Route Optimization of Emergency Vehicles with SUMO: A Case Study of Ambulances in Aydın Province

Abstract

The time it takes an ambulance to reach the scene of an emergency, the Emergency Response Time (ERT), is a critical parameter that directly shapes patient survival. This study analyzes ambulance ERT on the real urban road network of the Efeler district of Aydın, Türkiye, using the SUMO microscopic traffic simulation environment. Eight routes connecting two state hospitals to four emergency intervention zones were examined across four scenarios, a reference case, road closures at two distinct locations, and heavy traffic, using three routing algorithms (Dijkstra, A*, and the junction-penalized P-Dijkstra proposed here), each run with ten independent random seeds, for a total of 960 simulations. The results reveal that in compact urban networks the dominant determinant of ERT is not distance but the number of junctions along the route: a single junction traversal adds an average delay of 26.9 s, whereas an additional 100 m of travel contributes only 2.8 s (R² = 0.742). Building on this finding, the proposed P-Dijkstra reduced mean ERT by 8.8% in the reference scenario. In the heavy-traffic scenario (S3), mean ERT increased by 51.2% and mean fuel consumption by 6.2% relative to the reference case. In addition, a Braess-like effect was observed in several route–scenario transitions, where closing a road segment lowered ERT by up to 19.4%. The study further employs a multi-criteria cost function that jointly weighs travel time and fuel consumption to determine the most suitable source hospital for each case. Although the two hospitals performed similarly on average, the preferred hospital shifted with the location and urgency level of the case. Taken together, these findings suggest that neither the routing algorithm nor the hospital assignment should be treated as an unconditional default, but rather as a strategy sensitive to network topology and traffic regime.

Keywords

• Emergency response time
• Ambulance routing
• Route optimization
• SUMO
• Junction penalty
• Braess paradox

SUMO ile Acil Durum Araçlarının Rota Optimizasyonu: Aydın İli Ambulans Örneği

Abstract

Ambulansın olay yerine ulaşma süresi (Emergency Response Time, ERT), acil sağlık hizmetlerinde hasta sağkalımını doğrudan belirleyen kritik bir parametredir. Bu çalışmada, Aydın ili Efeler ilçesinin gerçek kent içi yol ağı üzerinde ambulans ERT'si SUMO mikro-simülasyon ortamında analiz edilmiştir. Bu amaçla, iki devlet hastanesinden dört acil müdahale bölgesine yönelik sekiz güzergâh, referans, iki farklı konumda yol kapanması ve yoğun trafik olmak üzere dört senaryoda, üç yönlendirme algoritmasıyla (Dijkstra, A* ve bu çalışmada önerilen kavşak cezalı P-Dijkstra) ve on bağımsız rastgele tohumla koşularak toplam 960 simülasyon gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, kompakt kentsel ağlarda ERT'nin baskın belirleyicisinin mesafe değil kavşak sayısı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Nitekim bir kavşak geçişi ortalama 26,9 saniyelik gecikmeye karşılık gelirken, 100 metrelik ek mesafe yalnızca 2,8 saniyelik bir artış üretmektedir (R² = 0,742). Bu bulgu üzerine önerilen P-Dijkstra, referans senaryoda ortalama ERT'yi %8,8 azaltmıştır. Yoğun trafik senaryosunda (S3) ortalama ERT referans senaryoya kıyasla %51,2, ortalama yakıt tüketimi ise %6,2 artmıştır. Bunlara ek olarak, bazı rota-senaryo geçişinde yol kapanmasının ERT'yi %19,4'e varan oranda azalttığı Braess-benzeri bir etki gözlenmiştir. Çalışmada ayrıca, süre ve yakıt tüketimini birlikte değerlendiren çok kriterli bir maliyet fonksiyonu aracılığıyla her vaka için en uygun kaynak hastane belirlenmiştir. İki hastanenin genel ortalamaları birbirine yakın olsa da tercih edilen hastanenin vakanın konumuna ve aciliyet düzeyine göre değiştiği gösterilmiştir. Bütün bu bulgular, rota algoritmasının ve hastane atamasının koşulsuz birer varsayılan olarak değil, ağ topolojisine ve trafik rejimine duyarlı stratejiler olarak ele alınması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Acil müdahale süresi
• Ambulans yönlendirme
• Rota optimizasyonu
• SUMO
• Kavşak cezası
• Braess paradoksu

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırmada hayvanlar ve insanlar üzerinde herhangi bir çalışma yapılmadığı için etik kurul onayı alınmamıştır.

References

1. Agarwal, A., & Paruchuri, P. (2016). V2V communication for analysis of lane level dynamics for better EMV traversal. In 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 368–375). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2016.7535412
2. Atalan, Y. A. (2021). Ambulance service for hospital selection: Optimization with discrete-event simulation application for Yozgat province of Turkey. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.46387/bjesr.902298
3. Barbecho Bautista, P., Urquiza Aguiar, L., & Aguilar Igartua, M. (2022). How does the traffic behavior change by using SUMO traffic generation tools. Computer Communications, 181, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2021.09.023
4. Braess, D. (1968). Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung Operations Research, 12(1), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01918335
5. Braess, D., Nagurney, A., & Wakolbinger, T. (2005). On a paradox of traffic planning. Transportation Science, 39(4), 446–450. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1050.0127
6. Cao, M., Li, V. O. K., & Shuai, Q. (2022). A gain with no pain: Exploring intelligent traffic signal control for emergency vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(10), 17899–17909. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3159714
7. Chowdhury, A., Kaisar, S., Khoda, M. E., Naha, R., Khoshkholghi, M. A., & Aiash, M. (2023). IoT-based emergency vehicle services in intelligent transportation system. Sensors, 23(11), Article 5324. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23115324
8. Cortés, C. E., & Stefoni, B. (2023). Trajectory simulation of emergency vehicles and interactions with surrounding traffic. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2023, Article 5995950. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5995950

9. Cowley, R. A. (1975). A total emergency medical system for the State of Maryland. Maryland State Medical Journal, 24(7), 37–45.
10. Dai, Y., & Hu, L. (2026). An intelligent dual-level system for emergency vehicle routing and adaptive signal coordination. International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13177-026-00625-w
11. Dijkstra, E. W. (2022). A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. In K. R. Apt & T. Hoare (Eds.), Edsger Wybe Dijkstra: His life, work, and legacy (pp. 287–290). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544585.3544600
12. Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., & Raphael, B. (1968). A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 4(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136
13. Karkar, A. (2019). Smart ambulance system for highlighting emergency-routes. In 2019 Third World Conference on Smart Trends in Systems, Security and Sustainability (WorldS4) (pp. 255–259). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WorldS4.2019.8903948
14. Larsen, M. P., Eisenberg, M. S., Cummins, R. O., & Hallstrom, A. P. (1993). Predicting survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A graphic model. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 22(11), 1652–1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81302-2
15. Lopez, P. A., Behrisch, M., Bieker-Walz, L., Erdmann, J., Flötteröd, Y.-P., Hilbrich, R., Lücken, L., Rummel, J., Wagner, P., & Wießner, E. (2018). Microscopic traffic simulation using SUMO. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2575–2582). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569938
16. Matange, A., & Abraham, J. (2026). iFogSUMO: An integrated platform of iFogSim and SUMO to enhance simulation capabilities of adaptive traffic control for smart city applications. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 22(2), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v22i02.58823
17. Miao, Z., & Liao, Q. (2025). IoT-based traffic prediction for smart cities. IEEE Access, 13, 52369–52384. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3552276
18. Moin, K. M., Siraj, A. A., Sami, K. A., Irfan, K. M., & Maktum, T. (2025). Smart traffic signal with emergency response optimization. In R. Magar, T. Maktum, S. Shaikh, S. Syed, & S. Chaudhari (Eds.), Proceedings of the MULTINOVA: First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Healthcare and Sciences (ICAIEHS-2025) (Vol. 198, pp. 427–446). Atlantis Press International BV. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-852-3_27
19. Nagurney, A., & Nagurney, L. S. (2021). The Braess paradox. In R. Vickerman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of transportation (pp. 601–607). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10760-2
20. OpenStreetMap. (2025). OpenStreetMap [Veri kümesi]. https://www.openstreetmap.org
21. Özcan Tatar, C., Khoda Karimi, Z., Akın, M., Kıvanç, O., Yılmaz, E., & Küçükpehlivan, M. (2025). Acil durum araçlarının yönlendirilmesinde akıllı ulaşım çözümleri: Ambulans rota oluşturma optimizasyonu [Smart transportation solutions in emergency vehicle routing: Ambulance routing optimization]. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 8(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.51513/jitsa.1532308
22. Pell, J. P., Sirel, J. M., Marsden, A. K., Ford, I., & Cobbe, S. M. (2001). Effect of reducing ambulance response times on deaths from out of hospital cardiac arrest: Cohort study. BMJ, 322(7299), 1385–1388. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7299.1385
23. Pons, P. T., Haukoos, J. S., Bludworth, W., Cribley, T., Pons, K. A., & Markovchick, V. J. (2005). Paramedic response time: Does it affect patient survival? Academic Emergency Medicine, 12(7), 594–600. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2005.02.013
24. Sağlık Bakanlığı. (2025). Sağlık istatistikleri yıllığı 2023 [Health statistics yearbook 2023]. Sağlık Bilgi Sistemleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR-84930/saglik-istatistikleri-yilliklari.html
25. Sharma, A., & Kumar, R. (2019). Service-level agreement, Energy cooperative quickest ambulance routing for critical healthcare services. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 44(4), 3831–3848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3687-z
26. Su, H., Zhong, Y. D., Chow, J. Y. J., Dey, B., & Jin, L. (2023). EMVLight: A multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for an emergency vehicle decentralized routing and traffic signal control system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 146, Article 103955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2022.103955
27. Talarico, L., Meisel, F., & Sörensen, K. (2015). Ambulance routing for disaster response with patient groups. Computers & Operations Research, 56, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.11.006
28. Varlı, H., & Bingöl, N. (2024). Konum tabanlı yeni yöntem ile acil ulaşım sorunlarına karar destek sistemleri: Ambulans örnek uygulama canlandırması (Çam ve Sakura Hastanesi örneği) [Location-based novel decision support systems for emergency transportation problems: Ambulance case simulation (Example of Cam and Sakura Hospital)]. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 17(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.1431518
29. Wang, A., Tang, Y., Mohmand, Y. T., & Xu, P. (2022). Modifying link capacity to avoid Braess paradox considering elastic demand. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 605, Article 127951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2022.127951
30. Wegener, A., Piórkowski, M., Raya, M., Hellbrück, H., Fischer, S., & Hubaux, J.-P. (2008). TraCI: An interface for coupling road traffic and network simulators. In Proceedings of the 11th Communications and Networking Simulation Symposium (CNS '08) (pp. 155–163). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1400713.1400740
31. Yao, J., Cheng, Z., & Chen, A. (2023). Bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review of the traffic paradoxes (1968–2022). Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 177, Article 102832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2023.102832
32. Yıldız, H., Güney, F., Tunç, İ., & Söylemez, M. T. (2024). Control of emergency vehicles with deep Q-learning. ITU Computer Science AI and Robotics, 1(1), 33–38.
33. Yılmaz, Y. (2025). Machine learning-enhanced traffic light optimization system prioritizing emergency vehicle passage using SVM and random forest models. Gazi University Journal of Science Part A: Engineering and Innovation, 12(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.54287/gujsa.1581105