A summary of real-world incident statistics is presented from various freeways, and statistics from the Attica Tollway, in Greece, are simultaneously compared with incident data from U.S. and U.K. freeways. Detailed statistics are available from the Attica Tollway; statistics for U.S. and U.K. freeways were compiled from the available literature. Attica Tollway capacity under incident conditions is compared with estimates from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Interestingly, the incident capacity estimates by freeway number of lanes available and number of lanes closed because of an incident are practically identical for the Attica Tollway and U.S. freeways. This finding agrees with conclusions by others that similarly configured (standard) freeways produce similar incident profiles. The implication is that incident behavior could be predictable, but detailed analytical models are lacking. To this end, models are developed to explain the correlations between incident duration or queue length and a variety of independent variables such as number of crashed vehicles, number of responding vehicles, response times, number of lanes at the incident location, and various other temporal factors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SkabardonisA., PettyK. F., and VaraiyaP. P.Los Angeles I-10 Field Experiment: Incident Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1683, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 22–30.
2.
Freeway Incident Management Handbook.Report FHWA-SA-91-056. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, July 1991.
3.
Freeway Management Handbook.Report FHWA-SA-97-064. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997.
Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, and Improving Quality of Life.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
6.
NCHRP Synthesis 33-05: Safe and Quick Clearance of Traffic Incidents.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
Highway Capacity Manual.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
9.
ChilukuriB. R., PerrinJ.Jr., and MartinP. T.SCOOT and Incidents: Performance Evaluation in Simulated Environment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1867, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 224–232.
10.
BirstS., and SmadiA.An Application of ITS for Incident Management in Second-Tier Cities: A Fargo, North Dakota, Case Study.North Dakota State University, Fargo, Aug. 1999. http://www.ugpti.org/pubs/pdf/DP132.pdf. Accessed July 2007.
11.
MenendezM., and DaganzoC.Assessment of the Impact of Incidents Near Bottlenecks: Strategies to Reduce Delay. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1867, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 53–59.
12.
SkabardonisA., PettyK. F., BertiniR. L., VaraiyaP. P., NoeimiH., and RydzewskiD.I-880 Field Experiment: Analysis of Incident Data. In Transportation Research Record 1603, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 72–79.
13.
BertiniR. L., RoseM. W., and El-GeneidyA.M.Using Archived ITS Data Sources to Measure Effectiveness of Freeway Incident Response Program. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
14.
KhattakA., SchoferJ. L., and WangM. H.A Simple Time Sequential Procedure for Predicting Freeway Incident Duration. IVHS Journal, No. 2, 1995, pp. 113–138.
15.
SalimolT., and JackoR. B., Stochastic Model for Estimating Impact of Highway Incidents on Air Pollution and Traffic Delay. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2011, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 107–115.
16.
LindleyJ. A.Qualification of Urban Freeway Congestion and Analysis of Remedial Measures. Report RD/87-052. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1986.
17.
RodgersS., WadsworthB., and FordeM.Analysis of Incidents on Europe's Busiest Motorway, the M25, Compared with U.K.Motorways and U.S. Interstates. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
18.
RobertsN. P., WebbS. A., and CoeG.Incidents on Motorways. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 35, No. 10, Oct. 1994, pp. 550–554.
19.
HadiM. A., SinhaP. K., and WangA.Modeling Reductions in Freeway Capacity due to Incidents in Microscopic Simulation Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1999, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 62–68.
20.
Traffic Control Systems Handbook.Publication FHWA-SA-95-032. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996.
21.
GoolsbyM. E.Influence of Incidents on Freeway Quality of Service.Presented at 50th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1971.
KopeliasP., PapadimitriouF., PrevedourosP. D., and PapandreouK.Urban Freeway Crash Analysis: Geometric, Operational, and Weather Effects on Crash Number and Severity. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2015, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 123–131.
24.
KonduriS., LabiS., and SinhaK. C.Incident Occurrence Models for Freeway Incident Management. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1856, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 125–134.
25.
DiaH., and CottmaN.Evaluation of Incident Management Benefits Using Traffic Simulation. Intelligent Transport Systems, IEEE Proc., Vol. 153, No. 3, Sept. 2006, pp. 242–252.
26.
GaribA., RadwanA. E., and Al-DeekH.Estimating Magnitude and Duration of Incident Delays. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 6, 1997, pp. 459–466.
