10. travel patterns andtravel demand model

10-1 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)

10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

10. Travel Patterns and Travel Demand Model

Travel PatternsSimilar to other areas is the southeastern US, the Charlotte region has experienced significant growth in population and employment over the past decades. The economic vitality of the region has been the catalyst for this growth, along with a housing supply that is able to meet the demands of the increased population. In combination with this growth, the region has developed a dynamic, multimodal transportation system that has greatly contributed to continued economic prosperity.

The majority of trips for residents in the region are to access places of employment. The home-to-work commute trip is a primary contributor to the congestion found on some of the major arterials, particularly in the AM and PM peak periods. Based on the 2011 US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, the Worker Residential Location Density map on the following page illustrates where workers live in the two US Census-designated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) that the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO) spans. As shown in the Worker Residential Location Density map, the largest residential density is primarily concentrated in the City of Charlotte, with dense pockets found within and around the I-277 Loop. The Employment Location Density map on the

WT Harris Blvd and N Tryon St in Charlotte are examples of roadways that have been widened due to current and anticipated traffic volumes.

10-2 Chapter 10

following page shows where workers are employed in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill and Statesville-Mooresville MSAs, with the primary employment centers found within the City of Charlotte, and the Employment Location Density within the City of Charlotte map depicts the distribution of employment centers in Charlotte. Employment is very highly concentrated in Charlotte’s city center due to the higher density of government offices and corporate headquarters. Various medical facilities, office parks, and shopping districts contain other employment locations outside of the city center.

According to the American Community Survey (ACS), which is a five year estimate developed from census data collected between 2006 and 2010, the City of Charlotte has experienced a slight decrease in average travel time for several travel modes. In 2000, the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) reported that the mean travel time to work for those who drove alone was 23.9 minutes, and the 2006-2010 ACS reported the commute time to be 22.9 minutes. Similarly, the average carpool travel time to work decreased from 27.3 minutes in 2000 (CTPP) to 26.5 minutes (ACS 2006-2010 update).

According to the 2006-2010 ACS for the City of Charlotte, the vast majority (80 percent) of workers drive alone to work, followed by 11 percent that carpool, 3 percent that ride transit, 3 percent who work at home, and 1.4 percent who walk to work. A comparison of the 2000 US Census Transportation Planning Package information to the 2006-2010 ACS shows that approximately 1 percent of Charlotte workers shifted away from driving alone, 1.5 percent shifted away from carpooling, 1 percent of workers shifted to utilizing public transportation, 0.4 percent started walking, and 1 percent started working from home.

Worker Residential Location Density (Workers per Square Mile)

LegendStatesville Mooresville MSA

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA

Regional Employment per Sq Mi< 500

500 - 2,500

> 2,500

§̈¦485

£¤321

£¤52

§̈¦485

§̈¦85

§̈¦85

§̈¦77

§̈¦77

£¤601

£¤74

£¤29

§̈¦40


10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

Employment Location Density (Jobs per Square Mile)

Employment Location Density within the City of Charlotte (Jobs per Square Mile)

LegendStatesville Mooresville MSA

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA

Regional Employment per Sq Mi< 500

500 - 2,500

> 2,500

LegendCharlotte

Charlotte Employment per Sq Mi< 500

500 - 2,500

> 2,500

§̈¦485

£¤321

£¤52

§̈¦485

§̈¦85

§̈¦85

§̈¦77

§̈¦77

£¤601

£¤74

£¤29

§̈¦40

§̈¦485

§̈¦485

§̈¦85

§̈¦85

§̈¦77

£¤601

£¤74

£¤29

10-4 Chapter 10

Land Use and Employment Centers

As discussed in the Population and Land Use chapter, the land use patterns across the CRTPO planning area differ widely from the dense Charlotte city center, to newer suburban residential and strip shopping developments typically with unconnected transportation networks, to rural areas in Union and Iredell Counties that have remained virtually unchanged over the last few decades. These land use patterns have a significant effect on travel patterns, including number of trips, trip length and time, and the choice of mode.

The majority of the longer trips are taken to access employment centers as well as to carry out other daily activities such as shopping and household errands, dropping off / picking up children at school, and dining out. There are numerous large activity and employment centers located throughout the planning area that attract trips, with several of the larger, regional centers generating significant amounts of traffic.

The map in Figure 10-1 shows the average commute times for CRTPO residents in each Census Tract. These commute times are broken down in the following manner: 0-10 minutes, 11-20 minutes, 21-30 minutes, 31-45 minutes, and 46-53 minutes. As noted in the section above, the majority of the commute times are within the 21-30 minute range. Shorter commute times are reported for areas closer to the City of Charlotte and the City of Statesville. There are two census tracts for which this information was not available. The northern tract contains the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, and the southern tract appears to be primarily commercial.

Congestion

In order to gauge congestion and its costs, travel metrics, such as “Delay per Auto Commuter” and “Annual Congestion Costs per Auto Commuter” are often used. The Delay per Auto Commuter metric measures the number of person-hours spent annually by private vehicle drivers and passengers. The Annual Congestion Costs per Auto Commuter metric measures the economic impacts of congestion.

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) utilizes these metrics, as well as several other indicators, to measure congestion for 101 metropolitan areas ranging in size from small to very large. This information is published annually in the TTI Annual Urban Mobility Report. The annual hours of delay per auto commuter and the annual costs of congestion for the City of Charlotte, other large cities in the US (defined as urbanized areas with a population of 1 to 3 million), and the US as a whole are shown in Tables 10-1 and 10-2 below.

According to Urban Mobility Report data from 2007 to 2011, the average delay per Charlotte auto commuter has hovered around nearly 40 hours, slightly above both the average for the large cities and the US as a whole.


10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

The Urban Mobility Report dataset was also used to calculate the monetary costs of this congestion, which is determined through the loss of time, cost of excess gasoline, and other factors. Charlotte has an average annual congestion cost of $904 which is slightly above that of other large cities ($787) and the US ($805) as a whole.

Table 10-1: 2007 – 2011 Annual Hours of Delay per Auto Commuter

Year Charlotte Large Cities US2007 42 41 42

2008 41 37 38

2009 41 37 38

2010 39 38 38

2011 40 37 38

Average 41 38 39

Table 10-2: 2007 – 2011 Annual Congestion Costs per Auto Commuter

Year Charlotte Large Cities US2007 $925 $833 $858

2008 $907 $771 $782

2009 $907 $771 $782

2010 $883 $782 $785

2011 $898 $780 $818

Average $904 $787 $805

Travel Demand ModelImportance of the Travel Demand Model

The Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, which is the model employed in the CRTPO region, is an important tool that facilitates rigorous analysis of travel patterns and supplements the analysis of the population, employment, travel trends and patterns discussed above. The model contains the geographic distribution of land uses, including the locations of residences, jobs, schools, and other community facilities. Also represented in the model are the roads and transit routes that individuals use to travel between activity locations. In order to understand the travel patterns at an appropriate scale, the model divides the region into smaller transportation analysis zones (TAZs). The TAZs, connected by the road and transit networks, are assigned socioeconomic data representing elements such as population, employment, households, median income, and other attributes that contribute to the travel patterns.

Source: Texas Transportation Urban Mobility Report

Source: Texas Transportation Urban Mobility Report

10-6 Chapter 10

With the recent expansion of the CRTPO planning area, the number of TAZs has increased from 1,487 to 1,816 to incorporate the additional geographic area. This is an addition of 338 TAZs. Table 10-3 shows the number of TAZs prior to the planning area expansion, as well as the current number of TAZs, by CRTPO County.

Table 10-3: Number of Transportation Analysis Zones by County

Number of TAZs

Prior to Expansion Subsequent to ExpansionMecklenburg 1,057 1,170

Union 352 356

Iredell 78 290

Total 1,487 1,816

The model is designed to characterize the current travel conditions, roadway traffic, and transit ridership. In addition, it quantifies future travel demand based on future projections of population and employment as well as incorporating any improvements to the transportation system. With this existing data and future projections, the model enables the analysis of transportation investment alternatives in the region. In addition, travel demand modeling also provides quantitative information useful for ensuring the set of planned transportation projects does not interfere with the state’s plans to improve air quality.

Four Step Modeling Process

The Metrolina Regional Travel Demand model is referred to as a four step model. The four steps include trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment. The first step, trip generation, takes the amount of population, employment, and other attributes of each TAZ to predict the number of trips that originate or terminate in the zone. The second step of trip distribution matches the “from” and “to” trips together. The third step is for each trip to identify the mode of transportation, which includes, but is not limited to, driving alone, carpooling, walking to a local bus, driving to an express bus, or walking or driving to light rail transit. Finally, in the fourth step, after identifying the trips origin and destination and the travel mode, the trip is assigned to a specific route given the options and conditions.

Model Updates

The model’s ability to represent travel depends in large part on surveys of the travel behavior of real people. In 2012, a household travel interview survey was administered to update the trip generation and trip distribution models and to modify the treatment of different times of day. Other updated data was also used from the 2010 Census, including from the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and the 2005-2011 American Community Survey (ACS). Data was also collected in 2013 from a non-freeway component of the External Travel Survey.

Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model


10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

Types of Trips

In the regional travel demand model, trips are classified by trip purpose. Broadly, trips can be grouped into three purposes:

�� Home-Based Work: These trips are from home to work and from work back to home. They occur more heavily in peak hours and are a large component of congestion.

�� Home-Based Other: These trips begin or end at home and cover the range of other trips that people make – those to or from school, shopping, visiting friends, or appointments.

�� Non-Home-Based: These are the trips made while people are out of their residence, either at work (e.g. a trip to lunch), or between stops while running errands (e.g. a trip from the grocery store to the cleaners). Generally, given their nature, non-home-based trips are shorter than home-based trips and are often made at off-peak travel times.

Trips can be made on highways, either driving alone or carpooling/vanpooling with others; by riding transit; or by biking or walking. Two other major groups of travelers use the highway system and include commercial vehicle and truck trips, and external/internal trips. External/internal trips are those that start in the region and end outside the region, or conversely, those that start outside of the region and end at a destination inside of the region. These trips also include those that pass through without stopping.

There are a number of indicators that can be used to help measure the efficiency of the transportation system and how well the mobility needs of the traveling public are met. These indicators include trip related information as well as infrastructure related data. Utilizing these indicators can assist in the identification of deficiencies and steps to help address the identified deficiencies. These indicators include person trips, vehicle trips, roadway lane miles, daily vehicle miles of travel and transit vehicle service miles. Details and data for each of these indicators are provided in the following tables.

Person Trips

A person trip is made by any person traveling on any of the highway or transit modes that exist or are projected to exist within CRTPO’s planning area. Tables 10-4, 10-5 and 10-6 show the growth in the number of person trips for Mecklenburg County, the portion of Union County within CRTPO, and the portion of Iredell County within CRTPO, respectively.

10-8 Chapter 10

Table 10-4: Mecklenburg County Person Trips

Mecklenburg County 2010 2015 2025 2030 2040

Home-based Work 466,000 523,500 611,000 647,500 731,000

Home-based Other 2,102,500 2,330,500 2,783,000 3,007,500 3,463,500

Non-home-based 969,500 1,073,500 1,294,500 1,399,500 1,613,000

Commercial/Truck 559,500 619,000 720,500 763,000 865,000

Internal-External 33,000 37,000 44,000 47,000 53,500

Total Trips 4,130,500 4,583,500 5,453,000 5,864,500 6,726,000

Annual Pct. Change -- 2.2% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5%

Note: The numbers included in this table have been rounded to the nearest 500s. Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model

Table 10-5: Union County Person Trips (CRTPO portion only)

Union County (CRTPO Portion Only)

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040

Home-based Work 102,000 118,000 139,000 147,500 167,500

Home-based Other 427,500 489,500 592,000 643,000 742,000

Non-home-based 138,000 157,000 186,000 202,500 232,000



Total Trips 758,500 871,500 1,041,500 1,126,000 1,292,000


Note: The numbers included in this table have been rounded to the nearest 500s. Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model

Table 10-6: Iredell County Person Trips (CRTPO portion only)

Iredell County (CRTPO Portion Only)

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040

Home-based Work 73,000 79,000 90,000 95,500 109,500

Home-based Other 297,000 321,000 374,500 405,500 469,500

Non-home-based 124,500 137,500 166,000 179,500 207,500



Total Trips 584,500 638,000 746,500 802,000 923,500


Note: The numbers included in this table have been rounded to the nearest 500s Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model


10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

Vehicle Trips

In addition to the person trip tables shown above, the Metrolina travel demand model also provides information about the number of vehicle trips. Table 10-7 shows the total number of vehicle trips across a 16 county area, to and from the counties within CRTPO’s planning area. Unlike the tables on the previous pages that are broken out by trip purpose, these vehicle trips include all trip purposes. It is interesting to note that the highest number of trips start and end in Mecklenburg County. The most trips between two different counties occur between Mecklenburg and Cabarrus counties, followed by trips between Mecklenburg and Union counties.

Table 10-7: Daily County to County Vehicle Trips

County2010 Daily Vehicle Trips 2040 Daily Vehicle Trips

Iredell Mecklenburg Union Iredell Mecklenburg Union

Cabarrus 13,570 236,660 18,140 26,370 440,510 33,640

Cleveland 5,930 17,510 610 1,730 12,740 740

Lancaster 3,270 56,000 26,160 8,360 103,240 46,450

Gaston 1,570 137,280 2,160 1,090 207,600 1,190

York 510 172,950 9,300 730 286,460 18,030

Iredell 421,570* 83,720 730 698,540* 135,470 900

Lincoln 8,500 32,930 330 7,330 57,740 190

Mecklenburg 83,720 2,845,870* 279,990 135,470 4,627,270* 373,380

Rowan 170 800 310 1,100 1,910 930

Stanly 240 7,320 12,970 330 7,200 18,650

Union 730 279,990 396,070* 900 373,380 683,920*

* These are internal trips within each respective county Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model

10-10 Chapter 10

Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel

Roadway usage is best measured by the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is the sum of all miles of vehicular trips made over all segments of the roadway system. Tables 10-8, 10-9, and 10-10 show the estimates of average daily VMT in Mecklenburg County, the CRTPO portion of Union County, and the CRTPO portion of Iredell County, respectively.

Table 10-8: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in Mecklenburg County

Mecklenburg CountyVehicle Miles Traveled (000)

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Interstate 6,892 7,439 8,209 8,453 9,030

Other Freeway /Expressway 4,434 5,707 6,479 6,816 7,388

Principal Arterial 4,887 5,250 6,021 6,449 7,234

Minor Arterial 4,438 4,807 5,716 6,044 6,808

Collector 3,733 4,163 4,803 5,075 5,743

Local Street (estimated) 6,526 7,170 8,528 9,217 10,622

Managed Lane1 13 25 749 1,027 1,307

Total VMT (000) 30,923 34,561 40,505 43,081 48,132

Annual Pct. Change -- 2.4% 1.7 % 1.3% 1.2%

Table 10-9 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in Union County (CRTPO portion only)


Vehicle Miles Traveled (000)

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Other Freeway /Expressway 119 134 303 319 329

Principal Arterial 842 923 1,325 1,410 1,551

Minor Arterial 548 602 713 753 835

Collector 1,780 2,035 2,255 2,433 2,760

Local Street (estimated) 2,147 2,528 2,989 3,231 3,742

Managed Lane1 0 0 10 11 14

Total VMT (000) 5,436 6,222 7,595 8,157 9,231


1The Managed Lane category includes HOV, HOT and Express Toll lanes Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model

1The Managed Lane category includes HOV, HOT and Express Toll lanes Source: Metrolina Travel Demand Model


10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

Table 10-10: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in Iredell County (CRTPO portion only)


Vehicle Miles Traveled (000)

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Interstate 722 827 879 909 1,065

Other Freeway /Expressway 0 0 0 0 0

Principal Arterial 124 126 142 150 179

Minor Arterial 241 247 312 325 361

Collector 460 497 586 626 709

Local Street (estimated) 660 718 868 951 1,105


Total VMT (000) 2,207 2,415 2,845 3,035 3,479


1The Managed Lane category includes HOV, HOT and Express Toll lanes

Transit Vehicle Service Miles

Improvements to the transit system are an important component of the MTP. The Charlotte area has long had traditional fixed route bus service, and began exploring premium transit service within the last few decades; light rail service began in Charlotte in 2007. Ridership has been strong, and the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) plans to extend the light rail line and open a commuter rail as well as a streetcar line during the next 25 years. In addition to building new premium transit lines, CATS will continue to expand the bus system that serves other areas and supports the premium lines. More details of these transit planning improvements can be found in the Public Transportation chapter.

Vehicle service miles – the miles traveled by transit buses and trains operating on routes picking up or dropping passengers – is a standard measure of estimating the level of transit service. Table 10-11, below, shows the daily vehicle service miles, by transit mode, projected to be provided during the period of this MTP. Table 10-12 shows the number of passengers estimated to use the transit services during each average weekday.

Table 10-11: CATS Daily Transit Vehicle Service Miles

CATS Transit Vehicle Miles 2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Light Rail 1,606 1,606 3,194 3,194 3,194

Streetcar 0 0 618 1,585 1,585

Commuter Rail 0 0 1,056 1,056 1,056

Regional Express Bus 2,084 1,604 1,531 1,531 1,531

Express Bus 6,213 5,620 6,200 6,199 6,195

Feeder Bus 3,385 3,887 3,440 3,966 3,966

Local Bus 26,879 30,442 29,140 25,650 25,649

Total Vehicle Service Miles 40,167 43,159 45,179 43,181 43,176

Annual Pct. Change -- 1.5% 0.5% -0.9% 0%



10-12 Chapter 10

Table 10-12: CATS Daily Weekday Transit Rides

CATS Total Riders 2010 2015 2025 2030 2040

Light Rail 13,500 15,000 34,000 38,000 45,000

Streetcar 0 0 4,500 17,000 19,500

Commuter Rail 0 0 8,000 9,500 11,500

Regional Express Bus 2,500 3,000 4,500 5,000 6,000

Express Bus 5,000 5,500 6,500 7,000 7,500

Feeder Bus 3,500 4,000 4,000 5,500 6,500

Local Bus 38,500 46,000 55,500 51,000 59,000

Total Daily Riders 63,000 73,500 117,000 133,000 155,000


Note: The numbers included in this table have been rounded.

Roadway Lane Miles

In order to keep pace with the projected growth in person trips, more highway and transit capacity will need to be provided. The location and amount of capacity added will determine how many trips can be served adequately by highways or transit.

The projects listed in the Streets and Highways chapter will add freeway and thoroughfare capacity to the network. The best way to measure the quantity of capacity provided by these projects is by the statistic of lane miles. Lane miles are the length of a street segment multiplied by the number of lanes. By measuring lane miles, both new facilities and road widening projects (adding lanes) are reflected in the totals.

Tables 10-13, 10-14, and 10-15 show the projected growth in lane miles in CRTPO’s planning area that were modeled for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).



10

. T

rav

el

Pa

tte

rns

an

d T

rav

el

De

ma

nd

Mo

de

l

Table 10-13: Roadway Lane Miles in Mecklenburg County

Mecklenburg CountyRoadway Lane Miles1

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Interstate 458 462 462 462 467

Other Freeway / Expressway 357 427 429 436 446


Minor Arterial 732 747 791 794 798

Collector 698 726 746 746 748

Managed Lane3 15 15 152 173 173

Total Lane Miles 2,949 3,086 3,339 3,387 3,427


Table 10-14: Roadway Lane Miles in Union County (CRTPO portion only)


Roadway Lane Miles1

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Interstate 0 0 0 0 0

Other Freeway / Expressway2 7 7 74 74 74


Minor Arterial 127 127 140 140 140

Collector 540 597 618 625 630


Total Lane Miles 797 854 960 973 978


Table 10-15: Roadway Lane Miles in Iredell County (CRTPO portion only)


Roadway Lane Miles1

2010 2015 2025 2030 2040Interstate 200 200 202 202 210

Other Freeway / Expressway 0 0 0 0 0


Minor Arterial 163 163 171 179 179

Collector 385 394 405 405 405


Total Lane Miles 822 831 870 878 895

Annual Pct. Change -- 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2%1Lane Miles = length of roadway segment, multiplied by number of lanes2For Union County, Other Freeway/Expressway includes the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass toll facility3The Managed Lane category includes HOV, HOT and Express Toll lanes




10-14 Chapter 10

In addition to the capacities of thoroughfare miles, many miles of local streets are added annually through the land development process. The local street system serves primarily to connect parcels / sites with the thoroughfare system.

Sources:

2012 Metrolina Regional Household Travel Survey Final Report

Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model Technical Documentation, 2006

http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/3712000.html

http://www.city-data.com/city/Charlotte-North-Carolina.html

http://download.ctpp.transportation.org/profiles_2012/transport_profiles.html

L i s t o f F i g u r e s

10-1 ................... averaGe commute tIme

Charlotte

LakePark

27

M E C K L E N B U R G

U N I O N

I R E D E L L

F O R S Y T H

D A V I E

A L E X A N D E R

D A V I D S O N

C A T A W B A

S T A N L Y

A N S O N

R O W A N

L I N C O L N

C A B A R R U S

G A S T O N

Y O R K

L A N C A S T E R

Fairview

MintHill

Stallings

IndianTrail

HembyBridge

Unionville

Weddington

Marvin WesleyChapel

Monroe

Wingate

Waxhaw

Marshville

MineralSprings

Pineville

Huntersville

Matthews

Cornelius

Davidson

Troutman

Statesville

Mooresville

§̈¦77

§̈¦77

§̈¦85

§̈¦77

§̈¦85

§̈¦77

§̈¦40

§̈¦40

§̈¦277

§̈¦485

§̈¦485

§̈¦485

§̈¦485

115 150

160

115

801

115

205

218

16

51

75

1649

73

16

16

24

84

73£¤21

£¤601

£¤74

£¤21

£¤21

£¤21

£¤29

£¤70

£¤74

£¤64

£¤521

£¤29

£¤74

£¤70

£¤601

£¤29

£¤64

A v e r a g e C o m m u t e T i m eA v e r a g e C o m m u t e T i m e

¶0 5 102.5 Miles

LegendAverage Commute Time

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 45

46 - 53

Average Commute Time in MinutesSource: US Census 2011

Prepared by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, April 2014Prepared by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, April 2014

Figure 10-1Figure 10-1

10. travel patterns andtravel demand model

Documents