Advertisement

Geo-Dynamic Decision Support System for Urban Traffic Management

  • Jan KazakEmail author
  • Mieczysław Chalfen
  • Joanna Kamińska
  • Szymon Szewrański
  • Małgorzata Świąder
Conference paper
  • 790 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The paper presents the geo-dynamic decision support system (DSS) for urban traffic management issues. For this purpose, ArcGIS and Tableau softwares were used. Additionally, a self-defined transportation model based on Dijkstra’s algorithm was created. The use of our own calculation model allowed for the full accessibility to all parameters of the analysed scenarios which was one of the key assumptions of the research. Functionality of the proposed DSS was tested on three scenarios. Each scenario presents congestion on the road network after the conclusion of events in main landmarks in Wrocław (Poland): the city stadium, the National Forum of Music and the Centennial Hall. The proposed DSS allows for dynamic analysis of urban traffic, including recalculation processes according to the changing congestion on a road network. Moreover, cumulative urban traffic assessment allows you to define hot spots on a network, which should be especially monitored by public services. An interactive dashboard reduces technical details of an analysis which helps to avoid the cognitive problems of the decision making process for a layman. The results prove the feasibility of the integration of the ArcGIS, self-defined transportation model and Tableau. The proposed solution enables full access to the transportation analysis’ assumptions, as well as the use of a simple and intuitive interactive dashboard for the decision making process.

Keywords

Urban traffic modelling Dijkstra’s algorithm Tableau Decision support system Visual data analysis 

References

  1. Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60(Part A), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.009.
  2. Ai, F., Comfort, L. K., Dong, Y., & Znati, T. (2016). A dynamic decision support system based on geographical information and mobile social networks: A model for tsunami risk mitigation in Padang, Indonesia. Safety Science, 90, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. An, S., Yang, H., Wang, J., Cui, N., & Cui, J. (2016). Mining urban recurrent congestion evolution patterns from GPS-equipped vehicle mobility data. Information Sciences, 373, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayed H., Galvez-Fernandez C., Habbas Z., & Khadraoui D. (2011). Solving time-dependent multimodal transport problems using a transfer graph model. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(20), 391–401.Google Scholar
  5. Caha, J., & Dvorský, J. (2015). Optimal path problem with possibilistic weights. In I. Ivan, I. Benenson, B. Jiang, J. Horák, J. Haworth, & T. Inspektor (Eds.), Geoinformatics for intelligent transportation (pp. 39–50)., Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. CIVITAS. (2015). Policy note: Intelligent transport systems and traffic management in urban areas. CIVITAS WIKI consortium.Google Scholar
  7. Dahal, K., Almejalli, K., & Hossain, M.A. (2013). Decision support for coordinated road traffic control actions. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 962–975.Google Scholar
  8. Deloitte and Targeo (2016) Raport o korkach w 7 największych miastach Polski. Warszawa: Deloitte Polska.Google Scholar
  9. Dijkstra E. W. (1959). A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numerische Mathematik, 1, 269–271.Google Scholar
  10. Golfarelli, M., & Rizzi, S. (2009). What-if simulation modeling in business intelligence. International Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining, 5(4), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hashemi, H., & Abdelghany, K. F. (2016). Real-time traffic network state estimation and prediction with decision support capabilities: Application to integrated corridor management. Transportation Research Part C, 73, 128–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamińska, J., & Chalfen, M. (2016). An influence of safe distance between vehicles on traffic speed and density. Autobusy: technika, eksploatacja, systemy transportowe, 17(6), 578–582.Google Scholar
  13. Karoń, G. (2016). Strategies of Active transportation and demand management. Komunikacja publiczna, 3(64), 39–46.Google Scholar
  14. Maggi, E., & Vallino, E. (2016). Understanding urban mobility and the impact of public policies: The role of the agent-based models. Research in Transportation Economics, 55, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ortega, E., Otero, I., Mancebo, S. (2014). TITIM GIS-tool: A GIS-based decision support system for measuring the territorial impact of transport infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7641–7652.Google Scholar
  16. Pamučar, D., Gigović, L., Ćirović, G., & Regodić, M. (2016). Transport spatial model for the definition of green routes for city logistics centers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 56, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Przybyła, K., Kulczyk-Dynowska, A., & Kachniarz, M. (2014). Quality of life in the regional capitals of Poland. Journal of Economic Issues, 48(1), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ruiz-Padillo, A., Ruiz, D. P., Torija, A. J., & Ramos-Ridao, Á. (2016). Selection of suitable alternatives to reduce the environmental impact of road traffic noise using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61, 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siljander, M., Venäläinen, E., Goerlandt, F., & Pellikka, P. (2015). GIS-based cost distance modelling to support strategic maritime search and rescue planning: A feasibility study. Applied Geography, 57, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szücs, G. (2015). Decision support for route search and optimum finding in transport networks under uncertainty. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 13(1), 125–134.Google Scholar
  21. Torretta, V., Rada, E. C., Schiavon, M., & Viotti, P. (2017). Decision support systems for assessing risks involved in transporting hazardous materials: A review. Safety Science, 92, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tremblay, S., Gagnon, J.-F., Lafond, D., Hodgetts, H. M., Doiron, M., & Jeuniaux, P. P. J. M. H. (2017). A cognitive prosthesis for complex decision-making. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, H., Li, J., Chen, Q.-Y., & Ni, D. (2011). Logistic modeling of the equilibrium speed–density relationship. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(6), 554–566.Google Scholar
  24. Zhuhadar, L., Thrasher, E., Marklin, S., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2017). The next wave of innovation—Review of smart cities intelligent operation systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Kazak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mieczysław Chalfen
    • 2
  • Joanna Kamińska
    • 2
  • Szymon Szewrański
    • 1
  • Małgorzata Świąder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Spatial EconomyWrocław University of Environmental and Life SciencesWrocławPoland
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsWrocław University of Environmental and Life SciencesWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations