Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 481–502 | Cite as

Behavioral Calibration and Analysis of a Large-Scale Travel Microsimulation

Article

Abstract

This article reports on the calibration and analysis of a fully disaggregate (agent-based) transport simulation for the metropolitan area of Zurich. The agent-based simulation goes beyond traditional transport models in that it equilibrates not only route choice but all-day travel behavior, including departure time choice and mode choice. Previous work has shown that the application of a novel calibration technique that adjusts all choice dimensions at once from traffic counts yields cross-validation results that are competitive with any state-of-the-art four-step model. While the previous study aims at a methodological illustration of the calibration method, this work focuses on the real-world scenario, and it elaborates on the usefulness of the obtained results for further demand analysis purposes.

Keywords

Multi-agent simulation Dynamic traffic assignment Disaggregate demand calibration Real-world application 

References

  1. Avineri E, Prashker J (2003) Sensitivity to uncertainty: need for paradigm shift. Transp Res Rec 1854:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balmer M, Cetin N, Nagel K, Raney B (2004) Towards truly agent-based traffic and mobility simulations. In: Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’04). New York, NY. URL: www.aamas-conference.org
  3. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press series in transportation studies. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhat C, Guo J, Srinivasan S, Sivakumar A (2004) A comprehensive econometric microsimulator for daily activity-travel patterns (cemdap). Transp Res Rec 1894:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman J, Ben-Akiva M (1998) Activity based travel demand model systems, In: Marcotte P, Nguyen S (eds) Equilibrium and advanced transportation modelling. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 27–46Google Scholar
  6. Bowman J, Bradley M, Shiftan Y, Lawton T, Ben-Akiva M (1998) Demonstration of an activity-based model for Portland. In: World transport research: selected proceedings of the 8th world conference on transport research 1998, vol 3. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 171–184Google Scholar
  7. Cetin N, Burri A, Nagel K (2003) A large-scale agent-based traffic microsimulation based on queue model. In: Proceedings of Swiss transport research conference (STRC), Monte Verita, CH. See www.strc.ch. Earlier version, with inferior performance values: Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2003 paper number 03-4272
  8. Charypar D, Nagel K (2005) Generating complete all-day activity plans with genetic algorithms. Transportation 32(4):369–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Y, Rieser M, Grether D, Nagel K (2008) Improving a large-scale agent-based simulation scenario, VSP working paper 08-15, Transport Systems Planning and Transport Telematics Laboratory, Berlin Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. de Palma A, Marchal F (2002) Real case applications of the fully dynamic METROPOLIS tool-box: an advocacy for large-scale mesoscopic transportation systems. Netw Spat Econ 2(4):347–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flötteröd G (2008) Traffic state estimation with multi-agent simulations. PhD thesis, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Flötteröd G (2009) Cadyts—a free calibration tool for dynamic traffic simulations. In: Proceedings of the 9th Swiss transport research conference. Monte Verita/Ascona, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Flötteröd G (2010) A general methodology and a free software for the demand calibration of DTA models, In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on dynamic traffic assignment, Takayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  14. Flötteröd G (2011) Cadyts web site. http://transp-or.epfl.ch/cadyts. Accessed 22 July 2011
  15. Flötteröd G, Bierlaire M (2009) Improved estimation of travel demand from traffic counts by a new linearization of the network loading map. In: Proceedings of the European transport conference. Noordwijkerhout, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Flötteröd G, Chen Y, Rieser M, Nagel K (2009) Behavioral calibration of a large-scale travel behavior microsimulation. In: proceedings of 12th international conference on travel behaviour research. Jaipur, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Flötteröd G, Bierlaire M, Nagel K (2011) Bayesian demand calibration for dynamic traffic simulations. http://transci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/trsc.1100.0367v1
  18. Gawron C (1998) Simulation-based traffic assignment. PhD thesis, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. URL: www.zaik.uni-koeln.de/AFS/publications/theses.html
  19. Grether D, Chen Y, Rieser M, Nagel K (2009) Effects of a simple mode choice model in a large-scale agent-based transport simulation. In: Reggiani A, Nijkamp P (eds) Complexity and spatial networks. In search of simplicity, advances in spatial science, chapter 13. Springer, New York, pp 167–186Google Scholar
  20. Jonnalagadda N, Freedman J, Davidson W, Hunt J, (2001) Development of microsimulation activity-based model for San Francisco: destination and mode choice models. Transp Res Rec 1777:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin DY, Eluru N, Waller S, Bhat C (2008) Integration of activity-based modeling and dynamic traffic assignment. Transp Res Rec 2076:52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MATSIM (2011) MultiAgent Transport SIMulation. URL: http://matsim.org/. Accessed 22 July 2011
  23. Meister K, Rieser M, Ciari F, Horni A, Balmer M, Axhausen K (2008) Anwendung eines agentenbasierten Modells der Verkehrsnachfrage auf die Schweiz. In: Proceedings of Heureka ’08. Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagel K, Flötteröd G (2012) Agent-based traffic assignment: going from trips to behavioral travelers. In Bhat C, Pendyala R (eds) Travel behaviour research in an evolving world. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  25. Ortuzar J, Willumsen L (2004) Modelling transport. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Pendyala R (2004) Phased implementation of a multimodal activity-based travel demand modeling system in Florida. Volume II: FAMOS users guide. Research report, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. See www.eng.usf.edu/~pendyala/publications
  27. Raney B, Nagel K (2006) An improved framework for large-scale multi-agent simulations of travel behavior. In: Rietveld P, Jourquin B, Westin K (eds) Towards better performing European transportation systems. Routledge, London, pp 305–347Google Scholar
  28. Rieser M (2010) Adding transit to an agent-based transportation simulation—concepts and implementation. PhD thesis, Technical University of BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Rieser M, Nagel K, Beuck U, Balmer M, Rümenapp J (2007) Truly agent-oriented coupling of an activity-based demand generation with a multi-agent traffic simulation. Transp Res Rec 2021:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rieser M, Grether D, Nagel K (2009) Adding mode choice to a multi-agent transport simulation. Transportation Research Record: Travel Demand Forecasting 2132:50–58Google Scholar
  31. SFSO (2006) Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2005 zum Verkehr. Swiss Federal Statistical Office, NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  32. Vovsha P, Bradley M, Bowman J (2004) Activity-based travel forecasting models in the United States: progress since 1995 and prospects for the future. In: Proceedings of the EIRASS conference on progress in activity-based analysis. Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhou X, Mahmassani H, Zhang K (2007) Dynamic micro-assignment modeling approach for integrated multimodal urban corridor management. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 16(2):167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport and Mobility Laboratory (TRANSP-OR)Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Transport Systems Planning and Transport Telematics LaboratoryBerlin Institute of TechnologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations