Driver Behavior on Speed-Change Lanes
at Freeway Ramp Terminals
Marcus A. Brewer, Kay Fitzpatrick, and Jesse Stanley
Speed-change lanes (SCLs) at freeway ramp terminals are critical
elements in freeway design, as they provide the necessary access between
the freeway and the adjacent local street network. Prevailing guidelines
for the design of SCLs are well established and based on long-standing
research about the performance characteristics of vehicles and princi-
ples of geometric design. Little is known, however, about the behavior of
drivers who are making freeway entry or exit maneuvers. An NCHRP
project is tasked with reviewing existing design guidelines and practices,
as well as modern driver behavior and vehicle performance, to develop
improved design guidance for freeway ramp terminals. This paper dis-
cusses findings from the driver behavior study of the project, which indi-
cate that the SCL lengths on entrance ramps recommended by current
guidelines are sufficient for subject drivers’ typical merging maneuvers
under low to moderate congestion and that exit ramps most appropriate
for subject drivers may be longer than recommended by current design
guidelines.
Speed-change lanes (SCLs) at freeway ramp terminals are critical
elements in freeway design, providing the necessary access between
the freeway and the adjacent local street network. SCLs, generally
divided into acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes, are notable
sources of weaving and lane changing on freeways, which, when com-
bined with differences in speed between ramp vehicles and freeway
vehicles, are commonly associated with higher potential for crashes
and related injuries.
Prevailing guidelines for the design of SCLs are well established,
based on long-standing research about the performance character-
istics of vehicles and principles of geometric design, but little is
known about the behavior of drivers who are making freeway entry
or exit maneuvers. An NCHRP project is tasked with reviewing
existing design guidelines and practices, as well as modern driver
behavior and vehicle performance, to develop improved design
guidance for freeway ramp terminals (1). This paper discusses find-
ings from the driver behavior study of the project, conducted by the
Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) in conjunction with Midwest
Research Institute (MRI).
M. A. Brewer and K. Fitzpatrick, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M Uni-
versity System, 3135 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3135. J. Stanley, 6703
82nd Street, Number 626, Lubbock, TX 79401. Corresponding author: M. A.
Brewer, m-brewer@tamu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2223, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 54–62.
DOI: 10.3141/2223-07
54
Current Guidelines
The prevailing source for current guidelines for the design of SCLs in
the United States is AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (2), referred to as the Green Book. AASHTO
defines an SCL as an auxiliary lane, including tapered areas, primarily
for the acceleration or deceleration of vehicles entering or leaving the
through-traffic lanes. The terms speed-change lane, deceleration lane,
or acceleration lane, as used in the Green Book, apply broadly to the
added pavement joining the traveled way of the highway with that
of the turning roadway and do not necessarily imply a definite lane of
uniform width. An SCL should be of sufficient width and length to
enable a driver to maneuver a vehicle into it properly, and once in it,
to make the necessary change between the speed of operation on the
highway and the lower speed on the turning roadway (2).
Many of the design values found in the Green Book for freeway
ramps, terminals, and SCLs have their basis in research conducted
in the 1930s and 1940s. The 1965 AASHO Blue Book (3) contains
more information on the sources of these guidelines than do later
versions of the Green Book, but much of the information from the
1965 policy has been carried through intermediate versions to
today’s Green Book.
For example, the 1965 AASHO Blue Book describes three factors
for calculating the length of an acceleration lane: the speed at which
drivers merge with through traffic, the speed at which drivers enter the
acceleration lane, and the factors affecting acceleration. Acceleration
rates were determined from studies on passenger cars completed in
the late 1930s. However, vehicle performance has improved markedly
in the decades since then, acceleration rates vary from driver to driver,
and heavy vehicles (e.g., buses, semis) have different characteristics
than cars. Under current guidelines, the geometrics of the ramp proper
should be such that motorists may attain a speed that is within 5 mph
(10 km/h) of the operating speed of the freeway by the time they
reach the point at which the left edge of the ramp joins the traveled
way of the freeway. The Green Book provides minimum acceleration
lengths for entrance terminals of flat grade (Tables 1 and 2), as well
as adjustment factors for larger grades.
Similarly, deceleration lane length is based on the driver’s speed
at the beginning of the SCL, the speed at the end of the SCL, and the
rate of deceleration between the two. Included in the process for
determining this length are several assumptions, again based on
research on 1930s-era vehicles and drivers. Three key assumptions
in the process are that drivers have little to no speed change when
leaving the freeway lane in the exit taper, that drivers then decelerate
in gear without applying the brakes (i.e., coast) for 3 s, and finally
they decelerate at a comfortable rate using the brakes until achieving
an appropriate or average running speed at the controlling feature of
the ramp (e.g., curve at the beginning of the turning roadway).
Brewer, Fitzpatrick, and Stanley 55

TABLE 1   Minimum Acceleration Lengths for Entrance Terminals with Flat Grades of 2% or Less
(metric) (2)

Design Speed Stop Condition and Initial Speed, V ¢a′ (km/h)

Speed, Reached,
V (km/h) Va (km/h) 0, 0 20, 20 30, 28 40, 35 50, 42 60, 51 70, 63 80, 70

50 37   60   50   30 — — — — —
60 45   95   80   65 45 — — — —
70 53 150 130 110 90 65 — — —
80 60 200 180 165 145 115 65 — —
90 67 260 245 225 205 175 125 35 —
100 74 345 325 305 285 255 205 110 40
110 81 430 410 390 370 340 290 200 125
120 88 545 530 515 490 460 410 325 245

Note: Uniform 50:1 to 70:1 tapers are recommended where lengths of acceleration lanes exceed 400 m.

Previous Research
Fitzpatrick and Zimmerman reviewed the acceleration lane lengths
in the 2004 Green Book and revealed that the procedure identified
to reproduce these values used assumed running speed for the limited-
access highway and the ramp along with acceleration rates from 1930s
studies (4). Potential acceleration length values were then calculated
by (a) updating the assumptions within the identified procedure and
(b) using spreadsheets that generated second-to-second acceleration.
They compared findings from recent studies and performance char-
acteristics of common vehicles suggesting a constant acceleration
rate of 2.5 ft/s2 (0.8 m/s2). The authors then used that value, along
with design speeds for the freeway and the ramp curve, to generate
potential acceleration lengths. These suggested lengths were longer
than the values in the Green Book by as much as 500 ft.
As early as 1960, Fukutome and Moskowitz reviewed traffic
behavior relative to the design of entrance ramps (5). Based on data
from field studies, they concluded that
• A 50:1 taper ramp design appeared to cause vehicles to use a
greater portion of the ramp than a parallel ramp of the same length,
• More ramp length was used to accelerate at low volumes than
at high volumes,
• The required merging distance at high speed was as great as
that at low speed, and
• A 50:1 taper ramp design provided sufficient acceleration
distance for all turning speeds.
Fukutome and Moskowitz also investigated traffic behavior on
exit ramps in California (6). Although they believed the taper design
of exit ramps was adequate, there were reported crash concerns
related to the deceleration distance provided between the gore nose
and the controlling curve on the ramp. They determined that exit
ramp speeds were a function of the speed of vehicles in the outside
freeway lane, the available length of tangent to decelerate, and the
controlling curve on the ramp. Using the observed field data, they
recommended deceleration lengths between the gore nose and the
controlling curve.
Michaels and Fazio presented a driver behavior model of merg-
ing in a 1989 paper (7). Their model was based on a conclusion
that merging drivers incorporate the angular velocity of freeway
vehicles into their merge process; that process consisted of four
sequential steps:
• Initial steering control,
• Acceleration,

TABLE 2   Minimum Acceleration Lengths for Entrance Terminals with Flat Grades of 2% or Less
(U.S. customary) (2)

Design Speed Stop Condition and Initial Speed, V ¢a′ (mph)

Speed, Reached,
V (mph) Va (mph) 0, 0 15, 14 20, 18 25, 22 30, 26 35, 30 40, 36 45, 40 50, 44

30 23 180 140 — — — — — — —
35 27 280 220 160 — — — — — —
40 31 360 300 270 210 120 — — — —
45 35 560 490 440 380 280 160 — — —
50 39 720 660 610 550 450 350 130 — —
55 43 960 900 810 780 670 550 320 150 —
60 47 1,200 1,140 1,100 1,020 910 800 550 420 180
65 50 1,410 1,350 1,310 1,220 1,120 1,000 770 600 370
70 53 1,620 1,560 1,520 1,420 1,350 1,230 1,000 820 580
75 55 1,790 1,730 1,630 1,580 1,510 1,420 1,160 1,040 780

Note: Uniform 50:1 to 70:1 tapers are recommended where lengths of acceleration lanes exceed 1,300 ft.
56  Transportation Research Record 2223
• Gap search, and
• Merge steering.
The final three steps were repeated in an iterative fashion until
the merge was completed. From field data, they also found that
acceleration varied during the final steps, and that those steps were
completed partially in parallel as well as sequentially.
Kondyli and Elefteriadou reported on a study that conducted three
focus groups to investigate drivers’ intended actions along a freeway
ramp merging segment (8). Several scenarios were discussed in which
participants indicated their thinking process and likely actions while
merging or traversing a merging segment. The researchers correlated
drivers’ responses to their individual characteristics, considering both
congested and noncongested conditions. From those responses, they
drew the following conclusions:
• Entrance ramp design apparently affected drivers’ responses,
indicating that they would be more aggressive on taper ramps than
parallel.
• When on the freeway and accommodating merging drivers,
respondents indicated a preference to change lanes and avoid decel-
erating. The merging driver’s decision to initiate a forced merge
depended mostly on traffic-related factors (e.g., freeway speed, con-
gestion, and gap availability), which affected freeway drivers’ decision
to decelerate or change lanes.
Kondyli and Elefteriadou recommended further study to observe
driver behavior in the field to compare with the responses given in
the focus groups. The authors did so in a subsequent study that used
an instrumented vehicle to observe drivers’ decisions and behaviors
when merging or passing through freeway merging areas (9). In the
later study, they concluded the following:
• The steps involved in the observed merging process were
similar to those described in the focus groups. In merge maneuvers
with subjects as both freeway drivers and as merging drivers, more
cooperative merges took place when the freeway drivers changed
lanes instead of decelerating.
• Drivers were found to make more use of the SCL at tapered
ramps than parallel, with higher merging speeds, suggesting that
drivers may make more efficient use of tapered ramps.
Field Studies
Background
There are a number of ways to explore behavioral tendencies and
patterns, both directly and indirectly. This study focused on some
indirect measures of behavior, specifically evaluating speed, accel-
eration and deceleration, use of throttle and brake pedals, drivers’
glancing activity, and presence of a leading vehicle during the merge
or diverge maneuver.
This behavioral study was designed to collect detailed information
on a limited number of drivers, in contrast to the more generalized
information on a large number of vehicles in a typical observational
study. The intent was that, by observing drivers in such close detail,
researchers could identify behavioral patterns and influences that
determine how drivers operate their vehicles on freeway ramps, thus
providing further information from which to determine whether the
assumptions and data used to support existing design guidelines
are most appropriate for current conditions.
Equipment
TTI has developed an instrumented vehicle to facilitate robust data
collection in both test track and public road environments. The
instrumented vehicle, a 2006 Toyota Highlander, is equipped with
multiple integrated systems to record various data relating to driver
behavior, traffic conditions, and vehicle performance.
All onboard equipment is managed by a data acquisition system
on a central computer. This computer is responsible for integrating
the many streams of data that can be collected through the vehicle.
Primarily, the computer records basic driving data such as brake
and throttle position and steering wheel angle, gathered through
potentiometers located on the pedals and steering column. A Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver provides real-time data on the
exact position of the vehicle, enabling the calculation of location,
distance traveled, and velocity.
Video cameras provided information on adjacent traffic condi-
tions and in-vehicle driver behaviors. One in-vehicle camera was
positioned to monitor drivers’ head turns and glance direction. Another
camera was positioned to monitor foot activity on the pedals.
Although the main source of data was the potentiometers, the video
recording of the feet provided an opportunity to check the source of
any anomalies in the pedal potentiometer data.
Field Data Collection
Field data were collected in the metropolitan area of Dallas–Fort
Worth, Texas. Researchers defined a driving course that included
nine pairs of entrance and exit ramps (i.e., 18 ramps), as described
in Table 3; ramps were chosen to provide a representative sample of
ramps found in the Dallas–Fort Worth area while still offering a
variety of geometric characteristics.
Researchers recruited 12 subjects to drive the instrumented vehicle
through the predetermined course. The 12 subject drivers were
recruited from the general population in the metropolitan area;
they were not affiliated with TTI, nor had they previously driven the
instrumented vehicle. They were given instructions during a briefing
before the driving course, and two TTI employees (i.e., the experi-
menter and a safety observer) were inside the vehicle during the
driving course to offer additional instructions as needed. Subjects
were instructed to drive normally and follow the driving directions
offered during the course, but they were not told that freeway merging
and diverging were the focus of the study. During the introductory
briefing, subjects completed informed consent forms; by complet-
ing these forms, subjects acknowledged that they were advised of
the nature of the study and associated risks and benefits (as required
by the Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M University) and
granted permission for the use of their data and video images to be
used for research purposes. At the conclusion of the driving course,
subjects were paid a predetermined amount for their participation.
While the course was being driven, sensors on the vehicle recorded
cumulative elapsed time, distance traveled, displacement of the
throttle and brake pedals, X-Y-Z coordinates from the GPS, velocity,
and direction traveled. In addition, video cameras recorded each
driver’s facial and head movements, the driver’s foot movements
and pedal activity, and the driver’s view of the environment in front
of the vehicle. During the course, the experimenter recorded the
time at which four key points on each ramp were traversed through
the use of keyboard inputs into the system computer. Those four
points are shown and defined in Figure 1.
 TABLE 3   Characteristics of Ramps in Driving Course

Ramp Taper or Curve or SCL Length

No. Location Direction Exit or Entrance Parallel Straight (ft)

1 I-635 at Josey Lane WB Entrance Taper Straight 710

2 I-635 at Freeport Parkway WB Exit Taper Curve 100
3 I-635 at Royal Lane EB Entrance Taper Straight 345
4 I-635 at Freeport Parkway EB Exit Taper Curve 110
5 SH-114 at Freeport Parkway EB Entrance Parallel Straight 675
6 SH-114 at Belt Line Road EB Exit Taper Straight 310
7 SH-114 at Belt Line Road EB Entrance Taper Straight 650
8 SH-114 at Rochelle Boulevard EB Exit Taper Straight 70
9 SH-114 at Rochelle Boulevard EB Entrance Parallel Straight 1,120
10 SH-183 at Regal Row EB Exit Parallel Straight 355
11 I-35E at Mockingbird Lane SB Entrance Taper Straight 180
12 I-35E at Medical District Drive SB Exit Taper Straight 50
13 I-35E at Inwood Road NB Entrance Parallel Straight 200
14 I-635 at Marsh Lane EB Exit Taper Straight 40
15 I-635 at Midway Road WB Entrance Taper Straight 145
16 I-635 at Webb Chapel Road WB Exit Taper Straight 80
17 I-635 at Marsh Lane EB Entrance Taper Straight 300
18 I-635 at Midway Road EB Exit Taper Straight 35

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; WB = westbound; EB = eastbound; SB = southbound; NB = northbound.

– Beginning of ramp or end of controlling feature

– Point at which ramp edgeline changes from yellow to white
– Merge point, defined as the location where the vehicle’s left tires crossed the lane line into
the freeway mainlane
– End of SCL
(a)

– Beginning of SCL
– Diverge point, defined as the location where the vehicle’s right tires crossed the lane line
into the SCL
– Point at which ramp edgeline changes from white to yellow
– End of ramp or beginning of controlling feature
(b)

FIGURE 1   Key points on freeway ramps: (a) entrance ramp and (b) exit ramp.
58  Transportation Research Record 2223
Traffic conditions during the data collection period were typically
uncongested. Free-flow and moderately constrained merge and
diverge maneuvers were common, although one subject had to skip
one entrance ramp and one exit ramp because of heavy congestion
during the driving course at those locations.
After each subject completed the driving course, the data were
saved in an integrated data file containing video feeds from each
camera, output from each sensor in the vehicle at a frequency of
10 readings per second, and all of the keyboard inputs, events, and
activities noted by the experimenter. The sensor outputs and keyboard
inputs were then downloaded and converted into a spreadsheet file
for postprocessing.
After the data were collected from all 12 subjects, the data were
downloaded and postprocessed for anomalies caused by issues such
as sensor or camera malfunctions or traffic congestion that prevented
the subject from using a particular ramp. Events and data were also
reduced and reformatted to be presented relative to the specific
physical location of the gore point on each ramp. The gore point was
defined as the painted nose of the gore, where the edgelines of the
freeway lane and the ramp converge or diverge; the gore point was
selected to be the zero point for each ramp to provide a consistent
measure for comparing each subject’s data on each ramp. The loca-
tions of the four key points on each ramp as listed in Figure 1 were
also identified relative to the gore point during postprocessing. The
result of postprocessing was a spreadsheet file for each subject
containing output from all of the vehicle’s sensors (e.g., velocity,
GPS coordinates, throttle and brake pedal displacement) and key-
board events, integrated chronologically onto a common time scale,
then located relative to the gore point of each ramp. In this format,
every activity of every subject could be identified on the basis of
elapsed time from the beginning of the subject’s driving course or
on a fixed location in space.
Field Data Analysis
Speed Data
After postprocessing the spreadsheet file for each subject, researchers
reviewed the data to develop speed–distance plots for each of the
18 ramps on the driving course. Using the locations of the key points
on each ramp, researchers identified when each driver passed the
beginning of the ramp, passed the change in edgeline, made the
80
Speed (mph) and Event Codes
70
60
50
40 Throttle
30
20
10
0 0
-1250
FIGURE 2   Speed–distance plot for freeway entrance ramp: Ramp 1,
635 WB/Josey (WB 5 westbound).
lane change to initiate the merge or diverge maneuver, and passed
the end of the ramp. Using those four key points on each ramp,
researchers divided each ramp into four stages and then plotted the
data from 10 s before Point 1 to 10 s after Point 4. An example of
such a plot for an entrance ramp is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows the speed of the instrumented vehicle as it increases
from 25 mph (40 km/h) at a point 1,250 ft (381 m) upstream of the
gore point to 60 mph (97 km/h) at a point 1,250 ft (381 m) down-
stream of the gore. It also shows the following driver and vehicle
characteristics corresponding to those times and locations:
• The stage of the ramp being traversed, expressed as a numerical
code:
– 5 = within 10 s before passing Point 1;
– 10 = Stage 1, between Points 1 and 2;
– 20 = Stage 2, between Points 2 and 3;
– 30 = Stage 3, between Points 3 and 4; and
– 40 = Stage 4, within 10 s after passing Point 4;
• Throttle and brake pedal use;
• The presence of a lead vehicle ahead of the instrumented vehicle
near enough to affect the subject’s desired speed; and
• The occurrence of any glances by the subject into a mirror or
through the side window.
The position of the vehicle on the ramp is represented in Figure 2
by squares plotted in series. Figure 2 shows that this subject entered
the ramp approximately 750 ft (229 m) upstream of the gore point,
passed the change in edgeline about 500 ft (152 m) later, and began
the lane change to merge about 250 ft (76 m) downstream of the gore
point, with the end of the taper approximately 700 ft (213 m) down-
stream of the gore point. Within that distance, the subject depressed
the brake pedal once (noted by the dashed line), with as much as
32% activation, in proximity to the start of the ramp. During the
remainder of the merge activity, the subject activated the throttle
(noted by the dotted line), between 18% and 40% for most of the ramp
distance. The driver completed four glances (shown as triangles in
Figure 2), and there was a lead vehicle (shown as X’s) ahead of the
instrumented vehicle for a distance of approximately 400 ft (122 m),
roughly corresponding to Stage 3.
Researchers generated a plot for each subject and each ramp;
the 216 plots and their corresponding data led to the subsequent
analyses discussed in the remainder of this section.
80
Gore Point
70
Throttle or Brake Use (%)
Brake
60
Speed
50
Ramp Pos
40
30
Lead
Veh 20
Glance 10
-750 -250 250 750 1250
Cumulative Distance (ft)
Brewer, Fitzpatrick, and Stanley 59

Coasting
Using the reduced and processed data, researchers further examined
the details of the data for exit ramp coasting, entrance ramp glance
behavior, and percentage of SCL used at each ramp. In the review
of coasting data, researchers examined three time values for each
subject on each ramp:
subject drivers in the study and perhaps for the current driving
population.
• The definition of coasting used to develop the Green Book
methodology includes the time when the throttle is partially engaged
while the driver is removing his foot from the throttle, as well as the
time when no pedal is activated.

• Throttle release time—the elapsed time between the occurrence

of peak speed and the deactivation of throttle (i.e., the time the subject
used to remove the foot from the pedal);
• No pedal time—the elapsed time between the deactivation of
throttle and the activation of brake (i.e., the amount of time when
neither throttle nor brake was in use); and
• Throttle release + no pedal—the sum of the previous two time
values.
A set of summary statistics for coasting data for all 12 subjects on
the nine exit ramps is shown in Table 4.
Review of the data in Table 4 indicates that the no pedal times of
subject drivers were noticeably shorter than the 3.0 s assumed by the
Green Book, never averaging more than 2.6 s for any ramp and
usually less than 2.0 s. The minimum no pedal time recorded was
less than 0.1 s, and the maximum was 8.8 s. Of the 68 no pedal times
recorded, only 19 were greater than 3.0 s, and the overall average
was 1.6 s, with a standard deviation of 1.7 s. Researchers conducted
a statistical z-test on the no pedal times for each ramp to determine
the probability that a population that typically coasts for 3.0 s would
have the lower observed no pedal times. The z-test produced P-values
greater than 0.9 on all but one exit ramp, indicating an extremely low
probability that the shorter no pedal times were random occurrences.
Adding the throttle release time to the no pedal time produces
results larger than 3 s on all but one ramp, although throttle release
time had much greater variability in the data than no pedal time.
Of the 68 recorded summed times, 56 were greater than 3.0 s, and
the overall average was 4.5 s, with a standard deviation of 4.1 s. The
z-test produced P-values less than 0.12 on seven of the nine exit
ramps, indicating a high probability that the summed times were
consistent with a population that takes 3.0 s to transition from peak
speed to activation of the brake.
These findings suggest that one of two conclusions is likely:
• The premise that drivers do not use their pedals for 3.0 s while
diverging from the freeway to the exit ramp is not valid for the
Glancing
Researchers reviewed the video recordings of the subjects’ behavior
while merging onto the nine entrance ramps in the study to observe
glances that they made in the center or side mirror or over their
shoulders. For each merge maneuver, a member of the research
team watched the movement of the driver’s head, shoulders, and torso
to classify four categories of glances:
• Relaxed body, head turn (i.e., subject’s back against the driver’s
seat, only the subject’s head is turned; typical glance into a mirror);
• Relaxed body, head and shoulder turn (i.e., subject’s back against
the driver’s seat, the subject’s head and shoulders are turned; may
be a glance into a mirror or through the window);
• Turned body, head turn (i.e., subject’s back turned away from the
driver’s seat, only the subject’s head is turned; typical glance through
the window); and
• Turned body, head and shoulder turn (i.e., subject’s back turned
away from the driver’s seat, the subject’s head and shoulders are
turned; typical glance through the window).
For glances of all types, researchers measured the time duration
of each glance and calculated the corresponding distance traveled
and change in speed from the subjects’ data files. Table 5 presents a
summary of glance data.
The glance summary data indicate that the average glance by a
merging driver is typically about 2.5 to 3.0 s, though some glances
are very small and others are very lengthy, as drivers occasionally look
into their mirrors for extended periods of time with imperceptible
breaks. The first glances on a given ramp were frequently longer
than subsequent glances, suggesting that later glances were merely
used to confirm the appropriateness of a gap identified previously.
On the basis of the data summarized in Table 5, a merging driver
traveled 100 to 200 ft (30 to 61 m) and increased speed by 2 to 3 mph
(3 to 5 km/h) during an average glance.

TABLE 4   Summary Statistics for Coasting Data

Average Throttle
Ramp Average Throttle Average No Release + P-Value for P-Value for Throttle
No. Release Time (s) Pedal Time (s) No Pedal (s) No Pedal Release + No Pedal

2 2.4 1.4 3.8 1.000 0.107

4 1.8 1.8 3.6 0.997 0.128
6 1.7 1.9 3.6 0.983 0.085
8 4.2 0.9 5.1 1.000 0.019
10 2.6 1.2 3.8 1.000 0.122
12 2.3 1.4 3.6 1.000 0.284
14 6.0 2.1 8.1 0.932 0.014
16 1.8 0.6 2.3 1.000 0.710
18 3.2 2.6 5.8 0.690 0.017
All 2.9 1.6 4.5 1.000 0.000
60  Transportation Research Record 2223

TABLE 5   Summary Data for Glance Behavior

Minimum Maximum Average Average Average Speed

Ramp Average No. Glance Glance Glance Distance Increase for All
No. Glances/Subject (s) (s) (s) (ft) Subjects (mph)

1 2.7 0.6 15.3 3.0 177 2.8

3 4.8 0.4   6.9 2.3 149 2.6
5 2.7 0.9 11.6 2.8 212 2.6
7 2.3 0.8   7.5 2.9 196 3.9
9 3.5 0.2   5.9 2.3 160 3.2
11 3.2 0.8   9.7 3.0 100 2.3
13 2.4 0.9 10.7 2.5 176 2.2
15 3.0 0.8   6.3 2.2 127 2.2
17 1.8 0.7   5.8 2.5 119 0.4
All 2.9 0.2 15.3 2.6 156 2.5

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m.

Use of Speed-Change Lane
Using the information input by the experimenter during the driving
course, researchers investigated how much of the SCL each subject
used at each ramp. Figure 3 illustrates the SCL data at entrance
ramps on the driving course. Each marker represents the SCL usage
by one subject at an entrance ramp; the solid line connects the aver-
age SCL values for each ramp. The data table shows the summary
statistics for each ramp.
The data in Figure 3 suggest that on ramps with SCLs less than
350 ft long (Ramps 3, 11, 13, 15, and 17), subject drivers used all of
the provided SCL length on the entrance ramps in the study and

350%

Subject Data
300%
Average

250%

200%
% of SCL

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Ramp Number

SCL Length (ft) 710 345 675 650 1120 180 200 145 300
Taper/Parallel Taper Taper Parallel Taper Parallel Taper Parallel Taper Taper
Straight/Curve Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight
Min SCL % -5.3% 112.0% 64.1% 70.4% 49.5% 109.8% 115.7% 195.1% 121.3%
Max SCL % 55.0% 192.8% 83.5% 144.1% 82.5% 163.7% 191.0% 330.4% 240.9%
Avg SCL % 21.0% 153.6% 72.7% 88.7% 58.7% 131.7% 161.1% 267.3% 186.5%
Std. Deviation 19.7% 24.1% 6.5% 25.1% 8.7% 18.9% 26.0% 42.7% 34.6%

FIGURE 3   Speed-change lane use at entrance ramps (1 ft 5 0.3048 m).

Brewer, Fitzpatrick, and Stanley 61

completed their merge in the ramp taper. For the four ramps with SCLs
longer than 600 ft (Ramps 1, 5, 7, and 9), most subjects completed
their merge within the SCL.
That the data for Ramp 1 have a noticeably lower average than the
other eight ramps suggests that drivers treated this ramp differently.
Given that it was the first ramp encountered on the driving course
for each subject, earlier merging on Ramp 1 may have been a function
of the subjects adjusting to driving on the freeway in the instrumented
vehicle. The negative sign on the minimum value for Ramp 1 indi-
cates that this driver merged onto the freeway early, upstream of the
gore nose.
Because the entrance ramps on the driving route were straight
ramps, the controlling feature at the beginning of the ramp was
always the crossroad terminal. At some sites, the terminal was at a
signal-controlled intersection, whereas at others the terminal was
located on a one-way frontage road. For the latter condition, it was
not necessary for vehicles to stop before entering the ramp. Thus,
the speed of the instrumented vehicle at Point 1 was not always equal
to zero. Observed acceleration rates were less than the corresponding
Green Book rates for the given freeway and ramp design speeds at all
locations except Ramps 7 and 11. This result indicates that subjects
were typically more casual in their acceleration under uncongested
conditions than the Green Book rates suggest.
The observed acceleration distances were also lower than those
offered by the Green Book, which initially seems counterintuitive in
conjunction with lower acceleration rates. A review of the data
indicated that subjects in this study commonly merged at speeds
lower than the merge speed assumed by the Green Book. In addition,
the Green Book length extends to the point at which the width of
the SCL decreases below 12 ft, whereas the observed distances were
measured to the point of merge, which was often upstream of the
point at which the 12-ft threshold was crossed. Thus, although
some subjects used much of the SCL, many did not, producing aver-
age acceleration distances shorter than those listed in the Green Book.
This result indicates that the Green Book distances are sufficient to
accommodate typical merge maneuvers by subject drivers.
Diverging drivers in this study tended to complete their maneuvers
within the second half of the SCL or later. The later drivers did not
travel in the provided SCL, but instead completed their diverge
maneuver within the painted gore; they are represented in Figure 4
as greater than 100% of SCL. The latter finding is somewhat related
to the SCL length, because drivers on the two ramps with SCLs longer
than 300 ft (Ramps 6 and 10) generally completed their maneuvers
within the SCL, whereas the incidences of late merging were more
common on the ramps 110 ft or shorter.
Ramp 10 is also unique because the approach to Ramp 10 is a
through lane that changes to an exit-only lane. Thus, there is no taper
upstream of the SCL at Ramp 10; only a change in lane line from a
dotted or “skip-stripe” line to a solid line denotes the beginning of
the SCL.
It appears that there may be a bit of a learning process as drivers
see ramps that are similar in type. Ramps 16 and 18 have two of the

250%

200%

150%

100%
% of SCL

50%

0%

-50%

-100%
Subjec t Da ta
-150%
Ave rage

-200%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Ramp Number

SCL Length (ft) 100 110 310 70 355 50 40 80 35

Taper/Parallel Taper Taper Taper Taper Parallel Taper Taper Taper Taper
Straight/Curve Curve Straight Curve Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight
Min SCL % 39.0% 45.8% 77.0% 34.4% 17.7% 58.7% 10.2% -67.4% -181.2%
Max SCL % 160.6% 149.1% 103.5% 146.7% 99.8% 167.0% 183.2% 120.7% 113.9%
Avg SCL % 108.3% 80.2% 94.8% 86.1% 82.1% 110.6% 86.0% 39.6% 40.9%
Std. Deviation 42.9% 30.8% 8.9% 30.1% 27.3% 28.5% 43.9% 58.4% 86.2%

FIGURE 4   Speed-change lane use at exit ramps.

62  Transportation Research Record 2223
shortest SCLs in the study, but they have the lowest average diverge
point. The averages are influenced by two drivers at each ramp who
began their diverge in the taper, upstream of the SCL and represented
in Figure 4 as less than 0% of SCL. However, there is a lower fre-
quency of late merges at these two ramps than in other ramps with
SCLs of similar length.
Comparison of average observed deceleration rates and cor­
responding Green Book rates revealed that the observed rates were
less than the Green Book rates at all locations. A review of the speed
profiles indicated that every subject began deceleration before enter-
ing the SCL at every location; this means that the needed deceleration
was accomplished over a greater distance than the length of the taper
and SCL. As a result, drivers decelerated more gradually than the
rates implied by the Green Book.
Further review of the data indicated that, although average decel-
eration rates are useful for summarizing the data, actual deceleration
rates were variable, commonly increasing as the driver approached
the end of the ramp. Although the final deceleration rates were not
necessarily equal to those obtained from Green Book values, they
were typically closer in value than the average rates. Given these
deceleration characteristics of subject drivers, the deceleration
length values provided in the Green Book appeared to be sufficient
to accommodate typical diverge maneuvers. However, to complete
the necessary deceleration wholly within the SCL and not require
deceleration in the freeway lane, SCL lengths would need to increase
to accommodate the reduced deceleration rates.
Conclusions
On the basis of the field data collected during the driving course,
researchers drew the following conclusions:
• The assumption in the Green Book that drivers decelerate in gear
(i.e., coast) for 3 s was not applicable to the drivers in this study,
unless the Green Book definition of coasting includes the time used
to remove the driver’s foot from the throttle. If coasting is defined
as the activation of neither throttle nor brake, the appropriate value
for this driver population is approximately 1.6 s.
• In uncongested or lightly congested conditions, a typical glance
into a mirror or over the shoulder by a driver merging onto the free-
way is about 2.5 to 3.0 s, but the driver tends to take three such
glances on a given entrance ramp. During the typical glance, the
driver travels between 100 and 200 ft (30 to 61 m) and increases
speed by approximately 2.5 mph (4.0 km/h).
• Merging drivers in uncongested or lightly congested conditions
tended to use at least half of the SCL provided when entering the
freeway and often used the taper area to complete their merging
maneuvers.
• Diverging drivers tended to use the freeway through lane for
a large portion of their deceleration when exiting the freeway and
seldom entered the SCL within the first 50% of the provided
length.
• The Green Book procedure for calculating the recommended
length of SCL on freeway exit ramps may be recommending lengths
that are too short for the behavior of subject drivers and their perfor-
mance in the contemporary vehicles if all deceleration is to be
completed within the taper and SCL.
• The Green Book procedure for calculating the recommended
length of SCLs on freeway entrance ramps provided sufficient
lengths for merging by subject drivers under uncongested and lightly
congested conditions when the taper area was used to complete the
maneuver.
Recommendations
Given the conclusions from the analysis of subject data on the
driving course in this study, the researchers make the following
recommendations:
• The Green Book procedure for calculating the recommended
length of SCLs on freeway exit ramps should be revisited to determine
if longer lengths are more appropriate for current drivers and vehicles.
• The Green Book guidelines for designing freeway entrance
ramps should emphasize the need for adequate sight distance for
merging drivers to see adjacent freeway main-lane traffic in advance
of the SCL and merging area.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on research sponsored by NCHRP. The work
was performed by the Texas Transportation Institute as part of research
conducted in conjunction with Midwest Research Institute. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Susan Chrysler and
Kathrine Connell of TTI for their assistance in developing the field
study methodology and collecting and processing the data.
References
1. NCHRP 15-31A: Design Guidance for Freeway Mainline Ramp Termi-
nals. Project description. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C. http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNet
ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2568. Accessed July 1, 2010.
2. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO,
Washington, D.C., 2004.
3. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways. AASHO, Washington,
D.C., 1965.
4. Fitzpatrick, K., and K. H. Zimmerman. Potential Updates to 2004 Green
Book’s Acceleration Lengths for Entrance Terminals. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2023,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2007, pp. 130–139.
5. Fukutome, I., and K. Moskowitz. Traffic Behavior and On-Ramp Design.
In Highway Research Board Bulletin 235. HRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1960, pp. 38–72.
6. Fukutome, I., and K. Moskowitz. Traffic Behavior and Off-Ramp Design.
In Highway Research Record 21, HRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1963, pp. 17–31.
7. Michaels, R. M., and J. Fazio. Driver Behavior Model of Merging. In
Transportation Research Record 1213, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 4–10.
8. Kondyli, A., and L. Elefteriadou. Driver Behavior at Freeway-Ramp
Merging Areas: Focus Group Findings. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2124, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2009, pp. 157–166.
9. Kondyli, A., and L. Elefteriadou. Driver Behavior at Freeway-Ramp
Merging Areas Based on Instrumented Vehicle Observations. Presented
at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2010.
The contents of the paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policies of MRI or NCHRP.
The Operational Effects of Geometrics Committee peer-reviewed this paper.