TECHNICAL NOTES

Feasibility of Using Urban Planning Models to Support

Intermediate Traffic Forecasts
Michael D. Anderson, P.E.1; Sampson E. Gholston2; and Vamshi K. Akkinepally3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by US CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND on 12/03/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper focuses on analyzing traffic facilities for an intermediate time frame. There are two methodologies examined in
this work, the first uses extrapolated, historical traffic count data and the second uses an urban transportation model. Using several
intersections within Huntsville, Ala., as case study intersection locations, this paper applies both methodologies to forecast near-future
traffic and compares the forecasted results with the actual traffic counts to determine which methodology better replicated actual volumes.
The results of this work indicate that a properly validated and applied urban transportation planning model has the ability to provide more
accurate traffic forecasts to support the traffic engineering analysis decision than the commonly used extrapolated traffic trends.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9488共2004兲130:3共159兲
CE Database subject headings: Traffic models; Traffic engineering; Forecasting; Traffic analysis; Urban planning.

Introduction and Background
The analysis of highway transportation infrastructure generally
uses existing traffic volumes or long-term traffic forecasts
共Dickey 1983兲. The existing traffic volumes are used to analyze
short-term transportation improvements, focusing on projects to
handle specific problem locations and are typically justified using
specific traffic engineering analysis software and techniques.
Long-term traffic forecasts use projected socioeconomic data to
justify major roadway infrastructure improvements, generally
using urban planning models running the standard four-step,
travel-demand, and forecasting process.
Currently, there is no agreed-upon methodology for the inter-
mediate term of 3–7 years for traffic analysis. Typically, interme-
diate analysis uses traffic engineering analysis software with traf-
fic and turning movement data developed through trend line
analyses 共Timothy Barnett, personal communication, February
20, 2002兲. Trend line analysis is a method to forecast future traffic
based on historical data by developing a best-fit equation relating
traffic volumes from different years to develop growth patterns.
These trend lines can be of different types, such as linear, expo-
nential, power, logarithmic, and polynomial; however, linear is
the most common for intermediate traffic forecasting 共Timothy
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Alabama in
Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899. E-mail: mikea@cee.uah.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Industrial and Systems Engineering and
Engineering Management, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville,
AL 35899. E-mail: gholston@ise.uah.edu
3
Graduate Student in Civil Engineering, Univ. of Alabama in Hunts-
ville, Huntsville, AL 35899. E-mail: akkinev@email.uah.edu
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
and possible publication on August 22, 2002; approved on April 25,
2003. This technical note is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, Vol. 130, No. 3, September 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9488/2004/3-159–162/$18.00.
Barnett, personal communication, February 20, 2002兲. Trend line
analysis is commonly used to obtain future intermediate range
traffic forecasts to be entered into traffic engineering analysis
software. This allows the transportation analyst to develop a fore-
casted delay and level of service, based on existing roadway con-
ditions.
The use of trend line analysis for intermediate transportation
analysis is limited in two significant ways. First, trend line analy-
sis does not respond to changes in the socioeconomic character-
istics in the study area. For example, an area experiencing stable
growth will have stable traffic counts. However, a major change
in the socioeconomic characteristics for an area can abruptly
change the traffic conditions. This abrupt change in traffic condi-
tions cannot be modeled using trend line analysis and result in the
need for postdevelopment roadway improvements, which are
often expensive and difficult. The second limitation of trend line
analysis is that traffic volumes are self-limiting. Implying that
traffic growth will not continue along a linear trend, especially as
the volume nears capacity. A typical traffic growth curve contains
a linear portion where the trend line is applicable; however, as-
suming linear traffic growth on the nonlinear sections of the
growth curve will lead to errors in the analysis.
The goal of this paper is to examine the possibility of using
traffic data from a validated urban transportation model to calcu-
late forecasted delays and levels of service to evaluate intermedi-
ate improvements in transportation supply. This paper presents a
study undertaken that developed the forecasted level of service
共LOS兲 for several intersections using both the linear forecasting
of historical traffic data and a 1996 validated travel model with a
5-year socioeconomic forecast. These values were compared with
actual counts, delays, and levels of service calculated in 2001.
Methodology
This section presents the work performed to test whether urban
planning models are capable of providing intermediate traffic
counts for transportation analysis. Specifically, this section con-

JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 159

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2004.130:159-162.

 tains information on the intersections in the study, the trend line
analysis to obtain traffic counts, and the urban planning model
used to generate counts.
For this study, six major signalized intersections in Huntsville,
Ala., were selected. They include
1. University Drive and Jordan Lane,
2. Sparkman Drive and Holmes Avenue,
3. Sparkman Drive and Memorial Parkway,
4. Bob Wallace Avenue and Triana Boulevard,
5. Drake Avenue and Whitesburg Drive, and
6. Airport Road and Whitesburg Drive.
For each of these intersections, a current year traffic engineering
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by US CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND on 12/03/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

analysis was performed to determine the actual delay and level of

service. Using trend line analysis of historic count information
and a 1996 urban planning model forecasting 2001 traffic, two
forecasted sets of traffic counts were developed and used to de-
termine which method better reflects actual conditions 5 years
into the future.
The six intersections previously identified were observed dur-
ing lunch peak of the day, 12:00–1:00 pm. The data collected at
each intersection included through traffic, turning movements,
and geometric layout necessary to run the traffic engineering
analysis software. The Traffic Engineering Department of the city
of Huntsville provided signal timings for the six intersections
共Timothy Barnett, personal communication, February 20, 2002兲.
The city of Huntsville Traffic Engineering Department pro-
vided the historical traffic count maps, which were downloaded
from the Web site www.ci.huntsville.al.us 共‘‘Huntsville’’ 2002兲.
The maps represented a statistical, average annual daily traffic
volume for the roadways. To be useful for the analysis, these
counts were converted into an hourly traffic for the lunch peak of
the day. Peak hour volumes were estimated using a directionality
factor of 0.5 共NCHRP 1978兲 and an hourly factor using the 2001
traffic count map and the data collected for validation.
The same procedure was used to find the peak hour volumes
for all traffic approaches at all intersections, considered in the
analysis. The hourly factor was taken as a constant over time,
consistent with other sources 共NCHRP 1978兲. Historical traffic
count data for 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995 were selected to de-
velop the trend line and to forecast future traffic.
The next task was to determine the turning movements from
the approach volumes. When examining the count data, a meth-
odology was developed to convert the count data into turning
movement data using the counted volumes. After examining the
movements, it was necessary to make an assumption regarding
the percentage of through vehicles. The percentage of through
Fig. 1. Linear traffic projection for Jordan Lane and University
Drive northbound traffic
vehicles was determined in the data collection for validation and
it was assumed that this percentage remained constant for all
years. To solve for the remaining turning movements, a system of
equations with a linear program to maximize the volumes subject
to turning movement aggregation constraints was applied 共Smith
1983兲.
Then, the turning movement counts were plotted versus time
to develop a linear trend line, which was used to forecast the
traffic to the year 2001. A sample graph showing the trend lines
and forecasted values is shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1 shows the
final forecasted turning movements developed for 2001.
The second method explored for obtaining turning movements
to support intermediate transportation analysis used an urban
model. As mentioned, urban transportation models are typically
used to support major infrastructure improvements using a long-
term horizon. However, these models can also be used to forecast
traffic, through the four-step, travel-demand process, for any time
period. This ability to forecast for any time period is a function of
the appropriate socioeconomic forecast and network.
For the six study intersections, the model used in the analysis
was an archived 1996 Huntsville planning model 共supplied by the
transportation planning department of the Huntsville Metropolitan

Table 1. Traffic Counts in Year 2001 from Linear Projection

Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Jordan and 437 1,630 359 356 1,548 208 439 627 248 232 614 439
University
Sparkman and 319 437 60 0 621 319 158 667 248 122 899 259
Holmes
Sparkman and 27 275 338 269 304 124 104 1,596 269 275 1,334 233
Memorial
Bob Wallace 0 672 360 310 597 0 244 380 184 0 104 76
and Triana
Drake and 166 135 167 110 182 157 144 1,018 158 154 990 140
Whitesburg
Airport and 377 642 0 7 692 421 118 390 146 334 694 171
Whitesburg

160 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2004.130:159-162.

 Table 2. Traffic Counts in Year 2001 Summarized from Model
Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
University and 49 1,495 102 145 1,583 169 95 114 129 168 127 53
Jordan
Sparkman and 0 15 262 33 18 0 171 447 18 0 509 0
Holmes
Sparkman and 75 159 312 232 166 76 340 792 239 68 696 66
Memorial
Bob Wallace 0 131 2 58 130 31 2 224 56 39 169 0
and Triana
Drake and 21 68 57 25 84 60 77 352 28 80 419 35
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by US CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND on 12/03/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Whitesburg
Airport and 43 132 86 12 189 89 107 89 10 103 118 72
Whitesburg

Planning Organization兲 共James Moore, personal communication,
April 22, 2002兲. The 1996 model was developed in that year and
validated to 1995 traffic counts for Huntsville. The original, vali-
dated model was accompanied by a projected socioeconomic
forecast for the Huntsville metropolitan area and the 5-year trans-
portation improvement program 共James Moore, personal commu-
nication, April 22, 2002兲. The information was used to update the
socioeconomic and roadway network.
Taking the 2001 trip generation results and the updated road-
way network, the remaining steps of the travel-demand forecast-
ing process were performed in accordance with standard prac-
tices. The turning movement counts obtained from the urban
transportation model are shown in the Table 2.
Results and Conclusions
The results of the case study were used to determine if the trend
line forecasts or the urban planning model forecasts generate re-
sults that are more accurate for intermediate transportation analy-
sis. The highway capacity software 共HCS兲 package was used to
perform the traffic engineering analysis for the six case study
intersections. The results provided by the software package in-
clude approach delays, intersection delays, approach LOS, and
intersection LOS. The two methodologies to develop the fore-
casted traffic counts were analyzed using HCS. Table 3 shows the
intersection delays and LOS for all six intersections using the two
forecasting methodologies as well as the delay and level of ser-
vice obtained using the actual counts.
From Table 3, it can be observed that the LOS for four of the
six intersections in the study for the existing traffic counts and the
traffic counts from the urban planning model are the same. The
LOS for the trend line and the actual data do not agree for any of
the case study intersections and for five of the six intersections,
the trend line developed LOS was one letter grade higher than the
actual. One possible explanation for this is the self-limiting aspect
of traffic. Using the linear extrapolation of traffic, it is quite pos-
sible that the trend line forecast continued, while the actual traffic
began to level off as the volume neared the capacity.
In comparison, the urban planning model has the ability to
consider both socioeconomic activities and the congestion effects
while forecasting traffic into the future. The next step was to
examine the actual delay per vehicle calculated by the software
using the different methods as illustrated in Fig. 2. Four of the six
intersections resulted in less than 25% error between the urban
planning model and the actual data collected. In contrast, the
trend line analysis produced only one intersection with a percent
difference less than 26%. Fig. 2 shows how the models are com-
pared when calculating the intersection delay.
The University Drive and Jordan Lane intersection had similar
results for both forecasting methods. For this intersection, the
trend line and urban planning model both produced a level of
service of F, while the actual traffic counts generated a level of
service D. Examining the forecasted traffic for this intersection,
both methods predicted greater traffic than was actually observed
at this intersection. The additional traffic within the intersection
might be the cause of the large difference between the delays
calculated using the forecasting methods and the actual counts
based on the format of the delay equation, which includes both
stopped delay and overflow delay.
After examining Table 3, qualitative analysis concludes that
the urban planning model forecasted traffic-turning movement
volumes that produced results that better matched the existing

Table 3. Comparison of Delays and Level of Service

Projected using trend line
Actual counts 共actual兲 analysis 共projected兲 Urban model 共model兲
Delay Level of Delay Level of Delay Level of
Intersection 共s/vehicle兲 service 共s/vehicle兲 service 共s/vehicle兲 service
1. University and Jordan 44.7 D 103.8 F 123.4 F
2. Sparkman and Holmes 33.1 C 42.6 D 26.5 C
3. Sparkman and Memorial 47.9 D 77.0 E 42.8 D
4. BobWallace and Triana 31.2 C 44.9 D 31.5 C
5. Drake and Whitesburg 46.6 D 58.0 E 34.4 C
6. Airport and Whitesburg 33.9 C 54.3 D 26.0 C

JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004 / 161

J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2004.130:159-162.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by US CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND on 12/03/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Comparison of delays calculated by highway capacity
software
conditions than the trend line. However, in an attempt to quantify
the results, a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was conducted. The
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was applied to both forecasting mod-
els to test the hypothesis that the difference in delay values be-
tween the forecasting models and the actual conditions is zero
with some significance level 共Conover 1999兲. The application of
the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test to the case study data concluded
the following:
• Trend line data forecasts developed using HCS—we reject the
hypothesis that the difference between the actual and trend line
model is zero, proving that there is some significant difference
between the delay values of those two methods.
• Urban model forecasts developed using HCS—we do not re-
ject the hypothesis that the difference in delay values between
the actual and model is zero, proving that there is no signifi-
cant difference between the delay values of actual conditions
and model.
Quantitative analysis of the results proved that there is no signifi-
cant difference between the delay values of the actual conditions
and the validated urban model with 5% significance level.
162 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2004
J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2004.130:159-162.
The six intersections in the case study for Huntsville demon-
strate both qualitatively and quantitatively that using the validated
urban planning model provided more accurate forecasts of delay
and LOS than the traditional trend line forecast. Qualitatively, the
urban model forecasted the actual level of service and delay
within 25% for four of the six intersections. Quantitatively, the
results from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test reinforced our con-
clusion that the urban model more accurately predicted the travel
delay. The overall results of the case study imply that for inter-
sections which are not near the maximum volume, the use of
urban planning, with it’s ability to address socioeconomic condi-
tions and congested roadway route selection, provided more ac-
curate forecasts of delay and level of service upon which inter-
mediate transportation improvement decisions would be justified.
The improvements obtained in the ability to forecast delay and
LOS for intermediate analysis results from the urban planning
models’ ability to incorporate changes in socioeconomic charac-
teristics of the study area and model congestion effects of traffic.
These features of the urban modeling process represent an advan-
tage to the traditional trend line forecasting techniques currently
used if the projections do not fall on the linear portion of the
self-limiting curve. It needs to be stated that neither of the tech-
niques is proved successful and, is therefore not recommended for
intersections where the forecasted LOS approaches F or for inter-
sections where the volume of traffic is near the capacity.
Overall, this paper concludes that an urban planning model is
capable of providing accurate traffic data for intermediate trans-
portation analysis. Although small, this conclusion is important as
justification to integrate urban transportation models into traffic
engineering analysis.
References
Conover, W. J. 共1999兲. Practical non-parametric statistics, 3rd Ed.,
Wiley, New York.
Dickey, J. 共1983兲. Metropolitan transportation planning, 2nd Ed., Hemi-
sphere, Bristol, Pa.
‘‘Huntsville.’’ 共2002兲. 具http://www.ci.huntsville.al.us/Engineering/
TrafficEng/典 共February 19, 2002兲.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 共NCHRP兲. 共1978兲.
‘‘Quick response urban travel estimation techniques and transferable
parameters.’’ Transportation Research Record 187, Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, D.C.
Smith, A., Hinton, E., and Lewis, R. 共1983兲. Civil engineering systems
analysis and design, Wiley, New York.