Effect of Adaptive and Cooperative Adaptive Cruise
Control on Throughput of Signalized Arterials
Armin Askari, Daniel Albarnaz Farias, Alex A. Kurzhanskiy, Pravin Varaiya

∗

arXiv:1703.01657v1 [] 5 Mar 2017

December 26, 2017
vph(vehicles per hour) –the total capacity of the
roads leading to the intersection is 8 × 2000 =
16, 000vph . But the intersection can accommodate
only two movements safely at the same time, hence
the intersection’s capacity is only 4,000 vph or 25
percent of the road capacity. So increasing the latter
capacity by platooning will do nothing to increase the
capacity of the road network.
This observation is at the core of the remarkable
study [5] to increase the throughput or saturation
flow rate of an intersection by having cars cross the
intersection in a platoon of ACC or CACC vehicles.
The study concludes: if the saturation flow rates at
all intersections in an urban network is increased by
a factor Γ, “the network can support an increase in
demand by the same factor Γ, with no increase in
queuing delay or travel time, and using the same signal control. However, the queues will also grow by
the same factor Γ, so if this leads to a saturation
of the links, the improvement in throughput will be
sub-linear in Γ. On the other hand, if the cycle time
is reduced, the queues will also be reduced, and this
may restore the linear growth in demand.”

Abstract
The paper evaluates the influence of the maximum vehicle acceleration and variable proportions of
ACC/CACC vehicles on the throughput of an intersection. Two cases are studied: (1) free road downstream of the intersection; and (2) red light at some
distance downstream of the intersection. Simulation of a 4-mile stretch of an arterial with 13 signalized intersections is used to evaluate the impact
of (C)ACC vehicles on the mean and standard deviation of travel time as the proportion of (C)ACC
vehicles is increased. The results suggest a very high
urban mobility benefit of (C)ACC vehicles at little or
no cost in infrastructure.

1

Introduction

The capacity of a freeway will increase if vehicles traveling at the speed limit could do so at much shorter
headway, since the flow is just the product of speed
and density, which is just the inverse of the headway. Adaptive cruise control (ACC) and cooperative
adaptive cruise control (CACC) are longitudinal control technologies that permit headway reduction by a
factor of 2 or 3 (compared with manual driving), and
thereby increasing freeway capacity by the same factor. A group of vehicles traveling with short headway
is called a platoon. The earliest demonstration of an
8-car platoon of vehicles traveling 16 feet apart at 60
mph, was conducted on the I-15 freeway in San Diego
in August 1997 ([1, 2]). Several other demonstrations
have been carried out since then, e.g. ([3, 4]). These
demonstrations show that headway reduction by a
factor of 2 to 3 can be achieved today.

The authors stress two limitations of their study,
which this paper overcomes. First, the study assumes
that there is a 100 percent penetration of (C)ACC
vehicles, whereas the present paper studies the effect
of an arbitrary proportion of manual, CC and ACC
vehicles. (The effect on freeway capacity of such arbitrary proportions is evaluated in [6].) “The second
limitation is that in short urban links vehicles will
slow down quickly as queues build up. As a result
the saturation flow rate at the upstream intersection
will be reduced, thereby depriving the system of the
full productivity benefit. It is important to investigate this reduction.” That investigation is carried out
in this paper.

However, increasing the capacity of urban roads by
platooning would not increase the throughput of an
urban road network whose bottlenecks occur at intersections. For example, In a standard intersec- Our investigation is carried out on the basis of simtion with 4 approaches and two lanes–one through ulaton results using the Improved Intelligent Driver
and one left-turn lane each with a capacity of 2000 Model [7] or IIDM in SUMO. IIDM improves upon
the IDM model [8] by eliminating some of the latter’s
∗ * This research is funded by California Department of
unrealistic behaviors. IIDM is reviewed in Section 2.
Transportation UCTC Award 65A0529 TO041.

1

In Section 3 we discuss intersection throughput for
manually driven vehicles, and in Section 4, we investigate the increase in throughput due to (C)ACC. In
Section 5 we introduce the platoon model and evaluate ACC and CACC in terms of travel time and network throughput using SUMO simulation [9] of the
4-mile stretch of Colorado Boulevard / Huntington
Drive arterial with 13 signalized intersections in Arcadia, Southern California. Section 6 concludes the
paper.

2

Car Following Model

We start with the notation in Table 1, and the default parameter values that we will use. The state
equations for the IIDM car-following model are:
v(t + ∆t)

=

v(t) + a(t)∆t;

x(t + ∆t)

=

x(t) + v(t)∆t +

Description

l
t
∆t
x(t)
xl (t)
vmax
v(t)
vl (t)
a(t)
amax
b

Vehicle length.
Time.
Model time step.
Vehicle position.
Position of the lead vehicle.
Speed limit.
Vehicle speed.
Speed of the leader.
Vehicle acceleration.
Maximal vehicle acceleration.
Desired vehicle deceleration.
Gap: distance from the front
of the vehicle to the tail of the
leader, g(t) = xl (t) − x(t) − l.
Minimal admissible gap.
Desired gap.
Reaction time.
.
Headway: θ(t) = xl (t)−x(t)
v(t)
1
Vehicle flow: f (t) = θ(t)
.

g(t)
gmin
gd (t)
τ
θ(t)
f (t)

(1)
a(t)∆t2
.
2

Symbol

(2)

The critical control variable is acceleration a(t), set
by

Default
value
5m
0.05 s

20 m/s

1.5 m/s
2
2 m/s

2

4m
2.05 s

Table 1: Notation summary.

a(t) =



δ1 

d (t)
 amax 1 − gd (t)
, if gg(t)
> 1;

g(t)

!
(3)
 δ1aa∗max

(t)

gd (t)
∗

,
otherwise,
a
(t)
1
−

g(t)

where


v(t)
a (t) = amax 1 −
vmax
n
gd (t) = gmin + max 0,
∗

v(t)τ +

δ2 !
,

v(t)(v(t) − vl (t)) o
√
,
2 amax b

(4)
Figure 1: Signal turns green at time t = 0, and vehicles start moving. In the first experiment, the first
vehicle has free road ahead. In the second experiment, the first vehicle encounters red light at the
(5)
next intersection, 300 meters downstream.

them. At time t = 0, the light turns green, and vehicles are released. We discuss two experiments — one
with free road ahead, and the second with a red light
300 m downstream at the second intersection. This
distance accommodates 33 vehicles in the queue (see
gmin + l
Table 1 for default values of the car length l and the
θe = τ +
.
(6)
minimal gap gmin ), which exceeds the number that
vmax
can be sent from the first signal in one minute.
The default values from Table 1 give θe = 2.5 s, which
translates to fe = 1/θe = 0.4 vehicles per second, 24 Fig. 2 displays trajectories, speeds and accelerations
vehicles per minute, or 1440 vph. Empirical estimates of the first ten vehicles from the queue for these two
experiments. The signal is located at position 0 and
of throughput vary between 1200 and 1900 vph.
indicated by the horizontal black line in the top three
trajectory plots. The leader of the first vehicle is
3 Intersection Throughput
infinitely far ahead. In the experiment with free
We analyze the urban arterial of Fig. 1 with infinitely road downstream, it accelerates with a∗ (t) from equamany vehicles in the queue with minimal gap between tion (4), asymptotically approaching the maximum
and δ1 , δ2 are fixed positive parameters. We use δ1 =
4, δ2 = 8. The equilibrium speed (a(t) = 0) is given
by v(t) = vl (t) = vmax and g(t) = gmin + v(t)τ , and
then the equilibrium headway is

2

Figure 3: Experiment with a free road ahead: comparison of measurements of flow, distance to leader,
speed and acceleration at the detector location between the three car following models.
low the equilibrium flow of 24 vehicles per minute.
The IIDM control can be tuned to a more aggressive
Figure 2: Vehicle trajectories, speeds and accelera- behavior by increasing its parameters δ1 , δ2 . In the
tions: experiment with free road ahead (left); and case of red light downstream, the flow is reduced to
21 vehicles during the first minute as the result of
experiment with red light ahead (right).
braking propagation.
speed. In the second experiment with the red light
at position xs = 300, a“blocking vehicle” is placed at We now examine how throughput at the first interposition xb = xs + gmin + l = 300 + 4 + 5 = 309, section in our two previous experiments depends on
with velocity vb = 0, which causes the first vehicle to the maximal acceleration amax . We repeat both experiments, with the free road and with the red light
stop at xs to maintain the minimal gap.
ahead, for three different values of amax : 0.8, 1.5 (our
As a queue builds up in front of the red light, vehi2
default) and 2.5 m/s . Fig. 4 presents the measurecles slow down, and thereby reduce the vehicle flow
ments obtained at the stop bar location for the cases
though the first intersection. In the experiment with
of free road (left) and red light downstream (right).
the red light downstream we study the impact of this
Table 2 summarizes the throughput results for difbraking effect on the throughput of the first intersecferent acceleration values. The results for this ‘base’
tion. (This is the second limitation noted in [5].)
case will be compared with the increased throughput
The most interesting for the intersection throughput using (C)ACC.
assessment is the traffic behavior at the stop bar location indicated in Fig. 1. Fig. 3 presents the measurements obtained from this detector, with each dot
corresponding to a vehicle passing the detector. The
(instantaneous) flow (top left) is computed for a vehicle passing the detector based on the time elapsed
after the previously detected vehicle, taken as a headway θ(t), which is then inverted (f (t) = 1/θ(t)) and
expressed in vph. The red horizontal line corresponds Figure 4: Comparing flows for different values of a
max
to the equilibrium flow of 1440 vph in our case, when for experiments with the free road (left), and with the
vehicles move at maximal speed. The gap (top right) red light ahead (right).
between vehicles as well as the speed (bottom left) are
monotonically increasing, while acceleration (bottom
right) is monotonically decreasing.
4 Effect of ACC and CACC
In the case of free road downstream, 23 vehicles cross
We will now explore the impact of ACC and CACC
the intersection during the first minute, slightly bevehicles on intersection throughput. To do that, we
3

Value of amax
0.8 m/s

2

1.5 m/s

2

2.5 m/s

2

Type of experiment
free road ahead
red light ahead
free road ahead
red light ahead
free road ahead
red light ahead

We now specify the CACC car following model [7]:

IIDM
20
19
23
21
24
22

aCACC (t) =


 aIIDM (t), if aCAH (t) ≤ aIIDM (t),
aCAH (t)+
(8)



 b tanh aIIDM (t)−aCAH (t) , otherwise.
b
As before, we run the free road and the red light
downstream experiments. For both scenarios we compute the intersection throughput, when portion of
ACC (CACC) vehicles in the initial queue. Thus
we evaluate 24 cases, each defined by: (1) experiment: free road or red light downstream; (2) ACC or
CACC; and (3) percentage of ACC (CACC): 10, 25,
50, 75, 90 and 100%.

Table 2: Summary of experiments: intersection
throughput in vehicles per minute. Values equal to
the equilibrium flow are in bold.

repeat two experiments described in Section 3 but
this time, with a mix of ordinary (manually driven),
ACC and CACC vehicles. Values of car following
parameters for the three vehicle types are given in
Table 3. As one can see, ACC and CACC vehicles Fig. 5 and 6 compare flows, gaps, speeds and accelercan maintain shorter distances to the vehicle in front. ation obtained at the detector location for 0, 50 and
100% ACC (CACC) penetration rate. Three horizontal red lines on flow plots in both figures correspond to equilibrium flows with 0% ACC (CACC),
Vehicle type
τ (seconds) gmin (meters)
with 100% ACC and with 100% CACC penetration
Ordinary
2.05
4
rate. These flows are computed as 3600/θe , where θe
ACC-enabled
1.1
3
is given by (6) with τ and gmin from Table 3, yielding
CACC-enabled
0.8
3
1440, 2400 and 3000 vehicles per hour respectively.
Table 3: Values of reaction time τ and minimal gap In the flow and distance to leader plots, notice how
gmin for ordinary, ACC- and CACC-enabled vehicles. 50% ACC plots jump between the no ACC and 100%
ACC plots: for an ordinary vehicles it is similar to
the no ACC curve, and for an ACC vehicle it is simWe assume that the ACC vehicle has the same car ilar to 100% ACC curve. 50% CACC curves in the
following model as that of the ordinary vehicle, but same plots jump between three curves — no ACC,
with different τ and gmin . A CACC vehicle behaves 100% ACC and 10% CACC. This is because a CACC
like an ACC vehicle if it follows an ordinary vehicle, vehicle following an ordinary one behaves like ACC
but if it has another CACC car in front, it assumes vehicle.
different car following behavior, which we call CACC
car-following model.
Let aIIDM (t) denote the acceleration function defined by (3). Define the constant-acceleration heuristic (CAH) acceleration function [7]:
aCAH (t) =

v 2 (t)āl (t)


 vl2 (t)−2(xl (t)−x(t)−l)āl (t) ,
l (t))
(7)
if vl (t)(v(t)−v
≤ (x(t) + l − xl (t));
2āl (t)


 ā (t) − (v(t)−vl (t))2 Θ(v(t)−vl (t)) , otherwise,
l

2(xl (t)−x(t)−l)

where
āl (t) = min {v̇l (t), amax } ,

Figure 5: Case with free road ahead: comparison of
measurements of flow, distance to leader, speed, and
acceleration at the detector location for different proportions of ACC/CACC traffic.

and

Θ(z) =

1,
0,

if z ≥ 0,
otherwise.
4

Red light ahead
Throughput in vehicles per minute

Throughput in vehicles per minute

Free road ahead

% of ACC vehicles

Throughput in vehicles per minute

Throughput in vehicles per minute

% of ACC vehicles

% of CACC vehicles

% of CACC vehicles

Figure 6: Case with red light downstream: comparison of point measurements of flow, distance to leader,
speed and acceleration at the detector location for
different proportions of ACC/CACC traffic.

Figure 7: Intersection throughput as a function ACC
(top) or CACC (bottom) portion of traffic computed
with IIDM for free road downstream (left) and red
light downstream (right).

For an ACC (CACC) penetration rate less than
100%, the intersection throughput is sensitive to the
distribution of ACC (CACC) vehicles in the initial
queue. For example, if 25% all vehicles in the initial queue are ACC-enabled, and all of them are concentrated at the head of the queue, we would get
higher vehicle count at the detector location after
one minute, than we would with 50% ACC penetration rate when all ACC-enabled vehicles are concentrated at the tail of the queue. In another example, 50% CACC penetration rate would not produce
any gain over 50% ACC penetration rate, if ordinary
and ACC/CACC vehicles were interleaved— one ordinary, one ACC/CACC, one ordinary, and so on
— since an CACC achieves a shorter headway than
ACC only when it has other CACC vehicles directly
in front.

gmin
the reaction time and minimal gap for ACC
(CACC) vehicles, whose values are given in Table 3.
The average headway in the equilibrium state is obtained by modifying expression (6):

[C]ACC

θ(λ)

=

λτ [C]ACC + (1 − λ)τ +
[C]ACC

λgmin

+ (1 − λ)gmin + l
.
vmax

(9)

Then, the equilibrium flow in vehicles per minute is
given by:
f (λ) = 60/θ(λ).
(10)
This formula is sufficient for the case when there is
a free road ahead. In the case of a red light downstream, however, we are restricted by the capacity of
the link connecting the two intersections. To account
for that, we modify (10) accordingly:

To mitigate this ACC (CACC) distribution bias, in
n 60
each case with ACC (CACC) penetration rate less
,
f
(λ)
=
min
than 100%, we run 100 random one-minute simulaθ(λ)
tions of the three car-following models, record vehicle
o
k∆
counts at the detector location, and plot the median
, (11)
[C]ACC
+ (1 − λ)gmin + l
λgmin
vehicle count. For 100% penetration rate the ACC
(CACC) distribution is trivial, and hence, a single
where ∆ is the length of the link between the two
simulation for each case is enough. The intersection
intersections, and k is the number of lanes in that
throughput results for all the 24 cases, together with
link. In our experiment, ∆ = 300, and k = 1.
throughput values from Table 2 obtained for 0 ACC
(CACC) penetration rate, are presented as the four
plots in Fig. 7.
5 Platoons on Road Network
Note that in each of the four plots in Fig. 7, there is
a curve corresponding to the equilibrium traffic flow.
These equilibrium curves are computed as follows.
Denote by λ ∈ [0, 1] the fraction of ACC (CACC)
vehicles in the initial queue, and by τ [C]ACC and

Vehicles equipped with CACC can form platoons.
With 50% CACC penetration rate, platoons provide
between 24 and 44% increase in intersection throughput on average, depending on the proximity of intersections.
5

In simulation, platoon management and formation is tersections, we generated 1 hour of origin-destination
divided into three phases: 1) Identifying vehicles that (OD) travel demand data. Then, we ran a series of
can be grouped into platoons; 2) Adjusting parameters of leaders and followers in platoons; 3) performing maintenance on the platoon. This behavior is
modeled by the state machine in Fig. 8.
Leader \ Normal Behavior
within range of
ACC Vehicle

Accelerate

leader
accelerates

Figure 9: Huntington Colorado network modeled in
SUMO.

split from platoon

Follower

leader
decelerates

Decelerate

simulation varying the fraction of ACC (CACC) vehicles from 0 to 75%. In each simulation two vehicle
classes were modeled: ordinary vehicles and ACC (or
no new instruction
CACC) vehicles. In simulations with CACC vehicles
Figure 8: State machine of a platoon vehicle.
platoons were formed. The total number of OD pairs
in this network is 399. The same number of vehicles
To form a platoon, vehicles must be in sequence with was processed in each simulation. The rates and loone another on a given lane. However, vehicles need cations at which cars were generated were identical
not share the same final destination and are free to in all scenarios to eliminate the variance in randomly
switch lanes or leave the platoon if necessary. If an generated routes. For cases of 0, 25, 50 and 75 perintermediate vehicle in the platoon changes its route cent ACC (CACC) penetration rate, we computed
by making a turn or changing lanes, the platoon splits average travel time for the route O→D, where O and
into two: one platoon for the vehicles ahead of the D identify origin and destination of the selected westintermediate vehicle and another for all the vehicles east route in Fig. 9. Table 4 lists the mean travel time
behind.
(MTT) and its standard deviation (STD), in seconds.
A platoon’s lead vehicle has the same properties as As expected, the mean travel time reduces as the fracACC vehicles. An isolated CACC vehicle is a leader tion of (C)ACC vehicles increases. Surprisingly the
of a platoon of size 1. When a platoon leader comes standard deviation also decreases. Furthermore, the
into range of another CACC vehicle in front, it joins travel time of ordinary vehicles is also reduced, althe platoon becoming a follower. Followers have re- though that of (C)ACC vehicles is reduced more.
duced headway and travel much closer to one another
[C]ACC Vehicle
ACC
CACC
than standalone vehicles. In addition, followers are
%
Class
MTT STD MTT STD
able to receive information from the leader, such as
0
ordinary
653
102
653
102
to accelerate after a green light at an intersection or
ordinary
640
96
638
96
to decelerate approaching an obstacle, e.g. red light,
25%
[C]ACC
605
82
600
76
downstream.
all
631
94
629
94
Since followers are not bound to the same route as
ordinary
583
66
579
60
the platoon leader, they are free to separate. After
50%
[C]ACC
583
61
570
64
leaving the platoon, the headway and acceleration paall
583
64
575
62
rameters are restored to their original values. This
ordinary
595
45
583
41
can happen for example when the follower changes
75%
[C]ACC
558
58
540
52
its route or becomes separated from the rest of plaall
567
57
550
48
toon, e.g., due to switching traffic signal as it crosses
the intersection.
Table 4: Mean travel time (MTT) and standard deTo study the impact of platooning, we used a SUMO
model of the 4-mile stretch of Colorado Boulevard
/ Huntington Drive arterial with 13 signalized intersections in Arcadia, Southern California, shown in
Fig. 9. IIDM and CACC models were implemented
in SUMO, and platoon management and formation
were handled via SUMO/TraCI API. Using real world
flow measurements and estimated turn ratios at in-

viation (STD) in seconds for varying percentage of
ACC vehicles on the main arterial of Fig. 9.

6

Conclusion

Presence of (C)ACC-enabled vehicles in the traffic
increases the intersection throughput and reduces
6

travel time at all levels of penetration. CACC vehiand microscopic simulations,” Physical Review E,
cles forming a sequence increase the throughput of an
vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 1805–1824, 2000.
intersection significantly more than can be achieved
with pure ACC vehicles; but CACC vehicles inter- [9] D. Krajzewicz, “Traffic simulation with SUMOsimulation of urban mobility,” in Fundamentals
leaved with ordinary ones have the same effect as
of Traffic Simulation. Springer, 2010, pp. 269–
ACC vehicles. Queues in short links do reduce the
293,
http://www.dlr.de/ts/en/desktopdefault.
throughput at an upstream intersection.
aspx/tabid-9883/16931_read-41000,
accessed
In an urban network the presence of (C)ACC vehi04/28/2016.
cles reduces the queues and hence the time spent at
intersections. As a result ordinary as well as (C)ACC
vehicles benefit from lower average travel times with
a lower standard deviation. The results of this paper
together with those in [5] indicate that (C)ACC can
greatly improve urban road mobility at little or no
additional infrastructure cost.

References
[1] NAHSRC,
“Automated
Highway
Demo
97,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
C9G6JRUmg_A.
[2] S. Shladover,
“Why automated vehicles
need to be connected vehicles,”
2013,
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/tc/its/VNC13/IEEE_
VNC_BostonKeynote_Shladover.pdf.
[3] J. Ploeg, B. T. M. Scheepers, E. van Nunen,
N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Design and
experimental evaluation of cooperative adaptive
cruise control,” Proc. 14th ITSC IEEE Conf, pp.
260–265, 2011.
[4] V. Milanes, S. E. Shladover, J. Spring,
C. Nowakowski, H. Kawazoe, and M. Nakamura,
“Cooperative adaptive cruise control in real traffic
situations,” IEEE Trans. Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 296–305, Feb
2014.
[5] J. Lioris, R. Pedarsani, F. Tascikaraoglu, and
P. Varaiya, “Platoons of connected vehicles can
double throughput in urban roads,” Transportation Research, Part C, to appear.
[6] H. S. Mahmassani, “50th anniversary invited articleâĂŤautonomous vehicles and connected vehicle systems: Flow and operations considerations,”
Transportation Science, 2016, published online.
[7] M. Treiber and A. Kesting, Traffic Flow Dynamics: Data, Models and Simulation.
Springer,
2013.
[8] M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, “Congested traffic states in empirical observations
7

