With the reliability of travel time high on the political agenda, tools are needed to predict these indicators for the reliability of travel time in ex ante evaluations. In this paper such a framework is developed for assessing traffic measures and policies under a range of scenarios, with a particular focus on the resulting travel time distribution. The framework uses Monte Carlo sampling to generate stochastic realizations of demand and supply characteristics. The former characteristics relate to variations in travel patterns, the latter to variations in drive behavior (capacities, speeds). An extensive effort is made to account for variability in demand and supply resulting from weather, road work, special events, and so forth. The overall conclusion is that incorporating the variability of demand and supply characteristics has a large effect on the results of evaluation studies. This effect is demonstrated in an example case on a real Dutch traffic network, in which a typical dynamic measure, the opening of a peak hour lane, is evaluated with the framework. In this case, the average demand and supply conditions used for the one-shot evaluation lead to an underestimation of spillback effects, which are captured when evaluating over a wide range of demand and supply characteristics. As a result, the gains in average travel time are significantly underestimated in the one-shot procedure (6% instead of 26%). Further research should focus on improving speed and validity over a wider range of circumstances of the developed framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
van LintH., HegyiA., and HoogendoornS. P.Dual EKF State and Parameter Estimation in Multi-Class First-Order Traffic Flow Models. Proc., 17th IFAC Congress, Vol. 17, 2008.
2.
SweetM.N., and ChenM.Does Regional Travel Time Unreliability Influence Mode Choice?Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
3.
KwonJ., BarkleyT., HranacR., PettyK., and CompinN.Decomposition of Travel Time Reliability into Various Sources: Incidents, Weather, Work Zones, Special Events, and Base Capacity. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2229, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 28–33.
van LintJ. W. C., van ZuylenH. J., and TuH.Travel Time Unreliability on Freeways: Why Measures Based on Variance Tell Only Half the Story. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008, pp. 258–277.
7.
TuH., van LintJ. W. C., and van ZuylenH. J.. Travel Time Reliability Model on Freeways. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
8.
ClarkS., and WatlingD.Modelling Network Travel Time Reliability Under Stochastic Demand. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2005, p. 119.
9.
BrownstoneD., and SmallK. A.Valuing Time and Reliability: Assessing the Evidence from Road Pricing Demonstrations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2005, pp. 279–293.
10.
LomaxT., SchrankD., TurnerS., and MargiottaR.Selecting Travel Reliability Measures.Texas Transportation Institute, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2003.
11.
van LintJ. W. C.Empirical Evaluation of New Robust Travel Time Estimation Algorithms. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2160, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 50–59.
12.
van LintJ. W. C., and HoogendoornS. P.A Robust and Efficient Method for Fusing Heterogeneous Data from Traffic Sensors on Freeways. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 8, 2010, pp. 596–612.
13.
OuQ., van LintH., and HoogendoornS. P.Fusing Heterogeneous and Unreliable Data from Traffic Sensors. In Studies in Computational Intelligence, 2010, pp. 511–545.
14.
WallerS.T., ZiliaskopoulosA.K., and SchoferJ. L.Evaluation with Traffic Assignment under Demand Uncertainty. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1771, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 69–74.
15.
ZhouX., RouphailN.M., and LiM.Analytical Models for Quantifying Travel Time Variability Based on Stochastic Capacity and Demand Distributions. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
16.
DongJ., and MahmassaniH. S.Predicting Flow Breakdown Probability and Duration in Stochastic Network Models: Impact on Travel Time Reliability. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
17.
GeroliminisN., and DaganzoC. F.Existence of Urban-Scale Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams: Some Experimental Findings. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2008, pp. 759–770.
18.
HoogendoornS., Hoogendoorn-LanserS., Van KootenJ., and PolderdijkS.Integrated Network Management: Toward an Operational Control Method. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
19.
BrilonW., and GeistefeldtJ.A Stochastic Approach for Freeway Performance Estimation. Pre-proceedings of the 23rd PIARC World Road Congress, Paris, Sept. 17–21, 2007.
20.
HoogendoornS.P., van LintH., and KnoopV.Dynamic First-Order Modeling of Phase-Transition Probabilities. In Traffic and Granular Flow, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009, pp. 85–92.
21.
van HinsbergenC. P. I. J., and van LintJ. W. C.. Bayesian Combination of Travel Time Prediction Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2064, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 73–80.
22.
DaganzoC. F.The Cell Transmission Model: A Dynamic Representation of Highway Traffic Consistent with the Hydrodynamic Theory. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1994, pp. 269–287.
23.
LebacqueJ. P.The Godunov Scheme and What It Means for First Order Traffic Flow Models. Proc., 13th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Lyon, France, 1996.
Van HinsbergenC. P. I. J., Van LintH., and van ZuylenH. J.. Neural Network Committee to Predict Travel Times: Comparison of Bayesian Evidence Approach to the Use of a Validation Set. Proc., 11th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Beijing, 2008, pp. 73–78.
26.
BucklewJ. A.Introduction to Rare Event Simulation.Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004.
27.
McKayM.D., BeckmanR.J., and ConoverW. J.A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics, Vol. 21. No. 2, 1979, pp. 239–245.
28.
HessS., TrainK.E., and PolakJ. W.On the Use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) Method in the Estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for Vehicle Choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2006, pp. 147–163.
29.
ParkB., and SchneebergerJ. D.Microscopic Simulation Model Calibration and Validation: Case Study of VISSIM Simulation Model for a Coordinated Actuated Signal System. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1856, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 185–192.
30.
DjukicT., van LintJ.W.C., and HoogendoornS. P.Efficient Methodology for Benchmarking Dynamic Origin–Destination Demand Estimation Methods. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2263, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 35–44.
31.
TuZ.Z., van LintH., and van ZuylenH.The Effects of Traffic Accidents on Travel Time Reliability. Proc., 11th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Beijing, 2008, pp. 79–84.
