Traffic Simulation with Dynameq

Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 145)


Dynameq is a simulation-based dynamic traffic assignment (DTA ) model. This model employs an iterative solution method to find the user-optimal assignment of time-varying origin–destination demands to paths through a road network where the path travel times – which depend on the assigned path flows – are time-varying and determined using a detailed traffic simulation model. Increasing congestion and the use of increasingly sophisticated measures to manage it – such as adaptive traffic control, reserved, reversible and tolled lanes, and time-varying congestion pricing – have created a need for models that are more detailed and realistic than static assignment models traditionally used in transportation planning. DTA models have begun to fill that need and have been successfully applied on real-world networks of significant size. This chapter provides a description of the assignment and simulation models that comprise the software, a discussion of fundamental concepts such as user-equilibrium and stability , an introduction to calibration methodology for simulation-based DTA, and a brief description of a typical project.


Traffic Flow Route Choice Traffic Assignment Traffic Simulation Link Travel Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank PNZ Consulting Designing Ltd., who are carrying out the Ljubljana project, for generously providing the related information presented above.


  1. Ben-Akiva M, Koutsopoulos HN, Mishalani R (1998) “DynaMIT: A simulation-based system for traffic prediction”. Paper presented at the DACCORD short term forecasting workshop, Delft, The Netherlands. See also, accessed 12 September 2009
  2. Brackstone M, McDonald M (1999) Car-following: a historical review. Trans Res 2F(4):181–196Google Scholar
  3. Chevallier E, Leclerq L (2009) Do microscopic merging models reproduce observed priority sharing ratio in congestion? Trans Res 17C:328–336Google Scholar
  4. Chiu Y-C, Bottom J, Mahut M, Paz A, Balakrishna R, Waller T, Hicks J (2010). DTA Primer, Network Modeling Committee (ADB30) of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
  5. Dafermos SC (1971) An extended traffic assignment model with application to two-way traffic. Trans Sci 5, 366–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diakaki C, Papageorgiou M (1996) Integrated modeling and control of corridor traffic networks using the METACOR modeling tool. Dynamic systems and simulation laboratory, Technical University of Crete. Internal Report No. 1996-8. Chania, Greece, p 41Google Scholar
  7. Florian M, Mahut M, Tremblay N (2008) Application of a simulation-based dynamic traffic assignment model. Eur J Oper Res 189(3):1381–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friesz T, Bernstein D, Smith T, Tobin R, Wie B (1993) A variational inequality formulation of the dynamic network user equilibrium problem. Oper Res 41:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabard JF (1991) Car-following models. In: Papageorgiou M (ed) Concise encyclopedia of traffic and transportation systems, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 337–341Google Scholar
  10. Hoogendoorn SP and Bovy PHL (1999) Macroscopic multiple user-class traffic flow modelling: a multilane generalisation using gas-kinetic theory. Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on transportation and traffic theory. Jerusalem, Israel, 20–23 July 1999Google Scholar
  11. Lawphongpanich S, Hearn DW (1984). Simplicial decomposition of the asymmetric traffic assignment problem. Transport Res B 17:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leonard DR, Gower P, and Taylor NB (1989). CONTRAM: Structure of the model. Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Research Report 178. Department of Transport, Crowthorne.Google Scholar
  13. Leventhal T, Nemhauser G, Trooter L Jr (1973). A column generation algorithm for optimal traffic assignment. Transport Sci 7:168–176Google Scholar
  14. Lighthill MJ, Whitham GB (1955) On kinematic waves I: flood movement in long rivers. II: a theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads. Proc R Soc Lond, A229:281–345Google Scholar
  15. Luenberger D (1984) Linear and nonlinear programming, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Inc., Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahmassani HS, Abdelghany AF, Huynh N, Zhou X, Chiu Y-C, Abdelghany KF (2001). DYNASMART-P (version 0.926) User’s Guide. Technical Report STO67-85-PIII, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahut M (1999) Speed maximizing car-following models based on safe-stopping rules. Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 10–14, 1999, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahut M (2001) Discrete flow model for dynamic network loading. Ph.D. thesis, Département d’informatique et de recherhe opérationelle, Université de MontréalGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahut M, Florian M, Tremblay N (2008) Comparison of assignment methods for simulation-based dynamic-equilibrium traffic assignment. Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January, 2008, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Messmer A (2000a) METANET a simulation program for motorway networks (documentation). Dynamic Systems and Simulation Laboratory, Technical University of Crete, Chania, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  21. Messmer A (2000b). METANET-DTA an exact dynamic traffic assignment tool based on METANET. Dynamic Systems and Simulation Laboratory, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece, p 37Google Scholar
  22. Nagel K, Schreckenberg M (1992) A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. Journal de Physique I France, 2:2221–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newell GF (1993) A simplified theory of kinematic waves in highway traffic. Part I: general theory. Transport Res B 27B(4):281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newell GF (2002) A simplified car-following theory: a lower order model. Transport Res Part B 36B(3):195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papageorgiou M (1990) Dynamic modelling, assignment and route guidance in traffic networks. Transport Res 24B(6):471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patriksson M (1994) The traffic assignment problem: models and methods. Topics in Transportation, VSP BV, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  27. Richards PI (1956) Shock waves on the highway. Oper Res 4:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosen JB (1960) The gradient projected method for nonlinear programming, part I: linear constraints. J Soc Indus Appl Math 8:181–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Aerde M (1999) INTEGRATION Release 2.20 for Windows: User’s Guide. MVA and Associates, Kingston, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  30. Wardrop JG (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. In: Proceedings of Institue of Civil Engineerings, Part II, vol 1. pp 325–378Google Scholar
  31. Ziliaskopulos AK, Lee S (1997) A cell transmission based assignment-simulation model for integrated freeway/surface street systems. Transport Res Rec 1701:12–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRO Consultants Inc.MontrealCanada
  2. 2.University of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations