Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorANTONIOU Constantinosen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBARCELÒ Jaumeen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBRACKSTONE Marken_GB
dc.contributor.authorCELIKOGLU Hilmien_GB
dc.contributor.authorCIUFFO BIAGIOen_GB
dc.contributor.authorPUNZO VINCENZOen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSYKES Peteen_GB
dc.contributor.authorTOLEDO Tomeren_GB
dc.contributor.authorVORTISCH Peteren_GB
dc.contributor.authorWAGNER Peteren_GB
dc.contributor.editorPUNZO VINCENZOen_GB
dc.contributor.editorBRACKSTONE Marken_GB
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-04T01:01:39Z-
dc.date.available2014-01-31en_GB
dc.date.available2014-02-04T01:01:39Z-
dc.date.created2014-01-29en_GB
dc.date.issued2014en_GB
dc.date.submitted2014-01-21en_GB
dc.identifier.isbn978-92-79-35579-0 (print) 978-92-79-35578-3 (pdf)en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1018-5593 (print) 1831-9424 (online)en_GB
dc.identifier.otherEUR 26534en_GB
dc.identifier.otherOPOCE LB-NA-26534-EN-C (print) LB-NA-26534-EN-N (online)en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC88526-
dc.description.abstractAs part of the MULTITUDE project a survey was undertaken in 2011 regarding how practitioners used traffic simulation models. This revealed that 19% of those polled, conducted no calibration of their models, and of those that did, only 55% used guidelines during this process. To investigate this issue further a second survey was performed to identify which documents were being used most, and areas of concern, where it was felt that further/better guidance was needed. In this report we have examined these areas, their strengths and weaknesses, and have isolated five gaps, where improvements would allow better overall guidance to be produced: • Data, where a greater quality and quantity needs to be available not only for the performance of calibration and validation but also to allow a greater understanding of the variability of conditions likely to be encountered. • Standardisation and definitions in basic methodology, where greater clarity is required as to what (for example) MoPs are acceptable and more importantly, essential. • Illustration, Comparison and Evaluation, with a greater need for comparable case and meta studies. • Variability, where guidance is needed as to which (for example) parameters effect differing macroscopic observables, the so called ‘hierarchy of parameters’ which can be uncovered through greater sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. • Assisted calibration, where automated codes would aid in sensitivity analysis, batch analysis and, through reduced project ‘run times’, potentially an increase in the number of runs undertaken. In addition, and through stakeholder engagement, it has been revealed that there are a number of non technical issues slowing advances in this area which are related to a lack of clarity of the purpose of guidelines, their target/required audience and simple economics. This has lead to the production of five recommended cross-cutting actions: A. Agencies need to consider a better communication programme as to what is expected of contractors as regards adherence to their guidelines, when and how to depart from them. B. A greater education is needed among practitioners as regards simulation and traffic fundamentals and as such there may be a need for a core qualification of some description. C. Agencies need to ensure that contractual expectations as regards guideline observance are not in contradiction with budgetary constraints. D. Manufacturers need to be encouraged to provide software to expedite all stages of the simulation project life cycle. E. A heavily practitioner centric, pan-European forum, is needed for the ongoing debate of simulation issues with, as far as possible face to face meetings and the performance of short term working groups.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipJRC.F.8-Sustainable Transporten_GB
dc.format.mediumOnlineen_GB
dc.languageENGen_GB
dc.publisherPublications Office of the European Unionen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJRC88526en_GB
dc.titleTraffic Simulation: Case for guidelinesen_GB
dc.typeEUR - Scientific and Technical Research Reportsen_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.2788/12197 (print) 10.2788/11382 (online)en_GB
JRC Directorate:Energy, Transport and Climate

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2014_multitude_guidelines_on-line.pdf1.94 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.