qualitative assessment of traffic management measures, anil minhans

1

METHODOLOGY OF QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFICMANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR DISASTERS

Abstract

This paper presents the methodology of qualitative assessment conducted on pre-selected 27traffic management (TM) measures that are applicable to disasters. The methodology of theassessment includes: (i) estimation of relative weight of importance of traffic management factorsusing AHP (analytic hierarchy process) technique, (ii) self-assessment and rating of measuresbased on effectiveness and difficulty scales, (iii) determination of priority classes of measuresbased on qualitative assessment model which provided the first and second recommendedmeasures, and (iv) determination of residual measures signifying low applicability. The qualitativeassessment model provided a framework to assess the effectiveness and difficulty of measures.Such an assessment is useful in the decision-making process for the selection of measures andtheir improvement of applicability. The results indicated that all selected measures qualified fortheir effectiveness and seven measures disqualified for their applicability.

Keywords

Traffic Management Measures, Disaster Management, Qualitative Assessment Model, AnalyticHierarchy Process, Effectiveness and Applicability of Traffic Management Measures.

Dr.-Ing. Anil Minhas *

* Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia e-mail:[email protected]

I U TJOURNAL

Dec. 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

An important part of the planningprocess is the assessment ofmeasures prior to their inclusion in thefinal set of applicable measures. Wherefield studies are more resource-intensive and unfeasible in many cases,qualitative assessment methods areincreasingly being considered suitablefor decision-making purposes.

Furthermore, these methods are evenmore acceptable and dependablewhere experts from the same fields areinvolved. In this study, a total of 30experts in the field of traffic engineeringand transport planning from Germany,India, Japan and Vietnam were involvedto provide their opinion on trafficmanagement goals, objectives (factorsand criteria of assessment) andmeasures for disasters (3).

2

Urban Transport Journal December 2010

This paper consists of two broadsections, one section deals with thebrief introduction of traffic managementmeasures in cases of disasters, andthe other section deals with thequalitative assessment of the selectedmeasures. Although, the full descriptionof traffic management measures isbeyond the scope of this paper, they arediscussed and described based upontheir specific requirements toimplementation.

In the section of qualitativeassessment, two broad qualitativeassessments are performed andexplained in this paper. The firstqualitative assessment is aimed atobtaining the relative weights ofimportance provided by the expertsregarding the importance given to trafficmanagement factors and theirdescendent criteria (goals andobjectives) in cases of disasters. Thesecond qualitative assessment is aself-conducted assessment ofindividual measures based upon theeffectiveness of measures and difficultyof implementation of measures.Although the assessment performed onmeasures is entirely based on thequalitative data yet the possiblequantitative indicators wereserendipitously identified which couldbe useful in other studies to indicate thefulfillment of the criteria of traffic

management factors when available.

Finally, the qualitative assessmentmodel is developed which uses resultsof both the assessments and provideseffectiveness and difficulty scores.These scores are later used to form sixpriority classes of traffic managementmeasures based on high, medium orlow levels of effectiveness and difficulty.The inferences derived from theassessment results are alsodiscussed.

2.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTMEASURES

A total of 27 traffic managementmeasures are pre-selected forassessment which bears the potentialfor effective application in themanagement of disasters. During theselection of measures, literature wasextensively reviewed and only thosemeasures with previously documentedeffectiveness in disaster situations wereselected. Although the selectedmeasures were proven effective inmany disasters yet the measures arelater evaluated for their effectivenessand applicability based upon thequalitative assessment model. Onlythose traffic management measuresthat conformed to the disasterresponse and disaster recovery areselected. These include 8 public

3

Methodology of Qualitative Assessment of Traffic Management Measures for Disasters

transport measures1, 2 non-motorisedtransport measures2, 4 individualmotorised transport measures3,10 multi-modal and inter-modaltransport measures (MIM)4 and a totalof 3 freight transport measures (FT)5.Subsequently, these measures areranked based on their effectiveness andapplicability for disaster situations. Inorder to avoid false interpretation andfacilitate understanding about theexpectation from traffic managementmeasures especially for disaster cases,these were classified based uponnecessary five categories ofrequirements of implementation.

These five categories ofrequirements are: (i) administrative andorganisational requirements,(ii) economic requirements,(iii) technical and operationalrequirements, (iv) informationrequirements, and (v) infrastructurerequirements (Table 1).

1 Public transport (PT) measures are aimed at patronising the use of public transport and its associated services. Theimplementation of public transport measures are advocated in urban situations which experience a high use of IMT modes anda heterogeneous mix of traffic.

2. Non-motorised transport (NMT) measures are aimed at the provision of adequate right-of-way for such non-motorisedtransport modes as bicycles and pedestrians. The NMT measures include the provision of adequate facilities and the safeenvironment for the operations of both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Such measures are implemented to harness thepotential of cycling and walking to limit the use of individual motorised transport modes for short trips.

3. Individual motorised transport (IMT) measures are aimed at improving the traffic flow conditions and efficiency of privatetransport. Thus, the IMT measures improve traffic safety, transport economy and transport environment.

4. Inter-modal transport measures are aimed at the provision and organisation of inter-modal facilities especially the parking andtransfer points for the purpose of promoting the use of high capacity or high occupancy transport modes (PT and IMT). Multi-modal transport measures are aimed at the improvement of the traffic flow conditions by the multiple modes by a singleapplication of measure. This category includes measures such as application of green-wave for all road transport modes andpre-emption of traffic using traffic signal control. For the purposes of this study, both inter-modal and multi-modal transportmeasures (MIM) are combined to form a single category of measures.

5. Freight transport (FT) measures are mostly aimed at minimising the conflicts between FT and other modes. This category alsoinvolves the use of available capacities of FT modes by coordinating different FT operators. In addition, the measures thatreduce the environmental impacts of freight transport are also covered in this category.

Thus, the measures can be classifiedbased on the categories ofrequirements of resources. Theresultant categories of TM measuresare administrative and organisationalmeasures, economic measures,technical and operational measures,and information measures. In general,the administrative and organisationalmeasures are focused on ensuring theenforcement of laws and regulation.This category includes organisationalmeasures that improve the publicacceptance and institutionalparticipation. The economic measuresare focused on providing economicincentives or disincentives to control theuses of particular transport modes. Thetechnical and operational measures arefocused on implementing appropriatetraffic control or traffic informationdissemination to influence the trafficflow, road users or traffic and transportprocesses. This category includestraffic engineering measures.

4

Table 1: Classification of traffic management measures by requirements

PT Public Transport Measures1 Public Transport Network Improvement2 Public Transport Scheduling Improvement3 Public Transport Accessibility Improvement X4 Public Transport Capacity Improvement5 Special Disaster Transport Services X6 Public Transport Right-of-Way Prioritisation X7 Public Transport Information Services8 Public Transport Management Centre X

NMT Non-Motorised Transport Measures1 Establishment of Pedestrian routes & Facilities2 Establishment of Bicycle routes & Facilities

IMT Individual Motorised Vehicle Measures1 Carpooling & other Ride Sharing Programs X X2 Car Rental Services X X3 Automobile Roadway Repair Service X4 Special Traffic Rules Enforcement X

MIM Multi-modal and Inter-modal Transport Measures1 Economic or Preferential Incentives X X2 Trip reduction & Land-use Modification Ordinances X3 Road Network Control4 Road Section Control 5 Improvement of Signalised Traffic Control6 Improvement of Non-signalised Traffic Control7 Improvement of Inter-modal and Parking Facilities

Adm

inis

trativ

e re

quire

men

ts

Econ

omic

al re

quire

men

ts

Title of Traffic Management MeasureRequirements of Traffic

Management Measure


5

Information measures are focused onchanging the travel decisions of roadusers such as time of travel, mode oftravel, route of travel, destination oftravel and travel speeds through thedissemination of pre-trip or on-trip trafficinformation. These measures arefurther clarified by the aim of themeasure, the intended impacts of themeasures, mechanisms involved in themeasure implementation and therequired devices for the measureimplementation.

3.0 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTOF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTMEASURES

The qualitative assessment ofmeasures involves two estimations; thefirst estimation of relative weights ofimportance of a total of 8 trafficmanagement assessment factors(4 factors each for effectiveness anddifficulty assessment) and theircorresponding criteria. These relativeweights of factors are obtained from thetraffic experts by conducting an expert-opinion survey. Four effectivenessassessment factors selected for theeffectiveness assessment ofmeasures are: (i) transport accessibilityand mobility; (ii) transport safety andsecurity; (iii) transport economy and(iv) transport environment.

These factors directly reflect thenecessary goals and objectives of trafficmanagement in disasters. The

descendent criteria of effectivenessassessment for each effectivenessassessment factor are given in Table3. This assessment recognizes the factthat effectiveness of measures does notdirectly relate to applicability ofmeasures. Therefore, all measureshave to undergo a difficulty assessmentto confirm the applicability of measuresin the local environment. It is importantto note here that the applicability is thereciprocal of difficulty. Four difficultyassessment factors selected for thedifficulty assessment of measures are:(i) transport costs (affordability); (ii)technical systems; (iii) institutionalparticipation and (iv) public acceptance.Likewise, the descendent criteria ofdifficulty assessment factors undereach difficulty assessment factor aregiven in Table 4.

A questionnaire containing twenty-threequestions in three parts is composed.The first part provides the personalinformation of the traffic expert. Thesecond part of the questionnaire isaimed at obtaining both the subjectiveopinions on the importance of trafficmanagement factors and theircorresponding descendent criteria ofassessment in cases of disasters.Similarly, the third part of thequestionnaire is aimed at obtaining thesubjective opinions on difficulty ofimplementation of measures based onfour difficulty factors given above. Relativefactor weights are likewise obtained for


6

the criteria of difficulty assessment.

The obtained opinions are thenanalysed using an analytic hierarchyprocess (AHP) technique for thecalculation of final relative weights ofimportance in percentages (see Table3 and Table 4) (5) (6). The obtainedrelative weights of importance are thenfixed for the further analyses.

The second estimation involved a self-conducted assessment of 27 pre-selected TM measures. This estimationinvolves ratings based on the fulfilmentof criteria of assessment for botheffectiveness and difficulty. Four ratingscales from 0 to 3 are used to denotethe effectiveness and difficulty ofmeasures based on the givendescription of a measure (e.g. Table 6).

Finally, effectiveness and difficultyscores are calculated by using theformulae given in the next sections(Formula 1 and Formula 2). Theobtained scores from effectiveness anddifficulty assessment are reviewed andpriority classes are formed by assigningrules. Six priority classes thus formedindicate varying levels of effectivenessand difficulties. The first priority classincludes measures with besteffectiveness scores (ES> 2.0) andleast difficulty scores (DS < 1.5). Anavailability of a catalog of measuresbased on the given assessment is adecision-making support to thestakeholders of disaster management

including traffic management. In thefollowing sections both the estimationsare explained.

4.0 FIRST ESTIMATION:ESTIMATION OF RELATIVEWEIGHTS OF IMPORTANCE

The calculated weights of importanceindicate the importance of the factorsand emphasises their contribution in thesuccess of traffic management indisasters. The relative weights ofimportance are calculated inpercentages using a mathematicaltechnique called Analytic HierarchyProcess. The AHP is a widely usedtechnique for multi-criteria decisionanalysis.

This technique enables people to makedecisions which involve multipleconcerns of planning, setting priorities,selecting the best among a number ofalternatives and allocating resources(5) (6).

The AHP technique has been employedin this study to obtain weights ofimportance based on the intuitivejudgments of traffic experts. Thistechnique involves a pair-wisecomparison of different alternatives,which are traffic management factorsand criteria of assessment in this study.Although AHP technique can use threeapproaches for specifying pair-wisecomparison which are: numerical,graphical and verbal mediated; thenumerical technique is employed due


7

to the limitations of the study. For anumerical approach the participant ofthe interview (in this study a trafficexpert) answered each question with anumber, for example, a number 2.5 isassigned when "attribute x (factor x1)is extremely important or desirablewhen compared to attribute y (factorx2)". Four-point numerical scales areused with 0.5 scale interval between thescales elements to present variations(see Table 2).

Table 2: Numerical scale for pair-wise comparison

Statements Numerical ScaleEqual importance of attribute/Equal desirability of alternatives 1Moderate importance of one attribute over another/Moderate 1.5desirability of one alternative over anotherSignificant importance of one attribute over another/Strong 2desirability of one alternative over anotherExtreme importance of one attribute over another/Very strong 2.5desirability of one alternative over another

The pair-wise comparison of trafficmanagement factors of assessment isexamined individually to determine therelative weights of importance inpercentage for each traffic expert. Thefinal weights of importance of each TMfactor and corresponding criteria ofassessment are estimated bycalculating the geometric mean of thepercentages of individual weights ofimportance of all selected traffic experts(4). The geometric mean is defined asthe nth root of the product of n values.The geometric mean is useful in findingthe average of percentages, ratios,indexes, or growth rates (1) (4).

The AHP technique is used only forestimating the relative weights ofimportance traffic management factorsand criteria for the assessment. In thenext estimation the TM measures are notcompared, however the effectiveness aswell as the difficulty of a measure is basedon the description of level-of-effectivenessand level-of difficulty.

The result of the analysis of relativeweights of importance for effectiveness

factors indicates the following: (i) thetransport accessibility and mobilityfactor is rated as the most importantfactor which has a relative weight of38%; (ii) the transport safety andsecurity factor is rated as the secondimportant factor which has a relativeweight of 30%; (iii) the transporteconomy factor is rated as the thirdimportant factor which has a relativeweight of 19%, and (iv) the transportenvironment factor is rated as the fourthimportant factor which has a relativeweight of 13% respectively.

Similarly, the result of the analysis of


8

relative weights of importance fordifficulty factors indicates the following:(i) the requirement of transport costsinvolved in measure implementation israted as the most difficult factor with arelative weight of 31%; (ii) therequirement of technical systems in theTM measure implementation is rankedsecond in difficulty with a relative weightof 27%; (iii) the requirement ofinstitutional participation in the TMimplementation is ranked third in difficultywith a relative weight of 24%, and (iv)the requirement of public acceptance isranked fourth and least in difficulty witha relative weight of 18% respectively.

The relative weights of importance ofTM factors and criteria based on TM

effectiveness and difficulty assessmentfactors are given in the Table 3 andTable 4. The resultant weights ofcriteria are the relative percentages ofimportance obtained when all TMfactors are considered.

The adopted qualitative rating scalesranges from 0 to 3, in the increasingorder of level of effectiveness ordifficulties in fulfilment of various criteriaof assessment. Thus, a measure whichhas a highest level of effectiveness tomeet a given criteria of assessment israted as 3 and similarly, a measurewhich has a highest level ofimplementation difficulties (lowapplicability) based on the criteria ofassessment is rated as 3.

Figure 1: A sample of expert-opinion survey


9

Table 3: Relative weights of TM effectiveness factors and criteria of assessment

Promotion of equity transport 28% 10.6%Increase of number of routes 23% 8.7%Increase of number of modes 22% 8.4%Increase of transport capacity 27% 10.3%Reduction of response time of traffic andother accidents 33% 9.9%Reduction of number of traffic and otheraccidents 38% 11.4%Reduction of severity of traffic and otheraccidents 29% 8.7%Reduction of total transport costs 49% 9.3%Maximisation of transport efficiency 51% 9.7%Minimisation of consumption of energy resources 38% 4.9%Reduction of air pollution 36% 4.7%Reduction of noise pollution 26% 3.4%

TM effictivenessassessment factors

Factorweights

Criteria of assessment(TM objectives)

Criteriaweights

Resultantweights of criteria

Transport of Accessibityand Mobility

38%

Transport Safety andSecurity

30%

Transport Economy 19%

Transport Environment 13%

Table 4: Relative weights of TM difficulty factors and criteria of assessment

Total investment costs involved for measureimplementation 57% 17.7%Total operation costs involved for measureimplementation 43% 13.3%Total operation & control systemsinvolved for measure implementation 60% 16.2%Total information systems involved for measureimplementation 40% 10.8%Involvement of transport related institutuionsfor measure implementation 41% 9.8%Involvement of political bodies for measureimplementation 59% 14.2%Acceptance of transport users formeasure implementation 47% 8.5%Acceptance of non-transport users for measureimplementation 53% 9.5%

TM effictivenessassessment factors

Factorweights

Criteria of assessment(TM objectives)

Criteriaweights

Resultantweights of criteria

Required transportcosts

31%

Required technicalsystems

27%

Required institutionalparticipation

24%

Required publicacceptance 18%


10

All 27 measures are assessed for 12criteria of assessment related toeffectiveness of measures in fulfillingthe factors of assessment. Similarly, 8criteria of assessment related todifficulty of measures (indicatesapplicability) are included in themeasure assessment. The 12 criteriawere based on factors of transportaccessibility and mobility (2 criteria),transport safety and security (3 criteria),transport economy (2 criteria) andtransport environment (3 criteria).Similarly, another 8 criteria of difficultyassessment of measures are based onthe transport costs (2 criteria), technicalsystems (2 criteria), institutionalparticipation (2 criteria) and publicacceptance (2 criteria).

Table 5 shows the complete TMassessment modules, factors ofassessment, criteria of assessmentand possible indicators of assessment.The following sections describe thecriteria of assessment under eachtraffic management factor.

5.0 SECOND ESTIMATION :ESTIMATION OFEFFECTIVENESS ANDDIFFICULTY OF TRAFFICMANAGEMENT MEASURES

EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENTCRITERIA

The level-of-effectiveness of a measuredepends on the adoption of various

approaches in the implementation ofTM measures in disasters. Eachmeasure is evaluated based on itseffectiveness in providing equity,increasing the number of transportroute options, increasing the number oftransport mode options and increasingthe overall capacity of the transportsystem. The Table 6 providesassigned scales based on descriptionof TM measures those fulfil transportaccessibility and mobility criteria as anexample. The similar descriptions weremade for other criteria. Under transportsecurity criteria, each measure isevaluated based on its effectiveness inreducing the response time ofaccidents, reducing the frequency ofaccidents and reducing the fatality oftraffic accidents in cases of disasters.Economy of transport operations duringdisasters is evaluated based on itseffectiveness in reducing the totaltransport costs and maximising theeconomic efficiency of existingtransport systems. Where reduction oftotal transport costs involves theapproach of reducing the total trips,maximisation of the economicefficiency involves mostly optimisationof existing transport services without tripreduction approach. Also, eachmeasure is evaluated based on itseffectiveness in reducing theconsumption of energy resources,reducing the air pollution and the noisepollution related to transport. Thereduction of consumption of energy in


11

Table 5 : Traffic management assessment modules, factors, criteria and possible indicators


12

Table 6 : Description of LOE scale (Transport Accessibility and Mobility)


13

transport is mainly associated with theconsumption of fossil-fuels. Thereduction of air pollution is mainlyrelated to the air emissions due to fossil-fuel transport. The reduction of noisepollution is related to operation of bothfossil-fuel based and non-fossil fuelbased transport modes.

While rating measures on level-ofeffectiveness (LOE) scales, besidesthe main consideration of direct criteriafulfilment of a TM measure, severalother considerations are made by theparticipants. These considerations arethat the scale varies in the increasingorder of possible impact of measure i.e.low scale (LOE 1) is assigned for lowimpact of measures and high scale isassigned for high impact of measures(LOE 3). Directness and scale ofapplication of measure in fulfillment ofcriteria is also considered, i.e. low scaleis assigned when indirect promotion ofuse of given transport mode, minortraffic shift, minor traffic avoidance andminor traffic control are observed.Similarly, where use of complimentarymeasures is observed, low scales areassigned. Measures that involved highcost of implementation and high fuelconsumption were rated low.

DIFFICULTY ASSESSMENTCRITERIA

Similar to the above explained level-of-effectiveness scales; level-of-difficultyscales (LOD) are developed. The LOD

scales are assigned to eight difficultycriteria, which indicated thecorresponding difficulties ofimplementation of TM measures.

The cost of the implementation of TMmeasures is one of many factors toestimate the applicability of a measure.Many measures that even satisfy mosteffectiveness and other applicabilitycriteria may not be selected due to thehigh costs involved in theirimplementation. The transport costsdifficulty criteria include: (i) theinvestment costs and (ii) the operationand maintenance costs. Theinvestment costs mainly consist of costof equipments, planning and designcost, and procurement cost oftechnology among other costs. Theoperation and maintenance costsmainly consist of staff cost, cost oftraffic control, preparation and closingof traffic operation among other costs.Therefore, if these given costs are high,the selection of a measure forimplementation is difficult. The low costmeasures are considered favourablemeasures in the practice of trafficmanagement.

In some disasters, the use of advancetechnical systems is often questionabledue to limitations of applications e.g.unavailability of power andcommunications. The trafficmanagement measures which requirethe technical systems for trafficoperations in both urban and regional


14

areas are often more difficult. Theinvestigation on difficulties faced duringdisasters suggests the operationsbased on multiple forms of trafficsystems and traffic technology. One ofthe main requirements of trafficmanagement in disasters is the use oftechnical systems that are adaptive toconventional technology that aid thetraffic management even during failuresof power and communication.Assessment of difficulty with respect totechnical systems difficulty criteriainclude: (i) the traffic operation andcontrol systems, and (ii) the trafficinformation systems. Some of theconsiderations to assess the difficultyof a measure are: (i) the compatibilityof traffic systems with the conventionalsystems (ii) the scale of modificationor implementation of traffic systems,and (iii) the type of modification orimplementation of traffic systems forthe TM measures in disasters.

In order to select and implement themeasures, institutional participation isone important pre-requisite for effectivedecision making, information sharingand dissemination, avoiding duplicationand concentration of activities,understanding the impacts of disasteron transport system, and finally theapproval of measures for theimplementation. Often it is observedthat involvement of variousstakeholders of traffic and disaster

management is almost non-existentdue to overlapping roles and lack of fullyfunctional organisation structure. Thisis detrimental to the effectivemanagement of disasters. Thus, in thisstudy, the institutional participationdifficulty criteria for the measureimplementation include both theinvolvement of political bodies andtransport related institutions.

Some factors used to assess thedifficulty of a measure are: (i) the levelof institutional participation (national,state or city level involvement), and(ii) intensity of institutional participation(major, moderate or low involvement)for the TM measures in disasters. Theinvestigation on difficulties ofimplementation of measures suggests:(i) better relationships with disastermanagement and traffic managementstakeholders, (ii) inclusion of trafficmanagement in pro-active and re-activephases of disaster managementplanning, and (iii) a coordinated trainingwith all potential stakeholders of disasterand traffic management. Thus, theassessment of difficulty is based ondifficulty of institutional participation oftransport-related and politicalinstitutions.

The success of any TM measuredepends largely on the publicacceptance. Therefore, TM measuresshould intend to win the confidence ofboth the transport users and non-


15

transport users by enhancing thecredibility of the administration throughcoordinated efforts of various publicagencies involved in trafficmanagement. The transport user groupconsists of people using any mode oftransport (pedestrians, bicyclists anddrivers). Conversely, non-transport usergroup consists of people who do notuse any mode of transport but suchgroups are indirectly influenced by theuse of transport (transport operators,vehicle manufacturer and affectedresidents).

Some of the factors used to assess thedifficulty of a measure related totransport users are: (i) the introductionof new transport processes(production, distribution andconsumption processes), (ii) new trafficrules (traffic access restrictions onsize, time and locations), (iii) changesin the travel behaviour (limited mobility),and (iv) additional costs borne by thetransport users. Similarly, some factorsto assess the difficulty of a measurerelated to non-transport users are: (i)the introduction of new transportprocesses (freight distribution), (ii) useof alternate vehicle technology (highcosts of vehicle and a fewer buyers),(iii) degradation of quality of living (noisepollution, air pollution and land usemodification), and (iv) additional costs.

While rating measures on LOD scales,besides the main considerations of

criteria fulfilment of a TM measure,several other considerations are made.These considerations are that lowscales are assigned for low impact ofmeasure, indirect fulfillment of criteria,low scale of application, use ofcomplimentary measure, indirectpromotion of the use of given transport,minor effect on traffic shift/avoidance/control, high cost of implementation andhigh fuel consumption. Also low scaleswere assigned for measures thatrequire high fuel consumption andpromote low safety.

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTMODEL

The qualitative assessment model isdeveloped to calculate the finaleffectiveness and applicability scoresof the selected twenty-seven TMmeasures. The formula used tocalculate the effectiveness and difficultyscore of a TM measure is given inFormula 1 and Formula 2.

The formula used to calculate theeffectiveness and difficulty scoreconsiders the three different valueswhich are: (i) the relative weight ofimportant of TM factor (Wtmf), (ii) therelative weight of importance of TMcriteria of assessment (WC) and (iii)the self-conducted assessment ratingof the measure (LOE or LOD).


16

Formula 1: Calculation of effectiveness score of a TM measure

where:

ESij = Effectiveness score of the TM measure ‘j’, under TM factor ‘i’,

Wtmfm = Weight of traffic management factor ‘m’ where m=1 to 4

WCmn = Weight of criteria of assessment ‘n’, under traffic management factor ‘m’

LOEmn = Level of effectiveness of measure ‘j’ in category ‘i’ on criteria of assessment‘n’ under traffic management factor ‘m’

N(m) = Number of n; depending on m

Similarly, the formula used to calculate the difficulty score of a TM measure is given inFormula 2.

Formula 2: Calculation of difficulty score of a TM measure

where:

DSij = Difficulty score of the TM measure 'j', under TM factor 'i',

Wtmfx = Weight of traffic management factor 'x' where x=1 to 4

WCxy = Weight of criteria of assessment 'y', under traffic management factor 'x'

LODxy = Level of difficulty of measure 'j' in category 'i', on criteria of assessment WC,under traffic management factor 'm'

Table 7 : Formation of priority classes of TM measures

Priority Classes Effectiveness Score Difficulty Score

First Priority Class ES>2,0 (0,5<DS<1,5)

Second Priority Class ES>2,0 (0,5<DS<1,5)

Third Priority Class ES>2,0 (1,5=DS<2,0)

Fourth Priority Class ES>2,0 (1,5=DS<2,0)

Five Priority Class ES>2,0 (2,0<DS<2,5)

Sixth Priority Class ES>2,0 (2,0<DS<2,5)


17

The calculation of effectiveness anddifficulty scores provided the formationof priority classes of TM measures. Sixpriority classes are composed in theorder of decreasing level ofeffectiveness and increasing level ofdifficulties. Table 7 gives the detailedranges for the formation of priorityclasses of TM measures.

Due to the proven effectiveness oftwenty-seven measures in differentdisaster-prone and disaster-affectedcountries, only two ranges foreffectiveness scores are set based oneffectiveness score ranges which are,ES>2.0 and ES?2.0. Similarly, threeranges are set based on difficultiesscore ranges which are explained inTable 7. The complete assessment oftwenty-seven TM measures obtainedfrom effectiveness and difficulty scoresof twenty-seven measures and theirsubsequent allocation in priority classesis given in Table 8. The allocation of TMmeasures in priority classes is anattempt to reveal the applicability of TMmeasures for disasters. The knowledgeof TM measures available from thepriority classes would infer trafficmanagers and other disastermanagement stakeholders toinvestigate the possible solutions toimprove the applicability of thosemeasures whose difficulty scores andeffectiveness scores are high. Thesolutions to improve the applicability

may be the inclusion of othercomplimentary TM measures from theexisting TM strategies (a group ofmutually supportive measures with aplan of action) or completely newmeasures which might belong to non-transport sectors.

In general, the results of the qualitativeassessment indicated that the TMmeasures which were least effectivewere also relatively less difficult.Conversely, the results also indicatedthat the most effective TM measureswere relatively more difficult toimplement.

6.0 INFERENCES OFASSESSMENT RESULTS

Based on the six priority classes therecommended measures are obtained.The first list of recommendedmeasures consists of first and secondpriority classes. The second list ofrecommended measures consists ofthird and fourth priority classes (referTable 8). The fifth and sixth priorityclasses are not included in therecommended list of measures. Suchmeasures have been referred asresidual measures.

Assessment of residual measuresinferred that despite high effectivenessof TM measures, some measures aredifficult to implement in the localenvironment conditions. This study


18

considers the residual measures for theformulation of TM strategies despitetheir low applicability in local conditions(disaster-affected or disaster-proneregions). The inclusion of residualmeasures is required primarily for thesuccess of multiple traffic managementstrategies or the group of measures.Therefore, corrective actions areproposed to reduce the associateddifficulties related to the implementationof such measures. A brief descriptionof the applicability improvementmethods of such measures isexplained in next section.

The assessment results providedthirteen measures that were selectedin the list of first recommendedmeasures. These recommendedmeasures included three pubictransport measures, two non-motorisedtransport measures, three individualmotorised transport measures, threeinter-modal and multimodal measures,and two freight transport measures(refer Table 8).

Similarly, seven measures wereselected in the list of secondrecommended measures. Theserecommended measures included fourpublic transport measures; two inter-modal and multimodal measures andone freight transport measure (referTable 8).

A total of seven residual measures are

not considered in the list ofrecommended measures due to theirhigh-difficulty scores (refer Table 8).

The following gives the short inferencesof the assessment results which arepresented categorically based ontransport modes.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MEASURES

All public transport measures exceptone residual measure (PT-8) qualifiedfor the recommended measures. Suchassessment results are due to highlevel of effectiveness of public transportmeasures and relatively low level ofdifficulty. The most recommended PTmeasures in disasters are: (i) PublicTransport Network Improvement,(ii) Public Transport CapacityImprovement, and (iii) Public TransportInformation Services. The application ofthese measures improves theaccessibility of public transport, capacityof public transport and pubic transportuse through adequate and timelyinformation in disasters. Thesemeasures involved moderate to highcosts of implementation, low tomoderate use of technical systems,less involvement of stakeholders andare widely accepted by the pubic dueto more benefits. The secondrecommended PT measures (PT-2,PT-3, PT-6 and PT-4) are effectivemeasures but are generally cost-intensive measures due to high costs


19

Table 8 : Final assessment of pre-selected TM measures


20

involved in procurement of vehicles,technology and cost of PT operations.The residual PT measure, PublicTransport Management Centre is a veryeffective measure but it failed to qualifydue to low applicability as a result ofhigh costs of implementation, potentialrequirements of information collectionand dissemination equipments andtechnology and the requirement ofparticipation of stakeholders.

NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORTMEASURES

Both the measures of NMT qualified forfirst recommended measures (NMT-1and NMT-2). The use of pedestrianroutes and bicycle routes for the short-distance trips during disasters bear ahigh potential to reduce the total trafficdemand. The less costs involved inestablishing NMT routes and facilitiescompared to other modes, themoderate requirement of technicalsystems, low requirement ofstakeholders participation and highpublic acceptance are responsible forthe inclusion of both measures in thefirst list of recommended measures.

INDIVIDUAL MOTORISEDTRANSPORT MEASURES

Three measures of IMT qualified for firstrecommended measures (IMT-1, IMT-2 and IMT-3). All IMT measuresaddressed the immediate need ofimproving mobility of IMT users. The

qualification of those recommendedmeasures is due to low difficulties ofimplementation especially limited useof technical systems, limitedrequirement of stakeholder'sparticipation and very low difficultiesrelated to public acceptance. Howeverthe residual measure of IMT (IMT-4)namely 'Special Traffic RulesEnforcement' failed to qualify primarilydue to poor acceptance, moderatecosts of implementation and therequirement of the use of technicalsystems. This measure requires largescale involvement of transport and non-transport stakeholders. Additionally, thismeasure is highly opposed by thepublic due to increased inconveniencecaused to public while the introductionof new rules and regulations.

MULTI-MODAL AND INTER-MODALTRANSPORT MEASURES

MIM measures are mostly cost-intensive, require high use of technicalsystems, require low to moderateamount and scale of stakeholder'sparticipation and are widely acceptedby the public. Of a total of ten MIMmeasures, three measures qualified forfirst recommended measures (MIM-5,MIM-6 and MIM-7) and two measuresqualified for second recommendedmeasures (MIM-1 and MIM-2). Despitehigh effectiveness of the total fiveresidual measures (MIM-3, MIM-4, MIM-8, MIM-9 and MIM-10), the measures


21

indicated high costs involved inimplementation, extensive requirementof use of technical systems, moderateto high involvement requirements ofstakeholders and least difficulties ofpublic acceptance.

FREIGHT TRANSPORT MEASURES

The three selected FT measuresqualified for the recommended list of TMmeasures (FT-1, FT-2 and FT-3).However, the assessment of measure'City Logistics System' indicated highdifficulties due to high costs and intenseparticipation requirements of variousstakeholders. The measureassessment also indicated moderateto high effectiveness of all selectedmeasure.

In general, the traffic managers areresponsible for planning, executing andassessing TM measures. Qualitativeassessments are most commonlyused by traffic managers due to itsadvantage of providing an immediatefeedback. The knowledge of effectiveand readily applicable measures isimportant for traffic managers.Simultaneously the knowledge of othereffective but non-applicable measuresin existing local environment is alsoimportant for traffic managers. Thisknowledge engages the traffic mangersin improving the applicability of TMmeasures in order to include measureswhile the formulation of TM strategies.

7.0 SUMMARY

This paper described the pre-selectedtwenty-seven traffic managementmeasures which belong to five modesof transport and which can beapplicable in the cases of disasters.The given measures are well-integratedand in line with the traffic managementmeasures implemented in differentcountries. Further, the qualitativeassessment of selected measureshave also been conducted anddiscussed. The methodology of theassessment includes (i) estimation ofrelative weight of importance of trafficmanagement factors using AHPtechnique, (ii) self-assessment andrating of measures based oneffectiveness and difficulty scales, (iii)determination of priority classes ofmeasures based on qualitativeassessment model which provided thefirst and second recommendedmeasures, and (iv) determination ofresidual measures signifying lowapplicability.

The qualitative assessment modelprovided a framework to assess theeffectiveness and difficulty of TMmeasures. Such an assessment isuseful in the decision-making processfor the selection of TM measures andtheir improvement of applicability. Theresults indicated that all selectedmeasures qualified for their


22

References[1] Bluman, A. Elementary Statistics: A step by step approach (Fifth Version) McGraw-Hill Company

Inc. ISBN: 0-07-254907-6, New York.

[2] Gercek, H., Karpak, B. and Kilincaslan, T (2004). "A Multiple Criteria Approach for the Evaluationof the Rail Transit Networks in Istanbul", in Journal-Transportation, Springer Netherlands,Netherlands, pp.203-228 ISSN: 0049-4488, Netherlands.

[3] Minhans, A. (2008). "Traffic Management Strategies in Cases of Disasters", FachgebietVerkehrsplanung und Verkehrstechnik, ISSN: 1613-8317, Darmstadt, Germany.

[4] Parida, P. Najamuddin, Parida, M. (2007). "Development of qualitative evaluation methodologyfor sidewalks in Delhi", in ITPI Journal- p.p.27-33 Vol.4 No.3, ISSN: 0537-9649, New Delhi.

[5] Saaty, T. (1959). Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, McGraw-Hill Company Inc.Maple Press Company, York.

[6] Saaty, T. (2000), Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with analytic hierarchyprocess, Vol.6, RWS publications, ISBN: 0962031763, Pittsburg.

effectiveness and seven measuresdisqualified for their applicability.

Those measures that disqualified forthe recommended measures werefound very effective in fulfilling the goalsand criteria of traffic management incases of disasters e.g. Traffic &Disaster Information Service, DisasterTraffic Management Centre and Work-Zone Coordination & ManagementCentre. The results indicated that costsof implementation and requirement ofadvanced technical systems werefound as main hindrances in theapplication of measures followed by thestakeholder participation. The public

acceptance is the least difficult factorin the application of TM measures.

Although the residual measures werefound inapplicable due to high difficultiesof implementation in the localenvironment yet these measures forma good basis of inclusion due to veryhigh levels of effectiveness. This factcannot be simply ignored and suchmeasures should be used in theformulation of traffic managementstrategies only after prior reduction oftheir implementation difficulties. Thus,the applicability improvement methodsfor residual measures should be furtherresearched through empirical studiesof disaster-prone or affected areas.
