See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266310364

Stochastic Optimization Method for Coordinated Actuated Signal Systems

Article in Journal of Transportation Engineering · July 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000384

CITATIONS READS
53 448

All content following this page was uploaded by B. Brian Park on 09 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Stochastic Optimization for Coordinated Actuated
Traffic Signal Systems
Ilsoo Yun, Ph.D.1; and Byungkyu (Brian) Park, Ph.D., M.ASCE2

Abstract: Existing state-of-the-practice traffic signal timing-optimization programs rely on macroscopic and deterministic models to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

represent traffic flow, including coordinated actuated traffic signal systems. One distinct shortcoming of such an approach is its inability
to account for the stochastic nature of traffic, such as the variability in traffic demand, driver behavior, vehicular interarrival times, vehicle
mix, and so forth. In addition, the existing traffic signal timing-optimization programs for coordinated actuated traffic signal systems still
focus on four basic traffic signal timing parameters (i.e., cycle length, green times or force-off points, offsets, and phase sequences). Studies
have shown that actuated signal settings such as minimum green time, vehicle extension, and recall mode are also important parameters in
traffic signal operations. This study presents the development of a stochastic-optimization method for coordinated actuated traffic signal
systems. The proposed method accounts for stochastic variability by using a well-calibrated microscopic simulation model, CORSIM, instead
of a macroscopic and deterministic model, and it simultaneously optimizes actuated signal settings and the four traffic signal timing param-
eters by adopting a genetic algorithm with special decoding schemes. The proposed method was applied to a real-world arterial network in
Charlottesville, Virginia. The performance of the proposed method was compared with that of an existing traffic signal timing-optimization
program, Synchro, using a well-calibrated microscopic simulation model, VISSIM. The results indicated that the proposed method outper-
forms the existing timing plan and the Synchro-optimized traffic signal timing for the tested arterial network. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE
.1943-5436.0000384. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Optimization; Traffic signals; Simulation; Calibration; Algorithms; Stochastic models.
Author keywords: Stochastic optimization; Traffic signal control; Microscopic traffic simulation; Calibration; Genetic algorithm.

Introduction determine the optimal signal timing by minimizing, e.g., vehicular

Because of continuous industrialization and urbanization, today’s
society faces chronic traffic congestion that appears to become
worse as time progresses. In addition, it is generally understood
that adding additional capacity for the current transportation infra-
structure in the form of new construction is almost impractical. As a
result, there is a strong belief that more efficient operations of
existing urban transportation systems could alleviate delays. One
of the best ways to increase efficiency is to develop and implement
better traffic signal timing plans to improve mobility at signalized
urban transportation networks.
The development of a superior traffic signal timing plan depends
on two components: an evaluation method used in the assessment
of signal timing plans and an optimization method used in the
search for an optimal solution. Therefore, research efforts in the
area of traffic signal timing optimization have focused primarily
on the development of better evaluation and optimization methods.
In the past few decades, many researchers in the United States have
developed various signal timing-optimization programs that can
1 cantly decreased under congested traffic.
Assistant Professor, Division of Environmental, Civil and Transporta-
tion Engineering, Ajou Univ., Suwon, Kyunggi-do 443-749, South Korea
(corresponding author). E-mail: ilsooyun@ajou.ac.kr
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4742. E-mail: bpark@virginia
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 2, 2011; approved on
December 12, 2011; published online on June 15, 2012. Discussion period
open until December 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation En-
gineering, Vol. 138, No. 7, July 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/2012/
7-819–829/$25.00.
delays, stops, and progression opportunities under a given traffic
volume and geometry (Little and Kelson 1980; Husch and Albeck
2004; Hale 2005; Texas Transportation Institute 2002). Most of
these programs are based on macroscopic evaluation and analytical
optimization methods. As macroscopic and analytical programs are
computationally fast and have simple input requirements, they have
been widely used for traffic signal control systems in the United
States. However, it is difficult to predict the performance of traffic
signal systems on real-world networks because of lack of capability
of adequately modeling the stochastic nature of traffic, including
day-to-day or cycle-to-cycle variations in traffic demands and driv-
ers’ responses. The macroscopic evaluation used in those programs
may not account for the stochastic nature of traffic or evaluate
uncertainty in network performance while developing optimal
signal timing plans (Park et al. 2000). Park et al. (2000) found that
the reliability of signal timing optimizations that are based on
macroscopic evaluation was not satisfactory for the test network
on the basis of a CORSIM evaluation. They found that good
correlations existed between the performance of TRANSYT-7F
and CORSIM under light traffic. However, the correlations signifi-
To overcome such limitations, recent studies (Park et al. 2001;
Park and Schneeberger 2003; Hale 2005; Stevanovic et al. 2007)
have used microscopic simulation models coupled with heuristic
optimization methods to directly account for stochastic variability
during the traffic signal timing optimization, and their results were
generally very promising. However, these stochastic-optimization
approaches focused on four traditional traffic signal timing param-
eters (i.e., cycle length, green times, offsets, and phase sequences),
especially for coordinated actuated signal systems. However, there
are actuated signal control settings, including minimum green time,

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 819

J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.

 vehicle extension time, and recall mode. Such actuated signal con-
trol settings were found to play an important role in the efficient
operation of an actuated signal control (Park and Yun 2006). In
addition, the state of the practice in the use of vehicle extension
time and other actuated signal settings (e.g., minimum green time)
indicates that various guidelines exist, but are often inconsistent
(Gordon et al. 1996; Pline 1999). It is apparent that the develop-
ment of an engineering study tool that can optimize these settings is
overdue.
When a microscopic simulation model is used for stochastic
optimization, one of the key issues is the quality of the microscopic
simulation models used in the optimization and evaluation. It is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
generally understood that a well-calibrated and validated simula-
tion model can adequately represent real-world conditions.
Researchers (Rilett and Kim 2001; Park et al. 2006) have developed
systematic procedures for the calibration of microscopic simulation
models, and it was demonstrated through several case studies that
microscopic simulation models can be adequately calibrated for
field conditions.
In this study, a stochastic traffic signal optimization method that
can simultaneously optimize diverse traffic signal control settings
for coordinated actuated signal control, including actuated signal
settings and the four traditional traffic signal timing parameters
within a well-calibrated microscopic simulation environment,
was proposed. The proposed stochastic-optimization method
consists of a well-calibrated microscopic traffic simulation model,
CORSIM, and a heuristic optimization method, a genetic algorithm
(GA). Any microscopic simulation models can be used in the
proposed framework. The traffic signal control settings optimized
by the stochastic method are compared with those optimized by a
macroscopic signal timing-optimization model, Synchro, using a
well-calibrated microscopic simulation model, VISSIM.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next
section presents a literature review, followed by the methodology
regarding the development of the proposed stochastic-optimization
method. As a case study, this paper describes the process of
network building and calibration for the CORSIM and VISSIM
models, followed by the implementation results of the proposed
stochastic-optimization method. Finally, conclusions and future re-
search are provided.
Literature Review
Stochastic optimization has been applied extensively in transporta-
tion applications. Most stochastic-optimization approaches have
dealt with transportation network assignments. Transportation
and location selection problems were formulated in a stochastic-
optimization problem by LeBlanc (1977) and Franca and Luna
(1982). The former formulated a stochastic problem that
determines plant locations and shipment by minimizing expected
holding and storage costs, and solved it using a heuristic algorithm,
whereas the latter formulated it as a mixed-integer nonlinear
program and solved it using the generalized Benders decomposi-
tion method. Since Daganzo and Sheffi (1977) first formulated a
stochastic user equilibrium model, many studies have been
conducted. Details can be found in Sheffi (1985). However, there
have been relatively few research efforts in traffic signal timing
optimization using a relative stochastic-optimization approach.
The GA has been widely applied in the area of transportation
engineering, including network design (Xiong and Schneider
1992, 1995), transit scheduling (Chakroborty et al. 1995), shortest
path finding (Soehodho 1998), and bilevel programming for
network flow (Yin 2000). A few of the studies on traffic signal
820 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012
J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.
optimizations using the GA have been successful. These include
optimizing phase sequences (Hadi and Wallace 1993); signal opti-
mization for a two-phase system (Foy et al. 1992); real-time signal
optimization (Memon and Bullen 1996); dynamic traffic control
and queue management for oversaturated arterials (Abu-Lebdeh
and Benekohal 1997); and simultaneous optimization of cycle
length, green split, offset, and phase sequence for oversaturation
intersections (Park et al. 1999). Even though these studies did
not directly consider the stochastic nature of traffic, they demon-
strated the potential of the GA optimization in alleviating traffic
signal timing problems.
Park et al. (2001) conducted one of first studies applying a
stochastic-optimization method on the basis of a microscopic traffic
simulation model for traffic signal timing. They developed a sto-
chastic signal optimization method using a GA interfaced with
CORSIM to optimize cycle length, green times, and offsets simul-
taneously for a pretimed traffic signal system. Later, Park and
Schneeberger (2003) expanded this method to a coordinated actu-
ated traffic signal control system to optimize offsets. In addition,
TRANSYT-7F introduced a GA-based optimizer coupled with
the microscopic traffic simulation program CORSIM (Hale
2005). However, these stochastic-optimization approaches still
focused only on the four parameters (i.e., cycle length, green time,
offset, and phase sequence). While Stevanovic et al. (2008)
optimized transit signal priority settings in a VISSIM simulation
program, none of the studies have attempted to optimize traffic con-
troller settings (e.g., coordinated actuated signal settings and detec-
tor recall settings). Park and Yun (2006) have compared the
optimization performance between major signal timing parameters
(i.e., cycle length, green split, offset, and phase sequence), and
actuated signal control settings (i.e., minimum green, vehicle ex-
tension, and recall) in a toy network with different volume scenar-
ios for the first time. They found that actuated signal control
settings could further improve the operations of coordinated
actuated signal control systems even though the optimization per-
formance of actuated signal control settings was not significant as
that of major signal timing parameters. However, they did not
use any real-world network in the study, and those major signal
timing parameters and actuated settings were not simultaneously
optimized.
Methodology
This section describes a stochastic-optimization problem formu-
lation for traffic signal control settings, and then presents the meth-
odology used in the development of a stochastic-optimization
method.
Problem Formulation
A formulation of the stochastic-optimization problem is presented
for traffic signal control settings of a coordinated actuated traffic
signal system, including cycle length, green times, offsets, phase
sequences, minimum green time, vehicle extension time, and recall
mode. As shown in Eq. (1), a system delay (i.e., queue time or con-
trol delay), dðs; rÞ, associated with a set of coordinated actuated
traffic signal control settings, s, and a set of random seeds, r,
can be determined by running a microscopic simulation program.
The objective function, an expected system delay on the basis of the
selection of traffic signal control settings and random number
seeds, and its constraints are shown as follows:
Find s ¼ fC; θi ; ρi ; gij ; mgij ; extij ; rcij g min E½dðs; rÞ
ð1Þ
s
 subject to and rcij = recall code; 1, 2, and 3 stand for no recall, minimum
min C ≤ C ≤ max C ð2Þ recall, and maximum recall, respectively.

X
4 Development of Stochastic-Optimization Method
min C ≥ ðmgij þ CTij Þ ð3Þ
j¼1
Because of the stochastic nature associated with the objective
function, which can be obtained reliably by implementing a well-
X
8 calibrated microscopic simulation model, conventional optimiza-
min C ≥ ðmgij þ CTij Þ ð4Þ tion methods on the basis of a gradient were not considered. Thus,
j¼5 a GA was adopted on the basis of a study conducted by Park and
Yun (2006) in which three commonly used optimization methods,
X
4 X
4 X
8 X
8
including simulated annealing, a GA, and a commercial optimiza-
gij þ CTij þ gij þ CTij ¼ 2C ð5Þ tion program OptQuest Engine, were compared extensively in traf-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

j¼1 j¼1 j¼5 j¼5

fic signal timing optimization, and the GA was found to be the best.
The proposed stochastic-optimization method consists of three
X
2 X
6
ðgij þ CTij Þ  ðgij þ CTij Þ ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; …; I ð6Þ components: a GA optimizer, a well-calibrated microscopic
j¼1 j¼5 simulation model, and an optimization-simulation interface. The
optimized signal timings should be evaluated using another micro-
X
4 X
8 scopic simulation model (i.e., surrogate to field implementation),
ðgij þ CTij Þ  ðgij þ CTij Þ ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; …; I ð7Þ which is a different model that was used in the optimization.
j¼3 j¼7
Optimization and evaluation could be repeated according to the
quality of the optimized signal timings. Fig. 1 shows the conceptual
gij ≥ mgij ; i ¼ 1; …; I and j ¼ 1; …; J ð8Þ
framework for the proposed method. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the
proposed stochastic-optimization method works as follows:
0 ≤ θi < C i ¼ 1; …; I ð9Þ
• A GA optimizer produces a population of traffic signal control
settings according to its solution generation rule.
0 ≤ ρi ≤ Ψi and integer K; i ¼ 1; …; I ð10Þ
• An optimization-simulation interface generates input data for
the microscopic simulation model for each set of traffic signal
min mgij ≤ mgij ≤ max mgij ;
ð11Þ control settings transferred from the GA optimizer.
i ¼ 1; …; I and j ¼ 1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8 • The microscopic simulation model conducts random-seeded
multiple simulation runs.
min extij ≤ extij ≤ max extij ; • Performance measures from the output of the microscopic
ð12Þ simulation runs are fed back to the GA optimizer through
i ¼ 1; …; I and j ¼ 1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8 the optimization-simulation interface.
• A GA optimizer evaluates the performance measures in an
0 ≤ rcij ≤ 3 and integer K; attempt to minimize system delays, and then generates a new
ð13Þ
i ¼ 1; …; I and j ¼ 1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8 population of traffic signal control settings.
• The optimization process continues until previously specified
where i = intersection identification number; I = total number stopping criteria are met.
of intersections; j = National Electrical Manufacturers Association • Then, the optimized signal timings may be evaluated using
(NEMA) phase movement number; J = total number of another independent microscopic simulation model in the eva-
NEMA phase movements, J ¼ 8; dðs; rÞ = observed system delay luation process.
associated with a set of signal control settings, s, and a set of ran-
dom number seeds, r; E½dðs; rÞ
= expectation of system delay as-
sociated with a set of signal settings, s, and a set of random number
seeds, r; s = traffic signal control settings, fC; θi ; ρi ; gij ; mgij ;
extij ; rcij g; C = cycle length in seconds; min C = minimum cycle
length in seconds; max C = maximum cycle length in seconds;
gij = green time for NEMA phase movement j at intersection i,
in seconds; CTij = clearance time (yellow plus all red) for NEMA
phase movement j at intersection i, in seconds; θi = offset between
master intersection and intersection i, in seconds, if an intersection i
is a master intersection, θi ¼ 0; mgij = minimum green time for
NEMA phase movement j at intersection i, in seconds;
ρi = phase-sequence code at intersection i; Ψi = possible phase-
sequence code at intersection i; min mgij = minimum value of
minimum green time for NEMA phase movement j at intersection
i, in seconds; max mgij = maximum value of minimum green time
for NEMA phase movement j at intersection i, in seconds; extij =
vehicle extension for NEMA phase movement j at intersection i, in
tenths of a second; min extij = minimum value of vehicle extension
for NEMA phase movement j at intersection i, in tenths of a second;
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the proposed stochastic-
max extij = maximum value of vehicle extension green time for
optimization method
NEMA phase movement j at intersection i, in tenths of a second;

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 821

J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.

 Table 1. Optimization Variables by Groups
Name Characteristics
Four signal Always required by controllers
timing Four major signal control settings
parameters affecting the operational capacity
of signal systems
Common optimization variable
in macroscopic signal timing-
optimization models such as
Synchro and TRANSYT-7F
Actuated Always required by actuated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The minimum green times for noncoordinated actuated phases
Variables included (i.e., phases 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 on the basis of the NEMA phase-
numbering scheme) are produced by the following equation using
user-specified minimum and maximum values of minimum green
Cycle length times. Minimum green times for the coordinated phases are not
Green time required:
Offset
mgj ¼ min mgj þ inf½ðmax mgj  min mgj Þ × f mgj
ð15Þ
Phase sequence
where f mgj = fraction value, 0 ≤ f mgj ≤ 1 and j = 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8.
The offsets for the intersections in coordination are calculated
by the following equation:
Minimum green

signal controllers θi ¼ inf½ðC  1Þ × f offseti
ð16Þ

settings Actuated phase-specific settings Recall
where f offseti = fraction value, 0 ≤ f offseti ≤ 1.
Affect the operational efficiency of Vehicle extension
On the basis of the generated cycle length and minimum green
signal systems times for noncoordinated phases, green times (gj ) for an eight-
phase intersection can be generated using additional five fractional
values. The first fraction divides the cycle length into phase times
• If the performance of optimized signal timings is not acceptable, (gmain and gcross ) for the main street and cross street, and the second
return to the beginning of the optimization process. through the fifth fraction values determine the actual green times
The selection of microscopic simulation models for the optimi- (gj ) of the eight phases. Overlap of phase is allowable on both main
zation process and evaluation process could be subject to change and cross streets, and, again, phase numbers follow the standard
depending on the user’s choice. NEMA phase-numbering scheme as shown in Fig. 2. If no overlap
The traffic signal control settings (i.e., optimization variables) phase is allowed on both streets, only three fractional values are
for a coordinated actuated traffic signal control system are divided required.
into two groups on the basis of the characteristics of those settings, The following equation provides an example calculation of the
as shown in Table 1 (Husch and Albeck 2004; Gordon et al. 1996; green times (g1 and g2 ) for phases 1 and 2:
CORSIM Version 5.0). Among them, four signal timing parameters
X
M X
M 
for a coordinated actuated signal control system include cycle gmain ¼ C CTm  mgm × f 1
length, green times, offsets, and phase sequences. Actuated signal m m
settings include minimum green times, vehicle extensions, and re-
X
M X
M 
call modes. The proposed stochastic-optimization method actually gcross ¼ C CTk  mgm × ð1  f 1 Þ
optimizes not only the four signal timing parameters, but also the m m
actuated signal settings simultaneously.
 ð17Þ
X
N X
N
During the stochastic optimization, some of the traffic signal g2 ¼ mg2 þ gmain  CTn  mgn × f 2
control settings to be optimized, such as green times, have to meet n n
specific constraints, such as minimum green time, barriers, and
X
N X
N 
equality constraints between cycle length and the sum of total g1 ¼ mg1 þ gmain  CTn  mgn × ð1  f 2 Þ
splits. In addition, the values of some settings are dependent on n n
those of other settings, such as offsets. However, a generic GA op-
timization method produces a group of values that are generated where gmain = main-street phase time in seconds; gcross = cross-
randomly or according to its solution generation rules on the basis street phase time in seconds, f 1 = fraction value, 0 ≤ f 1 ≤ 1;
of lower and upper limits. Therefore, the set of solutions converted f 2 = fraction value, 0 ≤ f 2 ≤ 1; m = phase number identification
from these values may violate the previously discussed constraints. number, m ∈ M; M = NEMA phase numbers in ring A (phases
Thus, it is practical to adopt an efficient decoding scheme instead of 1, 2, 3, and 4) or ring B (phases 5, 6, 7, and 8); n = phase number
implementing a repair algorithm so that traffic signal control set- identification number, n ∈ N; and N = phase numbers in ring A and
tings reside within a feasible region during optimization. This study the left side of the barrier.
adopted a fraction-based decoding scheme, which was originally The green times for other phases are calculated by applying
developed by Park et al. (1999) to generate a cycle length, offsets, Eq. (17). The fraction-based decoding scheme guarantees the traffic
and green times for the pretimed signal control. In the fraction- signal control settings from the GA optimizer satisfy the constraints
based decoding scheme, fractional values are utilized to generate of Eqs. (2)–(13).
the values of such traffic signal control settings instead of produc- The remaining signal control settings to be optimized do not
ing them independently. The settings that are independent can be have dependencies or strict constraints. Thus, a generic decoding
generated separately on the basis of the lower and upper limits of scheme can determine the value for the subject setting by using a
the scheme. The following example presents the decoding scheme uniform random number taking into account the lower and upper
applied to this study. The cycle length is generated from the follow- limits such that the value of each setting can reside within the fea-
ing equation for a given set of minimum and maximum cycle sible region during optimization. For example, a vehicle extension
lengths: time for the noncoordinated actuated phase is calculated using
Z Eq. (18). Again, coordinated phases do not require extension times.
C ¼ min C þ ½ðmax C  min CÞ × f C
ð14Þ extj ¼ min extj þ ðmax extj  min extj Þ × f extj ð18Þ

where f C = fraction value, 0 ≤ f C ≤ 1. where f extj = fraction value, 0 ≤ f extj ≤ 1 and j = 1,3,4,5,7, and 8.

822 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012

J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. A fraction-based decoding scheme
The vehicle extension time can be defined with narrower inter-
vals such as decimal seconds with any reasonable minimum and
maximum values. The selection of these values and intervals
should be determined by the control logics used in the microscopic
simulation models and/or the user’s decision. For coordinated ac-
tuated signal control, force-off points and permissive periods can
be used instead of green times or splits in real-world controllers
and microscopic simulation models, including CORSIM and VIS-
SIM. The force-off points and permissive periods are determined
from the green times calculated from Eq. (18). In this paper, the
force-off point of each phase is the end of its split duration or the
end of the maximum green time in which the phase is allowed to
remain green (CORSIM Version 5.0). For example, CORSIM as-
sumes that the force-off points of coordinated phases 2 and 6 are
set to zero in which the local controller time is zero (this is com-
monly known as the yield point or local zero). Thus, force-off
points should be calculated for every noncoordinated actuated
phase. For example, the force-off point for phase 3 is at the
end of phase 3’s green time, counted from the local zero. The local
zero is the local reference point from which all other coordination-
related settings for this particular controller are measured, and is in
turn dependent on the type of controllers and its operational strat-
egy (CORSIM Version 5.0). Permissive periods provide specific
intervals when the controller can respond to demand calls for a
certain phase. The first permissive period starts at the end of
the coordinated phase(s) green (i.e., the yield point or local zero).
This is the point at which the permissive window opens to respond
to calls for service. In the example shown in Fig. 2, the end of
permissive period 1 is mathematically determined by subtracting
the minimum green time of phase 3 and the intergreen time of
phase 2 (yellow plus red clearance time) from the force-off point
of phase 3.
Case Study
The proposed stochastic-optimization method is demonstrated
through a real-world network. The performances are compared
with those of the state-of-the practice signal timing-optimization
program, Synchro.
Selection of Microscopic Simulation Models: CORSIM
and VISSIM
CORSIM was selected in this study as a microscopic simulation
model for optimization because of its long history of development
and support from the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA), its
ability to model common U.S. traffic signal controllers, and its fast
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 823
J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.
simulation run time compared with other microscopic simulation
models, including VISSIM and PARAMICS (Park and Yun 2003).
In addition, because the proposed method uses CORSIM during
optimization, the evaluation should be conducted with an indepen-
dent evaluator that could be considered as a surrogate to field
implementation. VISSIM was selected as an independent evaluator
for the signal control settings optimized by the proposed stochastic-
optimization method and that of the state-of-the-practice signal
timing-optimization program, Synchro. VISSIM can also ad-
equately model various traffic signal control systems using external
programs, such as the vehicle actuated programming (VAP), the
NEMA emulator, or the ring barrier controller (RBC) emulator.
Both CORSIM and VISSIM simulation models were well cali-
brated using the field traffic data. This is because the traffic patterns
represented in the microscopic simulation models are likely to be
critical in assessing the quality of both optimization and evaluation.
In addition, the same effort was carried out to calibrate Synchro.
Even though Synchro is a macroscopic and deterministic model,
it requires a series of input data and calibration. The process of data
collection and calibration efforts is presented in the following
sections.
Site Selection and Data Collection
An arterial network consisting of four signalized intersections on
Emmet Street, which is Route 29 in Charlottesville, Virginia in the
United States, was selected as a test site because of the convenience
of data collection and its familiarity to the authors. The test site is
located at Emmet Street between Hydraulic Road and Barracks
Road. Along Emmet Street, there are several business establish-
ments and retail stores, such as Wachovia Bank, Best Buy, and
Holiday Inn. Emmet Street intersects with Route 250, which serves
as major access roads to other areas, including Washington, DC and
the Richmond area. The test site includes four signalized intersec-
tions. Among them, two intersections are signalized interchanges,
which operate as overlaps of the other intersections.
Data-collection efforts were designed to provide inputs for
Synchro, CORSIM, and VISSIM, and to performance measures
for the calibration of these programs. While signal timings and link
geometry attributes were obtained from the City of Charlottesville
and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), other data,
including traffic counts, travel times, and travel speed, were
collected directly from the test site on a weekday from 2:45 to
4:15 p.m.
Synchro, CORSIM, and VISSIM Network Building
As noted, the CORSIM network was prepared for the stochastic
optimization, whereas the VISSIM network was used for the
 development of an independent evaluator to assess the signal con-
trol settings optimized by the stochastic-optimization method and
the Synchro, and for the base-case condition (i.e., the existing
timing plan).
The Synchro network for the test site was originally developed
by the VDOT. The VDOT drew the network using a Google’s
satellite image to reduce any errors in the network building. The
network was updated using traffic counts and link travel speeds
measured from the field study. In addition, required inputs for
the Synchro network were estimated to reflect the observed field
traffic conditions. The CORSIM network for the test site was
prepared in the traffic software integrated system (TSIS) by con-
verting the Synchro network to a CORSIM network using the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
feature “Transfer for CORSIM Analysis” in Synchro. As the trans-
fer feature was not perfect, some adjustments were made to estab-
lish an accurate network. A VISSIM network that was originally
developed by the VDOT was used in this study. The VISSIM
network was drawn using the same Google’s satellite image. Fig. 3
presents the CORSIM and VISSIM networks.
Calibration of CORSIM and VISSIM Models
As noted previously, the use of well-calibrated microscopic simu-
lation models is critical in both the development of a traffic signal
timing plan and evaluations. This section describes the calibration
of the microscopic simulation models used in this study.
CORSIM and VISSIM include numerous calibration parameters
that can be fine-tuned by users to replicate observed field traffic
conditions (CORSIM Version 5.0; VISSIM 4.10). For CORSIM,
14 calibration parameters, including driver behavior and link
description-related parameters, were calibrated to match the field
traffic conditions after careful reviews of the CORSIM manual
(CORSIM Version 5.0). For VISSIM, 15 calibration parameters re-
garding car-following, lane-changing behavior, and speed distribu-
tions were selected in a similar manner (VISSIM 4.10).
The microscopic simulation model calibration and validation
procedure previously proposed by Park et al. (2006) was applied
in this study for both the CORSIM and VISSIM models. The cal-
ibration and validation procedure is briefly provided as follows.
Readers who want access to the entire procedure should refer to
Park et al. (2006).
• Simulation model setup
• Initial evaluation of a microscopic simulation model with
default calibration parameters
• Feasibility test using 200 samples generated by statistical
experimental design
• Parameter calibration using a GA-based optimization with 10
populations and 20 generations
• Evaluation of the parameter set
• Validation and visualization
Fig. 3. Microscopic simulation networks: (a) real-world CORSIM network; (b) real-world VISSIM network
824 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012
J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.
As a measure of effectiveness (MOE) for calibration, the follow-
ing two travel times were selected: (1) average travel time from
Hydraulic Road to Barracks Road (section 1) and (2) average travel
time from Hydraulic Road to the Route 250 ramp (section 2). The
observed travel times in sections 1 and 2 are 150 and 116 s, respec-
tively. These travel times were measured through a license plate-
matching technique. Section 2 was selected to represent a special
congestion on the rightmost lane that serves as an entrance link to
the Route 250 ramp.
Upon the successful completion of the discussed procedure for
the CORSIM and VISSIM simulation models, comparisons be-
tween default and calibrated parameters were made. To allow
for the variability in microscopic simulation models, 100
random-seeded simulation runs were conducted, and distributions
of travel times from uncalibrated (i.e., default) and calibrated
CORSIM and VISSIM models were plotted in Fig. 4. As shown
in Fig. 4, both travel times from calibrated models adequately
replicate field-measured travel times, whereas the default models
do not. However, the systematic procedure for calibration was
designed to match the average value of a selected MOE generated
from simulation to the average MOE observed from the field so that
the two distributions show similar average values, while the shape
and dispersion of the two distributions may be different. If addi-
tional field measurements (e.g., 25 or 100 observations to generate
histogram) are available, the shape and distributions can be
matched as well.
Implementation of the Stochastic-Optimization Method
The stochastic-optimization method was implemented to develop
traffic signal timing plans for two internal signalized intersections,
and the timings of the outside two intersections were maintained to
consider the boundary effect. The two internal intersections were
being operated under a coordinated actuated traffic signal system.
Each intersection was operated using 30-ft-long stop-bar detectors
without detector delay and carryover times. In the case study, the
cycle length was not optimized because the two intersections out of
four intersections belong to a coordinated signal system. In addi-
tion, the phase sequences were not optimized to prevent any poten-
tial confusion to drivers. Therefore, a total of 38 traffic signal
control settings were selected to be optimized, and they are given
as follows:
• Offsets for the two intersections at Angus Road and
Morton Road,
• Green times of six phases for each of the two intersections,
• Minimum green times of four noncoordinated actuated phases
for each of the two intersections,
• Vehicle extension times of four noncoordinated actuated phases
for each of the two intersections, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Calibration result of CORSIM and VISSIM networks: (a) histogram of travel times of section 1; (b) histogram of travel times of section 2

• Recall modes of four noncoordinated actuated phases for each
of the two intersections.
The GA-based optimizer and the optimization-simulation inter-
face in the proposed stochastic-optimization method were devel-
oped using the MATLAB program. In the GA-based optimizer,
the following settings were used:
• 40 populations and 25 generations,
• Normal geometric selection with elitist method,
• Uniform crossover with 0.5 probability and simple mutation
with 0.03 probability, and
• Stop at a predefined maximum number of generations.
The objective function used in the proposed stochastic optimi-
zation is system delay, as shown in Eq. (1). Given that CORSIM
provides delay measures of those vehicles that already left the
subject link, the control delay from CORSIM does not account
for vehicles remaining on the links. As such, the total queue time,

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 825

J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Convergence of three trials using the stochastic-optimization method

which considers both discharged and remaining vehicles, was used
as an objective-function value. During the optimization of traffic
signal control settings, certain sets of parameter settings could
result in extreme congestion. When this happens, total queue time
can adequately reflect the effect of the congestion.
Given that microscopic simulation models at times show quite a
significant variability in their performance measures, it is crucial to
account for such variability during optimization. To accommodate
this variability, multiple objectives (i.e., a combination of total
queue time and its variability) or expectation values obtained from

Table 2. Comparison of Optimized Signal Control Settings

Intersections Angus Road and Emmet Street Morton Road and Emmet Street
Optimizers Synchro Trial 1 Synchro Trial 1
Cycle lengths (s) 107 107 107 107
Offsets (s) 99 95 39 48
Phase 1 NB left 12 12 15 13
Phase 2 SB through 54 65 65 70
Phase 3 Overlap phase 15 14 13 11
Green splits (s)
Phase 4 WB and EB through 26 16 14 13
Phase 5 SB left 12 14 15 11
Phase 6 NB through 54 63 65 72
Phase 1 NB left 10 6 7 7
Phase 3 Overlap phase 7 6 10 5
Minimum initials (s)
Phase 4 WB and EB through 7 11 7 7
Phase 5 SB left 10 8 7 6
Phase 1 NB left 3 4 3 2.5
Phase 3 Overlap phase 3 3 3 3
Vehicle extensions (s)
Phase 4 WB and EB through 3 4 3 3
Phase 5 SB left 3 2.5 3 2.5
Phase 1 NB left None None None None
Phase 3 Overlap phase None Minimum recall None None
Recall modes
Phase 4 WB and EB through None None None None
Phase 5 SB left None None None None
Note: Synchro optimized only offsets and green splits. The minimum initials, vehicle extensions, and recall modes under the column of Synchro are the signal
control settings used at the test site. In addition, the phase for NB left turn is the overlap phase at Angus Road, whereas the phase for SB left turn is the overlap
phase at Norton Road. NB = northbound; SB = southbound; WB = westbound; EB = eastbound.

826 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012

J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.

 multiple runs could be used. During the initial experiments, it was
observed that variability increases as the total queue time increases.
This indicates that the minimization of total queue time itself can
intrinsically handle variability during optimization. This study used
a median value of total queue times obtained from five random-
seeded CORSIM runs as an objective-function value. The median
value was selected over the average to reduce the effect of outliers
often observed in the total queue time distributions.
There were three implementations of the proposed stochastic-
optimization method, and they are referred to as trials 1 through
3. This is intended to verify whether the stochastic-optimization
method can produce consistently acceptable solutions because
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a well-calibrated VISSIM model, which acted as an independent
evaluator. Table 3 summarizes the performances of the signal con-
trol settings optimized using the stochastic-optimization method,
the signal control settings operated in the field during data collec-
tion (i.e., base case), and the signal control settings found by the
signal timing-optimization program Synchro. As Synchro is unable
to optimize the actuated signal settings, actuated signal settings
implemented in the field were used for Synchro.
Table 3 presents the average and standard-deviation values of
selected MOEs on the basis of the network-wide performance-
measure outputs and travel-time outputs obtained from 50
random-seeded VISSIM simulation runs.

GA tends to give a family of solutions instead of one best solution
in complex optimization problems like traffic signal timing optimi-
zation. The convergence properties of all three trials are presented
graphically in Fig. 5, which illustrates the best value of the total
queue time in vehicle-minutes in every generation. The average
computation time for each trial was approximately 2 h. The
computational time was measured on a personal computer with
a Xeon CPU (3.60 GHz) and 1 GB of random-access memory
(RAM), which is not an up-to-date high-performance computer.
Much faster computational time can be expected when the recent
high-performance computer with multiple CPUs is used in the
stochastic-optimization. For example, when the stochastic-
optimization method was executed in a dual-processor computer
with two Xeon CPUs (3.60 GHz) and 1 GB of RAM, a 19%
reduction of computation time was achieved.
Evaluation of Traffic Signal Control Settings
Table 2 shows the optimized traffic signal control parameters ob-
tained by Synchro and the stochastic-optimization method in trial 1.
As shown in Table 2, green splits including transition interval
showed up to 7-s differences between them. In addition, offsets
showed 4 and 9 s difference. The cycle length was fixed as 107 s.
The performance of signal control settings optimized by the
stochastic-optimization method is evaluated in this section using
In Table 3, Synchro shows a 12.3% reduction in average
delay time over the base case, whereas the proposed stochastic-
optimization method produces approximately 28.5% lower ave-
rage delay time than the base case. In the comparison between
Synchro and the stochastic-optimization method, the stochastic-
optimization method shows 18.4% lower average delay time than
Synchro. Fig. 6 illustrates distributions of average delay times of
the five cases obtained from the same 50 random-seeded VISSIM
simulation runs. As shown in the figure, the traffic signal control
settings from the stochastic-optimization method are able to reduce
the variance of delay and the degree of delay.
In addition, the traffic signal control settings optimized by the
stochastic-optimization method showed a significant reduction in
the travel times of sections 1 and 2. Table 3 and Fig. 6 show that
all three trials from the stochastic-optimization method consistently
and significantly outperform Synchro for all MOEs considered.
These results indicate that the stochastic-optimization method
shows its outstanding capability in optimization, as it can account
for the stochastic nature of traffic using a well-calibrated micro-
scopic simulation model. It is apparent from Table 3 that the sto-
chastic optimization successfully optimized the traffic signal
control settings, including the four basic traffic signal timing
parameters and the actuated signal settings for a coordinated actu-
ated signal control system. In addition, the stochastic-optimization
method consistently produced an acceptable solution.

Table 3. Optimization Result: Network-wide Performance Measures

Average (standard deviation)
Stochastic-optimization method
MOE Base case Synchro Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
4,292.22 4,330.34 4,394.38 4,372.16 4,382.44
Number of vehicle (vehicles)a
(46.96) (52.94) (49.19) (46.48) (55.53)
412.77 378.18 330.88 334.39 331.76
Total travel time (h)
(30.86) (21.31) (9.78) (10.08) (11.25)
288.23 252.44 203.22 207.39 204.45
Total delay time (h)
(31.88) (22.11) (10.27) (10.58) (12.03)
201.53 176.69 142.74 146.14 143.79
Average delay time (s per vehicle)
(22.63) (16.28) (7.81) (8.31) (9.40)
4.36 4.03 3.40 3.50 3.42
Average number of stop (stops per vehicle)
(0.60) (0.37) (0.26) (0.30) (0.32)
146.69 137.84 121.76 115.66 115.04
Average travel time of section 1 (s per vehicle)
(6.67) (4.50) (2.65) (3.10) (3.37)
Average travel time of section 2 (s per vehicle) 120.28 105.39 86.08 100.03 92.46
(11.28) (26.24) (16.39) (18.87) (18.73)
a
Number of vehicle indicates the number of vehicles that have left the network.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 827

J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Histogram of average delay times simulated by VISSIM
Conclusions and Recommendations
In this study, the writers developed a stochastic-optimization
method that combines a heuristic optimizer, GA, and a well-
calibrated microscopic simulation model, CORSIM. The main
feature of the proposed stochastic-optimization method was its abil-
ity to optimize traffic signal timings within a realistic microscopic
simulation environment by taking into account the stochastic vari-
ability commonly present in a transportation system. In addition,
the proposed stochastic-optimization method was able to optimize
simultaneously the four basic traffic signal timing parameters and
the actuated signal settings. On the basis of the case-study results,
the following conclusions were made:
• The stochastic-optimization method outperformed a macro-
scopic optimization program, Synchro, and
• The stochastic-optimization method is able to consistently
produce quality solutions.
Even though this application was successful, there is a need for
further research in the application of the stochastic-
optimization method. First, one of the significant drawbacks of
the stochastic-optimization method is the huge computation-time
requirements. A reduction in computation time could be achieved
by using better hardware (e.g., faster CPUs and more RAM) and
parallel computing. If the state-of-the-art computer systems contin-
ues to evolve, the stochastic-optimization method could become
practical in the near future. Second, most traffic signal control log-
ics embedded in the microscopic simulation models appear to be
outdated when compared with those used in actual modern traffic
controllers. Thus, stochastic optimization should be conducted
using a software-in-the-loop simulation (SILS) (Bullock and
Catarella 1998; Engelbrecht and Barnes 2003). This would ensure
adequate evaluations of the advanced features available within the
modern traffic controllers during optimization.
828 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012
J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible through funding from the Center
of Transportation Studies at the University of Virginia. The writers
thank the staff members at the City of Charlottesville and the
Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) for their support
during data collection and network coding during the case study.
This work was also supported by a National Research Foundation
of Korean grant funded by the Korean government [Ministry
of Education, Science and Technology (MEST)] (NRF-2010-
0029451).
References
Abu-Lebdeh, G., and Benekohal, R. F. (1997). “Development of a traffic
control and queue management procedure for oversaturated arterials.”
Transportation Research Record 1603, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 119–127.
Bullock, D., and Catarella, A. (1998). “A real-time simulation environment
for evaluating traffic signal systems.” Transportation Research Record
1634, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 130–135.
Chakroborty, P., Deb, K., and Subrahmanyam, P. S. (1995). “Optimal
scheduling of urban transit system using genetic algorithms.” J. Transp.
Eng., 121(6), 544–553.
Daganzo, C. F., and Sheffi, Y. (1977). “On stochastic models of traffic
assignment.” Transp. Sci., 11(3), 253–274.
Engelbrecht, R. J., and Barnes, K. E. (2003). “Advanced traffic signal
control for diamond interchanges.” Transportation Research Record
1856, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 231–238.
Foy, M., Benekohal, R. F., and Goldberg, D. E. (1992). “Signal timing
determination using genetic algorithms.” Transportation Research
Record 1365, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
108–115.
Franca, P. M., and Luna, H. P. L. (1982). “Solving stochastic transportation-
location problems by generalized Benders decomposition.” Transp.
Sci., 16(2), 113–126.
 Gordon, R. L. et al. (1996). Traffic control systems handbook, Federal High-
way Administration and U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Hadi, M. A., and Wallace, C. E. (1993). “Hybrid genetic algorithm to
optimize signal phase and timing.” Transportation Research Record
1421, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 104–112.
Hale, D. (2005). Traffic network study tool—TRANSYT-7F, United States
version, McTrans Center in the Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Husch, D., and Albeck, J. (2004). Trafficware Synchro 6 user guide,
Trafficware, Albany, CA.
CORSIM Version 5.0 [Computer software]. Systems Division and ATMS
R&D and Systems Engineering Program Team, ITT Industries,
Colorado Springs, CO.
LeBlanc, L. J. (1977). “Heuristic approach for large scale discrete
stochastic transportation-location problems.” Comput. Math. Appl.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA on 05/30/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3(2), 87–94.
Little, J. D. C., and Kelson, M. D. (1980). Optimal signal timing for arterial
signal systems, MAXBAND, Operations Research Center, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Memon, G. Q., and Bullen, A. G. R. (1996). “Multivariate optimization
strategies for real time traffic control signals.” Transportation Research
Record 1554, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 36–42.
Park, B., Messer, C. J., and Urbanik, T. (1999). “Traffic signal optimization
program for oversaturated conditions, genetic algorithm approach.”
Transportation Research Record 1683, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 133–142.
Park, B., Rouphail, N. M., Hochanadel, J., and Sacks, J. (2000).
“Evaluating the reliability of T7F optimization schemes.” 79th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, DC.
Park, B., Rouphail, N. M., and Sacks, J. (2001). “Assessment of stochastic
signal optimization method using microsimulation.” Transportation
Research Record 1748, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 40–45.
Park, B., and Schneeberger, J. D. (2003). “Evaluation of traffic signal
timing optimization methodology using a stochastic and microscopic
simulation program.” Research Rep. No. UVACTS-5-0-4, Univ. of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Park, B., Won, J., and Yun, I. (2006). “Application of microscopic
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2012 / 829
View publication stats J. Transp. Eng. 2012.138:819-829.
simulation model calibration and validation procedure: A case study
of coordinated actuated signal system.” Transportation Research Re-
cord 1978, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 113–122.
Park, B., and Yun, I. (2003). “Evaluation of microscopic simulation
programs for coordinated signal system.” 13th ITS America’s Annual
Meeting, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Washington, DC.
Park, B., and Yun, I. (2006). “Evaluation of stochastic optimization
methods of traffic signal control settings for coordinated actuated signal
systems.” 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
VISSIM 4.10 [Computer software]. Planung Transport Verkehr AG (PTV),
Karlsruhe, Germany.
Pline, J. L., ed. (1999). Traffic engineering handbook, 5th Ed., Institute of
Transportation Engineers, TB-010A, Washington, DC.
Rilett, L. R., and Kim, K. (2001). “Comparison of TRANSIM and
CORSIM traffic signal simulation modules.” Transportation Research
Record 1748, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 18–25.
Sheffi, Y. (1985). Urban transportation networks, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Soehodho, S. (1998). “Hybrid model of taxonomy and genetic algorithms
for finding shortest path in transportation systems.” J. Adv. Transp.,
32(3), 353–368.
Stevanovic, A., Martin, P. T., and Stevanovic, J. (2007). “VISGAOST:
VISSIM-based genetic algorithm optimization of signal timings.” Proc.
of the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Stevanovic, J., Stevanovic, A., Martin, P. T., and Bauer, T. (2008).
“Stochastic optimization of traffic control and transit priority settings
in VISSIM.” Transp. Res. Part C, 16(3), 332–349.
Texas Transportation Institute. (2002). PASSER V, College Station, TX.
Xiong, Y., and Schneider, J. B. (1992). “Transportation network design
using a cumulative genetic algorithm and neural network.” Transpor-
tation Research Record 1364, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 37–44.
Xiong, Y., and Schneider, J. B. (1995). “Processing of constraints in trans-
portation network design problem.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 9(1), 21–28.
Yin, Y. (2000). “Genetic-algorithms-based approach for bilevel program-
ming models.” J. Transp. Eng., 126(2), 115–120.