Application of the MORPC MicroSimulation Model: New Starts Review

1
Application of the MORPC Micro-Simulation Model
New Starts Review

• David Schmitt, AICP
• AECOM Consult, Inc.
• 11th TRB Planning Applications Conference
• Daytona Beach, Florida May
  6th-10th, 2007

2
New Starts Model Review

• Performed independent model review at a New
  Starts level-of-scrutiny
• Key review elements
• Trip distribution
• Transit network, including access coding
• Auto transit speeds
• Path-building
• Mode choice
• Transit assignment
• User benefit results

- items highlighted in this presentation
3
Background MORPC Model

• Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice
• Disaggregate tour-based model applied with the
  micro-simulation of each individual household,
  person or tour  
• Travel accounted
• At the tour-level, as opposed to the trip-level
• For each individual household person, as
  opposed to zonal market segment aggregates
• Network assignment procedures
• Disaggregate tours converted to trips
  aggregated to zonal-level
• Typical zonal network (1877 zones, 26,000 links)
  with transit
• Path-building assignment routines in TP

4
Background New Starts Program

• Federal governments primary financial resource
  for supporting fixed-guideway capital investments
• 1.5B annually for fixed-guideway transit
  investments
• All projects undergo evaluation are rated by
  the FTA
• Key criteria cost per unit of benefit
• Cost measure annualized incremental capital plus
  annual operating cost
• Benefit measure hours of transportation system
  user benefits
• Since 2002, model characteristics have become of
  critical concern to the FTA
• Travel demand model has to undergo rigorous
  scrutiny in terms of model structure, parameter
  values forecasting results

5
Background North Corridor

• 13-mile corridor
• Potential New Starts project in AA/DEIS
• Three major employment centers interspersed with
  large residential areas
• Crosswoods/Polaris area
• Ohio State University
• CBD

6
(No Transcript)
7
Trip Distribution Results Work Tours
Table 1 2000 Modeled Work
Tours
Table 2 CTPP
2000 Journeys (scaled to modeled work
tours)
Table 3 Ratio of Model over
Scaled CTPP
8
Trip Distribution Results All Tours
Table 4 2000 Modeled Tours
Table 5 CTPP
2000 Survey Journeys/Tours
(scaled to modeled work tours)
Table 6 Ratio of Model over
Observed Tours
9
Trip Distribution Analysis Summary

• Work journeys/tours
• Almost all markets within 20 of CTPP
• Regional to CBD lt4
• Corridor to CBD lt8
• Regional to OSU lt17
• All production districts in corridor within 14

• All journeys/tours
• Not as good as work journeys, but pretty good
• Regional to CBD lt12
• Corridor to CBD lt3
• Regional to OSU lt7
• Corridor district prods/attrs generally within 20

10
User Benefit Analysis Overview

• User benefit results are reasonable if they can
  explain the benefits of the proposed build
  project
• Corridor areas should accrue the most number of
  user benefits while areas outside of the corridor
  should receive minimal benefits
• Major employment areas that benefit the most from
  the project should receive large user benefits.
• The winners/losers maps show TAZs receiving the
  most benefits dis-benefits from the project
• Extremely useful in evaluating whether the user
  benefit results are directly related to the
  proposed project
• Green-shaded zones indicate benefits (ideally
  concentrated in corridor)
• Red-shaded zones indicate dis-benefits
• Darker colors represent stronger magnitude

11
User Benefit Results District Tables
Table 7 User Benefit
District Summary (HBW Tours)
Table 8 User Benefit District
Summary (All Tours)
12
User Benefit Analysis Overview

• User benefit results are reasonable if they can
  explain the benefits of the proposed build
  project
• Corridor areas should accrue the most number of
  user benefits while areas outside of the corridor
  should receive minimal benefits
• Major employment areas that benefit the most from
  the project should receive large user benefits.
• The winners/losers maps show TAZs receiving the
  most benefits dis-benefits from the project
• Extremely useful in evaluating whether the user
  benefit results are directly related to the
  proposed project
• Green-shaded zones indicate benefits (ideally
  concentrated in corridor)
• Red-shaded zones indicate dis-benefits
• Darker colors represent stronger magnitude

13
User Benefit Thematic MapsHBW peak
Productions
Attractions
14
User Benefit Thematic MapsAll Purposes
Productions
Attractions
15
User Benefits Analysis Summary

• NHB user benefit results not used for analysis
• District tables show that the MORPC model
  produces reasonable user benefit results
• Majority of user benefits occur in the corridor.
• Both tables have minimal level of benefits in
  intra-district markets.
• The CBD district has the highest level of
  benefits in terms of attractions.
• The maps are very good at explaining the benefits
  and dis-benefits of the project
• The production map shows that a majority of the
  benefits are accrued by people living in the
  corridor, especially by those living near the
  rail stations.
• The red zones in the Worthington region reflect
  the longer travel times from the proposed project
  due as compared to the existing bus service.
• The attraction map has many green zones around
  stations near major employment areas, especially
  OSU and the northern suburbs.

16
Findings Other Areas
17
Overview/Lessons Learned

• Complex models still susceptible to network
  problems!
• Network speeds
• Transit access path-building needed significant
  revisions
• High degree of inter-relationships (e.g.,
  accessibility variables, speed feedback) increase
  re-calibration time exponentially
• Complex models using simplified networks still
  require well-coded networks sound modeling
  procedures!
• MORPC model produced very good distribution
  results user benefit results
• Do not under-estimate time needed to perform
  analysis
• Turnaround time to correct relatively small
  issues can be frustrating