116 Paper No.
99-1200
Comparison of Car-Following
Models for Simulation
M. F. AYCIN AND R. F. BENEKOHAL
Presented in this paper are the car-following methods and algorithms of
the NETSIM, INTRAS, FRESIM, CARSIM, and INTELSIM models.
Moreover, the car-following performance of these models is compared
with the field data. NETSIM, INTRAS, FRESIM, and CARSIM car-
following models first move the leader and then update the follower in
one simulation time step. Because of this approach, these car-following
models cannot be used to command vehicles in real-time intelligent
transportation systems applications. Moreover, brake reaction times are
limited by the simulation time step because of this method of updating
the vehicles. INTELSIM was developed to overcome these deficiencies.
INTELSIM moves vehicles simultaneously and produces solutions for
a continuous time frame. INTELSIM produced the best agreement with
the field data and required the least amount of calibration effort.
Car-following models form the basis of microscopic simulation
models, and they explain the behavior of drivers in a platoon of
vehicles. Two approaches are used by most car-following simulation
models:
1. Vehicles are advanced by considering the emergency braking
of their leaders, or
2. Vehicles are spaced out behind the leader according to a certain
spacing equation.
Car-following models such as NETSIM and CARSIM consider
emergency braking of leaders in their algorithms. However, the
INTRAS and FRESIM car-following algorithms use a combination
of the two approaches. INTRAS and FRESIM algorithms not only
place the vehicles at certain locations behind their leaders accord-
ing to a spacing equation but also consider emergency braking of
the leaders.
These simulation models—NETSIM, CARSIM, INTRAS, and
FRESIM—update the vehicles sequentially in the simulation. First,
the leader is moved and then the follower is placed at a position
satisfying the design constraints of the model. That is, these car-
following models determine a vehicle’s speed and position after
updating its leader for the present time step. This process is
described in Figure 1. The final distance (D) between vehicles is
determined by the design constraints of each model. Generally, the
output of these models is the acceleration (+/−) of the following
vehicle.
These car-following models, however, have some shortcomings:
1. Vehicles do not move sequentially in the real world. Therefore,
these car-following models cannot be used to command vehicles in
real-world intelligent transportation system (ITS) applications.
2. Reaction times of the drivers are restricted by the simulation
time steps.
Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory/MC-250, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 205 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2352.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1678
3. Drivers’ perception thresholds are not considered in car
following.
In order to solve the foregoing problems with these simulation
models, INTELSIM (INTELligent Vehicle SIMulator) was devel-
oped. INTELSIM moves follower and leader simultaneously and
provides solutions for a continuous time frame using a linear accel-
eration model. INTELSIM solutions are continuous and not limited
with the present time step. Therefore, reaction times of the drivers
are not restricted by the simulation time steps.
In this study, NETSIM, CARSIM, INTRAS, FRESIM, and
INTELSIM car-following methods are compared. Moreover, their
car-following performance is compared with the field data. Fur-
thermore, a number of modifications to the FRESIM and INTRAS
models have been proposed in order to enhance the performance of
these models.
The derivation of each car-following algorithm is also presented
since the derivations of some of these models are not available from
the published papers. The authors believe that presenting car-
following derivations of these models by using a common notation
comparing car-following approaches and the simulation results of
these models with each other will be a valuable reference for
researchers.
CAR-FOLLOWING MODELS
NETSIM
NETSIM is an urban street network simulation model. In NETSIM
car following, the leader is first brought to its new position when the
simulation time is advanced by one time step. The follower is then
moved to a certain location such that if the leader decelerates to the
maximum deceleration limit, the follower will be able to stop with-
out colliding with the leader. The main purpose of the car-following
logic is to prevent collisions in any situation. The car-following algo-
rithm is developed by using the notation in Figure 2, in which
Vfi = speed of follower at beginning of time step;
VL, Vf = speed of leader and follower at end of time step,
respectively;
XL = position of leader at end of time step;
XLs, Xfs = stopped position of leader and follower, respectively;
X fi = position of follower at beginning of time step;
sL, sfT = distance to stop leader and follower, respectively;
T
∆sf = distance follower travels during time step;
∆r = distance follower travels because of reaction time;
L = length of leader; and
T = time step.
Aycin and Benekohal Paper No. 99-1200 117

Similarly,

∆s f = Vf i + 0.5 ∗ a f (8)

and

∆r = Vf ∗ c = (Vfi + a f ) ∗ c ( 9)

s = X L − Xfi − L (10)

where c is the reaction time. If Equations 3 to 10 are inserted into

Equation 2,

VL2 1
XL + − X f − Vfi − a f − Vfi ∗ c − a f ∗ c
2 ∗ dl 2
FIGURE 1 Sequential updating of leader-follower pair.
−
(Vfi )2 −
Vfi ∗ a f
≥L (11)
2 ∗ df df
Conditions are as follows:
(V i ) 2
[s − Vfi ∗ (1 + c)] + 2 V∗Ldl − 2 ∗f df ≥ a f ∗  c + 12 + dff 
2 Vi
(12)
X Ls − Xfs ≥ L (1)

X L + sLT − Xf i − ∆sf − ∆r − s fT ≥ L (2) Therefore, af is obtained as

The distance to stop the leader is a f = F1 F2 (13)

VL2
sLT = (3) where
2 dl
VL2 ∗ df
F1 = 2 ∗ [ s − Vfi ∗ (1 + c)] ∗ df + − (Vfi )
2
The distance to stop the follower is
dl

s fT =
V f2
( 4) F2 = df ∗ (2c + 1) + 2 ∗ Vfi
2 df
The vehicles in NETSIM are updated by the following equations of
where dl and df are the deceleration rates of the leader and the
motion:
follower, respectively.
The simulation time step of NETSIM is 1 s, which is fixed.
Therefore, V f = V fi + a f ∗ T
(14)
Vf = Vfi + af (5) X f = Xf i + Vf i ∗ T + a f ∗ T 2

V f2 = ( )
2
V fi + 2 ∗ V fi ∗ af + a f2 (6 )

where af is the acceleration of the follower to be found. NETSIM FRESIM and INTRAS
neglects the term af2 and Equation 4 is rewritten as follows:
INTRAS is a microscopic freeway simulation model that was intro-
s fT =
(Vfi )2 + 2 ∗ Vfi ∗ a f ( 7)
duced in 1980s. In 1994, FRESIM was developed with enhancements
2 ∗ df to the INTRAS model. However, the car-following algorithm of

FIGURE 2 Notation used in development of car-following models.

118 Paper No. 99-1200
INTRAS remained unchanged in FRESIM. Therefore, the following
equations also apply to FRESIM.
INTRAS utilizes the PITT car-following model, which performs
the car-following maneuver between simulated vehicles by main-
taining a space headway of h(t) = L + k p Vf + 10 + b p k p (VL − Vf)
between them. Here, L is the vehicle length of the leader, k is the
driver sensitivity factor, and b is a calibration constant defined as
VL = V f ≤ 10
b = 
0.1
0 otherwise
In INTRAS, as in NETSIM, the leader is first advanced to its new
position at the end of the time step. The follower is then brought to
a space headway of h(t) behind the leader. An acceleration value to
bring the vehicle to this space headway in one time step is calculated
as follows by using the notation in Figure 2:
X L − ( X fi + ∆ sf ) = L + 10 + k ∗ V f + b ∗ k ∗ (VL − V f )
2
where Vf, VL are at the end of the time step. Therefore,
V f = V fi + a f ∗ T
∆s f = V fi ∗ T + a f ∗ T 2 2
where af is the required acceleration value to be found. Equations
17 and 18 are placed into Equation 16 to obtain
X L − ( X fi + Vfi ∗ T + a f ∗ T 2 2) = L + 10 + k ∗ (Vfi + a f ∗ T )
+ b ∗ k ∗ (VL − Vfi )
2
Note that af * T is neglected in Equation 17 to obtain (VL − Vfi )2 in
Equation 19. Equation 19 yields this car-following equation:
[
a f = 2 X L − X fi − L − 10 − Vfi ∗ ( k + T ) − b ∗ k
∗ (VL − Vfi )
2
] (T 2
+ 2 ∗ k ∗ T)
Reaction time is introduced into the car-following equations as
follows: the speed and position of the leader are updated after the
reaction time c:
V f = V fi + a f ∗ (T − c)
X f = X fi + V fi ∗ T + a f ∗ (T − c) 2
2
where c < T.
Since vehicles are updated sequentially in INTRAS, the reaction
times must be smaller than the time step, which is 1 s. Moreover,
INTRAS uses fixed reaction times of 0.3 s for deceleration and 0.2 s
for acceleration for all vehicles.
INTRAS has emergency constraint equations, which check the
acceleration found in Equation 20 for emergency deceleration of the
leader to stop. The emergency constraint equations are given in
detail by Wicks and Andrews (1).
CARSIM
CARSIM was developed by Benekohal and Treiterer (2) to solve the
problems that INTRAS has in simulating stop-and-go traffic. CAR-
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1678
SIM incorporates a collision algorithm and a minimum separation
constraint for car following. The vehicles are moved sequentially in
simulation as in NETSIM and INTRAS.
The minimum separation constraint is given as
[ ]
X L − X fi + V fi ∗ T + 0.5 ∗ ( a f ) ∗ T 2 ≥ L + K (22)
where K is the buffer space between the vehicles and af is the fol-
lowers’ acceleration rate to satisfy the spacing constraint, found by
(15) using the equality in Equation 22.
The collision avoidance algorithm is given as follows:
[ ]
X L − X fi + Vfi ∗ T + 0.5 ∗ ( a f ) ∗ T 2 − L − K ≥ Expression (23)
  Vf2 V2 
Expression = max Vf ∗ c,  Vf ∗ c + − L 
  2 ∗ df 2 ∗ dl 
where Vf = Vf i + af p T.
(16)
The acceleration to be applied is the smallest positive value from
Equation 22 or 23 or the acceleration to reach the desired speed or
the acceleration limit of the vehicle. The deceleration required is
(17) calculated either from Equation 23 or the minimum of Equation 22
or 23 compared with the comfortable deceleration and emergency
(18) deceleration rates. The resultant acceleration value (+ or −) is used
in Equation 14 to update the vehicles as in NETSIM.
DEFICIENCIES OF CAR-FOLLOWING MODELS
The foregoing car-following models move the vehicles sequentially
(19) in simulation. This method of updating the vehicles prevents the
application of reaction times that are greater than the simulation
time step. Moreover, vehicles do not move sequentially in the real
world. Therefore, the NETSIM, FRESIM, INTRAS, and CARSIM
car-following algorithms cannot be used in controllers that com-
mand vehicles in real time in the real world. Autonomous intelligent
cruise control (AICC) systems are examples of such applications.
(20) Furthermore, since the position of the follower must be specified
exactly for each time step for models such as FRESIM and INTRAS,
difficulty arises when one type of spacing equation is applied to dif-
ferent conditions such as stop-and-go (congested) and noncongested
traffic. It is known that drivers do not car-follow in the same manner
in every situation, especially under congested and noncongested con-
ditions. Therefore, a spacing equation that places the drivers at cer-
(21)
tain separations at each time step is not going to perform equally for
every situation. That is, the spacing equation calibrated for one con-
dition does not perform well for another condition. Wicks (1) says
about validation of the INTRAS algorithm, “The behavior of the pla-
toon was simulated for 50 s. As a result of examining position trajec-
tories in detail, it was noted that even for this comparatively short
period of time, individual drivers tended to change their type of
car-following behavior, that is, their desired car-following distance.”
NETSIM and CARSIM perform car-following by considering
emergency braking of the leader. It can be argued that drivers do not
consider emergency braking of their leaders and do not have the
information about the deceleration capability of their leaders.
Although CARSIM has a spacing constraint (Equation 22), this
equation only ensures that the vehicles keep the minimum distance
(L + K) during car-following.
The NETSIM and CARSIM algorithms anticipate that drivers are
going to lose some amount of time equal to their reaction time if the
Aycin and Benekohal Paper No. 99-1200 119

leader goes through emergency deceleration. However, reaction where

times are not applied in updating the vehicles in Equation 14. The
t = time to reach steady state,
vehicles are updated as if there is no reaction time. Because of the way
tp = preferred time headway,
the reaction time is used, drivers with high reaction times follow the
( ∆V )t 0 +c = (vf − vL)t0+c, and
vehicles at greater spacings than the drivers with low reaction times
in NETSIM and CARSIM. ( ∆a)t0 + c = (af − aL)t +c.
0

FRESIM and INTRAS apply the reactions correctly as seen in The required slope value is found from
Equation 21. However, when Equation 21 is examined, the acceler-
ations of vehicles during the reaction time period c are neglected
and assumed to be zero. Moreover, reaction times are limited by the
[
s f = −2 ∗ ( ∆V )t0 + c + ( ∆a)t0 + c ∗ t t 2] (26)

simulation time step, and fixed reaction times of 0.3 and 0.2 s are
This slope is applied after the reaction time at time t = t0 + c.
used for all vehicles.
As a check to the car-following algorithm, the time required to
The foregoing car-following models do not consider drivers’ per-
reach the steady-state condition is compared with the time the
ception thresholds. It is known that drivers cannot perceive very small
leader needs to come to a stop at his present rate of deceleration.
changes in speed and acceleration difference and headway deviation.
The derivation of the car-following algorithm is explained in detail
Because of these deficiencies of car-following models, actual
elsewhere (9).
driver behavior in car-following cannot be simulated realisti-
Equation 27 is used to update the vehicles. A slope term is added
cally. INTELSIM was developed to solve these car-following
to the equations of motion used by NETSIM and CARSIM:
model problems.
( a )t 1 = ( a )t 0 + s ∗ T
t1
INTELSIM
∫ (a)t dT = (v)t 1
= (v)t0 + ( a)t0 ∗ T + 0.5 ∗ s ∗ T 2
t0
INTELSIM was developed to simulate the driver car-following behav-
t1
ior as realistically as possible and to simulate vehicles using AICC (3).
INTELSIM was formulated by combining the information about ∫ (v)t dT = ( x )t 1
= ( x )t0 + (v)t0 ∗ T + 0.5 ∗ ( a)t0 ∗ T 2
t0
drivers’ car-following behavior from the literature. The principles + 0.167 ∗ s ∗ T 3 (27)
used in the INTELSIM car-following model are as follows:
Note that Equation 27 is used if the acceleration and slope remain
1. A driver reacts to a decrease in the speed of its leader by trying constant between the previous time step and the current time step.
to equalize his speed with that of the leader’s in order to maintain his If a new acceleration value is to be applied during this time period,
spacing (4). Equation 28 is used:
2. The preferred time headway (tp) is the time headway of a driver
during steady-state car-following (5). (a)t1 = (a)t0 + ∆c + st0 + ∆c ∗ (T − ∆c)
3. The separation at the steady-state is termed the desired space
and can be expressed as follows: (v)t1 = (v)t0 + (a)t0 ∗ ∆c + 0.5 ∗ (s)t0 ∗ ( ∆c) 2 + (a)t0 + ∆c

∗ (T − ∆c) + 0.5 ∗ ( s) t0 + ∆c ∗ (T − ∆c)

2
Desired space = speed ∗ preferred time headway (24)

4. A linear acceleration-deceleration model can represent drivers’

coming to a stop or accelerating to desired speeds (6). Similarly,
drivers use the same principles to reach the steady state with their
leaders during car following (7).
5. Drivers have perception thresholds to changes in the speed
and acceleration of the leader and to the headway deviation (8).
INTELSIM provides continuous solutions using a linear acceler-
ation model. The model moves vehicles simultaneously, and because
of continuity, simulation time steps do not restrict the reactions of
vehicles. Moreover, INTELSIM can be used in the controllers that
move the vehicles in real time in the real world.
INTELSIM’s car-following approach can be described as fol-
lows: assume that a leader and follower pair is initially separated by
a distance ∆ x at time t = t0 and that they have different speeds. The
follower will reach the steady state with the leader at time t = t1 at
its desired spacing. A slope of acceleration is calculated that will
bring the follower to steady state. The car-following equation is
0.166 ∗ ( ∆a) t 0 + c ∗ t 2 + [0.666 ∗ ( ∆V ) t 0 + c + a L ∗ t p ] ∗ t
− ( ∆ x ) t 0 + c + vl ∗ t p = 0
( x )t1 = ( x )t0 + (v)t0 ∗ ∆c + 0.5 ∗ (a)t0 ∗ ( ∆c) 2 + 0.167
∗ ( s) t0 ∗ ( ∆c)3 + (v) t0 + ∆c ∗ (T − ∆c) + 0.5 ∗ ( a) t0 + ∆c
∗ (T − ∆c) + 0.167 ∗ ( s) t0 + ∆c ∗ (T − ∆c)
2 3
(28)
where
∆c = time difference between previous update time and time
to apply reaction,
(a)t0 + ∆c = new acceleration to be applied after reaction time,
(s)t0 + ∆c = new slope to be applied after reaction time, and
(v)t0 + ∆c = speed at end of reaction time, given by
(v)t0 + ∆c = (v)t0 + (a)t0 ∗ ∆c + 0.5 ∗ (s)t0 ∗ ∆c (29)
In Equation 28, a reaction that was scheduled in a past time step is to
be applied at a time that falls in between the present and the previous
simulation time steps.
A follower reaches the steady state with his leader at a certain
time in the future. Therefore, the spacings are not specified at each
time step. This approach reduces the need to precisely specify the
(25) vehicle spacings and reduces the model calibration effort.
120 Paper No. 99-1200
COMPARISON OF CAR-FOLLOWING
MODEL PERFORMANCE
Software
Separate simulation programs were written for each car-following
model to be able to compare the performance of each model with the
field data. In the simulations, 13 vehicles were all given starting posi-
tions, speeds, and accelerations as in the field data. These vehicles
followed the field leader, whose position and speed were input from
the data, under the command of one of the car-following models. The
same vehicle characteristics were used in all simulations.
Data Set
Data collected by Treiterer (10) were utilized in the study. The vehi-
cles in the data set remained in the car-following mode for 135 s and
experienced stop-and-go conditions. This data set provided positions,
speeds, and accelerations of vehicles for 1-s time intervals.
The preferred time headways of drivers in the data set were found
by averaging the time headways of a vehicle at the same speeds as
those of his leader. The preferred time headways of the drivers in the
field data were found to be in the range 1.1 to 1.9 s, with an average
of 1.47 s.
The reaction times of the drivers are not reported in the field data.
However, the reaction times of the drivers were estimated to be in
the range of 0.88 to 1.51 s. Aycin and Benekohal (9) explain the
calculation of preferred time headways and reaction times in detail.
Methodology
Macroscopic measures of average speed, density, and volume versus
time were obtained to compare the car-following models with field
data. Only plots of average speed and density versus time are included
in this paper since volume is a product of speed and density.
In the density-versus-time plots, density values are calculated by
D = 5, 280 ∗ [ N ( Xfirst − Xlast + L )] (30)
where
D = density (veh/km);
N = number of vehicles in platoon, 13 in this case;
L = car length of last vehicle (m), and
Xfirst, Xlast = positions (m) of first and last vehicles in platoon at
any given time.
FRESIM and INTRAS
In FRESIM and INTRAS, drivers are generated with driver sensi-
tivity factors, or k-values. The mean k-value is the determinant
factor for density and volume outcomes. Therefore, calibration of
FRESIM and INTRAS to yield reasonable density and volume fig-
ures comparable with field data involves selecting a suitable range
of k-values.
INTRAS default values of k are from 1 to 1.9 in increments of
0.1, each corresponding to a particular type of driver (11). More-
over, INTRAS increases the vehicle length by 0.9 m (3 ft) for
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1678
stopped separation. Therefore, the effective vehicle length used in
the simulations is 5.5 m (18 ft) (1).
Three sets of INTRAS simulation runs were performed with k-
values of 1, 1.45, and 1.9 from the range of 1 to 1.9 for all the vehi-
cles in the simulation. Plots of average speed and density versus
time (Figure 3) show that k = 1 provided the closest speed and den-
sity approximation to the field data. Since k = 1 is the smallest value
from the range of 1 to 1.9, a new range of k-values was needed.
FRESIM uses a new set of k-values ranging from 0.6 to 1.5. Bet-
ter results were obtained when the simulation was run with ran-
domly generated k-values from this range. The best results of 10
random simulation runs are given in Figure 4. Although FRESIM
provided better results than INTRAS because of the k-range it uses,
there is still a need for some improvement. As can be seen from Fig-
ure 4, the average k of 0.9 provided the closest results to the field
data for the congested condition when the vehicles were coming to
a stop. On the other hand, k = 1.06 yielded density and volume fig-
ures identical to the field data for noncongested conditions. Conse-
quently, FRESIM did not provide good results for congested and
noncongested conditions at the same time. The density and volumes
could be improved for congested conditions at the expense of den-
sity and volumes for noncongested conditions. The reason is that
FRESIM and INTRAS use one type of equation that cannot be cal-
ibrated for congested and noncongested conditions separately. In
order to improve the simulation results, a new set of equations that
can simulate stop-and-go conditions without affecting freeway
performance will be presented.
Another problem with FRESIM and INTRAS is that it is difficult
to come up with the right k-values. The k-parameter is known to
affect the throughput or capacity outcomes; however, it is not clear
what the k (driver sensitivity) parameter refers to at an individual
vehicle level. Next, a method to improve k-parameter selection in
FRESIM and INTRAS will be proposed.
Proposed Method
Aycin and Benekohal (9) used preferred time headways of drivers
in order to simulate their car-following on the freeways. The de-
sired spacing equation was given as Equation 24. The vehicles in
INTELSIM try to reach their desired spacings in steady state with
their leaders. INTRAS, on the other hand, places the vehicles at the
following space headway, h(t), at every simulation time step:
h(t ) = L + 10 + k ∗ Vf + b ∗ k ∗ (VL − Vf )
2
(31)
If the adjustment factor b * k * (VL − Vf) is ignored, Equation 31 is
similar to Equation 24 where the preferred time headway is the
time headway between the front bumper of the follower and the
rear bumper of the leader. Therefore, the k-parameter in INTRAS
and FRESIM is indeed a time headway expression for drivers. An
alternative representation of the INTRAS spacing equation is
h(t ) = L + t p ∗ Vf + b ∗ t p ∗ (VL − Vf )
2
(32)
where tp is the preferred time headway.
Note that 3 m (10 ft) of extra spacing has been dropped and the
actual vehicle length, 4.5 m (15 ft), is used. Moreover, the emer-
gency constraint of INTRAS was also modified as follows. If the
leader decelerates at the maximum deceleration rate to stop, the fol-
lower must be able to stop behind the leader at his buffer space
Aycin and Benekohal Paper No. 99-1200 121

apart. The distance that the follower travels because of his reaction V f = V fi + afi ∗ c + a f ∗ (T − c)
time, af, is also included to satisfy the following equation:
X f = Xfi + V fi ∗ c + afi ∗ c 2 + (V f ) c ∗ (T − c)
1
 2
V2
[
X L + L −  Xfi + V fi ∗ T + 0.5 ∗ a f ∗ T 2 + V fi + ( a f ) ∗ T
2 ∗ dl 
]
+ 0.5 ∗ a f ∗ (T − c)
2
(35)
[
V fi + ( a f ) ∗ T ]
2

∗c + + L + K = 0 (33) where afi is the acceleration present at the beginning of the time step
2 ∗ df  and af is the acceleration calculated for the present time step.
The simulation runs using the proposed method yielded very good
Note that this equation is similar to the CARSIM car-following agreement with the field data (Figure 4). FRESIM and INTRAS spec-
equation. ify only 10 different types of drivers. Instead, a suitable range for the
If the leader has already stopped, the follower must come to a preferred time headways of drivers can be specified to represent the
stop at his buffer spacing behind the leader. Note here that Equation driver population.
34 may not bring the vehicle to a stop at the end of the simulation
time step:
NETSIM
a f = − 0.5 ∗ (Vf i ) ( XLs − Xfi − L − K)
2
(34)
Although NETSIM is an urban street simulation program, it is
As mentioned earlier, Equation 21 does not consider any acceler- included in this study because the field data have a stop-and-go
ation that is present during the reaction time. The authors recommend portion that NETSIM can simulate and to find out why NETSIM is
that it be changed as follows: particularly used for urban street simulations.

FIGURE 3 INTRAS plots of average speed and density versus time for k-values of 1, 1.45,
and 1.9.
122 Paper No. 99-1200
FIGURE 4 FRESIM plots of average speed and density versus time for random k-values in range of
0.6 to 1.5 and proposed FRESIM model results.
Unlike INTRAS, the NETSIM car-following equation does not
have parameters to be calibrated. However, the maximum deceler-
ation rates of the following and leading vehicles and reaction times
of the drivers could be adjusted to simulate the field data. First, sim-
ulations were performed with default values. The maximum decel-
eration rate for both leader and follower, 3.6 m/s2 (12 ft/s2), was
selected as the default, and the brake reaction time or “lag” was
taken as 1 s for all the vehicles. NETSIM also adds a 0.9-m (3-ft)
buffer space to the vehicle length as the buffer space in stopped
separation.
Plots of density and volume versus time show that NETSIM
default values produce much higher densities and volumes than the
field data (Figure 5). Utilizing the field reaction times with an aver-
age of 1.15 s instead of 1 s reaction lag produced better results. This
result is due to the fact that drivers with high reaction times car-
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1678
follow at farther distances than drivers with low reaction times in
NETSIM.
The effect of inserting actual buffer spaces of the vehicles rang-
ing from 1.5 to 5 m (5 to 17 ft) instead of the 0.9-m (3-ft) buffer with
the field reactions produced lower densities. Since NETSIM includes
these buffers to vehicle length to find the “effective vehicle length,”
using larger effective lengths affected the overall performance of the
simulation instead of affecting only the stop-and-go portion.
The best results obtained came from the use of 4.9-m/s2 (16-ft/s2)
deceleration rates for the leaders and 3.6-m/s2 (12-ft/s2) rates for the
followers with default values.
NETSIM, in general, did not space out the vehicles as speeds
increased and provided too close car-following for high-speed con-
ditions. The use of different deceleration rates for followers and
leaders was found to be the best strategy to calibrate NETSIM for
Aycin and Benekohal
FIGURE 5 NETSIM plots of average speed and density versus time (1ft = 0.3 m).
freeway data. On the other hand, NETSIM can easily be calibrated
for congested conditions on freeways, which very much resemble
urban street situations.
CARSIM
CARSIM uses different reaction times and buffer spaces to show
dual traffic behavior for congested and noncongested conditions. If
Paper No. 99-1200 123
the density is less than 98 veh/km (60 vpm), traffic is considered
noncongested, and “surprised” brake reaction times with maximum
deceleration rates of 4.9 m/s2 (16 ft/s2) for both leaders and follow-
ers are utilized. For congested conditions, maximum deceleration
rates of 3.9 m/s2 (13 ft/s2) and 4.9 m/s2 (16 ft/s2) are used for the fol-
lowers and leaders, respectively. Moreover, a buffer spacing of 3 m
(10 ft) was used for noncongested conditions as opposed to 1.5 to
2 m (5 to 7 ft) of buffer spacing for congested conditions.
124 Paper No. 99-1200
First, simulation runs were performed by using the reaction times
of the drivers from the field. Density and average speed plots for this
run provided good agreement with the field data (Figure 6). Since
CARSIM utilizes buffer spaces of the vehicles, 1.5 to 5 m (5 to
17 ft) of buffer space from the field was substituted for the default
buffer space for the second runs. The results did not differ from
those of the first run because these buffer spaces are used if speeds
are less than 2.2 m/s (7.3 ft/s) (2). In both simulation runs, the vehi-
cles were following each other at closer spacings than the vehicles
in the field after the stop-and-go region.
FIGURE 6 CARSIM plots of average speed and density versus time.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1678
In order to see the effect of various reaction times on car-following,
simulation runs were performed with randomly generated reac-
tion times from a cumulative distribution based on Johansson and
Rumer’s data (2). Different reaction times shifted the density plots,
as expected. In order to show this point clearly, runs were generated
for drivers with high reaction times, 1.2 s on average, and for drivers
with low reaction times, 0.8 s on average. The results are presented
in Figure 6.
These results show that reaction times can be used to calibrate
CARSIM. Higher reaction times space out the vehicles and decrease
Aycin and Benekohal
densities. On the other hand, shorter reaction times cause closer car
following in simulation and increase densities. This is, however, not
necessarily the case in the real world because drivers’ car-following
distances may not depend on their reaction times.
INTELSIM
INTELSIM was run with drivers’ preferred time headways, reac-
tion times, and buffer spaces obtained from the field data. INTEL-
SIM gave the closest results to the field data among the
car-following models compared (Figure 7). Moreover, INTELSIM
was able to use the information from the field data directly, which
reduced calibration time considerably. These results can be attrib-
uted to the fact that INTELSIM uses a different car-following
approach than the other models and aims to simulate actual driver
car-following behavior.
FIGURE 7 INTELSIM plots of average speed and density versus time.
Paper No. 99-1200 125
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Since the vehicles in the simulations were following the leader from
the field data, plots of average speed versus time did not show much
variation between models and runs for a particular model. There-
fore, in most of the cases, the average density variations between
field data and simulation results determined the success of each run.
Regression analyses were performed between simulation results
and the field data. Correlation coefficients (R2) of simulation results
versus field data for all the simulation runs are given in Table 1.
Regression analysis results show that there are almost no differ-
ences between models in terms of their R2 values. This finding is
rather unexpected because the plots of density versus time in Fig-
ures 3 through 7 show that there are differences between models
and even that the same model performs differently depending on
the calibrations performed.
126 Paper No. 99-1200
TABLE 1 Correlation Coefficients of Simulated Versus Actual Densities of All Simulation Runs
for Each Model
The results of the regression analysis suggest that there might be
problems in the data set or that regression analysis may not be appro-
priate. Regression analysis assumes that estimation errors are un-
correlated. However, the speed and density values are correlated with
the next and previous speed and density values. Moreover, residual
plots of fitted regression lines suggest that there is nonconstant vari-
ance in the regression. Therefore, regression analysis results are not
meaningful for this type of data. Therefore, the simulation results
will be compared with the field data visually.
Since calibrations performed on a model play a very important role
in model fitting to field data, they can determine how good a model
is compared with another model. Therefore, car-following models
can be evaluated for their performance by considering
1. How well a calibrated model can simulate field data; compar-
ing microscopic and macroscopic plots required for this task;
2. The amount of calibration effort required to make a model fit
to the field data;
3. How well the calibrations applied to a particular model reflect
the field data; and
4. The ease with which a model can utilize the available infor-
mation from the field.
According to the above criteria, INTELSIM produced the best fit
to the field data among the group of models compared. Moreover,
INTELSIM used the information from the field and consequently
required the least amount of calibration. The proposed method for
FRESIM comes second because it produced good results by using
the information from the field data. CARSIM’s performance was
better for the stop-and-go region than FRESIM’s. However, FRESIM
showed better performance for noncongested conditions than
CARSIM. FRESIM performed better than INTRAS because of the
k-parameter range it employed. NETSIM was developed for urban
streets; therefore, it required some tricky calibrations to make it
work for the field data.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1678
CONCLUSIONS
The similarities and differences of well-known car-following mod-
els have been presented and their performance compared with the
field data. NETSIM, CARSIM, FRESIM, and INTRAS sequen-
tially update vehicles. This approach prevents application of these
models to situations in which the vehicles are commanded by real-
time controllers. Moreover, brake reaction times cannot be greater
than the simulation time step because of this approach.
Although NETSIM is developed for urban street simulations, its
car-following model yielded good agreement with the field data for
stop-and-go conditions. However, it could not perform well in non-
congested conditions. NETSIM did not space out the vehicles as
speeds increased because the NETSIM algorithm only aims to pre-
vent collisions. Therefore, it provides too close car-following for
high-speed conditions.
FRESIM provided results that were similar to those from field data
for either noncongested or congested conditions but not for both at
the same time. FRESIM and INTRAS require proper selection of a
k-parameter, which determines the throughput from the simulation.
FRESIM utilizes a k-parameter range that yields better agreement
with the field data than the INTRAS model does; however, the selec-
tion of a mean k-value is not straightforward. It was shown that the
k-parameter is a time headway assignment for the drivers. Therefore,
using tp (preferred time headway) instead of the k-parameter in the
FRESIM and INTRAS algorithms makes them easier to calibrate.
The proposed modifications to FRESIM and INTRAS car-following
models yielded very good agreement with the field data.
CARSIM is a more detailed model than NETSIM, INTRAS, or
FRESIM. It tries to simulate dual traffic behavior in congested and
in noncongested conditions. Therefore, it is easy to calibrate for
stop-and-go conditions and yields good results.
INTELSIM required the least amount of calibration effort since it
was able to use driver characteristics (preferred time headway, buffer
spaces) from the field. INTELSIM updates the vehicles simultane-
Aycin and Benekohal
ously. Therefore, it can be used to simulate vehicles commanded by
controllers such as AICC. Moreover, reaction times of drivers are not
restricted by the simulation time steps. Furthermore, INTELSIM
produced the best agreement with the field data.
Regression analysis between field data and simulation results did
not provide meaningful results because of the correlation that exists
between data points.
This comparison was based on one data set for freeway traffic.
Therefore, more field data should be collected for further validation
and comparison of car-following models and to understand driver
car-following behavior. Moreover, field data are required to deter-
mine the distribution of the drivers’ preferred time headways. In addi-
tion, the relationship between the drivers’ preferred time headways
and their reaction times must be examined.
REFERENCES
1. Wicks, D. A., and B. J. Andrews. Development and Testing of
INTRAS, a Microscopic Freeway Simulation Model, Vol. 1: Program
Design, Parameter Calibration and Freeway Dynamics Component
Development. Report FHWA-RD-80-106. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1980.
2. Benekohal, R. F., and J. Treiterer. CARSIM: Car-following Model for
Simulation of Traffic in Normal and Stop-and-Go Conditions. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1194, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 99–111.
Paper No. 99-1200 127
3. Aycin, M. F., and R. F. Benekohal. A Linear Acceleration Car-Follow-
ing Algorithm for Autonomous Intelligent Cruise Control Systems.
Proc., Fifth International Conference on Applications of Advanced
Technologies in Transportation Engineering, 1998.
4. Michaels, R., and D. Solomon. Effect of Speed Change Information on
Spacing between Vehicles. Public Roads, Vol. 31, No. 12, 1962.
5. Winsum, W. V., and A. Heino. Choice of Time-Headway in Car-
Following and the Role of Time to Collision Information in Braking.
Ergonomics, Vol. 39, 1996, pp. 579–592.
6. Lee, C., and T. Rioux. The TEXAS Model for Intersection Traffic:
Development. Research Report. University of Texas at Austin, Dec.
1977.
7. Spurr, R. T. Subjective Aspects of Braking. Automotive Engineer, Feb.
1969.
8. Hattori, Y., K. Asano, N. Iwama, and T. Shigematsu. Analysis of Driv-
er’s Decelerating Strategy in a Car-following Situation. Vehicle System
Dynamics, Vol. 24, 1995, pp. 299–311.
9. Aycin, M. F., and R. F. Benekohal. A Linear Acceleration Car-Following
Model Development and Validation. In Transportation Research Re-
cord 1644, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998,
pp. 10–19.
10. Treiterer, J. Investigation of Traffic Dynamics by Aerial Photogramme-
try Techniques. Final Report EES 278. Transportation Research Center,
Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University, Feb. 1975.
11. Cheu, R., W. Recker, and S. Ritchie. Calibration of INTRAS for Simu-
lation of 30-s Loop Detector Output. In Transportation Research
Record 1457, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1994, pp. 208–215.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Traffic Flow Theory
and Characteristics.