An Approach for Determining Rules used to Select Viable Junction Design Alternatives Based on Multiple Objectives

Transport planners and engineers frequently face the challenge to determine the best design for a specific junction. Many road design manuals provide guidelines for the design and evaluation of different junction alternatives, however these mostly refer to specialized software in which the performances of design alternatives can be modelled. In the first stage of the design process, such assessments of many alternatives are undesirable due to time and budget constraints. There is a need for quick design rules which need limited input data. Although some of these rules exist, their usability is limited due to inconsistencies in rules and non-transparency in combination with objectives. In this paper, we present an approach by which consistent and transparent junction design rules can be determined. The resulting rules can be used to predict a set of viable junction design alternatives for the first stage of the junction design assessment process. The predicted set is in fact the Pareto optimal set of solutions for multiple objectives, e.g. regarding operational, safety and/or environmental impact. The Pareto optimal set of solutions always contains the best solution, whatever set of weights is used for different objectives in a later stage of the assessment process, thus handling multiple objectives in a straightforward manner. The rules are derived from a dataset by using decision tree data mining techniques. For this, a large dataset is first generated, using performance models, with Pareto optimal sets of junction design alternatives for a large amount of, randomly generated, traffic volumes. The approach is applied and evaluated on cases for two different countries. Results show that for over 90% of the situations the Pareto optimal set can be predicted by the new rules, whereas existing rules hardly reach 33%. The new rules provide junction design alternatives with a better performance