Ex-Ante Evaluation of Exclusive Bus Lanes Implementation · in Athens where EBLs were introduced to accommodate traffic for the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. Introduction As part of

Ex-Ante Evaluation of Exclusive Bus Lanes Implementation

201


D. Tsamboulas, National Technical University of Athens

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive approach for the ex-ante evaluation and the identification of relevant impacts related to the implementation of Exclusive Bus Lanes (EBL). It proposes indicators to measure the impacts related to key stakehold-ers: public transport operators, taxis, private vehicle drivers and passengers, as well as society regarding energy and the environment. Impact values are estimated from the application of relevant transportation planning models. The ex-ante evaluation method is based on cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and is designed to assist any decision regarding implementation of EBL by determining whether it is beneficial. To demon-strate the capability of the approach, a numerical application is provided for an area in Athens where EBLs were introduced to accommodate traffic for the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

IntroductionAs part of transportation management planning, most cities have introducedexclusivelanes,initiallyforallhighoccupancyvehicles(HOVs)andlaterforbuses,tofacilitatetravelingwithpublictransportandtomaximizetheperson-carryingcapacityoftheroadwaybychangingtheusageofaspecifictrafficlane.Thus,exclu-sivelanesprovideprioritytreatmentforbuses,resultinginreducedtraveltimeandimprovedtimereliability.

Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 BRT Special Edition

202

Severalstudiesspecificallyexaminedbusprioritymeasures,includingtheintroduc-tionofexclusivebuslanes(EBL),sincethe1960s(Hounseletal.1988;King1983;Tee1994;Denco1995;Pitsiava-Latinopoulouetal.1988;Frantzeskakisetal.1997;Tsamboulasetal. 1999;Astropetal. 1995).However, inmostcases, a compre-hensivemethodfortheex-anteevaluationofEBLimplementationisnotapplied.Evenwhenanevaluationisdone,itisnotappliedseparately,butinconjunctionwithothermeasuresformasspublictransport,usuallyaspartoftransportationmanagementschemes(Horowitzetal.1994;Mandl1980;DETR1997;Jacquesetal.1997;EnvironmentalProtectionAgency2005).

Thisarticlepresentsacomprehensiveapproachthatincorporatestheanalysisofimpacts and the socioeconomic ex-ante evaluation regarding EBL implementa-tion.Theapproachisbasedontheoutputsoftransportationmodelapplications;forexample,estimationofpassengerandvehiclevolumesontrafficassignmentand mode choice models, costs elements related to EBL implementation andtechnicaldesignstudies;andbenefitstotripmakersontraveltimesandoperat-ingcosts.Theimplementationcosts,inmostcases,arenegligiblecomparedwiththe impacts related to vehicles and passengers/drivers. The ex-ante evaluationisbasedonthewidelyappliedandwell-documentedcostbenefitanalysis(CBA;Tsamboulasetal.1999).

Methodology Basic PrinciplesThe methodology comprises two stages: (1) identification of the impacts andtheir measurements and (2) the evaluation methodology based on the differ-enceoftotalresource(economic)costsbetweenthecurrentconditionsandthesituation when EBL is implemented. If such difference is positive, then benefitsaregenerated.Additionalbenefitsareassociatedwithoperationalelements(e.g.,traveltime,environment).Theevaluationusesthewell-establishedCBAmethod.Traffic-related inputs derived from the application of transport models areemployed.

Theinnovativeelementofthemethodologyliesintheidentificationandmeasure-mentofimpactsassociatedwiththemainstakeholders:(1)forpublictransportoperators,theimpactsrelatetovehicleoperatingcostsanddriverworkinghours;(2) fordriversoftaxisandotherpublic-purposevehicles(trucks,vansetc.), theimpactsfocusonwhetheracceptableworkingconditionsaremaintained;(3)for


203

transportcompaniesoperatingtaxis,vans,trucks,etc.,theimpactsconcernpos-sibledecreasesinvehiclefleetcosts;(4)fortripmakers(driversorpassengers),theimpactsareabouttripcostsandtraveltime,and(5)forthegeneralpublic,theimpactsrelatetoenergyconsumptionandtheenvironment.

Atthefirststage,themeasurementofimpactvaluesisbasedontheoutputsoftransportationsimulationmodels(eithergenericorcommerciallyavailablemod-els,suchasNETSIM,TRANSYT,CUBE,VISUM,EMMEII).Thesemodelsproduceoutputsthatcouldbeusedforimpactmeasurementiftheappropriatevariablesareintroducedinthemodels’configurations.Thenextcriticalstepistodefinetheareawherethemodelshavetobeapplied.ItineraryroutesandvehiclescurrentlyusingtheroadwaysegmentwheretheEBLwillbeimplementedareincludedinthisstep.ThisareacouldbeextendedtoincludeanyalternativeroutefollowedbyprivatevehiclesandtransportmodeswhenEBLisintroduced.Inbrief,itistheareathatcomprisesallpossiblealternativeroutesforallpassengerO-Dpairscurrentlyusingtheroadwaysegmentunderconsideration.

Atthesecondstage,theex-anteevaluationisapplied.Decisionsontwoissuesarerequiredbeforetheapplication:(1)choiceofthecriterionforCBA(i.e.,selectionoftheNetPresentValue[NPV]orB/CratioortheInternalRateofReturn[IRR]);and(2)thetimeperiodforevaluation(usuallythreetofiveyearssinceEBLisalow-costtransportation management measure, and as such changes could occur withinthis time horizon). The developed ex-ante evaluation compares the alternative(implementationofEBL)withthecurrentsituation(donothing).Transportationsimulationmodelsareappliedforbothcases,andthecorrespondingvaluesfortheimpactsareproduced.TheoverallstructureandcomponentsoftheapproacharepresentedinFigure1.

Tripmakers’ Related ImpactsTwobroadcategoriesoftripmakersareidentified:(1)thosewhoafterimplemen-tationofEBLcontinuetousethesametransportmodesasbeforeand(2)thosewhodecidetochangetransportmodes(usuallytakingbusesthatmovealongtheEBL).

All tripmakers’ related impacts are calculated with the application of the rel-evant transport models for existing conditions (before application of EBL) andafterapplicationofEBL.ThelatternecessitateschangesinthetransportnetworkemployedbythemodelssincetheEBLshouldbeconsideredasachangeinoneormorelinksofthetransportnetwork.


204

Figure 1. Methodology’s Structure and Components


205

Implementation and Operation Costs CostsrelatedtoimplementationandoperationoftheEBLareidentifiedbelow.

Construction (Ck).EBLconstructioncostsareassociatedwithdesignstudies,worksforimplementation(i.e.,roadwaysignaling,verticalsigns,trafficlightsatintersec-tions,pavements),othernecessary interventions (i.e., roadwidening,pavementreconfigurations,busstopschanges);andpossiblemodificationsofinfrastructure(i.e.,catenariesfortrolleybuses).

Police Surveillance (Ca).Police surveillance is related toobservation for incidentdetectionorviolationsbyprivatevehicleortaxidriversofEBLuse.Aminimumnumberoffinesareimposedbythepolicetocoversurveillancecosts.Oncethecostsarecovered,additional revenuecouldbeusedbythemunicipalityor thepublictransportoperatortofinanceEBLmaintenanceandimprovementsinpub-lictransportservices.

Maintenance (Cμ).MaintenanceincludesanyexpensesrelatedtotheupkeepandefficientoperationofEBL.

Tripmakers’ Travel Time Cost ImpactsTravel Time Changes. Travel time changes concern tripmakers regardless oftransportmode(passengersforbusesandtaxis,driversorpassengersforprivatevehicles)whocurrentlyusetheroadwaysectionwhereEBLwillbeimplemented.Changesarebasedontraveltimedifferences“before”and“after”conditionsthatexist for vehicles moving along the section of the road on which EBL is imple-mented.

Consequently,thechangeintraveltimecosts(€/hr)is

(1)

SeeTable1foranexplanationofsymbols.

Changes in Passenger Waiting Time at Stops.ThemovementofbusesalongtheEBLwill triggerchanges inpassenger travel times,other than in-vehicle travel time.Thus,increasesinfrequencyofbusservicewillresultinchangesinwaitingtimesatbusstops,producingchangesintime-relatedcosts(€/hr).


206

Table 1. Variables Used in EBL Evaluation


207

(2)

Vehicle Operating CostsVehicleoperatingcosts includeall relevant costs such as fuels, lubricants, tires,maintenance/service, and parking expenses. In public transport modes, drivercosts,aswellascorrespondingadministrationcosts,havetobeadded.Thefol-lowingmodelcouldbeusedtoestimatevehicleoperatingcosts inurbanareas(Mandl1980):

(3)

where:

Cλi. equals operating cost for a typical vehicle of transport mode i,expressedin€/km

Vi representsaverageoperatingspeedofatypicaltransportmodeivehicleontheroadsectionexamined,expressedinkm/hr

CTm is0fornonpublictransportmodes;hourly wages of driversforpublictransportmodes

ai,bi,fi are estimated (after model calibration) and are differentiated withtransportvehicletype(i)andfuel

Theabove-presentedmodelinequation(3)isanexampleofexistingmodelscal-culatingvehicleoperatingcosts.

Consequently,changesinvehicleoperatingcostsarefortwocasesidentified:(1)tripmakerswhocontinuetotravelthesamewayand(2)tripmakerswhochangerouteafterimplementationofEBL.

Tripmakers Who Continue to Travel the Same Way (Transport Modes, Route Itin-eraries).Twocasesareidentified:(1)tripmakerswhousetheroadwhereEBLisimplemented(denotedby j=0)andwhoareusingtransportmodesotherthanbus;and(2)tripmakerswhocontinuetomoveasbeforeimplementationofEBLalongrouteitinerariesthatdonotincludetheEBLroute(j=1)utilizingthesametransportmodeasbefore.

Thus,thecostdifference,DCλj,isestimatedby


208

(4)

Theimpactonotherpublictransportmodesusingfixedtrack(e.g.,lightrapidrail,metro,suburbanrail)isnegligible,andthusisnotincludedinthecalculations.

Tripmakers Who Change Routes After Implementation of EBL.Inthecaseoftrip-makerschangingrouteitinerariesafterEBLimplementation,theimpactonvehicleoperatingcostsisattributedtopossibleincreasesinspeedandvehicle-kmtraveledsincealternativeroutescouldbelonger.

Changeintotaloperatingcostsisestimatedby

(5)

Travel Cost Impacts of Tripmakers Changing Transport Mode The most probable case is that of tripmakers using transport mode i (usuallyprivatecarortaxi)whobecomeusersofpublictransportm,afterimplementa-tionofEBL.Othercases(e.g.,changeofbusmodeformetro)arerathernegligible,andthustheyarenotincluded.Itisevidentthatthesetripmakerswillnolongeruse theirprivatecarsor takea taxi, and thus therewillbeadecrease in trafficvolumes.

Hence,changesintravelingcostsareestimatedasfollows:

(6)

Traveltimecostsareestimatedbyequation(1),andpassengerandtrafficvolumesareestimatedfromtheapplicationofthewell-knowntransportfour-stepprocessandthecorrespondingmodels.

Additional Revenue to Public Transport OperatorsThemodalshiftfromprivatevehiclestopublictransportgeneratestheneedformorefrequentservicetocovertheincreasedpassengerdemand.Theadditional


209

volume of public transport vehicles that will sufficiently cover the generateddemandisestimatedaccordingtotheavailablecapacityofthebuses.

Thesenewbusserviceswillresultinadditionaloperatingcostsforthetransportoperations,estimatedby

(7)

Ontheotherhand,generatedrevenuesfromadditionalpassengersonbusesalongrouteoare

(8)

External (Noneconomic) Costs Externalcostsmainlyconcernenvironmentalimpact(airquality,noise,andvibra-tion)andenergy-relatedcosts.Potentialimpactsattributedtoconstructionwillnotbeconsideredsincetheyaretemporaryimpactsandwillbemitigatedthroughtheuseofbestmanagementpractices.Conversionofphysicalunitstomonetaryunits isnoteasyaneasyapplication.Thus,waysofconvertingphysicalunitstomonetaryvalueshavetobeincluded.

Energy Consumption. Fuel consumption and emission rates per passenger-kmdependonloadfactors.Abuswith50passengersconsumesaboutonetenththeenergyperpassenger-kmasanaverageautomobile,butenergyconsumptionperpassenger-kmcouldbelittlehigherfortransitsystemsthanprivatevehiclesiflowloadfactorsareobserved.ANationalResearchCouncilstudy(CommitteeontheScienceofClimateChangeoftheNRC2001)estimatestheseexternalitiesatabout30centspergallononaverage.

Sincethecostofenergyconsumptionisalreadyincludedintheoperatingcosts,itwillnotbeestimatedseparatelytoavoiddoublecounting.

Noise Impacts.Motorvehicletrafficimposesnoisepollution.Noise-relatedcoststendtobemuchhigheronlocalurbanroadswheretraffictendstobeclosertohouses.Levelsoftrafficnoisearequantifieddependingonthetrafficvolumeandcomposition,speed,typeofroad(gradient,surfacequality,andtype)aswellastheelementsoftheurbanmodelthatrepresentthegeometryoftheparticularregion.


210

Forallroadsections,thelevelofnoiseatthereceptionpoint(facadeofabuildingnexttoEBL)couldbeestimatedbyapplyingtheequivalent24-hournoise levelbasedontrafficvolumes.

Ontheotherhand, themethodology introducesa threshold, thetransgressionofwhichproducesthecosts.Thisthresholdcorrespondsto50dB(A)forpublictransport vehicles at urban areas where EBL is implemented (Federal TransitAdministration1995;EnvironmentalProtectionAgency1974).IfconstructionandoperationoftheEBLresultsinchangingthelevelofnoiserelatedtothe50dB(A)threshold, then the values produced in the Delucchi and Shi-Ling Hsu study(DelucchiandHsu1998)canbeusedwithpropermodificationsincurrencyanddistanceunits.

Atmospheric Pollution Impacts.Atmosphericpollutionimpactsaremainlydeter-mined by three factors: (1) carbon monoxide (CO), (2) nitrogen oxides (NOx),and(3)particulates(PM).Otherpossiblepollutants,however,aretobetakenintoconsideration(e.g.,sulphur)ifbelievedtobesignificant.Forevaluationpurposes,thenumberofpersonsaffectedbysuchemissionshastobeconsidered.Deter-minationofatmosphericpollutionandtheresultingbenefitsorcostscouldbebasedontheworkbyDETR(DETR1999).Thus,atmosphericpollutionimpactscanbeappliedintheurbanareaswheretheEBLis implementedforestimatingpollutionateachspecificroadsegment.Thiswillavoidtheuseofanaverageforthewholeroadwaysysteminanarea.Inaddition,athresholdisdetermined,thetransgressionofwhichproducestherespectivecosts.Theintroducedthresholdcorrespondstothefollowingvalues(forthethreepollutants)forpublictransportoperationsaturbanareaswheretheEBLisimplemented(EuropeanEnvironmen-talAgency2003):(1)CO:10ppmper8h;(2)NOx:150ppbperhour;(3)PM:50mg/m3perday.

Ex-Ante Evaluation Theaboveimpactsconstituteparametersfortheex-anteevaluationofEBLimple-mentation.Theremainingitemstobeconsideredaretheevaluationperiodandtheconversionofresultedvaluesinpresentvalues.Theevaluationcriterionpro-posedisbasicallytheNPV,and—ifrequested—theB/Cratioand/orIRR,whichisbasedonNPVresults.Theevaluationperiodisusuallythreetofiveyears,depend-ingontheEBLimplementationinvestmentscale.Asforconversionofhourlyval-uestoannualones,dailyhoursaswellasdaysperyeararedeterminedbythehoursperdayanddaysperyearofthespecificEBLoperation(i.e.,timeperiodswhenonlybusesareallowedtomovealongthespecificEBL).


211

Thus:

(9)

wherethevaluesoftheparametersarebasedonoutputsofpreviousrelations(seeTable1).

ApplicationOverviewTheproposedmethodologywasappliedtoanEBLtobeimplementedinAthensonaprincipalarterialroad.Itwasintroducedprimarilyasameasuretoaccommo-datetheincreasedvolumesofpublictransportexpectedduringtheAthens2004OlympicGamesandaspartofthetrafficmanagementmeasures introducedinthecity.Therefore,theanalysisanditsresultswillbepresentedseparatelyfortheOlympicGamesperiod(whichlastsonly20days)andforthepost-OlympicGamesperiod,tobeconsideredasfouryears.

Olympic Games PeriodTrafficdataregardingsituations“before”and“after”aswellasinputcosts(imple-mentationandoperation)andothernecessarydataarederivedfromstudiesandresearch(Frantzeskakisetal.1997;Polydoropoulouetal.1998)andpresentedinTable2.ThecriterionemployedisthatoftheNPV.Byapplyingequation(9)withonly the relevant parameters, as specified in Table 2 and without the externalcosts,theresultingNPVis12.305,71€.SincetheNPVispositive,thespecificEBLisviable.Theresultingvalueislowthoughandisattributedtotheconsidered20daysofOlympicGames—averyshortperiodofoperation.

A separate analysis was conducted for environmental impacts. The air qualityanalysis was conducted at intersections with potential high traffic volume andvehicledelays.Onlytwonoise-sensitivereceiverscouldbeimpactedasaresultoftheintroductionofadditionalbusesassociatedwiththeEBLimplementation.


212

Tabl

e 2.

Inpu

t Dat

a (T

raffi

c Ch

arac

teri

stic

s, T

echn

ical

and

Eco

nom

ic D

ata)


213

Post-Olympic Games PeriodThetrafficdataregardingthesituations“before”and“after”andtherelationshipsusedarethesameaspreviouslypresented.Inthiscase,usingthecriterionofNPVforevaluationwith

n:4(Years of Construction: 1, Years of Operation: 3),i:5%,

theresultingNPVis9.121.618,30€.

ThepostOlympicGamesevaluationresultedinhigherNPV,andiftheyearsofevaluationweremorethanfour,thenahigherNPVwouldbeachieved.Toexam-inethepossiblechangesofNPV,asensitivityanalysiswasperformedrelatedtothetrafficvolumes.Itfoundthatevenifthechangeinprivatevehiclesvolumesismarginal(e.g.,0,5–1%),themethodologyapplicationdemonstratesthatEBLis beneficial. By changing the second crucial parameter, the same conclusion isreached.

Conclusions Inmostcitiestheavailablespaceformovements(road,rapidtransit)isfixed,andany increases incapacityaretimeconsuming,overlyexpensive,andmost likelytotriggeroppositionforpossibleenvironmentalimpacts.Hence,transportationplannersmainlytrytoimplementtransportationmanagementschemes,aimingatincreasingthecapacityofthetransportationsystem,measuredinpersonsmoved(not vehicle flows). Consequently, transportation planners look at generatedimpactsfromtheimplementationofaspecificstrategy.Itiswithinthesetranspor-tationmanagementmeasuresthatEBLimplementationfalls.

Anytransportationmanagementplanneedstobeevaluatedbeforeitsimplemen-tationtoidentifyandmeasureitsimpacts.Thus,theresultedbenefits,disbenefits,andcostswillbeassessed.WhetheraspecificEBLisevaluatedaseffectiveandben-eficialdependsonthecriteriaandassumptionsusedinitsevaluation(Wellanderetal.2001).

Inthepresentstudy,therequiredcomprehensivemethodologydevelopediden-tifies all impacts related to the specific EBL implementation, and performs theex-anteevaluation.Byidentifyingallrelevantimpacts(e.g.,traveltime,transportoperating costs, traffic diversion, bus ridership and service, environmental andenergy),decision-makerscanunderstandthepositiveand/ornegativeeffectsforeachcategoryoftrafficandthusreactaccordingly.


214

In addition, the methodology can be used as a tool to address communityconcerns.Thus, if theevaluationproducesapositiveNPV,EBL implementationproducespositiveresultsforsocietyandassuchitmustbeimplemented.Ontheotherhand,ifanegativeNPVisproduced,EBLmustbeavoidedandthusunneces-saryspendingisprevented.

The presented evaluation methodology is helpful to assess the contribution ofEBLasapolicymeasureonitsownandaspartofawidertransportstrategy.TheproposedmethodologyshouldalsoconsiderdifferentalternativesofEBLdesignandwhetheraspecificbusroutesegmentcouldbeanEBLoramixed-flowone.ThelaterisusefulinviewoftheoppositeopinionsregardingEBLimplementationatleastforthecasesthatthecurrentlyobservedtrafficflowsarelow.Asprovenbytheapplicationof themethodology, theadvantagesofEBLovermixed-traf-fic lanes include increases invehicleoccupancies, reductions indelays,and lowvehicleemissions.

EBLimplementationpromotesofequityamongtravelers.Suchmeasuresgener-allyprovidethemostbenefittocommuterswhosetraveloccursduringweekdaypeakperiods.Thedistributionofcostsandbenefitsdependsonanarea’ssitua-tion.Ifexistingcapacityisredistributed,thosewhorelyonmasstransitandareabletojoinwillreceivetime-savingsbenefitsandpotentialfinancialbenefits(e.g.,employers may provide EBL parking subsidies). EBL facilities may benefit low-income travelers while imposing costs on high-income travelers. For example,masstransitriderstendtobefromlowerincomegroupsandvaluetimesavingslessthanhigh-incomeindividuals.

Finally, one of the most critical components of implementing a successful EBLprogramisenforcement,whichisaddressedbythemethodology.SurveysshowthatearlyandsubstantialenforcementofEBLrulesonanewfacilityisthebestdeterminantforlong-termpubliccompliance.

The proposed methodology, as it is the case for most generic ones, has to beadaptedtoexistingconditionsbefore its implementation.Whenusedwithrealdata,itcanbeausefulandpowerfultooltoanytransportationplanner.


215

References

Astrop, A.I., and R.I. Balcombe. 1995. Performance of bus priority measures in Shepherd’s Bush.InternalReport,No.140.UKTransportationResearchLabo-ratory.

CommitteeontheScienceofClimateChangeoftheNationalResearchCouncil.2001.Climate change science: An analysis of some key questions.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress.

Delucchi, M., and S.L. Hsu. 1998. External damage cost of noise emitted frommotorvehicles.Journal of Transportation and Statistics1(3):1–24.

DencoLtd.1995.Application study of exclusive bus lanes along main roads in the city of Athens. General principles of transport planning and their application on Kifisias Avenue. Ministry of Physical Planning, Environment and PublicWorks.

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR). 1999.Localisedairqualityassessment.Design Manual for Roads and Bridges11,Sec-tion3,Part1,AirQuality.

DETR.1997.Guidance note—Annex B: Appraisal of bus priority measures. Recom-mended methods. UK, Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions.

EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.1974. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.WashingtonDC.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. TCP Program, High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Accessed at the Internet site in 2005: http://www.epa.gov/omswww/transp/traqtcms.htm.

EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency.2003.http://www.eea.eu.int.

FederalTransitAdministration.1995.Transit noise and vibration impact assess-ment guidance manual.DOT-T-95-16.

Frantzeskakis,J.M.,M.H.Pitsiava-Latinopoulou,andD.A.Tsamboulas.1997.Traffic management.Papasotiriou,Athens.


216

Horowitz,A.J.,andE.Beimborn.1994.Methodsandstrategiesfortransitbenefitmeasurement.Transportation Research Record1496.TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC:9–16.

Hounsel,N.,andM.McDonald.1988.Evaluation of bus lanes.ContractReport87,TransportandRoadResearchLaboratory,DepartmentofTransport,Crow-thorne,UK.

JacquesK.,andH.Levinson.1987.Operational analysis of bus lanes on arterials.Report26,TransitCooperativeResearchProgram,TransportationResearchBoard,WashingtonDC.

King,G.N.1983.Bus priority in London—Techniques for the 1980s.ProceedingofSeminarK:TrafficOperationandManagement,PTRC11thAnnualMeeting,London.

Mandl,C.1980.Evaluationandoptimizationofurbanpublictransportationnet-works.European Journal of Operational Research5:396–404.

Pitsiava-LatinopoulouM.,M.Grigoriadou,E.Giannitsopoulou,andA.Kimoundris.1988.Application of exclusive bus lanes on Mitropoleos Street for the Thessa-loniki-Public Transport Organization.InquiringTeamAPC,Thessaloniki.

PolydoropoulouA.,A.Deloukas,andA.Anastasaki.1998.Modal policies in Attica Region: An impact assessment study. Presented at the European TransportConference,LoughboroughUniversity,UK.

TeeA.,T.Cuthbertson,andG.Carson.1994.Public Transport Initiatives in Survey Traffic Engineering and Control.

Tsamboulas,D.A.,I.Williams,J.Larkinson,andP.Mackie.1999.Assessingthesocio-economic and spatial impacts of transport initiatives: The EUNET Project.Selected Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Transport research at Antwerp4:99–112.

Wellander,C.,andK.Leotta.2001.Gaugingtheeffectivenessofhigh-occupancyvehiclelanes:Applyingthreecriteriatoavailabledatarevealsbenefits,viabil-ity.TR News214.Washington,DC:TransportationResearchBoard.


217

About the Author

Dimitrios Tsamboulas ([email protected]) is an associate professorintheDepartmentofTransportationPlanningandEngineering,FacultyofCivilEngineering,attheNationalTechnicalUniversityofAthens(N.T.U.A.).HeholdsadiplomaofcivilengineerfromtheNationalTechnicalUniversityofAthens,masterof science andcivil engineer’s degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy,andaPhDfromtheUniversityofMassachusetts.Heischairmanormemberofseveralinternationalcommitteesandscientificcommittees,andareviewerofpapersinscientificjournals,andtheauthoroftwobooks,co-editorofonebook,andhaspublishedmorethan130papersinscientificjournalsandpresentationsatconferences.Hehasmorethan30yearsofprofessionalexperienceinareassuchasfeasibilitystudiesoftransportinfrastructureprojects,transportationmanage-ment, decision support systems, transport policies, modeling and forecasting,intermodality,newtechnologiesandinformationsystemsfortransportapplica-tions,andcost-benefitandmulticriteriaanalysis.

Documents

Ex-Ante Evaluation of Exclusive Bus Lanes Implementation · in Athens where EBLs were introduced to accommodate traffic for the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. Introduction As part of