20
MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model

MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model. Research Project. Led by Ohio DOT and initiated in 2008 Main objective: examine the performance of the MORPC trip-based and tour-based frameworks in the context of a before-and-after project analysis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

MORPC Model Comparison ProjectTrip vs. Tour Model

Research Project

• Led by Ohio DOT and initiated in 2008• Main objective: examine the performance

of the MORPC trip-based and tour-based frameworks in the context of a before-and-after project analysis

• ODOT, MORPC, OKI and NOACA are looking to obtain a clearer picture of the potential practical benefits of tour-based models in the context of assessing projects and policies

Research Tasks

1. Understand model differences2. Determine analysis methodologies

and data requirements3. Select study projects for before/after

analysis4. Determine data collection projects5. Prepare models and model data6. Run models, analyze output and

observed conditions

Requirements for an Analogous Comparison• Common analysis years

– Using 1990, 2000, 2005 (due to better 1990 SE data than 1995)

• Identical estimation datasets• Isolate supply-side differences• Isolate demand-side differences

• Borrowed a Trip Model from OMS

New Trip Model Formulation

Estimation Datasets

• Estimate new Trip Generation and Gravity Distribution Models with the 1999 HIS

• Trip model will use mostly identical SE data as the tour model

• Update mode choice model to use IVT, OVT and wait coefficients from tour model

• Other coefficients will be scaled

Mode Choice

• Mode choice– Trip model uses nested logit

structure based on 1993 on-board survey

– Tour model uses mostly multinomial structures based on 1999 HIS + 1993 on-board survey - Also adheres to FTA New Starts parameter guidelines

Model Areas

Demand-side Differences

• 4-period assignment• External and CMV models are based on SE

data and network impedances, so they would change with different assignments– Solution: hold trip tables constant across the

models and alternatives• Equilibrium assignment closure rates can

vary mode choice impedances and final highway volumes– Solution: apply very high closure rate to both

models

Validation - VMTTOUR MODEL Observed Traffic Modeled Traffic Percent Difference

Facility Type # Links CountCount VMT

VolumeModel VMT

Volume VMTMax.

% VMT%

RMSE

1 Interstate 155 7,557,083 7,716,241 7,554,692 7,404,023 0% -4% 7% 17%

2 Expressway 96 2,247,915 1,610,448 2,205,784 1,597,832 -2% -1% 10% 18%

3 Arterial 2,521 22,159,792 6,385,080 22,471,650 6,321,376 1% -1% 10% 32%

4 Collector 1,531 3,962,091 1,654,805 3,732,848 1,553,047 -6% -6% 15% 56%

5 Local 932 1,012,435 413,312 982,722 389,390 -3% -6% 15% 92%

Total 5,235 36,939,316 17,779,886 36,947,696 17,265,668 0.0% -2.9% 3% 37%

TRIP MODEL Observed Traffic Modeled Traffic Percent Difference

Facility Type # Links CountCount VMT

VolumeModel VMT

Volume VMTMax.

% VMT%

RMSE

1 Interstate 155 7,557,083 7,716,241 7,859,723 7,934,125 4% 3% 7% 13%

2 Expressway 96 2,247,915 1,610,448 2,313,518 1,676,435 3% 4% 10% 20%

3 Arterial 2,521 22,159,792 6,385,080 20,872,011 5,938,085 -6% -7% 10% 34%

4 Collector 1,531 3,962,091 1,654,805 3,673,546 1,537,975 -7% -7% 15% 57%

5 Local 932 1,012,435 413,312 948,324 390,552 -6% -6% 15% 92%

Total 5,235 36,939,316 17,779,886 35,667,122 17,477,172 -3.4% -1.7% 3% 37%

Validation - % RMSE

Other Considerations

• Trip Model is fairly simplistic– No peak spreading– No vehicle ownership– Daily level generation and

distribution– Gravity distribution model– 1 iteration of feedback to mode

choice

Proposed Before/After Projects

• Spring-Sandusky interchange– Large-scale freeway project– Project is completed and

subsequent land-use development has stabilized

• Polaris– Medium-scale freeway interchange

project– New and subsequently modified

interchange in rapid growth area

Spring-Sandusky

Spring-Sandusky

Polaris - 1988

Polaris - 2008

Proposed Before/After Projects

• Systemwide transit analysis– 35% decline in transit service 2001-2005– Trunk routes virtually unchanged, with

suburban service reduced • Hilliard-Rome Road Area

– High growth area, but no substantial transportation changes

– Land use changes have now largely subsided

• Control Site – IR 71 South of the CBD

Traffic Volumes

• Why we care about traffic volumes– 100-200 projects a year that use

the model’s traffic volumes

Contact Information

Rebekah Anderson – [email protected]

Greg Giaimo – [email protected]

David Schmitt – [email protected]