Advertisement

Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 273–292 | Cite as

Dynamic User Equilibrium Model for Combined Activity-Travel Choices Using Activity-Travel Supernetwork Representation

  • Gitakrishnan Ramadurai
  • Satish UkkusuriEmail author
Article

Abstract

Integrated urban transportation models have several benefits over sequential models including consistent solutions, quicker convergence, and more realistic representation of behavior. Static models have been integrated using the concept of Supernetworks. However integrated dynamic transport models are less common. In this paper, activity location, time of participation, duration, and route choice decisions are jointly modeled in a single unified dynamic framework referred to as Activity-Travel Networks (ATNs). ATNs is a type of Supernetwork where virtual links representing activity choices are added to augment the travel network to represent additional choice dimensions. Each route in the augmented network represents a set of travel and activity arcs. Therefore, choosing a route is analogous to choosing an activity location, duration, time of participation, and travel route. A cell-based transmission model (CTM) is embedded to capture the traffic flow dynamics. The dynamic user equilibrium (DUE) behavior requires that all used routes (activity-travel sequences) provide equal and greater utility compared to unused routes. An equivalent variational inequality problem is obtained. A solution method based on route-swapping algorithm is tested on a hypothetical network under different demand levels and parameter assumptions.

Keywords

Integrated urban transport model Activity-travel networks Dynamic user equilibrium Route-swapping algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier version of the paper. Parts of this work were supported by September 11th Memorial Program for Regional Transportation Planning administered by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the Emerging Scholars Grant from the University Transportation Research Center, New York City. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors.

References

  1. Abdelghany AF, Mahmassani HS, Chiu YC (2001) Spatial microassignment of travel demand with activity trip chains. Transp Res Rec 1777:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdelghany AF, Mahmassani HS, Chiu YC (2003) Spatial microassignment of travel demand with activity trip chains. Transp Res Rec 1831:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ban XJ, Liu HX, Ferris MC, Ran B (2008) A link-node complementarity model and solution algorithm for dynamic user equilibria with exact flow propagations. Transp Res Part B Methodol 42(9):823–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva M, Bierlaire M, Burton D, Koutsopoulos HN, Mishalani R (2001) Network state estimation and prediction for real-time traffic management. Netw Spatial Econ 1(3–4):293–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce D, Lee DH, Ran B (2001) Analytical models of the dynamic traffic assignment problem. Netw Spatial Econ 1(3-4):377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey M (2001) Dynamic traffic assignment with more flexible modelling within links. Netw Spatial Econ 1(3-4):349–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daganzo CF (1994) The cell transmission model: a simple dynamic representation of highway traffic. Transp Res Part B 28:269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daganzo CF (1995) The cell transmission model, part ii: network traffic. Transp Res Part B 29:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Palma A, Marchal F (2002) Network state estimation and prediction for real-time traffic management. Netw Spatial Econ 2(4):347–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friesz TL, Bernstein D, Smith TE, Tobin RL, Wie BW (1993) A variational inequality formulation of the dynamic network user equilibrium problem. Oper Res 41:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friesz TL, Bernstein D, Suo Z, Tobin R (2001) Dynamic network user equilibrium with state-dependent time lags. Netw Spatial Econ 1(3–4):319–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gartner N, Messer C, Rath A (eds) (2001) Monograph on traffic flow theory. Special Report of Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang HJ, Lam WHK (2002) Modeling and solving the dynamic user equilibrium route and departure time choice problem in network with queues. Transp Res Part B 36:253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim H, Oh JS, Jayakrishnan R (2006) Activity chaining model incorporating time use problem and its application to network demand analysis. In: Proceedings of the 85th transportation research board meeting, Washington DC, January 2006Google Scholar
  15. Lam WH, Huang HJ (2003) Combined activity/travel choice models: time-dependent and dynamic versions. Netw Spatial Econ 3:323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lo HK, Szeto W (2002) A cell-based variational inequality formulation of the dynamic user optimal assignment problem. Transp Res Part B 36:421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahmassani HS (2001) Dynamic network traffic assignment and simulation methodology for advanced system management applications. Netw Spatial Econ 1(3–4):267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mounce R, Carey M (2008) Route swap processes and convergence measures in dynamic traffic assignment. In: 2nd international symposium on dynamic traffic assignment, Leuven, 18–20 June 2008Google Scholar
  19. Nagurney A, Zhang D (1997) Projected dynamical systems in the formulation, stability analysis, and computation of fixed-demand traffic network equilibria. Transp Sci 31:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nokel K, Schmidt M (2002) Parallel dynemo: meso-scopic traffic flow simulation on large networks. Netw Spatial Econ 2(4):387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peeta S, Ziliaskopoulos A (2001) Foundations of dynamic traffic assignment: the past, the present and the future. Netw Spatial Econ 1(3–4):233–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ran B, Boyce D (1996) Modeling dynamic transportation networks: an intelligent transportation systems oriented approach (second revised ed). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Ran B, Hall RW, Boyce D (1996) A link-based variational inequality model for dynamic departure time/route choice. Transp Res Part B 30:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rieser M, Nagel K, Beuck U, Balmer M, Rümenapp J (2007) Agent-oriented coupling of activity-based demand generation with multiagent traffic simulation. Transp Res Rec 2021:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheffi Y (1985) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheffi Y, Daganzo C (1979) Hypernetworks and supply-demand equilibrium obtained with disaggregate demand models. Transp Res Rec 673:113–121Google Scholar
  27. Sheffi Y, Daganzo C (1980) Computation of equilibrium over transportation networks: the case of disaggregate demand models. Transp Sci 14(2):155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Szeto W, Lo HK (2006) Dynamic traffic assignment: properties and extensions. Transportmetrica 2:31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szeto WY, Lo HK (2004) A cell-based simultaneous route and departure time choice model with elastic demand. Transp Res Part B 38:593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wardrop J (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part II, pp 325–378Google Scholar
  31. Wie BW, Tobin RL, Carey M (2002) The existence, uniqueness and computation of an arc-based dynamic network user equilibrium formulation. Transp Res Part B 36:897–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang HM, Nie X (2005) Some consistency conditions for dynamic traffic assignment problems. Netw Spatial Econ 5(1):71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang X, Zhang HM (2007) Simultaneous departure time/route choices in queuing networks and a novel paradox. Netw Spat Econ. doi:10.1007/s11067-007-9026-7
  34. Zhang X, Yang H, Huang HJ, Zhang HM (2005) Integrated scheduling of daily work activities and morning–evening commutes with bottleneck congestion. Transp Res Part A 39:41–60Google Scholar
  35. Ziliaskopoulos A (2000) A linear programming model for the single destination system optimum dta problem. Transp Sci 34:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations