Skip to main content

Modeling Vehicle Interactions and the Movement of Groups of Vehicles

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
An Introduction to Traffic Flow Theory

Part of the book series: Springer Optimization and Its Applications ((SOIA,volume 84))

  • 71 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 1 discussed the movement of an individual vehicle and provided the equations of motion assuming there are no other vehicles around. This chapter examines the interactions between vehicles, which is at the heart of traffic flow theory. It is these interactions that produce the observed traffic operational conditions, including crashes and congestion. Traffic operational characteristics of interest include capacity (i.e., the maximum amount of traffic that can pass through a point or section in vehicles or other units of traffic per unit time), prevailing speed (i.e., the speed at which the facility operates under a given set of prevailing conditions, including the demand, the highway design, etc.), delay, and travel time. These characteristics are discussed in more detail in Part II.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. May, A. D., “Traffic Flow Fundamentals”, Prentice Hall, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pipes, L.A., An Operational Analysis of Traffic Dynamics, Journal of Applied Physics, Volume 24, Number 3, March 1953

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gazis, Denos C., Traffic Theory, Kluwer’s International Series, 2002

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Gazis, D., Herman, R., Rothery, R.W., “Non-linear follow-the Leader Models of Traffic Flow” Operations Research 9, pp. 545-567, 1961

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Edie, L.C., “Car-Following and Steady State Theory for Non-Congested Traffic”, Operations Research 9, pp. 66-76, 1960

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Brackstone and McDonald, Car-following: a historical review, Transportation Research Part F 2 (1999) pp. 181-196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ceder, A., May, A.D., “Further Evaluation of Single and Two Regime Traffic Flow Models”, Transportation Research Record 567, pp. 1-30., 1976

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, S.L., “Application of Car-Following Systems in Microscopic Time-Scan Simulation Models”, Transportation Research Record 1802, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC., 2002, pp. 239-247

    Google Scholar 

  9. Roess, R.P., and Ulerio, J.M., NCHRP Report 385 “Comparison of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual’s Ramp Analysis Procedures and the FRESIM Model”, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gipps, P.G., “A Beharioural Car-Following Model for Computer Simulation”, Transportation Research Part B, Volume 15B, pp. 105-111, 1981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. AIMSUN 5.0 User’s Guide, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  12. Irene Soria “Assessment of Car-Following Models Using Field Data”, MS Thesis, University of Florida, May 2010

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yang, Q., and H. N. Koutsopoulos, “A Microscopic Traffic Simulator for Evaluation of Dynamic Traffic Management Systems,” Transportation Research Part C, Volume 4, No 3, 1996, pp. 113-129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. VISSIM 5.10 User’s Guide, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sukennik, P., Gyergyay, B., Flechon, C., Best, J. (2018). Micro-simulation guide for automated vehicles. CoEXist D2.5. https://www.h2020-coexist.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/D2.5-Micro-simulation-guide-for-automated-vehicles.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kesting, A., Treiber, M., & Helbing, D. (2020). Enhanced Intelligent Driver Model to Access the Impact of Driving Strategies on Traffic Capacity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2010.368 (1928): 4585–4605. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0084.

  17. Raza, H., Ioannou, P. Vehicle Following Control Design for Automated Highway Systems. California PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-97-2, January 1997,

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bergenhem, Carl; Pettersson, Henrik; Coelingh, Erik; Englund, Cristofer; Shladover, Steven; Tsugawa, Sadayuki. Overview of Platooning Systems. 19th ITS World Congress, 2012, 7p.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Foreman, Christina; Keen, Matthew; Petrella, Margaret; Plotnick, Sarah. FHWA Research and Technology Evaluation: Truck Platooning. Publication No. FHWA HRT-20-071, June 2021. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/randt/evaluations/20071/20071.pdf (Accessed April 13, 2022)

  20. Steven E. Shladover; Xiao-Yun; LuShiyan Yang; Hani Ramezani; John Spring; Christopher Nowakowski; David Nelson; Deborah Thompson; Aravind Kailas; Brian McAuliffe. Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) For Partially Automated Truck Platooning. California PATH Program CA18-2623. March 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Treiber, Martin; Hennecke, Ansgar; Helbing, Dirk (2000), "Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations", Physical Review E, 62 (2): 1805–1824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chandler, R. E., Herman, R., and Montroll, E. W. (1958). “Traffic dynamics: Studies in car-following.” Operations Research, 6(2), 165–184

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Herman, R., Montroll, E. W., Potts, R. B., and Rothery, R. W. (1959). “Traffic dynamics: analysis of stability in car-following.” Operations Research, 7(1), 86–106

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Ozaki, H. (1993). “Reaction and anticipation in the car-following behavior.” Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Traffic and Transportation Theory, 366

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chundury, S., and Wolshon, B. (2000). “Evaluation of CORSIM car-Following model by using Global Positioning System field data.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1710(-1), 114–121

    Google Scholar 

  26. Panwai, S., and Dia, H. (2005). “Comparative evaluation of microscopic car-following behavior.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 6(3), 314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chakroborty, P. and Kikuchi S., “Evaluation of the General Motors based car-following models and a proposed fuzzy inference model,” Transp. Res., Part C: Emerg. Technol., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 209–235, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Traffic Flow Theory, A monograph (Web Document: www.tfhrc.gov/its/tft/tft.htm), Chapter 4 – Car-following

  29. Barbara Martin “Evaluating the Impacts of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Using A Driving Simulator: An Exploratory Analysis”, MS Thesis, University of Florida, December 2010

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sun, D., L. Elefteriadou, “Research and Implementation of Lane Changing Model Based on Driver Behavior” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No 2161, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC 2010, pp. 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mannering, F.L., Washburn, S.S., Kilareski, W.P, Principles of Highway Engineering and Traffic Analysis, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009

    Google Scholar 

  32. Washington, S.P, Karlaftis, M.G., Mannering, F. L., Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis, Second Edition, CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ahmed, K. I. Modeling divers’ acceleration and lane changing behavior. Sc.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laval, J.A., Daganzo, C.F., 2006. Lane-changing in traffic streams, Transportation Research Part B, 40(3), 251–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gipps, P.G. (1986). A model for the structure of lane changing decisions, Transportation Research 20B, pp. 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hidas, P. (2002), “Modeling lane changing and merging in microscopic traffic simulation”, Transportation Research Part C 10, pp. 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Brilon, W., R. Koenig, and R.J. Troutbeck, “Useful estimation procedures for critical gaps,” Transportation Research Part A 33, pp. 161–186, Pergamon, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Revised Monograph on Traffic Flow Theory, Federal Highway Administration, 1992 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/operations/tft/)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Problems

Problems

  1. 1.

    Solve Example 2.1 assuming the following: desired maximum speed of the following vehicle, v(n + 1)DES, is 80 mph, the maximum acceleration which the following vehicle wishes to undertake, a(n + 1)MAX, is 8 ft/s2, the actual most severe deceleration that the follower wishes to undertake, b(n + 1), is −10.5 ft/s2, the most severe deceleration rate that vehicle n + 1 estimates for vehicle n, \( \hat{b_n} \), is −12.5 ft/s2, and the effective vehicle length, L(n), is 25 ft. How do the results differ from those of Example 2.1. Explain any differences observed.

  2. 2.

    Solve Example 2.1 assuming that the car-following model is GHR with parameters m = 1, l = 1, and λm,l = 2.6. How do the results compare to those of Example 2.1?

  3. 3.

    Conduct a literature review of car-following models. What parameters are used in addition to the ones described in this chapter?

  4. 4.

    Conduct a literature review of lane-changing models for freeways and arterials.

  5. 5.

    The following utility functions have been developed using data from four-lane freeways to indicate driver preference for truck drivers for each of the four lanes:

    • Ux, L1 = 181.25 – 0.18 FL1 + 1.27 vL1

    • Ux, L2 = 341.3 – 0.27 FL2 + 1.35 vL2

    • Ux, L3 = 40.53 – 0.05 FL3 + 0.35 vL3

    • Ux, L4 = 18.26 – 0.02 FL4 + 0.07 vL4

    where

    • Ux, L1, Ux, L2, Ux, L3, and Ux, L4 are the utilities of each of the four lanes;

    • FL1, FL2 FL3, and FL4 are the passenger vehicle flows of each of the four lanes; and

    • vL1, vL2, vL3, and vL4 are the prevailing speeds of each of the four lanes.

    If during the peak hour, the passenger vehicle flows are FL1 = 1380 vph, FL2 = 1560 vph, FL3 = 1250 vph and FL4 = 1320 vph and the speeds are vL1 = 55 mph, vL2 = 60 mph, vL2 = 62 mph, and vL4 = 62 mph, estimate the probabilities that truck drivers will select each of the four lanes.

  6. 6.

    Conduct a literature review of gap acceptance models for unsignalized intersections.

  7. 7.

    Conduct a literature review of gap acceptance models for merging at freeway junctions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Elefteriadou, L. (2024). Modeling Vehicle Interactions and the Movement of Groups of Vehicles. In: An Introduction to Traffic Flow Theory. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol 84. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54030-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics