# Presentation: 037633

## 6.  Standard Reporting/QC

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Implementation
- Thoughts on good practice

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Standard Summit reports
- No-Build (2030) versus “today”
- TSM alternative versus No-build
- Build alternative versus TSM alternative
- Build opening year versus “today”
- QC reports
- Tests on (1) project and (2) IVT
- Template on “Travel Forecasts”
- Transit assignment results

- *

- *

- = new in 2008

- *

- *

- *

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Purpose

- Enable routine quality control
- Support a coherent story for the project
- How is 2030 different from today?
- What would TSM accomplish?
- How much more would the project do?
- What would the project do in its opening year?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Changes over Time:Reports

- No-Build versus Today
- Build Opening Year versus Today
- 1.0  Demographics
- 2.0  Travel patterns
- 3.0  Travel times
- 4.0  Transit trips
- 5.0  Transit shares

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 1.0  Demographics

- General format
- By district
- Totals, absolute delta, relative delta
- Contents
- 	1.1 Population characteristics
- 	1.2 Employment characteristics
- 	1.3 Supporting statistics

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Supporting Statistics

- Relationships between variables
- Household size, workers per person, densities, parking costs, pop/emp ratio, etc.
- Checks on trip generation
- Δ population versus Δ trip productions
- Δ employment versus Δ trip attractions

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 2.0  Person Trips

- General format
- District-to-district
- Totals, absolute delta, relative delta
- Contents
- 2.1 Total person trips
- 2.2 Home-based work person trips
- 2.3 Other person trips (as needed)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 3.0  Travel Times

- General format
- District-to-district
- Peak and off-peak
- Averages, relative delta
- Contents
- 3.1 Highway travel time
- 3.2 Transit in-vehicle time
- 3.3 Transit total weighted time

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Time Calculations

- Calculations
- District-to-district aggregation of skims
- Divided by district-to-district I-J cells
- Impedances
- Highway: drive-alone time
- Transit: “best” walk access path
- Transit cells: _path available in both years_

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 4.0  Transit Trips

- General format
- District-to-district
- Totals, absolute delta, relative delta
- Contents
- 4.1 Total transit trips (all modes)
- 4.2 Home-based work transit trips
- 4.3 Other transit trips *(as needed)*
- 4.4 Guideway trips (by purpose, *as needed*)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 5.0  Transit Shares

- General format
- District-to-district
- Totals, absolute delta, relative delta
- Contents
- 5.1 Home-based work transit shares
- 5.2 Other transit shares *(as needed)*
- 5.3 Guideway shares (by purpose, *as needed*)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Changes between Alternatives:Reports

- TSM versus No-Build
- Build versus TSM
- Contents for _each_ mode choice run
- 1.0 Transit trips
- 2.0 User benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 1.0  Transit Trips

- General format
- District-to-district
- Totals, absolute delta, relative delta
- Contents for each mode choice run
- 1.1 Transit trips
- 1.2 Transit trips by “transit dependents”
- 1.3 Guideway transit trips (as needed)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 2.0  User Benefits

- General format
- District-to-district
- Contents for each mode choice run
- 2.1 Total user benefits
- 2.2 User benefits accruing to “transit dependents”

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 2.0  User Benefits (cont.)

- 2.3 User benefits accruing to “base” riders
- “Base” = TSM for 2030 Build versus TSM
- “Base” = No-Build for 2030 TSM versus No-Build
- 2.4 “Base” riders’ share of user benefits
- 2.5 Negative user benefits
- 2.6 Negative user benefits as a share of total

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 2.0  User Benefits (cont.)

- 2.7 Stratified tables
- Build alternative transit trips by change in transit price, separately for CW-CW and MD-MD
- 2.8 Frequency distributions
- Build transit trips by change in transit price
- User benefits by change in transit price
- All eight (8) access combinations
- 2.9 Thematic maps of user benefits by zone 	for (1) productions and (2) attractions

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Quality Control

- Summit QC impacts in 2002
- Errors in models
- Errors in service plans
- Errors in transit network coding
- Base|Build coverage inconsistencies
- FTA analyses
- User benefits unrelated to the project
- User benefits other than transit IVT deltas

- routine

- case  by  case

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Quality Control Report 1

- Share of UBs directly related to project
- Best paths by transit access (walk, drive)
- UBs based on local models & best paths
- I-J cells with path on the project (0/1)
- UBs in I-J cells with project paths
- Project UB share = step4 UBs / step2 UBs
- Summit district-to-district reports
- Project UB share < 80%  ‘splaining

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Quality Control Report 2

- Share of UBs caused by Δ transit IVT
- With best paths from Report 1: replace guideway-path IVT with IVT from baseline alternative
- Rerun mode choice and Summit
- IVT UB share = step2 UBs / best-path UBs
- Summit district-to-district reports
- ΔIVT share < 80%  ‘splaining

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example:  Honolulu Fixed Guideway

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Forecast TemplateInputs by Trip Purpose

- Daily transit trips, base and build
- Daily person trips (base = build)
- Daily hours of user benefits (UBs)
- Positive UB hours from coverage changes
- MD-CW, NT-CW and NT-MD groups
- Daily hours of UBs changed by capping
- Daily hours of UBs for transit dependents

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Forecast TemplateInputs for Special Markets

- Project trips per event day
- UB hours per event day
- Transit passenger miles per event day
- Number of event days per year

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Forecast TemplateOther Inputs

- Daily project trips
- Standard purposes, no special markets
- Lowest socio-economic class (representation of transit dependents)
- Daily project passenger miles
- Standard purposes, no special markets
- Transit dependents
- Project length (miles)
- Annualization factor (days/year)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Forecast TemplateOutputs-Standard Purposes

- Daily new transit trips
- % distribution of total new transit trips
- % distribution of daily UBs
- % distribution of daily baseline transit trips
- % UBs lost to capping
- % UBs accruing to lowest socio-economic class

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Forecast TemplateOutputs-Special Markets

- % distribution of total new special-market annual transit trips
- % distribution of total special-market annual UBs
- Minutes of UBs per project trip

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Travel Forecast TemplateOutputs-Quality Control Checks

- Minutes of UBs per daily project trip
- Before capping
- After capping
- % UBs coverage related
- % UBs from special markets
- % of project trips that are new transit trips
- Project’s average trip distance / project length

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Transit Assignment Results

- Production/attraction format
- Total riders (linked trips) and boardings (unlinked trips) by mode
- Guideway station ONs and OFFs by direction and mode of access
- Directional transit rider load volumes between stations
- Station to station transit riders

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Ons, Offs, and Load Volumes

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Mode of Access by Station

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Thoughts on Good Practice

- Boundaries for summary districts
- Changes over time
- Changes between alternatives
- Thematic maps
- Desire-line plots

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Summit Districts

- Generally, between 15 and 20 for reporting
- Smaller near project; larger elsewhere
- Thematic maps of UBs  district boundaries
- Corridor (for making-the-case discussion)
- Aggregations of districts
- Perhaps immediate and broader corridors
- Different structures for special analysis

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Changes over Time

- Identify/justify very high or very low % changes
- Comparisons to observed growth trends
- Roadway and transit supply checks
- Roadway and transit speed checks
- Transit passenger PMT and PHT checks

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Changes between Alternatives

- Identify/justify large changes in zone to zone mode shares
- Examine zone-to-zone pairs with major negative user benefits or high “per rider” positive user benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Thematic Maps

- Zonal population, employment, trip end and transit mode share changes
- User benefits per impacted transit trip production or attraction
- Percent of zone’s transit riders with a change in user benefits
- Positives separate from negatives

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Desire Line Plots

- District-to-district “bandwidth” lines for those pairs representing 25, 50, and 75% of all user benefits
- District-to-district lines for those pairs with some zone-to-zone negative benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 7.  Lifting the Cap

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Background
- Analytical approach to adjusting the cap

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Cap on per-trip _transit_ user benefits
- Applied to CW-CW and MD-MD trips I-J
- (“Off-diagonal” UBs handled separately)
- Standard cap = ±45 _weighted_ minutes
- FTA adjustment of cap
- Case-by-case consideration
- Based on demonstration of actual project benefits > 45 weighted minutes/trip

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Background

**Background**

- The creature from the swamp – 2002
- Early Summit testing of 12-15 projects
- Large problems with _most_ forecasts
- Model properties (bizarre guideway constants)
- Alternatives (inconsistent baselines)
- Prospect of few rated projects in 2002
- “Cap” to salvage _some_ project ratings
- Model-related problems  large UB/trip
- No pending New Starts decision

**X**

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Background

- Near-term application
- Adjust/remove cap where appropriate
- Criteria
- Large project-caused user benefits per trip
- Absence of large spurious benefits
- Longer-term FTA aspiration
- The swamp dries up
- The creature moves away

- Soon?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Analytical Approach

- Sources of benefits
- Based on best paths, Base and Build
- Computation of time savings
- TS**tot** = build transit trips x (imped**bas **– imped**bld**)
- TS**ivt  **= build transit trips x (IVT**bas** – IVT**bld**)
- where:	imped = total weighted impedance
-  			IVT     = in-vehicle time

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Analytical Approach

- Inspection of time savings
- Total versus IVT-caused
- Fraction on I-J paths on project
- D-to-D trips with large per-trip time savings
- Detailed analysis of illustrative paths
- Anticipated outcome
- ΔIVT *usually* the cause of most benefits
- Project in path for most benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Analytical Approach

**Analytical Approach**

| ∞ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 90 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 75 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 60 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 45 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 30 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 15 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 15 | 30 | 45 | 60 | 75 | 90 | ∞ |

- Time Savings: Total   versus     In-Vehicle Time

- Delta IVT (min.)

- Delta Total Weighted Time (min)

- cap

- OK

- Requires explanation

- May need explanation

- May need some clean-up

- Distribution of time savings across cells determines course of action

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Analytical Approach

- Implementation
- Custom-written programs
- Reporting features of forecasting software?
- Summit
- Track record on cap increases
- Largely IVT-caused: yes increased for all
- Largely service-policy caused: no
- Largely walk/xfer caused: yes

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example: NY East-Side Access
Long Island Railroad
Now: to Penn Station only
Project: also to Grand Central Station
Analysis   No cap
~All 45+minute changes to east side
~All had much shorter walks, many fewer xfers 
IVT changes contributed a modest share of UBs

- Long Island Railroad
- Now: to Penn Station only
- Project: also to Grand Central Station
- Analysis   No cap
- ~All 45+minute changes to east side
- ~All had much shorter walks, many fewer xfers
- IVT changes contributed a modest share of UBs

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Summary	

- Cap exists to ward off swamp creatures
- Projects with large per-trip UBs
- Demonstration of real project causes
- Usually ΔIVT, but not always
- Soon(?): routine QC of forecasts will eliminate need to cap

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 8. CTPP-based QC Forecasts

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Background
- Application
- Examples

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- No requirement for sketch QC forecast
- Other relevant requirements
- Plausible forecasts
- Analysis of uncertainties
- Potentially desirable applications
- Starter lines
- Unfortunate track records

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Background

- Motivation – to learn from experience
- New Starts projects over the past 20 years
- Presumption of available insights
- Simple model: markets  ridership experience
- Purpose – to provide a:
- Synthesis of accumulated general experience
- Readily available & consistent method and data
*Low-cost source of a *_*second*_* number*
*Way to address entirely new park/ride options*

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Background

- Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting (ARRF) Model
- Sponsored by FTA; developed by AECOM
- Based on recently built projects
- Light rail (11 projects)
- Commuter rail (9 projects)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## ARRF – Key Elements

- CTPP 	 workersij
- GIS	 workersij served by rail line
- Home buffers:
- 6 mi. PNR station
- 2 mi. other station
- Work buffers:  walk 1 mi.
- Model  total ridersij on rail

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## ARRF – Key Elements (cont’d)

- LRT model
- Total ridersij on rail = function of
- Workersij
- Workplace density
- Direction length of LRT line

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## ARRF – Key Elements (cont’d)

- CR model
- Total ridersij on rail = function of
- Workersij by income class
- Average system speed
- Train-miles per mile
- Connection to fixed-guideway distributor

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Application

- Obtain basic input files
- Determine the socio-economic characteristics of the geography
- Prepare the CTPP Part 3 flow data
- Determine the relationships between rail stations & geography
- Run *RailMarket* program to determine the number of work for both live & work nearby rail stations
- Enter the information from *RailMarket* into the model spreadsheet

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Application

- Aggregate test of reasonableness
- Guideway ridership only
- Worker-flows as proxy for overall markets
- Not a replacement for local models
- Unique markets and transit contexts
- Locally defined purpose and need
*Ridership potential **≠** project merit*

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Materials Availablefrom FTA

- Detailed documentation
- Part-1: Model Application Guide
- Part-2: Input Data Development Guide
- Part-3: Model Calibration Report
*RailMarket* program
- Spreadsheets: LRT and CR
- Nazrul.Islam@dot.gov

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example ARRF Applications

- Five Examples
- David Schmitt, AECOM Consult
- Three Examples
- Yasasvi Popuri, Cambridge Systematics

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 
ARRF Applications

Dave Schmitt
AECOM Consult

- ARRF Applications
- Dave Schmitt
- AECOM Consult

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City A

- New rail line between CBD and suburban activity centers; strong corridor bus ridership & service
- Compared ARRF LRT model with travel demand model results
- Results
- ARRF LRT model results were 100% higher than travel demand model estimates
- Stronger motivation to investigate transit model parameters; subsequently identified issues with walk- and auto-access connector methodology

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City A (cont’d)

- Conclusions
- ARRF model may partially explain attractiveness of rail over existing bus service
- TDM path-builder probably better at evaluating bus/rail competition:
- Equal service levels for bus & rail
- Buses are just as close or closer to corridor activity centers

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City B

- New rail line between CBD and suburban residential areas
- Used ARRF to develop rationale for alternative-specific constant
- Results on next slide...

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Ridership Forecasts – City B

|  | Walk | Drive/ Drop-Off | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ARRF | 14,794 | 6,548 | 21,342 |
| TDM Model
(no bias) | 11,520 | 4,556 | 16,076 |
| TDM Model
(7.5 minute walk, 15 minute drive) | 13,145 | 6,341 | 19,487 |
| TDM Model
(10 minute walk, 15 minute drive) | 14,770 | 6,277 | 21,047 |

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City C

- Streetcar in low density urban activity center; existing service is local & primarily captive market
- ARRF LRT model compared with travel demand model (2000 trip tables, 2030 networks)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City C (cont’d)

- Result
- Aggregate model forecast 120% higher than travel demand model
- Conclusion
- ARRF model may partially explain attractiveness of rail over existing service, but does not well-represent benefits of project since:
- The project mode is different than calibrated mode
- Lack of choice market not consistent with LRT sample cities

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City D

- Commuter rail between two adjacent metropolitan areas; some express bus service to each CBD, but no service between CBD’s
- Commuter rail ARRF model compared with travel demand model (2000 trip tables, 2030 networks) applied to *each* CBD

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City D (cont’d)

- Result
- Aggregate model forecast 130% higher than travel demand model
- Conclusion
- ARRF model may partially explain attractiveness of rail over existing commuter bus service, but does not well-represent benefits of project since lack of service between CBDs unlike CR sample cities

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City E

- New commuter rail line to high mode share CBD with established “choice market” commuter bus service from large park and ride facilities
- Commuter rail ARRF model compared with travel demand model (2000 trip tables, 2030 networks) applied

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Applications – City E (cont’d)

- Result
- Aggregate model forecast 30% lower than travel demand model
- Conclusion
- Existing commuter (“choice”) market in corridor stronger than CR sample cities

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 
Applications in Milwaukee, Kansas City,
and St. Louis

Yasasvi Popuri
Cambridge Systematics

- Applications in Milwaukee, Kansas City,
- and St. Louis
- Yasasvi Popuri
- Cambridge Systematics

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Overview

- Recent ARRF applications
- Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (WI)
- Kansas City, St. Louis, MO
- Madison, WI
- Indianapolis, IN
- General insights from ARRF application
- Second data point
- Support for model re-evaluation

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## KRM Service

- ARRF vs. current UPN ridership.
- UPN:		  26,000 daily trips
- ARRF estimate:	  21,000 daily trips
- Wisconsin Only
- Service is close to ARRF defaults
- ARRF estimate:	  2,800 daily riders
- Entire Corridor in WI and IL
- Existing UPN _and_ proposed KRM service
- ARRF forecasts:   Entire corridor _minus_ Existing UPN
- ARRF estimate:	  4,500 daily riders

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## KRM Service ARRF vs. Model Results

|  | KRM WI Only  (RCI = 0.5) | KRM – WI & IL(RCI = 1) | UPN
(Obs = 26,000) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ARRF | 2,800 | 4,500 | 21,000 |
| KRM Model-2002 | 4,400 | 5,900 | 25,075 |

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## KRM ServiceConclusions

- ARRF for existing UPN lower than observed
- Existing UPN service (not a “new” New Start)
- ARRF for KRM lower than model
- KRM as a natural “extension” of UPN
- Take a second look at the model:
- Trip interchanges
- Transit trip interchanges
- PnR and walk access patterns

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Kansas City – I-70 Corridor

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Kansas City – I-70 Corridor

- Traditional suburb-to-CBD commuter rail
- Low proposed level of rail service
- Location of downtown terminal
- “What if” scenarios for frequency
- ARRF offered a set of “second data points”
- Introduced after model forecasts were completed
- Independent estimate of model results and sensitivity

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Kansas City – I-70 Corridor

|  | 3 Peak Direction Trains | 3 Peak + 3 Reverse Trains | 4 Peak + 4 Reverse Trains |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ARRF Riverfront Terminal | 815 | 1,020 | 1,125 |
| ARRF Downtown Terminal | 1,060 | 1,330 | 1,460 |

- Model results with Riverfront Terminal
- 4 peak trains, two-way, and $2.50 fare:  	1,244 riders

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Kansas City – I-70 Corridor Conclusions

- ARRF used as a second data point
- ARRF used for testing ridership sensitivity to:
- Terminal location
- Frequency of service
- Reasonable agreement b/w ARRF and model

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## St. Louis Alternatives Analysis

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## St. Louis Alternatives Analysis

- Data point in ARRF calibration
- On-going study
- _LRT_ version of ARRF: markets only, no LOS
- ARRF applied for 2000 and 2006 MetroLink
- Lower ARRF forecasts for 2000 and 2006
- Strong impact of special generator trips (ball games, airport trips)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## St. LouisAlternatives Analysis

- The “build” alignment treated as an incremental version to the 2006 MetroLink.
- Growth of 43% from 2006 no-build ridership
- Ridership of 26,000 without any adjustments
- Model currently being refined
- Lower forecast than ARRF
- Examine speeds on competing bus routes
- Examine highway speeds

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## ARRF Insights

- Market assessment tool
- Second data point
- Sets the stage to re-evaluate model
- Total trips produced
- Trip interchange patterns
- Transit trip patterns
- Sensitivity to frequency
- Speeds on competing transit and highway facilities

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 9. Alternative-Specific Effects

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Implementation
- Three examples

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Motivations
- Correct the “new New Starts” disadvantage
- Respond to recent evidence
- Positive guideway constants in “well-scrubbed” models
- Higher-than-explainable BRT ridership impacts (LA, KC)
- Approach
- Attributes rather than modes
- Differential constant and C**ivt** discount
- Post-mode-choice application

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Applicability
- 2007: “new New Starts” guideways
- 2008: guideway elements of baselines
- Stations: amenities and branding
- Vehicles: amenities and branding
- Dynamic arrival information
- Exclusive running
- Other attributes

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Attributes, Not Modes

- Attributes not found in models
- _Alternative_-specific conditions
- Important: missing attributes
- Not important: labels like “BRT” or “CR”
- Effects on ridership and mobility benefits
- Guideway-only vs. guideway+local bus

*Someone, please, define these “modes.”*

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Constant and Civt Discount – FTA

|  | Maximum                    Alternative-Specific Effect versus Local Bus (mins.) |  | Maximum Guideway Civt Discount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Guideway Attributes that Are Different from Local Bus | Guideway(s) only | Guideway(s) + local bus | Any Guideway |
| Guideway-like characteristics | 8 | 3 | Civt x 0.85 |
| -- Reliability of vehicle arrival, travel time |           4 |           2 |        Civt x 0.90 |
| -- Branding/visibility/learnability |           2 |           1 |           -- |
| -- Schedule-free service |           2 |           0 |           -- |
| -- Ride quality |           -- |           -- |        Civt x 0.95 |
| Span of good service | 3 | 0 | -- |
| Passenger facilities | 4 | 3 | -- |
| -- Amenities at stations/stops |           3 |           2 |           -- |
| -- Dynamic schedule information |           1 |           1 |           -- |
| Vehicle amenities | -- | -- | Civt x 0.95 |
| Availability of seat | -- | -- | Civt x 0.95 |
| Maximum effect | 15 | 6 | Civt x 0.75 |

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Post Mode Choice

- Track record
- FTA reviews of 19 New Starts forecasts
- Starter lines  highest risk of overestimate
- Consequently
- ASE adjustments for user benefits only
- No change in total or guideway ridership
- No change in walk/bus/auto access modes
- _Judgment_ on sizing of park-ride lots

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Identification of appropriate ASEs
- Sponsor: description of service attributes
- FTA: determination of ASE values
- Detection of paths using the project
- Detection of guideway-only paths

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Paths using the Project

- With all-or-nothing impedances
- For each I-J:
- B  	=  If **bld**IVT**gdwy** > **bas**IVT**gdwy**  1, else 0
- ASE	=  B  x  **bld**trips**trn**  x  ASC
- 		+  ASD**ivt** x (**bld**IVT**gdwy**  -  **bas**IVT**gdwy**)
- With probability-weighted impedances
- Assignment based
- Example

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Guideway-only Paths

- Imprecise conventions in most models
- Zone walk-access percents for _any_ transit
- I-J paths for _any_ transit
- Unable to isolate guideway-only paths
- FTA convention
- Guideway-only ASC for PnR/KnR only
- Case-by-case exceptions for (1) model structure or (2) small zones near project

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Guideway-only Paths

- Portland streetcar
- Subdivision of zones
- Low chance of bus component if    IVTbus = 0
- FTA agreement on ASCgdwy for walk-access

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Examples

- ASEs for BRT with an Older Pathbuilder
- Jeff Bruggeman, AECOM Consult
- ASEs for Streetcar with Multi-paths
- Jennifer John, Portland Tri-Met
- ASEs for BRT with Some Refinements
- Tom Maziarz, Hartford CRCOG

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## BRT and Path Choice 	 with an Older Pathbuilder

- Jeffrey M. Bruggeman
- AECOM Consult

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Nature of Alternatives

- System with BRT projects to be built parallel to or within right-of-way of major highways
- Baseline alternative to be created with same operating plan
- Benefits to flow exclusively from improved speeds on BRT rights-of-way

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Anticipated Results

- Buses on BRT guideway equivalent to  a premium transit mode (so, coded as a different “mode” in the network)
- Paths with identical out-of-vehicle times between baseline and build
- Travel time benefits only on the BRT guideway only

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Nature of Problem

- Some BRT routes circulate before and/or after travel on BRT guideway
- Some arterial routes diverge at BRT entry points with some bus-trips using the BRT facilities and others continuing on an arterial
- Path builder finds off-guideway differences between baseline and build, causing negative user benefits
- Cause: breaking of combined headways

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Nature of the Problem

**Nature of the Problem**

- ON

- OFF

- Headway?

- ON

- OFF

- Headway?

- BRT guideway

- Arterial street

- BRT all-stops

- Local bus

- BRT integrated

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Flagging Guideway Paths

- Same mode-code for all bus routes in network and path-building
- Transit line file parsed to determine usage of guideway
- Pseudo-fare links coded for each guideway link traversed by each line
- Result: detection of both “guideway all-stops” and “guideway express” routes

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Path Conditioning

- Single path built with all routes treated as local bus
- Fare links skimmed as they are encountered on path
- Fare conditioning program
- Paths using at least one fare links – BRT
- Paths using no fare links – local or express

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Mode Choice

- Mode choice model considers express, local, and BRT choices
- Express-bus choice is from a separate path-building step for expresses that do not use the BRT guideway
- “Silver bullet” added to utility expression for BRT paths

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Current FTA Needs

- Latest FTA guidance does not allow for “silver bullet” within model to create higher ridership
- Technique would have to be changed to skim amount of path time on guideway
- Could be accommodated by updating fare flags to reflect link impedance

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Isolation of Trips and Travel Time on a Project In a Multipath Environment 

- Jennifer John
- TriMet
- Portland, Oregon

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Multi-path Assignmentin EMME/2

- Several paths between an origin and a destination are identified
- Trips are assigned to the paths using probabilities based on weights in the assignment parameters (in-vehicle, out-of-vehicle, walk) and headways of the routes
- Assignment creates weighted travel time based on proportion of trips on each path

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Portland Streetcar Example

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Isolating Streetcar Trips

- Multipath assignment results in trips on LRT, bus, and streetcar.
- The project is a streetcar extension.
- How do we isolate information about the trips that use the project?
- How do we isolate this information from travel on the existing part of the Streetcar route?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Isolating Streetcar Trips

- In EMME/2
- Code Streetcar as unique mode in network and transit line coding
- Flag Streetcar route

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Flagging the Streetcar “Project”

**Flagging the Streetcar “Project”**

- Total Streetcar
- Trips for the
- Full route =
- 10,500

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Flagging the Streetcar “Project”

**Flagging the Streetcar “Project”**

- How many
- Streetcar trips
- Are on ONLY
- The new
- Portion (A-B)
- Of the route?

- A

- B

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Additional Options Assignment

- Select Line/Segment
- Results
- O/D Matrix of trips for flagged route (or portion of route as in the case of an extension of an existing line)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Multipath Assignment Results: No Flags

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Additional Option Assignment Results: Project Flagged		

- Total Streetcar
- Trips for the
- Selected
- Segment
- Of route =
- 8,100

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Using the Assignment Results	

- Total boardings for the project as isolated in the assignments are used to apply ASE calculations
- Maximum value of 15 for Guideway ONLY
- Maximum value of 6 for Guideway + local bus

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Guideway ONLY Trips

- Portion of the O/D results matrix
- Isolated by a submatrix of the additional options assignment results
- Includes only zone-pairs where direct walk to/from a streetcar stop is _certain_ at _both_ ends of the trip
- Would be eligible for up to 15 minutes (as determined by FTA) of ASE

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Guideway ONLY Trips

- TAZs in Yellow
- Have direct
- Walk access to
- Project
- (no transfers)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Guideway + Local Bus

- Portion of the O/D results matrix
- Remainder of trips in the matrix that do not have direct walk on/off access to the project
- Would be eligible for up to 6 minutes (as determined by FTA) of ASE

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Isolating Project In-Vehicle Travel Times

- Used in C**ivt** Calculations
- Project coded as unique mode
- In EMME/2 transit times can be saved out specific to a mode
- Use these transit times along with the o/d matrix from the additional option assignment to identify travel time on project

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Conclusions

- Multi-path environment and ASEs
- Feasible application
- In EMME/2, the key is the additional option assignment
- Full credit for walk-only ASEs also depends on small zones

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## ASEs for the 

- ASEs for the
- New Britain – Hartford Busway
- Tom Maziarz & Ming Zhao
- Capitol Region Council of Governments

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Keys to Hartford’s Approach

**Keys to Hartford’s Approach**

- Start with advantage:  6 transit skims produced for MC
- Walk to guideway – Walk from guideway 		(WG-WG)
- Walk to guideway – Walk  from bus  		(WG-WB)
- Walk to bus – Walk from guideway  		(WB-WG)
- Walk to bus – Walk from bus  			(WB-WB)
- Drive to transit (PNR) – Walk from guideway 	(DT-WG)
- Drive to transit (PNR) – Walk from guideway 	(DT-WB)
- Goal:  Consider individual trip attributes of each O-D path
- Assign weight for _each factor_ & for _each path type_
- Reliability
- Branding & Learnability
- Station amenities
- Schedule-free service
- Long span of service
- Dynamic schedule information

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Keys to Hartford Approach:

- Breakdown & isolate path types using combination of:
- 6 skims
- Key data from skims   *(some newly created)*
- Creative analysis of skim data
- Total  IVT
- IVT on BRT routes   *(requires separate coding)*
- # Transfers ....
- Basic Concept:  break down a path into 3 components
- IVT **ON the guideway   ***(requires separate coding)*
- IVT** ****ON BRT loop    ***(requires separate coding)*
- IVT **OFF guideway**
- Process yields:  12 path types that _use the guideway_

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Components used to classify path types

- Walk from BRT bus

**Off **Guideway IVT

**Feeder bus  **with transfer

- Walk to bus

- dashed line also illustrates   “BRT bus route” (mode 5)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## WG–WG trip

- Examples of Path Types

- Most basic path type:  100%  On-Guideway

- Identifiers:
- From WG-WG skim
- Alternate ID:
- Total IVT **=** Guideway IVT
- Key ID for all 12 path types:
- Guideway IVT > 0

**WG–WG trip**

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## WG–WBRT trip

- More complex path type:  On-Guideway  +  On-BRT Loop

**WG–WBRT trip**

- Identifiers:
- From WG-WB skim
- WB could be feeder bus or BRT bus
- BRT bus egress could be on or off loop
- Additional Identifiers:
- Total IVT **=** G-way IVT + Loop IVT
- Total IVT **=** Mode 5 IVT  *(BRT bus)*
- Transfers **=** 0

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## WB–WBRT trip

- Another complex path type:
- Off Guideway  +  On-Guideway  +  On-BRT Loop

- BRT bus

- Identifiers:
- From WB-WB skim
- Total IVT **>** G-way IVT + Loop IVT
- Total IVT **=** Mode 5 IVT *(BRT bus)*
- Transfers **=** 0

**WB–WBRT trip**
- (Single seat trip)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## WB–WBRT trip

- Final example of path type:
- Off Guideway  +  On-Guideway  +  On-BRT Loop

-  Identifiers:
- From WB-WB skim  (same as previous slide)
- Total IVT **>** G-way IVT + Loop IVT (same)
- Total IVT **>** Mode 5 IVT *(BRT bus)*
- Transfers = 1

**WB–WBRT trip**
- (with transfer)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Process skim tables to develop trip tables for each path type

- WG-WG trips
- WG–WBRT trips
- WG-WB trips
- .....
- ......
- ...... (12 classes)

- Identify O-D pairs that meet criteria for path type
- Select trips for that O-D pair & enter into trip table for that path type

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Results:   # HBW Trips by Path Type

- Results:   # HBW Trips by **Path Type**
- (only trips that use all or part of guideway)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Assigning attribute weights (constants)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Entirely on Guideway or Loop 

**Entirely on Guideway or Loop **
**Receive full benefit**
**of guideway   **(To degree that busway achieves full functionality)
- Reliability:  exclusive ROW
- Branding :  distinct stations, etc.
- Freq serv:  2-4 min h’dways any station-station trip
- Span of serv:  18 hours
- Sta. amenities:  covered platforms, visible, secure
- Dynamic schedule info:  at guideway & loop stations

- Benefits (hours) = Constant x trips/60 min

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Start off-busway on a ‘BRT’ bus 

- Start off-busway on a ‘BRT’ bus
- Receive some benefit of G’way
- Reliability:  lose some reliability with off-busway segment, but start at less congested end
- Branding :  some benefit from BRT marketing, bus branding , etc.
- Freq serv:  NO – single route
- Span of serv: NO – single route
- Sta. Amenities:  one end of trip
- Dynamic schedule info:  NO

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## All use guideway

- But all involve transfer & feeder bus
- Most guideway benefits compromised by dependence on feeder bus & transfer
- Only 0.5 min credit

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Final Thoughts:  Will it work with other models?

- Final Thoughts:  Will it work with other models?

- TRANSFER

- Identifiers:
- From WB-WB skim
- Total IVT **>** G-way IVT + Loop IVT
- Total IVT **>** Mode 5 IVT
- Transfers = 1

- Experience in Hartford
- Suggests potential to adapt to other areas
- Creative use of coding and & analysis of skims allowed
- Better definition of path types
- Better assessment of guideway related benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007