community planning association - compass · community planning association ... approve minutes of...

of Southwest IdahoCommunity Planning Association

800 S. Industry Way •••• Suite 100 •••• Meridian, Idaho 83642 •••• (208) 855-2558 •••• Fax (208) 855-2559 •••• www.compassidaho.org

TRANSPORTATION MODEL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 9:00 AM - 11:30 AM – Tuesday, June 29, 2004

COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION - CONFERENCE ROOM 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 – Meridian

1. Introductions Chair 2. Action Items

a. Approve Minutes of May 25, 2004* Chair b. 24-Hour Model Final Status* MaryAnn Waldinger c. Use of new COMPASS Model* MaryAnn Waldinger

3. Information Items

a. Discuss Validation Criteria for the COMPASS Model* Jay Witt b. Discuss Dynamic Validation Results* Jay Witt

4. “Executive Session” (voting member agency representatives only) Chair * Attachments

pc: 636.03 MAW: T:\600transup\636model\TMAC\may2005\agenda5_2004.doc



Transportation Model Advisory Committee May 25, 2004

MINUTES

Members Attending: Vern Brewer, Holladay Engineers, Inc. Gary Inselman, Ada County Highway District

Kendall Kemmer, Ada County Highway District Kathleen Lacey, City of Boise Darrell Miller, Canyon Highway District #4 (for Casey Bequeath) Ted Reynen, Keller Associates

Joe Rosenlund, Ada County Highway District Gary Sanderson, Idaho Transportation Department Dave Szplett, Washington Group

Members Absent: Jim Buffington, Nampa Highway District #1 Dan Coonce, Idaho Transportation Department, District #3

Gary Funkhouser, Earth Tech Susan Graham, Parametrix, Inc. Leon Jensen, Canyon County Development Services Jim Pline, Pline Engineering June Ramsdell, Department of Environmental Quality

Paul Raymond, City of Nampa Others Attending: Kent Fugal, Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Ryan Hales, Fehr & Peers Scott Jones, Fehr & Peers Ron Milam, Fehr & Peers Mary Ann Waldinger, COMPASS

Steve Waldinger, Forsgren Associates Yancey Willis, COMPASS

Debbie Winchar, COMPASS Jay Witt, COMPASS Call To Order Chair Joe Rosenlund called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Introductions were made of all attendees. Approve April 27, 2004 Minutes Gary Sanderson stated the 2nd page refers to amending the draft Bylaws to add ValleyRide as a voting member but omits the discussion that voting shall be deferred until the next scheduled meeting at which the Bylaws change was proposed.

Item 2-a

- 2 -

On page 2, MaryAnn’s name is misspelled. On page 1, a change should be made under “Others Attending”, Jay Walker now represents Parametrix. Dave Szplett stated that the name Washington Infrastructure Services has been officially changed to Washington Group . Gary Sanderson moved and Kathleen Lacey seconded to approve the April 27, 2004 minutes as amended. Motion passes unanimously. Approve the Change to TMAC Bylaws Kathleen Lacey proposed that on page 3, under Article V, #1, should be amended to read “shall meet at least quarterly and at the call of the Chairman”. Kathleen Lacey moved and Gary Sanderson seconded to approve the amended Bylaws as corrected. Motion passes unanimously. Selection of Consultants The consultant members stepped out of the room for Committee discussion. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that all consultants will receive a letter and membership application form. The application form will be available on the COMPASS website. An equivalent letter will be considered in lieu of an application form. There will be a two-week turn around time for submittal of the application forms to COMPASS. The seats currently available have a one and a half year term, as reconsideration for these seats will occur in December 2005. The consultants re-entered the meeting. 24-Hour Model Update After discussion, Kathleen Lacey moved and Kendall Kemmer seconded to approve Trip Rate Factors for Ada and Canyon Counties, Table 1 and Table 2, for use in Destination 2030 Limited Update, with the understanding that modifications may be made as further development occurs. Motion passes unanimously. INFORMATION ITEMS Special Model Request Form Jay Witt stated the form is to be used by anyone requesting a model run that would not be classified as “off the shelf” information. With this policy is the ability to charge for special model runs, a minimum two-hour fee. As requested by TMAC at their April meeting, the question: “What is being analyzed?” has been added to the form. Any further substantial changes to the form will have to go through the COMPASS Board. Definitions of CBD Information item only.

- 3 -

Peak Hour Model Presentation Fehr and Peers gave a PowerPoint presentation on the peak hour models. Next Meeting Tuesday, June 29th, 9:00 a.m., COMPASS. Meeting adjourned at 1045 a.m. T:\600transup\636model\TMAC\Minutes\minutes052504.doc



MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Model Advisory Committee FROM: MaryAnn Waldinger, Associate Planner DATE: June 22, 2004 RE: 24-Hour Model Update Action Required: Accept the new 24-Hour model based upon the following validation results. Background: The COMPASS model has undergone some more refinements, primarily network related, and has improved overall. The model has been used for the 2030 deficiency analysis and ACHD, COMPASS staff, and the consultant have reviewed the results. After this review the “comfort level” with the new model has increased among staff (namely, me). Results from the model have been summarized by functional class and screenline locations and are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Status: The overall results show the model coming in at a root mean square error (RMSE) of .36 for all facility types. A RMSE without locals and collectors and locals was also calculated to evaluate how well the model is performing on arterials and higher. This is especially important for ACHD’s Impact Fee program. A RMSE of .40 is the goal for the overall model and by functional class. The validation levels came from Fehr & Peers and CalTrans. Also, percent differences are summarized by functional class. The RMSE and functional class results are shown in Table 1. Table 1

Percent RMSE by Functional Class Facility Type %RMSE MAX Validation Interstate & Ramps 0.23 < 40% PASS Principal Arterials 0.23 < 40% PASS Minor Arterials 0.43 < 40% Collectors 0.71 < 40% Locals 0.67 < 40% Overall 0.36 < 40% PASS Without Locals 0.36 < 40% PASS

Item 2-b

Without Locals and Collectors 0.31 < 40% PASS

Percent Error by Functional Class Function Class V/C %Err MAX Validation Interstate & Ramps 0.01 < 7% PASS Principal Arterials -0.03 < 10% PASS Minor Arterials -0.12 < 15% PASS Collectors -0.14 < 25% PASS Locals 0.04 < 25% PASS The screenline locations were determined last summer and 125 are included throughout the modeling domain. Currently, 84% of the screelines pass using criteria based on level of traffic volume. The higher volume roadways (combined counts of 90,000 or higher) in the area require a volume to count difference within 14%; and low volume roadways (combined counts less than 1000) require a volume to count difference within 63%. Table 2 summarizes the number of screenlines that pass and also shows the results of all screenline data combined is within –1%. Detailed screenline data are in Attachment 1, Table 3. Table 2

Pass 105 84.0%Do Not Pass 20 16.0%Total 125 100.0% V/C %Err MAX Overall -1 <14 pc: File 636.01 and 636.02 Attachments (1) MAW:dw T:\600transup\636model\TMAC\june292004\24hourupdate.doc

Table 3

Screenline Descriptions and Results 6/21/04

Screenline # Direction Location Description Vol to Cnt Goal Status 1 e/w s/o US 20/26 Wamstad Rd River Crossing -3 < 45 PASS 2 e/w s/o Market Rd Gotsch Rd, Conway Rd no actual

counts

3 e/w s/o US 20/26 US 95 River Crossing -37 < 53 PASS 4 e/w n/o SH 44 Emmett Rd, Cemetary Rd,

Middleton Rd, Lansing Rd -21 < 52 PASS

5 e/w s/o Boise River Rd Wamstad Rd, Rodeo Ln, US 95 -32 < 52 PASS

6 e/w s/o US 20/26 Notus Rd River Crossing -33 < 63 PASS 7 n/s w/o Emmett Rd SH 44, Purple Sage Rd, Galloway

Rd 1 < 62 PASS

8 e/w s/o SH 44 Middleton Rd River Crossing 29 < 47 PASS 9 n/s e/o Lansing Ln SH 44, Purple Sage -23 < 42 PASS

10 n/s w/o Warmstad Rd Peckham Rd, Red Top Rd, Dixie Rd, SH 18

-37 < 66 PASS

11 n/s w/o KCID Rd Marble Front, Lincoln -49 < 63 PASS 12 n/s e/o Chicago St 10th St 8 < 27 PASS 13 n/s e/o 10th St Clevland Blvd, Blaine St,

Chicago -27 < 23 0

14 n/s w/o Chicago 21st St -30 < 33 PASS 15 e/w n/o Linden Rd I84 35 < 23 0 16 n/s w/o Northside Ustick Rd, US 20 & 26 55 < 36 0 17 n/s w/o Allendale Rd US 95 4 < 41 PASS 18 n/s w/o Middleton Rd Orchard, Caldwell Blvd 21 < 24 PASS 19 e/w s/o I84 Northside, Franklin Blvd 12 < 21 PASS 20 n/s e/o 11th Ave. N I84 -4 < 18 PASS 21 n/s e/o Nampa 3rd St, 2nd St 11 < 26 PASS 22 e/w s/o Garrity 16th Ave, 11th Ave -7 < 23 PASS 23 n/s w/o 7th Lone Star, 11th, 12th, 18th -7 < 20 PASS 24 e/w n/o Amity Canyon, 12th Ave, Sheridan,

Powerline -20 < 30 PASS

25 e/w s/o Karcher SH 55, Riverside Rd, Perch Rd -31 < 44 PASS

26 n/s e/o Middleton Rd Middleton Rd, Greenhurst, Roosevelt, Lone Star Rd, Smith Ave, Orchard

-61 < 50 0

27 n/s w/o SH 55 Sunnyslope 12 < 49 PASS 28 e/w n/o Klahr Apple Valley Rd, US 95 5 < 50 PASS 29 e/w n/o Market Stafford, I84 5 < 29 PASS

30 e/w n/o Edna SH 16 -9 < 36 PASS 31 e/w n/o Dry Creek Rd SH 55 0 < 44 PASS 32 e/w n/o Hill Rd SH 55, Horseshoe Bend Rd 19 < 30 PASS 33 n/s e/o SH 16 SH 44, Floating Feather Rd,

Beacon Light Rd -13 < 28 PASS

34 e/w n/o Hill Rd Seaman's Gulch Rd, Pierce Park Rd

-11 < 64 PASS

35 n/s w/o SH 55 SH 44, Hill Rd, Floating Feather Rd, Beacon Light Rd

16 < 23 PASS

36 e/w s/o SH 44 Star Rd -13 < 45 PASS 37 e/w s/o SH 44 Linder Rd -3 < 42 PASS 38 n/s e/o Horseshoe Bend

Rd SH 44, Hill Rd 23 < 23 0

39 e/w n/o SH 20/26 Eagle Rd 9 < 24 PASS 40 e/w s/o Hill Rd Gary, Pierce Park -43 < 33 0 41 e/w n/o Braemere Bogus Basin Rd 15 < 59 PASS 42 e/w s/o Riverside Glenwood 8 < 23 PASS 43 n/s e/o Collister Catalpa, Hill -30 < 38 PASS 44 e/w n/o McMillan Cloverdale, Five Mile Rd,

Mitchell -25 < 29 PASS

45 e/w s/o McMillan Eagle Rd -17 < 22 PASS 46 n/s w/o Cloverdale Eagle Rd 1 < 22 PASS 47 n/s e/o Eagle Rd Franklin, Fairview Ave, Ustick

Rd, McMillan, Chinden -10 < 14 PASS

48 e/w n/o Overland Cole, Curtis -6 < 33 PASS 49 n/s e/o Cloverdale I84 0 < 14 PASS 50 n/s w/o Ten Mile Rd I84 -10 < 17 PASS 51 n/s e/o Cole Rd I84 -11 < 16 PASS 52 e/w s/o Warmsprings Eckert -9 < 53 PASS 53 e/w s/o Amity Federal 13 < 34 PASS 54 n/s e/o Production I84 17 < 22 PASS 55 n/s w/o I84 Gowen no actual

counts

56 n/s e/o Federal SH 21, Grand Forest, Lake Forest, Amity, Boise

-6 < 23 PASS

57 n/s w/o Warms Springs SH 21 -23 < 49 PASS 58 e/w n/o Tenmile Creek Cole, Pleasant -33 < 35 PASS 59 n/s e/o Pleasant Valley I84 no actual

counts

60 e/w n/o Beacon Light Chaparral, Emmett -10 < 36 PASS 61 n/s w/o Black Cat Kuna, Greenhurst, Columbia,

Lake Hazel, Amity, Victory Rd 5 < 29 PASS

62 e/w n/o Veterans Memorial

Chinden Blvd, Adams -10 < 23 PASS

63 e/w n/o Adams Veterans Memorial -17 < 25 PASS 64 n/s w/o 28th State St, Irene, Sunset, Taft, Hill 4 < 21 PASS

65 e/w s/o Irene Harrison, 15th, 13th, 8th -14 < 23 PASS 66 e/w n/o Fairview Curtis, Orchard -8 < 21 PASS 67 n/s w/o 27th I84, Fairview, Main 9 < 14 PASS 68 n/s w/o 27th Emerald -22 < 30 PASS 69 n/s w/o Broadway Myrtle, Front, Main -2 < 21 PASS 70 e/w s/o Myrtle Broadway 18 < 25 PASS 71 n/s e/o Orchard Franklin Rd, Emerlad 21 < 27 PASS 72 n/s w/o Roosevelt Rose Hill, Emerald 3 < 25 PASS 73 e/w s/o Haines Warm Springs -41 < 35 0 74 e/w n/o Kootenai Vista Ave, Federal, -8 < 24 PASS 75 e/w n/o River Run Parkcenter -9 < 26 PASS 76 e/w w/o Geckler Broadway -11 < 25 PASS 77 n/s e/o Owyhee Nez Perce, Overland, Kootenai,

Rose Hill 16 < 23 PASS

78 n/s w/o Broadway Federal 22 < 30 PASS 79 n/s e/o Broadway Linden, Boise -24 < 33 PASS 80 e/w n/o I84 Orchard, Roosevelt, Owyhee,

Elder, Vista -18 < 20 PASS

81 n/s w/o Broadway E Boise Ave, Beacon 18 < 31 PASS 82 n/s e/o Avenue B Warm Springs, Jefferson, Reserve -9 < 57 PASS

83 e/w n/o I84 Broadway -3 < 22 PASS 84 n/s e/o Allumbaugh I84 no actual

counts

85 e/w n/o Blacks Creek SH 21 44 < 57 PASS 86 n/s e/o Cole Rd Kuna Mora, Tenmile Creek 28 < 58 PASS 87 e/w s/o Indian Creek I84 7 < 27 PASS 88 e/w s/o Kuna-Mora Rd Swan Falls 52 < 64 PASS 89 e/w n/o Melba Rd Rim, SH 45, Southside 56 < 60 PASS 90 e/w s/o Ferry Rd SH 45 no actual

counts

91 e/w s/o SH 44 I84 1 < 25 PASS 92 e/w s/o SH 20/26 Kcid, Ward, Middleton, 11 < 46 PASS 93 n/s e/o Farmway Linden, Logan, Simplot -6 < 29 PASS 94 n/s e/o Weitz Rd Karcher Rd, Homedale Rd,

Ustick Rd, Simplot Rd 57 < 36 0

95 n/s w/o Happy Valley Greenhurst, Amity, Powerline, Airport, Garrity

-12 < 22 PASS

96 n/s e/o Conway SH 20/26, Purple Sage Rd, Galloway Rd, Market

55 < 42 0

97 n/s e/o Allendale Rd Hoskins Rd, Homedale Rd, Ustick Rd, SH 19, Peckham Rd., Boise River Rd

50 < 33 0

98 n/s e/o Airport Ave Farmway Rd, Airport Ave, Susan Rd, Montana Ave, Indiana Ave, Florida Ave, Lake Ave

24 < 30 PASS

99 n/s e/o Florida Orchard, Karcher, Moss, Homedale, Laster, Ustick, Cleveland

1 < 22 PASS

100 n/s e/o Linder King, Kuna, Deer Flat, Hubbard Rd

1 < 27 PASS

101 n/s w/o Ballantyne State St, Floating Feather, Beacon Light, Homer

-73 < 53 0

102 n/s e/o Star Franklin, Cherry, Ustick, McMillan, Chinden, State

17 < 23 PASS

103 n/s e/o Ten Mile Rd Franklin Rd, Pine, Cherry, Ustick Rd, McMillan, Chinden

-6 < 22 PASS

104 n/s e/o Ten Mile Rd Hubbard, W Columbia Rd, Lake Hazel Rd, Amity Rd, Victory, Overland Rd

24 < 29 PASS

105 n/s w/o S Locust Grove Rd

Columbia Rd, Lake Hazel Rd, Amity Rd, Victory

78 < 36 0

106 n/s e/o Eagle Rd Columbia, Lake Hazel, Amity, Victory, Overland

25 < 26 PASS

107 n/s w/o Southside Deer Flat Rd, Lewis, Locust -9 < 50 PASS 108 n/s e/o Apple Bergeson, Boise -36 < 30 0 109 e/w s/o Cherry Ln Midland, Northside, Franklin

Blvd, 11th Ave, Can Ada, Star -12 < 28 PASS

110 e/w s/o Purple Sage Rd Conway Rd, Stafford Rd, Farmway Rd

-83 < 59 0

111 e/w s/o Beacon Light Linder Rd, Park, Ballantyne -23 < 59 PASS 112 e/w e/o Weitz Rd Weitz Rd, Farmway Rd -36 < 51 PASS 113 e/w n/o Linden Rd Farmway Rd, Kimball Rd,

Kimball Rd, 10th St, Montana Ave, Indiana Ave

-33 < 25 0

114 e/w n/o Ustick Rd US 95, Allendale Rd, Friends Rd -32 < 47 PASS

115 e/w s/o McMillan Can Ada, Star, McDermott Rd -72 < 38 0

116 e/w s/o Ustick Rd Black Cat Rd, Ten Mile Rd, Linder, Meridian Rd, Locust Grove

-24 < 24 PASS

117 e/w s/o Lonkey Farmway, Airport Ave, 10th, Montana Ave, Indiana Ave, Florida Ave, Lake

-57 < 29 0

118 e/w s/o State St 27th, 23rd 45 < 28 0 119 e/w s/o Fairview Cloverdale, Five Mile Rd, Patton,

Maple Grove, Milwaukee St, Cole Rd

-14 < 14 PASS

120 e/w s/o Boise Geckler, Apple, Law, Holcomb -23 < 26 PASS

121 e/w n/o Amity Black Cat Rd, Ten Mile Rd, Linder, Meridian Rd, Locust Grove, S Eagle Rd, Cloverdale, Five Mile, Maple Grove, Cole

2 < 19 PASS

122 e/w s/o Amity Southside, Happy Valley Rd, Robinson,

1 < 31 PASS

123 e/w n/o Deer Flat Rd Ten Mile Rd, Linder, Kuna-Meridian, S Locust Grove

3 < 28 PASS

124 e/w s/o Deer Flat Rd Rim, SH 45, Southside Blvd, Happy Valley, Robinson Blvd

61 < 50 0

125 n/s w/o 16th Fairview, State 16 < 14 0 126 n/s w/o 16th State -21 < 25 PASS 127 e/w n/o University 9th 13 < 27 PASS 128 e/w n/o University Capitol 19 < 27 PASS 129 n/s e/o Mitchell Franklin, Emerald, Fairview,

Cory, Ustick, Edna, McMillan, MountainView, Marigold

3 < 14 PASS

130 e/w n/o 22nd 7th, 3rd, 2nd 18 < 30 PASS Total -1 < 14 PASS



MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Model Advisory Committee FROM: MaryAnn Waldinger, Associate Planner DATE: June 22, 2004 RE: Use of the New 24-Hour Model Action Required: COMPASS is seeking guidance from TMAC on when it is appropriate to use the new 24-hour model. Background: COMPASS is still using the current model (calibrated in 1997) for “off the shelf” model projection requests and all on-going special studies. This model is consistent with Destination 2025, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), FY 2005- 2009 projects lists, and air quality conformity findings. However, the new model is ready for use and deserves some testing. The new model with trend demographics was approved for use for the Destination 2030 Limited Plan Update and was used for the 2030 deficiency analysis. This analysis used 2030 trend demographics and a network including all projects listed in Destination 2025, Moving People 2025, and ACHD’s Capital Improvement Program. Status: Several inquiries have been made regarding the new 24-Hour model and when it can be used. Based upon these discussions three options have been identified for TMAC’s consideration. The committee is not limited to these three options and therefore, can develop their own set of guidelines as to when the new model can or should be used. Options:

1. Start using the 24-Hour model in December 2004 after the COMPASS Board approves Destination 2030 Limited Update Plan.

2. Start using the 24-Hour model for only special studies that are in process or to begin soon and do not require an air quality conformity finding. The following is a list of studies that could make use of the new model:

a. Three Cities River Crossing between State Highway 55 and U.S. 20/26 (in process). b. SH 16 Improvements Study between State Highway 52 in Emmett and State

Highway 44 (in process). c. Middleton Road Connection between Middleton Road and State Highway 45 (in

process).

Item 2-c

d. Corridor Study for State Highway 44 between Eagle Road and Interstate 84 in Ada and Canyon counties (start in Fall 2004).

e. Corridor Study for U.S. 20/26 between Eagle Road and Interstate 84 in Ada and Canyon counties (start in Fall 2004).

f. Traffic Impact Analysis performed by various consultants for ACHD. These use the “off the shelf” model projections and do not require special model runs.

3. Start using the 24-Hour model for all model requests (i.e. “off the shelf” and special studies) Advantages of using the new model prior to December 2004:

• Updated and more reasonable demographics in western Ada County and in Canyon County. • Better employment data for the base year. • More refined network. • Better results on replicating current conditions on major facilities (Eagle Rd). • Allows for an evaluation of the model on a sub-area level and valuable feedback. • “In-process” studies could use the model projections from the new model to be used after

December 2004 and for the next several years. Disadvantages of using the new model prior to December 2004:

• Different model projections could cause confusion and comparability issues. • Not consistent with the current and adopted long-range transportation plan, Destination 2025

or TIP FY 2005-2009 current air quality conformity findings. • Air quality conformity has not been performed on Destination 2030 Limited Update Plan

project list or TIP FY 2005-2009 using the new model. This will be run in early July 2004. COMPASS staff recommends the use of the new 24-hour model for special studies that do not require an air quality conformity finding. pc: File 636.01 and 636.02 MAW:dw T:\600transup\636model\TMAC\june292004\new model.doc



MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Model Advisory Committee FROM: Jay Witt, P.E., Modeling Principal Planner DATE: June 22, 2004 RE: COMPASS Model Validation Criteria Action Required: None. Information only. Background: One of the most critical steps in developing a travel demand model is validation. This is the process of making refinement to the model’s base network and data matrices in order to replicate measured traffic volumes. Once a model is validated to a base year, it is considered ready for use as a forecasting tool. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has provided some guidance to MPO’s on model validation. However, many state DOTs and MPOs have established more refined model validation criteria. At the May 25, 2004 TMAC meeting Fehr and Peers identified four specific validation criteria. These criteria come from various sources such as the TMIP Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, NCHRP Report 255 and Caltrans Travel Forecasting Guidelines. They are:

• Minimum of 75% of screenlines should be within their maximum desirable deviation. • Minimum of 75% of roadway links should be within their maximum desirable deviation. • Model-wide correlation coefficient should be greater than 0.88. • Maximum acceptable root-mean-squared-error should not exceed 40%.

It is not uncommon for an area to vary from these guidelines. For example, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has chosen to refine the desirable deviation targets. Table 1 compares MDOT’s targets to those used by FHWA guidance. Table 1: Comparison of MDOT and FHWA Model Validation Targets.

Facility Type FHWA Targets MDOT TargetsFreeway +/ 7% +/ 6%

Item 3-a

Major Arterial 10% 7%Minor Arterial 15% 10%Collector 25% 20%Sources: FHWA, Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models, 1990; Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT),Urban Model Calibration Targets, June 10, 1993 Specific validation criteria have also be developed for various model components. The Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) in the San Francisco Bay Area has developed the following targets for peak-hour model validation:

• 75% of all freeway links must be within 20% of traffic counts. • 50% of all freeway links must be within 10% of traffic counts. • 75% of all major arterial links must be within 30% of traffic counts. • 50% of all major arterial links must be within 15% of traffic counts. • 50% of all intersection major turning movements must be within 20% of traffic counts. • 30% of all intersection secondary turning movements must be within 20% of traffic counts.

Standards also exist for comparing observed versus modeled volumes for individual links. Table 2 shows percent difference targets for individual links as defined by FHWA and MDOT. Table 2:Comparison of Link-based Validation Targets

Average Annual Daily Traffic

Desirable Percent Deviation

MDOT FHWA<1,000 200% 60%1,000-2,500 100% 47%2,500-5,000 50% 36%5,000-10,000 25% 29%10,000-25,000 20% 25%25,000-50,000 15% 22%>50,000 10% 21%Source: MDOT, Urban Model Calibration Targets, June 10, 1993 Status: COMPASS staff request TMAC discuss the need to establish consistent model validation guidelines for COMPASS’ travel demand forecast model. Potential validation targets can come from sources such as FHWA guidance, the TMIP Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, NCHRP Report 255, Caltrans Travel Forecasting Guidelines, and/or TMAC could establish their own validation criteria for COMPASS travel demand model. pc: File 636.01 and 636.02 MAW:JW T:\600transup\636model\TMAC\june292004\JWvalidation criteria.doc



MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Model Advisory Committee FROM: Jay Witt, P.E., Modeling Principal Planner DATE: June 22, 2004 RE: Summary of Dynamic Validation Procedures and Results Action Required: None. Information only. Background: Typically, the validation process of a travel demand model involves comparing model volumes to actual traffic count data for a given base year. While travel demand models can simulate past and/or present conditions, they are primarily designed for forecasting future traffic volumes that result from changes in land use and/or roadway networks. Dynamic model validation is a technique developed by Fehr & Peers Associates to evaluate a model’s ability to respond appropriately to various demographic and network changes. Results of the dynamic validation tests are evaluated in terms of meeting an expected trend and magnitude in change. Using Fehr & Peers Associates’ white paper as a guide on dynamic validation, COMPASS staff performed three dynamic validation tests with the “new” 24-hour regional model. Two of the three tests involve evaluating the model’s ability to forecast network impacts when the demographic data of a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) are changed. The third test involved the model’s response to the deletion of a major link in the regional roadway network. Status: For the first two dynamic validation tests, four TAZs were selected. The zones selected were:

• Zone 144 – an Ada County zone in a suburban area. Its boundaries include: Ustick to the north, Fairview to the south, Cloverdale to the east, and Eagle Road to the west.

• Zone 299 – an Ada County Zone in a rural area. Its boundaries include: Amity to the north, Lake Hazel to the south, State Highway 69 to the west, and Locust Grove to the east.

• Zone 475 – a Canyon County zone in a suburban area on the east side of Caldwell. Its boundaries include: I-84 to the west, Middleton Road to the east, State Highway 20/26 to the north, and Linden to the south.

• Zone 566 - a Canyon County zone in a rural area west of Lake Lowell. Its boundaries include: Sunny Slope/State Highway 55 to the west, Riverside to the east, Karcher to the north, and Marsing Road to the south.

For the first test households, population, and vehicles were added (or subtracted) in each of the four TAZs individually, while holding the rest of the regional data constant. The associated changes in zonal vehicle trips (VT) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were recorded and

Item 3-b

evaluated. Population and vehicle data for each TAZ were adjusted proportionally to the change in households to provide COMPASS staff with meaningful results to evaluate. The second test added (or subtracted) retail employment in each of the four TAZs individually, while holding the rest of the regional data constant. Once again, associated changes in zonal VT and VMT were recorded and evaluated. The third test involved the deletion of a major roadway link, in this case, a section of Eagle Road north of Fairview. After the deletion of the link, the impacts to the surrounding facilities were analyzed and evaluated for their reasonableness. Attachment 1 displays the results of the first two dynamic validation tests. Overall, the “new” model responded appropriately to the demographic changes both in terms of trend and magnitude. The results of these tests also gave COMPASS staff an indication of the model’s sensitivity to changes in household and retail employment data. As Attachment 1 shows, changes below 10 retail jobs in a TAZ often resulted in an opposite change in VMT. For example, in TAZ 475, zonal VMT decreased by 15.16 when 10 retail jobs were added. These unexpected changes in dynamic validation outcomes (“noise”) are present to a varying degree in all models. However, the expected trend in VMT is observed when 100 retail jobs are added to the TAZ. Thus, using the model to predict the impact of small changes in retail employment on VMT is not an appropriate use of the model. Results from the third test are presented in Attachment 2. When a section of Eagle Road was deleted, traffic volumes more than doubled on parallel routes, while volumes on links leading to the deleted section decreased substantially. This is the expected response for a properly functioning model. pc: File 636.01 and 636.02 JW:MAW:dw T:\600transup\636model\TMAC\june292004\DynValmemo4.doc

Attachment 1 – Dynamic Validation Results Results from TAZ 144 (Ada - Suburban)

Pop Added Veh Added HH Added

Modeled VT

Change

VT per HH

Modeled VMT Change

RET Added

Modeled VT

Change

VT per

RET

Modeled VMT

Change

VMT per

RET0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 164.21

-3.08 -2.13 -1.00 -3.91 7.31 -24.13 -1.00 -1.97 20.40 -9.07 164.21-30.76 -21.31 -10.00 -54.26 7.31 -402.99 -10.00 -23.14 20.40 -179.45 164.23

-307.63 -213.14 -100.00 -526.37 7.31 -3,599.25 3.08 2.13 1.00 7.31 7.31 25.41 1.00 2.80 20.40 -15.44 164.21

30.76 21.31 10.00 49.91 7.31 2.41 10.00 26.96 20.40 111.97 164.19307.63 213.14 100.00 530.28 7.31 3,415.34 100.00 258.68 20.37 1,697.84 163.98

3,076.27 2,131.36 1,000.00 5,262.83 7.30 36,434.54 1,000.00 2,562.56 20.12 15,855.75 161.9015,381.36 10,656.78 5,000.00 26,354.60 7.25 187,525.56 5,000.00 12,809.78 19.09 84,627.45 153.4330,762.71 21,313.56 10,000.00 52,721.12 7.20 380,311.43 10,000.00 25,617.21 17.97 170,888.47 144.14

Results from TAZ 299 (Ada – Rural)


Modeled VT

Change

VT per HH

Modeled VMT Change

RET Added

Modeled VT

Change

VT per

RET

Modeled VMT

Change

VMT per

RET0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 164.21

-3.15 -2.71 -1.00 -4.33 7.31 -93.57 -1.00 -1.48 20.40 -20.75 164.21-31.47 -27.06 -10.00 -54.04 7.31 -614.51

3.15 2.71 1.00 6.54 7.31 66.01 1.00 2.99 20.40 33.64 164.2131.47 27.06 10.00 51.94 7.31 255.76 10.00 27.22 20.40 293.29 164.19

314.71 270.59 100.00 540.91 7.31 5,494.44 100.00 257.56 20.37 2,791.30 164.003,147.06 2,705.88 1,000.00 5,381.43 7.30 56,559.80 1,000.00 2,563.19 20.12 29,830.62 162.12

15,735.29 13,529.41 5,000.00 26,933.90 7.26 293,003.01 5,000.00 12,807.61 19.09 148,962.79 154.3731,470.59 27,058.82 10,000.00 53,886.61 7.21 586,994.77 10,000.00 25,618.39 17.97 285,941.85 145.71

Results from TAZ 475 (Canyon – Suburban)


Modeled VT

Change

VT per HH

Modeled VMT

Change RET

Added

Modeled VT

Change

VT per

RET

Modeled VMT

Change

VMT per

RET0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 164.21

-2.68 -1.84 -1.00 -4.80 7.31 -102.15 -1.00 -2.36 20.40 0.92 164.21-26.76 -18.45 -10.00 -66.48 7.31 -644.00 -10.00 -23.04 20.40 15.19 164.24

-267.65 -184.45 -100.00 -480.28 7.31 -6,524.78 -100.00 -255.92 20.43 -61.38 164.472.68 1.84 1.00 7.93 7.31 89.66 1.00 3.40 20.40 22.72 164.21

26.76 18.45 10.00 48.43 7.31 678.34 10.00 27.08 20.40 -15.16 164.18267.65 184.45 100.00 473.75 7.31 6,339.05 100.00 258.53 20.37 285.51 163.96

2,676.47 1,844.54 1,000.00 4,775.28 7.30 67,645.29 1,000.00 2,566.23 20.12 3,421.98 161.7113,382.35 9,222.69 5,000.00 23,873.48 7.24 347,804.57 5,000.00 12,822.29 19.10 76,643.43 153.3126,764.71 18,445.38 10,000.00 47,762.74 7.17 695,064.61 10,000.00 25,644.22 17.97 248,190.20 145.20

Results from TAZ 566 (Canyon – Rural)


Modeled VT

Change

VT per HH

Modeled VMT

Change RET

Added

Modeled VT

Change

VT per

RET

Modeled VMT

Change

VMT per

RET0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 164.21

-3.22 -2.62 -1.00 -4.29 7.31 -117.39 -1.00 -2.07 20.40 -18.83 164.21-32.22 -26.23 -10.00 -56.09 7.31 -893.79 -10.00 -23.64 20.40 -216.65 164.23

-322.18 -262.32 -100.00 -550.93 7.31 -8,873.88 -100.00 -255.76 20.43 -2,593.27 164.433.22 2.62 1.00 7.75 7.31 103.84 1.00 3.01 20.40 -6.20 164.17

32.22 26.23 10.00 54.44 7.31 878.40 10.00 28.35 20.40 213.36 164.19322.18 262.32 100.00 553.36 7.31 8,961.77 100.00 260.45 20.37 2,422.44 163.99

3,221.83 2,623.24 1,000.00 5,517.33 7.30 92,174.53 1,000.00 2,564.47 20.12 25,505.88 162.0516,109.15 13,116.20 5,000.00 25,941.43 7.25 510,302.50 5,000.00 12,826.19 19.10 181,046.02 154.8432,218.31 26,232.39 10,000.00 55,232.50 7.21 1,133,912.91 10,000.00 25,642.13 17.97 472,789.38 148.26

Attachment 2 – Impacts of Link Removal

Model volumes with no change. The section of Eagle Rd highlighted below was deleted in test 3.

Model volumes without the section of Eagle Road. Note the decrease in model volumes south of the deleted roadway link.

community planning association - compass · community planning association ... approve minutes of...

Documents