Methodology and Validation Workshop minutes - Amitran

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) iii

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


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


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.


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

http://www.ecostand-project.eu/


- 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


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


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)


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


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


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.


For more information about

AMITRAN project

Gerdien Klunder

TNO (coordinator)

Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6

2628 XE Delft

The Netherlands

[email protected]

www.amitran.eu

How to cite this document

Eline Jonkers (2013). Methodology and Validation Workshop minutes. AMITRAN

Project.

Retrieved from www.amitran.eu.

Documents

Methodology and Validation Workshop minutes - Amitran