July 16, 2014 Connected Corridors I-210 Modelling Demonstration Date: August 13, 2014 Caltrans District 7

Modeling demonstration  Goals  Enhance common understanding among stakeholders  Demonstrate integrated freeway and arterial simulation capabilities with baseline scenarios that capture “on the ground” conditions  In near future, to generate alternate scenarios capturing the effects of incidents and operational changes  Demo for today  No-incident scenario only  Freeway results  Arterial results 2

Scenario for today: No-incident  Reproduce typical day  PM peak period  Off-peak direction

Future Scenario: Incident (not today)  Reproduce incident day  Additional flow on arterial; caused by self-diversion of drivers  Work in progress

Future Scenario: Incident + Intervention  Increase cycle length of arterial lights  larger arterial capacity  larger network-wide capacity  less congestion  Work in progress

CALIBRATION OF THE FREEWAY MODEL

The site  19 miles of 210 Westbound from PM 42 to 23.  23 on-ramps, 21 off-ramps.  Heavy morning congestion, light afternoon congestion. I-605 Huntington St. detour PM 30 PM 42 PM 23

PeMS data  Data health on this freeway has been steadily increasing.  Our calibration focused on May 22 nd,  The overall detector health on 5/22 was 81%.  There were no congestion inducing incidents on that day. % good detector stations reported by PeMS Manually identified 22-May-14 real Currently being evaluated

Faulty VDS (210 West, May 22 nd ) # PeMS identified bad VDS # Manually identified suspect VDS

Faulty VDS (210 West, May 22 nd ) VDSTypeLocationObservation (made on 5/22/2014) MLGrand St.Upstream ML OR produce higher flow MLPasadena Ave.Speed is wrong MLAzusa 1Upstream ML OR produce higher flow MLMount Olive Dr.Low freeflow speed MLHighland Ave.Location probably incorrect MLSanta Anita 2Speed is wrong MLSanta Anita 1Flow is wrong (too high) MLVaquero Ave.Flow is wrong (too high) MLMichillinda Ave.Flow profile shape is wrong.

Measured congestion pattern on 5/22 I-605 PM 42 Baldwin bottleneck Huntington Michillinda PM 23  Bad detection at the downstream end (beyond Sierra Madre).  Decelerations but not full congestion downstream Michillinda.  Bottleneck at Baldwin, congestion moves past Huntington to the 605. Sierra Madre traffic flow bad detection

Freeway model construction procedure 1. Build the network. 2. Data inspection. 3. Calibrate the fundamental diagrams. 4. Impute missing ramp flows. 5. Run the simulation, check, make adjustments Huntington 1 4 lanes E of Second 4 lanes … …

Freeway model construction procedure 1. Build the network. 2. Data inspection. 3. Calibrate the fundamental diagrams. 4. Impute missing ramp flows. 5. Run the simulation, check, make adjustments Bad detection visible in the speed contour plot.

Freeway model construction procedure 1. Build the network. 2. Data inspection. 3. Calibrate the fundamental diagrams. 4. Impute missing ramp flows. 5. Run the simulation, check, make adjustments. 20 days of data are fitted with a triangular fundamental diagram.

Freeway model construction procedure 1. Build the network. 2. Data inspection. 3. Calibrate the fundamental diagrams. 4. Impute missing ramp flows. 5. Run the simulation, check, make adjustments. 2 onramps and 11 offramps were imputed. Baldwin SB onramp Lake St. offramp imputed measured

Simulation results I-605 Baldwin 16:20 18:50 Inspection of congestion

bad detection Observed congestion from PeMS I-605 Baldwin 16:20 18:50 Inspection of congestion

Simulation results Mainline flows measured flow ±400 vph. simulated flow within bounds. simulated flow not within bounds. For each hour between 4pm and 8pm, check that the simulated flow is within 400 vph of the measured flow. S Grand Ave, Azusa East of 2 nd St, Arcadia

FHWA calibration criteria Criterion 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm flow within 400 vph of measurement 78% 83%82% Individual link GEH < 5 78% 83%67% Total flow within 5% of measurements Total GEH < 4  ~80% of hourly mainline flows are within acceptable limits.  Total flows are within acceptable limits errors balance out.

ADDING THE ARTERIAL MODEL TO THE FREEWAY MODEL

I-210 Arterial and Freeway Model 21 Number of links: 1001 Freeway: 210 Arterial: 791 Number of signalized intersections: 13

Data - Arterial  On arterial, we only have 5-min loop data at limited locations

Model construction, calibration and validation 23 Model Construction Model Calibration Simulation Calculation of metrics Model Validation Model with calibrated parameters Density, flow, velocity Queue length, delay, travel time Fundamental model Calibration Data: Flows Travel times Independent Validation Data: Flows Travel times Basic information: Network geometry Speed limits Signal timing Rough turning ratios

Aerial view of sensing infrastructure Huntington & Santa Anita 2 6 ~185 ft ~220 ft

Target Flows 25 MichillindaBaldwin / Oxford Colorado Blvd Colorado Pl Colorado Blvd I210W Huntington Huntington Santa Anita1st2nd5thGatewayI210WI210E Santa Clara Colorado Pl Colorado Hourly flow from loop (calibration dataset) Hourly flow from racetrack, scaled down by 35% Hourly flow from racetrack, scaled down by 6% Default values Color coding:

Turning Ratios 26 MichillindaBaldwin / Oxford Colorado Blvd Colorado Pl Colorado Blvd I210W Huntington 6% 94% 93% 7% 45% 55% 49% 7% 44% 18% 24% 58% 12% 77% 11% 7% 22% 71% 50% 100% 10% 90% 10% 90% 31% 69% 10% 90% 10% 90% Engineering judgment Racetrack data Color coding: Split ratio from loop

Boundary Flows Baldwin / Oxford Colorado Pl Colorado Blvd I210W Huntington Michillinda Colorado Blvd Huntington Santa Anita1st2nd5thGatewayI210WI210E Santa Clara Colorado Pl Colorado

Westbound traffic on Huntington and Colorado 28

Eastbound traffic on Huntington and Colorado 29

Estimated Travel Time 30

Estimated vs. Measured Flows, 16:00-17:00 31 Individual link flowsPassed casesTargets Flow within 100 vph for link flows < 700 vph4/5 = 80%> 85% Flow within 15% for 700 vph < link flows < 2700 vph6/9 = 67%> 85% Flow within 400 vph for link flows > 2700 vph0/0> 85% GEH statistics < 510/14 = 71%> 85% Sum of all link flowsResultsTargets Relative Error in Total Flow5.4%< 5% GEH5.5< 4

Estimated vs. Measured Flows, 17:00-18:00 32 Individual link flowsPassed casesTargets Flow within 100 vph for link flows < 700 vph4/5 = 80%> 85% Flow within 15% for 700 vph < link flows < 2700 vph6/9 = 67%> 85% Flow within 400 vph for link flows > 2700 vph0/0> 85% GEH statistics < 510/14 = 71%> 85% Sum of all link flowsResultsTargets Relative Error in Total Flow2.5%< 5% GEH2.6< 4

Estimated vs. Measured Flows, 18:00-19:00 33 Individual link flowsPassed casesTargets Flow within 100 vph for link flows < 700 vph10/10 = 100%> 85% Flow within 15% for 700 vph < link flows < 2700 vph3/4 = 75%> 85% Flow within 400 vph for link flows > 2700 vph0/0> 85% GEH statistics < 513/14 = 93%> 85% Sum of all link flowsResultsTargets Relative Error in Total Flow5.0%< 5% GEH4.7< 4

Estimated vs. Measured Flows, 19:00-20:00 34 Individual link flowsPassed casesTargets Flow within 100 vph for link flows < 700 vph8/12 = 67%> 85% Flow within 15% for 700 vph < link flows < 2700 vph2/2 = 100%> 85% Flow within 400 vph for link flows > 2700 vph0/0> 85% GEH statistics < 510/14 = 71%> 85% Sum of all link flowsResultsTargets Relative Error in Total Flow22.4%< 5% GEH16.7< 4

Estimated vs measured travel times 35 [ Validation of CTM Forward Simulation of Arterial Loop+Racetrack No-Incident Model ] Journey time within networkPassed cases Targets Within 15% or 1 minute, whichever criteria is higher 1/1 = 100% > 85% Journey time within networkPassed cases Targets Within 15% or 1 minute, whichever criteria is higher 1/1 = 100% > 85% 16:00-17:00 17:00-18:00

SUPPLEMENTAL SLIDES

Estimated vs. Measured Flows Huntington 37 [ Validation of CTM Forward Simulation of Arterial Loop+Racetrack No-Incident Model ] Based on calibration dataset Based on validation dataset