Relationship between mean and day-to-day variation in travel time in urban networks

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Vikash V. Gayah (1)
  Vinayak V. Dixit (2)
  S. Ilgin Guler (3)
  
• 关键词：Hysteresis ; Travel time reliability ; Macroscopic fundamental diagram ; Urban traffic network dynamics
• 刊名：EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：October 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：3
• 期：3-4
• 页码：227-243
• 全文大小：804 KB
• 参考文献：1. Aboudolas K, Papageorgiou M, Kouvelas A, Kosmatopoulos EB (2010) A rolling-horizon quadratic-programming approach to the signal control problem in large-scale congested urban road networks. Transp Res Part C 18(5):680鈥?94 CrossRef
  2. Ardekani S, Herman R (1987) Urban network-wide traffic variables and their relations. Transp Sci 21(1): 1鈥?6
  3. Asensio J, Matas A (2008) Commuters valuation of travel time variability. Transp Res Part E 44(6): 1074鈥?085 CrossRef
  4. Bates J, Dix M, May T (1987) Travel time variability and its effect on time of day choice for the journey to work. Transportation planning methods In: Proceedings of seminar C held at the PTRC summer annual meeting, pp 293鈥?11
  5. Bates J, Polak J, Jones P, Cook A (2001) The valuation of reliability for personal travel. Transp Res Part E 37(2): 191鈥?29 CrossRef
  6. Bates J, Fearon J, Black I (2003) Frameworks for modeling the variability of journey times on the highway network: a report for UK Department for Transport. Department for Transport, UK
  7. Brownstone D, Small KA (2005) Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations. Transp Res Part A 39(4): 279鈥?93
  8. Buisson C, Ladier C (2009) Exploring the impact of homogeneity of traffic measurements on the existence of macroscopic fundamental diagrams. Transp Res Rec 2124:127鈥?36
  9. Daganzo CF (2007) Urban gridlock: macroscopic modeling and mitigation approaches. Transp Res Part B 41(1): 49鈥?2 CrossRef
  10. Daganzo CF, Gayah VV, Gonzales EJ (2012) The potential of parsimonious models for understanding large scale transportation systems and answering big picture questions. Eur J Transp Logist
  11. Daganzo CF, Geroliminis N (2008) An analytical approximation for the macroscopic fundamental diagram of urban traffic. Transp Res Part B 42(1): 771鈥?81 CrossRef
  12. Daganzo CF, Gayah VV, Gonzales EJ (2011) Macroscopic relations of urban traffic variables: bifurcations, multivaluedness and instability. Transp Res Part B 45(1): 278鈥?88 CrossRef
  13. Dixit VV, Crowe J, Radwan E (2009) Evaluation and microscopic simulation of the Orlando downtown network. In: Final report submitted to the City of Orlando, Department of Transportation
  14. Dixit VV, Crowe J, Radwan E (2011) The calibration and validation of microsimulation using the two-fluid model. In: Proceedings of the 90th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board
  15. Edie LC (1965) Discussion of traffic stream measurements and definitions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on the theory of traffic flow, pp 139鈥?54
  16. Fosgerau M (2010) On the relation between the mean and variance of delay in dynamic queues with random capacity and demand. J Econ Dyn Control 34(4): 598鈥?03 CrossRef
  17. Gayah VV, Daganzo CF (2011) Clockwise hysteresis loops in the macroscopic fundamental diagram: an effect of network instability. Transp Res Part B 45(4): 643鈥?55 CrossRef
  18. Gayah VV, Daganzo CF (2012) Analytical capacity comparison of one-way and two-way signalized street networks. Transp Res Rec 2301:76鈥?5 CrossRef
  19. Gayah VV, Dixit VV (2013) Using mobile probe data and the macroscopic fundamental diagram to estimate network densities. Transp Res Rec (in press)
  20. Geroliminis N, Daganzo CF (2007) Macroscopic modeling of traffic in cities. In: Proceedings of the 86th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board
  21. Geroliminis N, Daganzo CF (2008) Existence of urban-scale macroscopic fundamental diagrams: some experimental findings. Transp Res Part B 42(9): 759鈥?70 CrossRef
  22. Geroliminis N, Sun J (2011) Hysteresis phenomena of a macroscopic fundamental diagram in freeway networks. Transp Res Part A 45(9): 966鈥?79
  23. Godfrey J (1969) The mechanism of a road network. Traffic Eng Control 11(7): 323鈥?27
  24. Haddad J, Geroliminis N (2012) On the stability of traffic perimeter control in two-region urban cities. Transp Res Part B 46(1): 1159鈥?176 CrossRef
  25. Herman R, Prigogine I (1979) A two-fluid approach to town traffic. Science 204(4389) 148鈥?51
  26. Hollander Y (2006) Direct versus indirect models for the effects of unreliability. Transp Res Part A 40(9): 699鈥?11
  27. Keyvan-Ekbatani M, Kouvelas A, Papamichail I, Papageorgiou M (2012) Exploiting the fundamental diagram of urban networks for feedback-based gating. Transp Res Part B 46(10): 1393鈥?403
  28. Knoop VL, Hoogdendoorn S, Van Lint JWC (2012) Routing strategies based on the macroscopic fundamental diagram. Transp Res Rec 2315:1-10
  29. Koster P, Verhoef E (2012) A rank dependent scheduling model. J Transp Econ Policy 46(1): 123鈥?38
  30. Li Z, Hensher DA, Rose JM (2010) Willingness to pay for travel time reliability in passenger transport: a review and some new empirical evidence. Transp Res Part E 46(3): 384鈥?03 CrossRef
  31. Peer S, Koopmans C, Verhoef E (2010) Predicting travel time variability for cost-benefit analysis. http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/10071.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2011
  32. Polak P (1987) A more general model of individual departure time choice transportation planning methods. In: Proceedings of seminar C held at the PTRC summer annual meeting, pp 247鈥?58
  33. Polak J, Hess S, Liu X (2008) Characterizing heterogeneity in attitudes to risk in expected utility models of mode and departure time choice. In: Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 87th annual meeting
  34. Saberi M, Mahmassani HS (2012) Exploring properties of networkwide flow鈥揹ensity relations in a freeway network. Transp Res Rec 2315:153鈥?63
  35. Sirivadidurage S, Gordon A, White C, Watling D (2009) Forecasting day to day variability in travel times on the UK motorway network. In: Proceedings of the European transportation conference
  36. Small KA (1999) Valuation of travel-time savings and predictability in congested conditions for highway user-cost estimation. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council
  37. Strategic Highway Research Program (2010) Analytical procedures for determining the impacts of reliability mitigation strategies. In: Final report, SHRP2 project L03
  38. Van Lint JWC, van Zuylen HJ, Tu H (2008) Travel time unreliability on freeways: why measures based on variance tell only half the story. Transp Res Part A 42(1): 258鈥?77
  39. Vickrey W (1969) Congestion theory and transport investment. Am Econ Rev 59(2): 251鈥?60
  
• 作者单位：Vikash V. Gayah (1)
  Vinayak V. Dixit (2)
  S. Ilgin Guler (3)
  
  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 223A Sackett Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA
  2. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, CE 106 Civil Engineering Building (H20), Sydney, 2052, Australia
  3. Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli Strasse 15 HIL F41.2, Zurich, 8093, Switzerland
  
• ISSN：2192-4384

文摘

The day-to-day reliability of transportation facilities significantly affects travel behavior. To better understand how travelers use these facilities, it is critical to understand and characterize this reliability for different facilities. Early work in this area assumed that the variance of day-to-day travel times (a measure of the inverse of reliability) increases proportionally with the mean travel time; i.e., as the mean travel time increases, travel time reliability decreases. However, recent empirical data for a single bottleneck facility and a small urban network suggest a more complex relationship that exhibits hysteresis. When this phenomenon is present, the variance in travel time is larger as the mean travel time decreases (congestion recovery) than as the mean travel time increases (congestion onset). This paper presents an elegant theoretical model to describe the variance of travel times across many days in an urban network. This formulation shows that the hysteresis behavior observed in empirical floating car data on urban networks should not be unexpected, and that it is linked to the hysteresis loops that often exist in the Macroscopic Fundamental Diagram of urban traffic. To verify the validity of this formulation, data from a micro-simulation of the City of Orlando, Florida, are used to derive an observed relationship with which to compare to theory. The simulated data are shown to match the theoretical predictions very well, and confirm the existence of hysteresis in the relationship between the mean and variance of travel times that is suggested by theory. These results can be used as a first step to more accurately represent travel time reliability in future models of traveler decision-making.