3.9 Article

Performance evaluation of adaptive ramp-metering algorithms using microscopic traffic simulation model

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
卷 130, 期 3, 页码 330-338

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2004)130:3(330)

关键词

traffic management; ramps; performance evaluation; simulation models; algorithms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adaptive ramp metering has undergone significant theoretical developments in recent years. However, the applicability and potential effectiveness of such algorithms depend on a number of complex factors that are best investigated during a planning phase prior to any decision on their implementation. The use of traffic simulation models can provide a quick and cost-effective way to evaluate the performance of such algorithms prior to implementation on the target freeway network. In this paper, a capability-enhanced PARAMICS simulation model has been used in an evaluation study of three well-known adaptive ramp-metering algorithms: ALINEA, BOTTLENECK, and ZONE. ALINEA is a local feedback-control algorithm, and the other two are areawide coordinated algorithms. The evaluation has been conducted in a simulation environment over a stretch of the I-405 freeway in California, under both recurrent congestion and incident scenarios. Simulation results show that adaptive ramp-metering algorithms can reduce freeway congestion effectively compared to the fixed-time control. ALINEA shows good performance under both recurrent and nonrecurrent congestion scenarios. BOTTLENECK and ZONE can be improved by replacing their native local occupancy control algorithms with ALINEA. Compared to ALINEA, the revised BOTTLENECK and ZONE algorithms using ALINEA as the local control algorithm are found to be more efficient in reducing traffic congestion than ALINEA alone. The revised BOTTLENECK algorithm performs robustly under all scenarios. The results also indicate that ramp metering becomes less effective when traffic experiences severe congestion under incident scenarios.

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

3.9
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