Use of Journey Levels for Hierarchical Transit Assignment Ilan Elgar Model City Portland, September 20, 2016

Journey Level Assignment (JLA) A new INRO module for assigning transit trips Useful for transit networks with complicated fare strategies Useful for hierarchical transit assignment

Metro Vancouver

Transit Commute Patterns

Transit Discretionary Patterns

Transit Network See if we can overlay this on a map/aeriel of MV

Transit Network (in the model) See if we can overlay this on a map/aeriel of MV

Model Formulation Trip based model The mode choice model generates separate bus and RT O-D tables In the assignment stage bus and RT are treated hierarchically

How to prevent trips in the RT assignment from using bus only? Problem How to prevent trips in the RT assignment from using bus only?

Option 1 – Use Penalties Costs in the rapid transit assignment The ‘3.5’ bus IVTT factor ensures that RT trips actually use RT in the assignment stage. Use of the ‘3.5’ allowed calibration of the model at a regional scale Time Component Calculation (min) Perception (weight) Waiting 1/2 Headway 2.25 Walking Walking Speed (4.8kph) 1.75 In-Vehicle (Bus) Bus Travel Time 3.5 In-Vehicle (RT) RT Travel Time 1 Boarding 1 Minute 4

Issues with Using Penalties But, at a local level the factor skewed network costs and generated counterintuitive paths 1.5M

Option 2 – Use JLA The Journey Levels Assignment is a new tool added to EMME with version 4.2 (2015) JLA only allows paths that meet certain Journey criteria Trips are essentially tagged as RT trips The JLA does not allow RT trips to end until a RT segment is used Costs in rapid transit assignment Time Component Calculation (min) Perception (weight) Waiting 1/2 Headway 2.25 Walking Walking Speed (4.8kph) 1.75 In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time 1 Boarding 1 Minute 4

JLA - Testing JLA by itself produces counterintuitive results The assignment algorithm asks whether the mode (rail) is part of the optimal strategy (IVTT>0) and if so it’s part of the choice-set, otherwise it’s not (IVTT=0). When we run the JLA, we use the regular (optimal strategy assignment and 3.5 bus factor) to determine the choice-set and then optimize the routes using the JLA procedure. “The main reason this happens is because the mode choice models were estimated and calibrated using the ‘3.5’ factor. This factor eliminated rail as an option from several O-D pairs in the estimation dataset. As such, the estimated coefficients (specially the generalized cost coefficient) are not ‘in sync’ with the skims resulting from the JLA assignment. “

JLA - Testing

Solution Choice-set procedure in mode choice model needs to be tightened to filter out nonsensical RT use Hybrid JLA procedure using filtering criteria Assign RT trips using the 3.5 factor Filter out O-D pairs that should not have RT availability Reassign the remaining O-Ds using JLA to generate paths and costs

Outcomes of Hybrid Approach Results relatively stable with improved paths

Outcomes of Hybrid Approach Bus usage (as access mode) increases Walk time access decreases

JLA Future Directions Improve choice-set definition Max ratio of time spent on bus vs RT Max amount of time spent on bus RT trip time <1.5 Bus time Use of JLA for complicated fare schemes The next version of the model will separate between commuter train (WCE) and the rest of the rail system. The commuter rail is considered a premium service and has a different fare structure, rates and rules than the other transit modes. JLA will be used to assign ridership between the systems.