Analysis of Impact of Adverse Weather
on Freeway Free-Flow Speed in Spain
Francisco Javier Camacho, Alfredo García,
and Enrique Belda
Weather conditions affect traffic flow characteristics, including speed and
capacity. Several studies have stated that rain, snow, wind speed, and
visibility loss cause reductions in speed and capacity. Understanding
these relationships is important to managing the traffic flow appropri-
ately. This paper presents new research that evaluates the free-flow speed
reduction caused by inclement weather conditions, including rain, snow,
wind speed, and visibility loss. Fifteen freeway locations in northwestern
Spain were selected for the study. Data were collected in 15-min intervals
by weather and traffic stations for almost 3 years, from 2006 to 2008.
Individual correlations between the weather and traffic variables were
examined to select the most important weather variables and to iden-
tify speed trends and thresholds. All climate conditions were divided
into four groups: no precipitation and temperatures above 0°C, no pre-
cipitation and temperatures below 0°C, rain, and snow conditions. A mul-
tiple nonlinear regression analysis was performed with the final variables.
Results showed that rain and snow both caused a reduction in speed, with
a more dramatic reduction during snow conditions. Wind speed over 8 m/s
affected traffic speed, while the effect of visibility loss presented a logarith-
mic form. It was also determined that the location caused the variables
to affect the speed differently, so further research should utilize a greater
number of sites.
Adverse weather conditions affect traffic flow characteristics, espe-
cially speed and road capacity. Understanding the relationship between
traffic flow characteristics and weather effects is important for several
reasons, including providing appropriate information to drivers and
road management.
Several studies have been developed in order to identify how
traffic flow is affected by different weather conditions, such as rain,
snow, fog, or wet pavement. These weather conditions are variable,
depending on the climate examined, location, and time interval
considered.
Usually the method used to analyze the impact of weather con-
ditions on traffic flow behavior is the collection of both weather
and traffic data in several locations over a very long period of time,
in order to get as much intensity as possible for each variable.
Almost all of these studies use traffic and weather stations to col-
lect data. Because of the large amount of data necessary to develop
Department of Transportation, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera,
s/n. 46022, Valencia, Spain. Corresponding author: F. J. Camacho, fracator@
posgrado.upv.es.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2169, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2010, pp. 150–159.
DOI: 10.3141/2169-16
150
representative models, these stations have to be working for a long
time (generally more than a year). During that time, they may get
broken or give abnormal data for several months until they are fixed.
Thus, a debugging process is important in all studies in order to
delete incorrect data.
Another important issue in these studies is the representation of the
weather information. To ensure that road weather and traffic condi-
tions are correlated, it is necessary that both data collecting stations
are close enough. If weather stations are not close enough to traffic
stations, the weather information may not be representative.
Usually traffic data are obtained from several sensors placed on the
road pavement, although some researchers have used other methods
to obtain traffic data. For example, Chin et al. (1) used 127 video-
tapes to record traffic conditions between 1996 and 2000 on a Chinese
freeway to study capacity.
Several studies divide weather conditions into different groups,
which are easier to analyze. Most of them use precipitation (either
rain or snow), wind speed, and visibility conditions as the main vari-
ables. It is also necessary to define a neutral climate, the one that will
be compared with others to determine the effects of weather on speed
and capacity.
Weather variables are also interrelated. Thus, rain or snow precip-
itation may also affect visibility loss, depending on the phenomenon
intensity. This is the main reason why light and heavy rain and snow
are often separated in other studies.
Some studies divide weather phenomena into several groups, but
in most cases these groups are based on meteorological criteria, not
on traffic behavior. Thus, for rain conditions, the Highway Capac-
ity Manual (2) indicates that the main reason why drivers reduce
their speed is not the wet pavement but the visibility loss due to the
rain intensity. It reports a speed reduction of 2 km/h for light rain
and between 5 and 7 km/h for heavy rain.
Collecting snow weather data is more difficult than rain data,
because snow is a more infrequent phenomenon. As a result, there
are fewer studies that evaluate the impact of snow conditions on traf-
fic behavior. In general, speed reduction in snow conditions is much
higher than for rain. Heavy snow causes a reduction in speed between
37 and 42 km/h, according to HCM (2).
Olson et al. (3) studied the speed difference between dry and wet
pavement conditions by classifying whole days into “dry” and “wet”
conditions. They reported that, at a 95% confidence level, there was
no difference between both conditions. Lamm et al. (4) arrived at
the same conclusion after studying 24 freeway segments.
Hawkins (5) studied the impact of adverse weather on speed in
the United Kingdom. He divided the weather conditions into nine
different groups, selecting dry pavement and total visibility as the
neutral condition. He reported that the most dramatic effect over
Camacho, García, and Belda
traffic speed was caused by high wind speed (speed reduction of
almost 13 km/h) and snowy and icy conditions (speed reductions
of 30 or 40 km/h).
Ibrahim and Hall (6) studied capacity, traffic volume, occupancy,
and speed in 30-s intervals. Two sites were selected and data were
collected from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Because of the time period, only
light conditions were considered to avoid using day/night as a new
variable. Weather conditions were classified as fair, light rain, heavy
rain, light snow, heavy snow, and snowstorm. The study concluded
that light rain reduced the traffic speed very slightly (less than 2 km/h),
whereas heavy rain conditions had a more dramatic effect over speed
(5 to 10 km/h speed reduction).
Brilon and Ponzlet (7) studied the speed fluctuations of 15 German
motorway segments. Traffic data were recorded from 1991 to 1993.
Weather conditions were obtained from several meteorological sta-
tions placed between 5 and 50 km away from the corresponding
road segment. Climate was divided into five categories: dry, wet,
wet and dry, some snow, and icy and snowy conditions. Variables
such as the day of the week, placement, month, truck traffic, and light
conditions were added to the analysis. The results showed that wet
pavement caused a traffic speed reduction of approximately 5.9 km/h
on two-lane freeways.
Holdener (8) analyzed the effect of rain on the speed and capacity
of freeways. The results showed that rain had an important impact on
speed. Wet conditions caused a speed decrease of between 0.2 and
37.9 km/h. If the traffic flow was near the road capacity, the speed
decrease was 13.9 km/h.
Edwards (9) analyzed the drivers’ behavior during three weather
conditions: dry, rainy, and foggy. Traffic data were obtained from a
two-lane freeway section, considering only the outside lane. Weather
conditions were recorded by one observer, divided into five cate-
gories: sunny, cloudy, heavy rain, light rain, and foggy conditions.
Both the average and the 85th percentile speeds were investigated.
Results showed that drivers reduced their speed by about 4.8 km/h
during heavy rain conditions.
Kyte et al. (10) measured the traffic flow speed near a crash site
of the I-84 between 1996 and 2000 during fair weather conditions
and in rain, fog, reduced visibility, and high wind conditions.
They stated that the presence of snow on the pavement reduced the
passenger speed by more than 16.4 km/h. A wet pavement caused
a 9.5 km/h reduction in passenger car speed. High wind conditions
also made the drivers reduce their speed by 11.7 km/h. Poor visibility
reduced the speed by 21.6 km/h.
In 2001 Kyte et al. reported the influence of visibility, pavement
conditions, rain, and wind speed on traffic speed. Data were col-
lected during two winters between 1997 and 1999 on a road segment
of the I-84 in Idaho. Results showed that light rain caused a reduc-
tion in speed from 14.1 to 19.5 km/h. Heavy rain caused a 31.6 km/h
reduction in speed.
Smith et al. (11) published an investigation in which they studied
the impact of adverse meteorology over capacity and operating
speeds. Traffic data (traffic volume, median speed, and occupancy)
were recorded in 15-min intervals between August 1999 and July
2000 in Virginia. Weather data were collected in 60-min intervals
and had to be divided into 15-min intervals. Night data were not
used in order to avoid using light conditions as a different variable.
Rain was divided into three groups (none, light, and heavy), based
on external recommendations. The results indicated that speed was
reduced between 3% and 5%, regardless of the rain intensity.
Rakha et al. (12) measured traffic speed, capacity, and impact on
the traffic stream behavior caused by adverse weather in the Twin
151
Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota); Seattle, Washington;
and Baltimore, Maryland. Detectors grouped data into 5-min inter-
vals. Weather variables considered were precipitation (intensities
divided into three categories) and visibility (divided into five cate-
gories). Results showed that heavy precipitation conditions induced
a speed decrease from 6% to 9%. Speed reduction is higher in snow
conditions, in accordance with previous studies. Visibility also had
a larger effect in snow conditions compared with rain.
OBJECTIVES
Fifteen locations from two northwestern freeways in Spain were
studied in order to analyze the influence of adverse weather on traf-
fic conditions. Weather stations and traffic stations were used to col-
lect data between January 2006 and November 2008. Traffic stations
collected data in 1-h periods, while weather stations collected data in
15-min periods. For comparison purposes, traffic intervals were split
into four similar 15-min intervals.
To obtain more accurate models, weather conditions were divided
into four different climates: normal, below 0°C conditions, rainy,
and snowy. In all of these, several variables were studied in order to
give a nonlinear regression model, including variable interactions.
Fifteen traffic stations were studied, providing some informa-
tion about variability. This variability has been examined in order
to estimate how the weather–traffic relationship varies depending
on the site.
The authors also studied the possibility of using variable intensity
intervals instead of continuous expressions, as other researchers have
done. For that purpose, least significant differences (LSD) intervals
have been used.
DATA COLLECTION
In this study, 15 two-lane freeway segments have been recorded
between January 2006 and November 2008 to obtain both weather
and traffic data. Seven of those locations were from the A-6 freeway,
covering 94.3 km, while eight stations belonged to the A-52 freeway,
covering 57.4 km.
Both freeways are located in northern Spain, influenced by the
Atlantic climate. This region is the most cloudy and wettest in Spain,
with annual rainfall between 800 and 1,500 mm. Average temperatures
are 9°C in winter and 18°C in summer.
Each one of the traffic stations was separated by an average dis-
tance of less than 100 m from its corresponding weather station.
Thus, the weather conditions registered in the weather stations were
assumed to be the same as those registered on the road. Traffic data
were registered in 1-h intervals, while meteorological data were reg-
istered in 15-min intervals. In order to analyze and correlate traffic
weather data, traffic data were split into 15-min aggregation periods.
Traffic stations registered traffic volume, average speed, and truck
percentage. Meteorological stations recorded a total of 16 weather
variables:
• Snow layer depth (mm),
• Water layer depth (mm),
• Precipitation amount for last 24 h (mm),
• Wind direction (in a 360° base, north direction is 0°),
• Relative humidity (%),
• Precipitation intensity (mm/h) (rain or snow),
152 Transportation Research Record 2169

• Atmospheric pressure (bar),
• Global radiation,
• Salinity,
• Air temperature (°C),
• Dew temperature (°C),
• Freezing temperature (°C),
• Road surface temperature (°C),
• Road subsoil temperature (°C),
• Wind speed (m/s), and
• Visibility index (m) from 0 (null visibility) to 2,000 (total
visibility).
New variables previously not considered by other studies have been
used, such as water layer depth. It is also important to note that the
average distance between weather stations and road measurements
is small compared to most previous studies.
DATA REDUCTION
Because of the large amount of data recorded, the debugging process
was very important in this research. Some sensor errors were impor-
tant, affecting both weather and traffic stations. This type of error
appears when one sensor reports unusual data often for several
months until the sensor is fixed. After examining all available
data, several stations were removed from the analysis, resulting
in 15 locations being used for the study.
The traffic flow characteristics varied greatly depending on the
location, so the first step was to analyze the road conditions that
would be possible to examine. The results showed that the higher
traffic volume recorded was 2,000 vehicles per hour (vph) in both
lanes, not reaching the capacity at any point and time. Due to the
low traffic volumes reached, it was possible to analyze the speed
only in free-flow conditions, so traffic volume was not considered
as an independent variable for the regression analysis. The average
speed in each site varied from 100 to almost 140 km/h.
Traffic volumes under 80 vph were removed from the analysis.
Only daily data were used to avoid using an additional variable.
Thus, data were used only from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
main climates. A regression model was developed for each of the
following climates:
• Climate 1 includes all no-rain and no-snow situations, only
if air temperature is above 0°C. Weather variables considered in
this case are heavy traffic percentage, visibility, and wind speed.
It is considered as the neutral climate against which to compare
the rest of the climates.
• Climate 2 is a similar climate to the previous one, but con-
siders only situations below 0°C.
• Climate 3 includes rain situations. Weather stations used in this
research did not distinguish between rain and snow precipitation,
so it considers only precipitation above 0°C. Precipitation intensity
is included as a variable, in addition to the variables considered in
Climates 1 and 2.
• Climate 4 includes snow situations. The difference between
this climate and Climate 3 is that in this case the air temperature is
below 0°C. It also includes all cases in which there is a snow layer
over the road pavement, regardless of the air temperature. The
analysis of the effect of the snow layer depth is also considered in
this climate.
In Table 1 data amounts used in the analysis are shown, depending
on the climate and grouped by variable values.
After classifying all data into the different climates, a nonlin-
ear multiple regression analysis was performed. Due to the differ-
ent speed and traffic distributions depending on the location, the
analysis was done separately for each of the locations.
Several global model equations were developed, based on the dif-
ferent trends shown by variables in the analysis. An attempt was
made to fit interactions into the equations, but no relevant results
were achieved. During the analysis phase, R2 value, mean squared
error (MSE), and correlations between independent values were
considered. After several attempts, the model forms that best fit all
the locations were the following:
Climate 1:
⎛ vis ⎞
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + d i Vw (1)
⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠

Climate 2:
DATA ANALYSIS
⎛ vis ⎞
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + d i Vw (2)
The data analysis was carried out in several steps, individually for ⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠
each one of the chosen locations. The relationship between speed
and each of the weather variables for each of the locations was exam- Climate 3:
ined first. The aim of this phase was to identify trends and thresholds
and to determine which variables were going to be used in the fol- ⎛ vis ⎞ f
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + d i Vw + I p (3)
lowing steps. Thus, variables that did not have a visible effect on ⎝ 2, 000 ⎠⎟ e
speed were not considered. Other variables, such as water layer
depth, were not considered for future analysis because they were Climate 4:
dependent on the sensor location and were highly correlated to pre-
cipitation intensity. Thus only the precipitation intensity variable ⎛ vis ⎞ f
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + d i Vw + I p + g i s (4)
⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠
was used for the analysis.
e
After the analysis, the following variables were considered: truck
percentage, visibility, wind speed, precipitation intensity, snow layer
where
depth, and air temperature. The influence of air temperature on speed
was not as clear as the rest of variables. It seemed to be independent, It = truck percentage (%);
but an important gap at 0°C could be detected, so it was decided to vis = visibility (m), from 0 to 2,000;
incorporate it in the analysis. Vw = wind speed (m/s);
Considering all previous values, trends, and thresholds, it was Ip = precipitation intensity (either rain or snow) (mm/h); and
decided that all weather situations could be grouped into four s = snow layer depth (mm).
Camacho, García, and Belda 153

TABLE 1 Variable Range Distribution for All Climates

Variable Value Climate 1 Climate 2 Climate 3 Climate 4 Total

Truck percentage 0–10 60,907 466 3,903 1,726 67,002

11–20 92,858 530 6,172 2,965 102,525
21–30 109,248 793 7,727 3,562 121,330
31–40 85,794 1,418 7,240 2,804 97,256
41–50 48,773 1,166 4,832 1,763 56,534
51–60 14,093 628 1,914 830 17,465
61–70 3,335 224 798 244 4,601
71–80 752 94 157 69 1,072
81–90 41 1 14 4 60
91–100 4 0 4 0 8
Traffic volume (vph) 0–200 114,009 3,299 13,903 6,128 137,339
200–400 187,617 1,299 13,069 5,837 207,822
400–600 75,688 640 4,197 1,373 81,898
600–800 23,649 60 1,016 301 25,026
800–1,000 8,708 10 357 129 9,204
1,000–1,200 3,670 7 165 92 3,934
1,200–1,400 1,618 3 46 63 1,730
≥1,400 846 2 8 44 900
Wind speed (m/s) 0–1.9 213,872 4,025 12,502 3,144 233,543
2–3.9 135,513 774 11,563 4,146 151,996
4–5.9 48,644 329 5,653 3,590 58,216
6–7.9 14,678 162 2,190 2,106 19,136
8–9.9 2,625 29 710 679 4,043
10–11.9 416 1 122 203 742
≥12 57 0 21 99 177
Visibility (m) 2,000 407,959 4,802 28,654 11,484 452,899
1,800–1,999 1,020 41 633 505 2,199
1,600–1,799 525 22 354 234 1,135
1,400–1,599 463 16 281 230 990
1,200–1,399 428 27 260 179 894
1,000–1,199 446 35 255 178 914
800–999 515 26 230 159 930
600–799 574 51 287 197 1,109
400–599 864 97 447 246 1,654
200–399 1,755 142 781 375 3,053
0–199 1,256 61 579 180 2,076
Precipitation intensity (mm/h) 0 — — 9,066 10,291 19,357
0.1–2 — — 20,748 3,338 24,086
2.1–4 — — 1,968 269 2,237
4.1–6 — — 544 55 599
6.1–8 — — 207 10 217
8.1–10 — — 105 4 109
10.1–12 — — 52 0 52
>12 — — 71 0 71
Snow layer depth (mm) 0 — — — 378 378
1–10 — — — 8,601 8,601
11–20 — — — 2,126 2,126
21–30 — — — 1,245 1,245
31–40 — — — 716 716
41–50 — — — 308 308
51–60 — — — 291 291
61–70 — — — 69 69
71–80 — — — 109 109
81–90 — — — 52 52
91–100 — — — 24 24
101–110 — — — 9 9
111–120 — — — 39 39
Total 415,805 5,320 32,761 13,967 467,853

NOTE: — = not applicable.

In Figure 1 there are graphs of all the regression coefficients. It
can be seen that in almost all of them there is a huge variability,
showing that the traffic behavior depending on adverse weather
conditions is highly variable with the location.
It can also be seen that, in a particular location, coefficients for dif-
ferent climates usually have similar values. An analysis of the precip-
itation coefficient shows that it has much more effect for Climate 4
(snow conditions) than for Climate 3 (rain conditions). The wind speed
coefficient is the most variable, showing above and below 0 values,
which may indicate that speed does not depend on wind speed.
Some regression coefficients appear not to have a physical expla-
nation, such as a higher traffic speed with a deeper snow layer. The
154 Transportation Research Record 2169

Constant Truck percentage

160 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
120 -0.1

120
Regression coefficient

Regression coefficient
-0.2
100
Climate1 -0.3 Climate1
80 Climate2
Climate2
Climate3 Climate3
60 -0.4
Climate4 Climate4

40 -0.5

20
-0.6
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -0.7
Location Location

(a) (b)

Visibility Wind speed

15 3

2
10
Regression coefficient

Regression coefficient
1

5
Climate1 0 Climate1
Climate2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Climate2
Climate3 Climate3
Climate4 -1
0 Climate4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-2
-5
-3

-10 -4
Location Location
(c) (d)

Precipitation intensity Snow layer depth

35 0.2

30 0.1

0
25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Regression coefficient

Regression coefficient

-0.1
20
Climate1 -0.2 Climate1
15 Climate2 Climate2
Climate3 -0.3 Climate3
Climate4 Climate4
10
-0.4
5
-0.5

0 -0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-5 -0.7
Location Location
(f) (g)

FIGURE 1 Regression coefficients for all climates: (a) constant, (b) truck percentage, (c) visibility, (d) wind speed, (f ) precipitation
intensity, and (g) snow layer depth. (Note: e coefficient has not been used to avoid confusion with exponentials.)

reason for this is that these coefficients might be fitted with very
few data.
To determine the best regression coefficients possible, a global
analysis was carried out by considering all the locations together.
Because each one of the different traffic stations registered different
speed values, it was previously necessary to move all the speeds to a
unique reference speed (it was decided to be 120 km/h). To do so, it
was necessary to determine the average speed of every site regard-
less of the climate. After that, the average speed was subtracted from
the individual speed and added to 120 km/h.
The regression equations used for the global analysis were of the
same form as the ones used in the individual analysis. Results
showed that the regression coefficients tended to be close to the
average of the previously obtained values for individual regression.
However, the wind speed regression coefficients did not behave cor-
rectly. In fact, for Climate 1 the wind speed regression coefficient
Camacho, García, and Belda 155

Climate 2:
Traffic speed (km/h)

⎛ vis ⎞
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + d i Vw (6)
⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠

Climate 3:

⎛ vis ⎞ f
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + W i d i (Vw − 8 ) + I p (7)
⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠ e

Climate 4:
Wind speed (m/s)
⎛ vis ⎞ f
FIGURE 2 LSD intervals for wind speed for Climate 1. v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ + W i d i (Vw − 8 ) + I p + g i s (8)
⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠ e

was positive, indicating that as the wind speed increases, so does the
traffic speed.
LSD intervals were obtained to determine if that behavior was true
or if the wind speed coefficient was influenced by the large amount
of data of low wind speed situations. An example of that LSD analy-
sis is shown in Figure 2. The figure shows that before 11 m/s, the traf-
fic speed versus wind speed has a particular trend, while beyond that
speed, it behaves almost randomly and LSD intervals are longer,
because the amount of data at this point is much smaller.
Because of that trend, it was decided to incorporate a dummy
variable which is equal to 0 when wind speed is lower than 8 m/s,
and 1 when wind speed is higher. Because the traffic speed seems
to show a decreasing trend with the increase of wind speed, that
dummy variable was multiplied by wind speed. This was possible
for all climates except for Climate 2, which has a high wind speed
data amount much more reduced than other climates. In this case,
the initial model was maintained.
Besides wind speed, other coefficients seemed to behave correctly,
so other similar transformations were not carried out. The model
equations are shown below:
Climate 1:
where W is the dummy variable (0 when speed is below 8 m/s, 1
otherwise).
The regression coefficients for the developed models are in
Table 2. As mentioned previously, the model for Climate 2 is
slightly different from the other models, but the coefficient affect-
ing wind speed is also called d. Table 3 shows the details of the
analysis of variance, including the R2 coefficients and the standard
deviations for all models. The standard deviations are 5 or 6 km/h
for Climates 1, 2, and 3 and 8 km/h for Climate 4.
By using the global model, it is possible to analyze both the speed
impact as a result of a change of global climate conditions (i.e., Cli-
mate 1 to Climate 2 changes) and the impact of each of the variables
separately over the speed by examining the regression coefficients.
Effect of Global Climate Conditions on Speed
By examining the regression coefficients among all climates, it is
possible to obtain general behaviors according to the climate. Thus,
assuming no trucks, wind speed of 0 m/s, total visibility, small pre-
cipitation (1 mm/h), and no snow layer on the pavement, the speeds
provided by the models are the following:

⎛ vis ⎞
+ W i d i (Vw − 8 )
Climate 1: 129.7 km/h,
v = a + b i I t + c i log ⎜ (5)
⎝ 2, 000 ⎟⎠ Climate 2: 127.7 km/h,

TABLE 2 Multiple Regression Analysis

Climate Parameter Estimation Standard Error T-Statistic P-Value

Climate 1 a 129.72 0.0160621 8,076.15443 .000

b −0.353685 0.00055141 −641.420434 .000
c 2.54137 0.0360639 70.4685295 .000
d −0.607541 0.0551818 −11.0098076 .000
Climate 2 a 127.749 0.169144 755.267701 .000
b −0.323244 0.0040076 −80.6577503 .000
c 0.813488 0.143411 5.67242401 .000
d −0.229905 0.0376527 −6.10593663 .000
Climate 3 a 122.74 0.0967415 1,268.74196 .000
b −0.305221 0.00212833 −143.408682 .000
c 2.27213 0.0648867 35.0168833 .000
d −0.596222 0.115342 −5.16916648 .000
f 4.00669 0.102804 38.9740672 .000
Climate 4 a 116.028 0.330229 351.35618 .000
b −0.357527 0.00452176 −79.0681062 .000
c 4.60032 0.14274 32.2286675 .000
d −1.08099 0.109376 −9.88324678 .000
f 12.8298 0.313385 40.9394196 .000
g −0.133796 0.00414638 −32.2681472 .000
156 Transportation Research Record 2169

TABLE 3 Analysis of Variance Results

Climate Source Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F-Ratio P-Value R2 (%) Standard Error

Climate 1 Model 9,660,760 3 3,220,253.33 134,771.9 0 56.92 4.88

Residual 9,933,350 415,724 23.894098
Total (corr.) 19,594,110 415,727
Climate 2 Model 143,390 3 47,796.6667 2,186.9 0 58.00 4.67
Residual 116,205 5,317 21.8553696
Total (corr.) 259,595 5,320
Climate 3 Model 755,326 4 188,831.5 5,516.3 0 49.01 5.85
Residual 1,121,320 32,757 34.231462
Total (corr.) 1,876,646 32,761
Climate 4 Model 752,026 5 150,405.2 2,349.0 0 45.78 8.00
Residual 893,963 13,962 64.0282911
Total (corr.) 1,645,989 13,967

NOTE: DF = degrees of freedom, corr. = corrected.

Climate 3: 124.2 km/h, and
Climate 4: 120.7 km/h.
According to those results, in general, in no precipitation and air
temperature below 0°C conditions, a 2 km/h speed reduction can be
detected. The speed reduction due to rain conditions, with insignif-
icant rain intensity (1 mm/h), is 5.5 km/h. Snow conditions have the
largest impact on speed, with a speed reduction of 9 km/h.
Effect of Truck Percentage on Speed
Although the analysis of non-weather-related conditions with
speed is not the aim of this paper, this variable had to be added to
the regression models because of its important effect. According
to the global regression, the truck percentage coefficients are very
similar for all climates, showing that the speed reduction due to
the heavy traffic percentage is almost not affected by the climate.
Moreover, the individual regression coefficients for each site are
very similar, so the heavy traffic amount also has a similar effect
in all sites.
Effect of Visibility on Speed
Visibility varies from 0 to 2,000 m, being 2,000 (total visibility) in
most cases. As a result, a logarithmical model was used.
By examining the regression coefficients, it can be noted that
the effect of visibility reduction is the highest in Climate 4 and the
lowest in Climate 2. Climates 1 and 3 appear to behave in a sim-
ilar way. Considering a 300-m visibility, the speed reductions
obtained are 4.8, 1.5, 4.3, and 8.7 km/h for Climates 1, 2, 3, and
4, respectively.
Figure 3 represents the speed variation for all climates. Climates 3
and 4 are also represented with 1 mm/h precipitation intensity.
Effect of Wind on Speed
The wind speed coefficient is similar in Climates 1 and 3 and larger
(in absolute value) for Climate 4. Figure 4 shows the traffic speed
variation due to wind speed.
In Climates 1 and 3, the traffic speed decreases 0.6 km/h per each
meter per second of wind speed increase, so the effect is important.
This effect is higher (1 km/h) in Climate 4. In Climate 2, the effect
is lower.
Effect of Precipitation Intensity on Speed
The precipitation intensity is a variable that only exists in Cli-
mates 3 (rain) and 4 (rain in freezing and snow conditions). In this
case, it is important to point out that Climate 4 shows a much higher
regression coefficient than for rain conditions (over three times).
Figure 5 shows the evolution of speed depending on precipitation
intensity. The figure shows that the speed reduction in snow condi-
tions is much more dramatic than in rain conditions. Both of them
tend to asymptotic values of 122.7 km/h and 116.0 km/h, respec-
tively. Therefore, speed variations of 7.00 km/h and 13.7 km/h are
obtained for heavy rain and heavy snow, compared to the refer-
ence climate with no visibility loss. It is important to point out that
these results consider only the precipitation intensity effect and
do not consider the effect of visibility loss. The rain effect appears
to reach its maximum at an intensity of 5 mm/h, while snow reaches
it at 7 mm/h.
Many studies that develop speed models based on rain and snow
conditions gather their intensities into two or three groups. Often, these
groups are determined based on meteorological recommendations,
not by considering their effect on speed.
In this research, an LSD analysis has been done to determine if
it is possible to make different groups for the precipitation values.
Those analyses showed no significant results, so the regression
model was maintained instead of creating groups for different
precipitation ranges, depending on their effects on speed.
COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS MODELS
After obtaining the models, a comparison with previous models was
done. Because most previous studies give ranges of speed reduc-
tions under adverse weather conditions, evaluation of the MSE is
not possible.
Most other models also gather rain and snow intensities and pro-
vide a unique value. Some examples are the Highway Capacity Man-
ual (2), Ibrahim and Hall (6), Smith et al. (11), and Rakha et al. (12).
Camacho, García, and Belda 157

FIGURE 3 Speed variation depending on visibility conditions.

FIGURE 4 Speed depending on wind speed.

158 Transportation Research Record 2169

FIGURE 5 Effect of precipitation intensity on speed for Climates 3 and 4.

A few studies used regression models. One of these studies used a Rakha et al. (12) determined that the maximum speed reduction
model for passenger cars (10): in snow conditions was reached with 3 mm/h intensity. This value
is lower than the one determined in this study (7 mm/h).
v = 100.2 − 16.4 i snow − 9.5 i wet + 77.3 i vis − 11.7 i windd (9) Values given for light intensities are those associated with 1 mm/h
precipitation intensity. Values associated with heavy intensities are
where
the asymptotic ones. All of them are compared to the values given by
snow = 1 if there is a snow layer on the pavement, 0 if not; Climate 1 with no visibility loss and wind speed lower than 8 m/s.
wet = 1 if the pavement is wet, 0 otherwise (In accordance to
the present model, it will be 1 for Climates 3 and 4 and 0
for Climates 1 and 2);
vis = 0.28 if visibility is equal or higher to 0.28 km, and the TABLE 4 Existing Rain and Snow Investigations: Speed Reduction
visibility value (in km) for lower values; and
wind: 1 if the wind speed exceeds 24 km/h (6.7 m/s) and Light Heavy
Light Rain Heavy Rain Snow Snow
0 if not.
HCM (2) 2 km/h 5–7 km/h 1 km/h 37–42 km/h
Rain and Snow Effects Ibrahim and 2 km/h 5–10 km/h 3 km/h 38–50 km/h
Hall (6)
Each one of the existing studies considers rain and snow precipita- Kyte et al. 9.5 km/h ND 25.9 km/h ND
tions in a different way. The analyzed methods are listed in Table 4, (10)
including the proposed models in this research. Smith et al. 2.9–4.8 km/h 2.9–4.8 km/h ND ND
Previous data referred to the reduction in speed due only to precip- (11)
itation intensity, but did not consider any other associated effect, such Rakha et al. 2% to 3.6% 6% to 9% 5% to19% 5% to19%
(12)
as visibility loss. The research developed by Kyte et al. (10) does not
consider precipitation intensities, but only the road pavement surface. Camacho 5.5 km/h 7.0 km/h 9.0 km/h 13.7 km/h
et al.
Thus, the corresponding speed reductions are associated with the (this study)
lowest possible intensity.
Camacho, García, and Belda
The present model makes the speed less dependent on precipi-
tation intensity than previous research. As all the previous models,
it also shows a higher speed reduction in snow than in rain condi-
tions, but the difference between light and heavy snow is not as
dramatic as in those models. These differences, depending on the
precipitation intensity, may exist because other studies do not con-
sider visibility as a separate variable, including its effect on these
speed reductions.
Visibility Effects
In this study visibility is introduced in a logarithmical way, making
speed reduce at higher rates as the visibility decreases. Snow con-
ditions cause a reduction in visibility to be more affected than in
other climates. Rakha et al. (12) also reported this behavior, giving
a maximum speed loss due to visibility of 10%. According to the
model presented by Kyte et al. (10), the maximum speed reduction
is 21.6 km/h.
Wind Effects
Few studies have researched the effect of wind speed on traffic
behavior. Kyte et al. (10) included its effect in their regression
model, by considering it as a dummy variable that reduced the
speed 11.7 km/h with a wind speed higher than 6.7 m/s. In this
study it has also been identified as a change in speed behavior when
the wind speed reaches 8 m/s, but in this case a regression coeffi-
cient has been adjusted. Comparing all climates to the neutral cli-
mate with total visibility, speed reduction is reached at wind speeds
of 27.2 m/s, 42.3 m/s, 18.1 m/s, and 10.3 m/s for Climates 1, 2, 3,
and 4, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper several models have been developed to estimate the
speed reduction at free-flow conditions under adverse weather
conditions. Data were obtained from 15 freeway locations in the
northwestern Spain during almost 3 years, in a 15-min interval
format.
Several individual and global analyses have been developed.
From these it was concluded that for this type of study it is neces-
sary to consider a large number of sites, due to the high variability
of the weather–traffic relationship among different locations.
Four global climates were distinguished, considering several vari-
ables in a multiple nonlinear regression. Variables included were
truck traffic intensity, visibility, wind speed, precipitation intensity,
and snow layer depth.
It was determined that the rain made the speed reduce from 5.5 km/h
to 7.0 km/h, depending on its intensity. Speed reduction due to snow
varied from 9.0 to 13.7 km/h.
Wind speed affected speed only when it goes beyond 8 m/s. The
speed reduction due to visibility loss had a logarithmical expres-
159
sion, so speed is not affected when visibility is about 2,000 m, but
the induced speed reduction was large when the visibility values
were low. It was also determined that the influence of any weather
variable on speed was higher in snow conditions than in other cases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Center for Studies and Experimentation of
Public Works (CEDEX) of the Spanish Ministry of Public Works,
which subsidized this research, included in a research project,
METEOSAFETY: Study to Reduce Accidents in Case of Weather
Problems. The authors also thank the Ministry of the Interior, General
Directorate of Traffic, Spain, for cooperation in field data gathering.
REFERENCES
1. Chin, S. M., O. Frazese, D. L. Greene, H. L. Hwang, and R. C. Gibson.
Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts on Performance.
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/publications.shtml#2002, 2002. Accessed May
2008.
2. Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2000.
3. Olson, P. L., D. E. Cleveland, P. S. Fancher, L. P. Kostyniuk, and L. W.
Schneider. NCHRP Report 270: Parameters Affecting Stopping Sight
Distance. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984.
4. Lamm, R., E. M. Choueiri, and T. Mailaender. Comparison of Operat-
ing Speeds on Dry and Wet Pavements of Two-Lane Rural Highways.
In Transportation Research Record 1280, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 199–207.
5. Hawkins, R. K. Motorway Traffic Behaviour in Reduced Visibility Con-
ditions. Proc., Second International Conference in Vision in Vehicles,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1988.
6. Ibrahim, A. T., and F. L. Hall. Effect of Adverse Weather Conditions
on Speed-Flow-Occupancy Relationships. In Transportation Research
Record 1457, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1994, pp. 184–191.
7. Brilon, W., and M. Ponzlet. Variability of Speed-Flow Relationships
on German Autobahns. In Transportation Research Record 1555,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 91–98.
8. Holdener, D. J. The Effects of Rainfall on Freeway Speeds. ITE Journal,
Vol. 68, No. 11, 1998, p. 16.
9. Edwards, J. B. Speed Adjustment of Motorway Commuter Traffic to
Inclement Weather. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999,
pp. 1–14.
10. Kyte, M., Z. Khatib, P. Shannon, and F. Kitchener. Effect of Weather
on Free-Flow Speed. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1776, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 60–68.
11. Smith, B. L., K. G. Byrne, R. B. Copperman, S. M. Hennessy, and N. J.
Goodall. Investigation into Impact of Rainfall on Freeway Traffic Flow.
Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2004.
12. Rakha, H. A., M. Farzaneh, M. Arafeh, and E. Sterzin. Inclement
Weather Impacts on Freeway Traffic Stream Behavior. In Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2071, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 8–18.
The Surface Transportation Weather Committee peer-reviewed this paper.