Analysis of a Multimodal Light Rail Corridor using an Activity-Based Microsimulation Framework S. Ellie Volosin & Ram M. Pendyala, Arizona State University,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Feedback Loops Guy Rousseau Atlanta Regional Commission.
Advertisements

Getting on the MOVES: Using Dynameq and the US EPA MOVES Model to Measure the Air Pollution Emissions TRPC – Smart Corridors Project Chris Breiland Fehr.
GIS and Transportation Planning
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Demand for bus and Rail Analyzing a corridor with a similar Level Of Service 5 th Israeli-British/Irish Workshop in Regional Science April, 2007.
GREATER NEW YORK A GREENER Travel Demand Modeling for analysis of Congestion Mitigation policies October 24, 2007.
Presented by: Pascal Volet, ing. October 11,2007 Application of Dynameq in Montréal: bridging the gap between regional models and microsimulation Application.
The SoCoMMS Model Paul Read Dan Jones. The Presentation Outline of the Study The Modelling Framework Accessibility Model.
Junction Modelling in a Strategic Transport Model Wee Liang Lim Henry Le Land Transport Authority, Singapore.
Session 11: Model Calibration, Validation, and Reasonableness Checks
TRIP ASSIGNMENT.
1 AASHTO: SCOPT/MTAP Winter Meeting METRO Update: Light Rail Operations and the Status of Future Corridors Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Project Development.
Implementing a Blended Model System to Forecast Transportation and Land Use Changes at Bob Hope Airport 15 th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications.
Versatile Applications of EMME/2 and ENIF: Seattle Experience Madhavi Sanakkayala Heather Purdy & Sujay Davuluri Parsons Brinckerhoff, Seattle.
An Empirical Comparison of Microscopic and Mesoscopic Traffic Simulation Paradigms Ramachandran Balakrishna Daniel Morgan Qi Yang Caliper Corporation 14.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS FIVE Denver Regional Council of Governments July27, 2011.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco DTA Project: Model Integration Options Greg Erhardt DTA Peer Review Panel Meeting July 25 th,
Presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation leadership you can trust. Innovative Approach to Transit On-board Data Collection.
BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MODEL ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE RED LINE PROJECT AMPO TRAVEL MODEL WORK GROUP March 20, 2006.
Transit Estimation and Mode Split CE 451/551 Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 7.
Project Briefing Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Transportation Policy Board Project Briefing Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Calculating Transportation System User Benefits: Interface Challenges between EMME/2 and Summit Principle Author: Jennifer John Senior Transportation Planner.
 Focus Model Application to Colfax Ave  Initial Contact with FTA  Evaluation Process and Results  Next Steps.
Orange County Business Council Infrastructure Committee December 14, 2010 Draft Long-Range Transportation Plan Destination 2035.
June 15, 2010 For the Missoula Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Modeling
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Vamsee Modugula Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May.
April 2010 Scott Smith Volpe Center / RITA / U.S. DOT Transportation Border Working Group Meeting Boston, MA An Integrated Regional Planning / Microsimulation.
1 The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14 th 2008.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference When is BRT the Best Option? the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse Director, National Transit Institute.
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.
NTERFACING THE MORPC REGIONAL MODEL WITH DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION INTERFACING THE MORPC REGIONAL MODEL WITH DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION David Roden (AECOM)
“An Iterative Capacity Constrained Parking Methodology for Ridership Forecasts for BART Extension Stations” Mike Aronson May 19, th TRB National.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco’s Dynamic Traffic Assignment Model Background SFCTA DTA Model Peer Review Panel Meeting July.
West Phoenix / Central Glendale Transit Corridor Study Public Meetings May 2013.
David B. Roden, Senior Consulting Manager Analysis of Transportation Projects in Northern Virginia TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference.
Cal y Mayor y Asociados, S.C. Atizapan – El Rosario Light Rail Transit Demand Study October th International EMME/2 UGM.
Major Transportation Corridor Studies Using an EMME/2 Travel Demand Forecasting Model: The Trans-Lake Washington Study Carlos Espindola, Youssef Dehghani.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco DTA Model: Working Model Calibration Part 1: Process Greg Erhardt Dan Tischler Neema Nassir.
Portland North Small Starts Alternatives Analysis Coordination Meeting June 15, 2009.
S. Erdogan 1, K. Patnam 2, X. Zhou 3, F.D. Ducca 4, S. Mahapatra 5, Z. Deng 6, J. Liu 7 1, 4, 6 University of Maryland, National Center for Smart Growth.
Incorporating Traffic Operations into Demand Forecasting Model Daniel Ghile, Stephen Gardner 22 nd international EMME Users’ Conference, Portland September.
Presented by: Pascal Volet, ing. City of Montreal TRB Technical Conference May 9, 2007 A Multi-resolution Modelling Framework in the Montréal Area A Multi-resolution.
MATRIX ADJUSTMENT MACRO (DEMADJ.MAC AND DEMADJT.MAC) APPLICATIONS: SEATTLE EXPERIENCE Murli K. Adury Youssef Dehghani Sujay Davuluri Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB 11 th Conference on Transportation Planning Applications presented by Dan Goldfarb, P.E. Cambridge.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to 12 th Annual TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference presented by Dan Goldfarb, P.E. Cambridge.
The Purple Line Transit Connecting Bethesda, New Carrolton, and the Washington Metro Presented by- Nick Flanders Rose Ryan Anupam Srivastava.
Calibrating Model Speeds, Capacities, and Volume Delay Functions Using Local Data SE Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting February 6, 2009 Dean Lawrence.
FDOT Transit Office Modeling Initiatives The Transit Office has undertaken a number of initiatives in collaboration with the Systems Planning Office and.
Dowling Associates, Inc. 19 th International EMME/2 Users’ Conference – 21 October 2005 Derivation of Travel Demand Elasticities from a Tour-Based Microsimulation.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Easy Breezy Beautiful DTA: Modeling of the Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Project Elizabeth Sall, Michalis.
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.
Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007.
May 2009TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference 1 PATHBUILDER TESTS USING 2007 DALLAS ON-BOARD SURVEY Hua Yang, Arash Mirzaei, Kathleen.
Analysis of the IH 35 Corridor Through the Austin Metropolitan Area TRB Planning Applications Conference Jeff Shelton Karen Lorenzini Alex Valdez Tom Williams.
Presentation For Incorporation of Pricing in the Time-of-Day Model “Express Travel Choices Study” for the Southern California Association of Governments.
Estimating Volumes for I-95 HOT Lanes in Virginia Prepared for: 2009 Planning Applications Conference Houston, TX May 18, 2009 Prepared by: Kenneth D.
An AQ Assessment Tool for Local Land Use Decisio ns 13 th TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 9, 2011 Reno, Nevada Mark Filipi, AICP.
Impact of Aging Population on Regional Travel Patterns: The San Diego Experience 14th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, Columbus.
December 17, 2010 Developing Transit Performance Measures for Integrated Multi-Modal Corridor Management.
TRANSIMS Version 5 Demand Files January 20, 2011 David Roden – AECOM.
IH-10 Managed Lanes Project: A “Public-Public” Partnership ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates Presented at the Value Pricing Conference.
Valley Metro Update Open House and Public Hearing March 9, 2007.
Transportation Modeling – Opening the Black Box. Agenda 6:00 - 6:05Welcome by Brant Liebmann 6:05 - 6:10 Introductory Context by Mayor Will Toor and Tracy.
Macro / Meso / Micro Framework on I-395 HOT Lane Conversion
Activity Modeling in Portland
Karen Tsang Bureau of Transport Statistics Department of Transport
Jim Henricksen, MnDOT Steve Ruegg, WSP
Presented to 2017 TRB Planning Applications Conference
Presentation transcript:

Analysis of a Multimodal Light Rail Corridor using an Activity-Based Microsimulation Framework S. Ellie Volosin & Ram M. Pendyala, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ Brian Grady & Bhargava Sana, Resource Systems Group, Inc. Brian Gardner, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC May 8 – 12, 2011; Reno, Nevada 13 th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference

Outline Background Project overview and objectives Geographical area and regional network Preparing the network Trip-based demand Execution of TRANSIMS Trip-based results Light rail line extensions Synthetic activity file generation Activity-based analysis - preliminary results Ongoing work and Conclusions

Background Need for planning tools that offer greater level of detail Disaggregate models better able to replicate human behavior more closely →Microsimulation models track each traveler individually Limited work on microsimulation of transit modes

Project Overview TRANSIMS deployment case study in Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Region Funded by Federal Highway Administration Emphasis on two developments – Microsimulation of transit modes – Activity demand generation module Application to a mixed mode corridor including auto, bus, and rail modes

Project Objectives Implement, calibrate, and validate TRANSIMS model Evaluate performance of mixed mode network – Intersection delay – Rail crossings – Transit transfers and boardings Use calibrated model to predict conditions with future light rail extensions

Phoenix Metropolitan Area

About the Greater Phoenix Region 4.28 million people in the metropolitan area City of Phoenix is the 5 th largest in the U.S. Eight separate cities in the region with more than 100,000 people each

Light Rail System Light Rail Transit (LRT) line began service in Dec, 2008 Starter line ~ 20 miles long Serves West Mesa, North Tempe, and Central Phoenix Important service stops – Arizona State University – Mill Avenue Shopping District – Professional Sports Facilities – Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport – Phoenix Central Business District

Future Light Rail Expansion

Network Development Network adapted from 4-step model network – Centroid connectors deleted – All speeds and capacities set to physical values – External connectors retained TRANSIMS built-in network conversion tool

Network Development Transit network created from route stops and route characteristics – Route headways vary by service times – Routes coded with stops and “pass-by” points Manual adjustments made to lane connectivity

Definition of Activity Locations Activity locations (ALs) constitute the start and end point of every trip – Alternative to the zone centroid in the 4-step model All activity locations are assigned a corresponding zone Each zone must have at least 1 AL assigned to it Developed a program to 1.Identify zones with no ALs 2.Locate the closest AL to that zone centroid 3.Reassign the AL found to the zone in question

O-D Trip Tables Initial implementation was O-D trip table-based – Obtained from the 4-step model – Trip tables by mode: SOV, HOV, bus, express bus, light rail – Trips by purpose (6 purposes) Time of day applied through diurnal distributions – Calculated from NHTS 2009 data – Distributions by mode and purpose TRANSIMS trip conversion tool ~15 million trips in Greater Phoenix Metro Area

Rail Bias Found light rail boardings below observed ridership numbers Two possible transit options in TRANSIMS – “transit” or “transit with rail bias” Found that coding all transit trips as “transit with rail bias” improved boarding counts Rail bias is set higher than 1 – Prompts transit riders to prefer rail over bus

Execution of TRANSIMS TRANSIMS Studio: GUI built to aid in TRANSIMS model building TransVIS: visualization tool built for TRANSIMS Currently running TRANSIMS Studio – 64 bit Windows machine – 6 processors = 6 traveler partitions 1 full microsimulation takes about 2 days – Adding more processors could reduce run times

Router Stabilization Iterative method In each iteration, re-route only select travelers Plan Sum finds travel times based on free-flow speed

Microsimulator Process similar to that of Router stabilization – Microsimulator is used rather than Plan Sum – Microsimulator considers congestion along continuous time axis Cellular automata model – Every travel lane is a series of cells – Only one vehicle can exist in a cell at a time Microsimulator includes parameters for following distance, reaction time, look-ahead distance, etc.

Results based on O-D Tables Facility Type Number of Observations Observed Vehicle Counts TRANSIMS Volume % Difference Collector % Expressway % Freeway % Major % Total % Mode Type Observed Boardings Transims Model Boardings % Difference Local Bus Total % Express/Rapid Bus Total % Light Rail Total % Total %

Results based on O-D Tables Total travel time for all trips = hours Average travel time = minutes Maximum vehicles on the network = at 3:49:51 pm Time schedule problems still experienced – Departure time – Arrival time – Wait time

Light Rail Specific Results Stop LocationEB BoardingsWB Boardings West End of Line19820 Business District Business District State Government Buildings Professional Sports Facilities Sky Harbor Airport Mill Avenue Shopping District Tempe Transit Center Arizona State Main Campus Loop 101 Park n Ride East End of Line02660

Delays at Mixed-Use Intersections Intersection 1: Downtown Phoenix Direction Avg. 15-Min Volume Avg. DelayMax. Queue A B C D Intersection 2: Suburban Tempe Direction Avg. 15-Min Volume Avg. DelayMax. Queue A B C D

Light Rail Scenario Selected two planned extensions – Northern extension – Mesa extension All transit trips in the O-D tables still coded as “transit with rail bias” Even with fixed demand, transit riders have a choice

Light Rail Scenario Results Found expected increase in rail boardings Also found increase in bus boardings – Could be due to a greater number of travelers taking advantage of transfer opportunities Mode Type Base Network Results LRT extension results % Difference Local Bus % Express Bus % Light Rail % Grand Total %

Generating Synthetic Population PopGen software used – Developed at ASU – Chosen for its flexibility – No learning curve for ASU researchers Synthesis performed to generate 2009 population Synthetic Population Summary – Number of Household File Records = – Average Persons per Household = 2.76 – Average Workers per Household = 1.32 – Average Vehicles per Household = 1.81

Synthetic Activity Generation Used TRANSIMS built-in activity generator: ActGen Inputs: – Synthetic population with household descriptions – Survey file with activities pursued by persons in varying household types Output: – File containing daily activity schedules for every person in the population Used synthetic population from PopGen Input survey file created from NHTS 2009

Preparation of Input Survey Data Trials made with different survey samples – Only Arizona survey records 4511 survey records 2.99 activities per person generated 8.37 activities per household generated – All U.S. survey records survey records 4.52 activities per person generated activities per household generated Used entire US survey records for richer sample from which to draw activity records

Preliminary Activity Generation Model Activity-based travel simulation in the early stages at this time All activities simulated for morning peak period – 6:00 to 9:00 AM Model not yet validated

Ongoing Work Initial results from activity generation simulation show an under-estimation of trips and transit boardings Exploring possible ways to enhance replication of base year traffic volumes and boardings – Focus on ActGen module Will apply the activity-based model to analyze two proposed light rail extensions

Questions

Results based Activity Files Total travel time for all trips = hours Average travel time = minutes Maximum vehicles on the network = at 8:45:31 am Most common problems – Departure time – Transit Capacity

Light Rail Specific Results Stop LocationEB BoardingsWB Boardings West End of Line380 Business District64 50 State Government Buildings027 Professional Sports Facilities010 Sky Harbor Airport01 Mill Avenue Shopping District10 Tempe Transit Center00 Arizona State Main Campus01 Loop 101 Park n Ride00 East End of Line02

Delays at Mixed-Use Intersections Intersection 1: Downtown Phoenix Direction Avg. 15-Min Volume Avg. DelayMax. Queue A B C D700 Intersection 2: Suburban Tempe Direction Avg. 15-Min Volume Avg. DelayMax. Queue A B101 C101 D1.8600