Southeast Florida Regional STOPS Model Training

Southeast Florida STOPS Planning Model Training

Florida Department of Transportation, District 4 November 17, 2016

1 Introductions

 Department Contacts

 Hui Zhao / [email protected] / 954-777-4635

 Shi-Chiang Li / [email protected] / 954-777-4655  Instructors

 David Schmitt / [email protected] / 407-302-5131

 Ashutosh Kumar / [email protected] / 954-603-0116

 Sujith Rapolu / [email protected] / 954-603-0113

 Hongbo Chi / [email protected] / 305-514-2431

2 Agenda

Morning Session Afternoon Session (Technical)

 Logistics and background  Considerations for  Overview of STOPS corridor-level calibration  Walk-through illustration  Overview of the SEFL STOPS Planning model using Flagler corridor

 Motivation and user interface

 Input data

 Calibration results

 Post processing user interface 3  Forecasting for your project Logistics and Introductions

 Bathrooms and breaks  Introductions  Training computers

4 STOPS Overview and Motivations for SEFL STOPS Planning Model

5 STOPS Overview

 Simplified Trips On Project Software – for transit ridership forecasting

 Developed and maintained by FTA  Limited implementation of the conventional ‘four-step’ trip-based model  Uses readily-available inputs such as census, ACS, MPO Population and Employment, GTFS etc.  Nationally calibrated, with adjustments made for local transit and fixed guideway systems

6 STOPS’ Purposes

 Primary Focus – To provide a simplified method to produce measures for fixed-guideway projects applying for FTA’s Capital Investment Grant funding

 Using STOPS beyond its primary purposes…

 QA/QC ridership forecasts

 Systems planning SEFL STOPS Planning Model

 Service planning

 Sizing of stations and mode-of-access facilities

 Before-After comparisons 7 FTA’s website currently has STOPS version 1.50. STOPS Interface and FTA Resources SEFL STOPS uses version 2.0 beta.

FTA provides example application and other resources at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital- 8 investments/stops-%E2%80%93-documentation-and-software Other Resources

 FTA Planning Staff

 Check for most recent STOPS versions, data and guidelines

 Provide technical guidance on STOPS  FTA’s “Forecasting with STOPS” course materials from workshops held in Orlando and Los Angeles (May and June 2016)  National Transit Institute will offer this course again in 2017  FDOT’s “Guidebook for Florida STOPS Applications”

9 Resource Requirements

Hardware Software Personnel/Staff • 8GB RAM required • Windows 7 or later • Good understanding of • 4- or 8-core processor • ArcMap version 10.1+ travel forecasting • 40-100GB of hard disk • Good text editor • Experience with GIS storage per project • Good spreadsheet software packages • GTFS visualizer • Familiarity with the transit system and local area

10 Advantages of Using STOPS

 FTA requires substantially less review time of STOPS ridership forecasts for CIG projects

 STOPS models can typically produce more analyses than regional travel models within the same time

 STOPS has embedded mapping routines that easily display and communicate results

11 From FDOT’s workshop on Guidebook for Florida STOPS Application Limitations to Using STOPS

 STOPS does not provide a direct interaction with the roadway network  The GTFS editing process can be cumbersome  STOPS’ representation of non-work trips is less certain than its representation of work trips  STOPS is limited in its ability to analyze alternatives beyond its supplied metrics (Example: transit capacity analysis has to be performed offline)  Future year travel patterns are based on existing patterns and the user-supplied population and employment forecasts (Other variables such as accessibility are not considered)

12 From FDOT’s workshop on Guidebook for Florida STOPS Application Additional STOPS 2.x Features

 ACS 2006-2010 data can be used to represent Journey-to-Work (JTW) flows  Calibration to linked transit trips by purpose (HBW, HBO and NHB) and by market segment (0-car, 1-car, 2-car HHs)  Boarding/transfer penalty can be changed, which directly impacts the overall transfer rate  Transit O/D survey can be used to develop “Incremental” STOPS model

 Ability to model ‘special’ markets 13 Motivations

 Why STOPS?

 Quicker turnaround for ridership forecasting and analysis

 Provide basis for FTA Capital Investment Grant applications (“New/Small Starts”)

 An independent tool to QA/QC forecasts from SERPM or data-driven models  Why SEFL STOPS Planning model?

 Provide a common “ready to go” platform for upcoming transit corridor studies

 Utilize a common set of reconciled data and assumptions for all corridors

 Fewer resources needed for corridor calibration/validation, compared to SERPM

14 SEFL STOPS Planning Model

15 SEFL STOPS Planning Model Characteristics

 Developed using STOPS version 2.0 beta (2/19/2016)  Covers the three SERPM counties Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach

 A separate Excel user interface let’s users apply the model for one county  Represents average weekday travel  Model base/current year: 2015

 Horizon year: 2040  STOPS input files already prepared  should be reviewed/updated for individual corridors

16 Define folder structure so that the STOPS The Model You Received control file is <80 characters in length

 ~500 MB zipped file

 Model Data/Interface

SEFL STOPS Planning model user guide and calibration 17 report supplements FTA’s STOPS user guide. SEFL STOPS Planning Model User Interface Motivations

 Model runtime for the tri-county region can be up to 4-7 hours

 Most projects will only have localized impacts within a given county/corridor

 Better quality and more detailed data may be available at a county/corridor level

 STOPS ASCII report file not easy to process/analyze

18 SEFL STOPS Planning Model User Interface What it Does?

 Automates the preparation of “some” input files for any corridor in the region

 Uses data already collected and reconciled as part of this effort

 Extracts user specified table numbers from the STOPS output report file into Excel

 Prints extracted worksheets to PDF format in batch mode 19 Initial files should be developed using the User Interface and Folder Setup interface to save significant setup time

South Florida Regional STOPS Model Excel Macro file containing Version 0.90 the user interface

STOPS Input Module Prepare Input Files for STOPS Module 1: Prepare Input files Post Processing Module STOPS Output Extraction and Analysis

Module 2: Post Processing 20 Developed by AECOM and Connetics for FDOT D4 of STOPS results Input Module and Data Assembled

21 Input Module: What it Does?

South Florida Regional STOPS Model  Copies all the required input files for a Version 0.90 selected geography

STOPS Input Module Prepare Input Files for STOPS  Creates a scenario folder and a default STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes of the geographic region Post Processing Module selected STOPS Output Extraction and Analysis

Developed by AECOM and Connetics for FDOT D4

22 Geographic region selection discussed User Interface: Input Module later.

1. Location of ArcMap exe file

2. Location of Python exe file A new folder containing 3. User specified scenario name preliminary input data is created using the Scenario Name 4. User specified STOPS control file name

23 Wait for the confirmation window for User Interface: Input Module (Contd.) successful completion of Prepare Input Files step.

This step can take up to a minute to complete.

24 User Interface: Input Module (Contd.)

 Three folders and STOPS control file are copied

25 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS software files  Pre-defined districts definition for the tri-county region  ACS Part I, II and III files, Census block boundary files  ACS state shape layer; depends on the geographic region selected  GTFS files; depends on the geographic region selected  MPO population and employment data  Auto skim file; depends on the geographic region selected  STOPS stations shape layer containing the existing fixed guideway stations and bus stops with ridership data; depends on the geographic region selected

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes26 of the geographic region selected Input Module: What is Copied? (Contd.)

Files copied in the ‘Inputs’ folder

Page 27 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes28 of the geographic region selected Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Software

 2.0 Beta Version (2/19/2016)

 No formal 2.0 documentation from FTA

 Version used for FTA’s STOPS course in May and June

 Use the interface to open STOPS menu

29 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes30 of the geographic region selected Users must define districts for their Input Module: What is Copied? corridor. Use Step 8 of STOPS menu. Pre-defined Districts

31 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes32 of the geographic region selected Input Module: What is Copied? ACS Files

 FTA provided the pre-formatted ACS files for Florida

 Florida ACS TAZ shapefile

 Florida Census block shapefile

 ACS TAZ-level Part I, II and III data; 5-year average 2006-2010 data  ACS Part III provides JTW flow information

 Basis of ‘trip distribution’ in STOPS

33 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes34 of the geographic region selected Depending on project, it may be necessary to Input Module: What is Copied? include some city buses & Tri-Rail shuttles. GTFS Network

 What’s in the GTFS files?

Agency/Systems Service Pick Notes MDT September 2015 BCT December 2015 Palm Tran December 2013  Tri-Rail December 2015 Manually coded full schedule Community/City Buses Not included Tri-Rail Shuttles Not included

35 Tri-Rail only modeled when ‘All Three Input Module: What is Copied? Counties’ is selected as geography. GTFS Networks for No Build and Build Scenarios

 Default No Build and Build networks are same as the Existing network  users should update these for their project  Only relevant systems’ GTFS files are copied  Below are the GTFS folders when ‘All Three Counties’ are selected in the Excel interface

36 Proposed BRTs/LRTs should be coded as Input Module: What is Copied? RouteType 0. GTFS Network / RouteType

Transit Service RouteType Tri-Rail 2 Metrorail 1 Metromover 0 MDT Local/Express Bus 3 MDT KAT/MAX/Busway 3 MDT 95X (Golden Glades I-95 Express) 3 MDT 95E (Inter-County I-95 Express) 3 BCT Local/Breeze Bus 3 BCT I-95 and I-595 Express 3 Palm Tran Bus 3

37 Input Module: What is Copied? GTFS Network / PnRs

TR-A: PB-MANGONIA STN .!

Baywinds TR-A: PB-WPB STN West Tech .! .! .! .! .! Palms West Hospital .! .!Shops at Southern Palms Wellington Green .! NW 186th St/NW 73rd Ave Lake Worth Rd/Turnpike .! .! .!TR-A: PB-LAKE WORTH STN

Golden Glades East LotTR-A: MD-G GLADES .!.!.!Golden Glades West Lot TR-A: PB-BOYNTON BEACH STN .! TR-A: MD-OPA-LOCKA .!

TR-A: PB-DELRAY BEACH STN .! Congress Ave/82nd St .! MR-a: PALMETTO .! MR-a: HIALEAH.! .! TR-A: PB-BOCA RATON STN .! MR-a:.! NORTHSIDE .! MR-a: OKEECHOBEE MR-a: MLK JR. .! MR-a: BRWNSVILLE .! TR-A: MD-HIALEAH MKTMR-a: E. HEIGHTSMR-a: ALLAPATTAH TR-A: BO-DEERFIELD BEACH .! .! .! .! TR-A: MD-MIC/MIAMR-a: ST CLARA .! .! TR-A: BO-POMPANO BEACH .!

TR-A: BO-CYPRESS CREEK MR-a: VIZCAYA .! .! MR-a: COCO GROVE .! Sunrise Park & Ride MR-a: DOUGLAS RD .! .! TR-A: BO-FT LAUDERDALE MR-a: UNIVERSITY .! .! MR-a: S MIAMI .! TR-A: BO-ARPRT/GRIFFIN RD MR-a: DADELAND N .! West Kendall Terminal MR-a:.! DADELAND S .! .!Kendall DR/SW 150 Ave. .! TR-A: BO-SHERIDAN STOP .! HMOCK CTR/SW152&104 TR-A: BO-HOLLYWOOD ! CB Smith.! Park . .! Pembroke Commons.!.! Memorial Hospital MiramarMiramar Town Center.! .!.! North Perry Airport .! Ansin Sports Complex NW 186th St/NW 73rd Ave .! Coral Reef DR/SW 152/TPKBusway/SW 152nd ST Golden Glades East LotTR-A: MD-G GLADES .! .!.! .! TR-A: MD-OPA-LOCKA Busway/SW 168th ST .! .!

MR-a: PALMETTOMR-a: HIALEAH .! .! .! .!.! MR-a: MLK JR. MR-a: NORTHSIDE.! MR-a: BRWNSVILLE.! MR-a: ALLAPATTAH Busway/SW 112 Ave. .! .! .!MR-a: ST CLARA .! MR-a: E. HEIGHTS.! .!

MR-a: VIZCAYA .! MR-a:.! DOUGLAS RD Busway/SW 244th ST .! .! MR-a:.! S MIAMI MR-a: DADELAND N .! West Kendall Terminal .!MR-a: DADELAND S .! .!HMOCK CTR/SW152&104.! Kendall DR/SW 150 Ave..!

Coral Reef DR/SW 152/TPK Busway/SW 152nd ST Busway/SW296th St. .! .!Busway/SW 168th ST .! .!

Busway/SW 112 Ave. .!

Busway/SW 244th ST 38 ! SW 344 Street/SW 3 Ave . .! Busway/SW296th St. .!

SW 344 Street/SW 3 Ave .! 95E Sheridan and Broward lots are not separated from the Tri-Rail lots Project station coding should follow the Input Module: What is Copied? existing scenario coding patterns. GTFS Network / PnRTypes

• Mangonia Park Station: 1 Tri-Rail • Metrorail Transfer Station : 3 • All Other Stations: 2

• All Metrorail Stations: 2 MDT • Busway and other bus PnRs: 3 PNRType Catchment Area 1 25 miles • All 95E and 595E lots: 3, except 2 10 miles BCT Hollywood Hills which is 4 3 6 miles 4 3 miles Palm Tran • All bus lots: 4

39 All new PnRs in No Build and Build scenarios Input Module: What is Copied? should have 0 to 5 minutes PnRCost. GTFS Network / PnRCost

 Tri-Rail and Metrorail

 No PnRCost, except at Dadeland North (where it is 0.1 minute)  All bus lots

 5 minutes added PnRCost  calibration parameter to match the bus PnR trips

40 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes41 of the geographic region selected Reflect SERPM 7.062 Input Module: What is Copied? data, if necessary. MPO Population/Employment

 SERPM 7 TAZ structure  Population and employment data obtained from SERPM 7.061

Year Source 2008-ACS CTPP Year 2010 SERPM 7.061 2015-Current Year Interpolation of 2010 and 2040 SERPM 7.061 data 2040-Horizon Year 2040 SERPM 7.061

42 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes43 of the geographic region selected Reflect future year auto skim after QA/QC, if Input Module: What is Copied? necessary. Auto Skims

 2010 skims from SERPM 7.061 is used to represent zone- to-zone current and future years peak period auto travel times and distances  Data includes only the county(ies) selected for modeling

44 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes45 of the geographic region selected Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Station Database

 Database of all rail stations and bus stops  Station access penalty

 Tri-Rail walk access: 10 minutes  Stop level boarding provided for all rail stations, MDT and Palm Tran stops

 Palm Tran stop-level boardings not used for calibration when ‘All Three Counties’ selected

46 Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Station Database Screenshot

47 Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Station Database – APC Data

Availability of stop Source level data? Palm Tran Yes October 2014 and February 2015 APC data BCT No -- September to November, 3 month 2015 APC data. This data is MDT buses Yes scaled to the corresponding 3 month average bus ridership obtained from the MDT monthly ridership reports. Metrorail Yes MDT monthly ridership reports. Average for September to November 2015 is used to be consistent with the APC data for the Metromover Yes buses. SFRTA’s monthly operations reports. Average for April-December Tri-Rail Yes 2015 is used to be consistent with the reopening of the MIA station in April 2015. 48 Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Station Database – APC Data for MDT and Palm Tran

49 Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Station Database – Station Groups

 Key element of STOPS’ local calibration

 SEFL Planning Model groupings

 4 groups for Tri-Rail stations

 7 groups for Metrorail stations

 3 groups for Metromover stations

 Bus stops groupings generally align with districts definition

50 Input Module: What is Copied?

 STOPS control file, appropriately edited to reflect the attributes51 of the geographic region selected Input Module: What is Copied? STOPS Control File

 Set-up parameters  Unlinked trip targets (based on geography selected):  ‘All Three Counties’: 504,000  Miami-Dade Only: 335,000  Broward Only: 106,000  Palm Beach Only: 39,000  Transfer penalty: 5 minutes  Visibility factor: 1.0  CTPP Calibration Approach: 01-Attraction-only  Group Calibration Approach: 09-Full Group Calibration  Growth Factor Geography: zone

52 Calibration Results

53 Calibration Targets Unlinked Trip Target and Stop-level boardings

 Region-wide boardings target: 504,000 System / Average Weekday Year/Source Agency Unlinked Trips Palm Tran 39,000 2014-15/APC BCT 118,000  2015/Monthly Reports MDT buses 222,000 2015/APC Metrorail 76,700 2015/Monthly Reports Metromover 34,600 2015/Monthly Reports Tri-Rail 13,800 2015/Monthly Reports Region-wide 504,000

 Stop-level ridership data provided for all agencies except BCT 54 Not currently applied in the SEFL STOPS Calibration Targets Planning Model. Linked Transit Trip Targets

 Although these targets are not provided in the SEFL Planning model, users are encouraged to provide them if available  Recent on-board surveys can be used to develop these targets

55 Calibration Region-wide Boarding Results

Boardings Transit Mode Observed Estimated Delta Tri-Rail 13,800 14,100 400 Palm Tran 39,000 41,100 2,100 BCT Local/Breeze Bus 115,500 123,300 7,800 BCT I-95 and I-595 Express 2,400 2,200 -200 BCT Subtotal 117,900 125,400 7,600 MDT Local/Express Bus 198,700 187,900 -10,700 MDT KAT/MAX 20,200 34,700 14,500 MDT 95X (Golden Glades I-95 Express) 2,100 5,200 3,100 MDT 95E (Inter-County I-95 Express) 1,200 1,300 100 Metromover (Downtown Miami) 34,600 18,500 -16,200 Metrorail 76,700 72,700 -4,000 MDT Subtotal 333,500 322,500 -11,000 56 Regional Total 504,100 503,200 -900 Calibration Tri-Rail Boarding Results

Observed Estimated 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

57 Calibration Metrorail Boarding Results

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 0 4,000 8,000 12,000

Palmetto Culmer Historic Overtown Okeechobee Observed Government Center Hialeah Estimated Tri-Rail transfer Brickell Vizcaya Northside Coconut Grove Observed Dr. MLK Jr. Plaza Douglas Road Estimated Brownsville University Earlington Heights South Miami Allapattah Dadeland North Santa Clara Dadeland South Civic Center MIA

58 Calibration Busway Routes – Observed vs Estimated Boardings

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 31 Busway Local 34 Busway Flyer 38 Busway MAX Observed Estimated 59 Calibration Local vs KAT/MAX

Flagler St.

Kendall Dr.

Page 60 Calibration 16,000 12,000 Biscayne Boulevard NW 27th Avenue 14,000 Local vs KAT/MAX 10,000 12,000 8,000 10,000

8,000 6,000

6,000 4,000 4,000 Kendall 4,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 0 0 Local Limited Stop Corridor Local Limited Stop Corridor Observed Estimated Observed Estimated 2,000

16,000 20,000 1,000 Flagler Street Beach 14,000 18,000 16,000 12,000 0 14,000 Local Limited Stop Corridor 10,000 12,000 Observed Estimated 8,000 10,000

6,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 0 0 Local Limited Stop Corridor Page 61Local Limited Stop Corridor Observed Estimated Observed Estimated Calibration One County vs Three Counties – Metromover

3-Counties Model Run Observed Estimated Delta Metromover (Downtown Miami) 34,600 18,500 -16,200

Run the model for Miami-Dade County only

Added fares (as 10 minutes penalty) on all MDT bus stops and Metrorail stations and made Metromover free

Miami-Dade Only Model Run Observed Estimated Delta

Metromover (Downtown Miami) 34,600 31,000Page 62 -3,600 Calibration One County vs Three Counties – MDT

Boardings Transit Mode Estimated Estimated Observed 3-Counties) (1-County) MDT Local/Express Bus 198,700 187,900 182,700 MDT KAT/MAX 20,200 34,700 38,300 MDT 95X (Golden Glades I-95 Express) 2,100 5,200 4,400 Metromover (Downtown Miami) 34,600 18,500 31,000 Metrorail 76,700 72,700 71,600 MDT Total 333,500 319,000 328,000

63 Calibration Summary

 Regional STOPS is able to represent the ridership on both the fixed guideway and local bus modes reasonably well Limited stop buses and Metromover  Splits by purpose and access mode are similar to the observed numbers Walk access estimates are slightly over-estimated on Tri-Rail and Metrorail  One-county vs three-counties aggregate results are similar Ability to further fine tune the calibration at the county level

64 Post Processing Module

65 Post Processing Module What it Does?

South Florida Regional STOPS Model  Extracts selected tables from the STOPS Version 0.90 Report file into Excel

 For easier processing and reporting STOPS Input Module Prepare Input Files for STOPS  Print Desired Worksheets

 Can print in batch mode

 Users should format the tables before printing Post Processing Module STOPS Output Extraction and Analysis

Developed by AECOM and Connetics for FDOT D4

66 User Interface: Post Processing Module

Location of STOPS output report file

67 Required Files for Post Processing Samples

 STOPSTablestoExtract.txt

 STOPSTablestoPrint.txt

68 Forecasting for Your Project…

69 Forecasting with STOPS

 Model running ≠ ridership forecasting  Simplified ≠ Sloppy!! (and Simplified ≠ Sketch, either)  Uncertainties must be characterized, quantified and communicated to decision makers

From FTA’s course on STOPS 70 Setting up SEFL STOPS for a Project

Select the Refine corridor geographic region Prepare basic districts and stop needed for the input files groups project

Define years & Refine corridor Perform project visibility factor, if calibration forecasts needed

Automated Steps Page 71 Additional Steps for Users How to Select Geography Questions to Ask

 Does the project traverse more than one county?  Would you expect any meaningful ridership on the project from more than one county?  Does the underlying corridor bus connect with transit services from other counties, and is this connection expected to have a meaningful impact on the project?  Do you need Tri-Rail for this analysis?

Select “All Three Counties” option if answer is yes to 72 ANY of the questions Review of the Input Files

 Verify all the input files to make sure the corridor inputs are correct and up-to-date  GTFS

 Make sure that the service coded reflects the current service (for which data is available)  MPO TAZ population and employment

 Make sure the current and horizon years data are up-to-date  Station database

 Make sure that the stop-level boarding data is correct and generally reflects the existing ridership counts

73 How to Define Districts Good Practices

 Generally speaking, 16 to 24 districts (STOPS allows up to 50)  Separate districts for CBD and major activity centers  Finer districts along the project corridor, and coarser elsewhere  Station groupings should generally be consistent with districts definition

74 Further More… Regionally well-calibrated ≠ well-calibrated for a particular corridor

Corridor- • Refinement of corridor districts and station/stop groupings • Corridor local versus limited stop bus boarding splits related • Special generators calibration • Survey data, most recent service changes refinements • TAZ cloning etc.

• No Build network Alternatives • Build network – project and background bus network changes forecasting • Other requirements – visibility factor adjustments, interim/opening year set up? 75 Fixed Guideway Visibility Factor

 Setting that approximates the differentiation of fixed- guideway services and regular bus service  Direct impact on forecasting ridership  0.0 < VF ≤ 1.0  Comes into play when RouteType 0 is defined

Guidebook for Florida STOPS Applications 76 Visibility factor is mode- specific; not corridor- Potential Range of Visibility Factor specific.

Transit Initial Visibility Selected Characteristics Mode Factors

BRT Peak hour/period exclusive lanes/right-of-way; (“Corridor- Defined stations; TSP/QJ for transit vehicles; 0.0-0.2 based”) “Schedule-free service” ‘Corridor-based’ BRT characteristics plus BRT All-day exclusive lanes or reliably faster travel times; 0.3-0.5 (“Robust”) Separate and consistent branding Railcar operating in mixed-flow or exclusive lanes Streetcar 0.5-0.75 plus ‘Corridor-based’ BRT characteristics

Railcar operating in mixed-flow, exclusive lanes or LRT/HRT/CRT 0.6-1.0 railroad right-of-way

77 From FDOT’s workshop on Guidebook for Florida STOPS Application Creating an Opening Year Model

 Define the opening year  Develop opening year No Build and Build GTFS networks  Include opening year population & employment in the MPO TAZ file  Include opening year auto skims, if needed

78 THANK YOU!!

79 Afternoon Session – Walk Through Example

80 Topics

 Considerations for corridor-level calibration  Walk-through illustration using Flagler corridor

81 List of Typical Adjustments

82 Typical Adjustments Big-Picture

1. System-wide linked transit trip targets 2. Special market trips 3. CTPP calibration approach 4. System-wide transfer rate 5. Define new districts and station groups 6. Refine zonal structure 7. Code separate stops for local and limited stop routes Details 8. Add time penalties 9. Others…

83 1. System-wide Linked Transit Trip Targets

 Specify system-wide linked transit trip targets by trip purpose and auto availability  Source: Recent on-board transit surveys conducted in the region  Impacts on the model: Better representation of zero-car market, which is a key New/Small Starts metric

84 2. Special Market Trips

 Supplement STOPS with special market trips, if any  Source: Surveys (e.g. zip code data for university students)  Impacts on the model: Captures travel patterns outside the conventional CTPP markets; better representation of existing transit travel

85 3. CTPP Calibration Approach

 STOPS parameter file has two options for CTPP Calibration Approach

 Calibration to attraction-districts; SEFL STOPS Planning Model default

 Calibration to production and attraction-districts; this is optional; needed if STOPS’ estimates of transit trips Ps/As are unreasonable  Impacts on the model: Subareas expected to change in character will be locked in to the production-end transit constants calibrated against current conditions

86 4. System-wide Transfer Rate

 Adjust the transfer penalty factor in the STOPS parameter file to match the system-wide transfer rate  Source: Recent on-board transit surveys conducted in the region  Impacts on the model: Better representation of the percent of transfers

87 5. Define New Districts and Station Groups

 Districts should be focused on the corridor and are broad outside the corridor  Note that station group definition should generally align with districts definition  Source: User defined  Impacts on the model: Better representation of ridership at the corridor level

88 6. Refine Zonal Structure

 Split large zones in the corridor into smaller zones at key activity centers and zones with multiple fixed-guideway stations  Source: User defined  Impacts on the model: Better representation of walk access in the corridor

Details in STOPS user guide 89 7. Separate Stops for Local and Limited Stop Routes

 Code the limited stop bus routes on new user-defined stops in the GTFS files  Specify stop level boardings for these new stops in the station database  Impacts on the model: Ranges from no real impacts to some improvements in the local/limited stop bus ridership split

 This separation of stops in the GTFS files is required for the last step when all else fails

90 8. Add Time Penalties

 Last resort when all else has failed..  Add time penalties on KAT/MAX stops in the station database (and/or PNR.txt GTFS file)  Impacts on the model: Brute force calibration to match counts

 May have unintended consequences on the project forecasts; might be required to carry forward the time penalties on to the project stations as well  Discuss with FTA…

91 Other Adjustments…

 Control the geographic extent of analysis using the ‘LSAD’ field in the Census geographic shape file

 Example: Multi-county model with focus only on one specific county and inter-county trips  May need to redefine station groupings for fixed guideway stations within the corridor  “Zone Cloning” procedures for high growth areas

 TAZs with near-zero existing trips and are expected to grow substantially

92 SEFL STOPS Planning Model uses national Other Adjustments… parameters. Local Adjustments for Person-Travel

 Default STOPS trip rates used  Opportunity to update these parameters when the ongoing household travel survey data is available

Person trips per CTPP worker applied in STOPS 0-Car 1-Car 2+-Car HBW 1.32 1.44 1.56 HBO 1.78 5.20 5.60 NHB 0.54 2.79 3.00

93 Key STOPS Tables for Calibration

STOPS Table # At the minimum, Users should make sure that… The district level production/attraction constants are not extremely high; anything Table 2.01 beyond +/- 3.0 should be investigated. The regional calibration factor is close to 1.0 and the overall estimated transfer rate Table 2.04 is close to the observed system-wide transfer rate. Adjustment factors are generally between 0.7 and 1.3 and the station pairs that do Table 2.05 not fall within this range are due to reasons that can be explained. The station group-to-station group table is reasonable, i.e. close to observed Table 3.01 numbers, especially in the corridor of interest. The station-level boarding by access mode (and the total) are reasonably close to the Table 9.01 observed data, especially at the fixed guideway and key bus stop locations within the corridor of interest. Table 10.01 The route-level boardings are close to the observed ridership. The GTFS files read in by STOPS reasonably represent the peak and off-peak transit Tables 10.03 & 10.04 service in the region/corridor. The linked transit trips by trip purpose, by access mode, by transit mode and by Tables 11.01-11.04 market segmentation are close to those from the survey. Table 12.01 The input population and employment data read in by STOPS are reasonable. Tables 13-01-13.09 The input auto skim data read in by STOPS are reasonable. 94 The person trips are reasonable for transit dependent and non-dependent households Tables 35.01 etc.. (by trip purpose). Flagler Corridor Walk- Through

For Illustration Only – DO NOT directly use these recommendations for your project

95 Flagler Street Corridor Corridor Overview (Land use, existing travel conditions, key destinations etc.)

For illustration only From MDT’s Website – Flagler Street Bus Routes Accessed 11/15/2016

Local bus: #11 9/12 Headway

Limited stop: #51 Flagler MAX 15/30 Headway 97 Flagler Street Corridor (contd.)

 14,600 corridor boardings on an average weekday  Local bus - #11; Limited stop bus - #51  78/22 ridership split between local and limited stop routes  Span of service: Local (24 hours); limited (4 AM to 8 PM)  FIU, Mall of Americas and Miami Government Center are some of the key activity centers

98 Run 0: Tri-County STOPS Model

 Note on station groups in the SE FL STOPS Planning Model  Bus stop groups generally align with district definitions  Fixed guideway stations are grouped separately  Multiple groups for Tri-Rail, Metrorail and Metromover stations

99 Run 0 Boarding Results (Aggregate)

Targets Run 0 #11 11,363 4,411 Route Level #51 3,260 5,045 Corridor 14,623 9,456 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455

100 Run 1 Summary of Changes Impacts of 1-County and Redefined Districts

Station group numbers shown  Ran the model for Miami-Dade County Only  Refined districts in the corridor

 Station groups for bus stops within the corridor are updated to align with the new districts

 No change in the fixed guideway station group definition from Run 0 For illustration only to show potential impacts; DO NOT use these ‘uninformed’ districts definition

101 Run 1 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of 1-County and Redefined Districts

Targets Run 0 Run 1 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 503,202 System-wide boardings 334,680 327,054 (Reg.) System-wide transfer rate 52% 53%

102 Stop Targets Run 1 Run 1 Group Results 1 2,947 3,226 (Stop 7 27 75 Group 11 497 757 Boardings 12 186 115 for Corridor 13 271 401 Routes) 14 1,251 1,026 15 950 608 16 964 705 17 1,720 1,902

19 2,842 1,245 20 2,979 2,339 103 Total 14,634 12,399 Run 2 Summary of Changes Impacts of Station Groupings

 Updated CTPP calibration approach to “productions and attractions” from “attractions only”  Has little impact  Updated station group definitions for fixed guideway stations to align with districts

104 Run 2 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of Station Groupings

Targets Run 0 Run 1 Run 2 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 7,538 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 6,697 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 14,235 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 13,497 Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 71,318 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 11,209 System-wide boardings 334,680 503,202 327,054 333,753 System-wide transfer rate 52% 53% 54%

105 Stop Targets Run 1 Run 2 Run 2 Group Results 1 2,947 3,226 4,399 (Stop 7 27 75 44 Group 11 497 757 649 Boardings 12 186 115 174 for Corridor 13 271 401 418 Routes) 14 1,251 1,026 819 15 950 608 669 16 964 705 690 17 1,720 1,902 2,084

19 2,842 1,245 1,541 20 2,979 2,339 2,748 106 Total 14,634 12,399 14,235 Run 3 Summary of Changes Impacts of Fares

 Added 10 minute walk access penalty on all bus stops and Metrorail stations to make Metromover free  Done in the STOPS station database file

107 Run 3 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of Fares

Targets Run 0 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 7,538 6,773 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 6,697 6,625 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 14,235 13,398 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 13,497 9,395 Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 71,318 71,120 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 11,209 30,520 System-wide boardings 334,680 503,202 327,054 333,753 337,199 System-wide transfer rate 52% 53% 54% 64%

108 Run 3 Group Targets Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Results 1 2,947 3,226 4,399 3,750 (Stop 7 27 75 44 39 Group 11 497 757 649 620 Boardings 12 186 115 174 78 13 271 401 418 468 for Corridor 14 1,251 1,026 819 942 Routes) 15 950 608 669 716 16 964 705 690 573 17 1,720 1,902 2,084 1,753

19 2,842 1,245 1,541 1,621 20 2,979 2,339 2,748 2,837

109 Total 14,634 12,399 14,235 13,397 Run 4 Summary of Changes Impacts of Zone Split

 FIU zone split into two for better representation of walk accessibility

Not an ideal way to split a zone!

110 Run 4 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of Zone Split

Targets Run 0 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 7,538 6,773 6,675 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 6,697 6,625 6,585 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 14,235 13,398 13,260 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 13,497 9,395 10,047 Needs further ?? Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 71,318 71,120 73,626 investigation Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 11,209 30,520 30,135 System-wide boardings 334,680 503,202 327,054 333,753 337,199 338,049 System-wide transfer rate 52% 53% 54% 64% 64%

111 Run 4 Group Targets Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Results 1 2,947 3,226 4,399 3,750 3,636 (Stop 7 27 75 44 39 36 Group 11 497 757 649 620 623 Boardings 12 186 115 174 78 100 13 271 401 418 468 464 for Corridor 14 1,251 1,026 819 942 934 Routes) 15 950 608 669 716 716 16 964 705 690 573 564 17 1,720 1,902 2,084 1,753 1,747

19 2,842 1,245 1,541 1,621 1,645 20 2,979 2,339 2,748 2,837 2,793

112 Total 14,634 12,399 14,235 13,397 13,258 Run 5 Summary of Changes Impacts of Detailed Stop Coding

 Separated #51 bus stops from #11 bus stops in the GTFS file

Updated stops.txt file 113 Updated stop_times.txt file Run 5 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of Detailed Stop Coding

Targets Run 0 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 7,538 6,773 6,675 6,633 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 6,697 6,625 6,585 6,532 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 14,235 13,398 13,260 13,165 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 13,497 9,395 10,047 10,045 Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 71,318 71,120 73,626 73,627 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 11,209 30,520 30,135 30,137 System-wide boardings 334,680 503,202 327,054 333,753 337,199 338,049 338,015 System-wide transfer rate 52% 53% 54% 64% 64% 64%

114 Run 5 Group Targets Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Results 1 2,947 3,226 4,399 3,750 3,636 3,628 (Stop 7 27 75 44 39 36 39 Group 11 497 757 649 620 623 627 Boardings 12 186 115 174 78 100 100 13 271 401 418 468 464 448 for Corridor 14 1,251 1,026 819 942 934 918 Routes) 15 950 608 669 716 716 708 16 964 705 690 573 564 561 17 1,720 1,902 2,084 1,753 1,747 1,735

19 2,842 1,245 1,541 1,621 1,645 1,644 20 2,979 2,339 2,748 2,837 2,793 2,754

115 Total 14,634 12,399 14,235 13,397 13,258 13,162 Run 6 Summary of Changes Impacts of Time Penalties

 Additional 5 minute walk access penalty on all #51 bus stops  Done in the STOPS station database file

 Reasons????

116 Run 6 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of Time Penalties

Targets Run 0 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 7,538 6,773 6,675 6,633 7,864 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 6,697 6,625 6,585 6,532 3,579 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 14,235 13,398 13,260 13,165 11,443 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 13,497 9,395 10,047 10,045 9,990 Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 71,318 71,120 73,626 73,627 73,691 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 11,209 30,520 30,135 30,137 30,380 System-wide boardings 334,680 503,202 327,054 333,753 337,199 338,049 338,015 338,304 System-wide transfer rate 52% 53% 54% 64% 64% 64% 65%

117 Run 6 Group Targets Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Results 1 2,947 3,226 4,399 3,750 3,636 3,628 3,168 (Stop 7 27 75 44 39 36 39 27 Group 11 497 757 649 620 623 627 395 Boardings 12 186 115 174 78 100 100 107 13 271 401 418 468 464 448 375 for Corridor 14 1,251 1,026 819 942 934 918 767 Routes) 15 950 608 669 716 716 708 640 16 964 705 690 573 564 561 486 17 1,720 1,902 2,084 1,753 1,747 1,735 1,398

19 2,842 1,245 1,541 1,621 1,645 1,644 1,516 20 2,979 2,339 2,748 2,837 2,793 2,754 2,563

118 Total 14,634 12,399 14,235 13,397 13,258 13,162 11,442 Run 7 Summary of Changes Impacts of Fare

 Removed the 10 minute walk access penalty on all bus stops and Metrorail stations added in Run 3  i.e. Metromover does not have meaningful impacts on corridor ridership  Done in the STOPS station database file

119 Run 7 Boarding Results (Aggregate) Impacts of Fare

Targets Run 0 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 #11 11,363 4,411 5,677 7,538 6,773 6,675 6,633 7,864 9,056 Route #51 3,260 5,045 6,720 6,697 6,625 6,585 6,532 3,579 3,293 Level Corridor 14,623 9,456 12,397 14,235 13,398 13,260 13,165 11,443 12,349 Metrorail Govt. Center Station 12,556 11,185 11,827 13,497 9,395 10,047 10,045 9,990 14,283 Metrorail ridership 76,665 72,666 73,032 71,318 71,120 73,626 73,627 73,691 72,731 Metromover ridership 34,617 18,455 19,485 11,209 30,520 30,135 30,137 30,380 8,233 System-wide boardings 334,680 503,202 327,054 333,753 337,199 338,049 338,015 338,304 332,294 System-wide transfer rate 52% 53% 54% 64% 64% 64% 65% 53%

120 Stop Targets Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 7 Group Results 1 2,947 3,226 4,399 3,750 3,636 3,628 3,168 3,801 (Stop 7 27 75 44 39 36 39 27 32 Group 11 497 757 649 620 623 627 395 448 Boardings 12 186 115 174 78 100 100 107 107 for Corridor 13 271 401 418 468 464 448 375 315 Routes) 14 1,251 1,026 819 942 934 918 767 671 15 950 608 669 716 716 708 640 646 16 964 705 690 573 564 561 486 573 17 1,720 1,902 2,084 1,753 1,747 1,735 1,398 1,647

19 2,842 1,245 1,541 1,621 1,645 1,644 1,516 1,492 20 2,979 2,339 2,748 2,837 2,793 2,754 2,563 2,614 121 Total 14,634 12,399 14,235 13,397 13,258 13,162 11,442 12,346 Model Runs Should Go On…

122 THANK YOU!!

123