Model Validation of Transit Ridership at the Corridor and Transit Route Level by Mark Charnews...

Model Validation of Transit Ridership at the Corridor and Transit Route Level

by

Mark Charnews

October 19, 2006

Validate Travel Demand Model Transit Component to a greater level of detail.

Use the Regional Model for Transit Corridor Analysis by the Regional Council

Determine if Regional Model can be used by local transit agencies, who may not have the resources to develop, maintain and run their own models, to do their own corridor analysis.

Provide a model for consistent transit studies for all local transit agencies.

Reasons for a Validation of the Regional Travel Demand Model at the Corridor and Transit Route Level

The Model Area and Transit Agencies’ Service Areas

Ridership has been reasonably stable from 1999 to 2005 with a slight decline between the start of 2001 and the end of 2003 that coincided with a small economic downturn in the region. Current ridership near or at 2000 levels.

Regional Transit Monthly Ridership

Regional Monthly Boardings

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Jan

-99

Jan

-00

Jan

-01

Jan

-02

Jan

-03

Jan

-04

Jan

-05

Th

ou

sa

nd

s

Date

Ob

serv

ed

MetroKC is the largest transit agency, with over 70 percent of total transit ridership in the area.

King County Metro (MetroKC)

MetroKC Monthly Boardings

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

Jan-

99

Jan-

00

Jan-

01

Jan-

02

Jan-

03

Jan-

04

Jan-

05

Th

ou

san

ds

Date

Rid

ersh

ip

A small decline in ridership occurred for each agency due to an economic turndown and current ridership has mostly recovered to year 2000 levels.

New Sound Transit Service took ridership away from MetroKC, Pierce and Community Transit.

Other Transit Agencies’ Monthly Ridership

Other Transit Agencies' Monthly Boardings

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Jan

-99

Jan

-00

Jan

-01

Jan

-02

Jan

-03

Jan

-04

Jan

-05

Jan

-06

Th

ou

sa

nd

s

Date

Ob

se

rve

d

Pierce

Comm T

Kitsap

ST Bus

ST C Rail

ST L Rail

AM Peak Service ttfs:

Local Bus Service ft11 = 1.5708 * timau .min. (length * 12)

Express Service ft12 = 1.53615 * timau .min. (length * 12)

Park and Ride Service ft13 = 1.5125 * timau .min. (length * 12)

Closed Door Service ft14 = timau

Transit times are related to congested highway times.

Bus Travel Times

Mid-day Service ttf:

Local bus Service ft11 = 1.72431 * timau .min. (length * 12)

Express Service ft12 = 1.60597 * timau .min. (length * 12)

Park and Ride Service ft13 = 1.4375 * timau .min. (length * 12)

Closed Door Service ft14 = timau

Bus Travel Times

Times are shorter than observed, transit speeds are faster.

Comparison of Average Modeled Transit Times and Average Scheduled Times

AM PeakModeled Observed Percent from

ObservedAll 39 42 -7.14%Local 36 37 -2.70%Express 46 54 -14.81%Seattle 44 48 -8.33%PNR 47 56 -16.07%MetroKC 41 44 -6.82%Pierce T. 31 33 -6.06%Community T. 46 50 -8.00%Kitsap T. 22 25 -12.00%

Comparison of Average Modeled Transit Times and Average Scheduled Times

Mid-dayModeled Observed Percent from

ObservedAll 37 38 -2.63%Local 36 36 0.00%Express 50 58 -13.79%Seattle 41 44 -6.82%PNR 49 55 -10.91%MetroKC 39 41 -4.88%Pierce T. 31 32 -3.13%Community T. 43 44 -2.27%Kitsap T. 27 26 3.85%

Some outliers, many routes with different times depending upon which branch of the route is measured. Needs a careful manual match up for better accuracy.

Comparison of Modeled and Observed Bus Route Times

AM Peak Transit Route Times

y = 0.78x + 5.9597

R2 = 0.5711

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Observed

Mo

de

led

Better fit for mid-day service.

Comparison of Modeled and Observed Bus Route Times

Mid-day Transit Route Times

y = 0.858x + 4.1599

R2 = 0.7291

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Observed

Mo

de

led

Model only assigns a three hour AM peak and a six hour Mid-day period.

Daily Ridership = 2.2327 * AM Ridership + 1.5643 MD Ridership

Based on Time of Day proportions from MetroKC data.

Modeled Daily Ridership Equation

MetroKC - Modeled 392,919 boardings, Observed 358,806 boardings.

Daily Ridership by Company

MetroKC Daily Ridership Year 2000

y = 0.8761x + 417.86

R2 = 0.7554

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Pierce Transit - Modeled 40,733 boardings, 32,978 observed.


Pierce Transit Daily Ridership Year 2003

y = 1.2231x + 9.9305

R2 = 0.7336

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Kitsap Transit - Modeled 15,277 boardings, Observed 11,712 boardings.

Daily Ridership by CompanyKitsap Transit Daily Ridership (Fixed Route Service)

Year 2006

y = 1.0592x + 77.647

R2 = 0.6663

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Kitsap Transit – special case, each bus makes one trip in AM, one in PM passengers assigned to route for Bremerton Naval Yard. Modeled 2,025 boardings, Observed 529 boadings.


Kitsap Transit Daily Ridership (Worker Driver Service)Year 2006

y = 6.9132x - 181.42

R2 = 0.3377

050

100150200250300350400450

0 20 40 60 80 100

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Everett Transit - very small service area, highway and transit network too coarse, TAZs too large. Modeled 4,031 boardings, Observed 2,550 boardings.


Everett Transit Daily Ridership Year 2006

y = 1.0068x + 243.98

R2 = 0.2846

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Observed

Mo

de

led

Community Transit - very poor fit, but total modeled ridership 19,844 boardings, observed 18,091 boardings is close.


Community Transit Daily Ridership 2006

y = 0.318x + 370.82

R2 = 0.1364

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 500 1000 1500

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Community Transit did a major redesign of service.

Using Fall 2000 ridership, a much better fit is obtained.

Modeled: 14,681 boardings, Observed 12,392 boardings.


Community Transit Daily Ridership Year 2000

y = 1.0798x + 40.653

R2 = 0.4926

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Modeled 274,003 boardings, Observed 245,745 boardings.

MetroKC Ridership by Service Type

MetroKC Daily Transit (Local Service)

y = 0.8977x + 472.47

R2 = 0.7779

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Observed

Mo

del

ed



MetroKC Daily Transit (Express Service)

y = 0.8976x + 248.93

R2 = 0.716

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Observed

Mo

del

ed

Note R squared near to Community Transit (which has a lot of P&R service) R squared figure.



MetroKC Daily Transit (P&R Service)

y = 0.5387x + 619.11

R2 = 0.5986

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Observed

Mo

del

ed

The difference between Modeled and Observed boardings was plotted against one way route time.

Low R squared suggests no bias in boarding estimation by route distance.

MetroKC Ridership by Route Distance

MetroKC Route Time Check

y = 14.706x - 287.55

R2 = 0.0669

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 50 100 150 200

Bus Time (minutes)

Mo

de

led

- O

bs

erv

ed

Transit Route Boardings within 35% of Observed

Transit Route Boardings below 35% of Observed

Transit Route Boardings above 35% of Observed

Overall a reasonably consistent fit between modeled and observed boardings by route.

Bus travel time estimation needs to be refined.

Higher resolution TAZ system and highway/transit network needed for entire region to truly capture all transit routes.

Conclusions

Set dwell times as a function of boardings.

Examine path building parameters to see if better fit can be obtained.

Review these findings with local transit agencies.

Develop new zone system and higher resolution road network.

Suggestions?

Future

Mark Charnews PhD.

[email protected]

Puget Sound Regional Council

1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500

Seattle, Washington 98104-1035

Questions

Model Validation of Transit Ridership at the Corridor and Transit Route Level by Mark Charnews...

Documents

Transcript of Model Validation of Transit Ridership at the Corridor and Transit Route Level by Mark Charnews...