| Literature DB >> 35996651 |
Jiyong Zhang1,2, Yukui Yang1,2, Lijing Chu1,2, Shiliang Chen3, Wenchao Bian4, Meining Ling1,2, Shengfu Li5.
Abstract
Urban interchange is the core hub connecting various regions, and it is of great significance for alleviating the problem of traffic congestion. In the process of urban interchange design, it is impossible to strictly control the traffic volume, interchange types, and standards by relying on traditional technologies. Smart transportation and big data are emerging technologies based on data, which can provide technical support for design and decision making. Based on this, this paper first uses smart transportation and big data technology to predict the traffic volume of Nancheng New District, so as to calculate the future development trend of the target area. Then, on the basis of traffic volume, the article uses smart transportation and big data technology to optimize the original urban interchange design scheme from the aspects of traffic capacity, safety, economic benefits, and environmental benefits. Finally, the article evaluates the optimized urban interchange scheme by means of comprehensive quantitative indicators and evaluation methods. Experiments show that the traffic capacity of the interchange on the outer ring road optimized by smart transportation and big data has increased to 72.6%, and the environmental coordination has increased from 45.2% to 55.2%. Moreover, the design aesthetics of the urban interchange after optimized design based on smart transportation and big data has increased to 65.9%. In addition, the comprehensive evaluation value of the urban interchange after optimization of smart transportation and big data reached 82.6. This fully shows that the optimal design of urban interchange based on the integration of smart transportation and big data can greatly improve the traffic capacity of urban roads.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35996651 PMCID: PMC9392620 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4241097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Schematic figure of urban road interchange.
Indicator quantification results.
| Grade | Numerical values |
|---|---|
| Very good | 9 |
| Good | 7 |
| General | 5 |
| Poor | 3 |
Outer ring and inner ring traffic capacity.
| Road name | Outer ring road | Inner ring road |
|---|---|---|
| Motor vehicles | 96584 | 56970 |
| Pedestrians | 12 | 20 |
| Natural vehicles | 26820 | 15820 |
Predicted traffic volume in all directions at the destination.
| Roads | 2015 | 2025 | 2035 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left turn | Right turn | Left turn | Right turn | Left turn | Right turn | |
| North side | 2221 | 7548 | 2536 | 10121 | 3241 | 13210 |
| South side | 3030 | 7951 | 3681 | 12101 | 3520 | 13214 |
| East side | 3251 | 7254 | 3998 | 13410 | 3360 | 16213 |
| West side | 2581 | 7321 | 3021 | 16310 | 3421 | 15210 |
Figure 2Prediction map of target traffic per unit time.
Traffic volume forecast based on smart transportation and big data.
| Roads | 2020 | 2030 | 2040 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left turn | Right turn | Left turn | Right turn | Left turn | Right turn | |
| North side | 2229 | 8136 | 2698 | 13652 | 3321 | 17354 |
| South side | 4123 | 8912 | 3691 | 13214 | 3436 | 19962 |
| East side | 3131 | 8254 | 4031 | 16321 | 3698 | 19932 |
| West side | 2512 | 6325 | 3221 | 14369 | 3962 | 16360 |
The comfort comparison results of the original scheme and the optimized scheme.
| Related indicators | Comfort | Convenience | Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original program | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Optimized solution | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| Average value | 6 | 7 | 7 |
Comparison results of urban interchange traffic capacity before and after optimization.
| Related indicators | Ramps | Main roads | Expressways | Loop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original program | 5820 | 6830 | 6500 | 6720 |
| Optimized solution | 6230 | 7520 | 6830 | 6900 |
| Average value | 6025 | 7225 | 6615 | 6810 |
Comparison of economic and environmental benefits.
| Related indicators | Original program | Optimized solution | Average value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surroundings | 7 | 8 | 7.5 |
| Aesthetics | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| Footprint | 77000 | 79000 | 78000 |
| Demolition area | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Construction cost | 5009 | 5200 | 5104.5 |
Figure 3Comparison of the capacity of urban interchange before and after optimization.
Figure 4Comparison of economic benefits of urban interchange before and after optimization.
Figure 5Comparison of the safety of urban interchange before and after optimization.
Figure 6Comparison of environmental benefits of urban interchange before and after optimization.