Mt Pleasant Signal System - Draft Report 061011In conjunction with the signal system plan development, HDR developed Synchro and VISSIM models for both corridors. The models were developed

US Route 17 Adaptive Traffic Control System

Phase I Before and After

Travel Time and Delay Study

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina

DRAFT

Prepared for:

Town of Mt. Pleasant, SC

Prepared by

HDR Engineering, Inc.

June 10, 2011

Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System i June 2011 Before & After Travel Time and Delay Study DRAFT

Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction and Study Purpose ......................................................................................... 2 3.0 Study area .......................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 System Installation and signal timing ................................................................................. 3 5.0 Data Collection and Measures of Effectiveness ................................................................. 4 6.0 US Route 17 Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 6

6.1. Travel Time ..................................................................................................................... 6 6.2. Speed ............................................................................................................................. 7 6.3. Stopped Time ................................................................................................................. 9 6.4. Average Number of Vehicle Stops ............................................................................... 10 6.5. Fuel Consumption, Vehicle Efficiency, and Vehicle Emissions .................................... 10

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 11

List of Tables Table 1.0.1: US-17 PM Travel Time and Speed Summary ........................................................... 1 Table 5.0.1: PM Travel Time Runs ............................................................................................... 4 Table 6.1.1: US-17 Corridor PM Travel Times .............................................................................. 6 Table 6.2.1: US-17 Corridor PM Average Speeds ........................................................................ 7 Table 6.3.1: US-17 Corridor PM Stopped Time (min:sec) ............................................................ 9 Table 6.4.1: US-17 Corridor PM Period Average Number of Stops (rounded) ........................... 10 Table 6.5.1: US-17 Corridor PM Fuel Consumption, Vehicle Efficiency, and Emissions ............ 10 Table 7.1.1: US-17 Northbound PM Period Summary ................................................................ 11 Table 7.1.2: US-17 Southbound PM Period Summary ............................................................... 11

List of Figures Figure 3.0.1: US Route 17 Study Area ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 6.1.1: US-17 Northbound PM Travel Times (minutes) ....................................................... 6 Figure 6.1.2: US-17 Southbound PM Travel Times (minutes) ...................................................... 6 Figure 6.1.3: US-17 Corridor PM Before & After Travel Time Comparison .................................. 7 Figure 6.2.1: US-17 Northbound PM Average Speeds (mph) ...................................................... 8 Figure 6.2.2: US-17 Southbound PM Average Speeds (mph) ...................................................... 8 Figure 6.2.3: US 17 Corridor PM Before and After Installation Speeds ........................................ 8 Figure 6.3.1: US-17 Northbound PM Stopped Time (min:sec) ..................................................... 9 Figure 6.3.2: US-17 Southbound PM Stopped Time (min:sec) ..................................................... 9

List of Appendices Appendix A— VISSIM Calibration Appendix B— Manual Data and iTREC Analysis Reports

DRAFT

Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System 1 June 2011 Before & After Travel Time and Delay Study DRAFT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the initial findings of HDR’s evaluation of the recently installed US Route 17 InSync adaptive traffic control system in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. Based on an analysis of PM travel time runs conducted before and after system installation, it appears that the system has reduced travel times and increased speeds for many highway users. Specifically, during the PM period corridor travel times on US-17 decreased by 29% northbound and 17% southbound. Additional runs were conducted during the AM period, but due to weather, construction, and an incident on I-526 an insufficient number of valid travel runs were available for assessing this time period adequately. More data will be collected during the construction phase of the project. That data may shed further light on the operational impact of the new system.

Table 1.0.1: US-17 PM Travel Time and Speed Summary

Northbound Southbound Travel time (min:sec)

Average Speed (mph)

Travel time (min:sec)

Average Speed (mph)

Change % Change % Change % Change % -01:08 -29% 9.3 35% -00:43 -17% 3.6 14%

DRAFT


2.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE In 2010, the Town of Mt. Pleasant, SC implemented an adaptive traffic control system in conjunction with ongoing improvements to US Route 17. The purpose of the system was to improve traffic flow and minimize driver delays both during and after construction. HDR was requested to provide the design plans and specifications for the installation as well as to evaluate traffic conditions before installation, after installation before US-17 construction, and after installation during US-17 construction. As of May 25th, 2011 the adaptive traffic control system had been installed and before and after data (without construction) had been collected. The “during construction” data collection will not occur for many months. Therefore, this report presents the initial (in progress) findings of the analysis regarding the beneficial impacts of the adaptive traffic control system installation.). 3.0 STUDY AREA US Route 17 is a major northeast-southwest highway running through Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. In the study area, it connects the terminus of I-526 (Mark Clark Expressway) to major commercial and residential developments to the north and east as shown in Figure 3.0.1. US-17 also continues southwest to Charleston, SC and northeast up the South Carolina coast. US-17 is primarily a 6-lane divided highway from Hungryneck Boulevard to the Isle of Palms Connector (State Route 517). There are left-turn lanes at all major intersections as well as right-turn lanes at some intersections and other access points. There are six signalized intersections on US-17 in the corridor as shown and listed on Figure 3.0.1. Based on 2005 traffic data, US-17 carries approximately 35,500 to 43,000 vehicles per day in the study area.1 Recent peak period traffic counts show volumes of 2,700 to 3,400 in the AM Peak Hour and 3,300 to 3,700 during the PM Peak Hour. The posted speed limit on US-17 is 45 mph.

1 Source: Market Planning Solutions Inc. / Google. 2005 traffic counts

DRAFT


4.0 SYSTEM INSTALLATION AND SIGNAL TIMING The InSync system was installed at the six signalized intersections on US-17. It was also installed at the Hungryneck Boulevard / Venning Road intersection. The goal of the installation was to coordinate the timing for the signals in a dynamic manner, taking into account real-time changes in traffic flows, such that vehicle progression on US-17 was maximized and delays and stops were minimized. As part of the installation, new video detection cameras were added to each signal approach (typically four per intersection). The video detection cameras serve a critical data collection role within the system. The adaptive traffic control system software uses the data collected by the cameras to call individual phases at specific signals, but also to adjust the critical system operating parameters

Figure 3.0.1: US Route 17 Study Area

Key Study Intersections

1. US-17 & Ira Road 2. US-17 & I-526/Hungryneck Boulevard 3. US-17 & Mathis Ferry Road/Venning Road 4. US-17 & James Nelson Road/Market Centre Boulevard 5. US-17 & Montclair Drive/Belk Drive 6. US-17 & Greystone Boulevard/SC-517 (Isle of Palms Connector) 7. Hungryneck Boulevard & Venning Road

1

2

3

4

5

6

North Not to Scale

7

DRAFT


such as cycle length, intersection offsets, and green times. In addition to the cameras, an InSync processor is placed inside the traffic cabinet to communicate with the signal controller at each intersection.2 In conjunction with the signal system plan development, HDR developed Synchro and VISSIM models for both corridors. The models were developed to provide initial signal timing information for the adaptive traffic control system as well as to evaluate the system operations. The Synchro analysis provided initial optimized timing plans as well as existing capacity and LOS results for the two corridors. The VISSIM microscopic traffic simulation analysis provided a more detailed evaluation of the current and projected traffic operations. The VISSIM model was carefully calibrated to the existing conditions before any future (improved) runs were conducted. A detailed write-up on the VISSIM calibration is provided in Appendix A. 5.0 DATA COLLECTION AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS To evaluate the InSync system performance, HDR collected travel data in the US-17 corridor during critical weekday time periods. The travel time corridor for the analysis was US-17 from Ira Road to Isle of Palms Connector (NB and SB, approx. 1.67 miles). Before the InSync installation, travel data was collected on April 13-15, 2010 during peak traffic periods. After the installation, peak period travel runs were conducted on April 6th, 7th and 12th, 2011. Overall, over 110 travel runs were conducted. However, a number of runs had to be removed from the analysis due to the presence of an incident on I-526. Additionally, a midday period was added to the analysis for the after installation runs, so a comparison to the before conditions is not possible. Weather, the I-526 incident, and the start of construction on US-17 resulted in a small after implementation sample size during the AM, therefore it was decided that these results should not be presented until such time as further data was available (such as the additional during construction data). Therefore, this current report focuses on the PM time period results. Table 5.0.1 presents the travel time runs by direction.

Table 5.0.1: PM Travel Time Runs

Before Installation (4/13/10, 4/14/10)

After Installation (4/6/11)

US Route 17 Northbound 10 7 Southbound 6 6

In both directions, the travel time data was examined from intersection center to intersection center. This excludes the initial intersection approach from the analysis and focuses the comparison on travel times within the system. A random arrival procedure was used in the data collection, meaning that probe vehicles sometimes began traveling the corridor inside the platoon (from a stop at the first intersection) and sometimes they arrived during the green phase and traveled some, or all, of the corridor outside the platoon. This is in keeping with the data collection procedure recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Traffic Engineering Studies), and should reasonably represent the entire population of vehicles traveling the corridor during this general time period. It should be noted that the traffic volumes and time periods for the runs were somewhat different for the before and after conditions. Traffic patterns may also have varied somewhat. These factors may have affected the comparative results.

2 For more information on the InSync system please refer to the website: http://rhythmtraffic.com/index.php/insync/insyncfusion/

DRAFT


The data was collected using the floating car method.3 The before installation data collection was conducted using manual methods (i.e. recording elapsed time at specific locations using a stop watch). This method yields travel times at specific points along the route as well as estimated stopped times at signals. Average travel speeds can be calculated from this information. The after installation data was collected one year later and employed Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to allow for detailed time and distance measurements. Specifically, Holux M-241 units were used in each field vehicle. Once this data was collected, it was analyzed using iTREC. iTREC is a stand-alone software package developed by HDR/iTRANS to integrate GPS hardware with a laptop computer to record specific locations and reference times. From this information, iTREC can calculate speed, direction, delay, number of stops and other important evaluation measures. These outputs are averaged for a group of travel runs (i.e. for the same direction and time period). The data from these two data collection efforts was compared for the four variables available for the before time period: Travel Time, Average Travel Speed, Number of Stops, and Stopped Time. Additionally, a summary of the iTREC after installation output is presented for reference and for comparison to the future runs that will be conducted during construction. The PM period manual method data and iTREC data summary sheets are included in Appendix B. The key measures of effectiveness are defined here for quick reference. Distance and Length: The distance traveled (center of intersection to center of intersection) is tracked using manual observations and pre-recorded distances or using GPS data, which is converted to a length in miles by iTREC. Travel Time: This is measured in minutes and seconds and includes the entire travel time from start point (center of intersection) to end point (center of intersection) on the designated corridor. Average Travel Speed: Using the manual method, the distance is divided by the time to yield an average travel speed. The GPS/iTREC analysis estimates “instantaneous” travel speeds in miles per hour for each second of a travel time run. Longer time periods can be analyzed to provide an average for a segment or an entire travel run. The data can also be aggregated to provide an average for a group of runs. Stop Time: The time that a vehicle is stopped is estimated by the field observer for the manual method. For the GPS/iTREC method stopped time is estimated from the data using a speed of 3.73 mph and a deceleration rate of -1.24 mph/sec (in unison) as the threshold for determining if a vehicle is stopped. Number of Stops: The number of times a vehicle stops during a travel time run is recorded, using the methods and criteria discussed above for stop time. Fuel Consumption (iTREC Only): iTREC uses the travel data (e.g. travel time, speed, stops, and stopped time) as well as vehicle performance assumptions to estimate vehicle fuel consumption in gallons for a specific travel run. Vehicle Efficiency (iTREC Only): The travel data and vehicle performance assumptions are used to estimate vehicle efficiency for a specific travel run in miles per gallon (mpg).

3 The floating car method involves driving a specific corridor between pre-determined points at the prevailing speed of traffic on the roadway, while passing as many cars as pass the data collection vehicle. The vehicle location is recorded over time to allow for the calculation of a mean speed.

DRAFT


Emissions (iTREC Only): Vehicle emissions are calculated using the travel data and emissions related vehicle performance assumptions. These values are related to the fuel consumption and efficiency calculations above. The specific emissions estimated include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). All measurements are in grams. 6.0 US ROUTE 17 ANALYSIS RESULTS 6.1. Travel Time Before implementation, the average northbound travel time on US-17 over the 1.67 mile corridor was 3:56 (min:sec) in the PM as shown in Table 6.1.1. With implementation of the InSync signal system, the northbound travel time decreased by over one minute (-29%). The average PM southbound travel time before implementation was estimated at 4:20. After implementation, it decreased by 43 seconds (-17%). Graphs of the these results are presented in Figures 6.1.1 and 6.1.2.

Table 6.1.1: US-17 Corridor PM Travel Times Northbound Corridor Travel Time Southbound Corridor Travel Time

Before After Difference % Before After Difference % 03:56 02:48 - 01:08 -29% 04:20 03:37 - 00:43 -17%

Figure 6.1.1: US-17 Northbound PM Travel Times (minutes)

Figure 6.1.2: US-17 Southbound PM Travel Times (minutes)

00:00

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

PM

Before

After

00:00

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

PM

Before

After

DRAFT


In addition, the average travel time was plotted against distance by direction as shown in Figure 6.1.3. These plots represent the average travel time for all PM runs. The graphs show that the PM after implementation runs traversed the corridor in less time than the before runs.

Figure 6.1.3: US-17 Corridor PM Before & After Travel Time Comparison

6.2. Speed The average northbound speeds on US-17 prior to system implementation were between 26 and 33 mph during the PM period as shown in Table 6.2.1. After system implementation the average northbound PM speeds were 35% higher (35.7 mph). In the southbound direction, the before implementation PM average speeds were approximately 25 mph. The after installation average speed was 3.6 mph (14%) higher. Figures 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 visually display the changes in PM average vehicle travel speeds. The PM after installation average speeds were also plotted over the length of the corridor as shown on Figure 6.2.3. For the before implementation data (manual method data), only the average speed by segment was available. Therefore, those speeds are plotted as a series of horizontal lines.

Table 6.2.1: US-17 Corridor PM Average Speeds

NB Average Speed (mph) SB Average Speed (mph)

Before After Difference % Before After Difference % 26.4 35.7 9.3 35% 24.6 28.1 3.6 14%

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Before

After

DRAFT


0

10

20

30

40

PM

Before

After

0

10

20

30

40

PM

Before

After

Figure 6.2.1: US-17 Northbound PM Average Speeds (mph)

Figure 6.2.2: US-17 Southbound PM Average Speeds (mph)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Figure 6.2.3: US 17 Corridor PM Before and After Installation Speeds

Before

After DRAFT


6.3. Stopped Time Prior to implementation, total average northbound PM stopped time was 44 seconds per vehicle as shown in Table 6.3.1. With the InSync system in place, average northbound stopped times decreased substantially in the PM, with a drop of 32 seconds (-73%). In the southbound direction, stopped time also decreased in the PM (-31 seconds, -40%). Figures 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 visually display the changes in average stopped time per vehicle.

Table 6.3.1: US-17 Corridor PM Stopped Time (min:sec) Northbound Stopped Time Southbound Stopped Time

Before After Difference % Before After Difference % 00:44 00:12 - 00:32 -73% 01:17 00:46 - 00:31 -40%

Figure 6.3.1: US-17 Northbound PM Stopped Time (min:sec)

Figure 6.3.2: US-17 Southbound PM Stopped Time (min:sec)

00:00

00:30

01:00

01:30

PM

Before

After

00:00

00:30

01:00

01:30

PM

Before

After

DRAFT


6.4. Average Number of Vehicle Stops In both directions, the number of stops decreased in the PM period as illustrated in Table 6.4.1. (Please note that these numbers are rounded.)

Table 6.4.1: US-17 Corridor PM Period Average Number of Stops (rounded)

NB Average Number of Stops SB Average Number of Stops Before After Difference % Before After Difference %

2 1 -1 -50% 3 1 -2 -67% 6.5. Fuel Consumption, Vehicle Efficiency, and Vehicle Emissions The after installation data was collected using GPS and processed with the iTREC software analysis package. That package uses the travel data to estimate fuel consumption, vehicle efficiency, and vehicle emissions. This data was not available for the before time period due to the manual method used to collect that data. Table 6.5.1 shows the northbound and southbound PM period fuel consumption to be very similar, but northbound vehicle efficiency to be higher. Accordingly, the estimated northbound pollutant emissions are slightly less than for the southbound direction. This is likely related to the smaller average stopped time in the northbound direction.

Table 6.5.1: US-17 Corridor PM Fuel Consumption, Vehicle Efficiency, and Emissions

Northbound Southbound

PM PM Fuel Consumption (gal) 0.15 0.16

Vehicle Efficiency (mpg) 18.24 12.34 CO (g) 10.45 11.17

NOx (g) 2.03 2.17 VOC (g) 2.42 2.59

Total CO+NOx+VOC (g) 14.90 15.93

DRAFT


7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis of the PM period before and after implementation travel time runs, the InSync installation appears to have yielded a number of travel time and speed related benefits, as shown in Tables 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. During the PM period, average travel times decreased and average speeds increased in both directions. As mentioned previously, due to incidents, weather, and construction some of the AM period sample sizes were smaller than originally expected. Therefore, it will be beneficial to continue to assess the system operation in the future (during construction) to see how it operates and whether there are significant changes to the results when more data is included in the analysis.

Table 7.1.1: US-17 Northbound PM Period Summary


Stopped Time (min:sec)

Average Speed (mph)

Change % Change % Change % -01:08 -29% -00:32 -73% +9.3 +35%

Table 7.1.2: US-17 Southbound PM Period Summary


Stopped Time (min:sec)

Average Speed (mph)

Change % Change % Change % -00:43 -17% -00:31 -40% +3.6 +14%

- XX% = change is more than +/- 20%

DRAFT

Appendix A VISSIM Calibration

DRAFT

Memo To: Rick Fauteux

From: Luigi Casinelli Project: US 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard

CC:

Date: May 25, 2011 Job No: 060534

RE: Calibration of Existing Peak Hour VISSIM Models

This memorandum highlights the results of the calibrated VISSIM models developed to analyze a proposed adaptive traffic control system to be implemented along US Route 17 between Ira Road and Greystone Boulevard/SC-517 (Isle of Palms Connector) and along Hungryneck Boulevard between Watermark Boulevard and SC-517 (Isle of Palms Connector). The main objective of model calibration is to ensure that the model accurately reflects existing conditions including reasonably replicating traffic flow to match observed operating conditions, volume input counts, travel times and queue observations. Calibrating a simulation model is an iterative process, which typically includes modifying network geometry, lane use configuration, lane/parking restrictions and driver behavior parameters. The following sections briefly highlight the three key elements of the calibration process that were used to allow VISSIM to realistically simulate existing traffic operations during the AM and PM peak hours.

1. Data Collection & VISSIM Coding A variety of data was collected for the purpose of developing the existing peak hour VISSIM models. Several field visits (including videos of each travel time run) were conducted to verify the various modeling aspects of VISSIM. The following items were the key elements used in the coding and calibration efforts;

• Roadway Inventory (including lane widths, number of lanes, signing, etc.) • Traffic Signal Timings (timing plans were field verified) • Vehicle Classifications • Vehicle Queue Observations • Travel Time Runs

The following intersections were included in the VISSIM simulation:

1. US 17 @ Ira Road 2. US 17 @ I-526/Hungryneck Boulevard 3. US 17 @ Mathis Ferry Road/Venning Road 4. US 17 @ James Nelson Road/Market Centre Boulevard 5. US 17 @ Montclair Drive/Belk Drive 6. US 17 @ Greystone Boulevard/SC-517 (Isle of Palms Connector)

Henningson, Durham & Richardson Architecture and Engineering, P.C. in association with HDR Engineering, Inc.

500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018-4502

Phone (212) 542-6000 Fax (212) 542-6100 www.hdrinc.com

Page 1 of 9

DRAFT




Page 2 of 9

7. Hungryneck Boulevard @ Watermark Boulevard 8. Hungryneck Boulevard @ Venning Road 9. Hungryneck Boulevard @ Market Centre Boulevard 10. Hungryneck Boulevard @ SC-517 (Isle of Palms Connector)

2. VISSIM Parameters

During the calibration process, the default parameters within VISSIM were reviewed and adjusted to reflect the driving behavior of a typical Mount Pleasant driver. Based on the observed traffic and queue characteristics along US Route 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard, the following key VISSIM parameters were refined;

• Lane-change distances • Look ahead distance • Signal parameters • Acceptable Safety distances (thus decreasing vehicle headways)

At critical intersections/bottlenecks, the goal of the calibration process was to demonstrate visually acceptable queuing that reflected field observations.

3. Calibration Process The calibration of simulation models is critical when analyzing traffic operations along a corridor. It is critical that measures of effectiveness (MOE) derived from simulation models compare reasonably with data collected or observed in the field. The calibration process for this project concentrated on visual checking of queuing and traffic congestion, total volume, travel and delay times. One of the most common measures of effectiveness (MOE) that people can relate to is the average travel time or travel speed along a roadway. The average travel speed along US Route 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard from each of the peak hour VISSIM models was compared to actual travel speeds collected in the field. A series of AM and PM peak period travel time runs were conducted on April 13, 2010 and April 14, 2010. Figure 1 depicts a series of bar charts highlighting actual average field travel times along US Route 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard and the simulated travel times (all vehicles) obtained from VISSIM. The average field travel times on US-17 ranged from a low of 174 seconds to a high of 260 seconds. The US-17 VISSIM models were within +/-15% for all four values. On Hungryneck Boulevard, the values ranged from 153 to 228 seconds. The PM peak period VISSIM models on Hungryneck Boulevard were +/-3% of the field values. The AM peak period models were + 13% northbound and -20% southbound. The actual average field travel times on US-17 were calculated based on between 5 and 12 travel time runs depending on the specific peak hour. Due to weather and construction issues, fewer runs were completed on Hungryneck Boulevard. The VISSIM results were taken from six models. In general, the existing peak hour models reasonably replicated the average travel times as well as the travel speeds through the corridor.

DRAFT

Figure 1– Actual Travel Times vs. VISSIM Model Travel Times (seconds)

In addition to travel speed, GEH1 statistics were also computed to compare actual traffic volumes versus those simulated by VISSIM. The GEH statistic compares the simulation model’s link volumes against field observed link or intersection approach volumes. The formula for the "GEH Statistic" is:

Where M is the hourly traffic volume from the traffic simulation model and C is the field collected hourly traffic count.

Usually, 85 percent of the volumes in a traffic calibrated model should have a GEH less than 5.0. In general, each of the existing peak hour models developed for this project replicated actual volumes exceedingly well. Figures 2 and 3 graphically depict representations of the GEH value computed for each turning movement coded within each of the VISSIM peak hour models. In addition, Tables 1 and 2 include the results for each turning movement value in a tabular form. The AM and PM peak hour models did not have any turning movement volumes with a GEH value greater than 5.0. This suggests that each of the two peak hour VISSIM models are replicating congestion levels very well within the study area. Conclusion In general, VISSIM’s simulated travel speeds were slightly lower during the AM peak hour and higher during the PM peak hours than the actual travel speeds through the entire study limits of US Route 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard. Based upon the above-presented information, it is in our estimation that the results of the proposed methodology demonstrate that the VISSIM peak hour models are realistically simulating actual traffic operations along US Route 17 and Hungryneck Boulevard.

Henningson, Durham & Richardson Architecture and Engineering, P.C.

1 An empirical formula developed by Geoffrey E. Havers in the 1970s.

in association with HDR Engineering, Inc.



Page 3 of 9

DRAFT


Figure 2 – GEH Values for the AM Peak Hour VISSIM Model




Page 4 of 9

DRAFT


Figure 3 – GEH Values for the PM Peak Hour VISSIM Model




Page 5 of 9

DRAFT




Page 6 of 9

Table 1 – GEH Values for the AM Peak Hour VISSIM Model

Vissim Link ID

Simulation Count

Time From

Time To

Average Delay

Average Max Queue

Max Max Queue

Expected Count

GEH

10078 1991 900 4500 2.7 203.8 259 1994 0.110075 1954 900 4500 4.8 353.7 396.6 1945 0.210090 1764 900 4500 5.2 235.1 257.1 1760 0.110033 1674 900 4500 4.3 728.2 991.4 1673 0.010058 1640 900 4500 25.2 602.2 640.4 1632 0.210042 1402 900 4500 12.9 597.8 721 1376 0.710081 1247 900 4500 2.3 206.8 297.9 1235 0.310068 1231 900 4500 5.1 207.8 261 1224 0.210093 1093 900 4500 5.6 129.5 144.4 1085 0.210061 1009 900 4500 18.2 258.0 296.8 1003 0.210030 904 900 4500 4.2 200.2 245.9 891 0.410045 799 900 4500 17.4 231.9 293.2 779 0.730008 628 900 4500 2.5 102.2 131.8 636 0.330012 533 900 4500 6.3 131.5 151.9 530 0.110107 465 900 4500 12.5 225.0 294.8 467 0.110052 448 900 4500 7.1 548.7 671.9 444 0.210055 409 900 4500 15.8 566.9 605 417 0.410053 402 900 4500 55.4 305.1 335.2 413 0.530006 344 900 4500 2.6 79.9 106 338 0.310047 323 900 4500 28.7 161.3 163 323 0.010104 305 900 4500 10.6 226.1 295.8 304 0.110043 296 900 4500 52.4 305.1 335.2 303 0.410060 293 900 4500 58.2 206.2 237.3 284 0.530015 288 900 4500 7.5 125.0 153.7 283 0.310112 268 900 4500 7.5 133.3 162.8 261 0.410050 257 900 4500 33.2 161.3 163 265 0.510091 253 900 4500 61.3 200.4 231.3 244 0.610056 208 900 4500 63.0 361.3 408 216 0.510111 185 900 4500 12.0 82.0 87.4 186 0.130014 174 900 4500 46.4 255.4 339.5 179 0.410133 172 900 4500 3.8 303.4 371.2 167 0.410057 169 900 4500 7.2 144.2 175.4 170 0.110106 168 900 4500 37.8 121.7 166.9 170 0.210044 141 900 4500 8.9 66.9 80.6 141 0.010036 130 900 4500 13.6 726.9 990.1 137 0.610063 127 900 4500 37.1 206.7 237.9 127 0.010094 124 900 4500 7.9 187.2 218.1 124 0.030020 122 900 4500 41.3 255.6 339.7 128 0.510097 118 900 4500 63.3 234.9 256.9 117 0.110048 115 900 4500 11.0 156.8 217.9 115 0.030021 101 900 4500 5.8 21.3 54.1 101 0.030023 98 900 4500 35.1 147.8 187.6 99 0.110054 87 900 4500 30.6 256.8 295.7 84 0.330019 87 900 4500 4.7 98.0 118.4 91 0.410109 83 900 4500 37.6 141.2 170.6 84 0.110051 74 900 4500 32.6 191.5 252.8 72 0.210077 73 900 4500 14.6 74.2 130.5 69 0.510031 68 900 4500 6.4 0.0 0 67 0.130010 64 900 4500 2.2 85.5 115.1 59 0.610105 60 900 4500 3.4 59.2 64.6 58 0.3

DRAFT




Page 7 of 9

Vissim Link ID

Simulation Count

Time From

Time To

Average Delay

Average Max Queue

Max Max Queue

Expected Count

GEH

30016 60 900 4500 43.0 147.8 187.7 60 0.010076 59 900 4500 54.8 107.5 131.6 61 0.310037 54 900 4500 1.2 104.6 146.7 54 0.010072 54 900 4500 5.1 344.8 387.8 54 0.030011 54 900 4500 9.9 78.3 104.5 57 0.430017 54 900 4500 13.5 179.3 263.4 52 0.310074 52 900 4500 16.0 206.9 260.1 52 0.010110 48 900 4500 8.2 217.5 287.3 51 0.430022 48 900 4500 9.4 130.2 150.6 52 0.610069 43 900 4500 8.0 352.7 395.7 39 0.610108 39 900 4500 15.1 81.5 86.9 41 0.310071 38 900 4500 4.0 187.7 240.9 42 0.610079 38 900 4500 58.8 85.4 106.5 28 1.710103 37 900 4500 20.9 99.3 144.5 35 0.330009 36 900 4500 15.5 68.5 90.2 37 0.230007 34 900 4500 30.2 81.3 103 37 0.510067 32 900 4500 62.6 94.7 151 31 0.210102 32 900 4500 41.5 140.5 170 30 0.410084 30 900 4500 3.2 181.8 272.9 31 0.210085 30 900 4500 8.9 203.1 258.3 24 1.210062 28 900 4500 29.3 316.3 363.1 31 0.610113 27 900 4500 45.0 120.2 165.4 29 0.410065 25 900 4500 22.6 600.0 638.1 26 0.210064 24 900 4500 14.2 232.3 271.2 23 0.210066 24 900 4500 9.6 96.5 120.7 25 0.210059 23 900 4500 69.6 272.7 335.5 24 0.210039 22 900 4500 4.8 683.6 946.8 19 0.710092 18 900 4500 13.0 47.8 111.9 18 0.010080 17 900 4500 12.6 0.0 0 16 0.210087 16 900 4500 14.5 205.5 296.7 14 0.510034 15 900 4500 61.1 46.5 63.2 17 0.510082 13 900 4500 6.0 63.3 84.5 16 0.830013 12 900 4500 18.3 125.2 165.1 15 0.810040 10 900 4500 26.4 198.9 244.6 10 0.010073 8 900 4500 53.1 107.7 131.9 8 0.010049 7 900 4500 17.5 595.8 719.1 6 0.410046 6 900 4500 55.8 289.1 319.3 8 0.810070 5 900 4500 53.5 94.5 150.8 6 0.410083 5 900 4500 55.7 24.9 39 6 0.410088 5 900 4500 3.3 185.3 240.5 4 0.510099 5 900 4500 58.0 35.8 43.9 5 0.010041 4 900 4500 69.0 45.9 62.6 4 0.010035 2 900 4500 47.3 36.2 44.7 3 0.610095 2 900 4500 65.0 63.4 126.6 3 0.630018 2 900 4500 5.7 123.1 151.9 2 0.010089 1 900 4500 51.1 84.9 106.1 2 0.810098 1 900 4500 55.6 63.4 126.6 1 0.010101 1 900 4500 58.5 200.4 231.3 1 0.010086 0 900 4500 19.7 24.9 39 2 2.010100 0 900 4500 0.4 214.5 236.5 1 1.4

DRAFT




Page 8 of 9

Table 2 – GEH Values for the PM Peak Hour VISSIM Model

Vissim Link ID

Simulation Count

Time From

Time To

Average Delay

Average Max Queue

Max Max Queue

Expected Count

GEH

10068 2076 900 4500 6.9 495.4 529.9 2050 0.610081 2051 900 4500 2.9 117.0 151.9 2027 0.510093 1849 900 4500 4.6 141.2 144.5 1838 0.310061 1842 900 4500 10.7 500.5 547.1 1804 0.910030 1648 900 4500 17.9 612.2 752.9 1622 0.610045 1565 900 4500 11.2 464.7 727.3 1528 0.910075 1220 900 4500 6.8 218.1 296.3 1219 0.010078 1154 900 4500 4.1 175.5 238.5 1158 0.110058 1142 900 4500 16.4 323.1 381 1143 0.010033 1123 900 4500 14.0 538.0 671.9 1141 0.510090 997 900 4500 9.0 198.4 232.9 1001 0.110042 978 900 4500 37.7 508.7 612.7 975 0.130006 742 900 4500 5.3 188.9 255.8 745 0.130008 599 900 4500 5.1 108.2 112.5 601 0.110112 589 900 4500 16.1 343.8 494.6 589 0.030015 579 900 4500 14.8 221.7 264.6 597 0.710050 472 900 4500 21.4 173.3 181.6 479 0.310047 458 900 4500 21.8 173.2 181.5 451 0.310107 439 900 4500 17.4 429.5 492 440 0.010060 434 900 4500 54.5 326.2 391.9 434 0.030012 429 900 4500 8.5 150.2 177 428 0.010104 383 900 4500 14.2 430.4 492.9 387 0.210031 345 900 4500 31.5 244.0 362 342 0.210111 345 900 4500 19.5 165.7 193.6 347 0.110052 336 900 4500 12.0 459.6 563.5 347 0.610048 335 900 4500 9.9 389.5 652.1 342 0.410053 287 900 4500 48.1 212.5 230 295 0.510063 278 900 4500 41.4 326.8 392.5 281 0.210133 258 900 4500 16.2 780.0 991.2 259 0.110043 252 900 4500 47.5 212.5 230 253 0.110055 250 900 4500 9.1 287.7 345.6 248 0.110094 250 900 4500 20.9 205.1 335.4 250 0.010097 249 900 4500 59.4 198.2 232.7 250 0.110037 238 900 4500 3.1 512.8 653.5 247 0.610036 231 900 4500 43.4 536.7 670.6 250 1.230021 225 900 4500 10.7 122.1 165 223 0.110091 221 900 4500 55.0 218.3 348.6 217 0.330023 202 900 4500 33.9 259.1 298.4 202 0.010109 196 900 4500 38.9 351.8 502.6 197 0.130022 191 900 4500 14.6 148.9 175.7 193 0.110071 175 900 4500 6.4 475.4 509.9 173 0.210056 171 900 4500 51.2 244.2 323.6 174 0.210076 163 900 4500 50.5 230.4 309.4 167 0.310034 160 900 4500 72.0 340.5 458.6 169 0.730017 160 900 4500 19.7 252.7 264.6 158 0.210054 158 900 4500 21.0 498.3 544.8 154 0.330020 156 900 4500 38.6 329.0 340.9 157 0.110044 140 900 4500 8.0 194.5 380.5 142 0.210106 138 900 4500 29.5 108.9 124.5 140 0.210057 134 900 4500 7.3 264.3 330 132 0.2

DRAFT




Page 9 of 9

Vissim Link ID

Simulation Count

Time From

Time To

Average Delay

Average Max Queue

Max Max Queue

Expected Count

GEH

10051 131 900 4500 21.3 424.3 686.9 129 0.210105 126 900 4500 4.5 139.2 167.1 128 0.230009 121 900 4500 27.8 200.9 243.1 129 0.710084 114 900 4500 4.9 92.0 126.9 106 0.830014 114 900 4500 45.4 328.9 340.8 120 0.630016 114 900 4500 42.4 259.2 298.5 110 0.430011 111 900 4500 14.3 187.7 254.6 120 0.830007 106 900 4500 30.9 213.7 255.9 106 0.030010 105 900 4500 4.2 91.5 95.8 107 0.230019 105 900 4500 4.7 116.7 143.5 109 0.410079 100 900 4500 51.7 155.8 227.3 104 0.410066 90 900 4500 11.1 219.5 298.5 90 0.010082 77 900 4500 10.8 134.0 205.5 79 0.210102 70 900 4500 38.4 349.8 500.6 65 0.610085 58 900 4500 19.6 174.2 237.8 62 0.510074 54 900 4500 12.0 494.6 529.1 51 0.410113 52 900 4500 41.7 107.4 123 52 0.010108 51 900 4500 21.2 165.1 193 54 0.410059 50 900 4500 55.1 224.0 321 57 1.010077 45 900 4500 15.8 91.6 111.2 40 0.810110 45 900 4500 11.3 425.9 488.4 47 0.310103 40 900 4500 18.1 85.4 101 40 0.010087 39 900 4500 9.6 116.0 150.8 45 0.910064 38 900 4500 9.5 474.9 521.4 38 0.010067 37 900 4500 48.3 112.0 131.7 38 0.210062 35 900 4500 20.4 199.3 278.7 36 0.210065 35 900 4500 28.9 320.9 378.8 35 0.010069 31 900 4500 16.5 217.4 295.5 33 0.410040 24 900 4500 24.9 610.7 751.3 25 0.210101 23 900 4500 57.5 218.3 348.6 25 0.410072 21 900 4500 6.7 209.2 287.4 23 0.410098 21 900 4500 69.7 78.9 126.7 20 0.210099 21 900 4500 62.9 65.5 83.5 21 0.010035 20 900 4500 62.0 115.7 151.7 18 0.510039 20 900 4500 13.6 493.4 627.3 22 0.410070 18 900 4500 40.6 111.8 131.5 19 0.230013 17 900 4500 19.1 236.6 275.8 17 0.010046 15 900 4500 36.7 196.2 213.8 17 0.510080 13 900 4500 9.2 6.4 20.1 13 0.010049 10 900 4500 38.4 506.7 610.7 10 0.010073 10 900 4500 38.5 230.7 309.7 11 0.310083 10 900 4500 42.2 32.4 43.7 12 0.630018 10 900 4500 12.8 219.9 262.7 11 0.310041 8 900 4500 62.1 339.8 457.9 6 0.810089 7 900 4500 48.1 155.6 227.1 9 0.710092 7 900 4500 45.6 64.3 112 8 0.410088 6 900 4500 4.4 157.0 220 6 0.010086 4 900 4500 51.2 32.4 43.7 5 0.510095 3 900 4500 70.6 78.9 126.7 3 0.010100 1 900 4500 14.7 177.8 212.3 2 0.8

DRAFT

Appendix B Manual Data and iTREC Analysis Reports

DRAFT

DATE: 4/13/2010ROUTE: US 17 4/14DIRECTION: Northbound 2:29 2:43 3:11 4:30 3:35 3:51 4:02 4:14 5:10 5:26Peak: PM

US 17 Ira Rd 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 10 0 0.0 0 0US 17 I-526/Hungryneck Rd 0.260 0.260 78.00 45.00 53.00 59.00 20.00 53.00 79.00 50.00 31.00 53.00 36.00 58.00 28.00 9 500 55.6 143 14.3 16.8US 17 Venning 0.600 0.340 110.00 149.00 54.00 90.00 97.00 109.00 41.00 70.00 72.00 93.00 14.00 66.00 94.00 10 950 95.0 109 10.9 31.0US 17 Market Center 1.100 0.500 155.00 195.00 146.00 144.00 150.00 114.00 132.00 139.00 111.00 152.00 10 1438 143.8 0 0 36.9US 17 Belk Rd 1.300 0.200 174.00 211.00 166.00 165.00 167.00 131.00 222.00 155.00 25.00 128.00 187.00 10 1706 170.6 25 2.5 26.9US 17 IOP 1.670 0.370 248.00 38.00 295.00 49.00 200.00 265.00 195.00 161.00 280.00 258.00 42.00 204.00 33.00 253.00 10 2359 235.9 162 16.2 20.4

TOTAL 1.670 235.9 43.9 25.5

DATE: 4/13/2010ROUTE: US 17 4/14/2010DIRECTION: Southbound 2:34 2:50 3:04 3:41 4:07Peak: PM

US 17 Ira Rd 0.000 0.000 260.00 263.00 278.00 294.00 27.00 214.00 251.00 10.00 6 6 1560 260.0 37 6.2 24.0 note direction is backwardsUS 17 I-526/Hungryneck Rd 0.260 0.260 236.00 36.00 236.00 26.00 247.00 55.00 230.00 47.00 175.00 202.00 35.00 6 1326 221.0 199 33.2 16.3US 17 Venning 0.600 0.340 165.00 37.00 179.00 52.00 157.00 36.00 138.00 27.00 124.00 9.00 112.00 9.00 6 875 145.8 170 28.3 23.4US 17 Market Center 1.100 0.500 78.00 25.00 77.00 73.00 19.00 59.00 58.00 5 345 69.0 44 7.3 21.4US 17 Belk Rd 1.300 0.200 31.00 29.00 29.00 39.00 45.00 10.00 39.00 6 212 35.3 10 1.7 37.7US 17 IOP 1.670 0.370 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL 1.670 260.0 76.7 23.1

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)LOCATION ODOMETER

(miles)DISTANCE

(miles)TIME

(seconds)STOP

(intersection)TIME

(seconds)

LOCATION ODOMETER (miles)

DISTANCE (miles)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection)

Total Cumulative Travel Time

Average Stopped Time (sec)

Average Segment Travel Speed

(mph)

Average Cumulative Travel

Time (sec)

Total Stopped Time

STOP (intersection)

TIME (seconds)

STOP (intersection) Time Data Points Stop Data

PointsTIME (seconds)

Time Data Points Stop Data Points

Total Cumulative Travel Time

Average Cumulative Travel

Time (sec)

Total Stopped Time

Average Stopped Time (sec)

Average Segment Travel Speed

(mph)

DRAFT

iTREC ReportWednesday, May 25, 2011Print Date:

Print Time: 8:43:26 AM

RT17_NB

Run Length TravelTime(m:s)

AverageSpeed

No. ofStop

StoppedDelay

Fuel Consumption(Gallons)

EmissionCO(g)

EmissionNOx(g)

EmissionVOC(g)

MPG

mt_pleasant after study.idd/MT. PLEASANT (AFTER)/ROUTE 17 NB PMC1 1.61 2:48 35.70 1 0:12 0.15 18.24 10.45 2.03 2.42

DRAFT

iTREC ReportWednesday, May 25, 2011Print Date:

Print Time: 8:48:12 AM

RT17_SB

Run Length TravelTime(m:s)

AverageSpeed

No. ofStop

StoppedDelay

Fuel Consumption(Gallons)

EmissionCO(g)

EmissionNOx(g)

EmissionVOC(g)

MPG

mt_pleasant after study.idd/MT. PLEASANT (AFTER)/ROUTE 17 SB PMC1 1.62 3:37 28.11 1 0:46 0.16 12.34 11.17 2.17 2.59

DRAFT

Documents

Mt Pleasant Signal System - Draft Report 061011In conjunction with the signal system plan development, HDR developed Synchro and VISSIM models for both corridors. The models were developed