Challenges in Using Paramics in a Secondary PlanStudy – Case Study of Downsview, Toronto
Paramics Users Group Meeting
October 5, 2009
Overview
•Background
•Existing Conditions
•Future Traffic Demands
•Future Model Scenarios
•Challenges
•Discussions
2
Study Background
•Secondary Plan Update involving:
Land Use and Urban Design Plans
Transportation Assessment
Servicing
•Secondary Plan Update to harness a new subway linethat will run through the plan area.
•Paramics model used to develop and evaluate thenetwork alternatives and identify preferred option
3
Study Area Context - City of Toronto
4
Study Area / Issues
5
Future subway extension
to York University
Future intermodal station
Study Background - Issues
Opportunity/Constraint
Details
Physical Constraints
•Bombardier Runway
•North south CN Railway line
•Federal Parkland
Policy & Operational Constraints
•Existing roadways at capacity
•No widening of surrounding arterials
Planned TransportationImprovements
•New subway line
•TransitCity- LRT line on Finch Avenue
•New intermodal station for Regional (GOtrain) and subway line
6
Study Objectives
•Issues to be addressed by modelling
Identify preferred network including lane requirements
Sensitivity analysis on specific network elements
Define timing/phasing of major (still underway)
•Paramics Scenarios:
Existing Conditions
Over 50 Future 2031 scenarios representingalternative networks & land use permutations
7
Data Collection
•Signal timing data available for the focus area only
•Traffic volumes: - Turning movement counts (TMCs) atmajor intersections
•Traversal matrices for 2006 and 2031 from the City’sdemand forecasting EMME model for AM peak hour
•Floating car measurements of travel time alongsurrounding arterial sections
8
Study Area- Existing Network
9
Wilson Ave.
Keele St.
Sheppard Ave.
Finch Ave.
Jane St.
Bathurst St.
Dufferin St.
Allen Rd.
Focus Area
Sheppard
Ave.
Area: 6km wide by 4 km
Total demand: 35,000
Vehicles in
system: 4-5,000
Calibration and Validation
10
•Undertaken through volume comparisons at screenline,link, intersection and turning movement levels;
•Stochastic assignment method used
•GEH statistic as well as % variation
•Acceptable results achieved as shown below
# Datasets
AM
PM
Link Volumes
146
86%
85%
Intersection Volumes
27
78%
63%
Screen Line
6
100%
100%
Future 2031 Traffic Demands
•Based on traversal matrix (AM) obtained from the City
•Minor adjustments as applied for existing conditions
•Trips from Downsview Park (Zone 98) replaced with tripgenerated from considered land-use
•Adjustments for existing demands
•PM demands assessed from AM and trip generation
11
Background Traffic - EMME Zoning System
12
Recommended Land Use
•Five land usescenariosdeveloped
•Three consideredin analysis
Existing TMP
Recommended
13
Population: 19,575
Employment: 22,029
Units: 9,841
GFA: 1.4m (m2)
Summary of Traffic Demands
14
Scenario
EMME Output
Generated
Final
Existing PM
36,992
-
36,992
PM 2031 – Existing Land Use
41,796
8,623
50,419
PM 2031 – New Land Use
41,796
10, 022
51,818
Land Use Scenario
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Existing Plan
4,470
2,818
7,288
3,004
5,618
8,623
Recommended Land Use
5,205
3,360
8,565
3,514
6,508
10,022
Trip Generation
Total Paramics Demands
Network Options
Emerging Preferred
15
Network Options – Preferred
16
Paramics Future Networks
TMP
Option 2
Emerging Preferred
Option 3
Paramics Future Network – Preferred
18
Measures of Performance – Intersection LOS PM
Intersection
TMP
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Preferred
Keele Street & Wilson Avenue
F
F
F
F
F
Sheppard Ave. & Keele Street
F
E
F
F
F
Finch Ave. & Keele Street
F
F
D
D
D
Dufferin Street & Wilson Avenue
D
D
D
D
E
Transit Road & Wilson Avenue
C
C
F
D
F
Wilson Heights Blvd & Wilson Avenue
C
C
D
D
C
Allen Road & Sheppard Avenue W
F
F
F
F
E
Transit Road & Allen Road
F
C
C
C
E
Finch Ave. & Allen Road
F
F
E
E
E
Sheppard Ave. & Wilson Heights Blvd
C
C
F
F
F
19
Measures of Performance – Arterial LOS
Street
Dir
TMP
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Preferred
Keele (Wilson toFinch)
NB
F
F
F
F
F
SB
F
F
F
F
F
Allen (Wilson toFinch)
NB
F
F
D
D
D
SB
D
D
C
C
C
Finch (Keele toAllen)
EB
D
D
F
F
C
WB
D
D
E
D
E
Sheppard (Keele toWilson Heights)
EB
F
F
F
F
E
WB
F
F
F
F
F
Wilson (Keele toWilson Heights)
EB
F
F
F
F
F
WB
E
E
F
E
E
20
Measures of Performance
•LOS does bring outsignificant differences
•Use of screen shots toemphasize certainoperational aspects
•Use of network basedmeasures to better showdifferences
21
Measures of Performance – Network Based
22
Measures of Performance – Network Based
This is measure of how much of the extra development demand could not be
loaded into the network based on output of Paramics release file
23
Measures of Performance – Video Clip
24
Lane Requirements – Based on Modelled Volumes
25
Sensitivity Analysis
•Allen Area Configuration – (A)
•Transit Road Extension – (B)
•Roadway Extension to Wilson(C)
•E-W Roadway Extension toKeele (D)
•Dufferin St. Extension (E)
C
B
D
A
E
26
Sensitivity Analysis
Area
Findings and Recommendation
A. Allen area
Alternative concepts developed, three feasible onesrecommended
B. Transit Road Extension
Extension should be maintained
C. Roadway Extension toWilson
Provide for improved traffic patterns, but could beomitted
D. East-West to Keele
An important east west roadway that should have 4lanes
E. Dufferin Street Extension
Provide for improved traffic patterns, but not critical
27
Challenges
•Policy constraints requiring no widening of arterialnetworks made it difficult to develop road network
•Need to communicate study findings clearly to “non-technical” persons necessitated use of uniqueperformance measures
•Need to satisfy all requirements resulted in modellingmany scenarios. This was worsened by the need tocommunicate all findings in a way easily understood bynon technical persons
28
Discussions / Questions
29