1 / 9

Evaluation of Cybernetic Transport systems in cities

Evaluation of Cybernetic Transport systems in cities. Adriano Alessandrini DITS. CyberMove objectives. To prove CTSs are mature to be used in cities To evaluate CTS transport performances from city point of view To understand which transport tasks CTSs perform better

gene
Download Presentation

Evaluation of Cybernetic Transport systems in cities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Cybernetic Transport systems in cities Adriano Alessandrini DITS

  2. CyberMove objectives • To prove CTSs are mature to be used in cities • To evaluate CTS transport performances from city point of view • To understand which transport tasks CTSs perform better • To find and address CTS’s weaknesses • To draft some “design rules” for CTSs

  3. Rivium Nancy Ouchy EPFL BAB Werfenweng Antibes Coimbra Technion CyberMove sites Copenhagen

  4. CyberMove evaluation • Organised in 3 rounds: • initial – after pre-design • ex-ante – after design • ex-post – after implementation • With 3 objectives: • to assess user reactions to the CTS • to assess CTS transport performances • to evaluate CTS profitability and socio-economic viability

  5. First evaluation outcomes (1/3): user reactions • Users think that CTS is: • easy to use when good information is provided, • and safe. • However • fear of attack is increased by driver absence and a CCTV monitoring may be necessary to increase the perception of security, • and CTS performances are perceived to be low although they are not, thus some accompanying information campaign may be necessary.

  6. First evaluation outcomes (2/3): transport performances • CTSs: • provide much shorter waiting times than conventional Public Transport systems; • supply a much more reliable service than buses keeping more stable waiting and travel time; • attract more users because of the better service; • consume less energy per passenger kilometre and, subtracting users to private modes, contribute to decrease energy consumption and environmental impact of transport.

  7. First evaluation outcomes (3/3): financial and socio-economic results • CTS are, in general, socio-economically viable. • CTS proved, in most of the cases, to be able to cover the operating costs. • CTS, as any public transport service, are, in general, not profitable but some of them may be if opportune policies are implemented.

  8. The evaluation results of one of CyberMove sites: Antibes (1/2) • CTS objectives: • to reduce traffic onthe harbour-side; • to make more attractiveto park in Fort Carré. • CTS characteristics: • 2 km line length; • 3 twenty-places vehicles; • 1 depot and 1 recharging station in Fort Carrè.

  9. The evaluation results of one of CyberMove sites: Antibes (2/2) • Transport patterns • estimated modal share 23% • average travel time 2 min • average waiting time 1 min 15 sec • CTS costs • total investment 2.3 M€ • operating costs 0.31 M€/y • CTS economic evaluations • socio-economic NPV -0.5 M€ (5 M€ new parking pricing policy) • financial NPV -3.5 M€ (-0.37 M€ new parking policy)

More Related