You are on page 1of 75

# TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE MODELS I

:
TRAFFIC FLOW THEORY AND SIMULATION
APPROACHES

Haris N. Koutsopoulos
Northeastern University

M.I.T. Summer Professional Program 1.10s
Modeling and Simulation for Dynamic Transportation Management
Systems
July/August 2003

Outline

• Basic Elements
• Macroscopic models
– Traffic Stream Models
– Continuum Models
• Microscopic models
– Car Following Models
– Lane Changing
• Traffic Simulation Models

Basic Elements of Traffic Flow Theory

• flow (q): number of vehicles crossing a point per unit of
time
• speed (u):
– time-mean speed ut: average speed of vehicles crossing a point
– space-mean speed us: average speed of vehicles over a
roadway segment at any given time, or based on average time
it takes to cross the segment
• concentration
– density (k): number of vehicles per unit length of roadway
– occupancy (o): percent of time a point of the road is occupied
– space headway (s): distance between two consecutive
vehicles
– time headway (h): time between passage of two consecutive
vehicles

Measurements • Fixed Point • Fixed Time (aerial photograph) • Moving observer s p a c e h L s t T t i m e .

Time-Space Diagram: Analysis at a Fixed Position position L h1 h2 h3 h4 x 0 time 0 T .

Time-Space Diagram: Analysis at a Fixed Time position L s1 s2 0 time t0 t .

Measurements N If T large then T ≈ ∑h 1 i s p a c e •Flow N q = T L N N 1 1 q= ≈ = = T ∑ hi 1 N ∑ hi _ h t T t im e •Density number of vehicles in section k= L .

speeds over us = 1 N ∑u i section of length L • time-mean speed ≥ space-mean speed (typically ut = 1.12us) σ s2 ut = u s + us . Measurements • Time-mean speed s p a c e n ut = 1 N ∑ i =1 ui At a fixed location. time T ui: instantaneous speed L • Space-mean speed T t t im 1 us = Observation at fixed location over time 1 N ∑ 1 ui T 1 Instantaneous photograph.06 – 1.

q: flow us: space-mean speed k: density . Fundamental Relationship q = us × k where.

Traffic Stream Models • Objective – Provide fundamental relationships among macroscopic traffic stream characteristics for uninterrupted flow conditions • speed-density • flow-density • speed-flow .

Eddie 63) 80 1400.0 40 400.0 50 600.0 Flow (veh/hr) .0 500.0 1500.0 20 0.0 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 Density (veh/km) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Density (veh/km) 80 70 60 Speed (km/hr) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0 1200.0 1000. Field Data (Holland Tunnel.0 60 Flow (veh/hr) 800.0 70 Speed (km/hr) 1000.0 30 200.

Relationships Fundamental diagram (density. speed) diagram for different traffic u conditions “stable” uc “unstable” qmax q . speed) q u diagram qmax u= q • Structure umax 1 3 3 k – Single regime: uc 3 “stable” same functional “unstable” form under all 1 2 2 traffic conditions kjam k kc kjam k kc – Multiple regime: different models (flow.

parameters to be calibrated . kj. Examples • Single regime models – Greenshields’ model k u = u f (1 − ) kj k q = uk = ku f (1 − ) kj uf.

Examples • Single regime models – Greenberg’s model  u = um ln(k j / k ) – Underwood’s model  u = uf e − k / km uf. kj. km. parameters to be calibrated .

Examples  Multiple regime models • Edie’s model – Uncongested region • Underwood’s model – Congested region • Greenberg’s model – Discontinuity .

Speed-Density Relationships .

Flow-Density Relationships uf us .

Speed-Flow Relationships .

Empirical Results  Hall et. al. (1992) Speed u n c o n g e s t e d r e g io n queue d is c h a r g e w ith in q u e u e F lo w .

Speed-Flow Relationship Source: HCM 2000 .

Continuum Flow (Kinetic) Models • Conservation of flow d x q q + d q • density at time t: k • density at time t+dt: k+dk • conservation of flow: qdt + kdx = (q + dq)⋅ dt + (k+dk)⋅ dx ∂q ∂k + =0 ∂x ∂t .

Richards. Continuum Flow (Kinetic) Models. Greenshields’ speed-density model) q: flow u: space-mean speed k: density g(x.t): generation rate . cont’d • First order models (Lighthill and Whitham.g. LWR) ∂k ∂q + = g ( x. t ) Conservation of flow ∂t ∂x q = uk Basic equation of flow Equilibrium speed u = f (k ) (e.

Solution of First Order Models

• Problem:
– Given a set of initial and boundary conditions,
e. g. k0 = k(x0, 0)
– Find k(x,t)

• Solution
– Exact solution is based on the method of characteristics
(waves): lines with the same density

x = x 0 + h ( k )t

Solution of First Order Models
• Properties
– characteristics (waves) are straight lines along which the
density is constant (equal to the density at the initial point
they emanate from)

– a disturbance at a point propagates along the characteristic
through that point

– a disturbance travels at a speed given by the slope of the
characteristic:

dx df
uw = = h( k ) = f ( k ) + k
dt dk

Solution of First Order Models
speed, flo w , q
u = f(k ) A

B

d e n s ity , k d e n s ity , k

d e n s ity tim e

A
B

space

x

shockw ave
A

B

t

Comments • Shockwave speed w B A u A u B (u A − wBA )k A = (u B − wBA )k B u B k B − u A k A qB − q A wBA = = kB − k A kB − k A .

B) = (2. Comments q 2 q 2 w BA q 3 3 u A q 1 u B 1 k 1 k 2 k 3 k If (A. 1) w21 is positive (shockwave moves forward) If (A. 2) w32 is negative (shockwave moves backward) . B) = (3.

Example: Traffic Lights space time .

Shockwaves at Traffic Lights (red) Stopping waves uw q A − qB qA A u AB = k A − kB Flow (q) D B qD =0 kA kj Density (k) .

Shockwaves at Traffic Lights (green) Starting waves uw C qB= qmax qB − qC u BC = k B − kC Flow (q) D B kC kj .

Discussion on First Order Models • Issues – driver differences – motion through a shock – stability • Implications – light traffic • desired speed • platoon formation – restricted traffic • instantaneous change of speed • stop and go instabilities .

equilibrium speed. reaction time.…) ∂u ∂u du = dt + dx. High Order Continuum Flow Models • Attempt to represent the acceleration of the traffic stream Acceleration = f(traffic ahead. or ∂t ∂x du ∂u ∂u acceleration = = +u dt ∂t ∂x .

High Order Continuum Flow Models • Example: Payne’s model ∂k ∂q + = g ( x.  T: reaction time. relaxation parameter  ν : anticipation parameter  f(k): equilibrium speed (speed-density model) • Rate of change of speed is a function of:  Convection (tendency to travel upstream with current speed)  Relaxation to equilibrium  Anticipation (impact off density ahead) . t ) conservation of flow ∂t ∂x q = uk basic equation of flow ∂u ∂u 1  v ∂k  acc = +u =  f (k ) − u −  ∂t ∂x T  k ∂x  dynamic speed equation • where.

Microscopic Models • Car-following • Lane changing • Gap acceptance .

∆ x (relative distance) Sensitivity: function of ∆ x. Car-Following Models Ln −1 Vn−1 (t ) Ln Vn (t ) ∆x (t ) xn−1 (t ) xn (t ) Common Model: Response(t) = sensitivity•stimulus(t-T) T: reaction time Stimulus: ∆ v (relative speed). speed . speed. traffic conditions Response: acceleration.

l. Car-Following Models Ln −1 Vn−1 (t ) Ln Vn (t ) ∆x (t ) xn−1 (t ) xn (t ) GM models (Herman. m: parameters . Gazis) Vn (t ) m an (t ) = α [Vn−1 (t − T ) − Vn (t − T )] [ ∆ x(t )] l an (t ) : acceleration of vehicle n at time t α .

Ben-Akiva. 1974) • reaction based on relative speed-relative distance combinations • General acceleration models – Ahmed. Koutsopoulos (2002): • Multiple regimes of traffic – Free flowing – Car-following • Time headway threshold and reaction time distributions . Car-Following Models • Distance-based models (Newell) • Stimulus is a function of relative distance • Psycho-physical spacing model (Wiedemann.

Ben-Akiva. cont’d • Ahmed. Koutsopoulos (2002) – Car following Vn ( t − ξ τn ) β an ( t ) = α k n ( t ) ∆Vn ( t − τ n ) + ε n ( t ) δ front ρ ∆X n ( t − ξ τn ) front γ – Free flowing [ an ( t ) = λ V n desired ( t ) − Vn ( t − τ n ) ] + υ n ( t ) – Distributed headway threshold and reaction time . General Acceleration.

single lane conditions integration of car- following models results in traffic stream models . Car-following and Traffic Stream Models m–> Vn (t ) m an (t ) = α ∆ V (t − T ) [ ∆ x(t )] l • Are car-following and traffic stream models consistent? • Under steady-state.

Flow Models Derived from Car-Following Models Vn (t ) m an (t ) = α ∆V (t − T ) [ ∆x(t )] l l m Flow vs.5 0   k 0.5   q = u max k 1 −      k     jam    k  2 0 q = u max 1 −   k jam    2 1  k  q = u max k exp 1 −   k jam    3 1  1 k 2   q = u max k exp −     2  k jam      . density 0 0  q = qm 1 − k    k jam    1 0  k jam  q = uc k ln    k  1.

exiting). or to avoid lane closure – discretionary: attempting to achieve desired speed. Lane Changing Models • Mandatory and discretionary lane-changing – mandatory: getting off the current lane in order to continue on the desired path (e. etc. avoid following trucks. avoid merging traffic.g. .

Lane-changing. cont’d • Ahmed. Ben-Akiva. Koutsopoulos (1999): – Mandatory and discretionary – 3 levels • Decision to consider lane change • Target lane choice for DLC – Random utility framework • Gap acceptance – Lead and lag gaps – Forced merging .

Dimensions of Lane Changing S ta rt M L C M L C d r iv in g d r iv in g c o n d itio n s n o t c o n d it io n s s a tis fa c t o r y s a t is fa c to r y o th e r c u rre n t la n e s la n e L e ft L a n e R ig h t L a n e L e ft L a n e R ig h t L a n e G a p G a p G a p G a p G a p G a p G a p G a p A cce p t R e je c t A cce p t R e je c t A cce p t R e je c t A cce p t R e je c t L e ft C u rre n t R ig h t C u rre n t L e ft C u rre n t R ig h t C u r r e n t C u r r e n tC u r r e n t La n e L a n e L a n e L an e L a n e L a n e L a n e L a ne L a n e L a n e .

lead   σ ε . Gap Acceptance • Critical Gap • if available gap < critical gap: reject the gap • if available gap >= critical gap: accept the gap • Lead and lag gap • Critical gap is a A C B function of: – Relative speed lag gap lead gap – First gap total gap – Number of gaps rejected The Critical Gap is Function of explanatory variables Gng (t) = exp[Xng (t)β g + ε ng (t)] – Remaining length (mandatory lane Prob(a gap is accepted) = Prob(lead and lag gaps are accepted) = changing) lead lead lag lag = Pr( Gtn > Gcr .tn |ν n ) – Other opportunities  ln( G lead ) .β lead X lead   lag lag lag  – Traffic conditions = Φ tn tn  * Φ ln( Gtn ) .β X tn   σ ε .lag      .tn and Gtn > Gcr .

Limitations of Existing Models • Independent behaviors – Acceleration and lane-changing – Mandatory and discretionary lane changing • Reactive – No anticipation • Myopic – No planning A D C B .

delay models. Other Traffic Performance Models • Delay models – Queuing theory (deterministic and stochastic approaches) c u m u la t iv e c u m u la tiv e a r r iv a ls . a r r iv a ls d e p a rtu re s C d e la y o f v e h ic le a r r iv in g a t tim e t B c u m u la tiv e d e p a rtu re s Average delay = Area(ABC) m a x im u m d e la y # of vehicles A m ax queue t0 t tim e – Empirical models • Simulation models – Synthesis of traffic theory models. traffic dynamics representation .

Simulation Models • Definition – “… the process of designing a model of a real system and conducting experiments with this model for the purpose either of understanding the behavior of the system or of evaluating various strategies (within the limits imposed by a criterion or set of criteria) for the operation of the system” (Shannon. 1975) • Approaches – Discrete event • synchronous • Asynchronous – Continuous time – Hybrid .

Simulation Models • Functionality and level of detail – Network representation – Flow representation – Traffic dynamics – Support of control strategies – Surveillance – Travel behavior/demand • Overall structure – Event-based – Time-based • Output – Measures of effectiveness (MOE’s) .

Level of Detail • Based on their flow and traffic dynamics representation traffic simulation models are characterized as: – Macroscopic • Fluid representation of flow • Time and space discretization – Mesoscopic • Individual vehicle representation • Continuous space • Usually discrete time – Microscopic • Individual vehicle representation • Traffic dynamics through vehicle interactions and movements – Nanoscopic • Many common elements with microscopic • Detailed representation of vehicle dynamics .

Overall Structure Time. Event-Based Simulation • Time-based models advance the clock at fixed intervals ∆ t ∆ t may be different for different processes – choice of ∆ t important for • Efficiency • Accuracy • Event-based models maintain an event list.vs. First event in the list is processed next – sequencing of events may be difficult – less control over efficiency .

Macroscopic Model Characteristics • In effect numerical solutions to continuum flow models • Usually deterministic • Common for evaluation of freeway corridor operations • Traffic dynamics – queuing theory – kinetic theory • simple input/output • simple continuum • high order continuum • Basic approach – numerical solution of kinetic equations – discretization of space and time .

n 2∆ t 2∆ x 1 k nj + 1 − ( k nj+ 1 + k nj− 1 ) qn − qn 2 j +1 j −1 n + 1 Lax: . ∆t 2∆ x j . Backward. j) in the time-space domain • replace derivatives by finite differences • Forward.1 j j + 1 x . n + 1 ∆t ∆x k nj + 1 − k nj −1 qnj+ 1 − qnj− 1 central: . Central • Lax-Friedrich’s scheme • Codunov’s finite difference approximation t k nj + 1 − k nj qnj+ 1 − q nj forward: . General Approach • define a grid of points (n.

g. ujn j-1 j j+1 gj.2n qj-1n qjn qj+1n kjn. Macroscopic Model Example Numerical solution based on Lax’s method gj.1n ∆ xj-1 ∆ xj ∆ xj+1 k n +1 j 1 n = (k j −1 + k j +1 ) + 2 n ∆t 2∆x j [ q nj−1 − q nj+1 + α j g nj ] n +1 n +1 n +1 n +1 n +1 q j =k j ⋅u j =k j ⋅ f (k j ) α j coefficient for converting flow to density (e. .

ujn qjn k n +1 j =k +n j ∆t ∆x j [ (q nj−1 − q nj ) +( g nj. Payne’s model (High Order) qj-1n gj. 2 ) ] n +1 gj.1n q j = k ⋅u n j n j ∆ xj ¿ ¿ 1  u nj⋅ u nj −u nj −1   convection Δx j ¿ 1   ⋅[ u nj − f  k nj  ]  relaxation T u n1 j =u nj − Δt ×¿ { ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ .2n kjn.1 − g nj.

network evacuation traffic flow models strategies . and optimization (ramp Input/Output metering) analysis Freeway operations Deterministic. Macroscopic Models: Examples Freeway management Deterministic. work Kinematic theory. et. al. FREQ May. et. incidents. metering strategies and continuum model traffic control cell transmission model. FREFLO Payne. NETCELL Daganzo. al. METACOR Papageorgiou et. al. strategies Kinematic theory Freeway corridor simulation Deterministic. al. Michalopoulos et. al. KRONOS evaluation. et. al. ramp Deterministic. zones continuum model Freeway corridors. Freeway networks hydrodynamic theory evaluation of alternative NETVAC Sheffi et.

NETCELL (Daganzo) • Characteristics – Dynamic evolution of multi-commodity traffic over large scale freeway networks – Links divided into cells traversed in one simulation step (under free flow speed) – Consistent with hydrodynamic theory of flow (cell transmission model) – Time-based. with an event list • Inputs – network geometry – incidents – O-D flows – routing information .

NETCELL. cont’d • Principles (example) c e ll i l f lo w q m ax v -v kj d e n s it y .

ni(t) } l: length of cell ni(t): number of vehicles in cell i at time t Ni(t): max number of vehicles in cell i Qi(t): capacity flow into i for time interval t. and yi(t): number of vehicles that flow from cell i-1 to cell i in (t. cont’d cell i-1 c e ll i cell i+1 l ni(t+1) = ni(t) + yi(t) . t+1) Note: results are independent of the processing order of cells . Qi(t). Ni(t) .yi+1 (t) yi(t) = min { ni-1 (t). NETCELL.

high order models – theoretical considerations – empirical evidence • Recent developments include – effects due to lane drops – freeway-to-freeway interactions – bus effects • Importance of method for numerical solution • Numerical solution requires appropriate discretization of time and space ∆x e. Macroscopic Models: Comments • Debate: first order vs. g. ≥ free flow speed u f ∆t .

Macroscopic Models: Comments • Advantages – data requirements – execution speed • Usual output: aggregate measures of performance – queue lengths – speed contours – total delay – total travel time – fuel/pollution statistics .

Mesoscopic Traffic Simulation Models • Flow Representation • individual vehicles or groups of vehicles with similar characteristics (packets) • Traffic Dynamics • fluid approximation • queuing theory • Network Representation • integrated networks or corridors • link-based • lane-based • Traffic Control • aggregate by equivalent capacities • Detailed • Structure • time-based .

ITS. UNIX implementation. DTA deterministic queuing. simulator strategy generation. control Mahmassani speed-flow relationshi ps. Van Aerde evaluation PC implementation constant link travel times. relationships and DynaMIT. DePalma PC implementation * Microscopic version has also been developed . (DYNASMART -X) strategy generation. dynamic assignment PC implementation DTASQ Mahut. DYNASMART evaluation. distributed implementati on. speed -flow ITS operations Ben Akiva. METROPOLIS Planning. Florian ITS. packets of vehicles. CONTRAM TRRL planning. DTA Time-space queu ing model several levels of vehicle aggregation. DTA ITS Schwerdtfeger individual vehicles DYNEMO short-term traffic PTV speed-density relationships prediction platoon-based movement INTEGRATION* ITS operations of individual vehicles. Mesoscopic Simulation Models: Examples operations evaluation. DTA UNIX platforms ITS operations individual vehicles. pseudo . Supply evaluation control Koutsopoulos deterministic queuing. queue evolution.

Microscopic Traffic Simulation Models • Detailed • Synthesis of models • Driving behavior • Travel behavior • Control and routing strategies • Driver classes • Integrated networks (freeways.1 sec.g. time step) • Stochastic . 0. urban streets) • Usually time-based (e.

Microscopic Traffic Simulation: Application Needs 100% 91% 88% 83% 90% 81% 78% 74% 74% 80% 69% 63% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transport Telematics Functions Adaptive traffic signals Co-ordinated traffic signals Priority to Public Transport vehicles Vehicle Detectors Ramp metering Incident management Variable Message signs Dynamic Route Guidance Motorw ay flow control .

Microscopic Traffic Simulation: Functionality Needs crucial important useful not important not sure missing incidents public transport stops round-abouts commercial vehicles pedestrians t raffic calming measures parked vehicles bicycles/motorbikes weather condit ions search for parking space elaborate engine model 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent 90% 100% .

University of Leeds UK FLEXSYT II Ministry of Transport Netherlands FREEVU University of Waterloo. Turin Italy . School of Civil Engineering Australia ARTIST Bosch Germany CASIMIR Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et la Sécurité France CORSIM Federal Highway Administration USA DRACULA Institute for Transport Studies. Spain ANATOLL ISIS and Centre d’Etudes Techniques de l’Equipement France ARTEMiS University of New South Wales. University of Cologne Germany MICSTRAN National Research Institute of Police Science Japan MITSIMLab Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA NEMIS Mizar Automazione. Department of Civil Engineering Canada FRESIM Federal Highway Administration USA HUTSIM Helsinki University of Technology Finland INTEGRATION Queen’s University. Transportation Research Group Canada MELROSE Mitsubishi Electric Corporation Japan MICROSIM Centre of parallel computing (ZPR). Examples of Microscopic Simulation Models AIMSUN 2 Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.

leeds.ac. cont’d PADSIM Nottingham Trent University – NTU UK PARAMICS The Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre and Quadstone UK PHAROS Institute for simulation and training USA PLANSIM-T Centre of parallel computing (ZPR). University of Cologne Germany SIGSIM University of Newcastle UK SIMDAC ONERA – Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche de Toulouse France SIMNET Technical University Berlin Germany SISTM Transport Research Laboratory. Crowthorne UK SITRA-B+ ONERA – Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche de Toulouse France TRANSIMS Los Alamos National Laboratory USA THOREAU The MITRE Corporation USA VISSIM PTV System Software and Consulting GMBH Germany A detailed description of microscopic models can be found in: www.uk/smartest . Examples of Microscopic Simulation Models.its.

5 meter × 1 lane cellular automaton grid cells . TRANSIMS Microsimulation intersection with multiple turn buffers (not internally divided into grid cells) single-cell vehicle multiple-cell vehicle 7.

1 with probability p vi =  vmax otherwise . cont’d • For all particles i simultaneously – IF ( vi > gapi ⇒ deceleration)  gapi − 1 with probability p vi =   gapi otherwise – ELSE IF (vi < vmax ⇒ acceleration) vi with probability p vi =  vi + 1 otherwise – ELSE (vi = vmax and vi < gapi ⇒ free-flow) vmax . TRANSIMS Microsimulation.

Nanoscopic Simulation Models • General characteristics – detailed driver behavior – detailed vehicle dynamics model – detailed vehicle-drive interactions Model Organization Country Collision Warning TRW USA Simulator REAMACS (Rear-end Ford USA Collision Model) RORSIM (Run-off- Battele USA Road Simulator) AUTOBAHN Thomas Benz Germany Transport Research MIXIC Center of Netherlands Rijkswaterstaat SmartAHS PATH USA .

Applications of Traffic Simulation Models • Evaluation at the planning and policy level • Evaluation at the operational level – traffic control – intersection/urban street operations – freeway corridors – ITS – Automated Highway Systems (AHS) – Public transportation • Design – Optimization .

Applications of Traffic Simulation Models • Real time decision support systems – Prediction – Strategy design/evaluation • route guidance • traffic control • Research and development – New concepts and algorithms • Role – used independently – elements of larger systems • supply representation • dynamic network loading models (DNL) .

g. DYNASMART -X √ Micro e. METANET e. METANET √ √ Meso e.g. DYNASMART e.g. MITSIMLab Nano √ .g. DynaMIT.g. Control/Guidance Simulation Planning Optimization Type √ √ Macro e. Applications of Traffic Simulation Models Application Off-line On-line Evaluation/Design.

Summary • Integrated networks • Traffic dynamics – queue build-up and spillbacks • Travel behavior and demand • Driver characteristics and vehicle classes • Dynamic Traffic Management • Trends – Hybrid models .

General Comments • Model complexity • inputs • Calibration • Validation • program is a close approximation to reality • Estimation and calibration • Output analysis • large amounts of output • interpretation of results • Sources of error • functional • distributional • independence • aggregation • boundary effects .