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

Abstract

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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Eliasson

Lundberg

Do Cost–Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010–21.

Transport Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2012, pp. 29–48.

Flyvbjerg

Survival of the Unfittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure Gets Built—and What We Can Do about It.

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 25, No. 3, 2009, pp. 344–367.

Asplund

Eliasson

Does Uncertainty Make Cost-Benefit Analyses Pointless?

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 92, 2016, pp. 195–205.

Yang

Shen

Hadi

Risk Analysis to Account for Uncertainty in Benefit–Cost Evaluations of Intelligent Transportation Systems.

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2035: 187–194.

Khazraeian

Hadi

Monte Carlo Simulation-Based Benefit-Cost Analysis Combined with Analytical Hierarchy Process to Support ITS Investment with Consideration of Connected Vehicle Technology. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. 2672(19): 1–2.

Annema

J. A.

Mouter

Razaei

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), or Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) or Both: Politicians’ Perspective in Transport Policy Appraisal.

Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 10, 2015, pp. 788–797.

Saaty

T. L.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw- Hill Inc., New York, NY, 1980.

Rezaei

Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Omega, Vol . 53, 2015, pp. 49–57.

Keshavarz Ghorabaee

Zavadskas

E. K.

Olfat

Turskis

Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS).

Informatica, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015, pp. 435–451.

10.

Hwang

C. L.

Yoon

Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.

11.

Lahdelma

Salminen

SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making.

Operations Research, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2001, pp. 444–454.

12.

Weistroffer

H. R.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Software. In. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer, New York, NY, 2016, pp. 1301–1341.

13.

Macharis

, and A. Bernardini.

Reviewing the Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Evaluation of Transport Projects: Time for a Multi-Actor Approach.

Transport Policy, Vol. 1, No. 37, 2015, pp. 177–186.

14.

Florida’s Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV) Business Plan. 2019. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/traffic/doc_library/pdf/fdot-cav-business-plan-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=45b478ff_0. Accessed July 7, 2020.

15.

Limpert

Stahel

W. A.

, and M. Abbt. Log-Normal Distributions Across the Sciences: Keys and Clues: on the Charms of Statistics, and How Mechanical Models Resembling Gambling Machines Offer a Link to a Handy Way to Characterize Log-Normal Distributions, Which Can Provide Deeper Insight into Variability and Probability—Normal or Log-Normal: That Is the Question. BioScience, Vol. 51, No. 5, 2001, pp. 341–352.2.0.CO;2]

16.

Iqbal M. S., M. Hadi, and Y. Xiao. Assessment of Link Level Variation of Connected Vehicle Market Penetration. Presented at 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2017.

17.

Hadi, M., Y. Xiao, M. S. Iqbal, T. Wang, M. Arafat, and F. Hoque. Estimation of System Performance and Technology Impacts to Support Future Year Planning. Florida Department of Transportation. Office of Research and Development, Tallahassee, FL, 2019.

18.

Near-Term V2I Transition and Phasing Analysis,Life Cycle Cost Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D. C., 2015.

19.

Wright, J., J. K. Garrett, C. J. Hill, G. D. Krueger, J. H. Evans, S. Andrews, C. K. Wilson, R. Rajbhandari, and B. Burkhard. National Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis. Final Report FHWA-JPO-14-125. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2014.

20.

U.S Department of Transportation, Office the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. Cost and Benefits Database. https://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/ benecost.nsf/BenefitsHome. Accessed June, 2019.

21.

Misener, J. A. Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System (CICAS): Signalized Left Turn Assist and Traffic Signal Adaptation. Partners for Advanced Transportation and Technology, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2010.

22.

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Transportation.