This information is updated at every time
point with interval of ∆T . Thus the proposed dynamic signal
control algorithm runs iteratively at the same discrete time
points. Given that, the second module activates the dynamic
signal controller providing that a certain traffic speed drop is
detected at all lanes of the merge point. This module aims
to stop the mainline traffic from entering the downstream
queue until it is about to dissipate. Based on the information
provided by the traffic sensors, the third module, which is a
sub-routine to the second module, predicts the downstream
traffic queue dissipation time. This prediction is then used
by the second module to let the upstream traffic smoothly
merge into the downstream queue.
The algorithm initiates at time t := 0. Both Itmain and Itramp
are initially set to 1 (i.e., I0main := 1, g main := 0, I0ramp := 1,

Fig. 2: Algorithm flowchart.
and g ramp := 0) until the dynamic signal controller algorithm
is activated. Moreover, we set rmain := −∞ and rramp :=
−∞. After activation, Itmain and Itramp are controlled by our
dynamic signal controller algorithm. Fig. 2 illustrates the
algorithm flowchart. In this flowchart, δT represents a very
small time interval that indicates the passage of time during
the algorithm implementation. The algorithm modules are
described in detail in the following sub-sections.
A. Traffic Data Collection
This module runs iteratively and collects the traffic sen-
sor information at every ∆T time point. Since the traffic
sensors aggregate data with time interval of ∆T , these data
should be represented in the middle of each time interval
(t − ∆T, t]. Let t− := t − ∆T define the middle time
point. Therefore, this module collects qs (t− ) and vs (t− )
at each discrete time point and for all s ∈ S. Note that
the traffic information at each ls is aggregated among all
lanes of the freeway, except for v1 (t− ) that is set to the
maximum observed speed among all N lanes right before
the traffic signal. The reason for this exception is that the
mainline control is not activated until the speed at all lanes
of the merging point drops below a certain threshold at all
lanes before the traffic signal. Finally, this module updates
the signal status Itmain , Itramp , g main , g ramp , rmain , and rramp .
B. Signal Control
This module designs the signal timing plan according to
the outputs of the first module. Basically, as long as v1 (t− )
is high enough, the signals on both mainline and ramp ap-
proaches are kept green, i.e., Itmain = 1 and Itramp = 1. When
the downstream queue propagates backward and reaches
the merge point and v1 (t− ) drops below a certain speed
threshold, denoted by V threshold , this module sets Itmain := 0
to prevent the upstream traffic from further joining the
queue1 . Although from a traffic operations perspective it
may be too late to let the downstream queue propagate to
the upstream merge point, it may not be safe to turn the
freeway mainline signal into red at higher v1 (t− ) values.
Thus, we let the queue propagate that far only to ensure that
the upstream traffic is already stopped or it is safe enough
to be stopped. The mainline signal control is activated when
the Mainline Control Activation criteria are met, which are
defined at the end of this sub-section. During this time, the
ramp signal is kept green as this approach generally includes
less traffic demand, i.e., Itmain = 0 and Itramp = 1. Then,
using the third module, the time when the last vehicle of the
downstream queue (which is called the downstream queue
tail hereafter) passes the bottleneck is predicted. Let Ttend
denote the queue dissipation time that is predicted at current
time t. Further, let T reach denote the time that it takes for the
leading vehicle(s) of the upstream traffic to accelerate from
a zero-speed state at location 0 and reaches location lS that
depends on lS , v̄ and ā. Therefore, if we release the mainline
red signal T reach seconds before Ttend , the upstream traffic
can be expected to smoothly join the downstream queue tail.
Further, we require that the red intervals at both approaches
to be no greater than pre-determined maximum red intervals.
Let Rmain and Rramp denote the maximum red intervals for
the mainline and ramp approaches, respectively. Moreover,
to reduce the conflicting maneuvers, we set the ramp signal
to red at the time when the mainline red signal is released.
Finally, to ensure stability and efficiency of the signal timing
plan, we require that the red and green intervals at both
approaches be no less than a certain minimum time interval
that is denoted by T min . The mainline signal control is
deactivated when the Mainline Control Termination criteria
are met.
With this, the Mainline Control Activation and Termina-
tion are defined as follows.
• Mainline Control Activation criteria:
( ( −) ) ( )
v1 t ≤ V threshold ∧ t ≥ g main + T min .
• Mainline Control Termination criteria:
( ( ) )
t ≥ min max Ttend − T reach , rmain + T min , rmain + Rmain .
If the Mainline Control Termination criteria are met, then we
set Itmain := 1 and Itramp := 0. The ramp signal turns back to
green (i.e., Itramp := 1) when the Mainline Control Activation
1 For real-world implications, a sufficient yellow interval may be required
before the red intervals. While it is easy to determine appropriate yellow
intervals for both directions, it is excluded in this model.
criteria are met or the ramp red interval reaches Rramp (i.e.,
t ≥ rramp +Rramp ). The Queue Dissipation Prediction module
is presented in the following sub-section.

C. Queue Dissipation Prediction

The queue dissipation prediction module, which is a part
of the signal control module, predicts Ttend using the traffic
sensor information. This prediction algorithm is proposed
by [18] for a single-lane freeway section. This paper uses
this algorithm for a multi-lane freeway section to predict
the queue tail location at any future time t′ > t, denoted by
pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t. This algorithm uses vehicle indices as the
boundary conditions. Let cs (t− ) denote the estimated per-
wave ′ ′
lane average vehicle count at ls at time t− that is calculated Fig. 3: An illustration of yts (t ) and cwave
ts (t ) functions.
as:
( )
∆T qs (t− ) ∆T
cs := , ∀s ∈ S, traffic speed cannot ( exceed
) v̄, it is required to ensure that
2 2N the obtained (t̃ts , ỹts) points are feasible for all s ∈ StQ .
( ) ( ) qs (t− ) ∆T 3∆T Starting from t, ls′t in the space-time diagram, we shoot
cs t− := cs t− − ∆T + , ∀s ∈ S, t− ≥ . an upper bound trajectory at speed of v̄. Let t̂ ′ de-
N 2 tst
− note the intersection( )between this upper bound trajectory
With the estimated cs (t ) , ∀s ∈ S values, the wave
and yt(s ′ +1) t̃t(s′ +1) that is calculated as t̂t(s′t +1) =
pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t function is predicted as follows. Since there ( t t
−
)
is no further information available about the traffic status ls − l
( st
′ + v̄t )+ wt / (v̄ + w). Then, define ŷt(s′t +1) :=
wave
between the traffic sensors, we assume that the queue tail is y ts t̂ ′
t(st +1) ( , and choose the )lower(point (or the greater )
′
located at one of the sensor locations at a time. Let st ∈ S time) between t̃t(st +1) , ỹt(st +1) and t̂t(s′t +1) , ŷt(s′t +1) as
′ ′
wave ′
denote the sensor index at which the queue tail is located at the final predicted space-time point along yt(s′t +1) (t ). Next,
− wave ′
current time t, which is estimated using vs (t ) , ∀s ∈ S starting from this final point along yt(s′t +1) (t ), we shoot
information. Let ctail t denote the per-lane average vehicle another upper bound trajectory at speed of v̄ and determine
count that corresponds to the queue tail. Since Itmain = 1 and its intersection ( with the next ) shockwave, and then compare
ramp inflow traffic is relatively limited when this module is it with t̃t(s′t +2) , ỹt(s′t +2) to find the next final space-time
wave ′
activated, we assume that traffic density is zero between point along yt(s′t +2) (t ). With similar calculations, all space-
− ′
l1 and ls′t and thus ct = cs (t ) , ∀s = {1, 2, . . . , st }. time points along all shockwaves in StQ can be determined.
tail

Therefore, we only use the information provided by the We let (t̄ts , ȳts ) denote the final predicted space-time points
sensor set StQ := {s′t , s′t + 1, . . . , S} for pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t along yts wave ′
(t ) , ∀s ∈ StQ that are calculated as:
prediction. ( )
Starting from each traffic sensor in the time-space dia- t̄ts := max t̃ts , t̂ts ,
gram, we generate a backward shockwave at speed −w, ȳts := min (ỹts , ŷts ) , (3)
which is formulated as: ( −
)
(′ ) where t̂ts = ls − ȳt(s−1) + ( v̄ t̄)t(s−1) + wt / (v̄ + w) , ∀s ∈
wave ′ − Q ′ − ′
yts (t ) := ls − w t − t , ∀s ∈ St , t ≥ t . (1) St \ {st } and ŷts := yts t̂ts , ∀s ∈ St . Then, we simply
Q wave Q

connect (t̄ts , ȳts ) , ∀s ∈ StQ points to construct the piece-

Based on the kinematic wave theory proposed by [19],
wise linear pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t function. This function continues
vehicle index increases along these shockwaves with the rate
up to (t̄tS , ȳtS ) that is lower than lS . Since no other
of 1/p0 where p0 is the standstill jam spacing. With that, a
shockwave existed after this point, we simply let pt (t′ )
vehicle index function can be defined as:
( −) (′ ) function continue with vS (t− ) up to lS . With this, a
wave ′ − Q ′ −
cts (t ) := cs t + w t − t /p0 , ∀s ∈ St , t ≥ t . piece-wise function is constructed for pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t,
(2) which yields
Fig. 3 illustrates an example for shockwave yts wave ′
(t ) and Ttend := p−1 t (lS ) .
wave ′
vehicle index cts (t ) functions formations. In this figure,
Fig. 4 illustrates the derivation of (t̄ts , ȳts ) , ∀s ∈ StQ ,
t′i , i ∈ Z+ represent time points that are greater than t− ,
pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t, and Ttend .
where t′i − t′i−1 = p0 /w, ∀i = {2, 3, . . . }.
Then, this module predicts the future time-space points
along these shockwaves that correspond to the downstream IV. S IMULATION E XPERIMENT
tail
queue tail. Given ct and (1)-(2), we can find the points This study uses a merge section of I-35 located in Kansas
wave ′ wave ′ tail
along
( yts (t ), at which
( tail ) c ts (t ) =
( t)) c that are defined as City, KS to test the proposed algorithm. This section is
t̃ts := cwave−1
ts ct , ỹ ts := y wave
ts t̃ ts , ∀s ∈ S Q
t . Since approximately 2.2 kilometers long and is taken from a

(a) (t̄ts , ȳts ) , ∀s ∈ StQ
(b) pt (t′ ) , ∀t′ > t, and Ttend
Fig. 4: An illustration of queue dissipation prediction.
simulation network that is calibrated with field measure-
ments. For the model calibration, a day without incidents
throughout the corridor or adverse weather was selected.
The selected calibration period is the afternoon peak-hour
of April 22, 2016. The westbound side of the network is
chosen for the analysis. The algorithm is tested on a merging
area, which is located around 1.2 kilometers downstream of
the input traffic. At the merge point, an on-ramp roadway
merges the three-lane mainline freeway (N = 3). Right after
the merge point, an acceleration lane with the length of
281 meters begins (L = 281 m). Therefore, at the end of
this acceleration lane, a lane drop occurs, and thus traffic
congestion may occur at this point of the freeway, which
can be propagated backwards to the upstream sections.
In this network, six sets of loop detectors are deployed,
and each set contains a number of loop detectors embedded
next to one another to cover all lanes at a specific longi-
tudinal location. Thus each loop detector set represents a
traffic sensor in our analyses (i.e., S = 6). These traffic
sensors are evenly distributed along the merge section with
the distance of 69 meters from one to another. The locations
of these traffic sensors are set as: l1 = 0, l2 = 69, l3 = 138,
l4 = 207, l5 = 276, and l6 = 345 m. Traffic includes 3.5
percent of trucks and p0 for regular vehicles and trucks are
Fig. 5: An example of signal timing plan.
7 and 24.5 m, respectively. Thus we set p0 to the average
value of 7.61 m. The Wiedemann 99 car-following model
implemented in VISSIM simulation package is used for
the simulation analyses. Based on the calibrated simulation
network, v̄ = 100 kph, ā = 1.52 m/s2 , and w = 4.6
m/s. To evaluate the algorithm performance, three measures
of effectiveness are chosen: average traffic speed, average
traffic delay (per vehicle), and total CO emission. The
improvements to these measures are denoted as ∆E S , ∆E D ,
and ∆E E , respectively. These measures are network-wide
average values, which are averaged throughout the 2.2-
kilometer network. The simulation analysis is performed for
three 15-minutes time periods, which the first and the last
periods are assigned to warm-up and cool-down periods,
respectively.
Let Dmain and Dramp denote the traffic demands of the
mainline and ramp approaches. We first present the simula-
tion results for a default parameter setting. In this setting,
we set Dmain = 8000 vph, Dramp = 1500 vph, Rmain = 60
s, Rramp = 20 s, V threshold = 10 kph, T min = 10 s, and
∆T = 2 s. Further, based on the merge geometry and
the calibrated traffic behavior, we obtain T reach = 19.2
s. To consider the stochasticity effects of the simulation
experiments, each simulation scenario is run 10 times with
different random seeds. The obtained average mainline and
ramp green intervals among all random seeds are 151 and
170 s, respectively, where on average 72% of the green
intervals overlap. In this algorithm, the ramp red interval
lasts until another mainline control activation happens or the
red interval reaches Rramp . In the default case scenario, the
time between every consecutive mainline control activation
is greater than 20 seconds, and thus the ramp red interval
is always equal to Rramp = 20 s. Moreover, the average
mainline red interval is 40 s. Fig. 5 shows an example of
signal timing plan for the first two mainline and ramp cycles
resulted from the first simulation instance. Further, Fig. 6
compares the simulation results of the signal control algo-
rithm with the benchmark case and without any control with
box-plots. The results indicate that significant improvements
are obtained for all these measures.
We perform a sensitivity analysis on the Dmain and Dramp
values. Then, the effects of Rramp are investigated through
simulation experiments. For these simulation analyses, dif-
ferent scenarios are considered for the Dmain and Dramp
values, while other parameters are kept as their default
values. The results of the sensitivity analysis on Dmain and
Dramp values are shown in Fig. 7, 8, and 9 for ∆E S , ∆E D ,
and ∆E E , respectively. These figures show the 3D box-
plots among all 10 random instances. From these figures
 Benchmark
32 10
200 Benchmark
Control
190 9.5

Average Delay (sec/vehicle)

30
Average Speed (kph)

180

CO Emission (kg)
9
28
170
8.5
160
26
8
150

24
140 7.5

Benchmark 130 Control Control

22 7

Fig. 6: Simulation results for the default setting.

Fig. 8: Sensitivity analysis on Dmain and Dramp : ∆E D (%).

Fig. 7: Sensitivity analysis on Dmain and Dramp : ∆E S (%). Fig. 9: Sensitivity analysis on Dmain and Dramp : ∆E E (%).

we see that all of these measures mainly improve at various the appropriate parameter settings.
demand scenarios. A maximum of 15.7% improvement in
average speed, 20.6% reduction in average delay, and 13.7% V. C ONCLUSION
decrease in CO emission is obtained. The maximum benefits This paper develops a dynamic signal control algorithm
are achieved at the mainline demand values of 7000 to that can be applied for an integrated ramp and mainline
7500 vph (or 2333 to 2500 vph/ln) and the ramp demand metering strategy. When the traffic queue, caused by a lane-
values of 1000 to 1500 vph, and the minimum improvements drop downstream of a freeway merge, spills all the way back
are resulted for relatively low demand values as traffic to the merge point, the dynamic signal control algorithm
is undersaturated in such demand scenarios. Overall, this is activated and turns the mainline signal to red to keep
experiment reveals that the proposed algorithm can achieve the mainline traffic from entering the downstream queue,
significant improvements when high traffic saturation exists. which otherwise would exacerbate the traffic congestion.
Next, we perform sensitivity analysis on impacts of Rramp For safety reasons, the proposed algorithm does not activate
parameter on the algorithm results. The results are shown as the signal control unless the traffic speed at all mainline
box-plots in Fig. 10, in which the green, yellow, and red box- lanes drops below a safe speed threshold (that is set to 10
plots correspond to reasonably low, moderate, and high time kilometers/hour in our experiments). After activation, this
intervals for Rramp . The results indicate that all measures algorithm predicts the future downstream queue status using
mainly decrease with Rramp . This is because greater Rramp the information provided by the deployed traffic sensors.
values would worsen the ramp traffic performance that This prediction is updated at every decision time point and
impacts the network average speed, delay and total emission. as a result, the prediction is modified using the new received
The maximum obtained benefits are: 15.7% improvement in information. The mainline traffic signal turns into green a
average speed at Rramp = 20 s, 20.9% reduction in average few seconds in advance of the predicted downstream queue
delay at Rramp = 10 s, and 13.4% decrease in CO emission dissipation time to let the mainline traffic smoothly join the
at Rramp = 20 s. Overall, these simulation analyses provide downstream traffic. At the same time, the ramp signal turns
insightful information regarding the algorithm benefits and into red to remove frictions between the merging and the

40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0 50 100
0
0 50
(a) ∆E S (%) (b) ∆E D (%)
25
20
15
10
5 search Board, no. 1978, pp. 149–159, 2006.
0
0 50 100
(c) ∆E E (%)
Fig. 10: Sensitivity analysis on Rramp .
mainline traffic. This red interval is released when another
speed drop is detected at the mainline approach (and thus
the mainline signal turns into red) or it reaches a maximum
ramp red interval.
A number of simulation analyses is conducted using
a calibrated VISSIM network to evaluate the algorithm
performance under different traffic conditions and parameter
settings. The implemented case study is a section of I-
35 freeway located in Kansas City, KS. In this study,
thee performance measures are considered: network-wise
average traffic speed, delay, and total CO emissions. The
results of the simulation analyses show a maximum of
15.7% improvement in average speed, 20.9% reduction in
average delay, and 13.7% decrease in CO emission. Note
that although these benefits are limited to a local control
zone, the proposed control approach can be implemented at
the other parts of the networks. Therefore, further benefits
can be achieved for larger areas, and thus could justify the
system deployment costs.
This study can be extended in a number of directions.
While the speed at which the control algorithm activates
(i.e., V threshold ) is supposed to be set to a reasonably safe
value, further safety analyses can be conducted to investigate
the potential safety concerns of this freeway signal control.
The level of users’ acceptance and compliance might be an-
other issue to explore. Further, this study can be represented
as a baseline for highway mainline metering techniques.
With some future improvements in the prediction algorithm,
we may be able to achieve better outcomes with fewer traffic
sensors to obtain more cost-effective solutions. Finally,
with the advent of connected and automated technology
(CAV), we may be able to feed the controllers with more
accurate and higher resolution data and to enforce better
compliance of mainline vehicle stopping, even with higher
speed thresholds. Moreover, the proposed integrated ramp
and mainline control algorithm can be combined with a
View publication stats
CAV-based VSL strategy to further improve the freeway
operational performance.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Papageorgiou, H. Hadj-Salem, and J.-M. Blosseville, “Alinea: A
local feedback control law for on-ramp metering,” Transportation
100
Research Record, vol. 1320, no. 1, pp. 58–67, 1991.
[2] M. J. Cassidy and J. Rudjanakanoknad, “Increasing the capacity of
an isolated merge by metering its on-ramp,” Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 896–913, 2005.
[3] G. Gomes and R. Horowitz, “Optimal freeway ramp metering using
the asymmetric cell transmission model,” Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 244–262, 2006.
[4] R. Bertini, S. Boice, and K. Bogenberger, “Dynamics of variable
speed limit system surrounding bottleneck on german autobahn,”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Re-
[5] R. C. Carlson, I. Papamichail, and M. Papageorgiou, “Local feedback-
based mainstream traffic flow control on motorways using variable
speed limits,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys-
tems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1261–1276, 2011.
[6] A. Tympakianaki, A. Spiliopoulou, A. Kouvelas, I. Papamichail,
M. Papageorgiou, and Y. Wang, “Real-time merging traffic control for
throughput maximization at motorway work zones,” Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 44, pp. 242–252, 2014.
[7] J. Ma, X. Li, S. Shladover, H. A. Rakha, X.-Y. Lu, R. Jagannathan,
and D. J. Dailey, “Freeway speed harmonization,” IEEE Transactions
on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 78–89, 2016.
[8] M. Tajalli and A. Hajbabaie, “Dynamic speed harmonization in
connected urban street networks,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infras-
tructure Engineering, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 510–523, 2018.
[9] A. Hegyi, “Model predictive control for integrating traffic control
measures,” Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2004.
[10] A. Hegyi, B. De Schutter, and H. Hellendoorn, “Model predictive
control for optimal coordination of ramp metering and variable speed
limits,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 185–209, 2005.
[11] X.-Y. Lu, P. Varaiya, R. Horowitz, D. Su, and S. Shladover, “Novel
freeway traffic control with variable speed limit and coordinated
ramp metering,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, no. 2229, pp. 55–65, 2011.
[12] E. L. Jacobson and J. Landsman, Case studies of US freeway-to-
freeway ramp and mainline metering and suggested policies for
Washington State, 1994, no. 1446.
[13] K. A. Haboian, “A case for freeway mainline metering,” Transporta-
tion research record, no. 1494, 1995.
[14] K. Crowley and H. Greenberg, “Holland tunnel study aids efficient
increase of tube’s use,” Traffic Engineering, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 20–22,
1965.
[15] R. S. Foote and K. W. Crowley, “Developing density controls for
improved traffic operations,” Highway Res. Board Rec, vol. 154, no. 1,
pp. 24–37, 1967.
[16] R. S. Foote, “Instruments for road transportation,” Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey, Tech. Rep. Tbr-2-68A, 1968.
[17] M. MacCalden et al., “Traffic management system for the san
francisco-oakland bay bridge,” ITE Journal, vol. 54, no. HS-037 200,
1984.
[18] A. Ghiasi, J. Ma, F. Zhou, and X. Li, “Speed harmonization algorithm
using connected autonomous vehicles,” in 96th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2017.
[19] G. F. Newell, “A simplified car-following theory: a lower order
model,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 36,
no. 3, pp. 195–205, 2002.