Tests of assignment accuracy: An interurban case study

This paper is concerned with methods of testing the accuracy of traffic assignments. It focuses on the fact that whereas assignment models are usually based on a behavioural hypothesis about drivers' route choice (e.g. cost or time minimisation) the test of the accuracy of the assignment is the extent to which observed link loadings are reproduced. This inconsistency opens up the doubt that an apparently “accurate” assignment on this basis may be a result of compensating errors. It is difficult to apply the same test to accuracy of route choices as is applied to accuracy of link loadings (e.g. chi square, correlation coefficient) and hence a new measure is devised here which can be applied both to comparisons between observed and predicted route choices and comparisons between observed and predicted loadings. It is, moreover, possible to devise a test of significance for this measure so that one can test whether a predicted assignment is significantly different from what one, might have observed on the basis of chance observation. A case study is carried out to test the proposed method. Traffic flows between 72 origins and destinations on either side of the Pennine Mountains in Britain are assigned to a network using different assignment techniques with varied parameters. In all, one hundred and ninety assignments are carried out and the degree of correspondence between observed and predicted route choices and link loadings is measured. The results tend to confirm that the link loadings criterion is not a very stable criterion and that the route choice correspondence criteria seems to behave in a sensible way. A simulation exercise is carried out which produces the probability distribution of the “route-fit” index for different assumed sample levels. The paper concludes by suggesting avenues for further research.