Some Guidelines for Selecting Microsimulation Models for Interchange Traffic Operational Analysis
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 131, Issue 7
Abstract
There are several commercially available traffic simulation packages that are able to model the full range of interchange ramp terminals. Each of these packages has pros and cons for simulating various types of interchanges and traffic control plans. Previous research has studied specific simulators in terms of their capabilities for simulating single urban point interchanges (SPUIs) and diamond interchanges. There is no guidance provided however on how to generally select appropriate simulators based on their capabilities and internal algorithms for analyzing specific interchange design and control scenarios. This paper focuses on identifying the elements that should be available in a simulator in order to evaluate a specific interchange scenario (including type, geometry, and traffic control characteristics). The paper does not identify all the specific packages that are appropriate for a specific scenario because these evolve constantly; even though the current version of a package may not support a particular function, future versions of that package may incorporate it. Thus, identifying the most appropriate package would very quickly become obsolete. It is up to the analyst to examine whether a particular characteristic or algorithm is present in a specific package. To accomplish this, three simulators were selected and studied: AIMSUN, CORSIM, and VISSIM. Data from two interchanges (one SPUI and one diamond interchange) at Arizona were obtained and used in the assessment of these packages. The model parameters and assumptions are examined for each model. Simulation is conducted first by using default parameter values followed by a calibration process to adjust parameters related to driver behavior, vehicle performance, and others. In conclusion, several elements are identified as critical in simulating interchanges, which fall in the following categories: (1) the capability of representation of specific geometric characteristics; (2) the capability of simulating specific signal control plans; (3) calibration needs and accuracy in comparison to field conditions; (4) the extraction of specific performance measures from the simulator; and (5) other observations from the research.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgment
This work was sponsored partly by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
References
Elefteriadou, L., et al. (2004), “NCHRP project 3-60 final report: Capacity and quality of service analysis of interchange ramp terminals.” Rep. Perpared for the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1997). Traffic software integrated system 97 user’s guide, Washington, D.C.
Garber, N. J., and Fontaine, M. D. (1999). “Final report: Guidelines for preliminary selection of the optimum interchange type for a specific location.” Rep. No. VTRC 99-R15, Virginia Transportation Research Council, in Cooperation with the U. S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Charlottesville, Va.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). (2000). Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.
Hourdakis, J., and Michalopoulos, P. G. (2003). “A practical procedure for calibrating microscopic traffic simulation models.” Proc., 82nd Transportation Research Board 2003 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Milam, R. T., and Choa, F. (2002). “Recommended guideliness for the cablibration and validation of traffic simulation models.” Proc., 8th TRB Conf. on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Corpus Christi, Tex., 178–187.
Park, B., and Schneeberger, J. D. (1990). “Microscopic simulation model calibration and validation: A case study of VISSIM for a coordinated actuated signal system.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1280, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 148–156.
Planung Transport Verkehr AG (PTV). (2000). VISSIM 3.5 user manual, Germany.
Radwan, A. E., and Hatton, R. L. (1990). “Evaluation tools of urban interchange design and operation.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1280, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 148–156.
Selinger, M. J., and Sharp, W. H. (2000). “Comparison of SPUI and TUDI interchange alternatives with computer simulation models.” Proc., ITE 2000 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Nashville, Tenn.
Transportation Simulation System (TSS). (2002). AIMSUN user manual, Version 4.1, Barcelona, Spain.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 131 • Issue 7 • July 2005
Pages: 535 - 543
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Mar 1, 2004
Accepted: Nov 12, 2004
Published online: Jul 1, 2005
Published in print: Jul 2005
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.