Model Behavior

Over a lunch I recently attended at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins, the talk turned briefly to the difficulty of modeling human behavior in large-scale evacuations of people in cars, as occurred during some of the recent hurricanes. “What happens when the driver turns around and sees a big black cloud in the sky?” as one person put it.

Of course, modeling routine traffic behavior presents myriad challenges of its own, which is probably why it is still such a robust activity. As Dirk Helbing notes in his article, “Traffic and related self-driving many-particle systems,” in Reviews of Modern Physics, “Altogether, researchers from engineering, mathematics, operations research, and physics have probably suggested more than 100 different traffic models, which cannot all be covered by this review.” (the article, by the way, is 75 pages long).

Some of these consider traffic flow as a kind of fluid behavior, some have looked at the behavior of “car following,” how one driver is “attracted” and “repulsed” by the person in front of them (which then laid the challenge of how to model a single driver, with no one ahead of him), others have delved into “cellular automata.” Some have tried to break driver behavior down into a complex range of attributes. But as Philip Ball notes in his excellent book Critical Mass, “the more complex the model, the harder it becomes to know what outcomes are in any sense ‘fundamental’ aspects of traffic flow, and which follow from the details of the rules.”

So while large-scale models can with some success predict, say, the formation of traffic jams, there’s an inherent amount of built-in “noise,” e.g., human behavior. For example, I have a bit of an aversion to driving right next to someone. If I’m cruising along at a comfortable speed, but then notice a car in the neighboring lane is unnervingly keeping the same speed, I will accelerate or decelerate, to have my own pocket of space. Are all drivers like this? If not, how many? How do you model something like that?

Helbing suggests a few other sorts of potential problems. If a driver in one lane puts on their blinker as if to change, how does this effect drivers in neighboring lanes? (in New York, this often invites drivers in that lane to speed up, while the person wanting to change lanes gradually slows, slowing drivers in his lane, causing a weird see-saw between two lanes). Or drivers may keep a ‘headway’ that is shorter than they would truly like, to prevent other drivers from entering the gap. Or drivers may react to trucks differently than they do cars. The list goes on.

Or to take another example, a recent paper, “The butterfly effect: imbalances in lane change accommodation time and lasting disturbances, by Benjamin Coifman, Chao Wang, and Yiguang Xuan, (presented at a traffic flow symposium), looks at a seemingly simple process — changing lanes — and notes a curious property that has not been fully addressed in previous models. Briefly, the paper notes that drivers will respond differently when a vehicle ahead of them changes to another lane, versus when the vehicle has changed to their lane from another. In both cases, there will be some reaction, or “perturbation.” But the study, looking at probe vehicle data, suggests that “the response time to an exiting vehicle is longer than the response time to an entering vehicle.” Why? The authors suggest that when a vehicle enters, the following driver’s response is mandatory, but when a driver ahead exits out of the lane, it is at the discretion of the following driver how quickly they want to “close the gap” and return to some desired following distance. “On average,” they write, “the new lane completely accommodates the vehicle before the ‘hole’ the vehicle left behind in the old lane is filled.” (it also takes less time to brake than to accelerate). This seems minor, but of course each driver’s decision has an effect on every following driver, and it’s why something like a lane change can create “disturbances” within a traffic queue that were beyond the comprehension of previous models.

This all reminds me of a discussion I had with a hydrologist at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers research complex in Vicksburg, Mississippi, a few years before Hurricane Katrina. He was talking about the epistemological challenges of modeling the behavior of things like rivers (perhaps even more complicated than highways), and building, in response, adequate measures in the forms of levees and the like.

“This is probably where we spend most of our day, every day, trying to determine what truth is,” he told me, as we stood near a scale-model replica of a river. “Truth consists of what’s physically happening in the field. Of course you can’t measure that either. We go out there and measure that, but there’s so much uncertainty in our measurements, that if you match that with a calculation, you could could be off. Where is truth? That’s the first thing. The next thing we discuss a lot is: How good is good enough? How good is good enough to make an engineering decision to build something? What is real? How good is good enough towards whatever is real? You don’t even know what the river conditions are. You don’t even know what the flow rate — there’s a stream coming in over here and one over here, and you don’t know what it does, so you might measure it; you can measure any spot really well but it’s changing all the time.

Just go out there and look over the overlook the river. You see upwellings. You see big eddys. It’s not steady by an stretch of the imagination. So if you sample for a long time, and get an answer that’s 3 feet per second, that’s not really truth. It’s varying all about that. That’s true if you sat there for an hour and took an average. But it’s changing, this way and that way. You don’t want to calculate something to calculate it, but you do want to make a decision. We do pour concrete. Somebody’s gotta decide where to pour. We have to make calls. There’s some tough calls. We’re not academics, this if flood protection, people’s lives are at stake. You make a conservative call, but you can’t afford to be so conservative that you’re not doing engineering. Those are the things that keep you awake at night.”

As valuable as modeling can be, it seems unlikely that we can ever really be certain about the behavior of large, complex systems, whether traffic, rivers, or the financial markets, which increasingly turned to sophisticated models that, in the end, could only tell their masters how an idealized market — indeed perhaps one without humans — would perform.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm and is filed under Etc., Risk, Traffic Engineering, Traffic Wonkery, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Traffic Tom Vanderbilt

How We Drive is the companion blog to Tom Vanderbilt’s New York Times bestselling book, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), published by Alfred A. Knopf in the U.S. and Canada, Penguin in the U.K, and in languages other than English by a number of other fine publishers worldwide.

Please send tips, news, research papers, links, photos (bad road signs, outrageous bumper stickers, spectacularly awful acts of driving or parking or anything traffic-related), or ideas for my Transport column to me at:

For publicity inquiries, please contact Kate Runde at Vintage:

For editorial inquiries, please contact Zoe Pagnamenta at The Zoe Pagnamenta Agency:

For speaking engagement inquiries, please contact
Kim Thornton at the Random House Speakers Bureau:

Order Traffic from:

Amazon | B&N | Borders
Random House | Powell’s

U.S. Paperback UK Paperback
Traffic UK
Drive-on-the-left types can order the book from

For UK publicity enquiries please contact Rosie Glaisher at Penguin.

Upcoming Talks

April 9, 2008.
California Office of Traffic Safety Summit
San Francisco, CA.

May 19, 2009
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies
Bloomington, MN

June 23, 2009
Driving Assessment 2009
Big Sky, Montana

June 26, 2009
PRI World Congress
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

June 27, 2009
Day of Architecture
Utrecht, The Netherlands

July 13, 2009
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP)
Phoenix, AZ.

August 12-14
Texas Department of Transportation “Save a Life Summit”
San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2009
Governors Highway Safety Association Annual Meeting
Savannah, Georgia

September 11, 2009
Oregon Transportation Summit
Portland, Oregon

October 8
Honda R&D Americas
Raymond, Ohio

October 10-11
INFORMS Roundtable
San Diego, CA

October 21, 2009
California State University-San Bernardino, Leonard Transportation Center
San Bernardino, CA

November 5
Southern New England Planning Association Planning Conference
Uncasville, Connecticut

January 6
Texas Transportation Forum
Austin, TX

January 19
Yale University
(with Donald Shoup; details to come)

Monday, February 22
Yale University School of Architecture
Eero Saarinen Lecture

Friday, March 19
University of Delaware
Delaware Center for Transportation

April 5-7
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
McMurrin Lectureship

April 19
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (Organization Management Workshop)
Austin, Texas

Monday, April 26
Edmonton Traffic Safety Conference
Edmonton, Canada

Monday, June 7
Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals
Niagara Falls, Ontario

Wednesday, July 6
Fondo de Prevención Vial
Bogotá, Colombia

Tuesday, August 31
Royal Automobile Club
Perth, Australia

Wednesday, September 1
Australasian Road Safety Conference
Canberra, Australia

Wednesday, September 22

Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s
Traffic Incident Management Enhancement Program
Statewide Conference
Wisconsin Dells, WI

Wednesday, October 20
Rutgers University
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
Piscataway, NJ

Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ontario Injury Prevention Resource Centre
Injury Prevention Forum

Monday, May 2
Idaho Public Driver Education Conference
Boise, Idaho

Tuesday, June 2, 2011
California Association of Cities
Costa Mesa, California

Sunday, August 21, 2011
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Attitudes: Iniciativa Social de Audi
Madrid, Spain

April 16, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Gardens Theatre, QUT
Brisbane, Australia

April 17, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Centennial Plaza, Sydney
Sydney, Australia

April 19, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Melbourne Town Hall
Melbourne, Australia

January 30, 2013
University of Minnesota City Engineers Association Meeting
Minneapolis, MN

January 31, 2013
Metropolis and Mobile Life
School of Architecture, University of Toronto

February 22, 2013
ISL Engineering
Edmonton, Canada

March 1, 2013
Australian Road Summit
Melbourne, Australia

May 8, 2013
New York State Association of
Transportation Engineers
Rochester, NY

August 18, 2013 “Ingenuity” Conference
San Francisco, CA

September 26, 2013
TransComm 2013
(Meeting of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ Subcommittee on Transportation
Grand Rapids MI



January 2009

No, you probably won be compensated one million dollars; however, with the right blend of negotiating skills and patience, your efforts will be substantially rewarded!I have seen up to forty thousand dollars added to starting compensation through diligent negotiations. It is a way to significantly raise your standard of living and sense of self, simply by