Appendix B Forecast Methodology Reports · Appendix B Forecast Methodology Reports I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Cook County, Illinois Prepared For: Illinois Department of Transportation

Appendix B

Forecast Methodology Reports I-290 Eisenhower Expressway

Cook County, Illinois

Prepared For:

Illinois Department of Transportation

Prepared By:

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

September 2016

Appendix B Table of Contents

FORECASTING METHODOLOGY REPORTS

Appendix B-1 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation

Appendix B-2 Historic and Forecasted Growth of Population, Households and

Employment in the Extended Region of Chicago

NoBuild MarketDriven versus PolicyBased SocioEconomic

Forecasts (20102040) and I290 Build Forecasts

AppendixB1

I290TravelForecastingModelMethodologyandValidation

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study Cook County, Illinois

Prepared For: Illinois Department of Transportation

Prepared By: WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff

September 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study i I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1

1.1 PurposeoftheTechnicalMemorandum.............................................................1

1.2 BackgroundoftheI290TravelModelProcess.................................................1

1.3 Opportunity&NeedforanI290ModelEnhancement..................................2

1.4 ContinuousI290ModelImprovement...............................................................3

2.0 MODELPREPARATION...............................................................................................4

2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4

2.2 TrafficAnalysisZones...........................................................................................5

2.3 I290CodedHighwayNetwork............................................................................62.3.1 BackgroundonHighwayCoding.............................................................62.3.2 DecisionRulesforHighwayCoding......................................................11

2.4 SocioeconomicData..............................................................................................11

3.0 TRAVELMODELENHANCEMENTS......................................................................12

3.1 NeedfortheModelEnhancements...................................................................12

3.2 HouseholdPersonTripGenerationModel......................................................12

3.3 TripDistribution...................................................................................................153.3.1 PreDistributionTransitAccessParameters..........................................153.3.2 PreDistributionTravelCostModel.......................................................15

3.4 TransitNetworksandModelApproach...........................................................21

3.5 ModeChoiceUpdates..........................................................................................223.5.1 ProjectApproach.......................................................................................223.5.2 DescriptionsofModelCoefficients.........................................................223.5.3 ModeChoiceCoefficientsforDifferentModelApplications.............23

3.6 ModeChoiceHighOccupancyVehicleIntegration....................................253.6.1 NonWorkHighOccupancyVehicleModeShareEstimation...........253.6.2 TollandNonTollModeChoice.............................................................25

3.7 TrafficAssignment...............................................................................................26

3.8 ComputationalEnhancements............................................................................263.8.1 ModelBatchProcessing........................................................................263.8.2 Parallel(Multithreaded)StandardTrafficAssignment......................27

3.9 ModelPostProcessing..........................................................................................27

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study ii I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation

4.0 2010VALIDATIONOFTHEI290MODEL.............................................................29

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................29

4.2 RegionalModelValidation.................................................................................294.2.1 ObservedData...........................................................................................294.2.2 RegionalScaleValidationTests...............................................................31

4.3 PeakPeriodsTrafficandPercentageofDaily.................................................33

4.4 PeakPeriodVolume/CapacityRatio.................................................................34

4.5 I290Corridor.........................................................................................................35

4.6 Findings...................................................................................................................37

List of Tables

Table21.CodedVariablesinI290Network..........................................................................9Table22.SocioeconomicForecastTotalsfor2010...............................................................11Table31.HouseholdVehicleOwnershipFile......................................................................13Table32.ControlVariablesIn&PARAMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips....................17Table33.ControlVariablesin&PROCESSNamelistforHomeWorkTrips..................18Table34.ControlVariablesin&OptionNamelistforHomeWorkTrips.......................19Table35.ControlVariablein&SYSTEMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips.......................20Table36.ControlVariablesin&TABNUMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips..................21Table37.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeWorkTrips.........................24Table38.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeNWandNHTrips.............24Table39.VehicleClassesforTrafficAssignment.................................................................26Table41.NumberofCountLocationsbyClass(UsingVDFFunctionGroup)...............30Table42.TrafficValidationbyVolumeClass.......................................................................32Table43.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Eastbound).......................34Table44.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Westbound).....................34Table45.I290MainlineTrafficComparison(Observedvs.Modeled).............................36

List of Figures

Figure21.CMAPTrafficAnalysisZoneSystem...................................................................6Figure22.DetailedNetworkCodingintheI290Corridor...............................................10Figure41.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData..........................................................30Figure42.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData(Closeup).......................................31Figure43.Volume/CapacityRatioforthePMPeak2010....................................................35Figure44.2010I290DailyTrafficEstimate..........................................................................36

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study 1 I-290 Travel Forecasting Model Methodology and Validation

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Technical Memorandum

ThepurposeofthismemorandumistosummarizetheI290travelmodelingprocessandmethodology,topresenttheassumptionsusedintheeffort,andtoprovidetheresultsofthevalidationofthebaseyearscenario.Thisdocumentwillbeorganizedasfollows:

1. Introductiona. BackgroundoftheI290ModelUpdateProcessb. Opportunity&NeedforI290ModelEnhancement

2. ModelPreparationa. ZoneSystemb. Networkc. SocioeconomicData

3. ModelEnhancementsa. TripGenerationb. TripDistributionc. ModeChoiced. TrafficAssignment

4. 2010I290ModelValidationResultsa. RegionalLevelTrafficValidation(SixCounty)b. PeakPeriodTrafficValidationc. PeakPeriodVolume/CapacityRatiosd. I290CorridorDailyTrafficValidation

1.2 Background of the I-290 Travel Model Process

TheI290travelmodeldevelopmentandapplicationispartofalargerpreliminaryengineeringandenvironmentalimpactstatementthatincludesalternativesevaluation,noiseanalysis,airqualityanalysis,geometricdesignstudies,trafficandsafetystudies,andeconomicandfinancialanalysesthatrequireinputsfromthetravelmodel.

Aninitialfeasibilitystudyofahighoccupancyvehicle(HOV)laneonI290EisenhowerExpresswaywascompletedin1998i.Thefeasibilitystudycontained1990and2010futuretrafficestimatesforanHOVlaneandthegeneralpurposelanes.SincetheHOVlanefeasibilitystudy,thefollowinghasoccurred:


RegionaltraveldemandmodelimprovementsimplementedbytheChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning(CMAP),formerlytheChicagoAreaTransportationStudy(CATS).

Preparationof2020,2030,and2040LongRangeTransportationPlansfornortheasternIllinois

ConductofCMAP20072008TravelTrackerHouseholdSurveyandnewCensustraveldata.

TherebuildingoftheHillsideInterchangesectionoftheI290EisenhowerExpressway.

1.3 Opportunity & Need for an I-290 Model Enhancement

SincetheinitialHOVfeasibilitystudy,additionalconsiderationshavecometolightthataffectthemodelapplicationandplanningassumptions.Regionalsocioeconomicforecastsofpopulation,households,andemploymenthavebeenupdatedduringthisperiod,andtheforecastshorizonyearisnow2040.TheregionslongrangetransportationplanhassimilarlygonethroughseveralrevisionsandprojecttrafficforecastsmusttakeintoaccountfacilitiesandpoliciesinthecurrentGOTO2040ComprehensiveRegionalPlanii.

TheCATSregionaltraveldemandmodelswerepreviouslybasedon1990householdtravelsurvey,iiiwhichwasoneofthebasicsourcesoftripratesanddistributions,alongwiththe1990Censusjourneytoworkdataiv.Morecurrenttravelandsocioeconomicdataarenowavailable.CMAPhasrecentlycompletedacomprehensivehouseholdtravelandactivitysurveyfornortheasternIllinoisvthatupdatesthe1990effort.DatacollectionfortheCMAPTravelTrackersurveytookplacebetweenJanuary2007andFebruary2008withmorethan10,500householdsparticipatinginthesurvey.

Additionally,the2010decennialcensusproductprovidedotherbasedatafortheregion.Thelongformhouseholdsampleportionofthedecennialcensus,whichcollectedjourneytoworkandotherdetailedhouseholdandpopulationcharacteristics,isnolongerpartofthe2010andfuturedecennialcensuses.LongformdataarenowcontinuouslycollectedbytheCensusBureauthroughtheAmericanCommunitySurveyvi(ACS),whichannuallysamplesapproximatelythreemillionhouseholdsnationally.AlthoughtheannualsampleofhouseholdsfortheACSisfarsmallerthanthenumberofhouseholdsthatpreviouslyreceivedthelongforminthedecennialcensus,roughlycomparablequalitydatacanbeobtainedbycombiningmultipleyearsoftheACS.

Thetraveldemandmodelsusedforthetrafficforecastsintheinitialfeasibilitymadeuseofregionalcodedhighwaynetworksandregionwidetrafficanalysiszonesmaintained


byCMAP.Theseregionalcodedhighwaynetworksexcludemostlocalstreets.AfurtherabstractionistheCMAPschematiccodingofintersectionsandinterchangestoreducelaborintensivedataentry.Evaluationofthetrafficestimatesfromthesestudiesindicatedthatamoredetailedanalysisofcorridortrafficwasdesirablebothtoimprovethemodelssensitivitytocorridorimprovementsandtounderstandtheeffectsofcongestedoperatingconditions.

TheneedsofthecurrentI290Study,theavailabilityofCMAPsmodelsetsandexpertise,andnewsourcesofhouseholdandtripmakingdatacombinedtoprovidetheframeworkfortheI290modeladaptationandupdate.InkeepingwiththecongruencewithCMAPplanningandtravelmodelingactivities,thebaseyearfortheI290studyis2010.Thismemoreportsontheestablishmentandvalidationofthe2010baseyear.Ingeneral,modelvalidationservestwokeypurposes:

Establishesamodelscenariointhecurrentyear(2010)thatmatchesobservedtrafficconditions.ThemajorobservedelementsareIDOTAverageAnnualDailyTraffic(AADT),peakperiodtrafficandpeakspeeds.Whilethefocusisthestudycorridor,thebaseyearvalidationalsoshowsthatthetravelmodelisreplicatingcurrenttrafficlevelsthroughouttheregion.Forexample,inavalidatedI290model,interstatefacilitiesthroughouttheregionwillhavemodeledtrafficclosetotheobservedvalues.

Preparesasolidfoundationforafuturebaseyear.Onceavalidatedcurrentyeartravelmodelisinplace,itisunderstoodthatthesocioeconomicinputs,modelstepsandparametersareworkingcorrectlyandthatfuturebaseandalternativescenarioswillhaveanaccuratestartingpoint.

The2010validationhasbeencompleted.The2040baseyearwaspreparedandcomparedtothe2010.2040alternativesintheStudyAreawerethendevelopedandtested.Itisimportanttonotethatthealternativesevaluationfocusesonrelativedifferences,ratherthanabsolutenumbers;the2040alternativesarecomparedtothe2040base.

1.4 Continuous I-290 Model Improvement

Intheyearsbetween2010and2015,theI290TravelModelreceivedcontinuousenhancement.Muchofthisenhancementwasrelatedtoevolvingrequirementsformodelcomponents,suchastolling,HOV(HighOccupancyVehicle)andHOT(HighOccupancyToll)lanesmodelalternativesandreportingprotocol.Otherenhancementsareduetotheavailabilityofnewdata,suchasthe2010and2040MarketBasedsocioeconomicforecastsasinputtotheI290model.In20132014,theI290travelmodelswerepreparedusingallenhancementsavailabletothemodels.Thisreportwillpresentandexplaintheenhancements.


2.0 Model Preparation

2.1 Introduction

TheI290travelmodelpreparationinvolvedtwomajorareas.Thefirstwasthepreparationoftheinputfiles,bothgeographic(network)anddatarelated(socioeconomicdata).Thesecondkeyareawascomposedofchangestothefourstepmodelstructure.Thissectionwilladdressthepreparationoftheinputfilestothemodel.AllpreparationstepsandfourstepmodelchangesweredonetoenhancethecapabilityofthemodeltoanalyzeI290scenarios.

ThephilosophyoftheI290modelcanbesummarizedbythefollowingpoints:

FidelitytotheCMAPmodelsThegoalofthecurrentI290modelupdateprocessistoadaptandutilizeI290StudysocioeconomicforecastsandtraveldemandmodelforthepurposeofstudyingthetrafficontheI290corridorbetweenwestofMannheimRoadtojustwestoftheJaneByrneInterchange.

DetailedI290SubareaGiventhattheStudyAreaencompassestheI290facility,butalsotheparallelroadwayssuchasRooseveltRoadandMadison/WashingtonStreets,itwasnecessarytobuildadetailednetworkwithintheStudyArea.TheCMAPrepresentationalhighwaynetworkwasenhancedbypreparingagroundtruthedarticulatednetworkofI290.ThistaskinvolvedaprocesscalledconflationinwhichtheCMAPmodelhighwaysegmentsandattributeinformationweretransferredtoahighlyaccurateGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)datalayer.Asanexample,thecomplexrampingconfigurationsontheI290interchangeswereaddedtothestartingpointCMAPnetworksothatthetruedistanceandintersectiongeometrycouldbecaptured.ThisdetailednetworkeditingincludedI290highwaycenterlineconflation,rampplacementanddirectionality,andtheconfirmationofthenumberofmainlineandsliplanesonthefacility.Theplacementofcentroidconnectorlinkswasalsorevisitedaspartofthenetworkediting.

IncomeandAutoOccupancyWhereitisconceptuallyrequired,majornewmoduleswereaddedtotheCMAPmodels.ThemostimportantonewasthestratificationoflowandhighincomeworkerswithintheHomeBasedWork(HBW)tripdistributionandmodesplitmodels.Thelow/highincomecategoriesareretainedthroughthetriptableestimationandproduceSingleOccupancyVehicle(SOV),HighOccupancyVehicle(HOV2andHOV3+)hometoworktables,eachcontainingsomelowandsomehighincomeworkers.

FocusonEfficiencyandComparabilityTheregionalmodelwithallupdatesandrevisionswillberunforthe2010base,2040NoBuildand2040generalizedbuild


casesinthefullmodeliterationmodetoestablishmodeloutputsthatareveryhighlyconverged.

SensitivityTestingTheoverallreasonforbuildingthemodelistotestalternativesintheI290transportationcorridor.Sensitivitytestswereconductedincluding:

IdentificationofRegionalUsersSelectlinkanalysisofrepresentativelinksegmentsonI290andtheparallelarterialsbydirectionbytimeofdayfortruckandpassengervehiclewereconducted.

EstimationofTransitUseThe2040RTP(conformity/fiscallyconstrained)transitnetworkwasusedforthe2040NoBuildcaseandwasthestartingpointfortransituseanalysis.Transitmeasureswillincludemodesplittripreportingoftheregionalimpactsofpotentialmajortransitalternativesinthecorridor.

InvestigationoftravelmodelLevelofServiceAssumptionsInvestigationintotheVolumeDelayFunctionsforuseinthemodeltorepresenteachoftheeighttimeperiodsinthemodelbyfacilitywasconducted.

2.2 Traffic Analysis Zones

TheCMAPtrafficanalysiszonesystemwasuseddirectlyintheI290corridor.Figure21showsthiszonesystemwiththeStudyAreahighlighted.Thereareatotalof1,944zonesplusseventeenexternalpointsofentrylocatedonmajorroadwaysattheborderoftheregionwherelongdistanceandthroughtrafficcanenterandleavetheregion.


Figure21.CMAPTrafficAnalysisZoneSystem

2.3 I-290 Coded Highway Network

2.3.1 Background on Highway Coding ThetravelmodelrequiredhighwaynetworkrefinementsintheexpandedStudyAreasothatsufficientdetailcouldbecapturedinthemodeltrafficassignmentresult.TheserefinementsaddedalocalstreetnetworktotheexistingnetworksothatitispossibletobetterevaluatetrafficonthefrontageroadsandparallellocalstreetsintheStudyArea.

Linksinthenetworkaretypicallyonlycodedbetweennodesthatcorrespondtointersectionsandrampjunctions.Whilemostintersectionsareaccuratelyplaced,rampjunctionnodesareoftenlocatedforeaseofrepresentation.Shapepointnodesarerarelyusedtoimprovecodedroadwayalignments.Asaresult,mapsofthecodednetworkarenotgeographicallyaccurate,whichincreasestheeffortrequiredtointerpretmodelresultsandpreparemeaningfulexhibits.

Themodelingof2040alternatives,suchasmanagedlaneswithintheEisenhowerExpresswaycorridor,increasesthecomplexityofthenetworkcodingsincetheselanesmustberestrictedtocertainclassesofvehicles.Theymayalsofunctiondifferentlydependingonthetimeofday,withdifferentpeakandoffpeakvehicleprohibitionsorlaneconfigurations,forexample.Thesefacilitiesalsomayserveamorelimitedsetof

0 10 20 30Miles

Ma

nn

he

i m

25

t h A

ve

I L 1

71

Ha

r le

m

Ce

nt r

al

Ci c

er o

Pu

l as

ki

Sa

cr

am

en

t o

We

st e

r n

As

hl a

nd

I290StudyArea


trafficmovementsthanthegeneralpurposelanes.Thecodedrepresentationofspecialandgeneralpurposelanes,aswellastheirpointsofaccess,mustcloselyresembletheactualfacilityinordertoensurethatthemodeledversionfunctionsasdesigned.

Asafirststep,twotiersofcorridorzonesoneoneithersideoftheexpresswaywereidentifiedasareaswarrantingmoredetailednetworkcoding.Northandsouthboundariesforthesetwotiersofcorridorzonesaretwoarterialstreetsparallelingtheexpressway,MadisonStreettothenorthandRooseveltRoadtothesouth.TheeastwestlimitsofthedetailedcodingextendedfromtheChicagocentralareatojustwestofTriStateTollway(I294).Locationsoflocalstreetsandfrontageroadsforthedetailednetworkcodingwereobtainedfromthestreetnetworkportionofthe2006CensusTopologicallyIntegratedGeographicEncodingandReferencingsystem(TIGER)linefilesvii.NodenumbersgreaterthanthehighestnodenumbersintheregionalnetworkwereassignedtointersectionsintheTIGERnetworkfiles.Networklinkfilesarecustomarilyinafromnodetotonodeformat,unliketheTIGERnetworklinks.TocreateanetworklikelinkfilefromtheTIGERstreetsegments,intersectionnodecoordinateswerematchedagainststreetsegmentendpointsandfromnodesandtonodestransferredtothestreetsegmentfile.Theresultingnetworklinkfilecontainedalinksdefiningnodenumbersandthedistancealongthelink.

NodesandlinksintheCMAPregionalnetworkwithinthedetailednetworkareaweredeleted.TIGERsourcenodesandlinkswerethencombinedwiththeremainingregionallinksandnodestoformI290projectnetworkfiles.Remainingcleanupofthenetworkfilesrequiredmanualcodingusingtransportationmodelingsoftware.

ThedetailedTIGERnetworkwasstitchedintotheregionalnetworkattheboundariesofthedetailedcoding.

ZonecentroidnodesplusaccesslinkstoconnectcentroidswiththehighwaynetworkwereaddedforthenewzonesintheI290corridor.

Eisenhowerlinksandexpresswaylocalstreetrampsweremanuallyadjustedtomorefaithfullyrepresenttheactualfacilitiesalignments.

Linkdataitemsfromtheregionalnetwork,notincludingdistance,werecopiedtocorrespondinglinksinthedetailednetwork.

Additionaldatasources,theIllinoisRoadwayInformationSystemviiiandairphotos,wereconsultedtocodedataitemsforadditionallinks.

Figure22showsthedetailednetworkwithinthezonesoneithersideoftheEisenhowerExpressway.Thefigurealsoshowszoneboundariesandthelocationsofzonecentroidnodes.Itisapparentfromthefigurethatevenwiththesmallerzones,thenumberofpointswheretrafficmayenterandleavethenetworkisstilllimitedcomparedtothedetailobtainedfromtheTIGERfiles.


Table21summarizesthecodingofthedifferentvariablefieldsinthenetworknodeandlinkrecords.Variablenamesthatareprecededbythesymbol@arevariablesthatmustbecodedinadditiontothestandardvariablesanticipatedbytheEMME/3ixtraveldemandmodelingsoftware.Assignmentofvehicletripstothecodedhighwaynetworkiscoveredinalatersection.TheEMME/3macroswerechangedtoallowhighwaysegmentstoserveHighOccupancyVehicles(HOVs)aloneinpreparationforthealternativetestinginthe2040models.ThelinkvolumedelayfunctionswererevisitedaspartoftheI290conversionalthoughtheydidnotdifferfromtheoriginalCMAPcodingprotocol.Andfinally,theCMAPTravelTracker2008surveyallowedforthereestimationofthefactorsthatallocatedailyvehicletripstotimeperiodswithinaday.TheissueofthevolumedelayfunctiontobeusedfortheHighOccupancyVehicle(HOV)andHighOccupancyToll(HOT)facilitieswillbeaddressedpriortothealternativestestingwhentraveltimesintheStudyAreawillbeanimportantfocus.


Table21.CodedVariablesinI290Network

(I290ProjectSpecificCodinginBoldface)

NodeVariables Description

@zone I290zonewherenodeislocated

AreatypeofI290zone1=insideChicagoCBD(zones147)2=insideChicagoCentralArea(zones4877)3=insideremainderofChicago4=insideinnersuburbswheretheChicagomajorandminorarterialstreetgridiscontinued5=insideremainderofChicagourbanizedarea6=insideIndianaurbanizedarea7=insideremainingIllinoissuburbanurbanizedareas(Joliet,McHenry,etc.)8=insideremainingIndianasuburbanurbanizedareas9=insideremainingnortheasternIllinoisurbanarea10=rural11=externalareacoveredbyKenosha,Walworth,Racine,Boone,Winnebago,DeKalb,Ogle,Lee,LaSalle,Grundy,Kankakee,Porter,andLaPortecounties.12=areaofdetailednetworkwithinI290corridor99=pointsofentryintoregion

LinkVariablesModespermittedonlinkA=GeneralizedautoS=SingleoccupantautoH=HighoccupancyvehicleT=Generaltruckb=Bplatetruckl=Lighttruckm=Mediumtruckh=heavytruck

lan Numberofdrivinglanes1=arterialstreet2=freeway3=freeway/expresswayrampfrom/toarterialstreet4=expressway5=freeway/expresswaytofreeway/expresswayramp6=autoaccesstonetwork7=linkwheretollispaid8=meteredexpresswayentranceramp9=collectordistributorandlocalstreetlinksinI290corridordetailednetwork1=default10=POEconnector88=collectordistributorlinksinI290corridordetailednetwork99=localstreetlinksinI290corridordetailednetwork

@speed linkfreespeedorspeedlimitfromCATS/CMAPnetwork@parkl numberofparkinglanesonlinkfromCATS/CMAPnetwork@width average lane width in feet

@atypej

mod

vdf

typ


Figure22.DetailedNetworkCodingintheI290Corridor

EasternPortionfromAustinAvenue(6000West)toLakefront

WesternPortionfromEasternDuPageCountytoCentralAvenue(5600West)

ZoneBorder


2.3.2 Decision Rules for Highway Coding ThenetworkcodingpreparedfortheI290Studyfollowedtheseguidelines:

ProvideadequatehighwaydetailtocapturemovementonbothI290andtheparallelroadways.IncludethecapabilitytoreflectinterstatetointerstatemovementsthatarerationalpathchoicesforI290travelers.

Providenetworkdetailatonelevelbelowthedesiredanalysislevelofdetail.PreviousstudiesinthecorridorhaveshownthatnetworkdetailwithinawidebandofinfluenceintheI290studycorridorwillbehelpfulinalternativesanalysis.

BuildahighlydetailedI290studynetworkwithallinterchanges,mergesandlaneconfigurationsmatchingtheactualphysicalfacility.

Withinthefocusedzonearea,plusaonemilebuffer,identifythelocationsforandcodemultiplecentroidconnectors.

Preparefora2040Baselinenetwork.ThisnetworkwillnotincludeanycapacityenhancementsonI290,althoughitdoesinclude2040RegionalTransportationPlanhighwayandmajortransitelementsoutsideoftheStudyArea.

2.4 Socioeconomic Data

ThesocioeconomicdatausedfortheI290studyareMarketBasedsocioeconomicforecastsdevelopedbyThealChalabiGroupfortheI290study.xTable22showsthetotalsforhouseholdsandemploymentfor2010thatarebasedon2010Censusdata.

Table22.SocioeconomicForecastTotalsfor2010

County Households Employment

# of Households % of Regional # of Workers % of Regional

Cook 1,966,343 64% 3,125,691 64%

DuPage 337,132 11% 689,725 14%

Will 225,259 7% 252,316 5%

Lake 241,709 8% 428,851 9%

Kane 170,484 6% 257,348 5%

McHenry 109,200 4% 134,820 3%

Kendall 38,021 1% 29,806 1%

SixCountySubtotal 3,088,148 100% 4,918,557 100%

AllOtherCounties* 754,313 754,839

GrandTotal 3,842,461 5,673,396 Source:ACGI290Build&NoBuildSocioeconomicReport&Forecasting062014


Table22showsover3millionhouseholdsandover4.9millionworkersfor2010inthesixcountyarea.64percentofthesehouseholdsandemploymentlieinCookCounty.DuPageCountycontains11percentoftheregionalhouseholdsand14percentoftheemployment.

3.0 Travel Model Enhancements

3.1 Need for the Model Enhancements

ThezonalandnetworkdisaggregationdiscussedinSection2wereconductedinparalleltothetravelmodelenhancementwork.ThetravelmodelenhancementwasdoneateachleveloftheCMAPfourstepmodel:(1)tripgeneration,(2)tripdistribution,(3)modechoice,and(4)trafficassignment.AddedtothecorecapabilitiesoftheadaptedCMAPmodelwerethecapabilitytomodelandanalyzeHighOccupancyVehicle(HOV)lanes,HighOccupancyToll(HOT)lanes,andtolllanes.Additionally,abatteryofpostprocessingmoduleswasbuilttoprovidefullreportingcapabilityfortheI290custommodelresults.Theseincludedthemeansofsummarizingallautomodes,truckresults,andcorridorspecificsummariessuchaspersonthroughputforautoandtransit.

3.2 Household Person Trip Generation Model

TheCMAPhouseholdtripgenerationmodelinitiallyusedfortheI290workwasobtainedfromCMAPin2009.OnlyminorchangestothisversionofthemodelwerecompletedaspartofthefirstroundoftheI290project.Themostsignificantenhancementwastheoptiontocreateafileofestimatedhouseholdvehicleownershiplevelsbythesubzonesthatareusedbythetripgenerationmodel.

Forbackground,the2009updatedCMAPhouseholdpersontripgenerationmodelhasthefollowingfeatures:

Tripgenerationratesforpersonsresidinginhouseholdsareestimatedwithtripdatafromthe20072008CMAPhouseholdtravelsurvey.

ModelinputscanreadilybeupdatedwithongoingACSdata.

Asyntheticfourdimension(adultsworkerschildrenincomequartile)distributionofhouseholdsinto224categoriesisestimatedforeverytripgenerationsubzone.

Tripendestimatesindetailedtripcategoriescanbeoutputincludinghomeworktripsbylowandhighincomeworkers.

Attractionallocation,householdvehicleownership,andnonmotorizedsubmodelsarerevisedandreestimatedwith20072008householdtravelsurveydata.


ThesequenceoftraveldemandmodelsfortheI290projectincludesamodechoicemodelthatallocatespersontripsintopersontripsbydrivealoneprivatevehicle,twopersonsridesharing,andthreeormorepersonscarpooling.Thesubmodechoicemodelforprivatevehiclesincludesindependentvariablesfortheproportionsofhouseholdswithinazoneatdifferentlevelsofvehicleownership.SincethehouseholdvehicleownershipsubmodelintheCMAPtripgenerationmodelestimatestheseproportions,thesamevaluesofhouseholdvehicleownershipshouldbeusedinbothtripgenerationandmodechoiceforinternalconsistency.

Anoptionwasincorporatedintothetripgenerationcodetoretainthehouseholdvehicleownershipestimatesforlateruseinmodechoice.ThefixedformatforthisfileislistedinTable31.Lowincomeworkersaredefinedasworkerswithbelowmedianregionalearningsandhighincomeworkershaveabovemedianearnings.

Table31.HouseholdVehicleOwnershipFile

Variable Location

I290Zone 15

HouseholdswithOneorMoreLowIncomeWorkers

FractionofHouseholdswithoutVehicles 617(12.4)

FractionofHouseholdswithOneVehicle 1829(12.4)

FractionofHouseholdswithTwoorMoreVehicles 3041(12.4)

HouseholdswithOneorMoreHighIncomeWorkers

FractionofHouseholdswithoutVehicles 4253(12.4)

FractionofHouseholdswithOneVehicle 5465(12.4)

FractionofHouseholdswithTwoorMoreVehicles 6677(12.4)

Akeywordwasaddedtotheprogramcontrolfiletooptionallycreatethehouseholdvehicleownershipfile.The&PARAMand&ENDstatementsidentifythebeginningandendoftheNAMELISTinputfilethatnowincludesthefollowingkeywordvariables.

1. TITLE:An80characternameidentifyingthemodelrunenclosedinsinglequotes.

2. SUBZONES:TripgenerationsubzonesintheStudyArea.


3. PUMA5:FivepercentsamplePublicUseMicrodataAreasinthemodeledStudyArea.

4. PUMA1:OnepercentsamplePublicUseMicrodataAreasinthemodeledStudyArea.

5. ZONES:ZonesusedintheremainingCMAPmodelsfortripdistribution(linkingoftripendsintotripsbetweenzones),modechoice(allocationoftripstotravelmodes),andassignment(allocationoftripstohighwayandtransitroutes).

6. COUNTIES:CountiesintheStudyArea.

7. PUMA_TG:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalse.Whentruethemodelslogicincludesanoptionalsubroutinethatpreparesanupdated(future)fourwaycrosstabulationofhouseholdswithinsubzones.Thisnewtableisbasedupon(future)largeareaaveragehouseholdcharacteristicsandtheinitial(baseyear)crosstabulatedhouseholdtable.

8. SAVE_FILE:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalseandcausesallintermediateprogramfilestoberetainedafterthemodelruniscompleted.

9. EXP_TTYPE:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalse.Whentrue,allfilesandreportsincludefortyninetriptypesbasedupontrippurposesintheCMAPhouseholdtravelsurvey.Whenfalse,filesandreportshavetheeleventriptypesinthecurrentCMAPtripgeneration.

10. MODE_CHOICE:Atrue/falsevariablethatdefaultstofalse.Theoptionalhouseholdvehicleownershipfile(Table2)iscreatedwhenkeywordistrue.

11. IN_EMPFACT:EmploymentinIndianaismultipliedbythisfactor,whichdefaultsto1.00.ThisvariableandthefollowingoneforWisconsinareincludedtooffsetpossiblesystematicdifferencesinemploymentdefinitionsandestimationmethodsbetweenCMAPandneighboringMPOs.

12. WI_EMPFACT:EmploymentinWisconsinisfactoredbythisvaluethatdefaultsto1.00.

In20092010,ParsonsBrinckerhoffstaffwasaskedbyCMAPtoprepareenhancementstotheTripGenerationprogramincluding:

Updatingthebaseyeartripgenerationmodelinputsto2010withCensus2010SummaryFile1smallareapopulationdataand20052009ACSandACSPUMS.

ReestimatingdifferentialtripgenerationratesformembersofseniorandyoungerhouseholdsfromtheCMAPhouseholdtravelsurvey.

Revisingtripgenerationmodelcodetoincorporateageofhouseholder.


Preparingautilityprogramthatcreatesadatabasewithdiscreterecordsenumeratinghouseholdsbysize,numberofworkers,incomelevel,vehiclesavailabletohousehold,andageofhouseholderfromintermediatetripgenerationworkfiles.

Revisinggroupquarterstripgenerationproceduretoincludeuniversity/collegedormsandmilitaryfacilities.

Adjustingbiascoefficientsinhouseholdvehicleownershipandnonmotorizedtripgenerationsubmodelsasneededtoreproduceobserved2010levels.

ThetripgenerationupdateswereutilizedintheRound2andRound3oftheI290modelruns.

3.3 Trip Distribution

3.3.1 Pre-Distribution Transit Access Parameters Transitaccessparametersstoredintwolegacytripdistributioninputfiles(M01.datandDISTR.dat)werereviewedandupdatedforboth2010and2040.ThesefileinputswerepreparedusingspatialanalysiswithaGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)tool.

3.3.2 Pre-Distribution Travel Cost Model ThenextmodelinthesequenceofCMAPregionaltravelmodelsestimatesthehighwayandtransitcostsfortripsbetweenzonesforusebytheagencystripdistributionmodel.CostsareherecalculatedasintheCMAPmodechoicemodelandthepredistributioncodeislargelythesameasthemodechoicemodelcode.

TheoverridingobjectiveforrevisitingthismodelintheI290projectwastomakeallcostcalculationsinthemodelconsistentwithcurrent,ornearcurrent,regionalconditions.Tothisend,costparametersthataremodelcontrolvariablesandinputfilescontainingdatausedinthemodelscostcalculationswerereviewedandupdated.

ThepredistributionmodelreadsdatadirectlyfromanEMME/3databank,alargedatafilethatcontainsallnetworkandzonedataprocessedbytheEMME/3travelmodelingsoftware.AfewminorchangesinthecodewererequiredtoreflectthenamingofthedatabankasEMMEBANKbythemostrecentversionoftheEMME/3software.

HomeWorkControlVariables

Table32liststhecontrolvariablesfortripsbetweenhomeproductionsandworkattractions.Thesevariablesarereadintothepredistributionmodelthroughfivenamelistvariablelists,listsofcontrolvariablescontainedbetweenan&NAMEidentifierbeforethelist(&PARAM,&OPTION,&PROCESS,&SYSTEM,and&TABNUM)andan&ENDattheendofthelist.ThetableincludesthevariablevaluesinthecurrentCMAP


modelsetupforregionalplanningandthevaluesusedintheI290projectplusabriefrationaleforanyadjustmentoftheCMAPvalues.

Thecoefficientsinthemodechoicemodeldatefromtheoriginalmodelestimationbasedon1970traveldata.Inparticular,thecoefficientsfortravelcostsreflect1970dollarvalues.SincecostsintheI290projectareincurrentdollars,thesecoefficientsneededtobeadjusted.TheHistoricalConsumerPriceIndexforallUrbanConsumersxiindicatesthata1970dollarwouldbeworth$5.55incurrentdollarsandthecostcoefficientswerereducedaccordingly.


Table32.ControlVariablesIn&PARAMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips

Variable Description CMAPRegionalPlanning Project ReasonforChange

ZONESHighestzonenumber,mustbelessthanor equaltoEMMEBANK

1944 2233Internalzonesfor I290

project

CBDZONCBDzonenumbers(maximumof200zones)

177 177I290projectzonesdefinedasChicagocentralarea

RNSEED

Randomnumber seed(aninteger value

between0and9999with0implyingarandomvalue)

1934 1934Arbitrary integervalueset

toallow comparisonbetweenmodelruns

1.0.0186(Autoor transitlinehaulinvehicletimeinminutes)

1.0.0186 1.CMAPhistoricalvalue

2.0.0072(Autolinehaulcostsortransitlinehaulandaccess/egresscostsincents)

2.0.001302.CMAPvaluefactoredby 0.18(2008to1970UrbanConsumersPriceIndex)

3.0.0584(Autowalktimeto/fromparkingor transitaccess/egressinvehicletimeinminutes)


4.2.000(Transitbias) 4.0.04.Transitbiasnotincludedincosts

5.0.0399(Transitlinehaulandaccess/egressoutofvehicletimeinminutes)


6.0.0811(Halfheadwayoffirsttransitlinehaulserviceboardedinminutes)


1.0.0159(Autoor transitlinehaulinvehicletimeinminutes)


2.0.0085(Autolinehaulcostsor transitlinehauland

access/egresscostsincents)2.0.00153

2.CMAPvaluefactoredby 0.18(2008to1970UrbanConsumersPriceIndex)

3.0.0486(Autowalktimeto/fromparkingor transit

access/egressinvehicletimeinminutes)


4.0.0(Transitbias) 4.0.04.Transitbiasnotincluded

incosts5.0.0290(Transitlinehaulandaccess/egressoutofvehicletime

inminutes)5.0.0290 5.CMAPhistoricalvalue

6.0.0173(Halfheadwayoffirsttransitlinehaulserviceboarded

inminutes)6.0.0173 6.CMAPhistoricalvalue

COEFF1

Sixcoefficientsinmodechoicemodeltoweightcostcomponentsfor tripswithdestinationsnotinCBD

COEFF2

Sixcoefficientsinmodechoicemodeltoweightcostcomponentsfor

tripswithdestinationsinCBD


Table32.ControlVariablesin&PARAMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips(continued)

Table33.ControlVariablesin&PROCESSNamelistforHomeWorkTrips

ControlVariable Description

CMAPRegionalPlanning

I290Project ReasonforChange

PZOIProduction/origin

zonestobeprocessed11944 12233

MoreI290zonesduetodetailedzonesincorridor

QZOIAttraction/destinationzonestobeprocessed

11944 12233

ControlVariable Description CMAPRegionalPlanningI290Project

ReasonforChange

1.400(Chicagocentralarea) 1.800

1.ThebalanceofthecentralareaoutsidethezonescoveredbytheCBDparkingsubmodel.Settoapproximatelyhalftheonstreetratetoreflectfreeemployeeparking.

2.100(BalanceofChicago) 2.1002.Reflectsmostlyfreeemployeeparkingoutsidethecentralarea

3.100(Densesuburban) 3.2003.Approximatelyhalftheonstreetrateinbusinessdistrictsindensesuburbanarea

4.0(Low densitysuburban) 4.0 4.Generallyfreeemployeeparking

1.5(Chicagocentralarea) 1.5

2.3(BalanceofChicago) 2.3

3.3(Densesuburban) 3.3

4.3(Low densitysuburban) 4.3

1518, 27,2030, 930,3236, 3236,39,40 3941,

45,47,5557

ITER

Numberoftripssimulatedbetweenzonepairstoproduceaveragecostvalues

10 100Fasterprocessingspeedsallow farmoretripstobesimulatedinacceptabletimes

APC

Fourdailyparkingcostsforworklocationsintheregionincents

WFA

Fouraveragewalkingtimesfromparkedautotoworkplaceinminutes

1.DefaultvalueforthebalanceofthecentralareaoutsidethezonescoveredbytheCBDparkingsubmodel.

PRKZON

ZonenumberscoveredbyCBDparkingsubmodel(maximumof200zones)

Determinedbytheavailabilityofoffstreetparkingratedata


Table34.ControlVariablesin&OptionNamelistforHomeWorkTrips

ControlVariable

DescriptionCMAPRegional

PlanningI290Project

ReasonforChange

HWIndicateshomeproductionsandworkattractionsare

simulatedTRUE TRUE

HNWIndicateshomeproductionsandnonworkattractions

aresimulatedFALSE FALSE

OTH

Indicatesoriginsanddestinationswithouta

homeorworktripendaresimulated

FALSE FALSE

ASM_AREA

Indicatesparametersthatcontrolthesimulationofdistancefromtripendto

linehaultransitserviceareinputbyareatype(Chicago

centralarea,balanceofChicago,densesuburban

sparsesuburban)

FALSE FALSE

FALSE

(Note:regionaldefaultsareusedwhenbothASM_AREAand

ASM_ZONESarefalse,seediscussionofDISTR

inputfile)

TRUE

(Note:seediscussionofM023inputfilefor

values)

TRACE

Indicatesthatextensiveintermediateoutputisdesiredforprogram

debugging

FALSE FALSEUsedtocheckprogram

calculations

ASM_ZONES

Indicatesparametersthatcontrolthesimulationofdistancefromtripendto

linehaultransitserviceareinputbyzone(DISTRinput

file)

TRUE

New zonedistanceparametersestimatedforI290zonesystem,currentrailtransitandcommuterrailstations,existingCTAbusservice,andPACEregional

andfeederbus.

INCOST

Indicatesthatunitmodaltravelcostsareinputbyareatypeandnotsetto

programdefaults

TRUEModaltravelcostsrevisedtoapproximatecurrentvalues

inM023inputfile


Table35.ControlVariablein&SYSTEMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips


Table36.ControlVariablesin&TABNUMNamelistforHomeWorkTrips

ControlVariable Description I290Project

TABLE_FMD EMMEBANKinputtablenumberforfirsttransitmodeboarded

Tablenumbersdependupondatapreparationin

EMMEsoftware

TABLE_LMDEMMEBANKinputtablenumberforlast

transitmodeboarded

TABLE_IVT EMMEBANKinputtablenumberfortransitinvehicletime

TABLE_OVTEMMEBANKinputtablenumberfor

transitoutofvehicletime

TABLE_HWAYEMMEBANKinputtablenumberforheadwayoffirsttransitlineboarded

TABLE_PMDEMMEBANKinputtablenumberfor

prioritymode

TABLE_FARE EMMEBANKinputtablenumberfortransitfarespaid

TABLE_HTIME EMMEBANKinputtablenumberforhighwaytraveltime

TABLE_HDIST EMMEBANKinputtablenumberforhighwaydistancetraveledtime

TABLE_AUTILEMMEBANKoutputtablenumberfor

autogeneralcost

TABLE_TUTIL EMMEBANKoutputtablenumberfortransitgeneralcost

3.4 Transit Networks and Model Approach

TheStudyAreafeaturesseveralimportantrailandbustransitserviceswiththeCTAsBlueLine(OHareForestPark)ofthehighestimportance.CapturingthetransitmodeisintegraltogettingtravelrightintheI290corridor.TothisendtheCMAPtransitmodelswereexpandedandenhanced.ThefollowingchangesweremadewiththegoalofvalidatingtheI290corridorfortransit:

DailytransittripswerestratifiedbytrippurposeincludingtwoHomeBasedWorkincomeclassifications:HomeOtherandNonHomeBased.

Transitskimsweresetupdefiningfirstmodeandprioritymodetoinformthetransittripprocessingstepbelow.

TransittripstartandendpointwerecodedwithXYcoordinatestoutilizetheEMMEfunctionthatstepsawaysfromcentroidstartandendpointassumptionsandinsteadusespointlocation.Walkanddriveaccesswereestablishedfortransittripsbytransitmode.Metra,CTArailandbuswereestablishedasthetransitmodesintheregion.


Transitassignmentapproach,includingheadwaypreparation,wasestablished.Theassignedlinescanbesummarizedbylineandarealsousedasinputtoasetoftransitpostprocessing/reportingprograms.TheseprogramsincludeI290corridortransitpersonmilesandtransitscreenlines.

ThetransitprocedurewaswritteninasetofEMMEmacrosandincustomizeddataprocessingscriptssothatitisautomatedandrepeatable.TheresultsofthistransiteffortallowanalyststoquicklyshowthedifferenceontheCTABlueLineaswellascommuterrailandbusintheI290corridorgiventheadditionofanHOV,HOTortolllanescenario.TransitplaysakeyroleintheI290studyduetoitspresenceinthemedianofthefacilityandalsoduetotheinterplaybetweentransitandHOV.TransitusersaretypicallymorereadilyinfluencedbytheavailabilityofHOV/HOTthanareautodrivers.

3.5 Mode Choice Updates

3.5.1 Project Approach TheCMAPmodechoicemodelwaspartlyrecalibratedfortheI290studytoreflectcurrenttravelcostsandmodesharesintheregion.ThecalibrationprocessstartedwiththemodelcoefficientsthatwereestimatedsomeyearsbeforebyCATS,CMAPspredecessoragency,andcurrentlyusedforagencyplanningprojects.Thecostcoefficientswerenextadjustedsothatcostscouldbeexpressedincurrentdollars,ratherthan1970dollars,thedateofthesurveyusedfortheoriginalmodelestimation.TheConsumerPriceIndexforallUrbanConsumersindicatedthatone1970dollarequaledapproximately$5.50in20082009dollars.

Thefirstroundofcalibrationeffortconsistedofadjustingbiasconstantssothatresultingmodesharesestimatedbythemodelmatchedobservedmodeshares.Homeworkcoefficientswerecalibratedtoobserveddatainthe2000CensusTransportationPlanningPackage,whilehomeotherandnonhomemodelcoefficientswerecalibratedtodatafromtheCMAPNorthwesternIndianaRegionalPlanningCommission20072008householdtravelsurvey.ThisworkfittedthemodeltoreflectthatthereareverylongworktripstotheChicagocentralarea.

3.5.2 Descriptions of Model Coefficients 1. COEFF1:Sixmodelcoefficientsthatcontrolbinaryautotransitmodesharesfor

trips(homework,homenonwork,andnonhome)tononCBDdestinations.

a. COEFF1(1):Zonetozoneinvehicletimeonlinehaulmodesinminutes.

b. COEFF1(2):Zonetozoneautooperatingcostsorzonetozonelinehaultransitfarespluscoststoaccess/egresstransitserviceincents.


c. COEFF1(3):Invehicletimetoaccess/egresstransitinminutes.

d. COEFF1(4):Transitbiasconstant.Althoughanegativenumberduetothenegativesignassociatedwiththevariableinthetransitcost(negativeutility)calculation,itcanbeinterpretedastheaddedinherentcostofselectingtransit.

e. COEFF1(5):Zonetozoneoutofvehicletimeaccruedfromtheinitialtransitboardingtofinalalightingplustheoutofvehicletimetoaccess/egresstransitexceptforthetimespentwaitingfortheinitialboardingduetoservicefrequency(onehalfheadway)inminutes.

f. COEFF1(6):Onehalfheadwayoffirsttransitlineboardedinminutes.

2. COEFF2:SixmodelcoefficientsasdescribedabovethatcontrolbinaryautotransitmodesharesfortripstononCBDdestinations.

3. HOV_BIAS:Twobiasconstantsusedinthesubmodeltoallocatehomeworkpersontripsbyautointodrivealone,twopersonsharedride,andthreeormorepersoncarpoolautosubmodesfortripstononCBDdestinations.

a. HOV_BIAS(1):Threeormorepersonscarpoolbias.Theinherentaddedcostofselectingthethreeormorepersoncarpoolmodeversusthetwopersonsharedridemode..

b. HOV_BIAS(2):Sharedride(twoormorepersons)biasversus.Theinherentaddedcostofsharedridemodesasopposedtodrivingalone.

4. HOV_CBDBIAS:TwobiasconstantsasdescribedabovefortripstoCBDdestinations.

3.5.3 Mode Choice Coefficients for Different Model Applications Themodelcanberuninsixdifferentmodesdependingonthetrippurpose,useoftheHOVsubmodeltoallocateautotripsintooccupancylevelsubmodes,andsegmentationhomeworktripsbyearningslevel.

1. Homeworktripsforallworkers

a. Autotransitbinarychoice

b. AutotransitbinarychoicewithHOVsubmodelallocation

2. Homeworktripssegmentedbyworkersearnings

a. AutotransitbinarychoicewithHOVsubmodelallocationforlowearnings(belowregionalmedianearnings)workers


b. AutotransitbinarychoicewithHOVsubmodelallocationforhighearnings(aboveregionalmedianearnings)workers

3. Autotransitbinarychoiceforhomenonworktrips

4. Autotransitbinarychoicefornonhometrips

ThefollowingcoefficientswerecalibratedduringthepreparatoryworkformodelinganHOVlanetreatmentaspartofthereconstructionoftheEisenhower(I290)Expressway.

Table37.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeWorkTrips

Table38.I290ProjectModeChoiceCoefficientsforHomeNWandNHTrips

HomeNonWork NonHomeCOEFF1(1) 0.0114 0.0114COEFF1(2) 0.00592 0.00592COEFF1(3) 0.0663 0.0663COEFF1(4) 0.4482 1.1403COEFF1(5) 0.0589 0.0589COEFF1(6) 0.061 0.061COEFF2(1) 0.0159 0.0159COEFF2(2) 0.00153 0.00153COEFF2(3) 0.0486 0.0486COEFF2(4) 0.5507 1.6275COEFF2(5) 0.029 0.029COEFF2(6) 0.0173 0.0173

AutoTransitBinaryChoice

AutoTransitBinaryChoicewithHOVSubmodel

LowEarningsAutoTransitBinaryChoicewithHOVSubmodel

HighEarningsAutoTransitBinaryChoicewithHOVSubmodel

COEFF1(1) 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186COEFF1(2) 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013COEFF1(3) 0.0584 0.0584 0.0584 0.0584COEFF1(4) 0.7357 0.7357 0.9814 1.5484COEFF1(5) 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399COEFF1(6) 0.0811 0.0811 0.0811 0.0811COEFF2(1) 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159COEFF2(2) 0.00153 0.00153 0.00153 0.00153COEFF2(3) 0.0486 0.0486 0.0486 0.0486COEFF2(4) 0.8812 0.8812 0.4121 0.6959COEFF2(5) 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029COEFF2(6) 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173 0.0173HOV_BIAS(1) NA 2.09 2.09 2.09HOV_BIAS(2) NA 1.15 0.263 0.45HOV_CBDBIAS(1) NA 2.51 2.51 2.51HOV_CBDBIAS(2) NA 1.59 0.583 0.06


3.6 Mode Choice High Occupancy Vehicle Integration

3.6.1 Non-Work High Occupancy Vehicle Mode Share Estimation In2012,theneedsoftheI290modelrequiredareestimationoftheexistingCMAPmodechoicemodeltobetterestimatetheautosubmodessingleoccupant,twopersons,orthreeormorepersonspervehicleforhomeworktravel.Thisfocusoncommutersbehaviorwasreasonableduetothefactthatmosthomeworktraveltakesplaceinthecongestedpeakperiodandhighoccupancyhighwayfacilitiesareparticularlyintendedforcommutersuse.Also,nonworktripsareoftentooshorttomakeuseoftheseHOVfacilities.

Nonworkautooccupancywascurrentlyestimatedusingobservedregionalaveragevalues,butmoredetailedestimateswereneededsincenonworktravelismorelikelytocontributetocongestion.Peakperiodtravelconditionshavesteadilylengthenedandnowencroachuponthetimesofthedaywhensubstantialnonworktraveloccurs.Thisisparticularlythecaseintheearlyhoursoftheeveningpeakperiodwhenbothworkersandnonworkersarereturninghome.

TheenhancementtotheCMAPmodechoicemodelestimatedhomeotherandnonhometripautooccupancy.Giventheavailabilityofdata,itwasanticipatedthatthemodelwouldfeatureindependentvariablesthatincludethecharacteristicsofthehouseholdandtriplength.

Aspartofthemodedevelopment,thestateofthepracticefornonworkautooccupancymodelswasreviewed.AnonworkHOVmodeshareestimationwasestimated.FinallytheI290modechoicemodelwasrevisedtoincorporateanonworkautooccupancysubmodel.

3.6.2 Toll and Non-Toll Mode Choice In2012itwasdeterminedthattheCMAP/I290modechoicemodelcontainedasetofoptionsforevaluatingtheeffectoftollsonmodechoice.Thesefeaturesofthemodelhadneverbeentested,calibratedorvalidated.TheseexistingoptionsinthemodelwereevaluatedtomakethemausefulpartoftheCMAPstandardmodelprocedure.Staffassembledthebaseyearnetworkswithcurrentvehicletolls,developedasetofmodelcalibrationtrafficcountsfortollandnontollregionalfacilities,revisedtheEMMEmacrostoprepareseparatepathsandskimfilesfortollandnontollnetworks,thenranthecurrentversionoftheI290modelonthebaseyearnetwork.

Estimationworkwasthenconductedtoevaluatethemodelrunandadjustmodelcalibrationcoefficientsasnecessarytobestmatchtollandnontolltrafficcountdata.TherevisedmodechoicetollcomponentwascalibratedanduseddirectlyintheI290worktocaptureaccuratelyhouseholdincomeandtriplengthcharacteristicswhichimproveresultsforpricingalternativessuchasHOVandHOT.


3.7 Traffic Assignment

TheCMAPandI290modelsusetheEMME/3standardtrafficassignmentwhichisauseroptimalequilibriumassignmentwithlinearapproximation(FrankandWolfe).Itisbasedontheassumptionthateachtravelerchoosesthepath(orroute)perceivedasbeingthebest;ifthereisashorterpaththantheonebeingused,thetravelerwillchooseit.Attheequilibrium,noonecanimprovetheirtraveltimebychangingpaths.Withthestandardtrafficassignment,upto12classescanbeassignedsimultaneously.Foreachclasstherearemultiplechoicesforsavingandstoringtheassignmentresults.FortheI290efforttheclassspecificvolumesgeneratedfromthemulticlassassignmentonlinksaresavedinlinksegmentextraattributeskeyedtothevehicleclass.Table39liststhesevenvehicleclassesforthestudy.

Table39.VehicleClassesforTrafficAssignment

Number Link Mode Description Extra Attribute

Name from Assignment

1 H HighOccupancyVehicle(2) @hov2

2 H HighOccupancyVehicle(3+) @hov3

3 S SingleOccupancyVehicle @vauto

4 b BPlatetruck @vbplt

5 l LightTruck @vlght

6 m MediumTruck @vmed

7 h HeavyTruck @vhevy

ThemostrecentEMME/3pathbasedassignmentwasutilizedwitheachofthesevenvehicleclassescitedinTable39assignedusingmulticlassprocedurebytimeperiod.TheoverallassignmentapproachallowedintegrationandanalysisofHOVandHOTfor2orfor3+personspervehicle.Thepathbasedassignmentalsofacilitatedthesavingofassignmentresultsandpathsforeachtimeperiod.Thesepathfilesallowquickreviewandanalysisofindividualassignmentrunsandarevaluablefortroubleshootingmodelresults.

3.8 Computational Enhancements

3.8.1 Model Batch Processing TherecalibrationandvalidationstepsimplementedintheI290modelconversionrequiredthatthestructureoftheEMME/3batchfileberevisitedandrevised.Thebatchprogramisdesignedsothatascenarioispreparedafterwhicheighttimeperiodssummingtoa24hourdayareassignedinturn.AtwodatabankstructurewasestablishedfortheI290work:


1. SimulationBanktheEMME/3databankthatisalternativespecificandwhichholdsthebasenetwork,eighttimeofdaynetworks,reportsfromthemodelruns,andthezonaldata.

2. ArchiveBankAnarchiveorholddatabank,alsoalternativespecific,thatcapturesthecurrenttimesandtripsbypurposeandmodeinmatrixformfromeachofthefivefullmodeliterations.

Intheproductionstageiswasdeterminedthatseparatedatabanks,copiedfromthefinalarchivedbankforeachscenario,werevaluableforprocessingtheTransportationSystemPlan(TSP)reportingaswellasthetransitresultsafterthe.

3.8.2 Parallel (Multi-threaded) Standard Traffic Assignment RevisionoftheEMME/3macroapproachalsoallowedasoftwareinnovationtobeintroduced.INROsEMME/3assignmentcalledParallelStandardTrafficAssignmentisamultithreadedimplementationoftheStandardTrafficAssignmentwithFixedDemandthatmakesuseofmultiprocessorsystemswhenavailable.Itremainsanimplementationofthelinearapproximationalgorithm(FrankandWolfe)equilibriumassignment,hencethesameconvergencepropertiesastheStandardTrafficAssignment,withthedistinctionthatcomputingtimescanbereducedsignificantlywhenrunonsystemswithmultipleprocessors.Theuserisabletoselecthowmanythreadswillbeusedintheassignment,witheachthreadcorrespondingtodedicateduseofoneprocessor.Thisallowsuserstochoosehowmanyprocessorstodedicatetotheparalleltrafficassignmentandprovidestheopportunitytoleaveprocessorsforotherconcurrentcomputingneedsifdesiredxii.TheI290modelapplicationintegratescallstothemultithreadedEMME/3modulethusenhancingruntimeandefficiency.AdditionalcomputationalenhancementswerebuiltduringtheI290process.TheseincludedHotStartsstreamlining,simultaneousexecutionoftimeofdayscenarioruns,andtransittripassemblyandassignment.AstheEMMEprovidedupdates,staffinstalledthemandintegratedthenewcapabilitiesofeachupdatedversionintheI290model.

3.9 Model Post Processing

AlibraryofEMMEmacroscriptswaspreparedtoservethemodelrunswithareportingstreamallowingerrorinvestigation(troubleshooting)andmonitoringtotakeplace.Thebatchprocessingapproachwaswrittensothatbothbaseandfutureyearscouldberunwithaminimumofreportingfilesetupchanges.Postprocessingandreportingoftheeighttimeofdayperiodsandthesixvehicletypesoriginallyincluded: Calculationofaveragedailyvehicletrafficfromthesumofsingleoccupancy

vehicles,highoccupancyvehicles,andfourclassesoftrucksovertheeighttimeperiods.


CalculationofthedailyVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)forbothautoandtruck.

CalculationofthedailyVehicleHoursTraveled(VHT)forbothautoandtruck.

Modesplitreportthatfacilitatesthesummaryoftripsbypurposebyautomode(SOV,HOV2andHOV3+)andtransit.

TheevolutionoftheI290modelhasrequiredexpandedreportingprotocol.Chiefamongtheexpandedreportingis: PersonthroughputforSOV,HOVandtransit(threepointsinthecorridor).

Expandedspeedandcongestionreportsinpeakperiods.

Detailedtruckreporting,includingcongestedtruckmilesandhours.

RefinementofAccesstojobsreporting.

Enhancedtransitreportingbymode,cutpointandStudyArea.


4.0 2010 Validation of the I-290 Model

4.1 Introduction

AreviewoftheI290performancewiththefullsetofrevised2010inputsaswellasthemodelenhancementswasconducted.Theintentofthissectionistovalidate2010I290modelforitsusein2040alternativesanalysis.Thetravelmodelvalidationtopicsreviewedwere:

1. RegionalLevelTrafficValidation(SixCounty)

2. PeakPeriodTrafficValidation

3. Volume/CapacityRatios

4. I290CorridorDailyTrafficValidation

4.2 Regional Model Validation

TheeighttimeperiodsestablishedintheCMAPmodelsaresummedtoadailyvehicletraffictotaloneachhighwaysegmentofthemodel.Thisestimateddailytrafficcanthenbecomparedtoobservedtrafficdata(AverageAnnualDailyTrafficorAADT).ThereareeighttimeperiodsintheI290model,includinganAMandPMpeak.Thepeakscanalsobecomparedtoobservedpeaktraffic,whichisusefulparticularlyintheI290corridor.

4.2.1 Observed Data ObserveddatafortheI290effortwasobtainedfromCMAPwiththeultimatesourcebeingtheIllinoisDepartmentofTransportationxiii(IDOT).CMAPstafftabulates,geocodes,andupdatestheobservedtrafficdatainEMME/3readyformatallowingtheanalysttocomparethecountedlinkstothemodeloutput.Newlytabulatedcountswereavailablein2015foryear2010.FortheI290projectthecountlocationswithinthesixcountyregionwereused.Over10,400linksegmentsarecountedintheCMAPmodelnetwork,62percentofalllinksegments,asshowninTable41.Ofthearterialsegments,60percentarecounted.Ofthefreewaysegments,73percentarecounted.Figure41showsthelocationsoftheCMAPobserveddataforthethreemainclasses.Figure42showsacloseupoftheI290corridorwithcountlocations.


Table41.NumberofCountLocationsbyClass(UsingVDFFunctionGroup)

Link Type Volume Delay

Function

Count Profile

Counted Links

Total Links

% Counted

ArterialStreet 1 8,901 14,732 60%

Freeway 2 732 997 73%

Freeway/expresswayrampfrom/toarterials 3 595 922 65%

Expressway 4 48 88 55%

Freeway/expresswaytofreeway/expresswayramp 5 106 147 72%

Linkwheretollispaid 7 83 109 76%

Total 10,465 16,995 62%Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts

Figure41.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData

Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts

0 5 10 15Miles

LegendI-290 Model_Network

COUNT LOCATIONS

Expressway

Freeway

Arterial


Figure42.LocationofCMAPObservedTrafficData(Closeup)

Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts

4.2.2 Regional Scale Validation Tests Asmentionedabove,validationofthetravelmodeltraffictoobservedconditionsisanimportantpartofestablishingabaseforalternativestesting.Validationhastwolevels:

RegionalValidationwhichshowsthatthemodelisworkingatreasonablelevelsthroughouttheentiremetropolitanareaandthusformsastableplatformforastudyareasuchastheI290.

CorridorValidationwhichshowsthatthemodelisworkingatveryclosetolerancestotheobserveddatainastudyareaandcanreplicateconditionsforthedailyaswellasthepeakperiodsinastudyarea.

Althoughabsolutecriteriaforassessingthevalidityofallmodelsystemscannotbepreciselydefined,anumberoftargetvalueshavebeendeveloped.GuidanceonvalidationtargetsisprovidedbytheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)xivaswellasbystateDOTs.ObservedvolumesshouldbecheckedbyfacilitytypebothforthepercenttrafficdifferenceandfortheRootMeanSquareError(RMSE).Freewayandinterstatesegmentsshouldbewithin+/7percentoftheobservedtraffic.Lessheavilytraveledroadwayshavelessstringentrequirementsontheirfittoobservedtraffic.Givenareasonableregionalvalidationresult,thetravelmodelisdeemedareliabletoolforalternativestesting.

ThefollowingvalidationtestswereperformedontheI290TravelModeltotestthedailytrafficassignment:

C O O K

0 1 2 3Miles

I-290 Study AreaI-290_CorridorI-290 Model_Network

COUNT LOCATIONS

ExpresswayFreewayArterial


AllLinksObservedandModeledTrafficVolumeComparisonThistest,whichcomparestheobservedandthemodeledtrafficusingobservedandcountedtraffic,ispresentedbyvolumeclass.

AllLinksPercentRootMeanSquareErrorThistest,whichmeasuresthedifferencebetweenmodelvolumesandobservedtrafficcounts,iswherethevariabilityofthetrafficcountsismostevident.Ifthemodelfitwereperfect,thepercentrootmeansquareerrorwouldbeequaltozero.APercentRMSEvalueof3550isconsideredwithinnormallimits.Thistestisalsopresentedbyvolumeclass.TypicallythehighervolumerangesshowlowerPRMSE.

Table42presentsthecountedandmodeledtrafficstratifiedbyvolumeclassusingonewaytraffic.Thereareelevenvolumeclasses;thelowestvolumeclasscoversallfacilitieswithfewerthan10,000AADT.Thehighestvolumeclassisallfacilitieswith100,000AADTorhigher.Notethatthepercentdifferencebetweentheobservedandmodeledrangesfrom17percentto103percent.Thistableshowsthatthesmallervolumefacilitiesdonotperformparticularlywell;theyshowhighermodeltrafficthanobserved,theresultofincludingcountsfromnumerousminorarterialsinthemodelnetwork.Thisdifferenceisattributedtothefactthatthearterialscarrythetrafficformanylowerclassificationfacilitieswhicharenotincludedinthemodelnetwork.Notethatthevolumeclasswiththepoorestperformanceiscomposedoffacilitiescarryinglessthan10,000ADTandthattheratioimprovesastheleveloftrafficmeasuredgrows.Thisdifferentialiscommonindemandmodelresultsandisacceptableaslongasthehigherlevelroadwaysperformclosetotheobservedlevels.Thistableshowsthathighervolumefacilitiesdogenerallyoperatewithinthetravelmodelatveryclosetoobservedlevels.Thisrangeofobservedtoestimatedis11percentto+4percentonfacilitiesover50,000AADT.ThePercentRootMeanSquareErrorshowsthatthevariabilityofthemodelresultsisverysmallontheseroadsegments.Thetotaldifferenceofallroadsegmentsover10,000AADTis0percentwithaPercentRMSEof35.PRMSEvaluesinthe3550rangeareconsideredwithinthenormallimitsofMPOvalidation.

Table42.TrafficValidationbyVolumeClass

Volume Range

AADT Range (one-way)

# of Records

Counted Traffic (AADT)

Modeled Traffic

Difference Root Mean

Square Error

Percent RMSE # %

1 010,000 17,635 69,716,375 141,354,381 71,638,006 103% 5,872 149

2 10,00020,000 754 9,488,500 13,089,740 3,601,240 38% 10,440 83

3 20,00030,000 214 5,213,000 4,586,896 (626,104) 12% 13,697 56

4 30,00040,000 130 4,453,700 4,353,668 (100,032) 2% 15,984 47


5 40,00050,000 105 4,769,350 3,980,848 (788,502) 17% 19,796 44

6 50,00060,000 89 4,957,450 4,899,383 (58,067) 1% 13,677 25

7 60,00070,000 114 7,447,200 7,193,090 (254,111) 3% 13,530 21

8 70,00080,000 103 7,770,150 6,918,280 (851,870) 11% 14,618 19

9 80,00090,000 91 7,766,450 7,216,112 (550,338) 7% 13,762 16

10 90,000100,000 64 6,026,750 5,705,078 (321,672) 5% 12,869 14

11 over100,000 47 5,329,100 5,539,495 210,395 4% 14,266 13

All 19,347 132,939,125 204,843,595 71,904,470 54% 6,827 99

VolumeRangeover10,000AADT 1,711 63,221,650 63,482,588 260,938 0% 13,100 35

Source:CMAPHighwayNetworkTrafficCounts,ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010Insummary,regionalmodelvalidationisafirststeptodeterminingifthetravelmodelisareasonabletooltousewithinafocusedstudyarea.Table42isconsistentintheoverestimationoftrafficatthelowervolumeclasses,whichisexpected.Theregionalnumbersshowverygoodresults(PRMSEof35)intheover10,000ADTfacilities.Thisresultisacceptableataregionallevel,particularlyifitcanbeshownthatthemodelwilloperateatveryclosetolerancesinthestudyarea,forpeakperiods.

4.3 Peak Periods Traffic and Percentage of Daily

SincethepeakperiodsareanimportantpartofthetrafficmodelforI290work,theAMandPMobservedtraffictothemodelresultswerecompared.Table43andTable44showtheobservedmainlinetrafficatsixlocationsduringthepeakperiodsintheI290studycorridor.ObservedIDOTpeakperioddefinitionsareasfollows:

EastboundTrafficonehourfrom7to8amand4to5pm

Westboundtrafficonehourfrom8to9amand4to5pm

TheI290trafficmodelpeakhourswereextractedandcomparedtotheobservedIDOTdata.


Table43.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Eastbound)

I-290 Facility Observed (1 hour) Modeled (1 hour) From To AMPeak PMPeak AMPeak PMPeak

Mannheim 25thAvenue 5,340 5,240 6,490 6,530

25thAvenue 17thAvenue 5,430 5,330 6,400 6,315

9thAvenue IL171(1stAvenue) 5,840 5,850 6,265 6,500

IL171 DesPlainesAve 6,240 6,510 6,010 6,170

DesPlaines Harlem 6,100 6,240 5,850 5,715

Austin Central 7,670 7,110 6,630 6,035

Laramie Cicero 8,430 7,670 8,095 6,465

Source:IDOT2010TrafficCounts,ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010

Table44.AMandPMModelandObservedTrafficonI290(Westbound)

I-290 Facility Observed (1 hour) Modeled (1 hour) From To AMPeak PMPeak AMPeak PMPeak

Mannheim 25thAvenue 7,130 6,790 6,225 6,360

25thAvenue 17thAvenue 6,980 6,700 6,220 6,445

9thAvenue IL17191stAvenue) 6,570 6,560 6,315 6,405

IL171 DesPlainesAve 6,500 6,480 6,140 6,115

DesPlaines Harlem 5,800 5,890 5,885 5,900

Austin Central 5,740 6,410 6,205 6,790

Laramie Cicero 6,100 6,650 6,585 8,235

Source:IDOT2010TrafficCounts,ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010

Table43andTable44showthefollowing:

Bothobservedandmodeledtrafficshowverylittledirectionality;botheastboundandwestboundtrafficflowsaregenerallyverycloseinmagnitudeinboththeAMandPMpeak.

ThevolumeoftrafficproducedbytheI290modeliscommensuratetoobservedtrafficlevelsontheI290facilityforboththeonehourAMandPMpeaks.

4.4 Peak Period Volume/Capacity Ratio

Thevolumetocapacityratio(V/Cratio)isdefinedastheratiooftrafficdemandflowratetocapacity.IntheCMAPmodelsitmaybecalculatedforeachoftheeighttimeperiodsandiscalculatedoneachlinksegmentofatrafficmodel.V/Cisaplanningtoolusedinthisanalysistoprovideconceptuallevelviewsofcongestionforthetimeperiods


providedinthemodel.Eachtimeperiodforthe2010basewasreviewedtodemonstratethattheI290modelwasabletocapturebasicdirectionalityandcongestionviatheV/Cratio.Figure43showstheV/CratiointhePMpeakfor2010.NotethatI290showsPMcongestionofover1.00inbothdirections.

Figure43.Volume/CapacityRatioforthePMPeak2010

Source:ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010

4.5 I-290 Corridor

ThelasttopicofvalidationistheperformanceoftheI290dailytrafficmodelinthestudycorridor.Theperformanceofthemodelonadailybasisaddsunderstandingoftheoverallvalidityofthemodel.Figure44isasnapshotofthedailymodeltrafficfortheI2902010scenario.Thesummaryattributeistotalvehiclesinvehicleequivalents.Notethattheinterstatefacilitiesareheavilytraveled,thedailyfacilitydirectionalityisbalanced,andthetrafficvolumes,measuredinvehicleequivalents,areintherangeof90,000to100,000ineachdirectionatmostpointsintheI290studycorridor.

0 .5 1 1.5Miles

PM VC RatioBelow .50from .50 to .85from .85 to 1.00Over 1.00

Mann

heim

25th

Ave

IL 17

1 Harle

m

Centr

al

Cice

ro Pulas

kiSa

crame

nto

Weste

rn

Ashla

nd


Figure44.2010I290DailyTrafficEstimate

Source:ParsonsBrinckerhoff,Inc.I290ModelRunfor2010

Table45.I290MainlineTrafficComparison(Observedvs.Modeled)

ID I-290 Facility AADT

2012 Model ADT

2010 Difference

From To # %

1 WofMannheim 187,700 208,174 20,474 11%

2 Mannheim 25thAve 182,800 182,994 194 0%

3 Eof25thAvenue 182,200 182,882 682 0%

4 9thAvenue IL171 185,700 185,729 29 0%

5 IL171 DesPlaines 182,800 189,657 6,857 4%

6 DesPlaines Harlem 167,400 165,331 2,069 1%

7 Harlem Austin 183,200 178,797 4,403 2%

8 Austin Central 183,200 184,920 1,720 1%

9 Laramie Cicero 204,600 200,446 4,154 2%

10 Cicero Kostner 191,800 188,032 3,768 2%

11 Kostner Independence 200,700 200,446 254 0%

12 Independence Homan 209,200 211,754 2,554 1%

13 Homan Sacramento 210,000 205,575 4,425 2%

14 Sacramento Western 200,500 190,664 9,836 5%

15 Western Damen 208,800 205,937 2,863 1%

16 Damen Ashland 200,500 203,633 3,133 2%

17 Ashland Racine 185,900 187,111 1,211 1%


Total 3,267,000 3,272,082 5,082 0%

SourceofAADT:IDOTTrafficData,2012,ParsonsBrinckerhoffModelRunfor2010

Table45tabulatesseventeensegmentsoftheI290corridorcomparing2012observedtrafficcountstotheresultsbysegmentsinthestudycorridorfromwestofMannheimtoRacine.Theobserveddataaveragesabout200,000AADTthroughoutthecorridor.Estimated(modelADT)differencevaluesrangefrom5percentto+5percentdifferentfromtheobserveddata,withtheexceptionofthesegmentwestofMannheim.Thereisanoverall0percentdifferenceinthesumofthesegmentscomparingestimatedtoobserved.

4.6 Findings

IthasbeentheintentofSection4topresentanoverviewofvalidationstepsfortheI290TravelModeldemonstratingthatitprovidesareliablebasereplicatingobservedconditionsattheregionalandcorridorlevel.

TheI290modelenhancementsstepswhichincludedmajorchangesintripratesbypurpose,percentageofworktripsofalltrippurposes,tripdistributionstructure,averagetriplengths,autooccupancychanges,andtimeofdaypercentagesresultedinamodelthatreplicatedregionalandI290corridortraffic.BasedonasetofCMAPcountsobtainedfromIDOTfor2012,theI290travelmodelisperformingatareasonablelevelcomparedtoregionaltrafficflows.TheratioofobservedtomodeledtrafficonregionalinterstatesandfreewaysandthePercentRootMeanSquareerrorarewithinnormallimitsforMPOvalidation.

TheAMandPMpeakperiodsinthemodelproducetrafficlevelscommensuratewiththeIDOTobserveddata.

I290mainlinetrafficfor2010averagesslightlylower(0percent)inthemodelthanintheobserved2012IDOTcounts.Estimated(modelADT)differencevaluesbysegmentrangefrom5percentto+5percentdifferentfromtheobserveddata,withtheexceptionofthesegmentwestofMannheim.

Insummary,adetailedtravelmodelcustomizedforI290wasdeveloped,includingconstructingadetailednetwork.TheuseofrecenthouseholdsurveyandotherdatatoreestimateselectedpartsoftheCMAPmodelsresultedinanupdatedmodelthatwasvalidatedto2010thenappliedtothe2040studyyearalternatives.


References

i ParsonsBrinckerhoff,HOVLaneFeasibilityStudyfortheEisenhowerExpressway(FAI290)fromI294/I88toAustinAvenue:Volumes13,IllinoisDepartmentofTransportation,DivisionofHighway/District1,July1998.

ii ChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning.Updated2030RegionalTransportationPlanforNortheasternIllinois(ReflectsallApprovedUpdatesthroughOctober2008).October9,2008.

iii Christopher,EdJ.,AlanR.Fijal,andAnneC.Ghislandi.CATS1990Household

TravelSurvey:AMethodologicalOverview.WorkingPaper9405.April1994.iv U.S.CensusBureau.CensusTransportationPlanningPackage2000(CTPP2000).

v NuStats.ChicagoRegionalHouseholdTravelInventory:DraftFinalReportpreparedforChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning.Austin,TX,2008.

vi U.S.CensusBureau.AmericanCommunitySurvey:DesignandMethodology(UneditedVersion).EconomicandStatisticsAdministration,May2006.

vii http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/,December8,2008.

viii IllinoisHighwayInformationSystemRoadwayInformation&ProcedureManual,July1,2001,(withrevisionsasofNovember28,2006).

ix INROTransportationModelingsoftware,http://www.inro.ca.

x ThealChalabiGroup,I290Phase1Study,HistoricandForecastedGrowthofPopulation,HouseholdsandEmploymentintheExtendedRegionofChicago,NoBuildMarketDrivenversusPolicyBasedSocioEconomicForecasts(20102014)andI290BuildForecasts,June2014,revisedAugust2015.

xi http://www.bls.gov/cpi/,2009.

xii INRO,EMME3Documentation,2009.xiii http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/.

xiv FHWA,CalibrationandAdjustmentofSystemPlanningModels,1990.

AppendixB2

HistoricandForecastedGrowthofPopulation,HouseholdsandEmploymentintheExtended

RegionofChicago

NoBuildMarketDrivenversusPolicyBasedSocioEconomicForecasts(20102040)andI290

BuildForecasts

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Study Cook County, Illinois

Prepared for Illinois Department of Transportation

Prepared By: ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd.

in association with WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

June 2014 Revised September 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway iii Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum

Table of Contents

1.0 IntroductionandOverview.........................................................................................................1

2.0 MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecastsNoBuildScenario....................................11

A. TransportationNetworkAssumptions.................................................................................11

B. Population,HouseholdsandEmploymentForecastsGeneralApproach.........................11

C. PopulationandEmploymentForecastsDefiningtheMethodology.................................13

D. HistoricalGrowthoftheRegionanditsInfluenceonLongRangeDevelopment.........14

E. MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecastsbyTownshipCalibrationandForecasts.......19

F. MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecastsbyCommunityAreaintheCityofChicago...30

G. StatisticalVerificationoftheSCurveForecastingMethodology.....................................37

3.0 TheCMAP/NIPCSocioEconomicForecasts:HistoricandComparisonwithI290MarketDrivenForecasts.......................................................................................................................41

A. Background...............................................................................................................................41

B. ComparingtheI290MarketDrivenNoBuildForecastwiththeCMAPPolicyBasedForecast(2010)......................................................................................................................................42

C. WhyUsetheMarketDrivenForecastsfortheI290EISStudy?...........................................47

4.0 TheI290BuildSocioEconomicForecasts.........................................................................49

A. Overview...................................................................................................................................49

B. BuildForecastMethodology......................................................................................................49

C. MeasuringAccessibility..............................................................................................................50

D. ImpactofChangesinAccessibilityIndexesonResidentialDevelopment(HouseholdandPopulation)....................................................................................................................................52

E. ImpactofChangesinAccessibilityIndexesonEmploymentDistribution.........................56

F. SocioEconomicForecastFilesasDeliveredtoParsonsBrinckerhoffInc.,asInputintotheTransportationModelingProcess......................................................................................................59

5.0 Epilogue........................................................................................................................................61

Appendices

AppendixAMarketDrivenSocioEconomicTownshipForecasts..........................................A1AppendixBTravelTimeImpedanceEstimation.........................................................................B1

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway iv Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum

List of Exhibits

Exhibit1. ChangeinAccessibilityMeasuresBuildvs.NoBuildProposedProject BasedonChangeinHighwayTravelTimes............................................................6Exhibit2. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoHighwayImprovements.................................................................................8Exhibit3. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoTransitImprovements.....................................................................................8Exhibit4. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoHighwayImprovements...............................................................9Exhibit5. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoTransitImprovements...................................................................9Exhibit6. TheStandardLogisticsSCurve...............................................................................12Exhibit7. 19201930HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................14Exhibit8. 19301940HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................15Exhibit9. 19401950HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................15Exhibit10. 19501960HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................16Exhibit11. 19601970HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................16Exhibit12. 19701980HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................17Exhibit13. 19801990HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................17Exhibit14. 19902000HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................18Exhibit15. 20002010HistoricTrend:PopulationChangePerSquareMile byMinorCivilDivision.............................................................................................18Exhibit16. SampleTownshipsEastWestCrossSection.......................................................19Exhibit17. ProvisoTownshipWestSuburbanCookCounty...............................................21Exhibit18. YorkTownshipDuPageCounty...........................................................................22Exhibit18A. YorkTownshipDuPageCounty...........................................................................23Exhibit19. LisleTownshipDuPageCounty............................................................................24Exhibit20. NapervilleTownshipDuPageCounty.................................................................25Exhibit21. AuroraTownshipKaneCounty............................................................................26Exhibit22. SugarGroveTownshipKaneCounty...................................................................27Exhibit23. KanevilleTownshipKaneCounty........................................................................27Exhibit24. TakeOffYearofResidentialDevelopmentbyTownship....................................29Exhibit25. PopulationandHousingTrendsandForecasts:19302040 CityofChicagoCentralLakefrontCommunityAreas.......................................33

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway v Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum

Exhibit26. PopulationandHousingTrendsandForecasts:19302040 CityofChicagoNearWestCommunityAreas...................................................34Exhibit27. PopulationandHousingTrendsandForecasts:19302040 CityofChicagoWestCommunityAreas.............................................................35Exhibit28. ActualPopulationvs.SCurvePredicted:19202010...........................................37Exhibit29. ActualPopulationvs.SCurvePredicted:19602010...........................................37Exhibit30. ActualHouseholdvs.SCurvePredicted:19602010...........................................38Exhibit31. ActualEmploymentvs.SCurvePredicted:19702010........................................39Exhibit32. 20102040MarketDrivenForecastsAveragePopulationChange PerDecadePerSquareMilebyMinorCivilDivision...........................................42Exhibit33. 20102040PolicyBasedForecastsAveragePopulationChange PerDecadePerSquareMilebyMinorCivilDivision...........................................43Exhibit34. 2040PopulationForecastComparisonsMarketDriven MinusPolicyBasedPerSquareMilebyMinorCivilDivision............................43Exhibit35. FinalWeightFi,js.......................................................................................................50Exhibit36. ChangeinAccessibilityMeasuresBuildvs.NoBuildProposedProject BasedonChangeinHighwayTravelTimes..........................................................51Exhibit37. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoHighwayImprovements...............................................................................53Exhibit38. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonPopulationGrowth20102040 DuetoTransitImprovements...................................................................................53Exhibit39. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoHighwayImprovements.............................................................56Exhibit40. Buildvs.NoBuildI290ImpactonEmploymentGrowth 20102040DuetoTransitImprovements.................................................................57

List of Tables

Table1. Comparisonof2040I290NoBuildandBuildForecasts...............................................10Table2. ComparisonofI290andCMAP2040PopulationForecasts.........................................10Table3. ActualVersusSCurvePredictions....................................................................................36Table4. I290/EisenhowerCorridorStudyForecastsfortheRegionofChicago MarketDrivenSocioEconomicForecasts20102040......................................................45Table5. PopulationImpactsoftheProposedProjectComparisonofRecommended BuildAlternativesHighwayandTransitwithNoBuildAlternative....................54Table6. EmploymentImpactsoftheProposedProjectComparisonofRecommended BuildAlternativesHighwayandTransitwithNoBuildAlternative....................58Table7. ComparisonofStudyAreaCMAPandI290NoBuild andBuildPopulationandEmploymentForecasts..........................................................60

I-290 Eisenhower Expressway 1 Socio-Economic Forecasts Technical Memorandum

1.0 Introduction and Overview TheI290StudyisamongseveralrecentlycompletedorinprogresstransportationprojectsthathaveusedamarketdrivensocioeconomicforecastdevelopedbyACG:ThealChalabiGroup,Ltd.ACGsforecastmethodologyissimilartothatwhichpreviouslyhadbeenusedbytheregionalplanningagency,theChicagoMetropolitanAgencyforPlanning(CMAP),anditspredecessor,theNortheasternIllinoisPlanningCommission(NIPC),untilthedevelopmentoftheCMAPGOTO2040ComprehensiveRegionalPlan,in2010.TheCMAPGOTO2040PlanadoptedastrictPolicyBasedapproachtoforecasting.ThisreportdocumentsthedevelopmentoftheMarketDrivenforecaststhatrepresenttheI290NoBuildScenario,whichisdescribedinSection2.0.AcomparisonoftheI290MarketDrivenapproachtotheCMAPapproachispresentedinSection3.0.ThisreportthenpresentstheI290BuildforecastdevelopmentinSection4.0.AnEpilogueispresentedinSection5.0thatdescribestheI290ForecastsinrelationtotheCMAPforecastsdevelopedaspartoftheGO2040ComprehensiveRegionalPlanUpdatethatwascompletedin2014.Year2040socioeconomicforecastsweredevelopedaspartoftheI290Study.Socioeconomicforecasts,includingpopulationandemploymentforecasts,areusedasinputtotheI290travelforecastingmodel.TheI290travelforecastingmodelusesthesocioeconomicforecaststoestimatefuturetrafficandtransitusageforuseindesign,environmental,andfinancialanalyses.Theyear2040wasselectedastheplanninghorizonforconsistencywiththeregionsmetropolitantransportationplan.Themetropolitantransportationplanisintendedtoguidepublicpolicywithrespecttofutureinfrastructureinvestmentforthenext20+yearsfortheregion.Themetropolitantransportationplanisintendedtoidentifyanoverallframeworkofmajorcapitalprojectsthataretestedforairqualityconformityandarewithinanassumedfiscallyconstrainedscenario.Theprojectsidentifiedaspartoftheregionsmetropolitantransportationplanprocess,whichincludetheproposedproject,areconsistentwithplangoalsandessentiallyrepresentplaceholdersthataresubjecttoNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)studies,includingarigorousanalysisofalternatives.Themetropolitantransportationplandoesnot,however,satisfyalloftheNEPAplanningrequirementsforimplementinganinfrastructureproject.

AsrequiredbyNEPA,amajorinfrastructureprojectsuchasI290isrequiredataprojectlevelofdetail,toundergo: AnanalysisofaNoBuildalternativetodefinethetransportationneed.FortheI290

study,theNoBuildisdefinedasnomajorimprovementsintheStudyArea;outsideoftheStudyArea,thefiscallyconstrainedmajorcapitalimprovementscontainedintheGOTO2040Planareassumedtobeinplace.

AnanalysisofarangeofreasonableBuildalternatives.AsdocumentedintheongoingI290study,abroadrangeofmultimodal(highway/transitmodecombinations)alternativesarebeingevaluated.


Adetailedassessmentofthesocial,economic,andenvironmentalimpactsofaproposedactionorproject.Anenvironmentalimpactstatement(EIS)isbeingpreparedfortheproposedproject.

Considerationofenvironmentalsequencing:avoidance,minimizationandmitigation. Stakeholderinvolvement:coordinationandconsultationoneveryaspectoftheNEPA

process,includingtheidentificationofprojectneeds,evaluationmethodologies,andalternativesdevelopmentandevaluation.

NEPArequirespreparationofanEISformajorfederalactionsthatmaysignificantlyaffectthequalityofthehumanenvironment.AnEISisafulldisclosuredocumentthatdetailstheprocessthroughwhichatransportationprojectisdeveloped,includesconsiderationofarangeofreasonablealternatives,analyzesthepotentialimpactsresultingfromthealternatives,anddemonstratescompliancewithotherapplicableenvironmentallawsandexecutiveorders.IDOTandFHWAarepreparinganEISfortheI290Study.AnEISrequiresagreaterleveloftravelforecastingmodeldetailthanforalongrangetransportationplan,becauseoftheneedforenvironmentalimpactevaluation,aswellasengineeringdesignandfinancialanalysis,includingtollrevenueforecasting.Thesocioeconomicforecastsarethemaininputtothetravelforecastingmodel,andshouldthereforereflectcurrentavailablelanduseandsocioeconomicconditions,historictrendsfortheStudyArea,andpendingdevelopmentandredevelopmentproposals,particularlythosethatwillexceedregulatorylimitsondensityorotherfactors.1TheI290socioeconomicforecasts,whicharemarketdriven,areconsistentwiththeserequirements.TheNoBuildScenarioexcludesallmajorcapitalprojectsintheStudyAreatodetermineNoBuildconditions.TheNoBuildAlternativeservesasabenchmarkagainstwhichthetransportationneedsaredefinedandtheBuildAlternativesarecompared.ToanalyzetheNoBuildAlternative,aswellastheBuildAlternativesfortheproposedproject,corresponding2040socioeconomicforecastsarerequired.

SectionIIpresentstheMarketDrivenNoBuildsocioeconomicforecastsdevelopedfortheproposedproject.TheACGMarketDrivenforecasts(i.e.NoBuild)werepreparedin2011through2013inclosecollaborationwithCMAP.Overthisperiod,ACG:ThealChalabiGroup,Ltd.conferredwithCMAPstaffinitsdevelopmentofaMarketDrivensocioeconomicforecast.Becauseitwasintendedforuseinmultipleprojects,forecastswerepreparedfortheextended(21County,threestate)ChicagoMetropolitanArea.ThisMarketDrivenforecastacceptsandincorporatesthe2040totalpopulation(andcorrespondinghouseholdandemployment)forecastsfortheCMAPregion;but,itdiffersinthedistributionofthoseforecasts.ThecollaborationwithCMAPstaffwasintendedtoestablishthegroundrulesfordevelopingan

1InterimGuidanceontheApplicationofTravelandLandUseForecastinginNEPA,FederalHighwayAdministration,March2010.


alternati

Documents

Appendix B Forecast Methodology Reports · Appendix B Forecast Methodology Reports I-290 Eisenhower Expressway Cook County, Illinois Prepared For: Illinois Department of Transportation