Advertisement

Study on the number and location of measurement points for an MFD perimeter control scheme: a case study of Zurich

  • Javier OrtigosaEmail author
  • Monica Menendez
  • Hector Tapia
Research Paper

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to evaluate the data requirements for a possible implementation of a macroscopic fundamental diagram (MFD) control scheme in an urban area. Particularly, we have studied the accuracy of MFDs created using only a percentage of the links (i.e., streets). This is especially useful because monitoring resources are often scarce, and most cities do not have access to the large amount of information that is typically associated with the construction of an MFD. We evaluated several strategies that cities typically use to place fixed monitoring devices (e.g., loop detectors), and compared them with a quasi-optimal way to choose the links. The results show that independently of the strategy used for link selection, a minimum of 25 % of network coverage, according to our accuracy methodology, ensures an average error in density ratios below 15 percentage points (ppts). Based on the particular case of the city of Zurich, we also analyzed the feasibility of implementing an MFD control scheme with the links that are currently monitored. Results are very encouraging, showing an average error below 9 ppts. Although all results were obtained with a VISSIM microsimulation model of the inner city of Zurich, we believe the knowledge and methodology presented here can be transferred to other urban areas. In fact, we are hopeful that this research can contribute to making the implementation of an MFD control scheme feasible for many cities.

Keywords

Macroscopic fundamental diagram Network fundamental diagram Urban traffic Perimeter control implementation Zurich Traffic measurements Traffic monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the Division of Transport in the City of Zurich, especially to Dr. Christian Heimgartner for his valuable information on ZuriTraffic, and his support with the VISSIM model of the city of Zurich. We also thank Qiao Ge for his assistance with the simulator, and Kathrin Arnet who helped us start this project.

References

  1. Aboudolas K, Geroliminis N (2013) Perimeter and boundary flow control in multi-reservoir heterogeneous networks. Transp Res Part B Methodol 55:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buisson C, Ladier C (2009) Exploring the impact of homogeneity of traffic measurements on the existence of macroscopic fundamental diagrams. Transp Res Record 2124(1):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Courbon T, Leclercq L (2011) Cross-comparison of macroscopic fundamental diagram estimation methods. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 20:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daganzo C, Geroliminis N (2008) An analytical approximation for the macroscopic fundamental diagram of urban traffic. Transp Res Part B Methodol 42(9):771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daganzo C, Gayah V, Gonzales E (2011) Macroscopic relations of urban traffic variables: bifurcations, multivaluedness and instability. Transp Res Part B Methodol 45(1):278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daganzo CF (2007) Urban gridlock: macroscopic modeling and mitigation approaches. Transp Res Part B Methodol 41(1):49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehlert A, Bell M, Grosso S (2006) The optimisation of traffic count locations in road networks. Transp Res Part B Methodol 40(6):460–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fei X, Mahmassani H, Eisenman S (2007) Sensor coverage and location for real-time traffic prediction in large-scale networks. Transp Res Record 2039(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gayah V, Dixit V (2013) Using mobile probe data and the macroscopic fundamental diagram to estimate network densities: tests using micro-simulation. Transp Res Record (in press)Google Scholar
  10. Menendez M, Ge Q (2012) Final report on the calibration study for VISSIM (CSV). Technical report for Stadt Zürich, Dienstabteilung Verkehr, by the Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH ZurichGoogle Scholar
  11. Geroliminis N, Daganzo C (2008) Existence of urban-scale macroscopic fundamental diagrams: Some experimental findings. Transp Res Part B Methodol 42(9):759–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geroliminis N, Sun J (2011) Properties of a well-defined macroscopic fundamental diagram for urban traffic. Transp Res Part B Methodol 45(3):605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geroliminis N, Haddad J, Ramezani M (2013) Optimal perimeter control for two urban regions with macroscopic fundamental diagrams: A model predictive approach. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 14(1):348–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glover F (1989) Tabu search part 1. ORSA J comput 1(3):190–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godfrey J (1969) The mechanism of a road network. Traffic Eng Control 11(7):323–327Google Scholar
  16. Haddad J, Geroliminis N (2012) On the stability of traffic perimeter control in two-region urban cities. Transp Res Part B Methodol 46(9):1159–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heimgartner C (2012) Virtual its-evaluation- establishment of micro-simulation for the city center of zurich. In: 19th ITS World Congress, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  18. Herman R, Prigogine I (1979) A two-fluid approach to town traffic. Science 204(4389):148–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ji Y, Daamen W, Hoogendoorn S, Hoogendoorn-Lanser S, Qian X (2010) Investigating the shape of the macroscopic fundamental diagram using simulation data. Transp Res Record 2161(1):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanton-Zurich (2007) Gesamtverkehrsmodell des Kantons Zuerich. Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Zuerich, Amt fuer Verkehr, Abteilung GesamtverkehrGoogle Scholar
  21. Keyvan-Ekbatani M, Kouvelas A, Papamichail I, Papageorgiou M (2012) Exploiting the fundamental diagram of urban networks for feedback-based gating. Transp Res Part B Methodol 46(10):1393–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keyvan-Ekbatani M, Papageorgiou M, Papamichail I (2013) Urban congestion gating control based on reduced operational network fundamental diagrams. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 33:74–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knoop V, Hoogendoorn S, Van Lint JW (2012) Routing strategies based on macroscopic fundamental diagram. Transp Res Record 2315(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahmassani H, Saberi M, Ali Zockaie K (2013) Urban network gridlock: Theory, characteristics, and dynamics. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 80:79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazloumian A, Geroliminis N, Helbing D (2010) The spatial variability of vehicle densities as determinant of urban network capacity. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 368(1928):4627–4647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schiffmann L (2013) Measuring the mfd of zurich: Identifying and evaluating strategies for efficient fixed monitoring resources. Master’s thesis, ETH, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomson JM (1967) Speeds and flows of traffic in central london: 2. speed-flow relations. Traffic Eng Control 8(12):721–725Google Scholar
  28. Wardrop J (1968) Journey speed and flow in central urban areas. Traffic Eng Control 9(11):528–532Google Scholar
  29. Yang H, Zhou J (1998) Optimal traffic counting locations for origin-destination matrix estimation. Transp Res Part B Methodol 32(2):109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zheng N, Waraich R, Axhausen K, Geroliminis N (2012) A dynamic cordon pricing scheme combining the macroscopic fundamental diagram and an agent-based traffic model. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 46(8):1291–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Ortigosa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monica Menendez
    • 1
  • Hector Tapia
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Transport Planning and Systems (IVT) ETHZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Photonfocus AG LachenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations