@CRUiSE

Advanced Impact Integration Platform for Cooperative Road Use .

ECO-INDICATOR TO INTEGRATE ROAD

TRAFFIC EXTERNALITIES – APPLICATION
TO INTERCITY CORRIDORS
Mariana Vilaça, mvilaca@ua.pt
DEM/TEMA
Universidade de Aveiro
Paulo Fernandes, Mariana Vilaça, Eloisa Macedo, Carlos Sampaio, Behnam Bahmankhah, Jorge Bandeira, Claudio Guarnaccia, Sandra
Rafael, Ana Patricia Fernandes, Helder Relvas, Carlos Borrego, Margarida Coelho

Aveiro, May 8, 2019

 @CRUISE

OBJECTIVES

 Develop a eco-indicator that integrates traffic-related externalities in

terms of congestion, noise, GHG emissions, NOx emissions, health
impacts (related to PM10 exposure), and road crashes;
 Compare different roads: urban, rural and highway;
 Take into account different contexts of vulnerability considering the
number of people exposed;
 Correlate the traffic-externalities based on external cost of each impact.

Paulo Fernandes, Mariana Vilaça, Eloisa Macedo, Carlos Sampaio, Behnam Bahmankhah, Jorge Bandeira, Claudio Guarnaccia, Sandra Rafael, Ana
Patricia Fernandes, Helder Relvas, Carlos Borrego, Margarida Coelho (2019), Integrating road traffic externalities through a Sustainability Indicator,
Submitted for Publication at the Science of the Total Environment

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 2

 @CRUISE

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Data Collection

Traffic Modeling

Model Calibration/Validation

Road Definition

HCM Quartieri et al. VSP and EMEP/EEA

Road Crashes Traffic Congestion Noise Vehicular Emissions
GHG (𝐶𝑂2 , VOCs) 𝑁𝑂𝑥 Health Impacts (PM10 conc.)

Korzhenevych et al.
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR
(cost-based factor)

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 3

 @CRUISE

CASE STUDY

R3
TABLE 1 Road characteristics of the study domain

No. of lanes No. of Speed Limits (% R2

Distance Travel time (%) distance)
Road Name intersections
(Km) (min)
1 2 (TL/R) ≤50 ≤90 ≤120
R1
R1 EN109 11,6 17 100 - 8/6 60 40 -

R2 A29 14,6 9 3 97 -/2 - 5 95

R3 A1 16,9 11 1 99 -/3 - - 100

2 km

Urban Rural Highway

FIGURE 1 Study Domain by type of road [Open Street Maps].

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 4

 @CRUISE

RESULTS

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

• R1: rural road 922-1108 vph and urban

area 780 to 1276 vph;
• R3 traffic volumes are three times higher
than R2;
• HDV represents 3%, 4% and 9% of R1,
R2 and R3 traffic composition respectively.

FIGURE 2 Traffic Volumes between 5:30-6:30PM. Background

Map Source [Open Street Maps].

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 5

 @CRUISE

RESULTS
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CRASHES
Light Injuries Severe Injuries Fatalities
• 47% of crashes occurred in
rural road sections;
• 16% of crashes occurred in
urban sections which
represent only 6% of overall
study domain length
• R1 had the highest number
of crashes (around 30%).

FIGURE 3 Spatial Distribution of crashes based on level of injury severity. Background Map Source [Open
Street Maps].

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 6

 @CRUISE

RESULTS
DISTRIBUTION OF EXTERNAL COSTS BY ROUTE
North -a)South b)
South - North

•R2 presented the best option in terms of

R1 total costs by road segment;
EC = 0.68 €.veh-1 EC = 0.79 €.veh-1 •R2 S-N direction, can contribute in 28%
c) d) and 32% less external costs than R1
and R3 respectively by vehicle;

R2
•GHG were the largest contributor to
external costs in R2 (40-45%);
EC = 0.49 €.veh-1 EC = 0.57 €.veh-1

e) f) •Almost half of the external costs along

R3 were GHG emissions, and more than
18% NOx.
R3

EC = 0.72 €.veh-1 EC = 0.68 €.veh-1

FIGURE 4 Distribution of external costs by route

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 7

 @CRUISE

RESULTS
DISTRIBUTION OF EXTERNAL COSTS BY TYPE OF ROUTE
• Noise and NOX represented the 33% and 30% of traffic-related costs in urban sections;
• 33% of external costs in rural roads were GHG followed by Road Crashes (RC) with 30%;
• GHG represented ~74% of external costs in highways, while Noise and NOx had small
impacts (~10% each).

a) Rural b)
Roads c)
Highways
Urban Roads

FIGURE 5 Distribution of external costs by type of road: a) Urban; b) Rural; c) highway.

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 8

 @CRUISE

CONCLUSIONS
• The low-traffic-volume highway yielded the lowest external costs (28%
and 32% less compared to the other alternatives);
•Road crashes costs presented the largest share along the partly
rural/urban route while GHG costs were the most significant in routes with
highway road sections;
•The share of noise in external costs was only significant in urban roads
mostly due to the higher potentially exposed population in those areas.

This methodology can be applied into advanced management systems,

specially intelligent vehicle routing systems or intelligent road pricing system

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019 9

 @CRUISE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portuguese Authority of Road Safety (ANSR)
@CRUiSE project (PTDC/EMS-TRA/0383/2014)
mvilaca@ua.pt
TEMA – CENTRO 01-0145-FEDER-022083
Strategical Project – UID/SEM/00481/2013 (FCT)
MobiWise (P2020 SAICTPAC/0011/2015)
CISMOB (PGI01611, funded by Interreg European Programme)
DICA-VE (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029463)
InFLOWence (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029679)
Scholarship SFRH/BD/138746/2018
CESAM (UID/AMB/50017/2019)
Toyota Caetano Auto S.A

HTTPS://PROJECT-CRUISE.WEEBLY.COM/

AVEIRO, MAY 8, 2019