Prologue

This document is one in a series being developed by ODOT Urban Engineering and Project Analysis Sections
relating to travel demand forecasting procedures. Other documents in this series will include, Highway
Network Coding Procedures (1), Transit Network Coding Procedures (2) and Trip Table Synthesis
Procedures(3). Taken together these documents represent a complete set of guidelines for using four step
travel demand forecasting models in Ohio. Other procedures dealing with pre and post processing to the four
step process have been deliberately omitted from this series and will be dealt with individually as necessary.
Throughout this document, Ohio procedural guidelines are underlined to make them easily distinguished from
the accompanying descriptive information. These guidelines are summarized in Appendix B.

I. Introduction
Traffic assignment is defined as the process of allocating a set of trip interchanges to a specific transportation
system based on specific criteria as to choice of route. The choice of route criteria is that the travel
impedance through the transportation system be minimized for a given origin-destination pair. The output of
traffic assignment is "an estimate of user volumes on each segment of a transportation network as well as the
turning movements at each intersection of the transportation network".(4)
Purpose
The purposes of performing a traffic assignment have been variously given in a number of sources (5), (6) as:
1.
To determine deficiencies in the existing system
2.
To assist in the development of the future transportation system
3.
To develop construction priorities
4.
To provide highway designers with design-hour traffic volumes
In addition to these, many other uses of traffic assignments have developed such as air quality analysis,
congestion management analysis and major investment studies. The number of uses for traffic assignments
are many and can be summed up simply as: traffic assignments are used whenever a system wide prediction
of transportation segment volumes (highway vehicle volumes or transit ridership) are needed.
Input
There are two basic inputs to traffic assignment: a matrix of trip interchanges and a computerized description
of the transportation system.
Creation of the trip interchange matrix or trip table is covered in the aforementioned document; Trip Table
Syntheses Procedures. The trip table is a matrix of volumes of vehicles or persons that desire to move from
one area to another. Each row of the matrix represents those trips wishing to go from one area to all other
areas while each column represents those trips wishing to come to one area from all others. The matrix as a
whole allows for the interaction of trips between all areas.
These areas are known as traffic analysis zones. Traffic analysis zones are merely geographic areas used to
aggregate travel behavior into manageable units. Travel actually occurs between discrete traffic generators
such as homes and businesses. To model the interactions between all homes and businesses in an area would
be nearly impossible, so travel desires are aggregated into traffic analysis zones. The use of traffic analysis
zones to aggregate travel behavior is a fundamental concept of travel demand forecasting. The delineation of
these zones will be discussed in more detail later as well as in the Trip Table Synthesis Procedures Document.
A trip table can be obtained in one of two ways, through an origin-destination survey or through synthesis
with trip generation, trip distribution and mode split models. These synthesis models are calibrated using a
trip table obtained from an origin-destination survey. Regardless how it is obtained, any trip table can be
assigned to a transportation network. Which trip tables are used when and why will be discussed later in this
document.
The second input to traffic assignment is the computerized transportation network. There are two types of
transportation network used in Ohio, the highway network and the transit network. Development of the
highway network is discussed in Highway Network Coding Procedures while development of the transit
network is discussed in Transit Network Coding Procedures. A transportation network is represented by a
series of links and nodes. A link represents a segment of street and contains data on the characteristics of that
street, a node represents an intersection or other point where conditions on the street change. Additionally,
transit networks also contain lines which are lists of nodes through which a given transit route passes. A
transit line is a path in its own right, which all transit minimum time paths are restricted to follow. A given
transit passenger may transfer between transit lines to reach his destination, but he must always follow the

prescribed lines. Special nodes called centroid nodes or just centroids, are coded into a highway network for
each traffic analysis zones. These centroids are connected to the highway network through special links
called centroid connectors. A centroid connector is a fictitious street segment which may represent a number
of local streets and access points which are not otherwise part of the transportation network. Centroids are
used to load trips from the trip table onto the transportation network and are thus analogous to sources and
sinks in say a pipe flow network.
The most basic information about a transportation network that is needed for traffic assignment purposes is
the connectivity between links and a measure of impedance on that link. Connectivity is indicated on a link
by listing the nodes that it connects. All links that meet at a given node are said to be connected. A link is, in
fact, identified by this node to node listing. Thus a link that connects node 52 to node 121 is referred to as
link 52-121. Travel impedance is indicated by the time to traverse the link. This time includes all delays due
to intersections and other conditions on the link. This can be indicated in one of two ways, either by
indicating the travel time directly or the average speed that can be maintained across the link as well as the
distance of the link. Impedance coding and other network parameters will be discussed later.
Overview of Process
Traffic assignment is basically a two step procedure. First minimum impedance paths are determined
between all traffic analysis zones using the network impedance discussed above. Paths are not built one at a
time for each zonal interchange but instead are built for each origin zone in such a way that all overlapping
portions of the zone to zone paths from that origin only need be built once. For example, if a given centroid
had 4 centroid connectors and the network as a whole had 500 zones, at most only 4 calculations would be
required in finding the first link of the path instead of 500 if each path were calculated individually.
The second step is to load the trip table to the network by utilizing the minimum impedance paths. Each trip
interchange in the trip table is individually loaded to the path between the two zones it represents. The
volume of the trip interchange is accumulated on each link that belongs to that path. Each zonal interchange
whose path crosses a given link adds its volume to the link in turn until a final traffic assignment volume is
accumulated after the entire trip table has been loaded. Trip loading occurs backwards from the destination
zone to the origin zone. This is because the path set from the origin (often called a tree or vine) emanates out
from the origin and goes to each other node in the network exactly once. Loading backwards ensures that
you eventually reach the origin node. An analogy can be drawn from a watershed where the origin is the
mouth of the primary river and the destinations are at the headwaters of the various tributaries. Going
downstream from the destinations will always eventually get you to the origin while going upstream from the
origin might get you to any of the destinations. Paths are built upstream to ensure all destinations are reached
and loaded downstream to ensure the origin is reached.
Assignment Types
In Ohio there are four basic types of traffic assignment used. These assignments are all based upon a 24 hour
modeling period and are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Base year calibration assignment

Existing year assignment (when different from base year)
Future year no-build assignment
Future year build assignment

All other assignment types can be classified as one of these three. The base year calibration (or validation)
assignment is intended to be made every 10 years to correspond to the availability of census data. Unlike
other assignments this assignment involves collection and coding of ground counts into the network to check
the accuracy of the modeling process. Much additional work goes into the creation of trip tables for the base
year validation as discussed in Trip Table Synthesis Procedures. The model checks discussed in Chapter IV.
of this document are then used to validate and adjust the network model until it adequately represents ground
counts. One very important point that should be made is that the final base year validation modeling chain

must be reproduced exactly for forecast year assignments. This condition prohibits the use of count
restraining and requires the use of capacity restraining in the assignment process. Count and capacity
restraint will be discussed more later in this document.
Because the base year assignment is only made once every 10 years, it is sometimes necessary to have an
existing year assignment in the intermediate years. This assignment can be used to check the forecast
assumptions and to serve as the basis of further analysis.
The future year no-build and build assignments utilize forecasted trip tables to evaluate the system effects of
transportation improvements. The build and no-build scenarios are each assigned a forecasted trip table and
the differences in various measures of congestion are analyzed. For Long Range Planning purposes, the nobuild network is the existing + committed network (E+C). This network represents currently existing
conditions plus those projects already committed for building where in the past committed variously meant
projects which are programmed, projects that have gone into the environmental process or projects appearing
in the TIP. ODOT recommends that in the future, E+C networks be equated to the TIP network. The TIP
network which is currently used primarily for air quality analysis contains all projects in the TIP plus
significant local projects not in the TIP. Equating these networks would provide a measure of consistence in
the process and result in less networks to be maintained. The build scenario involves the E+C plus all
projects that will appear in the Long Range Plan. Several possible alternative LRP's should be analyzed and
the best selected for implementation. This of course assumes that the alternatives are all feasible given fiscal
constraint, the political climate and other factors.
Build/no-build analysis is also used for various other purposes including air quality analysis, congestion
management analysis and MIS analysis. For analysis, the year is determined and networks representing
proposed conditions that year (both with and without the subject projects) are coded. A trip table for that
year is created using the trip table synthesis procedures and assigned. Plots of the assigned volumes and
volume to capacity ratio are then analyzed to determine project benefits which can then be used in benefit
cost analysis. Other analyses use only build scenarios such as air quality budget analysis and design year
traffic analysis.
History
The beginnings of traffic assignment can be traced back to the introduction of origin-destination surveys.
These surveys produce trip tables which show the trips people make independent of route choice. To
properly analyze the effects of this trip table a method was needed to determine which routes the trips in the
trip table would use to move from origin to destination. Early methods used manual techniques to determine
the routes people would use between each origin and destination, computers were only used to accumulate
trips from the trip table on the manually determined routes. Other work was in the area of diversion analysis
in which various methods were proposed for determining how many trips would divert from current routes to
a proposed route. These methods utilized diversion curves which expressed the number of trips diverting
between routes as a function of travel time ratio. These methods were only conducted at the corridor level
and often gave unpredictable results.
The most critical aspect of a traffic assignment program is that of route selection or path building. Attempts
to develop a computerized program for system wide traffic assignment had been blocked for some time by a
need to find an efficient route selection algorithm. According to USDOT's Traffic Assignment Manual (4),
"The breakthrough in the network path determination came from work undertaken to solve the route selection
problem of the telephone systems for direct dialing of long distance telephone calls...Two papers published in
1957 provided the impetus for computerized route selection process for traffic assignment: The Shortest Path
Through A Maze, by E.F. Moore(7); The Shortest Route Problem, by G. Dantzig.(8)" Transportation
agencies were quick to exploit these methods and by 1960 work by Chicago, Washington D.C. Detroit,
California and Minnesota had resulted in the first Bureau of Public Roads Traffic Assignment Battery.
One early development came when researchers realized that there is a relationship between volume and travel
time (known as a speed (time) - volume curve, the most commonly used is know as the BPR curve) as shown

in the Highway Capacity Manual (9-11). In an attempt to reflect this relationship in assignments and to
produce a "multi-path" diversion type effect between zones capacity restraint algorithms were incorporated,
first by the staff of the Chicago area study. Capacity restraint is an iterative process whereby an assignment
is made and the link impedances are adjusted based on a speed-volume curve. The assignment is then redone
and impedance readjusted. The final capacity restrained assignment is not used alone but rather weighted
with previous iterations to produce the final weighted capacity restrained assignment. The Traffic
Assignment Manual has an excellent discussion of Capacity Restraint which states:
"There is a relationship between speed and volume on all types of facilities, both for interrupted and uninterrupted flow.
On facilities such as freeways, there is a constant decrease in speed with increase in traffic volume up to a point of critical
density. Beyond this point, however, both volume and speed decrease with an increase in density. The situation is
similar at interrupted flow type facilities. Here, however, speed is influenced by external influences such as signal
progression, speed limits, and the conditions on adjacent sections...The traffic assignment process assigns trips in
accordance with impedances coded on each network segment. These impedances are usually travel time or some
derivative of time. The assignment process results in the traffic load on each network segment. Since there is a very
direct relationship between travel time (or speed) on a section and the volume on the section, a process is necessary to
allow consideration of this relationship. This process is referred to as capacity restraint. Specifically, the capacity
restraint process attempts to bring the assigned volume, the capacity of a facility, and the related speed into the proper
balance. There are several problems in the application of speed-flow relations in the assignment process. Most important
is the assignment of trips for some extended period of time, such as a day...Most critical flow problems actually occur
over shorter time spans. Secondly, the assignment process may load a facility far in excess of capacity based upon some
originally coded speed. Observed conditions are limited to some maximum capacity. Because of this, capacity restraint
functions are theoretical extensions beyond some critical capacity point."

The last two points should be emphasized. First, capacity restraining conditions actually only occur over a
short time period so their use in 24 hour assignments is not straight forward and rigorous but requires
judgment and experimentation to produce good results. Second, capacity restraint functions are somewhat
theoretical in nature because they must extend beyond the realm of observable values.
Early research (12) showed that capacity restraint reduced the overall error of assignments and often obviates
the need for manual adjustment of assignment networks due to over-loaded conditions. Capacity restraint is
discussed in more detail later in this document.
The next development occurred in the mid 1960's with the introduction of a new minimum path building
algorithm often referred to as the vine algorithm (13). Early in the development of trip assignment methods
the capability to model turning movement penalties and prohibitions at intersections was added to the
methodology. This sometimes resulted in unrealistic paths using the traditional tree building or Moore
algorithm. The tree algorithm built paths from node to node while the new vine algorithm built paths to each
link at a node thus allowing turn penalties and prohibitions to be accounted for correctly. The distinction
between these two methods will be discussed in more detail later.
The introduction of the "Equilibrium Model" (14-16) in the 1970's brought traffic assignment to its currently
used form. Equilibrium assignment arose when it was realized that traditional iterative capacity restraint
procedures do not converge to a unique solution. Equilibrium assignments use optimization techniques to
create a linear combination of assignment runs which produce a user optimum assignment (i.e. one in which
no trip can reduce its travel time by switching paths). This is accomplished by minimizing the area under the
speed (time)-volume relationship curve from zero to the assigned volume for all links in the network (see (16)
for a discussion of why this is so). This process is similar to traditional capacity restraint in that it can utilize
the same speed-volume relationships to modify link impedances and bring assigned volume and impedance in
balance, however, instead of the user choosing the weights to be applied to each assignment iteration, they are
chosen automatically by the computer. Also while capacity restraint only weights each assignment together
after all assignments have been made, equilibrium performs the weighting after each iteration and uses the
weighted volume to determine the travel impedance for the next iteration. At each iteration of the
equilibrium assignment, link impedance is adjusted based on the previously weighted assignment using the
speed-volume curve for that link. The use of equilibrium assignments is discussed in detail later.

Traffic assignment as employed for region wide systems analysis has not changed much since the
introduction of equilibrium methods. This is not to say that the field has remained stagnant, new traffic
assignment techniques focusing on dynamic micro assignment of vehicles such as that found in the NETSIM
products have been developed which give much more realistic traffic assignments. To date these methods
have not been employed region wide simply because they are too computationally intensive for computers to
use at this scale. For example the NETSIM program has a limit of 600 links and 200 nodes which is far too
small for the typical urban area model. The future of travel demand forecasting appears to be in the area of
activity based modeling. Activity based modeling is a micro-simulation of individual households and
travelers. New traffic assignment techniques are being developed to operate within this paradigm and may
one day replace many of the techniques discussed here.

II. Transportation Network Considerations

This section discusses aspects of one of the two inputs to traffic assignment, the transportation network,
relative to traffic assignment.
Traffic Analysis Zones
As discussed previously, a set of traffic analysis zones are needed for traffic assignment. These zones are
used to aggregate all trip making into discrete locations which can then be assigned to the transportation
network via zone centroids. Traffic analysis zones are generally pre-existing, however, the following criteria
should be considered when creating or modifying traffic analysis zones:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Zones should generally be of regular geometric shape (i.e. it should be generally square not
gerrymandered)
Zones should follow geographic boundaries where possible including roadways, streams, railroads and
political boundaries.
Zones should follow census boundaries to allow socio-economic data collection utilizing the census.
Zones should have relatively equal generating power (i.e. the total number of trips generated by each
zone should be similar).
The total trips generated by a zone should be less than 10-15 thousand to avoid large discontinuities in
traffic assignments near the zone.
The density of development in a zone should be relatively even across the zone.
The land use in a zone should be somewhat homogenous.
Most importantly, and this point is sometimes forgotten, zones should be created so that they give good
traffic assignment results!

It is impossible to meet all of these criteria all the time. Judgment and criteria number 8 are the final deciding
factors in creating traffic analysis zones. The size of the zones to be used is dependent on the final purpose of
the traffic assignment. For region-wide studies the best guide is to make zones similar in size to the existing
zones. Finer zones can be used for subarea analysis and to obtain more accurate results if the extra coding
and processing time are not important. It must always be remembered, however, that the size of the zones is
directly related to the number of roadways included in the transportation network.
Zone-Network Relationship
There is a relationship between the number of traffic analysis zones and the number of links in the
transportation network. According to the Traffic Assignment Manual (4): "Experience in traffic assignment
application indicates that this zone-network compatibility helps insure that assignment results will be as
accurate as possible regardless of the level of detail and the objectives of the study." In general it is
recommended that there be one traffic analysis zone for each area delimited by the transportation network
links. This requirement implies that it is undesirable to have network links which bisect traffic analysis
zones. Using this criteria strictly in a grided street system with 4 centroid connectors per zone would result in
8 links per traffic analysis zones. According to (4): "it would appear that 10 links per zone is the
[nationwide] average". In Ohio the average for regional models is about 8 links per zones. There is some
variance, however, from a low of 5.3 links per zone in the Steubenville area to a high of 10.8 links per zone
in the Cleveland area. The zone-network relationship should only be changed in existing models if a problem
with the final output is discovered, as mentioned in criteria 8 of the previous section, the most important thing
is that they give good traffic assignment results.
What is the reason for this relationship and what are its implications? First, recall that traffic analysis zones
are used to aggregate trip making behavior into manageable geographic units. Those trips whose origin and
destination are within the same zone are called intrazonal trips. These trips will not load onto the
transportation network. Larger zones produce more intrazonal trips and thus less trips on the network.
Second, it should be noted that not all facilities (roads) are coded into the network. For a given number of

trips being loaded to the network, fewer facilities will have to carry larger volumes because trips that would
have used the roads not coded into the network must use those that were. Thus very small zones loading a
coarse network will result in over-assignment because there are few intrazonal trips and the few roads coded
in the network must carry all of the traffic. On the other hand, large zones loading a fine network will result
in under-assignment because many of the trips are now intrazonal and the few trips that are left must
distribute to many roadways. The key is to find the proper balance to produce reasonable assignments which
is about 8 links per zones. Given this discussion it might be expected that the Steubenville model with 5.3
links per zone would be over-assigned while the Cleveland model with 10.8 links per zone might be underassigned.
Knowledge of this relationship provides a useful calibration tool. If a particular area of a network is over or
under assigned a check on the zone-network relationship in that area will indicate if this is the problem. If it
is, addition of links representing certain minor facilities can alleviate over-assignment while removal of links
representing lower classed facilities can alleviate under-assignment. Network calibration will be discussed
more later, it should be noted that there can be many reasons for poor assignment results in an area such as
incorrect trip generation, network impedances etc., a check of the zone-network relationship should be made
to determine if this is truly the problem.
Transportation Network Layout
Given that there is a relationship between the number of network links and the number of traffic analysis
zones, the next question is how many links should be included in the network? It was mentioned previously
that not all facilities are necessarily coded into a transportation network. The number of links to include is
based on the use of the traffic assignment. For highway networks this is usually done using functional
classifications. The general rule of thumb is that roadways with a functional class one lower than that which
will be studied should be coded as links. In other words, if I want to analyze arterial streets and above then I
should code collectors and above. In addition, network connectivity must be taken into consideration by
coding lower classification streets where they provide important network connections. Another criteria that
can be used is that all streets with signalized control at intersections should be included in an urban area
network. For region-wide models in Ohio we have traditionally coded collectors and better, however in
recent years the number of local streets in the regional models has increased. Generally centroid connections
are made to the lowest class of roadway. Those roadways closest to the centroid connectors and with lower
volumes (usually locals and collectors) will have poorer assignments while those further away and with
higher volumes (usually arterials and freeways) will have better assignments. The implication here is that the
network model should not be used to analyze traffic on the lowest classification of street (usually collectors)
unless a lower classification (usually locals) is coded as well. This point is often forgotten by users of the
model who wonder why every link in the network doesn't match ground counts well. Thus the number of
links is governed by the number needed to code all streets of a certain functional class and higher (usually
collectors), the total number of zones is then related to this number and the size of individual zones based on
the criteria given in the Traffic Analysis Zones section above.
Details on coding the network are given in (1) and (2) with some additional comments related to traffic
assignment given for specific data items in the sections to follow. Appendix A. contains the network formats
for both Planpac and Tranplan for highway networks.
Centroid Coding
All travel activity (trips) is loaded to the transportation network through traffic analysis zones. This is
accomplished by coding into the transportation network a centroid for each zone. This centroid is a fictitious
node from which all trips begin and end. The centroid node is located at the center of activity of the zone it
represents (not necessarily the geographic center). Thus a zone with all of its activity at one end of the zone
will have its centroid node at that end. Determination of the center of activity is a judgment call based on
maps and aerial photographs of the area as well as personnel knowledge when appropriate. Centroid nodes
must be the first nodes in a network (starting at 1 and continuing consecutively without gaps until one is
coded for each zone.) Thus if there are 500 zones there will be 500 centroid nodes numbered from 1 to 500.

Each centroid node is connected to the network by centroid connectors. These are fictitious links
representing all local streets and access points to the network within the zone. A centroid can be connected
by as many as 4 centroid connectors. It is best to use as many centroid connectors as possible to reduce
discontinuities on the network in the vicinity of the centroid connector (a single centroid connector
connecting a zone with many trips may produce a large jump in volume between the two network links
connecting it). At times less than 4 are used when there are less than 4 access points from a zone, or less than
4 roadways surrounding the zone. Only one centroid connector should connect a centroid to the
transportation system between any two intersection nodes. Centroid connectors should not connect directly
to intersections but rather should connect at the mid block area, thus splitting an intersection to intersection
link in two. Centroid connectors are assumed to have unlimited capacity and thus do not affect capacity
restraint calculations (leave the capacity field blank or code 999999 in Tranplan).
Impedance Coding
As previously stated, the only link data absolutely necessary for traffic assignment is the connectivity of the
link (which nodes it connects) and a measure of impedance. In Ohio travel impedance is measured strictly by
the time necessary to traverse the link. It is possible, however, to use various combinations of time, distance,
tolls, operating expenses, intersection stop time etc. for travel impedance, it is simply our convention to use
only travel time. The use of travel time has been found to produce good traffic assignment results not only in
Ohio but elsewhere as well. Travel impedance on a link can be coded as time directly (in hundredths of
minutes) or speed (in mph). If speed is coded, then the length of the link (distance) must also be coded so
that the speed can be converted to time. Usually speed is coded. This value gives a better "feel" for the
operating conditions of a link since the dependence on distance has been removed. It must be re-emphasized,
however, that the speed coded on a link is a measure of total travel impedance not necessarily the mid-block
speed or the posted speed limit. Thus the speed must reflect time spent sitting at traffic lights or slowing to
allow someone to turn. In addition, since the speed (or time) is the only value which affects path building, it
is sometimes necessary to incorporate extraneous route choice impedances into the speed. For example,
many people prefer not to use the freeway when going across town, possibly due to the stress of high speed
travel. This is an impedance to using a freeway link and thus must be reflected in the speed. The speeds used
for traffic assignment are thus not necessarily realistic speeds and thus should not be interpreted as such.
They are a measure of travel impedance and nothing more.
Traditionally link speeds have represented travel times under actual traffic conditions. These speeds by
themselves produce good all or nothing type assignments and are needed as the basis of the capacity restraint
assignment. Equilibrium assignments, on the other hand, use free flow speed for their calculations. The
reason for this distinction is primarily associated with the way the speed-density relationship (BPR curve) is
set up and used by the two methods. It must be remembered, however, that all or nothing assignments will
not produce satisfactory correlation with ground counts when using free flow speeds, thus free flow speeds
should only be used for equilibrium assignments. Free flow speeds can be used with all or nothing
assignments to produce a travel desires assignment for planning analysis purposes only.
Travel times (speed) are obtained for highway networks by field work utilizing the floating car technique.
This methodology is discussed in Chapter 11 of the Highway Capacity Manual (11) and in the procedure
manual "Determining Travel Time" (17). A number of travel time runs must be made on the same highway
segment to obtain an acceptable confidence level. The Traffic Assignment Manual suggests no more than
10% standard deviation on high speed roadways (50-70 mph) and 20% standard deviation on low speed
roadways (10-30 mph). Travel time runs must also be made for both peak and off-peak conditions. Travel
time studies can be made for all highways in the study area (note that a travel time run would be made for one
street comprising many links at once) if possible, however if not, a sample of roadways can be studied with
the objective of producing a speed table.
Speed tables give average travel speeds for different combinations of area type and facility type. For example
one might use the following 8 facility types, 2 lane arterials, collectors, locals, multi-lane arterials, collectors,
locals, freeways, ramps. Area type might include 5 categories such as, CBD, Urban, Outlying Business

District, Residential and Rural. Using this breakdown there would be 40 cells in the speed table for both peak
and off-peak speed tables (80 total). In addition it is desirable to make speed runs for several facilities with
different posted speed limits within each cell. The more roadways sampled for a given cell, the less runs need
to be made on each roadway to obtain the desired level of confidence. A regression equation relating
network speed to posted speed can then be formulated for each cell. Posted speed can then be coded on the
network (outside the range of link information used for traffic assignment) and converted to network speed
by the speed table. The network speed and not the posted speed are then written in the speed fields of the link
file and are subject to further modification for network calibration purposes. This methodology for handling
speeds has been in use since the inception of traffic assignment. The details and origins of the network
speeds have been forgotten by many because they have not been updated in a long time. It is the
recommendation of this manual that consideration be given to updating these speeds. Regardless of
methodology, if 24 hour assignments are to be made using all or nothing or capacity restraint assignment,
then the peak and off-peak speeds must be factored together to obtain a 24 hour speed in the ration 1/3 peak
speed plus 2/3 off-peak speed. If equilibrium assignments are to be used then the free flow speed can be
represented using data from off-peak speed runs. In this case, peak period travel time data is not needed for
traffic assignment purposes.
It may also be possible to use posted speed limit to represent free flow speed for equilibrium assignments.
This may only be done if the resulting assignment can be shown to adequately reproduce ground counts in the
base year per the assignment checks discussed later.
When adding links to an existing network, speeds can be coded from the speed table if one has been created.
If not, speed should be taken from links with similar area type, facility type in the network. This second
procedure is the one currently used by ODOT and is obviously the same as the speed table look up procedure
in a less formal form.
The speeds coded in the link file are used for both base year and future year assignments. Speeds produced
utilizing capacity restraint functions are not saved for future use, their sole purpose is to produce capacity
restrained traffic volumes during a given assignment.
Distance Coding
Link distances represent the actual node to node distance of the link. These distances can often be obtained
from road-inventory data bases or from field measurement (distance will be measured in a travel time run).
Distance can also be scaled from a map or obtained from digital mapping files. In this case the distance
should be measured along the actual roadway segment, not the node to node straight line distance. When
coding roadways that do not yet exist distance coding must be the analysts best guess, distance can be
calculated using the node coordinates of the link in this case.
Turn Penalties/Prohibitors
Turn penalties and prohibitors are used to add time to certain turning movements (usually left turns) or
prohibit them altogether. Turn penalties may be used if it is felt they yield a better assignment. During model
validation, tests with and without turn penalties should be made to ensure the penalties produce better
assignment results. Turn penalties are often used in the assignment process to prevent "stair stepping". Stair
stepping sometimes occurs in grided street systems when a minimum path follows a pattern of alternate left
and right turns instead of traveling straight down one road and turning once onto another. Printing the paths
from a network with and without turn penalties will show any stair stepping and is another useful check of the
need and accuracy of turn penalties. As discussed later, it is ODOT policy that minimum time paths be built
with the vine building algorithms not trees. It should be noted that if this policy is not followed, turn
penalties and prohibitors in a network will yield unpredictable results.
Capacities and Other Network Information

10

Hourly capacities are coded in the network for the purpose of capacity restraint of the assigned volumes.
These capacities are no longer hard coded to the links. Instead, capacity is calculated at run time by the
program CAP94 which uses the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual procedures. Use and documentation of this
program is contained in Capacity Calculator Program Documentation (18). This program requires various
information including area type, functional class, number of lanes and total street width to be coded on the
links. Additional optional link information including % trucks, terrain type, intersection turn bays, through
lanes, and signal coordination refines the capacity calculation.
ODOT policy is that capacity coding calculations will be made using three levels of detail. The same level of
detail must be applied to all links in a study area as described below. Level one detail involves having
updated functional class, area type, total street width and number of mid-link lanes on all links in the
network. All study areas should at least be at level of detail one. A time frame has been set for all areas to be
at or beyond level one by the end of c.y. 1996. ODOT has agreed to update all network functional classes as
well as the number of lanes and width on the state system. The MPO's have agreed to update all area types
and the number of lanes and width off of the state system. Level of detail two involves coding the
intersection turning and through lanes, median left turn lanes, % trucks and terrain type for all links on the
state system (i.e. interstate, U.S. and state routes.) Level of detail three extends this coding to all links in the
network.
Other link data including, district and administrative class are coded and will be maintained for the purpose of
generating reports and classifying assignment results for calibration purposes as will be discussed later.
External Stations
Traffic entering/exiting and passing through the study area must be accounted for in the travel demand
forecasting model. IE and EE trip tables will be created based upon road-side interview surveys as discussed
in Trip Table Synthesis Procedures. These trip tables are loaded to the network through centroids and
centroid connectors which tie into the highway network at the point of the road-side survey on the cordon
line. External stations will typically have only one centroid connector (except multi-lane divided freeways
which are represented by 2 one way links and thus have 2 centroid connectors at the cordon line) since they
represent a single access point. Centroids representing external stations are generally the last zones in the
zone numbering scheme and must follow the restrictions on zone numbering mentioned under the Traffic
Analysis Zones section. For example an area with 500 internal zones and 30 external stations would have
530 centroids with the internals numbered 1-500 and the externals numbered 501-530. It is wise to include
some dummy centroids between the last internal zone and first external zone to allow for latter expansion of
the internal zones. These dummy centroids are simply tied to the network at a convenient place and given 0
trips. The use of large external zones to generate and distribute external traffic is generally not used in Ohio.
Their use is not strictly prohibited, however. For those who would like to undertake this type of analysis
external zones provide a much better tool for modeling near cordon events such as new roadways which lead
out of the study area. The cost is bigger networks, data collection outside the MPO region and reduced
correspondence to ground counts at the cordon line.

11

III. Assignment Techniques

The following section describes the techniques to be used for traffic assignment in Ohio. These techniques
are limited to 3 methodologies namely, all or nothing assignments, capacity restraint assignments and
equilibrium assignments. There are other types of traffic assignment such as incremental and stochastic
assignment. As these are not used in Ohio they will not be discussed.
Hourly vs. 24 Hour Assignment
Standard traffic assignments are done on a 24 hour basis. This is because the model calibration is made
versus 24 hour ground counts which are easier to collect than hourly counts and because one 24 hour model
is easier to maintain than multiple hourly models. There are several problems with the 24 hour assignment.
First, applying capacity restraint which is a short time period phenomenon to a 24 hour representation is not
entirely correct. Second, current post processing analysis for congestion management and air quality require
hourly volumes which must be approximated from the 24 hour values. The use of hourly assignments are
recommended to alleviate these difficulties. Generally, 3 different representative hours are analyzed, an AM
peak hour, PM peak hour and off peak hour. Each hour requires its own network with speeds, capacities,
parking etc. tailored to the given period. In addition hourly ground counts are needed for calibration
purposes. Hourly trip tables are also needed. Creation of hourly trip tables requires origin-destination
information. Because of this, hourly models should not be attempted without an updated origin-destination
survey. A method has been developed (19) for creating hourly trip tables from 24 hour trip tables by trip
purpose and might be employed to create daily distributions by trip purpose from the 1995-1996 Road-Side
Interview Surveys. This method may be particularly useful in smaller urban areas where the cordon line
patterns are more likely to hold over the area as a whole. The applicability and validity of this method when
compared to hourly counts is yet to be proven, however. While hourly assignments are expected to give
better results in the post processing analysis it must be remembered that since three hourly periods are
analyzed (and possibly the 24 hour assignment as well) there will be 3 or 4 times the modeling effort to
produce this type of assignment. Also each hourly period model must be calibrated separately. As model
calibration is very time consuming this requirement may be prohibitive.
All or Nothing Assignment
The simplest type of traffic assignment is the all or nothing (AON) assignment. In this type all trip
interchanges between a given origin-destination pair are assigned to the minimum time path between the
zones. Because of this AON assignments contain no diversion or multi-path effects. These terms refer to the
fact that in reality not all trips between two places will use the same route. This is due to the psychology of
human choice. In reality people do not have perfect information and are biased by past experience and other
factors extraneous to rapid movement through the transportation network. In addition, route choice is based
on congestion levels which are not reflected in an AON assignment where a particularly speedy route may
receive traffic far in excess of its capacity which in reality would produce a traffic jam. To reflect this,
various procedures have been developed to produce a diversion effect primarily based on congestion levels.
These methods will be discussed later.
In Ohio it has been found that AON assignments give reasonable results (with some manual model
calibrations) for relatively uncongested networks. It is ODOT policy, however, that some form of capacity
restraint (including equilibrium) be used for all forecasts. This requirement taken in conjunction with the
requirement that the base year model chain be duplicated in forecasts implies that base year runs must also
use a capacity restraining method. AON assignments have been found to be most useful during the
calibration process. Because the AON assignment is more straight forward it is easier to trace model
problems in an AON assignment. Once manual calibration is complete, a capacity restrained assignment is
made and the results compared to the AON assignment to ensure that the results are still valid.
All of the assignment techniques described here actually use AON assignment. The capacity restraining
techniques iteratively calculate AON assignments and weight fractions of each assignment together to

12

produce a final assignment. As the paths may be different in each of these iterations, a multi-path effect is
created with as many possible paths between zones as the number of iterations run.
The basic methodology of the AON assignment has already been described as building paths followed by
loading the paths with the trip interchanges. The loading process is relatively straight forward. As was
described previously, each trip interchange in the trip table is loaded to its respective path backwards (from
the destination to the origin). All trip interchanges that use paths traversing a given link are accumulated on
that link to produce a loaded volume. Creation of the paths is that part of the assignment process which was
more difficult to develop and an example will be given below.
Recall that path building does not occur for each possible zonal interchange but rather paths are built from
one origin zone to all other nodes in the network at once. This process creates what it called a tree of paths.
The analogy used previously is a water shed. Each point in a water shed (node) is served by exactly one path
over the ground to a stream to a river and eventually the sea (minimum time path). These paths are all
interconnected and lead to the mouth of the river (origin zone). There are two primary methods for
constructing minimum time paths. The original method sometimes called the Moore method (7) or the tree
algorithm will be described first. The newer vine algorithm is a modification of this method and will be
described second. ODOT policy is to use the vine algorithm for traffic assignments in Ohio.
The tree building algorithm will be demonstrated with an example. For a more detailed explanation of the
algorithm see (4). Figure 1 shows a simple network with 6 nodes (A-F) and 7 links. Listed on each link is
the impedance of that link (say in minutes). The origin node is node A. The dashed lines show the minimum
path tree for this network. Path building begins at node A in Step 1. Minimum time paths are built to nodes
B and C from A. In Step 2 path building proceeds to the node closest to the origin which in this case is node
C. From C minimum paths are built to all nodes connected to it (D and E). Note that a path was not built
back to A. One of the constraints of the path building algorithm is that it not cross the same link twice. In
Step 3, paths are again built from the next closest node to the origin which is now B (4 minutes compared to 5
minutes for D and 8 minutes for E). The sole path built from B to D results in a total time to node D of 6
minutes. As this is longer than the existing path to D the new path is discarded. In Step 4, path building
proceeds from node D to nodes B and F. The path to B is 7 minutes long so it is discarded since the existing
path is 4 minutes. The closest node is now node E and a path is constructed to F. This path, however, is 14
minutes long while the existing path to F is 9 minutes so the new path is discarded. Finally, in Step 6, a path
is constructed from node F to E, however its total length is 15 minutes compared to the existing 8 minutes so
it is discarded.
Origin

Origin
4

Origin
4

Step 2

Step 3

Origin

Origin
4

Origin
4

Step 1

4
6

6
E

F
Step 4

F
Step 5

F
Step 6

Figure 1.

13

This simple example may not make the great advantage of calculating all paths from a given origin at once
immediately clear. Note, however, that with only 9 computations, this algorithm has created the minimum
time path to all 5 nodes in the network. Note also that in this example, the existing path was always selected
in preference to the new path. This is not necessarily the case. For example if the time from E to F were 0.5
minutes then path ACEF (8.5 minutes) would have been retained to node F in Step 5 and the path from D to F
dropped (ACDF = 9 minutes, ACD would still be the minimum path to D). Notice in the final tree there is
always exactly one link on a minimum time path entering every node in the network (except the origin). If
trip interchange A-F were being loaded to this network it would be loaded starting at F, first to link DF since
this is the only link entering F, then to link CD, the only link entering D, lastly to link AC, the only link
entering C.
The tree building method demonstrated builds paths to each node in the network. This method is fine unless
turn penalties or prohibitors are introduced into the network. Minimum time paths are not always found in a
network with turn penalties/prohibitors by the tree algorithm. To solve this problem the vine algorithm was
developed. The vine algorithm builds minimum time paths to each link at each node in the network. Thus in
Step 2 of the above example, when a minimum time path was built to node D from C, two additional paths
were actually created, that from link CD to link DB and that from link CD to link DF. Because more paths
are created the computation time and computer storage requirements are larger than those of the tree method.
The difference will be pointed out in an example. For a more rigorous formulation of the vine algorithm see
(13).
Figure 2. shows the same network used in the previous example. In this example a turn penalty may exist at
node D as shown. Three cases of turn penalties are listed below the diagram with the path selected by the
vine and tree algorithms shown beneath each. Note that with no turn penalty both methods give the same
path that was found in the previous example.
Path 1

Origin
4

2
Path 2

4
6

T=0 (No Turn Penalty)

Tree
Path 2
9 minutes
T=2 minutes
Tree
Path 2
11 minutes
T=Infinite (Prohibitor)
Tree
Path 3
14 minutes

Path 3

Vine
Path 2
9 minutes
Vine
Path 1
10 minutes
Vine
Path 1
10 minutes
Figure 2.

14

Destination
F

Without the turn penalty both algorithms choose the correct path as would be expected. With a turn penalty
of 2, the tree algorithm continues to use Path 2 even though the time penalty has made this path longer than
Path 1. When the right turn is prohibited altogether the tree algorithm selects Path 3 which is much longer
than Path 1. Why is this? Recall in the first example in Step 2 the tree algorithm built a 5 minute path to
node D from C. In Step 3 a 6 minute path to node D via node B was constructed but is discarded because it is
longer. When paths are built from node D in Step 4 it results in an 11 minute path to node F if there is a turn
penalty of 2 minutes and no path to node F if there is a prohibitor. For 2 minute turn penalty the 11 minute
path ends up being shortest because the path via link BD is no longer available having been discarded in Step
3. For the case of the turn prohibitor a viable path is not found until Step 5 when the 14 minute path via E is
constructed. Another thing to note, if link EF did not exist, the tree algorithm would not find any path from
A to F if the turn prohibitor were used. Thus trips from A to F would not be able to load to the network and
an error message would be received. Even in this extraordinary case the tree algorithm will not use Path 1.
Thus it is important to be careful with turn prohibitors when using a tree building algorithm.
The vine algorithm on the other hand builds minimum time paths to the links connected to a node. Thus in
Step 1 instead of building 2 paths to B and C, three paths are constructed, one from link AB to link BD (4
minutes), one from link AC to link CD (2 minutes) and one from link AC to CE (2 minutes). Note that the
time to CD and CE are the same because there are no turn penalties. If there is a 2 minute turn penalty at D
then in Step 2, the path from CD to DF will be 7 minutes instead of 5 because the turn penalty is accounted
for in order to turn onto link DF from CD. When the path from link BD to DF is constructed in Step 3 it is
not discarded as before because this 6 minute path is now being compared to the 7 minute path via node C
instead of the 5 minute path constructed with the tree algorithm.
A further point made by example 2 has to do with stair stepping. It was mentioned previously that turn
penalties are often used to alleviate stair stepping. This is a condition whereby minimum time paths make
alternating left and right turns through a grided network instead of remaining on one route as long as possible
before turning. It is known that actual drivers tend not to stair step through a network. Notice that Path 2
(selected with no turn penalty) is stair stepped, while Path 1 (selected when the turn penalty is added) is not.
This is a good illustration of how turn penalties can be applied to eliminate stair stepping. The rationale is
that drivers do not stair step because there is an impedance associated with making a turn, this impedance
may be due to the extra time to turn (especially in the case of left turns) or it may be partly psychological.
Whatever the case, the turn penalty is used to represent this impedance.
The AON assignment with the vine building algorithm is guaranteed to yield minimum time paths through a
network with or without turn penalties/prohibitors. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, the AON
assignment does not take into account the fact that not all trips between two place use the same route. Most
significantly, it does not account for the effects of congestion on the choice of route. Volume of traffic on a
roadway is directly related to the speed (travel time) that can be maintained on that road which in turn affects
the selection of minimum paths which affects the volume of traffic. This circular relationship must be solved
iteratively until speeds and volumes are brought into balance. Before this can be done a relationship is
needed between speed (or travel time) and volume on a roadway. The relationship that has traditionally been
used in Ohio and the rest of the country is known as the BPR (Bureau of Public Roads) equation.
The BPR Equation
The BPR equation is the relationship used in Ohio to relate network link volumes to the travel time on that
link. This relationship was developed by the Bureau of Public Roads, however its sources are obscure. Its
applicability to actual traffic flow conditions has been questioned. Despite this, it continues to be the most
used volume-travel time relationship in the country. The reason is that this equation does produce a traffic
diversion effect due to over-capacity conditions and can be made to give results which compare well with
ground counts. Despite its heuristic success, the primary reason for the BPR equations continued use is that
so many practitioner use it that it is the accepted standard. The BPR equation is:
T

To[1 + 0.15(V/C)4]

15

where
T
To
V
C

=
=
=
=

Balance Travel Time (travel time adjusted based on assigned volume)

Free Flow Time (0.87 * time at practical capacity for capacity restraint)
Assigned Volume
Practical Capacity of Link

The Free Flow Time To is listed as 0.87 times the time at practical capacity for capacity restraint
methodologies. This time is that coded on the link (or that resulting from the speed on the link) during the
first iteration and the time from the previous iteration thereafter. (Planpac (6) uses a different definition of
To. It is calculated from the BPR curve based on the ground count, capacity and coded speed unless there is
no ground count in which case it uses the coded speed for To. In Planpac To does not change with each
iteration.) Thus another way of stating this formula when using capacity restraint is:
Tn

0.87Tn-1[1 + 0.15(V/C)4]

For equilibrium assignments, this definition of free flow speed is not used. Free flow speed is held constant
throughout the various iterations and is generally set equal to the link speed which should be coded as free
flow speed instead of congested travel speed.
The BPR curve can be equivalently stated in terms of speed by inverting it to:
S
where
S

So/{[1 + 0.15(V/C)4]}

Balance Speed

This is the form most often seen graphically as seen below.

BPR C U R V E
1
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0

V /C

Figure 3.
The capacity in the BPR equation has been defined as the practical capacity of the link. Unfortunately, many
practitioners have forgotten what practical capacity means. Practical capacity is a term that was last used in
the 1950 Highway Capacity Manual. It is defined there as: "the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a
given point on a roadway or in a designated lane during one hour without the traffic density being so great as
to cause unreasonable delay, hazard, or restriction to the driver's freedom to maneuver under the prevailing

16

roadway and traffic condition." Practical capacity is later equated to design capacity in that manual. Design
capacity has typically meant LOS C in Ohio, thus LOS C capacity is used in the BPR equation and is thus
coded as such in transportation networks. This equation of LOS C capacity to practical capacity is reinforced
in the UTPS (20) UROAD documentation which performs an automatic conversion from LOS E to LOS C
capacity when using the BPR curve.
The implications of this definition of capacity are many. Notice that the BPR equation bears no relationship
to the possible (LOS E ) capacity. This is intentional. Recall that the BPR equation extends theoretically to
any V/C ratio even those that would be impossible in reality. This is necessary because the assignment
process may create volumes far in excess of capacity. Because of this there is no special significance to the
LOS E capacity. The relationship to LOS C capacity is important because it was assumed by the developer of
the curve that the speeds (or time) coded in a network from current travel time runs represented
approximately those at practical (LOS C) capacity and that any more congested situations would only occur
in the future (an assumption that may have been true when the equation was created in the 1950's). This
assumption is easily seen in the equation itself where at practical capacity (V/C=1) the equation yields:
Tn

0.87Tn-1[1 + 0.15(1)4]

Tn-1

Thus at practical capacity no adjustment is made to link times because the volume and time are already
considered to be in balance. This also points out that the link times are practical capacity times not free flow
times. The implications of changing the definition of capacity from practical (LOS C) to possible (LOS E) or
of changing the definition of link speeds from actual (practical capacity) speeds to free flow speeds as has
been suggested are thus complicated and inter-related. If free flow speeds are coded to a network as is
required for equilibrium assignment, then the factor 0.87 (sometimes called the level of service factor) should
be set to 1.0. Note that in this case at V/C=1 there is a travel time adjustment of:
Tn
=
Tn-1[1 + 0.15(1)4]
or in terms or speed
Sn
=
Sn-1/[1 + 0.15(1)4]

1.15Tn-1

0.87Sn-1

If the capacity definition is changed, then the .15 factor needs to be changed so that the speed at V/C= 1.0
represents the proper fraction of free flow speed. Notice that the assumption in the .15 factor is that at
practical capacity the travel time is 1.15 times that at free flow conditions and the speed is .87 times the free
flow speed. Current research (11) on the speed-density relationships indicate that speed is between 0.98 and
1.00 times free flow speed at LOS C and between 0.85 and 0.90 free flow speed at LOS E. This would seem
to indicate that the given coefficient of 0.15 is actually more suited to LOS E capacities instead of LOS C
capacities.
The problem with changing the capacity definition is that to do so without changing the BPR curve will make
the model relatively less sensitive to capacity and there will be less diversion effect due to the capacity
restraining process. The question that must be answered is: which capacities give better assignment results?
This is a question that can easily be answered with the capacity calculator program CAP94 which can
produce LOS C or LOS E capacities. At this time it is still ODOT policy to use LOS C capacities in the
model. If it can be shown that reasonable results (compared to ground counts) are obtained using LOS E
capacities, then this policy may be waived.
The last part of the BPR equation that deserves mention is the exponent. This exponent governs the shape of
the curve shown in Figure 3. Larger exponents result in flatter curves with a sharper drop in the
neighborhood of V/C=1.0. Smaller exponents result in smoother curves with more speed decline (compared
to the standard exponent of 4) when V/C < 1.0 and less speed decline when V/C > 1.0. A plot of BPR style
curves with various exponents is given below:

17

BPR E xponentV ariation

1
0.9
0.8
EXP=0.5
0.7
0.6

EXP=1.0

0.5

EXP=3.0

0.4

EXP=4.0

0.3
EXP=6.0
0.2
0.1
0

V /C

Figure 4.
The only justification for changing this exponent would have to come from empirical data available for a
given area, possibly for different classifications of roadway. It is entirely possible to use different BPR
curves for different types of roadways in the assignment process.
Capacity Restrained Assignment
Capacity Restraint is the traditional method whereby the relationship between travel speeds (or times) and
traffic density (assigned volume) is taken into account. The capacity restraint procedure is an iterative
process in which volumes are assigned, speeds adjusted, volumes reassigned, etc. until a sufficient number of
iterations have been performed whence the speed and volume are said to be balanced. In Ohio, 2 iterations of
speed adjustment using the BPR curve with 3 AON assignments are used in the capacity restraint process.
The general sequence of operations is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Perform AON assignment using actual travel time speeds coded on network (This is called iteration 0).
Adjust individual link speeds based on iteration 0 assignment and the BPR curve. (Note that To in the
BPR curve is 87% of actual travel time from the network thus So is 115% of the actual speed coded on
the network).
Calculate a weighted speed equal to 75% of the original speed plus 25% of the adjusted speed.
Perform AON assignment using this weighted speed (iteration 1).
Adjust individual link speeds based on iteration 1 assignment and the BPR curve. (Note that So in the
BPR curve is now 115% of the weighted speed calculated in step 3.
Calculate a weighted speed equal to 75% of the previous weighted speed plus 25% of the adjusted speed.
Perform AON assignment using this weighted speed (iteration 2).
Weight the three iterations together in the ratio 40% of iteration 0 plus 40% of iteration 1 plus 20% of
iteration 2 to produce a final weighted assignment.

18

The weighting that occurs in steps 3 and 6 is standard practice (the given weights are defaults supplied with
both Planpac and Tranplan) to reduce the oscillations that occur in the link speeds due to the capacity restraint
process. These weights are heuristic values that need to be employed because of the fact that this capacity
restraint procedure is not a mathematically convergent solution. Rather it has been found through trial and
error that the weights and factors used in the capacity restraint process tend to yield good correlation with
ground counts. The same is true of the weighting percentages used for the three AON assignments. This
method cannot be justified mathematically, however, it appears that the method in a very rough way
somehow simulates human behavioral patterns on a 24 hour basis. Perhaps for example people (who make
decisions based on limited information) select their travel paths from a set of only 3 alternatives and on
average 40% are likely to take the AON minimum path, 40% the path we calculate in iteration 1 and 20% the
last path.
It is important to point out that this method needs actual travel speeds coded on the links, not free flow
speeds. This is because the method is very dependent on the first AON assignment being close to the correct
solution. As will be seen later, the equilibrium solution which is mathematically convergent has no such
restriction. Another point that should be made is that the speed adjustment in step 5 bases its free flow speed
on the speed from the previous iteration. For links that were highly over assigned in iteration 0 this speed
will be unrealistically low and the link will not be able to recover much volume in subsequent iterations.
Take for instance the following example:
Iteration 0
Iteration 1
Iteration 2

Assignment Speed
V/C
50 mph (link coded spd) 3.0
38.75 mph
0.0
40.20 mph

BPR Speed
5 mph
44.56 mph

Weighted Speed
38.75 mph
40.20 mph

What this example shows is that it is easier for speed to decrease due to high V/C ratios than it is to increase
due to low ones. The BPR curve can reduce a speed to almost zero while the maximum speed increase is
only 15%. This example also points out how the 75/25 weighting step reduces speed oscillation, in iteration
1 the assignment speed is 38.75 mph while it would have been 5 mph without the weighting.
Equilibrium Assignment
The equilibrium assignment process arose as a result of the recognized short comings of the capacity restraint
process. Most notable, the capacity restraint process's failure to converge to the true solution. What is the
true solution? It has been stated (16) that the true solution to the assignment of traffic to a congested network
is that which gives: "the assignment of vehicles to links such that no traveler can reduce his or her travel time
from origin to destination by switching to another path." This is achieved through the use of the equilibrium
assignment. Equilibrium is a mathematically sound and convergent algorithm utilizing the Frank-Wolfe (22)
method to solve the following nonlinear programming problem:
Let

L = The set of all links

p = The set of all paths
o = The set of all origins
d = The set of all destinations
vL = The number of vehicles on each link L
F(vL) = a function relating travel time to volume (such as the BPR curve)
tpod = The number of vehicles from origin o to destination d on path p
Lpod = 1 if a link L belongs to path p from origin o to destination d, 0 otherwise
Tod = The trip table of all trip interchanges

then find

min L 0vL F(x)dx

subject to

vL = odp Lpod tpod

p tpod = Tod
tpod > 0

19

What this says in English is: minimize the area under the speed density curve for all links in the network
subject to three conditions. First the volume on each link is determined by the paths in the network and the
volumes of the trip interchanges in the trip tables (this is simply what occurs when performing an AON
assignment). Second, the number of vehicles between 2 zones on all paths must sum to the total vehicles
between those zones (this is automatically satisfied in an AON assignment because each trip interchange is
loaded to only one path). Third, no trip interchange on a given path may be negative (again automatically
satisfied in AON). For an explanation of why the objective function involves minimization of the area under
the speed-density (BPR) curve see (16) where a graphical example is presented which intuitively describes
this function.
Because the AON assignment process meets all of the above constraints, it seems logical that it should form
the basis of the equilibrium algorithm. The speed-density curve can be any suitable relationship, Tranplan
(21) and UTPS use the BPR curve in the equilibrium algorithm. The algorithm for solving an equilibrium
assignment then becomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Perform an AON assignment based on link speeds. (iteration 0)

Recompute travel time using BPR curve based on last assignment. (Note the BPR curve is constant with
each iteration, To is not adjusted based on the previous assignment)
Perform another AON assignment using the new travel times. (iteration 1a)
Combine iterations 0 and 1a linearly using a value (such that it1b = (1-)it1a + it0) selected so as to
minimize the objective function. (iteration 1b)
Check for convergence, if close enough stop, if not go to step 2.

In Tranplan it is possible to modify this algorithm by inserting a step 2a in which the travel time (speed)
resulting from the BPR formula is weighted based on the previous speed (such as is done in steps 3 and 6 of
the capacity restraint procedure.)
Equilibrium assignments have not previously been used in Ohio because it has been found that using existing
networks, this method does not reproduce ground counts as well as the capacity restraint process. This is not
surprising given that the existing networks contain impedances that have been calibrated to make the capacity
restraint process yield acceptable results.
Additionally, it should be remembered that the equilibrium assignment process as currently formulated in
software such as UTPS and Tranplan utilizes a free flow definition of speed in the BPR curve (i.e. link travel
times are not multiplied by 0.87) while our current networks have actual travel speeds coded. The reasons for
using free flow speed are twofold. First, it has been argued that free flow speed should be used because it
represents an upper bound to the range of possible speeds. When actual speeds are used, the BPR curve can
increase the speed due to a low V/C ration by as much as 15% at each iteration. Use of free flow speed
prevents this. This is not possible in the capacity restraint process which depends on actual speeds in the first
iteration to produce good results. Second, the equilibrium method holds To constant with each iteration and
the use of free flow speed allows the congested speed to vary from To to zero at each iteration. If actual
congested speed were used with the level of service factor of 0.87 then the maximum speed obtainable would
be 115% of the congested speed, it is thus more rigorous and straight forward to use the free flow speed
which then becomes the maximum possible speed. This definition of speed alleviates the problem with
capacity restraint, discussed previously, in which each iteration defines To based on the previous iteration and
thus speeds tend to decrease with each iteration.
Finally, it should be remembered that the congestion constraints which the equilibrium algorithm models
actually occur on a sub-hourly basis not 24 hours. Because of this, a rigorous mathematical formulation
should not be expected to yield good correspondence to 24 hour ground counts but should be expected to
yield good results on an hourly basis. Recall that the 40-40-20 capacity restraint process was heuristic in
nature, meaning the various weighting factors were chosen because they gave the best results for 24 hour
modeling, therefore it may have an advantage in this realm (although it is impossible to say whether or not
this is always true given that the capacity restraint algorithm cannot be proven mathematically).

20

Because this method has not been previously used in Ohio there are currently no guidelines governing its use.
Equilibrium assignments may be used, however, it is important that model checks be made which
demonstrate that this methodology produces assignment results which match ground counts within the
tolerances prescribed later in this document.
Feedback Loops
Feedback refers to taking the results of the traffic assignment, most specifically the congested travel times
and feeding them back into the trip table synthesis process. As discussed in (3), trip table synthesis depends
to some degree on the travel time between traffic analysis zones. These travel times are modified in the
traffic assignment process when using some type of capacity restraint so it would seem logical to use these
modified travel times for trip table creation and then iteratively recalculate the traffic assignment. Feedback
from traffic assignment to trip table synthesis models is currently not used in Ohio for several reasons. First,
the difference in final 24 hour assignment volumes is known to be minimal, therefore in the past the
additional effort was not deemed worthwhile. Second, trip table creation and traffic assignment have
traditionally been performed by separate groups at ODOT, thus ODOT was not organizationally prepared to
use feedback. Finally, feedback to trip table creation is invalid when using 40-40-20 capacity restraint
because this method is an heuristic approach in which only the final 24 hour volume outputs are known to be
accurate. The travel time data that results should not be used in trip table creation. Because of the current
desire to use these models to analyze air quality, congestion management, TCM's etc. the first of the above
reasons is no longer relevant, particularly in light of recent law suits which have forced areas to implement
feedback regardless of its technical efficacy. The second reason disappears in an MPO environment and can
be over come by ODOT as well. The final reason is not valid if a study area converts its capacity restraining
process to the equilibrium assignment method. This convergent algorithm should give reasonable travel time
data for use in trip table synthesis. Thus implementation of feedback loops is only recommended when and if
an area has successfully implemented an equilibrium assignment process.
Count Restraint
Count restraining is a process whereby impedances are adjusted on links to make the assigned volume match
ground counts automatically. This procedure is generally not used today primarily because of the
requirement that the base year and future year assignment processes be the same and there are no ground
counts for the future year network.

21

IV. Assignment Limitations, Checks and Refinements

This section first summarizes some of the limitations inherent in the traffic assignment process described
herein. It then discusses checks that should be made to determine how well the traffic assignment reproduces
ground counts. These checks are obviously only necessary when validating the base year model and are
skipped when creating forecasts. Finally, a set of refinements that can be used to improve the assignment
results are described.
Assignment Limitations
The traffic assignment process described here is an approximate solution based upon aggregations of various
travel behavior phenomenon. As such there are a number of errors built into the process. The first source of
error is due to aggregation of travel behavior into traffic analysis zones and the loading of the trips at
centroids. This process can create discontinuity in link volumes near the centroid connector and can result in
unrealistic assignments in the neighborhood of the centroid connectors since real traffic loads onto the
highway system from many access points not just 1 to 4. In addition, the use of traffic analysis zones means
that some vehicle trips will be intrazonal and therefore will not enter the transportation system. Another
source of error is the level of detail of the network. Not all roadways are included in the traffic assignment
network. It is possible that there will be over assignment if not enough links are included and under
assignment if there are too many. The relationship between the number of zones and the number of links is
important for diagnosing this problem. A balance must be struck such that the intrazonal trips, and the
volumes on the centroid connectors approximate the traffic on the unmodeled highway system.
The routing rules of AON and capacity restrained assignments are another source or error. These methods
assume that traffic takes the minimum time paths (with or without the effects of congestion) between origins
and destination. This is not a completely accurate reflection of human choice behavior. While travel time is
an important factor in route choice, it is not the only factor. Distance, tolls, vehicle operating costs, comfort,
stress etc. all play a role in route selection. In addition, because people make decisions based upon limited
information, they do not always make the optimum choice when selecting routes.
Another error occurs when capacity restraining procedures are applied to 24 hour assignments. Congestion
conditions which cause route diversion actually only occur over a short time period. Additionally, the traffic
assignment process itself is an aggregate representation of static link volumes. It does not take into account
the effects of individual vehicle interactions nor the dynamics behind vehicle movements and congestion
events. Dynamic traffic assignments have been designed to replicate these phenomena, however, they have
not been applied to regional models due to the large amount of computations required.
When forecasted traffic assignments are used an error can occur due to the basic assumption that conditions
in the current year will be present in the future. It is true that the future year network will represent proposed
changes to the system but it does not reflect more subtle changes. For instance, the definition of ultimate
capacity on a freeway has changed (11) from 2000 pcphpl to 2200 pcphpl between the last two printings of
the Highway Capacity Manual. This change reflects differences in driver behavior as drivers become more
accustomed to congestion. The change will have some effect on traffic assignment results though it would
not have been reflected in a past forecast assignment.
Finally, the errors occurring in a traffic assignment may be the result of errors in the input trip table. The trip
table synthesis process has many of its own errors built in. These are described more fully in the Trip Table
Synthesis Procedures document. Two of the most basic problems with trip table synthesis are that the wrong
number of trips are created in a zone or the trips are sent to the wrong zone. These conditions can be
recognized to a certain degree using the assignment checks discussed in this section. Other checks (4) should
be made, however, when problems with trip table synthesis are expected.
Assignment Checks

22

There are four basic checks that should be made on a base year assignment. These are the root mean square
error check, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) check, screen line check and plot check of individual link
volumes. In addition, a fifth check, the select link check, is made when necessary to diagnose assignment
problems.

Plot Check

This is the best check of a traffic assignment. A plot is made of the network with assignment volume and
ground count annotate on each link. Each link is inspected for assignment accuracy and routes are analyzed
for assignment consistency. This check involves individual judgment based on experience as to how good
the traffic assignment is. It is the only convenient way to find spot problems with the transportation network
such as problems with centroid connectors and incorrect impedances. GIS software is useful for making
these plots. With this software, paper plots are not even necessary as the results can be viewed on the screen.
Unfortunately, this check takes a considerable amount of time and provides no firm numbers as to the relative
accuracy of various assignments. To make quicker checks to determine if one assignment is better than
another, the following aggregate checks are made.

Root Mean Square Error Check

The root mean square error is a measure of the relative error of the assignment compared to ground counts.
Root mean square error is a statistical formula given as such:
RMSE =

SQRT(L(GC-VA)2/N-1)

where

GC = Ground Count on Link L

VA = Volume Assigned to Link L
L = Set of all links
N = Total links

The percent root mean square error (as compared to the ground count) is used as the measure of relative
accuracy in the assignment. %RMSE is applied to volume groups rather than all links as a whole. Volume
groups are used because the %RMSE can be higher for lower volume links. The reason is what has been
called the "add a lane, drop a lane" criteria of traffic assignment accuracy. The idea is that traffic assignments
should be accurate enough such that a highway design resulting from it will have the right number of lanes.
For high volume roads, smaller percentages will result in different numbers of lanes while at low volume
errors well over 100% will not change the number of lanes. Take for example a road with a ground count
AADT of 100 and an assigned volume of 500. Even though the assignment is 500% off, it still results in a 2
lane road. The volume group ranges to be used for validation of traffic assignment models in Ohio is as
follows:
Required
0-499, 500-1499, 1500-2499, 2500-3499, 3500-4499, 4500-5499, 5500-6999, 7000-8499, 8500-9999
10000-12499, 12500-14999, 15000-17499, 17500-19999
Optional
20000-24999,25000-34999,35000-54999,55000-74999,75000-120000
In some cases a study area will have very few if any counts in the higher volume groups. In these cases the
highest volume groups from the optional group may be dropped if they contain no data. In addition, if the
highest optional volume groups contain very few counts they may be grouped together into a larger volume
group. Thus examples of an areas top two groups could be 17500-19999 and 20000-34999 or 20000-24999
and 25000-74999 or 15000-17499 and 17500-19999 etc.
These volume groups are based upon the volume of the directional ground count. Note also that the statistics
are only accumulated for links with ground counts. Summaries of %RMSE for links without ground counts

23

should not be analyzed. The add a lane, drop a lane criteria results in a curve of maximum %RMSE (4)as
follows:

Allow able PercentR ootM ean Square Error

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

V olum e G roup

Figure 5.
This curve is shown in tabular format below:
Volume (100's)

25 28 40 47 57 70 80

Allowable %RMSE

10 12 14 17 21 26 34 46 58 70 80
0 0 0 0 0 2 3 8 6 0 2
56 54 49 46 43 40 38 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15

The %RMSE from each of the above volume groups should be plotted vs. this curve. If all volume groups
fall below the curve the assignment is said to have passed the %RMSE test or the add a lane, drop a lane
criteria. The %RMSE from two assignments can be compared and that with the lowest is said to be a better
representation of ground counts overall. Note that this test is performed on an aggregation of links not
individual links. Therefore, individual links do not necessarily meet the add a lane, drop a lane criteria. It is
almost impossible to get all links to pass this test. Assignment plots as discussed previously should be used
to find those locations where this does not hold. Assignment results in these areas are usually adjusted as
discussed later. This test is the single most important gauge in determining the validity of a base year
assignment.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Check

Instead of looking at the assigned volume directly, this check looks at the volume times the distance of the
link to produce vehicle miles. The check is made on aggregations of links cross tabularized in two ways.
The first way cross tabulates VMT's by functional class and administrative class. This check should result in
VMT's within about 10% of the ground count for each functional class and each administrative class (as a

24

whole not within each functional/administrative class combination). Certain classes may have only a few
links such as local roads and township roads. These classes may have slightly higher errors. This check is
important in determining the relative travel on freeways vs. arterials (and other streets). The VMT splits
between these is important because it is the basis of air quality analysis. It has been found in the past that
freeways tend to take too many of the network trips when using the traditional capacity restraint and all or
nothing methods.
The second method of cross tabulating VMT is by rings and sectors. Rings and sector are aggregates of
zones which have been coded in most networks and should be maintained. The ring and sector are indicated
by the district number of a link. The first number of the district is the sector number and the second is the
ring number. Districts are the intersections of rings and sectors thus district 34 is the intersection of sector 3
and ring 4. Rings are established circumferentially (concentric circles) from the CBD while sectors emanate
radially (like pieces of a pie). Ring and sector boundaries are such that they encompass traffic analysis zones,
therefore, a given district will be an aggregation of several zones. The use of ring/sector VMT's allows the
assignment to be studied by area either in radial (sectors) or circumferential (rings) corridors or in smaller
subareas (districts). This analysis can be used to diagnose two problems. First it points out problems with
trip generation, second it points out problems with zone/network compatibility. If a given district were under
assigned the first thing to check is the zone/network relationship in this district. It may be that there are too
many links compared to the number of zones. If this is not the problem then the area may not be generating
enough trips. If over assigned then either there are two few links compared to the number of zones or too
many trips are being generated in the area. Generally the individual rings and sectors should be within about
10% of the ground count VMT. This is often impossible to achieve, however, for the CBD ring and sector
which generally coincide and are thus the size of a district. This area has traditionally been under assigned.
This is partly due to the desire to include all roadways in this area (thus zone-network compatibility is not in
place) and because standard trip generation rates don't hold well here. There are other problems with CBD
areas as well, such as parking in one zone when the destination is in another and circling for parking which
inflates ground counts beyond those assigned due to trips.

Screen Line Check

The last check is the screen line check. A screen line is a line drawn to intersect several parallel roadways
which form a corridor. The screen line check is thus a check on corridor traffic flows. A cordon line is a
special case of the screen line which connects back upon itself thus isolating all traffic movement into and out
of an area. Each area has a number of screen lines and cordon lines which have been traditionally used.
These lines are not sacred, however, and may be changed to suit the analysis at hand. Traditionally there has
been a main screen line which bisects the area and was used to check the home interview survey and many
auxiliary screen lines used to isolate corridor movements. Cordon lines have been drawn about all major
cities and towns in an area as well as the main or external cordon line which surrounds the study area. Screen
lines should be drawn taking into account the following factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

They should intersect only parallel routes which form a corridor. There should be no diagonal streets.
This only applies to auxiliary screen lines. The main screen line and cordon lines intersect any link
regardless of direction.
They should not intersect centroid connectors. If they must, the centroid connector volume is not
included in the screen line analysis.
They should include from 3 to 7 roadways. Again this only applies to auxiliary screen lines, the main
screen line intersects as many roads as necessary to bisect the area and the cordons intersect as many as
are necessary to delineate a cordon.
They should be drawn to intersect the least number of roads as possible to delineate a cordon or corridor.
Thus they should be drawn along natural choke points such as streams and railroads if possible.
They should be drawn such that all links intersected have ground counts coded. This criteria may
sometimes cause existing screen lines to be adjusted slightly so that all links have counts.

A screen line check consists of summing the total volume on a screen line (or cordon line) and comparing to
that of the corresponding ground counts. The add a lane, drop a lane criteria is then used on the percent

25

difference that results. Higher volume corridors are allowed more error and lower volume less. The idea is
that the total number of lanes in the corridor should be correct. The following curve given in NCHRP 255
(23) is used to check screen line differences:

M axim um D esirable D eviation in Screenline V olum e

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

S creenline V olum e

Figure 6.
This curve is shown in tabular format below:
Volume (1000's)
Allowable %Error

3 10 14 18 24 29 34 44 53 65 74 85 96
10 15 20
8 4 9
64 56 52 48 44 41 38 34 32 30 28 26 25 24 21 19

Note that this curve is different from the one used to check %RMSE. This curve checks the percent deviation
of the total screen line volume while the other checked the %RMSE of the average volume in a volume
group.
Screen lines present a useful corridor movement check. If the corridor as a whole has adequate volume but
some links are over assigned and some are under an intra-corridor problem is indicated which is easily
corrected by increasing the speed (slightly) on under assigned links and/or decreasing it on over assigned
links. If the corridor as a whole does not match well with ground counts then the impedances of the whole
corridor may need adjustment or a problem with trip distribution may be indicated. Poor screen line volumes
may also indicate problems with zone-network compatibility and trip generation both of which should have
been diagnosed with the VMT check.
Cordon lines provide a check on trip movements into and out of a given subarea. If the cordon as a whole
correlates well with ground counts but individual links are off, link impedance adjustments may be indicated
for links serving similar corridors to the cordon. Poor agreement with ground counts on a cordon line may
indicate a trip distribution problem. If the cordon is under assigned, too many of the trips from zones within
the cordon may be attracted to other zones in the cordon when they should be leaving. The opposite is true of
over assignment. Once again, poor cordon line volumes may also indicate problems with zone-network
compatibility and trip generation within the cordon which should have been diagnosed with the VMT check.
Screen line analysis and the delineation of screen lines is covered in some detail in NCHRP 255.

26

Select Link Check

Select link analysis will yield either a network assignment or a trip table of all trips which use a given
(selected) link. This allows the trip patterns using a link of interest to be studied. This type of analysis is
useful when the cause of over/under assignment on a link cannot be determined otherwise. It is also useful
during the volume refining process that occurs when producing design traffic from assignment results. Select
link analysis is not a required validation check and their are no standards for comparison. It simply provides
more information for network refining. The use of select link analysis in the production of refined volume
estimates is discussed in more detail in NCHRP 255.
Assignment Refinements
Assignment refinements might refer to two different concepts, one is the adjustment of the assignment
process and its inputs to produce better assignment results. The other is a post-assignment refining process
meant to provide better project specific data such as design traffic estimates. Post-assignment refinements, as
the name implies, are not part of the assignment process and thus will not be dealt with here. NCHRP 255
provides complete descriptions of the post-assignment refinement process and should be referred to if
necessary. One point that should be made here about post-assignment refining is this, refining of assignment
results is necessary for any project level analysis. Traffic assignment results should only be used directly for
aggregate system wide analysis such as generation of system wide VMT, congestion and air pollution burden.
At the project level, the relationship between final base year assigned volume and ground counts should
always be consulted when using traffic assignment forecasts. This point is often forgotten by practitioners.
The remainder of this section will focus on adjustments to the assignment process and it inputs to produce
better traffic assignments.
Adjustment of the assignment process itself is somewhat limited. When using AON assignment there are
basically only 2 things that can be changed (actually there are other things that can be changed besides those
listed here, however, they are not recommended). First, turn penalties can be used or discarded from the
network. Assignment runs with and without along with assignment path plots to indicate stair stepping
should be made to determine whether or not turn penalties should be used. Second, instead of doing 24 hour
assignment, hourly assignments as discussed previously might be used, however these assignments are not
expected to be any better than a 24 hour assignment for AON. When using capacity restraint assignments, in
addition to the modifications listed with AON assignments, the BPR curve can be modified (by changing the
exponent if local data has been collected which supports this change). This change will only effect highly
congested networks and then only marginally. In addition, use of hourly assignments is not expected to yield
better results with the 40-40-20 capacity restraint method since this method was designed to yield good 24
hour volumes. If using equilibrium assignment, use of hourly assignments is recommended. In addition,
because no firm guidelines exist for equilibrium assignments, it is possible to adjust the number of iterations
of equilibrium as well as whether or not speed damping will be used (see step 2a discussion under
equilibrium assignments section). The changes mentioned here may result in an optimal assignment process,
however, they will not generally correct specific flaws in the traffic assignment. To correct more specific
problems, it is necessary to adjust the traffic assignment inputs.
As mentioned before, there are two basic inputs to traffic assignment, the trip table and the transportation
network. Occasionally the checks described previously will point to problems with the trip due to incorrect
trip generation or trip distribution in the trip table synthesis (there might also be mode split problems,
however, in Ohio, non-highway passenger vehicle splits tend to be so small as to have no noticeable effect on
traffic assignments.) Trip table refinement is discussed in the manual; Trip Table Synthesis Procedures. As
mentioned previously, the VMT check may point out problems with trip generation which may make it
necessary to factor up or down the trips generated in certain zones. The screen line check might also point
out trip generation problems, but might also point out problems with trip distribution. When the distribution
of trips between areas is the problem it is sometimes necessary to penalize or expedite travel across the screen
line by changing the link impedances of all screen line links by a certain amount for trip distribution purposes
only. The impedances are then set back to the original values for traffic assignment. An example of this is
bridge penalties. Bridge penalties are often used on a screen line which runs down a major river (particularly

27

the Ohio River). This penalty reduces the interaction of zones across the river simulating a non-travel time
impedance to crossing the river (as well as the state line in this case). Implementation of screen line penalties
(or bonuses) simply involves creating a network with the modified impedances which is then used for
impedance skimming prior to trip distribution. The original network is then used for trip assignment.
Generally, most refinement associated with traffic assignment will involve modifications to the transportation
network. As discussed previously, there are two primary pieces of network information needed by traffic
assignment and these have the most effect on its results: network impedance and network connectivity.
Network connectivity is modified by adding and subtracting links including centroid connectors. Links
representing roadways are added or subtracted when the zone-network relationship is out of balance in an
area with poor assignment results as indicated by VMT and screen line checks. (Note it is also possible to
add and subtract zones to achieve the same effect, this is another trip table modification.) As previously
discussed, the maximum number of centroid connectors should be used where possible. Even then, there may
be problems in the neighborhood of a centroid connector that justifies a change. The only way to diagnose
centroid connector problems is with the network plot check.
Network impedance is modified by changing speed. Speed changes have a profound effect on traffic
assignment. Speed changes should generally be kept small (10% or less). If more change than this appears to
be needed, then some justification for this large change should be sought, such as a change in link
characteristics since the speed was originally coded. Speed changes are the most effective tool for correcting
routing problems in the traffic assignment. Generally, speed changes should only be made after all other
problems have been identified and addressed. Speed changes should be made utilizing network plots as the
effects will be localized not aggregate.
Other network data that can affect assignment are the capacity, the distance and for 24 hour assignments the
hourly to daily (K) factor. Generally, the distance should only be changed if it was coded incorrectly. A
useful distance check is to compare the straight line distance between the nodes of a link (calculated from
coordinates) to the coded distance and flag all links over a certain difference. In general, the two are not
expected to be equal since link distance should be the actual drive distance, however, a large discrepancy may
indicate an error. The hourly to daily factor is generally held constant in a network model and in most cases
set to 10%. Adjustment of this factor, link by link may yield better 24 hour assignments, however, it is not
recommended primarily because link specific values of K may not hold up over the span of a forecast. The
best solution to this problem is the use of hourly assignments in place of 24 hour. Finally, the capacity will
effect capacity restrained assignments. It has been found in Ohio (18) that capacities do not have a major
effect on over all assignment statistics. They may, however, have some localized effect in congested areas.
If capacities are deemed to be a problem, they should be modified by first looking at the data that created
them. With the capacity calculator, capacity is based primarily on number of lanes, road width, functional
class and area type. Changes to this data should be made where appropriate to correct capacity problems. If
they are coded, the % trucks, terrain type, intersection turn bays, signal interconnect, and parking codes
should be checked next. Failing all this, an adjustment factor can be applied to the link to reflect unusual
circumstances, this should be a last resort as many unusual circumstances can be reflected by adjusting one of
the other parameters. For example, a particularly dense number of access points on a residential link might
justify its area type to be changed to urban.
Transit networks have not been discussed in detail because they are primarily used as input to the mode split
process which is part of trip table synthesis. There is less opportunity for adjustments in a transit network,
however, because the transit lines and headways are set by actual operating characteristics. One of the main
things to check with a transit network when using a UNET style network is that the speeds and distances are
consistent with the highway network. When using INET style networks this is automatically done.
Practitioners may find other areas, besides those mentioned here, where adjustment can be made, particularly
with transit networks. Generally, these guidelines have been structured to discuss those adjustments that are
used in Ohio and when. Other adjustments should only be used with careful planning and consultation with
ODOT staff.

28

V. Tranplan Modeling
This section discusses the specifics of using Tranplan to perform traffic assignments and related tasks.
Tranplan setups for each type of assignment will be shown and discussed. Most Tranplan programs are
executed from a batch file. This file contains all of the filenames, parameters and options needed to execute a
specific Tranplan program. A more thorough explanation of the Tranplan batch file can be found in the
Tranplan Manual (21). On ODOT's Unix system Tranplan is executed using the TRAN shell script. This
script initiates a C shell (we use Korne shell normally) which Tranplan requires and copies files to and from
the default Tranplan batch file names. Sample batch files are shown in the sections to follow. These files are
given a valid Unix file name. On ODOT's system our file naming convention is to start the file name with the
3 letter MPO abbreviation followed by the last two digits of the year if applicable followed by any other
descriptive characters and ending with a .IN extension. Thus the filename for Lima's 1990 validation
Tranplan batch file might be : LIM90VAL.IN. This file would be run with the TRAN script as follows:
TRAN LIM90VAL. Note that TRAN assumes .IN extensions.
Network Building
Before an assignment can be made, the ASCII format link/node representation of the transportation network
must be converted to a binary format. This is done with Tranplan program BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK.
Below is the setup for the Lima area year 2020 Long Range Plan Network:
$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@BUILD NETWORK@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
$SYS date
$BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK
$FILE
OUTPUT FILE = HWYNET, USER ID = $LIM20.BLD$
$HEADERS
BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- LIMA 2020 NETWORK
BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- 2020 TRIP TABLE ASSIGNMENT
BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- GREG GIAIMO AUG 1995
$OPTIONS
LARGE COORDINATES
$PARAMETERS
NUMBER OF ZONES = 186
~ THERE ARE ACTUALLY 993 NODES WITH HIGHEST BEING 3043
MAXIMUM NODE = 9000
ERROR LIMIT = 100
~ THIS GIVES SPEED IN HUNDREDTHS, WE USE 1 DECIMAL IN PLANPAC
SPEED SCALE FACTOR = 0.01
$DATA
$INCLUDE lim20.grd
$INCLUDE lim20eas.lnk
$END TP FUNCTION
The first two lines are not strictly part of the BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK setup. The $SYS Tranplan
command allows the use of operating system commands from within the batch file. In this case a message is
sent to the screen telling the user which program is executing and the time when execution begins is shown.
This is standard in ODOT Tranplan setups so that the operator has a better idea of what is going on while the
program runs, it is not required, however.
Under the OPTIONS section, LARGE COORDINATES are specified. This makes Tranplan use is 9
character XY coordinate format. This is required in Ohio because we use State Plan Coordinates divided by
10 which are longer than the standard 5 character XY coordinates used in Tranplan.

29

Under the PARAMETERS section the MAXIMUM NODE is set to 9000. This is an ODOT standard for all
networks. The MAXIMUM NODE parameter does not have to be set to the actual maximum node, it is
simply a parameter which tells the program how much space to allocate in memory. In the past ODOT has
always used 9000 because for later network operations it was sometimes necessary to tell the system what
value had been used upon creating the network and there was no way to query for this information. To solve
this problem the same value was always used. This problem will not exist on Tranplan, however 9000 will be
used for consistency unless it causes memory problems. The SPEED SCALE FACTOR tells how many
decimal places are assumed in the speed field of the link file. The default is 2 (speed in hundredths) and this
will be used for all Tranplan models. .
In the DATA section the node and link files are included. This format is used instead of having a network
INPUT FILE in the FILE section because nodes and links are to be stored in separate files in Ohio, not one
network file. This method is used because the same node file is often used with many different link files.
All or Nothing Assignment
Recall that AON assignments should generally only be used for network checking and validation. All
production runs should use some form of capacity restraint. AON assignments are made using Tranplan
program LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK. Listed below is a setup that was used for the Lima 1990 model
validation run:
$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@LOAD NET @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
$SYS date
$LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK
$FILES
INPUT FILE=HWYNET, USER ID = $LIM90.BLD$
INPUT FILE=HWYTRIP, USER ID = $LIM90TBV.TAB$
INPUT FILE=TRNDATA, USER ID = $lim90.trn$
OUTPUT FILE=LODHIST, USER ID = $LIM90.LHR$
$HEADERS
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- LIMA 1990 NETWORK
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- TRANPLAN VALIDATION
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- GREG GIAIMO SEPT 1994
$OPTIONS
TURN FILE
$PARAMETERS
IMPEDANCE = TIME 1
$END TP FUNCTION
Notice under PARAMETERS that TIME 1 has been set as the impedance. As discussed previously, travel
time is used as the sole impedance for all traffic assignments in Ohio.

Capacity Restraint Assignment

30

Currently this type of assignment is the standard for all production runs in Ohio. Capacity restraint is run
using the same program that was used to make an AON assignment, LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK, the
difference comes in the OPTIONS and PARAMETERS that are selected. Capacity restraint assignments are
made using the following set up taken from the Lima 2020 Long Range Plan assignment.
$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@LOAD NET @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
$SYS date
$LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK
$FILES
INPUT FILE=HWYNET, USER ID = $LIM20.BLD$
INPUT FILE=HWYTRIP, USER ID = $lim20tbv.tab$
INPUT FILE=TRNDATA, USER ID = $lim20eas.trn$
OUTPUT FILE=LODHIST, USER ID = $LIM20.LHR$
$HEADERS
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- LIMA 2020 NETWORK
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- 2020 TRIP TABLE ASSIGNMENT
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- GREG GIAIMO AUG 1995
$OPTIONS
TURN FILE
$PARAMETERS
IMPEDANCE = TIME 1
BPR ITERATIONS = 3
~ THIS DAMPING FACTOR IS THE DEFAULT
DAMPING FACTOR = 0.25
~ THIS IS THE DEFAULT BPR LOS FACTOR
LEVEL OF SERVICE FACTOR = 0.87
$END TP FUNCTION
Notice that this set up is for capacity restraint, not for incremental assignments, therefore, there is no
ADJUST 100 OPTION nor is LOAD PERCENTAGES specified in the PARAMETERS. Instead BPR
ITERATIONS is set to 3. This produces the 3 iterations of capacity restraint needed for the capacity restraint
process used in Ohio. It does not produce the 40%, 40%, 20% weighting required in this process. There is
currently no way to produce this weighting using Tranplan program LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK. This is
not a problem, however, because the Tranplan programs REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD and PLOT
HIGHWAY LOAD both contain the ability to weight the 3 iterations of capacity restraint using BPR
PERCENTAGES in the PARAMETER section. In addition, Urban/Sys has modified the NETCARD
program for Ohio so that when a loaded highway network is unbuilt back to a link file the assigned volume
placed in this file can be weighted at that time.
The other PARAMETERS shown here are defaults and are concerned with the behavior of the BPR curve
adjustment to link speeds. The first is the default damping factor which is used to reduce oscillation in link
speeds due to the capacity restraint process and the second is what Tranplan calls the Level of Service Factor.
It is merely the first coefficient in the BPR curve and implies that actual link travel time speeds (not free flow
speed) are coded on the network.

Equilibrium Assignment

31

Equilibrium assignments are currently not used for production runs in Ohio. It should be recalled from the
previous discussion that this method should not be used unless the network has free flow speed coded.
Equilibrium assignments are run using Tranplan program EQUILIBRIUM HIGHWAY LOAD. The
following set up is an example and should not necessarily be considered standard since the method has not
yet been used in Ohio.
$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@LOAD NET @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
$SYS date
$EQUILIBRIUM HIGHWAY LOAD
$FILES
INPUT FILE=HWYNET, USER ID = $LIM94.BLD$
INPUT FILE=HWYTRIP, USER ID = $LIM20TBV.TAB$
INPUT FILE=TRNDATA, USER ID = $lim94.trn$
OUTPUT FILE=LODHIST, USER ID = $LIM94.LHR$
$HEADERS
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- LIMA 1994 NETWORK
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- 2020 TRIP TABLE CREATION
LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK -- GREG GIAIMO AUG 1995
$OPTIONS
TURN FILE
$PARAMETERS
IMPEDANCE = TIME 1
~ THIS IS THE DEFAULT CLOSURE CRITERION
EPS = 0.1
EQUILIBRIUM ITERATIONS = 10
~ THIS DAMPING FACTOR IS NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED
DAMPING FACTOR = 0.25
$END TP FUNCTION
Assignment Checking
There are a variety of reporting functions in Tranplan that can be used to produce the assignment checks
discussed in the previous Chapter. First, the traffic assignment volumes on each link can be output in report
form using Tranplan program REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD. Two samples of this program, one for
outputting an AON assignment and one for a capacity restraint assignment follow. Note the BPR
PERCENTAGES OPTION in the second example which allows the 40%, 40%, 20% weighting necessary for
Ohio traffic assignments.
$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD@@@@@@@@@@
$SYS date
$REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD
$FILE
INPUT FILE = LODHIST, USER ID = $LIM90.LHR$
$HEADERS
REPORT HWY LOAD, AON LOAD --- LIMA 1990 NETWORK
REPORT HWY LOAD, AON LOAD --- TRANPLAN VALIDATION
REPORT HWY LOAD, AON LOAD --- GREG GIAIMO SEPT 1994
$END TP FUNCTION

$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD@@@@@@@@@@@@@

$SYS date
$REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD

32

$FILE
INPUT FILE = LODHIST, USER ID = $LIM20.LHR$
$HEADERS
REPORT HWY LOAD, 442 LOAD --- LIMA 2020 NETWORK
REPORT HWY LOAD, 442 LOAD --- 2020 TRIP TABLE ASSIGNMENT
REPORT HWY LOAD, 442 LOAD --- GREG GIAIMO
$PARAMETERS
BPR PERCENTAGES = 40,40,20
$END TP FUNCTION
Use of Tranplan program REPORT HIGHWAY INCREMENTAL SUMMARY allows generation of the
%RMSE statistic by volume group necessary for model validation purposes. The setup used in the Lima
1990 model validation is shown below. Note that the ADDITIONAL VOLUME GROUPS PARAMETER is
used to specify the volume groups that are desired. The default volume groups supplied in the program
generally are not used.
$SYS echo @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@REPORT RMSE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
$SYS date
$REPORT HIGHWAY INCREMENTAL SUMMARY
$FILES
INPUT FILE = LODHIST, USER ID = $LIM90.LHR$
$HEADERS
REPORT HIGHWAY INC - GROUND COUNT COMPARISONS -- LIMA 1990 NETWORK
REPORT HIGHWAY INC - GROUND COUNT COMPARISONS -- TRANPLAN VALIDATION
REPORT HIGHWAY INC - GROUND COUNT COMPARISONS -- GREG GIAIMO SEPT 1994
$OPTIONS
PRINT GROUND COUNT COMPARISON
$PARAMETERS
ADDITIONAL VOLUME GROUPS = 0-499,500-1499,1500-2499,2500-3499,3500-4499
4500-5499,5500-6999,7000-8499,8500-9999
10000-12499,12500-14999,15000-17499
17500-19999
~ SEE NOTE IN REPORT HIGHWAY NET SUMMARY ABOVE
~PEAK CONVERSION = 0.1
$END TP FUNCTION
Tranplan program REPORT HIGHWAY NETWORK SUMMARY will give VMT statistics that may be
useful for the VMT checking discussed in the previous Chapter. This program will not give all of the VMT
statistics that were generated in Planpac using program VEHM, however. Another problem with this
program is that it keys on Link Group codes for it data summaries. Because the ODOT format compresses
much data into these fields, the resulting reports would be meaningless unless the link file is first reformatted
before using it. To compensate, a VEHM program has been written to give the same outputs as were
generated on the mainframe. This program is available from ODOT on request.
Screen line checks and plot checks are not accomplished with Tranplan programs directly. Instead network
plots are made. Two different methods can be used. The first is to use the NIS program supplied with
Tranplan. This program reads the loaded network file directly and can be used to display the network on
screen. Individual link volumes can then be checked and screen lines can be drawn and summed using point
and click operations. The second method is to produce a paper plot. Tranplan plot functions can be used for
this. At ODOT, Tranplan plot functions are not used, instead the standard plotting software PLOTNET is
used to create MicroStation design files of the graphics from which paper plots can be made if desired using
any of the many CAAD plotters. To use PLOTNET, the loaded highway network must be unbuilt to a link
file. This is accomplished using Tranplan utility NETCARD. This is a command line program which
prompts the user for inputs. Because creation of the PLOTNET ready file is a several step operation and to
eliminate having to key in NETCARDs many (sometime ambiguous) inputs, program unbuild is used at

33

ODOT. This program is an in house written Unix shell script which performs all necessary functions for
producing a PLOTNET ready file. The syntax is as follows:
unbuild <loaded network> <original link file> <new link file> <grid file> <AON|CAP> <TG|TP> <K>
AON or CAP designates whether the loaded network was created using an AON or a capacity restraint
assignment. TG or TP designates whether total ground count will be placed in the AB capacity2 field and
total assigned volume in the BA capacity2 field (TG) or whether directional assigned volumes will be placed
in the capacity2 fields (TP). K is the hourly to daily capacity conversion factor. A value of 100 can always
be used because this value is taken back out by PLOTNET. Two examples follow, one for an AON
validation check assignment and one for a capacity restrained long range plan assignment:
unbuild LIM90.LHR lim90.lnk lim90unb.lnk lim90.grd AON TG 100
unbuild LIM20.LHR lim20eas.lnk lim20unb.lnk lim20.grd CAP TP 100
Once the network is unbuilt to PLOTNET format (which is Planpac format) the link and node files must be
transferred to the PLOTNET server and PLOTNET is then run normally.

34

Appendix A
Network Formats

35

Link Coding Guide (Tranplan)

Required Codes
1-5

A Node

6-10

B Node

11

Functional Class

12-15

Link Distance (in hundredths of miles)

16

T/S Field (Code T for time and S for Speed)

17-20

A-B Speed (in hundredths of miles per hour)

27-28

Street Width

33-38

A-B Daily Capacity

45

T/S Field (as above, however leave blank or code 1 for one-way street)

46-49

B-A Speed

56

Type Area

57

Administrative Class

62-67

B-A Daily Capacity

79-80

District

Optional Codes
25,54

Intersection Type, 0=Pretimed Signal, 5=Actuated Signal, 1=Interconnected

Signal, 4=4 Way Stop, 2=2 Way Stop, 3=No Control (Note only 0 and 1 are
accepted at this time any other code will default to 0.) (A-B,B-A)

26,55

Number of Mid Link Lanes (A-B,B-A)

29,58

Parking Code, 0 indicates parking is allowed during the peak period (A-B,B-A)

30,59

Terrain Over ride, 1=Level, 2=Rolling, 3=Mountainous (A-B,B-A)

31,60

Intersection Through Lanes (A-B,B-A)

32,61

Turn Lanes, 0 neither, 1 left, 2 right, 3 both left and right turn lanes (A-B,B-A)

74

Presence of a Mid Link Median Turn Lane, 1=1 lane, 0=no lane

75-76

Percent Trucks Over-ride

77-78

Capacity Adjustment Factor, this value is multiplied by paramter INC to

produce factor

36

Link Coding Guide (Planpac)

Required Codes
3-6

A Node

A Node Leg Number

9-12

B Node

13

B Node Leg Number

14-17

Link Distance (in hundtredths of miles)

18

T/S Field (Code T for time and S for Speed)

19-21

A-B Speed (in tenths of miles per hour)

22-24

B Node Turn Penalty Codes

25-28

A-B Hourly Capacity

29-31

Daily to Hourly Capacity Conversion Factor

37-38

Street Width

41

T/S Field (as above, however leave blank for one-way street)

42-44

B-A Speed

45-47

A Node Turn Penalty Codes

48-51

B-A Hourly Capacity

52-54

Daily to Hourly Capacity Conversion Factor

64

Administrative Class

65

Functional Class

68

Type Area

73-74

District

Optional Codes
39,62

Parking Code, Planpac Default, a 0 indicates parking is allowed during the peak
period

40,63

Number of Mid Link Lanes

60

A-B Terrain Over ride, 1=Level, 2=Rolling, 3=Mountainous

61

B-A Terrain Over ride, 1=Level, 2=Rolling, 3=Mountainous

37

66

A-B Intersection Type, P=Pretimed Signal, A=Actuated Signal,

I=Interconnected Signal, 4=4 Way Stop, 2=2 Way Stop, 0=No Control (Note
only P and I are accepted at this time any other code will default to P.)

67

B-A Intersection Type, P=Pretimed Signal, A=Actuated Signal,

I=Interconnected Signal, 4=4 Way Stop, 2=2 Way Stop, 0=No Control (Note
only P and I are accepted at this time any other code will default to P.)

69

A-B Turn Lanes, L=left turn lane, R=Right turn lane, B=both left and right turn
lanes

70

B-A Turn Lanes

71

A-B Intersection Through Lanes

72

B-A Intersection Through Lanes

75

Presence of a Mid Link Median Turn Lane, 1=1 lane, 0=no lane

76-77

Percent Trucks Over-ride

78-79

Capacity Adjustment Factor, this value is multiplied by paramter INC to

produce factor

38

Appendix B
Guidelines Summary

39

I. Introduction
Assignment Types

In Ohio there are four basic types of traffic assignment used. These assignments are all
based upon a 24 hour modeling period and are:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Base year calibration assignment

Existing year assignment (when different from the base year)
Future year no-build assignment
Future year build assignment

The base year calibration (or validation) assignment is intended to be made every 10
years to correspond to the availability of census data.

The base year calibration assignment involves collection and coding of ground counts
into the network to check the accuracy of the modeling process.

The model checks discussed in Chapter IV. of this document are used to validate and
adjust the base year network model until it adequately represents ground counts.

The final base year validation modeling chain must be reproduced exactly for forecast
year assignments.

Count restraining may not be used for any model runs.

Some form of capacity restraining (either capacity restraint or equilibrium) is required

in the assignment process. (Note AON assignments may be used for checking the
assignment but not for the final product).

It is sometimes necessary to have an existing year assignment in the intermediate years

between base year calibrations. This assignment can be used to check the forecast
assumptions and to serve as the basis of further analysis.

The future year no-build and build assignments utilize forecasted trip tables to evaluate
the system effects of transportation improvements. The build and no-build scenarios
are each assigned a forecasted trip table and the differences in various measures of
congestion are analyzed.

For Long Range Planning purposes, the no-build network is the existing + committed
network (E+C).

ODOT recommends that the E+C networks be equated to the TIP network

The Long Range Plan build scenario involves the E+C plus all projects that will appear
in the Long Range Plan.
40

Several possible alternative LRP's should be analyzed and the best selected for
implementation.

Build/no-build analysis is also used for various other purposes including air quality
analysis, congestion management analysis and MIS analysis.

Other analysis using only build scenarios such as air quality budget analysis and design
year traffic analysis are also standard.

II. Transportation Network Considerations

Traffic Analysis Zones

The following criteria should be considered when creating or modifying traffic analysis
zones:

1. Zones should be of regular geometric shape (i.e. it should be generally round or square
not gerrymandered)
2. Zones should follow geographic boundaries where possible including roadways,
streams, railroads and political boundaries.
3. Zones should follow census boundaries to allow socio-economic data collection
utilizing the census.
4. Zones should have relatively equal generating power (i.e. the total number of trips
generated by each zone should be similar).
5. The total trips generated by a zone should be less than 10-15 thousand to avoid large
discontinuities in traffic assignments near the zone.
6. The density of development in a zone should be relatively even across the zone.
7. The land use in a zone should be somewhat homogenous.
8. Most importantly, and this point is sometimes forgotten, zones should be created so that
they give good traffic assignment results!

It is impossible to meet all of these criteria all the time. Judgment and criteria number 8
are the final deciding factors in creating traffic analysis zones.

Zone-Network Relationship

In general it is recommended that there be one traffic analysis zone for each area
delimited by the transportation network links. This requirement implies that it is
undesirable to have network links which bisect traffic analysis zones. Using this
criteria strictly in a grided street system with 4 centroid connectors per zone would
result in 8 links per traffic analysis zones.

The zone-network relationship should only be changed in existing models if a problem

with the final output is discovered.

41

Transportation Network Layout

Roadways with a functional class one lower than that which will be studied should be
coded as links.

Network connectivity must be taken into consideration by coding lower classification

streets where they provide important network connections.

In Ohio we have traditionally coded collectors and better, however in recent years the
number of local streets in the regional models has increased.

Generally centroid connections are made to the lowest class of roadway.

The network layout should only be changed in existing models if a problem with the
final output is discovered.

Centroid Coding

The centroid node is located at the center of activity of the zone it represents.

Determination of the center of activity is a judgment call based on maps and aerial
photographs of the area as well as personnel knowledge when appropriate.

Centroid nodes must be the first nodes in a network

As many centroid connectors as possible should be used to reduce discontinuities on the

network in the vicinity of the centroid connector

Only one centroid connector should connect a centroid to the transportation system
between any two intersections.

Centroid connectors should not connect directly to intersections but rather should
connect at the mid block area, thus splitting an intersection to intersection link in two.

Centroid connectors are assumed to have unlimited capacity and thus do not affect
capacity restraint calculations (leave the capacity field blank or code 999999 in
Tranplan).

Impedance Coding

In Ohio travel impedance is measured strictly by the time necessary to traverse the link.

42

Travel impedance on a link can be coded as time directly (in hundredths of minutes) or
speed (in mph, hundredths in Tranplan, tenths in Planpac). If speed is coded, then the
length of the link (distance) must also be coded so that the speed can be converted to
time.

Traditionally link speeds have represented travel times under actual traffic conditions.
Actual travel time speeds should be used for all capacity restraint and all or nothing
assignments.

Free flow speeds should be used for equilibrium assignments.

Free flow speeds can be used with all or nothing assignments to produce a travel desires
assignment for planning analysis purposes only but not for official outputs.

Travel times (speed) are obtained for highway networks by field work utilizing the
floating car technique.

If 24 hour assignments are to be made using all or nothing or capacity restraint

assignment, then the peak and off-peak speeds must be factored together to obtain a 24
hour speed in the ration 1/3 peak speed plus 2/3 off-peak speed.

If equilibrium assignments are to be used then the free flow speed can be represented
using data from off-peak speed runs. In this case, peak period travel time data is not
needed for traffic assignment purposes.

It is also possible to use posted speed limit to represent free flow speed for equilibrium
assignments.

When adding links to an existing network, speeds can be coded from the speed table if
one has been created. If not, speed should be taken from links with similar area type
and facility type in the network.

The speeds coded in the link file are used for both base year and future year
assignments.

Speeds produced utilizing capacity restraint functions are not saved for future use.

Distance Coding

Distance should be measured along the actual roadway segment, not the node to node
straight line distance.

When coding roadways that do not yet exist distance coding must be the analysts best
guess, distance can be calculated using the node coordinates of the link in this case.

Turn Penalties/Prohibitors
43

Turn penalties may be used if it is felt they yield a better assignment.

Capacities and Other Network Information

Capacities are no longer hard coded to the links. Instead, capacity is calculated at run
time by the program CAP94

ODOT policy is that capacity coding calculations will be made using three levels of
detail. The same level of detail must be applied to all links in a study area as described
below. Level one detail involves having updated functional class, area type, total street
width and number of mid-link lanes on all links in the network. All study areas should
at least be at level of detail one. Level of detail two involves coding the intersection
turning and through lanes, median left turn lanes, % trucks and terrain type for all links
on the state system (i.e. interstate, U.S. and state routes.) Level of detail three extends
this coding to all links in the network.

Other link data including, district and administrative class are coded and will be
maintained.

External Stations

Centroids representing external stations are generally the last zones in the zone
numbering scheme.

The use of large external zones to generate and distribute external traffic is generally
not used in Ohio. Their use is not strictly prohibited, however.

III. Assignment Techniques

Assignment techniques are limited to 3 methodologies namely, all or nothing

assignments, capacity restraint assignments and equilibrium assignments.

Hourly vs. 24 Hour Assignment

Hourly assignments are not currently used, however they are recommended for use in
air quality and congestion management analysis and when using equilibrium
assignments. They should only be implemented if appropriate data is available for their
creation. Generally an hourly model should include 3 model hours, AM, PM peak and
off peak. Additionally, the model should be able to reproduce 24 hour volumes through
some combination of the hourly models.

All or Nothing Assignment

It is ODOT policy that some form of capacity restraint (including equilibrium) be used
for all forecasts. This requirement taken in conjunction with the requirement that the

44

base year model chain be duplicated in forecasts implies that base year runs must also
use a capacity restraining method.

ODOT policy is to use the vine algorithm for traffic assignments in Ohio.

The BPR Equation

The BPR equation is the relationship used in Ohio to relate network link volumes to the
travel time on that link and is stated as follows:

T
where
T
To
V
C

To[1 + 0.15(V/C)4]

=
=
=
=

Balance Travel Time (travel time adjusted based on assigned volume)

Free Flow Time (0.87 * time at practical capacity for capacity restraint)
Assigned Volume
Practical Capacity of Link

Practical capacity has typically meant LOS C in Ohio, thus LOS C capacity is used in
the BPR equation and is thus coded as such in transportation networks.

If free flow speeds are coded to a network as is required for equilibrium assignment,
then the factor 0.87 (sometimes called the level of service factor) should be set to 1.0.

At this time it is still ODOT policy to use LOS C capacities in the model. If it can be
shown that reasonable results (compared to ground counts) are obtained using LOS E
capacities, then this policy may be waived.

The only justification for changing the BPR exponent would have to come from
empirical data available for a given area, possibly for different classifications of
roadway.

It is entirely possible to use different BPR curves for different types of roadways in the
assignment process if data exists to back this up.

Capacity Restrained Assignment

In Ohio, 2 iterations of speed adjustment using the BPR curve with 3 AON assignments
are used in the capacity restraint process.

The general sequence of operations is:

1. Perform AON assignment using actual travel time speeds coded on network (This is
called iteration 0).
2. Adjust individual link speeds based on iteration 0 assignment and the BPR curve. (Note
that To in the BPR curve is 87% of actual travel time from the network thus So is 115%
of the actual speed coded on the network).

45

3. Calculate a weighted speed equal to 75% of the original speed plus 25% of the adjusted
speed.
4. Perform AON assignment using this weighted speed (iteration 1).
5. Adjust individual link speeds based on iteration 1 assignment and the BPR curve. (Note
that So in the BPR curve is now 115% of the weighted speed calculated in step 3.
6. Calculate a weighted speed equal to 75% of the previous weighted speed plus 25% of
the adjusted speed.
7. Perform AON assignment using this weighted speed (iteration 2).
8. Weight the three iterations together in the ratio 40% of iteration 0 plus 40% of iteration
1 plus 20% of iteration 2 to produce a final weighted assignment.

This method uses actual travel speeds not free flow speeds.

Equilibrium Assignment

The equilibrium method has not been previously used in Ohio, thus there are currently
no guidelines governing its use. Equilibrium assignments may be used, however, it is
important that model checks be made which demonstrate that this methodology
produces assignment results which match ground counts within the tolerances
prescribed later in this document.

The general sequence of operations is:

1. Perform an AON assignment based on link speeds. (iteration 0)

2. Recompute travel time using BPR curve based on last assignment. (Note the BPR
curve is constant with each iteration, To is not adjusted based on the previous
assignment)
3. Perform another AON assignment using the new travel times. (iteration 1a)
4. Combine iterations 0 and 1a linearly using a value (such that it1b = (1-)it1a + it0)
selected so as to minimize the objective function. (iteration 1b)
5. Check for convergence, if close enough stop, if not go to step 2.

In Tranplan it is possible to modify this algorithm by inserting a step 2a in which the

travel time (speed) resulting from the BPR formula is weighted based on the previous
speed (such as is done in steps 3 and 6 of the capacity restraint procedure.)

The equilibrium assignment process as currently formulated in software such as UTPS

and Tranplan utilizes a free flow definition of speed in the BPR curve

Feedback Loops

Feedback from traffic assignment to trip table synthesis models is currently not used in
Ohio

Implementation of feedback loops is only recommended when and if an area has

successfully implemented an equilibrium assignment process.

46

47

IV. Assignment Limitations, Checks and Refinements

Assignment Checks

There are four basic checks that should be made on a base year assignment. These are
the root mean square error check, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) check, screen line
check and plot check of individual link volumes. In addition, a fifth check, the select
link check, is made when necessary to diagnose assignment problems.

Plot Check

A plot is made of the network with assignment volume and ground count annotated on
each link. Each link is inspected for assignment accuracy and routes are analyzed for
assignment consistency.

Root Mean Square Error Check

The root mean square error check is the primary gauge used to measure the validity of
the traffic assignment.

The volume group ranges to be used for validation of traffic assignment models in Ohio
is as follows:

Required
0-499, 500-1499, 1500-2499, 2500-3499, 3500-4499, 4500-5499, 5500-6999, 7000-8499,
8500-9999
10000-12499, 12500-14999, 15000-17499, 17500-19999
Optional
20000-24999,25000-34999,35000-54999,55000-74999,75000-120000

In some cases a study area will have very few if any counts in the higher volume
groups. In these cases the highest volume groups from the optional group may be
dropped if they contain no data. In addition, if the highest optional volume groups
contain very few counts they may be grouped together into a larger volume group.
Thus examples of an areas top two groups could be 17500-19999 and 20000-34999 or
20000-24999 and 25000-74999 or 15000-17499 and 17500-19999 etc.

Summaries of %RMSE for links without ground counts should not be analyzed.

The following curve is used to determine the validity of %RMSE results:

48

Allow able PercentR ootM ean Square Error

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

V olum e G roup

Volume (100's)

25 28 40 47 57 70 80

Allowable %RMSE

10 12 14 17 21 26 34 46 58 70 80
0 0 0 0 0 2 3 8 6 0 2
56 54 49 46 43 40 38 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15

The %RMSE from each of the above volume groups should be plotted vs. this curve.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Check

The check is made on aggregations of links cross tabularized in two ways.

The first way cross tabulates VMT's by functional class and administrative class. This
check should result in VMT's within about 10% of the ground count for each functional
class and each administrative class (as a whole not within each
functional/administrative class combination). Certain classes may have only a few
links such as local roads and township roads. These classes may have slightly higher
errors.

The second method of cross tabulating VMT is by rings and sectors. Rings and sector
are aggregates of zones which have been coded in most networks and should be
maintained. Generally the individual rings and sectors should be within about 10% of
the ground count VMT. This is often impossible to achieve, however, for the CBD
ring/sector.

49

Screen Line Check

Each area has a number of screen lines and cordon lines which have been traditionally
used. These lines are not sacred, however, and may be changed to suit the analysis at
hand.

Screen lines should be drawn taking into account the following factors:

1. They should intersect only parallel routes which form a corridor. There should be no
diagonal streets. This only applies to auxiliary screen lines. The main screen line and
cordon lines intersect any link regardless of direction.
2. They should not intersect centroid connectors. If they must, the centroid connector
volume is not included in the screen line analysis.
3. They should include from 3 to 7 roadways. This only applies to auxiliary screen lines,
the main screen line intersects as many roads as necessary to bisect the area and the
cordons intersect as many as are necessary to delineate a cordon.
4. They should be drawn to intersect the least number of roads as possible to delineate a
cordon or corridor. Thus they should be drawn along natural choke points such as
streams and railroads if possible.
5. They should be drawn such that all links intersected have ground counts coded. This
criteria may sometimes cause existing screen lines to be adjusted slightly so that all
links have counts.

The following curve is used to check screen line differences:

M axim um D esirable D eviation in Screenline V olum e

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

S creenline V olum e

Volume (1000's)

3 10 14 18 24 29 34 44 53 65 74 85 96
10 15 20
8 4 9

50

Allowable %Error

64 56 52 48 44 41 38 34 32 30 28 26 25 24 21 19

Generally, the criteria given in NCHRP 255 apply with regard to screen lines.

Select Link Check

Select link analysis is not a required validation check and their are no standards for
comparison, it is merely a tool that may help isolate assignment problems.

Generally, the criteria given in NCHRP 255 apply with regard to select links.

Assignment Refinements
Post Refinement of Output

Refining of assignment results is necessary for any project level analysis. Traffic
assignment results should only be used directly for aggregate system wide analysis such
as generation of system wide VMT, congestion and air pollution burden. At the project
level, the relationship between final base year assigned volume and ground counts
should always be consulted when using traffic assignment forecasts.

Refinement of the Assignment Process

When using AON assignments there are 2 things that can be changed. First, turn
penalties can be used or discarded from the network. Second, instead of doing 24 hour
assignment, hourly assignments as discussed previously might be used,

When using capacity restraint assignments, in addition to the modifications listed with
AON assignments, the BPR curve can be modified (by changing the exponent if local
data has been collected which supports this change).

If using equilibrium assignment, use of hourly assignments is recommended. In

addition, because no firm guidelines exist for equilibrium assignments, it is possible to
adjust the number of iterations of equilibrium as well as whether or not speed damping
will be used

The VMT check may point out problems with trip generation which may make it
necessary to factor up or down the trips generated in certain zones.

The screen line check might also point out trip generation problems, but might also
point out problems with trip distribution. When the distribution of trips between areas
is the problem it is sometimes necessary to penalize or expedite travel across the screen
line by changing the link impedances of all screen line links by a certain amount for trip
distribution purposes only. The impedances are then set back to the original values for
traffic assignment.

51

Links representing roadways are added or subtracted when the zone-network

relationship is out of balance in an area with poor assignment results as indicated by
VMT and screen line checks. (Note it is also possible to add and subtract zones to
achieve the same effect, this is another trip table modification.)

There may be problems in the neighborhood of a centroid connector that justifies a

change. The only way to diagnose centroid connector problems is with the network
plot check. If centroid connectors are the problem, additional connectors can be added,
existing ones moved or the zone can be split into several zones.

Speed changes should generally be kept small (10% or less). If more change than this
appears to be needed, then some justification for this large change should be sought,

Generally, speed changes should only be make after all other problems have been
identified and addressed. Speed changes should be made utilizing network plots as the
effects will be localized.

Generally, the distance should only be changed if it was coded incorrectly.

The hourly to daily factor is generally held constant in a network model and in most
cases set to 10%.

Adjustment of the hourly to daily factor, link by link is not recommended.

If capacities are deemed to be a problem, they should be modified by first looking at the
data that created them. With the capacity calculator, capacity is based primarily on
number of lanes, road width, functional class and area type. Changes to this data
should be made where appropriate to correct capacity problems. If they are coded, the
% trucks, terrain type, intersection turn bays, signal interconnect, and parking codes
should be checked next. Failing all this, an adjustment factor can be applied to the link
to reflect unusual circumstances, this should be a last resort as many unusual
circumstances can be reflected by adjusting one of the other parameters.

There is less opportunity for adjustments in a transit network, however, because the
transit lines and headways are set by actual operating characteristics. One of the main
things to check with a transit network when using a UNET style network is that the
speeds and distances are consistent with the highway network. When using INET style
networks this is automatically done.

Generally, these guidelines have been structured to discuss those adjustments that are
used in Ohio and when. Other adjustments should only be used with careful planning
and consultation with ODOT staff.

52

V. Tranplan Modeling

On ODOT's Unix system Tranplan is executed using the TRAN shell script.

On ODOT's system our file naming convention is to start the file name with the 3 letter
MPO abbreviation followed by the last two digits of the year if applicable followed by
any other descriptive characters and ending with a .IN extension. Thus the filename for
Lima's 1990 validation Tranplan batch file might be : LIM90VAL.IN. This file would
be run with the TRAN script as follows: TRAN LIM90VAL. Note that TRAN assumes
.IN extensions.

Network Building

Use Tranplan program BUILD HIGHWAY NETWORK.

Under the OPTIONS section, LARGE COORDINATES are specified. This makes
Tranplan use is 9 character XY coordinate format. This is required in Ohio

Under the PARAMETERS section the MAXIMUM NODE is set to 9000. This is an
ODOT standard for all networks.

The SPEED SCALE FACTOR tells how many decimal places are assumed in the speed
field of the link file. The default is 2 (speed in hundredths) and this will be used for all
Tranplan models. .

In the DATA section the node and link files are included. This format is used instead
of having a network INPUT FILE in the FILE section because nodes and links are to be
stored in separate files in Ohio, not one network file.

All or Nothing Assignment

Use Tranplan Program LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK.

Recall that AON assignments should generally only be used for network checking and
validation. All production runs should use some form of capacity restraint.

Under PARAMETERS TIME 1 is set as the impedance. As discussed previously,

travel time is used as the sole impedance for all traffic assignments in Ohio.

Capacity Restraint Assignment

Use Tranplan Program LOAD HIGHWAY NETWORK.

Currently this type of assignment is the standard for all production runs in Ohio.

53

There is no ADJUST 100 OPTION nor is LOAD PERCENTAGES specified in the

PARAMETERS. Instead BPR ITERATIONS is set to 3.

Equilibrium Assignment

Use Tranplan Program EQUILIBRIUM HIGHWAY LOAD.

Assignment Checking

Tranplan program REPORT HIGHWAY LOAD is useful for presenting the assignment
in tabular form. The BPR PERCENTAGES PARAMETER should be set to 40,40,20.

Tranplan program REPORT HIGHWAY INCREMENTAL SUMMARY can be used to

produce %RMSE comparisons. Note that the ADDITIONAL VOLUME GROUPS
PARAMETER is used to specify the volume groups that are desired. The default
volume groups supplied in the program generally are not used.

At ODOT, Tranplan plot functions are not used, instead the standard plotting software
PLOTNET is used to create MicroStation design files

Program unbuild is used at ODOT to unbuild the Tranplan loaded network into link file
format. This program is an in house written Unix shell script which performs all
necessary functions for producing a PLOTNET ready link file.

54

Bibliography
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Ohio Department of Transportation, Highway Network Coding Procedures, 1996

Ohio Department of Transportation, Transit Network Coding Procedures, 1996
Ohio Department of Transportation, Trip Table Synthesis Procedures, 1996
USDOT, Traffic Assignment, 1973
Vogt Ivers & Associates, Ohio Procedure Manuals, Travel Patterns (Manual 5), 1968
USDOT, Computer Programs for Urban Transportation Planning, General Information, 1977
Moore, E.F., The Shortest Path Through a Maze, International Symposium on the Theory of
Switching, Proceedings, Harvard University, April 2-5, 1957, pp. 285-292
Dantzig, G. B., The Shortest Route Problem, Operations Research, Vol. 5, 1957, pp.270-273
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Highway Capacity Manual, 1950
Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87, 1965
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985, 1994
Humphrey, T. F., A Report on the Accuracy of Traffic Assignment When Using Capacity
Restraint, Highway Research Record, No. 191, Highway Research Board, 1967, pp. 53-75
Kirby, R. F., A Minimum Path Algorithm for a Road Network with Turn Penalties, A.R.R.B.
Proceedings, Vol. 3, Part 1, 1966, pp. 434-442
Evans, S. P., Derivation and Analysis of Some Models for Combining Trip Distribution and
Assignment, Transportation Research, Vol. 10, 1975, pp. 37-57
LeBlanc, L. J. et. al., An Efficient Approach to Solving the Road Network Equilibrium Traffic
Assignment Problem, Transportation Research, Vol. 9, 1975, pp. 309-318
Eash, R. W., et. al., Equilibrium Trip Assignment Advantages and Implications for Practice,
Transportation Research Record, No. 728, Transportation Research Board, 1979, pp. 1-8
National Committee on Urban Transportation, Determining Travel Time, Procedure Manual No.
3B, Public Administration Service, 1958
Ohio Department of Transportation, Capacity Calculator Program Documentation, 1996
Crevo, C. C. et. al., Practical Approach to Deriving Peak-Hour Estimates from 24-Hour Travel
Demand Models, Transportation Research Record, no. 1443, Transportation Research Board,
1994, pp. 30-37
USDOT, Transportation Computer Center, Urban Transportation Planning System Program
Documentation, 1985
Urban Analysis Group, Urban/Sys Version 8.0 User Manual, 1995
Frank M. and Wolfe P., An algorithm for Quadratic Programming, Naval Research Logistics
Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 95-110
Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255,
Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design, 1982

55