See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351126252

Road Design Criteria and Capacity Estimation Based on Autonomous Vehicles

Performances. First Results from the European C-Roads Platform and A22
Motorway

Article in Transport and Telecommunication Journal · April 2021

DOI: 10.2478/ttj-2021-0018

CITATIONS READS

2 183

4 authors:

Marco Guerrieri Raffaele Mauro

Università degli Studi di Trento Università degli Studi di Trento
77 PUBLICATIONS 757 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 596 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrea Pompigna Natalia Isaenko

Università degli Studi di Trento Sapienza University of Rome
36 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 258 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Time Series Analysis in Traffic Forecasting View project

Operational LOS Assessment on Freeways View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Guerrieri on 30 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

Transport and Telecommunication, 2021, volume 22, no. 2, 230–243

Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Lomonosova 1, Riga, LV-1019, Latvia
DOI 10.2478/ttj-2021-0018

ROAD DESIGN CRITERIA AND CAPACITY ESTIMATION

BASED ON AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES PERFORMANCES.
FIRST RESULTS FROM THE EUROPEAN C-ROADS
PLATFORM AND A22 MOTORWAY
Marco Guerrieri1, Raffaele Mauro1, Andrea Pompigna1, Natalia Isaenko2
1
DICAM, University of Trento
Via Mesiano, 77, Trento, Italy
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
2
DICEA, University La Sapienza of Rome
Via Eudossiana, 18, Rome, Italy
[email protected]
Several European road operators and authorities joined the C-Roads Platform with the aim of harmonising the deployment
activities of cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS). C-ITS research is preliminary to future automated-driving vehicles.
The current conventional highways were designed on traditional criteria and models specifically developed for traffic flows of
manually guided vehicles. Thus, this article describes some new criteria for designing and monitoring road infrastructures on the
basis of performance features of autonomous (or self-driving) vehicles.
The new criteria have been adopted to perform an accurate conformity control of the A22 Brenner motorway, included in
the C-Roads Platform, and also to ascertain whether in future it may be travelled by automated vehicles in safety conditions. Always
in accordance with the technical and scientific insights required by the C-Roads Platform, a traffic model has been implemented to
estimate how the A22 capacity increases compared to current values, by taking various percentages of automated or manual vehicles
into consideration. The results given by theoretical models indicate that the highway will be able to be travelled by automated
vehicles in safety conditions. On the other hand, the lane capacity is due to increase up to 2.5 times more than the current capacities,
experimentally determined through traffic data collected from 4 highway sections by means of Drake’s flow model.
Keywords: smart road, automated vehicles, design and review criteria, capacity estimation

1. Introduction

Planners and engineers usually must estimate operational improvement strategies to eliminate, mitigate,
or avoid traffic congestion and phenomenal safety issues in highways and road intersections (Guerrieri et al.,
2015; Tollazzi et al., 2016). These strategies are based on traffic counts and infrastructure performance
monitoring.
Highway traffic control systems and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) are commonly used
around the world, especially in USA and Europe, with the primary aim of countering recurrent congestion
(i.e. when demand increases beyond the available capacity) and non-recurrent congestion (i.e. temporary
decrease in capacity while the demand remains unchanged) (Gordon, 2010).
In addition, ITS are involved in the following areas (Ioannou, 1997): Advanced Traffic Management
Systems (ATMS), Advanced Traveller Information Systems (ATIS), Advanced Vehicle Control Systems
(AVCS), Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO), Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). The
main traditional highway traffic control systems implementing ITS are: truck policies (TP), ramp metering
(RM), high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, real-time variable speed limits (VSLs), reversible lanes (RL)
and hard-shoulder running (HSR) (Elefteriadou, 2014; Papageorgiou, 2014). The cooperative intelligent
transportation system (C-ITS) is an emerging technology based on the communication and cooperation
between vehicles, as well as between vehicles and physical infrastructures (urban roads, highways etc.).
Along with new driverless vehicles, the digital cooperation between vehicles and infrastructures will
promote a potentially significant improvement in road safety, capacity, sustainability and driving comfort.
C-ITS enables the bi-directional and real-time data exchange of road safety and traffic efficiency related
information between vehicles and traffic management centres. In the very near future, thanks to digital
connectivity, vehicles will interact directly with each other and with physical infrastructures (urban roads,
highways, etc.). By means of the C-Roads Platform, several road operators and authorities join together to
harmonise the deployment activities of cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS) in the European
countries (C-Roads Platform). The main objective is the deployment of interoperable cross-border C-ITS
services for road users, especially the so-called “Day 1 - C-ITS service” (Table 1).

230
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

Table 1. Day 1Table C-ITS service list and Day 1.5 C-ITS service list
Day 1 C-ITS service list Day 1.5 C-ITS service list
Hazardous location notifications: • Information on fuelling & charging stations for alternative
• Slow or stationary vehicle(s) & traffic ahead warning fuel vehicles
• Road works warning • Vulnerable road user protection
• Weather conditions • On street parking management & information
• Emergency brake light • Off street parking information
• Emergency vehicle approaching • Park & ride information
• Other hazards • Connected & cooperative navigation into and out of the city
Signage applications: (first and last mile, parking, route advice, coordinated
• In-vehicle signage traffic lights)
• In-vehicle speed limits • Traffic information & smart routing
• Signal violation / intersection safety
• Traffic signal priority request by designated vehicles
• Green light optimal speed advisory (GLOSA)
• Probe vehicle data
• Shockwave damping (falling under European
Telecommunication Standards Institute - ETSI category
‘local hazard warning’).

The core C-Roads Platform members (Figure 1 (a)) are: Austria, Belgium/Flanders, Belgium/Wallonia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The core members are involved with their
own C-ITS pilot deployments, either in place or in preparation. In addition, a lot of associated members
follow the C-Roads Platform as well as the pilot deployments of C-ITS services closely.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) Core C-Roads Platform members, (b) C-Roads projects in Italy

The Italian motorway operators involved in the C-Roads Platform with their corresponding
infrastructure are (Figure 1(b)): the A22 S.p.A. (A22 motorway, 313 km); the “Autovie Venete
motorways” (A4, A28 motorways 19 km and 5 km, respectively) and the CAV “Consorzio Autostrade
Venete” (A57 motorway, 7 km). In Italy the key objectives of the C-Roads project are the implementation
and testing, in real traffic conditions, of cooperative systems based on Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)
technologies, for automated driving applications, such as:
 truck platooning;
 highway chauffeur for passenger cars;
 combined scenarios of trucks and passenger cars.
That requires upgrading motorways as well as integrating Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) C-ITS
service and Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) information with vehicle control strategies. The expected potential
benefits are in terms of safety (risk reduction related to cooperative/automated technology in truck and
passenger cars scenarios), capacity and level of service (due to platooning and highway chauffeur
technologies) and energy efficiency (reduction in fuel consumption and pollutant emissions).
The Day 1 C-ITS services (see Table 1 and Figure 2) have been taken into account in the projects.
Present C-ITS deployments are founded on the communication technologies IEEE802.11p/ETSI ITS-G5
(in short, ITS-G5) as well as on 3G and 4G cellular standards.

231
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

Figure 2. C-ITS services implemented in the A22 Motorway

TRADITIONAL ROAD INNOVATIVE ROAD

SYSTEM SYSTEM
(human drivers’ control) (autonomous vehicles)

INTERACTIONS INTERACTIONS
Human-vehicle-road Vehicle-road
Figure 3. Ideal transition from a traditional to an innovative road system

Table 2. Comparison between manual and automated driving systems

Human drivers’ control Autonomous vehicles
Perception LIDAR*, Radar, Video cameras, GPS
Reaction Pre-programmed algorithms, artificial intelligence
Experience and competence Not necessary
*Light Detection and Ranging or Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging

Recent innovation in vehicle automation fosters in-depth analysis of the design criteria for road
infrastructures. As a matter of fact, design criteria are to be modified since the human factors are going to be
less significant in driving processes (Berktaş and Tanyel). Thus, there will be an ideal transition from the
current transport system based on the interaction among human-vehicle-road components to a system
interacting between only two components, vehicle-road (and vehicle-vehicle) which is simplified in some
ways, but more complex in others (Figure 3 and Table 2). Automated vehicles are still at the experimental
stage. But in the medium/long term they are expected to replace manual driving vehicles gradually and
completely. Thus the conventional road patterns are supposed to evolve over time into the following scenarios:
 Scenario 1 (current): traffic flow composed only of traditionally driven vehicles;
 Scenario 2 (medium-term): mixed traffic flow consisting of both manual and automated
driving vehicles;
 Scenario 3 (long-term): traffic flow composed only of automated driving vehicles.
Consequently, road geometry should have planimetric and altimetric features specifically
examined for automated driving vehicles, apart from the technological elements for information exchange
between infrastructure and vehicle as described above.
At present, neither technical standards nor guidelines on design criteria for such new generation
infrastructures have been provided by competent bodies and specialised techno-scientific associations.
Thus, this research aims to formalise some design criteria for new generation of infrastructures
which are based on the performance characteristics of automated driving vehicles. It focuses on the A22
Italian motorway and hence design criteria laid down by the current Italian technical regulations (D.M. n.
6792. 5/11/2001) were globally revised.
These new theoretical criteria have been adopted for assessing the A22 Brenner motorway
geometrically and determine whether it can be used by automated vehicles in safety conditions. In addition,

232
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

among the experiments set up in the C-Roads Platform, a new traffic model was implemented to estimate
the expected increase in infrastructure capacity, compared to the present values (experimentally
determined through the Drake model), in function of the traffic flow composition (that is, of different
percentages of manual and automated driving vehicles).

2. Design criteria for road infrastructures used by automated driving vehicles

Below are the criteria for the highway geometric alignment to be dimensioned in infrastructures
dedicated to automated driving vehicles. They were established by particularising those traditionally
employed in highway engineering in function of the so-far known performances of automated driving
vehicles. The following three modes of infrastructure use have been considered in the research:
 Traffic flow composed only of manual driving (M.D.) vehicles, or 100% M.D.;
 Mixed traffic flow consisting of manual driving (M.D.) and automated driving (A.D.) vehicles;
 Traffic flow composed only of automated driving (A.D.) vehicles, or 100% A.D.
Clearly, the infrastructures which at the same time can be used by manual and automated driving
vehicles must meet the same safety standards as traditional infrastructures (100% M.D.). In other words,
the geometrical alignment of the infrastructures specified at point 2 in the list must keep the same
characteristics as traditional roads. As said, the design and review criteria depend on the user behaviours
(for manual driving vehicles) and on the automated driving systems (for driverless vehicles).

2.1. Stopping sight distance – SSD for traditional and automated vehicles
It is well known that the traditional road design criteria are based on human factors. Consequently,
a pivotal role is played by the perception-reaction time (PRT). According to AASHTO, in case of
unexpected situations some drivers take PRT up to 2.7 seconds (NCHRP, Report 600). Experiments
conducted in highways have shown that the 85th percentile of the perception-reaction time distribution
corresponds to 1.9 seconds (Sens et al., 1989). In the urban context, the perception-reaction time assumes
values up to 2.5 sec (Lerner, 1993). In Italy the present technical regulations (D.M. n. 6792. 5/11/2001)
provides the following expression:
PRT = (2.8 – 0.01V), (1)
V being the vehicle speed in km/h.
The same regulations specify that in such particular situations as, for instance, the ‘complex’
intersections, the value calculated with (1) must be increased by a second in a suburban area and up to 3
seconds in an urban area. For automated vehicles, reaction delay (PRT) value is the sum of sensing,
computing, communication and actuating delays. Typical PRT values are (Carbaugh, 1998; Friedrich, 2016):
 PRT(ac) = 0.15 seconds for automated cooperative vehicles;
 PRT(aa) = 0.30 seconds for automated autonomous vehicles.
The Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is a function of PRT:
v2
SSD  v  PRT  . (2)
2g  ( fe  i )
In which v is the speed, PRT is the perception-reaction time, fe is the longitudinal friction
coefficient, i is the slope of the road. By Eq. (2) we obtain:
 SSD(m): stopping sight distance for manual driving vehicles (PRT calculated with Eq. (1));
 SSD(ac): stopping sight distance for automated cooperative vehicles (PRT(ac) = 0.15 seconds);
 SSD(aa): stopping sight distance for automated autonomous vehicles (PRT(aa) = 0.30 seconds).
The diagram in Figure 4a shows the values of the stopping sight distances as specified in the list,
in function of the slope of the road. Two design speeds (Vp) have been used: Vp,min = 80 km/h and
Vp,max = 140 km/h. On the other hand, the diagram in Figure 4b illustrates the values 1 and 2 equal to
the difference between the SSDs of manual driving vehicles, automated cooperative vehicles and
automated autonomous vehicles. It follows that:
1= SSD(m) – SSD(ac) = v (PRT – PRT (ac)) = v (2.8 – 0.01V – 0.15) = v (2.65 – 0.01V). (3)
2 = SSD(m) – SSD(aa) = v (PRT – PRT(aa)) = v (2.8 – 0.01V – 0.30) = v (2.50 – 0.01V). (4)
In which V denotes speed in km, v speed in m/s and values 1 and 2 are in metres.

233
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

140 km/h

80 km/h

(a) (b)
Figure 4. a) Stopping sight distance in function of the road slope (SSD(m): manual driving vehicles; SSD(ac)
automated/cooperative vehicles; SSD(aa) automated/autonomous vehicles; SSD(0) theoretical values for PRT = 0 s ;
b) values 1 and 2 in function of speed V

2.2. Straights Design

To avoid monotonous driving styles and the risk of being blinded at night by oncoming vehicles,
in Italy the maximum straight length (Ls,max) should not exceed 22 times the maximum design speed of the
road Vp,max:
Ls,max = 22Vp,max. (5)
Instead, for highways with flows of autonomous vehicles Ls,max = ∞. In fact, the limits given from
Equation (5) depend on human factors. In conformity with the German design guidelines, the minimum
straight length between circular arcs curving in the same direction should be 6 times the design speed of
the straight Ls,min = 6Vp. As for the minimum length, a threshold level needs to be established so that the
automated heavy vehicles exiting a curve can complete the rolling phase (for inertia) on the straight
before entering the following curve. Thus, it is reasonable to adopt very precautionary values as those
used in the railway engineering (RFI Guidelines), or:

 Vp
 Ls ,min 
 3 . (6)
 Ls ,min  30 m

In which Vp is the design speed for the straight.
The use of railway design criteria for designing geometric elements of smart road is adopted in
other researches (Lambert et al., 2019). Table 3 compares the design and review criteria of the traditional
infrastructures (D.M. n. 6792. 5/11/2001) with those of the infrastructures travelled by only automated
vehicles.

Table 3. Design criteria for straights

Road for manually guided and

Straights Road for manually guided Road for autonomous guided
autonomous guided vehicles
design criteria vehicles (100% M.G.) vehicles (100% A.G.)
(M.G. and A.G.)
Maximum length Ls.max = 22·Vpmax Ls.max = 22·Vpmax ∞
 Vp
Minimum length  Ls ,min 
Ls.min = 6·Vp Ls.min = 6·Vp  3
L
 s ,min  30 m

2.3. Horizontal circular curve design

The design of horizontal curves is based on a combination of design speed, curvature and super-
elevation, subject to the laws of physics and limitations of human comfort and tolerance.

234
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

The radius of a circular arc is given by the following equation:

Vp
2

 127  ( q  f t ) . (7)
R
In which: Vp is the design speed of the curve in km/h, R the radius in m, q the camber [%] and ft is
the tangential adhesion coefficient. Since it is an equilibrium condition which excludes human behaviour,
the criterion remains unchanged also in case of infrastructures dedicated to the exclusive use of
automated-guided vehicles. Based on the Italian guidelines, the current minimum length of a circular arc
is Sv,min= 2.5·Vp /3.6.
As regards the roads dedicated to automated-guided (A.G.) vehicles, a minimum development
value needs to be set for travelling comfort. Indeed, it is indispensable for a heavy vehicle entering a
curve to complete the rolling phase, for inertia, before entering the clothoid section (or the subsequent
straight). To this end, it is reasonable to adopt the values used in the railway engineering (RFI
Guidelines), or:

 Vp
S v ,min 
 3 . (8)
S v ,min  30 m

Table 4 illustrates the comparison between design criteria for manually-driven road infrastructures
(D.M. n. 6792. 5/11/2001) and for road infrastructures specifically designed to be only travelled by
automated-guided vehicles.

Table 4. Design criteria for circular arcs

Road for manually-guided and
Design criteria for Road for manually-guided Road for automated- guided
automated-guided vehicles
circular arcs vehicles (100% M.G.) vehicles (100% A.G.)
(M.G. and A.G.)
Relationship among Vp2 Vp2 Vp2
Vp, R, q and ft  127  ( q  f t )  127  ( q  f t )  127  ( q  f t )
R R R
 Vp
Vp Vp Sv ,min 
minimum length Svmin  2.5  Svmin  2.5   3
3.6 3.6 S
 v ,min  30 m

2.4. Transition curve: design criteria for the clothoid

As is well known, the clothoid equation is:
2
A = R·S. (9)
In which A is the clothoid parameter and R the radius at the end of the clothoid section with length
denoted with S. In compliance to the Italian guidelines, the clothoid parameter must satisfy the following
conditions:
R ≥ A ≥ (A1, A2, A3). (10)
In which:
A1 = 0.021 Vp2, (dynamic criterion) (11)

R f  Bi  ( q f  qi )
A2  , (slope criterion) (12)
imax
A3 = R/3, (optical criterion) (13)
where:
R is the radius at the end of the clothoid [m];
Bi denotes the distance at the edge of the road from the rotation axis [m];
qf is the camber at the end of the clothoid;
qi is the camber at the beginning of the clothoid;
imax denotes higher or lower max gradient edge.

235
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

The condition (10), R ≥ A, is required in order to guarantee that the circular arc at the ending point
of the clothoid is correctly perceived. Obviously, for driverless-vehicle roads and highways the conditions
(10) and (13) are not compulsory. This means that, in this case, the limit is:
A ≥ (A1, A2). (14)
Table 5 illustrates the Design criteria for clothoids.

Table 5. Design criteria for clothoids

Road for manually-guided and

Design criteria for Road for manually-guided Road for automated-guided
automated-guided vehicles (M.G.
clothoids vehicles (100% M.G.) vehicles (100% A.G.)
and A.G.)
A1 = 0.021 Vp2 A1 = 0.021 Vp2
A1 = 0.021 Vp2
R f  Bi  ( q f  qi ) R f  Bi  ( q f  qi )
A2  A2  R f  Bi  ( q f  qi )
Conditions imax imax A2 
imax
A3 = R/3 A3 = R/3
A ≥ (A1, A2)
R ≥ A ≥ (A1, A2, A3) R ≥ A ≥ (A1, A2, A3)

2.5. Gradients
The maximum road gradient does not depend on human factors but only on vehicle performance
and adhesion between tyre and asphalt pavement surface. Therefore, in case of automated-vehicle flows
the maximum gradient is the same as in traditional roads with flows of manually-guided vehicles.

2.6. Crest Vertical Curve Design

Be D the sight distance (Stopping sight distance or Passing sight distance), h2 the target point
height, h1 the height of driver’s eye point, L the horizontal projection of the quadratic parabolas between a
slope gradient variation i and the minimum crest radius Rv. Following the Italian guidelines, Rv is equal
to:
D2
Rv  , if D < L (15)
2  ( h1  h2  2  h1  h2 )

2  h  h2  2  h1  h2 
,
Rv   D 1 if D > L (16)
i  i 

h1 and h2 are respectively equal to 1.10 m and 0.10 m.
For automated vehicles, as stopping sight distance values are lower than those required for
manually-guided vehicles, crest radii Rv should be much smaller than those traditionally used on common
roads. Moreover the road network analysis system is performed with LiDAR, Radar, surveillance video
cameras mounted on the roofs of automated vehicles. Therefore, for this type of vehicles h1 >> 1.10 m
with further reduction in Rv values. Table 6 illustrates the design criteria for crest vertical curves.

Table 6. Design criteria for crest vertical curves

Road for manually- Road for manually-guided

Design criteria for Road for automated-guided vehicles
guided vehicles and automated-guided
crest vertical curves (100% A.G.)
(100% M.G.) vehicles (M.G. and A.G.)
h1 = 1.10 m
h1 = 1.10 m h1 >>1.10 m
Conditions for h2 = 0.10 m
h2 = 0.10 m h2 = 0.10 m
stopping sight distance D=SSD(v; PRT)
D=SSD(v; PRT) automated autonomous vehicles: D=SSD(a)
(D =SSD) with PRT =2.8-0.01V
with PRT = 2.8-0.01V automated cooperative vehicles D=SSD(ac)

2.7. Sag Vertical Curve Design

The Sag Vertical Curve Design considers the ability of a vehicle to stop safely in front of an
obstacle identified by headlights (Kuhn, 2013). The threshold radius is calculated with the formula:

236
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

2  h  D  
Rv   D  . (17)
i  i 
In which h is the headlights height (h = 0.5 m) and is the headlights divergence (= 1°).
The automated guided vehicles can scan the road track by means of LiDAR, Radar and Video
cameras, thus being potentially unaffected by road light conditions significantly. Thus, sag vertical curves
should guarantee travellers comfortable conditions. By assuming the maximum vertical acceleration
av,max = 0.6 m/s2, the following relation must be satisfied:
v2
Rv   1.67  v 2  0.129  V 2 . (18)
0.6
Table 7 shows the design criteria for sag vertical curves.
Table 7. Design criteria for sag vertical curves
Road for manually-guided
Design criteria for Road for manually-guided vehicles Road for automated- guided
and automated-guided
sag vertical curves (100% M.G.) vehicles (100% A.G.)
vehicles (M.G. and A.G.)
h1=1.10 m h1=1.10 m
Conditions for h2=0.10 m h2=0.10 m
SSD=SSD(v; PRT)
stopping sight SSD=SSD(v; PRT) Rv  0.129  V 2
distance (D =SSD) 2  h  SSD    PRT =2.8-0.01V
Rv    SSD  
i  i 

3. Criterion for estimating capacity increase due to automated guided vehicles

As is well known, in a homogeneous traffic flow the vehicle density k is the reciprocal of the mean
space headway between pairs of vehicles (Ioannou, 1997; Elefteriadou, 2014):
1
k . (19)
Tv  V  L
In which Tv denotes the mean time headway, V is the flow speed and L the mean distance between
pairs of vehicles. In capacity conditions, Tv may assume the following values (Carbaugh, 1998; Friedrich,
2106; Funkhouser, 2016; Dixit, 2016):
 manually guided vehicles: it cannot fall below the perception-reaction time, here denoted with
Tm. Or: Tv = Tm = 1.15 seconds;
 automated cooperative vehicles: Tv = PRT(ac) = 0.15 seconds;
 automated autonomous vehicles Tv = PRT(aa) = 0.30 seconds.
Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, all automated guided vehicles are assumed to have a
value higher than and equal to Tv = Ta = 0.5 seconds.
By particularising relation (19), both the capacity for a flow consisting of only vehicles with
human control Cm and the capacity for a flow made up of only automated vehicles Ca (Friedrich, 2106)
can be obtained as follows:
V
Cm  (20)
Tm  V  L

V
Ca  . (21)
Ta  V  L
The ratio of the two capacity values is worked out by the relation:
Ca Tm  V  L
  . (22)
Cm Ta  V  L
The following mean values can be used for the intravehicular space distance:
 passenger car L = Lcar = 7.5 m (4.5 m mean vehicle length + 3 m minimum safety distance to
the vehicle ahead);
 truck L = Ltruck = 21 m (18 m mean vehicle length + 3 m minimum safety distance to the vehicle
ahead).

237
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

For the flow capacity conditions, the mean vehicle speed is the so called critical flow speed (V = Vc).
Denoting heavy traffic proportion with , the previous expressions (20), (21) and (22) can be particularised
as follows (Friedrich, 2106):
V
Cm  . (23)
( 1   )  ( Tm  V  Lcar )    ( Tm  V  Ltruck )

V
Ca  . (24)
( 1   )  ( Ta  V  Lcar )    ( Ta  V  Ltruck )

Ca ( 1   )  ( Tm  V  Lcar )    ( Tm  V  Ltruck )
  . (25)
Cm ( 1   )  ( Ta  V  Lcar )    ( Ta  V  Ltruck )
Lane capacity increases in function of speed and for varied  values are charted in Figure 5a.
Before that, homogeneous flows, i.e. composed of only manually guided vehicles (100% M.G.) or
automated guided vehicles (100% G.A.), were examined and compared between them. In mixed traffic,
denoting with  the share of autonomous vehicles in the total volume (0 ≤ ≤ 1), the lane capacity
obtained from Equation (25) (Friedrich, 2106) is:
V
Cmix  . (26)
  V  Ta  ( 1   )  V  Tm  L
In mixed traffic the vehicle pairs following one another in the traffic flow can be made up of a
combination of successive manually guided (M.G.) and automated guided (A.G.) vehicles. The actual
headways for each combination are:
 M.G.– M.G. and M.G.– A.G. Tm,x = Tm = 1.15 seconds;
 A.G.– A.G. Ta,a = 0.5 seconds;
 A.G.– M.G. Ta,m = 0.9 seconds (in order to prevent A.G. vehicle from travelling too close to
M.G., thus disturbing the driver).
By denoting with L the mean vehicle length, we have (Friedrich, 2106):
V
Cmix  . (27)
 2  V  Ta ,a    ( 1   )  V  Ta ,m  ( 1   )  V  Tm ,x  L
The ratio  between the lane capacity with mixed traffic rate and the lane capacity with only
manually guided vehicles (Figure 5 b) is (Friedrich, 2106):
Cmix Tm  V  L
  2 . (28)
Cm   V  Ta ,a    ( 1   )  V  Ta ,m  ( 1   )  V  Tm ,x  L
With Tm = Tm,x = 1.15 seconds and V = Vc critical speed for a road infrastructure used only by human
drivers (100% M.G).

(a) (b)
Figure 5. a) Capacity increase in a mixed-flow lane with automated guided vehicles against capacity value in a flow composed of
manually guided vehicles and referred to different heavy vehicle percentages ();
b) Capacity increase in a lane with different rate  of automated guided vehicles against the total (vehicle length L = 7.5 m)

238
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

4. Case study: the A22 Brenner Motorway

The A22 Brenner motorway is part of the trans-European road network TEN-T (specifically the
Scandinavian-Mediterranean corridor (Regulation (EU) N. 1316/2013). In Italy the infrastructure links the
cities of Bolzano, Trento, Verona and Modena. It is connected to the A13 Brenner Autobahn in Austria.
The A22 function is then crucial to European transport. The A22 Brenner motorway is 313-km long and
has 24 toll booths, 4 junctions with other Italian motorways (A4 West, A4 East, A1 North and A1 South).
The road has two lanes (3.75-m wide each) in every direction and right-hand hard shoulders (3.45 m-wide
each), separated by a 1.20 m-wide central reservation.

4.1. Safety condition assessment of automated traffic flows

Comprehensive data on straights, circular curves, gradients and vertical curves of the A22
motorway are shown in Tables 8, 9 and 10.
Table 8. Main characteristics of straights

Straigthts
No. Lmin [m] Lmax [m] Vp,min [km/h] Vp,max [km/h]
304 1.55 3,330.69 82.6 140.0

Table 9. Main characteristics of circular curves

Circular curves
No. Rmin [m] Rmax [m] Vp,min [km/h] Vp,max [km/h] qmax [%] Sv,min [m] Sv,max [m]
304 300 10,000 82.2 140.0 5 29.83 2,1088.83

Table 10. Main characteristics of gradients and vertical curves

Gradients and vertical curves

No. imin [%] imax [%] Lmin [m] Lmax [m] Rvmin [m] Rvmax [m]
415 0 3.79 108.12 3,250.68 3,000 45,000

The new design and review criteria provided in the previous Section 2 were implemented in a new
specially developed software, named “HSA v.2019a” (HAS v.2019a, 2019). The conformity of the A22
motorway (from km 0+000 to km 313+061.62) to the new geometrical criteria designed for roads travelled
by automated guided vehicles was examined with detailed regard to its horizontal and vertical alignment.
The substantial A22 conformity to the criteria described in the previous Sections was observed with the only
exception of some minimum lengths of straights. However, some “short” straights are not a safety problem,
but rather they may lower driving comfort. In safety terms, indeed, automated vehicles will be able to adjust
their speed before arriving at such “short” straights, thanks to the systems for information communication
and exchange data between infrastructure and vehicles (V2I and I2V systems), some of which already
installed in the course of the C-Roads project. Finally, it was established that in both A22 directions (Figure
6 and Figure 7) automated guided vehicles will require shorter stopping sight distances (calculated in
function of the design speed in each highway section and the slope) than those required by manually guided
vehicles nowadays. This could help to eliminate many speed limits in some motorway segments, due to
visibility obstacles (e.g. small radius curves, presence of safety barriers, threes, etc.).

Figure 6. Stopping sight distance for manually guided and automated vehicles
(direction 1: from north to south; motorway segment from km 100 to km 300)

239
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

Figure 7. Stopping sight for manually guided and automated vehicles

(direction 2: from south to north; motorway segment from km 100 to km 300)

4.2. Estimation of capacity increase due to flows with automated guided vehicles
In order to get the value of the capacity increase due to automated guided flows, the current
capacity values for driving, overtaking and carriageway lanes were estimated preliminarily.
Thus, traffic data were observed in four crucial sections of the A22 motorway:
 Kofler, km 063+500;
 S. Michele, km 123+960;
 Portale Affi, km 205+500;
 Mantua, km 271+900.
The macroscopic flow parameters – flow q; speed v (harmonic mean speed); density k – were
calculated with reference to 5-min time intervals. The vehicles were homogenised by using the HCM
2010 passenger car equivalent factors PCEs (the flows are then expressed in pcu/h). The numerousness of
pairs (v; k), (q; k), (v; q), determined in intervals T = 5 minutes, is shown in Table 11. The total
numerousness is N5 = 24,192.
Table 11. Number of pairs (v; k), (q; k), (v; q)
San Michele San Michele Kofler Kofler Portale Affi Portale Affi Mantua Mantua
123+960 123+960 063+500 063+500 205+500 205+500 271+900 271+900
North South North South North South North South
4032 4032 4032 4032 2016 2016 2016 2016

By means of the collected traffic data, the Drake model was calibrated with the least-square
method (May, 1990; Guerrieri and Mauro, 2016) in that it turned out to be the best model for interpreting
the available data. For more details about this model calibration, the interested reader may consult
Guerrieri and Mauro, 2016. The Drake relation is: v = vf exp[-0.5·(k/kjam)2], in which vf is the free-flow
speed and kjam is the maximum density (or jam density).
Through this relation and the fundamental flow law q = k·v, the other flow relations v = v(q),
q = q(k) can be inferred. Thus, the flow relations v = v(q), q = q(k), v = v(k) were worked out for each
prominent section, being v the space mean speed, q the flow and k the density. In mean, relations for the
entire A22 motorway were also inferred. Figure 8 specifically shows the relations q = q(k) and v = v(q).
Table 12. Traffic flow parameters (free flow speed vfl, critical density kc, capacity C and critical speed vc)
Carriageway lane vfl [km/h] kc [pcu/lane/km] C [pcu/h] vc [km/h]
Right lane 106 24 1,552 65
Overtaking lane 128 25 1,916 77
Carriageway 115 47 3,254 70

By means of the traffic model described in previous Sections above and the current capacity
estimations (Table 12, cfr. Guerrieri and Mauro, 2016), the expected capacity increases in single (overtaking
and driving) lanes can be deduced as the rate referred to the flow composed of automated guided vehicles
against the total (0 ≤ ≤ 1). The study of the current A22 operational conditions has allowed estimating the
following average values referred to capacity C and critical speed vc (see Table 12):
 Right lane C = Cm = 1,552 pcu/h; vc = 65 km/h.
 Overtaking lane C = Cm =1,916 pcu/h; vc = 77 km/h.
Expression (27) can be used to calculate, for each lane, the theoretical capacity value with mixed
traffic Cmix and the ratio  between such a theoretical capacity and that inferred empirically as in the
current traffic conditions (100% manually guided vehicles). For the right lane the performance of capacity

240
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

and ratio calculated for Vc = 65 km/h and L = 7.5 m are respectively diagrammed in Figure 9. For
automated guided vehicles = 1, a maximum capacity of around 3,933 pcu/h is obtained against the
current 1,552 pcu/h. For the overtaking lane, the capacity and ratio calculated for vc = 77 km/h and
L = 7.5 m are respectively diagrammed in Figure 10 in function of . For automated guided vehicles = 1,
a maximum capacity of 4,232 pcu/h is obtained against the current 1,916 pcu/h.
Right lane Right lane
Overtaking lane Overtaking lane
Carriageway Carriageway
3500 140
3000 120
2500 100
q [pcu/h]

v [km/h]
2000 80
1500 60
1000 40
500 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
k [pcu/km/lane] q [pcu/h]
(a) (b)
Figure 8. q = q(k) and v= v(q) diagrams

Cm Cmix
5000 3,0
4500 2,8
4000 2,6
Right lane capacity [pcu/h]

3500 2,4
3000 2,2
2500 2,0


2000 1,8
1500 1,6
1000 1,4
500 1,2
0 1,0
0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9
 
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Right lane – a) comparison between the current (Cm) and the theoretical (Cmix) capacities for mixed flow
(M.G. and A.G.), when the rate  of automated guided vehicles varies; b) ratio = Cmix/Cm

Cm Cmix
5000 3,0
4500 2,8
Overtaking lane capacity [pcu/h]

4000 2,6
3500 2,4
3000 2,2


2500 2,0
2000 1,8
1500 1,6
1000 1,4
500 1,2
0 1,0
0,1 0,6 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9
 
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Overtaking lane – a) comparison between the current (Cm) and the theoretical (Cmix) capacities for mixed flow
(M.G. and A.G.), when the rate of automated guided vehicles varies; b) ratio = Cmix/Cm

241
Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

5. Conclusions

Thanks to the C-Roads Platform, several European highway operators are carrying out research on
topics related to cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS). This research aims first at
implementing C-ITS systems so as to provide Day 1 C-ITS services. Other researches are intended for
introducing automated guided (Levels 4 and 5) vehicles onto European roads in terms of both
communication technologies and anticipation models of safety and functionality conditions in highway
infrastructures. With special regard to the two aspects above, this research has proposed some design and
review criteria for horizontal and vertical alignment of road infrastructures, to be used for testing the
compatibility between the existing infrastructures and flows composed of automated guided vehicles.
Such criteria were obtained from those traditionally employed in the highway engineering. The Italian
A22 motorway being of great interest, the design criteria applied in Italy were particularised, so as to take
functional and performance characteristics of automated guided vehicles into account.
The following three modes of infrastructure use were considered:
 Highways exclusively devoted to manually guided (M.G.) vehicles, or 100% M.G.
 Highways exclusively devoted to mixed traffic, i.e. composed of both manually guided (M.G.)
and automated guided (A.G.) vehicles;
 Highways exclusively devoted to automated guided (A.G.) vehicles, or 100% A.G.
Then the conformity of horizontal and vertical alignment of the A22 motorway (from km 0+000 to
km 313+061.62) was assessed against the new geometrical criteria designed for roads with automated
guided vehicles. Through the use of a software called “HSA v.2019a”, developed in a Matlab
environment, the plano-altimetric alignment of the A22 motorway resulted to be substantially conform to
such criteria (that have been implemented in the software “HSA v.2019a”), with the only exception of the
minimum length of some straights. In both A22 directions automated guided vehicles proved to need
much shorter stopping sight distances (calculated in function of the design speed and the slope) than those
today required by manually guided vehicles. This may eliminate many speed limits along some motorway
segments, due to visibility obstacles (e.g. small radius curves and presence of safety barriers).
Another field of research was devoted to estimate motorway capacity with reference to the mixed
traffic composed of different rates of autonomous and manually guided vehicles. A specific traffic model
was used to consider the effect of the mutual minimum distance between vehicle pairs following each
other in a mixed vehicle flow, with special regard to different sequence of manually guided (M.G.) and
automated guided (A.G.) vehicles. The minimum time headways, which guarantee safety and can be
associated to the different vehicle pairs, were obtained by the most recent state-of-the-field scientific
literature. It resulted that:
 Minimum headway between M.G.–M.G. vehicles and M.G.–A.G. vehicles = 1.15 seconds;
 Minimum headway between A.G.–A.G. vehicles = 0.5 seconds;
 Minimum headway between A.G.–M.G. = 0.9 seconds (higher than the previous value, in that
A.G. vehicles are not to drive too close to M.G. vehicles so as to avoid inconvenience to their
drivers in terms of safety and comfort).
The proposed traffic model makes it possible to calculate the capacity (Cmix) of a mixed-flow lane when
speed, average vehicle length L and rate of automated guided vehicles vary. Clearly, the limit of the
suggested model is its being theoretical and as such impossible to be validated or calibrated for lack of
empirical data, in that the extensive use of automated guided vehicles is not widespread yet. Such a theoretical
capacity value (Cmix) was then compared to the capacity obtained from the current conditions of use of
highways, i.e. for “traditional” manually guided vehicles (Cm). To this end, the values of the lane capacity and
critical speed were used after previously processing the traffic surveys conducted in four different A22
motorway sections. For the current conditions of use, the following capacity values were obtained:
 Driving lane: Cm = 1,552 pcu/h; Vc = 65 km/h;
 Overtaking lane: Cm = 1,916 pcu/h; Vc = 77 km/h.
Noticeably, the use of automated guided vehicles will increase the highway performances. This
because the mixed-flow capacity (Cmix) increases monotonously with the rate  of automated guided
vehicles. More specifically, the maximum value of Cmix – calculated for velocity equal to that used for the
current capacity value (i.e. for V=Vc) – is obtained for = 1, i.e. for a flow composed only of automated
guided vehicles (100% A.G. vehicles). The following results were obtained:
 Right lane: maximum capacity Cmix = 3,933 pcu/h, against the current 1,552 pcu/h (ratio between
the future and the current capacities  Cmix / Cm ≈ 2.5);
 Overtaking lane: maximum capacity Cmix = 4,232 pcu/h, against the current 1,916 pcu/h (ratio
between the future and current capacities = Cmix / Cm ≈ 2.2).

242
 Transport and Telecommunication Vol. 22, no.2, 2021

In conclusion, the lane capacity in the A22 motorway is undoubtedly bound to increase more and
more with the growing percentage of automated guided vehicles. In agreement with the results of this
study, in the long term (that is, when all vehicles will be automated guided) the values of the lane capacity
and carriageway will be more than double the current values and, on the whole, the infrastructure will
provide also adequate safety levels for new driverless vehicles.

Acknowledgments
The Authors wish to thank Dr. Eng. Walter Pardatscher, and Dr. Eng Carlo Costa, CEO and
General Technical Director of the “Autostrada del Brennero SpA” respectively, for their contribution to
the development of the research.

References
1. Berktaş, E. Ş., Tanyel, S. (2020) Effect of Autonomous Vehicles on Performance of Signalized
Intersections. Journal of Transportation Engineering Part A: Systems, 146(2). Available:
https://doi.org/10.1061/JTEPBS.0000297
2. Carbaugh, J., Godbole, D. N., Sengupta, R. (1998) Safety and capacity analysis of automated and
manual highway systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 6, 69-99.
3. C-Roads Plataform. Available: https://www.c-roads.eu/platform/about/about.html
4. Guidelines for the Design of Road Infrastructures (2001) D.M. n. 6792. 5/11/2001. Italian Ministry
of Infrastructures and Transports, Rome, Italy.
5. Dixit, V. V., Chand, S., Nair, D. J. (2016) Autonomous Vehicles: Disengagements, Accidents and
Reaction Times. PLOS ONE, 20, 1-14.
6. Elefteriadou, L. (2014) An Introduction to Traffic Flow. Springer.
7. Friedrich, B. (2016) The Effect of Autonomous Vehicles on Traffic. In: Maurer M., Gerdes J., Lenz
B., Winner H. (eds) Autonomous Driving. Springer.
8. Funkhouser, K., Drews, F. (2016) Reaction Times When Switching from Autonomous to Manual
Driving Control: A Pilot Investigation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
Annual Meeting.
9. Gordon, R. (2010) Intelligent Freeway Transportation Systems. Springer.
10. Guerrieri, M. and Mauro, R. (2016) Capacity and safety analysis of hard-shoulder running (HSR), A
motorway case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 162-183.
11. Guerrieri, M., Corriere, F., Rizzo, G., Lo Casto, B., Scaccianoce, G. (2015) Improving the
sustainability of transportation: Environmental and functional benefits of right turn by-pass lanes at
roundabouts. Sustainability, 7(5), 5838-5856.
12. HAS v.2019a (Highway safety analysis for automated vehicles). (2019) Available:
https://sites.google.com/view/h-s-a-v-2018a/home.
13. Ioannou, A. (1997) Automated Highway Systems. Springer.
14. Kuhn, W. (2013) Fundamentals of road design. Wit Press.
15. Lambert, E.D., Romano, R., Watling, D. (2019) Optimal path planning with clothoid curves for
passenger comfort. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and
Intelligent Transport Systems, VEHITS 2019; Heraklion, Crete; Greece; 3-5 May 2019.
16. Lerner, L. D. (1993) Brake perception-reaction times of older and younger drivers. Proceedings of
the human factors and ergonomics society 37th annual meeting.
17. May, A. D. (1990) Traffic Flow Fundamentals. Prentice-Hall.
18. NCHRP, Report 600 (2012) Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second Edition.
Transportation Research Board. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
19. Papageorgiou, M., Hadj-Salem, H., Blosseville, J. M. (1991) ALINEA: A Local Feedback Control
Law for On-Ramp Metering. Transportation Research Record, 1320, 58–64.
20. Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013
establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing
Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010.
21. RFI Guidelines. Guidelines for the Design of Railway Infrastructures. RFI S.p.A. (code: RFI TCAR
IT AR 01 001 A).
22. Sens, M., Cheng, P., Wiechel, J., Guenther, D. (1989) Perception/Reaction Time Values for Accident
Reconstruction. SAE Technical Paper 890732. Available: https://doi.org/10.4271/890732.
23. Tollazzi, T., Mauro, R., Guerrieri, M., Renčelj, M. (2016) Comparative analysis of four new
alternative types of roundabouts: “Turbo”, “flower”, “target” and “four-flyover” roundabout.
Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 60(1), 51-60.

243

View publication stats