Traffic data collection is a very important element of urban traffic management; its collection has traditionally been carried out using solely manual or basic automated means (e.g. inductive loops). However, technology in the form of ITS has contributed to more and more advanced data to be possible to be collected and processed, which can be then used in planning and modelling, but also in the provision of information to the public, such that travellers can make informed choices about their journey.
Looking at data collection, it appears that a wide range of methods and techniques are employed by the cities of the sample (Figure 20). Namely, detectors and sensors still seem to be the most popular data collection technique among both the European cities (26 out of 32) and the non-European ones (all five), followed by manual counting. However, the latter is often not used as a data collection technique on its own, but is often employed as a complementary method to automated techniques; a total of 30 cities (25 out of the 32 European and all five non-European) out the sample’s 37 claim that they use manual counting. Less common are roadside interviews, used by 14 European and three non- European cities, supposedly due to their high labour costs and due to the fact that the data collected by them can now also be collected by novel automated methods, such as online surveys. Interestingly, video cameras are increasingly used for data collection, with 20 European and two non-European cities stating that they use them; this seems to be a natural consequence of the great advances made in the field of ANPR. On the other hand, few cities seem to make use of satellite tracking; this can be attributed to the generally low accuracy of satellite positioning for the purposes of road data collection in urban
CONDUITS State-of-the-art of urban traffic management policies and technologies Deliverable no 1.2 – 1.3
37 environments, but it can be said that more cities are expected to make use of it in future, when positioning will become more reliable.
Figure 20: Data collection techniques (number of cities)
As concerns traffic modelling tools to better utilise the data collected and to forecast future needs, PTV VISUM seems to be the most popular tool for long-term forecasting, used by eight European cities, while the most popular tool for microscopic simulation seems to be PTV VISSIM, used in seven European cities and one non-European. Other modelling tools used across the sample include EMME/2 and EMME/3, AIMSUN, TRANSCAD, TRANSYT, SATURN and CUBE.
It should be noted here, that the cities’ data collection activities are not confined to traffic data, but also extend to pollution and noise in order to address environmental issues in cities, following their 10-20 year strategic plans. While pollution and noise modelling is beyond the scope of this study, it is worth mentioning that 31 cities of the sample claim that they collect relevant data with the objective of monitoring air quality and reducing noise levels. Namely, 22 cities collect data on CO2, 24 cities collect data on particulate matter, 27 cities collect data on NOx and 20 cities collect noise data. Some cities measure other pollution indicators, such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), BTEX (benzene, toluene, etc.), PM10 and PM2.5.
Going back to traffic management and looking at information provision, this seems to be an important element of the cities’ strategies, and has been greatly improved in recent years, benefitting from the development of new ITS technologies. Namely, looking at the situation
38 of traffic information provision across the sample, almost all cities claim that they provide traffic information to the public. The types of Information provided, though, as well as the methods of dissemination vary between the cities.
Figure 21: Types of Information is provided (number of cities)
As illustrated in Figure 21, most cities among the sample’s 37 provide information about planned events (29 out of 32 European and all five non-European), planned road works (29 European and four non-European) and public transport (29 European and all five non- European). Less common, but definitely of importance seems to be the supply of alternative routes to drivers and public transport users, which is done in 18 European and four non- European cities. 19 cities (16 European and three non-European) even go as far as suggesting walking and cycling routes to road users, as an attempt to promote these two sustainable travel modes, while nine cities also provide weather forecasts.
Cities also provide real-time information to the public in order to enable road users to make informed decisions about their trip upon departure or en route (Figure 22). More specifically, 25 cities (20 European and all five non-European) provide real-time information on traffic incidents, another 25 (21 European and four non-European) inform travellers about public transport, and 22 (17 European and all five non-European) provide live data on road works. Fewer cities compute and give anticipated travel times to road users, with eight European and four non-European cities claiming to be doing so. It should also be noted, that many cities have stated that they provide real-time snapshots from CCTV cameras to the public, so as to give a broad indication on the traffic situation at specific locations.
CONDUITS State-of-the-art of urban traffic management policies and technologies Deliverable no 1.2 – 1.3
39 Figure 22: real-time information provision (number of cities)
Looking at incident management, 16 cities claim that they have dynamic systems in place in order to improve the response time at the occurrence of traffic incidents. Most of those are based on video cameras, whereby incidents are detected either manually or with the help of appropriate image processing software at the traffic control centre, subsequently creating informative messages to be displayed on VMS. Furthermore, many cities see potential in providing customised information for emergency services (police, ambulances, fire brigade), with 14 out the sample’s 37 cities claiming that they already do or plan to do so in the next five years. For example, Athens and Brussels collect traffic data and notify the police of traffic incidents occurrences; Hong Kong, Tokyo and Zurich use systems facilitating fire brigade vehicles through a green wave function that coordinates traffic lights to allow emergency vehicles to pass through series of intersections; and in Karlsruhe the police and the fire-brigade are members of an integrated traffic information system based on GIS- technology, that allows them to have real-time information about road works and the level of service for the primary roads.
Finally, considering methods used to inform the public (Figure 23), most cities have a website with traffic information in place, with 36 out of the sample’s 37 claiming so. In addition, many cities use television and radio broadcasts to disseminate traffic information (24 out of the 32 European and all five non-European), as well as VMS, which are used in 23 European and all five non-European cities. 18 cities (15 European and three non-European) claim that they have a telephone line for traffic information, and a total of nine cities (eight European and one non-European) use the Traffic Message Channel (TMC), which broadcasts information in the FM airwaves through the Radio Data System (RDS). Mobile phones are
40 also used by some cities, either in the form of SMS text messages, or in the form of a software application for smartphones; six European cities and one non-European make use of this method. Lastly, a few cities have also mentioned other means of dissemination of traffic information, which include the use of newspapers in Funchal, and billboards and advertisements in Kayseri and Tel Aviv.
CONDUITS State-of-the-art of urban traffic management policies and technologies Deliverable no 1.2 – 1.3
41