Transportation Border Working Group

Transportation Border Working Group Ottawa: November 7, 2012 Pembina - Emerson Port of Entry Study David Lettner: Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation

Project Steering Committee (PSC)The Pembina - Emerson Study Partnership

2Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT)David Lettner, Project Manager and PSC ChairWalter Burdz (P. Eng.), Executive Director Highway EngineeringBrett Wareham (P. Eng.), Director of Regional Operations (Region 1)North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)Jack Olson, Assistant Division Director, Planning and ProgrammingLes Noehre (P.E.), Grand Forks District EngineerTransport 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 3TBWG: Bi-national institutional support

Policy context and alignment of planning strategiesSharing of best practices / experiencesTechnology applications, studies and data sourcesPeer network (agency subject matter experts) and agency perspectivesTimely exposure to emerging funding opportunitiesTBWG 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 4Project Background and Context Existing Situation / Historical Activity

Planning Principles / Best Practices

Key Study Methodologies

Proposed Port Concept / Measures of Effectiveness

Presentation Overview52009Initial inter-agency meeting (precursor to project steering committee - PSC)GBCF Application to TC

2010GBCF Contribution Agreement (CA) signed between MIT and TCMOU and CA signed between MIT and NDDOT

2011PSC formedESP registry / TOR finalized / RFP process / ESP retained (study start date Oct 5)

2012Phase 1-Concept Planning completed (broad agency consensus for concept)Phase 2-Functional Design mobilized (MIT: transportation infrastructure)

Generalized Project Milestones (2009-2012)640+ stakeholders Phase 1-Conceptual Planning (Project Governance)

730+ agency specialists

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 conceptPhase 1-Conceptual Planning (Study Objectives)8Generalized Project Delivery Process 9

Policy Context (Canada)10

Policy Context (United States)11

Historical Activity (2-way truck-based trade)

12Historical Activity (Vehicle Movements: 2005-2011)

1314Existing Situation: (study area)

Existing Situation (functional flows + operational analysis)

15Existing Situation (SB improvements 2011-2012)

SB improvements:$1.7M $525K for VMS $1.2M for pavements16Optimize Public Investments: CBP 1997$14.5MCBSA 1999$10.5MMIT 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 Practices17Best Practices (TDM / TSM thinking) 18Transportation Demand Management (TDM)TDM strategies are intended to reduce demand on facilities and infrastructure during peak periods by modifying travel behaviourProviding access to delay and congestion data for port usersUsing ITS applications like BIFA to provide real time traveller informationPromoting 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 practicesData collectionAdvance notification, channelization, lane assignment strategiesOptimizing flexibility & cross-over functions of PIL infrastructure Vehicle Demand Forecasts Hourly arrivals by vehicle category (autos, trucks)Hourly data: Synchro-Sim Traffic and undertake LOS analysis

Synchro-Sim Traffic Simulation Model30th highest hour: establish design parameters (ex: # PIL booths)Establish trigger points for phasing in improvements Level of Service (LOS) FrameworkSensitivity analysis to verify and refine phasing of improvementsCapability to assess various processing / infrastructure scenariosVerification of Synchro-Sim queue lengthsKey Study Methodologies (Methodology Integration)19Vehicle ForecastsLOSAnalysisSynchro Sim Hourly traffic volumes to 2035Sensitivity analysis to assess various processing / infrastructure scenarios30th highest hour / 99th percentile to establish facility design requirementsMethodology Integration | Best PracticesLOS and Synchro-Sim corroboration / cross-validation20Objective: 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)21Rationale for Forecasting ApproachVehicle 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 movementsCustom algorithms developed to distribute annual forecast data for:Every hour of every day (to 2035) based on custom expansion factorsFHWA vehicle classes / Gross vehicle weight / volumeroute splits (I-29 and I-94) / traffic splits (SB / NB)Percentage of empty backhaulsForecast Methodology & Demand Scenarios

2223Forecasts: Buses

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

24Forecasts: Autos

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 periodMediumHigh +1%Low -1%25Forecasts: 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

MediumHigh +1%

Low -1%

Traffic VolumeForecast PeriodAnnual Growth Forecast TrendlineAlgorithms 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 requirementsCapturing Forecast Peaks26The Rationale Behind Developing Algorithms9 million data pointswere required to obtain hourly arrival rates to the year 2035Vehicle Forecasts (2012-2035)

27

Historical and Forecast Trade Value

28

29Synchro-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)

30Synchro-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)Synchro-Sim Outputs (PIL requirements analysis) 31

Frequency: Number of occurrencesMagnitude: Delay to individual vehiclesDuration: length of delay period

Day and Date: Holidays (day of the week or fixed date)Vehicle Type: Truck / Auto peaking characteristics32Delay Factor Analysis (Synchro output + LOS framework)Level of Service (LOS) Framework

33

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

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

34Approach to Populating LOS Output Tables35Graphical 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 capacityFlexibility 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 / technologiesNumber 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

36Approach to Interpreting LOS Output Tables37LOS Applications: SB (PILs: dwell time / # / staffing)

38LOS Applications: NB (PILs: dwell time / # / staffing)

39LOS Analysis: Southbound (SB)

LOS Analysis: Northbound (NB)

40

41Conceptual Elements

Proposed Concept (overall)

42Proposed Concept (northern component detail)

43Proposed Concept (port area detail)

44Southbound and Northbound Utilize PTH 75 and I-29 for passenger vehicle traffic approach to PIL plazaConstruct 2 new dedicated commercial lanes (FAST / non-FAST)

SouthboundConvert all CBP commercial PILS to high / low boothsNew secondary commercial inspection facility

Northbound New CBSA commercial plaza (4 PILS, VACIS, secondary)New commercial service road connection to PTH 75

Access ManagementNew Emerson Access Road at PTH 75 / PR 243 junction

Key Southbound and Northbound Elements

45Preliminary 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 46

Synchro-Sim MOE Output (delay: SB frequency)

47

Synchro-Sim MOE Output (delay: NB frequency)

48

49Synchro-Sim Traffic Simulation: MOE Output

David E. Lettner, BA, MPA, MCIPProject Manager: Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study

Senior Transportation Planning ConsultantManitoba Infrastructure and TransportationTransportation Systems Planning Branch

CONTACT:

215 Garry Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 3P3T: 204.945.5270E: david.lettner@gov.mb.ca

Presented by:50