Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
AITPM presentation
Citation preview
Lindfield Commuter Car Parking
Simon Kinnear & Tim Clark
SutherlandOak FlatsKiama
Moss Vale
Lindfield
Gordon
Granville
Padstow
Canley Vale
Commuter Car Parks in Sydney
Sydney CBD 14km
Hornsby 12km Study Area
Lindfield Commuter Model
Demand Development
Trips
Demand Division Matrix 4
ProfileBehaviour
Person Type
Trip Components
Demand Division Matrix 3
ProfileBehaviour
Person TypeDemand Division Matrix 2
ProfileBehaviour
Person TypeDemand Division Matrix 1
ProfileBehaviour
Person Type
Division101
Commuters102
Visitors103
Workers104
Taxi Users105
Bus Users106
TC WalkersParkers 50.0 20 30Walkers 100.0PT Users 30.0 10.0 60.0
Demand Division/Matrix Example
Matrix Selection
Types of zones
Person AreasGenerate person Trips
Traffic ZonesGenerate vehicle only trips
Transition ZonesZones attached directly to an area where a person trips is generated and then immediately placed into a vehicle before entering the network
Parking ZonesZones where People transition into or out of Vehicles
Area Parking Zone AreaParking
ZoneNetwork of Walkways
Network of Roads
Origin Defined in Matrix
Destination Defined in MatrixPath through model
determined by model costs
Network ofWalkways
Trip Assignment
Transition Zone AreaParking
ZoneNetwork ofWalkways
Network of Roads
Area Public Transport AreaPublic Transport
NetworkNetwork ofWalkways
Area Taxi AreaTaxi Stand
Network of Walkways
Network of Roads
Kiss and Ride
Network of Walkways
Network of Roads
Public Transport
Transition Zone
Person AreaTraffic Zone
Person-Person Trip
Challenges associated with parking
• Balancing the cost of different types of parking• Appreciating the effect of the pedestrian
network• Avoiding disproportionate parking turnover• Avoiding unnecessary searching
Balancing the cost of different types of parking
Diverting some person types towards particular parking spots
Table 11.1 Microsimulation Link and Turn Target Calibration/Validation Criteria (Core Area)
CORE AREA
Topic Criteria
Link or Turn Results to be tabulated in appendices and summarised in main report
Tolerance limits for core area:
Flows < 99 – to be within 10 vehicles of observed value
Flows 100 to 999 – to be within 10 per cent of observed value
Flows 1000 to 1999 – to be within 100 vehicles of observed value
Flows > 2000 – to be within 5 per cent of observed value
100 per cent of observations to be within tolerance limits
Plots of observed vs modelled hourly flows required for all observations
Plots to include lines showing core tolerance limits
R2 value to be included with plots and to be > 0.95
Slope equation to be included with plots (intercept to be set to zero)
Table 11. 5 Microsimulation Travel Time Target Validation Criteria
Topic Criteria
Journey Time Average
Average modelled journey time to be within 15 per cent or one minute (whichever is greater) of average observed journey time for full length of route. Each route should be cumulatively graphed by section as shown above
Section Time Average
Average modelled journey time to be within 15 per cent of average observed journey time for individual sections
Journey Time Variability
Average and 95 per cent confidence intervals to be plotted for observed and modelled travel times for each journey time route. Comparison to be to modeller and RMS satisfaction.
RMS Core Area Calibration/Validation Criteria
44%
4%
1%
28%3%
7%
13%
Distribution of Commuter Car Parking
Assess Change in Crossing use
Name People Mean Time Mean Flow Mean Speed Mean Density Density Walk1 545 00:00:15 272.5 2.4 1.2 -0.6 Walk2 28 00:01:02 14 4.1 0.4 Walk3 412 00:00:22 206 3.9 1.3 0.1 Walk4 412 00:00:17 206 3.6 1 0.2 Walk5 579 00:00:18 289.5 2.2 1.5 -0.5 Walk6 796 00:00:22 398 2.2 2.5 0.2 Walk7 210 00:01:00 105 2.4 1.3 -1.5 Walk8 28 00:00:32 14 4 0.2 Walk9 28 00:00:28 14 3.8 0.2 Walk11 50 00:00:21 25 3.4 0.2 -0.5 Walk12 196 00:00:18 98 3.2 0.5 0.1
Model Applications
• Asses the Impacts of proposed developments in town centre
• Assess impacts of car park configurations• Impacts to public transport and pedestrian
networks
