210 likes | 264 Views
About this presentation. Target audience: Prepared for Dr. Mitsuru Saito’s BYU graduate level class. Feb. 2003. Please contact Mike Brown at 801-363-4250 or mbrown@wfrc.org if you have comments or questions. Thanks for your interest in this subject.
E N D
About this presentation • Target audience: Prepared for Dr. Mitsuru Saito’s BYU graduate level class. Feb. 2003. • Please contact Mike Brown at 801-363-4250 or mbrown@wfrc.orgif you have comments or questions. • Thanks for your interest in this subject.
WFRC – MAG Travel Demand Model, Version 2.10 Mike Brown, Muhammad Farhan Wasatch Front Regional Council (This isn’t related, I just like it!)
Auto Ownership # of HHs by Vehs/HH Size Socioeconomic Data Trip Generation Daily P/As by purpose Distribution-Assignment Feedback Loop Daily P/A matrix by purpose Mode Choice Daily P/A matrix by mode, purpose Network Assignment Transit, Roadway Volumes Model Version 2.10 Flow Chart
Population • 1996 TAZ data built from 1990 Census and building permits. • Forecasts based on historical growth rates by density. • Future year control totals for region from Governor’s Office of Planning & Budget (GOPB)
Employment • Dept. of Workforce Services provides employment data at the TAZ level, for all types of employment but non-farm proprietors • GOPB provides future-year control totals for region, including non-farm proprietors • Employment growth is based from 1998 data, and is grown for each TAZ using an historical growth factor based on employment density
Discussion: Socioeconomic Forecasting • Growth rates for employment, population, dwelling units are based on TOTAL zonal area • No explicit controls for preventing growth for which there is no land • Projections are only loosely tied to community master plans (feedback was sought) • Fixed TAZ-level projections regardless of level of infrastructure investments
Trip Generation Overview • Daily Trip Generation • 6 trip purposes (HBW, HBO, NHB, COMM, IX-XI, Ex-Ex) • Models estimated with 1993 HIS data
Special Generators • SG’s attract trips in a way that cannot be easily be related to typical predictors (like employment). • Example: Attraction equations will predict perhaps 1,500 trips/day to the Delta Center based on 150 employees – but the equations are not aware that 2 of the employees are Karl Malone and John Stockton. • Malls, Airport, Colleges, Event Centers
Trip Distribution • Gravity Models for each purpose • Friction factors from 1993 HIS • Auto travel time as impedance in feedback loop. • HBW trips distributed using A.M. Peak period skims • Inter-regional travel time penalties (5-13 minutes at major geographic separators. Ex: Point of the Mountain)
VMT Comparison (1996) • 2003 estimate: 41,000,000 VMT/day; 5,900 lane miles • 2030 estimate: 71,000,000 VMT/day; 7,500 lane miles
Predicting Transit - 2000 • Average daily transit ridership by mode • Model linked trips: 80,000 • UTA bus boards: 76,000 (~60,000 Linked at 80%) • NS TRAX: ~19,000 (~15,000 Linked at 80%) • Model bus boards: 113,000 NS TRAX: 16,900. • UTA Rev. Miles: 59,000 Modeled Miles: 47,000 • % walk/drive access • 90/10 bus, 85/15 rail are typical. • LRT riders 03 (15 min on NS, 10 on EW – to Med) • NS: 18,200 • EW: 11,100 (The one guy who knows {the counter} assumes it will settle down around 7-10,000)
More Transit Analysis • Average daily transit ridership by mode • % Mode Splits • 91/6/3 auto/transit/non-motor for 2030 HBW. • 45/7/27/20 Local/Xbus/LRT/CRT are typical • 370-430 Boardings/Mile on Commuter Rail • 30 min headway, both directions, all day. • 30-37,000 boards on 80-87 mile route.
What you should know about models • Uses are varied and valuable • Air quality conformity determinations. • “Purpose & Need” foundation for EIS work. • FTA new starts applications. • Long range facility and right-of-way needs. • Historically reliable for major highway predictions. So far, so good on transit. • Traditionally underappreciated for the role they play in defensible processes and decision making
Why not do tour based modeling? • Still an emerging method that is being implemented only in San Francisco, Houston, and a few other major cities. • Requires a unique approach to “home interview surveys” – a $500k+ endeavor! • Requires complete rewrite of model with few salvageable elements from previous model – also a $500k+ endeavor!