The network structure of an urban transportation system has a significant impact on its traffic performance. This study used network indicators along with several traffic performance measures, including speed, trip length, travel time, and traffic volume, to compare a selection of seven transportation networks with a variety of structures under different travel demand conditions. The selected network structures were modified linear, branch, grid, three-directional grid, one-ring web, two-ring web, and radial. Chosen for the analysis was a base origin–destination matrix to which different multiplier factors were applied to simulate various travel demand conditions. Results show that overall the two-ring web network offered the most efficient traffic performance, followed by the grid and the one-ring networks. A policy application of this study is that the branch, three-directional grid, and radial networks are suited mostly for small cities with uncongested traffic conditions. In contrast, the two-ring web, grid, and one-ring web networks are better choices for large urban areas because they offer more connectivity and thus allow them to perform efficiently under congested traffic conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GarrisonW. L., and MarbleD. F.. The Structure of Transportation Networks. Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., 1962.
2.
KanskyK. J.Structure of Transportation Networks: Relationships Between Network Geometry and Regional Characteristics. MS thesis. University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., 1963.
3.
RodrigueJ.-P.The Geography of Transport Systems. Routledge, London, 2009.
4.
NewellG. F., and DaganzoC. F.. Design of Multiple-Vehicle Delivery Tours. I. A Ring-Radial Network. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1986, pp. 345–363.
5.
NewellG. F., and DaganzoC. F.. Design of Multiple Vehicle Delivery Tours. II. Other Metrics. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1986, pp. 365–376.
6.
SteadD., and MarshallS.. The Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Patterns. An International Review and Evaluation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2001, pp. 113–141.
7.
PolzinS. E.The Relationship Between Land Use, Urban Form and Vehicle Miles of Travel: The State of Knowledge and Implications for Transportation Planning. BC 353-46. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2004.
8.
BuhlJ., GautraisJ., ReevesN., SoléR. V., ValverdeS., KuntzP., and TheraulazG.. Topological Patterns in Street Networks of Self-Organized Urban Settlements. European Physical Journal B, Vol. 49, No. 4, March2006, pp. 513–522.
9.
VolchenkovD.Analysis of Urban Complex Networks. Condensed Matter Physics, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008, pp. 331–340.
10.
HuY., WuQ., and ZhuD.. Topological Patterns of Spatial Urban Street Networks. Presented at 2008 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM 2008), Dalian, China, 2008.
11.
XieF., and LevinsonD.. Measuring the Structure of Road Networks. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 3, July2007, pp. 336–356.
12.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.NCHRP Report 664: Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
13.
NagaR. P., and FanY.. Associative Memory Techniques for Quick Estimation of Network Performance Measures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2039, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 75–82.
14.
JiangB.A Topological Pattern of Urban Street Networks: Universality and Peculiarity. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, Vol. 384, No. 2, Oct.2007, pp. 647–655.
15.
RuiY., BanY., WangJ., and HaasJ.. Exploring the Patterns and Evolution of Self-Organized Urban Street Networks Through Modeling. European Physical Journal B, Vol. 86, No. 3, 2013, pp. 1–8.
16.
LevinsonD.Network Structure and City Size. PLoS ONE, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan.2012, p. e29721.
17.
YangB., LuanX., and LiQ.. An Adaptive Method for Identifying the Spatial Patterns in Road Networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2010, pp. 40–48.
18.
ZhangL., and LevinsonD.. A Model of the Rise and Fall of Roads. Presented at the Engineering Systems Symposium 2004, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
19.
TsekerisT., and GeroliminisN.. City Size, Network Structure and Traffic Congestion. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 76, 2013, pp. 1–14.
20.
MazloumianA., GeroliminisN., and HelbingD.. The Spatial Variability of Vehicle Densities as Determinant of Urban Network Capacity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 368, No. 1928, 2010, pp. 4627–4647.
21.
GeroliminisN., and DaganzoC. F.. Existence of Urban-Scale Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams: Some Experimental Findings. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2008, pp. 759–770.
22.
CraneR.On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It?Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1996, pp. 117–126.
23.
AderinlewoO., and OkineN. A.. Effect of Transportation Infrastructure Network Size on Its Performance During Disruptions. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2009, pp. 295–298.
24.
SnellenD., BorgersA., and TimmermansH.. Urban Form, Road Network Type, and Mode Choice for Frequently Conducted Activities: A Multilevel Analysis Using Quasi-Experimental Design Data. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 34, No. 7, 2002, pp. 1207–1220.
25.
XieF., and LevinsonD.. Topological Evolution of Surface Transportation Networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2009, pp. 211–223.
26.
KennedyC., and DerribleS. J.-M.. Network Analysis of World Subway Systems Using Updated Graph Theory. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2112, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 17–25.
27.
DerribleS., and KennedyC.. Evaluating, Comparing, and Improving Metro Networks: Application to Plans for Toronto, Canada. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2146, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 43–51.
28.
DerribleS., and KennedyC.. Applications of Graph Theory and Network Science to Transit Network Design. Transport Reviews, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2011, pp. 495–519.
29.
DerribleS.Network Centrality of Metro Systems. PLoS ONE, Vol. 7, No. 7, 2012, p. e40575.
