1. On Comparing Aggregate Trip-Based and Disaggregate Tour-Based Travel Demand Models

2. Research Project Led by Ohio DOT and initiated in 2008 Main objective: examine the performance of the MORPC trip-based and tour-based frameworks in the context of a before-and- after project analysis ODOT, MORPC, OKI and NOACA are looking to obtain a clearer picture of the potential practical benefits of tour-based models in the context of assessing projects and policies

3. Research Tasks 1.Understand model differences 2.Determine analysis methodologies and data requirements 3.Select study projects for before/after analysis 4.Determine data collection projects 5.Prepare models and model data 6.Run models, analyze output and observed conditions

4. Requirements for an Analogous Comparison Common analysis years –Using 1990, 2000, 2005 (due to better 1990 SE data than 1995) Identical estimation datasets Isolate supply-side differences Isolate demand-side differences

5. Estimation Datasets Generation and distribution phases –Trip model was based on 1974 HIS –Tour model was based on 1999 HIS Mode choice –Trip model uses nested logit structure based on 1993 on-board survey –Tour model uses multinomial structure based on 1999 HIS + 1993 on-board survey

6. Estimation Datasets Solutions: –Estimate new Trip Generation and Gravity Distribution Models with the 1999 HIS –Trip model will use mostly identical SE data as the tour model –Update mode choice model to use IVT, OVT and wait coefficients from tour model –Other coefficients will be scaled

7. Isolating Supply-side Differences Time-of-day representation not equivalent –Trip model: Daily highway impedances and assignment –Tour model: 4-period highway impedances and assignment Model areas not consistent

8. Model Areas

9. Isolating Supply-side Differences Time-of-day representation not equivalent –Trip model: Daily highway impedances and assignment –Tour model: 4-period highway impedances and assignment Model areas not consistent Solution: update trip-based model to be consistent with tour-based model area and networks

10. Demand-side Differences Trip-based model performs daily highway assignment, while tour-based model uses 4-period assignment –Solution: update trip-based model to 4-period highway assignment External and CMV models are based on SE data and network impedances, so they would change with different assignments –Solution: hold trip tables constant across the models and alternatives Equilibrium assignment closure rates can vary mode choice impedances and final highway volumes –Solution: apply very high closure rate to both models

11. Current Task Enhancing trip-based model to be consistent with many tour-based model features –Model area –Networks –Mode choice –Time-of-day

12. New Trip Model Formulation

13. Validation - VMT

14. Validation - % RMSE

15. Other Considerations Trip Model is fairly simplistic –No peak spreading –No vehicle ownership –Daily level generation and distribution –Gravity distribution model –1 iteration of feedback to mode choice

16. Proposed Before/After Projects Spring-Sandusky interchange –Large-scale freeway project –Project is completed and subsequent land-use development has stabilized Polaris –Medium-scale freeway interchange project –New and subsequently modified interchange in rapid growth area

17. Proposed Before/After Projects Systemwide transit analysis –35% decline in transit service 2001-2005 –Trunk routes virtually unchanged, with suburban service reduced Hilliard-Rome Road Area –High growth area, but no substantial transportation changes –Land use changes have now largely subsided

18. Spring-Sandusky New roadways Downtown Columbus SR 315 I-71 I-70/I-71 I-70 I-670 I-71

19. Polaris I-71 Polaris Parkway Retail Growth Area

20. Hilliard-Rome I-270 I-70 Growth Area Downtown Columbus Hilliard-Rome Road

21. Contact Information Rebekah Anderson – ODOT 614-752-5735 rebekah.anderson@dot.state.oh.us Greg Giaimo – ODOT 614-752-5738 greg.giaimo@dot.state.oh.us David Schmitt – AECOM 614-901-6026 david.schmitt@aecom.com