Skip to main content

Table 2 Example of a “CMME evaluation” table for the assessment of a CASE mobility application involving traffic-free zones in the CBD of the city of Thessaloniki (a similar table was constructed for the alternative CASE mobility application involving intelligent traffic control)

From: Assessing the impact of case mobility: issues and recommendations from Greece

  Potential impact or evaluation criteria CASE mobility application elements (for both applications): Row totals
(sum of scores × weights)
Intelligent—traffic control Travel info Dynamic route guidance Road user charging e-surveillance Freight deliveries mgmt.
1 Improved safety levels 6 2 3 2 7 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 44
2 Reduced CO2 emissions 3 3 2 3 7 3 6 3 2 3 5 3 75
3 Access to PT services 6 1 7 1 6 1 - 1 6 1 - 1 25
4 Reduced congestion 9 3 4 3 8 3 9 3 4 3 4 3 114
5 Smooth and seamless journeys 5 2 6 2 4 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 50
6 City liveability 4 3 1 3 2 3 8 3 4 3 5 3 72
  Column totals (left: sum of rows 1–6/right: sum of the products: scores × weights, rows 1–6) 33 76 23 46 34 79 28 79 21 46 20 54 380
  1. Note: (a) The gray left-hand columns under each element contain the score given to the corresponding criterion (potential impact) on a scale 1–10. The right-hand columns show the weight of the corresponding impact (scale from 1 to 3). For each cell, the product of these two numbers (not shown in the Table) is summed to the bottom row and last right-hand column. (b) The elements of this particular CASE application that appear as the most “impactful” are “dynamic route guidance” and “road user charging” (weighted score 79), followed by “intelligent predictive traffic management” (weighted score 76). Finally, (c) the specific application is expected to have maximum impact on “reduced congestion” (weighted score 114) followed by “reduced CO2 emissions” (score 75) and so on