ITS technologies such as dynamic lane merging (DLM) and variable speed limits (VSL) have been deployed in roadway work zones in an attempt to enhance safety and mobility through vehicular traffic. The DLM system in its two main forms namely the early merge and the late merge was designed to advise drivers on definite merging locations whereas VSL were introduced to work zones to decrease speed fluctuations, variances, and to smoothen traffic through work zones. Up to date, there are no studies that contrast Maintenance Of Traffic (MOTs) plans including a combination of ITS technologies to standard work zones MOTs under matching work zone settings. This study simulates a two-to-one work zone lane closure configuration in VISSIM under six different MOT plans and compares work zone throughputs and travel times across MOTs namely Motorist Awareness System (MAS), early DLM, late DLM, VSL combined with MAS, a VSL and early DLM combination, and a VSL late DLM combination. Results showed that the combination of VSL and DLM or standalone DLM improve work zone throughputs and travel times compared to work zones with conventional static Florida MOT and work zones with VSL. 1. Introduction To improve traffic safety and mobility in work zone areas, several states of the USA explored the DLM and VSL systems. The DLM systems are intelligent work zone traffic control systems that respond to real-time traffic changes via traffic sensors. The DLM systems are designed to advise drivers on definite merging locations and can take two forms; dynamic early merge and dynamic late merge. The idea behind the dynamic early merge is to create a dynamic nonpassing zone, to encourage drivers to merge into the open lane before reaching the end of a queue and to prohibit them from using the closed lane to pass vehicles in the queue and merge into the open lane ahead of them [1]. The concept behind late merge is to make more efficient use of roadway storage space by allowing drivers to use all available traffic lanes to the merge point. Once the merge point is reached, the drivers in each lane take turns proceeding through the work zone [2]. Several studies were undertaken to contrast the early form of the DLM [1, 3–5] or the late form of the DLM [2, 6–11] to existing maintenance of traffic (MOT) plans or standard MUTCD work zone traffic control plans. Whereas each study exposes the advantages and disadvantages of the tested systems, up to date there are no studies that cross compare both merging schemes (i.e., early and late DLM) under the same work zone settings. VSL systems are a
References
[1]
A. Tarko and S. Venugopal, “Safety and capacity evaluation of the Indiana lane merge system,” FHWA/IN/JTRP/-2000/19. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind, USA, 2001.
[2]
A. G. Beacher, M. D. Fontaine, and N. J. Garber, “Evaluation of the late merge work zone traffic control strategy,” Tech. Rep. VTRC-05-R6, Virginia Transportation Council, 2004.
[3]
A. Tarko, S. Kanipakapatman, and J. Wasson, “Modeling and optimization of the Indiana Lane merge control system on approaches to freeway work zones,” Final Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-97/12, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind, USA, 1998.
[4]
P. T. McCoy, G. Pesti, and P. S. Byrd, “Alternative information to alleviate work zone related delays,” SPR-PL-1 SPR-PL-1(35) P513, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1999.
[5]
“Dynamic Lane Merge Traffic Control System: A Strategy for Alleviating Aggressive Driving Behavior at Work Zones in Michigan,” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State University, 2001.
[6]
P. T. McCoy and G. Pesti, “Dynamic late merge control concept for work zones on rural interstate highway,” in Proceedings of the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
[7]
Meyer, E. Construction Area Late Merge (CALM) System, “Midwest Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative,” 2004.
[8]
“An Applied Technology and Traffic Analysis Program,” University of Maryland, 2006.
[9]
URS, “Dynamic Late Merge System Evaluation: Initial Deployment on US-10,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2003.
[10]
URS, “Evaluation of 2004 Dynamic Late Merge System,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2004.
[11]
L. F. Grillo, T. K. Datta, and C. Hartner, “Evaluation of Dynamic late lane merge system at freeway construction zones,” in Proceedings of the 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
[12]
K. P. Kang, G. L. Chang, N. Zou, and Transportation Research Record, “An optimal dynamic speed limit control for highway work-zone operations,” in Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2004.
[13]
R. W. Lyles, W. C. Taylor, and D. Lavansiri, “A field test and evaluation of variable speed limits in work zones,” in Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2004.
[14]
G. Pesti and P. T. McCoy, “Long-Term Effectiveness of Speed Monitoring Displays in Work Zones on Rural Interstate Highways,” Transportation Research Record 1754. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
[15]
Florida Department of Transportation, “Plans Preparation Manual (Chapter 10. Work Zone Traffic Control),” 2008.
[16]
VISSIM User Manual Version 4.30. P.T.V AG, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2007.
[17]
R. Harb, E. Radwan, and M. Abdel-Aty, “Two simplified ITS-based lane management strategies for short term work zones,” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 52–61, 2011.
