The myth of traffic-responsive signal control: Why common sense does not always make sense

Ruth Evers and Stef Proost

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2015, vol. 77, issue C, 350-357

Abstract: Intuitively, one is inclined to think that traffic-responsive signal control is the most efficient control policy. In this paper, however, we show that for an intersection of two routes connecting one origin–destination pair where only one route is subject to congestion, anticipatory signal control performs better than traffic-responsive signal control. Furthermore, the unfolded logic behind this result suggests that the superiority of anticipatory signal control also extends to other networks.

Keywords: Anticipatory control; Stackelberg game; Traffic-responsive control (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585641500124X
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: The myth of traffic-responsive signal control: why common sense does not always make sense (2015)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:transa:v:77:y:2015:i:c:p:350-357

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
https://shop.elsevie ... _01_ooc_1&version=01

DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.004

Access Statistics for this article

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice is currently edited by John (J.M.) Rose

More articles in Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().