Modelling and Simulating Head-On Conflict-Solving Behaviour of Motorcycles Under Heterogeneous Traffic Condition in Developing Countries

Page 1 of 48 Transportmetrica A: Transport Science
1
2
3
4
Modelling and Simulating Head-On Conflict-Solving Behaviour of
5
6
Motorcycles under Heterogeneous Traffic Condition in Developing
7
8
Countries
9
10
11
Linh Thanh Trinh a*, Kazushi Sanob, and Kiichiro Hatoyamac
12
13 abc Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nagaoka University of
14
15 Technology
16
17
18 Nagaoka University of Technology
Fo
19
20
1603-1 Kamitomioka-machi, Nagaoka, Niigata Prefecture, 940-2188, Japan
21 Email: s155065@stn.nagaokaut.ac.jp
rP
22
23 ORCiD: 0000-0002-7888-3355
24
ee
25
26 Mr. Linh Thanh Trinh is now a Ph.D. student of Nagaoka University of Technology, Niigata,
27 Japan. He also received Master of Engineering in the same University. His main research
28
rR
29 interests are heterogeneous traffic modelling and simulation, traffic operation and management,
30 traffic safety and intelligent transportations systems.
31
ev
32
33 Ph.D. Kazushi Sano is a professor at Department of Civil and Environmental
34
Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan. He got a Ph.D. in 1995 in
iew
35
36
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo. His research interests are
37
38 Civil Engineering Planning and Traffic Engineering.
39
40
On
41 Ph.D. Kiichiro Hatoyama, is Specially Appointed Associate Professor for Academia-

42
43 Industry Fusion in Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Nagaoka
44
ly
University of Technology, Japan since 2017. He got a Ph.D. in 2007 in Department of

45
46 Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo. The title of his dissertation is "Guideline
47
48 formulation for signalized intersection design considering impacts on pedestrians'
49
50
psychology".
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Transportmetrica A: Transport Science Page 2 of 48
1
2
3
4
Modelling and Simulating Head-On Conflict-Solving Behaviour of
5
6
Motorcycles under Heterogeneous Traffic Condition in Developing
7
8
Countries
9
10
11 When facing conflict at the crossing points of an X-intersection, the motorcyclists
12 typically conduct complex behaviours to avoid head-on accident. These complex
13
14 behaviours motivate the study on capturing the unique mechanism of
15
motorcycles. Associated with regular travelling, the desired left-turning path is
16
17 estimated by the parabola-based trajectory, which has the smallest deviation.
18
Fo
19 Furthermore, for accident avoidance, the conflict-solving model is proposed

20 based on two-player game theory, an anticipation approach, and a discrete choice
21
rP
22 approach. On the purpose of validating the proposed model inside the developed
23 micro-simulator, three indicators, travelling speed, cumulative turning angle, and
24
ee
25 trajectory, are investigated at two two-phase signalized intersections. Compared

26
27
with real data, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of the first two indicators
28
rR
are 19.18%, 35.5% for double conflicts situation. The mean deviation of
29
30 trajectory, 0.32 meters, are acceptable compared to motorcycle’s lateral
31 dimension, 0.8 meters. Thus, the proposed model could be considered as good in
ev
32
33 reproducing head-on conflict-solving behaviour.
34
iew
35
36 Keywords: Conflict-solving Model; Head-on conflict; Heterogeneous traffic;
37 Signalised intersection; Traffic microsimulation
38
39
40 Count: 8244 words, 7 figures, 5 tables
On
41
42
43 1. Introduction
44
ly
45
46 1.1. Problems in heterogeneous traffic
47
48
49 Motorcycle, also called motorized two-wheelers, take up a large proportion of
50
51 transportation in large cities in Asian countries (Taniguchi, Fwa, and Tompson 2014).
52
53
54
In such cities, the actual road conditions are not made up of homogeneous traffic but
55
56 rather heterogeneous traffic. In addition, motorcycles, which have high flexibility and
57
58 freedom, continuously manoeuvre through traffic and alter their speed to maximize their
59
60
utility. The major issue in this regard is accurately describing the erratic trajectories of

1
2
3 motorcycles. Despite numerous studies on non-lane-based movement, traffic in
4
5
6
intersections, specifically their crossing points, in which motorcycles from distinctive
7
8 flows are in conflict with each other, has received less attention. Especially, proper
9
10 micro-simulation for heterogeneous traffic, which can reproduce effectively the
11
12
sophisticated interaction of motorcycles, is currently requisite. Therefore, this study
13
14
15 focuses on a unique accident avoidance mechanism, called a conflict-solving model, for
16
17 motorcycles crossing through an intersection. Ho Chi Minh city Vietnam, as a
18
Fo
19 representative for heterogeneous traffic cities in developing countries, has been taken as
20
21
rP
22 a case study.
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41 Figure 1. Description of head-on conflict at signalized intersection

42
43
44
ly
1.2. Literature review

45
46
47 Many researchers have attempted to build a complex and unorganized traffic system for
48
49 conducting microsimulations of traffic flows. One distinguishing approach in this
50
51
52 regard is “to treat vehicles as individual units instead of a continuous flow and see what
53
54 behaviour emerges when vehicles are given simple rules to follow” (Ghadai et al. 2016).
55
56 Based on this idea, agent-based modelling can be used as a modern thriving tool. By
57
58
59
definition, agent-based modelling “is a microscopic computer simulation technique
60

1
2
3 focusing on simulating the actions and interactions of clusters of computational agents”
4
5
6
(Lee 2007). The traffic flow on a road is also regarded as a combination of vehicle
7
8 movements. Each moving vehicle is regarded as an individual agent. Thus, many
9
10 researchers have successfully presented agent-based models for use in traffic
11
12
simulations (Erol, Levy, and Wentworth 2000; Champion et al. 2005; Lee 2007;
13
14
15 Grether, Neumann, and Nagel 2012; Ksontini et al. 2014; Ghadai et al. 2016). The
16
17 developed traffic simulator applied in the present study has been developed using
18
Fo
19 NetLogo (Wilensky 1999), an integrated agent-based modelling environment.

20
21
rP
22 To tackle the above conflict, the gap acceptance principle has been popularly
23
24 utilized at intersections (Pollatschek, Polus, and Livneh 2002). It has been theorized that
ee
25
26 vehicles should only be allowed to enter an intersection when the time gap between two
27
28
rR
29
vehicles is sufficient to allow an insertion into or the crossing of a flow. Numerous
30
31 studies have followed this theory in analysing the gap acceptance for homogeneous
ev
32
33 lane-based traffic (Daganzo 1981; Choudhury et al. 2007; Hidas 2005; Cassidy et al.
34
iew
35
1995; Mahmassani and Sheffi 1981; Ragland et al. 2006). However, under
36
37
38 heterogeneous traffic, most studies have considered a gap acceptance model that
39
40 concentrates on crossing and merging behaviours at an intersection (Asaithambi,
On
41
42 Kanagaraj, and Toledo 2016). Whereas several studies have employed a constant
43
44
ly
45 critical gap (Popat, Gupta, and Khanna 1989) depending on the vehicle categories,
46
47 driver age, vehicle lane conflicts, conflicting vehicle types, and vehicle occupancy,
48
49 other studies have considered the variation in the critical gap through a neuro-fuzzy
50
51
52
technique (Sangole, Patil, and Patare 2011), probability density function (Hossain
53
54 1999), Raff method, logit maximum likelihood, lag, or Ashworth method (Patil and
55
56 Pawar 2015). An alternative gap acceptance, that is, the minimum required time gap for
57
58
clearing an intersection between vehicles on major streets, was applied to truly reflect
59
60

1
2
3 the priority rule (Ashalatha and Chandra 2011). In terms of the merging behaviour, the
4
5
6
gap acceptance approach has been utilized in the development of probabilistic merging
7
8 models at unsignalized T-intersections (Kanagaraj, Srinivasan, and Sivanandan 2011;
9
10 Kanagaraj et al. 2015). Although the gap acceptance has become a popular approach, a
11
12
limitation remains, namely, it is based on the priority rule (Prasetijo et al. 2016), which
13
14
15 is obeyed by lane-based vehicles and limits the flexibility of motorcycles under the
16
17 assumption that all drivers conform to the traffic rule.
18
Fo
19 While the above mentions are only one-dimensional simulation models, where
20
21
rP
22 turning vehicles only move along a determined trajectory and use stop-and-go strategy.
23
24 A two-dimensional model (Z. Ma, Sun, and Wang 2017), controlling both longitudinal
ee
25
26 and lateral movement, was firstly introduced for the lane-based vehicle to solve the
27
28
rR
29
crossing conflict at a signalized intersection. Making use of the plane-decision-action
30
31 framework, the model obtains the value of acceleration and angular velocity in each
ev
32
33 simulation step during the turning process. The model transcended the lane-based and
34
iew
35
priority limitation regards to reproducing the variation of trajectories, psychological
36
37
38 effects of drivers in the decision-making process, non-strict priority rule, and multi-task
39
40 driving process. Nevertheless, the variation of trajectory comes from the variation of the
On
41
42 dividing point, the connecting point between the curve and the straight segments, of the
43
44
ly
45 desired trajectory, not the dynamic of conflict. It means when the motorcycle has a
46
47 fixed dividing point, current position, speed, and moving direction, there is no variation
48
49 of trajectory even with distinct conflicts. Although untying the priority rule, the model
50
51
52
is still constructed based on this rule. No priority situation, such as in motorcycle-
53
54 dominated heterogeneous traffic, could not benefit from the model. Last but not least,
55
56 due to focusing on lane-based vehicle, the model mentions neither capability of
57
58
modifying the position of crossing point by intensively manoeuvring nor the
59
60

1
2
3 opportunistic behaviour of motorcycle. It means the model could not simulate the
4
5
6
situation when a motorcycle speeds up and manoeuvres to pass the conflict area before
7
8 a priority vehicle.
9
10 Beside the priority rule, another approach to solving conflicts with pedestrians
11
12
has been introduced (Asano, Iryo, and Kuwahara 2010). The anticipation approach and
13
14
15 two-player game theory were also applied to build a microsimulation model for
16
17 pedestrian movement. However, the subject of the study was pedestrian and the scope
18
Fo
19 was limited to Japan. The developed model must also be restructured before being
20
21
rP
22 applied to a motorcycle. For example, the differences in the size and shape lead to
23
24 differences in the specific pedestrian-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-vehicle distances.
ee
25
26 Related to vehicle interaction, several studies have also examined the
27
28
rR
29
interactions between motorcycles and other vehicles within intersections. A simulation
30
31 model was proposed for a non-crossing flow at a signalized intersection in terms of the
ev
32
33 queue density and dissipation under heterogeneous traffic (Asaithambi and Ramaswamy
34
iew
35
2008). The relationships between the group behaviour and conflict inside an intersection
36
37
38 were clarified through a statistical analysis (Phan and Shimizu 2011). A social force has
39
40 also been applied to describe the group behaviour of motorcycles at signalized
On
41
42 intersections (Vu and Shimizu 2010; Huynh, Boltze, and Vu 2013). However, none of
43
44
ly
45 the studies above discuss a way to solve head-on conflicts or consider the opportunistic
46
47 behaviours when there is no priority but first-come first-serve principle.
48
49 Anticipation movement and discrete choice approaches have been recently
50
51
52
employed to depict the complex movements of a motorcycle (Shiomi, Hanamori, and
53
54 Shimamoto 2012). The model reproduces several behaviours of a motorized two-
55
56 wheeler, its following behaviour, and interactions with other motorcycles and passenger
57
58
cars, among other factors. The results indicate that this approach can capture both the
59
60

1
2
3 highly flexibility and perception of the traffic surrounding a motorcycle. However, the
4
5
6
study focuses on motorcycle behaviours at mid-block, and thus, a head-on conflict was
7
8 not considered.
9
10 Under this this background, the study mainly focuses on the development of a
11
12
conflict-solving model for a motorcycle at four-leg intersection. Two-player game
13
14
15 theory and the anticipation approach are exploited, and the conflict solving model is
16
17 also fully detailed and examined. The outline of this paper is as follows. First, the
18
Fo
19 hierarchical structure of the intersection reaction module is characterized in section 2.

20
21
rP
22 Second, the movements of a motorcycle without conflict and an estimation of the left-
23
24 turning trajectory are presented in section 3. Third, the mechanism allowing a
ee
25
26 motorcycle to solve a conflict is addressed in section 4. We then validate the proposed
27
28
rR
29
model in section 5. Finally, some concluding remarks are given in section 6.
30
31
ev
32 1.3. Data collection

33
34 A graphical video survey of two signalized intersections in Ho Chi Minh city,
iew
35
36
37 Vietnam, was conducted. The video was recorded by the high definition camcorder
38
39 Sony HDR-CX160, with the resolution 1280×720 pixels, frame rate 30 frames/second.
40
On
41 The SEV, video image processing software, was used to extract data from video. This
42
43
44
software also has been used in several studies (Minh et al. 2007; Nguyen 2012). The
ly
45
46 extracted data in this study share the same sources with another study (Trinh et al.
47
48 2018). The 50% of recorded duration is used for calibration and 50% is used for
49
50
validation.
51
52
53
54 Table 1 Summary of surveyed intersections
55
Width Flow Left-turning
56 Intersection Direction Road name
(m) (Vehicle/h) proportion (%)
57
58 North- Tran Binh 8.8m
1 1256 5
59 South Trong (2 lanes)
60

1
2
3 East- An Duong 18m
4 2470 25
West Vuong (4 lanes)
5 North- An Duong 18m
6 2852 2
South Vuong (4 lanes)
7 2
8
East- Le Hong 18m
1902 23
9 West Phong (4 lanes)
10
11 1.4. Simulation framework
12
13 In general, the movements of a vehicle during a simulation are derived from several
14
15
16
distinctive models, a mid-block running model, an emergency model, an intersection-
17
18 travelling model, and a conflict-solving model. Both the intersection-travelling model
Fo
19
20 and the conflict-solving model belong to a major module, namely, an intersection
21
rP
22
reaction module. Each model is designed to produce a few specific behaviours. Based
23
24
on the perceived situation, the controller decides which model should be reasonably
ee
25
26
27 invoked by determining the acceleration and turning angle for the next moving step.
28
rR
29 Figure 2 illustrates the model framework of the simulation.

30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41 Figure 2. General framework of developed micro-simulator including intersection-

42
43 travelling model and conflict-solving model
44
ly
45
46 2. Intersection reaction module
47
48
49 In this paper, the intersection reaction module is the main area of discussion. This
50
51 module was cursorily introduced in (Trinh et al. 2018). However, a detailed formulation
52
53 and an analysis of two simultaneous conflicts and its validation were not provided. The
54
55
56
present study continues with the development of a complex reaction analysis and
57
58 provides a deep look inside the conflict-solving model rather than the entire simulator.
59
60 The module simulates the decision-making procedure used to reach a destination while

1
2
3 avoiding a collision with other vehicles. According to human-like driving concept (Z.
4
5
6
Ma, Sun, and Wang 2017; Asano, Iryo, and Kuwahara 2010; Schonauer 2017), the
7
8 module is also structured into three levels, namely, a strategic level, a tactical level, and
9
10 an operation level as depicted in Figure 3.
11
12
13
14 2.1. Strategic level
15
16
17 The strategic level is the most general level of the intersection reaction module. Each
18
Fo
19 generated vehicle is assigned several characteristics, including the original position, the
20
21 original direction, and a decision made at an intersection. The decision made at an
rP
22
23
24 intersection could be to continue travelling straight, turn left, or turn right. At this level,
ee
25
26 the position and exiting direction are given.
27
28
rR
29
30 2.2. Tactical level
31
ev
32
The tactical level is the medium level of the intersection reaction module. This level
33
34
determines the macroscopic route that minimizes the travel time. Based on the current
iew
35
36
37 position and requirements from the strategic level, the desired direction is provided as
38
39 an input for the operational level. The desired direction is an altered by time vector that
40
On
41
42 lies along the tangent line of the parabola-based trajectory at the current position. This is
43
44 the key input for making a decision at the operational level. The parabola-based
ly
45
46 trajectory is detailed below.
47
48
49
Concerning the intersection travelling model, to produce a smooth and authentic
50
51 trajectory, the simulator applies a parabola-based trajectory. The process of defining the
52
53 desired direction goes through the following steps. First, when the motorcycle is
54
55
generated, the route choice inside the intersection is input from the strategic level.
56
57
58 Second, when the motorcycle enters the intersection, the virtual exiting point is given to
59
60 keep the motorcycle turning toward the chosen route and leading it out of the

1
2
3 intersection. The trajectory is approximated from the current position to the exit point in
4
5
6
a parabolic shape. The assumed trajectory is recalculated after each timestep depending
7
8 on the current position.
9
10 Along the assumed parabola-based trajectory, the desired direction is assumed to
11
12
be the tangent line of the parabola at the current position. The parameters of the
13
14
15 parabola are calculated based on the coordination of two given points. Assuming that
16
17 the first point, the peak of the parabola, is the virtual exit point, and that the second
18
Fo
19 point is the current position of the motorcycle, the desired direction is calculated as the
20
21
rP
22 referenced direction for the operation level.

23
24
ee
25
2.3. Operational level
26
27
28
rR
The operational level includes both the intersection-travelling model and the conflict-
29
30
31
solving model. It is assumed that a motorcycle wants to move toward its desired
ev
32
33 direction as far as possible. A situation in which the motorcycle travels inside the
34
iew
35 intersection without conflict is less complex. With a potential conflict, the movement of
36
37 the motorcycle becomes a challenge to predict. Based on the observed situation, the
38
39
40 constraints from the strategic and tactical levels, and the capability of the motorcycle
On
41
42 itself, the final decision at this level is determined as the algebraic value of the
43
44 acceleration and turning angle. Finally, the velocity and turning angle are smoothly
ly
45
46
47 changed by updating the acceleration and turning angle rate after 0.1 seconds each.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26 Figure 3. Hierarchical architecture of intersection reaction module
27
28
rR
29
30
2.4. Anticipation movement approach
31
ev
32 To declare the intended movement of the vehicle, the anticipation movement approach
33
34
is utilized. The anticipation movement is the predicted trajectory of a vehicle from the
iew
35
36
37 current position. During the anticipation period T, all motorcycles are assumed to move
38
39 consistently in the same moving direction φ and velocity V as at time t. The intended
40
On
41
movement is assigned to the environmental layer in Netlogo as an anticipation line. The
42
43
44 anticipation line is a straight line from the middle point of the vehicle toward the
ly
45
46 moving direction. The length of this line equals moving distance of the vehicle under
47
48 the velocity V(t) during the period T.
49
50
51 The cross between two or more anticipation lines is the sign of the conflict area.
52
53 Thus, the crossing point is employed as a sign of the potential accident, as exemplified
54
55 in Figure 4. The presented conflict detection technique is classified as a nominal
56
57
58
projection method (Daalen 2010). The method remains a main limitation in that a
59
60 conflict could likely be missed. The developed simulator overcomes this limitation by

1
2
3 setting a small timestep of 0.1 seconds, which means increasing the frequency of
4
5
6
searching and reducing likelihood of missing a conflict. Thus, the anticipation approach
7
8 is simple and effective in detecting potential conflicts.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50 Figure 4 Parameters of a double conflicts situation
51
52 The position of the motorcycle is considered the centre point. For this reason,
53
54 both the accident and conflict areas are parallelograms. The accident area, which is the
55
56
57 potential crashing area of two motorcycles, is contributed to by the lateral dimensions of
58
59 the two conflicting motorcycles. The conflict area is contributed to by the longitudinal
60

1
2
3 dimensions of the two conflicting motorcycles. This area limits the conflict with the
4
5
6
entrance and exit positions of the conflicting motorcycles. Here, l11 and l12 indicate the
7
8 distances of the subjective motorcycle i at its current position to the entrance and exit
9
10 positions of conflict area 1. These positions are determined when the front of the
11
12
motorcycle reach the accident area and the rear exit the accident area. The periods of
13
14
15 time which the motorcycle i travels the distances l11 and l12 are t11 and t12. Similarly, l21
16
17 and l22 are the distances of the subjective motorcycle i from the current position to the
18
Fo
19 entrance and exit positions of conflict area 2, and t21 and t22 correspond with the
20
21
rP
22 travelling period. This is mostly the same for the conflicting motorcycle j as lj1 and lj2,
23
24 and tj1 and tj2 and the conflicting motorcycle k as lk1 and lk2, and tk1 and tk2.
ee
25
26
27
28 2.5. Two-player game theory implementation
rR
29
30 In order to describe the game of the study, the following characteristics will be clarified.
31
ev
32 First, the number of players is considered as two, a pair of drivers (i, j). The reason is
33
34 that the amount of time that driver has to make a decision is not long enough, 0.1 s, to
iew
35
36
37 consider much players, (Schonauer 2017), and at serious conflict, the driver only
38
39 focuses on the most influential conflict.
40
On
41 Second, the number of iterations is only one. The single sequential game -
42
43
44
Stackelberg game - for each pair of the agents is taken into consideration. The reasons
ly
45
46 are that the duration for drivers making a decision is short and the independent decision-
47
48 making process is one of the model assumptions. The leader, who is assumed to pass the
49
50
conflict first, selects his strategy and informs the other player.
51
52
53 Third, the game is defined as perfect information. All the agents understand the
54
55 situation of the other agent is facing, the strategy set, and the payoff function of the
56
57 other. Fourth, all the agent does not cooperate with the other. The leader maintains its
58
59
60 speed and direction. The follower is forced to give way based on the leader’s behaviour

1
2
3 by altering speed, direction, or both. Last but not least, the game is classified as
4
5
6
symmetry owing to the same likelihood of becoming leader in two players. In summary,
7
8 the game is specified as two players, no repetition, perfect information, non-
9
10 cooperative, leadership, and symmetric game.
11
12
13
Table 2 Qualitative payoff matrix for two-players game
14
15 Subjective Motorcycle
16 Give way Keep going
17 (Continue to give way)
18
Fo
Give way 0 1
19
Conflicting 0 0
20
21
Motorcycle (Collision)
0
rP
22 Keep going 0
1
23 0
24 The qualitative payoff matrix for the two-players game is presented in Table 2.
ee
25
26
27 For the top-left case, both the subjective TW and the conflicting vehicle give way by
28
rR
29 changing direction. As the non-cooperative game, the player makes decision based on
30
31 behaviors of the other. This situation, therefore, could lead to the case that both two
ev
32
33
34
TWs continuously give way but could not solve the conflict. It ends up that both two
iew
35
36 TWs can not reach their destinations. In the bottom-right case, both two TWs keep
37
38 going on the same direction. It results in the potential crash of vehicle. These two
39
40
On
extreme cases are avoided by employed the first-come-first-serve to determine the

41
42
43 leader and follower. The game finally results in one of two remaining case.
44
ly
45
46
47
3. Intersection-travelling model
48
49
50 3.1. Model description
51
52
The intersection-travelling model takes responsibility for the microscopic movements of
53
54
55 the motorcycle. When the motorcycle travels inside the intersection without conflict,
56
57 driver move intuitively along the most comfortable path, named the desired trajectory.
58
59 Based on the three options of a driver, each entrance direction is also divided in three
60

1
2
3 main flows, straight, left-turning and right-turning flow. Compared to the right-turning
4
5
6
and straight-through, the left-turning flow is the most complicated, diversified, and
7
8 unpredicted path. Even though the left-turning path of lane-based passenger car was
9
10 modelled (Ahmed, Sadullah, and Yahya 2015; Z. Ma, Sun, and Wang 2017; Asano et
11
12
al. 2010; Alhajyaseen et al. 2013), to non-lane-based motorcycle’s path, which varying
13
14
15 broadly even at a specific geometry, has not been formulated.
16
17 In the simulator, the drivers enter the intersection with a random exiting position
18
Fo
19 inside the destination band. Based on their exiting and current positions, the desired
20
21
rP
22 trajectory, as showed in Figure 5, is generated to guide their movement at every time

23
24 step. While moving, the driver usually manoeuvres not only to achieve the final goal but
ee
25
26 also to avoid collisions and maintains a safe space (Nguyen 2012) with the surrounding
27
28
rR
29
vehicles. Due to this reason, the actual trajectory is usually dissimilar to the desired path
30
31 but still relies on the desired trajectory. Thus, constructing the left-turning based
ev
32
33 trajectory is essential for the simulator.
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37 Figure 5 Parabola-based trajectory shape, desired direction and choice set of a
38
39 motorcycle at intersection
40
On
41
42 3.2. Approximating left-turning trajectory
43
44
ly
45 This section dedicates on approximating the typical shape of left-turning trajectory

46
47 which satisfies two criteria. First, it is possible to generate at least one path that reaches
48
49 the virtual destination from any current position inside the intersection area. This
50
51
52 criterion comes from the observation of trajectory map that motorcycle’s locations vary
53
54 considerably entire intersection. The reason seems to be that motorcycle continuously
55
56 tackle conflicts while trying to reach the destination. Second, it is possible to
57
58
59
sequentially calculate the desired direction vector to guide the vehicle’s direction next
60

1
2
3 time step. The desired direction will guide vehicle’s direction to move along the
4
5
6
generated path under regular travelling condition.
7
8 In the highway design standard (AASHTO 2011), the vehicle turning template
9
10 has been assumed as a combination of transitional Euler spirals and circular curve.
11
12
However, owing to the characteristics of high flexibility, non-lane-based, it has been
13
14
15 unrealistic to predict the turning stage of motorcycle based on its current location and
16
17 moving direction. Secondly, it is not always achievable to generate turning path based
18
Fo
19 on the current location and destination at any time step by using the template curve.
20
21
rP
22 This relates directly to the first criterion for applying in the developed simulator.
23
24 Consequently, the template curve is not suitable for approximating motorcycle’s left-
ee
25
26 turning trajectory.
27
28
rR
29
Therefore, the paper here proposes four square curves and an equivalent cubic
30
31 curve, Bezier curve, that meet these above requirements. Detailed formulas of these
ev
32
33 curves are mentioned in Table 3. While the first order approximation of the Euler spiral
34
iew
35
is the cubic spiral (Levien 2008), the four selected curves, two parabolas and two
36
37
38 circulars, are square curves. They were selected owing to similar shape, less calibrated
39
40 parameters, and meeting the criteria. The other, Bezier curve, was chosen by means of
On
41
42 once modelled vehicle right-turning trajectories (Reed 2008). The curve was also
43
44
ly
45 employed for trajectory design for intersection, roundabouts, and lane changing under
46
47 homogeneous traffic (Lattarulo et al. 2018).
48
49
50 Table 3 Parameters of approximating curves
51
52 Output
53 Formula Input (Desired
54 direction)
55 Circular 1  x  A  ( y  B ) 2  R 2 (Sharma (xcurrent, ycurrent) A unit vector
2
56 (C1) 2005) (xdestination, ydestination) along the tangent

57 f’x(xdestination, line of circular
where,
58 ydestination)= 0
A, B: coordinates of circular’s
59
center
60
R: diameter of circular

1
2
3 Circular 2  x  A
2
 ( y  B ) 2  R 2 (Sharma (xcurrent, ycurrent) A unit vector
4 (C2) (xdestination, ydestination) along the tangent
5 2005)
f’y(xcurrent, ycurrent)= 0 line of circular
6 Parabola 1 (xcurrent, ycurrent) A unit vector
7 y  Ax 2  Bx  C (Sharma
(P1) (xdestination, ydestination) along the tangent
8 2005) f’x(xdestination, line of parabola
9 where, ydestination)= 0
10 A, B: coordinates of circular’s
11 center
12 Parabola 2 y  Ax 2  Bx  C (Sharma (xcurrent, ycurrent) A unit vector
13 (P2) 2005) (xdestination, ydestination) along the tangent
14 f’y(xcurrent, ycurrent)= 0 line of parabola
15 Bezier curve n
B0 [xcurrent ycurrent] A unit vector
(B) P(t )   Bi J n ,i (t ) (Rogers 2000) B3 [xdestination ydestination] along the tangent
16 i 0
17 where, B1 [x1 y1] and B2 [x2 line of Bezier
18 y2] are the matrices of curve
Fo
n!
19 J n ,i (t )  t i (1  t ) n i : varying vertices P1 and
i ! (n  i )!
20 P2. While P1 distributes
21 Bezier function equally along vertical
rP
22 Bi: the matrix of vertex Pi of line passing through P0,

23 Bezier’s control polygon P2 varies along
24 n+1=4: Number of vertices of horizontal line going
Bezier’s control polygon
ee
25 through P3 (Reed
26 i: the order of vertex of Bezier’s 2008). A combination
27 control polygon of 100 pairs of P1 and
28 P2 are considered, cases
rR
29 for each point.

30
31 In data extraction, 200 left-turning motorcycles were tracked at two typical
ev
32
33 intersections in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Video sequences were taken under a low
34
iew
35 traffic flow and without a conflict. Under such conditions, the effects of other factors
36
37
38 will be minimized. Five divergent curves, two circulars, two parabolas, and a Bezier
39
40 curves, were applied to estimate a single trajectory as showed in Figure 6. For the first
On
41
42 circle, Circle 1 (C1), and the first parabola, Parabola 1 (P1), the first derivation equals
43
44
ly
45
zero at the end point of the path, f’x(xdestination, ydestination)= 0. For the second circle, Circle 2
46
47 (C2), and the second parabola, Parabola 2 (P2), the first derivation equals zero at the
48
49 first change in direction of the path, f’y(xcurrent, ycurrent)= 0. For the fifth curve, third-order
50
51 Bezier curve (B), which has three degrees of freedom, is adapted from the former study
52
53
54 (Rogers 2000). B is constructed from a four-point control polygon. As given in Table 3,
55
56 based on the distributed location of four control points, a hundred Bezier curves are
57
58 produced for each calculating trajectory to find the best-matched one. The deviation,
59
60

1
2
3 which is the distance between the predicted point and the actual point of the estimated
4
5
6
path, is employ to validate curve fitting result. A summary of the deviation for the four
7
8 groups, with 50 left-turning trajectories in each group, is presented in Table 4.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 Figure 6 Fitted curves of a left-turning trajectory
58
59
60

1
2
3 In Table 4, the parabola estimations achieve better result compared to the others
4
5
6
in all four groups. P1 gets the smallest mean error value and the smallest standard
7
8 deviation value within two over four groups. Even though in other two groups, P1 also
9
10 gets the second order of small mean error value. The standard deviation of P1 in these
11
12
two groups gest the first or second order of small standard deviation. P2 got high
13
14
15 deviation in the first and fourth group. The estimation results are not usually good for
16
17 P2. Consequently, P1 is the fittest curve in overall to estimation the left-turning
18
Fo
19 trajectory of motorcycle. Hence, it is employed to reproduce the left-turning trajectory,

20
21
rP
22 named parabola-based trajectory.

23
24
ee
25 Table 4 Summary of estimated trajectory deviation

26
27 Group Quantity C1 P1 C2 P2 B
28
rR
29 Mean 1.23 0.36 3.09 0.75 5.36

30 Intersection 1
31 STD 1.75 0.36 5.32 0.83 3.22
(N-S)
ev
32
Max 12.57 4.61 19.20 5.07 12.57
33
34 Mean 0.79 0.42 0.42 0.22 4.91
iew
35
36 Intersection 1
STD 0.45 0.33 0.41 0.22 2.44
37 (E-W)
38 Max 2.55 2.06 4.33 1.48 2.55
39
40 Mean 0.41 0.54 2.03 0.48 13.61
On
41 Intersection 2
42 STD 0.35 0.60 1.50 0.51 5.42
(N-S)
43
44 Max 2.80 7.87 8.16 3.82 2.80
ly
45
Mean 2.63 0.76 2.01 1.53 20.28
46
47 Intersection 2
STD 1.29 0.55 1.04 1.19 10.61
48 (E-W)
49 Max 7.04 2.88 7.20 7.17 7.04
50
51
N=200 Unit: meter E-W: East-West direction
52
STD: Standard deviation N-S: North-South direction
53
54 4. Conflict-solving model
55
56
57
4.1. Calculation of the optimal direction
58
59
60 When facing two conflicts as in Figure 4, a driver usually focuses first on the most

1
2
3 severe conflict. This behaviour is imitated in the model by considering the smallest time
4
5
6
gap. The time gap Δt1 is taken into consideration. It is assumed that the subjective
7
8 motorcycle i shows a “giving way” behaviour, and the conflicting motorcycles j and k
9
10 insist on their current direction and velocity. The subjective motorcycle i has 61 options
11
12
in the set of choices Ω to stay away from the collision. The maximum moving distance
13
14
15 of motorcycle i in direction θm, which is denoted by Lji(θm), is calculated within the
16
17 anticipation period T. This calculation is taken under the assumption that the velocity of
18
Fo
19 motorcycle i, namely Vi, is a constant during the anticipation period T. Each option θm
20
21
rP
22 in the set of choices Ω is calculated to find the possible moving distance along the
23
24 desired direction. To maximize the moving distance toward the desired direction φd, the
ee
25
26 optimal direction θopt is chosen as the farthest distance along the desired direction φd
27
28
rR
29
among the set of choices. Figure 7 shows six examples of calculating the optimal
30
31 direction θopt when subjective motorcycle i comes into conflict with two motorcycles,
ev
32
33 namely, j and k, in direction θm. Despite the application of the two-player game theory,
34
iew
35
the anticipated movement of the third player, the second conflicting motorcycle k, is
36
37
38 also considered to calculate the optimal direction θopt. This is an extension of the two-
39
40 player game theory in conflict-solving model.
On
41
42 The acceleration toward the optimal direction in this model is calculated by
43
44
ly
45 assuming that the motorcycle wants to minimize the number of changes in its velocity.
46
47 Consider case 1 in Figure 7, the optimal velocity is chosen as a dashed line instead of a
48
49 continuous line. If there are no expected collisions during the anticipation period T, the
50
51
52
motorcycle continues to go along its desired direction and speed ups until reaching the
53
54 desired velocity. Finally, this behaviour results in the maximum moving distance toward
55
56 the desired direction φd within the anticipation period T with the velocity below the
57
58
desired level.
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31 Figure 7 Six example cases of calculating of maximum moving distance
ev
32
33
34
iew
35 Considering a case of two conflicting areas, there are six possible conflict
36
37
38 situations. In each case, the motorcycle reacts in a different way. The equation of the
39
40 maximum distance is also split into six small cases based on the value of the
On
41
42 anticipation period T. The value of T can belong to one of the following intervals: [0,
43
44
ly
45
tj1], [tj1, tj2], [tj2, tk1], [tk1, tk2], or [tk2, ∞]. The specific equations are presented in Table 5
46
47 and Figure 7.
48
49
50 Table 5 Equations of maximum moving distance
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3 T (with the below values)
4 Case t11 and tj2 t21 and tk1, tk2
0 tj1 tj2 tk1 tk2 ∞
5
6 L = l21 L = l21 + (T –
L=TV
1 tk1 ≤ t21 ≤ tk2 tk2)V
7 (0 < T ≤ tk1) (tk1 < T ≤ tk2) (tk2 < T )
8 t11 > tj2
2 t21 > tk2 L=TV
9
10 3 t21 < tk1 L=TV
11 L = l21 + (T – L = l21 + (T –
L = l11 L = l21
12 4 tk1 ≤ t21 ≤ tk2 - tj2)V
(tk1 < T ≤ tk2)
tk2)V
(tj1 < T ≤ tj2) (tj2 < T ≤ tk1 ) (tk2 < T )
13
14 t11 < tj2 L = l11 L = l11 + (T – tj2)V
5 t21 > tk2 -
15 (tj1 < T ≤ tj2) (tj2 < T )
16 L = l11 L = l11 + (T – tj2)V
6 t21 < tk1 -
17 (tj1 < T ≤ tj2) (tj2 < T )
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22 4.2. Set of moving direction choices

23
24
In the field, a motorcycle usually turns with in its turning capability and the speed is
ee
25
26
27 usually below the desired speed. To reduce the calculation cost and achieve a pragmatic
28
rR
29 replication of the manoeuvring capability, two velocity and moving direction constraints
30
31
ev
32 are adapted,
33
34
iew
35  The velocity of the motorcycle can change during the anticipation period but
36
37
0  V (t  i )  Vdesired
38 remains under the desired velocity .
39
40 
On
The possible direction of movement is arranged from i (t)  to i (t)  for

41
42
43 each degree.
44
ly
45
46 This study makes use of a discrete choice approach to reproduce the set of
47
48
49
choices of the motorcycle. A driver can choose one direction from a set of choices Ω, as
50
51 shown in Figure 5. A chosen direction is calculated using Equation (1),
52
53
54 2m  n
55  m  i (t)   ; m  ¥ | m   0, n 
n (1)
56
57
58
59 where,
60

1
2
3   m : the chosen direction
4
5
6  i (t) : the moving direction at time t (current direction)
7
8
9    30 : the maximum possible angle for one side
10
11  n  1  61 : the number of options in a choice set Ω
12
13
14  m : the variable determined selected option among the choice set Ω in iterative
15
16 calculation
17
18
Fo
19
20 5. Model validation
21
rP
22
23
5.1. Goodness-of-fit measurement
24
ee
25
Regarding the credibility of simulated results, the fundamental question needs to
26
27
28 be addressed is that what is the recommended number of simulated cases, sample size in
rR
29
30 another words, to validate the model. The answer was once mentioned (Clifford, Park,
31
ev
32 and Laurence 2011) as,

33
34 2
 
iew
35 
36 N   t(1 /2), m  2 m  (2)
 E 
37
38
39 where,
40
On
41  N : required number of simulation runs for performance measure m.

42
43
44   m = 0.31m : the estimated standard deviation of the deviation in m simulated
ly
45
46 cases.
47
48
49  t(1 /2), m  2 = 1.96 : student’s t-statistic for two-sided error of α/2 (total α percent)
50
51 with m-2 degrees of freedom.
52
53
54   = 5% : level of significance
55
56  m = 36 : number of simulated cases that being considered
57
58
59
60

1
2
3  E = 0.14m : allowable error range, also named as margin of error. Based on the
4
5
6 result of similar measurement method (Z. Ma, Sun, and Wang 2017), the error
7
8 range is determined as 20% of the lateral size of motorcycle.
9
10 The calculated required number of simulations from the above equation is 18. In
11
12
13
response to this value, 56 cases in total, 36 cases of a single conflict and 20 cases of
14
15 double conflicts, are taken into account. The data set of 1523 measuring points in total,
16
17 in both Table 6 and Table 7, are simulated for model validation. These cases are tracked
18
Fo
19
from two two-phase signalized intersections and reproduced in the developed simulator.
20
21
rP
22 The videos are extracted at the highly spatial and temporal resolution, 0.1meters and
23
24 0.2seconds. In order to examine the intersection-travelling and conflict-solving models
ee
25
26 separately, each simulation is validated two scenarios, namely, with and without the
27
28
rR
29 conflict-solving model. The inputs, for both scenarios including the speed, moving
30
31 direction, acceleration, and start and end points are extracted from the field data.
ev
32
33 The conflict-solving model simulation reproduces a situation in which, at the start
34
iew
35
36
moment, a subjective motorcycle and a conflicting motorcycle are in an intersection.
37
38 The parameters of the two motorcycles at the starting position are given as in the
39
40 recorded video. The reaction of the subjective motorcycle in the simulation are
On
41
42
measured against that in the video. By contrast, the non-conflict-solving model
43
44
ly
45 simulation reproduces a situation that at the beginning moment, only the subjective
46
47 motorcycle is inside the intersection. In other words, it is a regular travelling. With the
48
49 given condition, the subjective motorcycle starts to move along its desired path to reach
50
51
52 the exit point without any influence from other vehicles. It means the desired trajectory
53
54 is reproduced in this situation.
55
56 In order to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed model, the present study
57
58
59
utilizes three indicators, travelling speed, cumulative turning angle and trajectory. The
60

1
2
3 speed and direction are the two fundamental components to update the position of
4
5
6
vehicles inside the simulator over time. Therefore, travelling speed and cumulative
7
8 turning angle are selected for validation. After a period of time, a collection of vehicle’s
9
10 positions finally makes up the trajectory. The trajectory, thus, is also considered as a
11
12
representation for the goodness of fit. Moreover, the general comment on the
13
14
15 forecasting accuracy is that the measuring of a group of items result in higher accuracy
16
17 than of an individual and the short time horizon of the simulation, the less accuracy of
18
Fo
19 the result (Swamidass 2000). Thus, the accuracy in the following comparison would be
20
21
rP
22 challenging due to the individual level under a short measuring period.

23
24 The four goodness-of-fit measures, which are popular to examine the accuracy
ee
25
26 of traffic simulators, are utilized, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) (Babu,
27
28
rR
29
Vortisch, and Mathew 2015; Swamidass 2000), mean absolute deviation (MAD)
30
31 (Swamidass 2000), root mean square error (RMSE) (Toledo and Koutsopoulos 2004;
ev
32
33 Dowling et al. 2004) and root mean square normalized error (RMSNE) (Hourdakis,
34
iew
35
Michalopoulos, and Kottommannil 2003; Toledo et al. 2003; T. Ma and Abdulhai
36
37
38 2002). MAPE and MAD were mentioned as appropriate for monitoring the goodness-
39
40 of-fit between predicting and actual data (Swamidass 2000). Pursuant to Lewis’ scale of
On
41
42 interpretation of MAPE value, the model is validated as <10% - highly accuracy, 11-
43
44
ly
45 20% as good, 21-50% as reasonable, >51% inaccurate (Lewis 1982).

46
47
48
5.2. Travelling speed
49
50
51 For measuring the goodness-of-fit statistics for travelling speed, the speeds at
52
53
54
each measuring point from real world and simulator are analysed. RMSE and RMSNE
55
56 in Table 6 and Table 7, which are 2.17 m s-1 and 0.64, 1.19 m s-1 and 0.56, indicate that
57
58 the overall performance of the simulator could be perceived as reasonable. The MAPE
59
60 and MAD, that are 23.74% and 1.13 m s-1 in single conflict, 24.10% and 0.85 m s-1 in

1
2
3 double conflicts, once again confirm that the simulator could be considered as
4
5
6
reasonable. One of the reasons for the bias is the inadequate calibration of motorcycle’s
7
8 acceleration, deceleration, and brake. These parameters of a motorcycle are dissimilar to
9
10 these of another one. They are calibrated from a sample of motorcycles not for a
11
12
specific one. The simulator results thus are not exact for a particular illustration but for
13
14
15 the average of population.
16
17 In addition, the results in the double conflicts situation are inferior to the single
18
Fo
19 conflict situation as regards MAD, RMSE, and RMSNE. It is explained that when
20
21
rP
22 facing more complex situation, motorcycles tend to maintain a slow speed and alter the
23
24 speed a little by little. With slow speed, motorcycles could handle the conflict easier and
ee
25
26 have more time to react to sudden occurrences. That brings about better accuracy in the
27
28
rR
29
simulation results.
30
31
ev
32 Table 6 Comparison between real world and simulation of a single conflict situations
33
Quantity MAPE MAD RMSE RMSNE Mean STD Max
34
iew
35 Conflict-
23.74 1.13 2.17 0.64 - - -
Travelling solving model
36
speed Non-conflict-
37 solving model
27.44 1.48 2.53 0.60
38 Conflict-
39 Cumulative 27.72 0.13 0.20 0.37 - - -
solving model
turning
40 Non Conflict-
On
angle 34.72 0.16 0.22 0.40

41 solving model
42 Conflict-
29.54 0.32 1.02 4.01 - - -
43 solving model
X
44 Non-conflict-
30.95 0.40 1.06 4.01 - - -
ly
solving model
45
Conflict-
46 6.65 0.24 0.35 0.29 - - -
solving model
47 Y
Non-conflict-
48 11.64 0.33 0.44 0.83 - - -
solving model
49 Conflict-
- - - - 0.36 0.31 2.00
50 solving model
Deviation
51 Non-conflict-
- - - - 0.48 0.43 2.31
52 solving model
s-1
m (Travelling speed)
53 N = 821 Unit % - meter meter meter
meter (X, Y, Deviation)
54
55
56 5.3. Cumulative turning angle
57
58
59 Related to moving direction, a measure of the turned angle of the drivers, who make 90
60

1
2
3 degrees left-turning, is requisite. The cumulative turning angle there is proposed as the
4
5
6
proportion of accomplishment in the turning process. This quantity is accumulated since
7
8 the entering intersection moment until the calculating movement. Its value, which
9
10 ranges from 0 to 1, is divided to the total turning angle in order to observe the
11
12
accomplishment. The results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7. MAPE and RMSE
13
14
15 are found 27.72% and 0.20, 34.53% and 0.20. For these statistical measurements, the
16
17 model is considered as reasonable in reproducing the turned angle. Even though the
18
Fo
19 differences, 6.8% in MAPE, is marginal, the single conflict situation is now superior
20
21
rP
22 due to less intricate interaction compared to the double conflict situation.

23
24
ee
25
5.4. Trajectory
26
27
28
rR
The comparison of individual trajectory is once applied in the traffic microsimulation in

29
30
31
heterogeneous traffic (Babu, Vortisch, and Mathew 2015). Figure 8 exemplifies a
ev
32
33 sample of the real-world trajectories of the subjective motorcycle and two simulated
34
iew
35 trajectories of the subjective motorcycle by time series. The positions of subjective and
36
37 conflicting motorcycle’s sketch are the starting position of the simulation. After the
38
39
40 period of 0.2 seconds, the position of vehicle is tracked as a marker in the graph. At
On
41
42 each tracking point, the error of approximation is the distance from the real trajectory
43
44 and the simulated trajectory.
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33 Figure 8 A sample of measurement deviation of left-turning trajectory under single
34 conflict situation
iew
35
36
37 Related to the trajectory, the other three measure of the trajectory deviation are
38
39 utilized, mean absolute (Mean), standard deviation (STD), and maximum deviation
40
On
41
42 (Max) - the worst situation. The distance between the actual and simulated measuring
43
44 point is termed deviation. It is proposed besides X and Y due to the dependence of value
ly
45
46 X and Y upon the coordinate origin location. The change in position of coordinate
47
48
49
origin results in the change in statistical measurements. The suggested deviation
50
51 overcomes this limitation by describing the closeness of the simulated to real trajectory
52
53 instead of the closeness to the coordinate origin. Figure 8 exemplifies the deviation in
54
55
XY coordinates plane.
56
57
58
59 Table 7 Comparison between real world and simulation of double conflicts situations
60

1
2
3 Quantity MAPE MAD RMSE RMSNE Mean STD Max
4 Conflict-
5 24.10 0.85 1.19 0.56 - - -
Travelling solving model
6 speed Non-conflict-
7 25.12 0.89 1.22 0.70
solving model
8 Cumulative
Conflict-
34.53 0.15 0.20 0.41 - - -
9 solving model
turning
10 Non-conflict-
angle 38.95 0.17 0.22 0.45
solving model
11
Conflict-solving
12 model
10.12 0.28 0.40 0.35 - - -
13 X
Non-conflict-
14 11.42 0.34 0.48 0.34 - - -
solving model
15 Conflict-solving
33.08 0.30 0.43 6.89 - - -
16 model
Y
17 Non-conflict-
73.59 0.34 0.47 16.83 - - -
18 solving model
Fo
19 Conflict-solving
- - - - 0.45 0.40 3.28
model
20 Deviation
Non-conflict-
21 - - - - 0.52 0.44 3.02
rP
solving model
22 s-1
24
ee
25
26 From Table 6, the MAPE of X and Y has been found to be 29.54% and 6.65%.
27
28 In Table 7, the better results are recorded, 10.12% and 33.08% respectively. The model,
rR
29
30 therefore, could be validated as reasonable according to Lewis’ scale in both single and
31
ev
32
33 double conflicts situation. The mean of deviation for using and no using conflict-solving
34
iew
35 model are 0.36 and 0.48 meters in Table 6, 0.45 and 0.52 meters in Table 7. These
36
37 values could be perceived as acceptable deviation compared to motorcycle width, 0,8
38
39
40
meters. Thus, the whole simulator could be considered as good in representing the
On
41
42 conflict avoidance behaviour of motorcycle.
43
44 Comparing between Table 6 and Table 7, it is evident that the single conflict
ly
45
46
situation is inferior by means of less sophisticated interaction. The deviation is 0.36
47
48
49 meters, which is 25% better than double conflicts situation, 0.45 meters. This remark is
50
51 similar to the cumulative turning angle but contrasting to the travelling speed.
52
53
54
55 5.5. Effectiveness of conflict-solving model
56
57 While the non-conflict solving model aims to reproduce the desired turning path of
58
59 motorcycle without interruption, the conflict-solving model modifies the speed and
60

1
2
3 moving direction in order to avoid accident based on the desired path. The combining
4
5
6
two model results in a complex and realistic trajectory. In both single and double
7
8 conflict situations, the combining with the conflict-solving model is inferior to non-
9
10 conflict-solving model in travelling speed, cumulative turning angle, and deviation. The
11
12
mean deviation improves up to 33.3% in single conflict situations.
13
14
15 In order to clarify the effectiveness of conflict-solving model, all the trajectories
16
17 are separated equally into three segments. The middle segment of trajectories, which
18
Fo
19 expose the highest distinction of the conflict-solving model, are analysed as in Table 8.
20
21
rP
22 While the improvement of mean deviation is significant, 57.7%, the one of travelling
23
24 speed is slightly different 2.19%. This is logical that motorcycles alter their moving
ee
25
26 direction in order to maintain the high speed while avoiding crash.
27
28
rR
29
In fact, the conflict-solving model improves not only the performance forecast
30
31 but also the safety assessment at intersection. The enhanced trajectory and speed lead to
ev
32
33 more accurate performance forecast of the intersection, specifically, the travel time,
34
iew
35
lately the traffic flow and density. Since the traffic macroscopic result is emerge from
36
37
38 the microscopic interaction of vehicles, the effect of this improvement on intersection’s
39
40 performance is essential and hard to quantify. For further application, the accurately
On
41
42 simulated trajectory is essential for safety assessment. Due to the advantages in
43
44
ly
45 simulating interaction under small time step, the surrogate safety indicators will benefit
46
47 from the accurate positions and speed of conflicting vehicles. The model is expected to
48
49 ameliorate the safety at but signalized and unsignalized intersections.
50
51
52
53
Table 8 Comparison of conflict-solving model in the middle segment of trajectories for
54 single conflict
55
56 Quantity MAPE MAD RMSE RMSNE Mean STD Max
57 Conflict-solving
26.61 1.33 1.94 0.41 - - -
58 Travelling model
59 speed Non-conflict-
28.80 1.46 2.55 0.52 - - -
60 solving model

1
2
3 Conflict-solving
Cumulative 33.79 0.14 0.04 0.41 - - -
4 model
turning
5 angle
Non-conflict-
34.64 0.18 0.05 0.39 - - -
6 solving model
7 Conflict-solving
- - - - 0.45 0.26 1.00
model
8 Deviation
Non-conflict-
9 solving model
- - - - 0.71 0.31 1.47
10 s-1
12
13
14 6. Conclusion and Discussion
15
16
17
The paper presents the developed conflict-solving model that replicates manoeuvres
18
Fo
19 applied to avoid head-on motorcycle accident. Two-player game theory is first applied
20
21 to the decision-making process to model the conflicting scenarios. The anticipation
rP
22
23 movement approach is also employed to detect the areas of conflict and to act as a
24
ee
25
26 constraint for a calculation of the optimal direction. The discrete choice approach
27
28 realistically describes a driver’s set of choice to tackle the conflict. The simulator has
rR
29
30 been developed including two main models, intersection-travelling model and conflict-
31
ev
32
33 solving model, corresponding to turn left only or to tackle conflict.
34
iew
35 The erratic trajectories of the motorcycle are successfully reproduced in the

36
37 simulation. While the regular travelling path is approximated by parabola-based
38
39
40
trajectory, the accident-avoiding behaviour is captured by two-player game theory in the
On
41
42 traffic simulator. The validation result showed that MAPE of travelling speed,
43
44 cumulative turning angle, and horizontal axis X and vertical axis Y of trajectory are
ly
45
46 found 23.65%, 24.63%, 6.48%, 3.30% respectively in the single conflict situations, and
47
48
49 19.18%, 35.5%, 5.79%, 0.51% in the double conflicts situation. The mean deviation of
50
51 trajectory, 0.32 meters and 0.44 meters, are small compared to motorcycle’s lateral
52
53 dimension. Hence, the proposed model well captures the reaction of motorcycle tackling
54
55
56 conflict.
57
58 The proposed model has a potential applying in most of the commercial traffic
59
60 simulators related to heterogeneous traffic simulation. Since the interaction between

1
2
3 motorcycles at crossing point has not been modelled well, this study is a prospective
4
5
6
improvement in reproducing these interactions. The improvement is expected to
7
8 increase the accuracy in microscopic simulation in terms of travel time, traffic flow,
9
10 capacity, delay, and especially safety evaluation. Not only in the heterogeneous traffic,
11
12
but the shared space area (Schonauer 2017) is also the application field of this model.
13
14
15 Where the interaction of dissimilar transport modals is essential, these places could be
16
17 benefited from the proposed model.
18
Fo
19 Besides applying in simulation, the proposed model could also benefit other
20
21
rP
22 transportation fields. The direct application is that the model could enhance the forecast
23
24 on intersection’s capacity, vehicle travel time, queue length, and density. In safety
ee
25
26 evaluation, this psychological model is very useful for measuring surrogate safety
27
28
rR
29
performance indicators. Both the signalized and unsignalized intersection can be
30
31 examined by using the model. What’s more, the traffic signal cycle under
ev
32
33 heterogeneous traffic could be optimized using the developed simulator. Since the head-
34
iew
35
on interaction affects strongly on the travel time, the superior model is beneficial to
36
37
38 optimal signal estimation. Last but not least, the developed simulator is a useful testbed
39
40 for traffic managements to understand and examine new policies or designs of both
On
41
42 signalized or unsignalized intersection.
43
44
ly
45 Nevertheless, the present study is limited to two signalized intersections.

46
47 Additional cases studied are needed to confirm the results. Secondly, the approximating
48
49 the desired left-turning trajectory has only been able to touch on the most matched
50
51
52
curve. Other factors, for example, speed, steering wheel angle and so on, have not been
53
54 examined. What’s more, it is inevitable for the simplicity of the proposed approach,
55
56 namely, two-player game theory, to come at the cost of reduced accuracy. To achieve a
57
58
superior model, future studies should consider several vehicles and conflicts
59
60

1
2
3 simultaneously through the conflict-solving model. Moreover, psychological factors
4
5
6
that affect to drivers in the decision-making process have not been modelled. They are
7
8 traffic flow condition, waiting time, personality, gender, concentration or distraction to
9
10 name a few. Besides, the simulated trajectories still have a zigzag shape due to abrupt
11
12
manoeuvre in short period. The reason is that the history of turning angle decisions has
13
14
15 not been considered in the decision-making process. A new proposed model in tactical
16
17 level to control a series of operational level decision is an expected solution for this
18
Fo
19 issue. Last but not least, the group behaviour (Vu and Shimizu 2010; Huynh, Boltze,
20
21
rP
22 and Vu 2013) is also not described in the present research. Future studies should,
23
24 therefore, include such behaviour in the conflict-solving model for superior results.
ee
25
26 In the future implementation, the proposed model will be expanded in higher
27
28
rR
29
intricate areas, such as unsignalized T-intersection, roundabout. These areas are highly
30
31 interactive road junction with a variety of conflicts, specifically, head-on and side
ev
32
33 impact conflict. Thus, it is worth to consider them in the prospective study.
34
iew
35
36
37 References
38
39 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. USA:
40
On
41 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.

42
43 Ahmed, Ashar, Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah, and Ahmad Shukri Yahya. 2015. “Field
44
ly
Study on the Behaviour of Right-Turning Vehicles in Malaysia and Their

45
46 Contribution on the Safety of Unsignalized Intersections.” Transportation
47
48 Research Part F 42. The Elsevier: 433–446.
49
50
Alhajyaseen, Wael K M, Miho Asano, Hideki Nakamura, and Dang Minh Tan. 2013.
51 “Stochastic Approach for Modeling the Effects of Intersection Geometry on
52
53 Turning Vehicle Paths.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
54
55 Technologies 32. Elsevier Ltd: 179–192.
56
Asaithambi, Gowri, Venkatesan Kanagaraj, and Tomer Toledo. 2016. “Driving
57
58 Behaviours: Models and Challenges for Non-Lane Based Mixed Traffic.”
59
60

1
2
3 Transportation in Developing Economies 2 (2). Springer International
4
5 Publishing: 19.
6
7 Asaithambi, Gowri, and Sivanandan Ramaswamy. 2008. “Evaluation of Left Turn
8
Channelization at a Signalized Intersection under Heterogeneous Traffic
9
10 Conditions.” Transport 23 (3): 221–229.
11
12 Asano, Miho, Wael K.M. Alhajyaseen, Kazufumi Suzuki, and Hideki Nakamura. 2010.
13
14 “Modeling the Variation in the Trajectory of Left Turning Vehicles Considering
15 Intersection Geometry.” 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
16
17 Board, no. January.
18
Fo
19 Asano, Miho, Takamasa Iryo, and Masao Kuwahara. 2010. “Microscopic Pedestrian
20
21
Simulation Model Combined with a Tactical Model for Route Choice
rP
22 Behaviour.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 18 (6).

23
24 Elsevier Ltd: 842–855.
ee
25
26 Ashalatha, R., and Satish Chandra. 2011. “Critical Gap through Clearing Behaviour of
27
Drivers at Unsignalised Intersections.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15
28
rR
29 (8): 1427–1434.
30
31 Cassidy, Michael J, Samer M Madanat, Mu-Han Wang, and Fan Yang. 1995.
ev
32
33 “Unsignalized Intersection Capacity and Level of Service: Revisiting Critical
34 Gap.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
iew
35
36 Board, no. 1484: 16–23.
37
38 Champion, Alexis;, René Mandiau, Stéphane Espié, and Christophe Kolski. 2005.
39
40
“Multi-Agent Road Traffic Simulation : Towards Coordination by Game Theory
On
41 Based Mechanism.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference

42
43 on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ’05), 471–477.
44
ly
45 Choudhury, Charisma F, Moshe Ben-akiva, Tomer Toledo, Gunwoo Lee, and Anita
46 Rao. 2007. “Modeling Cooperative Lane-Changing and Forced Merging
47
48 Behaviour Modeling Cooperative Lane Changing and Forced Merging
49
50 Behaviour.” Proceedings of the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
51
52
Research Board.
53 Clifford, Spiegelmanm H., Sug Eun Park, and Rilett R. Laurence. 2011. Transportation
54
55 Statistics and Microsimulation. New York: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
56
57 Daalen, Corne Edwin van. 2010. “Conflict Detection and Resolution for Autonomous
58
Vehicles.” Stellenbosch University.
59
60

1
2
3 Daganzo, Carlos F. 1981. “Estimation of Gap Acceptance Parameters within and across
4
5 the Population from Direct Roadside Observation.” Transportation Research
6
7 Part B 15 (1): 1–15.
8
Dowling, Richard, Alexander Skabardonis, John Halkias, Gene McHale, and Grant
9
10 Zammit. 2004. “Guidelines for Calibration of Microsimulation Models:
11
12 Framework and Applications.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
13
14 Transportation Research Board 1876: 1–9.
15 Erol, Kutluhan, Renato Levy, and James Wentworth. 2000. “Application of Agent
16
17 Technology to Traffic Simulation.”
18
Fo
19 Ghadai, Priyadarsini, L Prachi Shree, Lelina Chhatria, and Rvvsv Prasad. 2016. “A
20
21
Study on Agent Based Modelling for Traffic Simulation.” International Journal
rP
22 of Computer Science and Information Technologies 7 (2): 932–936.

23
24 Grether, D., A. Neumann, and K. Nagel. 2012. “Simulation of Urban Traffic Control: A
ee
25
26 Queue Model Approach.” Procedia Computer Science 10: 808–814.
27
Hidas, Peter. 2005. “Modelling Vehicle Interactions in Microscopic Simulation of
28
rR
29 Merging and Weaving.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging

30
31 Technologies 13 (1): 37–62.
ev
32
33 Hossain, M. 1999. “Capacity Estimation of Traffic Circles under Mixed Traffic
34 Conditions Using Micro-Simulation Technique.” Transportation Research Part
iew
35
36 A: Policy and Practice 33 (1): 47–61.
37
38 Hourdakis, John, Panos G Michalopoulos, and Jiji Kottommannil. 2003. “A Practical
39
40
Procedure For Calibrating Microscopic.” Transportation Research Board 1852
On
41 (January): 130–139.
42
43 Huynh, Nguyen Duc, Manfred Boltze, and Anh Tuan Vu. 2013. “Modelling Mixed
44
ly
45 Traffic Flow at Signalized IntersectionUsing Social Force Model.” Journal of

46 the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 10: 1734–1749.
47
48 Kanagaraj, Venkatesan, Karthik K. Srinivasan, and R. Sivanandan. 2011. “Modeling
49
50 Vehicular Merging Behaviour under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions.”
51
52
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
53 2188 (1): 140–147.
54
55 Kanagaraj, Venkatesan, Karthik K. Srinivasan, R. Sivanandan, and Gowri Asaithambi.
56
57 2015. “Study of Unique Merging Behaviour under Mixed Traffic Conditions.”
58
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 29. Elsevier
59
60 Ltd: 98–112.

1
2
3 Ksontini, Feirouz, René Mandiau, Zahia Guessoum, and Stéphane Espié. 2014.
4
5 “Affordance-Based Agent Model for Road Traffic Simulation.” Autonomous
6
7 Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 29 (5). Springer US: 821–849.
8
Lattarulo, Ray, Leonardo González, Enrique Martí, José Matute, Mauricio Marcano,
9
10 and Joshue Pérez. 2018. “Urban Motion Planning Framework Based on N-
11
12 Bézier Curves Considering Comfort and Safety.” Journal of Advanced
13
14 Transportation.
15 Lee, Tzu-chang. 2007. “An Agent-Based Model to Simulate Motorcycle Behaviour in
16
17 Mixed Traffic Flow (Ph.D Dissertation).” October. Imperial College London.
18
Fo
19 Levien, Raph. 2008. The Euler Spiral: A Mathematical History. University of California
20
21
at Berkeley.
rP
22 Lewis, C.D. 1982. Industrial and Business Forecasting Methods: A Radical Guide to
23
24 Exponential Smoothing and Curve Fitting. Journal of Forecasting. Borough
ee
25
26 Green, Kent: Butterworth Scientific.
27
Ma, Tao, and Baher Abdulhai. 2002. “Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimization Approach
28
rR
29 and Generic Tool for Calibrating.” Transportation Research Record 1800 (02):
30
31 6–15.
ev
32
33 Ma, Zian, Jian Sun, and Yunpeng Wang. 2017. “A Two-Dimensional Simulation Model
34 for Modelling Turning Vehicles at Mixed-Flow Intersections.” Transportation
iew
35
36 Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 75. Elsevier Ltd: 103–119.
37
38 Mahmassani, Hani, and Yosef Sheffi. 1981. “Using Gap Sequences to Estimate Gap
39
40
Acceptance Functions.” Transportation Research Part B 15 (3): 143–148.
On
41 Minh Chu Cong, Kazushi Sano, and Y Nguyen Cao. 2007. “Acceleration and
42
43 Deceleration Models of Motorcycle at Signalized Intersections”. Journal of the
44
ly
45 Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies (7) 2396–2411

46 Mullakkal, Freddy Antony Babu, Peter Vortisch, and Tom V. Mathew. 2015.
47
48 “Modelling of Motorcycle Movements in Mixed Traffic Conditions.” Transport
49
50 Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, no. 15: 12.
51
52
Nguyen, Long Xuan. 2012. “A Concept of Safety Space for Describing Non-Lane-
53 Based Movements of Motorcycles.” Tokyo Institute of Technology, Strasportat
54
55 Studies Unit.
56
57 Patil, Gopal R., and Digvijay S. Pawar. 2015. “Temporal and Spatial Gap Acceptance
58
for Minor Road at Uncontrolled Intersections in India.” Transportation
59
60

1
2
3 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2461 (1): 129–
4
5 136.
6
7 Phan, Tran Vu Tuan, and Tetsuo Shimizu. 2011. “The Changes of Group Behaviour in
8
Mixed Traffic Flow.” Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
9
10 Studies 9: 1588–1600.
11
12 Pollatschek, Moshe A., Abishai Polus, and Moshe Livneh. 2002. “A Decision Model for
13
14 Gap Acceptance and Capacity at Intersections.” Transportation Research Part
15 B: Methodological 36 (7): 649–663.
16
17 Popat, T L, A K Gupta, and S K Khanna. 1989. “A Simulation Study Of Delays And
18
Fo
19 Queue Lengths For Uncontrolled T- Intersections.” Highway Research Bulletin,

20
21
India Road Congress 39. IRC Highway Research Board: 71–78.
rP
22 Prasetijo, Joewono, Ning Wu, Kamarudin Ambak, Mohd Erwan Sanik, Basil David
23
24 Daniel, and Josef Hadipramana. 2016. “Performance of Non-Priority
ee
25
26 Intersections Under Mixed Traffic Conditions Based on Conflict Streams
27
Analysis.” Transportation in Developing Economies 2 (1). Springer
28
rR
29 International Publishing: 1–9.

30
31 Ragland, David R., Sofia Arroyo, Steven E. Shladover, James A. Misener, and Ching-
ev
32
33 Yao Chan. 2006. “Gap Acceptance for Vehicles Turning Left across On-Coming
34 Traffic : Implications for Intersection Decision Support Design.” Transportation
iew
35
36 Research Board Annual Meeting, 1–25.
37
38 Reed, Mathew P. 2008. Intersection Kinematics: A Pilot Study of Driver Turning
39
40
Behaviour Obscuration By A-Pillars. The University of Michigan,
On
41 Transportation Research Institute, Report No. UMTRI-2008-54. Ann Arbor,

42
43 Michigan.
44
ly
45 Rogers, David F. 2000. An Introduction to NURBS With Historical Perspective. Morgan

46 Kaufmann.
47
48 Sangole, Jayant P., Gopal R. Patil, and Prasad S. Patare. 2011. “Modelling Gap
49
50 Acceptance Behaviour of Two-Wheelers at Uncontrolled Intersection Using
51
52
Neuro-Fuzzy.” Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 20: 927–941.
53 Schonauer, Robert. 2017. “A Microscopic Traffic Flow Model for Shared Space.” Graz
54
55 University of Technology.
56
57 Sharma, A. K. 2005. Text Book of Conic Section. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing
58
House.
59
60

1
2
3 Shiomi, Yasuhiro, Teruaki Hanamori, and Hiroshi Shimamoto. 2012. “Modeling Traffic
4
5 Flow Dominated by Motorcycles Based on Discrete Choice Approach.”
6
7 Proceeding of 1st LATSIS Conference.
8
Swamidass, Paul M. 2000. Encyclopedia of Production and Manufacturing
9
10 Management. Edited by Paul M. Swamidass. 1st ed. Springer US.
11
12 Taniguchi, Eiichi, Tien Fang Fwa, and Russell G. Tompson. 2014. Urban
13
14 Transportation and Logistics: Health, Safety, and Security Concerns. CRC Press
15 Taylor & Francis Group.
16
17 Toledo, Tomer, and Haris N. Koutsopoulos. 2004. “Statistical Validation of Traffic
18
Fo
19 Simulation Models.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

20
21
Transportation Research Board 1876: 142–150.
rP
22 Toledo, Tomer, Haris N Koutsopoulos, Angus Davol, Moshe E Ben-akiva, Wilco

23
24 Burghout, Ingmar Andréasson, Tobias Johansson, and Christer Lundin. 2003.
ee
25
26 “Calibration and Validation of Microscopic Traffic Simulation Tools:
27
Stockholm Case Study.” Transportation Research Record 1831 (03): 65–75.
28
rR
29 Trinh, Linh Thanh, Kazushi Sano, Amila Jayasinghe, and Tu Vu Tran. 2018. “Two-
30
31 Player Game Theory Based Analysis of Motorcycle Driver ’ s Behaviour At
ev
32
33 Signalized Intersection.” Asian Transport Studies 5 (2): 272–291.
34 Vu, Anh Tuan, and Tetsuo Shimizu. 2010. “An Analysis of the Interactions between
iew
35
36 Vehicle Groups at Intersections under Mixed Traffic Flow Conditions.” Journal
37
38 of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 8: 1999–2017.
39
40
Wilensky, Uri. 1999. “NetLogo”. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for
On
41 Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University,

42
43 Evanston, IL.
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Modelling and Simulating Head-On Conflict-Solving Behaviour of Motorcycles Under Heterogeneous Traffic Condition in Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling and Simulating Head-On Conflict-Solving Behaviour of Motorcycles Under Heterogeneous Traffic Condition in Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 48 Transportmetrica A: Transport Science

41 Ph.D. Kiichiro Hatoyama, is Specially Appointed Associate Professor for Academia-

University of Technology, Japan since 2017. He got a Ph.D. in 2007 in Department of

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

19 Furthermore, for accident avoidance, the conflict-solving model is proposed

25 trajectory, are investigated at two two-phase signalized intersections. Compared

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

41 Figure 1. Description of head-on conflict at signalized intersection

1.2. Literature review

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

19 NetLogo (Wilensky 1999), an integrated agent-based modelling environment.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

19 hierarchical structure of the intersection reaction module is characterized in section 2.

32 1.3. Data collection

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

29 Figure 2 illustrates the model framework of the simulation.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

41 Figure 2. General framework of developed micro-simulator including intersection-

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

22 referenced direction for the operation level.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

extreme cases are avoided by employed the first-come-first-serve to determine the

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

22 trajectory, as showed in Figure 5, is generated to guide their movement at every time

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

45 This section dedicates on approximating the typical shape of left-turning trajectory

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

56 (C1) 2005) (xdestination, ydestination) along the tangent

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

22 Bi: the matrix of vertex Pi of line passing through P0,

29 for each point.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

19 trajectory of motorcycle. Hence, it is employed to reproduce the left-turning trajectory,

22 named parabola-based trajectory.

25 Table 4 Summary of estimated trajectory deviation

29 Mean 1.23 0.36 3.09 0.75 5.36

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

22 4.2. Set of moving direction choices

The possible direction of movement is arranged from i (t)  to i (t)  for

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

32 and Laurence 2011) as,

41  N : required number of simulation runs for performance measure m.

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

22 challenging due to the individual level under a short measuring period.

45 20% as good, 21-50% as reasonable, >51% inaccurate (Lewis 1982).

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

angle 34.72 0.16 0.22 0.40

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

22 due to less intricate interaction compared to the double conflict situation.

The comparison of individual trajectory is once applied in the traffic microsimulation in

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/transportmetrica Email: ttra-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk