U.S. 75 Dallas, Texas, Model Validation and Calibration Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
U.S. 75 Dallas, Texas, Model Validation and Calibration Report www.its.dot.gov/index.htm Final Report – February 2010 FHWA-JPO-10-034 EDL Number 14941 Produced by the Technical Support and Assistance for the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Operations contract DTFH61-06-D-00004 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government is not endorsing any manufacturers, products, or services cited herein and any trade name that may appear in the work has been included only because it is essential to the contents of the work. i Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-JPO-10-034 EDL No. 14941 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Integrated Corridor Management February 2010 U.S. 75 Dallas, Texas – Model Validation and Calibration Report 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Minh Le, Khaled Abdelghany, Christopher Poe, Vassilis Papayannoulis, and Vassili Alexiadis 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 11. Contract or Grant No. Oakland, California 94607 DTFH61-06-D-00004 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE HOP Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes The COTM for FHWA is Dale Thompson. 16. Abstract This report presents the model validation and calibration results of the Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) analysis, modeling, and simulation (AMS) for the U.S. 75 Corridor in Dallas, Texas. The purpose of the project was to estimate the benefits of applying ICM strategies to the U.S. 75 corridor. The base year for the U.S. 75 corridor modeling was 2007. The U.S. 75 team used the DIRECT traffic model developed by Southern Methodist University (SMU) as the mesoscopic model for this analysis. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement validation, calibration, mesoscopic, Integrated Corridor Management No Restrictions. (ICM), incident, criteria, data, pioneer site, simulation, and Dallas, TX, US 75 19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price report) page) 82 NA unclassified unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................. 1 1.1 MODEL VALIDATION AND CALIBRATION CRITERIA ........................................ 1 1.2 MODEL VALIDATION/CALIBRATION APPROACH ............................................ 2 Chapter 2. Highway Validation/Calibration ............................................. 4 2.1 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 4 2.1 ORIGIN-DESTINATION TRIP TABLE .............................................................. 4 2.3 SCREENLINE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 6 2.4 INDIVIDUAL LINK ANALYSIS RESULTS .......................................................... 8 2.5 ROADWAY TRAVEL TIME DATA .................................................................... 9 Chapter 3. Visual Audits ......................................................................... 12 3.1 INDIVIDUAL LINK SPEEDS .......................................................................... 12 3.2 SPEED/FLOW ADJUSTMENTS.................................................................... 13 3.3 BOTTLENECKS .......................................................................................... 16 3.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUEUE OBSERVATIONS ...................................... 19 Chapter 4. Transit Validation .................................................................. 20 4.1 LRT PERSON VOLUMES ........................................................................... 20 4.2 BUS PERSON VOLUMES ........................................................................... 22 4.3 LRT PARKING LOT UTILIZATION ................................................................ 22 Chapter 5. Route Choice......................................................................... 25 Chapter 6. Known Incident Validation .................................................. 26 Chapter 7. HOV Validation ...................................................................... 32 APPENDIX A. OD Vehicle Trip Table Expansion Procedures ................. 33 A.1 STEPS TO EXPAND MORNING PEAK PERIOD OD MATRIX – MARCH 10, 2009 ............................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX B. OD Transit Trip Table Expansion Procedures ................. 35 B.1 STEPS TO EXPAND THE MORNING PEAK PERIOD TRANSIT OD MATRIX .... 35 Background ........................................................................................ 35 Methodology to Expand the Transit Trip Table ................................ 35 Findings .............................................................................................. 36 APPENDIX C. Link Volumes by Screenline .............................................. 37 APPENDIX D. OD Comparison Statistics .................................................. 50 APPENDIX E. U.S. 75 Travel Time Surveys ............................................... 53 APPENDIX F. Speed and Volume Profiles ................................................. 62 APPENDIX G. Level of Service and Arterial Queues ............................... 74 APPENDIX H. DART Bus Person Volumes ............................................... 75 APPENDIX I. Metric/English Conversion Factors .................................... 76 ii List of Tables Table 1-1. Highway Model Validation and Calibration Criteria for the ICM Corridor AMS ........................................................................................... 1 Table 1-2. Transit Model Validation and Calibration Criteria for U.S. 75 ICM-Dallas ............................................................................................... 1 Table 2-1. Screenline Volumes Used in the U.S. 75 Model Calibration .......... 7 Table 2-2. “Minor Roadway” Screenline Volumes .......................................... 7 Table 2-3. Individual Link Volume Comparison ............................................... 8 Table 2-4. Individual Link Summary, 6:30-9:00 A.M. ....................................... 9 Table 2-5. Travel Time (Minutes), 6:30-9:00 A.M. .......................................... 11 Table 3-1. Greenshields’ Model Parameters ................................................. 14 Table 3-2. Greenshields’ Parameters for SB U.S. 75 at Collins .................... 15 Table 3-3. Range of Greenshields’ Parameters for Adjusted Links ............... 15 Table 3-4. Northbound Observed Speed Contours ....................................... 17 Table 3-5. Northbound Model Speed Contours ............................................. 17 Table 3-6. Southbound Observed Speed Contours ...................................... 17 Table 3-7. Southbound Model Speed Contours ............................................ 18 Table 4-1. LRT Station Volumes, 5:30-11:00 A.M. ......................................... 22 Table 4-2. LRT Parking Lot Utilization, 5:30-11:00 A.M. ................................ 24 Table 6-1. Validation and Calibration Criteria for Known Incident ................. 28 Table 6-2. Known Incident Model Diversions ................................................ 28 Table 6-3. Known Incident Model Queue on SB U.S. 75 .............................. 31 Table 7-1. HOV Lane Volumes ...................................................................... 32 List of Figures Figure 1-1. U.S. 75 Corridor and Travel Shed ................................................. 3 Figure 2-1. Temporal Distribution Used in the U.S. 75 AMS ........................... 5 Figure 2-2. Observed Count Locations in the U.S. 75 Corridor ...................... 6 Figure 2-3. Link Volume Comparison for the U.S. 75 Model Calibration ........ 8 Figure 2-4. U.S. 75 ICM Travel Time Routes ................................................ 10 Figure 3-1. Speed and Volume Profile Example ........................................... 13 Figure 3-2. Greenshields’ Model .................................................................... 14 Figure 3-3. Speed and Volume Profile Example Before Implementing Multiregime ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 4-1. Transit Count Locations ............................................................... 21 Figure 4-2. DART Rail System Map .............................................................. 23 Figure 6-1. Known Incident Location ............................................................. 26 Figure 6-2. U.S. 75 at Collins Speed Profile for Known Incident .................. 27 Figure 6-3. Known Incident Model Diversions ............................................... 30 iii Chapter 1. Introduction This report presents the model validation and calibration results of the Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) analysis, modeling, and simulation