City of Greater Sudbury Transportation Study Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Validation of the survey data involved the creation of a 24-hour trip table at the traffic zone level from the survey data and, through the use of TransCAD, assigning this trip table to the base year road network. The resulting volumes were summarized on a screenline basis and compared to AADT information aggregated for roads crossing each screenline. Several screenlines were checked. Generally, for the screenlines on the outskirts of Greater Sudbury, the counts were higher than the assignment based on the household survey data. The reason for this is that the household survey data does not represent external data very well (i.e. trips going through Greater Sudbury, or trips originating in Greater Sudbury and leaving, or trips coming into Greater Sudbury). Screenlines closer to the center of Greater Sudbury compared well as these screenlines are less influenced by external traffic (i.e. a larger component of the traffic is internal to Greater Sudbury). Overall, the household survey data compared reasonably well to the daily count information and the survey was considered to accurately reflect the travel behavior of Greater Sudbury residents. 3.5. Overall Survey Results After validation of the household survey data, the survey results were tabulated and comparisons were then made with the survey results from the 1992 Transportation Study. There were some major differences in the way the two household surveys were undertaken. For example, the earlier survey was a mail back survey while the new survey was a home interview survey conducted by telephone. Also, in the previous survey, travel information was collected for household members over the age of 12 while the new survey collected information for those over the age of 15. With respect to trip purpose, the primary trip purpose for an entire day is work as shown in Figure 3.5.1 which shows the percent share that each trip purpose has in terms of total trips. School trips probably represent more than the 10% share of total trips shown in this Figure, however, as mentioned previously, children under the age of 16 were not surveyed. This has resulted in a lower percentage of total trips. A direct comparison of trip purpose with the previous survey results could not be undertaken as the previous survey results appear to be for a different time period (perhaps the a.m. peak hour or a.m. peak period) and not for an entire day as undertaken in this study. Figure 3.5.1 - Primary Purpose of Trip Personal Business 8% Others 5% Social/Recreational 9% Shopping 25% Work 43% Work School Shopping Social/Recreational Personal Business Others (e.g. pick up/ drop off passenger, etc.) School 10% CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY OFFICIAL PLAN BACKGROUND REPORT September 2005 Page 35
A comparison of trip purpose between this household survey and the 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) undertaken in the Greater Toronto Area is shown in Table 3.5.1. Table 3.5.1 - Primary Purpose of Travel Primary Trip Purpose 2003 Greater Sudbury Survey 2001 TTS Work 43% 37% Shopping 25% 14% School 10% 11% Social/Recreational 9% N/A Personal Business 8% 12% Other 5% 26% Many of the “other” trips from the TTS could be “social/recreational trips”. There also seems to be a significant difference in “shopping trips” with Greater Sudbury residents making a higher percentage of shopping trips then residents in the Greater Toronto Area. In addition to automobile, transit, walking and bicycling, there were a number of other travel choices in Greater Sudbury that were captured in the survey. These other modes included ride sharing. Automobile passengers and taxi trips totaled approximately 18% of the total daily trips made in Greater Sudbury and chartered bus trips and school bus trips totaled approximately 3% of the daily trips. Figure 3.5.2 shows the primary mode of travel. The majority of travel in Greater Sudbury is by automobile. Figure 3.5.2 - Primary Mode of Travel Transit 3% Bus 4% Others 6% Auto Driver Auto Passenger 18% Auto Passenger Transit Bus (chartered and school) Others (e.g. bicycle, w alking,etc.) Auto Driver 69% CITY OF GREATER SUDBURY OFFICIAL PLAN BACKGROUND REPORT September 2005 Page 36
Page 1 and 2: City of Greater Sudbury Transportat
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED 4. TRAF
Page 5 and 6: FIGURES CONTINUED Figure 8.1.1 Road
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Context The City
Page 9 and 10: A second series of public informati
Page 11 and 12: l. Construction of one additional w
Page 13 and 14: 18. Continue to require the prepara
Page 15 and 16: Data Collection and Monitoring 43.
Page 17 and 18: Levack Onaping Dowling Worthington
Page 19 and 20: Schedule C Projects generally inclu
Page 21 and 22: 1.5. Scope of Work The scope of wor
Page 23 and 24: A second series of public informati
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 11 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Wi
Page 27 and 28: The former City of Sudbury makes up
Page 29 and 30: Truck Routes Wahnapitae First Natio
Page 31 and 32: Existing Daily Traffic Volumes (200
Page 33 and 34: 2.3.2. Screenlines The operation of
Page 35 and 36: Ramsey Lake Road in the westbound d
Page 37 and 38: Based on findings of the household
Page 39 and 40: Conventional Transit Routes Capreol
Page 41 and 42: To address these issues, Greater Su
Page 43 and 44: The following list of accessibility
Page 45 and 46: The results to these questions are
Page 47 and 48: 2.9.2. Chamber of Commerce The Grea
Page 49: 3. HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 3.1. Methodolog
Page 53 and 54: 4. TRAFFIC FORECASTING MODEL 4.1. M
Page 55 and 56: Figure 4.2.1 - Traffic Zone System
Page 57 and 58: Table 4.3.1 - Assumed Auto Capaciti
Page 59 and 60: Figure 4.4.1 - P.M. Peak Period Hom
Page 61 and 62: Rio Can Centre Super Mall New Sudbu
Page 63 and 64: The goodness of fit for these FIGUR
Page 65 and 66: Table 4.6.1 - Model Validation Scre
Page 67 and 68: 5. FUTURE CONDITIONS To generate fu
Page 69 and 70: Daily Travel Demand City of Greater
Page 71 and 72: Table 5.5.1 - Screenline Analysis -
Page 73 and 74: Year 2021 Capacity Deficiencies Cit
Page 75 and 76: Building Blocks For A Comprehensive
Page 77 and 78: 7. EVALUATION OF ROAD NETWORK IMPRO
Page 79 and 80: Table 7.3.1 - Example of Comparativ
Page 81 and 82: The use of Barrydowne Road as an al
Page 83 and 84: A truck bypass is required for a nu
Page 85 and 86: The Barrydowne Road extension alter
Page 87 and 88: Road Improvements Common to All Alt
Page 89 and 90: 8.2. Evaluation of the Road Network
Page 91 and 92: Table 8.2.1 - Road Network Improvem
Page 93 and 94: In terms of the economic environmen
Page 95 and 96: 8.3. Potential Road Improvements Be
Page 97 and 98: 9. LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 9.1. Loc
Page 99 and 100: 4. Kathleen Street Improvements Kat
Page 101 and 102:
for Bancroft Drive, minimal traffic
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 9.1.2 - Montrose Road Extens
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 9.1.4 - Martilla Drive Exten
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 9.1.6 - Barrydowne South Con
Page 109 and 110:
Provide dual northbound left turn l
Page 111 and 112:
10. ROAD DESIGNATIONS 10.1. Existin
Page 113 and 114:
TABLE 10.1.1 - ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Page 115 and 116:
Under future conditions, the sectio
Page 117 and 118:
10.3. Road Access Policies Policies
Page 119 and 120:
Greater Sudbury staff should encour
Page 121 and 122:
Widen MR 80. Provide a continuous l
Page 123 and 124:
11.3. Funding Options Capital outla
Page 125 and 126:
12. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations
Page 127 and 128:
a. The Hawthorne Drive Connection b
Page 129 and 130:
25. Continue to improve coverage th
show all

City of Greater Sudbury Transportation Study Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?