Modelling road traffic assignment as a day-to-day dynamic, deterministic process: a unified approach to discrete- and continuous-time models

Research Paper

Abstract

We consider the modelling of road transport systems as a day-to-day dynamic, deterministic process. The main contribution is to present a unified treatment of discrete-time and continuous-time approaches, with these two classes of approaches having been developed in two parallel streams of research which have had little connection made between them. In doing so, we aim to clarify the usefulness of these alternative approaches. We pay particular attention to: the specification of such models, the conditions which characterise the various forms of emergent behaviour, and the relationship between the model assumptions and real-world phenomena. The proposed framework is heavily focused, in the first instance, on a probabilistic approach to user choice modelling, though we also review and analyse the limiting case of deterministic choice model.

Keywords

Day-to-day dynamics Deterministic process Continuous-time process Discrete-time process 

References

  1. Balijepalli NC, Watling DP (2005) Doubly dynamic equilibrium approximation model for dynamic traffic assignment. In: Mahmassani H (ed) transportation and traffic theory: flow, dynamics and human interaction, Elsevier, Oxford, pp 741–760Google Scholar
  2. Beckmann M, McGuire CB, Winsten CB (1956) Studies in the economics of transportation. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  3. Bie J, Lo HK (2010) Stability and attraction domains of traffic equilibria in a day-to-day dynamical system formulation. Transp Res Part B 44:90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bifulco G, Simonelli F, Di Pace R (2009) The role of the uncertainty in ATIS applications. In: Avineri E, Köppen M, Dahal K, Sunitiyoso Y, Roy R (eds) Applications of soft computing: updating the state of art. Advances in Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 230–239Google Scholar
  5. Bifulco GN, Cantarella GE, Simonelli F, Velonà P (2013) Equilibrium and dat-to-day stability in traffic networks under ATIS. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems, Dresden, pp 503–512Google Scholar
  6. Boyce DE (2007) Forecasting travel on congested urban transportation networks: review and prospects for network equilibrium models. Netw Spatial Econ 7:99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyce DE, Mahmassani HS, Nagurney A (2005) A retrospective on Beckmann, McGuire and Winsten’s Studies in the Economics of Transportation. Papers Regional Sci 84:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantarella GE (1997) A general fixed-point approach to multi-mode multi-user equilibrium assignment with elastic demand. Transp Sci 31:107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantarella GE (2013) Day-to-day dynamic models for intelligent transportation system design and appraisal. Transp Res Part C: Emerg Technol 29:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantarella GE, Cascetta E (1995) Dynamic process and equilibrium in transportation networks: towards a unifying theory. Transp Sci 29:305–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantarella GE, Velonà P (2003) Stability analysis of equilibrium patterns in a transportation network. In: Proceedings of the European Transport ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantarella GE, Gentile G, Velonà P (2010) Uniqueness of stochastic user equilibrium. In: Proceedings of the 5th IMA conference on Mathematics in Transportation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantarella GE, Velonà P, Vitetta A (2012) Signal setting with demand assignment: global optimization with day-to-day dynamic stability constraints. J Adv Transp 2012(46):254–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cascetta E (1987). Static and dynamic models of stochastic assignment to transportation networks. In: Szaego G, Bianco L, Odoni A (eds) Flow control of congested networks, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Cascetta E (1989) A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networks. Transp Res Part B 23:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cascetta E (2009) Transportation systems analysis: models and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Cascetta E, Cantarella GE (1991) A day-to-day and within-day dynamic stochastic assignment model. Transp Res Part A 25:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cascetta E, Cantarella GE (1993) Modelling dynamics in transportation networks. J Simul Practice Theory 1:65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chang GL, Mahmassani HS (1988) Travel time prediction and departure time adjustment behaviour dynamics in a congested traffic system. Transp Res Part B 22:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen R, Mahmassani HS (2004) Travel time perception and learning mechanisms in traffic networks. Transp Res Rec 1894:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Daganzo CF (1983) Stochastic network equilibrium with multiple vehicle types and asymmetric, indefinite link cost Jacobians. Transpn Sci 17:282–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daganzo CF, Sheffi Y (1977) On stochastic models of traffic assignment. Transp Sci 11(3):253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friesz TL, Bernstein D, Mehta NJ, Tobin RL, Ganjalizadeh S (1994) Day-to-day dynamic network disequilibria and idealized traveller information systems. Oper Res 42(6):1120–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friesz TL, Bernstein D, Stough R (1996) Dynamic systems, variational inequalities and control theoretic models for predicting time-varying urban network flows. Transp Sci 30(1):14–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friesz TL, Kim T, Kwon C, Rigdon MA (2011) Approximate network loading and dual-time-scale dynamic user equilibrium. Transp Res B 45:176–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodwin PB (1998) The end of equilibrium. In: Garling T, Laitila T, Westin K (eds) Theoretical foundations of travel choice modelling, Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. Guo X, Liu H (2012) A day-to-day dynamic model in discrete/continuum transportation networks. Transp Res Record (in press)Google Scholar
  28. Han L, Du L (2012) On a link-based day-to-day traffic assignment model. Transp Res Part B 46:72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hazelton ML, Watling DP (2004) Computation of equilibrium distributions of Markov traffic assignment models. Transp Sci 38:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. He X, Liu HX (2012) Modeling the day-to-day traffic evolution process after an unexpected network disruption. Transp Res Part B 46:50–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. He X, Guo X, Liu HX (2010) A link-based day-to-day traffic assignment model. Transp Res B 44:597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horowitz JL (1984) The stability of stochastic equilibrium in a two-link transportation network. Transp Res Part B 18:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hu T-Y, Mahmassani HS (1997) Day-to-day evolution of network flows under real-time information and reactive signal control. Transp Res C 5:51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Iida Y, Uchida T, Uno N (1992) Experimental analysis approach to estimation of dynamic route choice model considering travel time prediction. Preprints of 6th world conference on transportation, Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu R, Van Vliet D, Watling D (2006) Microsimulation models incorporating both demand and supply side dynamics. Transp Res 40(2):125–150Google Scholar
  36. Smith MJ (1979) The existence, uniqueness and stability of traffic equilibria. Transp Res B 13:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith MJ (1984a) The stability of a dynamic model of traffic assignment: an application of a method of Lyapunov. Transp Sci 18:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith MJ (1984b) A descent algorithm for solving monotone variational inequalities and monotone complementarity problems. J Optim Theory Appl 44:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith MJ, Wisten MB (1995) A continuous day-to-day traffic assignment model and the existence of a continuous dynamic user equilibrium. Ann Oper Res 60:59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wardop JG (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proc Inst Civ Eng 2(1):325–378Google Scholar
  41. Watling DP (1996) Asymmetric problems and stochastic process models of traffic assignment. Transp Res Part B 30:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watling DP (1999) Stability of the stochastic equilibrium assignment problem: a dynamical systems approach. Transp Res Part B 33:281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watling DP, Cantarella GE (2013a) Model representation and decision-making in an ever-changing world: the role of stochastic process models of transportation systems. Netw Spatial Econ (in press)Google Scholar
  44. Watling DP, Cantarella GE (2013b) Modelling sources of variation in transportation systems: theoretical foundations of day-to-day dynamic models. Transportmetrica B (in press)Google Scholar
  45. Yang F, Zhang D (2009) Day-to-day stationary link flow pattern. Transp Res Part B 43:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang D, Nagurney A (1996) On the local and global stability of a travel route choice adjustment process. Transp Res B 30(4):245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang D, Nagurney A, Wu J (2001) On the equivalence between stationary link flow patterns and traffic network equilibria. Transp Res 35B:731–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SalernoSalernoItaly

Personalised recommendations