TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES ATHENS 2004 ATTIKO METRO S.A. Anna Anastasaki.
-
Upload
stephan-layne -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES ATHENS 2004 ATTIKO METRO S.A. Anna Anastasaki.
TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THE
OLYMPIC GAMES ATHENS 2004
ATTIKO METRO S.A.
Anna Anastasaki
• Analysis and Evaluation of the Existing Conditions (Summer 1996)
• Development of a Strategic Planning Model (EMME/2)
• Development of a Traffic Management Model (SATURN)
• Travel Forecasts for August 2004– Normal Operation of the City– Olympic Trips
Objectives of the StudyObjectives of the Study
Study Area : Attica Region – Zonal SystemStudy Area : Attica Region – Zonal System
Population 1996Population 1996
Typical
Summer
Diff (%)
Greater Athens
3.814.872
3.198.288
-16,2%
Rest of Attica
322.908
459.248
+42,2%
Attica Region
4.137.780
3.657.536
-11,6%
Population 1996Population 1996
Trips 1996Trips 1996
Typical
Summer
Diff (%)
Greater Athens
5.485.350
4.261.200
-22,3%
Rest of Attica
340.000
457.100
+34,4%
Attica Region
5.825.350
4.718.300
-19,0%
Typical
Summer
Diff (%)
Greater Athens
1,52
1,39
-8,6%
Rest of Attica
1,11
1,06
-4,5%
Attica Region
1,48
1,35
-8,8%
Trip Rates
Trips
Daily Person Trips by PurposeDaily Person Trips by Purpose
Business4.4% Personal
12.3%
Social11.3%
Education14.2%
Work43.0%
Other3.6%
Shopping7.6%
Recreation3.6%
Business4.0% Personal
12.6%
Social17.1%
Education1.4%
Work43.5%
Other2.4%
Shopping10.3%
Recreation8.7%
Typical Summer
Main Mode SplitMain Mode Split
Public Transport
29.8%
Taxi10.5%
Walk11.1%
Private Means48.6%
Typical Summer
Public Transport
26.5%
Taxi11.1%
Walk7.9%
Private Means54.5%
Hourly Demand Distribution – Private ModesHourly Demand Distribution – Private Modes
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
TYPICAL
SUMMER
Hourly Demand Distribution – Public TransportHourly Demand Distribution – Public Transport
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
TYPICAL
SUMMER
HB TRIP GENERATION
PLANNINGFACTORS
PRODUCTIONS/ATTRACTIONSDAILY TRIPS
SUB-MODE CHOICE MODEL
PT GENERALISED COST
MAIN MODE CHOICEMODEL
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
MATRIX CONVERSIONORIGIN-DESTINATION (O-D)
NHB TRIPSMOTORCYCLES, TRUCKS
EXTERNAL TRIPS
PCU VEHICLE O-DTRIP TABLE
HIGHWAYASSIGNMENT
FINAL HIGHWAYASSIGNMENT
PTASSIGNMENT
GENERALISED COSTCAR, TAXI
PUBLIC TRANSPORT(PT) NETWORK
GENERALISED COSTPER PT MODE( Bus, Metro)
PT PASSENGERO-D TRIP TABLE
FINAL PTASSIGNMENT
SATISFACTORYCONVERGENCE
YES NO
PT MINIMUMCOSTPATHS
HIGHWAYNETWORK
HIGHWAY MINIMUM
COST PATHS
YESNO SATISFACTORYCONVERGENCE
Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Transport Model Transport Model Structure (EMME/2)Structure (EMME/2)
HB Trip Production ModelsHB Trip Production Models
• Classification Models
– Trip Purpose (Work, Social, Other)
– Car Ownership (CO, NCO)
– Household Size (1-2, 3-4, 5 members)
– Household Income (low, medium, high)
– Zone Group Characteristics
HB Trip Attraction ModelsHB Trip Attraction Models
• Regression Models
– Trip Purpose (Work, Social, Other)
– Independent Variables
• Retail Job Positions
• Non-Retail Job Positions
• Population
Trip Generation Models CalibrationTrip Generation Models Calibration
Trip Category Trip Rate Trip Productions Diff %
(Pred-Obs/Obs)
COHBW 1,65 4,57%
HBS 0,98 5,52%
HBO 1,11 5,04%
3,74 4,96%
NCO
HBW 0,54 -9,44%
HBS 0,32 -8,42%
HBO 0,44 -8,13%
1,30 -8,75%
Overall 2,67 2,08%
Mode Choice ModelsMode Choice Models
• Sub-mode Choice
– Zone level– Binary logit models– Alternatives : bus, metro– Six (6) trip categories
• Main Mode Choice
– Zone group level– Multinomial or nested logit models– Alternatives : walk, car, taxi, public transport– Six (6) trip categories
Trip Distribution ModelsTrip Distribution Models
• Zone group level
• Gravity model
• Six (6) trip categories
• Four (4) main modes
• Inner ring effects for car mode (HBW, HBO)
Trip AssignmentTrip Assignment
• Highway Network
– 10 classes of users– BPR volume-delay functions links– HCM volume-delay functions intersections
• Public Transport Network
– Six (6) trip categories– Transit time function by mode
Network Data - 1996Network Data - 1996
• Centroids 1246
• Nodes 5000 signalised : 1030
priority : 670
• Centroid connectors 5300
• Road links 12000
• Transit lines 470
• Bus stops 1730
• Metro stations 23
• Pedestrian links 12800
Network CalibrationNetwork Calibration
• Highway Network– GEH overall : 6,0
sector level : 4,8 – 8,8
• Public Transport Network– GEH bus : 9,3
metro : 7,7
Highway Network - Summer 1996Highway Network - Summer 1996
Public Transport Network - Summer 1996Public Transport Network - Summer 1996
Travel Demand Forecasts - 2004Travel Demand Forecasts - 2004
• Network Scenarios– Basic (1)– Alternative (4)
• Trip Matrices– Summer Period Trips– Olympic Trips
• Time Periods– 8-9 : morning peak– 17-18 : afternoon peak– 22-23 : evening peak
Traffic Management Model (SATURN)Traffic Management Model (SATURN)
• 400 zones
• Olympic Highway Network (main and secondary)
• Trip Matrices Data from EMME/2 Transport Model
• Exclusive use by “Athens 2004” test and evaluate traffic management schemes related to Olympic Venues
EMME/2 – GIS - SATURN System IntegrationEMME/2 – GIS - SATURN System Integration
Unixserver
Window NTRunning SATURN
GISdatabase
Windows 2000
Windows NTs
Emme/2 scenarios
GIS DataExchange Interface
Emme/2 MatricesExchange Interface
Road network
Land use
DataExchange Interface