Assessment of Level-Of-Service for Freeway Segments Using HCM and Microsimulation Methods

Abstract

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2015 freeway facilities methodology offers a supplemental computational engine FREEVAL, which is a macroscopic/mesoscopic tool that enables users to implement HCM-based freeway analysis quickly and conveniently. On the other hand, Vissim is a microscopic simulation tool that enables users to model real-world conditions with high level of accuracy and comprehensiveness. Thus, the two tools represent quite opposite sides in freeway modelling – Vissim requires time-consuming preparation and calibration of the model but it usually provides benefits that are more comprehensive. FREEVAL requires less on input and calibration sides but its results may not be as beneficial as comprehensive and accurate as Vissim’s. The problem, that has not been addressed enough, is that we do not know how different their results are (when compared between themselves) and, at the same time, how close to the field conditions. Researchers and practitioners use both tools for freeway analysis and tend to compare the results directly. One of the commonly used performance measures is the Level of Service (LOS), which is used to quickly evaluate the freeway segment or facility performance. The HCM Freeway Facility Methodology uses density to estimate LOS. However, density is calculated differently in FREEVAL and Vissim, and comparing the estimated LOSs between the two may not represent a proper comparison. In essence, FREEVAL, in the under-saturated condition, estimates the density from the fundamental equations where the volume is estimated from the user entered demand and the speed is calculated using the statistical models provided in respective chapters of each segment type. On the other hand, Vissim tracks each individual vehicle as it moves along a freeway and calculates key performance measures by using individually modeled driver’s behavior. This paper aims to compare and contrast the methodologies behind the two tools and offer explanation and discussion of their outputs. The paper will cover four major HCM freeway segment types (basic, merge, diverge, and weaving) in under-saturated conditions. Field data will be acquired from a section of I-880 freeway in California. FREEVAL and Vissim models will be calibrated and validated using Mobile Century Data provided by University of California at Berkley and Caltrans Performance Measurement System. The output of both tools will be evaluated against the field data. The assessment should reveal the ability of each tool to replicate the real-world conditions. Paper results will contribute to the existing body of knowledge by filling the gap in the literature related to comparison and contrast of the key (LOS-related) performance measures of these two tools.

Keywords

Vissim ; FREEVAL ; Level-of-Service ; Freeway ; Modeling

References

1. Bloomberg et al., 2003 Bloomberg, L., Swenson, M., & Haldors, B. (2003). Comparison of Simulation Models and the HCM. TRB 2003 Annual Meeting , (p. 20p). Washington, D.C.
2. Daganzo, 1994 C.F. Daganzo; The cell transmission model: A dynamic representation of highway traffic consistent with the hydrodynamic theory; Transportation Research Part B, 28 (4) (1994), pp. 169–287
3. Forschungsgesellschaft fuer Strassen- und Verkehrswesen, 2009 Forschungsgesellschaft fuer Strassen- und Verkehrswesen. (2009). Handbuch für die Bemessung von Straßenverkehrsanlagen: HBS (German Highway Capacity Manual). Cologne: Forschungsgesellschaft fuer Strassen- und Verkehrswesen.
4. Geistefeldt et al., 2014 J. Geistefeldt, S. Giuliani, P. Vortisch, U. Leyn, R. Trapp, F. Busch, et al.; Assessment of Level of Service on Freeways by Microscopic Traffic Simulation; Transportation Research Record No. 2461 (2014), pp. 41–49
5. Hartmann et al., 2015 Hartmann, M., Vortisch, P., & Schroeder, B.J. (2015). A German Approach to Freeway Facility Evaluation. 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board , (p. 17p). Washington, D.C.
6. Jolovic and Stevanovic, 2012 Jolovic, D., & Stevanovic, A. (2012). Evaluation of VISSIM and FREEVAL to Assess an Oversaturated Freeway Weaving Segment. TRB Annual Meeting , (p. 12p). Washington, D.C.
7. Milam et al., 2006 Milam, R.T., Stanek, D., & Chris, B. (2006). The Secrets to HCM Consistency Using Simulation Models. 85th TRB Annual Meeting , (p. 11p). Washington, D.C.
8. Qi et al., 2014 Qi, Y., Chen, X., Cheu, R., Yu, L., Wu, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2014). Design and Scope of Impact of Auxiliary Lanes: Technical Report. Houston, TX: Departiment of Transportation Studies.
9. Qiu et al., 2010 Qiu, T.Z., Lu, X.-Y., Chow, A.H., & Shladover, S.E. (2010). Estimation of Freeway Traffic Density with Loop Detector and Probe Vehicle Data. Transportation Research Record (2178), 21-29.
10. Rouphail et al., 2011 Rouphail, N., Schroeder, B., & Eads, B. (2011). Users Guide to FREEVAL2010. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
11. Sajjadi et al., 2013 Sajjadi, S., Schroeder, B., & Rouphail, N. (2013). Enhancements to the Freeway Facilities Method in the Highway Capacity Manual to Enable Reliability Analysis. Transportation Research Record , 21-30.
12. Transportation Research Board, 2010a Transportation Research Board. (2010). Chapter 12: Freeway Weaving Segments. In T. R. Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Vol. 2, pp. 12-30). Washington D.C.
13. Transportation Research Board, 2010b Transportation Research Board. (2010). HCM 2010. Washington, D.C.: TRB.
14. Transportation Research Board, 2010 Transportation Research Board. (2010). HCM2010: Chapter 11: Uninterrupted Flow. In Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Vol. 2, pp. 11-26). Washington D.C.: TRB.
15. Wu and Lemke, 2011 Wu, N., & Lemke, K. (2011). A new Model for Level of Service of Freeway Merge, Diverge, and Weaving Segments. 6th International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service (p. 12). Stockholm, Sweden: Elsevier.
16. Zegeer et al., 2014 Zegeer, J., Bonneson, J., Dowling, R., Ryus, P., Vandehey, M., Kittelson, W., et al. (2014). Incorporating Travel Time Reliability into the Highway Capacity Manual. Strategic Highway Research Program. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.