1 / 34

LATENT DEMAND FORECAST MODEL FOR COLUMBUS PEDESTRIAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN

LATENT DEMAND FORECAST MODEL FOR COLUMBUS PEDESTRIAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission The 11th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 9, 2007. Acknowledgements. City of Columbus Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)

orlando-estes
Download Presentation

LATENT DEMAND FORECAST MODEL FOR COLUMBUS PEDESTRIAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LATENT DEMAND FORECAST MODEL FOR COLUMBUS PEDESTRIAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission The 11th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 9, 2007

  2. Acknowledgements • City of Columbus • Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) • Central Ohio Transit Authority

  3. Outline • Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Review of MAG Latent Demand Model • MORPC’s Modification • Results • Conclusions

  4. Outline • Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Review of MAG Latent Demand Model • MORPC’s Modification • Results • Conclusions

  5. Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Identify major pedestrian network • Recognize pedestrian travel needs • Promote pedestrian activities

  6. Outline • Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Review of MAG Latent Demand Model • MORPC’s Modification • Results • Conclusions

  7. Latent Demand ModelMaricopa Association of Governments (MAG) • “Gravity-based” Model • Non-linked vs. Linked • Latent Demand Score (LDS): 0~100% Relative levels of potential pedestrian travel demand among a given network

  8. P P P A P P P P P “Gravity-based” Model Both ends of walk trips • Attraction • Production A

  9. “Gravity-based” Model (Cont’d) Distance matters Source: MAG Pedestrian 2000-Technical Appendix, Dec 1999

  10. P P P P P A P P P “Gravity-based” Model (Cont’d) Spatial queries • Buffer A

  11. Attractor-base queries Segment-based queries “Gravity-based” Model (Cont’d)

  12. Attractor-base queries Segment-based queries “Gravity-based” Model (Cont’d)

  13. Non-linked vs. Linked • Non-linked trips: entire trip made by foot • Work (college/University) • Shopping and Errands • School • Recreational • Linked trips: partial trip made by foot (most of the trip made by auto/other motorized modes)

  14. Latent Demand Score • LDS - normalization 0 ~ 100% • Non-linked • Linked • Combine non-linked and linked trips “Composite” LDS=MAX(non-linked LDS, Linked LDS)

  15. Outline • Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Review of MAG Latent Demand Model • MORPC’s Modification • Results • Conclusions

  16. MORPC’s Modification • Grid System vs. TAZ • Impact of Transit Service • Additional Pedestrian “Attractors”

  17. ¼-mile-square Grid System • Regional Connections TAZ Grid

  18. Impact of Transit Service • MAG linked pedestrian trips Linked LDS = E/A • E=total employment within the buffer • A=total area within the buffer • Attraction (employment) end vs. production (residence) end • Auto vs. Transit

  19. Impact of Transit Service (Cont’d) • Revisedlinked pedestrian trips Linked LDS = (Pb%+E)/A • P=total population within the buffer • b%=transit share of trips by the population • E=total employment within the buffer • A=total area within the buffer

  20. Impact of Transit Service (Cont’d) • Transit Share – b% • Mode split information at Block Group (BG) level from Census 2000 SF3 data • Mode split information at Grid level? • Transit Service Frequency by Route at Grid level from Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) • Stops in the Grid • Headways

  21. Impact of Transit Service (Cont’d) • Transit Share – b% (cont’d) b%=M%  (f / F) • M%= max. BG transit share within the entire region considered. • f= transit service frequency within Grid/its buffer. • F=max. transit service frequency within Grid/its buffer.

  22. Additional Pedestrian “Attractors” • Government buildings, sport arena, museum, libraries, theaters, etc. • Four Categories • Service area (local vs. regional) • Service type (general vs. special)

  23. Additional Pedestrian “Attractors” Four Categories

  24. Additional Pedestrian “Attractors” Weight Score

  25. Additional Pedestrian “Attractors” • Example of weighting factor • Library and Fairground in the buffer of a segment with LDS = 80% Weight score = 3+1=4 Weighting factor = 1.04 (multiplicative) New LDS = 80% 1.04= 83.2%

  26. Outline • Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Review of MAG Latent Demand Model • MORPC’s Modification • Results • Conclusions

  27. Outline • Columbus Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan • Review of MAG Latent Demand Model • MORPC’s Modification • Results • Conclusions

  28. Conclusions • Understanding pedestrian travel demand • Evaluating existing sidewalk system (ongoing) • Prioritizing pedestrian facility improvements in a consistent way • Future work: refine methodologies and update the results periodically

  29. Contacts • Ahmad Al-Akhras alakhras@morpc.org • Chris Gawronski cgawronski@morpc.org • Anthony Hull ahull@morpc.org • Zhuojun Jiang zjiang@morpc.org

  30. Questions ? Please use the Microphone. 34

More Related