Highlights

  • Analytical models developed using field traffic data can be utilized with acceptable confidence to reliably represent, predict, and evaluate the operational characteristics of the highway systems.
  • Establishing a model to estimate the stochastic evolution of traffic conditions is important for prediction and developing effective solution to address roadway congestion.
  • Using a freeway segment of I-295 located in Jacksonville, Florida as a case study, an advanced statistical method developed in the Bayesian modeling framework was developed to account for the day of the week and lane lateral location disparities effect in influencing the dynamic evolution characteristics of traffic regimes.
  • Specifically, this study applied the Markov Chain theory and random coefficients logistic regression model in the analysis.

More information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40534-019-00199-2

Introduction

Random coefficient models

Motivating Examples

Random coefficient vs. Basic model

In the absence of a Bayesian hierarchical model, there are two approaches for this problem:

Complete pooling and No pooling

Partial pooled model/Random coefficient

Research Objectives

Methodology

Dynamic Modeling of traffic conditions

\[P_{ij}=(P_{t+1}=j|P_{t}=i)\]

\[P_{ij} = \left[\begin{array} {rr} P_{ff} & P_{fc} \\ P_{cf} & P_{cc} \\ \end{array}\right] \]

\[\sum_{j=1}^{2} P_{ij}=1\]

\[P_{ij} = \left[\begin{array} {rr} 1-P_{fc} & P_{fc} \\ 1-P_{cc} & P_{cc} \\ \end{array}\right] \]

Issues Addressed

Time-varying effect

Lane and day of the week varying-effect

Modeling Approach

Model 1

\[ Y_{ij} = Bernoulli(\pi_{ij})\] \[ \pi_{ij} = logit^{-1}(\eta_{ij})\] \[ \eta_{ij} = \alpha_{j} + \beta X + \epsilon_{k}\]

\[ \alpha_{j} \sim N(\mu_{1}, \sigma_{1})\] \[ \mu_{1} \sim N(\mu=0, \sigma = 100)\]

\[ \sigma_{1} \sim unif(0, 100)\] \[ \beta \sim N(\mu=0, \sigma = 100)\] \[ \epsilon_{k} \sim N(\mu=0, \sigma = \sigma_{k})\] \[ \sigma_{k} \sim halfcauchy(0, 5)\]

Model 2

\[ Y_{ij} = Bernoulli(\pi_{ij})\]
\[ \pi_{ij} = logit^{-1}(\eta_{ij})\] \[ \eta_{ij} = \alpha_{j} + \epsilon_{k}\]

\[ \alpha_{j} \sim N(\mu_{1}, \sigma_{1})\] \[ \mu_{1} \sim N(\mu=0, \sigma = 100)\]

Model Comparison

\[ WAIC = -2*lppd + 2*pWAIC\]
where,

          lppd is the log point-wise posterior density
          pWAIC is the effective number of parameters

Results

Random coefficient Lane lateral location
Median lane 46.72
Inner-left lane 51.42
Inner-right lane 50.93
Shoulder lane 57.26
Overall 52.23

Results

Results

Results

Results

  • No significant difference in model fit between CIRS and RC for the staying in the congested regime data

  • RC was the best in fitting Breakdown data

RC was selected for modeling Breakdown and the staying in the congested regime processes

Results

  • Posterior distribution summary

Results

  • Remaining in the congested regime