Appendix B Forecast Methodology Reports · Appendix B Forecast Methodology Reports I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Cook County, Illinois Prepared For: Illinois Department of Transportation
Post on 03-Aug-2018
217 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Appendix B
Forecast Methodology Reports I-290 Eisenhower Expressway
Cook County, Illinois
Prepared For:
Illinois Department of Transportation
Prepared By:
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
September 2016
Appendix B Table of Contents
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY REPORTS
Appendix B-1 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Appendix B-2 Historic and Forecasted Growth of Population, Households and
Employment in the Extended Region of Chicago
NoBuild MarketDriven versus PolicyBased SocioEconomic
Forecasts (20102040) and I290 Build Forecasts
AppendixB1
I290TravelForecastingModelMethodologyandValidation
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study Cook County, Illinois
Prepared For: Illinois Department of Transportation
Prepared By: WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff
September 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study i I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
1.1 PurposeoftheTechnicalMemorandum.............................................................1
1.2 BackgroundoftheI290TravelModelProcess.................................................1
1.3 Opportunity&NeedforanI290ModelEnhancement..................................2
1.4 ContinuousI290ModelImprovement...............................................................3
2.0 MODELPREPARATION...............................................................................................4
2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4
2.2 TrafficAnalysisZones...........................................................................................5
2.3 I290CodedHighwayNetwork............................................................................62.3.1 BackgroundonHighwayCoding.............................................................62.3.2 DecisionRulesforHighwayCoding......................................................11
2.4 SocioeconomicData..............................................................................................11
3.0 TRAVELMODELENHANCEMENTS......................................................................12
3.1 NeedfortheModelEnhancements...................................................................12
3.2 HouseholdPersonTripGenerationModel......................................................12
3.3 TripDistribution...................................................................................................153.3.1 PreDistributionTransitAccessParameters..........................................153.3.2 PreDistributionTravelCostModel.......................................................15
3.4 TransitNetworksandModelApproach...........................................................21
3.5 ModeChoiceUpdates..........................................................................................223.5.1 ProjectApproach.......................................................................................223.5.2 DescriptionsofModelCoefficients.........................................................223.5.3 ModeChoiceCoefficientsforDifferentModelApplications.............23
3.6 ModeChoiceHighOccupancyVehicleIntegration....................................253.6.1 NonWorkHighOccupancyVehicleModeShareEstimation...........253.6.2 TollandNonTollModeChoice.............................................................25
3.7 TrafficAssignment...............................................................................................26
3.8 ComputationalEnhancements............................................................................263.8.1 ModelBatchProcessing........................................................................263.8.2 Parallel(Multithreaded)StandardTrafficAssignment......................27
3.9 ModelPostProcessing..........................................................................................27
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study ii I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
4.0 2010VALIDATIONOFTHEI290MODEL.............................................................29
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................29
4.2 RegionalModelValidation.................................................................................294.2.1 ObservedData...........................................................................................294.2.2 RegionalScaleValidationTests...............................................................31
4.3 PeakPeriodsTrafficandPercentageofDaily.................................................33
4.4 PeakPeriodVolume/CapacityRatio.................................................................34
4.5 I290Corridor.........................................................................................................35
4.6 Findings...................................................................................................................37
List of Tables
Table21.CodedVariablesinI290Network..........................................................................9Table22.SocioeconomicForecastTotalsfor2010...............................................................11Table31.HouseholdVehicleOwnershipFile......................................................................13Table32.ControlVariablesIn&PARAMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips....................17Table33.ControlVariablesin&PROCESSNamelistforHomeWorkTrips..................18Table34.ControlVariablesin&OptionNamelistforHomeWorkTrips.......................19Table35.ControlVariablein&SYSTEMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips.......................20Table36.ControlVariablesin&TABNUMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips..................21Table37.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeWorkTrips.........................24Table38.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeNWandNHTrips.............24Table39.VehicleClassesforTrafficAssignment.................................................................26Table41.NumberofCountLocationsbyClass(UsingVDFFunctionGroup)...............30Table42.TrafficValidationbyVolumeClass.......................................................................32Table43.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Eastbound).......................34Table44.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Westbound).....................34Table45.I290MainlineTrafficComparison(Observedvs.Modeled).............................36
List of Figures
Figure21.CMAPTrafficAnalysisZoneSystem...................................................................6Figure22.DetailedNetworkCodingintheI290Corridor...............................................10Figure41.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData..........................................................30Figure42.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData(Closeup).......................................31Figure43.Volume/CapacityRatioforthePMPeak2010....................................................35Figure44.2010I290DailyTrafficEstimate..........................................................................36
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 1 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Technical Memorandum
ThepurposeofthismemorandumistosummarizetheI290travelmodelingprocessandmethodology,topresenttheassumptionsusedintheeffort,andtoprovidetheresultsofthevalidationofthebaseyearscenario.Thisdocumentwillbeorganizedasfollows:
1. Introductiona. BackgroundoftheI290ModelUpdateProcessb. Opportunity&NeedforI290ModelEnhancement
2. ModelPreparationa. ZoneSystemb. Networkc. SocioeconomicData
3. ModelEnhancementsa. TripGenerationb. TripDistributionc. ModeChoiced. TrafficAssignment
4. 2010I290ModelValidationResultsa. RegionalLevelTrafficValidation(SixCounty)b. PeakPeriodTrafficValidationc. PeakPeriodVolume/CapacityRatiosd. I290CorridorDailyTrafficValidation
1.2 Background of the I-290 Travel Model Process
TheI290travelmodeldevelopmentandapplicationispartofalargerpreliminaryengineeringandenvironmentalimpactstatementthatincludesalternativesevaluation,noiseanalysis,airqualityanalysis,geometricdesignstudies,trafficandsafetystudies,andeconomicandfinancialanalysesthatrequireinputsfromthetravelmodel.
Aninitialfeasibilitystudyofahighoccupancyvehicle(HOV)laneonI290EisenhowerExpresswaywascompletedin1998i.Thefeasibilitystudycontained1990and2010futuretrafficestimatesforanHOVlaneandthegeneralpurposelanes.SincetheHOVlanefeasibilitystudy,thefollowinghasoccurred:
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 2 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
RegionaltraveldemandmodelimprovementsimplementedbytheChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning(CMAP),formerlytheChicagoAreaTransportationStudy(CATS).
Preparationof2020,2030,and2040LongRangeTransportationPlansfornortheasternIllinois
ConductofCMAP20072008TravelTrackerHouseholdSurveyandnewCensustraveldata.
TherebuildingoftheHillsideInterchangesectionoftheI290EisenhowerExpressway.
1.3 Opportunity & Need for an I-290 Model Enhancement
SincetheinitialHOVfeasibilitystudy,additionalconsiderationshavecometolightthataffectthemodelapplicationandplanningassumptions.Regionalsocioeconomicforecastsofpopulation,households,andemploymenthavebeenupdatedduringthisperiod,andtheforecastshorizonyearisnow2040.TheregionslongrangetransportationplanhassimilarlygonethroughseveralrevisionsandprojecttrafficforecastsmusttakeintoaccountfacilitiesandpoliciesinthecurrentGOTO2040ComprehensiveRegionalPlanii.
TheCATSregionaltraveldemandmodelswerepreviouslybasedon1990householdtravelsurvey,iiiwhichwasoneofthebasicsourcesoftripratesanddistributions,alongwiththe1990Censusjourneytoworkdataiv.Morecurrenttravelandsocioeconomicdataarenowavailable.CMAPhasrecentlycompletedacomprehensivehouseholdtravelandactivitysurveyfornortheasternIllinoisvthatupdatesthe1990effort.DatacollectionfortheCMAPTravelTrackersurveytookplacebetweenJanuary2007andFebruary2008withmorethan10,500householdsparticipatinginthesurvey.
Additionally,the2010decennialcensusproductprovidedotherbasedatafortheregion.Thelongformhouseholdsampleportionofthedecennialcensus,whichcollectedjourneytoworkandotherdetailedhouseholdandpopulationcharacteristics,isnolongerpartofthe2010andfuturedecennialcensuses.LongformdataarenowcontinuouslycollectedbytheCensusBureauthroughtheAmericanCommunitySurveyvi(ACS),whichannuallysamplesapproximatelythreemillionhouseholdsnationally.AlthoughtheannualsampleofhouseholdsfortheACSisfarsmallerthanthenumberofhouseholdsthatpreviouslyreceivedthelongforminthedecennialcensus,roughlycomparablequalitydatacanbeobtainedbycombiningmultipleyearsoftheACS.
Thetraveldemandmodelsusedforthetrafficforecastsintheinitialfeasibilitymadeuseofregionalcodedhighwaynetworksandregionwidetrafficanalysiszonesmaintained
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 3 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
byCMAP.Theseregionalcodedhighwaynetworksexcludemostlocalstreets.AfurtherabstractionistheCMAPschematiccodingofintersectionsandinterchangestoreducelaborintensivedataentry.Evaluationofthetrafficestimatesfromthesestudiesindicatedthatamoredetailedanalysisofcorridortrafficwasdesirablebothtoimprovethemodelssensitivitytocorridorimprovementsandtounderstandtheeffectsofcongestedoperatingconditions.
TheneedsofthecurrentI290Study,theavailabilityofCMAPsmodelsetsandexpertise,andnewsourcesofhouseholdandtripmakingdatacombinedtoprovidetheframeworkfortheI290modeladaptationandupdate.InkeepingwiththecongruencewithCMAPplanningandtravelmodelingactivities,thebaseyearfortheI290studyis2010.Thismemoreportsontheestablishmentandvalidationofthe2010baseyear.Ingeneral,modelvalidationservestwokeypurposes:
Establishesamodelscenariointhecurrentyear(2010)thatmatchesobservedtrafficconditions.ThemajorobservedelementsareIDOTAverageAnnualDailyTraffic(AADT),peakperiodtrafficandpeakspeeds.Whilethefocusisthestudycorridor,thebaseyearvalidationalsoshowsthatthetravelmodelisreplicatingcurrenttrafficlevelsthroughouttheregion.Forexample,inavalidatedI290model,interstatefacilitiesthroughouttheregionwillhavemodeledtrafficclosetotheobservedvalues.
Preparesasolidfoundationforafuturebaseyear.Onceavalidatedcurrentyeartravelmodelisinplace,itisunderstoodthatthesocioeconomicinputs,modelstepsandparametersareworkingcorrectlyandthatfuturebaseandalternativescenarioswillhaveanaccuratestartingpoint.
The2010validationhasbeencompleted.The2040baseyearwaspreparedandcomparedtothe2010.2040alternativesintheStudyAreawerethendevelopedandtested.Itisimportanttonotethatthealternativesevaluationfocusesonrelativedifferences,ratherthanabsolutenumbers;the2040alternativesarecomparedtothe2040base.
1.4 Continuous I-290 Model Improvement
Intheyearsbetween2010and2015,theI290TravelModelreceivedcontinuousenhancement.Muchofthisenhancementwasrelatedtoevolvingrequirementsformodelcomponents,suchastolling,HOV(HighOccupancyVehicle)andHOT(HighOccupancyToll)lanesmodelalternativesandreportingprotocol.Otherenhancementsareduetotheavailabilityofnewdata,suchasthe2010and2040MarketBasedsocioeconomicforecastsasinputtotheI290model.In20132014,theI290travelmodelswerepreparedusingallenhancementsavailabletothemodels.Thisreportwillpresentandexplaintheenhancements.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 4 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
2.0 Model Preparation
2.1 Introduction
TheI290travelmodelpreparationinvolvedtwomajorareas.Thefirstwasthepreparationoftheinputfiles,bothgeographic(network)anddatarelated(socioeconomicdata).Thesecondkeyareawascomposedofchangestothefourstepmodelstructure.Thissectionwilladdressthepreparationoftheinputfilestothemodel.AllpreparationstepsandfourstepmodelchangesweredonetoenhancethecapabilityofthemodeltoanalyzeI290scenarios.
ThephilosophyoftheI290modelcanbesummarizedbythefollowingpoints:
FidelitytotheCMAPmodelsThegoalofthecurrentI290modelupdateprocessistoadaptandutilizeI290StudysocioeconomicforecastsandtraveldemandmodelforthepurposeofstudyingthetrafficontheI290corridorbetweenwestofMannheimRoadtojustwestoftheJaneByrneInterchange.
DetailedI290SubareaGiventhattheStudyAreaencompassestheI290facility,butalsotheparallelroadwayssuchasRooseveltRoadandMadison/WashingtonStreets,itwasnecessarytobuildadetailednetworkwithintheStudyArea.TheCMAPrepresentationalhighwaynetworkwasenhancedbypreparingagroundtruthedarticulatednetworkofI290.ThistaskinvolvedaprocesscalledconflationinwhichtheCMAPmodelhighwaysegmentsandattributeinformationweretransferredtoahighlyaccurateGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)datalayer.Asanexample,thecomplexrampingconfigurationsontheI290interchangeswereaddedtothestartingpointCMAPnetworksothatthetruedistanceandintersectiongeometrycouldbecaptured.ThisdetailednetworkeditingincludedI290highwaycenterlineconflation,rampplacementanddirectionality,andtheconfirmationofthenumberofmainlineandsliplanesonthefacility.Theplacementofcentroidconnectorlinkswasalsorevisitedaspartofthenetworkediting.
IncomeandAutoOccupancyWhereitisconceptuallyrequired,majornewmoduleswereaddedtotheCMAPmodels.ThemostimportantonewasthestratificationoflowandhighincomeworkerswithintheHomeBasedWork(HBW)tripdistributionandmodesplitmodels.Thelow/highincomecategoriesareretainedthroughthetriptableestimationandproduceSingleOccupancyVehicle(SOV),HighOccupancyVehicle(HOV2andHOV3+)hometoworktables,eachcontainingsomelowandsomehighincomeworkers.
FocusonEfficiencyandComparabilityTheregionalmodelwithallupdatesandrevisionswillberunforthe2010base,2040NoBuildand2040generalizedbuild
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 5 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
casesinthefullmodeliterationmodetoestablishmodeloutputsthatareveryhighlyconverged.
SensitivityTestingTheoverallreasonforbuildingthemodelistotestalternativesintheI290transportationcorridor.Sensitivitytestswereconductedincluding:
IdentificationofRegionalUsersSelectlinkanalysisofrepresentativelinksegmentsonI290andtheparallelarterialsbydirectionbytimeofdayfortruckandpassengervehiclewereconducted.
EstimationofTransitUseThe2040RTP(conformity/fiscallyconstrained)transitnetworkwasusedforthe2040NoBuildcaseandwasthestartingpointfortransituseanalysis.Transitmeasureswillincludemodesplittripreportingoftheregionalimpactsofpotentialmajortransitalternativesinthecorridor.
InvestigationoftravelmodelLevelofServiceAssumptionsInvestigationintotheVolumeDelayFunctionsforuseinthemodeltorepresenteachoftheeighttimeperiodsinthemodelbyfacilitywasconducted.
2.2 Traffic Analysis Zones
TheCMAPtrafficanalysiszonesystemwasuseddirectlyintheI290corridor.Figure21showsthiszonesystemwiththeStudyAreahighlighted.Thereareatotalof1,944zonesplusseventeenexternalpointsofentrylocatedonmajorroadwaysattheborderoftheregionwherelongdistanceandthroughtrafficcanenterandleavetheregion.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 6 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Figure21.CMAPTrafficAnalysisZoneSystem
2.3 I-290 Coded Highway Network
2.3.1 Background on Highway Coding ThetravelmodelrequiredhighwaynetworkrefinementsintheexpandedStudyAreasothatsufficientdetailcouldbecapturedinthemodeltrafficassignmentresult.TheserefinementsaddedalocalstreetnetworktotheexistingnetworksothatitispossibletobetterevaluatetrafficonthefrontageroadsandparallellocalstreetsintheStudyArea.
Linksinthenetworkaretypicallyonlycodedbetweennodesthatcorrespondtointersectionsandrampjunctions.Whilemostintersectionsareaccuratelyplaced,rampjunctionnodesareoftenlocatedforeaseofrepresentation.Shapepointnodesarerarelyusedtoimprovecodedroadwayalignments.Asaresult,mapsofthecodednetworkarenotgeographicallyaccurate,whichincreasestheeffortrequiredtointerpretmodelresultsandpreparemeaningfulexhibits.
Themodelingof2040alternatives,suchasmanagedlaneswithintheEisenhowerExpresswaycorridor,increasesthecomplexityofthenetworkcodingsincetheselanesmustberestrictedtocertainclassesofvehicles.Theymayalsofunctiondifferentlydependingonthetimeofday,withdifferentpeakandoffpeakvehicleprohibitionsorlaneconfigurations,forexample.Thesefacilitiesalsomayserveamorelimitedsetof
0 10 20 30Miles
Ma
nn
he
i m
25
t h A
ve
I L 1
71
Ha
r le
m
Ce
nt r
al
Ci c
er o
Pu
l as
ki
Sa
cr
am
en
t o
We
st e
r n
As
hl a
nd
I290StudyArea
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 7 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
trafficmovementsthanthegeneralpurposelanes.Thecodedrepresentationofspecialandgeneralpurposelanes,aswellastheirpointsofaccess,mustcloselyresembletheactualfacilityinordertoensurethatthemodeledversionfunctionsasdesigned.
Asafirststep,twotiersofcorridorzonesoneoneithersideoftheexpresswaywereidentifiedasareaswarrantingmoredetailednetworkcoding.Northandsouthboundariesforthesetwotiersofcorridorzonesaretwoarterialstreetsparallelingtheexpressway,MadisonStreettothenorthandRooseveltRoadtothesouth.TheeastwestlimitsofthedetailedcodingextendedfromtheChicagocentralareatojustwestofTriStateTollway(I294).Locationsoflocalstreetsandfrontageroadsforthedetailednetworkcodingwereobtainedfromthestreetnetworkportionofthe2006CensusTopologicallyIntegratedGeographicEncodingandReferencingsystem(TIGER)linefilesvii.NodenumbersgreaterthanthehighestnodenumbersintheregionalnetworkwereassignedtointersectionsintheTIGERnetworkfiles.Networklinkfilesarecustomarilyinafromnodetotonodeformat,unliketheTIGERnetworklinks.TocreateanetworklikelinkfilefromtheTIGERstreetsegments,intersectionnodecoordinateswerematchedagainststreetsegmentendpointsandfromnodesandtonodestransferredtothestreetsegmentfile.Theresultingnetworklinkfilecontainedalinksdefiningnodenumbersandthedistancealongthelink.
NodesandlinksintheCMAPregionalnetworkwithinthedetailednetworkareaweredeleted.TIGERsourcenodesandlinkswerethencombinedwiththeremainingregionallinksandnodestoformI290projectnetworkfiles.Remainingcleanupofthenetworkfilesrequiredmanualcodingusingtransportationmodelingsoftware.
ThedetailedTIGERnetworkwasstitchedintotheregionalnetworkattheboundariesofthedetailedcoding.
ZonecentroidnodesplusaccesslinkstoconnectcentroidswiththehighwaynetworkwereaddedforthenewzonesintheI290corridor.
Eisenhowerlinksandexpresswaylocalstreetrampsweremanuallyadjustedtomorefaithfullyrepresenttheactualfacilitiesalignments.
Linkdataitemsfromtheregionalnetwork,notincludingdistance,werecopiedtocorrespondinglinksinthedetailednetwork.
Additionaldatasources,theIllinoisRoadwayInformationSystemviiiandairphotos,wereconsultedtocodedataitemsforadditionallinks.
Figure22showsthedetailednetworkwithinthezonesoneithersideoftheEisenhowerExpressway.Thefigurealsoshowszoneboundariesandthelocationsofzonecentroidnodes.Itisapparentfromthefigurethatevenwiththesmallerzones,thenumberofpointswheretrafficmayenterandleavethenetworkisstilllimitedcomparedtothedetailobtainedfromtheTIGERfiles.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 8 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table21summarizesthecodingofthedifferentvariablefieldsinthenetworknodeandlinkrecords.Variablenamesthatareprecededbythesymbol@arevariablesthatmustbecodedinadditiontothestandardvariablesanticipatedbytheEMME/3ixtraveldemandmodelingsoftware.Assignmentofvehicletripstothecodedhighwaynetworkiscoveredinalatersection.TheEMME/3macroswerechangedtoallowhighwaysegmentstoserveHighOccupancyVehicles(HOVs)aloneinpreparationforthealternativetestinginthe2040models.ThelinkvolumedelayfunctionswererevisitedaspartoftheI290conversionalthoughtheydidnotdifferfromtheoriginalCMAPcodingprotocol.Andfinally,theCMAPTravelTracker2008surveyallowedforthereestimationofthefactorsthatallocatedailyvehicletripstotimeperiodswithinaday.TheissueofthevolumedelayfunctiontobeusedfortheHighOccupancyVehicle(HOV)andHighOccupancyToll(HOT)facilitieswillbeaddressedpriortothealternativestestingwhentraveltimesintheStudyAreawillbeanimportantfocus.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 9 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table21.CodedVariablesinI290Network
(I290ProjectSpecificCodinginBoldface)
NodeVariables Description
@zone I290zonewherenodeislocated
AreatypeofI290zone1=insideChicagoCBD(zones147)2=insideChicagoCentralArea(zones4877)3=insideremainderofChicago4=insideinnersuburbswheretheChicagomajorandminorarterialstreetgridiscontinued5=insideremainderofChicagourbanizedarea6=insideIndianaurbanizedarea7=insideremainingIllinoissuburbanurbanizedareas(Joliet,McHenry,etc.)8=insideremainingIndianasuburbanurbanizedareas9=insideremainingnortheasternIllinoisurbanarea10=rural11=externalareacoveredbyKenosha,Walworth,Racine,Boone,Winnebago,DeKalb,Ogle,Lee,LaSalle,Grundy,Kankakee,Porter,andLaPortecounties.12=areaofdetailednetworkwithinI290corridor99=pointsofentryintoregion
LinkVariablesModespermittedonlinkA=GeneralizedautoS=SingleoccupantautoH=HighoccupancyvehicleT=Generaltruckb=Bplatetruckl=Lighttruckm=Mediumtruckh=heavytruck
lan Numberofdrivinglanes1=arterialstreet2=freeway3=freeway/expresswayrampfrom/toarterialstreet4=expressway5=freeway/expresswaytofreeway/expresswayramp6=autoaccesstonetwork7=linkwheretollispaid8=meteredexpresswayentranceramp9=collectordistributorandlocalstreetlinksinI290corridordetailednetwork1=default10=POEconnector88=collectordistributorlinksinI290corridordetailednetwork99=localstreetlinksinI290corridordetailednetwork
@speed linkfreespeedorspeedlimitfromCATS/CMAPnetwork@parkl numberofparkinglanesonlinkfromCATS/CMAPnetwork@width average lane width in feet
@atypej
mod
vdf
typ
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 10 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Figure22.DetailedNetworkCodingintheI290Corridor
EasternPortionfromAustinAvenue(6000West)toLakefront
WesternPortionfromEasternDuPageCountytoCentralAvenue(5600West)
ZoneBorder
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 11 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
2.3.2 Decision Rules for Highway Coding ThenetworkcodingpreparedfortheI290Studyfollowedtheseguidelines:
ProvideadequatehighwaydetailtocapturemovementonbothI290andtheparallelroadways.IncludethecapabilitytoreflectinterstatetointerstatemovementsthatarerationalpathchoicesforI290travelers.
Providenetworkdetailatonelevelbelowthedesiredanalysislevelofdetail.PreviousstudiesinthecorridorhaveshownthatnetworkdetailwithinawidebandofinfluenceintheI290studycorridorwillbehelpfulinalternativesanalysis.
BuildahighlydetailedI290studynetworkwithallinterchanges,mergesandlaneconfigurationsmatchingtheactualphysicalfacility.
Withinthefocusedzonearea,plusaonemilebuffer,identifythelocationsforandcodemultiplecentroidconnectors.
Preparefora2040Baselinenetwork.ThisnetworkwillnotincludeanycapacityenhancementsonI290,althoughitdoesinclude2040RegionalTransportationPlanhighwayandmajortransitelementsoutsideoftheStudyArea.
2.4 Socioeconomic Data
ThesocioeconomicdatausedfortheI290studyareMarketBasedsocioeconomicforecastsdevelopedbyThealChalabiGroupfortheI290study.xTable22showsthetotalsforhouseholdsandemploymentfor2010thatarebasedon2010Censusdata.
Table22.SocioeconomicForecastTotalsfor2010
County Households Employment
# of Households % of Regional # of Workers % of Regional
Cook 1,966,343 64% 3,125,691 64%
DuPage 337,132 11% 689,725 14%
Will 225,259 7% 252,316 5%
Lake 241,709 8% 428,851 9%
Kane 170,484 6% 257,348 5%
McHenry 109,200 4% 134,820 3%
Kendall 38,021 1% 29,806 1%
SixCountySubtotal 3,088,148 100% 4,918,557 100%
AllOtherCounties* 754,313 754,839
GrandTotal 3,842,461 5,673,396 Source:ACGI290Build&NoBuildSocioeconomicReport&Forecasting062014
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 12 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table22showsover3millionhouseholdsandover4.9millionworkersfor2010inthesixcountyarea.64percentofthesehouseholdsandemploymentlieinCookCounty.DuPageCountycontains11percentoftheregionalhouseholdsand14percentoftheemployment.
3.0 Travel Model Enhancements
3.1 Need for the Model Enhancements
ThezonalandnetworkdisaggregationdiscussedinSection2wereconductedinparalleltothetravelmodelenhancementwork.ThetravelmodelenhancementwasdoneateachleveloftheCMAPfourstepmodel:(1)tripgeneration,(2)tripdistribution,(3)modechoice,and(4)trafficassignment.AddedtothecorecapabilitiesoftheadaptedCMAPmodelwerethecapabilitytomodelandanalyzeHighOccupancyVehicle(HOV)lanes,HighOccupancyToll(HOT)lanes,andtolllanes.Additionally,abatteryofpostprocessingmoduleswasbuilttoprovidefullreportingcapabilityfortheI290custommodelresults.Theseincludedthemeansofsummarizingallautomodes,truckresults,andcorridorspecificsummariessuchaspersonthroughputforautoandtransit.
3.2 Household Person Trip Generation Model
TheCMAPhouseholdtripgenerationmodelinitiallyusedfortheI290workwasobtainedfromCMAPin2009.OnlyminorchangestothisversionofthemodelwerecompletedaspartofthefirstroundoftheI290project.Themostsignificantenhancementwastheoptiontocreateafileofestimatedhouseholdvehicleownershiplevelsbythesubzonesthatareusedbythetripgenerationmodel.
Forbackground,the2009updatedCMAPhouseholdpersontripgenerationmodelhasthefollowingfeatures:
Tripgenerationratesforpersonsresidinginhouseholdsareestimatedwithtripdatafromthe20072008CMAPhouseholdtravelsurvey.
ModelinputscanreadilybeupdatedwithongoingACSdata.
Asyntheticfourdimension(adultsworkerschildrenincomequartile)distributionofhouseholdsinto224categoriesisestimatedforeverytripgenerationsubzone.
Tripendestimatesindetailedtripcategoriescanbeoutputincludinghomeworktripsbylowandhighincomeworkers.
Attractionallocation,householdvehicleownership,andnonmotorizedsubmodelsarerevisedandreestimatedwith20072008householdtravelsurveydata.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 13 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
ThesequenceoftraveldemandmodelsfortheI290projectincludesamodechoicemodelthatallocatespersontripsintopersontripsbydrivealoneprivatevehicle,twopersonsridesharing,andthreeormorepersonscarpooling.Thesubmodechoicemodelforprivatevehiclesincludesindependentvariablesfortheproportionsofhouseholdswithinazoneatdifferentlevelsofvehicleownership.SincethehouseholdvehicleownershipsubmodelintheCMAPtripgenerationmodelestimatestheseproportions,thesamevaluesofhouseholdvehicleownershipshouldbeusedinbothtripgenerationandmodechoiceforinternalconsistency.
Anoptionwasincorporatedintothetripgenerationcodetoretainthehouseholdvehicleownershipestimatesforlateruseinmodechoice.ThefixedformatforthisfileislistedinTable31.Lowincomeworkersaredefinedasworkerswithbelowmedianregionalearningsandhighincomeworkershaveabovemedianearnings.
Table31.HouseholdVehicleOwnershipFile
Variable Location
I290Zone 15
HouseholdswithOneorMoreLowIncomeWorkers
FractionofHouseholdswithoutVehicles 617(12.4)
FractionofHouseholdswithOneVehicle 1829(12.4)
FractionofHouseholdswithTwoorMoreVehicles 3041(12.4)
HouseholdswithOneorMoreHighIncomeWorkers
FractionofHouseholdswithoutVehicles 4253(12.4)
FractionofHouseholdswithOneVehicle 5465(12.4)
FractionofHouseholdswithTwoorMoreVehicles 6677(12.4)
Akeywordwasaddedtotheprogramcontrolfiletooptionallycreatethehouseholdvehicleownershipfile.The&PARAMand&ENDstatementsidentifythebeginningandendoftheNAMELISTinputfilethatnowincludesthefollowingkeywordvariables.
1. TITLE:An80characternameidentifyingthemodelrunenclosedinsinglequotes.
2. SUBZONES:TripgenerationsubzonesintheStudyArea.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 14 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
3. PUMA5:FivepercentsamplePublicUseMicrodataAreasinthemodeledStudyArea.
4. PUMA1:OnepercentsamplePublicUseMicrodataAreasinthemodeledStudyArea.
5. ZONES:ZonesusedintheremainingCMAPmodelsfortripdistribution(linkingoftripendsintotripsbetweenzones),modechoice(allocationoftripstotravelmodes),andassignment(allocationoftripstohighwayandtransitroutes).
6. COUNTIES:CountiesintheStudyArea.
7. PUMA_TG:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalse.Whentruethemodelslogicincludesanoptionalsubroutinethatpreparesanupdated(future)fourwaycrosstabulationofhouseholdswithinsubzones.Thisnewtableisbasedupon(future)largeareaaveragehouseholdcharacteristicsandtheinitial(baseyear)crosstabulatedhouseholdtable.
8. SAVE_FILE:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalseandcausesallintermediateprogramfilestoberetainedafterthemodelruniscompleted.
9. EXP_TTYPE:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalse.Whentrue,allfilesandreportsincludefortyninetriptypesbasedupontrippurposesintheCMAPhouseholdtravelsurvey.Whenfalse,filesandreportshavetheeleventriptypesinthecurrentCMAPtripgeneration.
10. MODE_CHOICE:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalse.Theoptionalhouseholdvehicleownershipfile(Table2)iscreatedwhenkeywordistrue.
11. IN_EMPFACT:EmploymentinIndianaismultipliedbythisfactor,whichdefaultsto1.00.ThisvariableandthefollowingoneforWisconsinareincludedtooffsetpossiblesystematicdifferencesinemploymentdefinitionsandestimationmethodsbetweenCMAPandneighboringMPOs.
12. WI_EMPFACT:EmploymentinWisconsinisfactoredbythisvaluethatdefaultsto1.00.
In20092010,ParsonsBrinckerhoffstaffwasaskedbyCMAPtoprepareenhancementstotheTripGenerationprogramincluding:
Updatingthebaseyeartripgenerationmodelinputsto2010withCensus2010SummaryFile1smallareapopulationdataand20052009ACSandACSPUMS.
ReestimatingdifferentialtripgenerationratesformembersofseniorandyoungerhouseholdsfromtheCMAPhouseholdtravelsurvey.
Revisingtripgenerationmodelcodetoincorporateageofhouseholder.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 15 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Preparingautilityprogramthatcreatesadatabasewithdiscreterecordsenumeratinghouseholdsbysize,numberofworkers,incomelevel,vehiclesavailabletohousehold,andageofhouseholderfromintermediatetripgenerationworkfiles.
Revisinggroupquarterstripgenerationproceduretoincludeuniversity/collegedormsandmilitaryfacilities.
Adjustingbiascoefficientsinhouseholdvehicleownershipandnonmotorizedtripgenerationsubmodelsasneededtoreproduceobserved2010levels.
ThetripgenerationupdateswereutilizedintheRound2andRound3oftheI290modelruns.
3.3 Trip Distribution
3.3.1 Pre-Distribution Transit Access Parameters Transitaccessparametersstoredintwolegacytripdistributioninputfiles(M01.datandDISTR.dat)werereviewedandupdatedforboth2010and2040.ThesefileinputswerepreparedusingspatialanalysiswithaGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)tool.
3.3.2 Pre-Distribution Travel Cost Model ThenextmodelinthesequenceofCMAPregionaltravelmodelsestimatesthehighwayandtransitcostsfortripsbetweenzonesforusebytheagencystripdistributionmodel.CostsareherecalculatedasintheCMAPmodechoicemodelandthepredistributioncodeislargelythesameasthemodechoicemodelcode.
TheoverridingobjectiveforrevisitingthismodelintheI290projectwastomakeallcostcalculationsinthemodelconsistentwithcurrent,ornearcurrent,regionalconditions.Tothisend,costparametersthataremodelcontrolvariablesandinputfilescontainingdatausedinthemodelscostcalculationswerereviewedandupdated.
ThepredistributionmodelreadsdatadirectlyfromanEMME/3databank,alargedatafilethatcontainsallnetworkandzonedataprocessedbytheEMME/3travelmodelingsoftware.AfewminorchangesinthecodewererequiredtoreflectthenamingofthedatabankasEMMEBANKbythemostrecentversionoftheEMME/3software.
HomeWorkControlVariables
Table32liststhecontrolvariablesfortripsbetweenhomeproductionsandworkattractions.Thesevariablesarereadintothepredistributionmodelthroughfivenamelistvariablelists,listsofcontrolvariablescontainedbetweenan&NAMEidentifierbeforethelist(&PARAM,&OPTION,&PROCESS,&SYSTEM,and&TABNUM)andan&ENDattheendofthelist.ThetableincludesthevariablevaluesinthecurrentCMAP
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 16 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
modelsetupforregionalplanningandthevaluesusedintheI290projectplusabriefrationaleforanyadjustmentoftheCMAPvalues.
Thecoefficientsinthemodechoicemodeldatefromtheoriginalmodelestimationbasedon1970traveldata.Inparticular,thecoefficientsfortravelcostsreflect1970dollarvalues.SincecostsintheI290projectareincurrentdollars,thesecoefficientsneededtobeadjusted.TheHistoricalConsumerPriceIndexforallUrbanConsumersxiindicatesthata1970dollarwouldbeworth$5.55incurrentdollarsandthecostcoefficientswerereducedaccordingly.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 17 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table32.ControlVariablesIn&PARAMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips
Variable Description CMAPRegionalPlanning Project ReasonforChange
ZONESHighestzonenumber,mustbelessthanor equaltoEMMEBANK
1944 2233Internalzonesfor I290
project
CBDZONCBDzonenumbers(maximumof200zones)
177 177I290projectzonesdefinedasChicagocentralarea
RNSEED
Randomnumber seed(aninteger value
between0and9999with0implyingarandomvalue)
1934 1934Arbitrary integervalueset
toallow comparisonbetweenmodelruns
1.0.0186(Autoor transitlinehaulinvehicletimeinminutes)
1.0.0186 1.CMAPhistoricalvalue
2.0.0072(Autolinehaulcostsortransitlinehaulandaccess/egresscostsincents)
2.0.001302.CMAPvaluefactoredby 0.18(2008to1970UrbanConsumersPriceIndex)
3.0.0584(Autowalktimeto/fromparkingor transitaccess/egressinvehicletimeinminutes)
3.0.0584 3.CMAPhistoricalvalue
4.2.000(Transitbias) 4.0.04.Transitbiasnotincludedincosts
5.0.0399(Transitlinehaulandaccess/egressoutofvehicletimeinminutes)
5.0.0399 5.CMAPhistoricalvalue
6.0.0811(Halfheadwayoffirsttransitlinehaulserviceboardedinminutes)
6.0.0811 6.CMAPhistoricalvalue
1.0.0159(Autoor transitlinehaulinvehicletimeinminutes)
1.0.0159 1.CMAPhistoricalvalue
2.0.0085(Autolinehaulcostsor transitlinehauland
access/egresscostsincents)2.0.00153
2.CMAPvaluefactoredby 0.18(2008to1970UrbanConsumersPriceIndex)
3.0.0486(Autowalktimeto/fromparkingor transit
access/egressinvehicletimeinminutes)
3.0.0486 3.CMAPhistoricalvalue
4.0.0(Transitbias) 4.0.04.Transitbiasnotincluded
incosts5.0.0290(Transitlinehaulandaccess/egressoutofvehicletime
inminutes)5.0.0290 5.CMAPhistoricalvalue
6.0.0173(Halfheadwayoffirsttransitlinehaulserviceboarded
inminutes)6.0.0173 6.CMAPhistoricalvalue
COEFF1
Sixcoefficientsinmodechoicemodeltoweightcostcomponentsfor tripswithdestinationsnotinCBD
COEFF2
Sixcoefficientsinmodechoicemodeltoweightcostcomponentsfor
tripswithdestinationsinCBD
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 18 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table32.ControlVariablesin&PARAMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips(continued)
Table33.ControlVariablesin&PROCESSNamelistforHomeWorkTrips
ControlVariable Description
CMAPRegionalPlanning
I290Project ReasonforChange
PZOIProduction/origin
zonestobeprocessed11944 12233
MoreI290zonesduetodetailedzonesincorridor
QZOIAttraction/destinationzonestobeprocessed
11944 12233
ControlVariable Description CMAPRegionalPlanningI290Project
ReasonforChange
1.400(Chicagocentralarea) 1.800
1.ThebalanceofthecentralareaoutsidethezonescoveredbytheCBDparkingsubmodel.Settoapproximatelyhalftheonstreetratetoreflectfreeemployeeparking.
2.100(BalanceofChicago) 2.1002.Reflectsmostlyfreeemployeeparkingoutsidethecentralarea
3.100(Densesuburban) 3.2003.Approximatelyhalftheonstreetrateinbusinessdistrictsindensesuburbanarea
4.0(Low densitysuburban) 4.0 4.Generallyfreeemployeeparking
1.5(Chicagocentralarea) 1.5
2.3(BalanceofChicago) 2.3
3.3(Densesuburban) 3.3
4.3(Low densitysuburban) 4.3
1518, 27,2030, 930,3236, 3236,39,40 3941,
45,47,5557
ITER
Numberoftripssimulatedbetweenzonepairstoproduceaveragecostvalues
10 100Fasterprocessingspeedsallow farmoretripstobesimulatedinacceptabletimes
APC
Fourdailyparkingcostsforworklocationsintheregionincents
WFA
Fouraveragewalkingtimesfromparkedautotoworkplaceinminutes
1.DefaultvalueforthebalanceofthecentralareaoutsidethezonescoveredbytheCBDparkingsubmodel.
PRKZON
ZonenumberscoveredbyCBDparkingsubmodel(maximumof200zones)
Determinedbytheavailabilityofoffstreetparkingratedata
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 19 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table34.ControlVariablesin&OptionNamelistforHomeWorkTrips
ControlVariable
DescriptionCMAPRegional
PlanningI290Project
ReasonforChange
HWIndicateshomeproductionsandworkattractionsare
simulatedTRUE TRUE
HNWIndicateshomeproductionsandnonworkattractions
aresimulatedFALSE FALSE
OTH
Indicatesoriginsanddestinationswithouta
homeorworktripendaresimulated
FALSE FALSE
ASM_AREA
Indicatesparametersthatcontrolthesimulationofdistancefromtripendto
linehaultransitserviceareinputbyareatype(Chicago
centralarea,balanceofChicago,densesuburban
sparsesuburban)
FALSE FALSE
FALSE
(Note:regionaldefaultsareusedwhenbothASM_AREAand
ASM_ZONESarefalse,seediscussionofDISTR
inputfile)
TRUE
(Note:seediscussionofM023inputfilefor
values)
TRACE
Indicatesthatextensiveintermediateoutputisdesiredforprogram
debugging
FALSE FALSEUsedtocheckprogram
calculations
ASM_ZONES
Indicatesparametersthatcontrolthesimulationofdistancefromtripendto
linehaultransitserviceareinputbyzone(DISTRinput
file)
TRUE
New zonedistanceparametersestimatedforI290zonesystem,currentrailtransitandcommuterrailstations,existingCTAbusservice,andPACEregional
andfeederbus.
INCOST
Indicatesthatunitmodaltravelcostsareinputbyareatypeandnotsetto
programdefaults
TRUEModaltravelcostsrevisedtoapproximatecurrentvalues
inM023inputfile
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 20 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table35.ControlVariablein&SYSTEMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 21 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table36.ControlVariablesin&TABNUMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips
ControlVariable Description I290Project
TABLE_FMD EMMEBANKinputtablenumberforfirsttransitmodeboarded
Tablenumbersdependupondatapreparationin
EMMEsoftware
TABLE_LMDEMMEBANKinputtablenumberforlast
transitmodeboarded
TABLE_IVT EMMEBANKinputtablenumberfortransitinvehicletime
TABLE_OVTEMMEBANKinputtablenumberfor
transitoutofvehicletime
TABLE_HWAYEMMEBANKinputtablenumberforheadwayoffirsttransitlineboarded
TABLE_PMDEMMEBANKinputtablenumberfor
prioritymode
TABLE_FARE EMMEBANKinputtablenumberfortransitfarespaid
TABLE_HTIME EMMEBANKinputtablenumberforhighwaytraveltime
TABLE_HDIST EMMEBANKinputtablenumberforhighwaydistancetraveledtime
TABLE_AUTILEMMEBANKoutputtablenumberfor
autogeneralcost
TABLE_TUTIL EMMEBANKoutputtablenumberfortransitgeneralcost
3.4 Transit Networks and Model Approach
TheStudyAreafeaturesseveralimportantrailandbustransitserviceswiththeCTAsBlueLine(OHareForestPark)ofthehighestimportance.CapturingthetransitmodeisintegraltogettingtravelrightintheI290corridor.TothisendtheCMAPtransitmodelswereexpandedandenhanced.ThefollowingchangesweremadewiththegoalofvalidatingtheI290corridorfortransit:
DailytransittripswerestratifiedbytrippurposeincludingtwoHomeBasedWorkincomeclassifications:HomeOtherandNonHomeBased.
Transitskimsweresetupdefiningfirstmodeandprioritymodetoinformthetransittripprocessingstepbelow.
TransittripstartandendpointwerecodedwithXYcoordinatestoutilizetheEMMEfunctionthatstepsawaysfromcentroidstartandendpointassumptionsandinsteadusespointlocation.Walkanddriveaccesswereestablishedfortransittripsbytransitmode.Metra,CTArailandbuswereestablishedasthetransitmodesintheregion.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 22 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Transitassignmentapproach,includingheadwaypreparation,wasestablished.Theassignedlinescanbesummarizedbylineandarealsousedasinputtoasetoftransitpostprocessing/reportingprograms.TheseprogramsincludeI290corridortransitpersonmilesandtransitscreenlines.
ThetransitprocedurewaswritteninasetofEMMEmacrosandincustomizeddataprocessingscriptssothatitisautomatedandrepeatable.TheresultsofthistransiteffortallowanalyststoquicklyshowthedifferenceontheCTABlueLineaswellascommuterrailandbusintheI290corridorgiventheadditionofanHOV,HOTortolllanescenario.TransitplaysakeyroleintheI290studyduetoitspresenceinthemedianofthefacilityandalsoduetotheinterplaybetweentransitandHOV.TransitusersaretypicallymorereadilyinfluencedbytheavailabilityofHOV/HOTthanareautodrivers.
3.5 Mode Choice Updates
3.5.1 Project Approach TheCMAPmodechoicemodelwaspartlyrecalibratedfortheI290studytoreflectcurrenttravelcostsandmodesharesintheregion.ThecalibrationprocessstartedwiththemodelcoefficientsthatwereestimatedsomeyearsbeforebyCATS,CMAPspredecessoragency,andcurrentlyusedforagencyplanningprojects.Thecostcoefficientswerenextadjustedsothatcostscouldbeexpressedincurrentdollars,ratherthan1970dollars,thedateofthesurveyusedfortheoriginalmodelestimation.TheConsumerPriceIndexforallUrbanConsumersindicatedthatone1970dollarequaledapproximately$5.50in20082009dollars.
Thefirstroundofcalibrationeffortconsistedofadjustingbiasconstantssothatresultingmodesharesestimatedbythemodelmatchedobservedmodeshares.Homeworkcoefficientswerecalibratedtoobserveddatainthe2000CensusTransportationPlanningPackage,whilehomeotherandnonhomemodelcoefficientswerecalibratedtodatafromtheCMAPNorthwesternIndianaRegionalPlanningCommission20072008householdtravelsurvey.ThisworkfittedthemodeltoreflectthatthereareverylongworktripstotheChicagocentralarea.
3.5.2 Descriptions of Model Coefficients 1. COEFF1:Sixmodelcoefficientsthatcontrolbinaryautotransitmodesharesfor
trips(homework,homenonwork,andnonhome)tononCBDdestinations.
a. COEFF1(1):Zonetozoneinvehicletimeonlinehaulmodesinminutes.
b. COEFF1(2):Zonetozoneautooperatingcostsorzonetozonelinehaultransitfarespluscoststoaccess/egresstransitserviceincents.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 23 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
c. COEFF1(3):Invehicletimetoaccess/egresstransitinminutes.
d. COEFF1(4):Transitbiasconstant.Althoughanegativenumberduetothenegativesignassociatedwiththevariableinthetransitcost(negativeutility)calculation,itcanbeinterpretedastheaddedinherentcostofselectingtransit.
e. COEFF1(5):Zonetozoneoutofvehicletimeaccruedfromtheinitialtransitboardingtofinalalightingplustheoutofvehicletimetoaccess/egresstransitexceptforthetimespentwaitingfortheinitialboardingduetoservicefrequency(onehalfheadway)inminutes.
f. COEFF1(6):Onehalfheadwayoffirsttransitlineboardedinminutes.
2. COEFF2:SixmodelcoefficientsasdescribedabovethatcontrolbinaryautotransitmodesharesfortripstononCBDdestinations.
3. HOV_BIAS:Twobiasconstantsusedinthesubmodeltoallocatehomeworkpersontripsbyautointodrivealone,twopersonsharedride,andthreeormorepersoncarpoolautosubmodesfortripstononCBDdestinations.
a. HOV_BIAS(1):Threeormorepersonscarpoolbias.Theinherentaddedcostofselectingthethreeormorepersoncarpoolmodeversusthetwopersonsharedridemode..
b. HOV_BIAS(2):Sharedride(twoormorepersons)biasversus.Theinherentaddedcostofsharedridemodesasopposedtodrivingalone.
4. HOV_CBDBIAS:TwobiasconstantsasdescribedabovefortripstoCBDdestinations.
3.5.3 Mode Choice Coefficients for Different Model Applications Themodelcanberuninsixdifferentmodesdependingonthetrippurpose,useoftheHOVsubmodeltoallocateautotripsintooccupancylevelsubmodes,andsegmentationhomeworktripsbyearningslevel.
1. Homeworktripsforallworkers
a. Autotransitbinarychoice
b. AutotransitbinarychoicewithHOVsubmodelallocation
2. Homeworktripssegmentedbyworkersearnings
a. AutotransitbinarychoicewithHOVsubmodelallocationforlowearnings(belowregionalmedianearnings)workers
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 24 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
b. AutotransitbinarychoicewithHOVsubmodelallocationforhighearnings(aboveregionalmedianearnings)workers
3. Autotransitbinarychoiceforhomenonworktrips
4. Autotransitbinarychoicefornonhometrips
ThefollowingcoefficientswerecalibratedduringthepreparatoryworkformodelinganHOVlanetreatmentaspartofthereconstructionoftheEisenhower(I290)Expressway.
Table37.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeWorkTrips
Table38.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeNWandNHTrips
HomeNonWork NonHomeCOEFF1(1) 0.0114 0.0114COEFF1(2) 0.00592 0.00592COEFF1(3) 0.0663 0.0663COEFF1(4) 0.4482 1.1403COEFF1(5) 0.0589 0.0589COEFF1(6) 0.061 0.061COEFF2(1) 0.0159 0.0159COEFF2(2) 0.00153 0.00153COEFF2(3) 0.0486 0.0486COEFF2(4) 0.5507 1.6275COEFF2(5) 0.029 0.029COEFF2(6) 0.0173 0.0173
AutoTransitBinaryChoice
AutoTransitBinaryChoicewithHOVSubmodel
LowEarningsAutoTransitBinaryChoicewithHOVSubmodel
HighEarningsAutoTransitBinaryChoicewithHOVSubmodel
COEFF1(1) 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186COEFF1(2) 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013COEFF1(3) 0.0584 0.0584 0.0584 0.0584COEFF1(4) 0.7357 0.7357 0.9814 1.5484COEFF1(5) 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399COEFF1(6) 0.0811 0.0811 0.0811 0.0811COEFF2(1) 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159COEFF2(2) 0.00153 0.00153 0.00153 0.00153COEFF2(3) 0.0486 0.0486 0.0486 0.0486COEFF2(4) 0.8812 0.8812 0.4121 0.6959COEFF2(5) 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029COEFF2(6) 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173HOV_BIAS(1) NA 2.09 2.09 2.09HOV_BIAS(2) NA 1.15 0.263 0.45HOV_CBDBIAS(1) NA 2.51 2.51 2.51HOV_CBDBIAS(2) NA 1.59 0.583 0.06
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 25 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
3.6 Mode Choice High Occupancy Vehicle Integration
3.6.1 Non-Work High Occupancy Vehicle Mode Share Estimation In2012,theneedsoftheI290modelrequiredareestimationoftheexistingCMAPmodechoicemodeltobetterestimatetheautosubmodessingleoccupant,twopersons,orthreeormorepersonspervehicleforhomeworktravel.Thisfocusoncommutersbehaviorwasreasonableduetothefactthatmosthomeworktraveltakesplaceinthecongestedpeakperiodandhighoccupancyhighwayfacilitiesareparticularlyintendedforcommutersuse.Also,nonworktripsareoftentooshorttomakeuseoftheseHOVfacilities.
Nonworkautooccupancywascurrentlyestimatedusingobservedregionalaveragevalues,butmoredetailedestimateswereneededsincenonworktravelismorelikelytocontributetocongestion.Peakperiodtravelconditionshavesteadilylengthenedandnowencroachuponthetimesofthedaywhensubstantialnonworktraveloccurs.Thisisparticularlythecaseintheearlyhoursoftheeveningpeakperiodwhenbothworkersandnonworkersarereturninghome.
TheenhancementtotheCMAPmodechoicemodelestimatedhomeotherandnonhometripautooccupancy.Giventheavailabilityofdata,itwasanticipatedthatthemodelwouldfeatureindependentvariablesthatincludethecharacteristicsofthehouseholdandtriplength.
Aspartofthemodedevelopment,thestateofthepracticefornonworkautooccupancymodelswasreviewed.AnonworkHOVmodeshareestimationwasestimated.FinallytheI290modechoicemodelwasrevisedtoincorporateanonworkautooccupancysubmodel.
3.6.2 Toll and Non-Toll Mode Choice In2012itwasdeterminedthattheCMAP/I290modechoicemodelcontainedasetofoptionsforevaluatingtheeffectoftollsonmodechoice.Thesefeaturesofthemodelhadneverbeentested,calibratedorvalidated.TheseexistingoptionsinthemodelwereevaluatedtomakethemausefulpartoftheCMAPstandardmodelprocedure.Staffassembledthebaseyearnetworkswithcurrentvehicletolls,developedasetofmodelcalibrationtrafficcountsfortollandnontollregionalfacilities,revisedtheEMMEmacrostoprepareseparatepathsandskimfilesfortollandnontollnetworks,thenranthecurrentversionoftheI290modelonthebaseyearnetwork.
Estimationworkwasthenconductedtoevaluatethemodelrunandadjustmodelcalibrationcoefficientsasnecessarytobestmatchtollandnontolltrafficcountdata.TherevisedmodechoicetollcomponentwascalibratedanduseddirectlyintheI290worktocaptureaccuratelyhouseholdincomeandtriplengthcharacteristicswhichimproveresultsforpricingalternativessuchasHOVandHOT.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 26 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
3.7 Traffic Assignment
TheCMAPandI290modelsusetheEMME/3standardtrafficassignmentwhichisauseroptimalequilibriumassignmentwithlinearapproximation(FrankandWolfe).Itisbasedontheassumptionthateachtravelerchoosesthepath(orroute)perceivedasbeingthebest;ifthereisashorterpaththantheonebeingused,thetravelerwillchooseit.Attheequilibrium,noonecanimprovetheirtraveltimebychangingpaths.Withthestandardtrafficassignment,upto12classescanbeassignedsimultaneously.Foreachclasstherearemultiplechoicesforsavingandstoringtheassignmentresults.FortheI290efforttheclassspecificvolumesgeneratedfromthemulticlassassignmentonlinksaresavedinlinksegmentextraattributeskeyedtothevehicleclass.Table39liststhesevenvehicleclassesforthestudy.
Table39.VehicleClassesforTrafficAssignment
Number Link Mode Description Extra Attribute
Name from Assignment
1 H HighOccupancyVehicle(2) @hov2
2 H HighOccupancyVehicle(3+) @hov3
3 S SingleOccupancyVehicle @vauto
4 b BPlatetruck @vbplt
5 l LightTruck @vlght
6 m MediumTruck @vmed
7 h HeavyTruck @vhevy
ThemostrecentEMME/3pathbasedassignmentwasutilizedwitheachofthesevenvehicleclassescitedinTable39assignedusingmulticlassprocedurebytimeperiod.TheoverallassignmentapproachallowedintegrationandanalysisofHOVandHOTfor2orfor3+personspervehicle.Thepathbasedassignmentalsofacilitatedthesavingofassignmentresultsandpathsforeachtimeperiod.Thesepathfilesallowquickreviewandanalysisofindividualassignmentrunsandarevaluablefortroubleshootingmodelresults.
3.8 Computational Enhancements
3.8.1 Model Batch Processing TherecalibrationandvalidationstepsimplementedintheI290modelconversionrequiredthatthestructureoftheEMME/3batchfileberevisitedandrevised.Thebatchprogramisdesignedsothatascenarioispreparedafterwhicheighttimeperiodssummingtoa24hourdayareassignedinturn.AtwodatabankstructurewasestablishedfortheI290work:
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 27 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
1. SimulationBanktheEMME/3databankthatisalternativespecificandwhichholdsthebasenetwork,eighttimeofdaynetworks,reportsfromthemodelruns,andthezonaldata.
2. ArchiveBankAnarchiveorholddatabank,alsoalternativespecific,thatcapturesthecurrenttimesandtripsbypurposeandmodeinmatrixformfromeachofthefivefullmodeliterations.
Intheproductionstageiswasdeterminedthatseparatedatabanks,copiedfromthefinalarchivedbankforeachscenario,werevaluableforprocessingtheTransportationSystemPlan(TSP)reportingaswellasthetransitresultsafterthe.
3.8.2 Parallel (Multi-threaded) Standard Traffic Assignment RevisionoftheEMME/3macroapproachalsoallowedasoftwareinnovationtobeintroduced.INROsEMME/3assignmentcalledParallelStandardTrafficAssignmentisamultithreadedimplementationoftheStandardTrafficAssignmentwithFixedDemandthatmakesuseofmultiprocessorsystemswhenavailable.Itremainsanimplementationofthelinearapproximationalgorithm(FrankandWolfe)equilibriumassignment,hencethesameconvergencepropertiesastheStandardTrafficAssignment,withthedistinctionthatcomputingtimescanbereducedsignificantlywhenrunonsystemswithmultipleprocessors.Theuserisabletoselecthowmanythreadswillbeusedintheassignment,witheachthreadcorrespondingtodedicateduseofoneprocessor.Thisallowsuserstochoosehowmanyprocessorstodedicatetotheparalleltrafficassignmentandprovidestheopportunitytoleaveprocessorsforotherconcurrentcomputingneedsifdesiredxii.TheI290modelapplicationintegratescallstothemultithreadedEMME/3modulethusenhancingruntimeandefficiency.AdditionalcomputationalenhancementswerebuiltduringtheI290process.TheseincludedHotStartsstreamlining,simultaneousexecutionoftimeofdayscenarioruns,andtransittripassemblyandassignment.AstheEMMEprovidedupdates,staffinstalledthemandintegratedthenewcapabilitiesofeachupdatedversionintheI290model.
3.9 Model Post Processing
AlibraryofEMMEmacroscriptswaspreparedtoservethemodelrunswithareportingstreamallowingerrorinvestigation(troubleshooting)andmonitoringtotakeplace.Thebatchprocessingapproachwaswrittensothatbothbaseandfutureyearscouldberunwithaminimumofreportingfilesetupchanges.Postprocessingandreportingoftheeighttimeofdayperiodsandthesixvehicletypesoriginallyincluded: Calculationofaveragedailyvehicletrafficfromthesumofsingleoccupancy
vehicles,highoccupancyvehicles,andfourclassesoftrucksovertheeighttimeperiods.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 28 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
CalculationofthedailyVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)forbothautoandtruck.
CalculationofthedailyVehicleHoursTraveled(VHT)forbothautoandtruck.
Modesplitreportthatfacilitatesthesummaryoftripsbypurposebyautomode(SOV,HOV2andHOV3+)andtransit.
TheevolutionoftheI290modelhasrequiredexpandedreportingprotocol.Chiefamongtheexpandedreportingis: PersonthroughputforSOV,HOVandtransit(threepointsinthecorridor).
Expandedspeedandcongestionreportsinpeakperiods.
Detailedtruckreporting,includingcongestedtruckmilesandhours.
RefinementofAccesstojobsreporting.
Enhancedtransitreportingbymode,cutpointandStudyArea.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 29 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
4.0 2010 Validation of the I-290 Model
4.1 Introduction
AreviewoftheI290performancewiththefullsetofrevised2010inputsaswellasthemodelenhancementswasconducted.Theintentofthissectionistovalidate2010I290modelforitsusein2040alternativesanalysis.Thetravelmodelvalidationtopicsreviewedwere:
1. RegionalLevelTrafficValidation(SixCounty)
2. PeakPeriodTrafficValidation
3. Volume/CapacityRatios
4. I290CorridorDailyTrafficValidation
4.2 Regional Model Validation
TheeighttimeperiodsestablishedintheCMAPmodelsaresummedtoadailyvehicletraffictotaloneachhighwaysegmentofthemodel.Thisestimateddailytrafficcanthenbecomparedtoobservedtrafficdata(AverageAnnualDailyTrafficorAADT).ThereareeighttimeperiodsintheI290model,includinganAMandPMpeak.Thepeakscanalsobecomparedtoobservedpeaktraffic,whichisusefulparticularlyintheI290corridor.
4.2.1 Observed Data ObserveddatafortheI290effortwasobtainedfromCMAPwiththeultimatesourcebeingtheIllinoisDepartmentofTransportationxiii(IDOT).CMAPstafftabulates,geocodes,andupdatestheobservedtrafficdatainEMME/3readyformatallowingtheanalysttocomparethecountedlinkstothemodeloutput.Newlytabulatedcountswereavailablein2015foryear2010.FortheI290projectthecountlocationswithinthesixcountyregionwereused.Over10,400linksegmentsarecountedintheCMAPmodelnetwork,62percentofalllinksegments,asshowninTable41.Ofthearterialsegments,60percentarecounted.Ofthefreewaysegments,73percentarecounted.Figure41showsthelocationsoftheCMAPobserveddataforthethreemainclasses.Figure42showsacloseupoftheI290corridorwithcountlocations.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 30 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table41.NumberofCountLocationsbyClass(UsingVDFFunctionGroup)
Link Type Volume Delay
Function
Count Profile
Counted Links
Total Links
% Counted
ArterialStreet 1 8,901 14,732 60%
Freeway 2 732 997 73%
Freeway/expresswayrampfrom/toarterials 3 595 922 65%
Expressway 4 48 88 55%
Freeway/expresswaytofreeway/expresswayramp 5 106 147 72%
Linkwheretollispaid 7 83 109 76%
Total 10,465 16,995 62%Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts
Figure41.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData
Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts
0 5 10 15Miles
LegendI-290 Model_Network
COUNT LOCATIONS
Expressway
Freeway
Arterial
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 31 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Figure42.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData(Closeup)
Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts
4.2.2 Regional Scale Validation Tests Asmentionedabove,validationofthetravelmodeltraffictoobservedconditionsisanimportantpartofestablishingabaseforalternativestesting.Validationhastwolevels:
RegionalValidationwhichshowsthatthemodelisworkingatreasonablelevelsthroughouttheentiremetropolitanareaandthusformsastableplatformforastudyareasuchastheI290.
CorridorValidationwhichshowsthatthemodelisworkingatveryclosetolerancestotheobserveddatainastudyareaandcanreplicateconditionsforthedailyaswellasthepeakperiodsinastudyarea.
Althoughabsolutecriteriaforassessingthevalidityofallmodelsystemscannotbepreciselydefined,anumberoftargetvalueshavebeendeveloped.GuidanceonvalidationtargetsisprovidedbytheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)xivaswellasbystateDOTs.ObservedvolumesshouldbecheckedbyfacilitytypebothforthepercenttrafficdifferenceandfortheRootMeanSquareError(RMSE).Freewayandinterstatesegmentsshouldbewithin+/7percentoftheobservedtraffic.Lessheavilytraveledroadwayshavelessstringentrequirementsontheirfittoobservedtraffic.Givenareasonableregionalvalidationresult,thetravelmodelisdeemedareliabletoolforalternativestesting.
ThefollowingvalidationtestswereperformedontheI290TravelModeltotestthedailytrafficassignment:
C O O K
0 1 2 3Miles
I-290 Study AreaI-290_CorridorI-290 Model_Network
COUNT LOCATIONS
ExpresswayFreewayArterial
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 32 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
AllLinksObservedandModeledTrafficVolumeComparisonThistest,whichcomparestheobservedandthemodeledtrafficusingobservedandcountedtraffic,ispresentedbyvolumeclass.
AllLinksPercentRootMeanSquareErrorThistest,whichmeasuresthedifferencebetweenmodelvolumesandobservedtrafficcounts,iswherethevariabilityofthetrafficcountsismostevident.Ifthemodelfitwereperfect,thepercentrootmeansquareerrorwouldbeequaltozero.APercentRMSEvalueof3550isconsideredwithinnormallimits.Thistestisalsopresentedbyvolumeclass.TypicallythehighervolumerangesshowlowerPRMSE.
Table42presentsthecountedandmodeledtrafficstratifiedbyvolumeclassusingonewaytraffic.Thereareelevenvolumeclasses;thelowestvolumeclasscoversallfacilitieswithfewerthan10,000AADT.Thehighestvolumeclassisallfacilitieswith100,000AADTorhigher.Notethatthepercentdifferencebetweentheobservedandmodeledrangesfrom17percentto103percent.Thistableshowsthatthesmallervolumefacilitiesdonotperformparticularlywell;theyshowhighermodeltrafficthanobserved,theresultofincludingcountsfromnumerousminorarterialsinthemodelnetwork.Thisdifferenceisattributedtothefactthatthearterialscarrythetrafficformanylowerclassificationfacilitieswhicharenotincludedinthemodelnetwork.Notethatthevolumeclasswiththepoorestperformanceiscomposedoffacilitiescarryinglessthan10,000ADTandthattheratioimprovesastheleveloftrafficmeasuredgrows.Thisdifferentialiscommonindemandmodelresultsandisacceptableaslongasthehigherlevelroadwaysperformclosetotheobservedlevels.Thistableshowsthathighervolumefacilitiesdogenerallyoperatewithinthetravelmodelatveryclosetoobservedlevels.Thisrangeofobservedtoestimatedis11percentto+4percentonfacilitiesover50,000AADT.ThePercentRootMeanSquareErrorshowsthatthevariabilityofthemodelresultsisverysmallontheseroadsegments.Thetotaldifferenceofallroadsegmentsover10,000AADTis0percentwithaPercentRMSEof35.PRMSEvaluesinthe3550rangeareconsideredwithinthenormallimitsofMPOvalidation.
Table42.TrafficValidationbyVolumeClass
Volume Range
AADT Range (one-way)
# of Records
Counted Traffic (AADT)
Modeled Traffic
Difference Root Mean
Square Error
Percent RMSE # %
1 010,000 17,635 69,716,375 141,354,381 71,638,006 103% 5,872 149
2 10,00020,000 754 9,488,500 13,089,740 3,601,240 38% 10,440 83
3 20,00030,000 214 5,213,000 4,586,896 (626,104) 12% 13,697 56
4 30,00040,000 130 4,453,700 4,353,668 (100,032) 2% 15,984 47
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 33 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
5 40,00050,000 105 4,769,350 3,980,848 (788,502) 17% 19,796 44
6 50,00060,000 89 4,957,450 4,899,383 (58,067) 1% 13,677 25
7 60,00070,000 114 7,447,200 7,193,090 (254,111) 3% 13,530 21
8 70,00080,000 103 7,770,150 6,918,280 (851,870) 11% 14,618 19
9 80,00090,000 91 7,766,450 7,216,112 (550,338) 7% 13,762 16
10 90,000100,000 64 6,026,750 5,705,078 (321,672) 5% 12,869 14
11 over100,000 47 5,329,100 5,539,495 210,395 4% 14,266 13
All 19,347 132,939,125 204,843,595 71,904,470 54% 6,827 99
VolumeRangeover10,000AADT 1,711 63,221,650 63,482,588 260,938 0% 13,100 35
Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts,ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010Insummary,regionalmodelvalidationisafirststeptodeterminingifthetravelmodelisareasonabletooltousewithinafocusedstudyarea.Table42isconsistentintheoverestimationoftrafficatthelowervolumeclasses,whichisexpected.Theregionalnumbersshowverygoodresults(PRMSEof35)intheover10,000ADTfacilities.Thisresultisacceptableataregionallevel,particularlyifitcanbeshownthatthemodelwilloperateatveryclosetolerancesinthestudyarea,forpeakperiods.
4.3 Peak Periods Traffic and Percentage of Daily
SincethepeakperiodsareanimportantpartofthetrafficmodelforI290work,theAMandPMobservedtraffictothemodelresultswerecompared.Table43andTable44showtheobservedmainlinetrafficatsixlocationsduringthepeakperiodsintheI290studycorridor.ObservedIDOTpeakperioddefinitionsareasfollows:
EastboundTrafficonehourfrom7to8amand4to5pm
Westboundtrafficonehourfrom8to9amand4to5pm
TheI290trafficmodelpeakhourswereextractedandcomparedtotheobservedIDOTdata.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 34 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Table43.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Eastbound)
I-290 Facility Observed (1 hour) Modeled (1 hour) From To AMPeak PMPeak AMPeak PMPeak
Mannheim 25thAvenue 5,340 5,240 6,490 6,530
25thAvenue 17thAvenue 5,430 5,330 6,400 6,315
9thAvenue IL171(1stAvenue) 5,840 5,850 6,265 6,500
IL171 DesPlainesAve 6,240 6,510 6,010 6,170
DesPlaines Harlem 6,100 6,240 5,850 5,715
Austin Central 7,670 7,110 6,630 6,035
Laramie Cicero 8,430 7,670 8,095 6,465
Source:IDOT2010TrafficCounts,ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010
Table44.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Westbound)
I-290 Facility Observed (1 hour) Modeled (1 hour) From To AMPeak PMPeak AMPeak PMPeak
Mannheim 25thAvenue 7,130 6,790 6,225 6,360
25thAvenue 17thAvenue 6,980 6,700 6,220 6,445
9thAvenue IL17191stAvenue) 6,570 6,560 6,315 6,405
IL171 DesPlainesAve 6,500 6,480 6,140 6,115
DesPlaines Harlem 5,800 5,890 5,885 5,900
Austin Central 5,740 6,410 6,205 6,790
Laramie Cicero 6,100 6,650 6,585 8,235
Source:IDOT2010TrafficCounts,ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010
Table43andTable44showthefollowing:
Bothobservedandmodeledtrafficshowverylittledirectionality;botheastboundandwestboundtrafficflowsaregenerallyverycloseinmagnitudeinboththeAMandPMpeak.
ThevolumeoftrafficproducedbytheI290modeliscommensuratetoobservedtrafficlevelsontheI290facilityforboththeonehourAMandPMpeaks.
4.4 Peak Period Volume/Capacity Ratio
Thevolumetocapacityratio(V/Cratio)isdefinedastheratiooftrafficdemandflowratetocapacity.IntheCMAPmodelsitmaybecalculatedforeachoftheeighttimeperiodsandiscalculatedoneachlinksegmentofatrafficmodel.V/Cisaplanningtoolusedinthisanalysistoprovideconceptuallevelviewsofcongestionforthetimeperiods
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 35 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
providedinthemodel.Eachtimeperiodforthe2010basewasreviewedtodemonstratethattheI290modelwasabletocapturebasicdirectionalityandcongestionviatheV/Cratio.Figure43showstheV/CratiointhePMpeakfor2010.NotethatI290showsPMcongestionofover1.00inbothdirections.
Figure43.Volume/CapacityRatioforthePMPeak2010
Source:ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010
4.5 I-290 Corridor
ThelasttopicofvalidationistheperformanceoftheI290dailytrafficmodelinthestudycorridor.Theperformanceofthemodelonadailybasisaddsunderstandingoftheoverallvalidityofthemodel.Figure44isasnapshotofthedailymodeltrafficfortheI2902010scenario.Thesummaryattributeistotalvehiclesinvehicleequivalents.Notethattheinterstatefacilitiesareheavilytraveled,thedailyfacilitydirectionalityisbalanced,andthetrafficvolumes,measuredinvehicleequivalents,areintherangeof90,000to100,000ineachdirectionatmostpointsintheI290studycorridor.
0 .5 1 1.5Miles
PM VC RatioBelow .50from .50 to .85from .85 to 1.00Over 1.00
Mann
heim
25th
Ave
IL 17
1 Harle
m
Centr
al
Cice
ro Pulas
kiSa
crame
nto
Weste
rn
Ashla
nd
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 36 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Figure44.2010I290DailyTrafficEstimate
Source:ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010
Table45.I290MainlineTrafficComparison(Observedvs.Modeled)
ID I-290 Facility AADT
2012 Model ADT
2010 Difference
From To # %
1 WofMannheim 187,700 208,174 20,474 11%
2 Mannheim 25thAve 182,800 182,994 194 0%
3 Eof25thAvenue 182,200 182,882 682 0%
4 9thAvenue IL171 185,700 185,729 29 0%
5 IL171 DesPlaines 182,800 189,657 6,857 4%
6 DesPlaines Harlem 167,400 165,331 2,069 1%
7 Harlem Austin 183,200 178,797 4,403 2%
8 Austin Central 183,200 184,920 1,720 1%
9 Laramie Cicero 204,600 200,446 4,154 2%
10 Cicero Kostner 191,800 188,032 3,768 2%
11 Kostner Independence 200,700 200,446 254 0%
12 Independence Homan 209,200 211,754 2,554 1%
13 Homan Sacramento 210,000 205,575 4,425 2%
14 Sacramento Western 200,500 190,664 9,836 5%
15 Western Damen 208,800 205,937 2,863 1%
16 Damen Ashland 200,500 203,633 3,133 2%
17 Ashland Racine 185,900 187,111 1,211 1%
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 37 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
Total 3,267,000 3,272,082 5,082 0%
SourceofAADT:IDOTTrafficData,2012,ParsonsBrinckerhoffModelRunfor2010
Table45tabulatesseventeensegmentsoftheI290corridorcomparing2012observedtrafficcountstotheresultsbysegmentsinthestudycorridorfromwestofMannheimtoRacine.Theobserveddataaveragesabout200,000AADTthroughoutthecorridor.Estimated(modelADT)differencevaluesrangefrom5percentto+5percentdifferentfromtheobserveddata,withtheexceptionofthesegmentwestofMannheim.Thereisanoverall0percentdifferenceinthesumofthesegmentscomparingestimatedtoobserved.
4.6 Findings
IthasbeentheintentofSection4topresentanoverviewofvalidationstepsfortheI290TravelModeldemonstratingthatitprovidesareliablebasereplicatingobservedconditionsattheregionalandcorridorlevel.
TheI290modelenhancementsstepswhichincludedmajorchangesintripratesbypurpose,percentageofworktripsofalltrippurposes,tripdistributionstructure,averagetriplengths,autooccupancychanges,andtimeofdaypercentagesresultedinamodelthatreplicatedregionalandI290corridortraffic.BasedonasetofCMAPcountsobtainedfromIDOTfor2012,theI290travelmodelisperformingatareasonablelevelcomparedtoregionaltrafficflows.TheratioofobservedtomodeledtrafficonregionalinterstatesandfreewaysandthePercentRootMeanSquareerrorarewithinnormallimitsforMPOvalidation.
TheAMandPMpeakperiodsinthemodelproducetrafficlevelscommensuratewiththeIDOTobserveddata.
I290mainlinetrafficfor2010averagesslightlylower(0percent)inthemodelthanintheobserved2012IDOTcounts.Estimated(modelADT)differencevaluesbysegmentrangefrom5percentto+5percentdifferentfromtheobserveddata,withtheexceptionofthesegmentwestofMannheim.
Insummary,adetailedtravelmodelcustomizedforI290wasdeveloped,includingconstructingadetailednetwork.TheuseofrecenthouseholdsurveyandotherdatatoreestimateselectedpartsoftheCMAPmodelsresultedinanupdatedmodelthatwasvalidatedto2010thenappliedtothe2040studyyearalternatives.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 38 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation
References
i ParsonsBrinckerhoff,HOVLaneFeasibilityStudyfortheEisenhowerExpressway(FAI290)fromI294/I88toAustinAvenue:Volumes13,IllinoisDepartmentofTransportation,DivisionofHighway/District1,July1998.
ii ChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning.Updated2030RegionalTransportationPlanforNortheasternIllinois(ReflectsallApprovedUpdatesthroughOctober2008).October9,2008.
iii Christopher,EdJ.,AlanR.Fijal,andAnneC.Ghislandi.CATS1990Household
TravelSurvey:AMethodologicalOverview.WorkingPaper9405.April1994.iv U.S.CensusBureau.CensusTransportationPlanningPackage2000(CTPP2000).
v NuStats.ChicagoRegionalHouseholdTravelInventory:DraftFinalReportpreparedforChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning.Austin,TX,2008.
vi U.S.CensusBureau.AmericanCommunitySurvey:DesignandMethodology(UneditedVersion).EconomicandStatisticsAdministration,May2006.
vii http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/,December8,2008.
viii IllinoisHighwayInformationSystemRoadwayInformation&ProcedureManual,July1,2001,(withrevisionsasofNovember28,2006).
ix INROTransportationModelingsoftware,http://www.inro.ca.
x ThealChalabiGroup,I290Phase1Study,HistoricandForecastedGrowthofPopulation,HouseholdsandEmploymentintheExtendedRegionofChicago,NoBuildMarketDrivenversusPolicyBasedSocioEconomicForecasts(20102014)andI290BuildForecasts,June2014,revisedAugust2015.
xi http://www.bls.gov/cpi/,2009.
xii INRO,EMME3Documentation,2009.xiii http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/.
xiv FHWA,CalibrationandAdjustmentofSystemPlanningModels,1990.
AppendixB2
HistoricandForecastedGrowthofPopulation,HouseholdsandEmploymentintheExtended
RegionofChicago
NoBuildMarketDrivenversusPolicyBasedSocioEconomicForecasts(20102040)andI290
BuildForecasts
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study Cook County, Illinois
Prepared for Illinois Department of Transportation
Prepared By: ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd.
in association with WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
June 2014 Revised September 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway iii Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum
Table of Contents
1.0 IntroductionandOverview.........................................................................................................1
2.0 MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecastsNoBuildScenario....................................11
A. TransportationNetworkAssumptions.................................................................................11
B. Population,HouseholdsandEmploymentForecastsGeneralApproach.........................11
C. PopulationandEmploymentForecastsDefiningtheMethodology.................................13
D. HistoricalGrowthoftheRegionanditsInfluenceonLongRangeDevelopment.........14
E. MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecastsbyTownshipCalibrationandForecasts.......19
F. MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecastsbyCommunityAreaintheCityofChicago...30
G. StatisticalVerificationoftheSCurveForecastingMethodology.....................................37
3.0 TheCMAP/NIPCSocioEconomicForecasts:HistoricandComparisonwithI290MarketDrivenForecasts.......................................................................................................................41
A. Background...............................................................................................................................41
B. ComparingtheI290MarketDrivenNoBuildForecastwiththeCMAPPolicyBasedForecast(2010)......................................................................................................................................42
C. WhyUsetheMarketDrivenForecastsfortheI290EISStudy?...........................................47
4.0 TheI290BuildSocioEconomicForecasts.........................................................................49
A. Overview...................................................................................................................................49
B. BuildForecastMethodology......................................................................................................49
C. MeasuringAccessibility..............................................................................................................50
D. ImpactofChangesinAccessibilityIndexesonResidentialDevelopment(HouseholdandPopulation)....................................................................................................................................52
E. ImpactofChangesinAccessibilityIndexesonEmploymentDistribution.........................56
F. SocioEconomicForecastFilesasDeliveredtoParsonsBrinckerhoffInc.,asInputintotheTransportationModelingProcess......................................................................................................59
5.0 Epilogue........................................................................................................................................61
Appendices
AppendixAMarketDrivenSocioEconomicTownshipForecasts..........................................A1AppendixBTravelTimeImpedanceEstimation.........................................................................B1
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway iv Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum
List of Exhibits
Exhibit1. ChangeinAccessibilityMeasuresBuildvs.NoBuildProposedProject BasedonChangeinHighwayTravelTimes............................................................6Exhibit2. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoHighwayImprovements.................................................................................8Exhibit3. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoTransitImprovements.....................................................................................8Exhibit4. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoHighwayImprovements...............................................................9Exhibit5. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoTransitImprovements...................................................................9Exhibit6. TheStandardLogisticsSCurve...............................................................................12Exhibit7. 19201930HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................14Exhibit8. 19301940HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................15Exhibit9. 19401950HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................15Exhibit10. 19501960HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................16Exhibit11. 19601970HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................16Exhibit12. 19701980HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................17Exhibit13. 19801990HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................17Exhibit14. 19902000HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................18Exhibit15. 20002010HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................18Exhibit16. SampleTownshipsEastWestCrossSection.......................................................19Exhibit17. ProvisoTownshipWestSuburbanCookCounty...............................................21Exhibit18. YorkTownshipDuPageCounty...........................................................................22Exhibit18A. YorkTownshipDuPageCounty...........................................................................23Exhibit19. LisleTownshipDuPageCounty............................................................................24Exhibit20. NapervilleTownshipDuPageCounty.................................................................25Exhibit21. AuroraTownshipKaneCounty............................................................................26Exhibit22. SugarGroveTownshipKaneCounty...................................................................27Exhibit23. KanevilleTownshipKaneCounty........................................................................27Exhibit24. TakeOffYearofResidentialDevelopmentbyTownship....................................29Exhibit25. PopulationandHousingTrendsandForecasts:19302040 CityofChicagoCentralLakefrontCommunityAreas.......................................33
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway v Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum
Exhibit26. PopulationandHousingTrendsandForecasts:19302040 CityofChicagoNearWestCommunityAreas...................................................34Exhibit27. PopulationandHousingTrendsandForecasts:19302040 CityofChicagoWestCommunityAreas.............................................................35Exhibit28. ActualPopulationvs.SCurvePredicted:19202010...........................................37Exhibit29. ActualPopulationvs.SCurvePredicted:19602010...........................................37Exhibit30. ActualHouseholdvs.SCurvePredicted:19602010...........................................38Exhibit31. ActualEmploymentvs.SCurvePredicted:19702010........................................39Exhibit32. 20102040MarketDrivenForecastsAveragePopulationChange PerDecadePerSquareMilebyMinorCivilDivision...........................................42Exhibit33. 20102040PolicyBasedForecastsAveragePopulationChange PerDecadePerSquareMilebyMinorCivilDivision...........................................43Exhibit34. 2040PopulationForecastComparisonsMarketDriven MinusPolicyBasedPerSquareMilebyMinorCivilDivision............................43Exhibit35. FinalWeightFi,js.......................................................................................................50Exhibit36. ChangeinAccessibilityMeasuresBuildvs.NoBuildProposedProject BasedonChangeinHighwayTravelTimes..........................................................51Exhibit37. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoHighwayImprovements...............................................................................53Exhibit38. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoTransitImprovements...................................................................................53Exhibit39. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoHighwayImprovements.............................................................56Exhibit40. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoTransitImprovements.................................................................57
List of Tables
Table1. Comparisonof2040I290NoBuildandBuildForecasts...............................................10Table2. ComparisonofI290andCMAP2040PopulationForecasts.........................................10Table3. ActualVersusSCurvePredictions....................................................................................36Table4. I290/EisenhowerCorridorStudyForecastsfortheRegionofChicago MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecasts20102040......................................................45Table5. PopulationImpactsoftheProposedProjectComparisonofRecommended BuildAlternativesHighwayandTransitwithNoBuildAlternative....................54Table6. EmploymentImpactsoftheProposedProjectComparisonofRecommended BuildAlternativesHighwayandTransitwithNoBuildAlternative....................58Table7. ComparisonofStudyAreaCMAPandI290NoBuild andBuildPopulationandEmploymentForecasts..........................................................60
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway 1 Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum
1.0 Introduction and Overview TheI290StudyisamongseveralrecentlycompletedorinprogresstransportationprojectsthathaveusedamarketdrivensocioeconomicforecastdevelopedbyACG:ThealChalabiGroup,Ltd.ACGsforecastmethodologyissimilartothatwhichpreviouslyhadbeenusedbytheregionalplanningagency,theChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning(CMAP),anditspredecessor,theNortheasternIllinoisPlanningCommission(NIPC),untilthedevelopmentoftheCMAPGOTO2040ComprehensiveRegionalPlan,in2010.TheCMAPGOTO2040PlanadoptedastrictPolicyBasedapproachtoforecasting.ThisreportdocumentsthedevelopmentoftheMarketDrivenforecaststhatrepresenttheI290NoBuildScenario,whichisdescribedinSection2.0.AcomparisonoftheI290MarketDrivenapproachtotheCMAPapproachispresentedinSection3.0.ThisreportthenpresentstheI290BuildforecastdevelopmentinSection4.0.AnEpilogueispresentedinSection5.0thatdescribestheI290ForecastsinrelationtotheCMAPforecastsdevelopedaspartoftheGO2040ComprehensiveRegionalPlanUpdatethatwascompletedin2014.Year2040socioeconomicforecastsweredevelopedaspartoftheI290Study.Socioeconomicforecasts,includingpopulationandemploymentforecasts,areusedasinputtotheI290travelforecastingmodel.TheI290travelforecastingmodelusesthesocioeconomicforecaststoestimatefuturetrafficandtransitusageforuseindesign,environmental,andfinancialanalyses.Theyear2040wasselectedastheplanninghorizonforconsistencywiththeregionsmetropolitantransportationplan.Themetropolitantransportationplanisintendedtoguidepublicpolicywithrespecttofutureinfrastructureinvestmentforthenext20+yearsfortheregion.Themetropolitantransportationplanisintendedtoidentifyanoverallframeworkofmajorcapitalprojectsthataretestedforairqualityconformityandarewithinanassumedfiscallyconstrainedscenario.Theprojectsidentifiedaspartoftheregionsmetropolitantransportationplanprocess,whichincludetheproposedproject,areconsistentwithplangoalsandessentiallyrepresentplaceholdersthataresubjecttoNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)studies,includingarigorousanalysisofalternatives.Themetropolitantransportationplandoesnot,however,satisfyalloftheNEPAplanningrequirementsforimplementinganinfrastructureproject.
AsrequiredbyNEPA,amajorinfrastructureprojectsuchasI290isrequiredataprojectlevelofdetail,toundergo: AnanalysisofaNoBuildalternativetodefinethetransportationneed.FortheI290
study,theNoBuildisdefinedasnomajorimprovementsintheStudyArea;outsideoftheStudyArea,thefiscallyconstrainedmajorcapitalimprovementscontainedintheGOTO2040Planareassumedtobeinplace.
AnanalysisofarangeofreasonableBuildalternatives.AsdocumentedintheongoingI290study,abroadrangeofmultimodal(highway/transitmodecombinations)alternativesarebeingevaluated.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway 2 Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum
Adetailedassessmentofthesocial,economic,andenvironmentalimpactsofaproposedactionorproject.Anenvironmentalimpactstatement(EIS)isbeingpreparedfortheproposedproject.
Considerationofenvironmentalsequencing:avoidance,minimizationandmitigation. Stakeholderinvolvement:coordinationandconsultationoneveryaspectoftheNEPA
process,includingtheidentificationofprojectneeds,evaluationmethodologies,andalternativesdevelopmentandevaluation.
NEPArequirespreparationofanEISformajorfederalactionsthatmaysignificantlyaffectthequalityofthehumanenvironment.AnEISisafulldisclosuredocumentthatdetailstheprocessthroughwhichatransportationprojectisdeveloped,includesconsiderationofarangeofreasonablealternatives,analyzesthepotentialimpactsresultingfromthealternatives,anddemonstratescompliancewithotherapplicableenvironmentallawsandexecutiveorders.IDOTandFHWAarepreparinganEISfortheI290Study.AnEISrequiresagreaterleveloftravelforecastingmodeldetailthanforalongrangetransportationplan,becauseoftheneedforenvironmentalimpactevaluation,aswellasengineeringdesignandfinancialanalysis,includingtollrevenueforecasting.Thesocioeconomicforecastsarethemaininputtothetravelforecastingmodel,andshouldthereforereflectcurrentavailablelanduseandsocioeconomicconditions,historictrendsfortheStudyArea,andpendingdevelopmentandredevelopmentproposals,particularlythosethatwillexceedregulatorylimitsondensityorotherfactors.1TheI290socioeconomicforecasts,whicharemarketdriven,areconsistentwiththeserequirements.TheNoBuildScenarioexcludesallmajorcapitalprojectsintheStudyAreatodetermineNoBuildconditions.TheNoBuildAlternativeservesasabenchmarkagainstwhichthetransportationneedsaredefinedandtheBuildAlternativesarecompared.ToanalyzetheNoBuildAlternative,aswellastheBuildAlternativesfortheproposedproject,corresponding2040socioeconomicforecastsarerequired.
SectionIIpresentstheMarketDrivenNoBuildsocioeconomicforecastsdevelopedfortheproposedproject.TheACGMarketDrivenforecasts(i.e.NoBuild)werepreparedin2011through2013inclosecollaborationwithCMAP.Overthisperiod,ACG:ThealChalabiGroup,Ltd.conferredwithCMAPstaffinitsdevelopmentofaMarketDrivensocioeconomicforecast.Becauseitwasintendedforuseinmultipleprojects,forecastswerepreparedfortheextended(21County,threestate)ChicagoMetropolitanArea.ThisMarketDrivenforecastacceptsandincorporatesthe2040totalpopulation(andcorrespondinghouseholdandemployment)forecastsfortheCMAPregion;but,itdiffersinthedistributionofthoseforecasts.ThecollaborationwithCMAPstaffwasintendedtoestablishthegroundrulesfordevelopingan
1InterimGuidanceontheApplicationofTravelandLandUseForecastinginNEPA,FederalHighwayAdministration,March2010.
I-290 Eisenhower Expressway 3 Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum
alternati
top related