Modeling Mode in a Statewide Context

Similar documents
March 31, diversity. density. 4 D Model Development. submitted to: design. submitted by: destination

Prepared for: San Diego Association Of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101

California Urban Infill Trip Generation Study. Jim Daisa, P.E.

Enhancing State and MPO Transportation Planning Using National Household Travel Survey Add-On Data: The Wisconsin Experience

2014 Certification Review Regional Data & Modeling

SBCAG Travel Model Upgrade Project 3rd Model TAC Meeting. Jim Lam, Stewart Berry, Srini Sundaram, Caliper Corporation December.

2015 Grand Forks East Grand Forks TDM

April 18, Accessibility and Smart Scale: Using Access Scores to Prioritize Projects

StanCOG Transportation Model Program. General Summary

Trip Generation Model Development for Albany

John Douglas Hunt. Giovanni Circella* Alan Thomas Brownlee. Kevin Stefan. Michael McCoy. HBA Specto Inc., Calgary (Canada)

Figure 8.2a Variation of suburban character, transit access and pedestrian accessibility by TAZ label in the study area

Adapting an Existing Activity Based Modeling Structure for the New York Region

Understanding Land Use and Walk Behavior in Utah

Guidelines on Using California Land Use/Transportation Planning Tools

North Jersey Regional Transportation Model- Enhanced Transportation Modeling Overview May 19, 2008

Traffic Demand Forecast

Overview of Improved Data and Tools for Integrated Land Use-Transportation Planning in California Caltrans Planning Horizons program November 7, 2012

(page 2) So today, I will be describing what we ve been up to for the last ten years, and what I think might lie ahead.

Regional Performance Measures

Transit Modeling Update. Trip Distribution Review and Recommended Model Development Guidance

Encapsulating Urban Traffic Rhythms into Road Networks

Urban Planning Word Search Level 1

Regional Performance Measures

2040 MTP and CTP Socioeconomic Data

APPENDIX I: Traffic Forecasting Model and Assumptions

BROOKINGS May

Typical information required from the data collection can be grouped into four categories, enumerated as below.

Appendix B. Land Use and Traffic Modeling Documentation

Chao Liu, Ting Ma, and Sevgi Erdogan National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education (NCSG) University of Maryland, College Park

Trip Distribution Review and Recommendations

Analyzing the Market Share of Commuter Rail Stations using LEHD Data

FLORIDA STATEWIDE TOURISM TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL: DEVELOPMENT OF A BEHAVIOR-BASED FRAMEWORK

Mapping Accessibility Over Time

Forecasts from the Strategy Planning Model

TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL. Chapter 6

John Thomas & Lori Zeller US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Sustainable Communities. Rich Kuzmyak & Alex Bell Renaissance Planning Group

Internal Capture in Mixed-Use Developments (MXDs) and Vehicle Trip and Parking Reductions in Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs)

Data Collection. Lecture Notes in Transportation Systems Engineering. Prof. Tom V. Mathew. 1 Overview 1

Developing and Validating Regional Travel Forecasting Models with CTPP Data: MAG Experience

Cipra D. Revised Submittal 1

A Simplified Travel Demand Modeling Framework: in the Context of a Developing Country City

Measuring connectivity in London

Transit Time Shed Analyzing Accessibility to Employment and Services

Hillsborough County MPO Transit Study. Technical Team August 23, 2007

Assessing spatial distribution and variability of destinations in inner-city Sydney from travel diary and smartphone location data

East Bay BRT. Planning for Bus Rapid Transit

Paul Waddell Professor, City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Director, Urban Analy;cs Lab President, UrbanSim Inc.

Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS): Strategies for Successful Application

The Tyndall Cities Integrated Assessment Framework

Brian J. Morton Center for Urban and Regional Studies University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill June 8, 2010

CESPL-RG-A March 12, 2008 REGULATORY DIVISION MEMORANDUM. SUBJECT: Traditional Navigable Waters, Navigable In-Fact Determination for the Gila River

Density and Walkable Communities

Impact of Metropolitan-level Built Environment on Travel Behavior

STAFF REPORT. MEETING DATE: July 3, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 7

Estimating Transportation Demand, Part 2

Using Innovative Data in Transportation Planning and Modeling

Transit-Supportive Zones and Demand Potential in Vermont

Analysis and Design of Urban Transportation Network for Pyi Gyi Ta Gon Township PHOO PWINT ZAN 1, DR. NILAR AYE 2

CIV3703 Transport Engineering. Module 2 Transport Modelling

Case Study: Orange County, California. Overview. Context

Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM) Version 6.0

REFINEMENT OF FSUTMS TRIP DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY

Updating the Urban Boundary and Functional Classification of New Jersey Roadways using 2010 Census data

CTR Employer Survey Report

Tier 2 Final Environmental Assessment I-66 Transportation Technical Report. Appendix E. Travel Demand Forecasting Model Validation Memorandum

Trip Distribution Analysis of Vadodara City

The Elusive Connection between Density and Transit Use

3.0 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

SANDAG. Transportation Modeling Forum

Improving the Model s Sensitivity to Land Use Policies and Nonmotorized Travel

Crow River Plaza - Retail Development South Diamond Lake Rd. Rogers, MN FOR LEASE 1,024 SF Retail Space. Lease Rate: $16.

Local Economic Activity Around Rapid Transit Stations

Using Tourism-Based Travel Demand Model to Estimate Traffic Volumes on Low-Volume Roads

Changes in the Spatial Distribution of Mobile Source Emissions due to the Interactions between Land-use and Regional Transportation Systems

Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP)

Simulating Mobility in Cities: A System Dynamics Approach to Explore Feedback Structures in Transportation Modelling

THE FUTURE OF FORECASTING AT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. CTS Research Conference May 23, 2012

LUTDMM: an operational prototype of a microsimulation travel demand system

Crow River Plaza - Retail Development South Diamond Lake Rd. Rogers, MN FOR LEASE 2,066 SF Retail Space. Lease Rate: $16.

River North Multi-Modal Transit Analysis

Advancing Urban Models in the 21 st Century. Jeff Tayman Lecturer, Dept. of Economics University of California, San Diego

APPENDIX B RIDERSHIP FORECAST REVIEW

Metrolinx Transit Accessibility/Connectivity Toolkit

Get Over, and Beyond, the Half-Mile Circle (for Some Transit Options)

Network Equilibrium Models: Varied and Ambitious

Identifying Megaregions in the US: Implications for Infrastructure Investment

Temporal transferability of models of mode-destination choice for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area

Economic and Social Urban Indicators: A Spatial Decision Support System for Chicago Area Transportation Planning

Regional Snapshot Series: Transportation and Transit. Commuting and Places of Work in the Fraser Valley Regional District

Final City of Colusa STREETS & ROADWAYS MASTER PLAN. October J Street Suite 390 Sacramento, CA 95814

Technical Memorandum #2 Future Conditions

How the science of cities can help European policy makers: new analysis and perspectives

INCORPORATING URBAN DESIGN VARIABLES IN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ASSIGNMENT)

Social Studies Grade 2 - Building a Society

Transportation Statistical Data Development Report OKALOOSA-WALTON OUTLOOK 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Spatial Organization of Data and Data Extraction from Maptitude

Forecasts for the Reston/Dulles Rail Corridor and Route 28 Corridor 2010 to 2050

Bus Landscapes: Analyzing Commuting Pattern using Bus Smart Card Data in Beijing

Transcription:

Modeling Mode in a Statewide Context CDM Smith ADOT Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 6, 2013

Presentation Overview Development Team AZTDM3 Overview AZTDM3 Modes of Travel Transit Abstraction Model Short Distance Mode Choice Model Long Distance Mode Choice Model Model Calibration Model Validation 2

AZTDM3 Model Development Team Arizona DOT Keith Killough Deng Bang Lee Baloka Belezamo Patrick Costinett CDM Smith Team Rob Bostrom Krishnan Viswanathan Liza Amar Sashi Gandavarapu (AirSage) Kevin Tierney (Independent Contractor) 3

AZTDM3 Overview 4

Auto AZTDM3 Modes of Travel Drive alone, shared ride 2, and shared ride 3+ Transit (walk and drive access) Local transit network follows California abstraction methodology Rail, express bus, park & ride, and intercity bus explicitly coded Non-Motorized Walk and Bike 5

Transit Abstraction - Motivation Abstraction methodology used to compute local bus skims Explicit coding of local bus network not necessary Appropriate for a statewide model Successfully implemented in California 6

Data Inputs Transit Abstraction - Method Transfer areas: the areas within which a person can travel Service areas: the areas within which transit service is provided Level of Service: a single number representing the quantity of local bus service Fare: a composite value, indicating the typical fare paid by a customer General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) 7

Transit Abstraction - Model IVT or OVT = fn(lu, TR) IVT/OVT: In-/Out-of-vehicle times LU: Land use variables TR: Transportation (highway) variables Takes into consideration time-of-day Depends on catchment area Geographical accessibility to transit 8

Transit Abstraction - Service Areas 9

RPTA/Valley Metro (MAG) 3,304,432 38,558,000 86 86 Urban Transfer Areas Rural Transfer Areas Transit Abstraction - Level of Service Service Area Population * Revenue Miles ** Level Of Service (LOS) Adjusted LOS (1) (2) (1)/(2)*1000 <=200 City of Tucson (PAG) 846,633 11,209,000 76 76 Yuma MPO (YMPO) 180,515 1,168,000 155 155 NAIPTA (Flagstaff) 119,238 739,000 161 161 City of Sedon 40,978 119,826 342 200 Hopi Tribe 7,659 174,233 44 44 City of Kingman 45,015 206,722 218 200 Navajo Transit System 82,534 315,014 262 200 City of Show Low 44,677 259,018 172 172 City of Sierra Vista 45,906 222,198 207 200 Town of Chino Valley 9,946 7,006 1,420 200 City of Coolidge 11,074 91,472 121 121 Lake Havasu City 39,985 392,668 102 102 *Service Area Population are from Socio-economic data (from TransCAD) ** Urban/Rural Transit Revenue Miles are from National Transit Database (NTD) & ADOT G41 Rural Statistics data 10

Mode Choice Model - Short Distance Passenger Nested logit models Models by trip purpose and time of day Five purposes: HBW, HBO, NHB, HBU, HBS Alternatives Auto, transit, and non-motorized Variables IVTT, OVTT, cost, distance, transit times, dummy NHTS 2009 add-on sample used in estimation 11

Mode Choice Model - HBW Structure Root Auto Transit Non-Motor DA Local Bus (LB) Premium Transit (PT) Walk SR2 LB Walk PT Walk Bike SR3+ LB Auto PT Drive 12

Mode Choice Model - HBO, NHB Structure 13

Mode Choice Model - HBS Structure 14

Mode Choice Model - HBU Structure 15

Long Distance Mode Choice Model Specification: Transfer Model parameters Sacramento to San Francisco Orlando to Tampa Other statewide models Model Application: Use Traffic Analysis Framework (TAF) methodology Update existing long distance model in AZTDM2 16

Long Distance Mode Choice - Model Specification Variable Units Business Non- Business IVTT Minutes -0.0103-0.0087 Walk-Access Time Minutes -0.0206-0.0174 Drive-Access Time Minutes -0.0206-0.0174 Cost Dollars/log(income/1000) -0.104-0.153 Auto Nest Parameter 0.35 0.35 Transit Nest Parameter 0.35 0.35 17

1995 American Travel Survey Nationwide long distance travel Sample of 80,000 households 85% response rate Travel information Trip origin destination (county-to-county) Travel mode (3/4 auto trips) Travel party Trip purpose Trip distance (>100 miles; 60% between 100-200 miles) 18

ATS Trip Purpose Reclassification ATS Trip Purpose Model Trip Purpose Business Business Combined Business/Pleasure Business Convention, Conference, Or Seminar Business School-Related Activity Other Visit Relatives Or Friends Leisure Rest Or Relaxation Leisure Sightseeing, Or To Visit A Historic Or Scenic Attraction Leisure Outdoor Recreation (Sports, Hunting, Fishing, Boating, Camping, Etc.) Leisure Entertainment (Attend The Theater Or Sports Event, Etc.) Leisure Shopping Leisure Personal, Family, Or Medical (Wedding, Funeral, Health Treatment, Etc.) Other Other Reason Other 19

Long Distance Trip Table Development County-to-county O-D trips for Business and Non-Business Added national park trip attractions Added port of entry trips Adjusted for 50 mile trip lengths County data disaggregated to TAZ level 20

Model Calibration Focus on broad markets Detailed inspection of person-trip tables The comparison of transit, rail and bus trip tables from the mode choice models against the "observed" patterns derived from survey data 21

Model Validation Follow steps in FHWA Model Validation Manual Validation of each model component Checks of model input data Reasonableness checks of model parameters and base and forecast-year model results Model sensitivity tests Comparisons of base-year model results to observations from independent data sets 22

Questions? 23