Simulation study demonstrates adaptive signal control improves throughput and safety in work zone intersections, indicating the value of embedding risk directly into reinforcement learning.
Work zones reduce roadway capacity and create unstable merging, queue spillback, and stop-and-go conditions that simultaneously degrade traffic operations and elevate crash risk. Conventional fixed-time, actuated, and adaptive signal controllers are poorly suited to these non-stationary conditions, and most reinforcement learning (RL) approaches optimize for mobility while treating safety only as a post-hoc evaluation measure. This study develops a safety-aware Deep Q-Network (DQN) framework for adaptive signal control at intersections operating near work zone activity areas. The framework embeds merge conflict risk, upstream spillback propagation, and stop-and-go instability directly into both the state representation and the reward formulation, alongside operational objectives such as delay, throughput, and speed. A merge-conflict model based on relative spacing, relative speed, and acceleration characterizes unsafe interactions in the merge region, and a Pareto-based multi-objective procedure samples reward-weight vectors to identify non-dominated policies balancing efficiency and safety. The framework was implemented and evaluated in a SUMO microscopic simulation of a signalized intersection under lane-closure conditions. The best policy increased throughput by 24.6%, 32.7%, 37.3%, and 29.7% for cars, trucks, buses, and mixed traffic relative to default timing (all p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.53 - 1.29), with the largest gains for trucks and buses. Shockwave analysis showed a 39.1% reduction in maximum queue length and a 45.8% reduction in spillback distance, with faster queue dissipation. The results indicate that encoding surrogate safety indicators as learning objectives, rather than evaluation criteria, enables a single controller to jointly improve mobility and safety in work zones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Afriyie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: