Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byShawn McKenzie Modified over 9 years ago
1
TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION & 3-D VISUALIZATION Presenters: Fadi Emil Nassar, P.E. Veronica A. Boza, E.I. FDOT – MAY 4, 2007
2
MACRO / MICRO TRAFFIC MODELS MACRO MODEL: TRAFFIC FORECAST MICRO MODEL: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS NO LONGER SEPARATE FILEDS: – DISTRIBUTION IMPACTED BY OPERATIONS – CAPACITY CONSTRAINT AT INTERSECTIONS – TRANSIT/MODAL SPLIT IMPACTED BY CONGESTION GAP CLOSING BTW MACRO & MICRO ANALYSES CONVERGENCE OF SOFTWARE INTEGRATED MODELS: – CUBE / DYNAMISM – VISUM / VISSIM
3
TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION MODELS ANALYZE THE PERFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS BY SIMULATING THE MOVEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES ON A SPLIT-SECOND BASIS ACCOUNT FOR ROADWAY, DRIVER AND VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS OPERATIONAL RESULTS (SPEED, QUEUES, DELAYS, ETC) ARE BASED ON TRAFFIC INTERACTION INSTEAD OF EQUATIONS
4
3D-VISUALIZATION COMPLEX ROADWAY SYSTEMS BRIDGES OVERPASSES INTERCHANGES AIRPORT TERMINAL RAMPS VIEW FROM CAR
5
SR 112 - MIAMI
7
WHEN TO USE MICROSIMULATION LIMITATION OF HCM / HCS SYSTEM ANALYSIS (COORDINATION) CONGESTION / SPILLBACK / BOTTLENECK QUEUING / STORAGE CLOSELY SPACED RAMPS BUS / MULTIMODAL / ITS / RAMP METERING SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION COMPLEX OR UNIQUE GEOMETRY
8
SIMULATION PROCESS STUDY OBJECTIVES MODEL SELECTION DATA COLLECTION BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT CALIBRATION / VALIDATION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS MOE SUMMARY / PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
9
STUDY OBJECTIVES GOALS OF MODELING PROCESS ESTABLISH NEED FOR MICROSIMULATION PROJECT SCOPING – LIMITS OF ANALYSIS / INFLUENCE AREA – BOUNDARY CONDITIONS – TIME PERIOD – PEAK HOUR FACTOR LEVEL OF DETAIL / EFFORT / BUDGET UNDERSTAND MODEL STRUCTURE – DELAY, QUEUE, DRIVER BEHAVIOR MOE DIFFERENT FROM HCM EQUATIONS
10
MODEL SELECTION BASIC MODELS CORSIM SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC ADVANCED MODELS VISSIM / AISUM / CUBE DYNAMISM PARAMICS & OTHERS COMBINATION OF MODELS
11
CORSIM LINK-NODE NETWORK (DEVELOPED BY FHWA) ADVANTAGES: – WIDELY USED & ACCEPTED – EXTENSIVE VALIDATION IN USA – FREEWAY/RAMP OPERATION – BUS ROUTES – ITS ANALYSIS – RAMP METERING – TIME PERIOD ANALYSIS – LINK AGGREGATION – SHORT/LONG INCIDENT SIMULATION – HEADWAY DISTRIBUTION TYPES
12
CORSIM (CONTINUE) DISADVANTAGES: – 2-D ONLY (NO ELEVATIONS) – SIMPLIFIED SIGNAL OPERATION – PROBLEMS WITH SHORT LINKS – RESULTS GROUPED PER LINKS – NO SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION – NO INTERSECTION LOS – IMPROVED BUT LIMITED GRAPHICAL INTERFACE
13
CORSIM-CYPRESS
14
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Partial Cloverleaf Interchange: Limited Spacing of Interchange Stacks queue in one or more quadrants Requires Extensive ROW Complex Design Diamond Interchange Sufficient Spacing Simple Design Narrow ROW Stopped Condition CORSIM – INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES
15
SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC LINK-NODE NETWORK (TRAFFICWARE) ADVANTAGES: – WIDELY USED – EASY DATA ENTRY / BEST GRAPHIC INTERFACE – EXPORT TO CORSIM / T7F / HCS / VISSIM – DATABASE INTERFACE (VOLUME/SIGNAL/LAYOUT) – INTEGRATED SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION – ROUNDABOUT MODELING (NOT YET VALIDATED) – INTERSECTION LOS (HCM / ICU) – DIAMOND INTERCHANGE / RING & BARRIER – QUEUE LENGTH (PERCENTILE) – EASY TO CREATE SUB NETWORKS
16
SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC (CONTINUE) DISADVANTAGES: – NO TRANSIT MODELING – LIMITED FREEWAY CAPABILITY – SIMTRAFFIC RESULTS DIFFER FROM SYNCHRO & NOT WIDELY ACCEPTED – LINK-BASED MOEs – LIMITED FLEXIBILITY OUTSIDE BASIC INTERSECTIONS (TOLL PLAZA, AIRPORT, SIGNAL PREEMPTION, ITS, ETC)
18
SYNCHRO - UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
19
SAMPLE SYNCHRO/SIMTRAFFIC NETWORK
20
Becker Road I-95 CORSIM Network PORT ST. LUCIE
21
ADVANCED - VISSIM LINK-CONNECTOR DEVELOPED BY PTV IN GERMANY ADVANTAGES: – INCREASING ACCEPTABILITY IN US – EXTENSIVE TRANSIT MODELING CAPABILITY LIGHT RAIL BUS TRANSIT WITH BUS STATIONS ROUTE ASSIGNMENT BASED ON SCHEDULE – EXPLICIT PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST MODELING – 3D GRAPHIC OUTPUT / IMPACT OF GRADES – ADVANCED SIGNAL CONTROL LOGIC IMPORTANT FOR DEMAND RESPONSIVE OPERATION IMPORTANT FOR SIGNAL PREEMPTION
22
VISSIM (CONTINUE) ADVANTAGES: – ADVANCED ORIGIN-DESTINATION – ROUTING FOR ALL VEHICLE TYPES – DYNAMIC ASSIGNMENT (VISUM) – ROUNDABOUT SIMULATION – UNLIMITED VEHICLE TYPE IMPORTANT FOR TOLL PLAZA AIRPORT CURB SIDE OPERATION – FLEXIBLE DATA COLLECTION – INTERFACE WITH 3-D MODELER – DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION OF RESULTS
23
VISSIM (CONTINUE) DISADVANTAGES: – NOT AS WIDELY USED IN FLORIDA – EXPENSIVE (WITH TRANSIT OPTION) – CODING OF DESIRED OUTPUT PARAMETERS – FLEXIBILITY REQUIRES GREATER KNOWLEDGE AND CODING EFFORTS – NO STANDARD SUMMARIES WHICH COMPLICATE REVIEW PROCESS – NO SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION (INTERFACES WITH SYNCHRO)
24
MIAMI - PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT
25
DATA COLLECTION GEOMETRY & LAYOUT TRAFFIC CONTROL: SIGNAL & SIGN VOLUMES (RECONCILE COUNTS) DATA FOR CALIBRATION – TRAVEL TIME – AVG & FREEFLOW SPEED – QUEUE LENGTH – OBSERVATIONS / WARNING SIGNS
26
BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOP LINK-NODE DIAGRAM NODE NUMBERING / PROPER CODING BASE MAPPING DATA COLLECTION / FIELD REVIEW CHECK INPUT DATA BALANCE VOLUMES DEVELOP O-D MATRIX (RAMPS) SIGNAL TIMING QA/QC – CHECK SIMULATION RUNS VERIFIABLE / REPRODUCIBLE / ACCURATE
27
VOLUME CALIBRATION CONGESTED CONDITIONS (EX: SR112) DATA COLLECTION INITIAL CALIBRATION RESULTS ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION DEMAND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES TRAVEL TIMES
28
DATA COLLECTION
30
INITIAL CALIBRATION RESULTS VISSIM not replicating observed queues with measured volumes: – Traffic backups on ramps and intersections – Tri-Rail and Freight Train Impact on traffic Significant difference is travel times Need for additional investigation
31
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION Intersections Peak Hour Factors (PHF) greater than 0.95 suggests constrained conditions. Intersection AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour Le Jeune Rd/SE 8 St 0.980.97 Le Jeune Rd/Okeechobee Rd: 0.980.99 Le Jeune Rd/NW 36 St 0.971.00 Le Jeune Rd/NW 31 St 0.95 NW 36 Street/Lee Dr 0.98 NW 36 St/S. River Dr 0.970.95 NW 36 St/N. River Dr 0.97
32
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION LocationTO/FROM Quality CountsFDOT Stations AMPMAMPM WB SR-112 Off Ramps To Okeechobee Rd To NW 36 Street To Airport To SB Le Jeune Rd 5.2% 8.0% 6.7% 3.5% 6.3% 7.5% 8.9% 4.2% 8.7% n/a 6.3% 11.1% 5.8% n/a 7.2% EB SR-112 On Ramps From Okeechobee Rd From NW 36 Street From Airport From NB Le Jeune Rd 12.3% 9.7% 4.2% 5.7% 4.7% 8.1% 9.5% 7.6% 10.9% n/a 4.2% 5.3% n/a 8.4% Peak to daily factors (K-factor) less than 8.5% on freeways and 9.0% for arterials suggest constrained conditions. Ramps:
33
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION LocationAMPM Le Jeune Rd, South of NE 8 St5.8%7.1% Le Jeune Rd, South of NW 31 St5.8%4.4% N. River Dr, West of Flyover merge8.6%6.6% N. River Dr, North of NW 36 St6.6%5.8% N. River Dr, South of NW 36 St6.9%7.5% S. River Dr, East of Le Jeune Rd6.5%6.2% S. River Dr, West of NW 36 St6.5%9.4% NW 36 St, West of N. River Dr6.5%6.4% NW 36 St, East of N. River Dr5.1%6.1% Arterials
34
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT Adjustment to achieve demand volumes based on FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook: – Ramps: Minimum K 100 is 8.5%; and Average Peak to daily ratio percent difference is 28% and 26% for the AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. – Arterial Road: Minimum K 100 is 9.0%; and Average Peak to daily ratio percent difference is 27% for both the AM and PM Peak Hours.
35
VOLUME BALANCING (SEASONAL FACTOR / TRUCKS / ETC)
36
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION DRIVER BEHAVIOR – STARTUP DELAY & REACTION TIME – MINIMUM HEADWAY/GAP ACCEPTANCE – LANE CHANGE PARAMETERS – CAR FOLLOWING SENSITIVITY VEHICLE CHARACTERISTIC – TRAFFIC COMPOSITION – MAXIMUM ACCELERATION / DECELERATION ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS – FREE FLOW SPEED – CHANNELIZATION – PARKING ACTIVITY
37
TRAVEL TIMES AM Peak Hour Segment Collected Travel Time Range (Sec) VISSIM Travel Time (Sec) SR-112 Off ramp232 - 291235 EB NW 36 St178 - 295195 WB NW 36 St273242 PM Peak Hour Segment Collected Travel Time Range (Sec) VISSIM Travel Time (Sec) SR-112 Off ramp430 - 580394 EB NW 36 St180 - 655204 WB NW 36 St229 - 380368 NB Le Jeune Rd248 - 303266 SB Le Jeune Rd281 - 445285
38
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS / MOE SIMULATION GREAT FOR ALT ANALYSIS SIMPLIFIED REALITY / LIMITATIONS ESTABLISH MOE & MATRIX EVALUATION – SPEED – DENSITY – TRAVEL TIME – QUEUE – DELAY PERFORM MULTIPLE RUNS (SEED #) SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PRESENTATION OF RESULTS – GRAPHIC SIMULATION – OPERATIONAL RESULTS
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.