Advertisement

Understanding and Modelling Disorderly Traffic Streams

  • Partha ChakrobortyEmail author
  • Akhilesh K. Maurya
  • Durgesh Vikram
Review Article

Abstract

Disorderly traffic streams are those that, simply stated, do not have parallel lines (or lanes) of vehicles but have vehicles distributed more haphazardly in the road space. Vehicles in such streams, while moving longitudinally, change their lateral positions frequently. Their trajectories have a more pronounced wander along the width or the lateral dimension as opposed to those vehicles that primarily move in lanes. This property of disorderly streams dictates that its mathematical models must admit two spatial dimensions (the longitudinal and the lateral). Further, the observed impact of road geometry features like width, curvature, etc., on stream behavior, irrespective of whether the stream is disorderly, also suggests that realistic models of traffic streams must describe the streams using two spatial dimensions. Unfortunately, most of the theories of traffic dynamics are one-dimensional—they only consider the longitudinal dimension. This paper, while describing many of the existing approaches to modelling vehicular traffic behavior builds a case for strengthening two-dimensional modelling approaches that are all, still in their infancy. Given the (1) large increase in computation and data handling capabilities over the last decade and (2) significant strides made in developing tools for observing traffic dynamics at scales and accuracy levels that were previously unimaginable, the authors believe the time has come to develop, calibrate and validate reasonable two-dimensional models of traffic dynamics.

Notes

Glossary

One-dimensional models

These are models of traffic dynamics that represent the behavior over time using only one spatial dimension—the longitudinal dimension (i.e., the dimension along the length of the road)

Two-dimensional models

These are models of traffic dynamics that represent the behavior over time using two spatial dimensions—the longitudinal dimension and the lateral dimension (i.e., the dimension along the width of the road)

Microscopic models

These models describe, over time, individual driver behavior as a response to (1) actions of other vehicles in his/her vicinity, and (2) features of the road (like the geometry of the road, presence of parked vehicles, etc.)

Macroscopic models

These models describe, over time, the behavior of a vehicular stream under different traffic conditions and features of the road

Car-following models

They are one-dimensional microscopic models that describe the actions of the following vehicle (in terms of acceleration/deceleration) only in response to the actions of the vehicle immediately ahead.

References

  1. 1.
    Aghabayk K, Sarvi M, Young W (2015) A state-of-art review of car-following models with particular considerations of heavy vehicles. Transp Rev 35(1):82–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arasan VT, Koshy RZ (2005) Methodology for modeling highly heterogeneous traffic flow. J Transp Eng 131:544–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aw A, Rascle M (2000) Resurrection of second order models of traffic flow. SIAM J Appl Math 60(3):916–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brackstone M, McDonald M (1999) Car-following: a historical review. Transp Res Part F 2(4):181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakroborty P (2006) Models of vehicular traffic: an engineering perspective. Physica A 372:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chakroborty P, Agrawal S, Vasishtha K (2004) Microscopic modeling of driver behavior in uninterrupted traffic flow. ASCE J Transp Eng 130(4):438–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chakroborty P, Deshmukh AA, Panwar P, Dikshit O (2011) Empirical study on impact of road width on individual driver behavior. In: Proceedings of the 1st conference of transportation research group, Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakroborty P, Kikuchi S (1999) Evaluation of the general motors based car-following models and a proposed fuzzy inference model. Transp Res Part C 7(4):209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chakroborty P, Kikuchi S (2003) Calibrating the membership functions of fuzzy inference system: instantiated by car-following data. Transp Res Part C 11(2):91–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chakroborty P, Maurya AK (2008) Microscopic analysis of cellular automata based traffic flow models and an improved model. Transp Rev 28(6):717–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chandler RE, Herman R, Montroll EW (1958) Traffic dynamics: studies in car-following. Oper Res 6(2):165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chowdhury D, Santen L, Schadschneider A (2000) Statistical physics of vehicular traffic and some related systems. Phys Rep 329(4):199–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edie LC (1974) Flow theories. In: Gazis DC (ed) Traffic science. Wiley, New York, pp 1–108Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fan S, Work DB (2015) A heterogeneous multiclass traffic flow model with creeping. SIAM J Appl Math 75(2):813–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gao Q, Hu S, Dong C (2008) The modeling and simulation of the car-following behavior based on fuzzy inference. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on modeling, simulation and optimization, WMSO, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gazis DC, Herman R, Rothery RW (1961) Non-linear follow-the-leader models of traffic flow. Oper Res 9(4):545–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gipps PG (1981) A behavioral car following model for computer simulation. Transp Res B 15(2):105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenberg H (1959) An analysis of traffic flow. Oper Res 7(1):79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gunay B (2007) Car following theory with lateral discomfort. Transp Res Part B 41:722–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    HCM (2010) Highway capacity manual. Special report 209, 5th edn. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herman R (1992) Technology, human interaction, and complexity: reflections on vehicular traffic science. Oper Res 40(2):199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herman R, Prigogine I (1979) A two-fluid approach to town traffic. Science 204(4389):148–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Indo-HCM (2017) Indian highway capacity manual. CSIR-Central Road Research Institute, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jin S, Wang D, Tao P, Li P (2010) Non-lane-based full velocity difference car-following model. Physica A 389:4654–4662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanagaraj V, Toledo T, Asaithambi G, Lee T-C (2015) Trajectory data and flow characteristics of mixed traffic. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2491:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanagaraj V, Trieber M (2018) Self-driven particle model for mixed traffic and other disordered flows. Physica A 509:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kikuchi C, Chakroborty P (1992) Car following model based on fuzzy inference system. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1365:82–91Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Latombe J-C (1991) Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li Y, Sun D (2012) Microscopic car-following model for the traffic flow: the state of art. J Control Theory Appl 10(2):133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lighthill JM, Whitham GB (1955) On kinematic waves II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads. Proc R Soc Lond A 229(1178):317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Logghe S, Immers LH (2008) Multi-class kinematic wave theory of traffic flow. Transp Res Part B 42:523–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Luo Y, Jia B, Liu J, Lam WHK, Li X, Gao Z (2015) Modeling the interaction between car and bicycle in heterogeneous traffic. J Adv Transp 49:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mahapatra G, Maurya AK, Chakroborty P (2018) Parametric study of microscopic two-dimensional traffic flow models: a literature review. Can J Civ Eng 45(11):909–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mallikarjuna Ch, Ramachandra Rao K (2009) Cellular automata model for heterogeneous traffic. J Adv Transp 43(3):321–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maurya AK (2007) Development of a comprehensive microscopic model for simulation of large uinterrupted traffic stream without lane discipline. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology KanpurGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mathew TV, Munigety CR, Bajpai A (2013) Strip-based approach for the simulation of mixed traffic conditions. J Comput Civ Eng 29(5):04014069-1–04014069-9Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    May AD (1990) Traffic Flow Fundamentals. Prentice-Hall, Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohan R, Ramadurai G (2017) Heterogeneous traffic flow modelling using second-order macroscopic continuum model. Phys Lett A 381:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nair R, Mahmassani HS, Miller-Hooks E (2011) A porous flow approach to modeling heterogeneous traffic in disordered systems. Transp Res Part B 45:1331–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ni D (2016) Traffic flow theory: characteristics, experimental methods and numerical techniques. Elsevier, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Payne HJ (1971) Models of freeway traffic and control. Simul Councils Proc Ser Math Models Public Syst 28(1):51–61Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pipes LA (1953) An operational analysis of traffic dynamics. J Appl Phys 24(3):274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ponnu B, Coifman B (2015) Speed-spacing dependency on relative speed from the adjacent lane: new insights for car following models. Transp Res Part B 82:74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prigogine I, Herman R (1971) Kinetic theory of vehicular traffic. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ravishankar KR, Mathew TV (2011) Vehicle-type dependent car-following model for heterogeneous traffic conditions. J Transp Eng 137(11):775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reuschel A (1950) Vehicle movements in platoon. Oesterreichisches IngenieeurArchir 4:193–215Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Richards PI (1956) Shock waves on the highway. Oper Res 4(1):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Siuhi S, Kaseko M (2016) Incorporating vehicle mix in stimulus-response car-following models. J Traffic Transp Eng 3(3):226–235Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tang CF, Jiang R, Wu QS, Wiwatanapataphee B, Wu YH (2007) Mixed traffic flow in anisotropic continuum model. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1999:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Toledo T (2007) Driving behavior: models and challenges. Transp Rev 27(1):65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Venkatesan K, Gowri A, Sivanandan R (2008) Development of microscopic simulation model for heterogeneous traffic using object oriented approach. Transportmetrica 4(3):227–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vikram D (2015) A two-dimensional continuum model of traffic flow. Ph.D. dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology KanpurGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vikram D, Chakroborty P, Mittal S (2011a) Studying effect of road geometry using continuum model of traffic flow. In: Proceedings of the 1st conference of transportation research group, Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vikram D, Mittal S, Chakroborty P (2011) A stabilized finite element formulation for continuum models of traffic flow. Comput Model Eng Sci 79(4):237–259Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wong GCK, Wong SC (2002) A multi-class traffic flow model—an extension of LWR model with heterogeneous drivers. Transp Res Part A 36:827–841Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhang HM (2002) A non-equilibrium traffic model devoid of gas-like behavior. Transp Res Part B 36:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Partha Chakroborty
    • 1
    Email author
  • Akhilesh K. Maurya
    • 2
  • Durgesh Vikram
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIIT KanpurKanpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIIT GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringBITS PilaniPilaniIndia

Personalised recommendations