4.7 Article

A comparative study of Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams of arterial road networks governed by adaptive traffic signal systems

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2012.12.002

关键词

Macroscopic fundamental diagram; Traffic signal system; Simulation

资金

  1. Roads Corporation of Victoria (VicRoads)
  2. Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme [LP120100258]
  3. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT100100494]
  4. Australian Government
  5. Australian Research Council [FT100100494, LP120100258] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a stochastic cellular automaton model for urban traffic flow, we study and compare Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams (MFDs) of arterial road networks governed by different types of adaptive traffic signal systems, under various boundary conditions. In particular, we simulate realistic signal systems that include signal linking and adaptive cycle times, and compare their performance against a highly adaptive system of self-organizing traffic signals which is designed to uniformly distribute the network density. We find that for networks with time-independent boundary conditions, well-defined stationary MFDs are observed, whose shape depends on the particular signal system used, and also on the level of heterogeneity in the system. We find that the spatial heterogeneity of both density and flow provide important indicators of network performance. We also study networks with time-dependent boundary conditions, containing morning and afternoon peaks. In this case, intricate hysteresis loops are observed in the MFDs which are strongly correlated with the density heterogeneity. Our results show that the MFD of the self-organizing traffic signals lies above the MFD for the realistic systems, suggesting that by adaptively homogenizing the network density, overall better performance and higher capacity can be achieved. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据