The Influence of the Volume–Delay Function on Uncertainty Assessment for a Four-Step Model

  • Olga Petrik
  • Filipe Moura
  • João de Abreu e Silva
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 262)

Abstract

This work analyzes the impact of volume–delay function inputs and parameters on the uncertainty of a four-step model traffic forecasts by link and identifies the relevant major error contributors. For that different specifications of the volume–delay function (including its choice and parameters probability distribution) and road capacity as an uncertain element of the input are considered. The uncertainty is expressed in form of variance of the link flows forecast provided by the model for different links types. To illustrate the analyses, a case study data from Aveiro, a medium sized city in Portugal, is used. The results suggest that the capacity variation has higher impact on the final uncertainty (up to 6 % of the coefficient of variation in average for all types of links) than the volume–delay function parameters (up to 3 % of the coefficient of variation) and the links with lower speed limits are affected most.

Keywords

Uncertainty analysis Four-step model Volume–delay function 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was developed in the framework of the EXPRESS Research Project (MIT/SET/0023/2009) sponsored by the Portuguese national research funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Operational Agenda for Competitiveness Factors—COMPETE. We acknowledge the collaboration of the Municipality of Aveiro that allowed the use of the mobility survey data. This survey was performed by the transportation consultants Way2Go for the Aveiro’s Urban Mobility Plan. We are grateful to an anonymous EWGT referee for comments that helped to improve this chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    De Jong, G., Daly, A., Pieters, M., Miller, S., Plasmeijer, R., Hofman, F.: Uncertainty in traffic forecasts: literature review and new results for The Netherlands. Transportation 34, 375–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.: Uncertainty in travel demand forecasting models: literature review and research agenda. Transp. Lett. Int. J. Transp. Res. 4(1), 55–73 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferson, S., Ginzburg, L.R.: Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 54, 133–144 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao, Y., Kockelman, K.M.: The propagation of uncertainty through travel demand models: an exploratory analysis. Ann. Reg. Sci. 36, 909–921 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krisnamurthi, S., Kockelman K.M.: Propagation of uncertainty in transportation-land use models: an investigation of DRAM-EMPAL and UTPP predictions in Austin, Texas. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the TRB, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pradhan, A., Kockelman, K.M.: Uncertainty propagation in an integrated land-transportation modeling framework: output variation via UrbanSim. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1805, 128–135 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clay, M.J., Johnston, R.A.: Multivariate uncertainty analysis of an integrated land use and transportation model: MEPLAN. Transp. Res. Part D 11(3), 191–203 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheung, K., Polak, J.: A Bayesian approach to modelling uncertainty in transport infrastructure project forecasts. Presented at the European Transport Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sevcikova, H., Raftery, A., Waddell, P.: Uncertain benefits: application of Bayesian melding to the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle. Transp. Res. Part A 45, 540 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashley, D.J.: Uncertainty in the context of highway appraisal. Transportation 9, 249–267 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matas, A., Raymond, J., Ruiz, A.: Traffic forecasts under uncertainty and capacity constraints. Transportation 39, 1–17 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonsall, P.W., Champerowne, A.F., Mason, A.C., Wilson, A.G.: Transport modeling: sensitivity analysis and policy testing. Prog. Plann. 7, 153–237 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boyce, A.M., Bright, M.J.: Reducing or managing the forecasting risk in privately-financed projects. Presented at the European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, O. A., Knudsen, M.A.: Uncertainty in traffic models, Presented at the European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M.K., Buhl, S.L.: Inaccuracy in traffic forecasts. Transp. Rev. 26(1), 1–24 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrik, O., Moura, F.M.M.V., Abreu e Silva, J.: The influence of the impedance function on uncertainty propagation through a four-step model. Presented at the European Transport Conference, Glasgow (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wardman, M.: Meta-analysis of European values of time. Presented at IATBR, Toronto (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ortúzar, J.D., Willumsen, L.G.: Modeling Transport, 4th edn. Wiley, Chichester (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wardrop, J.G.: Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part II, 1, pp. 325–362 (1952)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suh, S., Park, C., Kim, T.J.: A highway capacity function in Korea: measurement and calibration. Transp. Res. 24A, 177–186 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Branston, D.: Link capacity functions: a review. Transp. Res. 10, 223–236 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smock, R.J.: An iterative assignment approach to capacity restraint on arterial networks. Highw. Res. Board Bull. 156, 1–13 (1962)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bureau of Public Roads: Traffic Assignment Manual. Urban Planning Division, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (1964)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spiess, H.: Conical volume delay functions. Transp. Sci. 24(2), 153–158 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Akcelik, R.: Travel time functions for transport planning purposes: Davidson’s function, its time-dependent form and an alternative travel time function. Aust. Road Res. 21, 49–59 (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jastrzebski, W.P.: Volume delay functions. Presented at 15th International EMME/2 Users’ Group Conference, Vancouver, Canada (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bureau of Public Roads: Highway Capacity Manual: Practical Applications of Research. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Highway Agency: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), vol. 5, Sect. 1, Part 3 TA 79/99 Amendment No 1 2/1 (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dheenadayalu, Y., Wolshon, B., Wilmot, C.: Analysis of link capacity estimation methods for urban planning models. J. Transp. Eng. 130(5), 568–575 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    PTV (Planung Transport Verkehr AG): VISUM User Manual 11.0 FundamentalsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frank, M.; Wolfe, P. (1956). An algorithm for quadratic programming. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly3(1-2), 95–110 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walker, W.E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J.P., van Asselt, M.B.A., Janssen, P., Krayer von Krauss, M.P.: Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr. Assess. 4(1), 5–17 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viegas, J.M., Macário, R., Martins, P.: PETS deliverable 12—Pricing European transport system—case study: Lisbon, the crossing of River Tagus. Research Project for the Commission of the European Communities, Transport—DGVII RTD Programme (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Petrik
    • 1
  • Filipe Moura
    • 1
  • João de Abreu e Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.CESUR/DECivil, Instituto Superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations