Significant challenges, big opportunities
Although the latest traffic management systems are able to enhance urban traffic flows with relatively small infrastructure spend and disruption, the study found that one in four cities surveyed does not have a clear vision and defined set of priorities to manage traffic flows in cities, and even amongst those that do, not all believe this is successfully translated into initiatives to manage traffic flows.
For those cities that do have a clear vision and initiative, three factors appear vital: a stable political environment; a clear planning process for what traffic management can achieve; and an understanding of the potential for traffic management. Yet when these criteria are all met, 40 percent of cities state that they have not been very effective in benefitting from traffic management over the last three years, and almost a quarter found they have not been very effective at all.
Major barriers
The reasons for this lack of effectiveness appear to come down to a lack of funding, a lack of internal expertise and resources, and a lack of senior understanding. On this latter point, many traffic managers said they felt traffic management was not a significant enough priority for their city authority. A common theme was that the potential benefits had not been fully articulated and were not clearly understood. But where this understanding and vision does exist it creates a positive cycle that can secure more funding.
Conflicting strategies
Although road transport is dominant in many cities, maximizing the effectiveness of roads is not always a priority for cities. Just 35 percent are using traffic management systems to better accommodate demand, with 50 percent using the technology to reduce car usage via modal shift. Many of the remaining 15 percent of cities with other priorities are still, nonetheless, seeking to cut car usage and increase public transport. These may be pragmatic and realistic aims but despite the proven capability of the latest systems to make a meaningful impact on accommodating demand, views of its effectiveness are mixed, with less than 30 percent of respondents claiming that their measures had been very effective.
Optimizing for the future
As with all information and communications technology, the capability of traffic management is developing rapidly, allowing management of car use rather than simple deterrence to become an ever more viable transport policy.
The latest wireless technology and near future smart car solutions present huge opportunities for cities all around the world. This approach is backed by 71 percent of respondents saying their investment is focused on implementing new solutions with more advanced and innovative features. For the remaining cities, many face a conflict between extending current systems and maintaining what they have. Furthermore, there is a significant minority opinion – 29 percent of those surveyed - which believes that new solutions offer little benefit and are unnecessary: to convince these cities, suppliers will need to communicate the benefits of their products more emphatically in order to make significant headway.
Funding inevitably remains a problem for many cities, with only 38 percent expecting to spend more on traffic management in the next three years, with 31 percent expecting funding to remain static, and another 31 percent expecting it to fall. To prevent a downward spiral of funding it appears vital that the economic benefits of cutting edge traffic management systems to generate economic growth as a complement to public transport rather than an alternative need to be better communicated.
Changing the paradigm
The study shows a disappointing picture for the use of traffic management technology in major cities of North America and Europe. The research highlights not that traffic management is incapable of providing step changes in urban mobility, but that the majority of cities lack the tools, resources, knowledge, and ambition to capitalize on the opportunities. In short, a lack of knowledge about global best practice is limiting the scale of ambition and making the challenge of implementation seem daunting and high risk.
Concerns about funding are limiting ambition, and a lack of ambition means cities are unable to create a compelling case to secure funding; and finally, a limited appreciation of how traffic management system can accommodate traffic flows is forcing cities to view the technology as a tool to deter car use and by extension a less deserving cause for funding than public transport.
Thankfully, the lessons of the most successful cities point a clear way forward, and a four stage process shows how advanced traffic management systems can be deployed to maximize road capacity and speed traffic flows.
Be Bold
The first stage is to be bold and ambitious to create a compelling funding case to develop new schemes. It requires a strong foundation of strategic planning and a clear governance process to ensure that the initiatives are complementary and promote mobility across the city’s entire transport network.
Perhaps the best example of such boldness is London’s congestion charge. With peak time traffic speeds of 4.2min/km in 2002, only bold intervention could speed traffic flows, reduce harmful emissions and encourage the use of public transport.
Running from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, the congestion charge, which applies to Central London, has seen a 21 percent reduction in overall vehicle/km in the area from the year 2000 levels. Furthermore, because the revenue from the charge has to be used to improve transport in London, major investments in bus services have been possible, and rewarded with a 61 percent increase in usage. As another benefit, changes in road space allocation have seen cycling increase by more than 200 percent.
Be Knowledgeable
With over $8 billion a year spend globally on traffic management systems across hundreds of cities, assessing best practice isn’t easy, but Hong Kong’s deployment and development of Intelligent Traffic Management Systems shows what can happen if attention is paid to developments elsewhere.
After an extensive study of global best practice, Hong Kong introduced new traffic data collection systems and began providing users with real-time alternative to congestion hotspots from 2001. By enabling commuters to choose less congested routes or take an alternative public transport option, Hong Kong found that traffic flows around the city were improved. By developing a total understanding of traffic patterns and providing users with the information they need to make intelligent decisions, Hong Kong has proved that the acquisition and application of in-depth knowledge makes a real difference.
Be Creative
One of the biggest challenges traffic managers face is responding to incidents rapidly and keep roads moving. It is technologically possible now to acquire and process huge amounts of real-time traffic data, identify patterns and automatically apply proven solutions while still giving controllers the ability to intervene in more serious situations.
The standout example of such creativity is New York’s Midtown in Motion project. By using 100 microwave scanners, video cameras and other sensors to manage traffic flow – mainly on existing roadside infrastructure to save costs and reduce disruption – real-time data is passed wirelessly to a traffic control center where remote adjustments were made to signalling. This is backed by a two-level response strategy. In normal traffic, an adaptive control algorithm adjusts green light signal phasing to anticipate congestion build-ups, while discrete incidents such as accidents can be resolved by operators at the traffic management center, using options such as pre-determined signal phasing. The result, confirmed by GPS data, has seen average travel speeds rise from 10.5 km/h to 11.6km/h between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. More importantly for this global super city, traffic flows are much smoother, and the capacity of its strained road network vastly improved.
Be Accountable
Cities need to be empowered and accountable for driving city mobility through traffic management. They need to set targets which allow to measure performance and progress. Those who demonstrate improved performance will gain confidence and ambition for further more advanced implementation, creating a positive cycle for funding opportunities.
The aims of any project should be viewed in the context of a city’s whole transport network. Specific and measurable key performance indicators have to be identified and then achievable but ambitious performance targets set. London’s aim, for example, of not just increasing traffic speeds but also increasing the use of public transport and cycling is a clear case in point. When this happens a city is much better able to identify and then fund its transport policies.
A bright future
In an increasingly competitive global marketplace cities are competing with each other on regional, national and international levels. At present it appears the majority of cities studied do not have the tools, resources, knowledge, and ambition to capitalize on the opportunities offered by traffic management. But, by learning from each other, cities can understand the best ways to harness traffic management to promote mobility and reduce congestion.
There is no question, however, that cities need to invest in better traffic management systems to drive economic growth. Winning the funding argument is challenging, but there are enough examples of bold, ambitious, and creative thinking around the world for every city to make a compelling case. The potential benefits are vast for those cities which make the best use of the tools at their disposal: the costs for those which do not are equally significant.
Dirk John is the CEO of Road and City Mobility, Siemens Infrastructure & Cities Sector
