Pedestrian

microsimulation
modelling

UK good practice guide

First edition 2023
Contents

Executive summary 04 5. Base model validation

5.1 Definition 22
1. Introduction 5.2 Criteria to assess model validation 22

1.1 Purpose of this guide 06

1.2 Project overview 06 6. Model outputs
1.3 Relevant guidelines 08
6.1 Level of service plots 24
1.4 Common issues 08
6.2 Space utilisation plots 26
1.5 Terms 09
6.3 Journey time outputs 27
6.4 Model screenshots 28
2. Model planning 6.5 Model videos
6.6 Generalised journey times and social cost
29
30
2.1 Modelling flowchart 10 6.7 Flow rate and density profiles 31
2.2 Scoping 11
2.3 Data collection 11
2.4 Inputs and assumptions 11 7. Model reporting
2.5 Base year model 11
7.1 Introduction 32
2.6 Scenario testing for rail stations 12
7.2 Inputs and assumptions note 32
2.7 Scenario testing for venues/stadia 14
7.3 Model development report 33
7.4 Modelling report 34
3. Model building requirements
3.1 Overlay 16 8. Model auditing
3.2 Physical characteristics and behaviour 16
8.1 Introduction 36
3.3 Demand data 16
8.2 Internal audits 37
3.4 Other data requirements 17
8.3 External audits 37
3.5 Model build reference documents 17
8.4 Audit report 37

4. Base model calibration

4.1 Definition 18
4.2 Criteria to assess the level of calibration 18
4.3 Address the issues 19
4.4 Recalibrating model 19
4.5 Automatic ticket gate example 19
4 | Pedestrian
Mott MacDonald
microsimulation
| Pedestrian
modelling
Microsimulation
UK goodModelling
practice guide
Guide

Executive summary

This pedestrian microsimulation

modelling UK good practice
guide has been written to assist
with pedestrian model building,
analysing, reporting, auditing,
interpretation and understanding
– focusing in particular on
railway station and venues/stadia
infrastructure design requirements.
Modellers producing increasingly consistent
and accurate deliverables will consequently help
enable project stakeholders to make sufficiently
informed decisions.

Published guideline document references are

provided, as are good practice examples of
what to do and why.

Authors
Stuart Fraser, Mott MacDonald
Tony Kivistik, Mott MacDonald

Peer reviewers
Samya Ghosh, AECOM
Andy Leeson, WSP
Brett Little, Arup
Emmet Ruxton, AECOM

Use by external organisations:

Should this guide be used by an organisation other than

Mott MacDonald, the company (Mott MacDonald) takes no
responsibility for the user’s interpretation and application of
the guidance.
6 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this guide 1.2 Project overview

The purpose of this guide is to provide a foundation
for pedestrian model building, analysing, reporting,
auditing, interpretation and understanding. It is hoped
that the guide will help raise the quality of the modelling
process and result in the development of more robust
and accurate pedestrian microsimulation models.
This guide has been written with a particular focus on
railway station and venues/stadia infrastructure design
requirements. However, many of the principles could be
applied to other environments.
Figure 1.1 is a Gantt chart representation of a typical
microsimulation consultancy project. The chart shows
that some parallel activity is possible and, in the case of
the model calibration, necessary. The timescales shown
are only indicative, as all models differ in timescale from
inception to completion. Task durations differ for various
reasons, including size, purpose, complexity, input data
availability and the number of scenarios to test.

The guide is not specific to a particular software

package; it is designed to help modellers produce
consistent and accurate deliverables, which will
consequently help enable clients and project
stakeholders to make sufficiently informed decisions.
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 7

Figure 1.1: Microsimulation modelling project Gantt chart example

Task Week
Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Inception and
site visit

Determine available data

and further requirements

Scope and
commission survey

Undertake survey

Build basic network

Develop matrices

Assign trips

Calibrate model

Validate model

Audit model – internal

Scenario testing

Reporting

Present outputs

Audit model – external

8 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide
1.3 Relevant guidelines
In the UK there are a few key industry standard
guidelines that are commonly referred and adhered
to when undertaking pedestrian microsimulation
modelling. These include:
• Network Rail, Station Capacity Planning design
manual1
• Transport for London, G371A Station Planning
Standards and Guidelines2
• Transport for London, S1371 Station Capacity
Planning3
• Transport for London, Modelling with Legion: TfL Best
Practice Guide4
• Sports Grounds Safety Authority, Guide to Safety at
Sports Grounds5
Given the abundance of traffic microsimulation guidance
publications available from public and private UK
organisations, some of those considered as good
practice from a generic microsimulation perspective
(i.e. regardless of mode) are also specifically referred to
in this guide.
1.4 Common issues
The National Highways Guidelines for the Use of
Microsimulation Software6 states on page 6 that the
following issues are often encountered when managing
microsimulation projects:
• Model extents and parameters not agreed prior to
model commencement.
• Insufficient data for calibrating/validating the model
• Model checks not extensive enough to identify errors.
The guidelines further state that there are numerous
parameters involved in the development of a simulation
model. It is impossible to assess the technical validity of
a model solely based on its output and visual animation
of the results. Documentation of the model calibration
and validation process and the rationale for parameter
adjustments are required so that the technical
robustness of the model can be assessed.
The Department for Transport in its Principles of
Modelling and Forecasting7 guidance states on
page 15 that:
“The risks of using disproportionate time
and resources can be minimised by
specifying the model scope correctly
from the outset. Models should be
sufficiently sophisticated to represent
travel movements for the scheme
effectively, whilst avoiding unnecessary
complexity.”
It should be noted that a model is a representation of
what could happen and is not 100% accurate. As such,
microsimulation modelling should be used as one of
many tools to inform infrastructure, planning and design.
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 9

1.5 Terms
Table 1.1 provides a brief description of the common terms that are typically referred to throughout the life cycle of
a pedestrian microsimulation modelling project. The descriptions are similar to those more generically given in The
Microsimulation Consultancy Good Practice Guide8 by SIAS Limited.

Table 1.1: Descriptions of common terms

Term Description
Project The work undertaken for a client which, in this good practice guide, requires the use of a
pedestrian microsimulation model.
Study area The physical area to be represented by the model. The study area may be larger than the
area in which the client is interested, to ensure that the needs of all the reporting authorities
are met.
Model build The physical representation of the infrastructure and associated features, but not including
assigned trips.
Origin – The representation of trips originating in one area and destinating in another area within the
destination (O-D) network. Often referred to as demand matrices.
trip matrices
Assignment The process of applying the demand matrices to the modelled network.
Calibration The iterative process of defining appropriate parameters to ensure that the interactions of
pedestrians are realistic. Any adjustments to the model intended to reduce the differences
between the modelled and observed (surveyed data) should be regarded as calibration.
Validation A measure of the accuracy of the model suitability. Following validation, no further changes
should be made to the base model.
Validation report A report produced as a final validation check, after which no further changes are made to
the base model.
10 | Pedestrian
Mott MacDonald
microsimulation
| Pedestrian
modelling
Microsimulation
UK goodModelling
practice guide
Guide

2. Model planning
2.1 Modelling flowchart
The flowchart shown in Figure 2.1 sets out the typical
steps involved when undertaking a pedestrian
modelling project.

Figure 2.1: Modelling flowchart

Scoping Data collection

Inputs and Client sign-off

assumptions note

Base year model

Calibration and
validation of base model

Model development Internal audit

report (MDR)

Reference case Design year scenarios Sensitivity testing

scenarios (Proposed options)
(Problem definition)

Analysis of model
results

Evaluation of model
outputs

Reporting External audit


2.2 Scoping
2.2.1 Site visit
A site visit is recommended in any modelling job. If
possible, it should be attended by the entire project team.
If a site visit was conducted during the scoping phase,
review its findings and revise them if necessary.
Undertake the site visit during the time period to be
modelled, if possible. Separate site visits may be required
if the modelled periods are not continuous, e.g. AM and
PM peak hours.
There may be specific issues relating to each time period,
therefore it is important to observe how the site operates
in each.
Always assume there will only be one site visit, and plan
carefully to ensure that all possible observations are
made during that visit. If it transpires later in the project
that further site visits are required, they should be
undertaken.
2.2.2 Study area
It is good practice to get agreement from all interested
parties on the extent of the study area at the earliest
opportunity.
The study area forms the modelled area and should be
determined in discussion with the client and the reporting
authorities. The authorities may have different views from
the client.
Consider the whole sphere of influence that may occur
with your design scheme. The extent of the study
area is particularly important to the economic
assessment of schemes.
2.2.3 Software selection
The Use of Microsimulation Software National
Highways guidelines6 states on pages 6-7 that the
selection of the most appropriate microsimulation
software is a key part of study scoping and is tied to the
choice of approach.
When selecting a modelling tool, it is good practice to
consider the needs of the project and client along with
specific software strengths and limitations including:
• Technical capabilities of the software – the
appropriateness of the software to undertake the task
at hand. Specific attention should be paid to model
extents and modelling detail requirements.
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 11
• Input/output/interfaces – consideration of the data
available, evaluation output data produced by the
software and any potentially required interfacing with
other software products.
• User training/support – availability of software
manufacturers/experts to resolve potential modelling
issues.
• Ongoing software enhancements – software updates
and patches to resolve bugs, as supported software
can become unusable if improvements are made to
operating systems and hardware.
2.3 Data collection
If available, existing data should be obtained from
the relevant authorities as soon as possible following
the scoping stage. Review any existing data received
and then ascertain whether it can be used directly in
the modelling process (e.g. as calibration or validation
data) and also whether it can be used to determine
the most appropriate time periods to conduct any
supplementary surveys.
Further details regarding the data collection process,
including the types of data, are provided in Section 3 of
this good practice guide.
2.4 Inputs and assumptions
The inputs and assumptions used to develop the
base model should be documented and agreed with
the client and/or the reporting authorities prior to
the base model build and included within an inputs
and assumptions note. It is also good practice to
reference/document all data sources used as part of
the model development.
Further details are provided in Section 7 of this guide
including a list of typical inputs and assumptions that
should be documented.
2.5 Base year model
When developing a base model, the model should
aim to replicate current conditions and pedestrian
behaviours as closely as is practically possible. This is
achieved through the calibration and validation
process (refer to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this guide) by
which the model is adjusted and compared against
observed data.
12 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide
An appropriately calibrated and validated model is
essential when a project involves the assessment of
proposed options or future scenarios. All further models
should use the calibrated and validated model as a base.
The calibration and validation results should be
documented within a model development report. The
report should include all observations and information
gathered from the initial site visit and survey.
The base model should be capable of consistently
producing replicable results in order to minimise the
level of variably between model runs. This guide
provides examples of base model run comparisons
showing the average and upper and lower confidence
limits to the 95th percentile. Such determining of
averaged multiple model run statistical significance is
modelling good practice as it provides a range
of likelihood.
2.6 Scenario testing for rail stations
Section 4.1 on page 69 of Network Rail’s Station
Capacity Planning design manual1 states that:
“It is important to certify that stations
continue to function acceptably
during planned and unplanned events
affecting train service, passenger
demand or station layout.’’
‘‘The temporary nature of these
scenarios increases the thresholds in
terms of acceptable density conditions
and at the same time allows passenger
safety to be maintained.”

Therefore, it is important to consider the impact of
abnormal conditions in terms of overall station operation
and pedestrian safety. In addition to normal operations
(i.e. what is typically expected to occur) it is also
good practice to consider assessing the following:
• Perturbation – This is defined as a significant delay or
cancellation of a train service which results in a build-
up of waiting pedestrians on the station concourse or
platforms.
• Special events – Many stations are located within
close proximity to venues that host major events.
Consequently, there may be periods of increased
pedestrian flows, which require crowd management
to ensure pedestrians can safely access and egress
the station.
• Emergency evacuation – This can be defined as the
evacuation of all or part of a station as a result of fire,
security issues or overcrowding. Typically, there are
two evacuation scenarios to consider:
― Train on fire; and
― Station on fire.
Figure 2.2: Scenario tests at each design stage for rail stations
Project Acceleration in a Controlled Environment (PACE)
Stage 2​ Stage 3
Static capacity analysis​
What is static analysis?​
• Pedestrian flow calculations based on a
quantitative spreadsheet assessment.​
• Used to determine infrastructure requirements
and identify potential ‘pinch-points’ early in the
design stage.​
Which stage of design?​
• Stage 2 – project feasibility
• Stage 3 – single option identification
Typical scenarios of assessment:​
• Normal operation​
• Emergency evacuation
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 13
• During construction – In many circumstances a
station will remain operational during periods of
construction. Therefore, it is important to consider
the impact of such works in order to minimise the
disruption on station operations and maintain a
safe environment for pedestrians. It is particularly
important to assess the impact of temporary
construction works during perturbed and emergency
evacuation conditions.
The typical scenario tests and type of assessment,
based on Network Rail’s Project Acceleration
in a Controlled Environment (PACE), for new or
improved stations are shown in Figure 2.2.
Previously, the Governance for Railway Investment
Projects (GRIP) tool was used to manage project delivery
in Network Rail. However, Network Rail has replaced
GRIP with PACE, a new tool that allows project managers
to adapt their approach, make decisions that best
meet the needs of the project and overlay stages.
PACE ES3​ Stage 4​ Stage 5
Dynamic microsimulation modelling
What is dynamic microsimulation modelling?​
• Detailed agent-based microsimulation modelling
using specialist software packages.​
• Build and analyse at scales ranging from
small individual stations to large multi-level
interchanges. ​
Which stage of design?​
• Stage 3 – single option identification
• Stage 4 – approval in principle
• Stage 5 – detailed design
Typical scenarios of assessment:​
• Normal operation​
• Emergency evacuation​
• Perturbation​
• During construction
14 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

2.7 Scenario testing for venues/stadia “Such modelling can also help management
Section 6.7 on page 90 of the Guide to Safety at
and designers decide whether any
Sports Grounds5 by the Sports Grounds Safety
Authority refers to crowd simulation modelling as a improvements need to be made to the
tool which offers an insight into how well existing or layout and/or management of the ground.’’
proposed sports ground infrastructure operates using
demand data determined by static capacity analysis
calculations. The guide further states that:

‘‘If considering the use of crowd simulation
modelling, management should ensure
that the relevant building control and
certifying authorities are involved in the
process from an early stage, that any
simulations are carried out by competent
modellers and that the resulting data is
subject to detailed analysis by competent
persons.’’
‘‘For example, when measuring flow
rates during ingress or egress, crowd
simulation modelling can typically result in
a differential of +/- 10%-20% compared with
static calculations. In such situations, the
response of management should always
be to consider why these differences
have emerged, what lessons can be learnt
from the data and what, if any, mitigating
measures might be necessary.”
Figure 2.3: Scenario tests at each RIBA design stage
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work
RIBA stage 2
Static capacity analysis
Which stage
Which stage of
ofdesign?
design?​
• RIBA stage 2 ––concept
• RIBA stage 2 concept design
design
Typical scenarios of assessment:​
Typical scenarios of assessment:
• Normal egress
•• Normal ingress
Normal egress
• Emergency egress
• Normal ingress
• Emergency egress
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 15
Suggested minimum scenario tests, at RIBA design
stages 2 to 49 (i.e. concept through to technical design),
of a new or improved venue/stadium are shown in
Figure 2.3.
Normal operation is what is typically expected to occur
at an event, and so scenario testing of ingress and
egress under this condition is good to undertake first.
If the design doesn’t perform adequately under normal
operations, it is unlikely to perform under other more
arduous tests and, as history tragically tells us, often
events don’t operate as expected, envisaged or ideally
planned to.
In addition to planning for ‘normal operation’ scenarios,
we should plan and test for scenarios that are
abnormal and somewhat worst case from a crowd flow
capacity perspective in order to either design out or
significantly reduce crowd flow safety risk at proposed
new and improved venues/stadia. It is also therefore
good practice to, in addition to normal operation,
undertake perturbed operation (commonly referred to
as exceptional egress) and evacuation scenario testing
using pedestrian crowd flow microsimulation software.
RIBA stage 3 RIBA stage 4
Dynamic microsimulation modelling
Which stage
Which stage of
ofdesign?
design?​
• RIBA stage 3 ––spatial
• RIBA stage 3 spatial coordination
coordination
• RIBA stage 4 – technical design
• RIBA stage 4 – technical design
Typical scenarios of assessment:​
• RIBAscenarios
Typical stage 3: of assessment:
― Normal
• RIBA stage 3:
egress
― Normal ingress
‐ Normal
• Emergency egress
egress
• RIBA‐ stage 4:
Normal ingress
― Exceptional egress – directional
• Emergency egress
evacuation
• ― Exceptional
RIBA stage 4: egress – invacuation
‐ Exceptional egress – directional evacuation
‐ Exceptional egress – invacuation
16 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide
3. Model building requirements
Microsimulation model data requirements typically fall
into 3 categories, as stated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Data requirements
1
Overlay
2 Physical characteristics
and behaviour
3 Demand data
Any existing data should be obtained as soon as
possible after study inception from the relevant
authorities.
Review any existing data received and then ascertain
whether it can be used directly in the modelling process
(e.g. as calibration or validation data) and also whether
it can be used to determine the most appropriate time
periods to conduct any supplementary surveys.
3.1 Overlay
It is difficult to accurately build a microsimulation model
network without an overlay. It is good practice, therefore,
to obtain an overlay (2D or 3D) as soon as possible
after study commissioning to help enable planning and
construction of the network to commence.
When building a design year scenario, use the original
base overlay as the starting point for the modified file.
This helps ensure that the design year modelled area
matches the base year modelled area where applicable.
3.2 Physical characteristics and behaviour
Network data requirements are as follows, although not
all may be applicable:
• Detailed plans of infrastructure such as gatelines,
furniture, retail units, ticket machines, areas
inaccessible to pedestrians, locations of emergency
exits etc.
• Rough sketches, photographs or videos should
be used if detailed plans are not available;
• Gradients (where they are likely to be important to the
project, e.g. ramps);
• Any features that affects flow (e.g. street furniture,
one-way systems);
• Bus or rolling stock stop locations, queuing patterns
and behaviour before, during and after boarding and
alighting;
• Pedestrian crossing locations and details of operation
(e.g. crossing demand and signal timings); and
• Minimum, maximum and average waiting and
transaction times at facilities (e.g. ticket machines,
information screens, retail units/kiosks).
3.3 Demand data
This is one of the most important aspects of the project.
There is usually only one opportunity to define the data
used to construct the model, so consider it carefully.
Determine the existence of current or historical data.
Ensure then that sufficient additional data is gathered to
enable the model to fulfil its purpose.
3.3.1 Classified counts
The most fundamental data to be collected are
classified counts.
‘‘This involves counting the number of
pedestrians at key locations within a
model area/network during particular
intervals and classifying these by type
(e.g. person of restricted mobility,
encumbered, non-encumbered).’’
The data should be used to construct the base matrices
and may also be used in the model validation.
Ideally all key locations in the site area should be
surveyed by classified counts, preferably on the same
day. If this is not possible, group adjacent areas should
be surveyed on each day of survey.
3.3.2 Queuing and congested area surveys
It is typically necessary to conduct queuing and
congestion surveys or observations anywhere in
the study area where major queuing already occurs.
Determine this during the site visit.

Such surveys are not usually required for every facility
in all model time periods; however, observations of
particularly congested areas are recommended.
Local knowledge of queue locations and lengths can
be important. Discuss them with the client and/or local
Authority officers who know the area.
Identify if CCTV exists in the area, and if it could be used
to identify and verify queues.
Queue length and congestion observations, in
conjunction with classified count data, assist in
calibrating the base network; see Section 4.
Without adequate queuing and congestion observations
it will be difficult to calibrate, and hence later validate,
the model. If the model does not demonstrate queuing
and congestion in the expected areas, confidence in the
model outputs will be compromised.
3.3.3 Journey time surveys
Journey time surveys can help to pinpoint areas of the
model that pedestrians may be moving through too fast,
or too slowly, so that action can be taken to remedy the
situation.
They are nearly always required for study areas of more
than one route, but very short journey times can be
difficult to validate. Check with the reporting authorities
whether the validation will require them.
Observed journey times for key routes through the
network can be compared against model outputs and
used to help calibrate and validate the model.
3.3.4 Video surveys
Conduct video surveys whenever possible.
Survey companies can provide video services, including
recording the video, quantifying data (classified counts,
queue lengths etc.), and provide the footage in a
downloadable format via a cloud network or company
file transfer portal.
3.3.5 Data checking
Check that there is consistency in the data and it
conforms with specification before use. Basic checks
include cross-checking of flows entering and exiting
facilities, throughput at ticket gatelines and directional
flow screenlines.
Failing to eliminate errors at this stage can be time
consuming and therefore costly to correct later.
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 17
3.4 Other data requirements
Other required and desirable data items may include:
• Items to aid model construction;
• Any proposed development drawings;
• Any other project specific data; and
• Historic pedestrian models in the study area.
3.5 Model build reference documents
In the UK there are key industry standard guidelines for
rail and metro stations that are referred and adhered
to when developing a pedestrian microsimulation
modelling. The first type of reference document
recommended for microsimulation modellers to refer
to when model building is the user guide provided by
the software provider. It is usually accessible as a pdf
document following download of the software onto
appropriate hardware.
Further good practice guidelines for model building
are available from authorities such as Network Rail and
Transport for London. The Station Capacity Planning
design manual1 by Network Rail and Modelling with
Legion: TfL Best Practice Guide4 are, for example, both
commonly adhered and referred to by modellers in the
profession.
The executive summary on page 10 of the Station
Capacity Planning design manual states that its purpose
is to:
“Provide guidance for undertaking
capacity assessments for stations
across the network. It specifies the
thresholds for planning and design of
passenger areas with a consideration
for safety, ‘value for money’ and
passenger experience.”
Section 1.1 on page 5 of the Modelling with Legion: TfL
Best Practice Guide states that its purpose is to:
“… develop robust and accurate models
with consistency and extensibility for
TfL rail, underground and the urban
realm environment. Recommendations
of modelling approaches are provided
which modellers can follow to obtain
optimal results.”
18 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

4. Base model calibration

4.1 Definition
The simple definition of calibration stated by the
Department for Transport in Section 3.3.1 on page 18 of
their Highway Assignment Modelling10 guidance is:

“Any adjustments to the model intended

to reduce the differences between the
modelled and observed data should be
regarded as calibration.”

The calibration exercise involves running the model

simulation several times, observing pedestrian
behaviour throughout the study area and making small
adjustments until the simulated behaviour closely
matches the observed behaviour. The key indicators
used for calibration are, typically, pedestrian behaviour,
classified counts and queue lengths.

4.2 Criteria to assess the level of calibration
4.2.1 Classified counts
The GEH (named after Geoffrey E Havers) Statistic is a
formula used in transport modelling to compare two sets
of counts or flows. It is an empirical formula often used to
determine whether or not a microsimulation model has a
significant calibration problem.
Using the GEH Statistic avoids some pitfalls that occur
when using simple percentages to compare two sets
of flows. This is due to flows in transportation systems
varying over a wide range. For example, 3,000
pedestrians per hour may be exiting a railway station,
while the interchange volume between two platforms is
100 pedestrians per hour: in that situation it would not be
possible to select a single percentage of variation that is
acceptable for both volumes. The GEH Statistic reduces
this problem as it is non-linear and, therefore, a single
acceptance threshold can be applied effectively over a
wide range of flows. The GEH Statistic formula is shown
in Figure 4.1. where M is the hourly flow from the model
and C is the observed flow from site survey.

Figure 4.1: GEH Statistic
2(M-C) 2
GEH=
M+C
It is recommended that at least 85%
of turning count/link flow differences,
between modelled and observed,
have a GEH of less than 5.
4.2.2 Queuing and congested areas
On-site observations, photographs and video surveys
are the typical sources of queuing and congested area
determination used to assist in model calibration.
Video surveys are preferred as they can be revisited
at the convenience of the modellers and viewed faster
than real time.
Viewing observed and modelled of the same
areas side-by-side on screen at the same speed
is recommended for comparison and resultant
identification of areas requiring further calibration.
4.3 Address the issues
Areas of the model that are evidently not calibrated
require investigation. The recommended procedure is to:
• Check the model build for errors and
correct them; and
• Check the demands and assignment through that example Station A demonstrates that a fixed gate
the study area and change and adjust as necessary.
4.4 Recalibrating the model
It is good practice to recalibrate (against criteria stated
in Section 4.2) after making a small number of changes
and assess the impact those have had, rather than
making a large number of adjustments all at once.
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 19
Many changes at once will make it difficult to assess
which actions had the most significant effect or may
even result in the model behaving unpredictably and
diverging further from calibration.
Repeat the cycle of calibrating, assessing the
calibration, and then recalibrating, only until the model
is deemed acceptable.
Further iterations once the model already demonstrates
acceptable calibration is time consuming, costly and
unnecessary.
Read the relevant guidelines to determine whether
the calibration is acceptable, even if the guideline
thresholds are not fully met. If the calibration
assessment falls a little short of recommended
threshold criteria, it does not necessarily mean the
model is unacceptable.
Guidelines are typically flexible regarding calibration
criteria, for example queuing is regarded in the industry
as rather subjective and therefore best compared
visually and not reported on quantitatively.
4.5 Automatic ticket gate example
In accordance with Section 9.2 on page 108 of the TfL
best practice guide4, a standard automatic ticket gate
(ATG) delay is set at 1.8 seconds.
It is often evident, however, from detailed reviewing
of survey footage at stations that ATG delay and
corresponding flow rate can vary significantly.
The following ‘Station A’ example has been devised
to point out the importance of localised calibration of
infrastructure facilities such as gatelines. Please note
delay of 1.8 seconds may not always be appropriate
at every station and it should be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis, if survey data is available. This may be
particularly useful if a station has a high volume of non-
commuter demand and passengers who are unfamiliar
with the station e.g. tourists.
 20 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

4.5.1 Station A second gate delay per pedestrian as stated in Section

Figure 4.2 graphically shows the observed (surveyed) 9.2 on page 108 of the TfL Best Practice Guide.4
gateline exit flow versus modelled flow based on the 1.8

Figure 4.2: Modelled flow vs observed flow (1.8 second delay)

120

100
Gateline Flow Rate (Passengers per Minute)
Gateline flow rate (passengers per minute)

ed
30 80
41
34
26
37
42 60
32
30
27
36
53 40
42
13
39
46
4 20
42
59 Surveyed
44
19
46
Modelled (1.8s delay)
0
27
29
50
49
26 Time (hh:mm:ss)
33 Time (hh:mm:ss)
31 Surveyed Modelled (1.8s)
37
43

Figure 4.3 graphically shows observed (surveyed) It is clear from the graphs shown in Figure 4.2 and
gateline exit flow versus modelled flow with a 2.6 Figure 4.3 that when the 2.6 second calculated delay
second gate delay per pedestrian (as calculated from per pedestrian at the gateline is modelled, rather than a
survey video footage). standard 1.8 second delay, it evidently results in a much
closer fit between observed and modelled flows.

Figure 4.3: Modelled flow vs observed flow (2.6 second delay)

120

100
Gateline Flow Rate (Passengers per Minute)
Gateline Flow Rate (Passengers per Minute)

ed Modelled
25 26
34 32
80
39 37
33 31
33 36
37 38
33 31
60
37 35
30 28
35 31
41 40
43 42
40
29 30
36 38
41 42
14 10
35 39
20
44 43
43 45 Surveyed
42 43
43
42
45
44
Modelled (2.6s delay)
0
32 36
41 42
44 42
40 42
36 36 Time (hh:mm:ss)
31 30
33 31 Time (hh:mm:ss)
Surveyed Modelled (3.0s)
41 36
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 21

The difference in this calibration detail is further localised calibration applied. Queuing observed on
demonstrated, see Figure 4.4, by the visual difference approach to the gateline was not modelled effectively
in gateline congestion at Station A with and without until the 2.6 second delay was applied.

Figure 4.4: Gateline queuing comparison

Without calibration (1.8 second delay) Time: 08:34:00

With calibration (2.6 second delay) Time: 08:34:00

22 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

5. Base model validation

5.1 Definition
The definition stated by the Department for Transport
in Section 3.3.1 on page 18 of its Highway Assignment
Modelling10 guidance is:

“Validation simply involves comparing

modelled and observed data that is
independent from that used in calibration.”

Model validation is undertaken only once. It is done only

until the modeller is satisfied that the model has been
developed to a sufficient level of accuracy that further
model calibration will yield no further useful benefit.

5.2 Criteria to assess model validation
Model validation is a comparison of model output data
with observed (surveyed) data to assess the accuracy of
the calibrated network. There are guidelines specifying
the criteria that determine whether the calibrated model
is considered to be a valid representation of reality or
not. This chapter discusses how the guidelines can be
applied to a pedestrian microsimulation model.
The guidelines may be different in other parts of the
world. Check which guidelines are appropriate for the
locale and what the most up-to-date versions are.
The validation checks should go into a validation report,
either a separate document for large studies, or a
chapter in a more general report for smaller studies.
It is considered good practice to ascertain from the
reporting authorities, at study scoping stage, whether or
not a separate validation report is required. In addition,
in some cases it is good practice to get authority
or stakeholder agreement on the type and level of
validation required at the study outset.
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 23

5.2.1 Origin–destination (O-D) matrix validation Based on the guidance provided in Section 8.2.4 on
In accordance with Appendix B on page 87 of the page 104 of the Transport for London Modelling with
Station Capacity Planning design manual1, the Origin- Legion: TfL Best Practice Guide, journey times are
destination (O-D) matrix is considered validated if considered valid when the difference between the
the variation between the modelled output and the simulated journey time outputs and on-site observations
observations (survey data) is less than 10%. (or survey) is less than 10%.

However, it is considered good practice to also 5.2.3 Visual validation

undertake a more robust comparison by applying the In addition to O-D matrix and journey time validation,
GEH Statistic to the (O-D) matrix. At least 85% of the it is also good practice to undertake a visual validation
O-D differences between modelled and observed exercise. This involves comparing key infrastructure
should have a GEH of less than 5. elements (ticket barriers, platforms, queuing areas
etc.) from the microsimulation model with on-site video
5.2.2 Journey time outputs footage or photographs.
It is recommended that data is plotted on a graph
where the modelled mean journey time is plotted The simulated pedestrian movements should be
showing a 95% confidence range, and the observed checked against the real-life footage for any variations
mean journey time is shown against it — example in behaviour, levels of queuing or congestion and
provided in Figure 5.1. pedestrian volumes.

mit 350
Figure 5.1: Journey time comparison – observed vs modelled example

300

250
Seconds

200

150

Surveyed

Modelled
100
*Upper and lower
confidence limit

50
16:00:00 16:10:00 16:20:00 16:30:00 16:40:00 16:50:00 17:00:00 17:10:00 17:20:00 17:30:00 17:40:00 17:50:00 18:00:00 18:10:00 18:20:00 18:30:00 18:40:00 18:50:00
16:00 16:10 16:20 16:30 16:40 16:50 17:00 17:10 17:20 17:30
Time (hh:mm:ss) 17:40 17:50 18:00 18:10 18:20 18:30 18:40 18:50
Time (hh:mm)
Surveyed Modelled

*Dashed lines indicate 95th percentile upper and lower confidence limits.
24 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide
6. Model outputs
6.1 Level of service plots
There are two main types of level of service (LoS)
plots which are commonly used within the industry,
cumulative mean density (CMD) and cumulative high
density (CHD). Typically, CMD plots are a required
output from pedestrian microsimulation models. CHD
plots are occasionally requested as an output by a client
or authority at the study scoping stage.
6.1.1 CMD
CMD plots display the mean levels of density registered
in an area within a specified time period. They are
generally used in combination with value ranges
corresponding to LoS.
Figure 6.1: CMD plot example
“The Fruin LoS framework is a concept
developed by John J. Fruin11 which
provides a measure of crowd density
and movement.”
Although Fruin LoS is commonly adhered to in the rail
industry, the performance criteria i.e. the LoS thresholds,
should be determined and agreed at the study scoping
stage with the relevant authorities. For example, for
venue/stadia design more applicable LoS for crowd
densities are stated in the Green Guide5 Figure 11,
page 119.
LoS is typically categorised into six bands. LoS A is the
highest level of service, providing the most circulation
freedom. LoS F is the most restrictive and is considered
unsafe if predominant over a sustained period.
D
sq
A

A CMD plot provides a ‘mean’ LoS for areas that are
occupied during the simulation. Areas which are not
occupied are not included as part of the density plot
calculation. For example, if there are periods of high
level activity followed by periods of inactivity the CMD
plot would only show the average LoS for the periods
of activity.
It is good practice to use an appropriate LoS based on
the area or element that is being assessed (walkways,
queuing, milling, standing etc.).
A legend should be attached to each CMD plot to
illustrate the LoS density that each colour represents and
also the time period to which the plot corresponds.
An example of a typical CMD plot is shown as Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.2: CHD plot example
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 25
6.1.2 CHD
CHD plots display how long various areas of a site have
registered densities greater than a specified limit. The
range of colours represents time rather than density.
The plot is similar to a temperature map: areas that
have experienced high levels of density for a long
time appear darker, while those that have experienced
shorter periods of high density appear lighter.
A legend should be attached to each CHD plot to
illustrate the duration that each colour represents
above the specified density. The LoS threshold
applicable for a CHD plot should be in accordance
with guidelines appropriate to the specific scenario
and facility type.
An example of a typical CHD plot is shown as Figure 6.2.
26 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide
6.2 Space utilisation plots
Space utilisation (SU) plots are typically used to highlight
popular movements (e.g. pedestrian desire lines) and
are useful to identify over - or underutilised areas of the
modelled environment.
In addition, SU plots can often help determine the
optimum location to site facilities such as toilets and retail
Figure 6.3: SU plot example
units. Colours represent how much time the space is
used during a specified time period e.g. peak 15 minutes:
blue being lightly used and red being heavily used.
A legend should be attached to each SU plot to illustrate
the range of time each colour represents.
An example of a typical SU plot is shown as Figure 6.3.
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 27

6.3 Journey time outputs Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5 are typical examples of how
It is recommended that data is plotted on a graph where journey time comparisons should be reported.
the modelled mean journey time is plotted showing a
95% confidence range, and the observed mean journey
time is shown against it.

Figure 6.4: Journey time comparison – observed vs modelled example

Seconds

Surveyed

Modelled

*Upper and lower

confidence limit

Time (hh:mm:ss)

*Dashed lines indicate 95th percentile upper and lower confidence limits.
it 3
400

350
Figure 6.5: Journey time comparison – scenario testing example

300

250
Seconds

200

150

Scenario 1
100
Scenario 2

Scenario 3
50
*Upper and lower
confidence limit
0
06:30:0006:40:0006:50:0007:00:00 07:10:00 07:20:00 07:30:00 07:40:00 07:50:0008:00:00 08:10:00 08:20:0008:30:0008:40:0008:50:0009:00:00 09:10:00 09:20:00
06:30 06:40 06:50 07:00 07:10 07:20 07:30 07:40 07:50 08:00 08:10 08:20 08:30 08:40 08:50 09:00 09:10 09:20
Time (hh:mm:ss)
Time (hh:mm)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
*Dashed lines indicate 95th percentile upper and lower confidence limits.
28 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

6.4 Model screenshots It is recommended to include labels to highlight key

Model screenshots are typically used to show the
position of entities, extent of queuing and congestion
at certain points in time within the simulation. Model
screenshots can be used to compare the same location
and time period for different scenarios.
features of the modelled environment in order to assist
those less familiar with the layout.
Examples of typical 2D and 3D model screenshots are
shown as Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.6: 2D model screenshot example

Figure 6.7: 3D model screenshot example


6.5 Model videos
Videos are an extremely effective output to show
stakeholders how pedestrians move around the
space and highlight different features of the modelled
environment.
When recording a video, it is recommended to colour
code the pedestrians based on their final destination or
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 29
type. Separately, videos can be produced which assign
colours based on the LoS the pedestrian experiences at
that point in time.
It is again recommended to include labels to highlight
key features of the modelled environment in order to
assist those less familiar with the layout.
30 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

6.6 Generalised journey times and social cost
Social cost outputs are the monetised generalised
journey time (GJT) and congestion factor (CF)
associated with all of the simulated pedestrians within
a model. It should be noted that not all pedestrian
modelling packages are capable of producing such
outputs. If this output is required then the most
appropriate software package should be selected
at the beginning of the project.
Social cost outputs are predominately used by
Transport for London (TfL) as part of the business case
development process in order to help determine the
potential benefits or disbenefits of proposed scheme
implementation.
The Business Case Development Manual (BCDM)
parameters are stated in Section 13 on page 124 of the
TfL Best Practice Guide.4
For the GJT output, different weightings should be
applied to the different activities e.g. walking, waiting, in
order to represent the desirability of each.
For the social cost output, the assumed value of time
(VoT) and days per year should be reviewed per project
and agreed with the client and/or reporting authorities.
It is good practice to undertake a minimum of five
model runs of each scenario. The average result of the
five runs should then be used for reporting. Should
the results of the five model runs not converge well,
additional runs are recommended to ensure the average
is representative.
The social cost and especially GJT outputs are useful
when comparing two or more layouts or scenarios.
In addition, highlighting the disbenefit of a layout or
scenario. An example of the social cost output for one
scenario test is shown as Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Social cost output example

By activity
Weighting JT GJT CF Cost Cost Total Annualised
journey congestion cost

Walking 2.000 50775.2 101550.4 239.6 £214.10 £0.51 £214.61 £53,651.78

+ 0.500 CF

Waiting 2.500 228.6 571.5 0.0 £1.20 £0.00 £1.20 £301.23

+ 1.000 CF

Queuing 3.400 7.2 24.5 0.0 £0.05 £0.00 £0.05 £12.90

Delayed 2.500 6266.4 15666.0 0.0 £33.03 £0.00 £33.03 £8,257.29

On stairs up 4.000 1546.8 6187.2 0.0 £13.04 £0.00 £13.04 £3,261.17

On escalator 1.500 0.0 0.0 0.0 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00

up

On stairs 2.500 3435.6 8589.0 0.0 £18.11 £0.00 £18.11 £4,527.12

down

On escalator 1.500 0.0 0.0 0.0 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00

down

Total: 62259.8 132588.6 239.6 £279.54 £0.51 £280.05 £70,011.49

 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 31

6.7 Flow rate and density profiles
Flow rate and density profiles for a specific
infrastructure facility or area (stairs, walkways,
concourse etc.) can be extracted from the
microsimulation model. It is considered good practice
to display this output on an LoS banded line chart.
This type of output is useful when determining how long
and how often a particular area or element exceeds
an agreed LoS criteria threshold. Additionally it can be
useful when compared against surveyed data as part of
the model validation process.
An example of a density profile on a LoS banded line
chart for a staircase is shown as Figure 6.8.

Figure 6.8: Flow rate and density profiles example

3.0

2.5
(pax/m2)
Density (pax/m 2)

2.0

LoS F
ExperiencedDensity

LoS E
1.5 LoS D
Experienced

LoS C
LoS B
LoS A
Average

1.0
Average

Density

0.5

0.0
08:15 08:20 08:25 08:30 08:35
Time
Time (hh:mm)
32 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

7. Model reporting
7.1 Introduction All data sources should be referenced within the note.
It is important to document as much as possible
throughout the entire project life cycle. The key items The note should contain the following information:
should include:
• Overview and scope
• Project objectives • Modelling approach
• Data requirements • Model scenarios and time periods
• Modelling approach • Model extent and drawing references
• Model inputs and assumptions • Survey data (if applicable)
• Performance assessment criteria • Pedestrian demand (matrices)
• Modelling results • Arrival and departure profiles
• Conclusions and recommendations • Pedestrian characteristics
• Pedestrian routing
Documentation and agreement are essential,
• Flow rates
as model inputs and assumptions can often be
challenged during the model audit/review period. In • Operational information
addition, any changes to the model could result in a • Outputs and assessment criteria
different set of results and outcomes. • Model limitations

7.2 Inputs and assumptions note An example of a typical table of contents is shown as
A model inputs and assumptions note should be Table 7.1.
prepared and agreed with the client and/or the
reporting authorities prior to the model build stage.

Table 7.1: Example of table of contents for model inputs and assumptions note

1. Scope of works 1.1 Project objectives and scope

1.2 Modelling approach and methodology
1.3 Model scenarios and extent
2. Pedestrian demand 2.1 Survey data (if applicable)
2.2 Pedestrian demand matrices
2.3 Demand profiling and distributions
3. Model inputs and assumptions 3.1 Pedestrian characteristics
3.2 Routing
3.3 Infrastructure flow rates and capacity
4. Performance assessment criteria 4.1 Level of service framework
4.2 Assessment criteria
4.3 Limitations
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 33

7.3 Model development report (MDR) The report should contain the following information:
The modelling methodology and assumptions, including
how the model has been sufficiently calibrated and • Survey methodology
validated against the observed data. • Observed data
• Modelled data
It is good practice to undertake a survey of the
modelled area in order to collect the required inputs. • Model calibration results
The survey may include classified counts, journey • Model validation results
times and flow rates at key locations (staircases,
passageways, escalators etc.). An example of a typical table of contents is shown as
Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Example of model development report table of contents

1. Survey methodology 1.1 Survey methodology

1.2 Data collection and time periods
2. Survey data 2.1 Classified counts
2.2 Journey times
2.3 Flow rates
3. Model calibration 3.1 Screenline counts
3.2 Arrival and departure profiles
3.3 Infrastructure flow rates
4. Model validation 4.1 Origin-destination matrix
4.2 Journey times
34 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide
7.4 Modelling report
The modelling report should clearly document the
results and findings of the study. It should demonstrate
how the project objectives and scope have been
achieved, including any further recommendations.
The report should be written in a simple manner so
that it can be understood by technical and non-technical
readers. The inputs and assumptions note, and the
model development report should be included as
appendices or referenced within the modelling report.
The report should contain the following information:
• Executive summary
• Project objectives and scope
• Summary of the key model inputs and assumptions
• Reference to the inputs and assumptions note and
calibration and validation report (if applicable)
• Performance assessment criteria
• Description of the scenarios modelled (demand years,
layouts etc.)
• Modelling results for each scenario
• Summary of results
• Conclusions and recommendations
An example of a typical table of contents is shown
as Table 7.3.
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 35

Table 7.3: Example of modelling report table of contents

1. Scope of works 1.1 Project objectives and scope

1.2 Modelling approach and methodology
1.3 Report structure
2. Model inputs and assumptions 2.1 Pedestrian demand scenarios
2.2 Key model inputs and assumptions
3. Performance assessment criteria 3.1 Level of service framework
3.2 Assessment criteria
4. Modelling results 4.1 Level of service plots
4.2 Journey times
4.3 Screenshots
5. Summary and conclusions 5.1 Summary of results
5.2 Recommendations
36 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

8. Model auditing

8.1 Introduction
The purpose of a model audit is to ascertain whether
the model is fit for its purpose.

The primary difference between an internal

and external audit is that internal audits
should be carried out several times during
model development. External audits are
generally only requested once, when the
model is considered complete.

8.2 Internal audits
It is considered good practice to carry out internal audits
at key stages in the development of the model.
This should ensure that the model progresses smoothly
through its development phase.
Noting, communicating and retaining any
recommendations is required but there is no need for
a detailed report – a simple email or technical note is
acceptable.
The auditor should ideally be someone in the
organisation with a detailed knowledge of the particular
microsimulation software used, but with no direct (day-
to-day) involvement in the project.
8.3 External audits
External audits fall into two categories, and the tone will
vary accordingly:
• Requested by a consultant prior to submitting the
project to a client or authority; or
• Requested by an authority when the model has been
built and submitted by a consultant.
Always observe the simulation running. A lot can be
learned very quickly by running a model and observing
the behaviour.
When suggesting changes, check that the change
actually works by incorporating it in a copy of the audit
model before making the recommendations.
8.3.1 Consultant
The consultant is seeking assurances that the model is fit
for the purposes of the project. The audit should take the
form of a technical note pointing out where the model
does not conform to good practice.
The techical note should guide the consultant towards
ensuring that the model can be made fit for purpose
prior to the undertaking of analysis to be submitted to
the client. This means explaining the implications of
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 37
any errors and the possible benefits of any suggested
improvements.
8.3.2 Authority or client
Authorities and clients typically receive completed
models from an external consultant and are more
interested in the implications of any model issues or
flaws identified rather than how to correct such flaws.
It is not typically necessary to go into the details of how
to rectify a modelling issue; instead it is good practice
to state the pragmatic implications that not rectifying
the issue could have on the modelling results and,
consequently, wider project and stakeholders.
8.4 Audit report
The audit report is typically a written document. It will
probably contain recommendations and suggestions for
any steps required for the model to be deemed
fit for purpose.
Table 8.1 contains suggested base model audit report
headings, and a brief description of what to look for
under each. The headings can be altered to suit the
audit. Different models will require different approaches,
and therefore additional headings should be added
if appropriate.
Occasionally the client will request that output data from
the model should be checked against observed data
as part of the audit, e.g. as a validation check, and that
would require its own section in the report.
When writing the audit report highlight any
recommended changes in bold text. This makes it
easier to identify the parts of the model that the auditor
suggests requires extra work.
38 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

Table 8.1: Suggested base model audit report structure

Report heading Contents

1. Introduction Concise introductory few paragraphs.

1.1 General A description of the commission which should include a reference to the client
that commissioned the audit. Also, mention the consultant that built the models (if
different).

1.2 Purpose of audit A statement explaining the purpose.

1.3 Format of audit A statement explaining the format.

2. Parameters Explain all relevant global parameters used in the model.

If several models are submitted for audit then the main text should refer to the base
model, and only the changes made between the base and the option test models
should be commented on.
2.1 Description of model A description of the area covered by the model, supported by a graphic image.

2.2 Behaviour and State the version of software used to build the models. Ensure that the version of
assignment – base software used to construct the model is the version used to conduct the audit!
model Any changed defaults should be highlighted.

2.3 Behaviour If several models are being audited, any changes between the base and option test
and assignment – models (or AM and PM models) should be mentioned. If there are no differences in
differences from other parameters between the various models, say so.
models

3. Demand Comment on the way pedestrians have been added.

3.1 Pedestrian types Check the pedestrian types; have they changed from the defaults and, if so, are
– base model changes justified (e.g. using survey data or observations)? Check for changes to the
pedestrian dynamics of each type, especially walk speed and aggression as these
can be used to influence flow rates.

3.2 Demand matrices Discuss the number of matrices used and check which pedestrian types are assigned
and flow profiles to each matrix level, and the proportions of each type in each matrix. Check the
– base model validity of the demand matrix for each time period.

Check for flow profiles. If the demand matrix has been flat profiled, is that appropriate,
or would it be better to use an alternative profile instead? Explain the benefits of
using multiple profiles if they do not exist.

Check the profiles have been applied correctly. It is common to encounter a model
with several profiles only to discover that only one of these is being used as the
others have not been assigned properly.

3.3 Time periods Does the model have multiple time periods?
– base model Have warm-up and cool-down (i.e. shoulder periods) been included?
Are they applied correctly?
What is the purpose of each period?

If there is more than one model, highlight the differences in all the above in each.
 Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 39

Report heading Contents

4. Model build The physical building of the model including: accessible space, object placement and
configuration.
4.1 Accessible space / Have drawing references been provided? Does the modelled layout accurately reflect
layout – base model the existing layout e.g. stair and walkway widths?

4.2 Accessible space If several models are being audited, any changes between the base and option test
/ layout – differences models (or AM and PM models) should be mentioned. If there are no differences in
from other models parameters between the various models, say so.

4.3 Entries and exits Have all potential entry and exit points been included within the model? Are the entry
– base model and exits points appropriately located within the model?

4.4 Entries and exits If several models are being audited, any changes between the base and option test
– differences from models (or AM and PM models) should be mentioned. If there are no differences in
other models parameters between the various models, say so.

4.5 Vertical circulation Have all potential vertical circulation elements been modelled correctly in terms
objects – base model of useable width and flow rates? Has evidence been provided which compares
observed flow rates versus modelled?
4.6 Vertical circulation If several models are being audited, any changes between the base and option test
objects – differences models (or AM and PM models) should be mentioned. If there are no differences in
from other models parameters between the various models, say so.

4.7 Route assignment Check that objects have been reasonably used to direct and/or modify the behaviour
– base model of pedestrians within the simulation. Has justification been provided for the use of any
additional routing or behaviour modifiers?

4.8 Route assignment If several models are being audited, any changes between the base and option test
– differences from models (or AM and PM models) should be mentioned. If there are no differences in
other models parameters between the various models, say so.

4.9 Pedestrian speeds/ Have the pedestrian speeds and/or object parameters been modified? If so, has a
objects configuration/ reasonable justification been provided for the modifications?
throughput
– base model
4.10 Pedestrian speeds/ If several models are being audited, any changes between the base and option test
objects configuration/ models (or AM and PM models) should be mentioned. If there are no differences in
throughput parameters between the various models, say so.
– differences from other
models

5. Outputs How many runs (sometimes referred to as ‘seeds’) of the model are the outputs
derived from? For example, are journey times averaged from a number of runs? Have
upper and lower confidence intervals been derived and shown as part of model
analysis output?

6. Conclusion Write a conclusion. Comment on whether the model(s) in their present condition are
fit for purpose. If not, the client should be able to make the model fit for purpose by
following the recommendations in the audit report.
40 | Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide

References

1
Network Rail (2021) Station Capacity Planning Design Manual
NR/GN/CIV/100/03

2
Transport for London, London Underground (2012) G371A
Station Planning Standards and Guidelines

3
Transport for London, London Underground (2019) S1371
Station Capacity Planning

4
Transport for London, London Underground (2021) Modelling
with Legion: TfL Best Practice Guide

5
Sports Grounds Safety Authority (2018) Guide to Safety at
Sports Grounds. 6th Edition

6
National Highways (2022) Guidelines for the Use of Microsim-
ulation Software

7
Department for Transport (2014) TAG UNIT M1 Principles of
Modelling and Forecasting

8
SIAS Limited (2012) The Microsimulation Consultancy Good
Practice Guide

9
Royal Institute of British Architects (2020) RIBA Plan of Work
Template. http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/

Department for Transport (2020) TAG UNIT M3.1 Highway

10

Assignment Modelling

11
Fruin JJ (1971) Pedestrian Planning and Design. New York
Pedestrian microsimulation modelling UK good practice guide | 41
Better outcomes through
innovation and excellence.

Engineering. Management. Development.

© Mott MacDonald Limited

All rights reserved. This document is
subject to copyright protection.

No portion may be copied without the

prior written consent of the authors.

mottmac.com