UTMC[1].

qxd 26/10/09 15:05 Page 445

UTMC FOCUS

A new approach to
appraisal for ITS
David Carrignon, Colin Buchanan

Today, most urban traffic management schemes
do not include an assessment of the impact of
ITS. Dynamic network management systems are
commonplace in the UK, but their operational
assessment is not frequent. In many cases, the
benefits of such systems are obvious but are
those benefits always present? What happens
when the infrastructure moves on? Are all road
users equally taken into account? This article
focuses on the need to assess the impact of
traffic management tools, during the initial
scheme appraisal, but also post-implementation.
The modelling analysis methods to appraise
these systems exist, so why not build an
appraisal method and use them?

ITS BENEFITS: A LOCAL ISSUE
When looking at the international literature on the bene-
fits of ITS, little is said about how differently ITS for traffic
management has developed between countries.
For example, dynamic network management systems
are highly developed in the UK, but it does not have to be
the only method of tackling urban traffic congestion. Not
many countries in the world have developed similar sys-
tems and they are not that widely used.
The Paris region for example, developed an extensive
network of urban motorways and its traffic management
focuses on travellers’ information (radio station an-
nouncements and Variable Message Signs), limited ramp
metering, motorway toll systems, accident identification
and information exchange between the state and local
highway authorities (public and private).
Greater London on the other hand has a less developed
motorway system and a single organisation in charge of
traffic signals. Its infrastructure focuses on dynamic net-
work management systems, management of the impact
of accidents and bus priority systems.
These two cities have approximately 10 million inhabi-
tants each, are both located in Western Europe, followed
historically very similar economic and technological
changes, but traffic management using ITS has developed
following very different paths.
These differences could be explained by looking at the
road network structure and institutional administrative
structure, but it shows that ITS infrastructure could be
and indeed has been tailored to suit local circumstances.
If sister cities like Paris and London develop such differ-
ent traffic management strategies, it is fair to conclude
that an appraisal method should be focused on local stan-
dards agreed between stakeholders on a local basis.
sponse to this situation and most modes of transport are
now benefitting from a more balanced approach. How-
ever, the impact of dynamic network management sys-
tems and other UTC tools often relies on the assumption
that they will improve traffic conditions. The definition
of traffic has changed recently however and it now in-
cludes cyclists, pedestrians and so on. If there are no clear
level of service definitions for each road user group, it be-
comes almost impossible to analyse how much better or
worse a proposed scheme will be for each of the stake-
holders.
WE ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE DESIGN PROCESS
Road users are not equal in the initial stage of traffic sig- Cyclists, taxis and
nal timing calculations. Most design tools operate in delivery vehicles and on-
PCU’s (Passenger Car Units) and do not differentiate very street parking activity
well between the various users. Pedestrian crossing time are frequently not taken
analyses through complex junctions start to be available, into account at the
but in most cases, they are not used as a timing calcula-
design stage of the
tion input. We still rely on a set of base timings calculated
signal timings.
for the best progression of general traffic through a net-

THE NEED FOR AGREED SERVICE LEVELS

One observation made from working on traffic manage-
ment schemes is that stakeholders only have a voice if
there is an organisation to defend their interests. This or-
ganisation could be part of the public sector, such as bus
coordinators, or outside it, such as a local residents associ-
ation. Without representation, it is difficult to be taken
into consideration in a way which can significantly influ-
ence a scheme. The Traffic Management Act 2004 is a re-

www.tecmagazine.com TEC NOVEMBER 2009 445

UTMC[1].qxd 26/10/09 15:05 Page 446
UTMC FOCUS
work. From this base, the timings are often manually
amended to suit other vehicle requirements such as
buses, or pedestrians. Cyclists, taxis and delivery vehicles
and on-street parking activity are frequently not taken
into account at the design stage of the signal timings.
In most cases, the analysis for other stakeholders is
done without clear guidelines and only once the scheme
has been setup limited to key stakeholders such as traffic
signal operation organisations and bus organisations. If a
stakeholder is not consulted in the initial stage of the
process, it is very unlikely that it will be taken into con-
sideration beyond statutory safety requirements.
The ITS for traffic management tools installed on site
however, are increasingly more flexible and complex
than the modelling used at the initial scheme appraisal.
These tools are mostly used to reduce the overall queues
and delays in the network, and assuming a benefit was
probably a fair assumption. Nowadays gating strategies
and vehicles priority tools are affecting the balance be-
tween modes of transport on the road network. The level
of priority and gating is not detailed or discussed in ad-
vance and is not included as part of most appraisals. At
best, proxy settings are used.
One could argue that the increase in performance and
complexity of the available traffic management tools
should trigger the development of minimum agreed level
of service per mode of transport. These levels of service
should ideally be monitored and audited at a regular in-
terval to ensure consistency with the stakeholders’ con-
sultation which took place at the design stage.
AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A PURPOSE
Historically, the traffic signal standards focused on imple-
mentation and infrastructure upgrade. Most traffic sig-
nals have been implemented to address road safety con-
cerns (eg pedestrian crossings), improve network re-
silience and limit traffic delays (eg UTC, SCOOT, MOVA),
and service level requirements (eg bus priorities).
There is no real systematic record of the reason leading
to the equipment of a junction with traffic signals and
therefore no real ability to assess whether this infrastruc-
ture is still fulfilling its initial purpose. With the expan-
sion of the infrastructure over time, it is possible that the
purpose of this particular equipment has either changed
or disappeared.
For example, heavy traffic in the 1980s could have re-
quired a signalised pedestrian crossing, but since then the
stream of traffic has been either suppressed (through a
road user charging scheme) or redirected onto a bypass.
In this example, the initial purpose of the crossing is no
more, but there are no records of this purpose and conse-
quently no de-commissioning process. The existence of
an agreed service level in this situation would have lead
to a purpose definition as well as a mechanism through
which organisations representing stakeholders could ini-
tiate a review process.
THE IMPACT PER TIME OF THE DAY
AUTHOR’S DETAILS Similar to the previous example, a standard engineering
David Carrignon is design process would take the worst case scenario as a ref-
Principal traffic engi- erence point; a traffic signal would be implemented if it is
neer at Colin required at any time of the day. If a junction is fitted with
Buchanan and can be traffic signals for network resilience purpose for example,
contacted by e-mail at this may not be required at night. Recent studies indicate
david.carrignon@ that it would be economically beneficial to turn such
cbuchanan.co.uk junctions to a flashing amber type arrangement for some
part of the night, returning the junction to a state close to
its original mode of operation.
446 TEC NOVEMBER 2009
If the junction has a road safety function beyond traffic
management concerns, such as providing a formal pedes-
trian crossing, nothing prevents this facility from being
in operation only when needed. In this situation, a ser-
vice level definition would make it possible to identify
that some users might be experiencing a disbenefit from
ITS without anybody benefiting from it.
MORE ORGANISATIONS IN THE FUTURE
This shift to a service level of ITS for traffic management
operation should take place before too many organisa-
tions take an active role in urban traffic management.
Today, existing users are not treated equally when look-
ing at the network operation. Bus operators/coordinators
collect data, express level of service concerns and identify
targets while private motorists rely on the network not
being gridlocked. Their interest is taken into account at
the initial assessment of the scheme, but post-implemen-
tation the traffic management systems setup are likely to
change through the standard maintenance process. Cy-
clists for example, do not collect data which could lead to
an assessment of the service level at any stage of the de-
sign and operation process of the infrastructure. Other
transport modes such as pedestrian or powered two-
wheelers are under-represented in the scheme appraisal
process too.
These network users should ideally specify service level
The definition of the service level would need to be a re-
sult of negotiations between organisations on a local
basis.
THE TOOLS ARE THERE
Assessing the service level on a live urban traffic manage-
ment system is currently difficult. The system is operating
in real time and it is not possible to change the system
operating parameters to answer ‘What if?’. If the service
level for a particular user is not met, it is not easy to iden-
tify the source of the non-compliance. Is the problem
caused by an ITS fault? Is it the result of seasonal traffic
variation? Or perhaps of a network disruption which oc-
curred somewhere else on the network?
Traffic microsimulation tools are now able to model
the impact of dynamic network management systems
and it would be possible to start to perform such analysis.
Most microsimulation software packages have a SCOOT
or MOVA interface and Transport for London has devel-
oped, with the support of TRL, an offline UTC - VISSIM
tool which operates on laptops.
The range of transport modes being modelled with a
calibrated behaviour model is increasing and most trans-
port modes can now be incorporated accurately.
There is little stopping the development of an appraisal
framework for all transport modes which includes ITS
traffic management systems. The tools are there, so why
not use them?
Bibliography:
Cottman, N, Giszczak, A, Jackman, G (2009) ‘Desktop traffic
control for London: developing UTC-VISSIM interface’, TEC
Vol 50 No 1, London
PIARC ITS Handbook 2nd Edition, PIARC
Traffic Engineering & Control, 2009, ‘The story of how traffic
management grew up’, TEC Vol 50 No 1, London
Walsh, M (2004) Decision- Making In Traffic Management,
DfT, London
Williams, R, Edge, D, (1996) The social shaping of
technology, Research Policy
www.LocalGov.co.uk
UTMC[1].qxd 26/10/09 15:06 Page 447

Road Expo Scotland

4th-5th November
Road Safety Expo
12th November

www.tecmagazine.com TEC NOVEMBER 2009 447