Advertisement

Understanding of Day-to-Day Route Choice Behavior: Experiments and Simulations

  • Lingmin YangEmail author
  • Rihui She
  • Jingyi An
  • Hong Wang
  • Shunying Zhu
Conference paper
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 617)

Abstract

Dissension arises on whether the day-to-day route choice behavior will cause an equilibrium distribution of traffic flow on the road network, and the travelers’ decision-making mechanism of route choice behavior is still in the exploratory stage. This paper focuses on the ‘equilibrium dissension’ and the ‘decision making mechanism’ under the condition of historical experience and traffic information by conducting human-computer interaction experiments and multi-agent simulations. The results of experiments support the conclusion that ‘no convergence to equilibrium had been found’. Moreover, the simulations with the existing mechanism that perceptions of travel time being the criterion of cognition and the logit discrete choice model being the criterion of route selection support the conclusion as well, it is also found through the simulations that dissension may due to exact treatment of treatment on the probability of discrete choice model. At the same time, comparisons between experiments and simulations found that the existing mechanism was not sufficient to reflect the fact that travelers tend to choose the shorter route more, and the shorter the more when difference of routes’ length exist, The modified mechanism proposed by this paper reflect the fact better. This study is beneficial for understanding the traveler’s route choice behavior and the causes of traffic congestion.

Keywords

Traffic behavior Day-to-day route choice Equilibrium Decision-making mechanism 

References

  1. 1.
    Patriksson M (1994) The traffic assignment problem-model and method. VSP, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watling D (1999) Stability of the stochastic equilibrium assignment problem: a dynamical systems approach. Transp Res B 33(4):281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhou B, Xu M, Meng Q, Huang Z (2017) A day-to-day route flow evolution process towards the mixed equilibria. Transp Res Part C 82:210–228Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu W, Ma S, Tian J, Li G (2016) Nonlinear relative-proportion-based route adjustment process for day-to-day traffic dynamics: modeling, equilibrium and stability analysis. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 40:129–137MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hazelton M, Watling D (2004) Computation of equilibrium distributions of Markov traffic assignment models. Transp Sci 38(3):331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guan HZ, Pu L (2010) A drivers’ choice behavior model based on evolutionary game theory. J Beijing Univ Technol 36(8):1077–1083Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu TL (2007) Multi-agent simulation on day-to-day route choice behavior. Acta Phys Sin 56(11):492–4986Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Selten R, Chmura T, Pitz T, Kub S, Schreckenberg M (2007) Commuters route choice behaviour. Games Econ Behav 58(2):394–406Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Avineri E, Bovy PHL (2008) Identification of parameters for a prospect theory model for travel choice analysis. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2082(2082):141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim H, Lim Y (2012) A Day-to-day route choice model based on drivers’ past experience. KSCE J Civ Eng 16(7):1267–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chorus CG (2012) Regret theory-based route choices and traffic equilibria. Transportmetrica 8(4):291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Di X, Liu H X, Zhu S et al (2016) Indifference bands for boundedly rational route switching. Transportation, 1–26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhao C, Huang H (2016) Experiment of boundedly rational route choice behavior and the model under satisfying rule. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 10(68):22–37Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wei F, Ma S, Jia N (2014) A day-to-day route choice model based on reinforcement learning. mathematical problems in engineering (2014-9-30) (3)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meneguzzer C, Olivieri A (2013) Day-to-day traffic dynamics: laboratory-like experiment on route choice and route switching in a simple network with limited feedback information. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 87:44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maio MLD, Vitetta A, Watling D (2013) Influence of experience on users’ behaviour: a day-to-day model for route choice updating. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 87:60–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang L, Wang H, Zhu S (2016) Summary and development trend of traffic equilibrium research. In: International conference on green intelligent transportation system and safety. Springer, Singapore, 537–548Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tisue S, Wilensky U (2004) NetLogo: a simple environment for modeling complexity. In: International conference on complex systems, 16–21Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Damaceanu RC (2011) An agent-based computational study of wealth distribution in function of technological progress using Netlogo. Am J Econ 1(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fioretti G (2013) Romulus-Catalin Damaceanu: agent-based computational economics using netlogo. J Evol Econ 23(3):689–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang H, Liu T, Yang H (2008) Modeling the evolutions of day-to-day route choice and year-to-year ATIS adoption with stochastic user equilibrium. J Adv Transp 42(2):111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cantarella GE, Cascetta E (1995) Dynamic processes and equilibrium in transportation networks: towards a unifying theory. Transp Sci 29(4):305–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang H, Kitamura R, Jovanis PP et al (1993) Exploration of route choice behavior with advanced traveler information using neural network concepts. Transportation 20(2):199–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xin-Jun LAI, Zhi YU, Jun LI (2012) Derivation, Implementation and Examination of Logit Route Choice Model with Relative Impedance. J Transp Syst Eng 12(2):85–90Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tawfik AM, Rakha HA (2014) Can we model driver perceptions? An in-situ experiment in real-world conditions. Int J Transp Sci Technol 3(2):149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim H, Oh JS, Jayakrishnan R (2009) Effects of user equilibrium assumptions on network traffic pattern. KSCE J Civ Eng 13(2):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guo X (2007) Experimental psychologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lingmin Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rihui She
    • 2
  • Jingyi An
    • 3
  • Hong Wang
    • 3
  • Shunying Zhu
    • 3
  1. 1.College of ManagementHubei University of EducationWuhanChina
  2. 2.Fuzhou Urban Planning and Design Research InstituteFuzhouChina
  3. 3.School of TransportationWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations