slide1 l.
Download
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

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

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


  • 405 Views
  • Uploaded on

Modelling of an optimal future road connection between Northeast Austria and the Czech Republic with minimal environmental impacts. Jiri Dufek Transport Research Centre Lísenská 33a 636 00 Brno Czech Republic e-mail: jiri.dufek @ cdv.cz Outline

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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

slide2

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)

slide3

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

slide4

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
slide5

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
slide6

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“)
slide7

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)
slide8

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)
slide9

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
slide10

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
slide11

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
slide12

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
slide13

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
slide14

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

slide15

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)
slide16

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 %)
slide17

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
slide18

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
slide19

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
slide20

6. Scenarios comparison

Scenarios comparison: „zero“ vs. „official“

Positive effect:

reduction on I/55

road

on 80%

on 30%

on 50%

slide21

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

slide22

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“,

slide23

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 !