Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a 636 00 Brno Czech Republic e-mail: jiri.dufek @ cdv.cz - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

jacob
slide1 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a 636 00 Brno Czech Republic e-mail: jiri.dufek @ cdv.cz PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a 636 00 Brno Czech Republic e-mail: jiri.dufek @ cdv.cz

play fullscreen
1 / 23
Download Presentation
Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a 636 00 Brno Czech Republic e-mail: jiri.dufek @ cdv.cz
412 Views
Download Presentation

Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a 636 00 Brno Czech Republic e-mail: jiri.dufek @ cdv.cz

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Modelling of an optimal future road connection between Northeast Austria and the Czech Republic with minimal environmental impacts. Jiri DufekTransport Research Centre Lísenská 33a636 00 BrnoCzech Republice-mail: jiri.dufek@cdv.cz

  2. Outline • Project objective and brief description of traffic situation • Problems with environmentally protected areas • Description of transport plans in 2 scenarios • Model approach: - creation of model transport network - demand modelling - traffic assignment - matrix and network calibration - freight transport - supposed general transport growth to 2020 (in all Czech Republic)

  3. Outline 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year: -“Do nothing” scenario -Official scenario - Alternative scenario 6. Scenarios comparison -  “do nothing” vs. official -    “do nothing” vs. alternative -    official vs. alternative 7. Conclusions

  4. 1. Project objective and brief description of traffic situation Project objective • to optimise future road connection between North East (NE) Austria and the Czech Republic • to increase the vehicle speed, to mitigate congestions • to minimize environmental impacts - the intersection of future infrastructure and protected natural areas Alternatives (year 2020) • zero – no new infrastructure • official – one new, two widened roads, onemotorway and one road city bypasses • alternative – one new (different route), one widened, one motorway city bypass

  5. 1. Project objective and brief description of traffic situation The model area • a sub-model of the national Czech Republic model: two from totally fourteen regions • a 1/7 of the whole Czech Republic area – about 10 000 sq.km • added on North East part of Austria

  6. B A 2. Problems with environmentally protected areas Two protected natural areas in the vicinity of roads • A – natural wetland „Nove Mlyny: many endangered species • B – protected natural forest area „Vate Pisky“ („Drifted Sand) • pure regime: both are in European „Natura 2000“ structure – no building of new infrastructure allowed (unless it would be „public interest“)

  7. B A 3. Description of transport plans in 2 scenarios The „official“ R52 R55 bypass 2 bypass 1 • 4-lane motorway (R52) enlarged to the south, a new 4-lane motorway (R55)is designed western form present road I/55, two towns bypasses planned • very old: planned since 70-ties (lack of environmental protection at this time), impact on traffic already modelled, an implementation is problematic – many mitigation measures required (i.e. fauna passages)

  8. B A 3. Description of transport plans in 2 scenarios The „alternative“ R52 R55 bypass 1 • 4-lane motorway (R52) not enlarged, a new motorway (R55) is designed eastern from the present road I/55, motorway, one town bypass planned (town of Breclav, 4-lanes) • environmentally frendlier - avoidance of natural areas • impact of traffic unknown – that is why this project was started (by NGO´s)

  9. 4. The model approach The model approach • subnetwork of the our National Czech Model (also done in EMME) • zones: cities towns, big villages, • the sub-model contains two from totally 14 Czech regions, about 1/7 of the total area • the North East Austria network added • new zones added: smaller villages, new external zones (traffic from/to another Czech regions) The model contains • 3 network scenarios: „zero“, „official“ and „alternative“ • each scenario contains 172 zones: • 111 Czech internal zones (cties, towns, villages) • 7 Austrian internal zones (cities, towns) • 49 Czech external zones (entries to/from model area) • 5 Austrian external zones

  10. 4. The model approach Demand modelling • No. of inhabitants of the cities and villages • data from population census: no. of people leaving a zone (commuting, schools) • attractivity: No. of jobs, area of shopping centres • enthropy model used: e^-θ.Upq • model does not involve public transport • that is why - no modal split modelling done: used an average split (42 % of car transport) in the Czech Republic Calibration of demand matrix • modification of θ parameter: θ = 0.05 – avg. travel time 28,8 min (corresponds to statistics available) • monitoring of demand changes betwen selected big zones due to the change of θ parameter: • final calibration: help of the macro „demadj22“ – improvement of R2 from 0.895 to 0.975

  11. 4. The model approach Calibration of demand matrix – graphic example • example - monitoring of changes in demand between selected big cities by modification of θ parameter • selection is done with a help of zone groups

  12. 4. The model approach Differences between the Czech and Austrian part of the model • Czech Rep: enough data – a standard model approach • good socioeconomic data (population census) • good traffic data (from traffic census) • all passenger traffic modeled • Austria – lack of the data – a specific approach • no socioeconomic data, no access to traffic census • only data from border crossings – a fundament for finding the total demand between NorthEast Austria and the Czech Republic) • this demand (from AUS to Czech) has been split to main traffic origins in NE AUS: 7 internal (most to Vienna) and 5 external (highways to Vienna from south) • the Austrian OD pair in input matrix (e^-θ.Upq) had to be set to zero • resulted volumes - only trans-boundary passenger traffic

  13. 4. The model approach Differences between the Czech and Austrian part of the model • displayed link value: observed counts • five CZE-AUS border crossings • No. of cars passing known • total of crossing is considered as a total demand between NE AUS and CZE

  14. 4. The model approach Differences between the Czech and Austrian part of the model • total: 7289 cars per a day in each direction • displayed: observed counts – passenger transport (ul3) 7289 7289

  15. 4. The model approach Freight traffic in model • freight transport – not especially modelled – no freight demand matrix calculated • averages of heavy vehicles percentage (to all traffic) • 40.3 % of heavy hehicles in motorways (average) • 25.0 % of heavy hehicles in 1st class roads • 20.6 % vehicles on 2nd class roads • 18.3 % on country roads (3rd class) • extra link attribute: @hdvpr used – observed percentage of heavy vehicles • in future scenarios – supposed changes: • traffic calming in 1 border cross „Valtice – Schrattenberg (now heavy vehicles permitted) • a permission of heavy vehicles in 1 border crossing „Postorna – Reintal“ (now heavy vehicles prohibited)

  16. 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year Resulted traffic in 2020 • assignment of 3 network scenarios by a present and a future matrix • equilibrium assignment: VDF : BPR function: • variables: free flow speed, No. of lanes, link capacity • differences between present and future matrices: • different future demand of OD pairs when future infrastructure exceed modeled area • official traffic growth coefficients applied for 2020 year, compared to 2005 : • 1.29 for cars (car traffic increase by 29 % supposed) • 1.06 for heavy vehicles (supposed freight traffic increase by 6 %)

  17. 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year Resulted traffic in 2020 – „zero“ scenario • southern part of the model zoomed • „no new infrastructure“ alternative • Czech volumes: black text (all traffic) • Austrian volumes: red text (only trips to/fro the Czech Republic) • shortest path Brno – Vienna – through R52 motorway

  18. 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year Resulted traffic in 2020 – „official“ scenario • southern part of the model displayed • Czech volumes black text (all) • Austrian volumes red text (only transboundary) • green links – new (or widened) infrastructure • in Czech R: 2 bypasses, 2 new motorways • in Ausatria: Vienna bypass (planned), A5 motorway • shortest path Brno – Vienna – through R52 motorway UNCHANGED

  19. 5. Resulted traffic volumes in 2020 year Resulted traffic in 2020 – „alternative“ scenario • southern part of the model zoomed • Czech volumes black text (all) • Austrian volumes red text (only transboundary) • green links – new (or widened) infrastructure • in Czechia: 2 bypasses, 2 new motorways • in Austria: Vienna bypass (planned), A5 motorway • shortest path Brno – Vienna – through D1 motorway CHANGED

  20. 6. Scenarios comparison Scenarios comparison: „zero“ vs. „official“ Positive effect: reduction on I/55 road on 80% on 30% on 50%

  21. 6. Scenarios comparison Scenarios comparison: „zero“ vs. „alternative“ the same positive effect: reduction on I/55 road: on 50% on 40% on 60% Second positive effect: reduction on I/52 road, traffic shift to D2 motorway

  22. 6. Scenarios comparison Scenarios comparison: „A“ vs „O“ („ alternative: vs “official“) • green links– A<Ol • red links– A>O • future roads are not displayed GREEN - traffic decrease in „A“, RED - traffic increase in „A“,

  23. 7. Conclusions • „zero“ scenario is unsustainable – new infrastructure needed, • „official“ and „alternative“ scenarios have approx. the same (positive) impact on traffic in eastern part of the modeled area (planned R55 motorway), • „official“ and „alternative“ scenarios have a different impact in western part of the modeled area (alternative scenario will shift traffic to present highway D2), • the „alternative“ scenario should change shortest path between Brno and Vienna cities, • „alternative“ scenario will affect environmentally sensitive areas substantially less that the „official“ one – IT SHOULD BE PREFERED, • a new EIA study comparing all 3 scenarios is desirable. Thank you for your attention !