TPAC | Columbus, OH | May 2013 Transit Beyond Travel Time and Cost Incorporation of Premium Transit Service Attributes in the Chicago Activity-Based Model.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Complete Street Analysis of a Road Diet Orange Grove Boulevard Pasadena, CA Aaron Elias Engineering Associate Kittelson & Associates Bill Cisco Senior.
Advertisements

Parsons Brinckerhoff Chicago, Illinois GIS Estimation of Transit Access Parameters for Mode Choice Models GIS in Transit Conference October 16-17, 2013.
Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Fixed Route Quality of Service.
In Portland, Oregon TRB Planning Applications Conference Reno, Nevada Mark Bradley Research & Consulting.
On-board Survey of Bus and Light Rail Customers May 8, 2006 Transit Marketing, LLC CJI Research Corporation.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines Work Group Meeting presented by Christopher Wornum Cambridge.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Elizabeth Sall Maren Outwater Cambridge Systematics,
October 4-5, 2010 TCRP H-37: Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode Prepared for: AMPO Modeling Subcommittee Prepared by:
Justifying Rail Bias Factor for Houston METRO’s Transit Model Presentation by Vijay Mahal, HDR Inc Vincent Sanders, Houston METRO May 18, 2009 TRB Applications.
Demand for bus and Rail Analyzing a corridor with a similar Level Of Service 5 th Israeli-British/Irish Workshop in Regional Science April, 2007.
10 December J/ESD.204J Lecture 13 Outline Real Time Control Strategies for Rail Transit Prior Research Shen/Wilson Model Formulation Model Application.
TPAC | Columbus, OH | May 2013 Application of an Activity-Based Model for Highway Pricing Studies in Chicago.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin ©2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved Chapter 11 Mass Transit.
Cheryl Thole, Jennifer Flynn CUTR/NBRTI, Senior Research Associates Transit in GIS Conference September 14, 2011 St. Petersburg, Florida.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Understanding Changes in Ridership Unit 7: Forecasting & Encouraging Ridership.
Using All Street Networks in Modeling Non-Motorized Travel: A Case Study in San Diego 15th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference,
Configurable & Reusable Software for Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling Presented by Jessica Guo Transportation Planning Applications Conference 2015.
Joint Program in Transportation University of Toronto Generalized Time Transit Assignment in a Multi- Modal/Service Transit Network Eric J. Miller, Ph.D.
Recent Evidence on Mass Transit Demand Ian Savage Northwestern University.
1 Using Transit Market Analysis Tools to Evaluate Transit Service Improvements for a Regional Transportation Plan TRB Transportation Applications May 20,
Freedom to work Freedom to text Freedom to read.
Potential Sites for Transit-Oriented Development in San Diego Katie Lemmon UP 206 A Midterm Project February 8, 2011.
Using Demand Elasticities to “Balance” Transit Fares and Service Levels Ian Savage Northwestern University.
Incorporating utility-based bike- to-transit paths in a tour-based model for Portland, Oregon 6 May 2013 Prepared for: TRB Planning Applications Conference.
Alasdair Cain & Jennifer Flynn National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Mark McCourt &
1 Research go bus Impact Study TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Atlantic City, May 2015.
The Development of a Direct Demand Non-Home Based Model for Urban Rail Travel Rhett Fussell, PE –PB Americas Bill Davidson-PB Americas Joel Freedman-PB.
Transit Estimation and Mode Split CE 451/551 Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 7.
1 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Customer Satisfaction Measurement FY 2006 Q3 Comparison April 28, 2006.
CHAPTER 5 SOCIAL EQUITY AND GUIDELINES FOR MOBILITY GUIDELINES FOR PASSENGER TRANSPORT IN SOUTH AFRICA A MULTI MODAL ANALYSIS.
Calculating Transportation System User Benefits: Interface Challenges between EMME/2 and Summit Principle Author: Jennifer John Senior Transportation Planner.
 Focus Model Application to Colfax Ave  Initial Contact with FTA  Evaluation Process and Results  Next Steps.
Sketch Model to Forecast Heavy-Rail Ridership Len Usvyat 1, Linda Meckel 1, Mary DiCarlantonio 2, Clayton Lane 1 – PB Americas, Inc. 2 – Jeffrey Parker.
Presented to MTF Transit Committee presented by Scott Seeburger, Myung Sung, Dave Schmitt & Peter Haliburton November 20, Tri-Rail On-Board Survey.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Vamsee Modugula Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May.
Mark Phillips BSDA/Metro Long-Range Planner. The Foundation: Moving Transit Forward.
Kermit Wies, Craig Heither, CMAP Peter Vovsha, Jim Hicks, PB Hani Mahmassani, Ali Zockaie, NU TPAC, May 17-20, An Integrated ABM-DTA Model for the.
Welcome to the TSIP Project Webinar Planning Technical Working Group 28 July – 3:30 pm.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Service Planning & Standards Unit 4: Service Planning & Network Design.
1 The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14 th 2008.
From Survey to Model Capturing Relative Perceptions of Transit Time in the Emme Strategy Transit Assignment Aaron Breakstone, Scott Higgins, Richard Walker.
TO THE BLACK BOX AND BACK – The TRANS Model October 2008.
David B. Roden, Senior Consulting Manager Analysis of Transportation Projects in Northern Virginia TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference.
Ying Chen, AICP, PTP, Parsons Brinckerhoff Ronald Eash, PE, Parsons Brinckerhoff Mary Lupa, AICP, Parsons Brinckerhoff 13 th TRB Transportation Planning.
FDOT Transit Office Modeling Initiatives The Transit Office has undertaken a number of initiatives in collaboration with the Systems Planning Office and.
TPAC, Columbus, OH, May 5-9, Incorporation of Capacity Constraints, Crowding, and Reliability in Transit Forecasting Peter Vovsha, Bill Davidson,
Development of a Transit Model Incorporating the Effects of Accessibility and Connectivity 9 th Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning.
Planning Applications Conference, Reno, NV, May Impact of Crowding on Rail Ridership: Sydney Metro Experience and Forecasting Approach William Davidson,
Application of an Activity-based Model for a Toll Road Study in Chicago Matt Stratton Parsons Brinckerhoff May 19, 2015.
FTA Workshop on Travel Forecasting for New Starts1March 2009FTA Workshop on Travel Forecasting for New Starts1March 2009 Charlotte South Corridor LRT Bill.
Presented to MTF Transit Committee presented by David Schmitt, AICP November 20, 2008 FSUTMS Transit Model Application.
Weighing the Scenarios: The Costs and Benefits of Future Transit Service Produced for MTDB by The Mission Group © 2000 by The Mission Group. 1 Dave Schumacher.
May 2009TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference 1 PATHBUILDER TESTS USING 2007 DALLAS ON-BOARD SURVEY Hua Yang, Arash Mirzaei, Kathleen.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to Florida Transit Modeling Workshop presented by Thomas Rossi Cambridge Systematics, Inc. April 8,
Using Detailed Navigation Networks for Modeling Transit Access and Non-Motorized Modes: Application to MAG CT-RAMP ABM Roshan Kumar, Peter Vovsha, PB Petya.
TRANSMILENIO ENRIQUE LILLO EMME/2 UGM May Bogotá n 7 million people n Mean annual population growth of 4,5 % over the last 10 years n 25 % of Colombian.
Systems Analysis Group One ABM for Four Cities: Experience of ABM Estimation on a Pooled Dataset of Multiple Surveys Surabhi Gupta, Peter Vovsha, Gaurav.
Measuring rail accessibility using Open Data Elena Navajas-Cawood.
Impact of Aging Population on Regional Travel Patterns: The San Diego Experience 14th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, Columbus.
May 9, th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference – Session 18 1 IMPROVING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TRANSIT PATH- BUILDING AND MODE.
2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Research Results: Executive Summary – Ops Committee March 2013.
Transportation Planning Asian Institute of Technology
Use of Journey Levels for Hierarchical Transit Assignment
Greater Golden Horseshoe Model
2018/5/14 QUANTIFYING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY USING AN ACTIVITY-BASED TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL My topic today is---READ Question try to address is- READ I want to.
Visualizing on Transit Networks Capacity, Crowding & Reliability
Karen Tsang Bureau of Transport Statistics Department of Transport
Peter Vovsha, Jim Hicks, Ashish Kulshreshta, Surabhi Gupta (WSP)
Integrating Mode Specific Attributes into the Transit Pathfinder in a Manner Consistent with the Multimodal Demand Model Richard Walker and Bud Reiff,
SATC 2017 Influence Factors for Passenger Train Use
Presentation transcript:

TPAC | Columbus, OH | May 2013 Transit Beyond Travel Time and Cost Incorporation of Premium Transit Service Attributes in the Chicago Activity-Based Model

Project Team 2  Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)  Kermit Wies & Matt Stratton  Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB)  Peter Vovsha, Joel Freedman, Ben Stabler, Binny Paul, Roshan Kumar  Resource Systems Group (RSG)  Maren Outwater, Bill Woodford, & Jeff Frkonja

Sources of Inspiration 3  TCRP H-37  SANDAG, MAG, SACOG  Chicago New Starts Model  Portland Metro  LACMTA/FTA

Model Improvements 4 Model ComponentPhase 1Phase 2 Advanced “non-labeled” mode choiceXX Transit access / spatial resolutionX Station characteristicsXX In-vehicle characteristicsXX Capacity constraintsX Crowding effectsX Service reliabilityX Transit frequency / wait timeXX Fare / cost structuresXX Individualized transit path choiceX Mobility attributes and modalityX

Non-Labeled Mode Approach 5  Refer to actual service characteristics and understand traveler perceptions  Limit mode & geography-specific constants

Mode Choice Alternatives 6 Previous (Labeled) >>Phase 1 (Interim) >>Phase 2 (Final) Walk to busWalk to conventional transit Walk to transit Walk to railWalk to premium transit Drive to railPNR Drive to busKNR

Spatial Resolution 7  17K MAZs nested in 2K TAZs  All transit trip ends at MAZ geography  Transit Access Points (TAPs)  Virtual path building  Access/egress time (Python) 12 threads  Station-to-station time (EMME)  Access/egress + Station-to-station time (Java)

Transit Virtual Path Building 8 CharacteristicOrigin TAPTAP-to-TAPDest. TAP Station typeXXX Real-time informationXXX Formal parking capacityXX Informal parking capacityXX Parking costXX Parking lot walk timeXX KNR convenience categoryXX Buffered area crime rateXX Buffered retail densityXX First boarding fareX Boarding (traversal) timeX Ease of boardingX Station cleanlinessX

Transit Stop Types Pole 2. Bus Shelter 3. Bus Plaza 4. Rail Station 5. Major Terminal

Transit Stop Parameters 11  Additional variables considered  Proximity to commercial services  Stop/station environment (wait convenience)  Ease of paying (fare policy & media)  Ease of boarding (in combination with vehicle type)  Cleanliness  Security

Transit Stop Wait Time 12 Schedule headway Wait time fraction Effective multiplier Extra unreliability wait Physical time Perceptional multiplier × × × Station-specific wait convenience Station cleanliness

Extra Average Wait Time 13 Scheduled headway × Time-of-day impact Inverse impact of headway Crowding impact Cumulative route distance effect

In-Vehicle Parameters 14  Additional variables considered  Seating comfort  Unreliability  Crowding  Productivity (work, sleep, socialize)  Cleanliness  On-board amenities  Socio-economic compatibility between riders

In-Vehicle Time 15 Physical time Base perceptional multiplier Additional perceptional multiplier Average time × Unreliability Comfort Convenience Temperature Amenities × 1 Crowd. for seat. Prob. seat × Crowd. for stand. Prob. stand × Productivity Prob. seat × Social environment On-board cleanliness

In-Vehicle Crowding 16 Volume Total Capacity Seated Capacity Max. Convenience Crowd. factor Standing Seating

In-Vehicle Social Environment 17 IVT multiplier component for Class X = × Proportion of Class 1 Proportion of Class 2 Proportion of Class 3 Perception of Class 1 by X Perception of Class 2 by X Perception of Class 3 by X × × Modeled passenger Perception of other passengers as additional IVT weight Class 1Class 2Class 3 Class Class Class

In-Vehicle Productivity 18 Mode-vehicle typeFixed IVT productivity bonus User class 1User class 2User class 3 Local Bus0.00 Express Bus Metro0.00 Commuter Rail

Conclusions 19  ABM is a better platform for testing a variety of transit attributes  ABM required little modification  Lots of data development  Final Tasks  Finalize measurable transit service attributes  Estimate individual path choice preferences  Incorporate in operational ABM & transit network procedures

20 Questions? Matt Stratton, Peter Vovsha, Ben Stabler, Maren Outwater,