TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION & 3-D VISUALIZATION Presenters: Fadi Emil Nassar, P.E. Veronica A. Boza, E.I. FDOT – MAY 4, 2007

MACRO / MICRO TRAFFIC MODELS  MACRO MODEL: TRAFFIC FORECAST  MICRO MODEL: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS  NO LONGER SEPARATE FILEDS: – DISTRIBUTION IMPACTED BY OPERATIONS – CAPACITY CONSTRAINT AT INTERSECTIONS – TRANSIT/MODAL SPLIT IMPACTED BY CONGESTION  GAP CLOSING BTW MACRO & MICRO ANALYSES  CONVERGENCE OF SOFTWARE  INTEGRATED MODELS: – CUBE / DYNAMISM – VISUM / VISSIM

TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION MODELS  ANALYZE THE PERFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS BY SIMULATING THE MOVEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES ON A SPLIT-SECOND BASIS  ACCOUNT FOR ROADWAY, DRIVER AND VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS  OPERATIONAL RESULTS (SPEED, QUEUES, DELAYS, ETC) ARE BASED ON TRAFFIC INTERACTION INSTEAD OF EQUATIONS

3D-VISUALIZATION  COMPLEX ROADWAY SYSTEMS  BRIDGES  OVERPASSES  INTERCHANGES  AIRPORT TERMINAL RAMPS  VIEW FROM CAR

SR MIAMI

WHEN TO USE MICROSIMULATION  LIMITATION OF HCM / HCS  SYSTEM ANALYSIS (COORDINATION)  CONGESTION / SPILLBACK / BOTTLENECK  QUEUING / STORAGE  CLOSELY SPACED RAMPS  BUS / MULTIMODAL / ITS / RAMP METERING  SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION  COMPLEX OR UNIQUE GEOMETRY

SIMULATION PROCESS  STUDY OBJECTIVES  MODEL SELECTION  DATA COLLECTION  BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT  CALIBRATION / VALIDATION  ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS  MOE SUMMARY / PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE  PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

STUDY OBJECTIVES  GOALS OF MODELING PROCESS  ESTABLISH NEED FOR MICROSIMULATION  PROJECT SCOPING – LIMITS OF ANALYSIS / INFLUENCE AREA – BOUNDARY CONDITIONS – TIME PERIOD – PEAK HOUR FACTOR  LEVEL OF DETAIL / EFFORT / BUDGET  UNDERSTAND MODEL STRUCTURE – DELAY, QUEUE, DRIVER BEHAVIOR  MOE DIFFERENT FROM HCM EQUATIONS

MODEL SELECTION  BASIC MODELS  CORSIM  SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC  ADVANCED MODELS  VISSIM / AISUM / CUBE DYNAMISM  PARAMICS & OTHERS  COMBINATION OF MODELS

CORSIM  LINK-NODE NETWORK (DEVELOPED BY FHWA)  ADVANTAGES: – WIDELY USED & ACCEPTED – EXTENSIVE VALIDATION IN USA – FREEWAY/RAMP OPERATION – BUS ROUTES – ITS ANALYSIS – RAMP METERING – TIME PERIOD ANALYSIS – LINK AGGREGATION – SHORT/LONG INCIDENT SIMULATION – HEADWAY DISTRIBUTION TYPES

CORSIM (CONTINUE)  DISADVANTAGES: – 2-D ONLY (NO ELEVATIONS) – SIMPLIFIED SIGNAL OPERATION – PROBLEMS WITH SHORT LINKS – RESULTS GROUPED PER LINKS – NO SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION – NO INTERSECTION LOS – IMPROVED BUT LIMITED GRAPHICAL INTERFACE

CORSIM-CYPRESS

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Partial Cloverleaf Interchange: Limited Spacing of Interchange Stacks queue in one or more quadrants Requires Extensive ROW Complex Design Diamond Interchange Sufficient Spacing Simple Design Narrow ROW Stopped Condition CORSIM – INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES

SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC  LINK-NODE NETWORK (TRAFFICWARE)  ADVANTAGES: – WIDELY USED – EASY DATA ENTRY / BEST GRAPHIC INTERFACE – EXPORT TO CORSIM / T7F / HCS / VISSIM – DATABASE INTERFACE (VOLUME/SIGNAL/LAYOUT) – INTEGRATED SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION – ROUNDABOUT MODELING (NOT YET VALIDATED) – INTERSECTION LOS (HCM / ICU) – DIAMOND INTERCHANGE / RING & BARRIER – QUEUE LENGTH (PERCENTILE) – EASY TO CREATE SUB NETWORKS

SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC (CONTINUE)  DISADVANTAGES: – NO TRANSIT MODELING – LIMITED FREEWAY CAPABILITY – SIMTRAFFIC RESULTS DIFFER FROM SYNCHRO & NOT WIDELY ACCEPTED – LINK-BASED MOEs – LIMITED FLEXIBILITY OUTSIDE BASIC INTERSECTIONS (TOLL PLAZA, AIRPORT, SIGNAL PREEMPTION, ITS, ETC)

SYNCHRO - UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

SAMPLE SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC NETWORK

Becker Road I-95 CORSIM Network PORT ST. LUCIE

ADVANCED - VISSIM  LINK-CONNECTOR  DEVELOPED BY PTV IN GERMANY  ADVANTAGES: – INCREASING ACCEPTABILITY IN US – EXTENSIVE TRANSIT MODELING CAPABILITY LIGHT RAIL BUS TRANSIT WITH BUS STATIONS ROUTE ASSIGNMENT BASED ON SCHEDULE – EXPLICIT PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST MODELING – 3D GRAPHIC OUTPUT / IMPACT OF GRADES – ADVANCED SIGNAL CONTROL LOGIC IMPORTANT FOR DEMAND RESPONSIVE OPERATION IMPORTANT FOR SIGNAL PREEMPTION

VISSIM (CONTINUE)  ADVANTAGES: – ADVANCED ORIGIN-DESTINATION – ROUTING FOR ALL VEHICLE TYPES – DYNAMIC ASSIGNMENT (VISUM) – ROUNDABOUT SIMULATION – UNLIMITED VEHICLE TYPE IMPORTANT FOR TOLL PLAZA AIRPORT CURB SIDE OPERATION – FLEXIBLE DATA COLLECTION – INTERFACE WITH 3-D MODELER – DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION OF RESULTS

VISSIM (CONTINUE)  DISADVANTAGES: – NOT AS WIDELY USED IN FLORIDA – EXPENSIVE (WITH TRANSIT OPTION) – CODING OF DESIRED OUTPUT PARAMETERS – FLEXIBILITY REQUIRES GREATER KNOWLEDGE AND CODING EFFORTS – NO STANDARD SUMMARIES WHICH COMPLICATE REVIEW PROCESS – NO SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION (INTERFACES WITH SYNCHRO)

MIAMI - PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT

DATA COLLECTION  GEOMETRY & LAYOUT  TRAFFIC CONTROL: SIGNAL & SIGN  VOLUMES (RECONCILE COUNTS)  DATA FOR CALIBRATION – TRAVEL TIME – AVG & FREEFLOW SPEED – QUEUE LENGTH – OBSERVATIONS / WARNING SIGNS

BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT  DEVELOP LINK-NODE DIAGRAM  NODE NUMBERING / PROPER CODING  BASE MAPPING  DATA COLLECTION / FIELD REVIEW  CHECK INPUT DATA  BALANCE VOLUMES  DEVELOP O-D MATRIX (RAMPS)  SIGNAL TIMING  QA/QC – CHECK SIMULATION RUNS  VERIFIABLE / REPRODUCIBLE / ACCURATE

VOLUME CALIBRATION CONGESTED CONDITIONS (EX: SR112)  DATA COLLECTION  INITIAL CALIBRATION RESULTS  ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION  DEMAND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES  TRAVEL TIMES

DATA COLLECTION

INITIAL CALIBRATION RESULTS  VISSIM not replicating observed queues with measured volumes: – Traffic backups on ramps and intersections – Tri-Rail and Freight Train Impact on traffic  Significant difference is travel times  Need for additional investigation

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION  Intersections Peak Hour Factors (PHF) greater than 0.95 suggests constrained conditions. Intersection AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour Le Jeune Rd/SE 8 St Le Jeune Rd/Okeechobee Rd: Le Jeune Rd/NW 36 St Le Jeune Rd/NW 31 St 0.95 NW 36 Street/Lee Dr 0.98 NW 36 St/S. River Dr NW 36 St/N. River Dr 0.97

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION LocationTO/FROM Quality CountsFDOT Stations AMPMAMPM WB SR-112 Off Ramps To Okeechobee Rd To NW 36 Street To Airport To SB Le Jeune Rd 5.2% 8.0% 6.7% 3.5% 6.3% 7.5% 8.9% 4.2% 8.7% n/a 6.3% 11.1% 5.8% n/a 7.2% EB SR-112 On Ramps From Okeechobee Rd From NW 36 Street From Airport From NB Le Jeune Rd 12.3% 9.7% 4.2% 5.7% 4.7% 8.1% 9.5% 7.6% 10.9% n/a 4.2% 5.3% n/a 8.4%  Peak to daily factors (K-factor) less than 8.5% on freeways and 9.0% for arterials suggest constrained conditions. Ramps:

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION LocationAMPM Le Jeune Rd, South of NE 8 St5.8%7.1% Le Jeune Rd, South of NW 31 St5.8%4.4% N. River Dr, West of Flyover merge8.6%6.6% N. River Dr, North of NW 36 St6.6%5.8% N. River Dr, South of NW 36 St6.9%7.5% S. River Dr, East of Le Jeune Rd6.5%6.2% S. River Dr, West of NW 36 St6.5%9.4% NW 36 St, West of N. River Dr6.5%6.4% NW 36 St, East of N. River Dr5.1%6.1% Arterials

VOLUME ADJUSTMENT  Adjustment to achieve demand volumes based on FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook: – Ramps: Minimum K 100 is 8.5%; and Average Peak to daily ratio percent difference is 28% and 26% for the AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. – Arterial Road: Minimum K 100 is 9.0%; and Average Peak to daily ratio percent difference is 27% for both the AM and PM Peak Hours.

VOLUME BALANCING (SEASONAL FACTOR / TRUCKS / ETC)

CALIBRATION / VALIDATION  DRIVER BEHAVIOR – STARTUP DELAY & REACTION TIME – MINIMUM HEADWAY/GAP ACCEPTANCE – LANE CHANGE PARAMETERS – CAR FOLLOWING SENSITIVITY  VEHICLE CHARACTERISTIC – TRAFFIC COMPOSITION – MAXIMUM ACCELERATION / DECELERATION  ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS – FREE FLOW SPEED – CHANNELIZATION – PARKING ACTIVITY

TRAVEL TIMES  AM Peak Hour Segment Collected Travel Time Range (Sec) VISSIM Travel Time (Sec) SR-112 Off ramp EB NW 36 St WB NW 36 St  PM Peak Hour Segment Collected Travel Time Range (Sec) VISSIM Travel Time (Sec) SR-112 Off ramp EB NW 36 St WB NW 36 St NB Le Jeune Rd SB Le Jeune Rd

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS / MOE  SIMULATION GREAT FOR ALT ANALYSIS  SIMPLIFIED REALITY / LIMITATIONS  ESTABLISH MOE & MATRIX EVALUATION – SPEED – DENSITY – TRAVEL TIME – QUEUE – DELAY  PERFORM MULTIPLE RUNS (SEED #)  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  PRESENTATION OF RESULTS – GRAPHIC SIMULATION – OPERATIONAL RESULTS