Modeling Lane-Changing Decisions with MOBIL

  • Martin Treiber
  • Arne Kesting

Summary

We present the general model MOBIL (“Minimizing Overall Braking Induced by Lane Changes”) to derive lane-changing rules for a wide class of car-following models. Both the utility of a given lane and the risk associated with lane changes is determined in terms of longitudinal accelerations calculated with microscopic traffic models. This allows for the formulation of compact and general safety and incentive criteria both for symmetric and asymmetric passing rules. Moreover, anticipative elements and the crucial influence of velocity differences of the longitudinal traffic models are automatically transferred to the lane-changing rules. While the safety criterion prevents critical lane changes and collisions, the incentive criterion takes into account not only the own advantage but also the (dis-)advantages of other drivers associated with a lane change via a “politeness factor”. The parameter allows to vary the motivation for lane-changing from purely egoistic to a more cooperative driving behavior. This novel feature allows first to prevent change lanes for a marginal advantage if this obstructs other drivers, and, second, to let a “pushy” driver induce a lane change of a slower driver ahead in order to be no longer obstructed. In a more general context, we show that applying the MOBIL concept without politeness to simple car-following models and cellular automata results in lane changing models already known in the literature.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Helbing, “Traffic and related self-driven many-particle systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics 73, 1067–1141 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Laval, M. Cassidy, and C. Daganzo, “Impacts of Lane Changes at Merge Bottlenecks: A Theory and Strategies to Maximize Capacity,” in Traffic and Granular Flow ’05, A. Schadschneider, T. Pöschel, R. Kühne, M. Schreckenberg, and D. E. Wolf, eds., (Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 577–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Coifman, S. Krishnamurthy, and X. Wang, “Lane-changing maneuvers consuming freeway capacity,” in Traffic and Granular Flow ’03, S. Hoogendoorn, S. Luding, P. Bovy, M. Schreckenberg, and D. Wolf, eds., (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 3–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Nagel, D. Wolf, P. Wagner, and P. Simon, “Two-lane traffic rules for cellular automata: A systematic approach,” Physical Review E 58, 1425–1437 (1998). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Toledo, C. F. Choudhury, and M. E. Ben-Akiva, “Lane-Changing Model with Explicit Target Lane Choice,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1934, 157–165 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Hidas, “Modelling vehicle interactions in microscopic traffic simulation of merging and weaving,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 13, 37–62 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. G. Gipps, “A model for the structure of lane-changing decisions,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 20, 403–414 (1986). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Treiber, A. Kesting, and D. Helbing, “Delays, inaccuracies and anticipation in microscopic traffic models,” Physica A 360, 71–88 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Kesting, M. Treiber, and D. Helbing, “MOBIL – A general lane-changing model for car-following models,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (in print) (2007). Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Bando, K. Hasebe, A. Nakayama, A. Shibata, and Y. Sugiyama, “Dynamical model of traffic congestion and numerical simulation,” Physical Review E 51, 1035–1042 (1995). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Nagel and M. Schreckenberg, “A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic,” J. Phys. I France 2, 2221–2229 (1992). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Wagner, K. Nagel, and D. Wolf, “Lane-changing rules in two lane traffic simulation using cellular automata,” Physica A 234, 687 (1997). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. G. Gipps, “A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 15, 105–111 (1981). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, “Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations,” Physical Review E 62, 1805–1824 (2000). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Treiber and A. Kesting, “Acceleration-Based Model for Discrete-Choice Situations in Vehicular Traffic,” In Submitted to the Annual Meeting 2008, (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Treiber
    • 1
  • Arne Kesting
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Transport & EconomicsTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations