Montgomery County Travel Forecasting Model Validation — Status Report — Status Report Presented...

Montgomery Montgomery County Travel County Travel

Forecasting Model Forecasting Model ValidationValidation

— — Status ReportStatus ReportPresented To:Presented To:

TPB Travel Forecasting SubcommitteeTPB Travel Forecasting Subcommittee

By:By:Montgomery County Department of Park and PlanningMontgomery County Department of Park and Planning

M-NCPPCM-NCPPC

March 18, 2005March 18, 2005 Countywide Planning Montgomery County Dept. of Park & Planning, M-NCPPC

(/29

.-,270

.-,495

%g97

Germantown

Planning AreasGermantown PAMajor Roads

Planning AreasMontgomery County, MD.

Countywide Planning Montgomery County Dept. of Park & Planning, M-NCPPC

Montgomery County Demographic FactsMontgomery County Demographic Facts


Year 2000Year 2000

HH Pop. Total Pop.

Population:Population: 863,910863,910 873,341873,341

Adj. Emp.(a) Total Emp.

Employment:Employment: 475,020475,020 479,800479,800

Note: (a) Applied MWCOG Employment Adjustment Factor: 0.99

#

###

#######

###

#

# #

#####

######

##

# # ##

#

#####

## #

### ##

###

###

## ### ###

#

##

#

##

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

####

#

##

##

##

##

##

#

# ##

#

#

#

# ###

## # #

##

# ###

###

###

###

#

##

##

#

## ####

#

#

#

##

##

##

# #

##

###

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#####

#

###

#

####

###

# ##

#### ####

##### ##

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

###

####

##

#

# # ##

###

##### ## ###

##

#### ##

# ###

#

#

###

######

#

#

#

## ######## #

###

######

######

#

#

#

##

#

#####

######

####

#

####

#

#

##

##

##

########

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

####

#

#

# ##

#

###

##

#

#

##

###

# #

####

#

##

#

#

##

#

####

#

###

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

## ##

#

#

##

#

#

####

##

###

##

# ## #

#

#####

##

#

##

##

##

# ##

#

####

#

#

###

##

#

## #

#

#

###

##

##

### # #

###

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

###

#

#####

#####

## #

#

##

## ##

###

##

#

#

#######

#

#

##

# ##

#

###

##

# ## ##

#

#

##

#

####

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

## # #

## ####

###

##

#

###

#

#

##

###

#

###

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

###

#

# ##

###

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#####

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

## # #

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

# ##

#

#

## #

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

##

##

##

###

###

#

####

####

####

####

#

##

#

###

#

###

##

## #

##

##

##

##

### #

#

#

#

# ##

##

####

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

## #

#

# #

#

##

#

###

#

###

###

#

##### ## ##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# #

# #

#

#

##

##

#

###

#####

#

##

#

##

###

###

### #

##

## ##

#

# ###

# ####

#

##

##

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

###

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

## #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

## ## #

##

##

##

#

##

# #

#

##

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

##

##

#

#

#

### ###

##

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

##

#####

### ##

###

#

## #

####

#

#

#

######

#

###

#

#

###

#

#

##

#

###

# #

##

#

##

####

##

#

#####

# ##

#

### # #

#

###

###

##

##

#######

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

###

##

# #

## #

### #

## #

##### #

#

###

#

###

###

####

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#####

#

#

#

#

###

##

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

##

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

# ##

#

##

## ###

###

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

##

## ##

####

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

##

#

# #

# #

# #####

#

###

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

###

###

###

#

##

#

## #

#

###

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

##

# #

#

## #

#

#

###

#

###

####

######

###

#

##

#####

###

#

##

#

##

#

# #

###

#

##

# #

##

#

## #

#

###

## ##

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

### #

#

#

#

#

#

####

##

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

#

## # #

##

##

# ####

#

##

## #

#

#

# #

##

##

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

##

#

###

###

#

###

#

##

#

#

##

###

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

##

#

#

# ###

#

#

###

#

###

#

#

##

##

#

#

##

#

##

#

## ##

##

#

# ##### # #

##

#

#####

#

#

#

#

#

####

####### ###

##

###

##

## #

.-,270

.-,495

.-,495

(/29

"!97

Total Population Density: 2003by Planning AreaMontgomery County, MD

Each dot represents 500 people.Dots show average density withineach area, not exact locations.

2003 Household Population: 914,900

Planning Area

Major Roads

# 1 Dot = 500 people

Source: 2003 Census Update SurveyResearch & Technology Center, M-NCPPC

2002 Median Household Income: $79,115

.-,270

.-,495

.-,495

(/29

"!97

Source: 2003 Census Update SurveyResearch & Technology Center, M-NCPPC

by Planning Forecast AreasMontgomery Couty, MD

2002 Median Household Income

2002 Median Household IncomeBelow $49,999$50,000 - $79,114$79,115 - $99,999$100,000 & above

Montgomery County’s TRAVEL/2 ModelMontgomery County’s TRAVEL/2 Model


4-Step Model

EMME/2

PM Peak only

Validation Year: 1998

Why Adopt MWCOG’s Model?Why Adopt MWCOG’s Model?


• Cost savings and more sharing of resourcesCost savings and more sharing of resources – – As the MPO of the region, MWCOG is federally funded and has the ability to devote more resources (staff and funds) in support of travel forecasting than Montgomery County.

• Consistency with the regional processConsistency with the regional process – – Direct access to regional networks and data prepared for other jurisdictions in the region.

• More input to MWCOG’s processMore input to MWCOG’s process – – More of an opportunity to develop and review inputs to the MWCOG process.

Why Adopt MWCOG’s Model?Why Adopt MWCOG’s Model? (Continue)(Continue)


• CredibilityCredibility – – MWCOG goes through a very rigorous peer-review process and must meet federal requirement for travel modeling.

• Better integration with GISBetter integration with GIS – – TP+ has ability to read ArcGIS shape files. MWCOG has developed numerous tools & databases to support data exchange between travel model and GIS.

• Tech & Knowledge SharingTech & Knowledge Sharing – Base of local users, including MWCOG, BMC and several local jurisdictions would permit the sharing of techniques and knowledge.

Converting Converting MWCOG’s V2.1D Model 2000MWCOG’s V2.1D Model 2000


• ZonesZones

– – 318 TAZ vs. MWCOG’s 308 TAZ in Montgomery Co.

–– Additional zones due to Takoma Park annexation in 1997 (Montgomery and Prince George’s county boundary change); more details around Metro stations

• Demographic DataDemographic Data

– – Cooperative Forecasting Round 6.4A by 318 TAZ, with jurisdictional employment adjustment factor (0.99 for Montgomery County)

Converting Converting MWCOG’s V2.1D Model 2000 MWCOG’s V2.1D Model 2000 (Continue)(Continue)


• NetworkNetwork

– – HighwayHighway: : more links & attributes in Montgomery County; and some updates/corrections

outside of the county

– – TransitTransit: : Modifications required to accommodate highway network changes


Montgomery County TAZ and Montgomery County TAZ and Highway Network 2000 by Facility Highway Network 2000 by Facility

TypeType

Model Validation AdjustmentsModel Validation Adjustments


• AdjustmentsAdjustments

(1) Trip Generation Adjustment Factors – HBW

(at Census Tract level)

(2) Trip Distribution K-factors – HBW

(at “Super District” Level, 12 in Montgomery Co.)

(3) Trip Generation Factors – HBS, HBO, NHB

(4) Highway Network Coding – US29, etc.

Model Validation DataModel Validation Data


• DataData: : CTPP 2000 & Screenline Counts

1.69 1.57 1.57 1.58 N/A

AUTO MOTORCYCLE TRANSIT WALK Work at Home

79.8% 0.5% 12.6% 2.2% 4.9%

Montgomery County CTPP 2000 Adjustment Factors *

* Census Adjustment Factors to convert workers to trips (based on Metro Area Pop. 500K-1000K)

CTPP 2000 DataCTPP 2000 DataWorker to Trips ConversionWorker to Trips Conversion

• Based on <publication>

• Determine modal composition of workers (CTPP)

• Determine metro area size

• Choose appropriate factors

Absenteeism

Mode Shift

Multiple Trips

• Assume trip chaining factor = 2.0 (daily model)

• Calculate composite conversion factors

Model Validation TestsModel Validation Tests


• Other Tests on AdjustmentsOther Tests on Adjustments::

Trip Generation Factors – HBW P’s

Tried only adjust Productions using trip distribution table and decided to adjust both P’s and A’s using TG tables

Trip Distribution K-factors – HBS, HBO, NHB

Tried and decided not to adjust non-work purposes

Model Validation Findings/ResultsModel Validation Findings/Results


• Corrected general underestimation of Corrected general underestimation of commuter travel commuter travel

Within County

To/from Prince Georges and Frederick

From DC

• Non-work travel??Non-work travel??

Model Validation Findings/ResultsModel Validation Findings/Results


• Changes in trip purpose mixChanges in trip purpose mix (graphics to (graphics to follow)follow)

Model Validation Findings/ResultsModel Validation Findings/ResultsCommutersCommuters


Comparison of CTPP 2000 and Estimated TravelComparison of CTPP 2000 and Estimated Travel

Montgomery CountyMontgomery County

HBW Trips I-I Trips I-X Trips X-I Trips

CTPP 2000 411,111 286,042 232,424

Model-Before 295,734 300,346 128,741

E/O%-Before -28.06% 5.00% -44.61%

Model-After 419,332 299,950 222,698

E/O%-After 2.00% 2.86% -4.18%

Model Validation Measure - TLFModel Validation Measure - TLF


• Commuter Trip Length Frequency Commuter Trip Length Frequency - shorter- shorter

HBW Trip Length Distribution -- All Inc. (Run_B)Montgomery County Only

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141

Composite Impedance (min.)

Pct.

of

Tri

ps

33.10 37.3832.80 38.43HTS94 =CTPP2000 =

MWCOG2.1Dx50 =Model Run_B =

Next StepsNext Steps


• Mode Choice Model ValidationMode Choice Model Validation

• Traffic Assignment ValidationTraffic Assignment Validation

• Comparison with TRAVEL/2 PM Peak ModelComparison with TRAVEL/2 PM Peak Model

Challenges/Lessons LearnedChallenges/Lessons Learned


• Data, Data, Data!Data, Data, Data!

• Network, Network, Network!Network, Network, Network!

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements


• MWCOGMWCOG

– – data files, discussion, & technical supportdata files, discussion, & technical support

• Consultant Michael Baker Jr. ,Inc.Consultant Michael Baker Jr. ,Inc.

– – technical guidance, data, & model validationtechnical guidance, data, & model validation

• M-NCPPCM-NCPPC Prince George’s County StaffPrince George’s County Staff

– – sharing ideas and data, & commentssharing ideas and data, & comments

• M-NCPPCM-NCPPC Montgomery County Modeling StaffMontgomery County Modeling Staff

– – Yetta McDaniel and Ronald Vaughn Yetta McDaniel and Ronald Vaughn (Network/GIS/Counts)

Questions?Questions?


??

Montgomery County Travel Forecasting Model Validation — Status Report — Status Report Presented...

Documents

Transcript of Montgomery County Travel Forecasting Model Validation — Status Report — Status Report Presented...