Cost-benefit analysis on composite traffic in the Helsinki Metropolitan area

From Opasnet
Revision as of 20:55, 17 February 2010 by Jouni (talk | contribs) (Added category: 'Helsinki')
Jump to: navigation, search


Cost-benefit analysis on composite traffic in the Helsinki Metropolitan area estimates the health and other impacts of composite traffic, a hypothetical large-scale demand-responsive public transportation system that is managed using 4-8-seat vehicles. The model for this assessment is Composite traffic.ANA (run on Analytica).

Scope

Purpose

The purpose is to estimate the impacts of composite traffic compared with private cars. The assessment is based on a previously published study[1], which is extended in this assessment to include also current public transportation (metro, buses, trams).

Boundaries

  • Location: Helsinki Metropolitan area (ca. 1 million inhabitants).
  • Time: Five years in the future (no major changes in infrastructure, but enough time to have a major change in transport habits).
  • Time resolution: The impacts are assessed during one working day (24 h), with ca. 12 min time resolution.
  • All motorized trips within the area are included; trips to or from outside the area are excluded, as well as walking and cycling trips.

Scenarios

Intended users

  • Decision-makers in the Helsinki Metropolitan area
  • Citizens in the Helsinki Metropolitan area
  • Non-governmental organisations interested in promoting less-energy-intensive transportation modes
  • Companies working on logistics or mobile services for citizens.

Participants

  • Researchers in KTL
  • Researchers in HUT?
  • Researchers in Garnegie-Mellon West University?
  • Anyone interested

Definition

Decision variables

Indicators

Other variables

Analyses

  • Cost-benefit analysis from a) societal b) passenger point of view
  • Value-of-information analysis about all uncertain variables based on the cost-benefit analyses

Indices

  • Length of trip
  • Zone
  • Vehicle type
  • Time period
  • Scenario1.0
  • Output
  • To and From (129 smaller areas within the whole area)
  • Time (12 min intervals from 0:00 to 24:00)
  • Composite fraction
  • Guarantee level
  • Large guarantee?
  • No-change fraction
  • Flexible fraction

Result

Results

Conclusions

References

  1. Tuomisto and Tainio, 2005 [1]