1. 1 FSUTMS-Voyager: Transit Standards within Evolving FSUTMS Technical Presentation Florida Model Task Force Tampa, Florida December 12 th, 2006 85 slides

2. 2 Topics Context/Background Context/Background PT 109 PT 109 Methodology & findings Methodology & findings FSUTMS-Voyager Transit Model Guidelines FSUTMS-Voyager Transit Model Guidelines Path-building/mode choice Path-building/mode choice Network/system coding Network/system coding Access Access Assignment & calibration/validation Assignment & calibration/validation Final thoughts Final thoughts

3. 3 Context… Context…

4. 4 Transit Path-Builders Two types: single-path & multi-path Two types: single-path & multi-path Single-path Single-path Exclusively available in Tranplan, Minutp & TP+ Exclusively available in Tranplan, Minutp & TP+ Dominant path-builder in Florida & US Dominant path-builder in Florida & US Multi-path Multi-path Available in TransCAD & Cube-Voyager (PT) Available in TransCAD & Cube-Voyager (PT) Becoming more prevalent Becoming more prevalent

5. 5 Multi-Path vs. Single-Path OD Local Bus Rail/Shuttle Express Bus Path Weighted Time Single-Path Skim Values Multi-Path Skim Values Rail/Shuttle 55 min 100%45% Local Bus 90 min --20% Express Bus 65 min --35% Also loading percentages!

6. 6 Advantages to Multi-Path Builders Reflect sensitivities that would otherwise be: Reflect sensitivities that would otherwise be: Impossible in single-path builders, or Impossible in single-path builders, or Create inconsistencies between the path-builder & mode choice model Create inconsistencies between the path-builder & mode choice model More complex ones can combining headways across different modes & evaluating multiple boarding points More complex ones can combining headways across different modes & evaluating multiple boarding points Helpful for complex Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems Helpful for complex Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems May curtail magnitude of bias constants May curtail magnitude of bias constants Offer better consistency between path-builder & mode choice weights Offer better consistency between path-builder & mode choice weights No new single-path builder has been offered by the software industry in the past 20 years No new single-path builder has been offered by the software industry in the past 20 years Citilabs’ single-path builders will not receive any long-term enhancements Citilabs’ single-path builders will not receive any long-term enhancements These factors make multi-path builders potentially attractive!

7. 7 Multi-Path Builder Unknowns (Early 2006) How to… How to… Design a multi-path model Design a multi-path model Coordinate it with the mode choice model Coordinate it with the mode choice model Calibrate & validate Calibrate & validate Introduce a new transit mode Introduce a new transit mode Whether they meet FTA New/Small Starts guidance Whether they meet FTA New/Small Starts guidance Whether they work as intended/desired Whether they work as intended/desired No PT models known to exist No PT models known to exist

8. 8 Background… Background…

9. 9 Work Task Overview Develop new transit standards, keeping mindful of: Develop new transit standards, keeping mindful of: Existing standards Existing standards User & planner needs User & planner needs Features & capabilities of PT & Voyager Features & capabilities of PT & Voyager New Starts/Small Starts & FTA guidance New Starts/Small Starts & FTA guidance

10. 10 Existing Transit Model Consists of many elements/steps, including: Consists of many elements/steps, including: Percent of zonal area within walking distance to transit Percent of zonal area within walking distance to transit Walk, auto & sidewalk connections to transit Walk, auto & sidewalk connections to transit Transit line coding, fare definition, speed relationships Transit line coding, fare definition, speed relationships Path-building Path-building Mode choice modeling Mode choice modeling Assignment Assignment Reporting Reporting Each element has to be consistent with the others to produce viable results Each element has to be consistent with the others to produce viable results Path-builder drives transit model structure! Path-builder drives transit model structure!

11. 11 Different Needs Tier Transit Service Data Availability Examples A Local service only; no park-and-rides System-wide boardings & transfer rates Polk County, SunTran B Local & express service; some park-and-rides System-wide boardings & transfer rates; May have recent on-board survey Votran, Spacecoast C Recent on-board survey; system-wide boardings & transfer rates Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa D Many different types of service; extensive park-and-ride system; potential major fixed-guideway system Recent on-board survey for all modes; detailed boarding & transfer rate information Southeast Florida

12. 12 FTA New/Small Starts Since 2002, FTA found that many ideas considered “good practice” may have many bad or undesirable properties during forecasting Since 2002, FTA found that many ideas considered “good practice” may have many bad or undesirable properties during forecasting FTA has released recommended model properties and other findings to the modeling community in the hopes that future modeling systems will avoid these practices (see next slide) FTA has released recommended model properties and other findings to the modeling community in the hopes that future modeling systems will avoid these practices (see next slide) Instituting quality-control tests, two of which are impacted by multi-path path-builders Instituting quality-control tests, two of which are impacted by multi-path path-builders Overall, FTA struggling with the impact of multi-path builders on its evaluation of New Starts projects Overall, FTA struggling with the impact of multi-path builders on its evaluation of New Starts projects

13. 13 Problematic Characteristics of Transit Forecasting Methods Unusual coefficients in mode choice models Unusual coefficients in mode choice models Non-logit decision rules Non-logit decision rules Bizarre alternative-specific constants Bizarre alternative-specific constants Path / mode-choice inconsistencies Path / mode-choice inconsistencies Accuracy of bus running times Accuracy of bus running times Stability of highway-assignment results Stability of highway-assignment results Assertions for new transit & access modes Assertions for new transit & access modes

14. 14 PT 109… PT 109…

15. 15 PT – Public Transport (1 of 5) Public transportation module in Cube-Voyager Public transportation module in Cube-Voyager Methodology & features very different from Tranplan (more later) Methodology & features very different from Tranplan (more later) Takes advantage of Voyager’s features Takes advantage of Voyager’s features Highlights Highlights Multi-path builder Multi-path builder Includes ability to build access connectors Includes ability to build access connectors More powerful line coding More powerful line coding Flexible auto-transit speed relationships Flexible auto-transit speed relationships

16. 16 PT – Public Transport (2 of 5) Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Leg-based (vs. link-based) Leg-based (vs. link-based) Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward) Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward)

17. 17 PT – Public Transport (3 of 5) Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Impacts path-builder/mode choice relationship Impacts path-builder/mode choice relationship Leg-based (vs. link-based) Leg-based (vs. link-based) Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward) Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward)

18. 18 Leg vs. Link Centroid Station Rail Line

19. 19 Transit Link Example Centroid Station Sidewalk link Walk-access connector Sidewalk link Rail Line

20. 20 Transit Leg Centroid Station Walk-access leg Rail Line Two requirements: All connectors must connect transit stop to transit stop or transit stop to centroid Connectors must ‘spider’ highway network

21. 21 PT – Public Transport (4 of 5) Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Impacts path-builder/mode choice relationship Impacts path-builder/mode choice relationship Leg-based (vs. link-based) Leg-based (vs. link-based) Impacts access connectors & percent walks Impacts access connectors & percent walks Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward) Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward)

22. 22 PT Path-Builder Logic Overview 4 steps 4 steps 1. Network simplification Minimizes solution set & maximize running time Minimizes solution set & maximize running time 2. Minimum Cost Path/AON Determines minimum path Determines minimum path 3. Enumeration Determines if other paths are acceptable of proceeding to evaluation step Determines if other paths are acceptable of proceeding to evaluation step 4. Evaluation Determine weights/percentages of remaining paths Determine weights/percentages of remaining paths Network coding is very important to ensure that paths progress through these steps as intended Network coding is very important to ensure that paths progress through these steps as intended

23. 23 PT – Public Transport (5 of 5) Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Three major characteristics different from existing FSUTMS transit model Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Multi-path algorithm (vs. single-path) Impacts path-builder/mode choice relationship Impacts path-builder/mode choice relationship Leg-based (vs. link-based) Leg-based (vs. link-based) Impacts access connectors & percent walks Impacts access connectors & percent walks Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward) Runs in 4 steps (vs. straightforward) Impacts network coding Impacts network coding

24. 24 FTA Reactions to PT Four meetings with FTA, one including Citilabs Four meetings with FTA, one including Citilabs Strongly recommended micro-coding fixed-guideway, park-and-ride stations to better represent transfer time Strongly recommended micro-coding fixed-guideway, park-and-ride stations to better represent transfer time Existing FSUTMS standards utilize same node for rail & bus stations Existing FSUTMS standards utilize same node for rail & bus stations Confirmed that multi-path builder is not compatible with existing FSUTMS mode choice structure Confirmed that multi-path builder is not compatible with existing FSUTMS mode choice structure PT v4.0 cannot provide the necessary information for New Starts quality control tests PT v4.0 cannot provide the necessary information for New Starts quality control tests

25. 25 Recent Events Citilabs added a best-path ‘switch’ to PT in summer 2006 Citilabs added a best-path ‘switch’ to PT in summer 2006 Addresses FTA’s New Starts quality control tests Addresses FTA’s New Starts quality control tests Mimics single-path builder from Tranplan Mimics single-path builder from Tranplan Not compatible with all parameters/keywords Not compatible with all parameters/keywords Initiated testing different model setups Initiated testing different model setups To provide empirical data to assist with FTA/Citilabs discussions To provide empirical data to assist with FTA/Citilabs discussions Help determine best design for a PT-based transit model Help determine best design for a PT-based transit model Identify any software or design-related issues early on Identify any software or design-related issues early on

26. 26 Methodology & findings… Methodology & findings…

27. 27 Transit Model Setups SetupAccessNetworkPath/Skims Mode Choice Assignment PT Multi-path ** PTPT PT, path for each access mode only Access-only: Walk/PNR/ KNR PT PT Best-path * PTPT PT, path for each access & transit mode combination Access & mode: Walk/PNR/ KNR by bus/project/ fixed-guideway PT PT- TRNBUILD PT, converted to TRNBUILD within model TRNBUILD, path for each access & transit mode combination Access & mode: Walk/PNR/ KNR by bus/project/ fixed-guideway TRNBUILD ** - long-term recommendation * - short-term recommendation

28. 28 TRNBUILD Single-path builder from TP+ & available in Voyager Single-path builder from TP+ & available in Voyager Link-based, many similarities to Tranplan’s path-builder Link-based, many similarities to Tranplan’s path-builder Used nationwide Used nationwide Atlanta, Washington DC, Columbus OH, Northern NJ Atlanta, Washington DC, Columbus OH, Northern NJ Well-known to FTA Well-known to FTA Reliable history that dates back to MINUTP Reliable history that dates back to MINUTP Only being used in Florida for SERPM6 Only being used in Florida for SERPM6 Future development not supported by Citilabs Future development not supported by Citilabs

29. 29 Transit Model Setups All setups coded in Olympus All setups coded in Olympus Networks & connectors generated by PT Networks & connectors generated by PT Using XCHOICE in MATRIX Using XCHOICE in MATRIX Creates Summit user benefit files Creates Summit user benefit files Developed a BRT/New Start example to test path & user benefit impacts against changes in: Developed a BRT/New Start example to test path & user benefit impacts against changes in: Mode numbers Mode numbers Travel time Travel time Station micro-coding Station micro-coding

30. 30 Findings Developed PT Best-path setup that mimics PT- TRNBUILD results Developed PT Best-path setup that mimics PT- TRNBUILD results Multi-path model design results very different from Best-path & TRNBUILD Multi-path model design results very different from Best-path & TRNBUILD Further research needed to define multi-path model setup Further research needed to define multi-path model setup Recommendations Recommendations Short-term – proceed with PT Best-path setup Short-term – proceed with PT Best-path setup Separate guidelines for General & New/Small Starts use Separate guidelines for General & New/Small Starts use Long-term – track evolving FTA guidance, industry progress & PT updates; goal - evolve to multi-path Long-term – track evolving FTA guidance, industry progress & PT updates; goal - evolve to multi-path

31. 31 FSUTMS-Voyager Transit Model Guidelines… FSUTMS-Voyager Transit Model Guidelines… Must use version 4.1 shipped to you last week! Must use version 4.1 shipped to you last week!

32. 32 Summary of Changes ModuleChange(s) HNET Coding transit network elements in transportation network DISTRIB Review trip distribution for validation; examine highway speeds from first assignment TNET Advanced line coding features; new mode definitions New system data files with reduced emphasis on ASCII files New auto-bus speed relationships TPATH New access procedures & programs Reduced number of paths in some areas MODE New coefficients; new mode choice structure for some areas; New percent walk guidelines TASSIGN New assignment procedure & reporting program Calibration/ Validation Guidelines!

33. 33 Path-building/Mode choice… Path-building/Mode choice… TPATH/MODE TPATH/MODE

34. 34 Path-Building/Mode Choice (1 of 4) Auto nesting same as existing, larger area models Auto nesting same as existing, larger area models

35. 35 Path-Building/Mode Choice (2 of 4) Tier A Areas Tier A Areas Local service only Local service only No park-and-rides No park-and-rides Limited data available Limited data available Build “walk-transit” & “drive-transit” paths per period Build “walk-transit” & “drive-transit” paths per period Paths include all modes Paths include all modes

36. 36 Path-Building/Mode Choice (3 of 4) Tier B/C Areas Tier B/C Areas Local & express service Local & express service At least some park-and-rides At least some park-and-rides At least system-wide boardings, but on-board survey likely At least system-wide boardings, but on-board survey likely May be planning for New/Small Start project in near future May be planning for New/Small Start project in near future Build 4 paths per period Build 4 paths per period Walk-bus Walk-bus Walk-project/premium Walk-project/premium Auto-bus Auto-bus Auto-project/premium Auto-project/premium

37. 37 Mode Choice Structure Tier B/C Areas

38. 38 Path-Building/Mode Choice (4 of 4) SERPM (Tier D Areas) SERPM (Tier D Areas) Many types of service Many types of service Extensive park-and-ride system Extensive park-and-ride system Detailed boarding & rider data available Detailed boarding & rider data available Can be planning for New/Small Start project in near future Can be planning for New/Small Start project in near future Build 8 paths per period Build 8 paths per period Walk-bus Walk-bus Walk-project/premium Walk-project/premium Walk-MetroRail Walk-MetroRail Walk-TriRail Walk-TriRail Auto-bus Auto-bus Auto-project/premium Auto-project/premium Auto-MetroRail Auto-MetroRail Auto-TriRail Auto-TriRail

39. 39 Mode Choice Structure Tier D Areas

40. 40 Mode Choice Utility Coefficients VariableUnitsHBWHBONHB IVTTMin-0.0250-0.0125-0.0250 IVTT for CR Min-0.0200-0.0100-0.0200 OVT (walk- & wait-time) Min-0.0500-0.0250-0.0500 Fare, parking cost, AOC Cents-0.0025-0.0025-0.0050 Drive-access time Min-0.0375-0.01875-0.0375 Number of Transfers ---0.1250-0.0625-0.1250

41. 41 Mode Choice Utility Coefficients Relation to IVTT VariableUnitsHBWHBONHB IVTTMin1.0x1.0x1.0x IVTT for CR Min0.8x0.8x0.8x OVT (walk- & wait-time) Min2.0x2.0x2.0x Value of time $/hr6.003.003.00 Drive-access time Min1.5x1.5x1.5x Number of Transfers Min5.0x5.0x5.0x Path-builder weights equivalent to mode choice variables weighted to IVTT

42. 42 All-Walk Paths Need to compare transit with all-walk path Need to compare transit with all-walk path Maintain consistency with Tranplan/TRNBUILD Maintain consistency with Tranplan/TRNBUILD Prevent overstatement of user benefits Prevent overstatement of user benefits Can do this in: Can do this in: Path-builder – requires zone-to-zone walk connectors Path-builder – requires zone-to-zone walk connectors Mode choice – requires all-walk skim Mode choice – requires all-walk skim Need to determine most efficient way Need to determine most efficient way

43. 43 Network/system coding… Network/system coding… TNET/HNET TNET/HNET

44. 44 Transit Lines PT Capabilities Structure similar to INET Structure similar to INET No line numbers or reference lines! No line numbers or reference lines! Stops “positive”; non-stops “negative” Stops “positive”; non-stops “negative” Multiple headways per line → single file Multiple headways per line → single file Flexible in-line coding – layovers, access/ egress-only stops, circulator coding Flexible in-line coding – layovers, access/ egress-only stops, circulator coding Allows double stops & complex routings… Allows double stops & complex routings…

45. 45 Coding complex routing

46. 46 Transit Lines Transportation Network Three elements should be represented in transportation network Three elements should be represented in transportation network Transit-only links Transit-only links Micro-coded station Micro-coded station Station data Station data Transit-only links Transit-only links Similar to existing practice, just coding on transportation network Similar to existing practice, just coding on transportation network Coded with facility type 69 with special fields… Coded with facility type 69 with special fields…

47. 47 Transit Lines Transit-Only Link Fields FieldModesDescription TBSDISTBus/mixed-flow Distance (miles) TBSTIME“ Time (minutes) TBSSPEED“ Speed (mph) TFGDISTFixed-guideway Distance (miles) TFGTIME“ Time (minutes) TFGSPEED“ Speed (mph) TFGMODE“Mode

48. 48 Station Micro-Coding General – Fixed-guideway Streets Bus platform node Rail platform node MetroRail Escalator Link Time=~1 min

49. 49 Station Micro-Coding New/Small Starts – Fixed-guideway Streets Bus platform node Rail platform node MetroRail PNR Access Connectors Escalator Link Time=~1 min

50. 50 Station Micro-Coding New/Small Starts – Bus PNR Streets Bus platform node PNR Access Connectors

51. 51 Station Data Fields FieldDescription Default Values TSNAME Station name -- TSTYPE Type of access 0 – not used 1 – used FAREZONE Fare zone for zone-based fares Coded on station nodes only TSRANGE Maximum roadway distance allowed for auto-access connector Typically 2.0 – 10.0 TSPARK Number of parking spaces -- TSCOSTAM Parking cost in peak period -- TSCOSTMD Parking cost in off-peak period -- TSPNRTERM PNR terminal time 2.0 TSKNRTERM KNR terminal time 0.5

52. 52 System Data Defines modes, operators & wait-curves Defines modes, operators & wait-curves Transit operator Transit operator Assigned to specific transit lines Assigned to specific transit lines Should be defined by fare policy Should be defined by fare policy Wait curves Wait curves PT allows curvilinear actual-perceived wait time relationships PT allows curvilinear actual-perceived wait time relationships Existing method applies “½ headway” rule with 30-minute maximum Existing method applies “½ headway” rule with 30-minute maximum Apply piecewise function for rail modes to avoid “excessive” headway impacts on ridership & user benefits, for instance… Apply piecewise function for rail modes to avoid “excessive” headway impacts on ridership & user benefits, for instance… If headway ≤ 15 min, set new headway = original headway If headway ≤ 15 min, set new headway = original headway If headway is between 15 & 30 min, set new headway = 2 * (7.5 + (headway- 15)/4) If headway is between 15 & 30 min, set new headway = 2 * (7.5 + (headway- 15)/4) If headway is over 30 min, set new headway = 2 * (11.25 + (headway-30)/8) If headway is over 30 min, set new headway = 2 * (11.25 + (headway-30)/8)

53. 53 Transit Modes Existing Structure Modal definitions based on service type only Modal definitions based on service type only Problems Problems Local/express definition not favored by FTA Local/express definition not favored by FTA New bus services (e.g., limited-stop, BRT) don’t fit into “hard” categories New bus services (e.g., limited-stop, BRT) don’t fit into “hard” categories If using express bus mode, extensive workarounds needed to properly model speeds & biases for new bus services If using express bus mode, extensive workarounds needed to properly model speeds & biases for new bus services Forecasting requirements for regional models starting to exceed 8-mode definition & 30-mode software limits Forecasting requirements for regional models starting to exceed 8-mode definition & 30-mode software limits Propose new structure to… Propose new structure to… Take advantage of PT’s expanded mode limits Take advantage of PT’s expanded mode limits Prepare for eventual migration to multi-path Prepare for eventual migration to multi-path

54. 54 Modal Definitions (1 of 2) NumberMode 1 Walk access/egress (centroid-to-stop & vice-versa) 2 Auto access 3-10 Other access connectors (for future uses) 11 Fixed-guideway platform to street connectors; PNR to fixed-guideway/street 12 Transfer connectors (“sidewalks”) 13-20 Other non-centroid connectors (for future uses)

55. 55 Modal Definitions (2 of 2) NumberMode 21 Local & express bus 22 Bus rapid transit/premium bus 23 Circulator (e.g., Metromover, Streetcar, Trolley) 24 Heavy rail transit (e.g., Metrorail) 25 Commuter rail (e.g., TriRail) 26 Other mode 27 Project mode (for planning studies) 31-37 Same as 21-27, but for different operator (i.e., county) 41-47, 51-57, etc. As needed

56. 56 Auto-Transit Speed Relationships Recent Events Transition to PT Transition to PT Allows expanded mode definitions & unique auto- transit speed relationships for each mode Allows expanded mode definitions & unique auto- transit speed relationships for each mode Data collection Data collection Tampa (2003) & Jacksonville (2005) Tampa (2003) & Jacksonville (2005) Both surveys show that transit speeds are 70+% of auto speed in all but a few cases Both surveys show that transit speeds are 70+% of auto speed in all but a few cases No data on limited-stop bus or BRT services No data on limited-stop bus or BRT services

57. 57 Auto-Transit Speed Relationships Good time to re-evaluate auto-transit speed relationships Good time to re-evaluate auto-transit speed relationships Three possible options: Three possible options: Maintain piecewise relationship Maintain piecewise relationship Linear or curvilinear relationship Linear or curvilinear relationship Linear/dwell time hybrid relationship Linear/dwell time hybrid relationship Will review options after transit model framework is finalized Will review options after transit model framework is finalized Impact with time of day models? Impact with time of day models?

58. 58 Access… Access… TNET TNET

59. 59 Zonal Access Compute proportion of zonal area within walking distance to transit Compute proportion of zonal area within walking distance to transit Purpose Purpose Avoid over-estimating transit trips in large (>1mi 2 ) zones while minimizing required number of paths/skims Avoid over-estimating transit trips in large (>1mi 2 ) zones while minimizing required number of paths/skims Existing standards Existing standards Large areas computed short & long-walk coverage Large areas computed short & long-walk coverage Small areas did not use percent walks Small areas did not use percent walks Developed using GIS or PCWALK program Developed using GIS or PCWALK program Assumed ubiquitous access from inside zone to edge (agreed with access program logic) Assumed ubiquitous access from inside zone to edge (agreed with access program logic)

60. 60 Zonal Access Need to continue practice (Tiers C & D only) Need to continue practice (Tiers C & D only) Zone sizes in some models are still large Zone sizes in some models are still large Proposed standards Proposed standards Use a single ½ mile “can walk/cannot walk” buffer Use a single ½ mile “can walk/cannot walk” buffer Reduces number of access categories to 3 from 7 Reduces number of access categories to 3 from 7 Compute via GIS, maintaining ubiquitous access assumption Compute via GIS, maintaining ubiquitous access assumption Does not agree with walk-connector logic, so connectors will have to be reviewed & compared to percent walk values (more later) Does not agree with walk-connector logic, so connectors will have to be reviewed & compared to percent walk values (more later) Recommend review of zone sizes for all models Recommend review of zone sizes for all models

61. 61 Example of Large Zones 1129 503 Zone 503 (3+ mi 2 ) 2000 Population – 7,700 2025 Population – 25,000 2000 Employment – 2,600 2025 Employment – 3,300 Zone 1129 (3+ mi 2 ) 2000 Population – 13,900 2025 Population – 18,700 2000 Employment – 2,100 2025 Employment – 2,300

62. 62 503 1129

63. 63 Walk Access Existing Method Primary connections from centroids to bus stops Primary connections from centroids to bus stops Relies heavily on percent walk calculations & classifications Relies heavily on percent walk calculations & classifications If percent walk is non-zero and no links from above, program “swept” surrounding nodes If percent walk is non-zero and no links from above, program “swept” surrounding nodes “CODW” times computed so that separate short walk & long walk times could be computed inside modal choice model “CODW” times computed so that separate short walk & long walk times could be computed inside modal choice model

64. 64 Walk Access Problems Percent walks not very good Percent walks not very good Often computed across canals and other barriers Often computed across canals and other barriers Although barriers were available in logic, they were seldom used Although barriers were available in logic, they were seldom used “Sweeps” included many questionable connectors “Sweeps” included many questionable connectors Detailed examination of maps and aerials showed PT procedure often much better… Detailed examination of maps and aerials showed PT procedure often much better…

65. 65 Walk Access Inconsistency Example (1 of 2) Zone 32: 53% short walk 100% long walk Only access from zone well- represented by single centroid connector, requiring very long walk to node 6084

66. 66 Extensive transit service to east of zone separated from zone by railroad with no crossings

67. 67 Walk Access Inconsistency Example (2 of 2) Zone 1694: 92% short walk 100% long walk Calculation driven by bus along arterial south of centroid (node 15234 etc.) but blocked from TAZ by major canal TAZ functionally an island with canals on all sides and only access via bridge to node 15238

68. 68 1694

69. 69 Walk Access New Approach (1 of 4) Connector Data Connector Data Walk connectors now from PT’s GENERATE (next slide) Walk connectors now from PT’s GENERATE (next slide) Adjust percent walks globally until better approach can be found Adjust percent walks globally until better approach can be found Retain CODW procedures to minimize impact on modal choice model Retain CODW procedures to minimize impact on modal choice model Modifying the connector data Modifying the connector data Special-purpose program/script to adjust connectors and/or percent walks Special-purpose program/script to adjust connectors and/or percent walks Connector/CODW adjustments on slide after next Connector/CODW adjustments on slide after next

70. 70 New Approach (2 of 4) Connector Types Type Maximum Length Description/Rationale Centroid-to- stop ~1.1 miles Standard walk connectors Station-to- centroid ~3.0 miles Length set artificially high to avoid disconnects between alternatives Apply spline function to over-weight walks over 0.5 miles to avoid excessive walks

71. 71 New Approach (3 of 4) Centroid-to-stop Connector Modifications Percent walk Transit stop @ centroid connector? Action/Notes 100% Yes No modification to access connectors No Reset percent walk to 0% ~20% ≤ x ≤ 100% Yes Reset length of centroid portion to ½ mile No Reset percent walk to 0% x ≤ ~20% Yes Delete all access connectors (transit likely not really that accessible at all) Reset percent walk to 0% No

72. 72 New Approach (4 of 4) Station-to-centroid Modifications Connector Length (miles) Modification Process Maximum Modified Length (miles) 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5 No modification to connector 0.5 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1.0 No modification to connector for first ½ mile Reset any additional length to (x-½)*2 Re-compute walking time 1.5 1.0 ≤ x ≤ 2.0 No modification to connector for first ½ mile Reset next ½ mile to (x-½)*2 Reset any additional length to (x-1)*3 Re-compute walking time 4.5 2.0 ≤ x ≤ 3.0 No modification to connector for first ½ mile Reset next ½ mile to (x-½)*2 Reset next 1 mile to (x-1)*3 Reset any additional length to (x-2)*4 Re-compute walking time 8.5

73. 73 Drive Access Existing method Existing method Used AUTOCON logic to create drive-transit connectors between centroids & park-and-rides Used AUTOCON logic to create drive-transit connectors between centroids & park-and-rides Avoided backtracking & excessive drive time Avoided backtracking & excessive drive time Had problem of disconnecting some zones between alternatives, slightly impacting user benefits Had problem of disconnecting some zones between alternatives, slightly impacting user benefits Proposed approach Proposed approach Favor scripting AUTOCON logic over using PT’s GENERATE keyword (see next slide) Favor scripting AUTOCON logic over using PT’s GENERATE keyword (see next slide) Adding function to exaggerate time on connectors beyond range Adding function to exaggerate time on connectors beyond range Modifications to connectors needed (see slide after next) Modifications to connectors needed (see slide after next)

74. 74 Drive Access Connector Comparison PT’s GENERATE generates circular catchment areas AUTOCON’s logic applies backtracking logic

75. 75 Auto Access Connectors New Method Embed station costs to PNR- & KNR-transit connectors Embed station costs to PNR- & KNR-transit connectors Driving time1.5x Driving time1.5x Terminal time2.0x Terminal time2.0x Station parking cost$6/hr (pk) $3/hr (op) Station parking cost$6/hr (pk) $3/hr (op) Auto operating cost$6/hr (pk) $3/hr (op) Auto operating cost$6/hr (pk) $3/hr (op) Auto access connectors passed to mode choice as IVTT since already weighted Auto access connectors passed to mode choice as IVTT since already weighted Separate connectors needed to bus & rail platforms Separate connectors needed to bus & rail platforms Why? PT does not allow consecutive non-transit legs Why? PT does not allow consecutive non-transit legs

76. 76 Sidewalk/Transfer Connectors Existing Method Allows “street-walking” to transfer between different transit lines Allows “street-walking” to transfer between different transit lines SIDECON produces sidewalk links around transit stations SIDECON produces sidewalk links around transit stations Sidewalks coded as INET routes to reflect walk-able areas (e.g., CBDs) Sidewalks coded as INET routes to reflect walk-able areas (e.g., CBDs) Both SIDECON & sidewalks are link-based & not readily-compatible with PT Both SIDECON & sidewalks are link-based & not readily-compatible with PT

77. 77 Sidewalk/Transfer Access New Method Type Maximum Length Description/Rationale Bus stop-to-fixed- guideway platforms ~0.6 miles Needed for station micro-coding Fixed-guideway platforms to nearby bus stops ~0.6 miles Allow for movements between fixed- guideway platforms & buses “down the street” Bus stop-to-bus stop in CBD areas ~0.6 miles Replaces need for INET sidewalks All three can be generated using PT’s GENERATE keyword

78. 78 Assignment & Calibration/Validation… Assignment & Calibration/Validation… TASSIGN TASSIGN

79. 79 Transit Assignment Assign each transit path Assign each transit path Decimalized boardings Decimalized boardings Output is DBF format Output is DBF format Need to develop program/script to… Need to develop program/script to… Concatenate path loadings Concatenate path loadings Report results in a user-friendly format Report results in a user-friendly format

80. 80 Calibration/Validation Steps General General Calibrate mode choice model Calibrate mode choice model Validate boardings by mode and/or operator Validate boardings by mode and/or operator ± 20% within each category ± 20% within each category New Starts New Starts General steps General steps Review trip distribution Review trip distribution Calibrate end-to-end travel times Calibrate end-to-end travel times

81. 81 Final thoughts… Final thoughts…

82. 82 Time of Day FSUTMS uses auto speeds from 24-hour assignment as for HBW mode choice FSUTMS uses auto speeds from 24-hour assignment as for HBW mode choice HBO & NHB use free-flow speeds HBO & NHB use free-flow speeds SERPM6 uses time of day SERPM6 uses time of day Peak period trips use AM congested speeds Peak period trips use AM congested speeds Off-peak period trips use free- flow speeds Off-peak period trips use free- flow speeds Standard FSUTMS design expected for most models Standard FSUTMS design expected for most models Standard FSUTMS Models Purpose & Period Auto Impedances HBW all Congested HBO all Free-flow NHB all Free-flow Time-of-day Models Purpose & Period Auto Impedances HBW peak HBO peak NHB peak AM congested HBW off-peak HBO off-peak NHB off-peak Free-flow

83. 83 Highway Modeling Impacts Standard highway model practice has strong impacts on transit modeling Standard highway model practice has strong impacts on transit modeling SPDCAP table adjustments SPDCAP table adjustments Distribution corrections (e.g., k-factors, etc.) Distribution corrections (e.g., k-factors, etc.) 0-car household impedances 0-car household impedances New transit model stresses need for: New transit model stresses need for: Refraining from strong SPDCAP table modifications Refraining from strong SPDCAP table modifications Validating trip distribution Validating trip distribution Also Also Code transit-only links & transit station data on transportation network Code transit-only links & transit station data on transportation network Stability of highway-assignment results Stability of highway-assignment results

84. 84 Status / Next Steps Developed “framework” documents to summarize key points Developed “framework” documents to summarize key points Theoretical – coordination of individual parts Theoretical – coordination of individual parts Application – parameter settings, technical details Application – parameter settings, technical details Both available on www.fsutmsonline.net Both available on www.fsutmsonline.netwww.fsutmsonline.net FDOT gathering feedback FDOT gathering feedback Will continue to finalize details & procedures Will continue to finalize details & procedures Need for more speed/delay studies and local transit on- board studies Need for more speed/delay studies and local transit on- board studies Transit model training workshop: June 4-7, 2007 Transit model training workshop: June 4-7, 2007

85. 85 Thank you! Thank you!