SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGNING ELECTRONIC TOLL PLAZAS:

CASE STUDY

By

A. A. Mohamed.
Associate Researcher

M. A. Aty
Assistant Professor

And

J. G. Klodzinski
Graduate Research Assistant

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of Central Florida
P.O. Box 162450
Orlando, Florida 32816-2450

Tel (407) 384-2049

Fax (407) 823-3315
E-mail: aam@ece2.engr.ucf.edu

Submitted to the ITE Journal for publication

February 2000
 1

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGNING ELECTRONIC TOLL PLAZAS:

CASE STUDY

By

A. A. Mohamed, M. A. Aty, and J. G. Klodzinski

ABSTRACT

The use of Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) technology could reflect enhanced safety and have a

high influence on traffic safety concerns at toll plazas. This paper investigates the potential safety

obstacles occurring around the toll plaza area and more specifically after installing an AVI technology.

Crash reports from a period of three and a half years were investigated for safety problems by

evaluating the crash data before and after the installation of an AVI technology known as E-PASS. The

location is one of the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority’s busiest toll plazas in Central

Florida. Implementing AVI technology, selecting locations of dedicated AVI lanes, AVI subscription

rate, traffic demand, plaza geometry, and the variety of payment methods at toll plazas may have a high

influence on traffic safety concerns at toll plazas. Long gradual diverge areas, installing variable message

signs, proper plaza configuration, and other considerations may be the solution to overcome the

potential safety problems within the toll plaza area. The use of AVI technology was proven to be an

excellent solution to several traffic operation problems including capacity and delays at toll plazas.

However, addressing safety concerns at toll plazas should not be overlooked.

 2

INTRODUCTION

The Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) operates a 132 km network of toll road

system in Orange County, Florida. This network includes ten mainline toll plazas and 38 tollbooth ramps

in operation. In mid May of 1994, the state-of-the-art Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) system known

as E-PASS that utilizes AVI technology was installed at two of the OOCEA’s mainline plazas and their

associated ramps as the start of a full implementation plan for the first ETC system in the Orlando area.

E-PASS is a ETC system that automatically identifies a vehicle equipped with a valid encoded data tag

or transponder as it moves through a toll lane. The E-PASS system then posts a debit to the patron’s

account without requiring the vehicle to stop for the transaction. Klodzinski et al, 1998 [1].

TOLL LANE TYPES

Toll collection facilities generally include at least one of five main lane types. These lane classifications

are manual, automatic, mixed, dedicated AVI, and Express AVI. Manual is a conventional lane type

where the toll is paid in cash to a toll collector. Automatic is a conventional lane type where the exact

toll is paid to an Automatic Coin Machine (ACM). Mixed is a combination of a Manual or Automatic

and AVI in which the patron may either manually pay or can travel through with an AVI equipped (E-

PASS) vehicle. Dedicated AVI is a lane accepting payment only from AVI equipped (E-PASS)

vehicles. Express AVI lane is a dedicated AVI lane without plaza structure or barriers, which permits

drivers to travel through the plaza without any reduction in speed. Al-Deek et al 1997 [2].

STUDY SITE DESCRIPTION

 3

The Holland-East Mainline Plaza is the busiest plaza of the ten OOCEA toll plazas. Figure 1 shows the

configuration of the Holland-East plaza. It has a total of fourteen toll lanes. Each direction has five

stationary lanes and four reversible lanes. These reversible lanes were introduced using cones to provide

flexibility in handling the significant difference in the peak and off-peak directional traffic volumes.

The Holland-East Plaza development, including implementation of AVI (E-PASS), is defined by the

following stages:

• Stage 1- Conventional lanes (Manual and Automatic lanes only),

• Stage 2- Mixed AVI lanes (No dedicated AVI lanes), introduction of E-PASS, 15% of

transactions were E-PASS.

• Stage 3- Single dedicated AVI lane (i.e., only one dedicated AVI lane per direction and all other

lanes are mixed AVI lanes), 28% of transactions were E-PASS.

• Stage 4- Two dedicated AVI lanes (i.e., only two dedicated AVI lane per direction and all other

lanes are mixed AVI lanes), 34% of transactions were E-PASS.

SAFETY ASPECTS

Over a study period of three and half years (from January 1994 to June 1997), it was found that

31.62% of the total crashes on the OOCEA system were located at the ten mainline toll plazas, while

46.31% occurred at ramps and 22.07% at mainline sections between plazas and ramps. The average

monthly crash rate at these mainline toll plazas before introducing the E-PASS system was 3.375
 4

crashes/month. This rate has jumped to 7.5 crashes/month after almost one year after the installation of

the E-PASS system and 10% of the total OOCEA crashes were related to the E-PASS system,

because they either involved an E-PASS vehicle or took place in a dedicated E-PASS lane. Further

investigation into the causes of these crashes and their attributes may help to explain why they occurred

and what should be done to rectify the situation.

CRASHES AT TOLL PLAZAS

The Holland-East Plaza has 21.2% of the total OOCEA system crashes. Furthermore, the Holland-East

Plaza has the highest percentage of crashes (70.28%) out of all ten OOCEA mainline plazas. Crash

reports for the period of January 1994 to June 1997 were examined to identify causes and types of

crashes at the Holland-East plaza. The average monthly crash rate per one million vehicles for this plaza

in Stage 1 was 1.48 crashes/month. After introducing the E-PASS system for the first time in Stage 2,

this number has increased slightly to 1.68 crashes/month. In Stage 3, this number jumped to 2.57

crashes/month then dropped slightly to 2.19 crashes/month in Stage 4. Approximately 50% of the

total crashes occur during the peak hours of 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM for the entire study period.

Many conflict points exist upon approach to the plaza, at the plaza, and departure from the plaza.

Among these conflict points, the specific ones to be addressed are due to merging, queuing, and

speeding of the vehicles. Menta et al.; 1997[3] tried to determine any significant change in vehicle

conflicts at Holland Tunnel in New Jersey with and without dedicated AVI lanes. According to this
 5

study, factors that determined the point where the conflict may occur were identified as toll lane type,

vehicle deceleration rates, final velocity, the number of toll lanes, and volume of cross traffic between the

lanes. Also, as the ETC lane usage increased, the conflict potential would decrease or remain the same

in all cases indicating a higher likelihood of more organized traffic flow through the toll plaza. Figure 2

illustrates possible conflict points upstream of the Holland-East Plaza in the peak direction. These

conflict points may give an indication of the safety level during different evaluation periods. These

evaluation periods are the various stages in which the E-PASS system was implemented.

Merging and Sideswipe Collisions

Merging occurs upon approach to the toll plaza and departure from the toll plaza. Figure 2 displays the

areas of merging and sideswipe collisions upstream of the toll plaza. With the approach to the toll plaza,

a driver must decide which lane to enter. Some determining factors for this decision include payment

type, shortest queue length, and the lane status. One of the most difficult tasks in designing any toll plaza

is the plaza lane configuration. Lane configuration implies the arrangement of toll lanes at a plaza

according to the payment methods. This arrangement should accommodate the traffic demand required

for each payment type and prevent any potential confusion among drivers that could result in crashes.

Sometimes multiple collection methods like mixed AVI lanes, could create potential confusion among

drivers and result in some crashes.

At the Holland-East Plaza, before the installation of the E-PASS system, the arrangement of the type of

toll lanes provided opportunities for crashes. Most heavy vehicles utilized the lane to the far right upon

approach to the plaza, while the other vehicles executed weaving maneuvers in an attempt to avoid the
 6

heavy vehicles and use the remaining open lanes. The positioning of the ACM lanes were in direct route

of the upstream travel lanes thus creating more weaving movements between ACM users and manual

users. After adding the E-PASS payment method and ultimately dedicating a lane for it, the merging

increased initially due to providing more choices of lane types. Analysis shows that sideswipe and angle

collisions at the Holland-East Plaza increased in Stage 3. This can be attributed to increased merging

from the introduction of a new toll payment method (dedicated E-PASS lane).

Queuing and Rear-end Collisions

Rear-end collisions most frequently occur during queuing conditions especially during the peak hours.

Figure 2 displays the areas of queuing and rear-end collisions upstream of the toll plaza. When each

patron is required to stop and pay a toll, queuing occurs at most toll plazas and extensive queues may

form during the peak hours of operation. Some factors influencing rear-end collisions include a patron

trying to determine which lane to chose while not paying attention to the vehicles stopping suddenly in a

dedicated E-PASS lane and also normal driver error.

At the Holland-East Plaza, prior to the installation of the E-PASS system, the queues were extensive

during the peak hours of operation. After introducing the E-PASS system in Stage 2 for all lanes, some

confusion was observed, from field studies, between E-PASS and non E-PASS users. This created

potential for rear-end collisions in these lanes. With the addition of a dedicated E-PASS lane in Stage 3,

the queues were significantly reduced in the other lanes due to vehicle shifting from these lanes to the

dedicated E-PASS lane. Figure 3 shows the rear-end crash rate at Holland-East Plaza increased due to

the introduction of a dedicated E-PASS lane in Stage 3.

 7

The problem with the dedicated E-PASS lane was the lack of knowledge patrons had about this new

lane type. Non-equipped vehicles would enter the dedicated lane and then realize that the lane does not

accept conventional payment methods. Patrons stop in the lane while trying to figure out how to pay the

required toll thus creating the potential for a severe rear-end collision from an E-PASS user who is

familiar with the system and is not expecting to stop. Analysis indicated that 30% of the total rear-end

crashes that occurred in E-PASS lanes involved more than two vehicles.

When the second E-PASS lane was added in Stage 4, the system was in operation for ten months,

providing adequate time for regular users to be educated about the E-PASS system. Also, queue

lengths decreased in the non-dedicated lanes even though there was the loss of another manual lane.

This decreased the potential for rear-end collisions. However, Figure 3 also shows the rear-end crash

rate at the Holland-East Plaza increased slightly in Stage 4 after introducing an additional dedicated E-

PASS lane. This could be from the second dedicated E-PASS still confusing the drivers. This second

E-PASS lane increased the chances of a manual driver being trapped in one of the dedicated E-PASS

lanes and then attempting to cross to one of the manual lanes on either side of the plaza. The driver

slows down or stops in this dedicated lane before reaching the tollbooth which could create a severe

rear-end collision with a following high-speed E-PASS vehicle. The driver then tries to cross the

adjacent dedicated lane to join the queue at the manual lane on the opposite side. This could cause a

sideswipe or rear-end collision with one of the queued vehicles in the manual lane. A similar scenario

may occur with the ACM lanes when the driver attempts to reach a manual lane. Also, the following E-
 8

PASS vehicles attempt to overpass the confused vehicle that may lead to sideswipe collisions with the

queued vehicles in the adjacent regular toll lanes.

Speeding and Hit-Plaza Collisions

Speed may be another factor to examine when considering possible conflict points. Before the

implementation of the E-PASS System, the variance of the speeds was low, considering that all vehicles

had to stop at the toll plaza. After installation of the E-PASS System, knowing that all E-PASS users do

not have to stop and usually do not slow down much either, the variance has increased dramatically.

The severity of the crash increases as the speed variance increases. The estimated property damage rate

was used to represent the crash severity. Figure 4 shows that crash severity has increased in Stages 3

and 4 after the implementation of the E-PASS System.

Before introducing the E-PASS System, most of the hit-plaza structure collisions were due to gate

malfunctions associated with each lane type. Although these gates were removed after installing the E-

PASS System, more potential of hit-plaza structure collisions was observed. Figure 5 shows an

increasing trend of the hit-plaza structure crash rates at the Holland-East Plaza over the study period.

High speeds associated with E-PASS Vehicles, especially trucks, creates a sort of air-vacuum effect at

the tollbooth which could open the tollbooth door suddenly in front of the following high-speed E-PASS

Vehicle.
 9

Also, due to the constricting width of the dedicated E-PASS toll lane at the plaza, some of the speeding

vehicles could not adjust themselves within the toll lane and may impact the concrete barriers or the

tollbooth in this lane.

Pedestrians

Crashes involving pedestrians are more likely to occur with the use of the E-PASS System. Before E-

PASS was installed, there were signs indicating the driver must stop and pay a toll. Therefore, all

vehicles had to make a complete stop. After the introduction of the E-PASS system, these signs were

removed and all vehicles equipped with E-PASS are not required to stop. This may increase the hazard

for any person crossing a plaza lane. Pedestrians at toll plazas are either employees at the toll plaza or

drivers that exit their vehicles for any reason. It should be noted that the Expressway Authority has very

strict safety procedures and training for its employees, so it is unlikely that pedestrian crashes with

employees poses any safety concern. The problem would be with drivers exiting their vehicles.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOLL PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS

Initial analyses indicate that the E-PASS system increased the potential of all crash types. This may be

attributed to the drivers' unfamiliarity with the new E-PASS System and the plaza configuration. Also,

increasing the speed variance may be a contributing factor in increasing the severity of crashes. It is clear

that rear-end and sideswipe collisions have dropped with the increase of drivers' familiarity with the

system (Stages 3 to 4). While hit-plaza structure collisions remained the same, it is likely that increasing
 10

the width of the dedicated E-PASS lanes could reduce these types of collisions. Figure 6 illustrates the

distribution of the crash types related to E-PASS and non-E-PASS that occurred in Stages 3 and 4.

With the implementation of an AVI system, examining the geometrics of the individual toll plaza and

allocation of ETC lanes, solutions can be drawn for reducing the number of conflicts due to merging.

Arrangement of similar lane types is one recommended solution. Due to the problem of drivers crossing

dedicated E-PASS travel lanes at the Holland-East Plaza, moving the dedicated lanes to the far left

would reduce the possibility of sideswipe collisions. Faster drivers usually travel in the left lane whenever

possible and with the dedicated lanes on the far left, E-PASS Subscribers would stay to the left on

approach to the plaza. Also, non-E-PASS users would know there are no lanes to the left of the

dedicated lanes and therefore would only have a choice of merging to the right, thus reducing the conflict

between E-PASS and non-E-PASS users. A more gradual and longer diverge area is another

suggestion. If drivers diverge from three or four lanes to five or six and then the total nine lanes, it can

make a better transition during the approach to the toll plaza.

Advanced signing to inform drivers which lane to use for specific methods of toll collection can be a

useful tool in providing more organized traffic flow through the plaza and reduce merging movements

within the upstream toll plaza area. Variable Message Signs (VMS) mounted in advance of the plaza as

well as on the canopy could provide more organization in identifying the payment methods available at

each lane, the status (open/closed), the expected delay of each toll lane, and account for the change in

number of reversible lanes.

 11

Use of plaza pavement markings including transverse striping, lane lines, and gore markings is important.

This addresses various driver needs for reducing speed, discourage weaving and lane changes, reduce

driver confusion on entering and exiting a toll plaza, and improve channeling between approach roadway

lanes and toll lanes to reduce confusion and conflict points. With the E-PASS lanes, ground markings

upstream of the plaza to unmistakably show the dedicated lanes and the recommended speed limit are

essential.

Reduction of rear-end collisions is evident when queuing is reduced due to the addition of more E-

PASS lanes and subscription rate increases. Also, the placement of the dedicated lanes to the left of the

other lane types could decrease the chance for a non-E-PASS user to get “trapped” in the traffic flow

of the dedicated lane and slow traffic down while attempting to exit this lane.

In general, Electronic Toll Collection has numerous advantages including convenience for customers and

increased processing rates. However, several safety criteria in designing toll plazas equipped with such

systems should be considered. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) provides detailed

explanation for toll plaza design Schaufler A.E.; 1997[4]. Our recommendations are mainly general

operational suggestions intended to assist in reducing conflicts and speed variance. These suggestions

should be incorporated with the outlined specifications listed in Schaufler’s TRB publication. With the

horizon of new and more advanced technology, ITS is our best solution to future traffic problems. With

the consideration of safety, the use of an AVI System at toll plazas could be a viable solution as long as

all possible scenarios are investigated to conclude the most appropriate and efficient means of

implementation.
12
 13

REFERENCES

1. Klodzinski J.G., and Al-Deek H. M.; “Evaluation of Vehicle Emissions at an Electronic Toll

Collection Plaza“, Preprint # 98-0801, Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation

Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.

2. Al-Deek H. M., Mohamed A. A, and Radwan A E; “Operational Benefits of Electronic Toll

Collection: Case Study”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. (123), No. 6, pp

467-477, 1997.

3. Menta V. K., Saracena A.J., and Strate H.E.; “Safety Evaluation of Provision of Electronic

Toll Collection Lanes at the Holland Tunnel“, Preprint # 97-0769, Presented at the 76th Annual

Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997.

4. Schaufler A.E., “NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 240, Toll Plaza design”, Transportation

Research Board, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1997.

 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Holland-East Plaza Configuration

Figure 2 Possible Conflict Points at the Holland-East Plaza

Figure 3 Rear-end Collision Rates

Figure 4 Estimated Property Damage per Vehicle

Figure 5 Hit-Plaza Collision Rates

Figure 6 E-PASS and Non E-PASS Related Crash Rate and Crash Type
 15

Figure 1. Holland-East Plaza Configuration

 16

Area of Queuing and Rear-end

Collisions

MANUAL/AVI Area of Merging and

Sideswipe Collisions
MANUAL/AVI
AUTOMATIC/AVI

AUTOMATIC/AVI
E-PASS
MANUAL/AVI E-PASS
MANUAL/AVI

MANUAL/AVI
E-PASS MANUAL/AVI
E-PASS
AUTOMATIC/AVI

AUTOMATIC/AVI

Area of Merging and MANUAL/AVI

Sideswipe Collisions
MANUAL/AVI
Area of Queuing and
Rear-end Collisions

Figure 2. Possible Conflict Points at the Holland-East Plaza

 Monthly Crash Rate (crash/1,000,000 vehicles)

0
1
2

0.5
1.5
2.5

Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94

STAGE 1
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95

STAGE 2
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95

STAGE 3
Sep-95

Month
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96

Figure 3. Rear-end Collision Rates

Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Average monthly rear-end crash rate per 1,000,000 vehicles for each Stage

Sep-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
STAGE 4

Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
17
 18

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4

Average estimated property damage per 1000 vehicle for each Stage Injury

Figure 4. Estimated Property Damage per Vehicle

 Monthly Crash Rate (Crash /1,000,000 vehicles)

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

0
1
2

Jan-94
Feb-94
Mar-94
Apr-94
May-94
Jun-94

STAGE 1
Jul-94
Aug-94
Sep-94
Oct-94
Nov-94
Dec-94
Jan-95

STAGE 2
Feb-95
Mar-95
Apr-95
May-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95

Month
STAGE 3
Sep-95
Oct-95
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
Feb-96

Figure 5. Hit-Plaza Collision Rates

Mar-96
Apr-96
May-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
Sep-96
Oct-96
STAGE 4

Nov-96
Dec-96
Average monthly hit plaza stucture crash rate per 1,000,000 vehicles for each stage

Jan-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
19
 20

Figure 6. E-PASS and Non E-PASS Related Crash Rate and Crash Type