REFINEMENT OF FSUTMS TRIP DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY 10.00 9.00 Final Report Survey 8.00 Contract No. BB942 Destination Choice Model with Spatial Variables 7.00 Destination Choice Model without Spatial Variable 6.00 "Gravity Model" Prepared for 5.00 4.00 Percentage of Trips (%) 3.00 Research Office 2.00 Florida Department of Transportation 1.00 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Prepared by Lehman Center for Transportation Research Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Florida International University September 2004 REFINEMENT OF FSUTMS TRIP DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY Final Report Contract No. BB942 Prepared for Research Office Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Prepared by Fang Zhao, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Lee-Fang Chow, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate Min-Tang Li, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate and Albert Gan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Lehman Center for Transportation Research Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Florida International University University Park Campus, EAS 3673 Miami, Florida 33199 Phone: 305-348-3821 Fax: 305-348-2802 E-mail: [email protected] September 2004 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. Final Report for BB942 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date September 2004 REFINEMENT OF FSUTMS TRIP DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Fang Zhao, Lee-Fang Chow, Min-Tang Li, Albert Gan 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 11. Contract or Grant No. Miami, Florida 33199 BB942 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Research Office Final Report Florida Department of Transportation December 1998 – September 2004 650 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract In this report, alternative trip distribution models are investigated with the purpose of improving the current trip distribution methodology in FSUTMS. Three types of models are studied: intervening opportunity models, enhanced gravity models, and destination choice models. The performance of the models was compared against travel survey data and that of traditional gravity models. The evaluation criteria included average trip length, trip length distribution, intrazonal trips, and spatial accuracy measured by different statistical tests. The findings from the project indicate that intervening opportunity models and enhanced gravity models did not produce noteworthy improvements, although the intervening opportunity models were handicapped by the lack of suitable software for model calibration therefore no definite conclusions may be drawn regarding their potentials. Aggregate destination choice models were developed for Broward, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties for Home- Based Work (HBW) trip purpose. Although the three counties are different in their demographics, socioeconomics, and urban structures, improvements are seen in the trip distribution results produced by all the destination choice models, although the improvements for Broward and Volusia counties are more significant than those for Palm Beach County. Results from destination choice models for other trips purposes also indicate improvements. 17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement Trip distribution, gravity model, intervening opportunity model, destination choice model 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified. Unclassified. 165 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Florida Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. ACKNOWELDGEMENTS This study was sponsored by a grant from the FDOT Research Center. The support from the Research Center is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank the Project Manager, Mr. Shi-Chinag Li, Senior Transportation Planner, Planning and Environmental Management Office, FDOT District 4, for his guidance and support throughout the research. The authors also thank Mr. Michael Neidhart, Chair of the Florida Statewide Model Task Force Trip Distribution Committee and Senior Transportation Planner of Volusia Metropolitan Planning Organization, for his valuable input and guidance. The authors are grateful to the Florida Statewide Model Task Force, whose members have helped direct the research to its successful completion. The authors thank Mr. Sam Yang, Ms. Xuemei Liu, and Ms. Fang Mei, Graduate Research Assistants of the Lehman Center for Transportation Research during this project, for providing assistance in developing the models described in this report. i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... iix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... xxi 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Growth Factor Methods .......................................................................................... 3 2.2 Gravity Models....................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Opportunity Models................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Destination Choice Models..................................................................................... 6 2.5 FSUTMS Trip Distribution..................................................................................... 7 2.5.1 Existing Methodology................................................................................. 8 2.5.2 Recent Model Enhancements...................................................................... 9 2.6 Modeling Practices in Other Urban Areas.............................................................. 9 2.6.1 Metropolitan Atlanta Region .................................................................... 10 2.6.2 Metropolitan Baltimore Region ................................................................ 10 2.6.3 Metropolitan Boston Region..................................................................... 11 2.6.4 Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area ...................................................... 11 2.6.5 Metropolitan Denver Region .................................................................... 11 2.6.6 Metropolitan Detroit Region..................................................................... 11 2.6.7 Huston-Galveston Region......................................................................... 12 2.6.8 New York Metropolitan............................................................................ 12 2.6.9 Metropolitan Phoenix Region................................................................... 12 2.6.10 Metropolitan Seattle Region ..................................................................... 13 2.6.11 Metropolitan St. Louis Region.................................................................. 13 2.6.12 Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Region ................................................... 13 2.6.13 Metropolitan Portland Area ...................................................................... 13 2.6.14 Metropolitan San Diego Region ............................................................... 14 2.6.15 San Francisco Bay Area............................................................................ 14 2.6.16 Sacramento Area Council of Governments .............................................. 15 2.7 Potential Trip Distribution Enhancements............................................................ 15 2.7.1 Level I Enhancements............................................................................... 15 2.7.2 Level II Enhancements ............................................................................. 16 2.7.3 Level III Enhancements ............................................................................ 17 2.8 Summary............................................................................................................... 21 ii 3. MODEL EVALUATION CRITERIA.............................................................................. 23 4. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERVENING OPPORTUNITY MODELS............................. 26 4.1 Intervening Opportunity Model Formulation ....................................................... 26 4.2 Intervening Opportunity Model Calibration ......................................................... 29 4.3 Evaluation of Intervening Opportunity Models.................................................... 30 4.4 Summary and Discussions .................................................................................... 41 5. DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GRAVITY MODELS ..........................................