Sentinel: An Onboard Lane Change Advisory System for Intelligent Vehicles to Reduce Traffic Delay during Freeway Incidents

Freeway congestion can be categorized into two groups: recurrent congestion and non-recurrent congestion. Recurrent congestion is primarily due to traffic bottlenecks at fixed locations formed when traffic flow exceeds road capacity, for example at a lane drop. In contrast, non-recurrent congestion is generally caused by either freeway incidents (traffic accidents, vehicle breakdowns, etc.) or planned special events (freeway maintenance, construction, etc.) [1]. The 2019 Urban Mobility Report published by the Texas Transportation Institute based on data obtained in 2017 found that through a combined 8.8 billion hours of wasted time and 3.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel, congestion costs the U.S. an estimated $166 billion each year [2]. The National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC) estimates that traffic incidents account for about 25% of total delay on U.S. roadways [3]. Therefore, any small improvement in traffic flow during freeway incidents can save a significant amount of time and money, and the emergence of intelligent vehicles presents new opportunities in this area.

To reduce the impact of non-recurrent congestion - especially freeway incidents - on traffic flow, states and municipalities across the U.S. have traditionally relied on Traffic Incident Management Systems (TIMS). The goal of TIMS is to accurately predict the occurrence of traffic incidents and reduce the time for the detection of, response to, and clearance of an incident [4]. Each of these aspects has been studied extensively by researchers in the field.

Enhanced incident prediction allows TIMS to better prepare for them by allocating resources more efficiently, resulting in faster response and reduced delay. Past research in this area has investigated the use of parametric tree-based (CART or classification and regression tree) models, artificial neural networks, and negative binomial regression models for accident frequency prediction [5, 6]. Past works have also studied the use of random effects probit model for predicting freeway accident likelihood [7]; using loop data through schematic eigenvectors for real-time crash likelihood prediction [8]; and using the Hadoop framework to process and analyze big traffic data efficiently for accident prediction [9]. Similarly, automatic, fast, and accurate detection of traffic incidents with low false positive rates allows TIMS to respond faster and reduces the overall delay. Past studies in this area have employed fuzzy-wavelet radial basis function neural network [10, 11], constructive probabilistic neural network (CPNN) [12, 13], wavelet transformation technique [14], and wavelet-clustering-neural network [1] for freeway incident detection, proposing high accuracy incident detection methods with low false positive rates capable of adapting to different traffic conditions.

Accurate estimation of incident duration also helps TIMS make more efficient decisions for responding to and clearing incidents, reducing their potential impact on traffic flow. Past studies in this area applied hazard-based duration models to statistically evaluate the time it takes to detect/report, respond to, and clear incidents [15], and used the survival analysis approach to develop a prediction model of accelerated failure time [16]. They also investigated a feature selection method that used genetic algorithms to create artificial neural network-based models that provide a sequential forecast of accident duration [17], and developed incident duration models for different incident types, studying several variables affecting incident duration [18]. More recent studies have proposed a novel M5P-HBDM model for accident duration prediction [19] and gradient boosting decision trees (GBDTs) to predict the nonlinear and imbalanced incident clearance time based on different types of explanatory variables [20]. They have also proposed a copula-based modeling framework for understanding the impact of influential factors on incident detection, response, and clearance times [21] and a data-driven approach to automatically determine the spatiotemporal impact areas of freeway incidents [22]. Overall, these studies have improved out understanding of the parameters that affect incident duration and enhanced the accuracy of estimating the time it takes to detect, respond to, and clear incidents.

The final piece of the puzzle for TIMS is finding approaches for management of traffic upstream of the incident location during the time it takes to respond to and clear the incident from the road. To that end, TIMS have relied on approaches developed for managing recurrent congestion at road bottlenecks [23], including the use of variable speed limit (VSL) strategies [24, 25, 26], congestion assistants [27, 28, 29, 30], or a combination of both [31, 32]. Proposed VSL strategies generally involve dynamically altering a bottleneck’s upstream speed limit through various optimization methods and control algorithms. Macroscopic simulations have shown these methods to be effective at reducing total travel time (TTT) and preventing capacity drop [26]; but as [31] notes, lack of a lane assignment strategy can lead to the breakdown of these methods in microscopic simulations because delays and capacity drops often happen due to rushed lane changes close to the bottleneck.

Even when a lane assignment strategy is present, deploying the traffic management approaches above relies on road infrastructure (e.g. overhead gantries) that are only available near large urban areas, limiting their effectiveness in dealing with traffic incidents that are random in nature. To address this problem, our research leverages the emergence and potential of connected, autonomous, and ADAS-enabled vehicles (here collectively referred to as intelligent vehicles) [33]. To that end, we introduce Sentinel, an onboard system for intelligent vehicles that utilizes a probabilistic prediction model [34, 35, 36] to guide the lane changing behavior of individual vehicles during a freeway incident. Not only does this approach save significant amounts of time and money by reducing traffic delay during freeway incidents, it facilitates faster TIMS response and clearance of the road by improving traffic flow, reducing the chance of triggering secondary incidents [20]. Furthermore, Sentinel only relies on a vehicle’s onboard sensing capabilities and does not require any external road infrastructure, though its performance can be improved by leveraging connected vehicle technology.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the methodology, including a brief overview of the probability model underlying Sentinel, how Sentinel operates, and the simulation setup used to evaluate its performance. Section III presents the results and discusses how Sentinel impacts traffic flow and efficiency. Finally, Section IV summarizes the main findings of this paper and lays out the future path of this research.

Before we can proceed with the methodology, we have to define a few terms. Throughout this work (including the previous section), a point on the road where upstream flow capacity is higher than downstream capacity is called a bottleneck [28]. A bottleneck can be the result of road features such as merges and lane drops or temporary lane closures caused by incidents or road maintenance. Furthermore, as mentioned in Section I an intelligent vehicle is defined as a vehicle capable of achieving SAE Level 2 autonomy [37]. In other words, the vehicle is equipped with one or more environment perception sensors (radar, camera, etc.) that enable the vehicle’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).

Nominal capacity of a bottleneck is defined as the maximum traffic flow that can be maintained upstream and downstream of the bottleneck point simultaneously. In other words, if $C$ denotes the upstream capacity of a bottleneck point where a road transitions from $m$ lanes to $n$ lanes, $m>n$, the nominal bottleneck capacity $C_{b}$ is defined as $\frac{n}{m}C$. The actual bottleneck capacity, however, is often lower than the nominal capacity $C_{b}$, due to either upstream traffic flows larger than $C_{b}$ or rushed lane changing maneuvers of vehicles in the blocked lane(s) that disrupt traffic and slow other vehicles down. This reduction in capacity is called capacity drop and past research has shown that actual bottleneck capacity can be anywhere from 5% to 20% lower than the nominal capacity [38, 39]. Capacity drop disrupts traffic flow and results in increased delays for all vehicles.

Sentinel, as introduced in Section I, is an onboard system utilizing perception data, knowledge of incident location, and a prediction model that estimates the likelihood of reaching a target point on the road using one or multiple lane changes [34], with the goal of reducing traffic delay and postponing or preventing capacity drop during freeway incidents. When an incident blocking the lane(s) ahead is detected, Sentinel calculates the probability of leaving the blocked lane(s) before reaching the incident point at each time step. It advises the vehicle to change lanes when that probability drops below a certain threshold, or in other words, as the vehicle nears the congestion boundary. By doing this, Sentinel reduces the number of late-stage lane changes of vehicles in the blocked lane(s) trying to move to other lanes and distributes those maneuvers upstream of the incident point. Detailed description of how Sentinel operates is provided in Section II-B, and information regarding our implementation can be found in Section II-B3.

Sentinel was implemented in VISSIM^® for a series of simulations of a four-lane section of the I-66 interstate highway where the rightmost lane is blocked for a set amount of time. In what follows, Section II-A gives a brief overview of the probabilistic prediction model introduced above, while Section II-B describes the operation and implementation of Sentinel and the simulation setup used to evaluate its performance.

Statistical indicators of traffic delay results during the analysis period are shown in Table II for $\gamma_{i}$ = 30 min and in Table III for $\gamma_{i}$ = 60 min. In each table, the results are divided into square blocks based on the value of $q_{i}$ (increasing downward) and that of $r$ (increasing rightward). In each square block, each row provides the simulation results of that particular traffic setting (combination of $q_{i},r$, and $\gamma_{i}$) for a particular value of $p_{l}$, with the first row being the baseline case and $p_{l}$ values decreasing downward from 0.999 in the second row. For each horizontal row of square blocks, $p_{l}$ values are provided in the second column. Furthermore, in each square block the columns represent average, standard deviation of, and maximum delay. The numbers in parenthesis next to delay values in each row - other than the baseline - indicate percentage change relative to the baseline case. For example, values in columns 9, 10, and 11 of the sixth row of Table II show the average, standard deviation of, and maximum delay for the simulation case with $q_{i}$ = 6400 veh/hr, $r$ = 70%, $\gamma_{i}$ = 30 min, and $p_{l}$ = 0.97, with the numbers in parenthesis showing change relative to the baseline case in the third row. For this $p_{l}$ value, average delay was improved by 17.7% relative to the baseline case, while standard deviation of the delay was improved by 22.8%. Finally, as mentioned in Section II-B4, for instances where the number of crashed simulations exceeded 2, the number of simulations that finished without an error and were used for averaging the results is indicated as a superscript for the average delay value of that case and applies to all three values representing that case. For instance, for the case with $q_{i}$ = 7200 veh/hr, $r$ = 70%, $\gamma_{i}$ = 30 min, and $p_{l}$ = 0.9, 5 of the 12 simulations crashed and the rest were used to calculate the results.

A first glance at the results shows that in all traffic settings (combinations of $q_{i}$, $r$, and $\gamma_{i}$), Sentinel was successful at improving traffic flow and reducing delay across all measures (average, standard deviation, and maximum) during the incident. The amount of reduction, however, depends on the parameters of each traffic setting and the chosen $p_{l}$ value. Therefore, we first discuss some overall trends in the results and then focus on the results of one simulation case and analyze them in more detail: the case with $q_{i}$ = 6400 veh/hr, $r$ = 40%, and $\gamma_{i}$ = 60 min where all $p_{l}$ values result in around 20% to 30% reduction in average delay.

Table IIand Table III both show that delays for the baseline case are higher when incident duration $\gamma_{i}$ is longer, as expected. They also show that for longer incidents the reduction in delay is usually larger, especially for larger $r$ values. As will be discussed further ahead, this can be attributed to the cascading effect of delay reduction made possible by Sentinel. The results also show that average delay increases with $q_{i}$, because for larger traffic flows vehicles traveling in the blocked lane have a harder time finding an acceptable gap in the adjacent lane before getting close to the incident point, resulting in more last-minute lane changes that cause additional traffic disruptions and delays. Furthermore, the impact of the system is reduced with increasing $q_{i}$ because of congestion caused by a traffic flow beyond the capacity of a three-lane road.

Sentinel was not active for baseline cases, so its penetration rate $r$ does not impact traffic delay results. When it was active, for $r$ = 10% we see that it only had a modest impact on the results regardless of $q_{i}$ and $\gamma_{i}$ because of low penetration rate, matching our expectations. We also see that the reduction in delay increases with penetration rate $r$ and is largest for $r$ = 70%, with improvements in average delay reaching as high as 37% and showing that all vehicles reap the benefits of increased Sentinel penetration. As for $p_{l}$, no broad trends can be observed. Finally, we see that standard deviation and maximum values of delay follow similar trends as average delay for all parameters discussed above.

For the next analysis we need to define a new parameter $d_{l}$, known as lane departure density [36]. $d_{l}$ can be thought of as a measure for quantifying the time-space rate of vehicles departing a blocked lane for the last time before reaching the blockage point. More specifically, if $N$ vehicles depart a blocked lane for the last time within a certain time interval with duration $T$ and road span with length $D$ before the blockage point, $d_{l}$ for that $T$-$D$ time-space block is defined as

$d_{l}$ has the units of (lane departure)/(ft.s). In this paper we assume that $T$ = 100 s and $D$ = 200 ft.

Let’s now dive deeper into the case with $q_{i}$ = 6400 veh/hr, $r$ = 40%, and $\gamma_{i}$ = 60 min. For this case, Fig. 3 shows the average delay and discharge rate of all vehicles for each 900-second simulation time-interval during the analysis period and for different values of $p_{l}$. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show similar plots for regular cars and SE cars, respectively. Along with these figures, Fig. 6 shows the estimated $P(S)$ (probability of leaving the blocked lane before reaching the incident point) calculated by Sentinel for a sample SE car and its velocity as it travels along the road for the case with $p_{l}=0.7$. Finally, Fig. 7 shows time-space plots of density (in veh/mi) and speed (in mph) for all vehicles and $\log(d_{l})$ for SE cars in lane 1, while Fig. 8 shows similar time-space plots of density and speed for all vehicles in lane 2. In each figure, the first column represents the baseline case, while the other three columns represent cases with $p_{l}$ = 0.999, 0.9, and 0.7, respectively. For each individual plot, the horizontal axis indicates simulation time and spans from 1800 to 9000 seconds, or the entire analysis period. The vertical axis indicates distance (in 1000 ft) and spans the entire length of the road segment (21,054 ft) for speed and density plots and up to the incident point (19,200 ft) for lane departure plots. For lane departure plots, we plotted $\log(d_{l})$ instead of $d_{l}$ to better visualize the difference in values. We also opted to only use data from SE cars for lane departure plots despite using data from all cars for density and speed plots. This was due to the fact that Sentinel only affects the behavior of SE cars and that of other cars should not be statistically different from what it was for the baseline case.

Fig. 6illustrates how Sentinel operated during the simulations. Using data from nearby vehicles obtained through perception sensors, Sentinel estimated the probability of leaving lane 1 before reaching the incident point. We can see that for the first 10,000 ft this probability was nearly 1, but as the ego vehicle neared the congestion boundary and vehicles in lane 2 started to slow down and get closer to each other, the probability dropped until it crossed the 0.7 threshold, at which point Sentinel advised the ego vehicle to find an acceptable gap in lane 2 to leave lane 1. The vehicle did so slightly before reaching the incident-induced congestion, as indicated by the probability that steps up to 1 and the velocity that goes down to zero, bounces back, and does this again, portraying a stop-and-go motion.

This knowledge of how Sentinel operates guides our understanding of its impact on the overall traffic flow. As Fig. 5 shows, at the fifth 900-second time interval (the first time interval after the incident), Sentinel helped SE cars leave lane 1 early, reducing their average delay relative to the baseline case. Fig. 4 indicates that this was not the case for regular cars, whose average delay is nearly the same as the baseline case in the fifth interval. Fig. 5 further shows that this trend of reduction in average delay continues in subsequent time intervals for SE cars, where compared to average delay’s linear growth for the baseline case, the rate of growth is slower than linear in cases where Sentinel was operational. As can be seen from Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, this behavior reduced congestion and indirectly improved average delay for other vehicles relative to the baseline case. Fig. 3 also shows that Sentinel was able to restore some of the bottleneck capacity lost to congestion. It indicates that bottleneck capacity with operational Sentinel stands at around 6200 veh/hr, near the nominal capacity of a three-lane freeway and nearly 100 veh/hr more than the baseline case, with both SE cars and regular cars equally responsible for the increased capacity, as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.

Fig. 7and Fig. 8 bring another perspective to understanding how Sentinel impacts traffic flow. The lane departure density plot for the baseline case shows that when the incident occurs (intersection of 3600 s and 19,200 ft), there is a large spike in lane departures near the incident point, which gradually dilutes along the road as congestion in lane 1 grows. In contrast, in the other three cases there is a much smaller spike at the point of incident and lane departures are more evenly distributed upstream of the incident point. Not only did this help reduce traffic density on lane 1, but it also reduced traffic density on lane 2. This was because as SE cars departed lane 1 earlier and entered lane 2, some cars on lane 2 moved to lanes 3 and 4 to maintain the balance of density on the three lanes. For the baseline case on the other hand, a large volume of cars entered lane 2 at the incident point, rapidly increasing lane 2’s density because there was not enough time for other cars to move to lanes 3 and 4.

Lane departure density plots of Fig. 7 also reveal how the choice of $p_{l}$ impacts lane departure timings. As mentioned previously, when $p_{l}$ is larger Sentinel advises vehicles to depart lane 1 earlier than it would if $p_{l}$ was lower. We can see that for $p_{l}$ = 0.999, lane departures are evenly distributed along the road. This is because any minor disturbance in the traffic caused the probability to drop below $p_{l}$ and let Sentinel advise the vehicle to depart lane 1, even if it was not anywhere near the congestion. In contrast, lane departure plots for the other two cases show that Sentinel only advised vehicles to change lanes when they got close to the congestion. For these cases, the plots show that Sentinel started advising vehicles to depart lane 1 about 1.5 mi and 0.8 mi ahead of the incident point for cases with $p_{l}$ = 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. Despite this, Table III shows that among the three $p_{l}$ values, the largest reduction in average delay for this traffic setting was obtained for $p_{l}$ = 0.999 followed by $p_{l}$ = 0.9.

Overall, the choice of the optimal $p_{l}$ depends on traffic flow, road settings (number of lanes and number of blocked lanes), incident duration, and penetration rate of Sentinel. However, given that larger values of $p_{l}$ tend to push lane departures away from the incident point and distribute them more evenly, we recommend a $p_{l}$ value in the range of 0.9 to 0.97 for a satisfying performance. This value is neither too large (such as 0.999) to randomly advise vehicles to depart a lane, nor is it too small to advise vehicles to depart a lane just before reaching a congestion. In more complex cases, determining the optimal choice of $p_{l}$ may require additional traffic simulation. Dynamically assigning $p_{l}$ may be another solution, though this strategy needs further research.

This paper introduced Sentinel, an onboard system for intelligent vehicles that guides their lane changing behavior during a freeway incident with the goal of reducing traffic congestion, capacity drop, and delay. Sentinel does so by leveraging onboard perception data, knowledge of the incident location, and a prediction model that uses traffic- and driver-related parameters to estimate the probability of reaching a goal state on the road using one or multiple lane changes. When an incident blocking the lane(s) ahead is detected, Sentinel calculates the probability of leaving the blocked lane(s) before reaching the incident point at each time step. It advises the vehicle to leave the blocked lane(s) when that probability drops below a certain threshold, as the vehicle nears the congestion boundary. By doing this, Sentinel reduces the number of disruptive, late-stage lane changes of vehicles in the blocked lane(s) trying to move to other lanes and distributes those maneuvers upstream of the incident point.

A simulation case study in which one lane of a four-lane freeway was blocked by an incident for a set period of time was conducted using VISSIM^® to understand how Sentinel impacted traffic flow and how different parameters - traffic flow, penetration rate, and incident duration - affected Sentinel’s performance. The results showed that Sentinel had a positive impact on the overall traffic flow, particularly when it had a considerable penetration rate. It was successful at reducing traffic delay by an average of 10% or more and reduced the drop in capacity at the bottleneck. We also observed that in most cases Sentinel’s performance was not strongly correlated with the choice of the probability threshold, recommending a probability threshold in the range of 0.9 to 0.97 for a satisfactory performance.

Overall, Sentinel’s effectiveness at reducing delay during freeway incidents, its simple design, and its ease of implementation show potential for its widespread adoption by intelligent vehicles, in which case it could potentially save billions of dollars annually in costs associated with congestion caused by freeway incidents. Based on the results of this study, future work will focus on using full-cabin driving simulators and real-world experiments to study driver compliance, Sentinel’s performance in the real world, and its overall impact on driving behavior.

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Dr. Harpreet S. Dhillon for his help with the probability model and to Dr. Montasir Abbas and Awad Abdelhalim for their assistance with VISSIM^® simulations.