Advertisement

An Eco-Traffic Management Tool

  • Jorge M. Bandeira
  • Sérgio R. Pereira
  • Tânia Fontes
  • Paulo Fernandes
  • Asad J. Khattak
  • Margarida C. Coelho
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 262)

Abstract

Drivers routing decisions can be influenced to minimize environmental impacts by using, for instance, dynamic and intelligent road pricing schemes. However, some previous research studies have shown that often different pollutants can dictate different traffic assignment strategies which makes necessary to assign weights to these pollutants so they become comparable. In this chapter, a tool for traffic assignment taking into account eco-routing purposes is presented. The main goal of this work is to identify the best traffic volume distribution that allows a minimization of environmental costs for a given corridor with predetermined different alternative routes. To achieve this, an integrated numerical computing platform was developed by integrating microscopic traffic and emission models. The optimization tool employs non-linear techniques to perform different traffic assignment methods: User Equilibrium (UE), System Optimum (SO) and System Equitable (SE). For each method, different strategies can be assessed considering: (i) individual pollutants and traffic performance criteria; and (ii) all pollutants simultaneously. For the latter case, three different optimization approaches can be assessed based on: (i) economic costs of pollutants once released into the air; (ii) human health impacts according to the Eco-Indicator 99; and (iii) real time atmospheric pollutant concentration levels. The model was applied to a simple network, simulating three levels of traffic demand and three different strategies for traffic assignment. The system is developed in Microsoft Excel and offers a user friendly access to optimization algorithms by including a dynamic user interface.

Keywords

Eco-routing Traffic assignment Microscopic model Atmospheric emissions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Bandeira and P. Fernandes acknowledge the support of the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation—FCT for the Doctoral grants SFRH/BD/66104/2009 and SFRH/BD/87402/2012. This work was partially funded by FEDER Funds through the Operational Program ‘‘Factores de Competitividade COMPETE’’ and by National Funds through FCT within the project PTDC/SEN-TRA/115117/2009. The authors also acknowledge the Strategic Project PEst-C/EME/UI0481/2013 and Toyota Caetano Portugal, which allowed the use of vehicles. We are thankful to the US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration for providing funding through the TranLIVE consortium of university transportation centers." The collaboration between Drs. Coelho and Khattak was under the auspices of the Luso-American Transportations Impacts Study Group (LATIS-G). The contents of this article reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein.

References

  1. 1.
    European Environmental Agency—EEA: The contribution of transport to air quality—TERM 2012. EEA European Environment Agency, Copenhagen (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission: White paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM (2011) 144 final, Brussels (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yin, Y., Lawphongpanich, S.: Internalizing emission externality on road networks. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 11, 292–301 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharma, S., Mishra, S.: Intelligent transportation systems-enabled optimal emission pricing models for reducing carbon footprints in a bimodal network. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 17, 54–64 (2013). doi: 10.1080/15472450.2012.708618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bandeira, J.M., Carvalho, D.O., Khattak, A.J., et al.: A comparative empirical analysis of eco-friendly routes during peak and off-peak hours. 91st Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bandeira, J.M., Almeida, T.G., Khattak, A.J., et al.: Generating emissions information for route selection: experimental monitoring and routes characterization. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 17, 3–17 (2013). doi: 10.1080/15472450.2012.706197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barth, M., Boriboonsomsin, K., Vu, A: Environmentally-friendly navigation. Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 684–689 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahn, K.G., Rakha, H.: The effects of route choice decisions on vehicle energy consumption and emissions. Transp. Res. Part D-Transp. Environ. 13, 151–167 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2008.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yao, E., Song, Y.: Study on eco-route planning algorithm and environmental impact assessment. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 17, 42–53 (2013). doi: 10.1080/15472450.2013.747822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gazis, A., Fontes, T., Bandeira, J., et al.: Integrated computational methods for traffic emissions route assessment. Fifth ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computational Transportation Science (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo, L., Huang, S., Sadek, A.W.: An evaluation of environmental benefits of time-dependent green routing in the greater buffalo-niagara region. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 17, 18–30 (2013). doi: 10.1080/15472450.2012.704336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahn, K., Rakha, H., Moran, K.: System-wide impacts of eco-routing strategies on large-scale networks. 91st Annual meeting of the transportation research board (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DOT US: Applications for the environment: real-time information synthesis (AERIS)—benefit-cost analysis (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bureau of Public Roads: Traffic assignment manual. Washington DC (1964)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spiess, H.: Conical volume-delay functions. Transp. Sci. 24 (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R.: The eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Methodology Report (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rilett, L., Benedek, C.: Traffic assignment under environmental and equity objectives. Transp. Res. Rec. 1443, 92–99 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lasdon, L.S., Waren, A.D., Jain, A., Ratner, M.: Design and testing of a generalized reduced gradient code for nonlinear programming. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 4, 34–50 (1978). doi: 10.1145/355769.355773 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frontline Systems Inc.: Basic solver—nonlinear optimization. http://www.solver.com/content/basic-solver-nonlinear-optimization (2013)
  20. 20.
    PTV.: Vissim 5.30-05 user manual. Planung Transport Verkehr AG, Karlsruhe, German (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fontes, T., Fernandes, P., Rodrigues, H., et al.: Are eco-lanes a sustainable option to reducing emissions in a medium-sized European city? 92nd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, January 2013Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    US Environmental Protection Agency—EPA: Methodology for developing modal emission rates for epa’s multi-scale motor vehicle and equipment emission system. Prepared by North Carolina State University for US Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coelho, M.C., Frey, H.C., Rouphail, N.M., et al.: Assessing methods for comparing emissions from gasoline and diesel light-duty vehicles based on microscale measurements. Transp. Res. Part D-Transp. Environ. 14, 91–99 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2008.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhai, H., Frey, H.C., Rouphail, N.M.: A vehicle-specific power approach to speed- and facility-specific emissions estimates for diesel transit buses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 7985–7991 (2008). doi: 10.1021/es800208d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Environment Agency—EEA: EMEP EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2010–2011 (2009) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ACAP: Automobile Industry Statistics 2010 Edn. (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dejong, K., Spears, W.M.: An analysis of the interacting roles of population size and crossover in genetic function optimization. Proceedings of Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Berlin, pp. 38–47 (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sadek, A.W., Smith, B.L., Demetsk, M.J.: Dynamic traffic assignment genetic algorithms approach. Transp. Res. Rec.1588 Pap. 1588, 95–103 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge M. Bandeira
    • 1
  • Sérgio R. Pereira
    • 1
  • Tânia Fontes
    • 1
  • Paulo Fernandes
    • 1
  • Asad J. Khattak
    • 2
  • Margarida C. Coelho
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation/Department Mechanical Engineering, Campus Universitário de SantiagoUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Civil and Environmental Engineering DepartmentUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations