Using Traffic Simulation for Level of Service Traveller Perception Studies

Keywords: computer 3-D visualisation, traffic level of service, traffic conditions perception, traffic microsimulation, automated vehicle selection method

Abstract

Level of service (LOS) classifications of traffic oper-ational conditions play a significant role in roadway-im-provement funding decisions. Traveller perception of LOS should be consistent with traffic analysis values to avoid undermining the public confidence in the transpor-tation agency decisions. Research methods to study trav-eller perceptions range from in-vehicle videos to focus groups and surveys. These methods have different advan-tages, but all suffer from time and/or cost inefficiencies for collecting data sets across a wide range of operating conditions. This paper describes a novel method to study this topic with increased time and cost efficiency. This new method combines traffic microsimulation and 3-D visualisation capabilities. The focus of this paper is to provide guidance on how to apply traffic microsimula-tion and computer 3-D visualisation to evaluate highway trip quality from a traveller’s perspective. It discusses the creation of the simulation environment to produce a real-istic view from the vehicle’s cabin interior, including the network creation, landscaped area, dashboard speedom-eter, and rear-view mirror. The authors also propose an automated method for choosing an appropriate vehicle within the simulated traffic stream, such that the desired overall traffic stream conditions are conveyed to the trav-eller vehicle within the field of view.

References

TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87. 2nd Edition. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC; 1965.

Roess RP, Prassas E. The Highway Capacity Manual: A conceptual and research history – Volume 1: Uninterrupted flow. Switzerland: Springer; 2014.

TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. 3rd Edition. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC; 1985.

TRB. Highway Capacity Manual. 5th Edition. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; 2010.

De Vos J, Witlox F. Travel satisfaction revisited. On the pivotal role of travel satisfaction in conceptualising a travel behavior process. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2017;106: 364–373. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.009.

Ettema D, et al. Satisfaction with travel and subjective well-being: Development and test of a measurement tool. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior. 2011;14(3): 167–175. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2010.11.002.

Singleton PA. Validating the satisfaction with travel scale as a measure of hedonic subjective well-being for commuting in a U.S. city. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior. 2019;60: 399–414. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.029.

Choocharukul K, Sinha KC, Mannering FL. User perceptions and engineering definitions of highway level of service: an exploratory statistical comparison. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2004;38(9-10): 677–689. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2004.08.001.

Washburn S, Ramlackhan K, McLeod D. Quality-of-service perceptions by rural freeway travelers: Exploratory analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2004;1883: 132–139. doi: 10.3141/1883-15.

Kita H, Kouchi A. Quantifying perceived quality of traffic service and its aggregation structure. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2011;19(2): 296–306. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2010.05.015.

Jou RC, Kou CC, Chen YW. Drivers’ perception of LOSs at signalized intersections. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2013;54: 141–154. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.07.013.

Jou RC, Chen YW. Drivers’ acceptance of delay time at different levels of service at signalized intersections. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2013;58: 54–66. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.009.

Kang L, Xiong Y, Mannering FL. Statistical analysis of pedestrian perceptions of sidewalk level of service in the presence of bicycles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2013;53: 10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.05.002.

Griswold JB, et al. A behavioral modeling approach to bicycle level of service. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2018;116: 166–177. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.006.

Dowling R, et al. Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. NCHRP Report 616, 2008.

Morris JL. Identification of preferred performance measures for the assessment of level of service on two-lane highways. Master’s thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; 2005.

Washburn S, Kirschner D. Rural freeway level of service based on traveler perception. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2006;1988: 31–37. doi: 10.3141/1988-06.

Fang FC, Pecheux KK. Fuzzy data mining approach for quantifying signalized intersection level of services based on user perceptions. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 2009;135(6): 349–358. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2009)135:6(349).

Jensen SU. Car drivers’ experienced level of service on freeways. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2017;2615: 132–139. doi: 10.3141/2615-15.

Hall F, Wakefield S, Al-Kaisy A. Freeway quality of service: What really matters to drivers and passengers?. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2001;1776: 17–23. doi: 10.3141/1776-03.

Hostovsky C, Hall F. Freeway quality of service: Perceptions from tractor-trailer drivers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2003;1852: 19–25. doi: 10.3141/1852-03.

Hostovsky C, Wakefield S, Hall FL. Freeway users’ perceptions of quality of service: Comparison of three groups. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2004;1883(1): 150–157. doi: 10.3141/1883-17.

Ko B, Washburn SS, McLeod DS. Performance measures for truck level of service: An exploratory survey analysis. Transportation Research Record. 2009;2130(1): 120–128. doi: 10.3141/2130-15.

Nakamura H, Suzuki K, Ryu S. Analysis of the interrelationship among traffic flow conditions, driving behavior, and degree of driver’s satisfaction on rural motorways. In: Transportation Research Circular E-C018: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Highway Capacity. Washington, D.C., USA. Transportation Research Board; 2000. p. 42–52.

Papadimitriou E, Mylona V, Golias J. Perceived level of service, driver, and traffic characteristics: Piecewise linear model. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 2010;136(10): 887–894. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000154.

Campos CI, et al. Perception analysis of highway quality of service using a driving simulator and eye tracking system. Transportes. 2020;28(3): 165-179. doi: 10.14295/transportes.v28i3.2015.

Wang X. Integrating GIS, simulation models, and visualization in traffic impact analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 2005;29(4): 471–496. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2004.01.002.

Kuliga S, et al. Virtual reality as an empirical research tool — exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 2015;54: 363–375. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006.

Obelheiro MR, Cybis HB, Ribeiro JL. Level of service method for Brazilian toll plazas. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;16: 120–130. doi: 10.1016/j. sbspro.2011.04.435.

Paiva APO, Setti JR. [Um método de delimitação de níveis de serviço com base na percepção dos usuários]. In: Anais do XXIX Congresso Nacional de Pesquisa em Transporte - ANPET, Ouro Preto, Brazil. Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transportes (ANPET); 2015. p. 1–12. Portuguese.

Funke F, Reips UD, Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales and not from 5-point scales. Field Methods. 2012;24(3): 310–327. doi: 10.1177/1525822X12444061.

PTV. Vissim version 11; 2020. https://www.ptvgroup.com/en/solutions/ products/ptv-vissim/ [Accessed 3rd Feb. 2021].

Bethonico FC, Piva FJ, Setti JR. [Calibração de microssimuladores de tráfego através de medidas macroscópicas]. In: Anais do XXX Congresso de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transporte (ANPET), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transportes (ANPET); 2016. Portuguese.

Carvalho LGS, Setti JR, Calibration of the VISSIM truck performance model using GPS data. Transportes. 2019;27(3): 131-143. doi: 10.14295/transportes.v27i3.2042.

AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC; 2018.

Piva FJ. Supplemental Data Video S1. 2021. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4499031.

Published
2022-04-15
How to Cite
1.
Piva FJ, Setti JR, Washburn S. Using Traffic Simulation for Level of Service Traveller Perception Studies. Promet [Internet]. 2022Apr.15 [cited 2022Dec.3];34(2):297-08. Available from: https://traffic.fpz.hr/index.php/PROMTT/article/view/3965
Section
Articles