State-of-the-Art Review on Traffic Control Strategies for Emergency Vehicles

Abstract

Emergency vehicles (EVs) play an essential role in emergency services. One of the most intuitive indicators of the emergency service process is the response time of EVs. This survey focuses on reviewing the latest traffic control strategies to reduce response time during EV traveling. Firstly, it classifies traffic control strategies into route optimization, signal preemption, lane reservation, and mixed traffic control strategies. Then, a systematic literature review of traffic control strategies in terms of different algorithms is presented. In addition, this survey classifies the articles by objective metrics. In addition to response time, several other objective metrics are summarized. Finally, this survey reviews the limitations of existing emergency traffic control strategies and critically analyzes them. Based on this, it indicates the core problems and proposes potential research areas to be explored.

Every Second Counts: A Comprehensive Review of Route Optimization and Priority Control for Urban Emergency Vehicles

“…In the literature, a few papers have reviewed studies on reducing EMV response times from different perspectives [14][15][16][17][18]. Umam et al reviewed strategies for decreasing response times in terms of locating, allocating, dispatching, and others [14].…”

“…Kamble and Kounte classified the traffic signal priority control models into three categories: routing-based, scheduling-based, and miscellaneous [16]. Yu et al sorted traffic control strategies into three groups: optimization of routes, signal priority control, and lane reservation [17]. Lakshmi et al [18] categorized the ambulance rescue route optimization problem into two types: from the ambulance station to the injured location and from the injured location to the nearby medical center.…”

“…1. These review papers ignored significant differences between various EMVs and SVs regarding optimization objectives, vehicle attributes, vehicle dynamics, and driving policies, which may deviate from reality [14,17,18]. 2.…”

“…2. Due to ignorance of the differences between EMVs and SVs, insufficient emphasis was placed on EMV-TTP methods, which are the foundation for achieving optimal EMV-RO outcomes [14][15][16][17][18]. 3.…”

“…3. These review papers mainly emphasized EMV-TPC at intersections and focused less on road links (e.g., giving way, setting up EMV-exclusive lanes, utilization of oppo- In the literature, a few papers have reviewed studies on reducing EMV response times from different perspectives [14][15][16][17][18]. Umam et al reviewed strategies for decreasing response times in terms of locating, allocating, dispatching, and others [14].…”