Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Stirling Regional Centre Modelling

145 views

Published on

Presented in the Modelling Stream of the AITPM National Conference 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Stirling Regional Centre Modelling

  1. 1. Stirling City Centre Modelling Western Australia July 2016
  2. 2. A range of modelling studies were undertaken to assess and inform the transport planning process:  Largely relied on the Main Roads Road Operation Model (ROM), a road- based regional travel demand model focussing on daily traffic  Multimodal travel demand model - Strategic Transport Evaluation Model (STEM) maintained by DoP/DoT was not used  Spreadsheet modelling and SIDRA was also used to inform the road strategy and transport impact assessment  The proposed development would add significant pressure on the road network, and would require significant investment in transport infrastructure. PREVIOUS MODELLING 2 “Insufficient time was allocated for transport modelling and the modellers were under pressure from the Alliance to deliver something quickly”
  3. 3. An independent review was undertaken which included, reviewing past reports and a series of interviews. This found:  The adopted mode share assumptions were based on aspirational targets  A review needed to be undertaken of the land uses and employment growth (by type) adopted by the strategic models.  STEM is needed to estimate the future mode shares and to identify the transport improvements that would achieve the mode share targets.  An effective transport solution had to be multimodal to address the needs of both local movements and regional through movements. Modelling going forward: MODELLING REVIEW
  4. 4. LAND USE STRATEGIC MODELLING REVIEW As a result of the modelling review, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff were then engaged to: 1. Establish and agree future land uses. 2. Review strategic model forecasting and land use assumptions. 3. Implement recommendations from components 1 and 2.
  5. 5. LAND USE ASSESSMENT 5 2014 2021 2031 Increase 2014 to 2031 Population 22,562 29,944 41,068 82% Dwellings 10,975 14,255 19,175 75% Employment 31 070 38 614 43 675 41% Floor Space (m2) 2014 2021 2031 Increase 2014 to 2031 Office 186 847 218 028 328 608 76% Community 33 222 34 848 43 538 31% Retail & Food 235 374 320 816 357 846 52% Entertainment 18 263 24 963 31 463 72% Industrial 619 283 627 983 632 383 2% Total 1 092 989 1 226 638 1 393 838 28%
  6. 6.  Develop mesoscopic model of Stirling City Centre study area  Assess alternative transport network improvement options  Identify preferred transport network improvement options  Undertake microsimulation modelling of preferred transport improvement options together with “do minimum” case SCOPE OF STUDY 6
  7. 7. STUDY AREA 4 km 4 km
  8. 8. TRANSPRIORITY 8
  9. 9. ISSUES WITH THE ROAD NETWORK 9
  10. 10. SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD 10
  11. 11. PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY 11
  12. 12. FREEWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE
  13. 13. DATA COLLECTION
  14. 14. STRATEGIC MODEL DISAGGREGATION
  15. 15. CALIBRATION
  16. 16. CALIBRATION
  17. 17. VALIDATION
  18. 18. VALIDATION
  19. 19. VALIDATION
  20. 20. POSSIBLE TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 20 Powis Street – north facing ramps McDonald / Main Street signalised Main Street to Cape Street westbound, right turn removed McDonald Street bridge Stephenson Avenue extension Drake Street signalised Liege Street 4 way intersection Bus Queue Jumps Freeway ramp modifications Hutton Street extension Hector/Hutton signals replaced by Collingwood/Hutton Scarborough Beach Road bus lanes
  21. 21. PROPOSED NETWORK 21
  22. 22. COMPARISON OF ACTIVITY CENTRE NETWORK
  23. 23. ROUTE 998 AND ROUTE 999 23
  24. 24. CIRCLEROUTE AM 24
  25. 25. CIRCLEROUTE PM 25
  26. 26. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 26 Green : 800m Yellow : 1600m Red : 2400m Option C Option E/G
  27. 27. Option Time Period Network Performance Metrics Travel Time (sec/km) Average Speed (km/h) Travel Time (vehicle . hours) Travel Distance (vehicle kms) Option E AM -10.5 +1.4 -1100 -6320 PM -19.3 +2.9 -1911 -5462 Option G AM -3.6 +0.4 -501 -4988 PM -17.5 +2.2 -1478 +1956 NETWORK WIDE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE TO OPTION C 27 Vehicle Hour reduction (h) Vehicle kilometre reduction (km) Option E 3 011 11.6% 11 782 1.3% Option G 1 979 7.6% 3 032 0.3% COMBINED PEAK HOUR REDUCTIONS
  28. 28. Average travel time (all routes) 2014 Option C Option E Option G AM (mm:ss) 9:46 10:54 8:45 9:09 PM (mm:ss) 10:10 11:18 10:02 10:05 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 28  Lower cycle times reduce bus journey times  Removal of freeway ramps at Cedric Street provides the majority of the benefit to the public transport network  Option E is the superior option for both peaks % Improvement E G AM Bus journey times 25% 19% PM Bus journey times 13% 12%
  29. 29.  To cater for the additional demand in 2031 there will need to be the following considerations made:  Parking cap enforced  Less attractive parking  More attractive public transport  Additional signalised intersections into residential areas  Better use of the freeway and arterial network  Less development to be considered CONCLUSIONS 29
  30. 30.  Option E performs the best, especially for public transport  Large improvements can be made to the study area by splitting the freeway interchange and bus station  McDonald Street Bridge provides good access to the study area and slightly alleviates congestion at Hutton Street Bridge  Hutton Street extension relieves Scarborough Beach Road of congestion, however the interchange itself experiences severe delays due to additional demand using Hutton Street  The bus lanes along Scarborough Beach Road offer limited benefit  Possible alternatives involve queue jump lanes or turning lanes and a median to improve safety and pedestrian facilities CONCLUSIONS 30
  31. 31. LESSONS LEARNED  Significant challenges calibrating the base network.  Managing stakeholder perception of congestion and the best solutions.  The performance difference between the mesoscopic and the hybrid model was significant at congested locations.

×