Title of Example

Example

1) Summary of EC DG VII COMMUTE Project

COMMUTE was a research project that ran from 1996 to 1999 within the Strategic Research strand of the European Commission Fourth Framework Transport RTD programme. It addressed the definition of a methodology for strategic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy options. The methodology was intended to be primarily applicable to policy decision-making at the European level and to cover road, rail, air and waterborne transport modes. Computer software that embodies the main aspects of the methodology was developed and demonstrated within the COMMUTE project.

The main COMMUTE project objectives were as follows:

· To define a methodology for strategic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy options, to support transport policy decision making at the European level.

· To develop computer software that embodied the main aspects of the methodology and could present the results to users.

· To demonstrate the use of the main aspects of the methodology and the computer software; in particular in the context of a pilot strategic environmental assessment of the impacts on energy consumption, primary pollutant emissions and safety of plans for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).

COMMUTE delivered two main end products:

· The COMMUTE methodology for SEA of transport policies, plans and programmes (PPPs), comprising:

– A Framework for SEA covering the basic methodological requirements for SEA of multi-modal transport actions and guidelines on integration methods

– Detailed impact assessment methods for some core impacts such as air pollution emissions, energy consumption, noise and safety

· The COMMUTE software tool allowing assessment of air pollution emissions, energy consumption, noise and safety impacts.

The COMMUTE Framework for SEA provides detailed guidelines for carrying out a strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and sets the use of the COMMUTE software tool in context. The full guidelines run to some 160 pages, and are structured according to the following steps, around which an SEA should be organised from the procedural point of view:

1. Setting of objectives and targets

2. Screening to determine the need for SEA at this stage of the planning process

3. Scoping: identification of:

· the physical/regional limits;

· the impacts to be addressed;

· the alternative actions that need to be assessed.

4. Carrying out of the SEA:

· measuring/predicting the environmental impact of the action and its alternatives;

· evaluating the significance of the impact (e.g. through comparison with environmental objectives);

· proposing recommendations: preferred alternative, mitigation and monitoring measures.

5. Preparation of the decision

6. Taking the decision

7. Making arrangements for monitoring and follow-up

8. Conducting further environmental assessments (at later stages of planning process, e.g. project EIA)

The overall COMMUTE methodology defined a range of environmental indicators for examination within an SEA. The detailed impact assessment methods defined in COMMUTE and incorporated in the software tool cover assessment of air pollution emissions, energy consumption, noise and safety, across four travel modes – road, rail, air and water. These are described in the main body of the report.

Impact assessment methods for other indicators included in the COMMUTE methodology (but not the current software) were described in detail within the COMMUTE Framework guidelines. These could be brought in to the COMMUTE software tool in a future development effort.

The COMMUTE software tool was developed to be primarily applicable to policy decision-making and is targeted primarily on relatively large scale analyses at European, national or regional scales. The tool is network oriented and works on assessments on links and nodes. The impacts are calculated on a link-by-link and node-by node basis and then added together for assessments of networks or corridors comprising a number of links and nodes.

The tool uses a Geographical Information System (GIS) for handling the geographical representation of the network and for performing spatial oriented analysis and for presentation purposes.

The COMMUTE software tool was validated against other comparable data sets, and was demonstrated within the project, particularly through the pilot SEA of plans for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). This formed a rigorous, highly demanding and large scale demonstration of the capabilities of the COMMUTE software tool and illustrated its interfacing with a complex transport model. The results were sufficiently robust for the study team to conclude that the method would be suitable for a more detailed SEA of the TEN-T.

Overall, the COMMUTE project successfully achieved its main objectives and has clear potential for future exploitation. From the work carried out in COMMUTE, it is clear, however, that further work would be beneficial in a number of areas, including:

· further methodological research to integrate sustainability target setting within the overall SEA process and to improve monitoring and follow-up after implementation of policies, plans and programmes;

· further development of the COMMUTE tool to bring in additional impact areas (particularly through the GIS interface) and accommodate other stages of the overall SEA process;

· further data collection to improve strengthen input and default data across all modes and therefore improve the accuracy and robustness of the COMMUTE tool outputs.

2) Cooperation on pilot SEA of the TEN-T

In cooperation with the MEET, STREAMS and SCENARIOS projects, COMMUTE accomplished a pilot strategic assessment of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). This was a major demonstration of the COMMUTE software tool and methodology. The aim of this work was to obtain an indication of the impacts of plans for the TEN-T, including their broad geographical distributions, in terms of energy consumption, emissions and traffic safety. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of the developed methods, including the extent to which the approach used in the pilot project would be suitable for a full SEA of the TEN-T.

For successful completion of the pilot SEA a harmonious cooperation between the projects was essential. Therefore a Joint Scientific Committee was established, chaired by representatives of the STREAMS project and containing a representative from each project. Representatives from the Commission and the European Environmental Agency also sat in the Joint Scientific Committee. A cooperation plan was set up to ensure a trouble-free implementation.

The basic allocation of the work was for the STREAMS partners to undertake runs of the STREAMS model, according to reference and Common Transport Policy scenarios as defined (in quantitative terms) by SCENARIOS. The STREAMS transport model outputs were provided to COMMUTE who then used the COMMUTE tool to calculate energy consumption and emissions, with assistance from MEET in terms of the assumptions to be made for the calculation of future emissions, both for road and non-road transport. Estimates of traffic safety impacts were made jointly by STREAMS and COMMUTE.

3) THE COMMUTE SOFTWARE TOOL

The COMMUTE software tool embodies the impact assessment methods for the primary pollutant emissions, energy consumption, noise and safety across the transport modes road, rail, air and waterborne transport. However, it is also designed for future expansion to cover other important land use and ecological impacts.

The COMMUTE software is primarily applicable to policy decision-making and it is based on relatively large scale spatial resolutions. The tool focuses on assessing the environmental impacts of Programmes, Policies and Plans (PPPs) at:

· European level (i.e. assessing impacts of PPPs for the whole of the EU)

· National level (i.e. assessing impacts of PPPs for individual countries)

· Regional level (i.e. assessing impacts of PPPs for large administrative regions (e.g. NUTS 2) or for regional scale corridors)

The tool is network oriented and works on assessments on links and nodes. The impacts are calculated on a link-by-link and node-by node basis and then added together for assessments of networks or corridors comprising a number of links and nodes. In this context urban areas, harbours and airports are represented as nodes in the network. These nodes could then each have traffic flow data associated with them within the tool that would cover the whole area (e.g. vehicle-km figures and an average speed for a whole city in the case of road transport).

This approach does not include explicit representation of the urban transport network within each urban area. It therefore allows assessment of policies that have an impact in urban areas (e.g. policies that encourage modal shift for urban travel) but would not be suitable for assessment of urban infrastructure programmes. Such assessments would need to be conducted using a more detailed urban scale model.

The tool uses a Geographical Information System (GIS) for handling the geographical representation of the network and for performing spatial oriented analysis and presentation purposes.

The finest level of temporal resolution that the tool will focus on is provision of seasonal impacts, with the main emphasis being on calculating and presenting annual impacts.

The final version of the COMMUTE tool includes a life cycle analysis approach in so far as emissions of harmful substances and energy consumption from power stations and refineries will be considered additionally to those from vehicle operation.

For the different impacts across transport modes a specific module or model has been designed, but each module is independent and separated from the others.

The software is modular and the database has not only the function of storing the data but also of integrating the models.

The user interfaces the program through the Human Machine Interface which has been developed using a commercial Geographical Information System.

To achieve user-friendliness, the COMMUTE software was developed in the well known Windows 95 environment. Wherever possible, well known commercial tools were used instead of developing new and proprietary codes. The architecture of the software was designed to be flexible, easy to maintain and capable of accommodating future development. In fact the software has a modular structure.

For the different impacts across transport modes a specific model and module has been designed (ACCESS BASIC). Each module (model) is independent and the integration is made through the database (ACCESS) and the Human Machine Interface (ACCESS BASIC).

MAPINFO has been selected as the Geographical Information System, because of its quality to be one of the most used and inexpensive GIS and because it is integrated with Microsoft and offers a simple toolkit in Basic (MapBasic).

It is essential to be able to add or change models without changing the overall architecture or the existing modules.

The software structure consists of six parts:

1. The HMI (human machine interface) which allows the user to interface with the tool

2. The GIS which represents the data (input and output) in a geo-referenced form

3. The DATA MANAGER which manages the database and provides the input-output functions

4. The different MODELS/modules which provide the environmental results

5. The CONFIGURATION MANAGER which allows the user to configure the scenarios (year..)

6. The MANAGER OF MODELS which schedules the run of the different modules

Each model, such as the ’road emission and consumption’ or the ’rail safety’ etc., is a separate module and it has a proprietary code written in a collective language.

The modular structure of the software together with the fact that a standard commercial database management system has been used allows the user to interface the data also with other tools such as Excel or ARCINFO.

Each model is composed of two main parts: the calculus itself that comprises the reading and writing of the database data, and the configuration that requires an HMI to interface with the user in order to assess the configuration of the scenario that the model will run.

Figure 1 shows that the model takes the inputs as they are in the database and prepares the data as required by the “core model” which is the calculator module that assesses the environment. The post module takes the outputs as they are calculated by the “core model” and aggregates or disagregates them as they will be shown to the user of the program.

Figure 1 Structure of each COMMUTE module/model

Both input and output data are contained in the database. The user has the option to create scenarios and to compare calculation results with the a priori information.

According to the software architecture the database is integrated. Wherever possible the model uses the same data, so that some data of the database is common, while some data is specific to each of the models. The common data is really important for the harmonisation and integration of the models.

The COMMUTE database is organised in Microsoft ACCESS tables in order to allow the user to analyse results in an easy-to-use and flexible environment. To perform the calculations for the different impacts across the transport modes, the COMMUTE software tool needs several types of tables which are classified according to the source and nature of the data they contain. The tables can be categorised as either input tables which contain all the data necessary for the calculation of the results, or output tables which contain the results of the software elaboration.

The “COMMUTE main menu” screen presents the software tool user with three different sections, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 The COMMUTE main menu screen

The first section is for calculation and reflects the approach of the COMMUTE methodology. The main subdivision is for impacts: emission & consumption, noise, safety. Each impact is calculated for the different modes of transport: air, road, rail, and water. All the calculation modules are integrated and the commonalties are grouped in an integration core which consists of the common shared set of classification tables (i.e. the list of the countries, the list of the fuels considered etc.) and coefficient tables (i.e. the calorific power of the fuels). This allows a comparison of results among different modes on a user defined multi-modal network scenario.

4) Pilot Strategic Environmental Assessment of the TEN-T Proposals

The main demonstration of the application of COMMUTE tool involved the cooperative strategic environmental assessment of plans for the whole Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). The Commission wanted to carry out a pilot SEA of the TEN-T to assess its impact on the transport system and on emission levels. The project had two aims. First, to provide an initial attempt at quantifying the impacts of the TEN-T, in terms of travel patterns, energy consumption, emissions and transport safety. Second, to demonstrate the feasibility of certain methods, including the extent to which the approach used in the pilot would be suitable for a full SEA of the TEN-T.

When setting up the project the Commission wanted to draw on its latest research and to bring together researchers from different disciplines. A new consortium was formed, within the structure of the EU Fourth Framework research programme, to carry out the work. This consortium involved four existing research projects, SCENARIOS, STREAMS, MEET and COMMUTE.

The pilot SEA constituted a rigorous and large-scale demonstration of the COMMUTE tool. The multi modal network used for the exercise consisted of approximately:

· 7000 links for road

· 1300 links for air transport

· 2400 links for rail

· 2900 links for waterborne transport

For the pilot SEA, only part of the SEA processes included in the COMMUTE Framework for SEA needed to be considered. The wider issues surrounding the development of the TEN-T were not relevant to this study, where the emphasis was on impact assessment. The approach used in the pilot SEA was to undertake an impact assessment of the TEN-T by comparing transport scenarios, forecasting travel patterns, and focussing on the emissions (using the COMMUTE software) generated by these alternative scenarios.

4.1 COMMUTE tool in pilot SEA

Because of constraints on the timing of the pilot SEA project, it was necessary to prepare an intermediate version of the COMMUTE tool which embodied the main parts of the impact assessment methods. However not all modules of the full final version of COMMUTE tool were included in this interim version. The following main differences in functionality between the intermediate and full version of the tool occurred (there were also other minor differences, for example that the impact of road gradients was not considered):

· safety assessment was limited to the single risk method

· cold start and evaporative emissions for road transport were calculated outside the COMMUTE model using approximate correction factors

· no noise assessment was included - noise was not part of the Commission’s pilot SEA requirements

· only one ‘generic’ aircraft type was used

4.2 STREAMS/COMMUTE Interface

The combination of the STREAMS and COMMUTE methodologies for the pilot SEA project brought a requirement to find a consistent and manageable approach for the exchange of data between these two main elements of the project. The fundamental interface was between the output of the STREAMS transport model which in turn forms the input to the COMMUTE/pilot SEA methodology for determining energy, emissions and safety levels. Agreement was required between the two projects regarding the categorisation and definitions of the transport data transferred to COMMUTE. For example, there are different categories within each mode of transport in the two projects. The task was therefore to reconcile the two and determine a set of definitions which were consistent with the two projects, and this was achieved. A number of modifications were required to the STREAMS model in order to allow the COMMUTE methodology to be successfully applied for pilot SEA. This principally affected the form of the model output, and the processing of output outside the modelling environment.

4.3 Scenarios tested

In the context of the SEA work, a transport scenario defines the main inputs needed for the STREAMS transport model forecasts. The policy scenarios determine the changes in transport costs and prices for each mode between 1994 and 2010. They are made up of three policy phases:

· Liberalisation: relating to the current policy trends (the ‘reference’ situation).

· Harmonisation: concerning the impact of the Common Transport Policy (CTP), principally in terms of harmonisation including the internalisation of externalities.

· TEN-T Infrastructure and Policy: relating to the promotion of inter-modality, interconnectivity and interoperability for the TEN-T. The policy changes are only introduced in tests which have the TEN-T in the forecast year network.

A number of possible options were considered before arriving at the following tests combining the reference, CTP and TEN-T policy and infrastructure components defined above:

1 Base year - 1994

2 No TEN-T for reference scenario 2010

3 No TEN-T for CTP 2010

4 All TEN-T policy and infrastructure for CTP 2010

5 Rail only TEN-T policy and rail infrastructure for CTP 2010

Each of the future year tests therefore contain some combination of the three policy phases (liberalisation, harmonisation and TEN-T policy and infrastructure) as shown in Table1 below.

Table 1: Components of the SEA tests

4.4 Results

The main results of the pilot SEA exercise are summarised in this section, from the full report prepared jointly by the STREAMS and COMMUTE projects. These include the transport model outputs from STREAMS, as well as the COMMUTE software tool outputs. The full results are presented in the STREAMS/COMMUTE Pilot SEA Deliverable 4.

In addition to these outputs (Tables and Figures) the COMMUTE final report presents some examples of thematic maps produced by using the MapInfo GIS. These maps provide an overview about the possibilities of a detailed spatial analysis of traffic and emission data as they were produced in the Pilot Strategic Environmental Assessment of the TEN-T.

Taking the transport impacts first, in the 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’ there is an increase in overall passenger travel demand compared to the base for all modes except slow modes and freight rail, driven partly by the falling cost of travel relative to incomes.

Moving to the impact of the policies, the effect of the ‘CTP Only’ compared to the ‘Reference Scenario’ was:

· a significant overall reduction in passenger and freight travel, more so for freight

· rising rail demand and falling car, truck, air and water use

· a reduction in road network congestion

· the ‘CTP Only’ scenario therefore succeeds in reducing road and air travel and boosting rail.

Then, introducing all the TEN-T infrastructure and related policies led to:

· increased overall passenger and freight travel demand relative to the ‘CTP Only’ scenario (although it is still lower than in the ‘Reference Scenario’ for passengers)

· a significant effect on mode split as rail (particularly high speed rail) travel increases compared to the ‘CTP Only’ scenario and road travel falls further

· further reduction in road network congestion

· the TEN-T infrastructure and related policies scenario therefore strengthens the effects of the CTP.

By introducing only rail TEN-T infrastructure but with related TEN-T policies on inter-modality, interoperability and connections to ports, rail’s gains are increased, although at the cost of a significant increase in road congestion.

It is also significant that the most important factor in encouraging freight mode shift to rail is the expanded rail network. The effects of this are large, with or without the road TEN-T.

The key findings of the emission forecasts using the COMMUTE tool, by mode, are:

For road: Tighter road vehicle emission standards and improved technology outweigh the growth in road travel, such that all emissions except CO₂ fall in all four tests compared to the base year. The differences between tests are relatively small illustrating the dominance of changes in non-traffic factors. The tests do not include the impact of the car manufacturers’ voluntary agreement on CO₂, hence they may overestimate the increase in CO₂ emissions;

For rail: Between 1994 and 2010 all non CO₂ emissions fall, reflecting technical change and a shift from diesel to electric power. For the tests, the changes in emissions mirror the changes in train-kilometres;

For air: All emissions rise in all tests relative to the base year and there are some differences between tests reflecting the changes in the amount of passenger air travel. Hence emissions are closely correlated with the level of air travel (unlike the case for cars). Although there are technological improvements in aircraft technology the key effect appears to be a growth in shorter distance air travel between the base and forecast years; as relatively more fuel is used in the take-off, climb and climb-out phases of the flight compared with cruising, this has a disproportionate impact;

For water: All emissions rise for each test relative to the base year. The IMO limits on exhaust emissions for new engines are not expected to result in any large changes before 2010, because of the slow turnover of the fleet. Hence emissions are closely correlated with the level of waterborne freight

The main conclusions by emission type are:

For CO₂: Tonnes of CO₂ rise between 1994 and the 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’, but the ‘CTP Only’ and both TEN-T scenarios reduce CO₂ compared to the reference;

For CO and HC: These emissions derive mainly from road vehicles. The 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’ emissions are lower than 1994, and the alternative tests show further reductions. The ‘Rail TEN-T CTP’ test shows the greatest reductions since the road TEN-T is not implemented;

For SO₂: 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’ emissions are higher than 1994 and the alternative tests reduce these levels. Emissions of SO₂ are considered only for the non-road modes;

For NOx and PM: The emission levels in 1994 were largely dominated by the road modes. There are substantial reductions in 2010 arising from the reductions in the road modes which more than compensate for increases in other modes. The percentage contribution from the road modes in 2010 is greatly reduced and there is a dramatic growth in emissions from waterborne travel.

4.5 Conclusions

The pilot SEA study broke new ground in the analysis of EU transport demand and emissions outputs. It formed a rigorous, highly demanding and large scale demonstration of the capabilities of the COMMUTE software tool and illustrated its interfacing with a complex transport model. The pilot SEA approach provided the first comprehensive, quantified forecasts of the impacts of TEN-T policies and infrastructure, on travel demand and emissions, at the EU level. Hence the first objective of the project was met. The results were sufficiently robust for the study team to conclude that the method would be suitable for a more detailed SEA of the TEN-T.

5) references

• Harmonisation of multi-modal and multi-impact methodology for the environmental assessment of European Transport Policies – Results from EU DG VII COMMUTE Project – by E. Negrenti and M.P. Valentini ENEA ITALY – 19^th ARRB Conference – Sydney – December 1998.

· The Assessment of environmental and safety impacts of the trasn European network (TEN-T) – by H.J.Heich, J. Jantunen, E. Negrenti - Highway and Urban Pollution – Baveno (I) May 1998.- published in the Science of the Total Environment 235 (1999) 391-393

• Application of advanced transport impacts models on national and local scale: results from EC Commute, Esteem and Hesaid projects - Dr. Emanuele Negrenti – ENEA – Italy - Melbourne - 20^th ARRB Conference - March 2001 – Conference Proceedings – ISBN 0 86910 799 2 – ISSN 0572 1431
• COMMUTE (1997). A Review of User Requirements, Methods and Methodologies for Strategic Environmental Assessment. COMMUTE Deliverable 1.

• COMMUTE (1998). Methodology Report. COMMUTE Deliverable 2.

• COMMUTE (1999). Software Report. COMMUTE Deliverable 3.

• COMMUTE (2000). Demonstration and Exploitation. COMMUTE Deliverable 5.

· DHV (1995). Transport Strategic Modelling. Final Report Prepared for the Commission of the European Communities Directorate General for Transport, APAS/Strategic/3.

• EIA Centre – University of Manchester (1995). Strategic Environmental Assessment - Legislation and Procedures in the Community. Volume 1 and 2, Manchester.

• EPA (1985). Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Vol II Mobile Sources, USA.

• MEET (1996). Methodologies for Estimating Air Pollutant Emissions from Transport, First Data Structure, Deliverable 2, DG VII, Edited by Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, September 1996.

• MEET (1997a). Methodologies for Estimating Air Pollutant Emissions from Transport, Final Data Structure of Road Emission Factors, Deliverable 3, DG VII, Edited by University of Thessaloniki, INRETS, TNO, TSU, TRL, TU, MIRA and University of Limerick, January 1997.

• MEET (1997b). Methodologies for Estimating Air Pollutant Emissions from Transport, Road Traffic Characteristics for Estimating Pollutant Emissions, Deliverable 4, DG VII, Edited by Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK, January 1997.

• MEET/Techne (1997c). Methodologies For Estimating Air Pollutant Emissions From Ships. June 1997.

• MEET (1998). Methodologies for Estimating Air Pollutant Emissions from Transport, Emission Factors and Traffic Characteristics Data Set, Deliverable 21, Final Report, Edited by the Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, January 1998.

ANNEX 1 – EXAMPLES OF MAPS PRODUCED WITH COMMUTE TOOL AND MAPINFO

COMMUTE tool : interface with MapInfo GIS

Selection of a part of road network for calculation

Analysis of the results after calculation

The analysis will be displayed on the selected links

Example of thematic analysis of NOx emissions on selected links

Display of traffic data on MapInfo maps (STREAMS data, non urban links, 1995)

These maps are built with MapInfo tools, by crossing the road network map with the tables of vehicles*km stored in COMMUTE Access database. A map is done for each category of vehicles provided in STREAMS data. The analysed value is the number of vehicles, that is vkm/length.

Examples of thematic maps after calculation of emission, on all fifteen countries

These examples have been built with MapInfo tools by crossing a map of Europe countries with tables of CO₂ emissions by country created in COMMUTE Access database.

Example of thematic map of CO₂ emission, for air, rail and road modes

Last Updated

25th January 2005