Assessing Traffic and Emergency Benefits of Railroad Grade Separations
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 113, Issue 6
Abstract
The benefits of constructing grade separations at four railroad crossings in Thunder Bay, Canada, are evaluated. The purpose of the study is to determine the two crossings whose grade separations provide the most efficient traffic operations and maximum accessibility of emergency services (fire stations and hospitals). Efficiency is evaluated by several measures of performance including travel time, delay, and fuel consumption. Accessibility is evaluated by the travel time between the emergency services locations and various areas in the city. Traffic volume data were collected in May 1985 during the afternoon peak period (4:30–5:30 P.M.) for 15‐minute intervals. These data, along with other data related to land uses, are used to establish the origindestination (O‐D) demands through the use of a recently developed model, LINKOD. These O‐D demands and the characteristics of the network represent the basic input to a traffic management model, CORCONF. The CORCONF model is used to evaluate the impacts of various grade‐separation alternatives on both efficiency and accessibility. In addition to analyzing a real‐world problem, this paper also discusses some aspects related to the application of the models described herein, which should prove useful for potential users of the models.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Allen, B., Easa, S., and Case, R. (1978). “Application of freeway assignment and control model.” Transp. Res. Rec., 682, 76–84.
2.
City of Thunder Bay transportation study. (1970). Reed, Voorhees & Associates Ltd. Thunder Bay, Canada.
3.
Compendium of materials relevant to rail rerouting in the city of Thunder Bay. (1979). City of Thunder Bay, Adhoc Committee on Railway Relocation, Rerouting, and Safe Cargo Movement, Thunder Bay, Canada.
4.
Easa, S. (1982). “Selecting two‐regime traffic‐flow models.” Transp. Res. Rec., 869, 25–36.
5.
Easa, S. (1983). “User's guide for CORCONF: Freeway corridor assignment and control model.” Research Report RR‐2422‐83‐1, Department of Civil Engineering, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada.
6.
Easa, S. (1985). “Shortest‐route algorithm with movement prohibitions.” Transp. Res., 19B(3), 197–208.
7.
Easa, S., and Allen, B. (1978). CORCON: A freeway corridor assignment and control model.” Presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
8.
Easa, S., and May, A. (1981). “Evaluation of traffic management strategies in central business districts.” Transp. Res. Rec., 816, 1–10.
9.
Easa, S., Yeh, T., and May, A. (1980). “Traffic management of dense networks.” Final Report, Volume I: Analysis of Traffic Operations in Residential and Downtown Areas, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
10.
Easa, S., Yeh, T., and May, A. (1980). “Traffic management of dense networks.” Final Report, Volume II: User's Guide of the Refined MICROASSIGNMENT Model, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
11.
Gur, Y. (1983). “Estimating trip tables from traffic counts: Comparative evaluation of available techniques.” Transp. Res. Rec., 944, 113–117.
12.
Gur, Y. (1985). “Trip table estimation based on partial volume counts.” Presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
13.
Gur, Y., et al. (1980). “Estimation of an origin‐destination trip table based on observed link volumes and turning movements.” Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
14.
Han, A., and Sullivan, E. (1983). “Trip table synthesis for CBD networks: Evaluation of the LINKOD model.” Transp. Res. Rec., 944, 106–112.
15.
“Highway capacity manual.” (1965). Special Report 87, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
16.
“Highway capacity manual.” (1985). Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
17.
Manheim, M. (1979). Fundamentals of transportation systems analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
18.
Master Plan. (1982). Lakehead Harbor Commission, Port of Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay, Canada.
19.
Menzies, R. (1983). Thunder Bay rail capacity study, Volume I: Railway infrastructure. Canadian Transport Commission, Thunder Bay, Canada.
20.
Menzies, R. (1983). Thunder Bay rail capacity study, Volume II: Railway operation. Canadian Transport Commission, Thunder Bay, Canada.
21.
Nguyen, S. (1977). “Estimating an O‐D matrix from network data: A network equilibrium approach.” Publication No. 60, Centre de Recherche sur les Transport, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
22.
Nguyen, S. (1977). “On the estimation of an O‐D trip matrix by equilibrium methods using pseudo delay functions.” Publication No. 81 Centre de Recherche sur les Transport, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
23.
Thunder Bay rail study. (1979). Barton Aschman Jackson Consulting Ltd. Thunder Bay, Canada.
24.
Thunder Bay relocation feasibility study. (1972). MM Billion, Ltd. Thunder Bay, Canada.
25.
Trip generation manual. (1982). Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C.
26.
Trunquist, N., and Gur, Y. (1979). “Estimation of trip tables from observed link volumes.” Transp. Res. Rec., 730, 1–6.
27.
Yagar, S. (1975). “CORQ: Model for predicting flows and queues in a road corridor.” Transp. Res. Rec., 533, 77–87.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 113 • Issue 6 • November 1987
Pages: 593 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 ASCE.
History
Published online: Nov 1, 1987
Published in print: Nov 1987
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.