Appendix B.13

Future Year VISSIM Models Report (Excerpt)

HURONTARIO-MAIN LRT PROJECT Preliminary Design/TPAP

Future Year VISSIM Models Report (Excerpt) June 2014 508956‐2216‐4SER‐0001

Future Year VISSIM Models Report (Excerpt)

508956‐2216‐4SER‐0001‐0 April 2014

Hurontario / Main St LRT

Future Year VISSIM Models Report

April 2014

Prepared for: Prepared by: City of and City of Steer Davies Gleave 1500330 Bay St Toronto, ON, M5H 2S8 Canada

+1 (647) 260 4861 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Future Year VISSIM Models

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 OVERALL MODELLING PROCESS ...... 3

Modelling Suite ...... 3 VISSIM Model Overview ...... 3

3 FUTURE YEAR NETWORK BUILD ...... 6 Network Changes for BAU Scenario ...... 6

Network Changes for LRT Scenario ...... 6 Transit Changes for BAU and LRT Scenarios ...... 10

LRT operating pattern ...... 13

Traffic Signals for BAU Scenario ...... 13 Traffic Signals for LRT Scenario...... 15

Pedestrian Demand ...... 18

4 FUTURE YEAR DEMAND ...... 21 Overview of VISSIM demand ...... 21 Subareas 2 and 4 (South and North Corridor) ...... 22

Port Credit, Brampton and Downtown Mississauga ...... 25

Matrix Totals...... 26

5 VISSIM ASSIGNMENT ...... 29

6 BUSINESS AS USUAL AND LRT MODEL OUTPUT ...... 31 General ...... 31

Link Flows ...... 31 Levels of Service (Link) ...... 31

Node Level of Service ...... 32

Queue Lengths ...... 33 Network Performance Statistics ...... 33

General Traffic Travel Times...... 34 LRT Travel Times ...... 40

7 FOCUS AREA MTO AND ETR RAMP TERMINAL INTERSECTIONS ...... 43 QEW ...... 43

Highway 403 ...... 50

Contents Future Year VISSIM Models

Highway 401 ...... 58 Highway 407 ...... 65

8 FOCUS AREA – ...... 72 Introduction ...... 72

Hurontario /Park Street ...... 72

Summary of Port Credit Network Operation ...... 73

9 FOCUS AREA – SOUTH CORRIDOR ...... 74 Introduction ...... 74 Signal Operation ...... 74

Turning Movement Bans ...... 75 Traffic Volumes ...... 76

Operation of Key Intersections ...... 77

Hurontario Street/Mineola Road ...... 77 Hurontario/Queensway ...... 78

Hurontario Street/ ...... 79 Hurontario Street/Hillcrest Avenue/Kirwin Avenue ...... 81

Hurontario Street/Central Avenue ...... 82

Summary of South Corridor Network Operation ...... 83

10 FOCUS AREA – DOWNTOWN MISSISSAUGA ...... 84 Introduction ...... 84 Signal Operation ...... 84

Turning Movement Bans ...... 85 Traffic Volumes ...... 86

Operation of Key Intersections and Sections ...... 86 Hurontario Street ...... 86

Mavis Road ...... 89

Confederation Parkway ...... 92 ...... 95

Rathburn Road ...... 96 Duke of York Boulevard ...... 98

Living Arts Drive ...... 99 Square One Drive ...... 100

Contents Future Year VISSIM Models

City Centre Drive ...... 100 Centre View Drive ...... 101

Overall Summary ...... 102

11 FOCUS AREA – NORTH CORRIDOR ...... 103 Introduction ...... 103

Signal Operation ...... 103 Turning Movement Bans ...... 104

Traffic Volumes ...... 105 Operation of Key Intersections...... 107

Hurontario Street/ ...... 107 Hurontario Street/Matheson Boulevard ...... 108

Hurontario Street/Britannia Road ...... 109

Hurontario Street/Derry Road ...... 110 Main Street/ ...... 111

Brampton Heritage section ...... 112 Summary of North Corridor Network Operation ...... 113

12 FOCUS AREA – DOWNTOWN BRAMPTON ...... 115 Introduction ...... 115

Signal Operation ...... 115

Turning Movement Bans ...... 116 Traffic Volumes ...... 116

Operation of Key Intersections and Sections ...... 116 Main Street ...... 116

Queen Street ...... 119 George Street ...... 122

Chapel Street and Union Street ...... 123

Nelson Street West ...... 123 Overall Summary ...... 124

13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 127

Contents Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Methodology Summary for the VISSIM Base Model ...... 4

Figure 2.2 VISSIM Submodel Networks ...... 5

Figure 3.1 Mississauga BRT Overview ...... 12 Figure 3.2 North Corridor Generic Phase Arrangement ...... 16

Figure 3.3 Brampton GO Downtown Mississauga Brampton GO Load Profile ... 20 Figure 3.4 Port Credit Downtown Mississauga Port Credit Load Profile ...... 20

Figure 4.1 Summary of process to generate 2031 VISSIM Matrices ...... 23 Figure 4.2 SATURN Model for South Corridor ...... 24

Figure 6.1 Travel Time comparison – AM Peak Northbound...... 35

Figure 6.2 Travel Time Comparison – AM Peak Southbound ...... 36 Figure 6.3 Travel Time Comparison PM Peak Northbound ...... 37

Figure 6.4 Travel Time Comparison – PM Peak Southbound ...... 38 Figure 7.1 Proposed Layout of QEW Ramp Terminal Intersections (DW3.1) ...... 44

Figure 7.2 QEW Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 08000900 AM Peak ...... 46 Figure 7.3 QEW Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 17001800 PM Peak ...... 47

Figure 7.4 Proposed Layout of Hwy403 Ramp Terminal Intersections (DW3.1) .... 50

Figure 7.5 Hwy403 Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 08000900 AM Peak ...... 54 Figure 7.6 Hwy403 Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 17001800 PM Peak...... 55

Figure 7.7 Proposed Layout of Hwy401 Ramp Terminal Intersections (DW3.1) .... 59

Figure 7.8 Hwy401 Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 08000900 AM Peak ...... 61

Figure 7.9 Hwy401 Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 17001800 PM Peak...... 62 Figure 7.10 Proposed Layout of Hwy407 Ramp Terminal Intersections (DW3.1) ... 65

Figure 7.11 Hwy407 Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 08000900 AM Peak ...... 68

Figure 7.12 Hwy407 Ramp Terminal Demand (v/h) – 17001800 PM Peak...... 69

TABLES

Table 3.1 BAU Road Network Modifications ...... 7

Table 3.2 VISSIM Network changes for LRT on Hurontario St/ Main St (Number of Through Lanes) ...... 9

Contents Future Year VISSIM Models

Table 3.4 City of Mississauga “MiWay” Local Transit Services ...... 11 Table 3.5 GO services ...... 12

Table 4.1 2011 VISSIM Base vs 2031 VISSIM BAU Peak Hour Matrix Totals ...... 26 Table 4.2 2011 VISSIM BAU vs 2031 VISSIM LRT Peak Hour Matrix Totals ...... 27

Table 4.3 Downtown Mississauga Matrix Summary ...... 28

Table 6.1 Base, BAU and LRT Model Output Link Levels of Service ...... 32 Table 6.2 Base, BAU and LRT Model Scenarios Node Levels of Service ...... 33

Table 6.3 AM Peak Network Performance Statistics – 08000900 ...... 34 Table 6.4 PM Peak Network Performance Statistics – 17001800 ...... 34

Table 6.5 Journey Time Statistics – Base and BAU (in minutes) ...... 39 Table 6.6 Journey Time Statistics – BAU AND LRT (in minutes) ...... 39

Table 6.7 Port Credit Loop – LRT Run Times (in minutes) ...... 40

Table 6.8 Brampton Loop – LRT Run Times (in minutes) ...... 41 Table 7.1 QEW Phase Allocation ...... 45

Table 7.2 QEW Ramp Terminal Levels of Service ...... 48 Table 7.3 QEW Ramp Queue Lengths – AM Peak (08:0009:00) ...... 49

Table 7.4 QEW Ramp Queue Lengths – PM Peak (17:0018:00) ...... 49

Table 7.5 Highway 403 Phase Allocation ...... 53

Table 7.6 Highway 403 Ramp Terminal Levels of Service ...... 56

Table 7.7 Highway 403 Ramp Queue Lengths – AM Peak (08:0009:00) ...... 56 Table 7.8 Highway 403 Ramp Queue Lengths – PM Peak (17:0018:00) ...... 57

Table 7.9 Highway 401 Phase Allocation ...... 60 Table 7.10 Highway 401 Ramp Terminal Levels of Service ...... 63

Table 7.11 Highway 401 Ramp Queue Lengths – AM Peak (08:0009:00) ...... 64 Table 7.12 Highway 401 Ramp Queue Lengths – PM Peak (17:0018:00) ...... 64

Table 7.13 Highway 407 Phase Allocation ...... 67

Table 7.14 Highway 407 Ramp Terminal Levels of Service ...... 70 Table 7.15 Highway 407 Ramp Queue Lengths – AM Peak (08:0009:00) ...... 71

Table 7.16 Highway 407 Ramp Queue Lengths – PM Peak (17:0018:00) ...... 71 Table 8.1 Summary of Hurontario/Park Intersection Operation ...... 72

Table 9.1 Proposed Cycle Time Changes in Future Scenarios ...... 75

Contents Future Year VISSIM Models

Table 9.2 Traffic Volumes Within the South Corridor ...... 76 Table 9.3 Summary of Hurontario/Mineola Intersection Operation ...... 78

Table 9.4 Summary of Hurontario/Queensway Intersection Operation ...... 79 Table 9.5 Summary of Hurontario/Dundas Intersection Operation ...... 80

Table 9.6 Summary of Hurontario/Hillcrest Intersection Operation ...... 81

Table 9.7 Summary of Hurontario/Central Intersection Operation ...... 82 Table 10.1 Proposed Cycle Time Changes in Future Scenarios ...... 85

Table 10.2 Traffic Volumes on Hurontario Street (veh/h) ...... 87 Table 10.3 Summary of Hurontario/Burnhamthorpe Intersection Operation ...... 87

Table 10.4 Summary of Hurontario/Sherwoodtowne Intersection Operation ...... 88 Table 10.5 Traffic Volumes on Mavis Road (veh/h) ...... 89

Table 10.6 Summary of Mavis/Burnhamthorpe Intersection Operation ...... 90

Table 10.7 Summary of Mavis/Rathburn Intersection Operation ...... 91 Table 10.8 Summary of Mavis/Hwy403 South Ramp Terminal Intersection Operation ...... 91

Table 10.9 Traffic Volumes on Confederation Parkway (veh/h) ...... 92 Table 10.10 Summary of Confederation/Burnhamthorpe Intersection Operation ... 93

Table 10.11 Summary of Confederation/Rathburn Intersection Operation ...... 94 Table 10.12 Traffic Volumes on Burnhamthorpe Road (veh/h) ...... 95

Table 10.13 Traffic Volumes on Rathburn Road (veh/h) ...... 97 Table 10.14 Summary of City Centre Drive/Rathburn Intersection Operation ...... 98

Table 10.15 Traffic Volumes on Duke of York Boulevard (veh/h) ...... 98

Table 10.16 Traffic Volumes on Living Arts Drive (veh/h) ...... 99 Table 10.17 Traffic Volumes on Square One Drive (veh/h) ...... 100

Table 10.18 Traffic Volumes on City Centre Drive (veh/h) ...... 101 Table 10.19 Traffic Volumes on Centre View Drive (veh/h) ...... 101

Table 11.1 Proposed Cycle Time Changes in Future Scenarios ...... 104 Table 11.2 Traffic Volumes Within The North Corridor ...... 106

Table 11.3 Summary of Hurontario/Eglinton Intersection Operation ...... 107

Table 11.4 Summary of Hurontario/Matheson Intersection Operation ...... 108 Table 11.5 Summary of Hurontario/Britannia Intersection Operation ...... 110

Table 11.6 Summary of Hurontario/Derry Intersection Operation ...... 110

Contents Future Year VISSIM Models

Table 11.7 Summary of Main/Steeles Intersection Operation ...... 111 Table 11.8 Summary of Main/Clarence Intersection Operation ...... 113

Table 12.1 Traffic Volumes on Main Street within Downtown Brampton (veh/h) 117 Table 12.2 Traffic Volumes on Main Street External Links (veh/h) ...... 117

Table 12.3 Summary of Main/Wellington Intersection Operation ...... 118

Table 12.4 Summary of Main/Nelson/Theatre Intersection Operation ...... 119 Table 12.5 Traffic Volumes on Queen Street (veh/h) ...... 120

Table 12.6 Summary of Queen/George Intersection Operation ...... 120 Table 12.7 Summary of Queen/Main Intersection Operation ...... 121

Table 12.8 Summary of Queen/Theatre/Chapel Intersection Operation ...... 121 Table 12.9 Traffic Volumes on George Street (veh/h) ...... 122

Table 12.10 Traffic Volumes on Chapel Street and Union Street (veh/h) ...... 123

Table 12.11 Traffic Volumes on Nelson Street West (veh/h) ...... 124

APPENDICES

A SIGNAL OPERATION SUMMARY FOR LRT SCENARIO

B TRAFFIC FLOW OUTPUT FROM VISSIM MODELS C LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT FROM VISSIM MODELS

D AVERAGE QUEUE LENGTH OUTPUT FROM VISSIM MODEL

E MAXIMUM QUEUE LENGTH OUTPUT FROM VISSIM MODELS

Contents

Future Year VISSIM Models

1 Introduction

1.1 The SNC Lavalinled team has been appointed by the City of Mississauga and City of Brampton to undertake the Preliminary Design and Feasibility Study for Hurontario Street/Main Street Light Rapid Transit (HMLRT). 1.2 The HMLRT scheme would provide a direct, efficient and quick transit link between the centres of Brampton, Mississauga and Port Credit. The alignment is proposed to run directly along Main Street and Hurontario Street, with a “downtown loop” within the centre of Mississauga, to provide greater penetration into the major office, retail and residential destinations within this area of the network.

1.3 One of the components of the study involves the development of traffic and forecasting tools to determine the ridership impacts and traffic effects of the rapid transit line.

1.4 This report deals with the development of the VISSIM future year models for the weekday AM and PM peak periods, in order to assess the operation of the network under the proposals for the Hurontario Street/Main Street LRT system. A separate reporting stream concentrates on the forecasting work undertaken using the Higher Order Transit (HOT) model.

1.5 This report deals with the creation of the future year VISSIM models of the network which includes both the BAU (Business As Usual) and withLRT scenario.

1.6 Following this introductory Chapter, the remainder of this report contains twelve further chapters:

I Chapter 2: Overall Modelling Approach I Chapter 3: BAU and LRT model network build; I Chapter 4: Future Year demand; I Chapter 5: VISSIM Assignment; I Chapter 6: Business as Usual and LRT Model Output; I Chapter 7: Focus Area MTO and ETR Ramp Terminal Intersections; I Chapter 8: Focus Area – Downtown Brampton; I Chapter 9: Focus Area – North Corridor; I Chapter 10: Focus Area – Downtown Mississauga; I Chapter 11: Focus Area – South Corridor; I Chapter 12: Focus Area – Port Credit; I Chapter 13: Summary and Conclusions.

1

Future Year VISSIM Models

2 Overall Modelling Process

Modelling Suite

2.1 The modelling element of the Hurontario/Main LRT project is undertaken using a suite of three transport modelling and traffic engineering software, plus a number of spreadsheets, macros and other processes to import and export the relevant data between each software package.

2.2 The principal model platforms are:

I HOT (High Order Transit) Strategic Model (using EMME platform) – is used to undertake modelling of transit ridership and traffic flows across the HMLRT corridor and wider network. It provides cordoned base and future demand matrices for use in VISSIM corridor models. This element of work is reported in a separate report, although the process of developing demand for use in the VISSIM models is set out in this report. I VISSIM MicroSimulation Model – used to assess direct impacts on the LRT alignments including signal operation, through and turning lane requirements, and LRT run times. I SYNCHRO Intersection Analysis – used to assess individual offline intersection operation (i.e. assessment of intersection operation over the wider area, not on the HMLRT corridor). This element of work is set out in a separate report.

VISSIM Model Overview

2.3 VISSIM models have been developed for three main scenarios:

I 2011 Base – represents the “existing situation” I 2031 BAU – “Business As Usual”, without LRT I 2031 LRT – BAU plus the addition of the LRT scheme 2.4 Models cover the following time periods:

I 07000900 AM Peak period (peak hour is 08000900) I 16001800 PM Peak period (peak hour is 17001800) 2.5 As detailed in the next section, the VISSIM modeling has been undertaken on and around the Hurontario Street/Main Street corridor only. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the modelling methodology for the creation of the VISSIM Base model. The created and subsequent validation of the Base VISSIM model is reported in a separate report, “Base VISSIM Model Report – Final Report – April 2013”.

2.6 For the purposes of building the Base, BAU and LRT VISSIM models, and assigning future year demand, the network was split into five subnetworks as shown in Figure 2.2. These subareas essentially span the same areas as in the Base models, but are

3 Future Year VISSIM Models

updated to contain network changes for the BAU and LRT scenarios accordingly. The five subareas are:

I Brampton downtown – area bounded by Church Street, George Street, Wellington Street and Chapel Street/Union Street I North Corridor – Hurontario Street/Main Street corridor from Wellington Street to Elia Avenue I Mississauga downtown – Hurontario Street/Main Street corridor from Elia Avenue to John Street, and area bounded by Centre View Drive, Mavis Road, Burnhamthorpe Road and Hurontario Street I South Corridor Hurontario Street/Main Street corridor from Fairview Road to Park Street I Port Credit area bounded by Slavebank Road, , Hurontario Street and Park Street

FIGURE 2.1 METHODOLOGY SUMMARY FOR THE VISSIM BASE MODEL

4 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 2.2 VISSIM SUBMODEL NETWORKS

5 Future Year VISSIM Models

3 Future Year Network Build

Network Changes for BAU Scenario

3.1 The network changes for the 2031 BAU VISSIM model were discussed and agreed with the cities of Mississauga and Brampton.

3.2 Table 3.1 shows the road network changes introduced into the BAU VISSIM Models, compared to the 2011 Base Models. Also shown in Table 3.1 are the changes in zone structure that complement these network modifications. 3.3 Note that other network changes outside of the VISSIM network coverage were included within the wider area HOT model for the BAU scenario, and therefore the impacts of these network changes have been incorporated into the demand derivation process for the corridor itself.

Network Changes for LRT Scenario

3.4 The LRT alignment along the whole HMLRT corridor is shown in the external document “Design Workbook 3.1”.

3.5 The key changes within DW3.1 compared to earlier versions are:

I LRT alignment terminates at the Port Credit GO station at the southern end, and not at Elizabeth Street I LRT alignment through the Brampton Heritage area is shared running with traffic in the offside lane in both directions

3.6 The main principles of the project, in terms of LRT operation are shown in Table 3.2, and have been coded within the VISSIM LRT scenario model. Note that all of the network modifications made in the BAU scenario models (see Table 3.1) have also been applied to the LRT scenario models, albeit incorporating some changes due to the addition of the LRT alignment.

6 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 3.1 BAU ROAD NETWORK MODIFICATIONS

VISSIM Location Network Change Zone Change Node

1005 Hurontario Street / High New signalised intersection – this intersection was None Street signalised shortly after the creation and validation of the 2011 Base VISSIM model

1010 Hurontario Street / Park Extra dedicated SBLT and NBLT lane – the North and None Street South legs were altered shortly after the creation and validation of the 2011 Base VISSIM model

1035 Hurontario Street / John New signalised intersection – this intersection was None Street signalised shortly after the creation and validation of the 2011 Base VISSIM model

1350/1360 Hurontario Street / Additional lane added to bridge in both directions, plus None Highway 401 ramp changes to ramp alignments – this project was under terminals construction at the time of the creation and validation of the 2011 Base VISSIM model

1350 Hurontario Street / Extension of EB Off ramp to Whittle Rd – this is a Destination zone added for Highway 401 EB offramp proposed project Whittle Road

1360 Hurontario Street / New West leg – this is a proposed project Origin and Destination zone Highway 401 (north added for West leg intersection)

1460 Hurontario Street / New East leg (extension of Edwards Boulevard) – this is Origin and Destination zone Highway 407 (south a proposed project added for Edwards Boulevard intersection)

7 Future Year VISSIM Models

VISSIM Location Network Change Zone Change Node

1505 Shopper’s World Transit New signalised intersection and revised location of None Exchange Shoppers World transit interchange – the transit terminal was moved shortly after the creation and validation of the 2011 Base VISSIM model

1581 George Street / City of New car park structure added on west side of George Origin and Destination zone Brampton Parking Street added for new parking structure Structure

1640 Confederation Parkway / New West leg – this is a proposed development project Origin and Destination zone Prince of Wales Drive added for new development site

1660 Confederation Parkway / New West leg – this is a proposed development project Origin and Destination zone Princess Royal Drive added for new development site

1750 Confederation Parkway / New West leg – this is a proposed development project Origin and Destination zone City Centre Drive added for new development site

Burnhamthorpe Road Burnhamthorpe Road reduced to 2 lanes in each None direction from Mavis Road to Hurontario Street (assumed as part of Downtown Mississauga Movement Plan)

Downtown Mississauga Addition of BRT scheme – predominantly subsurface None alignment through downtown Mississauga

8 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 3.2 VISSIM NETWORK CHANGES FOR LRT ON HURONTARIO ST/ MAIN ST (NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES)

Through Traffic Lanes (each direction unless From To specified) Section (Intersection to Intersection) LRT Alignment Node Node Base LRT

Hurontario Street

1010 1020 Park to Old River/ Inglewood 2 2 Side running

1020 1050 Old River/ Inglewood to QEW South 2 2 Centre running

1050 1060 QEW South – QEW North 2 2 Centre running

1060 1070 QEW North – Harborn 3 3 NB, 2 SB Centre running

1070 1210 Harborn – Square One Drive 3 2 Centre running

1210 1220 Square One Drive – Hwy403 (south) 4 NB, 3 SB 3 NB, 3 SB Centre running

1220 1230 Hwy403 (south) – Hwy403 (north) 3 NB, 3 SB 3 NB, 4 SB Centre running

1230 1240 Hwy403 (north) Kingsbridge 3 NB, 3 SB 2 NB, 3 SB Centre running

1240 1340 Kingsbridge Britannia 3 2 Centre running

1340 1350 Britannia Hwy401 (south) 2 NB, 3 SB 2 NB, 2 SB Centre running

1350 1360 Hwy401 (south) – Hwy401 (north) 2 2 Centre running

1360 1370 Hwy401 (north) – World Drive 3 NB, 2 SB 2 NB, 2 SB Centre running

1370 1450 World Drive – Top Flight 3 2 Centre running

1450 1480 Top Flight – Ray Lawson 3 3 Centre running

1480 1515 Ray Lawson Charolais 3 2 Centre running

1515 1520 Charolais Elgin 3 NB, 2 SB 2 NB, 2 SB Centre running

1520 1525 Elgin Nanwood 2 2 Centre running

1525 1540 Nanwood Wellington 2 2 Shared running

1540 1560 Wellington – Theatre/ Nelson 2 (on street parking) 1 Side running

1560 1569 Theatre/ Nelson – Nelson St E 2 1 Side running

1569 1570 Nelson St E Church 2 2

Downtown Mississauga

Burnhamthorpe 3 2 Centre running

Duke of York 2 1 Side running

Rathburn 2 2 Side running

9 Future Year VISSIM Models

Transit Changes for BAU and LRT Scenarios

3.1 As in the VISSIM Base models, bus services are coded into the BAU models as fixed routes. Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 provide a list of each route and the approximate number of services per hour in both the AM and PM time periods for the Base and BAU scenarios (note, some services are tidal). The frequencies for the VISSIM BAU and LRT scenarios are extracted directly from the HOT model.

3.2 In addition to changes in frequency in the LRT scenario, a number of bus route changes are proposed as a result of the LRT implementation. Essentially some existing services are replaced, either completely or in part, by the LRT service. These changes are as follows:

I MiWay 19/19A/19B – frequency reduced significantly I MiWay 103 – removed I Brampton 2 – terminates at Brampton GO to/from Heart Lake Terminal I Brampton 502 – terminates at Brampton GO to/from Sandalwood Parkway 3.3 Further details of the proposed changes to the transit network in the LRT scenario are provided in the report “Ultimate Transit Network Plan”.

3.4 The location of bus stops within the BAU and LRT are essentially the same as they are in the base models. Similarly, the bus stop dwell time distribution assumptions as used in the base models are carried forward to the BAU/ LRT VISSIM models.

TABLE 3.3 CITY OF BRAMPTON LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES

Route Description General Direction Buses Per Hour Number Base BAU LRT 2 Queen EB/WB 2 3 3 7 Main NB/ SB 8 10 10 8 Kennedy EB/WB 3 5 5 11 Steeles EB/WB 15 6 6 24 Van Kirk NB/ SB 2 2 2 25 Edenbrook NB/ SB 2 2 2 52 McMurchy NB/ SB 3 3 3 501 Queen (Zum) EB/WB 10 9 9 502 Hurontario (Zum) NB/ SB 6 9 9

10 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 3.4 CITY OF MISSISSAUGA “MIWAY” LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICES

Route Description General Direction Buses Per Hour Number Base BAU LRT 1/1C Dundas EB/WB 6 4 4 3 Bloor EB/ WB 7 9 9 4 Sherway Gardens EB/WB 2 3 3 6 Credit Woodlands EB/WB 3 4 4 7 Airport Loop NB/SB 3 4 4 8 Cawthra NB/SB 3 8 8 9 Rathburn Millers Grove NB/SB 3 4 4 10 Bristol Loop NB/SB 3 4 4 14/14A Lorne Park EB/WB 2 4 4 15 Drew EB/WB 3 4 4 18 Northwest Explorer NB/SB 2 8 8 19 Hurontario NB/SB 6 5 1 19A Port Credit/ Brunel NB/SB 3 5 1 19B Port Credit/ Britannia NB/SB 3 5 1 20 Rathburn EB/WB 3 4 4 23 Lakeshore EB/WB 4 5 5 25 Traders Loop Loop 4 4 4 26 Burnhamthorpe EB/WB 5 6 6 27 Matheson EB/WB 3 3 28 Confederation NB/SB 4 4 4 34 Credit Valley EB/WB 3 4 4 38 Credit View EB/WB 3 4 4 39 Britannia EB/WB 2 2 2 42 Derry EB/WB 4 4 4 53 Kennedy NB/SB 3 4 4 57 Courtneypark NB/SB 3 3 3 61/61A Mavis NB/SB 5 5 5 62 NB/ SB 2 2 2 65 Barondale NB/ SB 2 2 2 66 McLaughlin NB/ SB 3 4 4 68 Windsor NB/ SB 2 4 4 70 Keaton EB/WB 2 4 4 76 City Centre EB/WB 5 6 6 89 Meadowvale NB/ SB 3 6 6 91 Hillcrest NB/SB 12 4 4 101 Dundas Express EB/WB 3 4 4 103 Hurontario Express NB/ SB 3 5 107 Malton Express EB/WB 4 5 5 109 Meadowvale Express NB/ SB 24 5 5 110 University Express NB/SB 3 8 8 201 Dundas EB/WB 4 5 5

11 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 3.5 GO SERVICES

Route Description General Direction Buses Per Hour Number Base BAU LRT 19 Oakville/ North York EB/WB 2 2 2 21 Milton EB/WB 2 2 2 25 Waterloo/ Mississauga EB/WB 3 3 3 29 Guelph/ Kitchener EB/WB 1 1 1 31 Kitchener EB/WB 4 4 4 34 Brampton/ North York EB/WB 1 1 1 37 Orangeville/ Brampton EB/WB 2 2 2 45 407 West/ 407 East EB/WB 2 2 2 46 407 West/ 407 East EB/WB 2 2 2 47 407 West/ 407 East EB/WB 2 2 2

Mississauga BRT 3.5 Within both the BAU and LRT scenarios, the Mississauga BRT project has been included. The Mississauga BRT project will provide a dedicated eastwest transit corridor across the centre of Mississauga, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. It will be used by both MiWay express and local buses, and by GO buses.

FIGURE 3.1 MISSISSAUGA BRT OVERVIEW

Source: City of Mississauga website 3.6 In terms of the addition of this facility within the VISSIM model, the assumed alignment is as shown in Design Workbook 3.1 for the LRT scenario (a separate report), with a similar alignment being assumed for the BAU scenario. 3.7 Consequently, in both scenarios, a number of services are reassigned to the BRT alignment. For the purposes of the VISSIM work, in the absence of detailed routing information, these services include:

I MiWay 107

12 Future Year VISSIM Models

I MiWay 109 I MiWay 110 I Through GO services

Transit Interchange Changes 3.8 In the LRT scenario, changes to the layout of the transit interchange facilities, or changes to the frequency or routing or bus services have also been coded within the LRT scenario VISSIM model. These changes are summarised below.

I Brampton GO – No changes to layout, but dwell times reduced for all services using the transit interchange in the LRT scenario, to prevent locking of the internal operation (and subsequent spillback to impact on local roads). In reality, changes to interchange operation would need to be made to prevent operational issues within the transit interchange impacting on the external road network. I Shoppers World – As in BAU scenario, new interchange has been coded I Downtown Mississauga – As part of the LRT implementation on Rathburn Road, the transit interchanges would lose some alighting and boarding stops. Services using these stops are reassigned within the interchange. As for Brampton, dwell times are reduced for all services using the transit interchange in the LRT scenario, to prevent locking of the internal operation (and subsequent spillback to impact on local roads). In reality, changes to interchange operation would need to be made to prevent operational issues within the transit interchange impacting on the external road network. I Port Credit GO – No changes

LRT operating pattern

3.9 In terms of the operation of the LRT within the model, the following assumptions have been used:

I The operation pattern is as below:  Brampton GO return, with clockwise loop in downtown Mississauga, with 5 minute frequency  Port Credit GO return, with anticlockwise loop in downtown Mississauga, with 5 minute frequency

I Each tram service consists of a doubleunit, with a total length of around 60m I Each tram dwells at every LRT stop for a period of between 18 and 22 seconds (randomly varied by the model)

Traffic Signals for BAU Scenario

3.10 In the case of the BAU scenario, traffic signal intersection operation was modified from the Base model (existing operation) in the following ways:

I For intersections that were physically amended under the BAU scenario (see Table 3.1), signal timings were adjusted to provide the optimum timing arrangement. In

13 Future Year VISSIM Models

some instances, information for newly installed sites was obtained from the relevant City. For intersections not yet under construction, timings were estimated based on the operation of similar intersections on the corridor (with green splits optimised to suit the prevalent traffic conditions). I Under Regulation 413/12 (made under Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005) of December 2012, section 80.28 states that “Where new pedestrian signals are being installed or existing pedestrian signals are being replaced at a pedestrian crossover, they must be accessible pedestrian signals”. The interpretation of City of Brampton and City of Mississauga of this Regulation results in the requirement to use a 0.9m/s walk speed in the calculation of crosswalk walk time and flash don’t walk (FDW) timing periods. As a result, the two equations below have been applied to the Cities’ intersections – these changes result in an increase in the minimum time period associated with the operation of the pedestrian crosswalk:

City of Mississauga:

Walk Time (in seconds) = Crossing Distance (in metres) x 0.4 0.9

Clearance Time (in seconds) = Crossing Distance (in metres) x 0.6 0.9

City of Brampton:

Walk Time (in seconds) = Crossing Distance (in metres) + 8 – Amber – All Red x 0.4 0.9

Clearance Time (in seconds) = Crossing Distance (in metres) + 8 – Amber – All Red x 0.6 0.9

I Due to the lengthening of minimum crosswalk periods (see point above), at a few key locations this results in the minimum cycle time converging towards the currently operating cycle time. Consequently at a number of intersections, the cycle time has been increased – these adjustments are set out in later chapters.: I Following the assignment of the BAU traffic demand onto the network, some minor reallocations of green splits were required to ensure withincapacity operation of certain traffic movements – this was generally where BAU demand for a particular movement was significantly higher than the equivalent movement in the Base situation. However, these changes were minor, and did not compromise any minimum timing periods. 3.11 The above modifications have been made to both AM and PM peak BAU VISSIM models.

14 Future Year VISSIM Models

Traffic Signals for LRT Scenario

3.12 In the LRT scenario, more significant changes to the operation of intersections were required in order to accommodate the LRT alignment and associated priority signal control. However, as a standard, the changes set out in the previous section for the BAU scenario were also applied to the LRT scenario.

3.13 On the majority of the corridor, proposed signal operation in the LRT model can be summarised as follows:

I All NBLT and SBLT movements are set to operate as protected only (i.e. vehicles receive a full left turn green only, and do not run concurrently with opposing movements) I LRT is centrerunning, and therefore receives a green signal concurrently with NBT and SBT auto movements

3.14 Figure 3.2 shows the generic arrangement of this type of operation within this section of the network. It should be noted that:

I NBLT and SBLT would not be locked together to operate simultaneously – if one or the other required additional/less green time, then this left turn could shut down later/earlier than the opposite left turn phase, with the associated through phase opening up early/late as required I The LRT phase (in purple) would not necessarily be required every cycle, but as it runs concurrently with the principal NBT/SBT traffic movements, it can run in every cycle with little impact on overall signal operation I At some intersections, separate WBLT and EBLT phases are not required. At others, the WBLT and EBLT movements may be protected phases only (to operate similarly to the NBLT/SBLT movements) 3.15 At other locations within the corridor, where the LRT is not centrerunning, intersection operation is modified from Figure 3.2 with a more bespoke operation per individual operation. This varies from providing a dedicated timing period for LRT with no concurrent traffic movements, to providing signal priority whilst in a mixed traffic stream. These locations can be summarised as:

I South Corridor – Park Street to Mineola Road I Downtown Mississauga – Duke of York Boulevard and Rathburn Road I Brampton Heritage – Nanwood Drive to Wellington Street I Downtown Brampton – Wellington Street to Brampton GO 3.16 Appendix A provides more detail on the assumptions of operations at these (and all) intersections.

15 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 3.2 NORTH CORRIDOR GENERIC PHASE ARRANGEMENT

3.17 The use of the VISSIM RBC module allows the user to enter information into the VISSIM “controller box” in the same format as would be normally entered in a standard RBC controller, as was used for data entry in the Base scenario models. However, in addition to the entering of the general phasing structure, the RBC module also allows the user to define either tram priority or preempt functions to serve LRT vehicles.

3.18 Most intersections were programmed with TSP priority logic to serve LRT vehicles with the following parameters:

I Minimum green for LRT = 10 seconds I Clearance time for LRT = 6 seconds (minimum, triggered by detector) I Call mode = locked I Extend limit = 30 seconds maximum I Priority mode = Early/Extend I Detector type = Check in/Check out 3.19 In terms of the operation of the signal intersection under this form of control (fixed time with TSP tram priority), the following process summarises how tram priority is afforded to each tram vehicle:

I Without the presence of an LRT vehicle, signal intersection operates normally to fixed time plans (or semiactuated plans)

16 Future Year VISSIM Models

I An LRT detector is provided at the exit from the upstream intersection (both directions). Once an LRT vehicle passes over the detector, a request for tram priority is placed with the controller I The controller will then determine the best strategy to serve the LRT with as little delay to other road users as possible, depending on the travel time from the detector. This could involve:

 Curtailing other timing periods in order to operate the LRT phase before the tram reaches the stopline  Extending an existing timing period in order to operate the LRT phase before the tram reaches the stopline  Inserting an LRT phase within the normal operation before the tram reaches the stopline

I Once the tram passes a second detector on the exit from the intersection, the LRT phase ends, and the intersection moves back into normal operation. I Depending on the current cycle second within the overall cycle time, and whether the LRT phase runs concurrently with other phases (within the centrerunning section of the route, it commonly runs concurrently with the main NB and SB Through phases on Hurontario Street and Main Street), the intersection then attempts to fall back into the normal cycle, and to return to the normal offset to adjacent intersections. 3.20 A number of other considerations were applied to the model:

I No phases are omitted from any signal intersections, including the protected period of “pm+pt” (permitted and protected) left turn phases. I Minimum green time periods are always run for all traffic phases, including the pedestrian green and clearance times for all pedestrian phases if demanded by push button activation. 3.21 This level of LRT priority is considered “moderate”, and is used commonly on other systems throughout the world. It results in a balanced network operation that offers LRT priority whilst maintaining other general traffic operation, and retaining the timing period structure at all intersections.

3.22 It should be noted that we have also used the preempt facility at some specific locations. This generally gives a higher level of tram priority, but results in more sudden changes to the normal operation (compared to TSP), and is generally better suited to a much lower frequency of priority movement. The preempt function has been used predominantly on the siderunning sections of the LRT alignment.

3.23 Once the RBC controllers had been set up for all the intersections, the “normal” (i.e. no LRT present) timings were fixed within the VISSIM model. This process was undertaken manually, but generally the timings were set (at least initially) to be similar to the Base and BAU timings for each intersection.

3.24 Appendix A shows the assumptions used at each online intersection, in terms of:

17 Future Year VISSIM Models

I Cycle time modifications (generally due to extended pedestrian crosswalk timings) I Traffic movement bans I LRT priority type I LRT phase allocation I Traffic and pedestrian phase allocation 3.25 In terms of the LRT operation, the model includes a LRT vehicle with the following features:

I Tram length = 2 x 30m units I Maximum acceleration = +1m/s 2 (varies by speed) I Maximum deceleration = 1m/s 2 I Tram speed = Equal to equivalent general traffic speed limit I Tram stop dwell = 20 seconds +/ 2 seconds I Frequency = 5 minute headway, with:  Brampton GO to Brampton GO return to serve the north half of the network, with Downtown Mississauga clockwise loop;  Port Credit to Port Credit return to serve the south half of the network with Downtown Mississauga anticlockwise loop

3.26 To provide access to LRT stops from both directions, the LRT alignment also includes a number of midblock crossings. It is intended that these facilities will operate as two stage crossings, with independent operation of the two traffic (and LRT) directions to allow signal offsets to be maintained to adjacent intersections.

3.27 Within the LRT scenario models, all these midblock facilities are set to operate at the same cycle time as adjacent intersections to maintain coordination. At some locations, doublecycle operation may be possible (to minimise pedestrian delay), but at this stage this has not been included within the models.

Pedestrian Demand

3.28 The pedestrian demand was eva luated separately for both the BAU and LRT scenarios. Within the BAU scenario, the base pedestrian demand volumes were increased by 40% to reflect the anticipated increase in volumes by 2031 – this level of increase is derived from the increase in transit use within the network, as predicted by the HOT model.

3.29 All the crosswalk locations remained the same in the BAU scenario as in the base scenario, except for the intersections where additional crosswalks were added as a result of new legs at existing sites, or signalization of existing intersections (as set out in Table 3.1). At these locations, as base pedestrian counts were not available, volumes from either adjacent intersections or adjacent crosswalks were inserted as a proxy.

3.30 Within the LRT scenario, pedestrian volumes would be predicted to increase throughout the corridor (as in the BAU), but particularly in and around the LRT stops.

18 Future Year VISSIM Models

For each of the LRT stops within the VISSIM model, there is a corresponding LRT patronage as output from the HOT model. The following steps outline the steps required to convert the HOT model passenger volumes to the VISSIM model pedestrian demand.

I Extract pedestrian demand from the HOT model (3 hour model) for each of the LRT stops and convert to the two hour VISSIM time period of interest; 07:0009:00 and 16:0018:00 (note that since there is no PM version of the HOT model, the AM passenger volumes are transposed and a 16% ‘uplift’ factor applied. This factor is based on the respective sizes of the AM and PM base year total traffic volumes within the network); I Assign the pedestrians onto the VISSIM network depending on the location of pedestrian crossings. In general, pedestrians are assigned 50% to the north and 50% to the south of each stop. In the case of there being a midblock crossing associated with the LRT stop, then the pedestrians are assigned to this crossing rather than a crosswalk at an upstream intersection. Once pedestrians are assigned to either the north or south of the LRT stop, they then reach another pedestrian crosswalk where they are then assigned either to the east or west. Typically the east/west split is also 50%/50%. However, at a few locations, a weighting is applied to reflect the local land use. The pedestrians are then assumed to ‘disappear’ into the network. I The pedestrian volumes are then profiled by 15 minute time period by using the pedestrian count at each location (similar to how the traffic inputs are profiled). I This LRT stop pedestrian assignment is then added to the BAU crosswalk volumes (as background pedestrian movements) to give the total pedestrian demand on each crosswalk within the VISSIM model of the LRT scenario 3.31 Figures 3.3 and 3.4 present the peak hour passenger volumes as output from the HOT model for both the north and south LRT loops in the AM peak. These passenger volumes are then converted to the 2 hour VISSIM volumes and assigned to the VISSIM network as per the steps listed above. 3.32 As set out in the VISSIM Base Model report, the VISSIM model includes two levels of pedestrian crosswalk detail, depending of the actual volumes at each intersection. A higher level of detail (i.e. discrete modelling of pedestrians, and full interaction with traffic movements) was included where:

I Total intersection flow of 400 pedestrians per hour or more. At a 4leg intersection, this equates to around 34 pedestrians on each crosswalk every cycle (assuming a cycle time of around 120 seconds); or I Any one crosswalk with a pedestrian flow of 200 pedestrians per hour or more

19 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 3.3 BRAMPTON GO DOWNTOWN MISSISSAUGA BRAMPTON GO LOAD PROFILE

FIGURE 3.4 PORT CREDIT DOWNTOWN MISSISSAUGA PORT CREDIT LOAD PROFILE

3.33 Due to significant levels of LRT patronage at all stops, all intersections leading directly to the LRT platform, plus the adjacent intersection either side of this intersection, generally passed either of the above criteria. Consequently, in the LRT scenario, most intersections along the corridor section of the model now include discrete pedestrian modelling on all crosswalks, plus the majority of intersections along the LRT alignment within downtown Mississauga.

20 Future Year VISSIM Models

4 Future Year Demand

Overview of VISSIM demand

4.1 This section describes the process used to build the future year BAU and LRT demand matrices for assignment within the VISSIM models for both the AM and PM peak time periods. The horizon year to be modelled within VISSIM is 2031.

4.2 As per the base models, the VISSIM model time periods for the future year are from 07000900 with the peak hour from 08000900. Similarly the VISSIM PM period runs from 16001800, with the peak period running from 17001800. 4.3 The traffic demand for VISSIM takes on the two vehicle classifications of car and truck. These categories are consistent with the City of Mississauga and Region of Peel traffic counts which are split into these two categories. The traffic counts from Brampton have three classifications of cars, trucks and heavies but for the purpose of this study the trucks and heavies are combined into an overall trucks category. Transit services are treated separately within the model, as fixed routes with a defined frequency (see previous chapter) 4.4 In order to create the peaks and troughs of actual demand within the model, the VISSIM demand inputs are required in 15 minute intervals (i.e. eight separate demand periods within each peak model). Therefore, demand over the whole course of the model time period is split into a total of 16 different intervals.

4.5 In order to ensure consistency with the base models, as set out in Chapter 2, the VISSIM future year model demand was broken down into five specific ‘subareas’ as listed below, and shown in Figure 2.2:

I Subarea 1 – Port Credit; I Subarea 2 – South Corridor; I Subarea 3 – Square One/Downtown Mississauga; I Subarea 4 – North Corridor; I Subarea 5 – Brampton 4.6 For each of the Subareas listed above, future year demand was created for BAU and LRT scenarios for the year 2031. This ensures that there is consistency with the strategic HOT model which assumes the same horizon year. Given the eight time periods and two vehicle classes, there are 16 matrices for each subarea and each scenario in each peak period model. The methodology for developing these matrices will be explained in this section.

21 Future Year VISSIM Models

Subareas 2 and 4 (South and North Corridor)

4.7 This section covers both Subarea 2 (the southern corridor) and Subarea 4 (the northern corridor) since they are very similar in the methodology used to produce the future year demand matrices.

4.8 The methodology for producing the base matrices are outlined in the “VISSIM Base Model Report” (last update – April 2013). These base matrices were used as the starting point for producing the future year matrices for 2031. 4.9 Within the base models, demand for Subarea 2 is based on a total of 28 zones and Subarea 4 is based on a total of 66 zones. For the future year models, there are also 28 zones for subarea 2 but the zones for subarea 4 has increased to 69 zones. This is to reflect future year committed development which is also contained within the HOT model, all contained within the North corridor:

I 135005 (Highway 401 South) – new access to the East (access from Highway 401 EB offramp); I 136007 (Highway 401 North) – new access to the west (access from Hurontario St); I 146005 (Highway 407 South) – new zone to the east (access from Hurontario St) 4.10 Within the north corridor and south corridor models, no route choice is available in the VISSIM model. Therefore, the following steps create the future year VISSIM matrices. A summary diagram of the process is provided at Figure 4.1 . 1. Extract the 2011 VISSIM link flows from the model (the validated base model);

2. Calculate the HOT model change in link volume ( =absolute change) for all links between the Base 2006 and 2031 BAU scenarios, and between 2031 BAU and 2031 LRT scenarios. 3. Calculate the future year VISSIM link flows on Hurontario/ Main St and for all side roads along the corridor as follows:

I VISSIM 2031 BAU = VISSIM Base 2011 flow + 80%* (HOT 2006 Base – 2031 BAU); I VISSIM 2031 LRT = VISSIM 2031 BAU flow + (HOT 2031 BAU 2031 LRT); The 80% factor is used as a simplification to factor the growth within the 25 year HOT model 2006 to 2031 period, down to a 20 year growth for the VISSIM 2011 to 2031 period.

4.11 The next four steps utilize the matrix estimation capabilities of the SATURN highway assignment model which adjust the base VISSIM matrix to match the 2031 link flows derived in step 3. The matrix estimation process in SATURN is very similar to VISUM’s TFlowFuzzy process which allows a number of consistent counts to be used to modify the prior matrices. Each count can be given a confidence interval and the estimation process works to fit the prior matrices to the count information using the routing information available from the assignment of the prior matrices on the network.

22 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 4.1 SUMMARY OF PROCESS TO GENERATE 2031 VISSIM MATRICES

4. Create a basic linkonly SATURN model for the Subarea (see a plot of the south corridor SATURN model in Figure 4.2 below). The SATURN models are identical to the VISSIM models in terms of link structure. The VISSIM base matrices are then imported in the SATURN model. 5. From step 3. above, create a set of ‘pija’ links for SATURN. Essentially these are ‘target’ lists of 2031 VISSIM BAU and 2031 VISSIM LRT flows which the SATURN program will attempt to match through the matrix estimation program.

6. Create future year SATURN assignments (2031 BAU and 2031 LRT) by assigning the ‘new estimated future year’ matrices to the SATURN network.

23 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 4.2 SATURN MODEL FOR SOUTH CORRIDOR

7. The assigned SATURN flows are checked against those in step 3 to ensure that a good match has been achieved on all links (in almost all cases, SATURN is able to very well match these flows by adjusting turning volumes accordingly). 8. The SATURN matrix estimation generates the 2031 BAU and 2031 LRT matrices which are then exported to VISSIM to be assigned onto the network.

4.12 Within step 8, the single hour auto matrices generated from SATURN are converted to 8 different matrices representing each of the 15 minute time intervals from 07:00 09:00 and 16:0018:00 separately for car and trucks. Essentially, the matrix output from SATURN is for the peak hour auto matrix, which represents the time periods 08:0009:00 and 17:0018:00 respectively. The factors for obtaining the 15 minute profiled matrices are taken from the traffic counts at each origin point into the VISSIM model (as used in the generation of the base model matrices). This ensures that the distribution of trips over the model period are reproduced, for example, to show school drop off/pick up peaks. In order to obtain a truck matrix, factors obtained from traffic count data are applied to the SATURN matrix, by time period to obtain the 8 profiled matrices for each subarea and each scenario.

24 Future Year VISSIM Models

4.13 Note that for the creation of PM peak matrices, a HOT model was not available. As explained in the VISSIM Base Model Report, a PM peak HOT model was created from a simple transpose of the AM peak HOT model, with a revised uplift factor to represent a lower growth rate in the PM peak due to a more saturated network.

Port Credit, Brampton and Downtown Mississauga

4.14 Within the base models, demand for Subarea 1 (Port Credit) is based on a total of 10 zones with no change in the zoning system within the future year models. Subarea 5 (Brampton) is based on a total of 14 zones with the same zone structure as the base model, except for the inclusion of one extra zone to represent the new City Hall parking structure on George Street (zone 158103).

4.15 For the Downtown Mississauga model, the zone structure is also the same as in the Base model except that there are three new residential zones located to the west of Confederation Parkway. There are 77 zones contained within the Downtown Mississauga Model.

I 400601 new development to the West of Confederation (Prince of Wales) I 400701 new development to the west of Confederation (Princess Royal) I 400801 –new development to the west of Confederation (City Centre) 4.16 These area based VISSIM submodels allow route choice between each origin and destination. The steps required to generate future year matrices are very similar to the north and south corridor method, with some minor differences:

I Within step 2 of the process as defined within the corridor methodology, the link changes are not applied to all links within the VISSIM model. For example, for the Downtown Mississauga model, all major internal links such as Burnhamthorpe Road, Rathburn Road, Mavis Road etc are used to update the matrices, but not all more minor internal links I The HOT model does not specifically contain zones for the car parks but these zones are required within the future year VISSIM models. The zone totals are based on flows as listed in the document “City of Brampton Traffic, Transportation and Transit Assessment”. I Within the Brampton model, apply the HOT model changes for the Brampton GO Rail zone; I Within the Port Credit model, apply the HOT model changes for the Port Credit GO Rail zone.

25 Future Year VISSIM Models

Matrix Totals

4.17 Table 4.1 presents the VISSIM model peak hour matrix totals for both the Base and the BAU scenarios, with the truck percentage listed in parenthesis. The percentage growth between the two scenarios is also displayed.

TABLE 4.1 2011 VISSIM BASE VS 2031 VISSIM BAU PEAK HOUR MATRIX TOTALS

AM Peak VISSIM Matrix Totals (truck %) Subarea Base BAU Difference (%)

1Port Credit 4,624 (6%) 4,587 (6%) 1%

2South Corridor 13,776 (4%) 13,653 (4%) 1%

3Downtown Mississauga 25,958 (3%) 28,709 (3%) 11%

4North Corridor 32,386 (5%) 34,976 (5%) 8%

5Brampton 4,624 (4%) 4,922 (4%) 6%

PM Peak VISSIM Matrix Totals (truck %) Subarea Base BAU Difference (%)

1Port Credit 5,245 (4%) 5,331 (4%) 2%

2South Corridor 15,228 (2%) 15,437 (2%) 1%

3Downtown Mississauga 32,827 (2%) 34,621 (2%) 5%

4North Corridor 36,407 (3%) 37,464 (3%) 3%

5Brampton 5,127 (2%) 5,463 (2%) 7%

4.18 Table 4.1 shows that in the AM peak, there is growth between the 2011 Base and the 2031 BAU for the Downtown Mississauga, North Corridor and Brampton subareas. Growth is generally higher within City of Brampton, which is consistent with the proposed landuse changes over the wider area.

4.19 Growth rates between Base and BAU are lower in the PM peak which reflects the more saturated road network in this time period, as applied in the HOT modelling process through the use of a lower uplift factor. 4.20 Similarly Table 4.2 presents the VISSIM model matrix for both the Base and LRT scenarios.

26 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 4.2 2011 VISSIM BAU VS 2031 VISSIM LRT PEAK HOUR MATRIX TOTALS

AM Peak VISSIM Matrix Totals (truck %) Subarea BAU LRT Difference (%)

1Port Credit 4,587 (6%) 4,511 (6%) 2%

2South Corridor 13,653 (4%) 12,903 (4%) 5%

3Downtown Mississauga 28,709 (3%) 27,696 (3%) 5%

4North Corridor 34,976 (5%) 32,671(5%) 7%

5Brampton 4,922 (4%) 4,559 (4%) 7%

PM Peak VISSIM Matrix Totals (truck %) Subarea BAU LRT Difference (%)

1Port Credit 5,331 (4%) 5,201 (4%) 2%

2South Corridor 15,437 (2%) 14,372 (2%) 7%

3Downtown Mississauga 34,621 (2%) 33,592 (2%) 3%

4North Corridor 37,464 (3%) 34,792 (3%) 7%

5Brampton 5,463 (2%) 5,203 (2%) 5%

4.22 Table 4.2 shows that in both peak periods, there is a consistent reduction in matrix sizes between the BAU and LRT scenarios. As would be expected, the reduction is greatest in the south and north corridor, due to the reduction in mainline capacity throughout the sections. Although there is a drop in Table 4.2 for downtown Mississauga, the LRT total matrix sizes are larger than the corresponding Base scenario totals, demonstrating that the background growth in this area is more prominent than the drop in volumes on Hurontario Street.

27 Future Year VISSIM Models

4.23 Table 4.3 displays the matrix totals for Downtown Mississauga (subarea 3) together with a breakdown of the internal zone origin and destination totals for the Base, BAU and LRT scenarios. VISSIM 2000s* zones are Downtown Mississauga zones (26 zones) which are typically located to the west of Duke of York Boulevard, and to the south and east of City Centre Drive. VISSIM 3000s zones (12 zones) represent the Square One shopping Centre parking areas.

TABLE 4.3 DOWNTOWN MISSISSAUGA MATRIX SUMMARY

VISSIM Base BAU LRT Zone

Diff to Base Diff to Base Trip Totals Trip Totals (v/h) Trip Totals (v/h) (%) (%) Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest Orig Dest

AM Peak

2000s* 2,764 4,284 4,751 5,696 72% 33% 4,695 5,647 70% 32%

3000s 431 1,068 466 1,220 8% 14% 465 1,211 8% 13%

Total 25,958 25,958 28,709 28,709 11% 11% 27,696 27,696 7% 7%

PM Peak

2000s* 4,818 3,917 6,081 5,856 26% 49% 6,061 5,830 26% 49%

3000s 1,931 2,085 2,269 2,239 17% 7% 2,251 2,204 17% 6%

Total 32,827 32,827 34,621 34,621 5% 5% 33,592 33,592 2% 2%

* Also includes Downtown Mississauga VISSIM zones 400701, 400801, 119001, 117003, 192002, 191002 4.24 Table 4.3 shows that whilst the overall growth between the base and BAU and the base and LRT VISSIM matrices is relatively modest (ranging from 2% to 11%), the growth associated within the ‘internal Downtown Mississauga’ is of a higher magnitude (ranging from 26% to 72%).

28 Future Year VISSIM Models

5 VISSIM Assignment

5.1 Once the demand for each of the five subareas has been established, it can be assigned to the VISSIM model of the associated subarea. These steps are similar to those used within the process to generate the base VISSIM models. 5.2 Figure 5.1 shows the next stage of the process, to get from the initial assignment within the five subareas, to the creation of a combined VISSIM model for the whole Hurontario Street/Main Street network.

5.3 The process can also be described in the following stages (for each subarea model):

I Step 1: Apply matrices to subarea model and run dynamic assignment I Step 2: Dynamic assignment process in VISSIM involves gradually adding levels of traffic (from 10% demand levels up to 100% demand levels in small increments) – this allows the model to build up a library of possible routes for each OD move, and a set of costs for each route. I Step 3: The model runs to convergence, so that subsequent model runs (run n versus run n+1 ) shows little difference in assignment. This level was set at the following:  Subareas 2 and 4 – all flows to be within 25 vehicles for all turning movements, for all 15minute periods  Subareas 1, 3 and 5 all flows to be within 50 vehicles for all turning movements, for all 15minute periods

I Step 4: Once converged, the dynamic assignment is converted to a static assignment in each of the five subarea models (i.e. converted from the last assignment of the matrices, to fixed inputs and routings to and from each zone) I Step 5: Inputs and fixed routings combined together from each subarea to create a full network model of the corridor I Step 6: Output from final combined model produced

29 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 5.1 VISSIM MODEL TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND CONVERGENCE

30 Future Year VISSIM Models

6 Business as Usual and LRT Model Output

General

6.1 A number of forms of output have been obtained from the BAU and LRT models, in order to compare against the various future scenarios. These are:

I Link flows I Levels of service (link) I Levels of service (node) I Maximum Queue Lengths I Network performance. 6.2 All results, have been collected from running each respective model for 6 different seed values. The seed value provides a randomly generated variation in vehicle behaviour and flow generation within each time interval. In this way, the model results for BAU and LRT present the average conditions over several seed values (an analogy to different days), rather than the results from a single model run (or single day).

6.3 The following sections present some overall output from the model for the Base, BAU and LRT scenarios. However, additional output is also presented in some of the appendices, also outlined below.

Link Flows

6.4 Appendix B shows data extracted for the AM Peak 08000900 period and PM Peak 17:0018:00 period (the peak hours within the 2hour modelled period), with the network split into eight different sections for greater clarity, for the following scenarios:

I 2011 Base AM I 2011 Base PM I 2031 BAU AM I 2031 BAU PM I 2031 LRT AM I 2031 LRT PM

Levels of Service (Link)

6.5 Appendix C shows levels of service output on a link basis, based on the delay experienced on the approach to each downstream intersection and the turning movement made at that intersection. The service boundaries are:

I LOS A: Delay <10 seconds I LOS B: Delay 1020 seconds

31 Future Year VISSIM Models

I LOS C: Delay 2035 seconds I LOS D: Delay 3555 seconds I LOS E: Delay 5580 seconds I LOS F: Delay >80 seconds 6.6 Table 6.1 shows the overall summary of LOS results on a link basis.

TABLE 6.1 BASE, BAU AND LRT MODEL OUTPUT LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE

AM Peak PM Peak Link Level Base BAU LRT Base BAU LRT of Service Links % Links % Links % Links % Links % Links %

A 132 32% 100 24% 71 16% 104 25% 85 20% 65 15%

B 77 19% 95 23% 88 20% 96 23% 87 21% 72 17%

C 111 27% 104 25% 91 21% 104 25% 112 27% 100 23%

D 86 21% 92 22% 120 28% 81 19% 95 23% 114 26%

E 7 2% 26 6% 34 8% 21 5% 29 7% 56 13%

F 3 1% 5 1% 27 6% 10 2% 14 3% 24 6%

Total 416 100% 422 100% 431 100% 416 100% 422 100% 431 100%

6.7 As would be expected, link performance deteriorates from Base to BAU, and from BAU to LRT scenarios. However, even in the LRT scenario, the number of links in the network that operate with a LOS of E or F is relatively small.

Node Level of Service

6.8 Appendix C also shows levels of service output on a node basis, based on the delay experienced on all movements at the intersection. This data was output from the VISSIM model using the node evaluation output.

6.9 The service boundaries are:

I LOS A: Delay <10 seconds I LOS B: Delay 1020 seconds I LOS C: Delay 2035 seconds I LOS D: Delay 3555 seconds I LOS E: Delay 5580 seconds I LOS F: Delay >80 seconds 6.10 Table 6.2 shows the overall summary of BAU and LRT LOS results on a node basis. For comparison, the base VISSIM model node level of Service results are also presented.

32 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 6.2 BASE, BAU AND LRT MODEL SCENARIOS NODE LEVELS OF SERVICE

AM Peak PM Peak Node Level of Base BAU LRT Base BAU LRT Service Nodes % Nodes % Nodes % Nodes % Nodes % Nodes %

A 36 32% 26 23% 15 13% 31 27% 19 17% 13 11%

B 48 42% 46 41% 30 26% 42 37% 37 33% 27 23%

C 21 19% 23 20% 35 30% 23 20% 29 26% 35 30%

D 8 7% 10 9% 18 16% 13 12% 22 19% 25 22%

E 0 0% 8 7% 17 15% 4 4% 3 3% 11 9%

F 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 3 3% 5 4%

Total 113 100% 113 100% 116 100% 113 100% 113 100% 116 100%

6.11 Table 6.2 provides similar levels of performance to the link LOS results in Table 6.1, albeit with a reduced proportion of occurrences of node LOS E and F. Further details of the relative performance of key intersections, and sections of the route, between each scenario are provided in subsequent chapters.

Queue Lengths

6.12 Appendices D and E respectively provide average and maximum queue lengths in metres on a link approach basis. As no queue surveys for undertaken, this output is purely used to compare queue lengths between scenarios.

Network Performance Statistics

6.13 Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 shows the network performance data collected from the VISSIM model of each scenario, for the AM and PM peak periods, 08:0009:00 and 17:0018:00 respectively. This output is obtained directly from the VISSIM network performance output files.

6.14 As would be expected, there is an increase in overall traffic levels in the network between Base to BAU scenarios due to background traffic growth, and this results in increases in average delay per vehicle and total travel time, and a reduction in the average speed within the network.

33 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 6.3 AM PEAK NETWORK PERFORMANCE STATISTICS – 08000900

Parameter Base BAU LRT

Average Delay per vehicle (s) 97 132 162 Average speed (km/h) 31.5 27.6 23.4 Total distance travelled (km) 154,000 166,000 146,000 Total vehicles in network (All) 76,500 81,200 79,600 Total travel time (h) 4,890 6,050 6,270 Delay as % of total journey time 42.3% 49.3% 57.0% Average trip time (s) 230 268 284

TABLE 6.4 PM PEAK NETWORK PERFORMANCE STATISTICS – 17001800

Parameter Base BAU LRT

Average Delay per vehicle (s) 119 148 176 Average speed (km/h) 28.3 25.3 21.4 Total distance travelled (km) 171,000 176,000 154,000 Total vehicles in network (All) 88,100 90,600 88,400 Total travel time (h) 6,070 6,980 7,200 Delay as % of total journey time 48.0% 53.3% 60.2% Average trip time (s) 248 277 293

6.15 In the LRT scenario, a drop in total traffic levels is expected due to the reduction in capacity on Hurontario Street over much of the corridor. This leads to a more significant reduction in total vehiclekilometres, due to the drop in longer through trips along the corridor. A reduction in the average speed is also expected due to the reduced capacity and signal priority given to the LRT vehicles.

6.16 Tables 6.3 and 6.4 also show that the operation in the PM peak is generally more critical than in the AM peak, and as shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, the Base PM peak scenario has more intersections closer to capacity than in the AM peak period.

General Traffic Travel Times

6.17 Figures 6.1 to 6.4 show a comparison of journey times along the LRT corridor in the northbound and southbound directions, for the AM and PM peak periods respectively.

6.18 Table 6.5 and 6.6 also shows the results, as a numerical comparison between the Base, BAU and LRT scenarios.

34 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 6.1 TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON – AM PEAK NORTHBOUND

35 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 6.2 TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON – AM PEAK SOUTHBOUND

36 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 6.3 TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON PM PEAK NORTHBOUND

37 Future Year VISSIM Models

FIGURE 6.4 TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON – PM PEAK SOUTHBOUND

38 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 6.5 JOURNEY TIME STATISTICS – BASE AND BAU (IN MINUTES)

AM Peak PM Peak

Base 2011 BAU 2031 Base 2011 BAU 2031

Northbound

Min 28.8 29.4 33.7 29.1

Mean 36.6 40.4 38.2 41.5

Max 40.1 44.6 42.0 46.3

Mean Difference +10% +9%

Southbound

Min 32.4 31.6 34.3 37.6

Mean 38.4 40.1 38.6 43.3

Max 42.3 44.0 42.3 47.9

Mean difference +4% +12%

TABLE 6.6 JOURNEY TIME STATISTICS – BAU AND LRT (IN MINUTES)

AM Peak PM Peak

BAU 2031 LRT 2031 BAU 2031 LRT 2031

Northbound

Min 29.4 38.3 29.1 45.3

Mean 40.4 50.1 41.5 52.6

Max 44.6 52.9 46.3 53.6

Mean Difference +24% +27%

Southbound

Min 31.6 39.1 37.6 44.4

Mean 40.1 49.1 43.3 50.8

Max 44.0 54.5 47.9 54.2

Mean difference +22% +17%

39 Future Year VISSIM Models

6.19 As can be seen in Table 6.5, the difference between Base and BAU travel times is moderate, representing a change in travel time in line with the moderate increases in traffic volumes predicted along the corridor, plus the reoptimisation of some critical intersection signal timings to improve operation.

6.20 Table 6.6 shows that travel times in the LRT scenario generally increase by around 20% compared to the BAU scenario – in most cases this is equivalent to around a 810 minute extra journey time from Port Credit to downtown Brampton in both directions. This is due to the reduction of capacity on the majority of the corridor, and the re optimisation of signal timings across some sections to give minimise LRT delays where possible.

LRT Travel Times

6.21 Tables 6.7 and 6.6 provide output from the VISSIM model in terms of LRT run times for the two looped services. This output is compared to the spreadsheet based Run Time Model (RTM runs 22 and 23).

TABLE 6.7 PORT CREDIT LOOP – LRT RUN TIMES (IN MINUTES)

Port Credit Service Distance (m) RTM VISSIM AM VISSIM PM Port Credit GO Mineola Street 630 1.6 1.4 1.3 Mineola Street North Service Road 1,410 2.9 3.2 3.0 North Service Road Queensway 525 1.2 1.2 1.3 Queensway Dundas Street 975 1.8 2.1 3.3 Dundas Street Cooksville GO 650 1.7 2.4 1.3 Cooksville GO Central Parkway 940 1.9 1.5 1.5 Central Parkway Matthews Gate 480 1.1 1.0 1.6 Matthews Gate – Robert Speck Parkway 570 1.8 1.4 2.4 Robert Speck Parkway Rathburn Road 1,010 2.6 2.3 2.2 Rathburn Road – Duke of York Boulevard 705 1.9 1.7 1.7 Duke of York Boulevard Main Street 635 1.9 1.7 1.7 Main Street Matthews Gate 610 2.0 1.9 2.0 Matthews Gate Central Parkway 480 1.1 1.2 1.1 Central Parkway Cooksville GO 940 1.7 2.6 2.3 Cooksville GO Dundas Street 650 2.0 2.1 1.7 Dundas Street Queensway 980 2.0 2.5 2.4 Queensway North Service Road 510 1.2 1.1 1.1 North Service Road Mineola Street 1,425 2.7 2.9 2.7 Mineola Street Port Credit GO 620 1.7 1.4 1.4 Total 14,745 34.8 35.5 35.9 Average speed (km/h) 25.4 24.9 24.6

40 Future Year VISSIM Models

TABLE 6.8 BRAMPTON LOOP – LRT RUN TIMES (IN MINUTES)

Brampton service Distance (m) RTM VISSIM AM VISSIM PM Brampton GO Wellington Street 500 1.6 2.0 1.8 Wellington Street Nanwood Drive 1,250 3.3 3.3 3.3 Nanwood Drive Charolais Blvd 1,080 1.8 2.2 2.2 Charolais Blvd – Gateway Terminal 560 1.2 1.3 1.4 Gateway Terminal Sir Lou Drive 670 1.6 1.7 1.7 Sir Lou Drive Ray Lawson Blvd 470 1.1 1.4 1.1 Ray Lawson Blvd Highway 407 1,340 2.2 2.3 2.1 Highway 407 Derry Road 630 1.2 1.4 1.4 Derry Road Courtneypark Drive 1,540 2.0 2.8 2.7 Courtneypark Drive Britannia Road 1,680 2.7 3.3 3.0 Britannia Road Matheson Blvd 930 1.6 1.5 1.5 Matheson Blvd Bristol Road 770 1.4 1.4 1.6 Bristol Road Eglinton Avenue 1,200 1.8 2.1 2.1 Eglinton Avenue – Robert Speck Parkway 1,670 3.3 3.3 3.1 Robert Speck Parkway Main Street 930 2.3 3.1 3.1 Main Street – Duke of York Boulevard 710 2.0 2.7 2.7 Duke of York Boulevard Rathburn Road (CCTT) 640 2.0 1.7 1.7 Rathburn Road (CCTT) Eglinton Avenue 1,825 4.6 3.5 4.3 Eglinton Avenue Bristol Road 1,205 2.1 2.2 2.1 Bristol Road Matheson Blvd 770 1.7 1.9 1.7 Matheson Blvd Britannia Road 920 1.6 1.6 1.5 Britannia Road Courtneypark Drive 1,690 2.8 3.9 3.2 Courtneypark Drive Derry Road 1,530 2.2 2.8 2.7 Derry Road Highway 407 630 1.2 1.4 1.5 Highway 407 Ray Lawson Blvd 1,340 2.5 2.6 2.3 Ray Lawson Blvd Sir Lou Drive 480 1.1 2.0 1.8 Sir Lou Drive Gateway Terminal 660 1.6 1.4 1.5 Gateway Terminal Charolais Blvd 560 1.2 1.9 1.2 Charolais Blvd Nanwood Drive 1,090 1.8 2.1 2.1 Nanwood Drive Queen Street 1,425 3.8 4.2 4.3 Queen Street Brampton GO 330 1.2 1.0 1.0 Total 31,025 62.7 69.6 67.8 Average speed (km/h) 29.7 26.7 27.4

6.22 A postmodel adjustment was been made to the VISSIM output, to reduce all travel times by 10%. This is an approximation to represent the improvement in operation that an adaptive signal control and LRT priority strategy would have over the more rigid standard TSP logic utilised in the VISSIM model. An adaptive control mechanism would be able to make more strategic decisions over the adjustment of intersection signal timings over a number of cycles before the LRT approaches, and therefore minimise delay to both LRT and general traffic – in the VISSIM model, priority is given on an

41 Future Year VISSIM Models

intersection by intersection basis, and is therefore reactive rather than proactive I optimising intersection signal timings. The adjusted figures are the ones shown in Tables 6.6 and 6.7.

6.23 As can be seen for the Port Credit loop, the VISSIM adjusted output is similar to the RTM output, with run times in the VISSIM model predicted to be around 1 minute longer (or 23%). 6.24 For the Brampton loop, the VISSIM adjusted output is around 57 minutes longer than the corresponding RTM output, representing an increase of 811%. There are two main sections of the network, in which there is a significant difference between the two models:

I Derry Road to Britannia Road (both directions) – this section of Hurontario Street is less trafficked than other sections of the route, with the intersection spacing less intense than on other sections. This provides more of an issue for the VISSIM method of control than on other sections, as coordination for LRT in both directions is more difficult (on shorter section between LRT stops, the intersection coordination can be better controlled to provide bidirectional priority). In reality, due to the lower traffic levels on this section, a higher level of priority could be afforded, and an adaptive method of control would be able to better adjust intersection offsets to minimise LRT priority. Consequently, within this section, achieving similar levels of run time to the RTM output (as might be expected by introducing higher level adaptive control) would eliminate close to 50% of the currently predicted extra run time. I Robert Speck Parkway to Main Street – this section of route passes through the key intersection of Burnhamthorpe/Hurontario. At this intersection, LRT priority is limited due to the congested nature of the intersection, and the restrictions on operation due to the long pedestrian crosswalk distances (and thus long walk times and clearance periods). Consequently, it is not anticipated that an improvement in run time could be achieved at this strategic location within the road network.

42