Model Validation

Report
Microsimulation for Rural
and Exurban Regions:
Lake County, California
David Gerstle (presenting) & Zheng Wei
Caliper Corporation
Executive Summary
• Microsimulation is an important tool for modeling
exurban and rural areas
• Congestion is often not an important driver of
travel times
• “Minutia” such as grade, curvature, and lane
widths are vitally important
• Shown using a case-study of Lake County,
California using Caliper’s TransModeler
microsimulation software:
– Show how we calibrated & validated the model
– Show failure to validate absent grade, curvature, lane
widths, etc.
Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
Project Background
• Lake County Area Microsimulation Model
(LAMM)
• To develop a traffic simulation model that:
– Supports planning and operational analysis
– Focuses on SR-20, SR-53, and SR-29 and the
communities surrounding Clear Lake
– Extends and complements existing models and
modeling activities
• To evaluate future-year scenarios
Project Background
• Lake County Area Microsimulation Model
(LAMM)
• To develop a traffic simulation model that:
– Supports planning and operational analysis
– Focuses on SR-20, SR-53, and SR-29 and the
communities surrounding Clear Lake
– Extends and complements existing models and
modeling activities
• To evaluate future-year scenarios
• Approx. 2 hr. drive from SFO
to southern Lake County
Lake
County
Project Background
• Lake County Area Microsimulation Model
(LAMM)
• To develop a traffic simulation model that:
– Supports planning and operational analysis
– Focuses on SR-20, SR-53, and SR-29 and the
communities surrounding Clear Lake
– Extends and complements existing models and
modeling activities
• To evaluate future-year scenarios
• Dominant route for through
traffic passes through
populated areas
Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
Outline
• Project Background
• Model Scope
– Geography
– Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Model Preparation
• Model Minutia
Lake
County
Lake
County
• 450 square miles of Lake
County, from Middletown
(Napa border) to Upper Lake
(Mendocino border)
Lake
County
Lake
County
• 720 miles of roadway (120
miles on State Routes)
• 4,200 Links and 3,300 Nodes
• All roads in the regional travel
demand model are included
Lake
County
Nice
• High level of detail
for local streets
Lake
County
• Intersection geometry
accurately reproduced
Outline
• Project Background
• Model Scope
– Geography
– Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Model Preparation
• Model Minutia
Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Times of day include two peak periods
– 6:00 – 9:00 AM
– 3:00 – 6:00 PM
• Vehicle Population
– Auto
– Truck
Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Times of day include two peak periods
– 6:00 – 9:00 AM
– 3:00 – 6:00 PM
• Vehicle Population
– Auto
– Truck
Outline
• Project Background
• Model Scope
• Model Preparation
– Data Collection
– Model Calibration
– Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Outline
• Project Background
• Model Scope
• Model Preparation
– Data Collection
– Model Calibration
– Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Data Collection
•
•
•
•
GPS-recorded travel times
O-D surveys
Turning movement counts
Directional counts
Data Collection
GPS Travel Times
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
Data Collection
GPS Travel Times
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
Data Collection
GPS Travel Times
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
Data Collection
GPS Travel Times
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
Outline
• Project Background
• Model Scope
• Model Preparation
– Data Collection
– Model Calibration
– Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Model Calibration
• Take the calibrated travel demand model as the
starting point
• Iteratively cycle between
– Trying to match turn & directional counts
– Trying to equilibrate route choices
• Target traffic count calibration standards set by
Caltrans
Model Calibration
Calibrated
• Take the calibrated
travelTravel
demand model as the
Demand Model
starting point
• Iteratively cycle between
– Trying to match turn & directional counts
Match Counts
Match Times
– Trying
to equilibrate route choices
(ODME)
(DTA)
• Target traffic count calibration standards set by
Caltrans
Calibrated
Micro-simulation
Model
Model Calibration
AM Peak
Meets Standard?
• Take the calibrated travel demand
model
as
the All
1st Hour
2nd
Hour
3rd
Hour
Individual Roads
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
% Difference
starting
point
Total
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Segment
Individual Roads
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
•Flows
Iteratively
cycle between
Statistical Significance
Total
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes counts
Yes
– Trying to match turn & directional
Yes
Yes
– Trying to equilibrate route choices
n/a
n/a
Individual Movements
% Difference
Turning
Total
Movement
Individual Movements
Flows
Statistical Significance
Total
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n/a
n/a
PM Peak
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
• Target traffic count
calibration
standards
set
by
Individual Roads
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
% Difference
Caltrans
Total
Segment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Flows
Statistical Significance
Individual Roads
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Individual Movements
% Difference
Turning
Total
Movement
Individual Movements
Flows
Statistical Significance
Total
Outline
• Project Background
• Model Scope
• Model Preparation
– Data Collection
– Model Calibration
– Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Model Validation
• Take the calibrated traffic simulation model as the
starting point
• Iteratively cycle between
– Trying to match point-to-point travel times
– Reviewing/revisiting model development and calibration
steps
• Target travel time calibration standards set by
Caltrans
Model Validation
Calibrated
Traffic
• Take the calibrated
traffic
simulation model as the
Simulation Model
starting point
• Iteratively cycle between
– Trying to match point-to-point travel times
Revisit Calibration
Match Times
– Reviewing/revisiting
model development
and calibration
(ODME/DTA)
(Simulation)
steps
• Target travel time calibration standards set by
Caltrans
Validated
Micro-simulation
Model
Point-to-Point Travel Times
Model Validation
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR-53
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
Middletown
Model Validation
AM Southbound Travel Times
Boundary
GPS: 6.63 min
TSM: 6.82 min
: 2.9%
Upper Lake
GPS: 15.95 min
TSM: 15.89 min
: 0.36%
Lucerne
GPS: 13.35 min
TSM: 15.03 min
: 11.82%
SR-53
GPS: 15.92 min
TSM: 16.17 min
: 1.61%
Kelseyville
GPS: 11.29 min
TSM: 8.95 min
: 23.07%
GPS: 16.92 min
TSM: 17.79 min
: 5.01%
Lower Lake
GPS: 20.25 min
TSM: 21.63 min
: 6.85%
Middletown
Model Validation
AM Northbound Travel Times
Boundary
GPS: 6.48 min
TSM: 6.97 min
: 7.21%
Upper Lake
GPS: 15.65 min
TSM: 16.53 min
: 5.49%
Lucerne
GPS: 13.87 min
TSM: 14.87 min
: 6.99%
SR-53
GPS: 15.22 min
TSM: 16.56 min
: 10.56%
Kelseyville
GPS: 13.12 min
TSM: 8.93 min
: 37.98%
GPS: 17.52min
TSM: 18.21 min
: 3.84%
Lower Lake
GPS: 20.53 min
TSM: 21.86 min
: 6.31%
Middletown
Model Validation
PM Southbound Travel Times
Boundary
GPS: 6.24 min
TSM: 6.96 min
: 10.92%
Upper Lake
GPS: 15.58 min
TSM: 16.38 min
: 5.01%
Lucerne
GPS: 13.51 min
TSM: 15.34 min
: 12.73%
SR-53
GPS: 16.03 min
TSM: 16.61 min
: 3.56%
Kelseyville
GPS: 10.66 min
TSM: 9.30 min
: 13.64%
GPS: 16.86 min
TSM: 17.95 min
: 6.26%
Lower Lake
GPS: 20.52 min
TSM: 21.62 min
:5.21%
Middletown
Model Validation
PM Northbound Travel Times
Boundary
GPS: 6.55 min
TSM: 6.99 min
: 6.45%
Upper Lake
GPS: 15.02 min
TSM: 16.58 min
: 9.88%
Lucerne
GPS: 13.12 min
TSM: 15.03 min
: 13.53%
SR-53
GPS: 17.31 min
TSM: 16.54 min
: 4.57%
Kelseyville
GPS: 10.14 min
TSM: 9.21 min
: 9.60%
GPS: 16.82 min
TSM: 18.55 min
: 9.81%
Lower Lake
GPS: 19.96 min
TSM: 22.42 min
: 11.60%
Middletown
Northbound
Southbound
Model Validation
From
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Kelseyville
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Middletown
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
To
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Middletown
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Kelseyville
LB TSM TT
6.68
15.32
14.73
8.84
21.54
15.93
17.34
6.91
16.30
14.60
8.81
21.61
16.35
17.99
AM
Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT
6.82
6.97
15.89
16.55
15.03
15.38
8.95
9.06
21.69
21.82
16.22
16.52
17.84
18.43
6.97
7.02
16.53
16.76
14.87
15.17
8.93
9.05
21.86
22.13
16.56
16.81
18.21
18.43
Avg. GPS TT % difference
6.63
2.90%
15.95
0.36%
13.35
11.82%
11.29
23.07%
20.25
6.85%
15.37
5.34%
16.41
8.38%
6.48
7.21%
15.65
5.49%
13.87
6.99%
13.12
37.98%
20.53
6.31%
15.22
8.48%
17.52
3.84%
TSM is…
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Longer
Longer
Northbound
Southbound
Model Validation
From
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Kelseyville
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Middletown
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
To
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Middletown
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Kelseyville
LB TSM TT
6.68
15.32
14.73
8.84
21.54
15.93
17.34
6.91
16.30
14.60
8.81
21.61
16.35
17.99
AM
Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT
6.82
6.97
15.89
16.55
15.03
15.38
8.95
9.06
21.69
21.82
16.22
16.52
17.84
18.43
6.97
7.02
16.53
16.76
14.87
15.17
8.93
9.05
21.86
22.13
16.56
16.81
18.21
18.43
Avg. GPS TT % difference
6.63
2.90%
15.95
0.36%
13.35
11.82%
11.29
23.07%
20.25
6.85%
15.37
5.34%
16.41
8.38%
6.48
7.21%
15.65
5.49%
13.87
6.99%
13.12
37.98%
20.53
6.31%
15.22
8.48%
17.52
3.84%
Lower and Upper Bounds
calculated by bootstrapping sample
TSM is…
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Longer
Longer
Northbound
Southbound
Model Validation
AM
From
To
LB TSM TT Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT % difference TSM is…
Boundary
Upper Lake
6.68
6.82
6.97
6.63
2.90%
Longer
Upper Lake Lucerne
15.32
15.89
16.55
15.95
0.36%
Shorter
Lucerne
SR 53
14.73
15.03
15.38
13.35
11.82%
Longer
SR 53
Lower Lake
8.84
8.95
9.06
11.29
23.07%
Shorter
Lower Lake Middletown
21.54
21.69
21.82
20.25
6.85%
Longer
Upper Lake Kelseyville
15.93
16.22
16.52
15.37
5.34%
Longer
of the set
runs
Kelseyville 1.Create
Lower Lake bootstrapped
17.34
17.84sample
18.43
16.41 of simulation
8.38%
Longer
Upper Lake 2.For
Boundary
6.91 in bootstrapped
6.97
7.02sample,
6.48create7.21%
Longer
each run
Lucerne
Upper
Lake
16.30 sample
16.53 of point-to-point
16.76
15.65
bootstrapped
travel 5.49%
times Longer
SR 53
Lucerne
14.60
14.87
15.17
13.87
6.99%
Longer
3.Calculate
expected
travel
time
for
each
simulation
run
Lower Lake SR 53
8.81
8.93
9.05
13.12
37.98%
Shorter
Middletown Lower Lake
21.61
21.86
22.13
20.53
6.31%
Longer
Kelseyville Upper Lake
16.35
16.56
16.81
15.22
8.48%
Longer
Lower Lake Kelseyville
17.99
18.21
18.43
17.52
3.84%
Longer
Lower and Upper Bounds
calculated by bootstrapping sample
Northbound
Southbound
Model Validation
AM is to say this
Which
Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT
is
NOT an
average
6.82
6.97
6.63
of all of the
15.89
16.55point-to15.95
15.03
15.38times 13.35
point travel
From
To
LB TSM TT
% difference TSM is…
Boundary
Upper Lake
6.68
2.90%
Longer
Upper Lake Lucerne
15.32
0.36%
Shorter
Lucerne
SR 53
14.73
11.82%
Longer
SR 53
Lower Lake
8.84
8.95
9.06
11.29
23.07%
Shorter
Lower Lake Middletown
21.54
21.69
21.82
20.25
6.85%
Longer
Upper Lake Kelseyville
15.93
16.22
16.52
15.37
5.34%
Longer
of the set
runs
Kelseyville 1.Create
Lower Lake bootstrapped
17.34
17.84sample
18.43
16.41 of simulation
8.38%
Longer
Upper Lake 2.For
Boundary
6.91 in bootstrapped
6.97
7.02sample,
6.48create7.21%
Longer
each run
Lucerne
Upper
Lake
16.30 sample
16.53 of point-to-point
16.76
15.65
bootstrapped
travel 5.49%
times Longer
SR 53
Lucerne
14.60
14.87
15.17
13.87
6.99%
Longer
3.Calculate
expected
travel
time
for
each
simulation
run
Lower Lake SR 53
8.81
8.93
9.05
13.12
37.98%
Shorter
Middletown Lower Lake
21.61
21.86
22.13
20.53
6.31%
Longer
Kelseyville Upper Lake
16.35
16.56
16.81
15.22
8.48%
Longer
Lower Lake Kelseyville
17.99
18.21
18.43
17.52
3.84%
Longer
Lower and Upper Bounds
calculated by bootstrapping sample
Northbound
Southbound
Model Validation
From
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Kelseyville
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Middletown
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
To
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Middletown
Kelseyville
Lower Lake
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR 53
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Kelseyville
LB TSM TT
6.90
16.15
15.13
9.19
21.42
16.34
17.66
6.92
16.36
14.84
9.10
22.28
16.28
18.15
PM
Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT
6.96
7.02
16.38
16.61
15.34
15.56
9.30
9.41
21.62
21.82
16.61
16.89
17.95
18.25
6.99
7.05
16.58
16.78
15.03
15.20
9.21
9.31
22.42
22.57
16.54
16.81
18.55
19.02
Avg. GPS TT % difference
6.24
10.92%
15.58
5.01%
13.51
12.73%
10.66
13.64%
20.52
5.21%
16.03
3.56%
16.86
6.26%
6.55
6.45%
15.02
9.88%
13.12
13.53%
10.14
9.60%
19.96
11.60%
17.31
4.57%
16.82
9.81%
TSM is…
Longer
Longer
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Shorter
Longer
Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
–
–
–
–
Curvature
Grade
Lane Width
Two-lane Highway Passing
Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
–
–
–
–
Curvature
Grade
Lane Width
Two-lane Highway Passing
Curvature
Curvature
Radius of 20ft, curvature
of (1/20ft)*1000ft = 50 in
Segment layer
Curvature
Curvature
Maximum speed is
constrained by the radius
Curvature
Percent with
Radius < 498 ft
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
0.00%
0.00%
5.13%
5.13%
9.89%
9.89%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
AM














Effect of No Curvature on Expected Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM






































































Curvature
Effect of No Curvature on Expected Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
0.00%






0.00%






5.13%






5.13%
 at 




Curvature
9.89%






which
maximum
9.89%






0.00%
 mph




speed 55
0.00%






0.04%






0.04%






0.00%






0.00%






0.00%






0.00%






Percent with
Radius < 498 ft
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
Curvature
Effect of No Curvature on Expected Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM























































 Travel




Reduction
in


Time for two pairs with 


mostcurvature











Percent with
Radius < 498 ft
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
0.00%
0.00%
5.13%
5.13%
9.89%
9.89%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
–
–
–
–
Curvature
Grade
Lane Width
Two-lane Highway Passing
Grade
Grade
1,000 ft long
30 ft of elevation gain,
from USGS DEM
Grade
3% Grade
Grade
Effect on Acceleration
3% Grade
Effect on Max. Speed
Grade
Percent with
Abs. Grade > 4
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
1.54%
1.54%
5.40%
5.40%
4.64%
4.64%
5.39%
5.04%
26.58%
26.58%
16.37%
16.67%
16.24%
12.50%
AM














Effect of No Grade on Population Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM






































































Grade
Percent with
Abs. Grade > 4
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
1.54%
1.54%
5.40%
5.40%
4.64%
4.64%
5.39%
5.04%
26.58%
26.58%
16.37%
16.67%
16.24%
12.50%
Effect of No Grade on Population Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM






Now
looking
at
statistics






Travel 
 across
 all point-to-point



 Times
 (not at simulation



run level) 




























































Grade
Percent with
Abs. Grade > 4
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
1.54%
1.54%
5.40%
5.40%
4.64%
4.64%
5.39%
5.04%
26.58%
26.58%
16.37%
16.67%
16.24%
12.50%
AM














Effect of No Grade on Population Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
















 Effect
 is opposite

 for





uphill
vs.
downhill













































Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
–
–
–
–
Curvature
Grade
Lane Width
Two-lane Highway Passing
Lane Width
Lane Width
12 ft lane
11 ft lane
10 ft lane
Lane Width
12 ft lane
11 ft lane
10 ft lane
Lane Width
Percent with
Non-12ft Lanes
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
0.16%
0.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.97%
0.00%
15.81%
0.44%
4.99%
4.84%
0.37%
0.16%
AM














Effect of Lane Width on Expected Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM






































































Lane Width
Percent with
Non-12ft Lanes
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
0.16%
0.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.97%
0.00%
15.81%
0.44%
4.99%
4.84%
0.37%
0.16%
AM














Effect of Lane Width on Expected Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM










Back
to
Expected





 Travel
 Time 




















































Lane Width
Percent with
Non-12ft Lanes
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
0.16%
0.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.97%
0.00%
15.81%
0.44%
4.99%
4.84%
0.37%
0.16%
AM














Effect of Lane Width on Expected Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM

























Travel
Time
drops







Lane Width


without





restriction






























Outline
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Model Scope
Model Preparation
Model Minutia
–
–
–
–
Curvature
Grade
Lane Width
Two-lane Highway Passing
Two-lane Highway Passing
Two-Lane Highway Passing
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
Percent with
Passing
Allowed
29.93%
36.54%
9.62%
10.11%
4.52%
2.00%
19.18%
12.64%
13.01%
14.01%
24.83%
22.55%
14.46%
18.55%
AM














Effect of No Passing on Population Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM






































































Two-Lane Highway Passing
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
Percent with
Passing
Allowed
29.93%
36.54%
9.62%
10.11%
4.52%
2.00%
19.18%
12.64%
13.01%
14.01%
24.83%
22.55%
14.46%
18.55%
Effect of No Passing on Population Travel Time...
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM






Now
looking
at
statistics






Travel
 across
 all point-to-point




 Times
 (not at simulation

 level) 

run




























































Two-Lane Highway Passing
NB
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Lucerne
SB
NB
Lucerne/SR 53
SB
NB
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
SB
NB
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
SB
NB
Lower Lake/Middletown
SB
NB
SR 53/Lower Lake
SB
SR-53
SR-29
SR-20
Boundary/Upper Lake
Percent with
Effect of No Passing on Population Travel Time...
Passing
Mean
Median
95th Percentile
Allowed
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
29.93%


 travel
 time,as expected

• Generally
increases
36.54%






•
Exceptions
are
due
to
network
effects
9.62%






10.11%






4.52%






2.00%






19.18%






12.64%






13.01%






14.01%






24.83%






22.55%






14.46%






18.55%






Conclusion
Lane level detail is essential for accurate modeling of
rural and exurban regions
Conclusion
Lane level detail is essential for accurate modeling of
rural and exurban regions, and, as a corollary,
microsimulation is essential for accurate modeling of
rural and exurban regions
Thank you
[email protected]

similar documents