Accounting for AV/CV in Long- Range Plans Using Current Travel - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Accounting for AV/CV in Long- Range Plans Using Current Travel Demand Models

Presented to 2016 TRB Tools of The Trade Conference

Background

• 25 MPO’s

– 13 TMAs – 12 Non-TMAs

Background

Traffic

– Three urban areas in top 12 most congested urban areas (TTI Report)

• Houston, Dallas,

Austin

– Austin has worst congested roadway in Texas

Background

Models

– 1 ABM model – 24 Trip-based models

• 4 study areas

with full mode choice

• Handful with

mode shares

• Majority are 3-

step with direct vehicle generation

Background

• Forecasting AV/CV demand

– 4th task in larger research supported by TxDOT – How does one measure the potential impacts across the state?

• Consistent guidance, approaches and measurable
• utcomes desired by TxDOT

Assumptions

• 100% vehicle mix

– Fully autonomous and connected – Consistent with NHTSA Level 4 definition

• Current household auto ownership levels

maintained

– Relinquish navigation, or – Participate in shared-rides (albeit limited)

Assumptions

• Vision of greater ride-sharing

– Carpooling in tours – “Robo-Taxis”

• Difficult to predict acceptance or system
• Therefore:

– Shared-ride splits are held constant, or – Proportionally adjusted based on existing forecasted mode shares

Assumptions

• VMT of unoccupied “robo-taxis” not

accounted for in study

• All sectors in urban area treated equally

– Restrict travel within downtown, for example

• Existing external splits held constant

Identifying A Study Area

• Enumerating demand or system changes,

although possible, magnitude of changes may be limited in a majority of MPOs in the State of Texas

– Limited appreciable system-wide congestion – Limited transit ridership (no mode choice model) – Narrow peak periods and/or spot congestion

Study Area

• Austin, Texas

(CAMPO)

– Six-county study area – System-wide congestion – Most-congested roadway in Texas – Extreme peaks – Transit component

Study Area

• Austin, Texas (CAMPO)

– Population growth 64% (2010 to 2040)

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 Bastrop Burnet Caldwell Hays Travis Williamson

Population

2040 2010

Source: Texas State Data Center

CAMPO TDM

• 4-Step travel model

– Similar trip generation and distribution models to TxDOT (Texas Package) – Mode choice model

• Nested-logit model (auto,

transit, non-motorized)

– 15-trip purposes – Generalized-cost assignment

Develop Input Files Initialization Trip Generation Trip Distribution Mode Choice Trip Tables Trip Assignment Model Reports Feedback

Source: CAMPO TDM Validation Report

Identifying Scenarios

• Balance between reasonable

assumptions and optimistic enthusiasm

– Fleet turnover – Shared rides – Greater mobility for different cohorts (e.g., age & disabled) ....

• Uncertainty
• Arguments and counter-arguments

Identifying Scenarios

• “Typical” items that could be given

consideration

TDM & AV/CV

Land Use

Freight

External Travel

Trip Length

Trip Generation

Mode Choice Routes

Time Choices

Network Capacity

Costs

Utility

• f

Travel

Identifying Scenarios

• Unintended consequences & outcomes

TDM & AV/CV

Land Use

Freight

External Travel

Trip Length

Trip Generation

Mode Choice Routes

Time Choices

Network Capacity

Costs

Utility

• f

Travel

Land Use

Household Location Retail Scope and Location Education Primary & Secondary Workplace Location Freight Distribution

Scenarios

“Base”

Scenarios

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 2040 MTP Forecast

 Limited increase in EXPWY and FRWY capacity  Limited increase in EXPWY and FRWY capacity  Limited increase in EXPWY and FRWY capacity  Limited increase in EXPWY and FRWY capacity  Limited increase in EXPWY and FRWY capacity  Limited increase in EXPWY and FRWY capacity  Increase per hour per lane capacity of FRWY links  Increase per hour per lane capacity of FRWY links  Increase per hour per lane capacity of FRWY links  Increase per hour per lane capacity of FRWY links  Increase per hour per lane capacity of FRWY links  Increase arterial capacity by 10%  Increase arterial capacity by 10%  Increase arterial capacity by 10%  Increase arterial capacity by 10%  Proportion ally move transit trips to SOV and HOV (2 & 3+) trip tables  Proportion ally move transit trips to SOV only trip table  Proportion ally move transit trips to HOV trip tables.

Sequential & cumulative results

Scenario Assumptions

• Study limited to system & choice
• Model inputs held constant:

– Demographics

• Household and workplace location

– Trip rates – External forecasts – Trip lengths

• Observed data non-existent

– Imposing assumptions

TDM

Choice System Demand

Scenario Results

• AM period results only

– VMT – Speeds – Travel Time – Delay – VMT per person – Average trip lengths in minutes and miles – Modes

Scenario VMT Results

Scenarios

Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 AON

16,795,034 17,187,458 17,947,172 17,993,762 18,112,750 18,124,662 18,055,190 18,270,971

2.34% 6.86% 7.14% 7.85% 7.92% 7.50% 8.79%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 AON*

VMT Growth

AM VMT (MILLIONS) Scenarios

Total AM VMT VMT Growth (Scenario to Baseline)

Scenario VMT Results

74.85% 81.16% 91.10% 93.02% 92.87% 92.84% 92.94% 50.65%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 AON* Proportion of Uncongested Travel AM VMT by V/C Ratio (Millions)

Scenarios

0.00 - 0.85 0.85 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.15 1.15 and above Proportion of Uncongested Travel

Scenario VMT Results

2040 MTP Results “Base” 2040 Scenario 3

Scenario Speed Results

• 1.5
• 1.0
• 0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 12.5 12.5 - 17.5 17.5 - 22.5 22.5 - 27.5 27.5 - 32.5 32.5 - 37.5 37.5 - 42.5 42.5 - 47.5 47.5 - 52.5 52.5 - 57.5 57.5 - 62.5 > 62.5

VMT (MILLIONS) Speed Bins

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Scenario Speed & VMT Results

• 60.00%
• 40.00%
• 20.00%

0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%

• 3.0
• 2.0
• 1.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Percentage Change in VMT

Changes in VMT (MILLIONS)

Scenarios

<= 22.5 mph 22.5 - 42.5 42.5 - 62.5 > 62.5

Scenario Delay Results

• 5.74%
• 12.92%
• 22.01%
• 21.53%
• 21.53%
• 22.01%
• 52.15%
• 60.00%
• 50.00%
• 40.00%
• 30.00%
• 20.00%
• 10.00%

0.00% 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 AON Percent Change to Base

Travel Time Ratio Scenarios

VHT_AM / VHT_FF_AM Percentage Change

Scenario per Person VMT & Delay Results

2.34% 6.86% 7.14% 7.85% 7.92% 7.50% 8.79%

• 35.00%
• 30.00%
• 25.00%
• 20.00%
• 15.00%
• 10.00%
• 5.00%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Percentage Change

Scenarios

Change in VMT/Person % Change (Delay per Person)

Scenario Avg. Trip Length Results

• 5.18%
• 10.39%
• 20.05%
• 19.38%
• 18.77%
• 19.20%
• 25.00%
• 20.00%
• 15.00%
• 10.00%
• 5.00%

0.00% 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Percent Change

• Avg. Trip Length (Minutes)

Scenarios

Congested ATL (Minutes) Change in ATL (Scenario to Base)

Scenario Avg. Trip Length Results

10.50 10.68 11.14 11.05 11.11 11.19 11.15 10.00 10.20 10.40 10.60 10.80 11.00 11.20 11.40 1.58 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.62 1.63 1.64 Base S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Average Trip Length (MILES) AM Trips (MILLIONS) Scenarios

Total AM Trips ATL (Miles)

General Scenario Results

Metric Trend

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)  Region  Per Person Travel Time  Travel in Uncongested Conditions  Travel in Congested Conditions Congested Weighted Speeds Travel Time Delay Average Trip Length  Minutes  Miles Mode Shares (Transit)

Where Are We Know?

• Limited acceptance of placing AV/CV scenario

in current plans

– Curiosity – Not yet tangible

• Leadership and guidance needed to develop

consistent approaches and metrics

Special Thanks

• Wade Odell (TxDOT Project Manager)
• Hao Pang (TTI)
• Tom Williams (TTI)

Questions?