1. Beyond Business as Usual: Ensuring the Network We Want is the Network We Get David Levinson, Norah Montes de Oca and Feng Xie Feng Xie Mn/DOT Final TAP Meeting May 30th, 2006 RESULTS

2. 1 Project Outline Interviews Interviews Develop flowcharts Develop flowcharts Develop IF … THEN RULES Develop models Update simulation program data Incorporate all models Compare different scenarios Analyze results Make conclusions and suggestions

3. 2 General Framework

4. 3 Investment Model

5. 4 Models used: Correlation results:

6. 5 Models used: (continuation)

7. 6 Calibration RMSE= 33% Average peak hour difference = 0.78%

8. 7 Constraints

9. 8 Legacy Links

10. 9 Scenarios Tested

11. 10 Scenario 1. Baseline - State

12. 11 Scenario 2. Most Structured - State

13. 12 Scenario 3. Least Structured - State

14. 13 Scenario 4. Budget Increase 400% - State

15. 14 Scenario 5. Budget split 25-75% State

16. 15 Scenario 6. LK (legacy links) Model - State

17. 16 Scenario 7. LK (new choice set) Model - State

18. 17 Scenario 1. Baseline - Counties

19. 18 Scenario 2. Most Structured - Counties

20. 19 Scenario 3. Least Structured - Counties

21. 20 Scenario 4. Budget Increase 400% - Counties

22. 21 Scenario 5. Budget split 25-75% Counties

23. 22 Scenario 6. LK (legacy links) Model - Counties

24. 23 Scenario 7. LK (new choice set) Model - Counties

25. 24 New Link Construction

26. 25 Link Expansion

27. 26 MOE: Accessibility

28. 27 MOE:Trip time

29. 28 MOE: Trip length

30. 29 MOE: VKT

31. 30 MOE: VHT

32. 31 Conclusions As budget rises: vkt rises Network expands Accessibilityincreases Users spend less time on the road vht declines Future Work: Reduce Step length - five year model to one year model Reasons: To test an evolutionary model of network growth Only a percentage of work trips would change destinations in a given year Finer level of resolution

33. 32 Questions ? Comments ? Thank you