Do microscopic merging models reproduce the observed priority sharing ratio in congestion?

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 328-336

  Chevallier, Estelle ^a   Leclercq, Ludovic ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

Author keywords

Congestion; Flow allocation; Gap acceptance; Merge; Microscopic merging model; Priority sharing; Relaxation

Indexed keywords

TRANSPORTATION;

CONGESTION; FLOW ALLOCATIONS; GAP ACCEPTANCE; PRIORITY SHARING; RELAXATION;

MERGING;

ALGORITHM; AUTOMOBILE; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PLANNING METHOD; TRAFFIC CONGESTION; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

EID: 67349190325     PISSN: 0968090X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2009.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ahmed, K.I., 1999. Modeling driver's acceleration and lane changing behaviour. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT.
2. Barcelò, J., Casa, J., 2002. Dynamic network simulation with AIMSUN. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Transport Simulation, Yokohama.
3. Bar-Gera, H., Ahn, S., submitted for publication. Empirical macroscopic evaluation of freeway merge-ratio.
4. Brilon W., Koenig R., and Troutbeck R.J. Useful estimation procedures for critical gaps. Transportation Research Part A 33 3-4 (1999) 161-186
5. Brockfeld E., Kühne R.D., and Wagner P. Calibration and validation of microscopic traffic flow models. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1876 (2004) 62-70
6. Cassidy M.J., and Ahn S. Driver turn-taking behaviour in congested freeway merges. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1934 (2005) 140-147
7. Choudhury C., Ben-Akiva M.E., Toledo T., Rao A., and Lee G. State dependence in lane changing models. In: Allsop R.E., Bell M.G.H., and Heydecker B.G. (Eds). Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Transport Simulation (2007), Elsevier, London 711-733
8. Cohen S.L. Application of a relaxation procedure for lane changing in microscopic simulation models. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1883 (2004) 50-58
9. Daganzo C. The cell transmission model, Part II: network traffic. Transportation Research Part B 29 2 (1995) 79-93
10. FHWA, 1996. CORSIM User Manual-Version 1.01. No. DTFH61-92-Z-00074, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations R&D, Intelligent Systems and Technology Division, Virginia.
11. Hidas P. Modelling lane changing and merging in microscopic traffic simulation. Transportation Research Part C 10 5-6 (2002) 351-371
12. Hidas P. Modelling vehicle interactions in microscopic simulation of merging and weaving. Transportation Research Part C 13 1 (2005) 37-62
13. Hidas P. Lane changing and merging under congested conditions in traffic simulation models. In: Brebbia C.A., and Wadhwa L.C. (Eds). Urban Transport XI - Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century (2005), WIT Press, Southampton, Boston 79-788
14. Kesting, A., Treiber, M., Helbing, D., 2007. MOBIL: general lane-changing model for car-following models. In: Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
15. Kita H. A merging-giveway interaction model of cars in a merging section: a game theoretic analysis. Transportation Research Part A 33 3-4 (1999) 305-312
16. Laval J.A., and Leclercq L. Microscopic modeling of the relaxation phenomenon using a macroscopic lane-changing model. Transportation Research Part B 42 6 (2008) 511-522
17. Leclercq L. Calibration of flow-density relationships on urban streets. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1934 (2005) 226-234
18. Leclercq L. Hybrid approaches to the solutions of the Lighthill-Whitham-Richards model. Transportation Research Part B 41 7 (2007) 701-709
19. Leclercq, L., Laval, J., 2007. A multiclass car-following rule based on the LWR model. In: Traffic and Granular Flow, Paris, France, pp. 735-753.
20. Leclercq L., Laval J., and Chevallier E. The Lagrangian coordinates and what it means for first order traffic flow models. In: Allsop R.E., Bell M.G.H., and Heydecker B.G. (Eds). Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Transport Simulation (2007), Elsevier, London 735-753
21. Leclercq L., Chiabaut N., Laval J., and Buisson C. Relaxation phenomenon after changing lanes: an experimental validation with the NGSIM dataset. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1999 (2007) 79-85
22. Lighthill M.J., and Whitham J.B. On kinematic waves II: a theory of traffic flow in long crowded roads. Proceedings of the Royal Society A229 (1955) 317-345
23. Liu H.X., Xin W., Adam Z., and Ban X.J. A game theoretical approach for modelling merging and yielding behaviour at freeway on-ramp sections. In: Allsop R.E., Bell M.G.H., and Heydecker B.G. (Eds) (2007), Elsevier, London 197-211
24. May A.D. Traffic Flow Fundamentals (1990), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
25. Newell G.F. A simplified car-following theory: a lower-order model. Transportation Research Part B 36 3 (2002) 195-205
26. Pollatschek M.A., Polus A., and Livneh M. A decision model for gap acceptance and capacity at intersections. Transportation Research Part B 36 7 (2002) 649-663
27. PTV AG, 2004. VISSIM User Manual-Version 4.0, Chapter 6: Traffic/Transit Networks, Karlsruhe.
28. Richards P.I. Shockwaves on the highway. Operation Research 4 (1956) 42-51
29. Skabardonis A. Simulation of freeway weaving areas. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1802 (2002) 115-124
30. Toledo T., Koutsopoulos H.N., and Ben-Akiva M. Integrated driving behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part C 15 2 (2007) 96-112
31. Troutbeck R.J. The performance of uncontrolled merges using a limited priority process. In: Taylor M. (Ed). Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory (2002), Pergamon, Amsterdam 463-482