1. 1 Florida’s New Transit Modeling System Huiwei Shen, Yongqiang Wu & Dave Schmitt 11 th TRB Planning Applications Conference Daytona Beach, Florida May 6 th -10 th, 2007

2. 2 Background/Context Florida is one of few states that standardizes modeling practices Florida is one of few states that standardizes modeling practices Original standards developed in early 1980s Original standards developed in early 1980s Original transit model needed re-evaluation Original transit model needed re-evaluation Florida MTF decided in 2005 to convert models from Tranplan to Voyager Florida MTF decided in 2005 to convert models from Tranplan to Voyager Increasing pressure on transit models from New Starts Increasing pressure on transit models from New Starts

3. 3 Work Task Overview FDOT needed an updated transit model using PT that was mindful of the: FDOT needed an updated transit model using PT that was mindful of the: Existing standards Existing standards User & planner needs User & planner needs New/Small Starts & FTA guidance New/Small Starts & FTA guidance Features & capabilities of PT & Voyager Features & capabilities of PT & Voyager Key challenge: PT was largely untested & unused at the time Key challenge: PT was largely untested & unused at the time

4. 4 Technical Challenges Leg vs. link Leg vs. link Multi-path path-builder Multi-path path-builder Always finding a transit path Always finding a transit path

5. 5 Leg vs. Link Centroid Station Rail Line

6. 6 Transit Link Example Centroid Station Sidewalk link Walk-access connector Sidewalk link Rail Line

7. 7 Transit Leg Example 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

8. 8 Leg vs. Link Implications Could not use link-based access connectors Could not use link-based access connectors Spidering along highway network conflicts with percent walk computations developed in GIS Spidering along highway network conflicts with percent walk computations developed in GIS Ubiquitous vs. specific access Ubiquitous vs. specific access Requires program to coordinate percent walks & walk- access connectors Requires program to coordinate percent walks & walk- access connectors Lack of any walk-access connectors implies no real transit access → re-set percent walks to zero Lack of any walk-access connectors implies no real transit access → re-set percent walks to zero

9. 9 Technical Challenges Leg vs. link Leg vs. link Multi-path path-builder Multi-path path-builder Always finding a transit path Always finding a transit path

10. 10 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

11. 11 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!

12. 12 Multi-Path Builders Advantages Advantages Reflect sensitivities that would otherwise: Reflect sensitivities that would otherwise: Be impossible in single-path builders, or Be impossible in single-path builders, or Create inconsistencies between the path-builder & mode choice model Create inconsistencies between the path-builder & mode choice model Offer better consistency between path-builder & mode choice weights Offer better consistency between path-builder & mode choice weights Unknowns Unknowns 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

13. 13 Happenings 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

14. 14 Transit Model Setups SetupAccessNetworkPath/Skims Mode Choice Assignment PTMulti-pathPTPT PT, path for each access mode only Access-only: Walk/PNR/ KNR PT PTBest-pathPTPT 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

15. 15 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 – proceeding with PT Best-path setup Short-term – proceeding 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

16. 16 Technical Challenges Leg vs. link Leg vs. link Multi-path path-builder Multi-path path-builder Always finding a transit path Always finding a transit path

17. 17 Finding a Transit Path Previous path-builders like Tranplan & TRNBUILD would not develop a transit path if walking is faster Previous path-builders like Tranplan & TRNBUILD would not develop a transit path if walking is faster Skim would contain all zero’s or just have zero IVT Skim would contain all zero’s or just have zero IVT No similar logic in PT: No similar logic in PT: It does not allow the use of consecutive non-transit legs It does not allow the use of consecutive non-transit legs If any transit is available, it will always find a transit path – no matter how crazy… If any transit is available, it will always find a transit path – no matter how crazy…

18. 18 Finding a Transit Path Example -Take walk connector 137-2909 -Ride all-stop north to 2849 -Take escalator up to 7849 -Ride skip-stop south to 7909 -Take walk connector 7909-136

19. 19 Finding a Transit Path Solution Generate “all-walk connectors” from all zones to all zones Generate “all-walk connectors” from all zones to all zones Compare all-walk time/utility to transit skim/utility Compare all-walk time/utility to transit skim/utility If all-walk time is less onerous, zero out transit skim If all-walk time is less onerous, zero out transit skim Can be done post skimming or in mode choice Can be done post skimming or in mode choice

20. 20 Status 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 Developed training model with full transit model Developed training model with full transit model Transit model training workshop: June 4-7, 2007 Transit model training workshop: June 4-7, 2007

21. 21 Special Thanks James Ryan & Nazrul Islam, FTA James Ryan & Nazrul Islam, FTA Wade White & Dudley Morrell, Citilabs Wade White & Dudley Morrell, Citilabs William Woodford, Jeffrey Bruggeman & Ashutosh Kumar, AECOM Consult William Woodford, Jeffrey Bruggeman & Ashutosh Kumar, AECOM Consult

22. 22 Thank you! Thank you!