Transcript PAN 14 is dedicated to excellence in all areas of

PB
System Analysis Group
An Overview of Tour-Based Models
Southeast Florida FSUTMS
User’s Group Meeting
Florida Department of Transportation
November 2, 2007
PB
System Analysis Group
AB Models in Practice in US
Seattle
Oregon
Chicago
SF
Ohio
NY
Sacramento
Denver
Columbus
Bay Area
Phoenix
LA
Developed & used
Being developed
Planned
PB is prime
PB is sub
Atlanta
PB
System Analysis Group
Time Has Come for New Models
• Growing recognition of / frustration with limitations of
conventional aggregate models for the last 40 years
• Intensive research on individual travel behavior and
suggested operational model structures
• Computer power breakthrough that made AB models
realistic on a regional scale
• Acquired experience with new models developed and
successfully being applied in SF, NY, Columbus,
Sacramento…
PB
System Analysis Group
Complex Planning Issues Addressed with
AB Models
• Demand management policies (pricing, parking, peak
spreading, ridesharing / HOV, flexible work schedules)
• Demographic changes (“graying”, female workforce
participation, occupation shifts, more singles, less children,
elderly drivers, ethnic clusters)
• Spatial level of details / natural integration with GIS / sensitivity
to neighborhood design details
• Better interface with local traffic simulation models
• Global transportation policies & taxation by vehicle type / size /
fuel efficiency
• Information phenomena / telecommuting / tele/on-line shopping /
banking
PB
System Analysis Group
Tour-based models –Basic Definitions
– A series of trips beginning and ending at home or work
(anchor locations)
– Primary destination, intermediate stops
– No more non-home-based trips!!
Tour Purpose Classification - Hierarchical
– Mandatory – Work, School
– Maintenance – Shop, pickup/drop-off
– Discretionary - Social/Recreational, Other
PB
System Analysis Group
Tour-based models – Why ?
–
–
–
–
More precise representation of travel
Greater behavioral realism (consistency)
More information available for analysis
Better able to address transportation demand
management policies
PB
System Analysis Group
Example: a day’s activities
shopping
movies
work
lunch
shopping
HOME
day-care
library
PB
System Analysis Group
Example with “trips”
shopping
movies
work
lunch
shopping
HOME
day-care
library
Home-based work
Home-based other
Non-home-based
PB
System Analysis Group
Example with tours/journeys
shopping
movies
work
lunch
shopping
HOME
day-care
library
Journeys-to/from-work
Journeys-at-work
Other journeys
PB
System Analysis Group
Household Level Decisions
1st person
Home
Work
Shop
2nd person
Drop-off
Home
Work
Shop
3rd person
Shop
Home
Shop
Shop
Eat out
Eat out
Mode?
TOD?
Origin?
Destination?
PB
System Analysis Group
Model Structure Overview
1. Generation of activities
2. Scheduling of activities
3. Location of activities
4. Tours to visit activities
All this in a consistent way for each person and
HH
PB
System Analysis Group
Main Features
Activity-based approach:
•
Daily pattern integrity
•
In-home activity
•
Intra-HH interactions
Tour-based approach:
•
Chained trips
•
Fragment of pattern
Micro-simulation approach:
•
Fully disaggregate models
•
List/agent-based structure
•
“Crisp” choice instead of fractional probability
•
Unlimited segmentation & spatial / temporal resolution
PB
System Analysis Group
Intra-Household Interactions
Entire-day level:
– Staying at home / absent
together (vacation, indoor
family event, childcare)
– Having non-mandatory travel
pattern together (day-off for
major shopping, outdoor family
event)
Episode level:
– Shared activity / joint travel
episodes
– Allocation of maintenance
activities
– Car allocation
PB
System Analysis Group
Time-Use Concept
Recalculate residual time windows
5-6
1-Work
7-17
18-19
2-Discret
20-23
5
23
27-14
Tour-Based Model Output
PB
System Analysis Group
Household Data,
HID PID TID PUR MOD SB SA
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
0
0
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
Person Data, Tour/Trip List
OTAZ DTAZ S1TAZ S2TAZ TLOR
943 987 0
964
1
943 731 856
0
3
943 952 0
0
1
943 565 698
982
1
TLDS
3
3
2
2
Work Trip Frequency Distribution:
Auto Ownership 1, Income Group 1-2
Estimated vs. Observed
6.0%
5.0%
Trip Tables
Frequency
4.0%
Observed
Estimated
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
Peak Highway Travel Time (minutes)
Maps, Graphics
Assignment
Other Summaries
59
56
53
50
47
44
41
38
35
32
29
26
23
20
17
14
8
11
5
0.0%
PB
System Analysis Group
Distributed Application Framework
Example
PB
System Analysis Group
Types of Analysis
Population
employment
land-use
Transportation
policy & pricing
Transportation
infrastructure
(network)
Model simulation run
Traffic / ridership forecast
Environmental
impacts
Traffic impacts
Revenue
Economic / financial
analysis
PB
System Analysis Group
PB Approach
• Each new model will incorporate the best practices and
operational research:
– The best / most advanced operational model under the given
conditions
– But not a research exercise…
• Specific regional conditions, not a simple transfer of model
structures already applied
• Addressing planning needs of the MPO and forthcoming
projects
• Gradual transition strategy is possible (from 4-step to AB)
• CMF package developed by PB provides “blocks” for
programming implementation
PB
System Analysis Group
Application Experience
• SFCTA model 2000-2007:
– Numerous transit projects
– Equity analysis
– Area pricing study
• NYMTC model 2002-2007
– 30 local users
– Conformity
– Numerous highway and transit projects
– Area pricing study
• MORPC model 2004-2007
– Highway and transit projects
• Some examples follow…
Free Periphery
Shown In Red
PB
System Analysis Group
6:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Manhattan
Zone
Entry Fee
$7
Intra-Area Fee $4
PB
System Analysis Group
City-wide Effects of the Entry Fee
Hunts Point
-7%
125th St Corridor
-18%
Vehicle
Hours
Traveled
Canal St Corridor
-28%
Long Island City
Flushing
-27%
-3%
Greenpoint/
Williamsburg
-24%
Downtown Brooklyn
-29%
Staten Island
-2%
PB
System Analysis Group
Columbus: North
Corridor
13-mile corridor
Potential New Starts project
in AA/DEIS
Three major employment
centers interspersed with
large residential areas
– Crosswoods/Polaris area
– Ohio State University
– CBD
PB
System Analysis Group
User Benefit Thematic Maps
HBW peak
Productions
Attractions
PB
System Analysis Group
San Francisco
Congestion Pricing Study
• Almost 800,000 residents
• Daytime population: 1.1 million
• 43% of commuters in the AM peak ride
transit to downtown SF
• TTI’s Urban Mobility Report ranks the San
Francisco Bay Area 2nd among the
nation’s most congested areas
• Bay Area Council’s recent survey listed
transportation as the #1 issue for
residents 8 of the last 10 years
PB
System Analysis Group
SF Congestion Pricing Study
• User fee paid by motorists using congested roads
• Fee may vary in several ways
– location/facility
– time of day (e.g. peak vs. off-peak)
– day of week (e.g. weekday vs weekend)
– user group
• Revenues typically reinvested in transportation improvements
– transit lines
– HOV/transit priority
– Signal optimisation/traffic management
– Bicycle network
– Pedestrian facilities
PB
System Analysis Group
Stated Preference
Survey
• 600 Respondents
• Internet-based (online)
• Auto drivers to
downtown
Used to collect data on:
• Value-of-time
• Trade-off between
mode choice, time-of-day
choice
PB
System Analysis Group
PB
System Analysis Group
Value-of-Time
Work Value-of-Time
Lognormal Probability Density Functions
0.4
0.35
Probability
0.3
HH Income: $20K
0.25
HH Income: $50K
0.2
HH Income: $75K
0.15
HH Income: $125K
0.1
0.05
0
$0
$3
$6
$9
$12
$15
$18
$21
$24
$27
$30
$33
$36
$39
$42
$45
$48
Value of Time
• Use of distributed values-of-time to better capture variation in behavior
• Cannot be implemented in trip-based models
PB
System Analysis Group
San Francisco Central Subway
• 1.4 miles connecting
South of Market to
Chinatown
• Third Street LRT
7.1 mile surface line
(IOS = Baseline)
PB
System Analysis Group
Muni Central Subway
Third Street
Alternative
Headways:
•5 min. peak
•10 min. offpeak
•12 min. night
PB
System Analysis Group
Trip User Benefits
PB
System Analysis Group
San Francisco Transportation Plan
Equity Analysis
“Ensure equity in transportation investments through a
broad distribution of benefits among all city residents”
The Countywide Plan targets areas and communities of
historic under-investment
Support and participation of stakeholders
0-Vehicle
Population
PB
System Analysis Group
Zero Vehicle Population
PB
System Analysis Group
Mobility Results
TRAVEL TIMES
Time Savings
Transit Time
(avg min)
Savings (avg min)
Change Transit Share
All
0.11
1.74
0.8%
Zero Vehicle
0.37
1.69
1.2%
Not Zero Vehicle
0.06
1.79
0.7%
Low Income
0.16
1.48
0.7%
Not Low Income
0.10
1.79
0.8%
Female Head w/Children
0.04
1.39
1.1%
Not Female Head w/Children
0.11
1.77
0.8%
Single Parent
0.02
1.25
1.0%
Not Single Parent
0.11
1.79
0.8%
Female
0.09
1.69
0.8%
Male
0.12
1.78
0.8%
PB
System Analysis Group
Sacramento State BRT Project
• Tour-based model used to
simulate campus arrivals and
departures by ½ hour time
periods
• Parking lots fill up -> park
further from
• Choice of BRT or walk from
lot to destination
PB
System Analysis Group
Sacramento State BRT Project
• The tourbased model
tracks time in ½
hour periods
Total Available Parking By Time Period
PB
System Analysis Group
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Total Spaces
5:
00
6:
30
8:
00
9:
30
11
:0
0
12
:3
0
14
:0
0
15
:3
0
17
:0
0
18
:3
0
20
:0
0
21
:3
0
23
:0
0
• Conventional
models do not
have this level
of detail
• Parking
constraints and
policies affect
transit ridership
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Time Period
23:00
21:30
20:00
18:30
17:00
15:30
14:00
12:30
11:00
9:30
8:00
6:30
BRT Boardings
5:00
Boardings
BRT Boardings By Time Period