Traffic simulation and optimization tools are classified, according to their practical applicability, into two main categories: theoretical and practical. The performance of the optimized signal timing derived by any tool is influenced by how calculations are executed in the particular tool. Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and Vistro implement the procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, thus they are essentially utilized by traffic operations and design engineers. Considering its capability of timing diagram drafting and travel time collection studies, Tru-Traffic is more commonly used by practitioners. All these programs have different built-in objective function(s) to develop optimized signal plans for intersections. In this study, the performance of the optimal signal timing plans developed by HCS, Tru-Traffic, and Vistro are evaluated and compared by using the microsimulation software Vissim. A real-world urban arterial with 20 intersections and heavy traffic in Fort Lauderdale, Florida served as the testbed. To eliminate any bias in the comparisons, all experiments were performed under identical geometric and traffic conditions, coded in each tool. The evaluation of the optimized plans was conducted based on average delay, number of stops, performance index, travel time, and percentage of arrivals on green. Results indicated that although timings developed in HCS reduced delay, they drastically increased number of stops. Tru-Traffic signal timings, when only offsets are optimized, performed better than timings developed by all of the other tools. Finally, Vistro increased arrivals on green, but it also increased delay. Optimized signal plans were transferred manually from optimization tools to Vissim. Therefore, future research should find methods for automatically transferring optimized plans to Vissim.
A Programming Approach to Collective Autonomy
