Macro / Meso / Micro Framework on I-395 HOT Lane Conversion

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
I-95 HOT/HOV Lanes Project Fairfax County TAC August 16, 2011.
Advertisements

Project Prioritization - 1 Project Prioritization Using Paramics Microsimulation: A Case Study for the Alameda County Central Freeway Project Presented.
April 10, 2007 Travel Forecasting Methodology for I-95 HOT Lanes in Virginia 13th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Reno, Nevada.
DynusT (Dynamic Urban Systems in Transportation)
ARC’s Strategic Thoroughfare Plan Bridging the Gap from Travel Demand Model to Micro-Simulation GPA Conference Fall 2012 Presented By: David Pickworth,
Dynamic Traffic Assignment: Integrating Dynameq into Long Range Planning Studies Model City 2011 – Portland, Oregon Richard Walker - Portland Metro Scott.
GREATER NEW YORK A GREENER Travel Demand Modeling for analysis of Congestion Mitigation policies October 24, 2007.
Applying DynusT to the I-10 Corridor Study, Tucson, AZ ITE Western District Meeting Santa Barbara June 26th, 2012 Jim Schoen, PE, Kittelson & Assoc. Khang.
Route 28 South of I-66 Corridor Safety and Operations Study Technical Committee Meeting #2 June 25,
Planning Applications: A City- wide Microsimulation Model for Virginia Beach Craig Jordan, Old Dominion University Mecit Cetin, Old Dominion University.
Humber Bridge Review Results from the HUMBER ESTUARY TRANSPORT MODEL.
Presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation leadership you can trust. An Integrated Travel Demand, Mesoscopic and Microscopic.
Can Multi-Resolution Dynamic Traffic Assignment live up to the Expectation of Reliable Analysis of Incident Management Strategies Lili (Leo) Luo, P.E.,
Less Stop More Go EXPRESS LANES Travel Choices and Strategies to Relieve Congestion Presentation to FDOT’s Annual ITS Working Group Meeting March 2008.
An Empirical Comparison of Microscopic and Mesoscopic Traffic Simulation Paradigms Ramachandran Balakrishna Daniel Morgan Qi Yang Caliper Corporation 14.
Transportation Operations Group Toward a Consistent and Robust Integrated Multi-Resolution Modeling Approach for Traffic Analysis May 17-21, 2009 Jeff.
Considerations when applying Paramics to Strategic Traffic Models Paramics User Group Meeting October 9 th, 2009 Presented Matthew.
Orange County Business Council Infrastructure Committee December 14, 2010 Draft Long-Range Transportation Plan Destination 2035.
TRB Planning Applications Conference May 9th, 2011
Lynn Peterson Secretary of Transportation Combining Macro Scopic and Meso Scopic Models in Toll and Traffic Revenue Forecasting SR 167 Corridor Completion.
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. COUNCIL BLUFFS INTERSTATE SYSTEM MODEL Jon Markt Source: FHWA.
2007 TRB Planning Application Conference D ELDOT S TATEWIDE E VACUATION M ODEL.
From EMME to DYNAMEQ in the city of MALMÖ. THE COMPANY Founded in early 2011 Currently located in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö Small company (currently.
April 2010 Scott Smith Volpe Center / RITA / U.S. DOT Transportation Border Working Group Meeting Boston, MA An Integrated Regional Planning / Microsimulation.
What are Managed Lanes What are Express Lanes What are HOT Lanes Regional Express Lanes Network I-95 Express I-595 Express I-75 Express.
Methodology for the Use of Regional Planning Models to Assess Impact of Various Congestion Pricing Strategies Sub-network Extraction A sub-network focusing.
Route 1 Project Study Report Overview. A report that describes the transportation problem and identifies the project scope, schedule and estimated cost.
2007 TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference – Daytona Beach, Florida Pseudo Dynamic Traffic Assignment A Duration Based Static Assignment.
David B. Roden, Senior Consulting Manager Analysis of Transportation Projects in Northern Virginia TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference.
Modeling HOT Lanes TPB’s Approach AMPO Travel Modeling Group March 21, 2006 I:\ateam\meetings_conf\ampo_tms\ \Hot_Lane_Pres_to_AMPO_Final.ppt.
DKS Associates. 2 Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Travel Demand vs. Simulation Models Micro vs. Meso Simulation Models US-101 Corridor Modeling.
Integrated Macro-Micro Highway Demand/Operational Analysis Case Study: Cross Bronx Expressway Corridor, Bronx, NY Presented at the 15 th TRB Transportation.
Major Transportation Corridor Studies Using an EMME/2 Travel Demand Forecasting Model: The Trans-Lake Washington Study Carlos Espindola, Youssef Dehghani.
Freeway Congestion In The Washington Region Presentation to National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board February 15, 2006 Item # 9.
Incorporating Traffic Operations into Demand Forecasting Model Daniel Ghile, Stephen Gardner 22 nd international EMME Users’ Conference, Portland September.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB 11 th Conference on Transportation Planning Applications presented by Dan Goldfarb, P.E. Cambridge.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to 12 th Annual TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference presented by Dan Goldfarb, P.E. Cambridge.
Enhancement and Validation of a Managed-Lane Subarea Network Tolling Forecast Model May 19, 2005 Stephen Tuttle (RSG), Jeff Frkonja (Portland Metro), Jack.
Bharath Paladugu TRPC Clyde Scott Independent Consultant
I-95 Managed Lanes CORSIM Analysis Status Meeting Presented by David Stroud, PE, AICP Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.
A Dynamic Traffic Simulation Model on Planning Networks Qi Yang Caliper Corporation TRB Planning Application Conference Houston, May 20, 2009.
Modeling Various Tolling Schemes Using Emme: Seattle Experience Andrew Natzel, Parsons Brinckerhoff Bhanu Yerra, Parsons Brinckerhoff Craig Helmann, Puget.
Analysis of the IH 35 Corridor Through the Austin Metropolitan Area TRB Planning Applications Conference Jeff Shelton Karen Lorenzini Alex Valdez Tom Williams.
Jack is currently performing travel demand model forecasting for Florida’s Turnpike. Specifically he works on toll road project forecasting to produce.
Estimating Volumes for I-95 HOT Lanes in Virginia Prepared for: 2009 Planning Applications Conference Houston, TX May 18, 2009 Prepared by: Kenneth D.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Fairfax County Parkway Corridor Study Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee December 1,
SHRP2 Project C05: Final Report to TCC Understanding the Contribution of Operations, Technology, and Design to Meeting Highway Capacity Needs Wayne Kittelson.
Interstate 95 Managed Lanes PD&E Study (95 Express) Project Development and Environment Study SE FSUTMS Users Group The Corradino Group November 2, 2007.
IH-10 Managed Lanes Project: A “Public-Public” Partnership ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates Presented at the Value Pricing Conference.
1 Toll Modeling Analysis for the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project 19 th Annual International EMME/2 Users’ Conference October 19-21, 2005 Presented.
Status Report on the Regional Value Pricing Study Ronald F. Kirby, Director of Transportation Planning November 15, 2006 Item 11.
Garden State Parkway HOT Lanes By Matt Lawson October 14, 2010.
METRO Dynamic Traffic Assignment in Action COST Presentation ODOT Region 4 April 1,
Integrating Transit and Highway Solutions In High Volume Corridors
Evaluation of Hard Shoulder vs
The I-465 West Leg Reconstruction Project
I-77 High-Occupancy Toll Lanes
Mesoscopic Modeling Approach for Performance Based Planning
Sully District Council of Citizens Associations January 25, 2017 Susan Shaw, P.E., Megaprojects Director Virginia Department of Transportation.
Network Attributes Calculator
TRB Planning Applications Conference 2017
Estimating the Traffic Flow Impact of Pedestrians With Limited Data
Nick Wood, P.E. Texas A&M Transportation Institute
Jim Henricksen, MnDOT Steve Ruegg, WSP
Slugging in the I-395 Corridor
Development of New Supply Models in Maryland Using Big Data
Ventura County Traffic Model (VCTM) VCTC Update
Problem 5: Network Simulation
Application of a Macro Based Capacity Constraint Assignment Technique
Comparison and Analysis of Big Data for a Regional Freeway Study in Washington State Amanda Deering, DKS Associates.
Presentation transcript:

Macro / Meso / Micro Framework on I-395 HOT Lane Conversion Jeffrey Moore, Scott Thompson-Graves, Jonathan Avner (WRA) Amanda Baxter (VDOT) 15th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Raleigh, NC May 17, 2017

Existing Conditions I-395 study area extends from north of Edsall Road to Eads Street interchange (near the Pentagon) Three / four general purpose lanes per direction Two barrier-separated reversible HOV-3 lanes Pentagon Arlington National Cemetery Thomas Jefferson Memorial

Existing Conditions Operation of Reversible HOV Lanes Time Period HOV Lane Operation 12 AM – 2:30 AM Closed 2:30 AM – 6 AM NB - All Vehicles Permitted 6 AM – 9 AM NB HOV-3 Only 9 AM – 11 AM 11 AM – 1 PM 1 PM – 3:30 PM SB - All Vehicles Permitted 3:30 PM – 6 PM SB HOV-3 Only 6 PM – 12 AM

Existing Conditions Slow Speeds During Peak Periods Pentagon Washington, D.C. Northbound General Purpose Lanes 6AM 7AM 8AM 9AM Southbound General Purpose Lanes 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM

Project Scope Convert the two existing reversible HOV-3 lanes on I-395 to three managed lanes for eight miles from north of Edsall Road to the vicinity of Eads Street near the Pentagon

Managed Lanes Operation and Access High Occupancy Toll lanes (HOT lanes) Dynamic toll prices manage demand to ensure free-flow travel speeds All existing access points to remain the same configuration except for the Eads Street

Traffic Analysis Traffic analysis to support the Environmental Assessment and Interchange Modification Report Traffic forecasts and operational analysis for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions 2020 No Build Conditions 2020 Build Conditions 2040 No Build Conditions 2040 Build Conditions

Traffic Analysis Project Challenges: Time of day periods were different between the regional travel demand model and I-395 HOV facility operations Estimating demand for each analysis hour to produce an operational model that matches observed traffic counts Documenting meaningful results and project benefits Tight timeframe Fixed schedule – construction already underway

Traffic Analysis Selection of Analysis Hours

Peak Period Operations Model Traffic Model Flow Regional Travel Demand Model Model Post Processor Peak Hour Subarea Models Peak Period Operations Model

Regional Travel Demand Model Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Used as the basis for the development of traffic forecasts Validated along I-395 and regional cutlines Used to determine regional shifts in traffic

MWCOG Post Processor Included refinements to the MWCOG model: Alignment of MWCOG periods to actual HOV operations and hours of operational analysis Treatment of unofficial ridesharing (slugging) at the Pentagon Toll diversion Maintain speed requirement for a HOV/HOT facility per 23 U.S. Code 166

Future I-395 HOT Lane Operations MWCOG Post Processor Hour Beginning MWCOG Model I-395 HOV Operations MWCOG Post Processor Subarea / Operations Future I-395 HOT Lane Operations NT ALL CLOSED NT 1   1 2 230 NB ALL NB HOT 3 4 5 NT 2 AM 5-6 6 AM NB HOV3 NB HOV3 AM 1 AM 6-7 7 AM 7-8 8 AM 8-9 9 MD ALL AM 2 AM 9-10 10 11 MD 12 13 SB ALL PM 1 SB HOT 14 PM 2-3 15 PM SB HOV3 PM 2 PM 3-330 1530 SB HOV3 PM 330-4 16 PM 4-5 17 PM 5-6 18 PM 3 PM 6-7 19 20 21 22 23

Future I-395 HOT Lane Operations MWCOG Post Processor Hour Beginning MWCOG Model I-395 HOV Operations MWCOG Post Processor Subarea / Operations Future I-395 HOT Lane Operations NT ALL CLOSED NT 1   1 2 230 NB ALL NB HOT 3 4 5 NT 2 AM 5-6 6 AM NB HOV3 NB HOV3 AM 1 AM 6-7 7 AM 7-8 8 AM 8-9 9 MD ALL AM 2 AM 9-10 10 11 MD 12 13 SB ALL PM 1 SB HOT 14 PM 2-3 15 PM SB HOV3 PM 2 PM 3-330 1530 SB HOV3 PM 330-4 16 PM 4-5 17 PM 5-6 18 PM 3 PM 6-7 19 20 21 22 23 New periods to accommodate analysis hours outside of HOV-3 only operations

Peak Hour Subarea Models Added network detail: - Zone disaggregation - Intersection geometry and control Used MWCOG Post Processor trip tables as input to ODME process Validated to link and turning movement demand volumes for the 10 analysis hours Toll diversion refined for each hour for Build scenarios

Peak Period Operation Models Vehicle Travel Time Summary - AM Peak Mesoscopic and microscopic simulation Dynamic Traffic Assignment using subarea trip tables Validated to travel time and link counts I-395 General Purpose VISSIM (sec) Field (sec) Difference (%Δ) From North of I-495 interchange   to Entrance Ramp from HOV Northbound (Turkeycock Run) 310 290 7 to Entrance Ramp from Little River Turnpike 245 224 9 to Entrance Ramp from Seminary Road 441 392 13 to Entrance Ramp from Glebe Road 258 300 14 to Entrance Ramp from Jefferson Davis Highway 332 361 8 to Exit Ramp to Route 1 North 306 321 5 to Exit Ramp to 12th Street Expressway / End of Run 93 96 3 Total Travel Time (sec) 1,985 1,984

Peak Period Operation Models Measures of Effectiveness: Environmental Assessment Mesoscopic simulation Interchange Modification Report (IMR) Microscopic simulation

Traffic Analysis Why mesoscopic simulation? Produces planning level measures of effectiveness (travel time, throughput, speeds) Tight schedule Decreased effort and time for calibration Significantly reduced model run-time Work concurrently with the microscopic simulation and IMR requirements

Project Benefits 2040 Corridor Travel Time I-395 General Purpose Lanes – Northbound 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM Existing Future No-Build Future Build

Project Benefits 2040 Corridor Travel Time I-395 General Purpose Lanes – Northbound 11 Minute Reduction between 9 - 10 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM Existing Future No-Build Future Build

Project Benefits 2040 AM Corridor Speeds – I-395 General Purpose Lanes Pentagon Washington, D.C. Northbound General Purpose Lanes 6AM 7AM Existing 8AM 9AM 6AM 7AM Future No-Build 8AM 9AM 6AM 7AM Future Build 8AM 9AM

Project Benefits 2040 AM Corridor Speeds – I-395 General Purpose Lanes Pentagon Washington, D.C. Northbound General Purpose Lanes 6AM 7AM Existing 8AM 9AM 6AM 7AM Future No-Build 8AM 9AM 6AM 7AM Future Build 8AM 9AM

Project Benefits 2040 Person Throughput – I-395 Northbound AM Peak Period HOV-3 HOV-3 HOT GP GP GP Existing Future No-Build Future Build

Project Benefits 2040 Person Throughput – I-395 Northbound AM Peak Period 7,000 More People HOV-3 HOV-3 HOT GP GP GP Existing Future No-Build Future Build

Project Benefits Increases movement of people through the corridor during the peak period Reduces the daily duration of congested periods Postpones the onset of congestion Allows traffic to return to free-flow conditions earlier Provides commuters an additional travel option Promotes HOV throughout the day (currently no incentive to HOV during off-peak)

Summary Project Challenges: Time of day periods were different between the regional traffic model and I-395 HOV facility operations Post Processor to add sensitivity to the regional model Estimating demand for each analysis hour to produce an operational model that matches observed traffic counts Subarea models and ODME process for each analysis hour Documenting meaningful results and project benefits Project approach and peak period operations analysis Tight timeframe Fixed schedule – construction already underway Incorporated mesoscopic simulation to the approach

Jeffrey Moore jsmoore@wrallp.com Scott Thompson-Graves Questions Jeffrey Moore jsmoore@wrallp.com Amanda Baxter Amanda.Baxter@vdot.virginia.gov Scott Thompson-Graves sthompson-graves@wrallp.com Jonathan Avner javner@wrallp.com