Unformatted text preview: le, the duration and the start and end dates of the
project were specified. The project was specified as ending at the completion of the third
week in August including 08/20/2004, which was the data used in the simulation.
QuickZone requires at least one phase for a project. The phasing information for
the project is entered using the phasing information module. This project is specified as
24-hours a day for one week. In the phasing information module the lane closures and
capacity changes are calculated. The Work Zone Link information module under phasing
information in QuickZone calculates the capacity decrease using the Highway Capacity
Manual 2000 method. When one lane in the work zone is closed, the capacity of the
single remaining lane is set to 1600 vehicles per lane per hour. The Economic Analysis
and Delay/Cost parameters in the software were not entered for the project because no
economic results were needed. 97
3.3.2 Outputs of QuickZone Delay Estimation Program
QuickZone provides four primary outputs—a delay graph, a travel behavior summary, an amortized delay and construction cost graph, and a summary table. Cost
parameters and traveler behavior parameters were not entered. Delay graphs and a
summary table were generated as the output of this simulation.
The summary table screen provided data on two key pieces of data relative to the
construction project: queue and delay. The table includes the average, total, or maximum
value for each construction phase. Three cases can be displayed in summary tables using
the QuickZone output options module:
Baseline: Displays the recurring queueing, delay and costs, if any, may occur when there
is no work zone.
After: Displays the queueing, delay, and costs associated only with the work zone.
Sum: Displays the combination of the baseline and after queueing, delay, and costs.
The after summary table for the I-76 work zone is given in Table 25. Table 25: Output Summary Table Title
Phase1Work1 QZ I-76 Westbound
0 0 0 0 98
Queue results include (values depend upon summary table user selection):
− Weekly Maximum ( Miles): Maximum queue experienced within each work zone
plan and within the construction phase.
− Weekly Total (Miles): Sum of the queues for an average week within each work
zone plan. Also the weekly average over all the days in the construction phase.
Delay results include (values depend upon summary table user selection):
− Weekly User Maximum ( ehicle Hours): The maximum delay that occurred
during each work zone plan and within each construction phase.
− Weekly Total (Vehicle Hours): The total weekly delay within each work zone
plan. Also, the total among all construction phases over the seven days of the
− Phase Total (1000 Vehicle Hours)—Total delay for the duration of the
The project delay summary presents data for each phase with two options. The
user has the option of which days to show on the graph. These options include: whole
week, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. The delay
graph for whole week is given in Figure 28. As it can be seen no queues or delays were
observed for the simulated project. Su
0 Delay Vechicle-Hour/Hour 99 Change in Delay from Base Case
Manually chosen Phases 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 Phase1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Time of Day Figure 28: Delay Graph for the Project (Whole Week) 100
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4.1 Analysis and Discussion of ARENA Simulation Results
The outputs of the 72 simulation runs, each for 24 hours were analyzed and compared with the actual traffic data collected in the field. The vehicle count
comparisons are given in Table 26. Table 26: Comparison of Number of Vehicles observed in the Field during Data
Collection and the Number of Vehicles Obtained from Simulation Output
99.569% Passing Lane
93.803% The number of vehicles observed showed that the number of vehicles on driving
lane is nearly the same with the actual vehicle counts for the average of 72 simulation
runs. However there is a 7% difference in the passing lane vehicle counts. The numbers
of vehicles observed as the result of the simulation runs for passing lane were less when
the averages of 72 replications were compared. In Figure 29 through Figure 3...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 02/26/2014 for the course E 515 at University of Louisiana at Lafayette.
- Spring '13