Public Transport

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 399–426 | Cite as

Dynamic transit lanes for connected and autonomous vehicles

  • Michael W. LevinEmail author
  • Alireza Khani
Original Paper


Transit lanes provide dedicated right-of-way to transit vehicles, but reduce the number of lanes available to other vehicles. Several studies have implemented intermittent bus lanes, which are sometimes reserved for transit but otherwise are available for general traffic. However, their efficiency suffers from the difficulties of communicating accessibility to drivers. We extend this concept by proposing dynamic transit lanes for connected autonomous vehicles, in which infrastructure continuously updates vehicles on lane accessibility. We present a cell transmission model of dynamic transit lanes in which the number of lanes available to general traffic changes in space and time in response to the presence or absence of transit vehicles. In order to extend the concept of transit signal priority in the context of connected autonomous vehicles and integrate it with dynamic transit lanes, we also modify the reservation-based intersection control system for autonomous vehicles to prioritize transit. Numerical results from small test cases show that the dynamic transit lanes and transit intersection priority allow transit to move nearly at free flow on the corridor despite congestion. Results from the downtown Austin city network using dynamic traffic assignment show that both transit and general traffic would experience significant benefits in realistic settings.


Dynamic transit lanes Autonomous vehicles Cell transmission model Dynamic traffic assignment 



The authors are grateful for Dr. Stephen D. Boyles’ comments and suggestions. The authors also appreciate the support of the Data-Supported Transportation Operations and Planning Center, the NSF CAREER Program, Grant No. 1254921, and Minnesota Department of Transportation Award No. 99008 Work Order No. 211.


  1. Agrawal AW, Goldman T, Hannaford N (2013) Shared-use bus priority lanes on city streets: approaches to access and enforcement. J Public Transp 16(4):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altché F, de La Fortelle A (2016) Analysis of optimal solutions to robot coordination problems to improve autonomous intersection management policies. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2016, pp 86–91. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlino D, Boyles SD, Stone P (2013) Auction-based autonomous intersection management. In: 2013 16th International IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC). IEEE, pp 529–534Google Scholar
  4. Chiu Y-C, Bottom J, Mahut M, Paz A, Balakrishna R, Waller T, Hicks J (2011) Dynamic traffic assignment: a primer. Transp Res Part E-Circ (2011).
  5. Courant R, Friedrichs K, Lewy H (1967) On the partial difference equations of mathematical physics. IBM J Res Dev 11(2):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Currie G, Lai H (2008) Intermittent and dynamic transit lanes: Melbourne, Australia, experience. Transp Res Rec 2072:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daganzo CF (1994) The cell transmission model: a dynamic representation of highway traffic consistent with the hydrodynamic theory. Transp Res Part B Methodol 28(4):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daganzo CF (1995) The cell transmission model, part II: network traffic. Transp Res Part B Methodol 29(2):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daganzo CF (1998) Queue spillovers in transportation networks with a route choice. Transp Sci 32(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dresner K, Stone P (2004) Multiagent traffic management: a reservation-based intersection control mechanism. In: Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 2. IEEE Computer Society, pp 530–537Google Scholar
  11. Dresner K, Stone P (2006) Traffic intersections of the future. The 21st national conference on artificial intelligence, NECTAR Track. AAAI Press, Boston, Massachusetts, pp 1593–1596Google Scholar
  12. Dresner K, Stone P (2007) Sharing the road: autonomous vehicles meet human drivers. IJCAI 7:1263–1268Google Scholar
  13. Duell M, Levin MW, Boyles SD, Waller ST (2016) Impact of autonomous vehicles on traffic management: case of dynamic lane reversal. Transp Res Rec 2567:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eichler M, Daganzo CF (2006) Bus lanes with intermittent priority: strategy formulae and an evaluation. Transp Res Part B Methodol 40(9):731–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fagnant DJ, Kockelman K (2015) Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 77:167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fajardo D, Au T-C, Waller S, Stone P, Yang D (2011) Automated intersection control: performance of future innovation versus current traffic signal control. Transp Res Rec 2259:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godunov SK (1959) A difference method for numerical calculation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of hydrodynamics. Matematicheskii Sbornik 89(3):271–306Google Scholar
  18. Guler SI, Cassidy MJ (2012) Strategies for sharing bottleneck capacity among buses and cars. Transp Res Part B Methodol 46(10):1334–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guler SI, Menendez M, Meier L (2014) Using connected vehicle technology to improve the efficiency of intersections. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 46:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hausknecht M, Au T-C, Stone P, Fajardo D, Waller T (2011) Dynamic lane reversal in traffic management. In: 2011 14th International IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC). IEEE, pp 1929–1934Google Scholar
  21. He Q, Head KL, Ding J (2012) Pamscod: platoon-based arterial multi-modal signal control with online data. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 20(1):164–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He Q, Head KL, Ding J (2014) Multi-modal traffic signal control with priority, signal actuation and coordination. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 46:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu J, Park BB, Lee Y-J (2015) Coordinated transit signal priority supporting transit progression under connected vehicle technology. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 55:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levin MW, Boyles SD (2015a) Effects of autonomous vehicle ownership on trip, mode, and route choice. Transp Res Rec 2493:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin MW, Boyles SD (2015b) Intersection auctions and reservation-based control in dynamic traffic assignment. Transp Res Rec 2497:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin MW, Boyles SD (2015c) A multiclass cell transmission model for shared human and autonomous vehicle roads. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 90:114–133Google Scholar
  27. Levin MW, Boyles SD (2016) A cell transmission model for dynamic lane reversal with autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 68:126–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin MW, Rey D (2017) Conflict-point formulation of intersection control for autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 85:528–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin MW, Pool M, Owens T, Juri NR, Waller ST (2014) Improving the convergence of simulation-based dynamic traffic assignment methodologies. Netw Spat Econ 15:655–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin MW, Boyles SD, Patel R (2016a) Paradoxes of reservation-based intersection controls in traffic networks. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 90:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levin MW, Fritz H, Boyles SD (2016b) On optimizing reservation-based intersection controls. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 18:1–11Google Scholar
  32. Li Z, Chitturi M, Zheng D, Bill A, Noyce D (2013) Modeling reservation-based autonomous intersection control in vissim. Transp Res Rec 2382:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lighthill MJ, Whitham GB (1955) On kinematic waves. II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 229:317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mounce R, Carey M (2014) On the convergence of the method of successive averages for calculating equilibrium in traffic networks. Transp Sci 49(3):535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poole Jr RW, Balaker T (2005) Virtual exclusive busways: improving urban transit while relieving congestion, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  36. Qiu F, Li W, Zhang J, Zhang X, Xie Q (2015) Exploring suitable traffic conditions for intermittent bus lanes. J Adv Transp 49(3):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards PI (1956) Shock waves on the highway. Oper Res 4(1):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schepperle H, Bohm K (2008) Auction-based traffic management: towards effective concurrent utilization of road intersections. In: 2008 10th IEEE conference on E-commerce technology and the fifth IEEE conference on enterprise computing, E-commerce and E-services. IEEE, pp 105–112Google Scholar
  39. Tuerprasert K, Aswakul C (2010) Multiclass cell transmission model for heterogeneous mobility in general topology of road network. J Intell Transp Syst 14(2):68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vasirani M, Ossowski S (2012) A market-inspired approach for intersection management in urban road traffic networks. J Artif Intell Res 43:621–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Viegas J, Lu B (2001) Widening the scope for bus priority with intermittent bus lanes. Transp Plan Technol 24(2):87–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viegas J, Lu B (2004) The intermittent bus lane signals setting within an area. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 12(6):453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Viegas JM, Roque R, Lu B, Vieira J (2007) Intermittent bus lane system: demonstration in Lisbon, Portugal. In: Transportation Research Board 86th annual meeting, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Wong G, Wong S (2002) A multi-class traffic flow model-an extension of LWR model with heterogeneous drivers. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 36(9):827–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhu H (2010) Numerical study of urban traffic flow with dedicated bus lane and intermittent bus lane. Phys A 389(16):3134–3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhu F, Ukkusuri SV (2015) A linear programming formulation for autonomous intersection control within a dynamic traffic assignment and connected vehicle environment. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 55:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations