Ohio Statewide Model Passenger Transit Calibration Pat Costinett Greg Erhardt Rebekah Anderson.

Ohio Statewide Model

Passenger TransitCalibration

Pat CostinettGreg Erhardt

Rebekah Anderson


Needs Study Conducted in 1998/99 Primary Goals

reducing / minimizing / avoiding roadway congestion and delay;

sustaining and improving the state economy;

freight planning, particularly with regard to the management of truck traffic and the potential for shifting it to other routes and modes


Secondary Goals Include: supporting multi-modal/inter-modal

options for travel, passenger and freight improving conditions for non-auto (and

non-single-occupant auto) mode services Passenger Models Are Applied

Disaggregately and Are Tour-Based

Disaggregate Household Synthesis

and Employment Spatial Disaggregation Models

Aggregate Commercial

Vehicle Model

Disaggregate Commercial

Vehicle Model

Interregional Economic

Model

Aggregate Demographic

Model

Land Development

Model

Activity Allocation

Model

Visitor ModelLong Distance Travel Model

Short Distance Travel Model

Assignment Model

Ohio Integrated Land Use/Economic/ Transport Model

Passenger Mode Choice Models

Short Distance Tours – Under 50 miles Walk or Drive to MPO Transit

Long Distance Tours – Inside “Model Area” Allow all Transit Alternatives

Long Distance Tours – E-E or I-E Apply “Static” Mode Shares by Distance

Mode Choice

Transit-Drive

HSR-Drive

HSR-Walk

Transit-Walk

AirAuto

0.5 0.5

0.65

High Speed Rail only in future-years

Networks

Highway Including Ohio

Turnpike Transit

MPO Transit Greyhound Amtrak High Speed Rail Air

Freight Highway Rail

Ohio Networks

Ohio Transit Networks - Local

1098 Local Transit Lines

Greyhound and Amtrak - 2000

55 Greyhound Routes4 Amtrak TrainsAdded Links to ConnectGreyhound and AmtrakStations

Air Network

Used 1999 10% Airline Ticket Sample to Select City-Pairs that Have More than 10 Trips/Day

Ft. Wayne – Cvd Dayton – Cvd Cincinnati - Cvd

Ohio Hub Study

MWRRI – Completed Update in 2004 Ohio Hub Study Undertaken to

Complement the MWRRI – 2005 with 2007 Update

2 Scenarios Modern Scenario – 79 mph speeds High Speed Scenario – 110 mph speeds

Ohio Hub

Pittsburgh – Cleveland – Toledo – Ft. Wayne

Cleveland – Columbus – Cincinnati

Pittsburgh – Columbus – Ft. Wayne

Columbus – Toledo

Internal Mode Choice

Variable Household Work-Related Other

AssertedCalibrate

d AssertedCalibrate

d AssertedCalibrat

ed

In-Vehicle Time -0.005 -0.010 -0.005Walk-Access Time -0.010 -0.020 -0.010Drive-Access Time -0.010 -0.020 -0.010Wait

TimeUp to 60

minutes -0.010 -0.020 -0.010> 60 minutes -0.0025 -0.005 -0.0025

Daily Frequency of Service (Air) 0.050 0.100 0.050

Cost (cents) Income $0-20k -0.00120 -0.00080 -0.00120

Income $20-60k -0.00045 -0.00030 -0.00045

Income $60k+ -0.00023 -0.00015 -0.00023Transit-High Speed Rail

Nest 0.650 0.650 0.650Transit Walk-Drive Nest 0.500 0.500 0.500High Speed Rail Walk-

Drive Nest 0.500 0.500 0.500Air Constant 0 -5.855 0 -4.871 0 -6.374Transit Constant 0 -2.397 0 -1.739 0 -2.347

• Asserted based on review of literature

•Cannot determine access mode from survey

External Mode Choice

Variable Household Work Related Other Estimate

dCalibrate

dEstimate

dCalibrate

dEstimate

dCalibrate

d

Constant Walk-4.806 -7.264 -6.736 -5.457 -7.023

Drive

Air

-19.85

6

-20.77

9

-16.37

7

-16.29

1

-16.51

0

-16.96

2Log(Distance), applied to Air 2.704 2.472 2.289Income $60k+, applied to Air 0.438 1.294 0.745Final likelihood -99 -111 -407ρ² w.r.t. zero 0.774 0.403 0.765ρ² w.r.t. constants 0.268 0.391 0.321

Increases Air share as a function of distance

2000 Validation Efforts

System Ridership by MPO – Good Data Greyhound Ridership by City Pair -

Annual Amtrak Ridership by City Pair – Annual

2000 Validation – 4/30/07Local Transit

Transit Lines Route Group 2000 Observed

Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Akron 21,339 50,720 29,381 138%Canton 4,791 15,520 10,729 224%

Cincinnati Total 89,171 121,940 32,769 37%METRO 78,099 104,420 26,321 34%TANK 9,167 14,940 5,773 63%

Hamilton / Middletown

1,905

2,580

675 35%

Cleveland Total 203,598 199,940 -3,658 -2%Columbus Total 63,387 120,390 57,003 90%

COTA 63,313 120,360 57,047 90%DATA 18 30 12 67%LCTB 56 0 -56 -100%

Dayton 40,883 75,830 34,947 85%Toledo 16,124 40,690 24,566 152%

Youngstown 3,879 11,610 7,731 199%

Sub-Total: Locals 443,172 636,640 193,468 44%

2000 Validation – 5/2/07

Intercity BusTransit Lines 2000

Observed Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Cincinnati - Toledo 226 304 78 35%Cincinnati - Cleveland 535 943 408 76%

Dayton - Wheeling 156 270 114 73%Toledo - Portsmouth 99 86 -13 -13%Toledo - Youngstown 697 588 -109 -16%Ft. Wayne - Toledo 19 24 5 26%

Cleveland - Erie 49 36 -13 -27%

Sub-Total: Intercity Bus 1,781 2,251 470 26%


Intercity BusTransit Lines 2000

Observed Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Cincinnati - Toledo 226 188 -38 -17%Cincinnati - Cleveland 535 810 275 51%

Dayton - Wheeling 156 234 78 50%Toledo - Portsmouth 99 86 -13 -13%Toledo - Youngstown 697 460 -237 -34%Ft. Wayne - Toledo 19 21 2 11%

Cleveland - Erie 49 24 -25 -51%



AmtrakTransit Lines 2000

Observed Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Toledo - Cleveland 8 18 10 125%

Sub-Total: Amtrak 8 18 10 125%


AmtrakTransit Lines 2000

Observed Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Toledo - Cleveland 8 12 4 50%

Sub-Total: Amtrak 8 12 4 50%


AirAir Lines 2000

Observed Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Cleveland - Cincinnati 131 48 -83 -63%Cleveland - Dayton 23 57 34 148%

Cleveland - Ft. Wayne 5 18 13 260%

Sub-Total: Air 159 123 -36 -23%


AirAir Lines 2000

Observed Total

2000 Model Total

# Difference 2000

% Difference

2000

Cleveland - Cincinnati 131 66 -65 -50%Cleveland - Dayton 23 45 22 96%


Sub-Total: Air 159 129 -30 -19%

2030 Calibration Efforts

Mode / Line Totals Passenger Miles / Average Trip Lengths Annual Passengers by City Pair

2000 High Speed Rail – 5/2/07

Intercity BusTransit Lines 2000 Ohio

Hub Total2000 Model

Total# Difference

2030%

Difference 2030

Cincinnati - Toledo 172 234 62 36%Cincinnati - Cleveland 397 870 473 119%

Dayton - Wheeling 133 195 62 47%Toledo - Portsmouth 80 141 61 76%Toledo - Youngstown 534 540 6 1%Ft. Wayne - Toledo 10 27 17 173%

Cleveland - Erie 30 30 0 -1%



High Speed RailTransit Lines 2000 Ohio

Hub Total2000 Model

Total# Difference %

Difference

Cleveland - Cincinnati 3,143 1,977 -1,166 -37%Ft. Wayne - Cleveland -

Pittsburgh 1,486 912

-574 -39%

Ft. Wayne - Columbus - Pittsburgh 1,935 267

-1,668 -86%

Columbus - Toledo 400 207 -193 -48%

Sub-Total: High Speed Rail

6,964 3,363 -3,601 -52%


AirAirlines 2000 Ohio

Hub Total2000 Model

Total# Difference %

Difference

Cleveland - Cincinnati 6 84 78 1300%Cleveland - Dayton 1 66 65 6500%


Sub-Total: Air 8 186 178 2225%


Average Trip Length

Transit Lines 2000 Ohio Hub

2000 Model # Difference % Difference

Cleveland - Cincinnati 104 128 23 22%Ft. Wayne - Cleveland -

Pittsburgh 95 79

-16 -17%

Ft. Wayne - Columbus - Pittsburgh 114 78

-36 -32%

Columbus - Toledo 126 88 -39 -31%

Sub-Total: High Speed Rail

107 108 1 1%


Station Boardings3C Only

Ohio Hub Model Boardings

Model Alightings

Total # Difference

% Difference

Cleveland 1,550 423 347 770 -780 -50%

Columbus 2,832 696 627 1,323 -1,509 -53%

Cincinnati 1,820 111 171 282 -1,538 -85%

Total 6,202 1,230 1,145 2,375 -3,827 -62%

Rebekah Anderson – 614-752-5735Ohio DOT

Greg Erhardt – 415-243-4638Pat Costinett – 206-382-5218PB

Ohio Statewide Model Passenger Transit Calibration Pat Costinett Greg Erhardt Rebekah Anderson.

Documents

Transcript of Ohio Statewide Model Passenger Transit Calibration Pat Costinett Greg Erhardt Rebekah Anderson.