Utilizing an Analytical Hierarchy Process with Stochastic Return On Investment to Justify Connected Vehicle-Based Deployment Decisions

被引:12
作者
Arafat, Mahmoud [1 ]
Iqbal, Shahadat [1 ]
Hadi, Mohammed [1 ]
机构
[1] Florida Int Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Miami, FL 33199 USA
关键词
MULTICRITERIA; UNCERTAINTY;
D O I
10.1177/0361198120929686
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
With the increasing interest in connected vehicles (CV), it becomes all the more important to support decisions by transportation agencies to invest in Connected Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) applications. This paper presents a method that can be used to justify the investment in CV-based safety applications considering the availability of existing solutions. The method utilizes a combination of stochastic return on investment (ROI) analysis and a multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) procedure to account for uncertainties, to consider effects that cannot be converted to dollar values, and to account for stakeholder priorities. The stochastic ROI analysis is applied using Monte Carlo simulations and included as part of the selection criteria in the MCDA method using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This paper applies the method to support the deployment of CV-based applications to address transportation safety concerns on urban arterials. These applications can be categorized as CV-based support of signalized intersection safety, CV-based support of unsignalized intersection safety, and CV-based hazard warning applications. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation analysis for a project case study indicated the cost-effectiveness of these applications. The results of the AHP analysis indicate that utilizing V2I applications is 41.3% more favorable than utilizing the investigated existing solutions to address safety concern on the arterial facility that is the subject of the case study.
引用
收藏
页码:462 / 472
页数:11
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or both: politicians' perspective in transport policy appraisal
    Annema, Jan Anne
    Mouter, Niek
    Razaei, Jafar
    [J]. 18TH EURO WORKING GROUP ON TRANSPORTATION, EWGT 2015, 2015, 10 : 788 - 797
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2015, NEAR TERM V2I TRANS
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2019, BUSINESS PLAN
  • [4] Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?
    Asplund, Disa
    Eliasson, Jonas
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2016, 92 : 195 - 205
  • [5] Do Cost-Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010-21
    Eliasson, Jonas
    Lundberg, Mattias
    [J]. TRANSPORT REVIEWS, 2012, 32 (01) : 29 - 48
  • [6] Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built-and what we can do about it
    Flyvbjerg, Bent
    [J]. OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, 2009, 25 (03) : 344 - 367
  • [7] Hadi M., 2019, Estimation of system performance and technology impacts to support future year planning
  • [8] Hwang C.-L., 1981, MULT ATTRIB DECIS MA, P58, DOI [10.1007/978-3-642-48318-93, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-93]
  • [9] Iqbal M. S, 2017, 96 ANN M TRANSP RES
  • [10] Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS)
    Keshavarz Ghorabaee, Mehdi
    Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras
    Olfat, Laya
    Turskis, Zenonas
    [J]. INFORMATICA, 2015, 26 (03) : 435 - 451