Thesis Juan Def PDF

The Improvement and Study: Bergamo’s Node
Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering

Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering (DICEA)
Master Degree in Transport Systems Engineering
Juan David Correa Panesso

Matricola 1818433
Relatore Correlatore
Paola Di Mascio Giuseppe Loprencipe
A.A. 2018-2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 10
2. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 11
3. CONCEPTS AT IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURES ......................................................... 14
3.1. Context of the CBA For Infrastructures ............................................................................... 14
3.2. Delays as a Main Factor ......................................................................................................... 15
3.3. The Level of Service ................................................................................................................ 16
4. CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT................................................................................................... 19
4.1. Premise ..................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2. Territorial Framing ................................................................................................................. 20
4.3. Functional analysis of the junction ....................................................................................... 21
4.4. Analysis of the Current Transport Offer ............................................................................. 23
4.4.1. State Strada SS671.................................................................................................................. 24
4.4.2. Strada Provinciale SP EX SS 470.......................................................................................... 24
4.4.3. The Highway.......................................................................................................................... 25
4.4.4. Bergamo A4 Toll ................................................................................................................... 26
4.5. Analysis of Current Transport Demand .............................................................................. 27
4.5.1. Bergamo A4 Casello Data .................................................................................................... 28
4.5.2. Demand 2016 ......................................................................................................................... 29
4.5.3. Demand 2019 ......................................................................................................................... 35
4.5.4. Traffic Summary .................................................................................................................... 36
5. SOLUTIONS AND IMPROVMENTS OF THE CONFLICT AREAS ................................... 38
5.1. Analysis of the Current State................................................................................................. 38
5.2. Analysis of Project Alternatives ............................................................................................ 41
5.2.1. Project Alternative No. 1 ...................................................................................................... 41
5.2.2. Project Alternative No. 2 ...................................................................................................... 44
5.2.3. Project Alternative 3 .............................................................................................................. 46

2
5.2.4. Project Alternative 4 .............................................................................................................. 49
5.3. LEVEL OF SERVICES ANALYSYS OF THE CONFLICT ZONES .................................. 52
5.3.1. Matrix OD Update ................................................................................................................ 52
5.3.2. Current State .......................................................................................................................... 54
5.3.2.1. Interchange Ramps ............................................................................................................ 54
5.3.2.1.1. Interchange Ramp 1 ........................................................................................................ 55
5.3.2.1.2 Interchange Ramp 2 ......................................................................................................... 66
5.3.2.1.3 Interchange Ramp 3 ......................................................................................................... 68
5.3.2.2. Entry Ramps........................................................................................................................ 70
5.3.2.2.1 Entry Ramp 1 ................................................................................................................... 71
5.3.2.2.2 Entry Ramp 2 .................................................................................................................... 73
5.3.2.3. Exit Ramps........................................................................................................................... 74
5.3.2.3.1 Exit Ramp 1 ....................................................................................................................... 75
5.3.3. Solution 1 ................................................................................................................................ 78
5.3.3.1. Interchange Ramp .............................................................................................................. 78
5.3.3.2. Entrie Ramp ........................................................................................................................ 78
5.3.3.3. Exit Ramp. ........................................................................................................................... 79
5.3.3.3.1 Exit Ramp 1 ....................................................................................................................... 79
5.3.3.3.2 Exit Ramp 2 ....................................................................................................................... 79
5.3.3.3.3 Exit Ramp 3 ....................................................................................................................... 80
5.3.4. Solution 2 ................................................................................................................................ 80
5.3.4.2. Entrie Ramp ........................................................................................................................ 80
5.3.4.3. Exit Ramp. ........................................................................................................................... 81
5.3.5. Solution 3 ................................................................................................................................ 81
5.3.5.2. Entrie Ramps ....................................................................................................................... 81
5.3.5.3. Exit Ramps........................................................................................................................... 81
3
5.3.6. Solution 4 ................................................................................................................................ 81
5.3.6.1. Interchange Ramps ............................................................................................................ 81
5.3.6.2. Entrie Ramps ....................................................................................................................... 82
5.3.6.3. Exit Ramps........................................................................................................................... 82
6. TRAFFIC SIMULATION ............................................................................................................ 83
6.1.1. Network Construction .......................................................................................................... 84
6.2. Input Data.................................................................................................................................. 85
6.3. Calibration of the Model ......................................................................................................... 88
7. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 92
7.1. 2016 Results .............................................................................................................................. 96
7.2. 2024 Results ............................................................................................................................ 100
7.3. 2048 Results ............................................................................................................................ 102
8. COST BENEFIT ANALISYS .................................................................................................... 106
8.1. Cost of Expenses.................................................................................................................... 106
8.1.1. Total Cost of Infrastructure................................................................................................ 106
8.1.2. Cost of Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 107
8.2. Cost of Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 107
8.2.1. Calculation of Total Delay ................................................................................................. 108
8.3. CBA ......................................................................................................................................... 118
9. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 124
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 128
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Level of Service Criteria for unsignalized intersections ........................................... 18
Figure 2: Study are location ........................................................................................................... 19

4
Figure 3: Study area before the first intervention....................................................................... 21
Figure 4: Southwest Junction Overview View ........................................................................... 22
Figure 5: Territorial Framing ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6: State Road 671- between junction A4 and SS42 ......................................................... 24
Figure 7: SP ex SS470 – north bound way with the A4 –northbound ..................................... 25
Figure 8: Section via Highways – northbound direction .......................................................... 26
Figure 9: Bergamo's A4 Toll........................................................................................................... 27
Figure 10: Annual data – Bergamo's A4 tollbooth...................................................................... 28
Figure 11: Average Annual Daily Data – Bergamo's A4 Tollbooth ......................................... 29
Figure 12: Sections monitored year 2016 ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 13: OD Sections ................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 14: Localizing Automatic Survey Stations ...................................................................... 35
Figure 15: Traffic Surveys 2019 - HPM ........................................................................................ 36
Figure 16: Comparison with Survey Campaign 2016 - HPM ................................................... 37
Figure 17: Conflict analysis of the current state.......................................................................... 38
Figure 18:Interference Matrix – Analysis of individual traffic conflicts ................................. 39
Figure 19: Functional Diagram Solution 1 .................................................................................. 42
Figure 20: Interference Matrix – Analysis of individual traffic conflicts ................................ 43
Figure 21: Functional diagram solution 2 .................................................................................... 44
Figure 23: Functional Diagrama Solution 3 ................................................................................. 47
Figure 25: Functional Diagram Solution 4 ................................................................................... 50
Figure 27: 2016 OD Matrix ............................................................................................................. 53
Figure 28: Update 2019 OD matrix ............................................................................................... 54
Figure 29: interchange Graphic locations .................................................................................... 55
Figure 30: Passenger car equivalent flow rate veh/h 8 - 9 2019 ............................................... 58
5
Figure 31: Ns configuration .......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 32: Flows Quality depending on the interchange length and flow ............................. 66
Figure 33: Entry ramps location .................................................................................................... 71
Figure 34: Exit ramps location ....................................................................................................... 75
Figure 35: Vissim network solution 4 ........................................................................................... 84
Figure 36: 2016 OD matrix for the current scenario ................................................................... 86
Figure 37: 2016 OD matrix for the first solution ......................................................................... 86
Figure 38: 2016 OD matrix for the second solution .................................................................... 86
Figure 39: 2016 OD matrix for the third solution ....................................................................... 86
Figure 40: 2016 OD matrix for the fourth solution ..................................................................... 87
Figure 41: Driving behavior parameters ...................................................................................... 90
Figure 42: Google traffic map at peak hour................................................................................. 91
Figure 43:Evaluation configuration .............................................................................................. 93
Figure 44: Simulation Parameters ................................................................................................. 95
Figure 45: Delay OD matrix for the current scenario in 2016 .................................................. 97
Figure 46: LOS OD matrix for the current scenario 2016 .......................................................... 97
Figure 47: delay OD matrix for solution 1 in 2016 scenario ...................................................... 97
Figure 48: LOS OD matrix for solution 1 (2016) ........................................................................ 97
Figure 49: Delay OD matrix for solution 2 in 2016 scenario ..................................................... 98
Figure 51: delay OD matrix for solution 3 in 2016 scenario ...................................................... 98
Figure 53: Delay OD matrix for solution 4 in 2016 scenario .................................................... 99
Figure 55: Delay OD matrix for solution 1 in 2024 scenario .................................................. 100
Figure 56: LOS OD matrix for solution 1 (2024) ...................................................................... 100
Figure 57: delay OD matrix for solution 2 in 2024 scenario .................................................... 100
6
Figure 59: delay OD matrix for solution 3 in 2024 scenario ................................................... 101
Figure 61: delay OD matrix for solution 4 in 2024 scenario ................................................... 102
Figure 63: Delay OD matrix for solution 1 in scenario 2048 .................................................. 102
Figure 64: LOS OD matrix for solution 1 (2048) ....................................................................... 103
Figure 65: delay OD matrix for solution 2 in scenario 2048 ................................................... 103
Figure 67: delay OD matrix for solution 3 in scenario 2048 ................................................... 104
Figure 69: Delay OD matrix for solution 4 in 2048 scenario .................................................. 104
Figure 71: Personal delay vs node demand solution 1 ............................................................ 109
Figure 75: Distribution demand over the day. ......................................................................... 112
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 2016 OD matrices for each means at morning peak hour .......................................... 31
Table 2: 2016 OD matrices for each means at night peak hour ................................................ 32
Table 3: Passenger- Car equivalents on extended Freeway ...................................................... 57
Table 4: PROPORTION OF TRUCKS/BUSES IN THE TRAFFIC ............................................ 57
Table 5: Heavy - vehicle adjustment factor ................................................................................. 58

7
Table 6: Symbols and definitions for interchange zones ........................................................... 59
Table 7: Constants for Ws and Wns Factors ................................................................................ 63
Table 8: Level of service by density .............................................................................................. 65
Table 9: Quality of the interchange flow...................................................................................... 65
Table 10: Symbols and definitions for entries zones calculations ............................................ 71
Table 11: The value of Pac for the entries calculations .............................................................. 72
Table 12: Level of service by density ............................................................................................ 73
Table 13: Symbols and definitions for exit zones calculations ................................................. 75
Table 14: The value of Pac for the exit ramps ............................................................................. 76
Table 15: Level of service according to the Vissim manual ...................................................... 96
Table 16: Total cost of infrastructure by categories .................................................................. 107
Table 17: Cost of maintenance ..................................................................................................... 107
Table 18: Hour delay in seconds per year for the current state .............................................. 112
Table 19: Hour delay in seconds per year for the solution 1 .................................................. 113
Table 23: Value of time per person and average occupancy factor according the handbook
on external cost of transport. ....................................................................................................... 115
Table 24: Total cost process of benefits per each year for solution 1 ..................................... 116
Table 28: CBA Solution 1 .............................................................................................................. 120
Table 29: CBA indicators solution 1 ........................................................................................... 120
Table 32: CBA Solution 3 ............................................................................................................. 122
8
Table 33: CBA indicators solution 3 .......................................................................................... 122
9
1. ABSTRACT
The following is a study of a road node intersection in a real case in the city of Bergamo,
which, due to its high vehicular demand, represents a constant problem, in terms of
delays, service level, and safety.
It has been identified for different reasons such as construction facilities, particular
interests and underestimation of transport analysis that when it comes to addressing this
kind of projects in reality there is an absence of analysis in the different benefits that
directly had an impact for the users that make use of these infrastructures. In this way, it
has been decided to start a transport analysis considering the users as the most benefited
with these decisions.
Having identified the main points of conflict of the node, it has been decided to propose 4
possible road infrastructure solutions, and make a study of traffic in a general, detailed
and total way (by means of a micro simulation) as well as a financial study of all the road
node in its current state, and for all possible solutions taking into account the current
demand, as well as future demand projections.
Thus, with all the results, an analysis has been carried out to explained in detail which
solution is more convenient and provides greater benefits during its useful life.
10
2. INTRODUCTION
The roads infrastructure works make a crucial contribution to economic development and
growth and bring important social benefits. They are of vital importance in order to make
a nation grow and develop. In addition, providing access to employment, social, health
and education services makes a road network crucial in fighting against poverty.
And it is so much like this so that even the most developed countries never stop building,
maintaining and repowering their infrastructures, even if that means, spending most of
the country's budget or entering a considerable debt, but knowing that the multiple
benefits will eventually return positively for all the parties, both for the state and for
society. Society that as individuals enjoy the benefits from the new infrastructure works so
they found themselves with the possibility to improve their quality of life, by providing
accessibility, reducing delays, reducing noise and environmental pollution, saving fuel,
and so forth.
And it is precisely there where all the efforts should be focused, in society. And build
road infrastructure projects, implies a long process that involves the development of
activities in sequence, limited budget, which seeks to solve a problem most of the times for
the good of society. And it is in this process when the parties involved, private and the
public, tend to lose the priorities on the final objectives of maximizing the benefits to the
individuals when it comes to evaluating the possible solutions to an infrastructure
problem.
11
And normally this is due the fact that in the planning, bidding and construction process,
problems related to construction processes, budget limitation, purchase of land, among
others, often makes the chosen option the best immediate option that adapt to a present
context, but not the one that will maximize the benefit for the users. and this does not
mean that no benefits for society will not be evidenced, in fact they are evidenced, and this
makes this problem overlooked by the fact that these problems are always reflected in
future costs.
The main objective of the thesis is to analyze, the current state, and the alternatives
(proposed by INGESCA company in charge of the pre-feasibility study and viability of
the design) of a road infrastructure project "REDEVELOPMENT OF THE A4
MOTORWAY EXIT AND CONNECTION WITH THE BERGAMO INTERURBAN AXIS”
(which I served as junior designer), so they can be evaluated in order to reach the best of
them in terms of benefits for the users.
In Chapter 3 the CBA for infrastructures, the importance of the delays as a main factor,
and the level of services concepts will be studied. For that, the general concept of CBA,
delays and level of service will be explained.
In chapter 4 the context of the project will be explained, the characteristics of demand,
territorial framing, traffic state, functional analysis, the scope of the project, the challenges
and the expected results will be described in this chapter.
12
In chapter 5 the different alternatives project will be explained; the project will be
analyzed from the geometric technical point of view. in which all areas of conflict will be
analyzed, in a way that a technical review of the current scenario and future scenarios will
be done by carry out a confrontation between them.
In chapter 6 the description of the entire creation of the 3D network will be made in order
to run the simulation and access the results of LOS and delays, the entire process of
creation, calibration of the model will be carried out in the Vissim (For microsimulation)
software, the current state and the alternatives will be evaluated.
In chapter 7 after running the Vissim microsimulation the results of the delays and level of
service, as for the whole will be illustrated, described and analyzed for each branch as for
the whole node.
In chapter 8 once all the results have been obtained for the level of service as for the
delays, for the current state as for each solution, and with the general costs of each one, the
cost-benefit analysis can be performed in order to obtain the main indicators in order to
carry out an appropriate financial analysis.
13
3. CONCEPTS AT IMPROVING
INFRASTRUCTURES
3.1. Context of the CBA For Infrastructures
The growing world population and its inherent need for increased transportation is
straining existing transportation infrastructure and creating the need for megaprojects.
Financial resources are scarce and therefore must be allocated efficiently. Properly valuing
transportation infrastructure in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) will allow for the most efficient
allocation of resources and allow us to do more with less resources (Heather Jones 2014).
CBA is a formal process for evaluating a project that evolved from the economic constructs
of consumer surplus and externality. It then moved into a formal regulated process based
upon work by economists and government agencies and is now required by many entities
for project approval, seeking the efficient allocation of. CBA has been called the “single
most important problem-solving tool in policy work”. It is a decision-making tool that is
one of the most widely accepted and applied methods for project appraisal for large-scale
infrastructure investments in the public sector because it provides many benefits
including, a model of rationality, creating, evaluating and
comparing alternatives including different scales for the alternatives, monetizing the costs
and benefits and guiding decision makers” (Munger, 2000).
CBA weighs the pros and cons of a project or policy in a rational and systematic process.
Inherently requires the creation and evaluation of at least two options, “do it or not” plus
it requires an evaluation at several different scales. Decision makers must assess who are
14
the gainers and losers across both space and time. Therefore, it monetizes both inputs and
outputs. This monetization is founded on a socially accepted valuation system that
transforms the inputs into a monetary value using actual or shadow prices. Essentially, it
seeks to enumerate all direct costs and benefits to society of a particular project, assign
monetary values, discount them to a net present value and add them into a single number
to evaluate the project (Nickel, J 2009).
3.2. Delays as a Main Factor

Travel time is one of the largest categories of transport costs, and time savings are often
claimed to be the greatest benefit of transport projects such as roadway and public transit
improvements. Factors such as traveler comfort and travel reliability can be quantified by
adjusting travel time cost values. On an average people devote 60-90 minutes a day to
travel. Most people seem to enjoy a certain amount of personal travel, about 30 daily
minutes, and dislike devoting more than about 90 minutes a day (Mokhtarian and
Salomon, 2001)
Delay is an important measure of effectiveness in traffic studies, as it presents the direct
cost of fuel consumption and indirect cost of time loss to motorists. Delay, however, is a
parameter that is difficult to estimate because it includes the delay associated with
decelerating the vehicle to stop, the stopped delay, and the delay associated with
accelerating from a stop. This is particularly true in oversaturated traffic demand
conditions, where vehicles continuously decelerate and accelerate. The problems
associated with vehicular traffic moving through an urban street network are numerous.
In particular, as a result of the continuous increase of traffic in central urban areas, traffic
queues and delays are often experienced. For any policy making process to deal with the
worsening situation, it is the initial priority to estimate the impacts of traffic delay on the
overall national economy in monetary terms. Besides, estimates of delay costs give the
15
value that can be imposed on the road users which is a very effective and widely used
method of traffic demand management.
With increasing delays and congestion on streets and highways, finding effective ways to
maintain acceptable levels of service is critical to satisfying users as well as protecting the
environment. As a result, traffic and transportation problems are aggravating day by day.
These problems are manifesting themselves in the form of increased traffic congestion,
delays and subsequently causing wastage of fuels and creation of pollution and make it a
hoard of residential, commercial and business activities. Lack of proper planning and
designing of intersection signals, bus bays, parking areas etc. are the main reasons for the
cause of delays and congestions faced by road transportation. Here comes the importance
of developing methods for estimating and quantifying the amount of delay in the form of
value of time, fuel cost and pollution costing
3.3. The Level of Service
Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions
within a traffic stream. Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed
and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience
(HCM 2000).
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures
available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best
operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of
16
operating conditions and the driver’s perception of those conditions. Safety is not included
in the measures that establish service levels (HCM 2000).
For unsignalized intersections LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection
types: all-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled
intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the
movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop-controlled
intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual
movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop-controlled intersection
is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance
overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is defined in terms
of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average
delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed
with discretion. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all-way
and two-way, stop controlled) (HCM 2000).
Figure 1 Level of Service Criteria for unsignalized intersections
17
The Los criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different from the criteria
used for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation facilities create
different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to
carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an
unsignalized intersection.
18
4. CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT
4.1. Premise
This study aims to assess the possible road-related consequences of the project to
redevelop the tiered roundabout junction located on the intercity axis of Bergamo at the
A4 motorway junction, which is the main access node to the city.
The roundabout located on the Interurban Axis of Bergamo, at the A4 motorway junction
of the city of Bergamo, is submerged by a substantial vehicle volumes on the , mainly that
coming and heading towards the highway and connecting with the airport of Orio al
Serio, the east-west flows passing along the "Interurban Axis", those in the north-south
direction in and out of the city and heading towards the valleys along the Sp ex SS470. In
particular, recent traffic estimates (March 2019) show a significant commitment of the
motorway node, with about 13,750 vehicles/h affecting it during peak hours.
The junction is therefore simultaneously affected by large traffic flows, some of which
overlap and mutually interfering, which make the junction particularly difficult,
particularly during peak hours. Morning and evenings.
Figure 2: Study are location
19
The work therefore arises from the need to improve the connections affecting the node and
at the same time raise the service levels of the intersection in relation to the volume of
traffic.
In this sense, the technical and economic feasibility project, to which this study is attached,
has pursued the aim of identifying different design solutions with the intention of
eliminating conflicting maneuvers, improving their capacity and consequently the
expected vehicle outflow on the road node, while trying to contain the costs of building
the infrastructure.
4.2. Territorial Framing
The study area affected by the new infrastructure is located in the southern area of the
City of Bergamo. The area is characterized by a population spread over small or medium-
sized urban centers, the most important of which is the provincial capital, with almost
120,000 inhabitants, followed by Treviglio with 29,000 and Dalmine with 23,000. The other
municipalities do not exceed 20,000 inhabitants.
The motorway junction as we know today, originates with the work related to the World
Cup in Italy in 1990, when the Interurban Axis Cuneo-Seriate was built. Previously, access
to the motorway was made with a two-level junction between the Former SS470 of the
Valleys and Via Highway.
20
Figure 3: Study area before the first intervention
With the works carried out in 1989 by Anas, the junction acquires the existing
conformation. Since then there has been a maximum development of the area with various
urbanization interventions between residential and industrial.
4.3. Functional analysis of the junction

The Bergamo Node is a three-tiered junction that manages, as mentioned above, five
important lines characterized by high levels of traffic. Below the ground level we have the
junction ramp between the SP ex SS 470 and the Interurban Axis, this track manages the
flows coming from the west wanting to climb towards the valleys of Brembo and Serio.
21
Above the ground level, the junction provides continuity to the Interurban Axis through a
viaduct and connects the SP ex SS 470 and the Interurban Axis with a detected ramp that
manages those coming from the valleys and desire to continue east.
All the other directions are managed by a roundabout with a 130m radius crown located
on the ground level. The entries of the different ramps in the roundabout take place in
various ways, through a stop for those coming from the Interurban Axis from any of the
both entrance , with a give priority to those coming from Bergamo, with a direct entry to
the left for those who arrive from the valleys and with the right of way for those who leave
the motorway tollbooth.
One-lane ramps have a width of 6.00 m and two-lane ramps are 10.50m.
Figure 4: Southwest Junction Overview View
22
4.4. Analysis of the Current Transport Offer
The purpose of this document is the improvement of the multi-level roundabout junction
located on the Bergamo intercity axis at the A4 motorway junction, which is the main
access node to the city.
In detail the following road directions converge in the under-analysis node:
From the south, access to the A4 motorway via the Bergamo motorway tollbooth;
In east-west crossing, sPexSS671 "Interurban Axis"; From the north, via Highway, the main
access route to the city center; to the north-west, the Paltriniano ring road, which also
serves as a link with the Seriana Valley (SPexSS671) and the Brembana Valley (SPexSS470).
Figure 5: Territorial Framing
In order to better frame the road reference scenario, the main road ways of the main road
network of the study area will be analyzed.
23
4.4.1. State Strada SS671
The 671 highway of Val Seriana is a separate road infrastructure with two lanes per
direction. Starting from the municipality of Treviolo then at the intersection with the
former highway 470 direction of Val Brembana and up to Seriate, in Cassinone. Within the
study area, the road axis is part of the Bergamo intercity axis. All major roads leading to
the city and the junction for Orio al Serio airport are connected with junctions.
Figure 6: State Road 671- between junction A4 and SS42
4.4.2. Strada Provinciale SP EX SS 470
The SP ex SS470 in the section being analyzed is a separate road infrastructure with two
lanes per direction of travel. the section through the village of Bergamo is characterized by
24
intersections at staggered levels, while near the Bergamo node there is a traffic light
intersection that causes quite consistent queuing’s in the peak time slots.
Figure 7: SP ex SS470 – north bound way with the A4 –northbound
4.4.3. The Highway
It is an urban road connecting the center of Bergamo and the A4 Motorway. In the vicinity
of the study area, there are separate carriageways with two lanes per direction of travel.
25
Figure 8: Section via Highways – northbound direction
4.4.4. Bergamo A4 Toll
The tollbooth A4 of Bergamo is characterized by 7 lanes inbound to the toll (of which 2
dedicated to Tele-pass customers), while on exit there are 11 lanes (of which 3 dedicated to
Tele-pass customers, 2 to pay by card, 5 to pay in cash and 1 for Tele-pass customers and
card payment).
The following image show the details of the lanes and their dislocation along the barrier of
the A4 toll in in Bergamo.
26
Figure 9: Bergamo's A4 Toll
4.5. Analysis of Current Transport Demand
In order to analyze, in detail, and forecast the impact on future decisions, it is necessary to
reconstruct the traffic flows currently circulating on the existing network, it means
estimate the current transport demand. In the case of this study, the data was available
from the automatic surveys carried out by the Province of Milan, the province of Bergamo,
the company ASPI, in addition to the database of traffic detections implemented by
investigations direct in the field.
In particular, the main sources and reference years of such data are:
• The Lombardy Region's OD matrix (2014);
27
• The databases of large-area traffic surveys conducted directly in the field (2014 –
2016);
• traffic surveys from third parties such as, Milan Province, Bergamo Province and
ASPI (2014 – 2018);
• Traffic surveys carried out directly within the study in 2016;
• Traffic surveys carried out directly within the study in March 2019.
4.5.1. Bergamo A4 Casello Data
Autostrade per l’italia has provided aggregated data on the tollbooth of the A4 in
Bergamo for the last decade (divided by entrance and exit and by vehicle class) and the
hourly data in and out of the tollbooth for the month of October 2018.
The following graphs show the trend of flows detected on the tollbooth over the last
decade.
Figure 10: Annual data – Bergamo's A4 tollbooth
28
Figure 11: Average Annual Daily Data – Bergamo's A4 Tollbooth
The peak of the tollbooth's operation is found in the morning peak time slot with about
3,200 outgoing vehicles and 2,300 entering the toll.
4.5.2. Demand 2016
In 2016, the O/D matrix was obtained as result of a traffic investigation campaign carried
out by Tandem in 2013, from 1 to 7 June.
Automatic surveys were performed using radar sensors, pneumatic tubes and inductive
plates (rectangular sections); In addition, data relating to the Bergamo tollbooth (circular
sections) were obtained at Autostrada for Italy.
29
The tables below show the node origin destination matrix 2016, for each means (having
considered car, moto, light, heavy), and for the peak hour both the morning as the night.
which correspond to the zones indicated in the next figure.
30
Table 1: 2016 OD matrices for each means at morning peak hour
31
Table 2: 2016 OD matrices for each means at night peak hour
32
The image below shows the sections monitored on 2016 at the intersection.
Figure 12: Sections monitored year 2016
The image below shows the source and destination zones of the intersection, which
correspond to the zones indicated in the arrays below.
33
Figure 13: OD locations
As it can be seen in both scenarios the network is having a highly demand of vehicles
during the peak hour, with more than 12,000 vehicles. It can also be appreciated it that
behavior of the demand is not changing dramatically between the morning and the night
peak hour.
34
4.5.3. Demand 2019
In order to obtain a precise forecast of the future scenarios, it is important to have
knowledge pf current flows affecting this intersection at 2019. The counts were performed
with cameras of the type Miovision and/or action cameras and Radar systems.
The following image shows the location of the sections being monitored.
Figure 14: Localizing Automatic Survey Stations
35
4.5.4. Traffic Summary
The survey campaign carried out in March 2019 revealed an overall load of traffic flows in
transit on the node approximately of 13,750 vehicles/h in the morning rush hour. In the
evening rush hour, the vehicle load it was also high with approximately of 13,000 vehicles.
Compared to the similar survey campaign carried out in 2016, there was an increase of
13.5%. The following images show the inbound traffic flows to the node at morning rush
hour and the comparison with the survey carried out in 2016.
Figure 15: Traffic Surveys 2019 - HPM
36
Figure 16: Comparison with Survey Campaign 2016 - HPM
37
5. SOLUTIONS AND IMPROVMENTS OF THE
CONFLICT AREAS
5.1. Analysis of the Current State
In the seek to analyze our current state, it has been necessary to enter in detailed level, so
each of the branches was rigorously analyzed in order to determine the total number of
crossings, or points of conflict, so then could be categorized by their level of affectation
and thus be able to have a cleaner perspective of what should be done or proposed in
initial instances for the improvement of the node and its service levels.
Figure 17: Conflict analysis of the current state
38
A.I. SP671 DA LECCO CASELLO A4 A.I. SP671 DA LAGO ISEO SP 470 VIA AUTOSTRADA
RAMO A RAMO B RAMO C RAMO D RAMO E
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LECCO RAMO
A.I. SP671 DA
MANOVRA 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2
A
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 2
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 1 1
RAMO B
CASELLO
MANOVRA 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A4
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
MANOVRA 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3
ISEO RAMO C
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 1
A.I. SP671 DA LAGO
MANOVRA 2 1 1 1 1
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 2 3
MANOVRA 4 1 2 2 1 2 3
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
MANOVRA 2 1 1
RAMO
SP
470
1 2 2
D
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4 2 1 2
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
VIA AUTOSTRADA
1 1
RAMO E
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3 1
MANOVRA 4
LEGENDA
PUNTI DI CONVERGENZA
PUNTI DI DIVERGENZA NUMERO CONFLITTI
PUNTI DI INTERSECAZIONE
PUNTI DI CONVERGENZA + DIVERGENZA
138
PUNTI DI CONVERGENZA + DIVERGENZA + ATTRAVERSAMENTO
Figure 18:Interference Matrix – Analysis of individual traffic conflicts
As it can be seen from the interference matrix, a total of 138 points of conflict were
identified, some tolerable others to be removed, regardless of the assessment of traffic
volumes.
39
In particular, the most serious situations were found on the paths of the following
branches:
- Branch A (Interurban Axis from the west) maneuver 3 (direction Bergamo) and
maneuver 4 (direction Lecco - residential area Canovine) due to the fact that they must
cross the inbound flows to the tollbooth coming from all directions and enter in the flow of
cars coming out of the tollbooth.
- Branch B (Exit from the Toll) maneuver 2 (direction Valli), maneuver 3 (direction
Bergamo) and maneuver 4 (direction Lecco - residential area Canovine) because they are
crossing the flows coming from the west on the roundabout that are coming the
Interurban Axis eastbound access.
- Branch C (Paltrinian Circular – Ex SS470) maneuver 3 (tollbooth direction), maneuver 4
(Orio direction) due that they are crossing the flows that are coming from the Interurban
Axis, Bergamo and those that are leaving the tollbooth.
Further critical elements are the interchange zones that often have completely inadequate
lengths. The most dangerous situation is the entry from Orio of the Interurban Axis, where
the exchange zone has a length of only 30 m. The ramp enters are almost parallel to the
roundabout traffic with a stop, with serious visibility problems. The absence of a priority
for those coming from the tollbooth means that the speed of the vehicles at this point is
already sustained. The inflow is also crossed by those who want to climb towards the
Valleys, causing dangerous situations and severe slowdowns.
40
The situation is also the fact of the queuing’s that are formed on the Interurban Axis
heading Lecco, creating areas at risk even outgoing for those who enter at the last
moment.
Another very dangerous area is the one to the southwest exiting the incoming ramp from
the Ex SS470 to the tollbooth. The interchange zone has a limited length of about 60 m,
there is the presence of an underpass that prevents users from seeing the nearby satin
crossing with stop.
5.2. Analysis of Project Alternatives
Several design solutions were considered during the design process to increase optimally
the functionality of the node in terms of traffic and safety. In the following paragraphs it
will be described all the alternatives analyzed.
5.2.1. Project Alternative No. 1
The first solution analyzed involves a series of works that improve the functionality of the
node, among them are:
• Elimination of roundabout circulation between the southwest quadrant and the
northeast quadrant;
• Creation of direct ramps for the flows out of the tollbooth to the center of Bergamo
with a new underpass and for the Ex SS470 heading to the Valleys;
41
Figure 19: Functional Diagram Solution 1
This proposal allows for a direct connection, taking advantage of the existing roundabout
for those who decides to go to the motorway toll booth from the airport. For the same’s
that are coming from the airport have the free maneuvers on the right both to reach the Ex
SS470 heading to the Valleys, and to go on via Highway heading downtown to Bergamo.
Another important intervention is the enhancement of the entry on the Interurban Axis for
those who come from the tollbooth and head to the Orio junction. The north and south
roadways of the acceleration and deceleration lanes are expected to be connected,
effectively eliminating the need to exchange with the Interurban Axis for directions to and
from the airport.
Finally, it was possible to eliminate the crossing flow of the lanes from the entrance of the
tollbooth by creating a new ramp that allows to connect the Interurban Axis, (Lecco origin)
to the Center of Bergamo, taking advantage in part of the junction ramp with the former
SS470 in the underpass. All this intervention greatly reduces the conflict points between
42
node maneuvers by dropping them from 138 of the fact state to only 53 in the project
solution. Having then eliminated all crossing conflicts the level of safety of all maneuvers
is expected to have a greatly increased.

MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1 1 1 S S
LECCO RAMO
A.I. SP671 DA
MANOVRA 2 1 S 1 S
S 1 1 S
A
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
MANOVRA 1 S
RAMO B
1 1 S
CASELLO
MANOVRA 2
A4
MANOVRA 3 1 1 S
MANOVRA 4 2 1 1 2 2 S
ISEO RAMO C
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 S
A.I. SP671 DA LAGO
MANOVRA 2 1 1 1 S
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 2 S
MANOVRA 4 1 2 2 1 2 S
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 S
MANOVRA 2 1 1 S
SP 470
RAMO
S MANOVRA SOPPRESSA
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 S
D
MANOVRA 4 2 1 S
MANOVRA 1 1 1 S
VIA AUTOSTRADA
MANOVRA 2 1 S
RAMO E
MANOVRA 3 S
MANOVRA 4
LEGENDA
53
Figure 20: Interference Matrix – Analysis of individual traffic conflicts
The weak point of this solution is the impossibility of guaranteeing the maneuver that
allows those from Bergamo to reach the Ex SS470. This route represents about 3% of the
node's overall road load and must be resolved by taking advantage of local traffic, which
at present already appears to have poor levels of service. However, there is an increased
capacity to attract traffic from the node, which brings with it a relief of the urban net
capable of partially mitigating the lack of a maneuver.
43
5.2.2. Project Alternative No. 2
The second solution analyzed involves a series of works that improve the functionality of
the node, among them:
• Elimination of roundabout circulation in the southeast quadrant;
• Creation of direct ramp for the output of the flow coming from the tollbooth for the
Ex SS470 heading towards the valleys;
• Direct ramp creation for the former SS470 direction the Valleys which collects the
other maneuvers
Figure 21: Functional diagram solution 2
The solution involves the construction of a ramp in the south-east quadrant that
undergoes the other ramps with a three-branch intersection, with the branch coming out
of the tollbooth that leads to reach the center of Bergamo on the countryside floor and
with the ramps continuing to the east that continue to the east that are in high detect.
44
The slopes of the ramps in this area are particularly high. The interchange ramps remain
in the northeast, northwest and southwest quadrants. In this solution as well, the intercity
Axis upgrade between the motorway node and the Orio junction is planned, which is
considered essential to ensure an improvement in the levels of exchange between the two
infrastructures.
.
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1 1 1 S
LECCO RAMO
A.I. SP671 DA
MANOVRA 2 1 S 1
S 1 1
A
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
RAMO B
1 1
CASELLO
MANOVRA 2
A4
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 2 1
MANOVRA 4 2 1 2 1 2 2 2
ISEO RAMO C
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 1
A.I. SP671 DA LAGO
MANOVRA 2 1 1 1
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 2 2
MANOVRA 4 1 2 2 1 2 2
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
1 1
SP 470
MANOVRA 2
RAMO
S MANOVRA SOPPRESSA
1 1 2 2
D
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4 2 1 2
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
VIA AUTOSTRADA
1 1
RAMO E
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3 1
MANOVRA 4
LEGENDA
77
Solution No.2 ensures all maneuvers ensuring full functionality of the node. It is no longer
possible to make the return between the Intercity Axis and the residential area of
Canovine, a maneuver that can be safely solved by exiting earlier and taking advantage of
45
the local roadway. The diverted flow is a few dozen vehicles, which in fact occupy the
entire roundabout being in fact a backwards maneuver.
5.2.3. Project Alternative 3
The third solution analyzed is in fact the most articulate solution of all and was designed
not only to solve the problems of the node but also to improve the local roadway around
the junction. The main interventions that improve the functionality of the node are:
• Elimination of roundabout circulation between the southwest quadrant and the
northeast quadrant;
• Creation of direct ramps for the flows out of the tollbooth to the center of Bergamo
with a new underpass and for the Ex SS470 heading to the Valleys;
• Direct ramp creation for the former SS470 direction the Valleys which collects the
other maneuvers
• Optimal separation, in the north west and southwest quadrants, between direct
tollbooth flows and direct flows to the former SS470 and the Interurban Axis
heading airport
46
In fact, only the swap zone in the northwest quadrant remains, in the other quadrants the
flows are already optimized for the direction of maneuvers. In this solution too, the
intercity Axis upgrade between the motorway node and the Orio junction is planned,
which is considered essential to ensure an improvement in the levels of exchange between
the two infrastructures.
47
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1 1 1 S
LECCO RAMO
A.I. SP671 DA MANOVRA 2 1 S 1
A MANOVRA 3 S
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
RAMO B
1 1
CASELLO
MANOVRA 2
A4
MANOVRA 3 1 1 1
MANOVRA 4 2 1 2 1 2
ISEO RAMO C
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 1
A.I. SP671 DA LAGO
MANOVRA 2 1 1 1
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2
MANOVRA 4 1 2 2 1
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1
MANOVRA 2 1 1
SP 470
RAMO
S MANOVRA SOPPRESSA
MANOVRA 3 1 1
D
MANOVRA 4 2
MANOVRA 1 1
VIA AUTOSTRADA
RAMO E
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3 1
MANOVRA 4
LEGENDA
48
A further intervention provided by Solution 3 is the direct entry on the Interurban Axis
towards Lecco, effectively separating the local traffic from the passing traffic. In the state
of fact, those who want to access the Interurban Axis must occupy the junction on Via S.
Bernardino and continue straight. The junction has serious safety problems and over the
years have caused often serious safety problems even the deaths of those involved.
48
The weak point of this solution, as we will see later is the cost of it. Solution 3 ensures all
maneuvers ensuring full functionality of the node, except for the back turn between the
Interurban Axis and the residential area of Canovine.
5.2.4. Project Alternative 4
The fourth solution analyzed is in fact an economic optimization of the previous solution,
from which some maneuvers were eliminated that could be done equally and that in the
face of significant costs would not have brought a high benefit. The main interventions
that improve the functionality of the node are:
• Elimination of roundabout circulation in the southeast quadrant;
• Direct ramp creation connecting the center of Bergamo to the Interurban Axis heading
for Orio;
• Creation of direct ramp for the output of the flow coming from the tollbooth for the Ex
SS470 heading towards the valleys;
In this solution, again for economic reasons of overall cost of the work and of the cost-to-
cost relationship, it was decided to limit the upgrade of the Interurban Axis between the
motorway node and the Orio junction, but only in the area of entry of the ramp coming
from the junction towards Orio.
49
All of the above, it has allowed to significantly reduce the points of conflict between the
maneuvers, making them from 138 of the state of fact to only 51 in the project solution.
Again, all traversal conflicts have been eliminated, increasing the security level of the
node.
The solution fails to guarantee all the maneuvers as it seems impossible for those coming
from Bergamo to reach the Ex SS470. This route represents about 1% of the node's total
road load and must be resolved by taking advantage of local traffic. However, there is an
increased capacity to attract traffic from the node.
50
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1
MANOVRA 2
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4
MANOVRA 1 1 1 S S
LECCO RAMO
A.I. SP671 DA
MANOVRA 2 1 S 1 S
S S
A
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 S
RAMO B
1 1 S
CASELLO
MANOVRA 2
A4
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 2 S
MANOVRA 4 2 1 2 1 2 S
ISEO RAMO C
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 S
A.I. SP671 DA LAGO
MANOVRA 2 1 1 S
MANOVRA 3 1 1 2 S
MANOVRA 4 1 2 2 1 S
MANOVRA 1 1 1 1 S
MANOVRA 2 1 1 S
SP 470
RAMO
S MANOVRA SOPPRESSA
1 1 S
D
MANOVRA 3
MANOVRA 4 2 1 S
MANOVRA 1 1 1 S
VIA AUTOSTRADA
MANOVRA 2 1 S
RAMO E
MANOVRA 3 S
MANOVRA 4
LEGENDA
51
51
5.3. Level of Services Analysis of The Conflict Zones
In order to improve the level of service and delays in the Bergamo’s node, in this chapter
all relevant conflict areas such as entry ramps, exits, and exchanges will be analyzed. so
that the current state of the work once analyzed will serve as a reference scenario and all
other scenarios will be analyzed with respect to it.
So the process it will start with the study of the current state, by making a geometric check
of the lengths of the different conflict zones and their corresponded flows to which they
are exposed. To do so, it will be followed several processes related to obtaining the level of
service in conflict zones as it is indicated in the high capacity manual 2000.
Thus, once all the service levels of the conflicts of the current state have been calculated,
the calculations will continue for all the conflict zones of the different solutions already
presented previously. considering that many of these conflicts will have disappeared for
reasons of the new geometric layout, and that the traffic flows in some cases due to
changes in the model will change due to the new conditions of the solutions.
5.3.1. Matrix OD Update
With the purpose of initiating the pertinent verifications for each conflict zone, the first
thing that is must be obtained is an update origin destination matrix, due to the fact that
the destination origin matrix is the one that will be used to express the actual flows of the
current demand for each conflict segment. The OD matrix must comply with the following
52
characteristics: it must be reliable based on traffic counts and studies, there must be at
least 2 different OD matrices, one for heavy vehicles and one for light vehicles, fulfilling
the condition of being the OD matrix corresponding peak hour traffic and be updated with
the current demand (2019).
Once the requirements of the OD matrix have been defined, the calculations with the OD
input matrix of the year 2016 will begin. The current matrix is a matrix which is composed
of the sum of 4 matrices (3 of light transport 1 of heavy vehicles), the counts have been
taken in the morning rush hour (8:00 - 9:00) of the year 2016. in which 12109 vehicles / h
were registered.
Although the matrix OD 2019 is not available for the same situation, there is the total
growth of demand, and the counts of the new inflows and flows of the node. which allows
us to start from the assumption that the demand for each route has grown proportionally
with the total demand of the node working with the 2019 matrix.
MATINA A B C D E F TOT
A 0 109 103 50 1630 471 2363
B 131 0 231 83 1078 592 2115
C 134 206 0 88 0 685 1113
D 0 835 0 0 0 0 835
E 1670 835 89 42 0 342 2978
F 688 922 672 429 0 0 2711
TOT 12115
Figure 27: 2016 OD Matrix
53
MATINA A B C D E F TOT
A 0 104 153 48 1892 400 2597
B 155 0 273 97 1293 681 2499
C 171 261 0 137 0 851 1420
D 0 1567 0 0 0 0 1567
E 1840 0 370 57 0 367 2634
F 734 880 908 514 0 0 3036
Total 2900 2812 1704 853 3185 2299 13753
Figure 28: Update 2019 OD matrix
5.3.2. Current State
In the current state of the project as it was described previously, there are 3 sensitive main
conflict areas, which are the interchange areas, these areas in general plays a very
important role in assessing the capacity of the entire node. Due to this fact the main speed
reductions are generated, there is an increase in the density along the length of this area.
but not only the interchange zones will be analyzed, but also an entry ramp and 3 exits,
which also have a component in the overall performance of the node.
Basically, the parameter with which the service level will be defined will be the length of
the different areas analyzed, whether in the interchange, entry, or exits zones. Also,
among the components that are considered in the calculations are: current flows, speeds,
and recorded densities.
5.3.2.1. Interchange Ramps
The 3 exchange ramps that will be analyzed and evaluated with respect to HCM 2000 are
defined below.
54
1
3
2
Figure 29: interchange Graphic locations
5.3.2.1.1. Interchange Ramp 1
In the analysis and verification of the first exchange ramp, a detailed description of the
process will be made, with their respective calculation memories, for the rest will be given
the results explicitly.
The first thing that it must be done is to determine the Vp passenger – car equivalent flow
rate (pc/h/ln) for all values of the update OD matrix 2019.
Equation 1: 15 – min passenger – car equivalent flow rate
55
This process is done by using the PHF (peak – hour factor) which represents the variation
in traffic flow within an hour, bases on the fact that flow rates in the peak 15-min period
within an hour are not sustained throughout the entire hour. Unfortunately, this peak – 15
min flow data is not available. So, the calculations will be made with the actual counted
values, using a factor already studied that normally corresponds in these cases of 0.95.
For the heavy – vehicle adjustment factor the HCM gives the following equations.
Equation 2: heavy vehicle adjustment factor
In this case the proportion of trucks/ buses are gathered in the same category as heavy
vehicles.
The respective values of ET and ER had been taken from the following table that gives an
specific value for each type of terrain.
56
Table 3: Passenger- Car equivalents on extended Freeway
In this case the type of terrain is always going to be level. So the value of 1.5 it was always
used.
For the proportion of heavy vehicles the calculation was done by dividing the number of
trips made by heavy vehcle for each branch by the sum of all trips made by every means
for each branch respectively. The results are showed in the following table.
Table 4: PROPORTION OF TRUCKS/BUSES IN THE TRAFFIC
BRANCH PT
A 0.1112992
B 0.1096927
C 0.1257862
D 0.1293413
E 0.0826058
F 0.0627075
Therefore, everything is given to calculate the heavy – vehicle adjustment factor for each
branch. The results are showed in the following table.
57
Table 5: Heavy - vehicle adjustment factor
BRANCH FHV
A 0.947284025
B 0.948005379
C 0.940828402
D 0.939257593
E 0.960335376
F 0.969599428
In this case the value of N is not going to be considered due to the fact that the value
required is the one that give equivalent flow rate of the complete section, and not per line.
Then in the coming calculations will be done in detail per each line when it is required.
The adjustment factor fp (driver population factor) range from 0.85 to 1.0. In general, de
value of 1.0 is used to reflect commuter traffic. Use of a lower value reflects more
recreational traffic.
Once again having calculated all necessary components to obtain the value of passenger
car equivalent. it will be necessary to calculate it for each of the cells of OD matrix
previously updated. The results are showed in the following figure.
A B C D E F
A 0 116 170 53 2102 444
B 172 0 303 0 1543 756
C 191 292 0 153 0 952
D 0 1121 0 0 0 0
E 2079 621 406 0 0 402
F 797 955 986 558 0 0
Figure 30: Passenger car equivalent flow rate veh/h 8 - 9 2019
58
This is the definitive matrix, with which all the calculations corresponding to the present
and future conflicts will be evaluated, which meets 3 criteria: it is updated to 2019, it
reflects the state of the peak hour, and manages the equivalent flows based on several
criteria of calculation.
then for the calculation of the service levels, all the circulation variables will be defined
with their respective symbol.
Table 6: symbols and definitions for interchange zones

Symbol Definition
L Total length of the interchange segment
N Total number of lanes in the interchange segment
Ns Number of lanes required for the unrestricted regime interchange
Ns max Maximum number of lanes that can be used for interchange according to the configuration
Q Total peak intensity in the interchange section (veh / h)
Q01 Maximum intensity of vehicles that do not interchange (veh / h)
Q02 Minimum intensity of vehicles that do not interchange (veh / h)
QS1 Maximum intensity of the vehicles that interchange (veh / h)
QS2 Minimum intensity of the vehicles that interchange (veh / h)
QS Total interchange intensity QS1 + QS2
QNS Total intensity of non interchange Q01 + Q02
VR Intensity ratio QS / Q
VS Average speed of the vehicles that interchange (km / h)
Vns Average speed of vehicles that do not interchange (km / h)
VFL Average speed of all vehicles that interchange (km / h)
D Density of all vehicles in the section
Ws Interchange intensity facotor
Wns NO interchange intensity factor
The total value of flows are obtained by summing all the flows that during their travel
passed through this section.
• the value of Q is equal to CB + EC + FC + FD + AB + AC + AD +AF
Q = 3980 veh/h
59
• The value of Qs1 is equal to CB + FB
Qs1 = 1247 veh/h
• The value of Qs2 is equal to AC + AD + AF
Qs2 = 668 veh/h
• The value of Q01 is equal to EC + FC + FD
Q01 = 1949 veh/h
• The value of QO2 is equal to AB
Q02 = 116 veh/h
• The value of Qs is equal to Qs1 + Qs2
Qs = 1915 veh/h
• The value of Qns is equal to Q01 + Q02
Qns = 2065 veh/h
• The value of VR is equal to Q/Qs
VR = 0.48119
• The value of VFL its assumed 45 km/h
• The total number of lanes in the interchange segment N is 3.
The maximum number of lanes that can be used for interchange according to the
configuration Ns max is equal to 1.4 according to the different types.
60
Figure 31: Ns configuration
Now Ns will be calculated, to make a verification. If it turns out that Ns < Nsmax. means
it has a "balanced" functioning, in the sense that the speeds of the flows in interchange and
not, are comparable, and the operation is said to be "not constrain". When instead Ns>
Nsmax there is less space than would be necessary for the interchange and the flows
involved experience less quality circulation conditions, with average speed lower than the
flows that do not exchange, and the operation is said to be "constrain".
For the configuration A; NS will be equal to.
61
• Where the total length of the interchange segmente is equal to 65 m
The medium speed of flows that interchange and those who doesn’t must be obtained
The intesity factors of interchange can be calculated with the following formulas.
Equation 3: Intensity factors of interchange
And the constants can be found in the following table
62
Table 7: Constants for Ws and Wns Factors
Having everything to make the respective calculation for the intensity facor the results are
exposed.
• the value of Ws is equal to 0.377
• the value of Wns is equal to 0.10247
Hence everything is set it to calculate the values for Vs and Vns.
• The value of Vs is equal to 53.377
• the value of Vns is equal to 53.102
So finally the value of Ns could be calculated.
• the value of Ns is equal to 1.112
The condition Ns < Ns max is guaranteed, so there is no need to recalculate the constraint
conditions.
63
Once the average speeds of the flows that interchange and those who not are determined,
it is possible to calculate the average speed in the space of all the vehicles as a harmonic
weighted average of the interchange rates.
Equation 4: Average speed
The value of V is equal to 53.23 km/h
The average density is then calculated as
Equation 5: Average density
The value of density is equal to 24,921 Veh/(km*lane).
By comparing the average density with the values on the table, in the category multilane
roads , the service level is obtained.
64
Table 8: Level of service by density
The actual Level of service of the interchange ramp 1 that has total length of 67m is equal
to E wich belong to the category 5 according to the following table.
Table 9: Quality of the interchange flow
and if it is expected to change this current state of service for a more acceptable one such
as D or C, at least in terms of the length of the interchange zone, the length of the same
should be at least 165 m according to the following graph.
65
Figure 32: Flows Quality depending on the interchange length and flow
5.3.2.1.2 Interchange Ramp 2
For the calculation of the interchange ramp number 2 the same exactly same calculation
will be done, and only the results are going to be shown, as the whole proceed was
explained before.
• the value of Q is equal to FA +FB + FC+ FD + EC + ED + CA +CB +BA
Q = 3898 veh/h
• The value of Qs1 is equal to FC + FB +FD
Qs1 = 2499 veh/h
66
• The value of Qs2 is equal to CA + BA
Qs2 = 363 veh/h
• The value of Q01 is equal to FA
Q01 = 797 veh/h
• The value of QO2 is equal to EC + ED + CB
Q02 = 760 veh/h
Qs = 2863 veh/h
Qns = 1557 veh/h
VR = 0.734
• The total number of lanes in the interchange segment N is 3
Hence everything is set it to calculate the values for Vs and Vns
67
So finally the value of Ns could be calculated
conditions.
• The value of V is equal to 47.212 km/h
• The value of density is equal to 27,921 Veh/(km*lane)
Comparing the average density with the values on the table, in the category multilane
roads , the service level is obtained. The actual Level of service of the interchange ramp 2
that has total length of 46 m is equal to F wich belong to the category 5. and if it is
expected to change this current state of service for a more acceptable one such as D or C, at
least in terms of the length of the interchange zone, this length should be at least 150 m.
5.3.2.1.3 Interchange Ramp 3
For the calculation of the interchange ramp number 3 the same exactly same calculation
will be done, and only the results are going to be shown, as the whole proceed was
explained before.
• the value of Q is equal to AF + BA +BF +CF + CA + CB + EF + EC
Q = 3616 veh/h
68
• The value of Qs1 is equal to AF +BF +CF
Qs1 = 2149 veh/h
• The value of Qs2 is equal to EC
Qs2 = 406 veh/h
• The value of Q01 is equal to CA + CB + BA
Q01 = 655 veh/h
• The value of QO2 is equal to EF
Q02 = 402 veh/h
Qs = 2558veh/h
Qns = 1058 veh/h
VR = 0.707
• The total number of lanes in the interchange segment N is 3
69
Hence everything is set it to calculate the values for Vs and Vns
So finally the value of Ns could be calculated
conditions.
• The value of V is equal to 53.5072 km/h
• The value of density is equal to 22,5269 Veh/(km*lane)
Comparing the average density with the values in the table, in the category multilane
roads , the service level is obtained. The actual Level of service of the interchange ramp 3
that has total length of 48 m is equal to D wich belong to the category 4. and if it is
expected to change this current state of service for a more acceptable one such as C, at
least in terms of the length of the interchange zone, this length should be at least 270 m.
5.3.2.2. Entry Ramps
In the analysis and verification of the entry ramps, a detailed description of the process
will be made, with their respective calculation memories, for the rest will be given the
results explicitly. Two entry ramps will be analyzed during all solutions as it is shown in
the next figure.
70
2
Figure 33: Entry ramps location
5.3.2.2.1 Entry Ramp 1
For the calculation of the service levels, all the circulation variables will be defined with
their respective symbol
Table 10: symbols and definitions for entries zones calculations
Symbol Definition
I12 Intensity on lanes 1 and 2 of the highway immediately upstream of the convergence zone
IA Intensity on the highway immediately upstream of the convergence zone
Pac Proportion of the intensity upstream that comes from lanes 1 and 2
IR Total intensity in the area
LA Actual length of acceleration lane
• The value of IA is equal to EA
IA = 1868 veh/h
71
• The value of Pac varies according to the number of lanes, as it is seen in the next
table
Table 11: The value of Pac for the entry’s calculations
Then the value of Pac = 1
• The value I12 is equal to IA * Pac
I12 = 1868 veh/h
The value of IR is equal to BA + CA + FA
IR = 1060 veh/h
• LA = 125m
• The level of service is determined by the density inside the influence area DR
Dr is given by the following expression.
Dr = 3.04 + 0.00456* IR + 0.0048* I12 * LA
Dr = 16.95
72
The corresponding level of service is D according to the following table
Table 12: Level of service by density
5.3.2.2.2 Entry Ramp 2
For the calculation of the entry ramp number 2 the same exactly same calculation will be
done, and only the results are going to be shown, as the whole proceed was explained
before.
• The value of IA is equal to AE
IA = 2102 veh/h
I12 = 20102 veh/h
73
The value of IR is equal to BE
IR = 1543 veh/h
• LA = 113m
Dr = 3.04 + 0.00456* IR + 0.0048* I12 * LA
Dr = 19.087
The corresponding Level of service is D.
5.3.2.3. Exit Ramps.
In the analysis and verification of the entry ramps, a detailed description of the process
will be made, with their respective calculation memories, for the rest will be given the
results explicitly. Two entry ramps will be analyzed during all solutions as it is shown in
the next figure.
74
3
Figure 34: Exit ramps location
5.3.2.3.1 Exit Ramp 1
For the calculation of the service levels, all the circulation variables will be defined with
their respective symbol
Table 13: symbols and definitions for exit zones calculations
Symbol Definition
I12 Intensity on lanes 1 and 2 of the highway immediately upstream of the convergence zone
IA Intensity on the highway immediately upstream of the convergence zone
Pad Proportion of the intensity on the of the highway coming from lane 1 and 2
IR Total intensity in the area
LA Actual length of acceleration lane
• The value of IA is equal to EA
IA = 3596 veh/h
75
• The value of Pac varies according to the number of lanes, as it is seen in the next
table
Table 14: The value of Pac for the exit ramps
I12 = 3596 veh / h
The value of IR is equal to EA
IR = 1008 veh / h
• LA = 35m
Dr = 3.402 + 0.00456* IR + 0.0048* I12 - 0.01278*LA
Dr = 21.06
76
The corresponding Level of service is D according to the table 12
5.3.2.3.2 Exit ramp 2
For the rest of the exit ramps calculation the exact same procedure will be done, and only
the results are going to be shown, as the whole proceed was explained before.
• The value of IA is equal to AB + AC + AD + AF + AE
IA = 2887 veh / h
I12 = 2887 veh / h
IR = 896 veh / h
• LA = 114m
• Dr = 3.04 + 0.00456* IR + 0.0048* I12 * LA
Dr = 15.85
The corresponding Level of service is C.
5.3.2.3.3 Exit ramp 3
77
IA = 2887 veh / h
I12 = 2887 veh / h
IR = 896 veh / h
• LA = 114m
• Dr = 3.04 + 0.00456* IR + 0.0048* I12 * LA
Dr = 15.85
5.3.3. Solution 1
5.3.3.1. Interchange Ramp
In the solution 1 all interchange ramps were eliminated
5.3.3.2. Entrie Ramps
The entrance ramps of this solution are exposed to the same level of traffic of the current
scenario and have the same geometry as well.
78
5.3.3.3. Exit Ramp.
5.3.3.3.1 Exit Ramp 1
The value of IA is equal to EA
IA = 2674 veh/h
The value of Pac varies according to the number of lanes, as it is seen in the next table
The value I12 is equal to IA * Pac
I12 = 2674 veh/h
The value of IR is equal to EA
IR = 500 veh/h
LA = 35m
Dr = 16.17
5.3.3.3.2 Exit Ramp 2
IA = 2363 veh / h
79
I12 = 2363 veh / h
IR = 733 veh / h
• LA = 114m
• Dr = 13.07
5.3.3.3.3 Exit Ramp 3
The exit ramp 3 of this solution are exposed to the same level of traffic of the current
5.3.4. Solution 2
5.3.4.1. Interchange Ramp
In the solution 2, all interchange ramps were eliminated
80
The exit ramps of this solution are exposed to the same level of traffic of the first solution
and have the same geometry as well.
5.3.5. Solution 3
In the solution 3, all interchange ramps were eliminated
5.3.6. Solution 4
In the solution 4 all interchange ramps were eliminated
81
5.3.6.3. Exit Ramps
82
6. TRAFFIC SIMULATION
In order to make a realistic and deep detailed analysis of the whole node and not only of
the particular conflict points; in such way that it could be possible to get strong and
consistent results to conclude and make a confrontation between different solutions and
the current state; VISSIM 11 software will be used in order to obtain realistic results by
building all the future and current state scenarios and run multiple simulations, under a
multiple demand requests for each scenario.
The following conditions for the models will be evaluated in order to perform an objective
analysis of the node improvement:
- For the current status and solutions 1,2,3,4 the demand conditions of 2016 will be
evaluated
- for the solution 1, 2, 3, 4 the projected demand of 2024 (corresponding to the year in
which the infrastructure work will be ready for the users) by using a growth rate of
1.5% in the vehicles flow.
- for the solution 1, 2, 3, 4 the projected demand of 2048 (corresponding to 30 years
average of the useful life of an infrastructure of this magnitude) by using a growth rate
of 1.5% in the vehicles flow.
In this subchapter, a detailed description of the entire simulation process will be made,
starting from the construction of the network, the parameter calibration process and the
flow calibration
83
6.1.1. Network Construction
For the construction of the supply network, the first thing that must be done it was to get a
satellite image from google maps with a precise scale, so it could be placed in the Vissim
background with the same realistic scale.
Once the picture is set it can be possible to start tracing the links and connectors in the
network, in which all features such as width of lane, number of lanes, link behavior type
must be compiled.
In this process in order to make a realistic and interactive simulation, it was decided to
create the network with the dimensions of height, (due to the fact that all the designs of
the current and future scenarios from the INGESCA company were available) which made
the process more detailed and extensive because each link had to be united with exact
precision.
Figure 35: Vissim network solution 4
84
6.2. Input Data
Once, the entire supply network is built, all the following input data will be inserted:
vehicle inputs, vehicle route choice, desired speed distribution of the network, proportion
of heavy vehicles per each vehicle input, desired speed segments, and stops segments.
Before describing the process, it should be clarified that the demand flows used to
calibrate the current model, were the flows corresponding to 2016, due to the fact that the
material supplied from the 2019 demand was very poor, instead the demand for 2016 had
all the data to be calibrated correctly
The demands of each of the scenarios are expressed through OD matrices, which fulfill not
only the function of expressing the current and future demand of each solution, but also of
showing the new state of the current maneuvers allowed by the solutions.
As there was no data with the new OD matrices, nor was the macro-modelling model
available; to obtain the results of the new flow distribution many assumptions must be
made for this analysis using google maps as a tool. In this analysis the most attractive
alternatives have been evaluated when the main option is not considered, and thus
distribute the flows in a proportionate way according to google travel times.
The demands of the current state and new solutions for 2016 in the morning peak hour are
shown in the following matrices OD.
85
A B C D E F TOT
A 0 109 103 50 1630 471 2363
B 131 0 231 0 1150 592 2104
C 134 206 0 88 0 685 1113
D 0 1170 0 0 0 0 1170
E 1670 500 89 42 0 342 2643
F 688 922 672 429 0 0 2711
Figure 36: 2016 OD matrix for the current scenario
A B C D E F TOT
A 0 109 103 50 1630 471 2363
B 131 0 231 0 1150 592 2104
C 134 0 0 88 0 685 907
D 0 1170 30 0 0 0 1200
E 1773 500 59 0 0 342 2674
F 688 922 672 429 0 0 2711
Figure 37: 2016 OD matrix for the first solution
A B C D E F TOT
A 0 109 103 50 1630 471 2363
B 131 0 231 0 1150 592 2104
C 134 206 0 88 0 685 1113
D 0 1170 30 0 0 0 1200
E 1670 500 59 0 0 342 2571
F 688 922 672 429 0 0 2711
Figure 38: 2016 OD matrix for the second solution
A B C D E F TOT
A 0 109 103 50 1630 471 2363
B 131 0 231 0 1150 592 2104
C 134 206 0 88 0 685 1113
D 0 1170 30 0 0 0 1200
E 1670 500 59 0 0 342 2571
F 688 922 672 429 0 0 2711
Figure 39: 2016 OD matrix for the third solution
86
A B C D E F TOT
A 0 109 103 50 1630 471 2363
B 131 0 231 0 1150 592 2104
C 134 0 0 88 0 685 907
D 0 1170 30 0 0 0 1200
E 1773 500 59 0 0 342 2674
F 688 922 672 429 0 0 2711
Figure 40: 2016 OD matrix for the fourth solution
The input of the vehicles is inserted by each one of the zones from A to F, in a flow of
vehicles / hour. This number of flows is the one that was counted on site without making
any conversion or using any factor since the program requests for each quantity of
vehicles the proportion of light and heavy vehicles.
Once the flows are inserted the software requests to insert the desired speed distribution
of the vehicles, which would be the speed in which all the flows would behave, the
hypothesis has been taken that all the vehicles within the node will have the same speed
which is the speed most commonly demanded by the current signaling equal to 50 km / h.
all those sections that have different speed limits will be manually adjusted in the software
through the desire speed decision tool.
in the same way and according to the current state signaling, the stops are marked. once
all the signals have been completed, the conflict zones will be identified one by one, and
87
the priority or non-priority of any of the 2 parts of the conflict will be determined in the
knowledge of the operation of the node.
In this way, it just left to assign the vehicle route for each input of the flow by inserting the
proportion of the flow that is distributed on each route. Once the vehicle route is assigned,
everything is ready to run the model and start with the calibration.
6.3. Calibration of the Model
It should be clarified that the entire process of the creation and calibration of the network
was done by using the student version of the Vissim software, which constrict the realism
of the simulation in many aspects
Once all the input data is inserted, the process of calibration of the current state of the
node referring to the year 2016 begins. And without making any modification, the first
simulations are made, in order to have a first perception of the operation of the model.
At first instance and without verifying any kind, several things were evidenced, such as
the large queues of vehicles in branch A, F and in the rest of the branches B,D,E,F not that
large, but in general all branches they showed a queue of an exaggerated and unreal
length and by effect the collapse of the roundabout.
After analyzing several simulations, it could be concluded without making a deep
verification into the traffic counts is that 2 problems had to be corrected.
88
1) The general behavior of all vehicles in the interchange zone was extremely peaceful,
so traffic in this area was highly turbulent. and after 5 minutes the length of the
queues were already considerable
One of the restrictions of the model being used through the student Vissim version is that
the software does not allow you to build a network that exceeds km^2 area. And having
this great length of queues, the vehicles began to enter the network while this was in a
queue state, and this was not realistic because the users normally take route decisions
before they have arrived to the queue.
The first problem it was corrected by doing 2 interventions. First, creating links where the
vehicles had to carry out the interchange zone, which allowed to have very small
connectors (large connectors make it difficult to change lanes). second by changing the
driving behavior parameters of the lane change category only in the links where the
interchange was taking place.
89
Figure 41: Driving behavior parameters
Then the second problem was corrected by creating new invisible links in random and
certainly different directions regarding the direction of the current state of the node. all
this in order that the links in which the formed queue were not large enough to affect the
route choice decision of the users in vehicles.
Once these errors had been corrected, the model will be run a number of times indefinitely
but enough to realize if the model starts to behave in a proper way as it should behave in
reality or in the other hand still somethings had to be corrected. In this case it was still left
to make some modifications on the conflict points priorities but this time without
following the real signaling but the real vehicle behavior.
90
At this point, the flows of the model will be compared, with the state of flows shown by
Google Maps at peak time. To get an idea of how real our model is.
Figure 42: Google traffic map at peak hour
Having done the comparison, satisfactory results were found. This gives place to a more
detailed calibration phase. Having the number of traffic counts in each of the exchange
areas, it will be considered to count from model the number of cars passing through the
section in a certain period of time in order to reach the same number as those counts that
were given as inputs.
To accurately calibrate these traffic counts, it was necessary to iterate again the values of
the lane change behavior of the links that were assigned to the interchange areas.
91
7. RESULTS
Thus, with a model that has already been calibrated, which reflects and gives confidence
in the current state of the node, the simulations for each solution with different demands
can be ran.
Due to the allowance of limited time with the official Vissim software license; for this
study the mainly results that there will be take into account are the general delays of the
node as well as of each route choice, their respective level of service and the lengths of the
queues. Although contamination data can be provided but for the purpose of this study it
will not be taken into account, since the analysis will be done only in terms of traffic and
level service at peak hour.
The first thing that must be done to analyze the models is to create a node over them. and
this node must comply with the characteristics that cover all the entrances and exits of the
node in order to register all movements.
Once the node has been created, interval times must be created in order to write a realistic
simulation. The first interval is to load the network with 40% of the demand for the peak
hour for 30 minutes. the second interval will be the interval of interest and in which all
studies and results will be based on this one-hour interval. The third interval is an interval
of 15 minutes to empty the network.
92
At this point you must configure the evaluation parameters of the node, in which you
must specify what you want to evaluate, the delays, links and the general node. This
evaluation is given for the time range between 1800 and 5400 seconds
Figure 43:Evaluation configuration
93
For the simulation certain parameters must also be regulated. such as the simulation time,
the number of simulations, the resolution of the simulation, the random seed and the
random seed increase.
The simulation time as it was describe already is 6300 second including the time to fill the
network, simulation, and emptying.
In these cases, to obtain a reliable result, and reduce the chances that an out of the
ordinary simulation delivers unreal results, a minimum of 10 simulations is made for each
solution with its respective demand, then for this ten results its easy to obtain the average
values and make the propper evaluation with them.
The random seed value initializes a random number generator. Two simulation runs using
the same network file and random start number look the same. If the random seed varies ,
the stochastic functions in Vissim are assigned a different value sequence and the traffic
flow changes.
The random seed increase is the difference between random seeds when you perform
multiple simulation runs. This number is irrelevant for stochastic distribution.
94
Figure 44: Simulation Parameters
After executing the simulations, the following results were ordered in OD matrices that
show the delay and the corresponding service level, for each solution, for each year.
The following table gives the corresponding value of the service level for both types of
intersections.
95
Table 15: Level of service according to the Vissim manual
7.1. 2016 Results
For the results in different scenarios with the 2016 demand, the following OD matrices are
illustrated, in terms of delay and service level
A B C D E F
A - 416.9 411.6 428.7 6.9 441.2
B 47.5 - 1.2 - 20.7 10.7
C 57.4 89.0 - 13.0 - 21.3
D - 0.9 - - - -
E 2.3 2.4 54.8 60.3 - 6.8
F 36.2 105.0 61.3 65.0 - -
96
Figure 45: Delay OD matrix for the current scenario
A B C D E F
A - F F F A F
B E - A - A B
C E F - B - C
D - A - - - -
E A A F F - A
F E F F F - -
Figure 46: LOS OD matrix for the current scenario 2016
the average delay per vehicle for the whole node configuration for the respective demand
is equal 35,6 s
A B C D E F
A - 2.6 2.8 6.1 2.7 5.8
B 3.0 - 3.1 - 33.9 2.3
C 5.2 - - 4.4 - 4.3
D - 2.2 1.4 - - -
E 2.5 2.9 2.6 - - 2.3
F 1.8 3.6 2.8 5.8 - -
Figure 47: delay OD matrix for solution 1 (2016)
A B C D E F
A - A A A A A
B A - A - D A
C A - - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A A - -
Figure 48: LOS OD matrix for solution 1 (2016)
the average delay per vehicle for the solution 1 configuration for the respective demand is
equal 5,9 s
97
A B C D E F
A - 6.8 5.2 12.1 2.3 8.9
B 2.9 - 1.2 - 47.9 2.4
C 8.1 9.6 - 8.6 - 7.3
D - 2.0 0.7 - - -
E 1.5 2.0 0.9 - - 1.5
F 1.4 3.3 3.1 7.5 - -
A B C D E F
A - A A B A A
B A - A - E A
C A A - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A A - -
equal 7,6
A B C D E F
A - 3.5 2.7 4.5 1.5 4.6
B 2.3 - 4.1 - 2.7 2.1
C 0.5 0.7 - 2.2 - 2.7
D - 2.0 1.2 - - -
E 2.2 2.6 2.1 - - 2.3
F 2.9 5.2 3.5 5.5 - -
A B C D E F
A - A A A A A
B A - A - A A
C A A - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A A - -
98
equal 2,7 s
A B C D E F
A - 1.7 4.7 6.7 2.1 6.3
B 2.9 - 1.7 - 58.9 1.8
C 0.8 - - 3.9 - 3.5
D - 2.0 2.4 - - -
E 2.5 2.7 1.7 - - 2.5
F 0.9 3.7 7.0 6.3 - -
A B C D E F
A - A A A A A
B A - A - F A
C A - - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A A - -
equal 8,26 s
99
7.2. 2024 Results
For the results in different scenarios with the 2024 demand, the following OD matrices are
illustrated, in terms of delay and service level
A B C D E F
A - 3.5 3.8 9.5 3.5 8.3
B 24.9 - 14.9 - 141.5 25.0
C 9.6 - - 8.2 - 8.5
D - 3.1 1.3 - - -
E 4.1 4.8 3.9 - - 3.7
F 2.8 5.9 4.4 8.8 - -
A B C D E F
A - A A A A A
B D - C - F C
C B - - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A A - -
equal 17,93 s
A B C D E F
A - 4.2 5.1 11.1 2.2 12.0
B 28.2 - 15.2 - 154.2 26.0
C 11.4 12.9 - 13.2 - 14.2
D - 2.3 0.5 - - -
E 2.3 2.6 2.2 - - 2.1
F 1.2 4.4 4.8 10.5 - -
100
A B C D E F
A - A A B A B
B D - C - F D
C B B - B - B
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A B - -
equal 19,8 s
A B C D E F
A - 4.5 3.2 7.1 1.8 5.8
B 3.4 - 4.8 - 4.4 3.1
C 0.7 0.9 - 4.3 - 4.1
D - 2.8 1.0 - - -
E 3.7 4.2 3.8 - - 3.7
F 7.0 9.6 7.1 10.4 - -
A B C D E F
A - A A A A A
B A - A - A A
C A A - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A B - -
equal 4,5
101
A B C D E F
A - 2.2 3.6 9.7 2.0 8.1
B 35.6 - 20.7 - 193.4 40.2
C 0.4 - - 4.5 - 4.7
D - 2.3 0.7 - - -
E 2.4 2.7 2.2 - - 2.3
F 0.8 4.3 4.8 6.5 - -
A B C D E F
A - A A A A A
B E - C - F E
C A - - A - A
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A A A A - -
equal 20,47 s
7.3. 2048 Results
A B C D E F
A - 10.1 10.1 31.4 10.8 26.3
B 80.3 - 42.9 - 363.4 78.8
C 96.9 - - 95.0 - 96.5
D - 9.6 4.2 - - -
E 6.5 8.8 6.7 - - 6.0
F 8.0 19.1 9.4 27.2 - -
102
A B C D E F
A - B B D B D
B F - E - F F
C F - - F - F
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A C A D - -
equal 39,54 s
A B C D E F
A - 15.6 33.1 51.3 8.6 47.5
B 104.8 - 61.1 - 435.9 105.2
C 59.3 58.1 - 55.5 - 57.3
D - 6.6 1.7 - - -
E 4.8 7.0 4.4 - - 4.1
F 6.2 17.7 34.4 48.2 - -
A B C D E F
A - C D F A E
B F - F - F F
C F F - F - F
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A C D E - -
the average delay per vehicle for the solution2 configuration for the respective demand is
equal 41,79 s
103
A B C D E F
A - 10.5 9.8 24.4 35.6 21.8
B 39.7 - 25.0 - 201.9 40.7
C 19.6 20.6 - 53.1 - 53.6
D - 5.2 2.3 - - -
E 7.0 7.8 7.0 - - 6.8
F 14.5 19.6 12.7 26.6 - -
A B C D E F
A - B A C D C
B E - D - F E
C C C - F - F
D - A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F B C B D - -
equal 34,12 S
A B C D E F
A - 30.8 65.2 79.0 8.6 78.4
B 75.6 - 44.7 - 338.2 76.1
C 30.0 - - 59.7 - 60.9
D - 3.0 1.0 - - -
E 4.4 5.4 2.9 - - 4.1
F 7.6 17.2 129.4 142.4 - -
104
A B C D E F
A - D F F A F
B F - E - F F
C D - - F - F
D A A - - -
E A A A - - A
F A C F F - -
equal 56,73 S
105
8. COST BENEFIT ANALISYS
This study is done with the ultimate goal of assessing which of the options already studied
from the technical point of view is the most convenient in terms of economic benefit.
For this it must be established the variables of benefits and expenses that will be
considered and those that will not. Therefore, it is clear that the benefits considered in this
study are not the total benefits that will have an impact on users, but they will be
proportional when comparing the different options.
The variables considered as expenses are the cost of investment and the maintenance of
the infrastructure.
The variables considered as benefits are the value of time and the fuel consumption, based
on delays saved.
This study does not consider benefits related with noise pollution, air pollution, or safety.
8.1. Cost of Expenses
8.1.1. Total Cost of Infrastructure
The financial costs of the investment for the intervention alternatives are shown in the
following table, in which it can also be appreciate the total cost consisting of 3 categories:
cost of infrastructure, cost of safety, cost of risk and unexpected events.
106
Table 16: Total cost of infrastructure by categories
8.1.2. Cost of Maintenance
The several costs of maintenance per year are shown in the following table, and there is a
certain growing relationship with the construction costs for each solution.
Table 17: Cost of maintenance
Scenarios Cost €
Current state 24300
Solution 1 46400
Solution 2 55950
Solution 3 78610
Solution 4 47340
8.2. Cost of Benefits
As mentioned above the benefits considered are proportional to the delays savings
provided by the different solutions. Taking this into account, the objective is to calculate
107
all delays saved in 25 years and based on an equivalent value per unit of time an
equivalent cost can be given as a benefit.
8.2.1. Calculation of Total Delay
For the calculation of the total delay, it starts from the premise of constructing a demand
vs. delay graph with all the points recorded in the simulations. In this way we can obtain
an equation that adjusts the trend and behavior of the delays that are changing with
respect to the demand year after year.
Once this is done, it should be considered that these delays only make part of the peak
hour segment of all years. Therefore, it is necessary to take as input the graph of
distribution of the demand during normal working days from Monday to Saturday.
It cannot be assumed to make a distribution of the delays proportionally, since you must
study what is the point at which the delays begin, since in a large percentage of the hours
they are not created delays an analysis of the more hours must be made demanded only
equation values where delays values are positive or greater than 0.
In this way a proportional distribution of the delays should not be made, since it is
necessary to study the point at which the delays begin, because in a large percentage of the
hours no delays are created. An analysis is carried out of the most demanded hours where
only equation values where delays are positive or greater than 0 are considered.
108
Figure 71: Personal delay vs node demand solution 1
109
110
Solution 1 presents its positive delays point at the moment when demand is 10300
vehicles/h.
vehicles/h.
vehicles/h.
vehicles/h.
From the following figure the distribution of the demand during the hours of the day can
be appreciated, with this distribution, and with the equation of the general delay
depending on the demand we will start counting all the delays by hours of the day for
each year.
111
Figure 75: Distribution demand over the day.
The following results of the hour delay in seconds per year are given in the following
tables.
Table 18: Hour delay in seconds per year for the current state
Year (1) 7 - 8 (2) 8-9 (3) 16-17 (4) 17-18 (5) 18 - 19 (1) Delay (s) (2) Delay (s) (3 )Delay (s) (4) Delay (s) (5) Delay (s)
2024 13624,3 7992,9 5903,9 8483,4 9082,9 41,4 12,0 19,1
2025 13827,3 8112,0 5991,8 8609,8 9218,2 42,2 12,8 19,9
2026 14033,4 8232,9 6081,1 8738,1 9355,6 43,0 13,6 20,7
2027 14242,4 8355,6 6171,7 8868,3 9495,0 43,9 14,5 21,5
2028 14454,7 8480,1 6263,7 9000,4 9636,4 44,7 15,3 22,3
2029 14670,0 8606,4 6357,0 9134,5 9780,0 45,5 16,1 23,1
2030 14888,6 8734,7 6451,7 9270,6 9925,7 46,3 16,9 23,9
2031 15110,5 8864,8 6547,9 9408,8 10073,6 47,1 17,7 1,0 24,8
2032 15335,6 8996,9 6645,4 9549,0 10223,7 47,9 18,5 1,8 25,6
2033 15564,1 9130,9 6744,4 9691,3 10376,1 48,8 19,3 2,6 26,4
2034 15796,0 9267,0 6844,9 9835,7 10530,7 49,6 20,2 3,5 27,2 1,4
2035 16031,4 9405,1 6946,9 9982,2 10687,6 50,4 21,0 4,3 28,0 2,3
2036 16270,2 9545,2 7050,4 10130,9 10846,8 51,2 21,8 5,1 28,8 3,2
2037 16512,7 9687,4 7155,5 10281,9 11008,4 52,0 22,6 5,9 29,7 4,2
2038 16758,7 9831,8 7262,1 10435,1 11172,5 52,8 23,4 6,7 30,5 5,1
2039 17008,4 9978,3 7370,3 10590,6 11338,9 53,7 24,2 7,5 31,3 6,0
2040 17261,8 10126,9 7480,1 10748,4 11507,9 54,5 25,1 8,3 32,1 7,0
2041 17519,0 10277,8 7591,6 10908,5 11679,4 55,3 25,9 9,2 32,9 7,9
2042 17780,1 10431,0 7704,7 11071,1 11853,4 56,1 26,7 10,0 33,7 8,8
2043 18045,0 10586,4 7819,5 11236,0 12030,0 56,9 27,5 10,8 34,6 9,8
2044 18313,9 10744,1 7936,0 11403,4 12209,2 57,7 28,3 11,6 35,4 10,7
2045 18586,7 10904,2 8054,3 11573,3 12391,2 58,5 29,1 12,4 36,2 11,6
2046 18863,7 11066,7 8174,3 11745,8 12575,8 59,4 29,9 13,2 37,0 12,5
2047 19144,8 11231,6 8296,1 11920,8 12763,2 60,2 30,8 14,1 37,8 13,5
2048 19430,0 11398,9 8419,7 12098,4 12953,3 61,0 31,6 14,9 38,6 14,4
112
Table 19: Hour delay in seconds per year for the solution 1
Year (1) 7:00 - 8:00 (2) 8:00-9:00 (3) 17:00- 18:00 (4) 18:00 - 19:00 (1) Delay (s) (2) Delay (s) (3 )Delay (s) (4) Delay (s)
2024 13461,1 16,8
2025 13661,7 17,7
2026 13865,2 18,7
2027 14071,8 19,6
2028 14281,5 20,5
2029 14494,3 21,5
2030 14710,3 22,4
2031 14929,4 23,3
2032 15151,9 10101,3 24,3
2033 15377,7 10251,8 25,2
2034 15606,8 10404,5 26,1 0,6
2035 15839,3 10559,5 27,0 1,6
2036 16075,3 10009,6 10716,9 28,0 2,5
2037 16314,9 10158,7 10876,6 28,9 3,4
2038 16557,9 10310,1 11038,6 29,8 0,1 4,3
2039 16804,7 10463,7 11203,1 30,8 1,0 5,3
2040 17055,0 10005,6 10619,6 11370,0 31,7 1,9 6,2
2041 17309,2 10154,7 10777,8 11539,4 32,6 2,8 7,1
2042 17567,1 10306,0 10938,4 11711,4 33,6 0,0 3,8 8,1
2043 17828,8 10459,6 11101,4 11885,9 34,5 1,0 4,7 9,0
2044 18094,5 10615,4 11266,8 12063,0 35,4 1,9 5,6 9,9
2045 18364,1 10773,6 11434,7 12242,7 36,3 2,8 6,6 10,9
2046 18637,7 10934,1 11605,1 12425,1 37,3 3,8 7,5 11,8
2047 18915,4 11097,0 11778,0 12610,3 38,2 4,7 8,4 12,7
2048 19197,2 11262,4 11953,5 12798,2 39,1 5,6 9,4 13,6
2024 13577,0 7965,2 8454,0 9051,4 17,6
2025 13779,3 8083,9 8579,9 9186,2 18,6
2026 13984,7 8204,3 8707,8 9323,1 19,7
2027 14193,0 8326,6 8837,5 9462,0 20,7
2028 14404,5 8450,6 8969,2 9603,0 21,7
2029 14619,1 8576,6 9102,8 9746,1 22,8
2030 14837,0 8704,3 9238,5 9891,3 23,8
2031 15058,0 8834,0 9376,1 10038,7 24,8
2032 15282,4 8965,7 9515,8 10188,3 25,9
2033 15510,1 9099,3 9657,6 10340,1 26,9
2034 15741,2 9234,8 9801,5 10494,1 27,9
2035 15975,7 9372,4 9947,6 10650,5 29,0 0,7
2036 16213,8 9512,1 10095,8 10809,2 30,0 1,7
2037 16455,4 9653,8 10246,2 10970,2 31,0 2,7
2038 16700,6 9797,7 10398,9 11133,7 32,0 3,8
2039 16949,4 9943,6 10553,8 11299,6 33,1 0,0 4,8
2040 17201,9 10091,8 10711,1 11468,0 34,1 1,1 5,8
2041 17458,2 10242,2 10870,7 11638,8 35,1 2,1 6,9
2042 17718,4 10394,8 11032,6 11812,3 36,2 3,1 7,9
2043 17982,4 10549,7 11197,0 11988,3 37,2 0,0 4,2 8,9
2044 18250,3 10706,9 11363,9 12166,9 38,2 1,0 5,2 10,0
2045 18522,2 10866,4 11533,2 12348,2 39,3 2,1 6,2 11,0
2046 18798,2 11028,3 11705,0 12532,2 40,3 3,1 7,3 12,0
2047 19078,3 11192,6 11879,4 12718,9 41,3 4,1 8,3 13,0
2048 19362,6 11359,4 12056,4 12908,4 42,4 5,2 9,3 14,1
113
Year (1) 7:00 - 8:00 (2) 8:00-9:00 (3) 17:00- 18:00 (4) 18:00 - 19:00
(1) Delay (s) (2) Delay (s) (3 )Delay (s) (4) Delay (s)
2024 13577,0 7965,2 8454,0 9051,4 8,3
2025 13779,3 8083,9 8579,9 9186,2 9,3
2026 13984,7 8204,3 8707,8 9323,1 10,3
2027 14193,0 8326,6 8837,5 9462,0 11,4
2028 14404,5 8450,6 8969,2 9603,0 12,4
2029 14619,1 8576,6 9102,8 9746,1 13,5
2030 14837,0 8704,3 9238,5 9891,3 14,5
2031 15058,0 8834,0 9376,1 10038,7 15,5
2032 15282,4 8965,7 9515,8 10188,3 16,6
2033 15510,1 9099,3 9657,6 10340,1 17,6
2034 15741,2 9234,8 9801,5 10494,1 18,7
2035 15975,7 9372,4 9947,6 10650,5 19,7
2036 16213,8 9512,1 10095,8 10809,2 20,7
2037 16455,4 9653,8 10246,2 10970,2 21,8
2038 16700,6 9797,7 10398,9 11133,7 22,8
2039 16949,4 9943,6 10553,8 11299,6 23,8
2040 17201,9 10091,8 10711,1 11468,0 24,9
2041 17458,2 10242,2 10870,7 11638,8 25,9
2042 17718,4 10394,8 11032,6 11812,3 27,0
2043 17982,4 10549,7 11197,0 11988,3 28,0
2044 18250,3 10706,9 11363,9 12166,9 29,0 0,6
2045 18522,2 10866,4 11533,2 12348,2 30,1 1,6
2046 18798,2 11028,3 11705,0 12532,2 31,1 2,6
2047 19078,3 11192,6 11879,4 12718,9 32,2 3,7
2048 19362,6 11359,4 12056,4 12908,4 33,2 4,7
2024 13461,1 7897,2 8381,8 8974,1 20,4
2025 13661,7 8014,9 8506,7 9107,8 21,9
2026 13865,2 8134,3 8633,4 9243,5 23,4
2027 14071,8 8255,5 8762,1 9381,2 24,9
2028 14281,5 8378,5 8892,6 9521,0 26,5
2029 14494,3 8503,3 9025,1 9662,9 28,0
2030 14710,3 8630,0 9159,6 9806,8 29,5
2031 14929,4 8758,6 9296,1 9953,0 31,0
2032 15151,9 8889,1 9434,6 10101,3 32,5
2033 15377,7 9021,6 9575,2 10251,8 34,0
2034 15606,8 9156,0 9717,8 10404,5 35,5
2035 15839,3 9292,4 9862,6 10559,5 37,1
2036 16075,3 9430,9 10009,6 10716,9 38,6
2037 16314,9 9571,4 10158,7 10876,6 40,1
2038 16557,9 9714,0 10310,1 11038,6 41,6 0,1
2039 16804,7 9858,7 10463,7 11203,1 43,1 1,6
2040 17055,0 10005,6 10619,6 11370,0 44,6 3,1
2041 17309,2 10154,7 10777,8 11539,4 46,1 4,6
2042 17567,1 10306,0 10938,4 11711,4 47,6 6,2
2043 17828,8 10459,6 11101,4 11885,9 49,2 0,7 7,7
2044 18094,5 10615,4 11266,8 12063,0 50,7 2,2 9,2
2045 18364,1 10773,6 11434,7 12242,7 52,2 3,7 10,7
2046 18637,7 10934,1 11605,1 12425,1 53,7 5,2 12,2
2047 18915,4 11097,0 11778,0 12610,3 55,2 0,6 6,7 13,7
2048 19197,2 11262,4 11953,5 12798,2 56,7 2,2 8,2 15,2
114
Having obtained the results for the delays for all hours, during the different years, it make
way to the calculation of the entire annual delay for each solution, in order to see the
contrast with the current state delay and obtain the difference of delays that It would be
the delay saved. this delay saved will be assigned a value in euros per hour which will be
15 euros / hour, which contains the benefit of saving gasoline and time.
Table 23: Value of time per person and average occupancy factor according the handbook on external cost
of transport.
In the average delay time, 2.4 liters of gasoline / hour are lost. and the value of a liter of
gasoline is 1.6 euros / liters. so that one hour of delay is considered as 3.8 euros / hour.
An average car occupancy factor of 1.7 for the case of Italy it was to high and optimistic to
be assumed, so according with the surveys in north of Italy it was assumed a value of 1.3
persons/ vehicle.
The following tables show the total value of the benefits in euros year after year, after
calculating the time saved after the solution and the current status.
115
Table 24: Total cost process of benefits per each year for solution 1
Total delay (s) Current Delay Time saved (s) Time saved (h) Cost
84222535,6 356677944,7 354192031,9 98386,7 1.475.800,1 €
90201744,8 372807311,3 367387236,5 102052,0 1.530.780,2 €
96340436,2 389338147,0 380897024,0 105804,7 1.587.070,9 €
102642034,9 406278834,6 394727839,6 109646,6 1.644.699,3 €
109110032,7 423637917,8 408886250,5 113579,5 1.703.692,7 €
115747989,3 441424103,6 423378948,6 117605,3 1.764.079,0 €
122559533,5 459646266,0 438212752,2 121725,8 1.825.886,5 €
129548364,5 481168880,3 457106670,5 126974,1 1.904.611,1 €
136718253,2 502685426,2 475757324,9 132154,8 1.982.322,2 €
144073043,5 524736340,9 494862286,5 137461,7 2.061.926,2 €
154057916,8 553677376,6 519505297,8 144307,0 2.164.605,4 €
165482273,2 581237022,5 540481174,0 150133,7 2.252.004,9 €
177212873,1 609495023,9 561966796,0 156101,9 2.341.528,3 €
189256306,1 638466073,3 583972697,4 162214,6 2.433.219,6 €
201840293,9 668165145,9 606222307,7 168395,1 2.525.926,3 €
218151383,3 698607505,1 624592958,4 173498,0 2.602.470,7 €
234903732,5 729808707,3 643376467,2 178715,7 2.680.735,3 €
252106870,0 761784607,4 662581058,6 184050,3 2.760.754,4 €
269896441,0 794551364,5 682051400,5 189458,7 2.841.880,8 €
291649349,6 828125447,2 697418926,9 193727,5 2.905.912,2 €
313990575,1 862523639,2 713092983,3 198081,4 2.971.220,8 €
336932820,1 897763045,2 729079292,6 202522,0 3.037.830,4 €
360489035,0 933861096,6 745383680,2 207051,0 3.105.765,3 €
384672422,5 970835557,6 762012075,6 211670,0 3.175.050,3 €
409496442,9 1008704531,0 778970514,5 216380,7 3.245.710,5 €
116
Year Total delay (s) Current Delay Time saved (s) Time saved (h) Cost
2024 88907942,7 356677944,7 348101002,6 96694,7 1.450.420,8 €
2025 95521747,2 372807311,3 360471233,4 100130,9 1.501.963,5 €
2026 127891130,7 389338147,0 339881121,2 94411,4 1.416.171,3 €
2027 136606539,6 406278834,6 350573983,5 97381,7 1.460.724,9 €
2028 145553274,6 423637917,8 361510036,1 100419,5 1.506.291,8 €
2029 154736294,2 441424103,6 372694152,2 103526,2 1.552.892,3 €
2030 164160653,6 459646266,0 384131296,1 106703,1 1.600.547,1 €
2031 173831505,9 481168880,3 399538586,7 110982,9 1.664.744,1 €
2032 183754104,2 502685426,2 414610718,6 115169,6 1.727.544,7 €
2033 193933803,7 524736340,9 430043298,4 119456,5 1.791.847,1 €
2034 204376062,9 553677376,6 454091707,8 126136,6 1.892.048,8 €
2035 218385227,8 581237022,5 471707333,1 131029,8 1.965.447,2 €
2036 234604819,6 609495023,9 487357265,5 135377,0 2.030.655,3 €
2037 251259271,6 638466073,3 503368842,2 139824,7 2.097.370,2 €
2038 268357941,6 668165145,9 519749365,6 144374,8 2.165.622,4 €
2039 286057274,8 698607505,1 536315299,5 148976,5 2.234.647,1 €
2040 309214561,0 729808707,3 546772390,2 151881,2 2.278.218,3 €
2041 332998426,8 761784607,4 557422034,8 154839,5 2.322.591,8 €
2042 357422403,1 794551364,5 568267649,9 157852,1 2.367.781,9 €
2043 382512225,1 828125447,2 579297188,7 160915,9 2.413.738,3 €
2044 413395413,8 862523639,2 583866693,1 162185,2 2.432.777,9 €
2045 445113999,9 897763045,2 588443758,9 163456,6 2.451.849,0 €
2046 477686022,0 933861096,6 593027597,1 164729,9 2.470.948,3 €
2047 511129870,5 970835557,6 597617393,2 166004,8 2.490.072,5 €
2048 545464294,7 1008704531,0 602212307,2 167281,2 2.509.217,9 €
Year Total delay (s) Current Delay (s) Time saved (s) Time saved (h) Cost
2024 41755957,8 356677944,7 409398583,0 113721,8 1.705.827,4 €
2025 47701010,2 372807311,3 422638191,5 117399,5 1.760.992,5 €
2026 53813954,9 389338147,0 436181449,7 121161,5 1.817.422,7 €
2027 60098475,3 406278834,6 450034467,2 125009,6 1.875.143,6 €
2028 66558327,1 423637917,8 464203467,9 128945,4 1.934.181,1 €
2029 73197340,1 441424103,6 478694792,6 132970,8 1.994.561,6 €
2030 80019419,0 459646266,0 493514901,1 137087,5 2.056.312,1 €
2031 87028545,3 481168880,3 512382435,4 142328,5 2.134.926,8 €
2032 94228778,5 502685426,2 530993641,9 147498,2 2.212.473,5 €
2033 101624257,5 524736340,9 550045708,4 152790,5 2.291.857,1 €
2034 109219202,0 553677376,6 577795627,0 160498,8 2.407.481,8 €
2035 117017914,2 581237022,5 603484840,8 167634,7 2.514.520,2 €
2036 125024780,3 609495023,9 629811316,6 174947,6 2.624.213,8 €
2037 133244271,8 638466073,3 656788341,8 182441,2 2.736.618,1 €
2038 141680947,5 668165145,9 684429458,0 190119,3 2.851.789,4 €
2039 150339454,5 698607505,1 712748465,8 197985,7 2.969.785,3 €
2040 159224530,5 729808707,3 741759429,9 206044,3 3.090.664,3 €
2041 168341004,8 761784607,4 771476683,4 214299,1 3.214.486,2 €
2042 177693800,7 794551364,5 801914833,1 222754,1 3.341.311,8 €
2043 187287936,4 828125447,2 833088764,0 231413,5 3.471.203,2 €
2044 199698644,3 862523639,2 861672493,4 239353,5 3.590.302,1 €
2045 214599230,8 897763045,2 888112958,8 246698,0 3.700.470,7 €
2046 229899519,6 933861096,6 915150050,1 254208,3 3.813.125,2 €
2047 245608113,8 970835557,6 942795676,9 261887,7 3.928.315,3 €
2048 261733784,2 1008704531,0 971061970,8 269739,4 4.046.091,5 €
117
Total delay (s) Current Delay Time saved (s) Time saved (h) Cost
102172203,4 356677944,7 330857463,7 91904,9 1.378.572,77 €
116028117,3 372807311,3 333812952,3 92725,8 1.390.887,30 €
125889270,0 389338147,0 342483540,1 95134,3 1.427.014,75 €
136018525,6 406278834,6 351338401,7 97594,0 1.463.910,01 €
146421684,4 423637917,8 360381103,4 100105,9 1.501.587,93 €
157104659,9 441424103,6 369615276,9 102670,9 1.540.063,65 €
168073480,9 459646266,0 379044620,6 105290,2 1.579.352,59 €
179334294,0 481168880,3 392384962,1 108995,8 1.634.937,34 €
190893365,4 502685426,2 405329679,1 112591,6 1.688.873,66 €
202757083,0 524736340,9 418573035,2 116270,3 1.744.054,31 €
214931959,3 553677376,6 440369042,5 122324,7 1.834.871,01 €
227424632,7 581237022,5 459956106,7 127765,6 1.916.483,78 €
240241870,7 609495023,9 480029099,0 133341,4 2.000.121,25 €
253390571,9 638466073,3 500598151,7 139055,0 2.085.825,63 €
267301425,5 668165145,9 521122836,5 144756,3 2.171.345,15 €
287711518,2 698607505,1 534164783,0 148379,1 2.225.686,60 €
308670488,1 729808707,3 547479685,0 152077,7 2.281.165,35 €
330190160,4 761784607,4 561072781,1 155853,6 2.337.803,25 €
352282591,0 794551364,5 574949405,6 159708,2 2.395.622,52 €
377883030,7 828125447,2 585315141,5 162587,5 2.438.813,09 €
407809935,0 862523639,2 591127815,5 164202,2 2.463.032,56 €
438544767,2 897763045,2 596983761,4 165828,8 2.487.432,34 €
470104959,5 933861096,6 602882978,2 167467,5 2.512.012,41 €
505256620,8 970835557,6 605252617,9 168125,7 2.521.885,91 €
545167836,4 1008704531,0 602597703,0 167388,3 2.510.823,76 €
8.3. CBA
Based on the elements described in the previous paragraphs, the economic analysis was
prepared for the period between 2019 (start-up of the project) and 2048, foreseeing the
entry into operation in 2024.
Therefore, for each year the differential costs and benefits between the project alternative
from time to time have been estimated time considered and that of non-intervention (state
of affairs). The following tables show the values for the various design alternatives
described above.
118
- the Net Present Value (NPV), is the sum of the net discounted benefits. The formula used
is
Equation 6: Net present value
Where
- Bt are the variations determined by the project with reference to the benefits
- Ct are the economic investment costs and the changes in the economic costs of
extraordinary maintenance;
- is the discount social rate: 3 %.
- T is the time period over which the project evaluation extends.
The results are shown in the following tables.
119
Table 28: CBA Solution 1
YEAR COST (1000 €) ANNUAL BENEFIT (1000 €) PV COST PV BENEFITS NPV (1000 €)
1 -1272,3 -1272,3 -1272,3
2 -1272,3 -1235,2 -1235,2
3 -7633,8 -7195,6 -7195,6
4 -10178,4 -9314,6 -9314,6
5 -4300,0 -3820,5 -3820,5
6 -22,1 1475,8 -19,1 1273,0 1254,0
7 -22,1 1530,8 -18,5 1282,0 1263,5
8 -22,1 1587,1 -18,0 1290,4 1272,5
9 -22,1 1644,7 -17,4 1298,3 1280,9
10 -22,1 1703,7 -16,9 1305,7 1288,8
11 -22,1 1764,1 -16,4 1312,6 1296,2
12 -22,1 1825,9 -16,0 1319,1 1303,1
13 -22,1 1904,6 -15,5 1335,9 1320,4
14 -22,1 1982,3 -15,0 1349,9 1334,8
15 -22,1 2061,9 -14,6 1363,2 1348,6
16 -22,1 2164,6 -14,2 1389,4 1375,2
17 -22,1 2252,0 -13,8 1403,4 1389,6
18 -22,1 2341,5 -13,4 1416,7 1403,3
19 -22,1 2433,2 -13,0 1429,3 1416,3
20 -22,1 2525,9 -12,6 1440,5 1427,9
21 -22,1 2602,5 -12,2 1440,9 1428,7
22 -22,1 2680,7 -11,9 1441,0 1429,1
23 -22,1 2760,8 -11,5 1440,8 1429,3
24 -22,1 2841,9 -11,2 1440,0 1428,8
25 -22,1 2905,9 -10,9 1429,5 1418,6
26 -22,1 2971,2 -10,6 1419,1 1408,5
27 -22,1 3037,8 -10,2 1408,6 1398,4
28 -22,1 3105,8 -9,9 1398,2 1388,2
29 -22,1 3175,1 -9,7 1387,7 1378,1
30 -22,1 3245,7 -9,4 1377,3 1367,9
Table 29: CBA indicators solution 1
BCR 1,424
TOTAL NPV € 11212379,8
120
1 -1367,1 -1367,1 -1367,1
2 -1367,1 -1327,3 -1327,3
3 -8202,9 -7732,0 -7732,0
4 -10937,1 -10009,0 -10009,0
5 -4620,6 -4105,3 -4105,3
6 -31,7 1450,4 -27,3 1251,1 1223,8
7 -31,7 1502,0 -26,5 1257,9 1231,4
8 -31,7 1416,2 -25,7 1151,5 1125,7
9 -31,7 1460,7 -25,0 1153,1 1128,1
10 -31,7 1506,3 -24,3 1154,4 1130,2
11 -31,7 1552,9 -23,6 1155,5 1131,9
12 -31,7 1600,5 -22,9 1156,3 1133,4
13 -31,7 1664,7 -22,2 1167,6 1145,4
14 -31,7 1727,5 -21,6 1176,4 1154,8
15 -31,7 1791,8 -20,9 1184,6 1163,7
16 -31,7 1892,0 -20,3 1214,4 1194,1
17 -31,7 1965,4 -19,7 1224,8 1205,1
18 -31,7 2030,7 -19,1 1228,6 1209,4
19 -31,7 2097,4 -18,6 1232,0 1213,4
20 -31,7 2165,6 -18,0 1235,0 1217,0
21 -31,7 2234,6 -17,5 1237,3 1219,7
22 -31,7 2278,2 -17,0 1224,7 1207,6
23 -31,7 2322,6 -16,5 1212,1 1195,6
24 -31,7 2367,8 -16,0 1199,7 1183,7
25 -31,7 2413,7 -15,6 1187,4 1171,8
26 -31,7 2432,8 -15,1 1161,9 1146,8
27 -31,7 2451,8 -14,7 1136,9 1122,2
28 -31,7 2470,9 -14,2 1112,4 1098,1
29 -31,7 2490,1 -13,8 1088,4 1074,5
30 -31,7 2509,2 -13,4 1064,8 1051,3
BCR 1,139
TOTAL NPV (€) 4538342,9
121
1 -1654,0 -1654,0 -1654,0
2 -1654,0 -1605,8 -1605,8
3 -9923,9 -9354,2 -9354,2
4 -13231,9 -12109,0 -12109,0
5 -5590,0 -4966,6 -4966,6
6 -54,3 1705,8 -46,8 1471,5 1424,6
7 -54,3 1761,0 -45,5 1474,8 1429,3
8 -54,3 1817,4 -44,2 1477,7 1433,6
9 -54,3 1875,1 -42,9 1480,3 1437,4
10 -54,3 1934,2 -41,6 1482,4 1440,8
11 -54,3 1994,6 -40,4 1484,1 1443,7
12 -54,3 2056,3 -39,2 1485,5 1446,3
13 -54,3 2134,9 -38,1 1497,4 1459,3
14 -54,3 2212,5 -37,0 1506,6 1469,6
15 -54,3 2291,9 -35,9 1515,2 1479,3
16 -54,3 2407,5 -34,9 1545,3 1510,4
17 -54,3 2514,5 -33,8 1567,0 1533,1
18 -54,3 2624,2 -32,9 1587,7 1554,8
19 -54,3 2736,6 -31,9 1607,5 1575,6
20 -54,3 2851,8 -31,0 1626,3 1595,4
21 -54,3 2969,8 -30,1 1644,3 1614,2
22 -54,3 3090,7 -29,2 1661,4 1632,2
23 -54,3 3214,5 -28,3 1677,6 1649,3
24 -54,3 3341,3 -27,5 1693,0 1665,5
25 -54,3 3471,2 -26,7 1707,6 1680,9
26 -54,3 3590,3 -25,9 1714,7 1688,8
27 -54,3 3700,5 -25,2 1715,9 1690,7
28 -54,3 3813,1 -24,4 1716,6 1692,2
29 -54,3 3928,3 -23,7 1717,0 1693,2
30 -54,3 4046,1 -23,0 1716,9 1693,9
BCR 1,247
TOTAL NPV (€) 9244403,8
122
1 -1071,8 -1071,8 -1071,8
2 -1071,8 -1040,6 -1040,6
3 -6430,7 -6061,5 -6061,5
4 -8574,2 -7846,6 -7846,6
5 -3622,3 -3218,4 -3218,4
6 -23,0 1378,6 -19,9 1189,2 1169,3
7 -23,0 1390,9 -19,3 1164,8 1145,6
8 -23,0 1427,0 -18,7 1160,3 1141,6
9 -23,0 1463,9 -18,2 1155,6 1137,4
10 -23,0 1501,6 -17,7 1150,8 1133,2
11 -23,0 1540,1 -17,1 1146,0 1128,8
12 -23,0 1579,4 -16,6 1141,0 1124,3
13 -23,0 1634,9 -16,2 1146,7 1130,6
14 -23,0 1688,9 -15,7 1150,0 1134,4
15 -23,0 1744,1 -15,2 1153,0 1137,8
16 -23,0 1834,9 -14,8 1177,7 1162,9
17 -23,0 1916,5 -14,4 1194,3 1179,9
18 -23,0 2000,1 -13,9 1210,1 1196,2
19 -23,0 2085,8 -13,5 1225,2 1211,7
20 -23,0 2171,3 -13,1 1238,3 1225,1
21 -23,0 2225,7 -12,8 1232,3 1219,6
22 -23,0 2281,2 -12,4 1226,2 1213,9
23 -23,0 2337,8 -12,0 1220,1 1208,1
24 -23,0 2395,6 -11,7 1213,8 1202,2
25 -23,0 2438,8 -11,3 1199,7 1188,4
26 -23,0 2463,0 -11,0 1176,4 1165,4
27 -23,0 2487,4 -10,7 1153,4 1142,7
28 -23,0 2512,0 -10,4 1130,9 1120,5
29 -23,0 2521,9 -10,1 1102,3 1092,2
30 -23,0 2510,8 -9,8 1065,5 1055,7
BCR 1,442
TOTAL NPV (€) 9728293,7
123
9. CONCLUSIONS
About conflicts solved
In general terms when the solutions were presented, in the maneuver matrices, it is
evident that all were designed with the main criterion of deleting the interchange points,
but also of decreasing points of intersection, convergence, divergence, and in some cases
the combination the mixture of these.
Thus, the solution that most eliminated conflicts was Solution 3 that has gone from 138 to
48 conflicts, followed by Solution 4 that has gone from 138 to 51, followed by Solution 1
that has gone from 138 to 53, and finally Solution 2 that has gone from 138 to 77.
About interchange zones
The interchange lanes have a particularity and happens that some vehicles gain speed in
while others lose in the same lane, so they are especially dangerous, and removing them
not only brings benefits at the level of safety and accident rate, but also according to the
results of this study, the effects of the delay diminish exponentially.
Since users face a decision at some point where it is not really clear who should take the
initiative to do the first maneuver without being certain of what other users think they will
do. This situation leads eventually to a critical situation of non-synchronization and
finishes with long ques when it comes to the critical demand hours.
124
Achieving a reliable simulation that adapts to user behavior is complicated, due to the
parameters of driving behavior vary depending on each society or even each area within a
population.
About simulation results
The results of the simulation will only be analyzed in terms of traffic and service level
The simulation results show how traffic delays and level of service behave over time with
increasing demand. And so, it shows us that all solutions respond well to the current
demand studied on the node.
but when it comes to assess how the infrastructure responds, the results begin to show in
the projected demand to 2024 that only solution number 3 maintains its optimal service
level and time status in delays, the other 3 solutions remain in an acceptable service level
of 17.93, 19.8, and 20.47 seconds / vehicle.
When the results of the projected demand for 2048 are analyzed again all the demands fall
within a certain range of stability, where only solution 4 presents delay of the 56.73 type
the rest has delays of 39.54, 41.79,56.73 (seconds / vehicle).
The only solution that remained below the current delay level (2016) that is 35.6 s / veh
was solution 3. Solution 1 in terms of delay and service level is the second-best option,
then it comes solution 2 and 4.
125
About CBA results
In the analysis of cost benefit analysis, everything about traffic improvement analysis is
put aside, to take everything to monetary terms. And in financial terms, it must be
determined which of all the proposed solutions is the one that returns the most benefits in
terms of net present value, and which is the one that returns the most according to your
investment.
The net present values are theoretically the most striking indicators in terms of return,
since comparing with other solutions we can know directly which provides more
economic benefits, in this case the solution 1 with NPV of 11,212,379 euros is the solution
that returns most benefits, with Regarding the other options. solution 2 with 4,538342
euros. solution 3 with 9,244403 euros. solution 4 with 9.728293 euros
The benefit cost ratio, on the other hand, is an indicator that makes us understand what
proportion the benefits have with respect to investment. and this in real life is very useful
when resources are scarce or limited as usual. in this aspect the options with the highest
ratio were option 1 and 4, which had a ratio of 1.42 and 1.44 respectively, followed by
option 3 with a ratio of 1.24 and finally option 2 with a ratio of 1.13.
Thus, it could be said that option 1 is the most viable option since its investment responds
more efficiently with respect to the other alternatives and returns the benefits more
abundantly both in quantity and in proportion. followed by option 4 which has the same
degree of benefit in proportion but not in amount, and the 3 that has a very large degree of
126
investment, but that does not return enough money despite its good performance that
offers a service level. Finally, option 2 does not meet the expected requirements in any
way.
About how decisions are taken in reality
Unfortunately, in real life, for different reasons, such as constructive facilities, personal
interests, underestimation of the benefits of users, these studies do not have the necessary
weight in decision making, it is something that has to change because they are finally the
users and people who should benefit from these kinds of decisions and not some
individuals.
127
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heather Jones (2014). Transport infrastructure project evaluation using cost-benefit
analysis. Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Munger, M. (2000). Analyzing policy: choices, conflicts and practices. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Nickel, J., Ross, A.M., & Rhodes, D.H. (2009). Comparison of project evaluation using cost-
benefit analysis and multi-attribute tadespace exploration in the transportation
domain. Second International Symposium on Engineering Systems, MIT,
Cambridge.
Mokhtarian & Saloman (2001).How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual &
measurement of considerations. Transportation
Research Part A 35 (695-719) .
National Research Council (2000) High Capacity Manual.
PTV AG, Karlsruhe, Germany (2018) Vissim 11 Manual.
European Commission (2019) Handbook on the external cost of transport.
128

Thesis Juan Def PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thesis Juan Def PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Improvement and Study: Bergamo’s Node

Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering

Juan David Correa Panesso

3. CONCEPTS AT IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURES ......................................................... 14

3.1. Context of the CBA For Infrastructures ............................................................................... 14

3.2. Delays as a Main Factor ......................................................................................................... 15

3.3. The Level of Service ................................................................................................................ 16

4. CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT................................................................................................... 19

4.1. Premise ..................................................................................................................................... 19

4.2. Territorial Framing ................................................................................................................. 20

4.3. Functional analysis of the junction ....................................................................................... 21

4.4. Analysis of the Current Transport Offer ............................................................................. 23

4.4.1. State Strada SS671.................................................................................................................. 24

4.4.2. Strada Provinciale SP EX SS 470.......................................................................................... 24

4.4.3. The Highway.......................................................................................................................... 25

4.4.4. Bergamo A4 Toll ................................................................................................................... 26

4.5. Analysis of Current Transport Demand .............................................................................. 27

4.5.1. Bergamo A4 Casello Data .................................................................................................... 28

4.5.2. Demand 2016 ......................................................................................................................... 29

4.5.3. Demand 2019 ......................................................................................................................... 35

4.5.4. Traffic Summary .................................................................................................................... 36

5. SOLUTIONS AND IMPROVMENTS OF THE CONFLICT AREAS ................................... 38

5.1. Analysis of the Current State................................................................................................. 38

5.2. Analysis of Project Alternatives ............................................................................................ 41

5.2.1. Project Alternative No. 1 ...................................................................................................... 41

5.2.2. Project Alternative No. 2 ...................................................................................................... 44

5.2.3. Project Alternative 3 .............................................................................................................. 46

5.3. LEVEL OF SERVICES ANALYSYS OF THE CONFLICT ZONES .................................. 52

5.3.1. Matrix OD Update ................................................................................................................ 52

5.3.2. Current State .......................................................................................................................... 54

5.3.2.1. Interchange Ramps ............................................................................................................ 54

5.3.2.1.1. Interchange Ramp 1 ........................................................................................................ 55

5.3.2.1.2 Interchange Ramp 2 ......................................................................................................... 66

5.3.2.1.3 Interchange Ramp 3 ......................................................................................................... 68

5.3.2.2. Entry Ramps........................................................................................................................ 70

5.3.2.2.1 Entry Ramp 1 ................................................................................................................... 71

5.3.2.2.2 Entry Ramp 2 .................................................................................................................... 73

5.3.2.3. Exit Ramps........................................................................................................................... 74

5.3.2.3.1 Exit Ramp 1 ....................................................................................................................... 75

5.3.3. Solution 1 ................................................................................................................................ 78

5.3.3.1. Interchange Ramp .............................................................................................................. 78

5.3.3.2. Entrie Ramp ........................................................................................................................ 78

5.3.3.3. Exit Ramp. ........................................................................................................................... 79

5.3.3.3.1 Exit Ramp 1 ....................................................................................................................... 79

5.3.3.3.2 Exit Ramp 2 ....................................................................................................................... 79

5.3.3.3.3 Exit Ramp 3 ....................................................................................................................... 80

5.3.4. Solution 2 ................................................................................................................................ 80

5.3.4.1. Interchange Ramp .............................................................................................................. 80

5.3.4.2. Entrie Ramp ........................................................................................................................ 80

5.3.4.3. Exit Ramp. ........................................................................................................................... 81

5.3.5. Solution 3 ................................................................................................................................ 81

5.3.5.1. Interchange Ramp .............................................................................................................. 81

5.3.5.2. Entrie Ramps ....................................................................................................................... 81

5.3.5.3. Exit Ramps........................................................................................................................... 81

5.3.6.1. Interchange Ramps ............................................................................................................ 81

5.3.6.2. Entrie Ramps ....................................................................................................................... 82

5.3.6.3. Exit Ramps........................................................................................................................... 82

6. TRAFFIC SIMULATION ............................................................................................................ 83

6.1.1. Network Construction .......................................................................................................... 84

6.2. Input Data.................................................................................................................................. 85

6.3. Calibration of the Model ......................................................................................................... 88

7.1. 2016 Results .............................................................................................................................. 96

7.2. 2024 Results ............................................................................................................................ 100