The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission The 11th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 9,

 City of Columbus  Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)  Central Ohio Transit Authority 2

 Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan  Review of MAG Latent Demand Model  MORPC’s Modification  Results  Conclusions 3

 Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan  Review of MAG Latent Demand Model  MORPC’s Modification  Results  Conclusions 4

 Identify major pedestrian network  Recognize pedestrian travel needs  Promote pedestrian activities 5

 Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan  Review of MAG Latent Demand Model  MORPC’s Modification  Results  Conclusions 6

 “Gravity-based” Model  Non-linked vs. Linked  Latent Demand Score (LDS): 0~100% Relative levels of potential pedestrian travel demand among a given network 7

Both ends of walk trips Attraction Production 8 P PPP P PPP A A

9 Distance matters Source: MAG Pedestrian 2000-Technical Appendix, Dec 1999

P PPP P PPP Spatial queries Buffer 10 A A

11  Attractor-base queries  Segment-based queries

12  Attractor-base queries  Segment-based queries

 Non-linked trips: entire trip made by foot ◦ Work (college/University) ◦ Shopping and Errands ◦ School ◦ Recreational  Linked trips: partial trip made by foot (most of the trip made by auto/other motorized modes) 13

 LDS - normalization 0 ~ 100% ◦ Non-linked ◦ Linked  Combine non-linked and linked trips “Composite” LDS=MAX(non-linked LDS, Linked LDS) 14

 Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan  Review of MAG Latent Demand Model  MORPC’s Modification  Results  Conclusions 15

 Grid System vs. TAZ  Impact of Transit Service  Additional Pedestrian “Attractors” 16

 Regional Connections 17 TAZGrid

 MAG linked pedestrian trips Linked LDS = E/A E=total employment within the buffer A=total area within the buffer  Attraction (employment) end vs. production (residence) end  Auto vs. Transit 18

 Revised linked pedestrian trips Linked LDS = (P  b%+E)/A P=total population within the buffer b%=transit share of trips by the population E=total employment within the buffer A=total area within the buffer 19

 Transit Share – b% ◦ Mode split information at Block Group (BG) level from Census 2000 SF3 data ◦ Mode split information at Grid level? ◦ Transit Service Frequency by Route at Grid level from Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)  Stops in the Grid  Headways 20

 Transit Share – b% (cont’d) b%=M%  (f / F) M%= max. BG transit share within the entire region considered. f= transit service frequency within Grid/its buffer. F=max. transit service frequency within Grid/its buffer. 21

 Government buildings, sport arena, museum, libraries, theaters, etc.  Four Categories ◦ Service area (local vs. regional) ◦ Service type (general vs. special) 22

Service Area LocalRegional Service Type GeneralLibraryMuseum SpecialBMVFairground 23 Four Categories

24 Weight Score Service Area LocalRegional Service Type General32 Special21

 Example of weighting factor ◦ Library and Fairground in the buffer of a segment with LDS = 80% Weight score = 3+1=4 Weighting factor = 1.04 (multiplicative) New LDS = 80%  1.04= 83.2% 25

 Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan  Review of MAG Latent Demand Model  MORPC’s Modification  Results  Conclusions 26

27

28

29

30

 Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan  Review of MAG Latent Demand Model  MORPC’s Modification  Results  Conclusions 31

 Understanding pedestrian travel demand  Evaluating existing sidewalk system (ongoing)  Prioritizing pedestrian facility improvements in a consistent way  Future work: refine methodologies and update the results periodically 32

 Ahmad Al-Akhras  Chris Gawronski  Anthony Hull  Zhuojun Jiang 33

34 Questions ? Please use the Microphone.