Planning and assessment tools and modelling approaches
A range of off-the-shelf transport modelling packages and bespoke NOP tools are available and in development. These could be used to help inform NOP activities. Most tools do not consider non-transport related performance indicators and funding requirements.
Current guidance material infrequently mentions tools, databases or modelling approaches to support the development of NOPs. Two commonly mentioned tools are:
- Network Fit Assessment (NFA) tool, which was developed as part of SmartRoads in Victoria, but can be publicly accessed through Austroads website. It is a proven tool that has the target and current LoS for each modal priority network by time of day across the network. It has the ability to test the impact (i.e. change in LoS) of proposed interventions. It also provides useable outputs for signal operation and coordination activities.
- Movement and Place Framework tools, while relatively new and still being developed, are expected to be able to classify the road transport network, and calculate target and current LoS scores.
Both tools often require transport modelling to inform the LoS scores, especially when calculating the potential impact of major interventions.
As with all tools, their usefulness depends on institutional attitudes, practitioners’ skill in their use and their ongoing maintenance. However, their use can provide consistency and comparability between assessments and are particularly beneficial in network classification and transport performance analysis. Practitioners should not overly rely on these tools when making decisions or considering non-transport performance measures and other aligned processes ( funding).
Supportive Tools
A range of off-the-shelf transport modelling packages and bespoke NOP focused tools that exist and/or are in development that could be used to help inform NOP activities. Some of these are outlined below, and noting:
- Their selection should be NOP specific and reflective of the purpose, need and outcomes / outputs wanted from the NOP, as discussed in K.1 Outputs and Outcomes and S.1.i Purpose & outcomes .
- Application of Figure S.1.6 is also relevant in determining what type and approach to the use of supportive tools.
Standard Transport Modelling Packages
Austroads Building Transport Modelling Management and Capability in Australasian Road and Transport Agencies: Simulation and Intersection Models (2020) provides guidance on the relevance and application of Standard Transport Modelling Packages.
An overview of the Standard Transport Modelling Packages is provided in the table and figure below.
Standard Transport Modelling Packages - Modelling Categories
Model Level | Sub-category | Other Terminology | Key Model Features | Example software packages[3] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Strategic Model [2] | Macroscopic, Demand, Multimodal, Highway Assignment | Macroscopic analytical model | Estimation of trips between origins and destinations at specific time periods. Estimation of mode choice and route choice. Estimation of link, route, area and network travel statistics. |
|
Simulation Models[2] | Mesoscopic models | Macrosimulation model, Operational model, Traffic Flow model | Simplified simulation of individual vehicles by the propagation of flow in discrete time intervals along a sequence of links. Static and Dynamic traffic assignment. |
|
Microscopic models | Microsimulation model, Operational model, Traffic model | Detailed simulation of individual vehicles and their interactions with each other. Static and Dynamic traffic assignment. |
| |
Intersection Models | Intersection models | Microscopic model, Analytical model, Empirical model, Corridor model, Signal Optimisation model | Simplistic calculation of intersection performance and operation. Static traffic assignment. |
|
[1] Other modelling techniques, such as pedestrian modelling, are not covered in these guidelines.
[2] While strategic models are not discussed in these guidelines, it has been included in this table for added context. The ATAP, 2016 publication should be referred to for advice on strategic models.
[3] There are numerous other software packages in the market that can be categorised in each model level. This table is only intended to provide an indication of the more commonly used software packages.
Standard Transport Modelling Hierarchy
NetPReS
MRWA’s database Network Performance Reporting System (NetPReS) contains significant transport data and analysis. NetPReS is arterial road focused but in the future could interface with data for other modes and services. The system includes traffic data typically collected through surveys, signals, and counters, and provides key performance metrics, such as delay.
Further information is available in Section 7.3.2 of the Austroads research report Congestion and Reliability Review (2016).
The system’s network extent is shown in the figure below.
NetPReS Network Extent
Source: MRWA Presentation – May 2020, Austroads National Task Force NOP Workshop
Strategic Factor Score (SFS) Tool
Victorian DOT’s Strategic Focus Score (SFS) tool has been applied across the entire network to identify and visualise performance gaps on their GIS platform vMaps. A typical performance gap map is shown below. Further detail on the tool, including its key processes and outputs is provided in S.4.iii.b A comparison between NFA and SFS tools.
VIC DOT Strategic Focus Score (SFS) tool performance gap output map
Source: VIC DOT Presentation – May 2020, Austroads National Task Force NOP Workshop
Project Requirements Spreadsheet
Building on the Strategic Focus Score (SFS) tool, Victorian DOT have also developed a Project Options Assessment (POA) tool. This spreadsheet based network ‘fit’ / alignment tool is used to test and set NOP arrangements for projects.
The POA tool is used to test and agree on major infrastructure projects and their interfacing network arrangements. Once agreed, the tool’s outputs form part of the project requirements and/or contract arrangements.
A copy of the summary sheet from the POA tool is provided below.
Source: VIC DOT Presentation – May 2020, Austroads National Task Force NOP Workshop
A comparison between NFA and SFS tools
Background
In 2016 VicRoads (now known as the Victorian Department of Transport) used the Smart Roads Framework to undertake a traffic signal route review of an 8.5 km section of Warrigal Road. In 2020, with recent developments in the surrounding area, the Department of Transport is undertaking a new traffic signal route review using the Movement and Place Framework (see the Warrigal Road case study for full details).
The two reviews provide a valuable comparison between the SmartRoads and Movement and Place frameworks, Network Fit Assessment (NFA) and Strategic Focus Score (SFS) tools, , processes undertaken, modal classifications and priorities, performance gaps and recommendations for traffic signal operators.
Modal (and Place) Classifications
The SmartRoads review produced maps (made publicly available online) which identified the Road Use Hierarchy and Activity Areas. The section of Warrigal Road reviewed, shown below, was classified as a preferred traffic route and a bus priority route. Chadstone Shopping Centre was classified as a principal activity area. No activity area or pedestrian priority area was provided in relation to Holmesglen Station and TAFE.
SmartRoads Road Use Hierarchy Map – Warrigal Road
Source: VicRoads Road Use Hierarchy Plan
The Movement and Place classifications for the section of Warrigal Road reviewed are shown below. The place function along Warrigal Road is low, the movement priorities for General Traffic (GT2) and Bus (B2) are similar to the SmartRoads review, but the Movement and Place review provides a Walking (W2) priority along Warrigal Road and intersecting high priority Cycling (C2) route.
Movement and Place Classifications – Warrigal Road
| Movement =M2 | Place of Activity = PA4 and PA5 | Neighbourhood Public Transport Hub = I4 /P3 | General Traffic = GT2 |
 |  |  |  |
| Bus = B2 | Freight = F3 | Cycling = Nil on road, C2 across | Walking = W2 and W3 |
 |  |  |  |
Source: DoT vMaps outputs
Note: The Movement and Place predefined maps are expected to be publicly available online soon via DoT’s vMaps.
NFA and SFS Tools
Both the Network Fit Assessment (NFA) and Strategic Focus Score (SFS) tools determine gap performance through a quantitative set of criteria to determine the existing and target LoS.
The NFA tool ranks LoS from A to F with a + or – variance (C- or C+ for example). The LoS criteria is summarised below.
LoS Criteria
The NFA tool determines performance gaps as the product of user volume and LoS gap. The NFA tool LoS gap lookup table is shown below. The target LoS (labelled as relative LoS) and the current (or existing) LoS are used to identify the LoS gap value, which is then multiplied by the user volumes to calculate the gap performance value.
NFA Tool – LoS Gap Lookup Tool
Source: Austroads report - Network Operation Planning Decision Tool: Requirements and Development (NS2003)
The tool visualises the performance gaps through the relative size of pie charts, where each coloured segment relates to the priority modes on the given link and time period. An excerpt of the NFA tool output for Warrigal Road, shown below, reflects various performance gaps sizes along the corridor with the majority of the pies relating to traffic.
NFA Tool Output – Warrigal Road
Source: Warrigal Road Signal Route Review (2016)
This process is generally consistent with the SFS tool. The main differences are
- The SFS tool considers other themes, not just travel modes. These include place, road safety and environment. The themes and general LoS descriptions are provided in the table below.
Movement and Place Framework Themes
Theme | Indicator | Description of Level of Service |
|---|---|---|
Movement | Travel Speed | A-E score considering operating speed and signed speed. Scores are reported of General Traffic, Buses, Trams and Freight. |
Cycling | A-E score based on level of traffic stress faces by cyclists as determined by infrastructure and speed limits. | |
Walking | A-E score based on the likely delays faced by pedestrians at crossings. | |
Place | Accessibility | A-E score measuring distance of segment from public transport. |
Safety and Comfort | A-E score measuring whether the environment supports on street activity through the sense of safety and comfort it offers pedestrians. | |
Road Safety | Crash History | A-E score based on the number of crashes occurring on the segment relative to other segments. |
Environment | Greenhouse Gas Emissions | A-E score considering whether vehicles (generally traffic and heavy vehicles) on the road are operating at the speeds at which they are most energy efficient. |
Noise | A-E score based on estimated noise emitted by traffic. |
Source: Reproduced from Movement and Place User Guide, Technical Appendix (2019)
- The SFS tool applies revised modal LoS criteria, as well as criteria for the other themes. For example, the existing General Traffic, Freight, Bus and Tram LoS criteria are presented below.
General Traffic, Freight, Bus and Tram LoS Criteria
LoS | Definition | Data Used | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
A | Operating Speed >80% of Signed Speed | SUNA Travel Speed / Signed Speed | Indicators calculated for General Traffic, Bus, Tram & Freight Didn’t use variable speed zone speed |
B | Operating Speed 60%-80% of Signed Speed | ||
C | Operating Speed 40%-60% of Signed Speed | ||
D | Operating Speed 20%-40% of Signed Speed | ||
E | Operating Speed <20% of Signed Speed |
Source: Reproduced from Movement and Place User Guide, Technical Appendix (2019)
- The SFS tool more directly considers the Place function through the future minimum target performance LoS matrices. These are illustrated with the General Traffic, Bus and Interchange future minimum target performance LoS matrices below. It should be noted that future LoSs adopt different criteria to the existing LoSs.
General Traffic, Bus and Interchange Future Minimum Target Performance LoS Matrices
- The above activities are completed through the SFS tool based on information extracted from vMaps to provide the performance gap. The relative performance gap is visualised using pie charts, but unlike the NFA tool, the coloured sections relate to the key themes of movement, place, safety and environment. An excerpt of the SFS tool for Warrigal Road is provided below.
SFS Example Output
As indicated the majority of the performance gaps along the corridor relate to movement (blue section). Through the workshop it was indicated that the majority of the movement performance gap continues to relate to General Traffic with some Bus performance gap indicated. Walking was also a priority mode along the corridor but given the very low user numbers the associated gap performance was very low.
Source: Warrigal Road Signal Route Review – Stakeholder Workshop Presentation – IOP development (2020)
- After identifying gaps in the road network, the SFS tool derives a set of Intersection Operating Principles (IOPs). The IOPs consider the SFS for each priority mode and then ranks the strength of support to investigate and resolve issues to reduce the performance gap. The criteria used to determine the IOPs is shown below.
IOP Criteria
Source: Warrigal Road Signal Route Review – Stakeholder Workshop Presentation – IOP development (2020)
Proposed Improvements (Optioneering)
Under both frameworks, the traffic signal operator is required to evaluate how the proposed recommendation aligns with the relative modal classifications and performance gaps. It is noted that an improvement to the LoS for one mode or approach will sometimes occur at the expense of another. The road use hierarchy and operating principles are therefore invaluable to evaluate whether recommendations strike the right balance and can be justified and supported.
The effectiveness of the improvement development process, however, depends largely on the ability of the traffic signal operator to understand the issues based on the gap analysis and to develop recommendations which align with the road use hierarchy and operating principles. Regardless of the framework, there are no restrictions on signal operators providing recommendations. The benefit of the mitigations are likely to be tested using modelling software packages such as SIDRA, or by using first principles assessments, to understand if any reduction in the performance gap is achieved.
It is also noted that detailed traffic signal changes can provide many other benefits, or disbenefits, which would not specifically be identified under the set performance measures of the two frameworks. There is therefore a risk that recommendations that do not align with the general network operating plans are not implemented because the potential improvements are not specifically measured through either framework. In this regard, no framework is ever expected to capture all the benefits and disbenefits. Instead, sound engineering judgement is likely to always be required to assess the impacts of a detailed traffic signal operation recommendation.
Warrigal Road NFA & SFS Comparison Summary
Generally the SmartRoads or Movement and Place Frameworks do not have a major impact on how operators undertake a traffic signal route review. However, the two frameworks have the potential to change the aspirational levels of service and their relative performance gaps, and therefore influence the recommendations considered to ‘fit’ best.
Source material
Source | Planning and assessment tools and modelling approaches |
|---|---|
Phase 3 Network Performance in Figure 2 p18 and write-up p20-21 states: "Transport modelling is a valuable tool to help derive future traffic volume estimates, travel time, capacity etc. Typically, a planning time frame of ten years should be adopted for modelling purposes. Network monitoring comprises two essential elements:
Also, Section 4 - Data and Information p29 highlights the potential for alignment of modelling and network operational data. | |
Section C.6.1 - Development of an Appraisal Framework that Allows Road Agencies to Determine the Cost-effectiveness of Management Options. p37 highlights: "The process recognises that transport planning and traffic modelling are not exact sciences. As such, a risk-based approach has been adopted which covers a range of outcomes, which can be quite diverse depending on the quality of traffic modelling and the views of different transport professionals. This process has been termed a network fit assessment (NFA).
An NFA considers all intersections and links which are likely to be impacted by the proposal. The assessment can be conducted for all time periods across the day or for a specific time period that the proposal is targeting (e.g. AM peak). Based on the time-of-day road use hierarchy (which forms what VicRoads calls a network operating plan), the impact of the proposal on each transport mode is assessed at each intersection. This includes trams, buses, freight, bicycles, pedestrians and general traffic.
Triple bottom line (social, environmental and economic criteria) evaluation is built into the NFA process. The NFA process recognises the importance of place: (social), encourages sustainable modes (environmental) and also considers the efficiency of each mode (economic). The NFA process also incorporates the objectives outlined in Phase 1 into this quantitative assessment." | |
See section 3.1 p8 LOS - Level of Service Metrics Framework = a tool to help identify links or nodes that have the highest rated performance gaps, wherein the performance gap is the difference between the target and existing performance level | |
Guide to Traffic Management Part 4: Network Management Strategies (2020) | Reference is made, as outlined below, to the use of the Network Fit Assessment Tool in collaboration with other standard modelling to help inform NOPs. Section 5.2 - Network Operation Objectives p61: "The use of the LOS framework will supplement, rather than replace, the need for use of detailed computer modelling analysis tools to verify the impacts of proposed changes without implementing schemes as part of the design process." Section 5.6.3 - Assessing Treatment Options p67: "In the case of a network fit assessment, the impacts of treatments (either projects or operational services) on performance gaps are assessed, typically through expert panel judgment. Traffic and transport modelling is applied if resources are available and if a more detailed assessment is desired to give greater confidence in the outcome." |
Section 6.4 - Application in Network Fit Assessment p39 indicates that the LOS Framework was useful "to gain an understanding of the various impacts of the proposed treatments on various road users" through the Network Fit Tool. | |
Guide to Traffic Management Part 9: Transport Control Systems – Strategies and Operations (2020) | Section 6.3.2 - Traffic Signal Techniques to Support Road User Priorities p66 states: "The selection of the most appropriate traffic signal technique to support a network operation plan involves an evaluation of a set of short-listed techniques. The evaluation of these treatment options can be done by ‘network fit assessment’." |
Source | Planning and assessment tools and modelling approaches |
|---|---|
Section 3.5.3 - Demand forecasting and analysis p43 states: "Information about future demand for transport services is a key component of network assessments, corridor and area studies, and assessment of initiatives. Approaches to this task can be considered in three categories:
These methods are not mutually exclusive and can be used in combination. The choice of technique depends on data availability, resources and the validity of the extrapolation process. Scenario analysis is a potentially useful tool when major change is occurring and the future is highly uncertain. Scenarios can describe a range of possible future circumstances and outcomes. In contrast, the traditional approach to forecasting focuses on a single forecast (typically based on one set of assumptions), which is unlikely to accurately predict ‘the’ future." | |
Road Network Planning Urban Design ‘Place’ Character Assessment Methodology and Guidance Notes (2019) | Appendix A, Section 1.4 - Consideration of Movement and Place p8 notes the following about the Movement and Place Framework: "The Movement and Place Framework introduced within the draft Road Network Plan (2017) aims to deliver a road space that promotes the liveability of places it passes through. It is an integrated transport planning tool that considers the impact of roads on their spatial, social and economic context. It also underpins the Future Transport 2056 aim to deliver holistic and modern transport solutions to all transport customers and not just those using motor vehicles." |
MRWA Network Operation Planning Framework (2014) | Section 2.7.3 - Assessing Treatment Options p 13-15 illustrates the use of the Network Fit Assessment Tool to determine the relative impacts of various treatments. |
What is Movement and Place? p7 states: "It [The Framework] provides a tool to translate the broad transport outcomes we are seeking through the Transport Integration Act, into priority changes to improve link and place performance for communities." | |
Assessment process section states:
"An assessment process is used to determine whether an intervention will reduce the operating gap. This might be anything from a proposed land use change to changes to the road operation or construction of infrastructure. The assessment includes all the roads and intersections in the network that are likely to be affected by the proposal. The assessment can be conducted for all time periods across the day or for a specific time period that the proposal is targeting (e.g. AM peak). Using the tool, each transport mode is assessed at each intersection." | |
Facilitating Network Operations Planning: A Case Study of the VicRoads SmartRoads Framework (2018) | Section 4.1.1 - Acts as a 'policy broker' p5 states: "SmartRoads has become a tool to use for making the trade-offs between coalitions more explicit. VicRoads itself then becomes less of an advocate for motorists and more of an impartial mediator. According to the VicRoads team, “in essence, SmartRoads is … a common language between transport planners, civil engineers, urban designers”, which can facilitate the achievement of common goals." |
A comparative study of four network operations planning frameworks guidelines (2010) | Network Operations Plans section p6 states: "Network Operations Plan is, therefore, a planning tool resulting from the Network Operations Planning Process, which can be used by road agencies to manage and operate their road networks, while meeting the operations policy objectives and delivering enhanced user-driven services (services needed by road users). Network Operations Plans need to provide for all on road transport modes as applicable to the road or network being considered, whose interaction will impact traffic conditions and operation of the road or network, particularly in high demand conditions." |
Source | Planning and assessment tools and modelling approaches |
|---|---|
Albany Highway - Route Operation Plan |
|
Auckland - Traffic Network Management | Applied the Network Fit Assessment (NFA) tool (SmartRoads) in the following limited settings for specific projects:
|
Hamilton City - Network Operating Plan |
|
Launceston Network Operation - Preliminary Framework | At this stage, it is unclear whether or not the Network Fit Assessment tool will be used. It will be dependent on the alignment or performance measures for the Launceston NOP and Hobart NOP that is currently in development. |
Warrigal Road Movement and Place – Intersection Operating Principles |
|
1. NetPReS is a database with a significant amount of transport data and analysis. Currently arterial road focused but will potentially interface with data for other modes and services in the future. NetPReS has all traffic data typically collected through surveys, signals, counters, etc., and provides key performance metrics, such as delay. Further information is available through Section 7.3.2 of Austroads Research Report Congestion and Reliability Review (AP-R534-16).