T Weidner PB | B Knudson, ODOT | JD Hunt HBA Specto | R Picado PB

Sensitivity Testing with the Oregon Statewide Integrated Model (SWIM2)

88th Transportation Research Board Annual MeetingJanuary 2009, Washington DC

Presenters: Brian Gregor/ODOT & Tara Weidner/PB

Session 709: Integrated Land Use and Transport Models in Practice

Outline

Background

Oregon SWIM2 Calibration Prep for Model Application

Results Scenario 1: Increased Highway Capacity Scenario 2+3: Increased Driving Costs (4 and 10-

fold)

Concluding remarks

Acknowledgements Sponsorship:

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Agency Lead:

ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU). Funding:

Federal Highway Administration. Consultant Team:

Parsons Brinckerhoff leadHBA Specto Inc.EcoNorthwest

Special thanks: Alex Bettinardi of ODOT

Why Integrated Models in Oregon?

New state and federal mandates in early 90's required entire system view

ODOT modelers wanted to remain relevant in Oregon regulatory and policy environment

1995 OMIPOregon Modeling

Improvement Program

1996 TLUMIPTransportation Land Use Model Integration Project

The Oregon Path…Application-driven research

SWIM1 Model

SWIM2 Model

• Assembled (2004-2005)• Calibrated (2008)

• WV Forum (2001)• East/Central OR Fwy (2001)• Bridge Options Study (2002)• Newberg Bypass (2004)• OR Transportation Plan (2005)

• TRANUS/Oregon (2000)

• OR Amtrak Ridership (2008/2009)• OR Climate Change (2009)• OR Freight Study (2009/2010)• MPO & Co. Connection (2009/2010)

Economy

Oregon Statewide Integrated Model (SWIM2)

SyntheticPopulation

GoodsTransport

Employmentby Industry

ConstructionTotals

Labor

Flows

Assignment Aggregate/EquilibriumMicro-simulationNext Time Period Feedback

ProductionTotals

Space

Inventory

OD Trip Tables

ProductionInteraction

PersonTransport

LandDevelopment

HH

Labor

ExternalTransport

CommodityFlows

TransportModels

SpatialModels

SWIM2 Calibration

Challenges:

Multi-dimensional targets, inconsistencies, different years, varying confidence levels e.g. Commodity flow data, floor space price data,

floor space quantity data

Unavailable inputs must be synthesized, adds errors e.g. Floor space quantity data

As a result, more emphasis placed on behavioral response than ability to tightly match all targets

Iterative SWIM2 Calibration Process

Stage 1: Estimate module parameters where data exists

Stage 2: Calibrate individual sub-models in isolation

Stage 3: Calibrate full model, baseyear + over timeincluding Sensitivity Tests of likely policy scenarios 20-years, in 3-year increments unrealistically large change, to identify direction of

change “proof-of-concept” scenarios test behavioral

response to likely policy levers

Preparations for Model Application

Prepare ODOT staff to perform policy analysis

Knowledge Transfer Ongoing Agency Staff Training Evaluate Model Variability (micro-simulation)

User Interface Tools Model Runner System GUI (scenarios, start runs) Output Processing tools (automate, compress) File Management tools (model files, output

processing) Computer Cluster

Purchase Hardware Backups/archiving processes

Oregon Activity: 3.7M pop; 1.8M jobs 6 MPOs

SWIM2 Geographic Coverage

2,950 alphazones 519 betazones

SCENARIO 1: INCREASED HWY CAPACITY

Increased Capacity: 2024 Household Change (vs. Reference)

Portland

SalemCorvallis

Bend Eugene

Rogue Valley

Increased Capacity: HouseholdsTota

l H

ou

seh

old

s

EUG

PDX

BEND

RV

Significant Growth at South terminus with improved

Portland connection

Some Growth

mid-valley

Less Growth outside valley

SALCORV

Increased Capacity: 2024 Floorspace Change

2024 Increased Travel Cost Scenario relative to Reference Case

 

Residential Non-Residential

HHs

Floorspace

Employees

Floorpace

Quantity Price Quantity Price

Portland Metro 1.7% 1.6% -0.9% 1.3% 1.1% 0.2%

Salem/Keizer 0.4% 0.3% -0. 8% 0.3% 0.3% -0.0%

Corvallis 0.8% 0. 7% -0.5% 1.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Eugene/Springfield 5.5% 4.9% -0.7% 3.6% 0.3% -0.0%

Rogue Valley -0.2% -0.3% -0.3% -0.6% -0.2% -0.0%

Bend -0.3% -0.3% -0.4% -0.7% -0.3% -0.0%

NonMPO -0.6% 0.6% -0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1%

Oregon 1.0% 1.3% -0. 5% 1.0% 0.6% 0.1%

Increased Capacity: 2024 Transport Results

 Scenario

Mean Distance (miles) Mean Time (minutes)

StatewideWillamette Valley Statewide

Willamette Valley

TRUCK TRIPSReference 108 61 286 192Increased Capacity 110 63 267 179

AUTO TOURSReference 14 13 33 34Increased Capacity 14 13 33 34

AUTO TOURS MODE SPLITDrive Transit Walk/Bike Total

Reference 88% 4% 8% 100%Increased Capacity 88% 4% 8% 100%

Truck Trip lengths increase, but times decline (7%)

Auto Tour lengths, times, and mode do not change

SCENARIO 2+3: INCREASED DRIVING COSTS

Increased Costs (10-fold): More Detail…

Portland

Salem

Corvallis Eugene

Increased Costs: MPO Density Curves

Regional Centers densities gain 20%+ Other areas 0-10% density gains

Persons Per Acre

Pro

port

ion

of

MP

O L

an

d A

rea

Increased Costs (10-fold): EmploymentTota

l Em

plo

ym

en

t

SAL

RV

NON-MPO

EUG

PDX

BEND

Centralization to 3

Regional Centers

Eugene gets Salem

overflow

Portland urban inertia overshadowed by Salem’s

central location

Non MPO areas lose

growth

CORV

Increased Costs (4-fold): 2024 Floorspace Results

2024 Increased Travel Cost Scenario relative to Reference CaseResidential Non-Residential

  HHs

FloorpaceEmployees

FloorpaceQuantity Price Quantity PriceTravel Cost Increase (4-fold)

Metro -0.5% 0.2% 35.27% 4.3% 4.96% 0.27%Salem/Keizer 13.9% 15.0% 58.08% 21.9% 1.18% 5.12%Corvallis 9.1% 8.9% 27.91% 3.7% -0.36% 1.06%Eugene/Springfield 0.9% 1.6% 18.58% 6.6% 2.56% 0.09%Rogue Valley 25.1% 23.9% 28.42% 19.3% 2.47% 0.43%Bend 17.4% 16.9% 28.19% 9.5% 2.03% 1.59%NonMPO 2.2% -0.0% 19.67% 2.3% -0.63% 1.8%Oregon 3.0% 2.8% 30.24% 6.0% 2.83% 0.86%

Floorspace created in new regional centers. High prices reflect difficulty in meeting residential

needs. Nonresidential floorspace changes muted.

Increased Costs: 2024 Transport Results

 Scenario

Mean Distance (miles) Mean Time (minutes)

StatewideWillamette Valley Statewide

Willamette Valley

TRUCK TRIPSReference 108 61 286 192

High Travel Cost (4-fold) 104 60 259 174High Travel Cost (10-fold) 93 55 281 178

AUTO TOURSReference 14 13 33 34High Travel Cost (4-fold) 10 10 23 26High Travel Cost (10-fold) 8 8 18 19

AUTO TOURS MODE SPLITDrive Transit Walk/Bike Total

Reference 89% 4% 8% 100%High Travel Cost (4-fold) 81% 6% 13% 100%High Travel Cost (10-fold) 66% 10% 24% 100%

Truck Trip lengths and times decline (5-10%)

Auto Tour lengths and times decline (30-40%), more sensitive

Significant person mode shift

2024 Person Trips by Selected Modes

Not all MPO offer Transit

Held current service levels

Concluding Remarks

Success!! ‘Extreme’ scenarios accommodated Good direction & magnitude in all

components (activity, land development, transport)

Understandable geographical patterns Internally consistent, price signals

working Transition to Agency & Policy Application

…well underway

Some challenges remain…

Assumption of fixed economy/halo effects File management Summarizing Outputs/Improving

Visualization Runtimes/convergence Additional Scenario Testing…

Note: Updated TRB paper on ODOT websitehttp://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TPAU/references.shtml#Statewide_Model