Home   >   CSC-OpenAccess Library   >    Manuscript Information
Full Text Available

(1.24MB)
This is an Open Access publication published under CSC-OpenAccess Policy.
Publications from CSC-OpenAccess Library are being accessed from over 74 countries worldwide.
A New Paradigm in User Equilibrium-Application in Managed Lane Pricing
Asapol Sinprasertkool, Siamak Ardekani, Stephen P. Mattingly
Pages - 73 - 101     |    Revised - 31-03-2011     |    Published - 04-04-2011
Volume - 5   Issue - 1    |    Publication Date - March / April 2011  Table of Contents
MORE INFORMATION
KEYWORDS
Managed Lanes, User Equilibrium, Pricing Policy
ABSTRACT
Ineffective use of the High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) lanes has the potential to decrease the overall roadway throughput during peak periods. Excess capacity in HOV lanes during peak periods can be made available to other types of vehicles, including single occupancy vehicles (SOV) for a price (toll). Such dual use lanes are known as “Managed Lanes.” The main purpose of this research is to propose a new paradigm in user equilibrium to predict the travel demand for determining the optimal fare policy for managed lane facilities. Depending on their value of time, motorists may choose to travel on Managed Lanes (ML) or General Purpose Lanes (GPL). In this study, the features in the software called Toll Pricing Modeler version 4.3 (TPM-4.3) are described. TPM-4.3 is developed based on this new user equilibrium concept and utilizes it to examine various operating scenarios. The software has two built-in operating objective options: 1) what would the ML operating speed be for a specified SOV toll, or 2) what should the SOV toll be for a desired minimum ML operating speed. A number of pricing policy scenarios are developed and examined on the proposed managed lane segment on Interstate 30 (I-30) in Grand Prairie, Texas. The software provides quantitative estimates of various factors including toll revenue, emissions and system performance such as person movement and traffic speed on managed and general purpose lanes. Overall, among the scenarios examined, higher toll rates tend to generate higher toll revenues, reduce overall CO and NOx emissions, and shift demand to general purpose lanes. On the other hand, HOV preferential treatments at any given toll level tend to reduce toll revenue, have no impact on or reduce system performance on managed lanes, and increase CO and NOx emissions.
CITED BY (3)  
1 Olyai, K., & Ardekani, S. A. (2013). A Feasibility Study for Converting HOV Lanes to Managed Lanes in Dallas, Texas. In Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting (No. 13-2022).
2 Abou-Senna, H. A. (2012). Microscopic Assessment of Transportation Emissions on Limited Access Highways (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida).
3 Ardekani, S., Ghandehari, M., & Nepal, S. (2011). Macroscopic speed-flow models for characterization of freeway and managed lanes. Institutul Politehnic din Iasi. Buletinul. Sectia Constructii. Arhitectura Vol, 57, 140-160.
1 Google Scholar 
2 CiteSeerX 
3 refSeek 
4 iSEEK 
5 Socol@r  
6 Scribd 
7 WorldCat 
8 SlideShare 
9 PdfSR 
1 S. A. Ardekani, F. Kashefi, K. Abdelghany, and A. Hassan. “User Guide to Toll Pricing Model v3.1: TPM-3.1”. 2007
2 J. T. Berg, K. Kawada, M. Burris, C. Swenson, L. Smith and E. Sullivan. “Value Pricing Pilot Program”. TR News 204, pp. 3-10, 1999
3 D. Brownstone, A. Ghosh, T. F. Golob, C. Kazimi and D. V. Amelsfort. “Drivers’ Willingnessto- Pay to Reduce Travel Time: Evidence from the San Diego 1-15 Congestion Pricing Project”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 37, Issue 4, pp. 373-387, May 2003
4 M. W. Burris, M. C. Pietrzyk and C. R. Swenson. “Observed Traffic Pattern Changes Due to the Introduction of Variable Tolls”. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000
5 M. W. Burris and E. Sullivan. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Variable Pricing Projects: QuickRide HOT Lanes”. Journal of Transportation Engineering, pp. 183- 190, March 2006
6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. “I-394 MNPASS Technical Evaluation: Final Report”. Project report to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota, 2006
7 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and URS Corporation. “MNPASS System Study: Final Report”. Project report to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota, 2005
8 J. S. Drake, J. L. Schofer and A. D. May. “A Statistical Analysis of Speed Density Hypotheses”. Highway Research Record, Vol. 154, Highway Research Board, NRC, Washington, 1967
9 Federal Highway Administration “Managed Lanes: A Primer”. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008
10 G. Fielding and D. Klein. “High Occupancy/Toll Lanes: Phasing in Congestion Pricing a Lane at a Time”. Policy Study No. 170, Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, 1993
11 J. D. Fricker and R. K. Whitford. “Fundamentals of Transportation Engineering: A Multimodal Systems Approach”. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004
12 FTP of Unixbench Viewed on 13th Mar 2010.
13 D. G. Goodin, M. W. Burris, C. M. Dusza, D. H. Ungemah, J. Li, S. A. Ardakani and S. P. Mattingly. “Role of Preferential Treatment of Carpools in Managed Lane Facilities”. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, Project Summary Report 0-5286-2, 2009
14 Daniel P. Bovet & Macro Cesati. “Understanding the Linux Kernel”. O’REILLY Press, Nov 2005.
15 B. Greenshields. “A Study of Traffic Capacity”. Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, Highway Research Board, Washington D.C., Vol. 14, pp. 468-477, 1933
16 Floating Point Unit, , From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Viewed on 24th Mar 2010
17 M. E. Gross and M. J. Garvin. “Approaches for Structuring Concession Lengths and Toll Rates for Transportation Infrastructure PPPs”. Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, pp. 191-200, 2009
18 Comparing Linux and Minix, , LWN.net article, Viewed on 16th May 2010.
19 R. He, B. Ran, K. Choi and A. L. Kornhauser. “Evaluation of Value Pricing Using a Multiclass Dynamic Network Model”. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, pp. 617-624, November/December 2003
20 Hbench-OS Operating system Benchmarks , Viewed on 16th May 2010.
21 M. Hickman, Q. Brown and A. Miranda. “An Evaluation of the Demand for the Katy Freeway HOV lane Value Pricing Project”. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000
22 H. Hartig, M. Hohmuth, J. Liedtke, S. Schänberg, J. Wolter, “The Performance of ?-Kernel-based Systems”, 16th SOSP TU Dresden, Fakultat Informatik, Heft Jan 1997.
23 D. H. Kang and W. Stockton. “Estimation of Toll Road Users Value of Time”. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, Report No. SWUTC/08/473700-00084-1, 2008
24 Ben Leslie, Carl van Schaik and Gernot Heiser, “Wombat: a portable user-mode Linux for embedded systems”, Proceedings of the 6th Linux Conference Australia, Canberra, April, 2005.
25 B. Kuhn, G. Goodin, A. Ballard, M. Brewer, R. Brydia, J. Carson, S. Chrysler, T. Collier, K. Fitzpatrick, D. Jasek, C. Toycen and G. Ullman. “Managed Lanes Handbook”. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, 2005
26 ERTOS Website , National ICT Australia United, Viewed on 16th May 2010.
27 J. Li, S. Govind, J. C. Williams, S. A. Ardekani and C. R. Richard. “Assessing Pricing Strategies and Users’ Attitudes Towards Managed Lanes: Executive Summary”. Project Summary Report 4009-S, 2002
28 Release Notes of MINIX 3.1.3 - Developer's Interim Release, , Minix3 Home Website, Viewed on 17th May 2010.
29 S. P. Mattingly, A. Upayokin and J. Li. “A Driver’s Dilemma: Main Lane or HOT Lane”. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Decision Making in Urban and Civil Engineering, 2004
30 NCTCOG. “Managed Lanes: Improved Mobility Through Choice”. North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2009
31 S. M. Nepal. “Traffic Flow Models for Freeway Traffic Operation”. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Texas, 2008
32 Parsons Brinckerhoff “Regional toll revenue feasibility study”. Working draft prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation Urban Corridors Office, 2002
33 G. Ragazzi. “Tolls and Project Financing: a Critical View”. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 15(1), pp. 41-53, 2005
34 C. Sharp, K. Button and D. Deadman. “The Economics of Tolled Road Crossings”. Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, Vol. 20(2), pp. 255-274. 1986
35 E. Sullivan. “Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR91 Value-Priced Express Lanes: Final Report”. Project report to the California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operation Program, HOV System Branch, Sacramento, CA, 2000
36 J. Supernak, J. M. Golob, K. Kawada and T. F. Goob. “San Diego’s I-15 Congestion Pricing Project – Preliminary Findings”. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999
37 M. Swisher, W. L. Eisele, D. Ungemah and G. D. Goodin. “Life-Cycle Graphical Representation of Managed HOV Lane Evolution”. Submitted for the 11th International HOV conference, Seattle, Washington, October 2002
38 USEPA (2009). “MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software”. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Website available at: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/m6.htm. [Accessed: November 29, 2009]
39 USEPA (2009). “Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)”. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Website available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm. [Accessed: November 29, 2009]
40 J. G. Wardrop. “Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research”. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part II, Vol. I, pp. 325-362, 1952
41 WSA. “Level 2 Traffic and Toll Revenue Study: IH 30 Reversible Managed Lanes- June 2007”. Wilbur Smith Associates, 2007
42 A. Yerramalla. “Vehicular Emissions Models Using MOBILE6.2 and Field Data”. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Texas, 2007
43 Y. Yin and Y. Lou. “Dynamic Tolling Strategies for Managed Lanes”. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp. 45-52, 2009
Dr. Asapol Sinprasertkool
University of Texas at Arlington - United States of America
asapol.sinprasertkool@mavs.uta.edu
Dr. Siamak Ardekani
University of Texas at Arlington - United States of America
Dr. Stephen P. Mattingly
University of Texas at Arlington - United States of America