Innovations in Travel Demand Modeling, Volume 2: Papers (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

169MID- OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MODEL VALIDATION TABLE 4 % RMSE by Volume Group Volume (Count) Group Model % RMSE Max % RMSE Volume (Count) Group Model % RMSE Max % RMSE 1 0–499 220 200 10 10000–12,499 32 34 2 500–1,499 90 100 11 12,500–14,999 30 31 3 1,500–2,499 58 62 12 15,000–17,499 26 30 4 2,500–3,499 50 54 13 17,500–19,999 23 28 5 3,500–4,499 45 48 14 20,000–24,999 23 26 6 4,500–5,499 44 45 15 25,000–34,999 16 24 7 5,500–6,999 42 42 16 35,000–54,999 15 21 8 7,000–8,499 34 39 17 55,000–120,000 17 18 0 8,500–9,999 36 36 Total 40 40 TABLE 5 Counts Versus Model Volume Validation, by Facility Type Observed Traffic Modeled Traffic Percent Count Model Difference Max % % FACTYPE # Links Count VMT Volume VMT Volume VMT VMT RMSE 1 Interstate 144 6,776,143 7,093,162 6,993,800 7,060,835 3 0 7 17 2 Major Arterial 200 3,405,379 2,227,072 3,547,900 2,339,286 4 5 10 22 3 Minor Arterial 843 9,462,496 2,431,483 10,160,500 2,533,349 7 4 10 31 4 Major Collector 1,960 12,341,296 3,743,390 12,031,545 3,485,721 3 7 15 42 5 Minor Collector 1,012 3,137,166 1,111,915 2,816,063 990,219 10 11 15 55 6 Local 1,050 1,228,257 518,832 1,044,427 464,712 15 11 15 93 Total 5,209 36,350,737 17,125,853 36,591,235 16,873,623 1 1.5 3 40 Rings Min. # of Obs. 5 0 “CBD” 144 11,551 13,249 1,698 15% 34% 1 “Ring 1” 581 8,699 10,181 1,482 17% 49% 2 “Ring 2” 587 8,850 9,223 374 4% 37% 3 “Ring 3” 1,182 9,640 9,119 521 5% 32% 4 “Ring 4” 987 6,193 5,926 266 4% 39% 5 “Ring 5” 678 4,273 4,185 87 2% 38% 6 “Ring 6” 462 4,184 3,983 201 5% 40% 7 “Ring 7” 271 2,404 2,345 59 2% 38% 8 “Ring 8” 265 5,038 4,852 186 4% 33% 9 “Ring 9” 52 2,224 2,504 281 13% 30% 5,209 6,978 7,025 47 1% 40% 0 “CBD” 144 11,551 13,249 1,698 15% 34% 1 “NE Franklin” 1,042 9,580 9,627 47 0% 35% 2 “SE Franklin” 902 7,838 7,939 101 1% 37% 3 “SW Franklin” 669 6,551 6,732 181 3% 45% 4 “NW Franklin” 724 8,730 8,648 83 1% 38% 5 “W Licking” 208 3,593 3,155 438 12% 33% 6 “E Licking” 267 4,939 4,852 86 2% 33% 7 “Delaware” 705 4,324 4,148 176 4% 41% 8 “Union” 178 3,385 3,385 1 0% 36% 9 “Madison” 110 2,866 2,972 106 4% 33% 10 “Pickaway” 52 3,368 3,606 239 7% 30% 11 “Fairfield” 208 3,484 3,537 54 2% 41% 5,209 6,978 7,025 47 1% 40% 0 “CBD” 144 11,551 13,249 1,698 15% 34% 1 “Sector-North” 942 9,641 9,993 352 4% 35% 2 “Sector-NE” 763 4,966 4,458 508 10% 41% 3 “Sector-East” 481 8,464 8,347 117 1% 31% 4 “Sector-SE” 593 5,572 5,671 99 2% 46% 5 “Sector-South” 246 5,732 5,875 142 2% 42% 6 “Sector-SW (East)” 280 5,852 5,568 284 5% 32% 7 “Sector-SW (West)” 453 6,570 7,027 458 7% 50% 8 “Sector-NW (South)” 650 5,846 5,745 100 2% 43% 9 “Sector-NW (North)” 657 7,028 6,959 68 1% 39% 5,209 6,978 7,025 47 1% 40% Super Districts Sectors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 23 4 5 6 7 9 10 8 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 7 0 0 # Links Count-Based Model # Diff % Diff % RMSE # Links Count-Based Model # Diff % Diff % RMSE # Links Count-Based Model # Diff % Diff % RMSE FIGURE 5 Counts versus model volume validation, by rings, super districts, and sectors.