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

Ruth Evers and Stef Proost

No 504887, Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven from KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven

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.

Date: 2015-07
Note: paper number DPS 15.14
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in CES - Discussion paper series,, pages 1-16

Downloads: (external link)
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/330451 (application/pdf)
KU Leuven intranet only, request a copy at https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/504887

Related works:
Journal Article: 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:ete:ceswps:504887

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven from KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven
Bibliographic data for series maintained by library EBIB ().