Project Overview Paramics User Group Meeting July 14, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A34 Corridor Strategy Strategic Route Improvements 25 th November 2004 working together with.
Advertisements

Project Description and Needs Lincoln Way Widening Addition of a center-turn lane and safety improvements to the grade and horizontal alignment. Needs.
2007 Intermodal Operations Planning Workshop Bus Stop & Bus Lane Capacity: Planning Bus Routes in Downtown Seattle Owen Kehoe, PE, PTOE Transportation.
Maryland Avenue and Arkwright Street Nick Fischer, EIT Ramsey County Jerry Auge, PE Project Manager Ramsey.
Maryland Avenue and Arkwright Street Jerry Auge, PE Project Manager Ramsey County June 25, 2013.
D2 Roadway Discussion Sound Transit Board September 22, 2011.
January 8, 2014 FMATS College Road Corridor Study FMATS Technical Committee Update.
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM)
City of Omak Central Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Prepared by Highlands Associates Photos by FlyBy Photos.
Tower Road Enhancement Project Prepared for Alachua County By Causseaux & Ellington, Inc. Alachua County Roadway Network Improvements.
Rescue Muni’s 3-Phased Plan For Geary Corridor Rapid Transit Presented by Dan Krause, Andrew Sullivan & David Vasquez.
Comparative Traffic Study Morrisville-Carpenter Road versus Crabtree Crossing Extension Presentation to: Morrisville Town Council Prepared by: Parsons.
US 52 Corridor Study Public Meeting November 15, 2010.
Capilano Road Improvement Project WELCOME TO THE OPEN HOUSE.
Strategic Approach to a Walkable Edmonton Pro Walk / Pro Bike 2004: Creating Active Communities September 9, 2004.
City of Portland SW 6 th Avenue & Jackson Street Intersection Solution Study 1 Presented By: Josh Crain Robert Acevedo Xiaowei Wu Chengxin Dai.
US Highway 17 (Center Street) Sidewalk Feasibility Study Town of Pierson, Florida.
INTRODUCTION This chapter presents guidance on the application of geometric design criteria to facilities functionally classified as collector roads and.
Redwood Road & 35th Avenue Traffic Study. Problems Observed: High collision rate along the corridor was found at McArthur Boulevard intersection, with.
1 Channelization and Turn Bays. 2 Island Channelization flush, paved, and delineated with markings – or unpaved and delineated with pavement edge and.
Euclid Corridor Design TRB BRT Workshop July 21, 2008.
Route 28 South of I-66 Corridor Safety and Operations Study Technical Committee Meeting #2 June 25,
CE 4640: Transportation Design Prof. Tapan Datta, Ph.D., P.E. Fall 2002.
Access Management: Why And How? An Introduction To Access Management Problems, Principles and Treatments.
Detours – Selection and Design Highways & Engineering Conference March 2, 2006.
VTA Light Rail System and Safety Enhancements MTC Railroad Crossing Seminar May, 21, 2008.
Signs, signals, and pavements markings
Schools Jobs Revenues Services Recreation Environment Transportation Transportation Connectivity Housing Public Safety Pontiac’s.
Bus Rapid Transit: Chicago’s New Route to Opportunity Josh Ellis, BRT Project Manager Metropolitan Planning Council.
Intersection & Interchange Geometrics (IIG) Innovative Design Considerations for All Users Module 8 Intersection- Interchange Evaluation Process.
Chapter 4. Your number one priority as a driver is to drive your vehicle carefully and safely. Your speed and manner of driving must create a safe environment.
Toronto: Gardiner Expressway Study Paramics 2009 UGM: Newark October 5, 2009.
INTERSECTION SAFETY PERFORMANCE AND AUDIT Andy Loonan Basak Aldemir-Bektas Intersection: Welch Avenue & Lincoln Way.
Lexington Town Center Streetscape Project Page 1 Battle Green Improvements Project Intersection of Bedford Hancock Street / Harrington Road Board.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Richmond Highway Transit Center Feasibility Study Briefing with the Fairfax County Transportation.
ILLINOIS ROUTE 23 (LaSalle St.) DOWNTOWN RE-ALIGNMENT December 2, 2008.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference When is BRT the Best Option? the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse Director, National Transit Institute.
Intersection Design Spring 2015.
Roosevelt Road: State to Columbus Public Meeting September 22, 2015.
Town of Cobourg Division Street Improvements Public Information Centre October 1, 2015 Image Courtesy of Google 2015.
City of Portland SW 6 th Avenue & Jackson Street Intersection Solution Study 1 Presented By: Josh Crain Robert Acevedo Xiaowei Wu Chengxin Dai.
CITY OF RAINIER RAILROAD CROSSINGS 1. Project # 2 Team Members PSU City of Rainier Lars Gare, City Administrator ODOT Rail David Lanning, Crossing Safety/Compliance.
Challenges in Using Paramics in a Secondary Plan Study – Case Study of Downsview, Toronto Paramics Users Group Meeting October 5, 2009.
CITY OF RAINIER RAILROAD CROSSINGS 1. Project # 2 Team Members Portland State University City of Rainier Lars Gare, City Administrator ODOT Rail David.
1 AGENDA OPEN HOUSE 6:00 PM  Review materials  Ask questions  Provide feedback  Sign up for list  Fill out comment cards PRESENTATION 6:30 PM.
Baltimore Red Line: Challenges of a Large Model Area Presented by: Mahmood Shehata, P.E. McCormick Taylor, Inc. Philadelphia, PA Presented to:PTV Users.
Vehicle Flow. Homework Ch 3 # 1,4, 7, 15 Vehicle Flow How do vehicles operate in the system –capacity –speed –headway –density.
Left Lane Mixed-Traffic BRT August 22, 2012 Stefano Viggiano and Jack Gonsalves.
Northside Transportation Network Community Meeting November 17 th, 2010 UROC.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Fairfax County Parkway Corridor Study Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee December 1,
156 th Street Design in Bennington Public Open House Meeting October 28, 2009 City of Bennington, NE.
Complete Streets Training
Advancing Traffic Signal Management Programs through Regional Collaboration T3 Webinar -- July 23, 2009 Jim Poston Regional Transportation Commission Reno,
SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDE. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide Context Conforms to federal and state standards and guidelines:
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project July 17, Agenda 1.BRT Concept 2.Project Goals 3.Project Benefits 4.Project Corridor 5.Proposed Multimodal Access.
District VI, Florida Department of Transportation SE 2 nd Avenue and SE 4 th Street/Biscayne Boulevard Way March 25 th, 2014 Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory.
Secondary & Cumulative Effects Analysis Training Program Module 1: How to Determine Which Resources Should be Considered in a SCEA How to identify what.
9.6 Turning Roadways and Channelization, Types of Turning Roadways p.9-55 ~ 9-92 Lean how to determine minimum edge-of-traveled- way radii for the.
Proposed Additions to MUTCD. Chapter 8E. Busway Grade Crossings Proposed revision submitted to FHWA in June Intended for next edition of MUTCD.
Visit Our Website at: Click to edit Master title style.
Iron Range Tourism Bureau April 25, 2013 Hwy 53 Update.
STATE ROAD 54/56 PROJECT CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT STUDY - US 19 to BRUCE B. DOWNS BOULEVARD STATE ROAD 54/56 PROJECT CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT STUDY.
University Drive Road Diet September 8, Goals and Objectives A. Reduce vehicular speed in the corridor. B. Provide an attractive bicycle accommodation.
Integrity - Competence - Service Hogan Road/Exit 187 Proposed Improvements Public Informational Meeting June 9, 2016.
Intersection Design Spring 2017.
The I-465 West Leg Reconstruction Project
Project Management Team Meeting #3
Southwest LRT METRO Green Line Extension
M14A/D Select Bus Service
Study Goals Analyze traffic operations along the corridor and at the two study interchanges Provide safety enhancements Improve multimodal performance.
Presentation transcript:

Project Overview Paramics User Group Meeting July 14, 2008

Project Introduction  Client: Indianapolis MPO  Teamed with Stump/Hausman  Goal Provide initial planning-level operational analysis of three transit technologies on four potential alignments serving the northeastern suburbs of Indianapolis  Technologies Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)

Study Area Overview Indianapolis, IN Population 2,000,000 Significant development northeast of the downtown outside of I-465 Beltway Carmel Westfield Fishers Noblesville Driving-oriented culture Few good options to get to and from the downtown

Proposed Alignments  4 Alignments Along major north- south routes ○ I-69/Binford Blvd ○ Keystone Avenue ○ Allisonville Road ○ Nickel Plate RR

Original Proposal  Combine two previously constructed Paramics models Northeast Corridor Regional Center (Downtown)  Individual Models for each alignment  Test AM and PM peak periods for each technology along the 4 alignments  Too expensive for client Large technical effort Back to the drawing board

Revised Proposal  Build individual models of select critical areas 8 Sub-areas chosen by client/study team  Test AM and PM Peak hours for all technologies  Easier model construction, calibration, and validation  Able to quickly eliminate problem areas, if no solution readily apparent

Study Areas  8 Critical Locations Allisonville Rd North Nickel Plate Railroad I nd /86 th Street Keystone Ave/ Fashion Center Mall Allisonville Rd / 62 nd Street Keystone Ave/ Allisonville Rd/ Binford Blvd Downtown

Model Breakdown  80 Total Models 8 Locations 3 Technologies (plus No Build) 2 Time Periods 4 Alignments  Naming convention was critical to file management Ax-Ly-Tech-Period ○ Ax – Alignment Number ○ Ly – Location Number ○ Tech – Technology Type ○ Period – Time Period

Scheduling Issues  Slow responses from Client during rescoping  Prior project commitments  Forced to remove vehicle actuation from project scope Except for two of the smaller locations Not strictly necessary for a ‘first-look’ planning-level analysis

Working Parameters  Conceptual treatments No prior operational analysis was performed Carte blanche from client  Potential stop locations determined in previous study  Bi-directional Same route in both directions where possible Double-track for LRT and AGT  5-minute headways  “Maximize Consistency with Existing Travel Patterns and Respect Existing Urban/Suburban Environment” 1 1 TCRP Report 17 Integration of Light Rail Into City Streets

Working Parameters  BRT Located in the curb lane whenever possible Can be in mixed traffic or exclusive lane Minimal disruptions to turning movements and property access Stations largely outside of street alignment ≈12’ BRT lane widths Curb lanes generally shared between BRT & right–turning traffic on the street–running sections

Working Parameters  LRT Generally median alignment Where Feasible: Full or near-full control of Right-of-way Avoid Unsignalized Crossings of LRT Right-of-way Stations Generally in Median Horizontal Curve Radii ○ Absolute Min. ≈ 80’

Working Parameters  LRT Typical Cross-sections Typical Running Section Typical Station Section

Working Parameters  AGT Typically elevated No driver Column Spacing: ○ 100’ “Typical” ○ 150’ “Long” ≈22’ Minimum Width of Elevated Structure ○ Center Emergency Walkway ≈ 6’ Width of Columns Median- and Side-Running options both have their challenges ○ Columns interfere with turning sight distances ○ ROW issues ○ Vehicle safety with columns in median

Coding Challenges  BRT – Curb lane operation Left turns must be a protected movement ○ Crossing over through traffic ○ Independent “triangle” link on approach to intersection allows for control of lead-lag operation Restrictions ○ Must apply BRT-only, No BRT, Mixed traffic rules along entire alignment

Coding Challenges  LRT – Median Lane Operation Paramics limitation that similar movements must be in adjacent lanes This is an issue where the transit vehicle through lane is adjacent to a left-turn lane Fortunately, coding the through movement in the transit lane as “barred” works perfectly ○ Transit vehicle moves with normal traffic “through” green ○ Much cleaner coding than “triangle” solution used for BRT left turns Restrictions – Similar to BRT

Coding Challenges  AGT No major challenges Independent operation makes for easy coding Challenges come on the design/layout side ○ Column spacing ○ ROW issues ○ Median Running vs. Side Running

Location Overview  82 nd /86 th Street from Nickel Plate Railroad to Keystone Avenue Less busy than surrounding roadways Sufficient ROW for necessary widening Plenty of commercial access and minor roads Allisonville Rd and 82 nd Street intersection is an issue

82 nd /86 th Street  AGT Fairly simple layout and coding ○ Sufficient ROW for columns along north side of street ○ Careful column placement around commercial development and minor streets

82 nd /86 th Street  BRT Generally widen for exclusive BRT curb lane Roadside or siding station stops Issues: ○ WB left turn onto SB Keystone Ave ○ EB Left turn onto NB Nickel Plate RR ○ Reassignment of some minor roadway access

82 nd /86 th Street - BRT  WB left turn onto SB Keystone BRT Vehicle receives two lead phases to proceed safely

82 nd /86 th Street - BRT  EB left turn onto NB Nickel Plate RR receives similar treatment to WB Left Lead phase at two adjacent signals to complete movement  Craig St becomes one-way NB

82 nd /86 th Street - BRT  Left turn completed at Nickel Plate RR  Short SB stub along Nickel Plate RR to serve SB traffic no longer served at Craig St

82 nd /86 th Street  LRT Vehicle operates in the median along the length of the corridor Stations located in median on following side of intersections

82 nd /86 th Street - LRT  Issues: WB Left to SB Keystone EB Left to NB Nickel Plate Driveways and minor streets become Right-In/Right-out New signals required to accommodate U-turn movements 82 nd /Allisonville intersection is problematic

82 nd /86 th - LRT  Transit vehicle turns to and from Keystone Ave require special signal treatments

82 nd /86 th Street - LRT  82 nd /Allisonville Intersection Existing Condition ○ Poor levels of service ○ Heavy turning volume (1:1 with thru vol) ○ Documented safety issues ○ Double-left turns on all approaches ○ Tight ROW Removing lanes for transit here causes intersection failure ○ Proposed grade-separation - tunnel

82 nd /86 th Street - LRT  Tunnel laid out according to suggested grades and clearance distances

Downtown Indianapolis  Model constructed for a previous job All roadways within I-65/I-70 and White River 4Mi 2 (11km 2 ) ~200 Signals 30 Existing Transit Routes 265 Bus Stops

Cultural Trail  8-mile Multi-use Trail throughout Downtown Indianapolis  Currently under construction Alabama Street section is open  Included in transit analysis

Downtown Issues  Dense Development Alignment and Column Placement Issues  Historic Neigbourhoods  Minimum radius for turns  Pedestrian safety Sidewalks and Cultural Trail

Serve IUPUI / Medical Campus Access proposed transit center site Enter/Exit in northeast corner Downtown Routing  Enter/Exit in northeast corner  Access proposed transit center site  Serve IUPUI / Medical Campus

Downtown Routing - AGT  CSX alignment No Columns Misses CBD Core  “Street Running” Closer to CBD Core Min. Radius issues Tight development Existing CSX Freight Rail “Street Running” Elevated

Downtown Routing - BRT Existing CSX Freight Rail Street Running  CSX alignment Misses CBD Core Elevated Stops – less convenient  Street Running Closer to CBD Core Separate stops for one-way pairs

Downtown Routing - LRT Existing CSX Freight Rail Street Running  CSX alignment Misses CBD Core Elevated Stops – less convenient  Street Running Closer to CBD Core Separate stops for one-way pairs

Statistics  VMT U-turns, access changes  VHT Signal treatments favor transit Lane removal  Transit Service Time  Auto Travel Time along transit route

Final Products  Report Qualitative and quantitative analysis of each alignment Noted any physical constraints along alignments Did not select a preferred alignment, simply presented results for client interpretation

Final Products  Movies Demonstrate transit movement at critical locations along alignments 1 to 3 Movies for each alignment 30 to 90 seconds in length AVI for quality WMV for portability and performance 155 files Non-technical client PM Public presentations

Final Products  Custom 3D PMX Models LRT ○ Based of off Minneapolis’ Hiawatha Line (EK)

Final Products - PMX  AGT Based on JFK Air Train

Final Products - PMX  BRT Not based on an existing vehicle  Stations  Columns

Allisonville and 82nd

Q&A Adam Lanigan Jacobs Engineering Morristown, NJ x1181