Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
should
be
addressed.
C 2013 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.
DOI: 10.1111/mice.12014
E-mail:
2 PREVIOUS STUDIES
There have been many methods used to predict travel
time. Earlier methods include time series models (Oda,
1990; Al-Deek et al., 1998; Anderson, 1994), machine
learning methods (You and Kim, 2000), and regression models (Zhang et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2004; Li
et al., 2008). In recent years, the applications of artificial intelligence, especially the techniques of neural networks, have garnered much attention and have been
considered as effective tools for travel time predictions
(Dharia and Adeli, 2003; Steven et al., 2002; Hoogendoorn et al., 2005; Park and Rilett, 1998; Rilett and Park,
1999; Park and Rilett, 1999; Van Lint, 2006; Krikke,
2002; Chien et al., 2002).
A hybrid model combining the use of the empirical
mode decomposition (EMD) and a multilayer feed forward neural network with back propagation was developed for travel time prediction (Hamad et al., 2009).
The key part of EMD in this study is the Hilbert
Huang transform to address highly nonlinear and nonstationary speed series. The prediction performance of
this proposed method was found to be superior to previous forecasting techniques based on loop data from I-66
in Virginia. A model (Yeon et al., 2008) was conducted
595
596
Zhang & Ge
(2)
(3)
=e
(xi cij )2
2
ij
(4)
where i = 1, 2, . . . , n, j = 1, 2, . . . , m i . n is the dimension of the input. m i is the number of the clustering data
xi . The parameters of cij and ij denote the center and
the width of the membership function, respectively. The
input can be directly transformed into linguistic information (fuzzification) by using the Equation (1). In the
third layer, each node represents a fuzzy rule to match
the antecedent of fuzzy rules and calculate the membership grade of the rules j .
(5)
j = min i11 , i22 , . . . , inn
2, . . . , m 2 }, . . . , in
where i 1 {1, 2, . . . , m 1 }, i 2 {1,
n
m i . The num{1, 2, . . . , mn }, j = 1, 2, . . . m, m = i=1
ber of nodes in the third layer is the same as the number of fuzzy rules. The fourth layer is for normalization,
which has the same number of nodes as that of the third
layer.
j
j = m
(6)
i
i=1
n
qi q 2j
(ra /2)2
iI
(7)
j=1
where ra is a positive constant which represents a neighborhood. It is obvious that the data point surrounded
by more data points in the area of the radius ra would
have the higher density value Di . After calculating the
density of each data point, the data point with the highest density Dc1 is selected to be the first cluster center
denoted by qc1 . Then, the density DiNew is recalculated
for all other data points excluding qc1 according to the
revised formula:
DiNew
= Di Dc1 e
(rb /2)
(8)
ij =
calculate the consequence of each fuzzy rule. The subnet of CN for the cluster c is shown in Figure 1.
wci qi (k 1)
(11)
yc =
q q 2
i c12
597
(9)
(10)
cC
iI
1
(Tk T (k))2
2
(14)
(15)
= (T (k) Tk ) c qi (k 1)
Then, the updated parameter wci can be calculated by
wci (k + 1) = wci (k)
E
wci
598
Zhang & Ge
4 DATA DESCRIPTION
The actual data were collected on a freeway segment
located on US-290, in an urban area northwest of Houston, Texas shown in Figure 3. This corridor is on one
of the busiest commuting routes that connect the downtown commercial districts and suburb an residential areas. The study corridor, the section from node 31 to
node 32, is a 2.9-mile section. There are five Automated Vehicle Identification (AVI) stations denoted as
3997, 3890, 4026, 4010, and 4003 in this section. Speed,
volume, and occupancy data were collected with microwave detectors, and travel time data were from AVI
stations, all obtained from the Houston TranStar transportation management center. TranStar operates 24/7
and has been archiving AVI travel time and speed data
since October 1993. The data collected by recording vehicle toll tag IDs and the corresponding time stamps
when each time vehicles are passing the AVI stations
are used to determine the travel time for each vehicle
traveling on AVI segment (3231), as shown in Figure 3.
The data reduction and fusion is a necessary step in
selecting a study period, aggregating data, filtering out
false data entries, and interpolating missing data. Eventually, data from three Fridays, February 1st, 8th, and
29th in 2008, were reduced, and chosen as the base-
the ground-truth travel time was determined by averaging all collected travel times for all vehicles passing the
AVI stations between 31 and 32. The data on February 1st and 8th were used to train TSKFNN, whereas
the data on February 29th were used to validate and
test TSKFNN. The ranges of all variables are from 49
to 445 vehicles for 5-minute count, from 14 to 72 mph
for speed, from 0.5 to 22.7% for occupancy, and from
133 to 839 seconds for travel time.
Table 1
Correlation analysis between traffic variables
Volume
Speed
Occupancy
k=1
where N is the number of time intervals, Tk is the observed travel time for interval k, and T (k) is the predicted travel time for interval k.
2
2 n
n
rx y
xi
(18)
i2
Here, r x y is the correlation coefficient, xi , yi are collected data points of two traffic variables, and n is the
number of observations. The result of correlation analysis is summarized in Table 1.
Based on Table 1, the correlation value between occupancy and volume is 0.73, the value between occupancy and speed is 0.95, and the value between
speed and volume is 0.54. Speed and occupancy had
a higher correlation with travel time than volume, naturally speed and occupancy should be considered as the
input. Volume as a variable could be left out of the fur-
Volume
Speed
Occupancy
Travel time
1
0.54
0.73
0.54
1
0.95
0.73
0.95
1
0.44
0.93
0.91
Table 2
RMSE (seconds) for training and testing TSKFNN with
different inputs
5 PERFORMANCE MEASURE
The root mean square error (RMSE) between the predicted and observed values of the travel time is used
to assess the performance of the TSKFNN model. The
RMSE is calculated according to Equation (17):
N
1
(Tk T (k))2
(17)
RMSE =
599
Training
Testing
Input 1
Input 2
Input 3
16.2
32.4
15.4
28.4
14.6
25.1
600
Zhang & Ge
Table 3
RMSE (seconds) of different periods for different input
patterns
Input 1
Input 2
Input 3
Off-peak
Buildup
Peak
Recovery
14.31
15.74
13.82
45.89
58.38
39.17
70.87
52.36
40.13
44.46
36.55
35.06
nario, proving that TSKFNN can predict the most accurate results with this combination of input variables.
We also evaluated the performance of TSKFNN using only the time series of travel time as input. The
travel time T(k-2), T(k-1), and T(k) of the corridor were
used as input of the TSKFNN to predict the travel time
T(k+1). The data set was the same Friday baseline data
set. The data of February 1st and 8th were again used
for training and the data of February 29th were used
for testing. After training the whole network the training RMSE was 15.3 seconds, which was low compared
to previous values in Table 2. Figure 5 also illustrated
that the performance of TSKFNN with the time series
of travel time as the input seemed to look even better
than some of the predictions in Figure 4. The RMSE of
27.76 seconds is better than those from prediction with
Input options 1 and 2, 28.4 and 32.4 seconds respectively, even though it is slightly worse than the RSME
of 25.1 seconds from Input 3. Overall, the TSKFNN
601
8 COMPARISON EXPERIMENTS
The comparison of performance in corridor travel
time prediction was made among online TSKFNN, off-
602
Zhang & Ge
by 30%). It is also obvious that online TSKFNN outperformed offline TSKFNN. The comparison strongly
indicated that the TSKFNN performed better than commonly used BPNN and ARIMA and online computing algorithm enhanced the prediction accuracy for
TSKFNN.
The performance of the online TSKFNN can be further improved by changing the function of membership
or by increasing the number of clusters used. Testing
and validation of the online TSKFNN with other data
sets should also be conducted in the future.
REFERENCES
9 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the theory of intelligent control system, a
TSKFNN model was developed to predict the corridor
travel time on a freeway with an online computing algorithm that enhances the predictive ability. With the
structure of multi-input and single output, the TSKFNN
consists of two parts: AN and CN. The functions of
AN are to cluster the input space and to match the
antecedent of fuzzy rules. The function of CN is to
generate the consequence of fuzzy rules. Based on the
result of prediction based on the data collected from
US-290 it was found that online TSKFNN can accurately predict future travel time in the corridor. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the online TSKFNN performed better than a regular neural network (BPNN)
and the ARIMA model in the prediction performance
as online TSKFNN is able to adaptively adjust its coefficients with the recent training data prior to the prediction. TSKFNN with an online computing algorithm
performed best with volume, speed, and occupancy as
the input. This prediction performance is as good as
the TSKFNN prediction performance with past travel
time history as the input when the travel time history is
available.
Adeli, H. & Jiang, X. (2003), Neuro-fuzzy logic model for freeway work zone capacity estimation, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 129(5), 48493.
Al-Deek, H., DAngelo, M. &. Wang, M. (1998), Travel time
prediction with non-linear time series, Proceedings of the
ASCE 1998 5th International Conference on Applications of
Advanced Technologies in Transportation, Newport Beach,
CA, pp. 31724.
Anderson, J., Bell, M., Sayers, T., Busch, F. & Heymann,
G. (1994), The short-term prediction of link travel time
in signal controlled road networks, Proceedings of the
IFAC/IFORS 7th Symposium on Transportation Systems:
Theory and Application of Advanced Technology, Tianjin,
China, pp. 6216.
Bhaskar, A., Chung, E. & Dumont, A. G. (2011), Fusing loop
detector and probe vehicle data to estimate travel time
statistics on signalized urban networks, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(6), 43350.
Bianchini, A. (2012), Fuzzy representation of pavement condition for efficient pavement management, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 27(8), 60819.
Chen, P. S. T., Srinivasan, K. K., Mahmassani, H. S. (1999), Effect of information quality on compliance behavior of commuters under real-time traffic information, in Proceedings
of the 77th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.
Chien, S., Ding, Y. & Wei, C. (2002), Dynamic bus arrival time
prediction with artificial neural network, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 128(5), 42938.
Chiu, S. (1994), Fuzzy model identification based on cluster estimation, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2(3), 267
78.
Dharia, A. & Adeli, H. (2003), Neural network model for
rapid forecasting of freeway link travel time, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 16(78), 60713.
Guin, A. (2006), Travel time prediction using a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average time series model,
in Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Intelligent Transportation
Systems Conference, Toronto, Canada, September 1720.
Hamad, K., Lee, E., Shourijeh, M. T. & Faghri, A. (2009),
Near-term travel time prediction utilizing Hilbert-Huang
transform, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(8), 55176.
Heilmann, B., El Faouzi, N. E., de Mouzon, O., Hainitz, N.,
Koller, H., Bauder, D. & Antoniou, C. (2011), Predicting
motorway traffic performance by data fusion of local sensor data and electronic toll collection data, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(6), 45163.
Hsiao, F. Y., Wang, S. S., Wang, W. C., Wen, C. P. & Yu,
W. D. (2012), Neuro-fuzzy cost estimation model enhanced
by fast messy genetic algorithms for semiconductor hookup
construction, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 27(10), 76481.
Jang, J-S. R. (1993), ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 23(18), 66585.
Karim, A. & Adeli, H. (2002), Comparison of the fuzzy
wavelet RBFNN freeway incident detection model with the
California Algorithm, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 128(1), 2130.
Kreinovich, V., Quintana, C. & Reznik, L. (1992), Gaussian membership functions are most adequate in representing uncertainty in measurements, in Proceedings of
NAFIPS92: North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Conference, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, Vol. II, pp.
61824.
Krikke, R. (2002), Short-range travel time prediction using
an artificial neural network, in Proceedings of 9th World
Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Chicago, Illinois,
USA.
Li, Z., Yu, H., Liu, Y. & Liu, F. (2008), An improved adaptive
exponential smoothing model for short-term travel time
forecasting of urban arterial street, Acta Automatica Sinica,
34(11), 14049.
Liu, H., Zhang, K., He, R. & Li, J. (2009), A neural network model for travel time prediction, in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference Intelligent Computing and
Intelligent Systems, Shanghai, China.
Oda, T. (1990), An algorithm for prediction of travel time using vehicle sensor data, in Proceedings of the IEE 3rd International Conference on Road Traffic Control, London, pp.
404.
603
Park, D. & Rilett, R. (1998), Forecasting multiple-period freeway link travel time using modular neural network, Transportation Research Record, No. 980743, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington DC.
Park, D. & Laurence, R. (1999), Forecasting freeway link
travel times with a multilayer feedforward neural network.
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 14,
35767.
Prasad, V. P. & Nelson, P. C. (1999), Application of fuzzy logic
and neural networks for dynamic travel time estimation, International Transactions in Operational Research, 6, 14560.
Rilett, L. & Park, D. (1999), Direct forecasting of freeway corridor travel times using spectral basis neural networks, Presented at the 78th TRB Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), Washington DC.
Samant, A. & Adeli, H. (2001), Enhancing neural network
incident detection algorithms using wavelets, ComputerAided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 16(4), 23945.
Singh, A. & Abu-Lebdeh, G. (2007), Arterial network travel
time estimation using conditional independence graphs and
state space neural networks, in Proceedings of the 18th
IASTED Conference on Modelling and Simulation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Srinivasan, D., Choy, M. & Cheu, R. (2006), Neural networks
for real-time traffic signal control, IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 7(3), 26171.
Tagherouit, W. B., Bengassem, J. & Bennis, S. (2011), A
fuzzy expert system for prioritizing rehabilitation sewer networks, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(2), 14652.
Takagi, T. & Sugeno, M. (1985), Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE
Trans actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15(1),
11632.
Van Lint, J. W. C. (2006), Reliable real-time framework for
short-term freeway travel time prediction. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132(12), 92132.
Van Lint, J. W. C., Hoogendoorn, S. P. & Van Zuyle, H. J.
(2005), Accurate freeway travel time prediction with statespace neural networks under missing data, Transportation
Research Part C, 13, 34769.
Wu, C. H., Ho, J. M. & Lee, D. T. (2004), Travel time prediction with support vector regression. IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation System, 5(4), 27681.
Yeon, J., Elefteriadou, L. & Lawphongpanich, S. (2008),
Travel time estimation on a freeway using discrete
time Markov chain, Transportation Research Part B 42,
32538.
You, J. & Kim, J. (2000), Development and evaluation of a hybrid travel time forecasting model. Transportation Research
Part C 8, 23156.
Zhang, X. & Rice, J. (2003), Short-term travel time prediction.
Transportation Research Part C 11(34), 187210.