AP-R500-15 Review of Motorway Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

Research Report
AP-R500-15
Review of Motorway Entrance

Ramp Acceleration Lengths
Review of Motorway Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths
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
Abstract About Austroads

Austroads’ purpose is to:
This report investigates whether the ramp acceleration lengths
provided in the Austroads Guides are valid for modern Australian • promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport
vehicles. outcomes
• provide expert technical input to national policy
The study included a literature review, speed data collection and development on road and road transport issues
crash analysis.
• promote improved practice and capability by road agencies
It found that the current method of using passenger vehicles as the • promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
design vehicle for acceleration on entrance ramps is appropriate.
There is also potential for reducing acceleration lengths at entrance Austroads membership comprises the six state and two
ramps to generate capital and operational cost savings, and higher territory road transport and traffic authorities, the
implied acceleration rates may be appropriate for entrance ramps. Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, the Australian Local Government Association,
Further research is required to investigate human factors and design and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board
elements that affect acceleration rates and to ascertain whether consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative
acceleration rates could be increased, thereby reducing acceleration senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member
lengths. organisations:
• Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
• Roads Corporation Victoria
• Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Keywords
• Main Roads Western Australia
Acceleration distances, acceleration profiles, entrance ramps, ramp
• Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
metering, motorway operational performance, grade correction South Australia
factors
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
• Department of Transport Northern Territory
ISBN 978-1-925294-87-3 • Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian
Austroads Project No. TS1843 Capital Territory
• Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and
Austroads Publication No. AP-R500-15 Regional Development
Publication date December 2015 • Australian Local Government Association
Pages 203 • New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of
member organisations and others in the road industry. It aims
© Austroads 2015 to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the information, advice and fostering research in the road
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process transport sector.
without the prior written permission of Austroads.
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.
Summary
This project was designed to determine:

• whether the current design guidance on ramp acceleration lengths provided by the Austroads guides are
still valid for today’s Australian vehicles
• 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.
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.
Austroads 2015 | page i

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
Austroads 2015 | page ii

5.8 Crash Rates ................................................................................................................................... 40

5.9 Other Factors ................................................................................................................................. 41
5.10 Relationship between Crash Rate and Ramp Features ................................................................. 42
5.10.1 Crash Rate versus Merge Length ..................................................................................... 42
5.10.2 Crash Rate versus Maximum Upgrade ............................................................................. 42
6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 43
6.1 General Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 43
6.2 Potential for Shorter Acceleration Lengths..................................................................................... 44
6.3 Heavy Vehicles ............................................................................................................................... 44
6.4 Ramp Signals ................................................................................................................................. 45
6.5 Speed Data Collection and Crash Analysis ................................................................................... 45
7. Conclusions and Recommended Further Investigations ................................................................ 46
7.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 46
7.2 Recommended Further Investigations ........................................................................................... 46
References ................................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A Data Collection Sites ............................................................................................................ 49
Appendix B Speed – Distance Distributions........................................................................................... 59
Appendix C Grade – Acceleration Distributions .................................................................................. 129
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
Austroads 2015 | page iii

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
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area) ............................................................. 17
(platooned vehicles) ............................................................................................................... 18
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)............................................................................................ 18
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge) ................................................................... 19
(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
(percentiles, individual vehicles) ............................................................................................ 22
(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge) .................................................................... 22
(percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area) ............................................................. 23
(platooned vehicles) ............................................................................................................... 23
(percentiles, platooned vehicles)............................................................................................ 24
(percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge) ................................................................... 24
(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
Austroads 2015 | page iv

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
Austroads 2015 | page v

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.
Austroads 2015 | page 1

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.
2.1 Literature Review

A literature review was undertaken, which reviewed recent research undertaken mainly in the United States
of America (US), as freeway geometric research and design guidance mostly originated from the US. The
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) Intersections at Grade in 1979 provided
acceleration lengths that were identical to AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(also known as the Green Book) (AASHTO 2011).
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.
The current design guides were also referenced.
2.2 Data Collection and Processing
2.2.1 Study Sites
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.
2.2.3 Data Collection Process
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.

Figure 2.1: Data points collected along an entrance ramp
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.
2.2.4 Data Processing
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.
2.3 Crash Analysis

TMR provided detailed crash data for:
• fatal crashes from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2013
• hospitalisation crashes from 2006 to 30 April 2013
• medical treatment and minor injury crashes from 2006 to 30 November 2011
• property damage only crashes (PDOs) from 2006 to 31 December 2010.

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.
Table 2.1: Availability of grade data from as-constructed drawings
Site ID Location Source of grade information

1 Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound GPS altitude data
2 Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound GPS altitude data
3 Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound GPS altitude data
GPS altitude data and
4 Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound
as-constructed drawing
5 Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound
6 South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound GPS altitude data
7 South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound GPS altitude data
8 South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound GPS altitude data
9 Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound GPS altitude data
10 Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound GPS altitude data
11 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound
12 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound
13 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound GPS altitude data
14 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound As-constructed drawing
Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road
16 GPS altitude data
northbound
17 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound GPS altitude data
18 GPS altitude data
southbound
19 Caloundra Road/Racecourse Road eastbound
20 Caloundra Road/Racecourse Road westbound GPS altitude data
Figure 2.2: A typical study site boundaries and layout
Source: Guide to Road Design – Part 4C: Interchanges (Austroads 2009b).

3. Literature Review Findings
3.1 Components of Entrance Ramps

Entrance ramps provide necessary access to high speed roadways (freeways and motorways). Drivers
entering a high speed roadway from a ramp accelerate until the desired merge speed is reached. The
required change in speed can be substantial, therefore acceleration lengths are generally provided to
minimise the speed differential at the merge. The origin of the acceleration lengths provided in current design
guides can be traced back to studies from the 1930s.
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.
Figure 3.1: Example of a single and multiple lane entrance ramp
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).

3.2 Sources of Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

Austroads (2009b) provides design criteria for entry ramp acceleration lengths. The criteria are largely based
on the research done by ARRB in the 1970s–80s. In 1987, the 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. There
have only been minor reductions to the values provided since 1988. Prior to 1988, NAASRA standards
included acceleration lengths that were very similar to AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets, also known as The Green Book (AASHTO 2011).
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)
Acceleration lane length (m)
Australia United States

Entry
element NAASRA
NAASRA
design Interim guide Austroads RMS
Policy for NAASRA AASHTO Fitzpatrick
speed for the Guide to supplement
Geometric Intersections Green and
(km/h) design of Road Design to AGRD
Design of at Grade Book Zimmerma
intersections Part 4C Part 4C
Rural Roads (1988) (2011) n (2007)
at grade (2009b) (2011)
(1976)
(1979)
30 330 295 430 425 425 305 440
40 300 275 410 410 410 285 406
50 240 250 390 380 380 255 362
60 160 205 360 340 340 205 309
70 – 155 315 290 290 110 246
80 – 100 250 220 220 40 174
Table 3.2: Acceleration lane lengths for design speed of 110 km/h (level road)
Australia United States

Entry element
design speed NAASRA Policy Austroads Guide RMS supplement AASHTO Fitzpatrick and
(km/h) for Geometric to Road Design to AGRD Part 4C Green Book Zimmerman
Design of Rural Part 4C (2009b) (2011) (2011) (2007)
Roads (1976)
30 410 585 585 390 541
40 370 570 570 370 507
50 320 540 540 340 464
60 240 520 500 290 411
70 – 480 450 200 348
80 – 420 380 125 275
3.3 Determination of Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

The merging movements of vehicles from the acceleration lane onto the freeway are complex, and may
reduce through flow vehicle speeds, cause traffic incidents, and lead to traffic congestion. It is therefore
necessary that adequate road length for accelerating to the speed of the through traffic speed is provided.
The three main contributing factors used to determine the minimum acceleration lane lengths include (Gattis,
Bryant & Duncan 2008):
• the speed at which drivers chose to merge with through traffic
• the speed at which drivers entered the portion of the lane dedicated for acceleration
• the manner in which the acceleration was accomplished (based on acceleration factors).
The above contributing factors are based on the following assumptions:
• drivers would enter the acceleration lane at an average running speed which was determined based on
the speed chosen for the design of the ramp’s controlling horizontal curvature
• drivers would merge with through traffic at a speed equal to the average running speed of the through
traffic minus 8 km/h.

3.4 Grade Correction Factors

The acceleration lengths detailed in Section 3.2 are for level roads. To account for the effect of grade,
correction factors are provided in design guides. Most of the recent studies on the impact of grades relate to
the effects of heavy vehicles.
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.
Table 3.3: Grade correction factors from Intersections at Grade (1988)
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
Source: NAASRA (1988).
Table 3.4: Grade correction factors from Austroads
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
80 0.65 0.55
100 0.6 0.5
110 0.6 0.5
120 0.6 0.5

Table 3.5: Grade correction factors from RMS
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
80 0.65 0.55
100 0.6 0.5
110 0.6 0.5
120 0.6 0.5
Source: RMS supplement (2011).
3.5 Grade Correction Factors Determination

The collection of operating speed and acceleration data of vehicles along various entrance ramps with a
range of grades allows researchers to determine whether acceleration of vehicles is affected by grades
(Keys & Ayers 2012).
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).
3.6 Ramp Metering

3.6.1 Purpose of Ramp Metering
Ramp metering refers to the traffic signals installed on the on-ramp of the freeway to control the rate at which
traffic enters the freeway (Federal Highway Administration 2006). The operation of a typical ramp meter is
shown in Figure 3.2. They are installed to improve the operation of the mainline freeway and improve the
merging movement onto the freeway with the following primary objectives (Chaudhary et al. 2004):
• control the number of vehicles that are allowed to enter the freeway
• reduce freeway demand
• break up the platoons of vehicles released from an upstream traffic signal.
The benefits of properly installed ramp meters include the following:

• increased freeway productivity
• increased speeds
• safer operation on a freeway and its entrances
• decreased fuel consumption and vehicular emissions.

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
Source: RMS (2011).

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.
3.6.2 Types of Ramp Metering
Ramp meters have been classified as follows (Chaudhary et al. 2004):

• Pretimed and traffic responsive – For pretimed systems metering rates are fixed (determined using
historical data) while traffic responsive systems use data from freeway detectors to determine metering
rates.
• Restrictive and non-restrictive metering – A restrictive metering strategy sets metering rates below the
non-metered demand level while a non-restrictive strategy sets the metering rate to be equal to the
average non-metered ramp demand.
• Metering with queue override – Queue override can be used with any type of metering. It operates in two
forms:
– Less restrictive condition – the presence of a queue condition on the on-ramp forces the
implementation of maximum metering rate.
– More restrictive condition – a queue condition on the on-ramp shuts the metering operation off until
the queue has dissipated. The latter case requires that sufficient storage space (distance from stop
bar to queue detector) be provided to contain the cyclic arrival of a platoon of vehicles from the
upstream signal.
• Integrated operation of ramp and upstream traffic signal – In order to distribute excess ramp demand
before it reaches the on-ramp; the ramp metering operation is controlled at the approaches to the
upstream signal.

4. Field Investigation
4.1 Collected Data

The data collection process was time-consuming, but was considered necessary for providing data that could
characterise the behaviour of the overall fleet at entrance ramps.
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.
Table 4.1: Number of samples collected per site
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 Data Analysis
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.
The speed characteristics are shown in Table 4.2.
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

4.2.2 Speed and Acceleration over Distance
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
(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)

(percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
(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)

(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
(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)

(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)
(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)

4.2.3 Entry Speeds, Merge Speeds and Merge Lengths
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
Base 15th 85th

Range of Average
Distance to Merge length acceleration percentile percentile
Site ID entry speed merge speed
merge (m) (m) length merge speed merge speed
(km/h) (km/h)
required (m) (km/h) (km/h)
1 60–80 225 215 290 83.0 87.6 97.3
2 40–60 110 340 380 82.6 86.7 93.6
3 50–70 460 420 520 87.1 93.7 99.2
4 40–60 370 190 380 75.9 88.8 100.3
5 50–70 225 225 340 68.4 88.0 98.9
6 60–80 410 250 290 76.8 84.1 92.7
7 30–50 310 45 410 73.9 83.2 87.3
8 50–70 445 310 340 87.9 95.2 102.9
9 40–60 325 55 380 76.6 83.5 90.3
10 50–70 335 425 340 77.1 81.2 86.4
11 60–80 270 270 290 89.6 93.7 96.1
12 60–80 550 140 290 92.4 97.5 104.6
13 50–70 360 320 340 90.5 95.6 100.8
14 60–80 350 270 290 94.4 96.4 101.5
16 80–100 320 160 220 102.4 106.8 116.9
17 40–60 470 310 380 82.7 95.6 97.8
18 60–80 225 215 290 103.9 107.1 113.0
19 60–80 190 230 290 94.4 96.4 101.0
20 60–80 250 310 290 80.4 93.4 100.9
4.2.4 Grade Data
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)
(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 (%)

1
0.8
0.6
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 (%)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
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
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
Grade (%)

4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 Performance of Current Passenger Cars
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).

Table 4.4: Acceleration at 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
16 0.3 0.24
northbound
17 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound 0.2 0.24
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
4.3.2 Implied Average Acceleration Suggested by Design Guides
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
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

Entry element Australia United States of America
design speed
AGRD Part 4C RMS supplement to AASHTO Green Fitzpatrick and
(km/h)
30 585 585 390 541

40 570 570 370 507
50 540 540 340 464
60 520 500 290 411
70 480 450 200 348
80 420 380 125 275
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
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

Entry element Australia United States of America
design speed
AGRD Part 4C RMS supplement to AASHTO Green Fitzpatrick and
(km/h)
30 0.74 0.74 1.11 0.80

40 0.71 0.71 1.09 0.80
50 0.69 0.69 1.09 0.80
60 0.63 0.66 1.13 0.80
70 0.58 0.62 1.39 0.80
80 0.52 0.58 1.76 0.80

4.3.3 Acceleration and Grade Relationships
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
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
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
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)

Table 4.9: Summary of displayed grade and acceleration relationship
Number of sites per geometric classification

Relationship observed
Good Moderate Poor
The greater the upgrade the higher the acceleration 1 1 1
The greater the downgrade the higher the acceleration 3 5 0
Constant acceleration, regardless of grade 1 3 4
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.
Table 4.10: Grade correction factors
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
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
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
4.3.4 Ramp Length and Merge Speed
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.
Figure 4.22: Impact of ramp length on merge speed

4.3.5 Ramp Signals
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
5.1 Overview of Results

From the crash analysis (2006–10) the following was determined:
• There was no recorded crash at site 20.
• The main crash type for fatal and hospitalisation crashes was rear-end crashes (45%).
• Most of the crashes occurred on level sections (85%), in clear weather condition (76%), during daylight
(67%) and on straight sections (82%).
• Sites 1, 7, 9, 16, 18 had high crash rates. Issues with these sites include:
– Site 7 had very short merge length (45 m) and high maximum upgrade (6.5%). There is a crest on
the entrance ramp that restricted forward visibility.
– Site 16 had very high average merge speed (106.8 km/h). This reduces the reaction time of the
drivers.
– Sites 1, 7, 9 and 18 have a ‘poor’ rating of their geometry.
• There appears to be a relationship between merge length and crash rate, the shorter the merge length,
the higher the crash rate.
5.2 Number of Crashes and Severity

There were 166 crashes that occurred at the 19 study sites over the five year period. Site 7 recorded the
highest number of crashes (27 crashes, 16%), followed by site 1 (17 crashes, 10%) as shown in Figure 5.1
and Table 5.1. Note the percentage of fatal and hospitalisation crashes (18%) were very high at these two
sites. The majority of the crashes resulted in medical treatment (33%) and property damage only (37%) as
shown in Table 5.2.
Figure 5.1: Number of crashes per site by crash severity

30
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

Table 5.1: Number of crashes and percentages
Site ID Number of crashes Percentages (%)

1 17 10
2 8 5
3 4 2
4 9 5
5 7 4
6 12 7
7 27 16
8 11 7
9 10 6
10 9 5
11 14 8
12 14 8
13 2 1
14 9 5
16 3 2
17 4 2
18 4 2
19 2 1
Total 166 100
Table 5.2: Crash severity from 2006 to 2010
Medical Property damage

Year Fatal Hospitalisation Minor injury Total
treatment only
2006 1 1 16 7 13 38
2007 0 7 4 6 13 30
2008 0 3 5 2 13 23
2009 0 6 9 5 7 27
2010 0 12 20 1 15 48
Total 1 29 54 21 61 166
Percentages (%) 1 17 33 13 37 100

5.3 Crash Types by DCA Code

Most of the crashes were classified as collision with vehicles from the same direction, hit object crashes
(DCA codes 300, 600 series) as shown in Figure 5.2, with 301 (vehicles from the same direction rear-end)
and 607 (hit temporary object on road) the most predominant. The crash types for 300 series were most
likely due to the merge of vehicles. DCA code 305 (vehicle in parallel lane, side swipe) recorded the only two
fatal crashes.
Figure 5.2: Number of crashes per DCA code by crash severity

80
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.
Figure 5.3: Fatal and hospitalisation crashes by DCA code (%)
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

5.4 Vertical Alignment

The distribution of crashes by vertical alignment is shown in Figure 5.4. Most of the crashes occurred on
level sections (85%) followed by graded sections (only 12%) as shown in Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.4: Number of crashes per site by vertical alignment

30
25
20
15
10
0
Crest Dip Grade Level
Figure 5.5: Crashes per site by vertical alignment (%)
1%
2%
12%
Crest
Dip
Grade
Level
85%

5.5 Weather Condition

The distribution of crashes by weather condition is shown in Figure 5.6. Most of the crashes occurred when
the weather condition was clear (76%), as shown in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.6: Number of crashes per site by weather condition

30
25
20
15
10
0
Clear Fog Raining Smoke/Dust Unknown
Figure 5.7: Crashes per site by weather condition (%)

1% 0%
22%
Clear
Fog
1%
Raining
Smoke/Dust
Unknown
76%

5.6 Lighting Condition

The distribution of crashes by lighting conditions is shown in Figure 5.8. Most of the crashes occurred during
daylight (67%), followed by darkness – lighted (20%) as shown in Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.8: Number of crashes per site by lighting conditions

30
25
20
15
10
0
Darkness - Lighted Darkness - Not lighted Dawn/Dusk Daylight Unknown
Figure 5.9: Crashes by lighting conditions (%)
0%
23%
Darkness - Lighted
Darkness - Not lighted
3% Dawn/Dusk
Daylight
7% Unknown
67%

5.7 Horizontal Alignment

The distribution of crashes by horizontal alignment is shown in Figure 5.10. About 82% of the crashes
occurred on straight sections as shown in Figure 5.11. Horizontal alignment may be an issue for site 7.
Figure 5.10: Number of crashes per site by horizontal alignment

30
25
20
15
10
0
Curved - view obscured Curved - view open Straight
Figure 5.11: Crashes by horizontal alignment (%)
6%
12%
Curved - view obscured

Curved - view open
Straight
82%

5.8 Crash Rates

The crash rates (number of crashes per year per km and number of crashes per 100 million vehicle
kilometres travelled) were calculated and summarised in Table 5.3. In addition, crash costs associated with
each crash have been determined from accident type (DCA code) and speed limit at each crash location.
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
R = crash rate (DCA adjusted)
C = crash costs ($)
A = average number of crashes per year
S = length of road segment (km)
Y = AADT over segment
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.

5.9 Other Factors

Factors such as entry/merge speed, merge length, maximum upgrade and geometric category from TMR
were investigated as shown in Table 5.4 to determine the possible contributing factors to the high crash
rate/risks sites. These are summarised below:
• Site 7 has a very short merge length (45 m) and high maximum upgrade (6.5%). There is a crest on the
entrance ramp that restricted forward visibility.
• Site 16 has a very high average merge speed (106.8 km/h). This reduces the reaction time of drivers.
• Sites 1, 7, 9 and 18 have a ‘poor’ rating of their geometry.
Table 5.4: Entry/merge speed, merge length and maximum upgrade for the study sites
Average merge speed Maximum upgrade TMR geometric

Site ID Merge length (m)
(km/h) (%) category
1 87.6 215 1.5 Poor
2 86.7 340 3.7 Moderate
3 93.7 420 2.2 Good
4 88.8 190 3.3 Good
5 88 225 2.6 Good
6 84.1 250 4.9 Good
7 83.2 45 6.5 Poor
8 95.2 310 4.3 Moderate
9 83.5 55 2.0 Poor
10 81.2 425 6.3 Moderate
11 93.7 270 1.7 Moderate
12 97.5 140 3.0 Moderate
13 95.6 320 1.1 Moderate
14 96.4 270 1.5 Moderate
16 106.8 160 0.3 Good
17 95.6 310 0.2 Moderate
18 107.1 215 –0.6 Poor
19 96.4 230 –0.1 Moderate

5.10 Relationship between Crash Rate and Ramp Features
5.10.1 Crash Rate versus Merge Length
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
150.0 y = -112.6ln(x) + 755.91

R² = 0.3791
100.0
50.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Merge length (m)
5.10.2 Crash Rate versus Maximum Upgrade
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
300.0 y = 12.633x2 - 68.55x + 192.59

Crash rate
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
6.1 General Characteristics

Geometric design is a discipline of highway engineering that has been continuously evolving over the past
80 years since the popularisation of the motor car. The provision of acceleration grade correction factors and
acceleration lengths for various design speeds has been one of the key components of design guides for
grade separated interchanges.
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.

6.2 Potential for Shorter Acceleration Lengths

As the acceleration lengths provided in the AASHTO Green Book (AASHTO 2011) are much shorter than the
Austroads recommended minimum acceleration lengths in general, the implied vehicle acceleration rates of
the current Austroads guidance are significantly lower than the values assumed by AASHTO policy. There
are other studies that suggest the current acceleration lengths provided in the Austroads guides can possibly
be shortened.
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.
6.3 Heavy Vehicles

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). The grade correction factors in the Austroads guides have not changed over the years
and do not cater fully for heavy vehicles.
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.

6.4 Ramp Signals

The current Austroads guides do not provide specific guidance on the acceleration length requirements for
ramp signals. Using the standard Austroads acceleration lengths to retrofit existing ramps is likely to result in
insufficient storage space on the on-ramp.
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.
6.5 Speed Data Collection and Crash Analysis

The data collection and crash analysis found that 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 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. Conclusions and Recommended Further

Investigations
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.
7.2 Recommended Further Investigations

Currently, most jurisdictions are under significant pressure to reduce the financial costs associated with the
construction of new infrastructure and maintenance of existing infrastructure. The optimisation of geometric
design elements may result in significant financial savings, because this will lead to:
• 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, road safety barriers.
The following flow-on benefits may also be obtained:

• reduction in maintenance costs and whole-of-life costs due to a smaller asset footprint
• a smaller impact on the environment
• better allocation of funds and increase the number of projects/improvements that can be undertaken at
the same time.
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.
Superseded and no longer available
AASHTO 1965, ‘A policy on geometric design of rural highways’, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.

Appendix A Data Collection Sites
A.1 Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood Northbound
Figure A 1: Locality plan
Source: Nearmap (2014).
A.2 Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah Northbound

A.3 Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala

Northbound
A.4 Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara Southbound

A.5 Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary Southbound
A.6 South East Freeway, Duke Street Northbound

A.7 South East Freeway, Marquis Street Southbound
A.8 South East Freeway, Logan Road Northbound

A.9 Western Freeway, Moggill Road Southbound
A.10 Western Freeway, Moggill Road Northbound

A.11 Bruce Highway (Anzac Avenue Northbound)
A.12 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue Southbound

A.13 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road Northbound
A.14 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road Southbound

A.15 Bruce Highway, Pumicestone Road Northbound
Figure A 15: Locality plan (roadworks, so excluded from analysis)
A.16 Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road Northbound

A.17 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard Southbound
A.18 Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road Southbound

A.19 Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road Westbound
A.20 Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road Eastbound

Appendix B Speed – Distance Distributions
Speed-distance distribution curves can be found in this appendix.
B.1 Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood Northbound
Figure B 1: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance

140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)


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 3: Enlarged, Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – speed vs distance
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)

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)

140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
50
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Distance (m)


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)
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)

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)
B.2 Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah Northbound
Figure B 9: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – speed vs distance
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)

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)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)

B.3 Pacific Motorway, Stapylton – Jacobs Well Road, Yatala Northbound
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)
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)

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)
B.4 Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara Southbound
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)

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
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
B.5 Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary Southbound
Figure B 27: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – speed vs distance
140
120
100
Speed (km/h)
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)

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
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
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)
120
100
80
Speed (km/h)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance (m)

B.6 South East Freeway, Duke Street Northbound
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)
Figure B 33: South East Freeway, Duke Street northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.7 South East Freeway, Marquis Street Southbound
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)
Figure B 41: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

(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)
(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)

B.8 South East Freeway, Logan Road Northbound
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)
Figure B 53: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.9 Western Freeway, Moggill Road Southbound
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)
Figure B 61: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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)
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)
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)

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)
100
90
80
70
60
Speed (km/h)
50 15th percentile
Median
40 85th percentile
30
20
10
0
340 360 380
Distance (m)

B.10 Western Freeway, Moggill Road Northbound
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.11 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue Northbound
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)
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,
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.12 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue Southbound
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,
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.13 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road Northbound
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)
Figure B 93: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.14 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road Southbound
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)
Figure B 101: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

B.15 Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road Northbound
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)
Figure B 109: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road northbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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
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)
B.16 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard Southbound
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)

Figure B 114: Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance

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
Distance (m)
Figure B 115: Enlarged, Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance
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)

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)

Figure B 118: Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – speed vs distance

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
Distance (m)
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)

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)
B.17 Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road Southbound
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)

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)
Figure B 123: Enlarged, Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection 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
Distance (m)


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
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
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)

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)

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
Distance (m)


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
240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Distance (m)
B.18 Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road Eastbound
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)

Figure B 130: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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
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)

B.19 Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road Westbound
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)
Figure B 135: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – speed vs distance (percentiles,
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
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
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)

Appendix C Grade – Acceleration Distributions
C.1 Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood Northbound
Figure C 1: Pacific Motorway, Sports Drive, Springwood northbound – acceleration vs grade

1
0.8
0.6
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 (%)


0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
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 (%)



1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)



0.8
0.6
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
Grade (%)


C.2 Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah Northbound
Figure C 8: Pacific Motorway, Grandis Street, Tanah Merah northbound – acceleration vs grade

2.5
1.5
15th percentile
1
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
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 (%)

2.5
1.5
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
(platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Grade (%)

(platooned vehicles, within merge area)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
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 (%)
C.3 Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala

Northbound
Figure C 15: Pacific Motorway, Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Yatala northbound – acceleration vs
grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
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
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
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 (%)

grade (percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
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 (%)
grade (platooned vehicles)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)

grade (platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
grade (platooned vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)

C.4 Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara Southbound
Figure C 22: Pacific Motorway, Nielsens Road, Carrara southbound – acceleration vs grade
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.5
1 15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)

2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
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 (%)

2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)

2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5
Grade (%)
0.8
0.6
0.4
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 (%)

C.5 Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary Southbound
Figure C 30: Pacific Motorway, Elysium Drive, Worongary southbound – acceleration vs grade
2
1.5
1
0.5
15th percentile
Median
0 85th percentile
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)

2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
Grade (%)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
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 (%)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

(platooned vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Grade (%)
C.6 South East Freeway, Duke Street Northbound
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,
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
15th percentile
0
Median
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Grade (%)

1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6 15th percentile

Median
0.4 85th percentile
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)

platooned vehicles)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
15th percentile
Median
0 85th percentile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)

C.7 South East Freeway, Marquis Street Southbound
Figure C 45: South East Freeway, Marquis Street southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
2.5
1.5
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,
2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)
2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)

1
0.8
0.6
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
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Grade (%)

platoon vehicles)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
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 (%)
platoon vehicles, prior to merge)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
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 (%)

platoon vehicles, within merge area)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 15th percentile

Median
0.3 85th percentile
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)

ramp signal operating)
2.5
1.5
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 (%)
ramp signal operating, prior to merge)
2.5
1.5
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 (%)

ramp signal operating, within merge area)
C.8 South East Freeway, Logan Road Northbound
Figure C 57: South East Freeway, Logan Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
2
1.5
1
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,
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2
1.5
1
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 (%)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
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
0.5
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

platooned vehicles)
1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)

0.8
0.6
0.4
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 (%)
C.9 Western Freeway, Moggill Road Southbound
Figure C 65: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2.5
1.5
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,
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
Grade (%)

Figure C 69: Western Freeway, Moggill Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
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 (%)

0.3
0.2
0.1
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 (%)
C.10 Western Freeway, Moggill Road Northbound
Figure C 73: Western Freeway, Moggill Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
1.5
1
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,
1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)
1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)

1
0.8
0.6
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
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
Grade (%)

platooned vehicles)
1.5
0.5
15th percentile
0
Median
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85th percentile
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)
1.5
0.5
15th percentile
0
Median
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85th percentile
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Grade (%)

1
0.8
0.6
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 (%)
C.11 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue Northbound
Figure C 81: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
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,
1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)
1
0.8
0.6
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 (%)

1.2
0.8
0.6
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
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 (%)

platooned vehicles)
0.8
0.6
0.4
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 (%)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
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 (%)

0.6
0.4
0.2
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 (%)
C.12 Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue Southbound
Figure C 89: Bruce Highway, Anzac Avenue southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
3
2.5
1.5
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,
2.5
1.5
1
15th percentile
Median
0.5 85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2.5
1.5
1
15th percentile
Median
0.5 85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

0.6
0.4
0.2
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
0.5
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

0.8
0.6
0.4
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 (%)
C.13 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road Northbound
Figure C 97: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2.5
2
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,
2.5
1.5
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 (%)
2.5
1.5
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 (%)

0.6
0.4
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
Grade (%)
Figure C 101: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road northbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)

platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
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 (%)
2
1.5
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 (%)

0.8
0.6
0.4
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 (%)
C.14 Bruce Highway, Boundary Road Southbound
Figure C 105: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
3
2.5
1.5
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,
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2
1.5
15th percentile
Median
85th percentile
0.5
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
Grade (%)

Figure C 109: Bruce Highway, Boundary Road southbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)

platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

0.6
0.4
0.2
15th percentile
0
Median
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
85th percentile
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
C.15 Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road Northbound
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,
1.4
1.2
0.8
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 (%)
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
15th percentile
Median
0.4
85th percentile
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
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
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)

vehicles, prior to merge)
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Grade (%)
vehicles, within merge area)
1.2
0.8
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 (%)

C.16 Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard Southbound
Figure C 120: Sunshine Motorway, Maroochy Boulevard southbound – acceleration vs grade


2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)


2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)



2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

1.4
1.2
0.8
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 (%)


1.4
1.2
0.8
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 (%)


C.17 Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road Southbound
Figure C 128: Bruce Highway, Maroochydore Road/Nambour Connection Road southbound –

acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

acceleration vs grade (percentiles, individual vehicles)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
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 (%)


acceleration vs grade (percentiles, individual vehicles, prior to merge)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
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 (%)

acceleration vs grade (percentiles, individual vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
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 (%)


acceleration vs grade (platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

acceleration vs grade (percentiles, platooned vehicles)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)


acceleration vs grade (percentiles, platooned vehicles, prior to merge)
2
1.5
1
15th percentile
0.5
Median
85th percentile
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.5
-1
Grade (%)

acceleration vs grade (percentiles, platooned vehicles, within merge area)
1
0.8
0.6
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 (%)

C.18 Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road Eastbound
Figure C 136: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (individual
vehicles)
2.5
1.5
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,

1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8 15th percentile

Median
0.6 85th percentile
0.4
0.2
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Grade (%)

Figure C 140: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road eastbound – acceleration vs grade (platooned
vehicles)
1.2
0.8
0.6
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 (%)
vehicles, prior to merge)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
-0.2
-0.4
Grade (%)

vehicles, within merge area)
C.19 Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road Westbound
Figure C 143: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade (individual vehicles)
2
1.5
1
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,
1.4
1.2
0.8
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 (%)
1.4
1.2
1
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 (%)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
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
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 (%)

Figure C 148: Caloundra Road, Racecourse Road westbound – acceleration vs grade

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Grade (%)


AP-R500-15 Review of Motorway Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AP-R500-15 Review of Motorway Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Report

Review of Motorway Entrance

Abstract About Austroads

This project was designed to determine:

Austroads 2015 | page i

Austroads 2015 | page ii

5.8 Crash Rates ................................................................................................................................... 40

Austroads 2015 | page iii

Austroads 2015 | page iv

Austroads 2015 | page v

Austroads 2015 | page 1

Austroads 2015 | page 2

2.1 Literature Review

The current design guides were also referenced.

2.2 Data Collection and Processing

2.2.1 Study Sites

2.2.3 Data Collection Process

Austroads 2015 | page 3

Figure 2.1: Data points collected along an entrance ramp

2.2.4 Data Processing

2.3 Crash Analysis

Austroads 2015 | page 4

Table 2.1: Availability of grade data from as-constructed drawings

Site ID Location Source of grade information

Figure 2.2: A typical study site boundaries and layout

Source: Guide to Road Design – Part 4C: Interchanges (Austroads 2009b).

Austroads 2015 | page 5

3. Literature Review Findings

3.1 Components of Entrance Ramps

Figure 3.1: Example of a single and multiple lane entrance ramp

Austroads 2015 | page 6

3.2 Sources of Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

Austroads 2015 | page 7

Acceleration lane length (m)

Australia United States

Acceleration lane length (m)

Australia United States

3.3 Determination of Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths

Austroads 2015 | page 8

3.4 Grade Correction Factors

Table 3.3: Grade correction factors from Intersections at Grade (1988)

Source: NAASRA (1988).

Table 3.4: Grade correction factors from Austroads

Source: Austroads (2009b).

Austroads 2015 | page 9

Table 3.5: Grade correction factors from RMS

Source: RMS supplement (2011).

3.5 Grade Correction Factors Determination

3.6 Ramp Metering

The benefits of properly installed ramp meters include the following:

Austroads 2015 | page 10

Source: Austroads (2009b).

Source: RMS (2011).

Austroads 2015 | page 11

3.6.2 Types of Ramp Metering

Ramp meters have been classified as follows (Chaudhary et al. 2004):

Austroads 2015 | page 12

4.1 Collected Data

Table 4.1: Number of samples collected per site

Austroads 2015 | page 13

4.2 Data Analysis

The speed characteristics are shown in Table 4.2.

Austroads 2015 | page 14

4.2.2 Speed and Acceleration over Distance