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.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M REPORT S2-C10A-RW-1 Dynamic, Integrated Model System: Jacksonville-Area Application RSG AECOM MARk BRAdlEy RESEARCh And COnSultinG JOhn BOwMAn RESEARCh And COnSultinG MOhAMMEd hAdi Florida International University RAM PEndyAlA Arizona State University ChAndRA BhAt And tRAviS wAllER The University of Texas at Austin nORth FlORidA tRAnSPORtAtiOn PlAnninG ORGAnizAtiOn
Subject Areas Environment Highways Planning and Forecasting
SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-C10A-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27362-6 Â© 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in âwâ are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Americaâs highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technologyâsuch as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors scienceâoffer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
Acknowledgments This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Deputy Director. sHRP 2 stAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator
F o r e w o r d Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Deputy Director This report will be of interest to professionals who use travel demand and network assign- ment models as part of the transportation planning process. The goal of this research was to improve urban-scale modeling and network procedures to address operations or spot improvements that affect travel time choice, route choice, mode choice, reliability, or emis- sions. Such improvements may include traveler information, pricing, reversible lanes, and improved bottlenecks. Operational improvements like these are difficult to model on an urban-area scale using existing tools. A secondary goal was to facilitate further development and deployment of these or similar procedures. The goals were addressed by building a proof-of-concept dynamic integrated model in two urban areas: Jacksonville, Florida, and Sacramento, California. The integration of the activity-based demand model DaySim and a Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, TRANSIMS, in Jacksonville, Florida, is the subject of this report. Both DaySim and TRANSIMS are open-source products. Integration means that a feedback loop was built between the demand and network assignment model systems. All the demo- graphic and network data required to run the model set were assembled, and the feedback between the demand model and the DTA was tested in Jacksonville, Florida, and Burlington, Vermont. The model set is structured so that it can be run in a long-range planning mode, a short-term operations mode, or a combined mode. A companion report and model set are available for the application in Sacramento, California. This work has the same objective but uses DynusT for the highway network assignment and adds a schedule-based transit assignment called FAST-TrIPs. DaySim was also used as the demand model. Both model sets and software start-up guides are available from the Federal Highway Administration. Travel demand models have been used for more than half a century to determine the need for and estimate the usage of proposed new highway and transit systems. The majority of such models use traffic analysis zones to aggregate demographic data and estimate interzonal travel demand for large time blocks (such as the morning peak period). The interzonal demand is assigned to a link and node network to estimate likely roadway volumes. Activity-based travel demand models are based on the disaggregate travel activity of indi- vidual travelers, not the aggregate behavior of all the travelers in a zone. They have the potential to better simulate behaviors such as time-of-day choice, route choice, mode choice, and trip chaining. As with real travelers, information on the state of the network is needed to make choices. The feedback loop from the network assignment may cause a simulated âtravelerâ to change route, time of day, or mode in response to network congestion. The model set iterates until convergence is reached; travel volumes and modes are stable after successive iterations. Activity-based models have been available for some time, but they are not widely used in production planning work. Dynamic Traffic Assignment models are network simulation tools that represent network travel conditions. Such simulation models are used for subarea
traffic analysis but have not been linked to a demographically based demand model and used at the urban-area scale. This project integrated the supply and demand sides of transporta- tion demand forecasting in order to test operational improvements to the highway system as well as capacity enhancements. A test model set was built for Burlington, Vermont, and then a larger integrated model set was built for four counties in the greater Jacksonville area. The model was used to test transportation alternatives in Burlington and, to some extent, in Jacksonville. The results are proof-of-concept in nature. The integrated model works and demonstrates improved sensitivity to policies that affect regional travel. However, run times are long, which limited the ability to test policy options. The integrated model sets built for this project are available as a basis for implementing a similar approach in other urban areas.
C o N T e N T S 1 Executive Summary 1 Purpose and Need 4 Model System Components 5 Regional Implementations 6 Application Modes 12 Conclusions 17 cHAPteR 1 Model Implementation 17 Data Development 17 Synthetic Population 35 DaySim Parcel Data 45 DaySim TAZ Data 45 DaySim Pricing Enhancements 50 TRANSIMS Network 68 Auxiliary Demand 71 Component Integration 94 cHAPteR 2 Model Calibration and Validation 94 Model System Calibration and Validation Process 102 TRANSIMS Validation Process 111 cHAPteR 3 Model Sensitivity Testing 111 Purposes 111 Sensitivity Tests 119 cHAPteR 4 Conclusions 119 Model Implementation 128 Model System Calibration and Validation 130 Model Sensitivity Testing