Top Banner
Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009
37

Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Dec 24, 2015

Download

Documents

Lee Welch
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model

Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference

Houston, TexasMay 19, 2009

Page 2: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Presentation Overview• Milton-Madison Project Overview• Bi-state model development• Model Results• Corridor study traffic forecasts

Page 3: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Milton-Madison Project Overview• Location – existing US 421 bridge over the

Ohio River at Milton, KY and Madison, IN• Project Goals

– $5.3 M project to look at bridge replacement and rehabilitation options

– Possible funding using tolls– Examination of I-71 to I-74 corridor necessitated the

creation of a bi-state model using the Kentucky and Indiana statewide models

Page 4: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Bridge Location

Page 5: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.
Page 6: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Bridge Characteristics• Built in 1929, rehabilitated in 1997 (deck

replacement, structural steel repairs and concrete patching)

• 3,181 feet long, steel truss w/ 10-ft lanes (substandard)

• Current ADT is 10,700• Truck percentage is 4%• Temporary 15-ton weight limit

Page 7: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Needs & Deficiencies Report

• Extensive data collection– OD survey– Historical data review– Blanket counts including turning movement

counts around area

Page 8: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Bi-State Model • Purpose• Source data• Network development• Zone system development• Trip table development• Traffic assignment• Forecasting procedures

Page 9: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Bi-state model development• Purpose:

– Use for bridge replacement alternatives (in vicinity of Madison)

– Use to determine if new bridge would create demand in I-71 to I-74 corridor

• Model data sources– KY statewide travel demand model and IN statewide travel

demand model– Field data including O-D surveys and traffic counts– KY CIMS and IN Commodity flow database for commodity

flows

Page 10: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

KYSTM Background

• Base Year = 2007• Future Year = 2030• 4870 TAZs, including

3651 in-state TAZs• 71640 Network links

including 55662 in-state links

• Developed in 2003 by WSA

• Revalidated in 2007 by KYTC

Page 11: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

INSTM Background

• Base Year = 2000 • Future Year = 2030 • 4720 TAZs, including

4579 in-state TAZs • 45468 Network links

including 32304 in-state links

• Developed in 2003 by BLA

Page 12: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Combining Networks

Page 13: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Combining Networks

Page 14: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Combining Networks• Converting INSTM network attributes to KY format

Page 15: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

TAZ Development• Necessary to update INSTM base year from 2000

to 2007.– The key data needed was population, households and

employment– Data was interpolated between the base year and the 2030

future year– The county and state control totals were compared to Woods

and Poole 2007 data as a reasonableness check– The resulting data for Jefferson County (the Indiana county in

which the bridge is located)

Jefferson County SE Data

2000 2007 2030Population 31,665.00 33,133.00 37,182.00Employment 17,938.00 13,585.00 19,604.00

Page 16: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Consolidated TAZs

Page 17: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

TAZs

• Also had to change the zone numbering scheme as follows:– Original numbering

scheme:– New numbering

scheme:

Page 18: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Trip table development• KYSTM generates trip tables for the following

purposes– Short distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV) – HBW, HBO, NHB– Long distance Private Occupancy Vehicles – Business, tourist, other

long distance– Trucks – long distance trucks, local trucks

• INSTM generates trip tables for the following purposes

– Short distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV) – HBW, HBO, NHB– Long distance Private Occupancy Vehicles– Trucks

Page 19: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Trip table disaggregation• KY long distance trips need to be disaggregated for

POV, LD and Truck trips• Factors were developed to transform the KY TAZs to

the INSTM TAZs. An example of the factors for a single KYSTM zone is shown below:

Page 20: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

External Special Generator Trip Table Disaggregation

• KYSTM only validated within KY

• External trips (outside KY) were treated as special generators

• Used INSTM to distribute special generators, especially 600013 (Ext Sta on US 421 bridge)

Page 21: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Final Bi-state model triptable• Short distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV)

– KYSTM Home Based Work (HBW)– KYSTM Home Based Other (HBO)– KYSTM Non Home Based (NHB)– INSTM Home Based Work (HBW)– INSTM Home Based Other (HBO)– INSTM Non Home Based (NHB)

• Long distance Private Occupancy Vehicles– KYSTM Business– KYSTM Tourist– KYSTM Other long distance– INSTM Long distance

• Trucks– KYSTM Trucks– INSTM Trucks

Page 22: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Assignment

• AON Trucks Use an All or Nothing assignment method to Assign KYSTM Trucks and INSTM Trucks

together

• Preload Trucks

• UE for POV use a user equilibrium method to

assign all private occupancy vehicles together

Page 23: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Validation

• Visual review of the number of lanes and network connectivity

• Shortest path traffic assignments to ensure that no breaks in the network existed

• Review of the output travel times between traffic analysis zones, to ensure that there were no unreasonable travel times caused by network coding errors

Page 24: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Validation• Validated only for Jefferson County (containing Madison)• Used RMSE and maximum percent deviation (NCHRP

255) comparisons• Bridge assignment was 10,200 compared to 10,300

actual count

Volume Group Observations Average Count % RMSE

< 2000 23 638 147% 2000 - 4000 14 2,723 25% 4000 - 6000 11 4,701 37% 6000 - 8000 5 7,108 29%

>8000 8 10,776 21% All 61 3,709 38%

Page 25: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Actual counts vs. modeled volumes

Page 26: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

O-D Comparison

• WSA performed OD data collection in Madison• Performed select link analysis to compare• Model seems reasonable although there are no standards for OD

comparison

Location Survey % of Bridge Traffic using Route

Model % of Bridge Traffic using Route

KY56 West of Bridge and KY 7 12.2% 16.5% KY 7 Downtown 9.4% 15.5% KY 7 North of KY 62 5.2% 3.9% KY56 East of Bridge 4.5% 8.7% US421/KY62 26.3% 25.2%

Page 27: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Future Model

• Both IN DOT & KYTC provided their E+C networks

• Used 2030 as the forecast year• Looked at No-Build conditions• Future growth shown below:

2007 2030 Change Jefferson County, IN 78,600 87,400 11% Trimble County, KY 13,400 18,300 37% Kentucky and Indiana 24,472,200 29,243,800 19%

Page 28: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Model Results

• Milton-Madison bridge– 2030 volume = 12,900 (25% increase)– Select link analysis for trips using bridge shown below

Page 29: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Distribution of Bridge Trips

Page 30: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Forecasted volumes: POV & Truck

Page 31: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Forecasted 2007-2030 Change

Page 32: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Corridor Study Analysis

• Purpose of corridor study – to see if combination of new Ohio River Bridge and improved corridor results in substantial new traffic

• The alternatives analyzed were:– No Build– Remove the bridge– I-71 to I-74 on three different corridors crossing the

Ohio River in the vicinity of Madison & Milton

Page 33: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Corridor Study Map

Page 34: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Corridor Study Results

• Additional trips– Total volume: 5,000 to 6,000– Trucks: 1,000 to 1,500

2030 Bridge VolumesLocation Do-Nothing West Alt. Middle Alt. East Alt.

Total Trucks Total Trucks Total Trucks Total TrucksExisting Bridge 12900 700 11400 500 9600 200 9200 400New Bridge 8000 1100 8400 1300 10000 2100Total 12900 700 19400 1600 18000 1500 19200 2500

Page 35: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Corridor PMs• The usual Performance Measures (PMs) were produced by the

model:– 2030 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

– 2030 daily vehicle hours traveled (VHT)

• The PMs were compared to the No Build alternative

Corridor Performance Measures

VMT Change VHT ChangeDo Nothing 341,384,644 NA 7,744,820 NAEast Alt. 341,351,371 33,273 7,740,745 4,075

Middle Alt. 341,448,805 -64,161 7,740,339 4,481West Alt. 341,418,899 -34,255 7,736,112 8,708No Bridge 341,832,841 -448,197 7,754,376 -9,556

Page 36: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Conclusions

• Need for new tool Milton-Madison bridge project a major investment study needing refined modeling tools

• Project solution was a Bi-state model This tool, created from the KYSTM and INSTM was relatively easy to create and validate

• Successful implementation The Bi-state model results provided valuable information to decision-makers for future bridge volumes and for possible corridor options

Page 37: Milton-Madison Bi-State Travel Demand Model Rob Bostrom Planning Application Conference Houston, Texas May 19, 2009.

Thank You

• Questions?

• Rob Bostrom, [email protected]