REPORT ON CAR FOLLOWING MODELS AND THEIR EVALUATION

Submitted by Saleh Ragab Mousa

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

2011

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Traffic congestion in and around the urban areas of the world is a major problem. Congestion during peak hours extends for longer periods each day. Congestion affects mobility, safety, and air quality, which cause direct economic losses due to delays and accidents, and indirect economic losses due to environmental impact. In most cases, the capacity of the existing roadway systems cannot be increased by adding additional lanes due to space, resource, or environmental constraints. Thus its more common to improve the utilization of the existing systems through better traffic management, operations strategies, and improving the geometric design of the congested roads and highways. Traffic operations in the congested sections of roadways is very complex, since different drivers employ different techniques to travel through such sections while interacting with other drivers. To understand the occurrence of bottlenecks and to devise solutions for it, a comprehensive analysis of vehicle to vehicle interactions is essential. This requires the development of traffic theories Models to explain driver behavior at the microscopic level, the main elements of which are the acceleration and lane changing dimensions. Drivers' acceleration behavior, when they are in the car following system, has been studied extensively since the 1950s. In this system, drivers are assumed to follow their leaders. However, estimation of these models using microscopic data, as the speed of a subject and its leader, gap length, acceleration applied by the subject, collected from real traffic has not received much attention. On the other hand, researchers started paying attention to the acceleration behavior in the free flow system beginning early 1980s. In the free flow system, drivers are not close to their

Leaders and therefore, have the freedom to attain their desired speed. The parameters of the general acceleration model that figures drivers acceleration decision in both The car following and free flow systems, have not been estimated yet. The principal focus of research in modeling drivers lane changing behavior has been on modeling the gap acceptance behavior at stop controlled T intersections. The gap acceptance phase is a part of the lane changing process. Researchers started paying attention to the lane changing model as microscopic traffic simulation emerged as an important tool for studying traffic behavior and developing and evaluating different traffic control and management strategies. However, the existing lane changing models are rule based and do not explicitly capture variability within driver and between drivers. Furthermore, the model parameters have not been estimated formally. In this report, we represent a comprehensive framework for modeling drivers' acceleration and lane changing behavior

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

(2.1) Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to review the existing car-following models. It introduces the basic concepts of the models and focuses on efforts made in improving the models. In addition, it summarizes the significant shortcomings of the existing car following models in emulating drivers car-following behavior.

(2.2) Traffic Simulation Models

There are three types of traffic models: macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic. The macroscopic traffic models describe traffic flow behavior on a segment-by-segment basis instead of tracking individual vehicles. As a result, the models produce aggregate traffic stream parameters such as speed, flow, and density and their corresponding relationships. The models use the equation of conservation of vehicle flow to describe the relationships and how disturbances such as shockwave propagate in the traffic stream. Examples of macroscopic models include Greenshield (1935), Greenberg (1959), Underwood (1961), Edie (1961), and Bell Curve (Duke et al., 1990). The most prevalent benefit of such models is that they can describe the spatial and temporal extent of traffic congestion particularly that is caused by non-occurring incidents such as traffic crashes. The microscopic traffic models describe the movement and interactions of an individual vehicle with a leading vehicle. The models track vehicles on at a certain time interval and produce observations of vehicle longitudinal and lateral positions, speed, and

acceleration/deceleration at each time interval. The models use fundamental rules of motion and rules of driving behavior such as lane changing and car-following behavior for moving vehicles in the system. The most important benefit of microscopic models is that they are used for evaluating traffic operational performance of the existing or future planned highways. The mesoscopic traffic models describe individual vehicle interacting with other vehicles but aggregate parameters for all vehicles. In essence, the models combine both Characteristics of microscopic and macroscopic models. For example, the model can be used to evaluate average travel time and speed of a certain highway segment using individual vehicles equipped with invehicle real-time travel information systems. The models are most beneficial in evaluating traveler information systems. Kinetic theory based models are typical examples of mesoscopic models (Prigogine, 1971).

(2.3) Car-Following Models

This study uses the following definitions and notations in describing the car following models. Consider two following vehicles traveling from left to right as shown in Figure 1-1. Vehicle (n -1) is a leading vehicle with length L (n-1) and vehicle (n) is the subject vehicle. The subscript

t denotes the time of observation of vehicle position, velocity, and acceleration.

(Figure 1-1) Definitions and notations used in car-following model

The following are definitions of the variables resulting from Figure 1-1.

In the car-following mode the leading vehicle influences driving behavior of the subject vehicle. Therefore, the driver of the subject vehicle reacts to the perceived stimulus resulting from driving behavior of the leading vehicle. The stimulus could be a speed differences and/or separation between the two vehicles. Furthermore, the driver of the subject vehicle responds to the stimulus after a certain time lag (Reaction Time). The driver response time lag -Reaction time- is the interval of time between occurrence of stimulus and initiation of response.

Car-following models can be broadly divided into following main types:

1. Safe distance car-following models (Gipps model, Krauss model) 2. Stimulus-response car-following models (Chandler model, generalized General Motors model) 3. Psychophysical car-following models (Leutzbach model) 4. Cell based model (cellular automata model) 5. Optimum velocity model (Bando et al) 6. Trajectory based model (Newell model)

We shall deal and focus in our report only on

o Safe distance car-following models (Gipps model, Krauss model) o Stimulus-response car-following models (Chandler model)

(2.3.1) Safe Distance Car-following Models

Reuschel (1950) and Pipes (1953) were the early pioneers who developed minimum safe distance models. They were both independently inspired by the law of vehicle separation stipulated in the California Vehicle Code, which states that A good rule for following another vehicle at a safe distance is to allow yourself the length of a car (about fifteen feet) for every ten miles per hour you are traveling. They developed traffic models that emulate such driving behavior. The models expressed minimum safe distance maintained by a subject vehicle behind a leading vehicle as a linear function of speed.The models assumed that drivers of vehicles obeyed this rule at all times and derived model that emulate such driving behavior. The developed models assumed that drivers reacted instantaneously to the actions of a leading vehicle. Pipes model has the following form:

2-1

Where:

b is the prescribed legal distance in feets when vehicles are at standstill and T is time constant
in seconds is a as prescribed by the California Driver Code i.e. (T

15 10

= 1.023 seconds)

This results in a minimum safe vehicle separation distance (d) equal to:

2-2

Forbes (1958) developed a car-following model that incorporated a driver reaction time component. This was based on the fact that there is a time lag between the occurrence of stimulus and initiation of response (Reaction Time). The model assumed that a driver of a subject vehicle maintains minimum safe time headway at least equal to the driver reaction time. This time headway is the summation of the driver reaction time and the time taken to travel a distance equivalent to the length of a leading vehicle. Forbes model is defined as follows:

Gipps (1981) derived a model by setting the limits of performance of driver and vehicle and used the limits to calculate a safe speed with respect to a leading vehicle. In other words, the driver should not exceed his/her desired maximum speed and the vehicle should not exceed its maximum acceleration and deceleration capabilities. Furthermore, the study used additional safety margin to compensate for driver related errors equal to half of driver reaction time. The assumption made is that a driver of a subject vehicle maintains a speed which allows the driver to bring the vehicle to safe stop should a vehicle ahead come to a sudden stop.

Gipps (1981) describes models current to that time to be in the general form of:

which is defined primarily by one vehicle (noted by n) following another (noted by n-1). Gipps sets limitations on the model through safety considerations and assuming a driver would estimate his or her speed based on the vehicle in front to be able to come to a full and safe stop if needed due to ahead sudden stop (1981).

Model Notation

an is the maximum acceleration which the driver of vehicle n wishes to

undertake,

bn is the most severe braking (deceleration) that the driver of vehicle n

wishes to undertake (bn < 0),

sn 1 is the effective size of vehicle n-1, that is, the physical length plus a
margin into which the following vehicle is not willing to intrude, even when at rest,

Vn is the speed at which the driver of vehicle n wishes to travel,

xn(t) is the location of the front of vehicle n at time *t, vn(t) is the speed of vehicle n at time t, and is the apparent reaction time, a constant for all vehicles. [2]

Constraints Leading to Development of Model

Gipps defines the model by a set of limitations. The following vehicle is limited by two constraints: that it will not exceed its drivers desired speed and its free acceleration should first increase with speed as engine torque increases then decrease to zero as the desired speed is reached.

For safety, the driver of vehicle n (the following vehicle) must ensure that the difference between point where vehicle n-1 stops ( the point where vehicle n stops ( ) and the effective size of vehicle n-1 (sn 1) is greater than ).

The new speed of the driver's vehicle is given by the final equation being Gipps' Model:

where the first argument of the minimization regimes describes an uncongested roadway and headways are large, and the second argument describes congested conditions where headways are small and speeds are limited by followed vehicles.

(2.3.2) Stimulus-Response Car-Following Models

Researchers associated with the General Motors (GM) (Chandler et al., 1958) developed five series of models that described acceleration and deceleration response behavior of a subject vehicle due driving actions of a leading vehicle. The structure of these models was similar to that of Reuschel, Pipes, and Forbes. However, the upgraded models assumed that a driver response as a function of driver sensitivity and stimulus. The GM models define stimulus as the relative speed between the two following vehicles. Negative relative speed, when the leading vehicle travels slower than the following vehicle, triggers a deceleration response. On the contrary, a positive relative speed, when the leading travels faster than the following vehicle, triggers an acceleration response. The magnitudes of the acceleration/deceleration depend on sensitivity term which includes speed and vehicle spacing. The models have the following general form:

Chandler et al. (1958) developed the first simple linear model that assumes acceleration /deceleration response of a subject vehicle is proportional to the relative speed between two following vehicles as shown below.

Where:

The stimulus term, that is, relative speed, at any time step can be either positive, zero, or negative resulting in drivers response in form of acceleration, no response, or deceleration, respectively. The model assumes that the driver sensitivity-the amount of respose- is constant across driver population and/or vehicle types. The study calibrated parameters of the model using instrumented cars on test track of the GM. The experiment involved two vehicles with a cable on a pulley connected with a wire wound around a reel mounted on the front of the leading vehicle. The experiment used eight drivers who drove the test cars while varying driving conditions of mean speed. The driver of the subject vehicle followed the leading vehicle while maintaining their desired safety distance. The

correlation analysis between observed and estimated acceleration was used to estimate the parameters of the model. The values that produced the highest correlation were used as the estimate of the driver response time lag and sensitivity for a particular driver. Table 2-1 shows the estimated parameter values obtained from this study.

The results obtained from field experiment showed significant variation in the sensitivity values. The sensitivity term appeared to depend on the distance between the vehicles, therefore, suggested a modification of the sensitivity term. Gazis et al. (1959) addressed this weakness of the model by incorporating spacing between two vehicles in the sensitivity term. The second model proposed that the sensitivity term should have two states depending on closeness between two following vehicles (separation). This means that higher sensitivity value a1 is applicable when the two vehicles are close together and lower sensitivity value a 2 when the two vehicles are far apart. This suggests that drivers are more sensitive at shorter following distance and less sensitive at larger following distance. The model is defined as shown below:

Demonstration on the GM third Model using Excel sheet:

If the reaction time (lag time) is = 1 second The positions & speed of the leading, first, second, third and fourth following cars at t=0 are as shown Time step for calculations also = 1 second Study period =10 seconds The speed and position of leading car during study period is as given below

Leading T(s ec) x( m ) speed (m/s) accele ration sp ee d

1 accele ration sp ee d

2 accele ration sp ee d

3 accele ration sp ee d

4 accele ration

x 3 0

x 2 0

x 1 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

50 70 97 .5 12 9 16 3 19 8 23 2 26 3 28 8 30 4 31 0

15 25 30 33 35 35 33 29 21 11 1

10 5 3 2 0 -2 -4 -8 -10 -10 -1

15

20

10

20

15

x 3 0

25

-6

(2.4.1) Lane Changing Models

The principal focus of research in modeling drivers' lane changing behavior has been on modeling the gap acceptance behavior at stop controlled T-intersections. The gap acceptance phase is a part of the lane changing process. Gipps (1986) presented a lane changing decision model to be used as microscopic traffic model. The model was designed to cover various urban driving situations where traffic signals, obstructions, and the presence of heavy vehicles (for example, bus, truck, semi-trailer) affect a driver's lane selection decision. Three major factors were considered in the lane changing decision process: necessity, desirability, and safety. Different driving conditions were examined including the ones where a driver may face conflicting goals. However, different goals were prioritized deterministically, and inconsistency and non-homogeneity in driver behavior were not modeled. The terms inconsistency implies that a driver may behave differently under identical conditions at different times, while the term non- homogeneity implies that different drivers behave differently under identical conditions. The model parameters were not estimated formally. CORSIM (FHWA 1998) is a microscopic traffic simulator that uses FREESIM to simulate freeways and NETSIM to simulate urban streets. In CORSIM, a lane change is classified as either mandatory (MLC) or discretionary (DLC). A driver

performs an MLC when the driver must leave the current lane and performs a DLC when the driver perceives the driving conditions in the target lane to be better, but, a lane change is not required. The necessity or desirability of changing lanes is determined by computing a risk factor that is acceptable to a driver which is a function of a driver's position relative to the object that gives rise to the need for a lane change. A default set of model parameters are provided with the flexibility of using user provided parameters. The gap acceptance behavior is not modeled in a systematic manner. Minimum gap lengths for different situations are listed and all drivers are assumed to have identical gap acceptance behavior. Yang and Koutsopoulos (1996) developed a rule based lane changing model that is applicable only for freeways. Their model is implemented in MITSIM. A lane change is classified as either mandatory (MLC) or discretionary (DLC). Unlike Gipps (1986), they used a probabilistic framework to model drivers' lane change behavior when they face conflicting goals. A driver considers a discretionary lane change only when the speed of the leader is below a desired speed, and checks neighboring lanes for opportunities to increase speed. Two parameters, impatience factor and speed indifference factor, were used to determine whether the current speed is low enough and the speeds of the other lanes are high enough to consider a DLC.

The lane changing model structure is shown in Figure 3-2. As mentioned above, except for the completion of the execution of the lane change, the whole decision process is latent in nature. The latent and observable parts of the process are represented by ovals and rectangles respectively.

figure (3-2)
The MLC branch in the top level corresponds to the case when a driver decides to respond to the MLC condition. Explanatory variables that affect such decision include remaining distance to the point at which lane change must be completed, the number of lanes to cross to reach a lane connected to the next link, delay (time elapsed since the MLC conditions apply), and whether the subject vehicle is a heavy vehicle (bus, truck, semi-trailer etc.). Drivers are likely to respond to the MLC situations earlier if it involves crossing several lanes. A longer delay makes a driver

more anxious and increases the likelihood of responding to the MLC situations. And finally, due to lower maneuverability and larger gap length requirement of heavy vehicles as compared to their non-heavy counterparts, they have a higher likelihood of responding to the MLC conditions. The MLC branch corresponds to the case where either a driver does not respond to an MLC condition, or that MLC conditions do not apply. A driver then decides whether to perform a discretionary lane change (DLC). This comprises of two decisions: whether the driving conditions are satisfactory, and if not satisfactory, whether any other lane is better than the current lane. The term driving conditions satisfactory implies that the driver is satisfied with the driving conditions of the current lane. Important factors affecting the decision whether the driving conditions are satisfactory include the speed of the driver compared to its desired speed, presence of heavy vehicles in front and behind the subject, if an adjacent on-ramp merges with the current lane, whether the subject is tailgated etc. If the driving conditions are not satisfactory, the driver compares the driving conditions of the current lane with those of the adjacent lanes. Important factors affecting this decision include the difference between the speed of traffic in different lanes and the driver's desired speed, the density of traffic in different lanes, the relative speed with respect to the lag vehicle in the target lane, the presence of heavy vehicles in different lanes ahead of the subject one. In addition, when a driver considers DLC although a mandatory lane change is required but the driver is not responding to the MLC conditions, changing lanes Opposite to the direction as required by the MLC conditions may be less desirable. If a driver decides not to perform a discretionary lane change (i.e., either the driving Conditions are satisfactory, or, although the driving conditions are not satisfactory, the current is the lane with

the best driving conditions, the driver continues in the current lane. Otherwise, the driver selects a lane from the available alternatives and assesses the adjacent gap in the target lane. The lowest level of ovals in the decision tree shown in Figure 3-2 corresponds to the gap acceptance process. When trying to perform a DLC, factors that affect drivers' gap acceptance behavior include the gap length, speed of the subject, speed of the vehicles ahead of and behind the subject in the target lane, and the type of the subject vehicle (heavy vehicle or not). For instance, a larger gap is required for merging at a higher travel speed. A heavy vehicle would require a larger gap length compared to a car due to lower maneuverability and the length of the heavy vehicle. In addition to the above factors, the gap acceptance process under the MLC conditions is influenced by factors such as remaining distance to the point at which lane change must be completed, delay (which captures the impatience factor that would make drivers more aggressive. Note that, delay cannot be used as an explanatory variable except for very specialized situations, for example, merging from an on{ramp. This is because the very inception of an MLC condition is usually unobserved. The speci_cation of the complete model is presented next. 2.4.2 Model Formulation

CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION