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 2

Study Background Secondary Plan Update involving:  Land Use and Urban Design Plans  Transportation Assessment  Servicing 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/ConstraintDetails Physical ConstraintsBombardier Runway North south CN Railway line Federal Parkland Policy & Operational ConstraintsExisting 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 requirements  Sensitivity analysis on specific network elements  Define timing/phasing of major (still underway) Paramics Scenarios:  Existing Conditions  Over 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. Keele St. Sheppard Ave. Finch Ave. Jane St. Bathurst St. Dufferin St. Allen Rd. 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 # DatasetsAMPM Link Volumes14686%85% Intersection Volumes2778%63% Screen Line6100%

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: 19,575 Employment: 22,029 Units: 9,841 GFA: 1.4m (m2)

Summary of Traffic Demands 14 ScenarioEMME OutputGeneratedFinal Existing PM36,992- PM 2031 – Existing Land Use41,7968,62350,419 PM 2031 – New Land Use41,79610, 02251,818 Land Use Scenario AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour InOutTotalInOutTotal Existing Plan4,4702,8187,2883,0045,6188,623 Recommended Land Use 5,2053,3608,5653,5146,50810,022 Trip Generation Total Paramics Demands

Network Options Emerging Preferred 15

Network Options – Preferred 16

Paramics Future Networks TMP Option 2Emerging Preferred Option 3

Paramics Future Network – Preferred 18

Measures of Performance – Intersection LOS PM Intersection TMPOption 1Option 2Option 3Preferred Keele Street & Wilson Avenue FFFF F Sheppard Ave. & Keele Street FEFF F Finch Ave. & Keele Street FFDD D Dufferin Street & Wilson Avenue DDDD E Transit Road & Wilson Avenue CCFD F Wilson Heights Blvd & Wilson Avenue CCDD C Allen Road & Sheppard Avenue W FFFF E Transit Road & Allen Road FCCC E Finch Ave. & Allen Road FFEE E Sheppard Ave. & Wilson Heights Blvd CCFF F 19

Measures of Performance – Arterial LOS StreetDirTMPOption 1Option 2Option 3Preferred Keele (Wilson to Finch) NB FFFF F SB FFFF F Allen (Wilson to Finch) NB FFDD D SB DDCC C Finch (Keele to Allen) EB DDFF C WB DDED E Sheppard (Keele to Wilson Heights) EB FFFF E WB FFFF F Wilson (Keele to Wilson Heights) EB FFFF F WB EEFE 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 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 AreaFindings and Recommendation A. Allen areaAlternative concepts developed, three feasible ones recommended B. Transit Road ExtensionExtension should be maintained C. Roadway Extension to Wilson Provide for improved traffic patterns, but could be omitted D. East-West to KeeleAn important east west roadway that should have 4 lanes E. Dufferin Street ExtensionProvide 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