Incremental assignment model in addition to the postulate that each trip maker chooses a path so as to minimize his / her travel time also assume that the travel time on the links vary with the flow on that link. Under such an assumption, the ideal way to assign traffic volume would be to assign a single trip to the road network assuming that the travel time on links during the assignment is constant. One could then update the travel times and repeat the process till all the trips are assigned. However, this procedure is not practical as any network would typically have a very large number of trips. Incremental assignment models therefore try to approximate this ideal process by dividing the total number of trips into few smaller parts and assign each part assuming a constant link travel time.
The exact nature of the assignment model is presented through the following algorithm.
Example
For the network shown in Figure and the trip
distribution
matrix given in Table
determine the link flows using the
incremental assignment technique. The link travel times,
, are
given by
. The link number, the
value and the
value for a particular link are mentioned as
on the links. Divide the trip distribution matrix into four
parts in the ratio 40:30:20:10.
Solution
Step 0 calculations:
The trip distribution matrix is divided into the following four (i.e.,
) parts:
Part 1 matrix | Part 2 matrix | |||||||
Origin | Destination zone | Origin | Destination zone | |||||
zone | A | B | C | zone | A | B | C | |
A | 0 | 100 | 60 | A | 0 | 75 | 45 | |
B | 100 | 0 | 160 | B | 75 | 0 | 120 | |
C | 60 | 160 | 0 | C | 45 | 120 | 0 |
Part 3 matrix | Part 4 matrix | |||||||
Origin | Destination zone | Origin | Destination zone | |||||
zone | A | B | C | zone | A | B | C | |
A | 0 | 50 | 30 | A | 0 | 25 | 15 | |
B | 50 | 0 | 80 | B | 25 | 0 | 40 | |
C | 30 | 80 | 0 | C | 15 | 40 | 0 |
Step 1 calculations:
Set ,
,
, and
.
Using Part 1 matrix, mins.,
mins.,
mins., and
mins., and all-or-nothing assignment
the following values for
are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 2 calculations:
Using and
the following quantities are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 3 calculations:
Since
, set
and go to Step 1.
Step 1 calculations:
Set ,
,
, and
.
Using Part 2 matrix,
mins.,
mins.,
mins., and
mins., and all-or-nothing
assignment the following values for
are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 2 calculations:
Using and
the following quantities are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 3 calculations:
Since
, set
and go to Step 1.
Step 1 calculations:
Set ,
,
, and
.
Using Part 3 matrix,
mins.,
mins.,
mins., and
mins., and all-or-nothing
assignment the following values for
are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 2 calculations:
Using and
the following quantities are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 3 calculations:
Since
set
and go to Step 1.
Step 1 calculations:
Set ,
,
, and
.
Using Part 4 matrix,
mins.,
mins.,
mins., and
mins., and all-or-nothing
assignment the following values for
are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 2 calculations:
Using and
the following quantities are obtained:
,
,
, and
.
Step 3 calculations:
Since
report
,
,
, and
.
Discussion: Although the incremental assignment technique overcame the shortcoming of the all-or-nothing assignment technique by incrementally assigning the entire trip distribution matrix and updating the link travel times with flow, it still suffered from a major drawback. Despite the fact that traffic assignment is an outcome of the route choice behaviour of humans, the incremental assignment technique does not have any behavioral basis and therefore remains more of a computational technique than a mechanism of traffic assignment which mirrors the route choice behaviour of humans.