Peter Vovsha, Robert Donnelly, Surabhi Gupta pb

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Parsons Brinckerhoff Chicago, Illinois GIS Estimation of Transit Access Parameters for Mode Choice Models GIS in Transit Conference October 16-17, 2013.
Advertisements

Feedback Loops Guy Rousseau Atlanta Regional Commission.
11 th TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference, Daytona Beach, FL Achieving Planning Model Convergence Howard Slavin Jonathan Brandon Andres.
Advanced Integrated Demand- Network Equilibrium Models: New Challenges and Implementation with Emme Peter Vovsha, Ph.D Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York,
Using Dynamic Traffic Assignment Models to Represent Day-to-day Variability Dirck Van Vliet 20 th International EMME Users’ Conference Montreal October.
GREATER NEW YORK A GREENER Travel Demand Modeling for analysis of Congestion Mitigation policies October 24, 2007.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS TWO Denver Regional Council of Governments June 30, 2011.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS THREE Denver Regional Council of Governments July 7, 2011.
Time of day choice models The “weakest link” in our current methods(?) Change the use of network models… Run static assignments for more periods of the.
SATURN and DIADEM Practical Experience Toni Dichev 31 st Oct 2008.
GEOG 111 & 211A Transportation Planning Traffic Assignment.
Estimating Congestion Costs Using a Transportation Demand Model of Edmonton, Canada C.R. Blaschuk Institute for Advanced Policy Research University of.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW Denver Regional Council of Governments June 24, 2011.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS FIVE Denver Regional Council of Governments July27, 2011.
Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 10 Traffic (Trip) Assignment Trip Generation Trip Distribution Transit Estimation & Mode.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco DTA Project: Model Integration Options Greg Erhardt DTA Peer Review Panel Meeting July 25 th,
The Impact of Convergence Criteria on Equilibrium Assignment Yongqiang Wu, Huiwei Shen, and Terry Corkery Florida Department of Transportation 11 th Conference.
©2009 Proprietary and Confidential DTA in practice: Modeling dynamic networks in the real world Michael Mahut, Ph.D. INRO Montreal, Canada.
Assigning User Class Link and Route Flows Uniquely to Urban Road Networks ______________________________________________________________________________.
From Academia to Application: Results from the Development of the First Accessibility-Based Model Mike Conger, P.E. Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning.
Calculating Transportation System User Benefits: Interface Challenges between EMME/2 and Summit Principle Author: Jennifer John Senior Transportation Planner.
Florida Multimodal Statewide Freight Model
Kermit Wies, Craig Heither, CMAP Peter Vovsha, Jim Hicks, PB Hani Mahmassani, Ali Zockaie, NU TPAC, May 17-20, An Integrated ABM-DTA Model for the.
TRANSIMS Version 5 Application Concepts January 20, 2011 David Roden – AECOM.
How to Put “Best Practice” into Traffic Assignment Practice Ken Cervenka Federal Transit Administration TRB National Transportation.
Regional Traffic Simulation/Assignment Model for Evaluation of Transit Performance and Asset Utilization April 22, 2003 Athanasios Ziliaskopoulos Elaine.
NTERFACING THE MORPC REGIONAL MODEL WITH DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION INTERFACING THE MORPC REGIONAL MODEL WITH DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION David Roden (AECOM)
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco’s Dynamic Traffic Assignment Model Background SFCTA DTA Model Peer Review Panel Meeting July.
Comparing Dynamic Traffic Assignment Approaches for Planning
David B. Roden, Senior Consulting Manager Analysis of Transportation Projects in Northern Virginia TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference.
DKS Associates. 2 Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) Travel Demand vs. Simulation Models Micro vs. Meso Simulation Models US-101 Corridor Modeling.
A Model for Joint Choice of Airport and Ground Access Mode 11th National Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach,
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco DTA Model: Working Model Calibration Part 1: Process Greg Erhardt Dan Tischler Neema Nassir.
Dynamic Origin-Destination Trip Table Estimation for Transportation Planning Ramachandran Balakrishna Caliper Corporation 11 th TRB National Transportation.
Calgary Commercial Movement Model Kevin Stefan, City of Calgary J.D. Hunt, University of Calgary Prepared for the 17th International EMME/2 Conference.
Dynamic Tolling Assignment Model for Managed Lanes presented to Advanced Traffic Assignment Sub-Committee presented by Jim Hicks, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
SHRP2 C10A Final Conclusions & Insights TRB Planning Applications Conference May 5, 2013 Columbus, OH Stephen Lawe, Joe Castiglione & John Gliebe Resource.
Planning Applications Conference, Reno, NV, May Impact of Crowding on Rail Ridership: Sydney Metro Experience and Forecasting Approach William Davidson,
Application of an Activity-based Model for a Toll Road Study in Chicago Matt Stratton Parsons Brinckerhoff May 19, 2015.
Presented to Time of Day Subcommittee May 9, 2011 Time of Day Modeling in FSUTMS.
TRB Planning Applications May 2009, Houston,TX Changing assignment algorithms: the price of better convergence Michael Florian and Shuguang He INRO.
20th EMME User Conference, Montreal, October 18-20, 2006 Modeling Toll Roads with EMME Peter Vovsha, Parsons Brinckerhoff, USA Pascal Volet, TraVol, Canada.
May 2009TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference 1 PATHBUILDER TESTS USING 2007 DALLAS ON-BOARD SURVEY Hua Yang, Arash Mirzaei, Kathleen.
Methodological Considerations for Integrating Dynamic Traffic Assignment with Activity-Based Models Ramachandran Balakrishna Daniel Morgan Srinivasan Sundaram.
The development of a HOV driver behavior model under Paramics Will Recker, UC Irvine Shin-Ting Jeng, UC Irvine Lianyu Chu, CCIT-UC Berkeley.
May 8, 2009 SERPM65 Subarea Model-Corradino 1 SERPM65 Highway-Only Subarea Modeling Process Southeast Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting Ft. Lauderdale,
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS FOUR Denver Regional Council of Governments July 7, 2011.
Incorporating Time of Day Modeling into FSUTMS – Phase II Time of Day (Peak Spreading) Model Presentation to FDOT SPO 23 March 2011 Heinrich McBean.
TRB Planning Applications Conference May 2009, Houston,TX A Caveat on O-D Matrix Estimation/Adjustment: Deviations from a seed matrix and Simultaneous.
Application of Accelerated User Equilibrium Traffic Assignments Howard Slavin Jonathan Brandon Andres Rabinowicz Srinivasan Sundaram Caliper Corporation.
Travel Demand Forecasting: Traffic Assignment CE331 Transportation Engineering.
Systems Analysis Group TPAC, 2015 Application Experience of Multiple Discrete Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Model for Activity Duration and Trip Departure.
Transportation Planning Asian Institute of Technology
Traffic Simulation L0 – How to use AIMSUN Ing. Ondřej Přibyl, Ph.D.
Aktivitetsbaseret modellering af transportefterspørgsel
Airport and Ground Access Choice Modeling
Mohamed Mahmoud, Ph.D. Senior Planner, Forecasting TransLink
Network Assignment and Equilibrium for Disaggregate Models
Presented to 2017 TRB Planning Applications Conference
Steps Closer to ABM: Example from Jerusalem
Chrissy Bernardo, Peter Vovsha, Gaurav Vyas (WSP),
After Evans: Working on an Approximation of a Combined Equilibrium Model Based on Precision Assignment May, 2011 TRB Planning Applications Conference,
Transit Path-Building: “To Multipath or Not to Multipath”
Integrated Dynamic/AB Models: Getting Real Discussion
Multi-modal Bi-criterion Highway Assignment for Toll Roads Jian Zhang Andres Rabinowicz Jonathan Brandon Caliper Corporation /9/2018.
Michael Mahut, Michael Florian and Nicolas Tremblay INRO
Data Warehousing Data Model –Part 1
Jim Lam, Caliper Corporation Guoxiong Huang, SCAG Mark Bradley, BB&C
Incremental Assignment (fixed demand)
Statewide Needs Assessment for Next-Generation Travel Demand Models
Presentation transcript:

Peter Vovsha, Robert Donnelly, Surabhi Gupta pb Session 8: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Activity Based Model Network Equilibrium with Activity-Based Models: the New York Experience Peter Vovsha, Robert Donnelly, Surabhi Gupta pb

Network Equilibrium with AB Models Essential for objective model outcomes Conventional 4-step models: Established theory / proven existence and uniqueness Effective algorithms and programming implementation Based on continuous demand Still a challenge with AB models: Analytical complexity with structural changes Discrete microsimulation and Monte-Carlo variation 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Specific Challenges of NY Extreme example of highest congestion: Difficult to ensure assignment convergence Instable/fluctuating LOS skims Huge dimensionality and long run times: 20,000,000 individuals 4,000×4,000 multi-class trip tables Various possible responses contributing to instability/non-convergence: Switching mode Different destination Changing time of day 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Averaging & Enforcement Simple feeding back LOS variables does not ensure convergence 2 ways to ensure convergence by iterating: Averaging: Continuous LOS variables: Highway skims for time and cost Transit skims generally cannot be averaged Demand matrices: Microsimulation model is a generator of trip table Linkage to individual records is lost Enforcement to ensure replication of discrete choices: No theoretical foundation Arbitrary strategies 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Enforcement Methods Re-using same random numbers / seeds: Each household / person has a fixed seed Structural stability of decision chains by reserving choice placeholders Gradual freezing: Subsets of households Travel dimensions Analytical discretizing of probability matrices 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Monte-Carlo Effects Characteristic Stable structure Variable structure Choice dimensions Household car ownership Tour mode & destination Tour formation Stop location & trip mode Impact on convergence Theoretical convergence by iterating and averaging Discontinuity and abrupt responses Treatment Averaging Enforcement & averaging 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Stable Structure Same list of agents Same random number Same choices with convergent probabilities Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Tour 1 0.7543267 0.5354 0.5540 0.7374 1.0000 Tour 2 0.2635498 0.6623 0.8632 0.8944 1.0000 Tour 3 0.1135645 0.2231 0.5678 0.6633 1.0000 Tour 4 0.9797613 0.8988 0.8989 0.9800 1.0000 With the same list of agents facing the same choices, using the same random numbers with convergent probabilities will ensure convergence of the individual choices 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Structural Variation – 1 Variable list of agents Same random number Same choices with convergent probabilities TAZ 1 TAZ 2 TAZ 3 TAZ 4 Out stop 1 0.7543267 0.5354 0.5540 0.7374 1.0000 Out stop 2 0.2635498 0.6623 0.8632 0.8944 1.0000 Out stop 3 0.1135645 0.2231 0.5678 0.6633 1.0000 Inb stop 1 0.9797613 0.8988 0.8989 0.9800 1.0000 Inb stop 2 X Inb stop 3 X 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Structural Variation – 2 Variable list of agents Same random number Same choices with convergent probabilities TAZ 1 TAZ 2 TAZ 3 TAZ 4 Out stop 1 0.7543267 0.5354 0.5540 0.7374 1.0000 Out stop 2 0.2635498 0.6623 0.8632 0.8944 1.0000 Out stop 3 X Inb stop 1 0.1135645 0.8988 0.8989 0.9800 1.0000 Inb stop 2 0.9797613 0.0341 0.3780 0.6271 1.0000 Inb stop 3 X With a variable list of agents facing the same choices, using the same sequence of random numbers with convergent probabilities does not ensure convergence of the individual choices 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Structural Variation – 3 Variable list of agents Same random number Same choices with convergent probabilities TAZ 1 TAZ 2 TAZ 3 TAZ 4 Out stop 1 0.7543267 0.5354 0.5540 0.7374 1.0000 Out stop 2 0.2635498 0.6623 0.8632 0.8944 1.0000 Out stop 3 X 0.1135645 Inb stop 1 0.9797613 0.8988 0.8989 0.9800 1.0000 Inb stop 2 0.0426459 0.0341 0.3780 0.6271 1.0000 Inb stop 3 X 0.5137942 With a variable list of agents facing the same choices, using the same random numbers for each agent with convergent probabilities will ensure convergence of the individual choices 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Current Project Approach No enforcement has been applied yet: Programming effort required Testing strategies required Averaging strategies for skims (link volumes) and trip tables explored: Acceptable results for FTA New Starts: Limited model sensitivity (mode choice) No individual record analysis (OD-pairs by segments) 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Averaging Methods Direct feedback (full update) Link flow MSA Factor=1 Link flow MSA Factor = 1/n Factor = 1/n (no advantage found) Trip table MSA 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Equilibrium Feedback Options Microsimulation model Mode & TOD trip tables Conventional static assignment Link volumes Link times OD skims 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Microsimulation model Conventional static assignment Naïve – Never Works Microsimulation model Mode & TOD trip tables Conventional static assignment Link volumes Link times OD skims 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Intermediate Conclusion With microsimulation, simple feeding back LOS skims will never work Enforcement on the microsimulation side and/or averaging of trip tables / skims should be applied 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Microsimulation model Conventional static assignment MSA Options Microsimulation model X Mode & TOD trip tables Conventional static assignment Link volumes Link times OD skims 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Microsimulation model Conventional static assignment Most Effective Microsimulation model Mode & TOD trip tables Conventional static assignment Link volumes Link times OD skims 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Adopted Strategy In many applications, microsimulation model can be considered as trip table generator (FTA) Aggregate outcomes are important Tracing back individual record details is not important Averaging strategy: Averaging (stable) link volumes is more effective than travel times (exponential functions of volumes) Convergence: Practically acceptable after 3-4 global iterations Maximum level after 9-10 iterations 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

RMSE: AM Highway Trip Table 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

RMSE: MD Highway Trip Table 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

RMSE: AM Transit Trip Table 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

RMSE: MD Transit Trip Table 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

RMSE: AM Link Flow 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

RMSE: MD Link Flow 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

%RMSE: AM Link Time 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

%RMSE: MD Link Time 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Max AM Link Flow Difference 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Max MD Link Flow Difference 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Conclusions NY region Highly congested – extreme example Theoretically, convergence at large number of iterations (20-30): Reasonable convergence - trip tables (4,000×4,000) Good level of convergence: Network link volumes Aggregate county-to-county trip tables (29×29) 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Conclusions Effective Strategy: Number of global iterations: MSA of link volumes and MSA on trip tables Number of global iterations: 8-9 practically enough Little improvement after 3-4 global iterations Source of instability – stop-frequency, stop-location and TOD model Tour mode and destination choice are more stable 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Recommended Strategy “Cold” start: “Warm” start: “Hot” start: 9-10 iterations (1, ½, 1/3, ¼, …) Any reasonable starting skims (for year/level of demand) Prior trip tables are not used in the process Run for each Base scenario / year Run only for exceptional Build scenarios with global regional impacts (like Manhattan area pricing) “Warm” start: 3 iterations (1, ½, 1/3) Input skims for Base of final (last iteration) are used as starting skims for Build transit and highway projects Run for Build scenarios “Hot” start: FTM New Start Methods 1 iteration only 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA

Further Testing Combination of averaging and enforcement to ensure consistence of microsimulation outcome and trip tables Local / project-specific ways to speed up convergence 11th Planning Application Conference, May 6-10, 2007, Daytona Beach, FA