Development and validation of a multilevel model for predicting workload under routine and nonroutine conditions in an air traffic management center

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting variability in the mental workload experienced by frontline operators under routine and nonroutine conditions. Background: Excess workload is a risk that needs to be managed in safety-critical industries. Predictive models are needed to manage this risk effectively yet are difficult to develop. Much of the difficulty stems from the fact that workload prediction is a multilevel problem. Method: A multilevel workload model was developed in Study 1 with data collected from an en route air traffic management center. Dynamic density metrics were used to predict variability in workload within and between work units while controlling for variability among raters. The model was cross-validated in Studies 2 and 3 with the use of a high-fidelity simulator. Results: Reported workload generally remained within the bounds of the 90% prediction interval in Studies 2 and 3. Workload crossed the upper bound of the prediction interval only under nonroutine conditions. Qualitative analyses suggest that nonroutine events caused workload to cross the upper bound of the prediction interval because the controllers could not manage their workload strategically. Conclusion: The model performed well under both routine and nonroutine conditions and over different patterns of workload variation. Application: Workload prediction models can be used to support both strategic and tactical workload management. Strategic uses include the analysis of historical and projected workflows and the assessment of staffing needs. Tactical uses include the dynamic reallocation of resources to meet changes in demand.

Traffic safety at road–rail level crossings using a driving simulator and traffic simulation

Several intelligent transportation systems (ITS) were used with an advanced driving simulator to assess its influence on driving behavior. Three types of ITS interventions were tested: video in vehicle, audio in vehicle, and on-road flashing marker. The results from the driving simulator were inputs for a developed model that used traffic microsimulation (VISSIM 5.4) to assess the safety interventions. Using a driving simulator, 58 participants were required to drive through active and passive crossings with and without an ITS device and in the presence or absence of an approaching train. The effect of changes in driver speed and compliance rate was greater at passive crossings than at active crossings. The slight difference in speed of drivers approaching ITS devices indicated that ITS helped drivers encounter crossings in a safer way. Since the traffic simulation was not able to replicate a dynamic speed change or a probability of stopping that varied depending on ITS safety devices, some modifications were made to the traffic simulation. The results showed that exposure to ITS devices at active crossings did not influence drivers’ behavior significantly according to the traffic performance indicator, such as delay time, number of stops, speed, and stopped delay. However, the results of traffic simulation for passive crossings, where low traffic volumes and low train headway normally occur, showed that ITS devices improved overall traffic performance.

Air pollution levels measured at traffic hot spots : Brisbane urban corridor study

Air pollution levels were monitored continuously over a period of 4 weeks at four sampling sites along a busy urban corridor in Brisbane. The selected sites were representative of industrial and residential types of urban environment affected by vehicular traffic emissions. The concentration levels of submicrometer particle number, PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NOx were measured 5-10 meters from the road. Meteorological parameters and traffic flow rates were also monitored. The data were analysed in terms of the relationship between monitored pollutants and existing ambient air quality standards. The results indicate that the concentration levels of all pollutants exceeded the ambient air background levels, in certain cases by up to an order of magnitude. While the 24-hr average concentration levels did not exceed the standard, estimates for the annual averages were close to, or even higher than the annual standard levels.