Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 176
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Model Validation Summary David Schmitt, AECOM Consult Robert M. Donnelly, PB Consult Rebekah S. Anderson, Ohio Department of Transportation The new Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission was to compare the regionwide magnitude of modeled work (MORPC) model is a disaggregate tour-based model trip tours with CTPP. On a regionwide basis, the model esti- applied with the microsimulation of each individual mates 660,031 work tours compared with 630,550 CTPP household, person, or tour. The model area is divided records--a difference of only 4.7%. Next, district to-district into 1,805 internal and 72 external zones and includes tours were compared with the CTPP (scaled so that regional Franklin, Delaware, and Licking counties, and parts of CTPP records match modeled journeys). Figure 1 shows the Fairfield, Pickaway, Madison, and Union counties. The districts used for analysis purposes. The modeled work-tour primary inputs to the model are transportation networks distribution is shown in Table 1. The CTPP journey distribu- and zonal data, in which each zone has the standard tion is shown in Table 2. Table 3 displays the ratio of the mod- socioeconomic characteristics that would normally be eled to the observed distribution. found in a four-step model. The main differences from Overall, the modeled trip distribution for work pur- the prior four-step model are that the new model poses appears to be as good as or better than compara- accounts for travel at the tour level, as opposed to the ble models used elsewhere in the United States. The trip level, and for each individual household and person, model is representing trips to the central business dis- as opposed to zonal and market segment aggregates. trict (CBD) very closely, within 1% regionally. Work This summary shows the highway validation statistics, including some of the standard reports as suggested in the Ohio Department of Transportation Traffic Assign- ment Procedures. It also shows the validation of the work purpose travel distribution compared with the Census Transportation Planning Package. T ravel distribution is one of the most difficult aspects of travel demand to model effectively. As a part of the North Corridor Transit Project, the travel distribution was reviewed with an emphasis on the North Corridor. To explore the reliability of the work component of the distribu- tion model, the simulated year 2000 work-tour distribution was compared with the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), which captures work journeys. The first step FIGURE 1 Districts used for analysis. 165