2006 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
October 8-11, 2006, Taipei, Taiwan
Decision making in transport infrastructures
Zofia Lukszo, Luis Ferreira and Jos Vrancken
Abstract-This paper is about decision making in transport
infrastructures, an area in which most often several actors are
involved, each with its own interests, in which decision
making tries to optimize different and often conflicting
criteria simultaneously, and in which decision making has to
take place at different levels, distinguished by geographical
extent and time scale. We distinguish several classes of
solution methods. A number of cases illustrate how the
solution methods are being applied in practice. There we see a
tendency to combine methods and to support decision making
by means of computer-based simulation, where the different
levels are reflected in different simulation tools.
I. INTRODUCTION
T ransport infrastructures have undergone significant
1 changes during the past years due to changes in the
market structures, regulations and global
competition in pricing and quality. The management of the
operation of these infrastructures is so complex, that to
guarantee the efficiency and effectiveness on the shorter
and longer term, a well-defined decision-making process is
an absolute requisite.
Let us start with a characterization of infrastructure. The
physical network of an infrastructure and the actors that are
involved, collectively form an interconnected complex
network where the actors determine the development of the
physical network, and the physical network structure
affects the behaviour of the actors [1]. An infrastructure
seen as a socio-technical system represents a multi-level
system: a hierarchically interconnected or decentralized
system, often with local objectives which are related to the
overall system performance in a rather fuzzy way,
especially since the overall objective is often not defined in
detail and it deals with a long(er) time horizon. The local
objectives are more detailed and concemed with a short(er)
time horizon and/or smaller area of interest. Very often,
each hierarchical level in the decomposed system considers
a different time horizon, and the activities defined at the
same system level consider different space boundaries.
Moreover, in decentralized decision making the degrees of
This work was supported by the Next Generation Infrastructures
Foundation wwwxngjpta.1 and the Delfi Research Centre Next
Generation Infrastructures.
Z. Lukszo (corresponding author) is an associate professor at the
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management of the Delft University of
Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands (e-mail:
zolia atbm.tude1ft.nl).
L. Ferreira is a professor at the School Urban Development of the
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia (e-mail:
I ferreira(wgut.edL ai).
J. Vrancken is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Technology,
Policy and Management of the Delft University of Technology, the
Netherlands (e-mail: josvtbmJudelttnl).
1-4244-0100-3/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE
freedom of any decision-maker may be determined by
others. Next to this, the multi-objective character of
decision problems with a variety of criteria, that often may
turn out to be conflicting, add an extra dimension to the
complexity of the decision process.
When looking at transport infrastructures, decision
making can take place at many levels in the management
and operation of infrastructure, and it can range from the
capacity utilization of national complex transport
infrastructures down to urban traffic management and
further down to decisions by individual drivers or
travellers.
In this paper we will discuss various approaches to
distributed decision making in the transport sector.
II. DISTRIBUTED DECISION SYSTEMS
In distributed decision making systems the objectives
and constraints of any decision-maker may be determined
in part by variables controlled by other authorities. In some
situations, one decision maker may control all variables
that permit him to influence the behaviour of other
decision-makers as in traditional hierarchical control. In
essence, each actor is a decision-maker responding to
external information: using this information as input he
determines his own response. The extent of the interaction
may vary depending on the particular environment and
time dimension: in some cases decision makers might be
tightly linked, in others they may have little effect on each
other.
For decision making in such systems two important
optimization methods can be used, i.e. multi-criteria and
multi-level optimization [2].
Multi-criteria (also called multi-objective) problems are
characteristic for the situations when an improvement in
any one of the criteria involved may be accompanied by a
worsening in others. Mostly, four classes of solution
methods for multi-objective problems can be distinguished
[3]:
* methods based on some measure of optimality
* interactive methods
* methods searching for Pareto-optimal solutions
* lexicographic methods.
Methods based on a measure of optimality make an
attempt to measure alternatives in one way or another, by
weighing each objective and then optimizing their
weighted sum or by replacing multi-objective optimization
by optimizing only one criterion with the greatest
preference. Therefore, methods of this category translate a
multi-criteria problem into a single criterion. Such methods
are often supported by computer-based simulation tools.
912
The second group of methods, i.e. interactive methods,
uses the information obtained from the decision maker in
an iterative process to assign appropriate importance
levels, e.g. weights, to all individual objectives. During the
solution process the user learns about the nature of the
problem under consideration by the comparison, time after
time, of two sets of multi-objective values corresponding
to two different decision vectors as in the method of
Woods [4]. Pareto methods of the third group use the
notion of Pareto optimality to achieve a balance between
objectives. Here the optimal solution appears to be the
natural extension of optimizing a single criterion, in the
sense that in multi-objective optimization any further
improvement in any one objective requires a worsening of
at least one other objective. The lexicographic methods
assume that the individual objectives may be ranked by
their importance, so that a sequential optimization of the
ordered set of criteria is possible.
In a multi-level optimization problem several decision
makers control their own degrees of freedom, each acting
in a sequence to optimize their own objective function [5].
This problem can be represented as a kind of leader-
follower game in which two players try to optimize their
own utility function F(x,y) and f(x,y), taking into account a
set of interdependent constraints. The leader optimizing F
defines an optimal x, so that this term for the objective
function of the follower is constant, and f(x,y) may be
replaced by f(y). However, due to the iterative structure of
this decision process, y can still be represented as a
function of x.
It should be stressed that even in the linear case with two
levels the bi-level programming problem is a non-convex
optimization problem which is NP-hard and therefore very
hard to solve. Moreover, general multi-level programming
models with an arbitrary number of levels, in which the
criteria of the leader and the follower can be nonlinear
and/or discrete, are most difficult and challenging.
III. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
This chapter presents four topical challenging examples
of distributed decision making in the world of transport
infrastructures
A. Rail Infrastructure Charging
In rail infrastructures, the infrastructure owners and
managers on the one hand and rail operators on the other
hand need to agree on a set of charges for usage which
maximise profit for each main player subject to safety and
other operating constraints set by regulators and
governments. The latter may have their own objective
function to maximise net community benefit, in terms of
transport performance, environmental impact and energy
consumption.
Two main railway ownership models have emerged in
practice, namely the vertically integrated railway with or
without separate internal business units; and the vertically
separated railway with track infrastructure managed and
owned separately from multiple operators. The separation
913
model has been adopted in some countries, notably in
Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, with
varying degrees of success.
Under the vertically integrated model, operators and
track owners tend to have a customer-service provider
relationship. The infrastructure provider exists to service
the needs of its client(s). The latter may consist of several
business units such as passenger services and various types
of freight services. In some cases, each business group
'owns' its own track segments, which are divided amongst
operators on the basis of major user. User charges may be
levied to non-main users using an internal cost transfer
system designed to achieve accountability and 'value for
money' outcomes.
It is argued that one of the drawbacks of the vertically
integrated model is its inability to readily and fairly
accommodate new entrants in the form of operating
competitors, sharing a common track infrastructure. The
terms and operating conditions of track access need to
extend to train dispatching rules. This is particularly
important under single line operations, where the train
conflict resolution rules need to be fair and equitable to all
operators, as well as economically sound [11]. The role of
certain mediators to ensure 'fair play' is essential in this
case. Government-commissioned agencies are usually
employed to regulate the operation impartially.
The objectives of the rail operators and owners of
railway infrastructure may conflict because they can have
different stakeholders and levels of accountability [12].
Railway services operated for profit will be concerned with
reducing operating costs and increasing revenues (via
growth in market share and/or freight rate increases).
Market share increases are closely related to the level of
service that each operator can offer. In this respect, transit
times and reliability of arrivals are important indicators.
Both these two levels of service attributes are associated
with track infrastructure design and maintenance standards.
Therefore, the ability of an operator to perform efficiently,
and to gain market share cost-effectively, is closely pegged
to its ability to strike an effective contractual arrangement
with the infrastructure owner.
Railway infrastructure owners have to plan and
manage their assets according to their overall strategic
objectives. In the case of public ownership of railway
infrastructure, there is an obligation to make investment
decisions which take into account the interests of current
service operators (sectional/private interest) and the
community to whom the entity is accountable
(collective/public interest). If the infrastructure is to be
owned on a purely commercial basis, the owner has a
profit maximising strategy which will of necessity
disregard the community costs and benefits of management
decisions.
When trains are scheduled on a rail corridor, the
objective is to achieve a given level of customer service
whilst minimising overall operating costs. Customer
service in this context is made up of several attributes
which include overall journey time and train arrival
reliability. In the context of freight movements, the
benefits of improved reliability need to be estimated on a
train-by-train basis. Each train is usually loaded with
passengers or freight from a range of customers and origin-
destination flows.
The elasticity of demand with respect to transit time
reliability will differ for each customer, commodity, and
origin-destination combination. However, reliability of
arrivals is one of the critical performance measures for all
rail markets. The ability of rail systems to compete
effectively, relies to a large extent on this level of service
attributes, as well as on price.
B. Road Pricing as an Instrumentfor Capacity
Management
Capacity management in a transport sector deals with
the allocation of the scarce network capacity of nodes and
links to users. To achieve more balanced capacity
utilization in time and space, intelligent road capacity
allocation principles, such as dynamic road pricing, can
support spreading transport demand. In such a system price
levels for tolls can vary over space and time dynamically
depending on the traffic conditions in the network and the
policy objectives of the road authority. A challenging
question is what kind of operational models are needed to
generate optimal distributed dynamic pricing schemes. In
this section we consider a network design problem in
which the aim is to determine a set of (time-varying) road-
pricing levels on road segments on a transportation
network.
The aim of the road authority is to optimize system
performance by choosing the optimal tolls for a subset of
links, within realistic constraints and subject to the
dynamic route and departure time choice, that is, the travel
behavioural part. More about the problem definition can be
found in [2]. In this problem, which can be represented as a
bi-level programming problem, we can distinguish two
different submodels: the dynamic road pricing model of the
road authority and dynamic route and departure time
choice model of travellers, see Figure 1.
Upper level Lower level
'leader' Tolls Iflowers'
Charge of tavel
behavior
Aim:
aI
Aim:
To optimize network To optimize their
performance individual utility
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the bi-level decision problem in
road pricing problem
The upper level (road authority) describes the overall road
performance and the lower level the user-specific objective
(utility) function. The aim of the road authority is to
914
optimize system performance by choosing the optimal tolls
for a subset of links, within realistic constraints and subject
to the dynamic route and departure time choice, that is, the
travel behavioural part.
C. Land use Configuration for Transit Oriented
Development Projects
Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) are higher
density mixed use residential and commercial
developments set within walking distance of key transit
nodes such as rail or bus stations or around activity centres
such as major shopping centres/offices. TOD aim to
encourage increased ridership in public transport, to
efficiently integrate land use and transport, and to create
integrated liveable communities, [13].
The main benefits of TOD include:
- Improved mobility and management of travel
demand
- Higher quality of life: better places to live, work,
and play
- Healthier lifestyle: more walking and cycling
- Viable economic development: resource efficiency
& effectiveness (e.g. energy, water)
- Reduced pollution and environmental impact.
Therefore the evaluation of TOD proposals needs to be
consistent with a general evaluation framework for other
public transport projects [14].
The development potential TOD sites cannot be fully
realised unless there are sound practices which facilitate
TOD outcomes, such as: increased public transport usage;
efficient energy and water resource usage; and improved
environmental performance [15]. Issues to be addressed
include: appropriate mix of housing, employment, services
and facilities; economic viability of development; energy
and water resource needs; and local urban development
and demographic contexts. The financial, institutional,
legal and regulatory tools and techniques supporting TOD
need to be put in place.
Local Priva e lanning
Community Developer Agency
Objective 0 ectives Objectives
TOD Configurations I
I
I
TOD Outcomes:
improved mobiliand management of travel demand
Higher quality of life:better places to live, work, -and play
Healthier lifestyle: more walking, cycling
Viable economic development. resourcetfficiency & effectiveness
Reduced pouton andtenvironmenta impact
WINNIMIll Im III 111 ommmimomm
Figure 2: Iterative TOD planning process
Decision making tools for engaging multiple actors in
evaluation and implementation of TOD sites need to lead
to the optimum development potential for individual TOD
sites, as well as maximising net environmental, social and
economic outcomes. Figure 2 shows the overall iterative
planning process that addresses individual actors' preferred
configurations to reach a preferred compromise solution
that optimises system wide net benefits for a specific site.
D.Road Traffic Management
Road traffic management (RTM) offers a well
developed example in complex decision making [6]. In
RTM decision making takes place at many different levels
(table 1): from the supra-national level (in Europe the
European Union Traffic and Transport Policy) and the
national level down to the level of road traffic operators in
traffic management centres and even down to individual
drivers. The road infrastructure is generally considered the
most problematic of all societal infrastructures, with
tremendous costs in terms of human life (in Europe some
40000 fatalities per year) and environmental damage, in
addition to the economic costs of congestion. For this
reason a great effort is spent, in research as well as in
policy making, to improve this infrastructure, among other
things by means of improved RTM [7,8,9,10].
Societal goals
Control strategies
Control tactics
Scenarios
Link layer measures
Signals
Driver behaviour
Table 1: Levels in RTM
The decision making levels are reflected in the road
infrastructure: the road system consists of different
networks (motorway, urban, rural) and within each
network three different levels can be distinguished: the
network-level, the road segment level and the point (or
cross-section) level.
At the national and supra-national level, policies apply
to the whole road system and are intended for many years.
At the other end of the spectrum, many of the decisions by
individual drivers, such as speed choice or lane choice, are
taken at the point level and on the time scale of seconds to
minutes.
At the national and supra-national level, policy making
is typically multi-criteria decision making, with safety,
network performance, environmental damage reduction
and travel time reliability being the most common criteria.
In addition there are several interdependencies between
road traffic policy and other policy areas, such as space
planning and economic development. Roughly speaking,
the factors mentioned are synergic to some degree (e.g.
network performance improves by fewer accidents) but a
915
more detailed view shows that differences also exist: e.g. a
very low speed limit would virtually eliminate fatal
accidents but network performance would then aggravate
unacceptably. There is a tendency to solve the multi-
criteria aspect by means of a cost/benefit-analysis, where
each of the criteria is represented monetarily. Still weight
coefficients for the different aspects remain the subject of
continuous debate among the many societal groups and
organisations involved. Therefore shifts in priorities can be
observed regularly.
The most advanced decision support can be found at the
level of RTM-operators in traffic management centres
where in fact all of the aforementioned classes of solution
methods are being applied. RTM-operators work at the
levels of road segments to regions in the network [8].
Often they are dedicated to a single network (motorway
operators, urban operators, rural operators). Still the
different networks constitute different spheres of interest
that are often synergic but sometimes opposite: urban
operators want to send traffic to the motorway belt road,
whereas motorway operators try to keep the belt road fluid
by reducing the inflow from the urban network by means
of so-called ramp metering. This example also illustrates
that local measures, such as ramp metering, have their
limitations. The problem can only be dealt with properly at
the network level, taking the whole region into account.
This is the reason why there is a strong tendency,
especially in heavily congested areas, to switch to region-
oriented RTM [8]. Today, this is made possible by the
availability of traffic simulation tools. This kind of tools is
used off-line in the preparation of so-called scenarios:
series of coordinated local measures for specific, regularly
occurring traffic patterns, thus achieving a network-level
effect by means of local measures. More and more, traffic
simulation is also used on-line, to evaluate in a very short
time the effect of proposed measures in response to the
sudden occurrence of unforeseen situations or to tune the
application of the off-line developed scenarios [10].
Computer based simulation allows for various multi-
criteria evaluation functions to be applied to proposed
RTM-approaches. In addition, the RTM-process is
essentially interactive, with the operators constantly
monitoring traffic and dealing with unforeseen situations.
What can not be handled by computer simulation, is often
handled in a lexicographic way, by prioritizing the
different criteria. Finally, the negotiations between the
different authorities involved try to find Pareto-optimal
solutions to regional traffic problems.
An interesting development of the past few years, a
development which takes place largely autonomously, but
which is also more and more stimulated by authorities, is
the improvement of the decision making at the lowest
level: the individual drivers. Vehicles are more and more
equipped with computing and communication devices,
which allow drivers to optimize their trips by means of
real-time traffic data. This kind of user-optimization turns
out to be quite effective, even for network-level
optimization. For instance, it causes an automatic
spreading of traffic over the network and automatic [14] L. Ferreira, Public transport: economic investment appraisal,
reroutingg in case of accidents or road maintenance. Technical Report, School Urban Development, Queensland
reroutin s .
Authorities are stimulating this by offering
t
increasingly
increa University of Technology, Brisbane, 2005.
[15] Transportation Research Board, Transit oriented development:
better information sources. Developing a strategy to measure success, NCHRP Research
Results Digest 294, Washington, D C, February 2005.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
Transport infrastructures offer many examples of
settings in which multi-actor, multi-objective and multi-
level decision making is daily practice and applies well-
defined and thoroughly researched methods. Virtually all
of the methods for complex decision making are applicable
in managing transport infrastructures. What we observe in
practice is that different methods are being applied in
combination, that computer-based simulation plays an
increasing role and that computerized systems have
strengthened the role of the lowest and most distributed
level of actors in the hierarchy of decision makers, the
individual consumers.
The relevance of optimization methods and simulation
as decision-supporting tools is very high for many players
in the world of transport infrastructure. For further research
it would be interesting to study these trends in other
infrastructures, such as in the energy and the tele-
communications sectors and to see what lessons the
different infrastructures can learn from each other in the
area of complex decision making.

REFERENCES
[1] Z. Verwater-Lukszo, I. Bouwmans. Intelligent complexity in
networked infrastructures, IEEE conference on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Hawaii, October 2005.
[2] Lukszo, Z., D. Joksimovic, M. Bliemer, Optimization of the
operation of infrastructures, IEEE Int. Conf. Networks, Sensing, and
Control, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, April 2006.
[3] Z. Verwater-Lukszo, A practical approach to recipe improvement
and optimization in the batch processing industry, PhD Thesis,
Eindhoven University of Technology, 1996
[4] D.J. Woods, An interactive approach for solving multi-objective
optimization problems, PhD Thesis, Rice University, 1985
[5] J.F. Bard, Practical Bi-level Optimization, Kluwer Academic
Publisher, 1998.
[6] J.L.M. Vrancken, O.C. Kriise: Intelligent Control in Networks, The
Case of Road Traffic Management, IEEE-ICNSC2006, Ft.
Lauderdale, April 2006.
[7] O.C. Kriise, J.L.M. Vrancken: Architecture for Distributed Traffic
Control, submitted 2006-1-5, ITS World Congress 2006, London.
[8] Rijkswaterstaat: Handbook for Sustainable Traffic Management,
2003, Rotterdam.
[9] R.v. Katwijk, P.v. Koningsbruggen, Coordination of traffic
management instruments using agent technology, Transportation
Research Part C, 2002, pp. 455-471.
[10] MADAM is a traffic simulation model, part of the OmniTRANS
system. Information at: http://www.goudappel.nl/Site/basicsite.nsf/
wwwVwContent/12omnitrans.htm?OpenDocument.
[11] L. Ferreira, Rail track infrastructure ownership: Investment and
operational issues,. Transportation, 24 (2), pp 183-200, 1997.
[12] M. Lake, L. Ferreira, Minimising the conflict between rail
operations and infrastructure maintenance, Transportation and
Traffic Theory in the 21 st Century: Proceedings of the 1 5th
International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory. M
Taylor (Ed.) Elsvier, Oxford, UK, pp63-80, 2002.
[13] Dittmar Hank and Gloria Ohland (ed.), The new transit town : best
practices in transit-oriented development, Washington D.C; Island
Press, 2004.

916