TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THE

OLYMPIC GAMES ATHENS 2004

ATTIKO METRO S.A.

Anna Anastasaki

• Analysis and Evaluation of the Existing Conditions (Summer 1996)

• Development of a Strategic Planning Model (EMME/2)

• Development of a Traffic Management Model (SATURN)

• Travel Forecasts for August 2004– Normal Operation of the City– Olympic Trips

Objectives of the StudyObjectives of the Study

Study Area : Attica Region – Zonal SystemStudy Area : Attica Region – Zonal System

Population 1996Population 1996

Typical

Summer

Diff (%)

Greater Athens

3.814.872

3.198.288

-16,2%

Rest of Attica

322.908

459.248

+42,2%

Attica Region

4.137.780

3.657.536

-11,6%

Population 1996Population 1996

Trips 1996Trips 1996

Typical

Summer

Diff (%)

Greater Athens

5.485.350

4.261.200

-22,3%

Rest of Attica

340.000

457.100

+34,4%

Attica Region

5.825.350

4.718.300

-19,0%

Typical

Summer

Diff (%)

Greater Athens

1,52

1,39

-8,6%

Rest of Attica

1,11

1,06

-4,5%

Attica Region

1,48

1,35

-8,8%

Trip Rates

Trips

Daily Person Trips by PurposeDaily Person Trips by Purpose

Business4.4% Personal

12.3%

Social11.3%

Education14.2%

Work43.0%

Other3.6%

Shopping7.6%

Recreation3.6%

Business4.0% Personal

12.6%

Social17.1%

Education1.4%

Work43.5%

Other2.4%

Shopping10.3%

Recreation8.7%

Typical Summer

Main Mode SplitMain Mode Split

Public Transport

29.8%

Taxi10.5%

Walk11.1%

Private Means48.6%

Typical Summer

Public Transport

26.5%

Taxi11.1%

Walk7.9%

Private Means54.5%

Hourly Demand Distribution – Private ModesHourly Demand Distribution – Private Modes

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

TYPICAL

SUMMER

Hourly Demand Distribution – Public TransportHourly Demand Distribution – Public Transport

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

TYPICAL

SUMMER

HB TRIP GENERATION

PLANNINGFACTORS

PRODUCTIONS/ATTRACTIONSDAILY TRIPS

SUB-MODE CHOICE MODEL

PT GENERALISED COST

MAIN MODE CHOICEMODEL

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

MATRIX CONVERSIONORIGIN-DESTINATION (O-D)

NHB TRIPSMOTORCYCLES, TRUCKS

EXTERNAL TRIPS

PCU VEHICLE O-DTRIP TABLE

HIGHWAYASSIGNMENT

FINAL HIGHWAYASSIGNMENT

PTASSIGNMENT

GENERALISED COSTCAR, TAXI

PUBLIC TRANSPORT(PT) NETWORK

GENERALISED COSTPER PT MODE( Bus, Metro)

PT PASSENGERO-D TRIP TABLE

FINAL PTASSIGNMENT

SATISFACTORYCONVERGENCE

YES NO

PT MINIMUMCOSTPATHS

HIGHWAYNETWORK

HIGHWAY MINIMUM

COST PATHS

YESNO SATISFACTORYCONVERGENCE

Strategic Planning Strategic Planning Transport Model Transport Model Structure (EMME/2)Structure (EMME/2)

HB Trip Production ModelsHB Trip Production Models

• Classification Models

– Trip Purpose (Work, Social, Other)

– Car Ownership (CO, NCO)

– Household Size (1-2, 3-4, 5 members)

– Household Income (low, medium, high)

– Zone Group Characteristics

HB Trip Attraction ModelsHB Trip Attraction Models

• Regression Models

– Trip Purpose (Work, Social, Other)

– Independent Variables

• Retail Job Positions

• Non-Retail Job Positions

• Population

Trip Generation Models CalibrationTrip Generation Models Calibration

Trip Category Trip Rate Trip Productions Diff %

(Pred-Obs/Obs)

COHBW 1,65 4,57%

HBS 0,98 5,52%

HBO 1,11 5,04%

3,74 4,96%

NCO

HBW 0,54 -9,44%

HBS 0,32 -8,42%

HBO 0,44 -8,13%

1,30 -8,75%

Overall 2,67 2,08%

Mode Choice ModelsMode Choice Models

• Sub-mode Choice

– Zone level– Binary logit models– Alternatives : bus, metro– Six (6) trip categories

• Main Mode Choice

– Zone group level– Multinomial or nested logit models– Alternatives : walk, car, taxi, public transport– Six (6) trip categories

Trip Distribution ModelsTrip Distribution Models

• Zone group level

• Gravity model

• Six (6) trip categories

• Four (4) main modes

• Inner ring effects for car mode (HBW, HBO)

Trip AssignmentTrip Assignment

• Highway Network

– 10 classes of users– BPR volume-delay functions links– HCM volume-delay functions intersections

• Public Transport Network

– Six (6) trip categories– Transit time function by mode

Network Data - 1996Network Data - 1996

• Centroids 1246

• Nodes 5000 signalised : 1030

priority : 670

• Centroid connectors 5300

• Road links 12000

• Transit lines 470

• Bus stops 1730

• Metro stations 23

• Pedestrian links 12800

Network CalibrationNetwork Calibration

• Highway Network– GEH overall : 6,0

sector level : 4,8 – 8,8

• Public Transport Network– GEH bus : 9,3

metro : 7,7

Highway Network - Summer 1996Highway Network - Summer 1996

Public Transport Network - Summer 1996Public Transport Network - Summer 1996

Travel Demand Forecasts - 2004Travel Demand Forecasts - 2004

• Network Scenarios– Basic (1)– Alternative (4)

• Trip Matrices– Summer Period Trips– Olympic Trips

• Time Periods– 8-9 : morning peak– 17-18 : afternoon peak– 22-23 : evening peak

Traffic Management Model (SATURN)Traffic Management Model (SATURN)

• 400 zones

• Olympic Highway Network (main and secondary)

• Trip Matrices Data from EMME/2 Transport Model

• Exclusive use by “Athens 2004” test and evaluate traffic management schemes related to Olympic Venues

EMME/2 – GIS - SATURN System IntegrationEMME/2 – GIS - SATURN System Integration

Unixserver

Window NTRunning SATURN

GISdatabase

Windows 2000

Windows NTs

Emme/2 scenarios

GIS DataExchange Interface

Emme/2 MatricesExchange Interface

Road network

Land use

DataExchange Interface