February 8, 2008 SERPM65 vs. SERPM6-Corradino 1 SERPM-6.5 & SERPM-6: Differences & Future Directions Southeast Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting Ft. Lauderdale,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
THURSTON REGION MULTIMODAL TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL IMPLEMENTATION IN EMME/2 - Presentation at the 15th International EMME/2 Users Group Conference.
Advertisements

SE Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting FDOT Systems Planning Office
Feedback Loops Guy Rousseau Atlanta Regional Commission.
TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES ATHENS 2004 ATTIKO METRO S.A. Anna Anastasaki.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 Southeast Florida Status of Model Developments Model Coordinators D4: Min-Tang Li D6: Phil Steinmiller.
Determining the Free-Flow Speeds in a Regional Travel Demand Model based on the Highway Capacity Manual Chao Wang Joseph Huegy Institute for Transportation.
April 10, 2007 Travel Forecasting Methodology for I-95 HOT Lanes in Virginia 13th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Reno, Nevada.
Status of the SEMCOG E6 Travel Model SEMCOG TMIP Peer Review Panel Meeting December 12, 2011 presented by Liyang Feng, SEMCOG Thomas Rossi, Cambridge Systematics.
SCAG Region Heavy Duty Truck Model Southern California Region Heavy Duty Truck Model.
GEOG 111 & 211A Transportation Planning Traffic Assignment.
Junction Modelling in a Strategic Transport Model Wee Liang Lim Henry Le Land Transport Authority, Singapore.
Session 11: Model Calibration, Validation, and Reasonableness Checks
Sequential Demand Forecasting Models CTC-340. Travel Behavior 1. Decision to travel for a given purpose –People don’t travel without reason 2. The choice.
About this presentation Target audience: Prepared for Dr. Mitsuru Saito’s BYU graduate level class. Feb Please contact Mike Brown at
Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS FIVE Denver Regional Council of Governments July27, 2011.
Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 10 Traffic (Trip) Assignment Trip Generation Trip Distribution Transit Estimation & Mode.
Travel Demand Modeling At NCTCOG Presentation For IOWA TMIP Peer Review March 30 – April 1, 2004.
BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MODEL ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE RED LINE PROJECT AMPO TRAVEL MODEL WORK GROUP March 20, 2006.
Trip Generation Review and Recommendations 1 presented to MTF Model Advancement Committee presented by Ken Kaltenbach The Corradino Group November 9, 2009.
Considerations when applying Paramics to Strategic Traffic Models Paramics User Group Meeting October 9 th, 2009 Presented Matthew.
Calculating Transportation System User Benefits: Interface Challenges between EMME/2 and Summit Principle Author: Jennifer John Senior Transportation Planner.
June 15, 2010 For the Missoula Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Modeling
Working Group Core Team Meeting II February 14, 2008.
DVRPC TMIP Peer Review TIM 2 Model Oct. 29 th, 2014.
Increasing Precision in Highway Volume through Adjustment of Stopping Criteria in Traffic Assignment and Number of Feedbacks Behruz Paschai, Kathy Yu,
Knoxville Regional Travel Demand Model Upgrade Program May 6, 2004 Knoxville Regional Travel Demand Model Upgrade Program May 6, 2004.
TRANSIMS Version 5 Application Concepts January 20, 2011 David Roden – AECOM.
How to Put “Best Practice” into Traffic Assignment Practice Ken Cervenka Federal Transit Administration TRB National Transportation.
Montgomery County Travel Forecasting Model Validation — Status Report — Status Report Presented To: TPB Travel Forecasting Subcommittee By: Montgomery.
NTERFACING THE MORPC REGIONAL MODEL WITH DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION INTERFACING THE MORPC REGIONAL MODEL WITH DYNAMIC TRAFFIC SIMULATION David Roden (AECOM)
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to Southeast Florida Model Users Group presented by Krishnan Viswanathan Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco’s Dynamic Traffic Assignment Model Background SFCTA DTA Model Peer Review Panel Meeting July.
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.
Major Transportation Corridor Studies Using an EMME/2 Travel Demand Forecasting Model: The Trans-Lake Washington Study Carlos Espindola, Youssef Dehghani.
Using GIS Networks to Represent Model Networks May 19, 2009 Hoyt Davis & Chunyu Lu Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB 11 th Conference on Transportation Planning Applications presented by Dan Goldfarb, P.E. Cambridge.
Calibrating Model Speeds, Capacities, and Volume Delay Functions Using Local Data SE Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting February 6, 2009 Dean Lawrence.
FDOT Transit Office Modeling Initiatives The Transit Office has undertaken a number of initiatives in collaboration with the Systems Planning Office and.
Dynamic Tolling Assignment Model for Managed Lanes presented to Advanced Traffic Assignment Sub-Committee presented by Jim Hicks, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
How Does Your Model Measure Up Presented at TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference by Phil Shapiro Frank Spielberg VHB May, 2007.
Presented to Time of Day Subcommittee May 9, 2011 Time of Day Modeling in FSUTMS.
1 Fine Tuning Mathematical Models for Toll Applications Dr. A. Mekky, P.Eng., A. Tai, M. Khan Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Canada.
Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007.
an Iowa State University center SIMPCO Traffic Modeling Workshop Presented by: Iowa Department of Transportation and Center for Transportation Research.
1 FSUTMS-Voyager: Transit Standards within Evolving FSUTMS Summary Presentation Florida Model Task Force Tampa, Florida December 13 th, slides.
Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 11: Model Calibration, Validation, and Reasonableness Checks.
Presented to MTF Transit Committee presented by David Schmitt, AICP November 20, 2008 FSUTMS Transit Model Application.
SHRPII C04: TEG Meeting, Washington, DC - January 14, 2010 Results today based primarily on three data sources… Seattle 2006 household travel survey (RP)
FSUTMS Model Status and Standardization Florida Model Task Force Meeting Tampa, FL December 13, 2006 Developments and Future Directions.
December 12, 2006 Florida Model Task Force CORRADINO 1 Treasure Coast Southeast Florida Regional Planning Models In Cube Voyager.
Presented to Time of Day Panel presented by Krishnan Viswanathan, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Jason Lemp, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Thomas Rossi, Cambridge.
11th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference CORRADINO May 9, Validation of Speeds and Volumes in a Large Regional Model Southeast.
Presentation For Incorporation of Pricing in the Time-of-Day Model “Express Travel Choices Study” for the Southern California Association of Governments.
Jack is currently performing travel demand model forecasting for Florida’s Turnpike. Specifically he works on toll road project forecasting to produce.
May 8, 2009 SERPM65 Subarea Model-Corradino 1 SERPM65 Highway-Only Subarea Modeling Process Southeast Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting Ft. Lauderdale,
Estimating Volumes for I-95 HOT Lanes in Virginia Prepared for: 2009 Planning Applications Conference Houston, TX May 18, 2009 Prepared by: Kenneth D.
Interstate 95 Managed Lanes PD&E Study (95 Express) Project Development and Environment Study SE FSUTMS Users Group The Corradino Group November 2, 2007.
Incorporating Time of Day Modeling into FSUTMS – Phase II Time of Day (Peak Spreading) Model Presentation to FDOT SPO 23 March 2011 Heinrich McBean.
1 Forecasting Traffic for a Start-Up Toll Road 12 th TRB National Transportation Planning Application Conference May 18, 2009 David Schellinger, P.E. Vice.
Travel Demand Forecasting: Traffic Assignment CE331 Transportation Engineering.
Presented to Toll Modeling Panel presented by Krishnan Viswanathan, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.. September 16, 2010 Time of Day in FSUTMS.
Network Attributes Calculator
SERPM 8 NPMRDS SPEED DATA
Auto Ownership Model For Southeast Florida Models Southeast Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting Ft. Lauderdale, FL May 16, 2008 Corradino.
Network Development and Zone Definition
Trip Distribution Review and Recommendations
Ohio Traffic Forecasting Manual
Ohio Traffic Forecasting Manual
Presentation transcript:

February 8, 2008 SERPM65 vs. SERPM6-Corradino 1 SERPM-6.5 & SERPM-6: Differences & Future Directions Southeast Florida FSUTMS Users Group Meeting Ft. Lauderdale, FL

2February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino TAC Team FDOT - Districts 4 & 6 Turnpike Palm Beach MPO Broward MPO Miami-Dade MPO SFRTA Corradino (Consultant)

3February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM History Model Base Year System SERPM-11986UTPS SERPM-2 Pre-Census 1990 Tranplan/RS6000 SERPM-31990Tranplan/RS6000 SERPM-41990Tranplan/RS6000 SERPM Tranplan/PC X32 SERPM Tranplan/Windows 32 SERPM-5 FTA 1999 Tranplan/Windows 32 SERPM-62000Cube/Voyager SERPM Cube/Voyager

4February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino 24-Hour & TOD Model… SERPM65SERPM6 Full time of day & 24-Hour model 2005 base year Full time of day 2000 base year

5February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM-65 Coverage Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties 2005 Population: 5.4 million 5.4 million 2005 Households: 2.0 million 2.0 million 4,284 TAZs (internal+dummy+ext ) (internal+dummy+ext )

6February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: Zone & Node Info…

7February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM6: Zone & Node Info…

8February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino What’s New? All zonal data (ZDATA1/ZDATA2/ SCHOOL/WALK) in TAZ Shape file DBF 3 Period Time-of-day & 24-Hour Highway Model 2 Period Transit TOD Model Dynamic area types Estimation of initial speeds from posted speed and signals data Estimation of capacities from roadway physical characteristics Estimation of time delays at freeway merges Equilibration of speeds in peak period pre-assignment Trips for HHs with autos distributed using highway skims, while 0-auto HHs use transit skims Micro-coding of fixed-guideway transit stations Model is validated to observed highway speeds as well as to traffic counts Transit nets kept in PT, but Trnbuild used for paths, skims and assignment Non-motorized mode choice Built-in mode choice constant estimation process Better External Trip Process for Freeways More Scrutiny of Toll Facility Data and Volumes

9February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65 – Model Flow 1.Setup controls and file names 2.External – EE by period 3.Trip Gen – LSGEN by auto ownership and TOD 4.Highway – Includes speed and capacity calculators 5.Distribution – Includes equilibration (FEEDBACK) of peak period highway speeds 6.Transit Nets – PT  Trnbuild and connectors, paths, skims and fares 7.Mode Choice 8.Transit Assignment by access path and TOD 9.Highway Trip Tables – Combines trip tables for assignment – 24H & TOD 10.Highway Assignment – 24 Hour & by TOD (use most computer time) 11.Highway Evaluation – HEVAL and RMSE by TOD and county

10February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: TAZ Attributes

11February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: TAZ Attributes (contd.)

12February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: T/G Folders & Inputs

13February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: T/G Folders & Outputs

14February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: T/P Structure

15February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino AREA TYPES Now dynamically calculated by Voyager script from ZDATA densities (population + employment) ATYPE may change for each year Definitions: CBD (same as old CBD) CBD (same as old CBD) Non-CBD Low-Density (similar to old OBD) Non-CBD Low-Density (similar to old OBD) Non-CBD Medium-Density (similar to old Residential) Non-CBD Medium-Density (similar to old Residential) Non-CBD High-Density (similar to old Fringe) Non-CBD High-Density (similar to old Fringe) Non-CBD Very Low-Density (similar to old Rural) Non-CBD Very Low-Density (similar to old Rural)

16February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino 2005 Area Types… 2030 Area Types…

17February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Facility Types…

18February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: Unloaded Network Attributes

19February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM6: Unloaded Network Attributes

20February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino An Example of Network Difference… SERPM65SERPM6

21February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino 24-Hour Counts… TOD Counts…

22February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Traffic Count by Facility: SERPM65 (2005) vs. SERPM6 (2000)

23February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Initial Speed Estimation Estimates uninterrupted flow initial speed from an equation Adds delays from traffic control devices

24February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Speed Relationships

25February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: IE/EI Trips (exiting/entering Freeway) T/D Logit Curve

26February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Time of Day – Transit Model Standard 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 SERPM6/6.5 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 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

27February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65 - Transit Nets #PT Mode (applicable county)TRNBUILD Mode (applicable county) 1Walk Access 2Drive Access 3Sidewalk/Transfer connector 4Bus (Palm Beach & Broward)Bus (Palm Beach) 5Bus (Miami-Dade)Bus (Dade) 6Express Bus (all)Express Bus (Broward) 7Metro-Rail 8Tri-Rail 9Metromover 10New Mode (all)New Mode (Broward) 11Project Mode (all) 12Tri-Rail Shuttle (all) 13Limited Stop Bus (all)Limited Stop Bus (Miami-Dade) 14n/aBus (Broward) 15n/aExpress Bus (Miami-Dade) 16n/aExpress Bus (Palm Beach) 17n/aNew Mode (Miami-Dade) 18n/aLimited Stop Bus (Broward) 19n/aLimited Stop Bus (Palm Beach) 20n/aNew Mode (Palm Beach)

28February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Transit Districts…

29February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Mode Choice Transit District Constants

30February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65 – Highway Assignment Follows multi-user class link constrained equilibrium assignment methodologies ( with selected node penalties ) For TOD Version AM Peak (Warm-up & Final) AM Peak (Warm-up & Final) Off-Peak (Warm-up & Final) Off-Peak (Warm-up & Final) PM Peak (Warm-up & Final) PM Peak (Warm-up & Final) Composite 24 Hours (add preceding) Composite 24 Hours (add preceding) For 24-Hour Version (NOT for SERPM6) 24-Hour Assignment (Warm-up & Final) 24-Hour Assignment (Warm-up & Final)

31February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Generalized Turning Penalties (MTURNDEF) … SERPM65 SERPM6

32February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: Modified BPR Functions

33February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Freeway & Ramp Merge Delay Functions

34February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: Highway Assignments Convergence Statistics

35February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM6: Highway Assignments Convergence Statistics

36February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: 24-Hour Model Loaded Network Attributes

37February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65: TOD Model Loaded Network Attributes

38February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM6: TOD Model Loaded Network Attributes

February 8, 2008 SERPM65 vs. SERPM6-Corradino 39 SERPM65 Validation Results (Selected) : 24-Hour & Initial TOD Models

40February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino SERPM65 Districts

41February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino JTW vs. HBW (Model) Flows By County

42February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino JTW vs. HBW (Model) Trip Ends By District

43February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Trip Production End (%s): JTW vs. HBW (Model)

44February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Trip Attraction End (%s): JTW vs. HBW (Model)

45February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Turnpike External Survey Data vs. SERPM65 Results

46February 8, 2008SERPM65 vs. SERPM6 - Corradino Selected Turnpike Segment Volume & Growth: 2005 – 2030 (24-Hour Model)

February 8, 2008 SERPM65 vs. SERPM6-Corradino 47 SERPM65: Further Directions 24-Hour Model: Address any “reasonable” comments Address any “reasonable” comments TOD Model (w/o HOT Lane modeling): Validate model for “reasonable” volume estimates of toll facilities. Validate model for “reasonable” volume estimates of toll facilities. Prepare Technical Report & User’s Manual

February 8, 2008 SERPM65 vs. SERPM6-Corradino 48 SERPM65: Further Directions (Contd.) TOD Model (revision): Revised CV scripts to allow modeling of HOT Lanes Revised CV scripts to allow modeling of HOT Lanes Modify skimming for SR2 & SR3+ to allow certain lanes as HOV2 & HOV3+ Modify skimming for SR2 & SR3+ to allow certain lanes as HOV2 & HOV3+ Modify mode-choice programs to incorporate the above changes in skimming Modify mode-choice programs to incorporate the above changes in skimming Test & Revalidate the model for modeling of HOT Lanes Test & Revalidate the model for modeling of HOT Lanes Technical Report & User’s Manual on the validation and operation of revised model Technical Report & User’s Manual on the validation and operation of revised model