ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING

May 22-23, 2008

The 7th International Conference
Faculty of Environmental Engineering,
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Saultekio al. 11, 10223 Vilnius-40, Lithuania
Tel.: +370 5 2744719; e-mail: ap2008@ap.vgtu.lt

A MULTI-AGENT CONTROL IN ROAD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Chris Tampre, Ben Immers, James Stada, Bart Janssens
University of Leuven (KUL), Department of Mechanical Engineering, CIB/Traffic and Infrstructure
Celestijnenlaan 300A, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgi
email: ben.immers@cib.kuleuven.ac.be, tel. +32.16.321669

Abstract: Current traffic management measures increasingly exhibit dynamic features by taking into account the dynamics
in traffic demand and transportation system supply. Demand actuated traffic signal settings or variable message signs are
examples of traffic management devices driven by the dynamic characteristics of the traffic. In most cases however, these
traffic management devices are implemented as stand-alone systems, meaning that there is no, or hardly any, co-ordination
between the various traffic management measures taken. The lack of co-ordination carries within it the risk of reduced
effectiveness. The various measures could, for example, serve opposing objectives or even generate a negative impact on
traffic flows that or not in any way related to the problem that the traffic management device was meant to solve in the first
place. The uncoordinated application of dynamic traffic management measures thus could possibly be counter-productive.
The setbacks of uncoordinated control can be avoided by carrying out the control task in two different ways: in a detailed
way by focusing on the problem(s) that need(s) to be solved (distributed control), and in a more generic way by controlling
the overall traffic performance in the network (generic control).
In this paper we analyse the possibility of combining both distributed and generic control in one control strategy using
hierarchic agents. In effect the approach tries to match local and global impacts by using autonomous agents interacting with
each other in a horizontal and in a vertical (hierarchical) way. The local agents (defined in terms of network links or network
nodes) control the traffic in their specific area according to predefined performance goals. One layer higher in the hierarchy
another agent controls the traffic performance in a part of the network, checking the results of individual control strategies
against the overall performance goal of that specific part of the network. We present the results of a modelling experiment
featuring a control system with two layers. The first layer consists of link agents directly serving the traveller by guaranteeing
reliable travel times and/or maximal throughput. The second layer consists of node agents that try to harmonize conflicting
goals of the various link agents. An important characteristic of our approach is that the higher level agent is dominant in the
negotiation process (i.e. a higher weight is attached to the decision of the higher level agent).
The multi-agent control strategy described above is applied to a test network consisting of a part of the road network around
the city of Antwerp. The results show that it can easily deal with the goals of the various agents. In the case of conflicts, the
attached control priority determines how differences will be settled. An interesting feature of the above approach is the lack
of a central mechanism controlling the various agents. The global optimum that is established in the system is the result of
selfish behaviour on the part of the various agents combined with some co-ordination based on pre-set priorities. Actually the
system is finding this optimum in a self-organising way. This is a very interesting feature as it allows us to apply a large
range of control strategies.
Keywords: Dynamic Traffic Management, Multi-agent control, Environment,

1.1. Central control

1. Dynamic traffic management and control

Overview of different control systems
In this section we present an overview of several
different principles by which systems can be controlled.
The main distinguishing characteristic is the degree of
decentralisation of the control process [1,2,3,4,5].

A system with central control has one central

component that receives data from all sensors and directly
sends control signals [6,7]. The central control component
analyses the received signals, translates these to a
possible traffic situation and subsequently determines the
optimal set of control signals on the basis of a global
objective function [8]. This process is shown in the
diagram of figure 1.

1052

Ramp metering
Route information

Output criterion

Traffic flows

Variable speed limitations

etc.

Perturbations
Reality
Controller

Analysis
Control
strategy

Estimate situation
Prediction

Real-time
measurements

Overall objective function

Fig 1. Principle of central control

1.2. Hierarchical system with agents

This system is based on the idea that local control
devices, referred to as agents, are best suited to deal
with local problems. To ensure that the system as a whole
also functions in a satisfactory way a hierarchy of control
layers is established based on the same idea, but at a
higher level [8]. An agent may be taken to be piece of
software or a robot that observes its environment and
responds to it, its behaviour being mainly autonomous
and partly dependent on its own experience.
The example in figure 2 illustrates a hierarchical
system based on agents. The figure shows a simple
network consisting of a few streets [8]. Every intersection
is governed by a local control unit, an intersection agent.
In addition these local control units are supervised by a
control unit, call it a street agent, which safeguards the
performance of the street as a whole.

The problems are tackled on the level where they

arise. The intersection agents are concerned with smooth
traffic operations on their own intersection. Although an
intersection agent might take the right decisions from a
local point of view, these decisions might in some cases
have a detrimental effect for the street as a whole. In such
cases the street agent street-wide basis. The interaction
takes the form of some sort of negotiation [9,10] between
intersection and street agents trying to reach a consensus
between the objectives of both agents [8,11,12]. This
system can be extended to higher levels: neighbourhood
agents, district agents, network agents. It is also possible
to mobilise special agents for important routes etc.
Clearly using agents is not limited to the control of traffic
lights. Agents could also be developed to control ramp
metering installations, dynamic speed indication signs,
dynamic route information panels and other dynamic
traffic management measures, such as devices directed at
a flexible use of the infrastructure [9].

1053

Fig. 2 a) Example of a network with a hierarchy of agents. b) Delegation of responsibilities

1.5. Mixed systems
1.3. Non-hierarchical agent systems
In a non-hierarchical system we also use local,
independent and autonomous control agents. Every agent
in such a system is responsible for its own area and
communicates with nearby agents to assess the situation
in its immediate neighbourhood [11,13] (see figure 3).
The nearby agents consult and negotiate on the basis of
their own priorities [11,14,15]. Because this happens
through the whole system all agents undergo some direct
or indirect influence of all the other agents. This form of
communication still enables the system as a whole to
attain a global optimum [13].

Clearly the principles of the control systems

discussed in the preceding sections can be combined. In
certain situations the advantages of one system over the
other might be retained while in other situations we might
want to eliminate some of the weak points of a system.
Certain parts of the system, for example, could be
controlled by agents, while other parts would be under
some central control. Another possibility would be to
apply a non-hierarchical agent structure in normal
situations, while imposing a strict hierarchical control if
something unexpected happens, for example if the
network suddenly needs to be used for an evacuation in
the case of an emergency. For the sake of clarity we will
not consider these mixed systems any further.
2. Selection of a system
We compared the systems presented in the previous
section on the basis of a number of criteria. The following
criteria were used:
Alertness
The term alertness is used to indicate the quickness
of response of a system to a new situation. The more
distributed the control, the faster the system is able to
react, because the problem is split up into smaller and
simpler subproblems.

Fig. 3. Agents in a non-hierarchical structure.

1.4. Self-organising systems

Robustness
By increasing the decentralisation of control we
ultimately arrive at systems where there is no consultation
at all between individual agents. These agents decide on
their actions in a completely autonomous way
[16,17,18,19]. It appears contradictory to refer to these
independent, very local control entities as a system,
because at first sight there seems to be no relation
whatsoever between different control actions. One tends
to overlook, however, that information is still being
exchanged between agents. In fact the traffic flows
themselves are the carrier of the information.

A centrally controlled system is more sensitive to

disruptions than a distributed system. A breakdown in a
distributed system only leads to local repercussions, while
if a central control unit fails global traffic control breaks
down.
Flexibility
This is the ability of the system to adapt to new and
unknown situations. Because distributed systems only
rely on the local performance of agents they lack

1054

flexibility. Introducing hierarchy improves the situation

because more global problems may be addressed by the
higher level agents.
Transferability
Transferability refers to the practical reusability of
the system in an environment different from the one it
was designed for. The dedicated nature of a centrally
organised system hampers tranferability.
Pro-activity
Instead of reacting only to actual traffic conditions
we might want to anticipate on possible future traffic
conditions. It reaquires that traffic situations can be
forecasted over a certain time horizon. A centralised
system is perfectly suited for such pro-active control. The
model-based control method ca be applied [6]. A
hierarchical, distributed system also lends itself to proactive control, but the implementation of such a system is
more demanding.
Extendability
The adding of additional control devices is easier in
a distributed system than in a centrally organised system.
Learning capability
Learning is the process by which the system learns
to recognise situations it has encountered before and also
the gaining of knowledge about the likely reaction of the
traffic to control measures. Non-hierarchical systems only
have local feedback, while centrally controlled systems
have global feedback. A hierarchical system contains
local and global elements, meaning that learning takes
place on a local as well as a global scale.

availability of alternative routes, travel times, and the

blocking back of congestion to upstream road sections.
The more distributed a system is, the more skill it requires
to recognise these network-wide relationships. Closely
related to network orientation is the issue of closely
monitoring traffic operations between (economically)
important OD (origin-destination) relations. In a
hierarchical system one can assign a special agent
responsible for these relations. A centrally organised
system also allows these relations to be explicitly
included into the controller.
In completely distributed systems it is difficult to
introduce this quality into the system.
Data availability
To be able to extract statistical information the ready
availability of data from the system is of some
importance. Obviously, if the data are distributed
throughout the system, this hampers the easy extraction of
data.
The systems discussed in the previous section were
compared to each other by awarding them a score (on a
scale of 1 to 4) on each of the above-mentioned criteria. It
appeared that the hierarchical system with agents
obtained the best score, closely followed by a centrally
organised system. In the following sections of this paper
we proceed to a closer examinination of such a
hierarchical system.
3. Application

Implementation
This refers to the ease of practical implementation. A
self-organising system is the easiest to implement.
Distributed systems, with agents consulting each other,
require the implementation of a large amount of
communication protocols.
Transparency

Fig. 4 Main road network of Antwerp and link priorities.

The structure of a hierarchical system may closely

correspond to a certain policy structure. A centrally
organised system also reflects the policy objectives in a
clear way. Completely distributed systems lack this
quality.
Network orientation
Especially in a centralised system the existing
relationships within the whole network are easily
discernible. Examples of such relationships are the

In the third step of our investigation we examined

the possibility of using the selected system (a hierarchical
system with agents) to control traffic on the road network
of Antwerp. A former study [20,21] established the
priority order of traffic operations on the road network
around Antwerp (see figure 4)
In the road network of Antwerp an important part is
played by the interaction and co-operation between the
Ring Road (in red) and the Singel (in blue). The Singel,
an important thoroughfare, is a kind of inner ring road,
running mostly parallel to the main Ring Road motorway.

1055

Figure 5 shows a simplified subnetwork that respects the

hierarchy between the different road types.

qi 2 = outflow of traffic to downstream node

X i = number of vehicles on the link

Not all links in a network are of equal importance. For

that reason every link has a priority assigned to it in the
form of a weighting factor.

Exit
road

Fig. 5 Selected test network.

The exit road of the Ring motorway leads towards an
intersection of the Singel Road. It allows traffic coming
from the Ring Road to take the Singel. The intersection
allows traffic to pass through, either the traffic travelling
on the Singel or traffic arriving from the Ring Road. A
limited capacity is available for the two traffic flows
taken together.
There may arise an important conflict in interests
between both roads. Traffic on the Singel should not be
hampered too much by traffic coming from the exit road.
After all the priority rating of the Singel is higher than
that of the exit road. This means that traffic on the exit
road will experience a longer delay than traffic coming
from the Singel. If the traffic flow on the exit road starts
to increase, more vehicles will have to wait at the
intersection causing long tailbacks on the exit road. If the
tailback keeps on growing, then blocking back may occur
on the Ring Road. This means that the waiting line
extends all the way to the motorway obstructing other
traffic on the motorway that has no intention whatsoever
to leave the motorway. This situation should be avoided,
if at all possible.
3.1. Agents

For every link we can write an equation expressing the

conservation of vehicles:
t + t

q
t

A link is the connection between two nodes. From a

traffic perspective, a link is a road that connects two
traffic nodes. A link has a certain length and carries a
certain number of vehicles at a certain moment in time.
Figure 6 shows the characteristics of a link.

t + t
i1

(t )dt =

i2

(t )dt + X i

3.1.2. Nodes
Different links are joined by means of nodes. One or
more links may converge at a certain node and also one or
more links may depart from a certain node. A node agent
is confronted by a certain traffic demand arriving from
the upstream nodes and a supply of capacity of the
downstream links. The node agent can deal with this
situation in a number of ways. There are two different
types of node.
On the one hand we have active nodes that can
intervene in the connection between different links, in the
way that intersections use traffic lights. This type of node
plays an active role in distributing the demand from the
upstream links over the available capacities of the
downstream links. The available capacity is first and
foremost restricted by the capacity of the node itself,
because the number of vehicles that can pass the
intersection is bounded.

The network consists of links and nodes. Both

network components are represented by means of agents.
3.1.1. Links

wi = priority of the link

C kr ,i = intersection capacity of node i

The node capacity is also bounded by the state of the

downstream links. If maximum density is reached in one
of the downstream links no further traffic can be taken
care of. The actual distribution of traffic depends on the
situation in which the node agent has been deployed. A
node agent controlling a ramp metering installation at the
entrance to a motorway will behave differently from a
node agent overseeing an intersection.

Fig. 6 Graphical representation of a link.

[i ] = link number
Li = link length
qi1 = inflow of traffic from upstream node

Fig. 7 Graphical representation of a node.

1056

On the other hand there are many passive nodes in a

network. Their only duty is to connect different links and
there is no way of controlling capacity. But these nodes,
like active nodes, also have a bound to their capacity.
3.2. Application to the test network
The test network is an example of two parallel roads
with a buffer in between (see figure 8). The links on the
Ring Road and the Singel, indicated respectively by [1]
and [2] and by [4] and [5], should guarantee free
circulation of traffic. These links will be assigned an
agent responsible for this task. The exit road, link [3],
functions as a buffer between the Ring Road and the
Singel. Traffic leaving the Ring Road should not
intervene in a serious way with the traffic on the Singel.
Because the exit road is relatively short in comparison to
the other links, free circulation is of minor importance.
By buffering the traffic leaving the Ring Road on the exit
road and by carefully feeding traffic onto the Singel we
can try to guarantee smooth traffic operations on both
major roads.

Fig. 8 Choice of link and node agents for the test

network.
To take care of buffering it is necessary to make
node 5 an active node. Node 5 will ask link 3 and 4 for
information about their respective traffic states and on the
basis of this information will distribute capacity.
The other nodes in the test network are passive
nodes. Node 2 is the branching point on the Ring Road
leading to the Singel. Nodes 1 and 4 symbolise the input
to the system; they represent upstream boundary
conditions. At nodes 3 and 6 traffic leaves the system. If
there is congestion downwards of these nodes they
represent a downstream boundary condition.
3.3. Testing the behaviour of the agents and the system
for different parameters
We now examine the behaviour of the system. Two
different policy options to deal with congestion in the
network will be investigated. We shall also compare the
quantitative results of this system to a system operating
without agents.
The two policy options are:
fairly sharing the congestion misery
keep the problems localised to where they occur

Fair share of the misery

A possible option could be to spread out congestion
problems over the network. Seen from the viewpoint of
the users of the network this means that one prefers some
slight disruption for a lot of road users to heavy
discomfort for a limited group of users. The reliability of
travel times could benefit from such an approach, making
a network less vulnerable. A network will appear more
reliable to most users if a problem on one of the links
only causes a light increase in travel time on all of the
other links.
Assume that one wants to apply this principle to the
test network. This would mean that if the intersection at
node 5 gets overloaded (implying an overload for the
buffer at link [3] also), the congestion misery would be
spread out over link [1] and the links [4] and [5].
Keep the problems localised to where they occur
The other way of managing the network starts from
an opposite concept. The idea is that it is best to keep a
problem in the network localised, thus keeping
interference with other flows that have no relation to the
problem at a minimum. In the test network this means
that a problem occurring on a local intersection, such as
node 5, should have no consequences for the flow on the
motorway. In a reservoir model the number of cars that
are present on the link can also be interpreted as the
number of cars waiting at the downstream node. Waiting
vehicles on the motorway have to be avoided at all costs.
The problems occurring on the network thus should be
spread out over the buffer of link [3] and over links [4]
and [5]. This can be attained by drastically decreasing the
value of the desired number of vehicles on link [1] and by
increasing these values for link [4] and [5].
For both policy options traffic flow on the network
has been simulated. The following priorities have been
assigned to the links:
w1 = w2 = 2 ; w4 = w5 = 1 and w3 = 0.5
3.3.1. Computation of the option fair share of misery
For each link qualities have been defined which
one would preferably realise. For the option fair share of
misery the agents will attempt to safeguard the following
qualities:
Links [1] and [2]: a minimal average speed of
80 km/h
Links [4] and [5]: a minimal average speed of
50 km/h
Link [3]: a maximal rise in the number of
buffered vehicles of 10 vehicles per time step of
1 minute.
Simulating traffic for a period of 300 minutes gave
the results shown in figures 9 and 10:

1057

3.3.2
Computation of the option
problems localised to where they occur

keep

the

# vehicles

In this option we want to prevent that a problem on a

local intersection, such as node 5, will interfere with the
traffic on the motorway (links [1] and [2]). Furthermore
the waiting of vehicles on the motorway should be
avoided at all costs. The problems that occur in the
network should therefore be distributed as much as
possible over the buffer of link [3] and over links [4] and
[5].
For this option the agents will attempt to safeguard
the following qualities
Links [1] and [2]: minimal blocking back of
traffic from link [3]
Links [4] and [5]: a desired average speed of 30
km/h
Link [3]: a maximal rise in the number of
buffered vehicles of 10 vehicles per time step of
1 minute.

Time (minutes)

Flow (veh/h

Fig. 9 Number of vehicles on the links

# vehicles

Simulating traffic for a period of 300 minutes gave

the results shown in figures 11 and 12:

Time (minutes)
Fig. 10 Capacity allocation node 5

In addition, it appears that during this period of

excess, links [4] and [5] show nearly exactly the same
deviation of the objective over time. Thus the system
shows behaviour in accordance with the desired policy,
namely spreading the hindrance.

Time (minutes)
Fig. 11 Number of vehicles on the links

Flow (veh/h

The figures clearly show that the hindrance caused

by an inflow into the network that exceeds the maximum
outflow is spread out over the different network
components over time. This leads to equilibrium of
hindrance, all links will suffer from a loss in quality in
proportion to the assigned link priority. In the figure it
can be seen that from t = 20 min to t = 45 min links [1],
[4] and [5] have to make a concession as to the desired
quality. The exceeding of the maximum desired number
of vehicles shows the same progression for all links. The
maximum deviation of links [4] and [5], however, is
double that of link [1], about 20 (60-40) compared to 10
(85-75). This perfectly agrees with the priorities assigned
to the links.

Time (minutes)
Fig. 12 Capacity allocation in node 5

1058

Like in the preceding simulation equilibrium of

hindrance arises. All links will suffer in performance,
according to the assigned link priority. But clearly,
because of a different choice of parameters, this
equilibrium differs considerably from the preceding
example. Links [4] and [5] will have to handle much
more vehicles, while link [1] is relatively spared.
The progress in the excess of the desired number of
vehicles on links [4] and [5] is not exactly the same in
this situation. The equilibrium assignment of traffic at
node 5 during the first 30 minutes results in total flow on
the node exceeding the capacity of the intersection.
Therefore the downstream link receives an inflow equal
to the intersection capacity. Upstream, between link [1]
and [4], equilibrium is indeed found. As from t = 35 min
a global equilibrium is achieved lying within the
capability of the intersection. This causes a limitation on
the inflow of link [5] leading to an equilibrium in the
behaviour of links [4] and [5] after t = 40 min. The
behaviour also shows the same progress after t = 40 min.
This shows that the system always tries to comply
with the policy as much as possible within practical
boundaries.
3.4. Comparison of the number of vehicle hours lost
In a first quantitative analysis we compared the
number of vehicle hours lost (VHL). The number of
vehicle hours loss equals the time period that a vehicle
spends on the network summed over all vehicles that pass
through the network.

difference could have many causes. The difference

however is too small to make any judgements.
A reduction in the absolute number of lost vehicle
hours cannot be obtained by agent based control. But it is
true that the network as a whole behaves better in
accordance with the policy options drawn up for the
individual links. This improvement in performance
should be measured by another criterion, namely in terms
of deviation from the policy objectives.
3.5. Deviation from the objectives
In this quantitative analysis we examine to what
extent the system complies with the policy objectives for
the different links. The qualitative analysis showed that
the misery gets well spread out in the system employing
agents. In a system without agents especially link [5] has
a hard time while the rest of the system is spared. By
calculating the total deviation from the policy objectives
we can find which of the two situations presents the best
perspectives and to what degree.
The total deviation from the policy objectives may
be computed by determining the deviation per time step
of each link with respect to the policy objective and
aggregating over all links and the total time period of the
simulation.
The deviation of a link from its policy objective at
time t equals the number of vehicles on the link minus the
desired number of vehicles according to the objective.

deviationi = max(X i (t ) X i ,g ,0 )

The following table shows the number of vehicle

hours lost per system and per link:

The deviation is expressed in number of vehicles

and, moreover, a negative deviation, meaning compliance
with the objectives, is not counted. In this way we get
values, indicating non-compliance with the policy
objective ( X i > X i , g ), for the whole simulation period

Table 1: Comparison of the vehicle hours lost.

Link

Priority

1
2
3
4
5

2
2
0.5
1
1
Total
Weighted

With
agents
10.67
5.63
156.30
146.83
188.98
508.40
446.55

Without
agents
40.75
5.63
89.81
0
366.67
502.85
504.32

that may be compared with each other.

Table 2. Comparison of deviation from policy objectives.

The total number of vehicle hours lost is almost

constant, regardless of using a system with or without
agents. The reason is that inflow and maximum outflow
in both systems is the same and the capacity of node 5 is
bound to a maximum. There is not much space to escape
from these boundary conditions.
The lost vehicle hours in the system with agents
exceed those in the system without agents by 1.1%. So, in
absolute numbers, a system without agents is even
slightly better than a system with agents. This small

Link

Priority

1
2
4
5

2
2
1
1
Total
Weighted

With
agents
394.49
242.50
678.45
529.02
1853.50
2490.50

Without
agents
2261.70
242.50
0
11095.00
13599.00
16104.00

Link [3] has not been included in this analysis

because this link only serves as a buffer, and does not
offer any quality to the user in terms of free circulation of
traffic.

1059

This analysis does show the big difference between

the two systems. The system involving agents reduces the
exceeding of policy objectives by about 87 % as
compared to the system without agents. Even if we
correct the results by taking into account the link
priorities the reduction still amounts to about 85%.
This reduction could be expected. The system with
agents is designed in such a way as to comply as well as
possible with the policy objectives, while the system
without agents only exercises local control. Notable are
the deviations per link in the agent system. We find that
the deviations are, as much as possible, distributed among
the links according to their priorities.
In the system without agents, by contrast, there is a
large excess of vehicles on link [5], while link [4] has no
excess at all. Although the other links are operating much
less underneath their objective, the comparison shows
that from a global point of view this downstream
accumulation does not represent a desirable situation.
4. Conclusions
From the qualitative analyses it appears that the
system will perform according to its design
specifications. The quantitative analysis furthermore
confirmed that by choosing a distributed system we
achieve the goal of conciliating local and global
performance.
Our investigations showed that the distribution of
deviations with respect to the policy objectives that
corresponds to the link priorities also leads to a reduction
of the total deviation. The fact that every agent pursues its
own interest also brings about a global improvement for
the whole system, a result that is not self-evident.
The agent system is designed to be able to translate
policy objectives into actual practice. These policy
objectives are usually formulated in terms of desired
qualities, such as maximum travel time, minimum speed
or reliability of travel time or speed. The agent system
does not lead to a reduction of lost vehicle hours, but it
allows for a spreading of these lost vehicle hours over
different components of the network in a way that is
judged expedient.
As an example, economically
important traffic on high priority links can be spared at
the cost of less important traffic
The agent system can be seen as a traffic
management tool that is capable of distributing
congestion problems and the associated time losses
through the network according to pre-set (policy)
objectives. If these objectives have been carefully
defined, application of an agent system may well lead to a
network-wide improvement of traffic operations.

References
1. Krozel, J. and Peters, M., Decentralized control techniques
for distributed air/ground traffic separation, Seagull
Technology Inc., Los Gatos, 2000.
2. Vidal, J.M., A Method for Solving Distributed Service
Allocation Problems, Web Intelligence and Agent Systems:
An International Journal, 1(2) (2003), 139146.
3. van den Bosch, A.T., Menken, M.R., van Breukelen, M. and
van Katwijk, R.T., A Test Bed for Multi-Agent Systems
and Road Traffic Management, Workshop on agents in
traffic and transportation, 20/07/2004, New York.
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mrmenken/pubs/BNAIC03.pdf
4. Wolpert, D.H., Wheeler, K.R. and Tumer, K., Collective
Intelligence for Control of Distributed Dynamical Systems,
Europhysics Lettres, 49 (6) (2000), 708-714.
5. Wooldridge, M., An introduction to MultiAgent Systems,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2002.
6. Hegyi, A., Model predictive control for integrating traffic
control measures, Trail thesis series, Delft, 2004.
7. Kotsialos, A., Papageorgiou, M., Motorway network traffic
control systems, European Journal of Operational Research,
152 (2004), 321333.
8. Roozemond, D.A., Using intelligent agents for pro-active,
real-time urban intersection control, European Journal of
Operational Research, 131 (2001), 293-301.
9. van Katwijk, R., van Koningsbruggen, P., Coordination of
traffic management instruments using agent technology,
Transportation Research, Part C, 10 (2002), 455-471.
10. Adler, J.L., Satapathy, G., Manikonda, V., Bowles, B. and
Blue, V.J., A multi-agent approach to cooperative traffic
management and route guidance, Transportation Research,
Part B, 39 (2004), 297-318.
11. van Zuylen, H.J. and Taale, H., Urban Networks with Ring
Roads: A Two-level, Three Player Game, 83rd Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington
D.C., 2004.
12. van Koningsbruggen, P. and Immers, B., Traffic and selforganisation Chapter 7 of: van Eijnatten F., Kuijs M.,
Haffmans J., Verdieping van Chaosdenken: Theorie en
Praktijk, Van Gorcum, Assen, 2002.
13. Ferreira, E.D., Subrahmanian, E. and Manstetten, D.,
Intelligent agents in decentralized traffic control, 2001
IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference
Proceedings, Oakland, 2001.
14. Weiss, G., Multiagent System: A Modern Approach to
Distributed Artificial Intelligence, The MIT Press,
Massachusetts, 1999.
15. Hernndez, J.Z., Ossowski, S. and Garcia-Serrano, A.,
Multiagent architectures for intelligent traffic management
systems, Transportation Research, Part C, 10 (2002), 473
506.
16. Wiering, M., Vreeken, J., van Veenen, J. and Koopman, A.,
Simulation and Optimization of Traffic in a City, IEEE
Intelligent Vehicles Symposium IV, 2004.
17. Gershenson, C., A General Methodology for Designing
Self-Organizing
Systems,
http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/sos, 2005.

1060

18. Roozemond, D.A., Self-optimising and self-organising

urban traffic control systems, TRAIL Research School,
Delft, 1998.
19. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J., Game Theory, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachussets, 1991.
20. Verhaert, M., Van beleidswensen naar effectief
verkeersmanagement in de Antwerpse regio: het proces

Gebiedsgericht
Benutten
en
de
Regionale
BenuttingsVerkenner in de praktijk, K.U.Leuven, Leuven,
2004.
21. Rijkswaterstaat Nederland, Werkboek Gebiedsgericht
Benutten, Rijkswaterstaat, Rotterdam, 2004.

1061