Traffic safety and mobility of roadway work zones have been considered to be one of the major concerns in highway traffic safety and operations in Florida. Dynamic lane merging (DLM) systems—ITS-based lane management technology—were introduced by several states in an attempt to enhance both safety and mobility of roadway work zones. Two forms of lane merging, namely, the early merge and the late merge were designed to advise drivers on definite merging locations. Up to date, there are no studies that contrast both merging schemes under matching work zone settings. This study simulates a two-to-one work zone lane closure configuration under three different Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plans in VISSIM. The first MOT is the conventional plans used in Florida’s work zones, the second MOT is a simplified dynamic early merging system (early SDLMS), and the third MOT is a simplified dynamic late merging systems (late SDLMSs). Field data was collected to calibrate and validate the simulation models. Simulation results indicated that overall, under different levels of drivers’ compliance rate and different percentages of trucks in the traffic composition, the early SLDMS outperformed the conventional MOT and the late SDLMS in terms of travel times and throughputs. 1. Introduction To improve traffic safety and mobility in work zone areas, several states of the USA explored the Dynamic Lane Merge (DLM) 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 no-passing 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, 6–10] 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
References
[1]
A. Tarko and S. Venugopal, “Safety and capacity evaluation of the Indiana lane merge system,” Tech. Rep. 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,” Report 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(35) P513, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1999.
[5]
Wayne State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, “Dynamic Lane Merge Traffic Control System: A Strategy for Alleviating Aggressive Driving Behavior at Work Zones in Michigan,” 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]
E. Meyer, “Midwest Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative,” Construction Area Late Merge (CALM) System, 2004, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/9000/9500/9529/Meyer1.pdf.
[8]
URS, “Dynamic Late Merge System Evaluation: Initial Deployment on US-10,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2003.
[9]
URS, “Evaluation of 2004 Dynamic Late Merge System,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2004.
[10]
L. F. Grillo, T. K. Datta, and C. Hartner, “Evaluation of the 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.
[11]
“Florida Department of Transportation. Plans Preparation Manual (Chapter 10. Work Zone Traffic Control),” 2008, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/2012/Volume2/2012Volume2.pdf.
[12]
R. Harb, E. Radwan, S. Ramasamy, M. Abdel-Aty, and S. Putcha, “Two simplified ITS-based Lane Management strategies for Short term work zones,” in Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
[13]
VISSIM User Manual, “Version 4.30. P. T. V. AG,” Karlsruhe, Germany, 2007.
[14]
Traffic Analysis Toolbox, “Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software,” Federal Highway Administration United States Department of Transportation, Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. McLean, Va, USA, 2004.
[15]
I. Chatterjee, E. Praveen, M. Sandeep, and S. Carlos, “Replication of work zone capacity values in a simulation model,” in Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
