Activity-Based Model Applications

Activity-Based Model Applications Activity-Based Modelling Symposium Research Centre for Integrated Transport and Innovation (rciti) UNSW, Sydney, Australia March 10, 2014 John L Bowman, Ph.D. John_L_Bowman@alum.mit.edu JBowman.net

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

Early Application Results (Portland 1998) Effect of Change in Auto Variable Costs (AVC) Time of Purp Mode day Double AVC all times of day Tours Miles Double AVC in peak periods Tours Miles Work All All -0.8-9.4-0.6-5.5 SOV All -5.8-14.6 AM peak -5.9-13.1 Off-peak +1.0 0.0 Maint SOV All -8.7-21.5-1.2-3.6 Discr -10.7-23.1-1.3-3.2 Activity-Based Models: 1993-2012 John L Bowman, Ph.D. (www.jbowman.net) 4

Example: Manhattan Congestion Pricing Study Central Business District Congestion Pricing Zone Boundary Congestion Pricing Zone Portals 9

Who pays? and How much? Type of Driver/ Group Level of Discount Taxi, Transit FREE Helps minimize administrative impacts for businesses, and keeps industry moving Commercial Vehicles, Shuttles Rental Cars & Car Sharing FLEET FLEET Toll-payer Fee -bate $1 off Would require documentation of inability to take transit Low-Income (Lifeline Value) Disabled Drivers Zone Residents 50% off 50% off 50% off May be accompanied by investment in Means-Based Fare Assistance Program Low-Emission Vehicles - HOV/Carpool - Activity-Based Modeling: Executive Perspective 10

Difference from Base 2010 (per five minute period) Copenhagen: Congestion and Road Pricing 1000 500 Changes in trip departure time on car work trips 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10-500 -1000-1500 -2000-2500 -7% -12% Increased congestion (30%) -7% -13% (2049 trips in 5 minutes) Trip Departure Time Plus Road Pricing (2, 1 and.5 DKK/km) Trafikverket, 29 Oct 2013 John L. Bowman, Ph.D. 11

Copenhagen: Congestion and Road Pricing Percent change in trips on work tours 8% Walk Bike Auto Driver HOV Passenger Transit Total 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% Congestion Road Pricing Trafikverket, 29 Oct 2013 John L. Bowman, Ph.D. 12

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

Transit Application: SF Muni Central Subway 1.4 miles connecting South of Market to Chinatown Third Street LRT 7.1 mile surface line (IOS = Baseline) Activity-Based Modeling: Executive Perspective 14

Work Tour: Destination- Based User Benefit 15

Sacramento State BRT Project AB model used to simulate campus arrivals and departures by ½ hour time periods 16

5:00 6:30 8:00 9:30 11:00 12:30 14:00 15:30 17:00 18:30 20:00 21:30 23:00 Boardings Temporal Analysis of BRT Parking and Boardings Total Available Parking By Time Period 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 5:00 6:30 8:00 9:30 11:00 12:30 14:00 15:30 17:00 18:30 20:00 21:30 23:00 BRT Boardings By Time Period Total Spaces BRT Boardings Model tracks time in ½ hour periods Parking constraints and policies affect transit ridership Time Period 17

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

Travel Demand Management Strategies to change travel behavior in order to reduce congestion and improve mobility Telecommuting\Work-at-home Flexible work schedules (off-peak) Rideshare programs Scenario-based approaches necessary Model system captures the effects of TDM policy outcomes Cannot identify which policies will affect flexible work schedules But can estimate the impact on transportation system performance of shift from a 5-day 8-hour work week to a 4-day 9+ hour work week 19

Duration 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 % of Tours TDM Analysis: Burlington, VT Flexible Schedule scenario Asserted assumptions about: Fewer individual work activities Longer individual work durations Aggregate work durations constant Target: Fulltime Workers 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Tours by Purpose (Fulltime Workers) Original Adjusted Adj/Orig Work 94,408 78,472 0.83 School 115 140 1.22 Escort 8,070 9,023 1.12 Pers Bus 13,519 16,848 1.25 Shop 10,531 12,938 1.23 Meal 3,817 3,842 1.01 Soc/Rec 13,076 14,360 1.10 Workbased 27,949 23,211 0.83 Total 171,485 158,834 0.93 Work Tour Duration Distribution Original Adjusted 0 20

03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 TDM: Demand Impacts ~4% Reduction in overall trips Reduced peak period and midday travel More early AM travel and evening travel 4000 3000 2000 1000 0-1000 -2000-3000 -4000 Difference in Trips by Time of Day TDM Fewer, and earlier, work trips More nonwork trips in morning and evening with fewer in midday 4000 3000 2000 1000 0-1000 -2000-3000 -4000 Difference in Trips by Time of Day TDM-WORK TDM-NONWORK 21

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

MTC Project evaluation for SF Bay Area long range planning MTC is Bay Area MPO AB model used for benefit-cost analysis of 100 most expensive projects (75% of costs) Qualitative targets assessment used for all 1000 considered projects Included some aspects not measured well by AB model Activity-Based Models: 1993-2012 John L Bowman, Ph.D. (www.jbowman.net) 23

Targets Assessment Assessed qualitatively using target scores (max score of +10). 1. Climate Protection 2. Adequate Housing 3. Particulate Matter 4. Collisions 5. Active Transportation 6. Open Space 7. Equitable Access 8. Economic Vitality 9. Non-Auto Mode Share/VMT 10. State of Good Repair Benefit-Cost Assessment Assessed quantitatively using MTC Travel Model One. BENEFITS Travel time (including recurring & non-recurring delay) Travel cost (auto operating/ownership, parking) Emissions (CO 2, PM 2.5, ROG, NO x ) Collisions (fatalities, injuries, property damage) Health impacts due to active transport Noise Source: MTC COSTS Capital costs Net operating and maintenance (O&M) costs

Source: MTC

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

SF Transportation Plan: Travel time savings 29

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

Greenhouse gas estimates by residence parcel -- Sacramento Area Council of Governments AB Model Systems: 1993-2013 John L Bowman, Ph.D. (www.jbowman.net) 31

Applications Pricing Transit Travel Demand Management Project Comparison Equity Environment Emergency Evacuation

Evacuation Modeling: Persons Not at Home by TAZ and Hour Atlanta Regional Commission 33