Team # 56731 Page 18 of 22
Figure 5.5 Average travel time and average time delay (Two ETC and six MTC)
Table 5.4 Honeycomb Tollbooths (Two ETC and six MTC)
Traffic flow (veh/h) Average time(s)
Car number
(veh) 16.444 32.000 48.667 65.222 78.778 84.889 Delay time(s)
0.889 1.267 2.511 5.156 10.900 18.556 Stop time(s)
0.100 0.178 0.411 1.144 2.922 5.644 Stop number
0.031 0.058 0.108 0.259 0.573 0.986
200.000 400.000 600.000 800.000 1000.000 1200.000 48.622 51.600 54.211 59.144 64.111 71.567
Table 5.5 Traditional tollbooth (Two ETC and six MTC)
Traffic flow (veh/h) Average time(s)
200.000 400.000 600.000 800.000 1000.000 1200.000
40.922 50.822 58.389 60.967 60.989 61.867
Car number
(veh) 16.111 32.111 44.000 43.889 43.778 43.889
Delay time(s)
0.000 1.522 5.433 6.922 7.056 7.689
Stop time(s)
0.056 0.322 0.600 0.422 0.367 0.456
Stop number
0.042 0.159 0.220 0.176 0.148 0.169
5.1.3 Simulation example
Figure 5.6 Circulation of traffic
Figure 5.7 Congestion occurs in merging
Team # 56731 Page 19 of 22
5.1.3仿真例子
Team # 56731 Page 20 of 22
5.2 The influence of different proportions tollbooth
5.2.1 Model Simplify
According to the data in [14], there is no great difference between the influence of MTC tollbooths and the influence of exact-change tollbooths, thus we can omit that difference and only take MTC into consideration. In the rest part of the paper, we combine the MTC method and the exact-change method into cash method.
Table 5.6 Throughput of each lane in the US[14]
Charging type MTC system Exact-change Low speed ETC system High speed ETC system Throughput per lane（veh/h） 425 500 1200 1800
5.2.2 Result Analysis
（1） Sensitivity Analysis of Impact of Cellular Toll Station on Capacity
The capacity of cellular toll stations is more sensitive to the proportion of ETC lanes. There is a possible scenario that when decreasing the number of ETC lanes, the total time cost increases rapidly.
Figure 5.8 The influence of the number of ETC lanes Table 5.7 Comparison under different number of ETC lanes
ETC/MTC 0\\8 1\\7 2\\6 3\\5 4\\4 5\\3 6\\2 7\\1 8\\0 Total time cost (sec) 80.689 76.111 66.378 57.167 49.633 42.611 34.722 18.778 10.822 Number of vehicle per lane (veh) 276.111 283.556 286.667 288.889 289.333 290.111 290.667 292.111 292.667 Time delayed (sec) 19.078 16.500 11.922 8.311 6.478 5.578 4.844 1.456 0.111 Time cost parking (sec) 4.089 4.622 3.344 2.011 1.544 1.278 0.633 0.467 0.000 on
Number
parking (sec) 0.712 0.744 0.586 0.386 0.308 0.259 0.111 0.071 0.000 of
（2） The lower the proportion of cash charges, the smaller average transit time and average delay. （3） With the increase in the number of ETC lanes, the average number of vehicles per lane increased at the same time, improve the road utilization.
Team # 56731 Page 21 of 22
5.2不同比例收费站的影响 5.2.1模型简化
根据文献[14]的数据，MTC收费站的影响与精确更换收费站的影响没有太大的区别，因此我们可以忽略这个差异，只考虑MTC。 在本文的其余部分，我们将MTC方法和精确变化法结合起来，形成现金方法。
5.2.2结果分析
（1）蜂窝收费站对容量影响的敏感性分析
蜂窝收费站的容量对ETC车道比例更为敏感。 有一种可能的情况是，当减少ETC车道的数量时，总时间成本迅速增加。
（2）现金收费比例较低，平均通行时间较短，平均延误较小。
（3）随着ETC车道数量的增加，同时每车道平均车辆数量同时增加，提高了道路利用率。