how can modelling help resolve transport challenges?
DESCRIPTION
Inaugural Professorial lecture by Simon Shepherd, Professor of Choice Modelling & Policy Design. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, 9th September 2014. For audio recording see: www.its.leeds.ac.uk/about/events/inaugural-lectures2014 www.its.leeds.ac.uk/people/s.shepherd www.its.leeds.ac.uk/research/themes/dynamicmodellingTRANSCRIPT
Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Inaugural Lecture: Professor Simon Shepherd
How can modelling help resolve transport challenges?
Outline
• Signals and bus priority
• HOV lanes
• Road Pricing
• Strategic models – system dynamics
• Greenhouse Gas reduction
• Electric Vehicle take up
• Challenges
Social dilemmas
Dawes (1980)
“Social dilemmas are characterised by two properties:
(a) The social payoff to each individual for defecting behaviour is higher than the payoff for cooperative behaviour
(b) All individuals in society receive a lower payoff if all defect than if all cooperate”
Transport is a form of social dilemma
Early days
Quinn, Montgomery, May 1988
Empirical study of traffic control in Bangkok looking at queue management versus manual (police) control.
• Over-saturated conditions called for new strategies
• Key was to avoid blocking back during green phase
• Automatic signals were seen to be 6% better in terms of delay than police control.
• Happy police could go home half an hour early!
Data collection
All done without “big data”
Iterative process between
data and model
My PhD thesis
Based on Ramp metering approachby Papageorgiou in Paris.
Developed in micro-simulation and testedIn field in Leeds and Turin with two realSystems – SCOOT and SPOT
On Site in Turin
Adapted to grid networks
Gridlock prevention strategy
35% reduction in delay
On the Box
Simon Box -can humans do better than signal controllers?
BBC the One Show 2013
Simple experiments seem to suggest that Humans can do better in simple cases
Fig. 2 The test site of Downtown San Francisco: (a) real network; (b) simulation model; (c) partitioning of the network into 3 reservoirs.
Also saw between 10-40% reduction in travel times – but note problems in 1970s with this in Nottingham zone and collar experiment
Konstantinos Aboudolas , Nikolas Geroliminis. Perimeter and boundary flow control in multi-reservoir heterogeneous networks Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Volume 55, 2013, 265 - 281
San Francisco 2013
Reflection on thesis
Three future situations:
(1) Network efficiency through traffic responsive signals with auto-gating for over-saturated periods
(2) Improve network efficiency and manage demand with road pricing
(3) Improve network efficiency for public transport with priority at signals whilst creating delays for private car to restrict demand for car use
“It is the author’s belief that concentrating on the short term benefits of strategies restricts the initial scope of strategies to be investigated… ignores long term impacts of chosen strategies”
Shepherd (1994)
Look elsewhere for inspiration “PIG DATA”
PRIMAVERA – first for Leeds
Field trials of bus priority and queue management strategies in Leeds +Turin.
Both systems improved bus times by 10% in Leeds
SPOT also reduced car travel times by 11-30% in Turin
Model under-estimated savings compared to field trials.
SPOT now in over 30 cities in Europe
SCOOT has other methods of gating and bus priority
High Occupancy Lanes
Another first for Leeds
Leeds modelling
Used SATURN network model to explore various scenarios
Diverted about 16% of traffic to other corridors with little effect on total network
We found that 3+ would be better than 2+
Savings in real life were 2-3 minutes along the corridor – confirming model results
We also tested a motorway scheme as per Madrid which gave negative benefits overall
Site visits are important
Salzburg Austria
Lots of sources/sinks in the data from existing model
Site visits essential when modelling
Remember to think about failure mode
Road Pricing
The judgmental approach to cordon design
Most road pricing schemes use cordons
• Designed using professional judgment
But performance depends critically on cordon location
• e.g. London: threefold difference in economic benefits depending on number, location of cordons, screenlines
050
100150200
250300350
400450
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Peak Central Charge (£/cordon crossing)
Ec
on
om
ic B
en
efi
t (£
m p
er
an
nu
m)
Charge Structure A Charge Structure B
Charge Structure M Charge Structure N
Charge Structure T Charge Structure W
Edinburgh judgmental design
Inner cordon 2
Inner cordon 1
Outer cordon 1
Outer cordon 2
I
i
P
p
J
j
P
qqiqijj
I
kqkq
P
qjqjjppip
I
i
J
j
I
i
I
kqkq
P
qjqjpip
P
pjp
F
iii
FDfFc
FcFdxxD
P
ppip
1 1 1 11 1
1 1 1 1 110
1 )(
PACMAN network : Benefit and Langrangian value versus charge on link 2-4
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Charge (seconds)
To
tal
ben
efi
t (s
eco
nd
s)
Total benefit
Langrangian curve
Second best – optimisation approach
GA
Competitive environment
Mutation
Look for short cut
Aim to develop a method between judgement and GA based approach but which uses theory
Top 15 Marginal Cost tolls gave high proportion of first best benefits
Could this information be used in designing a closed cordon?
Does it transfer to larger networks?
Display SLA using bandwidths
Short cut performance
Doubles benefit compared to judgemental cordon
Achieved 93% of GA optimal result
Transfers to other networks
Strategic models and system dynamics
CLD example
Simple example
Eggs
Chicken +
+etc.
Time
Pop
ul a
ti on
Reinforcingfeedback loop
+
CLD example 2
Simple example 2
Eggs
Chicken +
+
+
# Roadcrossing +
-
etc. Time
Pop
ul a
ti on
Balancingfeedback loop
-
Stocks and flows
Stock
inflow outflow
t
ttStockdssoutflowsInflowtStock
0
)()()()( 0
Chickensbirthsdeaths
eggs+
+
road crossings
+
+-
Chickens
1,000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10Time (Month)
Chickens : with crossings
Chicken and eggs model
Note :
Populationbirths deaths
birth rate death rate
Population
800
400
0
0 20 40 60 80 100Time (Month)
Rab
bit
Population : Current
Simple population model
PopulationYoung
births aging young
average time in young
birth rate
PopulationMiddle
PopulationOld
aging middle aging old
average time in middle average time in old
initial popinfant
initial popmiddle
initial popold
FoxPopulation
fox food availability
fox foodrequirements
average fox life
fox consumptionof rabbits
fox birth rateinitial fox
population
fox mortalitylookup
fox births fox deaths
RabbitPopulation
rabbit births
rabbit crowding
carrying capacity
average rabbit liferabbit birth rate
initial rabbitpopulation
effect ofcrowding on
deaths lookup
fox rabbitconsumption
lookup
rabbit deaths
Rabbit Population
4,000
2,000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50Time (Year)
Rab
bit
Rabbit Population : Current
Fox Population
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50Time (Year)
Fox
Fox Population : Current
MARS is a Land Use Transport Interaction model
Transport sub-model
Land use residential location sub-model
Land use workplace location sub-model
Rent, Land price, Available land
Accessibility
Spatial distribution residents
Spatial distribution workplaces
Basis of MARS
Means of transport(Use) Car
FUR
PT
Slow
Core city
Built up structure Transport structure
Car
PT
SlowUses*
* Residing, leisure, etc.
Uses*
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
++
--
+ +
Advanced systems - CITYMobil
Gateshead Tyne and Wear
Cybercar PT feeder
In 2035, introduction of cybercar results in local impacts:
• Car– 8% peak decrease, 30% off peak decrease
• Bus– 36% peak decrease, 50% off peak decrease
• Rail– 193% peak increase, 170% off peak increase
• Slow- 29% peak decrease, 45% off peak decrease
EU Level model
Energy pricesBiofuel supplyEnergy investment
GDPTransport demandTransport energy demand
Energy prices
Integrated assessment of policy scenarios: GHG-TransPoRD modelling approach
Policy scenario
Technology by mode
Investment in R&D and new production
National policies
Urban policies
ASTRAIntegrated economy-transport-environment model
TREMOVEEnvironmental impact model and vehicle fleet model
POLESWorld energy model
MARSUrban land use and transport model
Energy pricesVehicle fleet
composition
Example W&C visionary
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
2047
2049
Tonn
es o
f CO
2Total CO2 Emissions
Do-nothing
W&C Vis ionary No Culture Change
W&C Vis ionary with Culture Change
Behavioural impact
Urban policy is limited without some form of behavioural change!
Other Technology scenarios
Note REF case index 104
Max efficiency and market led
EV – Electrification
Hydrogen Fuel Cells take off
Ambitious technology with strong transport policy
Optimistic technology scenarios only get to a 55% reduction target for 2050
Needs the behavioural change with visionary policy to achieve a 75% reduction
Example – uptake of Electric Vehicles
Struben and Sterman (2008)
Sensitivity to word of mouth
Word of mouth between CV drivers is crucial for success – as was marketing
Some of the conclusions
BAU assumptions are crucial!
Subsidies have no real impact in BAU but are crucial in a failing market – but expensive!
If EVs take off then we see significant loss of fuel duty = £10bn p.a. 2050 in most optimistic case.
Revenue preserver per vehicle could range between £300-£650 p.a. by 2050.
A further 9% reduction in emissions from CV gives similar results in terms of CO2 at much lower cost to government.
Supply Chain DisruptionWilson (2007)
Highway maintenanceFallah-Fini et al, (2010)
Load anddeterioration factors
Highwaydeterioration rate
Desiredmaintenance budget
Budget allocated tomaintenance operations
Highwayimprovement rate
Area of the highwayunder distress
+
+
-+ B1
Delay inmaintenance
+
R1Maintencne
budget shortfall
+
+
Desired highwaycondition
+
Availablemaintenance budget
+ +
-
Maintenance Fix
AcceleratedDeterioration
+
Approach suggests less costly preventative maintenance rather than more expensive (deferred) corrective maintenance should bring benefits to the system as a whole
Airline business cycles (Liehr et al (2001)
A negative feedback loop with two delays can result in cycles without any growth.
Long delivery times and long aircraft life mixed with need to maximise loading causes cycles even without changes in demand.
Click icon to add chart
Bivona et al 2010 – Bus fleet management example
Comparison of 2 scenarios
1. Reduce all budgetsDon’t replace retiring maintainersReduce training activitiesIncrease planned stoppages formaintenanceOnly replace buses which reach endof life
2. Dispose of old buses nowBut invest in some new buses.Devote 15% time to train rookiesReduce planned stoppages for maintenanceUse out-sourcing
MacMillan et al (2014)
B1 – thought to be dominant loop – more cyclists more injuries – fewer cyclists
Results for various scenarios
Regional cycle networks/ self explaining roads – not enough to overcomethe safety in numbers or changing norm threshold. Arterial segregated bike lanes more effective – note total serious injuries increase (top right) butper cyclist reduced (bottom left).
Future challenges
How should models be used?
Modelling
tools
Top down
process
Long term
strategies
Bottom up
process
Short term
strategies
Signals – short term
HOV lane – more substantial change
But in these cases models were linked with implementation
Road pricing – is this short term?
Strategic/longer term
GHG reduction, future systems, land use etc
Needs collaboration between modeller and decision maker!
Consider feedback between systems and users at different levels
How should models be used (2)?
Social/transportdilemma
s
LeadersDecision makers
Long term
impacts
Sum ofIndividual behaviou
r
Short term
symptoms
A match with social dilemmas
Need to change behaviour of individuals and decision makers
Avoid short termism and fixes that then fail
Change resistance as the Crux -Harich (2010)
Social forces which favour change are inter-linked with those which favour resistance to change
The higher the leverage point the higher the system will resist changing it. (Donella Meadows 1999)
Changing agent goals scores most on leverage point to solve the problem
Taxes and regulations score less well on leverage point analysis
Suggests we need to work on stakeholders and users together
Technology or behaviour change?
Is there a resistance to change here?
And finally
“System dynamics helps us expand the boundaries of our mental models so that we become aware of and take responsibility for the feedbacks created by our decisions”, Sterman (2002).
Policy 2014-15?
What’s the biggest transport policy this year?
Saved >£400
Budget impact 2013-14 KPMG calculator -£165
Thanks for listening
Any questions?