Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
AP-R500-15
Publisher
Prepared by
Austroads Ltd.
Hanford Cheung and Dr Joseph Affum
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Peter Ellis www.austroads.com.au
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Review of Motorway Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths
Summary
A literature review identified the source of the Australian design parameters and compared them to those
used in the United States. This was followed by data collection for various vehicle classes at a number of
locations in Queensland. A crash history review was also undertaken simultaneously. The key findings
include:
• The relationship between grade and acceleration rates adopted by drivers is complex; grade appears to
have limited influence on acceleration rates adopted by drivers, especially on geometrically constrained
ramps.
• Based on the limited data collected, the grade correction factors provided in the current Austroads Guide
to Road Design Part 4C: Interchanges do not appear to reflect the capabilities of passenger vehicles on
the road network.
• There are other factors affecting vehicle acceleration at entrance ramps, e.g. horizontal alignment,
forward sight distance, visibility to freeway through lanes (design form elements), which may play a more
significant role in driver behaviour than vertical alignment.
• The relationship between ramp length and merge speed appeared to be weak, but there may be an
optimal length that would enable safe merging without significantly increasing construction costs.
However, the findings to date are inconclusive and the following areas of further investigation were
recommended:
• Additional speed and acceleration data needs to be collected from other jurisdictions. There is a need to
collect acceleration data from ramps constructed prior to the adoption of current acceleration lengths,
such data will enable a better understanding of driver behaviour and vehicle performance at constrained
locations.
• The concept of specifying an acceptable level of acceleration based on anticipated traffic composition
may be a possible alternative to current design practices.
• Human factors and design forms have impacts on drivers’ selection of acceleration rate that are not
clearly understood, and require further research and modelling.
The recommended investigations may lead to the optimisation of geometric design elements which will result
in significant financial savings ultimately, through:
• reduction in pavement construction, which may also reduce the amount of earthworks
• reduction in impervious areas, which would reduce the costs of drainage and stormwater quality
improvement equipment
• reduction in the provisioning of road furniture, including but not limited to lighting and road safety barriers.
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Data Collection and Processing ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Study Sites .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Equipment ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.3 Data Collection Process ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2.4 Data Processing .................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Crash Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Literature Review Findings ................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Components of Entrance Ramps ..................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Sources of Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths ........................................................................... 7
3.3 Determination of Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths .................................................................. 8
3.4 Grade Correction Factors ................................................................................................................. 9
3.5 Grade Correction Factors Determination ....................................................................................... 10
3.6 Ramp Metering ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.6.1 Purpose of Ramp Metering ............................................................................................... 10
3.6.2 Types of Ramp Metering ................................................................................................... 12
4. Field Investigation ............................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Collected Data ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 14
4.2.2 Speed and Acceleration over Distance ............................................................................. 15
4.2.3 Entry Speeds, Merge Speeds and Merge Lengths ........................................................... 20
4.2.4 Grade Data ........................................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.1 Performance of Current Passenger Cars .......................................................................... 25
4.3.2 Implied Average Acceleration Suggested by Design Guides ............................................ 26
4.3.3 Acceleration and Grade Relationships .............................................................................. 28
4.3.4 Ramp Length and Merge Speed ....................................................................................... 31
4.3.5 Ramp Signals .................................................................................................................... 32
5. Crash Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 33
5.1 Overview of Results ....................................................................................................................... 33
5.2 Number of Crashes and Severity ................................................................................................... 33
5.3 Crash Types by DCA Code ............................................................................................................ 35
5.4 Vertical Alignment .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.5 Weather Condition .......................................................................................................................... 37
5.6 Lighting Condition ........................................................................................................................... 38
5.7 Horizontal Alignment ...................................................................................................................... 39
Tables
Table 2.1: Availability of grade data from as-constructed drawings ......................................................... 5
Table 3.1: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 100 km/h (level road) ...................................... 8
Table 3.2: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 110 km/h (level road) ...................................... 8
Table 3.3: Grade correction factors from Intersections at Grade (1988) .................................................. 9
Table 3.4: Grade correction factors from Austroads ................................................................................. 9
Table 3.5: Grade correction factors from RMS ....................................................................................... 10
Table 4.1: Number of samples collected per site .................................................................................... 13
Table 4.2: Entry speed, speed limit and average merge speed.............................................................. 14
Table 4.3: Summary of geometric elements and merge speeds at sites investigated ........................... 20
Table 4.4: Acceleration at maximum upgrade ........................................................................................ 26
Table 4.5: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 100 km/h ....................................................... 27
Table 4.6: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 110 km/h ....................................................... 27
Table 4.7: Implied average acceleration for design speed of 100 km/h ................................................. 27
Table 4.8: Implied average acceleration for design speed of 110 km/h ................................................. 27
Table 4.9: Summary of displayed grade and acceleration relationship .................................................. 30
Table 4.10: Grade correction factors ......................................................................................................... 30
Table 4.11: Implied average acceleration after application of grade correction factors ........................... 31
Table 5.2: Crash severity from 2006 to 2010 .......................................................................................... 34
Table 5.3: Crashes and crash rates for the study sites (2006–10) ......................................................... 40
Table 5.4: Entry/merge speed, merge length and maximum upgrade for the study sites ...................... 41
Figures
Figure 2.1: Data points collected along an entrance ramp......................................................................... 4
Figure 2.2: A typical study site boundaries and layout ............................................................................... 5
Figure 3.1: Example of a single and multiple lane entrance ramp ............................................................. 6
Figure 3.2: Ramp traffic signal arrangement including optional high occupancy vehicle
and bypass lanes ................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3.3: Ramp traffic signal arrangement including optional high occupancy vehicle
and bypass lanes ................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4.1: Pacific Motorway Logan Road northbound entrance ramp individual
vehicles – speed vs distance ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4.2: Pacific Motorway Logan Road northbound entrance ramp individual
vehicles – acceleration vs distance ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 4.3: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles) ............................................................................................ 16
Figure 4.4: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge) .................................................................... 17
Figure 4.5: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area) ............................................................. 17
Figure 4.6: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(platooned vehicles) ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4.7: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)............................................................................................ 18
Figure 4.8: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge) ................................................................... 19
Figure 4.9: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area) ............................................................. 19
Figure 4.10: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – grade vs distance, calculated
using altitude data .................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4.11: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(individual vehicles) ................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 4.12: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles) ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 4.13: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge) .................................................................... 22
Figure 4.14: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area) ............................................................. 23
Figure 4.15: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles) ............................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4.16: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)............................................................................................ 24
Figure 4.17: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge) ................................................................... 24
Figure 4.18: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area) ............................................................. 25
Figure 4.19: Acceleration and grade relationship at Pacific Motorway on-ramp at Yatala
(acceleration rates increase with upgrade) ............................................................................ 28
Figure 4.20: Acceleration and grade relationship at Elysium Drive
(acceleration rates increase with downgrade) ....................................................................... 29
Figure 4.21: Acceleration and grade relationship at South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound
(almost constant acceleration, regardless of grade) .............................................................. 29
Figure 4.22: Impact of ramp length on merge speed ................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.23: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(ramp signals operating) ........................................................................................................ 32
Figure 5.1: Number of crashes per site by crash severity ........................................................................ 33
Table 5.1: Number of crashes and percentages ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 5.2: Number of crashes per DCA code by crash severity ............................................................. 35
Figure 5.3: Fatal and hospitalisation crashes by DCA code (%) .............................................................. 35
Figure 5.4: Number of crashes per site by vertical alignment .................................................................. 36
Figure 5.5: Crashes per site by vertical alignment (%) ............................................................................ 36
Figure 5.6: Number of crashes per site by weather condition .................................................................. 37
Figure 5.7: Crashes per site by weather condition (%) ............................................................................ 37
Figure 5.8: Number of crashes per site by lighting conditions ................................................................. 38
Figure 5.9: Crashes by lighting conditions (%) ......................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.10: Number of crashes per site by horizontal alignment .............................................................. 39
Figure 5.11: Crashes by horizontal alignment (%) ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.12: Crash rate (DCA adjusted) versus merge length relationship ............................................... 42
Figure 5.13: Crash rate (DCA adjusted) versus maximum upgrade relationship....................................... 42
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Road design parameters are developed based on assessment of the complex interaction of drivers, vehicles
and the road environment. The level of vehicle performance utilised by the driver under various driving
conditions can only be understood through the collection of actual vehicle operational data, e.g. acceleration
profiles of individual vehicles. A number of issues associated with the current guidance were identified in the
scoping document:
• Acceleration distances and grade correction factors provided in the Austroads Guide to Road Design –
Part 4C: Interchanges (2009b) do not reflect current practices. The acceleration distances are
considerably longer than previous guides and correspond to a significant investment. Research on
acceleration lane lengths with respect to operational and safety performance has not been reviewed for
many years and little research is available on grade correction factors – yet there is significant cost
associated with installing entrance ramps on motorways.
• Ramp metering is a treatment option currently being widely adopted on managed motorways by road
agencies. The successful implementation of ramp metering is dependent on the storage length for
entrance ramps – which directly impacts the acceleration length when retrofitted to existing motorway
ramps.
• The length of acceleration ramps can directly impact on the available ramp metering storage length,
merging safety, motorway operational performance and affordability.
The acceleration lengths provided in various Austroads guides are based on research that ARRB completed
in the 1980s. The earlier research examined normal in-service acceleration behaviour by monitoring the
speed profiles of vehicles. In this earlier research, metal strips or pneumatic switch detectors fixed to the
roadway were used to detect vehicle axles, allowing approximate acceleration profiles to be constructed
using data collected from 10 discrete locations along the roadway. The determination of the acceleration
length was based on a rural intersection and did not include factors that can affect acceleration rates
adopted by drivers.
Technologies have evolved in the past few decades which enabled chase car surveys to be completed using
global positioning system (GPS) loggers to obtain acceleration profiles with data points collected up to 10
times per second. The comprehensive data obtainable enables engineers and researchers to better
understand the changes in the acceleration rate and its relationship with changes in grade and other factors
such as driver glancing 1, identifying gaps and merging with the main traffic stream.
It was considered that the collection and analysis of actual vehicle performance data of various vehicle
classes at entrance ramps with varying geometric configuration would be able to answer the following
question – are the acceleration lengths and rates adopted in the current Austroads guides appropriate for
today’s driver population and vehicle fleet? A further project could use the data collected by this project to
inform research on the design of entrance ramps for heavy vehicles.
1
The term ‘driver glancing’ is used by studies from the United States of America, referring to drivers starting to perceive traffic
conditions on the main lanes, when travelling on the on-ramp, through their mirror. In uncongested or lightly congested conditions,
drivers tend to glance into their mirror or over their shoulder about three times before merging onto the freeway. A typical glance lasts
about 2.5 to 3.0 s, and drivers increase speeds by approximately 2.5 mph during each glance. In metric terms, the average speed
increase during each glance was 4.0 km/h (1.1 ms-1), i.e. drivers are accelerating at an acceleration rate of 0.37–0.44 ms-2 during
each glance.
1.2 Objectives
With improved technology and more safety features, the operational characteristics and performance of
vehicle fleets have changed over the years. With this in mind the main objectives of the study are to:
• investigate whether the current design guidance on ramp acceleration lengths provided by the Austroads
guides are still valid for today’s Australian vehicles
• determine appropriate acceleration lengths for entrance ramps that take into account suitable grade
correction factors that represent a defendable balance between affordability, operational performance and
safety for inclusion in the update of Austroads Guide to Road Design – Part 4C: Interchanges (2009b).
1.3 Purpose
This report describes the work undertaken to date, the findings, discussion and identification of research
needs in this area.
2. Methodology
The study involved a literature review, speed data collection and analysis and crash analysis as detailed
below.
Therefore, the source of divergence between American and Australian guidance was one of the key areas of
investigation. This is because Australian design guides have provided acceleration lengths that are
significantly longer than American guides since 1988, which appeared counter-intuitive, as overall vehicle
fleet acceleration performance has improved over time.
This project was initiated through Austroads by the Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
(TMR). In 2012, a workshop was held to discuss and select study sites (four TMR representatives and two
ARRB representatives participated in the workshop). The factors considered for site selection included,
location, availability of data sources, whether ramp signals were installed and geometric classification. A total
of 20 sites were selected. The location and layout of the study sites are shown in Appendix A.
2.2.2 Equipment
A high sensitivity (–165 dBm), GPS logger capable of 66 channel tracking was used to collect data from a
number of entrance ramps. The typical receiver signal power from a GPS satellite is –127.5 dBm.
The logger was placed in a vehicle, so that speed profiles of vehicles when followed by the survey vehicle
could be replicated.
Data was collected from 19 out of the 20 candidate sites identified. Site 15 (Bruce Highway, Pumicestone
Road entrance ramp) was excluded due to roadworks. The data collection began with a surveyor recording
the type and model of vehicle being followed; the surveyor then activated the GPS unit and maintained the
same distance to the vehicle being followed throughout the length of the entrance ramp. The GPS logger
recorded the speed and position of the vehicle five times per second, which equates to one data point every
5.56 m at 100 km/h (2.78 m at 50 km/h) as shown in Figure 2.1, which shows the closeness of the data
points. This was considered adequate for the purpose of this study.
Source: Google Maps (2015), ‘Queensland’, map data, Google, California, USA.
Vehicles to follow were selected randomly. The survey vehicle travelled between sites and there was no
preference for pre-selecting which vehicle to follow. The surveyor also took note of the traffic conditions at
the time of the survey, e.g. whether there was a platoon at the entrance ramp.
Road infrastructure data was requested from TMR for each entrance ramp, including gradient, road widths
and chainage information. Some as-constructed drawings were supplied and the long sections were used to
obtain the grade information to identify correlation between acceleration rates and change in grade.
It was observed during the data collection process that the merge speed of vehicles was largely equal to the
operating speed of the motorway left-most through lane, except for some heavy vehicles.
The data from the logger was imported into a spreadsheet and each vehicle trajectory was plotted in a
geographic information system (GIS). The data collected beyond the start and end points of each ramp was
excluded from further analysis. The processed data was collated, and graphs of speed and acceleration rate
distributions were generated.
The use of altitude data from the GPS logger in lieu of data from as-constructed design drawings is not
considered ideal, i.e. altitude accuracy is a limitation of basic GPS systems. The preference was to use
grade data from as-constructed drawings wherever possible. However, this information was only provided for
the ramps shown in Table 2.1. GPS altitude data was used to generate grade information for ramps without
as-constructed information.
Five years’ crash data (2006–10) within the study site boundaries as shown in Figure 2.2 was extracted and
analysed. Using AADT data obtained from TMR’s traffic and travel information website, crash rates were
calculated per site.
Australian researchers since the 1970s have provided guidance on acceleration lane lengths based on
Australian vehicle fleets and in-service parameters (Jarvis 1987), which formed the basis of the acceleration
lengths in the Austroads guides today.
Figure 3.1 shows the components of single and multi-lane entry ramps.
1 L refers to distance between the entry ramp and the following exit ramp. Refer to Section 6.6.6 and Table 6.4 of the
Guide to Traffic Management – Part 6: Intersections, interchanges and crossings (Austroads 2007).
2 Indicative only. Refer to the Guide to Road Design – Part 3: Geometric design (Austroads 2009a).
3 See Table 11.4. However length should be extended to achieve improved level of service where determined by
appropriate traffic analysis.
4 Curve design speed should at least equal to the mean free speed of the through road (about numerically equal to the
speed limit).
5 Run-out area required.
6 Taper length T based on a lateral movement at 1.0 m/sec.
Source: Austroads (2009b).
Comparatively, the values provided in the current Austroads guide are higher than values given in the 2011
Green Book. It is noted that the US 2011 Green Book values are similar or very close to the values provided
in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways (1965), also known as the 1965 Blue Book.
The AASHTO acceleration lengths have not had the dramatic changes and increase that had occurred to the
Austroads/NAASRA acceleration lengths. However, researchers in the US recently have started reviewing
the validity of the AASHTO acceleration lengths, and suggestions have been made to increase the current
AASHTO acceleration lengths (Fitzpatrick & Zimmerman 2007).
The NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) supplement to the Austroads guide includes alternative
guidance on acceleration lengths for entrance ramps (RMS 2011). However, the source and origin of the
figures provided are unknown.
The effects of improved vehicle technology were investigated by Australian researchers (Keys & Ayers 2012)
who concluded that it would be possible to recommend decreased lengths for freeway entry ramps.
However, it was also noted that the adverse effects associated with reduced ramp lengths also need to be
investigated.
The National Co-operative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) in the US has recently completed a design
guidance document for freeway mainline ramp terminals. The study confirmed the US practice of using
passenger cars as the principal design vehicle for freeway mainline terminals (Transportation Research
Board 2012).
The study also identified that although many vehicles are capable of accelerating at higher rates than the
assumed acceleration rates used to determine the minimum acceleration lane lengths for entrance terminals
in the Green Book, many drivers chose to accelerate at lower rates. This behaviour does not appear to
adversely affect the operational performance of entrance ramps, leading to the conclusion that the current
design guidance in the Green Book may be considered conservative (Transportation Research Board 2012).
This conclusion is interesting as the Green Book acceleration lane length figures are consistently and
significantly shorter than the lengths included in Austroads guides. The data collection undertaken by this
research project provided further insight into the in-service acceleration characteristics of the Australian fleet
in various situations.
The acceleration lengths recommended in various design guides and policies for design speeds of 100 km/h
and 110 km/h are summarised in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 respectively.
Table 3.1: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 100 km/h (level road)
Table 3.2: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 110 km/h (level road)
In general, unless combined with a downgrade, the lengths of acceleration lane required for trucks to
accelerate to the design speed of the through roadway will be very long. For example, if a semi-trailer is used
as the design vehicle on a 2% upgrade, the acceleration length required will be in excess of 10 km
(Austroads 2002). Therefore, the grade correction factors do not provide ramp lengths to fully cater for heavy
vehicle acceleration requirements.
Although vehicle acceleration performance has improved, the grade correction factors in Austroads Guides
have not changed over the years (Table 3.3, Table 3.4).
The RMS (2011) supplement to the Austroads guide provides grade correction factors that are slightly different
to the Austroads Guide (Table 3.5). However, the source and origin of the figures provided are unknown.
Ratio of length on grade to length on level, based on design speed of turning roadway curve
Design speed (km/h)
of road
entered (km/h) 3 to 4% upgrade 5 to 6% upgrade
30 50 60 80 30 50 60 80
80 1.3 1.4 1.4 – 1.5 1.7 1.9 –
100 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5
3 to 4% downgrade 5 to 6% downgrade
All speeds All speeds
80 0.65 0.55
100 0.6 0.5
Ratio of length on grade to length on level, based on design speed of turning roadway curve
Design speed (km/h)
of road
entered (km/h) 3 to 4% upgrade 5 to 6% upgrade
30 50 60 80 30 50 60 80
80 1.3 1.4 1.4 – 1.5 1.7 1.9 –
100 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5
110 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 3.0
120 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.5
3 to 4% downgrade 5 to 6% downgrade
All speeds All speeds
80 0.65 0.55
100 0.6 0.5
110 0.6 0.5
120 0.6 0.5
Design speed Ratio of length on grade to length on level, based on design speed of turning roadway curve
of road (km/h)
entered 3 to 4% upgrade 5 to 6% upgrade
(km/h)
30 50 60 80 30 50 60 80
80 1.30 1.40 1.40 – 1.50 1.70 1.90 –
100 1.40 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.70 2.00 2.20 2.70
110 1.50 1.60 1.65 1.80 2.00 2.30 2.60 3.00
120 1.60 1.70 1.75 2.00 2.30 2.70 3.00 3.50
3 to 4% downgrade 5 to 6% downgrade
All speeds All speeds
80 0.65 0.55
100 0.6 0.5
110 0.6 0.5
120 0.6 0.5
Using this method a US study found that upgrades as steep as 3 to 4% do not have any significant impact on
the acceleration capabilities of passenger cars (Transportation Research Board 2012). As grades increase to
5 to 6%, the acceleration rates of passenger cars tend to decrease.
The general perception is that heavy vehicles are likely to negatively impact the overall operation of an
entrance ramp. However, the US study found that the overall operation of ramps with a small proportion of
heavy vehicle traffic was not affected by heavy vehicle merging behaviour (Transportation Research Board
2012).
Figure 3.2: Ramp traffic signal arrangement including optional high occupancy vehicle and bypass
lanes
Ramp meters are being installed across Australian jurisdictions to delay the onset of flow breakdown on
freeways. The current Austroads design guide has provided some guidance regarding the ramp length, but
does not provide specific guidance on acceleration length with ramp meters (Austroads 2009b). The RMS
supplement to Austroads provides an alternative design for ramp signalling layout (Figure 3.3), but, similar to
the Austroads Road Design Guide, has not provided specific guidance regarding acceleration length
determination (RMS 2011).
Figure 3.3: Ramp traffic signal arrangement including optional high occupancy vehicle and bypass
lanes
The positioning of the stop line on the ramp is often a balance between storage length and acceleration
length, particularly for retrofitting existing ramps. The Texas Transportation Institute has developed some
guidance regarding determination of minimum ramp length to provide safe, efficient and desirable operation.
Grade corrected distances from ramp meter to freeway merge were also developed using the AASHTO
method of determining acceleration lengths (Chaudhary & Messer 2000).
The collection of acceleration data from ramp metering locations across Australian jurisdictions would assist
with establishment of guidelines that are compatible with the in-service performance of the Australian fleet.
4. Field Investigation
Speed, time, latitude, longitude and altitude data sets have been collected for the 19 study ramps; with
approximately 20 data sets per site. In all 429 vehicle profiles (including heavy vehicles) were collected as
shown in Table 4.1.
Individual Platooned
Total number
Site vehicle vehicle
Location of samples
ID samples samples
collected
collected collected
1 Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound 19 9 28
Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah
2 20 2 22
northbound
Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road Yatala
3 19 3 22
northbound
4 Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound 11 9 20
5 Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound 18 2 20
6 South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound 19 9 28
7 South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound 8 24 32
8 South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound 9 13 22
9 Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound 9 11 20
10 Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound 10 10 20
11 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound 5 16 21
12 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound 12 8 20
13 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound 8 13 21
14 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound 13 9 22
Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour
16 18 2 20
Connection Road northbound
17 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound 19 8 27
Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour
18 15 5 20
Connection Road southbound
19 Caloundra Road/Racecourse Road eastbound 22 1 23
20 Caloundra Road/Racecourse Road westbound 20 1 21
Total 274 155 429
4.2.1 Overview
Data analysis was undertaken for individual sites. These sites were classified geometrically by TMR:
• Good – design complies with current design guides, with no known operational issues
• Moderate – design with some design deficiencies or some known operational issues
• Poor – design with suboptimal design elements, e.g. short acceleration lengths, with known operational
issues.
Table 4.2: Entry speed, speed limit and average merge speed
Entry speed Speed limit on Average merge Difference Percentage TMR geometric
Site ID
(km/h) freeway (km/h) speed (km/h) (km/h) difference category
1 60–80 100 87.6 12.4 12 Poor
2 40–60 100 86.7 13.3 13 Moderate
3 50–70 110 93.7 16.3 15 Good
4 40–60 100 88.8 11.2 11 Good
5 50–70 100 88 12.0 12 Good
6 60–80 90 84.1 5.9 7 Good
7 30–50 90 83.2 6.8 8 Poor
8 50–70 100 95.2 4.8 5 Moderate
9 40–60 90 83.5 6.5 7 Poor
10 50–70 90 81.2 8.8 10 Moderate
11 60–80 100 93.7 6.3 6 Moderate
12 60–80 100 97.5 2.5 3 Moderate
13 50–70 100 95.6 4.4 4 Moderate
14 60–80 100 96.4 3.6 4 Moderate
16 80–100 110 106.8 3.2 3 Good
17 40–60 80 95.6 4.4 4 Moderate
18 60–80 110 107.1 2.9 3 Poor
19 60–80 100 96.4 3.6 4 Moderate
20 60–80 100 93.4 6.6 7 Moderate
The distributions of speed and acceleration rate over distance were plotted for individual vehicles followed
and for each site. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show the combined results for site 1 (Sports Drive entrance
ramp). It was noted that vehicle speeds do not increase at a constant pace and the acceleration rates vary
with distance along the ramp. The GPS logger was also picking up tiny changes in speed, potentially caused
by gear changes and other mechanical factors, these are evident in the data collected, some acceleration
versus distance graphs show very small spikes of deceleration (or acceleration).
It was also identified that speed and acceleration behaviour changes prior to and within the merge area, i.e.
where vehicles are physically able to merge with the through lane. Therefore, efforts were made to
investigate the speed-distance relationships and then grade-average acceleration relationships at coarser
intervals – separating the data collected prior to the merge and those within the merge area. In addition data
for platoon vehicles have been analysed separately. The results for site 1 are shown in Figure 4.3 to
Figure 4.9. The results for all the sites are provided in Appendix B.
Figure 4.1: Pacific Motorway Logan Road northbound entrance ramp individual vehicles – speed
vs distance
Figure 4.2: Pacific Motorway Logan Road northbound entrance ramp individual vehicles –
acceleration vs distance
Figure 4.3: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure 4.4: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
Figure 4.5: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure 4.6: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(platooned vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
50
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure 4.7: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)
100
90
80
70
Speed (km/h)
60
50 15th percentile
Median
40
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure 4.8: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
Speed (km/h)
60
50 15th percentile
Median
40
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
Figure 4.9: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
Speed (km/h)
60
50 15th percentile
Median
40
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Table 4.3 provides a summary of geometric elements and merge speeds at sites investigated. The average
entry speeds ranged from 40 to 90 km/h. The merge lengths ranged from 45 to 425 m.
Table 4.3: Summary of geometric elements and merge speeds at sites investigated
From as-constructed design drawings, grade data are generally collected in 20 m intervals. For the purpose
of the analysis, the change of grade was assumed to be constant between two points of measurement. GPS
altitude data was used to supplement data from as-constructed drawings. The distance-grade distribution for
site 1 is shown in Figure 4.10.
The relationship between grade and acceleration rates by sites was investigated. Graphs showing the
acceleration rates by grade for individual vehicles in addition to 15th percentile, the median and 85th
percentiles have been produced. The distributions for site 1 are shown in Figure 4.11 to Figure 4.18. The
results for all the sites are provided in Appendix C.
Figure 4.10: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – grade vs distance,
calculated using altitude data
2
1.5
0.5
Grade (%)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
Distance (m)
Figure 4.11: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(individual vehicles)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
Figure 4.12: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure 4.13: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
15th percentile
0.4 Median
85th percentile
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Grade (%)
Figure 4.14: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
Figure 4.15: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles)
Figure 4.16: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)
Figure 4.17: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure 4.18: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
4.3 Discussion
The average acceleration recorded shows that most of the passenger cars surveyed have adequate
acceleration capabilities on upgrades and their performance was not significantly affected by upgrades,
which is consistent with the findings of the earlier literature review (Transportation Research Board 2012).
The average acceleration rates recorded at the maximum upgrade at the survey sites are summarised in
Table 4.4. There is no correlation between maximum upgrade and acceleration rates (e.g. acceleration rates
at some locations with maximum upgrade of over 6% were higher than locations with a lower maximum
upgrade).
Acceleration (ms-2)
Maximum
Site ID Location at maximum
upgrade (%)
upgrade
1 Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound 1.5 0.61
2 Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound 3.7 1.21
Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala
3 2.2 0.77
northbound
4 Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound 3.3 0.06
5 Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound 2.6 –0.18
6 South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound 4.9 0.00
7 South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound 6.5 0.64
8 South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound 4.3 0.18
9 Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound 2.0 1.15
10 Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound 6.3 0.15
11 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound 1.7 –0.16
12 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound 3.0 –0.04
13 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound 1.1 0.25
14 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound 1.5 –0.07
Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road
16 0.3 0.24
northbound
17 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound 0.2 0.24
Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road
18 –0.6 0.27
southbound
19 Caloundra Road/Racecourse Road eastbound –0.1 0.58
20 Caloundra Road/Racecourse Road westbound 2.5 0.26
The acceleration lane lengths recommended by various design guides can be found in Table 4.5 and
Table 4.6. The lengths recommended implied average acceleration ranging from 0.63 ms-2 to 3.47 ms-2 for
design speed of 100 km/h (Table 4.7) and 0.52 ms-2 to 1.76 ms-2 for design speed of 110 km/h (Table 4.8)
depending on the entry design speed 2.
Although some of the acceleration values obtained were lower than the average acceleration implied by the
current Austroads Guide to Road Design – Part 4C (2009b), it does not mean that the acceleration lengths
provided in Part 4C are too short for the vehicle fleet. One of the limitations of measuring vehicle
performance on existing ramps is that if an entrance ramp has an acceleration length that is longer than
required, the measured acceleration rates would also be lower than anticipated.
Furthermore, the measured acceleration values are affected by factors other than grade, including but not
limited to:
• the tendency of drivers to change their speed when the through lane operating conditions are visible to
them
• the tendency of drivers to adopt a higher acceleration rate at the start of most ramps regardless of grade
• drivers reducing their speeds once the desired speed is reached
• drivers electing to use a low or high rate of acceleration based on the perceived ramp length available
• mechanical factors, e.g. gear changes.
2
Implied acceleration rate is calculated using a = (vf2 - vi2)/2d, where a = acceleration, vf = final speed, vi = entry speed, d = length
Table 4.5: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 100 km/h
Acceleration lane length (m)
Entry element
Australia United States of America
design speed
(km/h) AGRD Part 4C RMS supplement to AASHTO Green Fitzpatrick and
(2009b) AGRD Part 4C (2011) Book (2011) Zimmerman (2007)
30 425 425 305 440
40 410 410 285 406
50 380 380 255 362
60 340 340 205 309
70 290 290 110 246
80 220 220 40 174
Table 4.6: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 110 km/h
Table 4.7: Implied average acceleration for design speed of 100 km/h
Implied average acceleration (ms-2)
Entry element
Australia United States of America
design speed
(km/h) AGRD Part 4C RMS supplement to AASHTO Green Fitzpatrick and
(2009b) AGRD Part 4C (2011) Book (2011) Zimmerman (2007)
30 0.83 0.83 1.15 0.80
40 0.79 0.79 1.14 0.80
50 0.76 0.76 1.13 0.80
60 0.73 0.73 1.20 0.80
70 0.68 0.68 1.79 0.80
80 0.63 0.63 3.47 0.80
Table 4.8: Implied average acceleration for design speed of 110 km/h
The key assumption made in the current design guide is that acceleration is reduced at an upgrade. The
study identified three types of general acceleration and grade relationships:
• the greater the upgrade the higher the acceleration rate (acceleration increases with grade), e.g. Yatala
(Figure 4.19)
• the greater the downgrade the higher the acceleration rate (acceleration increases with increasing
downgrade), e.g. Elysium Road (Figure 4.20)
• constant acceleration, regardless of grade, e.g. Marquis Street (Figure 4.21).
Of the 19 sites that were investigated, three displayed a grade and acceleration relationship similar to that at
Yatala, eight displayed a grade and acceleration relationship similar to that at Elysium Road. At the
remaining eight sites, the acceleration rates adopted by drivers do not appear to be influenced by grade. As
shown in Table 4.9, the above relationships are independent of the geometric qualities of the ramp (i.e. the
relationships do not depend on whether the ramp geometrical features are good, medium or poor).
Figure 4.19: Acceleration and grade relationship at Pacific Motorway on-ramp at Yatala (acceleration
rates increase with upgrade)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
0.4
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure 4.20: Acceleration and grade relationship at Elysium Drive (acceleration rates increase with
downgrade)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure 4.21: Acceleration and grade relationship at South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound
(almost constant acceleration, regardless of grade)
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)
Although not consistently demonstrated among the datasets, it appears drivers adjust their vehicles’
acceleration rates based on the perceived availability of acceleration length, i.e. if the available acceleration
length is longer, a lower acceleration rate will be used.
Furthermore, it appears that there are other factors affecting vehicle acceleration at entrance ramps. Factors
such as horizontal alignment, forward sight distance, visibility to freeway through lanes, may play a more
significant role in driver behaviour than vertical alignment.
The grade correction factors provided in Austroads (2009b) implies a 5 to 6% upgrade may increase the
required acceleration distance by 3 to 4 times (Table 4.10). This is unlikely to be the case for a modern
passenger vehicle fleet. Although one may argue the grade correction factors are necessary to cater for
heavy vehicles, the lengths of acceleration lane required for trucks to accelerate to the design speed of the
through roadway are unrealistically long. It is accepted that most entrance ramps on upgrades cannot fully
cater for heavy vehicles.
The grade correction factors imply reduction and increase in acceleration due to upgrade and downgrade
respectively (Table 4.11). The implied acceleration rates in Austroads (2009b) are generally lower than
actual acceleration observed at steep upgrades of ramps, meaning that most vehicles are capable of greater
acceleration rates than assumed.
There are also sites with measured average acceleration significantly lower than the acceleration Austroads
(2009b) implies, indicating the acceleration lengths provided may be longer than necessary.
Therefore, the provision of minimum acceleration lengths and grade correction factors in Austroads (2009b)
may not be the best method of enabling the desired outcomes to be delivered.
Design speed Ratio of length on grade to length on level based on design speed of turning roadway curve
of road (km/h)
entered 3 to 4% upgrade 5 to 6% upgrade
(km/h)
30 50 60 80 30 50 60 80
80 1.3 1.4 1.4 – 1.5 1.7 1.9 –
100 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5
110 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 3.0
120 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.5
3 to 4% downgrade 5 to 6% downgrade
All speeds All speeds
80 0.65 0.55
100 0.6 0.5
110 0.6 0.5
120 0.6 0.5
Table 4.11: Implied average acceleration after application of grade correction factors
Design speed Implied average acceleration after application of grade correction factors (ms-2)
of road
3 to 4% upgrade 5 to 6% upgrade
entered
(km/h) 30 50 60 80 30 50 60 80
100 0.59 0.51 0.48 0.39 0.49 0.40 0.33 0.25
110 0.49 0.43 0.39 0.29 0.37 0.31 0.24 0.17
3 to 4% downgrade 5 to 6% downgrade
All speeds All speeds
100 1.38 1.27 1.21 1.05 1.65 1.52 1.45 1.26
110 1.23 1.14 1.05 0.87 1.48 1.37 1.26 1.05
The relationship between ramp length and average merge speed is shown in Figure 4.22. The relationship is
considered weak, but there may be an optimal length that would enable safe merging without significantly
increasing construction costs.
The interactions among vertical geometry, ramp length, merge length and sight distance are complex and
further research will enable the effects of these influencing factors to be better understood.
Vehicle acceleration profiles were collected from South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound on-ramp,
when the ramp signals were operating.
The data collected suggests that compromises have been made in relation to the acceleration requirements
for ramp signals (Figure 4.23). The position of the stop line on this ramp implied an average acceleration rate
of 2.7 ms-2, if a vehicle stopped at the ramp signal stop line is required to accelerate to a speed that would
not significantly impact on the operation of the through lanes. The ramp signals as installed, therefore would
be contributing to flow disruption on the through lanes.
It is considered that guidance for ramp signal design and their required acceleration length (or maximum
allowable acceleration) should be included in the design guides. For example, where compromise is required
for queue stacking capacity and acceleration lengths, guidance on acceptable acceleration rates for ramp
signals may be beneficial.
Figure 4.23: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (ramp signals
operating)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper Ramp metering signals
5. Crash Analysis
25
20
15
10
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19
Fatal Hospitalisation Medical treatment Minor injury Property damage only
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
300 301 305 306 307 406 608 607 610 700 701 703 704 705 800 801 803 802 804 805 900
Fatal Hospitalisation Medical treatment Minor injury Property damage only
The main crash type for fatal and hospitalisation crashes was rear-end crashes (DCA code 301 with 45%) as
shown in Figure 5.3.
1% 1%
300
2% 3% 3%
2% 1% 4% 301
1% 305
306
4% 307
4% 406
2% 608
1% 45% 607
1%
610
8% 700
701
4% 703
1%
5% 704
1% 6% 705
25
20
15
10
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19
Crest Dip Grade Level
1%
2%
12%
Crest
Dip
Grade
Level
85%
25
20
15
10
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19
Clear Fog Raining Smoke/Dust Unknown
22%
Clear
Fog
1%
Raining
Smoke/Dust
Unknown
76%
25
20
15
10
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19
Darkness - Lighted Darkness - Not lighted Dawn/Dusk Daylight Unknown
0%
23%
Darkness - Lighted
Darkness - Not lighted
3% Dawn/Dusk
Daylight
7% Unknown
67%
25
20
15
10
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19
Curved - view obscured Curved - view open Straight
6%
12%
82%
Crash costs and crash rate calculations were undertaken using 2007 crash costs. Crash rates (DCA
adjusted) for each of the selected sites were calculated for the five year period (2006–10) using Equation 1.
∑ 𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴 1
𝑅𝑅 = × 104
𝑆𝑆 × 𝑌𝑌 × 365
where
Table 5.3: Crashes and crash rates for the study sites (2006–10)
Crash rate (DCA Crashes per year per Crashes per 100
Site ID Crashes per year
adjusted) km million VKT
1 3.4 237.63 7.73 44.77
2 1.6 130.37 3.56 16.48
3 0.8 13.07 0.91 3.68
4 1.8 66.32 3.21 18.72
5 1.4 91.54 3.11 18.12
6 2.4 73.49 3.64 16.22
7 5.4 473.92 15.21 63.45
8 2.2 100.57 2.91 19.00
9 2.0 163.63 5.26 41.90
10 1.8 119.12 2.37 19.65
11 2.8 224.63 5.19 28.45
12 2.8 106.09 4.06 19.65
13 0.4 29.28 0.59 3.45
14 1.8 142.96 2.90 15.93
16 0.6 273.74 1.25 23.34
17 0.8 203.35 1.03 13.82
18 0.8 235.35 1.82 22.70
19 0.4 46.25 0.95 18.50
Some of the possible factors that contributed to the high crash rates are discussed in Section 5.9.
Table 5.4: Entry/merge speed, merge length and maximum upgrade for the study sites
There is a weak inverse logarithmic relationship that the shorter the merge length, the higher the crash rate
as shown in Figure 5.12. Further research to determine optimal merge length is recommended that would
enable safe merging without significantly increasing construction costs.
Figure 5.12: Crash rate (DCA adjusted) versus merge length relationship
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
Crash rate
250.0
200.0
50.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Merge length (m)
There is an optimum maximum grade for the crash rate as shown in Figure 5.13. Crash rates at the lower
and upper grades are higher. More datasets are recommended to determine the optimum range of maximum
upgrade.
Figure 5.13: Crash rate (DCA adjusted) versus maximum upgrade relationship
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
250.0 R² = 0.277
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Maximum upgrade (%)
6. Discussion
The current entrance ramp acceleration lengths in the Austroads guides are consistently and significantly
longer than the values provided in the 2011 Green Book (AASHTO 2011). In 1987, the National Association
of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) standards were reviewed and new acceleration lane lengths
based on Australian specific fleet and in-service parameters were recommended (Jarvis 1987), which
significantly increased the acceleration lengths in Austroads/NAASRA guides, i.e. the 1970–80s Australian
vehicle fleet composition influenced this increase in acceleration length, which also catered partly for heavy
vehicles.
A US study reported there were generally no differences between heavy vehicle crash rates and overall
crash rates at either entrance or exit ramps. However, they found several exit ramp configurations that had
heavy vehicle crash rates higher than the overall crash rates, including parclo (partial clover leaf) loop, free-
flow loop and ramps in the ‘others’ category 3 (Transportation Research Board 2012).
On freeway main carriageways, the proportion of heavy vehicle crashes are similar at interchanges (i.e.
within weaving segment) and other segments of the freeway. At locations where the daily heavy vehicle
volume exceeds 1000 vehicles per day, heavy vehicle crash frequency appeared to be higher than on-ramps
with lower heavy vehicle volumes (Transportation Research Board 2012).
There appears to be a relationship between the merge length and crash rate, where the shorter the merge
length, the higher the crash rate. Also there appears to be an optimum maximum grade that may result in
lower crash rates.
However, the AASHTO and Austroads guides provide the same grade correction factors, indicating they are
likely to be developed from the same source. The longer acceleration lengths with the same grade correction
factors mean that entrance ramps on Australian roads can be substantially longer than similar roads in the
United States.
It has been generally accepted that geometric design policies and practices have been and will be affected
by issues such as mobility and accessibility, sustainable development, safety and security and technological
innovations. In the area of acceleration and grade correction factors, the improvement in vehicle
performance and capability plays a significant part in establishing design criteria and practice. The
performance and capability of the current Australian fleet is considered to be better than the fleet in 1970–
80s. There may be scope to optimise the design practice to reflect the performance and capability of the
current vehicle fleet.
3
Ramps were grouped into seven configurations:
- Diamond
- Parclo loop
- Free-flow loop
- Outer connection
- Direct or semi-direct connection
- Button hook, scissor, and slip ramps
- Others.
TRB (2012) even suggested the Green Book minimums can be further reduced by 15% without creating
operational problems for ramps that will mostly operate in free-merge conditions. Therefore, further
investigation into the wider Australian vehicle fleet and driver population may enable significant cost savings
in relation to the development of new roads.
For example, if constructing a new entrance ramp with a design speed of 110 km/h in Australia following
Austroads guidance, the acceleration length would be more than 250 m longer than the same ramp in the
United States using AASHTO policy. The additional 250 m may not sound like a significant amount, but if
broken down into its components, it could mean:
• 1750 m2 of pavement area (assuming 7 m wide pavement)
• 875 m3 of granular/asphaltic pavement materials
• 500 m of barriers
• 250 m of drainage pipes and channels
• 15 street lights.
The costs associated with the additional 250 m could be roughly in the order of $350 000 to $500 000. For a
project with five on-ramps, these costs would be substantial.
Therefore, a better understanding of fleet and driver population can result in the optimisation of design
guidance for geometric elements, i.e. providing what is necessary (but not excessively). This will in turn
enable cost-effective, safe and efficient solutions to be implemented.
TRB (2012) confirmed the US practice of using the passenger car as the principal design vehicle for freeway
ramps.
The study also identified that although many vehicles are capable of accelerating at higher rates than the
assumed acceleration rates used to determine the minimum acceleration lane lengths for entrance terminals
in the Green Book, many drivers chose to accelerate at lower rates. This behaviour does not appear to
adversely affect the operational performance of entrance ramps, leading to the conclusion that the current
design guidance in the Green Book may be considered conservative.
The general perception is that heavy vehicles are likely to negatively impact the overall operation of an
entrance ramp. However, TRB (2012) found that the overall operation of ramps with a small proportion of
heavy vehicle traffic was not affected by heavy vehicles’ merging behaviour.
The adoption of a higher implied acceleration rate may be more appropriate for design of ramp signals.
It is considered that guidance for ramp signal design and their required acceleration length (or maximum
allowable acceleration) should be included in the design guides. For example, where compromise is required
for queue stacking capacity and acceleration lengths, guidance on acceptable acceleration rates from ramp
signals may be beneficial.
Based on the limited data collected, the grade correction factors provided in the current Part 4C (Austroads
2009b) do not appear to reflect the capabilities of passenger vehicles on the road network. Further study
involving the collection of more data from other states is required to confirm the results obtained here.
It appears that there are other factors affecting vehicle acceleration at entrance ramps. Factors such as
horizontal alignment, forward sight distance, visibility to freeway through lanes (design form elements), may
play a more significant role in drivers’ behaviour than vertical alignment. Research into these areas may
enable better guidance to be provided to designers and delivery of better operational outcomes for Australian
jurisdictions.
The relationship between ramp length and merge speed appeared to be weak, but there may be an optimal
length that would enable safe merging without significantly increasing construction costs. Further research
into this area of geometric design will be beneficial in determining an optimal combination of geometric
variables.
However, additional data collection is considered necessary to arrive at definitive recommendations for
changing the current Austroads guidance due to the limitation of this study only including sites in
Queensland.
7.1 Conclusions
It is concluded that:
• There is potential for reducing the acceleration lengths at entrance ramps and such reduction is likely to
generate significant capital and operational cost savings.
• The practice of using passenger vehicles as design vehicles and not fully catering for heavy vehicles in
terms of acceleration length provision is appropriate.
• The adoption of higher implied acceleration rates may be more appropriate in the design of entrance
ramps.
• There are other factors affecting vehicle acceleration at entrance ramps that need to be better
understood.
• Additional investigations are necessary to arrive at definitive recommendations.
However, the investigation to date has been inconclusive, as the locations selected may not be
representative of Australia-wide conditions. The following additional investigations are recommended:
• extend the study to cover sites from other jurisdictions – collection and analyses of speed, acceleration
and crash data from other jurisdictions
• investigate human factors and design elements that affect the selection of acceleration rates by drivers –
there is limited understanding of the human factors and design forms which impact on driver selection of
acceleration rate.
• the current Australian design practice provides for heavy vehicles or low performance vehicles partially,
whereas the US practice is based only on passenger vehicles. There may be scope for Australian
jurisdictions to consider increasing the implied acceleration rates assumed to be adopted by drivers
where the projected proportion of heavy vehicles on a route is low 4. Further data collection in other
jurisdictions or at shorter ramps will give a better understanding of acceleration rates adopted by drivers
in geometrically constrained conditions.
4
In the US, it is assumed that ‘low’ means up to 10% of all vehicles are heavy vehicles.
References
AASHTO 2011, ‘A policy on geometric design of highways and streets’, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA
Austroads 2002, Geometric design for trucks: when, where and how? AP-R211-02, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2007, Guide to traffic management: part 6: intersections, interchanges and crossings, AGTM06-
07, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009a, Guide to road design: part 3: geometric design, AGRB03-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Guide to road design: part 4C: interchanges, AGRD04C-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Chaudhary, NA & Messer, CJ 2000, Design criteria for ramp metering: appendix to TxDOT Roadway Design
Manual, report FHWA/TX-01/2121-3, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, USA.
Chaudhary, NA, Tian, Z, Messer, CJ & Chu, CL 2004, Ramp metering algorithms and approaches for Texas,
report FHWA/TX-05/0-4629-1, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 2006, Ramp management and control handbook, FHWA, Washington, DC,
USA.
Fitzpatrick, K & Zimmerman, K 2007, ‘Potential updates to 2004 Green Book’s acceleration lengths for
entrance terminals’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2023, pp. 130-9.
Gattis, JL, Bryant, M & Duncan, LK 2008, Acceleration lane design for higher truck volumes, Mack-Blackwell
Transportation Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.
Jarvis, JR 1987, Acceleration lane design, AIR 281-1, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Keys, J & Ayers, R 2012, ‘The effects of improved vehicle technology on the design of acceleration and
deceleration lanes at freeway entry and exit ramps’, ARRB conference, 25th, 2012, Perth, Western
Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 13 pp.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1976, ‘Policy for geometric design or rural roads’,
NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1979, ‘Interim guide for the design of intersections
at grade’, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1988, ‘Part 5 Traffic engineering practice:
Intersections at grade’, NAASRA, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2011, RTA supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design: Part 4C:
Interchanges, RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Transportation Research Board 2012, Design guidance for freeway mainline ramp terminals, NCHRP report
730, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
AASHTO 1965, ‘A policy on geometric design of rural highways’, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 3: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Distance (m)
Figure B 4: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
50
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 7: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
Figure B 8: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 9: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – speed vs distance
(individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 10: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
Distance (m)
Figure B 11: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – speed vs
distance (percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
80
70
60
50
Speed (km/h)
40 15th percentile
Median
30 85th percentile
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
Distance (m)
Figure B 12: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – speed vs
distance (percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
Distance (m)
Figure B 13: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – speed vs distance
(platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 14: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – speed vs
distance (individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 15: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – speed vs
distance (percentiles, individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
780
820
860
Distance (m)
Figure B 16: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – speed
vs distance (percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 17: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – speed
vs distance (percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
Distance (m)
Figure B 18: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – speed vs
distance (platooned vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 19: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance (individual
vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 20: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
0
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Distance (m)
Figure B 21: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
0
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 22: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560
Distance (m)
Figure B 23: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance (platooned
vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 24: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
0
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Distance (m)
Figure B 25: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
0
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 26: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Distance (m)
Figure B 27: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – speed vs distance
(individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 28: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 29: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Distance (m)
Figure B 30: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
Distance (m)
Figure B 31: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – speed vs distance
(platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 32: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 33: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
Distance (m)
Figure B 34: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Distance (m)
Figure B 35: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
Distance (m)
Figure B 36: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 37: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
Distance (m)
Figure B 38: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Distance (m)
Figure B 39: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
Distance (m)
Figure B 40: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 41: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 42: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Distance (m)
Figure B 43: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 44: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (platooned
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 45: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 46: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
80
70
60
50
Speed (km/h)
40 15th percentile
Median
30 85th percentile
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Distance (m)
Figure B 47: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
82
80
78
76
Speed (km/h)
74
15th percentile
72 Median
85th percentile
70
68
66
64
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 48: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (ramp signals
operating)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper Ramp metering signals
Figure B 49: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles, ramp
signal operating)
60
50
40
Speed (km/h)
30 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 50: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, ramp signal operating, prior to merge)
60
50
40
Speed (km/h)
30 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Distance (m)
Figure B 51: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, ramp signal operating, within merge area)
60
50
40
Speed (km/h)
30 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
20
10
0
320
340
360
Distance (m)
Figure B 52: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 53: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
Distance (m)
Figure B 54: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 55: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
Distance (m)
Figure B 56: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 57: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
Distance (m)
Figure B 58: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Distance (m)
Figure B 59: Enlarged, South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
Distance (m)
Figure B 60: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 61: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Distance (m)
Figure B 62: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Distance (m)
Figure B 63: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
340 360 380
Distance (m)
Figure B 64: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 65: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Distance (m)
Figure B 66: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Distance (m)
Figure B 67: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
340 360 380
Distance (m)
Figure B 68: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 69: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles, individual
vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660 700 740
Distance (m)
Figure B 70: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Distance (m)
Figure B 71: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
Distance (m)
Figure B 72: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 73: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660 700 740
Distance (m)
Figure B 74: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50
15th percentile
40 Median
85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Distance (m)
Figure B 75: Enlarged, Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760
Distance (m)
Figure B 76: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 77: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles, individual
vehicles).
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Distance (m)
Figure B 78: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Distance (m)
Figure B 79: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540
Distance (m)
Figure B 80: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 81: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles, platooned
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Distance (m)
Figure B 82: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Distance (m)
Figure B 83: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540
Distance (m)
Figure B 84: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance (m)
Merge starts Merge taper ends (lane 1) Merge taper ends (lane 2)
Figure B 85: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles, individual
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
60
1020
1060
1100
1140
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
780
820
860
900
940
980
Distance (m)
Figure B 86: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Distance (m)
Figure B 87: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
1000
1020
1040
1060
1080
1100
1120
1140
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
980
Distance (m)
Figure B 88: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance (m)
Merge starts Merge taper ends (lane 1) Merge taper ends (lane 2)
Figure B 89: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles, platooned
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
60
1020
1060
1100
1140
100
140
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
620
660
700
740
780
820
860
900
940
980
Distance (m)
Figure B 90: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Distance (m)
Figure B 91: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
1000
1020
1040
1060
1080
1100
1120
1140
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
940
960
980
Distance (m)
Figure B 92: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 93: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660
Distance (m)
Figure B 94: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Distance (m)
Figure B 95: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680
Distance (m)
Figure B 96: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 97: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660
Distance (m)
Figure B 98: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Distance (m)
Figure B 99: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680
Distance (m)
Figure B 100: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 101: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
Distance (m)
Figure B 102: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Distance (m)
Figure B 103: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620
Distance (m)
Figure B 104: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance (platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 105: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
Distance (m)
Figure B 106: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Distance (m)
Figure B 107: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620
Distance (m)
Figure B 108: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – speed vs distance (individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 109: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
15th percentile
60 Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
Distance (m)
Figure B 110: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
15th percentile
60 Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Figure B 111: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
15th percentile
60 Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
Distance (m)
Figure B 112: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – speed vs distance (platooned
vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 113: Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance (individual
vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660 700 740 780
Distance (m)
Figure B 115: Enlarged, Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
Figure B 116: Enlarged, Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780
Distance (m)
Figure B 117: Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance (platooned
vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660 700 740 780
Distance (m)
Figure B 119: Enlarged, Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
Figure B 120: Enlarged, Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780
Distance (m)
Figure B 121: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road southbound – speed
vs distance (individual vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 122: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road southbound – speed
vs distance (percentiles, individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
Figure B 125: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road southbound – speed
vs distance (platooned vehicles)
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 126: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road southbound – speed
vs distance (percentiles, platooned vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
Figure B 129: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – speed vs distance (individual
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 130: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420
Distance (m)
Figure B 131: Enlarged, Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (m)
Figure B 132: Enlarged, Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420
Distance (m)
Figure B 133: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – speed vs distance (platooned
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 134: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – speed vs distance (individual
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
Figure B 135: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Distance (m)
Figure B 136: Enlarged, Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Distance (m)
Figure B 137: Enlarged, Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – speed vs distance
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
40
20
0
260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560
Distance (m)
Figure B 138: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – speed vs distance (platooned
vehicles)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
Merge starts End of merge taper
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
0.8
0.7
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
15th percentile
0.4 Median
85th percentile
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Grade (%)
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 8: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(individual vehicles)
Figure C 9: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
Figure C 10: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
1
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 11: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
Median
0.4
85th percentile
0.2
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 12: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 13: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2.5
2
Acceleration (m/s²)
1.5
0.5
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Grade (%)
Figure C 14: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles, within merge area)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 15: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 16: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (percentiles, individual vehicles)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
0.4
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 17: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
0.4
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 18: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.1
15th percentile
Median
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 85th percentile
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 19: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (platooned vehicles)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 20: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 21: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (platooned vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 22: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 23: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
1 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 24: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 25: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.1
15th percentile
Median
0
85th percentile
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 26: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles)
Figure C 27: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 28: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 29: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 30: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(individual vehicles)
Figure C 31: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
15th percentile
Median
0 85th percentile
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 32: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 33: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
15th percentile
-0.2
Median
85th percentile
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
Grade (%)
Figure C 34: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 35: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 36: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
(platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 37: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
Figure C 38: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2
85th percentile
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
Figure C 39: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0
Median
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
Figure C 40: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
0
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 41: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
Figure C 42: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
Figure C 43: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
Median
0 85th percentile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 44: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
Figure C 45: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 46: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 47: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 48: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2 85th percentile
0
-0.98 -0.97 -0.96 -0.95 -0.94 -0.93 -0.92 -0.91
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 49: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (platoon
vehicles)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 50: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platoon vehicles)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.8
Median
85th percentile
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.2
Grade (%)
Figure C 51: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platoon vehicles, prior to merge)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.8
Median
85th percentile
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.2
Grade (%)
Figure C 52: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platoon vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.7
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0.2
0.1
0
-0.98 -0.97 -0.96 -0.95 -0.94 -0.93 -0.92 -0.91
Grade (%)
Figure C 53: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (ramp signal
operating)
Figure C 54: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
ramp signal operating)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 55: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
ramp signal operating, prior to merge)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 56: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
ramp signal operating, within merge area)
Figure C 57: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 58: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 59: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 60: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
0.1
Median
85th percentile
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 61: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 62: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
Figure C 63: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2
85th percentile
0
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 64: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
0
Median
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
Figure C 65: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 66: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 67: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 68: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
Figure C 69: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 70: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 71: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.8
15th percentile
0.6
Median
85th percentile
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 72: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.3
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
15th percentile
-0.1
Median
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 73: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 74: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2
85th percentile
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 75: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2
85th percentile
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 76: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 77: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
2
1.5
0.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
Grade (%)
Figure C 78: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
1.5
0.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0
Median
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85th percentile
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 79: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
1.5
0.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0
Median
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85th percentile
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 80: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 81: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 82: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2
85th percentile
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 83: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.4
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
-0.2
Grade (%)
Figure C 84: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2
85th percentile
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 85: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 86: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
Median
0 85th percentile
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 87: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
0.3
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
-0.1
-0.2
Grade (%)
Figure C 88: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0
Median
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 89: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
3
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 90: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
1
15th percentile
Median
0.5 85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 91: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
1
15th percentile
Median
0.5 85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 92: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 15th percentile
Median
-0.2 85th percentile
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
Figure C 93: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 94: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 95: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 96: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
Median
0 85th percentile
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 97: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2.5
2
Acceleration (m/s²)
1.5
0.5
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5
Grade (%) -1
Figure C 98: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
1
15th percentile
Median
0.5 85th percentile
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 99: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
1
15th percentile
Median
0.5 85th percentile
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 100: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0
Median
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 101: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
Figure C 102: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 103: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 104: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
0
Median
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)
Figure C 105: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
3
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 106: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 107: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
Grade (%)
Figure C 108: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
Figure C 109: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
Figure C 110: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 111: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 112: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0
Median
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 113: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
Figure C 114: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
Median
0.4
85th percentile
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 115: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
Median
0.4
85th percentile
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 116: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.2
15th percentile
Median
0.1
85th percentile
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Grade (%)
Figure C 117: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 118: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles, prior to merge)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 119: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles, within merge area)
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
0.4
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
0.4
Median
85th percentile
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.8
15th percentile
Median
0.6
85th percentile
0.4
0.2
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.8
15th percentile
Median
0.6
85th percentile
0.4
0.2
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2 85th percentile
0
-4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
15th percentile
Median
0.2 85th percentile
0
-4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 136: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
2.5
1.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 137: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
Figure C 138: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1.6
1.4
1.2
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Grade (%)
Figure C 139: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
Figure C 140: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
1.2
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
Figure C 141: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles, prior to merge)
1
0.8
0.6
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.2
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 142: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles, within merge area)
Figure C 143: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.5
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
Figure C 144: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.6
15th percentile
Median
0.4 85th percentile
0.2
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)
Figure C 145: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1.4
1.2
1
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.8
15th percentile
0.6
Median
85th percentile
0.4
0.2
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
Grade (%)
Figure C 146: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade (percentiles,
individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.3
15th percentile
0.2
Median
85th percentile
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Grade (%)
Figure C 147: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Grade (%)
0.5
0.4
Acceleration (m/s²)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Grade (%)