1 / 38

Comparison of Trip-Based and Tour-Based Travel Demand Models: Columbus Highway Results

This research project, led by the University of Texas-Austin in collaboration with AECOM, examines the performance of trip-based and tour-based travel demand models in Columbus through a before-and-after analysis. Key objectives include updating the trip-based model to address estimation discrepancies and developing scenarios for 1990, 2000, and 2005. The findings indicate that while both models generally perform similarly, notable differences arise in vehicle ownership and certain regional movements. Further comparisons are needed to fully validate and understand model discrepancies.

lazar
Télécharger la présentation

Comparison of Trip-Based and Tour-Based Travel Demand Models: Columbus Highway Results

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. Comparing Aggregate Trip-Based and Disaggregate Tour-Based Travel Demand Models: Columbus Highway Results

  2. Research Project Overview • Research led by University of Texas-Austin with AECOM, John Bowman, Mark Bradley & Ram Pendyala • Main objective: examine the performance of the trip-based and tour-based frameworks for Columbus in the context of a before-and-after project analysis

  3. Major Tasks • Update trip-based model to resolve differences in estimation datasets, TOD, geographic coverage and other areas • Develop 1990, 2000 and 2005 scenarios (including socio-economic data, networks, traffic counts, etc.) • Compare models’ regional-level results to Census (1990, 2000), Household Interview Survey (1999), ACS (2005) • Decide on study projects • Compare models’ project level-results

  4. Brief Model Comparison

  5. Validation - VMT

  6. Validation - % RMSE

  7. Model-to-Model Comparisons • Trip distance by trip purpose • Delta volume bandwidth plots • ∆ volume = Tour model – Trip model

  8. Comparison of Trip Length by Purpose

  9. Delta Volume Bandwidth Plot1990

  10. Delta Volume Bandwidth Plot2000

  11. Delta Volume Bandwidth Plot2005

  12. Regional-Level Results • Vehicle ownership • Tour model performs better in Franklin County • Trip model performs better in other counties • Work flows • Both models generally perform the same, except for inter-county movements where the tour model generally performs better • Average work travel time • Both models generally perform the same

  13. Findings from the Report • Need to investigate why tour-based model systematically under-performs in vehicle ownership outside Franklin County • Overall there are few major differences between the two models (slight overall edge to tour-based model?) • It is difficult to make disaggregate model comparisons when the models have different units of travel • Translating units leads to inconsistencies at a disaggregate level, making the tour-based model’s full range of potential benefits difficult to compare to trip-based models • More comparisons between trip- and tour-based models are needed to verify these findings

  14. Project-Level Analysis • Polaris – IR 71/ SR 750 Polaris Parkway • Large retail and employment growth • Interchange and other roadway improvements • Rome-Hilliard – IR 70/IR 270 • Large land-use development • No roadway improvements • Spring-Sandusky – downtown Columbus • No major land-use changes • Major roadway improvements • Control area – IR 71 in southwest Columbus • No major land-use changes or roadway improvements

  15. All Study Areas Polaris Study Area Hilliard-Rome Study Area Spring-Sandusky Study Area Control Area

  16. Polaris - 1988

  17. Polaris - 2008

  18. Spring-Sandusky Study Area

  19. Hilliard-Rome Study Area

  20. Control Area

  21. Volume to CountsPolaris – 1990 Trip Tour Red – Overassigned Blue - Underassigned

  22. Volume to CountsPolaris – 2000 Red – Overassigned Blue - Underassigned Tour Trip

  23. Volume to CountsPolaris – 2005 Red – Overassigned Blue - Underassigned Tour Trip

  24. Volume to CountsSSI – 1990 Red – Overassigned Blue - Underassigned Trip Tour

  25. Volume to CountsSSI – 2000 Red – Overassigned Blue - Underassigned Trip Tour

  26. Volume to CountsSSI – 2005 Red – Overassigned Blue - Underassigned Tour Trip

  27. Design Forecasts • Add 1 more “model” • Fratared a matrix of 1s to the Trip Ends from the Tour model

  28. Volume/Counts and Forecasts • Polaris

  29. Volume/Counts and Forecasts • Spring-Sandusky Interchange

  30. Volume/Counts and Forecasts • Rome-Hilliard

  31. Volume/Counts and Forecasts • Control Area

  32. Speed Comparison

  33. Conclusions • With an aggregate assignment, there isn’t much difference between the demand models for your run-of-the-mill project traffic forecasts. • Biggest difference is in what questions your model can answer • Develop a model that answers questions that are being asked in your region. • Use your crystal ball to determine what questions are likely to be asked over the next 20 years.

  34. Contacts • Greg Giaimo – ODOT – 614-752-5738 greg.giaimo@dot.state.oh.us • Rebekah Anderson – ODOT – 614-752-5735 rebekah.anderson@dot.state.oh.us • Zhuojun Jiang – MORPC – 614-233-4147 • Chandra Bhat – UT at Austin bhat@mail.utexas.edu • Dave Schmitt – AECOM David.Schmitt@aecom.com

More Related