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.
Overall, the modeled trip distribution was very good but not as good as the work tour distribution. The pro- duction districts had some noticeable variation, includ- ing overestimating trips from Polaris, a suburban employment and retail center, by 94%. The attraction districts were generally much better. Tours attracted to the CBD and OSU, the two biggest employment centers in the region, were within 5%. The weighting and expansion factors were quite large due to the sample size of the household survey. This can lead to âlumpi- nessâ in the observed data and make precise compar- isons difficult. USER BENEFITS User benefit results are reasonable if they can explain the benefits of the proposed build project. For example, cor- ridor areas should accrue the greatest number of user benefits, while areas outside of the corridor should receive minimal benefits. Major employment areas that benefit the most from the project should receive large user benefits. The district- to- district summary tables and âwinnersâlosersâ maps were reviewed for this analysis. The distribution of user benefits by travel market for home- based work (HBW) tours is shown in Table 7, and the distribution for all tours in shown in Table 8. The tables show that the MORPC AB model produces reasonable user benefit results. The majority of user ben- efits occur in the corridor. For work tours, 77% of user benefits are produced in corridor districts, and 82% are destined for corridor districts. For all tours, the figures are 78% and 82%, respectively. Both tables have mini- mal level of benefits in intradistrict markets. The CBD has the highest level of benefits as related to attractions. The winnersâlosers maps show the zones that receive the most benefit and disbenefit from the project. The maps are extremely useful in evaluating whether the user benefit results are directly related to the proposed proj - ect. Zones that receive benefits are shaded in green, with a darker color indicating higher benefits. Zones that receive disbenefits are shaded in red, with a darker color indicating more disbenefit. Figure 2 shows the produc- tion and attraction maps for HBW- peak tours. The maps work well at explaining the benefits and dis- benefits of the project. The production map shows that a majority of the benefits are accrued by people living in the corridor, especially those living near rail stations. The red zones in the Worthington region reflect the longer travel times from the proposed project compared with those for the existing bus service. The attraction map has many green zones around stations near major employment areas, especially OSU and the northern suburbs. 39APPLICATION OF MID- OHIO MICROSIMULATION MODEL 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total 8 388 167 293 170 5 12 1,565 270 5,846 3,061 2,752 1,854 48 165 24,913 418 5,346 3,281 1,966 1,181 65 144 23,650 929 5,621 5,278 1,842 983 141 213 29,097 1,597 5,883 4,940 1,498 826 178 293 29,498 830 1,478 963 285 146 42 120 7,080 4,052 24,512 17,690 8,636 5,160 479 947 115,803 12,350 7,650 5,210 1,613 865 630 1,634 42,692 3,150 49,480 8,067 6,606 8,857 212 2,895 120,267 2,423 10,431 22,156 10,979 3,146 1,444 906 82,968 705 12,093 17,788 36,222 8,876 1,485 3,228 110,900 436 20,153 4,420 9,439 14,984 113 1,923 66,946 1,202 1,781 6,342 5,713 822 46,456 1,606 69,853 1,536 7,709 4,166 10,641 3,476 2,830 11,161 50,602 21,802 109,297 68,149 81,213 41,056 53,170 23,354 544,228 25,854 133,809 85,839 89,849 46,186 53,649 24,301 660,031
