Forecasting/Simulation Interface on I-694 Reconstruction from I-35E to I-35W
This document details the reconstruction of I-694 from I-35E to I-35W, led by MnDOT, emphasizing the widening of the freeway, modification of five interchanges, and the importance of traffic demand modeling. It highlights critical aspects of simulation processes using CORSIM, including model calibration, driver behavior, and congestion dynamics. The analysis reveals challenges in merging forecasting with simulation, indicating the need for improved integration to address bottlenecks and enhance transportation planning. Key recommendations aim to refine data inputs for more accurate predictive modeling.
Forecasting/Simulation Interface on I-694 Reconstruction from I-35E to I-35W
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Forecasting/Simulation Interface on I-694 Reconstruction from I-35E to I-35W Mn/DOT Travel Demand Modeling Coordinating Committee December 12, 2005 Meeting Jaimie Sloboden
I-694 Reconstruction from I-35E to I-35W • Widen I-694 from 4-lanes to 6-lanes • Modification/reconstruction of 5 interchanges • I-35W • TH 10/Snelling/Hamline • Lexington • Victoria St • Rice Street • Completes Un-weave the weave • I-35W not part of the “plan”
MN/DOT’s Freeway Simulation Process • CORSIM is the Current Simulation Program (being reviewed by Eil Kwon and U of M) • Field Observations • Base Model Development • Error Checking • Model Calibration • Driver Behavior • Alternatives Analysis • Final Report
Simulation Limits (Temporal) • Duration of Congestion in Metro Area is 3 to 5 hours per peak period • 1 hour simulation models in metro inadequate (Lake St Access Case Study proved this) • 15 minute data
Simulation Limits vs. Project Limits • Extended Boundary Limits required to “Feed” Traffic into Project Area • Analysis of non-project elements “required” • Non-project elements in simulation model may or may not be part of TSP, TIP, STIP, TPP • Non-project elements may create a bottleneck impacting the analysis
Forecasting Process • Mn/DOT Metro Guidelines • Reviewed and updated Land Use • Reviewed and updated Network Attributes • Screen line Evaluation • Post Processing applied • Base error applied to Future error • Reasonableness Checks
Converting Forecasts to Simulation Inputs • Single Peak Hour (forecast) converted to 3-hour 15 minute data (simulation) • 694 model had 15,000 traffic volume inputs • Big Math Problem! • Two Approaches • Option 1: factor existing 15 minute data by peak hour ratio • Option 2: Forecast 15-minute data o-d (Crosstown model) • Option 1 used for I-694
Sample Calculations • Existing 15-minute pattern duplicated • There are challenges with this process
Conclusions • Better interaction required between Forecasting and Simulation processes • Preparing 15-minute forecasts for simulations problematic • Forecasting process needs to catch up with Simulation • Qa/QC • Network coding errors • Systematic approach • Simulation exposes many issues with the “Plan”, dealing with these new issues