Developments in European transport modelling in relation ... · those who develop transport models together, as there were some differences in users’ and scientific needs regarding

FP6-2002-SSP-1/502002

TRANSFORUMScientific forum on transport forecast validation and policy assessment

Sixth Framework ProgrammePriority 8

D4.1Developments in European

transport modelling in relation toscientific and policy-making needs

Actual submission date: 30 May 2005Accepted: 15 July 2005

Start date of project: 15/02/2004 Duration: 36 monthsLead contractor for this deliverable: AVV Transport Research Centre Version 1

This project is supported by fundingunder the Sixth Research Framework Programme

of the European Union

Project Facts

TRANSFORUMScientific forum on transportforecast validation and policyassessmentwww.transforum-eu.net

Project Reference FP6-2002-SSP-1/502002Contract Type CA – Co-ordination ActionProject Duration 36 months (15/02/2004 – 15/02/2007)Strategic Objective As a Co-ordination Action, TRANSFORUM aims to promote

and support the networking and co-ordination of researchand innovation activities. More specifically, the projectassesses the scientific consistency and transparency oftransport policy support and assessment tools (developed inearlier and ongoing projects), and their ability to match theneeds and expectations of policy-makers, stakeholders andother end-users.

Project Co-ordinator Mr Jan van der [email protected]

Project Consortium AVV……………………………………..……………NetherlandsCDV....................……….......…................... Czech RepublicCERTH/HIT………………………………..……………..GreeceCETE-Lyon.……………………………………….………FranceINRETS......................………....…............................ FranceTNO…………………………………..……………...NetherlandsTRL Ltd........................……….................... United KingdomUPM.......................................……….......……............ SpainVTT.................................................……….....…..….Finland

Document InformationDocument Reference TF-WP4-D4.1-270405-0001Document Type DeliverableDeliverable Type ReportDeliverable Status Version 1Date 30 May 2005Dissemination Level PublicEditing Author (Organization) P.L.C. Eijkelenbergh (TNO)Work Package(s) WP4

Document ControlEditing AuthorPascal Eijkelenbergh

CheckedRoxanne Powell

AcceptedFrans van Beek

AuthorizedJan van der Waard

Date 12 April 2005 Date 31 May 2005 Date 1 June 2005 Date 2 June 2005

Developments in European transport modelling in relation toscientific and policy-making needs Version 1, May 2005

3

Report Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This document is the first report of the TRANSFORUM Work Packagefocussing on the ‘validation of European transport models andscenarios’ (Work Package 4). The overall objective ofTRANSFORUM’s Work Package 4 is to assess the scientific andpolicy-making fitness for purpose of transport models and scenariosthat have been developed and used in projects of the EuropeanFramework Programmes. A second, possibly more important, objectiveof WP4 is to disseminate the results that have been accepted (in theTRANSFORUM project) to various stakeholders. The validationconsiders the match between the models and scenarios on the onehand, and EU policy objectives and the related policy measures andindicators on the other hand. Both results will be used to makerecommendations on desirable developments in the field of Europeantransport models.

The input needed to arrive at the recommendations will be acquiredthrough organising four Forum Meetings in which transport scientistsand policy-makers will be brought together to discuss the fitness forpurpose (the match between scientific and policy-making needs) of thecurrent European transport models and scenarios. The first ForumMeeting was organised on 10 and 11 February 2005 in Antwerp(Belgium). It emphasized the necessity of bringing policy-makers andthose who develop transport models together, as there were somedifferences in users’ and scientific needs regarding transportmodelling. These differences are summarised in Chapter 5.

Models analysed

One of the main needs, shared by both policy-makers and scientists, isan overview of historic developments in transport modelling. Moreover,they would prefer the provision of a clear and ‘standardised’ overviewof model characteristics, including the limitations of the existingEuropean transport models. TRANSFORUM selected nine models tobe analysed in the project, which occupy a central position in Europeantransport modelling or are / were the state-of-the-art in this field. Fiveof the models (SCENES, EXPEDITE, ASTRA, NEAC and TRANS-TOOLS) can be classified as transport models, two of them (CGEuropeand EUNET-SASI) are (socio-) economic models and the last groupcontains two environmental models (TREMOVE and TRENDS). The(socio-) economic and environmental models have been addedbecause they make use of traffic demand forecasts as the basis for(socio-) economic and environmental appraisal of transportinfrastructure projects.

Coverage of transport policy issues

Each of the models has been developed in order to analyse specificissues and – consequently – has its own advantages anddisadvantages as regards its suitability to address specific policyissues. Five transport-related policy issues have been identified using


4

[1] and [2]; these issues are of major importance for the Europeanpolicy-maker according to the White Paper ‘European transport policyfor 2010: time to decide’, the Lisbon Strategy (2000), the GothenburgEuropean Council (2001) and the Kyoto protocol (1997, ratification in2002). Moreover, the selected models could significantly contribute tothe analysis. The five policy issues are:• Fuel and carbon taxes

Aim: to provide new insights when revising taxation policies.• Energy policies and emission standards

Aim: to evaluate the impact of policy measures on emissions aswell as the welfare costs of these policies.

• IntermodalityAim: to assess the impact of policy issues related to intermodalityon e.g. modal split.

• Trans-European NetworksAim: to assess the medium to long-term impacts of Trans-European Networks.

• Economic policiesAim: to evaluate the potential impact of economic policies (non-transport fiscal policies, outlays for R&D, structural changes in theeconomy, tariffs and international trade, productivityimprovements), proposed to stimulate economic growth, ontransport flows (e.g. reduction of peak-hour congestion by meansof part-time working or telecommuting).

Road pricing is an important topic at EU level. However,TRANSFORUM has decided not to include this issue in this project asseveral other FP projects are already focussing on it. The liberalisationof the railways is an important topic too. This policy issue has not beenincluded in our list since such specific questions, which deal withinstitutional reforms, are very difficult to include in transport models.Models are only valid within their institutional context and are in manycases not suitable for issues which modify the context.

Table S. 1 gives an overview of the policy issues and indicates whichmodels are able to contribute to the analysis of the policy objectives.This overview can help policy-makers to gain a quick understanding ofthe capabilities of models regarding issues which are of majorimportance to them. From this table it can be concluded that there isnot a single model that is strong in assessing all identified policyissues. However, Eijkelenbergh et al [1] have demonstrated that linkingmodels in order to answer specific policy issues can extend the rangeof outcomes of the models. By linking two or more models, one tries tobenefit from the strengths of the models and get around theirweaknesses. ‘Linking’ means here that the outputs of one model areused as inputs for another: the models are applied in a particularsequence.


5

Table S. 1: Policy issues and models

Fu

el a

nd

ca

rbo

nta

xes

En

erg

y p

o lic

ies

an

de

mis

sio

n s

tan

dar

ds

Inte

r mo

da l

it y

Tra

ns

Eu

rop

ea

nN

etw

ork

s

Eco

no

mic

po

licie

s

NEAC - - ++ ++ -ASTRA - - n.a. n.a. +SCENES - - ++ + -EXPEDITE n.a. n.a. + - -

Transportmodels

TRANS-TOOLS 0 0 ++ ++ ++EUNET-SASI n.a. n.a. n.a. + +(Socio-)

economicmodels

CGEurope n.a. n.a. n.a. + ++

TRENDS 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a.Environmentalmodels TREMOVE ++ ++ n.a. n.a. n.a.

- Not capable to assess policy issue

0 Might be capable to assess policy issue

+ Capable to assess policy issue

++ Absolutely capable to assess policy issue

n.a. Not applicable

Conclusions

The discussions facilitated during the first Forum Meeting of theTRANSFORUM project demonstrated the relevance of this project.However, it was indicated that the provision of a roadmap for transportmodelling developments for the coming years is more important thanvalidating individual European Framework Programme projects. Thiscould help to get the users’ and scientists’ needs identified during theFirst Forum Meeting in line again. TRANSFORUM WP4 decided thatthis will be the aim of the second Forum Meeting, that will be organisedin October 2005. The third and fourth Forum Meetings will focusrespectively on ‘Bottlenecks in applying European transport modelsdue to differences in scenarios and lack of common Europeandatasets’ and on the ‘Interaction between European and nationaltransport models’. These themes fully comply with the scientific andpolicy-making needs stated during the first Forum Meeting.


6

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction 81.1 Background 81.2 Objectives of this report 81.3 Approach 81.4 Structure of this report 9

2. Objective of WP4 10

3. WP4 approach: selection of transport models 12

4. Description of transport models 154.1 Introduction 154.2 NEAC 164.2.1. Background of the model development 164.2.2. Overview of model functionality 174.2.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 174.2.4. Use in other studies 174.3 ASTRA 174.3.1. Background of the model development 174.3.2. Overview of model functionality 184.3.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 184.3.4. Use in other studies 194.4 SCENES 194.4.1. Background of the model development 194.4.2. Overview of model functionality 194.4.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 204.4.4. Use in other studies 204.5 EXPEDITE 214.5.1. Background of the model development 214.5.2. Overview of model functionality 214.5.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 214.5.4. Use in other studies 224.6 TRANS-TOOLS 224.6.1. Background of the model development 224.6.2. Overview of model functionality 234.6.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 234.6.4. Use in other studies 234.7 EUNET-SASI 234.7.1. Background of the model development 234.7.2. Overview of model functionality 244.7.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 254.7.4. Use in other studies 254.8 CGEurope 254.8.1. Background of the model development 254.8.2. Overview of model functionality 264.8.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 26


7

4.8.4. Use in other studies 264.9 TRENDS 274.9.1. Background of the model development 274.9.2. Overview of model functionality 274.9.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 284.9.4. Use in other studies 284.10 TREMOVE 284.10.1. Background of the model development 284.10.2. Overview of model functionality 294.10.3. Main strengths and weaknesses 294.10.4. Use in other studies 30

5. Results of the first Forum Meeting 315.1 Scientific and policy-making needs 315.2 Lessons learned from other projects 325.3 Facilitation of ongoing projects 32

6. Future activities and discussion 346.1 Summary of discussions in this report 346.2 Outline of future Forum Meetings 35

7. References 37


8

1. Introduction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1 Background

Transport models assist policy-making by analysing transport systemsand estimating the impacts of policies. Over the past few years a widerange of research activities aimed at developing transport models havebeen conducted under both FP4 and FP5. Such research activities willalso be proposed and conducted under FP6 in support of the CommonTransport Policy. Some of the models are still state-of-the-art, whereasothers were developed some years ago and have not been modifiedsince then (often due to the inclusion of specific model elements into anew development). This has resulted in a variety of models asconcerns overall structure, comprehensiveness, theoreticalfoundations, modelling techniques, dynamics, data requirements andcalibration.

To those not closely involved in transport modelling, this gives theimpression that several models exists, and on top of this, that there areno connections between them and therefore they could be categorisedas stand-alone models. Modelling experts often state that this mix oftransport models is necessary as each model has its own capabilities.Therefore a ‘mother of all models’ is not a preferred option. Moreover,it must be remembered that models act as an aid to decision-making –albeit in many cases an essential aid – and that transport models willalways be a generalization of reality. Therefore, policy objectives andtheir related policy measures and indicators define the scope and levelof detail of the models to be developed and applied.

1.2 Objectives of this report

This report aims to give an overview of recent developments inEuropean transport modelling in relation to scientific and policy-makingneeds. European transport models are those models that underpin theCommon Transport Policy, cover (a large part of) the EU-15 or EU-25and predict the impacts of transport across Europe. The report will bea starting point for future discussions about the fitness for purpose (thematch between scientific and policy-making needs) of Europeantransport models and desired or necessary developments in this area.

1.3 Approach

The findings presented in this report are based on a literature review,expert knowledge and the first Forum Meeting – organised on 10 and


9

11 February 2005 in Antwerp (Belgium). The models described in thisreport are based on the approach described in [3].

1.4 Structure of this report

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the objectives of theTRANSFORUM project in general and the ‘Validation of Europeantransport models and scenarios’ (WP4 of the TRANSFORUM project)in particular. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the selected transportmodels that are relevant from the Work Package perspective. Theselected transport models are discussed more in-depth in Chapter 4.Chapter 5 presents the scientific and policy-making needs in relation tothe development of European transport models. Finally, Chapter 6provides an overview of the conclusions that can be drawn from thisreport and an outline of future Forum Meetings.


10

2. Objective of WP4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TRANSFORUM focuses on policy support and assessment tools forthe EU Common Transport Policy (CTP). The project addresses theneed to verify the scientific consistency and transparency of thesetools, and their ability to match the needs and expectations of policy-makers, users and stakeholders. TRANSFORUM activities aim toreach a future situation that we like to describe as the TRANSFORUMvision of the future. The vision contains the following elements [4]:• Policy-makers at national and EU levels make use of knowledge

and methods based on European research on transport policyinstruments, transport models, transport policy impact assessmentand evaluation.

• They use a set of unified definitions of key indicators – describingthe relevant expected impacts of future changes in the transportsystem – that are widely accepted by policy-makers at the EU andnational levels and by various stakeholders.

• There is common agreement between the specialists, policy-makers at the EU and national levels and various stakeholders on:• how to measure these key indicators• how to forecast these key indicators• how to use the set of indicators in policy impact assessment

methodologies.

The TRANSFORUM project’s Work Package 3 will focus on thefitness-for-purpose assessment (FFPA) of transport policy objectives,transport impacts and indicators, Work Package 4 will assess thefitness for purpose of European transport models and scenarios, andWork Package 5 the fitness-for-purpose of transport policyinstruments, packages and policy assessment methods (Figure 1). Theevaluation of policy and the role of research in decision-making willalso be a WP5 task.

The overall objective of TRANSFORUM’s Work Package 4 is to assessthe scientific and policy-making fitness for purpose of transport modelsand scenarios that have been developed and used in projects underthe European Framework Programmes. A second, possibly moreimportant objective of WP4, is to disseminate the results that havebeen accepted in the TRANSFORUM project to various stakeholders.The fitness-for-purpose assessment considers the match between themodels and scenarios on the one hand, and the EU policy objectivesand related policy measures and indicators on the other hand. Bothresults will be used to make recommendations on desirabledevelopments in the field of European transport models.


11

policy objectives

policy measures desired impacts

scenarios transport models

transport indicators for

indirect effects

transport indicators for

external effects

spatial economic

models

environmental & safety models

indicators of economic

effects

environmental & safety indicators

indicators of transport system

indicators

evaluation

decision making

Figure 1: Model of the policy process for an overall description ofthe division of work between WP3 (purple), WP4 (blue) and WP5(green).


12

3. WP4 approach: selection of transport models

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In order to identify European transport models that might be of interestfor Work Package 4, it was found useful to browse the titles and shortdescriptions of projects that are available in the CORDIS and Extrawebdatabases. This resulted in an overview of 27 projects, from which only161 were found to be relevant to the Work Package objectives. Theseprojects are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Relevant projects for Work Package 4

ProjectsFP4 FP5 FP6 Non-FPASTRA EXPEDITE TRANS-TOOLS TEN-STAC

(focus onNEAC andVACLAV)

EUNET-SASI IASON (focuson CGEurope)

AUTO-OIL II(focus onTREMOVE)

POSSUM THINK-UP TRENDSSCENES 10-11-12

TIPMAC

STEMMSTREAMS 11-12TENASSESSTRENEN II –STRAN

As results of previous projects have often been integrated into newly-developed transport models (e.g. SCENES is a refinement ofSTREAMS and makes use of the results of the POSSUM, STEMM andTRENEN projects), the actual number of projects that are of significantinterest for the Work Package is rather limited. Figure 2 presents adiagram of how the 16 selected transport models are related to eachother. Moreover, Figure 3 adds a timeline to the diagram presented inFigure 2. Based on these figures it can be concluded that SCENES,EXPEDITE, ASTRA, NEAC, TRANS-TOOLS, CGEurope, EUNET-SASI, TREMOVE and TRENDS are of greatest value for the Work

1 The BRIDGES, ECONOMETRIST, ECOPAC, EMOLITE, EUFRANET, EUROSIL, MYSTIC,

OD-ESTIM, ATOM, SPOTLIGHTS and UNITE projects were not considered relevant for the

Work Package as they have not developed a European transport model. However, lessons

about future developments in European transport modelling that could be learnt from these

projects should not be neglected and should be part of further activities in the TRANSFORUM

project.


13

Package. These projects have a central position in Figure 2 or are /were the state-of-the-art in European transport modelling.

EUNET-SASIIASON

SCENES

EXPEDITE

STREAMS

STEMMPOSSUM

TRENEN

ASTRATIPMAC

TRANS-TOOLS

NEAC

THINK-UP

TRENDS

ASTRA-T

TREMOVE TENASSESS

SCENES+E3ME

SCENES+CGEurope

TEN-STAC

VACLAV

CGEurope

Selected project

Not relevant project

Figure 2: Historic development of European transport modelling

ID Task Name

1 NEAC

2 POSSUM

3 STEMM

4 STREAMS

5 TRENEN

6 TENASSESS

7 EUNET-SASI

8 ASTRA

9 VACLAV

10 SCENES

11 TRENDS

12 EXPEDITE

13 THINK-UP

14 IASON / CGEurope

15 TIPMAC

16 TREMOVE

17 TEN-STAC

18 TRANS-TOOLS

H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H21990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 3: Timeline development of European transport modelling


14

The selected models can be provisionally sub-divided into the followingthree classes:• Transport models• (Socio-) economic models• Environmental models

The first category of models has been developed and applied in orderto evaluate almost all important transport policies on a European scale.While structures may vary, a majority of these take the form of atraditional four-stage model based on aggregate data. In some casesthese are only road models, and there are often separate freightmodels. The models belonging to this category are SCENES,EXPEDITE, ASTRA, NEAC and TRANS-TOOLS.

The second group of models performs the analysis of (socio-)economic impacts of transport investments and policy. Examples of(socio-) economic impacts include Gross Domestic Product (torepresent the economic performance of a region) and unemploymentrate (to indicate the social condition of a region). Models that belong tothis family are CGEurope and EUNET-SASI.

The last category can investigate the impacts of different environmentpolicies (often on emissions) as well as the welfare costs of thesepolicies. The relevant models are TREMOVE and TRENDS.

The (socio-) economic and environmental models have been added asthose models make use of traffic demand forecasts as a basis for(socio-) economic and environmental appraisal of transportinfrastructure projects.


15

4. Description of transport models

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a short description of the nine Europeantransport models that have been selected, using the method describedin Chapter 3. The background of each model is presented, itsfunctionality is briefly described, its strengths and weaknesses arethen discussed and some of the studies that have used its results arelisted.

As models are a representation of reality and are developed forspecific goals, they are not always able to address all main EU policypriorities. Five transport-related policy issues have been identifiedusing [1] and [2]; these issues are of major importance for theEuropean policy-maker according to the White Paper ‘Europeantransport policy for 2010: time to decide’, Lisbon Strategy (2000), theGothenburg European Council (2001) and the Kyoto protocol (1997,ratification in 2002). Moreover, the selected models could significantlycontribute to the analysis. The policy issues are:• Fuel and carbon taxes

Aim: to provide new insights when revising taxation policies.• Energy policies and emission standards

Aim: to evaluate the impact of policy measures on emissions aswell as the welfare costs of these policies.

• IntermodalityAim: to assess the impact of policy issues related to intermodalityon e.g. modal split.

• Trans-European NetworksAim: to assess the medium to long-term impacts of Trans-European Networks.

• Economic policiesAim: to evaluate the potential impact of economic policies (non-transport fiscal policies, outlays for R&D, structural changes in theeconomy, tariffs and international trade, productivityimprovements), proposed to stimulate economic growth, ontransport flows (e.g. reduction of peak-hour congestion by meansof part-time working or telecommuting).

Road pricing is an important topic at EU level. However,TRANSFORUM has decided not to include this issue in this project asseveral other FP projects are already focussing on it. The liberalisationof the railways is an important topic too. This policy issue has not beenincluded in our list since such specific questions, which deal withinstitutional reforms, are very difficult to include in transport models.Models are only valid within their institutional context and are in manycases not suitable for issues which modify this context.


16

The policy issues are described in more detail in Appendix A. Table 2gives an overview of the policy issues and indicates which models areable to contribute to the analysis of the policy objectives.This overview can help policy-makers to gain a rapid understanding ofthe capabilities of models regarding issues which are of majorimportance to them. From Table 2 it can be concluded that there is nota single model that is strong in assessing all identified policy issues.However, Eijkelenbergh et al [1] have demonstrated that linkingmodels in order to answer specific policy issues can extend the rangeof outcomes of the models. By linking two or more models, one tries tobenefit from the strengths of the models and get around theirweaknesses. ‘Linking’ means here that the outputs of one model areused as inputs for another: the models are applied in a particularsequence.

Table 2: Policy issues and models

Fu

el a

nd

ca

rbo

nta

xes

En

erg

y p

oli c

ies

an

de

mis

sio

n s

tan

dar

ds

Inte

rmo

dal

ity

Tr a

ns

Eu

rop

ea

nN

etw

ork

s

Eco

no

mic

po

licie

s

NEAC - - ++ ++ -ASTRA - - n.a. n.a. +SCENES - - ++ + -EXPEDITE n.a. n.a. + - -

Transportmodels

TRANS-TOOLS 0 0 ++ ++ ++EUNET-SASI n.a. n.a. n.a. + +(Socio)

economicmodels

CGEurope n.a. n.a. n.a. + ++

TRENDS 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a.Environmentalmodels TREMOVE ++ ++ n.a. n.a. n.a.

- Not capable to assess policy issue

0 Might be capable to assess policy issue

+ Capable to assess policy issue

++ Absolutely capable to assess policy issue

n.a. Not applicable

4.2 NEAC

4.2.1. Background of the model development

A first version of the NEAC model was developed at the beginning ofthe nineties by a Dutch company: NEA Transport research andtraining. Since then, NEA has maintained the model, kept it up to dateand updated the model with 2000 as base year.


17

4.2.2. Overview of model functionality

NEAC is a simulation instrument of regional freight transportmovements coupled to an economic database. The system covers allEuropean countries (including the Accession Countries) and providesthe link between traffic and economic development in and betweenregions. The NEAC freight database not only contains the exchangesof commodities between European regions for different years but alsoprovides information on the transport chain used, i.e. whether thecommodities have been trans-shipped onto another mode on the wayfrom origin to destination, or moved by only one mode of transport. TheNEAC system is an instrument which helps decision-makers inmanaging the development of a region, country or group of regions in aEuropean context. The NEAC model provides transport forecasting ofgoods and passengers, including corridor analysis and policy impactanalysis.

4.2.3. Main strengths and weaknesses

NEAC is suitable for policy analyses related to intermodality andTrans-European Networks, as the model does not only contain tradeflows but also transport chains. The strength of the NEAC databank isits ability to determine the exact origin and destination of commoditiesin region-to-region transport as well as the way transport is organised(directly or with trans-shipment). The classical method only indicatesthe total freight flow between an origin and destination according tomode of transport, without any information on the route.

The model is weak in evaluating policy issues related to ‘fuel andcarbon taxes’ and ‘energy policies and emission standards’. This isdue to its limited capability to predict future emission levels (only CO,NOx, PM, SO2 and CO2 are included). Moreover, the NEAC model onlyprovides results for freight transport.

4.2.4. Use in other studies

Many studies make use of the NEAC transport simulation system,which covers all inter-regional freight transport flows in Europe. Themodel is used regularly by the Directorate-General for Energy andTransport (DG TREN) of the European Commission. Moreover, theEXPEDITE, TEN-STAC and TRANS-TOOLS projects use the results ofNEAC.

4.3 ASTRA


The model for Assessment of Transport Strategies (ASTRA) wasdeveloped under the 4th research Framework Programme of theEuropean Commission in the ASTRA project (started in October 1997


18

and completed in January 2000) and was improved by the Institute forEconomic Policy Research (IWW, Germany) and Trasporti e Territorio(TRT, Italy) in the TIPMAC project under the 5th FP. The objective ofthe ASTRA project was to develop a tool for the assessment of thelong-term impacts of European transport policy with respect to itseconomic, environmental and social implications, thus enabling thestrategic sustainability analysis of European and national transportpolicies. The technical challenge of the ASTRA project was todemonstrate that the applied system dynamics methodology isappropriate for such long-term policy assessments – based on anintegrated modelling philosophy developing a truly interdisciplinary andeasy-to-use model.


The ASTRA project developed a system dynamics modelling platformintegrating four sub-models (covering macro-economic activity,regional economics and land-use, transport demand andenvironmental impacts). The interfaces between the sub-models allowfeedback loops to be established, thereby capturing the inter-relationsbetween variables. Output indicators include traffic volumes, vehiclestock, environmental impacts, and economic, social and employmentindicators. Forecasts are produced from a base year of 1996 to a timehorizon of 2026. Important attributes include short run-times for sometypes of policy test, and the ability to simulate the gradual introductionof a policy measure.

The implemented tool, the ASTRA System Dynamics model platform(ASP), can be categorised as a System Dynamics model for integratedlong-term assessment of European transport policy, with a spatialrepresentation on a functional basis. The ASP integrates themacroeconomic sub-module (MAC), regional economics and land usesub-module (REM), the transport sub-module (TRA) and theenvironment sub-module (ENV) into one model. Within the ASP thepassenger model and the freight model are implemented in such a waythat both are made up of parts of REM, TRA and ENV.


ASTRA has shown that the system dynamics methodology allows for along-term assessment of the wider socio-economic impacts oftransport policy packages, and provides inherently consistentindicators (e.g. GDP, employment, labour productivity, exports andimports) to enable a direct assessment by the policy-maker. TheASTRA model has the ability to evaluate the environmental impacts ofpolicy packages, but as only CO2, NOX and PM predictions arepossible it is not the main strength of the model.

As the model does not include a network (to assign transport demandto a road network), it is incapable of evaluating the impacts of Trans-European Networks.


19


The ASTRA model has been applied in the following FP5 projects:DESIRE, REVENUE, TIPMAC and IASON. Moreover, it has been usedto support DG Environment, DG Energy and Transport and the Institutefor Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS).

4.4 SCENES


The SCENES European freight and passenger model was developedwithin a 4th Framework Research Project for DG TREN that started inJanuary 1998 and was completed in March 2001. It was based upon asmaller scale pilot model that originated during the precedingEuropean Commission STREAMS project. Since 2001, the SCENESmodel has continued to be updated by its originators, WSP and TRT,as part of various other FP5 research studies (IASON, MC-ICAM,TIPMAC for DG TREN and the TREMOVE2 project for DG-ENV), inwhich the model is currently being used.


The SCENES model is a strategic European multi-modal passengerand freight forecasting model, operating at the NUTS 2 zoning levelover fifteen EU countries. It also extends into eight Central andEastern European countries: Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic,Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It uses a detailedEuropean network for assignment. The freight model is based on acomplex regional economic model (REM), using input-outputtechniques. The passenger model uses a more standard tripgeneration mechanism. The base year for both models is 1995 andforecasts have been produced within the SCENES project for the 2020horizon.

Technically the overall model consists of 3 main modules:1. The regional economic module, which implements macro-economic

constraints in the base year as well as each future policy period,and estimates the location of production/consumption and thepattern of trade generated therein of commodities, business traveland personal travel.

2. The multimodal transport module, which builds and validates amultimodal transport network, and given total transport demandand transport infrastructure supply, estimates the loads ofpassenger and freight on each mode and route.

3. The interface module, which connects the two main simulationblocks above. This also does all necessary conversions of units inorder to make the information fully compatible before use by thetwo principal modules.


20

The SCENES transport model provides a comprehensive range oftransport outputs, including:• forecast O-D matrices of passenger and freight flows, by mode,

commodity type, passenger type, and purpose;• traffic flows on individual links by vehicle type, for all modes and

intermodal transfers;• average trip distances, speeds, times and costs by mode; and• energy consumption and pollution by mode.

The model is calibrated to reproduce (as closely as possible) nationalaggregate totals of travel by mode, and known international patterns ofpassenger and freight transport (based on a variety of EUROSTAT andWorld Bank data). The sub-national pattern of passenger and freighttraffic is entirely generated by the model (i.e., it is ‘synthetic’).


SCENES is appropriate for the strategic assessment of transport policyand the evaluation of large-scale infrastructure development, such asTrans-European Networks. It is an international multimodal strategicmodel for passengers and freight, generating baseline forecasts oftransport demand to 2020 and analyses the impacts of scenario testsin terms of changes between the forecast year and reference case. Itincludes a detailed representation of the influences generating thedemand for freight and passenger transport.

Moreover, a strength of the SCENES model is that it is able to assesspolicy issues related to intermodality, as it uses multimodal networksfor passenger and freight transport which include specific terminals(e.g. rail terminals, ports) for changes of mode. SCENES carries out amultimodal assignment of the flows to these networks.

The main weakness of the SCENES model is its limited number ofemission categories. The model can only predict CO2 emissions(however, they can be assigned to a link type and network mode) andis therefore less suitable to assess policy issues related to ‘fuel andcarbon taxes’ and ‘energy policies and emission standards’.


SCENES has been used in the following FP5 projects: EXPEDITE,MC-ICAM, IASON, TIPMAC and SPECTRUM. Moreover, it has beenused by DG Environment to support the development of the newTREMOVE model and DG Energy and Transport to carry out a pilotStrategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Trans-EuropeanNetworks and to provide support for other policy analysis.


21

4.5 EXPEDITE


The EXPEDITE project (January 2000- October 2002) was carried outfor the European Commission, Directorate General for Energy andTransport as part of the 5th Framework Programme. Rand Europe wasthe main contractor for this project. The objectives of the EXPEDITEproject were to generate forecasts for both passenger and freighttransport in Europe for 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, to show whichpolicies can be effective to achieve modal shift from road and airtransport to other modes, and to identify market segments that aresensitive (and those that are insensitive) to policy measures.


EXPEDITE was built as an extension of:• several national passenger transport models: the Dutch National

Model System (NMS or LMS), the Norwegian National Model(NTM-4), the Italian National Model (SISD), the Danish NationalModel and the Swedish National Model (SAMPERS); and

• several freight transport models: the Swedish model (SAMGODS),the Norwegian model (NEMO), the Belgian model (WFTM) and theItalian model (SISD).

The aim of the model is to produce multi-modal travel demandforecasts for Europe, covering all distance bands for passenger andfreight movements, to identify core competitive submarkets and toidentify ‘efficient’ policies or policy packages to achieve certain policyaims in the areas of modal shift and intermodality.

The model does not include a transport network, but has beencalibrated using the SCENES network allocation. Although theapproach used in EXPEDITE sacrifices accuracy for the countrieswhere no national model is available, it still provides rather reliableresults at EU level as regards total transport volumes.

EXPEDITE is designed to provide scenario-specific forecasts forpassenger and freight transport together with analyses to identifycore/competitive submarkets within the broader picture of O/D flowsand to highlight the policy sensitivity of the submarkets to differentpolicies.


The EXPEDITE model is strong in assessing policy issues related tointermodality. The model shows the likely impact of measuresdesigned to promote intermodality on the market share of intermodalpassenger and freight transport (in a very general way). A policypackage including new and expanded intermodal (freight) terminalsand passenger transfer sites, specified as savings in terminal handlingand storage costs and transfer time, can be translated into effective


22

and ineffective policies in terms of impacts on modal split in passengerand freight transport.

The weakness of the model is that it only provides the amount of travelgenerated in a certain zone (by mode, distance band, etc.) and lacksan explicit origin-destination matrix. Therefore, assessing the mediumto long-term impacts of Trans-European Networks is difficult.Moreover, the model does not include an environmental module toestimate emissions and therefore it is not possible to assess ‘fuel andcarbon’ issues and policy packages related to ‘energy policies andemission standards’.


The EXPEDITE project was closely linked to the THINK-UP thematicnetwork, which was set up to describe the state-of-the-art inforecasting methodologies and to improve the mutual understanding ofthe results obtained. Moreover, EXPEDITE has been used for theSUMMA project to assist DG TREN.

4.6 TRANS-TOOLS


TRANS-TOOLS is a research project co-funded by the EuropeanCommission under the 6th Framework Programme for Research andDevelopment. TRANS-TOOLS involves 8 partners from 6 Europeancountries. It started on 1st October 2004 and has a duration of 24months. TRANS-TOOLS aims to produce a European transportnetwork model covering both passengers and freight, as well asintermodal transport, which overcomes the shortcomings of currentEuropean transport network models.

The main shortcomings in current modelling – which will be overcomein TRANS-TOOLS – are the unsatisfactory representation of mix oftraffic (short/long distance and freight/passenger), the (partial)absence of intermodality and freight logistics in models, differences inthe implementation of the Origin-Destination base year for freight trafficin some models, the outdated character of some models, aninsufficient linkage of network-based transport models with socio-economic effects and external effects. Moreover, as on the Europeanscale different models geared to different options and with differentIPR settings are anticipated, it is useful to construct an IPR-freeinstrument on the basis of the best available knowledge (i.e. notablyfrom partners who have been involved in building models thatencompass European policy questions, such as NEA, CAU, TRT, ISIS,IWW and TNO).


23


The aim is to develop a European network-based transport modelstarting from the ideas consolidated in the consortium partners’previous modelling experience. This means that some of the featuresof the currently available EU models will be added, considering thatwhile the model cannot be a tool serving every purpose, the selectionof the model features should be made essentially on the basis of thepolicy needs addressed by the European Commission.

It is already quite clear that the SCENES model approach will providegood suggestions for the treatment of passenger transport and theinteraction between local and long-distance traffic, that the VACLAVtransport network will be a suitable basis for the development of anefficient transport assignment model, that NEAC will provide theinformation needed for a proper description of freight transport and thatthe SCENES model will constitute a reference for the treatment ofintermodal transport, as well as SLAM for logistics.


The TRANS-TOOLS model will be strong in assessing intermodalpolicy packages, since one of the innovations of TRANS-TOOLS willbe the inclusion of intermodality for passenger/freight transport. Thiswill happen whilst national and European transport policies are seekingto promote intermodality through different measures. Also, evaluatingthe impacts of Trans-European Networks (including those in AccessionCountries and those at the borders of the enlarged European Union)will be a strong feature of the TRANS-TOOLS model. Economicpolicies can be assessed thanks to the inclusion of the CGEuropemodel.

Assessing the impacts of economic policies on transport is a weaknessof TRANS-TOOLS, as the model only provides model outputs forexports and imports.


TRANS-TOOLS is not ready yet. During the course of the project therewill be interaction with the TRANSFORUM project.

4.7 EUNET-SASI


The project EUNET-SASI (June 1996 – June 1999) was part of thefourth Framework Programme and involved two sub-projects with thefollowing aims:


24

• EUNET – to develop a comprehensive methodology and model forassessing the impacts of transport initiatives (includinginfrastructure investments, regulatory and fiscal policies); and

• SASI – to develop a specialised methodology and model toforecast the socio-economic and spatial impacts of largeinvestments in Europe, particularly to support the assessment ofoptions for the TEN-T.

The TRANSFORUM project will only focus on the SASI model.

The project was carried out by Marcial Echenique and Partners Ltd(nowadays WSP Group), supported by various European universities(Denmark, Leeds, Vienna and Dortmund) and other partners.


The SASI model is a recursive simulation model of the socio-economicdevelopment of regions in Europe subject to exogenous assumptionsabout the economic and demographic development of the EuropeanUnion and transport infrastructure investments and transport systemimprovements, in particular of the Trans-European Transport Networks(TEN-T). The main concept of the SASI model is to explain locationalchange in Europe in combined time-series/cross-section regressions,with accessibility indicators being a subset of a range of explanatoryvariables. The focus of the regression approach is on long-term spatialdistributional effects of transport policies. Factors of productionincluding labour, capital and knowledge are considered as mobile inthe long run, and the model incorporates determinants of theredistribution of factor stocks and population. The model is thereforesuitable to check whether long-run tendencies in spatial developmentcoincide with the spatial development objectives of the EuropeanUnion. Its application is restricted, however, in other respects: themodel generates many distributive (and only to a limited extentgenerative) effects of transport cost reductions, and it does notproduce regional welfare assessments fitting into the framework ofcost-benefit analysis.

The SASI model differs from other approaches to model the impacts oftransport on regional development by modelling not only production(the demand side of regional labour markets) but also population (thesupply side of regional labour markets), which makes it possible tomodel regional unemployment. A second distinct feature is its dynamicnetwork database, based on a 'strategic' subset of highly detailed pan-European road, rail and air networks including major historical networkchanges as far back as 1981 and forecasting expected networkchanges according to the most recent EU documents on the futureevolution of the Trans-European Networks.

The SASI model comprises six forecasting sub-models: EuropeanDevelopments, Regional Accessibility, Regional GDP, RegionalEmployment, Regional Population and Regional Labour Force. A


25

seventh sub-model calculates Socio-Economic Indicators with respectto efficiency and equity.

The spatial dimension of the model rests on the subdivision of theEuropean Union and the 12 Accession Countries in Eastern Europeinto 1321 regions; these are connected by road, rail and air networks.For each region the model forecasts the development of accessibilityand GDP per capita. In addition cohesion indicators – expressing theimpact of transport infrastructure investments and transport systemimprovements on the convergence (or divergence) of socio-economicdevelopment in the regions of the European Union – are calculated.


The strength of the SASI model is that it is able to estimate the impactsof transport infrastructure investments and transport systemimprovements on socio-economic activities and development, includingthe spatial distribution of these impacts.

However, the modal cannot assess the impacts of (for example) Trans-European Networks on emissions levels, as it does not include anemission model. Moreover, as the model does not contain a fulltransport sub-model, it cannot take account of network congestion orintermodality either.


The model was used inside the EUNET-SASI project to assess somescenarios for the extension of the TEN-T. Moreover, the SASI modelwas expanded and used in the IASON project.

4.8 CGEurope


The original CGEurope forecasting model has been improved underthe 5th research Framework Programme in the IASON project(Integrated Appraisal of Spatial economic and network effects ONtransport’). This project started in April 2001 and was finalised inDecember 2003. IASON’s aim was to improve the understanding of theimpact of transport policies on short- and long-term spatialdevelopment in the EU.

The original CGEurope model was developed by the University of Kiel;it took multimodal transport into account and included the cost ofbusiness travel beyond the cost of freight. The previous version hasbeen adapted to a new and more detailed regional system withinIASON and has been calibrated by a newly-developed data set.


26


CGEurope is a multiregional spatial computable general equilibriummodel, in which transport costs explicitly appear as firms’ expendituresfor transport and business travel. Computable general equilibriummodels have a strict micro-economic foundation. Different assumptionsabout market forms, technologies and preferences can be introduced,and financial flows between the actors and markets in the economy aretaken into account in a theoretically consistent manner.Transport enters the CGEurope model via the costs of interregionaltransport, with costs depending on the transport network as well as oninternational trade impediments to cross-border trade. Transportpolicies are modelled by varying these transport costs. As a response,prices as well as quantities in each industrial sector react to the costchanges. Transport cost changes result in output, income and welfarechanges. The welfare changes are measured by the monetaryequivalent of variations in household utility. The focus of theCGEurope model is on evaluating welfare effects in a comparativestatic equilibrium analysis, i.e. by comparing cases ‘with’ and ‘without’,leaving everything else unchanged. It studies welfare gains and losses.


The strength of the CGEurope model is its ability to assess the impactsof transport infrastructure investments and transport systemimprovements on economic policies. The model has a micro-economicfoundation and forecasts changes of a welfare economic measure, theequivalent variation, which is a useful measure for a cost-benefitanalysis. With this model, one can thus forecast the economic benefits– and their spatial distribution – of changes in transport costsstemming from infrastructure projects, or pricing policies, or any otherpolicy that affects transport cost. The spatial resolution is as good asthe network database that is used to calculate transport costs fromeach region to each other region.

A weakness of the model is that the money raised and spent on theinfrastructure (e.g. Trans-European Networks) is not included in theeffects. This is an issue that has often been raised at conferences. Itmeans that infrastructure spending in one region does notcount towards the benefits for this region, and the question ‘who paysfor the infrastructure’ is not an issue either. Furthermore, what mightalso count as a weakness is the fact that the ‘supply’ factor is fixed ineach region, so that the infrastructure does not cause an immediaterelocation of the labour force or relocation of firms. In addition, privatepassenger travel is not included (yet), which is one issue for furtherresearch.


CGEurope has been used to forecast how regional economicdevelopments in Europe are likely to be affected by transport initiativesrepresenting policy options in the years to come. A series of scenarios


27

about infrastructure investment, pricing policies and combinations ofboth were defined during the IASON project. These were translatedinto estimates of changes in mode-specific transport costs and used asinputs for the model. Some model runs in IASON were carried out inorder to provide additional insights for the TEN-STAC project.

4.9 TRENDS


The TRENDS (TRansport and ENvironment Database System) projectwas funded by the European Commission, Directorate General forTransport and Energy, and managed by EUROSTAT. The project wascarried out in three phases, starting in 1997 and ending in 2002, withinthe framework of a collaboration between the following organizations:Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics (Aristotle University, Greece(LAT)), Department of Energy Engineering, (Denmark TechnicalUniversity, DTU), Ψ A – Consulting (Austria, PSIAMTK) and INFRAS(Bern, Switzerland).


The TRENDS model is a system designed to calculate a range ofenvironmental pressures due to transport. These environmentalpressures include air emissions and energy consumption from the fourmain transport modes, i.e. road, rail, shipping and air. In addition,waste generation and noise emissions from road transport were alsoaddressed. Finally, the system provides an option for simple scenarioanalysis including vehicle dynamics (such as turnover and evolution forall EU 15 member states).

The final aim of the model was to produce a range of transparent,consistent and comparable transport-related environmental pressureindicators. These indicators are calculated directly from the activitylevels and reflect the potential change in the state of the environment,or the risk of specific environmental impacts which any changes inpolicy might entail.

The model includes four main modelling blocks (road, rail, maritime /inland waterways and air transport), which are included in the‘transport activity balance’ module to perform simple scenario analysisby assessing the effects of different assumptions about key factors,such as lower or higher overall transport activity evolution, modal shift,different emission standards, etc.

Road transportThe road transport module developed within the framework of theTRENDS project produces both analytical and aggregated results forthe EU15 countries, over a time-span of 50 years. More specifically,the road transport module calculates various transport-related


28

parameters, such as the annual mileage, vehicle stock, average age,vehicle emissions and fuel balance.

Railway transportThe purpose of the railway module was to establish a database thatprovides indicators for railway transport in the EU15 countries,between the years 1970 and 2020. In this study, only the energyconsumption of diesel and electric traction movements and theresulting emissions of airborne pollutants were considered. Otheractivities such as maintaining infrastructure and vehicle stock, orenvironmental factors such as noise and vibration, were not examined.The indicators were determined both for diesel and electric energysources, as well as for freight and passenger traffic.

Maritime and inland shippingThe TRENDS study of maritime shipping aimed to estimate theenvironmental pressures caused by the world’s commercial shippingfleet calling at the EU15 countries.

AviationThe aviation module produces emission forecasts for the time period2002-2020. Traffic growth rates of 2002 – 2009 predicted byEurocontrol (according to the baseline scenario) were extrapolated tothe year 2020 to provide these forecasts.


The main strength of the TRENDS model is that it calculates a range ofenvironmental pressures due to transport in a harmonised way forseveral transport modes. On the other hand, a main shortcoming of themodel is that it has a limited value for policy forecasts as it is a trendextrapolation model.


The TRENDS model has been used by EUROSTAT and DG Transport.

4.10 TREMOVE


TREMOVE is a policy assessment model designed to study theimpacts of different transport and environment policies on transportsector emissions. A first version of the model was developed in 1997-1998 by the University of Leuven and Standard & Poor’s DRI as ananalytical underpinning for the European Auto-Oil II programme. Thismodel included nine EU Member States and was calibrated to 1995data.


29

In 2002 an assessment of TREMOVE was made, in whichspecifications for a new and enhanced model were described. The newmodel, mainly developed by Transport and Mobility Leuven andTrasporti e Territorio, also covers explicitly rail, air and shipping anddeals with a larger set of pollutants. Moreover, it covers all EU15countries, plus Switzerland, Norway, the Czech Republic, Hungary,Poland and Slovenia. The new model has been made consistent withother European transport and energy scenarios and takes on board themost recent emission computation methodology available at EU level.


The TREMOVE model estimates the transport demand, modal shift,vehicle stock renewal, emissions of air pollutants and welfare level fordifferent policies (for instance road pricing, public transport pricing,emission standards, subsidies for clean cars, etc.). TREMOVE modelsboth passenger and freight transport in the EU15 plus 6 extracountries, and covers the period 1995 – 2020.

TREMOVE consists of 21 parallel country models and one maritimemodel. Each country model consists of three inter-linked ‘core’modules: a transport demand module, a vehicle turnover module andan emission and fuel consumption module, to which a welfare costmodule and a life-cycle emission module is added.

• The transport demand module describes transport flows and theusers’ decision-making process when it comes to making theirmodal choice.

• The vehicle stock turnover module describes how changes indemand for transport across modes or changes in price structureinfluence the number, the age and the type of vehicles in the stock.

• The fuel consumption and emissions module is used to calculatefuel consumption and emissions, based on the structure of thevehicle stock, the number of kilometres driven by each vehicle typeand the driving conditions.

• The life-cycle emissions module enables to calculate emissionsduring production of fuels and electricity.

• The welfare cost module has been developed to compute the costto society associated with emission reduction scenarios inEuropean urban and non-urban areas.


TREMOVE is the model that simulates the impact of policy measuresrelating to transport technologies and provides projections as regardsthe environmental impact of transport – e.g. the changes in volume oftransport, modal choice and vehicle choice (size and technology)relative to a transport and emissions baseline. Weaknesses could notbe identified at this stage, as a new TREMOVE model is currently indevelopment.


30


The previous version of the TREMOVE model was used in the Auto-OilII programme and supported DG TREN (SUMMA project) and DG ENV(policy study) regarding CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles.Moreover, TREMOVE has been used in the following FP5 projects:PREMTECH II, D-ULEV, SUVA and GET-CO2.

The new TREMOVE model, especially the baseline scenario and theresults of policy simulations, will be a crucial input for the Clean Air forEurope (CAFE) programme for air quality and the European ClimateChange Programme (ECCP), as well as for other programmes.


31

5. Results of the first Forum Meeting

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TRANSFORUM organised its first Forum Meeting on 10 and 11February 2005 in Antwerp, Belgium. It was an introductory meeting inwhich the 3 parallel streams of TRANSFORUM activities werepresented to all participants. In addition, various aspects of thefacilitation and validation strategies were on the agenda and werediscussed during the parallel sessions of this Work Package.Two types of conclusions were most relevant; (1) the scientific andpolicy-making needs regarding transport models and validation (andthe relationship between both) and (2) the facilitation of the ongoingFP6 project TRANS-TOOLS. The proceedings of the first ForumMeeting are described in [5].

5.1 Scientific and policy-making needs

Based on a round table organised during the first Forum Meeting inAntwerp, it can be concluded that policy-makers and scientists havedifferent wishes regarding transport models. Policy-makers mainlyneed tools that are able to answer questions in a flexible and easy-to-understand way. The policy-maker does not want to be bothered withrequests for detailed model input and wants to see immediate results.Besides, for a policy-maker model results should make clear who isgoing to be affected by a policy measure and how the policy impactsare distributed – either regionally or among specific population groups.

On the other hand scientists are very interested in a clear and‘standardized’ overview of the model characteristics. Also they wouldlike to know which indicators can be used for the assessment of policymeasures and how robust the predictions are.

Of lesser interest for policy-makers, but still important, are a clearoverview of how transport models are organised, what their strengthsand weaknesses are, etcetera. Moreover, they stressed that they haveto defend the results of the transport models in the political arena andtherefore the results should be clear and understandable for them.

From the above observations, together with the policy-makers’ feelingthat the number of available transport models should be limited, andtheir wish that the remaining models should answer questions in aflexible way, we can draw the following conclusion: the overview ofexisting European transport models and how they are related to eachother (as presented in the previous chapter) is a useful input for policy-makers as it makes clear that (1) the number of available models toassess transport-related policy issues is already quite limited and (2)models are a representation of reality, and are not able to assess allpolicy issues as they are developed for specific goals.


32

A complete list of scientific and policy-making needs is included inAppendix B.

5.2 Lessons learned from other projects

Philippe Tardieu of NEA presented the results of the THINK-UPproject. THINK-UP was a thematic network, but its results directlycontributed to the development of the EXPEDITE model (which isbeing used to evaluate the White Paper ‘European transport policy for2010: time to decide’). Therefore THINK-UP shifted from being aThematic Network to a more research-oriented project.

One of the learning points of THINK-UP for TRANSFORUM is thatthere should be more interaction between national and Europeantransport models. National transport models are often more detailedand therefore their results are often different from the results ofEuropean transport models. This causes discussions with individualmember states about the output of European transport models.Facilitating discussions between European and national transportmodel developers about how to overcome differences in inputs of bothtype of models (e.g. assumptions concerning economic growth ordifferences in base years) is a useful task for TRANSFORUM. As willbe explained in Chapter 6, this will be the main theme to be discussedat the fourth Forum Meeting.

5.3 Facilitation of ongoing projects

Arnaud Burgess of TNO, project coordinator of TRANS-TOOLS,presented the TRANS-TOOLS project (a short description of this modelis given in Section 4.6). After the presentation several questions wereasked about the project.

First of all the TRANS-TOOLS project should be more explicit aboutdifferent ways of dealing with short and long-distance transport. Thecurrent development of the model foresees in three types of journeypurposes, long and short-distance traffic. The question is whether thenumber of purposes is sufficient, e.g. should we not include commutertraffic in the TRANS-TOOLS model? The answer is dependent on theinformation available in Europe. In ETIS BASE a European passengermatrix is being constructed, that includes the best available informationin all EU countries (including new member states).

Besides, a remark was made on the introduction of low cost carriers inthe airline industry. This introduction has changed the costs of airtravel considerably. The question is whether these changes in costshave been included in the TRANS-TOOLS model? This was discussedduring a recent meeting of the TRANS-TOOLS consortium. It is difficultto develop a model that simulates industrial behaviour in advance.


33

However, the effects of low cost carriers on prices and travel timescould be included in the model.

A third issue raised was related to the Level of Service. The Level ofService might be difficult to include with the defined time periods. Thisis possible at the regional and national levels, as is shown in the UK,but at European level it might be difficult to work out.

A fourth question was related to the policy needs of the TRANS-TOOLS model. Have these been identified? Beforehand it was statedthat the Commission needs a reliable network model that providesforecasts for assessing European transport policy (this is reflected inthe Technical Annex of the TRANS-TOOLS project).

Finally a question was asked on including the reliability of travel times(a research line that was recently started and is attracting growinginterest) in the TRANS-TOOLS project. Including reliability in themodel could be difficult according to one of the attendees. The adviceof TRANSFORUM was to pay attention to this topic as it is rapidlybecoming more important. It was acknowledged that this topic was inits first stage of modelling and could be difficult to include in aEuropean transport model at this stage.

Finally, TRANSFORUM proposed to support TRANS-TOOLS in thedevelopment of the European transport network model.TRANSFORUM can organise the comparison of results of nationalmodels with the TRANS-TOOLS results. This will be discussed duringthe fourth Forum Meeting, as will be explained in the next chapter.


34

6. Future activities and discussion

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1 Summary of discussions in this report

The overall objective of the TRANSFORUM’s Work Package 4(validation of European transport models and scenarios) is to assessthe scientific and policy-making fitness-for-purpose of transport modelsand scenarios that have been developed and used in projects of theEuropean Framework Programmes. A second, possibly more importantobjective of the Work Package is to disseminate the results that havebeen accepted (in the TRANSFORUM project) to various stakeholders.The validation considers the match between the models and scenarioson the one hand, and EU policy objectives and the related policymeasures and indicators on the other hand. Both results will be used tomake recommendations on desirable developments in the field ofEuropean transport models. At the first Forum Meeting – organised on10 and 11 February 2005 in Antwerp (Belgium) – one of theparticipants confirmed the relevance of this ambition when it wasstated that policy-makers and those who develop transport modelsshould get together to discuss users’ and scientists’ needs.

Over the past few years a wide range of research activities aimed atdeveloping transport models has been conducted under both FP4 andFP5. Such research activities will also be proposed and conductedunder FP6 in support of the Common Transport Policy. Some of themodels are still state-of-the-art, whereas others were developed someyears ago and have not been modified since then (often due to theinclusion of specific model elements into a new development). This hasresulted in a variety of models as concerns overall structure,comprehensiveness, theoretical foundations, modelling techniques,dynamics, data requirements and calibration.

To those not closely involved in transport modelling, this gives theimpression that several models exists, and on top of this, that there areno connections between them and therefore they could be categorisedas stand-alone models. Modelling experts often state that this mix oftransport models is necessary as each model has its own capabilities.Therefore a ‘mother of all models’ is not a preferred option. It can beconcluded that this diversity of European models is not a problem aslong as there is a good segmentation in the models in terms of thepolicy issues they encompass. For example if there are 3 to 4European models focussing on the same policy issues, one could takethem as they are (and eventually use them in combination, therebyobserving the different reactions of these models) in a kind ofarchitecture. Certainly one does not need 200 models to contribute tothe analysis of expected policy impacts , but the overview of


35

relationships between existing transport models as presented in Figure2 shows that this is not the case.

What is more important than validating individual European FrameworkProgrammes projects in TRANSFORUM is the provision of a roadmapfor transport modelling developments for the coming years, so thatusers’ and scientists needs are in line again. TRANSFORUM WP 4decided that this will be the aim of the second Forum Meeting, that willbe organised in October 2005. The third and fourth Forum Meeting willfocus respectively on ‘Bottlenecks in applying European transportmodels due to differences in scenarios and lack of common Europeandatasets’ and the ‘Interaction between European and national transportmodels’. These themes fully comply with the scientific and policy-making needs stated during the first Forum Meeting.

6.2 Outline of future Forum Meetings

As indicated in the previous section, the second, third and fourthForum Meetings of the TRANSFORUM project will focus on a specifictheme and contribute to drawing conclusions at the end of theTRANSFORUM project on the most desirable and necessarydevelopments of European transport models according to scientific andpolicy-making needs. The following themes have been identified:• Expected and recommended developments in transport modelling

– developing a roadmap (aim of the second Forum Meeting)• Bottlenecks in applying European transport models due to

differences in scenarios and lack of common European datasets(aim of the third Forum Meeting)

• Interaction between European and national transport models (aimof the fourth Forum Meeting).

At the second Forum Meeting, experts will be invited to write andpresent papers focussing on their views in relation to expected andrecommended developments in European transport modelling. At leastthree items are important in European transport modelling: reliability oftravel times, equity and new (environmental) regulations. Thepresentations will be a starting point for discussions with scientists andpolicy-makers about their views of the roadmap for European transportmodelling developments.

The third Forum Meeting will encourage experts to express theirthoughts on current bottlenecks in applying European transport modelsdue to a lack of common scenarios and European datasets. Currentdevelopments to overcome these bottlenecks, such as ETIS, shouldhave a central position in the papers (interaction with WP3 ‘validationof common definitions and indicators’ in which the ETIS project isdiscussed). Moreover, the experts should give more insights intoremaining bottlenecks and the impacts these have on Europeantransport models.


36

The last Forum Meeting will identify the causes for the differences inoutput between national and European transport models. Moreover, itwill focus on the impacts these differences have. Based on thisknowledge, TRANSFORUM will be able to make recommendations onhow to reduce the gap between the outputs of national and Europeantransport models.


37

7. References

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1] Eijkelenbergh, P., A. Burgess, G. de Jong, I. Williams, W.Schade and P. Christidis, Policy Support Tools for Transport Issues. Aproject report by the European Science and Technology Observatory(ESTO), September 2004.

[2] European Commission, White Paper – European transportpolicy for 2010: time to decide. Office for official publications of theEuropean Communities, 2001.

[3] Cascajo, R., The TRANSFORUM Screening Process. ADeliverable of WP2 TRANSFORUM.

[4] Van Beek, F.A., Inception report. D1.1 of the TRANSFORUMproject, March 2005.

[5] Eijkelenbergh, P.L.C., Proceedings of the first WP4 forumsession 10 – 11 February 2005, Antwerp (Belgium). A Deliverable ofWP4 TRANSFORUM, March 2005.

[6] INTERMODA (2002); Deliverable D1 – Identification ofrequirements on intermodal transport; Report prepared for EuropeanCommission DGTREN under the 5th Framework Programme,INTERMODA Consortium, Vienna.


38

Appendix A Policy issues

Fuel and carbon taxesFuel and carbon taxation policies are essential elements of the EUCommon Transport Policy (CTP as reflected in the White Paper:European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, of 2001). Atpresent there are minimum rates of taxation for each fuel according toits use. However, the thresholds are exceeded, resulting in a situationwhereby taxes vary greatly between Member States. Also it is the casethat excise duties on diesel are on average lower than those imposedon unleaded petrol, even though diesel is more polluting. In the CTPthe Commission proposes immediate tax exemption for hydrogen andbio fuels. In the short term the White Paper proposes to installharmonized taxation of fuel used for commercial purposes. In the longterm there would be a similar taxation for all consumers.

Energy policies and emission standardsOne of the targets mentioned in the White Paper is that in 2020 a 20%share of substitute fuels should be attained. A proposal has beenmade for a directive setting a minimum percentage for theconsumption of bio fuels, which should attain 6% in 2010 and 20% in2020. Further the White Paper stimulates demand by supportingprogrammes designed to promote clean car technology. This isamongst other things supported by research programmes (FP6) fromthe Commission. In 1998 about 28% of all CO2 emissions, the leadinggreenhouse gas, could be attributed to transport activities. About 98%of energy consumption in the transport sector is oil related (accountingfor 67 % of final demand for oil). The use of alternative fuels can helpreduce this dependency. One of the measures is providing taxreductions for alternative fuels. The figure below shows that theCommission expects a decrease in road pollution towards 2020.Besides tax measures, other restrictions such as the gradual tighteningof motor vehicle emission standards by the Commission should alsoreduce air pollution.


39

The main purpose of modelling is to evaluate the effect of policymeasures on emissions as well as the welfare costs of these policies.The changes in volume of transport, modal choice and vehicle choice(size and technology), both for passenger and freight transport, shouldbe analysed.

IntermodalityEurostat and ECMT define intermodality as follows:

Intermodal transport is the movement of goods (in one and the sameloading unit or vehicle) by successive modes of transport withouthandling of the goods themselves when changing mode.

We shall call this the strict definition of intermodal transport. It restrictsintermodality to goods transport first, and within goods transport totransports using standard loading units or vehicles: containers, swapbodies, semi-trailers. This makes possible a change of mode withouthandling the goods themselves.

A broader definition is given in deliverable 1 of the INTERMODAproject, carried out for DGTREN [6]:

Intermodality is a characteristic of a transport system that allows atleast two different modes to be used in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain. In addition it is a quality indicator of the level ofintegration between different transport modes. In that respect moreintermodality means more integration and complementarity betweenmodes, which provides scope for a more efficient use of the transportsystem.

This definition does not prescribe the use of standard loading units orvehicles. It is so general that intermodality could be seen as a featureof passenger transport as well (e.g. park-and-ride, bicycle parkingfacilities at train stations, integration of timetables of buses and trains).In the INTERMODA project, intermodality is only studied in relation tofreight transport. In the EXPEDITE project intermodality was studiedboth as regards passenger and freight transport.

Whatever the definition, intermodality is mainly an issue for freighttransport. In the European Commission’s White Paper ‘EuropeanTransport Policy in 2010: Time to Decide’ [2], the discussion on thecontribution of intermodality to shifting the balance between the modesis limited to measures and programmes in freight transport (motorwaysof the sea, Marco Polo, encouraging the emergence of freightintegrators and standardising containers and swap bodies). In theWhite Paper, intermodality is seen as one of the main clusters ofpolicies designed to reach the objective of shifting the balancebetween modes from road (and air) transport to rail and water-basedtransport. The latter modes cannot offer door-to-door services for thelarge majority of the flows and need transport chains which includeroad-based transport to deliver such services.


40

It is generally acknowledged nowadays that a major obstacle to thegrowth of transport chains, which include rail or water-based trips, isthe often low quality (long duration, high probability of damage, highcosts) of the transfer between road transport and rail and waterbornetransport. Intermodality policies try to remove this obstacle. The WhitePaper also discusses intermodality for people (integrated ticketing,baggage handling and continuity of journeys), not in the context of thebalance between modes, but in the context of placing users at theheart of transport policy (more specifically under ’transport with ahuman face’).

Trans-European NetworksThe idea of Trans-European Networks (TENs) emerged by the end ofthe 1980s in conjunction with the proposed Single Market. It made littlesense to talk of a common, Europe-wide market, with freedom ofmovement within it for goods, persons and services, unless the variousregions and national networks making up that market were properlylinked by modern and efficient infrastructure. The construction ofTENs is also significant in the generation of economic growth and thecreation of employment at the national and local levels.(http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/index_en.html).

A large number of projects of common interest have already begun tobe implemented and there have been significant levels of financialsupport allocated from the Community budget, as well as the StructuralFunds and Cohesion Fund. However, many more TENs have beenproposed but are still awaiting funding. Therefore, there is a distinctneed to prioritise the various proposed infrastructure projects on abasis of a cost and benefit assessment at both the European level (i.e.how the projects contribute to the interconnection and interoperabilityof the various modal networks as well as how the accessibility to suchnetworks are improved) and the impacts upon the local network,economy and environment (i.e. in terms of how widespread are thecosts and benefits of each individual scheme).

Economic policiesEconomic policies (non-transport fiscal policies; outlays for R&D;structural changes in the economy; tariffs and international trade;productivity improvements) are usually implemented to stimulateeconomic growth and employment. Economic policy measures haveonly very infrequently been proposed because of their potential impacton transport: staggered working hours, part-time working,telecommuting, and longer opening hours for shops. All these policiescould reduce peak hour congestion. But policies whose main objectivelies outside the transport field can also have repercussions ontransport, which should be taken into account in an integral evaluationof these measures.


41

Appendix B Scientific and policy-making needs

Important topics for validation from a scientific perspective• Predictive power:

Which indicators can be used for the assessment of policymeasures and how robust are the predictions.

• Internally consistent• Are the assumptions plausible?

When developing a transport model the assumptions should beplausible to all.

• Scientific documentation:A clear and ‘standardized’ overview of the model characteristics isdesirable.

• Back casting:In order to validate transport models it is necessary to checkwhether predictions of ‘future’ transport demand match reality (e.g.check if predicted transport demand in the year 2000 correspondsto the actual transport demand in that year)

• Information on reliability of output• Consistency of economic theory• Model philosophy:

Overview of state of the art / used database.• Policy-makers not interested:

In Finland policy-makers are not interested in transport forecastingmodels.

• Level of detail• Multidisciplinary• Behaviour of the operators:

Competition between transport modes due to the introduction oflow-cost carriers in the airline industry and the influence this hashad on travel demand in Europe was not predicted by transportdemand models. A ‘competition module’ that predicts the influenceof travel costs (by mode) on total travel demand could be useful toovercome this shortcoming.

Important topics for validation from a policy-making perspective

• Quick-scan models:There is a need to introduce tools that are able to answerquestions in a flexible and easy to understand way. The policy-maker does not want to be bothered with requests for detailedinput and wants to see immediate results.

• Communication of model capabilities:It must be clear to policy-makers how transport models areorganized, what their strengths and weaknesses are, etcetera.

• Which policy issues:An overview of policy issues that can be assessed by means of theavailable transport models is helpful. Starting from a list ofindicators is most desirable.

• Who is affected? Distribution of impacts:For a policy-maker model results should make clear who is goingto be affected by a policy measure and how the policy impacts aredistributed, regionally or among specific population groups.

• Check long-term predictions:


42

The long-term predictions of several models are divergent; it isnecessary to explain why this is so.

• No details required to evaluate policy:See explanation concerning quick-scan models.

• Clear, understandable output:Policy-makers need to defend the results of the transport models inthe political arena. Therefore the results should be clear andunderstandable for them.

• Limited number of models:There is a need to limit the number of available transport models.The remaining models should answer questions in a flexible way.

• Re-usability, user-friendliness, ease of use• Explain achievements• Contact between research and policy:

Policy-makers and those who develop transport models should gettogether to discuss users’ and scientists’ needs. This is the goal ofTRANSFORUM.

• Policy relevance• Also report ‘bad news’:

Modellers have to show and explain the limitations of their modelsto policy-makers.

Documents

Developments in European transport modelling in relation ... · those who develop transport models together, as there were some differences in users’ and scientific needs regarding