methodology and validation workshop minutes 15th, 2013 methodology and validation workshop minutes...
TRANSCRIPT
IP Coordinator Gerdien Klunder, TNO
The research leading to these results has received funding from
the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant
agreement n° 287551.
FP7-ICT-2011-7: Information and Communication Technologies
Low carbon multi-modal mobility and freight transport
Methodology and Validation
Workshop minutes (Version 3; 2013-06-04)
Work package WP4: Assessment model framework and architecture
WP6: Validation of impact assessment methodology
Authors Eline Jonkers
Dissemination level Public (PU)
Status Draft
Due date 07/06/2013
File Name 20130515_Amitran_2nd Workshop minutes.docx
Abstract Minutes of Workshop on Methodology and Validation in Brussels on
May 15th, 2013
Methodology and Validation Workshop minutes (version 3, 2013-06-24-06-04) ii
Control sheet
Version history
Version Date Main author Summary of changes
1 24/05/2013 Eline Jonkers First draft version
2 03/06/2013
Andrew Winder, Axel
Wolfermann, Txomin
Rodriguez, Mohamed
Mahmod
Review and changes
3 04/06/2013 Eline Jonkers Final draft version
4 07/06/2013 Gerdien Klunder Review of final draft
version
5
6
7
8
9
10
Name Date
Prepared by Eline Jonkers 04/06/2013
Reviewed by Gerdien Klunder 07/06/2013
Authorized
by
Verified by
Circulation
Recipient Date of submission
Project partners 04/06/2013
European Commission 07/06/2013
Methodology and Validation Workshop minutes (version 3, 2013-06-24-06-04) iv
Table of contents
1. Agenda and attendees ................................................................................... 5
1.1 Agenda ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Attendees ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Workshop minutes ......................................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Amitran methodology and framework architecture .................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Group discussion Adaptive Cruise Control ................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 Group discussion Smartphone application ............................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Group discussion Road-side route information ...................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Validation and use cases ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Group discussion Research organizations ................................................................................................................. 12
2.3.2 Group discussion Public authorities and other stakeholders ............................................................................ 13
2.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
1. Agenda and attendees
1.1 Agenda
Amitran 2nd workshop – Wednesday 15 May 2013
Hosted by ERTICO - ITS Europe
09:30 – 10:00 Registration and coffee
10:00 – 10:20 Welcome and introduction to Amitran Gerdien Klunder
(consortium leader), TNO
10:20 – 11:00 Presentation on Amitran methodology and framework
architecture
Explanation on the Amitran methodology: what is
the scope of the methodology, what are the steps in
the methodology
Explanation on the Amitran framework architecture:
the models, interfaces and simulation environments
that are needed for the methodology
Eline Jonkers, TNO
11:00 – 11:20 Coffee break
11:20 – 12:20 Exercise / discussion on the Amitran methodology in
small groups (using cases)
Eline Jonkers, TNO
12:20 – 12:40 Feedback and findings from groups
12:40 – 13:40 Lunch and networking
13:40 – 14:00 Presentation on use cases for methodology validation
with stakeholders
Txomin Rodriguez,
Tecnalia
14:00 – 15:00 Group discussion
What do stakeholders think on the role given to
them in the evaluation process?
Do stakeholders think that the presented approach
will result in a good evaluation?
Do use cases cover the range of the Amitran
stakeholders?
Do you think that the methodology user interfaces
are adequate and attractive enough?
Txomin Rodriguez,
Tecnalia
15:00 – 15:15 Feedback and findings from discussion
15:15 – 15:30 Conclusions and closure Gerdien Klunder, TNO
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
1.2 Attendees
Table 1: Attendees.
Name Company Country
Carolien Beckx VITO Belgium
Thomas Benz PTV Germany
Fredrik Cederstav Volvo Sweden
Bart Degraeuwe VITO Belgium
Anne Dijkstra Rijkswaterstaat The Netherlands
Stephan Dreher NOKIA Belgium
Alexander Frötscher AustriaTech Austria
Kay Gade DLR Germany
Ioannis Giannelos Ecorys The Netherlands
Matthias Helfert AustriaTech Austria
Eline Jonkers TNO The Netherlands
Gerdien Klunder TNO The Netherlands
Indah Lengkong Jacobs University Bremen Germany
Mohamed Mahmod DLR Germany
Margherita Mascia Imperial College London United Kingdom
Olaf Meyer-Rühle ProgTrans AG Switzerland
Jean-Charles Pandazis Ertico Belgium
Marcia Pincus US Department of Transportation USA
Txomin Rodriguez Tecnalia Spain
Dimitri Strobbe Tractebel Engineering SA Belgium
Andrew Winder Ertico Belgium
Axel Wolfermann DLR Germany
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
2. Workshop minutes
2.1 Introduction
Gerdien Klunder (project coordinator) welcomes everyone to the 2nd Amitran workshop,
especially the external stakeholders, and tells about the goal of the workshop. Everyone
introduces themselves briefly. After this she gives an introduction to the Amitran project.
Some questions are asked about the project. There is a question about standardization, and a
comment is made about making a link to CEN (a recent published standard/study on well-to-
wheel CO2 assessment). Another question is about air transport; this is not included in the
project. The use of modelling and simulation is discussed. Amitran develops a methodology,
and with use cases we want to show that our methodology works. Those use cases can include
modelling. Amitran intends to find use cases by linking to projects, both European and
national projects. With the use cases we want to take into consideration a wide range of ITS
and a wide range of stakeholders. The use cases are discussed later in the workshop. The
remark was made that in order for stakeholders to have a business case a CO2 reduction has
to be showed. Last question in this introductory session was about rebound effects, whether
they are included. This depends: very long term effects (e.g. building new roads because of an
increase in traffic demand) are not taken into account. Good models for this do not exist, and
Amitran does not develop new models. Rebound effects on the shorter term can in some ways
be included. This depends on the type of rebound effects and the models that are available.
The project will look further into this and make clear what rebound effects are (or are not)
included. Basis however is that effects for which there are no models available cannot be
included quantitatively in Amitran.
2.2 Amitran methodology and framework architecture
Eline presents the Amitran methodology and framework architecture. Goal of this part of the
day is to show and explain the Amitran methodology and to receive feedback from the
stakeholders on set-up of the methodology, different steps in the methodology, scaling up,
etc. Later in the project an online handbook and checklist will be created where the
methodology and the use of it will be explained to users. The Amitran methodology is for the
evaluation of effects of ICT measures in traffic and transport on energy efficiency and CO2
emissions. The framework architecture describes the steps, models, interfaces and simulation
environments needed in applying the methodology.
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
During and after the presentation questions are asked. It is asked what the ECOSTAND project
is about. ECOSTAND (http://www.ecostand-project.eu/) is a European project with the
objective to provide support for an agreement between three regions (the European Union,
Japan and the United States) on a framework for a common assessment methodology for
determining the impacts of Intelligent Transport Systems on energy efficiency and CO2
emissions. Information about ECOSTAND will be included in the package that will be sent to
the workshop participants afterwards. There is a question about cross-effects of systems (e.g.
GLOSA and a start-stop system). Effects are taken into account individually per system, cross-
effects can be coped with by the models when the systems can be modelled simultaneously.
Discussion and validation of this is however needed. There is a question about the compliance
rate and whether this is input to models. The answer is yes. Another question concerns the
well-to-wheel approach and scaling up, and sensitivity of different countries to different
energy sources. In principle this is addressed in the knowledge base for scaling up, where links
to scaling up data will be placed. This includes links to numbers of ‘electricity factors’ of
different countries,depending e.g. on fuel type and production. Again it was suggested that
we should check the CEN study (CEN 16258) for CO2 per energy values. The project has to
work with the numbers that are available, and it cannot improve the accuracy of these
numbers. Information on accuracy will not be available for all data. We will further discuss
within the project if we can include recommendations about sensitivity analysis. A question is
asked about the availability of models on a European scale. Examples of these models are
TransTools and Astra. Of course these models have their own characteristics. TransTools for
example does include motorways and main roads, and not all roads in cities.
The group was split into three smaller groups and within the groups several questions were
discussed on the methodology by using a certain case. The three cases were as follows:
Case 1
- Adaptive Cruise Control (adapts the vehicle's speed to the vehicle in front. A
distance measuring system attached to the front of the vehicle is used to detect
whether slower moving vehicles are in the ACC vehicle's path. If a slower moving
vehicle is detected, the ACC system will slow the vehicle down and control the
distance, or time gap, between the ACC vehicle and the leading vehicle).
- Research question: what is the effect of ACC on CO2 emissions on the EU-27 level
when 100% of the vehicles are equipped with the system?
Case 2
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
- Smartphone application giving real-time multimodal travel advice. It also gives a
pre-trip warning when the travel time is longer than usual
- Research question: what is the effect of the smartphone application on CO2
emissions on the EU-27 level when 100% of the smartphones is equipped with the
system?
Case 3
- Road-side route information taking into account real-time traffic information
- Research question: what is the effect of the road-side route system on CO2
emissions on the EU-27 level when all motorways and major cities are equipped
with the system?
The question/discussion topics were the following:
1. What types of effects do you expect the ITS system to have? Indicate this in the picture
(picture with simplified flow diagram).
2. Do you think there are long term effects of the ITS system?
o Traffic demand induced on the long term
o Changes of the infrastructure network
o Changes in public transport and freight transport scheduling
3. Do you think there is an influence of the ITS system on other factors that could
influence traffic demand?
o Infrastructure capacity
o Transport costs
o Availability of transport modes and means (vehicle/train/vessel)
o Connection with other transport modes (alignment of times, for example by
making use of arrival time estimation – buses waiting for train arrival).
o Location choice
4. Using the picture, indicate which model categories are needed to be able to calculate
CO2 emissions? (is the picture correct or do you miss things?)
5. What input data do you need for the models in the chain?
o (Optional question: What should be the abilities of the models?)
6. What method would you (preferably) use for scaling up?
o Direct method with statistics or modeling method (given that a macroscopic
model is available)
o Which situational variables are important for your case?
Below the most important outcomes per task are described. Not all groups discussed exactly
the same topics and questions. The outcomes of the discussions will be used by the Amitran
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
consortium, amongst others for improving the methodology and as input for the
development of the handbook.
2.2.1 Group discussion Adaptive Cruise Control
Affected Parameters:
1) Primary effects: Speed, Headway, Driving dynamics
2) Secondary effects: Mode choice (equipped vehicle is more attractive), route
(motorways become more attractive, mostly compared to city driving)
Long-term effects:
Induced demand is not foreseen or very small
At smaller headways than manually driven, increased capacity and stability/reliability of
traffic flow might induce demand
Gateway technology for further refined systems leading to automated/platoon driving,
potentially new systems for transit (“flexible trains”)
Other factors
Capacity will change depending on headways
Cost due more stable speed and to reduced drag
More stable speeds lead to more reliable travel times, more reliable connections
Model categories
Micro flow
Induced demand due to capacity effects in macro models
Micro emission model
Multimodal model (for secondary effect of mode choice)
Input data
Demand, including share of vehicles
Network, characteristics, city/motorways/interurban
(Penetration rate) Compliance/usage, may depend on situation (traffic volume, road
type…)
2.2.2 Group discussion Smartphone application
Affected Parameters:
1. Mode choice
2. Departure time choice
3. Trip generation
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
4. Route choice
5. Destination choice if options are available (e.g. Delivery of goods, shopping, working)
Long-term effects: the following will change,
Distribution of traffic on the network
Induced traffic demand
Scheduling of public transportation
Model categories
Macro demand
Macro traffic flow model
Macro emission model
Input data
Demand per mode
Capacity of infrastructure
Survey of users preferences
2.2.3 Group discussion Road-side route information
Main effect on route and mode choice (P+R), also speed, driving dynamics (careful
driving), indirect effect on speed, headway, lane, driving dynamics (alternative route)
Advance pre-trip information (e.g. info on event) might influence trip generation, mode
choice, destination choice etc.
Indirect and long term effects very uncertain and unlikely
Crucial is the acceptance, which depends on many factors
Kind of information (weather, congestion, incident etc.)
Other available information (other information system with coinciding or
contradicting information)
Network density/alternative routes
Kind of travellers (local knowledge, tourists, mono-modal, etc.)
Macro models (demand, flow, emissions) sufficient
Study area important (capture all effects!)
FOT required, but transferability questionable (many assumptions needed)
Cross-effects of different information systems challenging
Scenario analysis might be advisable (assumption on cross-effect)
Or: results limited to effect on travellers without other/individual information
Factor based approach for scaling up might be the easier solution (many assumptions
needed anyway)
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
2.3 Validation and use cases
Txomin Rodriguez presents the Amitran validation plan and process and explains how Amitran
will work together with other projects in use cases to validate the methodology. There is a
question about the statement being a ‘reference methodology’. What we mean is that it is our
aim to develop a reference methodology that everyone who wants to do an assessment of an
ITS on CO2 effects uses. Of course we have to wait to see if in the future this will be the case.
The group is split into two smaller groups and within the groups the use case possibilities are
discussed.
Later possible use cases/projects will be contacted for more information. Txomin explains that
it is important for Amitran if the projects can fill in the information sheet, to set up possible
collaboration. He will contact them by email/telephone about this.
2.3.1 Group discussion Research organizations
In the CARBOTRAF project, there is a good match with the Amitran methodology.
However, the timing is not perfect. Pilot in September in two cities (Glasgow, Graz). An
option would be that they provide Amitran with the result of the pilot. They need the
methodology now and Amitran is developing it now.
Alexander Frötscher tells that in Austria there is a national FOT called Testfeld
Telematik, were one of the use cases with possible impacts on Co2 emissions is a
green wave, or adapted speed advise for consecutive traffic lights. It is tested for 3-4
weeks. They have detailed data. They expect to find an effect on emissions. What is
behaviour change and what is caused by other things? For the other things (network
simulation, etc.), effects on CO2 emissions are vanishing. So is also a research case,
FOT. Over 3000 users. We could maybe use the methodology. Project is up and
running at the moment.
Margherita Mascia mentions the FRAME architecture. Users will want to know what
system should be applied in what situations.
Olaf Meyer-Rühle explains that they would not apply the methodology themselves, but
maybe clients. He cannot be very concrete since it depends on the complexity of the
whole thing.
We assess the attributes for evaluating the methodology.
Universality: it should be sure that definitions are the same everywhere if you have the
methodology for EU-27 countries. It should be for all users, not all stakeholders. Do
you really aim at all users? Is everyone of the same importance? For people in a city
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
the city level is important. For high level people it is the EU for example. Answer: we do
cover all levels. We do not aim at individual users. If there is a specific user group, for
example logistics provider, they maybe want to show that they emit less CO2 emissions
than competitors. As technical people we need all the details. The local authorities
want to use the outcomes. Researchers need the details and the guidance. And policy
makers/authorities need to know that things are comparable and assessed in a correct
way.
Openness: this is very complex and not a high priority.
Quality level: far more important than openness. Accuracy is very important, in each
step of the evaluation, so also in the data and outcomes.
Ability to evolve: we discuss electro mobility. This requires another type of assessment,
well-to-wheel calculation is very different. Usually emission models handle tank to
wheel. Amitran will make a reference to existing numbers on that (well-to-tank). The
remark is made that there is some criticism on TransTools and other traffic models
should be used as well (Amitran mentioned TransTools as an example, the
methodology is open to all models). There is a discussion on the cross-validation of
models (to check if they produce similar results). Amitran is not going to validate
models and say that one is better than the others.
A question is asked on in which situations you have to conduct a field test and if
additional modelling is always needed. Amitran will describe the methodology in case
you do not use modeling, but this is not done yet.
There is a question on whether Amitran is going to have an active user group. A lot of
people are showing results, but it would be better if they show it also by a European
methodology.
At the end of the group discussion the topic of ways of interactions (of Amitran with the
projects/use cases) is briefly touched. Among the potential activities for the evaluation with
stakeholders, they saw that the best option is to have a current ITS project using Amitran and
also the use of an interim version of the handbook. Interviews are mentioned to be useful.
2.3.2 Group discussion Public authorities and other stakeholders
The interest in Amitran from the public authority/agency side (represented by AustriaTech and
Rijkswaterstaat) was to have reference methodologies for benchmarking ITS. For the vehicle
manufacturer side (Volvo Bus and Truck was represented) the interest is to assess/benchmark
their vehicles and to inform customers (in a similar way that manufacturers currently use Euro
NCAP ratings to benchmark, and inform customers). Expectations of Amitran are high, and to
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
really become a reference methodology and not yet ‘another’ methodology Amitran has to
prove its value before the stakeholders will use it. It will be difficult to meet all the
expectations, since Amitran does not assess or build models themselves. Amitran need to
better explain to external stakeholders why the project is relevant and important, focusing on
incentives for commercial organisations to use the methodology.
Impressions are similar to the other group. The quality level, reliability of the results, and
universality are the most important factors, but Amitran does not assess models themselves. If
policy making is going to be based on the outcome of Amitran, it needs to be consistent with
results from proven studies. Amitran will have to find references for this.
It is also said that the methodology needs an “owner” after the project to be able to evolve.
Other emission gases to be considered are NOx, PM10, or even non eco aspects. Also
validation with FOT (depending on the availability of data) could be done.
To ensure universality, some participants put forward the idea of using and comparing
different use cases (in using the Amitran methodology) to cover different points of view with
regard to the use of Amitran.
It was suggested that the Amitran validation uses a feedback loop, with a first test using two
projects to get a first feedback quickly, and then, based on this, a larger scale test using more
projects.
2.4 Conclusions
Gerdien closes the day by giving brief conclusions/summary. All participants share their
impressions of the day. The participants found it an interesting and constructive workshop.
The methodology framework seemed clear and useful for them. Almost all participants want
to stay in contact (newsletters etc.). Some of them see good opportunities for further
cooperation by means of use case sharing.
The template used during the afternoon session will be sent to participants in the workshop,
since no time for filling it remained.
Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein contained.
For more information about
AMITRAN project
Gerdien Klunder
TNO (coordinator)
Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6
2628 XE Delft
The Netherlands
www.amitran.eu
How to cite this document
Eline Jonkers (2013). Methodology and Validation Workshop minutes. AMITRAN
Project.
Retrieved from www.amitran.eu.