Intelligent and Predictive Vehicular Networks

Schmidt Shilukobo Chintu, Richard Anthony, Maryam Roshanaei, Constantinos Ierotheou

Faculty of Architecture, Computing and Humanities, School of Computing & Mathematical Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK.

DOI: 10.4236/ica.2014.52007                

Abstract

Seeking shortest travel times through smart algorithms may not only optimize the travel times but also reduce carbon emissions, such as CO₂, CO and Hydro-Carbons. It can also result in reduced driver frustrations and can increase passenger expectations of consistent travel times, which in turn points to benefits in overall planning of day schedules. Fuel consumption savings are another benefit from the same. However, attempts to elect the shortest path as an assumption of quick travel times, often work counter to the very objective intended and come with the risk of creating a “Braess Paradox” which is about congestion resulting when several drivers attempt to elect the same shortest route. The situation that arises has been referred to as the price of anarchy! We propose algorithms that find multiple shortest paths between an origin and a destination. It must be appreciated that these will not yield the exact number of Kilometers travelled, but favourable weights in terms of travel times so that a reasonable allowable time difference between the multiple shortest paths is attained when the same Origin and Destinations are considered and favourable responsive routes are determined as variables of traffic levels and time of day. These routes are selected on the paradigm of route balancing, re-routing algorithms and traffic light intelligence all coming together to result in optimized consistent travel times whose benefits are evenly spread to all motorist, unlike the Entropy balanced k shortest paths (EBkSP) method which favours some motorists on the basis of urgency. This paper proposes a Fully Balanced Multiple-Candidate shortest path (FBMkP) by which we model in SUMO to overcome the computational overhead of assigning priority differently to each travelling vehicle using intelligence at intersections and other points on the vehicular network. The FBMkP opens up traffic by fully balancing the whole network so as to benefit every motorist. Whereas the EBkSP reserves some routes for cars on high priority, our algorithm distributes the benefits of smart routing to all vehicles on the network and serves the road side units such as induction loops and detectors from having to remember the urgency of each vehicle. Instead, detectors and induction loops simply have to poll the destination of the vehicle and not any urgency factor. The minimal data being processed significantly reduce computational times and the benefits all vehicles. The multiple-candidate shortest paths selected on the basis of current traffic status on each possible route increase the efficiency. Routes are fewer than vehicles so possessing weights of routes is smarter than processing individual vehicle weights. This is a multi-objective function project where improving one factor such as travel times improves many more cost, social and environmental factors.

Keywords

Simulation of Urban Mobility SUMO, Duarouter, Fully Balanced Multiple-Candidate Shortest Paths (FBMKP), E1 Induction Loop, E3 Detector, Re-Routing, Braess Paradox, Traffic Control Intelligent (TraCI), Partially Re-Routed, Shortest Path Method, Traffic Light Control FBMKP

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Nagurney, A. (2009) Scientific American, The Braess Paradox and the Price of Anarchy “Detours by Design”. The Braess Paradox. http://annanagurney.blogspot.com/2009/01/scientific-american-braess-paradox-and.html
[2]	Translation of the Braess 1968 Article from German to English Appears as the Article “On a Paradox of Traffic pLanning,” by Braess, D., Nagurney, A. and Wakolbinger, T., in the Journal Transportation Science, 39, 2005, 446-450.
[3]	www.INRIX.com
[4]	Sadek, A. and Basha, N. (2005) Self Learning Intelligent Agents for Dynamic Traffic Routing on Transportation Networks. In: Unifying Themes in Complex Systems, Springer, 503-511.
[5]	Wolfson, O. and Xu, B. (2010) Spartial-Temporal Databases in Urban Transportation. Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 33, 1-8.
[6]	http://gigaom.com/2011/07/05/waze-prepares-for-its-closeup-with-carmageddon/
[7]	www.garmin.com/products/poiloader
[8]	Jenelius, E. and Koutsopoulous, H.N. (2012) Impact of Sampling Protocol on Bias and Consistency in Travel Time Estimation on Probe Vehicle Data. http://home.abe.kth.se/~jenelius/JK_2013.pdf
[9]	Lin, C.-H., Yu, J.-L., et al. (2009) Genetic Algorithm for Shortest Driving Time in Intelligent Transportation Systems. International Journal of Hybrid Technology, 2, 21-28.
[10]	Shandiz, H.T., et al. (2009) Intelligent Transport System Based on Genetic Algorithms. World Applied Sciences Journal, 6, 908-913. http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj6(7)/7.pdf
[11]	M. Gen and Lin, L. (2006) A New Approach for Shortest Path Routing Problem by Random Key-Based GA. Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Washington, 8-12 July 2006, 1411-1412
[12]	Abdullai, B. and Kattas, L. (2003) Reinforcement Learning: Introduction to Theory and Potential for Transport Applications. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 981-991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/l03-014
[13]	Georgescu, L., Zeitler, D. and Standridge, C.R. (2012) Intelligent Transportation Systems Real Time Traffic Speed Prediction with Minimal Data. Grand Valley State University, Allendale.
[14]	Pan, J., Khan, M.A., et al. (2009) Proactive Vehicular Re-routing Strategies for Congestion Avoidance. 2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), Hangzhou, 16-18 May 2012, 265272.
[15]	Lawler, E.L. (1972) A Procedure of Computing the K Best Solutions to Discrete Optimization Problems and Its Application to the Shortest Path Problem. Management Science, 18, 401-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.18.7.401
[16]	Krajzewicz, D., et al. (2013) SUMO-Simulation of Urban Mobility-User Documentation Publications, German Aerospace Centre, Germany. http://sumo-sim.org/userdoc/Publications.html
[17]	Banks, J. (2002) Introduction to Transportation Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[18]	Levingson, D. and Kumar, A. (1994) Integrating Feedback into the Transportation Planning Model: Structure and Application. Transportation Research Record, No. 1413, 70-77.
[19]	Zhu, Z. and Yang, C. (2011) Visco Elastic Traffic Flow Model. Journal of Advanced Transformation, 47, 635-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/atr.186
[20]	Arnaout, G. and Bowling, S. (2011) Towards Reducing Traffic Congestion Using Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on a Freeway with a Ramp. Journal of industrial Engineering and Management, 4, 699-717. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/Jiem.344
[21]	Research and Innovative Technology Administration. ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010-2014. Executive Summary. http://www.its.dot.gov/strat/pdf/ITStrategicresearch/Jan2010.pdf
[22]	Schmied, M. (2012) Moving towards Emission Quantification in Urban Transport. Handbook on Emissions Factors in Road Transport (HBEFA), Beijing, 23 October 2012. http://www.tdm-beijing.org/files/news/Emission%20Quantification%20Workshop/Schmied_INFRAS_-_Development_of_Emission_Factors_in_Europe.pdf