Hesham A Rakha, Ihab El-Shawarby, Sangjun Park, M. Arafeh
{"title":"货车车道管理备选策略评价的建模框架","authors":"Hesham A Rakha, Ihab El-Shawarby, Sangjun Park, M. Arafeh","doi":"10.1109/ITSC.2010.5625022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops and validates a modeling framework for the evaluation of alternative truck lane management strategies. The framework is used to evaluate alternative truck lane management strategies along a section of Interstate 81, VA. The average light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle speeds produced by the simulation model were found to be consistent with field observations for the base condition. Three scenarios were considered, including: (a) adding a single lane to section 2 (from mileposts 125.0 to 120.7); (b) adding a single lane across sections 1 (from mileposts 128.1 to 125.0), 2, and 3 (from milepost 120.7 to 119.6); (c) combining (a) and (b) to result in four lanes from mileposts 128.1 to 119.6. The results of the analysis indicate that all three scenarios produce savings in travel time; energy; HC, CO, and CO2 emissions; and crash savings relative to the base do-nothing scenario. These benefits increase as the travel demand grows from the base year of 2004 to the horizon year of 2035. A benefit-cost analysis was conducted, and the results demonstrate that the most cost-effective upgrade is to add a third lane to section 2 (benefit-cost ratio of 5.35) followed by the addition of a single lane to sections 1 through 3 (benefit-cost ratio of 2.30). The addition of a fourth lane to section 2, together with an extra lane in sections 1 through 3, still offers advantages with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.60.","PeriodicalId":176645,"journal":{"name":"13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modeling framework for the evaluation of alternative truck lane management strategies\",\"authors\":\"Hesham A Rakha, Ihab El-Shawarby, Sangjun Park, M. Arafeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ITSC.2010.5625022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper develops and validates a modeling framework for the evaluation of alternative truck lane management strategies. The framework is used to evaluate alternative truck lane management strategies along a section of Interstate 81, VA. The average light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle speeds produced by the simulation model were found to be consistent with field observations for the base condition. Three scenarios were considered, including: (a) adding a single lane to section 2 (from mileposts 125.0 to 120.7); (b) adding a single lane across sections 1 (from mileposts 128.1 to 125.0), 2, and 3 (from milepost 120.7 to 119.6); (c) combining (a) and (b) to result in four lanes from mileposts 128.1 to 119.6. The results of the analysis indicate that all three scenarios produce savings in travel time; energy; HC, CO, and CO2 emissions; and crash savings relative to the base do-nothing scenario. These benefits increase as the travel demand grows from the base year of 2004 to the horizon year of 2035. A benefit-cost analysis was conducted, and the results demonstrate that the most cost-effective upgrade is to add a third lane to section 2 (benefit-cost ratio of 5.35) followed by the addition of a single lane to sections 1 through 3 (benefit-cost ratio of 2.30). The addition of a fourth lane to section 2, together with an extra lane in sections 1 through 3, still offers advantages with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.60.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems\",\"volume\":\"119 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2010.5625022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2010.5625022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Modeling framework for the evaluation of alternative truck lane management strategies
This paper develops and validates a modeling framework for the evaluation of alternative truck lane management strategies. The framework is used to evaluate alternative truck lane management strategies along a section of Interstate 81, VA. The average light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle speeds produced by the simulation model were found to be consistent with field observations for the base condition. Three scenarios were considered, including: (a) adding a single lane to section 2 (from mileposts 125.0 to 120.7); (b) adding a single lane across sections 1 (from mileposts 128.1 to 125.0), 2, and 3 (from milepost 120.7 to 119.6); (c) combining (a) and (b) to result in four lanes from mileposts 128.1 to 119.6. The results of the analysis indicate that all three scenarios produce savings in travel time; energy; HC, CO, and CO2 emissions; and crash savings relative to the base do-nothing scenario. These benefits increase as the travel demand grows from the base year of 2004 to the horizon year of 2035. A benefit-cost analysis was conducted, and the results demonstrate that the most cost-effective upgrade is to add a third lane to section 2 (benefit-cost ratio of 5.35) followed by the addition of a single lane to sections 1 through 3 (benefit-cost ratio of 2.30). The addition of a fourth lane to section 2, together with an extra lane in sections 1 through 3, still offers advantages with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.60.