21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a Brno Czech Republic Modelling of an optimal future road connection between Northeast Austria and the Czech Republic with minimal environmental impacts.

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Outline 1.Project objective and brief description of traffic situation 2.Problems with environmentally protected areas 3.Description of transport plans in 2 scenarios 4.Model approach: - creation of model transport network - demand modelling - traffic assignment - matrix and network calibration - freight transport - supposed general transport growth to 2020 (in all Czech Republic)

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Outline 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year: - “Do nothing” scenario - Official scenario - Alternative scenario 6. Scenarios comparison - “do nothing” vs. official - “do nothing” vs. alternative - official vs. alternative 7. Conclusions

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October Project objective and brief description of traffic situation to optimise future road connection between North East (NE) Austria and the Czech Republic to increase the vehicle speed, to mitigate congestions to minimize environmental impacts - the intersection of future infrastructure and protected natural areas Project objective Alternatives (year 2020) zero – no new infrastructure official – one new, two widened roads, one motorway and one road city bypasses alternative – one new (different route), one widened, one motorway city bypass

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 The model area a sub-model of the national Czech Republic model: two from totally fourteen regions a 1/7 of the whole Czech Republic area – about sq.km added on North East part of Austria 1. Project objective and brief description of traffic situation

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Two protected natural areas in the vicinity of roads A – natural wetland „Nove Mlyny: many endangered species B – protected natural forest area „Vate Pisky“ („Drifted Sand) pure regime: both are in European „Natura 2000“ structure – no building of new infrastructure allowed (unless it would be „public interest“) A B 2. Problems with environmentally protected areas

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 The „official“ enlarged to the south4-lane motorway (R52) enlarged to the south, a new 4-lane motorway (R55) is designed western form present road I/55, two towns bypasses planned very old: planned since 70-ties (lack of environmental protection at this time), impact on traffic already modelled, an implementation is problematic – many mitigation measures required (i.e. fauna passages) A B R52 R55 bypass 2 bypass 1 3. Description of transport plans in 2 scenarios

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 The „alternative“ 4-lane motorway (R52) not enlarged, a new motorway (R55) is designed eastern from the present road I/55, motorway, one town bypass planned (town of Breclav, 4-lanes) environmentally frendlier - avoidance of natural areas impact of traffic unknown – that is why this project was started (by NGO´s) A B bypass 1 R52 R55 3. Description of transport plans in 2 scenarios

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 The model approach subnetwork of the our National Czech Model (also done in EMME) zones: cities towns, big villages, the sub-model contains two from totally 14 Czech regions, about 1/7 of the total area the North East Austria network added new zones added: smaller villages, new external zones (traffic from/to another Czech regions) The model contains 3 network scenarios: „zero“, „official“ and „alternative“ each scenario contains 172 zones: 111 Czech internal zones (cties, towns, villages) 7 Austrian internal zones (cities, towns) 49 Czech external zones (entries to/from model area) 5 Austrian external zones 4. The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Demand modelling No. of inhabitants of the cities and villages data from population census: no. of people leaving a zone (commuting, schools) attractivity: No. of jobs, area of shopping centres enthropy model used: e^-θ.Upq model does not involve public transport that is why - no modal split modelling done: used an average split (42 % of car transport) in the Czech Republic Calibration of demand matrix modification of θ parameter: θ = 0.05 – avg. travel time 28,8 min (corresponds to statistics available) monitoring of demand changes betwen selected big zones due to the change of θ parameter: final calibration: help of the macro „demadj22“ – improvement of R 2 from to The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Calibration of demand matrix – graphic example example - monitoring of changes in demand between selected big cities by modification of θ parameter selection is done with a help of zone groups 4. The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Differences between the Czech and Austrian part of the model Czech Rep: enough data – a standard model approach good socioeconomic data (population census) good traffic data (from traffic census) all passenger traffic modeled Austria – lack of the data – a specific approach no socioeconomic data, no access to traffic census only data from border crossings – a fundament for finding the total demand between NorthEast Austria and the Czech Republic) this demand (from AUS to Czech) has been split to main traffic origins in NE AUS: 7 internal (most to Vienna) and 5 external (highways to Vienna from south) the Austrian OD pair in input matrix (e^-θ.Upq) had to be set to zero resulted volumes - only trans-boundary passenger traffic 4. The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Differences between the Czech and Austrian part of the model displayed link value: observed counts five CZE-AUS border crossings No. of cars passing known total of crossing is considered as a total demand between NE AUS and CZE 4. The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Differences between the Czech and Austrian part of the model total: 7289 cars per a day in each direction displayed: observed counts – passenger transport (ul3) The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Freight traffic in model freight transport – not especially modelled – no freight demand matrix calculated averages of heavy vehicles percentage (to all traffic) 40.3 % of heavy hehicles in motorways (average) 25.0 % of heavy hehicles in 1st class roads 20.6 % vehicles on 2nd class roads 18.3 % on country roads (3rd class) extra link used – observed percentage of heavy vehicles in future scenarios – supposed changes: traffic calming in 1 border cross „Valtice – Schrattenberg (now heavy vehicles permitted) a permission of heavy vehicles in 1 border crossing „Postorna – Reintal“ (now heavy vehicles prohibited) 4. The model approach

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Resulted traffic in 2020 assignment of 3 network scenarios by a present and a future matrix equilibrium assignment: VDF : BPR function: variables: free flow speed, No. of lanes, link capacity differences between present and future matrices: different future demand of OD pairs when future infrastructure exceed modeled area official traffic growth coefficients applied for 2020 year, compared to 2005 : 1.29 for cars (car traffic increase by 29 % supposed ) 1.06 for heavy vehicles (supposed freight traffic increase by 6 %) 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Resulted traffic in 2020 – „zero“ scenario „no new infrastructure“ alternative Czech volumes: black text (all traffic) Austrian volumes: red text (only trips to/fro the Czech Republic) shortest path Brno – Vienna – through R52 motorway southern part of the model zoomed 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Resulted traffic in 2020 – „official“ scenario Czech volumes black text (all) Austrian volumes red text (only transboundary) green links – new (or widened) infrastructure in Czech R: 2 bypasses, 2 new motorways in Ausatria: Vienna bypass (planned), A5 motorway shortest path Brno – Vienna – through R52 motorway UNCHANGED southern part of the model displayed 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Resulted traffic in 2020 – „alternative“ scenario Czech volumes black text (all) Austrian volumes red text (only transboundary) green links – new (or widened) infrastructure in Czechia: 2 bypasses, 2 new motorways in Austria: Vienna bypass (planned), A5 motorway shortest path Brno – Vienna – through D1 motorway CHANGED southern part of the model zoomed 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Scenarios comparison: „zero“ vs. „official“ on 80% on 30% Positive effect: reduction on I/55 road on 50% 6. Scenarios comparison

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Scenarios comparison: „zero“ vs. „alternative“ on 50% on 40% the same positive effect: reduction on I/55 road: on 60% Second positive effect: reduction on I/52 road, traffic shift to D2 motorway 6. Scenarios comparison

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 Scenarios comparison: „A“ vs „O“ („ alternative: vs “official“) RED - traffic increase in „A“, green links – A < Ol red links – A > O future roads are not displayed GREEN - traffic decrease in „A“, 6. Scenarios comparison

21st. Annual International Emme Users Conference, Toronto, CA, October 2007 „zero“ scenario is unsustainable – new infrastructure needed, „official“ and „alternative“ scenarios have approx. the same (positive) impact on traffic in eastern part of the modeled area (planned R55 motorway), „official“ and „alternative“ scenarios have a different impact in western part of the modeled area (alternative scenario will shift traffic to present highway D2), the „alternative“ scenario should change shortest path between Brno and Vienna cities, „alternative“ scenario will affect environmentally sensitive areas substantially less that the „official“ one – IT SHOULD BE PREFERED, a new EIA study comparing all 3 scenarios is desirable. Thank you for your attention ! 7. Conclusions