127 views

Uploaded by maucoi

- Fourth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Fuzzy Logic (AI & FL 2016)
- modellingguidelines.pdf
- Fuzzy Logic Sun Tracking Control
- Fuzzy
- Neuro Fuzzy
- IJERTV1IS7386
- Transportation Planning_Theory Part
- Genetic Algorithms
- Automated Landform Classification
- 34207
- Eureka Sample
- GRA Method of Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Single Valued Neutrosophic Hesitant Fuzzy Set Information
- AIFL
- SOME OPERATIONS ON NEUTROSOPHIC FUZZY GRAPHS
- Parametric Optimization of Wire EDM by Using Fuzzy Logic 08 Aug
- Report - Fuzzy Inference System – Automated Vehicle Control System
- system thinking
- Neutrosophic Diagram and Classes of Neutrosophic Paradoxes or to the Outer-Limits of Science
- Batch 22 Final Documentation
- Fuzzy Systems

You are on page 1of 250

by

Didik Rudjito

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London and for the Diploma of Imperial College

Centre for Transport Studies Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine London SW7 2BU

December 2006

Declaration

I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis has been carried out by myself.

. ( Didik Rudjito )

Abstract

Most traffic assignment models used to evaluate transportation networks consider only a single user class. However, assignment models have been proposed to take account of variations in the cost functions, termed multi-class traffic assignment models. Most research work in developed countries leads to the development of traffic assignment models based on four or more wheeled motor vehicles, and generally vehicle flows are considered in passenger car units (pcu). It is known that these models often produce inappropriate results when implemented in developing countries, due to the very different traffic composition. It is demonstrated in this thesis that it is not, in general, possible to reduce flow to pcu (or equivalent) to estimate class-specific link travel times.

A multi-class traffic assignment model is developed using traffic data from Indonesia, where the link travel time function of each vehicle class is based on the concept of fuzzy logic and a multi-dimensional lookup table. A conventional traffic assignment model based on the Bureau of Public Road (BPR) functions is also developed for the comparison to the proposed fuzzy model. The network equilibrium flows and travel times of both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model are found by the Method of Successive Average (MSA).

Bandung city arterial road network has been chosen as the numerical example in order to illustrate the efficiency of the proposed fuzzy model. The best fuzzy set membership functions have been sought by repeated applications of the model to the real network. In this example, the validation results of both the proposed fuzzy and nonfuzzy models are also presented in order to indicate the advantages and the disadvantages of those models in conjunction with the characteristics of mixed traffic data. The author believes that the resulting of the proposed fuzzy model is suitable for multi-class traffic data from developing countries.

Acknowledgements

I feel deeply indebted to Professor Michael G.H. Bell, my supervisor, for his guidance, advice and encouragement throughout the period of this research. It would be impossible to complete this thesis without his great patient and valuable supervision.

I would like to thank Professor Mike Taylor from the University of South Australia for advice and feedback on the multi-class traffic data from Indonesia at the early stage of this research. I would also like to thank Dr. Fumitaka Kurauchi from the University of Kyoto for guidance on developing computer programme while he spent his visiting academic at the Centre for Transport Studies. Thanks also go to all member of Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College and Transport Operation Research Group, University of Newcastle upon Tyne for their continuous support.

Also I would like to thank my examiners Dr. Nick Hounsell and Professor Benjamin Heydecker for providing meaningful feedback on this thesis.

I would like to extend my thankfulness to the members of the Ministry of Public Works: Mr. Frankie Tayu and Mrs. Sri Apriliani, the Directors of the Directorate General of Highways, Dr. I.F. Poernomosidhi, the Director of Spatial Planning, Dr. Syahdanulirwan, the Director of IRE, Mr. Agus Bari Sailendra, the Head of Traffic Laboratory of IRE and Mrs. Lanalyawati, the Project Manager in IRE for their encouragement and providing financial support. Thanks also to Dr. J. Dwiartanto and Pantja Dharma Oetojo for their help and feedback throughout this research.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my family for their patience, continuous moral support and encouragement during this research, especially to my parents, my wife Ati and the children Resti, Reskandi, Rezkita and Resmila.

Contents

Abstract3 Acknowledgements..4 Contents....5 List of Tables....9 List of Figures11 Chapter 1 Introduction..15 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Background15 Statement of the Problem...18 Objectives...20 Methodology..21 Thesis Structure..23

Chapter 2 Literature Review.26 2.1 2.2 Introduction....26 The Foundation of Fuzzy Logic.27 2.2.1 Fuzzy Set...28 2.2.2 Membership Function.......29 2.2.3 Mathematical Concept for Fuzzy Logic....31 2.2.4 Basic Operations.......35 2.3 2.4 Fuzzy Inference System.....35 The Fundamentals of Traffic Assignment......46 2.4.1 The Development of Traffic Assignment.....46 2.4.2 Network Equilibrium........51 2.4.3 Trip Matrices.....53 2.4.4 Network Representation56 2.4.5 Mathematical Approach of Network Equilibrium........58 2.4.5.1 User Equilibrium......58

2.4.5.2 Beckmanns Formulation .59 2.4.5.3 System Optimal....60 2.4.5.4 Variational Inequalities.....61 2.4.6 Link Cost Functions......61 2.4.6.1 Cost Functions for Long Straight Sections of Road.....63 2.4.6.2 Cost functions at Junctions...64 2.4.6.3 Empirical Traffic Data for Link Cost Function66 2.4.6.4 Model Properties...69 2.4.7 Models of the Static Traffic Assignment......71 2.4.7.1 Deterministic Assignment72 2.4.7.2 Stochastic Assignment..74 2.4.8 Solution Algorithm........79 2.5 Multi-Class Assignment.85 2.5.1 Introduction...85 2.5.2 The Development of Multi-Class Assignment..86 2.5.3 Passenger Car Unit (PCU)........88 2.5.4 Formulation.......89 2.5.4.1 The Disaggregation of Travel Demand....90 2.5.4.2 The Disaggregation of Transportation Supply.....90 2.5.4.3 Mathematical Approach of Network Equilibrium for Multi-Class..91 2.5.5 Solution Algorithm ...92 2.6 2.7 Statistical Method for Model Validation96 Conclusions99

Chapter 3 Fuzzy Logic Approaches for Network Assignment.....100 3.1 3.2 3.3 Introduction..100 Fuzzy Variables and Operations..101 Route Choice Behaviour with Fuzzy Number.103 3.3.1 The Representative Value.......103 3.3.2 The Possibility Measure..105 3.3.2.1 Definition of Possibility Measures.....105 3.3.2.2 Comparison of Fuzzy Numbers with Proposed Measures..106 3.3.2.3 Possibility Indices...106

3.3.2.4 The Fuzzy Goal...107 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 The Fuzzy Traffic Assignment Based on F-W Algorithm...108 The Fuzzy Traffic Assignment Based on MSA Algorithm.....110 Fuzzy Traffic Flow...113 Conclusions..115

Chapter 4 Data..116 4.1 4.2 4.3 Introduction..116 Survey Preparation...117 Data Collection.118 4.3.1 Site Selection..118 4.3.2 Video Camera and Measurement124 4.3.3 Placement of Video Camera and Recorded124 4.3.4 Timing of Survey127 4.4 Data Reduction.128 4.4.1 Raw Data.128 4.4.2 Vehicle Classification.129 4.4.3 Traffic Flow129 4.4.4 Traffic Composition131 4.4.5 Travel Time....131 4.5 Secondary Data133 4.5.1 O-D Matrix Data.....133 4.5.2 Road and Traffic Flow Data133 4.6 Conclusions..135

Chapter 5 Model Development and Formulation..136 5.1 5.2 Introduction..136 Model Development.136 5.2.1 Fuzzy Set Membership Functions for Flow....136 5.2.2 Lookup Table..142 5.3 5.4 5.5 Formulation..145 BPR Functions for Multi-Class Traffic Data...153 Demonstration of Anisotropic Behaviour....163

5.6

Conclusions..165

Chapter 6 The Solution Method......167 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Introduction..167 The Solution Algorithm for Application of Fuzzy Logic167 The Solution Algorithm for Conventional Traffic Assignment...170 Conclusions..172

Chapter 7 Numerical Calculation...173 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Introduction..173 Bandung Arterial Road Network.173 O-D Matrix...177 Multi Class Link Travel Time as Input in the Traffic Assignment Process.180 Computation Results186 7.5.1 Link Flow....186 7.5.2 Link Travel Time188 7.5.3 Convergence...193 7.6 7.7 7.8 Model Validation.199 Discussions...203 Conclusions..208

Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research.209 8.1 8.2 8.3 Introduction..209 Conclusions..209 Recommendation for Future Research.211

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Distribution of motor vehicles in selected countries (1980-83)..16 Table 2.1 Typical Speed-Flow Curve Coefficient in the UK..68 Table 2.2 Classification of Traffic Assignment Models......71 Table 4.1 The Counted of Traffic Flow.129 Table 4.2 Data Available...............................................................................................130 Table 4.3 Data available for each vehicle types........130 Table 4.4 Traffic Composition..131 Table 4.5 The Count of Traffic Flow and Travel Time.132 Table 4.6 The Growth Factor (base year 1997).134 Table 5.1 Corresponding Parameter..139 Table 5.2 Percentile Values of Flow.141 Table 5.3 Travel time for 2/2UD based on 300 m (seconds)....143 Table 5.4 Travel time for 4/2UD based on 300 m (seconds)....143 Table 5.5 Travel time for 4/2D based on 300 m (seconds).......143 Table 5.6 Travel time for 3/1UD based on 300 m (seconds)....143 Table 5.7 Flow Combinations...144 Table 5.8 Lookup Table (mean)144 Table 5.9 Lookup Table (median).144 Table 5.10 Input Data....150 Table 5.11 Travel time over 300 m based on mean travel time (in seconds)....152 Table 5.12 Travel time over 300 m based on median travel time (in seconds).152 Table 5.13 Parameter of BPR Functions ..162 Table 5.14 Pcu Value of 10...164 Table 5.15 Travel Time Results165 Table 7.1 Links on the Network....174 Table 7.2 The O-D Matrix Coefficient Factors.....175 Table 7.3 O-D Matrix for LV178 Table 7.4 O-D Matrix for HV178

Table 7.5 O-D Matrix for MC...179 Table 7.6 O-D Matrix for UM...179 Table 7.7 Lookup Table P10P60 for LV based on the Road Network (in seconds)...181 Table 7.8 Lookup Table P10P60 for HV based on the Road Network (in seconds)...182 Table 7.9 Lookup Table P10P60 for MC based on the Road Network (in seconds)..183 Table 7.10 Lookup Table P10P60 for UM based on the Road Network (in seconds)184 Table 7.11 BPR Parameters...185 Table 7.12 Link Flows Results..187 Table 7.13 Link Travel Time Results for LV....189 Table 7.14 Link Travel Time Results for HV...190 Table 7.15 Link Travel Time Results for MC...191 Table 7.16 Link Travel Time Results for UM...192 Table 7.17 Model of Results and Observed Link Travel Time for LV.200 Table 7.18 Equations of Linear Regression...201 Table 7.19 The Value of SSE.....202

10

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Isotropic Mapping for m Classes....19 Figure 1.2 Anisotropic Mapping for m Classes.......19 Figure 1.3 Basic Concept of the Methodology Proposed....22 Figure 2.1a Triangular.....29 Figure 2.1b Trapezoidal...29 Figure 2.2a Parameters of the Membership Function......30 Figure 2.2b Fuzzy Singleton31 Figure 2.3 An example of an S - function...33 Figure 2.4 An example of a - function.33 Figure 2.5 An example of an L - function...34 Figure 2.6 An example of a A - function.34 Figure 2.7 Fuzzy Inference System.36 Figure 2.8a Clipping Method...38 Figure 2.8b Scaling Method38 Figure 2.9 Defuzzyfier Methods..39 Figure 2.10 2-Inputs, 1-Output, and 2-Rules System......40 Figure 2.11 Mamdani Diagram...43 Figure 2.12a A Sugeno Rule Operation...44 Figure 2.12b Sugeno Diagram.....45 Figure 2.13 A Traffic Area Defined by a Cordon Line and Various Trips.....54 Figure 2.14 The O-D Matrix............................................................................................55 Figure 2.15 A section of Transport Network...57 Figure 2.16 Network Redrawn for Computer Simulation...57 Figure 2.17 Link Cost Function...62 Figure 2.18 The Fundamental Diagram...63 Figure 2.19 Speed-flow relationship and link cost function for long straight sections...64 Figure 2.20 Coordinate Transformation (for zero initial queue).....65 Figure 2.21 Example of a stable equilibrium..70

11

Figure 2.22 Example of an unstable equilibrium70 Figure 2.23 A Two Link Network...72 Figure 2.24 DUE Assignment for increasing cost functions...73 Figure 2.25 DUE Assignment for right angle cost functions..73 Figure 2.26 SUE Assignment for increasing cost functions....78 Figure 2.27 SUE Assignment for right angle cost functions...78 Figure 3.1 Fuzzy Travel Time...101 Figure 3.2 Addition of Two Fuzzy Numbers....102 Figure 3.3 Descriptive Travel Time with Fuzzy Number.104 Figure 3.4 Possibility Measures for Fuzzy Number B to A......107 Figure 3.5 Fuzzy Goal G...108 Figure 3.6 Possibility Measures for Fuzzy Travel Time...111 Figure 3.7 Fuzzy Vehicle Platoon.....115 Figure 4.1 Survey Sites..119 Figure 4.2 Road Type 2/2UD....120 Figure 4.3 Road Type 4/2UD....121 Figure 4.4 Road Type 4/2D...122 Figure 4.5 Road Type 3/1UD....123 Figure 4.6 Distance between Two Cameras..125 Figure 4.7 Video Camera Installation....126 Figure 4.8 Observation Line Installation...127 Figure 4.9 Observation Raw of Camera Data128 Figure 4.10 Position Vehicle Sample132 Figure 5.1 Fuzzy Set L..137 Figure 5.2 Fuzzy Set H..137 Figure 5.3 Fuzzy Sets Link Flow...138 Figure 5.4 The Fuzzified Link travel Time Functions...140 Figure 5.5 Determination of the Travel Time Value for the Lookup Table......142 Figure 5.6 Fuzzy Sets Link Flow with Low LoB q and High LoB r.145 Figure 5.7a The fuzzified link travel time function for two vehicle classes.....147 Figure 5.7b Fuzzy Inference System Diagram for the Fuzzy Proposed Model149 Figure 5.8 Level of Belief for LV......150 Figure 5.9 Level of Belief for HV.151

12

Figure 5.10 Level of Belief for MC...151 Figure 5.11 Level of Belief for UM..151 Figure 5.12 The BPR Function of LV for 2/2UD (519 data)154 Figure 5.13 The BPR Function of HV for 2/2UD (377 data)....154 Figure 5.14 The BPR Function of MC for 2/2UD (518 data)...155 Figure 5.15 The BPR Function of UM for 2/2UD (139 data)...155 Figure 5.16 The BPR Function of LV for 4/2UD (523 data)156 Figure 5.17 The BPR Function of HV for 4/2UD (374 data)....156 Figure 5.18 The BPR Function of MC for 4/2UD (523 data)...157 Figure 5.19 The BPR Function of UM for 4/2UD (318 data)...157 Figure 5.20 The BPR Function of LV for 4/2D (528 data)...158 Figure 5.21 The BPR Function of HV for 4/2D (265 data)...158 Figure 5.22 The BPR Function of MC for 4/2D (527 data)..159 Figure 5.23 The BPR Function of UM for 4/2D (386 data)..159 Figure 5.24 The BPR Function of LV for 3/IUD (522 data).160 Figure 5.25 The BPR Function of HV for 3/IUD (248 data)....160 Figure 5.26 The BPR Function of MC for 3/IUD (504 data)....161 Figure 5.27 The BPR Function of UM for 3/IUD (479 data)....161 Figure 5.28 Flowchart of the Test Procedure for Anisotropism....164 Figure 6.1 The Flowchart of the Fuzzy Traffic Assignment.171 Figure 6.2 The Flowchart of the BPR Function....172 Figure 7.1 Bandung Arterial Road Network.176 Figure 7.2 Convergence for P10-P60194 Figure 7.3 Convergence for P10-P70194 Figure 7.4 Convergence for P10-P80194 Figure 7.5 Convergence for P10-P90194 Figure 7.6 Convergence for P20-P60195 Figure 7.7 Convergence for P20-P70195 Figure 7.8 Convergence for P20-P80195 Figure 7.9 Convergence for P20-P90195 Figure 7.10 Convergence for P30-P60..196 Figure 7.11 Convergence for P30-P70..196 Figure 7.12 Convergence for P30-P80..196

13

Figure 7.13 Convergence for P30-P90..196 Figure 7.14 Convergence for P40-P60..197 Figure 7.15 Convergence for P40-P70..197 Figure 7.16 Convergence for P40-P80..197 Figure 7.17 Convergence for P40-P90..197 Figure 7.18 Convergence for BPR198 Figure 7.19 The fit regression lines for the membership function of P10-P90 and the BPR Function......203 Figure 7.20 The effect of Pa - P0 and P100 - Pb on c0 and c m ......204 Figure 7.21 The various types of the fuzzified link travel time functions.....205 Figure 7.22 Comparison between the fuzzy traffic assignment model and the BPR assignment model...206

14

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

Transportation systems play an important role in all modern cities of the world. Poor operation of the transportation system leads to congestion, delays, accidents and environmental problems. This can have an adverse impact on the national economy. Therefore, comprehensive transportation planning is needed in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness.

A conventional approach to transportation planning has four stages; trip generation, trip distribution, modal split and traffic assignment. Trip generation predicts the total number of trips in a study area. Trip distribution predicts a matrix of trip frequencies between production and attraction zones. Modal split estimates the division of trips between the different modes of transport and traffic assignment estimates traffic flow within the transportation network. The result of the last stage is essential for the transportation planner or traffic engineer to support decisions or policies relating to the transport infrastructure.

The definition of traffic assignment is the process of allocating given vehicle trips between points of entry to, and exit from, a network to routes between these points (Charlesworth, 1975). An assignment process requires large amounts of input data. These include the Origin-Destination (O-D) matrix of vehicle trips, the topology of the road network to which the trips are to be assigned and the form of relationship between link flow and link travel time, called the link cost function.

15

The road traffic assignment process selects the routes through the network used by vehicles travelling between all O-D pairs and loads the routes. The outputs of assignment are generally a set of link statistics, like link flows, costs or delays and possibly also path statistics, like path flows, costs or delays (Bell and Iida, 1997). Link flows and path flows are then used to calculate an array of measures, which can be used, in turn, to evaluate the network alternative improvement proposals and to assist in designing future transportation systems (Traffic Assignment Manual, 1964). The equilibrium approach is the most used in the traffic assignment process to represent the interaction between the demand and the supply of the transportation planning procedure.

Traffic assignment in developing countries has received relatively little attention due to the difficulties in formulating a suitable model. Existing models, used widely in developed countries, must be adapted by careful analysis of the local conditions, because of the very great differences between the traffic characteristics in developed countries and developing countries.

The differences of traffic composition between developed countries and developing countries are illustrated in the table below (Thagesen, 1996). This shows that the traffic composition is dominated by cars in developed countries (Denmark and USA), and by motorcycles in developing countries (Indonesia and Thailand).

Number in 1000s Cars Buses Commercial vehicles Motorcycles Indonesia 866 (15%) 160 (3%) 718 (12%) 4136 (70%) Thailand 450 (21%) 67 (3%) 433 (20%) 1178 (55%) Denmark 1440 (83%) 8 (0.5%) 245 (14%) 40 (2%) USA 126737 (75%) 587 (0.3%) 36547 (22%) 5584 (3%)

16

In addition, non-motorised vehicles may occupy road space and influence the traffic flow in developing countries.

It is clearly that the traffic composition (mixture of vehicle types) in the traffic flow is the most important factor identified as a problem in the context of traffic assignment models for developing countries, because it will affect the pattern of traffic flow.

The Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM, 1997) presents data on the traffic composition, based on data from 11 cities of different sizes. The ratio of passenger cars in the traffic stream varies between 20% and 50%, and increases with city size. The ratio of trucks, buses and motorcycles does not vary with city size. The proportion of motorcycles is 40% on average. The ratio of non-motorised vehicles drops with city size. In India (Marwah and Reddy, 1978) the traffic consists of different categories of fast- and slow-moving vehicles, also with wide variations in the characteristics of two and four wheeled vehicles. Engineering design with mixed vehicular traffic is complex in the absence of a proper understanding of the engineering system proposed. Traffic flow is stochastic in nature and the speeds are probabilistic. An essential characteristic of traffic in developing countries, which distinguishes it from traffic in developed countries, is large day-to-day fluctuations. In the city, where speeds are generally high in spite of chaotic interaction between traffic and pedestrians, speeds may fall suddenly and significantly with no very obvious explanation. In far-eastern countries, speeds of 5 kph occur whenever there is a special event, and this includes days before all holidays, end of the week, end of the calendar month and so on (Huddart, 1978).

It is essential to develop a full understanding of the magnitude of the mixed traffic effects and interactions on route choice in traffic assignment. Therefore, a multi-class approach to assignment is an interesting avenue for research because it can be distinctive characteristics, particularly cost function of each vehicle class. Moreover, an application of fuzzy logic concept that can be suitable for uncertainty with particular

17

reference to link costs is essential. These approaches are to enhance link cost functions that can lead to more accurate estimates of flow in the traffic assignment process. They offer the prospect of an appropriate traffic assignment model for developing countries.

1.2

Most traffic assignment models used in practice to evaluate transportation networks consider only a single user class. However, assignment models have been proposed to take account of variations across network users in the link cost functions, termed multi-class traffic assignment.

Research work in western countries has led to the development of traffic assignment models suitable for four or more wheeled motor vehicles, and generally vehicle flows are considered in passenger car units (pcu), in other words single user class assignment models. It is known that these models often produce inappropriate results in developing countries, for example flow predictions are in general too high and travel times are overestimated (Bang, 1993). Traffic composition is not uniform in developing countries, since various types of vehicle, such as passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles and non-motorised vehicles (bicycles, tricycles, and animal-drawn vehicles) make up the traffic, and traffic composition finally has a significant effect on speed.

The impact of the mixture of vehicle types leads to complex problems in traffic assignment as the relationship between flow and travel time is not isotropic (it is in fact anisotropic). This means that pcu or equivalent can not be used. Hence, to suit the characteristics of developing countries there is a need for a multi-class traffic assignment model that allows for uncertainty regarding link costs. Fuzzy logic offers a framework for dealing with uncertainty.

18

(cm )

that are, respectively, isotropic and anisotropic are illustrated in Figure 1.1 and

v1

c1 v

v2

pcu' s

c2

v1

v11 c

v2

c2

m

vm

19

m m m

vm

1.3

Objectives

The overall objective of this research is to develop a model by applying the fuzzy logic concept to multi-class traffic assignment, based on traffic characteristics found in Indonesia. The model developed is an important tool for estimating link flows and link travel times more accurately on a network, and a guideline for supporting transport infrastructure policies.

The specific objectives of this research are divided into three tasks as follows:

Firstly, the modelling of multi-class User Equilibrium (UE) assignment problems where each vehicle class has its own link cost function. These link cost functions consider the interaction between different vehicle classes on each link in a nonseparable way. The vehicle classes used in this model correspond to the IHCM vehicle classification. Due to the uncertainty of the relationship between flow and travel time data, these multi-class link cost functions are implemented by using the fuzzy logic concept and lookup tables. Membership functions relate flow to level of belief. Lookup tables contain travel-time data categorised by the combination of each vehicle class on the link. This achieves an anisotropic multi-class mapping between flow and travel time based on data from some links in Bandung City , Indonesia.

Secondly, the modelling leads to the development of an appropriate solution algorithm for finding the multi-class UE assignment. The Method of Successive Averages (MSA) is applied to the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model in this research. In the fuzzy model, the link flow vector is converted into a set of fuzzy set levels of belief which are used to weight elements of the lookup table in order to obtain class-specific estimates of link travel times. However, in the comparative conventional model, a link cost functions for each vehicle class based on the Bureau of Public Road (BPR) functions are used. The vehicle flows in these functions are measured in pcus. The comparison is important to establish the capability of the fuzzy approach to assignment proposed here.

20

In addition, for the proposed fuzzy model, the impacts on UE assignment of various types of defuzzifier rules are examined. This examination is particularly to show the characteristics of the defuzzifier rules.

Thirdly, the proposed fuzzy and non-fuzzy models are validated by application to a real network. This validation uses statistical tests for both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model. The results of the statistical tests indicate the advantages and the disadvantages of both models in conjunction with mixed traffic data. This task seeks to show the potential of the fuzzy model for dealing with uncertainty regarding the relationship between flow and travel time on links.

1.4

Methodology

For the purposes of solving the problem, as described in the statement of the problem above, fuzzy logic has been applied to multi-class traffic assignment in order to suit the characteristics of developing countries. The relationship between link flow and link travel time (or speed) is complex and subject to considerable noise. Consequently, the link cost functions are replaced by applying the fuzzy logic concept and lookup tables based on traffic data collected from some links in Bandung City, Indonesia.

The fuzzy logic approach used in this research mainly has three components which are based on the concept of the fuzzy inference system, namely the fuzzifier, levels of belief and the defuzzifier. The function of the fuzzifier is to convert multi-class flow (MCF) into levels of belief (LoB) in input fuzzy set membership function. The establishment of this membership function is based on a percentile of flow data. The lookup table of travel time is produced from travel time survey data. The function of the defuzzifier is to convert the levels of belief in output fuzzy set membership function to a crisp decision variable i.e. Multi-Class link Travel Time (MCTT). The MCTT is then used as the main input to the assignment process.

21

As explained above, the defuzzifier rules produce MCTT input to the assignment process. The solution technique used for solving the multi-class assignment problem in this research is the MSA. A series of All-or-Nothing (AoN) network loadings, leading to Multi-Class Auxiliary link Flows (MCAF), are then averaged. The output of each iteration is Multi-Class link Flow (MCF). Averaging is repeated until convergence is reached or until iterations cease for some other reasons. This solution technique is also used in the conventional model as well in this research. The results of the assignment process for both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model are then compared with the observed data from the site survey in the validation procedure. The performances of the validation results for the two models are evaluated. In this case, the conclusion of the proposed fuzzy model can be determined: whether it is more beneficial than the conventional model, or otherwise, in terms of the phenomena of mixed traffic in developing countries.

The assignment procedure has been implemented in a software program via Delphi version 6. The prototype model is named ITAPro (Indonesian Traffic Assignment Program). The basic concept of the model methodology proposed in this thesis is illustrated in Figure 1.3 below.

Multi-class link travel time function based on Fuzzy Logic and Lookup Table

MCF Fuzzifier

LoB

MCTT Defuzzifier

Lookup Table

MCAF

22

1.5

Thesis Structure

In Chapter 2, a detailed review of the relevant literature is presented. A review of fuzzy logic that is broken into two sections; the foundation of fuzzy logic and the fuzzy inference system is presented in Section 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. The foundation of fuzzy logic includes the theory of fuzzy set, membership functions, mathematical concept for fuzzy logic and basic operations. The fuzzy inference system describes the rules, the fuzzifier, the inference engine, and the defuzzifier. The fundamental of traffic assignment, including the development of traffic assignment, network equilibrium, trip matrices, network representation, mathematical approach of network equilibrium, link cost functions, and models of the static traffic assignment are reviewed in Section 2.4. The solution of multi-class assignment problems is described separately in Section 2.5. The statistical approach to model validation is presented in Section 2.6.

In Chapter 3, the literature reviewed focuses on the application of fuzzy logic to traffic assignment. Fuzzy variables and operations which are most commonly used in fuzzy traffic assignment models are presented in Section 3.2. The concepts of route choice behaviour with fuzzy number are presented in Section 3.3. Some traffic assignment models which focus on the Frank Wolf (F-W) algorithm to solve the problem are described in Section 3.4. Some traffic assignment models using the MSA algorithm are described in Section 3.5. A short section on fuzzy traffic flow is presented in Section 3.6, to illustrate vehicle platoon as a fuzzy set.

In Chapter 4, survey preparation is given in Section 4.2. Data collection is described in Section 4.3. Data collection is classified into four main tasks. The first is site selection. The second is the use of a video camera to provide link flow and link travel time measurements. The third is the placement of the camera and recording technique, and the fourth is the timing of the survey. The method of data reduction is presented in Section 4.4. This covers the observation of raw camera data, the classification of vehicles based on the IHCM, the determination of traffic flow, the estimation of traffic composition from the IHCM and the determination of travel time.

23

The collection of secondary data, particularly the O-D matrix, arterial road map and road network data, are presented in Section 4.5.

In Chapter 5, the development of models for the equilibrium multi-class traffic assignment problem will be dealt with in Section 5.2. This development introduces the setting up of fuzzy set membership functions for multi-class flows and the development of lookup table for multi-class travel time from the site survey data. The formulation of an anisotropic multi-class traffic assignment model and an example of the defuzzified link travel time are presented in Section 5.3. The description of the calibration BPR functions with multi-class traffic data is given in Section 5.4. In Section 5.5, the demonstration of the difference isotropic BPR function and anisotropic fuzzy travel time functions is presented.

In Chapter 6, appropriate solution methods for both the application of fuzzy logic and lookup tables to multi-class assignment and the conventional traffic assignment model are described. The development of a solution algorithm and the constructing of the computing program as a flowchart for both models are described in Section 6.2 and 6.3 respectively.

In Chapter 7, numerical results are presented for a real example of the arterial road network in Bandung City, Indonesia. The location of the network for this research is described in Section 7.2. The O-D matrix data is presented in Section 7.3. The multiclass link travel time as input in the traffic assignment process for both the proposed fuzzy model and the BPR model is presented in Section 7.4. The computational results, which include link flow and link travel time as well as convergence statistics, are presented in Section 7.5. The model validation for link travel times, which compares computational results with observed data is described in Section 7.6. Discussion of the results and the characteristics of the models used in this research are presented in Section 7.7.

24

In Chapter 8, conclusions of the research are presented in Section 8.2. A recommendations for future research is presented in Section 8.3.

25

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Introduction

This research is focused particularly on the application of fuzzy logic to the problem of multi-class traffic assignment by applying mixed traffic data from developing countries. Literature on the foundation of fuzzy logic and the fundamentals of the traffic assignment process with its existing solution methods is reviewed.

The elements of the fuzzy logic concept, such as fuzzy sets, membership functions, mathematical concept and basic operations, are described. The application process of fuzzy logic in terms of the mapping from a given input to an output, known as fuzzy inference, is presented. The components of fuzzy inference in the system are described. The traffic assignment problem is described as the interactions between transportation demand and supply. The result of this interaction that is the network equilibrium is reviewed. The demand on the network that is represented by the origin and destination pairs is described. The physical network representation of supply side with detail levels is introduced. The mathematical concepts of this problem are described. The cost functions including some model properties of solutions to traffic assignment in terms of satisfaction of conditions for good behaviour are reviewed. The types of the static traffic assignment models are reviewed. Solution algorithms which are the most common to solve traffic assignment problems are presented. Multi-class assignment, which is the disaggregation of the traffic assignment process, is introduced and a formulation and solution method to it is presented. Statistical methods for traffic assignment model validation are presented, while the fuzzy logic applied to traffic assignment is reviewed in the following chapter (Chapter 3).

26

2.2

Fuzzy logic has been accepted as an emerging technology in the last two decades because of a wide range of successful applications, such as in industrial processes and automotive applications. The term fuzzy logic has been used in two different senses. It is thus important to clarify the distinction between these two different usages of the term. In the narrow sense, fuzzy logic refers to a logical system that generalises classical two-valued logic for reasoning under uncertainty. However in a wider sense, which is in predominant use on a daily basis, fuzzy logic refers to all of the theories and technologies that employ fuzzy sets, which relate to classes of objects with unsharp boundaries where membership is a matter of degree (Yen and Langari, 1999). The mathematical background of fuzzy logic is associated to the fuzzy set theory, which is the extended of the classical set theory. The following statement lays the foundation of fuzzy logic (Bogenberger, 2001).

The basic concept underlying fuzzy logic is that of a linguistic variable, that is, a variable whose values are words rather than numbers. Although words are often less precise than numbers, their use is closer to human perception. Another basic concept in fuzzy logic, which plays an important role in most of its applications, is that of a fuzzy if-then rule, called a fuzzy rule or fuzzy inference system that is described in the following section. In general, fuzzy logic as a concept is easy to understand, because the mathematical aspects behind fuzzy reasoning are very simple. It is also tolerant of imprecise data. Fuzzy logic is based on natural language used by people on a daily basis.

In this section, the four important elements, namely the fuzzy set, the membership function, mathematical concept, and basic operations are described in order to understand the foundations of the fuzzy logic concept.

27

A crisp set is defined in such a way as to dichotomise objects in some given universe of discourse into two groups: members that certainly belong to the set and nonmembers that certainly do not. However, for a fuzzy set, a function can be generated such that the values assigned to the elements of the universal set fall in a specified range and indicate the membership grade of these elements in the set in question (Wang and Liao, 1997). So a fuzzy set is a set without a crisp, clearly defined boundary. It can contain elements with only a partial degree of membership (Matlab, 1999).

The first publication on fuzzy set theory by Zadeh (1965) shows the intention to generalise the classical notion of a set and a statement to accommodate fuzziness. He writes as follows:

The notion of the fuzzy set provides a convenient point of departure for the construction of a conceptual framework which parallels in many respects the framework used in the case of ordinary sets, but is more general than the latter and, potentially, may prove to have a much wider scope of applicability, particularly in the fields of pattern classification and information processing. Essentially, such a framework provides a natural way of dealing with problems in which the source of imprecision is the absence of sharply defined criteria of class membership rather than the presence of random variables.

The word imprecision here is meant in the sense of vagueness rather than the lack of knowledge about the value of a parameter. Fuzzy set theory provides a strict mathematical framework in which vague conceptual phenomena can be precisely and rigorously studied (Zimmermann, 1996). The notion of a fuzzy set is completely nonstatistical in nature (Zadeh, 1965). Fuzzy set theory takes the same logical approach as people have been doing with classical set theory. In the classical set theory, as soon as the two-valued characteristic function has been defined and adopted, rigorous mathematics follows. However, in the fuzzy set case, as soon as a multi-valued

28

characteristic function (the membership function) has been chosen, a rigorous mathematical theory can be developed (Chen and Pam, 2000).

A membership function can be designed in three ways: (1) Interview those who are familiar with the underlying concept and later adjust it based on a tuning strategy, (2) Construct it automatically from data, and (3) Learn it based on feedback from the system performance (Yen and Langari, 1999). The first method was commonly used by researchers until the late 1980s and is still a useful way if there is sufficient a priori knowledge about the control system. Because of the poor systematic tuning strategy, most fuzzy systems are tuned using a trial and error process. This has become one of the points of criticism in fuzzy logic technology. Fortunately, some techniques have become available for developing the second two methods since the late 80s, for example the statistical techniques. Parameterisable functions that can be defined by a small number of parameters, although one may struggle to define a membership function of arbitrary shape, are mostly recommended in building membership functions. The parameterisable membership functions can not only reduce the system design time, they can also provide the automated tuning of the system because desired changes to the membership function (e.g. widening vs narrowing a membership function) can be directly related to corresponding changes in the related parameters. The most parameterisable membership functions used are the triangular and trapezoidal membership functions as shown in Figure 2.1a and Figure 2.1b.

29

The illustration of the parameters for the membership functions (example only for triangular type) is presented in Figure 2.2a.

degree of membership

left width

right width

0.5

0

core

input variable

Figure 2.2a Parameters of the Membership Function Notes on Figure 2.2a: The core of the membership functions is the value of the base variable where the membership function is equal to 1. The core of triangular type membership functions is equal to the peak value of membership function. The support of the membership function is the value of the base variable whose degree of membership is greater than 0. The cross point level occurs where the degree of membership is equal to 0.5. The left and right width of the membership function is the first value of the base variables on the left or right side of the peak value whose degree of membership is 0. If the left width is equal to the right width then the membership function is symmetric, otherwise it is asymmetric. The membership function that has a single point in the universe of discourse is called a fuzzy singleton (Jang, Sun and Mizutani, 1997). The core and support of this type has the single value of the base variable. The fuzzy singleton is illustrated in Figure 2.2b.

30

degree of membership

1

0.5 0

core and support input variable

The constructing of the membership function should be (see Dombi, 1990): all membership functions map an interval [ , ] to [0,1] , [ , ] [0,1],

the membership functions are (a) monotonically increasing, (b) monotonically decreasing, or (c) could be divided into monotonically increasing decreasing parts,

the monotonic membership functions on the whole interval are (a) either convex functions or (b) concave functions, or (c) there exists a point in the interval

monotonically increasing functions have the property ( ) = 0 , ( ) = 1 , while monotonically decreasing functions have the property ( ) = 1 , ( ) = 0 , the linear form or linearisation of the membership functions is very important to make more easier in the mathematical calculation.

The description of the mathematical concept behind the application of fuzzy logic in engineering problems is as follows (see Teodorovic and Kikuchi, 1991):

31

In the classic theory of sets (non fuzzy) or a crisp set A , the membership function is described as follows:

1, hA (x ) = 0,

(true) ( false )

x A x A

(2.1)

In the fuzzy set A , the function A represents the membership function in which the degree that an element, x , of the universal set X belongs to set A is represented by a number between 0 and 1. A membership degree of 0 represents complete nonmembership, whereas a membership degree of 1 represents complete membership.

A : X [0,1]

(2.2)

The elements of a set are written in lower case and enclosed in brackets, { }, and capital letters denote the whole set. Fuzzy set A is defined as the following expression below:

A = {x, A ( x )}

(2.3)

A (x ) is the membership function and its value represents the grade that x belongs to

fuzzy set A .

The membership functions, both linear and non-linear, that are most commonly used in engineering can be classified into four types as follows (see Driankov et al, 1996):

32

0 2 x 2 S ( x; , , ) = 2 1 2 x 1 for x ,

for x ,

(2.4)

for x ,

for

0.5

0 ( x; , ) = ( x ) /( ) 1 x ,

x , x ,

(2.5)

33

1 L ( x; , ) = ( x ) /( ) 0 x ,

x , x ,

(2.6)

0 ( x ) /( ) A( x ; , , ) = ( x ) /( ) 0 x ,

x , x , x

(2.7)

34

In classical set theory, there are three basic operations, namely union, intersection and complement. The union of two sets A and B, written as A B , means that the collection of those objects belongs to either A or B. The intersection of A and B, written as A B , means that the collection of those objects belongs to both A and B. The

complement of a set A, written as A , means the collection of objects not belonging to A. These operations are simple and unambiguously defined. However, in fuzzy set theory, they are not so simple, because multi-valued membership functions are used.

The corresponding logical operations for multi-valued membership functions are AND, OR, and NOT. This correspondence is by no means unambiguous. In more general terms, these definitions are known as the fuzzy intersection or conjunction (AND), fuzzy union or disjunction (OR) and fuzzy complement (NOT). Zadeh proposed that operators for these functions can be defined as follows: AND = minimum, OR = maximum and NOT = additive complement. The rules of these functions then are as follows:

A B = {x : x A and x B} A B = {x : x A or x B} A = {x X : x A}

_

(2.8) (2.9)

(2.10)

2.3

The fuzzy inference system is the process of formulating the mapping from a given input to an output. The logic in the system is built by the experience of people who understand the system to be modelled in natural language. The statement of if-then (or rules) is the main mechanism in the fuzzy inference system. This fuzzy inference system makes the system natural and beneficial to model a complex humanistic in the

35

loop system. Wang and Mendel (1992) showed that a fuzzy inference system is capable of approximating any real continuous function to arbitrary accuracy, and this is a basis from which decisions can be made, or patterns discerned.

The components of a fuzzy inference system are the rules, the fuzzifier, the inference engine, and the defuzzifier as illustrated in Figure 2.7.

Fuzzifier

Defuzzifier

Rules

Inference Engine

Fuzzifier

The function of the fuzzifier is to convert a crisp numerical value from the universe of discourse of the input variable into a linguistic variable and corresponding level of belief. This step takes the current value of a process state variable and gives levels of belief in input fuzzy sets, in order to make it compatible with the fuzzy set representation of the process state variable in the rule-antecedent. The level of belief is equal to the degree of membership in the qualifying linguistic set which can take any value from the closed interval [0,1] .

Inference Engine

The basic function of the inference engine is to compute level(s) of belief in output fuzzy sets from the levels of belief in the input fuzzy sets. The output is a single belief value for each output fuzzy set. In this stage, the fuzzy operator is applied in order to gain a single number that represents the result of the antecedent for that rule.

36

The inference engine is mainly based on rules. Rules determine the closed-loop behaviour of the system. The rules are based on expert opinion, operator experience, and system knowledge. The basic function of the rule base is to represent in a structured way the control policy of an experienced process operator and/or control engineer in the form of a set of production rules such as if (process state) and then (control output). The

if-part of such a rule is called the rule-antecedent and is a description of a process state

in terms of a logical combination of fuzzy propositions. Moreover, the then-part of the rule is called the rule-consequent and is again a description of the control output in terms of a logical combination of fuzzy propositions. These propositions state the linguistic values which the control output variables take whenever the current process state matches (at least to a certain degree) the process state description in the ruleantecedent (see Driankov et al, 1996).

The inference process is divided into three phases, application of the fuzzy operator in the antecedent, implication from the antecedent to the consequent, and aggregation of the consequents across the rules.

The application of the fuzzy operator is in order to obtain one number that represents the result of the antecedent for that rule. This number will then be applied to the output function. The input to the fuzzy operator is two or more membership values from fuzzifier input variables. The output is a single truth value. As described previously in the section on basic operations, any number of well-defined methods can fill in for the AND (= minimum) operation or the OR (= maximum) operation.

By applying the proper implication method (THEN) and rule weight (a number between 0 and 1), the output fuzzy set associated with each rule can be achieved. Two built-in methods are supported, the clipping (minimum) and scaling (product) methods produce their inferred conclusion by suppressing the membership function of the consequent. The clipping method cuts off the top of the membership function whose value is higher than the matching degree resulting from the single value of the antecedent. The scaling method scales down the initial shape of the membership

37

function in proportion to the matching degree. Although this type was not employed in Mamdanis original paper, it has often been used in the literature (see Jang et al, 1997). These methods are illustrated in Figures 2.8a and 2.8b.

A rule can be weighted by using a weighting factor between 0 and 1. It is called a degree of confidence. The degree of confidence can be found by the designer or learning programme by trying to adapt the rules in some relationship between input and output.

In the aggregation of the consequents across the rules phase, the outputs of all rules are joined. Thus, a further reduction method is necessary for this phase, such as the maximum, the algebraic sum, and the sum method. The maximum method takes the maximum of the degree membership function for the output. The algebraic sum method computes the algebraic sum of the outputs, and the sum method is to add the output degrees. The results of these methods produce slightly different results and the most appropriate one depending on the purpose of the application. The aggregation produces one fuzzy set as an output of the fuzzy system. Furthermore, a crisp output value can be obtained in the defuzzifier process.

38

Defuzzifier

The function of the defuzzifier is to convert the levels of belief in output fuzzy sets to a crisp decision variable of some kind. As described above, the result of fuzzy logic operations with fuzzy sets is invariably a conclusion in the form of a fuzzy set. In practice, the output of the defuzzifier process is a single value from the set. There are several built-in defuzzifier methods. The centre of gravity method is the most commonly used for extracting a crisp value from a fuzzy set. This method calculates the weighted average of the elements in the support set. The bisector method focuses on the axis of the vertical line which divides the area under the diagram into two equal parts. The mean of maxima method chooses the point by taking the mean of the maximal memberships. The smallest maximum and largest maximum methods choose either the lower or upper boundary of the maximal membership. For computational complexity, the gravity and the bisector methods are categorised as relatively high. Otherwise, the last methods described are categorised as relatively low. The illustration of the description for all methods above is as follows:

max

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bisector of Area

39

Inference Diagram

The fuzzy inference diagram is the composition of all the smaller diagrams introduced so far in this section. It simultaneously displays all parts of the fuzzy inference process. It is a very compact way of showing everything at once, beginning with the linguistic variable fuzzifier all the way through the defuzzifier of the aggregate output.

Figure 2.10 shows the basic structure of an example of the inference diagram (2 inputs, 1 output, and 2 rules system) and Figure 2.11 illustrates the details of the fuzzy inference system based on the example provided. This system is referred to as the Mamdani (1976) method, where the universe of discourse consists of continuous space (Jang at al, 1997). The fuzzy inference method introduced by Mamdani is the currently most commonly used in fuzzy methodology. The method was initially proposed for the building of a control system using fuzzy set theory. He referred to Zadehs theory about fuzzy algorithms for complex systems and decision processes.

Input 1

(x1 )

Input 2

Rule 1

IF x1 = A1 AND x 2 = B1 THEN

y = U1

Rule 2

IF x1 = A 2 AND x 2 = B 2 THEN

Output

(y)

( x2 )

Note: : aggregation

y =U

40

The illustration of the main component of the fuzzy inference system is divided into 5 phases that follow in the columns of the following figure provided.

Phase 1

The fuzzifier of two inputs x1 and x 2 . Inputs x1 and x 2 produce two level of beliefs

Phase 2

The fuzzy operators used are an AND and an OR rule. The mathematical formulae of AND for rule 1 and OR for rule 2 are as follows: AND rule: w1 = min (1 , 2 ) OR rule: w2 = max ( 3 , 4 ) where w is the firing strength of a rule.

1 1

Phase 3

The implication methods used is clipping (method of min) for both rule 1 and rule 2. The level of belief point for clipping U with variable y is written as:

= U ( y)

Hence, the level of belief points for the two rules can be presented as follows: Rule 1: imp1 ( y ) = min (w1 , U 1 ( y )) Rule 2: imp 2 ( y ) = min (w2 , U 2 ( y ))

1 1

41

Phase 4

In the aggregation phase, the method of maximum is used. The mathematical expression of the level of belief after aggregation is

Phase 5

After the aggregation process, the fuzzy set for each output variable needs to be defuzzified. The most common method of defuzzification is centroid calculation. This calculation is to determine the centre of gravity within the area under the membership curve. The centre of gravity equation can be written as follows:

y max

y output =

y ( y )dy

agg

y min y max

( y )dy

agg

y min

where y output is the output of the system and agg is the output of the fuzzy set from the aggregation phase, y min and y max are the minimum and the maximum value of the base variables respectively.

The Figure 2.11 can be seen that the inputs are crisp (non fuzzy) numbers limited to a specific range. All rules are evaluated in parallel using fuzzy reasoning. Fuzzy reasoning or approximate reasoning is an inference procedure that derives conclusions from a set of fuzzy if-then rules and known facts. The results of the rules are combined and distilled (defuzzified). The result is a crisp (non fuzzy) number.

42

Input

1

0 1

Fuzzyfier

A1

Operator

Implication

method of min (clipping)

Aggregation

Defuzzyfier

Output

imp1

x1 B1

x

min

1

U1

x1

w1

0

method of max

2

0

x2

x

x 2 = B1

agg

THEN y = U1

1

agg

U'

1

RULE 1 IF x1 = A1 AND

U'

3

0

11 1

A2

y

y output

imp2

x1 B2

x

max

1

x2

U2

centre of gravity

4

0 11 1

w2

0

x2

x

x2 = B2

RULE 2 IF x1 = A 2 AND

THEN

y =U

Crisp Values

Fuzzy Values

Crisp Values

An alternative of the fuzzy inference method is introduced by Sugeno (1985), where the universe of discourse consists of discrete objects (Jang at al, 1997). The method seems to be similar in many respects to Mamdanis method, except for the output membership functions. The Sugeno output membership functions are either linear or singleton (constant). The Sugeno method is efficient in the defuzzification process because it is simpler to compute than the Mamdani method. Moreover, this method can also be used to approximate complex nonlinear models using only a small number of rules. The linear membership function of the Sugeno method is a linear combination of all input variables and a constant. A typical rule of the Sugeno fuzzy model has the form: If input 1 = x1 and input 2 = x 2 , then output is y = k1 x1 + k 2 x 2 + k 3 where k1 , k 2 , k 3 is constant.

43

For a zero-order Sugeno method, the output level y is a constant (k1 = k 2 = 0) . The output level y i of each rule is weighted by the firing strength wi of the rule. The following diagrams present the Sugeno rule operation.

1

Input 1 input 1

x1

OPERATOR

Input 2 input 1

w (firing strength)

x2

2

Output Membership Function

y (output level)

y = k1 x1 + k 2 x2 + k 3

Phase 3

In the implication, this method uses the singleton for the output level for both rule 1 and rule 2. The level of belief points for the two rules implemented is written as follows: Rule 1: imp1 = min (w1 , y1 ) Rule 2: imp 2 = min (w2 , y 2 )

1 1

44

Phase 4

Phase 5

The final output of the system is the weighted average of all rule output, as follows:

y output = w1 y1 + w2 y 2 w1 + w2

Input

1

0 1

Fuzzyfier

A1

Operator

Implication

Aggregation

Defuzzyfier

Output

imp1

x1 B1

x

min

1

x1

w1

0

y1

method of max

2

0

x2

x

x 2 = B1

agg

1

agg

1

RULE 1 IF x1 = A1 AND

THEN

y = y 1 w2

w1

w2 w1

3

0

11 1

A2

y1 y 2

y1

y2

y

y output

imp2

x1 B2

x

max

1

weighted average

x2

4

0 11 1

w2

0

y2

x2

x

x2 = B2

RULE 2 IF x1 = A 2 AND

THEN

y = y2

Crisp Values

Crisp Values

45

According to the two examples that presented on Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12b above, a step of the basic of fuzzy reasoning algorithm can be summarised (see Yager and Filev, 1994) as follows:

Reasoning Algorithm

Step 1: Calculate the degree (level) of firing (DOF) of the rules wi by operator for crisp

inputs.

U i (Mamdani) or

Step 3: Form the membership function of the output fuzzy set U (Mamdani) or

the U i or wi .

Step 4: Calculate the crisp output of fuzzy inference system y output by defuzzification of

2.4

Traffic assignment is the process of how travel demand and transportation supply interact in transportation networks. Travel demand is the number of users moving from one place (origin) to another (destination) in order to make one or more activities. Transportation supply is a set of physical elements, such as road links or road junctions. The equilibrium of the travel demand and transportation supply can be represented by the characteristics of traffic flow and travel cost.

46

The concept of network equilibrium was introduced by Wardrop (1952) and known as his first principle. This first principle is to minimise user travel cost individually. Wardrop also proposed an alternative way of assigning traffic to a network, known as his second principle. This second principle is to obtain a system optimum where the total travel cost is minimised in terms of route choice. Beckmann, Mc Guire and Winsten (1956) formulated Wardrops first principle as a convex mathematical programming problem in order to solve the equilibrium traffic assignment problem for a transportation network. This formulation is based on the theorem of Kuhn and Tucker (1951).

The Beckmann et al formulation considered that the travel cost of a link in a network is dependent only on the flow on that link. The effect of flow from other links is neglected. This is referred to as the separable link cost function assumption. On the other hand, where the link travel cost is also affected by the flow on other links, the link cost function is said to be non-separable. The second assumption is more representative of real network conditions. Non-separability arises at priority uncontrolled junctions and left-turning movements at signal controlled junctions where flow among movements within the junction influence each other. Flow interaction leading to non-separability includes heavy traffic in two-way streets and different vehicle classes on each link.

The variational inequality formulation of equilibrium traffic assignment with nonseparable link cost functions was primarily introduced by Smith (1979). Aashtiani and Magnanti (1981) and Hearn, Lawphongpanich, and Nguyen (1984) introduced a socalled gap function for solving this problem. A necessary condition for the uniqueness and stability of traffic equilibria is that the Jacobian of the link cost function be positively definite (Heydecker, 1986).

The Jacobian of the link cost function can be either symmetric or asymmetric. The interaction is symmetric if the effect of cost c a on link a, of the flow vb on link b is the same as the effect of cost cb on link b, of the flow v a on link a. The equilibrium flow pattern in this condition can be solved by using the equivalent minimisation approach,

47

such as the convex combinations method. In contrast, the asymmetric condition in which link cost is a function of the flows on several or all links in the network presents difficulties for finding the equilibrium flow pattern, because there is no known equivalent minimisation programme. A direct solution algorithm can be used to solve the problem rather than a mathematical programming formulation (Sheffi, 1985).

The extension of traffic assignment problem on two-way streets together with existence and uniqueness conditions is dealt with in the work of Dafermos (1971). In this case, the interaction between the opposite direction links can be assumed to be symmetric. The cases where the interaction of vehicle classes on each link assumed a symmetric form became more interesting for researchers afterwards. Dafermos (1972) introduced the multi-class user equilibrium assignment formulation, where the classes are defined according to vehicle type (e.g. heavy and light vehicles). Van Vliet, Bergman and Scheltes (1986) presented the formulation of multi-class user equilibrium assignment by making two restrictions, namely only the time component in the definition of cost is flow dependent and only the total pcu flow on a link determines travel time for the different classes. In this case, the problem is said to be isotropic. Smith and Vuren (1989) introduced a monotone framework for a wide range of linear interactions between different vehicle classes. Nagurney and Dong (2002) developed the multi-class, multi-criteria traffic network equilibrium model with elastic travel demands. This demand is a function of travel costs between each origin and destination.

Braess and Koch (1979) proved the existence of equilibria in asymmetric multiclass user equilibrium assignments. They showed that if individual link cost functions are continuous and monotone, then at least one user equilibrium flow pattern exists. Abdulaal and LeBlanc (1979) and Dafermos (1982) have studied more general asymmetric cases. Fisk and Nguyen (1981) proved the existence and uniqueness of an asymmetric two-mode (auto and public transit) equilibrium model. Daganzo (1983) introduced a stochastic network equilibrium with multiple vehicle classes which is asymmetric. This article discussed a family of general link cost functions that can be used to model multimodal transportation networks. More complex models for asymmetric user equilibrium assignment are described by Hearn et al (1984). Wu,

48

Florian and He (2000) formulated the asymmetric multi-class network equilibrium problem in the passenger car equivalent (pce) of trucks.

The first convergent algorithm to solve the user equilibrium problem using linear approximation to the objective function was developed by Murchland (1969). He applied Frank-Wolfes (F-W) algorithm (1956) that is now the most well-known of the algorithms applied to traffic assignment problems. Modifications and extensions were developed to improve the poor convergence of this algorithm. Luenberger (1984) extended the F-W algorithm by a using line search step based on the parallel tangents, called PARTAN (Shah, Beuhler and Kempthorne, 1964 and Lupi, 1986). Janson and Zozaya-Gorostiza (1987) modified the basic scheme and the PARTAN version. The modification of the line search using a convex combination was presented by Fukushima (1984) and Lupi (1986), and the modified version of the step lengths was introduced by Weintraub, Ortiz and Gonzales (1985). Van Vliet and Dow (1979) and Arezki and Van Vliet (1985) proposed replacing the line search with the capacity restraint technique. This technique is based on the method of quantal loading (Carroll, 1959).

Powell and Sheffi (1982) proved the convergence of an F-W algorithm in which the line search is replaced by a sequence of fixed size step lengths. This condition requires that the objective function be twice continuously differentiable and that its gradient vanishes only once in the feasible region. One well-known version of the resulting algorithm is known as the Method of Successive Averages (MSA). A detailed description of the mathematical concept behind the MSA is presented by Wilde (1964). The MSA algorithm is frequently applied to network equilibrium problems, including user equilibrium assignment and Fisks (1980) logit based stochastic user equilibrium formulation. The speed of convergence of the MSA depends on the problem parameters, including the level of congestion and the perception of cost. Convergence is quick at low levels of congestion and large variance of travel time perception. Daganzo (1983) described the MSA as a fixed point algorithm, following the method introduced by Blum (1954). The advantages of the MSA for larger networks were demonstrated by

49

Mimis (1984). The MSA algorithm applied to elastic demand assignment is described by Cantarella (1997) and also Cascetta (2001).

Another important method of modification of the F-W algorithm is Simplicial Decomposition (SD). This method is developed in the area of nonlinear network optimisation. In SD algorithms, shortest route subproblems are solved in order to generate extreme points of feasible flows. A sequence of master problem is solved over the convex hull of the generated extreme points. The theoretical background for SD method is introduced by Von Hohenbalken (1975). The convergence of the SD requires column dropping, that is the removed of extreme points with small weights from the problem. Hearn et al (1984) showed convergence of the SD with a bounded feasible set. Sacher (1980) extended it to an unbounded feasible set. Shetty and Ben Daya (1988) studied the same problem in the case of an unbounded feasible set, but focussed on the master problem. Pang and Yu (1984) used a quadratic programme to approximate the master problem. The solution of the master problem is also given by a reduced gradient algorithm with an approximate Newton method (Larson and Patriksson, 1992).

Two algorithmic approaches to the solution of the equilibrium problem in the nonseparable case are well known. The first approach is an algorithm based on an iterative diagonalisation procedure, where each iteration requires the solution of a full-scale separable user equilibrium problem. Fisk and Nguyen (1982) tested the diagonalisation algorithm in conjunction with this problem. A more intensive test of the algorithm was carried out by Nagurney (1983). Dafermos (1982) proved convergence for this procedure under the condition that the cost function is strictly monotonic. The second approach is a streamlined version of the first approach (Sheffi, 1985). This algorithm calls for a single iteration of the user equilibrium solution procedure to be performed for each iteration of the diagonalisation procedure. This approach has been found to be more efficient than the first approach and should be preferred.

50

The detail of the algorithms has been introduced here and will be referred to in the further description of the solution of the algorithm, particularly the F-W and MSA algorithms that are the most commonly used in practice.

A transportation system can be classified into two main elements: demand and supply. Transport demand is the distribution of households and activities in a given area. Transportation supply is the set of facilities for the user of the transportation network. The interaction between travel demand and transportation supply allows the calculation of the flow pattern for each supply element i.e. network link (Sheffi, 1985) and Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994). This interaction is known as traffic assignment.

Transport demand is the result of a household member making a mobility choice and travel choices to undertake activities (work, study, shopping, leisure etc.) in different locations within the area of the transport network. This activity is expressed as the number of trips moving between origin and destination (O-D) pairs. In mathematical expression, demand per unit time for travel between O-D pairs is a positive real number

Tij for each origin (i ) and destination ( j ) or denoted as (i, j ) W , where W is a set of

all O-D pairs in the network. A path Pij is the set of all paths between origin i and destination j and p is a set of link sequences on a path. The notation of flow on every path p is v p . Furthermore, the cost of the path is the sum of the costs of the links (C p )

and the link flow is a result of the sum of the flows on the paths including the link. The representation of the relation between links and paths is called the link-path incident matrix ( ) . This matrix contains a row (for link a) and a column (for path p). The corresponding of the elements for the path p, including the link a, in the network is

a denoted by p , where the value of 1 is the link a on the path p and the value of 0 is

otherwise. Two classifications of demand are fixed demand and elastic demand. Fixed demand is when the travel demand is independent of the cost of travel between O-D pairs. On the other hand, elastic demand depends on that cost.

51

Transportation supply is the set of facilities of the element in the road network. The term network in terms of road transport is usually used to describe the structure that can be represented as a graph in the mathematical sense, consisting of a set of nodes (N) and a set of directed links (L). The links represent the movements between the nodes. Therefore, the mathematical expression for the network is depicted as G = ( N , L) . Each link in the network is typically associated with some impedance, known as link cost. This link cost is generally influenced by the increasing of link flow. The relationship between link cost and link flow is called the link cost function. The term generalised cost is used to represent impedance if the flow involves people.

The result of the interaction between demand and supply in a transportation system is the network equilibrium, if the path flow obtained from the current iteration resulting in the route choice principle increases costs that are equal to those in the previous iteration. The principle of the network equilibrium was formally stated by Wardrop (1952) and called his first principle:

Under equilibrium conditions, traffic arranges itself in congested networks such that all used routes between any origin-destination pair have equal and minimum costs while unused routes have greater or equal costs.

This principle is only for a single user class with no stochastic influences. Wardrop also proposed an alternative way of assigning traffic to a network, known as his second principle:

Under social equilibrium conditions traffic should be arranged in congested networks in such a way that the average travel cost is minimised.

The results from the two principles are not the same. The first principle is to minimise user travel time individually. By contrast, the second principle is to obtain a system optimum where the total travel time is minimised.

52

An alternative definition of equilibrium is introduced by Heydecker (1986), referred to as equilibration. This definition facilitates the comparison of two conditions. The two conditions are Wardrops (1952) equilibrium and Dafermos and Sparrows (1969) user-optimised, that do not always identify the same points as equilibria. The user-optimised travel pattern is set up by users cooperating to arrive at their respective destinations with minimum cost. This equilibrium is shown to be equivalent to that of Wardrop, which does not allow cooperation between users within the network where the cost of travel is a continuous monotone and increasing function of flow. Heydeckers alternative definition of equilibrium is as follows:

Flows are equilibrated if any driver who changes to an alternative path will

experience a cost that is at least as great as the new one on his old path.

In the transportation network equilibrium, two important models based on path choice behaviour are used, deterministic user equilibrium (DUE) and stochastic user equilibrium (SUE). DUE is assumed as a deterministic path choice behaviour. This condition is obtained if all used paths are least cost paths and if all paths which are not least cost are not used, i.e. all users have perfect information regarding path cost. However, given these strict assumptions, DUE models are a less than accurate representation of the reality. On the other hand, SUE is assumed as probabilistic path choice behaviour. This assumption is more relaxed and allows errors in users perception of cost. The SUE condition is obtained when, given a decision to choose one alternative out of a choice set, the alternative with the least perceived cost is chosen.

Demand information in transport planning is usually described by a trip. Trip is defined as the act of moving between one place (origin) to another place (destination) in a region. It is a basic element of short-range and long-range transport planning. The trip between a set of origin points and a set of destination points on the boundary of the region (the cordon line) over a given time period can be arranged in origin-destination

53

matrices (O-D matrices). These matrices provide the travel load to be borne in the study area at that time. The trips with origins and/or destinations outside the study area are described as through trips or crossing trips (Cascetta, 2001). The flows on the link of the network inside the study area result from the routing of the trips in the O-D matrices along the network links.

The three different types of trip within a study area are classified by Taylor (2000): External-Internal (E-I) local trips where the trip origin lies outside the cordon; Internal-External (I-E) local trips where the trip destination lies outside the cordon; Internal-Internal (I-I) trips in which both the origin and destination of the trips lie inside the study area.

A traffic area is defined by a cordon line and various trips are presented in Figure 2.13 below.

Study Area

Cordon Line

Figure 2.13 A Traffic Area Defined by a Cordon Line and Various Trips

54

The O-D matrices (see Figure 2.14) have a number of rows and columns that correlate with the number of zones in the study area. The number of trips between the origin zone i and the destination zone j is denoted Tij . Furthermore, the aggregations of the elements of the O-D matrices are useful in order to classify the types of trips. The sum of the elements of the row i: E row = Tij represents the total number of trips

i

starting from the origin zone in the given period and is known as the flow generated by zone i. The sum of the elements of the column j represents the total number of trips arriving in the destination zone in the given period: E column = Tij and is known as the

j

flow attracted by zone j. The total number of trips used in the study area in the given interval is presented by Etotal = Tij . The main diagonal of the O-D matrices

i j

Destination Zones

O/D 1 2 3 1 x x x x x Intrazonal x x Local Trips (I-E) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Origin Zones

4 5 6 7 8 9

55

Trip matrices for public transport trips are the other category of trip matrix in transportation planning. Trips by public transport are related to the public transport network. These trips are treated as fixed trips on those routes of the transport network where the public transport system operates.

The physical networks in urban areas are presented in various ways and are not unique. These networks provide a geographic database that consists of a list of the nodes and the links. For example, a junction can be represented simply as a node with the street leading to and from it represented by links connected to that node, and a twoway street is represented by two opposite direction links. The level of detail depends on the data and the cost of analysis. In general, more detailed representations lead to more accurate estimation in modelling the transportation network.

Some principles for the representation of a junction by a set of nodes and links in traffic assignment (see Allsop, 1992) are:

Any point where traffic flow merges or diverges are represented as a node Traffic travels in one direction along each link Traffic entering a node is leaving the node by any link starting at the node The travel cost is made up of costs of travel along the links traversed. The travel cost along a link is a function of the flows on that and other links.

According to Bell and Iida (1997), links have various characteristics in terms of transportation network analysis. Some of the characteristics commonly used in analysis are as follows:

56

Link cost (sometimes travel time but more generally a linear combination of time and distance).

The typical representation used for a physical part of the transportation network in the proposed transportation analysis is presented in Figure 2.15. This part is usually completed by the direction of traffic flow for every section of road, represented by an arrow. Furthermore, redrawing the network and numbering (for nodes and links) is essential for computer simulation purposes (see Figure 2.16).

2 1 1 3

4 5 2

6 8 3 11 9

7 10 4 12

According to the assumption of Wardrops first principle (1952), all paths used between O-D pairs have the same (minimum) travel cost, however all paths that have greater or the same travel cost are not used. The mathematical representation to express the principle can be written as:

* C ijp = C ij * C ijp C ij

p Pij , ij W

(2.13)

* The set of path Tijp satisfies Wardrops first principle and all travel costs have been

calculated after those paths have been assigned on the network. The result of the link flow a from this case is termed a feasible solution. The formulation is as follows:

a v a = Tijp ijp i j p

(2.14)

Therefore, the path cost which is the sum of link costs along the path can be calculated as follows:

a * C ijp = ijp c a (v a ) a

(2.15)

The assumption of Wardrops first principle can be expressed as all users have the same or identical perceptions of costs on the network, and that they always choose the minimum path cost. The resultant state of equilibrium of this expression is referred to as the deterministic approach. However, deterministic approaches are not an accurate representation of the reality, because each user has a variation of the perceived cost. On

58

the other hand the stochastic approach, relaxes some assumptions and acknowledges errors in user perception of travel cost.

The solution of Wardrops first principle as a convex mathematical programme is formulated by Beckmann at al (1956) as:

Minimise

Z (Tijp ) = c a (v )dv

a

va

(2.16)

subject to:

T

p

ijp

= Tij

Tijp 0

a v a = Tijp ijp i j p

This solution can also be found by applying a Lagrangian function and taking the derivative with respect to the path flow Tijp . The Lagrangian function can be written as:

((

))

( )

(2.17)

T

p

ijp

= Tij .

59

By taking the first derivative of the Lagrangian function above with respect to ij , we can obtain the corresponding constraints. Furthermore, taking the derivative with respect to Tijp will result in:

(2.18)

* At the optimum, the above equation has two possibilities. Firstly, if Tijp = 0, then * (C ijp ij ) 0 , because the function is convex. Secondly, if Tijp

0, then

pair. Otherwise, path p is not used, if the travel cost C ijp is greater than the minimum cost, ij , for that O-D pair.

The solution of Wardrops second principle is also known as user optimal. It requires that users should sacrifice self interest for the common good. This solution provides the minimum of the total costs under the specified conditions on the network. A system optimal for the solution satisfying this principle is achieved by minimising, as follows: Total Costs = Tijp C ijp

ij ijp

(2.19)

(2.20)

60

c ' where a is the derivative of c a (v a ) with respect to v a , and by substituting c a for c a v a in the Beckmann equation Z (2.16), the system optimal is achieved by minimising this

' equation. In this system, c a (v a ) is a non-decreasing function (see Dafermos, 1971).

System optimal is to be distinguished from a user equilibrium. The most common example of the distinction is presented by Braess (1968) and is called Braesss paradox. However, in uncongested conditions, these two principles will provide the same solution.

The formulation of Wardrops equilibrium condition in terms of a variational inequality is due to Smith (1979):

c(v )(y v ) 0

(2.21)

where v is the vector of link flows, c(v ) is the vector representing the costs on the links corresponding to the vector of link flows v , and y is any other set of feasible link flow vectors. Note that v is in Wardrop user equilibrium if and only if the resultant link cost vector c(v ) , is such that no feasible link flow vector can reduce the total cost of travel below c(v ) .

Cost functions are used to indicate the relative reluctance to include a link on the chosen path, expressed as a function of flow in the network. As such, it represents the effect of congestion on route choice behaviour. The cost functions are important input data in equilibrium assignment. These functions represent the interaction between flows on links and their delays at junctions. According to Suh, Park, Kim (1989), the link cost

61

functions used in traffic assignment have many names, such as capacity function, capacity restraint function, link capacity function, link performance function, and congestion function. The link cost function can be written as follows:

c a = c a (v a )

(2.22)

It is conventionally assumed that the link cost function is monotonically increasing as shown in Figure 2.17. Furthermore, it is believed that the dominant component of link cost is link travel time. In subsequent chapters it is assumed that link travel time is synonymous with link cost.

c a (v a )

free flow

va

Figure 2.17 Link Cost Function

In the modelling of a transportation network, it is necessary to have a representative link cost function to account for the increasing travel time as flow increases for a given transportation environment. Branston (1976) proposed a single link cost function for a network, with values of the parameters of this function varying between links. When several users or vehicles use the same facility they may interact with each other, influencing the link cost. This phenomenon is known as congestion (Cascetta, 2001). It is important to calibrate the parameters of the function adopted to fit the local circumstances.

62

The cost function for long straight sections derives from traffic flow theory. This theory originates from Lighthill & Whitham (1955). The basic theory focuses on the flow, density and space mean speed variables. Flow is the number of vehicles passing a given point on the road in a given time (v ) . Density is the number of vehicles travelling over a given length of road (d ) . Space mean speed is the mean of the vehicle speed travelling over a given length of road and weighted by the time spent on that length (s ) . The form of the relationship between traffic flow and traffic density, known as the fundamental diagram (see Bell and Iida, 1997), is presented as a curve in Figure 2.18.

Flow (veh/h/lane)

v max

d1 d2

Density (veh/km/lane)

d max

The fundamental diagram shows that when flow is zero so density is zero or density is at a maximum d max . Flow less than maximum flow v max will have two densities that are indicated by d1 and d 2 . The lower density is in the uncongested region while the higher density is in the congested region. In the uncongested region, flow is stable whereas in the congested region flow is unstable.

63

The relationship between speed and flow is known as the speed-flow relationship (Figure 2.19a). As flow increases, speed will decrease slightly at first. In the flow on the capacity (maximum flow), the rate of reduction in speed increases. Moreover, if attempts are made to force flow beyond the maximum flow value, the unstable region with low flows and low speeds is reached (see Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994). Traffic assignment requires monotonic relationships (see Figure 2.19b), which appears to be inconsistent with traffic flow theory (see Figure 2.19a).

Speed (km/h)

Free flow speed Uncongested

Steady state

Time-dependent

Congested

Capacity flow

Flow (veh/h/lane)

Capacity flow

Flow (veh/h/lane)

Figure 2.19 Speed-flow relationship and link cost function for long straight sections

The cost function at junctions is derived from queuing theory. Steady state queuing theory is widely used but predicts infinite queues and delays when the demand flow reaches the capacity available. In reality, when demand is close to capacity, or when the capacity is exceeded for a short period, the queue growth lags behind the expectation of steady state theory. Deterministic queuing theory, in which the delay is obtained as a simple integral of demand minus capacity, can sometimes be used when demand and capacity vary in time. However, this treatment ignores the statistical nature of traffic arrivals and departures, and leads to serious underestimates in the day unless

64

the capacity is exceeded by a considerable margin. When demand only just reaches capacity zero delays are predicted, which is unrealistic.

By referring to the time-dependent demand-capacity method of interaction at junctions , Kimber and Hollis (1979) developed the coordinate transformation method to estimate time-dependent delays and queues. The method is based on the traffic intensity, namely the ratio of demand flow to capacity. The transformation approach can be seen in Figure 2.20. This is such that for any queue size, the horizontal distance between the steady state curve and 1, namely H 1 H 2 , is equal to the horizontal distance between the transformed curve and the deterministic queue growth line, namely H 3 H 4 .

H1

H2

H3

H4

Traffic intensity

A performance function for a typical approach to a signalised junction captures both the time spent in travelling along the approach under consideration and the delay at the down-stream intersection. As the flow increases, the travel time increases monotonically since both the travel time along the approach increases, because of vehicle interactions at higher traffic densities, and the intersection delay increases because of queuing phenomena (Sheffi, 1985).

65

In the empirical method, the link cost function is also established by fitting it to observed data. There has been a tendency in the literature to simplify the problem of defining a suitable link cost function for a network to a very minor role in the application of the traffic assignment process (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994). The link cost functions are proposed in terms of a measuring of flow and capacity, if focused on a lane basis. According to the US Highway Capacity Manual (US HCM, 1985), there are two distinctions of capacity in terms of link cost functions; practical capacity

(Q ) and steady state capacity (Q ) . The practical capacity is the maximum flow that

p s

can pass a given point on a link or in a designed lane during one hour with traffic density being so great as to cause unreasonable delay, hazard, or restriction to the drivers freedom to manoeuvre under the prevailing and traffic conditions. The steady state capacity is the capacity in which the expected state of the system may have cyclic fluctuation, but otherwise it is time independent.

The earliest link cost function was the exponential curve proposed by Smock (1962) that was applied in the Detroit study.

v c = c0 exp Q s

(2.23)

In this study, the estimation of the steady state capacity for each link is using the averaging capacities of the junctions at each end. The average result will not be the same as the steady state capacity except the end junctions have capacities that are the same and less than those of all other points on the link. This link cost function was applied with the method of capacity restraint assignment.

In 1967, Overgaard proposed a link cost function that is a generalisation of the Smock curve as follows:

66

c = c0

v Qp

(2.24)

The parameter is the ratio of the travel cost per unit distance at practical capacity to that at free flow. This parameter is assumed to be a value of the base of the logarithm

(e) . In its application in Toronto it was found that the suitable parameters for this link

cost function are between 1.0 and 1.7.

The Bureau of Public Roads (1964) in the USA proposed what is probably the most widely used link cost function, called the BPR function, namely:

c = c 0 1 + (v / Q p )

(2.25)

The proposed parameters for normal procedure are = 0.15 and = 4 respectively. The parameter implies that the travel cost at capacity is 15 percent higher than the travel cost on the free flow condition. The parameter of determines the slope of the link cost function and in turn it represents the level of congestion. Because of the non asymptotic function, any flow input can be evaluated.

The Department of Transport (1985) in the UK has produced a large number of cost-flow curves for a variety of types of link in urban, sub-urban, and inter-urban areas.

vQ1 ,

Q1 v Q2 ,

(2.26)

v Q 2 ,

67

ss 01 = s 0 s1 Q1 Q2

Km/h 55 70 25

Single two-lane, rural Dual two-lane, rural Single two-lane, urban, outer area

63 79 45

These curves produce information about link travel time. However, most users wish to have the minimum of the combination link attributes including time and distance. In practice, the use of a simplified version of the generalised cost approach that is a linear weighted combination of time and distance is as follows: c a = (travel time)a + (link distance)a

The calibration of these curves needs a high quality of traffic data. For that reason, many countries endeavour to develop their own curve to suit the local conditions.

The IHCM (1994) developed a speed-flow relationship based on data from some interurban roads in Indonesia, particularly for two lanes and four lanes. The mathematical expression is as follows:

68

Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q Q

1s s s s

0 0 0 0

Type

s Km/h

(2.27)

d v = s 0 1 dj

( 1)

1 / (1 )

(2.28)

d 0 (1 ) = dj

1 / ( 1)

(2.29)

where: d

dj

d0

The value used for the parameters of is 2.26 and is 0.61 for both two lanes and four lanes.

Some model properties such as existence, uniqueness, stability and sensitivity are very important to the solution of traffic assignment. These model properties determine the good behaviour of the traffic assignment model. Good behaviour will be achieved, if the traffic assignment model has a unique stable solution.

Existence

Existence of a solution to the traffic assignment problem requires two conditions, namely that the cost function is continuous and the feasible region is a nonempty, compact (i.e. closed and bounded) and convex set.

69

Uniqueness

If the link cost function is monotonically increasing, uniqueness of the equilibrium solution is guaranteed (see Bell and Iida, 1997).

Stability

Stability in traffic assignment was studied by Beckman et al (1956). A traffic assignment model is stable for a certain problem if any initial flows in the feasible region lead to equilibrium by a dynamical adjustment process. Examples of stable and unstable equilibria are shown in Figures 2.21 and 2.22 (see Lee, 1995).

c(v )

Supply

Demand 0

c(v )

Supply

Demand

70

Sensitivity

The change in travel cost affects the direction of the change in the equilibrium pattern. This condition is called sensitivity in traffic assignment.

Static assignment assumes that the demand of travel between O-D matrix over assignment period is constant. There are two broad categories of assignment models, deterministic and stochastic.

Deterministic assignment assumes that all drivers have the same perception of costs; on the other hand stochastic assignments are interpreted as recognizing variations in individual driver perceptions of cost. Within both models there are many differing methods, from the simple model (non-congested) to the complexity model (congested). Table 2.2 shown the classification of traffic assignment models and is followed by a description of each.

COST IN A FUNCTION OF FLOW? Deterministic No All-or-nothing ROUTE CHOICE Stochastic Pure Stochastic (Burrell and Dial) Yes Deterministic User Equilibrium Stochastic User Equilibrium

It is recognized that many factors as diverse as journey time, scenery and habit will have an implicit cost associated with them; however it is too complicated to take them into the expression of generalised cost. Travel time is the main factor in the traffic for urban areas, and for that purpose travel time is considered as cost in the following discussion on assignment.

71

All-or-Nothing (AoN) assignment assumes that all drivers from a particular origin zone to a particular destination zone follow the minimum cost route through the transportation network, so no driver takes any route that is not minimum cost. The minimum cost route can be obtained by a suitable shortest path algorithm, for example the tree building algorithm method (Dijkstra, 1959). Van Vliet (1978) provides a discussion of other shortest path methods. Where multiple minimum cost routes exist, one is chosen at random. Cost is fixed for low flow in the transportation network so the AoN technique can be implemented once. This condition is an unrealistic assignment technique in reality, as it will continue to assign flow to a link although the capacity has been reached. Hence, it is not suitable for application in congestion. In congested transportation networks, cost is no longer fixed but rather a function of flow, so iterations are required until all users have equal travel costs. This is known as equilibrium assignment, the principles of which were formally stated by Wardrop as described in the previous section.

The deterministic user equilibrium (DUE) assignment method, with respect to the behaviour of road users, makes the following assumptions: drivers move independently experiencing the same travel time; drivers have perfect transportation information; and drivers deterministically select the fastest route.

The two forms of link cost function are considered (Bell and Iida, 1997) based on a two-link, two-path network (Figure 2.23) as follows:

Path 2

Origin

Path 1

Destination

72

First, link cost increases as a function of link flow without a maximum flow (although there may be a level of flow beyond which the costs would be unreasonable for the trip-maker to accept). This is referred to here as an increasing cost function (Figure 2.24).

Trips by Path 1

Trips by Path 2

Uncongested Cost

Trips by Path 1

Trips by Path 2

73

Second, link cost is constant but capacity is fixed. At capacity, queuing occurs on the link and the cost is determined so as to ensure that the demand does not exceed the capacity. This is referred to here as a right angle cost function and presented in Figure 2.25 above.

The two figures shows that the equilibrium condition between the two paths is given by the intersection of the two link cost functions. For a point on the left of the equilibrium, path 1 is less costly than path 2, which will give an incentive for trips to change from path 2 to path 1 and as a result the share of trips will move to the right. For a point on the right of the equilibrium, path 1 is more costly than path 2, which will give an incentive for trips to change from path 1 to path 2; as a result the share of trips will move to the left, and so on. The equilibrium condition here is stable, meaning that any changes from the equilibrium give incentives resulting in restoring the equilibrium condition.

Stochastic assignment models assume that driver perceptions of costs on any route are not identical. They take into consideration the imperfection of traffic information and the uncertainty of traveller evaluation of a route. This situation causes some drivers to choose one route as the cheapest route, whereas other drivers will choose other routes assuming they are the cheapest. It is recognised that this assignment model allows nonminimum cost routes to be selected (Van Vliet and Dow, 1979). Thus, stochastic assignment takes into account imperfect information and variation in perception of costs by drivers within the transportation network.

There are two widespread methods used for stochastic assignment, namely Burrells method and Dials method. The two methods can be applied when link costs are constant and not flow dependent.

74

The method proposed by Burrell (1968) is based on the Monte Carlo simulation to represent the variability of driver perception of link costs. In this work, he applied multiple routing and capacity restraints to a possible future London network in order to test the convergence of the capacity restraint process. There are two main parameters considered: the diversion factor and the intercept factor. The diversion factor reflects route choice behaviour and its value is determined by judgement. However, the value of the intercept factor can be freely chosen so as to give the quickest rate of convergence. This method often produces a reasonable spread of trips, is relatively simple to program and easy to use.

The method introduced by Dial (1971) is based on reasonable paths and is a logit based method. Here a path is a reasonable if it is efficient. The definition of an efficient path is one where every link in the path has its initial node closer to the origin than its final node, and has its final node closer to the destination than its initial node. He suggests two types of algorithm. Algorithm-1 is relatively restrictive in its selection of probable paths and slow in loading them. On the other hand, algorithm-2 is less discriminating in its selection of paths but several orders of magnitude faster in loading them.

According to Sheffi (1985), stochastic assignment models or stochastic network loading models are a special case of discrete choice models. The probability distribution function of the perceived costs on each route should be known so that the route choice probability can be determined.

There are two specific route choice models, namely the multinomial logit model and the multinomial probit model.

The logit model which underlies Dials method is a random utility model based on the assumption that the utilities of all the alternatives in the choice set are identically and independently distributed (i.i.d.) Gumbel variates. The choice probability Pr of a

75

given alternative k is expressed as a function of the difference between the measured utility u of that alternative and all other alternatives g . This formulation has the form:

Prk =

1 u u 1+ e g k

gk

(2.30)

However, the logit path choice model is subject to overlapping path bias. This problem can be partially overcome through explicit path enumeration and elimination of heavily overlapping paths. However, some degree of overlapping cannot be completely ruled out. To overcome this problem, a path choice model that shares the computational and calibration efficiency of the close form logit model while eliminating the counterintuitive results due to overlapping paths, known as C-Logit, has been devised. The basic idea of C-Logit is to deal with similarities among overlapping paths through an additional cost attribute, called the commonality factor (Cascetta, 1996).

The probit model is a discrete choice model based on random utility theory. This model alleviates the difficulty associated with the logit model. Given two paths connecting the same origin-destination pair, the probit model has the form:

Prk = (uk u g ) g k

(2.31)

where ( x ) is the integral of the unit normal distribution from 0 to x (Bell and Iida, 1997). For statistically independent alternatives (namely, when the probability of choosing path f over path g is unrelated to the probability of choosing any third path

k ) the probit function behaves like the logit function. For statistically dependent

alternatives, the logit model is biased. Cascetta (1996) proposes that a correction or use of the probit model is recommended.

76

In applications to test networks, a method of SAM (Stochastic Assignment Model) behaves well and has acceptable properties (Maher, 1989). This method operates in two ways. The first is the merging of two (or more) links where they meet at a node, and the second is the scanning from a node to the ends of links which emanate from that node. The main advantage of this method over other stochastic methods is that proper account is taken of the correlation between routes at the merger point.

Since in reality drivers vary in their perceptions of costs, Daganzo and Sheffi (1977) formulated a stochastic user equilibrium (SUE) solution such that no driver can reduce his/her perceived cost by unilaterally changing routes. Powell and Sheffi (1982) developed an equivalent SUE program and provided a formal proof of convergence for the MSA algorithm in its application to the network equilibrium problem. This method has also been proved to converge for the SUE case, whether using the logit or probit model. The convergence characteristic of the MSA for the SUE problem is best for low levels of congestion within the transportation network.

In congested urban networks user equilibrium (UE) assignment is a good approximation for SUE assignment (Sheffi, 1985). However, there has been a resurgence of interest in SUE assignment applied to congested cases. Since most component delay arises at junctions, due to reduced capacity there, attention has focused on queuing behaviour. In this situation link travel time can be assumed to be constant and traffic behaviour can be modelled using store and forward network theory. The assumption made is that there is no delay until capacity is reached. UE assignment can be found for a steady state store and forward network by solving a linear programming problem (Smith, 1987). The total travel time in the network, exclusive of queuing time, is minimised subject to link capacity and non-negative constraints. From this, the Lagrange multipliers give the UE delays. This condition is connected to right angle cost function (see Figure 2.27).

Bell (1993) extended SUE assignment to steady state store and forward networks. He applied the logit model to determine the distribution of trips between alternative

77

paths. He showed that the Lagrange multipliers of the optimisation gave the SUE delays. The proposed algorithm solves the Lagrange multipliers iteratively. He suggested using a column generation technique to form paths. SUE is updated by using the inclusion of a new path and the iteration is repeated until no new path is produced. The convergence of this technique is proved. In the store and forward approach, the difficulty is that delay is only modelled when capacity is reached, however in reality delay can occur at all flow levels. The principle of a SUE assignment based on Figure 2.23 above is illustrated for monotonically increasing link cost functions in Figure 2.26 and for right angle link cost functions in Figure 2.27 (Bell and Iida, 1997).

Path 1 share

0.5

Path 2 share

Demand Supply

Path 1 share

0.5

Path 2 share

Demand Supply

78

These figures show the stochastic user equilibrium of the two paths as the intersection of a demand and supply curve. The demand curve is the relationship between the assignment to the two paths and the difference in cost between the two paths. At the equilibrium there will be some trip-makers happy to choose a higher cost path. The supply curve is the relationship between the division of traffic between the two paths and their relative costs. In the case of right angle cost functions, the supply curve is a step function. In the feasible range of path shares, the cost difference is constant and the supply curve horizontal. At either extreme the cost different is undefined and the supply curve vertical.

The most common algorithms to solve the mathematical program for traffic assignment problems that are based on a linear approximation of an objective function are variations of the iterative F-W algorithm (see Van Vliet and Dow, 1979). The procedure of the calculation in F-W algorithm can be classified into two steps, the direction finding and the step size. The direction finding is the process to obtain a direction by using an optimisation (or line search), a linear approximation of the objective function since feasibility has to be maintained. The step size is determined by minimising the objective function along the direction finding. Regarding the direction finding, Z (.) is an objective function, and v and y are traffic flows. The approximation is written for y: Z (y ) = Z (v n ) + Z (v n + (y v n ))(y v n )

(2.32)

subject to:

0 1

(2.33)

79

A linear approximation for Z (y ) can be obtained by giving the value of equal to zero. Z (y ) = Z (v n ) + Z (v n )(y v n )

(2.34)

Furthermore, the line search can be achieved from the solution to the linear programme in y as follows: min Z (v n )y + Z (v n ) Z (v n )v n

y

(2.35)

where Z (v n ) Z (v n )v n

objective function of the linear programme. In the step of finding a step size in a direction d n = (y n v n ) , the solution problem to minimise Z can be written as follows:

min Z v n + d n

(2.36)

where is the equation of (2.33). Due to the feasible region being convex, any point on the line segment between v n and y n satisfies the constraints and is also feasible.

The F-W algorithm solves the two steps above until various convergence criteria are reached. The most common convergence criterion is the difference of an objective value in the successive iterations, that is, the closeness of Z (v n ) and Z (v n 1 ) . This will be terminated if:

[Z (v ) Z (v )]

n 1 n

(2.37)

80

Z v n max i vi

( )

(2.38)

Finally, the criteria could be based on the change in the variables between successive iterations:

or

(v

i

n i

vin 1

(2.39)

In each case, the value of is a predetermined tolerance selected for each problem based on the degree of accuracy required in analysis.

The advantageous aspect of the F-W algorithm is that at every iteration it has a lower bound on the optimal value of the objective function. This can be explained thus: The direction finding step consists of finding minimum cost paths and assigning all of the demand between each O-D pair to the associated paths. This is referred to as an AoN assignment. However, this AoN leads to congestion on some links.

One of the natural difficulties for the F-W algorithm associated with the steepest descent direction is the condition where the optimal point is in the interior of the feasible region. Let v be an interior optimal point, thus Z (v ) is equal to zero. In this condition, the successive direction findings are perpendicular to each other. This will produce a solution method with a zigzagging path near convergence. The zigzagging causes a relatively large number of iterations.

81

Step 1: Initialisation

Set n = 0

( Set the initial cost c a0 ) to be the same as the free flow cost for all links a

(0 ) This gives initial link flow v aux ,a ( (0 ) The existing link flow v a0 ) = initial link flow v aux ,a

Step 2: Set n = n + 1

Obtain new link costs corresponding to the existing link flow values

( ( Set c an ) = c a (v an1) )

Step 4: Reassign trip matrix to network using AoN method based on the new link costs

( (n ) c an ) produces the auxiliary link flows v aux ,a

(n ) Step 5: A linear combination of the auxiliary link flows v aux ,a and the existing link ( flows v an1) is sought to minimise the objective function Z, to produce existing ( link flows v an )

(n )

=Z

( ) = c (v )dv,

(n )

a a 0

( van )

82

Alternative methods for selecting the value of step size at each iteration have been investigated. These include the MSA. In the MSA, the step size along the descent direction is not calculated in run time, but is determined a priori. At each iteration, the step size will be

( n ) =

k1 k2 + n

(2.40)

where n is the iteration number, and k1 and k 2 are constants, k1 > 0 , k 2 0 . The step size is simply

1 , obtained by assuming k1 =1 and k 2 =0. n

n =1

( n)

(2.41)

n =1

2( n )

<

(2.42)

The expression in (2.41) specifies that the algorithm has the potential of moving from the current point to any other point in the feasible region at any iteration, as well as the minimum. Hence, the possibility of a stop before reaching the minimum is prevented. However, the expression in (2.42) guarantees that the variance in the random link flow variables, obtained from the randomness in the descent direction will reduce within the iteration progress.

The step size sequences that satisfies the two conditions above used by the MSA is

1 n

(2.43)

83

1 v n +1 = v n + d n n

(2.44)

v n +1 = v n +

1 n y vn n

(2.45)

The equation above shows that the solution algorithm at each iteration is the average of the variables y in all the preceding iterations. In other words, this equation can be expanded as:

v n +1 =

n 1 n 1 n v + y n n n 1 n 2 n 1 n 1 1 n 1 1 n v + y + y n n 1 n n 1 n n 2 n 1 1 n 1 v + y + yn n n

1 n z y n z =1

(2.46)

This equation is the source of the MSA algorithm. The convergence of the MSA may be slow, but assured for convex optimisation problems.

84

The steps of the MSA are similar to the steps of the F-W algorithm, and only differ in step 5.

1 (n ) ( ( ( v an ) = v an1) + v aux ,a v an 1) n

The MSA is chosen for numerical method in this research. The reason is that the choosing of this algorithm is not focused on computational characteristics issues, but rather on obtaining the equilibrium.

2.5

Multi-Class Assignment

2.5.1 Introduction

Multiple user class assignment is the problem of assigning a number of different user classes to the same road network. Van Vliet et al (1986) assumed that each trip within a user class selects routes in the same way as every other trip in that class and that their selected routes are those that minimise a path cost which is a sum of link costs. In the modelling of multi-class transportation networks, each class has its own demand and cost-flow relationships, and contributes to the corresponding functions of the other classes. Multi-class networks are often modelled by associating a copy of the original network with each class; all travellers belonging to the same class use only one network. The travel cost on one link in the enlarged network is dependent of the flow in all the copies of the same link for the other vehicle classes (see Patriksson, 1994).

In multi-class assignment models, all classes assigned to the network interact with each other. In equilibrium for each class no-one can improve his/her (perceived) travel cost by unilaterally changing route. This condition shows that in this respect multi-class assignment is simply a disaggregation to the standard, single class assignment model

85

with non-separable link cost functions, namely inter-dependence among the links (Van Vuren & Van Vliet, 1992).

The fundamental theory of multi-class assignment, where the classes might be defined according to vehicle type (e.g. heavy and light vehicles), was first introduced by Dafermos (1972). Travel units are divided into several classes each of which has an individual link cost function and at the same time contribute to its own and other classes cost functions. In this theory, two alternative traffic patterns, the system optimising and the user equilibrium traffic patterns, are considered. A multi-class transportation network will be defined by the triple R = (G , D, C ) where G is a directed network, D is an indexed set of travel demands, and C is an indexed set of travel cost functions. For a given multi-class transportation network R = (G , D, C ) , a feasible flow pattern that minimises the travel cost over the entire network is called a systemoptimising flow pattern. The problem of finding the system-optimising flow pattern is very important for transportation networks where the traffic assignment can be dictated from above. On the other hand, a user equilibrium flow pattern for a given multi-class transportation network R = (G , D, C ) will have the equilibrium property that no user has an incentive to make a unilateral decision to change his/her route. The user equilibrium flow pattern will tend to be established in a transportation network where the users have perfect information but choose their routes independently. Dafermos (1972) also developed an algorithm for the solution of both the system-optimising flow pattern and the user equilibrium flow pattern for a given multi-class transportation network R . In order to demonstrate that the algorithm is operational, she constructed a system-optimising traffic pattern for a simple two-class transportation network, with very satisfactory results.

According to Van Vliet et al (1986), classes can be divided into three categories, the purely physical characteristics, the driver behaviour, and the network restrictions. The purely physical characteristics can be illustrated by the comparison between cars

86

and lorries. Lorries are larger than cars and so lorries will occupy more road space than cars. Cars have better performance than lorries, particularly in acceleration speed. The driver behaviour can be explained by the driver selection of the route choice based on distance and travel time or a combination of these. Travel time is the most important factor for work trips, however the distance is probably the main factor for leisure trips, rather than travel time. The network restriction is the most common category used in practice, such as bus lanes only used for buses. In this case, the interaction between the classes of buses in the bus lanes is only considered for evaluation.

In these two models above, the Jacobian matrix was assumed to have a symmetric form where the effect of the cost for class m1 by class m2 is the same as the effect of the cost for class m2 by class m1 . The Jacobian matrix for this condition can be written as J m1m2 = J m2 m1 . The Jacobian matrix of this problem was analysed to investigate properties such as existence, uniqueness and stability (Lee, 1995). This analysis showed that this problem can be formulated so as to satisfy at least the necessary condition for good behaviour. Zhang (1994) developed multi-class user equilibrium model which generalises both DUE and SUE and an efficient solution method for the model problem is derived from the MSA.

On the other hand, some work on multi-class assignment focuses on the asymmetric case where J m1m2 J m2 m1 , for some m1 m2 . Braess and Koch (1979) proved the existence of equilibria for asymmetric multi-class user equilibrium assignment. They showed that if the cost functions of each class are continuous and monotone, at least one user equilibrium flow pattern exists. Fisk and Nguyen (1982) studied an asymmetric form for two different classes of mode, i.e. automobiles and public transit. They gave the existence and uniqueness of this model in the equilibrium condition. Daganzo (1983) studied a stochastic network equilibrium with multiple vehicle classes and an asymmetric family of general link cost functions that can be used to model multimodal transportation network equilibrium problems. Wu et al (2000) introduced an algorithm for the multi-class network equilibrium problem in pce of

87

trucks. In this study, the resulting cost functions are nonlinear, non-smooth, asymmetric and anisotropic.

The passenger car unit (pcu) is the unit for traffic flow, where the flows of different vehicle classes have been converted to the corresponding flow of light vehicles (including passenger cars) using passenger car equivalent (pce). There are a number of methods of calculating pcu values on urban roads including: journey time or delay based methods (as used in the US HCM 1965), headway based methods, and capacity methods.

The first of these was considered inappropriate. The second is usually to be preferred, however in developing countries often vehicles do not follow each other neatly in lanes and also headways are difficult to define when there are many motorcycles in the traffic flow. This method therefore was not used and the capacity method was used instead. In the IHCM, the formulation of the capacity method is: Q( pcu / h ) = v LV + pcu HV v HV + pcu MC v MC + pcuUM vUM ...

(2.47)

The four vehicle classes used in the IHCM above were defined as follows: LV (Light Vehicle): Motor vehicle on four wheels (e.g. passenger car, jeep, minibus).

HV (Heavy Vehicle): Motor vehicle with more than four wheels (e.g. truck or bus with tandem wheels on the rear axle, vehicles with more than two axles).

UM (Unmotorised Vehicle): Unmotorised traffic element on wheels (e.g. tricycle, bicycle, oxcart, horse-carriage, pushcarts).

As the flow of each class of vehicle in a given time period is known from a survey, the unknowns in the equation are Q and the coefficients pcu HV , pcu MC , pcuUM . These coefficients represent the pcu values of the respective vehicle classes. The equation (2.47) becomes as follows: v LV = Q( pcu / h ) pcu HV v HV pcu MC v MC pcuUM vUM ...

(2.48)

The unknowns are then estimated using multiple regression analysis for observations of saturation flow (observations of less than saturation flows are deleted from the database).

The IHCM produces a single set of pcu values, which can then be used for all levels of flow, speed and for all types of road in urban areas. The following pcu values were suggested:

2.5.4 Formulation

The principle of the multi-class assignment is the disaggregation of the traffic assignment process. As described in the previous sub-chapter, the traffic assignment process is the interaction between two elements (travel demand and transportation

89

supply) in a transportation network system. Travel demand is disaggregated to M user classes moving between origin and destination in the network. Transportation supply is disaggregated to M classes. The interaction of the disaggregated travel demand and the disaggregated transportation supply in an equilibrium condition of the network defines the flow pattern.

The disaggregation of travel demand represents the M user classes travelling between each origin-destination pair. It is assumed that the travel demand is fixed. Demand per unit time for travel between O-D pairs i m , j m W m is a positive real number Tijm . The flow for every path p of user class m is represented as v m . The p conservation of flow in an equation for user class m is satisfied for each pair i m , j m and it can be written as follows:

pPij

m p

= Tijm , i m , j m W m , m M

(2.49)

where W is a set of all O-D pairs in the network, Pij is the set of all paths between origin i and destination j and m is the index of the user class.

M user classes. The directed graph for user class m is expressed by G m = N m , Lm ,

where N m represents a set of nodes for user class m and Lm represents a set of links for user class m. The set of O-D pairs for user class m is designed as (i m , j m ) W , i m j m .

90

In the multi-class assignment, it is often assumed that travel cost on each link of each class consists of a fixed and a variable component. The fixed component relates to distance, while the variable component is handled by the BPR function. The total cost on link a for class m can be written as:

m c a = cFam + c a (v a )

(2.50)

where cFam is a fixed cost of the class m and c a (v a ) is a travel time function on link a. The traffic flow on link a is the summation of each class m on link a as expressed by the equation below:

m v a = m v a m =1

(2.51)

where m is the pcu factor of the class m. This shows clearly that the model above can be categorised as an isotropic model.

The interaction between the two elements of the transportation system is in a state of equilibrium if the path flows obtained in the current iteration give rise to minimum O-D travel costs. These conditions are consistent with the UE principle of route choice, namely all paths used by each class between O-D pairs have the same and minimum cost (Wardrops first principle):

m C ijp = C ij * m C ijp C ij *

p Pij , i m , j m W , m M

(2.52)

91

In order to develop solution algorithms for multi-class assignment where the cost functions are not separable, Van Vliet et al (1986) introduced two further conditions necessary.

1.

2.

It depends, (a) only on the total pcu flow on the link, and (b) not on any other link:

m c a = c a (v a ) , where v a = v a m

By the definition of link costs for user class m as stated in the second definition above, the Jacobian matrix of cost functions will be symmetric. Therefore the equilibrium assignment problem can be expressed as a minimisation problem as follows:

Minimise

0

va

(2.53)

On the other hand, if the Jacobian matrix for link cost is assumed to be asymmetric, there is no equivalent minimisation problem. The most commonly used approach in such cases is the diagonalisation method.

The solution algorithm of the multi-class assignment deals with the non-separable problem. In this non separable case, the link cost function, c a = (v ) is a function of flows on other links which is represented by v = (v1 , v 2 ,..., v a ) .

92

Step 1: Initialisation

Set n = 0

m Assign all Tijm to free flow paths in order to produce user class path Tijp (0 ) and link m flow v a (0 ) . m Set v a = v a (0 ) m

m Set c a (n ) = cFam + c a (v a ) for all a

Assign trip matrix Tijm to network using AoN to the minimum cost path

(n ) determined using link costs. Let the auxiliary link flows v aux ,a be the flow on link

a for all a L .

m m m( ) m Set v a (n ) = v a (n 1) + v auxn,a v a (n 1)

( Z v an ) ( ) = Z (n ) ,

( Set v a = v an ) ( ) for all a

( )

for 0 1

Alternatively, a diagonalisation algorithm referred to as the asymmetric Jacobian matrix has been used by many researchers such as Abdulaal and LeBlanc (1979), Florian and Spies (1982), and Fisk and Nguyen (1982). In this algorithm, at each iteration, cost functions are created whose associated Jacobian matrices are diagonal. In this condition all the flows on links other than the flow on current link, where v a are

( fixed, so that c an ) is a function of v a only. For all links a can be defined as:

(2.54)

93

The diagonalisation algorithm produces a separable cost function. This cost function has a diagonal Jacobian matrix that is the same as the diagonal part of the Jacobian matrix of the full cost function. This algorithm ignores the effect of link interaction within each iteration, thus the separable cost functions are updated. The basic diagonalisation algorithm is as follows:

Step 1: Initialisation

Set n = 0

( Set c a0 ) = cFam

a L, m M

Assign the trip matrix using AoN to the shortest path to obtain initial link flows

(0 ) v aux ,a ( (0 ) Set v a0 ) = v aux ,a

Step 4: Solution of the minimisation problem

( ( The link cost functions c an ) (v a ) on step 3 and v an1) are assumed as the initial

( The using of the F-W algorithm to estimate link flows v an ) in the equilibrium

condition.

( ( Step 5: The convergence test, if v an ) v an 1) stop, otherwise go to Step 2.

Sheffi (1985) introduced another version of the diagonalisation algorithm, known as a streamlined algorithm. The speed of convergence of the streamlined algorithm is faster

94

( than the original one by obtaining only one estimate of the v an ) , from the Step 4 of the

( ( (n ) ( Step 4: Set v an ) = v an 1) + v aux , a v an 1)

( v an1) is the set of all link costs from the iteration n-1 and is chosen in order to

minimise

Z ( ) =

a

( (n ) ( van 1 ) + vaux , a van 1 )

Minimise

Subject to:

0 1

Wu et al (2000) worked on multi-class assignment, concentrating particularly on the pce of trucks. They introduced a new solution algorithm for their model and the presentation of the computational result obtained with the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) network. The solution problem is by a Linear Programming (LP) type of algorithm with successive averaging schemes for solving six-classes. They presented good numerical results.

Step 1: Initialisation. Start with n = 0, link flow of each class = 0. Step 2: Computation of link cost Step 3: Computation of the shortest path flow problem for each class. Step 4: Computation of step size (MSA)

95

Step 5: Computation of total link flow, percentage of link flow, volume per capacity

ratio and total link flow in pce.

Step 6: n = n + 1. Go to Step 1.

(A stopping criterion is used to stop computations)

2.6

Model validation is the process of determining if the empirical data from the survey model is correctly represented by the proposed model. The validation process simply ascertains whether the outputs from the proposed model are consistent with the data. Consistency here refers to a statistical process.

In traffic assignment, it is not possible to validate the assignment model in isolation, because the output traffic flows and travel times will reflect not only the errors in the assignment model, but are also influenced by the input O-D matrix and the road network description (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges/DMRB, 1996). The capture of consistent traffic data for model validation increases in complexity due to the natural variability in the traffic process (Merritt, 2003).

The standard method of comparison is to compare modelled values against observations. DMRB (1996) introduced two alternative analytical methods that can be applied to validate traffic assignment models. There is the plotting of modelled values against observed values and the GEH comparison statistic in order to test the correlation between the two sets of values.

The plotting technique will measure the goodness of model fit. In the validation of traffic assignment, the sum of the squares of the vertical distances from the observed points to the 450 line (deviation) is calculated (Walpole, 1982). The sum of the squares of these deviations is called the Sum of Squares of the Errors (SSE).

96

Suppose that the data points are (M 1 , O1 ) , (M 2 , O 2 ) , , (M N , O N ) . The deviation (error) err from each data point, i.e., err1 = O1 f (M 1 ) , err2 = O 2 f (M 2 ) , , err3 = O 3 f (M 3 ) , where f (M ) represents the 450 line. According to the method of least squares, the SSE can be written as follows:

2 1 2 2 2 N 2 i =1 i =1

(2.55)

where:

M is the modelled flow or travel time, and O is the observed flow or travel time.

This technique also produces the correlation coefficient R 2 . The formula of the correlation coefficient is as follows:

( )

R2 = 1

SSE 2 (N 1)sO

(2.56)

s =

2 O

N O i2 ( O i ) N(N 1)

(2.57)

In addition the slope of the best-fit regression line through the origin shows the values that are over or under-estimated. This Slope (S) is derived by the linear equation of

O = I + SM , where I is the Intercept.

97

S=

N MO ( M )( O ) N M 2 ( M )

2

(2.58)

I = O S M

(2.59)

GEH =

( M O) 2 ( M + O) / 2

(2.60)

GEH is based on the chi-squared parameter and takes account of both the absolute and relative difference and provides a practical measure of important differences at both low and high traffic levels. For transport models it is recommended that GEH values of 5 or less indicate a good fit between assigned and observed while GEH values greater than 10 require closer attention.

Horiguchi, Kuwahara, and Nishikawa (1995) conducted a validation of a model for an urban road network. They compared the observed data with the simulated values in regard to the traffic flow, the queue lengths and the travel time. The validation method used for their work consists of plotting the observed data and the simulated data on the displayed image of the network and uses a combination between bar chart and line chart. Model validation is directly from the visual figure provided. Although this validation method does not use a statistical formulation, the authors can draw conclusions about the validity of the model.

A comparison of the results of the traffic assignment model with the real traffic volume is made by Inokuchi and Kawakami (2002). The model validation shows that there seems to be a problem not only in the assignment models but also in the accuracy of the O-D data.

98

Shao, Akiyama, and Sasaki (1997) investigated the validity of the method from the perspective of the consistency of the traffic flows on the observed links with the traffic flows on the links obtained by the traffic assignment.

2.7

Conclusions

The foundations of fuzzy logic are reviewed, together with an explanation of their elements. The fuzzy inference system which is the most usual concept of fuzzy logic in engineering applications has been described, beginning with the fuzzifier, rules, inference engine, and defuzzifier. The summary of the reasoning algorithm is presented. The fundamentals of traffic assignment have been reviewed. A detailed review has been made of the development of traffic assignment, including the principle of network equilibrium, trip matrixes, the network representation, the mathematical approach of network equilibrium including its formulations, the development of link cost functions, models of traffic assignment (deterministic and stochastic), and the general solution of algorithm. A detailed description of multi-class assignment, beginning with the development of multi-class assignment, the concept of pcu, formulations, and solution algorithms has been given. The various methods of the traffic assignment model validation have been presented. In the following chapter, fuzzy logic approaches to traffic assignment will be described.

99

Chapter 3

3.1

Introduction

Fuzzy logic approaches to traffic assignment are reviewed focused in this chapter. Most models developed to solve the traffic assignment problem are mathematical models, or what may be called objective knowledge. However, the problem of traffic assignment can be solved not only by using a mathematical model but also by introducing linguistic information. Linguistic information represents subjective knowledge. Using linguistic information is difficult because it is sometimes characterised by uncertainty, subjectivity, imprecision and ambiguity. In solving the traffic assignment problem, one would like to use a combination of objective and subjective knowledge, in order to obtain an optimum result. Fuzzy logic is a suitable framework with which to combine objective and subjective knowledge (Teodorovic, 1998).

Actual travel time is represented in deterministic UE models due to the perfect information assumption, while stochastic UE models use perceived travel time. Although most stochastic UE models assume that perceived travel time is actual travel time plus a random perception error, which follows a certain distribution, to the individual driver perceived travel time is still a crisp number. However, with imperfect information it is appropriate to model perceived travel time using fuzzy variables rather than random variables (Ban, Liu, Hu, He, and Ran, 2004). A fuzzy logic traffic assignment model that takes account of the imprecision and the uncertainties makes possible a more accurate description of the dynamic choice process than deterministic or stochastic models (Henn, 1998).

100

3.2

The most commonly used form of membership function for traffic assignment is triangle-shaped. The representation of a fuzzy number for this form dealing with the membership function is as follows (Kaufmann and Gupta, 1985):

0, ( x a1 ) / (a 2 a1 ), A (x ) = (a3 x ) / (a3 a 2 ), 0,

The membership function has a base [a1 , a3 ] and the highest grade occurs at a 2 , as shown in Figure 3.1 (see Teodorovic and Kikuchi, 1991).

a1

a2

a 3 Travel Time

A triangular representation of a fuzzy number allows simple arithmetic operations by specifying only three control points

(a1 , a2 , a3 ) .

researchers use a triangular membership function to represent an approximate travel time. The value of the three control points of a triangular membership function, lower

101

bound, the centre, and upper bound, can be estimated as most likely, minimum, mean, and maximum travel times respectively, by the dispatcher.

(3.2)

The fuzzy arithmetic operation of adding two triangular fuzzy numbers A = (a1 , a 2 , a3 ) and B = (b1 , b2 , b3 ) is as follows: A + B = (a1 + b1 , a 2 + b2 , a3 + b3 )

(3.3)

The illustration of the fuzzy arithmetic operation for two fuzzy numbers is shown in Figure 3.2. It is clear from this figure that fuzzy path travel time in fuzzy traffic assignment, represented as the bold line, can be determined by adding the two fuzzy link travel times ( A and B).

A 1 B A+B

4 5 6

9 10

12

19

Travel Time

102

3.3

The fundamental characteristic of the traffic assignment process is the procedure used for the determination of route choice (see Thomas, 1991). Teodorovic and Kikuchi (1991) were the first to model the route choice problem using fuzzy logic. They assumed that perceived travel time is very often fuzzy. It can be treated as a fuzzy set. Despite the fact that travel time is a measurable parameter, a drivers notion of travel time when he/she makes the route choice is often fuzzy.

The two basic concepts for road choice behaviour with fuzzy number are described in this section. There are the representative value and the possibility measure.

Shao, Akiyama, and Sasaki (1990) introduced the concept of the representative value using the centre of gravity method. This method is very simple, but useful, because the centre of gravity point of the distribution can be obtained easily by the following equation.

c g = c (c )dc

al

ar

ar

(c )dc

(3.4)

al

The triangular fuzzy number in their study is employed as illustrated in Figure 3.3. This is to describe the travel time perception for drivers. The values c al and c ar lead to the width of perceived travel time. Accordingly, c al , c a and c ar are named left spread, mean and right spread respectively. A questionnaire survey for drivers needs to be carried out to obtain that travel time perception.

103

c al

cg

ca

c ar Travel Time

0, (c c ) / (c c ), al a al (c ) = (c ar c ) / (c ar c a ), 0,

(3.5)

The crisp travel time c a is extended to fuzzy number with parameters and which represent fuzziness of recognition.

a L

(3.6)

a 0,

a L

(3.7)

104

The travel time c a when (c ) is equal to 1 corresponds to the value at which the perception of the driver is expressed by a crisp number. Furthermore, the values c al and c ar correspond to the width of perceive travel time. In addition, when both a and a are equal to zero, the travel time is recognised to be non-fuzzy (Akiyama, Shao, and Sasaki, 1994). It is assumed that drivers make decisions with deterministic value obtained from fuzzy number in the case of route choice. The gravity point of the fuzzy number adopted is as a representative value. From a combination of equations (3.4) and (3.5), the representative value can be defined as follows:

c g ( x a ) = c a (3 a + a ) / 3

(3.8)

The concept of possibility measure is primarily introduced by Akiyama and Kawahara (1997). The main ideas of this concept as follows:

Define the crisp sets that these are as non-fuzzy sets, A and B , which belong to the universal set X . The function B ( A) can be written as:

1 B ( A) = 0

A B A X others (3.9)

can be presented as the degree of belonging possibility with the value as 0 or 1. The function B ( A) can be presented with characteristic functions, c A ( x ) and c B ( x ) for subset A and B is:

105

B ( A) = sup min{c A ( x ), c B ( x )}

x X

(3.10)

The index of ranking for fuzzy numbers is introduced by Dubois and Prade (1983). The index is known as extension of the possibility measures to fuzzy subsets. Define the membership functions, U ( x1 ) and V ( x2 ) of fuzzy subsets U and V. The measures can be defined as follows:

Pos (U V ) = sup min{U ( x1 ), V ( x 2 )}

x1 x2

* x2 x1

(3.11)

The above equation indicates the possibility that U is greater or equal to V and the possibility that U is greater than V respectively.

The first possibility index in equation (3.11) or it can be written here as Pos (B A) , shows the degree of fuzzy number A is greater than or equal to fuzzy number B. The possibility measure can be formulated as follows:

1 (B ) ( A) = sup min{ A (x ), B ( x )} x X

(3.12)

Figure 3.4 shows the value of (1) corresponds to the point of intersection of membership functions of fuzzy subsets A and B . In the same way, the value of (2 ) is corresponding to the point of intersection of membership functions of fuzzy subset A

106

and complementary subset of B. These possibilities are used to describe route choice with fuzzy travel time information.

A

Pos(B A) Pos(B A)

B

Complementary subset of B

(1)

(2 )

Travel Time

The concept of fuzzy goal G is designed as a fuzzy subset to compare the travel times for the three routes or more at the same time (see Akiyama and Kawahara, 1997). The fuzzy goal G is a target value of the travel time between O-D pairs which is approximately below the goal G. In practical, the shortest path travel time C * is adopted as a standard value of a fuzzy goal. Furthermore, a fuzzy goal can be determined from parameters and for the left and right spreads of the fuzzy number

* * on the basis of standard value C * , where C min = C * and C max = C * .

( )

( )

107

)(

(3.13)

Fuzzy Goal G

* C min

* C max

Travel Time

3.4

Akiyama et al (1994) observed that, in the real world, the driver can only use fuzzy traffic information even if several types of information are available. These authors succeeded in formulating the fuzzy user equilibrium with fuzzy travel time. They confirmed their assumption about drivers perception of time as a triangular fuzzy number by a survey on the Hanshin Expressway and urban streets in the Osaka area.

The Fuzzified F-W algorithm used to obtain a fuzzy UE traffic assignment is the solution of a conventional problem. In changing the algorithm, the modification is only to replace the crisp value of the travel time with the representative values of the fuzzy travel time function as follows:

108

( feasible solutions of link flow v a1) .

(0)

= c a (0) . Obtain

( Step 2: Crisp travel time: Obtain crisp link travel time c an ) based on B.P.R. performance

function.

Step 3: Fuzzified travel time: Obtain the representative values of path travel time which

Note:

Fuzzy travel time on each path is calculated from the link travel times. The path travel time here is still described as a triangular fuzzy number. The final representative values of fuzzy travel time are obtained according to the defuzzification method:

(n a ( cijp) = ijp c an ) (3 a + a ) / 3

aL

Step 4: Shortest path search: Search for a shortest path based on the representative

Step 5: Direction finding: Use all-or-nothing loading to obtain the descent direction

dn = yn vn .

Step 6: Optimal step size: Solve the following linear problem to obtain step size * .

Step 7: Updating: Obtain the new feasible solution by

v ( n+1) = v ( n ) + *d (n )

Step 8: Convergence test. If the following equation is satisfied, then stop. Otherwise, set

n = n + 1 and go to step 2.

109

Z (v )d (n )

The method of fuzzy user equilibrium with fuzzy travel time is also introduced by Shao, Akiyama, and Sasaki (1997). The applicability of the proposed model is considered from the data in the road traffic census and the road user questionnaire survey. According to route comparison based on fuzzy travel time, the possibility distribution (fuzzy number) of the travel time is formed. In this situation, the road user compares the fuzzy numbers of the routes and decides which routes are advantageous and which not. In comparing the sizes of the fuzzy numbers on the real number axis, they used the representative value method. The model is an extension of the usual equivalent mathematical programming method refers to an earlier section. The models are applied to analyse the traffic flow on the network of Kyoto city as a real example. The results from the methods proposed are then compared as well as the conventional deterministic method with the traffic volume observed. It showed that if the correlation coefficient is highest i.e. in terms of estimation accuracy, the proposed method is better than the conventional one.

3.5

The route choice behaviour which is modelled by comparing fuzzy travel times was introduced by Akiyama and Kawahara (1997). In this study, possibility measure is used as an index of distance between fuzzy travel times. Furthermore, the possibility index is used to describe the route choice decision with fuzzy travel times. A fuzzy goal is introduced since many possibilities should be determined in multi-route choice models. The fuzzy goal is designed as a fuzzy subset to compare the travel times for three or more routes simultaneously. The fuzzy goal G is regarded as a target value that the travel time between O-D pairs is almost below the goal G.

110

Step 1: A fuzzy goal is determined. Step 2: The fuzzy route travel times for individual O-D pairs are determined as sums of

Step 3: A point of intersection between fuzzy goal G and fuzzy route travel time A is

obtained as shown in Figure 3.6. The value of on the vertical axis shows a possibility index.

Fuzzy Goal: G

* C min

* C max

Travel Time

C pl

C p C pr

Step 4: Determine the choice probability for each route in proportion to the value of

possibility index.

Step 5: O-D traffic is loaded to the route in proportion.

In fuzzy equilibrium assignment, the MSA is used as well with the network loading by this possibility method. The algorithm is summarised as follows:

Step 1: Define the parameters, and for fuzzy goal in advance.

0 Step 2: Perform an AoN assignment based on c a = c a (0 )

111

( ( ( Step 4: Update. Set c an ) = c a (v an ) ) (by BPR function) corresponding to v a1) with fuzzy

travel times.

( Step 5: Determine path flow pattern ( y a ) with the possibility method based on c an ) .

1 ( y a v an ) n

Step 7: Convergence test. If a convergence criterion is met, stop (the current solution,

( v a1) , is the set of fuzzy equilibrium link flows); otherwise, set n = n + 1 and go to

step 4.

Inokuchi and Kawakami (2002) defined another fuzzy traffic assignment. In this study, the route choice principle is defined for three traffic assignment principles; the maximisation of possibility measure, the maximisation of degree of utility, and the minimisation of disutility. The maximisation of the possibility measure leads to the choice of the assignment principle that the route with the maximum possibility of travel

* * time less than C min . A C min is calculated on the basis of the travel time of the shortest

path between origin and destination. The maximum of degree of utility leads to the route with the maximum possibility of a given utility threshold being chosen. Lastly, the route with the minimum possibility of not achieving a given utility threshold is chosen. The assignment results differed depending on the difference between the assignment principles.

Akiyama and Okhusima (2002) introduced a traffic assignment model with hybrid travel time. Travel time in this model assumed that since it has randomness and fuzziness, a hybrid number is introduced to deal with both characteristics. Therefore, the formulation in traffic assignment with hybrid travel time will have the characteristics of stochastic traffic assignment as well as fuzzy traffic assignment at the same time. The technique of Monte Carlo Simulation in addition to MSA for SUE can be utilised to generate Hybrid User Equilibrium (HUE) flows on the network. However, a specific algorithm has not been developed for the estimation of HUE traffic flow for this study.

112

Binetti and De Mitri (2002) proposed a path choice model where fuzzy number represents costs. In their hypothesis, the choice of users depends on the comparison of the estimated cost of all the paths. These values are affected by imprecision, vagueness and uncertainty. They utilised only the parameters for representing the imprecision of the costs. In a real situation, the choice set may contain some partially overlapping paths. To avoid this problem, they proposed a correction of the calculation of choice probabilities by introducing an index that allows them to consider overlapping paths. The MSA was utilised to generate user equilibrium flows in this study.

A fuzzy traffic assignment model including the fuzzy traffic user equilibrium and fuzzy route choice conditions is proposed by Ban et al (2004). The proposed model is solved by the MSA algorithm which includes a fuzzy shortest path algorithm to find the group of shortest paths under fuzzy perceptions, and a C-logit method to assign traffic to each of these paths. In a deterministic network, the shortest path from a given origin to a given destination is the single path with the minimum travel cost. However, under fuzzy situations, it seems unreasonable to construct the sole path which is the shortest in terms of the fuzzy cost. The fuzzy shortest path in this study is as a fuzzy variable, over a set of paths. Since the path travel time is also a fuzzy variable, this will produce a doubly fuzzy set (i.e. a fuzzy set of fuzzy variables). The support for the fuzzy shortest path consists of all the paths which potentially could be the shortest. To define the fuzzy shortest path mathematically needs the fuzzy comparison operator , which then defines the minimum over a set of fuzzy variables. In the fuzzy network loading process, the C-logit approach is deployed to assign traffic among the alternative paths, since the IIA assumptions of the multinomial logit model do not hold (Cascetta, 1996).

3.6

A fuzzy version of the platoon model of traffic flow is presented by Kaczmarek (1986). The basic elements of the model are platoons of vehicles

_ PLT = t p , t l , v

(3.14)

113

_

v [b / V ] t l [V ]

t p [V ]

: mean volume in the platoon, : time length of the platoon, : time position of the beginning of the platoon.

_

Thus t l v is the number of vehicles in the platoon and b = t p + t l is the time position of the end of the platoons and the saturation flow volume is V . The fuzzy set vehicle platoon could represent many platoons which can occur at a given site in similar traffic conditions. They may have a little different time position t p and time length t l in several delays on the street, for instance. To describe such a situation, consider the fuzzy position of the beginning edge with range b and ending edge with range e of a platoon

_ PLT = t p , t l , v, b , e

(3.15)

The movement at given site at time t can take place with different degrees of membership induced from crisp platoons belonging to a fuzzy set of similar vehicle platoons. In this study, the membership function is assumed as trapezoidal (Figure 3.7). The range of fuzziness of the beginning edge and ending edge of the vehicle platoon are respectively.

b = max t p i min t p i

e = max bi min bi

(3.16)

114

(t ) = min max 0,

(t t

(3.17)

v

t p1

t l1

_

v

t p2

tl 2

_

t p3

tl 3

_

tl

3.7

Conclusions

In this chapter, fuzzy variable and its operations used in traffic assignment, particularly for the form of triangular fuzzy number, are described. Most applications of fuzzy logic in the user equilibrium traffic assignment area have focused on travel time, represented as a triangular fuzzy number. These applications are slightly different from the proposed model in this research, as the fuzzy logic approach used here focuses on the traffic flow. However, the procedure of assignment is similar. The descriptive method of route choice with fuzzy numbers is described. Fuzzy traffic assignment, based both on the F-W algorithm and on the MSA algorithm, is reviewed and discussed. Finally, the concept of fuzzy traffic flow has been reviewed.

115

Chapter 4

DATA

4.1

Introduction

The field survey is an important part of this research and the results will be essential in all aspects of the subsequent analysis of the application of fuzzy logic to traffic assignment based on traffic data from developing countries. The main consideration in conducting the survey is to devise ways of collecting the considerable quantity of data required by the multi-class assignment analysis. This survey is supported by the Institute of Road Engineering (IRE), the Department of Public Works, Republic of Indonesia.

The description of the procedure for collecting traffic data at the four links with the different types of activity particularly focuses on using the video cameras, while the collection of the secondary data (institutional data) for obtaining the O-D matrix and the road geometry is briefly described separately at the end of this chapter. The data of the survey are important in order to develop an understanding of the salient characteristics and to validate the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model in this research. The technique of the data reduction in the traffic laboratory is introduced, especially the building of a database on the spreadsheet form for using in analysis. This technique uses the classification of vehicles referred to in the IHCM.

This chapter describes the four types of activities during the collecting of data in Indonesia mainly, the survey preparation, the data collection, the data reduction, and the secondary data collection.

116

4.2

Survey Preparation

The survey preparation is the beginning stage of the field survey. This preparation was therefore developed with the IRE. This stage included the recruitment of survey team members, the training of the survey team, pilot survey, and providing some formal paperwork.

Recruitment of survey personnel was based on their skill and their ability to work as a team in the field. The total man-days required were also estimated in order to accommodate the survey within the available budget. Seven persons were recruited to fill the jobs in the team. All of them were IRE staff; they were 1 survey coordinator, 5 survey technicians, and 1 driver.

Training for the surveyors was conducted on one day prior to conducting the field survey. In the training, the nature of the research was explained to the team members, together with the types of observations to be conducted, the techniques and methods of observations, the survey procedures (standard site lay-out and set up procedure), and measurement and operational procedures. The training was followed by a pilot survey on the following day, at the IRE track area. The intention of this pilot survey was to try out the procedures and identify any possible difficulties in the field. The results were then evaluated and used as feedback for the survey design. Revised versions of the survey were then produced and used in the field survey.

Before running the surveys, thorough checks were made of all equipment being used. Double checking was also done prior to every survey, every day. Batteries were amongst the equipment given most attention. Regarding the equipment required for this survey, most was available as IRE property, while some additional equipment and accessories had to be purchased.

Besides these physical preparations, some paperwork had also to be completed prior to the field survey. This included preparing a covering letter for the collecting of

117

data from other institutions, such as O-D matrix data from the Institute of Technology Bandung, the road network inventory from the Directorate General of Land Transport, Department of Communication, Republic of Indonesia, and the Bandung Traffic Office.

4.3

Data Collection

Although some possible sites had been identified in the survey design, revisions were made to the plan, to adjust to the real conditions and constraints. The constraints included the equipment availability and capacity, operational logistics and limited time and funding. Technical criteria included finding survey sites with a relatively straight section that was long enough to set equipment up; a relatively flat terrain; a good distribution throughout the Bandung urban area to provide a more comprehensive view of the study area; and the same percentage for the directional split of flows in order to get simple and good data for analysis.

The locations of the survey are shown on the Bandung City map in Figure 4.1. There were four survey sites chosen for data collection, namely; road link Cipadung (site 1), road link Sukarno-Hatta (site 2), road link Lingkar Selatan (site 3), and road link Sudirman (site 4). These road links are part of the main road network in Bandung City which is printed in bold on the map.

118

119

In the section below the situation and road geometry for each site selected is described:

Site 1

This site is a section on Cipadung road which is close to the eastern border of Bandung City. This road runs from the east to the north area of the city. It is classified as an arterial road, two-lane, two-way and undivided. The classification is identified as 2/2UD in the IHCM. The total length of this road is 8,380 m with a width of 8 m. The effective shoulder along the road is approximately between 1 and 2 m. Most of the activities around this road are residential and shops. The Cipadung site can be seen in Figure 4.2.

120

Site 2

This site lies on the south outer ring road (i.e. the Sukarno-Hatta road) between the Pasir Koja junction and the Sudirman junction. Sukarno-Hatta is the longest road which connects the west border of Bandung City to the east border. This section is close to the western border of the city. The link length of the road is 1,460 m and the road width is 13 m. The effective width of the shoulder varies between 1 and 2 m. The classification type of this link is four-lane, two-way, and undivided, or 4/2UD according to the IHCM. On the other hand, most of the links on the Sukarno-Hatta road have median. Activities along this road are industrial, school and offices. The road is shown in Figure 4.3.

121

Site 3

This site section lies on the Lingkar Selatan road, between the Pasir Koja junction and the Kopo junction. Lingkar Selatan is the citys inner ring road and is situated in the south of Bandung City. The length of this link is 1,500 m and its width is 14 m. The effective shoulder width along the road is between 1 and 2 m. There are medians, or central reservations, with approximately 2 m width, as can be seen in Figure 4.4. The type of this road is four-lane, two-way, and divided, known as 4/2D (IHCM). The activities along this road are offices and shops.

122

Site 4

This site is on a link between the Astana Anyar junction and the Jamaika junction of the Sudirman road. This road is three-lane, one-way, and undivided, or 3/1UD according to the IHCM. The length of this road is 1,320 m and its width is 12 m. There are kerbs alongside the road. This road crosses the central business district (CBD) area of Bandung City. The road is shown in Figure 4.5.

Road types in this research were then coded with a number, with the intention of making analysis easier, particularly for the computer programming proposed. The codification of road types was as follows:

123

=1 =2 =3 =4

The Video Camera is commonly used for traffic surveys. This equipment is effective and easy to implement on survey sites. The camera is set facing down a section of road so that it can record traffic over time and space. Measurements of vehicle speed, travel time and traffic flow can be obtained through the data reduction process. On the other hand, a disadvantage of using a camera is the limited coverage possible from a fixed location.

Measurements can be made by playing videotapes in the video playback system frame by frame. There are two methods for measuring distance (see Taylor et al, 2000). First, the distance of the observation is marked directly on the monitor screen. Secondly, a marker or line is put on the actual roadside or road surface prior to filming, which avoids parallax problems. This research applied the second method hence the location and the associated time at this location for each vehicle can be counted precisely, as well as the traffic flow. The measured travel time of each vehicle can be obtained by recording the time for the vehicle to pass between the entry and exit observation lines. Traffic flow is measured by counting vehicles crossing the entry observation line in the interval selected.

Two video cameras were placed on the edge of road 300 m apart (see Figure 4.6). The distance between the two video cameras was based on the recommendation of the IHCM study. After the placement of these cameras the observation lines across the road

124

were installed. The material for the observation lines (masking tape) was chosen because it can be removed easily from the road after conducting the survey. Any vehicle crossing the observation line was recorded by the adjacent camera. By switching on these cameras simultaneously, the travel time for each type of vehicle for both directions can be measured by the time difference recorded by the cameras. It is as accurate as the time resolution of the video recorded system. Furthermore, the flow of each vehicle identified for both directions can be calculated for traffic passing the entry observation line within a given time interval.

Observation Line

300 m

Observation Line

The installation of each video camera as well as the adjustment of its position to catch the object properly was done by technicians several hours before conducting the survey. In this research, the height of the video camera installation from the road (ground level) is about 3 to 4 m. Moreover, the horizontal distance between the location of the video camera and the observation line was about 10 to 15 m. The activity of the video camera installation is presented in Figure 4.7.

125

At the same time, other technicians placed the observation lines by putting masking tape across the road as shown in Figure 4.8. This activity needed help from the traffic police to manage traffic passing from both directions to the location of the installation observation lines.

126

The field survey was conducted during March 2002. The survey activities were conducted during about 9 hours from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. on normal working days between Monday to Thursday for each site. The time was selected ensure that the survey took place in daylight. Furthermore, the selected days were assumed to have a similar pattern of traffic. The time of the survey captures traffic conditions during the morning peak period and the off-peak period as well.

The number of video cassettes used during the time recorded is 3 units, because the duration for each cassette is 3 hours. This survey was carried out at site 1 on 14th March, site 2 on 18th March, site 3 on 20th March and site 4 on 19th March.

127

The road geometry inventory survey was conducted at the same time. This survey focuses on the measurement of the road section adjacent to the cameras and general information on land-use, such as a sketch of the location, surrounding network and typical activities in this area.

4.4

Data Reduction

In data reduction, the raw camera data is observed in the laboratory using video recorded systems for analysis purposes (see Figure 4.9). Raw camera data is seen on the two monitors that represent the two cameras with the same recorded time setting.

128

For the proposed analysis, traffic flow is classified into four classes of vehicle in order to simplify the complexity of the traffic data in the model. The following classification of vehicle types in urban areas refers to the IHCM, mainly: LV, HV, MC and UM. The details of the vehicle classification have been described in sub-chapter 2.5.3. The codes of the vehicle classifications for the computer programming are as follows: LV =1

HV = 2 MC = 3 UM = 4

By monitoring the passage of vehicles across the observation line, the number of vehicles in a certain interval can be counted. The interval chosen for the analysis is 1 minute. Vehicle counting here is manual, using a hand tally. The data are then recorded on the form. The forms are saved as a spreadsheet file. An example form for traffic flow in a 5-minute interval that is equal to 5 data is shown in Table 4.1.

Number of Data 1 2 3 4 5 Time 07:00 - 07:01 07:01 - 07:02 07:02 - 07:03 07:03 - 07:04 07:04 - 07:05 LV HV MC UM (vehicles) (vehicles) (vehicles) (vehicles) 10 4 12 2 10 0 8 0 6 3 8 0 7 1 4 1 9 2 7 0

129

After recording all traffic flow on the form from the raw camera data, the next task in the reduction process is to select the data required for analysis. Ideally, the amount of data obtained during a survey which takes 9 hours is 540 data sets available. This number of records is based on the numbers of unit intervals recorded, i.e. one set of data is equal to 1 minute interval. However, the activities of the site surveys have some limitations, such as how much it rains, the performance of batteries, and speed in putting new video cassettes in the video cameras etc. As a result, the amount of data available from the survey is shown in Table 4.2.

Site Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Road Type 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 3/1UD Data Available (in minutes) 519 523 528 522 % 96 97 98 97

This table shows that the data obtained from the sites survey is 97%, on average, of the expectation of the designed survey. Moreover, the data available according to the types of vehicles for each survey site is presented in Table 4.3. In this table it can be seen that the quantity of data available is equal to the quantity of data available for LV. It is recognised that every interval contains a LV, as the IHCM shows the highest proportion of vehicle types in the total flows on road links are LV, that is about 50% (see Table 4.4).

Sites Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Data Available LV HV 519 377 523 374 528 265 522 248 (in minutes) MC 518 523 527 504

130

Traffic composition is the proportion of each vehicle class in the total flow. This can be derived from the traffic flow data provided, usually total flow on link. This composition is needed for the analysis in this research, particularly in converting the flow of the O-D matrix into four vehicles classes (i.e. LV, HV, MC, UM) for input to the multi-class assignment process. The traffic composition value for each vehicle class used in the analysis is estimated from the average of the four types of road (2/2UD, 4/2UD, 4/2D, 3/1UD) in the IHCM, as shown in Table 4.4.

Vehicle Class LV HV MC UM Traffic Composition 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1

Travel time for each vehicle from the raw camera data can be determined by using a sampling technique. This technique is simple by selecting one vehicle sample for each type of vehicle within a unit interval datum (1 minute). The description of this technique is usually expressed mathematically. In addition, the visualisation in operation of this technique is presented as a diagram in order to make it easier to understand. The starting time for recording the travel time of the sample vehicle (LV, HV, MC, UM) can be expressed as t1 t sample t 2 , where t1 is the starting time for counting traffic flow, t sample is the starting time for recording the vehicle when it passes the entry observation line, t 2 is the end time for counting traffic flow (1 minute later). The position of vehicles sampled in detail is illustrated in Figure 4.10. Travel time of the vehicle sample (300 m) is the difference between t sample (entry ) and t sample (exit ) in seconds.

131

t1

Vehicle sample passes the entry line (in minute between 1 - 2)

t sample (entry )

Ending time for counting flows in minute 2

t2

Vehicle sample passes the exit line

t sample (exit )

300 m

Furthermore, travel time of the sample vehicle is determined by calculating the time difference between passing the entry and exit observation lines. Hence, every interval datum will have one value of travel time for each vehicle type. An example form for travel time combined with traffic flow from Table 4.1, which is the basic input data for analysis, is shown in Table 4.5.

Number of Data 1 2 3 4 5 Time

Flow (vehicles) 07:00 - 07:01 07:01 - 07:02 07:02 - 07:03 07:03 - 07:04 07:04 - 07:05

LV

Travel Time (seconds) Flow

HV

Travel Time (seconds) Flow (vehicles)

MC

Travel Time (seconds) Flow (vehicles)

UM

Travel Time (seconds) (vehicles)

10 10 6 7 9

41 43 35 37 35

4 0 3 1 2

37 36 33 35

12 8 8 4 7

39 39 40 35 36

2 0 0 1 0

51 47 -

In this table it can be seen that if a flow of vehicle types is not available in the unit interval datum where the indication is zero, such as HV in datum number 2 and UM in datum numbers 2, 3 and 5, therefore travel time is empty as well.

132

4.5

Secondary Data

Other data collected are called secondary data. These data are obtained from some institutions visits and previous studies. In the following section, the collection of the OD matrix data and road traffic data are described.

The O-D matrix data is obtained from a previous study of integrated transportation in the Bandung area (1997), conducted by the Institute of Technology Bandung. The O-D data in this report is in vehicles per hour within 100 zones and is presented on the spreadsheet. The zone definition used in the study represents the administrative sub-districts in the city. The growth factor to estimate vehicles per hour is also provided in the report for every 5 years until the year 2017 (Table 4.6). The main road network which is classified as arterial roads and Bandung City map are presented (see Figure 4.1).

Road and traffic data are obtained from the Directorate General of Land Transport, Department of Communication, Republic of Indonesia and Bandungs Traffic Office (2000). This road and traffic data were collected as part of a comprehensive study of the traffic pattern and road transport for Bandung City in 2000. The road information data in this report contains the link numbers, road names, link lengths, road widths, road functions, and road types. There are 335 links within the city. Regarding traffic data, this report presented both traffic flow on each link in passenger car units (pcu) and average link travel time for cars in minutes. Traffic flow here is classified into 6 types of vehicle, namely motorcycle, bicycle, car, paratransit, bus, and pickup. This report also produces a traffic pattern for a working day for some arterial roads for 15 minute intervals and a duration of 16 hours (i.e. from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m). These roads are particularly in the city centre.

133

No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Isola Ledeng Ciumbuleuit Dago Hegarmanah Gegerkalong Sukarasa Sarijadi Sukawarna Sukagalih Cipedes Sukaraja Campaka Husein Sastranegara Sukabungah Pajajaran Pamoyanan Pasteur Cipaganti Lebak Siliwangi Sekeloa Lebakgede Cigadung Sadangserang Sukaluyu Neglasari Sukapada Pasirlayung Padasuka Cikutra Cicadas Sukamaju Cihaurgeulis Citarum Cihapit Merdeka Babakan Ciamis Braga Tamansari Pasirkaliki Arjuna Ciroyom Dunguscariang Kebonjeruk Garuda Maleber Cijerah Cibuntu Gempolsari Cigondewah Kidul Warungmuncang Babakan Sukahaji Babakan Ciparay Cigondewahrahayu Margahayu Utara Margasuka Cirangrang Sukaasih Kopo Situsaeur Cibaduyut Kebonlega Karasak Ciseureuh Ancol Cigereleng Pelindung Hewan Ciateul Pungkur Panjunan Babakan Asih Jamika Cibadak Karanganyar Balonggede Cikawao Kebonpisang Burangrang Lingkarselatan Turangga Cijagra Wates Gumuruh Kacapiring Samoja Cicaheum Sukapura Kebonjayanti Antapani Sukamiskin Sekejati Margasenang Darwati Mekarmulya Ujung Berung Cigending Cisurupan Caringin Pasirendah

1.05 1.02 1.08 1.19 1.01 1.03 1.11 1.11 1.30 1.30 1.19 1.17 1.04 1.01 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.01 1.07 1.10 1.05 1.12 1.05 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.13 1.16 1.07 1.03 1.10 1.12 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.04 1.01 1.11 1.08 1.02 1.13 1.08 1.13 1.03 1.04 1.24 1.02 1.10 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.05 1.08 1.05 1.02 1.09 1.07 1.03 1.01 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.02 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.13 1.11 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.06 1.10 1.12 1.39 1.11 1.15 1.10 1.17 1.18 1.15 1.08 1.15

1.09 1.05 1.15 1.36 1.02 1.06 1.22 1.22 1.58 1.58 1.35 1.32 1.06 1.01 1.35 1.37 1.37 1.13 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.01 1.14 1.20 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.19 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.04 1.04 1.24 1.31 1.14 1.06 1.20 1.23 1.08 1.13 1.13 1.08 1.01 1.21 1.15 1.05 1.22 1.16 1.24 1.06 1.09 1.46 1.01 1.18 1.01 1.20 1.20 1.16 1.10 1.16 1.11 1.03 1.16 1.13 1.06 1.02 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.04 1.11 1.11 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.09 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.26 1.20 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.12 1.17 1.24 1.78 1.22 1.28 1.17 1.32 1.34 1.22 1.15 1.27 1.14 1.08 1.22 1.58 1.04 1.11 1.34 1.34 2.04 2.04 1.65 1.45 1.11 1.02 1.65 1.63 1.63 1.21 1.24 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.02 1.23 1.32 1.18 1.35 1.18 1.31 1.17 1.17 1.22 1.08 1.08 1.37 1.47 1.22 1.12 1.36 1.41 1.14 1.20 1.21 1.14 1.05 1.32 1.24 1.10 1.27 1.26 1.37 1.11 1.14 1.72 1.02 1.28 1.02 1.32 1.32 1.26 1.14 1.26 1.18 1.05 1.25 1.22 1.11 1.06 1.22 1.24 1.25 1.08 1.18 1.18 1.25 1.26 1.23 1.15 1.02 1.11 1.11 1.41 1.33 1.22 1.25 1.30 1.28 1.21 1.31 1.43 2.32 1.37 1.47 1.33 1.53 1.57 1.35 1.24 1.45

2017

1.20 1.12 1.31 1.89 1.07 1.19 1.51 1.51 2.90 2.90 2.22 1.61 1.17 1.04 2.22 2.07 2.07 1.33 1.36 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.33 1.02 1.35 1.48 1.29 1.52 1.29 1.46 1.27 1.27 1.33 1.15 1.15 1.55 1.69 1.34 1.19 1.65 1.73 1.21 1.29 1.34 1.20 1.11 1.47 1.36 1.16 1.35 1.40 1.54 1.18 1.20 2.05 1.03 1.40 1.03 1.51 1.51 1.39 1.19 1.39 1.29 1.10 1.36 1.33 1.20 1.12 1.34 1.37 1.36 1.14 1.27 1.27 1.38 1.40 1.36 1.23 1.02 1.19 1.19 1.61 1.49 1.34 1.37 1.47 1.43 1.32 1.53 1.72 3.20 1.59 1.78 1.59 1.85 1.97 1.58 1.36 1.73

134

4.6

Conclusions

The procedure of collecting data in the field has been explained. This procedure begins with survey preparation and is followed by collecting traffic data on the four selected sites using video cameras. The activity at the sites that included setting up video cameras before conducting the survey and determining survey timing is described. The data reduction task in the laboratory has been explained and the results obtained for the analysis have been presented. Obtaining the secondary data from some institutions has been explained. The preliminary selection of the secondary data to produce data for analysis is also presented.

135

Chapter 5

5.1

Introduction

In the previous chapter, the development of fuzzy traffic assignment models is described. In this chapter, the development of models for multi-class problems based on traffic data from developing countries is dealt with. There are two model developments introduced for the multi-class problem. Firstly, the setting up of fuzzy set membership functions for multi-class flow is developed. Secondly, the development of a lookup table for multi-class travel times based on the mean and the median of travel times from the site survey data is described. Furthermore, the formulation of the proposed fuzzy model is presented. An example of the defuzzified link travel time using both lookup tables based on mean and median is presented. The fitting of approximate BPR functions to multi-class traffic data is described and discussed. This is used to develop a conventional assignment model. This model is for use for comparison with the proposed fuzzy model. Lastly, the demonstration of anisotropic behaviour is presented.

5.2

Model Development

As stated in the assumption at the beginning of this research, the method of the fuzzyfied link flow associated with link travel time can mimic link cost functions, particularly with reference to multi-class traffic data. As a result of its ability to map link flows on to link costs anisotropically, the application of the method can theoretically lead to more accurate estimates of flow in network equilibrium.

136

To simplify, two flow states are defined for each class as low (L) and high (H). The membership function relates flow to the level of belief in it being L or H. In this research, the percentiles of flow (P) used in the building of the membership function are P10, P20, P30, and P40 for low flow parameter Pa and P60, P70, P80, and P90 for high flow parameter Pb . The criterion of the fuzzy set membership function for L and H is explained as follows:

Fuzzy set L

A flow given less than Pa corresponds to 1 level of belief. A flow given more than Pb corresponds with 0 level of belief.

1

L

P0

Pa

Pb

P100

Flows

A flow given less than Pa of flow corresponds to 0 level of belief. A flow given more than Pb of flow corresponds to 1 level of belief.

1

H

P0

Pa

Pb

P100

Flows

137

The combination of fuzzy set L and H on the link selected can be seen in figure 5.3. In addition, the crossing point between the two fuzzy sets always corresponds to 0.5 level of belief. In this figure the fuzzified link travel time function is also illustrated on the upper part of the diagram. The fuzzified link travel time function in this model is piecewise linear, where the region between Pa and Pb the line is increasing with flow. Accordingly, the travel time within the region P0 to Pa that is categorised as low has the same value. On the other hand, the travel time value within the region Pb to P100 is categorised as high.

Travel Time

1 0.5 0 L H

P0

Pa

Pb

P100

Flows

The mathematics of the fuzzy set membership functions used in the proposed fuzzy model can be written as follows:

1 q = (v; Pa , Pb ) = ( Pb v) /( Pb Pa ) 0

v0 v > Pa v > Pb

and and

v Pa v Pb (5.1)

138

0 r = (v; Pa , Pb ) = (v Pa ) /( Pb Pa ) 1

v0 v > Pa v > Pb

and and

v Pa v Pb (5.2)

In this research, the correspondance of parameters Pa and Pb in building fuzzy set link flows have 16 alternative membership functions for each type of vehicle and for each type of road. The number of alternatives and codes is presented on the list in Table 5.1. The illustration form of the fuzzified link travel time function for the 16 alternatives for LV on a road type 2/2UD is presented in Figure 5.4.

Alternative Membership Functions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Coded P10 - P60 P10 - P70 P10 - P80 P10 - P90 P20 - P60 P20 - P70 P20 - P80 P20 - P90 P30 - P60 P30 - P70 P30 - P80 P30 - P90 P40 - P60 P40 - P70 P40 - P80 P40 - P90

139

Travel Time P10 - P60 P10 - P70 P10 - P80 P10 - P90 P20 - P60 P20 - P70 P20 - P80 P20 - P90 P30 - P60 P30 - P70 P30 - P80 P30 - P90 P40 - P60 P40 - P70 P40 - P80 P40 - P90

P100 Flows

According to the assumption of using the percentiles for flow in order to build the membership function, the following table below produces the percentile values of flow for each alternative for the four classes of vehicle and also for the four types of road. The value of flows in that table are compressed to be zero decimal for simplifying calculations.

140

Vehicle Class Road Type 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Parameter Fuzzy Set P10-P60 (1) 4 7 4 12 9 14 12 19 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 9 8 13 10 20 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 P10-P70 (2) 4 7 4 12 10 16 14 20 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 9 9 14 12 21 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 P10-P80 (3) 4 7 4 12 11 17 16 22 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 5 4 9 10 17 14 24 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 P10-P90 (4) 4 7 4 12 12 19 18 24 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 3 5 4 9 12 21 17 27 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 6 P20-P60 (5) 5 9 6 14 9 14 12 19 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 7 5 12 8 13 10 20 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 P20-P70 (6) 5 9 6 14 10 16 14 20 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 7 5 12 9 14 12 21 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 P20-P80 (7) 5 9 6 14 11 17 16 22 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 7 5 12 10 17 14 24 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 P20-P90 (8) 5 9 6 14 12 19 18 24 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 4 7 5 12 12 21 17 27 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 6 P30-P60 (9) 6 11 8 15 9 14 12 19 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 8 7 14 8 13 10 20 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 P30-P70 (10) 6 11 8 15 10 16 14 20 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 8 7 14 9 14 12 21 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 P30-P80 (11) 6 11 8 15 11 17 16 22 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 5 8 7 14 10 17 14 24 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 P30-P90 (12) 6 11 8 15 12 19 18 24 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 5 8 7 14 12 21 17 27 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 6 P40-P60 (13) 7 12 9 17 9 14 12 19 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 10 8 16 8 13 10 20 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 P40-P70 (14) 7 12 9 17 10 16 14 20 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 10 8 16 9 14 12 21 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 P40-P80 (15) 7 12 9 17 11 17 16 22 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 6 10 8 16 10 17 14 24 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 P40-P90 (16) 7 12 9 17 12 19 18 24 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 6 10 8 16 12 21 17 27 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 6

Pa

LV

Pb

Pa

HV

Pb

Pa

MC

Pb

Pa

UM

Pb

141

The lookup table replaces the link cost functions commonly used in the conventional traffic assignment model. This lookup table is produced from multi-class traffic data at the site surveys. As described in the section above, L is flow level that is less than Pa and H is flow level that is more than Pb . The construction of the lookup table is divided into two tasks as follows:

Firstly, travel time data are sorted according to the respective flow levels ( P0 to Pa and Pb to P100 ) for the four vehicle classes (LV, HV, MC, UM) and for the four road types (2/2UD, 4/2UD, 4/2D, 3/1UD). The travel times in each flow level are then sorted again to determine a single value of travel time, for example the mean or median, to store in the lookup table. The single value of travel time is similar to the Sugeno concept in the fuzzy inference system. In this method, travel time data between Pa and Pb are not considered for building the lookup table because of the assumption that the fuzzified travel time function is increasing by the setting up of the single travel time value from the two extreme regions, i.e. L at the beginning and H at the end of the function. The illustration of this method is shown in Figure 5.5 and the results of the single travel time value based on 300 m (seconds) are presented in Table 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 respectively. In these tables, observation is coded as obs.

Travel times data

The fuzzified link travel time function

P0

Pa

Pb

P 100

Flows

Figure 5.5 Determination of the Travel Time Value for the Lookup Table 142

2-2UD Percentile LV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 26.9 25.0 75 27.7 26.0 125 27.8 26.5 186 28.5 27.0 250 34.6 35.0 216 35.5 36.0 164 36.4 36.0 124 36.9 37.0 75 HV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 30.3 29.0 184 30.3 29.0 184 30.3 29.0 184 30.3 29.0 184 33.8 34.0 193 33.8 34.0 193 33.8 34.0 193 35.6 36.0 73 MC mean median obs (c ) (c ) 31.0 30.0 71 31.1 30.0 122 31.2 30.0 180 31.3 30.0 234 33.6 33.0 214 34.4 35.0 159 35.6 36.0 112 35.7 36.0 56 UM mean median obs (c ) (c ) 47.8 47.0 108 47.8 47.0 108 47.8 47.0 108 47.8 47.0 108 52.9 53.0 31 52.9 53.0 31 52.9 53.0 31 52.9 53.0 31

Low

High

4-2UD Percentile LV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 24.8 25.0 64 25.8 25.0 108 26.8 26.0 181 27.1 27.0 226 31.8 31.0 252 32.6 32.0 171 33.1 33.0 128 34.4 34.0 72 HV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 28.8 28.0 157 28.8 28.0 157 28.8 28.0 157 28.8 28.0 157 32.8 33.0 217 32.8 33.0 217 35.8 36.0 107 37.8 38.0 39 MC mean median obs (c ) (c ) 25.8 26.0 75 26.1 26.0 130 26.4 26.0 166 27.0 27.0 240 33.1 33.0 215 33.1 33.0 215 34.7 34.0 109 36.0 35.0 54 UM mean median obs (c ) (c ) 47.8 48.0 162 47.8 48.0 162 47.8 48.0 162 47.8 48.0 162 53.3 54.0 156 53.3 54.0 156 54.7 55.0 77 55.2 56.0 33

Low

High

4-2D Percentile LV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 24.9 25.0 55 25.3 25.0 111 25.9 25.0 181 26.1 26.0 216 31.9 32.0 242 32.9 33.0 170 33.8 34.0 110 35.4 35.0 54 HV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 26.4 26.0 181 26.4 26.0 181 26.4 26.0 181 26.4 26.0 181 32.0 31.5 84 32.0 31.5 84 32.0 31.5 84 32.0 31.5 84 MC mean median obs (c ) (c ) 25.2 25.0 69 25.3 25.0 110 26.0 26.0 191 26.3 26.0 235 31.9 32.0 252 32.7 33.0 169 34.0 34.0 106 34.7 35.0 55 UM mean median obs (c ) (c ) 46.0 46.0 169 46.0 46.0 169 46.0 46.0 169 46.0 46.0 169 52.9 53.0 217 52.9 53.0 217 54.8 56.0 103 55.7 57.0 47

Low

High

3-1UD Percentile LV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 26.2 25.0 62 26.6 26.0 126 26.9 26.0 171 27.1 26.0 247 31.6 31.0 230 32.1 32.0 191 32.9 33.0 118 33.4 34.0 67 HV mean median obs (c ) (c ) 28.6 29.0 177 28.6 29.0 177 28.6 29.0 177 28.6 29.0 177 35.5 37.0 71 35.5 37.0 71 35.5 37.0 71 35.5 37.0 71 MC mean median obs (c ) (c ) 25.0 25.0 53 25.1 25.0 110 25.8 25.0 156 25.9 25.0 213 30.9 31.0 206 31.3 31.0 174 32.1 32.0 101 32.5 32.5 54 UM mean median obs (c ) (c ) 45.5 45.0 88 46.4 46.0 199 46.4 46.0 199 46.4 46.0 199 51.4 51.0 198 51.4 51.0 198 52.3 52.0 118 52.8 53.0 73

Low

High

143

Secondly, for the four classes of vehicle in each category of membership function for each type of road, there are 16 flow combinations that can be seen in Table 5.7. Furthermore, the single value of travel time for these combinations is stored on a table of travel time, i.e. the lookup table. Examples of the lookup tables (mean and median) in seconds for road type 2/2UD with P10-P60 are shown in Table 5.8 and Table 5.9. The rest of these tables for analysis (mean) are presented in Appendix A.

Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LV L L L L H H L L H H L L H H H H HV L L L H L L H L H L H H L H H H MC L L H L L H H H L L L H H L H H UM L H L L L L L H L H H H H H L H

2/2UD P10 - P60 LLLL LLLH LLHL LHLL HLLL HLHL LHHL LLHH HHLL HLLH LHLH LHHH HLHH HHLH HHHL HHHH LV mean 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 34.6 34.6 26.9 26.9 34.6 34.6 26.9 26.9 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 HV mean 30.3 30.3 30.3 33.8 30.3 30.3 33.8 30.3 33.8 30.3 33.8 33.8 30.3 33.8 33.8 33.8 MC mean 31.0 31.0 33.6 31.0 31.0 33.6 33.6 33.6 31.0 31.0 31.0 33.6 33.6 31.0 33.6 33.6 UM mean 47.8 52.9 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 52.9 47.8 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 47.8 52.9

LV HV MC UM 2/2UD P10 - P60 median median median median LLLL 25.0 29.0 30.0 47.0 LLLH 25.0 29.0 30.0 53.0 LLHL 25.0 29.0 33.0 47.0 LHLL 25.0 34.0 30.0 47.0 HLLL 35.0 29.0 30.0 47.0 HLHL 35.0 29.0 33.0 47.0 LHHL 25.0 34.0 33.0 47.0 LLHH 25.0 29.0 33.0 53.0 HHLL 35.0 34.0 30.0 47.0 HLLH 35.0 29.0 30.0 53.0 LHLH 25.0 34.0 30.0 53.0 LHHH 25.0 34.0 33.0 53.0 HLHH 35.0 29.0 33.0 53.0 HHLH 35.0 34.0 30.0 53.0 HHHL 35.0 34.0 33.0 47.0 HHHH 35.0 34.0 33.0 53.0

144

5.3

Formulation

The mathematical concept of the proposed fuzzy model above is introduced to determine link travel time. This concept is the form of the defuzzified link travel time that is an average of the lookup table weighted by the level of belief in each category of the lookup table. Defuzzification in this research is simple as the output variables (the travel time lookup table) are treated as crisp rather than fuzzy. From Figure 5.6 below, the mathematical equation can be written as follows:

Travel Time

1 L H Level of Belief

r q

0

P0

Pa

Pb

P100

Flows

Figure 5.6 Fuzzy Sets Link Flow with Low LoB q and High LoB r

Let: q m = Level of belief in low flow for vehicle class m (m = LV, HV, MC, UM) rm = Level of belief in high flow for vehicle class m (m = LV, HV, MC, UM)

145

Note: 1. 2. q m + rm = 1 for m = LV, HV, MC, UM Levels of belief are multiplicative i.e. level of belief that LV, HV, MC, and UM flows are simultaneously low is q LV q HV q MC qUM , etc.

Proposition: Levels of belief in all possible combinations of flow level sum to one,

namely: q LV q HV q MC qUM + q LV q HV q MC rUM + ... + rLV rHV rMC rUM = 1 (5.3)

q LV q HV q MC qUM + q LV q HV q MC rUM + ... + rLV rHV rMC rUM =

(q LV

q HV q MC qUM + q HV q MC rUM + ... + rHV rMC rUM and again q HV q MC qUM + q HV q MC rUM + ... + rHV rMC rUM =

(q HV

q MC qUM + q MC rUM + rMC qUM + rMC rUM and again q MC qUM + q MC rUM + rMC qUM + rMC rUM =

(q MC + rMC )(qUM

+ rUM ) = 1. QED

146

The combination of the fuzzified link travel time function for two vehicle classes, since each vehicle class has a fuzzified link travel time, for example LV and HV, can be illustrated in Figure 5.7a. This function takes place in a three-dimensional space. Otherwise, the fuzzified link travel time for the four vehicle classes which is focused on in this research cannot be visualised, because it needs more than three dimensions.

HV flow

LV flow

Figure 5.7a The fuzzified link travel time function for two vehicle classes

In addition, the proposed fuzzy model refers to the mechanism of fuzzy inference system as described in Chapter 2 (see Figure 2.11 and 2.12b). In the following diagram (Figure 5.7b) an illustration of fuzzy inference system with two inputs of vehicle i.e. LV and HV, two outputs ( cLV , c HV ), and four rules system are presented. However, the four inputs of vehicle which is used in this research needs sixteen rules system.

147

Phase 1.

The input flows for the two vehicle types LV and HV in the fuzzifier phase produce levels of belief qi and ri respectively for each rule i .

Phase 2.

In the operator phase, specific values of travel times for LV and HV are obtained from the lookup table provided. The travel time value for LV is t iLV and for HV it is t iHV .

Phase 3.

The levels of belief and the values of travel time are the implication.

Phase 4

In the aggregation phase, the outputs of all rules are multiplied and the summed. The equations are

q rt

i =1

i i iLV

for LV and

q rt

i =1

i i iHV

rules implemented.

Phase 5

The output of travel times (crisp values) for the two types of vehicle are cLV and c HV respectively. These outputs are produced in the defuzzifier phase. The equations used in this phase are similar with the phase of aggregation.

148

Input

Fuzzyfier

Operator

Implication

Aggregation

Defuzzyfier

Output

1 0

low

q1

LV

high

HV

low

t 3LV t1LV

low

t 4 LV t 2 LV

high

q1 ,t1LV

LV

1 0

low

r1

HV

high

HV

low

t 3HV t 4 HV

t1HV t 2 HV

low

r1 , t1HV

LV

high

LV

1 0 high high

q2

LV

HV

low

t 3LV t1LV

low

t 4 LV

t 2 LV

high

q 2 , t 2 LV

LV

1 0

low

r2

HV

high

HV

low

t 3HV t 4 HV

t1HV t 2 HV

low

r2 ,t 2 HV

qi ri tiLV

i =1

qi ri tiLV

i =1

cLV

LV

high

THEN c LV = t 2 LV AND c HV = t 2 HV

11 1 00 0

low

q3

LV

high

HV

low

t 3LV

t 4 LV t 2 LV

high

q3 , t 3LV

t1LV

low

qi ri tiHV

i =1

qi ri tiHV

i =1

cHV

LV

11 1 00 0

high

r3

high

HV

low

t 3HV t 4 HV

HV

t1HV t 2 HV

low

r3 ,t 3HV

LV

high

HV

THEN c LV = t 3 LV AND c HV = t 3 HV

1 0

high

q4

LV

high

HV

low

t 3LV

t1LV

low

t 4 LV

q 4 , t 4 LV

t 2 LV

high

LV

1 0

high

r4

high

HV

low

t 3HV

t 4 HV

HV

t1HV t 2 HV

low

r4 ,t 4 HV

LV

high

Crisp Values

THEN c LV = t 4 LV AND c HV = t 4 HV

Fuzzy Values

Crisp Values

Figure 5.7b Fuzzy Inference System Diagram for the Proposed Fuzzy Model

149

Example Calculation

Consider an input flow for each vehicle type on a road type 2/2UD using a fuzzy set parameter of P10-P60. Parameters of fuzzy set membership function for each vehicle type are provided. Details of this input data are shown in Table 5.10.

Input Data Road Types Vehicle Class Parameter P10 - P60 Flow

Pa

2/2 UD LV

Pb Pa

HV

Pb Pa

MC

Pb Pa

UM

Pb

4 8

1 3

3 5

1 1

The calculation procedure in this example is based on the concept of the fuzzy inference system. In this calculation, the process introduced in the fuzzy inference system is simplified by two main tasks. Firstly, obtain the level of belief q for a low level of flow and r for a high level of flow for each vehicle class. This procedure can be done by plotting the flow given on the fuzzy sets membership functions for each vehicle class. The illustration of the procedure for each vehicle class is presented in Figures 5.8 to 5.11. This task is known as fuzzification.

L H Level of belief

4

8 9

Flow

150

rHV = 1

L H Level of belief

q HV = 0

Flow

L H Level of belief

3 5

8

Flow

qUM = 1

L H Level of belief

rUM = 0

Flow

Secondly, a level of flow for each vehicle type on a given road leads to a level of belief in each category. Multiplication by the respective cell values of the lookup table (see Table 5.8 and 5.9) and summing across categories leads to an expected travel time over 300 m. This task is known as defuzzification. The calculation is illustrated in Table 5.11 based on mean 300 m travel time and in Table 5.12 based on median 300 m travel times.

151

Table 5.11 Travel time over 300 m based on mean travel time (in seconds)

Combination LoB LoB LoB LoB LV HV MC UM qqqq 0.2 0 0.6 1 qqqr 0.2 0 0.6 0 qqrq 0.2 0 0.4 1 qrqq 0.2 1 0.6 1 rqqq 0.8 0 0.6 1 rqrq 0.8 0 0.4 1 qrrq 0.2 1 0.4 1 qqrr 0.2 0 0.4 0 rrqq 0.8 1 0.6 1 rqqr 0.8 0 0.6 0 qrqr 0.2 1 0.6 0 qrrr 0.2 1 0.4 0 rqrr 0.8 0 0.4 0 rrqr 0.8 1 0.6 0 rrrq 0.8 1 0.4 1 rrrr 0.8 1 0.4 0 LV mlt mean 26.9 0.0 26.9 0.0 26.9 0.0 26.9 3.2 34.6 0.0 34.6 0.0 26.9 2.2 26.9 0.0 34.6 16.6 34.6 0.0 26.9 0.0 26.9 0.0 34.6 0.0 34.6 0.0 34.6 11.1 34.6 0.0 HV mlt mean 30.3 0.0 30.3 0.0 30.3 0.0 33.8 4.1 30.3 0.0 30.3 0.0 33.8 2.7 30.3 0.0 33.8 16.2 30.3 0.0 33.8 0.0 33.8 0.0 30.3 0.0 33.8 0.0 33.8 10.8 33.8 0.0 MC mlt mean 31.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 31.0 3.7 31.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 33.6 2.7 33.6 0.0 31.0 14.9 31.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 33.6 0.0 31.0 0.0 33.6 10.7 33.6 0.0 UM mlt mean 47.8 0.0 52.9 0.0 47.8 0.0 47.8 5.7 47.8 0.0 47.8 0.0 47.8 3.8 52.9 0.0 47.8 22.9 52.9 0.0 52.9 0.0 52.9 0.0 52.9 0.0 52.9 0.0 47.8 15.3 52.9 0.0

c LV

33.0

c HV

33.8

c MC

32.0

cUM

47.8

Table 5.12 Travel time over 300 m based on median travel time (in seconds)

Combination LoB LoB LoB LoB LV LV HV MC UM median mlt qqqq 0.2 0 0.6 1 25.0 0.0 qqqr 0.2 0 0.6 0 25.0 0.0 qqrq 0.2 0 0.4 1 25.0 0.0 qrqq 0.2 1 0.6 1 25.0 3.0 rqqq 0.8 0 0.6 1 35.0 0.0 rqrq 0.8 0 0.4 1 35.0 0.0 qrrq 0.2 1 0.4 1 25.0 2.0 qqrr 0.2 0 0.4 0 25.0 0.0 rrqq 0.8 1 0.6 1 35.0 16.8 rqqr 0.8 0 0.6 0 35.0 0.0 qrqr 0.2 1 0.6 0 25.0 0.0 qrrr 0.2 1 0.4 0 25.0 0.0 rqrr 0.8 0 0.4 0 35.0 0.0 rrqr 0.8 1 0.6 0 35.0 0.0 rrrq 0.8 1 0.4 1 35.0 11.2 rrrr 0.8 1 0.4 0 35.0 0.0 HV median mlt 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 34.0 4.1 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 34.0 2.7 29.0 0.0 34.0 16.3 29.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 34.0 10.9 34.0 0.0 MC median mlt 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 30.0 3.6 30.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 33.0 2.6 33.0 0.0 30.0 14.4 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 33.0 10.6 33.0 0.0 31.2 UM median mlt 47.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 47.0 0.0 47.0 5.6 47.0 0.0 47.0 0.0 47.0 3.8 53.0 0.0 47.0 22.6 53.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 47.0 15.0 53.0 0.0

c LV c HV c MC 33.0 34.0 Note: mlt = LoB-LV*LoB-HV*LoB-MC*LoB-UM*median travel time each vehicle class

cUM

47.0

152

In these tables it can be seen that the travel time for LV, HV, MC and UM from mean 300 m travel times are 33.0 seconds, 33.8 seconds, 32.0 seconds and 47.8 seconds and from median 300 m travel time are 33.0 seconds, 34.0 seconds, 31.2 seconds and 47.0 seconds. The results of the two methods are very similar. This means that these methods are applicable for constructing the lookup table. After allowing for link length, these travel times are input to the assignment process. For analysis purposes, the method of mean travel time is used in this research. The reason is that the method of mean travel time is more consistence than the method of median travel time in terms of the increase of percentile flows will affect the link travel time (see Table 5.3 to 5.6).

5.4

The link travel time function most frequently used in the traffic assignment process is based on the BPR function. This function is usually applied to total flow in pcu units and yields travel time. In this research, the BPR function is fitted to multiclass traffic data from developing countries for use in conventional multi-class assignment model. According to the objective of the method, three steps are introduced to calibrate the BPR functions. First, replot the figures to show 300 m travel time for each vehicle class against flow in pcu units. The IHCM pcu factors for the four vehicle classes are used. Second, fit curves of the form c = c0 + c0 (v / Q p )

to these figures in

order to calibrate the BPR functions. Components of the x-y coordinate system indicate that y is 300 m travel time (c) and x is total flow in pcu units ( v ). These curves are then superimposed on the figures. Third is the development of a conventional assignment model using these curves in place of the lookup table that is used in the fuzzy traffic assignment. In this step, class specific link flows are converted to pcu total link flows before obtaining class-specific 300 m link travel time. This last step will be described in the next chapter for the solution method.

The BPR function for each vehicle class and road type is presented in Figures 5.12 to 5.27.

153

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

154

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

155

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Flows (pcus)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Flows (pcus)

156

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Flows (pcus)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Flows (pcus)

157

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

158

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Flows (pcus)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Flows (pcus)

159

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Flows (pcus)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Flows (pcus)

160

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Flows (pcus)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Flows (pcus)

161

Fitting the curves of the BPR function uses the program package Origin Lab version 6. This program is an effective and popular way to solve nonlinear least square problems. The equation results of the BPR function for each vehicle class and for each road type are given in Table 5.13.

R 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1

2

4/2UD

4/2D

3/1UD

842.3 1719.3 1031.0 794.5 1268.7 643.4 2276.1 384.3 327.6 8040.1 3719.9 231.8 288.5 311.6 24650.6 872.5

1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.4 2.5 1.8

It can be seen in this table that the R 2 value for all BPR functions resulting from the Origin Lab program package are less than 0.5. This result indicates that the BPR functional form does not fit the data well. Figures 5.12 to 5.27 exhibits considerable spread. Either this is due to unexplained random variation or the relationship is not isotropic, as assumed in the conventional approach. The standard errors of are large relative to the respective estimates, suggesting that congestion is insignificantly different from zero. On the other hand, many standard errors for are small relative to their respective estimates, suggesting that, despite the poor fit and the lack of significant congestion, flow does indeed cause congestion.

162

Class LV HV MC UM LV HV MC UM LV HV MC UM LV HV MC UM

c 0 (seconds) 25.4 28.4 29.8 48.5 24.3 27.8 27.8 48.3 23.2 26.8 26.8 48.3 21.1 24.4 26.4 46.0

SE of 1133.5 4661.9 3392.2 4989.7 1746.0 2847.7 7388.2 3526.1 396.2 70512.1 10621.2 1863.4 656.3 1858.3 11758.3 5863.2

SE of 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.3 1.0 0.8 2.1 0.3 1.9 0.6 1.8 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.5

No of Data

519 377 518 139 523 374 523 318 528 265 527 386 522 248 504 479

The implication of the poor goodness of fit (R 2 ) is that flow in pcus does not explain travel time well. This could be due to misspecification of the travel time function, wrong pcu factors or anisotropic relationships between traffic flow and travel time. Figures 5.12 to 5.27 do not suggest that any other functional form would fit better. A demonstration that the relationship is in fact anisotropic follows.

5.5

Multi-class traffic assignment methods commonly found in developed countries use pcu factors to reduce multi-class flows to pcu flows. This assumes that the travel time for a particular type of link is determined by pcu flow, irrespective of vehicle class composition. However, this assumption of isotropic travel time functions is not usually appropriate for developing countries.

The following example demonstrates that applying conventional pcu factors to multi-class data leads to inconsistencies in the case of the data collected for this research. The pcu factors proposed by the IHCM for urban areas are used in this example. For a link of type 2/2UD using a fuzzy set parameter of P10-P60, 9 different flow compositions amounting to 10 pcus in each case (Table 5.14) leads to differing estimates of travel time for each vehicle class (Table 5.15). The test procedure is illustrated in Figure 5.28.

163

Generate multi-class flows for link type 2/2UD and fuzzy set parameter of P10 - P60, with the selected pcu value of 10

Lookup Table Determine travel time for each category Defuzzify travel time

Disproven

Yes

Are the estimates of travel time for each vehicle class for every interval same?

No

Proven

Data

v

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4 5 7 5 5 7 4 4 6

LV pcu 4 5 7 5 5 7 4 4 6

2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2

HV pcu 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2

MC pcu 6 2 5 1 4 1 8 2 8 2 5 1 9 2 9 2 5 1

2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

UM pcu 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

164

Data 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LV c

26.9 28.5 31.5 28.5 28.5 31.5 26.9 26.9 30.0

HV c

33.8 30.3 30.3 33.8 33.8 30.3 33.8 33.8 33.8

MC c

31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0

UM c

52.9 52.9 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.8 52.9 52.9 47.8

In Table 5.15 it can be seen that the travel time for each vehicle class for the same flow in pcu terms varies for the 9 intervals, except for MC. Travel time for LV ranges from 26.9 to 31.5 seconds, for HV from 30.3 to 33.8 seconds, and for UM from 47.8 to 52.9 seconds. The same travel time for MC is caused by the flows in pcu for inputting to the membership function are less than the value of Pa , so the level of belief for all intervals are always 1, i.e. it will produce the same travel time in the deffuzification process. The assumption of isotropic link travel time functions clearly does not apply in this case.

5.6

Conclusions

In this chapter, the development of fuzzy set membership function for multi-class flow and a lookup table for multi-class travel time based on the mean and the median of travel time observation has been described. The method of mean travel time is chosen to be implemented for analysis. The proving of the levels of belief in all possible combination of flow level sum to one has been presented. The illustration of the fuzzy proposed model refers to the mechanism of fuzzy inference system that is the central role in this research is given. The conventional mathematical formulas of the illustration

165

are also presented. The calibration of BPR functions with multi-class data is easy, although in statistical terms it does not fit well. It is shown by example that the link travel time functions are anisotropic. In the following chapter, the solution algorithm for the network assignment problem is described.

166

Chapter 6

SOLUTION METHOD

6.1

Introduction

In the previous chapter, the fuzzy logic lookup table method has been described and a detailed example of the calculation of link travel times using that method was presented. In addition, the development of the BPR function based on multi-class data was also described. In the following sections, firstly the solution algorithm for multiclass assignment with the fuzzified link travel time function will be explained. This function is obtained by implementing the concept of fuzzy logic for link flow and the lookup table provided from survey data. Secondly the solution algorithm for conventional traffic assignment approach with the BPR function will be given as a comparison. These solution algorithms are based on the MSA. In addition the construction of the computer program for both the fuzzy multi-class traffic assignment as well as the conventional assignment is described as a flowchart. The conclusions of this chapter are presented in the final section.

6.2

The idea behind fuzzy logic multi-class assignment is to determine link travel time for each vehicle class by implementing the fuzzy logic concept using travel time lookup tables. The link travel time lookup table replaces the link travel time function in conventional traffic assignment model. It is intended to accommodate anisotropic flowtravel time relationships. This travel time is the fundamental input in traffic assignment. In the algorithm proposed, a user equilibrium condition is sought where only paths with minimum estimated travel time are used, each vehicle class having a specific travel

167

time. This will produce both link flow and link travel time for the network. The algorithm that is used to develop the computer programme to achieve this network equilibrium is outlined as follows:

Step 1. Fuzzified link flow: Step 1.1. Map link flow to fuzzy sets.

m Step 1.2. Obtain link travel times (c a ( n ) ) from levels of belief and lookup tables.

Step 2. Shortest path finding: Find the travel time of the shortest paths for each O-D pair

m and assign them to C p ( n ) .

Step 3. Loading: Get O-D flow T pm of each O-D pair and vehicle type and assign it the

m respective shortest paths to obtain auxiliary link flows (v a ( aux ) ).

1 m 1 m m v a ( n ) = v a ( aux ) + 1 v a ( n 1) . n n

Step 5. For each vehicle class m , calculate Step 6. For each vehicle class m , calculate

C

m p

m(n) p

T pm .

(6.1) . (6.2)

c

m a

m( n) m( n) a a

Step 7. Convergence test. If the following expression ( ) was satisfied, stop. Otherwise

c

m a

m(n) a

m m v a ( n ) C p ( n )T pm . m p

(6.3)

168

At step 0, all link flows are initialised to zero and the iteration counter n is also set to zero.

At step 1, the fuzzified link flow process for obtaining link travel time is conducted. The O-D flow for each type of vehicle class is assigned to the network. This is mapped to fuzzy link flow variables leading to a set of levels of belief. The principle of the defuzzification process is that an average of the lookup table weighted by the level of belief obtained in each category of the lookup table, producing link travel times. This is implemented by Delphi as a separate subroutine function.

At step 2, find the shortest path travel time for O-D pairs. The path travel time is the sum of all link travel time on the path. This should be done for each class.

At step 3, the flow of each vehicle class for each O-D pair is loaded on the path with minimum travel time for that class in order to produce the auxiliary link flows.

At step 4, the MSA gives new link flows. This method is an effective solution method, provided an equilibrium exists.

At step 5, the sum of the product of travel times on the shortest paths for each iteration and the respective O-D flows assigned on the network is calculated. This product is known as the path density of the network.

At step 6, the sum of the product of all link travel times and all link flows on the network is calculated. This product is known as the link density of the network.

At step 7, the convergence test calculates the differences between the result of step 6 and the result of step 5. If the value of the difference is more than the convergence criterion used, go to step 1 and increment n by 1. Otherwise, stop: i.e. the equilibrium condition of the network is reached. In this condition, the final result of the network, i.e.

169

link flows and link travel time, is obtained. The construction of the computing program of the proposed model is presented in Figure 6.1

6.3

The conventional traffic assignment model used in this research is based on the BPR functions. This function is performed by multi-class traffic data. Regarding the solution algorithm for this method, the overall steps are similar to the solution algorithm in the fuzzy traffic assignment introduced i.e. using MSA. The algorithm in the conventional model only modifies the solution algorithm introduced above at step 1 as follows:

Step 1. BPR functions: Step 1.1. Calculate total link flow in pcus.

m Step 1.2. Obtain link travel times (c a ( n ) ) from class-specific BPR functions.

At step 1, the use of BPR functions for obtaining link travel time for the specified vehicle is conducted. In this research, the BPR function is established directly by total flow in pcu from traffic data survey. The link travel time for each vehicle class can be obtained by inputting the link flow in pcus to the function. This link travel time is for each vehicle class because they each have a specific BPR function. This process is also obtained by Delphi as a separate subroutine. The solution algorithm for the conventional traffic assignment that is modified from the proposed model is presented in Figure 6.2.

170

The fuzzified link travel time function

FUZZY LOGIC Fuzzyfied Link flows are the input of the membership function, resulting a level of belief Defuzzified Averaging the lookup table weighted by level of belief in each category, resulting link travel time

Lookup Table

NETWORK PERFORMANCE 1 The sum of the product of least travel time paths and the respective O-D flows on the network

SHORTEST PATH ALGORITHM Finding the least travel time paths of each class NETWORK LOADING Assigned O-D matrix for each class on the path with minimum travel time DETERMINATION LINK FLOW Providing link paths based on the path flows determined to produce the auxiliary link flows. This auxiliary link flows is updated using MSA to obtain new link flows

NETWORK PERFORMANCE 2 The sum of the product of all link travel times and all link flows on the network

CONVERGENCE Test convergence beetween the result of the two network performance (1 and 2) by convergence criterion ( )

Yes END

No Set n = n + 1

171

BPR PCU Factor Link flows for each vehicle class are converted into total pcu value. INPUT The total flows in pcu value are the input on the BPR functions OUTPUT The output of the BPR functions are the link travel time for each type of vehicle class

6.4

Conclusions

The solution algorithms for the application of fuzzy logic to multi-class traffic

assignment as well as the conventional model have been described. This algorithm is the extension of the single-class traffic assignment. Step 1 is the main modification in this research.

172

Chapter 7

NUMERICAL CALCULATION

7.1

Introduction

Following the solution method for the fuzzy logic multi-class traffic assignment problem given in Chapter 6, numerical results for the arterial road network of Bandung city are presented in this chapter. The three main elements of this example are the representation of the network, the computation results and the validation of both the fuzzy traffic assignment model and the conventional model of traffic assignment. The validation of both the fuzzy model and the conventional model, as well as the interpretation for the results, particularly for the LV travel time, and the characteristics of the fuzzified link travel time functions are discussed. Finally, the conclusions for this chapter are given.

7.2

The first task for road network analysis is to identify the links within the network and to determine zones. Links with arterial junctions were selected, leading to a network of 45 links involving four types of road (2/2UD, 4/2UD, 4/2D, 3/1UD). The details of these links are shown in Table 7.1. Furthermore, a zone for the network is determined as an area of influence at the connection between two or more links i.e. a node. This area is estimated and combined from the 100 sub-districts (original zones) on the city map. This produces an O-D matrix coefficient factor for the sub-districts, as can be seen in Table 7.2. This factor is used to obtain a new zone that matches with the network selected. As a result the O-D matrix from each new zone on the network can be

173

obtained. The number of zones of the network which is 28 nodes, the same as the number of nodes identified, can be seen in Figure 7.1.

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Road Name Junjunan Pasteur Pasteur Surapati Cipadung Cimindi Gardujati Cihampelas Juanda A Yani A Yani A Yani Lingkar Selatan Kiara Condong Soekarno Hatta Sudirman Sudirman Sudirman Asia Afrika Gatot Subroto Gatot Subroto Soekarno Hatta Jamika Astana Anyar Lingkar Selatan Kiara Condong Gatot Subroto Pasir Koja Pasir Koja Pasir Koja Pasir Koja Pungkur Lingkar Selatan Kopo Moh Toha Lingkar Selatan Buah Batu Lingkar Selatan Kopo Moh Toha Soekarno Hatta Soekarno Hatta Soekarno Hatta Soekarno Hatta Soekarno Hatta Road Type 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 3/1UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D Code 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 Length (m) 5020 800 980 4820 8380 3740 2120 2160 3160 1500 1500 1500 1120 2460 5680 1285 1320 720 1520 1120 1860 1460 860 760 1480 1440 2800 1050 1400 270 440 1060 1500 1120 1060 1820 1680 1240 1100 1160 2320 2150 2580 960 2680

174

Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

2

1.0 1.0

4

1.0 0.5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Total

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5

0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5

0.5

0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0

0.5

0.5 0.5

175

1 2

2 3

4

5

10 6 11 12 16

9 10 8 7

17

11

18

12

19

13

20

14

13 21

14

23 22

16 23 17

24

18 19

25 32

29 34 33

21

30

31 35

22

15

27

28

28

15

20

26 45

38 41

24

36 40

25

39

37

26

27

44

42

43

176

7.3

O-D Matrix

As explained in Chapter 4, the O-D data from the institutional survey is for all vehicles in the base year of 1997. However, traffic data provided from the survey locations, including the four types of road, is for the year 2002. Hence, this O-D data needed to be updated for the next five years by using a growth factor, in order to make it compatible with the traffic data. The O-D data from each sub-district administration is multiplied by this factor. The value of these growth factors for the 100 sub-district administration zones lies between a minimum of 1.01 and a maximum of 1.39 (see Table 4.6). As a result, the O-D data in total vehicles per hour for the year 2002 for these sub-districts can be obtained. By multiplying by the coefficient factor shown in Table 7.2, the O-D matrix of size 28x28 suitable for the selected road network can be determined.

The O-D matrix must be converted into four types of vehicle class in calculation. The O-D matrix for the four types of vehicle class is required as input to the multi-class assignment process with of the assumption that each vehicle class has link travel time function. The allocation of flows to vehicle type classes follows the overall proportions presented in the IHCM (see Table 4.4). This method is to make a simple calculation process. Consequently the proportionate allocation for the four types of road is assumed to be the same for each vehicle class, because the overall proportion values are obtained by the average of proportion value for each type of road. Because of the interval used in data collection and reduction is minutes, the O-D data obtained from the assumption above is transformed into flows per minute for each vehicle class in order to be consistent in the calculation. In this research, this O-D matrix data used is a fixed demand in the equilibrium network assignment for both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model.

The O-D matrix of size 28x28 for each vehicle class in vehicles per minute is presented in Tables 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6. In these tables, decimal fractions are not shown, to save space.

177

O\D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 0 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 4 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 4 2 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 2 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 3 4 4 3 2 1 6 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 4 2 1 0 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 12 1 1 2 12 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 13 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 16 1 1 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 19 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 4 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 25 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 26 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 27 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 28 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0

O/D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

178

O/D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 3 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 16 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 27 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 28 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

O/D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

179

7.4

Multi Class Link Travel Time as Input in the Traffic Assignment Process

The multi-class link travel time based on 300 m, as described in Chapter 5, needs to be converted by the actual link length on the network selected. The factor for the conversion is obtained by dividing the actual link length with the link base i.e. 300 m. The multi-class link travel time based on the actual link length is the basic input in the multi-class traffic assignment process for the network. These travel times are placed in cells of the lookup table for the proposed fuzzy model. The first column of the lookup table, which is identified as LLLL (Cell1), is similar to the initial travel time c0 for the BPR function in the conventional model. These travel times are also used as the initialisation for the computer programming process where the link flow in this condition is assumed as a free flow.

The lookup table of each vehicle class for all links on the network as an input in the assignment process is presented by each membership function. The total number of the lookup tables required in the calculation is 64 tables. An example form of the lookup table P10-P60 for the four types of vehicle class can be seen in Tables 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10. On the other hand, the parameters including travel time of the BPR function for each vehicle class are shown in Table 7.11. The formula of BPR function requires a capacity of the road lane. In this calculation, the classification of the capacity by types of road in vehicles per hour per lane is referred to the IHCM as follows: road type of 2/2UD is 1450, road type of 4/2UD is 1500, road type of 4/2D is 1650, and road type of 3/1UD is 1650. Because the BPR function is determined by the flow on a carriageway, therefore the base capacity in the IHCM is multiplied by the number of lanes on the carriageway. As a result, the capacity used in this calculation is as follows: 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 3/1UD = 1450 vehicles = 3000 vehicles = 3300 vehicles = 4950 vehicles

180

Table 7.7 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for LV based on the Road Network (in seconds)

No Road Length (m)

5020 800 980 4820 8380 3740 2120 2160 3160 1500 1500 1500 1120 2460 5680 1285 1320 720 1520 1120 1860 1460 860 760 1480 1440 2800 1050 1400 270 440 1060 1500 1120 1060 1820 1680 1240 1100 1160 2320 2150 2580 960 2680

16.7 2.7 3.3 16.1 27.9 12.5 7.1 7.2 10.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 8.2 18.9 4.3 4.4 2.4 5.1 3.7 6.2 4.9 2.9 2.5 4.9 4.8 9.3 3.5 4.7 0.9 1.5 3.5 5.0 3.7 3.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 7.7 7.2 8.6 3.2 8.9

4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 3/1UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

415.7 66.3 81.2 432.7 752.3 309.7 175.6 188.6 261.7 124.2 124.2 124.2 93.1 203.7 472.0 106.4 115.3 62.9 132.7 100.6 167.0 120.9 71.2 62.9 123.0 119.7 251.4 87.0 115.9 22.4 36.4 87.8 124.6 100.6 87.8 151.2 139.1 103.0 98.8 96.1 192.8 178.6 214.4 79.8 222.7

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5 531.3 84.7 103.7 555.3 965.5 395.8 224.4 227.5 334.4 158.8 158.8 158.8 118.9 260.4 603.1 136.0 139.0 75.8 160.1 129.0 214.3 154.5 91.0 80.4 157.1 152.9 322.6 111.1 148.2 28.6 46.6 112.2 159.3 129.0 112.2 193.2 177.8 131.7 126.7 122.8 246.3 228.3 273.9 101.9 284.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

181

Table 7.8 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for HV based on the Road Network (in seconds)

No Road Length (m)

5020 800 980 4820 8380 3740 2120 2160 3160 1500 1500 1500 1120 2460 5680 1285 1320 720 1520 1120 1860 1460 860 760 1480 1440 2800 1050 1400 270 440 1060 1500 1120 1060 1820 1680 1240 1100 1160 2320 2150 2580 960 2680

16.7 2.7 3.3 16.1 27.9 12.5 7.1 7.2 10.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 8.2 18.9 4.3 4.4 2.4 5.1 3.7 6.2 4.9 2.9 2.5 4.9 4.8 9.3 3.5 4.7 0.9 1.5 3.5 5.0 3.7 3.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 7.7 7.2 8.6 3.2 8.9

4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 3/1UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

481.7 76.8 94.0 487.3 847.3 358.9 203.4 206.0 303.3 143.9 143.9 143.9 98.4 236.1 499.2 123.3 125.9 68.7 144.9 113.2 188.1 140.1 82.5 72.9 130.1 126.6 283.1 100.8 134.4 25.9 42.2 101.7 131.8 113.2 101.7 159.9 161.2 109.0 111.2 111.3 203.9 188.9 226.7 84.4 235.5

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8 548.8 87.5 107.1 542.9 943.8 408.9 231.8 255.9 345.5 164.0 164.0 164.0 119.4 268.9 605.6 140.5 156.4 85.3 180.0 126.1 209.5 159.6 94.0 83.1 157.8 153.5 315.4 114.8 153.1 29.5 48.1 115.9 159.9 126.1 115.9 194.1 183.7 132.2 123.9 126.8 247.4 229.2 275.1 102.4 285.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

182

Table 7.9 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for MC based on the Road Network (in seconds)

No Road Length (m)

5020 800 980 4820 8380 3740 2120 2160 3160 1500 1500 1500 1120 2460 5680 1285 1320 720 1520 1120 1860 1460 860 760 1480 1440 2800 1050 1400 270 440 1060 1500 1120 1060 1820 1680 1240 1100 1160 2320 2150 2580 960 2680

16.7 2.7 3.3 16.1 27.9 12.5 7.1 7.2 10.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 8.2 18.9 4.3 4.4 2.4 5.1 3.7 6.2 4.9 2.9 2.5 4.9 4.8 9.3 3.5 4.7 0.9 1.5 3.5 5.0 3.7 3.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 7.7 7.2 8.6 3.2 8.9

4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 3/1UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

431.5 68.8 84.2 498.2 866.2 321.5 182.2 180.2 271.6 128.9 128.9 128.9 94.2 211.5 477.7 110.5 110.1 60.1 126.8 115.8 192.3 125.5 73.9 65.3 124.5 121.1 289.4 90.3 120.3 23.2 37.8 91.1 126.2 115.8 91.1 153.1 144.4 104.3 113.7 99.7 195.1 180.8 217.0 80.7 225.4

554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7 554.1 88.3 108.2 539.1 937.2 412.8 234.0 222.7 348.8 165.6 165.6 165.6 119.0 271.6 603.5 141.8 136.1 74.2 156.7 125.3 208.0 161.2 94.9 83.9 157.2 153.0 313.1 115.9 154.5 29.8 48.6 117.0 159.4 125.3 117.0 193.4 185.5 131.7 123.0 128.0 246.5 228.4 274.1 102.0 284.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

183

Table 7.10 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for UM based on the Road Network (in seconds)

No Road Length (m)

5020 800 980 4820 8380 3740 2120 2160 3160 1500 1500 1500 1120 2460 5680 1285 1320 720 1520 1120 1860 1460 860 760 1480 1440 2800 1050 1400 270 440 1060 1500 1120 1060 1820 1680 1240 1100 1160 2320 2150 2580 960 2680

16.7 2.7 3.3 16.1 27.9 12.5 7.1 7.2 10.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 8.2 18.9 4.3 4.4 2.4 5.1 3.7 6.2 4.9 2.9 2.5 4.9 4.8 9.3 3.5 4.7 0.9 1.5 3.5 5.0 3.7 3.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 7.7 7.2 8.6 3.2 8.9

4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 3/1UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

799.3 127.4 156.0 768.1 1335.4 595.5 337.5 327.3 503.1 238.8 238.8 238.8 171.8 391.7 871.0 204.6 200.0 109.1 230.3 178.5 296.4 232.5 136.9 121.0 227.0 220.8 446.2 167.2 222.9 43.0 70.1 168.8 230.0 178.5 168.8 279.1 267.5 190.2 175.3 184.7 355.8 329.7 395.7 147.2 411.0 891.6 142.1 174.1 850.0 1477.8 664.2 376.5 370.4 561.2 266.4 266.4 266.4 197.5 436.9 1001.7 228.2 226.4 123.5 260.7 197.5 328.0 259.3 152.7 135.0 261.0 254.0 493.8 186.5 248.6 48.0 78.1 188.3 264.5 197.5 188.3 321.0 298.4 218.7 194.0 206.0 409.2 379.2 455.0 169.3 472.6

184

No Road Length (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 5020 800 980 4820 8380 3740 2120 2160 3160 1500 1500 1500 1120 2460 5680 1285 1320 720 1520 1120 1860 1460 860 760 1480 1440 2800 1050 1400 270 440 1060 1500 1120 1060 1820 1680 1240 1100 1160 2320 2150 2580 960 2680 16.7 2.7 3.3 16.1 27.9 12.5 7.1 7.2 10.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 8.2 18.9 4.3 4.4 2.4 5.1 3.7 6.2 4.9 2.9 2.5 4.9 4.8 9.3 3.5 4.7 0.9 1.5 3.5 5.0 3.7 3.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 7.7 7.2 8.6 3.2 8.9

Factor

Road Type

LV

HV

MC

UM

Capacity

c0

(sec.)

406.8 64.8 79.4 407.9 709.1 303.1 171.8 152.1 256.1 121.6 121.6 121.6 86.5 199.4 438.8 104.1 92.9 50.7 107.0 94.8 157.4 118.3 69.7 61.6 114.3 111.2 236.9 85.1 113.5 21.9 35.7 85.9 115.9 94.8 85.9 140.6 136.1 95.8 93.1 94.0 179.2 166.1 199.3 74.2 207.0

c0

464.8 74.1 90.7 456.3 793.3 346.3 196.3 175.9 292.6 138.9 138.9 138.9 100.2 227.8 507.9 119.0 107.5 58.6 123.8 106.0 176.1 135.2 79.6 70.4 132.4 128.8 265.1 97.2 129.6 25.0 40.7 98.1 134.1 106.0 98.1 162.8 155.5 110.9 104.1 107.4 207.5 192.3 230.7 85.8 239.7

c0

465.0 74.1 90.8 479.6 833.8 346.4 196.4 190.4 292.7 138.9 138.9 138.9 100.2 227.9 508.1 119.0 116.4 63.5 134.0 111.4 185.1 135.2 79.7 70.4 132.4 128.8 278.6 97.3 129.7 25.0 40.8 98.2 134.2 111.4 98.2 162.8 155.6 110.9 109.4 107.5 207.5 192.3 230.8 85.9 239.7

c0

808.8 128.9 157.9 780.0 1356.1 602.6 341.6 330.9 509.1 241.7 241.7 241.7 180.1 396.3 913.6 207.0 202.2 110.3 232.9 181.2 301.0 235.2 138.6 122.4 238.0 231.6 453.1 169.2 225.6 43.5 70.9 170.8 241.3 181.2 170.8 292.7 270.7 199.4 178.0 186.9 373.1 345.8 415.0 154.4 431.1

4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 3/1UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 3/1UD 2/2UD 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2UD 4/2D 2/2UD 4/2UD 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D 4/2D

1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 842.3 842.3 1268.7 1268.7 288.5 1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 327.6 1268.7 327.6 1268.7 288.5 288.5 288.5 842.3 842.3 1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 327.6 327.6 842.3 1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 1268.7 327.6 842.3 1268.7 327.6 1268.7 327.6 842.3 1268.7 327.6 327.6 327.6 327.6 327.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

643.4 643.4 643.4 1719.3 1719.3 643.4 643.4 311.6 643.4 643.4 643.4 643.4 8040.1 643.4 8040.1 643.4 311.6 311.6 311.6 1719.3 1719.3 643.4 643.4 643.4 8040.1 8040.1 1719.3 643.4 643.4 643.4 643.4 643.4 8040.1 1719.3 643.4 8040.1 643.4 8040.1 1719.3 643.4 8040.1 8040.1 8040.1 8040.1 8040.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 1031.0 1031.0 2276.1 2276.1 24650.6 2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 3719.9 2276.1 3719.9 2276.1 24650.6 24650.6 24650.6 1031.0 1031.0 2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 3719.9 3719.9 1031.0 2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 2276.1 3719.9 1031.0 2276.1 3719.9 2276.1 3719.9 1031.0 2276.1 3719.9 3719.9 3719.9 3719.9 3719.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

384.3 384.3 384.3 794.5 794.5 384.3 384.3 872.5 384.3 384.3 384.3 384.3 231.8 384.3 231.8 384.3 872.5 872.5 872.5 794.5 794.5 384.3 384.3 384.3 231.8 231.8 794.5 384.3 384.3 384.3 384.3 384.3 231.8 794.5 384.3 231.8 384.3 231.8 794.5 384.3 231.8 231.8 231.8 231.8 231.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3000 3000 3000 1450 1450 3000 3000 4950 3000 3000 3000 3000 3300 3000 3300 3000 4950 4950 4950 1450 1450 3000 3000 3000 3300 3300 1450 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3300 1450 3000 3300 3000 3300 1450 3000 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300

185

7.5

Computation Results

Results were computed for the sixteen alternative sets of parameters for the fuzzy membership functions in order to find the most appropriate model. On the other hand, the computation of the conventional model is only one result, because in this model only a link travel time function based on the BPR approach is used. The results of the solution program for both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model are obtained from a fixed set of flows provided by the O-D matrix with four different vehicle classes. The equilibrium flows and travel times resulting from the two models tested on the network selected are presented. The equilibrium flows presented here are the total flows (combination of the four types of vehicle class) per minute. However, the presentation of travel time is for each vehicle class on the link, where the link travel time is in seconds. Furthermore, the convergence behaviour of both the model with the sixteen alternative membership functions and the BPR function is also presented in the following section.

The link flow is the final product of the network assignment process. This flow is used to be an assessment for the level of the network in the equilibrium condition, such as a congested or uncongested network. This assessment is usually conducted by traffic engineers and transportation planners. In this research, the link flow results for the sixteen alternative membership functions and for the conventional model are presented in Table 7.12. Total flow on the link is the sum of the four types of vehicle class i.e. LV, HV, MC and UM.

186

Link Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P10-P60 (1) 41 143 211 42 16 62 148 98 35 100 97 32 81 28 56 89 84 108 45 46 28 24 95 159 116 35 16 66 101 158 146 111 5 56 31 39 66 23 59 38 9 23 41 111 70 P10-P70 (2) 41 131 210 43 17 61 135 107 37 100 98 36 78 27 55 88 89 122 50 49 28 24 98 155 115 34 16 66 93 146 132 98 7 53 30 46 63 28 59 38 11 25 42 109 69 P10-P80 (3) 41 135 211 42 16 61 140 106 35 100 98 33 81 27 55 85 85 117 45 46 27 27 93 158 115 34 15 69 100 156 143 108 5 56 31 40 65 22 58 39 10 24 41 110 70 P10-P90 (4) 41 142 211 41 16 61 148 101 35 100 94 35 75 31 55 73 87 113 47 45 27 39 82 160 108 38 16 81 97 155 143 107 5 58 31 34 64 19 58 36 11 26 46 114 70 P20-P60 (5) 40 143 211 42 16 62 148 98 35 100 98 31 82 27 56 89 84 107 45 46 28 24 96 158 117 34 16 66 102 158 146 111 5 56 31 39 66 23 59 38 9 23 41 110 70 P20-P70 (6) 40 140 211 42 16 62 144 101 35 100 98 32 82 27 55 89 85 111 46 47 27 23 97 157 117 34 15 67 101 156 144 109 5 55 31 41 66 24 59 39 9 23 40 109 70 P20-P80 (7) 41 133 211 42 16 62 138 107 35 100 97 32 80 28 55 86 85 118 46 47 27 26 94 157 115 35 15 69 100 155 142 107 5 55 31 41 65 24 58 38 9 24 41 110 70 P20-P90 (8) 41 141 211 41 16 61 147 100 35 100 97 35 78 28 55 84 87 113 48 46 27 29 93 159 112 35 16 70 97 154 142 107 5 57 31 38 64 21 58 39 11 26 43 111 70 P30-P60 (9) 40 129 209 41 15 62 136 109 36 100 98 31 83 27 56 89 84 118 45 48 28 24 95 157 119 34 16 66 102 159 148 112 5 58 31 38 65 21 59 39 10 24 41 110 70 P30-P70 (10) 40 131 210 42 16 62 136 108 36 100 99 32 83 26 56 89 85 119 46 48 28 24 96 157 119 33 16 66 101 158 145 110 5 56 31 40 66 23 59 39 9 23 40 109 70 P30-P80 (11) 41 125 210 42 16 61 130 114 36 100 98 32 81 27 55 86 85 125 46 48 27 26 93 157 117 34 15 69 100 156 143 108 5 55 31 40 65 23 59 38 9 23 41 110 70 P30-P90 (12) 41 124 209 41 16 61 130 114 36 100 97 35 78 28 55 84 87 127 48 48 27 29 93 157 114 36 16 70 97 154 142 107 5 57 31 38 64 20 58 39 11 26 43 111 70 P40-P60 (13) 40 133 208 40 15 62 142 103 36 101 99 32 83 27 56 90 84 114 46 47 27 23 96 157 119 34 15 66 103 160 148 113 5 57 31 39 66 21 58 39 9 24 40 110 70 P40-P70 (14) 40 132 210 43 17 62 135 108 36 100 98 32 82 27 54 90 84 118 46 47 27 23 97 156 118 34 15 67 102 160 146 111 5 57 31 39 66 22 59 38 8 22 39 109 69 P40-P80 (15) 41 125 210 42 16 62 130 114 36 100 98 32 81 28 55 86 85 125 46 47 27 27 92 157 118 35 15 70 101 157 145 110 5 56 31 40 66 23 59 38 9 23 41 111 70 P40-P90 (16) 41 124 209 42 16 61 130 114 35 100 98 35 79 27 55 84 87 127 48 47 27 29 93 157 116 34 15 71 98 155 143 107 5 57 31 39 64 21 59 39 10 24 41 110 70 BPR 50 116 76 32 16 80 109 87 82 57 47 26 36 28 36 46 94 134 59 44 22 32 85 119 70 39 16 44 33 51 58 47 27 19 21 51 39 31 25 28 19 32 55 104 52

187

The link travel time is also one of the important final products of the network assignment process. This can be used to evaluate the performance of the network if the flow data is limited. In this research, the link travel time results are used to assess the network selected. The link travel time results are presented for each type of vehicle class. It aims to show that the specified vehicle class has specified travel time in terms of the multi-class traffic data. The results of link travel time in seconds for the sixteen alternative membership functions and for the conventional model for the four types of vehicle class can be seen in Tables 7.13, 7.14, 7.15, and 7.16.

The fitted link travel times are always higher for the BPR functions than for the fuzzy model. This condition is caused by the substantial difference in the fitted travel time at high flows, which for the fuzzy model is limited to the mean of travel time within the high flow category in the lookup table. Hence, the extreme of travel time for the BPR function is always higher than for the fuzzy model. The consequence is that the travel time results in the assignment process using the BPR function produces higher travel times than when using the fuzzy link travel time function.

188

Link Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P10-P60 (1) 532.8 86.4 104.4 554.4 910.8 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 144 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 126 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 118.8 126 122.4 198 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 P10-P70 (2) 594 93.6 115.2 568.8 950.4 442.8 252 230.4 374.4 176.4 176.4 176.4 122.4 284.4 622.8 151.2 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 154.8 100.8 90 162 158.4 331.2 126 165.6 32.4 50.4 126 126 133.2 126 198 198 136.8 129.6 136.8 198 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 P10-P80 (3) 554.4 90 108 583.2 946.8 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 259.2 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 140.4 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 327.6 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 122.4 133.2 129.6 198 230.4 291.6 108 302.4 P10-P90 (4) 576 93.6 111.6 594 961.2 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 255.6 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 140.4 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 320.4 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 126 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 122.4 136.8 133.2 198 234 306 115.2 316.8 P20-P60 (5) 532.8 86.4 104.4 554.4 907.2 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 144 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 126 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 115.2 126 122.4 194.4 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 P20-P70 (6) 543.6 86.4 108 568.8 918 406.8 230.4 230.4 342 162 162 162 122.4 259.2 622.8 140.4 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 140.4 93.6 82.8 162 158.4 331.2 115.2 151.2 28.8 46.8 115.2 126 133.2 115.2 198 183.6 122.4 129.6 126 194.4 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 P20-P80 (7) 554.4 90 108 583.2 928.8 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 255.6 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 140.4 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 327.6 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 118.8 133.2 129.6 194.4 230.4 291.6 108 302.4 P20-P90 (8) 576 93.6 111.6 594 957.6 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 255.6 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 136.8 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 320.4 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 126 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 122.4 136.8 133.2 194.4 230.4 306 115.2 316.8 P30-P60 (9) 532.8 86.4 104.4 554.4 925.2 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 136.8 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 129.6 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 122.4 126 122.4 201.6 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 P30-P70 (10) 543.6 86.4 108 568.8 896.4 406.8 230.4 230.4 342 162 162 162 122.4 259.2 622.8 140.4 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 136.8 93.6 82.8 162 158.4 331.2 115.2 151.2 28.8 46.8 115.2 129.6 133.2 115.2 198 183.6 126 129.6 126 201.6 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 P30-P80 (11) 554.4 90 108 583.2 928.8 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 255.6 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 136.8 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 324 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 129.6 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 126 133.2 129.6 201.6 226.8 291.6 108 302.4 P30-P90 (12) 576 93.6 111.6 594 961.2 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 252 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 136.8 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 316.8 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 129.6 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 118.8 136.8 133.2 201.6 226.8 306 115.2 316.8 P40-P60 (13) 532.8 86.4 104.4 554.4 907.2 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 133.2 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 129.6 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 122.4 126 122.4 201.6 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 P40-P70 (14) 543.6 86.4 108 568.8 900 406.8 230.4 230.4 342 162 162 162 122.4 255.6 622.8 140.4 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 133.2 93.6 82.8 162 158.4 331.2 115.2 151.2 28.8 46.8 115.2 129.6 133.2 115.2 198 183.6 126 129.6 126 201.6 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 P40-P80 (15) 554.4 90 108 583.2 907.2 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 252 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 133.2 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 320.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 129.6 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 118.8 133.2 129.6 201.6 226.8 291.6 108 302.4 P40-P90 (16) 576 93.6 111.6 594 954 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 248.4 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 133.2 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 313.2 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 129.6 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 115.2 136.8 133.2 201.6 223.2 306 115.2 316.8 BPR 835.2 360 810 1224 968.4 1033.2 878.4 414 903.6 514.8 342 172.8 212.4 360 907.2 237.6 273.6 201.6 291.6 378 270 252 248.4 352.8 478.8 241.2 334.8 234 252 90 122.4 201.6 180 273.6 126 313.2 234 169.2 316.8 154.8 252 331.2 532.8 316.8 468

189

Link Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P10-P60 (1) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 147.6 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 118.8 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 262.8 100.8 234 P10-P70 (2) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 255.6 500.4 140.4 154.8 68.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 144 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 190.8 162 122.4 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 255.6 100.8 234 P10-P80 (3) 540 97.2 115.2 543.6 846 446.4 252 255.6 302.4 180 180 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 154.8 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 100.8 90 158.4 147.6 284.4 126 165.6 32.4 54 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 122.4 122.4 129.6 205.2 187.2 266.4 100.8 234 P10-P90 (4) 532.8 100.8 122.4 572.4 846 435.6 266.4 255.6 302.4 190.8 190.8 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 147.6 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 154.8 108 97.2 158.4 154.8 284.4 133.2 176.4 32.4 54 111.6 133.2 133.2 111.6 194.4 162 126 129.6 126 205.2 187.2 273.6 100.8 234 P20-P60 (5) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 147.6 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 118.8 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 262.8 100.8 234 P20-P70 (6) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 75.6 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 144 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 187.2 162 115.2 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 259.2 100.8 234 P20-P80 (7) 540 97.2 115.2 543.6 846 446.4 252 255.6 302.4 180 180 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 154.8 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 100.8 90 158.4 147.6 284.4 126 165.6 32.4 54 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 126 122.4 129.6 205.2 187.2 266.4 100.8 234 P20-P90 (8) 532.8 100.8 122.4 572.4 846 435.6 266.4 255.6 302.4 190.8 190.8 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 147.6 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 154.8 108 97.2 158.4 154.8 284.4 133.2 176.4 32.4 54 111.6 133.2 133.2 111.6 194.4 162 126 129.6 126 205.2 187.2 273.6 100.8 234 P30-P60 (9) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 144 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 115.2 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 259.2 100.8 234 P30-P70 (10) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 147.6 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 118.8 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 262.8 100.8 234 P30-P80 (11) 540 97.2 115.2 543.6 846 446.4 252 255.6 302.4 180 180 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 154.8 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 100.8 90 158.4 147.6 284.4 126 165.6 32.4 54 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 122.4 122.4 129.6 205.2 187.2 266.4 100.8 234 P30-P90 (12) 532.8 100.8 122.4 572.4 846 435.6 266.4 255.6 302.4 190.8 190.8 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 147.6 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 154.8 108 97.2 158.4 154.8 284.4 133.2 176.4 32.4 54 111.6 133.2 133.2 111.6 194.4 162 126 129.6 126 205.2 187.2 273.6 100.8 234 P40-P60 (13) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 144 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 115.2 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 259.2 100.8 234 P40-P70 (14) 547.2 86.4 108 543.6 846 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 255.6 500.4 140.4 154.8 79.2 144 111.6 187.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 144 284.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 122.4 122.4 126 205.2 187.2 255.6 100.8 234 P40-P80 (15) 540 97.2 115.2 543.6 846 446.4 252 255.6 302.4 180 180 144 118.8 252 500.4 154.8 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 147.6 100.8 90 158.4 147.6 284.4 126 165.6 32.4 54 115.2 133.2 126 115.2 194.4 162 118.8 122.4 133.2 205.2 187.2 262.8 100.8 234 P40-P90 (16) 532.8 100.8 122.4 572.4 846 435.6 266.4 255.6 302.4 190.8 190.8 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 147.6 154.8 86.4 144 111.6 187.2 154.8 108 97.2 158.4 154.8 284.4 133.2 176.4 32.4 54 111.6 133.2 133.2 111.6 194.4 162 126 129.6 126 205.2 187.2 273.6 100.8 234 BPR 694.8 241.2 493.2 1152 957.6 745.2 586.8 388.8 644.4 356.4 259.2 169.2 172.8 313.2 716.4 190.8 252 183.6 266.4 360 255.6 208.8 180 237.6 489.6 190.8 327.6 176.4 201.6 64.8 86.4 158.4 151.2 255.6 118.8 248.4 205.2 136.8 295.2 140.4 226.8 262.8 439.2 320.4 370.8

190

Link Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P10-P60 (1) 554.4 90 108 540 896.4 414 234 223.2 345.6 165.6 165.6 165.6 118.8 234 604.8 140.4 136.8 75.6 151.2 126 208.8 133.2 93.6 82.8 158.4 151.2 302.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 126 104.4 194.4 187.2 122.4 122.4 118.8 194.4 212.4 273.6 100.8 284.4 P10-P70 (2) 543.6 90 108 550.8 914.4 414 234 226.8 331.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 122.4 230.4 619.2 140.4 136.8 75.6 151.2 129.6 212.4 133.2 93.6 82.8 162 147.6 298.8 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 129.6 104.4 198 187.2 118.8 126 115.2 194.4 208.8 280.8 104.4 291.6 P10-P80 (3) 547.2 93.6 111.6 572.4 921.6 432 244.8 230.4 334.8 172.8 172.8 162 126 230.4 644.4 147.6 140.4 75.6 147.6 133.2 219.6 133.2 100.8 86.4 169.2 147.6 302.4 122.4 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 126 133.2 100.8 194.4 194.4 118.8 129.6 115.2 194.4 212.4 291.6 108 302.4 P10-P90 (4) 536.4 97.2 118.8 572.4 900 421.2 255.6 234 331.2 180 180 154.8 129.6 230.4 655.2 154.8 140.4 79.2 144 133.2 212.4 136.8 104.4 90 169.2 144 302.4 126 169.2 32.4 54 126 126 133.2 100.8 183.6 187.2 115.2 129.6 111.6 201.6 212.4 288 111.6 309.6 P20-P60 (5) 554.4 90 108 540 892.8 414 234 223.2 342 165.6 165.6 165.6 118.8 223.2 604.8 140.4 136.8 75.6 147.6 126 208.8 126 93.6 82.8 158.4 151.2 298.8 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 126 100.8 194.4 187.2 122.4 122.4 115.2 194.4 208.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 P20-P70 (6) 547.2 90 108 550.8 903.6 414 234 226.8 331.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 122.4 226.8 619.2 140.4 136.8 75.6 147.6 129.6 212.4 126 93.6 82.8 162 147.6 298.8 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 129.6 100.8 194.4 187.2 118.8 126 111.6 194.4 205.2 280.8 104.4 291.6 P20-P80 (7) 543.6 93.6 111.6 572.4 914.4 432 244.8 230.4 331.2 172.8 172.8 162 126 223.2 644.4 147.6 140.4 75.6 147.6 133.2 216 129.6 100.8 86.4 169.2 147.6 298.8 122.4 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 126 133.2 97.2 190.8 194.4 115.2 129.6 111.6 194.4 208.8 291.6 108 302.4 P20-P90 (8) 536.4 97.2 118.8 572.4 889.2 432 255.6 234 327.6 180 180 154.8 129.6 223.2 655.2 154.8 144 79.2 140.4 133.2 212.4 147.6 104.4 90 169.2 144 298.8 126 169.2 32.4 54 126 126 133.2 100.8 190.8 183.6 115.2 129.6 115.2 194.4 208.8 291.6 111.6 309.6 P30-P60 (9) 554.4 90 108 540 878.4 414 234 223.2 345.6 165.6 165.6 165.6 118.8 219.6 604.8 140.4 136.8 75.6 147.6 126 208.8 129.6 93.6 82.8 158.4 151.2 295.2 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 129.6 126 100.8 194.4 187.2 111.6 122.4 111.6 201.6 201.6 273.6 100.8 284.4 P30-P70 (10) 550.8 90 108 550.8 889.2 414 234 226.8 331.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 122.4 219.6 619.2 140.4 136.8 75.6 147.6 129.6 212.4 129.6 93.6 82.8 162 144 295.2 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 129.6 129.6 97.2 194.4 187.2 111.6 126 108 201.6 194.4 280.8 104.4 291.6 P30-P80 (11) 543.6 93.6 111.6 572.4 896.4 432 244.8 230.4 334.8 172.8 172.8 162 126 216 644.4 147.6 140.4 75.6 144 133.2 216 129.6 100.8 86.4 169.2 140.4 295.2 122.4 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 129.6 133.2 97.2 190.8 194.4 111.6 129.6 108 201.6 201.6 291.6 108 302.4 P30-P90 (12) 525.6 97.2 118.8 572.4 878.4 414 255.6 234 324 180 180 151.2 129.6 219.6 655.2 154.8 140.4 79.2 140.4 133.2 212.4 144 104.4 90 169.2 136.8 295.2 126 169.2 32.4 54 126 129.6 133.2 97.2 180 183.6 108 129.6 108 201.6 205.2 288 111.6 309.6 P40-P60 (13) 554.4 90 108 540 874.8 414 234 223.2 327.6 165.6 165.6 165.6 118.8 219.6 604.8 140.4 136.8 75.6 140.4 126 208.8 129.6 93.6 82.8 158.4 151.2 291.6 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 133.2 126 93.6 194.4 187.2 108 122.4 104.4 205.2 187.2 273.6 100.8 284.4 P40-P70 (14) 550.8 90 108 550.8 896.4 414 234 226.8 320.4 165.6 165.6 165.6 122.4 219.6 619.2 140.4 136.8 75.6 144 129.6 212.4 129.6 93.6 82.8 162 140.4 291.6 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 133.2 129.6 93.6 187.2 187.2 108 126 104.4 205.2 187.2 280.8 104.4 291.6 P40-P80 (15) 543.6 93.6 111.6 572.4 882 432 244.8 230.4 324 172.8 172.8 158.4 126 219.6 644.4 147.6 140.4 75.6 140.4 133.2 212.4 129.6 100.8 86.4 169.2 136.8 291.6 122.4 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 133.2 133.2 93.6 187.2 194.4 108 129.6 104.4 205.2 201.6 291.6 108 302.4 P40-P90 (16) 514.8 97.2 118.8 572.4 874.8 410.4 255.6 234 313.2 180 180 151.2 129.6 219.6 655.2 154.8 140.4 79.2 136.8 133.2 208.8 140.4 104.4 90 169.2 136.8 291.6 126 169.2 32.4 54 126 133.2 133.2 93.6 180 180 108 129.6 104.4 205.2 201.6 288 111.6 309.6 BPR 702 295.2 694.8 928.8 943.2 820.8 702 421.2 716.4 410.4 273.6 165.6 212.4 313.2 860.4 198 284.4 291.6 284.4 280.8 234 212.4 201.6 295.2 604.8 230.4 316.8 183.6 205.2 72 93.6 162 169.2 212.4 115.2 298.8 205.2 154.8 230.4 140.4 244.8 313.2 550.8 396 453.6

191

Link Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 P10-P60 (1) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 198 414 871.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 230.4 180 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 262.8 237.6 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 187.2 298.8 266.4 190.8 194.4 205.2 356.4 331.2 424.8 169.2 410.4 P10-P70 (2) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 122.4 421.2 619.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 230.4 198 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 162 147.6 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 72 169.2 126 198 169.2 198 266.4 118.8 194.4 205.2 194.4 208.8 280.8 104.4 291.6 P10-P80 (3) 856.8 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 684 385.2 378 504 273.6 273.6 237.6 205.2 414 871.2 234 230.4 126 230.4 180 295.2 248.4 158.4 140.4 270 237.6 446.4 190.8 255.6 50.4 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 180 298.8 266.4 201.6 194.4 201.6 356.4 331.2 424.8 172.8 410.4 P10-P90 (4) 842.4 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 658.8 388.8 381.6 504 277.2 277.2 237.6 208.8 406.8 871.2 226.8 234 126 230.4 180 295.2 244.8 158.4 140.4 273.6 230.4 446.4 194.4 259.2 50.4 79.2 183.6 230.4 198 176.4 291.6 266.4 194.4 194.4 198 356.4 331.2 414 165.6 410.4 P20-P60 (5) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 198 414 871.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 234 180 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 262.8 237.6 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 187.2 298.8 266.4 190.8 194.4 205.2 356.4 331.2 424.8 169.2 410.4 P20-P70 (6) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 198 414 871.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 234 180 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 262.8 237.6 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 187.2 313.2 266.4 198 194.4 205.2 356.4 331.2 424.8 169.2 410.4 P20-P80 (7) 856.8 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 684 385.2 378 504 273.6 273.6 237.6 205.2 414 871.2 234 230.4 126 234 180 295.2 248.4 158.4 140.4 270 237.6 446.4 190.8 255.6 50.4 79.2 183.6 230.4 198 180 302.4 266.4 201.6 194.4 201.6 356.4 331.2 428.4 172.8 410.4 P20-P90 (8) 856.8 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 673.2 388.8 381.6 504 277.2 277.2 237.6 208.8 399.6 871.2 234 234 126 234 180 295.2 244.8 158.4 140.4 273.6 244.8 446.4 194.4 259.2 50.4 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 180 320.4 266.4 198 194.4 201.6 356.4 331.2 471.6 180 410.4 P30-P60 (9) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 198 406.8 871.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 234 180 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 262.8 230.4 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 187.2 320.4 266.4 198 194.4 205.2 356.4 331.2 414 169.2 410.4 P30-P70 (10) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 198 414 871.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 234 180 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 262.8 237.6 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 187.2 298.8 266.4 190.8 194.4 205.2 356.4 331.2 424.8 169.2 410.4 P30-P80 (11) 856.8 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 684 385.2 378 504 273.6 273.6 237.6 205.2 414 871.2 234 230.4 126 234 180 295.2 248.4 158.4 140.4 270 237.6 446.4 190.8 255.6 50.4 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 180 298.8 266.4 201.6 194.4 201.6 356.4 331.2 424.8 172.8 410.4 P30-P90 (12) 842.4 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 658.8 388.8 381.6 504 277.2 277.2 237.6 208.8 406.8 871.2 226.8 234 126 234 180 295.2 244.8 158.4 140.4 273.6 230.4 446.4 194.4 259.2 50.4 79.2 183.6 230.4 198 176.4 291.6 266.4 194.4 194.4 198 356.4 331.2 414 165.6 410.4 P40-P60 (13) 547.2 86.4 108 795.6 1335.6 410.4 230.4 255.6 302.4 165.6 165.6 144 118.8 259.2 500.4 140.4 154.8 86.4 144 180 295.2 158.4 93.6 82.8 158.4 144 446.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 115.2 133.2 198 115.2 194.4 162 115.2 194.4 126 205.2 187.2 259.2 100.8 234 P40-P70 (14) 892.8 140.4 172.8 849.6 1335.6 666 378 370.8 504 266.4 266.4 237.6 198 410.4 871.2 226.8 226.8 122.4 234 180 295.2 259.2 151.2 133.2 262.8 234 446.4 187.2 248.4 46.8 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 187.2 313.2 266.4 194.4 194.4 205.2 356.4 331.2 417.6 169.2 410.4 P40-P80 (15) 856.8 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 684 385.2 378 504 273.6 273.6 237.6 205.2 414 871.2 234 230.4 126 234 180 295.2 248.4 158.4 140.4 270 237.6 446.4 190.8 255.6 50.4 79.2 187.2 230.4 198 180 298.8 266.4 198 194.4 201.6 356.4 331.2 424.8 172.8 410.4 P40-P90 (16) 842.4 147.6 180 849.6 1335.6 658.8 388.8 381.6 504 277.2 277.2 237.6 208.8 406.8 871.2 226.8 234 126 234 180 295.2 244.8 158.4 140.4 273.6 230.4 446.4 194.4 259.2 50.4 79.2 183.6 230.4 198 176.4 291.6 266.4 194.4 194.4 198 356.4 331.2 414 165.6 410.4 BPR 936 230.4 428.4 1256.4 1465.2 835.2 579.6 522 716.4 370.8 309.6 255.6 223.2 442.8 1065.6 248.4 334.8 252 363.6 360 356.4 273.6 194.4 223.2 392.4 273.6 493.2 212.4 266.4 64.8 100.8 205.2 259.2 284.4 180 349.2 295.2 219.6 306 205.2 392.4 399.6 536.4 255.6 518.4

192

7.5.3 Convergence

The convergence condition is checked by measurement of a value ( in 6.3) at successive iteration. The implementation of the checking technique in the computer programming is the difference value between two components; the product of the O-D flows assigned on the shortest paths multiplies by path travel times (see 6.1) and the sum of the product of link flows with link travel times (see 6.2). The first component represents path density and the second component is known as link density. The difference value is the absolute value. Furthermore, in the presentation of the convergence condition, this value is presented using a natural logarithmic scaling in order to aid comparison between the fuzzy logic graphs and the BPR graph. The logarithmic scaling can condense the value of to be a small number. The logarithmic scaling of (or Log ) lies on the y-axis and the iteration number is on the x-axis in the x and y coordinates of a graph. In the network equilibrium, the value of meets the convergence criterion (see 6.3). This criterion value is close to zero, and is known as .

The convergence performance for the sixteen alternative membership functions in the proposed fuzzy model can be seen in Figures 7.2 to 7.17. The fastest convergence reached for all alternatives is only for the membership function P40-P90 with coverage in 3 iterations. On the other hand, the convergence obtained for the membership function P10-P70 is the slowest, requiring 9 iterations. Overall, the most convergence reached for the proposed fuzzy model is in 5 iterations, it is about a 40% from all alternatives. The figures of the iteration numbers here show that the proposed fuzzy model is applicable to multi-class traffic and the equilibrium network flows can be reached relatively fast. In addition, Figure 7.18 shows the convergence performance for the BPR function involving 16 iterations, although it can be seen that the progressive change in the differences is from the first iteration to the second iteration. Accordingly, the convergence performance of the proposed fuzzy model is faster than the conventional model.

193

P10-P60

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P10-P70

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P10-P80

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P10-P90

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

194

P20-P60

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P20-P70

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P20-P80

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P20-P90

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

195

P30-P60

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P30-P70

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P30-P80

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P30-P90

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

196

P40-P60

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P40-P70

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P40-P80

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

P40-P90

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

197

BPR

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iteration Number

Log

Most of the value of log in the first iteration for the fuzzy logic graphs is between 2 and 3. In contrast, this value is nearly 6 for the BPR graph. It can be seen that the differences of the value of log between the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model is bigger. This condition refers to the travel time range used in the flow-travel time relationship of the models.

As an illustration, the travel time range for the sixteen fuzzy link travel times for LV on a road type 2/2UD in the proposed fuzzy model that is provided in the lookup table (see Table 5.8) has a two extreme conditions (highest and lowest) for the differences of the travel time range. The highest difference is the fuzzy link travel time of P10-P90 with 26.9 seconds for low flow and 36.9 seconds for high flow, while fuzzy link travel time of P40-P60 is the lowest difference that has 28.5 seconds for low flow and 34.6 seconds for high flow. On the other hand, the travel time range for LV in the BPR model shows that there are 25.4 seconds for low flow (see Table 5.13) and 44.1 seconds for high flow, assumed that this high flow is equal to 23 (see Figure 5.12). This shows that the differences of the travel time range for the BPR model (18.7 seconds) is bigger than the two extreme conditions in the fuzzy model (10 seconds for the highest and 6.1 seconds for the lowest). It is clear that the first iteration for the BPR model has the bigger value of log rather than for the fuzzy model. Furthermore, in the second iteration both the BPR model and fuzzy model have nearly the same of the log value, that is around 1.

198

7.6

Model Validation

For validation, the model results are compared with observed data from an independent field survey. Although the results from the model assignment are link flows and link travel times, the validation in this section is focusing only on the link travel time results, because independent data for the link flows are not available. Link travel time data used as the observed data in this validation are obtained from a previous study in the year 2000. The observed data were obtained by the technique of a floating car. This observed data is then assumed to be the same for the next two years, as the main traffic survey for this research was held in the year 2002. However, due to the limited link travel time data obtained, the only travel time data for vehicle class LV is provided for all links on the network selected.

The validation method used consists of plotting computation results and observed data on the x and y coordinates of a graph respectively. This method produces a correlation coefficient R 2 for these models. These values give some measure of the goodness of model fit. Based on the slope of the best-fit regression line through the origin, it can be seen whether the travel time results are over- or under-estimated. The comparison of the computation results and the observed data is shown in Table 7.17 and the summary of the linear regression equation for both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model are presented in Table 7.18. The highest values of R 2 indicate a good correspondence between models and observed travel time for vehicle class LV. Moreover, the plots of the model results and the data observed of LV travel time for both the sixteen alternative membership functions and for the BPR function are presented in Appendix B.

199

Table 7.17 Model of Results and Observed Link Travel Time for LV

Link P10- P60 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 O P10- P70 M 594 93.6 115.2 568.8 918 442.8 252 230.4 374.4 176.4 176.4 176.4 122.4 252 622.8 151.2 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 136.8 100.8 90 162 158.4 302.4 126 165.6 32.4 50.4 126 126 133.2 122.4 198 198 126 129.6 136.8 194.4 223.2 284.4 104.4 295.2 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P10- P80 M 554.4 90 108 583.2 946.8 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 259.2 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 140.4 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 327.6 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 122.4 133.2 129.6 198 230.4 291.6 108 302.4 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P10- P90 M 576 93.6 111.6 594 961.2 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 255.6 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 140.4 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 320.4 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 126 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 122.4 136.8 133.2 198 234 306 115.2 316.8 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P20- P60 M 532.8 86.4 104.4 554.4 907.2 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 144 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 126 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 115.2 126 122.4 194.4 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P20- P70 M O P20- P80 M O P20- P90 M 576 93.6 111.6 594 957.6 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 255.6 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 136.8 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 320.4 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 126 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 122.4 136.8 133.2 194.4 230.4 306 115.2 316.8 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P30- P60 M O P30- P70 M 543.6 86.4 108 568.8 896.4 406.8 230.4 230.4 342 162 162 162 122.4 259.2 622.8 140.4 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 136.8 93.6 82.8 162 158.4 331.2 115.2 151.2 28.8 46.8 115.2 129.6 133.2 115.2 198 183.6 126 129.6 126 201.6 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P30- P80 M O P30- P90 M 576 93.6 111.6 594 961.2 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 252 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 136.8 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 316.8 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 129.6 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 118.8 136.8 133.2 201.6 226.8 306 115.2 316.8 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P40- P60 M 532.8 86.4 104.4 554.4 907.2 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 133.2 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 129.6 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 122.4 126 122.4 201.6 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P40- P70 M O P40- P80 M 554.4 90 108 583.2 907.2 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 252 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 133.2 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 320.4 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 129.6 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 118.8 133.2 129.6 201.6 226.8 291.6 108 302.4 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 P40- P90 M 576 93.6 111.6 594 954 428.4 244.8 241.2 363.6 172.8 172.8 172.8 133.2 248.4 669.6 147.6 147.6 79.2 169.2 136.8 230.4 133.2 97.2 86.4 176.4 169.2 313.2 118.8 162 32.4 50.4 122.4 129.6 136.8 118.8 216 194.4 115.2 136.8 133.2 201.6 223.2 306 115.2 316.8 O 1747.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 BP R M O 532.8 1747.2 86.4 104.4 554.4 910.8 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 144 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 126 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 118.8 126 122.4 198 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 543.6 1747.2 86.4 108 568.8 918 406.8 230.4 230.4 342 162 162 162 122.4 259.2 622.8 140.4 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 140.4 93.6 82.8 162 158.4 331.2 115.2 151.2 28.8 46.8 115.2 126 133.2 115.2 198 183.6 122.4 129.6 126 194.4 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 554.4 1747.2 90 108 583.2 928.8 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 255.6 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 140.4 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 327.6 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 126 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 118.8 133.2 129.6 194.4 230.4 291.6 108 302.4 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 532.8 1747.2 86.4 104.4 554.4 925.2 396 223.2 226.8 334.8 158.4 158.4 158.4 118.8 259.2 604.8 136.8 140.4 75.6 158.4 129.6 216 136.8 90 79.2 158.4 151.2 324 111.6 147.6 28.8 46.8 111.6 129.6 129.6 111.6 194.4 176.4 122.4 126 122.4 201.6 226.8 273.6 100.8 284.4 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 554.4 1747.2 90 108 583.2 928.8 414 234 237.6 349.2 165.6 165.6 165.6 126 255.6 640.8 140.4 144 79.2 165.6 136.8 226.8 136.8 93.6 82.8 165.6 162 324 115.2 154.8 28.8 46.8 118.8 129.6 136.8 118.8 205.2 187.2 126 133.2 129.6 201.6 226.8 291.6 108 302.4 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 543.6 1747.2 86.4 108 568.8 900 406.8 230.4 230.4 342 162 162 162 122.4 255.6 622.8 140.4 140.4 75.6 162 133.2 219.6 133.2 93.6 82.8 162 158.4 331.2 115.2 151.2 28.8 46.8 115.2 129.6 133.2 115.2 198 183.6 126 129.6 126 201.6 234 284.4 104.4 295.2 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0 835.2 1747.2 360 810 1224 968.4 1033.2 878.4 414 903.6 514.8 342 172.8 212.4 360 907.2 237.6 273.6 201.6 291.6 378 270 252 248.4 352.8 478.8 241.2 334.8 234 252 90 122.4 201.6 180 273.6 126 313.2 234 169.2 316.8 154.8 252 331.2 532.8 316.8 468 117.6 123.5 811.0 977.3 499.5 375.2 418.6 472.4 272.8 289.2 418.5 209.1 859.4 911.3 280.7 215.4 193.8 330.0 215.0 357.1 236.4 129.9 125.4 278.8 229.3 537.6 175.2 233.7 45.1 73.4 169.6 191.4 179.9 172.0 337.1 170.9 286.8 176.7 188.3 541.2 250.5 417.7 122.7 430.0

200

P10 - P60 P10 - P70 P10 - P80 P10 - P90 P20 - P60 P20 - P70 P20 - P80 P20 - P90 P30 - P60 P30 - P70 P30 - P80 P30 - P90 P40 - P60 P40 - P70 P40 - P80 P40 - P90 BPR

42.558 32.267 44.761 43.236 42.266 41.419 41.894 42.996 45.409 36.084 40.984 43.714 41.636 37.384 37.583 43.182 81.010

1.498 1.476 1.427 1.394 1.501 1.471 1.444 1.397 1.481 1.498 1.448 1.394 1.503 1.493 1.469 1.400 0.673

0.665 0.684 0.659 0.660 0.665 0.664 0.663 0.661 0.661 0.671 0.664 0.660 0.667 0.669 0.669 0.661 0.378

In Table 7.18 it is shown that the R 2 values for the sixteen membership functions average 0.665. However, the R 2 value for the BPR function is lower than for the fuzzy membership functions, namely 0.378. The R 2 value for the membership function of P10-P70 is the highest of the alternatives. Although the value of I (under estimation at low flow) is also the lowest, the value of S for this membership function is not the closest to 1. It can be seen that the values of S for the membership functions of P10-P90 and P30-P90 are the closest to 1 (1.394). Accordingly, the membership function for P10-P70 may not be the best model in this statistical analysis. Furthermore, the results of the validation indicate that the sixteen membership functions are more-or-less equally applicable for the network selected, because it is obvious that the performance of the model proposed for the fuzzy multi-class traffic assignment is nearly similar in terms of the R 2 value.

On the other hand, Table 7.19 shows that the SSE value for the membership function of P10-P90 is the lowest. Accordingly this membership function might be the

201

R R R R

Models

2 2 2 2

Intercept (I )

Slope (S )

best model although the R 2 value is not the highest. However, the SSE value for P10P90 is nearly similar to the membership functions P20-P90, P30-P90 and P40-P90 respectively.

Model P10-P60 P10-P70 P10-P80 P10-P90 P20-P60 P20-P70 P20-P80 P20-P90 P30-P60 P30-P70 P30-P80 P30-P90 P40-P60 P40-P70 P40-P80 P40-P90 BPR SSE 2614070 2399257 2467583 2364817 2618268 2539431 2477021 2368266 2609632 2536594 2471640 2370028 2612562 2541088 2483211 2378436 3017762

The intercept and slope values for the sixteen membership functions are 41.086 and 1.454 respectively on average. On the other hand, the intercept and slope values for the BPR function are 81.010 and 0.673 respectively. Figure 7.19 shows the fitted regression lines for the membership function of P10-P90 as the representative of the sixteen alternatives membership functions and the BPR function as well as the 450 line. This figure shows that the travel time for the fuzzy assignment model is under estimated. By contrast the travel time for the BPR function is under-estimated at low travel time and over-estimated after the function crosses the 450 line, i.e. O = M. The crossing point between the BPR line and the O = M line is at the travel time observation of 247.737 seconds. In addition, the crossing point between the membership function of P10-P90 and the BPR function is at 116.275 seconds.

202

O=M 3000 Travel Time Obsrvation in seconds (O) O = 1.394M + 43.236 (Fuzzy Logic) 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Travel Time Model in seconds (M)

Figure 7.19 The fit regression lines for the membership function of P10-P90 and the BPR function.

7.7

Discussions

The characteristic of the fuzzy assignment model is strongly affected by the variables of Pa and Pb . The increase of the difference between P0 and Pa ( Pa - P0 ) and between Pb and P100 ( P100 - Pb ) will affect the link travel time. Increasing Pa - P0 increases c0 (free flow travel time) while increasing P100 - Pb reduces c m (maximum practical travel time). This phenomenon is caused by the averaging of travel time data in the setting up of the lookup table. There are three forms of link travel time in term of Pa - P0 and P100 - Pb , as follows: increasing only Pa - P0 , increasing only P100 - Pb , and increasing both Pa - P0 and P100 - Pb . Illustrations of these forms are presented in Figure 7.20.

203

Travel Time

Travel Time

cm

(i )

c0

P0

Travel Time

Pa

Pb

P100

Travel Time

Flow

cm

(ii )

1 c0

P0

Travel Time

Pa1

Pb

P100

Travel Time

Flow

(iii )

c0 P0

Travel Time

c1 m

Pa

Pb1

P100

Travel Time

Flow

(iv )

1 c0

c1 m

P0

Note:

Pa1

Pb1

P100

Flow

c0 cm

1 c0

(Pa P0 ) (P100 Pb )

c1 m

(P P ) (P P )

1 a 0 100 1 b

204

According to the combinations illustrated above, Figure 7.21 shows the relationship between flow and travel time for the various of the fuzzified link travel

( ( ( ( time functions. The flows v a and vb correspond with travel times cvia) , cvii ) , cviii ) , cviv ) a a a ( ( ( ( and cvib) , cvii ) , cviii ) , cviv ) respectively. Travel time results with flows v a and vb for the b b b

fuzzified link travel time function (ii ) is always lower than the fuzzified link travel time

( ( ( ( function (iii ) . Hence cvii ) < cviii ) and cvii ) < cviii ) . Moreover, travel time results for the a a b b

fuzzified link travel time function (i ) is higher than the fuzzified link travel time

( ( function (iv ) with flow v a , where cvia) > cviv ) . On the other hand, these results for the a

fuzzified link travel time function (i ) is lower than the fuzzified link travel time

( ( function (iv ) with flow vb . It can be seen cvib) < cviv ) . b

Travel Time

(iii )

( c viii) b ( cviv ) b

( c vib)

( cvii ) b ( c viii) a

(iv )

(i )

(ii )

Travel Time

cm c1 m

( c via)

( cviv ) a

( cvii ) a

c1 0 c0

P0

Pa

Pa1

Pb1

Pb

P100

Flow

va

vb

Figure 7.21 The various types of the fuzzified link travel time functions

205

The points of interest in Figure 7.19 in terms of the comparison between the fuzzy traffic assignment model and the BPR assignment model are indicated in Figure 7.22 below.

O=M

Fuzzy Model

(5)

BPR Model

247.737

116.275 81.010

O a,b

43.236 0

(1)

Ma

Mb

Figure 7.22 Comparison between the fuzzy traffic assignment model and the BPR assignment model

Figure 7.22 shows that the comparison between the fuzzy traffic assignment model and the BPR assignment model can be divided into 5 sections. Section 1 (0 43.236) is where the travel time for both the fuzzy model and the BPR model are zero. In section 2 (43.236 81.010) the fuzzy model delivers a positive estimate but underestimates the observed data while the BPR model still delivers zero flows. It can be illustrated on that figure that the fuzzy result M a is lower than the observed data M b . Section 3 (81.010 116.275) is where both the fuzzy model and the BPR model underestimate travel times, the BPR model more so. This is similar to section 4 (116.275 247.737) only now the fuzzy model products the greats under estimate. In section 5 (>

206

247.737) the fuzzy model under-estimates while the BPR model over-estimates travel times.

Overall, the validation performance for both the proposed fuzzy model and the BPR model seems to be poor, although in the statistical analysis of the data the fuzzy model gives good results. It can be seen in Figure B.1 to B.16 (Appendix B) that the scattered data is close to the fitted regression line. However, this line under-estimates travel time because of differences in the data used for calibration and validation. The calibration data used is from the survey data in the period of 2002. Otherwise the validation data used is the data from the period of 2000. There appears to be a change of the traffic speed between the two periods. Traffic speed in the period of 2002 is lower than the period of 2000 possibly because of the increasing traffic flow. This could explain why the fuzzy model under-estimates travel time. On the other hand, the result of the statistical analysis for the BPR model shows a poor result. It is shown that the scattered data is spread around the fitted regression line (Appendix B, Figure B.17). This result is caused by either wrong pcu factors or more probably anisotropic travel time relationships, as discussed in the Chapter 5.

As described in the previous section, the convergence of the fuzzy logic assignment model introduced is rapid, even for class-specific link flows. Although, the convergence of the MSA algorithm is best for the stochastic problem (see Powell and Sheffi, 1982), this algorithm has been applicable in obtaining an equilibrium solution effectively for both the sixteen alternatives of membership functions and the BPR functions in this research. At equilibrium, there are two aspects of expectation can be drawn for the proposed fuzzy model: engineering expectations, where at equilibrium only paths with minimum travel times are used in the network, distinguished by user class, and driver expectations, where all drivers of a given user group are responding to the same link cost. The fuzzy logic assignment model introduced here can be classified as a UE model and not as a SUE model, as the model represents engineering uncertainty for link flow and therefore for link cost, rather than uncertainty of driver perceptions.

207

7.8

Conclusions

The fuzzy logic solution to the multi-class traffic assignment problem is given in this chapter. The example of the Bandung arterial network has been given. The calculated link flows and link travel times are given for the solution. Convergence is reached very fast for all membership functions of the fuzzy model considered, compared with the BPR traffic assignment model. The explanation of the Log values for the fuzzy model and the BPR model is given. The validation method used compares the value of R 2 and SSE for fitted and observed link travel times for LV. This validation also found the best membership function specification. The comparison between the regression lines of the fuzzy model results and the BPR model results against the observations showed when both models were likely to over-or underestimate.

The poor performance of the BPR model could be due to misspecification of the functional form, inappropriate pcu factors or, more probably, anisotropic relationships between traffic flow and travel time implying non-constant pcu values. Nonetheless, the possibility cannot be excluded that better pcu factor combined with a better travel time function could have produced results approaching these of the fuzzy logic method.

By using the data set provided in the proposed fuzzy model, the flow-travel time relationship is quite flat. This condition resulted in the variants of the proposed fuzzy logic method tested having little effect on the results. The appropriate application of the fuzzy model method nonetheless needs an initial scrutiny of the data.

208

Chapter 8

8.1

Introduction

In this research, a model has been introduced for network equilibrium assignment problems by implementing the concept of fuzzy logic and using a lookup table of link travel times. The data collected and the survey technique, as well as the data reduction, has been given. The proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model of traffic assignment have been described. A numerical example based on multi-class traffic data is presented. The validation of these models is also conducted in order to find good fuzzy set membership functions and the understanding of the performance comparison with the conventional method. In the following section, conclusions and recommendations for future research are presented.

8.2

Conclusions

The main aim of this research is to develop a traffic assignment model for the complexity of multi-class traffic data encountered in developing countries. The model consists of interacting sub-models for fuzzy logic and a lookup table, all-or-nothing network loading assignment, and the MSA algorithm. A model feature is the use of fuzzy logic and lookup tables to determine link travel times for each vehicle class as input to the assignment process. In principle, the application of fuzzy logic to traffic assignment based on multi-class traffic data from developing countries that have a high degree of uncertainty in place of link travel time functions used in the conventional traffic assignment procedure is applicable. This fuzzy model makes use of an

209

anisotropic relationship between link flows and link travel times rather than the conventional isotropic relationship.

By implementing both the proposed fuzzy model and the conventional model on a real network with 45 road links and 28 nodes, the results showed that the convergence for the sixteen alternatives of membership function is faster than using the BPR function. Convergence occurs mostly from the first iteration to the second iteration. Sixteen different membership functions showed that in around 40% of cases convergence was reached with in 5 iterations. On the other hand, the convergence of the conventional model was reached with in 16 iterations. Convergence measured by the difference between the O-D flows assigned on the shortest paths and the product of link flows with link travel times on the network is chosen. The MSA used in these models is an effective numerical method for obtaining the equilibrium. In these results it can be shown that the size of Pa - P0 and P100 - Pb for the membership function introduced is the most influential variable to determine travel time after defuzzification. The characteristics of these two parameters on the membership functions are obviously similar to the power on the BPR function.

The model validation was performed on the basis of link travel time, due to the limited data available. This showed that the sixteen fuzzy models have R 2 values which are 0.665 on average. However, the R 2 value of the BPR model is 0.378. The value of

S (slope) for the sixteen fuzzy models lies between a minimum of 1.394 and a

maximum of 1.503. On the other hand, the value of S for the BPR model is 0.673. The values of S for both the fuzzy models and the BPR model are not close to 1. Hence, the link travel time estimated by the fuzzy traffic assignment model is under-estimated while the conventional model exhibits under-estimation for low flows and overestimation for high flows. The other important aspect of the validation result to be carefully considered is the influence of the accuracy for both the O-D matrix data and the actual link lengths within the network.

210

The results of the statistical test for the sixteen membership functions introduced seem to be similar. In this research, the membership function of P10P90 is chosen as the best model. This function is more stable than the other alternative functions introduced in terms of the speed-flow relationship. This membership function produces the lowest SSE value.

The model of fuzzy traffic assignment that is developed provides a useful tool to determine the number of each vehicle class and its travel time on a link of the network, based on the complexity of multi-class traffic data from developing countries. The fuzzy logic approach is suitable to solve such problems because it offers a framework for dealing with uncertainty and in a simple way allows for an anisotropic relationship between flow and travel time. The proposed fuzzy model is a useful way of taking interaction between vehicle classes on the link into account. However, junction delays need to be taken into account before the proposed assignment model can be used more comprehensively in developing countries.

8.3

In order to make a more comprehensive model of multi-class traffic assignment in developing countries, the proposed fuzzy model can be completed by focusing on two aspects in the future research work. The first aspect is associated with network topology and traffic data and the second one is to implement other solution methods in the fuzzy traffic assignment.

The separation of fixed-route public transport such as buses, paratransit and threewheeled vehicles from the total link flow in the analysis is essential to enhance accuracy in the modelling. These types of vehicle should be analysed by using the public transport assignment method (transit assignment). The integration of traffic signals within the network into the multi-class traffic assignment model should be undertaken, considering that most traffic signals in developing countries are fixed. In this case, the

211

delay is the main input into the traffic assignment process. Delay at junctions in some urban networks in developing countries will be highly significant.

Regarding the solution methods, it is necessary that the solution algorithm of the fuzzy model proposed be extended by the implementation of other common algorithms like the F-W algorithm and the SD algorithm. In this case, the evaluation of these solution algorithms is important in terms of the convergence speed. In addition, the application of fuzzy logic and a lookup table approach has the potential for application to the dynamic multi-class traffic assignment problem.

212

Notation

Roman Letters

A B U V

A notation of set A notation of set A notation of set A notation of set Element of set Universal set A Constant A Constant A Constant The membership function of crisp set Output for fuzzy inference system The firing strength of the rule for fuzzy inference system Iteration number Number of data Cost or travel time on link a Cost or travel time on link b Cost on free flow condition Cost on maximum flow Cost on link a for class m

x

X

k1 k2 k3

h y

w n N ca cb c0 cm

m ca

' ca

cg

213

C p Cost on path p

* C ij

m C ij * The minimum cost of travelling from origin i to destination j for class m m C ijp Cost on path p from origin i to destination j

va vb

* va

Feasible flow on link a Flow on path p Flow on path p for user class m Path flow pattern The sum of elements in the O-D matrix Trips on path p Trips from origin i to destination j Trips on path p from origin i to destination j Trips on path p from origin i to destination j for class m

vp

vm p ya

E Tp Tij Tijp

m Tijp

Flow density Space mean speed Speed on free flow condition Speed on capacity Steady state capacity on link Practical capacity on link Maximum flow on free flow condition

s s0 s1 Qs

Qp

Q1

214

Q2

l

Capacity flow Distance or length of the link Choice probability Alternative path in the choice set Alternative path in the choice set Alternative path in the choice set Exponential

Pr

f g k

m

M

Vehicle class A set of user class Utility Fuzzy goal The modelled travel time for LV The observed travel time for LV Intercept Slope Link flow vector Link flow vector Descent direction A set of all O-D pairs in the network A set of all paths from origin i to destination j A set of nodes A set of links A notation of network Multi-class transportation network Directed network Travel demand Travel cost

u

G

M O

I S

v

y

d

W Pij N L G R G D C

215

Greek Letters

Parameter of fuzzy set Parameter of fuzzy set Parameter of fuzzy set The membership function of fuzzy set Lagrangian multiplier The link path incident matrix = 1 if link a is on path p from i to j and =0 otherwise Parameter of cost function Parameter of cost function Coefficient of travel time for the generalised cost Coefficient of link distance for the generalised cost The integral of the unit normal distribution Pcu value for class m Possibility index Step size Parameter of left spread for travel time with fuzzy number Parameter of right spread for travel time with fuzzy number Parameter of left spread for fuzzy goal Parameter of right spread for fuzzy goal A measurement of a value at successive iteration A convergence value

ij

a ijp

a a

216

References

Aashtiani, H.Z. and Magnanti, T.L. (1981) Equilibria on a congested transportation network. SIAM journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods, 2, 213 - 226. Abdulaal, M. and LeBlanc, L.J. (1979) Methods for combining modal split and equilibrium assignment models. Transportation Science, Vol 13, 292 - 314. Akiyama, T., Shao, C-F. and Sasaki, T. (1994) Traffic flow on urban networks with fuzzy information. Memorial Faculty of Engineering, Kyoto University, Vol 56, 1 22. Akiyama, T. and Kawahara, T. (1997) Traffic assignment model with fuzzy travel time information. Mini-EURO Conference on Fuzzy Sets in Traffic and Transport System. Akiyama, T. and Okushima, M. (2002) Formulation of traffic assignment model with hybrid travel time description. Proceedings of SICS & ISIS, CD-Rom, no. 20610. Allsop, R.E.(1992) Introduction to modelling for the design and evaluation of area-wide traffic management schemes. PTRC Course, London, June. Arezki, Y. and Van Vlit, D. (1985) The use of quantal loading in equilibrium traffic assignment, Transportation Research, 19B, 521 - 525. Ban, X., Liu, H.X., Hu, B., He, R. and Ran, B. (2004) Traffic model with fuzzy travel time perception. TRB Annual Meeting. Bang, K.L., Bergh, T. and Mertasudira, S. (1993) Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual Project, Final Technical Report Phase 1: Urban Traffic Facilities. Directorate General of Highways, Department of Public Works, Jakarta, Indonesia. Beckmann, M.J., McGuire, C.B. and Winston, C.B. (1956) Studies in the Economic of Transportation. Cowles Commission Monograph, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Bell, M.G.H. (1993) Stochastic user equilibrium assignment in networks with queues. Transportation Research B, 29B, 125 137.

217

Bell, M.G.H. and Iida, Y. (1997) Transportation Network Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, England. Binetti, M. and De Mitri, M. (2002) Traffic assignment model with fuzzy travel time. Proceedings of the 13th Mini-EURO Conference. Blum, J.R. (1954) Multidimensional stochastic approximation methods. Annual of Mathematical Statistics, 25, 737 - 744 Bogenberger, K. (2001) Adaptive Fuzzy Systems for Traffic Responsive and Coordinated Ramp Metering, PhD Thesis, Technische Universitat Munchen. Braess, D. (1968) Ube rein Paradox der Verkehrsplanung, Unternehmenstorchung, 12, 258 268. Braess, D. and Koch, G. (1979) On the xistence of equilibria in asymmetrical multiclass user transportation networks. Transportation Scince, 13, 56 - 63. Branston, D. (1976) Link capacity function: a review transportation research, 10(4), 223 - 36. Bureau of Public Roads (1964) Traffic Assignment Manual. Urban Planning Division, US Department of Commerce, Washington DC. Burrell, J.E. (1976) Multipath route assignment and its application to capacity restraint. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on the Theory of Road Traffic Flow, Karlsruhe. Cantarella, G.E. (1997) A general fixed point approach to multimode multi-user equilibrium assignment with elastic demand. Transportation Science, Vol 31 (2), 107, 22p. Carroll, J.D. (1959) A method of traffic assignment to an urban network. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 224, 64 - 71. Cascetta, E., Nuzzolo, A., Russo, F. and Vitetta, A. (1996) A modified logit route choice model overcoming path overlapping problems. Specification and some calibration results for interurban networks. Transportation and Traffic Theory, Proceeding of the 13th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Lyon, France, 24-26 July, 697 - 712. Cascetta, E. (2001) Transportation System Engineering: Theory and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

218

Chang, M.S. and Chen, H.K. (1998) A fuzzy user-optimal route choice problem using a link-based fuzzy variational inequality formulation. Fuzzy Sets and System, 114, 339 - 345. Charlesworth, J.A. (1975) Relation between travel time and traffic flow for the links of road networks controlled by fixed time signals. Working Paper No. 13 TORG, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Chen, G. and Pham, T.T. (2000) Introduction to Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Control. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, LLC. USA. Dafermos, S.C. and Sparrow, F.T. (1969) The traffic assignment problem for a general network. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 73B, 91 118. Dafermos, S.C. (1971) An extended traffic assignment model with application to twoway traffic. Transportation Science, Vol 5 (4), 106 118. Dafermos, S.C. (1972) The traffic assignment problem for multiple user transportation networks. Transportation Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, 73 - 87. Dafermos, S.C. (1982) Relaxation algorithms for the general Asymetrix traffic equilibrium problem. Transportation Science, Vol 16 (2), 231 240. Daganzo, C.F. and Sheffi, Y. (1977) On stochastic models of traffic assignment. Transportation Science, 11, 253 - 274. Daganzo, C.F. (1983) Stochastic network equilibrium with multiple vehicle types and asymmetric indefinite link cost jacobians. Transportation Science, Vol. 17, 282 300. Department of Transport (1985) Traffic Appraisal Manual (TAM), HMSO, London. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (1996) Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas, Volume 12, Section 2, Part 1, Traffic Model Development, Chapter 4, Highways Agency. Dial, R.B. (1971) A probabilistic multipath traffic assignment model which obviates the need for path enumeration. Transportation Research, 5, 83 111. Dijkstra, E.W. (1959) Note on two problems in connection with graph (spanning tree, shortest path). Numerical Mathematics, 1 (3), 269 271.

219

Directorate General of Highways (1997) Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual. Jakarta, Indonesia. Directorate General of Land Transport (2000) Road and Traffic Data in Bandung. Bandung, Indonesia. Dombi, J. (1990) Membership function as an evaluation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 35, 1 21. Driankov, D., Hellendoorn, H. and Reinfrank, M. (1996) An Introduction to Fuzzy Control. Springer, USA. Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1983) Rangking fuzzy numbers in the setting of possibility theory. Information Science, 30 (2), 183 224. Eugene Merritt (2003). Hierarchical Modeling of Road Traffic Networks. PhD Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Fisk, C.S. (1980) Some developments in equilibrium traffic assignment. Transportation Research, 14B (3), 243 255. Fisk, C.S. and Nguyen, S. (1982) Solution algorithms for network equilibrium models with asymmetric user costs. Transportation Science, Vol 16 (3), 361 381. Florian, M. and Spiess, H. (1982) The convergence of diagonalisation algorithms for asymmetric network equilibrium problems. Transportation Research, 16B, 477 483. Frank, M. and Wolfe, P. (1956) An algorithm for quadratic programming, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 3, 95 - 110. Fukusima, A. (1984) A descent algorithm for nonsmooth convex optimation. Mathematical Programming, 30, 163 175. Hearn, D.W., Lawphongpanich, S. and Nguyen, S. (1984) Convex programming formulations of the asymmetric traffic assignment problem. Transportation Research, 18B, 357 365. Henn, V. (1998) Fuzzy route choice model for traffic assignment. Fuzzy Sets and System,116, 77 - 101. Heydecker, B.G. (1986) On the definition of traffic equilibrium. Transportation Research, 20B, 435 - 440.

220

Horiguchi, R., Kuwahara, M. and Nishikawa, I. (1995) The model validation of traffic simulation system for urban road network: avenue. Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol IV, 1977 - 1982. Huddart, K.W. (1978) Performance characteristics of a signalised intersection with mixed vehicular traffic. Transport Planning in Developing Countries, PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Warwick, England. Inokuchi, H. and Kawakami, S. (2002) Development of the fuzzy traffic assignment model. Joint 1st international conference on soft computing and intelligent system and 3rd international symposium on advanced intelligent system (CD-Rom), no 24, 2 - 5. Jang, J-S. R., Sun, C-T. and Mizutani, E. (1997) Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft Computing: A Computational Approach to Learning and Machine Intelligence. Prentice Hall. Janson, B.N. and Zozaya-Gorostiza, C. (1987) The problem of cyclic flows in traffic assignment. Transportation Research, 21B, 299 310. Kaczmarek, M. (2002) Fuzzy group model of traffic flow. Proceedings of the 13th MiniEURO Conference. Kaufmann, A. and Gupta, M. (1985) Fuzzy Mathematical Models in Engineering and Management Science. Elsevier Science, New York. Kimber, R.M. and Hollis, E.M. (1979) Traffic queues delays at road junctions. TRRL Laboratory Report 909, Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Kuhn, H.W. and Tucker, A.W. (1951) Non linear programming. Proceedings of the 2nd Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, J. Neyman, ed, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 481 492. Larson, T. and Patriksson, M. (1992) Simplicial decomposition with disaggregated representation for the traffic assignment problem. Transportation Science, 26, 4 17. Lee, S. (1995) Mathematical programming algorithms for equilibrium road traffic assignment. PhD Thesis, University College London, UK. Lighthill, M.J. and Whithman, G.B. (1955) On kinematic waves, II. A theory of traffic flow on roads. Proceeding of the Royal Society, 229A, 317 - 345. Luenberger, D.G. (1984) Linear and Non-linear Programming. Addison-wesley, Reading, MA, second ed.

221

Lupi, M. (1986) Convergence of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm in transportation networks. Civil Engineering System, 3, 7 15. Maher, M.J. (1989) SAM A Stochastic Assignment Model. International on Mathematics in Transport Planning and Control, Institute of Mathematics and its Application, University of Wales College of Cardiff. Mamdani, E.H. (1976) Advances in the linguistic synthesis of fuzzy controllers. International Journal of Man-Machine-Studies, Vol 8, 669 678. Marwah, B.R. and Reddy, B.S. (1978) Performance characteristics of a signalised intersection with mixed vehicular traffic. Transport Planning in Developing Countries, PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Warwick, England. MATLAB 5.2. (1999) Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for use with MATLAB. The MathWorks INC. Mimis, S. (1984) Equilibrium Traffic Assignment Models for Urban Network. M.S. Thesis, Center for Transportation Studies, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass. Mirchandani, P., Syal, R., Lucas, D. (2003) Traffic Assignment using Iterated RouteBased Simulation. TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. Murcland, J.D. (1969) Road traffic distribution in equilibrium. Conference paper, Mathematical Methods in Economic Science, Mathematiches Forschungsinstitut, Oberwolfack, West Germany. Nagurney, A.B. (1983) Comparative tests of multimodal traffic equilibrium methods, U.S. DOT Program of University Research Report, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Nagurney, A. and Dong, J. (2002) A multi-class, multi-criteria traffic network equilibrium model with elastic demand. Transportation Research, Part B, 36, 445 469. Ortuzar, J. de D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1994) Modelling Transport. John Wiley & Sons, England. Overgaard, K.R. (1967) Urban transportation planning: traffic estimation. Traffic Quarterly, XXI(2), 197 - 218. Patriksson, M. (1994) The Traffic Assignment Problem: Models and Methods. VSP:Utrecht.

222

Powell, W. and Sheffi, Y. (1982) The convergence of equilibrium algorithms with predetermined step size. Transportation Science, 16, 45 - 55. Sacher, R.S. (1980) A decomposition algorithm to maximise certain pseudoconcave functions on polytops. Mathematical Programming, 9, 189 206. Shah, B.V. Benhler, R.J. and Kempthorne, O. (1964) Some algorithms for minimizing a function of several variables, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 12, 74 92. Shao, C.F., Akiyama, T. and Sasaki, T. (1990) User equilibrium assignment of network with fuzzy route travel time. Proceeding of Sino-Japan Joint Meeting on Fuzzy Sets and System, D2-8, 1 - 4, Beijing, China. Shao, C.F., Akiyama, T. and Sasaki, T. (1997) Empirical approach for road traffic flow analysis on the basis of fuzzy set theory. Japanese Journal of Fuzzy Theory and Systems, Volume 9, Number 6. Shetty, C.M. and Ben Daya, M. (1988) A decomposition algorithm for quadratic programming, Mathematical Programming, 18, 16 30. Sheffi, Y. (1985) Urban Transportation Networks : Equilibrium Analysis with Mathematical Programming Methods. Prentice-Hall, INC, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Smith, M.J. (1979) The existence, uniqueness and stability of traffic equilibria. Transportation Research, 13B, 293 304. Smith, M.J. (1987) Traffic control and traffic assignment in a signal controlled road network with queuing. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory (Ed. H. Gartner and N.H.M. Wilson), MIT Press: Cambridge, 319 338. Smith, M.J. and Van Vuren, T. (1989) Equilibrium traffic assignment with two vehicle types. Mathematics in Transport Planning Control, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Smock, R.J. (1962) An iterative assignment approach to capacity restraint on arterial network. Highway Research Board Bulletin 156, 1 - 13. Sugeno, M. (1985) Industrial application of fuzzy control, Elsevier Science Pub, co. Suh, S., Park, C.H. and Kim, T.J. (1989) A Highway Capacity Function in Korea: Measurement and Calibration, Transportation Research, Volume 24A, 177 - 86.

223

Taylor, M.A.P., Bonsall, P. and Young, W. (2000) Understanding Traffic System: Data, Analysis and Presentation. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. England. Teodorovic, D. and Kikuchi, S. (1991) Application of fuzzy sets theory to the saving based vehicle routing algorithm. Civil Engineering Systems, 8, 87 - 93. Teodorovic, D. (1998) Fuzzy logic systems for transportation engineering: The state of the art. Transportation Research, Part A 33, 337 364. Thagesen, B. (1996) Highway and Traffic Engineering in Developing Countries. E & FN Spon, London. Thomas, R. (1991) Traffic Assignment Technique. Avebury Technical, The Academic Publishing Group, London. US HCM (1965) Highway Capacity Manual, The Board, Washington, D.C. US HCM (1985) Highway Capacity Manual, SR 209, Transport Research Board. Van Vliet, D. (1978) Improved shortest path algorithms for transport network. Transportation Research, 12, 7 20. Van Vliet, D. and Dow, P.C. (1979) Capacity restrained road assignment 1, The convergence of stochastic methods. Traffic Engineering and Control, 20, 296 - 299. Van Vliet, D., Bergman, T. and Scheltes, W.H. (1986) Equilibrium traffic assignment with multiple user classes. Proceedings of PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, Seminar M, 111 - 122. Van Vuren, T. and Van Vliet, D. (1992) Route Choice and Signal Control, ITS, Avebury, England. Von Hohenbalken, B (1975) A finite algorithm to maximise certain pseudoconcave functions on polytopes. Mathematical Programming, 9, 189 206. Walpole, R.E. (1982) Introduction to Statistics. Macmillan, New York. Wang, H.F. and Liao, H.L. (1997) User equilibrium in traffic assignment problem with fuzzy N-A incident matrix. Fuzzy Sets and System, 107, 245 - 253. Wang, L-X. and Mendel, J. (1992) Fuzzy basis functions, universal approximation, and orthogonal least squares learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 3, 807 813.

224

Wardrop, J.G. (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineer, Part II, 1(36), 325 - 62. Weintraub, A., Ortiz, C. and Gonzalez, J. (1985) Accelerating convergence of the Frank-Wolve algorithm. Transportation Research, 19B, 113 122. Wilde, D.J. (1964) Optimum Seeking Methods. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey. Wright, S.D. (1996) A linear programming approach to path flow estimation in scoot controlled road network. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Wu, J.H., Florian, M. and He, S. (2000) An algorithm for multi-class ntwork equilibrium problem in PCE of truck: application to the SCAG travel demand model. INRO Solutions Inc, Center for Research on Transportation, University of Montreal. Yager, R.R.and Filev, D.P. (1994) Essential of Fuzzy Modeling and Control. John Willey and Sons, Inc. Yen, J. and Langari, R. (1999) Fuzzy Logic: Intelegence, Control, and Information. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. Zadeh, L. (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, 338 - 353. Zhang, J. (1994) Traffic Assignment Models with Multiple User Classes, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Zimmermann, H. J. (1996) Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluwer Academic, USA.

225

Appendix A

Table A.1 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.8 28.8 25.8 47.8 LLLH 24.8 28.8 25.8 53.3 LLHL 24.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 24.8 32.8 25.8 47.8 HLLL 31.8 28.8 25.8 47.8 HLHL 31.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 24.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 24.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 31.8 32.8 25.8 47.8 HLLH 31.8 28.8 25.8 53.3 LHLH 24.8 32.8 25.8 53.3 LHHH 24.8 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 31.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 31.8 32.8 25.8 53.3 HHHL 31.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 31.8 32.8 33.1 53.3

Lookup Table P10 - P60 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD P10 - P60

Table A.2 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P10 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.9 26.4 25.2 46.0 LLLH 24.9 26.4 25.2 52.9 LLHL 24.9 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHLL 24.9 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLL 31.9 26.4 25.2 46.0 HLHL 31.9 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHHL 24.9 32.0 31.9 46.0 LLHH 24.9 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLL 31.9 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLH 31.9 26.4 25.2 52.9 LHLH 24.9 32.0 25.2 52.9 LHHH 24.9 32.0 31.9 52.9 HLHH 31.9 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLH 31.9 32.0 25.2 52.9 HHHL 31.9 32.0 31.9 46.0 HHHH 31.9 32.0 31.9 52.9

Table A.3 Lookup Table P10 - P60 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.2 28.6 25.0 45.5 LLLH 26.2 28.6 25.0 51.4 LLHL 26.2 28.6 30.9 45.5 LHLL 26.2 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLL 31.6 28.6 25.0 45.5 HLHL 31.6 28.6 30.9 45.5 LHHL 26.2 35.5 30.9 45.5 LLHH 26.2 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLL 31.6 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLH 31.6 28.6 25.0 51.4 LHLH 26.2 35.5 25.0 51.4 LHHH 26.2 35.5 30.9 51.4 HLHH 31.6 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLH 31.6 35.5 25.0 51.4 HHHL 31.6 35.5 30.9 45.5 HHHH 31.6 35.5 30.9 51.4

226

Table A.4 Lookup Table P10 - P70 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 30.3 31.0 47.8 LLLH 26.9 30.3 31.0 52.9 LLHL 26.9 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHLL 26.9 33.8 31.0 47.8 HLLL 35.5 30.3 31.0 47.8 HLHL 35.5 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHHL 26.9 33.8 34.4 47.8 LLHH 26.9 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLL 35.5 33.8 31.0 47.8 HLLH 35.5 30.3 31.0 52.9 LHLH 26.9 33.8 31.0 52.9 LHHH 26.9 33.8 34.4 52.9 HLHH 35.5 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLH 35.5 33.8 31.0 52.9 HHHL 35.5 33.8 34.4 47.8 HHHH 35.5 33.8 34.4 52.9

Table A.5 Lookup Table P10 - P70 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.8 28.8 25.8 47.8 LLLH 24.8 28.8 25.8 53.3 LLHL 24.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 24.8 32.8 25.8 47.8 HLLL 32.6 28.8 25.8 47.8 HLHL 32.6 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 24.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 24.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 32.6 32.8 25.8 47.8 HLLH 32.6 28.8 25.8 53.3 LHLH 24.8 32.8 25.8 53.3 LHHH 24.8 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 32.6 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 32.6 32.8 25.8 53.3 HHHL 32.6 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 32.6 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.6 Lookup Table P10 - P70 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P10 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.9 26.4 25.2 46.0 LLLH 24.9 26.4 25.2 52.9 LLHL 24.9 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHLL 24.9 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLL 32.9 26.4 25.2 46.0 HLHL 32.9 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHHL 24.9 32.0 32.7 46.0 LLHH 24.9 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLL 32.9 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLH 32.9 26.4 25.2 52.9 LHLH 24.9 32.0 25.2 52.9 LHHH 24.9 32.0 32.7 52.9 HLHH 32.9 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLH 32.9 32.0 25.2 52.9 HHHL 32.9 32.0 32.7 46.0 HHHH 32.9 32.0 32.7 52.9

Table A.7 Lookup Table P10 - P70 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.2 28.6 25.0 45.5 LLLH 26.2 28.6 25.0 51.4 LLHL 26.2 28.6 31.3 45.5 LHLL 26.2 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLL 32.1 28.6 25.0 45.5 HLHL 32.1 28.6 31.3 45.5 LHHL 26.2 35.5 31.3 45.5 LLHH 26.2 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLL 32.1 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLH 32.1 28.6 25.0 51.4 LHLH 26.2 35.5 25.0 51.4 LHHH 26.2 35.5 31.3 51.4 HLHH 32.1 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLH 32.1 35.5 25.0 51.4 HHHL 32.1 35.5 31.3 45.5 HHHH 32.1 35.5 31.3 51.4

227

Table A.8 Lookup Table P10 - P80 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 30.3 31.0 47.8 LLLH 26.9 30.3 31.0 52.9 LLHL 26.9 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHLL 26.9 33.8 31.0 47.8 HLLL 36.4 30.3 31.0 47.8 HLHL 36.4 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHHL 26.9 33.8 35.6 47.8 LLHH 26.9 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLL 36.4 33.8 31.0 47.8 HLLH 36.4 30.3 31.0 52.9 LHLH 26.9 33.8 31.0 52.9 LHHH 26.9 33.8 35.6 52.9 HLHH 36.4 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLH 36.4 33.8 31.0 52.9 HHHL 36.4 33.8 35.6 47.8 HHHH 36.4 33.8 35.6 52.9

Table A.9 Lookup Table P10 - P80 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.8 28.8 25.8 47.8 LLLH 24.8 28.8 25.8 54.7 LLHL 24.8 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHLL 24.8 35.8 25.8 47.8 HLLL 33.1 28.8 25.8 47.8 HLHL 33.1 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHHL 24.8 35.8 34.7 47.8 LLHH 24.8 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLL 33.1 35.8 25.8 47.8 HLLH 33.1 28.8 25.8 54.7 LHLH 24.8 35.8 25.8 54.7 LHHH 24.8 35.8 34.7 54.7 HLHH 33.1 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLH 33.1 35.8 25.8 54.7 HHHL 33.1 35.8 34.7 47.8 HHHH 33.1 35.8 34.7 54.7

Table A.10 Lookup Table P10 - P80 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P10 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.9 26.4 25.2 46.0 LLLH 24.9 26.4 25.2 54.8 LLHL 24.9 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHLL 24.9 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLL 33.8 26.4 25.2 46.0 HLHL 33.8 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHHL 24.9 32.0 34.0 46.0 LLHH 24.9 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLL 33.8 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLH 33.8 26.4 25.2 54.8 LHLH 24.9 32.0 25.2 54.8 LHHH 24.9 32.0 34.0 54.8 HLHH 33.8 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLH 33.8 32.0 25.2 54.8 HHHL 33.8 32.0 34.0 46.0 HHHH 33.8 32.0 34.0 54.8

Table A.11 Lookup Table P10 - P80 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.2 28.6 25.0 45.5 LLLH 26.2 28.6 25.0 52.3 LLHL 26.2 28.6 32.1 45.5 LHLL 26.2 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLL 32.9 28.6 25.0 45.5 HLHL 32.9 28.6 32.1 45.5 LHHL 26.2 35.5 32.1 45.5 LLHH 26.2 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLL 32.9 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLH 32.9 28.6 25.0 52.3 LHLH 26.2 35.5 25.0 52.3 LHHH 26.2 35.5 32.1 52.3 HLHH 32.9 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLH 32.9 35.5 25.0 52.3 HHHL 32.9 35.5 32.1 45.5 HHHH 32.9 35.5 32.1 52.3

228

Table A.12 Lookup Table P10 - P90 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 30.3 31.0 47.8 LLLH 26.9 30.3 31.0 52.9 LLHL 26.9 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHLL 26.9 35.6 31.0 47.8 HLLL 36.9 30.3 31.0 47.8 HLHL 36.9 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHHL 26.9 35.6 35.7 47.8 LLHH 26.9 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLL 36.9 35.6 31.0 47.8 HLLH 36.9 30.3 31.0 52.9 LHLH 26.9 35.6 31.0 52.9 LHHH 26.9 35.6 35.7 52.9 HLHH 36.9 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLH 36.9 35.6 31.0 52.9 HHHL 36.9 35.6 35.7 47.8 HHHH 36.9 35.6 35.7 52.9

Table A.13 Lookup Table P10 - P90 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.8 28.8 25.8 47.8 LLLH 24.8 28.8 25.8 55.2 LLHL 24.8 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHLL 24.8 37.8 25.8 47.8 HLLL 34.4 28.8 25.8 47.8 HLHL 34.4 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHHL 24.8 37.8 36.0 47.8 LLHH 24.8 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLL 34.4 37.8 25.8 47.8 HLLH 34.4 28.8 25.8 55.2 LHLH 24.8 37.8 25.8 55.2 LHHH 24.8 37.8 36.0 55.2 HLHH 34.4 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLH 34.4 37.8 25.8 55.2 HHHL 34.4 37.8 36.0 47.8 HHHH 34.4 37.8 36.0 55.2

Table A.14 Lookup Table P10 - P90 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P10 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 24.9 26.4 25.2 46.0 LLLH 24.9 26.4 25.2 55.7 LLHL 24.9 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHLL 24.9 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLL 35.4 26.4 25.2 46.0 HLHL 35.4 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHHL 24.9 32.0 34.7 46.0 LLHH 24.9 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLL 35.4 32.0 25.2 46.0 HLLH 35.4 26.4 25.2 55.7 LHLH 24.9 32.0 25.2 55.7 LHHH 24.9 32.0 34.7 55.7 HLHH 35.4 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLH 35.4 32.0 25.2 55.7 HHHL 35.4 32.0 34.7 46.0 HHHH 35.4 32.0 34.7 55.7

Table A.15 Lookup Table P10 - P90 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P10 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.2 28.6 25.0 45.5 LLLH 26.2 28.6 25.0 52.8 LLHL 26.2 28.6 32.5 45.5 LHLL 26.2 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLL 33.4 28.6 25.0 45.5 HLHL 33.4 28.6 32.5 45.5 LHHL 26.2 35.5 32.5 45.5 LLHH 26.2 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLL 33.4 35.5 25.0 45.5 HLLH 33.4 28.6 25.0 52.8 LHLH 26.2 35.5 25.0 52.8 LHHH 26.2 35.5 32.5 52.8 HLHH 33.4 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLH 33.4 35.5 25.0 52.8 HHHL 33.4 35.5 32.5 45.5 HHHH 33.4 35.5 32.5 52.8

229

Table A.16 Lookup Table P20 - P60 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.7 30.3 31.1 47.8 LLLH 27.7 30.3 31.1 52.9 LLHL 27.7 30.3 33.6 47.8 LHLL 27.7 33.8 31.1 47.8 HLLL 34.6 30.3 31.1 47.8 HLHL 34.6 30.3 33.6 47.8 LHHL 27.7 33.8 33.6 47.8 LLHH 27.7 30.3 33.6 52.9 HHLL 34.6 33.8 31.1 47.8 HLLH 34.6 30.3 31.1 52.9 LHLH 27.7 33.8 31.1 52.9 LHHH 27.7 33.8 33.6 52.9 HLHH 34.6 30.3 33.6 52.9 HHLH 34.6 33.8 31.1 52.9 HHHL 34.6 33.8 33.6 47.8 HHHH 34.6 33.8 33.6 52.9

Table A.17 Lookup Table P20 - P60 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.8 28.8 26.1 47.8 LLLH 25.8 28.8 26.1 53.3 LLHL 25.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 25.8 32.8 26.1 47.8 HLLL 31.8 28.8 26.1 47.8 HLHL 31.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 25.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 25.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 31.8 32.8 26.1 47.8 HLLH 31.8 28.8 26.1 53.3 LHLH 25.8 32.8 26.1 53.3 LHHH 25.8 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 31.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 31.8 32.8 26.1 53.3 HHHL 31.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 31.8 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.18 Lookup Table P20 - P60 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P20 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.3 26.4 25.3 46.0 LLLH 25.3 26.4 25.3 52.9 LLHL 25.3 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHLL 25.3 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLL 31.9 26.4 25.3 46.0 HLHL 31.9 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHHL 25.3 32.0 31.9 46.0 LLHH 25.3 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLL 31.9 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLH 31.9 26.4 25.3 52.9 LHLH 25.3 32.0 25.3 52.9 LHHH 25.3 32.0 31.9 52.9 HLHH 31.9 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLH 31.9 32.0 25.3 52.9 HHHL 31.9 32.0 31.9 46.0 HHHH 31.9 32.0 31.9 52.9

Table A.19 Lookup Table P20 - P60 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.6 28.6 25.1 46.4 LLLH 26.6 28.6 25.1 51.4 LLHL 26.6 28.6 30.9 46.4 LHLL 26.6 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLL 31.6 28.6 25.1 46.4 HLHL 31.6 28.6 30.9 46.4 LHHL 26.6 35.5 30.9 46.4 LLHH 26.6 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLL 31.6 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLH 31.6 28.6 25.1 51.4 LHLH 26.6 35.5 25.1 51.4 LHHH 26.6 35.5 30.9 51.4 HLHH 31.6 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLH 31.6 35.5 25.1 51.4 HHHL 31.6 35.5 30.9 46.4 HHHH 31.6 35.5 30.9 51.4

230

Table A.20 Lookup Table P20 - P70 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.7 30.3 31.1 47.8 LLLH 27.7 30.3 31.1 52.9 LLHL 27.7 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHLL 27.7 33.8 31.1 47.8 HLLL 35.5 30.3 31.1 47.8 HLHL 35.5 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHHL 27.7 33.8 34.4 47.8 LLHH 27.7 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLL 35.5 33.8 31.1 47.8 HLLH 35.5 30.3 31.1 52.9 LHLH 27.7 33.8 31.1 52.9 LHHH 27.7 33.8 34.4 52.9 HLHH 35.5 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLH 35.5 33.8 31.1 52.9 HHHL 35.5 33.8 34.4 47.8 HHHH 35.5 33.8 34.4 52.9

Table A.21 Lookup Table P20 - P70 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.8 28.8 26.1 47.8 LLLH 25.8 28.8 26.1 53.3 LLHL 25.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 25.8 32.8 26.1 47.8 HLLL 32.6 28.8 26.1 47.8 HLHL 32.6 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 25.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 25.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 32.6 32.8 26.1 47.8 HLLH 32.6 28.8 26.1 53.3 LHLH 25.8 32.8 26.1 53.3 LHHH 25.8 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 32.6 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 32.6 32.8 26.1 53.3 HHHL 32.6 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 32.6 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.22 Lookup Table P20 - P70 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P20 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.3 26.4 25.3 46.0 LLLH 25.3 26.4 25.3 52.9 LLHL 25.3 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHLL 25.3 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLL 32.9 26.4 25.3 46.0 HLHL 32.9 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHHL 25.3 32.0 32.7 46.0 LLHH 25.3 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLL 32.9 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLH 32.9 26.4 25.3 52.9 LHLH 25.3 32.0 25.3 52.9 LHHH 25.3 32.0 32.7 52.9 HLHH 32.9 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLH 32.9 32.0 25.3 52.9 HHHL 32.9 32.0 32.7 46.0 HHHH 32.9 32.0 32.7 52.9

Table A.23 Lookup Table P20 - P70 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.6 28.6 25.1 46.4 LLLH 26.6 28.6 25.1 51.4 LLHL 26.6 28.6 31.3 46.4 LHLL 26.6 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLL 32.1 28.6 25.1 46.4 HLHL 32.1 28.6 31.3 46.4 LHHL 26.6 35.5 31.3 46.4 LLHH 26.6 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLL 32.1 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLH 32.1 28.6 25.1 51.4 LHLH 26.6 35.5 25.1 51.4 LHHH 26.6 35.5 31.3 51.4 HLHH 32.1 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLH 32.1 35.5 25.1 51.4 HHHL 32.1 35.5 31.3 46.4 HHHH 32.1 35.5 31.3 51.4

231

Table A.24 Lookup Table P20 - P80 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.7 30.3 31.1 47.8 LLLH 27.7 30.3 31.1 52.9 LLHL 27.7 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHLL 27.7 33.8 31.1 47.8 HLLL 36.4 30.3 31.1 47.8 HLHL 36.4 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHHL 27.7 33.8 35.6 47.8 LLHH 27.7 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLL 36.4 33.8 31.1 47.8 HLLH 36.4 30.3 31.1 52.9 LHLH 27.7 33.8 31.1 52.9 LHHH 27.7 33.8 35.6 52.9 HLHH 36.4 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLH 36.4 33.8 31.1 52.9 HHHL 36.4 33.8 35.6 47.8 HHHH 36.4 33.8 35.6 52.9

Table A.25 Lookup Table P20 - P80 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.8 28.8 26.1 47.8 LLLH 25.8 28.8 26.1 54.7 LLHL 25.8 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHLL 25.8 35.8 26.1 47.8 HLLL 33.1 28.8 26.1 47.8 HLHL 33.1 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHHL 25.8 35.8 34.7 47.8 LLHH 25.8 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLL 33.1 35.8 26.1 47.8 HLLH 33.1 28.8 26.1 54.7 LHLH 25.8 35.8 26.1 54.7 LHHH 25.8 35.8 34.7 54.7 HLHH 33.1 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLH 33.1 35.8 26.1 54.7 HHHL 33.1 35.8 34.7 47.8 HHHH 33.1 35.8 34.7 54.7

Table A.26 Lookup Table P20 - P80 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P20 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.3 26.4 25.3 46.0 LLLH 25.3 26.4 25.3 54.8 LLHL 25.3 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHLL 25.3 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLL 33.8 26.4 25.3 46.0 HLHL 33.8 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHHL 25.3 32.0 34.0 46.0 LLHH 25.3 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLL 33.8 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLH 33.8 26.4 25.3 54.8 LHLH 25.3 32.0 25.3 54.8 LHHH 25.3 32.0 34.0 54.8 HLHH 33.8 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLH 33.8 32.0 25.3 54.8 HHHL 33.8 32.0 34.0 46.0 HHHH 33.8 32.0 34.0 54.8

Table A.27 Lookup Table P20 - P80 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.6 28.6 25.1 46.4 LLLH 26.6 28.6 25.1 52.3 LLHL 26.6 28.6 32.1 46.4 LHLL 26.6 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLL 32.9 28.6 25.1 46.4 HLHL 32.9 28.6 32.1 46.4 LHHL 26.6 35.5 32.1 46.4 LLHH 26.6 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLL 32.9 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLH 32.9 28.6 25.1 52.3 LHLH 26.6 35.5 25.1 52.3 LHHH 26.6 35.5 32.1 52.3 HLHH 32.9 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLH 32.9 35.5 25.1 52.3 HHHL 32.9 35.5 32.1 46.4 HHHH 32.9 35.5 32.1 52.3

232

Table A.28 Lookup Table P20 - P90 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.7 30.3 31.1 47.8 LLLH 27.7 30.3 31.1 52.9 LLHL 27.7 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHLL 27.7 35.6 31.1 47.8 HLLL 36.9 30.3 31.1 47.8 HLHL 36.9 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHHL 27.7 35.6 35.7 47.8 LLHH 27.7 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLL 36.9 35.6 31.1 47.8 HLLH 36.9 30.3 31.1 52.9 LHLH 27.7 35.6 31.1 52.9 LHHH 27.7 35.6 35.7 52.9 HLHH 36.9 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLH 36.9 35.6 31.1 52.9 HHHL 36.9 35.6 35.7 47.8 HHHH 36.9 35.6 35.7 52.9

Table A.29 Lookup Table P20 - P90 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.8 28.8 26.1 47.8 LLLH 25.8 28.8 26.1 55.2 LLHL 25.8 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHLL 25.8 37.8 26.1 47.8 HLLL 34.4 28.8 26.1 47.8 HLHL 34.4 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHHL 25.8 37.8 36.0 47.8 LLHH 25.8 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLL 34.4 37.8 26.1 47.8 HLLH 34.4 28.8 26.1 55.2 LHLH 25.8 37.8 26.1 55.2 LHHH 25.8 37.8 36.0 55.2 HLHH 34.4 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLH 34.4 37.8 26.1 55.2 HHHL 34.4 37.8 36.0 47.8 HHHH 34.4 37.8 36.0 55.2

Table A.30 Lookup Table P20 - P90 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P20 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.3 26.4 25.3 46.0 LLLH 25.3 26.4 25.3 55.7 LLHL 25.3 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHLL 25.3 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLL 35.4 26.4 25.3 46.0 HLHL 35.4 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHHL 25.3 32.0 34.7 46.0 LLHH 25.3 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLL 35.4 32.0 25.3 46.0 HLLH 35.4 26.4 25.3 55.7 LHLH 25.3 32.0 25.3 55.7 LHHH 25.3 32.0 34.7 55.7 HLHH 35.4 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLH 35.4 32.0 25.3 55.7 HHHL 35.4 32.0 34.7 46.0 HHHH 35.4 32.0 34.7 55.7

Table A.31 Lookup Table P20 - P90 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P20 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.6 28.6 25.1 46.4 LLLH 26.6 28.6 25.1 52.8 LLHL 26.6 28.6 32.5 46.4 LHLL 26.6 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLL 33.4 28.6 25.1 46.4 HLHL 33.4 28.6 32.5 46.4 LHHL 26.6 35.5 32.5 46.4 LLHH 26.6 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLL 33.4 35.5 25.1 46.4 HLLH 33.4 28.6 25.1 52.8 LHLH 26.6 35.5 25.1 52.8 LHHH 26.6 35.5 32.5 52.8 HLHH 33.4 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLH 33.4 35.5 25.1 52.8 HHHL 33.4 35.5 32.5 46.4 HHHH 33.4 35.5 32.5 52.8

233

Table A.32 Lookup Table P30 - P60 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.8 30.3 31.2 47.8 LLLH 27.8 30.3 31.2 52.9 LLHL 27.8 30.3 33.6 47.8 LHLL 27.8 33.8 31.2 47.8 HLLL 34.6 30.3 31.2 47.8 HLHL 34.6 30.3 33.6 47.8 LHHL 27.8 33.8 33.6 47.8 LLHH 27.8 30.3 33.6 52.9 HHLL 34.6 33.8 31.2 47.8 HLLH 34.6 30.3 31.2 52.9 LHLH 27.8 33.8 31.2 52.9 LHHH 27.8 33.8 33.6 52.9 HLHH 34.6 30.3 33.6 52.9 HHLH 34.6 33.8 31.2 52.9 HHHL 34.6 33.8 33.6 47.8 HHHH 34.6 33.8 33.6 52.9

Table A.33 Lookup Table P30 - P60 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.8 28.8 26.4 47.8 LLLH 26.8 28.8 26.4 53.3 LLHL 26.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 26.8 32.8 26.4 47.8 HLLL 31.8 28.8 26.4 47.8 HLHL 31.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 26.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 26.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 31.8 32.8 26.4 47.8 HLLH 31.8 28.8 26.4 53.3 LHLH 26.8 32.8 26.4 53.3 LHHH 26.8 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 31.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 31.8 32.8 26.4 53.3 HHHL 31.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 31.8 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.34 Lookup Table P30 - P60 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P30 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.9 26.4 26.0 46.0 LLLH 25.9 26.4 26.0 52.9 LLHL 25.9 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHLL 25.9 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLL 31.9 26.4 26.0 46.0 HLHL 31.9 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHHL 25.9 32.0 31.9 46.0 LLHH 25.9 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLL 31.9 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLH 31.9 26.4 26.0 52.9 LHLH 25.9 32.0 26.0 52.9 LHHH 25.9 32.0 31.9 52.9 HLHH 31.9 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLH 31.9 32.0 26.0 52.9 HHHL 31.9 32.0 31.9 46.0 HHHH 31.9 32.0 31.9 52.9

Table A.35 Lookup Table P30 - P60 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 28.6 25.8 46.4 LLLH 26.9 28.6 25.8 51.4 LLHL 26.9 28.6 30.9 46.4 LHLL 26.9 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLL 31.6 28.6 25.8 46.4 HLHL 31.6 28.6 30.9 46.4 LHHL 26.9 35.5 30.9 46.4 LLHH 26.9 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLL 31.6 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLH 31.6 28.6 25.8 51.4 LHLH 26.9 35.5 25.8 51.4 LHHH 26.9 35.5 30.9 51.4 HLHH 31.6 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLH 31.6 35.5 25.8 51.4 HHHL 31.6 35.5 30.9 46.4 HHHH 31.6 35.5 30.9 51.4

234

Table A.36 Lookup Table P30 - P70 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.8 30.3 31.2 47.8 LLLH 27.8 30.3 31.2 52.9 LLHL 27.8 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHLL 27.8 33.8 31.2 47.8 HLLL 35.5 30.3 31.2 47.8 HLHL 35.5 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHHL 27.8 33.8 34.4 47.8 LLHH 27.8 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLL 35.5 33.8 31.2 47.8 HLLH 35.5 30.3 31.2 52.9 LHLH 27.8 33.8 31.2 52.9 LHHH 27.8 33.8 34.4 52.9 HLHH 35.5 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLH 35.5 33.8 31.2 52.9 HHHL 35.5 33.8 34.4 47.8 HHHH 35.5 33.8 34.4 52.9

Table A.37 Lookup Table P30 - P70 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.8 28.8 26.4 47.8 LLLH 26.8 28.8 26.4 53.3 LLHL 26.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 26.8 32.8 26.4 47.8 HLLL 32.6 28.8 26.4 47.8 HLHL 32.6 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 26.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 26.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 32.6 32.8 26.4 47.8 HLLH 32.6 28.8 26.4 53.3 LHLH 26.8 32.8 26.4 53.3 LHHH 26.8 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 32.6 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 32.6 32.8 26.4 53.3 HHHL 32.6 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 32.6 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.38 Lookup Table P30 - P70 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P30 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.9 26.4 26.0 46.0 LLLH 25.9 26.4 26.0 52.9 LLHL 25.9 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHLL 25.9 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLL 32.9 26.4 26.0 46.0 HLHL 32.9 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHHL 25.9 32.0 32.7 46.0 LLHH 25.9 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLL 32.9 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLH 32.9 26.4 26.0 52.9 LHLH 25.9 32.0 26.0 52.9 LHHH 25.9 32.0 32.7 52.9 HLHH 32.9 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLH 32.9 32.0 26.0 52.9 HHHL 32.9 32.0 32.7 46.0 HHHH 32.9 32.0 32.7 52.9

Table A.39 Lookup Table P30 - P70 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 28.6 25.8 46.4 LLLH 26.9 28.6 25.8 51.4 LLHL 26.9 28.6 31.3 46.4 LHLL 26.9 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLL 32.1 28.6 25.8 46.4 HLHL 32.1 28.6 31.3 46.4 LHHL 26.9 35.5 31.3 46.4 LLHH 26.9 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLL 32.1 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLH 32.1 28.6 25.8 51.4 LHLH 26.9 35.5 25.8 51.4 LHHH 26.9 35.5 31.3 51.4 HLHH 32.1 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLH 32.1 35.5 25.8 51.4 HHHL 32.1 35.5 31.3 46.4 HHHH 32.1 35.5 31.3 51.4

235

Table A.40 Lookup Table P30 - P80 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.8 30.3 31.2 47.8 LLLH 27.8 30.3 31.2 52.9 LLHL 27.8 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHLL 27.8 33.8 31.2 47.8 HLLL 36.4 30.3 31.2 47.8 HLHL 36.4 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHHL 27.8 33.8 35.6 47.8 LLHH 27.8 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLL 36.4 33.8 31.2 47.8 HLLH 36.4 30.3 31.2 52.9 LHLH 27.8 33.8 31.2 52.9 LHHH 27.8 33.8 35.6 52.9 HLHH 36.4 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLH 36.4 33.8 31.2 52.9 HHHL 36.4 33.8 35.6 47.8 HHHH 36.4 33.8 35.6 52.9

Table A.41 Lookup Table P30 - P80 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.8 28.8 26.4 47.8 LLLH 26.8 28.8 26.4 54.7 LLHL 26.8 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHLL 26.8 35.8 26.4 47.8 HLLL 33.1 28.8 26.4 47.8 HLHL 33.1 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHHL 26.8 35.8 34.7 47.8 LLHH 26.8 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLL 33.1 35.8 26.4 47.8 HLLH 33.1 28.8 26.4 54.7 LHLH 26.8 35.8 26.4 54.7 LHHH 26.8 35.8 34.7 54.7 HLHH 33.1 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLH 33.1 35.8 26.4 54.7 HHHL 33.1 35.8 34.7 47.8 HHHH 33.1 35.8 34.7 54.7

Table A.42 Lookup Table P30 - P80 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P30 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.9 26.4 26.0 46.0 LLLH 25.9 26.4 26.0 54.8 LLHL 25.9 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHLL 25.9 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLL 33.8 26.4 26.0 46.0 HLHL 33.8 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHHL 25.9 32.0 34.0 46.0 LLHH 25.9 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLL 33.8 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLH 33.8 26.4 26.0 54.8 LHLH 25.9 32.0 26.0 54.8 LHHH 25.9 32.0 34.0 54.8 HLHH 33.8 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLH 33.8 32.0 26.0 54.8 HHHL 33.8 32.0 34.0 46.0 HHHH 33.8 32.0 34.0 54.8

Table A.43 Lookup Table P30 - P80 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 28.6 25.8 46.4 LLLH 26.9 28.6 25.8 52.3 LLHL 26.9 28.6 32.1 46.4 LHLL 26.9 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLL 32.9 28.6 25.8 46.4 HLHL 32.9 28.6 32.1 46.4 LHHL 26.9 35.5 32.1 46.4 LLHH 26.9 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLL 32.9 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLH 32.9 28.6 25.8 52.3 LHLH 26.9 35.5 25.8 52.3 LHHH 26.9 35.5 32.1 52.3 HLHH 32.9 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLH 32.9 35.5 25.8 52.3 HHHL 32.9 35.5 32.1 46.4 HHHH 32.9 35.5 32.1 52.3

236

Table A.44 Lookup Table P30 - P90 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.8 30.3 31.2 47.8 LLLH 27.8 30.3 31.2 52.9 LLHL 27.8 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHLL 27.8 35.6 31.2 47.8 HLLL 36.9 30.3 31.2 47.8 HLHL 36.9 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHHL 27.8 35.6 35.7 47.8 LLHH 27.8 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLL 36.9 35.6 31.2 47.8 HLLH 36.9 30.3 31.2 52.9 LHLH 27.8 35.6 31.2 52.9 LHHH 27.8 35.6 35.7 52.9 HLHH 36.9 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLH 36.9 35.6 31.2 52.9 HHHL 36.9 35.6 35.7 47.8 HHHH 36.9 35.6 35.7 52.9

Table A.45 Lookup Table P30 - P90 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.8 28.8 26.4 47.8 LLLH 26.8 28.8 26.4 55.2 LLHL 26.8 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHLL 26.8 37.8 26.4 47.8 HLLL 34.4 28.8 26.4 47.8 HLHL 34.4 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHHL 26.8 37.8 36.0 47.8 LLHH 26.8 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLL 34.4 37.8 26.4 47.8 HLLH 34.4 28.8 26.4 55.2 LHLH 26.8 37.8 26.4 55.2 LHHH 26.8 37.8 36.0 55.2 HLHH 34.4 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLH 34.4 37.8 26.4 55.2 HHHL 34.4 37.8 36.0 47.8 HHHH 34.4 37.8 36.0 55.2

Table A.46 Lookup Table P30 - P90 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P30 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 25.9 26.4 26.0 46.0 LLLH 25.9 26.4 26.0 55.7 LLHL 25.9 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHLL 25.9 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLL 35.4 26.4 26.0 46.0 HLHL 35.4 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHHL 25.9 32.0 34.7 46.0 LLHH 25.9 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLL 35.4 32.0 26.0 46.0 HLLH 35.4 26.4 26.0 55.7 LHLH 25.9 32.0 26.0 55.7 LHHH 25.9 32.0 34.7 55.7 HLHH 35.4 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLH 35.4 32.0 26.0 55.7 HHHL 35.4 32.0 34.7 46.0 HHHH 35.4 32.0 34.7 55.7

Table A.47 Lookup Table P30 - P90 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P30 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.9 28.6 25.8 46.4 LLLH 26.9 28.6 25.8 52.8 LLHL 26.9 28.6 32.5 46.4 LHLL 26.9 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLL 33.4 28.6 25.8 46.4 HLHL 33.4 28.6 32.5 46.4 LHHL 26.9 35.5 32.5 46.4 LLHH 26.9 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLL 33.4 35.5 25.8 46.4 HLLH 33.4 28.6 25.8 52.8 LHLH 26.9 35.5 25.8 52.8 LHHH 26.9 35.5 32.5 52.8 HLHH 33.4 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLH 33.4 35.5 25.8 52.8 HHHL 33.4 35.5 32.5 46.4 HHHH 33.4 35.5 32.5 52.8

237

Table A.48 Lookup Table P40 - P60 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 28.5 30.3 31.3 47.8 LLLH 28.5 30.3 31.3 52.9 LLHL 28.5 30.3 33.6 47.8 LHLL 28.5 33.8 31.3 47.8 HLLL 34.6 30.3 31.3 47.8 HLHL 34.6 30.3 33.6 47.8 LHHL 28.5 33.8 33.6 47.8 LLHH 28.5 30.3 33.6 52.9 HHLL 34.6 33.8 31.3 47.8 HLLH 34.6 30.3 31.3 52.9 LHLH 28.5 33.8 31.3 52.9 LHHH 28.5 33.8 33.6 52.9 HLHH 34.6 30.3 33.6 52.9 HHLH 34.6 33.8 31.3 52.9 HHHL 34.6 33.8 33.6 47.8 HHHH 34.6 33.8 33.6 52.9

Table A.49 Lookup Table P40 - P60 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.8 27.0 47.8 LLLH 27.1 28.8 27.0 53.3 LLHL 27.1 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 27.1 32.8 27.0 47.8 HLLL 31.8 28.8 27.0 47.8 HLHL 31.8 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 27.1 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 27.1 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 31.8 32.8 27.0 47.8 HLLH 31.8 28.8 27.0 53.3 LHLH 27.1 32.8 27.0 53.3 LHHH 27.1 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 31.8 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 31.8 32.8 27.0 53.3 HHHL 31.8 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 31.8 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.50 Lookup Table P40 - P60 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P40 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.1 26.4 26.3 46.0 LLLH 26.1 26.4 26.3 52.9 LLHL 26.1 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHLL 26.1 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLL 31.9 26.4 26.3 46.0 HLHL 31.9 26.4 31.9 46.0 LHHL 26.1 32.0 31.9 46.0 LLHH 26.1 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLL 31.9 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLH 31.9 26.4 26.3 52.9 LHLH 26.1 32.0 26.3 52.9 LHHH 26.1 32.0 31.9 52.9 HLHH 31.9 26.4 31.9 52.9 HHLH 31.9 32.0 26.3 52.9 HHHL 31.9 32.0 31.9 46.0 HHHH 31.9 32.0 31.9 52.9

Table A.51 Lookup Table P40 - P60 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P60 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.6 25.9 46.4 LLLH 27.1 28.6 25.9 51.4 LLHL 27.1 28.6 30.9 46.4 LHLL 27.1 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLL 31.6 28.6 25.9 46.4 HLHL 31.6 28.6 30.9 46.4 LHHL 27.1 35.5 30.9 46.4 LLHH 27.1 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLL 31.6 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLH 31.6 28.6 25.9 51.4 LHLH 27.1 35.5 25.9 51.4 LHHH 27.1 35.5 30.9 51.4 HLHH 31.6 28.6 30.9 51.4 HHLH 31.6 35.5 25.9 51.4 HHHL 31.6 35.5 30.9 46.4 HHHH 31.6 35.5 30.9 51.4

238

Table A.52 Lookup Table P40 - P70 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 28.5 30.3 31.3 47.8 LLLH 28.5 30.3 31.3 52.9 LLHL 28.5 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHLL 28.5 33.8 31.3 47.8 HLLL 35.5 30.3 31.3 47.8 HLHL 35.5 30.3 34.4 47.8 LHHL 28.5 33.8 34.4 47.8 LLHH 28.5 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLL 35.5 33.8 31.3 47.8 HLLH 35.5 30.3 31.3 52.9 LHLH 28.5 33.8 31.3 52.9 LHHH 28.5 33.8 34.4 52.9 HLHH 35.5 30.3 34.4 52.9 HHLH 35.5 33.8 31.3 52.9 HHHL 35.5 33.8 34.4 47.8 HHHH 35.5 33.8 34.4 52.9

Table A.53 Lookup Table P40 - P70 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.8 27.0 47.8 LLLH 27.1 28.8 27.0 53.3 LLHL 27.1 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHLL 27.1 32.8 27.0 47.8 HLLL 32.6 28.8 27.0 47.8 HLHL 32.6 28.8 33.1 47.8 LHHL 27.1 32.8 33.1 47.8 LLHH 27.1 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLL 32.6 32.8 27.0 47.8 HLLH 32.6 28.8 27.0 53.3 LHLH 27.1 32.8 27.0 53.3 LHHH 27.1 32.8 33.1 53.3 HLHH 32.6 28.8 33.1 53.3 HHLH 32.6 32.8 27.0 53.3 HHHL 32.6 32.8 33.1 47.8 HHHH 32.6 32.8 33.1 53.3

Table A.54 Lookup Table P40 - P70 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P40 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.1 26.4 26.3 46.0 LLLH 26.1 26.4 26.3 52.9 LLHL 26.1 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHLL 26.1 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLL 32.9 26.4 26.3 46.0 HLHL 32.9 26.4 32.7 46.0 LHHL 26.1 32.0 32.7 46.0 LLHH 26.1 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLL 32.9 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLH 32.9 26.4 26.3 52.9 LHLH 26.1 32.0 26.3 52.9 LHHH 26.1 32.0 32.7 52.9 HLHH 32.9 26.4 32.7 52.9 HHLH 32.9 32.0 26.3 52.9 HHHL 32.9 32.0 32.7 46.0 HHHH 32.9 32.0 32.7 52.9

Table A.55 Lookup Table P40 - P70 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P70 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.6 25.9 46.4 LLLH 27.1 28.6 25.9 51.4 LLHL 27.1 28.6 31.3 46.4 LHLL 27.1 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLL 32.1 28.6 25.9 46.4 HLHL 32.1 28.6 31.3 46.4 LHHL 27.1 35.5 31.3 46.4 LLHH 27.1 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLL 32.1 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLH 32.1 28.6 25.9 51.4 LHLH 27.1 35.5 25.9 51.4 LHHH 27.1 35.5 31.3 51.4 HLHH 32.1 28.6 31.3 51.4 HHLH 32.1 35.5 25.9 51.4 HHHL 32.1 35.5 31.3 46.4 HHHH 32.1 35.5 31.3 51.4

239

Table A.56 Lookup Table P40 - P80 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 28.5 30.3 31.3 47.8 LLLH 28.5 30.3 31.3 52.9 LLHL 28.5 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHLL 28.5 33.8 31.3 47.8 HLLL 36.4 30.3 31.3 47.8 HLHL 36.4 30.3 35.6 47.8 LHHL 28.5 33.8 35.6 47.8 LLHH 28.5 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLL 36.4 33.8 31.3 47.8 HLLH 36.4 30.3 31.3 52.9 LHLH 28.5 33.8 31.3 52.9 LHHH 28.5 33.8 35.6 52.9 HLHH 36.4 30.3 35.6 52.9 HHLH 36.4 33.8 31.3 52.9 HHHL 36.4 33.8 35.6 47.8 HHHH 36.4 33.8 35.6 52.9

Table A.57 Lookup Table P40 - P80 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.8 27.0 47.8 LLLH 27.1 28.8 27.0 54.7 LLHL 27.1 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHLL 27.1 35.8 27.0 47.8 HLLL 33.1 28.8 27.0 47.8 HLHL 33.1 28.8 34.7 47.8 LHHL 27.1 35.8 34.7 47.8 LLHH 27.1 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLL 33.1 35.8 27.0 47.8 HLLH 33.1 28.8 27.0 54.7 LHLH 27.1 35.8 27.0 54.7 LHHH 27.1 35.8 34.7 54.7 HLHH 33.1 28.8 34.7 54.7 HHLH 33.1 35.8 27.0 54.7 HHHL 33.1 35.8 34.7 47.8 HHHH 33.1 35.8 34.7 54.7

Table A.58 Lookup Table P40 - P80 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P40 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.1 26.4 26.3 46.0 LLLH 26.1 26.4 26.3 54.8 LLHL 26.1 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHLL 26.1 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLL 33.8 26.4 26.3 46.0 HLHL 33.8 26.4 34.0 46.0 LHHL 26.1 32.0 34.0 46.0 LLHH 26.1 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLL 33.8 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLH 33.8 26.4 26.3 54.8 LHLH 26.1 32.0 26.3 54.8 LHHH 26.1 32.0 34.0 54.8 HLHH 33.8 26.4 34.0 54.8 HHLH 33.8 32.0 26.3 54.8 HHHL 33.8 32.0 34.0 46.0 HHHH 33.8 32.0 34.0 54.8

Table A.59 Lookup Table P40 - P80 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P80 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.6 25.9 46.4 LLLH 27.1 28.6 25.9 52.3 LLHL 27.1 28.6 32.1 46.4 LHLL 27.1 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLL 32.9 28.6 25.9 46.4 HLHL 32.9 28.6 32.1 46.4 LHHL 27.1 35.5 32.1 46.4 LLHH 27.1 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLL 32.9 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLH 32.9 28.6 25.9 52.3 LHLH 27.1 35.5 25.9 52.3 LHHH 27.1 35.5 32.1 52.3 HLHH 32.9 28.6 32.1 52.3 HHLH 32.9 35.5 25.9 52.3 HHHL 32.9 35.5 32.1 46.4 HHHH 32.9 35.5 32.1 52.3

240

Table A.60 Lookup Table P40 - P90 for 2/2UD based on 300m (in second) 2/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 28.5 30.3 31.3 47.8 LLLH 28.5 30.3 31.3 52.9 LLHL 28.5 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHLL 28.5 35.6 31.3 47.8 HLLL 36.9 30.3 31.3 47.8 HLHL 36.9 30.3 35.7 47.8 LHHL 28.5 35.6 35.7 47.8 LLHH 28.5 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLL 36.9 35.6 31.3 47.8 HLLH 36.9 30.3 31.3 52.9 LHLH 28.5 35.6 31.3 52.9 LHHH 28.5 35.6 35.7 52.9 HLHH 36.9 30.3 35.7 52.9 HHLH 36.9 35.6 31.3 52.9 HHHL 36.9 35.6 35.7 47.8 HHHH 36.9 35.6 35.7 52.9

Table A.61 Lookup Table P40 - P90 for 4/2UD based on 300m (in second) 4/2UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.8 27.0 47.8 LLLH 27.1 28.8 27.0 55.2 LLHL 27.1 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHLL 27.1 37.8 27.0 47.8 HLLL 34.4 28.8 27.0 47.8 HLHL 34.4 28.8 36.0 47.8 LHHL 27.1 37.8 36.0 47.8 LLHH 27.1 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLL 34.4 37.8 27.0 47.8 HLLH 34.4 28.8 27.0 55.2 LHLH 27.1 37.8 27.0 55.2 LHHH 27.1 37.8 36.0 55.2 HLHH 34.4 28.8 36.0 55.2 HHLH 34.4 37.8 27.0 55.2 HHHL 34.4 37.8 36.0 47.8 HHHH 34.4 37.8 36.0 55.2

Table A.62 Lookup Table P40 - P90 for 4/2D based on 300m (in second) 4/2D LV HV MC UM P40 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 26.1 26.4 26.3 46.0 LLLH 26.1 26.4 26.3 55.7 LLHL 26.1 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHLL 26.1 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLL 35.4 26.4 26.3 46.0 HLHL 35.4 26.4 34.7 46.0 LHHL 26.1 32.0 34.7 46.0 LLHH 26.1 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLL 35.4 32.0 26.3 46.0 HLLH 35.4 26.4 26.3 55.7 LHLH 26.1 32.0 26.3 55.7 LHHH 26.1 32.0 34.7 55.7 HLHH 35.4 26.4 34.7 55.7 HHLH 35.4 32.0 26.3 55.7 HHHL 35.4 32.0 34.7 46.0 HHHH 35.4 32.0 34.7 55.7

Table A.63 Lookup Table P40 - P90 for 3/1UD based on 300m (in second) 3/1UD LV HV MC UM P40 - P90 mean mean mean mean LLLL 27.1 28.6 25.9 46.4 LLLH 27.1 28.6 25.9 52.8 LLHL 27.1 28.6 32.5 46.4 LHLL 27.1 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLL 33.4 28.6 25.9 46.4 HLHL 33.4 28.6 32.5 46.4 LHHL 27.1 35.5 32.5 46.4 LLHH 27.1 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLL 33.4 35.5 25.9 46.4 HLLH 33.4 28.6 25.9 52.8 LHLH 27.1 35.5 25.9 52.8 LHHH 27.1 35.5 32.5 52.8 HLHH 33.4 28.6 32.5 52.8 HHLH 33.4 35.5 25.9 52.8 HHHL 33.4 35.5 32.5 46.4 HHHH 33.4 35.5 32.5 52.8

241

Appendix B

P10 - P60

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.498M + 42.558 R 2 = 0.665 1500

1000

500

Figure B.1

242

P10 - P70

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.476M + 32.267 R 2 = 0.684 1500

1000

500

Figure B.2

P10 - P80

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.427M + 44.761 R 2 = 0.659 1500

1000

500

Figure B.3

243

P10 - P90

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.394M + 43.236 2 R = 0.660 1500

1000

500

Figure B.4

P20 - P60

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.501M + 42.266 R 2 = 0.665 1500

1000

500

Figure B.5

244

P20 - P70

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.471M + 41.419 R 2 = 0.664 1500

1000

500

Figure B.6

P20 - P80

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.444M + 41.894 R 2 = 0.663 1500

1000

500

Figure B.7

245

P20 - P90

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.397M + 42.996 R 2 = 0.661 1500

1000

500

Figure B.8

P30 - P60

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.481M + 45.409 R 2 = 0.661 1500

1000

500

Figure B.9

246

P30 - P70

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.498M + 36.084 R 2 = 0.671 1500

1000

500

Figure B.10

P30 - P80

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.448M + 40.984 R 2 = 0.664 1500

1000

500

Figure B.11

247

P30 - P90

2000 Travel Time Obsrvation in second (O) O = 1.394M + 43.714 R 2 = 0.660 1500

1000

500

Figure B.12

P40 - P60

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.503M + 41.636 R 2 = 0.667 1500

1000

500

Figure B.13

248

P40 - P70

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.493M + 37.384 2 R = 0.669 1500

1000

500

Figure B.14

P40 - P80

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.469M + 37.583 R 2 = 0.669 1500

1000

500

Figure B.15

249

P40 - P90

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 1.400M + 43.182 R 2 = 0.661 1500

1000

500

Figure B.16

BPR

2000 Travel Time Observation in second (O) O = 0.673M + 81.010 R 2 = 0.378 1500

1000

500

Figure B.17

250

- Fourth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Fuzzy Logic (AI & FL 2016)Uploaded byCS & IT
- modellingguidelines.pdfUploaded byyenyas
- Fuzzy Logic Sun Tracking ControlUploaded bytheorotica
- FuzzyUploaded byDinesh Dinu
- Neuro FuzzyUploaded byprashant98015
- IJERTV1IS7386Uploaded byDulal Manna
- Transportation Planning_Theory PartUploaded bySagar Kariya
- Genetic AlgorithmsUploaded byvarunsarav
- 34207Uploaded byMatías Gómez Arancibia
- Automated Landform ClassificationUploaded bysultan
- Eureka SampleUploaded byAnkur Gupta
- GRA Method of Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Single Valued Neutrosophic Hesitant Fuzzy Set InformationUploaded byMia Amalia
- AIFLUploaded byCS & IT
- SOME OPERATIONS ON NEUTROSOPHIC FUZZY GRAPHSUploaded byMia Amalia
- Parametric Optimization of Wire EDM by Using Fuzzy Logic 08 AugUploaded byGJESR
- Report - Fuzzy Inference System – Automated Vehicle Control SystemUploaded byMowlid Moallim
- system thinkingUploaded byFadekemi Adelabu
- Neutrosophic Diagram and Classes of Neutrosophic Paradoxes or to the Outer-Limits of ScienceUploaded byIlieCraciun
- Batch 22 Final DocumentationUploaded byPtr Pramodh
- Fuzzy SystemsUploaded bygsneha04
- Sem 4 SyllabusUploaded byAnukumar Nair
- Ashok - Fuzzy Logic Applications to Environmental Engineering SystemsUploaded byAnastasia Sitorus
- 200307Uploaded byعبد الرحمن الكردي
- Neutrosophic AHP Multi Criteria Decision Making Method Applied on the Selection of Learning Management SystemUploaded byMia Amalia
- A New Similarity Measure on npn-Soft Set Theory and Its ApplicationUploaded byMia Amalia
- FuzzyUploaded bymosalex
- Pdflc DesignUploaded bygal_exciting1623
- Lógica DIfusa Salud Enfermedad y MalestarUploaded bydaniel
- FYZZZYYYUploaded byUsman Ahmed
- Decision-Making Method based on the Interval Valued Neutrosophic GraphUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB

- Text Recognition Past, Present and FutureUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- learningwithmickeyminnie lesson planUploaded byapi-294491980
- ASTM C-403.pdfUploaded byrajeshji_000
- FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION MODELS FOR COMPOSITES - A REVIEWUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- Another Thermodynamics WorksheetUploaded bysobre1982
- Lecture 19. Chi-square and CorrelationUploaded byMarie Smith
- E-I- A36Uploaded bynitouch3564
- Condensation Heat Transfer FundamentalsUploaded byKeyvan Kazemi Bidokhty
- Assignment 03 AE688Uploaded byMhmoud Al-Tamimi
- 2016_Limit equilibrium method for rock slope stability analysis by using the Generalized Hoek–Brown criterion.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 0NpgiTF0g
- Recursion in C,C++Uploaded bysabarisri
- contourlet transformUploaded bySiddharth Purohit
- Advanced Data WareHouse Design Errata.pdfUploaded byDanne Ramirez
- Past Paper of PIEASUploaded byshoaib2769504
- Cojinetes para fricciónUploaded byRaúl García
- Lecture 2 Desc Stat i 2016Uploaded byMobasher Messi
- syllabus CS212 data structure.docUploaded byPogs M. de Luna
- Sampling TheoryUploaded byPrima Hp
- lab1Uploaded byJeevan Babu
- Related Learning Experience at (1)Uploaded byEuniceFetalver
- [TAM-12]Top-down vs Bottom-up Methods of Linkage for Asymmetric Agglomerative ClusteringUploaded byrizalespe
- Graphs Review[1]Uploaded byKarla Hoffman
- Cylinder CalculationUploaded bySrRon
- 35206-900Uploaded bymalli gadu
- Intake Manifold DesignUploaded byshubhaastro2827
- Neki Zadaci AnalizaUploaded byJohanna Carlson
- Introduction to Engineering GraphicsUploaded bysandeep_gaikwad2
- database authorization conclusionUploaded byapi-233113554
- 3Uploaded byintel6064
- Chapter 7 MagnetostaticUploaded byMohd HelmiHazim