A System Dynamics Approach to

Transport Modelling

Simon Shepherd
Institute for Transport Studies
University of Leeds (UK)
S.P.Shepherd@its.leeds.ac.uk
 Aims
• Introduction Systems Dynamics
• Some examples
• Challenges
 System Dynamics
• System dynamics is a computer-aided
approach to policy analysis and
design. It applies to dynamic problems
arising in complex social, managerial,
economic, or ecological systems --
literally any dynamic systems
characterized by interdependence,
mutual interaction, information feedback,
and circular causality
 Introduction :principles of
Systems Dynamics
• Representation of systems

Qualitative
Verbal description
Cause-effect diagrams

Flow charts
Equations

Quantitative
 Elements of CLD

Entities: are elements which affect other elements

Number of
and get affected themselves. An entity represents an
motorways
unspecified quantity. See Stocks later

+
Links: Entities are related by causal links, shown by
- arrows. Each causal link is assigned a polarity, either
positive (+, s) or negative (-, o) to indicate how the
s dependent entity changes when the independent
entity changes.
o
 CLD example
• Simple example
Reinforcing
etc. feedback loop
+ Eggs

Population
+
+
Chicken

Time
 CLD example 2
• Simple example 2
+
Eggs
Balancing
feedback loop
+

Population
+
Chicken
-
-
# Road
crossing +
etc. Time
 CLD transport example
• “Congestion relief” by new road
infrastructure
+
Highways being Number of
+ built Highways

- +
Need for
new highways Attractiveness of
- + driving on highways
+
Number of
traffic jams +

Source: Roberts, N.; et. al., Introduction to Computer simulation: The System Dynamics Approach. ed.;
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: London Amsterdam Don Mills Ontario Sydney, 1983
 Stocks and flows

Stock
inflow outflow

Stock (t )   Inflow( s)  outflow ( s )ds  Stock (t 0 )

t

t0
Chicken and eggs model

eggs Chickens
+
1,000

+
Chickens 500
deaths births
-
+
0
+ 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (Month)
road crossings Chickens : with crossings

𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠(𝑡)2
Note : 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑠(𝑡) = 1000
 Simple population model
Population
births deaths

birth rate death rate

𝒑𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 = 𝒃𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒉𝒔 − 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒔

Population 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒔 = 𝒑𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 ∗ 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆

𝒃𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒉𝒔 = 𝒑𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 ∗ 𝒃𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆
800
Rabbit

initial pop
400 infant average time in young average time in middle average time in old

Population Population Population

Young Middle Old
births aging young aging middle aging old
0
birth rate
0 20 40 60 80 100 initial pop initial pop
old
Time (Month) middle

Population : Current
 initial rabbit initial fox
population population
rabbit birth rate average rabbit life fox birth rate average fox life

Rabbit Fox
Population Population
rabbit births rabbit deaths fox births fox deaths

effect of
crowding on fox consumption fox mortality
deaths lookup of rabbits lookup
carrying capacity fox food availability
rabbit crowding fox rabbit
consumption fox food
lookup requirements

Rabbit Population Fox Population

4,000 200
Rabbit

Fox
2,000 100

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Year) Time (Year)
Rabbit Population : Current Fox Population : Current
 Simple epidemic model
Contacts
between infected
and unaffected
rate of potential
infectious contacts
Fraction of
population infected
rate that people fraction infected
contact other people from contact

Susceptible Infected
Population Population
infections

initial susceptible initial infected

total population

Susceptible Population Infected Population

1M 1M

750,000 Person
500,000
Person

500,000

250,000
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (day)
Time (day) Infected Population
Susceptible Population : Current
Example – uptake of Electric Vehicles
 Extended - Struben and Sterman (2008)
• Consideration of three types of car: conventional vehicle (CV), Plug-in
Hybrid (PIHV), and Battery Electric (BEV),
• inclusion of choice model coefficients from a UK-based SP study (Batley
et al, 2004),
• inclusion of a price-volume effect
• calibration to match the “business as usual” projection by BERR (2008)
• testing a failing market case where we remove high profile marketing,
• inclusion of a “revenue preserving” tax designed to replace any loss in
revenues from fuel duty,
• estimation of CO2 emissions

Source: Shepherd, S.P., Bonsall, P.W., and Harrison G. (2012) Factors affecting future demand for
electric vehicles : a model based study. Transport Policy, (20) March 2012, pp 62-74. DOI
:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.12.006
Struben and Sterman (2008) Take up of AFV
Calibrated to BERR 2030
Sensitivity to word of mouth

Word of mouth between CV drivers is

crucial for success – as was marketing
 Example CM/failing regime vs BAU
Willingness to consider EV market share EV
1 0.4

0.75 0.3

0.2
0.5
0.1
0.25
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
0 Time (Year)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 market share EV[PIHV] : BAU base
Time (Year) market share EV[PIHV] : BAU failing
market share EV[BEV] : BAU base
Willingness to consider EV : BAU base
market share EV[BEV] : BAU failing
Willingness to consider EV : BAU failing

Willingness to consider collapses when high profile marketing is removed

in year 10
 Tipping point analysis
Change required by year 10 to maintain marketing
threshold and hence a successful marketing regime:
• a 6.8% increase in CV operating costs
• a 10.6% decrease in PIHV operating costs
• a 66% decrease in BEV operating costs
• 160 mile range for BEV
• 130mph max speed for BEV; or
• fuel availability increasing from 40% to 55% for BEV

• Subsidies were seen to be crucial in the failing/CM

case – but at a cost!
 Control panel to vary scenarios
Installed base EV Market Shares 2010-2050
0 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 1 10 30 10 M 0.4
subsidy PIHV subsidy duration 2
subsidy BEV 1
3
2
0 1 1 100 M 500 M 1B 0 0 1 5M 1 0.2 1
3
SW Price Volume ON initial budget budget limited 1
2 3 2
1 3
BEV Attributes 3 1 2
0 4 0 4 4
1 2 34 4 2
1 23 4 1 2 341234
mph/10 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0 8 16 24 32 40
1 9 20 6 9 12 1 40 40 Time (Year) Year
Initial max speed BEV final max speed BEV Time final max speed BEV Installed base EV[PIHV] : BEV-range-300-20 1 1 market share EV[PIHV] : BEV-range-300-20 1 1
Installed base EV[PIHV] : Low case 2 2 market share EV[BEV] : BEV-range-300-20 2
Installed base EV[BEV] : BEV-range-300-20 3 "Ricardo Low % PIHV" : BEV-range-300-20 3
Installed base EV[BEV] : Low case 4 4 "Ricardo Low % BEV" : BEV-range-300-20 4 4
0-10 with
10=100% 0 5 10 1 5 10 1 40 40
Initial fuel availability BEV final fuel availability BEV Time final fuel availability BEV sales EV
Short Term Sales
600,000 1M
pence/mile 12 40
1 12 20 0 20 1 40 1 2
1 1
Initial operating cost BEV final operating cost BEV Time final operating cost BEV
3 2
300,000 500,000 1
1
miles/100 3 4
3
0.8 3 20 3
0 5 0 4 1 40 3
1 2
1 4 1 4 4
Initial range BEV final range BEV Time final range BEV 0 12
3
4 2 4 2 2 0 1 23 4
3 4

0 4 8 12 16 20 0 8 16 24 32 40
0-10 with 10 Year Time (Year)
poor 0 5 10 0 5 10 1 40 40 sales EV[PIHV] : Low case 1 1 1 sales EV[PIHV] : BEV-range-300-20 1 1 1
sales EV[BEV] : Low case 2 2 2 2 sales EV[PIHV] : Low case 2 2 2 2
Initial emission rating BEV final emission rating BEV Time final emission rating BEV sales EV[PIHV] : BEV-range-300-20 3 3 sales EV[BEV] : BEV-range-300-20 3 3
sales EV[BEV] : BEV-range-300-20 4 4 sales EV[BEV] : Low case 4 4 4
PIHV and CV Operating costs
range BEV Price BEV fuel availability BEV
pence/mile 10 17 20 5 17 20 1 40 40 1 6
4 1 1 20 2
1 2 12
Initial operating cost PIHV final operating cost PIHVTime final operating cost PIHV 1 12 12 12 1

0 1 2 2 2
10 4
0 12 24 36 0 14 28 0 12 24 36
10 22 25 5 22 30 1 40 40 Time (Year) Time (Year) Time (Year)
fuel availability BEV : BEV-range-300-20
Initial operating cost CV final operating cost CV Time final operating cost CV range BEV : BEV-range-300-20 1 Price BEV : BEV-range-300-20
Price BEV : Low case
fuel availability BEV : Low case
range BEV : Low case 2 2
 Some of the conclusions
• BAU assumptions are crucial!
• Word of mouth assumptions can have a larger impact
• Subsidies have no real impact in BAU but are crucial in a
failing market – but expensive! (required for 6 years
minimum – could cost in excess of £500m depending on
other factors)
• If EVs take off then we see significant loss of fuel duty =
£10bn p.a. 2050 in most optimistic case.
• Revenue preserver per vehicle could range between £300-
£650 p.a. by 2050.
• A further 9% reduction in emissions from CV gives similar
results in terms of CO2 at much lower cost to government.
 Some other examples
• Over 50 journal papers since 1994
• Shepherd, S.P. (2014) A review of system dynamics models applied in
transportation. Transportmetrica B: Transport Dynamics, 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21680566.2014.916236

• Examples cover 6 main areas – airports and airlines, strategic

polic/regional models, supply chain management with transport,
highway construction/maintenance, uptake of AFVs and
miscellaneous.
 EU White paper challenge
• Halve the use of ‘conventionally fuelled’
cars in urban transport by 2030; phase
them out in cities by 2050;
Future challenges
Behaviour change
Growth and business cycles
 Uncertainty

Source adapted from Zurek, M. and T. Henrichs (2007): Linking scenarios across geographical
scales in international environmental assessments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Technology or behaviour
change?
 C-ROADS at COP-15

• Scoreboard went viral

• Real-time analysis
picked up by media,
negotiators
• US State Dept used
as common platform,
picked up by other
delegations “This capability, had it been
available to me when we
negotiated Kyoto, would have
yielded a different outcome.”
Tim Wirth, President, UN Foundation,
former Senator
 Summary
• SD has been applied widely in transport problems
• It has the advantage of being transparent (with client
involvement in building CLDs)
• Small models can show underlying structure and
dynamics of the problem – providing new insights
• Can deal with cycles, resource limits, lagged
responses, softer variables
• Easy to introduce scenario and sensitivity analysis
• Can deal naturally with cohorts (population or fleet)
• Can bring in more systems and learn from structures in
other fields
 Summary 2
• Provides a holistic approach to modelling
• Not suited to traditional network assignment problems
• Future applications - competition dynamics, freight and
the development of ports, sensitivity of systems and
transport demand to changing external factors related
to demographics and the economy;
• modelling behavioural change whether this is at the
user level of some higher level stakeholder
• modelling the decision making process and game
playing to inform
 And finally
• “System dynamics helps us expand the
boundaries of our mental models so that
we become aware of and take
responsibility for the feedbacks created
by our decisions”, Sterman (2002).
Thank you for listening

S.P.Shepherd@its.leeds.ac.uk