**BYRON J. GAJEWSKI**^{1*}**LAURENCE
R. RILETT**^{2}

The estimation and forecasting of travel times has become an increasingly important topic as Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) have moved from conceptualization to deployment. This paper focuses on an important, but often neglected, component of ATIS-the estimation of link travel time correlation. Natural cubic splines are used to model the mean link travel time. Subsequently, a Bayesian-based methodology is developed for estimating the posterior distribution of the correlation of travel times between links along a corridor. The approach is illustrated on a corridor in Houston, Texas, that is instrumented with an Automatic Vehicle Identification system.

KEYWORDS: Automatic vehicle identification, Gibbs Sampler, intelligent transportation systems, Markov Chain Monte Carlo.

Estimating and forecasting link travel times has become an increasingly important topic as Advanced Traveler Information Systems have moved from conceptualization to deployment. Sen et al. (1999) proposed estimating the correlation of travel times between various links of a corridor as an open problem for future research. In this paper, we assume that instrumented vehicles are detected at discrete points in the traffic network, and links are defined as the length of roadway between adjacent detection points. The set of contiguous links forms a corridor. The link travel time for a given instrumented vehicle is calculated based on the times at which each of these vehicles passes a detection point.

Using these observations, link summary statistics, such as travel time mean and variance as a function of time of day, can be obtained. The travel time statistics for the corridor may be obtained directly or be based on the sum of the individual link travel times. In the latter case, a covariance matrix often is required, because link travel times are rarely independent.

This paper focuses on estimating the correlation of link travel times using Bayesian statistical inference. While the problem is motivated and demonstrated using vehicles instrumented with Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) tags, the methodologies developed can be generalized to any probe vehicle technology. In addition, while the AVI links have fixed lengths, the procedure can be applied to links of any length.

The mean link travel time is a key input for estimating the link-to-link travel time correlation coefficient. A continuous estimate of the mean link travel time as a function of the time of day is an important input to this process. In this paper, we use a natural cubic splines (NCS) approach to estimate the mean travel time as a function of time. The difference between each individual vehicle travel time and the corresponding estimated mean travel time is used, along with standard correlation equations, to obtain a point estimate of the correlation coefficient. A technique for calculating the variability of the estimate is also developed in order to make inferences about the statistical significance of this correlation coefficient.

Traditionally, variability is estimated using asymptotic theory. However, for the travel time estimation problem, this approach is complicated because of the nonparametric nature of the estimator and the covariance between links. Consequently, we adopted a Bayesian approach, which had a number of benefits in terms of interpretation and ease of use. An added benefit to this approach is that the actual distribution of the parameter is provided, which allows a much broader range of statistical information, and consequently better results, to be obtained. Further, we hypothesized that the distribution of the correlation coefficient could be used by traffic operations staff to help characterize the corridor in terms of the consistency of individual vehicle travel times relative to the mean travel time. As such, it may be considered a performance metric for traffic operations.

In this paper, an 11.1 kilometer (km) (7.0 mile) test bed located on U.S. 290 in Houston, Texas, was used to demonstrate the procedure. AVI data were obtained from the morning peak traffic period. We chose this time period because U.S. 290 experiences the highest levels of congestion in the morning than at any other time, and because estimating and forecasting travel times during congested periods are considerably more complex than during noncongested periods.

This paper is divided into four sections. First we present a traditional approach to correlation coefficient estimation with a special focus on the inherent complexities and difficulties. Next we provide detailed discussion of the proposed Bayesian approach. The third section demonstrates the methodology using AVI data observed from the test bed and compares the Bayes approach to a more traditional approach for estimating correlation. We found that the estimates and their intervals can be calculated using the proposed approach. Then, the estimated correlation coefficients are examined from the viewpoint of traffic flow theory. The last section gives concluding remarks.

We hypothesized that the positive correlation indicates the links can be categorized as consistent in that drivers who wish to drive faster (or slower) than the mean travel time can do so. Conversely, if the correlation between links is negative, then the links can be categorized as inconsistent. In this situation, drivers who are slower (or faster) than average on one link are more likely to be faster (or slower) than average on the other link. Finally, when the correlation coefficient is at or near zero, then the system is operating between the two extremes. Here, the drivers are unable to maintain consistently lower or higher travel times between links, again in relation to mean travel time, and the link travel times may be considered independent. This latter case is often assumed in corridor travel time forecasting and estimation, although the assumption is rarely tested.

Over the last 10 years, most urban areas of North America have seen extensive deployment of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies. ITS traffic monitoring capabilites can be categorized based on whether they provide point or space information. For instance, inductance loop detectors provide point estimates of speed and volume. Conversely, AVI systems provide space mean speed estimates of instrumented vehicles. The focus of this paper is on AVI-equipped systems. Note that even though the focus is on AVI systems, the procedure can be readily generalized to other systems that provide space information such as those that utilize global positioning satellites or cell phone location technology.

Because of the nature of AVI systems, the speed of any one
vehicle at a given time is unknown; instead, the travel time (or
space mean speed) of each vehicle on each link is calculated based
on the time stamps recorded at each AVI reader. The travel time of
vehicle *i* along link *l* on any given day is defined as
*Y*_{il}. Because the relationship between
travel time variability and time of day may be considered unstable,
a natural log transformation *z*_{il} =
*ln*(*Y*_{il}) is used to stabilize the
relationship. Assume that *g*_{il} is the
expected value of *z*_{il}. It is assumed that
the distribution of this transformation has a multivariate normal
(*MVN*) distribution as shown below:

(1)

where

g_{il} is a smooth function representing the mean
log travel time for link *l*; and

is the variance-covariance matrix of the log
travel time between links *l* and *l*′.

The normality assumption can be checked globally by inspecting
the residuals. In this paper *g*_{l }, the
column vector of *g*_{il}'s from *i* =
1,...,*n*, will be estimated using NCS, an approach that is
discussed in detail elsewhere (Green and Silverman 1995; Eubank
1999). The fundamental calculation of an NCS is linear in nature.
For example, , where *z*_{l} is the column
vector of *z*_{il}'s, gives the mean log travel
time profile for a particular day on link *l*, where *α*
is the tuning parameter. The tuning parameter is discussed later,
and details for the calculation of *A*(*α*) are shown in
the appendix under "NCS Algorithm."

The test bed for this study is a three-lane section of U.S. 290 located in Houston. It has a barrier-separated high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane that runs along the centerline of the freeway, but the data utilized are from the non-HOV section of the freeway. Eastbound (inbound) travel time data were collected over a 11.1 kilometer (7.0 mile) stretch of U.S. 290 from 4 AVI reader stations (yielding 3 links). The lengths of links were 2.5 (1.6), 4.6 (2.9), and 4.0 (2.5) kilometers (miles), respectively. The data were collected over 20 weekdays in May 1996 from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.

Figure
1 and table
1 outline an example of the above calculation for a subset of
the data (i.e., 18 observations on day 1 that begin at 7 seconds and
run to 6,822 seconds). In general, a tuning parameter, *α,*
that is too large produces a mean estimate that is too smooth and
does not follow the pattern laid out by the data. For example, it
can be seen that when *α* = 1x10^{11}, the NCS is
basically a decreasing straight line and captures none of the
traffic dynamics. Conversely, a tuning parameter that is too small
yields a rough NCS. It may be seen that when *α* =
8x10^{3}, the function essentially runs through each
observation point and does not provide adequate smoothing. However,
for the intermediate value *α* = 3x10^{5}, there is an
adequate tradeoff between the travel time dynamics and the
smoothing. Therefore, it is important to identify a tuning parameter
that is smooth but appropriately follows the dynamic trend. This can
be accomplished using visual inspection or by automatic
techniques.

A popular choice for automating the selection of the tuning parameter is using the Generalized Cross Validation (GCV) method (Green and Silverman 1995, p. 35). In this method, the smoothing curve for one choice of tuning parameter is calculated without the first value. Subsequently, the average square error is calculated using the remaining values. This is repeated for all times during the day. A modified version of the process eliminates the need to remove each value by using the following formula:

.

In essence, a convex function of the tuning parameter is drawn and the choice of tuning is the minimum of this function. The advantage of using this procedure is that the process is automated.

Figure
2 shows the log travel time as a function of time of day (6
a.m.-8 a.m.) for test bed links 1 and 2. For illustration purposes,
a subset of the vehicles has its log travel times highlighted with a
circle around the observation. In this particular example, the log
travel time experiences only slight changes during this period of
time: it begins relatively flat, experiences an increase at around
2,000 seconds and decreases starting at 4,000 seconds. Figure 2 also
shows three NCS where each one has a different tuning parameter. For
this example, a tuning parameter of *α* = 1x10^{5} was
chosen based on visual inspection and *α* =
0.065x10^{5} was identified based on the GCV process. For a
particular day, the same tuning parameter is applied to all links
along the corridor.

To illustrate the correlation between travel times on the two
links, consider the first highlighted vehicle that begins to
traverse link 1 at approximately *t*_{1} = 11 seconds.
Note that this vehicle has a lower than average travel time on both
links 1 and 2. The second highlighted vehicle begins to traverse
link 1 at approximately *t* = 548 seconds, and it can be seen
that its observed link travel times are above the mean travel time
on links 1 and 2. Eight of the 12 highlighted vehicles in figure 2
show evidence of positive correlation. Notice that this method
requires that the vehicles traverse both links, and vehicles
entering after the beginning of the first link or exiting before the
end of the second link are not included in the correlation
calculation. Later we employ these calculations for three links
where we include only vehicles that traverse the entire three-link
corridor.

To quantify the above relationship, we calculated the cross product of the residuals. More specifically the covariance,

*σ*_{12} = *E*[ (*z*_{i1} −
*z*_{i1})(*z*_{i2} −
*z*_{i2}) ] =
*E*[*ε*_{i1}*ε*_{i2}]
and

where *σ*_{1} as defined earlier, was obtained using
the following procedure. The mathematical details of the procedure
are in the appendix under "Classic Estimation of Correlation."

Step 1: Transform the data to logarithms.

Step 2: Estimate the mean function by using NCS.

Step 3: Calculate residuals by subtracting the mean function from the logarithm travel times.

Step 4: Estimate the variance and covariance using the procedure outlined in the appendix.

Step 5: Calculate confidence intervals of the correlation using standard asymptotic distribution theory (Wilks 1962).

For the example data shown in figure 2, the above procedure resulted in an estimated correlation of = 0.6918. This relatively high value reflects the positive correlation for the log travel time of vehicles between the links.

Note that the above approach is problematic because it results
only in a partial solution. First, it would be desirable to have the
correlation coefficient for the untransformed data *Y*
_{il} and not the natural log of the data, *ln*
(*Y* _{il} ). Because the above correlation
coefficient reflects the transformed, rather than untransformed,
scale, interpretation is difficult. Secondly, and more importantly,
in order to make statistical inferences regarding the correlation
coefficient, the distribution of the untransformed correlation
coefficient is required. Identifying the *distribution* of the
untransformed correlation coefficient is equivalent to finding the
standard error of this estimate in the normal distribution case
using large sample theory. Additionally, because the correlation
calculation requires an estimate of the mean function using NCS,
this stage of uncertainty should be incorporated into the estimate
of the standard error. The entire process is very difficult to
accomplish, because the NCS and the sum of squares residuals need to
be calculated simultaneously. The traditional or classic approach
outlined in the appendix yields an approximation that does not
account for the uncertainty in the NCS. To overcome these
difficulties, an approach for obtaining the distribution of the
correlation coefficient on the untransformed scale using Bayesian
methodology is developed.

To address the covariance problems identified in the preceding section a Bayesian methodology is employed.

In Bayesian inference, the unknown parameters of the probability distributions are modeled as having distributions of their own (Gelman et al. 2000). Generally, the identification of the distribution of the parameters, or prior distribution, is done before the data are collected. Suppose that is a vector containing unknown parameters with a prior distribution . The observed data are used to update this prior distribution. The data are stored in the vector and its distribution, conditional on the parameter vector , is the likelihood . The parameters' distribution is updated using the Bayes theorem as shown below:

. (2))

Once the posterior distribution, *h*(.,.), is identified, it
can be used to make inferences about the model parameters and to
identify the percentiles, the mean, and/or the standard deviation of
the distribution of the parameter.

Because the distribution shown in equation 2 is very difficult to
solve, a simulation method known as Gibbs Sampler or Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) is used to approximate the distribution. This
approach has become increasingly popular over the last 10 years for
Bayesian inference (Gelfand 2002). The Gibbs Sampler is generally
constructed of univariate pieces of the posterior distribution. (For
more on the this topic, see the appendix under "Gibbs Sampler.")
Note that the Gibbs Sampler requires a number of simulation
replications that we denote as *nreps*.

The procedure is best illustrated by a simple example. Consider a
travel time/time-of-day relationship where the mean travel time does
not fluctuate and there is no need for an NCS (shown in figure
3). In this situation, it is reasonable to treat this
distribution as being normally distributed, *y _{i}* ∼

where is the mean travel time and *σ*^{2}
is the variance of travel time. When choosing the prior
distributions, it is convenient to choose a distribution of a
conjugate form (Gelman et al. 2000). Because the posterior
distribution is of the same family as the prior distribution, it
leads to a straightforward complete conditional distribution. The
prior distributions of conjugate form that we adopted in this paper
are *μ* ∼ *N*(*a*, *p*^{2}) and
*σ*^{2} ∼ *IG*(*c*,*d*), where *IG*
is the inverse gamma distribution. (A more detailed discussion of
the technical reasons for choosing conjugate prior distributions can
be found in Gelman et al. (2000). The details of the Gibbs Sampler
algorithm for the example are in the appendix under "Example Gibbs
Sampler.")

For the simple example, *nreps* was set to 2,000 and the
distributions are summarized with histograms as shown in figure 3.
In figure 3B, the mean parameter is summarized. The 5th and 95th
percentiles of are 5.068 and 5.086 seconds, respectively. Because
of the simple nature of the example, it is possible to use standard
methods to calculate the 90% credible intervals. Note that the
classical *t*-distribution-based 90% confidence interval, which
would be 5.069 to 5.085 seconds, is comparable to the percentiles of
the Bayes approach because of the diffuse priors. An added advantage
of the simulation is that any function of the distribution can be
summarized. For example, figure 3C displays the distribution of
*ln*(*σ*^{2 }) in the form of a histogram. It
shows that, like the mean, the log variance tends to have a normal
distribution. This is similar to the normal distribution properties
associated with maximum likelihood estimators.

While the idea of Bayesian NCS has been used in other
applications (Berry et al. 2002), here we expand the concept in
order to calculate the covariance function for the travel time for
vehicles between links. The travel time along link *l* when
starting at time *t*_{i} is defined as
*Y*_{il}. Because travel time variability is
unstable as a function of time, the variance is stabilized using a
natural log transformation *z _{il}* =

[ *z _{il}* ]

g_{l} is a smooth function representing the mean
log travel time for link *l*; and

is the variance-covariance matrix of the log travel time.

This assumption can be checked globally in the model using Bayes
*p*-values (Gelman et al. 2000).

As discussed earlier, the area of focus is on the untransformed
space and, therefore, standard techniques are used to calculate
expectations of exponential space random variables (Graybill 1976).
The moment generating function (MGF) for the multivariate normal
distribution is *m*(*t*) = exp ( **t′ μ** +

(4)

The correlation coefficient of the untransformed data is shown in equation (5), and it is important to note that it is not a function of time. This allows a point estimate of the covariance between links to be specifically obtained for any given day. This is shown below:

. (5)

The prior distribution of the smooth mean for link *l*
is

where *K* = *α n Q B*^{-1}*Q*′ and
*α* are used in calculating NCS and . The matrices *Q* and *B* are defined in
the appendix. "Inv-Wishart" denotes the inverse Wishart
distribution. If a non-informative version of the inverse Wishart
distribution is used, the following posterior distribution is
obtained:

(6)

where

Σ | ε ∼ Inv-Winshart_{n}(*S*)

*ε _{l}* =

The above posterior distributions are extensions of the multivariate calculations found in many Bayesian texts (e.g., see Gelman et al. 2000). The distributions can readily be calculated with a two-step Gibbs Sampler. The approach is summarized in the appendix under "NCS Bayesian Algorithm."

The steps can be calculated easily in any matrix-based programs that can simulate a multivariate normal distribution and an inverse Wishart. For example, S-plus, MATLAB, R, or SAS-IML would be appropriate.

The methodology is illustrated on the test bed using three days'
data representing three different traffic conditions: moderate,
heavy, and light congestion. In all cases sampled, *nreps* is
set to 500.

An assessment of this log fit can be found using Bayes factors or
Bayes *p*-values (Gilks et al. 1996). In this paper, Bayes
*p*-values were used to verify model goodness-of-fit and to
check the validity of the underlying assumption. Two steps are
involved in this calculation. First, the predictive values of the
MCMC output are calculated using the MCMC model parameters. In this
paper, the predictive distribution for all links at
*t*_{i} is

where

and

*p* stands for predictive distribution with the "*b*"th
iteration of the MCMC.

From the output, a *χ*^{2} discrepancy function is
calculated between the observed data and the parameters, as well as
between the predicted data and the parameters from the MCMC. The
discrepancy functions are calculated for each of the iterations of
the MCMC. In addition, the proportion of iterations from the MCMC
for which the data discrepancy is larger than the predicted
discrepancy is enumerated.

The flexibility in the choice of discrepancy function allows the user to test many alternatives. The average within-link auto-correlation per day is a relevant and interesting criterion to test. This discrepancy function uses the standardized dataset's one lag auto-correlation. The standardized data are

and the one lag correlation for the data and the predictive data is

and

.

From this, the

A test using this choice of discrepancy function, on all days,
found that 75% of the days have a *p*-value within an
acceptable range of 0.01 to 0.99. The other 25% of the days report a
*p*-value less than 0.01. These latter *p*-values come
from days that have predominately free-flow traffic conditions.
These results indicate that while the model fits for traffic that is
dynamic, it needs additional work for free-flowing traffic days. It
is hypothesized that an extra parameter that accounts for
auto-correlation may reduce this discrepancy. Because free-flow
traffic conditions are not as interesting from a traffic monitoring
center (TMC) point of view, this extension is not performed here.

Figure 4 presents data for a day with moderate traffic congestion. Figures 4A and 4B show the relationship between the log travel time and time of day for links 1 and 2, respectively. In both instances, the natural log travel time fluctuates between six (high) and four (low). Using the Gibbs Sampler, the 5th and 95th percentile values of the covariance of the travel times were calculated and are shown in figure 4C. Note that the covariance is positive and fluctuates proportionally to the mean travel times of the links. Because the correlation result in equation 5 is time-independent, figure 4D can be used to show the distribution of the correlation coefficient. The distributions for the Bayes approach are summarized with the 5th and 95th percentile values. We refer here to this region as the 90% Bayes credible region (BCR). The classic approach utilizes a 90% confidence interval (CI) based on normal asymptotic theory. This corresponds to a 90% BCR of (0.26, 0.42). The classic 90% CI was slightly narrower (0.30, 0.45).

Figure 5 shows an analysis similar to that in figure 4 but for a day in which the congestion is much greater. It can be seen that the correlation is negative between adjacent links. The 90% BCR of the correlation coefficient is (-0.39, -0.12). The classic 90% CI was narrower and had a shift of (-0.42, -0.17).

Lastly, figure 6 shows a situation where the travel times are less dynamic with high levels of free-flowing traffic, reflected by the positive correlation. The 90% BCR of the correlation coefficient is (0.59, 0.69). The classic 90% CI is (0.61, 0.71). In summation, this correlation coefficient reflects the amount of freedom an individual vehicle has in traveling at a consistent speed relative to the overall average travel time. Figure 6 shows a high positive correlation, while figures 4 and 5 show correlation nearer zero or negative correlation, respectively.

The "C" component of all three figures reports the covariance as a continuous function of the time of day (equation (4)). It is the pretransformed space that allows for interpretations on the original scale. Notice that the fluctuations are proportional to the mean travel time from the NCS. This result illustrates the distinct advantage of the Bayes approach over the frequentist approach. In order to derive a confidence interval when using a frequentist approach, a large sample size is required to be able to apply the linear assumption used in asymptotic theory. In addition, there is a propagation of the uncertainty in the covariance because there are several steps in its estimation. For example, there is a logarithm transformation and an adjustment for the smooth mean via NCS.

In contrast, the Bayesian approach does not rely on the large sample size assumption. In addition, the nature of the MCMC iterations implicitly accounts for the transformed space. Specifically, the covariance function's actual distribution is calculated while ensuring that all forms of error are propagated. However, given the large number of probe vehicles observed, it seems conceivable that the large sample properties hold. Therefore, we compare the frequentist-based approach (or classic approach) to the Bayesian method.

One interesting result is that for any given day equation (5) summarizes the correlation between pairs of links. Because the equation relies on the variance and covariance between links, which requires the estimate of the mean travel times, the distribution still needs a method that includes the error propagation mentioned above.

Figure 7 summarizes the correlation coefficients for all 20 days. The correlation BCR percentiles for all three links and their pairs are shown along with the classic 90% CI that appears next to the BCR for comparison purposes. For the adjacent links 1 and 2, there are four days that either have a negative correlation or a correlation where the 90% BCR covers zero. There are six such days between the adjacent links 2 and 3. The results are consistent for the non-adjacent links (i.e., links 1 and 3). This illustrates that the nonpositive correlation remains constant from link to link and seems to be a within-day characteristic.

Also, in terms of space mean speed, this correlation measure can be compared with traditional traffic congestion measures. Suppose a link is considered congested when the speed falls below 56 km/hr (35 mph). For the first 12 days, all links had a minimum space mean speed that ranged from 8 km/hr (5 mph) to 32 km/hr (20 mph). This latter case corresponds to days when the 90% BCR was below 0.5. In contrast, the last eight days have a minimum space mean speed ranging from 73 km/hr (45 mph) to 105 km/hr (65 mph) and at least one link pair with a 90% BCR covering 0.5. This demonstrates that the single correlation measure matches traditional measures of congestion that are based on speed. In general, the heavier the congestion, the lower the correlation of travel time between links.

Indeed, an obvious question raised by figure 7 is to ask whether the MCMC method is necessary or if the classic approach is an adequate approximation. The lengths of their respective 90% intervals indicate that on average the Bayes intervals are 10.5% longer than the classic intervals. The MCMC approach has longer intervals because it accounts for the uncertainty in the estimate of the smoothing spline. The user of our algorithm may want to balance the gain in the MCMC approach with the loss in time it takes to implement the algorithm. For the data from day 1, the 500 MCMC iterations take 36 seconds to implement using MATLAB on a 2.00 GHz processor with 1.00 GB RAM, whereas the classic approach takes less than 1 second to implement. This difference in implementation time might be different but is well worth the effort for those users who wish to account for all of the uncertainty generated in the estimate of interlink correlation. Given the rapid increase in computational abilities, it is our belief that computation concerns will not be a deciding factor.

The NCS smoothing technique is commonly used in statistics but not extensively in transportation engineering. There is an explicit tradeoff between the tuning parameter and the fitted curve, and it is important that the tuning parameter be selected in an appropriate and consistent manner. Figure 8A shows the correlation between links 1 and 2 (i.e., ) as a function of the logarithm of the tuning parameter value for day 7. The arrow represents the "optimal" tuning parameter based on the Generalized Cross Validation method. However, note that in that figure (8A), the sign of the correlation is positive for tuning values but negative for others. Therefore, it is important that the tuning parameter be identified correctly, otherwise the correlation value might be not only erroneous but of a different sign.

Figures 8B and 8C show the correlation between links 1 and 2 (i.e., ) as a function of the logarithm of the tuning parameter value for days 10 and 20, respectively. The link-to-link correlation seen in these figures is relatively high and stable. For these examples, the travel time fluctuation is relatively smooth, and the large values of the tuning parameter safeguard the dynamic trend.

This paper demonstrates that for the travel time estimation problem the traditional approach is complicated because of the nonparametric nature of the estimator and the covariance between links. We adopted a Bayesian approach that had a number of benefits in terms of interpretation and ease of use. As an added benefit, this approach provided the actual distribution of the parameter, which allowed a much broader range of statistical information, and consequently better results, to be obtained. We found that, contrary to a common assumption used in many transportation engineering applications, the link covariance is non-zero. Furthermore, the distribution of the correlation coefficient has the potential to be used as a performance metric for traffic operations.

From a transportation engineering perspective, this work is important for two reasons. First, this paper shows that the common assumption that link travel time covariance is zero is erroneous. More importantly, we developed a method for calculating the covariance with appropriate intervals. This technique can be readily incorporated for calculating travel time variance and the associated interval. This will have relevance in a wide range of applications including route guidance and traffic system performance measurement. Secondly, correlation coefficients have the potential for categorizing the performance of the traffic system, because they are a direct measure of how constrained drivers are with respect to traveling at their desired speed. The use of the proposed technique in the above transportation applications will be the focus of the next step in the research.

Two caveats to our study are as follows. First, the results depend on the length of the links in which the vehicles traverse. Suppose that the travel times for the three links have a positive correlation. However, if for that distance the links were shorter (i.e., six links over the same length) there is no guarantee the relationship will remain the same (e.g., all six links are positively correlated). No study finds the extent to which this occurs. This issue could be addressed in future research by utilizing a vehicle simulation program such as TRANSIMS (2003). With this simulation program, the researcher can examine these types of issues by playing "what if" scenarios with variations of the length of the links under assorted dynamic and complex traffic conditions.

The second caveat to our study is that during severely congested traffic, link travel times are essentially constant. In this case, researchers will find it difficult to utilize link travel time correlation as a congestion measure. This case is similar to the free- flow case where drivers can go at the speed they wish. In both situations, sophisticated congestion measures are not needed. However, when things are rapidly changing, this approach would be very useful. We show that the method is appropriate under several dynamic conditions, where the speed ranged from 8 km/hr (5 mph) to 105 km/hr (65 mph). These would be the most interesting traffic conditions (e.g., where the travel time fluctuates in and out of free-flow and congested traffic conditions) from a traffic management perspective.

This research was funded in part by the Texas Department of Transportation through the TransLink Research Center. The TransLink partnership consists of the Texas Transportation Institute, Rockwell International, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, and SBC Technology Resources. The support of these organizations, as well as other members and contributors, is gratefully acknowledged. We thank two referees and the editor for helpful and insightful reviews that greatly improved this article. The authors would also like to thank Mary Benson Gajewski and Beverley Rilett for editorial assistance in the preparation of this article.

Berry, S.M., R.J. Carrol, and D. Ruppert. 2002.
Bayesian Smoothing and Regression Splines for Measurement Error
Problems. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*
97(45):160-169.

Eubank, R.L. 1999. *Nonparametric Regression and
Spline Smoothing,* 2nd edition. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

Gelfand, A.E. 2002. Gibbs Sampling. *Statistics in
the 21st Century,* Edited by A.E. Raftery, M.A. Tanner, and M.T.
Wells. Chapman & Hall and American Statistical Association,
Washington, DC.

Gelman, A., J.B. Carlin, H.S. Stern, and D.B. Rubin.
2000. *Bayesian Data Analysis*. London, England: Chapman &
Hall.

Gilks, W.R., S. Richardson, and D.J. Spiegelhalter.
1996. *Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice*. London, England:
Chapman & Hall.

Graybill, F.A. 1976. *Theory and Application of the
Linear Model*. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Green, P.J. and B.W. Silverman. 1995. *Nonparametric
Regression and Generalized Linear Models*. London, England:
Chapman & Hall.

Ruppert, D., M.P. Wand, and R.J. Carroll. 2003.
*Semiparametric Regression*. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

Sen, A., P. Thakuriah, X.Q. Zhu, and A. Karr. 1999.
Variances of Link Travel Time Estimates: Implications for Optimal
Routes. *International Transactions in Operational Research*,
(6)75-87.

TRANSIMS. 2003. Available at http://transims.tsasa.lanl.gov/, as of May 2004.

Wilks, S.S. 1962. *Mathematical Statistics*. New
York, NY: Wiley.

The travel times for each of the individual vehicles are
*y*_{l1}, *y*_{l2},
*y*_{l3},..., *y*_{ln} and
are recorded at times *t*_{1},...,
*t*_{n}. The steps for calculating
*A*(*α*)are as follows:

1. Let *Q* be a matrix of zeros of dimension *n*-2 by
*n*. For *i* from 1 to *n*-2 let

2. Let *B* be a matrix of zeros of dimension *n* - 2 by
*n*- 2.

For *i* from 2 to *n* - 3 let *B*_{ii -
1} = *t*_{i}_{+ 1 }- *t*
_{i}, *B*_{ii} =
2(*t*_{i}_{+2 }-
*t*_{i} ) and
*B*_{ii}_{+1} =
*t*_{i}_{+2} -
*t*_{i}_{+1}.

Let *B*_{11} = *t*_{2}-*t*_{1,
}*B*_{12 = }*t*_{3-}*t*_{2,
}*B*_{n-2}*n*_{-3 =
}*t*_{n-1-}*t*_{n-2 and
}*B*_{n-2}*n*_{-2=
}*t*_{n-}*t*_{n-1.}

3. Set

B = *B*/6.

4. *A* (*α*) = *I _{n}* -

5. The quantity being analyzed is *A* (*α*)
* z_{l}*, where

The correlation between two links,

,

is estimated using the following procedure:

1. Given the tuning parameter *α,* use an NCS to derive a
continuous estimate of the mean travel time over the analysis period
for the two links and call them and .

2. For each link estimate the residuals for each vehicle: and .

3. Calculate the equivalent degrees of freedom (EDF):

4. Estimate the covariance between links 1 and 2:

.

Estimate the variance for links 1 and 2 respectively:

.

5. Calculate the estimated correlation:

Note that the basic concept of *EDF* is to penalize the
estimation of the covariance matrix using the proper equivalent of
degrees of freedom. The *EDF* for splines is discussed in Green
and Silverman (1995) and Ruppert et al. (2003).

Inferences utilizing the above approach can be accomplished with
large sample distribution theory based on Wilks (1962, p. 594). The
result indicates that as the number of vehicles approaches infinity
the statistic has an approximate normal distribution with mean
and variance 1/*n* . Thus, this distribution is
used to calculate a 90% confidence interval with the formula

where

and

The 1.645 corresponds to the 90th percentile of the standard normal.

The approach is simulation-based where *nreps* is the number
of simulations performed on the parameter vector and *b* =
1,2,3,...,*nreps*. The Gibbs Sampler begins with a reasonable
starting value (i.e., estimates of the parameters from a
traditional approach). From this starting value, the
*k*^{th} component of is updated conditional on the data and all the other
components of the parameter vector, . The next step is to simulate the subsequent
component of the parameter vector . This is repeated for all unknown parameters until
*nreps* simulations for each component of the parameter vector
have been completed.

The following steps are used to perform the Gibbs Sampler simulation:

1. Set the prior distribution parameters to be diffuse
*a* = 0, *p*^{2} = ∞, *c* = 0 and
*d* = 0.

2. Set the starting values for the unknown parameters

.

3. Generate the mean portion

,

which is of conjugate form (see Gelman et al.
2000 for the derivation).

4. Generate the variance portion

, which is of conjugate form.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 *nreps* times.

For convenience, the approach is summarized in algorithmic form:

1. Calculate *z _{il}* =

2. Obtain the starting values and Σ^{(1)} using techniques previously
discussed in the section, "Traditional Approach and Smoothing
Splines."

3. Simulate

Note that the same tuning parameter will be used throughout the
algorithm. The *g*'s and Σ are defined in equation (3).

4. Calculate

Σ ^{b+1} | *ε*^{(b)} ∼
Inv-Winshart_{n}(*S*^{(b)}),

where

and .

5. Summarize the function(s) of the unknown parameters.

^{1} Corresponding author: B.
Gajewski, Assistant Professor, Schools of Allied Health and Nursing,
Biostatistician, Center for Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Mail
Stop 4043, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow
Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160. E-mail: bgajewski@kumc.edu

^{2} L. Rilett, Keith W. Klaasmeyer Chair in Engineering and Technology and Director Mid-America Transportation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, W339 Nebraska Hall, P.O. Box 88053, Lincoln, NE 68588-0531. E-mail: lrilett@unl.edu