1 / 18

A Disaggregate Quasi-Dynamic Park-and-Ride Lot Choice Model Application with Parking Capacities

John Gibb DKS Associates Transportation Solutions. A Disaggregate Quasi-Dynamic Park-and-Ride Lot Choice Model Application with Parking Capacities. The Park-and-Ride Problem for Transit Auto Access:. Which park-and-ride transit stop for a trip

nika
Télécharger la présentation

A Disaggregate Quasi-Dynamic Park-and-Ride Lot Choice Model Application with Parking Capacities

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. John Gibb DKS Associates Transportation Solutions A Disaggregate Quasi-Dynamic Park-and-Ride Lot Choice Model Application with Parking Capacities

  2. The Park-and-Ride Problem for Transit Auto Access: • Which park-and-ride transit stop for a trip • Getting level of service “skim” values for auto and transit legs • Assigning auto and transit legs • Commuters, mostly • AM peak period (3+ hours) • Auto at home end, transit at work or attraction

  3. Customary Drive-Access Solution • Zones placed into auto access “sheds” for each station • Observed drive-access legs tend to be short • One or few stations per zone • Parking location choice, if any, within transit path choice model

  4. Customary Solution’s Problems • Error-prone, subject to analyst’s judgment, trial-and-error • Capacity restraint • Alternative forecast scenarios • Memory and computational limits may preclude multiple choices • Drive-access legs not included in auto assignment …except through unconventional tricks

  5. Sample Transit Network Code ; 8003 Marconi/Arcade ; SUPPLINK N= 8003- 3046, DIST= 0, SPEED= 0, ONEWAY=F, MODE= 12 SUPPLINK N= 7099- 11285, DIST=10, SPEED=10.0, ONEWAY=F, MODE= 16 SUPPLINK N= 7026- 3046, DIST= 0, SPEED= 0, ONEWAY=F, MODE= 17 SUPPLINK N= 7026- 4492, DIST= 0, SPEED= 0, ONEWAY=F, MODE= 17 PNRNODE=7099-8003 MODE=11 LOTMODE=15 COST=2.26 TIME=2.00 ZONES=226-240, 295,299-303,310-312,347,350,351,355-358,360,372,375-381,881,882 • User must code list of zones comprising each park-and-ride station’s “shed” • Not database or GIS-friendly

  6. Newer EMME solution • Matrix calculations with third intermediate-zone index • “Matrix convolution” = “triple-index operation” • Origin-to-intermediate, intermediate to destination • Special parking zones as intermediate zones • Multinomial logit choice (Blain 1994) • Drive utility weight ≈ 3 ∙ transit IVTT or more • Free choice favoring short drive distances • Capacity restraint (Spiess 1996) • Iteratively solve shadow-price where full

  7. New opportunities • Activity-based travel model creates individual trips, not just zone-to-zone flows • TP+/Voyager record-processing • Calculations for each record in a file • TP+/Voyager generalized looping • Like Basic FOR…NEXT loop on arbitrary variable • Arbitrary-order matrix referencing

  8. A “real world” model: Parking available to all until full • Maximum utility, subject to availability • Arrival time determines individual’s priority • (not drive distance or analyst’s judgment) • Assign each trip to one parking location • Commuter behavior assumed: • Know when lots fill, choose with knowledge • No frustrated arrivals to full lots

  9. Chronological Method • Prioritize individuals by departure time from origin • Drive-times usually short, so departure order approximates parking-arrival order • Simple one-pass algorithm: • Sort trips by departure time • For each individual trip, choose best-utility available location • Accumulate parking loads; make unavailable when full

  10. Example Result: Trip Records with Parking Choice (excerpt)

  11. Example Result: Fill schedule

  12. What about the actual arrival time to parking? • Departure order not exactly same as parking-arrival order • Individual’s parking-arrival time varies among alternatives • No single chronological order for choice • Exact reconciliation requires iteration • Fortunately, an algorithm has been invented…

  13. Gale-Shapley pairing algorithm (1962) • Hospital-residents, college admissions, stable marriage problems • “Men” propose to favorite “woman” • “Women” provisionally accept favorite proposer • Unengaged “men” propose to next-favorites • Algorithm “ratchets”: rejected and jilted “men” must settle for lesser-favorites, while “women” trade up. • “Male” optimal

  14. Gale-Shapley for park-and-ride • Trips = “men” • Parking lots = “women” • Individuals’ utilities of the parking locations = “men’s” preference-ranks of “women” • Arrival time to parking = “women’s” preference of “men” • Iteration “ratcheting”: individuals’ best available utility stays same or gets worse, while any lot’s fill-up time stays same or gets earlier. • Finished when no lot oversubscribed. • User-optimal

  15. Further details • Return home via same parking location • Trip record with parking location transforms to drive trips and transit trips • Each with correct origin and destination

  16. Further details • Return home via same parking location • Trip record with parking location transforms to drive trips and transit trips • Each with correct origin and destination • Full lots unavailable during midday period • Skimming all zone pairs • Average of each parking-state, weighted by loading-share of state • Fill-schedule indentifies parking states

  17. Future study and development • Risk management behavior • Do commuters, avoiding the risk of a full parking location, prevent them from filling? • Time choice behavior • Do individuals leave home earlier for a “competitive” space? • Time-dependence in the activity-based model • Parking space turnover

  18. Questions?

More Related