Version 2.3 Travel Model Update

1
Version 2.3 Travel Model Update
Item 3.

• Presentation to the
• Travel Forecasting Subcommittee
• Ron Milone and Mark Moran
• National Capital Region Transportation Planning
  Board
• September 19, 2008

tfs_Pres_Ver2.3_9_19_08_Final.ppt
2
Todays Discussion

• Recent updates to Version 2.3 model
• Version 2.3 sensitivity testing
• increased auto operating cost (2002)
• two system alternatives (2005)
• Proposed method for reflecting employer-based
  transit fare subsidies (i.e., SmartBenefits/Metroc
  heks/Farecards)

3
Review of 2005 Trips Assigned

• Observation Even though V2.3 vehicle trips
  are higher than V2.2, the number and proportion
  of V2.3 intra-zonal trips is lower than V2.2, and
  the proportion of V2.3 trips loaded is higher
  than V2.2
• Consequence Increase in V2.3 trips results
  in higher-than-expected increase in trips loaded
  and in VMT

4
Observed Data Sources Checked

• Auto Person intra-zonal percentages
• 1994 Household Travel Survey (for the 13
  jurisdictions surveyed)
• 2000 CTPP (modeled area)
• Conclusion - Existing modeled intra-zonal
  percentages need adjustment

5
Modeled Adjustments

• Intra-zonal time assumption (used in trip
  distribution) modified
• Was 0.50 of minimum inter-zonal time
• Now is 0.85 of minimum inter-zonal time
• Reduction in intra-zonal trips necessitated other
  changes
• Non-work trip generation reduced by 15
• NL mode choice model re-estimated
• Re-calibrated model performance acceptable

6
Sensitivity test for 2002

• Base
• Assumed auto op. cost 10cents/mi (94)
• Test
• Auto operating cost increased by 30 (i.e.,
  set to 13 cents/mi)

7
Cost of driving

• Cost of driving vis-à-vis the mode choice model
• Includes Out-of-pocket costs
• Gasoline
• Other maintenance costs, i.e., repairs, oil,
  tires, etc.
• Excludes ownership costs
• Cost of purchasing the vehicle
• Insurance
• Vehicle registration
• Assumption When a traveler is choosing which
  mode to take, he/she incorporates only some of
  the costs, i.e., the out-of-pocket costs, not
  the long-term costs associated with owning a
  vehicle (which the traveler sees as sunk costs)

8
Cost of driving

• Four major factors that influence driving costs
• Price of gas
• Price of maintenance and repairs
• Vehicle fleet fuel economy
• As the vehicle fleet becomes more fuel efficient,
  the cost of driving generally goes down
• Vehicle fleet mix
• The mix between cars and light-duty trucks
  (pickups, SUVs, minivans) affects average fuel
  economy
• As the share of LD trucks goes up, fuel
  efficiency goes down, which increases the cost of
  driving

9
How does model address auto operating costs?

• The cost of driving is entered into the mode
  choice model as a per-mile, average auto
  operating cost
• Version 2.3 travel model
• Assumes 10 cents/mile in constant/94 dollars
• There is no one parameter where one can specify
  the assumed price of gas.
• One specifies the average auto operating cost,
  which implicitly includes the cost of gas and the
  other three factors (maintenance, fleet fuel
  economy, and fleet mix)

10
Increase auto operating costs 30
11
Sensitivity Tests for 2005

• Two system alternatives examined
• Removal of the Pennsylvania Ave. (John Phillip
  Sousa) Bridge (hypothetical)
• Removal of two lanes from the American Legion
  Bridge, from 5 to 3 lanes in each direction
  (again, hypothetical)

12
Regional 2005 VMT
13
Regional 2005 Transit Trips
14
Directional Link Level Comparison American Legion
Bridge Base Alt. Condition
15
Change in AM Peak Period Volume when the John
Phillip Sousa Bridge is Closed(Year 2005)
Legend Red Decrease Green
Increase Tolerance More than /- 2000 Vehicles
16
Change in AM Peak Period Volumewhen American
Legion Bridge is reduced by two lanes (Year
2005)
Legend Red Decrease Green
Increase Tolerance More than /- 700 Vehicles
17
Conclusions on 2005 Sensitivity Tests

• Global results are generally reasonable
• Area-specific link volume changes are reasonable
• Results are comparable to similar tests of the
  Version 2.2 model

18
Reflecting Employer-Based Transit Fare Subsidies

• TPBs transit fare estimation process reflects
  WMATA policy
• Its clear that employer-based fare subsidies are
  pervasive
• The degree of fare subsidies is beginning to be
  understood with newly collected data

19
Rules of thumb andObserved fare elasticities

• Simpson Curtin formula (TRB 2004)
• 10 increase in fare gt 3.8 drop in ridership
• Observed elasticities can vary widely

20
WMATA Fares and Ridership

• Despite the fare increase in January, total rail
  ridership for the fiscal year ending in June was
  up almost 4 percent over the previous year, and
  total bus ridership rose about 1 percent.
• - Washington Post (September 12, 2008)
• http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art
  icle/2008/09/11/AR2008091103237.html
• Reasons New Baseball Stadium, recent development
  around stations, employer subsidies.

21
2007 Metrorail SurveyIncludes Subsidy Question

• Question M Do you receive a monthly transit
  benefit (i.e., SmartBenefits, Metrocheks or
  Farecards) from your employer?
• Yes, SmartBenefits
• Yes, Metrocheks/Farecards
• Do not receive benefits

22
2007 Survey Results

• 60 of Metrorail work trip passengers receive
  some type of employer subsidy
• Stations with largest percentage of subsidized
  work attractions
• Smithsonian (84)
• Federal Triangle (79)
• Federal Center SW (79)
• Medical Center (79)
• Capitol Heights (77)
• LEnfant Plaza (75)

23
Reflecting Fare Subsidies

• Develop peak station-to-station Metrorail fare
  (as normally developed)
• Formulate station-to-station subsidy
  probabilities (from Metrorail survey)
• Convert monthly subsidies to per-trip subsidies
  (subsidies are directly related to fare levels)
• Reduce average fare at station interchange level
  using subsidy probability and fare subsidy
• Adjusted Metrorail Fare
• (subsidized((normal fare subsidy)) (not
  subsidized (Normal Fare))

24
Conclusions

• Sensitivity tests have begun, development
  continues on Version 2.3
• Procedures to adjust Metrorail fares reflecting
  subsidies will be formalized
• Transit fare sensitivity will be examined