I-710 Corridor Advisory Committee. Gary Hamrick, Iteris

Transcription

1 St t i Transportation Strategic T t ti Plan: Pl Traffic T ffi Modeling M d li U Update d t Presented to: Presented by: I-710 Corridor Advisory Committee Gill V V. Hicks Hicks, Cambridge Systematics Systematics, Inc Inc. Gary Hamrick, Iteris March 20,

2 Purpose Evaluate baseline (2012) andfuture (2035) traffic conditions. Identify bottlenecks. Test the impacts and performance of alternative scenarios. Evaluate the inter relationships of proposed projects and programs. Provide a platform for modeling and analysis in GCCOG area after STP is completed. 2

3 Three Tier Model Structure Tier 1: multimodal regional travel demand model ( macroscopic ) using TransCAD. Tier 2: subregional dynamic roadway operations model ( mesoscopic and microscopic simulation) using Aimsun. Tier 3: intersection operations modeling for evaluating traffic level of service using Synchro. 3

4 Modeling Status Macro and meso models calibrated to 2012 conditions. Macro model lhas been run for No Build and 15 other scenarios for Meso model lto be run for No Build and 3 scenarios for 2035 between March and end of May. Synchro runs starting soon for up to 100 intersections. 4

5 Modeling Assumptions The following slides briefly outline our modeling assumptions regarding: Transit itimprovements Maximum Transit service enhancements Active transportation improvements Travel demand management Connected vehicles 5

6 Transit Improvements The Gateway Cities Transit Assessment Report Modeling assumes rapid & express transit service improvements High Speed Rail, Phase I Blended Eco Rapid Transit Metro Gold Line extension (Washington Blvd) Atlantic BRT Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Metro Blue / Green Line 6

7 Transit Assessment Findings The proposed rapid transit enhancements: Would constitute a 42% increase in seated transit capacity in the Gateway Cities by 2035 Could lead to a forecasted 23% increase in transit ridership in the Gateway Cities by 2035 Would contribute to auto trip reduction on freeways, but particularly on I 5 High Speed Rail, Gold Line extension, etc. 7

8 Maximum Transit Scenario The Gateway Cities Maximum Transit Scenario Assessment Report Scenario Assumes: All Transit Assessment rapid transit projects AND a roughly 68% increase in local/regional bus service frequencies 8

9 Maximum Transit Report Findings Adding 68% greater local lbus service to proposed rapid transit enhancements: Would constitute a 69% increase in seated transit capacity in the Gateway Cities by 2035 Could lead to a forecasted 39% increase in transit ridership in the Gateway Cities by

10 Active Transportation The Active Transportation Element Report Reduction of 2/3 of trips under 3 miles in length Reduction of 50% of trips between 3 5 miles in length Modeling assumes 2.8% auto trip reduction by

11 Travel Demand Management Modeling assumes 15.2% auto trip reduction by 2035 (SCAG Assumption) Connected Vehicles Modeling assumes: 3,000 PCE hourly lane capacity on freight corridor 2,400 PCE hourly lane capacity on mixed flow and HOV freeway network 11

12 MACRO TRAVEL DEMAND INTERIM MODELING RESULTS 12

13 Alternative 7 Macro Model Runs Scenario 2B I 710 Build Alt. 7 Scenario 9 Alt. 7 + Max. Transit + Max. TDM + Connected Vehicles Scenario 12 Scenario 13 Alt. 7 + Connected Vehicles (only) Alt. 7 + Max. Transit (only) Scenario 14 Alt. 7 + Max.TDM (only) Scenario 15 Scenario 3 Scenario 2C Alt. 7 + E/W Freight Corridor (I 710/SR 57) Alt. 7 without SCIG/ICTF Exp. Alt. 7 without Hotspots Feasibility Study Improvements 13

14 Model Notes Modelcovers entire GatewayCities Model can report on: Entire Gateway Cities study area Or route by route (I 710) Useful for alternatives comparisons & sensitivity tests, but not for concept design 14

15 Model Measures of Effectiveness Daily traffic volumes (auto & trucks) VMT (arterial l& freeway) Vehicle Delay (arterial & freeway) Level of service 15

16 Systemwide Model Results VMT/VHT/Delay (all of Gateway Cities) 16

17 Systemwide Model Results VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled (all of Gateway Cities) 17

18 VMT Comparison All Freeways Consistent VMT All Scenarios VMT (1000's) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Freeway VMT (000's) Auto VMT Truck VMT ,

19 VMT Comparison All Arterials 30,000 25,000 Arterial VMT (000's) Auto VMT Truck VMT VMT (1000's) 20, ,000 10, ,

20 VMT Findings (full study area) Freeways With Connected Vehicles Freeway VMT increases by 6% Max TDM results in largest decrease in VMT, Max Transit next largest decrease in VMT Overall, noneof of the alternatives greatly affect Freeway VMT 20

21 VMT Findings (full study area) Arterials il Max Transit/Max TDM/Connected Vehicles significantly reduces arterial VMT ( 16%) Connected Vehicles ( 9%) and TDM ( 5%) deliver significantly lower arterial VMT 21

22 Systemwide Model Results Vehicle Delay (all of Gateway Cities) 22

23 Vehicle Delay Comparison Freeways Freeway Delay eay(000's Hours) Delay (1000's) Auto Delay 187 Combined 101 Truck Delay Connected Vehicles

24 Vehicle Delay Comparison Arterials Arterial Delay eay(000's Hours) Auto Delay Truck Delay De elay (1000's) Connected Vehicles Combined

25 Vehicle Delay Findings (full study area) Freeways Max Transit/Max TDM/Connected Vehicles significantly reduces freeway delay ( 43%) Connected vehicles ( 33%) and TDM ( 14%) result in significant delay reductions by themselves Arterials Max Transit/Max TDM/Connected Vehicles significantly reduces arterial delay ( 38%) Connected vehicles ( 29%) and TDM ( 12%) result in significant delay reductions 25

26 Systemwide Model Results Level of Service Analysis* LOS by Segment Weighted by Volume/VMT *Illustrates how much VMT falls within each level of service category 26

27 Level of Service Comparison Freeways Freeway Mainline VMT (million miles) by LOS AM Peak Period Freeway Mainline VMT (million miles) by LOS PM Peak Period VMT (million miles) D or better E F or worse VMT (million miles) D or better E F or worse 27

28 Level of Service Comparison Freeways Freeway Mainline VMT (thousand miles) LOS E or F AM Peak Period Freeway Mainline VMT (thousand miles) LOS E or F PM Peak Period Combined Connected Vehicles TDM , , , , E or worse E or worse 28

29 Level of Service Comparison Arterials Arterial VMT (million miles) by LOS AM Peak Period Arterial VMT (million miles) by LOS PM Peak Period No Build I 710 Build (Alt7) Alt7 No Hotspots Alt 7 +MT+TDM+CV Alt 7 + Connected Vehs Alt 7 + Transit Alt 7 + TDM Alt 7 + EWFC No Build I 710 Build (Alt7) Alt7 No Hotspots Alt 7 +MT+TDM+CV Alt 7 + Connected Vehs Alt 7 + Transit Alt 7 + TDM Alt 7 + EWFC D or better E F or worse D or better E F or worse 29

30 Level of Service Findings Freeway Connected vehicles eliminates nearly all freeway LOS F Max. TDM has the next largest benefit to LOS conditions Arterial Max Transit/Max TDM/Connected Vehicles significantly improves LOS Connected vehicles and Max. TDM result in significant LOS improvements by themselves 30

31 I 710 Sensitivity Results (Note: model volumes are not post processed but provide reasonable comparisons and sensitivity tests) 31

32 Alt 7 + Max Transit Δ ADT : +1 (1%) Δ Truck: +3 (6%) Δ ADT : 2 ( 1%) Δ Truck: +4 (6%) Δ ADT : +1 (1%) Δ Truck: +4 (6%) No major changes in flow Some capacity freed for trucks Δ ADT : 0 (0%) Δ Truck: +3 (5%) Legend Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 32

33 Alt 7 + Max TDM Δ ADT : 1 (0%) Δ Truck: +3 (5%) Δ ADT : 7 ( 2%) Δ Truck: +3 (6%) Δ ADT : 3 ( 1%) Δ Truck: +4 (6%) Autos reduced by 1% 2% 5% 6% added d Trucks Δ ADT : 4 ( 2%) Legend Δ Truck: +2 (4%) Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 33

34 Alt 7 + Connected Vehicles Δ ADT : +11 (4%) Δ Truck: 4 ( 8%) Δ ADT : +4 (1%) Δ Truck: 5 ( 8%) Δ ADT : +7 (3%) Δ Truck: 1 ( 2%) Δ ADT : +3 (2%) Some trucks shift away from I 710 More autos added back (3% to 4%) Legend Δ Truck: 0(0%) Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 34

35 Alt 7 + Max Transit, TDM, Connected Vehicles Δ ADT : +5 (2%) Δ Truck: 2 ( 5%) Δ ADT : 2 ( 1%) Δ Truck: 1( 1%) Δ ADT : +2 (1%) Δ Truck: +2 (3%) Δ ADT : 1(0%) Some segments have more traffic, some have less with ih Combined Scenario Legend Δ Truck: +3 (5%) Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 35

36 Alt 7 w/o SCIG & ICTF Δ ADT : +5 (2%) Δ Truck: +11 (30%) Δ ADT : +5 (2%) Δ Truck: +10 (20%) Expected Increase in trucks seen Δ ADT : +6 (3%) Δ Truck: +9 (17%) Δ ADT : +5 (3%) Legend Δ Truck: +8 (16%) Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 36

37 Alt 7 + E/W Freight Corridor Δ ADT : +11 (4%) Δ Truck: +12 (23%) Δ ADT : +5 (2%) Δ Truck: +7 (12%) Expected Increase in trucks seen Δ ADT : +3 (1%) Δ Truck: +3 (4%) Δ ADT : +3 (1%) Legend Δ Truck: +2 (3%) Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 37

38 Alt7 withouthotpotsimprovements Δ ADT : +4 (1%) Δ Truck: +2 (4%) Δ ADT : +1 (0%) Δ Truck: +3 (5%) Δ ADT : 2 ( 1%) Δ Truck: 0(0%) Modest increase in trucks and autos 5% increase, less than 5,000 vehicles Δ ADT : 2 ( 1%) Legend Δ Truck: 0(0%) Δ ADT (in 1000s) Δ Truck (in 1000s) 38

39 Key Findings TDM, Transit and Connected Vehicles significantly reduces overall system vehicular delay Connected Vehicles shows greatest benefits Followed by TDM, and then Transit Transit benefits vary by corridor Greatest transit benefits seen on I 5 Due to most major future transit projects are in that corridor 39

40 Key Findings (cont.) I 710 SCIG/ICTF significantly reduce daily trucks E/W Freight Corridor increases truck usage of I 710 Other measures have modest affect on I 710 Transit alone about 2,000 vehicles removed (1%) TDM alone up to 7,000 vehicles removed (2%) Auto reduction is backfilled by regional trucks on I