Loading…

Guiding crowds when facing limited compliance: Simulating strategies

At traffic hubs, it is important to avoid congestion of pedestrian streams to ensure safety and a good level of service. This presents a challenge, since distributing crowds on different routes is much more difficult than opening valves to, for example, regulate fluid flow. Humans may or may not com...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2022-11, Vol.17 (11), p.e0276229
Main Authors: Mayr, Christina Maria, Köster, Gerta
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:At traffic hubs, it is important to avoid congestion of pedestrian streams to ensure safety and a good level of service. This presents a challenge, since distributing crowds on different routes is much more difficult than opening valves to, for example, regulate fluid flow. Humans may or may not comply with re-directions suggested to them typically with the help of signage, loudspeakers, apps, or by staff. This remains true, even if they perceive and understand the suggestions. Yet, simulation studies so far have neglected the influence of compliance. In view of this, we complement a state-of-the-art model of crowd motion and crowd behavior, so that we can vary the compliance rate. We consider an abstracted scenario that is inspired by a metro station in the city of Munich, where traffic regulators wish to make some passengers abandon the obviously shortest route so that the flow evens out. We investigate the effect of compliance for two very simple guiding strategies. In the first strategy, we alternate routes. In the second strategy, we recommend the path with the lowest crowd density. We observe that, in both cases, it suffices to reroute a small fraction of the crowd to reduce travel times. But we also find that taking densities into account is much more efficient when facing low compliance rates.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0276229