MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model

Research Project Led by Ohio DOT and initiated in 2008 Main objective: examine the performance of the MORPC trip-based and tour-based frameworks in the context of a before-and- after project analysis ODOT, MORPC, OKI and NOACA are looking to obtain a clearer picture of the potential practical benefits of tour-based models in the context of assessing projects and policies

Research Tasks 1.Understand model differences 2.Determine analysis methodologies and data requirements 3.Select study projects for before/after analysis 4.Determine data collection projects 5.Prepare models and model data 6.Run models, analyze output and observed conditions

Requirements for an Analogous Comparison Common analysis years –Using 1990, 2000, 2005 (due to better 1990 SE data than 1995) Identical estimation datasets Isolate supply-side differences Isolate demand-side differences Borrowed a Trip Model from OMS

New Trip Model Formulation

Estimation Datasets Estimate new Trip Generation and Gravity Distribution Models with the 1999 HIS Trip model will use mostly identical SE data as the tour model Update mode choice model to use IVT, OVT and wait coefficients from tour model Other coefficients will be scaled

Mode Choice Mode choice –Trip model uses nested logit structure based on 1993 on-board survey –Tour model uses mostly multinomial structures based on 1999 HIS on-board survey - Also adheres to FTA New Starts parameter guidelines

Model Areas

Demand-side Differences 4-period assignment External and CMV models are based on SE data and network impedances, so they would change with different assignments –Solution: hold trip tables constant across the models and alternatives Equilibrium assignment closure rates can vary mode choice impedances and final highway volumes –Solution: apply very high closure rate to both models

Validation - VMT

Validation - % RMSE

Other Considerations Trip Model is fairly simplistic –No peak spreading –No vehicle ownership –Daily level generation and distribution –Gravity distribution model –1 iteration of feedback to mode choice

Proposed Before/After Projects Spring-Sandusky interchange –Large-scale freeway project –Project is completed and subsequent land-use development has stabilized Polaris –Medium-scale freeway interchange project –New and subsequently modified interchange in rapid growth area

Spring-Sandusky

Polaris

Polaris

Proposed Before/After Projects Systemwide transit analysis –35% decline in transit service –Trunk routes virtually unchanged, with suburban service reduced Hilliard-Rome Road Area –High growth area, but no substantial transportation changes –Land use changes have now largely subsided Control Site – IR 71 South of the CBD

Traffic Volumes Why we care about traffic volumes – projects a year that use the model’s traffic volumes

Contact Information Rebekah Anderson – ODOT Greg Giaimo – ODOT David Schmitt – AECOM