Comparisons between MATSim and EMME/2 on the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Network

Wenli Gao, M.A.Sc. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto 35 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada Phone: 1-416-978 5049 Fax: 1-416-978 5054 wenli.gao@utoronto.ca

Michael Balmer, Ph.D. Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich HIL F 51.1, Wolfgang-Pauli-Str. 15, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland Phone: 41-44-633 27 80 Fax: 41-44-633 10 57 balmer@ivt.baug.ethz.ch

Eric J. Miller, Ph.D. Director, Cities Centre Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2G8, Canada Phone: 1-416-978 4076 Fax: 1-416-978 7162 miller@ecf.utoronto.ca

Word Count: 5,250 + 9 x 250 = 7,500 Revised Paper for TRB Submission Date: March 15, 2010 Corresponding Author: Wenli Gao

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

ABSTRACT The agent-based micro-simulation modeling technique for transportation planning is rapidly developing and is being applied to practice in recent years, thus attracting considerable attention. Together with the conventional four-step modeling technique, MATSim and EMME/2 represent two genres of traffic assignment respectively. They are built on different theoretical basis, i.e. dynamic stochastic stationary state assignment versus static deterministic user equilibrium assignment. The objective of the study focuses on the application aspect of the models using the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area network. Given the actual demand data, the assignment results are compared and validated based on four indicators of the road network, i.e. travel time, travel distance, link volume, and link speed, to reflect both spatial and temporal variation of the traffic flow pattern. The comparison results show that numerical outputs produced by MATSim are not only compatible to those by EMME/2 but more realistic from a temporal point of view. It indicates that the agent-based micro-simulation model can be an appropriate alternative to the conventional model for transportation planning. Therefore, agent-based micro-simulation models reflect a promising direction of next generation of transportation planning models.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

INTRODUCTION Traffic assignment is the technique to determine the traffic flow pattern on the road network according to specific assumptions for the road users choice behavior to reflect the interactive relationship between transportation supply and travel demand. The traditional four-stage model, such as EMME/2, has dominated the transportation planning for many years, which has proved to be an efficient tool for urban transportation development. In recent years, with the rapid development of computer simulation techniques, attention has shifted towards dynamic agents activity-based modeling methods. The microscopic simulation approach made it possible to model dynamic process of individuals decision making and mutual interactions, such as MATSim, a direction for future modeling development. EMME/2 and MATSim represent two genres in traffic assignment research, i.e. static deterministic user equilibrium and dynamic stochastic model respectively. EMME/2 is an aggregated OD matrix trip-based application, whereas, MATSim is an activity chain agent-based micro-simulation application. [1, 2, 3] EMME/2 does not address the individual behavioral choice in the way MATSim does. Thus, it would be interesting to see how different the assignment results would be from two distinct models. This is the motivation for this study. In the study, four indicators of the road network, average travel time, average travel distance, link volume, and link speed are compared based on identical source data to analyze if the hourly aggregated values show similar outcome although their algorithms are different. The outputs from the two models are statistically consistent and show the same trend as the observed data to some extent. MATSim gives reliable travel distance and link volumes that are similar to EMME/2. MATSim, however, has better performance with respect to travel time and link speed to reflect network congestion. THEORETICAL REVIEW Definition and Classification In the past few decades, most traffic assignment modeling attempts placed emphasis on three aspects: (1) the state of network, (2) path choice, and (3) time horizon. Although numerous models in various forms were developed or the concepts were proposed since 1950s, most research attention has been concentrated on these three key elements. Based on the various researches on these three elements, looking back at the history, the model development for traffic assignment has gone through a long evolving process, from equilibrium to non-equilibrium (steady-state), from deterministic to stochastic, from static fixed demand to dynamic elastic demand. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8] Equilibrium or non-equilibrium refers to the state of the network, i.e. equilibrium refers to the state of the network that satisfies the description by Wardrops first principle. [9] Nonequilibrium refers to the state of network other than the description in the Wardrops first principle. However, it is usually assumed that the state of the network gets to a stationary (steady) state or relaxed state without any further improvement through interactions between flows and costs. For instance, the network moves towards a stationary state characterized by the fact that the number of commuters selecting the various choices remains constant over time. This is also described as a Nash Equilibrium in some documentation. [10] Deterministic or stochastic refers to the different assumptions made concerning the quality of information available to and decision-making process of road users. It results in different algorithms for path choice, departure time choice, activity location/duration choice, and mode choice. Static or dynamic

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

refers to whether the system modeled varies over time, e.g., the link volumes, travel costs, congestion (delay/queue), and demand vary as a function of time. Various combinations of the methodologies applied to a research on the state of network, behavioral choice assumptions and time horizon result in four typical classifications of traffic assignment models. They are representatives among others and summarized as follows: (1) Static Deterministic User Equilibrium, (2) Static Stochastic User Equilibrium, (3) Dynamic Deterministic User Optimal, and (4) Dynamic Stochastic Non-Equilibrium. These four types of models describe the traffic network at different levels of resolution and detail. Dynamic Modeling In order to truly and accurately replicate a generic traffic situation at a specific time window, a dynamic traffic assignment model is necessary. It needs to address both the network indicators and choice behavior indicators. The network indicators include link/path flow, link/path cost, congestion (delay/queue), and demand; the choice behavior indicators include mode, path, departure time, and activity location/duration choice. The research on dynamic assignment emphasizes the description of variation of both network indicators and choice behavior indicators over a time horizon. It involves the construction of the mathematical functions including demand conservation equation, link/path flow and cost function, choice probability function, joint utility function, and stop criteria, etc. In the construction of these functions, the temporal dimension has to be addressed, thus increasing the complexity and difficulty of the issues. In this regard, computer simulation prevails over other traditional approaches, such as mathematical programming, optimal control theory, and variational inequality. Computer simulation allows the traffic system to be in motion to reflect temporal and spatial evolution of the traffic flow pattern as well as to update travel demand and cost while the system is in operation. The simulation makes it possible for adaptive routing strategy by providing the real time information to the road users and implements iterative runs required by dynamic assignment to allow the system reach a stationary state. [11, 12, 13] Agent-Based Activity Modeling The four-stage transportation planning framework only focuses on the study of aggregated OD trips made by individual agents rather than the individual activity itself. However, it is argued that an observed flow pattern is a collective consequence of individuals participation in activities. Thus, the analysis of travel behavior should be based on understanding the sequential activities and associated attributes, such as travel mode, departure time, activity location/duration, and path choice performed by the individual agents during certain time periods. Since the 1970s, many researchers shifted their attention to the study of individual activities, agent-based modeling to complement the four-stage, trip-based modeling framework. Agent-based activity models are microscopic transportation planning models which concentrate on individuals travel behavior and decision-making process. [14, 15, 16, 17] MATSim is a laboratory experimental package which represents a paradigm in this research area. It is a microscopic analytical modeling tool for travel behavior study using simulation approach in transportation planning. [18, 19, 20] MODELING TOOLS EMME/2

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

EMME/2 is a static deterministic user equilibrium model for urban transportation planning. The rationale of the EMME/2 assignment is based on a linear approximation method through the iteration process to find the optimal solution to satisfy the non-linear objective function subject to certain constraints, thus, making the state of the network reach equilibrium which conforms to Wardrops first principle. [9] The equilibrium state of the network is achieved through the continuously mutual interaction between flow and cost via functions associated with each link in the iterative process. The costs are expressed as travel time obtained by the volume-delay and the turn penalty functions which are the adaptations of the BPR function, or as a generalized cost which may represent tolls, fares or some other cost attributes. MATSim MATSim is a dynamic stochastic model. The agent-plan evolution and agent-based traffic flow simulation are the core of MATSim among a group of other modules. The rationale of MATSim employs evolutionary optimization techniques and micro-simulation to optimize individual agents choices for a given plan including path, departure time, activity location/duration, and mode choices. MATSim executes the traffic assignment through the following procedures: Given the individual agents initial activity plans containing the precise description of the activity chain, each activitys locations, their durations, start and end time and the trips connecting two activities including its mode and route, every agent is loaded into the Mobsim simulator based on his/her plan; According to the simulation results, a score for the plan is calculated based on the utility function; The plan score is compared with those in the agents memory and the plan with the worse score is eliminated. Mutation and/or crossover operation of the evolutionary algorithm is done via variation of routes and/or departure time of one agents plan. This step is called replanning while only a certain percentage of all agents are allowed to re-plan while the others reuse one of their existing plans (to avoid flip-flop effects). The chosen agents create new plans which are executed and evaluated in the next iteration. When each agents utility, i.e. executed plan score, remains constant over time, it indicates that the system reaches a relaxed state in which the system average plan score approaches to the system best score. The final traffic assignment results from the interaction (event) of the executed plan of each agent when the system reaches a stationary state. [21, 22, 23] Therefore, MATSims demand modeling procedure is an optimization process based on the concept of evolutionary algorithms while the traffic assignment is the microscopic and completely time dynamic (in one second time steps) execution of each agents individual demand based on system constraints given by the transport network and its attributes. COMPARISON AND VALIDATION The purpose of the study is to evaluate the application of the both models to the road network of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) respectively by comparing the traffic assignment outcomes given the same demand. The input demands are generated from the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) database. The traffic assignment results from both models and the survey data are mutually compared. FIGURE 1 illustrates the overall process of the implemented work in this study. Study Area

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

The GTHA is approximately 8,240 square kilometers, including 5.57 million population, 2.85 million employment and 1.97 million households, based on 2001 census data. [24] It is partitioned into six municipalities, namely, City of Toronto, City of Hamilton, Regional Municipalities of Halton, Peel, York and Durham. There are 1717 traffic zones within the study area. The 2001 GTHA EMME/2 original network contains following elements: 1812 centroids, 13681 regular nodes and 45892 links. 38391 links with only car mode from the original EMME/2 network along with 716 prohibited turns are converted to MATSim network by expanding the nodes containing turn restrictions to a set of nodes that are interconnected according to the given restrictions. Therefore, the number of nodes and links increases such that the MATSim network contains 16337 nodes and 40549 links. Data Source TTS Data The Transportation Tomorrow Survey is a factual survey that collects information on how members of a household use the transportation system on a weekday. [25] The TTS database contains detailed individual trip records which reflect the individuals activities on both temporal and spatial dimensions explicitly. TTS is not only often used for aggregation trend analysis, but also makes it possible to provide activity chain input for emerging agent-based models. The demand inputs for two models are generated from TTS 2001 survey which actually contains 5.8% household samples in the GTHA. The auto mode trips are solely considered for demand input in the study since the share of auto trips is 64.7% of all trips made by surveyed households. [26, 27] In order to make sure that the comparison is conducted on the same basis, it is required that the demand input is consistent for two models. The original data are manipulated into two formats to feed the models respectively: 24 hourly aggregated trip OD matrices are constructed for the EMME/2 model; activity chain plans for individual agents are constructed for the MATSim model. Both inputs represent the same demand but in different formats. FIGURE 3a shows the trip distribution of input demand by time of day. It should be noted that the self-reported departure times of most reported trips in the TTS data are rounded to the hour, half hour, and quarter hour. This is not a problem for the hourly OD matrix trip-based assignment in EMME/2. But in the microscopic demand modeling of MATSim, it will cause an unrealistic burst of traffic load being put on the network. Therefore, in order to reflect real traffic flows on the road network and keep the hourly trips consistent with EMME/2, the departure times in all agents plans in MATSim are slightly blurred within the each hour to avoid bursts. Although, MATSims iterative optimization process allows agents to adapt departure times, in order to keep the hourly aggregated demand consistent with EMME/2, time adaptation module is switched off. Cordon Count The Cordon Count is a periodic counting program involving over a thousand counting stations across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) starting in 1975. The counting stations have been organized into screenlines at the boundaries of and at key locations within, the Regional Municipalities of Halton, Peel, and York, Durham, and the City of Toronto. The counting process involves classifying every vehicle by type and occupancy. [28] Since only trips

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

associated with the auto mode are included in this study, the auto vehicular counts in year 2001 are extracted from the Cordon Count database for comparison purpose. Travel Time Survey In the fall of 2002, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario undertook a travel time survey on many of the major provincial highways in the GTHA. Travel time samples were collected in each direction for the identified highway sections in each of the three time periods defined as: 6:30 to 9:30 for the AM peak period; 12:00 to 14:00 for the midday period; 15:30 to 18:30 for the PM peak period. Parameter Specification During the course of the study, it was discussed whether use the synthesized population or the existing survey data (TTS). When generating full demand, an expansion factor is applied to each household record to reflect the full population in the GTHA, i.e., each household record is multiplied by a factor 20 on average. Using such duplicated agents trip chains will lead to artificial effects on the demand and affect the fairness of the comparisons since the two models handle the agents in distinguished ways. Therefore, an appropriate alternative is to scale the capacity of the network in the both models and use the sample data to perform assignment. Charypar already demonstrated the scalability of the queue model of MATSim except for the conceptual limitation of very short links. [29] In order to find a proper scaling factor for the sample GTHA population, the scale factor for the link capacity in EMME/2 and the flow capacity in MATSim is chosen as 0.05, 0.06 and 0.07 for experiments of the two models. The experiment results indicate that it is appropriate to use 0.06 capacity scenario with sample demand to represent full capacity scenario with weighted demand. Comparison and Validation It is important to keep in mind that the analysis is performed on an aggregated level (one hour time bin aggregation) through the comparisons of the outcomes from the both models even though MATSim is able to analyze the traffic in much more temporal details, i.e., the time at which congestions occur, spill back and dissolve. Graphic Presentation Generally, agent-based simulation models are quite different from conventional four-stage models in both algorithms and graphical presentation. It can be seen from FIGURE 2 that the conventional model shows aggregate quantity of link volumes, whereas, the agent-based model shows individual agents and their mutual interaction on the network. In FIGURE 2a and 2b, green, red and yellow cars on links represent free flow traffic, congested traffic and saturated traffic respectively. MATSim also has the ability to visualize the agents trip paths and associated activities on the road network during real-time simulation, but it requires a computer with a fair amount of memory (> 4GB). FIGURE 2c shows the Home-Work-Home trip path chosen by an agent who lives in north of Toronto and works in downtown Toronto. The volumes shown in both FIGURE 2d and 2e are at the same scale in the EMME/2 model. Travel Time

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

24 hourly average trip travel times are calculated for both models (FIGURE 3b). Both models generate similar travel time for night and mid-day off peak periods. However, the travel time in MATSim is much higher than that in EMME/2 at both AM and PM peak periods. This indicates that MATSim captures fluctuating congestion on the network by time of day while EMME/2 is less sensitive to congestion. Moreover, the detailed inter-zonal travel time weighted by trips is calculated for 24 hours. The inter-zonal travel time matrices for each hour from both models are compared. The results are summarized in TABLE 1. It can be seen, the mean of inter-zonal travel time in MATSim is longer than one in EMME/2 at AM/PM peak hour. This result corresponds to the average trip travel time comparison in FIGURE 3b. Also, it reflects the effect of congestion "spillback" produced by MATSim in the simulation. Travel Distance Another trip characteristic average trip travel distance is also calculated for both models. In addition, one of TTS data attributes straight trip distance is extracted from the TTS database and compared with the travel distance from two models. As shown in FIGURE 3c, MATSim and EMME/2 give almost the same average travel distance by hour except for mid-day at which time most short trips occur. In MATSim, a trip starts and ends at links where only the target link is accounted to the travel distance. As most short trips occur during mid-day, the omitted travel length on the start link seems to be significant in comparison with longer trips. For instance, the average trip length in MATSim is lower than the one in EMME/2 by 5.6% for a 13.4 km trip between 11:00 and 15:00. On the other hand, EMME/2 calculates travel distance between origin and destination centroids. Compared to TTS straight trip distance, both MATSim and EMME/2 have plausible trends. On average, the travel distance from the two models is about 1.45 times TTS trip straight line distance. Link Volume In this study, link volumes are compared to traffic counts at the screenline level in order to monitor auto traffic flow movement between regions within the GTA and into/out of different city sectors in the City of Toronto. A screenline is a linear group of counting stations designed to capture all or most of the movement across it. The eight major GTA regional screenlines and four screenlines in the City of Toronto are selected for the link volume comparison. The typical morning (6:00 to 10:00 AM) and evening (3:00 to 7:00 PM) time windows are used to represent the peak periods of travel and to provide a common frame for the comparison. Before the comparison between model link volumes and Cordon Count data, a weight factor has to be determined to factor up the model link volumes. The expansion factor, one of the TTS household attributes, is used to scale up sample trips to reflect the full population in the GTHA. In order to simplify the calculation, the average weight factor 16.93, which corresponds to the 0.06 capacity of the network, is applied to all link volumes from both models. The comparison results of traffic volumes at all screenlines are presented in FIGURE 4. As can be seen in four sub-figures, the link volumes of two models follow the similar variation of Cordon Count at screenline level. This result indicates that both models generate realistic traffic flow patterns on the network. The link volumes from both models do not well match the auto counts at regional boundaries, but match the counts at the inner City of Toronto screenlines.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

One possible reason might be due to the TTS data source. TTS data excludes trips by non-GTHA residents, and other externally-based through traffic. Also TTS only includes householdrelated travel, but not business or goods movement trips in cars. In addition, the percentage differences and the percent root mean square error (RMSE) are calculated for all screenlines at counting stations between the two models. The results are listed in TABLE 2. It is clear that the link volumes between two models are close at the screenline level. However, the volumes from MATSim are slightly less than those from EMME/2 in total. It can be explained by the role of capacity in the two models. The link capacity in EMME/2 is "planning capacity", which is the fundamental part of the BPR function, and therefore is the part of the model. However, the flow capacity in MATSim is "physical capacity" that describes the maximum through-put of traffic through each link in the system. Therefore, it is more like a system constraint. EMME/2 can put more traffic through a link than its defined capacity, while MATSim doesnt allow loading more traffic than the link capacity limitation. Highway Link Speed Detailed link speed comparisons between MATSim, EMME/2 and surveyed speed are performed in this study. The harmonic mean of speeds on major highway sections is calculated based on average travel time on each link generated by the two models. The analysis is carried out to explore differences between MATSim and EMME/2 as well as to validate the models against survey data. In the study, the periods of 7:00 to 9:00 and 16:00 to 18:00 are chosen as the common periods for both models and survey for AM peak and PM peak respectively. Therefore, the harmonic mean of speeds in the survey is recalculated accordingly. The midday period of 12:00 to 14:00 is used to determine the off-peak link speed for the two models and the survey. Six 400-series highways and two rural highways with are selected for the link speed comparison. They are Hwy 400, Hwy 401 Express, Hwy 403, Hwy 410, Hwy 427, QEW, rural Hwy 50, and King St. (RR#9)-King Rd. (RR#11), There are 12 sections in total for 400-series highways and 2 sections for rural highways. Each section includes both directions and several observation segments. In order to find out systematic difference on the link speed among the two models and the survey, the scatter plots of speeds on 400-series highway sections are drawn in FIGURE 5a, 5b, and 5c. From the three scatter plots, three linear relationships can be identified. Furthermore, the regression analysis is carried out for each comparison. The key statistics are listed in TABLE 3. As can be seen from TABLE 3, all Adjusted R Squares from three regression models are greater than 0.6. It implies that the goodness-of-fit of all regression models are acceptable, i.e. more than 60% of the variation in the data points can be captured by the corresponding regression line. The intercepts of M-S (MATSim vs. Survey) and E-S (EMME/2 vs. Survey) are positive which imply that estimated speeds in models are higher than in the survey. This result is reasonable because only auto trips are assigned in the two models, whereas, the survey speeds are measured when auto vehicles are running in mixed modes traffic flows on highways. The slope of M-S is slightly greater than the slope of E-S even though M-S data are more scattered. It indicates that the link speeds in MATSim are closer to survey speeds and more realistic than those in EMME/2. The link speeds in EMME/2 are much higher than observed survey speeds.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

On the other hand, the slope of M-E (MATSim vs. EMME/2) is close to 1. Although the positive intercept exists, it is not significant at 95% confidence level. It can be concluded that the highway link speeds in MATSim and EMME/2 are generally not statistically different. Also, the rural highway speed comparison is exhibited in FIGURE 5d. It is clear that the rural highways average speeds in MATSim are closer to those in EMME/2 in all circumstances. The survey speeds are the lowest one because they are measured in the mixed traffic flows in the real world. In addition, the average speeds at segments along Hwy 401 Express Toronto section are plotted for both models and the survey at AM, Mid-Day, and PM period respectively. Refer to FIGURE 6. The reason for choosing Hwy 401 is that it is the busiest highway in North America, carrying approximately 500,000 vehicles every day. [30] It is the main trade, commuting and recreational corridor in Ontario. Besides those demographic and economic features, Hwy 401 Express Toronto section holds the most observation segments in all highway sections. There are 26 segments between Hwy 427 and Toronto-Durham boundary. The total section length is 41 kilometers. The presentations of FIGURE 6 are encouraging in terms of the speed fluctuation along the segments of Toronto section. In general, the link speeds generated by MATSim and EMME/2 show the similarity of fluctuation as in the survey. The westbound PM speeds pattern is a flip of the eastbound AM speeds in both models and the survey. The congestion starting points can be relatively identified from FIGURE 6a and 6f for the two peak periods. In contrast, the spread congestion can be observed in FIGURE 6c and 6d. The drastic change of the speeds of both models and survey at the eastbound PM peak and westbound AM peak is captured by FIGURE 6c and FIGURE 6d respectively. All estimated speeds and survey speed are up and down along the section even though no clear pattern exists. Both eastbound and westbound Mid-Day speeds are similar except there is an unexpected drop of estimated speeds in MATSim in FIGURE 6e. A detailed analysis of the street segments at Leslie-Street (where the speed dropdown occurs in FIGURE 6e) shows wrong link attribution of the network model. More precisely, after merging the highway containing 7 lanes and highway ramp with 1 lane, the following highway segments are modeled with 6 lanes. That defines an unrealistic bottleneck which does not exist in reality. While the assignment process of EMME/2 does not react sensitive to such a data error, dynamic micro-models do, since at a certain amount of demand, congestion occurs that produces spillback, which ends up in lower volumes and speed at that bottleneck and it upstream street segments. CONCLUSION Overall, through the comparative study, it can be concluded that, even though the algorithms behind the two models are quite different, the outputs from the two models are consistent to some extent, although differences exist. MATSim gives similar reliable travel distance and link volumes to EMME/2. MATSim has better performance with respect to travel time and link speed than EMME/2, because it reflects network congestion level in a more realistic way. EMME/2 is less sensitive to demand variation by time of day. This paper also shows that MATSim react more sensitive to error of the input data set, because it models the temporal and spatial propagation of congestions. Apart from the aggregated analysis, micro-simulation can be performed for a variety of demographical, socio-demographical, temporal and spatial mobility analysis. The conclusions are important for future development and policy analysis using agentbased models to complement conventional models in terms of dynamic features.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

10

REFERENCES 1. EMME (2008) Users Guide, Reference Manual, Prompt Manual v3.0; EMME/2 (1994) Users Manual, INRO Inc. 2. Balmer, M. (2007) Travel demand modelling for multi-agent transport simulations: algorithms and systems, Ph.D. dissertation at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. 3. MATSim website, http://www.matsim.org, accessed during July 2008 May 2009. 4. Papageorgiou, M. (ed.) (1991) Concise encyclopedia of traffic & transportation systems, Pergamon Press, New York. 5. Shao, C. F. (ed) (2007) Traffic Planning, China Railway Publishing House, Beijing. 6. Sheffi, Y. (1985) Urban transportation networks: Equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods, Prentice-Hall, N.J. 7. Daganzo, C. F. and Y. Sheffi (1977) On stochastic models of traffic assignment, Transportation Science 11, pp.253-274. 8. Cascetta, E. (1989) A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networks, Transportation Research B23, pp.1-17. 9. Wardrop, J.G. (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1. 10. Rieser, M., K. Nagel, U. Beuck, M. Balmer and J. Rmenapp (2007) Truly agent-oriented coupling of an activity-based demand generation with a multi-agent traffic simulation. Transportation Research Record, No.2021, pp.1017. 11. Law, A.M. and D.W. Kelton (2000) Simulation modelling and analysis, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. 12. Chung, C. A. (2004) Simulation Modelling Handbook, A Practical Approach, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Series, CRC Press. 13. Raney, B. and K. Nagel (2004) Iterative route planning for large-scale modular transportation simulations, Future Generation Computer Systems, 20 (7) pp.11011118. 14. Miller, E. J. and M. J. Roorda (2003) A prototype model of 24 hour household activity scheduling for the Toronto Area. Transportation Research Record, No.1831, pp.114121. 15. Roorda, M.J., E.J. Miller and N. Kruchten (2006) Incorporating within-household interactions into a mode choice model using a genetic algorithm for parameter estimation, paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. 16. Rieser, M., D. Grether and K. Nagel (2009) Adding mode choice to multiagent transport simulation, paper presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009. 17. Griesenbeck, B. and G. Garry (2007) Comparison of activity-based tour model to four-step model as a tool for metropolitan transportation planning, Proceedings of the National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, May 6-10, Daytona Beach, Florida. 18. Raney, B. and K. Nagel (2003) Truly agent-based strategy selection for transportation simulations, paper presented at the 82th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003. 19. Charypar, D. and K. Nagel (2005) Generating complete all-day activity plans with genetic algorithms, Transportation, 32 (4) pp.369397. 20. Rieser, M., U. Beuck, M. Balmer and K. Nagel (2008) Modelling and simulation of a morning reaction to an evening toll, https://svn.vsp.tu-berlin.de, accessed in March, 2009.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

11

21. Cetin, N. and K. Nagel (2003) Parallel queue model approach to traffic micro-simulations, paper presented at the 82th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003. 22. Lefebvre, N. and M. Balmer (2007) Fast shortest path computation in time-dependent traffic networks, http://www.ivt.ethz.ch, accessed in March 2009. 23. Charypar, D., K. Nagel and K.W. Axhausen (2007) An event-driven queue-based microsimulation of traffic flow, Transportation Research Record, No.2003, pp.3540. 24. 2001 Canadian Census, Statistics Canada, http://www12.statcan.ca, accessed in March 2009. 25. Data Management Group (DMG) at the University of Toronto website, http://www.dmg.utoronto.ca, accessed during July 2008 March 2009. 26. Data Management Group (2003A) Transportation Tomorrow Survey Reports: 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey: Design & Conduct of the Survey, January 2003. 27. Data Management Group (2003B) Transportation Tomorrow Survey Reports: 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey: Data Guide, January 2003. 28. Data Management Group (2003C) Cordon Count Reports: 2001 GTA Cordon Count Transportation Trends (1991 - 2001), March 2003. 29. Charypar, D. (2008) Efficient algorithms for the microsimulation of travel behavior in very large scenarios, Ph.D. dissertation at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. 30. Wikipedia website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_401_(Ontario), accessed in March 2009.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

12

TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3

Mean of Inter-Zonal Travel Time Comparison The Differences and RMSEs between Two Models at Screenlines Regression Statistics of Highway Link Speeds

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6

Comparison and Validation Flow Chart Graphic Presentation of Two Models Trip Distribution, Average Trip Travel Time, and Travel Distance Link Volume at Screenlines Comparison Highway Link Speed Comparison Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Link Speed Comparison

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

13

TABLE 1 Mean of Inter-Zonal Travel Time Comparison

Time Mean of Travel TimeDifference Time Mean of Travel TimeDifference of Day EMME/2 MATSim % of Day EMME/2 MATSim % 14.15 14.28 -1% 12 10.32 10.88 -5% 0 1 14.99 14.99 0% 13 10.90 11.32 -4% 16.06 16.07 0% 14 11.89 12.43 -4% 2 3 17.30 17.36 0% 15 12.24 13.01 -6% 4 20.49 20.41 0% 16 15.94 16.98 -6% 5 21.20 21.22 0% 17 17.26 18.76 -8% 20.25 19.98 1% 18 13.98 17.05 -18% 6 7 20.38 20.13 1% 19 11.79 14.05 -16% 8 13.67 16.54 -17% 20 11.13 12.29 -9% 9 12.37 15.79 -22% 21 11.49 12.02 -4% 10 11.52 13.06 -12% 22 12.80 13.20 -3% 11 10.27 11.18 -8% 23 13.61 13.85 -2%

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

14

TABLE 2 The Differences and RMSEs between Two Models at Screenlines

No. of Stations Hamilton --> Halton E 6 1 Halton West Boundary Halton --> Hamilton W 6 Halton --> Peel E 17 2 Halton-Peel Boundary Peel --> Halton W 17 Peel --> York E 12 3 Peel-York Boundary York --> Peel W 12 Peel --> Toronto E 18 4 Peel-Toronto Boundary Toronto --> Peel W 18 Toronto --> York N 40 5 Toronto-York Boundary York --> Toronto S 40 York --> Durham E 35 6 York-Durham Boundary Durham --> York W 35 Toronto --> Durham E 5 7 Toronto-Durham Boundary Durham --> Toronto W 5 Durham --> East E 21 8 Durham East Boundary East --> Durham W 21 Inbound 63 9 Toronto Metro Boundary Outbound 63 Inbound 36 10 Toronto Suburban Outbound 37 Inbound 31 11 Toronto Central Area Outbound 31 Inbound 16 12 Toronto Downtown Core Outbound 17 Note: E - Eastbound; W - Westbound; N - Northbound; S - Southbound Screenline Direction
Difference RMSE

AM 10% -6% 1% 1% 8% 5% -12% -5% -2% -1% -16% -8% -10% -2% -24% -15% -6% -4% -4% -5% -16% -3% -7% 10%

PM 2% -1% 7% -12% 11% -1% -4% -10% -5% -1% -25% -20% -12% -3% -11% -4% -2% -8% -6% -9% 0% -9% 40% 8%

AM 25% 15% 19% 36% 42% 54% 53% 15% 30% 18% 40% 62% 14% 5% 69% 88% 40% 22% 25% 30% 30% 19% 41% 48%

PM 8% 9% 28% 31% 43% 20% 37% 23% 27% 26% 70% 49% 26% 8% 42% 17% 32% 26% 31% 21% 18% 31% 71% 40%

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

15

TABLE 3 Regression Statistics of Highway Link Speeds

Observations: 72 Adjusted R Square: 0.628 Intercept Survey Coefficients 33.85 0.682 t Stat 5.981 10.984 P-value 8.46E-08 7.00E-17

MATSim vs. Survey

EMME/2 vs. Survey

Observations: 72 Adjusted R Square: 0.610 Intercept Survey Coefficients 43.24 0.603 t Stat 8.329 10.58 P-value 4.52E-12 3.63E-16

MATSim vs. EMME/2

Observations: 72 Adjusted R Square: 0.659 Intercept EMME/2 Coefficients 6.460 0.909 t Stat 0.852 11.76 P-value 0.397 3.08E-18

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

16

FIGURE 1 Comparison and validation flow chart.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

17

2a Traffic Flow at 8:10am by MATSim

2d Traffic Flow at 8:00-9:00am period by EMME/2

2b Traffic Flow at 12:10am by MATSim

2e Traffic Flow at 12:00-13:00 period by EMME/2

2c The Path Chosen by an Agent

FIGURE 2 Graphic presentation of two models.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

18

45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Time of Day

Trips

3a Trip Distribution by Time of Day

MATSim
30.00

EMME/2

Avg. Travel Time (min)

25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Time of Day

3b Average Trip Travel Time Comparison

3c Average Travel Distance Comparison

FIGURE 3 Trip distribution, average trip travel time, and travel distance.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

19

Counts
Traffic Volumes (vehicles)
160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

MATSim

EMME/2
Traffic Volumes (vehicles)
350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

Counts

MATSim

EMME/2

GTA Regional Screenlines (6:00-10:00am)

Toronto Screenlines (6:00-10:00am)

4a The GTA Regional Screenlines Comparison at AM Period

4c The City of Toronto Screenlines Comparison at AM Period

Counts
Traffic Volumes (vehicles)
180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

MATSim

EMME/2
Traffic Volumes (vehicles)
350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

Counts

MATSim

EMME/2

GTA Regional Screenlines (3:00-7:00pm)

Toronto Screenlines (3:00-7:00pm)

4b The GTA Regional Screenlines Comparison at PM Period

4d The City of Toronto Screenlines Comparison at PM Period

FIGURE 4 Link volume at screenlines comparison.

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

20

Estimated Speed (km/h) by MATSim

Estimated Speed (km/h) by EMME/2

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 Survey Speed (km/h) y = 0.682x + 33.84

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 y = 0.603x + 43.24 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 Survey Speed (km/h)

5a MATSim vs. Survey Scatter Plot of 400-Series Highway Speed

5c EMME/2 vs. Survey Scatter Plot of 400-Series Highway Speed

Estimated Speed (km/h) by MATSim

120.0 100.0 y = 0.909x + 6.460 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Estimated Speed (km/h) by EMME/2
Avg. Speed (km/h)

Survey 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

MATSim

EMME/2

50-N-AM 50-S-AM RR #9/RR RR #9/RR 50-N-PM #11-E-AM #11-W-AM

50-S-PM RR #9/RR RR #9/RR #11-E-PM #11-W-PM

Hwy-Direction-Time of Day

5b MATSim vs. EMME/2 Scatter Plot of 400-Series Highway Speed

5d Rural Highway Speed Comparison by Direction at AM and PM Peak

FIGURE 5 Highway link speed comparison.

Avg. Speed (km/h)

Avg. Speed (km/h)

Avg. Speed (km/h)

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

MATSim

MATSim

Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Segments

MATSim
EMME/2

EMME/2
Survey

EMME/2

Survey

Survey

Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Segments

Wenli Gao, Michael Balmer, and Eric J. Miller

6a. Eastbound Speed at AM Peak (7:00-9:00)

Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Segments

Avg. Speed (km/h)
Avg. Speed (km/h)

6b. Eastbound Speed at Mid-Day (12:00-14:00)

6c. Eastbound Speed at PM Peak (16:00-18:00)

Hwy 427 Dixon Rd Hwy 409 Islington Ave Weston Rd Hwy 400 Keele St Dufferin St Allen Rd Bathurst St Avenue Rd Hwy 11 - Yonge St Bayview Ave Leslie St Hwy 404 Victoria Park Ave Warden Ave Kennedy Rd Brimley Rd McCowan Rd Hwy 48 Neilson Rd Morningside Ave Meadowvale Rd Hwy 2 Hwy 2A

Hwy 427 Dixon Rd Hwy 409 Islington Ave Weston Rd Hwy 400 Keele St Dufferin St Allen Rd Bathurst St Avenue Rd Hwy 11 - Yonge St Bayview Ave Leslie St Hwy 404 Victoria Park Ave Warden Ave Kennedy Rd Brimley Rd McCowan Rd Hwy 48 Neilson Rd Morningside Ave Meadowvale Rd Hwy 2 Hwy 2A

Hwy 427 Dixon Rd Hwy 409 Islington Ave Weston Rd Hwy 400 Keele St Dufferin St Allen Rd Bathurst St Avenue Rd Hwy 11 - Yonge St Bayview Ave Leslie St Hwy 404 Victoria Park Ave Warden Ave Kennedy Rd Brimley Rd McCowan Rd Hwy 48 Neilson Rd Morningside Ave Meadowvale Rd Hwy 2 Hwy 2A

Avg. Speed (km/h)

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 MATSim EMME/2 Survey

MATSim

MATSim EMME/2 Survey

EMME/2 Survey

FIGURE 6 Hwy 401 Express Toronto section link speed comparison.

Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Segments Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Segments

6d. Westbound Speed at AM Peak (7:00-9:00)

Hwy 401 Express Toronto Section Segments

6e. Westbound Speed at Mid-Day (12:00-14:00)

6f. Westbound Speed at PM Peak (16:00-18:00)

Hwy 2A Hwy 2 Meadowvale Rd Morningside Ave Neilson Rd Hwy 48 McCowan Rd Brimley Rd Kennedy Rd Warden Ave Victoria Park Ave Hwy 404 Leslie St Bayview Ave Hwy 11 - Yonge St Avenue Rd Bathurst St Allen Rd Dufferin St Keele St Hwy 400 Weston Rd Islington Ave Hwy 409 Dixon Rd Hwy 427

Hwy 2A Hwy 2 Meadowvale Rd Morningside Ave Neilson Rd Hwy 48 McCowan Rd Brimley Rd Kennedy Rd Warden Ave Victoria Park Ave Hwy 404 Leslie St Bayview Ave Hwy 11 - Yonge St Avenue Rd Bathurst St Allen Rd Dufferin St Keele St Hwy 400 Weston Rd Islington Ave Hwy 409 Dixon Rd Hwy 427

Hwy 2A Hwy 2 Meadowvale Rd Morningside Ave Neilson Rd Hwy 48 McCowan Rd Brimley Rd Kennedy Rd Warden Ave Victoria Park Ave Hwy 404 Leslie St Bayview Ave Hwy 11 - Yonge St Avenue Rd Bathurst St Allen Rd Dufferin St Keele St Hwy 400 Weston Rd Islington Ave Hwy 409 Dixon Rd Hwy 427

21