Performance of rush-hour lanes and
pluslanes
A study to behavioral factors and design factors
Master-Thesis presentation by ir. R.M. Beentjes
Challenge the future
1
About me...
• Graduated november 1st 2012
• Master Transport & Planning
• ITS Edulab
• Cooperation between Rijkswaterstaat and TU Delft
• Nice combination between company and university
• Supervision from both parties
• Currently working for Witteveen+Bos as project-engineer
Challenge the future
2
Contents
• Introduction
• Definitions
• Background
• Performance-indicators
• Ex-post evaluation
• Experimental setup
• Results
• Driving simulator study
• Experimental setup
• Results
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Future research
Challenge the future
3
Introduction
Challenge the future
4
Definition - rush-hour lane
A hard shoulder on the right side of a road section that
can be opened for traffic when intensities are high.
Challenge the future
5
Definition - pluslane
A lane on the left side of a road section that can be
opened for traffic when intensities are high. The hard
shoulder can be retained, as all other lanes will become
narrower.
Challenge the future
6
Background
• First rush-hour lane in 1996
• First pluslane in 1999
• Extra capacity without addition of an extra lane
• ± 174 km rush-hour lanes (7%) in the Netherlands
• ± 116 km pluslanes (5%) in the Netherlands
• No research compares different designs of rush-hour
lanes and pluslanes
• No research focuses on influence of behavioral factors
Challenge the future
7
Performance-indicators
Lane-flow distribution – regular highway
Challenge the future
8
Performance indicators
Lane-flow distribution – rush-hour lane
Challenge the future
9
Performance-indicators
Intensity-speed relation
Challenge the future
10
Ex-post evaluation
Challenge the future
11
Experimental setup
• Preliminary research
• Inquiry of all existing rush-hour lanes and pluslanes in
the Netherlands
• Suitable sections for this research were filtered
• Data is collected and filtered using MATLAB
Challenge the future
12
Experimental setup
• Preliminary research
• Chosen rush-hour lanes (5):
Location
Lanes
Lane width
Speed limit (closed/open)
A1 – Hoevelaken - Barneveld
2+1
3,35|3,50|3,50
120 / 100
A2 – Kerensheide - Vonderen
2+1
3,25|3,40|3,28
120 / 100
A2 – Vonderen - Urmond
2+1
3,25|3,40|3,35
120 / 100
A13 – Berkel & Rodenrijs - Delft- Zuid
3+1
3,25|3,40|3,40|3,35
100 / 100
A50 – Ewijk - Valburg
2+1
3,50|3,50|3,50
120 / 120
• Chosen pluslanes (5):
Location
Lanes
Lane width
Speed limit (closed/open)
A1 – Beekbergen – Deventer-Oost
2+1
3,10|3,50|3,45
120 / 100
A12 – Ede - Veenendaal
2+1
3,00|3,50|3,35
120 / 100
A12 – Woerden - Gouda
3+1
2,75|3,50|3,50|3,50
120 / 100
A12 – Zoetermeer - Gouwe
2+1
2,75|3,50|3,25
100 / 100
A27 – Gorinchem -Noordeloos
2+1
2,70|3,00|3,25
100 / 80
Challenge the future
13
Experimental setup
• Several comparisons
• Rush-hour lane vs. regular right lane
• Pluslane vs. regular left lane
• Different locations on rush-hour lanes and pluslanes
• Influence of design factors
Challenge the future
14
Results
• Design factors
• Lane widths
• Speed limits
• Total number of lanes in section (3 or 4)
• 5 rush-hour lane sections and 5 pluslane sections
analyzed
• Pairwise comparison
• Influence on occupation and on free speeds driven
Challenge the future
15
Results
• Rush-hour lanes - occupation
Influence of speed limit: 100 km/h – 120 km/h
Challenge the future
16
Results
• Pluslanes - occupation
High speed limit + narrow lane
Challenge the future
17
Driving simulator study
Challenge the future
18
Experimental setup
• A50 between junction Ewijk and junction Valburg
• Wide rush-hour lane (3,50 m)
• Permanent 120 km/h speed limit
• 3 Lanes total (2+1)
• Designed and programmed into simulator
• Results in 2 parts:
• Car-following behavior
• Changes is the design
Challenge the future
19
Results
• Part 1: Car-following behavior
• Followers and leaders
Challenge the future
20
Results
• Part 1: Car-following behavior
• Followers and leaders
Desired speed: ± 120 km/h
± 95 km/h
Challenge the future
21
Results
Lane change when there is enough space on the rush-hour lane
Challenge the future
22
Results
Speed difference is equal, car-following distance decreases linearly
Challenge the future
23
Results
Lane change when smallest desired car-following distance is reached
Challenge the future
24
Results
• Part 2: Changes in the design
• Influence of signaling system (reduced signaling)
• Influence of broken markings (instead of continuous)
• Influence on occupation analyzed
Challenge the future
25
Results
• Part 2: Changes in the design
• Determining the occupation per lane
Left lane
Middle lane
Rush-hour lane
Challenge the future
26
Results
• No differences at given conditions
Challenge the future
27
Conclusions and recommendations
Challenge the future
28
Conclusions and
recommendations
• Rush-hour lanes:
• Lower speed limit than 120 km/h
• The incentive to change to the rush-hour lane at 120
km/h is very low
• Changes in markings and signaling do not have an
influence on occupation at 120 km/h
• Pluslanes:
• Do not combine a high speed limit (100 km/h) with a
narrow pluslane (< 2,80 m)
Challenge the future
29
Future research
• Extensive research to the influence of design factors
• Quantify influence per factor
• Possibly make an estimation of performance before the
construction of a new managed lane
• New driving simulator study
• Option 1: improve the current study
• Option 2: use another driving simulator with better
traffic models
• Test alternative designs with lower speeds
Challenge the future
30
Questions / discussion
Challenge the future
31