1 / 23

The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview

The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview. Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14 th 2008. What is It?.

adonis
Download Presentation

The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14th 2008

  2. What is It? • A sketch-planning tool consisting of CTPP 2000 data, GIS info, programs, control files, and a spreadsheet collectively used to develop an estimate of the ridership potential for a new rail system • Based on 20 recently-built light and commuter rail projects • Two spreadsheets: light rail and commuter rail; all other materials are identical • Sponsored by FTA; developed by AECOM

  3. LRT Model Equation Total Weekday Unlinked Rail Trips = Weekday Unlinked Drive Access to Work Rail Trips + Weekday Unlinked Other Rail Trips Weekday Unlinked Drive Access to Work Rail Trips = 0.030 * CTPP PNR 6 -to-1 Mile JTW Flows (<50K Den) + 0.202 * CTPP PNR 6 -to-1 Mile JTW Flows (>50K Den) Weekday Unlinked Other (Non-Drive Access to Work) Rail Trips = 0.395 * CTPP 2 -to-1 Mile JTW Flows (<50K Den) + 0.445 * CTPP 2 -to-1 Mile JTW Flows (>50K Den)

  4. CR Model Equation Commuter Rail Weekday Unlinked Trips = Nominal Ridership x Demand Adjustment Factor Nominal Ridership = 0.069*High Income CTPP PNR 6-to-1 JTW flows + 0.041*Medium Income CTPP PNR 6-to-1 JTW flows + 0.151*Low Income CTPP 2-to-1 JTW flows Demand Adjustment Factor= (1+0.3*Percent Deviation in Average System Speed) x (1+0.3*Percent Deviation in Train Miles per Mile) x Rail Connection Index

  5. CR Model Equation (2) Percent Deviation in Average System Speed= System Average Speed-35.7 mph / [ System Average Speed+35.7)/2] System Average Speed= Annual Revenue Vehicle Miles/Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours Percent Deviation in Train Miles per Mile= Weekday Train Miles per Directional Route Mile-10.3 / [(Weekday Train Miles per Directional Route Mile+10.3)/2] Weekday Train Miles per Directional Route Mile= Annual Revenue Vehicle Miles/250/Average Train Length

  6. Applications

  7. Applications – City A • New rail line between CBD and suburban activity centers; strong corridor bus ridership & service • Compared ARRF LRT model with travel demand model results • Results • ARRF LRT model results were 100% higher than travel demand model estimates • Stronger motivation to investigate transit model parameters; subsequently identified issues with walk- and auto-access connector methodology

  8. Applications – City A (cont’d) • Conclusions • ARRF model may partially explain attractiveness of rail over existing bus service • TDM path-builder probably better at evaluating bus/rail competition: • Equal service levels for bus & rail • Buses are just as close or closer to corridor activity centers

  9. Applications – City B • New rail line between CBD and suburban residential areas • Used ARRF to develop rationale for alternative-specific constant • Results on next slide…

  10. Ridership Forecasts – City B

  11. Applications – City C • Streetcar in low density urban activity center; existing service is local & primarily captive market • ARRF LRT model compared with travel demand model (2000 trip tables, 2030 networks)

  12. Applications – City C (cont’d) • Result • Aggregate model forecast 120% higher than travel demand model • Conclusion • ARRF model may partially explain attractiveness of rail over existing service, but does not well-represent benefits of project since: • The project mode is different than calibrated mode • Lack of choice market not consistent with LRT sample cities

  13. Applications – City D • Commuter rail between two adjacent metropolitan areas; some express bus service to each CBD, but no service between CBD’s • Commuter rail ARRF model compared with travel demand model (2000 trip tables, 2030 networks) applied to each CBD

  14. Applications – City D (cont’d) • Result • Aggregate model forecast 130% higher than travel demand model • Conclusion • ARRF model may partially explain attractiveness of rail over existing commuter bus service, but does not well-represent benefits of project since lack of service between CBDs unlike CR sample cities

  15. Applications – City E • New commuter rail line to high mode share CBD with established “choice market” commuter bus service from large park and ride facilities • Commuter rail ARRF model compared with travel demand model (2000 trip tables, 2030 networks) applied

  16. Applications – City E (cont’d) • Result • Aggregate model forecast 30% lower than travel demand model • Conclusion • Existing commuter (“choice”) market in corridor stronger than CR sample cities

  17. Process

  18. General Procedure • Obtain basic input files • Determine the socio-economic characteristics of the geography • Prepare the CTPP Part 3 flow data • Determine the relationships between rail stations & geography • Run RailMarket program to determine the number of work for both live & work nearby rail stations • Enter the information from RailMarket into the model spreadsheet

  19. Station Buffers

  20. Spreadsheets

  21. Materials Available from FTA • Detailed documentation • Part-1: Model Application Guide • Part-2: Input Data Development Guide • Part-3: Model Calibration Report • CTPP and RailMarket programs • Spreadsheets: LRT and CR • Contact: Nazrul.Islam@dot.gov

  22. Thank you!

More Related