Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Guidance on the Level of Effort Required 

to Conduct Traffic Analysis Using

Microsimulation

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-13-026 MARCH 2014
FOREWORD

The Federal Highway Administration, in support of the Traffic Analysis and Simulation Pooled 

Fund Study, initiated this study to provide guidance for analysts and modeling managers on 

successfully applying traffic simulation analyses. Currently, State and local agencies face 

challenges to make proper decisions on transportation improvement projects. The traffic analysis 

and application of the analysis tools may be limited or improperly scoped, leading to conclusions 

and decisions that may be compromised. Projects may not be scoped properly due to the 

complexity of the traffic analysis tools. The level of effort to get the quality output may not be 

known. As a result, agencies may not sufficiently fund these projects. This report presents 

systematic ways to determine the appropriate scope and budget for traffic analysis efforts 

using microsimulation, resulting in better project and program decisions on transportation 

improvement projects. The target audience for this report includes modeling managers 

and analysts.

Joseph I. Peters, Ph.D.

Director, Office of Operations

Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its 

contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, policy, or 

regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the 

document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-13-026

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Guidance on the Level of Effort Required to Conduct Traffic Analysis 

Using Microsimulation

5. Report Date

March 2014

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Vassili Alexiadis, Jaimison Sloboden, Gustave Cordahi, and 

Randall VanGorder

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

555 12th Street, Suite 1600

Oakland, CA 94607

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-06-D-00004

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

The Contracting Officer’s Technical Manager (COTM) was Randall VanGorder.

16. Abstract

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance for analysts and modeling managers on successfully applying 

traffic simulation analyses. This report presents systematic ways to determine the appropriate scope and budget for 

traffic analysis efforts using microsimulation, resulting in better project and program decisions on transportation 

improvement projects. 

This report focuses on conducting traffic analysis for geometric and operation design projects during a typical day. 

This type of analysis is customarily performed during project development by State transportation departments and 

reviewed by U.S. Department of Transportation staff for interstate access and other related requirements. This 

report is consistent with the seven-step process outlined in Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for 

Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1)

Considering that each transportation agency has unique needs and resources, this report can be used by any agency 

to develop its own framework for determining the level of effort. Putting into perspective the challenge of meeting 

the increasing needs of traffic analyses while keeping up with limited budgets, this report tackles different critical 

areas of those analyses by pinpointing best practices and identifying ways to tailor the level of effort invested to the 

analysis expectations.

17. Key Word

Microsimulation, Modeling, Traffic analysis tools, 

Operations, Base model, Model calibration, Data collection, 

Analysis, Results, Statistical methodology, Alternative 

analysis

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available through 

the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

93

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1

PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE...................................................................................................1

REPORT ORGANIZATION..................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 1. LEVEL-OF-EFFORT CASE STUDIES .............................................................5

CASE STUDIES.......................................................................................................................6

Small Model: I-35 in Forest Lake, MN ...............................................................................6

Medium Model: State Trunk Highway 100 in Saint Louis Park, MN.................................8

Medium Model: I-5 in Tacoma, WA .................................................................................10

Large Model: I-5 in San Diego, CA...................................................................................11

SUMMARY EVALUATION OF SAMPLE PROJECTS LEVELS OF EFFORT .........13

Total Level of Effort Compared to Base Model and Calibration ......................................14

Percentage Breakdown of Task Allocation........................................................................14

Comparison Conclusions...................................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND PRACTITIONER 

EXPERIENCES ...........................................................................................................................17

PROJECT EXPERIENCE....................................................................................................18

Analyses Conducted...........................................................................................................18

Network Sizes Involved.....................................................................................................18

Project Type and Stage ......................................................................................................18

Analysis Tools Used ..........................................................................................................18

BUILDING OF THE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ...........................................................18

Conducting the Analyses ...................................................................................................18

Developing RFPs...............................................................................................................19

Identifying the Project Needs and Questions to Address...................................................19

Scoping Projects.................................................................................................................19

Determining the Level of Effort Required for the Analyses..............................................20

Determining Data Requirements........................................................................................20

Determining Performance Measures..................................................................................20

Selecting Analysis Tools....................................................................................................21

MODEL CALIBRATION.....................................................................................................21

Model Calibration Guidelines............................................................................................21

Model Output Versus Real-World Data ............................................................................22

Determination of Appropriate Number of Model Runs.....................................................22

Documentation of Calibration Results...............................................................................22

Documentation on the Level of Effort Required for Calibration.......................................22

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................23

Development of Analysis Scenarios..................................................................................23

Analysis of Different Operational Conditions...................................................................23

Presentation of Analysis Results........................................................................................23

Decision Development from Analysis Results..................................................................23

Funding Level Specification..............................................................................................23

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................24

iii
CHAPTER 3. PROJECT SCOPE..............................................................................................25

GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPING MICROSIMULATION SCOPE.................................25

Project Understanding and Purpose ...................................................................................26

Technical Approach...........................................................................................................26

Analysis Requirements ......................................................................................................26

Data Requirements.............................................................................................................27

Baseline Model Development............................................................................................27

Baseline Model Calibration ...............................................................................................28

Development of the Future Baseline Model ......................................................................28

Alternatives Analysis.........................................................................................................28

Final Report and Presentations..........................................................................................29

Project Deliverables...........................................................................................................29

Project Schedule.................................................................................................................30

Labor-Hour and Cost Estimate ..........................................................................................30

SAMPLE MICROSIMULATION SOLICITATION TEMPLATE OUTLINE..............30

THE ANALYSIS PLAN........................................................................................................32

Determine Overall Project Scope.......................................................................................32

Select/Determine Analysis Methodology ..........................................................................35

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................39

TYPES OF DATA..................................................................................................................40

DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................................42

Travel Demand...................................................................................................................42

O-D ....................................................................................................................................42

Vehicle Characteristics ......................................................................................................42

Traffic Control ...................................................................................................................42

Operational Conditions......................................................................................................43

Transit Data........................................................................................................................43

Mobile Source Data ...........................................................................................................43

CHALLENGES WITH DATA.............................................................................................44

Data Comprehensiveness...................................................................................................44

Challenges..........................................................................................................................45

DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA COLLECTION PLAN ...................................................46

Approach and Work Steps.................................................................................................46

Deliverables .......................................................................................................................48

Schedule.............................................................................................................................48

CHAPTER 5. BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT....................................................................49

BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW...............................................................49

O-D MATRIX ESTIMATION..............................................................................................50

Reasons to Use O-D Matrices............................................................................................50

Advantages of Using Full O-D Matrices in Simulation ....................................................52

ODME Approaches............................................................................................................53

ODME by Traffic Counts..................................................................................................53

ODME by Surveys.............................................................................................................54

ODME by TDMs ...............................................................................................................54

ODME Overview...............................................................................................................55

iv
CHAPTER 6. MODEL CALIBRATION ..................................................................................57

OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................57

Model Calibration Definition.............................................................................................57

Calibration Challenges.......................................................................................................57

CALIBRATION PROCESS .................................................................................................58

Performance Measure and Critical Location Identification...............................................58

Determination of Strategy for Calibration .........................................................................59

STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................60

Analyze Field Data ............................................................................................................60

Statistical Test 1—Determine the Minimum Required Number of Model Runs ..............62

Statistical Test 2—Compare Field Data to Model Output.................................................63

STATISTICAL METHOD EXAMPLE CASE STUDY ....................................................66

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................66

Build Base Model ..............................................................................................................66

Select Locations and Time Periods for Statistical Tests....................................................66

Analyze Model Output.......................................................................................................68

Compare Field Data to Model Results—Trial 1................................................................69

Compare Field Data to Model Results—Trial 2................................................................70

CHAPTER 7. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ..........................................................................73

OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................73

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS.............................................................74

Baseline Condition.............................................................................................................74

SIMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................75

SEQUENCING OF ANALYSIS...........................................................................................75

Incomplete Analysis...........................................................................................................76

Excessive Alternatives Analysis........................................................................................76

Streamlined Sequencing.....................................................................................................77

Sample Relative Level-of-Effort Approaches ...................................................................78

EXAMPLES ON REPORTING RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE 

ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................79

Tabular Methods................................................................................................................79

Graphical Techniques ........................................................................................................82

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................85

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Illustration. I-35/CSAH 2 study area............................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Illustration. TH 100 study area........................................................................................ 9

Figure 3. Illustration. I-5 Tacoma study area................................................................................ 10

Figure 4. Illustration. I-5 San Diego study area............................................................................ 12

Figure 5. Graph. Total level of effort comparison ........................................................................ 14

Figure 6. Graph. Composite effort percentage by major tasks for all four case studies............... 15

Figure 7. Graph. Composite effort percentage by major tasks for small- and medium-sized 

models only................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8. Graph. Agency responses of who conducted the analyses............................................ 19

Figure 9. Flowchart. Overview of analysis factors to be considered in selecting an analysis 

methodology/tool .......................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 10. Illustration. Turn percentage O-D-based approach ..................................................... 51

Figure 11. Illustration. Full O-D-based approach......................................................................... 51

Figure 12. Illustration. Alternate full O-D-based network configuration..................................... 52

Figure 13. Illustration. O-D parallel facilities............................................................................... 53

Figure 14. Equation. Margin of error............................................................................................ 60

Figure 15. Equation. Tolerance error percentage.......................................................................... 61

Figure 16. Equation. Minimum number of model runs................................................................ 62

Figure 17. Equation. Number of model runs example.................................................................. 63

Figure 18. Equation. Compare field data to model output............................................................ 63

Figure 19. Graph. Normal distribution curve................................................................................ 64

Figure 20. Equation Sample calculation of ZCalculated ................................................................... 65

Figure 21. Flowchart. Alternatives analysis workflow................................................................. 73

Figure 22. Illustration. Interstate access analysis requirements—analysis years ......................... 74

Figure 23. Illustration. Incomplete alternatives analysis approach............................................... 76

Figure 24. Illustration. Excessive alternative analysis.................................................................. 77

Figure 25. Illustration. Streamlined alternatives analysis method................................................ 78

Figure 26. Graph. Comparison of the effort for different alternative analysis approaches.......... 79

Figure 27. Graph. Speed diagram for I-210 VISSIM simulation ................................................. 81

Figure 28. Illustration. Sample comparison of project alternatives using schematic drawing ..... 82

Figure 29. Graph. Delay by segment for two scenarios in vehicle-hours—I-210 VISSIM 

simulation...................................................................................................................................... 83

Figure 30. Graph. Delay by segment for all scenarios in vehicle-hours—I-210 VISSIM 

simulation...................................................................................................................................... 83

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Small model I-35 level-of-effort summary....................................................................... 8

Table 2. Medium model TH 100 level-of-effort summary........................................................... 10

Table 3. Medium model I-5 Tacoma level-of-effort summary..................................................... 11

Table 4. Large model I-5 San Diego level-of-effort summary ..................................................... 13

Table 5. Comparison of level of effort of sample projects........................................................... 13

Table 6. Interviewee list................................................................................................................ 17

Table 7. Example data requirements for simulation ..................................................................... 40

Table 8. Margin of error for different standard deviation to mean ratios..................................... 46

Table 9. Variability analysis of field data..................................................................................... 61

Table 10. Sample statistical calculation to determine the minimum number of runs................... 62

Table 11. Sample calculation of field data.................................................................................... 64

Table 12. Sample calculation of model statistics.......................................................................... 65

Table 13. Error calculation of field data hourly volumes from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m......................... 67

Table 14. Calculation of modeled speed data error and variation from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m ............ 67

Table 15. Summary table for minimum required number of model runs..................................... 68

Table 16. Trial 1 summary table for minimum required number of model runs.......................... 69

Table 17. Hypothesis test trial 1 ................................................................................................... 70

Table 18. Hypothesis test mainline location trial 2....................................................................... 71

Table 19. Sample MOE summary table........................................................................................ 80

Table 20. Delay comparison between two scenarios in vehicle-hours—I-210 VISSIM 

simulation...................................................................................................................................... 80

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE

The purpose of this report is to guide analysts and modeling managers on successfully applying

traffic simulation analyses. This report presents systematic ways to determine the appropriate 

scope and budget for traffic analysis efforts using microsimulation, resulting in better project and 

program decisions for transportation improvement projects. 

This report focuses on traffic analysis for geometric and operation design projects during a 

typical day (i.e., a day that avoids unusual traffic situations such as weekends, summer vacation, 

construction, etc.). This analysis is customarily performed during project development by State 

transportation departments and reviewed by U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) staff 

for interstate access and other related requirements. This report is consistent with the seven-step 

process outlined in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report, Traffic Analysis 

Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1) It 

should be noted that this report is not intended to address traffic analysis for planning studies, 

regional analysis projects, different operational conditions (i.e., impacts of weather events, high 

travel demand, and incidents), or multiroute or multimodal projects where route or mode shift 

may occur.

Considering that each transportation agency has unique needs and resources, this report can be 

used by agencies to develop their own framework to determine their level of effort. Putting into 

perspective the challenge of meeting the increasing needs of traffic analyses while keeping up 

with limited budgets, this report tackles different critical areas of those analyses by pinpointing 

best practices and identifying ways to tailor the level of effort invested to the analysis.

Analysis and recommendations provided in this report are based on case studies that do not 

include parallel facilities to the freeway where route choice would need to be engaged or parallel 

transit facilities where mode shift would need to be taken into account. The introduction of 

parallel facilities, signalized intersections, and transit into the simulation makes model 

calibration and application a more complex exercise. The number of intersections and parallel 

arterials in the network has a major impact on the level of effort required for model calibration

and application. It is not recommended to use the levels of effort presented in this report for 

simulation efforts including parallel arterials, multiple route choice, and mode choice.

The reported labor-hour estimates should be used as a point of reference and not as absolute 

numbers to apply to projects. Seemingly similar projects may require different levels of effort for 

many reasons including the following:

• Experience of project manager, analyst, and reviewers.

• The project purpose, objectives, and scope.

• The availability of sound data for model calibration.

• The number and complexity of the alternatives being analyzed.

1
• Performance measures used.

• Software used.

• The amount of documentation, number of meetings, and number of 

presentations required.

• The number and effectiveness of project reviews conducted.

• The amount of stakeholder involvement.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report has been organized around the traditional seven-step simulation modeling process

as follows:

• Chapter 1—Level-of-Effort Case Studies: This chapter contains microsimulation levelof-effort information from four selected networks. Four case studies were reviewed, and 

the number of hours to complete the simulation analysis for these real projects is 

examined and discussed. 

• Chapter 2—Transportation Agency Experiences: This chapter captures the major 

ideas and trends that were extracted from interviews conducted to gather information on 

the current state of the practice at different transportation agencies. It also identifies gaps 

and concerns related to guidance on the level of effort required for those analyses.

• Chapter 3—Project Scope: This chapter provides guidance on how to develop a traffic 

simulation project scope. It includes a sample template to develop microsimulation scope 

and provides guidance on how to develop an analysis plan. Interested agencies can use 

this information to develop requests for proposals (RFPs) for microsimulation analysis 

projects and analysis plans.

• Chapter 4—Data Collection: This chapter discusses data collection in terms of the types 

of data required for microsimulation model calibration and data sources including some 

of the new mobile source information from private vendors. This chapter also contains a 

discussion of common challenges in data collection including data quality, accuracy, 

and comprehensiveness, as well as how the margin of error on collected data affects 

the validity of simulation results. This chapter also provides guidance on how to develop 

a data collection plan.

• Chapter 5—Base Model Building: This chapter discusses base model building practices 

and includes suggestions on how to break down the base model building process into 

discrete steps to make the process more efficient. Information is also provided on 

developing origin-destination (O-D) matrices for microsimulation models and using

different techniques for creating O-D inputs.

2
• Chapter 6—Model Calibration: In this chapter, the model calibration process is briefly 

discussed, which is consistent with the seven-step process outlined in the Traffic Analysis 

Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling 

Software.

(1) This chapter provides new guidance on statistical techniques to determine the 

minimum number of model runs required and to determine if a model is calibrated well 

enough to replicate observed data within a required statistical confidence. A case study 

example is provided to illustrate these statistical methods.

• Chapter 7—Alternatives Analysis: The alternatives analysis process is discussed in this 

chapter, including the workflow of alternatives analysis and related requirements and 

principles. Suggestions are also provided on how to streamline the sequencing of 

alternatives analysis. There are also examples of how model results can be presented in 

different formats to help inform the decisionmaking process.

3

CHAPTER 1. LEVEL-OF-EFFORT CASE STUDIES

To provide analysts and modeling managers with a frame of reference on the level of effort 

required to complete a microsimulation analysis, a sample of completed projects was assembled

and analyzed. This chapter presents a summary of four different microsimulation case studies 

that have been successfully completed. The cases range in size (small, medium, and large) and 

were completed with different simulation software packages.

For the purposes of this report, the model sizes were categorized into small, medium, and large 

models, which are defined as follows:

• Small networks: Includes 5–20 mi of freeway with three freeway interchanges and

signalized intersections on either side the interchanges.

• Medium networks: Includes 10–20 mi of freeway with 4–15 freeway interchanges.

• Large networks: Includes 20–40 mi of freeway, 15–35 interchange, and 

1–2 interstate systems.

The selected case studies were successfully completed projects that followed the seven-step 

modeling process as outlined in the FHWA report, Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III:

Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1) The labor-hour estimates 

should be used as a point of reference and not as an absolute number to apply to projects. 

Seemingly similar projects can require different levels of effort for many reasons including

the following:

• The project purpose, objectives, and scope.

• The availability of data (i.e., how much data have to be collected).

• The number and complexity of the alternatives being analyzed.

• Performance measures used.

• Software used.

• The amount of documentation required.

• Experience of project manager, analyst, and reviewers.

• Number and effectiveness of project reviews conducted.

• The amount of stakeholder involvement.

5
A summary of each of case study includes the following information:

• Project description.

• Size of the model.

• Software platform used.

• The level of effort by task in hours that were expended.

• Commentary on the level of effort.

The level of effort demonstrated in these case studies does not include the effort required to 

prepare traffic forecasts. Traffic forecasts were either prepared under a separate task or 

provided externally.

In all the cases provided, the number of model runs required was established externally by the 

performing agency. None of the projects conducted a statistical analysis of the data as a basis for 

the tolerance levels to be used for determining the minimum number of model runs required. 

Chapter 6 of this report provides a technique for conducting this exercise.

CASE STUDIES

Small Model: I-35 in Forest Lake, MN

Project Description

Improvements to the interchange of County State Aid Highway 2 (CSAH 2) with I-35 were

proposed by Washington County in Minnesota. As part of the requirements for approving the 

access modification, a microsimulation model of the study area was prepared. The purpose of the 

modeling effort was to determine the impact that different interchange concepts would have on 

I-35 and to use this information to select a preferred alternative. Figure 1 shows a map of the 

study area.

6
Figure 1. Illustration. I-35/CSAH 2 study area.

Model Size

The model consists of approximately 18 mi of freeway mainline, two local access interchanges, 

and one regional access interchange. The temporal extents of the model were 3 h in the morning 

and afternoon peaks, and the traffic flow data were broken down into 15-min intervals. The 

model has 154 nodes and 174 links.

The model included I-35 (north-south interstate) with three crossing arterials (interchanges) with 

ramp terminal intersections at each location (six intersections). There were no parallel arterials

adjacent to I-35 included in the microsimulation model.

The traffic analysis for this project was one component of the overall planning, design, and 

construction of the CSAH 2 interchange. The total level of effort required to complete the 

analysis is summarized in table 1. The data collection involved a combination of manual counts 

and an assembly of available counts from the Minnesota Department of Transportation 

(MnDOT) Traffic Management Center.

7
Table 1. Small model I-35 level-of-effort summary.

Task Number Task Hours

1 Data collection 40

2 Simulation model development and calibration 140

3 Design year traffic analysis (four alternatives) 200

4 Opening year analysis 80

5 Documentation 40

6 Project management 40

Total 540

Medium Model: State Trunk Highway 100 in Saint Louis Park, MN

Project Description

The purpose of this project was to test proposed improvements on State Trunk Highway 100 

(TH 100) between Excelsior Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road. The project was not the subject 

of a formal interstate access request for FHWA; however, due to the complexity of the 

interchanges and the levels of congestion (i.e., in excess of 8 h per day), MnDOT required that a 

microsimulation analysis be conducted. TH 100 was the first freeway built in Minnesota and was 

originally constructed in the 1930s as a four-lane freeway with interchange access every 0.5 mi.

Over time, TH 100 was increased to a six-lane freeway north and south of the study area. The 

modeled area and the project limits are illustrated in figure 2.

The proposed improvements were intended to provide a full standard six-lane freeway with 

interchange access consolidated to approximately 1 mi. The access was consolidated through a 

series of a collector distributor roads and frontage roads. The original project scope entailed 

examining one design alternative; however, the analysis revealed there were operational 

challenges with the proposed design, and the alternatives analysis task was expanded to include 

the development of new design concepts.

8
Figure 2. Illustration. TH 100 study area.

Model Size

The project area simulation limit was 13 mi. The I-394 freeway is immediately to the north of 

the project area and has an impact on operations within the project area. A portion of I-394 

(east-west) was included to account for these traffic impacts. The model did not include parallel 

facilities, and there were eight signalized intersections included in the model. The model has 

659 nodes and 646 links.

Level of Effort

The level effort involved directly supporting MnDOT staff who developed the preliminary plans,

conducted public involvement meetings, and sought local approval of the project. Table 2 

provides a summary of the level of effort expended to complete the analysis. The data collection 

portion of the project consisted of downloading traffic management center data, compiling the 

data, and smoothing the field observations. Intersection turning movement counts had previously 

been conducted by MnDOT; these costs are not reflected in the level of effort.

9
Table 2. Medium model TH 100 level-of-effort summary.

Task Number Task Hours

1 Data collection 262

2 Building of base model 339

3 Base model calibration 258

4 Design year traffic analysis 871

5 Opening year traffic analysis 185

6 Documentation 62

7 Project management 84

Total 2,061

Medium Model: I-5 in Tacoma, WA

Project Description

The purpose of this project and analysis was to obtain approval from FHWA to modify 

interchanges along I-5 in Tacoma, WA, to accommodate a new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) 

lane. The modeled area and the project limits are illustrated in figure 3. The project had been 

studied previously, and the level of effort that is described in this guidebook represents a 

comprehensive update of the previous effort. The alternatives analysis considered only the 

alternative that had been previously selected.

©Google Earth® 2012

Figure 3. Illustration. I-5 Tacoma study area.

(2)

Model Size

The project area spanned 10 mi of I-5, and the simulation limits included a total of 10 mi. The 

project did not include parallel arterials, and there were 27 intersections included in the model. 

The model has 164 nodes and 203 links.

10
Level of Effort

The level of effort to conduct the I-5 project in Tacoma, WA, is summarized in table 3. The level 

of effort for this project was streamlined due to previous work efforts related to the project. 

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted the traffic data collection.

Table 3. Medium model I-5 Tacoma level-of-effort summary.

Task Number Task Hours

1 Data collection* 80

2 Building of base model 160

3 Base model calibration 400

4 Design year traffic analysis 320

5 Opening year traffic analysis 320

6 Documentation 240

7 Project management 80

Total 1,600

*Traffic count data were supplied by WSDOT.

Large Model: I-5 in San Diego, CA

Project Description

The purpose of this project was to prepare a Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) for the 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) district 11 and the San Diego Association of 

Governments. The modeled area and the project limits are illustrated in figure 4.

11
Figure 4. Illustration. I-5 San Diego study area.

Model Size

The project includes 30 mi of freeway (27 mi on I-5 and 3 mi on I-805), 5 system-to-system 

freeway interchanges, and 26 service interchanges. The model has 659 nodes and 796 links.

Level of Effort

Table 4 provides a level-of-effort summary for the I-5 San Diego case study.

12
Table 4. Large model I-5 San Diego level-of-effort summary.

Task Number Task Hours

1 Select analysis tool 60

2 Collect data 2,000

3 Develop and calibrate baseline model 2,500

4 Develop future baseline model 860

5 Analyze alternatives 1,660

6 Finalize documentation 1,200

7 Develop and conduct presentations 650

8 Develop work plan and project management 1,150

Total 10,080

SUMMARY EVALUATION OF SAMPLE PROJECTS LEVELS OF EFFORT

The case studies are reflective of typical traffic analysis for geometric and operation design 

projects. This analysis is customarily performed during project development by State 

transportation departments and reviewed by USDOT staff for interstate access and other 

requirements. The case study projects were not intended to address traffic analysis for planning 

studies, regional analysis projects, different operational conditions (i.e., impacts of weather 

events, high travel demand, and incidents), or multimodal projects where mode shift may occur.

Each of the case study projects is unique in terms of alternatives being considered. A common 

factor among all the projects is the building of a microsimulation model following the basic 

seven-step procedures described in Traffic Analysis Tool Box Volume III: Applying 

Microsimulation Model Software.

(1) All of the case studies ran the simulation models multiple 

times with different random number seeds and reported the averaged model results.

There are some similarities and differences between the four sample projects. The similarities 

include base model development and calibration and indicate that the modeling efforts are 

scalable to the network size (e.g., number of hours per interchange). The other tasks that are 

impacted by local and project specific factors include the number and type of alternatives 

being tested. Table 5 provides a composite comparison of the four case studies by major 

task category.

Table 5. Comparison of level of effort of sample projects.

Task

Model Size and Labor Hours

Small Medium Medium Large

Data collection 40 262 80 2,000

Base model development and 

calibration

140 597 560 2,500

Alternatives analysis 280 1,056 640 2,520

Documentation/presentations 40 62 240 1,850

Project management 40 84 80 1,210

Total 540 2,061 1,600 10,080

13
Total Level of Effort Compared to Base Model and Calibration

Figure 5 provides a comparison of the total level of effort and the amount of effort expended 

specifically for building a base model and the calibration process. The only apparent trend is a 

consistent order of magnitude regarding the model building and calibration effort with the model 

size. Larger models require a disproportionately greater level of effort compared to smaller 

projects. This is attributed to the increased complexity of a larger simulation model as it relates 

to modeling travel demand and traffic operations in a larger geographic area and extensive 

project reporting, alternatives analysis, and presentation time expended.

Figure 5. Graph. Total level of effort comparison.

Percentage Breakdown of Task Allocation

A further breakdown of the percent allocation of time was reviewed. Figure 6 shows the 

composite percentage of hours by task for all four case study projects. Figure 7 shows a 

composite percentage of hours by task for the three small/medium case study projects.

14
Figure 6. Graph. Composite effort percentage by major tasks for all four case studies.

Figure 7. Graph. Composite effort percentage by major tasks for small- and medium-sized 

models only.

Comparison Conclusions

Larger models require a disproportionately greater level of effort compared to smaller projects. 

This is attributed to the increased complexity of a larger simulation model as it relates to 

modeling travel demand and traffic operations in a larger geographic area and extensive project 

reporting, alternatives analysis, and presentation time expended.

Roughly a third of the level of effort on the projects was allocated to the base model 

development and calibration. Model calibration is a critical activity in microsimulation and can 

15
drive the project level of effort to high levels. The experience level of project managers, analysts,

and reviewers, as well as a robust quality assurance process can help control the risk of budget 

and time overruns.

Depending on the availability of data, the amount of time allocated to data collection varied from 

8 to 16 percent of the total level of effort across the four case studies. As some of these locations 

had considerable existing instrumentation and resulting data available for their interstate system,

these values may be lower than what other locations may experience. Anecdotal information

from other non-instrumented regions indicates that up to 30 percent of the project effort may be 

devoted to data collection in the absence of archived data.

16
CHAPTER 2. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND PRACTITIONER EXPERIENCES

This chapter presents the major ideas and trends that were extracted from interviews conducted 

with transportation agency staff and consultants. A questionnaire was developed and sent out to 

targeted transportation agency representatives and consultants. Each questionnaire consisted 

of 30 questions spread across four categories: experience, building of the project’s framework, 

model calibration, and beyond calibration. The terms “interviews,” “surveys,” and 

“questionnaires” are used interchangeably throughout the section.

The recipients of the interview were given the option to either fill out the questionnaire in writing 

or provide input during a phone interview. In total, 12 completed surveys were received—10 by 

agency representatives and 2 by consultants. Table 6 contains a list of the interviewees.

Table 6. Interviewee list.

Interviewee Affiliation Role

Derek Miura Florida Department of Transportation 

(FDOT) District 4 Planning and 

Environmental Management System 

Planning Group

Senior system planning

Simon Eng and

Chi Mai

Oregon Department of Transportation

(ODOT) Region 1

Traffic engineers

Steve Hague Caltrans CSMP modeling oversight and 

task order development

Waddah Farah FDOT District 7 Project development 

administrator, traffic engineer, 

traffic planner, project manager, 

project coordinator, and District 

Interchange Review Committee

District Interchange Review 

Committee chairman for 

District 7

Doug McClanahan WSDOT State traffic analysis engineer

Dat Huynh FDOT District 6 District project development 

engineer

Kenneth Jeffries FDOT District 6 Transportation planner

John Shaw Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

(WisDOT) Bureau of Traffic Operations

Development of technical 

guidelines for traffic analysis 

and organization of technical 

training for traffic engineers

Vladimir Livshits Maricopa Association of Governments System analysis program 

manager

James Young Ohio Department of Transportation Studies engineer

Jaimison Sloboden Consultant Traffic group leader

Loren Bloomberg Consultant Project manager and senior 

engineer

17
PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Analyses Conducted

The survey participants were involved in various traffic analysis studies in different roles. They 

conducted, managed, supervised, and provided support for analysis of construction projects, 

interchange operations studies, corridor studies, and planning studies. The surveyed individuals 

have ample experience in conducting/leading traffic and transportation studies involving 

simulation and/or traffic analysis tools.

Network Sizes Involved

The survey participants worked on a variety of network sizes ranging from a single intersection 

or interchange to several miles of interstate freeway, as well as a variety of analysis types 

including complex regional- and corridor-level analyses. While a typical project would include 

around 15 mi of freeway with crossing arterials, some projects involved freeway systems of 

more than 50 mi in addition to arterial network studies with several hundred intersections.

Project Type and Stage

Numerous projects, including local agency roadway operation improvement projects, safety 

projects, freeway modernization projects, and planning and corridor studies, were undertaken by 

the different surveyed agency representatives and consultants. Analysis included the entire

process from early planning to final design stages.

Analysis Tools Used

Various analysis tools were used by the survey subjects. Those included deterministic tools as 

well as macroscopic and microscopic simulation analysis tools.

BUILDING OF THE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Conducting the Analyses

Transportation agency representatives provided answers on who conducted the analyses, which 

is highlighted in figure 8. While some regularly resorted to consultants, others conducted inhouse analyses (mix 1), and some used both in-house plus consultants (mix 2).

18
Figure 8. Graph. Agency responses of who conducted the analyses.

Developing RFPs

Some transportation agencies have in-house guidelines that are used to develop RFPs (such as 

FDOT’s Project Development and Environmental Studies).

(3) Others rely on RFPs for similar 

projects. Refinements to RFPs are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the unique nature,

scope, type, size, and complexity of the project.

Identifying the Project Needs and Questions to Address

Respondents indicated that the needs and questions to be addressed by the analysis are based on 

field investigation and performance assessment. Studies are expected to address both existing 

and future needs. Any issues or challenges known in the study are recognized in the scope so 

they can be properly addressed in the analysis.

Scoping Projects

The interviewees were consistent in their indication that a planning and development team is 

formed within agencies for each project. The team consists of planning, traffic, and preliminary 

design staff. The team determines the initial scope and then works with a consultant to develop 

the refined scope of services.

The scope of work may be influenced by many factors such as funding availability, geographic 

homogeneity, influence of adjacent interchanges and intersections, or amount of time elapsed 

since the last study of any particular section. Study areas are typically extended beyond 

bottleneck extents so that the causes of congestion are reasonably replicated. Traffic patterns and 

the duration of congestion help determine the temporal extent of the analysis. Sufficient lead 

time prior to the beginning of congestion is included in the models.

Prior to specifying the scope of work, some agencies ask project managers to complete a scoping 

worksheet that describes the geographical limits, level of detail, any existing data or resources

available for the project, and any previous models. Some agencies follow guides to develop their 

scoping documents.

(4,5)

19
Determining the Level of Effort Required for the Analyses

At most transportation agencies surveyed, a labor-hour estimate is prepared by the consultant 

and reviewed by the project manager and the agency’s program leader. A project schedule is 

developed, including anticipated documentation delivery dates and agency review times. The 

labor-hour estimate and project schedule are then submitted to the agency for review.

Analysis schedules are dependent on the availability of traffic counts, seasonal factors 

determining when to conduct the counts, availability of travel demand models (TDMs), funding 

constraints, and project phasing.

Consultants responding to the survey generally use a bottom-up approach to develop budget and 

schedule estimates by task. Half of the surveyed agencies and consultants (6 out of 12) do not 

use a guide to determine their budget and schedule.

Determining Data Requirements

Data requirements are based on the project’s goals and scope and depend on the analysis tool 

used. The data requirements also are influenced by the amount of time and resources available 

to complete the work. Most surveyed agencies and consultants indicated that meeting data 

requirements is relatively challenging due to resource availability in terms of both time and 

budget. It was acknowledged that there is a conflict between the need for comprehensive model 

calibration data and limited data collection budgets.

Special methods have been developed by agencies such as WisDOT to resolve data discrepancies 

and maximize the use of existing data. Some State agencies mentioned O-D data as being the 

most challenging because they does not exist in a form that is ideal for model calibration. 

Furthermore, survey participants reported that there are no guidelines on the temporal 

consistency of collected data or the geographic coverage of freeway and arterial data collection. 

Most interviewees agreed that issues with data comprehensiveness, temporal consistency, 

geographic coverage, and overall resources are among the key reasons for schedule and 

budget overruns.

Determining Performance Measures

Performance measures are usually identified by agencies with input from consultants. They 

depend on the project type and the study objectives. Measures are reported by corridor 

subsections, direction, and facility type (i.e., mainline, on-ramps, off-ramps, and local streets). 

Typical performance measures used in the analysis include the following:

• Density.

• Volume.

• Speed.

• Level of service (LOS).

20
• Delay.

• Travel time.

• Queue length.

Performance measures such as travel time reliability, emissions, fuel consumption, and safety 

were not mentioned by the survey participants.

Selecting Analysis Tools 

Most often, the tool that is used in the analysis is identified by the agency usually based on its 

staff/project experience. At times, consultants are asked to suggest the appropriate tool(s), and 

the assessment is then based on the type of analysis (scope and goals of the project) and the 

resources available (available data, schedule, and budget). Macrosimulation techniques are used 

for high-level screening of alternatives; however, most of the interviewees mentioned that they 

use microsimulation, especially for the analysis of traffic operations in congested environments.

MODEL CALIBRATION

Model Calibration Guidelines

A total of 7 out of the 12 interviewees (2 consultants and 5 agency representatives) indicated that 

they follow the FHWA model calibration guidelines, including volumes II, III, and IV of the 

Traffic Analysis Toolbox.

(1,6,7) Some survey participants mentioned having encountered 

ambiguities and challenges while using the FHWA guidelines.

Ideas offered by the interviewees for guideline improvement include the following:

• Standards to limit the number of in-route removal of vehicles.

• Unreleased vehicles from zones.

• Logic check of demands between key O-D pairs.

• Path checks for key O-D pairs.

• A method to help select the typical day to simulate.

Several of the respondents developed their own set of policies and procedures. WisDOT has

expanded its model calibration criteria and guidelines over time. ODOT is in the process of 

updating their Protocol for Vissim Simulation.

(8) WSDOT has its own document that was 

developed specifically for each project involving Federal funds or Federal facilities in order to 

guide the requirements and expectations regarding model calibration. Florida and Minnesota also

use their own model calibration guidelines.

21
Model Output Versus Real-World Data

A comparison between observed data and modeled output was performed via model calibration 

and validation. The data used in the comparison included volume, speed, travel time, queue 

length, and location of bottlenecks. Sources of observed data comprised field traffic volume and 

speed counts, applicable information from existing studies, and historical traffic counts. Survey 

participants suggested that models must also provide a qualitative look and feel that matches the 

way traffic operates in the real world.

Determination of Appropriate Number of Model Runs

Some interviewees acknowledged the usage of statistical methods to determine the appropriate 

number of model runs. (See references 1 and 6–8). The use of statistical methods to determine 

the appropriate number of model runs has emerged as an area where additional guidance is 

needed. Chapter 6 of this report contains an example on how to determine the appropriate 

number of model runs using statistical methods.

Documentation of Calibration Results

Interviewees consistently responded that the model calibration effort is usually documented via a 

report/memorandum. Calibration documentation contains the calibration method, including 

criteria, measures, and existing conditions as well as a summary of the calibration results

documenting how performance measures from the baseline model relate to measured real-world 

data. Also, any parameters that are modified based on calibration results for the existing 

condition are documented in the report and carried forward to future alternatives. The model 

calibration report is considered a major milestone in the model development process.

The following assumptions were made concerning the consistency in analysis:

• Microsimulation and externally developed forecasts: Traffic volumes and/or O-D

flows from externally developed forecasts are often used as inputs to microsimulation

models. These inputs usually come from TDMs, which have different underlying 

assumptions and procedures than simulation models. Linking refined microsimulation

zones to TDM traffic analysis zones is used as a means to maintain consistency between 

the two types of models.

• Base models and future year models: After baseline model calibration is complete for 

existing conditions, the calibrated model parameters are carried forward to future year 

models. This helps maintain consistency between baseline and future year models.

Documentation on the Level of Effort Required for Calibration

While some agencies document the level of effort (number of person-hours required) for model 

calibration in the scope of work, other agencies do not track the level of effort associated with 

model calibration. Consultants track their time through timesheets. Model calibration activities 

are usually tracked separately by task.

22
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Development of Analysis Scenarios

Respondents indicated that analysis scenarios are developed in close coordination with project 

stakeholders. Scenarios are usually driven by the planning needs of the project and by the 

availability of resources. The types and numbers of scenarios to be modeled are usually 

dependent on the geometric design and operational solutions being considered.

Analysis of Different Operational Conditions

Most interviewees’ agencies conduct their analyses for the typical day. Some agencies use the 

30th highest hour of the year to help establish morning and afternoon average day peak period 

analyses. It is not standard practice to model nonrecurring congestion (e.g., incidents, weather 

events, fluctuations in demand, and construction activities), and there are no model calibration 

criteria associated with these operational conditions.

Presentation of Analysis Results

Survey responses indicated that analysis results are presented through memoranda/reports, screen 

shots from the simulation, and video clips. Reports usually contain summary tables and charts for 

network measures, graphs, and maps for location-specific LOS. Reports also contain time-space 

diagrams for freeway corridor queues/congestion.

Decision Development from Analysis Results

Results of the analysis (including the comparison between performance measures for different 

analysis scenarios) provide useful information for decisionmaking on various projects and for 

prioritization and staging of programmed and planned projects. Interviewees stated that decisions 

are made based on a collaborative process involving the project development team, the 

management team, local jurisdictions, and stakeholders. In general, the charge of the analysts is 

to provide unbiased technical information for the clients/decisionmakers to review and take 

appropriate action.

Funding Level Specification

Specifying funding levels for the analysis is done on a project-by-project basis, and no general 

guidance is available. Microsimulation is recommended for facilities with significant congestion 

and/or operational problems, whereas simpler tools, such as deterministic methods and 

macrosimulation, are recommended for less complex projects. Factors influencing the project 

costs include the length of the corridor, presence/inclusion of parallel streets, existing level of 

congestion, time period of the simulation, routing assignment used, number and types of analysis 

scenarios desired, availability of existing data, and comprehensiveness and internal consistency 

of calibration data.

23
CONCLUSIONS

Through reviewing and summarizing agency and practitioner experience, this chapter 

highlighted current procedures and challenges in traffic simulation analyses. A number of key 

issues emerged from the survey findings where guidance is needed to assist in improving traffic 

analysis processes. 

24
CHAPTER 3. PROJECT SCOPE

This chapter provides guidance on how to develop a traffic simulation project scope. It includes a 

sample template to develop a microsimulation scope and provides guidance on how to develop 

an analysis plan. Interested agencies can use this chapter to develop RFPs for microsimulation 

analysis projects and analysis plans.

The following signs indicate that a traffic analysis project is on track and likely to be successful:

• The purpose of the analysis is clear.

• Key stakeholders are engaged throughout the analysis.

• A detailed analysis plan is prepared that identifies appropriate tools, data required, 

performance measures, and people responsible for various parts of the analysis both at the 

agency and consultant levels.

• Tools used in the analysis can convincingly demonstrate their ability to replicate 

observed traffic conditions using quality checked, internally consistent observed data.

• Interim and final results can be independently reproduced.

• Analytical results can be clearly communicated relative to analytical objectives.

A clear scope helps to avoid problems such as the following:

• Misunderstandings or ambiguities regarding the goals of the modeling effort.

• Mission creep such as unplanned enlargement of the study area or implemented advanced 

model features that were not originally part of the scope.

• Misapplication of the model (i.e., attempting to use the model at a level of detail for 

which it was not intended).

• Inappropriate sequencing of activities (e.g., starting to model “build” scenarios before the 

base model has been properly calibrated).

GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPING MICROSIMULATION SCOPE

The purpose of this section is to provide guidance on how to develop a microsimulation scope 

including developing the purpose and need for the analysis, determining the analytical approach 

and tools to be utilized, identifying and communicating data needs, identifying the performance 

measures to evaluate alternatives, and informing decisionmakers on the parameters of the 

analysis (i.e., what the analysis will and will not answer).

25
Project Understanding and Purpose

The project understanding should describe the purpose of the project, provide the project 

background, and present the problems and issues that the microsimulation analysis is intended to 

address. The project understanding should include clear descriptions of the following:

• The transportation project purpose and need.

• Elements that relate to the transportation problem to be analyzed.

• The project study area. 

• Affected communities and stakeholders.

• Traffic analysis objectives and hypotheses.

Technical Approach

This section outlines the technical tasks necessary to accomplish the analytical objectives of the 

project. The technical approach should provide detailed information on the requirements of the 

analysis, the alternatives to be analyzed, and the performance measures needed to evaluate 

the alternatives.

Analysis Requirements

This section includes the following components that help define the analysis:

• Study area and facility types: The spatial extent of the study area includes any

intersections, highways, and other facilities that are analyzed. The study area must cover 

beyond the end of the full spatial extent of queues and congestion in the baseline and 

future years of analysis.

• Analysis time period: The project analysis time period should be defined (e.g., morning/

afternoon peak hour and/or peak period, off-peak period, etc.). The analysis time period 

must cover the beginning and end of full temporal extent of queues and congestion in the 

baseline and future years of analysis. In some cases, the simulation analysis period must 

allow for vehicle loading and unloading time beyond the limits of the peak periods.

• Scenario definition: Scenarios should include geometric and operational alternatives 

that are analyzed and compared to the baselines. Chapter 7 in this report describes 

alternatives analysis.

• Analytical tool selection: Selection of the appropriate simulation tool is an important 

part of the study. The Analysis Plan section in this chapter provides specific guidance 

for this step.

26
Data Requirements

The data requirements for the development and calibration of a microsimulation model vary 

depending on the software package selected; however, they all require the following basic inputs:

• Roadway geometry.

• Traffic control data.

• Travel demand, traffic volumes, and intersection turning movements.

• Performance data (i.e., queue locations, queue lengths, travel times, and speeds).

• Data on vehicle characteristics (i.e., vehicle classification and vehicle mix).

Baseline Model Development

Most models are coded from georeferenced aerial photographs or as-built drawings. Reviewing 

previously developed models for the area is also a good starting point to determine a baseline. 

The following attributes are typically coded in the model:

• Number of lanes.

• Link/lane width and length.

• Grades.

• Curvature.

• Sight distances.

• Bus stop locations.

• Crosswalk and pedestrian facilities.

In coordination with the development of the base year microsimulation model, the TDM (if 

utilized) should be refined to reflect the zonal structure of the microsimulation model being 

developed. Most TDM software contains procedures for extracting or zooming in on a subarea

for analysis. This procedure allows for the analyst to include all of the regional factors that may 

affect travel in the analysis area while working with a smaller subarea model. The subarea model 

zonal structure should be developed to correspond to the zonal structure of the microsimulation

model. If the TDM has a 24-h O-D trip table in conjunction with a proper data collection 

program, the O-D table can be refined by developing factors to split the trip table into smaller

time periods.

27
Baseline Model Calibration

Calibration of the baseline model is crucial to the validity of the model to replicate existing 

observed conditions as well as its stability to forecast future operations. Calibration requires

two steps: (1) calibration for capacity and (2) calibration for route choice. This methodology 

is described in Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic 

Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1) Prior to calibration, criteria must be developed for 

the models that are being calibrated. Model calibration targets should be set after taking into 

account the performance measures developed and the quality of field data. The performance 

measures should be measurable in terms of the field data collected and can be calculated for reallife conditions and compared to the model outputs.

Development of the Future Baseline Model

A future baseline microsimulation model (or future no-build alternative) is an essential part of 

the analysis process; it is the basis for comparison between alternatives. Many microsimulation 

models are used because the macroscopic deterministic analytical techniques do not fully capture 

the extent of congestion.

A common methodology for developing future demand forecasts is using a regional TDM. 

TDMs take into account regional growth due to land use, demographics, and socioeconomic 

activity. In cases where a TDM does not exist, it is acceptable to utilize a trend projection of 

travel demand. As with the development of the existing base-year model, the future baseline

(i.e., no build) microsimulation model and future baseline subarea TDM should have zone and 

link/node structures that ensure correspondence between the models.

The amount of further refinement to the zonal layers within the demand and simulation models 

depends on the type of growth anticipated in the study area and the future no-build transportation 

system. The zones need to be refined if there is a large shift in land use within the study area 

or if transportation improvements cause a shift in land use or become barriers to access to the 

transportation system from certain zones. Otherwise, the future baseline scenario zones for 

the simulation model and the demand model can remain the same as the existing baseline 

zonal systems.

Alternatives Analysis

The alternatives analysis consists of the following steps:

• Development of project alternatives for analysis: Alternatives are usually developed 

by the project team and are shaped through the stakeholder involvement process.

• Model application: Microsimulation models operate based on randomly generated 

numbers, and results can often vary from model run to model run of the same scenario. 

Therefore, it is necessary to run each scenario multiple times with different random 

number seeds to determine mean, minimum, and maximum conditions. Multiple 

model runs are also useful in estimating the reliability of travel time associated with 

particular alternatives.

28
• Tabulation of results: The output of microsimulation models is usually in the form of 

animation and numerical outputs. These outputs are based on performance measures 

established at the beginning of the project and are used to compare system performance 

between alternatives and the baseline and across alternatives. Animation allows for 

visualization of the movement of individual vehicles through the network.

• Analysis of alternatives: The analysis of the alternatives is performed by analyzing the 

comparison of the no-build scenario results to the alternative scenario results.

Final Report and Presentations

The final report should summarize the efforts, methodologies, assumptions, and results of the 

study. The report’s target audience is key decisionmakers and stakeholders who decide on the 

funding and implementation of the improvements put forth in the alternatives testing. Therefore, 

it is important to interpret the technical content and tabular results. The development of the 

model should not be the subject of the final report; this information can be presented in technical 

appendices to allow other analysts and modelers to view the technical information and technical 

analysis that went into the study.

A typical outline for the final report includes the following:

• Study objectives.

• Study methodology.

• Data collection.

• Model calibration.

• Forecasting procedures.

• Alternatives analysis.

• Summary of results.

Presentation of the final results of the study can be accompanied by the animations produced as 

an output of the model runs.

Project Deliverables

Clear project deliverables should be listed at the end of each task in the scope of work. 

Deliverables should include all meetings, project status reports, data to be compiled and 

delivered, models to be delivered, and reports including the number of copies.

29
Project Schedule

The project schedule should identify the expected duration of the overall project as well as the 

expected duration of individual interim tasks. The schedule should also provide milestones,

meetings, and presentations.

Labor-Hour and Cost Estimate

In preparation for the RFP, the agency should consider developing a labor-hour and cost estimate 

for the project so adequate resources can be allocated to meet the project requirements. The 

estimate should contain enough detail not only to communicate the dollar value expenditure 

allocated for consulting services, but also the resources that will be needed by the agency to 

conduct and manage the project.

SAMPLE MICROSIMULATION SOLICITATION TEMPLATE OUTLINE

This section provides a sample microsimulation solicitation template outline.

I. RFP Cover Page

• Agency title.

• Project title.

• Dated cover letter. Provide a cover letter inviting the contractor firms to propose on the 

RFP.

II. Introduction/Overview

• Project description and purpose. Name the agency/agencies that will overlook the 

project. Provide a detailed description of the project and its purpose.

III.Submittal Information

• Contact. Provide the project manager’s and contracts officer’s names, telephone 

numbers, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses.

• Key action dates. Provide dates for the pre-bid meeting, questions deadline, proposal 

deadline, interview, and decision.

• Proposal format and content. Provide the sections and format for the proposal.

IV. Scope of Work

• Project definition and requirements.

o Study area. Define the spatial extent of the study area, including intersections, 

highways, and corridors.

o Analysis time period. Define the analysis period and simulation period. For example, 

while the project analysis might be for the morning and afternoon 3-h peak periods of 

congestion, the simulation period used must provide for warm-up/initializing traffic 

and for processing residual queues resulting from the peak hour. The analysis time 

period must cover the full temporal extent of queues in the baseline and future years 

of analysis.

o Scenario definition (morning, afternoon, baseline, future year, etc.). Provide the 

time periods and scenarios that should be processed for the project. Scenarios should 

30
include geometric and operational alternatives to be analyzed and whether they are to 

be analyzed independently or in packages.

o Simulation runs per scenario. Provide/reference the methodology to determine the 

number of model runs for each scenario that the contractor must simulate.

o Modal impacts. Provide travel modes that must be evaluated for the project. 

Examples include single-occupancy vehicle, HOV, bus, light rail, truck, etc.

o Performance measures. Define the performance measures to be produced by the 

analysis. Typical performance measures include speed, travel time, reliability of 

travel time, volume, travel distance, vehicle miles traveled per passenger miles 

traveled, vehicle hours traveled per passenger hours traveled, delay, queue lengths, 

number of stops, crashes and their duration, emissions, fuel consumption, and benefit/

cost. These should be produced for the whole study area and analysis period by 

facility type, region, mode, and scenario.

• Work task description.

o Project management.

o Data collection.

o Base model development and calibration criteria and requirements.

o Future year forecast and future baseline scenario.

o Alternatives analysis.

o Deliverables (report and presentations).

• Project budget and schedule. Provide the total budget and schedule for the project. 

RFPs should be submitted with a proposed budget for each task by person, including 

hourly labor rates, overhead, fee, and direct expenses. RFPs should include a detailed 

schedule outlining tasks, subtasks, milestones, deliverables, and meetings.

V. Evaluation Criteria

• Qualifications of project manager, including experience/expertise.

• Management approach and quality assurance process.

• Project team qualifications.

o Staff expertise. Demonstrated ability based on firm’s and team’s experience to 

conduct the work.

o Staff resources. Depth and breadth of staff resources.

o Location familiarity. Familiarity of key staff with study area travel and congestion 

patterns, as well as agencies and organizations involved with transportation in 

the region.

o Presentation skills. Ability to convey results of analyses in written form and present 

findings that are understandable to nontechnical audiences.

VI.Contract Requirements

• Disadvantaged business enterprise policy.

• Insurance requirements.

• Selection dispute. Provide a description of criteria, process, and date that a proposer 

must follow for disputing the selection.

VII.Addendums

31
THE ANALYSIS PLAN

Developing an analysis plan is an important first step in any transportation analysis project. This 

section discusses developing an analysis plan.

Determine Overall Project Scope

Confusion about the goals, objectives, or physical boundaries of a microsimulation project can 

cause delays and/or conflicts among stakeholders. At the beginning of a project, the analysis 

managers should develop an initial understanding of the analysis objectives. Several critical tasks 

need to be performed to gain this understanding prior to engaging stakeholders and moving 

forward with the analysis process. The outputs from this exploration should be considered 

preliminary and subject to change based on the input and feedback from stakeholders at the 

project kickoff meeting. These tasks include the following:

• Develop an outline for the analysis plan. The analysis managers should define an 

outline for the analysis plan early on in the analysis process. Elements to include in the 

outline vary depending on the input from the stakeholders and the needs of the analysis; 

however, several common elements should be included in all effective analysis plans

including the following:

o Introduction.

 Project purpose.

 Project background.

 Study area overview.

 Process for developing and applying the analysis plan.

o Study area description, existing traffic conditions, and available data.

o Analysis methodology and modeling approach.

o Analysis scenarios and mitigation strategies.

o Data requirements.

o Output performance measures.

o Criteria and data requirements for model calibration.

o Analysis budget and resources.

o Analysis schedule.

o Allocation of responsibilities.

32
• Determine project objectives and needs. This task serves to clearly determine the 

“what” and “why” for conducting the analysis. The overall goals and objectives for the 

mitigation strategies should be assessed and used to shape the goals and objectives for the 

analysis effort. The analysis objectives should fully support and be consistent with the 

overall goals for the deployment project.

• Identify stakeholders. A broad set of stakeholders should be identified to fully represent 

the agencies and organizations impacted by the project.

• Understand the study area, including major transportation issues and mitigation 

strategies to be considered. Available documentation should be compiled and reviewed 

by project managers to familiarize themselves with the operating characteristics of the 

study area and identify substantial issues. Individual interviews with project partners also 

can be helpful in understanding study area conditions and the strategies being considered. 

Previous studies, archived data systems, and accident/incident data reports can all provide 

valuable insight into the current operational characteristics of the study area. The project 

managers should also seek out information on the mitigation strategies being considered 

and the impact these strategies have had in other regions.

• Conduct a site visit. The analysis managers should visit the study area to gain a better 

understanding of traffic conditions and characteristics. The site visit should include a 

comprehensive review of all the different facilities, modes of transportation, and major 

mode transfer locations throughout the study area. The site visit may also include visits to 

the regional traffic management center or toll authority, as appropriate. Also, depending 

on the characteristics of the mitigation strategies being considered, the project managers 

may want to plan to visit the site on multiple occasions (e.g., peak period versus off-peak 

or good weather versus inclement weather) to gain further insight into how traffic 

characteristics vary.

• Schedule a technical kickoff meeting. Once the project managers gain an initial 

understanding of the project and analysis needs, a technical kickoff meeting should be 

scheduled and conducted to discuss the analysis methods. Agency stakeholders should be 

encouraged to attend. The project managers should be prepared to provide a presentation 

documenting their initial understanding of the project and the analysis plan outline. The 

presentation will be used to solicit feedback from the stakeholders during the meeting in 

order to adjust the analysis managers’ understanding to more closely match project 

expectations. Copies of this presentation should be provided to all stakeholders as initial 

documentation of project understanding. The intended outcomes of the kickoff meeting 

include the following:

o Confirm stakeholder perceptions of project needs. The kickoff meeting provides 

an opportunity for the project managers to gain consensus on expectations for both 

the deployment as well as the necessary analysis.

33
o Confirm analysis scope. Scope issues to be explored with stakeholders include

the following:

 What is the appropriate geographic scope for the analysis?

 What facility types need to be included in the analysis?

 What travel modes need to be included in the analysis?

 What are the possible mitigation strategies to be implemented?

 What are the expected traveler responses to the mitigation strategies?

 What performance measures need to be produced by the analysis and what are 

acceptable performance levels?

 What is the approximate budget and schedule for the analysis work?

o Confirm scenarios to be used in the analysis. It is critical to understand precisely 

when (i.e., under what conditions) the mitigation strategies will be applied and how 

their application may vary under different conditions. The project managers and

stakeholders need to identify the combinations of travel demand, incidents, special 

events, and weather events that comprise corridor operations.

o Discuss data availability. Analysis managers and stakeholders should explore 

potential data sources for the study. The quality and amount of data (sample sizes) for 

each performance measure to be utilized should also be evaluated. Chapters 4 and 6 

of this report provide discussions on sample sizes of the field data needed. This 

discussion should include both traditional and nontraditional data sources in order to 

compile a comprehensive set of data that may be available for the project. For 

analysis needs, archived automated data sources (e.g., traffic detectors) are often 

more desirable sources of data than manually collected data. The long-term 

availability of automated data representing different operational conditions 

(e.g., varying demand, incident, and weather conditions) provides an opportunity to 

effectively assess multiple operating conditions. Data from multiple sources must

also be for concurrent time periods. The data should be collected from all sources 

for the same period. For each data source, the analysis managers should ascertain

the following:

 Time periods when the data are available.

 The format of the data.

 Any lag time in data availability (e.g., is accident data available immediately or is 

time required to request, acquire, and record the data into a common database?).

 Reliability of the data sources (e.g., are there significant gaps in the data?).

34
 Any known data quality issues (e.g., are there any operating conditions that cause 

the data to be inconsistent?).

• Update analysis plan. Analysts should begin populating the analysis plan outline based 

on the information obtained during the kickoff meeting.

Select/Determine Analysis Methodology

Following the kickoff meeting, the analysis managers should begin to explore and select the 

appropriate analysis methodology to be applied. This is a critical step because the selection of the 

appropriate methodology and tools ensures that the analysis meets the needs of the study and 

streamlines the analysis process. Key steps in the evaluation and selection of the analysis 

methodology include the following:

• Research and identify available analysis tools for the study area. The analysis 

manager should research and compile information on models and analysis methodologies 

currently used in the region. This may include models that are used on a continual basis 

in the region (e.g., the regional TDM) as well as individual models that are used for 

specific one-time-only analysis in or near the study area. For each model or tool, the 

analysis manager should identify the following:

o The analysis package or tool (i.e., name and version of the software).

o The year of the analysis.

o The year the data sources were collected along with type and location.

o The time periods targeted for analysis.

o The model geographic limits.

o Facilities represented in the model.

o Modes represented in the model.

o Any special scenarios available in the model (e.g., incidents, special events, 

weather, etc.).

o High-level assessment of model capabilities and limitations.

The availability or popularity of a model or tool in a region should not be the sole 

determinant for selecting the models and methodologies used in the analysis. In 

subsequent steps, the analysis project managers will assess their individual needs and 

map these to an appropriate tool or combination of integrated tools. It may be determined 

that the capabilities of the existing tools in the region are not sufficient to meet the needs 

of the analysis and a new methodology must be developed. However, this information on 

available tools is useful in selecting the appropriate methodology and identifying 

potential data sources for the model development.

35
• Identify factors for selecting methodology. The analysis managers should perform a 

critical analysis of project factors to determine the required robustness of the analysis 

methodology selected. This information will be used in a subsequent step to map needs to 

an appropriate tool, or combination of tools, using a decision support tool developed by 

USDOT as part of the Traffic Analysis Tools initiative. To complete this process, the 

analysis managers should compile information related to the following factors:

o Geographic scope.

o Facility types impacted.

o Travel modes impacted.

o Any potential strategies considered.

o Expected traveler responses.

o Approximate budget and schedule.

• Determine performance measures. The last piece of information required to complete 

the selection of the methodology using the Traffic Analysis Toolbox is to identify

required output performance measures.

(1,6,7) The identified performance measures should 

be closely tied to the identified project goals/objectives and the expected traveler impacts. 

An effective way to identify appropriate performance measures is to develop one or more 

specific hypotheses to be tested for each objective. These hypotheses can either indicate a 

change in traffic conditions (e.g., the mitigation strategies will reduce travel time by 

5 percent) or can be neutral in the prediction of an impact (e.g., the mitigation strategies 

will not result in a change in corridor accident rates). Performance measures that support 

the testing of each formulated hypothesis should then be identified. Use of this method 

ensures that the performance measures are appropriately mapped to the project goals 

and objectives.

• Use FHWA criteria and methodology to select the appropriate traffic analysis tools.

FHWA has developed a useful guide to help practitioners select an appropriate analysis 

tool based on a number of input factors. This guidance includes a report and an 

automated decision support tool.

(9) Figure 9 provides an overview of the basic factors to 

be considered using the FHWA guidance. In assessing the demanding needs of project 

analysis, it may be revealed that multiple tools are needed. A single tool may not be 

sufficiently robust to handle the analysis objectives, and the analysis managers may need 

to consider integrating the analysis capabilities from multiple tools to achieve the 

necessary abilities. Once appropriate tool categories have been selected by the decision 

support tool, the analysis manager can use the documentation provided in Traffic 

Analysis Toolbox Volume II: Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic 

Analysis Tools to research the range and capabilities of individual software packages and 

tools within the selected category.

(6) The FHWA documentation includes links to 

individual research organizations and vendors supporting the various packages that can 

provide even more information.

36
Figure 9. Flowchart. Overview of analysis factors to be considered in selecting an analysis 

methodology/tool.

(6)

37

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION

The true validity of any model is dependent on the quality of the data that goes into it. The data 

requirements should be evaluated in the early inception stages of a project to get an early 

estimate of effort required. Quality/variability of existing data will impact sample sizes;

therefore, early statistical evaluations of the data (margin of error) can prove highly valuable for 

subsequent development of effort required. Key calibration performance measures should be 

identified early to help determine the data needed to estimate these performance measures.

Often, it is possible to use existing data for data collection, but these data may be outdated or 

from different timeframes for different parts of the network. In that case, resources need to 

be allocated for new data collection. If there is limited funding, resources need to be spent 

judiciously to collect sufficient quality data. Table 7 lists example data required for simulation 

model calibration.

It also is important to plan for documentation of the information. The documentation methods 

should include a clear file-naming structure, an explanation of the sources of data, and a database 

structure that can be readily incorporated into model inputs and model reports. Efficiency of 

managing the data can be further enhanced through the development of automated procedures.

As part of the scope development process, a data plan needs to be developed. The data collection 

plan includes sources and types of data that will be needed to prepare and calibrate the model.

39
Table 7. Example data requirements for simulation.

Physical Geometry Traffic Control Travel Demand

Intelligent 

Transportation 

Systems (ITS)

Elements

• Link distances

• Free-flow speeds

Freeways

• Number of travel 

lanes

• Presence of 

shoulders

• HOV lanes (if any) 

and operational 

characteristics

• Acceleration/

deceleration lanes

• Grade

• Curvature

• Ramps

Arterials

• Number of lanes

• Lane usage

• Length of turn 

pockets

• Grade

• Turning 

restrictions

• Parking

Freeways

• Ramp metering

• Type (local, systemwide)

• Detectors

• Metering rates

• Algorithms (adaptive 

metering)

• Lane use signals

• Variable speed limits

Arterials

• Signal system 

description

• Controller type

• Phasing

• Detector type and 

placement

• Signal settings

• Signal timing plans

• Transit signal 

priority system

• Link volume

• Traffic composition

• On- and off-ramp 

volumes

• Turning movement 

counts

• Vehicle and person 

trip tables

• Traffic Management 

Center and 

surveillance system

• Detector type

• Detector spacing

• Closed-circuit 

television

• Information 

dissemination 

(changeable 

message signs)

Highway advisory 

radio, 511 (traveler 

information 

telephone number), 

etc.)

• Tolling system type 

and pricing 

mechanism (if any)

• Data archival and 

dissemination

• Incident detection 

and management 

characteristics

TYPES OF DATA

The types of data required can be categorized in four main areas: travel demand, traffic control, 

physical geometry, and ITS elements, as highlighted in table 7. Travel demand data include 

traffic counts, vehicle classification counts, speeds, travel times, congestion, and queuing 

observations. Travel demand data require the majority of the data collection effort. Traffic 

control data include signs, signal control, and timing plans. Physical geometry can be obtained 

from rectified aerial photography and base mapping files that may be prepared as part of the 

design effort for projects.

The four types of data can be further categorized into the following two areas:

• Data for model development.

• Additional data for model calibration.

40
The tenets of data collection and data management that are important for conducting an effective 

analytical study include the following:

• The type of analysis being conducted should dictate the quantity of data collected.

• The required accuracy should drive the quantity of data collected.

• It is important to utilize data that are recent, internally consistent, and relevant because

the quality of the analysis and the resulting decisions depend on the data used.

• Collection of traffic data should capture the temporal variations in demand, and 

performance and should be finite enough to allow for an appropriate analysis 

to be conducted.

Helpful tips on data collection include the following:

• Do not solely rely on the veracity of historical data; allocate some resources to verify the 

data through current field inspection.

• Measure flows and estimate or forecast demand. Procedures for estimating demand are 

given in Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic 

Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1)

• Check flow conservation; entry flows should match the exit flows.

• Always check for data quality. Use the most recent geographic information system (GIS)

files, maps, and drawings.

• Use traffic counts from prior to the onset of congestion to after congestion dissipates.

• Broaden the geographic scope to cover bottlenecks and spatial and temporal 

extent of queues.

Key questions related to data collection include the following: 

• Do you have the data you need to develop the base model?

• How old are the data?

• Have you statistically verified the data quality?

• Were there any field inspections conducted?

• Did you check the quality of the sensor data?

• If you need additional data collection, do you have the resources?

• What did you do to address missing data?

41
• Did you make use of data from other regions that have similar demand?

• Did you have to make any assumptions? What were they and how did you arrive at them?

Have you documented the assumptions?

DATA SOURCES

Travel Demand

The basic demand data needed by most simulation software are the entry volumes (i.e., the travel 

demand entering the study area) at different points of the network. At intersections, the turning 

volumes or percentages should be specified.

O-D

O-D trips can be estimated from a combination of TDM trip tables and from traffic counts. O-D 

data can be acquired from the local metropolitan planning organization’s (MPO) regional TDM, 

but these are generally 24-h estimates and, as such, need to be adjusted and refined to produce 

hourly or peak period estimates for use in simulation models. Typically, these estimates are 

further disaggregated to represent 5- or 15-min estimates required for simulation. License plate 

matching surveys can be used to estimate hourly trips, but this is resource-intensive. Depending 

on project complexity, a cost effective way of estimating O-D trips is to adjust the TDM O-D trip 

estimates based on field counts.

If the study area has transit, HOVs, and trucks or if there is significant interaction with bicycles 

and pedestrians, the corresponding demand data would be needed. In addition, vehicle 

dimensions and vehicle performance characteristics (e.g., maximum acceleration and 

deceleration) are required.

Even if only the peak periods are being examined, demand data should be collected before the 

onset of congestion and should continue until after the congestion has dissipated. Also, to capture 

the temporal variations in demand, it is best not to aggregate demand data to intervals longer 

than 15 min.

Vehicle Characteristics

Vehicle characteristics data can be obtained from the State transportation departments or air 

quality management agencies. National data can be obtained from car manufacturers, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and FHWA.

Traffic Control

Data from traffic control devices at intersections or junctions are required. Control data refers to 

the type of control device (e.g., traffic signal, stop sign, ramp meter, etc.), the locations of these 

control devices, and the signal timing plans. Traffic control data can be obtained from the 

agencies that operate the traffic control devices in the given study area.

42
Traffic operations and management data on links are also needed. These include location and 

type of warning signs. If there are HOV lanes, information on the HOV lane requirement (e.g., 

HOV-2 versus HOV-3), their hours of operation, and the location of signs are needed. If there 

are high-occupancy toll lanes, information on the pricing strategy is required.

Operational Conditions

If there are variable message signs (VMSs) in the study area, the type of information that is 

displayed, the location, and, if possible, the actual messages that were displayed are needed. 

Most of this information can be obtained from the public agencies that are responsible for 

operating the VMSs. The types of signs and locations can be obtained from GIS files, aerial 

photographs, and construction drawings.

Event data can be received from public agencies, such as traffic management center logs. Crash 

databases should be verified since data may not always be recent and may not be for the specific 

study area. The data should be from concurrent timeframes.

Transit Data

Transit data can be obtained from the local and regional transit operators. These data can include 

schedules and stop locations. Calibration data could include transit automatic vehicle locator 

data, boarding and alighting data, and dwell time at stops.

Mobile Source Data

Mobile source data include data derived from mobile phones, Bluetooth® devices, and other 

mobile sources. Mobile source data are relatively new sources of data that can be used to 

augment other data collected. The primary types of data obtained from mobile sources are speed 

and travel time. In most cases, the mobile source techniques use samples of vehicles in the traffic 

stream, but they may not be reliable sources for traffic counts and vehicle composition.

The mobile source data are typically obtained, stored, and sold by private vendors. Before 

purchasing these types of data, it is a good idea to have a demonstration of the data and a 

means to compare the data supplied by the vendor with a real observation of what is happening 

in the field. Consideration of how the data are provided (format, structure, and software) 

should be given and should take into account how they will be used for traffic modeling and 

other purposes.

The following list provides a brief description of techniques and technologies that are all probe 

vehicle-based applications:

• Toll tag readers: Toll tags that are typically used for electronic toll collection can be 

used by toll tag readers deployed at various points on a roadway network to obtain 

average travel time and speed information. There are four components in a toll tag 

travel time system: electronic tags, antennas, readers, and a central computing and 

communication facility. As a vehicle with an electronic tag passes near a toll tag reader, 

the time and toll tag identification number are recorded. If the same vehicle passes the 

43
next reader location, the travel time and average speed between the two locations can be 

determined. The toll tag identification number can be encrypted to protect privacy.

• Bluetooth® device matching: Many computers, car radios, navigation devices, personal 

digital assistants, cell phones, headsets, and other personal devices are Bluetooth®

enabled to allow wireless communication between devices. Generally, manufacturers 

assign unique median access control (MAC) addresses to Bluetooth® equipped devices. 

Bluetooth®-based travel time measurement involves identifying and matching the 

MAC address of Bluetooth®-enabled devices carried by motorists as they pass a 

detector location.

• Wireless location technology: Wireless location technology involves using signaling 

information from cell phones (i.e., cell tower handoffs) to anonymously track wireless 

devices as they traverse a roadway network. Cell tower handoffs occur when calls are 

transferred from one tower to another, during which the cellular phone is assigned a new 

frequency. By tracking the handoffs between towers, it is possible to determine which 

road a vehicle is traveling on and derive average travel time and speed information for 

that roadway segment.

• Crowd sourcing: Crowd sourcing involves obtaining real-time traffic congestion 

information from a driver’s Global Positioning System-enabled mobile phone. Crowd

sourcing relies on a large number of users and is primarily supported by personal 

navigation systems and mobile applications.

CHALLENGES WITH DATA

Systematically collecting the critical data, verifying data quality, and documenting any 

assumptions are important to justify the results of a study to decisionmakers and the public. A 

statistical analysis of collected and previously available data can be helpful to determine the 

statistical data variability and the margin of error contained in the data. Data variability can have 

a significant effect on the number of model runs required to represent the model’s replication of 

observed traffic conditions. This report provides helpful suggestions on data types, sources, and 

challenges. Development of a more comprehensive data quality guide is under consideration 

by FHWA.

Data Comprehensiveness

Comprehensive data cover different performance measures (i.e., volumes, speeds, bottlenecks, 

queuing, and congestion data) across freeways and arterial streets, as well as transit data and 

incident data. Traffic counts should be taken at key locations in the study area. Key locations 

include major facilities (i.e., freeway segments, major intersections and interchanges, and major 

on- and off-ramps). If possible, this should be done simultaneously at all key locations. 

Otherwise, the counts should be taken during similar timeframes with similar demand patterns

and weather conditions.

If a model that was calibrated several years ago is being used, it needs to be recalibrated to 

reflect more current field conditions. Therefore, not only would data be needed to estimate 

44
capacity and the calibration performance measures, but demand data need to be collected.

Furthermore, the analyst must verify the accuracy of geometric data, traffic control data, traffic 

operations, and management data.

Challenges

Due to the innovative nature of many operational strategies, collecting relevant data to support 

such analyses includes the following challenges:

• Automated data sources are often best used for collecting long-term data necessary to 

develop and calibrate simulation models; however, many existing automated data 

collection systems lack the robustness or reliability to effectively compile relevant data 

sets. A thorough assessment of the data quality from all sources is recommended to 

identify any potential problems early on in the process and establish methods to address 

any deficiencies. Automated data availability can generally be classified in the following 

three categories:

o Fully automated: Freeway and arterial data are available for the study area network.

o Semi-automated: Only freeway mainline data are available.

o Manual: There are no automated data for the study area network.

• Data quality from automated data sources (e.g., roadway loop detectors) may sometimes 

be insufficient for modeling purposes. Sample datasets should be obtained early in the 

data collection process and analyzed to assess data quality. The data collection plan 

should specify data quality procedures and minimum data quality requirements for this 

purpose. Further, the analysis manager should discuss any data quality issues with 

operations personnel familiar with the data source during the development of the data 

collection plan in order to understand and anticipate any problems with data source 

reliability, data accuracy, or other condition-specific issues (e.g., inaccurate speeds 

recorded during high-volume periods).

• Accuracy is defined as the measure of the degree of agreement between data values and a 

source assumed to be correct. It is also defined as a qualitative assessment of error. It is 

important to have accurate, internally consistent, and recent data. If information on future 

traffic conditions is not available, it could be helpful to study data from other regions that 

may have the bottlenecks and traffic patterns that are envisioned for the study area. This 

is critical since the goal of model calibration is to not only see if the model can represent 

observed conditions but also to examine if the model can handle future congestion. With 

respect to data filtering and fusion, it is crucial to adopt standard ways to accept or reject 

field data and to address data gaps and missing data.

• A small margin of error in the collected data is required to increase the validity of 

simulation results. It is necessary to collect multiple data points for each performance 

measure (i.e., volumes, speeds, etc.) so that the sample is an accurate representation of 

the mean and standard deviation of the performance measure. Depending on the mean to 

45
standard deviation ratio and the desired margin of error, the required sample size may 

vary greatly. Table 8 shows different sample sizes based on different mean to standard 

deviation ratios and different margins of error.

Table 8. Margin of error for different standard deviation to mean ratios.

Sample 

Size (n) Z/√n

Standard Deviation/Mean Ratio

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

2 1.385929291 13.85929 27.71859 41.57788 55.43717 69.29646

5 0.876538647 8.765386 17.53077 26.29616 35.06155 43.82693

10 0.619806421 6.198064 12.39613 18.59419 24.79226 30.99032

15 0.506069824 5.060698 10.1214 15.18209 20.24279 25.30349

20 0.438269324 4.382693 8.765386 13.14808 17.53077 21.91347

25 0.392 3.92 7.84 11.76 15.68 19.6

30 0.357845404 3.578454 7.156908 10.73536 14.31382 17.89227

35 0.331300468 3.313005 6.626009 9.939014 13.25202 16.56502

40 0.309903211 3.099032 6.198064 9.297096 12.39613 15.49516

45 0.292179549 2.921795 5.843591 8.765386 11.68718 14.60898

50 0.277185858 2.771859 5.543717 8.315576 11.08743 13.85929

55 0.264286346 2.642863 5.285727 7.92859 10.57145 13.21432

60 0.253034912 2.530349 5.060698 7.591047 10.1214 12.65175

65 0.24310808 2.431081 4.862162 7.293242 9.724323 12.1554

70 0.234264807 2.342648 4.685296 7.027944 9.370592 11.71324

75 0.226321306 2.263213 4.526426 6.789639 9.052852 11.31607

80 0.219134662 2.191347 4.382693 6.57404 8.765386 10.95673

85 0.212591849 2.125918 4.251837 6.377755 8.503674 10.62959

90 0.20660214 2.066021 4.132043 6.198064 8.264086 10.33011

95 0.201091757 2.010918 4.021835 6.032753 8.04367 10.05459

100 0.196 1.96 3.92 5.88 7.84 9.8

200 0.138592929 1.385929 2.771859 4.157788 5.543717 6.929646

300 0.113160653 1.131607 2.263213 3.39482 4.526426 5.658033

400 0.098 0.98 1.96 2.94 3.92 4.9

500 0.087653865 0.876539 1.753077 2.629616 3.506155 4.382693

Z = Value from the standard normal distribution for the selected confidence level.

DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA COLLECTION PLAN

This section describes a typical data collection plan for traffic analysis. The data collection plan 

will guide the collection, compilation, analysis, and archiving of data.

Approach and Work Steps

This section presents an overview of the subtasks and work steps related to the development 

and implementation of a data collection plan. The data collection plan should retain sufficient 

flexibility so that lessons learned in the compilation of data sources may be incorporated as part 

of the continuous improvement of the analysis effort.

46
Specific steps in the development of the data collection plan include the following:

1. Research and identify available data for the study area: Existing data sources and 

data requirements should be used to identify available data for the analysis area. The 

data collection plan should also identify those individuals/stakeholders responsible for 

compiling the data. The analysis manager should work closely with stakeholders to

compile the data. If possible, the analysis manager should obtain samples of the datasets 

prior to full collection to view the content and format of the data and adjust collection 

plans as necessary.

2. Identify information/data gaps and recommend an approach to filling those gaps: 

Once available data sources have been investigated and dataset samples have been

reviewed, the analysis manager should assess the appropriateness of the available data for 

use in the analysis and identify any critical gaps in data availability. Potential approaches 

to filling data gaps should be investigated, and recommended approaches should be 

documented in the data collection plan.

3. Identify data management strategies: Procedures for conducting data quality control 

and data archiving should be identified. Any required thresholds for minimum data 

quality should be identified as well as high-level descriptions of processes for addressing 

data shortcomings. Plans for archiving the data should also be identified. Responsibilities

for data quality testing and data archiving should be clearly defined.

4. Develop data collection plan: The data collection plan should document all of the 

information listed in these steps and detail data elements to be obtained and their 

respective data sources. The data collection plan should outline data collection 

methodologies and contain budget and schedule estimates to fill data gaps.

An example outline for the data collection plan is as follows:

• Introduction and background.

• Data requirements.

• Available data.

• Data gaps.

• Data collection methodology.

• Data collection locations.

• Data collection budget and schedule.

47
Once the data collection plan is developed, the required data should be collected in accordance 

with the plan. Generally, implementing the plan includes the following activities:

• Assembling/collecting data on physical infrastructure and geometrics. Much of these data 

are likely to be available in existing models and regional GIS.

• Assembling/collecting existing traffic performance data within the study area.

• Gathering available information from existing studies. These studies include those 

currently underway as well as those that have been recently completed. Example studies 

include, but are not limited to, existing conditions analyses, environmental impact 

studies, and lists of projects and strategies that have been planned or programmed.

• Conducting field reviews within the study area.

• Collecting new data as specified in the data collection plan. All data collected in this 

effort should be analyzed and archived according to the data management procedures 

documented in the data collection plan. Any identified problems with data quality or the 

successful archiving of data should be immediately communicated to the analysis 

managers as part of the continual improvement process.

Deliverables

Major deliverables under this task include the data collection plan and the archived datasets.

Schedule

The time required to complete this task is dependent on the types, quantity, and quality of data 

required; the data collection methods; and the amount of readily available archived data from 

automated sources. The schedule for developing the data collection plan is estimated to be 

approximately 2–4 months. Completing the collection of data is extremely variable and may take 

approximately an additional 2–6 months depending on the data required.

48
CHAPTER 5. BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT

BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW

A systematic process is required to build a successful base traffic simulation model. The process 

should include clear documentation of the model structure and calibration criteria. Documenting 

and following the process ensures that the actual building of the model is done in an orderly way, 

thereby minimizing coding errors and mistakes.

Experience shows that speeding through the model building in the traffic software interface and 

relying strictly on the error-checking process to find all of the problems is not a cost effective 

approach. Although it takes time to set up and carry out the model, utilizing systematic 

procedures can make a big difference in the timeliness of completing the entire modeling 

analysis. The time dedicated to building the initial model is fairly small when compared to the 

overall modeling process. Taking the time to plan the modeling building and executing the work 

carefully will greatly reduce having to repeat work.

The base model development processes includes the following areas:

• Network (nodes, links, and link connectors).

• Lane geometry (number of lanes, length of turn lanes, etc.).

• Traffic control information.

• Travel demand:

o Entering volumes.

o Turning percentages.

o O-D information.

• Error checking for all areas.

Procedures for developing base models have been documented in other guidebooks, such as the 

Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling 

Software and Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume IV: Guidelines for Applying CORSIM 

Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1,7) However, other guidebooks have not documented the 

development of O-D matrices for use in simulation. The use of O-D matrices in traffic simulation 

models has grown and become increasingly important to produce effective and detailed analysis. 

The following section discusses the development of O-D matrices.

There is a tradeoff in the level of effort required for preparing accurate O-D information and 

model quality and reliability. Generally, more complex networks and/or more complex 

geometric alternatives require more robust O-D efforts. These considerations must be taken into 

account while determining the scope of the project.

49
O-D MATRIX ESTIMATION

This section addresses the need to include O-D information into microsimulation tools and 

presents a number of methods for obtaining the O-D data.

Reasons to Use O-D Matrices

Historically, traffic simulation models were set up to have traffic demands entering from the 

exterior portions of the model study area and applying turning percentages at each junction. As a 

vehicle approached a junction, the stochastic assignment would use the turn percentages to 

assign a choice. This process would repeat until the vehicle left the network. The “look ahead”

function (i.e., when a driver/vehicle becomes aware of an upcoming decision) varied by model. 

This function could have been defined by a particular distance or number of links. This approach 

is adequate in many but not all situations.

Figure 10 illustrates the path of vehicle A entering the system in the lower left corner and exiting 

the system in the upper right corner. At each junction, there is a turn percentage or volume that is 

used to determine the path the vehicle takes through the system. Note that in this figure, there are 

six decision points at which a vehicle gets assigned a path.

Traffic simulation models inherently cannot understand the conditions in the field. That is, 

vehicles do not know where to go unless the inputs are set up correctly in modeling terms. This 

is important, for instance, when a simulation model is intended to correctly evaluate weaving 

operations on a freeway.

In order for the model to correctly represent not only the traffic volume but also the patterns of 

movement, some type of O-D information is required. Using O-D matrices is particularly helpful 

in complex networks, especially when parallel facilities are included in the network. If the 

project purpose involves evaluating operational strategies and determining alternate paths based 

on congestion or other ITS-related information, then the use of O-D matrices makes the use of 

the model more efficient, especially when analyzing alternate geometric configurations in future 

networks. Once the O-Ds are established, it becomes easier to test design alternatives and other 

more complex strategies. 

Every simulation software package has its own method for creating and inputting O-D

information. Some software packages can do partial O-Ds, O-Ds on freeway facilities, or full 

zonal- or gate-based O-Ds. Figure 11 and figure 12 show full O-D-based models. The path of 

vehicle A is identified by the zone 3 to zone 10 O-D. (Note that the path of vehicle A is 

illustrated the same as vehicle A in figure 10.)

50
Figure 10. Illustration. Turn percentage O-D-based approach.

Figure 11. Illustration. Full O-D-based approach.

51
Figure 12. Illustration. Alternate full O-D-based network configuration.

Advantages of Using Full O-D Matrices in Simulation

The process and procedures for developing a sound O-D matrix can be time consuming and 

complex. The collected field data, license plate surveys (if available), and a trip table available 

from the local MPO are used to develop an O-D matrix for use in simulation. Approaches and 

techniques for developing O-D matrices, known as O-D matrix estimation (ODME), are

discussed in this section.

Once the O-Ds are established, the ability to test design alternatives and other more complex 

strategies becomes easier. For example, in figure 12, the previously illustrated freeway system is 

altered. The diamond interchange on the right is changed to a partial cloverleaf interchange. If 

the O-D-based system of entering traffic demands is used, then the model only needs be altered 

geometrically and at the signal controls. The new assignment of trips automatically occurs, and 

the drivers/vehicles select the appropriate link leading to their destinations.

The advantages of using O-D matrices become even more evident in complex networks,

especially when parallel facilities are included in the network. If the project purpose involves 

evaluating operational strategies and determining alternate paths based on congestion or other 

ITS-related information, then the full O-D matrix method is even more efficient. Figure 13

shows the same network (as shown in figure 11) with a parallel arterial north of the freeway. 

These types of complex models are not the focus of this report; however, this case illustrates 

additional advantages that can be gained in a microsimulation process when ODME techniques 

are used.

52
Figure 13. Illustration. O-D parallel facilities.

ODME Approaches

There are multiple methods for developing O-D inputs into microsimulation models. This 

is largely dependent on the software, which may have no O-D inputs, partial O-D inputs, or 

full O-D inputs. Depending on the size, complexity, available data, and software platform 

selected for the project, the ODME technique may include one or a combination of the 

following techniques:

• Traffic counts.

• Surveys (license plate or roadside).

• TDMs.

ODME by Traffic Counts

For a small freeway segment or for basic freeway operations (e.g., ramp-to-ramp O-Ds), 

developing O-D matrices for simulation from traffic counts alone is a straightforward method 

that can be accomplished with a spreadsheet tool similar to what is typically used to reduce and 

balance traffic count data. Traffic counts at each on- and off-ramp are required, and mainline 

volumes between interchanges are required to account for possible errors in ramp counts or at 

locations where ramp counts are performed on different days.

The primary advantage of this methodology is that it is relatively quick and simple. One 

disadvantage comes to light when performing an analysis on future scenarios where the growth 

in traffic is determined in the form of growth percentage and applied to the existing counts. This 

method has become less desirable in the current state of the practice as it can either overestimate 

53
traffic in areas not expected to have growth trends in land use or it can underestimate growth in 

traffic by not taking into account regional growth and through traffic that may be attracted to the 

corridor when improvements are made.

Another disadvantage is that the zones for the O-D matrices are in the form of ramp termini or 

entry points, not true transportation analysis zones (TAZs). This means that for any future 

scenarios that have interchange or ramp reconfigurations, the O-D matrices will have to be 

modified by hand to reflect the new ramp termini or interchange reconfiguration. This introduces 

the potential for errors, and depending on the size of the system, it can be labor intensive.

ODME by Surveys

ODME for simulation can also be developed by conducting O-D surveys through license plate 

matching, driver intercept surveys, and newer technologies utilizing mobile source data. These 

procedures provide O-D data by matching a vehicle’s entry and exit points within the system 

(usually entry and exit ramps to a freeway). Since this methodology is a sample of the traffic 

within the system, a sampling plan must be prepared containing control counts at key locations 

within the study area to verify the level of traffic and to ensure that the vehicles included 

represent a statistically significant sample of the vehicles in the system. In addition to the survey, 

traffic counts are needed to develop expansion factors to expand the O-D survey data to match 

the traffic levels in the study area.

The advantage of using this method compared to traffic counts alone is that the O-D matrices for 

the analysis area are more accurate. The disadvantages are similar to those of the ODME by 

traffic counts mentioned in this section. An additional disadvantage is that this methodology 

typically includes only a sampling of the total traffic and may not provide information on 

through traffic on freeway segments.

ODME by TDMs

ODME for traffic analysis and microsimulation from existing TDMs has become popular as a 

result of the increased capabilities in software and computing power. However, O-D matrices 

cannot simply or directly be taken from a TDM and utilized in a microsimulation model. TDMs, 

however, can serve as the base platform for developing O-D matrices in terms of the network to 

be analyzed and TAZs to serve as O-D zones. This methodology offers several advantages, 

including the following:

• A larger study area can be considered beyond just the freeway segments and on- and offramps. This could include the local arterial system adjacent to the freeway and/or 

potential alternative routes to the freeway.

• The traffic analysis tool will be O-D based on true TAZs, not just entry and exit points to 

the freeway. This provides for a true dynamic assignment of traffic, which eliminates the 

need to manually reassign traffic for each network change/alternative as well as for 

future forecasts.

54
• Future forecasts can be derived at the TAZ level from accepted forecasts developed by 

the MPO and contained in the regional TDM at the TAZ level.

Disadvantages of this methodology include the following:

• ODME using TDMs requires an extensive data collection and calibration investment. 

Often, the TDM O-Ds are derived from regional surveys and estimates of local O-Ds for 

localized analysis of freeway sections. The process to derive the O-Ds in a TDM

typically requires the same type of data that would be collected for the techniques of 

ODME by traffic counts and ODME by surveys. ODME can be calculated manually; 

however, it is typically more efficient to compute ODME using software. The level of 

effort and procedures can vary depending on the traffic analysis tool selected and the 

software platform of the regional model.

• Regional TDMs are validated to perform analyses of regional transportation plans and air 

quality conformity. This is usually done at the annual average daily traffic level (24-h

assignment). This results in the need to process the ODME into at least hourly O-D 

matrices, which may require a factoring process for peak spreading in congested regions 

for hourly, 30-min, and 15-min time intervals.

ODME Overview

There are several methods and approaches used to develop O-D matrices. Depending on network 

and study complexity, there are advantages and disadvantages to all of the methods, including 

the following:

• The direct measurement method may be simpler; however, data collection costs may 

be prohibitive and may limit the size of the data collection area. Additionally, the 

direct measurement method is not accurate for complex networks and for new 

geometric configurations.

• TDM-based techniques provide larger coverage and better traffic estimation in new 

geometric configurations; however, the accuracy may be reduced because of the coarse 

estimation techniques that are used to develop regional trip estimations.

55

CHAPTER 6. MODEL CALIBRATION

OVERVIEW

Model calibration is an important step in the traffic simulation modeling process. The goal of this 

report is to provide practitioners with a statistical model calibration approach that provides a 

stronger link to field data and helps increase confidence in the model calibration results while 

remaining consistent with guidance provided in Traffic Analysis Tools.

(9)

The objectives of this chapter are as follows:

• To provide a step-by-step model calibration process and framework.

• To provide a recommended statistical method for calibration (based on using field data 

from different days as a basis for determining tolerance).

• To provide an example of this statistical method using a real case study.

This chapter also provides guidance on the model calibration methodology to perform 

the following:

• Determine the minimum required number of model runs.

• Determine whether the model data replicate the performance measures observed 

in the field.

Model Calibration Definition

Calibration is the process of systematically adjusting model parameters so that the model is able 

to reproduce the observed traffic conditions. The process is continued until the error between the 

performance measures taken from the field data and the performance measures calculated in the 

simulation is less than a predetermined margin of error. Once it is determined that the model 

does reproduce observed conditions, model calibration can focus on specific performance 

measures such as volume, speed, travel time, and bottleneck. It is important to note that in the 

model calibration process, there needs to be a tradeoff between the required precision and the 

available resources to collect data and conduct modeling.

Calibration Challenges

The goal of calibration is to make the model represent locally observed traffic conditions. 

However, since traffic may vary greatly day to day, it is not possible for one model to accurately 

represent all possible traffic conditions. Most simulation software are developed using a limited 

amount of data. The model parameter values are estimated using the limited data.

Driver behavior differs by region, and it may differ significantly from normal to non-typical

days. For example, poor visibility, severe weather, incidents, presence of trucks, and pavement 

conditions all impact driver behavior. As a result, it is not recommended to use a model 

57
developed using data from one region to represent future traffic conditions in another region. 

Investment decisions made using a model that has not been calibrated to local field conditions 

will be flawed.

Simulation software tries to mimic driver behavior using the limited data to which the analysts

have access. Given that fact, if the model is not properly calibrated, any flaws in the model will 

be magnified.

Calculations and procedures presented in this chapter assume the following conditions:

• Traffic volume and speed data have been adequately scrubbed, and there are no 

internal inconsistencies.

• There is adequate spatial coverage and consistency in detector data.

• There is adequate and accurate sampling of speed data.

• Speed performance measures are calculated in consistent ways in the field 

and in the model.

CALIBRATION PROCESS

Guidance on the overall model calibration process is presented in Traffic Analysis Toolbox 

Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1) The overall 

model calibration process can be divided into the following four main steps:

1. Identify the performance measures and critical locations for the models to be 

calibrated against.

2. Determine the strategy for calibration, consistent with Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: 

Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1)

3. Determine the statistical methodology to be used to compare modeled results to the field 

data. Identify tolerance (measure of precision) and confidence levels (measure of accuracy or 

variability among samples).

4. Conduct model calibration runs following the strategy and conduct statistical checks. When 

statistical analysis falls within acceptable ranges, then the model is calibrated.

Performance Measure and Critical Location Identification

During the model scoping process and the development of the data collection plan, the field 

measurements are determined, including speed, volume, queuing, and other congestion 

observations at different locations in the network. Since traffic conditions fluctuate daily, it is 

important to obtain field data from multiple days. The data from multiple days serve as a base in 

which field variations are used to determine the tolerance of error in the simulated results. For 

simulation of a typical day, it is preferred that data exclude incident days as well as Mondays, 

Fridays, and weekend days.

58
During model development, it is recommended that the spatial and temporal model limits extend 

beyond where and when the congestion in the field occurs. The statistical calibration should not 

necessarily include every link in the model but should focus on the critical design elements 

within the primary study area in the model. This report focuses on capacity and operational 

interchange modifications on the interstate system. Therefore, the critical elements include the 

mainline freeway, ramp roadways, and the crossing arterials. Priority should be given to the 

higher-volume roadway elements.

The number of locations selected for comparing the performance measures in field data against

model outputs needs to be balanced against the quality and location of the available data, the

desired level of statistical confidence, and the availability of resources. The model outputs and 

reporting for these statistical tests should be similar to the performance measures that will be 

used later on in the analysis.

The selection of the number of data days to be used should be based on an analysis of available 

data in terms of what data are available and cost effective to collect. In an urban area where 

freeway sensor data are archived and readily available, more days of data can be used. In areas 

where there is no surveillance and where manual or temporary data collection devices are used, 

the amount of data to be collected would be more resource intensive.

The use of speed data can be more of a challenge. If the speed profile is constructed from 

freeway sensor data, then the reliability and available days of data will be similar to the volume 

discussion. If the speed data are based on probe vehicle information, then the reliability will be 

reduced because the probe vehicle data will only be a sample of the actual traffic stream.

Determination of Strategy for Calibration

The strategy for calibration is related to the steps and model parameters that the modeler 

chooses to modify in order to achieve calibration. Different simulation software have their own 

parameters and recommended practices for adjusting the models to get the performance to match 

the field data.

In order for the modeler to be cost effective, there should be a strategy for approaching 

the model adjustments. Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying 

Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software highlights the following three-step strategy 

for calibration:

(1)

1. Calibrate to capacity.

2. Calibrate route choice.

3. Calibrate system performance.

These strategies are still applicable, and this report focuses on refined statistical methods.

59
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY

The purpose of conducting a statistical test on stochastic traffic simulation models is to ensure 

that the performance measure means across different simulation model runs differ significantly 

from the means of the data in the field. This statistical check requires two primary items. First, 

there must be a sufficient amount of field data from different days so that an acceptable margin 

of error in data can be determined. Second, there must be an error-free traffic simulation model 

that has been built to reflect the conditions in the field (i.e., the model reflects adequate spatial 

and temporal boundary conditions). With these two components, the following general statistical 

procedure can be conducted:

1. Select locations for statistical tests.

2. Analyze field data.

• Calculate sampling error (margin of error) of field data from multiple days of data.

• Calculate tolerance (margin of error in percent of the mean). This percentage value will 

be used to determine the minimum number of model runs to perform.

3. Analyze traffic model output.

• Run traffic models 5–10 times with different random number seeds and conduct 

statistical tests on model results.

• Conduct statistical test 1 to determine the minimum required number of model runs.

4. Compare field data to traffic model results.

• Conduct statistical test 2 to compare field data to traffic model results using a Z-test.

• If the statistical relationship between modeled output and field data does not indicate a 

significant difference, then proceed with measures of effectiveness (MOE) comparisons, 

including volumes, speeds, travel times, and bottlenecks.

• If the statistical relationships between field data and modeled output indicate a significant 

difference, adjust calibration parameters, rerun models, and repeat statistical test 2.

Analyze Field Data

Field data must be collected for multiple days. These data are initially used to establish model 

inputs and are then used in statistical tests. The first set of analyses is used to understand the 

variability in the data. The variability is addressed by calculating the margin of error, E, among 

different representative days, as shown in figure 14.

Figure 14. Equation. Margin of error.

E = Zcritical �

σ

√n

�

60
Where:

E = Margin of error.

Zcritical = Critical Z statistic (for a 95 percent confidence interval, Z = 1.96).

= Standard deviation.

n = Sample size (number of observations).

The tolerance error percentage is calculated by dividing E by the mean of the field data, as 

shown in figure 15.

Figure 15. Equation. Tolerance error percentage.

Where:

e = Tolerance error percentage.

field = Mean of the field data.

Table 9 demonstrates how these two calculations are performed.

Table 9. Variability analysis of field data.

Day Number Hourly Volume

1 2,980

2 2,682

3 3,063

4 2,594

5 3,193

6 2,675

7 3,230

8 2,562

9 3,034

Based on the field data in table 9, the calculations are as follows:

• field = 2,890.

• = 262.4.

• n = 9.

• Zcritical = 1.96.

• E = 172.

• e = 6 percent.

σ

field

e = E

X�

X�

X�

σ

61
Statistical Test 1—Determine the Minimum Required Number of Model Runs

Statistical test 1 is used to determine the minimum required number of model runs based on an 

error rate calculated using the procedure described in the previous subsection. For a given target 

level of tolerance (tolerable error determined using variability in field observations) and a given 

confidence level (usually a confidence level of 95 percent is selected), a minimum number of 

model runs is required using different random number seeds. The minimum required number of 

model runs is computed using the equation in figure 16. 

Figure 16. Equation. Minimum number of model runs.

Where:

n = Minimum number of model runs required.

Z = Critical Z statistic (for a 95-percent confidence Interval, Z = 1.96).

= Standard deviation.

e = Tolerance error percentage.

model = Mean calculated on the basis of the performed model runs for the given MOE.

The minimum number of model runs should be calculated using two different performance 

measures, typically volume and speed, and for multiple locations. The highest resulting number 

of model runs should be used as the minimum required number of model runs. The example 

calculations show one performance measure (volume) for one location to demonstrate the 

statistical calculations and process. These same techniques should be performed at multiple 

locations and for different measures.

An example of how to calculate the minimum required number of model runs is shown in

table 10. In this example, five model runs were conducted, and the results were used to perform 

the minimum number of runs required. The tolerance error, e, for this example was 6 percent as 

derived from the field data and calculation in table 9.

Table 10. Sample statistical calculation to determine the minimum number of runs.

Model Run Number Hourly Volume

1 3,591

2 3,000

3 2,655

4 3,680

5 2,720

Based on the field data in table 10, the calculations are as follows:

• model = 3,129.

• = 481.1.

n = 

(Z)2(σ)2

(eX�model)2

σ

X�

X�

σ

62
• n = 5.

• Zcritical = 1.96.

• E = 172.

• e = 6 percent.

• Number of model runs = 26, as calculated using the equation in figure 17.

Figure 17. Equation. Number of model runs example.

The results of statistical test 1 indicate that the minimum number of model runs should be 26. 

As a result, 21 more model runs should be conducted before proceeding to the next step of 

comparing field data to model output.

Statistical Test 2—Compare Field Data to Model Output

The next statistical step is to compare the two populations (i.e., field data volume mean versus

model output volume mean) by testing the following hypothesis:

Figure 18. Equation. Compare field data to model output.

Where:

field = Average (mean) of the field observations.

model = Average (mean) of output from different model runs.

field = Standard deviation from field observations.

model = Standard deviation from the model runs.

nfield = Sample size of the field observations.

nmodel = Number of model runs with different random number seeds.

Zcalculated = Z-test of the field data and modeled data.

If Zcalculated ≥ Zcritical (1.96 for a 95 percent confidence level) or ≤ -Zcritical, reject H0.

The hypothesis test is a two-tailed Z-test based on a normal distribution. Figure 19 is a graph of 

the normal distribution. The area between Zcritical of ±1.96 is the do-not-reject range.

26 model runs = (1.96)

2

(481.1)

2

(0.06×3,129)

2

H0: x�field = x�model

H1: x�field ≠ x�model

ZCalculated = 

x�field − x�model

�σfield

2

nfield

+ 

σmodel

2

nmodel

X�

X�

σ

σ

63
Figure 19. Graph. Normal distribution curve.

Using the same example as statistical test 1, the field data and 26 model runs are summarized in 

table 11 and table 12. Once all 26 model runs are conducted, the computation of the tolerance 

error is repeated to ensure that the margin of error is less than or equal to the desired tolerance 

error. The new tolerance error is 3.9 percent, which is lower than the desired 6.0 percent. 

Therefore, conducting 26 model runs was sufficient to satisfy the 95 percent confidence level 

and the 6.0 percent tolerance error.

Table 11. Sample calculation of field data.

Day Number Hourly Volume

1 2,980

2 2,682

3 3,063

4 2,594

5 3,193

6 2,675

7 3,230

8 2,562

9 3,034

Where: 

field = 2,890.

= 262.4.

n = 9.

Zcritical = 1.96.

E = 172.

X�

σ

64
Table 12. Sample calculation of model statistics.

Run Number Modeled Data

1 3,591

2 3,000

3 2,655

4 3,680

5 2,720

6 2,976

7 3,270

8 3,027

9 2,657

10 2,956

11 3,450

12 3,267

13 2,870

14 2,680

15 3,240

16 3,575

17 3,050

18 2,840

19 3,450

20 3,120

21 2,680

22 2,980

23 3,355

24 3,090

25 2,675

26 3,070

Where:

model = 3,074.

= 312.0.

n = 26.

Zcritical = 1.96.

E = 120.

Based on a comparison of the data in table 11 and table 12, Zcalculated can be determined, as shown 

in figure 20.

Figure 20. Equation Sample calculation of ZCalculated.

Because Zcalculated (-1.72) is not less than or equal to Zcritical (-1.96), H0 should not be rejected.

X�

σ

ZCalculated = 2,890 – 3,074

�262.42

9 +

312.02 

26

= -1.72

65
In this example, comparison of field data to the model output leads to not rejecting the null 

hypothesis. This means that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the model output is 

significantly different than the field data. If the conclusion of the hypothesis was reject, then 

additional model trials using different calibration parameters would be required, along with a 

repeat of the hypothesis test. A complete iterative hypothesis test case study is presented in the 

next section.

STATISTICAL METHOD EXAMPLE CASE STUDY

The purpose of the case study was to test interchange improvements.

Data Collection

The field data were collected using freeway detection sensors. For the purposes of this exercise, 

nine different weekdays of data were selected to conduct the statistical tests. Of these 9 days of 

data, 1 day was selected as the typical day to build the base model. The data selected were free of 

any major incidents or crashes.

Build Base Model

The base model was developed according to the scope development process that identified 

spatial and temporal boundary limits. The model was constructed according to the procedures in 

the seven-step modeling process specified in Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for 

Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software.

(1) The model was checked for errors and 

was found to be free of any errors.

After the base model was completed, an initial number of model runs with different random 

number seeds was conducted to come up with an initial set of output MOEs. These MOEs were 

used to determine the minimum number of model runs.

Select Locations and Time Periods for Statistical Tests

The selection of locations and time periods for a statistical test should be based on the primary 

study area within the model limits and the peak periods. Within the study area, the key features 

that are being analyzed should be selected such as the mainline freeway and ramps. It is neither 

practical nor necessary to perform these rigorous statistical checks on every component of the 

model. For example, it is possible to select an unimportant location and have that selection drive 

the number of model runs too high. The goal is to ensure that there is a statistical confidence in 

the desired results from the models.

Analyze Field Data

The first step was a field data analysis to determine the corresponding sampling error, E.

Nine days were selected for data collection, and the corresponding data were obtained. Table 13 

and table 14 present the corresponding error computations.

66
Table 13. Error calculation of field data hourly volumes from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m.

Day

Field Volume Data

Mainline Ramp

1 2,980 1,030

2 2,682 1,266

3 3,063 975

4 2,594 1,239

5 3,193 920

6 2,675 1,319

7 3,230 890

8 2,562 1,271

9 3,034 1,026

The calculations for mainline and ramp, respectively, are shown as follows:

• field = 2,890 and 1,104.

• = 262.4 and 168.2.

• n = 9 and 9.

• Zcritical = 1.96 and 1.96.

• E = 172 and 110.

• e = 6 and 10 percent.

Table 14. Calculation of modeled speed data error and variation from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m.

Day Mainline Speed (mi/h)

1 25.5

2 35.2

3 35.1

4 35.1

5 30.7

6 32.0

7 27.7

8 34.7

9 34.2

The calculations for mainline speeds are as follows:

• model = 32.2.

• = 3.6.

• n = 9.

X�

σ

X�

σ

67
• Zcritical = 1.96.

• E = 2.35.

• e = 7.3 percent.

Analyze Model Output

After the error-free base model was developed, it was run five times with different random 

number seeds. The initial output was used to determine if there was an adequate number of runs.

Statistical Test 1: Determination of the Minimum Required Number of Runs

The first statistical test was used to determine whether the minimum number of model runs with 

different random number seeds have been satisfied. In order to conduct this test, an initial set of 

five runs was conducted on the error-free base model. The formula for determining the minimum 

number of runs as discussed in the previous section was used assuming a 95 percent confidence 

interval and a tolerance level determined by using the variability in the field data.

Table 15 is a summary of the data and calculations based on hourly volumes for the 

two locations (i.e., mainline and ramp) and speeds for the mainline location that were identified 

previously. Based on the analysis, it was determined that 16 model runs would be required.

Table 15. Summary table for minimum required number of model runs.

Model 

Run 

Number

Modeled Volume Data

(Vehicles/h)

Modeled Speed 

Data (mi/h)

Mainline Ramp Mainline

1 2,980 1,051 29.1

2 3,333 923 19.6

3 2,782 1,265 23.8

4 3,273 875 23.0

5 3,583 935 25.3

The calculations for mainline volume, ramp volume, and mainline speed, respectively, are shown 

as follows:

• Mean = 3,110, 1,010, and 24.2.

• = 227.0, 156.6, and 3.5.

• n = 5, 5, and 5.

• Zcritical = 1.96, 1.96, and 1.96.

• e = 6, 10, and 7.3 percent.

• Minimum number of runs = 6, 10, and 16.

σ

68
Compare Field Data to Model Results—Trial 1

The results of the statistical test 1 (see table 15) indicate that the minimum number of model runs 

required for both locations and performance measurements is 16. Eleven more model runs should 

be conducted before proceeding to statistical test 2 to compare field data to model output. The 

16 model runs are summarized in table 16. Once all 16 model runs were conducted, the 

computation of the tolerance error was repeated for each of the three data to ensure that the 

margin of error was less than or equal to the desired tolerance error. The new tolerance errors for 

the mainline volume, the ramp volume, and the mainline speed were 4.1 percent (desired was 

6.0 percent), 6.8 percent (desired was 10.0 percent), and 7.2 percent (desired was 7.3 percent), 

respectively. All three tolerance errors were less than the desired. Therefore, 16 model runs were 

sufficient to satisfy the 95 percent confidence level and the desired tolerance errors.

Table 16. Trial 1 summary table for minimum required number of model runs.

Model 

Run 

Number

Modeled Volume Data

(vehicles/h)

Modeled Speed 

Data (mi/h)

Mainline Ramp Mainline

1 2,980 1,051 29.1

2 3,333 923 19.6

3 2,782 1,265 23.8

4 3,273 875 23.0

5 3,583 935 25.3

6 3,122 1,023 28.6

7 3,465 902 22.8

8 2,879 1,155 20.8

9 2,865 879 26.5

10 3,045 978 18.0

11 2,765 925 23.8

12 3,346 1,235 28.7

13 2,870 931 26.7

14 2,989 1,010 23.8

15 3,455 1,312 18.9

16 3,198 1,102 22.3

The calculations for mainline volume, ramp volume, and mainline speed, respectively, are shown 

as follows:

• Mean = 3,122, 1,031, and 23.9.

• = 263.3, 1,427, and 3.5.

• n = 16, 16, and 16.

• Zcritical = 1.96, 1.96, and 1.96.

• e = 4.1, 6.8, and 7.2 percent.

σ

69
Statistical Test 2: Hypothesis Test

The hypothesis test should be conducted on multiple locations. In order to illustrate the 

procedures, two locations were analyzed in the case study. Hypothesis testing is typically an 

iterative process involving trial and error. The following section illustrates that the initial base 

model results did not satisfy the hypothesis test. For the second trial, the calibration parameters 

were modified, and the results satisfied the second hypothesis test.

The previously selected mainline location was analyzed using the hypothesis test for hourly 

traffic volumes for the peak hour from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m. In table 17, the hypothesis test was 

rejected for model trial 1.

A second model iteration was conducted by adjusting the calibration parameters in the model. 

The random number seeds from model trial 1 were reused. In model trial 2, the null hypothesis 

was not rejected, and the results of this analysis are shown in table 18.

Table 17. Hypothesis test trial 1.

Description

Field Data Model Results Statistics

Mean nf Mean nm Zcalculated

Null 

Hypothesis

Mainline 

volume

2,890 262.4 9 3,122 263.3 16 -2.12 Rejected

Ramp 

volume

1,104 168.2 9 1,031 142.7 16 1.10 Cannot 

reject

Mainline

speed

32.2 3.6 9 23.9 3.5 16 5.59 Rejected

σf = Standard deviation of field data.

nf = Number of days field data were collected.

σm = Standard deviation of model runs.

nm = Number of model runs.

Compare Field Data to Model Results—Trial 2

Since the first hypothesis test resulted in a reject conclusion for the mainline volume and speed 

results, a second trial was conducted. In this trial, calibration parameters were adjusted to attempt 

to closer match the results.

The calibration parameters that were adjusted include the following:

• Car-following sensitivity factors were adjusted on key mainline locations.

• Warning signs for exits and major ramp locations were adjusted (where drivers begin to 

consider changing lanes to achieve a desired destination).

• Free-flow speeds were increased at the boundary locations where traffic is free flow 

and uncongested.

σf σm

70
After these parameters were adjusted in a number of locations, the models were rerun five times,

and the hypothesis test was conducted again. Table 18 is a summary of the second trial.

Table 18. Hypothesis test mainline location trial 2.

Description

Field Data Model Results Statistics

Mean nf Mean σm nm Zcalculated

Null 

Hypothesis

Mainline 

volume

2,890 262.4 9 3,088 222.8 16 -1.91 Cannot 

reject

Ramp 

volume

1,104 168.2 9 1,200 121.2 16 -1.51 Cannot 

reject

Mainline 

speed

32.2 3.6 9 29.2 4.5 16 1.82 Cannot 

reject

f = Standard deviation of field data.

nf = Number of days field data were collected.

m = Standard deviation of model runs.

nm = Number of model runs.

σf

σ

σ

71

CHAPTER 7. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

The primary purpose of building models is to evaluate alternatives in support of the 

decisionmaking process. The alternatives analysis process has two fundamental parts: the 

simulation modeling of alternatives and the sequencing of the alternatives to analyze. From an 

overall workflow perspective, the alternatives analysis step is similar for all projects in terms of 

how the modeling steps are conducted. However, the number of alternatives and workflow for 

what is being analyzed and reported can be very different and therefore needs to be customized 

based on the issues and the nature of the proposed project and improvements.

There are three main areas of consideration for an alternatives analysis, as shown in figure 21. 

There is the simulation modeling work itself, which includes carrying forward relevant 

calibration parameters, satisfying the required number of model runs, forecasting traffic, and 

ensuring that error checking has been conducted. The second area is the sequencing of 

alternatives and timeframes that are to be simulated. Time should be invested up front to 

investigate and lay out an optimal approach for the sequencing of the simulation analysis to 

reduce the overall level of effort. The third area is the presentation of modeled results, where the 

report summaries must be designed to be illustrative and effective at communicating differences.

Figure 21. Flowchart. Alternatives analysis workflow.

Key considerations for the alternative analysis step include the following: 

• The purpose of the analysis is clear.

• The base model is error-free and properly calibrated.

• The determination of how the traffic forecasts are developed and incorporated into 

the simulation.

Alternatives 

Analysis

Simulation 

Modeling 

Steps

Alternatives 

Analyzed/

Sequencing

Reporting Results

Comparative 

Analysis

73
• There is an understanding of what alternatives should be simulated.

• The determination of whether the number of alternatives being simulated can be reduced 

by some other screening or analysis technique.

• The MOEs that are important in making a decisions are included.

• The MOEs are presented clearly to make the results transparent and easy to understand.

In some occasions, the simulation analysis may not be sensitive enough to distinguish between 

subtle nuances between similar alternatives. For example, simulation models cannot really 

distinguish between operational characteristics of two alternatives featuring a difference of 

20 ft in the length of a storage lane. Similarly, simulation tools may not adequately analyze the 

differences between other design features such as shoulder widths, lane widths, and taper rates of 

acceleration and deceleration lanes. It is important that parameters are identified upfront about 

the realistic capabilities of what the simulation can and cannot be used to evaluate.

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

The requirements for an alternatives analysis depend on the type of project. The focus of this 

report is interstate freeway improvement projects. The level-of-effort case studies presented in 

chapter 1 include two projects requiring FHWA approval for interstate access requests. One 

project was a national highway system freeway (TH 100) that does not require the same FHWA 

approval as an interstate project, and the other was a comprehensive system plan (I-5 in 

San Diego, CA). The national highway system project mostly followed the interstate access 

request process.

The interstate access request process is fairly strict and requires a number of analyses, including 

the existing conditions, year opening, and design year. Depending on the sequence of 

construction and project phasing, additional interim year analyses may be required. This 

workflow is illustrated in figure 22. The interstate access request process is described in 

FHWA’s Interstate System Access Informational Guide.

(10)

Figure 22. Illustration. Interstate access analysis requirements—analysis years.

Baseline Condition

In all of types of projects, it is important to have a baseline for comparison. The baseline 

condition generally reflects some of the current planned geometric and operational conditions 

Existing

• Calibration

Year Opening 

Analysis

• Baseline

• Alternatives

Interim Year 

Analysis

• Baseline

• Alternatives

Design Year 

Analysis

• Baseline

• Alternatives

74
with future year traffic. When future planned/approved projects are coded into the model, the 

baseline condition is representative of the no-build condition.

Depending on the complexity of the network and of the alternatives analyzed, it is beneficial 

to use the ODME process (described in chapter 5) to analyze future alternatives that have 

interchange or ramp reconfigurations. Constructing O-D matrices by hand (to reflect the new 

ramp termini or interchange reconfiguration) introduces the potential for errors, and, depending 

on the size of the system, it can be labor intensive.

SIMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The actual simulation of alternatives must follow the same principles and guidelines for base 

development and error checking. However, there are some specific considerations for the 

alternatives analysis that are captured in this section as follows:

• Traffic forecasting: Preparing traffic forecasts is part of the analysis process. This report

does not include the costs and processes involved in the forecasting effort because the 

case study projects that were used had forecasts available through local agencies.

• Number of model runs: The procedure described in chapter 6 should be followed in the 

alternatives analysis. It is important to confirm that the selected tolerance in variation 

between model runs is satisfied. It is likely that the required number of runs in the 

alternatives model will be similar to the base model. Therefore, starting with the same 

number of runs would potentially save time.

• Calibration parameters: It is important to maintain the calibration parameters from the 

calibrated model as a basis to conduct the alternatives analysis.

SEQUENCING OF ANALYSIS

Managing the number of alternatives to be simulated in an alternatives analysis must be given 

careful consideration. If there are too few analyses, the process will have little credibility. 

Conversely, if there are too many analyses, the process can become bogged down with 

information overload, and it will become costly.

Simulation analysis is a powerful tool that allows for an effective and comprehensive analysis of 

an alternative. However, depending on the size and complexity of the model, it can also be a 

costly resource to deploy. It is essential to strike a balance between using the modeling process 

correctly and using the modeling process too much.

There are three different sequencing approaches, which are discussed in the following 

subsections. This is an illustrative exercise only and is provided to demonstrate how planning 

the alternatives analysis can be accomplished, potentially in a streamlined fashion. The 

disclaimer on this exercise is that there is no “one size fits all” solution; each project must 

consider the requirements and the best approach to satisfy the project. These examples 

demonstrate alternative methods that can reduce the amount of effort expended and improve 

the effectiveness of the analysis.

75
Incomplete Analysis

At times, particularly when resources are limited, there is a strong desire to skip the entire sevenstep simulation process and go straight to the analysis of the alternative that is thought to be the 

best. This approach is incomplete and unacceptable for many reasons. For example, bypassing 

the model calibration step works against the credibility of the analysis. Also, the comparison 

between the baseline results and the alternative is most useful when focused on the differences in 

performance measures values rather than the absolute values.

An example analysis workflow of incomplete analysis is illustrated in figure 23. In this extreme 

case, the model calibration is not conducted, there is no baseline (no-build) for comparison, and 

there is only one alternative analyzed.

Alt 1

Interim Year Analyses

Alt 1

Design Year Analyses

Figure 23. Illustration. Incomplete alternatives analysis approach.

Excessive Alternatives Analysis

The opposite of an incomplete alternatives analysis approach is one that is too excessive. In 

dealing with multiple stakeholders, there is a temptation to satisfy every request to analyze 

solutions in the microsimulation tool. At the beginning of the process, this may seem reasonable; 

however, as controversy occurs on a project and more ideas begin to be voiced, there is pressure 

to simulate more and more ideas.

One advantage of simulation is that when an alternative is modeled, the results provide useful 

information as to how to refine a design concept. If the initial/core set of alternatives is not 

managed to a reasonable number, then it is possible that the proliferation of subalternatives can 

add another layer of excessive alternatives analysis.

The last consideration is how the analysis years are sequenced. If the design year is the 

decisionmaking timeframe on the final solution, then it is advantageous to start with that 

timeframe to make a decision, reduce the number of alternatives, and then focus the analysis on 

the interim years on fewer alternatives. If not and the analysis proceeds in a linear fashion from 

existing to year opening to interim and then design year, then the modeler becomes obligated to 

76
carry forward all the alternatives (and sub-alternatives) forward without making a decision until 

all the analyses are completed.

A diagram of the number of alternatives and sub-alternatives that could easily occur as a result of 

the aforementioned issues is illustrated in figure 24.

Figure 24. Illustration. Excessive alternative analysis.

Streamlined Sequencing

There are many ways to approach an alternatives analysis that can satisfy the requirements and 

be time effective. Some simple streamlining techniques include the following:

• Screening down the number of alternatives, thereby reducing the number of 

alternatives simulated.

• Rearranging the sequence of analysis years.

An example is shown in figure 25. In addition to the simulation time, it is important to consider 

the stakeholders that must absorb the model information and make a decision. These techniques 

can be effective in managing stakeholders’ needs, requests, and expectations.

Existing 

Calibration 

Baseline

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt N

Alt 1a

Alt 1b

Alt 2a

Alt 2b

Alt 3a

Alt 3b

Alt 4a

Alt 4b

Alt Na

Alt Nb

Interim Year Analyses

Baseline

Alt 1b

Alt 2b

Alt 3b

Alt 4b

Alt Nb

Alt 1b-1

Alt 1b-2

Alt 2b-1

Alt 2b-2

Alt 3b-1

Alt 3b-2

Alt 4b-1

Alt 4b-2

Alt Nb-1

Alt Nb-2

Design Year Analyses

77
Existing 

Calibration 

Baseline

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt N

Alt 2a

Alt 2b

Alt 4a

Alt 4b

Alt Na

Alt Nb

Interim Year 

Analyses

Baseline

Alt 2b

Alt 4b

Design Year Analyses

Alt x Alternative eliminated from simulation analysis based on 

other screening and less intensive analytical techniques

Figure 25. Illustration. Streamlined alternatives analysis method.

Sample Relative Level-of-Effort Approaches

The previous sample alternative analysis workflows are generic cases to illustrate the issues with 

too little analysis, too much analysis, and a modified approach. Assigning a value of 100 h for 

each analysis box in the preceding figures, the results depicted in figure 26 make a strong 

argument for planning a streamlined analysis before the modeling work is to begin.

78
Figure 26. Graph. Comparison of the effort for different alternative analysis approaches.

EXAMPLES ON REPORTING RESULTS OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Tabular Methods

Simulation models produce excellent MOEs that help provide a quantitative assessment of 

alternatives. The models have the capacity to produce a lot of data. Reducing these data down to 

a few core tables of essential information is needed for an effective decisionmaking process. 

Table 19, table 20, and figure 27 are examples of data summaries. The color code in figure 27

indicates the following speeds: 

• Green = 65+ mi/h.

• Medium green = 63–64 mi/h.

• Yellow green = 61–62 mi/h.

• Yellow = 55–60 mi/h.

• Yellow red = 50–54 mi/h.

• Light red = 40–49 mi/h.

• Red = 21–39 mi/h.

• Red with red numbering = Less than 21 mi/h. 

79
Table 19. Sample MOE summary table.

(7)

Analysis 

Segment

Design Year

2005

2015

(Alternative A)

2015

(Alternative B) 2025

Speed

(mi/h)

Density

(vehicles/

lane/mi)

Speed

(mi/h)

Density

(vehicles/

lane/mi)

Speed

(mi/h)

Density

(vehicles/

lane/mi)

Speed

(mi/h)

Density

(vehicles/

lane/mi)

I-94 merge to 

High Ridge 

exit

64 (64) 11 (6) 32 (64) 34 (9) 64 (64) 15 (9) 64 (64) 16 (11)

High Ridge 

exit to High 

Ridge 

entrance

64 (64) 10 (4) 7 (64) 111 (9) 63 (64) 14 (6) 63 (64) 13 (7)

High Ridge 

entrance to 

I-94 diverge

58 (63) 12 (4) 8 (62) 108 (7) 61 (64) 15 (6) 61 (63) 17 (7)

Note: Table values are listed as XX (YY), where XX represents the morning peak average, and YY represents the afternoon

average. Bolded cells represent where the average speed dropped below 30 mi/h for any peak period for that alternative.

Table 20. Delay comparison between two scenarios in vehicle-hours—I-210 VISSIM 

simulation.

Direction Scenario 13 Scenario 14 Difference

Percent

Difference

Westbound 14,109 10,757 -3,351 -23.8 percent

Eastbound 971 920 -51 -5.3 percent

Total 15,080 11,677 -3,403 -22.6 percent

80
Figure 27. Graph. Speed diagram for I-210 VISSIM simulation.

81
Graphical Techniques

Graphical techniques are another way of representing the simulation analysis results in an 

effective manner. When developing a graphical representation of data, it is important to clearly 

explain the criteria for any shading or coloring used to highlight where there may be issues with 

the depicted operations. Furthermore, it is always good practice to accompany graphics with a 

corresponding narrative explaining the context, findings, and recommendations. Figure 28

through figure 30 include examples of graphics that can be used.

Figure 28. Illustration. Sample comparison of project alternatives using schematic 

drawing.

(7)

82
Figure 29. Graph. Delay by segment for two scenarios in vehicle-hours—I-210 VISSIM 

simulation.

Figure 30. Graph. Delay by segment for all scenarios in vehicle-hours—I-210 VISSIM 

simulation.

83

REFERENCES

1. Dowling, R., Skabardonis, A., and Alexiadis, V. (2004). Traffic Analysis Toolbox 

Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software, Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-04-040, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

2. Google Earth®. (2012). I-5 Tacoma study area. Data date: July 5, 2012, Generated by: 

R. VanGorder, Obtained from: Google Earth®. Last accessed: July 8, 2013.

3. Florida Department of Transportation. Project Development and Environmental Studies, 

Tallahassee, FL. Obtained from: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/projectmanagementoffice/

Scope/Documents.shtm.

4. Florida Department of Transportation. (2002). The Interchange Handbook, 2nd Edition, 

Tallahassee, FL. Obtained from: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/

sm/intjus/interchangehb/complete.pdf.

5. Oregon Department of Transportation. Analysis Procedures Manual, Salem, OR. Obtained 

from: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/Pages/APM.aspx.

6. Jeannotte, K., Chandra, A., Alexiadis, V., and Skabardonis, A. (2004). Traffic Analysis 

Toolbox Volume II: Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools, 

Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-039, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

7. Holm, P., Tomich, D., Sloboden, J., and Lowrance, C. (2007). Traffic Analysis Toolbox 

Volume IV: Guidelines for Applying CORSIM Microsimulation Modeling Software, Report 

No. FHWA-HOP-07-079, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

8. Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Analysis Tools, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficanalysistools/index.htm.

9. Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Interstate System Access Informational Guide, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/design/interstate/pubs/access/access.pdf.

10. Oregon Department of Transportation. (2011). Protocol for Vissim Simulation, Oregon 

Department of Transportation, Salem, OR. Obtained from: http://www.oregon.gov/

ODOT/TD/TP/APM/AddC.pdf.

85
HRDO-20/03-14(WEB)E