1. MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. New Trip Model Formulation

6. 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

7. 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 + 1993 on-board survey - Also adheres to FTA New Starts parameter guidelines

8. Model Areas

9. 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

10. Validation - VMT

11. Validation - % RMSE

12. 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

13. 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

14. Spring-Sandusky

16. Polaris - 1988

17. Polaris - 2008

18. Proposed Before/After Projects Systemwide transit analysis –35% decline in transit service 2001-2005 –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

19. Traffic Volumes Why we care about traffic volumes –100-200 projects a year that use the model’s traffic volumes

20. Contact Information Rebekah Anderson – ODOT 614-752-5735 rebekah.anderson@dot.state.oh.us Greg Giaimo – ODOT 614-752-5738 greg.giaimo@dot.state.oh.us David Schmitt – AECOM 614-901-6026 david.schmitt@aecom.com