TRANSTOOLS

1
TRANS-TOOLS
2
Agenda

• Monday 20th of June
• 1030 Coffee
• 1045 Opening by ISIS (ISIS - Ricardo Enei)
• 1050 State of affairs TRANS-TOOLS (TNO-Arnaud
  Burgess)
• 1105 WP1 Policy and model needs and identify
  model specification Blueprint (TNO-Arnaud
  Burgess)
• 1120 WP2 Implementation of data input
  (TRT-Angelo Martino)
• 1140 First results network and assignment (CTT-
  Otto Anker Nielsen)
• 1205 Modelling SCGE (CAU Johannes Broecker)
• 1220 Modelling Passenger (IWW- Markus Kraft)
• 1240 Modelling Freight (NEA- Philippe
  Tardieu/Ming Chen, TNO-Maaike Snelder)
• 1300 Lunch
• 1400 Discussion Issues (not limitative list)
  Short Distance Traffic SCGE linkage in model
  Assignment routines
• 1530 Break
• 1600 Discussion Issues, Continued, Logistics
  New modelling demands (airline industry,
  reliability, others??) Technology Implementation
  Plan, Relation with the Commission and Eurostat,
  And what after TRANS-TOOLS?
• 1800 Closing 1st day Conclusions

3
Agenda

• Tuesday 21st of June
• 0930 Managerial aspects TRANS-TOOLS (TNO
  Arnaud Burgess)
• 1010 Conclusion previous day (All)
• 1030 WP3 Model development and calibration
  freight (NEA- Ming Chen/ Philippe Tardieu)
• 1130 WP3 Model development and calibration
  passenger (IWW-Eckhard Szimba/Markus Kraft)
• 1230 Lunch
• 1330 WP4 Construct common model software
  implementation tool (CTT-Otto Anker Nielsen)
• 1450 WP5 Scenarios and application (TNO- Arnaud
  Burgess)
• 1500 Planning of activities/meeting schedule
  (TNO)
• 1515 Activities for the next period (to do list)
  (TNO)
• 1530 Closing meeting

4
TRANS-TOOLS activities

• The kick-off of the project was held on Monday
  18th October 2004 in Delft, the Netherlands. This
  was the moment for starting WP1. The website was
  opened at the kick off meeting. Also the
  information leaflet containing a public friendly
  description was presented at the kick-off
  meeting.
• Two meetings with the Commission were held on the
  26th of October and 13th of December, important
  one scenario is fixed of WP5.
• An FTP site is maintained at TNO for exchanging
  data within the project.
• A project meeting has been held on 20th and 21st
  of January 2005 in Copenhagen.
• The website was updated after the Copenhagen
  meeting, presentations of this meeting were put
  on the website.
• On the 31st of January the first Deliverable D1
  was submitted to the Commission.
• After finishing D1, the WP2 was immediately
  started, aiming at delivering D2 end of May.
• On the 10th of February a presentation was given
  at the TRANS-FORUM project in Antwerpen, Belgium.
  
• On the 17th of March 2005 a presentation was
  given for the PLATOS modelling conference in Den
  Bosch, the Netherlands.
• In January to March several bilateral and
  trilateral meetings were held in order to solve
  the problems concerning networks and modelling at
  TNO office and NEA office.
• D2 was submitted on 31st of May.
• This Interim progress report was finally written.
• All deliverables are accepted, except information
  leaflet

5
Administrative and other issues
6
Administrative and other issues
7
TRANSFORUM

• TRANS-TOOLS should be more explicit about
  different ways of dealing with short and long
  distance transport. The current development of
  the model foresees in three motives of journey,
  long and short distance traffic. The question is
  if the number of purposes is sufficient. e.g.,
  should we not include commuter traffic in the
  TRANS-TOOLS model? (comment Hugh Gunn)
• The introduction of Low Cost Carriers in the
  airline industry has changed costs of travelling
  considerably. Are these changes in costs included
  in the TRANS-TOOLS model? This was discussed
  during a recent meeting of the TRANS-TOOLS
  consortium. It is difficult to develop a model
  that simulates industrial behaviour in advance.
  However, the effects of Low Cost Carriers on
  prices and travel times could be included in the
  model (comment Wim Korver).
• The LoS might be difficult to include with the
  defined time periods. This is possible on
  regional and national level as is shown in the
  UK, but on European level it might be difficult
  to work out.(remark by mr Tom Worsley)
• The policy needs of the TRANS TOOLS model need to
  be identified, the deliverable D1 of TRANS TOOLS
  will be evaluated on this aspect. (Marion
  LeLouarn).
• Is reliability of travel times, a research line,
  that recently is started, is growing in interest,
  included in TRANS-TOOLS? Including reliability in
  the model could be difficult according to mr Wim
  Korver the advice of TRANSFORUM was to pay
  attention to this topic as it is becoming more
  important rapidly.

8
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

• Comments WP1
• As feedback at the first Transforum seminar in
  which the Trans-Tools approach was presented, the
  project needs to show a clearer user-orientation
  and transparency (so as not to be inward-looking
  or appear like a "black box").
• In particular in Deliverable D1 the policy
  requirements needs to be presented in a more
  user-oriented-way, with a clearer distinction
  between these needs on the one hand, and the
  constraints which are due either to the specific
  approach used in the project, to missing data, or
  to the effort and time limitations of the project
  on the other hand.
• Also more details are needed on policy objectives
  and uses at EU, National but also regional or
  local level, as well as the specificities of the
  "new Member States (which should be included
  together with those of other EU member states,
  rather than presented separately). Finally,
  justification of the policy elements retained or
  not retained is needed.

9
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

• Comments WP2
• This detailed, clear and well-documented report
  provides a good view of many of the challenges
  which the project is faced with in this area.
• Note however that key issues regarding
  validation, dissemination and exploitation
  strategies (including Intellectual Property
  Rights) in terms of data availability/updates/impr
  ovements (e.g. at national or regional level, or
  vis-à-vis Eurostat) will need to be addressed
  explicitly in parallel, as part of the Technology
  Implementation Plan investigation and report.
• Please note that regarding exploitation by
  EUROSTAT of the CISCO improvements made by
  Trans-Tools, the contact person in Unit B1 is Mr
  Andreas Nägele (andreas.naegele_at_cec.eu.int).

10
PLATOS

• Comments
• TRANS-TOOLS was presented in a separate session
  on European modelling together with ETIS-BASE and
  SUMMA projects. Especially the IPR free elements
  of ETIS BASE and TRANS-TOOLS were welcomed by the
  Dutch audience. The fact that Commission now sets
  the networks and data matrices in the public
  domain together with a modelling tool was highly
  appreciated

11
TRANS-TOOLS Goals
12
TRANS-TOOLS Goals

• Clear innovations obtained from TRANS-TOOLS
• Intermodality for passenger/freight (as National
  and European transport policies seek to promote
  intermodality through different measures).
• Inclusion of intercontinental flows (mainly for
  freight), as some models do not cover this
  segment.
• Full coverage of Central and Eastern Europe
  (Accession Countries and the countries at the
  borders of the enlarged European Union).
• Integration of the new Member States at a level
  similar to those of EU 15.
• Feedback infrastructure development-economy (as
  the question of indirect effects in the economy
  and on network level is important, especially
  where investment has a substantial influence -
  notably for the Accession Countries).
• Logistics/freight chain explicitly included.
• Coupling method with local traffic in order to
  address the effect of congestion on long-distance
  traffic.
• A software approach is chosen which results in a
  software modelling tool on network level

13
TRANS-TOOLS Goals

• Indentified shortcomings in modelling
• No satisfactory representation of the mix of
  traffic on network (short/long distance and
  freight/passenger).
• Intermodality, as well as transport chains as
  standard load units (in case of freight), and
  logistics not well (or partly) covered in models.
• Differences in implementation of OD base year for
  freight traffic in some models, this leads to
  non-acceptance by member states
• Forecasting procedures do not capture important
  features as acknowledged by policy makers
  (notably the reaction of the economy on transport
  initiatives, captured in indirect network
  effects) Fixed origin destination matrices are
  to some extent a problem, one expects in the long
  run an adaptation in economic behaviour due to
  changed accessibility.
• Some models are not updated and use still
  outdated base year data and do not cover all new
  accession countries to a sufficient degree. Some
  models have limited network representation
  especially in new member states and the candidate
  countries.
• No sufficient linkage of network based transport
  models with socio economic effects
  (accessibility) and external effects exists at
  moment

14
TRANS-TOOLS Blueprint
15
TRANS-TOOLS Blueprint

• "policy levers" of the TRANS-TOOLS model
• costs and travel times, i.e. for each measure you
  want to evaluate you would need an estimate of
  its impact on costs and time and then with that
  information you would get the impacts on traffic,
  environment and economic activity
• logistics parameters (besides transport, also
  inventory and warehouse costs)
• Socio-economic (GDP, population, employment, car
  ownership)
• parameter changes (structural model parameters,
  emissions)
• network changes

16
TRANS-TOOLS Test run June 05

• Network established
• Road (NEA ? CTT)
• Rail (IWW ? CTT)
• IWW (CTT)
• Maritime (TNO ? CTT)
• Air (IWW ? CTT)
• Feeding points passenger/freight (IWW ? CTT)
• Freight executable
• Data 2000 (NEA? CTT)
• Production/attraction trade model (NEA? CTT)
• Modal split (NEA? CTT)
• Nuts 2 unimodal freight tonnes/vehicles (NEA?
  CTT)
• Converting freight into NUTS 3 (CTT)

17
TRANS-TOOLS Test run June 05

• Passenger executable
• Data 2000 (IWW ? CTT)
• Production/attraction model (IWW ? CTT)
• Modal split (IWW ? CTT)
• Nuts 3 unimodal passenger/vehicles(IWW ? CTT)
• Network assignment
• Speed flow function implementation (IWW ? CTT)
• Cost functions for freight (NEA/TNO ? CTT)
• Cost functions for passenger (IWW ? CTT)
• Testing assignment (with matrices baseyear)
  (CTT)
• Testing assignment with freight and passenger
  executable (CTT)

18
TRANS-TOOLS Test run June 05
19
TRANS-TOOLS Policy analysis shortcommings

• Full coverage of all EU countries. Existing
  models already cover the traditional EU-15 member
  states for the greater part, but data on the
  required transport performance in new Member
  States are hardly included.
• Explicit link between economic and transport
  models. The existing models do not yet directly
  link transport developments nor incentives to
  economic effects. Vice versa, economic
  developments and incentives are commonly linked
  to transport effects in a rather general manner.
  Hence, the interrelationships between economic
  and transport models are not yet fully included
  in the contemporary models.
• Inclusion of LoS (Level of Service). How to come
  from yearly observed values to AADT and a measure
  of quality of service? In current models are
  constructed on the basis of yearly values (i.e.
  the yearly volume of tonnes, passengers, vehicles
  between origin and destination or on a link),
  however congestion does have a time component
  (per day per season).

20
TRANS-TOOLS Policy analysis shortcommings

• 4. Appropriate zoning system. Some existing
  models work at too coarse spatial level and
  therefore traffic assignment results are not
  always enough accurate. Still keeping a different
  zoning systems for freight (NUTS 2) and
  passengers (NUTS 3) for trip distribution and
  modal split (essentially due to difficulties in
  the data availability and statistics gaps for
  goods movements), it is important at least to
  have an homogenous detailed assignment at NUTS 3
  level which allows the inclusion of elements of
  local traffic.
• 5. Freight intermodality and logistics is covered
  to some extent in current models. Logistics is
  previously implemented in SMILE and in SCENES, on
  European scale the implementation is necessary,
  since it is one of the drivers of transport
  growth (see annex). However it is in SCENES never
  calibrated. is not yet tested. In passenger
  transport intermodality is covered to a better
  extent than freight in existing models. The
  present set of European models provide sufficient
  details for motive of journey and commodity
  classification which can be used for a market
  segmentation.
• 6. Use of recent data. European transport models
  should be based on most recent data. The best
  harmonised available data comes from ETIS-BASE,
  for the year 2000 data are available for
  passenger and for freight. An integrated model
  should use this information. For freight it is
  important that intercontinental freight flows are
  included since these are a determining factor in
  European freight flows.