A Microsimulation Modelling Approach to Quantify Environmental Footprint of Autonomous Buses
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Methodology
3.1. Case Study Model
3.2. Traffic Management Scenario Design
3.2.1. Do Nothing or Business-as-Usual: Traffic Management Scenario 1 (BAU)
3.2.2. Public Bus Transport Service: Traffic Management Scenario 2 (Bus)
3.2.3. Bus Rapid Transit Service: Traffic Management Scenario 3 (BRT)
3.2.4. Autonomous Vehicle-Based BRT: Traffic Management Scenario 4 (AV-BRT)
3.3. Vehicle Modelling System
3.4. Microsimulation Model Development
- “CC0” and “CC1” are the coefficients applied for calculating safe car-following distance in metres as following, and values can range from 0 to ∞.
- “CC4” and “CC5” represent the speed and acceleration coupling relation of a succeeding and following vehicles, both values should be equal but carry opposite signs and smaller values indicate a tighter coupling of vehicles in the simulation traffic.
- “CC6” represents speed oscillation of following vehicle compared to preceding vehicle, i.e., a higher value indicates that the following vehicle driver will accelerate more frequently as its distance to preceding vehicle grows which is not a common observation in congested situations, so its effect is negligible on congested highways.
- “CC7” is the acceleration during above oscillation phase, and it controls for driver tendency to accelerate gently or suddenly depending upon the magnitude.
- “CC8” is the acceleration from a stopping condition and the actual accelerations within the simulation are varied stochastically by the in-built algorithms in the software as per the user-defined upper- and lower-bound values.
- “CC9” defines the vehicle acceleration when travelling at 80 km/h and has little effect on congested highway situations.
3.4.1. Microsimulation Model Calibration
3.4.2. Microsimulation Model Validation
3.5. Calculation of Pollutant Emissions and Energy Consumption
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Current Traffic Situation
4.2. Projected Energy Consumption and Exhaust Emissions Distribution in BAU
4.3. Projection of Car Traffic in Traffic Management Scenarios
4.4. Projection of Flow Rate Factors in Traffic Management Scenarios
4.5. Energy Consumption
4.6. Exhaust CO2 Emissions
4.7. Exhaust NOx Emissions
4.8. Exhaust Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions
4.9. Long-Term Policy Implications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McCollum, D.; Yang, C. Achieving deep reductions in US transport greenhouse gas emissions: Scenario analysis and policy implications. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5580–5596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, B.; Du, H.; Ma, S.; Fan, Y.; Broadstock, D.C. Urban passenger transport energy saving and emission reduction potential: A case study for Tianjin, China. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 102, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al-Jassmi, H. A life-cycle decision-making framework to assess the need for autonomous mobility. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 42, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis—Contribution of Working Group I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A., Eds.; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
- Abe, R. Introducing autonomous buses and taxis: Quantifying the potential benefits in Japanese transportation systems. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 126, 94–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Transport Forum. Urban Mobility System Upgrade—How Shared Self-Driving Cars Could Change City Traffic; OECD Corporate Partnership Board: Paris, France, 2015; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, D.; Dai, D. Public perceptions of self-driving cars: The case of Berkeley, California. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 12–16 January 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hasan, U. Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Road Transport Systems: Integrating Stakeholder-Cost-Environment-Energy Lifecycle Impacts. Ph.D. Thesis, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. Framework for delivering an AV-based mass mobility solution: Integrating government-consumer actors and life-cycle analysis of transportation systems. In Proceedings of the 46th European Transport Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 10–12 October 2018; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
- Thomopoulos, N.; Givoni, M. The autonomous car—A blessing or a curse for the future of low carbon mobility? An exploration of likely vs. desirable outcomes. Eur. J. Futur. Res. 2015, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alessandrini, A.; Mercier-Handisyde, P. CityMobil 2 Experience and Recommendations; POLIS: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Song, G.; Yu, L.; Zhang, Y. Applicability of Traffic Microsimulation Models in Vehicle Emissions Estimates: Case Study of VISSIM. Transp. Res. Rec. 2012, 2270, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vuong, X.-C.; Mou, R.-F.; Nguyen, H.-S.; Vu, T.-T. Signal timing optimization of isolated intersection for mixed traffic flow in Hanoi city of Vietnam using VISSIM. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Vehicular Technology, Transportation, Communication and Applications, Mount Emei, China, 25–28 October 2018; pp. 133–139. [Google Scholar]
- Leyn, U.; Vortisch, P. Calibrating VISSIM for the German highway capacity manual. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2483, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Sayed, T.; Zheng, L.; Essa, M. An extreme value theory based approach for calibration of microsimulation models for safety analysis. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2021, 106, 102172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oikonomou, M.G.; Orfanou, F.P.; Vlahogianni, E.I.; Yannis, G. Impacts of autonomous shuttle services on traffic, safety and environment for future mobility scenarios. In Proceedings of the IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rhodes, Greece, 20–23 September 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. A Review of the Transformation of Road Transport Systems: Are We Ready for the Next Step in Artificially Intelligent Sustainable Transport? Appl. Syst. Innov. 2020, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deveci, M.; Pamucar, D.; Gokasar, I.; Pedrycz, W.; Wen, X. Autonomous bus operation alternatives in urban areas using fuzzy Dombi-Bonferroni operator based decision making model. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DoT Abu Dhabi. Surface Transport Master Plan—A Vision for Connecting Abu Dhabi; Department of Transport: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2009; p. 171.
- Andersen, O.; Jensen, C.S.; Torp, K.; Yang, B. EcoTour: Reducing the environmental footprint of vehicles using eco-routes. In Proceedings of the IEEE 14th International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM), Milan, Italy, 3–6 June 2013; pp. 338–340. [Google Scholar]
- Hasan, A.; Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. Lifecycle analysis of recycled asphalt pavements: Case study scenario analyses of an urban highway section. CivilEng 2022, 3, 242–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H.; Hasan, A. Lifecycle cost analysis of recycled asphalt pavements: Determining cost of recycled materials for an urban highway section. CivilEng 2022, 3, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bureau of Infrastructure. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Australian Transport: Projections to 2020; Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2009; p. 169.
- Mikhail, C.; Stephanie, P.; Zoe, E.; William, E.; Juan, M. Infrastructure and automobile shifts: Positioning transit to reduce life-cycle environmental impacts for urban sustainability goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 015041. [Google Scholar]
- McKenzie, E.C.; Durango-Cohen, P.L. Environmental life-cycle assessment of transit buses with alternative fuel technology. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conlon, J.; Lin, J. Greenhouse gas emission impact of autonomous vehicle introduction in an urban network. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenblatt, J.B.; Shaheen, S. Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility, and Environmental Impacts. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 2015, 2, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krueger, R.; Rashidi, T.H.; Rose, J.M. Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 69, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currie, G. Lies, damned lies, AVs, shared mobility, and urban transit futures. J. Public Transp. 2018, 21, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barth, M.; Davis, N.; Lents, J.; Nikkila, N. Vehicle Activity Patterns and Emissions in Pune, India. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2038, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briggs, I.; Murtagh, M.; Kee, R.; McCulloug, G.; Douglas, R. Sustainable non-automotive vehicles: The simulation challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 840–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lajunen, A.; Lipman, T. Lifecycle cost assessment and carbon dioxide emissions of diesel, natural gas, hybrid electric, fuel cell hybrid and electric transit buses. Energy 2016, 106, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.; Kamal, M.D.; Tahir, A.; Atif, S. Fuel consumption monitoring through COPERT model—A case study for urban sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, P.; Wang, P.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y. Review of the studies on emission evaluation approaches for operating vehicles. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2021, 8, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smit, R.; Ntziachristos, L. COPERT Australia: A new software to estimate vehicle emissions in Australia. In Proceedings of the Australasian Transport Research Forum, Brisbane, QL, Australia, 2–4 October 2013; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Varga, B.; Tettamanti, T.; Kulcsár, B. Energy-aware predictive control for electrified bus networks. Appl. Energy 2019, 252, 113477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yulianto, B. Traffic management and engineering analysis of the Manahan flyover area by using traffic micro-simulation VISSIM. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 852, 012005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madushanka, P.H.S.; Jayaratne, D.N.D.; Pasindu, H.R. Study of the impact roadside parking has on traffic flow characteristics—A VISSIM simulation based approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 28–30 July 2020; pp. 419–424. [Google Scholar]
- Ziemska-Osuch, M.; Osuch, D. Modeling the assessment of intersections with traffic lights and the significance level of the number of pedestrians in microsimulation models based on the PTV Vissim tool. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandi, M.M.; George, V. Microsimulation modelling in VISSIM on short-term and long-term improvements for Mangalore City road network. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 48, 2725–2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.; Yu, L. Microscopic Traffic-Emission Simulation and Case Study for Evaluation of Traffic Control Strategies. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2007, 7, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manjunatha, P.; Roy, S.; Elefteriadou, L.; Guin, A.; Hunter, M. Evaluation of the operational effects of autonomous and connected vehicles through microsimulation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2022, 03611981211068460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruyer, D.; Orfila, O.; Glaser, S.; Hedhli, A.; Hautière, N.; Rakotonirainy, A. Are connected and automated vehicles the silver bullet for future transportation challenges? Benefits and weaknesses on safety, consumption, and traffic congestion. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 2, 607054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Z.; Wang, H.; Sun, J.; Tian, Y. Experimental findings with VISSIM and TransModeler for evaluating environmental and safety impacts using micro-simulations. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020, 2674, 566–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quaassdorff, C.; Borge, R.; Pérez, J.; Lumbreras, J.; De la Paz, D.; De Andrés, J.M. Microscale traffic simulation and emission estimation in a heavily trafficked roundabout in Madrid (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566, 416–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. Critical review and methodological issues in integrated life-cycle analysis on road networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 541–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. Life cycle assessment of roadworks in United Arab Emirates: Recycled construction waste, reclaimed asphalt pavement, warm-mix asphalt and blast furnace slag use against traditional approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 257, 120531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, U.; Chegenizadeh, A.; Budihardjo, M.A.; Nikraz, H. Experimental evaluation of construction waste and ground granulated blast furnace slag as alternative soil stabilisers. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2016, 34, 1707–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khamis, J. Cycling culture growing in the UAE: Rent-a-bike services introduced in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah. Gulf News, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Aljoufie, M. Examining the Challenges of Bicycle Use in Jeddah City. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 37, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazim, A. Introduction of PEM fuel-cell vehicles in the transportation sector of the United Arab Emirates. Appl. Energy 2003, 74, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinery, L.E. Modeling transportation in Abu Dhabi: A 25-year projection of emissions under alternative scenarios of the passenger vehicle fleet. Master’s Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Raeside, J. Middle East Emissions Legislation. Available online: https://www.integer-research.com/industry-insight/emissions-legislation/middle-east/ (accessed on 9 June 2019).
- Ahmed, S. Dubai to have Euro 4 emission norms soon. Khaleej Times 2011. [Google Scholar]
- GSO 02/01/CD/Update for No. 42:2003 2014; General Requirements-Motor Vehicles. GSO: New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 55.
- Romilly, P. Substitution of bus for car travel in urban Britain: An economic evaluation of bus and car exhaust emission and other costs. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1999, 4, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simons, A. Road transport: New life cycle inventories for fossil-fuelled passenger cars and non-exhaust emissions in ecoinvent v3. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1299–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DIRDC. Australian Green Vehicle Guide; Government of Australia: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2019.
- ABS. Catalog #9208.0: Survey of Motor Vehicle Use; Government of Australia: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2019.
- Zanni, A.M.; Bristow, A.L. Emissions of CO2 from road freight transport in London: Trends and policies for long run reductions. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1774–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, A.; Ge, Y.; Tan, J.; Fu, M.; Shah, A.N.; Ding, Y.; Zhao, H.; Liang, B. On-road pollutant emission and fuel consumption characteristics of buses in Beijing. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 23, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuschel, G.; Cooper, A.; Metcalfe, J. Evaluating Bus Emissions: What colour, how big and how much is that elephant in the window? In Proceedings of the 39th Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), Auckland, New Zealand, 27–29 November 2017; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
- Nanaki, E.A.; Koroneos, C.J.; Roset, J.; Susca, T.; Christensen, T.H.; De Gregorio Hurtado, S.; Rybka, A.; Kopitovic, J.; Heidrich, O.; López-Jiménez, P.A. Environmental assessment of 9 European public bus transportation systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, S.C.; Diegel, S.W.; Boundy, R.G. Transportation Energy Data Book, 27th ed.; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2008; p. 359.
- Sgouridis, S.; Helmers, E.; Al Hadhrami, M. Light-duty electric vehicles in the gulf? Techno-economic assessment and policy implications. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 12, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sgouridis, S.; Abdullah, A.; Griffiths, S.; Saygin, D.; Wagner, N.; Gielen, D.; Reinisch, H.; McQueen, D. RE-mapping the UAE’s energy transition: An economy-wide assessment of renewable energy options and their policy implications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1166–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, T. Monthly Insights 19 October 2016; Emirates NBD Research: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2016; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- AbuHijleh, B.; Nik, A. Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Hybrid Taxies in Dubai-UAE. In Proceedings of the SB13 Dubai: Advancing the Green Agenda Technology, Practices and Policies, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 9–11 December 2013; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Mott MacDonald; Steer Davies Gleave. Working Paper No 5a Results of Surveys Carried out for Enhanced Model; Department of Transport of Abu Dhabi: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2008; p. 49.
- Staff Report. 5.2 Years: Average Age of Cars in UAE. Emirates. 2015. Available online: https://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/5-2-years-average-age-of-cars-in-uae-2015-08-15-1.600360 (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- EYGM Limited. Mega Trends Shaping the Middle East Light Vehicle Market; EYGM Limited: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2012; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, I.; Pojani, D. Obstacles to the creation of successful bus rapid transit systems: The case of Bangkok. Res. Transp. Econ. 2016, 60, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. Public bus transport service satisfaction: Understanding its value to urban passengers towards improved uptake. Trans. Transp. Sci. 2021, 12, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; Al Jassmi, H. Life-cycle asset management in residential developments building on transport system critical attributes via a data-mining algorithm. Buildings 2018, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Treyer, K.; Bauer, C. The environmental footprint of UAE׳s electricity sector: Combining life cycle assessment and scenario modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1234–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giarratana, C. Will Autonomous Cars Be Powered by Gas Battery or Hybrid Energy. Available online: https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/blog/will-autonomous-cars-be-powered-by-gas-battery-or-hybrid-energy/ (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- Bloomberg, L.; Dale, J. Comparison of VISSIM and CORSIM Traffic Simulation Models on a Congested Network. Transp. Res. Rec. 2000, 1727, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fellendorf, M.; Vortisch, P. Microscopic Traffic Flow Simulator VISSIM. In Fundamentals of Traffic Simulation; Barceló, J., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 63–93. [Google Scholar]
- Smit, R.; Smokers, R.; Rabé, E. A new modelling approach for road traffic emissions: VERSIT+. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2007, 12, 414–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Coensel, B.; Can, A.; Degraeuwe, B.; De Vlieger, I.; Botteldooren, D. Effects of traffic signal coordination on noise and air pollutant emissions. Environ. Model. Softw. 2012, 35, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Margreiter, M.; Krause, S.; Twaddle, H.; Lüßmann, J. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Adaptive Network Signal Controls Based on Real Vehicle Trajectories. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 4, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PTV AG. VISSIM User Manual V11; Planung Transport Verkehr Group: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2018; p. 1219. [Google Scholar]
- Wiedemann, R. Simulation des Strassenverkehrsflusses; Institute fur Verkehrswesen: Karlsruhe, Germany, 1974; p. 95. [Google Scholar]
- Higgs, B.; Abbas, M.; Medina, A. Analysis of the Wiedemann car following model over different speeds using naturalistic data. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Road Safety and Simulation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 14–16 September 2011; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Balakrishna, R.; Antoniou, C.; Ben-Akiva, M.; Koutsopoulos, H.N.; Wen, Y. Calibration of microscopic traffic simulation models: Methods and application. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 1999, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligterink, N.; Van Baalen, J.; Eijk, A.; Mak, W.; Broeders, W.; Vortisch, P. Predicting local vehicle emissions using VERSIT+ and VISSIM. In Proceedings of the 7th European Congress and Exhibition on the Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Geneva, Switzerland, 4–6 June 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Linton, C.; Grant-Muller, S.; Gale, W.F. Approaches and Techniques for Modelling CO2 Emissions from Road Transport. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 533–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohm, F.; Häger, K. Introduction of Autonomous Vehicles in the Swedish Traffic System: Effects and Changes Due to the New Self-Driving Car Technology; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, J.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Dave, K.; Huang, Y. Fuel consumption and exhaust emissions of diesel vehicles in worldwide harmonized light vehicles test cycles and their sensitivities to eco-driving factors. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 196, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ou, X.; Zhang, X.; Chang, S. Scenario analysis on alternative fuel/vehicle for China’s future road transport: Life-cycle energy demand and GHG emissions. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3943–3956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barandica, J.M.; Fernández-Sánchez, G.; Berzosa, Á.; Delgado, J.A.; Acosta, F.J. Applying life cycle thinking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 57, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.; Ferreira, A.; Flintsch, G. A life cycle assessment model for pavement management: Road pavement construction and management in Portugal. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2015, 16, 315–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Platt, S.M.; El Haddad, I.; Pieber, S.M.; Zardini, A.A.; Suarez-Bertoa, R.; Clairotte, M.; Daellenbach, K.R.; Huang, R.J.; Slowik, J.G.; Hellebust, S.; et al. Gasoline cars produce more carbonaceous particulate matter than modern filter-equipped diesel cars. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- MOCCAE. National Climate Change Plan of the United Arab Emirates 2017–2050; Ministry of Climate Change & Environment: Dubai, United Arab Emiates, 2017; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- Yue, M.; Jemei, S.; Gouriveau, R.; Zerhouni, N. Review on health-conscious energy management strategies for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: Degradation models and strategies. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019, 44, 6844–6861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buehler, R.; Pucher, J.; Gerike, R.; Götschi, T. Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: Lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 4–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, R.; Webb, E.; Millett, C.; Laverty, A. Physical activity accrued as part of public transport use in England. J. Public Health 2019, 41, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sharif, A.; Shahbaz, M.; Hille, E. The transportation-growth nexus in USA: Fresh insights from pre-post global crisis period. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 121, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perugu, H. Emission modelling of light-duty vehicles in India using the revamped VSP-based MOVES model: The case study of Hyderabad. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 68, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonsu, N.O. Towards a circular and low-carbon economy: Insights from the transitioning to electric vehicles and net zero economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Country | Modelling Tool | Model Type | Modelling Methodology | Emission Factors | Methodology Application Category | Captured Traffic Fleet Elements | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mode-Shift/Mode Split | Traffic Assignment | Queue Formation | Actual Speed Factor | Travel Delays | Traffic Load Fluctuations | Dynamic Driving Cycles | New Fuel & Engine Technologies | |||||||
Current study | United Arab Emirates | VISSIM & VERSIT+ | Microsimulation | Captured vehicle movement, queue delays and speed-time profiles on a network using pre-defined vehicle profiles based on real-world data using multiple PT traffic management scenarios | CO2, NOx, PM, Energy use |
| • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
McKenzie and Durango-Cohen [25] | USA | - | I-O LCA | Applied an input-output based methodology using average fuel consumption and mileage values to calculate lifecycle emissions | CO2 eq. |
| • | • | ||||||
Peng et al. [2] | China | LEAP | Energy planning model | Evaluated long-term environmental impact assessment of enhancing PT sector using average mileage, consumption, and lifecycle parameters | CO2, NOx, CO, HC, PM, & Energy use |
| • | • | • | |||||
Lajunen and Lipman [33] | USA & Finland | Autonomie | Simulink | Evaluated lifecycle impact of multiple types of powertrain technologies for PT services | CO2 eq. | • | • | • | ||||||
Barth et al. [31] | India | IVE | Micro- & macro | Estimated exhaust emissions and energy consumption on a network using traffic fleet characteristics | CO2, NOx, CO, VOC, & PM |
| • | • | • | • | • | • | ||
Ali et al. [34] | Pakistan | COPERT | Emission factor model | Utilised average speed profile and user-defined traffic fleet distribution to calculate environmental footprint | Energy use |
| • | • | • | |||||
Varga et al. [37] | Hungary | VISSIM | Microsimulation | Enhanced PT bus performance on a network by using a multi-objective speed and platooning control to reduce energy consumption and waiting times |
| • | • | • | • | |||||
Chen and Yu [42] | China | VISSIM & CMEM | Evaluated the environmental footprint of creating a dedicated bus lane | CO, CO2, HC, NOx, PM & Energy use |
| • | • | • | ||||||
Manjunatha et al. [43] | USA | VISSIM & MOVES | Captured vehicle movement trajectories aggregated by type and using pre-defined vehicle types to evaluate the exhaust emissions and energy consumption |
| • | • | • | • | ||||||
Song et al. [45] | • | • | • | |||||||||||
Quaassdorff et al. [46] | Spain | VISSIM & VERSIT+ | Evaluated environmental footprint across different traffic hours on a roundabout using pre-defined vehicle profiles based on real-world data | NOx & PM |
| • | • | • | • | • |
Euro Standard | Global Regulation Year | Introduction Date in United Arab Emirates | Small and Regular Cars | Minibus and Coach | Light Truck | Traditional and Autonomous Bus | Heavy Truck | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 2045 | 2015 | 2045 | 2015 | 2045 | 2015 | 2045 | 2015 | 2045 | |||
Euro I and earlier | 1992 | 2007 | 31.67% | 4.72% | 67.5% | 3.33% | 62.22% | 1.39% | 66.94% | 0% | 52.78% | 4.93% |
Euro II | 1996 | 2010 | 33.47% | 1.39% | 20.28% | 15.42% | 20.56% | 12.5% | 19.17% | 18.75% | 29.44% | 5.42% |
Euro III | 2000 | 2013 | 27.78% | 1.25% | 11.94% | 13.75% | 13.75% | 13.75% | 13.61% | 13.75% | 17.5% | 8.13% |
Euro IV | 2005 | 2015 | 6.94% | 14.58% | 0.181% | 20.69% | 3.33% | 25.28% | 0.167% | 20.97% | 0.194% | 18.19% |
Euro V | 2009 | 2018 | 0.14% | 16.39% | 0.097% | 8.89% | 0.139% | 13.89% | 0.11% | 8.61% | 0.083% | 9.93% |
Euro VI | 2014 | 2020 | 0% | 61.67% | 0% | 37.92% | 0% | 33.19% | 0% | 37.92% | 0% | 53.40% |
Vehicle Type | Vehicle Traffic Share in Each Scenario (%) 1 | Fuel Type Distribution (%) 2 | Emission Standard | Euro I & Earlier | Euro II | Euro III | Euro IV | Euro V | Euro VI | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Small-size cars (Length ≤4.5 m) | BAU: 45.5% | Petrol: 99.6% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.2168 | 0.2168 | 0.2120 | 0.1990 | 0.1890 | 0.1774 | Romilly [57], Simons [58], DIRDC [59], and ABS [60] |
Bus: 36.4% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.0962 | 0.0727 | 0.0665 | 0.3542 | 0.3377 | 0.3219 | |||
BRT: 32.3% | Diesel: 0.3% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.1936 | 0.1936 | 0.1810 | 0.1730 | 0.1660 | 0.1587 | ||
AV-BRT: 29.57% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.0598 | 0.0598 | 0.0578 | 0.0546 | 0.0528 | 0.0511 | |||
CNG/LPG/Other: 0.1% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.1875 | 0.1750 | 0.1660 | 0.1550 | 0.1470 | 0.1373 | |||
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.0500 | 0.0500 | 0.0528 | 0.0585 | 0.0554 | 0.0525 | ||||
Regular-size cars (Length: 4.5 m–6 m) | BAU: 37.54% | Petrol: 99.6% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.4231 | 0.4120 | 0.3163 | 0.3080 | 0.3120 | 0.3038 | Romilly [57], Simons [58], DIRDC [59], and ABS [60] |
Bus: 30.032% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.0876 | 0.0787 | 0.0784 | 0.0743 | 0.0709 | 0.0676 | |||
BRT: 26.719% | Diesel: 0.3% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.3118 | 0.3080 | 0.2480 | 0.2450 | 0.2870 | 0.2835 | ||
AV-BRT: 24.40% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.1231 | 0.0940 | 0.0736 | 0.0688 | 0.0668 | 0.0648 | |||
CNG/LPG/Other: 0.1% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.2809 | 0.2664 | 0.2477 | 0.2399 | 0.2427 | 0.2350 | |||
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.1071 | 0.1125 | 0.0734 | 0.0697 | 0.0663 | 0.0630 | ||||
Minibus and coach (6 m–8 m) | All scenarios: 4.735% | Diesel: 100% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.4410 | 0.4410 | 0.3438 | 0.3398 | 0.3353 | 0.3315 | Romilly [57], and DIRDC [59] |
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.0899 | 0.0915 | 0.0899 | 0.0765 | 0.0882 | 0.1016 | ||||
Light truck/LGV (8–10 m) | All scenarios: 6.64% | Petrol: 97.4% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.2541 | 0.2383 | 0.2383 | 0.2383 | 0.2383 | 0.2383 | Zanni and Bristow [61], DIRDC [59], and ABS [60] |
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.1300 | 0.1220 | 0.0965 | 0.0958 | 0.0906 | 0.0856 | ||||
Diesel: 2.5% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.2461 | 0.2406 | 0.2404 | 0.2404 | 0.2402 | 0.2402 | |||
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.1250 | 0.1210 | 0.1040 | 0.1007 | 0.1007 | 0.1007 | ||||
CNG/LPG/Other: 0.1% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.2217 | 0.2081 | 0.2401 | 0.2354 | 0.2031 | 0.1991 | |||
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.1690 | 0.1690 | 0.1521 | 0.1503 | 0.1413 | 0.1328 | ||||
Traditional public transport bus | BAU: 0% | Diesel: 71% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 1.2174 | 1.1840 | 1.2389 | 1.1161 | 1.0890 | 1.0200 | Romilly [57], Wang et al. [62], Kuschel et al. [63] Nanaki et al. [64], and ABS [60] |
Bus: 16.61% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.2912 | 0.3036 | 0.2976 | 0.2541 | 0.2348 | 0.2081 | |||
BRT: 24.02% | CNG: 29% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 1.1000 | 1.2500 | 1.1392 | 1.2627 | 1.1278 | 1.1221 | ||
AV-BRT: 0% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.4635 | 0.2223 | 0.2055 | 0.3102 | 0.3141 | 0.2047 | |||
Autonomous public transport bus | BAU: 0% | CNG: 100% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 1.1000 | 1.2500 | 1.1392 | 1.2627 | 1.1278 | 1.1221 | |
Bus: 0% | Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.4635 | 0.2223 | 0.2055 | 0.3102 | 0.3141 | 0.2047 | |||
BRT: 0% | ||||||||||
AV-BRT: 29.06% | ||||||||||
Heavy truck (10 m–12 m) | All scenarios: 5.586% | Diesel: 100% | Emission Factors (kg/km) | 0.6845 | 0.6726 | 0.6726 | 0.6524 | 0.6410 | 0.6218 | Zanni and Bristow [61], and ABS [60] |
Fuel Consumption (kg/km) | 0.2890 | 0.2890 | 0.2404 | 0.2404 | 0.2355 | 0.2306 |
Model Parameters (Unit) | Default Values | Calibrated Values |
---|---|---|
Standstill distance—CC0 (m) | 1.50 | 1.50 |
Headway time—CC1 (s) | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.5 |
“Following” variation—CC2 (m) | 4.00 | 6.80 |
Threshold for entering “following”—CC3 (s) | −8.00 | −8.00 |
Negative “following” threshold—CC4 (m/s) | −0.35 | −0.35 |
Positive “following” threshold—CC5 (m/s) | 0.35 | 0.35 |
Speed dependency of oscillation—CC6 (1/m·s) | 11.44 | 11.44 |
Oscillation acceleration—CC7 (m/s2) | 0.25 | 0.25 |
Standstill acceleration—CC8 (m/s2) | 3.50 | 3.50 |
Acceleration with 80 km per hour—CC9 (m/s2) | 1.50 | 1.50 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; AlJassmi, H. A Microsimulation Modelling Approach to Quantify Environmental Footprint of Autonomous Buses. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315657
Hasan U, Whyte A, AlJassmi H. A Microsimulation Modelling Approach to Quantify Environmental Footprint of Autonomous Buses. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):15657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315657
Chicago/Turabian StyleHasan, Umair, Andrew Whyte, and Hamad AlJassmi. 2022. "A Microsimulation Modelling Approach to Quantify Environmental Footprint of Autonomous Buses" Sustainability 14, no. 23: 15657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315657
APA StyleHasan, U., Whyte, A., & AlJassmi, H. (2022). A Microsimulation Modelling Approach to Quantify Environmental Footprint of Autonomous Buses. Sustainability, 14(23), 15657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315657