Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Roberto Horowitz Professor
Mechanical Engineering
PATH Director
Pravin Varaiya Professor in the Graduate School
EECS
University of California, Berkeley
Traffic Monitoring and Control Systems and Tools
Carlos Canudas de Wit
Director of Research at the CNRS NeCS Team director
Grenoble France
2
Information flow in ITS TOPL at UC Berkeley Grenoble Traffic Lab
Traffic Monitoring and Control Systems and Tools
3 P / 3
Real-time Information flow in ITS
Real-time Information (ICT) flow
Collecting Communicating Processing Serving
4 P / 4
Information collection: measures, filter & aggregate real-time information
Large offer in new sensor technologies:
• Wireless, • Heterogeneous, • Richness, • Mobile
Collecting Communicating Processing Serving
5 P / 5
Communicate Information; build ups a information flow from sensors to system
New communication Technologies will open opportunities:
• Vehicle-to-Vehicle communications, • Vehicle-to-Infrastructure, • Infrastructure-to-Vehicles, • Information to users
Collecting Communicating Processing Serving
6 P / 6
Processing (controlling) Information: brings add value at the brut information
Ramp meeting control (EURAMP source) Variable speed control (Mail online source)
Ramp metering control: • Products already in use are not
optimal, • Decentralized, • Room for a lot of improvements
Variable velocity control: • Under investigation, • Relay on “Soft” actuators (drivers), • High potentially
Collecting Communicating Processing Serving
7 P / 7
Information serving: services to users
The results of the processed information is transformed into user services:
• Desktop applications, • Mobile phones, • On-board navigation devices, • Traffic control centers
Collecting Communicating Processing Serving
8 P / 8
Expected impact & Benefits of using feedback control
From Cambridge Systematics for the Minnesota Department of Transportation 2001
Expected Benefits
• Decrease traveling time • Regularity • Reduce accidents • Decreases stop-go behavior • Reduce emission of pollutants • Minimize fuel consumptions
9
Information flow in ITS TOPL at UC Berkeley Grenoble Traffic Lab
Traffic Monitoring and Control Systems and Tools
10
TOPL (Tools for Operations Planning)
TOPL TEAM
Gunes Dervisoglu
Gabriel Gomes
Roberto Horowitz
Alex A Kurzhanskiy
Xiao-Yun Lu
Ajith Muralidharan
Rene O. Sanchez
Dongyan Su
Pravin Varaiya
TOPL PI’s
Roberto Horowitz
Professor
Mechanical Engineering
Pravin Varaiya
Professor
EECS
Supported by grants from Caltrans and National Science Foundations
11
Motivation
2007 USA Traffic Congestion Caused:
• 4.2 billion hours of additional travel time
• 11 billion litters of additional fuel
Congestion delay in California:
500,000 veh-hrs/day
will double in 2025
San Francisco I-80 Bay-shore morning
commute
12
What is TOPL? (Tools for Operational Planning)
TOPL provide tools to
– specify actions for traffic corridor operational improvements:
ramp metering, incident management, traveler information, and demand management;
– quickly estimate the benefits of such actions
TOPL is
– based on macro-simulation models that are
– automatically calibrated using traffic data
– can be extended for real time traffic monitoring, prediction and control
13
Perform traffic operation control
simulation studies and test enhancements:
• ramp metering, variable speed limits
• incident management,
• traveler information,
• demand management, etc.
R. Horowitz and P. Varaiya Automatic modeling of freeway corridors
Select & “prune”
corridor from
Google maps
Import corridor freeway
and arterial topology
into the AURORA
simulator
Use PeMS traffic data for automatic
• model calibration
• imputation of missing detector data
Help Caltrans achieve a 55% reduction in traffic congestion by 2025
I880
corridor
14
Examples: I210-W (Pasadena, CA) and 880-N (Bay Area)
PostMile
Tim
e [
hr]
Simulated Flow [veh/hr]
30 35 40 45 50
0
5
10
15
20
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
PostMile
Tim
e [
hr]
PeMS Flow [veh/hr]
30 35 40 45 50
0
5
10
15
20
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Flow contours (PeMS vs simulation) <5% error
actual (PeMS) Simulation
0 5 10 15 20 250
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18x 10
4
Time [hr]
VM
T [hr]
PeMS - 2382765.7187
Simulated - 2293213.3404
0 5 10 15 20 250
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Time [hr]
VH
T [hr]
PeMS - 41359.7252
Simulated - 38954.0928
0 5 10 15 20 250
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time [hr]
Dela
y [hr]
PeMS - 2191.8674
Simulated - 2172.1491
Performance Measurements (PeMS vs simulation)
VHT VMT Delay
I880-N Accident simulation
I210-W
(Pasadena)
Simulation vs PeMS
PeMS
Traffic-responsive
Ramp metering
15
Some details of TOPL Self-Callibration Procedure
Network
Specification
Fundamental
Diagram
calibration
Ramp flow
imputation
Fault
Detection
Base Case
Simulation
Scenario Simulation
for Planning
Specify Freeway Network
– Eg: I-210 EW , I-880S, I-80E
Data
– PeMS (Perfromance Measurement Systems) – Data archive
– Aggregate flow, density and Speed data from loop detectors
Perform TOPL procedures for operations
planning/ benefit assessment
16
A decision support structure for ATM
Model
calibration
Traffic
data
Estimation of
missing flows
and split ratios
Simulator
Networks Scenarios
and tactics
Analyzer
Traffic
measurements
Current and historical
flows and densities
Prediction of
baseline and
hypothetical
outcomes Warnings and
recommendations
Scenario
selection
Deployment of
operational
measures
17
Towards a Smart Corridor TMC
security
assessment productivity
loss
non-recur.
congestion
recurrent
congestion
control
center
SCADA
scenario
database trusted, fast corridor simulator
traffic state estimation
and prediction
alarm alarm alarm alarm
Supervisory Control And
Data Acquisition
Road network
19
ATM Workflow
20
Example I-80 W, 01/14/09 Calibration
24:00
18:00
12:00
6:00
0:00
Speed contours
Measured (PeMS) Simulated
Performance measures
VHT VMT
0:00 6:0 12:00 18:00 24:00 0:00 6:0 12:00 18:00 24:00
Measured (PeMS)
Simulated
21
Example: HOT lane management
Changes in % traffic in HOT
lane produce changes in
total delay.
20% HOT traffic 25% HOT traffic
HO
T la
ne
G
P la
ne
s
Eve
nin
g d
ela
y
780 90
22
Example I-80 W, 01/14/09 Best/worst case prediction
Current time 6:00 am
Prediction horizon: 2 hours
Uncertainty: 1% in capacity, 2% in demands
23
Example I-80 W, 01/14/09 Best/worst case prediction
worst case
best case
Time (AM)
VHT
Delay
VMT
Past Future
24
Example I-80 W, 01/14/09 Best/worst case prediction
Density at
Past Future
Time (AM)
Speed at worst case
best case
best case
worst case
25
Example I-80 W, 01/14/09 Best/worst case prediction
Density at
Past Future
Time (AM)
Speed at
worst case best case
best case worst case
Ramp metering at
26
Example I-80 W, 01/14/09 Accident hot spot
accident
hot spot
27
I-80 West accident strategy 4: ALINEA and VMS detour
accident
VMS
detour
ALINEA + queue control:
upstream of accident
VMS Detour: 10% use Carlson
and Central junctions to 580 EB
VMS
detour
Carlson route Central route
28
Information flow in ITS TOPL at UC Berkeley Grenoble Traffic Lab
Traffic Monitoring and Control Systems and Tools
29
Wireless magnetic sensor Speed and density
Model-based
control
M2M network 4 sensors per line each 400 m
Public-Private
Partnership
DIR-CE
GTL is a WSN data collection platform for real-time traffic modeling, prediction and control
NeCS Research in
model estimation & Control
Show room
• A national center of traffic data collection • Multi-purposes data exploitation (model, prediction, control, statistics, etc.) • Public Partnership: INRETS, DIR-CE, CG38, Metro, • Research transfer to KARRUS-ITS (Grenoble start-up)
Micro-Simulator
Data Base
30
Long-term GTL Strategy
31
WP5 – Benchmark: Traffic Modeling, Estimation and Control C. Canudas de Wit
Context: Grenoble south ring, wireless sensor networks