FSUTMS Models Feedback Survey Results

Xiao Cui

Shi Chiang Li

Makarand Gawade

March 3rd 2016

Background

The objective of this survey was to understand how the FSUTMS models are beingapplied, their effectiveness and what areas need improvement. The questions includeidentifying concerns, potential improvements of models and usage of models fordifferent purposes.

The survey link was open from February 2nd, 2016 to February 19th, 2016.

There were 21 responses with 71.43% of respondents indicating they are ‘ModelDevelopers’, 66.67% of respondents indicating they are ‘Model Practitioners’ and23.81% of respondents indicating they are ‘Model Consumers’.

73.68 % of the respondents indicated that they have experience of developing DesignTraffic for highway projects using model.

85.71% of respondents indicated that they have performed subarea model validation

2

What have you been using the models for?

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Developing LongRange Transportation

Plans (LRTP)

Forecasting trafficdemands for newhighway facilities

Estimating corridortransit ridership for

Federal TransitAdministration (FTA)

grants

Estimating revenuefor toll facilities

Applying model forland use amendment,growth management

or site impactanalysis

Planning Freight andGoods Facilities

Planning stage oftransit corridors thatmay be submitted to

FTA for funding.

Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

ns

es

Use of Models

In your opinion, FSUTMS models are effective tool:

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

For identifying new and/orwidening roadway projects

For estimating and planningsystemwide transit needs

For estimating and planning ITSrelated facilities

For testing alternative land usescenarios

For planning freight and goodsfacilities

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

ses

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

N/A

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

What are the modeling issues related to applications of models for developing LRTP?

Model Validation for O-D Trip patterns

Suitability of ABM models and DTA.

Model noise between alternatives / scenarios

Region wide calibration not sufficient for corridor-level forecasts

To develop tools that can be used by all TPO to reduce the cost

Future networks and accurate forecasts of zonal data

Better definition of what is a good model and the best practice for how to use themodel for LRTP.

Include other modes5

What model improvements should be implemented for LRTP developments?

Incorporate features like MOVES, AV/CV procedure, ELToD, toll modeling

More standardized reporting of model outputs.

Consistent analysis across the State for ITS improvements, toll/managed lanefacilities, transit facilities (rail) and commodity flows.

Build user's confidence that the model could provide reasonable projection.

Alternative fuels, vehicle choice, integrated land use are types of policies to beaddressed.

Standard truck model that includes delivery, short haul and long haul trucksStandard ITS application (FITSEVAL), Standard Managed Lanes model.

6

Experience of developing Design Traffic for highway projects using model?

86% of the respondents indicated that they believe FSUTMS models are capable ofprojecting traffic for new roadways/bridge or roadway widening projects.

21.43 % of respondents indicated that they have never used other post modelrefinement process, such as incorporating Analyst ODME process for design traffic,whereas 42.86% indicated that they have used it rarely.

7

How do you apply models to develop Design Traffic?

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Use model output directly Develop growth rates from base and horizon yearmodels and apply which on existing traffic count

Develop composite growth rates from zonal dataand model link volumes

Num

ber

of re

sponses

Always Never Rarely Sometimes

What are the modeling issues you have encountered while applying the models for Design Traffic?

Inconsistent for O-D traffic patterns compared to surveyed O-D trips, average travel distance,and average travel time

Study area level of validation

Depending on the project and time schedule, model refinements cannot be made for thecorridor or subarea. Traffic smoothing must be applied and is not always a preferred method.

Issues with socio-economic data, trip rates, trip distribution, mode choice and assignment beinginaccurate.

Over forecasting or under forecasting traffic

Useful for system-wide interactions of land use and major new capacity only.

Conversion of PSWADT to AADT has been automated in models and should be standardized

Standard "Design Hour" procedures do not work well for the larger urban areas9

In your opinion, what model improvements should be implemented for Design Traffic?

Revise parameter values in trip distribution models or check impedance values for highway path-building.

Develop a model that will produce design hour traffic directly.

Off model techniques. Procedure to implement Cube Analyst (already being developed).

Refine socio economic data (parcel size), refine network by considering all streets, refine mode choicewhich includes bicycle-walk, refine time period as least hourly and move away from gravity distributionmodel.

More outreach teaching public agency to build confidence and the best practice.

Better post-model tools that appropriately take model output into account in the design analysis.

Have every model produce AADT as well as the standard PSWADT which can be accomplished throughthe use of a lookup table of MOCFs and the coding of the MOCF on each link (NWFRPM does thisalready).

10

Besides zonal and network descriptions, what model parameters you have modified for validation

11

Friction Factors Capacity

Trip rates Vfactor (BPR curve)

Convergence criteria Ctoll

SPDCAP Time penalty

GEN Turn prohibition

SE Special generation rates

Speed Behavioral assumption

Zonal data Coefficient of utility functions in

mode choice model

Toll parameters Number of iterations

Checks for network impedances Auto occupancy factors

EE / EI trip tables Trip length

With your knowledge, what new observed information/data is available to improve modeling process?

12

O-D survey, speed using

Bluetooth or navigator

2009 NHTS national and state

Add-on, New household survey

was completed in Martin county

Airsage data Info-group

StreetLytics Urban Engines

Aerial and other GIS data Cell phone GPS data (with

concerns of accuracy and

assumptions)

Socio-economic data at parcel

level

Additional modes like bicycle

and walking

Visualization tools Other crowd sourced data

(better understanding needed)

How can the current model structure or process be streamlined to make FSUTMS models more agile?

Needs both enhanced transit model and standard process for preparation of inputhighway network based on GIS true shape, free flow speed, junctions, capacity and soon. Also, requires a validation of highway network.

For ABMs, procedures should be identified so that users know when to run differentmodel components

No fundamental model structure error.

Districting in larger regional models for decreased run times in assignment

Highway Only options in areas where Transit mode share is less than say 2%.

Eliminate components of the model that may not be necessary or cumbersome.

13

In your opinion, what practical model enhancements can be implemented in the next three years? (1)

Transit modeling along with mode choice modeling, and toll studies for both fixed and dynamic tolls.

Standard Florida trip production rates, friction factor curves, auto occupancy factors, and time of day factors based on the 2009 Florida NHTS Add-On survey.

A revamping of standard Florida network coding procedures is also overdue now.

Implementation of DTA for Managed Lane and NCHRP 765 Process for design traffic process.

Standardized ABM deployment, rather than every district proceeding on their own.

Re-structure socio-economic input variables. Use non-dbf inputs.

14

In your opinion, what practical model enhancements can be implemented in the next three years? (2)

Activity based models depending on area. Adding of bicycle and walk modes. Implementation of standardized process for transit, ITS, toll/managed lanes, freight/commodity analysis.

Faster run time. Running under Cube Cluster will NOT be able to duplicate model results running in different computers.

Enhance the model improvement based on best practice guideline from FSUTMS.

Improvement of Highway Travel Time Estimation.

Integration of statewide freight and passenger model with the new travel demand modeling systems : Time of Day Modeling, trip chaining, junction-based modeling, and dynamic traffic assignment.

A plan for the establishment of information technology resources for travel survey data collection and analysis

15

Please rate key concerns of the models (rating 1 has lowest priority and rating 10 has highest priority)

16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

complexity of network descriptions

over specification of mode split structure

complexity of zonal data

documentation -- lack of users guides

documentation -- lack of model concept/algorithm

difficulty of trouble shooting

accuracy of truck percentages on links

accuracy of mimicking CTPP journey to work

model run time

accuracy of transit ridership at route level

accuracy of free-flow and congested speeds

accuracy of trip lengths

accuracy of link volumes (compared to counts)

Please rate types of model training (rating 1 has lowest priority and rating 10 has highest priority)

17

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

comprehensive training for four-step model

growth management, site impact, land use amendment

long range transportation plan

transit ridership

fundamental of statistics and model estimation and calibration

modeling freight

comprehensive training for Activity-Based model

highway forecasts

toll road and managed lanes

guidelines/workshop for model application, post model processing and forecasts

Please rate types of model projections you would need to have in the next five years (rating 1 has lowest priority and rating 10 has highest priority)

18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

resilience of climate change

travel demand changes due to internet services (e.g., on-line banking) and shopping

travel demand changes due to fluctuation of gasoline price

travel demand changes due to increase of flexible working hours

travel demand changes due to transportation network services providers (e.g., Uber)

travel demand changes due to millennium generations of urban living style preference

transit ridership for light rail

travel demand changes due to autonomous car

freight/turck trips for inland logistic centers

transit ridership for commuter rail

transit ridership for BRT

highway project needs assessment

Please provide any additional comments or suggestions

More FDOT resources need to be allocated to survey data collection

Model improvements need to be sensitive to the agency and priorities. Thereare some obvious trends ahead of us that we all need to understand but Iwould stress that a complex model addressing these trends in detail may notbe appropriate for all agencies.

19

Thank you

20