Docstoc

PRELIMINARY DRAFT Travel Demand Model White Paper Milton-Madison

Document Sample
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Travel Demand Model White Paper Milton-Madison Powered By Docstoc
					      PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Travel Demand Model White Paper
  Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Produced by Wilbur Smith Associates
        December 18, 2008




                  
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

Table of Contents

1. Model Development Process - Background ........................................................... 1
2. Statewide Model Summary....................................................................................... 3
   2.1 Kentucky Statewide Model .................................................................................... 3
   2.2 Indiana Statewide Model ....................................................................................... 3
3. Network Development............................................................................................... 3
   3.1 Kentucky Statewide Model Network ...................................................................... 3
   3.2 Indiana Statewide Model Network ......................................................................... 4
   3.3 Combined Network ................................................................................................ 5
4. Zone System Development ...................................................................................... 7
   4.1 Kentucky Statewide Model Zones ......................................................................... 7
   4.2 Indiana Statewide Model Zones ............................................................................ 7
     4.2.1 Base Year (2007) Socio-Economic data update ............................................. 8
   4.3 Bi-State Model Zones ............................................................................................ 9
5. Trip Table Development.......................................................................................... 11
   5.1 Kentucky Statewide Model Trip Tables................................................................ 11
   5.2 Indiana Statewide Model Trip Tables................................................................... 11
   5.3 Disaggregation of Kentucky Trip Tables .............................................................. 12
     5.3.1 POV and Truck Trip Table Disaggregation.................................................... 12
     5.3.2 External Special Generator Trip Table Disaggregation ................................. 13
   5.4 Bi-State Model Trip Table .................................................................................... 14
6. Traffic Assignment.................................................................................................. 14
   6.1 Assignment Procedure ........................................................................................ 14
   6.2 Network Validation Results.................................................................................. 15
7. Forecasting Procedures ......................................................................................... 17
   7.1 Future Year Network Development ..................................................................... 17
   7.2 Future Year Trip Table Development................................................................... 18
8. No-Build Model Results .......................................................................................... 18
   8.1 Model Volumes .................................................................................................... 18
   8.2 Results................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A.Milton-Madison Bridge Travel Demand Model
Network Development............................................................................................... A-1
  A.1 Network Attributes Adjusted ...............................................................................A-1
  A.2 Network Merging ................................................................................................A-3
Appendix B. Bi-State Model Traffic Analysis Zones .............................................. B-1
  B.1 Traffic Analysis Zone Attributes Adjusted...........................................................B-1
 




                                                                 
                                                                 

Version December 18, 2008
                                                            Page i
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper


List of Figures

Figure 1: Study Area and Vicinity Map ............................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Kentucky Statewide Model Network................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Indiana Statewide Model Network.................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Kentucky Statewide Model Network without network links in Indiana .............. 6
Figure 5: Consolidated Network ...................................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Kentucky Statewide Model Zone System ......................................................... 7
Figure 7: Indiana Statewide Model Zone System............................................................ 8
Figure 8: Kentucky Statewide Model Zone System without Indiana Zones ................... 10
Figure 9: Consolidated Zone System ............................................................................ 10
Figure 10: Sample Trip Disaggregation Factors............................................................ 12
Figure 11: Map showing External Special Generator, Indiana Zone Distribution
   Percentages............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 12: Comparison of Observed and Modeled Volumes......................................... 16
Figure 13: Comparison of Observed and Modeled Volumes
   near Milton-Madison Bridge ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 14. Model Screenline Volumes, 2007 and 2030................................................. 20
Figure 15: Distribution of Travel for Milton-Madison Bridge Trips.................................. 22
Figure 16: 2030 Forecast Traffic Volumes, (Total and Truck Volumes) ........................ 22
Figure 17: Forecast Change in Daily Traffic Volumes 2007-2030 ................................. 23


List of Tables

Table1: INSTM Socio Economic Data ............................................................................. 9
Table 2: Jefferson County, IN TAZ Level Socio-Economic Data (2007).......................... 9
Table 3: Zone Numbering Schemes in the Kentucky, Indiana Statewide Models ......... 11
Table 4: Zone Numbering Scheme in the Consolidated Model ..................................... 11
Table 5: External Special Generator, Indiana Zone Distribution Percentages............... 14
Table 6: Validation Results............................................................................................ 15
Table 7: Comparison of Expanded Survey Bridge Traffic and 2007 Model Volumes at
   Selected Locations................................................................................................... 17
Table 8: Estimated Daily Trips, 2007 and 2030, Jefferson County (IN) and Trimble
   County (KY) and Two State Region ......................................................................... 18
Table 9: Estimated VMT and VHT, 2007 and 2030, Jefferson County (IN) and Trimble
   County (KY) ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 10. Estimated VMT and VHT, 2007 and 2030, Bi-State Region .......................... 19
Table 11: Screenline Analysis, Volumes, 2007 and 2030 ............................................. 20
Table 12. Estimated Milton-Madison Bridge Volumes, 2007 and 2030 ......................... 21
Table 13. Estimated Bridge Traffic Daily Volumes from Select Link Analysis, 2007 and
   2030......................................................................................................................... 21


                                                                  

Version December 18, 2008
                                                            Page ii
                                                           Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                        Travel Demand Model White Paper


1. Model Development Process - Background
This report documents the development of a bi-state travel demand model to support
the Milton-Madison Bridge Project. The WSA consultant team has developed the model
to address the following issues:

   •   What is the desired bridge location to address future travel demand needs
       among several alternatives?
   •   What are the likely traffic volumes crossing at the Milton-Madison Bridge for a
       possible corridor between I-74 and I-71?

The study area is shown in Figure 1.

In accordance with the project’s Scope of Work (Subtask 1.6.6), the Travel Demand
Model (TDM) used in this study was developed by consolidating two existing models

   1. The Kentucky Statewide Traffic Model (KYSTM)
   2. The Indiana Statewide Traffic Model (INSTM)

Both models estimate average daily traffic, and were developed using the TransCAD
travel demand modeling software. This report documents the steps taken to consolidate
the two models and presents the results of the model network validation.
 
The traffic analysis zones (TAZs), current and future year trip tables, and current and
future year highway networks from these two statewide models have been consolidated
for this effort. The consolidated model performs passenger vehicle and truck traffic
assignments, but does not perform trip generation or trip distribution. The consolidated
current and future year trip tables are the output of the generation and distribution
processes from each of the constituent statewide models.

The remainder of the document:

   1. Presents basic facts and figures about the Indiana and Kentucky statewide
      models;
   2. Discusses the highway network consolidation;
   3. Discusses the traffic analysis zone consolidation;
   4. Discusses the trip table consolidation; and
   5. Presents the results of the model network validation.




                                              

                                                                Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 1
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper



                        Figure 1: Study Area and Vicinity Map




                                           

Version December 18, 2008
                                       Page 2
                                                          Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                       Travel Demand Model White Paper



2. Statewide Model Summary
2.1 Kentucky Statewide Model
The Kentucky Statewide Model has the following key characteristics:
   • Base Year = 2007
   • Future Year = 2030
   • 4,870 TAZs, including 3,651 in-state TAZs
   • 71,640 Network links, including 55,662 in-state links

The 2006 Users Guide to the Kentucky Statewide Model provides additional
information. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has updated the current year from
2003 to 2007.


2.2 Indiana Statewide Model
The Indiana Statewide Model has the following key characteristics:
   • Base Year = 2000
   • Future Year = 2030
   • 4,720 TAZs, including 4,579 in-state TAZs
   • 45,468 Network links, including 32,304 in-state links

The Indiana Statewide Travel Demand Model Upgrade Travel Model User’s Guide and
Methodology Report provides additional information.


3. Network Development
The first task was to develop a bi-state network. The most recent models – including
the most recent networks – from both states were obtained from the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT),
respectively. The year 2007 was chosen as the base year for the bi-state model,
because both state DOTs were able provide most of the 2007 network and trip table
data needed. INDOT provided the table Annual Growth Factors by Functional Class
1998-2007, used in the 2006 traffic count in the Indiana Statewide Model network,
projected to 2007.

3.1 Kentucky Statewide Model Network
The KYSTM network is presented in Figure 2. It is dense in and around the state of
Kentucky, and includes a sparse network for the entire continental United States. Since
the base year was 2007 in this network, no network changes were necessary.




                                            

                                                              Version December 18, 2008
                                        Page 3
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

                     Figure 2: Kentucky Statewide Model Network




3.2 Indiana Statewide Model Network
INDOT provided a year 2006 network for this study, as shown in Figure 3. INDOT
created a set of adjustment factors used to factor annualized traffic count volumes from
the 2006 year to 2007.




                                             

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 4
                                                          Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                       Travel Demand Model White Paper

                      Figure 3: Indiana Statewide Model Network




3.3 Combined Network
In order to merge the two networks, links in the state of Indiana were removed from the
KYSTM network as shown in Figure 4. As shown in Figure 5, this network was merged
with the INSTM network to create a “consolidated” network for this study. This combined
network analyzes the effect of adding/improving bypasses or other corridors in and
around the study area.

Appendix A shows the attributes of the bi-state network. The KYSTM network, used as
the base network for the bi-state network, used the KYSTM network attributes.
Therefore, it was necessary to convert the INSTM network attributes to be consistent
with the KYSTM attributes used in the bi-state model.




                                            

                                                              Version December 18, 2008
                                        Page 5
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper


     Figure 4: Kentucky Statewide Model Network without network links in Indiana




                            Figure 5: Consolidated Network




                                            

Version December 18, 2008
                                       Page 6
                                                         Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                      Travel Demand Model White Paper


4. Zone System Development
As mentioned in Section 3, Indiana and Kentucky provided the latest statewide models,
which included the most recent Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) files. These two TAZ files
were merged into one bi-state TAZ file.

4.1 Kentucky Statewide Model Zones
Figure 6 shows the KYSTM Model TAZ system, which spans the 48 contiguous states
(see Appendix B for the data contained in the KYSTM). The data contained in the
KYSTM has a base year of 2007 and a future year of 2030.

                  Figure 6: Kentucky Statewide Model Zone System




4.2 Indiana Statewide Model Zones
As shown in Figure 7, the INSTM covers the state of Indiana plus a portion of
surrounding states. The surrounding state portion is about three counties deep. The
data contained in the INSTM has a base year of 2000 and a future year of 2030.




                                            

                                                             Version December 18, 2008
                                        Page 7
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

                    Figure 7: Indiana Statewide Model Zone System




4.2.1 Base Year (2007) Socio-Economic Data Update
It was necessary to update the base TAZ data (population and employment) from 2000
to 2007 to create interim year passenger vehicle and truck trip tables based on growth
in households and jobs. The INSTM provides socio-economic data forecasts for 2015
and 2030 at the county level. In addition, the INSTM provides socio-economic data for
2000 and forecasts for 2030 at the TAZ level. The consultant used the following
methodology to obtain a year 2007 socio-economic data file.

   •   To calculate control totals by county, the year 2000 and 2015 county level data is
       used. Table 1 presents a partial snapshot of the year 2000, 2015, and 2030
       county level data, along with growth factors for population and employment.
   •   The year 2000 and year 2030 TAZ level socio-economic data was interpolated to
       obtain a preliminary year 2015 socio-economic data. This data was aggregated
       by county and compared to the county level control totals to obtain scale factors.
   •   These scale factors were applied to the TAZ level data to obtain an adjusted year
       2015 TAZ level socio-economic data file.
   •   The year 2007 socio-economic data was calculated by interpolating between the
       year 2000 and 2015. Table 2 presents the TAZ level socio-economic data for
       Jefferson County, IN.




                                             

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 8
                                                                     Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                                  Travel Demand Model White Paper

                           Table 1: INSTM Socio Economic Data

                         Population                   Growth               Employment               Growth
                                                       2000-                                         2000-
County         2000        2015         2030                      2000        2015        2030
                                                       2030                                          2030
ADAMS          33,650     37,272      40,910           22%     22,982        24,006     26,602       16%
ALLEN         331,818     377,082     422,446          27%     233,884       257,228    283,796      21%


JEFFERSON     31,665       34,417      37,182          17%      17,938       18,267      19,604       9%


WHITE         25,169      25,694       26,250           4%      14,358       14,011      14,303      0%
WHITLEY       30,776      34,517       38,273          24%      16,226       17,404      19,199      18%
INDIANA      6,063,674   6,696,429    7,332,108        21%     3,688,224    3,906,590   4,222,714    14%


          Table 2: Jefferson County, IN TAZ Level Socio-Economic data (2007)

                  TAZ             Population          Households         Employment
                 39001              6,079               2,620              4,646
                 39002              3,719               1,543               924

                 39027                109                  53                151
                 39028                 75                  28                  6
             Jefferson, IN           33,133              13,585             18,092


4.3 Bi-State Model Zones
In order to merge the two TAZ systems, KYSTM TAZs in the state of Indiana were
removed as shown in Figure 8. These zones were merged with INSTM zones to create
a consolidated bi-state zone system, as shown in Figure 9.




                                                   

                                                                           Version December 18, 2008
                                               Page 9
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper


       Figure 8: Kentucky Statewide Model Zone System without Indiana Zones




                            Figure 9: Consolidated Zone System




                                             

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 10
                                                            Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                         Travel Demand Model White Paper

Table 3 presents the zone numbering schemes for KYSTM and INSTM. In order to
combine the two zone systems, the Indiana Statewide Model zones were re-numbered
by adding 1,000,000 to the original zone number, as shown in Table 4.

  Table 3: Zone Numbering Schemes in the Kentucky and Indiana Statewide Models

                              Model     Zone Numbering
                             KYSTM       101 – 8,000,000
                             INSTM      1001 – 1,000,000



             Table 4: Zone Numbering Scheme in the Consolidated Model

                        Model      Combined Zone Numbering
                       KYSTM            101 – 8,000,000
                       INSTM         1,001,001 – 2,000,000


5. Trip Table Development
5.1 Kentucky Statewide Model Trip Tables
KYSTM generates trip tables for the following purposes

   •   Short Distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV)
       ○ Home Based Work (HBW)
       ○ Home Based Other (HBO)
       ○ Non-Home Based (NHB)
   •   Long distance Private Occupancy Vehicles
       ○ Business
       ○ Tourist
       ○ Other Long Distance
   •   Trucks
       ○ Long Distance Trucks
       ○ Local Trucks

5.2 Indiana Statewide Model Trip Tables
INSTM generates trip tables for the following purposes

   •   Short Distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV)
       ○ Home Based Work (HBW)
       ○ Home Based Other (HBO)
       ○ Non-Home Based (NHB)
   •   Long Distance Private Occupancy Vehicles
   •   Trucks

                                            

                                                               Version December 18, 2008
                                       Page 11
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

5.3 Disaggregation of Kentucky Trip Tables
KYSTM trip tables include long distance and truck trips with a terminus in the state of
Indiana.

These trips need to be disaggregated to the INSTM zones in order to conform to the bi-
state model zone scheme. Disaggregation factors based on socio-economic data
(households for origins and jobs for destinations) were developed to transform the
KYSTM zones in the state of Indiana to INSTM zones. An example of the origin
disaggregation factors for a single KSTM zone is shown in Figure 10 below.

                     Figure 10: Sample Trip Disaggregation Factors




5.3.1 POV and Truck Trip Table Disaggregation
The aforementioned factors were used to disaggregate the following trip tables and thus
create trip tables conforming to the bi-state zone scheme.

   •   KYSTM Short Distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV)
       ○ Home Based Work (HBW)
       ○ Home Based Other (HBO)
       ○ Non-Home Based (NHB)
   •   KYSTM Long Distance Private Occupancy Vehicles
       ○ Business
       ○ Tourist
       ○ Other Long Distance
   •   KYSTM Trucks


                                              

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 12
                                                             Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                          Travel Demand Model White Paper

5.3.2 External Special Generator Trip Table Disaggregation
The KYSTM network was validated at border crossings within the state of Kentucky.
Though the KYSTM network spans regions outside the state, validation efforts were not
undertaken for the links outside the state. KYSTM zones include special generator
external zones at border crossings that produce or attract HBO, NHB and Truck trips.
These zones represent areas outside the state of Kentucky that would generate travel
to or attract travel from Kentucky.

The proximity of external special generator 600013 (located at the US 421 Milton-
Madison Bridge on the Ohio River) makes it a zone of particular interest for this study.
The INSTM provides a good source of socio-economic data for trips from this external
zone to be distributed proportionally to INSTM zones in the Madison area that fall in
Jefferson County, IN. This proportional distribution provides for better travel patterns in
the study area, and thus results in a more reliable model. Figure 11 and Table 5
present the external special generator (600013) and the proportional distribution
percentages to zones in the Madison area. The rest of the external special generators
do not influence the study area due to their distant location.

                  Figure 11: Map showing External Special Generator,
                         Indiana Zone Distribution Percentages




                                               

                                                                  Version December 18, 2008
                                          Page 13
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper


       Table 5: External Special Generator, Indiana Zone Distribution Percentages

             KYSTM External        INSTM TAZ        Distribution Percentage
                600013               39001                   27.2%
                600013               39002                    9.8%
                600013               39003                    5.5%
                600013               39004                    5.9%
                600013               39005                    5.4%
                600013               39006                   13.3%
                600013               39007                   24.9%
                600013               39008                    8.1%
                600013                Total                  100 %


5.4 Bi-State Model Trip Table
The bi-state model trip table is created with the following trip purposes

   •   Short distance Private Occupancy Vehicles (POV)
       ○ KYSTM Home Based Work (HBW)
       ○ KYSTM Home Based Other (HBO)
       ○ KYSTM Non-Home Based (NHB)
       ○ INSTM Home Based Work (HBW)
       ○ INSTM Home Based Other (HBO)
       ○ INSTM Non-Home Based (NHB)
   •   Long distance Private Occupancy Vehicles
       ○ KYSTM Business
       ○ KYSTM Tourist
       ○ KYSTM Other Long Distance
       ○ INSTM Long Distance
   •   Trucks
       ○ KYSTM Trucks
       ○ INSTM Trucks

To validate the trip table consolidation, the bi-state trips were checked against the
INSTM and KYSTM model trips to ensure that all trips were conserved.


6. Traffic Assignment
6.1 Assignment Procedure
The steps involved in assigning the bi-state trip table(s) to the bi-state network:
   1. Use an All or Nothing assignment method to assign KYSTM Trucks and INSTM
      Trucks together.


                                              

Version December 18, 2008
                                          Page 14
                                                             Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                          Travel Demand Model White Paper

    2. Preload Trucks and use a user equilibrium method to assign all private
       occupancy vehicles together.

6.2 Network Validation Results
Because of the many operations necessary to combine the highway networks of the
KYSTM and INSTM networks (explained in more detail in Appendix A), the consultant
team performed the following network checks:

    1. Visual review of the number of lanes and network connectivity.
    2. Shortest path traffic assignments to ensure that no breaks in the network existed.
    3. Review of the output travel times between traffic analysis zones to ensure that
       there were no unreasonable travel times caused by network coding errors.
 
Following the network quality review, the consultant team analyzed the performance of
the model against year 2007 traffic counts that had been collected for this study. The
placement of centroid connectors, freeflow link speeds, and link capacities were
reviewed during the validation.

The forecasting accuracy of the model is evaluated based on a comparison of model
estimates and observed volumes in the base year (2007) as measured by an accepted
modeling standard percentage Root Mean Square Error. This statistic may be
interpreted as representing the average weighted percentage error between the
observed and the assigned daily traffic volumes on the highway network. As shown in
Table 6, the error is 37 percent or below in all but one of the traffic volume groupings
(except for the lowest volume roads) and 21 percent on the highest volume roads.

                               Table 6: Validation Results

            Volume Group       Observations         Average Count    % RMSE
               < 2000                23                  638           147%
             2000 - 4000             14                 2,723          25%
             4000 - 6000             11                 4,701          37%
             6000 - 8000              5                 7,108          29%
               >8000                 8                 10,776          21%
                 All                 61                 3,709           38%

An additional validation standard for a travel demand model describes the maximum
allowable deviation between model volumes and observed traffic counts. Figure 12
shows the percent deviation compared to link volume; this validation standard means
those highway links with the highest volumes should have a lower percentage deviation
from the observed data than links carrying lower volumes. The model performed well
with all but a few observations lying above the target curve.



                                              

                                                                Version December 18, 2008
                                          Page 15
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

                                    Figure 12: Comparison of Observed and Modeled Volumes

                                             Percent Deviation Chart For Milton Madison Study Area
                                                 (Jefferson County, IN and Trimble County, KY)
                                                                  Counts = 61
                         100%


                         90%

                                                          Maximum Desirable Deviation
                         80%


                         70%
     Percent Deviation




                         60%


                         50%


                         40%


                         30%


                         20%


                         10%


                          0%
                                ‐      2.0      4.0       6.0                8.0      10.0   12.0   14.0   16.0
                                                                 Counts (Thousands)




Figure 13 presents the traffic counts and assigned daily volumes in the area around the
Milton-Madison Bridge. Roadway segments with traffic counts appear in red in the
graphic. As shown in the figure, the traffic count and the assigned volumes on the
bridge very nearly match (10,300 vpd versus 10,200 vpd).

Table 7 presents the results of a comparison of estimated daily trips that use the Milton-
Madison Bridge at five locations north of the bridge. In the summer of 2008, a license
plate survey captured the distribution of northbound Milton-Madison bridge traffic at the
bridge and at five locations north of the bridge. Converting the distribution of bridge
travel to a percentage with a similar distribution from the traffic model provides a rough
indication of how reliably the model can be used to predict the distribution of travel using
the bridge in the 2030 forecasts. As shown in the table, there is general agreement
between the observed and the modeled distributions, with a notable exception at SR 7
in downtown Madison, Indiana. Appendix B-2 presents the survey license plate data
collection locations.




                                                                          

Version December 18, 2008
                                                                  Page 16
                                                        Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                     Travel Demand Model White Paper


Figure 13: Comparison of Observed and Modeled Volumes near Milton-Madison Bridge




               Table 7: Comparison of Expanded Survey Bridge Traffic
                  and 2007 Model Volumes at Selected Locations
                                    Survey % of Bridge       Model % of Bridge
 Location                           Traffic using Route      Traffic using Route
 SR 56 West of Bridge and SR 7             12.2%                    16.5%
 SR 7 Downtown                              9.4%                    15.5%
 SR 7 North of SR 62                        5.2%                     3.9%
 SR 56 East of Bridge                       4.5%                     8.7%
 US 421/SR 62                              26.3%                    25.2%


7. Forecasting Procedures
7.1 Future Year Network Development
KYTC and INDOT were requested to provide a future year network that comprises the
existing roadway system and additional roadway improvement projects that are already
in progress or committed to be completed by the horizon year (committed). This
“Existing plus Committed” network or “E+C” network is used as the base scenario for
the horizon year.
                                           

                                                            Version December 18, 2008
                                      Page 17
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

7.2 Future Year Trip Table Development
Both KYSTM and INSTM use 2030 as their forecast or horizon year. Origin-Destination
trip tables were acquired from KYTC and INDOT. The trip tables were not modified,
except as necessary to combine them using the approach described in Section 5.
Therefore, estimates of land use, demographic changes, etc. used in the KYSTM and
INSTM are retained in the combined trip table.


8. No-Build Model Results
This section presents the results of the Milton-Madison Bridge No-Build forecast. The
No-Build scenario represents the year 2030 regional highway network, 2030 vehicle trip
tables, and the bridge in its current two-lane configuration and location.

8.1 Model Volumes
Table 8 presents a summary of the growth in travel demand forecasted for the bi-state
area between 2007 and 2030. The table shows the growth in auto and truck demand
for trips that begin and end in the study area, and it excludes trips with one end of the
trip outside the study area. The external trips have been included in the analysis,
however. The two state regions show a growth in travel demand of 19 percent - just
less than 1.5 percent per year on average. Jefferson County and Trimble Counties, the
two counties that border the Milton-Madison Bridge, show a moderate amount of
forecasted growth - 11 percent and 37 percent respectively over 13 years.

   Table 8: Estimated Daily Trips, 2007 and 2030, Jefferson County (IN) and Trimble
                          County (KY) and Two State Region

                                        2007              2030         Change
         Jefferson County, IN          78,600            87,400         11%
         Trimble County, KY            13,400            18,300         37%
         Kentucky and Indiana         24,472,200        29,243,800      19%

In the bi-county area adjacent to the bridge, roadway travel as measured by vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) is forecasted to grow by 26 percent between 2007 and 2030. This
is presented in Table 9. Most of the roadway mileage in this region is classified as
rural. In terms of absolute growth in volumes and percentage growth, the analysis
indicates that the rural interstate system will grow faster than all other roadway types –
by 14,000 VMT daily or 53 percent.




                                              

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 18
                                                                  Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                               Travel Demand Model White Paper

                       Table 9: Estimated VMT and VHT, 2007 and 2030,
                        Jefferson County (IN) and Trimble County (KY)


                                            2007                 2030                Change
                                    VMT            VHT       VMT       VHT         VMT   VHT
 Rural Interstate                  25,500           400     39,000     600         53%   50%
       Principal Arterial          140,500         2,400    68,600    2,900        20%   21%
       Minor Arterial              28,100          2,300   165,600    3,100        29%   35%
       Major Collector             181,300         3,400   237,900    4,500        31%   32%
       Minor Collector             11,100           200     13,600     300         23%   50%
       Local                         200             -       100         -
       Rural Total                 486,700         8,700   624,800    11,400       28%       31%
 Urban Principal Arterial          91,400          2,100   106,200    2,500        16%       19%
 Total                             784,200       18,100    989,000    22,700       26%       25%

The growth in bi-state VMT is forecasted to grow by 28 percent between 2007 and
2030, as shown in Table 10 below. In percentage terms, growth is highest on urban
major collector system and is slightly higher on the rural system than the urban system.
In the bi-state region, growth in VMT exceeds 2 percent per year on the system as a
whole.

           Table 10. Estimated VMT and VHT, 2007 and 2030, Bi-State Region


                                        2007                         2030                Change

                                  VMT             VHT         VMT            VHT       VMT    VHT
Rural    Interstate            38,600,400        565,400    50,480,300      787,300    31%    39%
         Principal Arterial    29,393,200        498,400    36,321,600      624,800    24%    25%
         Minor Arterial        17,621,600        313,200    23,094,500      427,000    31%    36%
         Major Collector       33,724,300        650,900    45,170,300      905,600    34%    39%
         Minor Collector        6,504,800         37,000     8,522,200      185,800    31%    36%
         Local                  1,025,100         25,700     1,335,500       33,700    30%    31%
         Rural Total          126,869,400      2,190,600   164,924,400    2,964,200    30%    35%
Urban    Interstate            31,910,000        530,700    39,944,000      723,800    25%    36%
         Express                3,946,900         64,800     4,943,200       82,700    25%    28%
         Principal Arterial    34,987,300        840,200    42,994,200    1,067,800    23%    27%
         Minor Arterial        16,290,800        429,700    20,253,800      581,100    24%    35%
         Major Collector        1,729,300         49,100     2,549,500        75,000   47%    53%
         Local                   162,300           6,500      183,600          8,500   13%    31%
         Urban Total           89,026,600      1,921,000   110,868,300    2,538,900    25%    32%
Total                         215,896,000      4,111,600   275,792,600    5,503,200    28%    34%
                                                     

                                                                         Version December 18, 2008
                                                Page 19
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

 
Figure 14 shows a variable rate of growth in total traffic volumes in the immediate
vicinity of the bridge between 2007 and 2030. A screenline analysis summarizes the
traffic volumes of all roadways that cross imaginary lines drawn around the bridge. In
terms of absolute volumes, the heaviest traffic flows cross the north screenline (22,200
to 24,600 vpd), while the east screenline shows the largest growth in traffic volumes
(7,400 to 12,400 vpd). Total traffic across the screenline is forecasted to grow by nearly
20 percent between 2007 and 2030. Table 11 presents screenline volumes for 2007
and 2030.

                   Figure 14. Model Screenline Volumes, 2007 and 2030




                Table 11: Screenline Analysis Volumes, 2007 and 2030


       Direction         2007          2030        % Change      Annual Average
         West           9,700         10,500         8.2%            0.63%
         South          3,100         4,200         35.5%            2.73%
         East           7,400         12,400        67.6%            5.20%
         North          22,200        24,600        10.8%            1.53%
          All           43,200        51,800        19.9%            1.53%



                                                

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page 20
                                                               Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                            Travel Demand Model White Paper

8.2 Results
An analysis of the model results indicates that regional and local growth in travel
demand would increase daily traffic volumes on the bridge by 2,600 vehicles per day,
from 10,300 vpd to 12,900 vpd, as shown in Table 12.

          Table 12. Estimated Milton-Madison Bridge Volumes, 2007 and 2030


            2007 Traffic Count       2007 Model       2030 Model       % Change
                  10,600                10,300            12,900         25%


Table 13 presents the results of a “select link” analysis, i.e., the tracing of vehicle trips
that uses the Milton-Madison Bridge. A comparison of modeled traffic volumes at the
locations of the 2008 origin-destination survey locations indicates that the growth in
roadway traffic that use the bridge ranges from 24 percent to 50 percent. In absolute
terms, no location experiences more than a 700-vpd increase.

                     Table 13. Estimated Bridge Traffic Daily Volumes
                        from Select Link Analysis, 2007 and 2030

                                           2007 Traffic            2030 Traffic
           Location                        Assignment              Assignment          Change
SR 56 West of Bridge and SR 7                 1,700                   2,100             24%
SR 7 Downtown                                 1,600                   2,200             38%
SR 7 North                                     400                     600              50%
SR 56 East of Bridge                           900                    1,100             22%
US 421/SR 62                                  2,600                   3,300             27%

The “select link” volumes of traffic using the bridge are shown in Figure 15. An analysis
of the origin and destination of trips using the bridge indicates that the majority of bridge
travel is likely to be relatively short-distance local travel. Roughly speaking, the model
results indicate that 72 percent of traffic using the bridge from or to the north will end its
trip within a five-mile radius of the bridge, as shown by the progressively thin lines north
of the bridge.

Figure 16 shows the 2030 No-Build traffic volumes from the model traffic assignment in
the Milton-Madison bridge area. Daily volumes range from a high of 16,500 vpd on US
421 north of the bridge to 2,200 vpd on SR 62 east of the US 421 intersection. Trucks
account for approximately 5.5 percent of traffic on the bridge according to the forecasts
and generally range between 5 to 10 percent of total traffic on the higher volume
roadway segments.




                                                

                                                                    Version December 18, 2008
                                           Page 21
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

            Figure 15: Distribution of Travel for Milton-Madison Bridge Trips




         Figure 16: 2030 Forecast Traffic Volumes (Total and Truck Volumes)




                                             

Version December 18, 2008
                                        Page 22
                                                         Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                      Travel Demand Model White Paper

Figure 17 below shows the forecasted change in volumes between 2007 and 2030.
The increase in traffic volumes is modest and ranges from several hundred vpd to 2,600
at the bridge.

           Figure 17: Forecast Change in Daily Traffic Volumes 2007-2030




                                            

                                                             Version December 18, 2008
                                       Page 23
                                                                   Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                                Travel Demand Model White Paper

Appendix A. Milton-Madison Bridge Travel Demand Model
Network Development
The Milton-Madison Bridge Travel Demand Model Network was developed by
combining the Indiana Statewide Model and Kentucky Statewide Model networks, which
contain all interstates, state highways, arterials, and significant collectors and local
roads in the states of Indiana and Kentucky. The network also includes centroid
connectors that connect the actual roadways with the model’s trip ends within the
socioeconomic zones. In addition, the network includes points, which are referred to as
nodes that connect the links. The characteristics are described by each link and node
coupled with corresponding attributes, such as length, lane number, lane widths, traffic
and truck count data, functional classifications, centroid or not, TAZ ID, etc.

A.1 Network Attributes Adjusted
Prior to being used for modeling, the attributes of the INSTM network has to be modified
to be consistent with the KYSTM network. This is done by adding the KYSTM network
attributes into the INSTM network, which are then filled with the corresponding
information from original INSTM network attributes with necessary edits and
conversions. The detailed information is listed in Table A.1 below.


                  Table A.1: Attributes Conversion of INSTM network

FIELD_NAME                    TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
ID                            Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM network ID + 1000000000
Length                        Real (8 bytes)
Dir                           Integer (2 bytes)
LinkType                      Character
INKY                          Integer (2 bytes)
                                                      0 or 1(not sure about 2: special generator
                                                      connector, 3: external station connector, 4:
IsConnector                   Integer (2 bytes)       Mexico/Canada connector)
IsSubConn                     Integer (2 bytes)       don't know
ROUTE_ID                      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM network RTE + 18000
START_MP                      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM-ALOG
END_MP                        Real (8 bytes)          INSTM-TO_LOG
RSE_UNIQUE                    Character               INSTM-RTE_NAME
FUNCT                         Integer (2 bytes)       INSTM-FHWA_FC_1(99-0)
AREATYPE                      Integer (2 bytes)       INSTM-Area_Type_1
LANEWID                       Real (4 bytes)          INSTM-LN_Width_1
LANES                         Integer (2 bytes)       INSTM-LN
DIR_LANES                     Integer (2 bytes)       INSTM-LN1DIR_1
SPEEDLIM                      Integer (2 bytes)       INSTM-Posted_Speed_1
ONE_WAY_ST                    Integer (4 bytes)       DIR 1 or -1 excluded Ramp&freeways
Cnt_Stn_ID                    Character               INSTM-INDOT_STATION
Cnt_Stn_MP                    Character               INSTM-Station_Location
ADTCURR                       Real (4 bytes)          INSTM-2002 AADT and INDOT2_AADT
                                                   

                                                                         Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page A-1
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

FIELD_NAME                  TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
                                                    DIR=0, ADT=ADTCURR/2; otherwise
ADT                         Real (4 bytes)
                                                    ADT=ADTCURR
RAMP                        Character               None
PHF                         Real (4 bytes)          1- K_Factor
PEAK_DIR                    Real (4 bytes)          INSTM-D_Factor
PCSINGOP                    Character               none
PCCOMBOP                    Character               none
TRUCK_PCT                   Real (4 bytes)          Truck_AADT_98/OLD_AADT
TRK_CNT                     Integer (4 bytes)       TRUCK_PCT*ADT
Truck_PCE                   Real (4 bytes)          none
TERRAIN                     Integer (2 bytes)       TERR:2; others:1
ROUTE                       Character               substring(RTE_UNIQUE,4,20)
Screenline                  Integer (4 bytes)       none
IMPTRK                      Integer (2 bytes)       none
IMPLNWD                     Integer (2 bytes)       none
IMPLNS                      Integer (2 bytes)       none
IMPSPDLMT                   Integer (2 bytes)       none
IMPTERRAIN                  Integer (2 bytes)       none
IMPPHF                      Integer (2 bytes)       none
IMPFUNCT                    Integer (2 bytes)       none
STATE                       Character               IN
COUNTY                      Character               INSTM-CO+1000
B.NetDummy                  Integer (2 bytes)       1 or 0
B.AreaType                  Integer (2 bytes)       AREATYPE
B.SpeedLimit                Integer (2 bytes)       SPEEDLIM
B.FClass                    Integer (2 bytes)       FUNCT
B.Lanes                     Integer (2 bytes)       LANES
B.DirLanes                  Integer (2 bytes)       DIR_LANES
AutoCounts                  Integer (4 bytes)       ADT-TRK_CNT
TruckCounts                 Integer (4 bytes)       TRK_CNT
TotalCounts                 Integer (4 bytes)       ADT-TRK_CNT
S.NetDummy                  Integer (2 bytes)       none
S.AreaType                  Integer (2 bytes)       none
S.SpeedLimit                Integer (2 bytes)       none
S.FClass                    Integer (2 bytes)       none
S.Lanes                     Integer (2 bytes)       none
S.DirLanes                  Integer (2 bytes)       none
S.Alpha                     Real (4 bytes)          Page 14 KYSTM management system user guide
S.Beta                      Real (4 bytes)          Page 14 KYSTM management system user guide
S.HourlyCap                 Integer (4 bytes)       S.Daily Cap/12
S.DailyCap                  Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM-AB_DlyCap+BA_DlyCap
S.ModifiedSpeedTime         Character               None
S.TruckProhibited           Integer (2 bytes)       None
S.AutoSpeed                 Integer (4 bytes)       None
S.AutoTime                  Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TruckSpeed                Integer (4 bytes)       None
S.TruckTime                 Real (4 bytes)          None
                                                 

Version December 18, 2008
                                       Page A-2
                                                                    Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                                 Travel Demand Model White Paper

FIELD_NAME                        TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
S.HBW (Day)                       Real (4 bytes)          None
S.HBO (Day)                       Real (4 bytes)          None
S.NHB (Day)                       Real (4 bytes)          None
S.Business (Day)                  Real (4 bytes)          None
S.Tourist (Day)                   Real (4 bytes)          None
S.OtherLD (Day)                   Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalAuto (Day)_AB              Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalAuto (Day)_BA              Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalAuto (Day)                 Real (4 bytes)          None
S.Truck (Day)_AB                  Real (4 bytes)          None
S.Truck (Day)_BA                  Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalTruck (Day)                Real (4 bytes)          None
S.Truck PCU_AB                    Real (4 bytes)          None
S.Truck PCU_BA                    Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalVolume (Day)_AB            Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalVolume (Day)_BA            Real (4 bytes)          None
S.TotalVolume (Day)               Integer (4 bytes)       None
S.VoC (Day)                       Real (4 bytes)          None
Centroid                          Integer (4 bytes)       None
S.SelectLink_TruckVolume(AB)      Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_TruckVolume(BA)      Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_TruckVolume          Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_AutoVolume (AB)      Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_AutoVolume (BA)      Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_AutoVolume (Total)   Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_TotalVolume(BA)      Real (8 bytes)          None
S.SelectLink_TotalVolume          Real (8 bytes)          None



A.2 Network Merging
The INSTM and KYSTM networks were merged into one geographic file once the
network attributes were reorganized. The two networks were from two independent
models. The overlap happened at the INSTM area with the original KYSTM network,
and some outlying roads were deleted from the KYSTM network within merging
boundaries in order to avoid the repetition between the two networks.




                                                       

                                                                        Version December 18, 2008
                                             Page A-3
                                                                   Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                                Travel Demand Model White Paper


Appendix B. Bi-State Model Traffic Analysis Zones
B.1 Traffic Analysis Zone Attributes Adjusted
As mentioned in Section 4, the Bi-State Model traffic analysis zones (TAZ) were
created by combining the latest Indiana and Kentucky Statewide model TAZs.
Consequently, the attributes of both two state model TAZs were also combined and few
fields were added for operating and checking purpose. The detail information is shown
in Table B.1.

            Table B.1: Combined Attributes of Both Two State Model TAZs

            FIELD_NAME      TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
            ID              Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM ID+1000000000
                                                    KYSTM ID kept
            Area            Real (8 bytes)
            O_Perc          Real (8 bytes)          Disaggregation factor on the Origin
                                                    or Production end. It's based on
                                                    Households
            100_Less_O      Real (8 bytes)          1-O_Perc
            D_Perc          Real (8 bytes)          Disaggregation factor on the
                                                    Destination or Attraction end. It's
                                                    based on Employment
            FID_IN_TAZ      Integer (4 bytes)
            Dup             Integer (2 bytes)       Diplicate
            state           Character
            FID_KY_TAZ      Integer (4 bytes)
            ID:1            Integer (4 bytes)
            County          Integer (4 bytes)
            MM_TAZ          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM ID+1000000000
                                                    KYSTM ID kept
            INSTM_TAZ       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM ID
            KYSTM_TAZ       Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            INKY            Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            ZONETYPE        Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            TYPEDESC        Character               KYSTM
            ISSPECIAL       Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            CNTY_FIPS       Character               KYSTM
            CNTY_NAME       Character               KYSTM
            CLARITAS        Character               KYSTM
            CLARITAS_C      Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            MSA_SIZE        Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            BCLARITAS       Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            BMSA_SIZE       Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            BPOP            Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            BHHS            Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            BSERVICE        Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            BRETAIL         Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
                                                 

                                                                        Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page B-1
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

            FIELD_NAME      TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
            BNONRETAIL      Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            BTOTALEMP       Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            BBUSINESS_      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BBUSINESS1      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BTOURIST_P      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BTOURIST_A      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BOTHERLD_P      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BOTHERLD_A      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BHBW_P          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BHBW_A          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BHBO_P          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BHBO_A          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BNHB_P          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BNHB_A          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BTRUCK_O        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            BTRUCK_D        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            EXT_STN_AA      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            TOT_HBONHB      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            FPOP            Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            FHHS            Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            FSERVICE        Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            FRETAIL         Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            FNONRETAIL      Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            FTOTALEMP       Integer (4 bytes)       KYSTM
            FTRUCK_O        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            FTRUCK_D        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SCLARITAS       Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            SMSA_SIZE       Integer (2 bytes)       KYSTM
            SPOP            Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SHHS            Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SSERVICE        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SRETAIL         Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SNONRETAIL      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            STOTALEMP       Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SPOPGROWTH      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SHHSGROWTH      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SSERVGROWT      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SRETGROWTH      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SNONRETGRO      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            STOTEMPGRO      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SBUSINESS_      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SBUSINESS1      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            STOURIST_P      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            STOURIST_A      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SOTHERLD_P      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SOTHERLD_A      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
            SHBW_P          Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM


                                                 

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page B-2
                                                 Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                              Travel Demand Model White Paper

FIELD_NAME    TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
SHBW_A        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SHBO_P        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SHBO_A        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SNHB_P        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SNHB_A        Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
STRUCK_O      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
STRUCK_D      Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SBUSINESS2    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SBUSINESS3    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
STOURIST_1    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
STOURIST_2    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SOTHERLD_1    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SOTHERLD_2    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SHBW_P_BAL    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SHBW_A_BAL    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SHBO_P_BAL    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SHBO_A_BAL    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SNHB_P_BAL    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
SNHB_A_BAL    Real (8 bytes)          KYSTM
CO_FIPS       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
COUNTY_NUM    Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
TAZ_2000      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
O_PERC:1      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
D_PERC:1      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
KYSTM_TAZ:1   Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
KYSTM_AREA    Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
KYSTM_POP0    Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
KYSTM_HH03    Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
KYSTM_EMP0    Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
POP           Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
AGE00_517     Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
AGE00_1821    Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
HH            Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
HHPOP         Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
AVGHHSIZE     Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
HU            Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
AVG_MEDINC    Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
WORKERS       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
WRKRS_PER_    Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
AGG_HHINC     Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
MEANHHINC     Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
AGG_VEH       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
VEH_PER_HH    Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
GQPOP         Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
GQINST        Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
GQNON         Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
AO_AGFORFI    Real (8 bytes)          INSTM

                                   

                                                    Version December 18, 2008
                           Page B-3
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

            FIELD_NAME      TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
            BO_MINING       Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            CO_CONSTRU      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            DO_MANUFAC      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            EO_TRANSPU      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            FO_WHOLESA      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            GO_RETAILT      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            HO_FIRE         Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            IO_SVCS         Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            JO_PUBADMN      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            OTOT_EMP        Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            OEDUCATION      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            COUNTY:1        Character               INSTM
            ZONAL_CLAS      Character               INSTM
            LABEL           Character               INSTM
            TAZ_OLD         Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            POP00_DENS      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            EMP00_DENS      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            AREA_TYPE       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            BLACK_TAZ       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            STATE_ID        Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            OLD_TAZ         Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            HH_I69          Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            POP_I69         Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            EMP_I69         Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
            SZ_ID           Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            A_AGFORFIS      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            A_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            B_MINING        Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            B_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            C_CONSTRUC      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            C_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            D_MANUFACT      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            D_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            E_TRANSPUB      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            E_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            F_WHOLESAL      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            F_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            G_RETAILTR      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            G_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            H_FIRE          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            H_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            I_SVCS          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            I_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            J_PUBADMN_      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            J_DIFF          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            TOT_EMP         Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
            TOTAL_DIFF      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM


                                                 

Version December 18, 2008
                                         Page B-4
                                                   Milton-Madison Bridge Project
                                                Travel Demand Model White Paper

FIELD_NAME      TYPE                    DESCRIPTION
EDUCATION       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
EDUCATION_      Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
EMP_DENSIT      Real (8 bytes)          INSTM
I69_SA          Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM
GW_MARKET       Integer (4 bytes)       INSTM



             Figure B.1: Study Area Traffic Counts




                                     

                                                      Version December 18, 2008
                             Page B-5
Milton-Madison Bridge Project
Travel Demand Model White Paper

                    Figure B.2: Origin-Destination Data Collection




                                           

Version December 18, 2008
                                      Page B-6

				
DOCUMENT INFO