A Theory of Traffic Flow in Automated Highway Systems'

Transpn Rex-C, Vol. 4. No. 4, PP. 181.-210.
1996
Coovrieht ,t? 1996 Elxvicr ScienceLtd
Pergamon Printed’k &&Britain. All rightsreserved
0968-090X/96 515.00+ 0.00
PII: so%&o!Wx(%)oool1-3
A THEORY OF TRAFFIC FLOW IN AUTOMATED HIGHWAY

SYSTEMS’
M. BROUCKE* and P. VARAIYA

Departmentof Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 mire,
USA
(Received 25 August 1995; in revisedform 29 June 1996)
Abstract-This paper presentsa theory for automated traffic flow, based on an abstraction of
vehicle activities like entry, exit and cruising, derived from a vehicle’s automatic control laws. An
activity is represented in the flow model by the space and time occupied by a vehicle engaged in
that activity. The theory formulates Traffic Management Center (TMC) plans as the specification
of the activities and velocity of vehicles, and the entry and exit flows for each highway section. We
show that flows that achieve capacity can be realized by stationary plans that also minimize travel
time. These optimum plans can be calculated by solving a linear programming problem. The theory
permits the study of transient phenomena such as congestion, and TMC feedback traffic rules
designed to deal with transients. We propose a “greedy” TMC rule that always achieves capacity
but does not minimize travel time. We undertake a microscopic study of the “entry” activity, and
show how lack of coordination between entering vehicles and vehicles on the main line disrupts
traffic flow and increases travel time. We conclude by giving some practical indication of how to
obtain the space and time usage of activities from vehicle control laws. Finally, we illustrate the
concepts presented in this paper with two examples of how the model is used to calculate the
capacities of a one-lane automated highway system. In one example we study market penetration
of adaptive cruise control and in the second example we study the effect of platooning maneuvers
in a platooning architecture for AHS. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper proposes a theory of automated highway traffic. The theory predicts the per-
formance of an automated highway system (AHS) in terms of achievable (steady state)
flows and travel times. The performance predictions can be used to compare alternative
AHS designs.
The theory shows how AHS steady state performance is a function of the character-
istics of both the control laws that govern the movement of individual vehicles and the
traffic management rules that guide the vehicle flow. This functional relationship can be used
to suggest changes in vehicle control laws and. traffic management rules for improving
highway performance.
The theory also explains how the automated highway can become congested, and
what sorts of actions need to be taken to prevent congestion from occurring and to elim-
inate it once it occurs. Thus the theory may be used to design vehicle control and traffic
management rules for reducing undesirable transient behavior such as congestion.
Vehicles in an AHS are under automatic control: the distance a vehicle maintains
from the vehicle in front, its velocity, and its route from entry into the highway to exit, are
all determined by the vehicle’s feedback control laws. One may therefore compare the
effect on the traffic of changes in vehicle control laws, and seek to calculate the “opti-
mum” control laws. By contrast, in non-automated traffic flow theory, the driver deter-
mines a vehicle’s headway, its velocity, its movement during a merge, etc. Driver behavior
‘This research is supported by the California Department of Transportation through the California PATH
program and the Federal Highway Administration through the National Automated Highway System Con-
sortium.
181
182 M. Broucke and P. Varaiya
is difficult to change significantly. One hypothesizes feedback models of driver behavior

and uses real data or experiments to calibrate the model parameters.
Similarly, the Traffic Management Center (TMC) for the AHS can directly influence
the flow by issuing orders to vehicles regarding their velocity and route. Those orders will
be obeyed because the vehicles are programmed to do so. The TMC for the non-auto-
mated highway can also make speed and route suggestions, but drivers may ignore these
suggestions or react to them in an unexpected manner. Thus, the influence of TMC policies
in the AHS is much stronger and more predictable than its influence on non-automated
traffic; and so, one may again seek to determine optimum TMC policies.
Because it is possible to exercise much greater control over the movement of individual
vehicles and the traffic as a whole, a theory of AHS traffic flow will tend to be prescriptive.
Non-automated traffic flow theory is more descriptive, by contrast.* The following
notation will be used in this paper:
Symbol Interpretation
s(a) space used by activity a in m (meters)
G4 duration of activity a in s (seconds)
a a vehicle activity
L(0 length of section i in m
t time index
r time period
section index
;t flow type
V vehicle body type
maximum permissible velocity
t;i.r) average velocity of vehicles in section i at time t
n(i,t,Q number of vehicles in section i, time t, of flow type 8
Na,i,t,Q proportion of vehicles performing activity a in section i at time t of flow
type 0
A(a) space-time usage of activity a in m-s
f(i,t,Q number of vehicles entering section i at time t of flow type 8
di,t,W number of vehicles exiting section i at time t of flow type 8
dk0 fraction of vehicles in section i at time t that remain in the section at time
t +I.
the TMC plan consisting of an activity, velocity, entry and exit plan
average input flow over time t = O,...T
average output flow over time t = O,...T
time-averaged input flow in section i of type 8
time-averaged output flow in section i of type 8
a flow in vehicles/s
average flow of type 8 from section i-l to section i
stationary speed of section i
stationary number of vehicles in section i at time t of flow type 8
stationary activity plan
achievable input flows
achievable output flows
maximum number of vehicles in section i
average space-time used per vehicle in section i
number of vehicles in section i at time t of all flow types
maximum flow out of section i in vehicles/s
minimum of the maximum flow out of any section
gap required for the entry activity in the receiving lane, in m
kth free space gap, in m
%f course, this descriptive theory is used to design and prescribe ramp metering and other traffic manage-
ment rules.
Traffic Row theory in AHS 183
D inter-platoon gap, in m
d intra-platoon gap, in m
I vehicle length, in m
n platoon size
Q longitudinal sensor range, in m
2. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
We introduce the main abstractions and assumptions and the structure of the pro-
posed theory. The theory is based on an activity model: the movement of a vehicle is
conceptualized as a sequence of activities, such as entry, cruise, and exit, that are realized
by vehicle control laws; the highway is viewed as prodding the space necessary to carry
out each activity; the vehicle control laws and vehicle speed determine the time to com-
plete an activity.3
When there is insufficient space in one section of the highway, the rate of activity
completion in the section imm~iately upstream must be reduced. Since the rate of activity
completion is proportional to the speed, this causes a reduction in flow.
In this way, the interaction between the demand for space by vehicle activities and
the fixed supply of space offered by the highway determines the steady state flows that can
be realized, as well as the transient congestion effects that can occur. This interaction is
mediated by the vehicle control policies (which determine the space needed for each
activity) and the traffic management rules (which determine the activities that are to be
carried out in different sections of the highway). That is how the theory relates AHS per-
formance to characteristics of vehicle control and traffic management rules.
We now introduce the main assumption which we call “safety needs space,” that
binds together activities, vehicles and highway.
To fix ideas, we assume that the AHS has a single lane, with entrances and exits. At
each instant of time, every (automated) vehicle is engaged in one of a finite number of
activities such as cruising, changing a lane (in case of a multi-lane highway), entering the
highway, exiting the highway, etc. If vehicles are organized in closely-spaced platoons,
then cruising in a one-vehicle platoon is a different activity from cruising in a two-vehicle
platoon, and so on. Cruising in platoons of different sizes are considered different activ-
ities because the space needed per vehicle in a cruising platoon decreases with the platoon
size. (See Varaiya, 1993.)
The highway is divided into sections, and we will assume that a vehicle executes a
single activity in each section through which it travels. Consequently1 the passage of a
vehicle through the automated highway can be summarized by the sequence of activities
that the vehicle executes, starting with the “entry” activity in the section where it enters
and te~inating with the “exit” activity in the section where it leaves the highway. In this
model, vehicles are assumed to travel at a constant average speed within each section, and
an assumption of “one activity per section” can be used to tie the spatial discretization of
the highway into sections with the temporal discretization of movement into activities.
Consequently, variation in speed due to interaction of activities is not captured here.
Although not mathematically necessary, we adopt the one-activity-per-section assumption
to simplify the model description. (See Daganzo, 1994 for a related modeling move to tie
together spatial and temporal di~reti~tion.)
While it is engaged in a particular activity, a vehicle’s motion is governed by a feed-
back control law which ensures that this activity is carried out safely. These feedback laws
and the resulting vehicle motion can be complicated.4 But for our purposes we will work
with the assumption “safety needs space.”
To motivate this assumption, consider the “cruising” activity, in which a vehicle
keeps in one lane and its cruise control law guarantees safety by maintaining a minimum
>This activity model is inspired by the work in Hall, 1995.
4Examples of such f’etdback laws are given in Sheikhoteslam and Desoer. 1990, McMahon ef a/., 1990; Peng
and Tomizuka. 1990; and Franked er al., 1995.
safe distance between its vehicle and the vehicle in front of it. This distance is an increas-
ing function of vehicle speed.5 We shall assume a maximum permissible speed and let
s(cruise) be the corresponding minimum safe distance between a cruising vehicle and the
vehicle in front of it. Thus the safety-needs-space assumption says that its feedback law
will guarantee that a cruising vehicle will “occupy” s(cnrise) meters of a highway lane for
a duration t(cruise).
In general, safety-needs-space says that vehicle control laws cause a vehicle engaged
in activity (Yto occupy a distance s(u) from which, for a specified duration t(a), all other
vehicles are excluded. For activities involving vehicles in two lanes, as happens during a
lane change and in some implementations of entry/exit, the vehicle occupies a minimum
safety distance in both lanes.
The time the vehicle spends in a section is equal to the section length divided by the
vehicle velocity. When a vehicle engaged in activity LTleaves this section, its s(ar) space is
available for use by another vehicle from the upstream section. The longer the vehicle
stays in its section, the later will its space become available, and this may slow down
upstream vehicles. Thus, if the activities that vehicles are executing in different sections are
not well coordinated, the speed in some sections may be forced below the maximum or
free flow speed, causing congestion. Traffic management rules determine the activities that
vehicles undertake and their speed, and thus, ultimately, the AHS steady state perfor-
mance as well as how well congestion is dissipated.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In section 3 we introduce the
formal activity model. This is a system of differential equations, several parameters of
which are set by TMC plans, induding vehicle speed and activity, and entry and exit
flows.
TMC plans and achievable flows are studied in section 4. An achievable flow is any
vector of flows (indexed by origin-destination pairs or other characteristics) that can be
sustained in the long run. The main result of this section is that the set of achievable flows
is convex.
In section 5 we define AHS capacity as the set of undominated achievable flows, and
efficient TMC plans as those which minimize travel time. We show that every undomi-
nated flow, together with an efficient plan that achieves this fiow, can be computed by
solving a linear programming problem.
In section 6 we consider transient behavior: how congestion can develop and how
TMC feedback rules can mitigate its effects. We exhibit a “greedy” rule that is easy to
implement and always achieves capacity, but does not minimize travel time.
In section 7 we focus on two particular activities-entry and exit. These activities are
likely to be the most important in limiting AHS performance. In section 8 we discuss the
substantive modeling questions of how to define an activity and how to compute
the amount of space-time an activity needs. In section 9 we compare two alternative
AHS designs using the proposed theory. Finally, section 10 collects some concluding
remarks.
3. THE ACTWTY MODEL
We study a one-lane automated highway, divided into sections. Sections are indexed i
=T1,..., k section i is L(i) m in length. Section i - 1 is upstream of section i. Time is indexed
t =o, I,.... Each time period is t seconds long.
3.1. Vehicles
Vehicles have types indexed by 8 which may stand for their body type (passenger,
truck, bus), origin and destination and any other distinguishing characteristics of
interest.
?bis function depends on other parameters such as maximum vehicle braking torque, road surfam and tire
conditions, etc.
Traffif flow theory in AHS 185
All vehicles in section i at time t have the same velocity, denoted v(i,t), and measured
in m/s. It is required that v(i,t) 5 v, the maximum permissible or free flow speed. (P’, too,
may be indexed by i, but we don’t do that to ease the notational burden.)
Let n(i,t,@ be the number of vehicles of type 9 in section i at time t. We adopt the
notational convention that n(i,t) is the array indexed by 0, n(r) is the array indexed by
(t,@), and so on.
3.2. Activity plan

There are finitely many activities, indexed by CY.An activity plan is any array of non-
negative numbers R = (n(a,i,t$)> such that for every i,t$
x(a,i,t,Q) is the fraction of the n(i,r,O) vehicles engaged in activity a.

Associated with each activity a is the space-time (in m-s) l(a) >O of the section
occupied by each vehicle engaged in that activity. Thus n&t) vehicles engaged in activities
x(&t) will occupy
m-s of section i in a period T.

Two vehicles with the same (i,t,O) index and engaged in the same activity cannot be
further distinguished within the model. In that sense, this is a theory of vehicle flow. The
theory aggregates individual vehicle movement through the use of activities.
3.3. Velocity plan

A velocity pfan is an array of nonnegative numbers v = (v(i,t)j (in m/s), each less
than V. All n(i,t) vehicles move at v&t) m/s to conform to the plan. This restriction, in
part, is imposed by the single lane highway: since vehicles cannot pass each other, relative
velocities cannot be too great. However, the restriction also presupposes that the sections
are not so long that vehicles with significantly different speeds can coexist in the same
section.
It is possible, at the cost of further notational complexity, to introduce the following
features. Suppose the vehicle type 8 also signifies vehicle body type: light duty, truck, bus,
etc. Then we can insist that the space-time required depends also on vehicle type, i.e. we
have A(a,e). We can also insist that vehicle maximum velocity is a function of 8, V(e), and
require that the velocity v(Q) be smaller than the maximum permissible velocity,
i.e. n(~,t,~) > 0 implies v(i,t) 5 V(@ These features are very useful and easy to introduce in
the simulation system, but they would make this paper difficult to read.
3.4. Highway configuration

We have already specified parts of the highway configuration. We have a one-lane
highway, divided into sections i = l,..., I of length L(i). Section i is imm~iately down-
stream of section i - 1. Each section has at most one entrance and one exit. Vehicles can
make an entry through some dedicated infrastructure that connects a non-automated
highway or street to the AHS entrance. Vehicles can exit the AHS through another tran-
sitional infrastructure.’ We can require that an entering vehicle must engage in a dis-
tinguished “entry” activity, and an exiting vehicle must engage in “exit”. These activities
will occupy more space-time than most other activities because they will involve merging
from a ramp or a transition lane into the main AHS lane.
%ee Godbole et 01.. 1995 for several transitional infrastructure designs, and Rao and Varaiya. 1994 for a
similar highway configuration.
In a following paper we will extend the model to a multi-lane AHS. Such an exten-
sion then permits one to consider the “tane change” activity. It aIso permits the possibility
of modeling entry and exit as a kind of lane change.
3.5. Entry and exit plans

An entry plan is an arrayf= {f(i,t$)} of non-negative numbers.f(i,t,O) is the number
of vehicles of type 0 that enter the highway in section i in period t.
An exit plan is an array g = {g(i,t,@)} of non-negative numbers. g&r,@) is the number
of vehicles of type 8 that exit the highway in section i in period t.
If entry or exit in a particular section, say j, is forbidden, one merely adds the con-
straint: f(Q$)zO or g(j,t,B)zO, for all t,8. We will shortly impose more complex con-
straints on all the plans.
3.6, dynamics
The state of the system at time f is n(t) = (n(i,t,B)). Suppose that we are given an
activity plan rr, a velocity plan V,an entry planf, and an exit plan g. Let n(t) be the state at
time t. Then, for all t and 15 i 5 Z,
n(i, t + 1,&) = pCi,t)n(i, t, 0) + [I - p(i - 1, t)]n(i - 1, t, 8) +f(i, t. @)- g(i, t, ~9). (1)
Since the AHS sections are i = I,.,., I, we also have the boundary conditions,
n(0, t, e) = 0, for all t, 8, (2)
n(l+l,r,@)=O, forallt,@. (3)
Equation (1) should be interpreted as follows. First, by definition,
1 - p(i, t) := V(l*;;; f. (4)
Here p(i,t) is the fraction of vehicles in section i at time t that remain in that section for
time t + 1. Thus, [I-&J)] is the fraction of vehicles in section i at time t that leave that
section at the end of that period. By definition (4), the fraction of vehicles that leave is
equal to the fraction of the section length L(o that is traveled in time r by vehicles moving
at velocity v(i,t). Thus this definition assumes a spatial homogeneity of the disposition of
vehicles in each section. Obviously this is not the case at the level of individual vehicles.
But in our model, a homogeneity assumption of this kind is necessary since we want the
state simply to be the number of vehicles in each section.’
Thus, the first term on the right in (1) is the number of vehicles in i at time t that
remain in i at time t + 1, and the second term is the number of vehicles in i- 1 at time t that
move into i at time t + 1, The last two terms are straightforward: f(i,t,O) is the number of
vehicles of type 9 that enter the AHS according to the entry plan, and g(i,t$) is the
number that leave the AHS.
The boundary condition (3) implies that all vehicles in section I leave the AHS:
g(f + 1 I t, f3)= f 1 - pfr, t)&(l, t, e), f(l + 1, f, e) = 0. (9
Fact I. n(t) is indeed a state, i.e. given n(0) and activity, velocity, entry and exit plans
u(t = [~(t),v(t),f(t)&t)], t 20, there is a unique state trajectory n(t), t 20, that satisfies (l)-(4).
7Equation (4) also ties together the time and space d~~~tizatjon parameters r and L{I). Since the maximum
velocity is V. the maximum value of the right hand side of (4) is b’xr/f.(i). This ratio must be less than one.
Typical values are Y f 25 m/s. 5 = i 0 s, and t(fi = 500 m.
Traffic Row theory in AHS 187
4. ACHIEVABLE FLOWS AND A STATIONARY TMC PLAN
In this section we will specify the constraints that a flow must satisfy in order to be a
feasible solution of (1). We define what stationary, or time-invariant flows are achievable
and construct a TMC plan that can realize the achievable flows.
We will call u(t) = [~(t),v(t),f(t),g(t)], t 20, a TMC plan. By choosing this plan, the
TMC controls the traffic flow. In this section we study the flows and throughput that
TMC plans can achieve.
4.1. Feasibility constraint

A trajectory-plan (n(t),u,(t)) must satisfy two physical constraints
n(i, t, 0) ? 0, (6)
cc
a 6
n(a, i, t, @n(i, t, @A(a) 5 L(z]T. (7)
The non-negativity requirement (6) is clear. Constraint (7) expresses the requirement that
there is enough space and time in the section over the period r to safely carry out the
activities assigned by the plan.
There are, in addition, three constraints dealing with entry and exit. First, vehicles of
certain types may not be allowed to enter or exit from certain sections. This constraint is
of the form
f(i, t, 13)s 0, or g(i, t, 8 = 0,
for all I and for specified values of i$.

Second, suppose that a vehicle’s body type, entry and exit are encoded in its type,
i.e. 0 is of the form 8 = (n&k) where n is the body type, j is the entry section and k is the
exit section. Then vehicles of type (v&k) can enter only from section j. That is,
f(i, t, (n,j, k)) = 0, i #j.
Similarly, vehicles of type (Qk) exit only from section k. That is,
g(k, t, (q, j, k)) = [l - P(k - 1, t)ln(k - 1, L h_A Ml,
or, equivalently,
n(k, 1, (9,j, k)) = 0.
Lastly, we may require that when a vehicle of type (v&k) enters, it must first carry out an
entry activity. If this activity is labeled ai,,, the requirement may be expressed as
7++j,t,(qj,k)) = 1, or n(cqj,t,(q,j,k)) = 0 for a#ain. Other maneuver restrictions can be
expressed in a similar way.’
All these constraints can more generally and more uniformly be expressed by speci-
fying three subsets Tfi T, and T,, of section-type pairs, and one subset T, of activity-
section-type triples, and the requirement that for all t,
f(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, t3) E Tf, (8)
g(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E TR, (9)
sFor example, one may require that vehicles of a particular type must execute maneuver Q, in section it, ~2
in sectioh i2, and so on.
n(i, t,0) = 0, for all (i, 6) E T,, (10)
a$, i, t, @)= 0, for all (ar, i, 8) E T,. (1 I)
We will say that a trajectory-plan (n,u) isfeasible if the constraints (($-o-(l) are satisfied.
To prevent trivial cases we will not allow f(i,r,0) and g(i,t,@) both to be positive, by
insisting that every (i&l) is either in T/or in Ts.
We note some properties of feasible trajectories that will be used to define achievable
flows.
Fact 2. There is a uniform bound which applies to all feasible traj~tory-plans.
Proof. From (7), n(i,t,O) 5 L(r)r/min&x), i.e. all trajectories are uniformly bounded.
From (1) it follows that entry and exit plans must be uniformly bounded. III
Let (n(t),u(t)), t = 0,i ,... be a feasible trajectory-plan. Summing (1) over i, and can-
celling some terms, gives
Using the boundary conditions (2), (3) gives
2 [n(i, t + 1,0) - n(i, t, @)I= 2 Lf(i, t, e) - g(& t, @)I.

kl i=l
Summing over r = 0, I,..., T - 1 and dividing by T gives
i& [n(i, T, 0) - n(i, 0, @)I = F(7; 0) - WY @h

ICI
where
F(T, 0) := $yA k f(i, t, e), G(T, 0)

t=Oirl
are, respectively, the average number of vehicles of type 8 that enter and leave the AHS
during t =O,..., T- 1. It follows from Fact 2 that
Dejnition. A vector F = (F(O)) of flows is achievable if there is a feasible trajectory-plan

and a sequence of times Tk -+ 00, such that
,pT&F(Tk, e) = ,“% G( Tk, 8) = F(8), for all 8. (13)

--+
A feasible t~j~to~-plan (n(t~,~(t)), t=O, I,... is ~t~rion~r~ if the sequence (~(t),~(t)) does
not depend on t.
Theorem 1. Every achievable flow can be realized by a stationary plan which, more-
over, minimizes travel time.
Proof. Let (n(f),~(t~ = ~~t),~t~,~~t)~t)]) be a feasible pair and Tk + co such that (I 3)
holds, i.e. the flow F= (F(B)) is realized. We will construct a stationary pair, (n, d which
realizes F.
Because F is achievable we define the limits
_#l 0) = j$= _!_

y f(i, t, e),
f=O
Tk
Traffic flow theory in AHS 189
g(i, 0) = )ln&‘2g(i, r,f3).

r=O
Summing over t= O,l,..., Tk-1, dividing by Tk.and taking the limit T,+ cc of the right-
and left-hand sides of(l), one obtains
, Tk-I
,‘iim_ rk C (n(i, t + 1, 0) - p(i, r)n(i, r, 0)) = $j(i- 1, e) +f(i, e) - g(i, e). (14)
0
@(i-1,0) is the average flow from section i-l to section i and is defined as
m(i_l,e)=!im_~T~[l
- --P
-p(i- l,t)]n(i- l,f,e).
0
This limit exists by the uniform boundedness of n (Fact 2) and by taking a subsequence of
{Tk}if necessary. Thus, the limit on the left-hand side of (14) exists and we are interested
in the stationary case where n(i,r + l&l) = n(i,r,e). In other words,
-tii, e) = @i - 1, e) +f(i, 0) - g(i, 69, (15)
where, as above,
1 Tk-1
$<i,0) = p-tTk C[l - Ai, r)ln(i,r, e).
0
Now we construct a stationary plan u = [n,v,f,g]

--- and a stationary trajectory as follows. We
first define the velocity plan -
v(i, r) E V,
where V is the maximum permissible velocity, which we assume is the same for all
sections. This gives
f(i):= 1-%.
Next we define the trajectory
g(i, r, e) =
e = <t 0) x L(i)
l-f-49- vxr .
n(i,r,e) is a valid stationary trajectory because n(i,r,O)>O,it satisfies the stationary flow
equation (15), and it satisfies constraint (10): if n(i,r,O)= 0 for all (i&l)E T,,then $i,r,B) = 0
for all (i$) E Tn.
It remains only to define the activity plan rt _ and to show that the space-time
constraint (7) holds. Define
0 if (a, i, 0) E T,,
z(a,i, r, e) = 1 if a = arg min A(a)
0 otherwise.
Thus, while respecting the constraint (1 I), K assigns activities that occupy the least space-
time. We verify that (7) holds with the following chain of inequalities:
The first inequality holds since (n,u) is feasible; the second follows from the fact that
x is the least space-occupying activity plan; the third inequality is a consequence of the
~e~nition of E and that [l - p(i, r)] 2 [l - p(i, t)] for all i, I, so that
di, 1, e) 5 K-+bO
lim k? n(i, t, e).
0
Since vehicles in (n,u) are traveling at the maximum velocity, their travel time is mini-
mized’ and the as&&on is proved.
Theorem 2. The set of achievable flows is convex and compact.
Proof. Let (&, uk) be the stationary trajectory-plan defined in the proof of Theorem 1
that achieves flow (t;k(Q)),k = I, 2. Then
nk(i,8) = p*(z@(i, e) f [I - p”(i - I)]nk(i - 1, e) +f*(i, @)- g”(i, e);
Vxr
1 -#(i,=--.
L(i)
Note that pk = p, independent of k.

Let ~~20, CL’+ /.L*= I. We will find a stationary trajectory-plan (x, U)that realizes the
flow ZtikFk. Define x := h’n’ + p*n*. Then,
_~(i.8) = C ~k~k(~nk~i,e) + C pk[l - pk(i - l)]nk(i - 1, 0) + C fikLfk(k0)- &L @I

= p(i)x(i, e) + [ 1 - p(i - I)]x(i - I,69 +f(t 0) - gG e),
whereS(i, 0) := Q..tkfk(i, 0) and g(i, 8) := Chk&i, 0).
Finally, we define the activity plan by
t: pknk(i, e)dyu, i, 19)

~(a, i, e) s k
F clk&i, 0) ’
91f vehicles can travel over different routes in an AHS network, it is more complicated to find a plan that
minimizes travel time.
It is now straightforward to check that (x, u = [n, V,J g]) is a feasible pair. Thus the
set of achievable flows is convex.
To show that it is closed, consider a convergent sequence of feasible stationary pairs
(nk, uk), k= 1, 2.... It is easy to see that the limiting pair is feasible. Boundedness of
achievable flows follows from Fact 2.
The next result is intuitively obvious.
Fact 3. If F is achievable and if O<H(O)<F@), then H is achievable.
Proof. Let (n. u = [n, v, 5 g]) be a plan that achieves F:
n(i, t + 1,0) = p(i, t)n(i, t, 0) + [I - p(i - 1, t)]n(i - 1, t, 0) +f(i, t, 0) - g(i, t,@. (16)
Define 01 v(6)< 1 by H(B) = )c(@flO). Then it is easy to check by multiplying (16) by v(O)
that H is achieved by the trajectory-plan (n’, U’= [n-‘, v’,f’, g’]):
7s’= n, v’ = v, f’(i, t, 0) E v(e)f(i, t, e), g’(i, t, e) E v(e)g(i, t, e), n’(i, t, e) G v(e)n(i, t, e).
This proves the claim. 0
5. CAPACITY AND OPTIMAL PLANS
We first show that the set of achievable flows is a convex polygon.

Fact 4. {F(e)} is achievable if and only if there exist stationary flows &$I), a tra-
jectory (n(i,O)}, and plans (f(i,e),g(i,O),n(a,i,8)), all of them non-negative, such that the
following linear constraints hold:
&i, e) = Hi - 1, e) +f(i, e) - g(i, e), (17)
w, 0) = 0, (18)
&(I+ 1.0) = 0, (19
n(i fP0.e)x W
(20)
e) _
I -
Vxr ’
CC Nat i, eMi, ep(0f) p L(~T, (21)

a 8
CJ@, i, e) = 1, (22)
(1
f(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E Tf, (23)
g(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E T,, (24)
n(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E T,,, (25)
n(o, i, t, 0) = 0, for all (u, i, 0) E T,. (26)
Constraint (20) is linearized by the nonlinear transformation p&i,@ = r(a,i,B)n(i,O).

Definitions.An achievable flow F= {F(O)} is undominatedif for any achievable flow
H with If(tZ@F(t.J), H(O)= F(8) for all 8. The capacity of the AHS is the set of all
undominated flows. See Fig. 1. A trajectory-plan is eficient if it minimizes travel time.
flows or capacity
Fig. I. The convex polygon is the set of feasible flows. The bold boundary is the set of undominated flows.
Theorem 3. A flow F’ is undominated if and only if it is the optimal solution of the

linear programming problem:
subject to constraints (17) - (26)

for some weights w(O)zO, not all zero. Moreover, the optimal solution yields an efficient
pair that achieves F’.
Proof. This follows from Fact 4 and the theory of linear programming. IJ
6. TRANSIENT BEHAVIOR AND TMC RULES
A TMC plan specifies activities, velocity, entry and exit flows in each section and for
all times. The plan may be specified ahead of time, with no measurement of the traffic
state. (In control engineering, this is said to be an “open loop” specification.) Open loop
specifications are very useful for analytical study but they should not be implemented in
practice. This is because the state equation model (1) is an idealization which ignores the
uncertainty in model parameters and the presence of random fluctuations. These depar-
tures from idealization cause the actual traffic trajectory to be different from the open
loop trajectory predicted by the model.
It is, therefore, preferable to design a TMC plan in the form of a (feedback) rule. The
rule gives the plan values at time I as a function of the state n(t) at that time. A rule can be
evaluated by its steady state and transient behaviors. A well-designed rule would achieve
capacity and minimum travel time in the absence of fluctuations, independent of the initial
state; and small fluctuations would cause small departures of the achieved flow from
capacity.
Since a rule specifies the plan as a function of the state, implementation of the rule
requires sensors that measure the state, and communicating measurements to appropriate
locations where the plan is computed. A rule requiring fewer state measurements is,
everything else being equal, preferable to one that requires more measurements. A rule in
which a plan for section i requires state measurements in sections near i, is preferable to
one which requires measurements in sections remote from i, because the former will
require less communications facilities.
We illustrate some of the issues using the example of Fig. 2. The figure shows two
trajectory-plan pairs. The highway configuration is as follows. Each section is 100 m
long. There is only one entry (in section 1) with flow f, and one exit (in section I) with
flow g. There are two activities. Activity 1 must be carried out in all sections except I
and activity 2 (the exit activity) must be carried out in section I. k(l) = 10r m-s,
A(2) = 20r m-s. The maximum speed is 20 m/s. Section I is a “capacity bottleneck.” At
flow = 0.5
f = *+&:_1_:::--;;---, -9 = 0.5
i = 1 i = I
V/2 flow = 0.5
f = ~~~~~~~~~:~::~:_~~~l I_) g = 0.5
i = 1 i = I
Fig. 2. Both trajectory-plan pairs achieve the maximum flow of 0.5. The upper pair minimi~ travel time; the
lower pair nearly doubles travel time because vehicies travel at Y/2 in sections 1 through I- I.
most, 5 vehicles can be accommodated in section Z, and so the maximum value of g, using
the fundamental equation of traffic flow, g = &20 = 1. Hence the highway capacity is 1 vps.
Both traj~tory-plan pairs in Fig. 2 achieve the capacity. In the upper pair, the velo-
city is 20 m/s, so the travel time is minimized. In the lower pair, the velocity is 10 m/s, so
the travel time is twice the minimum in sections 1 through I- 1.
A rule must specify the velocity in each section, and f, g in the sections 1 and Z
respectively. The rule for the last section g is obvious: v(t) = 20 m/s, and g(t) = [ 1-p]n(Z, 1).
A reasonable velocity rule for all other sections is to have the maximum possible velocity
(up to 20 m/s). Of course, what the maximum velocity in section i turns out to be at any
time depends on the space available in section i+ 1. If the state n is as shown in the lower
part of Fig. 2, the maximum possible speed is 10 m/s; if it is as in the upper part, the
maximum speed is 20 m/s.
6.1. A greedy rule

The example motivates the need for rules or policies, both for velocity and entry, in
order to achieve the maximum achievable flow, while not exceeding the space limit in each
section. We will specify *‘greedy” policies for velocity and the entry flowfand show that
they achieve the maximum steady-state flow.
To obtain the velocity policy, consider the space-time freed up by vehicles leaving
section i over time t to t + 1
Thus the free space-time in i is
L(i)r - [ 1 - S] 7 ‘)i7 ~(+ro, i, t, @z(i, t, 0). (27)

lz e
We will choose v(i- 1,t) so that the space needed by vehicles leaving section i- 1
is exactly the space-time available in section i, as long as the velocity does not exceed V.
Let us simplify notation by eliminating indices for 8 and (Y.Define n(i, t), the total
number of vehicles in section i as
n(i, t) = x n(i, 2, f?)

6
and K((Y,~J),the proportion of vehicles performing activity (r as
C n(cr, i, 1, e)n(i, I,@

n(a, i, 1) = e
pi. t,@
Then J.(i), the average space-time used per vehicle in section i, is
A(i) = c A(cY)7r((r,i. 1).

a
J.(i)n(i,l) is the space-time used by vehicles in section i. Also, the maximum number of
vehicles in section i, N(i) is given by
Using this notation the appropriate expression for velocity in section i- I is
L(i)L(i - 1)r _ (1 _ --
v(i, t) n(i, r)L(i - 1)
V(i-1,1)=min V, (29)
1 n(i - I, f)A(i) LO+ n(i - I, I) 1
We can check that if one applies (29) and v(i- l,l) < Y in section i- 1, then section i
achieves its space limit. This can be seen by substituting (29) in the flow equation (1) (after
summing over e)
n(i, t + 1) = (1 - W)n(i,
qo 1) + ‘hi !’ :,” n( i - l(1)
Now the flow out of section i is
Hi, I) = [ 1 - p(i, f))n(i. 1) = !+$ n(i, 1).
while the maximum flow &i> is
We will need the minimum of these flows to prove existence of an equilibrium solu-
tion of the flows; therefore, we make the following definition.
Definirion. I#’ is the minimum of the maximum possible flow out of any section or
. vr2
C = my- A(l.)
= mjnqji).
We will assume for simplicity that section I is the “bottleneck,” i.e. 4’ =$(<r> and
t$*< @) for i#I.
Theorem 5. Assume the velocity policy (29) is applied and v(l,t)rV, then for every i
and f, either v(i,r) = V or #(i,t)&$*.
Proof. The proof follows by induction. Considering first i= Z, by assumption we have
v(f,t) = V. Now assume that the statement of the theorem is true for section i. We will
show that it is true for section i- 1. Fixing I, we must show either
(a) v(i - 1, t) = V, or
(b) [l - p(i- 1, r)]n(i- 1, r) 2 @.
Equivalently, we will assume that v(i- 1~) < Vand show that [ I-p(i- I ,t)]n(i - 1,t)2#*.
The first case is when v(Q) = V. We calculate the flow out of section i- 1
f#(i- l,t):= [l - p(i-- 1, t)]n(i- 1, t)
v(i- 1, f)r
n(i - 1, t).
= L(i-- 1)
Substituting the velocity policy (29) and using v(i-1, I) < V
#(i - I, t) = $g - [l - ql(i,
L(i)
1)
The second case is when +((i,@#‘_ Then using the fact that n(Q) never exceeds the
space limit L(z)r/l(i)
$((i-- 1, t) ,$L[1 - y&i, t)
> -L(i)r - n(i, t) + (o*

- WI
Thus, if v(i- 1,t) < V, then #@- l,r)>#’ which proves that (a) or (b) is true. This
completes the induction and the proof of the theorem. q
It only remains to find a rule for controlling entry, i.e. J As above, we propose
a greedy policy for f that fills the available space in section 1. We assume there is no
limit on f so the first section will remain filled after t =O. One can easily check that the
rule forfis
(30)
Corollary 1. Using (30) as the rule forland (29) as the rule for v.j(r)>#’ for all r.
Proof. Following Theorem 5, there are two cases to examine. First, when v( I ,I) = Y,
The second case is when #(l,r)>r$‘, so that
yl)r
f(t) =-----~(l,f)+f#J(l,f)
A(l)
zw-n(l.z)+@
- k(l)
Fact 5. If at time t section i is full, i.e. n(i,z)= N(i), then #(i,r)>q?.

Proof. Suppose Hi, t) < t$‘. Then by Theorem 5 v(i,t) = V and
which is a contradiction. (7
Fact 6. If n(i,t) = N(I) and
for all I, then n(i+ l,r)=ZV(i+ 1) and qb(i+ l,t)>#’ for all 1.
Proof. Since #(i, 1) < fi N( i) and n(i,t)= N(i) for all 1, it must be that v(i,r) < V.
Hence v(i,r) is space-filling, and so n(i+ l,f)= N(i+ 1). From Fact 5 this implies
#(i+ 1,t) >#*. 0
Theorem 6. Using the greedy policies (29) and (30) for Y and J respectively, and
assuming v(l.t)= V for all t, then f, g, n and v converge to a unique equilibrium solution
for (l), i.e. as f-+00
f(r)
+ 9'
m -+4;
tii,
0 -b4'
n(i, 1) + N(t)
Proof. From Corollary 1 we know f(t)L#* for all t. Also, g(t)Q*. Since
&f(r)-g(t) < 00, we must havef(t) ---)4’ and g(r) -+ 4’. We must now show that n(i,t) +
N(i). This can be done by induction. Because f(t) is space-filling n( l&N (1). Assume
n(i,r)=l\r(i) for t > T. We will show that n(i+ 1,~)= N(i+ 1) for t > Ti, for some Ti.
We know from Theorem 5 that either v(i,t)= V or #((i,t)L$*. If Ni,t)>t$*, section i
is space-filling so n(i+ 1~) = N(i+ 1). If v(i,t) = V then #(i,t) = ai). Since C,+(i, r) - g(f)
is bounded, &i,r) can equal $(i> only a finite number of times. So there exists Ti such
that $(i,l) < s(r), for t > T,. By Fact 6 n(i+ 1,t) = N(i+ l), t > TI, completing the induction.
Next we will show by induction that #((i,t) + 4’. Since section I is the bottleneck,
$((I, t) = 4’ =g. Assume t#(i,t)= 4’ for t > T. After T, n(i,t) = N(i) so t#~((i- 1,f) = Hi,?) = 4
which completes the induction. Finally, by substituting $((i,t) and n(i,t) in an expression
for v(i,t) we obtain v&t) + $$!, which completes the proof. 0
As a final note observe that the information needed for the greedy velocity policy can
be obtained from vehicle-borne sensors and requires no extra sensor information from the
roadside. The policy can be implemented by a vehicle longitudinal control law that tracks
velocity V while maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead.
7. ENTRY AND EXIT
An automated highway will make contact with a non-automated highway at points

of entry and exit. In current design proposals (Godbole et al., 1995) a “transition area” serves
as interface between the two highways where vehicles undergo “check-in” and “check-
out” and where vehicle control is transferred from driver to system upon entry to the
AHS and from system to driver upon exit. We call these two activities “entry” and “exit.”
Automation of these activities is a complex task. A vehicle entering the AHS must
negotiate its passage through the transition area and coordinate its entry with vehicles on
the automated lane. If this coordination is poor, there will be congestion at the entrance,
slowing down upstream vehicles. A vehicle leaving the AHS may similarly disrupt traffic,
thereby reducing capacity. By contrast, in between entry and exit, traffic on the automated
lane should proceed very smoothly. Thus, it seems that AHS capacity and transient
behavior are likely to be limited by the entry and exit activities. In this section we will
formulate a micro-level queuing model for entry and show how the space occupied by the
entry activity may determine the capacity of the highway. Then we show that the amount
of delay incurred by upstream vehicles due to an entering vehicle depends on the sophis-
tication of the feedback control law that implements entry.
Figure 3 shows a long automated lane, with one entrance. Distance along the highway
is denoted by d, and the entrance is located at d= E. Vehicles are organized in platoons of
closely spaced vehicles. (For simplicity assume that platoons have a fixed number of
vehicles.) Platoons can engage in two activities: cruise and entry, with l(cruise) = D m (D
does not include the platoon length) and A(entry) = S m, with S> D. The maximum
velocity is V m/s. Let f(c) denote the number of platoons per hour that come cruising
from upstream of the entrance; and letf(e) be the flow of entering platoons. An entering
platoon must first engage in the entry activity; it then switches to cruise.
We want to compute the achievable throughput vectors F= (f(c), f(e)). By Theorem
1, we may assume that a stationary trajectory-plan achieves F, with platoons traveling at
maximum velocity V. Let L be the length of the entry section, so a platoon stays in this
section for time L/V hours. Hence the number of cruising platoons in this section is
n(c) =f(c)xL/V, and the number of entering platoons is n(e) =f(e)x L/V. The space
constraint is Dxn(c) + Sxn(e)<L, or
Dxf(c)+Sxf(e)s V,
so the capacity of this AHS is the set of all vectors F= (f(c), f(e))>0 that satisfy
D xf(c)+Sxf(e) i V. (31)
This capacity estimate is optimistic. The estimate is based on our model which
assumes that the inter-platoon distance among the cruising platoons is distributed in such
a way that a gap of size S meters appears every time a platoon is about to enter. This
requires perfect coordination between the cruising platoons and the entry platoons. If this
perfect coordination is lacking, then the cruising platoons will be forced to slow down in
order to create the needed gap of S meters for an entering platoon, resulting in an increase
in total travel time. In order to estimate the total delay, we need to know the distribution
of inter-platoon distances. We will assume a random distribution.
Suppose that the inter-platoon distances are iid (independent, identically distributed)
random variables, denoted z. The cruise control law guarantees that z>D (the safe cruis-
ing distance) with probability 1, and we assume that x: = z-D is an exponentially dis-
tributed random variable with mean CL-‘, i.e. x has the probability density
p(x) = FeMKx,x 2 0.
For convenience, also denote pi(x)+x).

Suppose that a platoon enters at some time t at distance E.This is platoon #/Oin Fig. 3.
(Note: in the figure, platoons are indicated by points.) Number the cruising platoons that
follow #0 by #l, #2,..., and the distance between the end of platoon #i- 1 and the begin-
ning of platoon #i by Zi= D + xi. If xi < S, then platoon #l will have to slow down until it
creates a distance of S, if xl + x2 < S, then #2 will have to slow down, too, and so on. This
“shock wave” will affect a random number A4 of platoons, where
M=mQ~XijS<mfXia
I I
We want to calculate the statistics of 44, and the amount of slowdown.

It will be convenient to consider the distribution of C; Xi,
h(X) :=p(c
1
Xi =X) =pn&empx, x 2 0. (32)
.~.....~...........~.
f(c) - cruise
. . . . . .._.......-_..-.
d-
f(e)
time
Fig. 3. There is one entry in a long highway. The trajectories show how entry of platoon #O slows down platoons
#I,..., #m.
So the probability that M=m, i.e. m platoons will be disturbed, is given by
Ps(m)=Prob pxi5S<mgXi .
I I I I
One can calculate the probabilities Ps(m) from the P,, by observing that
s
Ps(m) = PI(XI 2 S - Y) x p,cV)&.
J
0
A little calculus then gives the following formula:
Ps(m)=e-‘S~=Ps(m-I)x@,m=O,l,...
m
As expected, eq. (33) is the formula for a Poisson distribution. Thus the number M of
platoons disturbed by the deviation S has a Poisson distribution. In particular, the mean
number of disturbed (or delayed) platoons is E[w = pS. If we write the mean inter-platoon
distance as Z = az], and recall the definition CL-’= ax] = 4z-01, we conclude that
Average number of delayed platoons = E[Mj = A. (34)
Observe that the average flow of cruising platoons is f(c) = V/Z, whose maximum
value is V/D. As expected, (34) implies that as Z + D, E[MJ + 00, i.e. as the flow of
cruising platoons increases, the shock wave from each entering platoon passes through
an increasing number of platoons, on average. Another interesting point in (34) is that
the average number of delayed platoons grows linearly with the size of the safe entry
distance, S.
We can now calculate the total delay incurred by upstream traffic due to the entering
platoon, platoon #jO. The entering platoon will require S m; however, if the entering
platoon encounters a free space gap, then the actual space B “borrowed” from the
upstream cruise platoons will be between 0 and S. We will consider the probability
distribution of B after first examining the case of a fixed space S.
In order to create a gap of S m, platoons #I,..., #M are slowed down, where M is the
random variable above. Platoon #i is slowed down ‘by a distance
S-fJzj--D)=S-gXj,i= l,.**,M.
j=l j=l
So the total slowdown 6 {measured in platoon x meters) is the sum of these M

numbers,
slowdown := 6 = ~[S-~xj]=MS-~~xj. (35)

i=l j=l i=l j=l
We want to calculate qS], the average slowdown.

Introduce the partial sums yo = 0, yi= & xj for i > 0, and write 6 = MS-C? yi.
Then
/@I= 2 mS - 2 OilM = m] Pdm). (36)

m=O i-l
Since in (33) we have an expression for F’s(m), the probability that m platoons are
delayed given that the space borrowed upstream is S, and we found E[M’j in (34), it
remains to calculate EL#I = m].
Fact 7. We have
Pt_Yl,-~**Ym+l)=PCvl,~~~,ymlym+lldvm+l)
=&Pm+dYm+w* -=Y2 < ... <Ym+i)
m+l
=ti eqgy*' lbt < y2 < . -. -z ym+l), (37)
where pm + IW is g iven by (32) and I(.) is the indicator function.

Proof. The first equation in (37) is Bayes rule. Since
Ym+I = xxi* AYm+l =V) =Pm+lcY)

I
from (32). Second, since Yi-Yi-t =x; are iid and exponential, therefore, given y,,,+ t, the y,
are uniformly and independently distributed over [O,y,+ t], constrained to yl < y2 < ...
< ym+1. This gives the second relation. The third relation now follows upon substitution
for pm+ I from (32).
We now calculate ELJQ(M= m):
ELYilM = ml = ElyilYm < S I Ym+ll
=1:ElYilCVm <SIYm+l)l=[, say
E[~CV,<SS~m+l)l Q ’
where
00 00
P= *** YilCym (SIym+l)poII, *Ym+l)dYl "'dYm+l

J J
0 0
.I’? ?‘I ?i
=J~Y,J~Y2...J,rn-,j,i~,,...,~rn+,~~ym+,
0 0 0 0 s
00s
=
JJ
so
Y-’
Adym
(m - I)!
x pm+‘e-~~m+ldym+,
S”Prn -ps
=m!e ’
A slightly more laborious calculation gives
is SCLrn +s
P= --e ,
m+l m!
and so
(38)
Substituting this into (36) gives
E[S] = fjmS - $ ---&lPs(m)

m=O
=zgmPs(m)
m=O
s2
platoon - meters,
=2(2-D)
where we used (34) in the last relation.

Fact 8. Each entering platoon on average disturbs S/(2-D) platoons and they suffer
a total slowdown of P/2(Z-D) platoon-meters.”
As noted above, if the entering platoon is aligned with a free space gap in the cruise
lane the actual space borrowed from upstream B will be between 0 and S. As an example,
suppose B is a uniformly distributed random variable with probability density
p(B)=;,OqBjS.
Using the expression for E[6] above, the average slowdown now is
s2
platoon - meters.
=6(Z-D)
As expected, the average slowdown is reduced when we account for the borrowed
space B.
7.1. Total time delay constraint

As we have seen, lack of coordination causes an increase in travel time for cruise
vehicles but does not reduce capacity. It is interesting to consider what happens if we
‘we can compare this slowdown with the case when inter-platoon distance is exactly 2. (This requires a
cruising control strategy that achieves equal inter-platoon distana.) In this case platoon #I is slowed down dis-
tana S-(2-D). #2 is slowed down S-2(2-D)...., #M by S-M(Z-D) and M= S/(Z-D). (We are neglecting the
requirement that M has to be an integer.) The sum of these slowdowns is d/2(Z-D)-S/2. Thus, exponentially
distributed inter-platoon distances cause an extra slowdown of S/2, on average, compared with the case of equal
intra-platoon distances.
impose the requirement that the total time delay per cruise vehicle from a given entry
maneuver does not exceed cr. This requirement introduces an extra constraint on the
cruise and entry flows, namely
(39)
Substituting for E[6] and recalling that Z= V/f(c), (39) can be rewritten as
S’f(e) + 2 VoDf(c) 5 2 V’a. (40)
(40) is an extra linear constraint on f(c) and f(e) which may be appended to the con-
straints (37x26) of the linear programming problem of Theorem 3.
Observe that iff(e) = 0 the constraint reduces to
which is equivalent to the space constraint (31), in this case. As expected, there is no
additional constraint for total time delay if there are no entering vehicles.
7.2. Entry dkturbance length

We have calculated the average slowdown from the entry maneuver. We would like
to know how far up the highway the disturbance propagates on average. Ideally, the dis-
tance between entrances should be more than the average distance of vehicles delayed
upstream. Let’s call W the distance the disturbance propagates upstream. W is given by
W= fJnif+d(nj-
i=l
l)+D+Xi] (41)
=m(D-.d)+y,+~ni(l+d), (42)
i=l
where d is the inter-vehicle spacing within a platoon, I is the vehicle length, and ni is the
size of the ith platoon. We will assume that ni are independent randomly distributed
variables with mean E[n] = q. We calculate E[ WlZ$
0000
00
E[ WjS] =
SE
00 m=O
tm(D - d) + Y, + 2
i=l
Ml + 4lph ym W)dydn
= (D -d)E[MIS] + E[ymlS] + (I+ d)E[n]E[MlS]*
Using ~fy~[S] = E[E[y,lm,S]JS] = SE[ml(m + I)lS], we obtain
I e-fls
E[wls]=(D-d)pS+S-cc+ - + (I + d)tlpS. (43)
CL
For plausible values of 0=60 m, S= 149 m, d= I m, 1=5 m, P= l/20, and n= 15,
we find E[ WlS]= 1239 m.
It is interesting to consider the effect of the size of free space gaps and the size of
platoons on W. First, let us rewrite (43) in terms of E[x] and drop the fourth term which is
small
EIWIS]=(~~cl)S+S-E[x]+(‘+~~~‘nlS.
X
We can see that as E[x] increases E[ WlS] will decrease. Now suppose we increase the
average platoon size while keeping the cruise flow constant. This gives a relation between
E[n] and E(x]
nV
f(c) = =J
E[x]+D+E[n]l+(n- I)d
Then
E[x] = E[n](;
-I- d) - D + d.
Since -D + d< 0 and x20 the coefficient multiplying E[n] must be positive. Thus, for
a given cruise flow, as the average platoon size increases the distance that the disturbance
propagates upstream decreases.
7.3. Free space distance

We will show that a good entry metering policy is one that uses upstream free space
when it is “closer” in a sense to be elaborated below. At time I the free space is the dis-
tance in meters in a section not reserved by an activity and equals
L(i)r - C C A(ar)n(cr. i. 1, O)n(i, t, 0).

(I 0
We adopt the convention, as before, that free space appears immediately downstream
from the safety gap in front of a vehicle or a platoon. We will index the free space by k if it
is the kth free space gap from a pointy on the highway (see Fig. 4).
Definition. The free space distance of a segment of free space k of length xk from a
point y along the highway is
k-l
xk ni,
c
i=l
where ni is the number of vehicles in platoon i, nl is the number of vehicles in the first
platoon upstream from y, and nk is the number of vehicles in the platoon directly down-
stream from the free space k.
Thus the distance of the free space is merely the number of vehicles between a refer-
ence point on the highway and the location of the free space. Distance does not depend on
the Euclidean distance but the density of the flow. Distance is indirectly a function of
inter-platoon distance, intra-platoon distance, and safety gaps. We find a simple relation
between free-space distance and total time delay caused by the entry maneuver.
Fact 9. The total time delay due to the entry maneuver increases as the total distance
of free space from the maneuver increases.
Proof. The total delay is given by
=
cm!!LJ-!--xi~nja
i=l !=I j=i
Fig. 4. The arrangement of vehicles, safety gaps and free space in an automated lane.
Now the total distance of free space K is
k=l
Also, let’s call
AS=S-X.
Then
= +N+ K].
The first term is an ad~~onal delay because slightly more free space is needed than
that provided by x1,..., x,,,. The second term shows that as K increases the slowdown 6
increases, which completes the proof.0
8. ACTIVITY MODEL AND VEHICLE CONTROL
With the exception of the di~ussion on entry and exit, our Trident of “activity”
has been formal: an activity consumes space and time, and the movement of a vehicle
through the AHS can be described by a finite activity sequence. In this section we address
two pragmatic questions: How should one define an activity in practical terms? How
should one determine the space that it consumes? It will turn out that these are questions
of AHS design, more particularly, the design of the feedback laws that control vehicle
maneuvers, and the TMC rules that govern the flow of traffic. Different AHS designs yield
different activities. The designs can then be compared in terms of their steady state capa-
city and transient behavior using the theory proposed above.
In our theory of automated traffic flow we introduced the notion of a vehicle activity
in order to account for the differing amounts of space vehicles take up when they are
engaged in maneuvers. Maneuvers are realized by control laws, in automated trafhc, and
by driver actions, in manual traffic. Thus, it makes sense for activities to be defined in
terms of one or a sequence of maneuvers and to examine the control laws that realize
maneuvers to characterize the activity.
Since we are dealing with a one-lane AHS, it is necessary only to examine long
itudinal control laws. A simplified vehicle model for longitudinal control in the form of a
third-order nonlinear ~~e~ntial equation was obtained in Sheikholeslam and Desoer,
1990
Xi = bi(ii, ij) + Ui(ii)4,

where the subscript i is an index for the ith vehicle, and xi is its distance along the high-
way. This model is linearized using the feedback law
U!
I
= & I
[-b(ij, ii) + Ui]
to obtain
x; = uj.
Vehicle maneuvers are specified through Ui. Generally, ui will consist of a sum of two
terms: one term for the desired open loop behavior and a feedback term for tracking the
desired open loop behavior. The control objective typically is tracking a velocity profile as
a function of time or maintaining a time or distance headway from the vehicle ahead. For
example, the control law for the leader of a platoon tracks the velocity of the vehicle
ahead (with index i-l) and maintains a safe distance by specifying the desired velocity,
idi = ii-1 and a desired spacing, xdi = Xi-1 - I- (a,,+ + a,,). I is the vehicle length and a,
and a,, are constants. Then, Ui is given by (see Godbole and Lygeros, 1994)
ui = -3ski - 3(ii - idi) - (xi - xdi).
We will assume that the time constants for closed-loop tracking of vehicle maneuvers
are much faster than the traffic flow time scale, so perturbations due to inexact tracking
are ignored and we restrict our attention to the open loop behavior. Then we may define
an activity as one or more consecutive vehicle maneuvers characterized by a sequence of
desired open loop behaviors.
In this manner, activities are derived from vehicle control laws, and the space used by
an activity A(a) is the abstraction that brings activities into our traffic flow theory.
Calling S(t) the space reserved by an activity at time t, and T the duration of the
activity, the space-time used by activity (r is computed as
S(Z) can be extracted either directly from the control specification or after some
manipulation of the expression for the open loop behavior. s(r) may be parametrized by
the vehicle velocity and the initial distance between the given vehicle and the vehicle
ahead. We make these points clear by some examples.
Going back to the example of the leader of a platoon, the space reserved by the
control law is evident from the expression for desired spacing between platoons,
S(t) = I+ U@k_i(f)+ Up.
Plausible values (see Ioannou and Xu, 1994; Godbole and Lygeros, 1994) are 1= 5 m,
a,, = 1 s, a,, = 10 m, and i = 25 m/s, so that s = 40 m. Note that if there is no vehicle ahead,
the control law will track a desired velocity and the space is effectively reserved.
Vehicles in a platoon with inter-platoon distance d use a velocity-independent spacing
s=l+d.
For manual driving, we suppose that the driver’s control objective is to track a time
headway of two seconds to the vehicle ahead. This objective is independent of the relative
position or velocities of the vehicles, but depends on the vehicle’s own velocity. In this
case
S(t) = 2ii(t).
These examples do not require examination of the vehicle control laws as the space
requirement is implicitly expressed by the control objective.
More complicated maneuvers including lane change, platoon merge, platoon split,
etc. may be specified as a desired velocity profile ii(t) (assuming the vehicle ahead main-
tains constant velocity) and an initial relative distance Axi = xi-1 - xi (which may be
fixed by the longitudinal sensor range). From this specification, one can extract the space
requirement by numerical integration. These aspects are addressed in Haddon, 1996 and
Broucke and Varaiya, 1996.
9. STEADY-STATE CAPACITIES
We consider two alternative designs. We call one design the platoon organization or
PO design (Varaiya, 1993). We call the second the adaptive cruise control or ACC design
(Ioannou and Xu, 1994).
9.1. PO design
There are five activities in the PO design: merge, split, 15 vehicle platoon, entry, and
exit. We will determine the steady-state capacity of an automated lane with these
activities. We first specify the lane configuration. The lane consists of sections of equal
length L. There are three types of sections. In entry sections entry and platoon 15 are
allowed; in exit sections exit and platoon 15 are allowed; in all other sections, called cruise
sections, either piuroon 15, merge, or split are allowed. (In a merge maneuver, one platoon
first accelerates and then decelerates to join the platoon in front of it; in split, the rear of
one platoon first decelerates and then accelerates to form two platoons.)
In order to calculate steady-state capacities, it is necessary to determine the space
requirement for each activity, to specify the com~sition of activities in each section, and
to find the section with the strictest space limit which determines the maximum flow.
We specify some physical and design parameters. D is the safety distance maintained
by the leaders of platoons, d is the inter-vehicle spacing within a platoon, 1 is the vehicle
length, I/ is the maximum velocity, n is the platoon size, Q is the range of the lon~tudinal
sensor, amin is the maximum vehicle deceleration, u,- is the maximum vehicle accelera-
tion. Representative values used in the PO design are L= 500 m, 7=20 s, D= 60 m,
d= 1 m, I=5 m, V=25 m/s, n= 15, Q=60 m, a,,=2 m/s-t, and ami@=- m/s-‘.
The space requirement for entry is s(t)= D+ I= 65 m, so A(enrrr) = 657 m-s; also,
Atexit)= 65~ m-s. The space requirement for pfuroon 15 is
or IO m, so )L(pfatoon 15) = 107 m-s.

The space requirement for merge requires some calculation. We assume that the
merge is initiated by one vehicle when the platoon ahead is within the vehicle’s sensor
range Q. The relative velocity and acceleration between the two cars is initially zero. The
merging vehicle accelerates up to a,,, while keeping a safe relative distance and velocity
from the car ahead. The maneuver ends when the vehicle is within distance d m of the
platoon ahead. If the activity lasts for less than the time period 7, some extra space must
be allotted. Two maneuvers constitute this activity:
s(t) =fWV, Au, Q>; lo 5 t 5 6

dyn-l)+ni+D
s(t) = ; t[<t<=r.
n
Av is the relative velocity of the two vehicles at the beginning of the merge, and Au is
the relative acceleration of the two vehicles at the beginning of the merge. tt is the time
when the merging vehicle is within d m of the vehicle ahead.
Using the equations for the safe merge developed in Frankel et al., 1995 we obtain a
space requirement of 27 m with a duration of tl = 16 s. To this we add the length of the
vehicle I. For the remaining time from fi to r the vehicle requires IO m. Thus,
li(merge) = 32 ‘16+ 10.4= 28r m-s. A similar exercise for split, which takes a vehicle
from d m to D m from the platoon ahead and uses ami, for deceleration yields
A(split) = 28t m-s.
We must define the proportion of activities in each section, n, (n,) is the proportion
of vehicles doing entry (exit) in an entry (exit) section, z,,, (nJ is the proportion of vehicles
doing merge (split) in a cruise section, n, is the proportion of vehicles doing platoon 15 in a
cruise section, and 7cPis the proportion of vehicles doing platoon15 in an entry or exit
section. There are some constraints on the proportions:
The constraints capture that the proportion of vehicles exiting equals the proportion
entering, the proportion of vehicles merging equals the proportion splitting, and the sum
of proportions of activities in each section type must equal one.
Using these constraints, calling the flowf, and substituting values for A(a), the space
constraint for entry/exit sections is
[65x, + lO(1 - np)]S= 25.
The space constraint for cruise sections is
[lo(l - 2~s) + 2831s+ 28n,Jf= 25.
If we set R,= .l and n,= .l, the limiting section is the entry or exit section, and the
maximum flow isf= 5,806 vph.
Suppose we keep rr, fixed but vary or, between 0 and 0.5. The constraint on the flow
due to the entry (exit) sections is 5,806 vph. The constraint due to the cruise section as rr,
is varied is shown in Fig. 5.
9.2. ACC &sign

In this design, some of the vehicles are manually driven, and the rest are under
adaptive cruise control. So there are four activities: automatic cruise, manual cruise,
manual entry, and manual exit. The lane consists of entry, exit and cruise sections. In
entry (exit) sections, automatic cruise, manual cruise and entry (exit) are allowed. In cruise
sections, automatic and manual cruise are allowed.
The space requirement for manual entry is A(entry) = D + I= 65~ m. The requirement
for manual exit is A(exit)= D + I=657 m. The requirement for manual cruise is
h(mc)=2Vr= 507 m. The requirement for automatic cruise is k(ac)= Y+ I+ 10=4Or m.
The only constraint on activity proportions is nc = n,, and we set n= = .I. Now we write
the space constraint for the three types of sections. For entry (exit) sections
[(I - %QC - . I)50 + z,# + 6.5fJ= 25.

For cruise sections
[(I - %c - .I)50 + %?&Olf= 25.
We can now compute the capacity. If for example, the proportion of automated
vehicles is 0.5, then the maximum flow in an entry (exit) section is 1935.5 vph. Figure 6
1”“”
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Proportionof vehicles in cruise a&ii doing a split (merge)
Fig. 5. Maximum flow in cruise sections as a function of the proportion of vehicles doing splits (merges).
2200 -
2150 -
,2100-
3
52050-
e
12000-
al
1900-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 1

Proportionof automated vehiies in cruise 8ection
Fig. 6. Maximum flow in cruise sections as a function of the proportion of automated vehicles.
shows the increase in capacity as the proportion of automated vehicles in a cruise section
increases.
IO. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented a theory for automated traffic flow, based on the notion of vehicle
activities. An activity is a sequence of vehicle maneuvers executed by vehicle control laws.
The space that it takes up is the abstraction used to represent an activity in the traffic flow
model. A plan is defined as the proportion of activities, velocity, entry flow and exit flow
in each section. The TMC controls the flow by selection of this plan. We showed that
achievable flows can be realized by stationary plans, and maximal achievable flows are
obtained by solving a linear programming problem.
These are results about steady-state conditions. However, since conditions may vary
over time, perhaps because of incidents, one should use adaptive policies for the entry
flow and velocity. We proposed one such policy: the greedy policy attempts to fill up the
free space in the next section as quickly as possible. We showed that the greedy policy
maximizes steady-state flow, although it does not minimize travel time.
Next we studied entry and exit, which are likely to be the capacity-limiting activities
because of the large space they require. We studied the effect of lack of coordination at the
entry and found that, although it does not affect capacity, it does increase the travel time
of the upstream vehicles. We estimated the upstream distance traveled by the disturbance
created by entry and determined that a good metering policy is to carry out the entry
maneuver when free space is nearby.
The proposed theory can be compared with the theory of manual traffic flow. The
safety-needs-space assumption makes space the crucial resource in our model, and in a
one-lane highway, the maximum flow is determined by the most space-constraining sec-
tion. This insight holds for a network of highways, and the Ford-Fulkerson theorem
can be used to relate the maximal or undominated flows with the most constraining
sections. The insight is equally valuable in manual traffic. Perhaps the only important
distinction is that in manual traffic the “consumption” of space by vehicles has a negative
externality, because drivers interact. This interaction between vehicles is absent in our
model.
The model has some obvious limitations. The one-activity-per-section assumption
means that activities are of roughly the same length and there is one control command per
section. We may wish to allow for sequences of activities to be performed in a section and
to make sections and activities independent. This can be accommodated at the cost of
greater notational burden.
Abstracting activities using space requires care in its application. The space usage is
averaged over the duration of the activity, i.e. the time it takes to traverse the section. If
the section length is increased, the space usage will change because the activity may
require extra space only for a short interval. The selection of section length therefore also
affects the space abstraction and should be chosen at a scale where the extra space usage
from activities is significant. The space requirement may not be numerically easy to
extract from the vehicle control laws which are defined in terms of velocity and relative
position of the vehicle ahead.
The usefulness of the proposed theory must be judged by its ability to open up for
investigation related questions and in application. Our future work will take steps in both
directions, by developing the multi-lane, dynamic case (Broucke and Varaiya, 1996) and
by demonstrating the application of the theory to manual driving.
Acknowfe&ernenrs--The authors are grateful to Datta Godbole, Roberto Horowitz, and John Lygeros for
helpful discussions.We thank one of the reviewers for a careful commentary.
REFERENCES
Broucke, M. and Varaiya, P. (1996) Dynamics and control of automated traffic. In preparation.
Daganxo. C. (1994) The cell transmission model: a dynamic representation of highway traffic consistent with the
hydrodynamic thwry. Transportation Research-B, 28 (4). 26%287.
Frankel, J.. Alvarez, L., Horowitz, R. and Li, P. (1995) Safety-oriented maneuvers for IVHS. In Procee&rgs
American Control Conference, pp. 668672.
Godbole, D., Eskafi, F., Singh, E. and Varaiya. P. (1995) Design of entry and exit maneuvers for IVHS. In
Proceedings American Control Conference, pp. 35763580.
Godbole, D. and Lygeros. J. (1994) Longitudinal control of the lead car of a platoon. IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, 43(4), 1125-l 135.
Haddon, J. (1996) Master’s thesis. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California,
Berkeley.
Hall. R. (1995) Longitudinal and lateral throughput on an idealized highway. Transportation Science, 29, 3499-
3505.
loannou. P. and Xu, Z. (1994) Throttle and brake control systems for automatic vehicle following. IVHS
Journal, l(4). 345-377.
McMahon, D., Hedrick, J. and Shladover, S. (1990) Vehicle modeling and control for automated highway
systems.In Proceedings American Control Conference, pp. 297-303.
Peng, H. and Tomizuka, M. (1990) Lateral control of front-wheel-steering rubber-tire vehicles, Technical Report
UCB-ITS-PRR-90-5, University of California, Institute of Transportation, Berkeley. CA.
Rao. B. S. Y. and Varaiya. P. (1994) Roadside intelligence for flow control in an IVHS. Transportation
Research-C , 2(l), 49-72.
Sheikholeslam, S. and Desoer, C. A. (1990) Longitudinal control of platoon of vehicles. In Proceedings of
American Control Conference, pp. 291-296.
Varaiya, P. (1993) Smart cars on smart roads: problems of control. IEEE Transactions on Aufomatic Control.
38(2), 195-207.

A Theory of Traffic Flow in Automated Highway Systems'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Theory of Traffic Flow in Automated Highway Systems'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Theory of Traffic Flow in Automated Highway Systems'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transpn Rex-C, Vol. 4. No. 4, PP. 181.-210.

A THEORY OF TRAFFIC FLOW IN AUTOMATED HIGHWAY

M. BROUCKE* and P. VARAIYA

(Received 25 August 1995; in revisedform 29 June 1996)

is difficult to change significantly. One hypothesizes feedback models of driver behavior

3. THE ACTWTY MODEL

3.2. Activity plan

x(a,i,t,Q) is the fraction of the n(i,r,O) vehicles engaged in activity a.

m-s of section i in a period T.

3.3. Velocity plan

3.4. Highway configuration

3.5. Entry and exit plans

n(0, t, e) = 0, for all t, 8, (2)

n(l+l,r,@)=O, forallt,@. (3)

Equation (1) should be interpreted as follows. First, by definition,

1 - p(i, t) := V(l*;;; f. (4)

g(f + 1 I t, f3)= f 1 - pfr, t)&(l, t, e), f(l + 1, f, e) = 0. (9

4. ACHIEVABLE FLOWS AND A STATIONARY TMC PLAN

4.1. Feasibility constraint

f(i, t, 13)s 0, or g(i, t, 8 = 0,

for all I and for specified values of i$.

f(i, t, (n,j, k)) = 0, i #j.

g(k, t, (q, j, k)) = [l - P(k - 1, t)ln(k - 1, L h_A Ml,

n(k, 1, (9,j, k)) = 0.

f(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, t3) E Tf, (8)

g(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E TR, (9)

n(i, t,0) = 0, for all (i, 6) E T,, (10)

a$, i, t, @)= 0, for all (ar, i, 8) E T,. (1 I)

Using the boundary conditions (2), (3) gives

2 [n(i, t + 1,0) - n(i, t, @)I= 2 Lf(i, t, e) - g(& t, @)I.

Summing over r = 0, I,..., T - 1 and dividing by T gives

i& [n(i, T, 0) - n(i, 0, @)I = F(7; 0) - WY @h

F(T, 0) := $yA k f(i, t, e), G(T, 0)

Dejnition. A vector F = (F(O)) of flows is achievable if there is a feasible trajectory-plan

,pT&F(Tk, e) = ,“% G( Tk, 8) = F(8), for all 8. (13)

_#l 0) = j$= _!_

g(i, 0) = )ln&‘2g(i, r,f3).

-tii, e) = @i - 1, e) +f(i, 0) - g(i, 69, (15)

Now we construct a stationary plan u = [n,v,f,g]

Next we define the trajectory

nk(i,8) = p*(z@(i, e) f [I - p”(i - I)]nk(i - 1, e) +f*(i, @)- g”(i, e);

Note that pk = p, independent of k.

_~(i.8) = C ~k~k(~nk~i,e) + C pk[l - pk(i - l)]nk(i - 1, 0) + C fikLfk(k0)- &L @I

whereS(i, 0) := Q..tkfk(i, 0) and g(i, 8) := Chk&i, 0).

Finally, we define the activity plan by

t: pknk(i, e)dyu, i, 19)

This proves the claim. 0

5. CAPACITY AND OPTIMAL PLANS

We first show that the set of achievable flows is a convex polygon.

&(I+ 1.0) = 0, (19

CC Nat i, eMi, ep(0f) p L(~T, (21)

f(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E Tf, (23)

g(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E T,, (24)

n(i, t, 0) = 0, for all (i, 0) E T,,, (25)

n(o, i, t, 0) = 0, for all (u, i, 0) E T,. (26)

Constraint (20) is linearized by the nonlinear transformation p&i,@ = r(a,i,B)n(i,O).

Theorem 3. A flow F’ is undominated if and only if it is the optimal solution of the

subject to constraints (17) - (26)

6. TRANSIENT BEHAVIOR AND TMC RULES

nk(i,8) = p(z@(i, e) f [I - p”(i - I)]nk(i - 1, e) +f(i, @)- g”(i, e);