TRB Policy Study State of Practice in Metropolitan Area Travel Forecasting

Presented To AMPO Travel Model Working Group By Jon Williams March 20, 2006

Agenda

• Study Process – Study sponsors – Scope of work – Committee and its operations • Consultant work- BMI / SG – Web-based survey – Interviews – Other work

Sponsors:

Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration USDOT- Office of the Secretary

Study Objectives 1. Gather information and determine the state of practice for metropolitan area travel demand modeling by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state departments of transportation (DOTs). 2. Identify actions needed to ensure that the appropriate technical processes are being used for travel modeling

Study Objectives (Specifically) • Are there technical shortcomings in the models for their intended uses, such as technical analysis of the Transportation Improvement Program and the Long-Range Plan, emissions analyses, FTA New Starts analyses, and NEPA analyses?

• Identify actions needed to ensure that the appropriate technical processes are being used for travel modeling.

Committee- 13 Members • •

Chair

- Marty Wachs (Rand)

MPO

- Mike Morris; Chuck Purvis; Guy Rousseau; Dick Walker; Ron Eash • •

State

- Laura Cove; Mary Lynn Tischer

Academic

- George Dresser; Bob Johnston; Eric Miller •

Other-

Tom Dean; Dick Pratt

Committee Process

• Independent, balanced, free of political and commercial interests or influence • Meet 4 times (last meeting May 19-20, ‘06) • Gather and consider information • Hire consultant, BMI-SG, for data collection and analysis • Draft final report- due for review in July • Pre-pub in fall 2006

Invited to Present Information Jan 6 – 7, 2005 • Sponsors • EPA • AMPO • AASHTO • TRB Committees • Environmental Defense • TRB staff

Invited to Present Information Sept 9, 2005 • Joint meeting with AMPO Travel Model Working Group • Presentation of Web-based Survey Results • Firing Line MPO comments • Open discussion

Invited to Present Information Jan 20, 2006 • FHWA (Transims) • FTA (New Starts analyses) • FHWA (Freight and commercial travel forecasting)

35% 5%

MPOs: 50,000 – 200,000

9% No Modeling STA does model and forecasts STA does model; MPO does forecasts MPO does model and forecasts 51%

57%

MPOs:

200,000

–

1 million

8% 35% STA does model and forecasts STA does model; MPO does forecasts MPO does model and forecasts

92%

MPOs: > 1 million

8% STA does model and forecasts MPO does model and forecasts

Surveys Sent and Responses Received (by MPO size)

MPO Classification

Small (Population < 200k) Medium (Population >200k<1M ) Large Population >1M Total

Surveys Sent Surveys Returned Percent Returned

205 116

57%

133 43 381 74 36 228

57% 84% 60%

MPOs Providing Responses

Model Characteristics • Majority of MPOs use 4-step process • Few MPOs use tour-based methods • Many MPOs omit mode choice • Some MPOs do no travel forecasting

Trip Distribution • Gravity Model dominant methodology – Distributes person trips • Impedance – Mostly based on travel time over highway network. – Significant portion of large MPOs use function combining highway and transit times or other factors • About 1/2 of reporting MPOs apply some type of adjustment factors – “K” factors – Time penalties

Are you working toward any activity or tour-based approaches to replace the existing trip distribution model?

25% All Large Medium Small 21% 22% Percent of MPOs 43%

U1. What are the best features of your model?

Responses

1. Ease of Use/Flexibility 2. Well Calibrated and Validated 3. Zone/Network Details 4. Standardized model 5. Modes/Mode Choice Model 6. Multiplicity of Trip Purposes 7. GIS Based 8. Intersection Impedances 9. Accurate Land Use Data 10. Multipath Transit Assignment 10. Detailed Operational Outputs Other

All

39 27 17 14 14 13 12 10 9 7 7 47

Large

2 5 2 0 10 4 1 0 3 0 1 25

MPO Size Medium

16 7 8 5 3 5 6 4 3 3 1 10

Small

21 15 7 9 1 4 5 6 3 4 5 12 • 32% of all MPOs stated that the best feature was ease of use/flexibility • 22% said the best feature was that the model was well calibrated and validated

U2. Which features are most in need of improvement?

Response

1. LU Forecasting 2. Lack of Detail/Quality in Mode Choice Model 3. Trip Generation 4. Lack of Time of Day 5. Lack of Travel Survey Data 6. Lack of Recent Quality Calibration 7. Lack of Toll/HOT Lane Modeling 8. Lack of Commercial/Truck Vehicle/Freight Modeling 9. No Mode Choice Model 10. Lack of Tour Based/Activity Based Model Other 11 9 9 8 66

All

38 30 24 15 14 12

Large

4 5 3 4 4 5 3 3 2 5 21

MPO Size Medium

12 16 10 5 3 2 4 4 3 2 22

Small

22 9 11 6 7 5 4 2 4 1 23 • 27% of all MPOs stated that land use forecasting was the feature of their model that was most in need of improvement • This is followed by the detail and quality of the mode choice model (21%).

BMI-SG Site Visits/Interviews

• Obtain additional information from sample of MPOs • In-depth interviews of 11 MPOs / DOTs – Six agencies were visited – Five agencies completed the interview via phone

Site Visit Topics of Discussion

• Form and status of current models • Validation • Sensitivity Analysis • Data Cleaning • Post Processing • Staffing and Budget • Barriers to Improvement • Perceived Inadequacies

BMI-SG Additional Work

• Data cleaning for web-based survey updated tables, figures, and text for draft report of 9/1/2005. • Produce context-related cross-tabs and analysis from web-based and in-depth surveys, considering, e.g.

a.

AQ conformity status b.

c.

d.

New starts Corridor studies High growth e.

f.

g.

h.

State vs. MPO responsibility Pricing / tolls Freight Congestion / ITS

BMI-SG Additional Work

Produce reports for the committee based on literature review; the web-based survey; site visits and phone interviews

Committee’s Final Report Due in Fall 2006 Consultant Report on web based survey is at-

http://www.trb.org/publications/reports/BMI-SG-Sept2005-Draft.pdf