AGSM-16-Guide To Smart Motorways PDF

Guide to Smart Motorways
Sydney 2016
Publisher
Prepared by: Katharine Boddington, Dr Ian Espada and David Nash
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Project manager: Marco Morgante Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
Abstract
austroads@austroads.com.au
This Guide provides practitioners with a definite, standardised set of smart www.austroads.com.au
motorway information within a single reference document to support the
delivery of safe and efficient smart motorways. It primarily comprises About Austroads
guidance on the selection, design and layout of ITS elements within a smart
motorway project. Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian
road transport and traffic agencies.
‘Smart motorways’ (also referred to as managed motorways) is the term used
to describe motorways that have information, communications and control Austroads’ purpose is to support our member
systems incorporated in and alongside the road. These technology-based organisations to deliver an improved Australasian
systems are deployed to actively manage traffic flows and improve road road transport network. To succeed in this task, we
capacity and safety, as well as deliver other important outcomes for road undertake leading-edge road and transport
users such as better travel reliability and real-time traveller information. research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the
Smart motorways comprise an integrated package of intelligent transport design, construction and management of the road
systems (ITS) interventions. This includes coordinated ramp signalling, speed network and its associated infrastructure.
and lane use management, traveller information (using variable message
signs) and network intelligence (such as from vehicle detection equipment). Austroads provides a collective approach that
delivers value for money, encourages shared
The Guide to Smart Motorways promotes operations-led design, recognising knowledge and drives consistency for road users.
that effective operations are critical to achieving successful outcomes and that
operational needs must be considered right from the start of the project. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of
senior executive representatives from each of its
Keywords eleven member organisations:
Smart motorway, managed motorway, ITS, planning, design, operations, • Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
benefits, flow and capacity analysis, warrants, intelligence, information, • Roads Corporation Victoria
control, variable message signs (VMS), coordinated ramp metering,
coordinated ramp signals, lane use management systems (LUMS), variable • Queensland Department of Transport and Main
speed limits (VSL), all-lane running (ALR), part-time emergency lane running Roads
(ELR) • Main Roads Western Australia
• Department of Planning, Transport and
First edition published December 2016 Infrastructure South Australia
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
ISBN 978-1-925451-50-4 Pages 226
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Austroads Project No. NP2025 Logistics Northern Territory
Austroads Publication No. AGSM-16 • Transport Canberra and City Services

Directorate, Australian Capital Territory
• Australian Government Department of
© Austroads Ltd 2016 Infrastructure and Regional Development
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the • Australian Local Government Association
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without • New Zealand Transport Agency.
the prior written permission of Austroads.
Acknowledgements
This edition incorporates content from a precursor project Development of Guide Content on Managed Motorways
(Austroads 2014a), with updates as appropriate.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Maurice Burley and the NP2025 Working Group as contributors to and
reviewers of this Guide.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road authorities may vary their practice
according to local circumstances and policies. Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not
accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and
judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Guide Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Smart Motorways ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Guide Scope and Content ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Safety and Operations Context ................................................................................................................ 3
1.4.1 Safe Systems.............................................................................................................................. 3
1.4.2 Systems Engineering .................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Guide Use ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Smart Motorway Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Performance Issues.................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 The Role of Active Management .............................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Demonstrating the Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Sustaining the Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 10
3. Overview of Smart Motorway Elements ............................................................................................. 11
3.1 Context within an Integrated Road Network Management System .......................................................11
3.2 Operational Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Elements of a Smart Motorway .............................................................................................................. 12
3.3.1 Intelligence................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3.2 Traveller Information ................................................................................................................. 14
3.3.3 Control ...................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Foundation Systems and Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 17
3.4.1 Central Control System ............................................................................................................ 17
3.4.2 Communications System .......................................................................................................... 17
3.4.3 Power System........................................................................................................................... 17
3.4.4 Traffic Management Centre ...................................................................................................... 17
4. Planning and Design for Smart Motorway Systems ......................................................................... 18
4.1 General Principles and Process ............................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Operations-driven Planning Frameworks ............................................................................................... 19
4.3 Defining Motorway Objectives and Targets ........................................................................................... 20
4.4 Ultimate Layout and Staging .................................................................................................................. 20
4.5 Whole-of-network Approach ................................................................................................................... 21
4.6 Whole-of-lifecycle Approach ................................................................................................................... 21
4.7 Operational Efficiency Audits ................................................................................................................. 22
5. Principles of Motorway Flow and Analysis ....................................................................................... 23
5.1 Congestion Management Theory ........................................................................................................... 23
5.1.1 Flow Monitoring and Management ........................................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Two-phase HCM Model ............................................................................................................ 27
5.1.3 Three-phase Model .................................................................................................................. 29
5.1.4 Other Models of Flow Breakdowns .......................................................................................... 33
5.2 Principles Underlying Smart Motorways................................................................................................. 34
5.2.1 Causes and Impacts of Flow Breakdowns ............................................................................... 34
5.2.2 Motorway Operational Capacity ............................................................................................... 39
5.2.3 Merge Capacity for a Smart Motorway with Ramp Signals ...................................................... 43
6. Selection of Smart Motorway Elements ............................................................................................. 46
7. Geometric Elements and Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................... 49
7.1 Design Principles and Process............................................................................................................... 49
7.2 Example Performance Targets ............................................................................................................... 51
7.3 Mainline .................................................................................................................................................. 51
7.4 Interchange Spacing .............................................................................................................................. 54
7.4.1 Major Single Entry Compared with Multiple Entrances ............................................................ 57
7.5 Entry Ramps ........................................................................................................................................... 57
7.6 Exit Ramps ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Austroads 2016 | page i

7.7 Arterial Intersections ............................................................................................................................... 59

7.8 Mainline Priority Lanes ........................................................................................................................... 59
7.9 Emergency Stopping Bays ..................................................................................................................... 60
7.10 Other Roadside Items ............................................................................................................................ 61
8. Foundation Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 62
8.1 Communications Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 62
8.2 Power Network ....................................................................................................................................... 65
8.3 Roadside ITS Cabinets .......................................................................................................................... 65
9. Network Intelligence............................................................................................................................. 66
9.1 Vehicle Detection.................................................................................................................................... 66
9.1.1 Types of Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 67
9.1.2 Criteria for Provision ................................................................................................................. 69
9.1.3 Detector Placement .................................................................................................................. 69
9.2 CCTV ...................................................................................................................................................... 76
9.2.1 Applications .............................................................................................................................. 76
9.2.2 Types of CCTV Camera ........................................................................................................... 76
9.2.4 Viewing Requirements .............................................................................................................. 79
9.2.5 Camera Placement ................................................................................................................... 79
9.2.6 Mounting Structures and Camera Positioning .......................................................................... 79
9.3 Incident Detection ................................................................................................................................... 80
9.3.1 Applications .............................................................................................................................. 80
9.3.2 Incident Detection Technologies .............................................................................................. 80
9.3.3 Criteria for Provision and Design Considerations..................................................................... 81
9.4 Help Phones ........................................................................................................................................... 81
9.4.1 Application ................................................................................................................................ 81
9.4.3 Help Phone Placement ............................................................................................................. 82
9.4.4 Other Design Considerations ................................................................................................... 83
9.5 Environmental Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 83
9.6 Other Data Sources ................................................................................................................................ 84
10. Roadside Traveller Information .......................................................................................................... 85
10.1 Applications and Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 85
10.1.1 Applications .............................................................................................................................. 85
10.1.2 Benefits ..................................................................................................................................... 87
10.2 Criteria for Provision ............................................................................................................................... 88
10.2.1 Mainline VMS............................................................................................................................ 88
10.2.2 Arterial Road VMS .................................................................................................................... 89
10.3 VMS Messages ...................................................................................................................................... 89
10.3.1 General Principles for VMS Message Displays ........................................................................ 89
10.3.2 Message Types and Priorities .................................................................................................. 91
10.3.3 Travel Time Message Format................................................................................................... 93
10.3.4 Travel Time Message Calculations .......................................................................................... 96
10.3.5 Other Message Formats ........................................................................................................... 98
10.4 Mainline VMS Face Layout and Installation ......................................................................................... 100
10.4.1 Sign Face Layout .................................................................................................................... 100
10.4.2 Legibility Distance Requirements ........................................................................................... 101
10.4.3 Sign Size................................................................................................................................. 102
10.4.4 Geometrical Considerations ................................................................................................... 102
10.4.5 Longitudinal Placement and Co-location ................................................................................ 102
10.4.6 Mounting Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 104
10.4.7 Sign Orientation ...................................................................................................................... 105
10.4.8 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances ........................................................................................ 105
10.4.9 Maintenance Access .............................................................................................................. 106
10.4.10 Supporting Traffic Management Devices ............................................................................... 106
Austroads 2016 | page ii

10.5 Arterial Road VMS Face Layout and Device Installation ..................................................................... 106
10.5.1 Sign Face Layout .................................................................................................................... 106
10.5.3 Sign Size................................................................................................................................. 106
10.5.8 Supporting Traffic Management Devices ............................................................................... 109
10.6 Operation of VMS ................................................................................................................................. 109
10.6.1 Message Display and Approvals ............................................................................................ 109
10.6.2 Types of Control ..................................................................................................................... 109
10.6.3 Operational Principles ............................................................................................................ 110
11. Coordinated Ramp Metering ............................................................................................................. 114
11.1 Principles and Benefits of Ramp Metering ........................................................................................... 114
11.1.1 Principles ................................................................................................................................ 114
11.1.2 Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 115
11.2 Criteria for Provision ............................................................................................................................. 115
11.3 Ramp Meter Control Fundamentals ..................................................................................................... 116
11.3.1 Control Logic........................................................................................................................... 116
11.3.2 Types of Control: Local and Coordinated ............................................................................... 118
11.3.3 Fixed-time and Dynamic Operation ........................................................................................ 119
11.3.4 Managing Ramp Demands ..................................................................................................... 119
11.3.5 Managing Heavy Congestion and Incidents ........................................................................... 120
11.3.6 Situations when Ramp Signals may have Limited Effectiveness ........................................... 120
11.4 Operation of Ramp Signals .................................................................................................................. 121
11.4.1 Dynamic Activation and Deactivation ..................................................................................... 121
11.4.2 Scheduled Start-up and Close-down ...................................................................................... 121
11.4.3 Operation During Incidents and Events .................................................................................. 122
11.4.4 Manual Operation ................................................................................................................... 122
11.4.5 Start-up and Close-down Control Sequences ........................................................................ 122
11.4.6 Average Cycle Times ............................................................................................................. 122
11.4.7 Minimum Red, Green and Yellow Times ................................................................................ 122
11.4.8 Vehicle Release at the Stop Line ........................................................................................... 122
11.4.9 Ramp Signals Response to a Lane Closure .......................................................................... 124
11.4.10 Ramp Signals Response to Changing Speed Limits ............................................................. 125
11.4.11 Ramp Signals Response to a Motorway Closure ................................................................... 125
11.4.12 Emergency Vehicle Access when Ramp Signals Are Operating ........................................... 125
11.5 Design Elements of Ramp Metering..................................................................................................... 125
11.5.1 Design Traffic Flows ............................................................................................................... 126
11.5.2 Number of Metered Lanes at the Stop Line ........................................................................... 127
11.5.3 Entry Ramp Queue Storage Requirements ............................................................................ 127
11.5.4 Entry Ramp Lane Configuration ............................................................................................. 131
11.5.5 Stop Line Position Relative to the Nose ................................................................................. 132
11.5.6 Acceleration and Merging Configuration ................................................................................ 135
11.5.7 Traffic Management Devices .................................................................................................. 136
11.5.8 Priority Access Lanes ............................................................................................................. 138
11.5.9 Motorway-to-motorway Ramps............................................................................................... 143
11.5.10 Designing for Future Retrofitting of Ramp Signals ................................................................. 143
12. Lane Use Management Systems (Including Variable Speed Limits) ............................................144
12.1 Applications and Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 144
12.1.1 LUMS Applications ................................................................................................................. 145
12.1.2 VSL-specific Applications ....................................................................................................... 146
12.1.3 Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 147
12.3 LUMS Symbols ..................................................................................................................................... 149
Austroads 2016 | page iii

12.4 Sign Face Layout and Installations ...................................................................................................... 151

12.4.1 Sign Face Layout .................................................................................................................... 151
12.4.3 Sign Size................................................................................................................................. 152
12.4.4 Geometrical Considerations ................................................................................................... 152
12.4.7 Sign Orientation ...................................................................................................................... 157
12.4.10 Enforcement Devices ............................................................................................................. 159
12.4.11 Supporting Static Signing ....................................................................................................... 159
12.4.12 Other Supporting Traffic Management Devices ..................................................................... 159
12.5 Operation of LUMS ............................................................................................................................... 160
12.5.1 Types of Control ..................................................................................................................... 160
12.5.2 LUMS Field Response Rules ................................................................................................. 161
12.5.3 Operational Principles ............................................................................................................ 163
13. Provision of an Emergency Lane...................................................................................................... 167
13.1 Applications and Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 167
13.1.1 Applications ............................................................................................................................ 167
13.1.2 Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 168
13.3 Key Design Considerations .................................................................................................................. 170
13.3.1 General Traffic Use – Isolated Lengths .................................................................................. 172
13.3.2 General Traffic Use – Extended Lengths ............................................................................... 173
13.3.3 Queue Storage at Exit Ramps (Part- or Full-time) ................................................................. 174
13.3.4 Special Vehicle Applications (Part- or Full-time) .................................................................... 175
13.4 Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 177
14. Arterial Road and Motorway Interface Management ...................................................................... 179
14.1 Improving Coordination at Interfaces ................................................................................................... 179
14.2 Guiding Principles for Achieving Network Optimisation ....................................................................... 181
14.3 Management of Entry Ramp Interfaces................................................................................................ 181
14.3.1 Specific Problems at Arterial Road/Entry Ramp Interfaces .................................................... 181
14.3.2 Treatment Options for Arterial Road/Entry Ramp Interfaces ................................................. 181
14.4 Management of Exit Ramp Interfaces .................................................................................................. 183
14.4.1 Specific Problems at Arterial Road/Exit Ramp Interfaces ...................................................... 183
14.4.2 Treatment Options for Arterial Road/Exit Ramp Interfaces .................................................... 183
14.5 Management of End-of-motorway Interfaces ....................................................................................... 185
14.5.1 Specific Problems at End-of-motorway Interfaces ................................................................. 185
14.5.2 Treatment Options for End-of-motorway Interfaces ............................................................... 185
14.6 Management of Motorway-to-motorway Interfaces .............................................................................. 186
14.6.1 Specific Problems at Motorway-to-motorway Interfaces ........................................................ 186
14.6.2 Treatment Options for Motorway-to-motorway Interfaces ...................................................... 187
15. Additional Considerations ................................................................................................................. 189
15.1 Localised ITS Safety Applications ........................................................................................................ 189
15.2 Tunnel Traffic Management ................................................................................................................. 191
15.3 Compliance and Enforcement .............................................................................................................. 192
15.4 System Performance Management ...................................................................................................... 193
15.5 Motorway Performance Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 194
15.6 Emerging Technologies ........................................................................................................................ 194
References .................................................................................................................................................... 195
Complementary Austroads References .............................................................................. 200
Smart Motorway Benefit Evaluations .................................................................................. 201
Field Infrastructure for Smart Motorway Elements ............................................................ 204
LUMS Traffic Management Rules ........................................................................................ 206
Austroads 2016 | page iv

Tables
Table 1.1: Example of organisational functions and roles in the systems engineering process..................... 4
Table 3.1: Smart motorway elements classified by function ......................................................................... 12
Table 3.2: Benefits from the provision of traveller information ...................................................................... 15
Table 4.1: Mapping of functional categories to levels of active management ..............................................20
Table 5.1: Density and occupancy level of service indicators....................................................................... 25
Table 5.2: German design capacities for basic motorway segments in urban areas with a
gradient ≤ 2% ............................................................................................................................... 40
Table 5.3: German design capacities for basic motorway segments in urban areas with a
gradient ≥ 3% ............................................................................................................................... 40
Table 5.4: Entry ramp capacity assessment for single-lane merge ramps ...................................................43
Table 6.1: Typical warrants for smart motorway interventions...................................................................... 46
Table 7.1: Example performance targets for motorway analysis and design ...............................................51
Table 7.2: Typical entry ramp capacities....................................................................................................... 57
Table 7.3: Typical exit ramp capacities ......................................................................................................... 58
Table 9.1: Data accuracy requirements for VicRoads motorway vehicle detectors .....................................66
Table 9.2: Traffic data collected by intrusive and non-intrusive vehicle detection equipment ......................69
Table 9.3: Detector locations for smart motorways ....................................................................................... 71
Table 9.4: Motorway areas associated with level of camera coverage ........................................................77
Table 10.1: Description and examples of VMS message types...................................................................... 92
Table 10.2: Thresholds for motorway condition messages............................................................................. 97
Table 10.3: VMS statement types ................................................................................................................... 98
Table 10.4: Examples of pictograms for smart motorways ............................................................................. 99
Table 10.5: Mainline VMS placement relative to other road infrastructure ...................................................104
Table 10.6: Arterial road VMS placement at motorway interchanges ...........................................................108
Table 10.7: Example of incident severity criteria and extent of upstream traveller advice in Victoria ..........111
Table 11.1: Lanes at the stop line, and desirable minimum ramp storage given ramp design flow .............130
Table 11.2: Acceleration and merging distances from ramp signals ............................................................ 135
Table 11.3: Ramp signal pedestal options .................................................................................................... 136
Table 12.1: Summary of contribution of LUMS/VSL applications for smart motorway benefits ...................148
Table 12.2: Displays for LUMS signs ............................................................................................................ 150
Table 12.3: Guidelines for mounting of VSL signs ........................................................................................ 157
Table 12.4: LUMS fundamental rules preventing sign conflicts .................................................................... 162
Table 13.1: Accident reduction resulting from lower vehicle speeds ............................................................ 168
Table 13.2: Guidance for selection of emergency lane use applications ......................................................169
Table 14.1: Summary of treatment options for arterial road/entry ramp interfaces ......................................181
Table 14.2: Summary of treatment options for arterial road/exit ramp interfaces .........................................184
Table 14.3: Summary of treatment options for end-of-motorway interfaces .................................................186
Table 14.4: Summary of treatment options for motorway-to-motorway interfaces .......................................188
Table 15.1: Example system components for ITS used for safety management .........................................190
Table 15.2: Example of VicRoads’ requirements for system availability and rectification ............................193
Figures
Figure 1.1: Systems engineering V-diagram for smart motorways ............................................................... 4
Figure 2.1: Flow breakdown within minutes on an unmanaged motorway.................................................... 5
Figure 2.2: Impact of an effective incident management system on delay after an incident ......................... 6
Figure 2.3: Primary benefits of smart motorways for the road agency, road user and community ............... 8
Figure 2.4: Improvement in route carriageway throughput and route average throughput on
the Monash Freeway ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.1: Components of a road network management system ............................................................... 11
Figure 3.2: Relational diagram of primary functions of a smart motorway ..................................................12
Figure 4.1: Smart motorways – design principles pyramid .......................................................................... 19
Figure 5.1: Traffic density contours in the space-time domain .................................................................... 25
Figure 5.2: Frequency distribution polygons of vehicle counts on the fast lane on Interstate 8,
San Diego .................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 5.3: Generalised speed flow relation for a typical motorway segment .............................................28
Figure 5.4: Speed-flow relationship for the motorway in HCM (Transportation Research Board 2010) .....28
Figure 5.5: An example of speed-flow diagram from a Melbourne motorway .............................................29
Austroads 2016 | page v

Figure 5.6: Synchronised flow and wide moving jams in congested traffic .................................................30
Figure 5.7: An example of spontaneous F→S transition ............................................................................. 30
Figure 5.8: Probability of traffic breakdown ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 5.9: Traffic flow downstream of a bottleneck (qsum) .......................................................................... 31
Figure 5.10: A5 speed contour diagram in Lindgren’s study – 1 min data ....................................................32
Figure 5.11: Probability of flow breakdown .................................................................................................... 33
Figure 5.12: Example of high volume and density spikes in the traffic flow ..................................................35
Figure 5.13: Typical flow breakdown impacts on traffic throughput and speed.............................................36
Figure 5.14: Flow breakdown at bottlenecks and shock wave propagation ..................................................37
Figure 5.15: Flow-occupancy graphs of flow breakdown and shock wave ...................................................37
Figure 5.16: Two typical patterns of traffic dynamics during breakdown and recovery .................................38
Figure 5.17: Example of flow breakdown and recovery................................................................................. 38
Figure 5.18: Observed and estimated breakdown probability at the Shibakoen ramp in Tokyo ...................41
Figure 5.19: Motorway entry ramp capacity with increasing ramp flows .......................................................42
Figure 5.20: Entry ramp capacity assessment for single-lane merge ramps ................................................42
Figure 5.21: Example of unmanaged and managed motorway flow ............................................................. 43
Figure 7.1: Example of flow and speed profiles ........................................................................................... 50
Figure 7.2: Example of system flow and capacity analysis for an unmanaged motorway ..........................53
Figure 7.3: Example of system flow and capacity analysis for a smart (managed) motorway ...........................................53
Figure 7.4: Example of motorway alignment and arterial road layout impacting ramp spacing ..................55
Figure 7.5: Example of using a loop ramp to improve ramp spacing ..........................................................55
Figure 7.6: Example of collector-distributor road ......................................................................................... 56
Figure 7.7: Example of braided ramps......................................................................................................... 56
Figure 8.1: Example of a complex, critical (redundancy backbone) ITS corridor
communications network ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 9.1: Wireless vehicle detector installation ........................................................................................ 68
Figure 9.2: Example detector layout for entry ramp with two lanes of metered traffic.................................75
Figure 9.3: Example detector layout for entry ramp with two lanes of metered traffic and an
unmetered priority lane .............................................................................................................. 75
Figure 9.4: Concept of CCTV coverage of selected/strategic locations (< 100% coverage) ......................78
Figure 9.5: Concept of full CCTV coverage (100% coverage) .................................................................... 78
Figure 9.6: Concept of overlapping CCTV camera coverage (200% coverage with 100%
redundancy) ............................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 9.7: Concept of placement of help phones ....................................................................................... 82
Figure 10.1: Examples of mainline VMS (left) and arterial road VMS (right) in Victoria ................................85
Figure 10.2: Example of travel time messages for destinations on the current motorway (M7) ...................94
Figure 10.3: Example of travel time messages for destinations on an intersecting motorway
(Roe Highway) ........................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 10.4: Examples of arterial road VMS .................................................................................................. 95
Figure 10.5: Examples of arterial road VMS with directional assistance in the header when key
destinations are in two directions on the same motorway .........................................................96
Figure 10.6: Examples of arterial road VMS with directional assistance in the header when key
destinations are not on the motorway being entered ................................................................ 96
Figure 10.7: Example mainline VMS priority 1 message displays ................................................................. 99
Figure 10.8: Examples of incident/event message structures for arterial road VMS...................................100
Figure 10.9: Typical locations for arterial road VMS at motorway interchanges .........................................107
Figure 10.10: Typical location for arterial road VMS at a strategic arterial intersection remote
from the motorway ................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 10.11: Example of an automated mainline VMS and arterial road VMS incident response
on the Monash Freeway, Melbourne ....................................................................................... 112
Figure 10.12: Example of a VMS message as part of LUMS response ........................................................112
Figure 11.1: Fundamental diagram indicating importance of correct metering rate ....................................116
Figure 11.2: Metering traffic flow at a merge bottleneck .............................................................................. 117
Figure 11.3: Start-up control sequence ....................................................................................................... 123
Figure 11.4: Close-down control sequence ................................................................................................. 124
Figure 11.5: Flowchart of the ramp signals design process ........................................................................ 126
Figure 11.6: Example of localised flaring at the stop line for one auxiliary lane ..........................................131
Figure 11.7: Example of localised flaring at the stop line for two auxiliary lanes ........................................131
Figure 11.8: Three lanes to one at nose (continuous third lane on approach) ............................................133
Figure 11.9: Three lanes to one at nose (localised flaring at stop line) .......................................................133
Austroads 2016 | page vi

Figure 11.10: Four lanes to two lanes at nose (extended flare or continuous approach lanes) ....................134
Figure 11.11: Four lanes to two lanes at nose (localised flare both sides) ...................................................134
Figure 11.12: Warning and regulatory signs on approaches ......................................................................... 137
Figure 11.13: Warning signs on entry ramp................................................................................................... 137
Figure 11.14: Truck bypass lane at ramp metering signals ........................................................................... 138
Figure 11.15: VicRoads standard drawing for two lanes metered plus free-flow priority lane ......................141
Figure 11.16: VicRoads standard drawing for two lanes metered plus metered priority lane .......................142
Figure 12.1: Example of LUMS in operation ................................................................................................ 144
Figure 12.2: Comparison of LUMS layout with typical worksite traffic management ..................................145
Figure 12.3: Schematic layout of LUMS sites at an interchange ................................................................. 153
Figure 12.4: LUMS sign arrangements for adjacent collector-distributor roads ..........................................155
Figure 12.5: Sign orientation on skewed structures .................................................................................... 158
Figure 12.6: Example of lane control sequence for left lane closure on 80 km/h road ...............................164
Figure 12.7: Mainline VMS supporting roadworks management ................................................................. 165
Figure 12.8: Arterial road VMS supporting incident management on the motorway mainline ....................165
Figure 13.1: Extension of exit ramp storage using the emergency lane .....................................................167
Figure 13.2: Emergency lane use between interchanges on a part-time basis...........................................172
Figure 13.3: Emergency lane use being extended across an interchange .................................................173
Figure 13.4: Part-time use of emergency lane to provide exit ramp queue storage ...................................174
Figure 13.5: Example application of emergency lane used for part-time exit queue storage with
static signing in Melbourne ...................................................................................................... 175
Figure 13.6: Sign and line marking scheme for part-time emergency lane use by specific vehicles ..........176
Figure 13.7: Example signage used for part-time emergency lane use by special vehicles in
Melbourne ................................................................................................................................ 177
Figure 14.1: Illustration of end-of-motorway control strategies.................................................................... 185
Figure 15.1: Example heavy vehicle speed warning system on a motorway entry ramp in
Perth, WA ................................................................................................................................ 189
Figure 15.2: Highly controlled motorway environment with inter-visibility of gantries .................................192
Austroads 2016 | page vii

1. Introduction
1.1 Guide Purpose
The Austroads Guide to Smart Motorways seeks to harmonise the contemporary practice of member
organisations in smart motorways. In doing so, it provides valuable guidance to practitioners involved in the
delivery of safe and efficient smart motorways.
This Guide has been compiled to provide a definitive, standardised set of smart motorway information, where
previously it has been spread across the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management (AGTM) series (Austroads
2016d). Where the information within this document differs from existing content in the other Austroads
guides, this Guide will take precedence.
Most practical issues can be well accommodated by the approach outlined in this Guide. Whilst local
conditions and circumstances may sometimes require unique or innovative approaches to design, it is
important that practitioners still adhere to the principles for design and operation that are documented in the
Guide.
1.2 Smart Motorways
‘Smart motorways’ is the term used to describe motorways that have information, communications and
control systems incorporated in and alongside the road. These technology-based systems are deployed to
actively manage traffic flows and improve road capacity and safety, as well as deliver other important
outcomes for road users such as better travel reliability and real-time traveller information.
The focus of smart motorways is to get the best performance out of our road infrastructure, to facilitate a
more productive and sustainable transport network, and to meet road user and community needs.
Within this report, the term ‘motorway’ is intended to include ‘freeway’ and ‘expressway’, as used in some
jurisdictions. Smart motorways may also be referred to as ‘managed motorways’.
Smart motorways incorporate an integrated package of intelligent transport system (ITS) interventions. This
includes coordinated ramp signalling, speed and lane use management, traveller information (using variable
message signs) and network intelligence (such as from vehicle detection equipment).
The National Policy Framework for Land Transport Technology: Action Plan: 2016-2019 (Transport and
Infrastructure Council 2016) provides an ‘integrated policy approach to governments to the development and
adoption of emerging transport technologies, in order to achieve improved transport safety, efficiency,
sustainability and accessibility outcomes’. Smarter infrastructure and active traffic management are identified
as technologies that are currently helping to drive these outcomes. The action plan requires Australian
Governments in the immediate future to explore the costs and benefits of the broader adoption of new safety
and traffic management technologies, including managed motorways.
1.3 Guide Scope and Content
This Guide provides information for practitioners involved in the delivery of smart motorways projects,
recognising that successful delivery requires both effective road design and appropriate application of traffic
management interventions.
This Guide first describes the benefits of investing in smart motorways (Section 2), and provides an overview
of the core smart motorway ITS interventions (elements) comprising intelligence, information and control
functions (Section 3).
Austroads 2016 | page 1

This Guide then provides detailed information relating to:

• the general process and principles for smart motorway planning and design (Section 4)
• principles of motorway traffic flow and analysis to inform problem identification and options assessment
(Section 5)
• warrants for selection of appropriate smart motorway elements and operational strategies for application
to a specific section of route (Section 6)
• foundation systems that support smart motorway operations, such as power and communications
infrastructure (Section 8)
• ITS layout design and high-level functional requirements (i.e. the design of the traffic management
interface with road users) (Section 9 to Section 12)
• provision of an emergency lane and associated operational strategies to manage safety where there is no
emergency lane on a full- or part-time basis (Section 13)
• management of the arterial road-motorway interface (Section 14).
This Guide provides very limited guidance in the following areas:

• geometric design (Section 7) – otherwise refer to AGTM and the Austroads Guide to Road Design
(AGRD) series (Austroads 2015a) for capacity analysis and geometric design considerations
• tunnel traffic management and other localised ITS solutions to manage site-specific safety or other
performance issues that may be incorporated to a smart motorway system (briefly covered in Section 15).
Later iterations of this Guide may seek to incorporate more detailed guidance on the aforementioned
content.
This document is focused on design related to roadside ITS installations only, noting that data and
functionality from roadside ITS deployed on a smart motorway may be used for other network management
purposes. For example, to help calculate route travel times which can be disseminated online and via in-
vehicle and mobile traveller information applications.
This Guide promotes operations-led design, recognising that effective operations are critical to achieving
successful outcomes and that operational needs must be considered right from the start of the project (refer
to Section 1.4.2). Examples of typical operational objectives and performance targets that may be used in
the design of smart motorway projects are provided, along with descriptions of operational principles, control
philosophies, and different modes of operation for the smart motorway ‘control’ and ‘information’ elements,
including requirements for operational integration between the elements. However, this Guide is not a
detailed operational guideline.
The Managed Motorways Framework (VicRoads 2015a) provides further discussion on operational principles
and performance requirements for effective smart motorway implementation.
This document provides guidance to support good practice in smart motorway delivery, rather than
specifying mandatory practice. Aspects of practice which are mandatory (such as in relation to speed
restrictions) may be mentioned, but their specification is the province of relevant standards or legislation.
Specific references are given as necessary throughout the Guide.
This Guide does not provide guidance relating to technology/system development, procurement, integration
or testing. These topics are covered in other complementary Austroads documents (see Appendix A), and it
is left to each jurisdiction to develop detailed technology requirements and procedures that are aligned with
the national ITS architecture and jurisdictional practice for other ITS.
This Guide does not provide detailed policies, processes or procedures for ongoing delivery of ITS-enabled
services on motorways. These should be developed by jurisdictions to cover both the day-to-day operation of
the ITS elements, as well as for network and system performance monitoring and optimisation.

1.4 Safety and Operations Context
The Safe Systems and systems engineering frameworks provide important contexts for smart motorways
delivery to ensure that project design supports safe and efficient operations.
1.4.1 Safe Systems
Smart motorway projects are typically driven by requirements for capacity improvement; however, they have
potential for significant safety benefits. Regardless of the project’s drivers, the design, operation and
maintenance of smart motorways should apply the principles and concepts of the Safe Systems approach
(Austroads 2016a). This approach recognises that road users make mistakes and requires design to account
for those mistakes in order to reduce the incidence and severity of crashes when they do inevitably occur.
This includes consideration of all aspects of the system, including roads, roadsides, vehicles and speed
management. Appropriate safety considerations are incorporated in the guidance for each of the smart
motorway elements discussed in this Guide.
1.4.2 Systems Engineering
Designing for operations, and in particular ITS operations, is an important concept that originated from the
USA (Federal Highway Administration 2013) which has relevance to road design in Australia and New
Zealand (Austroads 2015b). It is defined as a systematic consideration of management and operation
strategies during the design process, and promotes adoption of the systems engineering approach.
Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary field of engineering that focuses on how to design and manage a
complex engineering system over its lifecycle, and is particularly useful for managing risk in
technology-based systems (VicRoads 2015a). It is used worldwide as a framework to improve benefits
realisation and better return on investment for ITS-based initiatives, such as smart motorways.
The systems engineering framework provides important guidance for practitioners embarking on the delivery
of smart motorway projects. VicRoads has developed a customised V-diagram for smart motorways, as
illustrated in Source: VicRoads (2015a).
Figure 1.1 and further detailed in Table 1.1. The V-diagram highlights that it is imperative that performance
analysis be undertaken to clearly define the problem (current or future), before we start applying technology
‘smarts’ to the network. Whilst ITS may provide cost-effective solutions, it can result in significant ongoing
operational and maintenance costs and must be applied appropriately.
Importantly, there needs to be up-front establishment of the operational context that drives the project
design. This operational context should sit within the broader set of transport and project objectives, and
should directly respond to the identified performance gap. Operational needs should drive technology
selection and design, and be used as a reference when undertaking system testing/validation and transition
to operations, to ensure the operational outcomes meet the original objectives.
The design of smart motorways is therefore strongly embedded in the vision for how a section of motorway
will operate in order to achieve the desired outcomes for road users.
1.5 Guide Use
Users of this Guide may include staff involved in traffic analysis, traffic engineering, road geometric design,
and ITS design and operations.
Whilst this Guide provides information regarding specific considerations for smart motorway projects, users
will still need to refer to other documents for further details on road design and traffic engineering practices
relevant to motorways.
It should be read in conjunction with other Austroads guides, relevant Australian/New Zealand Standards,
and jurisdictional policies and guidelines.

Table 1.1: Example of organisational functions and roles in the systems engineering process
Organisational function Roles in the systems engineering process

Network strategy • Establish network operational objectives and strategies.
• Assess what this initiative needs to achieve.
• Update the policy and regulatory environment.
• Evaluate what difference this initiative made to the performance of the transport
network.
• Update network operational objectives, strategies and performance targets.
Traffic requirements and • Establish the specific operational requirements for this initiative.
operations • Establish the operational policy and rules for this initiative.
• Establish the operational tactics and settings for this initiative.
• Validate that the enabling technology provides the required functionality.
• Operate the resulting traffic management tools, including interventions (responses)
and tuning of optimisation tools.
• Improve the traffic management tools and operational methods.
Enabling technology • Establish the consolidated technology requirements to provide the operational
delivery and operation environment.
• Update the system architecture to meet any updated needs identified.
• Design, implement and commission the enabling technology.
• Accept the enabling technology into production.
• Maintain the enabling technology.
• Update the enabling technology for this and future initiatives.
Source: VicRoads (2015a).
Figure 1.1: Systems engineering V-diagram for smart motorways
Network analysis, Update strategies and

Establish operational
performance gap objectives
objectives, strategies Outcome evaluation
identification and
and policies Improve tools and
prioritisation
operational methods
Research,
Concept of Operations Transition to operations
demonstrate and Traffic optimisation and
evaluate operations
active management
Functional requirements System validation
approaches
System operational testing System operation and

Update technology maintenance
Technical requirements
architecture
Commissioning
System testing
Concept design
System integration
Detailed design Individual testing
Project / system implementation
Key:
Green = network strategy
Blue = traffic requirements and operations
Orange = enabling technology delivery and operation.
Source: Based on Federal Highway Administration (2007), cited in VicRoads (2015a).

2. Smart Motorway Benefits
2.1 Performance Issues
Motorways are built to serve as a free-flowing asset; however, with growing traffic volumes it is observed that
motorway flow can break down very rapidly when the demand exceeds the capacity of the road (as
illustrated in Figure 2.1). This results in flow breakdown and congestion that can last for many hours, or even
the whole day (refer to Section 5).
Figure 2.1: Flow breakdown within minutes on an unmanaged motorway
2:59 pm 3:01 pm 3:03 pm
Source: ARRB Group (2013).
Motorways are expensive and high-productivity assets; yet an unmanaged motorway performs at its worst
when it is needed the most, i.e. at peak times when demand is highest, and can reduce the performance of
the wider network as well. The social and economic costs are significant; including loss in private time and
business time costs, extra vehicle operating costs and extra air pollution costs. A congested motorway is
also less safe due to stop-start conditions, increased lane changing and higher speed differentials.
In Melbourne, motorways carry around 39% of the total arterial road traffic, but comprise only 7% of arterial
road network length. One of Melbourne’s busiest motorways, the M1, can regularly reach traffic volumes
upward of 200 000 veh/weekday, and services in total over one million person movements each day — more
than the entire Melbourne metropolitan train service (VicRoads 2015a). Investment in better management of
motorway traffic is critical to maintain the long-term benefits of building motorway infrastructure.
2.2 The Role of Active Management
Until recently, traffic management on motorways has been mainly reactive; operators would generally only
intervene in response to a localised incident, heavy congestion, inclement weather or other events impacting
on traffic flow.
However, proactive management of motorway routes is also required to maintain stable traffic conditions and
prevent or minimise the occurrence of flow breakdown, despite increasing traffic volumes. This requires a
system that can continuously monitor traffic volumes and conditions, and dynamically adjust the field
response to manage demand within the motorway’s operational capacity. This is primarily achieved through
use of coordinated ramp signals. With urban motorways now experiencing peak spreading (i.e. high demand
occurring over a greater proportion of the day) as well as weekend volumes reaching almost as high as
weekday traffic, the need for proactive management of motorway traffic is heightened.
Other smart motorway elements can also help to considerably improve motorway safety and capacity; for
example, by helping to manage safety during lane closures and/or by enabling trafficking of the emergency
lane to optimise use of existing road space.

Management of incidents and resulting congestion when they do occur on the network is still an important
function of a smart motorway. International studies indicate that the share of non-recurrent congestion in
urban areas can vary considerably — from 14% in Paris to 60% in the USA and 64% in Germany
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2007, cited in Austroads 2009a), although this
wide range of estimates may be attributable to differences in calculation methodologies and local conditions
(ARRB Group 2011). The share of non-recurrent and recurrent congestion may be highly variable in
motorway environments depending on time of day and day of week (Lee Engineering & Texas
Transportation Institute 2010; Short 2012). A study on congestion in Perth (ARRB Group 2011) indicated that
non-recurrent delay due to crash incidents comprised 17% of motorway congestion, which is still a significant
proportion.
An effective incident management system can reduce the overall impact of an incident and other events on
traffic speeds and flow, as well as the time for the motorway flow to return to normal. For example, Figure 2.2
demonstrates incident delay with cumulative vehicle arrivals and departures plotted against time (VicRoads
2013a). The area within the red dotted line illustrates the vehicle delay due to an incident without incident
management, and the red shaded area illustrates the reduction in delay enabled by deployment of an
effective incident management system. On a smart motorway, this is due to faster incident detection and
response (e.g. using closed circuit television (CCTV) or automated incident detection systems, and traffic
management interventions, such as lane use management systems), as well as diversion of traffic away from
the incident (e.g. using variable message signs). Ramp signals can also manage entry flows, or even close
the entry ramp, to assist with flow recovery.
Figure 2.2: Impact of an effective incident management system on delay after an incident
Source: Based on Austroads (2007), cited in VicRoads (2013a).
Road agencies are increasingly looking to improve their network operation services by understanding what is
important to their customers, the road users. The use of real-time traveller information can improve customer
satisfaction by enabling more informed travel choices, along with improved travel time reliability that can
minimise adverse impacts on other daily activities. It also allows road operators to influence route choice and
divert traffic in response to incidents and congestion.
By improving traffic flow and safety, smart motorways deliver benefits across a number of levels. They help
road agencies to better manage road use as part of their network management responsibilities; improve
travel conditions for individual road users; and deliver economic, social and environmental benefits. This is
illustrated in Figure 2.3.

The investment rationale for smart motorways should be aligned to government policy and strategic
objectives. A better flowing motorway should deliver benefits for all users, but in some cases the strategic
requirement may be for improved level of service for priority users, such as freight and buses, at appropriate
times; this needs to be considered in the road design. Similarly, some sections of the motorway network may
be allocated a higher strategic priority to others and should be operated accordingly.
Road agencies are increasingly moving towards a ‘journey management’ or ‘one network’ approach that
recognises that customers want an optimised end-to-end journey irrespective of jurisdictional operational
boundaries. The use of corridor-based flow control measures such as coordinated ramp metering treatments
that help to provide equity in access to the motorway, along with the integration of arterial road and
motorway operations (Section 14), can minimise the impact of delays at motorway entry ramps on arterial
road network performance and support the objective for improved journey management.
Road agencies may define road network operational objectives to further clarify the desired operation of
motorways in the context of the broader road network, for example:
The economic imperative to make best use of the total road network means that, where
necessary, the motorway network is to be given priority over the arterial road network,
and where this may result in a negative impact on the arterial road network, this should
be managed to achieve a net overall gain to road users (VicRoads 2015a).
Austroads (2014b) identified that a system-wide approach that considers the entire network as a whole will
likely optimise both the motorways and the arterial roads. Coordinating the operations of motorways and
arterials requires overarching strategies that manage the motorways and their adjoining arterials as single
corridors and not as individual, separate facilities.
Smart motorways can assist with management of localised traffic demand and congestion, such as by
discouragement of short-term motorway trips due to short delays at entry ramps, and use of real-time
traveller information to help divert and manage traffic during incidents or severe congestion. Improved traffic
flows increase the operational capacity of the motorway and can further cater for unmet peak demands
within the motorway corridor.
Smart motorways are complementary to a range of demand and supply management measures that seek to
manage urban congestion in the longer-term. The technologies provide road operators with an ongoing and
sustainable means to get the most from the existing motorway infrastructure (i.e. ‘sweat the asset’), by
minimising flow breakdown and crashes to maximise throughput and safety.

Figure 2.3: Primary benefits of smart motorways for the road agency, road user and community
Managed motorway Performance Road agency Road user benefit Community benefit
role outcome benefit
Reduced social &
Prevent or minimise
Increased throughput Increased network Improved travel economic cost of
flow breakdown and
(efficiency) productivity times congestion
resulting congestion
(productive cities)
Enable faster recovery

to normal conditions if Improved network Improved travel
Increased reliability
flow breakdown does resilience time reliability
occur
Provide enhanced Reduced road

incident & congestion Reduced crashes Safer roads Safer travel safety toll (liveable
management cities)
Satisfied
customers Improved travel
Provide real-time Influence network choices
Informed travellers
traveller information demand during Reduced
incidents & stress/frustration
congestion etc.
Reduced
Make optimal use of Reduced More sustainable More sustainable emissions & noise
existing road space environmental impact road network travel (liveable,
sustainable cities)

2.3 Demonstrating the Benefits
The benefits of investment in the active management of motorways has been demonstrated within Australia
and New Zealand, as summarised below.
• The M1 Monash Freeway Upgrade project in Melbourne (including coordinated ramp signals, speed and
lane use management, and traveller information systems) has enabled 16–19% more traffic per lane to
be sustained along the route (see Figure 2.4). This is the equivalent of adding around 0.7 of a lane, with
opportunity for greater benefits through improved management of the whole corridor (VicRoads 2015a).
Figure 2.4: Improvement in route carriageway throughput and route average throughput on the Monash
Freeway
16 to 19% uplift per

lane from active
management
• The West Gate Bridge upgrade, involving conversion from a four- to five-lane carriageway through
all-lane running enabled by speed and lane use management, has demonstrated a 25%+ increase in
traffic volumes, including an increase in lane volumes despite having narrower lanes (VicRoads 2015a).
• A Brisbane pilot project involving implementation of the HERO ramp metering system has also
demonstrated a strong economic merit for implementation of coordinated ramp signals (Faulkner et al.
2013). The HERO system was installed at six on-ramps of the M1/M3 motorways; and traffic analysis for
the AM peak period showed a 4% increase in traffic throughput, 7% improvement in travel speeds and
8% improvement in productivity compared with the previously used fixed-rate ramp metering system,
which was already achieving generally good traffic performance. A rapid economic benefit analysis
concluded a benefit-cost ratio of 13:8:1 at a 7% discount rate, with an economic payback period for
capital expenditure of four months.

• The SCATS Ramp Metering System (SRMS) (Aydos & O’Brien 2014) introduced onto the Auckland
motorway system around 2008 (Southern Motorway/Curran Street and Northwestern Motorway) has
delivered improvements in throughput ranging from 1 to 14% at critical bottlenecks and increases in
speed of 5–14 km/h, depending on direction and peak period (O’Brien 2014). For all sites, this was
estimated to be equivalent to an annual delay saving of 350 000 hours, and an annual travel time saving
of around $7m. Crash reductions ranged from 17% (inbound) to 32–34% (outbound). The evaluation was
limited to incident management system sites and excluded sites where major capacity improvements
were effected, where there was no flow breakdown previously, or where ramp signalling was operated in
a manner that did not aim to improve traffic flow. A key finding was that the ramp signals were effective in
addressing safety and eliminating flow breakdown at weaving areas.
Benefits of individual ITS elements are described in subsequent sections, and further empirical evidence on
benefits from worldwide projects is provided in Appendix A. The National Managed Motorways Working
Group developed a strategic merit assessment process that can be applied uniformly across motorway
projects on the basis of key objectives and return on investment (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2011).
2.4 Sustaining the Benefits
The Managed Motorways Framework (VicRoads 2015a) demonstrates the link between the benefits of active
management on the motorway network and the critical operational and system performance requirements for
the enabling technologies that need to be met to ensure those benefits are realised.
The framework states that:

The incremental ongoing cost of the ITS is less than the associated costs of civil works of
that scale; however, it represents a different balance of costs within the lifecycle, which
needs to be addressed as part of the strategic planning for managed motorways. Whilst
the technologies are an enabler, it is the operation and optimisation of those technologies
that realises the benefits (VicRoads 2015a).

3. Overview of Smart Motorway Elements
3.1 Context within an Integrated Road Network Management System
Smart motorways are components of a wider road network management system which also encompasses
arterial roads. On-road management tools for motorways include ramp signals, lane use management,
variable speed limits (VSL) and variable message signs (VMS). For arterial roads, traffic signals are the
primary on-road management tool, and other tools such as VSL and VMS are increasingly being used. Other
components of the wider road network management system include data collection and management, traffic
operations and monitoring, and performance monitoring and evaluation. Figure 3.1 illustrates these various
components of a road network management system.
Figure 3.1: Components of a road network management system
Source: Based on Austroads (2009b), cited in Austroads (2014a).
To ensure a smart motorway system will enhance the performance of the wider road network system, it is
highly recommended that, during the initial planning phase, there should be a thorough investigation of
existing bottlenecks, an analysis of future traffic patterns, and development of a concept of operations plan
(ConOps) of how the road will be operated to achieve the project’s objectives (Federal Highway
Administration 2007; ANSI/AIAA G-043A, cited in AS/NZS ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 Systems and Software
Engineering – System Life Cycle Processes), as described further in Section 4.2.
Preferably, a smart motorway operational efficiency audit should be made of the proposed solution by a
suitably qualified or experienced auditor to identify any potential deficiencies in operations resulting from the
solution and systems being proposed (Section 4.7). This will provide an understanding of the extent of the
existing problems and how future traffic demands can be effectively managed when the new facilities are built.

3.2 Operational Objectives
The operational objectives for smart motorways are to provide integrated traffic management that:
• optimises safety, throughput and travel speed by minimising the possibility of flow breakdown and congestion
• provides travel time reliability by reducing variability from day to day
• provides traveller information to inform motorists of traffic conditions on the motorway
• provides integrated and improved incident management
• manages vehicle speed and speed differential between vehicles to improve safety during periods of
congestion or queuing
• provides integration with arterial road operation to optimise operation of the overall road network
(motorway and other arterial roads).
3.3 Elements of a Smart Motorway
The various elements of smart motorways can be classified by their functional purpose comprising
intelligence, control or information, as illustrated in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Smart motorway elements classified by function
Intelligence Control Information

Vehicle detection Coordinated ramp metering Motorway mainline variable message
CCTV cameras (traffic surveillance) Speed management (variable signs (VMS)
Incident detection: speed limits)(1) Arterial road VMS
• image processing systems Lane use management Travel time calculation
• traffic data algorithms Non-roadside information sources:
Help phones • radio
Environmental monitoring: • in-car systems
• weather • websites/social media
• noise • CCTV on website
• emissions • smart phone/smart TV
Other data sources (i.e. for travel time applications
calculations and heavy vehicle detection)(2)
1 Typically, on a smart motorway, speed management is integrated with lane use management as part of a lane use
management system (LUMS).
2 Travel time calculation is covered under traveller information in Section 10.3.4.
Source: Austroads (2014a).
Fundamentally, smart motorway operation relies on integration of the three primary functions of intelligence,
control and information, which relate to one another as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Relational diagram of primary functions of a smart motorway

The intelligence function, including traffic data collection, is the foundation of the smart motorway, informing
the control and information functions as well as performance monitoring.
Control functions use the information from the intelligence function to optimise motorway performance,
maximising safety, reliability and capacity.
The information function assists road users with making informed decisions about their travel, for example,
route choice and travel time. Field provision of information is particularly important during unusual conditions
such as incidents.
A summary of the field infrastructure used for each of the smart motorway elements is provided in Appendix C.
3.3.1 Intelligence
The intelligence function is the foundation of the smart motorway, informing the control and information
functions as well as performance and outcome monitoring.
Vehicle detection
Vehicle detection equipment provides volumes, speed, occupancy (proxy for density) and classification on a
lane-by-lane basis (Section 9.1). The information is the basis of monitoring and control for the motorway and
is made available to third parties for incorporation in commercial applications.
CCTV cameras (traffic surveillance)
An actively smart motorway requires full CCTV coverage with pan/tilt/zoom camera capability for traffic
monitoring operations as well as assisting in lane use and incident management (Section 9.2). Separate
cameras are generally required for mainline monitoring and monitoring of the ramp signalling and they are a
useful tool in congestion management, including assessment of congestion on arterial road approaches to
the motorway. CCTV is used for monitoring of ramp queues and fine tuning the ramp signals’ operations.
They are also used to identify driver behaviour and operational issues such as incidents and planned events,
while CCTV images are shared with key incident and emergency management partners.
Incident detection
Incident detection can take the form of either direct detection (e.g. image processing systems) or algorithms applied
to data from vehicle detectors that flag sudden changes in mean speeds, flows and occupancies (Section 9.3).
Help phones
Help phones provide road users with a method of directly contacting motorway operators to report incidents
such as a crash or disabled vehicle, and to facilitate more timely assistance (Section 9.4).
Environmental monitoring
This includes equipment that monitors environmental conditions such as temperature, wind speed and water
levels and, in response to adverse conditions, activates equipment such as pumps and warning signs. Traffic
noise and emissions can also be monitored for the purpose of reporting and future planning. Refer to
Section 9.5 for further information.

Other data sources
Data derived from the intelligence function has maximum benefit when used in conjunction with data from
other sources, such as weigh-in-motion (WIM) and arterial road data. There are also non-roadside data
sources that can be used for calculation of travel times, such as Bluetooth, automatic number plate
recognition (ANPR) and probe vehicle data. Storage, access and integration of data therefore requires a
coordinated approach.
3.3.2 Traveller Information
An overall traveller information strategy for potential motorway users should consider three time periods for
the provision of information:
• pre-trip (e.g. before leaving home or work)
• en route but before entering the motorway
• en route, after entering the motorway.
Real-time traveller information informs motorists about current or future traffic conditions and allows drivers
to choose the most efficient mode and route to their destination. Alternatively, they may choose to delay their
journey or not take it at all.
Traveller information systems use traffic data and other traffic management information to provide timely and
detailed information about travel time, congestion, traffic incidents, roadwork, special events and the weather
(if applicable), to improve safety and travel time predictability. This can make the road network more resilient,
enable drivers to make better choices, and can also assist in reducing congestion.
The effective dissemination of automated on-road traveller information contributes to the overall provision of
a traveller information system for a smart motorway that may also include media reports and web-based
information. As well as fulfilling a need for day-to-day travel information, the system and facilities provide
valuable information and assist in traffic control as part of an overall communications and management plan
associated with special or periodic events.
The purpose of the traveller information system is to display real-time traffic and travel information as well as
information relating to changing travel conditions. On-road real-time traveller information includes the use of
various types of signs to display a range of messages appropriate to the travel conditions. The motorway
management system manages traffic devices that operate in default mode for travel information, and also
provides special information during incidents or congestion.
These systems are integrated for coordinated operation and consistency of messaging, as well as providing
consistent message libraries, graphics and abbreviations.
Traveller information components
Traveller information includes travel time and traffic condition information, as well as information relating to
incidents, roadwork, closures, prevailing weather conditions, etc. Before entry to the motorway, this
information can be provided by arterial road variable message signs (VMS) at motorway interchanges and
other strategic locations. On the motorway, this information is provided on mainline VMS.
Non-roadside traveller information on traffic conditions and travel times can come from various sources,
including the following:
• Radio – can reach road users both before and during their trip, but Australian road jurisdictions generally
have limited control over content and timing of messages. In tunnels, however, radio re-broadcast
facilities can enable a control room to take over commercial radio broadcasts when conditions in the
tunnel warrant informing drivers.
• In-car systems – such as in-car navigation systems with travel time and dynamic routing information.

• Websites and social media – pre-trip travel information on websites and social media is useful, but should
form part of a broader network-wide travel information strategy.
• CCTV on website – near-live images of traffic can be streamed to a website from dedicated fixed CCTV
cameras installed at various locations around a road network. The website may only show one still image
every two to five minutes but these images provide an indication of the current level of service of the road.
These images can also be incorporated into third party commercial applications.
• Smart phone/TV applications (apps) – there are several map-based apps that can be downloaded onto
smart phones or smart TVs, which provide dynamic routing information similar to that provided by in-car
navigation systems. Some of these apps are community-driven, providing routing and real-time traffic
updates sourced from users’ driving times.
Road agencies are increasingly making their real-time and historical data on traffic conditions available to
approved external parties in order to enable wider dissemination of traveller information through different
communication channels.
Variable message signs
Variable message signs (VMS) increasingly allow a range of information to be conveyed to motorists, and
are being used in advance of and on motorways as an alternative to purpose-built, dedicated travel time
signs with limited functionality (i.e. static signs with variable displays for travel time and traffic condition
information only). Multi-functional VMS can display warnings of hazards or disruptions, with details of actions
to take (e.g. merge left), as well as information on forthcoming events affecting motorway travel. VMS can
also assist road users to make informed decisions on route choice based on real-time conditions (travel time
and traffic condition) and future significant events.
Modern multi-functional VMS are capable of displaying coloured information, typically using white, green,
amber and red, for text or pictograms at improved resolutions for increased readability. Further guidance is
provided in Section 10.
Travel time calculation
Travel time calculation is the estimated travel time for a route, or section of route, for provision of real-time
traveller information and network performance monitoring. The calculations may use speed data from vehicle
detection equipment or other data sources such as Bluetooth and probe vehicle data. Refer to Section 10.3.4
for detailed guidance.
Benefits from provision of traveller information
In summary, the provision of traveller information benefits not only individual motorists but also the
performance of the overall road network. These benefits are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Benefits from the provision of traveller information
Benefits to motorists Benefits to road network
Ability to avoid congestion and subsequent delay. • Greater resilience to incidents and other events which
Ability to make informed travel choices pre-trip and can disrupt traffic flows.
while en route: • Reduced congestion as informed motorists avoid already
• time of travel congested areas.
• mode of travel • Improved safety as informed motorists drive with greater
• trip route. certainty. Reduced congestion also improves safety.
Improved travel time reliability.

3.3.3 Control
Coordinated ramp metering
Best practice dynamic control allows for ramp signals to operate in an isolated manner or, when needed,
engage upstream ramps in a master/slave relationship.
When ramp metering signals are coordinated, it improves the ability to manage the mainline motorway flow.
By metering inflows from a group of ramps upstream, arrival demand at a critical bottleneck can be managed
to match the capacity of the bottleneck. Coordinated ramp metering also has the capability of balancing the
queues and wait times between ramps, thereby sharing the delays across several ramps. Furthermore, ramp
signal coordination can reduce the likelihood of queue overflow on short ramps by transferring delay to
ramps with more storage. Refer to Section 11 for detailed guidance on the operation and design of
coordinated ramp signals.
Speed management (variable speed limits)
Variable speed limits (VSL) are deployed on smart motorways to activate lower speed limits appropriate to
the travelling conditions with the aim of improving road safety. VSL can also assist in increasing throughput
by optimising speed and headway before flow breakdown occurs. To ensure optimum outcomes, a VSL
system should be interfaced with the coordinated ramp signal system, if this is provided.
Conditions when VSL may be initiated can relate to congestion, an incident or other event, roadwork, or
environmental conditions such as high wind speeds affecting traffic operation on a bridge.
Improved safety by VSL is achieved by:

• reducing the speed differential between vehicles (i.e. more homogeneous flows)
• minimising lane changing and braking caused by the speed differential
• increasing time for drivers to react to changing conditions
• reducing vehicle speeds upstream of motorway queues
• reducing the likelihood of an impact, and reducing the crash severity if an impact does occur.
VSL signs may be side-mounted on the verge, or more commonly, when used on a smart motorway, VSL
are integrated as part of a lane use management system and displayed on signs mounted over lanes on
gantries (refer to Section 12).
Lane use management
A lane use management system (LUMS) allocates and manages lane use across the roadway and is
particularly useful during incidents and roadwork.
LUMS may be deployed to enable safe operation of routes where there is no emergency lane (i.e. all lanes
are trafficked) on a part-time or full-time basis — referred to as part-time emergency lane running and
all-lane running, respectively. Such operations can provide significant capacity improvement without the
need for network widening (Section 13).
The operation of LUMS signs (typically mounted over lanes on gantries) that indicate the speed limit and
lane status provides traffic management to improve safety during abnormal operation. LUMS includes
variable speed management and should be supported by the use of mainline variable message signs. Refer
to Section 12 for detailed guidance on LUMS.

3.4 Foundation Systems and Infrastructure
As management systems are progressively applied to urban motorways, the foundation systems and
infrastructure necessary to enable successful implementation of smart motorways should be laid down with
future expansion in mind. This is particularly true when new motorways are built. It is much cheaper to lay
power and communication conduits and cables during road construction than it is to retrofit them after a road
has been constructed.
3.4.1 Central Control System
Smart motorway functionality is enabled through the deployment of ITS control system software.
Historically, separate stand-alone control systems have been developed for motorway traffic management,
i.e. separate systems for LUMS, VMS, travel time, ramp metering, etc. However, the sub-systems within the
smart motorway system are integrated to the extent that management and interaction is essential. Even
though the hierarchy of control between sub-systems may change according to the circumstances (i.e.
normal or incident operations), the sub-systems are still interdependent in the way they operate. Without
integration, the operators would be faced with a significant challenge due to the complexity of the interaction
required, particularly during an incident.
An integrated software platform, with future interoperability capability, becomes particularly important as the
number of tools increases, along with their interdependency.
The central control system should enable automated operation that works within predefined rules, generally
with minimal operator input unless override is necessary. System automation provides improved timeliness
of response to enable greater benefits to be realised in terms of preventing flow breakdown and improving
road safety and efficiency during recurrent congestion and non-recurrent congestion events (i.e. incidents).
Integration is also required for the system to manage multiple triggers for traffic control and information (such
as traffic volumes, incidents, weather events, etc.) and respond in accordance with the agreed traffic
management rules.
3.4.2 Communications System
The progressive implementation of fully smart motorways and the increasing density of ITS assets in
motorway corridors make it increasingly beneficial to have high quality communications, such as optical fibre
cable, available within the motorway corridor. High-capacity communications infrastructure is also a key
enabler for future cooperative ITS (C-ITS) vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication initiatives, such as
those proposed to improve road safety and network efficiency.
3.4.3 Power System
A reliable power supply is necessary for the successful operation of ITS. Similar to communications, the
increasing density of ITS assets in motorway corridors means that power supply should be considered on the
basis of the motorway corridor in addition to the option of individual connections. Provision of backup power
supply systems may be necessary for critical assets to ensure continued system operation in the event of a
mains supply outage.
3.4.4 Traffic Management Centre
The traffic management centre (TMC) plays a key role in active management of the motorway network and
interacts with all the management tools. In addition to the TMC, a motorway management system should
have other user interfaces from where road agency staff set up, monitor and fine-tune the operation of the
system. Expansion of active motorway management needs to consider the impacts such expansion will have
on the capabilities and resources of the TMC and all other system management user interface facilities. It is
likely that expansion of the capabilities and resources within these facilities will be required to ensure
on-going motorway management and optimisation.

4. Planning and Design for Smart Motorway Systems
4.1 General Principles and Process
The main objectives of a smart motorway system are to provide a safe and reliable level of service that
maximises productivity of the motorway, thereby providing optimum operation in relation to throughput and
travel time. These objectives cannot be achieved simply by adding ITS to an existing motorway to control
flow without any consideration of the motorway’s geometric design and traffic demands.
Before any ITS are planned, designed or built into a motorway, an in-depth analysis of the motorway and its
neighbouring arterials must first take place to identify any inherent bottlenecks on the mainline or lack of
storage space on the entry and exit ramps. These should not be examined in isolation; rather, the motorway
must be examined in its entirety as a system in which inflows and outflows can be properly managed to
ensure optimum flows along the entire mainline at all times of day.
Inherent problems may exist with respect to the geometric design of the motorway and, where possible,
these should be addressed before implementing ITS devices to control flows. Geometric road design
features that affect capacity and may contribute to flow breakdown are identified in Section 5.2.1.
Major civil works to address geometric bottlenecks may include adding extra lanes, widening bridges,
extending ramps and interchange/arterial intersection upgrades. Minor civil works may include widening a
pavement and/or changing line markings to alter traffic movements. Whatever the extent of the civil works, a
cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to determine if the predicted benefits, in terms of increased
productivity on the motorway, are likely to outweigh the costs of the civil works and other potential negative
impacts. Importantly, a cost-benefit analysis should factor in projected traffic demands for at least 10 years
(preferably 20 years) after implementation.
Only after relevant feasible civil works have been undertaken to optimise the motorway’s geometric design
should control systems, such as coordinated ramp signals and lane use management systems (LUMS), be
designed into the motorway management system. The design of motorway ramp signals may call for further
civil works to the ramps to ensure adequate storage space is provided for vehicle queuing when the ramp
signals are in operation.
Coordinated ramp signals are the most effective intervention for achieving high levels of motorway efficiency
and reliability, as they control entry flows from multiple upstream ramps to ensure that arrival flows at
potential bottleneck sections do not exceed their capacity. Coordinated ramp metering also enables
balancing of queues and wait times on the ramps.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the general design principles for retrofitting an unmanaged motorway as a smart
motorway. Beginning with the existing motorway as the foundation, traffic engineering is conducted to assess
the performance of the motorway to identify the inherent bottlenecks and other sections where traffic flow
inefficiencies occur. Civil works are then conducted where possible to increase the road’s capacity,
particularly through bottleneck sections. Only then should ITS interventions, such as ramp signals, be
implemented in order to control traffic flows such that they do not exceed the capacity of the remaining
bottleneck sections. This additional control of traffic flows effectively increases the operational capacity of the
motorway.

Figure 4.1: Smart motorways – design principles pyramid
For a new project, a similar process is followed. That is, it is important to ensure that the general motorway
layout has well-designed geometric features that minimise turbulence and optimise capacity. This will ensure
that ITS control interventions can then manage the motorway mainline to provide the best traffic outcomes.
4.2 Operations-driven Planning Frameworks
The systems engineering approach promotes the development of a concept of operations plan (ConOps) to
capture user needs that will drive the design and delivery of a smart motorway system (Federal Highway
Administration 2007; ANSI/AIAA G-043A, cited in AS/NZS ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288). It can be used to refine
project scope by testing the appropriate levels of ITS and field response for operation of the motorway
section in order to achieve the project’s objectives. This document is a key reference throughout the design
process.
A network operations plan (NOP) (Austroads 2016c) may also be prepared as part of the process of project
formulation. This is primarily a management and operations plan for the road network within the project
impact area, typically for a five- to ten-year period. An NOP will define road use priorities and operational
objectives for an area or corridor and analyse any performance gaps (current and future) relative to those
priorities and objectives. It should then identify and assess potential mitigation options to address the
identified performance gaps, which may include network improvement (upgrade) and management, and
operation options such as ITS interventions.
The NOP should establish priority use of the roads within its area of scope. Motorways are typically classified
as preferred traffic routes, and in some cases freight and bus priority routes as well, and should deliver good
level of service for these users. The NOP helps to inform project development and scoping, and ensure that
the smart motorways project is designed and operated consistently with the desired operational outcomes of
the corridor or wider area of road network.

4.3 Defining Motorway Objectives and Targets
Specific and measurable performance targets should be set for each component of mainline and entry/exit
ramp capacity analyses and design. The adoption of performance targets can help to ensure that the project
scope and selection of ITS treatments is aligned with project goals and objectives and that the motorway will
operate as intended once built.
Project objectives may vary considerably depending on the nature of the project and available funding. For
example, for a new motorway project, the objectives may include satisfactory performance (level of service)
with traffic forecasts at a specified future design year. For motorway upgrade projects (with or without
widening), it may not be practicable to satisfy demand; for example, if there is high demand but insufficient
funding or physical space for widening. Therefore, project objectives may be to improve throughput, reduce
congestion and/or improve travel times and reliability.
In situations where demand cannot be met, there may still be significant benefits in providing an upgraded
motorway with ITS treatments. However, it should be made clear during the project development process
that the project scope is not expected to satisfy traffic demand. A clear operational strategy should be
developed to ensure that after completing the project, demand is managed to match the capacity of the
motorway, for example, through coordinated ramp signalling operations. Failure to manage demand may
result in ongoing flow breakdown and congestion with adverse impacts on travel safety and efficiency,
compared to what could be achieved with a well-managed motorway.
4.4 Ultimate Layout and Staging
The National Managed Motorway Vision and Action Plan (Infrastructure Australia 2011) identifies that smart
motorway ITS elements can be implemented in stages, depending on the problems being experienced on
different motorway sections, as well as to gradually build up the ‘smart’ capability of the motorway. The base
level, or minimum requirement for smart motorways, is provision of network intelligence and traveller
information functions, along with foundation infrastructure (e.g. control system and power and
communication networks).
Subsequent levels of deployment recognise the need for increasing levels of control based on increasing
traffic volumes and the need to address identified performance issues/objectives. The warrants outlined in
Section 6 provide guidance on the appropriate level of control.
The Victorian framework for active management (VicRoads 2015a) also promotes a layered approach to
smart motorway deployment. The framework is based on the three functional categories defined in Section 3,
but identifies three different levels of control (refer to Table 4.1). The framework highlights that whilst more
advanced active management may deliver stronger benefits, it may also bring greater cost and complexity.
Table 4.1: Mapping of functional categories to levels of active management
Functional categories Levels of active management

Intelligence Network monitoring and intelligence
Information Traveller information
Traffic management and control interventions (i.e. reactive management)
Control Route optimisation (i.e. proactive management)
Multi-modal network optimisation with journey management – desirable future state

The planning phase of a project should consider the ultimate motorway geometric layout and requirements
for staged installation of smart motorway ITS treatments as traffic demands increase. The analysis and
design process should be carried out for each separate construction stage as well as the ultimate
arrangement, to ensure that the operation will be satisfactory at all stages in the project life. Based on a
warrants assessment, some higher-order smart motorway elements may not be included in the initial stage
of construction; however, the staged works should build logically and progressively to attain full functionality
with no or minimal need for rework.
Project planning and design should consider the impact of the operation of the motorway section on the
operation of adjacent or connecting motorway sections, which may still be unmanaged.
4.5 Whole-of-network Approach
The design of each motorway project should be undertaken in the context of the wider network strategy for
roll-out of smart motorways, considering the progressive upgrade of motorway sections across the network.
In some cases, without careful planning, the interventions applied to one motorway section to address a
critical bottleneck may result in the bottleneck being displaced to an adjacent motorway section.
Effective motorway control through coordinated ramp metering requires the management of all significant
motorway entries, and the number and location of upstream entry ramps needed to manage a critical
bottleneck may extend beyond the project scope (Section 11). During a major incident or congestion, an
area-wide response may be most effective to divert and disperse traffic across the network (Section 10.6).
This may require use of upstream LUMS signs and VMS on motorway sections under control by other road
operators (i.e. tunnel and private toll operators).
Road agencies and projects should consider the future, more integrated operation of the whole motorway
network to ensure that that design and layout of ITS interventions at the interface between motorway projects
will support effective route-based operations. Considerations include the selection of ramps for metering to
enable flow optimisation throughout a logical motorway route, and the location and type of LUMS signs and
VMS at the interface to ensure safe operations and a consistent road user experience. The interface
between motorway and arterial networks is also necessary to optimise whole-of-network operations
(Section 14).
As smart motorways are rolled-out across the road network, increasing levels of system integration will be
required to ensure that operation of one motorway section, whether a public road, tunnel or private toll road,
does not negatively impact on the operation of connecting motorway and arterial sections and thereby
degrade the operational performance of motorway routes and the wider road network.
4.6 Whole-of-lifecycle Approach
Although the capital expenditure for upgrading a motorway with smart motorway ITS may be less than
widening options, the costs of operating and maintaining a smart motorway can still be significant. Smart
motorway projects are also driven by sustainability objectives, i.e. to make the most of existing assets and
minimise the environmental impacts of network expansion.
Smart motorway analysis and design should take account of whole-of-lifecycle costs, considering both
capital and operations and maintenance expenditure. Different operational modes may have higher
operating costs, such as part-time emergency lane running. ITS design and cost can also be significantly
impacted by the proposed maintenance strategy.
For example, analysis by Roads and Maritime Services (personal communication 2016) indicate savings of
about 60% in capital costs and 33% in whole-of-lifecycle costs through use of lightweight, non-accessible
gantries instead of heavyweight, accessible gantries for gantry-related deployments to support services such
as LUMS and VSL. The cost savings in capital expenditure were shown to outweigh the increased
staff/vehicle costs to periodically service reliable assets with appropriate lane closures. Traffic flow impacts
can be reduced by performing activities during off-peak periods and in coordination with other asset
maintenance activities.

Projects should investigate current or emerging technologies that are more sustainable, i.e. technologies that
are more reliable with lower resource and energy consumption during manufacturing/operations. Reduced
numbers of equipment types and quantities can enable more cost-effective procurement and maintenance.
Improved cost-effectiveness may also be achieved through non-prescriptive, performance-based

specifications and reliability-centred maintenance strategies.
4.7 Operational Efficiency Audits
An operational efficiency audit involves a formal examination of the traffic analysis and design of a motorway
project, as part of an existing or new motorway, from a network operations viewpoint. The aim is to ensure
that when built, the motorway will operate at optimum efficiency in response to the traffic demands and
provide effective real-time traveller information to road users.
Audits are undertaken by an independent, qualified team who report on whether the project will result in
efficient management and operation of a section of motorway, including its interface with the wider
motorway/arterial road network. The outcomes of the audit are recommendations on how to address any
deficiencies in design, including both civil and traffic management components, so as to deliver the best
operational outcomes for the road user and road manager.
The audit process provides the opportunity to review the ability of proposals, in whatever stage of
development (including analysis, concept design and detailed design), to achieve the operational objectives
set for that particular section of motorway.
The key benefits are:

• constructive process for design refinement to deliver the best operational outcomes for the road user and
road manager (for a small proportion of the total project cost)
• improved network performance outcomes
• ‘right first time’ approach – audits have the greatest potential to deliver benefits when undertaken early in
the project lifecycle, and can reduce the need for costly modifications to motorway infrastructure after it
has been built
• formal auditing process that supports more accountable and transparent project decision-making in
project design
• facilitates knowledge transfer between technical experts and project teams, and gives opportunity to
improve/update standards based on lessons learned.
A suitable reference for smart motorway operational efficiency auditing, including technical and procedural
guidance, is the Operational Efficiency Audit Guidelines for Managed Freeways (Main Roads Western
Australia 2013b). The process used for road safety audits has been adopted (Austroads 2009c). The audit
should be an objective assessment carried out by people who are independent of the project team, with
appropriate experience and training.
Practitioners involved in motorway project planning and design should be aware of road agency
requirements for undertaking operational efficiency audits and ensure that they are accounted for in the
project budget. Project designers should also be aware of and adhere to the key design principles for
achieving motorway operational efficiency, and can use the auditor checklists in the aforementioned
guidelines to ensure they have accounted for the key considerations for each element being audited.

5. Principles of Motorway Flow and Analysis
The section incorporates relevant content for smart motorway design from AGTM Part 2: Traffic Theory
(Austroads 2015d). Additional relevant information can be found in the VicRoads supplement to the 2015
AGTM Part 2: Traffic Theory (VicRoads 2015b).
5.1 Congestion Management Theory
This section provides an overview of aspects of traffic theory that form the basis of flow management on
motorway facilities.
Much of the theory underlying these developing approaches to flow management is not new but draws on
the established relationships of traffic flow. However, using different ways of viewing key traffic
characteristics, particularly density, researchers and traffic managers have been able to gain new insights
into motorway performance and guidance on how that performance can be improved.
5.1.1 Flow Monitoring and Management
Density and occupancy
The three primary variables used to describe traffic flow are volume (q), density (k) and speed (v), which, in
aggregate terms, are related by (Equation 1):
q=k.v 1
where
q = volume
k = density
v = the space mean speed (refer to Equation 2.3 in AGTM Part 2 (Austroads 2015d))
It has long been recognised that density is a fundamental measure of the level of service (LOS) being
provided on a road at any particular time (e.g. Highway Research Board 1965) but, until relatively recently,
the difficulties of field measurement of density led to the use of other LOS measures such as
volume/capacity ratio. Historically, density (the number of vehicles in a unit length of lane or road) has been
measured in the field by one of four methods, as follows:
• Photographic techniques measure density directly using photographs along a length of road, taken either
from a fixed, high vantage point or from an aircraft. From the photographs, the number of vehicles in each
length of road or lane that is of interest are counted, and the density is obtained by dividing by the known
length of road or lane.
• Input-output counts enable the number of vehicles in a road section to be updated from an initial known
number, by adding counts of vehicles entering the section and subtracting counts of vehicles leaving. The
passage detectors must be able to ensure accurate counts at both ends of the section, and a means of
regularly re-initialising the number of vehicles within the section is desirable. Such re-initialisation is
difficult except in the situation of road sections with no intermediate entry or exit points and no lane
changing, in which case, the number of vehicles in each lane of the section can be obtained as the count
of vehicles entering between the entry and exit of a specifically identified vehicle.
• Speed-flow calculations use point measurements of vehicles passing and individual vehicle speeds to
calculate volume and space mean speed (refer to Equation 2.5 in AGTM Part 2), then apply q = k . v to
determine density.

• Occupancy measurement became a viable means of determining density with the introduction of accurate
presence detectors. Occupancy (effectively ‘point density’ at a given location over a (usually fairly short)
period of time) is defined as the proportion of time for which the presence of a vehicle over the detector is
recorded. Given that presence is recorded whenever any part of a vehicle length is over any part of the
effective length of the detector, occupancy is related to the average spacing of vehicles by the
relationship in Equation 2 below:
L V + LD 2
Occ =
s
where
Occ = occupancy, expressed as a proportion (veh.s/s)
LV = average length of a vehicle (m)
LD = effective length of detector (m)
s = average spacing of vehicles (m/veh) (as defined in AGTM Part 2) 1
Then, given that density, k, is inversely related to spacing (see Equation 2.2 in AGTM Part 2), but is usually
expressed in the units of veh/km rather than veh/m, density is obtained as (Equation 3):
1000 1000 .Occ 10. (%Occ ) 3

k = = =
s L V + LD L V + LD
where
k = density in veh/km
Occ = occupancy, expressed as a proportion (veh.s/s)
%Occ = occupancy expressed as a percentage
LV = average length of a vehicle (m)
LD = effective length of detector (m)

s = average spacing of vehicles (m/veh) (as defined in AGTM Part 2) 2
Traffic density and per cent occupancy ranges corresponding to different levels of service are shown in
Table 5.1, which has been adapted from May (1990) and Transportation Research Board (2010).
1 The definition provided in AGTM Part 2 (Austroads 2015f) is as follows:

A spacing is the distance between the fronts of two consecutive vehicles in a traffic stream at a given instant of time. The average
spacing (‘s’) of the stream over a given length of lane or carriageway is the arithmetic mean of the individual spacings occurring over
that length at that instant of time. Spacing is usually expressed in the units of metres per vehicle (m/veh).
2 The definition provided in AGTM Part 2 (Austroads 2015f) is as follows:
A spacing is the distance between the fronts of two consecutive vehicles in a traffic stream at a given instant of time. The average
spacing (‘s’) of the stream over a given length of lane or carriageway is the arithmetic mean of the individual spacings occurring over
that length at that instant of time. Spacing is usually expressed in the units of metres per vehicle (m/veh).

Table 5.1: Density and occupancy level of service indicators
Density Per cent Level of

occupancy(2) service Flow conditions
pc/km/lane(1)
0–7 0–5 A Free-flow operations
7–11 5–7 B Reasonably free-flow operations
Uncongested flow conditions
11–16 7–11 C Stable operations
16–22 11–14 D Bordering on unstable operations
22–28 14–19 E Extremely unstable flow operations Near capacity flow conditions
28–54 19–36 Forced or breakdown operations
F Congested flow conditions
> 54 > 36 Incident situation operations
1 Density in passenger car equivalents per kilometre per lane.
2 Assuming L V + LD = 6.7 m.
Density contour mapping
With the advent of reliable and accurate presence detectors, traffic densities derived from measured lane
occupancies have become key indicators of traffic performance. Motorway managers, in particular, are using
changes in density values over time at key locations on their facilities to monitor performance and provide
guidance on interventions to improve performance.
The plotting of contours (lines of equal value) of density on a location-time plane has evolved as the most
useful presentation of density data (and similarly, data on other characteristics such as flow, speed, moving
queues and gap availability) for the purposes of flow management.
A hypothetical example is shown in Figure 5.1, in which the contours separate areas of uncongested flow
(k < 22 pc/km/lane, no shading), near capacity flow (22 < k < 28, yellow/light shading) and congested flow
(k > 28, green/heavy shading); the values being consistent with Table 5.1. Some comments on this example
are made following a brief introduction to shock waves in traffic.
Figure 5.1: Traffic density contours in the space-time domain
Source: Austroads (2015d).

Shock waves in traffic
Shock waves are defined as ‘boundary conditions in the space-time domain that denote a discontinuity in
flow-density conditions’ (May 1990). For flow management purposes, the boundary of most interest is that
marking the discontinuity between uncongested and congested flow, which might correspond with a density
of 28 pc/km/lane.
A shock wave is not simply a contour corresponding to a particular density value, however – it is an
indication of sudden change in flow conditions which may propagate through time and space. A simple
example of a shock wave is free-flowing traffic forced to join the tail of a queue stopped by a red traffic
signal. The discontinuity that occurs is the change from free-flowing traffic with medium density and speed to
the jam conditions of a stationary queue with maximum density and zero speed. As time increases with the
signal remaining red, the propagation of the wave is backwards in space (i.e. opposite to the travel direction)
because, as the queue length increases, the point at which the change of flow conditions occurs moves
further and further back. Such a shock wave would be classified as ‘backward forming’ – backward because
it moves backward in space over time and forming because a greater extent of congestion is forming.
A change from red to green of the traffic signal in the preceding paragraph would result in a ‘backward
recovery’ shock wave as vehicles further and further back in the queue successively start to move —
recovery because the change is a decrease in the extent of the congestion and backward because the point
at which the change is occurring progressively moves backward relative to the direction of travel.
As well as backward, shock waves may be forward or stationary, these designations indicating forward
movement and lack of movement, respectively, of the shock wave over time. ‘Forward forming’ shock waves
are relatively rare but ‘forward recovery’ shock waves occur frequently; for example, where a bottleneck has
caused the formation of a slowly moving queue, but as the peak period ends and upstream demand
decreases to less than the bottleneck capacity, the tail of the queue moves forward and the extent of
congestion decreases.
‘Stationary’ shock waves are classified as either frontal, because they are at the front of the congested length
of road (so that the change of flow conditions is from congested upstream of the shock wave location to
uncongested downstream) or rear, because they are at the rear of the congestion (so that the reverse is the
case). As a stationary shock wave does not move, it results in no change in the extent of congestion. A
frontal stationary shock wave might occur, for example, at the downstream end of a bottleneck; while a rear
stationary shock wave may be located upstream of the bottleneck when demand decreases to become equal
to the bottleneck capacity, so that the length of the queue to enter the bottleneck does not change.
Flow management applications
The above discussion of shock waves is introductory only, but with a thorough knowledge of the topic,
density contour maps can be interpreted to provide valuable insights into traffic performance, including
identification of the real locations of bottlenecks, assessment of the consequences of congestion (in terms of
delays and economic consequences), and the ability to distinguish between recurring and incident-generated
congestion. While the process of interpretation is complex enough to require considerable experience, a little
of what is involved can be appreciated by returning to the density contour map in Figure 5.1.
Considering the k = 28 contour, the boundary between uncongested and congested flow, the map first
indicates the presence of a bottleneck a little beyond the 3 km location, which first causes a flow breakdown
at approximately 4:45 pm, setting up a frontal stationary shock wave. The second effect of this bottleneck is
a backward forming shock wave which takes approximately 75 minutes (from 4:45 to 6:00 pm) to move back
1.7 km to around the 1.3 km location. The velocity of this shock wave is thus –1.4 km/h (negative because it
is moving backward). At 5:10 pm, a bottleneck at location 3.3 km receives sufficient traffic to cause a second
frontal stationary shock wave, which replaces that at 3.0 km and lasts at that location through until 6:30 pm.
At around 6:00 pm, the approaching end of the peak results in reduction in upstream demand and the
congestion begins to decrease, as indicated by the forward recovery shock wave from 1.3 km at 6:00 pm to
2.6 km at around 6:35 pm (shock wave velocity +2.2 km/h). The remainder of the peak congestion is reduced
between 6:25 and 6:35 pm by the backward recovery shock wave moving back 0.7 km from the 3.3 km
location to the 2.6 km location. The congestion ends at 6:35 pm.

Through similar interpretations of data, including that collected over longer periods of days or weeks,
motorway managers are able to optimise the operation of ramp metering, assess the effects of lane
additions, and generally guide the design of interventions to improve flow performance. For further
information, the reader is directed to studies by Akcelik, Roper and Besley (1999), Brilon (2000) and May
(1990) as well as reports from Australasian road agencies actively involved in the area.
The following sections provide further discussions on some previously published traffic models that deal with
the characteristics of flow breakdowns. These traffic state models classify traffic flow into different state regimes
and provide different ways to illustrate congested motorway flow patterns (Austroads 2008; Han & Luk 2008).
5.1.2 Two-phase HCM Model
A conventional understanding of the formation of congested flow conditions is that a queue would form
upstream of a bottleneck due to conditions such as lane drop, merge area, weaving section or upgrade. The
trailing edge of the queue moves upstream at a rate depending on demand and capacity conditions. When
the tail of this queue reaches any upstream location, motorway operation moves from the uncongested
regime to the congested regime, at approximately the same flow.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 (Transportation Research Board 2010) and the 1986 and 2000
editions have advocated the need to consider maximum flows or capacities of a motorway segment in two
regimes or phases. Two maximum flow rates can be identified as follows:
• Maximum flow when flow is stable – this is the maximum flow before the formation of a queue at a
bottleneck, i.e. the maximum pre-queue flow.
• Maximum queue discharge flow – this is the maximum flow after a queue is formed and is associated with
a speed drop, and has been found to be less than the pre-queue maximum flow rate. A possible reason
for this decrease in flow rate is driver caution – departures from a motorway queue require more care
because drivers may not be aware of conditions downstream. This is in contrast to a start-up queue at a
signalised approach where maximum flow is achieved even though different vehicles have different
acceleration rates.
There have been debates on where the maximum flows should be measured. Hall and Agyemang-Duah
(1991) argued that the two phases are observable only if detectors are located at some distance upstream of
a bottleneck, and that there is only one congested regime if they are at a bottleneck.
In a study of a bottleneck on a four-lane motorway near San Diego (Interstate 8), Banks (1990) measured the
above two maximum flow rates. The frequency distribution polygons of the counts on the fast lane are shown in
Figure 5.2. The results clearly showed that there is a statistically significant difference between the two flow rates.
Figure 5.2: Frequency distribution polygons of vehicle counts on the fast lane on Interstate 8, San Diego
Source: Banks (1990).

Hall, Hurdle and Banks (1992) finalised a speed-flow diagram as shown in Figure 5.3. The diagram
overcomes the following issues:
• The parabolic shape in uncongested flow is no longer used; speed remains quite similar until the degree
of saturation or volume/capacity ratio reaches 0.75.
• The queue discharge regime is included in the speed-flow diagram.
• Two maximum flow rates are used, one for the stable, pre-queue regime and another for the queue
discharge rate (which is lower than the maximum pre-queue flow rate).
As mentioned, ramp metering is useful for reducing on-ramp flow so that the mainline demand is maintained
at or just below capacity and therefore reduces the occurrences of flow breakdowns and also improves traffic
conditions at the merge point.
Hall, Hurdle and Banks (1992) also suggested that much more research is needed in understanding
motorway congested flow. Figure 5.4 shows the speed-flow relationship for a motorway in the HCM
(Transportation Research Board 2010). Note that the queue discharge area covers a range of data. The
queue discharge area may be represented by a vertical segment, as shown in Figure 5.3, recognising that
the vertical segment is not really a speed-flow function, but is plotted on the graph without the location axis.
Figure 5.3: Generalised speed flow relation for a typical motorway segment
Source: Austroads (2008).
Figure 5.4: Speed-flow relationship for the motorway in HCM (Transportation Research Board 2010)
Source: Based on Transportation Research Board (2010).

Figure 5.5 shows an example of a speed-flow relationship based on empirical data for each lane across a
three-lane carriageway in Melbourne (VicRoads 2013b). The flow breakdown at this location was initiated by
uncontrolled flow at an entry ramp merge. The changes to speed and flow rate are accompanied by
increases in motorway lane occupancies (or density values).
Figure 5.5: An example of speed-flow diagram from a Melbourne motorway
120
LOS A LOS B LOS C
110 LOS D
LOS E
100 LOS C
LOS A
LOS B LOS D LOS E
90
80
70
LOS F
Speed (km/h)
60
LOS F
50
40
30 Monash Fwy – Inbound

Monash Fwy – Inbound
Springvale Rd to Ferntree Gully Rd
20 Springvale Rd to Ferntree Gully Rd
• Left lane
•Left lane
• Middle lane
10 •Middle lane
• Right lane
•Right lane
0
00 400
400
100 800
800
200 1200
1200
300 1600
1600
400 2000
2000
500 2400
2400
600 2800
2800
700
Flow (veh/h/ln)
Source: VicRoads (2013b).
5.1.3 Three-phase Model
Three traffic phases
Kerner and Rehborn (1996) first proposed the classification of motorway traffic flow into three phases based
on time series of flow, occupancy and average speed. Kerner (2004) later completed the three-phase traffic
theory based on earlier work. In the three-phase traffic theory, there are two traffic phases in congested
traffic, synchronised flow and wide moving jam, defined as follows:
• Synchronised flow is a congested traffic state and the downstream front of this flow is often fixed at a
motorway bottleneck. Within the downstream front of synchronised flow, vehicles accelerate from lower
speeds in synchronised flow to higher speeds in free-flow.
• Wide moving jam is a moving jam that maintains the mean velocity of the downstream jam front, even
when the jam propagates through any other traffic states or motorway bottlenecks.
The three traffic phases are therefore free-flow (F), synchronised flow (S) and wide moving jam (J).
Figure 5.6 illustrates the traffic phase definition of synchronised flow and wide moving jams (Kerner 2004).
The data in Figure 5.6 came from a section of Autobahn 5-South motorway near Frankfurt, Germany. There
are three bottlenecks labelled as B1, B2 and B3. Average 1 min speed data in space and time is shown in
(a). A two-dimensional graph of the same data with the free flow phase in white, the synchronised flow phase
in grey, and the wide moving jam phase in black is shown in (b).

Figure 5.6: Synchronised flow and wide moving jams in congested traffic
Source: Kerner (2004).
Three-phase traffic theory explains the complexity of traffic phenomena based on phase transitions among
these three traffic phases. For example, transitions can be spontaneous F→S, or induced F→S. In Kerner’s
three-phase theory, a transition from F→S is a flow breakdown (Kerner 2004; Kerner et al. 2005).
An induced F→S transition is caused by a short-term external disturbance in traffic flow. This traffic flow can
be related to the propagation of a moving spatio-temporal congested pattern that initially occurs at a different
motorway location. Figure 5.6 (a) shows an example of induced F→S transition – the wide moving jam
propagated through the bottleneck location B2 and induced synchronised flow at this bottleneck. Figure 5.7
shows an example of spontaneous F→S transition. This breakdown phenomenon or F→S transition is
caused by an internal local disturbance (e.g. an on-ramp bottleneck) in traffic flow. There are no external
disturbances in traffic flow responsible for this phase transition.
Figure 5.7: An example of spontaneous F→S transition
The F→S transition or breakdown phenomenon usually occurs at the same motorway bottleneck. These
bottlenecks are called effectual bottlenecks in Kerner’s model. Examples of effectual bottlenecks are shown
in Figure 5.7 and B1, B2 and B3 in Figure 5.6.

Based on different combinations of traffic phases, different congested patterns are formed. Kerner studied
traffic flow on the A5 motorway over several days and found that the spatio-temporal structure of congestion
patterns exhibits predictable features. These features can be used to forecast motorway congestion and
develop effective motorway control tools.
Lindgren (2005) also investigated a 30 km section of the A5 motorway north of Frankfurt and found some
similar traffic patterns that match Kerner’s three traffic phases. In Lindgren’s A5 motorway study, traffic flows
were observed in which speeds across all lanes were notably lower than in free-flowing conditions, and they
were more consistent across all lanes. This phenomenon was observed in congested flows upstream of the
bottleneck following activation. This pattern matched Kerner’s synchronised flow phase. Lindgren also
revealed several occurrences of congested patterns in which a relatively short duration traffic disturbance
travelled several kilometres upstream. This pattern matched Kerner’s wide moving jam. Lindgren’s study
represented some of the first apparent independent validation of Kerner’s traffic phase findings (Lindgren
2005; Lindgren et al. 2006).
Empirical probabilistic nature of traffic breakdown
Kerner (2004, 2007) found that traffic breakdown exhibits a probabilistic nature. At a given flow rate, traffic
breakdown at a motorway bottleneck may occur but it does not necessarily occur.
The probability of an F→S transition, i.e. a traffic breakdown, PFS(B), at a bottleneck, is an increasing function
of the flow downstream of the bottleneck, qsum, as shown in Figure 5.8. qsum is the sum of the flow on the on-
ramp, qon, and mainline upstream flow, qin (Figure 5.9). There is a threshold flow rate, qth(B), and a critical flow
rate, qmax(B). Regardless of free-flow control application, there is a range when qth(B) ≤ qsum ≤ qmax(B) within
which traffic flow breakdowns can occur with probability PFS(B) > 0.
Figure 5.8: Probability of traffic breakdown
Figure 5.9: Traffic flow downstream of a bottleneck (qsum)
qon
qin qsum = qin+qon

A flow breakdown, if due to a speed disturbance in free-flow in the neighbourhood of a bottleneck, occurs
only when the speed decreases below a critical speed. The critical speed depends on the qsum. The smaller
the qsum, the lower the critical speed required for breakdown. The probability of traffic breakdown, PFS(B), is
the probability of random critical speed disturbances appearing at the bottleneck. Disturbances with small
amplitudes in free-flow at the bottleneck do not lead to breakdown. However, if a random short-term speed
disturbance in free-flow at the bottleneck exceeds some critical values, traffic breakdown occurs.
Lindgren (2005) investigated the same section of A5 motorway traffic flows as Kerner and reviewed Kerner’s
work on three-phase models. Lindgren found that Kerner’s time series plots cannot show excess
accumulation (queuing) between measurement locations resulting from bottleneck activation. Lindgren
applied a cumulative count curves technique that was used to complement the three-phase models to
observe transitions between free-flows to queued conditions and identify time-dependent traffic features of
bottlenecks. Figure 5.10 shows the bottlenecks in time and space identified by Lindgren.
Lindgren (2005) investigated 81 bottleneck activations and deactivations, where queued traffic prevailed
upstream of each bottleneck and unqueued traffic was present downstream. Although Kerner suggested that
traffic congestion can form and traffic can self-organise without a physical bottleneck, all 81 bottlenecks
diagnosed in Lindgren’s study were activated at a predictable location (e.g. merge, diverge, vertical curves)
and appeared to be linked to particular triggers rather than having occurred spontaneously.
Figure 5.10: A5 speed contour diagram in Lindgren’s study – 1 min data
Source: Lindgren (2005).

5.1.4 Other Models of Flow Breakdowns
Stochastic concept of traffic capacity
Brilon, Geistefeldt and Regler (2005) studied 5 min data on motorways around the city of Cologne, Germany
and found that the concept of stochastic capacities seem to be more realistic and more useful than traditional
use of single value capacity. Lorenz and Elefteriadou (2001) and Brilon and Geistefeldt (2009) also proposed
that the capacity of a motorway facility is not so much deterministic but rather a random variable, and that
breakdown probability can be related to traffic flow, as shown in Figure 5.11. Their empirical analysis shows
that the distribution of motorway capacity fits very well into a Weibull distribution (Figure 5.11). The overload
probability (traffic breakdown) for a single bottleneck is equal to the capacity distribution function, as shown
in Figure 5.11. Examples of flow values and the likely flow breakdown probability at those flows are plotted
on the graph. This finding is consistent with Kerner’s analysis of the probabilistic nature of traffic breakdown
(Section 5.1.3).
While it is likely that the shape of the probability curve may change for different motorways and traffic flow
mix with heavy vehicles, the research can provide an indication of likely problems at different flow values. For
example, at a flow of approximately 2100 veh/h/lane, the curve indicates an 85% probability of flow
breakdown. Similar characteristics and probabilities have been demonstrated by Main Roads Western
Australia on the Mitchell Freeway in Perth (Main Roads Western Australia 2012).
The concept of randomness permits demonstration of the capacity-reducing effect of wet road surfaces
(–11%) and the capacity-increasing effect of traffic-adaptive variable speed limits.
Figure 5.11: Probability of flow breakdown
Source: Based on Brilon, Geistefeldt and Regler (2005).
The study by Brilon, Geistefeldt and Regler (2005) also showed that three traffic flow states exist in a
motorway: fluent traffic state, congested traffic state, and a transient state that occurs in each breakdown
and recovery of traffic flow. These three states seem to match Kerner’s three-phase theory but the definitions
of the phases are slightly different.
The stochastic concept of capacity reveals that the optimum degree of saturation for a German motorway is
around 90%. If the degree of saturation increases further, the risk of a breakdown becomes too high, so the
efficiency of motorway operation must be expected to be lower than a saturation of 90%.

Six traffic state model
Schonhof and Helbing (2007) investigated 1 min data for the same section of the A5 motorway as Kerner
and Lindgren. They interpreted traffic flow by six states: free traffic (FT), pinned localised cluster (PLC),
moving localised cluster (MLC), stop-and-go waves (SGW), oscillating congested traffic (OCT) and
homogeneous congested traffic (HCT). The most frequent states at the investigated motorway were the PLC
and OCT states. HCT occurs mainly after serious accidents with lane closures or during public holidays. An
adaptive smoothing method was used to identify the different traffic states. This method interpolates and
smooths traffic data from successive motorway sections, taking into account the propagation speeds of
perturbations in free and congested traffic.
Schonhof and Helbing (2007) found that the congested traffic states identified by this model were in good
agreement with predictions of some second-order macroscopic traffic models and some microscopic
car-following models.
Readers should refer to Austroads (2008), Austroads (2009d) and Han and Luk (2008) for further information
regarding these flow breakdown models and their applications in the identification and analysis of motorway
flow breakdowns.
5.2 Principles Underlying Smart Motorways
This section describes the general principles for management of motorways under congested flow
conditions.
5.2.1 Causes and Impacts of Flow Breakdowns
Traffic flow breakdown occurs within the section of a motorway where the flow first exceeds capacity and can
be caused by recurrent or non-recurrent factors.
Bottlenecks
• A bottleneck is a fixed location where the capacity is lower than the upstream capacity. Bottlenecks affect
traffic flow capacity and have the potential to cause recurrent flow breakdown, typically including:
• merging traffic from an entry ramp
• merging traffic at a lane drop, e.g. narrowing from four to three lanes
• high lane changing manoeuvres over a short distance – typically due to weaving prior to a high flow exit
or prior to an increase in the number of lanes, and at closely-spaced interchanges/ramps
• traffic queues at an exit ramp extending back to block the left lane of the motorway or causing traffic to
slow down prior to exiting
• mainline locations where geometric features cause vehicles to slow down, e.g. a steep upgrade, a tight
radius curve, auxiliary lanes, narrow lanes or width restriction (real or perceived), sight distance constraint
– or a combination of geometric features that together have a significant impact
• a lower speed limit – may be permanent (i.e. due to narrower lanes) or temporary (i.e. due to part-time
emergency lane running)
• speed differential between vehicles due to
– presence of trucks
– random actions such as sudden braking following a driver’s inattention
• short periods of very high density flow that are not sustainable. Examples of spikes in traffic flow are
illustrated in Figure 5.12.

Figure 5.12: Example of high volume and density spikes in the traffic flow
‘Critical’ bottlenecks are locations along a section of motorway where recurrent flow breakdown usually
occurs first, i.e. the location that first reaches capacity. These are typically at a lane drop or an entry ramp
merge with a combination of high mainline flow and high entry flow. As flow breakdown at a bottleneck
relates to an operational deficiency, recurring congestion is generally predictable and can be managed with
appropriate control of flow. In some instances, a solution may exist to correct a deficiency.
A ‘potential’ or ‘latent’ bottleneck becomes an ‘active’ bottleneck when flow breakdown occurs as a result of
the flow exceeding capacity, i.e. the congestion is not the result of a shock wave that arrives from a
downstream location.
It needs to be recognised that correction of a capacity deficiency at one location may move the point of
critical capacity upstream or downstream to the next point of limiting capacity. As each point of capacity
limitation is removed, the section of motorway should become more tolerant of flow variations up to the
capacity limit along its length.
Non-recurrent causes of flow breakdown

• Non-recurrent traffic flow breakdown can also occur at any location on a motorway due to:
• an accident, object or other incident on the carriageway
• roadworks, including maintenance works
• sun glare – may only be an issue for a limited number of days per year
• driver behaviour that slows down the traffic flow, such as
– ‘rubber necking’ to look at an incident
– police presence or enforcement activity.

Effects of flow breakdown
Motorway traffic flow breakdown usually creates significant reductions in throughput and vehicle speeds and
may result in substantial increases in travel time. During the period of flow breakdown, lane occupancy
(density) rises as a result of reduced headway on the motorway. The reduction in throughput, which may
average about 10–15%, represents underutilisation of a high-value facility and lost productivity. An example
from a Melbourne motorway is shown in Figure 5.13.
Figure 5.13: Typical flow breakdown impacts on traffic throughput and speed
Traffic throughput drops

Flow breakdown in AM peak
Lost productivity Average throughput drops from
6400 5,800 to 4,600 veh/h
(approx. 20% reduction)
5600 Speed
4800
Freeway traffic flow
4000 Traffic speed drops

( veh/h )
3200
Speed ( km/h )
2400
1600
Traffic speeds
Inefficient speed recover after
demand decreases
800
Volume
Time of day
After traffic flow breakdown occurs at a bottleneck, the congestion will result in slow speed travel at that
location and loss of throughput, i.e. capacity flow is only reached for a relatively short time. The symptoms
may be localised and remain at or near the bottleneck, or more usually, the congestion creates a moving
queue with a shock wave that travels upstream from the initial location of flow breakdown, to affect the
performance of an extended length of the motorway.
Figure 5.14 shows an example of motorway speed contour in the time and distance dimension. Flow
breakdown and the resulting shock wave propagation upstream (i.e. backward shock wave) are shown by
orange and red patches in the diagram. Typical characteristics within the shock wave area are as follows:
• The lane occupancy will be high.
• Flow rates will typically be 10% to 20% lower than the maximum flow at the downstream bottleneck prior
to breakdown.
• The speed will be low and variable as the shock wave moves upstream, i.e. stop-and-go waves are
formed within the congested area.

Figure 5.14: Flow breakdown at bottlenecks and shock wave propagation
Flow breakdown at critical freeway bottlenecks
Shock waves move upstream from each

bottleneck
Shock wave from downstream

bottleneck propagates through
upstream bottleneck
As the congestion moves in shock waves from the point of initial flow breakdown, i.e. a critical bottleneck, the
congestion at a particular upstream location may be the result of a bottleneck that is remote from the area
under investigation. When investigating the cause of congestion at a particular point or when trying to identify
the critical bottleneck along a length of motorway, it needs to be determined whether the data represents
congestion from flow breakdown at that point or whether the congestion results from a downstream
bottleneck, i.e. there is a need to differentiate between cause and symptom.
Data analysis related to the identification of a critical bottleneck location is shown in Figure 5.15. The
example indicates that the flow at the bottleneck reached capacity and flow breakdown followed when
demand exceeded capacity, while flows within the shock wave area were significantly lower than the
capacity such that throughput is not optimised.
Figure 5.15: Flow-occupancy graphs of flow breakdown and shock wave
Flow-occupancy graph at a critical bottleneck(1) Flow-occupancy graph within the shock wave area
upstream of a critical bottleneck(2)
1 Flow breakdown occurs at capacity (approx. 2200 veh/h).
2 Maximum flow rate (approx. 1800 veh/h) is lower than capacity.

Recovery from flow breakdown
Whilst the mechanism for flow breakdown follows the general pattern described in the fundamental diagrams
for uninterrupted flow (Austroads 2015d), the recovery from flow breakdown follows a different phenomenon,
generally known as the hysteresis of traffic flow. As observed by Brilon, Geistefeldt and Regler (2005), after
flow breakdown, all recoveries to fluent traffic passed through synchronised flow (the transient state) and
involved much lower traffic volumes than the preceding breakdown, as shown in the examples in
Figure 5.16.
Figure 5.16: Two typical patterns of traffic dynamics during breakdown and recovery
Source: Brilon, Geistefeldt and Regler (2005).
Traffic flow breakdown and recovery observed on Melbourne’s motorways exhibit similar characteristics. An
example that shows the path of flow breakdown and recovery is provided in the speed-flow graphs in
Figure 5.17. The lower flows on recovery illustrate that a motorway not only experiences lost productivity
during flow breakdown but also throughout the flow recovery period.
Figure 5.17: Example of flow breakdown and recovery
06:38 Vol:1793 Spd:66 Occ:26 08:58 Vol:1361 Spd:92 Occ:14

120 120
100 100
Flow
80 80
Breakdown
speed km/hr
speed km/hr
Flow
60 60
Recovery
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
vehicles per lane per hour vehicles per lane per hour
Flow breakdown Flow recovery

5.2.2 Motorway Operational Capacity
Capacity of segment
Capacity of a road segment, as determined for design purposes, is the maximum sustainable hourly rate at
which vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during
a given time period under the prevailing roadway, environmental, traffic and control conditions
(Transportation Research Board 2010).
For motorways, capacity could be expressed in passenger car equivalents (PCE) across all lanes. The
concept of PCE is related to traffic behaviour due to the vehicle mix (i.e. presence of heavy vehicles) in the
traffic flow. These factors include:
• physical space taken up by a large vehicle
• longer and more frequent gaps in front and behind heavy vehicles
• speed of vehicles in adjacent lanes and their spacing.
In motorway capacity analysis, heavy vehicles are converted into an equivalent number of passenger cars to
achieve a consistent measure of flow.
In measuring the capacity, it is generally the maximum sustained 15 min flow rate, expressed in passenger
cars per hour per lane (pc/h/ln), that can be accommodated by a uniform motorway segment under prevailing
traffic and roadway conditions in one direction of flow. The flow rate measured over a short period is
generally not sustained over a longer period. The ratio of maximum hourly volume to the maximum 15-
minute flow rate expanded to an hourly volume is the peak hour factor (PHF). The PHF is a measure of
traffic demand fluctuation within the peak hour and is typically up to 0.95 in high flow conditions.
Above three lanes, the capacity per lane drops with each additional lane added to a motorway. This
phenomenon may be because the number of lane-changing conflict points increases with each additional
lane. An additional factor may be that carriageways with four or more lanes have a greater mix of passive
and aggressive drivers in their middle lanes, resulting in greater uncertainty and friction within these lanes.
AGTM Part 3: Traffic Studies and Analysis (Austroads 2013a) provides further details on capacity of
uninterrupted flow facilities.
Operational capacity is the actual real-time capacity for a road segment, which can vary depending on
prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions. These variable conditions include the percentage of heavy
vehicles, driver population (passive or aggressive driving, familiar or unfamiliar with road), road geometry,
road surface, time-of-day, weather and light. (Theoretical capacity for a road segment is an average capacity
estimate over a period.)
Operational capacity, which can be either measured in total vehicles per hour or passenger car equivalents
per hour, is particularly relevant to the control of smart motorways. For example, ramp signals maintain
operational capacity while regulating inflow demand to prevent flow breakdown.
The German Manual for the Design of Road Equipment (Research Society for Road and Transportation
2015) estimates mainline capacities for motorways with speed limits of 100 and 80 km/h on grades up to 2%,
as shown in Table 5.2. The manual also provides guidance on capacities for motorways with grades over
2%, as shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.2: German design capacities for basic motorway segments in urban areas with a gradient ≤ 2%
Capacity (veh/h)
Speed limit
Number of lanes Heavy vehicle percentage
(km/h)
< 5% 10% 20% 30%
2 100/80/variable 4000 3900 3700 3500
3 100/80/variable 5800 5600 5300 5000
4 100/80/variable 8000 7800 7300 6800
2 + ELR 100/variable 5200 5000 4700 4400
3 + ELR 100/variable 7000 6800 6400 6000
Notes:
Values are applicable to roads with ≤ 2% gradient. Roads with increased gradient have lower capacities.
Capacities are valid for the analysis of one hour intervals.
In contrast to HCM 2010 (Transportation Research Board 2010), the German design capacities are given as volumes per
carriageway and not per lane. This is particularly due to the rather uneven lane flow distribution on German Autobahns,
where heavy vehicles are only allowed to travel on the rightmost lane and on the second lane in case of overtaking.
ELR stands for emergency running lane (also referred to as hard shoulder running).
According to German practice, when used for design purposes, capacity values are factored by 0.9.
Source: Adapted from Research Society for Road and Transportation (2015).
Table 5.3: German design capacities for basic motorway segments in urban areas with a gradient ≥ 3%
Capacity (veh/h)
Number of lanes Gradient Heavy vehicle percentage
< 5% 10% 20% 30%
3% 3800 3700 3500 3300
2 4% 3600 3500 3300 3100
5% 3300 3200 3000 2800
3% 5600 5400 5100 4800
3 4% 5300 5100 4800 4500
5% 4900 4700 4400 4100
3% 7600 7400 6900 6400
4 4% 7300 7100 6600 6100
5% 6700 6500 6000 5500
3% 5100 4900 4600 4300
2 + ELR 4% 4900 4700 4400 4100
5% 4600 4400 4100 3800
3% 6900 6700 6300 5900
3 + ELR 4% 6600 6400 6000 5600
5% 6200 6000 5600 5200
Notes:
Values are valid for a length of the upgrade not less than 500 m.
Capacities are valid for the analysis of one hour intervals.
In contrast to HCM 2010 (Transportation Research Board 2010), the German design capacities are given as volumes per
carriageway and not per lane. This is particularly due to the rather uneven lane flow distribution on German Autobahns,
where heavy vehicles are only allowed to travel on the rightmost lane and on the second lane in case of overtaking.
ELR stands for emergency running lane (also referred to as hard shoulder running).
According to German practice, when used for design purposes, capacity values are factored by 0.9.
Source: Adapted from Research Society for Road and Transportation (2015).

The UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency 2006) provides guidelines for the selection
of entry ramp layouts for motorways of varying mainline and merging flows. The guidelines include a chart for
the selection of an appropriate entry ramp layout. In regard to traffic flows (Chapter 3), it indicates:
For the purpose of designing grade-separated junctions and interchanges, the maximum
flow per lane for motorways must be taken as 1800 vehicles per hour (vph). These flows
do not represent the maximum hourly throughputs but flows greater than these will
usually be associated with decreasing levels of service and safety.
Capacity at motorway entry ramp merges
Contemporary traffic research has also provided insights in relation to the capacity of entry ramp merges.
Research on Japanese motorways by Shawky and Nakamura (2007) indicated that an increasing ratio of
entry ramp flow to outflow rates led to a higher breakdown probability, as shown in Figure 5.18. For example,
for a flow of 2000 veh/h/lane, flow breakdown probability increased from approximately 25% with a 10% ratio
of entry ramp flow to outflow, to a probability of 85% at a flow ratio of 30%.
Figure 5.18: Observed and estimated breakdown probability at the Shibakoen ramp in Tokyo
Source: Shawky and Nakamura (2007).
When studying traffic at a motorway merge and the roles of ramp metering, Cassidy and Rudjanakanoknad
(2002) found that as regulated entry ramp flows decrease through ramp metering, the capacity (throughput)
departing the merge increases, as shown in Figure 5.19.

Figure 5.19: Motorway entry ramp capacity with increasing ramp flows
Source: Based on Cassidy and Rudjanakanoknad (2002).
The ITE Freeway and Interchange Geometric Design Handbook (Leisch & Mason 2005) provides guidelines
for entry ramp capacity assessment. The merge capacity varies according to the upstream mainline flow and
the entry ramp merging flow. For example, the mainline capacity is in the order of 2000 veh/h/lane with no
entry ramp flow. The capacity reduces to approximately 1600 veh/h/lane with an entry ramp flow of 800
veh/h, i.e. approximately 20% capacity drop due to the merging traffic. The chart and summary of the entry
ramp layouts for the various flows are shown in Figure 5.20 and explanations are given in Table 5.4.
Figure 5.20: Entry ramp capacity assessment for single-lane merge ramps
Source: Based on Leisch and Mason (2005).

Table 5.4: Entry ramp capacity assessment for single-lane merge ramps
Procedure: (one-lane – taper or parallel) Procedure: (two-lane)

1. Enter VF and VR and intersect. 1. Assign 60% of VR to right lane (40% to left).
2. Over, Near or Below Capacity (N = 3 or N = 4)? 2. Auxiliary Lane added downstream.
3. If Near or Below – okay! 3. Enter graph with VF & 40% VR and intersect.
4. If Over: 4. Over, Near or Below Capacity (N = 3 or N = 4)?
(a) Consider single lane ramp add on motorway 5. If Near or Below – okay!
(capacity – 1900 v/h). 6. If Over:
(b) Consider two-lane entrance (see two-lane (a) Consider two-lane add ramp (capacity 3800 v/h).
procedure). (b) Consider ramp metering.
(c) Increase number of lanes on motorway.
(d) Add entrance lane as auxiliary lane.
(e) Consider two or more of above.
(f) Consider ramp metering.
Notes:
Five-lane motorway, subtract 22% from motorway volume approaching entrance and use N = 4.
Six-lane motorway, subtract 35% from motorway volume approaching entrance and use N = 4.
Source: Based on Leisch and Mason (2005).
5.2.3 Merge Capacity for a Smart Motorway with Ramp Signals
A smart (managed) motorway with coordinated ramp signals has the ability to maintain (near) optimal density
and capacity by managing the carriageway occupancy and minimising flow breakdown.
Unmanaged (unmetered) flow results in flow breakdown, reduced throughput, reduced speed, congestion
and lost productivity for the motorway. Managed (metered) flow results in optimum throughput and speed as
the system controls and minimises the potential for flow breakdown, and automates flow recovery when the
flow nears the point of breakdown (Figure 5.21).
Figure 5.21: Example of unmanaged and managed motorway flow
Unmanaged motorway Smart (managed) motorway

2500
2000
Flow (veh/h/lane)
1500
1000
Facilitated
Facilitated
recovery
recovery
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Occupancy (% )
Flow breakdown occurs Flow breakdown avoided

Note: Ramp signals with HERO control:
• reduced throughput • prevent flow breakdown
• reduced speed • maintain optimum throughput
• congestion
• maintain optimum speed
• lost productivity.
• facilitate flow recovery.

While higher values can be achieved in practice, a value in the order of 2000 veh/h/lane (2100 pc/h/ln) is
generally more sustainable over a range of conditions. These are generally reflective of average carriageway
lane capacity, since the capacity of individual lanes may vary.
High-speed and high-capacity flow can only be achieved and maintained over a prolonged period by
controlling density with coordinated ramp signals. Coordinated ramp metering will be more effective when the
motorway is rid of localised geometric bottlenecks or any other localised issues causing bottlenecks, such as
off-ramp overspill and short, narrow sections. Before implementing coordinated ramp metering or any other
treatments to address corridor-long issues, localised treatments should first be applied to address localised
congestion issues. Minor civil works or altering the signal phase timings at an exit ramp/arterial road
intersection to allocate more green time to the ramp may be the first treatments applied where queue spill-
back on the ramp reduces mainline capacity immediately upstream of the exit ramp.
Once localised bottlenecks have been addressed, typically, ramp merges are the critical capacity sections
along a motorway. Thus, to prevent flow breakdown along a motorway corridor, it is important to maintain
sufficient capacity through the ramp merges and other bottlenecks by regulating the inflows from all ramps
with coordinated ramp metering.
Motorway project planning and design should be based on operational capacity values rather than
theoretical values to gain an appropriate understanding of how the project will perform after construction and
to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided for the anticipated demands.
Typical operational capacity values that are applicable for urban motorways with high demand and up to
three lanes of traffic are:
• unmanaged motorways: 1800 pc/h/lane (typically 1700 veh/h/lane) which accepts a low risk of flow
breakdown
• smart (managed) motorways: 2100 pc/h/lane (typically 2000 veh/h/lane) with well-designed infrastructure
and a coordinated ramp metering system.
Note:
A smart (managed) motorway should have:
• adequate control of consecutive upstream inflows, including motorway-to-motorway entry ramps, to

enable bottleneck control (e.g. operational experience in Melbourne suggests that typically, control of
85–90% of upstream inflows or more are required)
Ramps should have adequate design relative to discharge capacity and desirable storage.
Consideration may also need to be given to controlling ramps beyond the project area within the
system’s area of influence to ensure that there is adequate control at bottleneck locations.
• proven on-road performance of the ramp signal system proposed for use as part of the project (i.e. the
system needs to demonstrate the capacity values that can be achieved in practice)
• documented road agency operational policies and practice that ensure ramp demand and
management are controlled to within the motorway’s capacity.
Motorway sections with operational policies/practice that allow for overriding motorway control by
allowing additional arterial flow onto the motorway above that which is required to achieve optimum
motorway flow, are considered to be ‘unmanaged’. The unmanaged design capacity values should be
used for an appropriate influence area upstream and downstream of the ramps where such a policy is
enacted (e.g. typically +/- 5 km or more).
Where the smart motorway conditions above are not achieved, then the capacity for an unmanaged
motorway should be used in analysis. If the conditions are not achieved for all sections along a route, then
only the parts that meet the condition can be considered as smart motorways – a project/route may
therefore include both managed and unmanaged motorway sections.

The maximum capacity values may need to be adjusted (downwards) for site-specific conditions that will
impact motorway capacity, including an increasing number of lanes, other road characteristics and vehicle
mix. Ramp merges are often the critical capacity sections that determine a motorway’s maximum operational
capacity; however, other factors as outlined in Section 5.2.1 should also be considered.
Further consideration of adjustment factors for motorway capacity values for use in smart motorway planning
and design is provided in Commentary 1.
[see Commentary 1]

6. Selection of Smart Motorway Elements
Knowing when to implement ITS interventions and the appropriate level of intervention is essential when
planning motorway management control strategies. Too little too late can lead to frequent flow breakdowns,
while too much too early can be an over-investment, incurring unnecessary costs to manage the current
traffic demands. It is generally considered most cost-effective to implement ITS interventions in stages.
Therefore, this section proposes warrants for when to deploy different smart motorway ITS elements.
Table 6.1 sets out typical warrants for consideration in the scope approval process for smart motorway ITS
on motorway projects. The warrants apply to both new and existing motorways. These scope considerations
are designed around achieving motorway operations that meet road user expectations and provide maximum
productivity from the asset.
The traffic flow thresholds defined in Table 6.1 provide an initial basis for warranting deployment of each
specified foundation infrastructure and element listed in the table. Project-specific analysis should take place
within an organisation’s normal project scoping and approval processes to determine actual intervention
levels.
It should be noted that Table 6.1 provides warrants only as an example and it is recommended that each
jurisdiction determines its own warrants. For example, it anticipates an operating regime where full
overlapping CCTV would be provided separately and before ramp signals are provided. Further detail on the
criteria for provision of each element is provided in subsequent sections of this Guide.
These warrants should be seen as justification for putting forward a business case for implementation. The
business case would consider a wider range of factors to determine project viability, such as economic
evaluation, readiness to construct, impacts on surrounding areas, interdependencies of other projects and
network changes.
Table 6.1: Typical warrants for smart motorway interventions
Smart motorway element/

Principal objective(s) Warrants
application
Geometric design suitable for Provision of ramp storage Urban motorways and motorways that are likely to be
ramp signals, all-lane running space for future ramp urban within 20 years or are likely to carry an average
(including stopping lanes as metering. weekday peak-direction traffic volume exceeding
running lanes), smart Provision of adequate mainline 1700 pc/h/lane within 20 years.
motorway operation. shoulder width for all-lane
running.
CCTV cameras. Incident management. At interchanges when the average weekday peak-
Monitoring performance. direction traffic volume exceeds 600 pc/h/lane.
Full coverage (i.e. 100%) including mainline and
interchanges when the average weekday
peak-direction traffic volume exceeds 1200 pc/h/lane.
Full overlapping coverage (i.e. 200%) may also be
required at critical/higher-risk areas based on
operational needs.
Entry ramps and main carriageway as required for
Vehicle detectors (motorway Incident management. At interchanges and at a maximum spacing of 2 km,
data stations) and incident Monitoring performance. when the average weekday peak-direction traffic
detection analysis. volume exceeds 600 pc/h/lane.
Preferably collect vehicle At interchanges and at a spacing of 500 m (and
classification data as well. consistent with future ramp signals) when the average
weekday peak-direction traffic volume exceeds
1200 pc/h/lane.
Entry ramps and main carriageway as required for


application
Conduits to enable provision Backbone infrastructure. Urban motorways and motorways that are likely to be
of optical fibre urban within 20 years or are likely to carry an average
communications and electricity weekday peak-direction traffic volume exceeding
supply. 1000 pc/h/lane within 20 years.
Mainline variable message Incident management. Provide on all smart motorways in advance of all key
signs (VMS). Traveller information. decision points that may comprise of
motorway-to-motorway interchanges and other
diversion points (exit ramps) with significant exit flows.
May not be required in advance of all interchanges –
interchanges should be prioritised based on the
strategic importance of the connecting route, as well
as the value of the interchange for traffic diversion
during incidents.
Arterial road VMS. Divert traffic from entering the Provide on arterial approach roads at motorway
motorway when traffic interchanges where there are significant traffic
conditions on the motorway volumes using the motorway entry ramp, for both
are congested. metered and unmetered ramps.
Provide at remote arterial intersections, based on
specific analysis to identify locations where advance
real-time information on motorway condition will
provide benefit to motorway operation and road user
route choice.
Coordinated ramp metering Capacity increase. Warrants apply to likely conditions within five years of
(including coordinated ramp Safety enhancement. opening or works completion. Coordinated ramp
signals and ancillary Equity of access. metering necessitates motorway data stations and
equipment). CCTV along the motorway.
Incident management.
All ramps for which the motorway meets one of the
following requirements:
• the forecast weekday peak-direction traffic volume
on the carriageway downstream of any of the entry
ramp exceeds 1700 pc/h/lane (for motorways with
up to three lanes and a default operating speed of
100 km/h)
• where the motorway regularly (once per week or
more) experiences flow breakdown.
Coordinated ramp metering requires as many
neighbouring upstream and downstream entry ramps
as necessary for effective control of traffic diversion
between ramps, ramp storage and ramp signals
capacity; typically, six consecutive ramp signals are
considered the minimum for carriageways of two or
three lanes, and eight ramp signals the minimum for
carriageways of four or more lanes.
Where warrants are not likely to be met within five
years but are expected to be met within 20 years,
foundations for coordinated ramp signals should be
laid.
Variable speed limits (VSL) – Safety enhancement. Subject to a separate business case identifying
side-mounted or integrated Incident management. enhanced safety from speed management, and when
within a lane use management integrated, additionally from lane use management.
system (LUMS).
LUMS for incident Incident management. Subject to a separate business case.
management. For incident management, based on need to divert
traffic from incident lane and improve access for
emergency vehicles. Implement if existing controls do
not enable this incident management.


application
Part-time emergency lane Capacity increase. Subject to a separate business case.
running (ELR) for extended Incident management. Implemented when peak traffic flows exceed the
lengths. managed capacity of the motorway.
May be warranted if more cost-effective and quicker
to construct than conventional road widening and can
be implemented within the existing motorway
boundaries.
Must include emergency stopping bays and LUMS
(including VSL) if used for extended lengths, as well
as enhanced incident detection and response (subject
to safety risk assessment).
Permanent all-lanes running Capacity increase. Subject to a separate business case.
(ALR) for extended lengths. Incident management. Implemented when peak traffic flows exceed the
managed capacity of the motorway for extended
periods of the day (beyond peaks).
Hard shoulder converted to a permanent running lane
but retain ability to close lanes for incident
management, emergency access and traffic
management.
May be warranted if more cost-effective and quicker
to construct than conventional road widening and can
be implemented within the existing motorway
boundaries.
Must include emergency stopping bays and LUMS
(including VSL) if used for extended lengths, as well
as enhanced incident detection and response (subject
to safety risk assessment).
Source: Based on Austroads (2014a).
When determining appropriate levels of intervention for a specific motorway, the following factors should be
taken into consideration:
• The traffic volumes and flows defined in the table are considered thresholds above which the specified
element is deemed warranted to provide adequate operational performance and safety benefits.
• Warrants based on traffic volume/flow thresholds are based on the maximum operational capacity values
discussed in Section 5.2.3, which are generally applicable to motorway sections with a default operating
speed of 100 km/h and up to three lanes of traffic. VicRoads ongoing research into motorway capacity
indicates that maximum capacity values used for design may vary depending on the number of lanes
(refer to Commentary 1). Lower warrants may be appropriate for motorways with four or more lanes as
these roads may experience decreased average lane capacities – this is particularly relevant for the
warrant relating to coordinated ramp metering.
• Levels of intervention are progressive on the basis of the levels of control and/or improved safety benefits
each element provides.
• In principle, ITS elements should only be implemented when they provide significantly more control or
safety benefits than those elements already deployed.
• Exceptions to the warranted deployment levels may arise due to economic or project-specific factors. In
some cases, it may be cost-effective to install a range of treatments at the same time.
• In all cases, the intended operational outcomes of the motorway should ultimately be determined from
network operating objectives and any committed project objectives. As such, implementation of certain
elements may be deemed warranted at thresholds below those specified in Table 6.1.
Further detail on the criteria for inclusion of smart motorway elements to project design is outlined in
subsequent sections.

7. Geometric Elements and Capacity Analysis
The approach to motorway design has evolved through development, delivery and operation of an increasing
number of smart motorway projects in Australia and New Zealand. This section describes the general
process and considerations for capacity analysis and the design of motorway geometric elements, and
identifies some areas of enhanced practice that should be considered alongside traditional design
approaches. This section builds on and incorporates content from the Smart Motorway Design Guide for
Capacity and Flow Analysis (Roads and Maritime Services 2015a).
7.1 Design Principles and Process
As described in Section 4.1, effective geometric design of a motorway is critical to enabling efficient
motorway traffic flow and minimising the occurrence of bottlenecks. Without good geometric design, the ITS
elements will be limited in their ability to optimise traffic flow.
The general process for analysis to inform motorway geometric design is as follows (Roads and Maritime
Services 2015a):
• Understand the current and future performance of the network, particularly characteristics of critical
bottlenecks and congested flows, and any safety issues.
• Determine the future (forecast year) peak period traffic volumes for the design of all components of the
project, including mainline, entry ramps, exit ramps and arterial interchanges
– For existing motorway upgrades – analyse existing operating conditions and adjust to account for
traffic growth (to forecast year) and suppressed (unmet) demand.
– For new motorways or major upgrades – use a modelling approach, i.e. develop base case model,
calibrate relative to existing volumes, then model future project options (considering future origin-
destination trips and assumed changes to the road network). Future project options may include
geometric and ITS elements.
• Check forecast volumes are realistic, comparing against existing peak hour travel patterns where
possible. Ensure that appropriate peak period/24-hour volumes to peak hour conversions 3 are undertaken
and check assigned speeds and flow/capacity ratios.
• Using the forecast volumes, undertake separate analyses for the layout and design of the mainline, ramp
layouts and interchange intersection layouts. Check the adequacy of the proposed roadway layout and
operational environment to ensure that appropriate traffic management treatments are provided to suit the
traffic needs.
• Use suitable methodologies, such as flow/capacity analysis and microsimulation, as appropriate, to
investigate the performance of different layout options.
• Confirm that the performance outcomes match the desired performance targets.
• Reconsider project options as required in order to finalise the design.
An appropriate design year needs to be selected. For discussion on considerations for selecting the
appropriate design year, refer to the Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD) Part 2: Design Considerations
(Austroads 2015b) — desirably 10 to 20 years are used for smart motorway projects. As discussed in
Section 4.4, the long-term needs should be considered for the ultimate design but in the short-term, staging
of works may be necessary.
3 Peak period volumes should be used for motorway design and layout. Twenty-four-hour volumes may be used for economic
appraisal (i.e. produced by a strategic transport model).

When upgrading an existing motorway, analysing existing conditions (including flow, speed and occupancy)
is important to understand the current traffic demands as well as performance issues at interchanges or
other bottlenecks on the motorway where recurrent congestion is occurring. This should inform the scope of
work to ensure that current and future problems are addressed.
Understanding existing and forecast volumes is also important to determine whether various smart motorway
control elements (e.g. coordinated ramp metering signals, LUMS including VSL) are warranted and should
be included in a project scope (refer to Section 6). As described in Section 5, due to the effects of flow
breakdown, existing hourly flows in the peak period may not represent capacity flows. Flow breakdown
results in flows much less than the operational capacity, even though capacity flow may occur for a short
time before flow breakdown.
Recurrent flow breakdown is also a sign of suppressed or unmet demand, which may need to be factored
into project design volumes for upgrade projects. Highway assignment traffic modelling can help provide an
improved indication of traffic demand if increased motorway capacity and performance is provided.
Various tools can be used to assist in the analysis of existing flows, including:
• flow and speed profiles along a route during peak periods (see example in Figure 7.1)
• ‘heat maps’ of speed/occupancy (see example in Figure 5.14)
• peak period fundamental diagrams to indicate flow/occupancy and speed/flow relationships (see
examples in Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.17)
• on-site observations and CCTV.
Statistical analysis and systematic methodologies (similar to those used in Germany and the Netherlands)
may be applied to examine the distribution of data over time, since traffic patterns and vehicle mix can vary
over time and impact on motorway capacity.
Figure 7.1: Example of flow and speed profiles
Source: Roads and Maritime Services investigation (M4, Site MS004005A 8 March 2010), cited in Roads and Maritime
Services (2015a).

7.2 Example Performance Targets
Example performance targets that may be used in capacity analysis and design for smart motorways are
provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Example performance targets for motorway analysis and design
Density(2)
Degree of saturation
Element Smart (managed) Unmanaged Queues/storage
(flow/capacity ratio)(1)
motorway motorway
• Maximum 21 • Maximum 18
100% maximum pc/km/lane pc/km/lane
Mainline N/A
95% desirable • Desirable 20 • Desirable 17
pc/km/lane pc/km/lane
95% maximum Arterial right/left-turn lane

storage (entry and exit
90% desirable ramps) = 95th percentile
Entry/exit ramp
(85% for roundabout or N/A N/A queues
intersections
unsignalised Refer to Section 11.5.3 for
intersection) entry ramp storage design
1 In calculating degree of saturation (flow/capacity ratio), the mainline capacity values should be based on guidance in
Section 5.2.3.
2 While the densities in the table are within the LOS D range for mainline performance, it should be noted that the
range of densities in LOS D (16 to 22 pc/km/lane) is too broad for detailed analysis and comparison of managed and
unmanaged motorway performance. LOS E represents unstable operation and should not be used for planning or
design. The density values in the table may be appropriate for use when modelling for forecast flows or undertaking
detailed analyses for performance.
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2015a).
7.3 Mainline
Motorway mainline geometric design, considering operating speed, sight distance, horizontal and vertical
geometry, and cross-section, is covered in AGRD Part 3: Geometric Design (Austroads 2010a) and AGTM
Part 5: Road Management (Austroads 2014c).
Design (forecast) traffic flows should be based on the highest one-hour volume during the design year and
should be reviewed to ensure that they are within the capacity of a smart motorway (i.e. flow/capacity ratio ≤
100%).
Capacity values for a basic segment of a smart (managed) and unmanaged motorway are provided in
Section 5.2.3; however, these values need to be adjusted for site-specific conditions which will impact
motorway capacity, including road characteristics, terrain conditions and traffic composition (vehicle mix).
A flow/capacity analysis should be performed with adjustment factors appropriate to the vehicle and mainline
characteristics to provide an understanding of performance along the route, in general alignment with the
procedures outlined in AGTM Part 3: Traffic Studies and Analysis (Austroads 2013a). Potential capacity drop
and bottleneck locations on motorways are highlighted in Section 5.2.1.
Examples of two analyses comparing flow and capacity for existing unmanaged operation and projected
managed operation along a motorway route are shown in Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3, respectively, with
consideration to both the AM and PM peak flows in both directions.
When comparing the flow to capacity ratios for each segment, it is important to identify in the design both
areas of deficiency (where more lanes are required) as well as areas where excessive capacity is provided
(where the number of lanes may be reduced). Generally, the locations with highest flow/capacity ratios are
the areas that become the critical bottlenecks (Main Roads Western Australia 2013b).

Further detail regarding capacity analysis for basic motorway segments, ramps/interchanges and weaving
sections is provided in AGTM Part 3 (Austroads 2013a). AGTM Part 3 highlights that the adjustment factors
in HCM (Transportation Research Board 2010) are based on US data and that judgement may need to be
exercised in their use for Australian conditions. Further research is required to confirm appropriate capacity
adjustment factors for unmanaged and smart (managed) motorways in Australia. In the interim, additional
information based on the latest jurisdictional research and current experience is provided in Commentary 1.
When aiming to balance the number of lanes relative to design flows, consideration should also be given to
the basic number of lanes (refer to AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013b)) to maintain lane continuity and minimise
frequent changes in cross-section. In this context, consideration of safer and more productive flow outcomes
may need to take priority over the basic number of lanes concept in some instances. Where changes to lane
configuration are needed for improved traffic flow outcomes (e.g. for an exclusive exit lane or a lane gain),
appropriate signing and pavement markings should be provided in the detailed design to manage driver
expectations and ensure safe and efficient operation.

Figure 7.2: Example of system flow and capacity analysis for an unmanaged motorway
Source: Roads and Maritime Services (2015a).
Figure 7.3: Example of system flow and capacity analysis for a smart (managed) motorway

7.4 Interchange Spacing
Interchanges along a motorway form the principal means of vehicles gaining access to, and egress from, the
motorway. The spacing, locations and layout of interchanges should be carefully planned and designed to
ensure motorways operate efficiently and safely within the arterial road network as a whole.
The location and spacing of motorway interchanges with arterial roads is determined by a number of factors,
including:
• arterial road network requirements for motorway accessibility, traffic distribution and route
interconnectivity
• accessibility, including the capacity of the crossing roads and their strategic connections
• proximity to motorway-to-motorway interchanges
• the physical suitability of the site, including horizontal and vertical alignment as well as the availability of
land.
Interchange spacing is defined as the distance between the centrelines of successive crossroads with
interchanges on the motorway. Background guidance on interchange spacing is provided in AGTM Part 6:
Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings (Austroads 2013b) and AGRD Part 4C: Interchanges (Austroads
2015c), which are generally based on the distances between arterial road interchanges.
Entry and exit ramps create turbulence in the traffic stream as vehicles change lanes, diverge and merge.
Where insufficient distance exists between ramps, turbulence is also created between the end of an entry
ramp merge taper and the start of the downstream exit ramp diverge taper as vehicles weave and change
lanes to position themselves for the desired movement.
When determining interchange spacing, due consideration should also be given to the design, operation,
safety and signing considerations of the ramps, as well as the capacity and operation of the weaving areas
between interchanges. The desirable minimum interchange spacing distance in the urban motorway context
is generally based on the total of:
• length of the entry ramp
– length from the arterial road to the ramp nose (including desirable vehicle storage at the ramp
metering signals)
– length of the merge taper entering the mainline
• distance required for lane changing and weaving
For single lane entries and exits (i.e. without excessive weaving movements), the desirable minimum
distance is four seconds of travel time between the end of the entry ramp merge taper and the start of the
exit ramp diverge taper (i.e. around 100 m for travel at 100 km/h).
• length of the exit ramp
– length of the diverge taper from the mainline
– length of the exit ramp from the ramp nose to the arterial road (includes deceleration distance and
vehicle storage area at the exit ramp intersection).
The form/layout of adjacent interchanges may also have a bearing on interchange designs and spacing. For
example, motorway alignment and location, or skew of the arterial road crossings, can reduce the ramp
spacing, as shown in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4: Example of motorway alignment and arterial road layout impacting ramp spacing
In restricted situations, if appropriate interchange spacing cannot be achieved for satisfactory operation of
adjacent ramps, one of the following solutions may need to be considered:
• Choose a form of interchange that increases separation (e.g. using a loop ramp rather than diamond
ramps (refer to Figure 7.5), subject to volume, capacity and space considerations.
• Provide a single interchange with a second diverge off the initial exit ramp, and/or combine two entry
ramps to enter the mainline as a single entry.
• Provide separate collector-distributor roads parallel to the mainline between two interchanges, which
provide one entry and one exit ramp in each direction to service two or more interchanges, as shown in
Figure 7.6.
• Provide braided ramps (grade separation), as shown in Figure 7.7.
Figure 7.5: Example of using a loop ramp to improve ramp spacing

Figure 7.6: Example of collector-distributor road
Figure 7.7: Example of braided ramps
The distance between interchanges may also need to consider the positioning and effectiveness of exit ramp
direction signing to avoid the potential for driver confusion when advance signs for one interchange have to
be placed close to, or within, a preceding interchange.

7.4.1 Major Single Entry Compared with Multiple Entrances
Interchange options relating to the use of a single major entry, collector-distributor road or braiding of ramps,
bring together vehicles from two or more ramps so that traffic enters or leaves the motorway at a single
location. This arrangement may provide flexibility in the ramp location and minimise weaving. However, a
single major entrance concentrates traffic and can have the following disadvantages:
• Lane continuity may not be maintained (i.e. the number of continuous through lanes along the motorway
to minimise unnecessary lane changing).
• Balancing traffic flow and capacity along the route can be more difficult (i.e. the motorway is unable to
‘unload’ the left lane of the mainline at an exit before accepting entering traffic at the downstream entry
ramp).
• More weaving and lane changing movements generally occur downstream of a major entry or before a
major exit.
• It can be more difficult to provide ramp storage capacity for ramp metering of higher volumes (number of
lanes and storage length).
7.5 Entry Ramps
Detailed guidance on entry ramp design and operation is covered in AGRD Part 4C (Austroads 2015c) and
AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013b).
General guidance relating to the choice of an entry ramp layout is provided in Table 7.2, based on AGTM
Part 6. The ramp volumes provided in the table represent the upper limit of what can be expected from the
road design configuration, based on the mainline having adequate capacity to accommodate the entry traffic
in the merge area and the downstream section of the motorway, irrespective of whether the mainline is
managed with coordinated ramp signals.
Table 7.2: Typical entry ramp capacities
Ramp description Entering traffic volume (pc/h)

Single lane loop ≤ 900
Single lane at entry ramp nose with merge ≤ 1200
Single lane at entry ramp nose with an added lane on the mainline ≤ 1800
Two lanes at entry ramp nose including an added lane on the mainline 1500 to 2700
Two exclusive entry lanes with two added lanes on the mainline 2700 to 4000(1)
1 This layout would typically apply to a motorway-to-motorway (or system) interchange. This maximum value may only
be achieved with a high-standard system interchange (refer to Austroads 2015c).
Source: Based on AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013b) and Roads and Maritime Services (2015d), cited in Roads and
Maritime Services (2015a).
The operational capacity values for entry ramp merges on smart (managed) and unmanaged motorways
provided in Section 5.2.3 should be used, with capacity adjustments as appropriate for site-specific
conditions (refer to Commentary 1). The capacity of an entry ramp merge on an unmanaged motorway is
lower than the mainline sections of the motorway, as it does not have the coordinated ramp metering signals
to minimise turbulence and regulate the flow of entering traffic. When design volumes indicate that the
mainline is over capacity for the proposed number of mainline lanes, consideration generally should be given
to either one of the following:
• providing a two-lane entrance with an added lane downstream on the mainline
• providing ramp signals along the route and analysing the merge using the capacity for a smart motorway.

The design of entry ramps should consider future ultimate needs for smart motorway operation to minimise
the need for costly upgrades at a later date, even if the warrants for coordinated ramp metering are not met
for the first stage of construction.
Matters associated with geometric entry ramp design in order to support ramp metering operations are
provided in Section 11.
7.6 Exit Ramps
Detailed guidance on exit ramp design and operation is provided in AGRD Part 4C (Austroads 2015c) and
AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013b).
The performance of exit ramps can impact on the safety and operational efficiency of the mainline. For
example, queue overspill onto the mainline can create a safety hazard to high-speed through traffic and
result in flow breakdown that may lead to significant congestion.
Exit ramp design should therefore consider the capacity required to minimise the likelihood of queue overspill
during day-to-day operations. Exit ramp capacity is impacted by the:
• number of lanes available on the motorway for exiting vehicles
• number of lanes at the ramp entrance
• number of lanes on the exit ramp for vehicle manoeuvring, lane changing and queuing at the arterial
intersection
• length of the exit ramp for deceleration and queuing.
Adequate capacity in each of these areas is required to minimise turbulence on the mainline before the exit
(e.g. due to lane changing) and to ensure exit ramp vehicles do not queue back onto the mainline from the
exit ramp or cause deceleration of vehicles on the mainline before the exit – for safety and efficiency
purposes.
The volume of traffic leaving the motorway generally determines the number of lanes required next to the exit
ramp nose. Table 7.3 can be used as a guide to the number of lanes required at the nose and whether an
auxiliary exclusive exit (left-turn) lane(s) should be provided. As turbulence in the diverge/influence area can
affect the mainline operation, traffic analysis may also be required to assess operation using the HCM
(Transportation Research Board 2010).
To enable the capacity of a two-lane exit to be developed, the additional left lane(s) for exiting traffic should
include a significant length of auxiliary exclusive lane to reduce turbulence and allow for lane changing into
the second exit lane. The length of the left exclusive lane(s) should be in the desirable range of 300 m to 800
m long (as indicated in AGRD Part 4C (Austroads 2015c)) plus taper, subject to the traffic volume and
position of any entry ramp merge taper from the preceding interchange.
Table 7.3: Typical exit ramp capacities
Ramp description Entering traffic volume (pc/h)

Single lane loop ≤ 900
Single lane at exit ramp nose ≤ 1500
Two lanes at exit ramp nose (includes exclusive left lane plus diverge from the
1500 to 2700
adjacent through lane for exiting traffic)
Two exclusive exit lanes 2700 to 4000(1)
1 This layout would typically apply to a motorway-to-motorway (or system) interchange. This maximum value may only
be achieved with a high-standard system interchange (refer to Austroads 2015c).
Source: Based on AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013b) with values based on operational experience and international design
guides, cited in Roads and Maritime Services (2015a).

The exit ramp length and capacity (number of lanes) may also need to consider the:
• length of right-turn and left-turn lanes for queued vehicles
• minimum length to achieve grading requirements and deceleration to negotiate a ramp curve and/or
distance to the back-of-queue
• ramp length to enable vehicles to change lanes within the ramp.
7.7 Arterial Intersections
Detailed guidance on arterial intersection design is provided in AGRD Parts 4 (Austroads 2009e), 4A
(Austroads 2010b), 4B (Austroads 2015i) and 4C (Austroads 2015c) and AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013b).
The capacity and operation of managing entry and exit flows at motorway/arterial road interchanges can
impact a motorway’s operation. Appropriate capacity analysis of design flows and proposed intersection
layouts and traffic signal phasing (if signalised) should be undertaken using analytical software packages.
The analysis should confirm there is adequate:

• capacity for traffic entering the motorway
• capacity for traffic leaving the motorway
• capacity for through movements to ensure vehicles using the motorway are not delayed excessively
• 95th percentile queue lengths, particularly for exit ramps and turning lanes.
Motorway operations (where coordinated ramp metering is in use) can be improved by arterial signal
operations working to minimise exit ramp queue overflow or excessive ramp demand by helping to divert
traffic away from the motorway as required. Integrated motorway-arterial road operations are particularly
important for intersections with insufficient capacity (refer to Section 14).
7.8 Mainline Priority Lanes
General guidance regarding the use of priority lanes on urban arterial roads, including motorways, is
provided in AGTM Part 5: Road Management (Austroads 2014c) and AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2010a).
Priority users may include trucks, high occupancy vehicles and public transport (buses).
The consideration of mainline priority lanes should be dependent on the most efficient overall way of moving
all road users on a particular motorway. As outlined in Section 3.2, the smart motorway operational
objectives include optimisation of safety, throughput, and travel speed and time. Tools such as VSL are used
to help minimise turbulence by reducing speed differentials and lane changing, thereby facilitating more
homogeneous (smoother) flows across all lanes.
The provision of a dedicated priority lane on the mainline may negatively impact on motorway productivity
and capacity. For example, due to turbulence/friction effects as a result of vehicles moving in and out of the
priority lane between interchanges; underutilisation of the priority lane relative to other traffic lanes; or if the
priority lane experiences degraded operation. A statistical study of California’s high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
system — comprising 40% of the USA’s managed lanes — indicated that HOV lanes suffer a 20% capacity
penalty (Kwon & Varaiya 2008, cited in Kurzhanskiy & Varaiya 2015).
Generally, it is preferred to optimise motorway productivity and mainline flow/speed for all road users, and to
implement priority measures at motorway access points only (i.e. at entry ramps – refer to Section 11.5.8).
The use of mainline priority lanes should be considered on a case-by-case basis if proposed to address
other objectives, such as a heavy vehicle safety issue, which may be site-specific. The project should
undertake appropriate assessments to determine the potential impacts on traffic flow and other operational
objectives in order to validate the optimal design.

7.9 Emergency Stopping Bays
Emergency stopping bays (ESBs), also referred to as emergency refuge areas, provide a space next to a
motorway for accommodating vehicles clear of trafficable lanes in the event of an emergency. When stopped
in the ESB, a driver may contact the designated responder by either roadside help phone, if provided, or by
using a personal mobile phone.
As per emergency stopping lanes (i.e. motorway shoulders), ESBs must only be used in an emergency or
breakdown situation. They may be provided on motorways with and without emergency stopping lanes (refer
to local jurisdictional practice) in order to improve road user safety during incidents or a breakdown, and for
use by on-road response and maintenance services. Road users may be encouraged to use ESBs over
emergency stopping lanes due to enhanced safety from increased separation and protection from traffic.
The provision of ESBs on a motorway section should be driven by a risk-assessment approach that
considers the:
• level of safety risk associated with stopping on the motorway at that location – considering the availability
of an emergency lane or mountable kerb, as well as other measures to improve the safety of stopped
vehicles (i.e. LUMS and VMS)
• users of the route – for example, allowance for heavy vehicles to use an ESB area; and their needs,
including their ability to be able to enter and exit the facility safely
• needs and requirements of incident responders, roadside assistance services, the police and other
stakeholders for using ESBs – including for enforcement/inspection purposes
• opportunities for co-location with maintenance bays for roadside ITS (e.g. LUMS gantries), particularly at
mid-block sections – where this may benefit maintenance access without negatively impacting safety, and
sufficient space is available.
For motorways without an emergency stopping lane for an extended length (i.e. over 1 km) on a full- or part-
time basis, ESBs should be provided at a typical spacing of 500 m, up to a maximum spacing of 1 km.
As a general rule, an ESB should:

• preferably not be located within close proximity (i.e. 500 m) to an entry or exit, in order to separate it from
merge and diverge manoeuvres and to avoid the refuge area being mistaken for an exit
• be appropriately located so that it satisfies minimum sight distance requirements
• provide a parallel storage area no less than four metres wide, measured from the edge of the ESB to the
edge line, and be of sufficient length to allow a maximum length vehicle (the permitted heavy vehicle) plus
a response or enforcement vehicle to store clear of the trafficable lane
For example, provide a 40 m long storage space for a B-double at 25 m plus an additional 15 m for
another vehicle.
• be designed to allow a vehicle to decelerate from the operating speed of the road within the length of the
ESB (i.e. use of the entry taper and storage area to decelerate)
For example, to decelerate from 80 km/h would require 70 m at maximum deceleration as per AGRD
Part 4A (Austroads 2010b).
• be designed to allow a vehicle to safely accelerate and re-join the traffic stream (travelling up to the
default speed limit)
To enable a vehicle to accelerate using exit tapers will require a long taper that may not be viable for
many emergency lane use applications.
For example, to allow a vehicle to accelerate to 60 km/h making provision for a 20 km/h speed differential
to the 80 km/h mainline speed will require a 125 m long taper (Austroads 2010b). Where a long taper
cannot be provided, reduced taper lengths may be used (Austroads 2009b) subject to safe assessment
outlining that it will suit the road environment where it is being applied, with consideration given to
– sight distance
– speed of vehicles on the mainline

– availability of adequate headways within the left-hand lane to enable a vehicle to safely accelerate to
the operating speed of the mainline
– ability to be able to close the left-hand lane and reduce the speed limit (through the use of LUMS –
refer to Section 12) to aid the exiting manoeuvre.
The ESB may include the following facilities to enable road user assistance:
• a help phone and associated signing (Section 9.4)
• location signing to enable road users to better identify and advise emergency vehicle operators of their
location
• vehicle detectors to automatically alert road operators of its usage (i.e. when a vehicle has entered/is
stopped) (Section 9.1)
• CCTV providing unobstructed coverage of the entire ESB area (Section 9.2).
7.10 Other Roadside Items
Additional guidance on other aspects of the road environment is provided in AGRD Part 6B: Roadside
Environment (Austroads 2015e). There are generally no additional requirements for smart motorways above
standard motorways in relation to lighting and static direction signs. Considerations of electronic sign co-
location with static direction signs is covered in Section 10.4.5, and help phone provision on smart
motorways is discussed in Section 9.4.

8. Foundation Infrastructure
Foundation infrastructure includes the power and communications systems that enable operation of roadside
ITS to better manage traffic. The provision of conduits for communications and power are long-term
investments, where the cost of retrofitting is much higher than provision during initial construction or major
reconstruction (VicRoads 2014). Given the increasing density of ITS assets on motorways and across the
arterial road network, a network-based approach to communications and power infrastructure design is
required. Refer to relevant Australian Standards, including AS/NZS 3000, as well as jurisdictional guidelines
for further guidance on the detailed design of ITS communications and power networks.
8.1 Communications Infrastructure
The ITS communications system provides secure network connectivity from the central ITS control system
and servers in the TMC to the ITS field devices, such as ramp signals, LUMS signs, VMS, CCTV and vehicle
detectors. This enables the transfer of data required to monitor and control the field devices remotely.
The criticality of the communications system is driven by the requirements of the most critical system
supported by the communications solution. For real-time traffic management with safety critical systems, this
typically means that the ITS communications system needs to be engineered for high availability, high fault
tolerance and prevention of single points of failure (i.e. resilient network architecture).
For example, in Victoria, the required contractual availability (service level agreement) of the central
communications network, which is classified as critical, is 99.94% — equivalent to 4.4 hours per year outage
— with one hour initial response for diagnosis and remote reset, and then two hours rectification time
(VicRoads 2015a). In NSW, the availability for the overall system is 99.995% per month, with
communications equipment required to have a minimum mean time between failures of 45 000 hours in
operation (Roads and Maritime Services 2014).
To achieve this level of availability, as well as provide adequate connections for a large number of critical
smart motorway assets, smart motorways typically require installation of a high-quality, high-capacity optical
fibre backbone along the length of the motorway corridor. The warrants for provision of an optical fibre
backbone are provided in Section 6.
The optical fibre cable connects the TMC and road agency core network to the roadside ITS
cabinets/controllers, which then provide local connections to individual ITS devices on the road. The
communications topologies will vary depending on the complexity of the site; a highly complex corridor with
full redundancy through cables and nodes is illustrated in Figure 8.1.
Site access and distribution nodes may be required to serve multiple connections of devices. The placement
of these nodes should be optimised against the location of ITS devices and existing infrastructure.
A motorway optical fibre backbone is typically a cable composed of 96, or more, single mode optical fibres.
In some cases, the backbone may comprise of two separate cables (each containing 48 or more optical
fibres) to provide redundancy, as described further below. Additional (separated) fibres may be required to
support electronic tolling systems, private motorway operations and other third party needs. CCTV
communications may also need dedicated fibres separate from other services to prevent high bandwidth
video degrading the operation of other ITS services. Local (shorter) connections from the roadside ITS
cabinets to field devices may use alternative technologies such as metallic (i.e. copper) cabling or wireless
communications.

Figure 8.1: Example of a complex, critical (redundancy backbone) ITS corridor communications network
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2014).

For some field devices that are likely to be distanced from the cabinets, such as arterial road VMS and help
phones, wireless communications may be the preferred option.
The optical fibre backbone should have sufficient capacity to meet current and future requirements for
connections of ITS devices. For example, in some states, it is required that no more than 50% of the fibre is
used at commissioning to ensure scalability for future expansion.
If there is no redundancy in the communications network, then a single point of failure may result in the
whole system being rendered inoperable, i.e. the TMC are not able to monitor and operate the field devices.
Communications redundancy can be achieved by providing multiple network routes, i.e. all major
nodes/cabins are connected to at least two optical fibre cables (or two communications solutions, e.g. fibre
and wireless) and have automatic switching failover capability.
A high level of redundancy is achieved when two cables go through different conduits (i.e. physically/spatially
separated). However, if not feasible, then a lower level of redundancy is achieved if two cables share the
same conduit. Communications redundancy can also be achieved using wireless communications (e.g. 4G
LTE) or sharing sections of optical fibre network with third parties (e.g. public transport authority), where
approved by the road agency.
The cable is usually installed underground within enclosed (metallic) conduits/ducts, pits and chambers that
provide housing and mechanical protection. Generally, electrical and communications cables are kept
separate.
The layout of optical fibre cabling should:

• avoid unduly abrupt bends (increased tension on cable; fibre cables will include a minimum bend radius in
their specifications) and generally be laid in straight lines (reduce cost and less risk of damage by other
contactors)
• consider future roadworks (avoid rework)
• ensure separation from other underground plant
• avoid other building/gantry/pole/bridge foundations and contaminated areas
• note areas of earth (ground) potential rise
• provide safe/easy access for maintenance staff and vehicles.
Other important requirements of a communications network are:

• easy to upgrade and maintain
• secure in terms of unauthorised access to data and physical protection of hardware
• low latency to ensure timely exchange of data for real-time operations
• managed for network load and faults.
The development of the communications network should also consider future requirements for C-ITS, i.e.
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications, including by provisioning extra
dark fibres if necessary.
A network management system (NMS) may be used to supervise all components of the communications
system to automatically switch to backup communications when needed and report network faults.

8.2 Power Network
Smart motorway projects may require a new mains power supply, or otherwise require an existing power
supply to be removed, altered and/or relocated. Provision of a power supply includes electrical cables and
associated conduits/ducts, pits, chambers, equipment footings, site earthworks, earthing system, and
switchboards for field ITS cabinets/cabins. Existing infrastructure should be used where possible.
The power supply requires sufficient capacity for existing and future ITS assets that may be deployed on the
corridor. Backup power, such as through an uninterruptable power supply (UPS), is required for critical
assets such as ITS field cabinets/controllers and other devices (e.g. traffic signals, LUMS signs, detector
sites used for ramp metering). This establishes backup power to maintain equipment operation and
communication with the TMC in the event of a mains power failure, typically for one hour up to a day
depending on jurisdictional requirements. Some ITS devices (e.g. VSL, roadside help phones, vehicle
detectors) may not have a traditional backup UPS, but instead charge their batteries with solar panels as a
secondary power source (which may provide power for a longer time period than traditional UPS).
It should be possible to remotely reboot a field device (i.e. turn the power off and then back on) in order to
reset the device’s ‘computer’ if it has failed. This can often resolve the issue without requiring a field visit. In
some cases, power switches controlled through the ‘plain old telephone system’ (POTS) may be necessary
to provide the ability to reset more advanced communications terminal equipment.
8.3 Roadside ITS Cabinets
Roadside cabinets are used for housing ITS electrical, electronic and communication equipment typically
associated with smart motorways. There are different types of cabinets, such as ITS field cabinets which
house end device equipment and communications and power infrastructure (i.e. physical interface to the
fibre backbone). Network node cabinets are used to house communications equipment, such as switches, on
the access layer of the network.
The cabinet locations should be optimised to suit the power and communications layout and to minimise the
distance to connect to the ITS field devices. The location and cabinet design should ensure that
maintenance personnel can access the equipment and cabling installed in the cabinet without disassembling
the cabinet.

9. Network Intelligence
The key to effective management of a motorway is reliable and accurate traffic data at appropriate locations.
The vehicle detection sub-system needs to be dependable to obtain lane-level information, such as volume,
speed, occupancy and vehicle classification, for a range of uses (Section 9.1).
The rest of this section provides guidance on other network intelligence elements identified in Section 3.3.
Travel time calculations are discussed in the context of use for provision of real-time traveller information on
VMS in Section 10.3.4.
Sections 9.2 to 9.5 build on and incorporate content from the Smart Motorway Design Guide for Traffic
Monitoring and Surveillance (Roads and Maritime Services 2015b).
9.1 Vehicle Detection
Real-time applications
Real-time data of traffic conditions is essential for the effective dynamic management of motorway flow as it
enables:
• proactive management of the motorway to prevent flow breakdown
• reactive responses to incidents or other factors that may be beyond the control of the system or operator
• provision of traveller information, particularly for travel time and congestion.
For flow-optimising ramp control algorithms, the key traffic data required, preferably lane-by-lane, includes:
• occupancy (as a proxy for density) – the critical input for mainline control
• vehicle counts and speeds – secondary measures for ramp demand/queue estimation
• vehicle classification – desirable to support occupancy estimations.
This data is also required for VSL applications (i.e. for queue protection, congestion management and flow
control) and automatic incident detection. Speed can be used for calculation of travel times to disseminate
via real-time traveller information.
Control of motorway flow requires highly accurate and reliable data that considers requirements for control
during both free-flowing and congested periods (i.e. moving and stationary vehicles). For example, the
indicative accuracy requirements of traffic data collected on Melbourne’s smart motorways are shown in
Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Data accuracy requirements for VicRoads motorway vehicle detectors
Traffic data Accuracy required

± 2% over 24 hours
Vehicle volume counts
± 3% during peak periods
Speeds between 0 and 160 km/h ± 3%
Occupancy per traffic lane ± 5%
Vehicle lengths ± 5%
Degree of accuracy for all lanes (speed, volume, occupancy, length classification) ± 2%
Transmission of all traffic data to control systems ≤ 20 second intervals
Source: Based on VicRoads (2013b), cited in Austroads (2014a).

Detailed real-time traffic data is collected from numerous detectors situated in pairs in each traffic lane along
the mainline and entry and exit ramps of the motorway. At each detection location, data from the detectors is
sent to a motorway data station (MDS). The data from all these collection stations is then communicated to
the central traffic management centre (TMC) to enable real-time traffic condition monitoring and control.
Under the prevailing traffic volumes, speeds and densities indicated by the traffic data, control system
software can automatically provide dynamic, real-time control, immediately adjusting vehicle flows and
speeds along specified sections of the motorway in order to achieve optimum, sustainable mainline flows
and throughputs. Within the TMC, or via other system user interfaces, manual intervention of the control
system can fine-tune these traffic control operations.
Timeliness of data collection, processing and transmission are critical to enable changes in traffic conditions
and ramp attributes to be detected as close to the actual event as possible. Data quality management
processes should also be in place to assess data quality during real-time operations and to manage faults
and the impact on operations. For example, minor faults may result in reduced capability to optimise; major
faults may mean dynamic operation is not possible.
The more that is known about the traffic conditions on the motorway through the collection of real-time traffic
data, the more dynamic, proactive and responsive the smart motorway can become.
Historic applications
Analysis of historic traffic data can relate to:

• traffic performance over an extended period
• identification and evaluation of traffic problems
• targeting and developing improvements
• evaluation of benefits derived from recommended improvements
• preparing a business case to justify funding
• ongoing research and development work in improving the smart motorway interventions.
Evaluation of historic traffic data can provide an understanding of traffic flow efficiency and operational
problems. In project development, it can be used to highlight the effectiveness of existing on-road
management tools, justify further expansion of the smart motorway system, or justify the implementation of a
new smart motorway system.
9.1.1 Types of Data Collection
Two categories of equipment are used to collect motorway traffic data: intrusive (buried within the road), and
non-intrusive (not buried within the road).
Intrusive
Intrusive sensors such as inductive loop detectors (ILD) or wireless vehicle detectors (WVD) are installed at
regular intervals along a motorway (or access to the motorway in the case of motorway ramp signals) and
gather speed, occupancy and volume information in order to determine the traffic flow conditions.
WVD are an alternative technology to ILD. WVD studs are approximately 80 x 80 x 60 mm in size and are
easily installed in the pavement with a 100 mm hole cutting machine and then covered with epoxy, as shown
in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1: Wireless vehicle detector installation
Source: VicRoads (2013b), cited in Austroads (2014a).
Non-intrusive
Non-intrusive technologies such as video, infrared, radar and microwave are installed on poles and overhead
gantries or mounted on the side of the road. While non-intrusive technologies can detect traffic volumes,
speeds and occupancies, they are mostly used in support of intrusive technologies.
Overhead vehicle detection (OVD) usually consists of gantry-mounted detectors which utilise infrared, radar
or microwave to detect vehicles. OVD is most commonly deployed for vehicle classification and tolling, but is
also used to measure vehicle speeds.
Side-mounted detectors (SMD) are another non-intrusive detection technology. Mounted on the side of the
road, SMD transmit infrared light cones across the road to a receiver on the opposite side. The infrared light
cone is transmitted perpendicular to the traffic flow and is able to detect vehicle counts, speeds, occupancy,
and can classify vehicles by length.
An alternative detection technology, referred to as distributed acoustic sensing, has been developed based
on a system applied to the existing optical fibre backbone installed for ITS communications on motorways.
The detection is based on the acoustic signal along the sensing cable (Pinchen & Wu 2015). To date, the
system has been installed to provide data for performance reporting.
Other non-intrusive technologies include video-based incident detection equipment, which can also be used
to provide traffic data such as speed, count and classification data.
Choice of technology for traffic data collection
Whether intrusive or non-intrusive, the detection technology used should provide the required levels of
accuracy and reliability for the specific control algorithms. As non-intrusive sensors are mounted above or to
the side of the road, they are more prone to lane detection errors from signal interference than intrusive
detectors which are buried within the pavement in each lane. Thus, intrusive sensors are generally the
preferred option when a high level of accuracy in traffic data is required. For example, VicRoads chose WVD
studs embedded within each lane on the basis that they measure occupancy within the required level of
accuracy for the HERO LIVE control algorithms used for coordinated ramp metering on Melbourne’s smart
motorways.
Table 9.2 provides a summary of the traffic data collected by each type of intrusive and non-intrusive sensor
equipment. Note that this table is only an indication of the ability of the sensors to collect the specified data. It
does not indicate whether the degree of accuracy in the collection of this data is satisfactory for use in real-
time control algorithms such as those used for coordinated ramp signals (refer to Table 9.1 for VicRoads
data accuracy requirements for ramp metering).

Table 9.2: Traffic data collected by intrusive and non-intrusive vehicle detection equipment
Intrusive Non-intrusive(1)
Metrics Single Double Single Double
Video(2) OVD SMD
WVD WVD ILD ILD
Count       
Spot speed    
Occupancy       
Vehicle dimension (classification)     
1 Another technology referred to as distributed acoustic sensing has been implemented to date to provide data for
performance reporting but is still undergoing investigations to confirm its use for real-time operations.
2 Video-based equipment can also be used for visual monitoring purposes, as well as to estimate queue lengths or
detect incidents. Alternatively:
• queue lengths can also be determined by queue estimation algorithms applied to data from vehicle detectors
located at the ramp entry, mid-block and exit
• incident detection can be achieved through the application of algorithms to data from vehicle detectors.
Notes:
WVD = wireless vehicle detectors.
ILD = inductive loop detectors.
OVD = overhead vehicle detection.
SMD = side-mounted detection.
9.1.2 Criteria for Provision
The warrants for smart motorways network intelligence elements are provided in Section 6, including the
following requirements for vehicle detection equipment:
• When the average weekday peak-direction traffic volume exceeds 600 pc/h/lane, detection should be
provided at interchanges and at a maximum spacing of 2 km on the mainline. Even though smart
motorway control elements may not be warranted, traffic data is still important to inform operators about
prevailing traffic conditions to support delivery of real-time information, and to support network and project
planning for future upgrades once traffic volumes have increased.
• When the average weekday peak-direction traffic volume exceeds 1200 pc/h/lane, detection should be
provided at interchanges, and at a desirable spacing of 500 m on the mainline (and consistent with future
ramp signals). Detailed guidelines for optimal detector locations to meet requirements for real-time control
algorithms are provided in the following sub-sections.
9.1.3 Detector Placement
Detector placement is primarily determined by the varying requirements of the real-time (automatic)
algorithms for smart motorway control, information and intelligence functions. Additional needs for historical
data to inform network performance reporting and planning activities should also be considered.
Typical requirements for motorway data stations to support smart motorway operations are provided in
Table 9.3; however, detector placement may vary depending on the algorithms used and local jurisdictional
guidance should be followed. Different types of detectors may be required to feed into the motorway and
arterial traffic control systems. On motorways where control interventions are not implemented, the
appropriate placement of detectors can facilitate retrofitting at a later date.
Detector locations on entry ramps are primarily determined by coordinated ramp metering algorithm
requirements, including ramp metering control and queue length estimation while the ramp signals are in
operation (see example from Queensland in Figure 9.2 and Figure 9.3). If real-time travel times to motorway
destinations via the entry ramp are displayed on arterial road VMS, then the ramp metering algorithm will
also calculate vehicle queuing delay on the ramp (Section 10.3.4).

On the mainline, detector locations are first determined relative to interchanges and other localised
geometric bottlenecks, as required to support the control algorithms for coordinated ramp metering and VSL,
as well as for travel time calculations and incident detection and management.
The placement of mainline detectors needs to consider both merge breakdown and bottleneck breakdown
mechanisms. Conditions may include a combination of both. Merge breakdown occurs when the main source
of ‘friction’ is at or just downstream of the merge. Bottleneck breakdown occurs downstream of the ramp
where the mainline flow reaches the capacity of the mainline. A bottleneck is localised (often in advance of a
high-flow exit ramp) and may be caused by a number of conditions (e.g. upgrade, curve, or a narrowing of
lanes) (refer to Section 5.2).
To correctly identify where breakdown is occurring and why, and to understand the possible impact of this
knowledge on detector location, each ramp site should be subject to a site survey. Such a survey should
involve inspection of traffic behaviour at the site and approximately a kilometre upstream and several
kilometres downstream. It should be done at least for both AM and PM peak conditions and preferably at
other times of heavy traffic, especially weekends. Ideally, surveys should be done on different days of the
week. An examination of existing traffic flow data (speed, volume and occupancy, as available) along the
main carriageway should also be undertaken to identify the bottleneck locations where flow breakdown is
occurring. Forecast (modelled) traffic flows may also be used to indicate potential future bottleneck locations.
Mainline detectors should be located close to the location where flow starts to break down. The number of
sites and precise positioning in relation to the location of flow breakdown (upstream or downstream) may
vary depending on the metering system and algorithms used.
Additional mainline detectors are then required on mid-block sections to meet the minimum spacing
requirements outlined in Section 9.1.2. The 500 m spacing has proven to provide appropriate spatial
resolution for tracking of queues and congestion, as well as to enable control of unpredictable bottlenecks
that may occur anywhere on the motorway. They may also be used when the principle ramp metering
mainline detectors fail, and to support travel time calculation and incident detection.
Detector placement should avoid, where possible, high frequency lane-changing areas that may result in
data abnormalities, which will regularly impact on the performance of the algorithms.
Detectors should be installed on the mainline in pairs at each site to cover all trafficable lanes, including the
emergency stopping lane if open to traffic on a part or full-time basis.
For motorway-to-motorway ramps, similar requirements apply as for entry and exit ramps in Table 9.3, with
consideration to whether the entry ramps are metered. If neither motorway has ramp metering, then it is
desirable for there to be a motorway data station midway between the start and end of the ramp, or at either
end for longer ramps (i.e. over 300 m) for counting purposes.
Detectors on exit ramps are also important to support management of the arterial intersection.

Table 9.3: Detector locations for smart motorways
Use by real-time algorithms

Use for
Feature Location Primary function Placement/remarks Arterial Travel historic
Ramp Incident
intersection time VSL data
metering detection
control calc.
Metered Ramp Count the number of • Position to suit the layout of the ramp entrance –   
entry ramp entrance vehicles entering the capture all entering traffic.
ramp – queue length • For a ramp that is longer than the desirable storage
estimates/queue from the stop line, ramp entrance detectors may also
management for be placed at the maximum queue distance based on
coordinated ramp the maximum wait time threshold (Section 11) so they
metering. can also act as queue overflow detectors.
• Where storage on the ramp is less than desired storage
length (refer to Section 11.5.3), ramp entrance
detectors can also be used as queue overflow
detectors at the ramp entrance.
Downstream Count the number of • Also provide general traffic counting data for    
of stop line vehicles departing planning/evaluation purposes.
(upstream of the ramp – queue • Jurisdictional practice may vary on precise location. For
the nose prior estimates. most states they are located immediately downstream
to the merge) of the stop line and aligned with mainline detector
locations. In NSW, they are placed at the latest vehicle
counting position before the merge (i.e. next to the
ramp physical nose).
• Provide on priority access lanes on ramps (metered or
unmetered) where applicable.
Just upstream Detect the presence • This is used to actuate the green signal when ramp 
of the stop of a vehicle. signals are operating, but there is low ramp demand.
line Signals stay on red when no vehicle is present, to
prevent cycling through the phases when no vehicles
are arriving.
Mid-ramp Measure occupancy • Also assists with assessment of queue lengths.
to correct errors in • Used in advanced systems (e.g. systems which run
detecting vehicles Kalman filter algorithms). Detector placement will
entering and depend on algorithm requirements and ramp layout
departing the ramp. (e.g. single or multiple entry ramp).
• Not required on priority access lanes as these lanes
should not develop long queues.
• Jurisdictional practice may vary on the precise location.


Use for
Ramp Incident
metering detection
control calc.
Unmetered Arterial road Estimate arterial road • May be installed on arterial road approaches where the  
entry ramp approaches queue lengths ramp is very short relative to the desirable storage in
that provide entering the ramps order to detect potential queue overspill.
ramp queue (for ramps with • Locate at start of the right and/or left-turn lanes leading
storage inadequate storage). to the ramp.
• May inform coordinated ramp metering algorithm in a
similar way as ramp entrance detectors.
• May also facilitate arterial road traffic signal operations,
in order to reduce demand onto the ramp (Section 14).
Upstream of Count the number of • Partially smart motorways may include sections with     
the nose prior vehicles departing both metered and unmetered ramps (although
to the merge the ramp. undesirable).
• Ramp flows on unmetered ramps may still need to be
measured (depending on the coordinated ramp
metering algorithm).
• Consider coordinated ramp metering requirements in
case of retrofitting at a later date.
• In NSW, detectors are located next to the physical nose
of the ramp (last downstream vehicle counting position
before mainline and ramp traffic merges and ramp
traffic is largely in-lane).
Exit ramps On exit ramp Count the number of • May be used for ramp queue length estimates.    
(all) at/downstrea vehicles departing • May be used for ramp metering control.
m of physical the motorway.
• May be aligned with mainline detector locations.
ramp nose
Exit ramp Mid-ramp and Estimate exit ramp • Exit ramp queue overflow onto the mainline can create 
leading to a ramp queue lengths. a significant safety hazard and may result in flow
signalised entrance (as breakdown. Where overflow is occurring, additional
intersection required) detectors on the ramp can determine if the ramp is
filling and there is risk of queue overflow. This
information can be communicated to the arterial signal
controller to give more green time to the ramp
departure movements (Section 14).
• In NSW, detectors are preferably located a minimum of
150 m from the downstream end of the exit ramp.


Use for
Ramp Incident
metering detection
control calc.
Mainline At the end of Measure occupancy • For entry ramps with a single lane at the ramp nose –     
the entry as a proxy for density detectors are typically located 320 m to 340 m
ramp merge and speed (primary downstream of the ramp nose (i.e. end of the final
area mainline site for ramp merge taper).
metering and VSL • For entry ramps with two lanes at the nose, including
control). layouts with a metered priority access lane, the
detectors are provided at the end of the final merge
taper.
• In NSW, a detector site is required 20 m downstream of
the soft (painted) nose and at the end of the merge
taper. Additional detector sites may be required along
the ramp merge section at 150 to 200 m spacing if the
distance between the aforementioned detectors is longer
than 150 m.
• In an added lane situation, the detectors are generally
located at the same distance as for a merge
arrangement (i.e. 320 m to 340 m downstream of the
physical ramp nose) or as otherwise required for ramp
metering control. This provides appropriate spacing
from the previous upstream detector and accounts for
weaving of entering traffic and changing lanes into the
added lane to leave the motorway and the next
downstream exit.
Just upstream Various – measure • Generally aligned with ramp detectors located     
of entry ramp occupancy, speed downstream of the stop line on metered entry ramps if required
nose and flow. (i.e. common motorway detector station).
• Upstream detectors of the nose can also be used by the
coordinated ramp metering algorithms if the
downstream detectors at the merge are faulty.
• Jurisdictional practice may vary. In Queensland,
detectors are located 50 m to 350 m upstream of the
soft (painted nose). In NSW, detectors are typically
positioned 100 m to 300 m upstream of the soft
(painted) nose for metered ramps or at/up to 200 m
upstream of the physical nose for unmetered ramps. If
there is no merge, then they are located immediately
upstream of the soft nose.


Use for
Ramp Incident
metering detection
control calc.
Mainline Near start of Detect queue • Detector placement at the start of the exit ramp  
(continued) exit ramp overflow from exit deceleration lane and/or just upstream (i.e. at the start and
diverge taper ramp to mainline. of the weaving area) may be required to manage exit VMS
ramp queue overflow.
• Can be used to trigger more aggressive response from
traffic signals at arterial road intersection, as well as to
trigger queue protection measures on the mainline,
such as a speed reduction via LUMS or warning
message on VMS (Section 14).
• Mainline detectors further upstream may also be
recruited to estimate the queue length and determine
the appropriate upstream field response.
Just Various. • Generally aligned with exit ramp detectors for counting     
downstream purposes. if required
of exit ramp • In NSW, detectors may be placed up to 200 m
physical nose downstream of the physical nose.
Other Enable bottleneck • Other localised geometric bottlenecks may include     
geometric management/flow sections downstream of a lane drop, tight curves, steep
bottlenecks control by grades, end-of-motorway, other weave sections, tunnel
(upstream coordinated ramp entrances, carriageway narrowing (i.e. no emergency
and at metering and VSL lane, narrow lanes or at bridges), emergency stopping
bottleneck algorithms. bay, etc.
front) • Placement generally similar to that for entry ramp
bottleneck.
Additional Various. • As per spacing guidelines in Section 9.1.2.     
mid-block • To track moving queues and control bottlenecks that
detectors may occur anywhere along the carriageway, and to
provide travel time and incident detection functions.
Emergency Detect the presence • Triggers an automated alert to the TMC that there is a ESB use 
stopping bay of a vehicle. vehicle using the emergency stopping bay (ESB). May
be located at entry and/or parking areas.

Figure 9.2: Example detector layout for entry ramp with two lanes of metered traffic
Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015).
Figure 9.3: Example detector layout for entry ramp with two lanes of metered traffic and an unmetered priority
lane
Note: Mid-point ramp detectors are required for metered priority lanes.
Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015).

9.2 CCTV
9.2.1 Applications
Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras provide traffic operators with remote and continuous vision of
motorway and arterial interchange areas and are of fundamental importance for informed decision-making to
support traffic management and planning. They allow for visual monitoring of traffic conditions in real-time
and help operators with:
• detecting and/or verifying incidents, congestion and other hazards on the road
• determining an appropriate response for an incident
• monitoring on-site operations during incident management, roadworks and special events
• monitoring changing network conditions such as inclement weather.
CCTV provides support for other smart motorway applications, by enabling monitoring of traffic flows and
driver behaviour to verify operational issues and support fine-tuning of control algorithms. For example,
CCTV on metered entry ramps may be used as a supplementary visual monitor for queue length and to
check and calibrate the queue detection algorithm; and CCTV on the mainline can monitor lane use during
LUMS operation. Cameras may also be used to monitor electronic sign displays, as well as to verify the
presence of motorists in emergency stopping bays and/or using roadside help phones.
Real-time and historical images may also be used to support network operations planning and motorway
performance evaluation; for example, to help determine the cause of flow breakdown at a bottleneck that
produces recurrent congestion.
Images (live feeds) from TMC-operated CCTV cameras may be shared with external incident and
emergency management partners, enforcement agencies, public transport operators and major events
management teams. This may require an interface between the control system of the TMC and other
agencies. In some cases, the videos may be recorded and stored for a short time period, such as during
incidents or events for legal purposes.
Webcams
CCTV images may also be used to provide images for display on the road agency’s real-time traveller
information portal on the internet and/or for incorporation to third party traveller information applications and
other services. These services typically utilise a different camera system (referred to as ‘web cameras’) that
transmit static images of the live traffic to a server for upload to the agency’s website. Web cameras are not
covered in the scope of this Guide.
9.2.2 Types of CCTV Camera
CCTV are remotely controlled either manually or automatically. The standard cameras used for CCTV are
typically procured commercial off-the-shelf and may be controlled via an analog or digitally based video
control system.
There are two types of standard cameras: cameras with ‘pan, tilt and zoom’ (PTZ) functionality; and fixed
cameras. The selection of camera type is dependent on operational requirements and should be discussed
with the CCTV operators in relation to the specific location of the network being considered.
PTZ cameras
CCTV cameras with PTZ functionality allow a single camera to cover a wider area of the road network. PTZ
cameras are able to zoom into specific locations in any direction within the field of view of the camera. This
enables more detailed monitoring so that the operator can follow activity and better identify issues or
required actions.

The cameras may be linked to an automatic incident detection sub-system so that the camera can
automatically zoom to a location where the incident is detected. Similarly, cameras may be linked to help
phone control systems so that the camera zooms to the telephone location when a call is placed.
Fixed CCTV cameras
Fixed CCTV cameras point in a single direction (set during installation) and do not have the functionality to
zoom or change view. They are useful when it is important to maintain constant monitoring of an area or to
monitor a very specific area of interest, particularly where immediate incident response is critical, e.g. in
tunnels or on a motorway with no emergency stopping lane. Fixed CCTV cameras are also commonly used
in tunnels for automatic video-based incident detection (refer to Section 9.3).
In general, the level of CCTV coverage is dependent on the operational risks that may apply to a section of
motorway. Locations where there are a greater risk of incidents, increased incident severity, or other areas
that have a greater need for operator verification of events, will have an increased level of camera coverage.
The warrants for CCTV are summarised in Section 6, and further detail on motorway areas associated with
different levels of coverage is outlined in Table 9.4.
Table 9.4: Motorway areas associated with level of camera coverage
Warrant Level of coverage Locations

Average weekday Coverage of Motorway mainline including emergency stopping lanes at interchange
peak-direction intersections and areas only (Figure 9.4)
traffic volume > other strategic Entry and exit ramps and motorway-to-motorway ramps
600 pc/h/lane locations; Emergency stopping/maintenance bays
i.e. < 100%
coverage Help phones (and their users)
May also include arterial road approaches
Average weekday Full motorway Motorway mainline including emergency stopping lanes (Figure 9.5)
peak-direction coverage Entry and exit ramps and motorway-to-motorway ramps
traffic volume > (including Emergency stopping lanes
1200 pc/h/lane interchanges);
i.e. 100% coverage Emergency stopping/maintenance bays
Help phones (and their users)
Moveable medians and surrounding roadway
Under bridges or other structures
Arterial roads on approach to motorway interchange or intersecting
motorway ramps
Full overlapping At critical or higher-risk locations based on operational needs
coverage; i.e. (Figure 9.6)
200% coverage
with 100%
redundancy
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2015b).
CCTV coverage and placement should also consider any operational requirements for other smart motorway
elements, such as coordinated ramp metering, LUMS and VMS. Coverage of intersecting arterial roads
should enable monitoring of traffic queues at the signalised intersection and as otherwise required to support
motorway and arterial operations.

Figure 9.4: Concept of CCTV coverage of selected/strategic locations (< 100% coverage)
Note: For illustrative purposes showing mainline areas only.

Source: Roads and Maritime Services (2015b).
Figure 9.5: Concept of full CCTV coverage (100% coverage)
Figure 9.6: Concept of overlapping CCTV camera coverage (200% coverage with 100% redundancy)

At critical locations where CCTV coverage is provided, overlapping CCTV camera coverage (i.e. 200%
coverage with 100% redundancy) should also be considered. Overlapping coverage allows more than one
camera to view the same location (refer to Figure 9.6) and can enable 100% coverage when the cameras
are in their default position. This provides a number of benefits, including:
• minimising the need to change camera positions to observe network conditions
• viewing incidents from more than one direction
• permitting simultaneous functions such as viewing the scene of an incident and observing traffic further
upstream
• improved timeliness of incident detection and verification.
Full overlapping coverage also means there is redundancy in the case of a camera malfunction.
Overlapping CCTV camera coverage should be considered at critical or higher-risk locations where there
may be an operational need to see multiple locations simultaneously for effective decision-making and
incident management. Example locations include complex interchanges with multiple ramps/approaches,
motorway-to-motorway ramps, under bridges and at bottleneck locations. Overlapping coverage may also be
considered for motorway sections where there are additional safety considerations, such as sections with
ALR, part-time ELR or reversible lanes in operation, as well as for bridge and tunnel environments.
9.2.4 Viewing Requirements
To provide acceptable coverage at any location on the network, the equipment should provide a high quality
image that allows the operator to clearly discern items of interest, under all lighting (both day and night) and
environmental conditions. Viewing requirements may be defined in local jurisdictional guidelines.
Additional coverage and viewing requirements may apply when CCTV is used for automatic video incident
detection, enforcement or for other specific functions. For example, requirements to identify individual vehicle
registrations or the presence of a stopped vehicle.
9.2.5 Camera Placement
Camera placement should meet the coverage and viewing requirements outlined in Section 9.2.3 and
Section 9.2.4, respectively.
Camera locations should maximise coverage of the roadway and consider:

• horizontal and vertical alignment – position on the outside of curves/top of crests
• avoiding visibility problems with sightlines obscured by bridges/overpasses, roadside infrastructure (such
as static direction signs, VMS and LUMS gantries/signs), vegetation and other obstructions.
Subject to the above constraints and viewing requirements (Section 9.2.4), the spacing of CCTV cameras is
typically:
• 500 m spacing for complex areas/curved alignments
• 1 km spacing for straight alignments.
9.2.6 Mounting Structures and Camera Positioning
Camera mounting and positioning should take into account visibility requirements, environmental
considerations (e.g. impact of wind, rain, fog) and image stability. Cameras may be mounted on dedicated
poles or other existing facilities with sufficient rigidity (e.g. gantries, traffic or ramp signal masts, tunnels,
bridges, signs) as long as a multi-directional view can be obtained (for PTZ cameras only). Camera poles
need to be installed either outside of the clear zone or be shielded with a safety barrier.

CCTV cameras used to support the operation of coordinated ramp signals on motorway entry ramps can be
either mounted on poles near the ramp entrance to capture the downstream view of the ramp, including the
arterial road interface; or mounted on dedicated or extended poles from ramp signal mast arms or gantries to
capture the upstream view of the ramp.
Camera location, positioning and operation should minimise the risk of vandalism and consider any
requirements to restrict coverage of private property, in alignment with relevant state and national
government policy and codes of practice. The height of the camera poles at a particular site should consider
any local community concerns in relation to privacy and visual amenity. Camera positioning should also take
into consideration maintenance requirements; i.e. the ease and safety of maintenance personnel, including
parking requirements.
9.3 Incident Detection
9.3.1 Applications
Incident detection equipment is used to automatically detect the occurrence of incidents on the motorway
and provide an alert to TMC operators to a situation for verification. It may be critical for locations with a high
safety risk to improve incident detection and response times compared to manual detection.
The types of traffic incidents/events that should be detectable by automatic incident detection equipment
include:
• stopped vehicle
• wrong way vehicle (reverse direction of travel)
• speed change (under/over/sudden drop)
• queuing vehicles (due to an incident or congestion)
• pedestrian or animal on the road
• fallen objects or debris, etc.
Detection of non-traffic events (e.g. smoke and flame detection) may be required on some sections of the
network, such as tunnel environments.
Incident detection technologies may also be able to provide traffic data, including volume, speed, occupancy,
and classification data. The use of this data for other functions within the smart motorway system should be
based on operational requirements for data accuracy and availability in relation to those functions.
9.3.2 Incident Detection Technologies
Incident detection may utilise a number of different and complementary technologies running in roadside
equipment and in the motorway control system. Current local practice typically involves application of
algorithms to the following data sources:
• Traffic data – the algorithms use data from vehicle detectors (Section 9.1) to systematically detect traffic
incidents based on sudden changes in mean speeds, flows, occupancies and queue propagation. The
algorithms can use various types of detection devices (intrusive and non-intrusive). Incident detection
based on traffic data is commonly used in open air environments.
• Fixed CCTV camera images – image processing systems are applied to roadside CCTV images
(Section 9.2) to detect incidents or changes in the general traffic flow, including slow-moving traffic or
stationary objects. Video incident detection (VID) is commonly used in tunnels (e.g. as part of a smoke
detection system) and can also be used to identify vehicles travelling in the wrong direction.
Automatic incident detection is still an evolving area and other technologies are being developed and tested
worldwide, such as radar-based systems, traffic modelling approaches (utilising detector data), and systems
using the motorway optical fibre backbone (refer to Section 9.1.1).

Choice of technology for incident detection
The selection of incident detection technologies depends on whether it will be able to achieve the specified
performance requirements at a particular location. The reliability of the detection of incident events (i.e. false
alarm rate) and the timeliness of detection are important considerations. Additional research and
development is required for incorporation of incident detection technologies to smart motorway systems and
operation.
9.3.3 Criteria for Provision and Design Considerations
Roadside equipment to support incident detection may be installed when there is a critical need for timelier
incident detection. For example, in a high-risk area such as a tunnel or bridge environment, or on a
motorway route with no emergency lane for a continuous section on a part or full-time basis.
For motorway sections where incident detection is required, the field equipment should provide full (100%)
coverage of the motorway at all times (day and night), and have the capability to immediately and accurately
detect and report an incident at any location on the motorway within that section.
Full coverage of the motorway mainline includes emergency stopping lanes and emergency stopping bays.
Refer to Section 9.1 and Section 9.2 regarding vehicle detection and CCTV equipment that can be used to
support incident detection. Further research and development is required to confirm optimal design
guidelines for incident detection equipment as part of smart motorways operations.
9.4 Help Phones
9.4.1 Application
Help phones provide road users with a method of directly contacting motorway operators to facilitate
assistance or report incidents such as a crash or disabled vehicle. The aim of help phones is to assist in
decreasing the time taken to report incidents, thereby resulting in earlier identification of remedial action and
improved motorway safety, security and efficiency.
Help phones are now commonly located in emergency stopping bays in order to improve user safety by
accommodating vehicles clear of trafficable lanes in the event of an emergency or vehicle breakdown. The
telephones are typically purpose-built and free-standing, and provide two-way communications between
people at the roadside and motorway operators.
Practitioners should refer to local jurisdictional policy and guidelines regarding requirements for installation of
help phones on smart motorways.
Note:
Many jurisdictions across Australia and internationally are reviewing the provision of help phones in
motorway environments. Research and investigations have shown that there is declining use of help phones
as a result of increased mobile phone ownership; improved reliability of vehicles; and the availability of other
ITS and operational services on smart motorway sections that enable timely incident detection and response
(i.e. automatic incident detection equipment, CCTV cameras for incident verification and incident response
services comprising dedicated vehicles/staff resources).
If help phones are not provided, then other measures should be taken to ensure timely detection and
response to vehicles in need of assistance (i.e. as a result of an incident, breakdown, medical emergency or
other reason). There may also be need for increased static signing to ensure that road users are aware of
the number to call for assistance from the road agency, as well as their location on the network to ensure
timely response from the road agency and emergency services.

9.4.3 Help Phone Placement
The location and placement of help phones should consider the level of risk involved for a road user to
access and use the service along the route/at a particular location. It is generally desirable to locate help
phones in emergency stopping bays that provide increased separation from traffic (Section 7.7). Help
phones should not be installed in high-risk locations.
A help phone should be located within reasonable walking distance from any point on the motorway and
minimise exposure of pedestrians to traffic.
Help phones and stopping bays should first be placed to serve interchanges and then regularly located on
the sections of carriageway in between, in accordance with local jurisdictional guidelines.
Typically, a desirable spacing for urban motorways is 1 km, providing a maximum walking distance of 500 m,
which recognises that these locations are highly trafficked and have higher demand for help phone use as
well as greater consequences if a stationary vehicle is on the live carriageway in terms of both safety and
efficiency. In some jurisdictions, the desirable spacing is increased to 2–3 km, particularly where alternative
services are available for roadside assistance.
Pedestrian movement across motorways and high-speed roads is unacceptable from a safety point of view.
Therefore, help phones should generally be placed in pairs, directly opposite each other (i.e. no more than
10% of the nominal spacing between opposite telephones for each carriageway), as illustrated in Figure 9.7.
Figure 9.7: Concept of placement of help phones
Additional guidance in relation to help phone placement includes the following:

• Install telephones on the left-hand side of the carriageway for all motorways.
• Consider installation of additional telephones on the right (median) side of the carriageway if there are
three or more lanes, if required for safe road user access to a help phone and provided that a vehicle can
stand clear of traffic on the median side.
• Approaching drivers should have adequate sight distance to the sign marking the telephone location.
• Locations within interchanges should allow access by users of ramps as well as the main carriageway.
Phones should be located so that pedestrians are not required to cross an entry or exit ramp.
• There should be visibility of the site from a CCTV camera (Section 9.2).

9.4.4 Other Design Considerations
Other general principles for design and layout for help phones are provided in AGRD Part 6B: Roadside
Environment (Austroads 2015e), including consideration of:
• placement, covering protection of the phone user, avoiding conflict with other roadside infrastructure,
obscuration by vegetation, ground topography, CCTV coverage, etc.
• orientation so that the user faces oncoming traffic
• provision for all users, including those with a disability, and wheelchair access
• visibility/lighting and audio quality
• telephone mounting and enclosure, including site numbering
• static signs (e.g. indicator and distance signing).
9.5 Environmental Monitoring
The location of weather stations along or nearby motorways may vary depending on the weather conditions
frequently experienced in the local area.
For motorway sections that are subject to recurrent inclement weather conditions, more frequent equipment
for monitoring weather and road conditions may be required to input to VSL weather-based control
algorithms and real-time traveller information systems that can improve road safety during inclement
conditions.
Road sections such as bridges that are more vulnerable to inclement weather conditions (e.g. high winds or
river flooding) may particularly benefit from such systems.
Types of weather detectors may include:

• precipitation detectors/rain gauges
• smoke/fog detectors (i.e. measure visibility levels)
• water level/pavement moisture detectors
• pavement surface friction detectors (i.e. in relation to rain, snow and ice)
• wind speed detectors
• temperature detectors.
Advice from relevant technicians should be sought prior to installing detectors for weather and road
conditions in order to determine appropriate site selection based on the characteristics of weather events at
a specific location. The installation of weather detectors may be managed by an external agency.
For VSL weather-based algorithms (Section 12.1.2), weather detector placement should also consider an
appropriate zone of influence for LUMS signs. Each weather detector may be required to influence speeds
on a number of signs. The selection of signs within the zone of influence should consider the need to provide
advance warning to motorists prior to the affected motorway section. This is to allow adequate time for
motorists to respond to any speed reductions or other warning information before reaching the high-risk
area.
Environmental conditions such as air quality and noise may also be monitored for reporting and future
planning. VSL algorithms may also be used to manage traffic emissions and noise; this may require
additional detection systems to be installed.

9.6 Other Data Sources
Other roadside detection systems may be required to address specific performance issues and operational
objectives on a motorway section. This includes detection of a specific road user type. Examples are:
detection of over-speed heavy vehicles that are at risk of roll-over on curved entry ramps, and over-height
vehicles in advance of tunnels and low clearance structures that are at risk of collision. The detection system
may provide an alert to an operator and/or trigger an automated response, such as display of a warning
message on a VMS. An example detection technology for these applications is laser beam detectors.
Other data collection systems/services may also be used to collect information for travel time calculations
(see Section 10.3.4), such as Bluetooth devices, automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and probe
vehicle data.

10. Roadside Traveller Information
This section of the Guide (particularly Sections 10.3 to Section 10.5) incorporates some content from the
Managed Freeways Handbook for Lane Use Management, Variable Speed Limits and Traveller Information
(VicRoads 2013a).
10.1 Applications and Benefits
Roadside electronic signs that display electronically generated messages are an important element of a
smart motorway in order to give timely and relevant regulatory, warning and advisory as well as tactical
information to road users, both on approach to the motorway and when travelling on the mainline. This is
achieved through variable display of messages related to current and future road and traffic conditions,
including travel times, for downstream motorway sections.
Roadside electronic signs should form part of an overall traveller information strategy for the motorway and
arterial road network that also incorporates non-roadside traveller information sources, such as in-vehicle
and mobile applications (refer to Section 3.3.2).
10.1.1 Applications
There are two main types of permanent electronic roadside sign deployed to support smart motorway
operation: mainline VMS and arterial road VMS, as outlined below.
Mainline variable message signs
Mainline variable message signs (VMS) are multi-purpose, full matrix signs that can display a variety of
message types, including text and pictograms (Figure 10.1). VMS are installed on the motorway mainline in
advance of key decision points (i.e. major exits/interchanges).
Arterial road VMS
Arterial road VMS may be installed to provide advance motorway condition information, to enable improved
route choice prior to entering the motorway. This is particularly important when the motorway is congested or
affected by an incident, and there are alternative arterial routes with a shorter overall travel time to the same
destination.
Arterial road VMS are also multi-purpose, full matrix signs that can display text messages (Figure 10.1).
Figure 10.1: Examples of mainline VMS (left) and arterial road VMS (right) in Victoria
Source: Right-hand image of arterial road VMS sourced from Main Roads Western Australia (2013b).

Arterial road VMS are typically provided at two types of location on the arterial road network:
• Near motorway interchanges – in advance of left-turn and right-turn lanes onto a motorway entry ramp.
Signs at these locations provide warning to road users of motorway travel times and condition, so that
they can determine whether to enter the motorway at that particular location. Their variable messages
can also advise motorists in real-time of roadworks or an incident on the motorway or even a ramp
closure. This allows motorists time to divert their trip to an alternative route, which not only reduces
individual inconvenience to each traveller, but can also reduce congestion on the ramp and mainline and
facilitate faster recovery of flow on the motorway after an incident.
The motorway travel times displayed on arterial road VMS at interchanges include added delay time on
the motorway ramp.
These signs may also be referred to locally as real-time information signs (RTIS), RC3 signs, arterial road
travel time signs and arterial road VMS.
• At more remote locations from motorway interchanges – on approach to major arterial intersections
where an alternative route to the motorway can be chosen. Signs at these strategic locations allow road
users to determine the optimal route for their journey, based on prevailing motorway travel times and
condition. They are generally located at intersections where there is access to a parallel arterial route,
with similar significant end destinations to the motorway.
Signs at these locations are generally useful for city-bound travel in the morning peak period, but can also
be beneficial at other times when use of alternative routes may be desirable, such as during an incident.
Whilst arterial road VMS may be installed to assist in the operation of a smart motorway, they may also
display information that supports operation of the arterial road network. Real-time information on travel
conditions for arterial routes is becoming more feasible as better arterial road data becomes available.
Jurisdictional operational strategies will govern the priority of message displays on arterial road VMS.
Other applications
Permanent VMS may be used to address localised performance issues on a motorway or to deliver
messages to individual at-risk vehicles. For example, weather warning systems, heavy vehicle speed
warning on curved entry ramps, and over-height vehicle warning on approach to tunnels and other low
clearance structures (Section 15.1). They can also be used to support specific operational strategies, such
as dynamic use of the emergency lane for priority vehicles or to support part-time emergency lane
operations (Section 13).
Portable/temporary VMS are used for incident, roadworks and special event management.
The latter applications, which may require variations in sign design to the guidance provided in this section,
are not discussed in detail in this edition of the Guide, but should be designed in accordance with the
principles outlined in AGTM Part 10: Traffic Control and Communication Devices (Austroads 2016e).
Electronic ramp control signs (for ramp signal operations) are covered in Section 11.5.7.
Historically, purpose-built, dedicated travel time signs have also been used on motorways and arterial roads.
These signs comprise a standard retroreflective static sign with embedded electronic components that are
used to display motorway travel times and/or colour-coded motorway condition information. These signs
have been referred to as motorway condition information signs, trip information signs, drive time signs and
trip condition signs.
Purpose-built signs have also been used at remote arterial intersections to provide information on motorway
condition. For example, static intersection direction signs with an embedded electronic panel indicating the
level of congestion for the relevant segment of the motorway.
Dedicated travel time signs provide less operational flexibility than VMS as they are limited in the types of
information that can be displayed. The use of full matrix VMS on the motorway mainline and arterial roads to
support smart motorway operations is generally preferred.

Another VMS application is being considered by some agencies to assist in provision of tactical information
(i.e. safety-critical information typically with a Problem and/or Action statement as described in Table 10.3) to
support operation of LUMS. These signs, referred to in this Guide as ‘tactical VMS’, may be required for a
particular operational strategy being deployed (e.g. to enable part-time operation of the emergency stopping
lane) or to improve road safety as a result of a specific performance issue (e.g. to improve merging safety for
vehicles exiting from emergency stopping bays if determined to be higher risk, or to provide additional
information regarding the reasons for lane closures and speed reductions to help improve compliance).
‘Tactical VMS’ may display more frequent messages relevant to the downstream traffic situation, but may be
more limited in the messages they provide (i.e. incident, congestion and hazard warning messages only).
They may comprise smaller text-only signs that are collocated with LUMS gantries. WA has developed some
general guidelines for tactical message displays (Main Roads Western Australia 2015a).
Detailed design guidance for alternative roadside signing applications is not provided in this edition of the
Guide. Design of alternative roadside signing applications within a smart motorway should be informed by
operational requirements and align with the general principles for VMS message content and design outlined
in this Guide.
10.1.2 Benefits
The provision of real-time traveller information benefits both individual motorists as well as the efficiency and
safety of the overall road network, as outlined in Table 3.2.
Roadside VMS that can display travel times, motorway condition information and other messages are
important tools for motorway traffic management as they can be used to:
• help manage network demand and reduce congestion – by diverting traffic away from the motorway
during a major incident or heavy congestion
• improve safety and reduce the likelihood of crashes, particularly rear-end crashes – by providing road
users with advance warning and greater certainty about future travel conditions
• provide road users with travel time information as well as likely delays – so they can make more informed
travel decisions and minimise delay
Travel time and congestion information is considered important, even if it is recurrent congestion, as this
may differ from day-to-day and throughout different times of the day.
• provide road users with other information relevant to their current journey (e.g. the reason for a speed
reduction or lane/carriageway closure) – this can help to reduce driver frustration and may also
encourage greater compliance with regulatory signs and signals (and improved benefits realisation)
• provide road users with information relevant to future journeys – to help them with future travel choices
(e.g. in relation to planned events) and to encourage safer driving behaviour (e.g. general safety
campaign messages).
More detailed empirical evaluations of smart motorways, including real-time traveller information provision, is
provided in Appendix A.

10.2 Criteria for Provision
The warrants for provision of mainline and arterial road VMS are provided in Section 6. Additional detail is
provided below.
10.2.1 Mainline VMS
Mainline VMS should be located on all smart motorways prior to key decision/diversion points that may
comprise of:
• motorway-to-motorway interchanges
• other exit ramps with significant traffic volumes
• interchanges where the intersecting route
– is a high-capacity route with good network connectivity, that facilitates route choice for deviation of
traffic (e.g. during periods of high congestion or incidents)
– is of strategic importance (e.g. part of national network, primary/secondary freight route)
• provides access to a major activity centre or destination (e.g. a CBD or airport).
Not all interchanges may require a VMS immediately upstream, particularly on route sections with
closely-spaced interchanges. A mainline VMS may be able to serve more than one downstream exit (e.g. if
required to divert traffic at a particular exit due to a motorway closure).
The prioritisation and selection of interchanges for installation of a mainline VMS should consider the wider
network strategy for provision of traveller information, considering requirements for incident management,
traffic diversion and any other operational needs.
Following the placement of VMS relative to key decision points, additional VMS may need to be installed to
ensure continuity in the display of travel time information along a route as appropriate, or for other
operational purposes.
Immediately upstream of motorway-to-motorway interchanges and motorway forks (i.e. the motorway divides
into two downstream routes creating a route choice), it may be desirable to install two separate signs for
provision of travel time information to destinations on each motorway route. This would allow provision of
information to exiting motorists whilst avoiding the distraction of alternating frames on the same VMS. Due to
the sign size and amount of information displayed, it is preferred to longitudinally separate the signs rather
than collocate them (Section 10.4.5).
A different sign layout for the VMS for the off-route motorway condition information may be appropriate to
differentiate between the information for the continuing and intersecting motorway and to minimise confusion
for road users. The VMS for off-route information may also support ramp signal operation if provided at the
interchange (similar to electronic ramp control signs – refer to Section 11.5.7).
Alternatively, VMS upstream of a motorway fork or motorway termination may only display travel times to the
motorway interchange.
The relative placement of mainline and arterial road VMS is covered in Sections 10.4.5 and 10.5.4,
respectively.

10.2.2 Arterial Road VMS
Generally, arterial road VMS should be installed on arterial approach roads at motorway interchanges unless
the traffic volumes using the motorway entry ramp are insignificant.
The need for arterial road VMS at a motorway interchange should consider the strategic importance of the
entry ramp in relation to motorway management, particularly in relation to the operation of coordinated ramp
signals. Arterial road VMS may not be required where there are very low traffic movement turns onto the
motorway entry ramp or where the entry point is near the end of the motorway and there is minimum benefit
in providing real-time traveller information on motorway condition.
Immediately upstream of motorway-to-motorway interchanges and motorway forks, it may be desirable to

install two separate signs (at each signing location on arterial road approaches) for provision of travel time
information to destinations on each motorway route. This will allow provision of motorway condition
information for exiting motorists whilst avoiding the distraction of alternating frames on the same VMS.
Arterial road VMS should also be installed at remote arterial intersections where parallel or alternative routes
are available to the motorway (e.g. with similar significant end destinations). Specific analysis is required to
identify locations where advance real-time information on the motorway condition will effectively divert traffic
away from the motorway to alternative routes when desirable or necessary. This analysis should be part of a
network-wide strategy for provision of real-time traveller information, considering motorway and arterial road
needs.
10.3 VMS Messages
10.3.1 General Principles for VMS Message Displays
VMS message design should align with the signing principles provided in AGTM Part 10: Traffic Control and
Communication Devices (Austroads 2016e) and AGTM Part 9: Traffic Operations (Austroads 2016f).
The general principles in AS 1742.2 that apply to standard static signs also apply to provision of VMS. A sign
is required to be conspicuous, legible and comprehensible.
Note that VMS are not normally used to display regulatory signs. For a regulatory sign to be enforceable, the
depiction of the regulatory sign must closely resemble the static sign in the Road Rules, even though colours
may be reversed. Examples of regulatory signs that are currently displayed on VMS are ‘NO TRUCKS
RIGHT LANE’ or ‘TRANSIT T2 LANE’.
Comprehension and message load

• VMS messages should be easily read and comprehended within the relevant legibility distance and
reading times for the sign at normal operating speeds.
• Messages should be as unambiguous and as brief as possible (i.e. glance appreciative), and should not
adversely impact on the driving task or encourage unnecessary driver distraction (Main Roads Western
Australia 2015a).
– Generally, an eight-word message (about four to eight characters per word), excluding prepositions
such as ‘to’, for’ or ‘at’, is about the maximum that drivers travelling at high speeds can process.
– A maximum of four units of information in total should be displayed on a VMS, where one of the units
is minor and does not have to be remembered by the driver in order to take appropriate action.
– No single line should contain more than two units of information, and a unit of information should not
be split illogically into two lines, for example:
Incorrect use Correct use
Bike Charity Bike Charity Ride
Ride Ahead Ahead

• Words comprising more than eight characters should be avoided, except location names.
• Use the minimum number of words necessary, e.g. ’18 – 21 SEP’ (correct) instead of ’18 SEP – 21 SEP’
(incorrect).
• Messages should be written in a standard format and a directive tone that clearly states any action
required.
• Messages should be fully compatible with (but not duplicate) existing static signs to avoid motorist
confusion. For example, travel time destinations on VMS should be consistent with names on motorway
directional signage.
• Use of abbreviation should generally be limited to abbreviations that are highly recognised independent of
their context, and/or are adequately understood when used with ‘prompt’ words (e.g. ‘prep’ for prepare if it
precedes ‘to stop’). Other examples of acceptable abbreviations include units for distance and time, route
numbering and long destination/road names. Refer to AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e) for
recommended abbreviations.
• Messages should be nationally consistent to reduce driver confusion.
Appropriateness and credibility

• Each message displayed on a VMS should be appropriate to the location, time of day, road environment
and prevailing conditions. Message displays should be relevant to the travel of a significant proportion of
road users reading the sign.
• Unless the accuracy of incoming information can be verified, a more general message may be
appropriate.
• Messages that do not accord with the primary purpose of VMS (i.e. to provide information relevant to a
road users’ current journey) may reduce the effectiveness of the VMS and should not be overused.
• The highest priority message should always be displayed, which requires the ongoing monitoring of
motorway conditions. If a high priority message would be appropriate, it will bring VMS into disrepute if a
low priority message is displayed.
• Road agency VMS should not be used for advertising or other commercial use.
• There should be no inappropriate language or abbreviations that are likely to offend or confuse the public.
• Travel time information should only be provided if data is available and the estimated travel times are
accurate and current, if the system is to be credible to users.
Message frames
• The desirable number of frames per message is one, and the absolute maximum is two (based on design
legibility distances, which do not allow most drivers to read a three-frame message).
• Where a message is to be changed, a blank display of at least two seconds should be used between the
end of one message and the start of a different message.
• Messages should not roll across the screen, scroll down the screen or flash. Changes of display should
be made by completely blanking out the current screen and introducing the new screen as a complete
display. Transition effects should not be used.
• Where two message frames are to be used:
– a unit of information must not begin on one frame and finish on the next
– each frame should make sense on its own, regardless of what order the frames are read; and the total
message should always make sense regardless of what order the frames are read (i.e. minimise
ambiguity if only one frame is read or if frames are interpreted in incorrect sequences)
– the total amount of information displayed in two frames should be appropriate for design legibility
distance and should consider the potential for information overload in the context of sign placement
(e.g. location relative to decision-making points). Travel time messages are considered the most
complicated type of message, but can be simplified by reducing the number of destinations displayed.

Conspicuity
• Higher priority message types of a mandatory, safety or warning nature should be more conspicuous.
This can be achieved through
– use of upper case fonts only
– activation of conspicuity devices, located in the four corners of the sign. These should only be
activated if they impact the majority of motorists within their immediate vicinity or where they will not
cause unnecessary distraction to motorists.
Pictograms and text

• Pictograms in conjunction with text enable the VMS to display more information in the one frame and/or
reduce the amount of text required on the sign. For example, on one VMS frame, the pictogram can
display the cause while the text conveys the action.
• Fonts used on VMS should be similar to the fonts used on static signs as specified in AS 1744, and
should closely match the fonts for VMS specified in AS 4852.1, depending on the density of pixels.
• An appropriate letter case should be used for the type of message. For example, upper cases should be
used for higher priority message types of a warning nature.
• The VMS legend should generally be either white or yellow as they provide the greatest legibility against
the black background of the VMS sign. Use of white text helps to differentiate travel time information from
other warning messages that use yellow text, as per static signing standards. Other colours (i.e. green
and red) are also permitted for use to represent traffic conditions or to display a regulatory symbol.
Further details are provided in AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e).
10.3.2 Message Types and Priorities
There are a variety of different message types that may be displayed on a VMS as part of smart motorway
operations.
Typically, the default message type is estimated travel times to significant downstream destinations,
including colour-coded motorway condition information (Section 10.3.4).
Other message types (in order of priority) include:

1. current traffic incident or event (i.e. hazard warning)
2. community safety (i.e. emergency alerts)
3. planned (future) roadworks/events
4. campaign/promotion (i.e. relating to safety, congestion or accessibility).
Subsequent guidance in this section refers to the priority numbering listed above. However, if travel time
messages are not displayed as a default, then they would be the third priority (i.e. after community safety
and before planned works/events).
The primary purpose of VMS is to display real-time information relevant to a road user’s current journey.
Messages relating to safety or traffic flow at a particular location (priority 1 and 2 messages) take
precedence over those providing less critical information (priority 3 and 4 messages). Further detail on the
purpose and description of each message type is provided in Table 10.1.

Note:
Additional message types may also be considered in the future, such as public transport messages.
Provision of real-time public transport information on motorway VMS may be feasible where there is real-time
tracking of public transport in order to provide comparative travel times to similar destinations by motorway,
bus and/or trains, as well as public transport departure times. Data on parking availability at train station car
parks could also be used to provide information to motorway users. Public transport messages on VMS may
assist in encouraging modal shift or supporting traffic diversion during a major incident or congestion.
Consideration should be given to whether this information is provided on separate signs or message
priorities if displayed with other VMS message types. There may be technical challenges for providing travel
times if there are no directly comparable destinations.
Table 10.1: Description and examples of VMS message types
Priority Message type Purpose/description

Default Travel time and • Dynamic information on motorway travel times and condition (i.e. relative level of
motorway congestion). These messages will largely be automated in nature.
condition • These messages are the default message for VMS on the mainline and arterial roads.
When there is significant change to travel times compared to normal conditions (e.g.
as a result of incident or heavy congestion), the travel time information may alternate
with priority 1 incident/congestion messages.
• They may also be alternated with priority 3 messages for future events, although this
is less desirable and subject to legibility distance requirements being met for a two-
frame message (noting that traffic will likely be travelling at higher speeds if a priority 3
message is being displayed).
1 Current traffic • Incident messages provide information to road users about upcoming hazards and
incident or event unexpected conditions, including
(hazard - a traffic incident, e.g. a crash and resulting queues
warning)
- an unplanned event leading to objects on the road, e.g. breakdown, lost load,
debris, animals
- severe congestion, i.e. to warn road users of slow moving traffic
- an event that is in progress, e.g. roadworks or a special event that is in progress
- other road or traffic conditions, e.g. oil spill requiring immediate unplanned
maintenance, reduced visibility from smoke/fog, high winds, wet or icy road
conditions.
• Messages relating to changed speed limits or lane closures (implemented through
LUMS) as a result of the hazards listed above are also considered incident messages.
• Unplanned incidents/events take higher priority over planned works/events, since the
road user is less likely to expect them and the latter will likely have additional traffic
management in place to ensure safety.
• In some situations, priorities for different unplanned events may also exist and more
strategic messages (e.g. ‘Port Closed’) may be necessary. If there are multiple
incidents, the message displayed should be relevant to the incident with the greatest
impact on the greatest number of road users passing the sign.
• More general unplanned events such as major storms, fires and floods are considered
to be priority 2 community safety messages.
2 Community • These messages provide important information for road users about a significant
safety emergency or event such as a major storm, fire or flood affecting travel on that
(emergency roadway or requiring an area-wide evacuation response. They may also include other
alerts) safety-critical information, such as child abduction alerts.
• As these messages would displace travel time information, the impact of the event
should be of significant importance for road users passing/reading the sign.
• Messages to change road user behaviour or improve road safety as well as general
filler messages unrelated to road conditions, e.g. ‘Total Fire Ban Today’, are
considered to be priority 4 campaign/promotion messages.

Priority Message type Purpose/description

3 Planned (future) • Includes messages that provide advanced information about future roadworks, lane
works/events closures and community events that will have a significant impact on traffic conditions.
In some instances, the message could relate to a major intersecting road, where a
significant proportion of road users may be exiting.
• The consequence of the planned works/event should have a significant impact on
motorists passing/reading the sign. Messages should be displayed for an appropriate
period in advance of the event (i.e. one week). They should be displayed at a time
when the message will be viewed by the road users that will be most impacted by the
event (subject to other priority messages not being required), and for a
duration/frequency appropriate to the level of impact of the event.
• Generally, the message would only displace travel time messages if the traffic
conditions are ‘Light’, e.g. off-peak periods, and there is little variability in travel times.
Alternatively, they could be alternated with travel time messages.
• These messages may only relate to the impact of the event on traffic, e.g. a lane
closure, and not promote or raise general awareness of an event. Generic
descriptions rather than event branding should be used where possible (especially
when event companies have purchased naming rights).
• Where there are multiple planned works/event messages relevant to a sign, the
message displayed should be the one reflecting the greatest impact on the greatest
number of road users passing/reading that sign.
4 Campaign/ • Messages that promote road safety, congestion mitigation or accessibility as part of an
promotion (also approved campaign (e.g. in relation to speed, fatigue, drink driving, following distance,
referred to as vehicle maintenance and excessive lane changing). This may also include information
‘filler’ or about the use of toll roads (not for commercial use), as well as other general filler type
‘stand-by’ messages unrelated to road conditions, but which provide significant community
messages) benefit (e.g. fire bans and drought warnings).
• Such messages should avoid the potential to distract road users from their primary
driving tasks and should only be displayed when there is no requirement for a higher
priority message. These messages can only displace the default travel time message
when the traffic conditions are ‘Light’, e.g. off-peak periods, and there is little variability
in travel times.
• No commercial or advertising information, logos, or organisation names should be
used. The potential of VMS to reach a large audience of road users with these
campaign/promotion messages should be balanced against the need for road users to
be motivated to read the VMS by believing that the message will be relevant to their
current travel and therefore of direct benefit.
• Accordingly, there is a need to limit the use of the signs for promotional messages and
to only consider specifically designed messages that have limited durations of display.
It is recommended that filler messages are limited to a single frame.
Source: Based on Austroads (2016e), VicRoads (2013a) and Main Roads Western Australia (2015a).
10.3.3 Travel Time Message Format
The sign display includes:

• the destination (e.g. name or number of the intersecting route, or off-motorway destination)
• estimated travel time to each destination in minutes
• colour-coding of the travel time to indicate the motorway operating condition relative to nominal travel
time (Section 10.3.4).
Principles for selection of travel time destinations
Similar principles apply for selection of travel time destinations as those outlined for selection of interchanges
for installation of VMS (see Section 10.2), and the selection process should consider the broader traveller
information strategy for the motorway network.

It is not necessary or practicable to provide travel time destinations for all motorway exits. The selection of
key motorway interchange destinations (i.e. intersecting motorway and arterial routes) should focus on:
• significant destinations for high-volume movements, which benefit a large number of motorists
• high-capacity routes that facilitate satisfactory route choice for deviation of traffic (e.g. during periods of
high congestion or incidents)
• routes with good connectivity within the overall road network for dispersing traffic.
Other less significant interchanges may need to be used on the outer limits of the smart motorway if none of
the above are suitable or available. Destinations should generally only be displayed where accurate travel
time data is available for the entirety of the route leading to that destination.
Travel time destinations should generally comprise of arterial road interchanges on the route being travelled
or an intersecting motorway. In some cases, important off-motorway destinations may also be considered if
they are destinations for a significant number of travellers (e.g. the CBD or airport). The signing of off-
motorway destinations may be difficult due to the unavailability of data (e.g. queuing at the airport drop off
area) as well as issues with specifying the precise location to which the destination signing refers (e.g. to
which part of the city is the end point).
The displayed order of the destinations is based on how the sign will be read by road users, from the top
down. This reflects the destinations in the order they will be encountered when driving along the route. The
closest destination is considered the most important destination for most road users as it relates to the
immediate section of motorway ahead, as well as relevant information in the case where the sign is not fully
read. The subsequent destinations should be the next key destinations on the motorway.
If a key destination name is longer than the available space on the sign, it should be shortened to display an
abbreviated name. The abbreviation should be consistent from site-to-site and with static destination signing,
if relevant.
The first displayed destination is typically four to five minutes travel time (i.e. two interchanges or more)
downstream from the mainline VMS location or the interchange entry ramp being entered. This provides
reasonable accuracy and credibility of travel time within the data generally available, and increases the
potential for travel time variability.
Mainline VMS message structure
A mainline VMS should display a maximum of three destinations. The travel time values/units are desirably
placed on the right side of the VMS, with destinations names on the left. Whilst this has not always been
practiced in the past on mainline VMS, it is considered a more logical format so the reader can read, from left
to right, the destination first and then the relevant travel time. It is also consistent with the arterial road VMS
format.
Motorway condition information is communicated through colour-coding of the travel time values/units. This
is the level of congestion expressed as the quality of traffic flow compared with free-flow travel conditions
(where green is ‘Light’, yellow is ‘Medium’ and red is ‘Heavy’ or worse).
For displays relevant to destinations on the motorway on which the VMS is located, three key destinations
should be displayed (see Figure 10.2).
Figure 10.2: Example of travel time messages for destinations on the current motorway (M7)
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2015c).

Some mainline VMS displays may be used to provide travel times to destinations on intersecting motorways
that can be accessed from the current motorway (i.e. off-route information). These should typically only be
displayed on signs located just prior to a motorway-to-motorway interchange or fork. This display should
include the name of the intersecting or off-route motorway on the top line (e.g. ‘via X’) and then the two key
destinations below (Figure 10.3).
Figure 10.3: Example of travel time messages for destinations on an intersecting motorway (Roe Highway)
Source: Based on Main Roads Western Australia (2015a).
Arterial road VMS message structure
Arterial road VMS should display the name of the motorway on the top line along with the travel time unit
(‘Min’) on the right side. The subsequent two rows then display two key destinations; travel time values are
displayed on the right side and the destinations displayed on the left. The travel time values are colour-coded
to indicate motorway condition; and a text indicator of motorway condition, i.e. ‘Light’, ‘Medium’, ‘Heavy’,
‘Major Delays’, ‘Seek Alt Route’ or another descriptor such as ‘Incident’, may be included in the top row
(Figure 10.4).
Figure 10.4: Examples of arterial road VMS
M1 - Light Min M1 - Medium Min M1 - Heavy Min

Forsyth Rd 6 Toorak Rd 11 Toorak Rd 19
Duncans Rd 14 Warrigal Rd 20 Kings Way 25
M1 - Major Delays Min M1-Seek Alt Route Min
Toorak Rd 25 Toorak Rd 30
Kings Way 35 Kings Way 45
The two key destinations should be the first and second nearest key destinations (i.e. close rather than
distant destinations).
For some displays, it may be necessary to abbreviate the route/traffic condition spacing to provide space for
the ‘Min’ heading. It is generally undesirable to omit the ‘Min’ heading as it may cause confusion for some
motorists that are not familiar with the signs. For example, it could be mistaken for kilometres instead of
minutes.
Destination names on the same frame should be in the same direction on the same route.
Where two separate arterial road VMS are provided at each signing location for intersections immediately
upstream of motorway-to-motorway interchanges and motorway forks, travel time information can be
provided to destinations on each motorway route. The top line may be modified to provide additional
directional assistance (refer to Figure 10.5 and Figure 10.6).

Figure 10.5: Examples of arterial road VMS with directional assistance in the header when key destinations are
in two directions on the same motorway
M1 to City-Medium Min M1 to Geel - Light Min

Williamstown Rd 12 Forsyth Rd 15
Kings Way 19 Duncans Rd 24
Signs for southbound traffic entering Western Ring Road at interchanges upstream
of the M1 interchange
Figure 10.6: Examples of arterial road VMS with directional assistance in the header when key destinations are
not on the motorway being entered
via M80 - Medium Min via M420 - Heavy Min

Western Fwy 15 Pound Rd 15
Sunshine Av 21
Sign at Princes Freeway West / Sign for eastbound traffic entering
Kororoit Ck Rd for inbound traffic Monash Freeway at Stud Rd
travelling to Western Ring Road
10.3.4 Travel Time Message Calculations
The travel time information is a ‘snapshot’ of travel time along the motorway based on the mainline speed
data from each detector location. The use of travel time message displays and colour-coding motorway
condition information is based on research (Austroads 2008; Sinclair Knight Merz 2005) that demonstrates
this information is considered to be useful to both regular road users (travel time information) and ‘infrequent’
road users (colour-coded information).
As travel time is displayed in near-real-time, the instantaneous model method is used for estimation. Travel
times for route segments may be calculated in a number of ways, including:
• using mean/average speed data from vehicle detectors, and detector spacing to provide segment length
Generally, detector spacing and locations on smart motorways (Section 9.1) are appropriate for
estimation of travel times along consecutive motorway segments between the VMS and exit ramp
destinations.
• using derived travel times from devices such as e-tag readers (e.g. for tolling systems) or Bluetooth
readers, that use discrete read events within the traffic stream at defined locations to determine travel
times and speeds
• sites should be located as close as practical to the reference points (e.g. VMS and motorway exit) to
reduce the need for further calculation. Where further distance exists between data collection sites and
the reference points, calculations are based on conditions measured at adjacent sites.

Travel times for route segments are then amalgamated to calculate the following values between the sign
location and the signed destinations:
• Nominal travel time (NTT) in minutes along the motorway based on a speed of 100 km/h. This speed
value is not displayed but provides consistency in calculations across the motorway network irrespective
of the default speed limit, e.g. the ‘Light’ to ‘Medium’ colour change at 67 km/h is an appropriate indicator
of travel conditions in either an 80 km/h or 100 km/h speed limited section of motorway.
• Estimated travel time (ETT) in minutes along the motorway to exit destinations based on current traffic
conditions. For travel conditions corresponding to ‘Major Delays’ and ‘Seek Alt Route’, it is desirable for
the system to provide an option for the travel time to be flashed. If ramp metering is operating, the vehicle
queuing delay on the ramp prior to entering the motorway is calculated by the coordinated ramp metering
algorithm. This ramp delay value is added to the ETT for inclusion on arterial road VMS sign displays,
although the travel time does not include the travel time between the arterial road VMS location and the
ramp.
• The motorway condition (‘Light’, ‘Medium’, ‘Heavy’, ‘Major Delays’ or ‘Seek Alt Route’) based on the ETT
to NTT ratio for the first nominated travel time destination downstream of the ramp. The motorway
condition messages (configurable within the system) are shown in Table 10.2. The purpose of ‘Major
Delays’ and ‘Seek Alt Route’ messages is to divert traffic from the motorway during heavy congestion.
They are only used on arterial road VMS signs at motorway interchanges or remote locations.
• The colours (green, yellow or red) of the displayed motorway condition and travel time values that reflect
the mainline travel conditions for those destinations relative to travel conditions without delays (ETT/NTT
ratio).
Table 10.2: Thresholds for motorway condition messages
Traffic condition information ETT/NTT Ratio (relative Traffic speed range

Message format
(VMS message display) to travel at 100 km/h) (km/h)
Light Steady green message < 1.5 > 67
Medium Steady yellow message 1.5 to < 2.0 > 50 to 67
Heavy Steady red message 2.0 to < 2.5 > 40 to 50
Major Delays Flashing red message 2.5 to < 4.0 > 25 to 40
Seek Alt Route Flashing red message ≥ 4.0 ≤ 25
Source: Based on VicRoads (2013a).
The display of travel time information is governed by operating protocols reflecting traffic conditions (Roads
and Maritime Services 2010); for example:
• the maximum travel time indicating very heavy congestion on those routes is defined by a road-specific
mean/average travel speed
• a minimum travel time indicating free-flow conditions is defined by the legal speed limit(s) on those routes
• where variable speed limits are in operation, the minimum travel time that can be displayed must be
calculated using the prevailing speed limit(s).
Future methodologies
While the available travel time methodology (based on the instantaneous method) in current usage provides
very useful information to road users, it does not always provide a realistic indication of actual travel time,
particularly when traffic conditions are transitioning to either worsening or improving conditions. There is
opportunity for research to develop predictive algorithms that can provide improved accuracy.

10.3.5 Other Message Formats
As described in AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e), VMS messages, other than those used for travel
time/traffic condition information, should generally comprise of the types of statements outlined in Table 10.3.
Not all statement types are required for all messages; the minimum requirement is for a Problem and Action
statement, and other statements should be used as appropriate.
Recommended message statements and generic text messages for VMS are provided in
AGTM Part 10 (Appendices C and D, respectively). Recommended pictograms for use on smart motorway
VMS are provided in Table 10.4 based on current jurisdictional practice (note that any pictogram displayed
should be consistent with use across the jurisdiction, including other arterial roads). Other pictograms and
symbols may be developed, subject to sign comprehension testing (in accordance with AS 2342) and
ensuring consistency with any symbols specified in AS 1742 and the Australian Road Rules.
VicRoads has also developed a library of generic pictogram/text messages specifically for use on smart
motorways in relation to a variety of events (VicRoads 2013a, Appendix B), which have been adopted by
some other states.
Table 10.3: VMS statement types
Statement type Description

Problem Defines the situation or type of incident/event that will affect traffic operations, e.g. incident,
congestion, roadworks, high winds.
Location Describes the location of the incident, e.g. distance to incident, route numbers, exit
name/number, road infrastructure and landmarks. May also use a location modifier such as
near, ahead, at, next, left, right.
Effect Describes the state of the road or the effect the problem will have on traffic, e.g. left lane
closed, major delays, minor delays, delays expected, motorway closed. For future events,
may include information on the dates/duration of the event, etc.
Action Provides guidance and describes what the road user is required to do, e.g. reduce speed,
merge left, use next exit, prepare to stop, find alternative route, etc.
Attention (special case) Identifies specific road users to whom the message is directed if the message does not
apply to all traffic, e.g. buses, trucks, high vehicles and local traffic.
Source: Based on Main Roads Western Australia (2015a) and VicRoads (2013a).

Table 10.4: Examples of pictograms for smart motorways
Description Example symbol/s Description Example symbol/s

Emergency
Roadworks vehicle
Cycling event
Incident (crash)
Running event
Congestion
or
Preferred Alternative (see note 1) (see note 2)
General use
Breakdown
(see note 3)
Used in
conjunction with
Wind LUMS where
permissible
(see note 4)
Exit
Flooding
1 VicRoads and Main Roads Western Australia have outlined that their preference is to use the alternative pictogram
for congestion.
2 VicRoads and Main Roads Western Australia may use an alternative pictogram to this. As such, practitioners in these
jurisdictions should refer to jurisdictional guidelines.
3 To be used for general hazards where a more specific pictogram for the hazard is not available. When this is used,
the event type should be stipulated as the first line of the VMS.
4 Not all LUMS will permit the use of the 40 km/h ahead pictogram.
Source: Based on information provided by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Main Roads Western Australia
and VicRoads in 2016.
Mainline VMS message structure
Sign messages providing tactical information for incidents and events should generally follow the Problem,
Location, Effect and Action sequence, with a pictogram (left side) representing the Problem and other
statements, where relevant, arranged from top to bottom of the sign (right side) (Figure 10.7).
A pictogram and text message with three lines of text typically enables the display of four categories of
information. It is preferable for the pictogram to be placed on the left so that the Problem statement is read
first (moving left to right).
Figure 10.7: Example mainline VMS priority 1 message displays
Source: Left image – Main Roads Western Australia (2015a). Right image – VicRoads (2013a).

In some situations, there may be strategic reasons for signing the location first, e.g. prior to an exit for an
event or closure on another road. A strategic message should have the format: Location, Problem, Effect
then Action (guidance). Indicating the location first may be appropriate due to the non-immediate nature of
the problem and its applicability to a smaller number of road users.
The location information may not be needed if the message relates to the area at, or immediately beyond,
the sign.
Priority 2 community safety messages may not need to provide Location (distance) information. Priority 3
future works/events messages should incorporate time and date information (refer to AGTM Part 10,
Appendix C) (Austroads 2016e).
A different sequence may also be appropriate for priority 4 campaign/promotion messages, where a lasting
‘take-home’ message is intended and so the Action may appear first (e.g. ‘Buckle Up/ Seat Belts/Save
Lives’).
Quantified values should only be displayed on a VMS message where they can be accurately measured.
The use of ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ text in relation to the level of delay may be defined based on the motorway
condition information.
Message wording is generally best automated with generic/standard messages contained in the system,
which the operator can override or adjust as necessary to account for the specific details of an incident or
event (refer to Section 10.6.1).
Arterial road VMS message structure
Generally, arterial road VMS messages should follow similar principles to mainline VMS with regards to use
of words and message structure. Examples of messages used for incident/event and motorway closures are
provided in Figure 10.8.
Figure 10.8: Examples of incident/event message structures for arterial road VMS
M# - Event type Freeway Closed Freeway Closed

from Road Name Access M# at Event type
to Road Name Road Name Use Alt Route
10.4 Mainline VMS Face Layout and Installation
This Guide refers to the relevant Australian Standards where appropriate. However, the development of this
Guide has highlighted the need for updates to the Australian Standards to better reflect current technologies
and operational practices in relation to mainline VMS.
10.4.1 Sign Face Layout
Mainline VMS should comprise an illuminated dot matrix display. Illumination is typically provided using
light-emitting technologies, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

The sign should be able to display:

• multi-line text, as well as a symbol/pictogram – typically the display should comprise of three lines of text,
with each line comprising 18 characters
• alphanumeric characters, including upper and lower cases, that generally comply with AS 1742, AS 1743,
AS 1744 and AS 4852
• multi-colour messages, including yellow, white, green and red as a minimum, on a matt black
background.
The VMS display should be one fully configurable matrix for maximum operational flexibility. However,
current practice includes displays comprising multiple matrices (i.e. separate graphical and text-only
hardware panels).
To ensure clarity of the message, adequate spacing between the characters and the lines should be
provided. It is desirable for rectangular letters such as ‘E’ and ‘N’ to have a height to width ratio of about
1.5:1 (e.g. 7 pixels high and 5 pixels wide or 16 pixels high and 10 pixels wide). It is also desirable for
minimum line spacing to be about 37% of the letter height (e.g. 3/7 pixels, 4/10 pixels, 6/16 pixels). If lower
case letters are possible, then the line spacing should be measured from the bottom of the descenders (i.e.
letters g, j, p, q, y).
Conspicuity devices
Conspicuity devices can help attract driver attention to a message of a mandatory, safety or warning nature
(i.e. priority 1 or 2 messages). In accordance with AS 4852.1, conspicuity devices should comprise flashing
yellow lights (typically using an LED display) located at each of the four corners on the front sign enclosure,
either embedded in the sign border or included as additional pixels in the main panel displays. The devices
may flash alternately or simultaneously.
Other requirements
Refer to AS 4852.1 for further guidance on technical and functional requirements relating to VMS and
conspicuity lights. The standard covers display, optical (illuminance and colours), operation and control,
mechanical, electrical and environmental requirements.
It is important to consider the flaring effect of illuminated characters. This effect may reduce legibility of signs
and lead to increased times for drivers to respond to the information (especially considering the aging driving
population), which could have negative safety impacts. Illumination should be adjusted based on lighting
conditions, especially during daylight hours.
10.4.2 Legibility Distance Requirements
The legibility distance for the sign is calculated on the basis of:
• character size
• font and use of upper and/or lower cases
• lateral offset of the sign from the driver’s eye
• maximum approach speed of traffic (i.e. default speed limit).
Other considerations include observation angles and risk of obscuration.
The time needed to read and understand a relatively complex message (based on maximum practical
message length of eight words per frame) is approximately 2.5 to 3 seconds. On routes with high traffic
volumes and high proportion of trucks, the risk of obscuration increases and longer legibility distances may
be required.

Guidance on calculation of legibility distances is provided in AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e). Two-frame
messages have longer legibility requirements than one-frame messages due to the increased number of
information units and difficulty in seeing both frames at one glance.
10.4.3 Sign Size
The sign size depends on the sign display/matrix arrangements, such as the number of lines, character and
pictogram size (Section 10.4.1), and the legibility distance requirements for a specific location, based on
operating speeds (Section 10.4.2).
Based on standard VMS sizing (AS 4852.1), the following general guidelines apply for mainline VMS:
• Overhead-mounted VMS on motorways should be Type C (400 mm character height).
• Side-mounted VMS on motorways should be Type C, unless the maximum posted speed limit is 80 km/h
and the offset is less than 6 m, in which case, the sign may be Type B (320 mm character height).
If there are design limitations, such as mounting restrictions, or in the case of ‘tactical VMS’ used in LUMS
environments, then smaller Type B signs may be acceptable providing they meet the legibility distance
requirements in AS 4852.1. Limitations on the amount of information displayed may need to be applied (e.g.
less words or one frame only).
In some jurisdictions, VMS for off-route traveller information may be different to the VMS used for continuing
route information. This may relate to sign layout/appearance, position relative to the carriageway and sign
size.
10.4.4 Geometrical Considerations
Localised civil works may be required to accommodate the ITS infrastructure, particularly to ensure the
required lateral clearances to road boundaries (Section 10.4.8).
The project design should also consider future road planning in relation to civil upgrades (i.e. pavement
widening) and/or operational strategies (i.e. full- or part-time use of the emergency lane) when determining
location and mounting arrangements in order to minimise the need for relocation of VMS infrastructure at a
later date.
10.4.5 Longitudinal Placement and Co-location
Design sequence
The design hierarchy for sign placement in a smart motorway is as follows:

1. Determine static directional sign locations (location-specific) – as per guidance in AS 1742.2 Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Part 2: Traffic Control Devices for General Use; and AGTM Part 10
(Austroads 2016e).
2. Determine LUMS and VSL sign locations within the direction sign layout. The typical design sequence for
LUMS and VSL sign placement is as follows
a. relative to interchanges
b. within mid-block segments.
3. Determine VMS locations.
4. Determine other static sign locations.
Note that this process is iterative in order to consider electrical and civil requirements, as well as optimisation
of sign placement with the opposite direction of travel.

Placement relative to decision points (e.g. exit ramps)
The proximity of the VMS to key decision points is based on the following timeframes:
• sufficient time to enable the driver to read and comprehend the message and take the necessary evasive
action conveyed on the VMS at or prior to the decision point
• within a short enough time period that the message is not forgotten by the motorist, or the connection
between the VMS message and decision point cannot be effectively made.
For urban motorway environments where interchanges are closely spaced, the position of the VMS should
be within 30 to 45 seconds travel time of the decision point (i.e. ramp nose of the exit ramp).
Typically, VMS should be located approximately 900 to 1200 m prior to the decision point (i.e. exit ramp).
However, this may not always be achievable depending on the location of other signage on approach to the
exit ramp, such as direction signing and LUMS. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be acceptable to
place the sign between 700 m to 1500 m from the exit, or to consider options for co-location (see guidance
below). Co-location with the 500 m advance direction sign is undesirable as it results in limited decision-
making time for drivers.
A VMS should not be located within 300 m of the exit ramp to allow for sufficient manoeuvring time.
Co-location
The following guidance for co-location of signs is informed by driver behaviour research (Austroads 2015f
and Austroads 2016e).
The co-location of VMS with other signs is not preferred.
However, dual co-location of signs is acceptable as a practical arrangement when there are space
constraints.
If VMS are collocated with other signs, and alternating frames will be used on the VMS, it is preferred to
collocate the VMS with another static sign (i.e. directional sign) rather than with another electronic sign (i.e.
LUMS sign) in order to reduce the total amount of information being displayed.
Co-location of signs should be considered on a case-by-case basis, with due consideration to the total
amount of information being conveyed to the driver, operational requirements (e.g. the types of messages to
be displayed), and the sign location relative to other road features (e.g. single-lane exit ahead or complex
road environment with multiple exits). The VMS design and operation should prevent information overload,
e.g. VMS should not be collocated with complex directional signs. In some cases, it may be necessary to
limit VMS messages to one frame only.
Co-location of LUMS signs with tactical VMS (Section 10.1.1) that display less information units may be more
acceptable than co-location with full-size mainline VMS. Other means of simplifying the message may also
be used, such as limiting the use of colour on VMS to just yellow and not allowing pictograms.
Procedures should be in place to determine that co-location will not have a detrimental impact on road safety
and all the information will be able to be comprehended by drivers. This will include obtaining approval from
appropriate traffic management departments of the road agency and may also include undertaking driver
comprehension studies prior to making a decision on the co-location of signs.
Guidance regarding triple co-location of electronic and static directional signs is provided in AGTM Part 10
(Austroads 2016e). Generally, triple co-location is not considered desirable.

Placement relative to other signs and road infrastructure
Refer to Table 10.5 for guidance on placement relative to other roadside infrastructure when not collocated,
in order to allow drivers to adequately process and respond to other signs and driving requirements. VMS
should not be placed in complex driving environments such as interchanges or in close proximity to an entry
ramp where there is significant merging, frequent braking or weaving movements.
Table 10.5: Mainline VMS placement relative to other road infrastructure
Road infrastructure Static signs Electronic signs Change in lanes Entry ramp merge area
500 m (downstream of
Separation distance 200 m 200 m 300 m
entry ramp nose)
Other considerations
Regular provision of traveller information can reduce the risk of inaccurate information being displayed if
there are long distances between the sign and a hazard or travel time destination. It may also help to ensure
that motorists do not forget any relevant information that they may need to act on downstream. Additional
VMS may therefore be required on the mainline to provide continuity in information.
Typically, the desirable maximum spacing of VMS on higher volume motorways (i.e. average weekday
peak-direction traffic volume exceeds 1200 pc/h/lane) is 5 km. Increased spacing (i.e. up to 10 km) is
acceptable for motorways with lower traffic volumes.
When determining longitudinal placement of VMS signs, the following additional considerations apply:
• Sight distance to signs are clear of visibility restrictions, including geometric road structures (i.e.
curves/gradients), other traffic management infrastructure and vegetation, and considering obscuration by
heavy vehicles. It is desirable for VMS to be located on straight or shallow curve sections.
• Proximity relative to other driving decisions, e.g. VMS are generally undesirable in the vicinity of a taper
or lane gain.
• Vertical alignment of the road where it may impact on visibility of VMS. Where possible, it is desirable that
VMS not be located on grades exceeding 1%, and should be avoided when the grade exceeds 4%. If
there are a limited number of potential locations available, an upward grade is desirable.
• Potential for use of existing structures, such as bridges and overpasses (refer to Section 10.4.6).
• The backdrop to the sign, including light contrast issues (i.e. if the backdrop is the sky). A sign border
may be required (i.e. typically 50 mm wide retroreflective tape around the perimeter of the front cover of
the VMS).
• The extent of visual clutter caused by too much roadside infrastructure. Sign placement should maximise
visibility and driver attention to the VMS messages, without causing too much distraction from other
important road signs that drivers need to respond to (such as major directional signs).
• The VMS location should not be intrusive and should not adversely impact the visual amenity or
aesthetics of a sensitive area.
• Opportunities to collocate with other ITS infrastructure (such as CCTV cameras) and proximity to power
and communication infrastructure.
10.4.6 Mounting Arrangements
Types of mounting structures for VMS on smart motorways typically include:

• cantilever (installed on left-side of carriageway)
• ‘heavy’ gantry (i.e. accessible for maintenance)
• existing infrastructure (i.e. bridge, overpass or LUMS gantry).

The selection of mounting structure should ensure that visibility and legibility requirements are met relative to
the sign size and location. Existing infrastructure should be able to accommodate the VMS in terms of the
skew of the overhead structure, the weight of the device, ability to accommodate associated hardware, and
ability to suit the preferred maintenance regime (refer to Section 10.4.9).
Overhead mounting may be used to provide better visibility (i.e. reduced risk of obscuration by heavy
vehicles) and should be considered for carriageways with four or more lanes.
Side-mounted VMS should preferably be used on the left-side of the motorway on a right-hand curve.
Mounting on the left-side of the carriageway provides better access arrangements for maintenance
purposes.
Where a VMS is mounted on a gantry or existing infrastructure such as a bridge/overpass, the sign should
be centred above the carriageway. If the VMS information relates specifically to one lane (i.e. emergency
lane open or closed), then the sign should be mounted over the relevant lane. Refer to Section 12.4.6 for
further guidance in relation to gantry mounting structures and co-location of LUMS signs and VMS.
The VMS mounting arrangement used to mount the sign to the support structure should allow the VMS to be
adjusted in the horizontal and vertical plane to allow the viewing angle for road users to be optimised based
on the specific road geometry.
The mounting arrangement and structures should also ensure protection of equipment from vandalism and
unwanted public access (particularly if located on bridges or overpasses with pedestrian access).
There may be opportunity to improve the visual impact of the mounting structures through their design; for
example, through the use of ‘light’ gantries or through use of artwork on the structure, provided it does not
reduce sign legibility or cause unnecessary distraction.
Refer to AS 4852.1 for further guidance.
10.4.7 Sign Orientation
Generally, signs can be comfortably read when they are within 10 degrees off-centre horizontally and
5 degrees vertically of a driver’s line of sight (i.e. signs should not be located at 90 degrees to the roadway).
Sign placement should be checked so that horizontal or vertical curves do not result in the sign being outside
this range, and an adequate luminance ratio must be specified to ensure the signs can be read at these
angles.
10.4.8 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances
The pole supporting a VMS, whether it be side-mounted, cantilevered or on a gantry, must be placed to
comply with clear zone guidelines or be placed behind a suitable safety barrier — refer to AGRD Part 6:
Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (Austroads 2010c).
The lateral clearance for the positioning of gantries may need to consider future upgrading of the motorway
section to ensure future-proofing against any plans for additional widening.
The minimum vertical clearance to an overhead VMS must comply with AS 1742.2 and AGRD Part 3
(Austroads 2010a). Designers should also consult relevant road agency supplements as practices may vary
among jurisdictions.
The vertical clearance requirement should take into consideration the strategic function of the route and the
level of heavy vehicle access allowed. For example, over-dimensional routes may require sign mounting of 6
m or more. Vertical clearance of signs along a route should generally be consistent.
The mounting height of signs for visibility through the windscreen and for maintenance access to the sign
should preferably be a maximum of 8 m.

10.4.9 Maintenance Access
Design of the mounting structure should consider provision of a rear access platform designed in accordance
with the relevant standards. The rear access platform should be designed and constructed so that it enables
maintenance personnel to undertake maintenance on the VMS while it is still mounted on the structure. The
rear platform should provide for handrails and have adequate meshing to prevent items falling to the
roadway below.
Access to the VMS could result in disruption to traffic and impact on the operation of the control and/or limit
the available hours in which maintenance operations can be undertaken. For this reason, adequate space
should be provided for a concrete apron at the base of the structure. This will allow a maintenance vehicle to
store clear of traffic and provide ready access to the controller cabinet and overhead structure. Alternatively,
other measures should be incorporated to enable safe access to the mounting structure.
Where the VMS is mounted on an overhead gantry and/or collocated with LUMS signs, then the guidance in
Section 12.4.9 also applies.
10.4.10 Supporting Traffic Management Devices
Network intelligence devices, including vehicle detection equipment, CCTV cameras, incident detection
equipment and environmental monitoring equipment should be installed to support provision of real-time
traveller information through:
• provision of data for real-time travel time calculations (i.e. through application of algorithms to data from
vehicle detectors or other sources)
• accurate identification and verification of incidents and other unplanned events that may impact on
downstream motorway traffic flows in order to trigger display of a priority 1 or 2 message on an upstream
VMS
• monitoring traffic flow impacts during incidents/events in order to continue to provide real-time updates to
travellers.
Refer to Section 9 for further detail.
10.5 Arterial Road VMS Face Layout and Device Installation
This Guide refers to the relevant Australian Standards where appropriate. However, the development of this
Guide has highlighted the need for updates to the Australian Standards to better reflect current technologies
and operational practices in relation to arterial road VMS.
The same requirements for mainline VMS also apply to arterial road VMS (refer to Section 10.4.1), except
that arterial road VMS do not require additional space to display a pictogram as well as three lines of text.
The same principles for legibility distance apply as outlined in Section 10.4.2, taking into consideration that a
typical approach speed would be around 60 km/h as motorists enter the turning lane. Generally, arterial road
VMS are side-mounted on posts.
10.5.3 Sign Size
The required sign size will depend on the sign display/matrix arrangements (Section 10.4.1) and the legibility
distance requirements (Section 10.4.2). Generally, arterial road VMS comprise of Type A signs (with 200 mm
character heights) in accordance with AS 4852.1.

Note:
VicRoads has developed design guidelines for arterial road VMS on approach to motorway interchanges that
are a departure from the Australian Standard and have been adopted by some other states. The sign design
allows for a smaller character height than a Type A sign (i.e. 120 mm), on the basis that the signs are
generally installed on 60 km/h routes and will be read by slower moving traffic preparing to turn. They are
also typically side-mounted and therefore closer to relevant traffic.
The customised sign also uses a clearer font to ensure well-shaped characters. The design exceeds the
line/word/character spacing in the Australian Standards to minimise flaring and improve legibility (based on
UK standards and tested during the M1 smart motorway project design). Typically, a combination of upper
case and lower case lettering are used to provide the required legibility whilst maximising the display length
of messages within the sign width.
It may be desirable to vary the font size dynamically depending on traffic speed; for example, in slow moving
traffic, a smaller font size could be used, meaning three lines of text may be displayed to improve provision
of information during congestion/incidents; whereas during free-flow traffic, it may be limited to two lines.
On urban, arterial roads it may also be necessary to consider the visual impact to an area when determining
sign size.
Sign placement at motorway interchanges
The following guidelines apply for placement of signs at a motorway interchange:

• Provide separate arterial road VMS for all turning movements onto the motorway. Signs should generally
be provided in advance of the indented left- and right-turn lanes if it is a divided roadway and if left-turns
are provided (Figure 10.9).
• Where practicable, position the signs on the same side of the road as the movement that is being signed
(i.e. on the left side of the road for signing left-turn movements and the right side in the median for signing
right-turn movements).
Figure 10.9: Typical locations for arterial road VMS at motorway interchanges
• The locations chosen for arterial road VMS should provide clear sight distance without visibility
restrictions (e.g. vegetation, other signs or roadside infrastructure).

• When the interchange is close to a downstream motorway fork or a motorway-to-motorway interchange

and there are space constraints, two separate VMS may be installed on the same pole at each arterial
road approach to enable separate displays of travel information for each downstream motorway (e.g. one
or two destinations for each motorway, two to four destinations in total – depending on driver workload
and other signing at the specific site).
• The desirable minimum distance prior to the action point to enable a driver to react appropriately, and the
desirable separation distance relative to other signs, are shown in Table 10.6. However, placement may
be highly constrained at interchange locations with numerous road features and other signs, and larger
separation distances may be appropriate (refer to local jurisdictional guidelines).
Table 10.6: Arterial road VMS placement at motorway interchanges
Speed environment (km/h)

Installation
60 and 70 80
Distance prior to the point where drivers commit to
60 to 80 m 80 to 120 m
enter the motorway (and speed reduction required)
50 m 60 m
Spacing to other signs
Minimum 0.6V (where V is the 85th percentile speed in km/h)
Source: Based on AS 1742.2 (Appendix D), cited in VicRoads (2013a).
Sign placement at remote strategic arterial intersections
In accordance with AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e), arterial road VMS on urban arterial roads to assist in
traffic diversion should desirably be located 400–700 m in advance of the diversion point (e.g. major arterial
intersection). An example layout is provided in Figure 10.10.
Figure 10.10: Typical location for arterial road VMS at a strategic arterial intersection remote from the
motorway
400-700 m Advance arterial road

Arterial road –
VMS assists in route
alternative route
choice
City
Managed
motorway
Arterial road VMS are generally side-mounted on special poles in accordance with the requirements of AS
4852.1.
The vertical and horizontal clearances applicable to static multi-post signs apply, as per the guidance in
AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e). Road safety risks are generally similar to those associated with other
poles on arterial roads, e.g. traffic signal poles.

Maintenance of side-mounted arterial road VMS is carried out from the roadside, following procedures similar
to the maintenance of traffic signals.
10.5.8 Supporting Traffic Management Devices
The same requirements apply as for mainline VMS (Section 10.4.10). In addition, data from vehicle detectors
located on metered entry ramps is also be incorporated to the travel time calculations in order to incorporate
ramp delay to travel times displayed on arterial road VMS.
10.6 Operation of VMS
10.6.1 Message Display and Approvals
Multi-purpose VMS provide good operational flexibility in terms of message displays; however, a hierarchy of
control is essential to ensure that displayed messages reflect appropriate priorities for provision of real-time
traveller information (refer to Section 10.3).
Not all existing VMS may be able to support the travel time function. New VMS should all be able to support
the travel time function.
Arterial road VMS located at motorway interchanges would generally not display priority 3 planned
works/events and priority 4 campaign/promotion messages.
Approved generic message sets should be created for each message type. Approval procedures may be
required to govern the appropriate selection and display of different message types. Different message types
may require approval by different responsible officers within the agency. In particular, there should be an
appropriate delegation of approval for displaying non-standard messages or messages outside defined
priority levels.
New message structures for priority 3 planned works/events messages and priority 4 campaign/promotion
messages should always be pre-approved prior to display.
10.6.2 Types of Control
VMS may be controlled in the following modes of operation:

• Manual input
This involves manual operator input of pre-prepared messages from a standard message library, with
spaces for context-specific information, such as location and time and date information.
The operator may receive an automatic alert from the system in relation to the need for a change in VMS
message display (i.e. from automatic incident detection and environmental monitoring technologies) or
manually identify a problem via CCTV cameras or from feedback from operational partners.
Use of free text messages should generally be minimised, since there is risk of human error which may
lead to an inappropriate message.
• Automatic
Fully automated updates to smart motorway VMS generally only apply to travel time and motorway
condition messages, which are commonly calculated using algorithms based on data from vehicle
detectors or other sources (refer to Section 10.3.4).
Operators should be able to select the option to display or approve a travel time message (i.e. prioritise
over other message types), or to override the decision to display a travel time message due to other
higher message priorities.

• Semi-automatic
The central control system should be capable of ‘information only’ and ‘operator assist’ modes (refer to
further detail in Section 12.5.1). In operator assist mode, the system will provide an automated alert
based on a change in detected motorway condition (such as an incident, congestion or adverse weather
as detected by data from vehicle detectors, CCTV or weather detectors) and recommend an appropriate
response, which may include updates to VMS message displays. The operator is then required to
manually modify or approve the response plan prior to implementation.
The proposed response may be based on a predefined response plan (see below), or through an
algorithm-based system such as a ‘wide area algorithmic response’ application.
In such an application, the algorithm ‘walks’ upstream of an incident location on all possible paths to
identify which VMS should be used to advise of the incident and what message options (from a generic
message set) could be displayed. The distance it walks is configurable but also influenced by incident
type/severity (e.g. it looks further afield for bigger incidents). An initial message plan can be implemented
reasonably quickly by the operator from the algorithm recommendations. As more specifics about the
incident are known, then the operator can update relevant VMS with more targeted/relevant messages.
• Predefined response plans
These comprise special-purpose plans for display of messages on consecutive VMS upstream of an
incident/event. Plans may be developed as part of an incident response plan or traffic management plan
for an event. The plans may also provide integrated responses for other smart motorway elements, such
as displays for LUMS signs.
The plans would usually be used to pre-populate the smart motorway schematic to illustrate the proposed
sign displays. The operator can then review, edit and approve prior to implementation (i.e. semi-automatic
mode).
In the future, development of automated incident detection functionality may further allow use of automated
processes to populate VMS upon detection of an incident. However, given the large variety of contexts for
display of traveller information and the inability of predefined plans to address all complex
situations/contingencies, it may still be desirable to use semi-automated operation mode so that the
automated response plan is reviewed by an operator prior to implementation.
This will help to ensure that the information provided is timely, accurate and relevant to most road users who
pass/read the sign, and therefore improve the credibility of the traveller information system. In some cases,
an automated plan may be at risk of producing situations worse than a ‘do-nothing’ strategy (e.g. due to risk
of creating over-diversion).
Operators should be able to manually reprioritise, stop/remove and restart active message plans on VMS at
any time to meet the network operating need.
10.6.3 Operational Principles
Display sequences for mainline VMS during incidents/congestion
The level of incident response required is generally determined by the:

• type/cause of incident/congestion
• extent of the reduction in capacity
• expected duration of the incident
• time of day and level of traffic demand over the expected incident duration (i.e. in-peak or off-peak period)
• location of key upstream diversion points.
The VMS response should be an integrated part of the total incident response. Consideration should be
given to the details of messages displayed on upstream VMS (mainline and arterial road), as well as the
distance upstream and the number of interchanges over which the VMS messages are displayed.

In a high severity incident where there is a significant impact on motorway flow, the information should be
displayed on multiple, consecutive VMS over a longer distance upstream of the event. This is in order to
discourage large volumes of traffic entering the motorway upstream and to facilitate the exiting of traffic, i.e.
the ‘unloading’ of the motorway, over a large number of interchanges. Advanced information will provide
opportunities for traffic to divert and be distributed to a number of routes, rather than creating a greater
impact on one particular route. A slow moving queue can propagate very quickly up a motorway over a large
distance, so the timelier the response the better.
Upstream incident advice may be displayed on other connecting or strategic motorway routes to aid wide
area traffic dispersion, particularly if there is a multi-lane or full motorway closure.
Table 10.7 provides an example of VicRoads’ guidance on incident severity criteria and the extent of
upstream traveller advice.
Table 10.7: Example of incident severity criteria and extent of upstream traveller advice in Victoria
Arterial road VMS –

Incident
Criteria Mainline VMS at motorway
severity
interchanges
1 Minor Emergency stopping lane affected; or A warning message may Generally no message.
Other hazard that may affect all lanes but be provided at the
without a reduction in lane usage, e.g. high discretion of the operator if
winds, sun glare, surface debris (sand, oil, the incident is likely to
etc.). affect safety or traffic flow.
High wind warnings for West Gate Bridge will result in
messages on mainline VMS and arterial road VMS.
2 Major One traffic lane affected. Approved messages must be displayed for 5 km
(configurable).
3 Severe Two or more traffic lanes affected. Approved messages must be displayed for 8 km
(configurable).
4 Motorway All motorway lanes on the carriageway to Approved messages must be displayed for 15 km
closure be closed; or (configurable).
More than one carriageway on the
motorway is closed.
An example of an automated VMS response is provided in Figure 10.11. The main VMS message (i.e. the
first mainline VMS upstream of the incident) provides an Effect statement – ‘Left lane closed’, and an Action
statement – ‘Merge right’. The consecutive upstream VMS then provide supplementary information that gives
advance warning to road users and assists in diversion as required.
If the VMS is upstream of an exit and the motorway beyond the exit is closed, the VMS should display the
‘Exit’ pictogram and require all traffic to exit.
High priority messages relating to real-time incidents should be displayed as soon as practical following
verification of the incident, and removed promptly when no longer applicable (again following appropriate
verification).

Figure 10.11: Example of an automated mainline VMS and arterial road VMS incident response on the Monash
Freeway, Melbourne
AHEAD
LEFT LANE CLOSED
MERGE RIGHT
M1 - Major Delays
Toorak Rd 19
Kings Way 25
Arterial road VMS at
motorway interchange
VMS operations should be integrated with coordinated ramp metering operations (Section 11.4) and LUMS
operations (Section 12). If there is an incident just downstream of the first LUMS gantry on a
LUMS-equipped motorway section, and the LUMS gantry is displaying a red cross, then the VMS
immediately upstream of the LUMS gantry must be integrated as part of the LUMS response. In this
situation, there are no LUMS sign immediately upstream to provide the merge symbol or speed reductions.
Therefore, a ‘40 ahead’ pictogram (Figure 10.12) is displayed on the graphical panel of the VMS, whilst the
text panel indicates the Effect (i.e. ‘Left lane closed’) and Action (i.e. ‘Merge right’) information.
Figure 10.12: Example of a VMS message as part of LUMS response
LEFT LANE CLOSED

MERGE RIGHT
Travel time system performance
To ensure continued confidence in the travel time system, it is necessary to establish the correct level of
accuracy and tolerance for system operation, which may depend on data availability and validity (e.g.
consider statistical confidence and sample size) (Roads and Maritime Services 2010). Care should be taken
to ensure the system operates at a level that is credible to the road user. If no valid data is available for a
route or range of routes, then it may not be possible to display the affected destinations on the VMS.
More sophisticated systems may be able to dynamically verify results against other travel time data
sources/systems that are available for the route. They may also be able to use valid data from adjacent
segments or previous intervals, or historic data, when valid data for the current interval is not available
(subject to local jurisdictional guidelines).

Travel time estimation is likely to be most accurate during off-peak periods when traffic conditions are most
stable.
Community research in NSW (Roads and Maritime Services 2009, cited in Roads and Maritime Services
2010) found that:
• the majority of road users indicated a journey time up to five minutes longer than indicated on a VMS is
acceptable for an average 30 (20 to 40) minute journey, or a tolerance of about 15%
• road users may look favourably on the system if the travel time displayed is generally greater
(overestimated) than their actual travel time.
Sign failure mode
VMS should be monitored and maintained to ensure that letters and words within messages are complete.
Faulty pixels that remove sections of the characters, or unnecessarily activate other sections of the frame,
adversely affect the integrity of the signs.
Other
It is advisable for records to be maintained on the messages that are displayed on each VMS (including
when manually input), together with the start/end type of the display. They should also be categorised by
message type, so that the agency can monitor the compliance of operations with policy and procedures.
The conditional use of VMS by other state agencies, local government or private road operators can provide
benefits for communities and motorists. However, this Guide and other relevant jurisdictional guidelines
should be complied with to ensure road safety is not compromised in the operation of VMS.

11. Coordinated Ramp Metering
Ramp metering is the control of traffic entering a motorway by means of traffic signals on the entry ramps.
Fundamentally, ramp metering systems regulate traffic into the motorway at a rate that the motorway can
handle, in accordance with performance objectives.
This section provides an overview of the operational aspects of ramp metering. Refer to the AGRD Part 4C:
Interchanges (Austroads 2015c) and Sections 7.5 and 11.5 of this Guide for guidance on the geometric layout
and design of metered ramps; and AGTM Part 10: Traffic Control and Communication Devices (Austroads
2016e) for guidance on traffic control and communication devices utilised at ramp metering facilities.
11.1 Principles and Benefits of Ramp Metering
11.1.1 Principles
The following principles underlie best practice in ramp metering:

• Ramp metering maximises mainline traffic flows within thresholds, generally based on design aspects of
the motorway, to prevent flow breakdown.
• Ramp metering is most effective when a series of entry ramps along a section of motorway are metered
as part of a coordinated ramp signals system, to provide access equity across all ramps through the
balancing of queues and wait times.
• Ramp metering improves flow stability, leading to more constant travel speeds from day to day. This
provides greater travel time reliability and improved safety.
• Ramp metering reduces overall travel time on a motorway, provided the mainline travel time savings
exceed the entry ramp delays at the signals. Ramp metering may discourage short motorway trips where
ramp delays exceed mainline travel time savings.
The performance of the motorway is optimised by maintaining mainline flows at operational capacities during
peak periods. Operational capacity for a section of motorway is set below its theoretical capacity, and is
essentially the maximum flow that can be sustained without a high probability of flow breakdown. The control
of flows through ramp metering greatly reduces turbulence such that day-to-day traffic flows remain relatively
constant, providing greater travel time reliability. The principal actions of ramp metering are as follows:
• The metering of vehicles entering a motorway from an entry ramp to disperse platoons of merging
vehicles to achieve an evenly distributed flow of traffic into the merge area.
• Managing ramp entry flows such that mainline traffic flows do not exceed their operational capacities,
particularly at bottlenecks, thereby preventing transition to unstable flows. This is achieved by
establishing and maintaining critical occupancy through the bottleneck sections of the mainline.
Safety is improved as a result of improved merging. Ramp metering disperses platoons of vehicles before
they enter the motorway. Dispersed vehicles can more easily merge with less disruption to mainline traffic.
This greatly reduces turbulence in the merge area, which reduces the potential for incidents. Safety is
improved due to:
• improved flow stability with less braking and stop-start flow during unstable conditions or when flow
breaks down
• less lane changing, particularly for vehicles approaching in the left lane, as metering ensures they are not
confronted with platoons of vehicles all merging into the left lane at the same time
• improved merging in areas of high weaving, such as where an exit ramp exists within a short distance
downstream of an entry ramp.
Figure 5.21 illustrates motorway flows for unmanaged and managed situations. In the smart motorway
example with coordinated ramp signals, controlling the vehicle access has prevented flow breakdown and
maintained free-flowing conditions.

11.1.2 Benefits
There are a number of benefits of ramp metering, including:

• reduced delay for users of high-volume motorways
• a more reliable service to motorway users
• reduced number of mainline traffic incidents and the consequential impact of such events
• increased motorway throughput at critical times and locations
• enhanced overall road network travel times (improved travel time on the mainline offsets delays on the
entry ramps)
• equitable use of the road network, including redistributed traffic in keeping with infrastructure capacity and
discouraging the use of the motorway system for short trips during periods of high flow
• improved road safety due to safer management of merging traffic and more stable motorway travel
speeds, i.e. reduction in stop-start traffic conditions
• reduced fuel consumption and emissions as a result of efficient travel conditions.
Further evidence on the benefits of coordinated ramp metering is provided in Appendix A.
The warrants for provision of ramp metering are summarised in Section 6. Warrants for implementing ramp
signals are based on the following:
• peak hour volumes per lane at the critical bottleneck on the mainline
– generally, the threshold is 1700 pc/h/lane for at least one hour (based on motorway sections with up to
three lanes and a default operating speed of 100 km/h) 4. This value is based on studies by Brilon,
Geistefeldt and Regler (2005) and Main Roads Western Australia (2013a), cited in AGTM Part 2
(Austroads 2015d), which indicates that for flows in the range of 1700 pc/h/ln, there is up to 10%
probability of flow breakdown occurring; and at 2000 pc/h/ln, the probability is up to 85%
– threshold forecasted within at least five years after completion of works
• the regular occurrence of flow breakdown at one or more bottlenecks usually at least once a week.
Flow, speed and occupancy data collected along the motorway over several days or weeks should be
analysed to determine the frequency and duration of flow breakdowns. Traffic growth projections over time
should also be used to estimate future traffic volumes on the mainline and ramps. These projected traffic
volumes can then be used to calculate estimated increases in the frequencies and durations of flow
breakdowns over time, if left untreated.
When new ramps are added to existing motorways, ramp signals should be installed on the new ramps if
other ramps upstream or downstream are already metered, or if the route is proposed to be managed by
coordinated ramp metering.
The consideration of ramp metering on new motorways, or on connections or extensions to existing

motorways, is to be based on detailed investigation and analysis of anticipated peak traffic demand on the
motorway within 20 years of opening. Full ramp metering should be installed if forecasted traffic demands
indicate they will be warranted within five years of opening. If not warranted within five years, works should at
least include provision of pits and conduits with power and communications to accommodate ramp signal
retrofitting at a later stage, and any other associated civil works.
Further detail regarding the considerations for provision of coordinated compared to isolated ramp metering
are provided in Section 11.3.2.
4 VicRoads ongoing research into motorway capacity indicates that maximum capacity values used for design may vary depending on
the number of lanes (refer to Commentary 1). Lower warrants may be appropriate for motorways with four or more lanes as these
roads may experience decreased average lane capacities.

11.3 Ramp Meter Control Fundamentals
This section explains the optimising control logic to effectively meter entry ramp flows, the difference
between local and coordinated control, fixed and dynamic operation, managing ramp demands, and
managing heavy congestion and incidents.
11.3.1 Control Logic
Simplistically, the control logic of ramp meters manages inflow such that the downstream capacity is not
exceeded. If the downstream capacity is exceeded, flow breakdown occurs and overall performance suffers.
To effectively meter entry ramp flows such that speeds and throughput on the mainline are optimised, the
ramp meter system must incorporate a technically effective algorithm that establishes and maintains critical
occupancy. For a more detailed discussion on the theory behind ramp metering, refer to Section 5.
Critical occupancy is maintained by metering the number of vehicles entering the bottleneck by restricting the
entry ramps upstream of the bottleneck. This is achieved by signals at the entry ramps.
In best practice ramp metering systems, it is crucial that the control algorithm can establish and maintain
critical occupancy to ensure that maximum operational capacity flows are maintained. Figure 11.1 illustrates
the implications of a ramp metering rate that is either too high or too low. In the typical fundamental diagram
for flow versus occupancy, the maximum flow, qcap (capacity), occurs at a critical occupancy value, ocr. At
occupancies higher than the critical occupancy, the mainline experiences a capacity drop (i.e. qcon,
congestion).
If ramp metering logic is too permissive, allowing more vehicles to enter the bottleneck, the capacity is
reduced. If the metering is too restrictive, then the mainline is underutilised and causes longer queues and
wait times on the ramp. Only by maintaining critical occupancy can maximum mainline throughput be
achieved.
Figure 11.1: Fundamental diagram indicating importance of correct metering rate

In its simplest form, calculation of the metering flow to minimise the likelihood of downstream flow breakdown
is shown in Figure 11.2 and is based on:
• bottleneck capacity flow (qcap)
• upstream flow (qus)
• entry ramp arrival (demand) flow (qra)
• maximum metered ramp flow (qr).
Figure 11.2: Metering traffic flow at a merge bottleneck
The metering flow rate for a ramp signal is determined by an algorithm. One example is the ALINEA ramp
metering algorithm (Papageorgiou, Hadj-Salem & Blosseville 1991).
The ALINEA algorithm is generally as follows (Equation 4):
r(k) = r(k – 1) + KR[ô – oout (k)] 4
where
r(k), r(k – 1) = metering rate for the current and previous interval
KR = regulator parameter
ô = set point occupancy
oout = measured occupancy
ALINEA is a closed loop algorithm because the metering rate is a function of the metering rate that was used
in the previous time interval. ALINEA works by measuring the occupancy at detectors downstream of the
ramp and measuring the difference between the measured occupancy and the optimal set point occupancy.
If the controller measures that the occupancy is lower than the threshold occupancy, then the metering rate
is increased and more vehicles are allowed to enter the motorway. If the controller measures that the
occupancy is higher than the threshold occupancy, then the metering rate is decreased so fewer vehicles
can enter the motorway.
Control algorithms used in practice are more sophisticated and are tailored to the operating context of the
motorway. The above description is meant to provide an appreciation of the general principles only.

11.3.2 Types of Control: Local and Coordinated
Ramp meters may operate under local control or coordinated control. Isolated ramp signals without
connection to other ramp signals operate under local control. Coordinated control incorporates a group of
ramps. Coordinated control optimises occupancy at a bottleneck by managing up to six or more entry ramps
upstream of the bottleneck.
Local control
Local control may be appropriate where entering traffic causes flow breakdown in the mainline flow at an
isolated bottleneck that generally has no impact on, or from, other interchanges along the route. The function
of a local ramp meter is to manage the entering rate of traffic to overcome the impact of large uncontrolled
platoons of traffic coming from the ramp’s upstream intersection signals. An isolated meter may also be used
to control the total entering volume to maintain stable conditions when the motorway is nearing capacity.
Local control for isolated ramp metering installations may be effective in providing reductions in merging
problems and improvement of motorway traffic flow where there is a high merging flow, but:
• it has limited functionality and ability to balance operation along a route when compared with coordinated
control, for example
– if the bottleneck capacity is less than the mainstream upstream flow, there is no ability to control
demand on the mainline – this may result in earlier initiation of ramp queue override actions and
premature flow breakdown
– it provides reduced equity relative to upstream ramps, i.e. the ramp at the active bottleneck takes ‘all
the pain’ while the upstream ramps, while contributing to bottleneck activation, are either not controlled
or do not share delays equitably
• is unlikely to be able to maintain optimum motorway throughput if there is congestion related to other
bottlenecks along the route.
For the above reasons, local ramp control is generally not recommended for heavily trafficked motorways
where a number of entry demands need to be managed or where flow breakdown may occur at a number of
locations.
A coordinated system is generally recommended; however, local ramp meter control may be appropriate if:
• congestion and flow breakdown is localised, caused only by traffic merging onto the motorway from one
particular entry ramp
• the bottleneck can be effectively managed within the storage limitations of the one entry ramp
• there will not be diversion to a neighbouring ramp.
Coordinated control
With coordinated control, the motorway ramps are grouped into a manageable number of ramps that can
operate together as a control system when traffic conditions require coordination. Within a coordinated
group, bottlenecks could occur at many locations, including each entry ramp merge and other locations of
restricted capacity. The management and control of traffic flow along a length of a motorway usually requires
metering at all points where traffic enters the motorway. This may include:
• entry ramps with merging traffic
• entry ramps leading to an add lane (i.e. continues as an additional lane on the mainline)
• motorway-to-motorway ramps or metering of upstream ramps on the intersecting motorway
(Section 11.5.9)
• the start of the motorway.

This should also include low-volume ramps as these ramps can provide additional storage for balancing of
queues and wait times during peak periods when the high-volume ramps experience excessive demands.
As a general rule, the minimum number of coordinated ramp signals required upstream of a critical
bottleneck in order to provide adequate control is:
• six interchanges on two- or three-lane carriageways
• eight interchanges on four- or more lane carriageways.
When all ramp signals are coordinated in a system, the benefits are as follows:
• Enhanced ability to manage the mainline occupancy and flow by matching total entry ramp inflows to the
capacity of a critical bottleneck along the motorway.
• System control also has the advantage of distributing entry ramp queues and waiting times across a
number of ramps to provide equity between access points.
• Reduced likelihood of queue overflow on short ramps by transferring delay to ramps with more storage.
11.3.3 Fixed-time and Dynamic Operation
Ramp meters can operate according to a fixed-time or dynamic basis. Dynamic ramp meter systems
dynamically switch the signals on and off, as well as alter the metering rate based on the traffic flows along
the motorway and ramps. This requires data to be collected on the traffic flow conditions of the motorway. If
data collection systems fail, the system may default to a fixed-time cycle.
A dynamic system generally includes the following capabilities:

• Switch-on occurs automatically when the motorway flow at a local merge or bottleneck is approaching
unstable conditions.
• Automated response to motorway conditions by continually adjusting inflows; i.e. cycle times, along the
route to optimise motorway flow and travel speeds, as well as balancing queues and managing traffic
delay on the ramps.
• Enhanced capability to prevent flow breakdown occurring at bottlenecks due to uncontrolled demand. It
also provides more effective identification of, and response to, flow breakdown caused by an unplanned
incident and can then manage inflows to the motorway to facilitate faster recovery.
Fixed-time ramp signals use metering rates that are based on historical general traffic flow conditions during
the time when the ramp signals will be in operation. The metering rate does not alter due to changing traffic
flow conditions on the mainline. Fixed-time ramp metering operation generally switches on according to time-
of-day settings and then uses a fixed-time signal cycle.
Fixed-time operation is able to drip-feed vehicles into the mainline that arrive on the ramp in platoons, but the
operation does not adapt to changing motorway flow conditions. This form of operation can provide some
benefit to mainline flow but has limited effectiveness in preventing flow breakdown and optimising motorway
throughput. Furthermore, the ability of fixed-time operation to adapt to changing flows on a ramp or manage
ramp queues is limited, and there may be times when the signals are switched on when control is not
necessary.
11.3.4 Managing Ramp Demands
At times during ramp metering operation, the traffic demand on some ramps may not be satisfied. This could
occur during the peak hour when mainline flows are at their highest such that the metering is at its most
restrictive. At the same time, arrival flow on the ramp may also be at its peak and be greater than the
maximum permissible metering rate. The result is residual queuing on the ramp which may overspill onto the
adjoining arterial roads if adequate storage is not provided in design. Under these circumstances, long
delays may be experienced on the ramp and it is likely that some traffic diversion to other routes will occur.

Where long queues during ramp metering operation are anticipated and cannot be avoided during design,
consideration should be given to measures that provide for queue overflow on the arterial road. For more
information on measures to manage queue overflow, refer to Section 14. In practice, with coordinated ramp
metering strategies in place, ramp demands over a group of ramps can generally be satisfied for a longer
period due to the balancing of queues.
11.3.5 Managing Heavy Congestion and Incidents
While flow breakdown is generally prevented, or at least delayed on smart motorways, when it does occur,
the management of ramp signals requires an automated and integrated operational strategy that will
minimise the worsening of congestion and also assist in flow recovery.
Situations that could lead to heavy motorway congestion include:

• insufficient control of entry flows – due to no control at the entry of the motorway or some entry ramps not
being metered
• access control strategies or policies that lead to excessive demand – such as ramps with free-flow priority
access lanes or a queue management strategy that increases the metering rate for vehicles from a ramp
when queues extend onto the arterial road
• an incident on the motorway – forces the closure of at least one lane, effectively reducing the capacity of
the motorway
• a major bottleneck, such as the end of a motorway or substantial reduction in mainline capacity.
Management of heavy congestion and incidents requires an integrated approach which focuses on the
following complementary actions:
• Management of entry flows to assist in flow recovery – arrival flows at the congested bottleneck or
incident site are reduced through restrictive metering of ramps upstream as an automated response to
detection of the congestion. The restrictive metering, along with the provision of traveller information on
the arterial roads informing drivers of increased travel times on the motorway, also assists in diverting
traffic from the motorway.
• Closing entry ramps and/or the motorway – in some situations, managing an incident may also include
closing ramps or the motorway, upstream of the incident.
• Traffic diversion by providing traveller information – some motorists will use an alternative route if travel
advice is provided in one or more of these forms
– real-time driver information signs on the arterial road prior to the motorway entrance
– mainline VMS to encourage motorists to leave the motorway before reaching the congested section
• traffic condition reports from radio stations, particularly during peak periods.
11.3.6 Situations when Ramp Signals may have Limited Effectiveness
Examples of where ramp signals may have limited effectiveness include:

• During planned events where there is significantly restricted mainline capacity, or during unplanned
events when sudden congestion occurs. However, coordinated ramp signals along with real-time traveller
information and other smart motorway elements can provide congestion management to assist in flow
recovery and improve traffic flows (Section 11.3.5).
• Inadequate traffic management, i.e. when all motorway entries are not controlled. In this instance, ramp
signals have limited ability to prevent flow breakdown without excessive restriction of metered flows,
which is likely to cause inequitable access.

• Inadequate infrastructure, i.e. where a motorway terminates at a limited capacity arterial road (refer to
Section 14.5.2). Throughput is restricted to the arterial intersection capacity. Metering can reduce the
extent of queuing, but may cause excessive ramp delays and unnecessary restriction of trips to upstream
exits. It may also result in underutilisation of the upstream sections of motorway. However, the benefits of
ramp metering of a motorway with a limited capacity termination are to
– provide headway management to assist merging
– prevent flow breakdown on uncongested sections
– balance entry ramp queues and delays
– keep an upstream exit clear.
Inadequate infrastructure may also include inadequate exit ramp intersection or ramp capacity causing
queues to extend back onto the motorway. Further information and treatment options relating to this
situation are provided in Section 7.6 and Section 14.4.
11.4 Operation of Ramp Signals
The use of efficient algorithms based on sound traffic engineering and control systems theory is of
paramount importance for a successful ramp metering system. Designing entry ramp layouts and installing
the necessary equipment are important, but successful operations can only be achieved through effective
control.
Control algorithms for ramp metering usually provide the following functionality:
• dynamic start-up and shut-down to ensure the system only operates when required
• dynamic adjustment of signal cycle times based on real-time feedback from downstream conditions
• entry ramp queue management.
The coordinated ramp metering system should be integrated with LUMS (including VSL) and VMS within the
motorway management system to ensure that the system can operate safely and effectively during incidents,
congestion and other events.
11.4.1 Dynamic Activation and Deactivation
The dynamic switch-on and switch-off of ramp signals is based on the prevailing motorway traffic conditions.
A dynamic system provides traffic-responsive operation that activates the metering signals at any time when
warranted by motorway traffic flow conditions that could lead to the onset of flow breakdown. The activation
and deactivation thresholds are set for each ramp/bottleneck during the manual fine-tuning of the system.
The switch-on criteria are based on a combination of speed, occupancy and/or volume and are usually set at
a relatively low threshold to be sure that the signals start up before the motorway flow collapses. Stronger
criteria are usually set for switching off the signals to ensure they will not start up again soon after
deactivation.
11.4.2 Scheduled Start-up and Close-down
Scheduled start-up and close-down times can be chosen following an analysis of mainline and entry ramp
flows during peak periods and their respective shoulder periods. Time-of-day settings may also control the
times within which dynamic activation and deactivation may occur. This is often done during the initial
operation of a new coordinated system and when testing criteria for full dynamic activation. Time-of-day
signal cycles are used as a ‘fall back’ mode when a dynamic system experiences a fault and the fail-safe
mode is activated.

11.4.3 Operation During Incidents and Events
During planned events such as roadworks or unplanned incidents such as a crash, which cause lane closure
or flow breakdown, there may be advantages in using signals to manage the headway of entering traffic to
assist in traffic management and/or to facilitate service recovery.
11.4.4 Manual Operation
Manual operation or override by an operator is available as required, e.g. to be activated to clear queues for
access in an emergency.
11.4.5 Start-up and Close-down Control Sequences
Figure 11.3 and Figure 11.4 illustrate a ramp signal’s start-up and close-down sequences. Electronic ramp
control signs (also referred to as RC1 signs) are located on the approaches to the arterial road/entry ramp
intersection and face traffic turning into the ramp, while electronic ramp warnings signs (also referred to as
RC2) are located on the entry ramp for situations where there is restricted sight distance to the ramp signals.
These are electronic signs with a specific function to support ramp metering operations.
11.4.6 Average Cycle Times
Dynamic ramp metering operation has a variable cycle time according to the determined metering rate. The
metering rate is dependent on the mainline flow. When the mainline flows are high, the metering rate is
generally reduced, resulting in increased cycle times. Coordinated control can also influence the metering
rate. Hence, the average cycle time to be used for design purposes is to be determined based on the peak
period flows and the nature of the control algorithm.
11.4.7 Minimum Red, Green and Yellow Times
To maintain compliance and consistency, the minimum red, green and yellow times are as follows:
• Minimum red: 2.0 seconds
• Minimum green: 1.3 seconds – to release one vehicle per lane
• Minimum yellow: 0.7 second.
11.4.8 Vehicle Release at the Stop Line
In operation, one vehicle per green per lane is used. In cases of more than one lane at the stop line, the
signals apply to all lanes at the stop line; hence, the recommended operation is simultaneous release of
vehicles at the stop line.
Providing separate alternating green signals for each lane to separate the departure of vehicles from the
stop line is not recommended as it does not suit dynamic cycle times. Observations of current operation with
the simultaneous release of vehicles from the stop line indicates that motorists are able to adjust their
position relative to other vehicles leaving the stop line, and that separation and merging when entering the
mainline is also satisfactory. The design standards outlined in this report are also based on the simultaneous
release of vehicles from the stop line.

Figure 11.3: Start-up control sequence
Start-up sequence
Sign RC1 Sign RC2 Signals
Time Electronic ramp

Electronic ramp control
warning sign Standard 3-aspect
sign
(with static sign)
Prior to ‘start-up’ signs
and signals are off
‘Start-up’ period
(10 seconds)
Activate the variable

RAMP
speed limit
SIGNALS RAMP
(if applicable)
ON SIGNALS
ON
Flashing yellow
(next 4 seconds)
RAMP
SIGNALS RAMP PREPARE
ON SIGNALS TO
ON STOP
Alternating messages Solid yellow (4 seconds)

(next 6 seconds)
RAMP
ON SIGNALS TO
ON STOP
Alternating messages Solid red (6 seconds)

Signals commence
metering of traffic
RAMP
SIGNALS
RAMP PREPARE
ON
SIGNALS TO
ON STOP
Alternating messages Green – yellow – red
Source: Based on VicRoads (2013b).

Figure 11.4: Close-down control sequence
Close-down sequence
Sign RC1 Sign RC2 Signals
Time Electronic ramp

Electronic ramp control
warning sign Standard 3-aspect
sign
(with static sign)
Prior to ‘close-down’
(signal metering traffic)
RAMP
ON SIGNALS TO
ON STOP
Alternating messages Green – yellow – red

‘Close-down’ commences
(10 seconds)
RAMP
SIGNALS RAMP
ON SIGNALS
ON
Flashing yellow
Switch off all devices
‘Close-down’ complete
Source: Based on VicRoads (2013b).
11.4.9 Ramp Signals Response to a Lane Closure
When an incident results in a lane closure, this induces a bottleneck that would generally have an adverse
impact on traffic flow. Lane closures of this nature are random and variable in relation to nominated (pre-set)
bottlenecks within the set-up of the motorway ramp signals. A lane closure activated by the lane use
management system (LUMS) or at other locations not controlled by LUMS, restricts the number of lanes for
traffic flow.
When a lane closure occurs, the number of lanes available for traffic use is adjusted. The ramp control
algorithm utilises this new information to calibrate its calculations based on the prevailing lane availability.

11.4.10 Ramp Signals Response to Changing Speed Limits
Motorway ramp signals switch on and off automatically within thresholds based on motorway flow, spot
speed and occupancy. When the motorway speed limit is reduced by a variable speed limit (VSL) system,
the ramp signals could activate unnecessarily under fixed-value activating parameters. In a smart motorway,
a variable speed limit lower than the default speed may be activated in concert with LUMS or for other
reasons, e.g. high winds on a bridge. The lower travel speed of traffic affects pre-set values for activation
and deactivation of the motorway ramp signals. To ensure that ramp metering is not falsely triggered by a
speed limit lower than the default limit, the motorway management system provides the current speed limit
value for calculations associated with the ramp signals.
11.4.11 Ramp Signals Response to a Motorway Closure
When an event requires a ramp closure, the following operation should occur:
• Real-time traveller information signs located in advance of the left- and right-turning bays onto the ramp
should display the appropriate ‘motorway closed’ message.
• Electronic ramp control signs located on the approaches to the arterial road/entry ramp intersection
should display a ‘motorway closed’ message alternating with a symbolic ‘no right turn / no left turn / no
entry’ sign or special message, as appropriate.
• The motorway ramp signals should switch off by initiating the usual close-down sequence. Switching off
the signals enables vehicles already on the ramp to clear so that an emergency vehicle can enter, if
necessary. Switching the signals off also avoids vehicles being trapped on the ramp.
The ramp closure operation may be activated manually or automatically as part of an incident response.
Reopening of the ramp may also be initiated manually or automatically when there is no longer a need for
the closure. When the motorway ramp is reopened to traffic, the system would return to default ramp
operation, i.e. subject to traffic needs at the time, the ramp signal’s start-up operation may or may not occur.
11.4.12 Emergency Vehicle Access when Ramp Signals Are Operating
The queues at ramp signals may present problems for emergency vehicle access during an incident where
the ramp is not closed as part of the incident response. Where an emergency vehicle requires access at a
particular ramp, the emergency service will need to contact the traffic management centre (TMC).
To provide uninterrupted access for the emergency vehicle, the TMC operator will manually turn off the ramp
signals to clear the ramp queue. After entry of the emergency vehicle, the operator would then re-enable the
ramp signals to continue the metering, if the ramp was to remain open to traffic.
11.5 Design Elements of Ramp Metering
Figure 11.5 presents a flowchart of the ramp layout and signal design process. The process starts with an
estimation of the design traffic flows at the mainline and ramps. The number of lanes at the stop line and the
storage requirements are then determined. The geometry of the ramp and the traffic management device
installations are then specified. Details of each stage are discussed in the succeeding sections as follows:
• design traffic flows (Section 11.5.1)
• number of metered lanes (Section 11.5.2)
• entry ramp queue storage (Section 11.5.3)
• entry ramp lane configuration (Section 11.5.4)
• stop line position (Section 11.5.5)
• acceleration and merging (Section 11.5.6)
• traffic management devices (Section 11.5.7).

Further, Section 11.5.8 and Section 11.5.9 discuss considerations for priority access and
motorway-to-motorway ramps.
It is noted that the ramp geometry and merging distance need to be satisfactory to enable the entry ramp to
function both when the signals are operating and when they are not. When ramp signals are not operating,
drivers approaching in platoons from the arterial road/entry ramp intersection should be able to approach
and enter the motorway as they would at a ramp that has no signals (i.e. a standard motorway entry ramp
layout). For details on the design of unmetered entry ramps, refer to the AGRD Part 4C (Austroads 2015c).
Figure 11.5: Flowchart of the ramp signals design process
Design traffic flows
Number of metered lanes
Ramp storage
Entry ramp lane configuration
Stop line position
Acceleration and merging area
Traffic management devices
Source: Adapted from VicRoads (2013b).
11.5.1 Design Traffic Flows
The general principles and process for motorway flow and capacity analysis to inform entry ramp design is
provided in Section 5 and Section 6.
Traffic volumes used in the capacity analysis should take into consideration current peak period traffic flows
and any anticipated increase in traffic volumes that would result from capacity increases due to:
• an upgraded motorway
• traffic growth trends (e.g. traffic volume increases due to alterations to any arterial road network links)
• changes that may alter travel patterns (e.g. impact of new traffic generators which may be serviced by the
entry ramps).
An appropriate design year needs to be selected. For discussion on considerations for selecting the
appropriate design year, refer to AGTM Part 2 (Austroads 2015d). According to AGTM Part 6 (Austroads
2013b), interchanges should be designed for forecast traffic volumes 20 years after opening.
To facilitate the design of geometric and operational elements of ramp metering systems, the estimated
design traffic flow needs to have sufficient detail, including hourly flows, vehicle classification and origin-
destination patterns.

11.5.2 Number of Metered Lanes at the Stop Line
Ideally, the discharge capacity of a metered entry ramp will be such that the maximum release rate will be able
to meet the peak traffic demand at the subject ramp. The maximum release rate is directly proportional to the
number of lanes at the stop line and the number of vehicles per green per lane allowed to discharge; and is
inversely proportional to the average minimum cycle time. Setting the maximum release rate to be equal to the
peak demand, then the number of lanes required can be calculated by Equation 5 (Austroads 2014a):
cr ×qra 5
nla =
3600×qvgl
where
nla = number of lanes at the ramp signal
cr = average minimum cycle time of the ramp signals
qra = ramp arrival demand flow in vehicles per hour
qvgl = release rate at the ramp signal per cycle, per lane (vehicles/green/lane)
Ramp signals will have variable cycle times depending on the traffic flow conditions. The average minimum
cycle time adopted for design and capacity analysis is the average cycle time over the design peak hour.
The average minimum cycle time is determined based on the demand and the nature of the control
algorithm. The average minimum cycle time would be relatively higher on high-demand motorways than on
low-demand motorways.
Four lanes at the stop line is considered a practical limit to the number of lanes at the stop line. Having more
than four lanes at the stop line would require careful consideration of the acceleration and merging areas.
Higher number of lanes at the stop line may be feasible if there is an added lane.
In Australia and New Zealand, ramp signals that have been installed generally operate on one vehicle being
released per green per lane. Special care should be taken when considering the release of more than one
vehicle per green per lane, as the actual release rate achieved may be less than the theoretical release rate
due to driver confusion (e.g. where two vehicles per green per lane is the theoretical release rate, the actual
release rate may only be 1.7 vehicles per green per lane).
Release of more than one vehicle per green per lane should only be considered for unique circumstances,
such as ramps that cannot be widened to achieve the operational objectives or for high flow applications
such as motorway-to-motorway interchanges. Where considering the release of more than one vehicle per
green per lane, the actual rather than theoretical release rate should be used in any capacity analysis
associated with the ramp signal application.
The number of lanes that can be provided will be influenced by the space available for their provision. Lane
widths adopted should be consistent with minimum lane widths used on the motorway carriageway; refer to
the AGRD Part 4C (Austroads 2015c).
11.5.3 Entry Ramp Queue Storage Requirements
The traffic arrival rate at an entry ramp can exceed the discharge rate of the ramp, resulting in a queue
building up. It is possible that the back-of-queue can extend and overspill to adjacent arterials roads. The
purpose of entry ramp storage is to provide a buffer so that the ramp metering system can manage mainline
occupancies at periods of high demand such that the adjacent arterial roads are unimpeded. Enough storage
needs to be provided to accommodate the estimated maximum number of vehicles that need to be stored
based on the design flows.

The total length of storage (in lane-metres) is the sum of vehicles that can be queued for the length along the
ramp between the ramp signal stop line and the arterial road intersection, multiplied by the average vehicle
length. An average vehicle length of 8.5 m (including the space between vehicles) can be used to convert
the number of vehicles to lane-metres. A higher average vehicle length is adopted if there is a significant
percentage of trucks in the traffic mix.
The determination of storage requirements is best done through modelling. Modelling needs to consider
demand, duration of peak demands, travel patterns, and the control algorithm used. The type of modelling
used may be simulation (microscopic or macroscopic) or queuing theory models (e.g. see AGTM Part 2:
Traffic Theory (Austroads 2015d)).
In the case of coordinated ramp signals, it is possible to distribute storage requirements across three or four
consecutive ramps when certain ramps cannot accommodate the desired storage specifications. The control
algorithm would need to take this into consideration to ensure that the risk of queue overspill is managed
properly.
Ideally, storage is provided at the ramp. Land availability, cost considerations and other constraints may
preclude provision of the recommended storage at ramps. This is particularly the case when existing
motorways are retrofitted for ramps signals. Under these conditions, storage can be augmented at the
arterial road, particularly on turning bays. It is important that storage on the arterial road does not hinder
through movements. Coordination with arterial traffic management can also assist in managing the storage
requirements (see Section 14.3).
Desirable minimum storage
A minimum amount of storage should be specified for all ramps with ramp signals. Provision of minimum
storage facilitates operational flexibility to provide for the following situations:
• to provide storage for vehicles while limiting their entry onto the motorway when the ramp merge or
downstream motorway is at, or approaching, capacity
• to balance queues between adjacent ramps in a coordinated system
• to reduce the likelihood of overflow queues extending onto the arterial road
• to provide for short-term variations in traffic demand within the peak period
• to accommodate traffic growth or future change in travel patterns.
The minimum storage (LrMin) can be calculated from Equation 6 (based on Austroads 2009b):
t ×qra ×Lvs 6
LrMin =
60
where
LrMin = minimum total storage (lane-m)
specified period of the peak demand in minutes, generally set to be in the order
t = of four minutes (in other words, the ramp holds four minutes of peak period
vehicle arrivals)
space required to store an average vehicle; this depends on the traffic
Lvs =
characteristics of the subject site and the average vehicle using the ramp
qra = ramp arrival demand flow in vehicles per hour
In the case of coordinated ramp signals, if the minimum storage requirements are distributed over three or
four consecutive ramps signals, then no ramp should have storage equivalent to less than three minutes of
peak period demand.
Table 11.1 shows estimations of the minimum storage.

Design options to accommodate ramp storage requirements
Where more storage is required than what the ramp can accommodate in its existing or currently proposed
form, options include:
• lengthening the ramp by extending the ramp nose and mainline merge
This enables the stop line to be further down the ramp.
• changing the alignment of the ramp, particularly the left and right approach lanes onto the ramp, to
effectively extend the ramp’s length
• adding an additional lane along the full length of the ramp, e.g. providing two lanes on a ramp where only
one lane is required for capacity at the stop line
For adding a third lane, this option may have implications for the stop line location.
• adding one or two flared lanes at the stop line, particularly if the capacity is marginal for the currently
proposed number of stop line lanes
This option may also have implications for the stop line location.
• minor civil works on the adjoining arterial road to widen or extend the turning lanes onto the ramp to
accommodate queue overspill from the ramp.
Selecting the best option is usually determined by cost, the state of the existing pavement and shoulder on
the ramp, and feasibility of extending the ramp.
It is preferable to provide adequate storage for queuing vehicles on the ramp rather than on the arterial road.
Treatments to accommodate queued vehicles on the arterial road should generally only be carried out if
provision of additional storage on the ramp is not viable. Arterial road treatments could involve widening the
pavement or painting new line markings. Importantly, vehicles queued on the arterial road should not impede
through traffic on the arterial road. Section 14 discusses operational treatments to assist in mitigating
impacts of queue overspill.
Table 11.1 shows estimations of the desirable minimum storage length to store four minutes of the arrival
flow. The cycle time to discharge the ramp arrival flow is also shown to indicate the limits when the cycle time
would drop below the desired minimum of 7.5 seconds for one- and two-lanes, and below 6.5 seconds for
three- or four-lanes.

Table 11.1: Lanes at the stop line, and desirable minimum ramp storage given ramp design flow
Desirable Average storage per lane (m) relative to the

Ramp design Indicative number of lanes at the stop line(1)
minimum storage
flow(2) (pc/h) layout(2)
(lane-metres) 1 lane 2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes
200 Single lane 113 113
merge(3)
300 170 170
400 227 227
500 283 283 142
600 340 340 170
700 397 198
800 453 227
900 510 255 170
1000 567 283 189
1100 623 312 208
1200 680 340 227
1300 Added lane 737 246 184
entering the
1400 793 264 198
motorway or
1500 two-lane merge 850 283 213
1600 907 302 227
1700 963 321 241
1800 1020 340 255
1900 Added lane 1077 269
entering the
2000 1133 283
motorway plus a
2100 merging lane 1190 298
2200 1247 312
2300 1303 326
2400 1360 340
2500 1417 354
2600 1473 368
2700 1530 383
2800 1587 397
2900 1643 411
3000 1700 425
1 Average storage per lane assumes lanes of equal length. Not applicable with auxiliary lanes at the stop line.
2 Ramp layout and ramp design flow are subject to the bottleneck capacity on the mainline.
3 A single lane merge layout may be satisfactory for higher flows, e.g. a ramp flow of 1600 veh/h with mainline of 2400
veh/h on a two-lane motorway mainline.
Assumptions:
The ramp holds four minutes of peak period demand.
Storage per vehicle (m): 8.5.

11.5.4 Entry Ramp Lane Configuration
It is desirable to design an entry ramp with a constant number of lanes along its length (i.e. from the ramp
entry to the stop line) as this maximises storage for a given ramp signal capacity. The length of the ramp is
then equal to the specified entry ramp lane-metre storage divided by the number of lanes at the stop line.
However, if practical constraints do not allow maintaining the same number of lanes throughout the ramp, a
localised flaring at the stop line can be used. Examples are shown in Figure 11.6 and Figure 11.7. In this
design, the number of lanes at the stop line is greater than the number of lanes at the ramp entry, thereby
the width of the ramp is reduced but the length of the ramp is extended to accommodate the required entry
ramp storage.
Unless there are constraints that inhibit the width and length of the required upgrade, it is preferable to limit
the number of through ramp lanes to two, and provide one or two localised flares (meeting demand) to
reduce the probability and number of high-speed merges and undertaking on the left by aggressive drivers
within the ramp element.
In the case of a design with localised flaring at the stop line (Figure 11.6 and Figure 11.7), the distance from
the start of the taper to the end of the taper should be long enough to accommodate the lane change
manoeuvre. The distance from the end of the taper to the stop line should be able to accommodate the
length of the longest anticipated vehicle stopping at the stop line without blocking its adjacent lane. A
distance of 30 m for the taper and another 30 m from the end of the taper to the stop line has been adopted
by VicRoads. If longer vehicles (e.g. 36.5 m length trucks) are anticipated, the distance from the end of the
taper to the stop line needs to be extended. The distance from the start of the taper to the stop line should
not be too long as it may encourage vehicles to use the space for overtaking when the signals are not in
operation, therefore posing a crash risk. Extending the length of the flare could result in use of the left lane,
requiring the stop line to be pushed further back from the nose to more safely cater for ‘signals-off’ merging.
Figure 11.6: Example of localised flaring at the stop line for one auxiliary lane
Figure 11.7: Example of localised flaring at the stop line for two auxiliary lanes

11.5.5 Stop Line Position Relative to the Nose
The position of the stop line should enable a vehicle to accelerate and merge into the mainline of the
motorway. The length required to accelerate and undertake the merge at the entry ramp should be based on
the speed of the left lane of the motorway when the ramp signals would be in operation.
The positioning of the stop line needs to achieve a balance between safety for merging traffic and
maximising ramp storage. Vehicles require adequate distance to merge within the ramp, as well as to
accelerate from a standing start at the stop line to speeds at which they can merge with mainline traffic. The
number of lanes at the stop line and the lane arrangement will determine the required distance of the stop
line back from the nose. The basic principle is to merge vehicles coming from a stop (or rolling start) position
from the stop line before or at the nose.
The stop line distance from the nose is set at 80 m for ramps with one and two lanes at the stop line. Two
lanes at the stop line should merge into one lane by the nose (at 1 m/sec lateral movement). The distance
from the stop line to the nose may be increased from 80 m to 100 m for site-specific conditions such as:
• where the merge area is on a steep upgrade, particularly on grades over 5%
• to improve the visibility of the signals due to a crest, curve, vegetation or other restriction
• where a curved ramp alignment restricts sight distance to the two-to-one-lane merge area
• where the ramp traffic includes a significant number of trucks
• on long high-standard ramps that may operate at high speeds.
For cases where there are three or four lanes at the stop line, the location of the stop line relative to the nose
follows the same principle of allowing sufficient distance for vehicles to merge with each other and achieve
sufficient speed to merge with the mainline. Guidance for the various configurations is as follows:
• for ramps with three lanes at the stop line and one-lane merge
– ramps with a continuous third lane on approach or parallel flared length greater than 30 m
(Figure 11.8)
– ramps with localised flare at the stop line (Figure 11.9)
• for ramps with four lanes at the stop line and with two-lane merge
– ramps with extended flare or continuous approach lanes (Figure 11.10)
– ramps with localised flare on both sides (Figure 11.11).
The shoulder width is fully developed adjacent to the nose. This acts as a ‘run-out’ area and provides
additional width for safety in the event that merging manoeuvres are not completed by the nose.
The location of the stop line (and therefore the metering signals) needs to consider the horizontal and
vertical geometry of the ramp, and also the potential for overhead and roadside structures to obscure the
stop line and signals.

Figure 11.8: Three lanes to one at nose (continuous third lane on approach)
Source: Main Roads Western Australia (2013a).
Figure 11.9: Three lanes to one at nose (localised flaring at stop line)

Figure 11.10: Four lanes to two lanes at nose (extended flare or continuous approach lanes)
Figure 11.11: Four lanes to two lanes at nose (localised flare both sides)

11.5.6 Acceleration and Merging Configuration
The acceleration and merging distance is measured from the stop line to the end of the merge taper, and it
includes the distance from the stop line to the nose. The taper is typically based on a 1:40 angle. The
principle in specifying the acceleration and merging distance is to allow sufficient space for vehicles to reach
a sufficient speed and time to safely merge into the mainline. In most cases, for a smart motorway operating
near capacity, the speed of vehicles in the left lane would be approximately 80 km/h.
When determining the acceleration length and location of the stop line, consideration should be given to:
• the acceleration length of vehicles
• grade corrections to the acceleration length
• the type of vehicle which needs to accelerate from a stopped position
Where heavy commercial vehicles utilise the entry ramp and no bypass facility is in place for their use,
the impact of these vehicles on the operation of the signals and merge should be considered.
• any merging that may need to be undertaken on the ramp itself (i.e. where more than one lane of traffic
on the ramp needs to merge prior to merging with the mainline motorway and after the location of the
ramp signals)
• sight distance to the merge location on the ramp, particularly where the merge is located on a curved
ramp
• visibility to the signals, particularly where alterations are made to the vertical or horizontal alignment of an
existing ramp
• the need to provide adequate storage on the entry ramp for operational purposes. For shorter existing
entry ramps, this may conflict with the location of the stop line due to the need to meet the standards with
respect to acceleration and merging. In these instances, the existing entry ramp may need to be modified
including extending the ramp nose and the overall merge length to ensure minimum standards are
satisfied.
In the case of a ramp with one or two lanes at the stop line and one lane merge, the recommended
acceleration and merging distance based on grade is specified in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2: Acceleration and merging distances from ramp signals
Grade Acceleration and merging distance (m) (including taper)

2% or less 295
3 or 4% 366
5 or 6% 413
Source: Based on Austroads (2010b).
It is desirable to configure the acceleration and merging lane with a parallel section, as it provides a longer
distance of travel for vehicles to accelerate to the motorway merging speed before changing into the
adjacent through lane.
It is noted that determination of the stop line location relative to the ramp nose within the acceleration and
merge area should also consider conditions when the ramp meters are turned off. This is important in
relation to ramp operation at normal uncontrolled ramp speed. Provision for merging to be undertaken on the
ramp itself needs to be considered (i.e. where more than one lane of traffic on the ramp needs to merge to a
lesser number of lanes prior to the ramp nose). For a two-lane to one-lane merge, a distance of 80 m is
generally appropriate. Also refer to AGRD Part 4C (Austroads 2015c).

11.5.7 Traffic Management Devices
The traffic management devices of a ramp meter include:

• detectors
• signal controllers, pedestals and lanterns
• ramp control signs
• CCTV cameras.
Detectors
A ramp metering system based on traffic adaptive control relies on information from vehicle detectors.
Hence, dynamic ramp signal operation requires detectors at strategically placed locations. Correct
placement of these detectors is vital — refer to Section 9.1 for detailed guidance regarding placement of
vehicle detectors to support ramp metering operations and other smart motorway elements.
Inductive loop detectors are often used to provide detection for a ramp metering system. VicRoads has also
applied wireless vehicle detectors and found them to be suitable to provide mainline or ramp detection
(VicRoads 2013b).
Controllers, pedestals and lanterns
General guidance on the controllers, pedestals and lanterns are as follows:

• Controller location – should be at a safe location for workers, with nearby space for vehicle access and
parking. The location should also facilitate connections to power and system communications. A
reasonably flat area (minimum 1900 x 1200 mm) providing access to both doors is required.
Controllers are usually located either near the ramp entrance (preferred) or on the left side of the ramp,
between the traffic signals and the stop line. Locating a controller on the right side between the ramp and
the mainline is generally undesirable.
• Signal pedestals – a signal support pedestal should be installed adjacent to the ramp, 10 m downstream
of the stop line.
Table 11.3 presents the options for signal pedestal installations based on the number of metered lanes at
the stop line.
As traffic signal mast arm pedestals are considered non-frangible roadside hazards, installations should
include a safety barrier, typically a guard fence, which should also serve to protect the signal controller if
installed at that location.
Table 11.3: Ramp signal pedestal options
Metered lanes Pedestal options

2 1. Mast arm or joint use mast arm (JUMA) (9 m or, if additional height required for
CCTV or reception and/or transmission of detector data; 11 m or 13.5 m). This is
the preferred option as it minimises roadside hazards in a high-speed environment.
2. Pedestals either side of the ramp (2B, i.e. 4.1 m) (may require additional safety
barriers on both sides to shield the poles).
(Note – assumes both high- and low-mounted lanterns on each side).
3. Joint use pole (JUP) for installation of detector or CCTV equipment (may require
additional safety barriers on both sides to shield the poles).
(Note – assumes both high- and low-mounted lanterns on each side).
3–4 Gantry
(including priority access
lanes)

• Signal lanterns – standard 200 mm three-aspect LED lanterns are used for ramp signals. These are
provided as high-mounted lanterns with good visibility for approaching motorists, and as low-mounted
lanterns for releasing vehicles at the stop line.
The high-mounted lanterns are to be aimed towards the ramp entrance or, where a ramp is curved, aimed to
maximise the distance at which they can be sighted by approaching motorists. Subject to the length of the
outreach and ramp width involved, two high-mounted lanterns would generally be provided.
Electronic ramp control signs
Electronic ramp control signs associated with ramp meter operation are as follows:
• Warning and regulatory signs on approaches – provided on the approaches to the arterial/entry ramp
intersection to face traffic turning onto the ramp. In addition to indicating if the signals are in operation,
they can also be activated to indicate the ramp is closed as part of motorway incident management, as
shown in Figure 11.12.
Figure 11.12: Warning and regulatory signs on approaches
• Warning signs on entry ramp – these signs are used on entry ramps for situations where there is
restricted sight distance to the ramp signals. They indicate that signals are ahead and alert drivers of the
need to stop when the signals are in operation. Figure 11.13 shows such warning signs, with the
electronic sign alternating the messages ‘ramp signals on’ and ‘prepare to stop’.
Figure 11.13: Warning signs on entry ramp
Source: Main Roads Western Australia (2013b).

• Arterial road VMS – these signs may be four-colour full matrix variable message signs used to display
motorway travel times, including ramp delay, as well as information about incidents, roadwork, and
motorway or ramp closure. These signs enable drivers to make alternative route choices before entering
the motorway. They are to be located on the arterial road in advance of the left- and right-turn lanes at the
ramp interchange. Refer to Section 10.
CCTV cameras
CCTV cameras are used to monitor the motorway, including ramps and adjacent arterials (Section 9.2). A
CCTV camera located at the interchange near the ramp entrance can provide the best coverage:
• of the arterial road approaches
• along the full length of the ramp
• at the motorway merge.
Alternatively, a camera may be mounted on the JUMA, JUP or gantry pole extension.
11.5.8 Priority Access Lanes
A priority access lane may be provided to improve the service level for:
• trucks – in recognition of the economic value of efficient movement of freight, or to allow heavy vehicles to
reach motorway operational speeds on uphill grades (Figure 11.14)
• vehicles occupied by more than one person, such as buses, taxis or specified high occupancy vehicles
(HOV), e.g. a Transit lane to provide priority and incentive for people to share vehicle usage
Motorcycles may also use Transit lanes.
• public transport priority where the entry ramp is part of a bus route.
With appropriate regulatory signing, a priority lane is enforceable under the Australian Road Rules.
Figure 11.14: Truck bypass lane at ramp metering signals

In the context of managing motorway flow, it is generally better to control all entry flows. Therefore, as a
general principle, priority access lanes should not be provided unless there is a strategic need. In addition, if
a strategic need does exist, preference is generally given to providing a metered priority access lane or a
partially controlled/free-flow bypass lane, rather than free-flow access, to ensure control of all entry flows.
The decision of whether or not to implement priority lanes is often based on the policy at the time. An
economic evaluation and a business case are likely to be required to properly identify a strategic need for
their implementation. The physical space available at a site may limit the ability of a project to incorporate a
priority access lane.
NZ Transport Agency commissioned a review of priority lanes (GHD 2010) and concluded that, in general,
priority lanes are working particularly well in meeting the agency’s objective of actively managing the corridor
so as to improve overall efficiency of travel, as well as improving travel efficiency for priority vehicles such as
passenger transport and freight. The review examined usage, travel time benefits, compliance, ramp
throughput, layouts, time of operation, and whether the priority lane located to the left or right.
Free-flow priority lane
If a ramp includes an additional bypass lane that is unmetered, this bypass lane should operate as an
auxiliary lane to the left of the metered lanes, with a solid line division that continues beyond the stop line
and finishes at the merge gore between the rightmost ramp lane and the left lane of the mainline.
The free-flow priority lane layout requires a second merge distance when entering the mainline and may
involve more extensive roadwork when compared to a metered priority lane layout. Vehicle detectors are
provided in the priority lane so that the ramp signal algorithm can adjust the ramp queuing calculations
accordingly.
As fast-moving trucks travel past stationary vehicles in the metered lanes, a separation is provided between
the bypass lane and the metered vehicle lanes, which is generally 0.7 m wide.
The distance from the nose to the start of the bypass merge taper should allow metered vehicles to merge
with the motorway traffic or choose to stay in the auxiliary lane and allow bypass vehicles to merge. This is
generally around 180 m.
The initial bypass lane merge taper should be a standard 140 m merge length. A further 100 m parallel
auxiliary lane is based on four seconds travel at 100 km/h. Where downstream obstructions restrict the
available length, this parallel section may be reduced. The 140 m final merge taper is the standard motorway
merge length in Victoria (Figure 11.15). These design standards differ amongst the jurisdictions. Refer to a
jurisdiction’s design standards to obtain the locally prescribed design lengths.
Partially controlled/free-flow bypass lane
In the context of managing motorway flow and controlling all entry flows, this priority lane operation has a
free-flow bypass lane which is controllable with ramp signals that switch on separately to the general traffic
ramp signals. This arrangement has the advantage of only activating the bypass lane signals when the
motorway is approaching a high level of occupancy. The bypass operates as an uncontrolled/free-flow lane
when traffic conditions permit, e.g. when the motorway is below capacity and ramp queues are under control,
and then the lane operates as a controlled bypass during times of critical mainline flow management. The
design layout is the same as a free-flow bypass lane.

Metered priority lane
A metered priority lane is appropriate under the following circumstances:

• if the motorway management requires that all entering traffic is controlled
• if insufficient space is available on the motorway for the unmetered merge length, e.g. if the start of an
exit ramp taper is immediately downstream.
For safety reasons, the stop line for a metered bypass lane should always be in line with the stop line for the
other metered lanes, and the signals should also operate in sync with the signals for the other metered lanes
rather than independently (Figure 11.16).
The stop line with this layout is located 150 m from the ramp nose to provide additional merge distance for
the three-to-one-lane merge. This means less storage space behind the stop line compared to the usual 80
m setback of the stop line from the nose. Alternatively, to retain storage space, the nose can be extended to
provide the required 150 m merge distance.
A metered priority lane can only be used when metering is in operation, as there is inadequate merge
distance for free-flowing vehicles when metering is not in operation. Lane control signs are therefore required
to close the priority lane to all traffic outside metering times.

Figure 11.15: VicRoads standard drawing for two lanes metered plus free-flow priority lane
80 m
180 m
140 m
100 m
140 m

Figure 11.16: VicRoads standard drawing for two lanes metered plus metered priority lane

11.5.9 Motorway-to-motorway Ramps
The performance of a smart motorway is determined by its ability to minimise or avoid flow breakdown, to
perform well under stress, and to recover as soon as possible in the event of congestion occurring. This
means designing the infrastructure to minimise the potential for flow breakdown, and providing facilities to
manage traffic demand and flow within the motorway’s capacity. Therefore, the general principle is to control
and regulate all traffic entering a smart motorway.
Generally, metering motorway-to-motorway (M2M) ramps is essential for the overall management of an
urban motorway and can potentially provide a net reduction in journey travel times for motorists by
contributing to preventing or reducing flow breakdown. Where ramp metering is provided, it would only
operate when needed, and uninterrupted flow operation would be available at other times. If flow breakdown
does occur on the motorway on the departure side of the ramp, the traffic from the entering motorway would
be affected very quickly.
When high flows enter a motorway from a connecting motorway, having control of these inflows through
ramp metering enables coordination with other ramp signals along the motorway. The ability to balance
queues and wait times between coordinated ramps provides greater overall control of flows along the
motorway. A further advantage of metering M2M ramps is that it could assist in the ability to manage traffic
during incidents and improve the recovery from flow breakdown after an incident.
As drivers enter M2M ramps from high-speed motorways, it is essential that they are alerted to the possible
need to stop at signals on the ramp. Signage must indicate the need to slow down, and there must be
adequate sight distance to the ramp signals to allow them adequate distance to brake. VSL can also be
deployed to lower speeds on the ramp when the signals are in operation and thus ensure motorists approach
the signals at safe speeds.
Further guidance on management of M2M interfaces and treatment options is provided in Section 14.6.
11.5.10 Designing for Future Retrofitting of Ramp Signals
In the design of new motorways or ramps that do not meet the criteria for the provision of ramp signals within
the five-year timeframe, it can be beneficial to incorporate future provision for ramp signals that are likely to
be retrofitted within the next 20 years. This may be particularly desirable in an urban growth area.
The design features that should be considered to facilitate the future retrofitting of ramp signals are as follows:
• The ramp width between the ramp entrance and the future stop line location should provide for the minimum
width likely if the ramp was to be metered. This is typically a minimum of two lanes (7.0 m), with interim
marking of a single lane and shoulder. The merge taper/length could also be provided in its future position.
• The provision of full-depth pavement under shoulders to provide for future traffic when an additional lane
is marked, and using black asphalt for the shoulder, rather than coloured asphalt (used in some
jurisdictions).
• Entry ramp lengths (minimum 420 m from the ramp entrance to the physical nose) being of generous
length to provide for future storage (up to 1200 pc/h for two lanes).
• Verge width requirements for ramp signals and roadside furniture installation.
• For higher entry flows, consider provision for future ramp widening and/or lengthening to suit three- or
four-lane layouts, as appropriate for forecast flows.
• Location of conduits along ramps. In some instances, it would be desirable to install power and
communications conduits as part of the initial ramp construction, particularly if other conduits are being
installed, e.g. for roadway lighting or motorway data stations.
• The provision of data stations at interchanges for traffic counting and evaluation of future traffic
management needs, with detector locations to suit ramp signals.
• Position, depth and spacing of stormwater pits, e.g. clear of future posts/features, and to manage spread width.
• Position lighting poles to avoid future relocation of other poles/devices, and outside the deflection zone of
any future barriers.

12. Lane Use Management Systems (Including Variable Speed

Limits)
This section of the Guide incorporates some content from the Managed Freeways Handbook for Lane Use
Management, Variable Speed Limits and Traveller Information (VicRoads 2013a).
Lane use management systems (LUMS) allocate and manage the available road space through display of
variable speed limits (VSL) and lane control signals (LCS) (Figure 12.1). Speed limits and lane status are
varied in response to changing road and traffic conditions as they are detected by the motorway
management system and TMC operators.
Figure 12.1: Example of LUMS in operation
Merge right from lane one (left lane) due to upcoming lane closures. Speed limit 100 km/h.
In the past, speed management and lane use management have often been installed separately, such as in
tunnel and bridge environments, or reversible lane systems.
The current practice for smart motorways is to provide integrated speed and lane use management that
enables full control of traffic flows on the mainline, in support of smart motorway objectives.
This Guide defines LUMS as including variable speed limits, and refers to electronic signs within LUMS as
‘LUMS signs’ that have capability to display both VSL and LCS. Note that other guidelines may refer to
LUMS signs as VSL/LCS or lane use signs (LUS).
There are number of VSL-specific applications that can be integrated within LUMS, or operate as a
stand-alone system where lane use management is not provided. Design considerations for VSL-only
systems are also covered in this section of the Guide.

12.1.1 LUMS Applications
There are a number of different LUMS applications that contribute to smart motorway benefits. LUMS
applications enable reactive management of traffic in response to an incident, event, inclement weather, and
other causes of non-recurrent congestion. LUMS is also used to provide capacity improvement by enabling
operational strategies involving use of the emergency lane for traffic.
The use of LUMS for reversible lane applications on motorways is not covered in detail in this Guide, but
some guidance is available in AGTM Part 10: Traffic Control and Communication Devices (Austroads
2016e).
LUMS for incident and event management
Section 2.2 describes the role of smart motorways in improving the safety and efficiency of incident
management through faster detection and response, better on-site management and improved traffic
diversion.
Once an incident is verified, LUMS can be used to quickly and safely activate traffic management devices
(LUMS signs) that will close one or more lanes and manage traffic speed on approach to, and through, the
incident site.
The reduced speed limit improves safety for lane changing manoeuvres and provides safer conditions at the
incident site for the benefit of workers, incident victims and the travelling public. Lane control can be used to
improve emergency access to the incident site, as well as to divert traffic off the motorway via an exit ramp in
the case of a full carriageway closure or major incident/event.
Lane control and speed limit reductions may also be triggered by planned roadworks/maintenance activities
or other events.
LUMS can be used to manage an incident or roadworks site in a similar manner to static signs. Figure 12.2
shows the similarities between a typical layout of LUMS signs compared to the components of a typical
worksite. LUMS for incident/event management may be initiated automatically as an incident is detected by
the system, or following operator intervention.
Figure 12.2: Comparison of LUMS layout with typical worksite traffic management

LUMS for capacity increase
LUMS is a critical component of any operational strategy that allows full- or part-time use of the emergency
lane in order to increase motorway capacity. In the absence of an emergency lane, LUMS is required to
provide operators with a means to quickly and safely close lanes to protect an incident site if a crash occurs,
and to enable emergency access. Further details on operational strategies involving the absence of an
emergency lane, or use of the emergency lane as a running lane, is provided in Section 13.
Also refer to Section 7.9 regarding provision of emergency stopping bays if there is no emergency lane on a
full- or part-time basis for an extended length (i.e. over 1 km).
12.1.2 VSL-specific Applications
There are a number of VSL-specific applications that can deliver strong safety benefits, as well as help to
improve traffic flow. These applications often rely on automated algorithms to detect changing conditions and
activate a response. They are generally integrated with other speed and lane use management applications
within the LUMS system. However, on some motorway sections, they may be installed as a stand-alone VSL
system.
VSL applications for safety and flow enhancement are discussed further below.
VSL for queue protection and congestion management
When flow breakdown and shock waves occur as a result of high demand or an incident, VSL can assist in
suppressing shock waves and can also contribute to increased safety by:
• matching the speed limit to the congested traffic speed
• protecting the back of the queue by slowing vehicles approaching the congestion (thereby reducing the
risk of secondary incidents).
• A number of states deploy dynamic algorithms for queue detection and queue protection using VSL.
VSL for inclement weather conditions
Severe weather conditions, such as heavy precipitation, high winds and ice/snow can have significant
impacts on road safety and congestion. Driver behavioural changes during inclement weather can lead to
speed differentials that increase the risk of crashes, particularly secondary crashes. For example, extra
cautious drivers will slow dramatically, whereas others will make no change which increases the risk of
drivers losing control of their vehicle.
Providing a speed limit during inclement weather means a safe speed is set for all drivers, and therefore the
speed differential should be decreased. A slower speed also allows more time for a driver to respond if they
encounter a hazard (such as water over the road) and reduces stopping distances.
Variable speed limits may be used to improve safety in inclement weather when:
• visibility is reduced by rain, fog or smoke
• pavement conditions are less than desirable (i.e. low coefficient of friction as a result of heavy
precipitation, snow or ice, or the road is flooded or has a high probability of flooding)
• weather conditions cause drivers to behave differently (e.g. alter speed) due to different perceptions of
risk
• high winds increase the risk of instability (especially for lightly-loaded heavy vehicles).
Environmental monitoring systems can be installed on motorways to measure weather and road conditions,
and provide an alert to the operator (or an automatic system response) when a configurable threshold has
been met. Actions may be to reduce speed limits, as well as other mitigation measures such as display of
warning messages on VMS and activation of water pumps.

Examples of existing weather-based VSL systems on motorways include:

• M1 Pacific Motorway (Mount White), NSW – to reduce speed through tight geometric sections during wet
weather.
• Great Western Highway (Meadow Flat to Yetholme), NSW – to reduce speed when there is black ice
formation.
• Gateway Bridge, Queensland – to reduce speed during high winds (over 50 km/h).
• M1 West Gate Bridge, Victoria – to reduce speed when there are high winds.
• Tasman Highway (including Tasman Bridge), Tasmania – to reduce speed in response to ice, water on
the road or high winds on the bridge, as well as other incidents and congestion events.
• Southern Expressway, South Australia – to reduce speed on a downhill section in response to an
incident, maintenance work or inclement weather conditions.
• South Eastern Freeway, South Australia – to reduce speed in response to thick fog.
VSL for flow control
VSL algorithms exist that can activate when at high traffic flows as they get close to a critical level (but before
flow breakdown), in order to smooth and stabilise traffic flows through a critical bottleneck and minimise
congestion.
Research by Papageorgiou, Kosmatopoulos and Papamichail (2008) has determined that:

• when VSL is activated at under-critical densities, it can have an adverse impact on traffic efficiency (i.e.
leads to increased travel times)
• when activated at critical and over-critical densities, VSL can help to delay the onset of flow breakdown
(by shifting the critical occupancy to higher values), but generally has limited ability to prevent flow
breakdown
• VSL at critical levels of operation provides a reduction in the speed differentiation of vehicles (e.g.
homogenisation of speeds), which can result in improved flow stability.
Academic research has been undertaken to investigate the integration of VSL with coordinated ramp signals
systems to help meter the mainline upstream of a bottleneck, based on density and occupancy data (Carlson
et al. 2012; Abdel-Aty et al. 2009; Hegyi, De Schutter & Hellendoorn 2005). The research suggests that the
integration of ramp signalling and VSL operations will produce the best benefits. The future of VSL for flow
control applications to smart motorways should be considered in the context of integration with the
coordinated ramp metering system.
Other systems
VSL systems can also be used to reduce speed limits for environmental benefits, i.e. to reduce vehicle
emissions and fuel consumption, improve air quality and reduce noise levels. Such systems have been used
internationally, such as in Europe, to keep road environmental conditions within regulated levels.
12.1.3 Benefits
LUMS can contribute a range of smart motorway benefits, albeit to varying degrees depending on the LUMS
application. A summary of benefits provided by different applications is provided in Table 12.1, with details of
empirical evaluations of LUMS schemes provided in Appendix A.
Whilst the benefits of VSL in relation to road safety are clearly demonstrated, overseas evidence is still
inconclusive in relation to the impact of VSL on capacity and traffic flow, particularly since many evaluation
studies to date may not be relevant to use of VSL on lower speed urban motorways in Australia. Further
research and field trials are required in Australia to test the impact on traffic flows. VSL alone may have
limited effectiveness in preventing flow breakdown as it cannot help to manage demand and will likely have
limited impact on trip diversion. However, it can help to stabilise traffic and reduce congestion.

A LUMS benefit-cost analysis undertaken for NSW demonstrated that the main benefits of LUMS and VSL, when
installed on motorways with a permanent emergency lane, accrue from travel time savings due to less congestion
(ARRB Group 2015). Other major benefits include reduction in crashes, reduction in delay due to reduced incident
clearance times, and reduction in emissions/fuel consumption; however, these are less significant in an economic
analysis. Additional benefits accrue where LUMS including VSL is used for ALR or part-time ELR.
Improved traffic control on the mainline, when integrated with improved traveller information, should result in
better customer experience as a result of less stop-and-go situations and better understanding of the
downstream motorway condition during an incident or severe congestion. However, care must be taken
when operating LUMS, particularly in relation to dynamic speed management, to ensure that the speed limit
displays are appropriate for the prevailing conditions. Otherwise road users may lose confidence in the
system, which may reduce compliance and benefits realisation (Section 15.3).
Table 12.1: Summary of contribution of LUMS/VSL applications for smart motorway benefits
Application Contribution to benefits

LUMS for • Protect the incident/works area – safer and quicker than traditional traffic management practices.
incident and • Change lane allocation or function to maximise/prioritise available road space (i.e. to provide quick
event access for emergency vehicles/workers, to facilitate safe enforcement and compliance operations,
management and to minimise impacts on traffic flow).
• Manage/harmonise traffic speeds to improve safety and maintain stability of traffic flow.
• Saving resources required for traditional traffic management during incidents.
LUMS for ALR • Enable safe utilisation of the emergency lane to provide additional capacity, either on a permanent
and part-time basis or during periods of high flow
use of the - at specific locations, such as on approach to an exit ramp to prevent queuing vehicles on the
emergency mainline traffic lanes
lane
- between interchanges
- as a consistent route treatment for a longer motorway section.
• Enable safe closure of lanes and management of traffic speeds during incidents, as described
above.
VSL for queue • Detect and protect the back-of-queues during recurrent and non-recurrent congestion, and thereby
protection and reduce the likelihood of secondary incidents and additional congestion.
congestion
management
VSL for flow • Match speed limits to operating speeds and reduce the speed differentials between mainline traffic
control and entrance ramp traffic to improve safety and help prevent traffic flow breakdown.
• Support ramp metering to maintain stable flow by increasing densities, with the objective of
prolonging optimum throughput (if activated at appropriate time); assist in homogenising traffic
speeds; and meter traffic by reducing the speed upstream of a critical bottleneck.
VSL for • Manage traffic speeds on approach to/within motorway sections experiencing inclement weather
inclement conditions (i.e. high winds, fog and rain) to ensure traffic travels at a safe and appropriate speed
weather for the prevailing conditions.
• Manage/harmonise traffic speeds to improve safety and maintain stability of traffic flow.
VSL for • Various applications, including reduced speeds, to meet environmental regulations.
environment

The typical warrants for installation of LUMS and VSL on a motorway are outlined in Section 6. Generally,
the warrants rely on development of a business case to demonstrate the enhanced safety and efficiency
outcomes relative to the investment in infrastructure (which can be significant depending on the length of
route) and compared to other alternatives.
Jurisdictions may have additional warrants for implementation of LUMS and VSL; however, key
considerations for any project include:
• requirements for increased capacity based on high volume/capacity ratio of existing lanes during peak
periods, with frequent periods of flow breakdown
May include comparison of options for use of the emergency lane (full- or part-time) with conventional
road widening (refer to Section 13.2).
• requirements for improved incident management (i.e. the need to divert traffic from the incident lane and
improve access for emergency vehicles) above the existing incident management capability for the route
• requirements for enhanced safety as a result of adverse traffic conditions, such as during congestion and
bad weather
Note that LUMS and VSL systems should only be installed on sections that experience recurrent
conditions, and therefore system installation is likely to deliver significant benefits over the system
lifecycle.
• requirements for enhanced environmental conditions (i.e. air quality and noise), in response to
government policy directives.
Further research is required to test the practical application of VSL integrated with coordinated ramp signals
to help prevent flow breakdown and improve safety in high-flow conditions. More detailed guidance for this
application may be developed as further evidence becomes available on the benefits and safety implications.
Note that whilst LUMS assists in mitigating safety impacts where an emergency stopping lane is converted to
a running lane, the inclusion of LUMS in a project for facilitating incident management or enhanced safety
should not be used as a trigger for removing the emergency stopping lane.
12.3 LUMS Symbols
LUMS signs are traffic control devices with a regulatory function. As a minimum, an overhead LUMS sign
should be able to display the symbols (signals) illustrated in Table 12.2 to communicate safety-critical
instructions on speed limits and lane use (generally in accordance with AS 1742.14).
Additional symbols may be used to indicate the use of a lane by a priority vehicle type, such as buses, high
occupancy (T2/T3) vehicles, or trucks. Any other symbols used should be supported by the jurisdictional
version of the Australian Road Rules.

Table 12.2: Displays for LUMS signs
Display Description
Lane open and speed of the road

Used to indicate that a lane is open for traffic and to indicate the speed
limit of the road (based on R1-4 sign)
E.g.
Merge left
Used on the approach to a lane closure
Merge right
Merge left or right

Lane closed (steady)

Used at the closed lane(1)
Current practice in smart motorways (2)
Exit lanes
As defined in AS 1742.14 Used at designated exit lanes to indicate that drivers in that lane need to
exit at the next exit ramp on the left or right
1 A flashing red cross may be used in some jurisdictions on the approach to a lane closure to indicate that the lane
ahead is closed and for drivers to leave the lane immediately (as soon as it is safe to do so). The flashing red cross is
not included in AS 1742.14. Where used, its use should be supported by the jurisdiction’s version of the Australian
Road Rules.
2 These symbols reflect current practice in smart motorways in Australia. They are not consistent with AS 1742.14,
which has adopted a bent exit arrow to indicate an exclusive exit lane (i.e. all drivers exit) in alignment with arrows
used for static direction signing and to reflect its intended use within LUMS (i.e. prior to downstream lane or
carriageway closure). It was considered that the current symbol used in smart motorways could be interpreted as
traffic can exit or continue along the mainline; however, no further research was undertaken to inform the change in
standard. Further investigation is required to confirm the operational requirements and feasibility of use of the symbol
recommended in AS 1742.14 on LUMS signs, considering sign specifications, legibility, driver comprehension,
existing driver behavioural response, and compliance with the exit lane symbol. The current symbol used in smart
motorways may also be relevant for operational scenarios where it is desirable to distribute traffic to both the exit and
limited lanes downstream. It may be advisable to investigate other options, such as the curved arrow that is used on
static direction signs.
Speed limit
The VSL display is a permitted variation from the standard speed restriction sign (R4-1), as described in AS
1742.4 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Part 4: Speed Controls. The VSL display looks similar to
the R4-1 sign, but with illuminated white numerals in an illuminated red annulus on a black background.
The sign should be able to display speed limit numerals in increments of 10 km/h. The normal range is from
40 km/h to 100 or 110 km/h. Minimum and maximum speed limit values may depend on jurisdictional road
rules and operational needs. The numerals should be centrally located within the red annulus.

Lane control symbols
The lane control symbols comprise of an illuminated white arrow or illuminated red cross. The lane control
displays should comply with AS 1742.14 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Part 14: Traffic Signals.
There are differences across the jurisdictions between use of a white merge arrow or flashing red cross to
instruct motorists to move out of a lane. The white merge arrow provides clear direction to motorists on the
action to take; however, in its current form, it may have poor conspicuity. Additional research is required to
investigate driver behavioural response and compliance across existing and enhanced options in order to
confirm the optimal approach.
The use of a down white arrow instead of a speed limit to indicate a lane is open should be limited to
reversible lane systems, and legacy systems in some existing tunnels where separate VSL and LCS are
used due to space restrictions. According to AS 1742.14, white is the preferred colour, but a green arrow
may be used instead of white within tunnels, provided there is no conflict with intersection signals.
12.4 Sign Face Layout and Installations
The sign should comprise an illuminated dot matrix display which may be fully configurable or specifically
arranged to enable display of the required speed limit and lane control symbols. The display should allow
both red and white illumination.
The sign display should comply with AS 1742.4 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Part 4, AS 1743
Road Signs: Specifications, AS 1744 Standard Alphabets for Road Signs, and AS 5156 Electronic Speed
Limit Signs.
The sign enclosure may be rectangular or square, provided that the width of the sign, character height and
annulus size still conform to the aforementioned Australian Standards.
The pixel arrangement and minimum number of pixel rings (relative to sign size) should comply with AS
5156. When displaying the default speed limit, all pixel rings of the annulus should be illuminated. When
displaying other than the default speed limit, the outermost ring of the red annulus should be illuminated and
non-flashing to satisfy the regulatory status of the sign, with all other inner rings flashing.
The font for the speed limit numerals is specified in AS 1744. The letter height of the numerals and letter
series is specified in AS 1743. In order to achieve the same visual appearance as fonts specified in AS 1743,
the layout of pixels may be varied to allow for ‘flaring’ of illuminated displays. ‘Flaring’ can reduce the
legibility of signs (particularly for smaller sign sizes and for older drivers) and lead to reduced response
times, which could have negative safety impacts.
The widths and spaces of the numerals and the annulus may be slightly different to that provided on a static
sign, but the annulus must not be smaller than for an equivalent static sign.
Conspicuity devices
When the sign displays a speed limit which is lower than the normal speed limit, attention is drawn to it by
flashing the inner rings of the red annulus.
In exceptional circumstances, separate VSL signs may be fitted with conspicuity lights. These are yellow
lights (or LEDs) located in the four corners of the sign and they flash alternately when the displayed speed
limit is lower than normal. The requirements for these conspicuity lights are specified in AS 5156. The
conspicuity device should not adversely affect the visibility of the annulus and speed display.

Other requirements
Refer to AS 5156 for further guidance on technical and functional requirements relating to electronic speed
limit signs. The standard covers display, optical (illuminance and colours), operation and control, mechanical,
electrical and environmental requirements.
Illumination should be adjusted based on lighting conditions, especially during daylight hours, in order to help
minimise the flaring effect. However, this may be difficult to control due to the different lighting conditions
throughout the day.
The sign displays should also comply with relevant national and jurisdictional road rules.
The design should ensure that the legibility and reading distances of the LUMS signs are achieved at each
location. Refer to AS 1742 and AGTM Part 10 (Austroads 2016e). The legibility and reading distance for the
maximum speed limit on the route should be used as the basis for design. Legibility distance requirements
may impact on sign height and longitudinal positioning relative to other road features, etc.
Refer to AS 5156 for consideration of the optical performance of LED devices when determining legibility
distance requirements.
12.4.3 Sign Size
In accordance with AS 1742.4 and the findings of the research report Review of Sign Size for Electronic
Regulatory Speed Signs (Austroads 2015g), the preferred LUMS and VSL sign size for motorways, including
ramps, is size ‘C’ (i.e. 900 x 900 mm for square dimensions).
Size ‘B’ signs (600 x 600 mm) may also be considered for motorways with a default speed limit of less than
80 km/h, provided that sign legibility is adequate (i.e. not reduced due to ‘flaring’ of the numerals).
12.4.4 Geometrical Considerations
Localised civil works may be required to accommodate the ITS infrastructure, particularly to ensure the
required lateral clearances to road boundaries (refer to Section 12.4.8). Where LUMS is used to support
operational strategies such as ALR or part-time ELR, there may be requirements for significant civil works
such as pavement strengthening and minor widening to bring the emergency stopping lane to a suitable
standard for trafficking (Section 13).
The project design should also consider future road planning in relation to civil upgrades (i.e. pavement
widening) and/or operational strategies (i.e. full- or part-time use of the emergency stopping lane) when
determining location and mounting arrangements in order to minimise the need for redesign of LUMS
infrastructure at a later date.
Design sequence
The design hierarchy for sign placement for a smart motorway is described in Section 10.4.5. LUMS
sign/gantry placement should be determined after static directional sign locations and before VMS locations.
Placement relative to lane arrangement
LUMS gantries should not be placed along merge or diverge tapers. This includes entry lane tapers, exit lane
tapers and mid-block lane drops and lane gains. In these sections, the lane arrangement is not clearly
defined and drivers could be confused about which lane the LUMS displays relate to.

Placement relative to interchanges
LUMS sign placement relative to interchanges should take into account the operation and optimisation
requirements of VSL algorithms that help to control merge bottlenecks and protect back-of-queues. The
same principles may also apply to other geometric bottlenecks (i.e. lane gain/drop).
A desirable schematic layout of LUMS signs at an interchange in relation to the exit and entry ramps and
other signage is shown in Figure 12.3.
Note that this layout is not used in Queensland due to differences in the operation of VSL algorithms applied
to Queensland motorways. Refer to local jurisdictional guidelines regarding VSL algorithm requirements
relevant to vehicle detector and LUMS sign placement.
Figure 12.3: Schematic layout of LUMS sites at an interchange
Sign placement near interchanges should provide clear instructions on lane status and speed limits for
drivers entering, continuing on, and exiting the motorway. Care should be taken in relation to the positioning
of LUMS signs near exit or terminating lanes; the signs should not be located too close so as to cause driver
confusion as to whether the exit is closed. It is undesirable to position gantries close to driver decision points.
Typically, a LUMS site should be located:

• minimum 200 m downstream of the entry ramp merge taper, to reinforce the posted speed limit after the
merge has been completed
Assuming there is a bottleneck at the merge, this site also acts as a recovery site should speeds be
reduced in advance of the merge.
• minimum 200 m upstream of the exit direction sign and exit ramp diverge.
It is desirable that the first gantry of a LUMS section be located upstream of an exit ramp to increase
operational control. This ensures that during full closure, drivers have the ability to exit the motorway.
It is also desirable that a gantry be located immediately upstream of the entry ramp, at an appropriate
distance from the merge area. This is to ensure that, in the instance of an incident upstream of the entry
ramp within the interchange, the lane can still be reopened beyond the incident but before the entry ramp, so
that the entry ramp does not need to be closed unnecessarily (i.e. since the downstream lane is not
affected).

Placement within mid-block segments
The typical spacing is 500 m, with a desirable range from 400 m (minimum) to 600 m (maximum).
Where significant practical constraints prevent this layout at a particular location, nominal spacing up to the
maximum of 800 m may be used for that location. However, the maximum spacing should not be used
continuously throughout a route to provide a series of widely spaced gantries. There should be generally
consistent spacing/layout along a route.
The rationale for this spacing is provided in the following note.
Note:
The following principles have been considered in determining the longitudinal spacing of LUMS gantries:
• Travel time between gantries. It is desirable for drivers to see a sign at least every 30 seconds travel time
(desirable range of short-term memory retention) to retain lane status information.
• At various speed limit values, the travel distance in 30 seconds travel time is
– at 100 km/h: 833 m (default speed limit)
– at 80 km/h: 667 m (default speed limit)
– at 40 km/h: 333 m (incident speed limit).
• Management of the distance over which transitions occur during incidents.
• Speed limit reductions from the default speed limit to 40 km/h may require multiple steps to suit the
sequence of lane closure steps.
• Lane closures with single, sequential lane reductions requires up to four steps (and therefore four LUMS
sites) for a five-lane to one-lane reduction.
• During degraded operation, e.g. if a LUMS gantry is faulty or out-of-service, the distance becomes
significantly greater for lane and speed reductions.
Practical experience of LUMS operation in Victoria suggests that longer spacing can result in reduced
credibility if motorists cannot see the reason for a lane closure or speed reduction, and therefore think it may
be a false alarm.
Co-location and placement relative to other signs
Guidance on co-location of electronic and static signs in a smart motorway environment is provided in
Section 10.5.4.
Where LUMS signs are installed on the same gantry as other static advance direction signs and/or VMS, the
LUMS signs should be installed below any other signage, and any arrows associated with lane designation
on the static sign should be aligned with the arrows and crosses used in the LUMS signs to avoid driver
confusion.
For side-mounted VSL signs, unrelated signage should not be installed on the same post as the VSL.
If LUMS signs are not collocated with other signs (i.e. do not share the same support infrastructure), they
should be located a desirable minimum of 200 m from other static and electronic signs.

Placement for parallel routes
Where collector-distributor roads are provided adjacent to the main motorway carriageway, consideration
needs to be given to the location of the LUMS signs to minimise driver confusion. Where LUMS signs are in
place for one carriageway and are visible from the collector-distributor carriageway, LUMS signs should be
installed across both carriageways at the same longitudinal position to avoid potential driver confusion, as
shown in Figure 12.4.
Figure 12.4: LUMS sign arrangements for adjacent collector-distributor roads
Source: Green and Pyta (2007), cited in VicRoads (2013a, p14).
Consideration should also be given to placement of LUMS signs on parallel carriageways in the same
direction as a result of a major merge or diverge. Different speeds on each carriageway may be confusing for
drivers if they can see signs on both carriageways as they approach the merge or diverge. The design
should ensure appropriate location of signs relative to the merge/diverge areas and consider sight distance
to the motorway fork. Converging routes should always display the same speed limit immediately upstream
of the fork.
Placement of VSL signs on motorway ramps
Within a section of motorway with LUMS (or VSL-only) signs, all entry ramps also require VSL signs to
ensure merge speeds are harmonised with the mainline traffic.
VSL signs on entry ramps with ramp metering are generally located 20 m upstream of the ramp nose (i.e.
downstream of the stop line for the ramp signals).
VSL installation and placement at motorway-to-motorway interchanges depends on whether each motorway
meets the criteria for installation of VSL and whether the entry ramp is metered.
If VSL is provided on the mainline of the motorway being entered, VSL are required on the entry ramp to
match the speed of the mainline and assist motorists in merging. If the entry ramp is metered, then the
guidance above for placement of VSL relative to the ramp nose and stop line also applies.

If the entry ramp is metered, then VSL should also be used to slow traffic prior to the signals and to protect
the back-of-queue (i.e. locate VSL sign upstream of the desirable storage distance for the ramp signals).
Additional VSL may also be required on long motorway-to-motorway ramps to maintain continuity between
VSL schemes on both mainline motorways, and/or if there is a need to step up/down speeds where there is a
large speed differential between the departing motorway and connecting ramp.
Other considerations
Other design considerations relating to LUMS sign locations include:

• Bi-directional placement – optimal placement of sites for each carriageway direction may result in split
rather than full-width gantries. If LUMS sign placement is adjusted to enable full-width gantries, then
designers should ensure that this will not adversely impact on operational control and performance
outcomes.
• Sight distance to signs clear of visibility restrictions, including geometric road structures (i.e.
curves/gradients), other traffic management infrastructure and vegetation, and considering obscuration by
heavy vehicles.
• Potential for use of existing structures, such as bridges and overpasses (Section 12.4.6).
• The backdrop to the sign, including light contrast issues (i.e. if the backdrop is the sky). It may be possible
to retrofit a ‘target board’ to improve sign contrast, such as used for traffic signals.
• The locations of speed zone boundaries.
• The gantry location should not be intrusive and should not obscure sightlines to key landmarks and/or
landscapes.
• Opportunities to collocate with other ITS infrastructure (such as CCTV cameras) and proximity to power
and communication infrastructure.
Types of mounting structures include:

• single post (VSL only)
• cantilever
• ‘heavy’ gantry (‘walk on’ – accessible)
• ‘light’ gantry (without maintenance platform – non-accessible)
• existing infrastructure (e.g. bridge, overpass or LUMS gantry).
The selection of mounting structure should ensure that visibility and legibility requirements are met relative to
the sign size and location. Existing infrastructure should be able to accommodate the LUMS signs in terms of
the skew of the overhead structure, the ability to accommodate associated hardware, and suitability with the
preferred maintenance regime (refer to Section 12.4.9).
LUMS signs must always be mounted over the centre of each traffic lane in order to clearly communicate the
status of each lane.
In a VSL-only environment, VSL signs may be side-mounted (i.e. on posts) or overhead-mounted (as per
LUMS signs), depending on the number of lanes on the carriageway. Overhead mounting reduces sign
obscuration by heavy vehicles, particularly on routes with high proportions of trucks. The guidelines in
Table 12.3 apply for the mounting of VSL signs.
Where overhead mounting is required, it is advisable for LUMS signs (instead of VSL-only signs) to be
installed to provide maximum functionality with no or minimal cost impact.

Table 12.3: Guidelines for mounting of VSL signs
Location Mounting
Carriageway with • Side-mounted on both sides of the carriageway, in opposing pairs.
three or less lanes • Three-lane carriageways with high percentages of trucks may need to consider overhead
mounting to improve visibility. VSL signs that are overhead-mounted on three-lane
carriageways do not need to be positioned centrally over a lane (e.g. two signs can
straddle three lanes). However, the design should consider whether to provide a
consistent driver experience along a motorway route if there are other sections on the
motorway route with LUMS signs that are positioned centrally over each lane.
Carriageway with four • Overhead-mounted with signs positioned over the centre of each lane on a gantry or
lanes or more cantilever structure.
• Side-mounting may be acceptable for locations where the fourth lane is a short auxiliary
lane and upstream and downstream sections of the motorway have side-mounted VSL
signs.
Entry and exit ramps • Side-mounted in opposing pairs on both sides of the ramp (in accordance with AS 1742.2
and AS 1742.4).
Gantries spanning the whole motorway may be appropriate if a single span is desirable for aesthetic
reasons, or if a narrow median restricts gantry leg installation. Cantilever gantry structures may be required if
there is an obstruction in the median (such as a railway line) that does not allow a single span gantry.
Cantilever structures should still enable LUMS signs to be positioned over the centre of each lane.
Gantries spanning each carriageway separately may be appropriate where pavement crossfall (generally on
a curve) affects the mounting height of signs with a single span across the motorway. Gantries for the
different directions of traffic flow do not need to be positioned at the same location for each carriageway.
Side-mounted VSL are typically mounted on stand-alone poles, posts or pedestals. On long bridges,
side-mounted VSL signs should be mounted on the bridge structure such that errant vehicles sliding along
the barrier cannot come into contact with the sign. If it is not cost-effective to locate a post in the median,
then alternative mounting structures may be required.
The mounting arrangement and structures should also ensure protection of equipment from vandalism and
unwanted public access (particularly if located on bridges or overpasses with pedestrian access).
The impact of signs and mounting infrastructure on urban design and corridor visual amenity should also be
considered, particularly in iconic/sensitive landscape areas. There may be opportunity to improve the visual
impact of the mounting structures through their design; for example, through the use of ‘light’ gantries or
through use of artwork on the structure, provided it does not reduce sign legibility or cause unnecessary
distraction.
Further guidance on requirements for mounting infrastructure for VSL signs is provided in AS 5156.
12.4.7 Sign Orientation
For overhead mounting, the gantry girder/mounting structure should preferably be horizontal, above the
roadway.
If the structure is skewed or an angled gantry girder is provided (i.e. generally parallel to the crossfall), then
the following general principles apply:
• Mount signs with the sign face perpendicular to the traffic lane and the sign sides horizontal/vertical (i.e.
not parallel with the structure).
• Minimise longitudinal offset between adjacent lanes, such as through use of cantilevered support
brackets. The horizontal skew of the alignment of the signals should be no more than 15º (as illustrated in
Figure 12.5).
• Mount signs with minimal variation in the vertical clearance between the roadway and the centre of the
sign (i.e. generally parallel to the road surface).

Figure 12.5: Sign orientation on skewed structures
Source: Based on VicRoads (2007), cited in Austroads (2009b).
Project designs should give special consideration to sites located on tight horizontal curves, which may result
in a ‘parallax’ effect when signs are viewed from a distance, possibly giving the impression that signs apply
to different lanes.
Refer to Section 10.4.8 for guidance regarding horizontal and vertical clearances of electronic signs in smart
motorway environments.
In accordance with AS 5156, suitable and safe site access should be provided to both the control and sign
housing and sign support structure for personnel visiting the site.
Design features of the LUMS for any motorway environment will be influenced by the maintenance regime
undertaken. The maintenance regime will influence the:
• design of the gantry itself (i.e. whether the design of the gantry will be accessible or non-accessible)
– if non-accessible gantries are used, then a maintenance regime will need to be developed to ensure
maintenance of the infrastructure can be undertaken safely and with minimal impact on the operation
of the road (e.g. through use of bucket trucks at night with appropriate traffic management)
– accessible gantries may require a larger column (with potentially increased whole-of-life costs) and
may pose issues with respect to horizontal clearance as outlined in Section 12.4.8
However, they may reduce the impact on traffic operations during maintenance and reduce the safety
risk of falling objects.
• front or rear access – this will influence the design of the gantry to accommodate the access
arrangements
• design of any access provision to the sign post/gantry – this may include such features as a hard stand
area (i.e. concrete or asphalt apron) near the base of the structure and/or a safety barrier, which will allow
a maintenance vehicle to store clear of traffic in order for maintenance personnel to access the controller
cabinet and gantries.

12.4.10 Enforcement Devices
Enforcement may be undertaken to improve compliance and to maximise the safety and efficiency benefits
of the LUMS system.
All regulatory sign displays according to jurisdictional road rules should be enforceable. The project design
should take into consideration the possible need for speed enforcement devices to be installed onto LUMS
(or VSL-only) infrastructure, and integrated with traffic operations. Enforcement of the red cross may also be
undertaken if this is permitted in the jurisdiction’s legislation.
The requirements for enforcement and implications for design should be determined through consultation
with relevant enforcement agencies on a project-by-project basis. If they are to be installed, design features
may need to be adopted to ensure that the sign structure is suitable for this installation (i.e. no sway/shake).
12.4.11 Supporting Static Signing
Where LUMS (or VSL-only) signs are used on a controlled section of a smart motorway, static speed limit
signs should be used to support the electronic signs and ensure the safe management of traffic speeds in
the event of system failure, in alignment with jurisdictional road rules.
On the mainline upstream of the controlled section, static speed limit (R4-1) signs need to be in place to
indicate the normal speed limit. This speed limit will apply along the controlled section in the event of a
system failure. These signs would be in their normal positions at the interchange upstream of the controlled
section or at the start of the motorway.
Static speed limit (R4-1) signs must be provided approximately 400 to 600 m downstream of the controlled
section. Otherwise, if the last LUMS or VSL indicates a lower speed limit, this would apply until the end of the
road.
Short exit ramps rarely have speed limit signs, as they would only apply to the short length of the ramp past
the sign. Sometimes, advisory signs (such as W1-9) are used instead. Longer exit ramps may have static
speed limit signs.
If the default speed limit changes within the controlled section, static signs may be provided to ensure the
speed limit change is communicated to drivers in the case of a system failure. These must have text to
indicate that the posted speed limit applies only when the LUMS (or VSL-only) signs are blank.
Additional static speed limit signs within the controlled section indicating the default mainline speed limit are
not necessary. If provided, they must have text to indicate that the posted speed limit applies only when the
LUMS (or VSL-only) signs are blank.
Static signs indicating ‘Lane control ends’ or ‘Start/end variable speed limit zone’ are not necessary, as these
are not regulatory signs in the Australian Road Rules.
Static information signs may also be required as part of the enforcement regime, if required, to communicate
to drivers that permanent (automated) enforcement systems are in place on a section of smart motorway.
12.4.12 Other Supporting Traffic Management Devices
VSL signs must be installed on all entry ramps immediately prior to, and within, a LUMS or VSL-only
motorway environment, to ensure that all drivers are aware of the prevailing speed limit of mainline traffic.
The VSL signs should be installed in opposing pairs, downstream of the ramp metering stop line (if relevant).
LUMS and VSL operations also require use of smart motorway intelligence elements, such as:
• vehicle detection equipment (Section 9.1) – for input to VSL control (manual or automatic responses) and
to monitor traffic flow outcomes of changing speed limits and lane use

• CCTV cameras (Section 9.2) – may be required to

– undertake safety checks prior to and during lane closures (particularly prior to reopening to check that
the carriageway is clear of obstacles)
– monitor incidents and traffic flow outcomes of changing speed limit and lane use
• incident detection equipment (Section 9.3) – to provide automatic triggers for LUMS responses
• weather monitoring equipment (Section 9.5) – for input to VSL control (manual or automatic) to provide
speed management during inclement weather.
It is recommended that LUMS and VSL operations are also supported by appropriate use of VMS and
integration with the roadside traveller information system (refer to Section 12.5).
Additional requirements may apply where LUMS is used to support operation of priority vehicle lanes.
12.5 Operation of LUMS
LUMS generally provides the overarching rules engine for mainline traffic control, as well as VMS displays on
the mainline and arterials. This allows it to provide an integrated response to incidents, events, inclement
weather and other changing travel conditions. LUMS can manage multiple requests for changes to speed
limits, lane status and VMS displays that may be triggered automatically through the system or by TMC
operators.
Whilst LUMS and VSL may be displayed on the same LUMS signs, there may still be separate sub-systems
for operation. However, these sub-systems should be integrated as required to achieve smart motorway
objectives.
12.5.1 Types of Control
LUMS is typically operated through a combination of automatic control (i.e. through use of algorithms) and
manual control (i.e. by TMC operators). The level of automated compared to manual control may depend on
the LUMS application.
There are various different implementations of LUMS and VSL, which may include lane control, basic VSL
(simple automated responses to an event such as an incident or inclement weather) and/or dynamic VSL
algorithms (complex automated responses for queue protection, congestion management and flow
control/optimisation).
LUMS requests (actions) can be generated by multiple triggers, including:

• Manual requests (by the operator) – TMC operators may identify the need for activation or changes to
LUMS as a result of automatic alarms or alerts from the system (i.e. algorithmic detection without an
automated response) or other sources of information on network conditions, such as CCTV monitoring
and feedback from road users and operational partners (e.g. the police, public transport drivers).
• Automatic (algorithmic) requests – automated VSL algorithms should activate and deactivate when
predefined thresholds are met. The system should be configurable to change the influence of different
algorithms by time-of-day and depending on current traffic conditions. Adjustable controls should also be
in place to prevent activation/deactivation when desired.
• Automated systems should still provide (optional) pop-up notifications to TMC operators to inform them of
any action that has been taken.
• Predefined response plans – predefined response plans are developed offline and saved so that they can
be activated when needed; for example, if required to address a specific combination of one or more lane
closures at a particular location. Plans can be time-based or manually activated. Plans may include
LUMS responses for changing the priority use of a lane, or opening a part-time lane to traffic (whether on
a fixed-time schedule or in response to a situation).

• Semi-automatic requests – the system should also provide the following optional modes to support
operations, especially at the early stages of introducing a new functionality or operator training
– Information-only mode – this mode provides information to operators on what action the system would
take when an event is detected. However, it does not implement a response.
– Operator-assist mode – this semi-automated mode requires LUMS responses to be manually
approved or modified by an operator prior to implementation, which reduces the risk when configuring
new algorithms for motorway sections. Once the rate of detection and correct response is high
enough, with an appropriately low false alarm rate, the algorithm may be switched to a fully automatic
mode.
The system should have minimum delay/latency in relation to the timeliness of implementing a response, to
ensure the response is appropriate for current conditions. Change of LUMS sign displays in an affected
section should occur within a narrow timeframe so that motorists travelling along a motorway section do not
receive conflicting or dangerous messages.
To ensure safety, all LUMS responses should be submitted to a rules engine to ensure that the LUMS
responses are compliant with the operating rules and policies prior to implementation (refer to Section
12.5.2). Similarly, a sign controller interlock should be provided for each LUMS site for verification of
operating rules and policies before display, to provide safety reassurance in the case of an error in data
transmission. System-generated responses are then checked by an operator before implementation.
The system should be capable of managing multiple simultaneous requests for lane control and speed limit
changes from different sources. The system should merge multiple overlapping requests for a section of
network to develop a single LUMS response for affected sections of the network. The rules governing how
requests are merged are implemented in the logic of the system (Section 12.5.2). Further guidance on LUMS
operational architecture to manage multiple requests is provided in the Managed Motorways Framework:
Network Optimisation and Operations Rationale and Technical Requirements (VicRoads 2015a).
Automated algorithms should undergo robust testing and calibration as part of the configuration stage and
before handover for ongoing operations. Throughout operations, the algorithms need to be reconfigured and
fine-tuned to minimise false alarm rates and to ensure they continue to activate at appropriate times and with
an appropriate response. This will help account for any significant changes in traffic characteristics or
government policy directives. The optimisation role may need specific skills and knowledge above the
capability of a typical TMC operator.
12.5.2 LUMS Field Response Rules
During an incident, the control system automates traffic management according to traffic management
practices and operating principles, which are classified as fundamental rules (not to be broken), policy rules
(that may be changed by the operator), and system rules (automated functions).
Refer to Appendix D for more detailed LUMS traffic management field response rules based on the
VicRoads motorway management system.
These rules and principles should generally be consistent with traffic engineering and worksite practices and
guidelines, including AS 1742.3, road rules, and worksite safety codes of practice for traffic management. If
LUMS is integrated with other control systems, then the field response rules should be updated to ensure
there is no conflict of rules between each system.
Fundamental rules
Fundamental rules are coded into the control system to provide interlocks that will prevent the display of
particular combinations of symbols on adjacent signs over a single carriageway. These interlocks prevent the
display of symbol combinations that are hazardous/unsafe, logically conflicting or ambiguous. Examples of
LUMS fundamental rules preventing LUMS sign display conflicts at the same gantry, as implemented in the
VicRoads motorway management system, are provided in Table 12.4.

Policy rules
Operational policy rules (also referred to as recommendation rules) are incorporated to the system to support
development of traffic management plans when an incident or other event occurs at a specific location on the
network. The policy rules enable an automated response to the incident or event which can be quickly
implemented by the operator.
The operational policy rules generally replace requirements for a significant number of predetermined traffic
management plans for various scenarios. In some complex traffic arrangements or major emergencies,
some adjustments to the plans may be needed.
An operator should be warned if a requested LUMS response contradicts a policy rule. The operator may
then either modify the response plan to comply with the policy rules, or bypass the warning and proceed to
implement. All policy rule bypasses are logged by the system. Policy rules may vary between states.
System rules (automatic functions)
System rules speed up the implementation for LUMS plans and reduce the work required by an operator. For
example, the system may require that any non-default speed showing on a LUMS is accompanied by a
flashing annulus.
Table 12.4: LUMS fundamental rules preventing sign conflicts
Rule Prevented display

No differential speed limit at one site.
Merge arrows cannot point toward each other within one

site.
Lane merge signal cannot point towards a closed lane.
Lane merge signal cannot point into side barrier or

emergency stopping lane.
‘Exit only’ signal must only be used on furthest trafficable

outside lane:
• Left arrows can only be displayed in the kerbside
(leftmost) lane immediately upstream of a left-hand
side exit ramp.
• Right arrows can only be displayed in the median
(rightmost) lane immediately upstream of a right-hand
side exit ramp.

12.5.3 Operational Principles
There are a number of general principles for speed and lane use management responses through LUMS.
For VSL, there should be a clear hierarchy of control. During reactive scenarios (i.e. an incident or event),
the VSL need to be able to operate independently to manage safety. During congestion, the VSL would
generally also operate independently to the coordinated ramp signals system in terms of helping flow
recovery. At other times, VSL should be integrated with coordinated ramp signal operations so that the
systems work dynamically and collaboratively to optimise traffic flow and prevent or delay the onset of flow
breakdown.
This content has been incorporated from the Managed Freeways Handbook for Lane Use Management,
Variable Speed Limits and Traveller Information (VicRoads 2013a).
Operation during incident and congestion scenarios
The hierarchy of display of lane status and speed limits is as follows (highest priority first):
• lane closed display, then
• lane closing display, then
• exit arrow display, then
• speed display (where the lowest speed request is the highest priority speed request).
The safe and effective closure of lanes or a carriageway should take place through the display of messages
at a number of successive sites. In response to an incident or event, the following operational policies are
applied:
• sign displays at the first site immediately upstream of an incident are set to a safe speed limit and lane
configuration; then
• subsequent upstream gantries display a sequence of speed limit reductions and lane closure instructions,
with appropriate buffering/tapering; and
• gantries immediately downstream of the incident indicate normal default speed limits and lane status
• in the event of congestion, the following operational policies are applied
– match speed limit to congested traffic speed; then
– protect back-of-queue by slowing vehicles approaching congestion, with appropriate buffering of
speed limit reductions on sequential gantries.
If the incident management requires a lane closure, the first sign group generally requires a speed limit
reduction to 40 km/h. The speed limit reduction steps may then depend on the default speed limit and
number of lane closures; for example:
• for 80 km/h default speed limit: the speed limit reduction steps are generally no greater than 20 km/h, i.e.
80 > 60 > 40 (refer to Figure 12.6)
• for > 90 km/h default speed limit with a single lane closure: the speed limit reduction steps are generally
no greater than 30 km/h, i.e. 100 > 70 > 40
• for > 90 km/h default speed limit with two or more lane closures: the speed limit reduction steps are
generally no greater than 20 km/h, i.e. 100 > 80 > 60 > 40.

Figure 12.6: Example of lane control sequence for left lane closure on 80 km/h road
Incremental speed reductions may also be implemented by timed transitioning (i.e. time-based speed buffer)
in order to provide a smooth change between the current and final display of a LUMS sign. This means that a
single site does not drop from 100 km/h to 40 km/h. For example, an upstream speed buffer will introduce 20
km/h speed reduction steps, where speeds are progressively buffered down a carriageway. However, some
jurisdictions do not use transitions as it creates a delay in reaching the target speed, and prefer instead to
implement the final response as soon as possible.
The use of transitioning to improve safety during speed limit reductions may be more appropriate for planned
events that do not require a quick response. If used as a default mode, it should still be possible to disable
transitioning modes in an emergency to allow for a quicker response.
Once a red cross is displayed, the lane will remain closed until a downstream LUMS sign displays a speed
limit above that lane. The last LUMS site should generally not display a red cross (policy rule), as otherwise
the downstream lane cannot be reopened, unless temporary traffic management is used or if a regulatory
static sign indicates that the lane control has ended (note that such signs are not currently permitted in the
Australian Road Rules).
Operational integration of coordinated ramp metering with LUMS during incidents is discussed in
Section 11.4.
Mainline VMS located upstream and within LUMS sections should also be used as part of an integrated
system response to an incident (example in Figure 12.7). The VMS may display advisory messages that
indicate the type of event, as well as to reinforce the changes to speed and lane status/closures ahead, and
actions required by drivers. This may help to improve compliance and reduce driver frustration.
Arterial road VMS may also be activated to provide a relevant incident message for drivers that are
approaching the motorway (example in Figure 12.8). This will also facilitate safer merging onto the
motorway, as well encourage diversion and manage demand upstream of the motorway section where the
incident/event has occurred.

Figure 12.7: Mainline VMS supporting roadworks management
Figure 12.8: Arterial road VMS supporting incident management on the motorway mainline
Operation during inclement weather
When inclement weather is detected by an environmental monitoring system, an alarm is initiated to indicate
conditions have exceeded a configurable threshold. This may result in either an automated system response
or a manual response by TMC operators to activate traffic management devices such as LUMS (or VSL-
only) signs, and VMS upstream of and within the affected motorway section. It is important to give adequate
warning to drivers to slow down in advance of the high-risk area.
During inclement weather or environmental conditions, the following operational principles may apply:
• allow settling time to ensure weather conditions are stable; then
• match speed to safe travel speed for prevailing conditions; then
• subsequent upstream gantries display a sequence of speed limit reductions with appropriate buffering.

Speed limits are then restored incrementally or back to default after the weather/road surface conditions fall
below the thresholds (or within the normal range) for a defined deactivation time period. VMS may also be
used to support safe traffic management during inclement weather.
Operation of dynamic VSL for flow control
For use of dynamic VSL to help manage bottlenecks, the operational intent would be that:
• under free-flowing conditions, the coordinated ramp signals would activate first to manage demand to the
bottleneck capacity and to optimise throughput
• if traffic flow deteriorates under ramp signalling operation, VSL could then also activate to
– increase densities with the objective of prolonging optimum throughput
– assist in homogenising traffic speed to minimise potential turbulence
– provide a lower VSL upstream of the bottleneck to initiative mainline metering
• if flow breakdown occurs and significantly longer travel times are detected, then the dynamic VSL may be
overridden by other VSL algorithms that support congestion management.
When the technology is ready, this operational policy would need to be accepted by the road agency and
incorporated to the LUMS rules engine. Integrated coordinated ramp metering and VSL operations are
required for optimal control (Section 11.4).
Use of LUMS for temporary works
LUMS can be used for temporary traffic management such as roadworks. In some instances, different policy
rules may need to be applied for the use of LUMS for temporary works. Similarly, static temporary traffic
management requirements may need to be reviewed to account for use of LUMS, which may reduce the
need for static signing on approach to and after the worksite.
Sign failure mode
For motorways with LUMS in Australia, the display of a speed limit indicates that a lane is open; and if the
sign is blank, it is faulty.
Previously, a LUMS fundamental rule included the need to blank a whole site if one sign is blank (faulty).
However, this constrains the operational control of traffic in other lanes unnecessarily, and jurisdictions are
moving away from this practice. Instead, the speed limits of adjacent lanes would apply to the lane with the
blank sign. As the lane control instruction (if relevant) would not be communicated, the lane would be
considered as open and other measures may need to be put into place to ensure safety of downstream
motorway sections in the case of an incident or other hazard.
As LUMS signs are regulatory in nature, rapid response and repair times should be in place to ensure that
faults are rectified as soon as possible.
Enforcement
In order to enforce variable speed limits, it is essential that certified and accurate records are kept of the
speed limit display and sign status at all times during operation. In some jurisdictions, it is required that all
the signs in a gantry that display a speed limit should have the same speed, regardless of the use of lane
control symbols in one or more adjacent lanes.
The system may be integrated with an automated enforcement system, such as the system used on the M25
in the UK where video-based enforcement is used to detect motorists that exceed the posted speed limit by a
predetermined threshold.

13. Provision of an Emergency Lane
This section of the Guide incorporates some content from the Managed Freeways Handbook for Lane Use
Management, Variable Speed Limits and Traveller Information (VicRoads 2013a) and Austroads (2009b).
13.1.1 Applications
Road safety rules generally prohibit trafficking of the emergency lane (or motorway shoulder) unless related
to an incident (i.e. crash or breakdown) or if controlled by signs and line markings on the route. The rules
enable restriction of vehicles from using the emergency lane when it is not intended to be open to traffic, and
allow for exceptions where it is desired to open the shoulder to specific classes of vehicle.
Additional road capacity may be provided on a motorway without the need to undertake extensive and
expensive widening treatments by allowing general traffic to use the emergency lane. Alternatively, a new
motorway could be built without an emergency lane to increase the number of lanes that can be constructed
within the available road corridor. These strategies support the smart motorway objectives to make better
use of existing infrastructure whilst maximising motorway capacity, productivity and efficiency (throughput).
There are a number of different applications for use of the emergency lane, including:
• for general traffic (i.e. all vehicle types) on isolated sections in between interchanges to address localised
congestion issues
• for general traffic on extended lengths, including through interchanges, to balance capacity along a route
• for queue storage at exit ramps (Figure 13.1), if required to prevent queuing vehicles overflowing onto the
mainline and creating safety issues
• for specific vehicles (e.g. taxis and buses), to reduce travel delay for priority vehicles during congested
periods.
Figure 13.1: Extension of exit ramp storage using the emergency lane
Inadequate exit ramp storage area results in queues Extended ramp storage area on the emergency lane keeps
extending into the left mainline traffic lane queues clear of the mainline traffic
Source: Based on Booz Allen Hamilton (2003), cited in VicRoads (2013a, p22).
Depending on the traffic characteristics and spread of traffic volumes (demand) across the day, the
emergency lane may operate as a traffic lane on a part-time basis during peak periods or a full-time basis
(commonly referred to as all-lane running). Generally, the emergency lane located on the left-hand side of
the carriageway is used.
Long bridges and tunnels commonly have no emergency lane due to physical constraints and the higher cost
of provision.

The absence of an emergency lane on a part-time or permanent basis may require various measures to be
incorporated into a project design to manage road safety, particularly during incidents. For example,
geometric upgrades; provision of emergency stopping bays; as well as installation of various traffic
management devices to control mainline traffic flows, such as LUMS (including VSL).
If there is an incident whilst the emergency lane is being trafficked, or all-lane running (ALR) is operating on
a section, then the affected lanes and/or the emergency lane may need to be closed to enable emergency
access and to protect the incident victims and responders.
13.1.2 Benefits
Opening the emergency lane for general traffic provides an additional lane of capacity (i.e. 2000 veh/h),
when applied to extended lengths and across interchanges as an additional lane. In comparison to limiting
the lane for emergency use only, the benefits of opening the emergency stopping lane for general traffic are
worth considering when widening of the motorway is not a viable option.
Reducing congestion at a specific location, or generally along a route, will improve road safety. Use of the
emergency lane for storing a long exit ramp queue can significantly improve safety by reducing the risk of
vehicles queuing on the mainline as they wait to exit. This is particularly important at locations where there
are poor sightlines to the back-of-queue.
The tools used to implement all-lane running (ALR) and part-time emergency lane running (ELR), such as
LUMS, will also enable better incident management.
Opening the emergency lane for traffic should not compromise safety. Where it is considered that safety may
be compromised, a reduction in the speed limit has the potential to offset the potential higher risk of using the
emergency lane. Improvement to safety as a result of reducing speed limits is demonstrated in Table 13.1.
Table 13.1: Accident reduction resulting from lower vehicle speeds
Change in average speed (km/h) % reduction in crashes

100 to 90 18%
100 to 80 37%
100 to 70 55%
Variable speed 30%
Source: VicRoads (2004), cited in Austroads (2009b).
Further detail regarding the benefits of emergency lane running projects is provided in Appendix A.
The warrants for ALR and part-time ELR are provided in Section 6. Considerations for selection of different
applications and operating modes are provided in Table 13.2. The project design should ensure that
motorists are presented with a safe and consistent driving environment along logical motorway routes, in
order to minimise driver confusion and improve safety.

Table 13.2: Guidance for selection of emergency lane use applications
Application/
Problem that it seeks to
operational Considerations
address
mode
Application
General traffic • To address localised • Typically applied to lengths less than 2 km.
use for short congestion at key • Traffic analysis should be undertaken to demonstrate that use of the
sections bottlenecks, such as lane emergency lane as an auxiliary lane between interchanges will not
(in between drops. cause any problems for traffic weaving over the length of the utilised
interchanges) • To improve capacity emergency lane or create any issues in relation to safety or capacity.
between interchanges
where there are high
volumes between two
interchanges (i.e. vehicles
enter then exit at following
interchange), to reduce
weaving and interaction with
mainline traffic.
General traffic • To address consistent • Traffic analysis should be undertaken to confirm the need for a route
use for capacity deficiencies along treatment.
extended a route. • Consideration needs to be given to treatment of the emergency lane
sections through interchanges (refer to Section 13.3.2) – generally, permanent
(across use of the emergency lane through interchanges is preferred to
interchanges) minimise capacity reductions due to a lane drop/gain.
Exit ramp • Exit ramp queues overflow • Consider for installation when there are existing issues. Generally,
queue onto the motorway mainline new roads should ensure that project design provides adequate exit
storage and create a hazard (refer ramp storage and interchange capacity to accommodate the desired
to Figure 13.1). May be as a traffic volumes (based on traffic analysis).
result of a short ramp or an • If traffic queues extend from an exit onto the motorway for extensive
interchange with inadequate periods and/or at variable times between days, consideration could
capacity. be given to permanently marking the emergency lane as an exit lane
on approach to an interchange.
Use for • Higher priority vehicles • Should only be considered when it supports the operating objectives
specific (such as buses) experience for the motorway (i.e. to improve person throughput and to support
vehicles (i.e. delays as a result of public transport objectives).
taxis/buses) congestion on the mainline, • Generally, only suitable for low levels of demand by priority vehicles.
particularly during peak Should not result in large volumes of heavy vehicles or trucks utilising
times. the emergency lane as it may impact on merging/diverging
manoeuvres with other vehicles near interchanges.
• May not be appropriate if emergency lane use and merging back into
the mainline traffic stream at interchanges is causing (or analysis
indicates it may cause) delay and conflicts for the special vehicles
and unacceptable disruption to general traffic flow.
• Should also not extend across interchanges – special vehicles should
exit at the interchange or merge back onto the mainline at the end of
the treatment.
Operational mode
ALR • Peak traffic flows exceed • Simpler form of operation, subject to appropriate assessment and
the managed capacity of the mitigation of safety risks.
motorway for extended • This has been implemented in Australia for use of the emergency
periods of the day (i.e. lane for both extended sections of motorway and in-between
beyond the AM and PM interchanges.
peak periods).
Part-time • Peak traffic flows exceed • More complex operational requirements and may result in more
ELR(1) the managed capacity of the operational issues than full-time use. Generally, requires inspections
motorway, typically for prior to reopening each day to ensure the lane is free of obstacles.
specific periods of the day • If a reduced speed limit is required to support mainline operations,
(e.g. AM and PM peaks on consideration should be given to the impact on throughput and
weekdays), but there are whether full-time operation offers greater economic benefit.
relatively low flows during • Within part-time schemes, it is generally preferred for the emergency
the inter-peak period. lane within interchanges to be converted to a permanent running lane
in order to prevent a lane drop/gain.
1 At the time of publication, part-time ELR for extended motorway lengths (across interchanges) has not yet been
implemented in Australia or New Zealand.

13.3 Key Design Considerations
The following general principles apply for design of projects incorporating trafficking of the emergency lane
on a full- or part-time basis:
Undertake civil upgrades as required

• For existing routes
– upgrade pavement depth and strength of the emergency lane to ensure it is suitable for trafficking by
all vehicle types that will be allowed to use it
– construct additional pavement, if required, to enable emergency lane running through an interchange
– address any impacts on drainage features – for example, ensure that drainage spread widths are
within allowable limits.
• Provide emergency stopping bays (ESBs) at appropriate intervals to provide a safe stopping location for
motorists during emergencies/breakdowns while the emergency lane is being trafficked. Depending on a
safety risk assessment, ESBs may not be required for short sections of ALR (e.g. if less than 1 km and
not part of a route treatment), or for part-time treatments for exit lane queues. Design guidelines for ESBs
are provided in Section 7.9.
• Provide adequate clearance from the edge of the emergency lane to structures and safety barriers. This
can be achieved through relocation of roadside infrastructure or, if possible, by re-adjusting lane/median
widths to reallocate road space.
• Ensure the design provides the required sight distance for the operating speed for all trafficable lanes,
including the emergency lane. This is particularly important on curves, especially where there are
barriers.
• Determine the appropriate operating speed limits for the section, taking into consideration any safety
risks; for example, due to the lack of an emergency lane, narrower lane widths, or reduced clearance to
structures. However, community acceptance of a low speed limit on what is otherwise a high standard
alignment can be problematic, and there are examples of motorway sections in Australia where there is
no emergency lane and the 100 km/h speed limit still applies. Speed enforcement measures may be
required to improve compliance and road safety.
• Provide LUMS (including VSL) as required to actively manage safety risks and incidents (Section 12).
Overhead LUMS signs should be installed above all trafficable lanes, including the emergency stopping
lane.
Subject to a safety risk assessment, LUMS may not be required for short sections of ALR (e.g. if less than
1 km), assuming that it is a unique situation along a route. If there is ALR repeatedly along a route
between interchanges, then it should be considered a route treatment of ALR and will require active
management.
A safety risk assessment should consider the impact of the operational environment on safety. For
example, a greater level of active management may be required for ALR motorway sections with narrow
lane widths, limited sight distances, narrow offsets, higher default speed limits, etc. In some cases, VSL
alone may provide a lower cost solution to improve safety on shorter ALR sections by helping to reduce
and harmonise traffic speeds in response to road conditions.
• LUMS may also not be required for exit lane queue storage applications and special vehicle applications.
It is always desirable to provide VSL and/or advisory static signing for all applications.
• Provide mainline VMS as required to provide advance real-time information to road users on traffic
conditions within the affected section and to support active incident management (refer to Section 10).

• Remove/modify special surfacing or pavement markings to suit the application and mode of operation (i.e.
full-time or part-time)
– ALR sections should have the same surfacing and lane markings for the emergency lane as for a
permanent vehicle lane, including through interchanges.
– For part-time operations, a continuous line should not be used as a lane line that can be crossed –
consider a 9/3 pattern that provides more delineation whilst still allowing crossing (see AS 1742.2).
This should ensure that the vehicle can enter the emergency lane without disobeying the road rules.
• The line marking and associated signage should also be designed to prevent vehicles from driving along
the emergency lane beyond the designated section (i.e. maintain the emergency lane on both sides of the
treatment for emergency stopping only).
• Dynamic lane markings (comprising light emitting units installed flush with the pavement surface) when
installed at close spacings have the ability to represent a line (Percy, Wilson & Boyd 2007, cited in
Austroads 2009b). A possible application for dynamic lane markings is to help implement part-time
emergency lane running; they could be used to direct traffic into the emergency lane once opened, or
back into mainline lanes once the emergency lane is closed.
• Provide traffic detection equipment (Section 9.1) and full CCTV coverage (Section 9.2) for all trafficable
lanes, including the emergency lane and emergency stopping bays. Full overlapping coverage may be
desirable on ALR sections to increase operational flexibility for verifying incidents and monitoring traffic.
• Install static signing on ramps and the mainline, as required, to provide advance warning to road users on
the operational regime in place on a downstream section of motorway, including default speed limits if a
new speed limit zone applies.
– For schemes based on part-time, fixed-time operation (i.e. only operate during set time periods), static
signing may be used to clearly indicate when traffic is permitted to use the emergency lane. Generally,
dynamic signing based on actual demand (such as via LUMS) is preferred as it offers greater
operational flexibility.
– Static or dynamic signing should also be installed to indicate which vehicles are permitted to use the
emergency lane, if restricted to specific road user types.
A safety risk assessment should be undertaken to check that the proposed design and concept of operations
will not adversely impact on road safety. Consultation should also be undertaken with third party emergency
responders and roadside assistance services to identify any additional requirements for incident
management and emergency access to the motorway within the context of the proposed operational mode.
In some jurisdictions, where the emergency lane is open to traffic, use of the emergency lane by cyclists will
need to be reviewed. An exclusive bicycle lane may be provided in accordance with Cycling Aspects of
Austroads Guides (Austroads 2014d). The width of the bicycle lane will depend on the operating speed of
the emergency lane when open to traffic.
A key priority for design is to minimise driver confusion by ensuring consistency in the type of operating
strategy along a route or corridor, and in the messaging presented to drivers.
Whilst the smart motorways environment should be designed to be as intuitive and self-compliant as
possible, for new or more complex designs that local drivers are not familiar with, it may be advisable to
conduct a driver behaviour study (i.e. using a driver simulator) to inform the development of any detailed
proposals considering project design and operation. It may also be beneficial to conduct a pilot on a section
of motorway prior to widespread adoption across the network.
Additional design considerations specific to each application are provided below. UK guidance on both ALR
and part-time ELR also provides a useful reference (Highways England 2015; Highways Agency 2008, 2009).

13.3.1 General Traffic Use – Isolated Lengths
For isolated lengths, use of the emergency lane is expected to have minimal impact on the design
parameters of the motorway, subject to the emergency lane being designed and constructed to cater for the
traffic demand. Appropriate sign and lane control measures can be used to control the operation.
A schematic drawing of the emergency lane used between interchanges on a part-time basis is shown in
Figure 13.2. For full-time use, standard line marking and signage for a designated exit lane instead of an
emergency lane, plus provision for emergency stopping bays as required, would be adequate. Simple line
marking and signage can be used to direct drivers who wish to use the exit ramp into the emergency lane
(e.g. designated exit lane).
Figure 13.2: Emergency lane use between interchanges on a part-time basis

13.3.2 General Traffic Use – Extended Lengths
Where the emergency lane is converted to a permanent traffic lane for extended lengths, consideration
needs to be given to how to manage the lane through an interchange.
Emergency lane running through interchanges (also referred to in the UK as through junction running) may
be required where a high proportion of traffic continues along the main carriageway rather than exiting at the
interchange. This design avoids a lane drop at the diverge and provides additional capacity for through
traffic. However, the design should also consider whether there is a high volume of traffic merging, which
may cause potential conflict with through traffic.
Whilst the traffic flow characteristics at some interchanges along a route may not require a permanent
emergency lane through the interchange, a consistent route treatment is desirable to reduce confusion for
road users. It is preferred that the treatment within interchanges is permanent rather than part-time, in order
to reduce confusion for road users and enable merge/diverge layouts to be simpler and more intuitive
(Highways Agency 2008).
A permanent emergency lane within the interchange may require additional pavement to be constructed at
the entry ramp and exit ramp in order to cater for acceleration and deceleration associated with the merge
and diverge, respectively. Exclusive lane exits may also be used.
Localised widening may also be needed if the existing emergency lane is insufficient width, or if it is required
to provide an ESB within the interchange with adequate stopping sight distances (based on the default
speed limit).
A schematic drawing of the emergency lane crossing over the exit and entry ramps for part-time use
applications is shown in Figure 13.3. For full-time use, standard line marking plus LUMS and provision for
emergency stopping bays (Section 7.9) would be appropriate.
The design should not impact on the operation of control interventions such as ramp metering.
Figure 13.3: Emergency lane use being extended across an interchange
Source: Austroads (2009b).

13.3.3 Queue Storage at Exit Ramps (Part- or Full-time)
Where the emergency lane is used to provide queue storage at the exit ramp, the impact on the design
parameters for motorways may be minimal. Simple signs and line marking outlining the control for this
scenario are adequate.
For a part-time treatment, lengthening the exit lane into the emergency lane to allow vehicles to queue clear
of through lanes could be considered, as shown in Figure 13.4. Depending on the desired operation, the
traffic arrangements could be communicated to motorists via static signing indicating the peak period times
of operation (minimum required – refer to Figure 13.5) or dynamic signage (preferred). Dynamic signage
allows for easy future expansion of the operating times, as well as automated operation that would activate
by the use of queue detection.
Line marking used to delineate the emergency lane from the general trafficable lanes may be dependent on
the application. For part-time operations, a narrow painted separator between the queueing traffic and
mainline motorway could be considered to provide additional clearance and safety, as well as to discourage
entry during the non-permitted period.
For a permanent treatment, and subject to the extent of the problem, consideration could be given to an exit
taper in the form or a rural ‘step out’ exit ramp marking. Additional length may be necessary in some
instances.
Figure 13.4: Part-time use of emergency lane to provide exit ramp queue storage

Figure 13.5: Example application of emergency lane used for part-time exit queue storage with static signing in
Melbourne
13.3.4 Special Vehicle Applications (Part- or Full-time)
Where the emergency lane is open to specific vehicles only and where demand for the specific vehicles is
light (i.e. in the order of one vehicle per minute), the impact of implementing emergency lane use is minimal
and may only require confirmation of the width and structural adequacy of the emergency lane to cater for
the designated vehicle types. However, a road safety assessment should be undertaken.
Measures for the management of emergency lane use in this application would generally be static signage to
outline use of the emergency lane, and modified line marking to permit use of the emergency lane at certain
or all times by the specific user group.
Specific user groups such as buses and taxis may result in only low levels of vehicle demand compared to
the mainline traffic lanes and, as such, there may not be a need to reduce the speed of the mainline traffic
flow. However, reduced speed limits for the priority vehicles may be required if there are likely to be high
speed differentials (such as during peak periods). This may be applied as a condition of use by specific
operators, such as the bus operator.
Special line marking may be required to merge vehicles back into the left general traffic lane prior to an exit.
Alternatively, the special vehicles should be required to exit at the interchange (i.e. to avoid the need for the
treatment to extend across an interchange).
An example application is on Melbourne’s Eastern Freeway, where buses, taxis and other hire vehicles are
permitted to use the emergency lane during the morning peak period. Static signing and line markings are
used to outline the control (refer to Figure 13.7 and Figure 13.6). As per exit lane queue storage applications,
a narrow painted separator could be used between the emergency lane and left-hand motorway lane to
improve safety.

Figure 13.6: Sign and line marking scheme for part-time emergency lane use by specific vehicles

Figure 13.7: Example signage used for part-time emergency lane use by special vehicles in Melbourne
First sign(1) Second sign(2) Third sign

1 VHA/C refers to number plates allocated to commercial hire cars (e.g. limousines).
Care should be taken to ensure that signs are appropriate for the application. Although the second sign has many
words, it has been deemed appropriate for this particular application.
13.4 Operations
The following considerations apply to roads with ALR and part-time ELR in operation:
• Provide improved incident management services to detect stopped vehicles (e.g. due to incident or
breakdown) or other hazards in live running lanes, as well as to provide timely response times. Hazards
should be verified prior to implementing a response to avoid unnecessary impacts on traffic flows.
Examples of typical response times in Victoria include
– attend 80% of incidents within 10 minutes of notification
– clear 50% of incidents within 10 minutes of notification
– additional access (cross median or from local road network) for emergency vehicles is desirable
(VicRoads 2013a).
Continuous monitoring of traffic conditions is required and automatic systems may be used to improve
incident detection times (Section 9.3). Other incident management strategies include pre-approved
incident response plans and driver education regarding what to do in a breakdown when there is no
emergency lane.
• LUMS should be used to open/close lanes, including the emergency lane, for traffic management and
emergency access in accordance with agreed operator procedures (refer to Section 12). Speed limits
should also be dynamically altered during lane closures or during part-time emergency lane operations in
order to improve safety.
• VMS should also be used to provide advance warning to motorists of downstream lane closures and
reduced speeds.
• Appropriate measures should be implemented to ensure the safe exiting of vehicles from an ESB,
particularly if the ESB has limited acceleration distance and the vehicle is unlikely to reach mainline
operating speeds before merging. For example, through use of the ESB help phone to communicate with
the motorist or provision of a warning message on an upstream mainline VMS to increase awareness of
mainline drivers of merging traffic.
• Integrate coordinated ramp metering, LUMS and VMS operations to manage safety and efficiency during
incidents. The coordinated ramp metering sub-system should always know the number of mainline lanes
available.

Additional considerations for part-time ELR operations include:

• When opening the emergency lane within a part-time scheme, a safety assessment must be undertaken
to ensure there are no obstructions, including a stopped vehicle, debris or any other hazard to traffic flow.
This may be undertaken through a physical patrol/drive-through of the emergency lane by a traffic officer
or through a visual inspection using CCTV.
• Any hazards must be removed prior to opening and there should be ongoing monitoring through the
opening procedure. Speed limits should be reduced as required and then the closed lane should be
opened in reverse section order to improve road safety.
• Timings for opening/closing of the emergency lane may be based on a fixed-time plan for each motorway
route or vary dynamically (for example, the system is activated when actual or forecast traffic volumes
meet predefined thresholds). The lane should be opened before the peak flow threshold is reached in
order to minimise the risk of flow breakdown. CCTV and environmental monitoring systems may also
provide an indication of congestion, incident or reduced capacity on the route.
• The emergency lane should only be opened when approved by an operator that it is safe to do so, and
when it is justified by actual or forecast traffic demand. Opening the emergency lane unnecessarily may
impose a reduced speed limit on drivers and reduce credibility of the system. The decision to open an
emergency lane should be made on a route basis.
• When the emergency stopping lane is not being trafficked, there should be a blank sign or red cross
above the lane. If VSL are in operation, but the emergency lane is still closed, then a red cross should be
displayed on the LUMS sign over the emergency lane.
• Special VMS applications may be installed to confirm that the emergency lane is open or closed at the
start of a part-time scheme.
Maintenance regimes should treat the emergency stopping lanes and bays in the same manner as running
lanes, keeping them clear of debris, vegetation and other hazards, and maintaining pavement quality. Other
impacts on maintenance include that the emergency lane is no longer, or is less, available for use for
maintenance activities, including inspections.
Useful guidance is also available in UK guidelines (Highways Agency 2012, 2013).

14. Arterial Road and Motorway Interface Management
This section summarises the principles and strategies, gathered from Australian and New Zealand case
studies and international literature, for improving operations at arterial/smart motorway interfaces, including:
• arterial road/entry ramp interfaces
• arterial road/exit ramp interfaces
• end-of-motorway interfaces (i.e. terminating motorways)
• motorway-to-motorway (M2M) interfaces.
The guidance in this section of the Guide is sourced from Section 3 of the Austroads’ research report on
Operational Management of Arterial/Managed Motorway Interfaces for Network Optimisation (Austroads
2014b). Practitioners are referred to the latter report for more detailed information.
Section 14.1 discusses how coordination of the operations at arterial/motorway interfaces can be enhanced
by improving cooperative working arrangements between the motorway agency and the agency responsible
for the arterial road. Section 14.2 outlines some fundamental guiding principles for achieving
whole-of-network optimisation.
While only a relatively small number of interface sites between smart motorways and arterial roads may
regularly experience traffic flow problems due to insufficient storage and/or inefficient operation to cope with
high traffic demands, the scale of interface problems is more accurately measured by the impact the
resultant traffic flow inefficiencies have on the wider road network.
As each interface type has its own unique traffic control problems, a unique set of recommended principles
and strategies have been defined for each interface type. Section 14.3 to Section 14.6.2 outline the specific
problems and provide a summary of recommended treatment options for each interface type.
Treatment options are in the context of traffic control strategies with minimal civil works, as limited land
space or prohibitive costs often rule out major civil works as a feasible treatment option. Prioritising
lower-cost treatment options ahead of major civil works is also in line with current Australian state and
federal government policies for road asset maximisation. These policies favour low-cost treatment options to
maximise the capacity of existing roads, such as new line markings and ITS enhancements, over costlier
options, such as major civil works to widen existing roads or build new roads.
14.1 Improving Coordination at Interfaces
Interface problems, such as queue overspill from a metered entry ramp onto the connecting arterial road,
often arise because the interface has not been properly considered by the motorway agency or the agency
responsible for the arterial road. There are many cases where separate agencies, responsible for different
roads within the same road network, work in silos from one another. Each has their own set of policies,
procedures, plans, strategies and technologies to optimise the performance of their own road network, with
little or no consideration as to how they might impact on the adjoining road network. For example, a road
agency responsible for optimising the performance of a motorway may implement ramp metering without
adequate consideration of the impact queue overspill may have on the adjoining arterial roads. Likewise, an
agency responsible for the traffic signal operation on an arterial road network may not provide enough green
time for vehicles queued on motorway exit ramps, resulting in queues spilling back onto the motorway.
A principle which should be followed in working towards improving any arterial/motorway interface is to
establish a cooperative working arrangement between the agency responsible for the operation of the
motorway and the agency responsible for the local arterial road network. This is essential if overall network
optimisation is to be achieved.

The importance of this principle is also noted in the Coordinated Freeway and Arterial Operations Handbook
(Urbanik et al. 2006, cited in Austroads 2014b, p20):
While agencies may not manage them as such, motorists view freeways and adjacent
arterials as an interconnected corridor with multiple routes to travel from their origin to
destination.
Agencies that shift from an agency perspective to a system perspective optimise not only
the overall system but likely their own roadways as well.
These comments emphasise the importance of managing the entire road network using a system-wide
approach rather than a fragmented road-based approach.
This principle also applies to working relationships between different agencies responsible for motorway
operations, including private toll operators. Joint operating principles can be formalised within a high-level
network operations planning framework; for example, to define under what circumstances different motorway
sections have strategic priority over others and at what times.
Coordinating the operations of motorways and arterials requires overarching strategies that manage the
motorways and their adjoining arterials as single corridors and not as individual, separate facilities. For
network optimisation to be achieved across a major road network of motorways and interconnected arterials,
overriding operational principles for the network as a whole must first be agreed upon by all the road
agencies responsible for the network’s operation. These operational principles should be formalised within a
high-level network operations planning framework which outlines under what circumstances motorways
should have priority over arterial roads, and vice versa. In following these principles, road agencies
responsible for motorway operations and those responsible for arterial operations are likely to have to make
compromises to ensure traffic flow is optimised at the interface of these roads.
All road agencies responsible for the network’s operations should be involved in establishing the network
operations planning framework. There is likely to be debate as to whether motorways should have priority
over adjoining arterial roads, or vice versa. A common argument is that by increasing the efficiency of a
motorway, it can take more vehicles from the arterial roads, thereby increasing the efficiency of the arterial
network. Although this is true to some extent, it is not always that simple. Ramp metering is an obvious
example of a strategy for improving the efficiency of a motorway that can be detrimental to the performance
of the adjoining arterial network if there is inadequate storage on the ramps, but there are also more
fundamental reasons why optimising the efficiency of a motorway may not necessarily benefit the connecting
arterial network.
Reduced travel times on a motorway, due to improved efficiency, can induce more traffic onto the motorway.
This is particularly true for long-distance journeys over which travel time savings are greatest, such as those
from outer urban regions to inner urban centres. While an efficient motorway may improve people’s
accessibility to such things as employment opportunities, encouraging increased use of a motorway
ultimately increases demand across the entire network. Understanding the downstream impacts of
increasing the throughput of a motorway through management schemes is important to the successful
application of the scheme. The installation of management systems may not be appropriate at all locations.
Special care needs to be taken to ensure that the downstream mainline, exit ramps and adjoining arterial
roads can sustain the increased throughput (Austroads 2009b).
The complexities involved in properly managing an interconnected motorway/arterial road network

emphasise the importance of having a network operations planning framework which should be abided by
when implementing policies, strategies, plans, procedures and technologies to improve operational
efficiencies where motorways and arterial roads interface.

14.2 Guiding Principles for Achieving Network Optimisation
The following are some fundamental guiding principles for achieving whole-of-network optimisation:
• The primary aim should be to minimise ‘global’ delay across the whole network.
• Also, aim for an equitable balance of traffic flow efficiency across the network.
• Establish high-priority routes based on traffic volumes, public transport and/or freight vehicles.
• Optimise traffic operations along priority routes, especially at motorway ramp interfaces.
• In general, whole-of-network optimisation is achieved through giving priority to the motorways.
• Ensure the network operations planning framework is guided by these principles to facilitate
whole-of-network optimisation.
14.3 Management of Entry Ramp Interfaces
14.3.1 Specific Problems at Arterial Road/Entry Ramp Interfaces
The most problematic issue at arterial/entry ramp sites is queue overspill from the ramp onto the arterial
road, which impedes traffic moving along the arterial road.
The implementation of ramp metering as part of a smart motorway system can result in some metered ramps
experiencing traffic demands well in excess of their available storage. For these ramps, queue overspill onto
the connecting arterial roads can have major ramifications for the arterial network. Coordinated ramp
metering can assist in mitigating the problems of queue overspill by making the metering of ramps upstream
and downstream of the problem ramp more restrictive, thereby allowing less restrictive metering on the
overburdened ramp. However, coordinated ramp metering can only go so far to alleviate the problem.
Consequently, where traffic demands on a metered ramp exceed its available storage, the metering rate on
that ramp may need to be increased above a desirable maximum to alleviate the queue and minimise the
impedance on the arterial road. However, the increased rate of vehicle discharge from the entry ramp onto
the mainline can severely compromise the performance of the motorway.
14.3.2 Treatment Options for Arterial Road/Entry Ramp Interfaces
Potential treatment options for arterial road/entry ramp interfaces are summarised in Table 14.1. Further
detail regarding treatments related to ramp metering is provided in Section 11.
At present, the scaling back of metering on high-demand entry ramps is based on a guesstimate of how
much metering can be implemented without major consequences to the operation of the arterial road
network. Scaling back the metering is often a case of trial and error. Road agencies need to improve this
process through more quantitative assessment of demands across the wider road network to determine the
optimum metering rates for overall network optimisation.
Table 14.1: Summary of treatment options for arterial road/entry ramp interfaces
Problem Possible treatments Description and remarks on potential effectiveness

Queue Meter all entry ramps, If entry ramps upstream of the problem entry ramp are left unmetered, then it
overspill including entry ramps places too great a burden on the problem entry ramp to provide adequate
onto arterial from adjoining control and prevent flow breakdown. By metering the upstream ramps, the
road motorways response to the problem is shared across multiple ramps, thereby better
utilising the available storage.
Ramp signal This treatment is described in detail in Section 11 and enables balancing of
coordination with queues and wait times. It requires ramps with spare storage capacity and yet
other ramp signals sufficient demand to be effective so it may only delay the onset of flow
breakdown before all ramps reach capacity. In balancing entry ramp queues,
there may also be an equity trade-off whereby queues and wait times increase
on an adjoining arterial road of lower priority.


Queue Fine-tune metering High demands across all ramps can be such that queue overspill on at least
overspill rates on all ramps one ramp is unavoidable. Regular fine-tuning of metered ramps involves
onto arterial adjusting the threshold of certain parameters within the ramp signal control
road algorithms, taking into account the hierarchy of the arterial road.
(continued) This can effectively ensure queue overspill does not occur on high priority
arterial roads, but often at the expense of lower priority arterial roads. The level
of priority of a road may be determined by its traffic volumes and whether it is
classified as a strategic route for a priority road user (e.g. freight or public
transport).
Adaptive arterial Additional control over ramp queue lengths can be achieved through
signal control in communication of estimated queue lengths from detectors along metered entry
response to ramp ramps to the signal controller for the arterial road signals at the ramp’s
queue lengths entrance. This allows the arterial signals at the ramp’s entrance to vary green
times for ramp entry phases (or skip phases) in response to queue lengths
detected on the ramp.
In addition, traffic signal operations can be optimised through a broad
network/corridor control strategy that balances demands across arterial roads
which interface with the motorway. This helps to regulate flows towards the
motorway and reduce the likelihood and duration of interchange saturation.
Gating signalised During times when long queues on the ramp are detected or are known to
intersections occur, traffic upstream of the interchange could be held back through this
upstream of the treatment to allow the queues on the ramp to subside and prevent the
interchange intersection from becoming saturated before allowing the upstream traffic to
enter the interchange.
Peak period timing Whilst metering rates can be fine-tuned for each entry ramp, pre-arranged
plans for arterial timing plans for the arterial/ramp signals can also be set with a common
signals reference time to aid in the balancing of queues on the ramps during peak
periods when the ramps are active.
This effectively meters traffic entering the ramps and could be used to
encourage motorists to take alternative routes or entry ramps. It is not as
effective as adaptive control as it does not know queue lengths on the ramp.
CCTV cameras CCTV with PTZ functionality (Section 9.2) providing coverage of the motorway
and arterial interchanges allows operators to fine-tune the ramp signal control
algorithms, monitor driver behaviour and quickly identify incidents or
operational problems on the motorway, ramp or arterial approach.
Permitting U-turns This treatment allows vehicles on the arterial road approaching the back of a
past the interchange long queue to enter the ramp to pass through the intersection, make a U-turn
and enter the opposing turning bay. This treatment helps by effectively
balancing queues over the left- and right-turning bays onto the ramp.
Ramp control signs Ramp control signs operate as part of the ramp signal system to give
and arterial road VMS information on the status of the ramp signals and to provide regulatory/advice
messages when the entry ramp is closed. Arterial road VMS also provide travel
time and motorway condition information to road users at arterial interchanges
prior to the entry ramps (Section 10).
This treatment is a simple but effective means of preventing excessive
demands on the motorway worsening by advising motorists on the arterial
roads not to enter, and instead take alternative routes when conditions on the
motorway are causing long delays. This may include diversions to routes that
avoid the motorway altogether or to a less congested entry ramp downstream.
Signals on left-turn When a ramp’s demands from both directions on the adjoining arterial road are
slip-lane high, control of left-turning vehicles can ensure equal opportunity for right-
turning vehicles to enter the ramp. The introduction of signals on a left-turn
may slightly reduce demand on the ramp if motorists are deterred by the added
delay. They can also provide additional control, particularly if the arterial
signals are coordinated with the ramp signals.
Back-of-queue These detectors in the left or right-turning bays can communicate to the
detectors in the entry arterial/ramp signal controller when a turning bay is full or becoming full. They
ramp turning bays on are essential for the queue estimation module which communicates queue
the arterial road lengths to the queue control and queue override modules. Detection of a full
turning bay should also be communicated to the signal controllers of the
arterial road intersections upstream of the interchange so that entry flow can
be regulated.


Queue Queue control This module uses an estimate of the queue length on the ramp (calculated by
overspill module the queue estimation module) and the average flow measurement of the
onto arterial detectors located at the ramp entrance (ramp demand) to calculate a desired
road ramp exit flow to minimise the risk of queue overspill. This treatment is very
(continued) effective in minimising queues if discharge is not so great as to cause flow
breakdown on the mainline.
Queue override In the event that a ramp will exceed the available ramp storage, this module
module activates a pre-specified maximum metering rate to flush the ramp queue. It is
very effective in avoiding queue overspill if discharge is not so great as to
cause flow breakdown on the mainline. Its use may be an indication that all
ramps are reaching capacity and flow breakdown is imminent.
Minor civil works to This treatment is very effective if possible, but in many cases, minor civil works
extend the ramp-entry to extend the turning bays are simply not cost-effective due to limited road
turning bays space.
Extend the ramp nose This treatment is effective in that it enables the stop line to be moved forward,
which provides more ramp space behind the stop line for vehicle storage. This
option should be considered if it can be achieved through minor civil works.
Automated changing Ramp closure procedures to switch off ramp signals and activate ramp control
of arterial signal signs are commonly implemented through manual control interventions by the
phasing on ramp TMC.
closure Automating and integrating ramp closure procedures with arterial signal
operations reduces operational response times when incidents occur. The
arterial signals could be automatically altered to skip ramp entry phases,
instead of holding red turn arrows for entry ramp movements as part of the
ramp closure procedures. This should be supported by information on VMS.
This alerts motorists to an incident earlier, allowing them to make alternative
route choices, thereby minimising congestion caused by the incident.
14.4 Management of Exit Ramp Interfaces
14.4.1 Specific Problems at Arterial Road/Exit Ramp Interfaces
While increasing throughput is a major objective of smart motorways, having greater traffic volumes on the
motorway results in increased demands on the exit ramps. The most problematic issue at exit ramp/arterial
road sites is long queues forming on the exit ramp when there is inadequate green time provided at the
adjoining arterial intersection to allow these vehicles to exit the ramp. Aside from causing long delays for
these exiting vehicles, when exit ramp queues build up such that they overspill onto the motorway, they block
the left lane of the motorway to traffic progressing beyond the exit ramp.
Even before queue overspill occurs, long queues on an exit ramp have the effect of reducing the available
stopping distance on the ramp, meaning exiting vehicles must begin to reduce their speeds on approach to
the exit ramp in the left lane of the mainline. This slowing down of exiting vehicles in the left lane impedes
other vehicles in this lane travelling beyond the exit ramp and increases the likelihood of rear-end crashes.
On approaching the ramp, many vehicles move into the left lane to exit the motorway. At the same time,
other vehicles travelling beyond the exit ramp move out of the left lane to avoid slowing down, further
disrupting traffic flow which increases flow turbulence and the risk of a crash on the motorway.
14.4.2 Treatment Options for Arterial Road/Exit Ramp Interfaces
Potential treatment options for arterial road/exit ramp interfaces are summarised in Table 14.2. Upgrading a
motorway should include extending or widening exit ramps to accommodate more vehicle storage wherever
increased exit demands are forecast. Where this is not possible, the signal phasing at the top of the ramp
should at least be modified to provide more green time to vehicles exiting the exit ramp.

Table 14.2: Summary of treatment options for arterial road/exit ramp interfaces

Queue Enhance the design This treatment could be considered viable if minor civil works can increase the
overspill of the exit ramp length of the ramp and/or increase the number of exit lanes from the ramp and
onto intersection increase the ramp’s storage capacity (Section 11).
motorway
Queuing on the Allowing exiting vehicles to queue on the emergency lane of the mainline as
mainline emergency they approach the exit ramp can be an effective means of preventing ramp
lane queue overspill from impeding mainline flows during peak periods. Refer to
Section 13.
CCTV cameras Installing CCTV with PTZ functionality on exit ramps allows operators visibility
of the ramp and arterial roads in both directions in order to monitor queues,
driver behaviour, and identify operational problems (Section 9.2).
Back-of-queue Detectors along the exit ramp, up to just beyond the diverge gore, can
detectors on the exit communicate to the ramp/arterial signal controller when a ramp is filling up.
ramp This treatment is effective if arterial signals can respond by extending green
time for the ramp to flush out vehicles when long queues are detected
(Section 9.1).
Improve signal This treatment provides more green time to the exit ramp movements by
timings on the arterial adjusting signal phase timings. It may also be necessary to adjust phase timing
road of signals upstream and downstream of the ramp signals to ensure progression
of traffic along the arterial remains optimised.
Gating Queue spillback at an intersection downstream of the ramp may block the
arterial road such that vehicles on the exit ramp are unable to enter. As the
majority of traffic downstream comes from upstream of the arterial road, gating
can be implemented at the ramp intersection signals to reduce green time to
through vehicles on the arterial road and reallocate this green time to the ramp
(i.e. more vehicles exit the ramp per cycle).
This treatment is only effective if it allows queue spillback from upstream
signals to clear.
Traffic diversion from Use mainline VMS upstream on the motorway to inform motorists of long
the exit ramp delays on the exit ramp and advise them to take alternative exits. Effectiveness
depends on connecting arterial network and driver familiarity with alternative
routes (Section 10).
Similarly, arterial road VMS on arterial road approaches to entry ramps
upstream of the congested exit ramp can advise motorists not to enter the
motorway.
Dedicate left This treatment does not resolve the problem of queue overspill, but can
approach lane to the separate the exiting vehicles from the progressing vehicles on the mainline
exit ramp to exiting much further upstream. Effective flow segregation well in advance of the exit
vehicles only ramp is very effective in reducing lane changing near the exit. This reduces
flow turbulence and improves safety. Furthermore, when queue overspill
occurs, a dedicated exit lane on the motorway provides additional storage
space for queuing vehicles without blocking vehicles progressing further along
the motorway.
A dedicated exit lane may begin several hundred metres upstream from the
exit ramp. Appropriate line markings and signage (including electronic signage
such as LUMS) should clearly indicate that the left lane is dedicated to exiting
vehicles only and give appropriate time to allow drivers to move to the correct
lanes before the commencement of the lane separation.
Coordinate ramp An issue where ramp signals are in close proximity to a rail level crossing.
signals with signals at When this occurs, no movement at the ramp intersection can effectively utilise
a nearby level green time when the boom gates are down. This treatment ensures all
crossing movements have adequate green time when boom gates are up. This involves
compensating movements which lose green time when boom gates are down.

14.5 Management of End-of-motorway Interfaces
14.5.1 Specific Problems at End-of-motorway Interfaces
Interface problems at the end of a motorway are invariably due to the limited capacity of the arterial road
network to carry high traffic inflows from the motorway. This is due to the traffic moving from uninterrupted
flow on the motorway to interrupted flow at intersections on the arterial network. When this occurs, traffic
backs up on the motorway and, in worst case scenarios, can lead to flow breakdown for several kilometres
along the motorway which can block entry and exit ramps upstream of the terminal.
14.5.2 Treatment Options for End-of-motorway Interfaces
Potential treatment options for end-of-motorway interfaces are summarised in Table 14.3 and illustrated in
Figure 14.1.
For motorways terminating onto arterial roads, control strategies usually only mitigate the resultant
congestion. This is particularly so for radial motorways which feed into inner urban areas such that their end
is the primary exit for traffic entering the central business district. These motorways will inevitably have large
exit flows moving into an already congested inner urban arterial network.
Figure 14.1: Illustration of end-of-motorway control strategies

Table 14.3: Summary of treatment options for end-of-motorway interfaces

Queue build- Flow segregation When the queue at the end of a motorway extends back past the last exit
up at end of ramp such that it blocks the exit ramp, lane use pavement markings (i.e.
motorway straight and left-turn arrows) can be used well in advance of the exit ramp
to segregate those vehicles exiting at the ramp and through traffic going to
the end of the motorway. Static overhead signage and LUMS (Section 12),
as appropriate, could be used to direct drivers into their correct lanes.
Effective flow segregation well in advance of the end of the motorway is
very effective in reducing lane changing near the exit. This improves safety
and allows vehicles to exit the motorway with less delay.
Pre-emption This treatment increases green times for vehicles exiting the motorway in
anticipation of increasing demand. This would apply to the through
movements at the first intersection approached on exiting the motorway
and, more than likely, one or more subsequent intersections progressively
downstream on the arterial road to maximise motorway outflow.
This treatment can be very effective if a high proportion of traffic on
opposing movements can be diverted to alternative routes such that these
opposing movements require less green time. It would require adequate
signage (static or electronic) to inform local traffic that alternative priority
movements have been put in place for them. An understanding of travel
patterns through this part of the network would be essential before
implementing a traffic diversion strategy.
Gating This treatment holds back vehicles exiting the motorway to allow vehicles
queuing at intersections further upstream on the arterial to clear. This is
achieved by reducing the green time to the through movement. This can be
an effective strategy if queues downstream on the adjoining arterial are
blocking the road for vehicles exiting the motorway.
Metering the last one or two entry ramps upstream of the motorway exit is
effectively another means of gating, as it holds back traffic approaching the
end of the motorway and can potentially re-route traffic.
Re-routing motorway Use upstream VMS on motorway and arterial roads (Section 10) to advise
traffic motorists to take alternative routes using upstream exit ramps that bypass
the end of the motorway and have comparable travel times to end
destinations.
On the arterial network, traffic signal operation can be modified to optimise
traffic progression along these alternative routes, whilst VMS can be used
to advise other motorists not to enter the motorway.
Back-of-queue Achieved through LUMS including VSL (Section 12) to slow down
warning approaching drivers not expecting to have to stop so far upstream from the
end of the motorway. This can facilitate early braking and effectively
reduces rear-end crashes, particularly if the back-of-queue is near a bend.
It can also minimise the occurrence of flow breakdown shock waves as a
result of sudden braking.
14.6 Management of Motorway-to-motorway Interfaces
14.6.1 Specific Problems at Motorway-to-motorway Interfaces
Motorway-to-motorway (M2M) interface problems are commonly encountered in relation to ramps from an
uncontrolled motorway onto a smart motorway being left unmetered. In some cases, the decision not to
install ramp signals has been based on a perception that motorists should not have to stop when moving
from one motorway to another. This is despite the fact that the ramp in question enters the smart motorway
within a corridor controlled by coordinated signals on all other entry ramps. At peak periods, an unmetered
ramp can introduce large volumes of uncontrolled traffic onto the smart motorway, severely compromising
the level of control required to optimise the performance of the motorway.

The consequence of having high volumes of uncontrolled traffic moving from one motorway to another is
invariably flow breakdown at merges where demand exceeds capacity. This is essentially the same problem
that occurs within the merge areas of a motorway with unmanaged entry ramps from arterial roads, but often
the scale of the problem is much greater at M2M ramp merges.
14.6.2 Treatment Options for Motorway-to-motorway Interfaces
Potential treatment options for motorway-to-motorway (M2M) interfaces are summarised in Table 14.4.
Introducing ramp signals on a motorway-to-motorway ramp which enters a smart motorway can greatly
increase the level of control achievable on the smart motorway. When flow breakdown happens on an M2M
ramp, vehicles using the ramp are forced to slow down or come to a complete stop. Ramp signals can
improve merging such that vehicles queuing on the ramp do not have to come to a complete stop; instead
they slowly progress along the ramp in a rolling queue. As such, progression along the ramp may improve
during peak periods when ramp signals are introduced. Detailed discussion regarding the metering of M2M
ramps is provided in Section 11.5.9.
By comparison with arterial/motorway interchanges, interface problems arising as a consequence of

implementing control strategies on M2M interchanges can be mostly avoided through careful planning and
design. Factors which should make M2M interchanges less susceptible to interface issues when control
strategies such as ramp metering are applied are as follows:
• M2M ramps are generally longer than arterial/motorway ramps, hence there should be greater capacity to
manage queues to avoid overspill when these ramps are metered.
• A motorway that terminates at a joining interchange should have dedicated left- and right-turning lanes on
the approach. If queues on the exit ramp do overspill onto this motorway, then only vehicles taking the
exit ramp should be delayed. (Unlike traffic approaching an arterial exit ramp with queue overspill, there
are no vehicles progressing beyond the interchange that will be impeded).
• As major interchanges within the road network, funding for major civil works is more likely to be made
available.
• There is generally more open land surrounding M2M interchanges, particularly by comparison with
inner-urban arterial/motorway interchanges. This makes road widening more feasible and affordable.
Although, in general, it is easier to manage queues on metered M2M ramps than on metered arterial ramps,
additional issues arise with the operation of signals on M2M ramps. For example, drivers do not expect to
stop on M2M ramps. As these ramps connect two high-speed road facilities, they are themselves designed
to carry vehicles at high speeds. It is therefore important that adequate sight distance and sufficient advance
warning of the need to stop are provided on these ramps.
Also, if ramp metering prevents flow breakdown at the merge, it will likely eliminate the problem of queue
overspill onto the exiting motorway. If there are still operational issues, then queue overspill management
strategies can also be deployed.

Table 14.4: Summary of treatment options for motorway-to-motorway interfaces

Demand exceeding Meter arterial entry Effective only if ramps immediately upstream provide a significant
capacity at the ramps upstream of proportion of the arrivals at the problem ramp merge of the M2M
merge when arrival the M2M interchange interchange.
flows uncontrolled
Meter the ramps Usually very effective but drivers need plenty of warning of the need
within the M2M to stop on the ramp. Where left and right ramps join, each ramp can
interchange be metered separately before they join, or together after they join.
Queue detectors should be implemented to enable automatic
regulation of metering and alert road users and road operators.
Driver Alert drivers to the This is achieved firstly by locating the signals such that they are
preparedness to presence of metering visible to approaching drivers from a distance. Also, install ‘Prepare to
stop at signals on signals on the ramp Stop’ static advance warning signs and electronic ramp control signs
ramps (prepare-to-stop to alert drivers when ramp signals are in operation and to prepare to
advance warning) stop (Section 11).
Reduce speed limits This could involve either static speed limit signs to permanently
on the ramps reduce the speed limit on a ramp, or VSL, which can reduce the
speed limit (to 40 to 60 km/h) when metering is in operation
(Section 12). In Victoria, VSL provides for speeds of 40 to 80 km/h on
entry to a ramp and 40 to 100 km/h on exiting a ramp.
Unsafe heavy Merge gradient Ensure that the ramp’s gradient beyond the stop line is level or has a
vehicle merge slight downgrade to allow heavy vehicles to accelerate to a sufficient
speed merging speed before reaching the merge.
Queue overspill on Civil works Adds lanes on the mainline or on the ramp, including short flared
metered entry lanes at the stop line. Cost-benefit ratio usually favourable for major
ramps M2M interchanges.
Emergency lane Open the emergency lane on the mainline to vehicles on approach to
running the ramp during peak periods to accommodate queue overspill.
CCTV cameras Install CCTV with PTZ functionality at various strategic points along
the ramp to provide the TMC with full visibility along the length of the
ramp, on the approach to the ramp, and beyond the ramp at the
merge. Allows operators to monitor queues, driver behaviour and
identify operational problems (Section 9.2).
Back-of-queue Detectors should be installed just past the entrance of the ramp to
detectors alert the signal controller when the queue is close to overspilling onto
the exiting motorway.
Queue management The control algorithms within the signal controller should call on
modules modules which estimate the queue and speed up metering rates
when queues are on the verge of overspilling.
Queue overspill on Flow segregation on Separate the left- and right-turning vehicles approaching the
metered entry approach interchange on the terminating motorway through lane use pavement
ramps for joining markings and electronic signage such as LUMS (Section 12).
motorways where
Re-route upstream Use upstream VMS on motorway and arterial road signs to advise
one motorway
traffic motorists to avoid the M2M interchange when congested and use
terminates at the
alternative routes (Section 10).
interchange
Back-of-queue If queues do overspill onto the exiting motorway, then approaching
warning motorists need more advance warning to slow down. This can be
achieved through LUMS including VSL to slow down approaching
drivers not expecting to have to stop so far upstream from the M2M
interchange (Section 12). It can also be facilitated through use of
VMS to provide warning messages (Section 10). This treatment
effectively reduces rear-end crashes, particularly if the back-of-queue
is near a bend.

15. Additional Considerations
Section 15.1 and Section 15.2 are based on content from the Smart Motorway Design Guide for Traffic
Monitoring and Surveillance (Roads and Maritime Services 2015b) and the Smart Motorway Design Guide
for Tunnel Traffic Management (Roads and Maritime Services 2015e), respectively.
15.1 Localised ITS Safety Applications
Some locations on the motorway network may be susceptible to changing environmental and road conditions
that create temporary safety hazards for road users, or have features that result in a safety hazard for a
particular type of road user. At these locations, it is desirable to install traffic management systems that alert
road users to a safety hazard ahead and encourage safe driving behaviour.
Examples include weather warning systems, heavy vehicle speed warning systems on curved entry ramps
(see Figure 15.1), and over-height vehicle management systems. Weather warning systems are also
discussed in Section 9.5 (environmental monitoring equipment) and Section 12 (VSL).
Figure 15.1: Example heavy vehicle speed warning system on a motorway entry ramp in Perth, WA
Source: Main Roads Western Australia (personal communication 2016).
Due to the range of applications used to address differing environmental and safety issues, the requirements
for systems for environmental and safety monitoring should be assessed on a case-by-case basis in order to
address the specific safety risks identified at each site.
Generally, these systems will consist of the following core components and functions:
• Intelligence equipment – to measure and verify changes in road conditions and/or detect and monitor the
presence and driving characteristics of a particular type of vehicle.
• Control system and algorithms – to determine whether the detected condition will result in a safety hazard
and whether an operational intervention is required, and to control and monitor the roadside
infrastructure.
• Traffic management equipment – used to implement an intervention which may be in the form of a
warning via a real-time traveller information sign (e.g. display a message on a VMS), traffic control (e.g.
speed control) or other physical interventions to help mitigate or remove the safety hazard and improve
road/driving conditions.

The selection of traffic management treatments will depend on various factors, including the level of risk and
type of hazard. In some cases, multiple systems may be required to provide operators with the ability to
implement progressive levels of warning and control as vehicles approach the hazard location. Supporting
systems may also be required, such as enforcement systems that can help improve driver compliance and
thereby improve safety outcomes for road users.
Manual, semi-automatic and fully automated systems may be used to activate traffic control interventions. In
the case of manual systems, the detectors may trigger an alert to the operator to activate a particular
response plan. For automated systems, the operator should be able to override the system response if
required. Semi-automatic systems may include operator alert functionality, so that the operator can view and
edit a response prior to implementation.
Some typical components of safety management systems are outlined in Table 15.1.
Table 15.1: Example system components for ITS used for safety management
Possible system components

Application Traffic management
Intelligence equipment Supporting equipment
equipment
Weather • Fog detectors • Variable message sign • Static signing (to note start
warning • Water level/pavement (VMS) of scheme and reinforce
systems moisture detectors • Variable speed limit (VSL) default speed limits, if
signs relevant)
• Precipitation detectors/rain
gauges • Water pump • Speed enforcement (if VSL
are used)
• Wind speed detectors
• Temperature detectors
• Vehicle detectors – to
measure vehicle speed
• CCTV
Heavy vehicle Minimum: • VMS and/or • Static signing
curve warning • Vehicle detectors – to • Static sign with flashing • Speed enforcement systems
systems measure classification and lights/wig wags
speed of approaching heavy
vehicles
For improved
functionality/accuracy of
roll-over decision threshold:
• Weigh-in-motion to measure
vehicle weight
• Detection of non-live load
• Vehicle height detectors
• Vehicle configuration
• CCTV
Over-height Minimum: • VMS and/or • Static signing
vehicle • Vehicle detectors – to • Static sign with flashing • Enforcement systems
warning measure classification lights/wig wags
system • Physical barrier or sacrificial
• Over-height detectors (e.g. • Traffic control such as via structure (e.g. detachable
dangles, infra-red, laser physical barrier (e.g. boom protection beams to protect
beams and photoelectric barrier/swing gate), traffic front of low clearance
sensors, automatic number signals, LUMS and/or structure and minimise
plate recognition) flashing lights and alarms vehicle damage)
• CCTV • Other innovative measures • Reflective surfaces/markings
Additional: to encourage vehicles to to improve structure visibility
• Impact detectors – to stop before the front of a • Measures to support
measure degree and level of structure diversion of non-compliant
impact to structure over-height vehicles (e.g.
parking bay/moveable
median)
Source: Based on Roads and Maritime Services (2015b).

15.2 Tunnel Traffic Management
While in the past, tunnel environments have been managed to a greater level than open motorway
environments, this has primarily been driven by safety requirements (Roads and Maritime Services 2015e).
Tunnel environments still need to be upgraded to smart motorway standard in order to proactively manage
traffic flow at all times (not just during incidents) and to fully meet the objectives outlined in Section 3.2.
Tunnel environments are built to provide additional system capacity and should be operated as part of the
broader smart motorway network in order to achieve the desired outcomes of travel efficiency, reliability and
safety, and also providing route-based real-time information services to road users. If tunnel operations are
not integrated with other smart motorway sections, then there may be sub-optimal outcomes and
inconsistent road user experience. For example, if there is an incident in the tunnel, then any LUMS and
VMS on the open air motorway upstream of the tunnel should be used to assist with advance diversion of
traffic and to ensure safe approach speeds to any congestion that forms.
Smart motorway objectives and design principles should therefore also apply to tunnel environments. This
will ensure consistency in the look and feel of smart motorway environments to road users, and minimise risk
of confusion or frustration.
Development of a concept of operations will help to define the operational, incident and traffic management
requirements for a tunnel, and should inform the design and layout of traffic management devices installed
within the tunnel and on connecting motorway sections, as required to support tunnel operations.
There are some specific considerations for tunnels that should be accounted for in tunnel traffic management
design, including:
• physical constraints including sight/legibility restrictions, which may influence the size and spacing of
traffic management devices, as well as the need for over-height vehicle control
• access restrictions, which result in enhanced emergency and incident management requirements,
including specialist safety and environmental management systems (such as those required for drainage,
fire safety, ventilation, air quality, noise, lighting and emergency communication systems).
Smart motorway technologies installed on motorway sections within, upstream and downstream of tunnels
can be used to assist with tunnel operations and, in particular, incident and emergency management. For
example, through:
• more rapid detection and verification of incidents
• minimising the amount of vehicles entering or trapped in the tunnel during an incident (through more
advanced traffic diversion and control, as well as management of downstream traffic conditions to prevent
congestion from backing into the tunnel)
• improving emergency vehicle access and minimising response times
• providing real-time tactical information to users in advance of and throughout the incident site
• preventing over-height vehicles and other vehicles that pose a safety risk to tunnel structures from
entering the tunnel (through detection and warning systems)
• returning the tunnel network to normal conditions as soon as possible after the incident, so as to minimise
delay for road users.
It is out of the scope of this edition of the design guide to provide detailed guidance on traffic management
device layout in tunnels to support smart motorway operations; this may be covered in later editions.
The Smart Motorway Design Guide for Tunnel Traffic Management (Roads and Maritime Services 2015e)
provides useful guidance and research for the design and layout of traffic management devices in tunnels on
smart motorways. Also refer to the Guide to Road Tunnels (Austroads 2015h) for more general information
on tunnel planning, design and operation, including requirements for tunnel-specific safety and
environmental management systems.

15.3 Compliance and Enforcement
Road user compliance with smart motorways control interventions is important for benefits to be realised.
Operational experience in Melbourne and Queensland indicates that compliance with ramp signals is
generally good, and the coordinated ramp metering algorithm can make adjustments for a level of non-
compliance to minimise the impact on flow control. However, operational experience in both Australia and
internationally indicates that there can be higher levels of non-compliance with lane closure and speed limit
instructions. LUMS including VSL rely on high compliance to maintain safe and effective operations. Non-
emergency stops in the emergency lane or ESBs may also be an issue due to the impact on safety and
potentially the ability to open an emergency lane if part-time ELR is in operation.
A compliant environment is one where the drivers understand what is expected of them and respond
accordingly (Highways Agency 2012). Smart motorways are typically highly controlled environments
compared to other road types that influence on drivers’ perception of risk, which can naturally improve
compliance. Compliant behaviours are also driven by provision of timely, appropriate and consistent
information, a continuum of information and an intuitive response from the driver (Mouchel 2016).
The ‘five Es’ should be applied to improve compliance:

• Education and Encouragement – about how smart motorways will operate, the benefits to the road user
and wider community, and expected driver behaviours. For example, to demonstrate the triggers and
benefits of reduced speed limits, since it may not always be immediately clear to drivers of the need for a
speed reduction.
• Engineering – to provide a ‘self-explaining’ road, with clear, unambiguous and consistent signing for
motorists. Designers should consider the intended operation of the motorway route, including adjacent
motorway sections. Other example measures include providing inter-visibility of LUMS gantries to indicate
a highly controlled environment with frequent instructions (see Figure 15.2), and ensuring that ESBs do
not resemble laybys on other routes that can be used for non-emergency purposes.
• Enforcement – project design should consider potential requirements for enforcement, such as the need
for automated speed cameras that are integrated with VSL operations. The design of enforcement
equipment/systems must be undertaken in partnership with relevant enforcement bodies.
• Evaluation – ongoing monitoring and reporting on compliance to determine the need for additional
interventions if required and to help fine-tune the system performance.
Figure 15.2: Highly controlled motorway environment with inter-visibility of gantries
Requirements for heavy vehicle compliance and enforcement, such as roadside inspection bays, may also
need to be considered in the design of motorway routes.

15.4 System Performance Management
Since smart motorways involves real-time traffic control, the criticality of some components can be very high.
An example of VicRoads’ requirements for system availability and rectification are provided in Table 15.2,
which shows varying requirements depending on the criticality of the system component for ensuring safe
and efficient motorway operation. System performance management is critical to ensure ongoing monitoring
and improvement of system availability/reliability and to reduce fault rectification times to ensure that
systems perform to the required levels. Poor system performance may impact on road user safety and result
in liability issues, adverse public perception, reduced compliance and lower benefits realisation.
System performance monitoring and reporting is typically automated as much as possible to reduce
operational workload and response times, and should could cover system components, including the power
and communications infrastructure, roadside ITS infrastructure and TMC infrastructure. End-to-end testing
and commissioning should be undertaken prior to handover of systems from the project team to the road
agency for ongoing operations and maintenance.
Table 15.2: Example of VicRoads’ requirements for system availability and rectification
Required Required Required Required

ITS Specific
real contractual initial rectification Comment
asset/system example
availability availability response time
Central control STREAMS 99.9% 99.95% 1 hour 3 hours Achieving availability
systems Application (8.8 hours (4.4 hours per (classed as (classed as performance is likely
Server per year year outage) critical) critical) to require a resilient
outage) architecture so that
Central Core and
individual failures do
communications distribution layers
not cause the total
networks of
system/network
communications
failure covered here.
system
Field control Individual 99.5% 9.7% 2 hours 24 hours Several assets are
system STREAMS Field (44 hours (26 hours per (diagnosis impacted by outages
Processor with per year year outage) and remote in these devices.
several outage) reset)
connected
devices
Communications Communications
system access to an individual
Access Switch
with several
connected
devices
Vehicle detector Individual vehicle 99% 99.5% 4 hours 48 hours Detector sites would
– priority site detector at a site (88 hours (44 hours per (diagnosis be designed as
which is essential per year year outage) and remote priority sites based
for route outage) reset) on their importance
optimisation for achieving route
optimisation.
Vehicle detector Individual vehicle 97% 98% 7 days Allowing 7 days for
– normal site detector at other (11 days per (7 days per non-priority sites
sites year outage) year outage) assists in lowering
traffic impacts and
maintenance costs.
Appropriate system redundancy measures (across all components) and reliability-centred maintenance
strategies should be deployed to maintain the required level of availability. Maintenance regimes should
minimise the level of disruption to traffic as well as road worker safety risk.

15.5 Motorway Performance Evaluation
The system should be able to measure motorway performance and the impact of changes to operations, in
accordance with national and jurisdictional requirements. This can enable operational performance tuning
and ongoing strategic business reporting. The types of motorway performance reporting that may be
required include:
• current motorway performance reporting (e.g. speed, flow, density, reliability, etc.)
• historical data entry report
• historical motorway performance report.
The system should also support appropriate retention of historical data to meet operational and legislative
requirements (i.e. retain records of what speed limits were displayed and CCTV images for specified periods
of time).
Evaluation of smart motorway projects in terms of impact on driver behaviour and network performance
outcomes (i.e. crashes, throughput, speed, etc.) should be undertaken to confirm benefits realisation and to
help inform future smart motorway planning, design and operation.
The evaluation should investigate driver compliance and motorway performance to determine any correlation
and adverse impacts, and provide feedback into more appropriate future treatments to improve performance
(as discussed in Section 15.3).
Use of the national performance indicators (Austroads 2016b) would also enable comparison with other
motorway projects in Australia and New Zealand.
15.6 Emerging Technologies
A number of rapidly advancing technologies may have substantial impacts on the design and operation of
road networks in the next few decades, and should be considered within current project planning and design.
For example, automated, connected and electric vehicles that have the potential to deliver significant safety,
mobility and environmental benefits.
These emerging vehicle technologies may have a range of implications for managed motorways design, for
example in relation to motorway operating capacity, road pavement and structures, signs and lines, ITS
infrastructure (i.e. additional requirements for cooperative-ITS (C-ITS) and electric vehicle charging
infrastructure), as well as operational strategies.
Further research is required to understand the long-term impacts of these technologies on existing safety
mitigation and roadside ITS, and to inform strategies for managing the transitional period when there is a
mixed fleet of vehicles with varying levels of technology.
It is advisable for future projects to ensure that a level of future-proofing and resilience is incorporated to
project designs with respect to emerging technologies and associated government policy and strategies.
Transport models may need to consider different lane/road capacities and car following/lane changing
algorithms to incorporate driverless vehicle behaviour. Sensitivity testing of the network can be used to
assess the impact of driverless vehicles and other emerging technologies under various adoption rates and
forecast demand horizons. This will help to ensure the proposed geometric design is flexible for different
options going forward.
The broader impacts of ‘smarter vehicles’ are far reaching. In addition to improving safety through reduced
crashes, they offer the potential to transform the way we use transport and may impact on mobility freedom,
congestion, productivity, urban planning/form, and the environmental effects of transport (Main Roads
Western Australia 2015b). Additional guidance will become available on the basis of further research into the
‘known unknowns’ and ‘unknown unknowns’ of the impact of smarter vehicles and other emerging
technologies on smart motorway design and operation.

References
Akcelik, R, Roper, R & Besley, M 1999, Fundamental relationships for freeway traffic flows, research report
ARR 341, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.
Abdel-Aty, M, Halleem, K, Cunningham, R & Gayah, VV 2009, ‘Application of variable speed limits and ramp
metering to improve safety and efficiency of freeways’, International symposium on freeway and tollway
operations, 2nd, 2009, Honolulu, Hawaii, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1-13.
ARRB Group 2011, ‘Congestion management response plan (CRMP) for Perth’, contract report 001320,
prepared for Main Roads Western Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
ARRB Group 2013, ‘Managed motorways workshop part 3: principles of uninterrupted traffic flow’, ARRB
Group, Vermont South, Vic.
ARRB Group 2015, ‘Research on benefits and warrants for VSL and LUMS on managed motorways’,
contract report 008504, prepared for Roads and Maritime Services, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Austroads 2008, Freeway traffic flow under congested conditions: literature review, AP-R318-08, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009a, Estimating road network congestion and associated costs, AP-R345-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Freeway design parameters for fully managed operations, AP-R341-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009c, Guide to road safety part 6: road safety audit, 3rd edn, AGRS06-09, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2009d, Freeway traffic flow under congested conditions: Monash freeway study, AP-R334-09,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009e, Guide to road design part 4: intersections and crossings, AGRD04-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010a, Guide to road design part 3: geometric design, 2nd edn, AGRD03-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010b, Guide to road design part 4A: unsignalised and signalised intersections, 2nd edn,
AGRD04A-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010c, Guide to road design part 6: roadside design, safety and barriers, AGRD06-10, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013a, Guide to traffic management part 3: traffic studies and analysis, 2nd edn, AGTM03-13,
Austroads 2013b, Guide to traffic management part 6: intersections, interchanges and crossings, 2nd edn,
AGTM06-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014a, Development of guide content on managed motorways, AP-R464-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, Operational management of arterial/managed motorway interfaces for network
optimisation, AP-R454-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014c, Guide to traffic management part 5: road management, 2nd edn, AGTM05-14, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014d, Cycling aspects of Austroads guides, 2nd edn, AP-G88-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015a, Guide to road design: set, AGRD parts 1-8, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015b, Guide to road design part 2: design considerations, 2nd edn, AGRD02-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015c, Guide to road design part 4C: interchanges, 2nd edn, AGRD04C-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015d, Guide to traffic management part 2: traffic theory, 2nd edn, AGTM02-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2015e, Guide to road design part 6B: roadside environment, 2nd edn, AGRD06B-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015f, Ability to absorb information through electronic and static signs, AP-R485-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015g, Review of sign size for electronic regulatory speed signs, AP-R473-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015h, Guide to road tunnels set, AGRD parts 1-8, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015i, Guide to road design part 4B: roundabouts, 3rd edn, AGRD04B-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016a, Safe systems assessment framework, AP-R509-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016b, National performance indicators, Austroads, Sydney, NSW, viewed 14 September 2016,
<http://algin.net/austroads/site/index.asp?id=2>.
Austroads 2016c, Guide to traffic management: part 4: network management, 4th edn, AGTM04-16,
Austroads 2016d, Guide to traffic management set, AGTM parts 1-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016e, Guide to traffic management part 10: traffic control and communication devices, AGTM10-16,
Austroads 2016f, Guide to traffic management part 9: traffic operations, 3rd edn, AGTM09-16, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Aydos, JC & O’Brien, A 2014, ‘SCATS ramp metering: strategies, arterial integration and results’, IEEE
International conference on intelligent transport systems (ITSC), 17th, 2014, Qingdao, China, IEEE Press,
New York, USA, pp. 2194-2201, viewed 14 September 2016,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6958028>.
Banks, JH 1990, ‘Flow processes at a freeway bottleneck’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1287, pp. 20-8.
Brilon, W 2000, ‘Traffic flow analysis beyond traditional methods’, Fourth international symposium on
highway capacity, Maui, Hawaii, TRB circular E-C018, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
USA, pp. 26-41.
Brilon, W & Geistefeldt, J 2009, ‘Implications of the random capacity concept for freeways’, International
symposium on freeway and tollway operations, 2nd, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 11 pp.
Brilon, W, Geistefeldt, J & Regler, M 2005, ‘Reliability of freeway traffic flow: a stochastic concept of
capacity’, International symposium on transportation and traffic theory, 16th, 2005, College Park,
Maryland, USA, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 125-44.
Carlson, R, Manolis, D, Papamichail, I & Papageorgiou, M 2012, ‘Integrated ramp metering and mainstream
traffic flow control on freeways using variable speed limits’, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences,
vol. 48, pp. 1578-88.
Cassidy, M & Rudjanakanoknad, J 2002, Study of traffic at a freeway merge and roles for ramp metering,
PATH working paper, UCB-ITS-PWP-2002-2, Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley, California, USA.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015, Traffic and road use manual (TRUM): volume 4: ITS and
electrical technology: part 5: configuration and placement of vehicle detection sensors, TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Faulkner, L, Dekker, F, Gyles, D, Papamichail, I & Papageorgiou, M 2013, ‘Evaluation of heuristic ramp
metering coordination installation at the M1-M3 freeway in Queensland, Australia’, Transportation
Research Board annual meeting, 93rd, 2014, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA, 18 pp.
Federal Highway Administration 2007, Systems engineering for intelligent transportation systems: an
introduction for transportation professionals, FWHA, Washington, DC, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 2013, Designing for transportation management and operations: a primer,
FHWA-HOP-13-013, FHWA, Washington, DC, USA.
GHD 2010, ‘Review of priority lanes: Auckland ramp signalling project (draft)’, prepared for NZ Transport
Agency, GHD, Auckland, New Zealand.

Hall, FL & Agyemang-Duah, K 1991, ‘Freeway capacity drop and the definition of capacity’, Transportation
Research Record, no. 1320, pp. 91-8.
Hall, FL, Hurdle, VF & Banks, JM 1992, ‘Synthesis of recent work on the nature of speed-flow and flow-
occupancy (or density) relationships on freeways’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1365, pp. 12-8.
Han, C & Luk, JYK 2008, ‘A review of freeway flow breakdown process’, ARRB conference, 23rd, 2008,
Adelaide, South Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 12 pp.
Hegyi, A, De Schutter, B & Hellendoorn, H 2005, ‘Model predictive control for optimal coordination of ramp
metering and variable speed limits’, Transportation Research, Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 13C,
no. 3, pp. 185-209.
Highway Research Board 1965, Highway capacity manual: Highway Research Board special report 87,
HRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Highways Agency 2006, Design manual for roads and bridges: volume 6: section 2: part 1, TD 22/6,
Highways England, Birmingham, UK.
Highways Agency 2008, Managed motorway implementation guidance: through junction hard shoulder
running, interim advice note 112/08, Highways England, Birmingham, UK.
Highways Agency 2009, Managed motorways implementation guidance: hard shoulder running, interim
advice note 111/09, Highways England, Birmingham, UK.
Highways Agency 2012, Managed motorways: dynamic hard shoulder (MM-DHS) concept of operations,
version 3, Highways England, Birmingham, UK.
Highways Agency 2013, Managed motorways: all lane running: concept of operations, version 2, Highways
England, Birmingham, UK.
Highways England 2015, Smart motorways, interim advice note 161/15, Highways England, Birmingham, UK.
Infrastructure Australia 2011, ‘National managed motorway vision and action plan’, IA, Sydney, NSW.
Kerner, BS 2004, The physics of traffic, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Kerner, BS 2007, ‘On-ramp metering based on three-phase traffic theory: parts I, II & III’, Traffic Engineering
& Control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 28-35 (part I), vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 68-75 (part II) & vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 114-20
(part III).
Kerner, BS & Rehborn, H 1996, ‘Experimental properties of complexity in traffic flow’, Physical Review E,
vol. 53, no. 5, pp. R4275-8.
Kerner, BS, Rehborn, H, Haug, A & Maiwald-Hiller, I 2005, ‘Tracking of congested traffic patterns on
freeways in California’, Traffic Engineering & Control, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 380-5.
Kurzhanskiy, AA & Varaiya, P 2015, ‘Traffic management: an outlook’, Economics of Transportation, vol. 4,
no. 3, pp. 135-46.
Lee Engineering & Texas Transportation Institute 2010, MAG non-recurring congestion study: technical
memorandum no. 1: draft literature review and taxonomy, Maricopa Association of Governments,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA, viewed 15 September 2016,
<http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/pdf/cms.resource/NRCS_2010-04-30_Draft-Technical-Memorandum-
01_25607.pdf>.
Leisch, JP & Mason, JM 2005, Freeway and interchange geometric design handbook, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, USA.
Lindgren, RVF 2005, ‘Analysis of flow features in queued traffic on a German freeway’, PhD thesis, Portland
State University, Portland, USA.
Lindgren, RV, Bertini, RL, Helbing, D & Schonhof, M 2006, ‘Toward demonstrating predictability of bottleneck
activation on German Autobahns’, Transportation Research Record, no.1965, pp.12-22.
Lorenz, M & Elefteriadou, L 2001, ‘Defining highway capacity as function of breakdown probability’,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1776, pp. 43–51.
Main Roads Western Australia 2012, Managed freeways provision guidelines, draft, MRWA, Perth, WA.

Main Roads Western Australia 2013a, MRWA supplement to VicRoads Managed Freeways – Freeway
Ramp Signals Handbook November 2010, MRWA, Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2013b, Operational efficiency audit guidelines for managed freeways, MRWA,
Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2015a, ‘Guidelines for variable message signs’, MRWA, Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2015b, Automated vehicles: are we ready?, MRWA, Perth, WA.
May, AD 1990, Traffic flow fundamentals, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Minderhoud, M & Elefteriadou, L 2003, ‘Freeway weaving: comparison of Highway Capacity Manual 2000
and Dutch guidelines’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1852, paper no. 03-2116, pp. 10-8.
Mouchel 2016, The compliant motorway, Mouchel, viewed 15 September 2016,
<http://www.ntoctalks.com/file_cabinet/download/0x000096462?1370629630>.
O’Brien, A 2014, ‘SCATS ramp signalling: safety & operational outcomes in Auckland NZ’, IPENZ
Transportation Group conference, 2014, Wellington, New Zealand, Institution of Professional Engineers
New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, 15 pp.
Papageorgiou, M, Hadj-Salem, H & Blosseville, JM 1991, ‘ALINEA: a local feedback control law for on-ramp
metering’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1320, pp. 58-64.
Papageorgiou, M, Kosmatopoulos, E, & Papamichail, I 2008, ‘Effects of variable speed limits on motorway
traffic flow’, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 87th, 2008, Washington, DC, TRB,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 37-48.
Parsons Brinckerhoff 2011, ‘Final report: national managed motorways prioritisation project’, Parsons
Brinckerhoff Australia, Brisbane, Qld.
Pinchen, R & Wu, H 2015, ‘Distributed acoustic sensing technology for congestion and incident
management’, ITS World congress, 22nd, 2015, Bordeaux, France, paper number ITS-2749.
Rakha, H & Zang, Y 2006, ‘Analytical procedures for estimating capacity of freeway weaving, merge and
diverge sections’, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 132, no. 8, pp. 618-28.
Research Society for Roads and Transportation (ed) 2015, Handbuch fuer die bemessung von
strassenverkehrsanlagen,(Manual for the design of road transport equipment), Forschungsgesellschaft
fuer Strassen und Verkehrswesen, Cologne, Germany.
Roads and Maritime Services 2010, ‘Interim RTA policy and advisory: travel time on variable message signs
for motorways’, version 1.0, RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2014, ITS communications system, QA specification TS020, RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015a, ‘Smart motorway design guide for capacity and flow analysis’, RMS,
Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015b, ‘Smart motorway design guide for traffic monitoring and surveillance’,
RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015c, ‘Smart motorway supplement for traveller information’, RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015d, ‘Smart motorway supplement for ramp metering signals’, RMS,
Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015e, ‘Smart motorway design guide for tunnel traffic management’, RMS,
Sydney, NSW.
Schonhof, M & Helbing, D 2007, ‘Empirical features of congested traffic states and their implications for
traffic modelling’, Transportation Science, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 135-66.
Shawky, M & Nakamura, H 2007, ‘Characteristics of breakdown phenomenon in merging sections of urban
expressways in Japan’, Transportation Research Record, no. 2012, pp. 11-9.
Shoraka, M & Puan, O 2010, ‘Review of evaluating existing capacity of weaving segments’, International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 683-94.

Short, J 2012, ‘Measuring recurring and non-recurring congestion’, PowerPoint presentation, NATMEC
conference, 2012, Dallas, Texas, USA, viewed 15 September 2016,
<http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2012/NATMEC/Short.pdf>.
Sinclair Knight Merz 2005, ‘Perceptions of behavioural responses to the Victorian drive time system’, Sinclair
Knight Merz, Armadale, Vic.
Stromgren, P 2011, ‘Analysis of the weaknesses in the present freeway capacity models for Sweden’,
Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 16, pp. 76-88.
Transportation Research Board 2010, Highway capacity manual 2010, 5th edn, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Transport and Infrastructure Council 2016, National policy framework for land transport technology: action
plan: 2016-2019, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Canberra, ACT.
VicRoads 2013a, Managed freeways handbook for lane use management, variable speed limits and traveller
information, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2013b, Managed freeways: freeway ramp signals handbook, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2014, Managed freeway guidelines, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2015a, Managed motorways framework: network optimisation & operations rationale and technical
requirements, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2015b, Supplement to Austroads Guide To Traffic Management Part 2: Traffic Theory (2015),
VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Standards Australia
AS/NZS ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015, Systems and software engineering: system life cycle processes.
AS 1742.2-2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 2: traffic control devices for general use.
AS 1742.3-2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 3: traffic control devices for works on roads.
AS 1742.4-2008, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 4: speed controls.
AS 1742.14-2014, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 14: traffic signals.
AS 1743-2001, Road signs: specifications.
AS 1744-2015, Standard alphabets for road signs.
AS 2342-1992 (R2013), Development, testing and implementation of information and safety symbols and
symbolic signs.
AS/NZS 3000:2007, Electrical installations (known as the Australian/New Zealand wiring rules).
AS 4852.1-2009, Variable message signs: part 1: fixed signs.
AS 5156-2010, Electronic speed limit signs.

Appendix A Complementary Austroads References
In addition to the references for this report, the following published Austroads reports are recommended for
practitioners involved in the implementation of smart motorway projects:
• Austroads 2016, National ITS architecture framework: project update, AP-G98-16, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
• Austroads 2016, Operationalising Austroads’ product assessment process, AP-R524-16, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2016, ITS architecture roadmap, AP-R513-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2016, ITS performance and benchmarking, AP-R4506-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2016, Speed reduction treatments for high-speed environments, AP-R508-16, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2016, ‘Harmonised ITS technical specifications (HITS) artefact’, internal report, project
NS2022, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2015, Review of motorway entrance ramp acceleration lengths, AP-R500-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2015, ITS strategic directions: a roadmap of ITS activities in Australia and New Zealand, AP-
C95-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2015, Development of product acceptance techniques for road network devices, AP-R471-15,
• Austroads 2015, Road design for heavy vehicles, AP-T293-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2014, Procurement of ITS (international practice), AP-R448-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2014, National ITS architecture: context and vision, AP-R467-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2014, National ITS architecture: ITS business architecture, AP-R4468-14, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
• Austroads 2013, Best practice guidelines for procurement of ITS solutions, APP-R440-13, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
• Austroads 2013, Best practice study on the use of ITS standards in traffic management, AP-R427-13,
• Austroads 2012, SCATS and STREAM interface through the SCATS ITS port, AP-T224-12, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
• Additional research publications from the Connected and Automated Vehicles programs.

Appendix B Smart Motorway Benefit Evaluations
Table B 1 provides national and international real-world examples of benefits from a variety of smart motorway tools focusing on capacity/throughput, reliability,
safety and travel time savings. Note that smart motorways tools can also deliver environmental benefits.
Table B 1: Evidence of smart motorway benefits
Outcome area Capacity/throughput Reliability Safety Speed / travel time saving (during congestion)
Summary • Capacity increases of 5–22% • Reliability • Crash reductions highly variable, • More variable – generally there are
• Throughput improvement improvements of 4– generally from 10-50% depending improvements; some instances of overall
generally 1–20% (some cases 60% on level of severity/time period reduced speeds leading to improved travel
up to 74%) times
Coordinated ramp • Qld M1/M3: 4% increase in AM • Vic M1: travel time • Vic M1: 12% reduction in crashes, • Vic M1: 33% improvement (25 km/h) in peak
metering peak inbound throughput reliability improved by 19% reduction in fatal crashes and period inbound travel times on fully managed
(slight increase in flow of 150 4% up to 20% in peak 10% reduction in serious/other section
veh/h that was sustained periods crashes (based on 2.5-year ex- • Qld M1/M3: 7% increase in travel speeds (AM
throughout the peak period). • Qld M1/M3 Qld: 37% post data) peak) from 70 to 75 km/h. Also 8%
Average AM peak inbound improvement in ‘good’ • NZ Auckland motorway system: improvement in travel efficiency (with average
travel productivity has reliability for AM peak 17% (inbound) to speed within 30% of speed limit)
improved by 8% (over 50% now receive 32–34% (outbound) reduction in • NZ Auckland motorway system: estimated
• Vic M1: improvement of 19% reliable travel) crashes annual delay saving of 350 000 hours, annual
on a per lane basis • • Minneapolis St Paul: 26% increase travel time saving of around $7m
• NZ Auckland motorway in crashes during eight-week • Minneapolis St Paul: speeds reduced by 14%
system: improvement of 1 to period when ramps switched off but resulting in improved travel times
14% at critical bottlenecks • US (various): 15–50% reduction in
(increase in speed of 5–14 km peak period collisions (in one
depending on direction/period) state, up to 71% reduction in injury
• Minneapolis St Paul: decrease collisions)
in traffic volumes by 9% when
ramps switched off
• Other US cities: 18–74%
increase in peak volume

ALR/ • Vic West Gate Bridge (ALR): • UK M42: reduction in • UK M42: up to 56% reduction in • UK M42: reduction of peak hour journey times
part-time ELR combined inbound/outbound journey time variability personal injury accidents and of
peak one-hour throughput of 22–32% (27% on reduction in accident severity 9–24% (but also reported increase in travel
increased by 22% weekdays) index from 0.16 to 0.07 times overall)
• UK M42: increase of 7–9% • The Netherlands: decrease in travel time of
with hard shoulder running one to three minutes
• Munich: 20% increase in rush
hour capacity
• Netherlands: 7–22% increase
in capacity and up to 7%
increase in travel volumes
LUMS/VSL with • UK M25: 5% increase in • Tasman Highway • UK M25 (VSL): 10% reduction in • Seattle I-5: 4–31% travel time reduction during
supporting throughput over 5 peak hour (VSL): 60% reduction in injury accidents and 20% reduction congestion
traveller periods, reduction in AM peak travel time variability in in damage only accidents • Stockholm: up to 30% reduction in travel times
information shock waves from 7 to 5 peak hour • A5 Germany (VSL): 30% reduction during recurrent congestion (and 9% during
• Germany: 5–10% in personal injury accidents, 27% congestion caused by incidents)
improvement in capacity reduction in heavy material • NSW F3 (VSL): 2.5–20% travel time reduction
• Netherlands (various): damage accidents during peak hours (best estimate 8%)
increase in throughput of 4– • Bavaria, Germany (VSL): • Tasman Highway (VSL): 15% travel time
5% accidents reduced by up to 35%, reduction during morning peak
• with 31% reduction in crashes
France A7 (VSL): 10% • I-270/I-255 St Louis (VSL): up to 27%
increase in peak period flow involving injury
reduction in travel times with up to 10%
and 16% reduction in • The Netherlands A13: 50% decrease in average travel speed during peak
congestion reduction in accidents hours
• Other Dutch projects (1983–96) • M4 NSW (VSL): negative impact on spot
(VMS, VSL): 15-25% decrease in speed but improved speed compliance
primary accidents and 40-50%
decrease in secondary accidents
• Adelaide Crafters Highway (VSL):
24% primary accident reduction in
first 12 months
• NSW M4 (VSL): total crash
reduction by 11%

VMS – – • Research study reported in • Travel time reduced by 8% based on FHWA
(based on studies VicRoads (2013a) indicate 2.8% national review of VMS (Austroads 2007, cited
cited in decrease in crashes in VicRoads 2013a)
VicRoads 2013a) • Melbourne and Brisbane drive time systems
showed increased diversion rate up to 35%
during peak periods
• Ile de France (Paris): 6% of motorway traffic
diverted due to VMS congestion message – if
2% of drivers altered route could result in
travel time reduction of 12% (Austroads 2007,
cited in VicRoads 2013a)

Appendix C Field Infrastructure for Smart Motorway Elements
Table C 1 and Table C 2 indicate the typical ITS and supporting field infrastructure required to deliver each of the smart motorway element sub-systems, based on
current practice.
Table C 1: Typical field infrastructure required for smart motorway sub-systems (part 1)
Power/ Ramp signals Electronic

Type of Field Signal LUMS VSL
Sub-system communications lanterns/ ramp control
operation processor controller sign/gantry sign/gantry
infrastructure pedestals sign
Traffic/network data collection Real-time 
Traffic surveillance Real-time 
Automatic incident detection Real-time 
Roadside help phones Real-time 
VMS/roadside traveller information Real-time  
Real-time data publisher (website,

Real-time 
third parties)
 
Coordinated ramp signals Real-time     (M2M ramps –
(supporting) supporting)
LUMS (including VSL) Real-time     
VSL (if separate to LUMS) Real-time    


Arterial road interface management Real-time    
(supporting)
Network performance reporting Historic 

Table C 2: Typical field infrastructure required for smart motorway sub-systems (part 2)
Motorway data Non-roadside Arterial Arterial

Mainline Arterial Other detectors Help Static
Sub-system station (vehicle CCTV camera traffic data traffic road
VMS road VMS (i.e. weather) phone signs
detectors) sources signals detectors


Traffic/network data collection  (if needed for
(if available)
other elements)
Traffic surveillance 

  
(depending on
Automatic incident detection (depending on (depending on (depending on
technology
technology used) technology used) technology used)
used)
 
Roadside help phones  
(supporting) (supporting)
 
 
(supporting – if (if used for
Variable message signs   (if used for travel (if used for travel
used to verify travel time
time calculation) time calculation)
VMS display) calculation)

Real-time data publisher (may use  

(website, third parties) separate (if available) (if available)
webcams)

Coordinated ramp signals  
(supporting)

(supporting or 
LUMS (including VSL) 
required for VSL (supporting)
algorithms)

(supporting or 
VSL (if separate to LUMS) 
required for VSL (supporting)
algorithms)
Arterial road interface  
  
management (supporting) (if available)
  
Network performance reporting  
(supporting) (if available) (if available)

Appendix D LUMS Traffic Management Rules
This appendix outlines principles and typical layouts for lane control, variable speed limits and motorway
closure arrangements. The content is primarily sourced from the Managed Freeways Handbook for Lane
Use Management, Variable Speed Limits and Traveller Information (VicRoads 2013a).
Traffic management field response rules are combined to provide the most appropriate response. Automated
response plans need to be accepted by the operator before being activated. The operator is also able to
modify details of a plan prior to implementation or to change details during an incident based on changing
circumstances.
The traffic management field response rules implemented within the LUMS rules engine may vary between
jurisdictions.
Lane control
• For an incident, close lane(s) at upstream gantry with a red cross.
• Merge symbol to be displayed at the next upstream sign from a red cross.
• Maintain uniform speed limit across gantry for a single direction. Lowest speed limit to be adopted for the
gantry.
• Close adjacent lanes to the nearest kerb at incident gantry.

• Where there are an equal number of adjacent lanes at the incident gantry, close lane to median (right)
side.

• For secondary incidents, close lanes to the same kerbside as the first incident.
Speed Limit
• The maximum speed limit reduction in relation to an upstream gantry is based on the default speed limit
in the section of motorway. In general, this involves
– 80 km/h: 20 km/h maximum reduction
– ≥ 90 km/h: 30 km/h maximum reduction.
• The speed limit on the gantry immediately upstream of the incident is 40 km/h.

• If a gantry has more than one non-speed limit, set speed limit to 60 km/h unless the gantry is immediately
upstream of an incident.
• Subject to the above rules, if a gantry is displaying one non-speed limit, the speed limit on that gantry is
the ‘default speed limit minus 20 km/h’.
• The speed limit on the first gantry downstream of a red cross should match the second downstream
gantry if the second downstream gantry is on a default speed limit.
• If the second downstream gantry is not displaying the default speed limit, match the first gantry to the
second gantry’s speed limit.

Propagation upstream (one change per gantry)

• Multiple lane closures must be propagated (cascaded) to ensure single lane merge movement per gantry.
• If two inwards pointing lane merge symbols are required on the same gantry for unrelated incidents,
extend median side lane closure upstream until no inward pointing merge symbols appear on the same
gantry.

Added lane
• No split running of lanes unless an add-lane is present.
• Add-lane will only be closed if the incident affects the add-lane.
Emergency access lane

• Extend kerbside lane closure to the next upstream entry ramp, unless continuous emergency lane is
provided between incident and entry ramp.
OR

Entry ramps
• Entry ramp speed limit signs will always display the same speed limit as the mainline gantry directly
upstream from the ramp.
• If next upstream gantry is blank (e.g. failed or disabled), keep moving upstream until a non-blank gantry is
found.
• If next upstream gantry is displaying lane control symbols only, entry ramp speed limit should be 40 km/h.
• Close entry ramp if left lane is closed at the upstream gantry.

Lane exit signal

• A lane exit signal is to be displayed on the upstream gantry of an exit ramp, where two downstream left
lanes are closed.
– Lane exit signal can only be used on the left kerbside lane.
– Lane exit signal generally used when motorists are required to exit the motorway.
Full motorway closure

• All lanes across all gantries will be closed upstream to the next exit ramp where a full motorway closure
occurs. Single incident propagation will be applied upstream of the exit ramp.
• 40 km/h speed limit on all gantries within the propagated lane closure length where a full motorway
closure occurs, except the first gantry.
• First gantry speed limit equals ‘default minus 20 km/h’.

• Close all entry ramps within the closed motorway and lane closure propagation section during full
motorway closure.
Variable message signs

• For a lane closure immediately downstream of the first LUMS gantry, upstream VMS must provide
warning of the reduced speed limit ahead and lane status information of the downstream gantry. The
VMS becomes part of the LUMS response.
Mainline VMS

Arterial road VMS

• Arterial road VMS provide lane status information for left lane closure at a downstream gantry. The
arterial road VMS becomes part of the LUMS response.
Arterial road VMS
Motorway and ramp merges 5

• Mainline LUMS signs immediately upstream of the merge of two motorways must have the same speed
limit. The lower speed should be adopted.
• LUMS signs on ramps directly upstream of a point where two ramps merge must always display the same
speed limit. The lower speed should be adopted.

5 Note that this is new guidance (i.e. not included in the VicRoads (2013a) handbook).

Commentary 1
VicRoads is currently undertaking detailed research and operational investigations to determine appropriate
maximum capacity values measured using Melbourne motorway data and statistical analysis and systematic
methodologies (similar to those used in Germany and the Netherlands). In particular, VicRoads is assessing
average lane capacities for motorways with different numbers of lanes.
Roads and Maritime has developed a Smart Motorway Design Guide for Capacity and Flow Analysis (Roads
and Maritime Services 2015a) which includes additional information regarding adjustments to mainline
capacity that may need to be considered in a route traffic flow/capacity and lane balancing analysis to
address matters associated with capacity drop. It comprises of general ‘rules-of-thumb’ and can be used to
help in design and/or assessment of relevant capacity factors; and in a number of cases, are referenced from
guidance provided in Main Roads Western Australia (2013b) design guidelines and in the HCM
(Transportation Research Board 2010). In some cases, further research needs to be carried out to determine
more precise guidance relating to these factors.
This commentary presents the latest findings of the ongoing VicRoads investigations (refer to
Commentary C1.1 to C1.3) and also incorporates the information presented in the Smart Motorway Design
Guide for Capacity and Flow Analysis (Roads and Maritime Services 2015a) (refer to Commentary C1.4 to
C1.12). This commentary is intended to provide assistance to practitioners in the interim until published
Australian research is available on this matter.
The capacity adjustment factors in Commentary C1.4 to C1.12 are intended for application to the operational
capacity values provided in Section 5.2.3, which are generally suitable for motorways with 100 km/h
operating speeds and up to three lanes. Capacity adjustment factors may change for motorways with
different speed limits and number of lanes.
Capacity adjustment factors for lower default operating speeds are discussed in Commentary C1.11.
Commentary C1.3 suggests some alternate capacity values for design based on the number of motorway
lanes – additional capacity adjustment factors such as discussed in this commentary may also be applied to
these values as required.
The analyst/designer will need to exercise judgement applicable to the situation and may need to carry out
sensitivity analyses to determine the significance of the various capacity adjustments.
C1.1 Definition of Capacity
VicRoads (2016) has developed an enhanced definition of capacity as follows.
Capacity is the highest traffic volume that a road segment can carry, measured at a bottleneck and is
determined on the basis of statistical analysis of data to capture systematic and random fluctuations under a
wide range of demand patterns.
• A road segment is generally influenced by its context and relationship between downstream and
upstream segments. Multiple road segments act together to function as a system. The weakest link (road
segment) in a system will strongly influence the traffic throughput of the motorway.
• Bottlenecks are road segments with observed loss of performance on a regular basis, for example a
speed drop and/or flow drop resulting in a significant reduction in performance. A bottleneck can be a
geometric constraint and/or due to operational influences (e.g. lane changing and/or uncontrolled
demand). Refer further to the discussion on bottlenecks below.
• Statistical analysis requires a recognised and repeatable statistical methodology measuring a sufficient
number of days (e.g. 1 week, 4 weeks, 6 months, 1 year) within which there is a high proportion of days
with bottleneck activations.
• Systematic: cyclic patterns influenced by seasonal, monthly and weekly variations, daylight/darkness,
wet/dry, etc.

• Random: influenced by unplanned events, minor incidents and traffic disturbances (generally going
unreported and causing minor disturbances to lane flows), driver behaviour, etc.
• Demand patterns vary from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, week-to-week, season-to-season
and section-to-section, and include changes in average trip lengths, origin-destination (O-D) patterns and
vehicle mix combinations.
In practice, capacity measurement on a road segment in a congested urban motorway network cannot be
fully isolated from upstream and downstream traffic flow influences. Multiple road segments will act together
to function as a system. Therefore, capacity values used for road design must also reflect the system effects,
which are representative of that experienced in real-world operations.
Capacity is determined at bottleneck locations where it is regularly lower than traffic demand. Under this
circumstance, the bottleneck induces the potential for upstream road sections to take on the reduced traffic
volume being exhibited by the failed road segment (i.e. congestion and queuing form on the upstream
motorway section). However, the complexity of how the road sections interact cannot be understated – due
to unique entry and exit ramp configurations, their relative locations, and temporal demand patterns as
discussed above.
The VicRoads approach to determining capacity has initially focused on the capacity of bottlenecks, as per
European practice. However, future exploration of capacities will also need to consider the capacity of non-
bottleneck locations (e.g. where lanes are added to facilitate weaving and where upstream constraints limit
demand flows). For the purpose of determining capacity, there needs to be a clear link between the unique
context and problem at each location being investigated. In traffic operations, the control systems need to
ensure the traffic volumes through non-bottleneck areas are matched in real-time to the capacity of the
downstream bottleneck areas, to ensure bottlenecks do not form.
C1.2 Use of Capacity Values for Design Purposes
VicRoads’ review of international practice (particularly Germany and The Netherlands) indicates that
measured operational capacity values (as per Section 5.2.3) should be reduced for design purposes.
VicRoads suggests to use a practical capacity factor of 0.9, as per German practice in the new German
Highway Capacity Manual or HBS (Research Society for Roads and Transportation 2015), as this reflects
the capacity for maximum productivity for both traffic operations and economic benefit to the community.
C1.3 Number of Lanes
VicRoads research and investigations on maximum operational capacity values has determined that capacity
is impacted by the number of lanes. Capacity is reduced as each additional lane is added – largely due to
the increased number of lane-changing conflict points and turbulence/friction effects associated with getting
traffic to and from the inside lanes.
VicRoads proposed operational capacity values (based on the definition of capacity in Commentary C1.1) for
smart motorway design based on the number of lanes is provided in Table C1 1. The table indicates the
measured capacity values as well as the design values, which apply the practical capacity factor of 0.9, as
described in Commentary C1.1.

Table C1 1: VicRoads (2016) capacity values for smart motorway design
Number Smart (managed) motorway average lane

Unmanaged motorway average lane capacity
of capacity
motorway Measured Measured Design1 Design1 Measured2 Measured2 Design1,2 Design1,2
lanes (veh/h/lane) (pc/h/lane) (veh/h/lane) (pc/h/lane) (veh/h/lane) (pc/h/lane) (veh/h/lane) (pc/h/lane)
2 2100 2250 1900 2025 1800 1950 1625 1750
3 2000 2150 1800 1925 1700 1825 1525 1650
4 1900 2050 1700 1850 1625 1750 1450 1550
5 1800 1850 1625 1750 1525 1650 1375 1475
6 1700 1825 1525 1650 1450 1550 1300 1400
7 1600 1725 1450 1550 1350 1450 1225 1325
1 Based on achieving maximum productivity (practical capacity factor = 0.9).
Unmanaged motorway capacity based on measured capacity being 15% lower than smart (managed) motorway
capacity.
Note: Capacity values (veh and pc) are suitable for commercial vehicle content up to 15% and maximum 2% grade.
Source: VicRoads (2016).
C1.4 Horizontal Alignment
This guidance is sourced from the Smart Motorway Design Guide for Capacity and Flow Analysis (Roads
and Maritime Services 2015a).
As described in the Operational Efficiency Audit Guidelines for Managed Freeways (Main Roads Western
Australia 2013b), the horizontal alignment of the main carriageway can impact capacity when minimum
standard curve radii and sight distances contribute to traffic turbulence and do not allow comfortable
operation at 100 km/h. For example, curves in the order of 600 m radius (which meet a design speed of 110
km/h) have been known to contribute to slowing traffic and flow breakdown in a 100 km/h speed
environment, particularly when associated with an upgrade and/or minimal sight distance.
Where operational speeds may be affected by alignments that restrict a comfortable free-flow speed of 100
km/h, the capacity is likely to be reduced. Typically, a capacity reduction in the order of 5% (say 100
pc/h/lane), or up to 10% if combined with other factors, could be considered.
C1.5 Vertical Alignment
Australia 2013b), the vertical alignment of the main carriageway can impact capacity when a long, steep
grade does not allow comfortable operation at 100 km/h. For example, long motorway grades in the order of
2.5% have been known to contribute to slowing traffic and flow breakdown in a 100 km/h speed environment,
particularly when associated with a high proportion of trucks, a curve, or lane changing.
Trucks are particularly impacted by long, steep grades, as the truck/passenger car equivalent (PCE) value
generally increases as the length of the grade increases (grades more than 2%), and this impacts capacity
relative to the overall traffic stream (Main Roads Western Australia 2013b).

The vertical geometry in tunnels can also be challenging for motorists, with significant impact on capacity.
Tunnels usually have lower speed limits and generally have relatively steep grades where the location of the
sag vertical curve and start of the upgrade are difficult to identify. Appropriate adjustment factors are also
required in this operating environment. Further information regarding research on the impacts of sag vertical
curves on driver behaviour is provided in the Smart Motorway Design Guide for Tunnel Traffic Management
(Roads and Maritime Services 2015e).
If the PCE adjustment for the analysis is based on a general equivalent factor for the route rather than at a
particular isolated steep or long grade, then a capacity reduction at a particular location can be considered in
the route analysis, say in the order of 5% (say 100 pc/h/lane), for 2% or 3% grades longer than 1000 m and
for steeper, shorter grades, subject to the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream. A capacity reduction up
to 10% or more may need to be considered for steeper/longer grades or when grades are combined with
other factors.
C1.6 Weaving and Lane Changing Areas
Lane changing has a significant impact on traffic flow and capacity. Weaving and lane changing areas
include sections between entry and exit ramps (with or without an auxiliary lane), as well as areas upstream
of a lane gain where road users are positioning themselves to enter the additional lane (refer to
Commentary C1.6). The example shown Figure C1 1 results in 300 lane changes per hour prior to the lane
gain, and 1000 lane changes per hour in the ‘weaving’ area. Subject to the entry and exit flows involved, the
lane changing manoeuvres can be significantly more in some instances.
Figure C1 1: Example of lane changing movements
500
1800
1400
300
400
1900 2100 1900
200 200
2100 2000 2000

100 100
2100 2000 2100
Note: 300 lane changes/h upstream of lane gain; 1000 lane changes/h between exit and entry ramps.
The spacing between entry and exit ramps should be given consideration, as high flows generally result in
capacity drop due to weaving and lane changing manoeuvres. The provision of two-lane entry or exit lanes
at an interchange can also increase the number of lane changes and is likely to affect capacity. Further
guidance relating to ramp spacing is in Section 7.4.
The HCM (Transportation Research Board 2010) provides guidance for calculations of capacity in weaving
areas; however, researchers have raised concerns that the methods may tend to overestimate capacity
(Rakha & Zang 2006; Minderhoud & Elefteriadou 2003; Shoraka & Puan 2010; Stromgren 2011).

The definition of weaving in the HCM involves lane changes to/from an auxiliary lane between an entry ramp
and the downstream exit ramp. Where there is no auxiliary lane, the HCM analyses only consider turbulence
in the adjacent ramp influence areas. The HCM weaving analysis considers the total number of weaving
vehicles but does not consider the origin-destination pattern for the ‘weaving’ vehicles.
Concerns are such that further research and refinement of procedures relating to capacity analysis in areas
of high weaving and lane changing is needed, particularly when design traffic flows are close to capacity.
Some research has suggested that the capacity could be reduced by a value equivalent to the number of
lane changing movements expected; for the example, in Figure C1 1, the roadway capacity of the ‘weaving’
area would be reduced by 1000 pc/h. In Germany, the capacity of a weave area is considered to be similar to
an unmanaged entry ramp flow entering the mainline.
Until further research and improved procedures are available, when carrying out weaving analyses involving
high lane changing or merging/diverging flows with minimal separation between ramps, consideration should
be given to a conservative approach by adopting the lowest value for capacity that would result from:
• a capacity reduction in the order of 10%
• a capacity value equivalent to a basic segment of an unmanaged motorway (refer to Section 5.2.3)
• a reduction equivalent to the number of lane changing movements expected.
Australia 2013b), in critical areas where weaving or high lane changing manoeuvres could create excessive
turbulence and capacity drop, or where inadequate distance is available for manoeuvres to occur,
consideration may need to be given to providing an alternative layout, including:
• changes to proposed entry or exit locations
• an auxiliary lane to improve overall capacity in the lane changing area and to reduce traffic density
• a separate collector-distributor road or braided ramps to accommodate weaving clear of the main
carriageway.
C1.7 Lane Reductions
Lane reductions have an impact on capacity and should have appropriate analysis and design to minimise
turbulence and capacity drop. The mainline capacity in the merge area of a lane drop between interchanges
would generally be in the order of 1500 to 1600 veh/h/lane (or potentially lower for unmanaged motorways).
Therefore, mid-block lane drops should generally be avoided.
Australia 2013b), a ‘conventional’ lane drop after an exit (as shown in Figure C1 2) may also reduce capacity
by up to 10% relative to the capacity of the downstream cross-section (unmanaged or managed capacity).
The bunching and merging of traffic from the terminating lane is similar to an uncontrolled entry ramp merge.
This may become a critical bottleneck area along the route, which could affect motorway capacity. As an
example, the route analyses in Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 include a situation where capacity is reduced at a
point on the mainline where there is a lane drop.

To avoid capacity drop and operational efficiency problems in the vicinity of lane reductions, consideration
during the analysis and project development process may need to be given to:
• providing an exclusive exit lane (as shown in Figure C1 3) to enable dispersed lane changing
manoeuvres over a longer distance where there is greater capacity to accommodate the manoeuvres.
This layout is consistent with lane balance design principles, and when needed, it can minimise
turbulence at a localised point. An exclusive exit lane may need to be considered where the forecast
design flows are greater than 90% of the downstream capacity. Lane changing/weaving volumes and the
distance relative to the upstream entry ramp should also be taken into account when an exclusive exit
lane layout is being considered, as well as appropriate signing and pavement markings to clearly inform
road users of the lane status situation
• continuing the wider cross-section and number of lanes through the interchange to a location where a
conventional lane drop can be provided, i.e. where lower volumes would not impact capacity (Main Roads
Western Australia 2013b).
Figure C1 2: Example of conventional lane drop with sudden merging
Figure C1 3: Example of exclusive exit lane with dispersed lane changing
C1.8 Lane Gains
Australia 2013b), lane gains generally begin at an entry ramp with high entry flows. Lane gains should be
considered where entry ramp flows are in the order of 1500 pc/h or more (unless the mainline is significantly
underutilised), as high merging flows can create greater potential for turbulence. The provision of a high
volume entry ramp joining a motorway as an added lane generally has the following advantages:
• improved opportunities and greater mainline capacity for downstream weaving manoeuvres between
interchanges
• safer and more efficient operation as an added lane rather than as a merge.

Mid-block lane gains may be used when creating an auxiliary lane before areas of high weaving, such as for
closely-spaced interchanges. Turbulence can occur in the area immediately upstream of an additional lane
as drivers change lanes and position themselves to take advantage of the new lane. These areas can
experience a capacity drop due to the higher than normal lane changing manoeuvres. If a capacity drop due
to turbulence is likely to impact traffic flow, i.e. the forecast design flow is close to capacity, subject to other
design considerations, it may be preferable to begin the lane gain at an entry ramp.
C1.9 Narrow Lane Widths
Australia 2013b), narrow lane widths can affect the free-flow speed of vehicles and hence operational
capacity. This may need to be considered where a carriageway arrangement is to be modified to
accommodate additional lanes without widening, such as when an existing cross-section with an emergency
stopping lane is reconfigured to provide all-lane running. The HCM (Transportation Research Board 2010)
provides guidance on adjusting free-flow speed for narrow lane widths and these have been used as the
basis for typical adjustment factors, as provided in Table C1 2.
Table C1 2: Impact of lane widths on capacity
Reduction in free-flow Reduction in capacity(1)

Average lane width (m)
speed (km/h) (pc/h) (%)
≥ 3.5 0 0 0
≥ 3.35–3.5 3.1 65 3.1
≥ 3.1–3.35 10.6 223 10.6
1 Based on HCM free-flow speed reductions (speed: 100 km/h, flow: 2100 pc/h and density: 21.0 pc/km/lane).
Source: Based on Transportation Research Board (2010).
C1.10 Reduced Lateral Clearance
A lateral clearance on the left side of the carriageway of less than 1.8 m between the edge of the travel lane
and the nearest obstruction can influence traffic behaviour. Longitudinal motorway obstructions would
generally include concrete barriers, guard rail or a wall.
In most situations, urban motorways with low lateral clearances operate with a default speed limit lower than
100 km/h (typically 80 km/h). As motorists generally become accustomed to these obstructions, there is
usually minimal impact on capacity. However, the HCM (Transportation Research Board 2010) provides
guidance on speed adjustments if the designer considers there is a need to adjust for lateral clearance.
C1.11 Lower Default Operating Speeds
For projects where the operational speed may be affected by an alignment or cross-section that restricts a
comfortable free-flow speed of 100 km/h (e.g. no motorway shoulder or designed for 80 km/h operation), the
capacity relative to operation at 100 km/h is generally reduced.
Typically, a capacity drop adjustment in the order of 5% (say 100 pc/h/lane) or more should be considered.

Note: VicRoads operational experience suggests that a drop of up to 8–12% may be appropriate for some
motorways to reflect the effects of homogenisation of lane speeds.
C1.12 Auxiliary Lanes
Australia 2013b), an auxiliary lane is formed on the mainline at an entry ramp as an added lane, which
generally continues at least to the next interchange or possibly beyond to a second interchange. In the
mainline context, it is not a short parallel speed change or storage lane extension to an entry or exit ramp.
Auxiliary lanes are additional lanes that provide extra capacity between interchange ramps or through a
series of interchanges.
Auxiliary lanes may be used when entry and exit lanes are closely-spaced or to increase capacity where
there are high weaving flows. In this context, auxiliary lanes generally cater for entering and exiting traffic
weaving to/from the mainline lanes and traffic moving between ramps at adjacent interchanges.
As an auxiliary lane is not continuous over a significant distance, the auxiliary lane flow is generally less than
the adjacent through lanes. Therefore, it should not be used to determine average lane flows across the
carriageway for the purposes of mainline capacity analysis. Analysis of flow relative to capacity for the
through traffic can consider the remaining lanes, with adjustment for weaving, if necessary (refer to
Commentary C1.6).
[Back to body text]

Acronyms
Term Description
AGRD Austroads Guide to Road Design
AGTM Austroads Guide to Traffic Management
ALINEA Asservissement Linéaire d’ Entrée Autoroutière, i.e. linear feedback control of a motorway entry ramp
ALR All-lane running
ANPR Automatic number plate recognition
AS Australian Standard
CCTV Closed circuit television
C-ITS Cooperative intelligent transport systems
ConOps Concept of operations plan
DPTI Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
ELR Emergency lane running
ESB Emergency stopping bay
ETT Estimated travel time
FHWA Federal Highway Administration – division of the United States Department of Transport
FT Free traffic
HCM Highway Capacity Manual of the FHWA
HCT Homogeneous congested traffic
HERO HEuristic Ramp metering co-Ordination
HOV High occupancy vehicle
HV Heavy vehicles
IA Infrastructure Australia
ILD Inductive loop detectors
ITS Intelligent transport systems
JUMA Joint use mast arm
JUP Joint use pole
KR Regulator parameter
LCS Lane control signal
LED Light emitting diode
LOS Level of service
LUMS Lane use management system
LTE Long-term evolution (4G wireless communications)
M2M Motorway-to-motorway (interface or ramps)
MDS Motorway data station
MLC Moving localised cluster
NOP Network operation plan
NTT Nominal travel time
NZS New Zealand Standard
NZ New Zealand
NZTA NZ Transport Agency

Term Description
Occ Occupancy
OCT Oscillating congested traffic
O-D Origin-destination
OEA Operational efficiency audit
OVD Overhead vehicle detection
pc Passenger cars
PCE Passenger car equivalents
PFN Principal freight network
PHF Peak hour factor
PLC Pinned localised cluster
PTZ Pan, tilt and zoom
SA South Australia
SCATS Sydney coordinated adaptive traffic system
SGD Stop-and-go waves
SMD Side-mounted detectors
An integrated ITS combining software, hardware and data communications networks for managing
STREAMS
traffic operations on motorways and surface streets
TI Traveller information
TMC Traffic management centre
UPS Uninterruptable power supply
USA United States of America
V2I Vehicle-to-infrastructure
V2V Vehicle-to-vehicle
VID Video incident detection
VMS Variable message signs
VSL Variable speed limits
WA Western Australia
WIM Weigh-in-motion
WVD Wireless vehicle detectors

Glossary
Term Definition
Algorithm Programmed logic sequence that transforms traffic data and operator input into traffic control
commands.
All-lane running An operational strategy where all lanes on a carriageway are used as running lanes on a full-
(ALR) time basis (i.e. there is no emergency lane).
Bottleneck A fixed location on the road network where the capacity is lower than the upstream capacity.
Capacity The capacity of a road segment, as determined for design purposes, is the average flow rate of
vehicles expressed in passenger car equivalents (PCE) across all lanes that can be sustained
over a period (e.g. 15 minutes or an hour).
Central control ITS control system used for smart motorways operation comprising an integrated software
system platform.
Concept of A plan detailing how a section of road will be operated to achieve the project’s objectives
Operations Plan (Federal Highway Administration 2007; ANSI/AIAA G-043A-2012e, cited in AS/NSZ
(ConOps) ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288). May document user needs, the current and future operational
environment, and the impact of a project on road agency operations.
Coordinated ramp A smart motorway control element involving the metering of traffic on a group of entry ramps, in
metering order to better manage the mainline motorway and help prevent the occurrence of flow
breakdown. Coordinated ramp metering of upstream ramps means that arrival demand at a
critical bottleneck can be managed to match the capacity of the bottleneck. Coordinated ramp
metering also has the capability of balancing queues and wait times between ramps.
Coordinated ramp The equipment used to implement coordinated ramp metering, comprising traffic signals and
signals supporting traffic management devices installed on entry ramps. Control algorithms operate the
signals in response to changing traffic conditions.
Dedicated travel Purpose-built signs placed on the motorway mainline and approach roads in advance of the
time signs motorway entrance. Signs include variable (electronic) displays embedded in static signs
indicating motorway traffic conditions as light/medium/heavy and/or as travel times in minutes to
specific destinations. Signs may also be colour-coded to indicate traffic condition as light,
medium, heavy, congested, etc. Variable displays may also be embedded in static direction
signs on arterial roads to communicate motorway travel times and condition information.
Downstream In the direction of movement of traffic.
Emergency Physical space on the side of a motorway that can store vehicles clear of trafficable lanes in the
stopping bay event of an emergency. May be provided on motorway sections with and without an emergency
lane; for example, to provide a safer stopping place for use of a help phone, or as a requirement
for operational strategies that involve full- or part-time use of the emergency lane.
Intelligent A broad range of communications-based information, control, and electronics technologies
transport system integrated into the transportation system infrastructure, and in vehicles, to help monitor and
(ITS) manage traffic flow, reduce congestion, provide alternative routes to travellers, enhance
productivity, and save lives, time, and money.
Lane control The electronic signal over a single lane to indicate whether the lane is open or closed to traffic.
signal (LCS) The signal includes a red cross or an arrow.
Lane use Smart motorway control element comprising a system used to allocate and manage lane use
management across the roadway. LUMS applications for smart motorways includes speed management.
system (LUMS)
LUMS sign An electronic sign used to display the current speed limit and lane status within LUMS.
Smart motorway Urban motorway that has intelligent information, communications and control systems
incorporated in and alongside the road. Implemented as an integrated package of ITS, which
may include coordinated entry ramp signalling, variable speed limits, lane control, incident
detection and traffic flow data, traveller information and CCTV. Also referred to as ‘managed
motorway’.
Smart motorway Element of a smart motorway involving geometric and ITS treatments (or interventions). ITS
element elements are classified by their functional purpose comprising intelligence, control or information.
ITS elements may have a number of applications to implement various operational strategies
and deliver improved performance from the motorway network.

Term Definition
Motorway data Collects real-time traffic data from multiple detectors located across the carriageway at one site.
station (MDS) The data from all MDS is then communicated to the TMC to enable real-time traffic monitoring
and control.
Motorway The overarching system comprising all intelligence, information, control and foundational
management elements of a smart motorway that contribute to active management of motorway traffic.
system
Operational The actual real-time capacity for a road segment, which can vary depending on prevailing
capacity roadway, traffic and control conditions. It can be measured in total vehicles per hour or PCE per
hour. It is particularly relevant to the control of smart motorways, since the concept is applied to
control algorithms such as for ramp signalling.
Operational A formal examination of the traffic analysis and design of a motorway project, as part of an
efficiency audit existing or new motorway, from a network operations viewpoint.
Part-time An operational strategy where the emergency lane is open to traffic on a part-time basis.
emergency lane
running (ELR)
Passenger car In motorway capacity analysis, heavy vehicles are converted into an equivalent number of
equivalent (PCE) passenger cars to achieve a consistent measure of flow.
Peak hour factor The ratio of maximum hourly volume to the maximum 15 minute flow rate expanded to an hourly
volume.
Priority vehicle Lane that is dedicated to use by priority vehicles such as freight vehicles, public transport or
lane high-occupancy vehicles, on either a full-time or part-time basis. May be implemented as a
priority lane on the mainline carriageway, or to provide priority access on metered entry ramps.
Roadside cabinet Housing for ITS electrical, electronic and communications equipment typically associated with
motorway management systems. For example, ramp signal controllers, field processors, sign
controllers and communications network equipment.
Tactical VMS VMS to assist in provision of tactical information (i.e. safety-critical information typically with a
Problem and/or Action statement) to support operation of LUMS. These signs may be required
for a particular operational strategy being deployed (e.g. to enable part-time operation of the
emergency stopping lane) or to improve road safety as a result of a specific performance issue
(e.g. to improve merging safety for vehicles exiting from emergency stopping bays if determined
to be higher risk, or to provide additional information regarding the reasons for lane closures or
speed reductions to help improve compliance).
Traffic flow The condition where free-flowing traffic experiences significant and sudden reduction in speed,
breakdown with a sustained loss of throughput.
Traffic Centre responsible for day-to-day management of transport operations, which may include traffic
management monitoring and surveillance, incident and event management, public transport management, and
centre (TMC) operation of ITS devices to enable active management of the road network.
Upstream In the direction opposite to the movement of traffic.
Variable message Multi-purpose electronic signs that can display a variety of traveller information messages,
signs (VMS) including travel time and traffic conditions, warnings of hazards/interruptions and advisory
actions, or information about future events. Variable, fully-programmable matrix that may be able
to display text and/or pictograms.
These signs may be located on the motorway mainline, on the arterial approaches to motorway
interchanges, or at other major arterial routes where required to support motorway operation.
Variable speed An electronic sign used to display a VSL.
limit (VSL) sign
Variable speed The actual speed limit value displayed at any particular point in time.
limit (VSL)
Variable speed System that operates to activate lower speed limits appropriate to the travelling conditions with
limit (VSL) system the aim of improving road safety. VSL can also assist in increasing throughput by optimising
speed and headway before flow breakdown occurs.
Warrant Guidance on the intervention level for deployment of an ITS element, as part of the scope
approval process. May comprise of a quantitative value (e.g. traffic flow thresholds) and/or
qualitative guidance on the considerations for decision-making.

AGSM-16-Guide To Smart Motorways PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

AGSM-16-Guide To Smart Motorways PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Guide to Smart Motorways

Austroads Publication No. AGSM-16 • Transport Canberra and City Services

Austroads 2016 | page i

7.7 Arterial Intersections ............................................................................................................................... 59

Austroads 2016 | page ii

Austroads 2016 | page iii

12.4 Sign Face Layout and Installations ...................................................................................................... 151

Austroads 2016 | page iv

Austroads 2016 | page v

Austroads 2016 | page vi

Austroads 2016 | page vii

1.1 Guide Purpose

1.2 Smart Motorways

1.3 Guide Scope and Content

Austroads 2016 | page 1

This Guide then provides detailed information relating to:

This Guide provides very limited guidance in the following areas:

Austroads 2016 | page 2

1.4 Safety and Operations Context

1.4.1 Safe Systems

1.4.2 Systems Engineering

1.5 Guide Use

Austroads 2016 | page 3

Organisational function Roles in the systems engineering process

Source: VicRoads (2015a).

Figure 1.1: Systems engineering V-diagram for smart motorways

Network analysis, Update strategies and

System operational testing System operation and

Project / system implementation

Austroads 2016 | page 4

2. Smart Motorway Benefits

2.1 Performance Issues

Figure 2.1: Flow breakdown within minutes on an unmanaged motorway

2:59 pm 3:01 pm 3:03 pm

Source: ARRB Group (2013).

2.2 The Role of Active Management

Austroads 2016 | page 5

Source: Based on Austroads (2007), cited in VicRoads (2013a).

Austroads 2016 | page 6

Austroads 2016 | page 7

Enable faster recovery

Provide enhanced Reduced road

Austroads 2016 | page 8

2.3 Demonstrating the Benefits

16 to 19% uplift per

Source: VicRoads (2015a).

Austroads 2016 | page 9

2.4 Sustaining the Benefits

The framework states that:

Austroads 2016 | page 10

3. Overview of Smart Motorway Elements

3.1 Context within an Integrated Road Network Management System

Figure 3.1: Components of a road network management system

Source: Based on Austroads (2009b), cited in Austroads (2014a).

Austroads 2016 | page 11

3.2 Operational Objectives

3.3 Elements of a Smart Motorway

Table 3.1: Smart motorway elements classified by function

Intelligence Control Information

Source: Austroads (2014a).

Figure 3.2: Relational diagram of primary functions of a smart motorway

Source: Austroads (2014a).

Austroads 2016 | page 12