Bellevue-Kirkland-RedmondTravel Demand Modeling ExperienceTravel Demand Modeling Experience

Jin Ren, P.E.

City of Bellevue, Washington, USA

October 19, 2004

18th International EMME/2 User’s Conference Mexico City, Mexico

Puget Sound

Lake Washington Lake

Sammamish

SEATTLE

I-405

SR-520

I-90

Mercer Island

I-5

KIRKLAND

I-5

I-405

REDMOND

BELLEVUE

0 17,000 34,0008,500

Feet.

Introduction

EMME/2 BKR Model Since 1991 MP0 – Base Year Model Platform MP6 – 6-Year Short-Range MP MP12 – Mid-Range 12 Year MP MP20 – Long-Range 20 Year MP MP30 – Long-Range 30 Year MP

BKR Model Enhancements Migrating multiple off-model functions to a complete 4-step

EMME/2 macro process Tying trip generation to household cross-classification Introducing multi-class (SOV and HOV) auto assignments EMME/2 Network match-up with GIS tiger line file Calibrating to the 1999 regional household travel survey Updating with new 2000 census data Building a transit modeling capability with capacity

constrained assignment Park-&-Ride lot capacity constrained mode splits

BKR Model Application Annual base year model calibration and validation (MP0) Street closure/construction traffic diversion analysis (MP0) Annual Transportation Concurrency Update (MP6) Development review modeling (MP6) 2015 Transportation Facility Plan Update (MP12) 2004 update of traffic impact fee schedule (MP12 and MP6) 2015 sub-area SOV/HOV traversal matrix (MP12) 2020 Bellevue Downtown Implementation Plan (MP20) Overlake Hospital Medical Center expansion (MP30)

Table 1: Final Validation of Trip Generation Models for the BKR Study Area

2003 BKR Modified 

with Census Data

1999 Household Survey for BKR Study 

Area

Model-Survey

Difference

Model-Survey Percent 

Difference

Home-Based Work 1.39 1.47 -0.08 -5.44%

Home-Based College 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00%

Home-Based School 1.12 1.17 -0.04 -3.41%

Home-Based Shop 3.14 3.17 -0.03 -0.95%

Home-Based Other 0.49 0.51 -0.02 3.92%

Work-Other 0.67 0.66 0.02 3.03%

Other-Other 1.68 1.68 0.00 0.00%

Total 8.55 8.72 0.17 1.95%

Base Year Model Trip Generation

Base Year Model Trip Distribution

Table 2: Final BKR Area Average Trip Duration by Purpose (minutes)

MP0 R5 (2003) 1999 PSRC HH SURVEY 

DIFFERENCE PERCENT DIFFERENCE

HBW+HBC 19.34 18.89 0.45 2%

HBO+HBShop 11.46 12.24 -0.78 -6%

NHB 10.56 11.40 -0.84 -7%

HBSch 10.09 9.93 0.16 2%

Average 12.21 12.99 -0.78 -6%

Base Year Model Mode Choice         Table 3: 2003 BKR MP0 R5 Mode Choice Model Results vs. 1999 Regional Survey

Trip Types and Modes BKR MP0-R5(2003)

PSRC 1999 Household 

Survey

Model-Survey Difference

HBWTrips

Drive Alone 86.1% 85.8% 0.3%

Shared Ride 5.0% 5.2% -0.2%

Transit – Walk Access 6.8% 7.2% -0.4%

Transit – Auto Access 2.1% 1.8% 0.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

HBOTrips

Auto 99.1% 99.3% -0.2%

Transit 0.9% 0.7% 0.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

NHB Trips

Auto 99.1% 98.8% 0.3%

Transit 0.9% 1.2% -0.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 2: 2003 Base Year BKR Model PM Peak Hour Auto Traffic Screenlines: Model/Count Ratios

NORTH

SOUTH

EAST

EW

EW

NS

NS

NS

EW

EW

WEST

EW

EW

EW

EW

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

6

8

D

D

A

A

B C

C

B

C

D

A

A BC

D

A B C D E

E F

A B C

A B C

A

DA CB

A

F

D

CB

C

B

A

A

A

A B

B

7

C

B

5

NS

-2-B

EL

:CB

D

NS

-1-B

EL

:CB

D

NS

-1-B

EL

NS-

2-BE

L

EW-2-BEL

NS

-1-R

ED

EW-1-RED

EW-1-BEL:CBD

EW-2-BEL:CBD

EW-3-BEL:CBD

NS

-1-O

V

NS

-2-O

V

EW-1-BEL

NS

-3-R

ED

NS

-2-R

ED

EW-4-BEL

EW-3-BEL

NS-4-RED

0.96

0.93

1.10

1.08

1.23

0.94

1.16

1.04

1.03

1.09

1.01

1.11

1.20

1.06

1.02

0.98

0.97

0.99

1.32

1.29 1.12

1.21

1.00

0.88

0.87

0.98

0.96

1.06

1.09

1.05

0.95

1.021.11

Lake Washington

Lake Sammamish

V:\tr\ai\planning\Modeling\bkrscreen_2003_a.mxd

Base Year Model v.s. Actual Counts

Figure 4. 2003 PM PK Hr. Network Forecast v.s. 2003 Actual Traffic Counts

Figure 5: 2002 Base Year PM Peak Hour NE 4th Street Select Link Assignment

Street Closure Select Link Analysis (MP0)

Figure 6: 2002 Base Year PM PK Hr. Volume Differences with/without NE 4th Street

Street Closure Volume Changes (MP0)

Annual Transportation Concurrency Update (MP6)

Figure 8. City Center II Development PM PK Hour Select Project Trip Assignment

Development Review Modeling (MP6)

2015 Transportation Facility Plan (MP12) - Impact Fee Assessment

• Select link TFP group assignments by 14 Sub-areas, based on MP12 (a downtown example is shown in Figure 9)

• Select link TFP group assignments by 14 Sub-areas, based on MP6 (2003 Existing + Permitted LU)

• Select link group trip tables by sub-area for MP12 and MP6• Sub-area traffic growth rates related to TFP select link groups• TFP Growth Cost = (Sub-area traffic growth rates) X (TFP total

costs by sub-area)• Average Cost Per Trip = TFP Growth Costs / Sub-area Trip Growth• Cost Per Trip by commercial, non-commercial and city-wide areas

Figure 9: 2015 Select TFP Link Group Identified in Downtown Bellevue

Select TFP Link Group in Downtown Bellevue

SOV/HOV Traversal Matrix (MP12)

Figure 10: 2015 TFP MP12 145th Pl Sub-area In-Gate and Out-Gate Link ID

Bellevue Downtown Implementation Plan (MP20)

Figure 11: 2020 PM PK Hr. Traffic Difference (Preferred Alternative – Baseline) Plot

Overlake Hospital Expansion (MP30)

Figure 12: 2030 OHMC Expansion/NE 10th w/Ramps Select SOV PM PK Hr. Trip Assignment

Overlake Hospital Expansion (MP30)

Fig. 13: 2030 OHMC Expansion/NE 10th w/Ramps Select HOV PM PK Hr. Trip Assignment

Interlocal Agreement AmongBellevue-Kirkland-Redmond

• BKR Model Platforms Are Shared Among BKR Partners• BKR Model Is Annually Maintained and Upgraded

through Jurisdictional Partnership• Variety of EMME/2 Applications in the Cities of BKR• Time Savings, Cost Sharing, Data and Technical

Support• Enhance Opportunities to Influence Transportation

Decision Making at the Local, Sub-Regional and Regional Level Planning

• These Benefits Are Demonstrated by the Above Discussed Examples