Challenges in Using Paramics in a Secondary Plan Study – Case Study of Downsview, TorontoParamics Users Group MeetingOctober 5, 2009

Overview

• Background• Existing Conditions• Future Traffic Demands• Future Model Scenarios• Challenges• Discussions

2

Study Background

• Secondary Plan Update involving:Land Use and Urban Design PlansTransportation AssessmentServicing

• Secondary Plan Update to harness a new subway line that will run through the plan area.

• Paramics model used to develop and evaluate the network alternatives and identify preferred option

3

Study Area Context - City of Toronto

4

Study Area / Issues

5

Future subway extension to York University

Future intermodal station

Study Background - Issues

Opportunity/Constraint Details

Physical Constraints •Bombardier Runway•North south CN Railway line•Federal Parkland

Policy & Operational Constraints •Existing roadways at capacity•No widening of surrounding arterials

Planned Transportation Improvements

•New subway line•TransitCity- LRT line on Finch Avenue•New intermodal station for Regional (GO train) and subway line

6

Study Objectives

• Issues to be addressed by modelling Identify preferred network including lane requirementsSensitivity analysis on specific network elementsDefine timing/phasing of major (still underway)

• Paramics Scenarios:Existing ConditionsOver 50 Future 2031 scenarios representing

alternative networks & land use permutations

7

Data Collection

• Signal timing data available for the focus area only• Traffic volumes: - Turning movement counts (TMCs) at

major intersections• Traversal matrices for 2006 and 2031 from the City’s

demand forecasting EMME model for AM peak hour• Floating car measurements of travel time along

surrounding arterial sections

8

Study Area- Existing Network

9

Wilson Ave.

Kee

le S

t.

Sheppard Ave.

Finch Ave.

Jane

St.

Bat

hurs

t St.

Duf

ferin

St.

Allen R

d.Focus Area

Sheppard Ave.

Area: 6km wide by 4 km

Total demand: 35,000

Vehicles in system: 4-5,000

Calibration and Validation

10

• Undertaken through volume comparisons at screenline, link, intersection and turning movement levels;

• Stochastic assignment method used• GEH statistic as well as % variation• Acceptable results achieved as shown below

# Datasets AM PM

Link Volumes 146 86% 85%

Intersection Volumes 27 78% 63%

Screen Line 6 100% 100%

Future 2031 Traffic Demands

• Based on traversal matrix (AM) obtained from the City• Minor adjustments as applied for existing conditions• Trips from Downsview Park (Zone 98) replaced with trip

generated from considered land-use • Adjustments for existing demands• PM demands assessed from AM and trip generation

11

Background Traffic - EMME Zoning System

12

Recommended Land Use

• Five land use scenarios developed

• Three considered in analysis Existing TMP Recommended

13

Population: 19,575Employment: 22,029Units: 9,841GFA: 1.4m (m2)

Summary of Traffic Demands

14

Scenario EMME Output Generated Final

Existing PM 36,992 - 36,992

PM 2031 – Existing Land Use 41,796 8,623 50,419

PM 2031 – New Land Use 41,796 10, 022 51,818

Land Use ScenarioAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Existing Plan 4,470 2,818 7,288 3,004 5,618 8,623

Recommended Land Use 5,205 3,360 8,565 3,514 6,508 10,022

Trip Generation

Total Paramics Demands

Network Options

Emerging Preferred

15

Network Options – Preferred

16

Paramics Future Networks

TMP

Option 2 Emerging Preferred

Option 3

Paramics Future Network – Preferred

18

Measures of Performance – Intersection LOS PM

Intersection TMP Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Preferred

Keele Street & Wilson Avenue F F F F F

Sheppard Ave. & Keele Street F E F F F

Finch Ave. & Keele Street F F D D D

Dufferin Street & Wilson Avenue D D D D E

Transit Road & Wilson Avenue C C F D F

Wilson Heights Blvd & Wilson Avenue C C D D C

Allen Road & Sheppard Avenue W F F F F E

Transit Road & Allen Road F C C C E

Finch Ave. & Allen Road F F E E E

Sheppard Ave. & Wilson Heights Blvd C C F F F

19

Measures of Performance – Arterial LOS

Street Dir TMP Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Preferred

Keele (Wilson to Finch) 

NB F F F F F

SB F F F F F

Allen (Wilson to Finch) 

NB F F D D D

SB D D C C C

Finch (Keele to Allen) 

EB D D F F C

WB D D E D E

Sheppard (Keele to Wilson Heights) 

EB F F F F E

WB F F F F F

Wilson (Keele to Wilson Heights)  

EB F F F F F

WB E E F E E

20

Measures of Performance

• LOS does bring out significant differences

• Use of screen shots to emphasize certain operational aspects

• Use of network based measures to better show differences

TMP Network with Ramps

Option 3 Network - Ramps not provided

Allen Rd

Allen Rd.

Sheppard Ave.

Transit Rd

Sheppard Ave.

Transit Rd

Moderate queues

Extensive queues

21

Measures of Performance – Network Based

22

Measures of Performance – Network Based

This is measure of how much of the extra development demand could not be loaded into the network based on output of Paramics release file

23

Measures of Performance – Video Clip

24

Lane Requirements – Based on Modelled Volumes

25

Sensitivity Analysis

• Allen Area Configuration – (A)

• Transit Road Extension – (B)

• Roadway Extension to Wilson (C)

• E-W Roadway Extension to Keele (D)

• Dufferin St. Extension (E)

C

B

D

A

E

26

Sensitivity Analysis

Area Findings and Recommendation

A. Allen area Alternative concepts developed, three feasible ones recommended

B. Transit Road Extension Extension should be maintained

C. Roadway Extension to Wilson

Provide for improved traffic patterns, but could be omitted

D. East-West to Keele An important east west roadway that should have 4 lanes

E. Dufferin Street Extension Provide for improved traffic patterns, but not critical

27

Challenges

• Policy constraints requiring no widening of arterial networks made it difficult to develop road network

• Need to communicate study findings clearly to “non-technical” persons necessitated use of unique performance measures

• Need to satisfy all requirements resulted in modelling many scenarios. This was worsened by the need to communicate all findings in a way easily understood by non technical persons

28

Discussions / Questions

29