1. ETC 2009 Gerard de Jong – Significance and ITS Leeds Predicting uncertainty of traffic forecasts: giving the policy-makers a range instead of a single number November 2014

2. ETC 2009 Contents of this presentation ■ Background and types of uncertainty affecting traffic forecasts  Uncertainty prediction method  Examples of outcomes (uncertainty margins)  Netherlands national/regional models  Some public transport project in Paris  Fréjus Tunnel p.2

3. ETC 2009 Background I  Laplace, Pierre Simon Théorie Analytique des Probabilités, 1812 ‘The most important questions of life are indeed, for the most part, really only problems of probability.’  Godfried Bomans (1913-1971): ‘A statistician waded confidently through a river that on average was one metre deep …. … He drowned.’ p.3

4. ETC 2009 Background II  Usually only point estimates for transport volumes and traffic flows, no uncertainty margins  In The Netherlands often 3-4 point estimates: for different scenarios  But for investments and policy-making, it is important to know the range: robust decisions? p.4

5. ETC 2009 Background III p.5

6. ETC 2009 Types of uncertainty (risk) affecting the predictions We are predicting Y using a model Y = f(’X, u) ■ Input uncertainty (in X): Economic/demographic variables, e.g. GDP/capita, population Policy variables: travel time and travel cost: (Policies of the decision-maker) Policies of other organisations, e.g. specific taxes, safety measures, or competitors, e.g. competing modes p.6

7. ETC 2009 Types of uncertainty (risk)  Model uncertainty, e.g. in the model coefficients such as impact of rail in-vehicle time on modal split  Estimation error (in )  Micro-simulation error (different model runs lead to different choice outcomes)  Specification error (e.g. different functional form f or error distribution for u)  Unexpected discrete events (e.g. fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel, natural disaster, major strike, terrorist attack) p.7

8. ETC 2009 Contents of this presentation ■ Background and types of uncertainty affecting traffic forecasts  Uncertainty prediction method  Examples of outcomes (uncertainty margins)  Netherlands national/regional models  Some public transport project in Paris  Fréjus Tunnel p.8

9. ETC 2009 Methodology: reviews ■ de Jong et al. (2007) Uncertainty in traffic forecasts: literature review and new results for The Netherlands, Transportation, 34(4), 375-395 ■ Rasouli and Timmermans (2012) Uncertainty in travel demand forecasting models: literature review and research agenda, Transportation Letters, 4, 55-73 p.9

10. ETC 2009 Methodology: reviews ■ de Jong et al. (2007) Uncertainty in traffic forecasts: literature review and new results for The Netherlands, Transportation, 34(4), 375-395 ■ Rasouli and Timmermans (2012) Uncertainty in travel demand forecasting models: literature review and research agenda, Transportation Letters, 4, 55-73  PhD thesis of Stefano Manzo (2014) at DTU Copenhagen (supervised by Otto Anker Nielsen and Carlo Prato): Uncertainty calculation in transport models and forecasts p.9

11. ETC 2009 Methods for quantifying uncertainty I  The literature on quantifying uncertainty in traffic forecasts is fairly limited (compared to the number of forecasts)  For input uncertainty:  all studies use repeated model simulation  usually with random draws for the inputs  most studies ignore correlation between inputs  some studies use long time series on the past to determine the amount of variation and correlation in the input variables  an alternative for this is a rule-based approach from directed probabilistic graphical models (Petrik et al., IATBR, 2012) p.10

12. ETC 2009 Methods for quantifying uncertainty II  For model uncertainty:  variances and covariances of parameters can come from the model estimation  Jackknife and Bootstrap methods to obtain proper variances (some specification error)  some studies use analytic expressions for the output variance (due to using parameter estimates). Not a practical method for complicated models  repeated model simulations with random draws for parameter values p.11

13. ETC 2009 Overview of common method for both input and model uncertainty ■ Assume Normal (or triangular) distributions fo each input variable and coefficient, if possible correlated with each other ■ Take ‘random’ draws from multivariate Normal distributions (Monte Carlo simulation)  Insert the values drawn in the transport model and run the model to obtain traffic forecasts  Do this for many draws (e.g. 1000)  Calculate summary statistics on the series of traffic forecasts obtained p.12

14. ETC 2009 Contents of this presentation ■ Background and types of uncertainty affecting traffic forecasts  Uncertainty prediction method  Examples of outcomes (uncertainty margins)  Netherlands national/regional models  Some public transport project in Paris  Fréjus Tunnel p.13

15. Case study: A16 motorway near Rotterdam

16. ETC 2009 Method used in Dutch study for input uncertainty  List input variables in tour frequency models, mode- destination models and expansion procedure:  income, car ownership, car cost/km, jobs by sector, population by age group; household size, occupation, education  Use existing time series (1960-2000; 20-year moving averages) as source on variances and covariances  Draw input values from multivariate normal distribution (with correlations; generated using Choleski decomposition)  Run models for many different sets of inputs p.15

17. ETC 2009 Method used in Dutch study for model uncertainty  Variances and covariances for parameters from estimation (including Bootstrap) of the tour frequency and mode-destination choice models  Draw parameters from multivariate normal distribution  Run models for many different sets of parameters  Sources of variation that were not included:  Uncertainty in base matrices  Errors in licence holding and car ownership models  Errors in assignment and time of day procedures  Distribution over zones p.16

18. ETC 2009 95% confidence intervals for pkm by mode for Reference 2020 (input, model, total uncertainty) p.17 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 123123123123123123 Car driver Car passenger Train BTM Slow Total

19. ETC 2009 Outcomes for vehicle flows on selected links for Reference 2020 p.18

20. ETC 2009 Contents of this presentation ■ Background and types of uncertainty affecting traffic forecasts  Uncertainty prediction method  Examples of outcomes (uncertainty margins)  Netherlands national/regional models  Some public transport project in Paris  Fréjus Tunnel p.19

21. ETC 2009 Main results in Paris ■ New element: input uncertainty in policy variables, such as transport cost and different time components by mode (partly own policy; partly determined by others)  As in the Dutch application, the macro-economic variation (part of input uncertainty) is the most important source of outcome uncertainty  The possible variation in transport time and cost by mode (partly own policy; partly determined by others) also important  Uncertainty of model coefficients relatively more important than in The Netherlands p.20

22. ETC 2009 Contents of this presentation ■ Background and types of uncertainty affecting traffic forecasts  Uncertainty prediction method  Examples of outcomes (uncertainty margins)  Netherlands national/regional models  Some public transport project in Paris  Fréjus Tunnel p.21

23. ETC 2009 Fréjus tunnel application  Road connection in the Alps between France and Italy  Private operator; toll and subsidies from France and Italy  Part of the TEN-T  Competes with Mont-Blanc tunnel, mountain passes, railway lines and future Lyon-Turin high-speed rail service (passengers, freight)  New: inclusion of time dimension (uncertainty margins as long-term predictions over time) p.22

24. ETC 2009 Variables and coefficients that are varied (Fréjus) ■ GDP (distinguishing 3 time periods up to 2050)  When will Lyon-Turin HSR service (passengers, freight) open? And its prices?  When will Fréjus Safety Tunnel open?  Competing conventional and container rail routes: when will increased capacity become available?  EU environmental policies (e.g. volume cap on trucks through tunnels)  Alternative-specific coefficients (for routes)  Other model coefficients (elasticities, mode/route choice) p.23

25. ETC 2009 Uncertainty margins passenger forecasts p.24

26. ETC 2009 Uncertainty margins freight forecasts p.25

27. ETC 2009 What do we conclude from the Fréjus graphs?  Uncertainty increases over time, …  … but not at a constant rate  Important sources of uncertainty:  opening of Lyon-Turin HSR (passengers: 2018-2024; freight: 2023-2030)  regulatory measures (volume cap for road freight through tunnels): timing (2023-2030) and size p.26

28. ETC 2009 Concluding remarks  Most traffic forecasts do not quantify uncertainty  Methods exist for both input and model uncertainty (Monte Carlo simulation, repeated model runs)  Case studies: input uncertainty dominates model uncertainty  Policy variables (actions of other decision-makers) can be included  Time dimension can be included (uncertainty margins over time). Especially for PPP projects one would like to know time path of forecasts and uncertainty p.27