https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9393-7705
Figures
Abstract
Urban expressway congestion around on-ramp bottlenecks is associated with traffic conditions on the main road, on-ramp and adjacent signalized intersection. Existing coordinated control strategies have rarely considered these components as a unified system. To enhance traffic system operation, this paper proposes an optimal integrated control strategy based on the model predictive control (MPC) method. Within the rolling horizon control framework, this strategy integrates ramp metering and intersection signal timing. To validate its effectiveness, simulation scenarios were developed in VISSIM software, based on a section of the South Ring Road in Ningbo, China. In contrast, the proposed strategy overall outperforms the other two referring strategies, as it improves mainline and on-ramp traffic. Additionally, traffic operation of movements at the intersection is slightly better. Therefore, the integrated control strategy ensures mainline traffic efficiency while balancing on-ramp and intersection traffic. Comparatively, referring strategy 2 exhibits poorer performance at the on-ramp and intersection, which optimally coordinates mainline speed limit, ramp metering and intersection signal timing. Traffic fluctuations on the main road due to dynamic speed limits have a negative impact on overall traffic performance.
Citation: Xu L, Zheng Y, Zhang S, Wang L, Fan X (2025) An optimal integrated control strategy of urban expressway and adjacent signalized intersection with rolling horizon framework in MPC method. PLoS One 20(5): e0323263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323263
Editor: Zhihong (Arry) Yao, Southwest Jiaotong University, CHINA
Received: February 18, 2025; Accepted: April 5, 2025; Published: May 27, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Xu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: ll relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China under Grant No. LTGG23E080005, Research Start-up Foundation of Ningbo University of Technology under Grant No. 2022KQ25, and 2024 Construction Research Project of Zhejiang Provincial Construction Department under Grant No. 2024K296.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
In some major cities of China, the mileage of urban expressways has surpassed 300 kilometers, playing a crucial role in the transportation system. The primary aim of constructing urban expressways is to enhance the operational efficiency of the traffic system, characterized by high capacity and speed. However, their benefits are significantly vulnerable to traffic congestion, which frequently occurs around bottlenecks during rush hours. Consequently, this leads to operational issues such as increased travel delay, unnecessary fuel consumption and tail gas pollution, causing inconvenience to the public.
The on-ramp bottleneck on urban expressways (Fig 1) arises from the interaction between the mainline and on-ramp traffic flows. The on-ramp, linked to a surface road, receives inflow from an upstream signalized intersection located just a few hundred meters away. When mainline traffic volume is high, the combined flow (mainline and on-ramp
) may exceed the bottleneck capacity, causing congestion near the merging section. Conversely, severe bottleneck congestion restricts merging opportunities, leading to on-ramp queue formation. If queues spill back to the surface road, they can disrupt operations at the upstream signalized intersection.
To alleviate traffic congestion around this bottleneck, various traffic control measures have been implemented to regulate the flow of traffic entering the merging section from either the on-ramp or the main road. Fig 2 illustrates the ramp metering (RM) approach, which adjusts the inflow rate of on-ramp traffic, by manipulating the green light duration of the signal controller situated at the entrance from the on-ramp to the merging section [1]. An example is the ALINEA model, a typical RM algorithm proposed by Papageorgiou that employs closed-loop feedback control [2]. For traffic flow coming from the upstream segment of the mainline, a variable speed limit (VSL) control facility is installed, as depicted in Fig 2, to regulate traffic speed in response to actual conditions at the merging section [3,4].
Additionally, coordinated control strategies integrating RM and VSL control have been proposed for the coordination control of mainline and on-ramp traffic [5–7]. However, given the distinct network structure of urban expressway on-ramp bottlenecks compared to motorways, previous studies exhibit the following limitations: (1) insufficient consideration has been given to traffic flow at adjacent intersections in single or integrated strategies; and (2) the RM in some studies focuses solely on mainline traffic performance, which may increase the risk of on-ramp queue spillbacks. These limitations undermine the overall control effectiveness, resulting in inefficient traffic operations in certain local areas.
Therefore, to address the research gap and limitations, this paper proposes an optimal integrated control strategy for coordinating traffic flow at the main road, on-ramp and adjacent signalized intersection. The main contributions of this study are as follows:
- (1). Within the model predictive control (MPC) method, a rolling horizon framework is introduced, comprehensively considering mainline traffic dynamics and intersection traffic periodicity in the integrated traffic system.
- (2). The proposed control strategy optimally coordinates ramp metering and intersection signal timing in response to real-time traffic conditions. Three distinct control modes are developed, each incorporating specific optimization objectives to adaptively enhance traffic performance under varying conditions.
- (3). The experimental scenarios are conducted using real-world detection data detected from urban expressways and signalized intersections. The control effectiveness of the proposed integrated strategy is assessed through various traffic performance indicators.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on coordinated control strategies for traffic flow at the on-ramp and adjacent signalized intersection. In Section 3, an integrated control strategy is formulated based on the MPC method and optimal control models are developed. Section 4 presents a case study using detector data to verify the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Finally, Section 5 provides conclusions and recommendations for future research.
Literature review
MPC method has been extensively adopted in optimal traffic control research due to its computational tractability and stability in real-time optimization of traffic flow dynamics. Numerous studies have demonstrated MPC’s effectiveness in generating optimal control strategies while accommodating the nonlinear constraints of traffic systems [8–11]. Utilizing the rolling horizon control framework, the optimal problem is solved at a specific time instant over a finite prediction horizon, with only the first step of the solution being implemented in the traffic system. This process is then repeated at the next control step [12]. In 1983, Gartner introduced the application of a rolling horizon approach in demand -responsive decentralized traffic signal control [13]. Subsequently, De Schutter and De Moor attempted to apply the moving horizon strategy to address varying cycle times in the optimal traffic signal control problem, considering the evolution of queue lengths over time [14].
Later, many studies focused on the optimal control of motorway traffic flow based on the MPC approach. For example, Bellemans et al. developed an MPC-based ramp metering controller that outperformed the traditional ALINEA control method by reducing total travel time [15]. Hegyi et al. utilized this method for optimal coordination of dynamic speed limits to minimize total travel time and alleviate shock waves [16]. Recently, coordinated control strategies have been a more common use in studies, which involve two or more measures such as ramp metering, variable speed limit, and lane-changing control [17–21]. They mostly employed similar approaches as Hegyi et al., realizing optimal coordination with a certain macroscopic traffic flow model as the prediction model within an MPC framework [22]. However, existing studies adopt fixed time horizons for motorway traffic in MPC frameworks while employing time-varying horizons for intersection traffic. This inconsistency limits adaptability in integrated systems requiring coordination between the main road and the signalized intersection.
In 2006, Yang et al. mentioned that the urban expressway and adjacent intersection could be regarded as a whole as they were closely connected via the ramp [23]. Additionally, Yang et al. revealed that ramp queue length correlated with upstream signal timing settings, based on the impact of on-ramp traffic flow arrival patterns on queue generation processes [24]. Accordingly, several studies exploring coordinated control focused primarily on the on-ramp and adjacent signalized intersection. Tian introduced integrated control strategies for the main road, on-ramp, and a signalized diamond interchange, regulating traffic flow entering the on-ramp by modifying signal phasing schemes [25]. Su et al. proposed the UP-ALINEA control strategy and a novel signal control strategy to integrate ramp metering and intersection signal control, respectively [26]. Jovanovi´c et al. developed a fuzzy logic control model for coordinating diverging diamond interchange and ramp metering to mitigate congestion under oversaturated traffic [27]. Zhai et al. put forward a sensitivity-based traffic control approach to optimally coordinate ramp metering and traffic signal control, using sensitivity information to assess the impact of controllers [28]. However, most studies implemented ramp metering strategies based solely on current traffic situations derived from detector data, with little consideration of variations in mainline traffic flow. Notably, Pang and Yang introduced a coordinated control method rooted in the stability theory of complex networks, optimizing signal timings of adjacent intersections to manage the inflow of on-ramp traffic to the main road [29].
In the coordinated control problems, optimization models are typically employed, with optimization objectives aligning with specific control strategies. Some control strategies place great emphasis on the performance of mainline traffic, particularly when variable speed limit and/or ramp metering involved. In this regard, total time spent (TTS) and total travel distance (TTD) are frequently utilized as indicators of traffic efficiency and capacity, respectively, either individually or in combination [30–32]. Furthermore, indicators such as speed variations, collision probability, rear-end collision risk, and emissions are involved to consider traffic operation safety and environmental benefits [33–37]. While in coordinated strategies that involve ramp metering and intersection signal timing control, optimization objectives primarily focus on traffic performance at signalized intersections. Traffic safety, efficiency, and decarburization are commonly taken into account [38–40]. Notably, enhancing traffic efficiency stands as a typical goal, achieved by minimizing waiting time or travel delays for vehicles going through signalized intersections [41,42]. However, while these optimization objectives addressing relatively isolated traffic scenarios, limited research has proposed combined optimization objectives for more intricate situations within integrated traffic systems.
In reality, previous research has made great efforts to improve traffic performance in traffic systems involving main road and on-ramp, or on-ramp and adjacent intersection, by employing various control methods and optimization objectives. However, several research gaps and limitations still need to be addressed, as follows:
- (1). The prediction horizons used in previous studies are not sufficiently adaptable to the integrated system comprising expressway main road, on-ramp and adjacent intersection. Specifically, a fixed horizon is applied independently for the expressway section, while a moving horizon is used for the intersection section.
- (2). Previous studies have not fully considered the operational efficiency of the entire traffic system. For instance, ramp metering strategies in most research are based on data collected by fixed traffic detectors, which fail to capture the trends in mainline traffic changes.
- (3). The optimization objectives in previous research have focused on traffic performance at specific sites, such as the main road, on-ramp or intersection. This tends to result in local optimization, neglecting comprehensive coordination, and negatively impacting overall performance.
Methodology
Rolling horizon control framework
Within the MPC method, a rolling horizon framework is employed, using adaptive time horizons to incorporate the dynamic evolution of expressway mainline traffic, and the periodic characteristics of signalized intersection traffic. Specifically, this study provides detailed expositions of the structural components, including traffic prediction models, traffic control modes, and optimal control models.
Fig 3 illustrates the rolling horizon framework. When implementing the MPC-based control method, the traffic states of the system, comprising the urban expressway and adjacent signalized intersection, are used as inputs. These states are detected by traffic detectors, as depicted in Fig 1, including mainline upstream and downstream detectors, an on-ramp queue length detector, and intersection upstream detectors.
Based on current traffic conditions, traffic models are employed to predict traffic states over a prediction horizon of time intervals, each with an identical duration of
. Under specific values of control parameters including cycle length and green timings for signal control, and ramp metering rate, the METANET model and the moving average model predict expressway mainline traffic and intersection traffic, respectively.
Using the predicted traffic states within each time interval, a multi-objective optimization model determines the optimal sequence of control decisions under a given control mode, encompassing signal timing and ramp metering rate. The resulting control commands are then transmitted back to the traffic system. The optimal control scheme is implemented solely within the control horizon of time intervals. Once the control operation within this horizon is completed, the MPC-based control method is repeated.
During the construction of the rolling horizon framework, a pivotal issue that must be addressed is the determination of timing horizons, specifically the prediction horizon and control horizon. In relevant studies, a moving horizon is frequently employed to accommodate varying traffic signal timing cycles. In contrast, for mainline traffic prediction, it is too short to adequately capture macroscopic traffic characteristics.
To address this, an integrated time-varying prediction horizon is implemented within the control strategy. Initially, a fixed duration of several minutes, is established as the initial prediction horizon. Exceeding typical signal cycle durations, it enables simultaneous consideration of mainline traffic dynamics and intersection traffic periodicity. During each iteration of the multi-objective optimization process which relies on traffic prediction models, the potential signal cycle is
. The actual prediction horizon
is then calculated as the duration encompassing complete signal cycles adjacent to
, expressed as
where denotes the rounding function. The control horizon
is then calculated as
, corresponding to a complete signal cycle.
The prediction horizon indicates that multiple signal cycles are considered during the prediction process, ensuring alignment with traffic characteristics. However, with the control horizon
, only the control measures from the first signal cycle are implemented in the traffic system, thereby improving control performance.
Traffic prediction model
METANET model.
In this study, the METANET model is used for traffic state prediction of the expressway section. Developed by Papageorgiou et al., this model is based on the second-order Payne model [43]. Due to its high precision in capturing traffic fluctuations and disturbances, the METANET model has become one of the most commonly used traffic prediction models in optimal control problems, as it effectively describes the evolution of network traffic over a finite time horizon [23,44].
As shown in Fig 4, the METANET model discretizes the urban expressway link into several consecutive segments, labeled . For segment
, segment length and number of lanes are
and
, respectively. Meanwhile, time is divided into uniform intervals, with a duration of
for each discrete time interval
. Segment states
,
and
respectively represents flow, density and mean speed of segment
within time interval
. The relationship among these state parameters is shown as
Based on the state values in the current time interval shown in Fig 4A, traffic density and mean speed of segment within the next time interval
,
and
, are respectively expressed in Equations (2 and 3).
where ,
and
are model parameters.
in Equation (3) represents the steady-state speed, which corresponds to
in the fundamental diagram. It is formulated as
where is the free flow speed of segment
.
is the critical density and
is another model parameter.
In regard to the on-ramp scenario, as shown in Fig 4B, segment is connected with an on-ramp. The impact of on-ramp merging flow on the mean speed
is represented by adding the term
to the right side of Equation (3), where
is the on-ramp inflow and
is a model parameter [45].
Based on the above, throughout the entire prediction horizon, the segment states within each time interval are computed through iterative applications of the METANET model. During this iterative process, the segment states are subject to specific constraints. Equation (5) indicates that the traffic flow of segment is constrained by the traffic capacity
. Equations (6 and 7) specify that the traffic density and mean speed, respectively, must be less than the jam density
and the free flow speed
.
Moving average model.
To predict traffic flow of each movement at approaches of the signalized intersection, the moving average model is utilized. For movement approach
, traffic flow in the
th signal cycle is predicted based on the preceding
collection results of detectors, formulated as
where respectively represents east, south, west and north, the four directions.
is set as “L”, “T” or “R”, respectively representing left turn, straight and right turn.
denotes the traffic flow detected by the upstream detector of movement
approach
.
represents the time duration of signal cycle
.
is the detection period of traffic detectors.
represents the number of detections within the signal cycle time
.
Based on the prediction results of traffic flow, the number of queued vehicles at movement approach
after signal control cycle
is predicted as
where is the saturation rate of movement
at approach
, and
is the effective green time of movement
at approach
.
Likewise, the number of queued vehicles at the on-ramp after signal control cycle is calculated as
where, represents the traffic flow entering the on-ramp from the intersection at time instant
in signal cycle
. The formula for the summation is expressed as
where ,
, and
are proportions of vehicles entering the on-ramp in the corresponding traffic flow in straight, left turn and right turn at the approach
.
in Equation 10 represents the traffic flow entering the main road from the on-ramp at time instant
in signal cycle
. The summation is formulated as
, with
as the ramp metering rate within the signal cycle
.
Traffic control modes
For the traffic system depicted in Fig 1 which comprises an expressway main road, an on-ramp and an adjacent signalized intersection, three control modes are established to facilitate the application of the MPC method under various traffic conditions.
As illustrated in Fig 5, control mode selection depends on real-time traffic conditions, as determined by traffic detector data. Specifically, the mainline occupancy rate is gathered by the detector at the mainline downstream section in Fig 1. The on-ramp queue length
is collected by the detector near the entrance of the on-ramp, representing the number of queued vehicles.
If the occupancy rate of downstream mainline traffic is below the threshold value
, the mainline flow remains relatively small and largely unaffected by on-ramp inflow. Under these circumstances, system efficiency primarily depends on the traffic operation at the intersection. Therefore, in Mode 1, the optimization of intersection signal timing is solely considered to enhance intersection traffic efficiency.
When the mainline occupancy rate exceeds the threshold value
but the on-ramp queue length
remains below the maximum allowed queue length
, Mode 2 is implemented. At this juncture, mainline traffic flow is moderate and may be adversely affected by excessive on-ramp inflow. Consequently, in Mode 2, the focus is on minimizing mainline traffic travel time and intersection delay to enhance traffic efficiency. Simultaneously, efforts are made to maximize overall traffic throughout to facilitate the passage of more vehicles through the bottleneck area.
When the on-ramp queue length exceeds the threshold value
, as in Mode 3, congestion takes place in downstream mainline traffic, with a tendency for queue spillback at the on-ramp. Therefore, in Mode 3, priority is given to improving mainline traffic efficiency to alleviate congestion, followed by maximizing traffic throughput to allow more vehicles to pass through the bottleneck area.
Optimization model
Objective function.
Based on the above control modes, the optimization model within the integrated control strategy focuses on enhancing traffic efficiency on the main road, traffic throughput, and intersection mobility. The objective functions for them are expressed as ,
and
, respectively.
Specifically, to optimize mainline traffic efficiency, function incorporates total travel time (TTT) and total travel distance (TTD), reducing travel delay and increasing travel distance. It is formulated as
where, the first and second terms on the right side represent TTT and TTD, respectively. They are integrated with weighting coefficients −1 and .
Additionally, traffic throughput of on-ramp and intersection during signal cycle is formulated as
At last, traffic mobility of the signalized intersection is considered in the form of vehicular average delay, shown as
where is the traffic delay of movement
at approach
, calculated as
In Equation (15), is the split ratio of movement
at approach
, expressed as
.
is the critical traffic saturation rate, expressed as
.
Based on ,
and
, the optimization functions corresponding to the considerations of three control modes in Fig 5 are respectively shown as
where ,
and
are normalization of
,
and
, respectively.
,
,
and
are weighting coefficients, where
and
.
Model constraints.
For the above optimization functions, the control parameters are constrained by various factors, including ramp metering rate and intersection signal timing.
Specifically, the constraints related to the ramp metering rate are shown in Equation (20). The incremental range for the ramp metering rate is set as 100 pcu/h, with this parameter bounded by minimum and maximum values denoted as
and
, respectively. Furthermore, to prevent spillback, the number of queued vehicles at the on-ramp must remain below the maximum limit
. Here,
represents the maximum queue length at the on-ramp, and
is the reduction coefficient.
Additionally, the constraints on signal timing parameters are presented in Equation (21), including signal cycle, green time of phases, critical traffic saturation rate, and queue length of movements.
As for signal cycle time , it is restricted by the minimum and maximum values,
and
.
represents the lost time of each phase. The variation in green time
in signal cycle
compared to the preceding value is less than
. The minimum and maximum green time of each phase is
and
, respectively. In addition, the critical traffic saturation rate is restricted between
and
. The number of queued vehicles of each movement after the signal cycle
is limited to be less than the maximum value
.
is the maximum queue length in this direction, and
is the reduction coefficient.
Solution algorithm.
The principal computational challenge steams from the multi-objective optimization framework involving several control variables and constraint conditions in the proposed control strategy. In this regard, the genetic algorithm is adopted, which demonstrates particular efficacy in finding globally optimal solutions for nonlinear and high-dimensional optimization problems. Furthermore, it enables real-time implementation through parallel computation architecture that evaluates all individuals within the population simultaneously.
In this algorithm, the population size and iterations are denoted as and
, respectively. Initially, during population initialization, each feasible solution is encoded as a binary number, combining potential parameter values to form an individual within the population. Subsequently, the fitness values of these individuals are calculated using traffic prediction models and the optimization model. The individual with the best fitness value is then retained. Following the application of genetic operators - selection, crossover and mutation, a new population is generated for the next iteration. This process continues until the maximum number of iterations is reached, culminating in the genetic algorithm outputting optimal results.
These optimal results are then transmitted to the traffic system in the form of control commands. Specifically, intersection signal timing schemes are directly set in roadside controllers. The optimal ramp metering rate is converted into green time length for signal control before being sent to the signal controller at the on-ramp as in Fig 2.
Case study
Experimental scenario
The optimal integrated control strategy proposed in this paper is implemented and evaluated in experimental scenarios. As illustrated in Fig 6A, an urban expressway link and an adjacent signalized intersection in Ningbo city, China are selected.
The urban expressway section, known as the South Ring Road (from Tongda Road to Zhilanyan Road), comprises three lanes running from west to east. This link connects with the upstream signalized intersection of South Ring Road and West Ring Road, where West Ring Road is a surface road. The distance between the intersection and the merging starting point is approximately 400 m.
Fig 6B demonstrates the four-leg intersection structure, along with the original signal timing scheme. Notably, traffic entering the on-ramp from the intersection includes west straight traffic, north left turn, and south right turn.
The experimental simulation environment for the aforementioned traffic system was developed using VISSIM.10 software. Initially, the basic model parameters were calibrated based on 1-min data collected from fixed detectors located as depicted in Fig 1. The specific determination process for vehicle characteristic parameters on both the expressway main road and surface road refers to the calibration procedure in [46].
During the simulation runs, traffic states were detected by detectors during each detection period. The detection results were collected and transmitted to the MPC-based control method through a COM interface invoked by MATLAB programs. After obtaining the optimization results, corresponding control commands were transmitted back to the traffic system in the VISSIM simulation environment.
The performance of the proposed integrated control strategy was compared with the strategy presented by Song et al [42]. The latter coordinated ramp metering and signal timing control, which also included three control modes. For simplicity, it will be referred to as “referring strategy 1” in subsequent sections.
Additionally, to further compare and evaluate the application effects of coordinated methods in previous studies on the traffic system, another referring strategy was set up. This strategy optimally coordinates mainline variable speed limit, ramp metering and intersection signal control, based on the same control framework depicted in Fig 3. For simplicity, it will be named “referring strategy 2”. In this strategy, the mainline speed limit is constrained by Equation (22), while the constraints on ramp metering rate and signal timing are the same as those in Equations (20 and 21). The incremental range for the mainline speed limit is 5 km/h, with the current speed limit restricted by minimum and maximum values, and
, respectively. Compared to the preceding value, the variation
is limited to less than
.
For comparison, both the experimental scenario and parameter settings for these strategies were identical.
Parameter setting
The parameter setting in the optimal control model involves basic model parameters of mainline speed limit, ramp metering and intersection signal timing. These parameters are displayed in Table 1. The mainline speed limit parameter values are set, based on the maximum permissible speed on urban expressways (80 km/h) and driving habits of drivers. Most of the ramp metering and intersection signal timing parameter values refer to the parameter settings in [46].
Table 2 presents the traffic volume of the main road and intersection during the simulation process, alongside the saturation rate. The abbreviations “E”, “S”, “W”, and “N” in the first row represent east, south, west and north, respectively, while “L”, “T”, and “R” signify left turn, going straight and right turn, respectively.
The traffic volume settings simulate various operational scenarios of the integrated system. During the baseline phase (0–1200 s), traffic volumes are initialized using real-world detection data under normal conditions. To simulate congestion, the mainline and intersection volumes are scaled by factors of 1.4 and 1.2, respectively, from 1200–2100 s. Subsequently (2100–3600 s), traffic progressively reverts to baseline conditions.
Each simulation run lasts for 3600 s, with the simulation resolution as 6 steps/simulation second. The initial 5 min is taken as the warm-up period, during which the original signal timing scheme is employed and no ramp metering is conducted. In the METANET model, the expressway link depicted in Fig 6A is divided into 300-m segments. The initial prediction horizon duration and time interval are set to 5 min and 10 s, respectively.
Result analysis
During the simulation, a specific control operates based on the occupancy rate at the mainline downstream and queue length at the on-ramp. Fig 7 exemplifies the iteration process of each control mode within the genetic algorithm at certain time instants. In this algorithm, both the population size and the maximum iterations
are set to 100. Convergence is observed in the iterative optimization under all three control modes.
The iterations are performed on a computer with an Intel Core i9 3.00 GHz processor. The average running time for any mode is less than 2 s. Although the calculation time for the optimal solution—which dominates the execution time—is non-negligible, the integrated strategy remains feasible for real-time applications. During implementation, signal controllers synchronously activate green lights for both ramp metering and intersection signal control. Given that the minimum green duration is 15 s, the proposed strategy can compute and apply optimal control schemes within this interval, ensuring real-time operation.
To assess the overall control performance, result analysis of traffic operation is conducted from the perspectives of the main road, on-ramp and signalized intersection. These results are illustrated in Figs 8–10, respectively.
Fig 8 presents the travel time, average speed and average vehicular delay of mainline traffic flow for three different control strategies within a 300-m range from point a to point b in Fig 6A.
As shown in Fig 8A, the proposed strategy outperforms the other two strategies in terms of travel time and average speed of mainline traffic. Compared to referring strategy 1, the average travel time of it declines by 5% and referring strategy 2 by 4%. The average speed increases from 68.07 km/h in referring strategy 1 to 71.68 km/h in the proposed strategy, while it is slightly lower in referring strategy 2 at 70.87 km/h. In Fig 8B, the average vehicular delay is lowest in referring strategy 2 at 1.24 s, followed by the proposed strategy at 1.97 s, and highest in referring strategy 1 at 2.37 s. It can be concluded that improvements in mainline traffic efficiency are observed in both the proposed strategy and referring strategy 2, which consider the change characteristics of mainline traffic.
In Fig 9, traffic performance is illustrated in terms of travel time, average vehicular delay and average queue length, focusing on traffic flow through the on-ramp. The average travel time in referring strategy 1 is 25.45 s, while it is similar in the proposed strategy and referring strategy 2, with a decrease of approximately 3%. Compared to 12.47 s in referring strategy 1, the average vehicular delay in the proposed strategy drops by 20.77% to 9.88 s, while referring strategy 2 has the highest value of 17.87 s. Similarly, the number of queued vehicles is lowest in the proposed strategy at 13.79 m, while it increases by 72.23% in referring strategy 1 and reaches the worst value of 54.5 m in referring strategy 2. These results demonstrate that the proposed strategy performs best in improving on-ramp traffic operation, while referring strategy 2 has a negative impact particularly with a significant increase in queue length. Simultaneous coordination of all three control measures does not necessarily improve overall traffic performance, and an excessive focus on mainline traffic can lead to systemic imbalance.
As illustrated in Fig 10, the traffic conditions at the signalized intersection are exhibited, presenting the average vehicular delay, average queue length and stop times for various control strategies. Different from the above traffic situations, referring strategy 1 outperforms the other two strategies at the intersection. In Fig 10A, the average vehicular delay for these strategies is 64.93 s, 70.62 s and 78.84 s, respectively. The queue length in the proposed strategy and referring strategy 2 is approximately 40 m, representing a 16.69% increase compared to referring strategy 1. Regarding stop times in Fig 10B, it is 1.03 in referring strategy 1, and rises to 1.15 in the proposed strategy and 1.44 in referring strategy 2.These three indicators demonstrate that to a certain extent, the proposed strategy makes more traffic flow remain at the intersection rather than the on-ramp, making more efficient use of intersection space and mitigating the impact of on-ramp inflow on mainline traffic.
Additionally, Fig 11 illustrates the traffic performance of intersection movements, in terms of average vehicular delay, queue length and stop times. It is evident that the indicators for west left turn are significantly worse in the proposed strategy and referring strategy 2 compared to referring strategy 1. A similar trend is observed for south left turn and north left turn, indicating that traffic flow in these directions is more sensitive to the integrated strategy and referring strategy 2. The consideration of mainline traffic performance has some influence on branch flow. Conversely, the proposed control strategy outperforms the referring strategies in south straight, east straight, north straight and west straight directions. This demonstrates improvements in main traffic flow that travels straight in various directions.
Conclusion
This paper proposes an optimal integrated control strategy for the traffic system coordinating the urban expressway, on-ramp and adjacent signalized intersection. Within the MPC method, ramp metering rate and intersection signal timing are jointly optimized. A rolling horizon control framework is developed, incorporating mainline traffic dynamic evolution and intersection traffic periodic characteristics. Based on real-time traffic conditions, three adaptive control modes are developed, each with scenario-specific optimization objectives. The effectiveness of the proposed control strategy is validated through VISSIM simulations using real-world detection data from urban expressways and signalized intersections.
Based on the experimental results and analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn. The proposed integrated control strategy demonstrates superior performance, exhibiting improvements across nearly all key performance indicators for both mainline and on-ramp traffic. Furthermore, this strategy yields slightly enhanced traffic performance for various intersection movements compared to the other two referring strategies. In summary, the proposed control strategy effectively optimizes mainline traffic efficiency while maintaining balanced operations for on-ramp and intersection traffic flows.
Further research in this area could be conducted by extending the development of control modes to more fully consider real-time changes in traffic status on the expressway main road, on-ramp and signalized intersection. Additionally, the integrated control strategy could be further enhanced by coordinating multiple bottlenecks (on-ramps and off-ramps) and adjacent signalized intersections. Furthermore, a mixed traffic environment consisting of connected and autonomous vehicles as well as human-driven vehicles should be considered to further verify the effectiveness of the proposed integrated control strategy.
Acknowledgments
We would also like to thank our superiors and colleagues for their constant support and encouragement throughout this research.
References
- 1. Wei J, Long K, Gu J, Zhou Z, Li S. Freeway ramp metering based on PSO-PID control. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260977. pmid:34882717
- 2. Papageorgiou M, Hadj-Salem H, Middelham F. ALINEA Local Ramp Metering: Summary of Field Results. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1997;1603(1):90–8.
- 3. Khondaker B, Kattan L. Variable speed limit: an overview. Transportation Letters. 2015;7(5):264–78.
- 4. Zhang Y, Ma M, Liang S. Dynamic Control Cycle Speed Limit Strategy for Improving Traffic Operation at Freeway Bottlenecks. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 2021;25(2):692–704.
- 5. Chanfreut P, Maestre JM, Camacho EF. Coalitional Model Predictive Control on Freeways Traffic Networks. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2021;22(11):6772–83.
- 6. He Z, Han Y, Yu H, Bai L, Guo W, Liu P. Integrated Feedback Perimeter Control–Based Ramp Metering and Variable Speed Limits for Multibottleneck Freeways. J Transp Eng, Part A: Systems. 2024;150(9).
- 7. He Z, Wang L, Su Z, Ma W. Integrating variable speed limit and ramp metering to enhance vehicle group safety and efficiency in a mixed traffic environment. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2024;641:129754.
- 8. Kong Z, Zou Y, Liu T. Implementation of real-time energy management strategy based on reinforcement learning for hybrid electric vehicles and simulation validation. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180491. pmid:28671967
- 9. Sun D, Jamshidnejad A, De Schutter B. A novel framework combining MPC and deep reinforcement learning with application to freeway traffic control. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. 2024.
- 10. Mosharafian S, Afzali S, Mohammadpour Velni J. Leveraging autonomous vehicles in mixed-autonomy traffic networks with reinforcement learning-controlled intersections. Transportation Letters. 2022;15(9):1218–29.
- 11. Yin Z, Liu T, Wang C, Wang H, Jiang Z. Reducing urban traffic congestion using deep learning and model predictive control. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2023.
- 12. Liu X, Dabiri A, Wang Y, De Schutter B. Modeling and Efficient Passenger-Oriented Control for Urban Rail Transit Networks. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2023;24(3):3325–38.
- 13.
Gartner NH. OPAC: A demand-responsive strategy for traffic signal control. 1983.
- 14. De Schutter B, De Moor B. Optimal Traffic Light Control for a Single Intersection. European Journal of Control. 1998;4(3):260–76.
- 15. Bellemans T, De Schutter B, De Moor B. Model predictive control for ramp metering of motorway traffic: A case study. Control Engineering Practice. 2006;14(7):757–67.
- 16. Hegyi A, DeSchutter B, Hellendoorn J. Optimal Coordination of Variable Speed Limits to Suppress Shock Waves. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2005;6(1):102–12.
- 17. Ma M, Liang S. An optimization approach for freeway network coordinated traffic control and route guidance. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0204255. pmid:30265696
- 18. Guo Y, Xu H, Zhang Y, Yao D. Integrated Variable Speed Limits and Lane-Changing Control for Freeway Lane-Drop Bottlenecks. IEEE Access. 2020;8:54710–21.
- 19. Vrbanić F, Ivanjko E, Kušić K, Čakija D. Variable speed limit and ramp metering for mixed traffic flows: a review and open questions. Appl Sci. 2021;11(6):2574.
- 20. Liu S, Sadowska A, De Schutter B. A scenario-based distributed model predictive control approach for freeway networks. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2022;136:103261.
- 21. Di Y, Zhang W, Ding H, Zheng X, Bai H. Integrated control for mixed CAV and CV traffic flow in expressway merge zones combined with variable speed limit, ramp metering, and lane changing. J Transp Eng A Syst. 2023;149(2):04022140.
- 22. Hegyi A, De Schutter B, Hellendoorn H. Model predictive control for optimal coordination of ramp metering and variable speed limits. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2005;13(3):185–209.
- 23.
Yang X, Yang X, Fu Q, Nie L. Study of integrated control strategy for on ramp of urban expressway and interrelated urban road[C]//2006 6th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications. IEEE, 2006:110–3.
- 24. Yang G, Yue R, Tian Z, Xu H. Modeling the impacts of traffic flow arrival profiles on ramp metering queues. Transp Res Rec. 2018;2672(15):85–92.
- 25. TIAN Z. Modeling and Implementation of an Integrated Ramp Metering-Diamond Interchange Control System. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology. 2007;7(1):61–9.
- 26. Su D, Lu X-Y, Horowitz R, Wang Z. Coordinated Ramp Metering and Intersection Signal Control. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology. 2014;3(2):179–92.
- 27. Jovanović A, Kukić K, Stevanović A. A fuzzy logic simulation model for controlling an oversaturated diverge diamond interchange and ramp metering system. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. 2021;182:165–81.
- 28. Zhai B, Wu B, Wang Y, Ran B. Distributed coordinated control of mixed expressway and urban roads: a sensitivity-based approach. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2024:1–14.
- 29. Pang M, Yang M. Coordinated control of urban expressway integrating adjacent signalized intersections based on pinning synchronization of complex networks. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2020;116:102645.
- 30. Zhang Y, Ma M, Liang S. Dynamic control cycle speed limit strategy for improving traffic operation at freeway bottlenecks. KSCE J Civil Eng. 2021;25(2):692–704.
- 31. Ding H, Yuan H, Zheng X, Bai H, Huang W, Jiang C. Integrated Control for a Large-Scale Mixed Network of Arterials and Freeways. IEEE Intell Transport Syst Mag. 2021;13(3):131–45.
- 32. Han L, Zhang L, Guo W. Optimal Differential Variable Speed Limit Control in a Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Environment for Freeway Off-Ramp Bottlenecks. J Transp Eng, Part A: Systems. 2023;149(4).
- 33. Yang X, Lu Y, Lin Y. Optimal variable speed limit control system for freeway work zone operations. J Comput Civ Eng. 2017;31(1):04016044.
- 34. Fang J, Hadiuzzaman M, Karim A, Luo Y, Qiu TZ. Variable Speed Limit Control Strategy with Collision Probability Assessments Based on Traffic State Prediction. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2014;2435(1):11–8.
- 35. Zhibin Li, Pan Liu, Wei Wang, Chengcheng Xu. Development of a Control Strategy of Variable Speed Limits to Reduce Rear-End Collision Risks Near Freeway Recurrent Bottlenecks. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2014;15(2):866–77.
- 36. Pasquale C, Sacone S, Siri S, Ferrara A. A multi-class decentralised event-triggered control framework for congestion and emission reduction in freeway networks. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2018;51(9):291–8.
- 37. Wei X, Zheng L, Liu P, Zhang S, Tang H. Bi-objective simulation optimization for online feedback control of variable speed limits considering uncertain traffic demands and compliance behaviours. Transportation Safety and Environment. 2024;6(4).
- 38. Ghoul T, Sayed T. Real-time signal-vehicle coupled control: An application of connected vehicle data to improve intersection safety. Accid Anal Prev. 2021;162:106389. pmid:34560507
- 39. Gong Y, Abdel-Aty M, Yuan J, Cai Q. Multi-Objective reinforcement learning approach for improving safety at intersections with adaptive traffic signal control. Accid Anal Prev. 2020;144:105655. pmid:32679439
- 40. Zhang G, Chang F, Jin J, Yang F, Huang H. Multi-objective deep reinforcement learning approach for adaptive traffic signal control system with concurrent optimization of safety, efficiency, and decarbonization at intersections. Accid Anal Prev. 2024;199:107451. pmid:38367397
- 41. Kumar N, Rahman S, Dhakad N. Fuzzy inference enabled deep reinforcement learning-based traffic light control for intelligent transportation system. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. 2020;22(8):4919–28.
- 42. Song X, Zhang L, Bai Q, Wang X. Linkage control optimization method for on-ramp of urban expressway and adjacent intersection. J Transport Syst Eng Inform Technol. 2021;21(6):63.
- 43. Papageorgiou M, Blosseville J-M, Hadj-Salem H. Modelling and real-time control of traffic flow on the southern part of Boulevard Peripherique in Paris: Part I: Modelling. Transportation Research Part A: General. 1990;24(5):345–59.
- 44. He Z, Han Y, Guo W, Ji Y, Liu P. Perimeter control-based coordinated ramp metering with linked queue management for freeway networks. Transp Res Rec. 2024;2024:03611981241262313.
- 45. Papageorgiou M, Blosseville J-M, Haj-Salem H. Modelling and real-time control of traffic flow on the southern part of Boulevard Peripherique in Paris: Part II: Coordinated on-ramp metering. Transportation Research Part A: General. 1990;24(5):361–70.
- 46.
Park B, Won J, Perfater MA. Microscopic simulation model calibration and validation handbook. Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC), 2006.