Beijing Key Laboratory of Traffic Engineering and the College of Metropolitan Transportation, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China; Beijing Research Center of Urban System Engineering, Beijing, 100035, China.
Beijing Key Laboratory of Traffic Engineering and the College of Metropolitan Transportation, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China.
Accid Anal Prev. 2020 Apr;138:105465. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105465. Epub 2020 Feb 9.
Advance guide signs for exit ramps along urban expressways are increasingly critical, enhancing safety and mobility by improving the flow of vehicles exiting urban expressways. However, research has devoted scant attention to advance guide signs for exit ramps. This study aimed to identify and propose optimal design alternatives for exit ramp advance guide signs for different types of exit spacing. This study conducted a driving simulation experiment consisting of five design alternatives of advance guide signs and two exit ramp spacing variation. Eight indicators were measured. The repeated-measure analysis of variances (ANOVA) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) were performed for the influence analysis and efficiency evaluation of different schemes. Influence analysis results showed better design alternatives in five schemes of advance guide signs, enabling drivers to more easily locate destination exits and change lanes fewer times, in addition to reducing drivers' need to decelerate, and improving traffic flow in the key influence range of destination exit ramps. The percentage of drivers successfully locating the destination exits also increased with optimal design alternatives of advance guide signs. When the exit ramp spacing tightened, on the other hand, drivers had to make more lane changes and accelerate and decelerate more frequently in the key influence range. As a result, a lower percentage of drivers successfully located destination exits. Efficiency evaluation results were also obtained. In tight spacing, three advance guide signs are recommended to be placed at 1 km, 0.5 km and 0 km prior to the beginning of the tapered deceleration lane. If conditions are limited, at least two advance guide signs should be used. With greater spacing, four advance guide signs are recommended, located at 2 km, 1 km, 0.5 km, and 0 km prior to the beginning of the tapered deceleration lane. If road conditions are limited, three advance guide signs should be used.
城市快速路出口匝道预告标志越来越重要，通过改善车辆驶出城市快速路的流畅性，提高安全性和机动性。然而，研究很少关注出口匝道预告标志。本研究旨在为不同类型的出口间距确定和提出出口匝道预告标志的最佳设计方案。本研究进行了一项驾驶模拟实验，包括五个不同出口匝道预告标志设计方案和两个出口匝道间距变化。测量了 8 个指标。采用重复测量方差分析（ANOVA）和逼近理想解排序法（TOPSIS）对不同方案的影响分析和效率评价。影响分析结果表明，在五个出口匝道预告标志设计方案中，更好的设计方案使驾驶员更容易定位目的地出口，并减少变道次数，同时减少驾驶员的减速需求，改善目的地出口匝道关键影响范围内的交通流量。具有最佳设计方案的出口匝道预告标志也提高了成功定位目的地出口的驾驶员比例。另一方面，当出口匝道间距变紧时，驾驶员在关键影响范围内需要更频繁地变道、加速和减速，导致成功定位目的地出口的驾驶员比例降低。也得出了效率评价结果。在间距较紧的情况下，建议在锥形减速车道起点前 1 公里、0.5 公里和 0 公里处放置三个出口匝道预告标志。如果条件有限，至少应使用两个出口匝道预告标志。在间距较大的情况下，建议在锥形减速车道起点前 2 公里、1 公里、0.5 公里和 0 公里处放置四个出口匝道预告标志。如果道路条件有限，应使用三个出口匝道预告标志。
