Establishing the minimum routing decision distance for express lanes
K.S. Machumu, T. Sando, E. Mtoi
Pages: 17-30
Abstract:
Congestion Pricing is increasingly becoming a common strategy for congestion management, often requiring microscopic simulation during planning and operational stages. One of the microscopic simulation issues that has not yet been addressed is the required minimum routing decision distance upstream the ingress point. Decision distance is an optimal upstream distance prior to the ingress at which drivers decide to use express lanes and change lanes to orient on a side of express lanes ingress. To answer this question, this study used a VISSIM model for I-295 proposed express lanes in Jacksonville, Florida, varying the routing decision point at regular intervals from 500 feet to 7000 feet for different levels of service input. Three measures of effectiveness (MOEs); speed, the number of vehicles changing lanes, and following distance, were used for the analysis. These MOEs were measured in the 500 feet zone prior to the ingress. The results indicate that as the level of service (LOS) deteriorates, speed decreases, the number of vehicles changing lanes increases, and the following distance decreases. When the LOS is constant, the increase in the routing distance from the ingress point was associated with the increase in the speed at the 500 feet zone prior to the ingress, less number of lane changes, and the increase in following vehicle gap. However, the MOEs started to be constant after reaching a certain routing decision distance. LOS D was used to determine the minimum routing decision distance to the ingress of the express lanes. The determined minimum distances were 4000 and 3000 feet for six and three lane segments prior to the ingress point, respectively.
Keywords: decision distance; express lanes; VISSIM
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES