Upload
cory-mclaughlin
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comparing Dynamic Traffic Assignment Approaches for
Planning
Ramachandran BalakrishnaDaniel Morgan
Qi Yang
Caliper Corporation
12th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, Houston, Texas
20th May, 2009
Outline
• Introduction• Motivation• DTA comparison methodology• TransModeler 2.0 overview• DTA in TransModeler 2.0• Empirical tests• Conclusion
Introduction• Within-day dynamics: I-405, Orange County, CA
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time of Day
Flo
w (
veh
/ho
ur)
Hourly Flows
5-Min Flows
[Source: PeMS on-line database]
• Temporal variability– Complex interactions of network demand– Aggregation error
Introduction (contd.)
• Static traffic assignment– Cannot capture detailed within-day dynamics– Does not handle capacity constraints, queues
• Produces unrealistic results (e.g. flow >> capacity)
• Dynamic traffic assignment (DTA)– Models temporal demand, supply variations
• Uses short time intervals, usually 5-30 minutes
– Captures capacity constraints, queues, spillbacks
– Superior to static for short-term planning• Evacuation & work zone planning, dynamic tolls,
etc.
Motivation• Different types of DTA
− Analytical− Simulation-based (micro, macro, meso)
• Tradeoffs perceived between realism, running time
• Methods are often chosen based on available computing resources
• Objective comparison of different methods is lacking
DTA Comparison Methodology
• Objective: User equilibrium (UE)− Dynamic extension of Wardrop’s principle− Same impedance (e.g. travel time) for all
used paths between each OD pair, for a given departure time interval
• Test DTAs on common platform and dataset
• Measure and compare convergence− Relative gap− Convergence rate
TransModeler 2.0 Overview
• Simulates urban traffic at many fidelities− Microscopic (car following, lane changing)− Mesoscopic (speed-density relationships)− Macroscopic (volume-delay functions)− Hybrid (all of the above)
• Employs realistic route choice models• Handles variety of network
infrastructure− Signals, variable message signs, sensors,
etc.
• Simulates multi-modal, multiple user classes
DTA in TransModeler 2.0
• Analytical (Planner’s DTA)− Based on Janson (1991), Janson & Robles
(1995)
• Simulation-based DTA− Feedback approach− Iterates on simulation output until
convergence
• All DTAs are run on same network
DTA in TransModeler 2.0 (contd.)
• Simulation-based DTA
− Feedback methods• Path flow feedback• Link travel time feedback
− Fidelity• Microscopic• Mesoscopic• Macroscopic• Hybrid
Simulation-Based DTA Framework
• Path flow averaging
Simulation-Based DTA Framework (contd.)• Link travel time averaging
• Averaging method
• Choice of averaging factor− Method of Successive Averages (MSA)− Polyak− Fixed-factor
Simulation-Based DTA Framework (contd.)
Empirical Tests
• Columbus, Indiana− 6630 nodes− 8811 links− 85 zones
− AM peak period• 7:00-9:00• ~42,000 trips
Empirical Tests (contd.)
• Static assignment
− Relative gap• 50 iters: ~0.008• 100 iters: ~0.006 • 2000 iters:
~0.0005
− Run time• 50 iters: ~36 sec• 100 iters: ~1 min• 2000 iters: ~24
min
Empirical Tests (contd.)
• DTA− Feedback method: MSA
• Path flow averaging• Link travel time averaging
− Model fidelity• Microscopic• Mesoscopic
• Four experiments
Empirical Tests (contd.)
• Microscopic DTA results
Empirical Tests (contd.)
• Mesoscopic DTA results
Empirical Tests (contd.)
• Feedback with path flows
Empirical Tests (contd.)
• Feedback with link travel times
Conclusion
• Static assignment is fast with known properties, but does not capture dynamics
• Simulation-based DTA is more realistic but slower and harder to analyze
• Travel time feedback appears to be faster than path flow averaging for simulation-based DTA
• Tests on more networks are required
Analytical DTA Framework
• Planner’s DTA− Based on Janson (1991), Janson & Robles
(1995)
− Bi-level, constrained optimization • Outer: consistent node arrival times• Inner: User equilibrium for given node arrival
times
− Extended by Caliper:• Spillback calculations• Stochastic user equilibrium• Better travel times
− Reasonable results on large planning networks