Standard freeway merge designs support safer driver behaviour compared to taper designs: a driving simulator study

Abstract

Road geometric design standards provide various possibilities for merging freeways with a decreasing number of lanes. In this study, an alternative design (i.e. taper design) is investigated and compared with the standard design under three different heavy vehicle compositions to understand driving performance in relation to the flow of traffic. Taper design is not always the first choice in the road geometric design guidelines and the designer has to provide arguments for selecting this design. Taper design and its comparison with other alternatives are also not well explored in literature. In this study, a driving simulator was used to examine and compare the performance of these two designs under different heavy vehicle compositions. Qualitative results showed that the perceived safety was better for the standard design compared to the taper design. Mean speed, acceleration, standard deviation of acceleration/deceleration, and cumulative lane changes were chosen as behavioural parameters to compare these two designs using MANOVA and repeated measures ANOVA. Results revealed that drivers’ discomfort in performing merging manoeuvres was greatest in case of a taper design and when the percentage of heavy vehicles was moderate (15%). Overall, the standard design was found to be more favourable.

Practitioner summary: Driving behaviour at merging freeways with a decreasing number of lanes is underexplored. We analysed safety in driving behaviour considering heavy vehicles for taper and standard designs provided in Dutch guidelines using a driving simulator. The standard design was found to be safer and the presence of moderate heavy vehicles caused more disturbances in driving behaviour.