Inferring the safety and other impacts of specific ITS services

Transcription

1 Inferring the safety and other impacts of specific ITS services Risto Kulmala & Merja Penttinen, VTT Funded by the EC, DG MOVE Background EU ITS Action Plan, Action 6.2: ITS Toolkit 7FP project 2DECIDE: ITS Toolkit to assist transport authorities in the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), to help them solve transport problems and address policy objectives by providing Most appropriate ITS applications that most fit the userspecified context and needs Best practice examples of relevant ITS deployments Information about costs, benefits and impacts of proposed ITS solutions A database of evaluation reports on relevant ITS projects Information on acceptance and feasibility aspects of proposed ITS solutions Targeted information in response to a specific user query.

2 Knowledge base Knowledge base Primary, secondary and general indicators for the different assessment topics of Impact assessment Safety, Travel efficiency, Environment, Public transport service, Freight management, Freight fleet management, Traffic operations, Revenue generation, Security, Traffic violations) Socio-economic assessment Benefits, Costs User acceptance Feasibility Institutional feasibility, Legal feasibility, Technical feasibility, Financial feasibility, Business models Performance Technical performance, Service quality

3 Inference engine output ITS Services ranked by relevance to user input For each service bundle studies in the knowledge base ranked according to their relevance to user input most likely impact with range (focusing on the impacts most relevant to the user s problems and/or objective). most likely benefit-cost with range most likely user acceptance with range most likely feasibility listing of relevant studies with summaries and reference/link in order of rank of quality and context relevance or impact/feasibility/user acceptance relevance listing best practice summary reports of the specific ITS services listing main generic parameters of the selected ITS service and expected impacts Assessing study relevance

4 Estimating most likely value Indicator relationships Primary indicators Number of Traffic Accident Fatalities (per traffic unit) 1 Number of Traffic Accident Injuries (per traffic unit) 1 1 Number of Traffic Accidents (per traffic unit) Traffic Accident Rate (per veh.km) Secondary indicators Number of conflicts (per entity, /h/km or /h/junction) POS Feeling of safety General indicators Amount of traffic, number of trucks 0,9 0,95 1 WNEG Amount of traffic, number of all vehicles 0,9 0,95 1 WNEG Amount of traffic, number of vehicles (passenger cars and trucks) 0,9 0,95 1 WNEG Average spot speed Average travel speed Standard devatiaton of spot speed 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Primary indicators Number of Traffic Accident Fatalities Number of Traffic Accident Injuries Number of Traffic Accidents Traffic Accident Rate (per veh.km)

5 Indicator relationships Indicator (change in x from before to after %) Value of indicator (%) Value of primary indicator (%) (injury acc.) Relevance Traffic conflicts -7.7% -8% 1 Number of traffic accident injuries -10% -10% 0.5 Average speed -2% -4% 0.7 Number of traffic accident fatalities -5.6% +4% 0.2 Likely effect = (-8%*1-10%*0.5-4%*0.7+4%*0.2)/( )= ( )%/2.4=-15%/2.4=-6.25% Example: most likely value

6 Assessment Experience Database General description of service Function of the service Technical and other requirements for information infrastructure, related standards Best practice on deployment, maintenance and operation Impacts Safety; Travel efficiency; Environment; Public transport service; Freight management; Freight fleet management; Traffic operations; Revenue generation; Security, attitudes, comfort, accessibility; Traffic violations; Cost and benefit User acceptance and feasibility User acceptance; Institutional feasibility; Legal feasibility; Technical feasibility; Financial feasibility; Business models. Example: Route guidance and navigation Best practice on deployment, maintenance and operation Impacts Safety Travel efficiency 1- Best practice recommendations on: - Quality of information: high-quality information is the key aspect for a useful TIS. It is important that travellers can rely on the information that is presented. Faith in the system is determined by the quality of the journey routing (and time etc...) information. Information quality includes accuracy, timeliness, cost, coverage, continuity of service, relevance and ease of use. Cross-checking data collected through different sources is a good w ay to ensure the quality of information. EasyWay Deployment Guidelines for Traveller information Services recommend various levels of quality (for the different TIS services) in order to guarantee data and information quality. For route guidance services, all data needed as input must be based on a compatible geographic reference; it should be possible to combine seamless spatial information from different sources across Europe and share it w ith many users and applications. It is also important that route guidance information is represented in an instructional and clear manner. The passenger must be able to understand and recognise the information. - Organisational systems: Public operators most often run co-modal pre-trip route guidance services. This is due to the fact that a multi-modal services should reflect an unbiased comparison of modes (business models in the private sector could be influenced by commercial considerations w hich might lead to a preference of specific transport modes). Furthermore as most services consist of providing information only it has so far proved to be difficult to create a business model for private service provision. How ever, it is possible that this situation might change and create a market f1- Best practice recommendations on: - Quality of information: high-quality information is the key aspect for a useful TIS. It is important that travellers can rely on the information that is presented. Faith in the system is determined by the quality of the journey routing (and time etc...) information. Crosschecking data collected through different sources is a good w ay to ensure the quality of information. EasyWay Deployment Guidelines for Traveller Information Services recommend various levels of quality (for the different TIS services) in order to guarantee data and information quality. For route guidance services, all data needed as input must be based on a compatible geographic reference; it should be possible to combine seamless spatial information from different sources across Europe and share it w ith many users and applications. It is also important that routing guidance information is represented in an instructional and clear manner. The passenger must be able to understand and recognise the information. - Organisational systems: Public operators most often run co-modal pre-trip route guidance services This is due to the fact that a Route Guidance and Navigation, w hen acquired pre-trip has potential to affect safety positively - by affecting the choice of mode, route and travel time. Especially, if the information includes real-time components such as information (and even forecasts) of the traffic and route conditions and incidents. Route Guidance also has the potential to affect safety positively by supporting drivers to choose safer routes, i.e. routes w ith no, or only a limited number, of vulnerable road users etc. If the service reduces km driven, it w ill also usually reduce the number of accidents by about the same percentage. Route Guidance and Navigation has potential to effect travel efficiency. It may reduce unnecessary driving by giving the optimal routes - and if including the real-time information of the traffic conditions and incidents, also have an effect on the mode, route and travel time choices - and therefore efficiency.

7 Next steps Validate quality of study data base Enter as many reports into the study data base as possible, with the goal of having all European ex-post evaluation studies included by November 2011 Market the Toolkit Maintain the Toolkit Conclusions New: Inference engine providing ITS solution best fitting user context, problems, objectives Most likely impacts, benefit/cost and user acceptance in user context Few ex-post evaluation studies; only some services have enough Few results in terms of quantitative indicators We should all aim at: Carrying out ex-post evaluation studies Using same and quantitative indicators Maintenance of the toolkit is crucial Wikipedia approach? Expert moderator is necessary

8 Try it yourself: