Simulation Based-MCDM Approach for Evaluating Traffic Solutions

  • Ghazi MAGABLEH Yarmouk University, Industrial Engineering Department
  • Ahmad MUMANI Yarmouk University, Industrial Engineering Department
Keywords: traffic simulation, discrete optimisation, MCDM, TOPSIS, PSI, traffic solutions


Traffic congestion problems have dramatically esca-lated with the increasing volume of vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists in the face of limited road capacity. This re-search aims to reduce the time road users spend in the system (school-zone area) and improve the efficiency of the process of dropping off and collecting children from a crowded school area. The study integrates discrete-event simulation (DES) and multi-criterion decision-mak-ing (MCDM) techniques to comprehensively evaluate the proposed alternatives to select an optimal solution based on many performance measures. A real-world case study of the traffic and congestion problems experienced by parents when they drop off and fetch their children from school during peak hours is presented. A heuristic algorithm was developed to simulate the random and un-predictable behaviour of road users. A cost-benefit anal-ysis considered the impact of waiting time, traffic den-sity, number of accidents, additional fuel expenses, and emission reduction. The technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and preference selection index (PSI) methods were utilised to select the most appropriate option for parents. The study found that the integration of simulation techniques with MCDM methods could efficiently solve traffic problems.


Charly A, Mathew TV. Evaluation of driving perfor-mance in relation to safety on an expressway using field driving data. Transportation Letters. 2020;12(5): 340–348. doi: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1591075.

Kang MS, Kang TE, Ju JH. A study on the efficien-cy evaluation of the improvement project for school zone using DEA. Journal of The Korean Society of Civil Engineers. 2018;38(6): 895–906. doi: 10.12652/Ksce.2018.38.6.0895.

Ikeda E, Hinckson E, Witten K, Smith M. Assessment of direct and indirect associations between children active school travel and environmental, household and child factors using structural equation modelling. Internation-al Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2019;16(1): 32. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0794-5.

Zhao X, et al. A generic approach for examining the effectiveness of traffic control devices in school zones. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2015;82: 134–142. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.021.

Zayerzadeha A, Zavareh MF. School zone road safety as-sessment using the iRAP star rating for schools (SR4S) methodology in Khorasan Razavi Province. Journal of Injury and Violence Research. 2019;11(4 Suppl 2).

Heydari S, Miranda-Moreno L, Hickford AJ. On the causal effect of proximity to school on pedestrian safe-ty at signalized intersections: A heterogeneous en-dogenous econometric model. Analytic Methods in Accident Research. 2020;26: 100115. doi: 10.1016/j.amar.2020.100115.

Park BG. The research of existing traffic safety facilities condition for enhancing in school zone safety. Journal of the Korean Association for Spatial Structures. 2013;13(2): 101–109. doi: 10.9712/KASS.2013.13.2.101.

Lee SI, Kim SH, Kim JW, Hu E. A development of the integrated evaluation criteria for safety of school zones. Journal of the Korean Society of Safety. 2012;27(1): 117–122. doi: 10.14346/JKOSOS.2012.27.1.117.

Prud'homme J. [Children exposure to PM10 on the way to school: Regulatory impact of speed regulation under 30 km/h]. Revue D'epidemiologie et de Sante Publique. 2017;66(2): 145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2017.09.005.

Kim P, et al. 6A.001 An evaluation of the school-based helmet program in Myanmar. Injury Prevention. 2021;27(Suppl 2): A1–A79. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2021-safety.148.

Reyad P, Sayed T, Zaki MH, Ibrahim SE. School zone safety diagnosis using automated conflicts analysis technique. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2017;44(10): 802–812. doi: 10.1139/cjce-2016-0586.

Lee H. A Comparative Study on Traffic Safety Facili-ties of Traffic Accident Scene in the School Zone. Ko-rean Journal of Security Convergence Management. 2018;7(4): 222–240. doi:10.24826/kscs.7.4.15.

Wang W, et al. Factors influencing traffic accident fre-quencies on urban roads: A spatial panel time-fixed ef-fects error model. PLoS One. 2019;14(4): e0214539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214539. eCollection 2019.

Díaz DMV, et al. Evaluation of Safety Enhancements in School Zones with Familiar and Unfamiliar Drivers. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts at Amherst; 2019.

Valdés D, et al. Speed Behavior in a Suburban School Zone: A driving simulation study with familiar and unfamiliar drivers from Puerto Rico and Massachu-setts. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, Cham; 2019. p. 319–329.

Rahman MS, Abdel-Aty M, Lee J, Rahman MH. Safe-ty benefits of arterials’ crash risk under connected and automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies; 2019;100: 354–371. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2019.01.029.

Kamal MAS, et al. A vehicle-intersection coordination scheme for smooth flows of traffic without using traf-fic lights. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transpor-tation Systems. 2015;16(3): 1136–1147. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2014.2354380.

Jiang P, et al. Congestion prediction of urban traffic em-ploying SRBDP. Proc-15th IEEE Int Symp Parallel Dis-trib Process with Appl 16th IEEE Int Conf Ubiquitous Comput Commun ISPA/IUCC 2017. 2018; p. 1099–106.

Xu H, Duan F, Pu P. Solving dynamic vehicle routing problem using enhanced genetic algorithm with penalty factors. Int J Performability Eng. 2018;14(4): 611–20. doi: 10.23940/ijpe.18.04.p3.611620.

Mandayam CV, Prabhakar BS. Traffic congestion: Models, costs and optimal transport. Perform Eval Rev. 2014;42(1): 553–4. doi: 10.1145/2637364.2592014.

Saeedmanesh M, Geroliminis N. Dynamic cluster-ing and propagation of congestion in heterogeneous-ly congested urban traffic networks. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2017;105: 193–211. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2017.08.021.

Paruchuri P, Pullalarevu AR, Karlapalem K. Multi agent simulation of unorganized traffic. Proc Int Conf Auton Agents. 2002;(2): 176–83. doi: 10.1145/544741.544786.

Caprani CC, O'Brien EJ, Lipari A. Long-span bridge traffic loading based on multi-lane traffic micro-simu-lation. Eng Struct. 2016;115: 207–19. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.045.

Garg D, Chli M, Vogiatzis G. Traffic3D: A new traf-fic simulation paradigm. Proc 18th Int Conf Auton Agents MultiAgent Syst, 13-17 May 2019, Montréal, Canada; 2019. p. 2354–6.

Papathanasopoulou V, Markou I, Antoniou C. Online calibration for microscopic traffic simulation and dy-namic multi-step prediction of traffic speed. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2016;68: 144–59. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.04.006.

Wang C, et al. A combined use of microscopic traf-fic simulation and extreme value methods for traf-fic safety evaluation. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2018;90(March): 281–91. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.03.011.

Hamric K. An evaluation of school zone traffic control strategies: Phase I. Mid-Atlantic Universities Trans-portation Center. No. MAUTC-2010-02, 2013.

Huy LN, et al. Emission inventory for on-road traffic fleets in Greater Yangon, Myanmar. Atmospheric Pol-lution Research. 2020;11(4): 702–713. doi: 10.1016/j.apr.2019.12.021.

Tezel-Oguz MN, Sari D, Ozkurt N, Keskin SS. Ap-plication of reduction scenarios on traffic-related NOx emissions in Trabzon, Turkey. Atmospheric Pollution Research. 2020;11(12): 2379–2389. doi: 10.1016/j.apr.2020.06.014.

Kang CC, Feng CM, Liao BR, Khan HA. Accounting for air pollution emissions and transport policy in the measurement of the efficiency and effectiveness of bus transits. Transportation Letters. 2020;12(5): 349–361. doi: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1592369.

Kim Oanh NT, et al. Assessment of urban passen-ger fleet emissions to quantify climate and air quali-ty co-benefits resulting from potential interventions. Carbon Management. 2018;9(4): 367–381. doi: 10.1080/17583004.2018.1500790.

Hauptman M, et al. Proximity to major roadways and asthma symptoms in the School Inner-City Asthma Study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2020;145(1): 119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.08.038.

Keall M, et al. Implications of attending the closest school on adolescents’ physical activity and car travel in Dunedin, New Zealand. Journal of Transport & Health. 2020;18: 100900. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2020.100900.

Wang L, et al. Unexpected rise of ozone in urban and rural areas, and sulfur dioxide in rural areas during the coronavirus city lockdown in Hangzhou, China: Implications for air quality. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2020;18(5): 1713–1723. doi: 10.1007/s10311-020-01028-3.

Wu L, et al. Development of the Real-time On-road Emission (ROE v1. 0) model for street-scale air qual-ity modeling based on dynamic traffic big data. Geo-scientific Model Development. 2020;13(1): 23–40. doi: 10.5194/gmd-13-23-2020.

Schrank D, Eisele B, Lomax T. TTI’s 2012 Urban Mo-bility Report. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, 2012. p. 1–4.

Rothman L, et al. PW 0373 Evaluation of the vision zero school safety zones program in the city of Toron-to – Policy makers and researchers working together. Injury Prevention. 2018;24(Suppl 2): A50.2–A50. doi: 10.1136/injuryprevention-2018-safety.136.

Rahman MH, Abdel-Aty M, Lee J, Rahman MS. En-hancing traffic safety at school zones by operation and engineering countermeasures: A microscopic simulation approach. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 2019;94: 334–348. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2019.04.001.

Zhao X, Li J, Ma J, Rong J. Evaluation of the effects of school zone signs and markings on speed reduction: A driving simulator study. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1): 1–14.

Liu C-C, Niu ZW, Chang PC, Zhang B. Assess-ment approach to stage of lean transformation cycle based on fuzzy nearness degree and TOP-SIS. Int J Prod Res. 2017;55(23): 7223–35. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1355124.

Prasad S, Khanduja D, Sharma SK. Integration of SWOT analysis with hybrid modified TOPSIS for the lean strategy evaluation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf. 2018;232(7): 1295–309. doi: 10.1177/0954405416666893.

Vinodh S, Thiagarajan A, Mulanjur G. Lean concept selection using modified fuzzy TOPSIS: A case study. Int J Serv Oper Manag. 2014;18(3): 342–57. doi: 10.1080/19397038.2012.682100.

Balioti V, Tzimopoulos C, Evangelides C. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using TOPSIS Method Under Fuzzy Environment. Application in Spillway Selection. Proceed-ings. 2018;2(11): 637. doi: 10.3390/proceedings2110637.

Vinodh S, Swarnakar V. Lean Six Sigma project selection using hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS. Int J Lean Six Sigma. 2015;6(4): 313–38. doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2014-0041.

Yadav G, Seth D, Desai TN. Prioritising solutions for Lean Six Sigma adoption barriers through fuzzy AHP-modified TOPSIS framework. Int J Lean Six Sigma. 2018;9(3): 270–300. doi: 10.1108/ijlss-06-2016-0023.

Jian S, Ying S. Preference selection index method for machine selection in a flexible manufacturing cell. MATEC Web Conf. 2017;139: 4–7. doi: 10.1051/matecco-nf/201713900167.

Prasad RV, Rao CM, Raju BN. Application of Prefer-ence Selection Index (PSI) method for the optimization of turning process parameters. Int J Mod Trends Eng Res. 2018;5(5): 140–4.

Attri R, Grover S. Application of preference selection in-dex method for decision making over the design stage of production system life cycle. J King Saud Univ - Eng Sci. 2015;27(2): 207–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jksues.2013.06.003.

Aan M, et al. Determination of education scholarship recipients using preference selection index. Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology. 2017;3: 230–234.

Sahir SH, et al. The Preference Selection Index method in determining the location of used laptop marketing. Int J Eng Technol. 2018;7(3.4 Special Issue 4): 260–3.

Sawant VB, Mohite SS, Patil R. A decision-making meth-odology for automated guided vehicle selection problem using a preference selection index method. Commun Com-put Inf Sci. 2011;145: 176–81. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-20209-4_24.

Vincent T, Benyahia I. Complex application architecture dynamic reconfiguration based on multi-criteria decision making. Int J Softw Eng Appl. 2010;1(4): 19–37. doi: 10.5121/ijsea.2010.1402.

Janic M, Reggiani A. An application of the multiple crite-ria decision making (MCDM) analysis to the selection of a new hub airport. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res (EJTIR). 2002;2(2). doi: 10.18757/ejtir.2002.2.2.3692.

Bongo MF, Ocampo LA. A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for mitigating air traffic con-gestion. 2016 International Conference on Industrial En-gineering, Management Science and Application (ICIM-SA), 23-26 May 2016, Jeju, South Korea; 2016. p. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICIMSA.2016.7503982.

Khorasani G, et al. Application of multi criteria decision making tools in road safety performance indicators and determine appropriate method with average concept. Int J Innov Technol Explor Eng. 2013;3(5): 173–7.

Podvezko V, Sivilevičius H. The use of AHP and rank correlation methods for determining the signif-icance of the interaction between the elements of a transport system having a strong influence on traf-fic safety. Transport. 2013;28(4): 389–403. doi: 10.3846/16484142.2013.866980.

Together EU. Eco-driving: Handout 6 Fuel consump-tion of car. 2011; p. 6–8.

Government of Canada. 2019 Fuel Consumption Guide | Natural Resources Canada.

Belenky P. Revised departmental guidance on valuation of travel time in economic analysis. Off Transp Policy Reports; 2011. p. 1–28. Available from:

Zhang J, Wang DZ, Meng M. Optimization of bus stop spacing for on-demand public bus service. Transportation Letters. 2020;12(5): 329–339. doi: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1590677.

How to Cite
MAGABLEH G, MUMANI A. Simulation Based-MCDM Approach for Evaluating Traffic Solutions. Promet [Internet]. 2022Feb.18 [cited 2022Aug.11];34(1):117-33. Available from: