ABSTRACT TAGLIAFERRI, ANTHONY PAUL. Use and Comparison of Traffic Simulation Models in the Analysis of Emergency Evacuation Conditions. (Under the direction of Dr. Billy M. Williams). The evacuation of vulnerable coastal areas in the event of an emergency such as an impending hurricane has become a significant safety issue due to the rapid growth of both permanent and tourist populations in these areas. Highway capacity has often not been upgraded in line with this demand growth. In the case of Hurricane Floyd in 1999, evacuations of areas of North and South Carolina resulted in several highly congested primary highways and, as a result, several states created Lane Reversal Plans for interstates and/or divided highways along evacuation routes. However, these plans were created with little data to rely on as to their efficiency. A major research study was funded by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to use simulation modeling to investigate the effects of the Interstate 40 Lane Reversal Plan on the evacuation of Wilmington and New Hanover County, North Carolina. In addition to the analysis of the effects of lane reversal, a side-by-side comparison of the CORSIM and VISSIM simulation models was performed on the highway network based on demand estimates provided by a demand study performed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Analysis using CORSIM and VISSIM showed lane reversal to provide considerable capacity increases to traffic attempting to exit New Hanover County via Interstate 40, which had significantly increased throughput and decreased queues within New Hanover County in the event of large-scale evacuations. BIOGRAPHY Anthony P. Tagliaferri was born on January 26, 1981 in Rochester, New York to Paul O. and Jamie L. Tagliaferri and resided in the town of Avon, New York from birth to age 18 where he attended Avon Primary, Middle, and Junior High schools and the McQuaid Jesuit High School in Rochester. Upon graduation from McQuaid in June, 1999, the author moved to North Carolina and received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree at Duke University in Durham. Upon graduation from Duke, Anthony headed to Raleigh to complete the necessary requirements for the Master of Science in Civil Engineering degree at the North Carolina State University. His focus was centered generally on transportation, and more specifically in traffic operations. During his time at NCSU, Anthony served as Vice President of the student chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. As an undergraduate, Anthony spent a total of four summers as an intern with two transportation consulting firms in Rochester, NY as well as one firm in Raleigh, NC. The author will move on to a full-time position in transportation engineering in the southeastern United States upon completion of the Master’s Program at NCSU. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --First, I would like to thank Dr. Billy M. Williams, who served as the chair of my advisory committee and put up with all those drop-ins to his office and random questions I would throw at him about the project when he least expected them. Also I would like to express gratitude to Dr. Joseph E. Hummer and Dr. Nagui M. Rouphail, who also served on my thesis committee. These three professors not only helped this document become a reality, but also provided continuing support to me in my two years at NCSU through answering my questions related to class work, graduation logistics, helping me get more involved in ITE, NCSU and Duke sports, the NHL lockout, and anything else I’m good at rambling on about. Thanks also must be extended to Dr. John R. Stone, who introduced me to the NCSU faculty and whose help allowed me to sneak over here from Durham in my last semester at Duke and take a transportation Senior Design class when I knew I was destined for transportation. --I would be remiss if I didn’t sincerely thank my parents for all the help they’ve provided me from day one to today, 24-plus years later. Anytime I’ve needed them, they’ve been there for me with nothing but continuous love and support and without them I would be nowhere near this computer typing this document today. --I’d like to extend thanks to the NCDOT for funding the research associated with this thesis. --Finally, I also need to extend thanks to Mr. Lyle Overcash at Martin/Alexiou/ Bryson, PLLC in Raleigh. Mr. Overcash has been more than just a supervisor to me since I joined M/A/B as an intern in the summer of 2002. He has been a mentor and a true friend, even if he constantly gives me a hard time about being from the north. Without his guidance, I would be a shell of the traffic engineer I’ve developed into at this point. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 1.1 Background and Problem Statement.............................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Scope and Objectives......................................................................................... 3 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................7 2.1 Review of Current Evacuation Plans and Procedures.................................................... 7 2.2 Contraflow Implementation........................................................................................... 8 2.3 Determining Evacuation Demand................................................................................ 12 2.4 Contraflow Crossovers................................................................................................. 13 2.5 Modeling Lane Reversal Plans .................................................................................... 14 2.6 Evaluating and Comparing Simulation Models........................................................... 16 2.6.1 OREMS.............................................................................................................................................19 2.6.2 CORSIM ...........................................................................................................................................19 2.6.3 Synchro/SimTraffic...........................................................................................................................20 2.6.4 VISSIM.............................................................................................................................................21 2.7 Summary...................................................................................................................... 22 3.0 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................24 3.1 Outline of Research Methods....................................................................................... 24 3.2 Study Area Background............................................................................................... 24 3.3 Evacuation Demand Estimation................................................................................... 34 3.3.1 Response Time Curves......................................................................................................................36 3.3.2 Evacuation Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................36 3.3.3 Background Traffic...........................................................................................................................38 3.4 Demand Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 39 3.5 Simulation Model Parameters and Calibration............................................................ 40 3.5.1 Parameter Comparison Between Models ..........................................................................................41 3.5.2 Sample Size.......................................................................................................................................43 3.5.3 Effectiveness of Dynamic Traffic Assignment in VISSIM...............................................................44 3.6 Performance Measures................................................................................................. 45 3.7 Summary...................................................................................................................... 46 4.0 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ....................................................................50 4.1 Outline of Analysis Procedures ................................................................................... 50 4.2 Phase 1 (Detailed Contraflow Transition Investigation) ............................................. 51 4.3 Phase 2 (New Hanover County) Simulation Runs and Measures of Effectiveness..... 53 4.4 Severe Event Case No Contraflow versus Contraflow Results ................................... 55 4.4.1 CORSIM ............................................................................................................................................55 4.4.2 VISSIM..............................................................................................................................................57 4.4.3 Discussion..........................................................................................................................................58