Comparing Dynamic User Equilibrium and Noniterative Stochastic Route Choice in a Simulation-Based Dynamic Traffic Assignment Model: Practical Considerations for Large-Scale Networks

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Mudabber Ashfaq - , University of New South Wales (Author)
  • Ziyuan Gu - , Southeast University, Nanjing (Author)
  • S. Travis Waller - , University of New South Wales (Author)
  • Meead Saberi - , University of New South Wales (Author)

Abstract

Simulation-based dynamic traffic assignment (DTA) models play a vital role in transportation planning and operations. While the widely studied equilibrium-seeking DTA including dynamic user equilibrium (DUE) often provides robust and consistent outcomes, their expensive computational cost for large-scale network applications has been a burden in practice. The noniterative stochastic route choice (SRC) model, as a nonequilibrium seeking DTA model, provides an alternative for specific transportation operations applications that may not require equilibrium results after all (e.g., evacuation and major network disruptions) and thus tend to be computationally less expensive, yet may suffer from inconsistent outcomes. While DUE is a widely accepted approach for many strategic planning applications, SRC has been increasingly used in practice for traffic operations purposes. This paper aims to provide a comparative and quantitative analysis of the two modeling approaches. Specifically, a comparison has been made at two levels: link-level flows and network-level congestion patterns. Results suggest that adaptive driving improves the quality of the SRC solution, but its difference from DUE still remains significant at the link level. Results have practical implications for the application of large-scale simulation-based DTA models for planning and operations purposes.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Article number6667335
JournalJournal of Advanced Transportation
Volume2021
Publication statusPublished - 2021
Peer-reviewedYes
Externally publishedYes

External IDs

ORCID /0000-0002-2939-2090/work/141543777