On the Controversy Around Daganzo’s Requiem for and Aw–Rascle’s Resurrection of Second-Order Traffic Flow Models
Daganzo’s criticisms of second-order fluid approximations of traffic flow [C. Daganzo, Transp. Res. B 29, 277–286 (1995)] and Aw and Rascle’s proposal how to overcome them [A. Aw and M. Rascle, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 60, 916–938 (2000)] have stimulated an intensive scientific activity in the field of traffic modeling. Here, we will revisit their arguments and the interpretations behind them. We will start by analyzing the linear stability of traffic models, which is a widely established approach to study the ability of traffic models to describe emergent traffic jams. Besides deriving a collection of useful formulas for stability analyses, the main attention is put on the characteristic speeds, which are related to the group velocities of the linearized model equations. Most macroscopic traffic models with a dynamic velocity equation appear to predict two characteristic speeds, one of which is faster than the average velocity. This has been claimed to constitute a theoretical inconsistency. We will carefully discuss arguments for and against this view. In particular, we will shed some new light on the problem by comparing Payne’s macroscopic traffic model with the Aw–Rascle model and macroscopic with microscopic traffic models.
KeywordsGroup Velocity Traffic Flow Vehicle Speed Traffic Model Optimal Velocity
Author contributions: DH performed the analytical calculations and proposed the initial conditions for the simulation presented in Fig. 1. AJ generated the computational results and prepared the figure.
Acknowledgment: DH would like to thank for the inspiring discussions with the participants of the Workshop on “Multiscale Problems and Models in Traffic Flow” organized by Michel Rascle and Christian Schmeiser at the Wolfgang Pauli Institute in Vienna from May 5–9, 2008, with partial support by the CNRS.
- 4.K. Nagel, Multi-Agent Transportation Simulations, see http://www2.tu-berlin.de/fb10/ISS/FG4/archive/sim-archive/publications/book/
- 6.Y. Sugiyama, M. Fukui, M. Kikuchi, K. Hasebe, A. Nakayama, K. Nishinari, S.-i. Tadaki, S. Yukawa, Traffic jams without bottlenecks—experimental evidence for the physical mechanism of the formation of a jam. New J. Phys. 10, 033001 (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.R.D. Kühne, M.B. Rödiger, Macroscopic simulation model for freeway traffic with jams and stop-start waves, in Proceedings of the 1991 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. by B.L. Nelson, W.D. Kelton, G.M. Clark (Society for Computer Simulation International, Phoenix, 1991), pp. 762–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.H.J. Payne, Models of freeway traffic and control, in Mathematical Models of Public Systems, vol. 1, ed. by G.A. Bekey (Simulation Council, La Jolla, 1971), pp. 51–61Google Scholar
- 16.H.J. Payne, A critical review of a macroscopic freeway model, in Research Directions in Computer Control of Urban Traffic Systems, ed. by W.S. Levine, E. Lieberman, J.J. Fearnsides (American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1979), pp. 251–265Google Scholar
- 21.C.K.J. Wagner, Verkehrsflußmodelle unter Berücksichtigung eines internen Freiheitsgrades. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Munich, 1997Google Scholar
- 23.S.L. Paveri-Fontana, On Boltzmann-like treatments for traffic flow. A critical review of the basic model and an alternative proposal for dilute traffic analysis. Transp. Res. 9, 225–235 (1975)Google Scholar
- 42.A. Hood, Characteristics, in Encyklopedia of Nonlinear Science, ed. by A. Scott (Routledge, New York, 2005)Google Scholar
- 43.D. Helbing, Derivation and empirical validation of a refined traffic flow model. Phys. A 233, 253–282 (1996). See also http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9805136