Dynamic Traffic Assignment

and Applications in the Twin

Cities Area

Steve Wilson
SRF Consulting Group

Duluth, Minnesota
August, 2008
Outline

 Background/FHWA Support
 35W Bridge Project
 Test Applications
 FHWA DTA Ongoing Development
What is Dynamic Traffic
Assignment (DTA)?
 Mesoscopic traffic assignment model
– More responsive to operational factors
(queuing) than traditional travel demand
models
– More responsive to system level factors
(route-changing) than traditional
operations models
Travel Demand Model
Assignment Limitations
 Trips are instantaneously on all links
between origin to destination (not
time-dependent)
 Congestion delay does not adequately
reflect bottlenecks (upstream or
downstream)
DTA Models Availability

 Federal Highways DTA

 Commercial Vendors
– CITILABS
– TRANSCAD
– PTV
– EMME/2
– Others
 FHWA DTA (TrEPS) Program
 Started in 1995
 Two parallel tracks (Real-time ITS and
Operational Planning)
 Linking planning and operations
– Concept of “Operational Planning”
 Fill in the traffic analysis tool gap
– Macroscopic (static, regional)
– Mesoscopic (dynamic, regional)
– Microscopic (dynamic, corridor)
 Integration with TDM and microscopic model
 Program Activities
 DTA concept education and outreach

– Webinars (online) – several per year

– Short seminar (0.5-1 day) – on demand

– Workshops (2.5 day) – 2 to 3 per year

Mn/DOT (September 2008)
 Program Activities
 Technical support to state agencies
– MPO/DOT – FHWA division – Resource
center – FHWA HQ or TFHRC
– Educational Support
 Training for DTA concepts
– Modeling Support
 Assist in initial modeling and dataset buildup
 Can be extended to consultants for a federally
funded project
 Matching-fund may be needed if more
involvement is requested
M&O Status (updated May 2008)

State Users

Workshops held

Future Workshops
(TBD)
Initial Development of Twin
Cities FHWA DTA Model

 I-35W Bridge
Collapse
 FHWA Response
 Pace of Study
MnDOT Model
Development
 Importing of regional TDF model
network
 Importing of regional TDF model trip
tables
 Network cleaning
 Simplified traffic control assumptions
MnDOT Model
Development
 Calibration/adjustment of O-D
matrices
 Testing of routing/improvement
scenarios
Initial Development of
Twin Cities FHWA DTA
Model

 I-35W Bridge
Collapse
 FHWA Response
 Pace of Study
I-35W UPA Project

 UPA Program
Competition

 Innovative, multi-
modal, priced

 Open by end of
2009
I-35W UPA Project

 Priced dynamic shoulder

lane segment

 Addition of a HOT lane in

Crosstown reconstruction
project

 Conversion of existing HOV

lane to HOT lane

 Also: BRT advanced

implementation, park-ride,
ITS
Why Dynamic Traffic
Assignment?
 Availability
 Better MOEs for comparison of
Alternatives
 High-level operational evaluation
 HOT lane capabilities
Why Not Dynamic Traffic
Assignment?
 Availability/readiness

 Memory/CPU resources

 Learning curve

 Traffic engineers’ comfort zone

Analysis
(Top 20 O-D pairs impacted by
bridge collapse)

119

123 124

443

444 421
420
424 423
426 414 359

371 372
373
337
334 337
335336 339
340 341

322321 318

514
Twin Cities FHWA DTA
Model
 Travel Time (min) Travel Time (min)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10 10

30 30
area
50 50

70 70

90 90

110 110

408
409

130 130
150 150
170 170

Departure Time(min)

Departure Time (min)

190 190
210 210
230 230

w
w

wo
wo

Travel Time (min)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

Travel Time (min)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

10
30 10

50 30
50
70
70
90
90
110
110
407

130
410

130
150 150
170 170
Departure Time (min)
Departure Time (min)

190 190

210 210

230 230
Travel time into Downtown

Total
wo

w
wo
FHWA DTA Model
(Subarea)
Learning Curve

 “CORSIM-like”

 Wiki help system

 Model Integration w/ TDF softwares

FHWA DTA HOT Lane
Options
 Distance-based

 Link-based

 Zone-based (coming soon)

FHWA DTA HOT Lane
Options Flexibility
Multiple User Class
Flexibility
Flexible Traffic Flow
Model
Exportable Tabular
Output
Graphic Output
Time Stream Comparisons
FHWA DTA Tests
(with subarea model)

 Sensitivity to geometric changes

– Through lane add
– Auxiliary lane add
– Bottleneck queuing
 Stadium event departure
 Peak-segment ramp O-D volumes
Best Candidate DTA Uses

 Evacuation Planning
 Work zones
 Systems Planning
 Value pricing/HOT Lanes
 Benefit-Cost Analysis
 Travel demand model feedback
Lessons Learned

 New DTA model not short-term response

 Integration with planning/simulation models

 Role of DTA in project development process

FHWA DTA V2.0
Modeling Features
 Lane-group based Anisotropic Mesoscopic
Simulation (AMS) models
 Relative gap gradient based assignment algorithm
 Epoch implementation for 24-hour to multi-day
assignment
 Destination and origin-based time-dependent least-
cost path algorithms for various applications
 Vertical integration with TDM and VISSIM
 2008 Projects and
Applications Outlook
 In progress
– Military Deployment Transportation Improvement in Guam (PB,
FHWA)
– Interstate highway corridor improvement (TTI, TxDOT, ELPMPO)
– Value Pricing (ORNL, FHWA; SRF, Mn/DOT, TTI, TxDOT)
– Evacuation operational planning (UA, ADOT; LSU, LDOT; Noblis,
FHWA; U of Toronto)
– Integrated Corridor Management modeling (CS, FHWA)
– Bay area regional modeling (CS, MTC)
– Florida turnpike system traffic and evacuation analysis (FDOT
Turnpike)
– Commercial development traffic improvement (PAG)
 Future Outreach Activities
 Arizona
– Workshop (July 29-31, jointly funded by MAG
and FHWA)
 Minnesota
– Mn/DOT workshop (September 09)
 California
– CalTrans and CA MPOs (August 11-13, 2008)
 2-3 Kick-the-Tire webinars (FY 09)
 2-3 Training workshops (FY 09)
FHWA DTA V2.0
Modeling Features
 Suite of supporting tools to facilitate model use:
– Pre-processing
 Network cleaning
 Demand integration
– Post-processing
 Time-space diagrams
 Time-varying link statistics reports
 Cumulative arrival curves
 Impacted vehicle analysis
 Vehicle path analysis
Acknowledgements

 FHWA
– Jim McCarthy
– Chung Tran
 Mn/DOT Planning Division
– Brian Isaacson
– Mark Filipi
– Tony Fischer
 DynusT Labs
– Yi-Chang Chiu, University of Arizona
Questions?

Steve Wilson
swilson@srfconsulting.com