Impact of Pavement Roughness on Vehicle Free-Flow Speed

In earlier studies of the environmental impact of pavement roughness on life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it was assumed that pavement roughness (usually measured by International Roughness Index, IRI) has no impact on vehicle speed. However, because ride comfort increases when a pavement becomes smoother (that is, when roughness decreases), it is possible that people will drive faster on a smoother pavement. Because most vehicles achieve maximum fuel efficiency between 40 and 50 mph (64 and 80 km/h), fuel use increases at speeds beyond this range, and this increase in speed might offset the benefits gained from the reduced rolling resistance associated with reduced pavement roughness. Therefore, to investigate the impact of changes in pavement roughness on driving behavior with respect to speed, this study built a linear regression model to estimate free-flow speed on freeways in California. The explanatory variables included lane number, total number of lanes, day of the week, region (Caltrans district), gasoline price, and pavement roughness as measured by IRI. Data from the California freeway network from 2000 to 2011 were used to build the model. The results show that pavement roughness has a very small impact on free-flow speed within the range of this study. For the IRI coverage in this study (90 percent of the records have an IRI of 3 m/km or lower and 90 percent of the records have an IRI change of 2 m/km or lower), a change in IRI of 1 m/km (63 in./mi) resulted in a change of average free-flow speed of about 0.48 to 0.64 km/h (0.3 to 0.4 mph), a value low enough to cause almost no change in fuel use. This result indicates that making a rough pavement segment smoother through application of a maintenance or rehabilitation treatment will not result in substantially faster vehicle operating speeds, and therefore the benefits from reduced energy use and emissions due to reduced rolling resistance will not be offset by the increased fuel consumption that accompany increases in vehicle speed. However, efforts to develop a good model for predicting free-flow speed were not fully successful. The Southern California Interstate Freeway model developed yielded the best result with an adjusted Rsquared of 0.72. For the rest of the regions in the state, the selected explanatory variables can only explain about half of the total variance, meaning that there are still other variables, such as vehicle type, with a substantial impact on free-flow speed that were not covered in this study.

[1]  Daniel L. Sherrell,et al.  Consumer Adaptation to Gasoline Price Increases , 1981 .

[2]  Ulf Hammarström,et al.  Rolling resistance model, fuel consumption model and the traffic energy saving potential from changed road surface conditions , 2012 .

[3]  D. Austin,et al.  Effects of Gasoline Prices on Driving Behavior and Vehicle Markets , 2008 .

[4]  Ulf Sandberg,et al.  Tyre/road noise reference book , 2002 .

[5]  Heikki Summala,et al.  Cross-cultural differences in driving behaviours: A comparison of six countries , 2006 .

[6]  Gary E Elkins,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF LIMITING VELOCITY MODELS FOR THE HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM (ABRIDGMENT) , 1988 .

[7]  Samer Madanat,et al.  Pavement Resurfacing Policy for Minimization of Life-Cycle Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2013 .

[8]  A. Horvath,et al.  Global warming potential of pavements , 2009 .

[9]  Ashok M. Dhareshwar,et al.  Vehicle Speeds and Operating Costs: Models for Road Planning and Management , 1988 .

[10]  Michael W. Sayers ON THE CALCULATION OF INTERNATIONAL ROUGHNESS INDEX FROM LONGITUDINAL ROAD PROFILE , 1995 .

[11]  Robert B. Archibald,et al.  A DECOMPOSITION OF THE PRICE AND INCOME ELASTICITY OF THE CONSUMER DEMAND FOR GASOLINE , 1981 .

[12]  Bin Yu,et al.  Life cycle assessment of pavement: Methodology and case study , 2012 .

[13]  S. Chandra Effect of Road Roughness on Capacity of Two-Lane Roads , 2004 .

[14]  Eul-Bum Lee,et al.  Life cycle energy consumption and GHG emission from pavement rehabilitation with different rolling resistance , 2012 .

[15]  Kanok Boriboonsomsin,et al.  Real-World Carbon Dioxide Impacts of Traffic Congestion , 2008 .

[16]  Drc Cooper,et al.  THE EFFECT ON TRAFFIC SPEEDS OF RESURFACING A ROAD , 1980 .

[17]  Daniel T. Kaffine,et al.  Gas Prices, Traffic, and Freeway Speeds in Los Angeles , 2009, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[18]  Ralph Haas,et al.  EFFECTS OF PAVEMENT ROUGHNESS ON VEHICLE SPEEDS , 1976 .

[19]  Michael D. Lepech,et al.  Dynamic Life-Cycle Modeling of Pavement Overlay Systems: Capturing the Impacts of Users, Construction, and Roadway Deterioration , 2010 .

[20]  Scott Sluder,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE MODAL EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION VALUES FOR TRAFFIC MODELS , 1999 .

[21]  Karim Chatti,et al.  Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle Operating Costs , 2012 .