morpc model comparison project trip vs tour model n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 20

MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model. 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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'MORPC Model Comparison Project Trip vs. Tour Model' - azalia-barber

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
research project
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
research tasks
Research Tasks
  • Understand model differences
  • Determine analysis methodologies and data requirements
  • Select study projects for before/after analysis
  • Determine data collection projects
  • Prepare models and model data
  • Run models, analyze output and observed conditions
requirements for an analogous comparison
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
  • Borrowed a Trip Model from OMS
estimation datasets
Estimation Datasets

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

mode choice
Mode Choice
  • Mode choice
    • Trip model uses nested logit structure based on 1993 on-board survey
    • Tour model uses mostly multinomial structures based on 1999 HIS + 1993 on-board survey - Also adheres to FTA New Starts parameter guidelines
demand side differences
Demand-side Differences
  • 4-period 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
other considerations
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
proposed before after projects
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
proposed before after projects1
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
  • Control Site – IR 71 South of the CBD
traffic volumes
Traffic Volumes
  • Why we care about traffic volumes
    • 100-200 projects a year that use the model’s traffic volumes
contact information
Contact Information

Rebekah Anderson – ODOT


Greg Giaimo – ODOT


David Schmitt – AECOM