111EQUATION CHAPTER 1 SECTION 1JULI 1, 14-17, CIE5804

EXAM
Please return this exam with your answers!
1a b c

2a b c

3a b c

4a b c

10

10

10

20

4 2 4

2 4 4

2 4 4

d 5a b c
10

4 6 4 6 1 3 6

6a b c

7a b c d 8a b c

9a b c

10

20

10

4 2 4

15

4 4 6 6 3 6 6

3 3 4

Please start each question on a new page and keep your answers brief (and readable!). Question 9 is a BONUS question, with it you can compensate
for lost points in other questions, but you dont loose points if you miss it (the maximum score still is 100%)

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS & NETWORK TRAFFIC DYNAMICS

1) ITS (which include all possible traffic and demand management measures) can be used to serve many
policy objectives, such as maximizing efficiency (e.g.: serve as many travellers as possible; minimize
total time spent); increasing travel time reliability (e.g.: trips in congestion should have travel times
within 50% of the free-flow travel time); or environmental objectives (emissions near residential areas
should stay below XX mg/m3).
a) Give an example of an ITS measure which may serve one objective, but may have adverse effects
another (motivate!)
The simplest example is traffic lights. For environmental purposes you would want to eliminate
stops of heavy vehicles as much as possible, but this may result in a very ineffective control
algorithm
b) Give an example of an ITS measure which may serve all three objectives (motivate!)
Most forms of demand management (multi-modal information) serve all three: they lead to more
efficient use of the infrastructure and to more reliability through distributing the demand better over
both space, time and transport modes.
c) Illustrate with an examples how ITS measures could be used to make travel times (e.g. along the
route from Rotterdam to The Hague) more reliable
Many good answers are possible, as long as the reasoning is ok. Think of ITS which increase
capacity, decrease the probability of traffic breakdown, and/or ITS which reduce the variability of
travel time (i.e. reduce the variability in inflows and in capacity).
2) Under certain conditions self-organisation may lead to efficient use of resources and a high production in
many dynamic systems.
a) Give two examples of efficient self-organisation in traffic systems
There are many: the distribution of cars over lanes on freeways, the fact that queues for tolling
facilities are usually equal in length, lane formation in pedestrian flows, route and departure time
choice in traffic and transport networks over longer time periods

b) Sketch the NFD (the Network Fundamental Diagram) and

annotate the figure: what quantities are on the axes and what
are their units? Also highlight some relevant points in the
figure.
Central is that in your sketch you do not mix the NFD with a
regular FD. On the vertical axis we have traffic production
(nr of trips finished in a period of time) and on traffic
accumulation (amount of vehicles in a network). E.g.: the
NFD summarizes network traffic operations (drive + route
choice behavior), the FD just local drive behaviour; in the free NFD branch there already may
exist some local congestion / queuing but this does not influence the network production (at least not
in terms of finished trips per unit time); the jam point implies total gridlock (nobody is going
anywhere anymore).
c) Give four reasons (four phenomena that occur in traffic networks) that explain why at higher traffic
loads self-organisation no longer leads to efficient use of a traffic network (on the contrary)
1 the capacity drop (which increases local problems), 2 queue spillback and blocking back; 3 suboptimal route choice; 4 - uneven distribution of traffic in a network

MAIN TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SOLUTION DIRECTIONS AND GGB+

3) The GGB+ approach is a structured process in which all stakeholders in a region work together to lay the
foundation for the deployment of (integrated and coordinated) traffic management.
a) One of the objectives of such a GGB+ study for road authorities is to combine 'local' policies of road
authorities into one coherent regional vision on the road network. Give an example that illustrates
why such a combined vision is critically important to successfully implement integrated traffic
management.
Think of problems like rat-running, rerouting truck/heavy traffic through region with multiple
smaller communities, also think of ramp metering: that is essentially buffering freeway traffic on
urban arterials. In these case different road authorities have very different objectives/stakes.
b) Describe the (four) main solution directions for traffic management (tailored to address the
phenomena from question 2c)
c) Describe how intersection controllers can be used to operationalize each of these four solution
directions (you may want to answer questions b and c in one table)
d(e): 1: Improve throughput (IC can provide extra green for those traffic streams that need it); 2
Prevent blockades (IC can flush queues that are close to spilling back and/or IC can limit the
inflow to downstream queues that are about to spill back); 3 distribute traffic (IC can prioritize
directions in which still sufficient buffer space is available); 4- Reduce Inflow (IC can limit the
amount of green into directions in which vehicle accumulation is too high)
4) Consider the Network in and around Delft (see figures on separate page). Under normal conditions on
weekdays, congestion sets in at around 16:30 and lasts until 18:30. Suppose a critical situation occurs at
the (nuclear) reactor institute at TU Delft around 15:30 on a (busy) weekday afternoon. Immediately a
task force (police, emergency services, road authorities and TU experts) is put together. You have the
(absolute) lead over traffic management operations in the entire region. Keep it brief (use bullets or a
table) and concise so that I can follow your (GGB) thinking (HINT: many answers are possible as
long as the reasoning is ok)

a) The news spreads fast via social media, and around 16:00 a large amount of people decides to leave
TU Delft. Argue which are the bottlenecks (and/or bottleneck seeds) for this case
b) Propose traffic management solutions to prevent (mitigate) these bottlenecks from oversaturating.
Hint 1: consider which roads youre going to use for which (traffic management) purpose; Hint 2:
consider the four traffic management solution directions;
c) At 16:30 the crisis team decides that the entire TU Delft area needs to be evacuated immediately for
safety purposes. Which bottleneck (seeds) do you expect now to become active?
d) Sketch a traffic management strategy from 16:30 onwards for this scenario. In this strategy list
which roads/routes are used for what (traffic management) purpose; which routes are prioritized and
which traffic management solutions (on which routes/locations) you will deploy.
TRAFFIC STATE ESTIMATION
5) The figure below shows a control loop, and
the different variables (state variables x,
observations / measurements y, disturbances
d, control signals u) that play a role in it.
a) What are these so-called state variables?
(give a definition)
State variables are those variables that
uniquely and completely describe the
time evolution of the process that is controlled.
b) Consider a simple network with two alternative routes between A and B. Suppose our objective is to
distribute traffic coming from A with direction B over these two alternative routes, such that the total
delays for all drivers are minimized. To achieve this objective we provide all drivers with the
expected delay on the two alternative routes (e.g. using a dynamic route information panel).
Motivate which of the following variables could be used as state variables in this controller:
Consider what process is controlled: the distribution of traffic over (i.e. the amount of vehicles on)
the two routes. So we need state variables that uniquely describe the time evolution of that process
given our control signal (queue length information)
i)

The fraction of travellers choosing one of the two routes?

No. This is the variable we are trying to influence, and we also need it to compute the future
traffic state on both routes. But this fraction does not uniquely define the state of the process,
because for that you also need to know how many vehicles are already present on both routes

ii) The number of vehicles queuing on both routes?

Yes, this is an option (see the route navigation example in the lecture about ex ante evaluation
and/or the worked example in chapter 4). Also good: the density along both routes. You may
argue that you could use also speeds for this controller (and use the ASM method to
extrapolate/predict the expected traffic conditions: [v(t+n),,v(t+1)] = ASM([v(t), v(t-1), v(t-2),
]). With these extrapolated speeds you could reconstruct travel times and thus expected delays
on both routes
iii) The sensitivity of the drivers to the provided information (i.e. the degree in which drivers use the
information to determine their route choice)?

No, this is typically a disturbance (although you can argue that the quality of the route advice
may in time affect the sensitivity of users and therefore the effectiveness of the controller)
c) The adaptive smoothing method (ASM) is an example of a traffic state estimation method. Explain
in your own words how this method works (use a figure to explain if needed)
See lecture slides
TRAFFIC CONTROL APPROACHES
6) One could classify different control approaches along two dimensions (see figure below). The first
dimension relates to the degree of adaptiveness (i.e. whether the control approach uses feedback and/or
adapts its inputs/parameters to the situation at hand). The second dimension relates to whether the
approach is reactive (based on past information only) or proactive (based on predictions). Classify the
following control applications along these two dimensions and motivate briefly (motivation is as
important as the answer):
a) The SPECIALIST algorithm (dynamic speed limits to solve wide moving jams)
Mid-slightly above bottom: There is a bit of short-term prediction involved (shockwave theory to
compute the speed limit and length of the speed limited area), and you must make sure that the used
fundamental diagram fits with the location specific circumstances. But in terms of control its still
open-loop (no feedback)
b) Fixed-time intersection control
Left-bottom: its reactive and open loop. You may argue (but than the argument needs to be precise)
that it is predictive (topleft) in case there are
different phase plans for
different times of the day
a
c
c) The coordinated ramp
metering / intersection
b
control approach used in
the PPA (large scale field
operational test
Amsterdam)
Also in the middle, but a
bit more to the right (not entirely though!). There is a bit of prediction (which bottleneck is about to
saturate) and there is (local) feedback
7) Isolated traffic management measures have been effectively deployed to solve (local) traffic problems.
However, effectiveness of isolated controllers is limited due to a number of reasons. One of the reasons
is that a measure (e.g. ramp metering) cannot be deployed for a considerable time due to storage
limitations (metering needs to stop once the on-ramp is full of traffic).
a) Name and discuss at least two other reasons that limit the effectiveness of isolated control measures.
Effect local measures may simply not be sufficient enough; Local effects may be counteracted by
problems in other parts of the network (e.g. oversaturation intersections, spillback or activation of
bottlenecks downstream); Travelers response may counteract the measure (rat-running)

b) Describe how the lack of buffer space could be improved using the coordinated deployment of
measures. You can give an example to illustrate your description.
Essentially coordination gives you additional storage space: on alternative routes; on the buffer
space at other ramps or intersection controllers.
Suppose the objective is to develop a Model Predictive Controller to compute the control signals for the
measures that are to be jointly deployed.
c) Sketch the system (the MPC traffic control loop) and its constituent elements and indicate how
policy objectives can be catered with an MPC approach.
See sheet 26 of lecture slides 3 for the scheme. Policy objectives can be realized via the objective
function of an MPC controller (e.g. minimize total time spent, or any other objective that you can
formulate, e.g. maximizing travel time reliability, minimizing total amount of emissions, equalizing
distribution of queues, etc)
d) Describe some pros and the cons of an MPC approach.
Pros: MPC is automated process and uses a traffic flow model to find the optimal set of control
measures and parameters in an entire network over a longer time period (this is virtually impossible
to do for a human); MPC combines feedback (about its own control computation) with prediction (it
optimizes control for a long time period instead of just the here and now);
Cons: MPC works well for nice linear processes, but traffic is a highly nonlinear and complex
process; MPC is computationally very complex, huge nr degrees of freedom; MPC provides no
motivation / explanation for a computed control scenario (i.e. difficult to explain)
8) The SPECIALIST algorithm uses dynamic speed limits to solve wide moving jams on freeways. A wide
moving jam is a short traffic jam with a high density/low speed that propagates upstream for many
kilometres.
a) Explain in your own words why it is beneficial to remove such wide moving jams
These WMJ reduce capacity by up to 30%. Removing them thus leads to large efficiency gains (and
also environmental gains: avoiding steep acc/dec)
b) Explain in your own words how SPECIALIST resolves these wide moving jams (No formulas are
asked - just the principle idea(s) behind this algorithm). Be brief (use a figure if needed)!
The basic principle is very simple: since q=ku: lowering u without changing k will reduce the inflow
into a WMJ. If inflow < outflow the WMJ will resolve (this is 75% of the answer). The additional
25% you earn with logical statements discussing e.g. the different steps / phases or an insightful
picture
c) Motivate whether the following statement is TRUE or FALSE: Mainline metering (i.e. using traffic
lights on the freeway) can achieve exactly the same gains as the SPECIALIST algorithm
FALSE - The key here is that SPECIALIST removes the capacity drop (i.e. traffic operations are
resolved to the freeflow capacity). Mainline metering at best resolves operations to the discharge
capacity, i.e. it could trap the WMJ to a fixed location (a buffer). You can easily verify with
shockwave theory what could happen under different scenarios of inflow.

BONUS QUESTION: EX ANTE EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

9) Consider the traffic network in the figure below (the A13 from The Hague to Rotterdam). At all three
onramps around Delft a ramp metering (RM) installation are installed. The (RWS) algorithm determines
the ramp metering rate by comparing the upstream flow q2(t) on the freeway to the (estimated) capacity
Cap downstream of the bottleneck (see figure for the formula and rationale).
a) Discuss at least two disadvantages related to this RM algorithm
1) its a feedforward controller, theres no feedback into the controller with information on how well
it is doing (how well its achieving its objectives); 2) Capacity is a highly stochastic variable
(depends on weather, amount of trucks, etc), which is difficult to estimate (in most cases a very
conservative estimate is used); 3) it has to be switched off when congestion sets in
b) Give a (rough) formula for an alternative RM algorithm that solves (some or all) these problems
Motivate your idea!
I would expect a feedback algorithm (like ALINEA), e.g.: qrm (t+1) = qrm (t) + K (*-ds), in which
* depicts the critical density around capacity (or a density slightly lower than critical density) and
ds depicts the density downstream of the onramp that is measured (or estimated). You could also use
occupancy (since that can be measured / estimated more easily than density) or even speed. This
controller also contains a parameter (critical density), but you may argue this parameter is slightly
less stochastic than capacity. Most importantly this controller can also work in congestion (and even
dissolve it, given there is enough storage space on the onramp to queue vehicles)
c) Suppose Rijkswaterstaat commissions you to set up an ex ante evaluation study to explore how your
alternative RM controller compares to the current RM installations and what additional gains can be
further obtained by coordinating the RM controllers. As indicator total vehicle loss hours (TVLH) is
proposed.
Briefly explain/motivate the experimental setup you envisage to answer this question. Discuss at
least (i) which data you require for this evaluation (what do we need to know); (ii) what type of
model you would use (if any) and why; and (iii) the validity of your approach (how serious should
we take the outcomes of your evaluation study).
i)

The setup is as follows: we need data (e.g. from loops, or manual observations, etc) to construct
realistic scenarios in which we will compare the different cases (feedforward RM vs feedback
RM & no coordination vs coordination). For that we need realistic traffic demand patterns
upstream and at the ramps; and along with these realistic initial traffic conditions along A13. We
also need the current settings of the RM algorithms.

ii)

You could think of a micro-simulation model of the freeway stretch (FOSIM or VISSIM) in
which we can implement ramp metering. A macroscopic simulation would also work (e.g. a first
order traffic flow model). Of course, we need to make sure this model is predictively valid, so
we need to calibrate the model with the data. Since the main measure of effectiveness relates is
Total Vehicle Loss hours, my strong preference would be to use a macroscopic traffic flow
model (we dont really need detailed vehicle trajectories to compute TVLH) But theres no
fundamental argument against using a microscopic model (in that case you could do more
scenarios, e.g. related to vehicle composition)

iii)

Given we proper data to calibrate its parameters (fundamental diagrams capacity, critical
speeds, etc) I am quite positive about the validity of a study with a macroscopic model.

iv)

I am quite positive about the validity effectiveness of coordination, it stands to reason that if you
have more buffer space (at more ramps) and if you use these in coordination, the metering time
will be much longer

Figures for question 4

Left: rough function map of the locally

available network
Below: rough function map regional
available network
Red: Freeways
Blue: Regional connector roads
Black: Urban axes
Black/Dotted: protected road