# Presentation: 470609

## 10.  Uncertainty Analysis

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Implementation

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Specific SAFETEA-LU provisions
- Project ratings and reliability of forecasts
- Before-After studies of predicted/actual
- FFGA bonus awards for “good” forecasts
- Tracking of contractor performance
- Travel forecasting measure
- Guideway riders
- Measurable; most visible element

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Uncertainty in and Accuracy of Cost and Ridership Forecasts for New Starts Projects

- Early Final      Design

- FFGA

- Uncertainty Analysis

- PE B-A  Installment

- Alternatives Analysis

- Preliminary Engineering

- Rating to Enter PE

- Rating to Enter FD

- Rating for FFGA

- Bonus Award

- Cumulative Records of Contractor and Sponsor Performance

- Interim and Final B-A Findings from Other Projects by Contractor and Sponsor

- FD B-A Installment

- Bonus Claim

- Construction; Opening

- 2 Years of Service

- Opening B-A Installment

- Final B-A Assessment

**Uncertainty in and Accuracy of Cost and Ridership Forecasts for New Starts Projects**
-  Uncertainty Analysis
-  FTA Ratings
-  Before-After Studies
-  FFGA Bonus Awards
-  Performance Tracking

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Prior to PE application (in AA, post AA)
- Build-up of preferred-alternative forecast
- Scrutiny of large contributors
- Range of forecasts
- Formal documentation
- Updated at entry to Final Design

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Build-up of LPA Forecast

- Series of forecasts for:
- Today
- Plus future transit network
- Plus new transit behaviors
- Plus future trip tables
- Plus future highway congestion
- Plus future parking costs
- Plus alternative land use (?)

- Choice riders
- Park/ride                 etc.
- Guideway effects

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Scrutiny of “Drivers”

- Perspectives
- Reliability of technical methods
- Consistency with current behavior, trends
- Consistency with peers
- Alternative outcomes

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Range of Forecasts

- Complete forecasts (not factored)
- Most likely
- Adjustments to key contributors?
- For project evaluation, so with user benefits
- Template for opening-year forecast
- Lower bound: P(lower outcome)  < 20%
- Upper bound: P(higher outcome) < 20%

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Documentation

- Range of forecasts (low, likely, high)
- Ridership patterns
- Guideway ridership
- Discussion
- Key drivers of most-likely forecast
- Significant downside uncertainties
- Significant upside uncertainties

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 11.  Before-After Studies

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

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- New/Small Starts  Before-After study
- Element of project scope
- Pre-approved work-plan required
- Eligible for FTA New Starts funds
- Dual purposes
- Impacts of the project: “before vs. after”
- Accuracy of forecasts: “predicted vs. actual”
- Annual report to Congress on findings

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Before versus after
- Conditions prior to project implementation
- Conditions 2 years after project opening
- Understanding of project impacts
- Predicted versus actual
- Accuracy of forecasts
- Causes of differences
- Implications for methods, QC, management

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

| Milestone | Activities |
| --- | --- |
| Post AA | Uncertainty analysis; forecast preservation |
| Post PE | Analysis of revisions; forecast preservation |
| Pre-project | Collection of “before” data |
| After opening (+2 yrs) | Collection of “after” data
Analysis of project impacts
Assessment of forecast accuracy |

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Uncertainties analysis
- Analysis of interim changes
- Preservation of forecasts
- Collection of data (“before,” “after”)
- Completion of the study

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Analysis of interim changes
- Identification of causes
- Changes in project scope
- Changes in demographic forecasts
- Others
- Quantification of impact (no hand-waving)
- Separate contributions
- Full travel forecasts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Preservation of forecasts
- Documentation
- Networks, demographics, models
- Preservation of _ability to replicate forecasts_
- Computer(s) in the closet
- Migration to new software, hardware, models
- FTA oversight contractor  archives

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Collection of data (“before,” “after”)
- Conceptual design/budget in approved plan
- Detailed design
- Sampling plan, methods, data items
- Opportunity for FTA comment (approval?)
- Preservation of data
- FTA oversight contractor

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Completion of the study
- Impact of the project
- Changes in services, ridership
- Meaningful differences in “before,” “after” data
- Accuracy of forecasts
- Ridership forecast versus “after” data
- Analysis of differences
- Full forecasts demonstrating impacts of changes
- No handwaving

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Completion of the study (continued)
- Documentation
- FTA contractor
- FTA acceptance of completed study
- Experience to date
- Salt Lake City and Dallas
- “After” with no “before;” limited “predicted”
- Demonstrate importance of _preservation_

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 12. Performance Tracking

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Implications
- Implementation ideas
- Outlines of a proposal
- Formal draft, comments, and final policy guidance in 2008

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Annual report to Congress
- Projects: FFGA New Starts; PCA Small Starts
- Summary of forecasts
- Identification of forecasting “contractors”
- New Starts projects opened to service
- Summary of first-year ridership
- Assessment of forecasts, _causes of errors_

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implications

- Some areas of tension
- Risk | control
- Contractors assume the risk of “bad” performance grades
- Sponsors and others control key resources for forecasting
- Budget, schedule, data, existing models ...
- Conditions | funding
- Contractors’ risk minimized by identifying uncertainties
- Sponsors’ funding put at risk by identified uncertainties
- AA contractor | PE contractor
- May not be the same (good or bad for analytical rigor??)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implications

- Some more areas of tension
- Evaluation measure | measurable impacts
- Projects are evaluated on mobility benefits
- Project ridership is more measurable and visible
- Forecast year | performance year
- Projects are evaluated with 2030 benefits
- Contractor performance is based on opening year

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation Ideas

- Scope: assessment of all contributions
- Contractor
- Project sponsor, MPO, others
- Uncertainties analysis
- Required prior to PE application
- Forecasts and methods preserved for use in later analyses

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Implementation

- Principal measures
- Guideway ridership
- System ridership
- Consistency
- 2030 & 1st year: same methods
- Allowance for initial maturation effects
- FTA oversight contractor

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Performance Scoring

- Parallels project ratings
- Five rating categories (High ... Low)
- Multiple measures
- Weighted average with judgment
- Criteria
- Proximity of actual ridership to forecast
- Sources of error controlled by contractor
- Sources of error controlled by others

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Criteria

- Proximity: actual vs. most likely forecast
- Within ±20 percent
- Below floor
- Above ceiling
- Sources of error (contractor)
- Source identified/explored
- Implications quantified
- Adjustments high/low forecasts

- In uncertainties analysis

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Criteria

- Sources of error (others)
- Source identified/explored
- Implications quantified
- Adjustments high/low forecasts

- In uncertainties analysis

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Ideas and Comments

- Now
- E-mail, soon
- Formally in early 2008

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 13. Transit Path Choices

- No FTA requirements on this topic
- Some observations
- Three presentations
- Discussion

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Some Observations

- Transit choices
- Access mode (walk, bus, PnR, KnR, etc.)
- Line-haul mode (bus, rail, etc.)
- Path (first boarding, last alighting)
- Central issue for model design
- Choices handled by the pathbuilder?
- Choices handled in “mode” choice?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## An Example

- Setting: Honolulu
- Dense existing bus network
- Corridor defined by geographic constraints
- Rail options imply lots of bus changes
- Pathbuilder
- All-or-nothing (with combined headways)
- Question: pathbuilder-alone adequate?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Some Analysis

- Transit trips
- Build alternative
- HBW/peak = 81,200 trips
- Transit paths
- Best bus-only
- Rail, bus IVT weight = 1.2
- Observations
- 34,500 trips have choice
- 9,200 trips,  |Δ| < 5 min.
- 16,100 trips, |Δ| < 15 min.
- Best path  more rail trips
- Path choice  more UBs

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## A Modified Approach

- Pathbuilder: four best paths
- Best bus/walk
- Best bus/drive
- Best rail/walk
- Best rail/drive
- Mode choice model
- “Transit” mode = four discrete choices
- Probably with some nested structure

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Two Design Options

**Two Design Options**

- auto

- transit

- bus/w

- bus/d

- rail/w

- rail/d

- walk

- drive

- choice

- auto

- transit

- walk

- drive

- choice

- “MODE” CHOICE

- TRANSIT PATH BUILDER

- best trn/w path

- “best” bus/w path

- best trn/d path

- “best” bus/d path

- “best” rail/w path

- “best” rail/d path

_**Option A**_

_**Option B**_

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Actually,Many Design Options

- Other transit choices
- Ferry
- Local bus, limited-stop bus, express bus
- Walk-rail versus walk-bus-rail
- Other influences
- Transit pathbuilding algorithm
- Zone size
- Computational intensity

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Presentations

- Path Choice with Substantial Reliance       On Discrete-Choice Models
- Bill Davidson, Parsons Brinckerhoff
- Path Choice with Principal Reliance          On Networks and Path-builders
- Bill Woodford, AECOM Consult
- “To Multipath or Not to Multipath”      – The Denver Experience
- David Kurth, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 
Path Choice with Substantial Reliance
On Discrete-Choice Models

Bill Davidson
Parsons Brinckerhoff

- Path Choice with Substantial Reliance
- On Discrete-Choice Models
- Bill Davidson
- Parsons Brinckerhoff

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Why Rely Heavily on Discrete Choice Models?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

**Why Rely Heavily on ****Discrete Choice Models?**

- Many shades of gray?
- What might be a decision framework?
- Considering the full range of choices
- Behavioral implications

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Los Angeles Nested Model

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Miami Mode Choice Model

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Thoughts about a Decision Framework

- What are the choices to be considered?
- Existing
- _And_ future
- Understanding markets
- Context specific (“one size does not fit all”)
- Survey data requirements – and _quality_

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Some Possible Criteria

- Non-included Attributes
- Facility related
- Span of service
- Passenger amenities
- Trip characteristics
- Vehicle, reliability, seat availability......
- Competition

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## (More) Possible Criteria

- Market segmentation
- Traveler, access/egress....
- Elasticities
- Tradeoffs
- Mobility influences
- More choices available to the traveler

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Choice Dimensions

- Physical & operational characteristics
- Access/egress
- Market segmentation
- San Diego and small area geography
- Differences in walk access options (bus v. rail)
- Boarding location choice
- Station
- Bus stop

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## From the MSP Workshop

**From the MSP Workshop**

- Zone I: 1 mile square             Walk-rail: 25%    Walk-transit: 100%

- Zone J: 1 mile square            Walk-rail: 12.5%   Walk-transit: 100%

- RAIL LINE

- LOCAL BUS

- LOCAL BUS

- STATION

- STATION

- What transit options are available to whom?

- LOCAL BUS

- Maximum walk distance = 0.5 mi.

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Access Representation

- Paths from I to J
- Detailed
- walk-rail-walk
- walk-bus-rail-walk
- walk-rail-bus-walk
- walk-bus-walk
- drive-rail-walk
- drive-rail-bus-walk
- Typical
- walk-local-walk
- walk-premium-walk
- drive-transit-walk

- Markets from I to J
- Detailed
- 25 x 12.5 	= 3.125%
- 100 x 12.5 	= 12.5%
- 25 x 100	= 25%
- 100 x 100	= 100%
- 100 x 12.5	= 12.5%
- 100 x 100	= 100%
- Typical
- 100 x 100	= 100%
- 100 x 100	= 100%
- 100 x 100	= 100%

**!**

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## More Choice Dimensions

- Competition
- Access (WMATA)
- Walk to bus to rail
- Direct walk to rail
- Primary mode (Los Angeles)
- Metrolink v. Urban Rail v. Transitway
- long distance travel
- Urban Rail v. Rapid Bus v. Local Bus
- Intra corridor travel

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Even More Choice Dimensions

- Modal Interactions
- Metrolink & Red Line
- Orange Line (BRT) & Red Line
- 60% of Orange Line riders transfer to Red Line
- Implicit Hierarchy in Nested Models
- Where is that Red Line rider?
- Metrolink, Urban Rail, BRT, Rapid Bus ???

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Behavioral Implications

- Consideration of non-included attributes
- Fixed v. variable
- Value of time differences
- Fare contribution to path choice
- Express bus, urban rail, commuter rail
- Elasticities
- 500 new spaces at Lot A

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Slide 50

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Why Rely Heavily on Discrete Choice Models?

- Choice complexities
- Access/egress (market segmentation)
- Competition
- Interactions
- Behavioral considerations
- Non-included attributes
- Value of time
- Elasticities/mobility influences

- September 2007

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 
Path Choice with Principal Reliance
On Networks and Path-builders

Bill Woodford, AECOM Consult

- Path Choice with Principal Reliance
- On Networks and Path-builders
- Bill Woodford, AECOM Consult

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Range of Options;Not an Either/Or Choice

- Discrete choice models depend on network path builders for each choice (or component of a choice)
- Most models that rely on transit path builders still have separate choices for access mode (walk vs. drive access)
- Key question:
- 	*What is a path-building decision and what is a mode-choice decision?*

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## The Range of Options

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Philosophy Behind Relianceon Network/Path-builders

- All other things being equal, a simple model is preferable to a complex model since it is:
- Faster to develop
- Easier to understand and explain
- Less likely to have unknown/undesirable interrelationships
- Complexity is needed when a simpler model doesn’t:
- Depict how travelers behave (mode and submode level)
- Provide important information on the operation of a project
- Tell the story of a project
- Bottom Line:
- Start simple, add complexity as needed
- Begin by building the best paths possible...good paths are essential for choice based models also.

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Other Questions Influencing Model Design

- Does the software permit realistic mode-specific paths?
- Can I afford the time/storage associated with a separate set of skims for each choice?
- Can I define a transit sub-mode hierarchy the properly represents the relationships among the options?
- Will this mode hierarchy continue into future with the introduction of new projects?
- Does added complexity help or hinder telling the story of the project?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example

- What happens with rail replaces bus in a simple network?
- Calibration case (and baseline):
- Bus only system
- 5% transit share
- Modeling questions
- UTPS or multipath?
- Path-based or choice-based?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example – Baseline

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example – Build

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Pathbuilder-Based – As Defined (No Time Savings)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Pathbuilder-Based – Adjusted (1 minute LRT Time Savings)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Choice-Based – As Defined (No Time Savings)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Choice-Based – Adjusted (1 minute LRT Time Savings)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Deep Nested Choice-Based – Adjusted (1 minute LRT Time Savings)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Example: Summary

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Questions

- Should multi-path credit be assigned to multiple bus paths also?
- What does define an independent choice as distinct from a typical bus path choice?
- Does it matter since a deeply nested outcome begins to mirror path-based models?
- Can multi-path path-builders co-exist with nested choice models?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Conclusion: Depends on Having a Meaningful Choice

- Significantly different level of service / comfort
- Guaranteed seat
- Fare different
- Substantial time improvement
- Independent marketing identity
- Evidence that presence of multiple choices increases mode share independent of time and cost

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Transit Path-Building:
“To Multipath or Not to Multipath”
– The Denver Experience

David Kurth, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Based on work performed with:
Suzanne Childress (Parsons)
Erik Sabina & Sreekanth Ande (DRCOG)
Lee Cryer (Denver RTD)

- “To Multipath or Not to Multipath”
- – The Denver Experience
- David Kurth, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
- Based on work performed with:
- Suzanne Childress (Parsons)
- Erik Sabina & Sreekanth Ande (DRCOG)
- Lee Cryer (Denver RTD)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Investigation Context

- DRCOG Integrated Regional Model (IRM) development
- Activity / tour-based model
- Better representation of transit possible
- Correct options in estimation dataset required for proper estimation
- Detailed Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI) data
- Provided for detailed path-checking

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Simple Path-Builder + Simple Mode Choice

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Complex Path-Builder + Simple Mode Choice

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Simple Path-Builder + Complex Mode Choice

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Make note that AON might also represent very restrictive multipath.

## Complex Path-Builder + Complex Mode Choice

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
This illustrates issues with “confusion.”

## IRM Design Options

| Path-Builder | Mode Choice |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Simple | Simple | Shown to not work |
| Complex | Simple |  |
| Simple | Complex |  |
| Complex | Complex | Possible “confusion” |

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Note that we don’t think Simple-Simple or Complex-Complex are valid ways to go.

## Example RTD Path Options

**Example RTD Path Options**

- 3 Reasonable Paths
- Path 1:	2 Local Buses
- Path 2:	2 Local Buses
- Path 3: Local Bus, Rail, 	Mall Shuttle
- Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI) had observations for all three!

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
This is the Denver real world example of “Transit riders don’t behave that way.”

Trip interchange from Bonnie Brae area to Denver Art Museum.

	- Path 1:  Local bus path is 24 to 83L or 79L; 24 had 30 minute headways; 83L / 79L probably had 10 minute composite headways
	- Path 2:  11 to 0 or 0L;  11 had 30 minute headways; composite on 0/0L was probably 5 minutes.
	- Path 3:  11 to LRT to Mall Shuttle:  11 had 30 minute headways; LRT had 5 minute (?); Mall Shuttle runs on 70 second headways.

## Access Distance Impacton Route Choice

- Possible true trip origins
- Zone centroid for path-building

- 1⁄4 Mile

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
This slide provides some possible reasons why the transit riders at the origin zone choose different routes...a coding level of detail issue.

Note that we are starting to address that with the point specific approach to travel and picking the 3 closest stops.  But to fully address the issue would require point specific path-building – that discussion is not part of this presentation.

## Example RTD Path Options

**Example RTD Path Options**

- 3 Reasonable Paths
- Path 1:	2 Local Buses
- Path 2:	2 Local Buses
- Path 3: Local Bus, Rail, 	Mall Shuttle, 	Local Bus
- Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI) observations for all three!
- I-25 / Broadway Station

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Repeat of Slide 8 – make comment:

	“Access distance does not tell us why different paths are selected at the I-25 / Broadway Station.”

## I-25/Broadway Transfers

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
A current picture of the transfer...those queued for the 0L just got off of the F-line.  (OK, so F did not exist in 1997...the issue has simply been compounded by the choices.)  Some of the possible reasons for the transfer activity:

Perceived travel time.
Comfort – e.g. Pam’s & my decision rule:  “If we both have a seat, stay on the train.  If we’re both standing, transfer to the bus.  If Pam is sitting and I’m standing, flip a coin.”
Individual variation/weighting of time components (e.g. OVTT/IVTT has some distribution around 2:1).
Unexplained attributes (that guy who sat down next to me really had bad breath).

## Transit Network Testing: Typical

- Route specific travel times
- Modeled versus observed
- Selected transit paths
- Logical? (“Yep, that makes sense...”)
- Boardings per linked trip
- Assignment of observed on-board survey trips
- Comparison of assigned to observed boardings
- By route
- By service type
- By access mode (walk versus drive)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Typical network testing / validation procedures.

## TBI Data –
Access and egress mode
Individual routes used
RTD system
Reasonable options for paths
Reasonable options for modes

- Access and egress mode
- Individual routes used
- RTD system
- Reasonable options for paths
- Reasonable options for modes

**Transit Network Testing: Opportunities**

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Simple slide regarding why we could make the tests of the options.

## TBI Path-Matching Experiments 

- Reviewed selected individual reported paths
- Some logical paths not selected
- Some multiple path options
- Some poor reporting by respondents

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Our detailed checking of paths...

## TBI Path-Matching Experiments 

- Review of selected individual reported paths
- Some logical paths not selected
- Some multiple path options
- Some poor reporting by respondents
**...****IS VERY LABOR INTENSIVE!**
- Automated procedure
- Prediction success tables

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
ORIGINAL SLIDE 56

## Transit Networksfor Path-Building

- 7 Networks:
- Local Bus Only	Local & Premium Bus
- Premium Bus Only	Local Bus & Rail
- Rail Only		Premium Bus & Rail
- All Modes
- 4 Times-of-Day:
- AM Peak	PM Peak	Off-Peak	Early/Late
- 2 Access Modes:
- Walk Access		Drive Access
- 56 Sets of Paths

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
A description of the detailed sets of paths that we tested for Denver.  Note that multipath was allowed but with a somewhat restrictive “combination factor.”

## How Good Is the Complex MC-Simple Path Approach?

- Prediction success tests
- Built paths for observed interchanges
- Based on observed mode combination
- Local only, premium only, rail only...
- Compared:
- Modeled to observed boardings
- Interchange-by-interchange basis

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
ORIGINAL SLIDE 58

## Prediction Success Results PM Work Trip – Walk to Rail Only

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
Example of detailed results:

3/15, 20 percent, correct.
8/15, 53 percent, reported a path but no modeled path could be found
Review of reported paths for these, including path reported by the traveler for their AM walk trip indicated potential TBI reporting problems.  For example, AM trip reported drive-to-rail or bus to rail.
All 8 reported would have required walk egress > 3 miles; 5/8 would have required > 10 mile walk egress.
4/15, 27 percent, had more skimmed boardings than reported.  All 4 included Mall Shuttle in path.  This could represent reporting problems or simple spur of the moment choice (it’s a nice day, I’ll walk to the light rail).
Thus, quality of survey data can also be called into question with this procedure; CLEAN YOUR DATA!

## Prediction Success–Complex MC-Simple Path Approach

- 67 percent “correct”
- Unaffected by access mode

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**

ORIGINAL SLIDE 60
These are the overall results for all times of day, all 7 networks, stratified by walk and drive access.
Based on previous slide, 67 percent correct is probably a low estimation of correctness since we did not perform detailed cleaning of TBI data.
No path included in Skimmed Boardings < Reported Boardings.
The Mall Shuttle issue would probably also reduce the 23-25 percent with skimmed boardings > reported boardings.

## Prediction Success Results 

**AM Walk Access Trips**

**Complex MC-Simple Path vs. Simple MC-Complex Path**

- Complex Approach
- Observed trips assigned to “All modes” paths

- Simple Approach
- As before

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
ORIGINAL SLIDE 61

## Some Observations...

- Transit users
- Pick individual paths
- Do not necessarily:
- pick the same paths
- pick logical paths
- accurately report paths
- Transit multi-path builders
- Representation of discrete choice
- Do not capture choice behavior

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
ORIGINAL SLIDE 62

## Conclusions – For Denver

- Transit paths
- Are choice behavior
- Should be represented as discrete choices
- Require substantial resources to model and estimate

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Conclusions – In General

- Common network validation measures that may ***not*** be sufficient
- Ability to assign all observed trips
- Matching observed boardings / linked trip
- More detailed validation is feasible (prediction success tables)
- Well designed on-board survey is needed
- Good origin and destination reporting
- Access and egress mode
- Boardings **by mode** for reported trip

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

**Notes:**
ORIGINAL SLIDE 64

## Some FTA Observations

**Some FTA Observations**

- - People choose different paths I-J
- - Pathbuilders do fares badly
- - Need 1st-board-location choice
- - Different choices, different ε’s
- - Others ......

- - Nesting β’s always asserted
- - Pathbuilder–MC consistency
- - Favoring paths  distortions
- - Path choices defy discrete labels
- - Others ......

**Path-Types / Discrete Choice**

**Network/Pathbuilder**

- Response:        DATA	  	ANALYSIS     	    SPECIFICATIONS
- And kudos to DRCOG

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 14.  Telling a Good Story

- FTA requirements for New Starts
- Useful “Make the Case” documents
- Thoughts on good practice
- Participant experiences
- An example

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Requirements

- Make-the-Case document
- _Guide_ to project benefits and “justification”
- For FTA staff
- For FTA briefing papers, talking points
- For the Annual Report on New Starts
- Element of project “justification” rating

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## A Useful Document

- No more than “five pages”
- Project identification
- Setting
- Purpose
- Current conditions in the corridor
- Anticipated conditions in 2030
- The case for the proposed project
- Risk
- Summary

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Some Not-Useful Elements 

- Topics relevant elsewhere (not here)
- History of project development
- Detailed project description
- Financial feasibility
- Public support; other support
- “Importance”
- Pictures

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Project Identification

- One or two sentences
- Transit mode
- Starter line, expansion, or extension
- Length of project
- Location

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Setting

- Map
- Key jurisdictions, activity centers
- Any key geographical features
- Major transportation facilities

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Purpose of the Project

- Transportation
- Whom is it intended to serve?
- From where to where?
- Economic development (if applicable)
- Development locations
- Role of the project – specific mechanisms

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Current Conditions

- _Current_ ≈ today (usually, today ≠ 2000)
- _Conditions_ relevant to project benefits
- Key travel markets (and recent growth?)
- Congestion & highway travel times
- Transit services & transit travel times
- Transit ridership, emphasis on key markets

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Conditions in 2030

- Key _changes_: today to 2030 (No Build)
- Travel markets
- Highway system
- Transit facilities, services, and travel times
- Transit ridership
- Well linked to current conditions

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Case for the Project

- Low-cost approach (TSM)
- Brief description of key TSM elements
- Impact on transit service quality
- Impact on transit ridership
- Mobility benefits (time savings)
- Cost-effectiveness versus No-Build
- Success in addressing the purpose(s)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Case for the Project

- Proposed approach
- Brief description of the project
- Impact on transit service quality
- Impact on transit ridership in key markets
- Mobility benefits (time savings)
- Success in achieving the purpose(s)
- Cost-effectiveness versus TSM

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Risk

- Uncertainties in the costs
- Project scope
- Unit prices
- Track record
- Uncertainties in the benefits
- Time savings
- Guideway ridership
- Track record

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Summary

- One paragraph; one sentence per topic
- Essential elements of the case
- What is the purpose?
- How urgent is the problem?
- Why is a low-cost approach insufficient?
- How well does the project succeed?
- Are costs in scale with the benefits?
- How firm are the costs and benefits?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Thoughts on Good Practice

- Focus
- All discussion sections should help explain the benefits of the project
- A strategy
- Figure out the principal benefits (markets: geography, trip purposes, etc.) that make the case
- Focus the introductory sections (setting, current and future conditions) on those markets

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Thoughts on Good Practice

- Quantification
- Forecasts have numbers for ≈ everything
- Use them to avoid hand-waving.
- Clarity
- “To write well is to think clearly.  That’s why it’s so hard.” – David McCollough, 2003
- Assign someone who can do both.

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Thoughts on Good Practice

- Resources
- Basic summaries often not enough
- Subtask: extract information from forecasts
- Preservation of resources for this work
- FTA assistance
- Ethics
- Reliable numbers for decision-making
- Bringing project benefits to the discussion

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Participant Experiences

- Attempts at Make-the-Case narratives
- Methods to find/correct errors
- Summit
- Other tools/procedures
- Methods to better understand a project
- Summit
- Other tools/procedures

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Making the Case:			 An Example

- Perris Valley Commuter Rail Extension
- Riverside County Transportation Commission (California)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Perris ValleyLine

- _Identification_
- 	23-mile extension of the Metrolink commuter rail system from Riverside to communities in Perris Valley southeast of Riverside

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Setting

- City of Riverside
- 50 miles east of downtown LA
- 30 miles northeast of central Orange County
- Perris Valley and I-215 to southeast
- Moreno Valley and SR-60 to the east
- Metrolink lines
- Riverside Line to LA via Pomona
- 91 Line to LA via Fullerton
- Inland Empire line to Orange County

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Purpose of the Project

- The Perris Valley extension will improve transit access to the Metrolink system and the locations it serves for residents of Perris and Moreno Valleys.

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Current Conditions

- Demographics
- 425,000 people and 123,000 jobs
- One of the most rapidly growing counties nationally
- Housing prices 25-35% less than in LA and OC
- Long commutes and drive times
- Riverside to LA CBD: 54 miles, 100 minutes
- Riverside to Orange: 35 miles in 76 minutes)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Current Conditions

- Key travel markets from Perris Valley
- 18,000 workers to LA County
- 30,000 workers to Orange County
- Metrolink service from Riverside
- 37 trains per day on two lines to LA and one line to OC
- Focused on peak periods and commuters
- Metrolink ridership: Riverside and adjacent stations
- 4,000 weekday trips total; 3,000 at Riverside station
- 84% commuters; 65 % Perris Valley residents
- 90 percent use auto access; 10 percent connector bus
- Drive from South Perris to Riverside: 21 miles, 32 mins.

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Conditions in 2030

- Rapid growth in Perris Valley
- +76% population to 600,000 people
- +115% employment to 210,000 jobs
- Resulting growth in commuter markets
- 24,000 workers to LA County (+33%)
- 46,000 workers to Orange Co. (+53%)
- Consequent lengthening of peak periods for auto travel

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Conditions in 2030

- Large Metrolink changes
- 126 trains per day (versus 37 per day currently)
- 16,300 trips per day using Riverside Co. stations
- 11,700 of these from Perris Valley
- Same commuter-oriented characteristics
- More difficult drive-access
- South Perris to Riverside, 21 miles
- 32 minutes (39 mph) today
- 67 minutes (19 mph) in 2030

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Case for the Project

- Low-cost alternative
- New express bus service to Riverside station
- Additional park/ride facilities
- Mixed-traffic operations
- An increase of 216 riders/day over No-Build
- Key limitation: long travel times because of congested highways

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Case for the Project

- Proposed project
- 23-mile commuter rail line
- Six stations (5 park/ride with 1,800 spaces)
- Extension of the 91 line to downtown LA
- Travel times: Perris Valley to Riverside
- 67 minutes by driving
- 87 minutes by bus
- 40 minutes by commuter rail

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Case for the Project

- Metrolink ridership
- 8,800 more weekday riders than in TSM
- User benefits: 3,100 hours/day saved
- 79% by commuters; 83% by PV residents
- Key markets – Perris Valley to:
- Orange County: 	1,000 hrs; ≈18 min/trip
- Los Angeles: 	   700 hrs; ≈29 min/trip
- Riverside: 		   400 hrs; ≈22 min/trip

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Case for the Project

- Cost effectiveness
- Capital: $180 million in 2007 dollars
- Added O&M cost: $1.5 million/year
- Time savings: 850,000 hours/year
- $22.40 per hour of time savings
- Competitive for federal funding

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Risks (Some Thoughts)

- Ridership and transportation benefits
- Sources of risk?
- Very high growth projections
- Very large congestion increases
- Very large Metrolink service increases (NB)
- Aspects that help contain risk
- Existing Metrolink ridership from Perris Valley
- Large Metrolink system, ridership, DATA
- Costs: from formal risk analysis

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Summary

- Rapid growth
- Long-distance commutes
- Difficult access to Metrolink system
- Large time savings (total and per rider)
- Low capital cost
- Costs in scale with the benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 15.  Economic Development

- SAFETEA-LU New Starts requirements
- FTA thoughts, activities
- Discussion / ideas

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Requirements

- SAFETEA-LU:  Evaluate projects on:
- 	“... a comprehensive review of its ... economic development effects, and public transportation supportive land use policies and future patterns.”

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- Challenges
- Land use versus economic development
- Need clearly distinguished definitions, measures
- So:
- Land use = attributes of the project setting
- Econ-dev = changes because of the project

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- Challenges (continued)
- User benefits (UBs) versus 			 economic development benefits (EDBs)
- Need to avoid double-counting mobility/accessibility
- So: looking for clear evidence that a measurable portion of economic development impacts are separable and independent of user benefits

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- Challenges (continued)
- Demonstrated impacts
- Need to have analytical basis for EDBs
- So:
- Literature review
- Apparently sparse evidence that transit station proximity, by itself, has consistent impacts on land prices (and by extension, development benefits)
- Few existing studies distinguish the impacts of the project from the impacts of zoning changes, development incentives, and other policies that affect development

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- Challenges (continued)
- Useful measure
- Need a measure of EDBs that provides a reasonable  accounting of benefits and disbenefits
- So: concerns on “trip not taken” measurement
- Location choice = f( travel costs, schools, amenities ... )
- So, different choices  different bundles of attributes
- Relocation to location with lower travel costs cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of reduction in travel costs
- Direct parallel to evaluating mode-shift benefits using a strict accounting of “time savings”

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- Challenges (continued)
- Predictive tools
- Need method for predicting development impacts and EDBs for individual projects in individual contexts
- So: FTA will be evaluating existing predictive tools
- Residential-location choice models
- Workplace/employer-location choice models
- Others?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- NPRM
- Evaluate presence of EDB-supportive conditions
- Opportunity: availability of land for (re)development
- Market conditions: regional and corridor activity
- Supporting policies: zoning, tax, & other
- Accessibility impacts: consequence of the project
- Permanence: characteristics of the project
- Premise: favorable conditions  large EDBs
- Part of the measure of project _effectiveness_
- Continued standard allowance in _cost-effectiveness_

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Thoughts

- “Measures” document
- Rely on location choice models for predictions and measures of benefits
- Possible advantages
- Project-specific quantification of EDBs
- Possible inclusion in cost-effectiveness calculations
- Probability that some projects are “above average” in that they have more EDBs than they get from the standard allowance (implications for others?)

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Activities

- NPRM
- Receipt of formal comments; then ... ?
- FTA-sponsored applied research
- Literature review ( FTA website)
- Kick-off: meeting of expert panel 10/2007
- Development of predictive tool(s)
- Ideas from travel forecasters?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## 16.  Wrap-Up

- Additional comments by participants
- FTA to-do list
- FTA objectives for travel forecasting  in support of New Starts

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## Additional Comments 

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA To-do List

- Research?
- Written guidance?
- Training?
- Future workshop?
- Other?

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007

## FTA Objectives

- Travel forecasting for New Starts
- Sufficient data to inform technical work
- Meaningful testing of travel models
- Adequate QC _and analysis_ of forecasts
*Understanding of project benefits*

- Travel Forecasting for New Starts

- September 2007