In addition to ensuring a high level of traffic safety, the central tasks of a transport infrastructure operator also include ensuring an appropriate traffic flow quality. The aim of the research project was to develop a system of key performance indicators (KPI), taking into account various data collection methods, which allows the continuous evaluation of traffic flow quality and the performance of the traffic infrastructure for selected fields of application. As a result, a concept for KPI-based procedures for the evaluation of traffic quality on motorways and, if necessary, also federal highways is developed and a recommendation for a practicable hybrid KPI system is given. At first, parameters for the evaluation of traffic flow quality are described. A distinction is made between three classes of parameters: • Indicators of travel speed and travel time; • Reliability indicators; • Indicators of travel demand. The methods and data sources that can be used to collect the data needed to determine the KPI are presented. A distinction is made between travel time data and demand data. For the purpose of a differentiated evaluation of the KPI systems, possible fields of application are examined, which can be distinguished with regard to their spatial and temporal resolution: 1. Evaluation of the traffic situation in key figures; 2. Bottleneck analysis as a basis for the preparation of the network requirement plan (BVWP); 3. Availability analysis; 4. Real-Time traffic management. Considering the different data acquisition systems, five KPI systems are described and evaluated in the concept development. Each of these uses a primary data source – ANPR, Bluetooth, stationary detector data (with model extension), mobile phone data or floating car data. For this purpose, general requirements for a KPI system are first formulated. The five KPI systems are then evaluated based on these requirements. In practice, different data sources are already used by regional traffic management centres. Therefore, a hybrid approach to determining KPI is reasonable. For a hybrid KPI system that combines several data sources, a three-step approach is chosen and also evaluated according to the requirements: • Level 0: KPI base system with stationary detector data (SDD) – base case; • Level 1: KPI system with stationary detector data (SDD) and floating car data (FCD); • Level 2: KPI system with stationary detector data (SDD), floating car data (FCD) and local extensions. For the evaluation, the efforts of the KPI systems under consideration are estimated exemplary and compared with the benefit per application. The benefit assessment focuses on the extent to which the discussed application possibilities are covered by the respective KPI system. For the evaluation synthesis an effectiveness-cost-quotient (Wirksamkeit-Kosten-Quotient – WKQ) is proposed for the five KPI systems. For the hybrid systems, on the other hand, the respective additional benefits and costs are to be determined in comparison to the base case of level 0. The result shows that FCDs tend to have the highest efficiency. Depending on the application, hybrid systems provide a more practical and realistic approach to implementing KPI systems. The cost assumptions and the calculation of the respective benefit points were compiled in an Excel folder, which was developed as a calculation tool within the framework of this research project and is enclosed with the report. With this tool, all assumptions made by the authors regarding costs and benefits and the weighting in relation to the fields of application can be flexibly adjusted to calculate different scenarios. For practical application, the decision-makers should check all cost assumptions and weighting factors for the fulfilment of requirements from their point of view and replace the cost assumptions by their own cost calculation assuming a targeted expansion requirement. The required web-based prototype for the exemplary implementation of a KPI system was realized based on PTV Optima software with the motorway quadrangle consisting of A5, A8, A81 and A6 between Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart and Heilbronn. An evaluation of the prototype by the advisory board was used to find out how the users evaluated the system. (Author/publisher)
Abstract