stirling regional centre modelling
TRANSCRIPT
Stirling City Centre ModellingWestern AustraliaJuly 2016
2
A range of modelling studies were undertaken to assess and inform the transport planning process:Largely relied on the Main Roads Road Operation Model (ROM), a road-
based regional travel demand model focussing on daily trafficMultimodal travel demand model - Strategic Transport Evaluation Model
(STEM) maintained by DoP/DoT was not used Spreadsheet modelling and SIDRA was also used to inform the road
strategy and transport impact assessmentThe proposed development would add significant pressure on the road
network, and would require significant investment in transport infrastructure.
PREVIOUS MODELLING
“Insufficient time was allocated for transport modelling and the modellers were under pressure from the Alliance to deliver something quickly”
An independent review was undertaken which included, reviewing past reports and a series of interviews. This found:The adopted mode share assumptions were based on aspirational targetsA review needed to be undertaken of the land uses and employment
growth (by type) adopted by the strategic models. STEM is needed to estimate the future mode shares and to identify the
transport improvements that would achieve the mode share targets.An effective transport solution had to be multimodal to address the needs
of both local movements and regional through movements.
Modelling going forward:
MODELLING REVIEW
LAND USE STRATEGIC MODELLING REVIEWAs a result of the modelling review, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff were then engaged to:
1. Establish and agree future land uses.
2. Review strategic model forecasting and land use assumptions.
3. Implement recommendations from components 1 and 2.
LAND USE ASSESSMENT 5
2014 2021 2031 Increase 2014 to 2031
Population 22,562 29,944 41,068 82%
Dwellings 10,975 14,255 19,175 75%
Employment 31 070 38 614 43 675 41%
Floor Space (m2) 2014 2021 2031 Increase
2014 to 2031
Office 186 847 218 028 328 608 76%
Community 33 222 34 848 43 538 31%
Retail & Food 235 374 320 816 357 846 52%
Entertainment 18 263 24 963 31 463 72%
Industrial 619 283 627 983 632 383 2%
Total 1 092 989 1 226 638 1 393 838 28%
6
Develop mesoscopic model of Stirling City Centre study area
Assess alternative transport network improvement options
Identify preferred transport network improvement options
Undertake microsimulation modelling of preferred transport improvement options together with “do minimum” case
SCOPE OF STUDY
STUDY AREA4 km
4 km
8
TRANSPRIORITY
9ISSUES WITH THE ROAD NETWORK
10SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD
11PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY
FREEWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE
DATA COLLECTION
STRATEGIC MODEL DISAGGREGATION
CALIBRATION
CALIBRATION
VALIDATION
VALIDATION
VALIDATION
20POSSIBLE TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Powis Street – north facing ramps
McDonald / Main Street signalised
Main Street to Cape Street westbound, right turn removed
McDonald Street bridge
Stephenson Avenue extension
Drake Street signalised
Liege Street 4 way intersection
Bus Queue Jumps
Freeway ramp modifications
Hutton Street extension
Hector/Hutton signals replaced by Collingwood/Hutton
Scarborough Beach Road bus lanes
21PROPOSED NETWORK
COMPARISON OF ACTIVITY CENTRE NETWORK
23ROUTE 998 AND ROUTE 999
24CIRCLEROUTE AM
25CIRCLEROUTE PM
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 26
Green : 800m
Yellow : 1600m
Red : 2400m
Option C
Option E/G
27
Option
Time Period
Network Performance Metrics
Travel Time (sec/km)
Average Speed (km/h)
Travel Time (vehicle .
hours)
Travel Distance (vehicle
kms)
Option EAM -10.5 +1.4 -1100 -6320
PM -19.3 +2.9 -1911 -5462
Option G AM -3.6 +0.4 -501 -4988PM -17.5 +2.2 -1478 +1956
NETWORK WIDE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE TO OPTION C
Vehicle Hour reduction (h) Vehicle kilometre reduction (km)
Option E 3 011 11.6% 11 782 1.3%
Option G 1 979 7.6% 3 032 0.3%
COMBINED PEAK HOUR REDUCTIONS
28
Average travel time (all routes)
2014 Option C Option E Option G
AM (mm:ss) 9:46 10:54 8:45 9:09
PM (mm:ss) 10:10 11:18 10:02 10:05
PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
Lower cycle times reduce bus journey times
Removal of freeway ramps at Cedric Street provides the majority of the benefit to the public transport network
Option E is the superior option for both peaks
% Improvement E G
AM Bus journey times 25% 19%
PM Bus journey times 13% 12%
29
To cater for the additional demand in 2031 there will need to be the following considerations made:
Parking cap enforced
Less attractive parking
More attractive public transport
Additional signalised intersections into residential areas
Better use of the freeway and arterial network
Less development to be considered
CONCLUSIONS
30
Option E performs the best, especially for public transport
Large improvements can be made to the study area by splitting the freeway interchange and bus station
McDonald Street Bridge provides good access to the study area and slightly alleviates congestion at Hutton Street Bridge
Hutton Street extension relieves Scarborough Beach Road of congestion, however the interchange itself experiences severe delays due to additional demand using Hutton Street
The bus lanes along Scarborough Beach Road offer limited benefit
Possible alternatives involve queue jump lanes or turning lanes and a median to improve safety and pedestrian facilities
CONCLUSIONS
LESSONS LEARNED
Significant challenges calibrating the base network.Managing stakeholder perception of congestion and the best solutions.The performance difference between the mesoscopic and the hybrid
model was significant at congested locations.