Pembina - Emerson Port of Entry Study David Lettner: Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation.
-
Upload
damon-adams -
Category
Documents
-
view
240 -
download
1
Transcript of Pembina - Emerson Port of Entry Study David Lettner: Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation.
Transportation Border Working Group Ottawa: November 7, 2012
Pembina - Emerson Port of Entry Study David Lettner: Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation
2
Project Steering Committee (PSC)
The Pembina - Emerson Study Partnership
3
Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) David Lettner, Project Manager and PSC Chair Walter Burdz (P. Eng.), Executive Director Highway Engineering Brett Wareham (P. Eng.), Director of Regional Operations (Region 1)
North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) Jack Olson, Assistant Division Director, Planning and Programming Les Noehre (P.E.), Grand Forks District Engineer
Transport Canada (TC) Susan Zacharias, Policy Coordinator (Prairie and Northern Region)
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) Blair Downey, Chief of Operations (Southern Manitoba District)
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Jason Schmelz, Assistant Port Director (Pembina)
General Services Administration (GSA) Bryan Sayler, Property Manger (North Dakota Field Ofice)
Acknowledgements: Project Steering Committee
4
TBWG: Bi-national institutional support
Policy context and alignment of planning strategies Sharing of best practices / experiences Technology applications, studies and data sources Peer network (agency subject matter experts) and agency perspectives Timely exposure to emerging funding opportunities TBWG website (past plenary session archives)
NDDOT: Previous regional level initiatives
FHWA Coordinated Border Infrastructure Grant application (1999) NDDOT lead agency (with Manitoba / Saskatchewan participation + funding) Initial regional level work / study on border infrastructure coordination issues
Acknowledgements
5
Project Background and Context Existing Situation / Historical Activity
Planning Principles / Best Practices
Key Study Methodologies
Proposed Port Concept / Measures of Effectiveness
Presentation Overview
6
2009 Initial inter-agency meeting (precursor to project steering committee - PSC) GBCF Application to TC
2010 GBCF Contribution Agreement (CA) signed between MIT and TC MOU and CA signed between MIT and NDDOT
2011 PSC formed ESP registry / TOR finalized / RFP process / ESP retained (study start date Oct 5)
2012 Phase 1-Concept Planning completed (broad agency consensus for concept) Phase 2-Functional Design mobilized (MIT: transportation infrastructure)
Generalized Project Milestones (2009-2012)
7
40+ stakeholders
Phase 1-Conceptual Planning (Project Governance)
30+ agency specialists
8
Primary Study Objectives: At a conceptual level of detail: to prepare a long-range concept plan
for the P-E POE that identifies the general level of transportation infrastructure and border services facility improvements required to meet anticipated demand to the year 2035.
To gain consensus on the recommended long-range concept plan for the P-E POE from all transportation agency funding partners (TC, MIT, NDDOT) and bi-national border service agencies (CBSA, CBP, GSA)
To develop and implement a long-term collaborative mechanism for maintaining stewardship for the P-E POE concept plan and working collaboratively toward implementation of the recommended concept
Phase 1-Conceptual Planning (Study Objectives)
9
Generalized Project Delivery Process
10
Policy Context (Canada)
11
Policy Context (United States)
12
Historical Activity (2-way truck-based trade)
13
Historical Activity (Vehicle Movements: 2005-2011)
14
Existing Situation: (study area)
15
Existing Situation (functional flows + operational analysis)
16
Existing Situation (SB improvements 2011-2012)
SB improvements:$1.7M $525K for VMS $1.2M for pavements
17
Optimize Public Investments: CBP 1997 $14.5M CBSA 1999 $10.5M MIT 1996 / 2012 $7.0M + Utilize appropriate methodologies to justify future transportation / port improvements
and expenditures (demand-capacity analysis / benefit-cost)
Hierarchical Land Assignment Strategies: Essential transportation and border service functions take priority over non-essential
functions Locate non-essential port functions further from Canada-USA border wherever possible
(ex: duty free operations)
Operational and Phasing Considerations: Integrate and optimize advance notification, channelization and lane assignment
strategies to facilitate vehicle throughput Phasing considerations related to impact on businesses, project delivery implications for
public agencies (6-10 year project delivery cycle)
Planning Principles | Best Practices
18
Best Practices (TDM / TSM thinking)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) TDM strategies are intended to reduce demand on facilities and
infrastructure during peak periods by modifying travel behaviour Providing access to delay and congestion data for port users Using ITS applications like BIFA to provide real time traveller information Promoting uptake of trusted traveller / trader programs (NEXUS / FAST)
Transportation System Management (TSM) TSM strategies are intended to optimize the use of existing or
proposed facilities and infrastructure through better management and operational practices Data collection Advance notification, channelization, lane assignment strategies Optimizing flexibility & cross-over functions of PIL infrastructure
19
Vehicle Demand Forecasts Hourly arrivals by vehicle category (autos, trucks) Hourly data: Synchro-Sim Traffic and undertake LOS analysis
Synchro-Sim Traffic Simulation Model 30th highest hour: establish design parameters (ex: # PIL booths) Establish trigger points for phasing in improvements
Level of Service (LOS) Framework Sensitivity analysis to verify and refine phasing of improvements Capability to assess various processing / infrastructure scenarios Verification of Synchro-Sim queue lengths
Key Study Methodologies (Methodology Integration)
20
Vehicle Forecasts
LOSAnalysis
Synchro Sim
Hourly traffic volumes to 2035
Sensitivity analysis to assess various processing / infrastructure scenarios
30th highest hour / 99th percentile to establish facility design requirements
Methodology Integration | Best Practices
LOS and Synchro-Sim corroboration / cross-validation
21
Objective: To develop custom algorithms which take annual forecasts (to 2035) by vehicle type and distribute this data on an hourly and daily basis to uncover peaking characteristics and patterns for the two primary vehicle classes (trucks / autos)
Needs: Historical hourly data by vehicle type (trucks / auto) needed to develop algorithms which replicated historical patterns. CBSA and CBP provided excellent historical data (hourly volumes by vehicle type) over a 7-10 year period for the P-E POE
Benefits: Ability to assess daily and hourly peaking impacts on port facilities and determine requirements for key infrastructure components such as PIL booths with greater degree of statistical confidence (+ / - .5% standard deviation)
Rationale for Forecasting Approach
22
Vehicle Forecasts: Compilation of three vehicle categories
Buses (ex: 2011: 2,250 vehicles / 0.2% of total traffic) Trend line analysis (exponential trend line decrease from 1993-2010)
Autos (ex: 2011: 642,348 vehicles / 62.3% of total traffic) Trend line analysis (linear trend line increase of 3.5% from 1993-2010) Custom algorithms developed to distribute annual forecast data for:
Every hour of every day (to 2035) based on custom expansion factors
Trucks (ex: 2011: 385,725 vehicles / 37.5% of total traffic) NFFI data for top 30 commodity groups converted into truck movements Custom algorithms developed to distribute annual forecast data for:
Every hour of every day (to 2035) based on custom expansion factors FHWA vehicle classes / Gross vehicle weight / volume route splits (I-29 and I-94) / traffic splits (SB / NB) Percentage of empty backhauls
Forecast Methodology & Demand Scenarios
23
Forecasts: Buses
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
SB Buses
BUSES Proxy
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
NB Buses
BUSES Proxy
•NB and SB bus traffic exhibited an exponentially decreasing trend-line between 1993 and 2010
• From 2012 to 2035 a “bottom” equilibrium value was established that reflected 40% of mid-1990 values
•As buses were such a small amount of the traffic stream (< 0.2%), and in declining numbers, bus traffic was removed from the forecast projections
24
Forecasts: Autos
0200,000400,000600,000800,000
1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0002,000,000
Annual Autos Bi-Directional
• From 1993 to 2010, auto traffic increased by 3.5% for both NB and SB directions
• A 3.5% annual growth rate (Med) was applied to autos for the 2012 to 2035 forecast period
Medium
High +1%
Low -1%
25
Forecasts: Trucks
Annual Trucks Bi-Directional
• NFFI commodity data used to establish truck forecasts from 2012-2025
• NFFI data was extrapolated for the 2025-2035 forecast period
Medium
High +1%
Low -1%
26
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0.0
2000.0
4000.0
6000.0
8000.0
10000.0
12000.0
14000.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Traffic Volume
Forecast Period
Annual Growth Forecast Trendline
Algorithms were developed to translate annual forecasts into daily and hourly forecasts to more accurately capture peaking patterns and characteristics necessary to assess facility and infrastructure requirements
Capturing Forecast Peaks
The Rationale Behind Developing Algorithms
9 million data pointswere required to obtain hourly arrival rates to the year 2035
27
Vehicle Forecasts (2012-2035)
28
Historical and Forecast Trade Value
29
Synchro-Sim (SB volume / capacity analysis)
Calc for Max hourly theoretical PIL capacity:(3 different auto dwell time scenarios)
120 sec PIL dwell time = 30 veh /hr / PIL(30 veh x 6 PILs = 180 veh / hr)
90 sec PIL dwell time = 40 veh / hr / PIL(40 veh x 6 PILS = 240 veh / hr)
60 sec PIL dwell time = 60 veh / hr / PIL(60 veh x 6 PILS = 360 veh / hr)
30
Synchro-Sim (NB volume / capacity analysis)
Calc for Max hourly theoretical PIL capacity: (3 different auto dwell time scenarios)
120 sec PIL dwell time = 30 veh /hr / PIL(30 veh x 4 PILS = 120 veh / hr)
90 sec PIL dwell time = 40 veh / hr / PIL(40 veh x 4 PILS = 160 veh / hr)
60 sec PIL dwell time = 60 veh / hr / PIL60 veh x 4 PILS = 240 veh / hr)
31
Synchro-Sim Outputs (PIL requirements analysis)
32
Frequency: Number of occurrences Magnitude: Delay to individual vehicles Duration: length of delay period
Day and Date: Holidays (day of the week or fixed date) Vehicle Type: Truck / Auto peaking characteristics
Delay Factor Analysis (Synchro output + LOS framework)
33
Level of Service (LOS) Framework
LOS Framework Criteria
Magnitude of delay:Delay to individual vehicles
Duration of delay:Delay period for queued vehicles
Volume / Capacity Ratio:Ratio of hourly arrivals to max. theoretical processing capacity
34
Develop custom algorithms that calculate:
Average wait times per vehicle for each forecast hour based on the “state” of demand (unsaturated, build-up, saturated, dissipation)
Wait times converted to LOS categories (A to F) based on custom service time parameters stipulated in LOS framework
Total number of hours in each LOS category (A, B, C, D, E, F) aggregated by forecast year
Approach to Populating LOS Output Tables
35
Graphical Representation of LOS Algorithms
TYPICAL PEAKING SCENARIOState 1: Unsaturated – No delayState 2: Build-up – Arrivals exceed processing capacityState 3: Saturated – Arrivals and / or queue exceed processing capacityState 4: Dissipation – Arrivals and queue less than processing capacity
36
Flexibility of custom algorithms that calculate LOS:
The algorithms (once developed) have unlimited simulation capability to test infrastructure and service level parameters based on the LOS framework
PIL dwell time: Impact of processing protocols / technologies Number of PILS: Impact of built infrastructure / staffing levels
This is the distinct advantage of the LOS framework over models like Synchro-Sim which would require simulation runs for every hour in a year (8,760 hourly runs) to obtain the same result for any given forecast year
Approach to Interpreting LOS Output Tables
37
LOS Applications: SB (PIL’s: dwell time / # / staffing)
38
LOS Applications: NB (PIL’s: dwell time / # / staffing)
39
LOS Analysis: Southbound (SB)
40
LOS Analysis: Northbound (NB)
41
Conceptual Elements
42
Proposed Concept (overall)
43
Proposed Concept (northern component detail)
44
Proposed Concept (port area detail)
45
Southbound and Northbound Utilize PTH 75 and I-29 for passenger vehicle traffic approach to PIL plaza Construct 2 new dedicated commercial lanes (FAST / non-FAST)
Southbound Convert all CBP commercial PILS to high / low booths New secondary commercial inspection facility
Northbound New CBSA commercial plaza (4 PILS, VACIS, secondary) New commercial service road connection to PTH 75
Access Management New Emerson Access Road at PTH 75 / PR 243 junction
Key Southbound and Northbound Elements
46
Preliminary Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates $47.4M 24-1 benefit-cost ratio for full concept build-out
Canada (NB and SB) $3M: MIT (transportation infrastructure) $30.5M: CBSA (border service facilities)
United States (NB and SB) $1.7M: NDDOT ( transportation infrastructure) $12.2M: CBP (border service facilities)
Preliminary Cost Estimates
47
Synchro-Sim MOE Output (delay: SB frequency)
48
Synchro-Sim MOE Output (delay: NB frequency)
49
Synchro-Sim Traffic Simulation: MOE Output
50
David E. Lettner, BA, MPA, MCIP
Project Manager: Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study
Senior Transportation Planning Consultant
Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation
Transportation Systems Planning Branch
CONTACT:
215 Garry Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 3P3
T: 204.945.5270
Presented by: