Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
165 Mid- Ohio Regional Planning Commission Model Validation Summary David Schmitt, AECOM Consult Robert M. Donnelly, PB Consult Rebekah S. Anderson, Ohio Department of Transportation The new Mid- Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) model is a disaggregate tour- based model applied with the microsimulation of each individual household, person, or tour. The model area is divided into 1,805 internal and 72 external zones and includes Franklin, Delaware, and Licking counties, and parts of Fairfield, Pickaway, Madison, and Union counties. The primary inputs to the model are transportation networks and zonal data, in which each zone has the standard socioeconomic characteristics that would normally be found in a four- step model. The main differences from the prior four- step model are that the new model accounts for travel at the tour level, as opposed to the trip level, and for each individual household and person, as opposed to zonal and market segment aggregates. This summary shows the highway validation statistics, including some of the standard reports as suggested in the Ohio Department of Transportation Traffic Assign- ment Procedures. It also shows the validation of the work purpose travel distribution compared with the Census Transportation Planning Package. Travel distribution is one of the most difficult aspects oftravel demand to model effectively. As a part of theNorth Corridor Transit Project, the travel distribution was reviewed with an emphasis on the North Corridor. To explore the reliability of the work component of the distribu- tion model, the simulated year 2000 work-tour distribution was compared with the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), which captures work journeys. The first step was to compare the regionwide magnitude of modeled work trip tours with CTPP. On a region wide basis, the model esti- mates 660,031 work tours compared with 630,550 CTPP recordsâ a difference of only 4.7%. Next, district to- district tours were compared with the CTPP (scaled so that regional CTPP records match modeled journeys). Figure 1 shows the districts used for analysis purposes. The modeled work-tour distribution is shown in Table 1. The CTPP journey distribu- tion is shown in Table 2. Table 3 displays the ratio of the mod- eled to the observed distribution. Overall, the modeled trip distribution for work pur- poses appears to be as good as or better than compara- ble models used elsewhere in the United States. The model is representing trips to the central business dis- trict (CBD) very closely, within 1% regionally. Work FIGURE 1 Districts used for analysis.
