Figure 1. |
Diagram. Considerations in choosing part-time shoulder use.
|
Figure 2. |
Photo. Yellow dashed lines divide the left shoulder (used for part-time travel) from the general purpose lanes in Colorado.
|
Figure 3. |
Photo. A lane-use control sign (on the far right side) indicates whether the shoulder is open or closed to traffic.
|
Figure 4. |
Photo. A left shoulder is available for travel on a dynamic part-time shoulder use facility in Denmark.
|
Figure 5. |
Photo. A right shoulder is available for travel on a dynamic part-time shoulder use facility in Denmark.
|
Figure 6. |
Diagram. Systems Engineering V diagram for intelligent transportation systems projects.
|
Figure 7. |
Diagram. Considerations in choosing part-time shoulder use.
|
Figure 8. |
Diagram. Decision parameters for opening a shoulder to travel based on predicting breakdown.
|
Figure 9. |
Diagram. Decision parameters for opening a shoulder to travel based on an observed breakdown.
|
Figure 10. |
Diagram. Events preceding the opening of a dynamic shoulder.
|
Figure 11. |
Diagram. Example shoulder opening decision tree.
|
Figure 12. |
Diagram. Example shoulder closing decision tree.
|
Figure 13. |
Diagram. Example application of speed and volume decision parameters.
|
Figure 14. |
Chart. Example of freeway sensor metering due to congestion.
|
Figure 15. |
Photo. Gantry with dynamic lane use signs I-66 in Northern Virginia.
|
Figure 16. |
Chart. Speed heat map for eastbound I-66 analysis segment from probe data.
|
Figure 17. |
Charts. Compound figure depicts speed band comparison for I-66 eastbound.
|
Figure 18. |
Charts. Compound figure depicts sample Product Limit Method analysis for the morning and afternoon peak on a freeway in California.
|
Figure 19. |
Charts. Compound figure depicts temporal distribution of breakdown events.
|
Figure 20. |
Chart. Using Highway Capacity Manual speed-flow curves to select thresholds.
|
Figure 21. |
Chart. Identification of threshold for congested speeds.
|
Figure 22. |
Chart. Probability of breakdown in next 15 minutes.
|
Figure 23. |
Chart. Example a.m. peak period speed-flow data for one day.
|
Figure 24. |
Chart. Annual percent of time shoulder is open or closed in a.m. peak.
|
Figure 25. |
Diagrams. Compound figure illustrates ramp-freeway junction types in FREEVAL experiment.
|
Figure 26. |
Chart. Demand profiles for three-lane facility.
|
Figure 27. |
Chart. Use of realtime and historical data for part-time shoulder use decisionmaking.
|
Figure 28. |
Chart. Effects of varying peak bottleneck d/c ratios for a three-lane, Type A facility geometry and demand increase slope (offset = 30, medium). |
Figure 29. |
Chart. Comparison of vehicle hours delay and number of periods the shoulder is open for a three-lane Type A merge facility for a peak demand-to-capacity ratio of 1.06 and no slope offset.
|
Figure 30. |
Chart. Comparison of vehicle hours delay and number of periods the shoulder is open for a three-lane Type A merge facility for a peak demand-to-capacity ratio of 1.06 and a 50-minute slope offset.
|
Figure 31. |
Charts. Compound figure depicts network delay comparison under various decision parameter variations and maximum demand to capacity ratios.
|
Figure 32. |
Charts. Compound figure compares delay reduction and shoulder open duration under various decision parameter variations for different maximum demand to capacity ratios and slope offsets.
|
Figure 33. |
Charts. Compound figure depicts vehicle throughput for slope offset = 0, maximum d/c = 1.04 under speed decision parameter = 55 mi/h and volume decision parameter = 0.8*d/c scenarios.
|
Figure 34. |
Map. Dynamic part-time shoulder use in Colorado.
|
Figure 35. |
Photo. Example of dynamic part-time shoulder use open.
|
Figure 36. |
Photo. Example of dynamic part-time shoulder use closed.
|
Figure 37. |
Map. Dynamic part-time shoulder use in Michigan.
|
Figure 38. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane in construction.
|
Figure 39. |
Photo. Rendering showing dynamic shoulder lane open.
|
Figure 40. |
Map. Dynamic part-time shoulder use in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
|
Figure 41. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open.
|
Figure 42. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane closed.
|
Figure 43. |
Map. Dynamic part-time shoulder use in Virginia.
|
Figure 44. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open.
|
Figure 45. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane closed.
|
Figure 46. |
Map. Dynamic part-time shoulder use in Washington.
|
Figure 47. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open.
|
Figure 48. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane closed.
|
Figure 49. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open.
|
Figure 50. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open on the right.
|
Figure 51. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open on the left.
|
Figure 52. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane open.
|
Figure 53. |
Photo. Dynamic shoulder lane being monitored.
|
Figure 54. |
Equation. The capacity distribution function.
|
Figure 55. |
Equation. The product-limit estimator for the capacity or breakdown probability distribution.
|
Figure 56. |
Equation. The product-limit estimator for the probability of observed breakdown volume being greater than the observed volume.
|
Figure 57. |
Equation. Product-limit estimator for observed volume that causes a breakdown but is considered separately.
|
Figure 58. |
Equation. The likelihood function for capacity analysis.
|