1 / 39

Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicle Use of HOV Lanes

Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicle Use of HOV Lanes. Lianyu Chu CLR Analytics Inc July 14, 2008 @ NA Paramics User Group Meeting. Background. Many states have demonstrated the effectiveness of HOV lanes HOV lane operation is criticized Underutilization of roadway capacity

lobo
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicle Use of HOV Lanes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicle Use of HOV Lanes Lianyu Chu CLR Analytics Inc July 14, 2008 @ NA Paramics User Group Meeting

  2. Background • Many states have demonstrated the effectiveness of HOV lanes • HOV lane operation is criticized • Underutilization of roadway capacity • Limited ability to shift solo drivers to transit and carpools • Conversion to other type of operation • Allowing single occupant hybrid vehicles (SOHV) • In southern California • From buffer separate to continuous access • HOT

  3. HOV lanes • What is HOV lane? • Northern CA • Continuous access • Operated during peak periods • HOV 2+ or 3+ • Southern CA • Limited access • Operated 24 hours a day • HOV 2+ • HOV lanes in CA • About 30% of the total of US

  4. Current Hybrid HOV policy in California • Starting Jan 2005 • Stickers will expire in 2010. • Vehicle models > 45 miles per gallon • Toyota Prius • Hybrid Honda Civic • Honda Insight • Maximum number of stickers • Originally, 75K, • reached at Nov 2006 • Then, decided to offer 10K more • Reaches 85K on 2/2/2007 • No more stickers

  5. Motivation • Statewide policy • San Francisco Bay Area • there is substantial reserve capacity on HOV lanes • Orange County, • HOV lanes have almost reached their nominal capacity of 1,650 vehicles per hour, carrying an average of 1,568 vph in 1998 • Purpose: • Investigate impacts of the policy in OC • Operational effects • Emission effects

  6. Study Network

  7. Select study site Build micro-simulation model in Paramics Estimate SOV / HOV demand Calibrate micro-simulation model Planning model Estimate hybrid demand Socio-economic characteristics & Hybrid Population Data Run simulation for each scenario Design scenario Policy Performance measures Compare simulation results Policy Implications Methodology

  8. Model • All major freeways • I-5, I-405, SR-55, SR-22, SR-57, and SR-91 • Most freeway mainline have 4-6 lanes • Excluding 6-mile the southern part of I-5, the section of SR-91 express lane. • Model summary • 200 HOV lane miles • 800 mainline lane miles • Total zones: 265 • AM Peak hour model

  9. HOV lane modeling • Network construction (buffer-separated HOV) • The mixed-flow lanes and HOV lanes were coded as two separate links wherever required. • Non-buffered sections were coded as a single link between ingress and egress points. • Route choice models • Combination of the use of three routing models • All-or-nothing • Stochastic route choice • Dynamic feedback

  10. Calibration data preparation and data analysis Initial calibration / setting of route choice models OD demand estimation Route choice modification Network performance calibration and validation Final model Model calibration

  11. Calibration data preparation • Base year: 2005 • Both flow and speed data were collected from PeMS • Flow data: • Gather data from four different years (2002-2005) • Some on-ramp and off-ramp locations • estimated based on Caltrans census dataset or mainline data • Speed data • 5-min speed data were collected from freeways for 3 months • Draw the 50th percentile speed contour maps based on Tuesday to Thursday’s data • Used to identify freeway bottlenecks.

  12. Demand Estimation • Pattern OD matrix • OCTAM: planning model of Orange County, CA • Extracted using MMA analysis in TransCAD • Fine-tune OD matrix using Paramics OD estimator • HOV demand estimation • A fixed percentage: 21.7% • Based on California DOT’s HOV report and loop detector data • Trial-and-error based on range from 14% to 25% • Hybrid demand estimation model : • Estimate each zone’s hybrid percentage • Multinomial regression and binomial regression model • Social-economic data • Survey data

  13. HOV volume / total volume (based on 2005 D12 HOV report) • HOV volume / total volume percentage: • peak period: 10.2% - 23.1% • peak hour: 11.4% - 25% • Patterns: • HOV lanes attract more carpoolers since HOV lane is faster • Congested areas: higher percentages

  14. Regression Model for Share of Hybrid Vehicles

  15. Model Calibration/Validations • Data for baseline model calibration • - End of 2004 data from PeMS

  16. 5NB HOV Speed Contour: Observed 5NB HOV Speed Contour: Simulated

  17. 5SB HOV Speed Contour: Observed 5SB HOV Speed Contour: Simulated

  18. 405NB HOV Speed Contour: Observed 405NB HOV Speed Contour: Simulated

  19. 405SB HOV Speed Contour:Simulated 405SB HOV Speed Contour: Observed

  20. 55NB HOV Speed Contour: Observed 55NB HOV Speed Contour: Simulated

  21. 55SB HOV Speed Contour: Observed 55SB HOV Speed Contour: Simulated

  22. 57SB HOV Speed Contour: Observed 57SB HOV Speed Contour: Simulated

  23. Scenario Construction • Base Case: • No Hybrids allowed on HOV lanes • before California’s bill AB 2628 passed • Scenario 1: • 36K Hybrids in CA (Nov 2005) • 3707 of 36K hybrids in OC • Scenario 2: • 50K Hybrids (April 2006) • 5216 of 50K hybrids in OC • Scenario 3: • 75K Hybrids (Nov 2006) • Scenario 4: • 100K Hybrid (near future) • * Total trips for study network: 238K • DMV data show: • About 10% of CA hybrids are in OC

  24. Performance Measures • Overall network performance measures: • Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Corridor performance measures: • Average corridor speed • Speed • SAFETEA-LU needs HOV lanes to keep speed higher than 45 mph for 90% of the peak periods • LOS • Caltrans has the authority to remove “individual HOV lanes or portions of those lanes,” if traffic condition exceeds LOS C. • Emissions & Fuel consumptions • Comprehensive Modal Emission Model (CMEM) from UC Riverside • second-by-second emissions

  25. HOV Segments for further analysis • Total 43 HOV sections • Study period: 5minutes (for 1-hour data)

  26. Simulation design • Assuming no HOV lane violations during simulation. • Simulations period • One peak hour in AM • Simulate for 1 hour and 30 minutes. • The first 30 minutes of simulation: warm-up period • MOE • Collected using different plug-ins • Only the last one hour of the simulations were analyzed. • Base scenario • used as reference to evaluate other scenarios. • Five runs were conducted per scenario • The results from the median run are used for analysis.

  27. Overall Network Performance Confidence interval for the comparison

  28. Comparison of HOV & ML (I-5 & I-405)

  29. Comparison of HOV & ML (SR-55&57)

  30. Speed Distribution: HOV sections • With more traffic allowed into HOV lanes, HOV lane performance degrades

  31. Percentage of Sections & Time periods withspeed greater than 45 mph

  32. LOS Distribution: HOV lanes

  33. Percentage of Sections & Time spent less than 26 veh/mile/lane (LOS C)

  34. Comparison of Emissions • Scenario 4 reduces emissions significantly • due to high share of Hybrids

  35. Policy decision: multi-objective optimization problem • Maximize the benefits obtained from emission • SC4 is the best • Meet FHWA’s SAFETEA-LU’s requirement. • Base-year: doesn’t meet • Practical: allow another 10% HOV lanes to be under 45 mph • SC1-3 can meet • HOV lanes must continue to provide benefits for existing carpoolers. • MOE: percentage of ave. speed difference between HOV & mixed-flow lanes • Speed difference in Sc1-SC3 are 21%, 16% and 11%. • An intuitive feeling : at least 15% speed difference • SC1-2 meet • Scenario 2 appears likely to satisfy the desires of all stakeholders.

  36. Findings • With the increase of Hybrids, the operational performance of HOV lanes degrades • Overall, Scenario 2 performs more effectively (50K hybrid) • HOV lane speed is reduced by less than 5% in scenario 2 • From air quality perspective, scenario 4 (100K hybrids) outperforms. • Hybrid HOV policy may have impacted sales of Hybrid vehicles • April 2006: 50K • Nov 2006: 75K • Feb 2, 2007: 85K

  37. Policy Implication • The policy is successful in reducing emission by allowing hybrid vehicles using HOV lanes. • The policy is not appropriate to be applied to the HOV lanes that don’t have reserved capacity. • 50K hybrid vehicle permits (SC2) throughout the state could be the maximum that the Orange County HOV system can take without much degradation. • The policy could have been implemented more strategically, i.e. applying to selected freeways and/or selected time periods.

  38. Project team • CCIT, UC Berkeley • Lianyu Chu • UC Irvine • Will Recker • David Brownstone • Tom Golob • K S Nesamani • Chris Breiland • Western Michigan University • Jun Seok Oh

  39. Thank you! Questions & Comments

More Related