EasyWay

Guideline for Core Service deployment

1. General framework3

1.1. General Service description and objectives, including co-modality3

1.1.1. Service definition3

1.1.2. Service objectives7

1.1.3. Disruption / problems to consider7

1.1.4. Conditions for the deployment of this service: operational environment8

1.2. European dimension9

1.3. Contribution to EasyWay objectives10

1.4. State-of-the-art12

2. Technical issues14

2.1. Functional and information architecture14

2.2. Required ICT Infrastructure19

2.3. Standards and agreements (existing and required)24

2.4. Criteria and methods for the evaluation 24

3. Service provision25

3.1. Service implementation25

3.2. Costs and benefits analysis27

3.3. End user orientation29

3.4. Service Level definition29

3.5. Regulatory Framework (existing / need for)33

3.6. Interaction with other services34

3.7. Conditions for service provision – Business model36

3.8. Adverse effects of the service36

3.9. Overview of foreseen deployment within Easyway36

4. List of abbreviations37

Traffic Management Core European Services1/37

1.General framework

EasyWay Core European ITS Services are services for European haulers and travellers, where road operators play a key role in their implementation and operation. The European Core Service “Strategic Traffic Management for Corridors and Networks” increases the performance of transport infrastructure by adding the potential of cross-border, network or multi-stakeholder co-operation. It defines Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) for the management of the European network and corridors including cross-border aspects and multi-modal capacities to allow for a more efficient use of the road network in Europe (and not restricting measures to country or local basis).

1.1.General Service description and objectives, including co-modality

1.1.1.Service definition

The current instrument of strategic traffic management in Europe is a traffic management plan (TMP). A TMP is the pre-definedallocation of a set of measures to a specific situation in order to inform and control the real-time. Initial situations can be unforeseeable or plan able (recurrent or non-recurrent events). The measures are always applied on a temporary basis (and not permanent).

At present, TMPs are developed and deployed all over Europe, many of them on a regional level, some on national or even international levels. This Guideline focuses on the linkage of existing TMPs along the TERN and on the definition of new TMPs for complex tasks. This assumes that generally at least two partners are involved and that the duration of the initial situation requires substantial co-ordination activities. It also assumes that the surrounding network is considered and not only the affected road section.

Three spatial levels are suited for the deployment of such complex TMPs:

Regional TMPs for networks within areas or regions on the TERN that can be extended, under certain conditions, to link with neighbouring regions for cross-regional and cross-border levels.

Cross-regional TMPs for national networks and key corridors on the TERN

Cross-border TMPs for cross-border networks and key corridors on the TERN and

TMPs for conurbations: conurbations and the circumfluent highway network with relevance to the long-distance traffic.

Examples for each spatial level are given in chapter Erreur : source de la référence non trouvéeErreur : source de la référence non trouvée.

Concerning TMP typology there are existing different wordings in Europe.

In the northern European states (e.g. Germany, Austria), the categorization of an initial incident is named scenario. The allocation of a set of measures to a defined scenario is called a strategy. Each of the measures describes, who does what and who is responsible for what.

In the southern states and France, a strategy is considered to be objectives on a more general / political level. The correlation between the defined incident and the set of measures is called a scenario. Each of the measures is composed of different actions for each involved partner. The table of measures helps to determine all possible and applicable measures of traffic regulation, control and management which might help to solve or minimize it effect of the incident.

Because of these different definitions, in the following the correlation between a defined incident and the set of measures is named “scenario / strategy”.

figure 1: wordings of TMP typology in Europe

A) What happened / what could happen? Initial situations / incidents/events that can lead to either partial or total road congestion and closure can be:

Accidents, road works, adverse weather conditions (thick fog, heavy snow, glace, floods), natural disasters (earthquakes, landslides, overflows), strikes, demonstrations, major public events, sport events, holiday traffic peaks, exceeding air pollution, emergencies (such as evacuations of public events, evacuation of ports of airports, closures of tunnels) or capacity overload on the road network or of public transport.

A main aspect of incidents is the location and duration of the incident. A consistent definition of these parameters is essential for effective information and intervention.

B) Allocation of what happened can be done according to the

Gravity, affected network, traffic flows and traffic density, (expected) duration (hard to define shortly after occurring the incident), probability of incidence, forecast reliability of the incident, current and expected traffic impacts based on observations or historic data

C) How to act / react to this? Potential measures according to the prospective initial situations are shown in table 1. A set of those measures composes a TMP, the combination always varies. An additional supporting element is the estimation of traffic impacts of selected strategies.

D) Who has to do what? Operational tables show the detailed application of the measures in terms of actions. Furthermore, they contain all the relevant information concerning the affected area according to a specific scenario for the correct implementation of this action.

TMPs for freight transportation

The stakeholders of freight transportation differ completely from those of the strategic traffic management on the European road network and thus the influence of authorities on this aspect is limited. In the long term they can be influenced through political decisions.

However, three aspects of freight transport belong to the context of traffic management plans, because they affect the road network strongly, they are applied temporarily and they are part of public responsibilities:

  • Dynamic ban of driving for HGV / dynamic overtaking ban for HGV
  • Dynamic access control for HGV (in the context of passage through sensitive or limited capacity areas as tunnels and mountain passes)
  • Dynamic access control for HGV (in the context of air pollution) and
  • Temporary HGV storage areas (e.g. temporary hard shoulder usage for HGV storage)

Co-modality

TMPs have a co-modality aspect if applied measures include actions with the aim of modal shifting of traffic.

On the cross-border level co-modality (between road, rail, sea, waterways, air) currently affects only freight transportation (HGV transportation). Measures are applied permanent in order to optimise existing infrastructure capacities or temporary in case of an incident (TMP).

In conurbations the main aspect of co-modality is the combination of road and public transport for individual traffic in case of a plan able or long-lasting incident.

As in road TMPs, the forecast reliability of the incident is an important element for co-modal TMP deployments. For predictable incidents, such as congestion due to commuter traffic or fairs, co-modal TMPs can be developed. Spontaneous modal shifting on a large scale, particularly in conurbations, often fails because of lacking capacities of the public transport.

Nevertheless, the increasing traffic demand and the increasing interrelation of transport modes require a very close cooperation between the stakeholders of different transport modes.

EasyWay

Guideline for Core Service deployment

Traffic Management Core European Services1/37

1.1.2.Service objectives

The objectives of multiple level TMPs are

  • to come to harmonised and consistent application of traffic management strategies in locations where various stakeholders as road operators and traffic police share traffic management responsibilities.
  • to strengthen the cooperation and the mutual understanding of road operators in conurbations and on cross-national/ international level.
  • to exchange knowledge experience and know-how in developing tools for strategy management between the stakeholders on a European level.
  • to accelerate and to standardise the co-ordination process

These objectives shall ensure

  • to provide a cross-border seamless, language independent and consistent information and service
  • to consider the network as a whole, to optimise the use of existing traffic infrastructure capacities and
  • to enhance the quality of the TMPs permanently

1.1.3.Disruption / problems to consider

Service provision

  • Different political, legal, technical and organisational basic conditions, language (even dialects) and cultural differences of partners => In advance of pre-defining TMPs, all partners have to have a clear understanding of each other’s needs and requirements.
  • In most countries, broadcasting companies cannot be enforced to broadcast a specific traveller information or re-routing recommendation, which leads to inconsistent information => involve broadcasters and other service providers from the start and foster a good relationship with them. In some cases, broadcasting companies share databases or have their operators in the TCC.
  • Inconsistent service content of private service providers and road authorities. The cancellation of the incident through private service providers seems to be a problem.
  • Re-routing TMPs: Route navigation systems choose their own alternative route if they receive congestion warning information via RDS-TMC or other means. Authorities have no influence on the route selection criteria of navigation systems. => The recommendation of a navigation system can differ completely from the recommendation given via variable message signs.
  • Re-routing TMPs: Re-routing to highways, bridges or tunnels of different toll operators leads to losses or additional incomes.
  • Re-Routing TMPs: No sufficient capacity on the alternative routes. Road authorities are unwilling to re-reroute on routes or secondary roads with limited capacities and/or limited traffic status. Other measures as information, vehicle storage areas, modal shift or access control have to be considered.
  • Re-routing TMPs: The toll which amounts for the road user has a considerable influence of the route selection, the decision criteria “price” has to be communicated to the road user.
  • Re-routing TMPs: Long-distance travellers, who are unfamiliar with the country and the road network, follow less the re-routing recommendations.
  • Co-modality: The general advice “use public transport”, which is given quite often e.g. on urban variable message signs, does not lead to the desired effect. The main reason for it is lack of a common look and feel of public transport systems in European conurbations. For long-distance freight, rail transfer capacities are sometimes limited in terms of capacity and performance in comparison to road service.

Technical aspects

  • Different display facilities of different systems and different data collection systems and different digital mapping limit the possibilities to give harmonised and comprehensive information.
  • Different systems in TMC and the lack of standardised data interfaces complicate the data transfer between the partners. Also the aspect of financing has to be considered while going for one common system.

Organisational aspects

  • Overlapping incidents and TMPs. => a common pre-definition of prioritization is necessary
  • Traffic releases on the conurbation secondary network imply increasing traffic (and negative effects) on the surrounding highways and vice versa. => Intense planning and coordination process in advance and a trustful strategy activation process on the basis of mutual confidence in event assessment and activation requests is necessary
  • Use of VMS and control measures for local/regional means versus cross-border means. Authorities tend to prioritise the activation of VMS and other control measures towards tackling regional traffic problems => an agreement on the traffic events and thresholds to switch to harmonised cross-border/cross-regional levels is necessary.
  • Evaluation: Knowledge about driver’s behaviour (essential for decision support systems) is still quite small. => Experiences by means of statistical data should be analyzed regularly.
  • Cross-border TMPs: different glossaries (e.g. DRIPs - VMS) and sometimes different categorization of the road network. => A common harmonised glossary and map should be defined in advance.

1.1.4.Conditions for the deployment of this service: operational environment

The deployment of TMPs is recommended for networks, where incidents with grave impacts on traffic flow are expected. The deployment should always be problem-orientated and solution orientated. An affected network has to be defined, but universally valid “suitable” road category cannot be defined.

Thus, every TMP should have its own feasibility study prior to developing the TMP. It has to answer the main questions:

Problem-orientated:

  • Does the spatial expansion, gravity and duration of expected incidents justify such a complex solution (one measure only cannot solve the problem)?
  • Are various stakeholders integrated?
  • Is a cross-border cooperation (TMP as pre-condition) long-distance or conurbation cooperation (TMP recommended) planned?

Solution-orientated:

  • Are the technical and organisational pre-conditions for the TMP given?
  • Are there any current TMP deployed in the region?
  • Are the network pre-conditions suitable?

1.2.European dimension

Efficient use of the main corridors of the Trans European road network as well as cross-border networks requires effective regional and multinational cooperation to develop and operate TMPs. Europe-wide harmonized TMPs seems neither to be realistic nor necessary. For some aspects is even more realistic and practicable to solve differences on TMP-level, although there are some topics which should be harmonised on a European level (see table below).

But a real collaboration between countries is essential. This implies that every country has to define a “single entry point” for multinational cooperation on the operational level, which is a privileged interlocutor for the coordination of the plan. It should be avoided to scale up every single operational problem to the management level.

Aspects that differ from one country to another / Proposed harmonisations / agreement on TMP level / harmonization on European level
Different political, legal, technical and organisational basic conditions, language (even dialects) and cultural differences of partners / Get straight with the self-conception of each other; Determine a common understanding in a LoI or a MoU / x
Different responsibilities inside the organisational structure of each partner / Define a "single entry point" on operational level. Avoid to scale up every single operational problem to the management level. / x
Different wordings for TMP elements / Find common approach for TMP development and expand DATEX II to include traffic management strategies / x
Different glossaries of different countries in a cross-border TMP; / Define a common harmonised glossary and map in advance / x
Different road network categorization
No common standardized data interface / Define standardized data interface / exchange format / x
Different evaluation approaches and measures lead to non-transferable results / Common evaluation approach has to be developed / x
Different technical approaches in the TMCs; different communication systems / No harmonisation recommended as long as system output is harmonised.

1.3.Contribution to EasyWay objectives

The efficiency of a TMP as a whole and its contribution to the Easyway objectives is difficult to judge. Reasons are:

  • The lack of standard TMPs evaluation methodology;
  • The lack of ex-ante evaluations, which record the before-status.
  • No clear distinction between the effect of a TMP and the effect of a specific measure within the TMP.

Nevertheless, TMPs contribute to a faster, more co-ordinated and more efficient application of measures with regard to the network as a whole. The most important benefit of TMPs is on the organisational level with a harmonisation of information and control strategies across regions and borders. Thus, they of course contribute to safety and network efficiency.

Safety

Timely and effective measures in case of major incidents serve to mitigate safety impacts. Quick and consistent traveller information contributes to safety, as warned travellers reduce their speed.

Environmental impact

Reduction of environmental damages due to re-routed vehicles can be estimated, if the additional length of the alternative route is appropriate to the congestion length. A guide value is for one km congestion length not more than 3 km additional length of the alternative route.

Network efficiency

Main benefit in terms of network efficiency is the reduction of delays and travel time through the use of effective and timely control and information measures in case of major incidents. (Up to 82-95% of total benefits were estimated in Germany arose from travel time savings due to co-ordinated re-routing measures).

Within TMPs not only the section of disturbance, but the whole surrounding network (and sometimes even other transport modes) is taken into account. This ensures a more efficient use of existing traffic infrastructure.

Detailed evaluation results of re-routing TMPs are given in the bibliography of examples.

1.4.State-of-the-art

Long-distance TMPs:

A pre-defined and co-ordinated strategic traffic management is a proven concept applied all over Europe, in particular on routes with specific complex demands. The most common initial situations are winter problems, a generally high traffic volume, long-lasting road works, emergencies, typical main routes of holiday traffic, cross-border traffic, a close interrelation between long-distance and regional traffic in conurbations, air pollution problems in conurbation areas.

The initial situations are as manifold as the traffic management measures applied. In the North-West re-routing and traveller information measures outweigh. The reason for it is the dense highway network in this area combined with relatively small states.

In some areas as the Alpine regions, re-routing possibilities are limited due to capacity and environment problems on alternative routes and secondary networks and are only activated in extreme incidents as long duration closures requiring regional and cross-border intervention. The issue is to rapidly respond and manage the incident on a local level before it propagates to a major scale requiring significant re-routing measures.

In South Europe, other main aspects are emergencies and weather problems (snow, floods, etc). Thus, here HGV (storage, driving ban, overtaking ban) play a key role (besides re-routing of cross-border traffic).