An innovative approach that uses static origin-destination (O-D) matrices to model travel demand in dynamic urban traffic models is presented. Dynamic traffic assignment models require the use of time-dependent or dynamic O-D matrices whose acquisition and estimation can be costly and whose consistency can prove difficult to maintain, whereas static O-D matrices of overall trip demand have been estimated for various cities during the last decade. In contrast, the synthetic approach describes the user departure time behavior in a separate model that splits the demand specification into two distinct blocks: the departure time behavior and the time-independent trip demand. Pros and cons of this method are presented with an application to the Paris region with the dynamic simulator METROPOLIS. Guidelines for model designers and planners who are considering the shift to dynamic traffic simulation tools are also presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgersS., BernauerE., BoeroM., BreheretL., Di TarantoC., DoughertyM., FoxK., and GabardJ.-F.. Smartest Project: Review of Micro-Simulation Models. EU Project, Deliverable D3, Aug.1997. http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/deliv3.htmlAccessed July 9, 2001.
2.
YangQ.A Simulation Laboratory for Evaluation of Dynamic Traffic Management Systems. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1997.
3.
MessmerA., and PapageorgiouM.. METANET: A Macroscopic Simulation Program for Motorway Networks. Traffic Engineering and Control, Sept.1990, pp. 466–470.
4.
RanB., RouphailN. M., TarkoA., and BoyceD. E.. Toward a Class of Link Travel Time Functions for Dynamic Assignment Models on Signalized Networks. Transportation Research, Vol. B31, No 4, 1997, pp. 277–290.
5.
FlorianM., and HearnD.. Network Equilibrium Models and Algorithms. In Vol. 8: Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Network Routing (BallM. O., MagnantiT. L., MonmaC. L., and NernhauserG. L., eds.), Elsevier Science, New York, 1995.
6.
CremerM., and KellerH.. A New Class of Dynamic Methods for the Identification of Origin-Destination Flows. Transportation Research, Vol. 21B, No. 2, 1987, pp. 117–132.
7.
BellM. G. H.The Real Time Estimation of Origin-Destination Flows in the Presence of Platoon Dispersion. Transportation Research, Vol. 25B, 1991, pp. 115–125.
8.
AshokK., and Ben-AkivaM. E.. Dynamic Origin-Destination Matrix Estimation and Prediction for Real-Time Traffic Management Systems. In Transportation and Traffic Theory (DaganzoC. F. and NewellG. F., ed.), Elsevier, New York, 1993.
9.
CascettaE., InaudiD., and MarquisG.. Dynamic Estimators of Origin-Destination Matrices Using Traffic Counts. Transportation Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1993, pp. 363–373.
10.
WuJ., and ChangG.-L.. Estimation of Time-Varying Origin-Destination Distributions with Dynamic Screenline Flows. Transportation Research B, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1996, pp. 277–290.
11.
Ben-AkivaM., BierlaireM., KoutsopoulosH., and MishalaniR.. Dyna-MIT: A Simulation-Based System for Traffic Prediction and Guidance Generation. Presented at TRISTAN III, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1998.
12.
VickreyW. S.Congestion Theory and Transport Investment. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), Vol. 59, 1969, pp. 251–261.
13.
ArnottR., de PalmaA., and LindseyR.. A Structural Model of Peak Period Congestion: A Traffic Bottleneck with Elastic Demand. American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 1, 1993, pp. 161–179.
14.
Ben-AkivaM., CynaM., and de PalmaA.. Dynamic Model of Peak Period Congestion. Transportation Research, Vol 18B, No. 4/5, 1984, pp. 339–355.
15.
SmallK.The Scheduling of Consumer Activities: Work Trips. American Economic Review, Vol. 72, 1982, pp. 467–79.
16.
HendricksonC., and PlankE.. The Flexibility of Departure Times for Work Trips. Transportation Research A, Vol. 18A, No. 1, 1984, pp. 25–36.
17.
BatesJ.Time Period Choice Modeling: A Preliminary Review. Report for Department of Transport—HETA Division, John Bates Services, London, 1996.
18.
MahmassaniH. S., ChangG.-L., and HermanR.. Individual Decisions and Collective Effects in a Simulated Traffic System. Transportation Science, Vol. 20, 1986, pp. 258–271.
19.
MahmassaniH. S., and JouR.-C.. Transferring Insights into Commuter Behavior Dynamics from Laboratory Experiments to Field Surveys. Transportation Research A, 2000, pp. 243–260.
20.
de PalmaA., and RochatD.. Congestion Urbaine et Comportement des Usagers: Analyse de la Composante Horaire. Revue d’Economie Urbaine et Régionale, Vol. 3, 1996, pp. 467–488.
21.
de PalmaA., KhattakA., and GuptaD.. Commuters’ Departure Time Decisions in Brussels, Belgium. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 139–146.
22.
de PalmaA., and MarchalF.. Analysis of Travel Cost Components Using Large-Scale, Dynamic Traffic Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 177–184.
23.
AshokK.Estimation and Prediction of Time-Dependent Origin-Destination Flows. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1996.
24.
de PalmaA., and FontanC.. Maddif: Enquête Multimotifs Adaptés à la Dynamique des Comportements des Déplacements en Ile-de-France. Technical Report. DRAST/Predit No. 99MT20.
25.
de PalmaA., MarchalF., and NesterovY.. METROPOLIS: Modular System for Dynamic Traffic Simulation. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 178–184.
26.
de PalmaA., and MarchalF.. METROPOLIS—A Dynamic Simulation Model Designed for ATIS Applications. In Proc., ICTTS ’98, Beijing, 1998.
27.
MahmassaniH. S., PillaiR., and StevensJ.. DYNASMART-P for Work Zone Planning. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2001.
28.
Ben-AkivaM., and KoutsopoulosH. N.. DynaMIT: Modeling Approach and Applications. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2001.
