Microsimulation for Rural and Exurban
Regions:Lake County, California
David Gerstle (presenting) & Zheng Wei
Caliper Corporation
Executive Summary
• Microsimulation is an important tool for modeling exurban and rural areas
• Congestion is often not an important driver of travel times
• “Minutia” such as grade, curvature, and lane widths are vitally important
• Shown using a case-study of Lake County, California using Caliper’s TransModeler microsimulation software:– Show how we calibrated & validated the model– Show failure to validate absent grade,
curvature, lane widths, etc.
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
Project Background
• Lake County Area Microsimulation Model (LAMM)
• To develop a traffic simulation model that:– Supports planning and operational
analysis– Focuses on SR-20, SR-53, and SR-29 and
the communities surrounding Clear Lake– Extends and complements existing
models and modeling activities• To evaluate future-year scenarios
Project Background
• Lake County Area Microsimulation Model (LAMM)
• To develop a traffic simulation model that:– Supports planning and operational
analysis– Focuses on SR-20, SR-53, and SR-29 and
the communities surrounding Clear Lake– Extends and complements existing
models and modeling activities• To evaluate future-year scenarios
Lake County
Lake County
• Approx. 2 hr. drive from SFO to southern Lake County
LakeCountyLake County
Project Background
• Lake County Area Microsimulation Model (LAMM)
• To develop a traffic simulation model that:– Supports planning and operational
analysis– Focuses on SR-20, SR-53, and SR-29 and
the communities surrounding Clear Lake– Extends and complements existing
models and modeling activities• To evaluate future-year scenarios
• Dominant route for through traffic passes through populated areas
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope
– Geography– Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
LakeCounty
Study Area
LakeCounty
• 450 square miles of Lake County, from Middletown (Napa border) to Upper Lake (Mendocino border)
Study Area
LakeCounty
Level of Detail
LakeCounty
• 720 miles of roadway (120 miles on State Routes)
• 4,200 Links and 3,300 Nodes• All roads in the regional travel
demand model are included
Level of Detail
LakeCounty
• High level of detail for local streets
Nice
Level of Detail
LakeCounty
• Intersection geometry accurately reproduced
Level of Detail
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope
– Geography– Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Times of day include two peak periods– 6:00 – 9:00 AM – 3:00 – 6:00 PM
• Vehicle Population– Auto– Truck
Time Periods & Vehicle Population
• Times of day include two peak periods– 6:00 – 9:00 AM – 3:00 – 6:00 PM
• Vehicle Population– Auto– Truck
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation
– Data Collection– Model Calibration– Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation
– Data Collection– Model Calibration– Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Data Collection
• GPS-recorded travel times• O-D surveys• Turning movement counts• Directional counts
Data Collection
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
GPS Travel Times
Data Collection
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
GPS Travel Times
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Data Collection
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Directional Counts (26)
GPS Travel Times
Turning Movement (20)
Directional Counts (26)
Data Collection
O-D Survey Sites (5)
Turning Movement (20)
GPS Travel Times
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation
– Data Collection– Model Calibration – Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Model Calibration
• Take the calibrated travel demand model as the starting point
• Iteratively cycle between– Trying to match turn & directional counts– Trying to equilibrate route choices
• Target traffic count calibration standards set by Caltrans
Model Calibration
• Take the calibrated travel demand model as the starting point
• Iteratively cycle between– Trying to match turn & directional counts– Trying to equilibrate route choices
• Target traffic count calibration standards set by Caltrans
Calibrated Travel Demand Model
Match Counts(ODME)
Match Times(DTA)
Calibrated Micro-simulation Model
Model Calibration
• Take the calibrated travel demand model as the starting point
• Iteratively cycle between– Trying to match turn & directional counts– Trying to equilibrate route choices
• Target traffic count calibration standards set by Caltrans
1st Hour 2nd Hour 3rd Hour All
Individual Roads Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Yes Yes Yes Yes
Individual Roads Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Yes Yes Yes Yes
Individual Movements Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Yes Yes Yes Yes
Individual Movements n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total n/a n/a n/a n/a
Individual Roads Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Yes Yes Yes Yes
Individual Roads Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Yes Yes Yes Yes
Individual Movements Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Yes Yes Yes Yes
Individual Movements n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total n/a n/a n/a n/a
PM
Pea
k
Segment Flows
% Difference
Statistical Significance
Turning Movement
Flows
% Difference
Statistical Significance
Meets Standard?
AM
Pea
k
Segment Flows
% Difference
Statistical Significance
Turning Movement
Flows
% Difference
Statistical Significance
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation
– Data Collection– Model Calibration – Model Validation
• Model Minutia
Model Validation
• Take the calibrated traffic simulation model as the starting point
• Iteratively cycle between– Trying to match point-to-point travel times– Reviewing/revisiting model development and
calibration steps• Target travel time calibration standards
set by Caltrans
Model Validation
• Take the calibrated traffic simulation model as the starting point
• Iteratively cycle between– Trying to match point-to-point travel times– Reviewing/revisiting model development and
calibration steps• Target travel time calibration standards
set by Caltrans
Calibrated Traffic Simulation Model
Revisit Calibration(ODME/DTA)
Match Times (Simulation)
ValidatedMicro-simulation
Model
Model Validation
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR-53
Lower Lake
Kelseyville
Middletown
Point-to-Point Travel Times
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR-53
Lower Lake
Kelseyville
Middletown
GPS: 15.95 minTSM: 15.89 min: 0.36%
GPS: 11.29 minTSM: 8.95 min: 23.07%GPS: 16.92
minTSM: 17.79 min: 5.01%
GPS: 13.35 minTSM: 15.03 min: 11.82%
GPS: 6.63 minTSM: 6.82 min: 2.9%
GPS: 15.92 minTSM: 16.17 min: 1.61%
GPS: 20.25 minTSM: 21.63 min: 6.85%
Model ValidationAM Southbound Travel Times
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR-53
Lower Lake
Kelseyville
Middletown
GPS: 15.65 minTSM: 16.53 min: 5.49%
GPS: 13.12 minTSM: 8.93 min: 37.98%GPS: 17.52min
TSM: 18.21 min: 3.84%
GPS: 13.87 minTSM: 14.87 min: 6.99%
GPS: 6.48 minTSM: 6.97 min: 7.21%
GPS: 15.22 minTSM: 16.56 min: 10.56%
GPS: 20.53 minTSM: 21.86 min: 6.31%
Model ValidationAM Northbound Travel Times
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR-53
Lower Lake
Kelseyville
Middletown
GPS: 15.58 minTSM: 16.38 min: 5.01%
GPS: 10.66 minTSM: 9.30 min: 13.64%GPS: 16.86
minTSM: 17.95 min: 6.26%
GPS: 13.51 minTSM: 15.34 min: 12.73%
GPS: 6.24 minTSM: 6.96 min: 10.92%
GPS: 16.03 minTSM: 16.61 min: 3.56%
GPS: 20.52 minTSM: 21.62 min:5.21%
Model ValidationPM Southbound Travel Times
Boundary
Upper Lake
Lucerne
SR-53
Lower Lake
Kelseyville
Middletown
GPS: 15.02 minTSM: 16.58 min: 9.88%
GPS: 10.14 minTSM: 9.21 min: 9.60%GPS: 16.82
minTSM: 18.55 min: 9.81%
GPS: 13.12 minTSM: 15.03 min: 13.53%
GPS: 6.55 minTSM: 6.99 min: 6.45%
GPS: 17.31 minTSM: 16.54 min: 4.57%
GPS: 19.96 minTSM: 22.42 min: 11.60%
Model ValidationPM Northbound Travel Times
Model Validation
From To LB TSM TT Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT % difference TSM is…Boundary Upper Lake 6.68 6.82 6.97 6.63 2.90% LongerUpper Lake Lucerne 15.32 15.89 16.55 15.95 0.36% ShorterLucerne SR 53 14.73 15.03 15.38 13.35 11.82% LongerSR 53 Lower Lake 8.84 8.95 9.06 11.29 23.07% ShorterLower Lake Middletown 21.54 21.69 21.82 20.25 6.85% LongerUpper Lake Kelseyville 15.93 16.22 16.52 15.37 5.34% LongerKelseyville Lower Lake 17.34 17.84 18.43 16.41 8.38% LongerUpper Lake Boundary 6.91 6.97 7.02 6.48 7.21% LongerLucerne Upper Lake 16.30 16.53 16.76 15.65 5.49% LongerSR 53 Lucerne 14.60 14.87 15.17 13.87 6.99% LongerLower Lake SR 53 8.81 8.93 9.05 13.12 37.98% ShorterMiddletown Lower Lake 21.61 21.86 22.13 20.53 6.31% LongerKelseyville Upper Lake 16.35 16.56 16.81 15.22 8.48% LongerLower Lake Kelseyville 17.99 18.21 18.43 17.52 3.84% Longer
Sout
hbou
ndN
orth
boun
d
AM
Model Validation
From To LB TSM TT Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT % difference TSM is…Boundary Upper Lake 6.68 6.82 6.97 6.63 2.90% LongerUpper Lake Lucerne 15.32 15.89 16.55 15.95 0.36% ShorterLucerne SR 53 14.73 15.03 15.38 13.35 11.82% LongerSR 53 Lower Lake 8.84 8.95 9.06 11.29 23.07% ShorterLower Lake Middletown 21.54 21.69 21.82 20.25 6.85% LongerUpper Lake Kelseyville 15.93 16.22 16.52 15.37 5.34% LongerKelseyville Lower Lake 17.34 17.84 18.43 16.41 8.38% LongerUpper Lake Boundary 6.91 6.97 7.02 6.48 7.21% LongerLucerne Upper Lake 16.30 16.53 16.76 15.65 5.49% LongerSR 53 Lucerne 14.60 14.87 15.17 13.87 6.99% LongerLower Lake SR 53 8.81 8.93 9.05 13.12 37.98% ShorterMiddletown Lower Lake 21.61 21.86 22.13 20.53 6.31% LongerKelseyville Upper Lake 16.35 16.56 16.81 15.22 8.48% LongerLower Lake Kelseyville 17.99 18.21 18.43 17.52 3.84% Longer
Sout
hbou
ndN
orth
boun
d
AM
Lower and Upper Bounds calculated by bootstrapping sample
Model Validation
From To LB TSM TT Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT % difference TSM is…Boundary Upper Lake 6.68 6.82 6.97 6.63 2.90% LongerUpper Lake Lucerne 15.32 15.89 16.55 15.95 0.36% ShorterLucerne SR 53 14.73 15.03 15.38 13.35 11.82% LongerSR 53 Lower Lake 8.84 8.95 9.06 11.29 23.07% ShorterLower Lake Middletown 21.54 21.69 21.82 20.25 6.85% LongerUpper Lake Kelseyville 15.93 16.22 16.52 15.37 5.34% LongerKelseyville Lower Lake 17.34 17.84 18.43 16.41 8.38% LongerUpper Lake Boundary 6.91 6.97 7.02 6.48 7.21% LongerLucerne Upper Lake 16.30 16.53 16.76 15.65 5.49% LongerSR 53 Lucerne 14.60 14.87 15.17 13.87 6.99% LongerLower Lake SR 53 8.81 8.93 9.05 13.12 37.98% ShorterMiddletown Lower Lake 21.61 21.86 22.13 20.53 6.31% LongerKelseyville Upper Lake 16.35 16.56 16.81 15.22 8.48% LongerLower Lake Kelseyville 17.99 18.21 18.43 17.52 3.84% Longer
Sout
hbou
ndN
orth
boun
d
AM
Lower and Upper Bounds calculated by bootstrapping sample
1.Create bootstrapped sample of the set of simulation runs2.For each run in bootstrapped sample, create
bootstrapped sample of point-to-point travel times3.Calculate expected travel time for each simulation run
Model Validation
From To LB TSM TT Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT % difference TSM is…Boundary Upper Lake 6.68 6.82 6.97 6.63 2.90% LongerUpper Lake Lucerne 15.32 15.89 16.55 15.95 0.36% ShorterLucerne SR 53 14.73 15.03 15.38 13.35 11.82% LongerSR 53 Lower Lake 8.84 8.95 9.06 11.29 23.07% ShorterLower Lake Middletown 21.54 21.69 21.82 20.25 6.85% LongerUpper Lake Kelseyville 15.93 16.22 16.52 15.37 5.34% LongerKelseyville Lower Lake 17.34 17.84 18.43 16.41 8.38% LongerUpper Lake Boundary 6.91 6.97 7.02 6.48 7.21% LongerLucerne Upper Lake 16.30 16.53 16.76 15.65 5.49% LongerSR 53 Lucerne 14.60 14.87 15.17 13.87 6.99% LongerLower Lake SR 53 8.81 8.93 9.05 13.12 37.98% ShorterMiddletown Lower Lake 21.61 21.86 22.13 20.53 6.31% LongerKelseyville Upper Lake 16.35 16.56 16.81 15.22 8.48% LongerLower Lake Kelseyville 17.99 18.21 18.43 17.52 3.84% Longer
Sout
hbou
ndN
orth
boun
d
AM
Lower and Upper Bounds calculated by bootstrapping sample
1.Create bootstrapped sample of the set of simulation runs2.For each run in bootstrapped sample, create
bootstrapped sample of point-to-point travel times3.Calculate expected travel time for each simulation run
Which is to say this is NOT an average of all of the point-to-point travel times
Model Validation
From To LB TSM TT Avg. TSM TT UB TSM TT Avg. GPS TT % difference TSM is…Boundary Upper Lake 6.90 6.96 7.02 6.24 10.92% LongerUpper Lake Lucerne 16.15 16.38 16.61 15.58 5.01% LongerLucerne SR 53 15.13 15.34 15.56 13.51 12.73% LongerSR 53 Lower Lake 9.19 9.30 9.41 10.66 13.64% ShorterLower Lake Middletown 21.42 21.62 21.82 20.52 5.21% LongerUpper Lake Kelseyville 16.34 16.61 16.89 16.03 3.56% LongerKelseyville Lower Lake 17.66 17.95 18.25 16.86 6.26% LongerUpper Lake Boundary 6.92 6.99 7.05 6.55 6.45% LongerLucerne Upper Lake 16.36 16.58 16.78 15.02 9.88% LongerSR 53 Lucerne 14.84 15.03 15.20 13.12 13.53% LongerLower Lake SR 53 9.10 9.21 9.31 10.14 9.60% ShorterMiddletown Lower Lake 22.28 22.42 22.57 19.96 11.60% LongerKelseyville Upper Lake 16.28 16.54 16.81 17.31 4.57% ShorterLower Lake Kelseyville 18.15 18.55 19.02 16.82 9.81% Longer
Sout
hbou
ndN
orth
boun
d
PM
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
– Curvature– Grade– Lane Width– Two-lane Highway Passing
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
– Curvature– Grade– Lane Width– Two-lane Highway Passing
Curvature
Curvature
Radius of 20ft, curvature of (1/20ft)*1000ft = 50 in Segment layer
Curvature
Curvature
Maximum speed is constrained by the radius
Curvature
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 5.13% SB 5.13% NB 9.89% SB 9.89% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.04% SB 0.04% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.00% SB 0.00%
Percent with Radius < 498 ft
Effect of No Curvature on Expected Travel Time...Median 95th Percentile
SR-2
0
Mean
SR-2
9SR
-53
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR 53/Lower Lake
Curvature
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 5.13% SB 5.13% NB 9.89% SB 9.89% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.04% SB 0.04% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.00% SB 0.00%
Percent with Radius < 498 ft
Effect of No Curvature on Expected Travel Time...Median 95th Percentile
SR-2
0
Mean
SR-2
9SR
-53
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR 53/Lower Lake
Curvature at which maximum speed 55 mph
Curvature
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 5.13% SB 5.13% NB 9.89% SB 9.89% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.04% SB 0.04% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.00% SB 0.00%
Percent with Radius < 498 ft
Effect of No Curvature on Expected Travel Time...Median 95th Percentile
SR-2
0
Mean
SR-2
9SR
-53
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR 53/Lower Lake
Reduction in Travel Time for two pairs with most curvature
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
– Curvature– Grade– Lane Width– Two-lane Highway Passing
Grade
30 ft of elevation gain, from USGS DEM
Grade
1,000 ft long
Grade
3% Grade
Grade
3% Grade
Effect on Acceleration
Effect on Max. Speed
Grade
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 1.54% SB 1.54% NB 5.40% SB 5.40% NB 4.64% SB 4.64% NB 5.39% SB 5.04% NB 26.58% SB 26.58% NB 16.37% SB 16.67% NB 16.24% SB 12.50% SR
-53
SR 53/Lower Lake
Percent with Abs. Grade > 4
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Mean Median 95th PercentileEffect of No Grade on Population Travel Time...
Grade
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 1.54% SB 1.54% NB 5.40% SB 5.40% NB 4.64% SB 4.64% NB 5.39% SB 5.04% NB 26.58% SB 26.58% NB 16.37% SB 16.67% NB 16.24% SB 12.50% SR
-53
SR 53/Lower Lake
Percent with Abs. Grade > 4
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Mean Median 95th PercentileEffect of No Grade on Population Travel Time...
Now looking at statistics across all point-to-point Travel Times (not at simulation run level)
Grade
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 1.54% SB 1.54% NB 5.40% SB 5.40% NB 4.64% SB 4.64% NB 5.39% SB 5.04% NB 26.58% SB 26.58% NB 16.37% SB 16.67% NB 16.24% SB 12.50% SR
-53
SR 53/Lower Lake
Percent with Abs. Grade > 4
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Mean Median 95th PercentileEffect of No Grade on Population Travel Time...
Effect is opposite for uphill vs. downhill
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
– Curvature– Grade– Lane Width– Two-lane Highway Passing
Lane Width
Lane Width
12 ft lane
11 ft lane
10 ft lane
Lane Width
12 ft lane
11 ft lane
10 ft lane
Lane Width
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 0.16% SB 0.27% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.97% SB 0.00% NB 15.81% SB 0.44% NB 4.99% SB 4.84% NB 0.37% SB 0.16%
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-5
3
SR 53/Lower Lake
Effect of Lane Width on Expected Travel Time...Mean Median 95th Percentile
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Percent with Non-12ft Lanes
Lane Width
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 0.16% SB 0.27% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.97% SB 0.00% NB 15.81% SB 0.44% NB 4.99% SB 4.84% NB 0.37% SB 0.16%
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-5
3
SR 53/Lower Lake
Effect of Lane Width on Expected Travel Time...Mean Median 95th Percentile
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Percent with Non-12ft Lanes
Back to Expected Travel Time
Lane Width
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 0.16% SB 0.27% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.00% SB 0.00% NB 0.97% SB 0.00% NB 15.81% SB 0.44% NB 4.99% SB 4.84% NB 0.37% SB 0.16%
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-5
3
SR 53/Lower Lake
Effect of Lane Width on Expected Travel Time...Mean Median 95th Percentile
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Percent with Non-12ft Lanes
Travel Time drops without Lane Width restriction
Outline
• Project Background• Model Scope• Model Preparation• Model Minutia
– Curvature– Grade– Lane Width– Two-lane Highway Passing
Two-lane Highway Passing
Two-Lane Highway Passing
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 29.93% SB 36.54% NB 9.62% SB 10.11% NB 4.52% SB 2.00% NB 19.18% SB 12.64% NB 13.01% SB 14.01% NB 24.83% SB 22.55% NB 14.46% SB 18.55% SR
-53
SR 53/Lower Lake
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Mean Median 95th PercentilePercent with
Passing Allowed
Effect of No Passing on Population Travel Time...
Two-Lane Highway Passing
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 29.93% SB 36.54% NB 9.62% SB 10.11% NB 4.52% SB 2.00% NB 19.18% SB 12.64% NB 13.01% SB 14.01% NB 24.83% SB 22.55% NB 14.46% SB 18.55% SR
-53
SR 53/Lower Lake
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Mean Median 95th PercentilePercent with
Passing Allowed
Effect of No Passing on Population Travel Time...
Now looking at statistics across all point-to-point Travel Times (not at simulation run level)
Two-Lane Highway Passing
AM PM AM PM AM PMNB 29.93% SB 36.54% NB 9.62% SB 10.11% NB 4.52% SB 2.00% NB 19.18% SB 12.64% NB 13.01% SB 14.01% NB 24.83% SB 22.55% NB 14.46% SB 18.55% SR
-53
SR 53/Lower Lake
SR-2
9
Upper Lake/Kelseyville
Kelseyville/Lower Lake
Lower Lake/Middletown
SR-2
0
Boundary/Upper Lake
Upper Lake/Lucerne
Lucerne/SR 53
Mean Median 95th PercentilePercent with
Passing Allowed
Effect of No Passing on Population Travel Time...
• Generally increases travel time, as expected• Exceptions are due to network effects
Conclusion
Lane level detail is essential for accurate modeling of rural and exurban regions
Conclusion
Lane level detail is essential for accurate modeling of rural and exurban regions, and, as a corollary, microsimulation is essential for accurate modeling of rural and exurban regions
Thank you