Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume I:

Traffic Analysis Tools Primer

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-04-038 JULY 2004

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
Foreword 

“Traffic analysis tools” is a collective term used to describe a variety of software-based 

analytical procedures and methodologies that support different aspects of traffic and 

transportation analyses. Traffic analysis tools include methodologies such as sketch-planning, 

travel demand modeling, traffic signal optimization, and traffic simulation. The purpose of this 

Traffic Analysis Tools Primer is to give the reader an overview of the different types of traffic 

analysis tools and to describe their role in transportation analyses. 

This document serves as Volume I in the Traffic Analysis Toolbox. Other volumes currently in 

the toolbox include: Volume II: Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools 

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

The intended audience for this report is the transportation professional or manager who needs a 

high-level introduction into the role of traffic analysis tools in the transportation analysis 

process. 

 Jeffery A. Lindley, P.E. 

 Director 

 Office of Transportation Management 

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 the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

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-04-038 

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

 

5. Report Date 

June 2004 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Traffic Analysis Toolbox 

Volume I: Traffic Analysis Tools Primer 6. Performing Organization Code

 

7. Author(s) 

Vassili Alexiadis, Krista Jeannotte, Andre Chandra 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

 

10. Work Unit No. 

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

555 12th Street, Suite 1600 

Oakland, CA 94607 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-01-C-00181 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report, May 2002 – August 2003 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Operations 

Federal Highway Administration 

400 7th Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

 

15. Supplementary Notes 

FHWA COTR: John Halkias, Office of Transportation Management 

16. Abstract 

This primer provides an overview of traffic analysis tools in the transportation analysis process. Different 

categories of traffic analysis tools are defined, and the challenges and limitations of using traffic analysis tools is 

presented. A specific comparison between Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and traffic simulation-based 

analysis is provided. Criteria for selecting the appropriate type of traffic analysis tool are described. A list of 

traffic analysis tools within each category and their corresponding website links is provided in an appendix. 

This is the first volume in a series of volumes in the Traffic Analysis Toolbox. The other volumes currently in the 

Traffic Analysis Toolbox are: 

Volume II: Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools (FHWA-HRT-04-039) 

Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software (FHWA-HRT-04-040) 

17. Key Words 

Traffic analysis tools, traffic simulation, highway 

capacity 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

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

34

22. Price 

 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 
ii

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 th International System of Units. Appropri e ate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 Overview of the Transportation Analysis Process.................................................. 3 

3.0 Role of Traffic Analysis Tools .................................................................................... 5 

4.0 Categories of Traffic Analysis Tools ......................................................................... 7 

5.0 Challenges and Limitations in the Use of Traffic Analysis Tools....................... 9 

6.0 Comparison of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and Simulation ................... 11 

6.1 HCM Strengths and Limitations.......................................................................... 11 

6.2 Simulation Strengths and Limitations................................................................. 12 

6.3 Traffic Performance Measures: Differences Between HCM and 

Simulation ............................................................................................................... 12 

6.4 Strategy for Overcoming the Limitations of HCM............................................ 13 

7.0 Criteria for Selecting the Appropriate Type of Traffic Analysis Tool................ 15 

Appendix A Traffic Analysis Tools by Category............................................................ 19 

A.1 Sketch Planning Tools ........................................................................................... 19 

A.2 Travel Demand Models......................................................................................... 20 

A.3 Analytical/Deterministic Tools (HCM Methodologies)................................... 20 

A.4 Traffic Optimization Tools.................................................................................... 23 

A.5 Macroscopic Simulation Models.......................................................................... 24 

A.6 Mesoscopic Simulation Models............................................................................ 24 

A.7 Microscopic Simulation Models........................................................................... 25 

A.8 Integrated Traffic Analysis Tools......................................................................... 26 
iv

List of Figures 

1 Overview of the transportation analysis process....................................................... 4 

2 Criteria for selecting a traffic analysis tool category ................................................. 17 

List of Tables 

1 Relevance of traffic analysis tool categories with respect to analytical 

context.............................................................................................................................. 18 
1

1.0 Introduction 

Entering the 21st century, the Nation’s transportation system has matured; it only expands 

its infrastructure by a fraction of a percentage each year. However, congestion continues 

to grow at an alarming rate, adversely impacting our quality of life and increasing the 

potential for accidents and long delays. These are expected to escalate, calling for 

transportation professionals to increase the productivity of existing transportation systems 

through the use of operational improvements. In order to assess the potential effectiveness 

of a particular strategy, it must be analyzed using traffic analysis tools or methodologies. 

There are several traffic analysis methodologies and tools available for use; however, there 

is little or no guidance on which tool should be used. These tools vary in their scope, 

capabilities, methodology, input requirements, and output. In addition, there is no one 

tool that can address all of the analytical needs of a particular agency. 

The objective of Traffic Analysis Tools Primer (Volume I) and Decision Support Methodology for 

Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools (Volume II) is to assist traffic engineers, planners, and traffic 

operations professionals in the selection of the correct type of traffic analysis tool for 

operational improvements. These documents are intended to assist practitioners in 

selecting the category of tool for use. Another objective of these documents is to assist in 

creating analytical consistency and uniformity across State departments of transportation 

(DOTs) and Federal/regional/local transportation agencies. 

Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools identifies the criteria that 

should be considered in the selection of an appropriate traffic analysis tool and helps 

identify the circumstances when a particular type of tool should be used. A methodology 

is also presented to guide users in the selection of the appropriate tool category. This 

document includes worksheets that transportation professionals can use to select the 

appropriate tool category and provides assistance in identifying the most appropriate tool 

within the selected category. An automated tool that implements this methodology can be 

found at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Analysis Tools Web site at: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/Traffic_Analysis_Tools/traffic_analysis_tools.htm. 

3

2.0 Overview of the Transportation Analysis 

Process 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and the Federal/State Clean Air legislation have 

reinforced the importance of traffic management and control of existing highway capacity. 

As transportation agencies deploy more sophisticated hardware and software system 

management technologies, there is an increased need to respond to recurring and 

nonrecurring congestion in a proactive fashion, and to predict and evaluate the outcome of 

various improvement plans without the inconvenience of a field experiment. 

Out of these needs, traffic analysis tools emerge as one of the most efficient methods to 

evaluate transportation improvement projects. This document addresses quantifiable 

traffic operations analysis tools categories, but does not include real-time or predictive 

models. Traffic analysis tools may include software packages, methodologies, and 

procedures, and are defined as those typically used for the following tasks: 

• Evaluating, simulating, or optimizing the operations of transportation facilities and 

systems. 

• Modeling existing operations and predicting probable outcomes for proposed design 

alternatives. 

• Evaluating various analytical contexts, including planning, design, and 

operations/construction projects. 

Figure 1 presents an overview of the transportation analysis process, along with its 

various evaluation contexts and the types of traffic analysis tools that are typically used in 

each context. Typically, transportation analysis needs result from the policies and 

objectives of State/regional/local transportation plans and programs. A transportation 

improvement (project) goes through several phases, including planning, project 

development, design, implementation, and post-implementation operational assessment 

and modification. As shown in figure 1, each of these phases requires different analytical 

methodologies and tools. A project’s early planning stage usually involves the application 

of sketch planning or travel demand modeling techniques. These methodologies help 

agencies screen the different transportation improvements, resulting in the selection of a 

few candidate transportation improvements. Later stages (such as project development or 

post-implementation modifications) usually involve the application of more rigorous and 

detailed techniques, such as traffic simulation and/or optimization. The role of traffic 

analysis tools is further explained in the following chapter. 
4

Statewide Policies and Objectives

Statewide or Regional 

Transportation Plan and Program

• Sketch planning

• Travel demand models

Local Transportation Plans

Project Development (Geometric 

and Operational)

• Sketch planning

• HCM/Analytical methods

• Traffic simulation models

• Traffic optimization models

Environmental Impact Statement

Design and Implementation

Ongoing Operational Assessment 

and Modification

• Sketch planning

• HCM/Analytical methods

• Traffic simulation models

• Traffic optimization

Regional 

Environmental 

Analyses

Note: Boxes outlined by a bold line represent the primary realm of application of traffic 

analysis tools.

Interface with 

Other Regional 

Plans

Figure 1. Overview of the transportation analysis process. 
5

3.0 Role of Traffic Analysis Tools 

Traffic analysis tools are designed to assist transportation professionals in evaluating the 

strategies that best address the transportation needs of their jurisdiction. Specifically, 

traffic analysis tools can help practitioners: 

• Improve the decisionmaking process. Traffic analysis tools help practitioners arrive at 

better planning/engineering decisions for complex transportation problems. They are 

used to estimate the impact of the deployment of traffic management and other 

strategies, and to help set priorities among competing projects. In addition, they can 

provide a consistent approach for comparing potential improvements or alternatives. 

• Evaluate and prioritize planning/operational alternatives. This typically involves 

comparing “no build” conditions with alternatives, which include various types of 

potential improvements. The impacts are reported as performance measures and are 

defined as the difference between the no-build and alternative scenarios. The results 

can be used to select the best alternative or prioritize improvements, increasing the 

odds of having a successful deployment. 

• Improve design and evaluation time and costs. Traffic analysis tools are relatively 

less costly when compared to pilot studies, field experiments, or full implementation 

costs. Furthermore, analytical tools can be used to assess multiple deployment 

combinations or other complex scenarios in a relatively short time. 

• Reduce disruptions to traffic. Traffic management and control strategies come in 

many forms and options, and analytical tools provide a way to cheaply estimate the 

effects prior to full deployment of the management strategy. They may be used to 

initially test new transportation management systems concepts without the 

inconvenience of a field experiment. 

• Present/market strategies to the public/stakeholders. Some traffic analysis tools have 

excellent graphical and animation displays, which could be used as tools to show 

“what if” scenarios to the public and/or stakeholders. 

• Operate and manage existing roadway capacity. Some tools provide optimization 

capabilities, recommending the best design or control strategies to maximize the 

performance of a transportation facility. 

• Monitor performance. Analytical tools can also be used to evaluate and monitor the 

performance of existing transportation facilities. In the future, it is hoped that 

monitoring systems can be directly linked to analytical tools for a more direct and realtime analysis process. 

7

4.0 Categories of Traffic Analysis Tools 

To date, numerous traffic analysis methodologies and tools have been developed by 

public agencies, research organizations, and consultants. Traffic analysis tools can be 

grouped into the following categories: 

• Sketch-planning tools: Sketch-planning methodologies and tools produce general orderof-magnitude estimates of travel demand and traffic operations in response to 

transportation improvements. They allow for the evaluation of specific projects or 

alternatives without conducting an indepth engineering analysis. Such techniques are 

primarily used to prepare preliminary budgets and proposals, and are not considered 

to be a substitute for the detailed engineering analysis often needed later in the project 

implementation process. Sketch-planning approaches are typically the simplest and 

least costly of the traffic analysis techniques. Sketch-planning tools perform some or 

all of the functions of other analytical tool types, using simplified analyses techniques 

and highly aggregated data. However, sketch-planning techniques are usually limited 

in scope, analytical robustness, and presentation capabilities. 

• Travel demand models: Travel demand models have specific analytical capabilities, 

such as the prediction of travel demand and the consideration of destination choice, 

mode choice, time-of-day travel choice, and route choice, and the representation of 

traffic flow in the highway network. These are mathematical models that forecast 

future travel demand based on current conditions, and future projections of household 

and employment characteristics. Travel demand models were originally developed to 

determine the benefits and impact of major highway improvements in metropolitan 

areas. However, they were not designed to evaluate travel management strategies, 

such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS)/operational strategies. Travel demand 

models only have limited capabilities to accurately estimate changes in operational 

characteristics (such as speed, delay, and queuing) resulting from implementation of 

ITS/operational strategies. These inadequacies generally occur because of the poor 

representation of the dynamic nature of traffic in travel demand models. 

• Analytical/deterministic tools (HCM-based): Most analytical/deterministic tools 

implement the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). These tools quickly 

predict capacity, density, speed, delay, and queuing on a variety of transportation 

facilities and are validated with field data, laboratory test beds, or small-scale 

experiments. Analytical/deterministic tools are good for analyzing the performance of 

isolated or small-scale transportation facilities; however, they are limited in their 

ability to analyze network or system effects. HCM procedures and their strengths and 

limitations are discussed in more detail in section 6.1. 

• Traffic signal optimization tools: Traffic signal optimization tools are primarily 

designed to develop optimal signal-phasing and timing plans for isolated signal 

intersections, arterial streets, or signal networks. This may include capacity 

calculations; cycle length; splits optimization, including left turns; and 
8

coordination/offset plans. Some optimization tools can also be used for optimizing 

ramp metering rates for freeway ramp control. 

• Macroscopic simulation models: Macroscopic simulation models are based on the 

deterministic relationships of the flow, speed, and density of the traffic stream. The 

simulation in a macroscopic model takes place on a section-by-section basis rather 

than by tracking individual vehicles. Macroscopic models have considerably fewer 

demanding computer requirements than microscopic models. They do not, however, 

have the ability to analyze transportation improvements in as much detail as the 

microscopic models. 

• Mesoscopic simulation models: Mesoscopic simulation models combine the 

properties of both microscopic (discussed below) and macroscopic simulation models. 

As in microscopic models, the mesoscopic models’ unit of traffic flow is the individual 

vehicle. Their movement, however, follows the approach of the macroscopic models 

and is governed by the average speed on the travel link. Mesoscopic model travel 

simulation takes place on an aggregate level and does not consider dynamic 

speed/volume relationships. As such, mesoscopic models provide less fidelity than 

the microsimulation tools, but are superior to the typical planning analysis techniques. 

• Microscopic simulation models: Microscopic models simulate the movement of 

individual vehicles based on car-following and lane-changing theories. Typically, 

vehicles enter a transportation network using a statistical distribution of arrivals (a 

stochastic process) and are tracked through the network over small time intervals (e.g., 

1 second or a fraction of a second). Typically, upon entry, each vehicle is assigned a 

destination, a vehicle type, and a driver type. Computer time and storage 

requirements for microscopic models are large, usually limiting the network size and 

the number of simulation runs that can be completed. 
9

5.0 Challenges and Limitations in the Use of 

Traffic Analysis Tools 

As discussed in sections 2.0 and 3.0, traffic analysis tools are useful and effective in helping 

transportation professionals best address their transportation needs (as long as they are 

used correctly). Each tool and tool category is designed to perform a different traffic 

analysis function, and there is no one analytical tool that can do everything or solve every 

problem. This section addresses some of the challenges and limitations that should be 

considered when selecting traffic analysis tools: 

• Availability of quality data. If good data are not available, the user should consider a 

less data-intensive tool category, such as a sketch-planning tool rather than 

microsimulation. However, the results of the simpler tool categories are usually more 

generalized, so the user should carefully balance the needs of a more detailed analysis 

with the amount of data required. 

• Limited empirical data. Data collection can often be the most costly component of a 

study. The best approach is to look at the ultimate goals and objectives of the task and 

focus data collection on the data that are crucial to the study. 

• Limited funding. Limited funding for conducting the study, purchasing tools, 

running analytical scenarios, and training the users is often a consideration in 

transportation studies. Traffic analysis tools can require a significant capital 

investment. Software licensing and training fees can make up a large portion of the 

budget. Also, the analysis of more scenarios costs money. When faced with funding 

limitations, focus on the project’s goals and objectives, and try to identify the point of 

diminishing returns for the investment. 

• Training limitations. Traffic simulation tools usually have steep learning curves and, 

as a result, some transportation professionals do not receive adequate modeling and 

simulation training. 

• Limited resources. Limitations in staffing, capabilities, and funding for building the 

network and conducting the analysis should be considered. The implementation of 

most traffic analysis tools is a resource-intensive process, especially in the model 

construction and calibration (front-end) phases for simulation analyses. Careful 

scheduling and pre-agreed-upon acceptance criteria are necessary to keep the project 

focused and on target. 

• Data input and the diversity and inconsistency of data. Each tool uses unique 

analytical methodologies, so the data requirements for analysis can vary greatly from 

tool to tool and by tool category. In many cases, data from previous projects contribute 

very little to a new analytical effort. Adequate resources must be budgeted for data 

collection. 
10

• Lack of understanding of the limitations of analytical tools. Often, limitations and 

“bugs” are not discovered until the project is underway. It is important to learn from 

experiences with past projects or to communicate with fellow users of a particular tool 

or tool category in order to assess the tool’s capabilities and limitations. By researching 

the experiences of others, users can gain a better understanding of what they may 

encounter as the project progresses. 

• Tool may not be designed to evaluate all types of impacts produced by 

transportation strategies/applications. The output measures produced by each tool 

vary, so the process of matching the project’s desired performance measures with the 

tool’s output is important. In addition, there are very few tools that directly analyze 

ITS strategies and the impacts associated with them (e.g., reduction in incident 

duration, agency cost savings, etc.). 

• Lack of features. Some analytical tools are not designed to evaluate the specific 

strategies that the users would like to implement. This is more prevalent in modeling 

ITS strategies or other advanced traffic operations strategies. Often, “tricking” the tool 

into mimicking a certain strategy is a short-term solution; however, there should be 

flexibility so that advanced users may customize the tools. 

• Desire to run real-time solutions. Many tools require a significant amount of time for 

setup, modeling, and analysis. There is hope that future tools would be able to be 

linked to Traffic Management Centers and detectors, so that the analysis can be 

implemented directly and in real time. This would allow transportation professionals 

to respond to recurring and nonrecurring congestion using real-time solutions. 

• Tendency to use simpler analytical tools and those available in house, although 

they might not be the best tools for the job. Because of lack of resources, past 

experiences, or lack of familiarity with other available tools, many agencies prefer to 

use a tool currently in their possession, even if it is not the most appropriate tool for 

the project. 

• Biases against models and traffic analysis tools. These biases are not only because of 

the challenges listed above, but also because models are not always reliable and are 

often considered to be “black boxes.” Some transportation professionals prefer to use 

back-of-the-envelope calculations, charts, or nomographs to estimate the results. This 

may be adequate for simpler tasks; however, more complex projects require more 

advanced tools. 

• Long computer run times. Depending on the computer hardware and the scope of the 

study (i.e., area size, data requirements, duration, analysis time periods, etc.), an 

analytical model run may range from a few seconds to several hours. The most 

effective approaches to addressing this issue involve using the most robust computer 

equipment available and/or carefully limiting the study scope to conform to the 

analytical needs. 
11

6.0 Comparison of Highway Capacity Manual

(HCM) and Simulation 

The intent of this section is to compare the capabilities of HCM and traffic simulation tools 

and to provide additional guidance on assessing when traffic simulation may be more 

appropriate than HCM-based methods or tools. 

6.1 HCM Strengths and Limitations 

For many applications, HCM is the most widely used and accepted traffic analysis 

technique in the United States. The HCM procedures are good for analyzing the 

performance of isolated facilities with relatively moderate congestion problems. These 

procedures are quick and reliable for predicting whether a facility will be operating above 

or below capacity, and they have been well tested through significant field-validation 

efforts. However, the HCM procedures are generally limited in their ability to evaluate 

system effects. 

Most of the HCM methods and models assume that the operation of one intersection or 

road segment is not adversely affected by conditions on the adjacent roadway. Long 

queues at one location that interfere with another location would violate this assumption. 

The HCM procedures are of limited value in analyzing queues and the effects of the 

queues. 

There are also several gaps in the HCM procedures. HCM is a constantly evolving and 

expanding set of analytical tools and, consequently, there are still many real-world 

situations for which HCM does not yet have a recommended analytical procedure. The 

following list identifies some of these gaps: 

• Multilane or two-lane rural roads where traffic signals or stop signs significantly 

impact capacity and/or operations. 

• Climbing lanes for trucks. 

• Short through-lane is added or dropped at a signal. 

• Two-way left-turn lanes. 

• Roundabouts of more than a single lane. 

• Tight diamond interchanges. 
12

6.2 Simulation Strengths and Limitations 

Simulation tools are effective in evaluating the dynamic evolution of traffic congestion 

problems on transportation systems. By dividing the analysis period into time slices, a 

simulation model can evaluate the buildup, dissipation, and duration of traffic congestion. 

By evaluating systems of facilities, simulation models can evaluate the interference that 

occurs when congestion builds up at one location and impacts the capacity of another 

location. Also, traffic simulators can model the variability in driver/vehicle characteristics. 

Simulation tools, however, require a plethora of input data, considerable error checking of 

the data, and manipulation of a large amount of potential calibration parameters. 

Simulation models cannot be applied to a specific facility without the calibration of those 

parameters to the actual conditions in the field. Calibration can be a complex and timeconsuming process. 

The algorithms of simulation models are mostly developed independently and are not 

subject to peer review and acceptance in the professional community. There is no national 

consensus on the appropriateness of a simulation approach. 

Simulation models, for all their complexity, also have limitations. Commercially available 

simulation models are not designed to model the following: 

• Two-way left-turn lanes. 

• Impact of driveway access: Major driveways can be modeled as unsignalized Tintersections. However, models cannot address the impact of numerous minor 

driveways along a street segment (link). They can only be approximately modeled as a 

midblock sink or node. 

• Impact of onstreet parking, commercial vehicle loading, and double parking (although 

such conditions may be approximately modeled as short-term incidents). 

• Interferences that can occur between bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles sharing the 

same roadway. 

Simulation models also assume “100-percent safe driving,” so they will not be effective in 

predicting how changes in design might influence the probability of collisions. In 

addition, simulation models do not take into consideration how changes in the roadside 

environment (outside of the traveled way) affect driver behavior within the traveled way 

(e.g., obstruction of visibility, roadside distractions such as a stalled vehicle, etc.). 

6.3 Traffic Performance Measures: Differences Between 

HCM and Simulation 

The HCM methodologies and tool procedures take a static approach to predicting traffic 

performance; simulation models take a dynamic approach. HCM estimates the average 

density, speed, or delay over the peak 15 minutes of an hour, while simulation models 
13

predict density, speed, and delay for each time slice within the analysis period (which can 

be longer than an hour). 

Not only are there differences in approach, there are differences in the definitions of the 

performance measures produced by the simulation models and the HCM tools. Some of 

the most notable differences include: 

• Simulation models report density for actual vehicles, while HCM reports density in 

terms of equivalent passenger cars (trucks and other heavy vehicles are counted more 

than once in the computation of density). 

• Simulation models report vehicle flows in terms of actual vehicles, while HCM reports 

capacity for freeways and highways in terms of passenger-car equivalents. 

• Simulation models report delay only on the street segment where vehicles are slowed 

down, while HCM reports all delay caused by a given bottleneck (regardless of the 

actual physical location of the vehicles). 

• Simulation models report queues only on the street segment where vehicles are 

actually queued, while HCM reports all queued vehicles caused by a given bottleneck 

(regardless of the actual physical location of the vehicles). 

• Simulation models do not necessarily report control delay at signalized intersections. 

The reported values include midblock delays for vehicles traveling along the link, or 

only stopped delay at the traffic signal. 

6.4 Strategy for Overcoming the Limitations of HCM 

After a transportation professional has decided that the HCM procedures do not meet the 

needs of the analysis, the next step is to determine whether microscopic, mesoscopic, or 

macroscopic simulation is required. There are several simulation programs available for 

evaluating a variety of transportation improvements, facilities, modes, traveler responses, 

and performance measures. These analytical tools vary in their data requirements, 

capabilities, methodology, and output. In addition, the performance measures for the 

simulation models and the HCM procedures may differ in definition and/or methodology 

(e.g., the number of stops may be estimated at speeds of less than 8 kilometers per hour 

(km/h) (5 miles per hour (mi/h)) for one tool, but 0 km/h for another). 

If it is not necessary to microscopically trace individual vehicle movements, then the 

analyst can take advantage of the simpler data entry and control optimization features 

available in many macroscopic simulation models. However, macroscopic models often 

have to make certain assumptions regarding regularity in order to be able to apply 

macroscopic vehicle behavior relationships. If these assumptions are not valid for the 

situation being studied, then the analyst must resort to mesoscopic or microscopic 

simulation. 
14

Simulation models require a considerable amount of detailed data for input, calibration, 

and validation. In general, microscopic simulation models have more demanding data 

requirements than mesoscopic and macroscopic models. Simulation models are also more 

complicated and require a considerable amount of effort to gain an understanding of the 

assumptions, parameters, and methodologies involved in the analysis. The lack of 

understanding of these tools often makes credibility and past performance 

(use/popularity) a major factor in the selection of a particular simulation tool. More 

information on this issue may be found in Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation 

Modeling Software (Volume III). 
15

7.0 Criteria for Selecting the Appropriate Type 

of Traffic Analysis Tool 

This section identifies criteria that can be considered in the selection of an appropriate 

traffic analysis tool type and helps identify under what circumstances a particular type of 

tool should be used. Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools (Volume 

II) provides a detailed assessment of criteria to be considered when selecting a type of 

traffic analysis tool. 

The first step is identification of the analytical context for the task—planning, design, or 

operations/construction. Seven additional criteria are necessary to help identify the 

analytical tools that are most appropriate for a particular project. Depending on the 

analytical context and the project’s goals and objectives, the relevance of each criterion 

may differ. The criteria include the following: 

1. Ability to analyze the appropriate geographic scope or study area for the analysis, 

including an isolated intersection, single roadway, corridor, or network. 

2. Capability of modeling various facility types, such as freeways, high-occupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lanes, ramps, arterials, toll plazas, etc. 

3. Ability to analyze various travel modes, such as single-occupancy vehicle (SOV), 

HOV, bus, train, truck, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. 

4. Ability to analyze various traffic management strategies and applications, such as 

ramp metering, signal coordination, incident management, etc. 

5. Capability of estimating traveler responses to traffic management strategies, including 

route diversion, departure time choice, mode shift, destination choice, and 

induced/foregone demand. 

6. Ability to directly produce and output performance measures, such as safety 

measures (crashes, fatalities), efficiency (throughput, volumes, vehicle-miles of travel 

(VMT)), mobility (travel time, speed, vehicle-hours of travel (VHT)), productivity (cost 

savings), and environmental measures (emissions, fuel consumption, noise). 

7. Tool/Cost-Effectiveness for the task, mainly from a management or operational 

perspective. Parameters influencing cost-effectiveness include tool capital cost, level of 

effort required, ease of use, hardware requirements, data requirements, animation, etc. 

In Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools, each analytical tool 

category is evaluated against each criterion to identify whether or not a category of 

analytical tool is appropriate for use. Figure 2 below summarizes the criteria that may be 

considered in the selection of a tool category. 
16

The steps for selecting the appropriate type of analysis tool are: 

1. Users should begin by identifying the project’s analytical context (discussed in 

Section 2.1 of Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools). 

2. Next, users should filter through criteria 1 through 6 to limit the appropriate tool 

categories to one or two options. 

3. Finally, criterion 7 (tool/cost effectiveness) should be used to select the final tool 

category based on parameters outside of the technical context of the analysis, such as 

tool cost, training, hardware requirements, etc. 

Decision Support Methodology for Selecting Traffic Analysis Tools presents step-by-step 

guidance for the tool selection process, along with a list of recommended readings. An 

automated tool that implements the guidance can be found at the FHWA Traffic Analysis 

Tools Web site at: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/Traffic_Analysis_Tools/traffic_analysis_tools.htm

The first step in selecting the appropriate type of traffic analysis tool is the identification of 

the analytical context of the project. Figure 2 illustrates a typical transportation analysis 

process, which contains several analytical phases, including: 

• Planning: This phase includes short- or long-range studies or other State, regional, or 

local transportation plans (e.g., master plans, congestion management plans, ITS 

strategic plans, etc.). 

• Design: This phase includes approved and funded projects that are going through 

analysis of the alternatives or preliminary design to determine the best option for 

implementation. This phase also includes the analysis of roadway features needed to 

operate at a desired level of service (LOS). Full design projects (i.e., horizontal/vertical 

alignments, pavement design, etc.) are not included in this category. 

• Operations/Construction: These projects share many similar characteristics with 

design projects, but are performed to determine the best approach for optimizing or 

evaluating existing systems. 

Table 1 presents the general relevance of each tool category for each analytical context, 

including planning, design, and operations/construction. 
What is your 

study area?

Isolated LocationSegmentCorridor/ Small NetworkRegion

Which facility 

types do you 

want to 

include?

Isolated IntersectionRoundaboutArterialHighwayFreewayHOV LaneHOV Bypass LaneRampAuxiliary LaneReversible LaneTruck LaneBus LaneToll PlazaLight Rail Line

Which travel 

modes do you 

want to 

include?

SOVHOV (2, 3, 3+)BusRailTruckMotorcycleBicyclePedestrian

Which 

management 

strategies should 

be analyzed?

Freeway MgmtArterial IntersectionsArterial MgmtIncident MgmtEmergency MgmtWork ZoneSpec EventAPTSATISElectronicPaymentRRXCVOAVCSSWeather MgmtTDM

Which traveler 

responses 

should be 

analyzed?

Route Diversion

− Pre-Trip− En-Route

Mode ShiftDeparture Time ChoiceDestination ChangeInduced/ Foregone Demand

What 

performance 

measures are 

needed?

LOSSpeedTravel TimeVolumeTravel DistanceRidershipAVOv/c RatioDensityVMT/PMTVHT/PHTDelay Queue Length# StopsCrashes/ DurationTT ReliabilityEmissions/ Fuel ConsumpNoiseMode SplitBenefit/Cost

What 

operational 

characteristics 

are necessary?

Tool Capital CostEffort (Cost/ Training)Ease of UsePopular/WellTrustedHardware RequirementsData RequirementsComputer RunTimePost-ProcessingDocumentationUser SupportKey Parameters User DefinableDefault ValuesIntegrationAnimation/ Presentation

1

Geographic 

Scope

2

Facility 

Type

3

Travel

Mode

4

Management

Strategy

5

Traveler

Response

6

Performance

Measures

7

Tool/CostEffectiveness

Analysis Context: 

Planning, Design, or Operations/Construction

Figure 2. Criteria for selecting a traffic analysis tool category. 

17 
18

Table 1. Relevance of traffic analysis tool categories with respect to 

analytical context. 

Analytical Tools/Methodologies 

Analytical 

Context

Sketch 

Planning

Travel 

Demand 

Models 

Analytical/ 

Deterministic 

Tools (HCMBased)

Traffic 

Optimization Macroscopic 

Simulation 

Mesoscopic 

Simulation 

Microscopic 

Simulation 

Planning ● ● ∅ ○ ∅ ∅ ○

Design N/A ∅ ● ● ● ● ●

Operations/ 

Construction ∅ ○ ● ● ● ● ●

Notes: ● Specific context is generally addressed by the corresponding analytical tool/methodology. 

∅ Some of the analytical tools/methodologies address the specific context and some do not. 

○ The particular analytical tool/methodology does not generally address the specific context. 

 N/A The particular methodology is not appropriate for use in addressing the specific context. 

Before selecting a particular tool, users are strongly encouraged to assess the strengths 

and weaknesses of the specific analytical tools. Appendix A provides a list of available 

traffic analysis tools by tool category as of August 2003 (Web site links are also provided 

for more information). An updated version of this list can be found at the FHWA Office of 

Operations Web site at: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/Traffic_Analysis_Tools/traffic_analysis_tools.htm
19

Appendix A Traffic Analysis Tools by Category 

A.1 Sketch Planning Tools 

Examples of sketch planning tools: 

• Better Decisions: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=165

• HDM (Highway Design and Management): http://hdm4.piarc.org

• IDAS (ITS Deployment Analysis System): http://idas.camsys.com

• IMPACTS: www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/impacts.htm

• MicroBENCOST: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=166

• QuickZone: www.tfhrc.gov/its/quickzon.htm

• SCRITS (Screening for ITS): www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/scrits.htm

• Sketch Methods: http://plan2op.fhwa.dot.gov/toolbox/toolbox.htm

• SMITE (Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation): 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/smite.htm

• SPASM (Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model): 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/spasm.htm

• STEAM (Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model): 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/index.htm

• TEAPAC (Traffic Engineering Applications Package)/SITE: 

www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TrafikPlan: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=162

• TransDec (Transportation Decision): 

http://tti.tamu.edu/researcher/v34n3/transdec.stm

• Trip Generation: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=179

• Turbo Architecture: http://itsarch.iteris.com/itsarch/html/turbo/turbooverview.htm
20

A.2 Travel Demand Models 

Available travel demand modeling tools: 

• b-Node Model: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=482

• CUBE/MINUTP: www.citilabs.com/minutp/index.html

• CUBE/TP+/Viper: www.citilabs.com/viper/index.html

• CUBE/TRANPLAN (Transportation Planning): 

www.citilabs.com/tranplan/index.html

• CUBE/TRIPS (Transport Improvement Planning System): 

www.citilabs.com/trips/index.html

• EMME/2TM: www.inro.ca/products/e2_products.html

• IDAS: http://idas/camsys.com

• MicroTRIMS: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=483

• QRS II (Quick Response System II): http://my.execpc.com/~ajh/index.html

• SATURN (Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Network): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=157

• TModel: www.tmodel.com

• TransCAD®: www.caliper.com/tcovu.htm

• TRANSIMS (Transportation Analysis Simulation System): 

http://transims.tsasa.lanl.gov

A.3 Analytical/Deterministic Tools (HCM Methodologies) 

There is a wide array of analytical/deterministic tools currently available, including: 

• 5-Leg Signalized Intersection Capacity: 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=36

• aaSIDRA (Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid): 

www.aatraffic.com/SIDRA/aboutsidra.htm

• ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay): 

www.trlsoftware.co.uk/productARCADY.htm
21

• ARTPLAN (Arterial Planning): 

www.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

• CATS (Computer-Aided Transportation Software): 

http://tti.tamu.edu/product/software/cats

• CCG/Calc2 (Canadian Capacity Guide): 

www.bagroup.com/Pages/software/CCGCALC.html

• CINCH: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=4

• CIRCAP (Circle Capacity): www.teppllc.com/publications/CIRCAP.html

• DELAYE (Delay Enhanced): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=407

• dQUEUE-TOLLSIM (Dynamic Toll Plaza Queuing Analysis Program): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=290

• FAZWEAVE: http://tigger.uic.edu/~jfazio/weaving

• FREEPLAN (Freeway Planning): 

www.11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

• FREWAY (Freeway Delay Calculation Program): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=291

• FRIOP (Freeway Interchange Optimization Model): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=408

• General Purpose Queuing Model: 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=409

• Generalized Annual Average Daily Service Volume Tables: 

www.11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

• Generalized Peak-Hour Directional Service Volume Tables: 

www.11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

• GradeDec 2000: www.gradedec.com

• HCM/Cinema©: www.kldassociates.com/unites.htm

• HCS (Highway Capacity Software) 2000: 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=48

• HiCAPTM (Highway Capacity Analysis Package): www.hicap2000.com
22

• HIGHPLAN (Highway Planning): 

www.11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm

• Highway Safety Analysis: www.x32group.com/HSA_Soft.html

• ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization): www.trafficware.com/ICU/index.html

• IQPAC (Integrated Queue Analysis Package): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=294

• Left-Turn Signal/Phase Warrant Program: 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=56

• NCAP (Intersection Capacity Analysis Package): www.tmodel.com

• PICADY (Priority Intersection Capacity and Delay): 

www.trlsoftware.co.uk/productPICADY.htm

• PROGO (Progression Graphics and Optimization): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=78

• Quality/Level of Service Handbook: 

www.11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/default.html

• Roadrunner: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=85

• SIG/Cinema©: www.kldassociates.com/unites.htm

• SIPA (Signalized Intersection Planning Analysis): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=22

• SPANWIRE: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=304

• SPARKS (Smart Parking Analysis): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=305

• Synchro: www.trafficware.com

• TEAPAC/NOSTOP: www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TEAPAC/SIGNAL2000: www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TEAPAC/WARRANTS: www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TGAP (Traffic Gap Analysis Package): www.tmodel.com
23

• TIMACS (Timing Implementation Method for Actuated Coordinated Systems): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=92

• Traffic Engineer’s Toolbox: http://home.pacifier.com/~jbtech

• Traffic Noise Model: www.thewalljournal.com/a1f04/tnm

• TRAFFIXTM: www.traffixonline.com

• TSDWINTM (Time-Space Diagram for Windows®): 

www.fortrantraffic.com/whatsnew/new2.htm

• TS/PP-Draft (Time-Space/Platoon-Progression Diagram Generator): www.tsppd.com

• WEST (Workspace for Evaluation of Signal Timings): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=126

• WHICH (Wizard of Helpful Intersection Control Hints): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=127

• WinWarrants: http://home.pacifier.com/~jbtech

A.4 Traffic Optimization Tools 

Examples of traffic optimization tools: 

• PASSERTM II-02 (Progression Analysis and Signal System Evaluation Routine): 

http://ttisoftware.tamu.edu/fraPasserII_02.htm

• PASSER III-98: http://ttisoftware.tamu.edu/fraPasserIII_98.htm

• PASSER IV-96: http://ttisoftware.tamu.edu/fraPasserIV_96.htm

• PROGO: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=78

• SOAP84: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=435

• Synchro: www.trafficware.com

• TEAPAC/NOSTOP: www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TEAPAC/SIGNAL2000: www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TEAPAC/WARRANTS: www.strongconcepts.com/Products.htm

• TRANSYT-7F: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=437
24

• TSDWIN: www.fortrantraffic.com/whatsnew/new2.htm

• TS/PP-Draft: www.tsppd.com

A.5 Macroscopic Simulation Models 

Examples of macroscopic simulation traffic analysis tools: 

• BTS (Bottleneck Traffic Simulator): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=287

• FREQ12: www.its.berkeley.edu/computing/software/FREQ.html

• KRONOS: www.its.umn.edu/labs/itslab.html

• METACOR/METANET: www.inrets.fr/ur/gretia/METACOR-Ang-H-HajSalem.htm

• NETCELL: www.its.berkeley.edu/computing/software/netcell.html

• PASSER II-02: http://ttisoftware.tamu.edu/fraPasserII_02.htm

• PASSER III-98: http://ttisoftware.tamu.edu/fraPasserIII_98.htm

• PASSER IV-96: http://ttisoftware.tamu.edu/fraPasserIV_96.htm

• SATURN: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/software/saturn/index.html

• TRAF-CORFLO (Corridor Flow): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=441

• TRANSYT-7F: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=437

• VISTA (Visual Interactive System for Transport Algorithms): 

http://its.civil.northwestern.edu/vista

A.6 Mesoscopic Simulation Models 

Three examples of mesoscopic simulation tools: 

• CONTRAM (Continuous Traffic Assignment Model): www.contram.com

• DYNAMIT-P, DYNAMIT-X, DYNASMART-P, DYNASMART-X: 

www.dynamictrafficassignment.org

• MesoTS: http://plan2op.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/Pdf2/mesoscopic.pdf
25

A.7 Microscopic Simulation Models 

Examples of microscopic traffic simulation models: 

• AIMSUN2 (Advanced Interactive Microscopic Simulator for Urban and Non-Urban 

Networks): www.tss-bcn.com/aimsun.html

• ANATOLL: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a4

• AUTOBAHN: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a5

• CASIMIR: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a6

• CORSIM/TSIS (Traffic Software Integrated System): www.fhwa-tsis.com

• DRACULA (Dynamic Route Assignment Combining User Learning and 

Microsimulation): www.its.leeds.ac.uk/software/dracula

• FLEXSYT-II: www.flexsyt.nl/informatieuk.htm

• HIPERTRANS (High-Performance Transport): www.cpc.wmin.ac.uk/~traffic

• HUTSIM (Helsinki University of Technology Simulator): 

www.hut.fi/Units/Transportation/HUTSIM

• INTEGRATION: www.intgrat.com

• MELROSE (Mitsubishi Electric Road Traffic Simulation Environment): 

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a14

• MicroSim: www.zpr.uni-koeln.de/GroupBachem/VERKEHR.PG

• MICSTRAN (Microscopic Simulator Model for Traffic Networks): 

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a16

• MITSIM (Microscopic Traffic Simulator): http://web.mit.edu/its/products.html

• MIXIC: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a18

• NEMIS: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a19

• PADSIM (Probabilistic Adaptive Simulation Model): 

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a21

• PARAMICS: www.paramics-online.com
26

• PHAROS (Public Highway and Road Simulator): 

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a23

• PLANSIM-T: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a24

• ROADSIM (Rural Road Simulator): www.kldassociates.com/simmod.htm

• SHIVA (Simulated Highways for Intelligent Vehicle Algorithms): 

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a25

• SIGSIM: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a26

• SIMDAC: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a27

• SIMNET: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a28

• SimTraffic: www.trafficware.com

• SISTM (Simulation of Strategies for Traffic on Motorways): 

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a29

• SITRA B+: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a30

• SITRAS: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/smartest/append3d.html#a31

• SmartPATH: www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Research

• TEXAS (TEXAS Model for Intersection Traffic): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=449

• TRANSIMS: http://transims.tsasa.lanl.gov

• TRARR: www.engr.umd.edu/~lovell/lovmay94.html

• TWOPAS: www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ihsdm/tamweb.htm

• VISSIM: www.itc-world.com

• WATSim (Wide Area Traffic Simulation): www.kldassociates.com/unites.html

A.8 Integrated Traffic Analysis Tools 

There are some programs or utilities available that integrate two or more programs to 

provide a common data input format (all allow a user to run several programs). Some 

examples of integrated traffic simulation models include: 
27

• AAPEX (Arterial Analysis Package Executive): 

http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=426

• ITRAF: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=445

• PROGO: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/store/description.asp?itemID=78

• UNITES (Unified Integrator of Transportation Engineering Software): 

www.kldassociates.com/unites.htm
HRDO-03/07-04(XXX)E

Recycled

Recyclable