8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
1/19
1
CE-740 Traffic Engineering
Term paper
Lane changing models
(Conceptual framework, Gap acceptance, Lane selection)
Under the guidance ofTom v. Mathew
Submitted by
P.Bhargav venil
10304001
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
2/19
2
Contents
1. Introduction 31.1 Process of Lane change
1.2 Classification 4
1.2.1 Based on execution 4
1.2.2 Based on Gap 4
2. Lane changing models 5
2.1 Basic Lane changing model 5
2.2 Mandatory Lane Change and Discretionary Lane Change Model 6
2.2.1 Decision making 6
2.2.2 Gap acceptance 7
2.3 Forced merging model 8
2.4 Cooperative and forced gap acceptance 10
2.4.1 Conceptual framework for cooperative and forced gap acceptance 10
2.4.2 Courtesy yielding 11
3. Gap acceptance 12
4. Delay for Lane change 13
5. Summary 16
6. References 16
7. Advanced topics 17
7.1 Target Lane Selection 17
7.2 Minimizing Overall Braking decelerations Induced by Lane changes 18
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
3/19
3
Lane changing models
(Conceptual framework, Gap acceptance, Lane selection)
1. Introduction
The transfer of a vehicle from one lane to next adjacent lane is defined as Lane change.
Lane changing has a significant impact on traffic flow. Lane changing models are
therefore an important component in microscopic traffic simulators, which are
increasingly the tool of choice for a wide range of traffic-related applications at the
operational level. Modeling the behaviour of a vehicle within its present lane is relatively
straightforward, as the only considerations of any importance are the speed and location
of the preceding vehicle. Lane changing, however, is more complex, because the decision
to change lanes depends on a number of objectives, and at times these may conflict.
Gap acceptance models are used to model the execution of lane-changes. The available
gaps are compared to the smallest acceptable gap (critical gap) and a lane-change is
executed if the available gaps are greater. Gaps may be defined either in terms of time
gap or free space.
1.1Process of lane changeThe lane changing process is modeled as a sequence of three steps:
1. Decision to consider a lane change,
2. Choice of target lane,
3. Gap acceptance
Lane changing process is explained using the example which is shown in figure 1.The
subject vehicle in lane 2 makes a decision to consider a lane change and then it selects atarget lane which may be either lane 1 or lane 3. Now this subject vehicle accepts the gap
in the target lane to make a lane change.
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
4/19
4
Figure 1: Process of lane change
1.2 Classification of Lane change
The classification of lane changes is done based on
1. Execution of the lane change
2. Gap
1.2.1 Based on execution of Lane change
Mandatory Lane Change (MLC): Mandatory lane change (MLC) occurs when a driver
must change lane to follow a specified path.
E.g.: If a driver wants to make a right turn at the next intersection the he changes to the
right most lane which is referred as Mandatory Lane change.
Discretionary Lane Change (DLC): Discretionary lane change (DLC) occurs when a
driver changes to a lane perceived to offer better traffic conditions, he attempts to achieve
desired speed, avoid following trucks, avoid merging traffic, etc.
E.g.: If a driver perceives better driving conditions in the adjacent lane then he makes a
Discretionary Lane change.
1.2.2 Based on Gap
Gap lane change: Both the lead and trailing vehicle influence the maneuver of subject
vehicle
Retarded lane change: Lane change of the subject vehicle is influenced by lead vehicle.
Conflict lane change: Lane change of the subject vehicle is influenced by rear vehicle.
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
5/19
5
Free lane change: Lane change of the subject vehicle is not influenced by lead and rear
vehicle
Most of the models use the classification based on the execution.
2. Lane changing models
2.1 Basic Lane changing model
The basic lane change model is described using the framework shown in figure 2. The
subject vehicle in the current lane tries to change direction either to its left or to its right.
If the gap in the selected lane is acceptable the lane change occurs or else it will remain in
the current lane.
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
Most models classify lane changes as either mandatory or discretionary lane change. This
separation implies that there are no trade-offs between mandatory and discretionary
considerations. For example, a vehicle on a freeway that intends to take on of-ramp will
not overtake a slower vehicle if the distance to the off-ramp is below a threshold,
regardless of the speed of that vehicle. Furthermore, in order to implement MLC and
DLC model separately, rules that dictate when drivers begin to respond to MLC
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
6/19
6
conditions need to be defined. However, this point is unobservable, and so only
judgment-based heuristic rules, which often are defined by the distance from the point
where the MLC must be completed, are used.
The model shown in Figure 2 integrates MLC and DLC into a single utility model.
Variables that capture the need to be in the correct lanes and to avoid obstacles and
variables that capture the relative speed advantages and ease of driving in the current lane
and in the lanes to the right and to the left are all incorporated in a single utility model
that captures the trade-offs among these variables. An important goal that affects drivers'
lane changing behavior in this model is following the travel path. This goal is captured by
a group of variables that capture the distance to the point where drivers have to be in
specific lanes and the number of lane changes that are needed in order to be in these lanes
2.2 MLC and DLC Model
The lane changing model structure is shown in Figure 3. The MLC branch in the top level
corresponds to the case when a driver decides to respond to the MLC condition.
Explanatory variables that affect such decision include remaining distance to the point at
which lane change must be completed, the number of lanes to cross to reach a lane
connected to the next link, delay (time elapsed since the MLC conditions apply), and
whether the subject vehicle is a heavy vehicle (bus, truck, etc..,). Drivers are likely to
respond to the MLC situations earlier if it involves crossing several lanes. A longer delay
makes a driver more anxious and increases the likelihood of responding to the MLC
situations. And finally, due to lower maneuverability and larger gap length requirement
of heavy vehicles as compared to their non heavy counterparts, they have a higher
likelihood of responding to the MLC conditions.
2.2.1 Decision making
The MLC branch corresponds to the case where either a driver does not respond to an
MLC condition, or that MLC conditions do not apply. A driver then decides whether to
perform a discretionary lane change (DLC). This comprises of two decisions: whether the
driving conditions are satisfactory, and if not satisfactory, whether any other lane is better
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
7/19
7
than the current lane. The term driving conditions satisfactory implies that the driver is
satisfied with the driving conditions of the current lane. Important factors affecting the
decision whether the driving conditions are satisfactory include the speed of the driver
compared to its desired speed, presence of heavy vehicles in front and behind the subject,
if an adjacent on ramp merges with the current lane, whether the subject is tailgated etc.
If the driving conditions are not satisfactory, the driver compares the driving conditions
of the current lane with those of the adjacent lanes. Important factors affecting this
decision include the difference between the speed of traffic in different lanes and the
driver's desired speed, the density of traffic in different lanes, the relative speed with
respect to the lag vehicle in the target lane, the presence of heavy vehicles in different
lanes ahead of the subject etc.
In addition, when a driver considers DLC although a mandatory lane change is required
but the driver is not responding to the MLC conditions, changing lanes opposite to the
direction as required by the MLC conditions may be less desirable. If a driver decides not
to perform a discretionary lane change (i.e., either the driving conditions are satisfactory,
or, although the driving conditions are not satisfactory, the current is the lane with the
best driving conditions) the driver continues in the current lane.
Otherwise, the driver selects a lane from the available alternatives and assesses the
adjacent gap in the target lane. The lowest level of ovals in the decision tree shown in
Figure 2 corresponds to the gap acceptance process. When trying to perform a DLC,
factors that affect drivers' gap acceptance behavior include the gap length, speed of the
subject, speed of the vehicles ahead of and behind the subject in the target lane, and the
type of the subject vehicle (heavy vehicle or not). For instance, a larger gap is required
for merging at a higher travel speed. A heavy vehicle would require a larger gap length
compared to a car due to lower maneuverability and the length of the heavy vehicle.
2.2.2 Gap acceptance
In addition to the above factors, the gap acceptance process under the MLC conditions is
influenced by factors such as remaining distance to the point at which lane change must
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
8/19
8
be completed, delay (which captures the impatience factor that would make drivers more
aggressive) etc. Note that, delay cannot be used as an explanatory variable except for
very specialized situations, for example, merging from an on ramp. This is because the
very inception of an MLC condition is usually unobserved.
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework
2.3 Forced merging model
If the gap on the target lane is not acceptable then the subject vehicle forces the lag
vehicle on the target to decelerate until the gap is acceptable. This process is known as
Forced merging. The tree diagram in Figure 4 summarizes the proposed structure of the
forced merging model. As before, the ovals correspond to the latent part of the process
that involves decisions and the rectangles correspond to the events that are directlyobservable.At every discrete point in time, a driver is assumed to (a) evaluate the traffic environment
in the target lane to decide whether the driver intends to merge in front of the lag vehicle
in the target lane and (b) try to communicate with the lag vehicle to understand whether
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
9/19
9
the driver's right of way is established. If a driver intends to merge in front of the lag
vehicle and right of way is established, the decision process ends and the driver gradually
move into the target lane. We characterize this instant by state M, where M denotes start
forced merging. This process may last from less than a second to a few seconds. This is
shown by the arrow below the left `same lane' box. If right of way is not established, the
subject continues the evaluation/communication process (i.e., remains in state M) during
the next time instant.
Figure 4: Framework for Forced merging model
We assume that a driver has decided to change to the adjacent lane as shown in Figure 5.
The merging process involves the driver's decision as to whether he/she intends to merge
into the adjacent gap and perception as to whether his/her right of way is established, and
finally moving into the target lane. An adjacent gap is defined as the gap behind the lead
vehicle in the target lane. Establishment of right of way means that an understanding
between the subject and the lag vehicle in the target lane hasbeen reached such that thelag vehicle would allow the subject to be in front of it.
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
10/19
10
Figure 5: Definition of adjacent gap
2.4 COOPERATIVE AND FORCED GAP ACCEPTANCE
The models discussed so far assume that lane changing is executed through gap
acceptance. However, in congested traffic conditions acceptable gaps may not be
available, and so other mechanisms for lane changing are needed. For example, drivers
may change lanes through courtesy and cooperation of the lag vehicles on the target lane
that will slow down in order to accommodate the lane change. In other cases, some
drivers may become impatient and decide to force in to the target lane and compel the lag
vehicle to slow down.
2.4.1 Conceptual framework for cooperative and forced gap acceptance
The model shown in Figure 6, which was developed for a merging situation, integrates
courtesy and forced merging mechanisms with "normal" gap acceptance. The integrated
model captures the transitions from one type of merging to the other. In this model, the
merging driver first evaluates whether or not the available adjacent gap is acceptable.
This decision is modeled with standard gap acceptance models, which compare the lead
and lag gaps with the corresponding critical gaps. If the available gap is acceptable the
driver merges to the mainline. If the available gap is not acceptable, the driver anticipates
what the magnitude of the adjacent gap is going to be in a short time horizon. The
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
11/19
11
anticipated gap is evaluated based on the magnitude of the available gap and the current
speed and acceleration of the lag vehicle.
The time horizon over which the driver anticipates the gap may vary across the driver
population to capture difference in perception and planning abilities among drivers. Theanticipated gap reflects the drivers' perception of the courtesy or discourtesy of the lag
vehicle. The driver then evaluates whether the anticipated gap will be acceptable or not.
An acceptable anticipated gap implies that the lag vehicle is providing courtesy to the
merging vehicle, and so the driver can initiate a courtesy merge. If the anticipated gap is
not acceptable the lag is not providing courtesy, and so the merging driver may choose
whether or not to begin forcing its way to the mainline and compel the lag vehicle to slow
down.
2.4.2 Courtesy yielding
A driver that has initiated courtesy yielding or forced merging completes the merge when
the available gap is acceptable. Thus, the lane change may not be completed when it is
initiated, but take more time. However, the model assumes that a driver that has initiated
a courtesy or forced merge would continue to use this mechanism until the lane change is
complete, or if unsuccessful until the gap it is adjacent to is no longer available (e.g. the
lag vehicle has overtaken it). Critical gaps for courtesy or forced merging may differ
from the ones used in normal lane changing.
Figure 6: model for cooperative and forced gap acceptance
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
12/19
12
3. Gap acceptance
A gap is defined as the gap in between the lead and lag vehicles in the target lane (see
Figure 7). For merging into an adjacent lane, a gap is acceptable only when both lead and
lag gap are acceptable. Drivers are assumed to have minimum acceptable lead and lag
gap lengths which are termed as the lead and lag critical gaps respectively. These critical
gaps vary not only among different individuals, but also for a given individual under
different traffic conditions. Most models also make a distinction between the lead gap
and the lag gap and require that both are acceptable. The lead gap is the gap between the
subject vehicle and the vehicle ahead of it in the lane it is changing to. The lag gap is
defined in the same way relative to the vehicle behind in that lane. The critical gap for
driver n at time t is assumed to have the following relation.
Gng,cr
(t) = exp[Xng
(t)g
+ gvn + n
g(t)]
Gng,cr
(t)= critical gap measure for gap G perceived by driver n
at time step t
Xng
(t) = explanatory variable used to characterize mean Gng,cr
(t)
n = random term follows log normal distribution
g
= parameter of driver specific random term vn
Figure 7: Definition of gaps
Assuming ),0()( 2gNtg
n i.e., the critical gap lengths are log normally distributed, the
conditional probability of acceptance of a gap is given by:
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
13/19
13
4. Delay for Lane change
If we assume that the drivers gap acceptance policy does not change with time then the
individual waiting periods is given by the probability.
P(n) = pn(1-p) n= 1,2,3
P(n) is the probability of a driver having a wait for n intervals each less than T sec
f(t) is the distribution of gaps
E(n) is expected number of intervals a driver has to wait
The blockage length and the average delay for the lane change are calculated based on
the following formulae.
=
==
lag
nleadlag
tn
laglag
tn
lead
nleadlead
tn
leadlead
tn
lag
tncr
lag
tn
lead
tncr
lead
tn
lag
tncr
lag
tn
lead
tncr
lead
tn
vXGvXG
GGPGGP
GGGGP
,,
,,
,,
-)ln(*
-)ln(=
))ln(>)(ln())ln(>)(ln(
)>and>(=
)acceptablegapP(lag)acceptablegapP(leadaccepted)aregapslagandProb(lead
accepted)isgapProb(a
=
=
T
T
dttf
dttf
p
pnE
)(
)(
1)( 0
=
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
14/19
14
Where
T = Total time of headways rejected
BL = blockage length
Vs = stream velocity
Vr= relative velocity
Example 1:
In a two lane, one way stream of 1000 vph with 360 vehicles in Lane A and the
remaining vehicles in lane B. 8% of the vehicles in lane A have gaps less than 1 sec and
18% of the vehicles in lane A have gaps less than 2 sec. Compute the time during which
vehicles in Lane B may not change to Lane A in 1 hour.
Assume driver requires one second ahead and behind in making a lane change
Solution:
0 to 1 second Gaps = 8% of 360 = 29
1 to 2 second Gaps = (18-8) % of 360 = 36
Total = 65 Gaps
Time spent in Gaps 0 to 1 second = 29 x .5 = 14.5 sec
Time spent in Gaps 1 to 2 second = 36 x 1.5 = 54.0 sec
As 57 Gaps are rejected, Acceptable Gaps are (360-65) = 295 Gaps
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
15/19
15
In this 295 Gaps clearance time = 295 x 2 = 590 sec.
Time lost in rejected gap = 14.5+54=68.5
Therefore,
Total time left in one hour to accept Gap=(3600 590 68.5) = 2941sec.
Vehicle can change lane in (2941/3600) = 81.7% of the Total time.
Vehicle is prevented from changing lane in 18.3% of the time
Example 2:
In a two lane, one way stream of 1000 vph with 360 vehicles in Lane A and the
remaining vehicles in lane B. 8% of the vehicles in lane A have gaps less than 1 sec and
18% of the vehicles in lane A have gaps less than 2 sec. Compute the average waiting for
the driver to make a lane change. Assume driver velocity in lane B = 40 kmph and stream
velocity = 50 kmph
Solution:
The average length of headways and portions of head ways of insufficient length for a
lane change, which may be considered as general blockages moving in the stream.
Division of this Blockage length by the relative speed determines potential total delay
time of the blockade. Finally since a delayed vehicle is as likely to be at the head as at the
tail of such a blockade at the moment of desired lane change, the total delay must be
divided by 2 for average delay time.
Where T = 3600 X 18.3 % =658.8
Vs = 50 kmph
N = acceptable gaps
VsTBL
=
rV
BLayAveragedel =
2
1
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
16/19
16
0 to 2 second Gaps = 18 % of 360 = 65
Therefore N = 360-65 = 295
6.111295
508.658
=
=BL
In the above figure the vertical lines are the centre line of the cars and gr , ga represents
the acceptable and rejected gaps respectively.
5. Summary
Lane changing is an important component of microscopic traffic simulation model, and
has significant impact on the results of analysis that uses these tools. In recent years,
interest in the development of lane changing models and their implementation in traffic
simulators have increased dramatically. There is a lot of scope for the improvement of these
lane change models like integrating acceleration behavior, impact of the buses, bus stops, traffic
signals and queues that form due to lane change maneuver
6. References
1. Ahmed K.I. (1999), Modeling drivers acceleration and lane changing behaviors,PhD thesis,Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT.
2. Choudhury C.F., (2007), Modeling driving decisions with Latent plans, PhD thesis,Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT.
sec58.5)4050(
6.111
2
1. =
=DelayAvg
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
17/19
17
3. Drew D.R.,(1968)Traffic Flow Theory and Control McGraw-Hill Book, NewYork,. Pages (173-190).[chapter 9]
4. Matson., Theodore M.,(1955)Traffic Engineering McGraw-Hill Book, New York,.Pages (136-145).[chapter 7]
7. Advanced topics
7.1 Target Lane Selection
Target lane is the lane the driver perceives as most desirable to drive in, depending upon
the prevalent conditions and his immediate destination.
Figure 8: Hypothetical scenario
Figure 9: Framework for hypothetical scenario
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
18/19
18
In the above framework of figure 9, the first decision task for a driver involves the
selection of a target lane. A random utility-based framework is used to model this
decision, where the driver considers different aggregate lane-specific variables as well as
his individual path plan in estimating utilities of all available lanes. The selection of the
target lane among the available lanes follows a multinomial logit choice process. Subject
to the location of the selected target lane with respect to the drivers current lane, the
driver considers changing lane into the right or left adjacent lane (also termed his
immediate target lane), moving laterally in the direction of the target lane. The next step
in this process is the evaluation of the available adjacent gap in the lane that the driver
considers moving into based on his target lane selection. The gap acceptance model is
employed for this purpose, and the decision outcome results in the drivers final
observable action regarding lane change. If the adjacent gap is rejected, the driver does
not enact a lane change, while a lane change is exhibited on acceptance of the adjacent
gap.
7.2 Mobil (Minimizing Overall Braking decelerations Induced by Lane changes)
Lane changes takes place, if
the potential new target lane is more attractive, i.e., the "incentive criterion" issatisfied,
and the change can be performed safely, i.e., the "safety criterion" is satisfied.In lane change model MOBIL, We base both criteria on the accelerations on the old
and the prospective new lanes.
Model equations:
The safety criterion is satisfied, if the IDM braking
deceleration acc'=acc'IDMimposed on the back vehicleB'of the target lane after a
possible change does not exceed a certain limit bsave, this means, the safety criterion
8/6/2019 01 Lane Changing Bhargav
19/19
19
acc' (B') > - bsave
is satisfied. In this formula, the dash of the acceleration acc'=acc'IDM stands for "after
a possible change", while the dash of the back vehicle labelB'stands for "on the
target lane".
The lane-change model MOBIL has the following main features:
While other lane-change models typically assume purely egoistic behaviour, i.e.,p=0,
we can model different behaviours by varying this factor:
p > 1 => a very altruistic behaviour. p in ]0, 0.5] => a realistic behaviour: Advantages of other drivers have a lower
priority, but are not neglected: Notice that this feature means that yielding to
"pushy" is included into MOBIL.
p=0 => a purely selfish behaviour. Notice that also selfish drivers do not ignorethe safety criterion!
p a malicious personality who takes pleasure in thwarting other driverseven at the cost of own disadvantages. This may have some interesting game-
theoretic consequences. Of course, even those mischief makers do obey the
safety criterion.
Top Related