1. 1 Challenge the future Master-Thesis presentation by ir. R.M. Beentjes Performance of rush-hour lanes and pluslanes A study to behavioral factors and design factors

2. 2 Challenge the future 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

3. 3 Challenge the future Contents Introduction Definitions Background Performance-indicators Ex-post evaluation Experimental setup Results Driving simulator study Experimental setup Results Conclusions and recommendations Future research

4. 4 Challenge the future Introduction

5. 5 Challenge the future 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.

6. 6 Challenge the future 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.

7. 7 Challenge the future 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 Background

8. 8 Challenge the future Performance-indicators Lane-flow distribution – regular highway

9. 9 Challenge the future Performance indicators Lane-flow distribution – rush-hour lane

10. 10 Challenge the future Performance-indicators Intensity-speed relation

11. 11 Challenge the future Ex-post evaluation

12. 12 Challenge the future 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

13. 13 Challenge the future Experimental setup Preliminary research Chosen rush-hour lanes (5): Chosen pluslanes (5): LocationLanes Lane width Speed limit (closed/open) A1 – Hoevelaken - Barneveld2+13,35|3,50|3,50120 / 100 A2 – Kerensheide - Vonderen2+13,25|3,40|3,28120 / 100 A2 – Vonderen - Urmond2+13,25|3,40|3,35120 / 100 A13 – Berkel & Rodenrijs - Delft- Zuid3+13,25|3,40|3,40|3,35100 / 100 A50 – Ewijk - Valburg2+13,50|3,50|3,50120 / 120 LocationLanes Lane width Speed limit (closed/open) A1 – Beekbergen – Deventer-Oost2+13,10|3,50|3,45120 / 100 A12 – Ede - Veenendaal2+13,00|3,50|3,35120 / 100 A12 – Woerden - Gouda3+12,75|3,50|3,50|3,50120 / 100 A12 – Zoetermeer - Gouwe2+12,75|3,50|3,25100 / 100 A27 – Gorinchem -Noordeloos2+12,70|3,00|3,25100 / 80

14. 14 Challenge the future 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

15. 15 Challenge the future 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

16. 16 Challenge the future Results Rush-hour lanes - occupation Influence of speed limit: 100 km/h – 120 km/h

17. 17 Challenge the future Results Pluslanes - occupation High speed limit + narrow lane

18. 18 Challenge the future Driving simulator study

19. 19 Challenge the future 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

20. 20 Challenge the future Results Part 1: Car-following behavior Followers and leaders

21. 21 Challenge the future Results ± 95 km/h Desired speed: ± 120 km/h Part 1: Car-following behavior Followers and leaders

22. 22 Challenge the future Results Lane change when there is enough space on the rush-hour lane

23. 23 Challenge the future Results Speed difference is equal, car-following distance decreases linearly

24. 24 Challenge the future Results Lane change when smallest desired car-following distance is reached

25. 25 Challenge the future Results Part 2: Changes in the design Influence of signaling system (reduced signaling) Influence of broken markings (instead of continuous) Influence on occupation analyzed

26. 26 Challenge the future Results Part 2: Changes in the design Determining the occupation per lane Left lane Middle lane Rush-hour lane

27. 27 Challenge the future Results No differences at given conditions

28. 28 Challenge the future Conclusions and recommendations

29. 29 Challenge the future 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) Conclusions and recommendations

30. 30 Challenge the future 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

31. 31 Challenge the future Questions / discussion