Urban traffic congestion propagation and bottleneck identification

  • JianCheng Long
  • ZiYou Gao
  • HuaLing Ren
  • AiPing Lian
Article

Abstract

Bottlenecks in urban traffic network are sticking points in restricting network collectivity traffic efficiency. To identify network bottlenecks effectively is a foundational work for improving network traffic condition and preventing traffic congestion. In this paper, a congestion propagation model of urban network traffic is proposed based on the cell transmission model (CTM). The proposed model includes a link model, which describes flow propagation on links, and a node model, which represents link-to-link flow propagation. A new method of estimating average journey velocity (AJV) of both link and network is developed to identify network congestion bottlenecks. A numerical example is studied in Sioux Falls urban traffic network. The proposed model is employed in simulating network traffic propagation and congestion bottleneck identification under different traffic demands. The simulation results show that continual increase of traffic demand is an immediate factor in network congestion bottleneck emergence and increase as well as reducing network collectivity capability. Whether a particular link will become a bottleneck is mainly determined by its position in network, its traffic flow (attributed to different OD pairs) component, and network traffic demand.

Keywords

cell transmission model node model congestion bottleneck average journey velocity 

References

  1. 1.
    Daganzo C F. The cell transmission model: A simple dynamic representation of highway traffic. Transp Res Part B, 1994, 28(4): 269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daganzo C F. The cell transmission model, Part II: Network traffic. Transp Res Part B, 1995, 29(2): 79–93CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daganzo C F, Laval J A. Moving bottlenecks: A numerical method that converges in flows. Transp Res Part B, 2005, 39(10): 855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ni D H, Leonard J D. A simplified kinematic wave model at a merge bottleneck. Appl Math Mod, 2005, 29(11): 1054–1072MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newell G F. A simplified theory on kinematic wave in highway traffic, Part I: General theory; Part II: Queuing at freeway bottlenecks; Part III: Multi-destination flows. Transp Res Part B, 1993, 27(4): 281–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gazis D C, Herman R. The moving and “phantom” bottleneck. Trans Sci, 1992, 26: 223–229MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newell G F. A moving bottleneck. Transp Res Part B, 1998, 32(8): 531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright C, Roberg P. The conceptual structure of traffic jams. Transport Policy, 1998, 5(1): 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lighthill M H, Whitham G B. On kinematics wave: II A theory of traffic flow on long crowed roads. In: Proc Royal Society, London, Series A, 1955, 22. 317–345CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richards P I. Shock waves on the highway. Opera Res, 1956, 4: 42–51MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herty M, Klar A. Modeling, simulation, and optimization of traffic flow networks. SIMA J Sci Comput, 2003, 25(3): 1066–1087MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin W L, Zhang H M. A multi-commodity kinematic wave simulation model of network traffic flow. In: Transp Res Board 2004 Annual Meeting, 2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lebacque J P. Application to macroscopic networks using macroscopic models. In: Finite volumes for complex applications II. Hermes Science Publications, 2003Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lebacque J P. First-order macroscopic traffic flow models: intersection modeling, network modeling. Transp and traffic theory flow, dynamics and human interaction. In: Proc 16th ISTTT, Elsevier Ltd, 2005. 365–386Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coclite G M, Garavello M, Piccoli B. Traffic flow on a road network. SIAM J Math Anal, 2005, 36(6): 1862–1886MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Nagel K, Schreckenberg M. A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. J Phys I, 1992, 2(12): 2221–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Biham O, Middleton A A, Levine D. Self-organization and dynamical transition in traffic-flow models. Phys Rev A, 1992, 46(10–15): 6124–6127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jia B, Jiang R, Wu Q S. The traffic behaviors near an off-ramp in the cellular automaton traffic model. Phys Rev E, 2004, 69(5): 056105Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chung K H, Hui P M, Gu G Q. Two-dimensional traffic flow problems with faulty traffic lights. Phys Rev E, 1995, 51(1): 772–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lo H K. A dynamic traffic assignment formulation that encapsulates the cell transmission model. In: Ceder A, ed. Transp Traffic Theory, 1999. 327–350Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lo H K, Szeto W Y. A cell-based variational inequality formulation of the dynamic user optimal assignment problem. Transp Res Part B, 2002, 36(5): 421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szeto W Y, Lo H K. A cell-based simultaneous route and departure time choice model with elastic demand. Transp Res Part B, 2004, 38(7): 593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suwansirikul C, Friesz T L, Tobin R L. Equilibrium decomposed optimization: a heuristic for the continuous equilibrium network design problem. Transp Sci, 1987, 21(4): 254–263MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science in China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • JianCheng Long
    • 1
  • ZiYou Gao
    • 1
  • HuaLing Ren
    • 1
  • AiPing Lian
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and SafetyBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations