challenges in using paramics in a secondary plan study – case study of downsview, toronto
DESCRIPTION
Challenges in Using Paramics in a Secondary Plan Study – Case Study of Downsview, Toronto. Paramics Users Group Meeting October 5, 2009. Overview. Background Existing Conditions Future Traffic Demands Future Model Scenarios Challenges Discussions. Study Background. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Challenges in Using Paramics in a Secondary Plan Study – Case Study of Downsview, TorontoParamics Users Group MeetingOctober 5, 2009
Overview
• Background• Existing Conditions• Future Traffic Demands• Future Model Scenarios• Challenges• Discussions
2
Study Background
• Secondary Plan Update involving:Land Use and Urban Design PlansTransportation AssessmentServicing
• Secondary Plan Update to harness a new subway line that will run through the plan area.
• Paramics model used to develop and evaluate the network alternatives and identify preferred option
3
Study Area Context - City of Toronto
4
Study Area / Issues
5
Future subway extension to York University
Future intermodal station
Study Background - Issues
Opportunity/Constraint Details
Physical Constraints •Bombardier Runway•North south CN Railway line•Federal Parkland
Policy & Operational Constraints •Existing roadways at capacity•No widening of surrounding arterials
Planned Transportation Improvements
•New subway line•TransitCity- LRT line on Finch Avenue•New intermodal station for Regional (GO train) and subway line
6
Study Objectives
• Issues to be addressed by modelling Identify preferred network including lane requirementsSensitivity analysis on specific network elementsDefine timing/phasing of major (still underway)
• Paramics Scenarios:Existing ConditionsOver 50 Future 2031 scenarios representing
alternative networks & land use permutations
7
Data Collection
• Signal timing data available for the focus area only• Traffic volumes: - Turning movement counts (TMCs) at
major intersections• Traversal matrices for 2006 and 2031 from the City’s
demand forecasting EMME model for AM peak hour• Floating car measurements of travel time along
surrounding arterial sections
8
Study Area- Existing Network
9
Wilson Ave.
Kee
le S
t.
Sheppard Ave.
Finch Ave.
Jane
St.
Bat
hurs
t St.
Duf
ferin
St.
Allen R
d.Focus Area
Sheppard Ave.
Area: 6km wide by 4 km
Total demand: 35,000
Vehicles in system: 4-5,000
Calibration and Validation
10
• Undertaken through volume comparisons at screenline, link, intersection and turning movement levels;
• Stochastic assignment method used• GEH statistic as well as % variation• Acceptable results achieved as shown below
# Datasets AM PM
Link Volumes 146 86% 85%
Intersection Volumes 27 78% 63%
Screen Line 6 100% 100%
Future 2031 Traffic Demands
• Based on traversal matrix (AM) obtained from the City• Minor adjustments as applied for existing conditions• Trips from Downsview Park (Zone 98) replaced with trip
generated from considered land-use • Adjustments for existing demands• PM demands assessed from AM and trip generation
11
Background Traffic - EMME Zoning System
12
Recommended Land Use
• Five land use scenarios developed
• Three considered in analysis Existing TMP Recommended
13
Population: 19,575Employment: 22,029Units: 9,841GFA: 1.4m (m2)
Summary of Traffic Demands
14
Scenario EMME Output Generated Final
Existing PM 36,992 - 36,992
PM 2031 – Existing Land Use 41,796 8,623 50,419
PM 2031 – New Land Use 41,796 10, 022 51,818
Land Use ScenarioAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Plan 4,470 2,818 7,288 3,004 5,618 8,623
Recommended Land Use 5,205 3,360 8,565 3,514 6,508 10,022
Trip Generation
Total Paramics Demands
Network Options
Emerging Preferred
15
Network Options – Preferred
16
Paramics Future Networks
TMP
Option 2 Emerging Preferred
Option 3
Paramics Future Network – Preferred
18
Measures of Performance – Intersection LOS PM
Intersection TMP Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Preferred
Keele Street & Wilson Avenue F F F F F
Sheppard Ave. & Keele Street F E F F F
Finch Ave. & Keele Street F F D D D
Dufferin Street & Wilson Avenue D D D D E
Transit Road & Wilson Avenue C C F D F
Wilson Heights Blvd & Wilson Avenue C C D D C
Allen Road & Sheppard Avenue W F F F F E
Transit Road & Allen Road F C C C E
Finch Ave. & Allen Road F F E E E
Sheppard Ave. & Wilson Heights Blvd C C F F F
19
Measures of Performance – Arterial LOS
Street Dir TMP Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Preferred
Keele (Wilson to Finch)
NB F F F F F
SB F F F F F
Allen (Wilson to Finch)
NB F F D D D
SB D D C C C
Finch (Keele to Allen)
EB D D F F C
WB D D E D E
Sheppard (Keele to Wilson Heights)
EB F F F F E
WB F F F F F
Wilson (Keele to Wilson Heights)
EB F F F F F
WB E E F E E
20
Measures of Performance
• LOS does bring out significant differences
• Use of screen shots to emphasize certain operational aspects
• Use of network based measures to better show differences
TMP Network with Ramps
Option 3 Network - Ramps not provided
Allen Rd
Allen Rd.
Sheppard Ave.
Transit Rd
Sheppard Ave.
Transit Rd
Moderate queues
Extensive queues
21
Measures of Performance – Network Based
22
Measures of Performance – Network Based
This is measure of how much of the extra development demand could not be loaded into the network based on output of Paramics release file
23
Measures of Performance – Video Clip
24
Lane Requirements – Based on Modelled Volumes
25
Sensitivity Analysis
• Allen Area Configuration – (A)
• Transit Road Extension – (B)
• Roadway Extension to Wilson (C)
• E-W Roadway Extension to Keele (D)
• Dufferin St. Extension (E)
C
B
D
A
E
26
Sensitivity Analysis
Area Findings and Recommendation
A. Allen area Alternative concepts developed, three feasible ones recommended
B. Transit Road Extension Extension should be maintained
C. Roadway Extension to Wilson
Provide for improved traffic patterns, but could be omitted
D. East-West to Keele An important east west roadway that should have 4 lanes
E. Dufferin Street Extension Provide for improved traffic patterns, but not critical
27
Challenges
• Policy constraints requiring no widening of arterial networks made it difficult to develop road network
• Need to communicate study findings clearly to “non-technical” persons necessitated use of unique performance measures
• Need to satisfy all requirements resulted in modelling many scenarios. This was worsened by the need to communicate all findings in a way easily understood by non technical persons
28
Discussions / Questions
29