Lecture1 Merged
Lecture1 Merged
Lecture1 Merged
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
8.1.2 Inp
puts and Ou
utputs in Assigning a Network
To carry out a traffic assignment, the followiing data are rrequired:
1. The
T number of trips thatt will be maade from onne zone to annother (this informationn was
determined frrom trip distrribution phaase.
2. Available
A hig
ghway or tran
nsit routes between zonees.
3. How
H long it will
w take to trravel on eacch route.
4. A decision ru
ule (or algoriithm) that ex
xplains how m
motorists orr transit userss select a rouute.
5. External
E tripss that were not consideered in the pprevious tripp generationn and distribbution
stteps.
All
A assignment techniquees are based
d on route seelection. Thee choice of rroute is baseed on
several criteria
c such
h as travel tiime, length of travel, c ost of traveel, comfort, conveniencee and
safety.
The
T highway network is described
d by
y a system off links and nnodes (Figuree 8.2).
Link: A link is a section of a hig
ghway netwo
ork between two intersecctions.
Node: A node is eith
her the centro
oid of a zonee or the two or more inteersections.
At low traffic volumes, the marginal or additional total travel time contributed to all
vehicles by an additional vehicle entering the traffic stream is small. At a volume of 3000
vehicles per hour the average travel time per vehicle is 15 minutes. The marginal travel time
imposed on the set of vehicles by one additional vehicle is 105 minutes. The extra vehicle would
actually experience a travel term increased by 90 minutes.
Fig
gure 8.3 Va
ariation of Travel
T Timee with Trafffic Volume
Wardrop’s
W firrst criterion is equivalen
nt to the nottion of averaage cost priccing of econnomic
theory. Drivers
D mig
ght be regarrded as actiing selfishlyy in that thhey considerr only their own
individuaal travel timees in making
g route choicce decisions,, and not thee manner in which their route
choice in
nfluences thee aggregate travel
t time experienced
e by all motoorists. That iis, they base their
route cho
oice decision
ns on the aveerage travel time
t relationnship.
User equ
uilibrium critterion:
“The
“ averag
ge journey times
t mum which implies thaat the
of all motorists aare a minim
aggregatee vehicle hou
urs spent in travelling iss a minimum
m”.
A user optimal pattern reefers to the in
ndividual pooint of view of each mootorists who tends
to be unaaware of, or at least to be unresponsive to, certaain costs he iimposes on oothers. Hencce the
driver wiill rationally
y not take intto account th
hese costs inn his travel rrelated decissions. Driverrs are
only con
ncerned with
h the privatee costs that they
t must bbear themselves such as petrol costss, the
time cosst of making
g the trip and
a maintaining the veehicle. Conssequently, m
motorists tennd to
underestiimate the soccial cost of trip
t that shou
uld include aall impacts oof their activities on otheers.
A path flow is
i called Waardrop user equilibrium when no drriver has lesss costly alteernate
route.
Wardrop restated “each path in use operates at minimum cost and each unused path
shows at least minimum cost”.
Wardrop’s second criterion implies that motorists select their routes according to the
marginal cost criterion of economic theory. Drivers are thought to as acting as though they are
aware of the way in which their route choices influence travel times of all drivers using the road
network. If motorists react to the marginal costs they create when they choose a route, then the
total travel time of all vehicles using the system will be minimized.
A number of studies of the route selection behaviour of motorists have shown that
motorists behave according to some criterion intermediate between the two criteria. Blunden and
Taylor both argue that wardrop’s second criterion describes the route choices of motorists better
than Wardrop’s first criterion. However, this evidence is far from conclusive and most of the
traffic assignment techniques used on a routine basis in urban transport studies assumes that
Wardrop’s second criterion governs trip-distribution behaviour. The other trip-distribution
techniques assume that the minimum individual average travel times govern trip-distribution
behaviour.
8.2.2 Diversion Curves
Diversion curve models was developed in early 1950s to know how many drivers would be
diverted from arterial streets to a proposed freeway in order to make decisions related to the
geometric design and capacity of proposed urban freeways.
This model employs empirically derived curves to compute the percentage of trips that would
use the freeway in route between two points on some measure of relative impedance between the
freeway route and the fastest arterial route between the two points.
Fig
gure 8.4 Caliifornia diverrsion curves
8.2.3 Dettroit diversiion curves
The Detrroit Area Traansportation study estim
mated diversioon from a soomewhat diffferent viewppoint,
still using
g a two-paraameter appro
oach. In thiss case, the paarameters foound to be reelated to freeeway
usage weere the ratio of expressw
way speed to
o arterial speeed, and the ratio of exppressway disstance
to arterial distance.. In each case
c the minimum
m appplicable paath was useed for the ratio
computattions.
The diversion curve developed
d by Detroit Arrea Transporrtation Studyy is given in fig 8.5.
Fiigure 8.5 Deetroit diversiion curves
8.2.4 Burreau of Pub
blic Roads Diversion
D Cu
urve
Undoubtedly, the mo
ost widely used method of diversionn is that whiich is availabble in the Buureau
of Public Road’s series of traafic planning computerr programs. This form
m of diversioon is
dependen
nat on one parameter
p on
nly, the ratio
o of travel ttimes by thee quickest coombined artterial-
freeway route to the quickest arrterial-only route.
r With a one-param
meter relationnship, one ssingle
diversion
n curve defin
nes the relatiionship. Thee form of S-sshaped diverrsion curve iis similar to those
used in th
he Detroit sttudy for high
her speed rattios. Total frreeway usagee occurs wheen the travell time
ratios falll below 48% while no
o freeway ussage can bee anticipatedd when the travel time ratio
exceeds 150% of th
he quickest surface routte.Diversionn curve deveeloped by B
Bureau of P
Public
Road’s iss given in Fiigure 8.6.
100
EQUAL TIME
90
50 50% USAGE
40
30
20
10
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
TRAVEL TIME RATIO
Figure 8.8
8 Variatioon of Travell Time Ratioo
88
Where:
T = congested link
l travel time;
To = original (fr
free flow) linnk travel tim
me;
v = assigned trraffic volumee; and
c = the link caapacity
EXA
AMPLE
Examplee 1
To demoonstrate how the most coommon assiggnment workks, an exampple network is consideredd.
This netw
work has twoo nodes haviing two pathhs as links.
Let us suuppose a casee where travvel time is noot a functionn of flow as shown
s in oth
her words it is
constant as shown inn the figure below.
b
Figgure 8.9
Two Link Problem
P withh constant traavel time funnction
All or noothing:
The traveel time functtions for bothh the links iss given by:
= 10;; t2 =15
And totall flows from
m 1 to 2.
q12 = 12
Since thee shortest patth is Link 1 all flows aree assigned too it making =12 and = 0.
User Equuilibrium:
Substitutting the traveel time in eqquations 1 - 5 yield to
Min : Z (x) =
= 10x1 + 15x2
Substitutting: x1 + x2 = 12
89
Substitutting , inn the abovve formulattion will yield
y the unconstraine
u ed
formulatiion as below
w:
Min Z(x)) = 10x1 + 155(12 – x1)
Differenttiate the above equatioon w.r.t and equatte to zero, and solving
g for annd
then lleads to the solution
s = 12, = 0.
0
System O
Optimizationn:
Substitutting the traveel time in eqquation: (6-8)), we get thee following:
Min: Z (x) =
= 10x1 + 15x2
Substitutting: x1 + x2 = 12
Substitutting the above
a formuulations takess the followiing form:
Min Z(x) = 10x1 + 15(112 – x1)
Differenttiate the above equatioon w.r.t and equatte to zero, and solving
g for annd
then lleads to the solution
s = 12, = 0.
0
Comparison of resultts:
After sollving each of
o the formuulations the results are ttabulated in Table 8.5. One
O can infe
fer
that if thhe travel tim
me is indepeendent of thhe flow, theen essentiallly there in no
n differencce
between the various assignment
a t
types.
T
Table 8.5: Comparison
C of results foor example 1
Type T
TSTT
A
AON 10 15 12 0 1
120 1220
U
UE 10 15 12 0 1
120 1220
SO 10 15 12 0 1
120 1220
Examplee 2
90
Figu
ure 8.10
Two Linkk Problem with
w variable travel time function
f
Let’s now
w take a casee where travvel time funcctions for botth the links aare given by:
= 10 + 3x1; t2 =155 + 2x2
And totall flows from
m 1 to 2.
q12 = 12
All or Noothing Assig
gnment:
Assume which makees t1 = 10 and
a t2 = 15. Since the shhortest path is Link 1 aall
flows aree assigned too it making x1 =12 and x2 = 0.
User Equuilibrium:
Substitutting the traveel time in eqquations 1 - 5 yield to
Min : Z (x) =
= 10x1 + + 15x2 +
Substitutting: x1 + x2 = 12
Substitutting , inn the abovve formulattion will yield
y the unconstraine
u ed
formulatiion as below
w:
Min Z = 10x1 +
Z(x) + 155(12-x1) +
Differenttiate the abbove equatiion w.r.t x1 and equatee to zero, and solvinng for x2 annd
then x2 lleads to the solution
s x1 = 5.8, x2 = 6.2.
System O
Optimizationn:
Substitutting the traveel time in eqquation: (6-8)), we get thee following:
91
Min: Z (x) =
= 10xx1+ 3x12+ 15xx2+2x22
Substitutting: x1 + x2 = 12
Substitutting the above
a formuulations takess the followiing form:
Min Z(x) = 10x1+ 3x12+ 15(12-x1) +2(12-x1)2
Differenttiate the abbove equatioon w.r.t zerro, and solvving for x1 and then x2 leads to thhe
solution x1* = 5.3, x2* = 6.7, and z(x*) = 327.55.
Comparison of resultts:
After sollving each of
o the formuulations the results are ttabulated in Table 8.6. One
O can infe
fer
that unliike earlier, the variouss assignmennt types shoows consideerable differrences in thhe
performaance. AON has
h obviouslyy the worst solution
s andd SO has the best.
Tyype TSTT
AO
ON 10 1
15 12 0 4677.44 552
UE
E 27.4 27.4
2 5.8 6.2 2399.0 328.8
SO
O 30.1 25.6
2 5.3 6.7 3277.5 327.5
92
bottlenecks on other links can also be a factor. Queues build as volumes approach the
bottleneck
Although some software packages allow node-based capacities, delays, or performance
functions which allows for better modelling of intersection dynamics. However, many of the
problems described above cannot be eliminated through network solutions. Some of these
issues can be addressed by considering the effects of flows on other links and the delays at a
junction, on the link under investigation.
ERRORS AND VALIDATION:
In contrast with the other three steps- trip generation, trip distribution, and model split- there
is no standard calibration procedure to ensure that the assignment stage reproduces closely
matched observations. Since the assignment of trips to the network is the final output of the
modelling process, assignment provides an ideal opportunity to conduct a number of error
checks. Many of these checks focus on the highway and transit assignment results compared
to observed values. Some of the more important aspects to consider as part of validation and
error checking are:
The plotted trees will show if network building follows logical routes.
VMT is an important indicator of adequate model calibration since it addresses all
four steps in the travel demand modeling process. The observed VMT is obtained
from a traffic counting program and compared with the modelled values. The
allowable difference between the two values should be 5% or less for regional
models.
For the base year, compare the external station volumes with the actual counts. For
the forecast year, compare the volumes to the base year counts, and evaluate the
reasonableness of the growth.
Compared counted and modelled screen line volumes these differences should be in
the range of plus or minus 15%.
Compare assigned volumes to ground counts for groups of links. Assigned volumes
should reasonably compare to ground counts, recognizing that both assigned volumes
and ground counts are estimates.
93