Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this paper the influences of the ramp flow on the freeway flow are deemed invasive influences because the freeway vehicles' priority is violated and the freeway flow is interrupted. Understanding of the invasive influences of the freeway entry process helps to promote efficient and safe operations of the main-line facility and to identify more straightforward indicators of level of service (LOS) for freeway on-ramp segments. First, on the basis of field observations conducted at three on-ramp sites along I-35 within the greater Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri, metropolitan area, ramp merging behavior of vehicles in platoons was identified as the direct cause of invasive influences on the freeway flow. Then, the significance of the invasive influences was evaluated in accordance with the evasive events performed by freeway drivers. These evasive events, instigated by merging conflicts, include slowdown and lane change actions. Finally, more straightforward LOS indicators were recommended for improving the current (2000) Highway Capacity Manual LOS evaluation procedure for freeway on-ramp segments.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Blunden

W. R.

, Clissold

C. M.

, and Fisher

R. B.

Distribution of the Acceptance Gaps for Crossing and Turning Maneuvers. Proceedings of the Australian Road Research Board, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1962, pp. 188–205.

Major

N. G.

, and Buckley

D. J.

Entry to a Traffic Stream. Proceedings of the Australian Road Research Board, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1962, pp. 206–228.

Ashworth

The Capacity of Priority-Type Intersections with a Non-Uniform Distribution of Critical Acceptance Gaps. Transportation Research B, Vol. 3, 1969, pp. 273–278.

Blumenfeld

, and Weiss

Merging from an Acceleration Lane. Transportation Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1971, pp. 161–168.

Polus

, Livneh

, and Factor

Vehicle Flow Characteristics on Acceleration Lanes. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 6, 1985, pp. 595–605.

Herman

, and Weiss

G. H.

Comments on the Highway Crossing Problem. Operations Research, Vol. 9, 1961, pp. 828–860.

Drew

D. R.

Gap Acceptance Characteristics for Ramp–Freeway Surveillance and Control. In Highway Research Record 157, HRB, National Research Council, 1967, pp. 108–143.

Miller

A. J.

Nine Estimators of Gap-Acceptance Parameters. In Traffic Flow and Transportation ( Newell

, ed.). American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, 1972, pp. 215–236.

10.

Daganzo

C. F.

Multinomial Probit: The Theory and Its Application to Demand Forecasting. Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1979.

11.

Mahmassani

, and Sheffi

Using Gap Sequences to Estimate Gap Acceptance Functions. Transportation Research B, Vol. 15, 1981, pp. 143–148.

12.

Khattak

A. J.

, and Jovanis

P. P.

Capacity and Delay Estimation for Priority Unsignalized Intersections: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. In Transportation Research Record 1287, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 129–137.

13.

Perkins

S. R.

, and Harris

J. L.

Traffic Conflict Characteristics: Accident Potential at Intersections. General Motors Corp., Warren, Mich., 1967.

14.

Glennon

J. C.

, Glauze

W. D.

, Sharp

M. C.

, and Thorson

B. A.

Critique of the Traffic Conflict Technique. In Transportation Research Record 630, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 32–38.

15.

Hauer

Methodological Assessment of the Techniques. Proc., 2nd International Traffic Conflict Technique Workshop, Paris, 1979, pp. 169–176.

16.

Williams

M. J.

Validity of the Traffic Conflict Technique. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1981, pp. 133–145.

17.

Hauer

, and Garder

Research into the Validity of the Traffic Conflict Technique. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1986, pp. 169–176.

18.

Cima

B. T.

Evaluation of Freeway-Merging Safety as Influenced by Ramp-Metering Control, In Transportation Research Record 630, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 44–51.

19.

Michaels

R. M.

, and Fazio

Driver Behavior Model of Merging. In Transportation Research Record 1213, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 4–10.

20.

Jouzy

N. C.

, and Michael

H. L.

Use and Design of Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes in Indiana. In Highway Research Record 9, HRB, National Research Council, 1963, pp. 25–51.

21.

Reilly

W. R.

, Pfefer

R. C.

, Michaels

R. M.

, Polus

, and Schoen

J. M.

Speed Change Lanes—Final Report. NCHRP Project 3–35. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989.

22.

Kita

A Merging–Giveway Interaction Model of Cars in a Surging Section: A Game Theoretic Analysis. Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 314, 1999, pp. 305–312.

23.

D'Andrea

, and Urbani

Modeling Drivers' Behavior on Tapered On-Ramps. Proc., 12th International Conference on Traffic Safety on the Three Continents, Part 3. Moscow, 2001, pp. 35–46.

24.

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2001.

25.

An In-Depth Study of Urban Freeway On-Ramp Merge Behavior and Operational Characteristics Using Videotaping and Computer-Aided Image Processing and Data Reduction Methods. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 2004.

Urban Freeway On-Ramps

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References