access icon free Deriving a surrogate safety measure for freeway incidents based on predicted end-of-queue properties

Incidents can significantly impact freeway operations and deteriorate mobility and safety. This study quantified their safety impacts through inspecting queue properties. Specifically, the end-of-queue (EOQ), where severe rear-end collisions commonly occur, is employed for safety assessment based on vehicles’ trajectories. Since detector data is typically available, this study applied such data for EOQ identification, as opposed to vehicle trajectories that are difficult to collect and process. Three measures related to queue duration, impact area and vehicle number exposed to the EOQ are presented as surrogates. To understand the applicability of these measures, a systematic set of incident scenarios is replicated with VISSIM. Quantitative results are used to estimate regression models, and significant variables are identified. The proposed methods can be used to evaluate safety impact of traffic incident management programs such as freeway service patrol, as well as to determine optimal plans for prearranged incidents such as pothole repair.

Inspec keywords: road traffic; road safety; queueing theory; road vehicles

Other keywords: freeway service patrol; vehicle trajectories; EOQ identification; predicted end-of-queue properties; detector data; traffic incident management programs; surrogate safety measure; safety assessment; impact freeway operations; rear-end collisions; queue duration; VISSIM; vehicle number; freeway incidents; pothole repair

Subjects: Systems theory applications in transportation; Queueing theory

References

    1. 1)
      • 2. Dowling, R.: ‘Volume VI: definition, interpretation, and calculation of traffic analysis tools measures of effectiveness’. Technical Report: FHWA-HOP-08-054, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., 2007.
    2. 2)
      • 13. Pedersen, N.J., Samdahl, D.R.: ‘Highway traffic data for urbanized area project planning and design’. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 1982.
    3. 3)
      • 8. Tarko, A., Davis, G., Saunier, N., Sayed, T., Washington, S.: ‘Surrogate measures of safety’. White Paper, ANB20 (3) Subcommittee on Surrogate Measures of Safety, McLean, VA, 2009.
    4. 4)
      • 1. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C. 2000.
    5. 5)
      • 10. Chou, C.S., Nichols, P.A.: ‘Exploring traffic end-of-queue in a temporal-spatial diagram and applications for work zone safety analysis’. Conf. Proc. 91st TRB Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 2012.
    6. 6)
    7. 7)
      • 11. PTV, VISSIM 5.4: ‘Program files – PTV vision – examples – training – special modeling – incident’ (Planung Transport Verkehr AG, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2012).
    8. 8)
      • 14. Miller-Hooks, E., Chen, X., Chou, C.S., Tarnoff, P.: ‘Concurrent flow lanes – phase II’. Research Report: MD-07-SP608B4C, Maryland State Highway Administration, 2008.
    9. 9)
      • 15. Venables, W.N., Smith, D.M., the R core team: ‘An Introduction to R’. Version 2.15.1 (http://www.r-project.org). 2012.
    10. 10)
    11. 11)
      • 3. ATSSA: ‘Treating potential back-of-queue safety hazards’ (American Traffic Safety Services Association, Fredericksburg, VA, 2009).
    12. 12)
      • 4. Benekohal, R.F., Ramezani, H., Avrenli, K.A.: ‘Queue and user's costs in highway work zones’. Research Report: FHWA-ICT-10-075, Illinois Center for Transportation, 2010.
    13. 13)
      • 7. Gettman, D., Head, L.: ‘Surrogate safety measures from traffic simulation models’. Final Report. Research Report: FHWA-RD-03-050, 2003.
    14. 14)
      • 5. Wiles, P.B., Cooner, S.A., Walters, C.H., Pultorak, E.J.: ‘Advance warning of stopped traffic on freeways: current practices and filed studies of queue propagation speeds’ (Texas Transportation institute, 2003).
    15. 15)
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2013.0199
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2013.0199
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading