Factors Affecting the Use of GIS in Urban Transportation Planning and Management

Advances in software development can be appreciated from the following example. By combining EMME/2 (a transportation planning software), TransCAD (a GIS software) and an emissions model developed by Armstrong (2000), it became possible to estimate emissions. Figure 4 shows VOC emissions for Ottawa, Canada. The AIDAIR-GENEVA Project (2004) is another example of the link between EMME/2, GIS and air pollution modules.

Another notable new development is the combination of GIS, ITS and web technology. An example application, namely a public transit information system, is briefly described here. Details are reported by Taylor and Khan (2003). This system enables the identification of an optimal route and provides the corresponding travel time while accounting for the uncertainty in schedule adherence. For the development of the system, data from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) and the City of Ottawa were used to develop the transit information system.

The transit information system answers four major questions:
  • Where is the nearest bus stop? (Location)
  • When does the next bus leave, or, for travel at a certain time, which is the most appropriate departure? (Scheduling)
  • How do I get from where I am to where I want to go? (Route Optimization)
  • When will I arrive at my destination? (Travel Time)
Major elements of the transit information system development process are shown in Figure 5. An example of the report box showing the results of a typical query is presented in Figure 6. A map illustrating the corresponding optimal route is shown in Figure 7.


Figure 4: VOC Emissions, Ottawa (Canada), 2021 Demand Assigned to 1995 Network (All Vehicles) (Armstrong 2000)



Figure 5: Transit Information System Methodology (Taylor and Khan 2003)



Figure 6: Report Box Results (Taylor and Khan 2002)



Figure 7: Results Image (Taylor and Khan 2003)


Cost of GIS
In the past, high cost has been identified as an impediment to the application of GIS in the transportation field. Favourable costs of hardware, software, and operations (i.e., data collection, maintenance, exchange, and dissemination) would enhance the likelihood of the use of GIS by transportation departments. The cost of hardware and software has been declining over time – a trend that is expected to continue. Advances in information technologies in general and data capture technologies in particular are responsible for reducing costs.

Table 1 presents three examples of the cost composition of GIS in a transportation department. The first example is that of the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (2004). In this case, the total direct cost amounts to $65,800. The other two examples are anonymous cases reported by the European Commission (2004).

The costs of a GIS are divided into the following components: hardware (GIS work-station, CD-ROM writer, plotter, scanners), software (base software, base GIS and additional GIS modules), maintenance, services (including on site consultation), training, and data (if obtained externally).

Table 1: Cost Structure of GIS



It is important to recognize that the price of GIS hardware and software is not the most significant cost factor. Hardware costs are expected to decline further and performance is likely to improve.

Human resource costs, training and on-site consultancy services exceed the technology costs. The largest cost component involves operational costs associated with salaries. GIS personnel engage in data -related activities and running the GIS software. Such costs typically exceed hardware and software acquisition costs, and represent a long-term, ongoing investment to transportation agencies. With improved educational and training opportunities in the future, the cost of special training and on-site consultancies may decrease.

Organizational Factors
Part five deals with organizational factors. It is noted that the introduction of GIS at the management level has facilitated the promotion of GIS throughout the entire organization. There is an appreciation in city governments that GIS can contribute to better decision making in achieving organizational goals. Another observation is that cooperation and data sharing among organizations are necessary for the successful implementation of GIS. The effectiveness of GIS can also be enhanced if it is integrated into the daily business of an organization.

Favourable organizational restructuring is necessary for removing impediments to GIS adoption by transportation agencies. Given the multi-interests and the potential of GIS to integrate information from all parts of a municipal government, it is natural to coordinate efforts so as to obtain the best use of this innovation.

Regional cooperation and data sharing is also important. It is beneficial to maintain a centralized regional GIS database, which can help integrate information about all related government agencies. Such integration is useful for land use and transportation planning as well as for sharing data collection and management costs (Local Government Commission 2004).

Conclusions
The foregoing information and discussion suggest the following conclusions.
  1. In assessing the factors that affect the adoption of GIS in urban transportation planning and management, it can be concluded that:
    1. Since the knowledge base of City employees and consultants regarding the capabilities of GIS is expected to improve in the future, the prospects for an increased role of GIS in urban transportation planning and management are bright.
    2. Highly significant technological advances encompassing both hardware and software have taken place. These are expected to continue in the future.
    3. The cost of GIS hardware, software and operations are very reasonable. In relative terms, hardware and software costs are not the dominant cost factors.
    4. Organizational factors continue to be important to the successful adoption of GIS in urban transportation.

  2. The implications for cities of developing countries are as follows:
    1. Education and training opportunities should be enhanced.
    2. Since technological developments are taking place at a rapid rate, a through knowledge of these developments should guide the selection of hardware and software.
    3. Cost sharing arrangements can be pursued among various municipal departments.
    4. Any organizational impediments to the successful implementation of GIS in transportation planning and management should be removed.
Acknowledgements
Research sponsored by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) has contributed to the information contained in this paper. Views expressed are those of the authors.

References
  • AIDAIR-GENEVA Project (2004). Transport and Air Pollution Module - Presentation of the Links Between EMME/2 and the System. (Website: http:// ecolu-info.unige.ch/rechercvhe/EUREKA/AIDAIR/CUPA_English.html).
  • Armstrong, J. (2000). Development of A Methodology for Estimating Vehicle Emissions. M.Engineering Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Arkansas Geographic Information Office (2004). GIS Cost Estimates. (website: www.gis.state.ar.us/).
  • Bargiela, A. and Berry, R. (1999). Every BIT Counts - Enhancing the Benefits of UTC Through Distributed Applications. Traffic Technology International, Feb. 1999.
  • Blin, C.R., Queen, L.P., and Maki, L.W. (1993). Geographic Information Systems: A Glossary. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Natural resources, NR-FO-6097-S, NR-PC-6136-S.
  • Caliper Corporation (2004). TransCAD, Transportation GIS Software, Overview, Newton, Massachusetts (Website: www.caliper.com/tcovu.htm).
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2004). GIS in Transportation. (Web address: http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/)
  • Fletcher, D.R., (2000). Geographic Information Systems for Transportation: A Look Forward. Transportation in the New Millennium, Committee on Spatial Data and Information Science, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
  • GIS Lounge (2004). Components of GIS. (Website: http://gislounge.com/library/introgis.shtml)
  • Globis Data Inc. (2004). Deployment of D.R.I.V.E.S. Montreal (website: http://www.its-sti.gc.ca/en/deployment/Quebec/DRIVES.htm)
  • Khan, A.M. (1995). Application of geographic Information Systems (GIS) to Urban Transportation Planning and Management. Paper Presented at the United Nations Seminar on Urban Geographic Information Systems, City Sustainability & Environment, Cairo Egypt, December 10-14, 1995.
  • Local Government Commission (2004). Geographic Information Systems: A Tool for Improving Community Liveability (www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/factsheets/gis.html)
  • Peak, K. (2000). Geographic Information Systems, A Glimpse of the Future. Traffic Engineering & Control (TEC), V.41. No.10, November 2000.
  • Taylor, S. and Khan, A.M. (2003). Development of A Public Transit Information System: Use of GIS and ITS Technologies. Proceedings, Canadian Transportation Research Forum 2003 Annual Conference, pp. 293-307.
  • The European Commission (2004). Cost/benefit analysis of GIS projects. (Source: website www.gisig.it/best-gis/Guides/chapter9/nine.htm)
  • Thirumalai, K. (2003). ITS Integration with Commercial Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies. ITS World Congress, Madrid.
  • Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) (1995). Geographic Information Systems in Transportation (GIS-T), Manual of Canadian GIS-T Data Standards, Recommended Practices and Implementation Guidelines.
    Ottawa.
  • United Nations (1995). International Seminar on GIS, City Sustainability and Environment Resolution. Cairo Egypt, December 10-14, 1995.



Page 3 of 3
| Previous |