Transit planners need cost-effective ways to evaluate a wide range of alternatives relatively quickly to identify potential transit systems that are likely to offer the greatest benefits for a given cost. A sketch transit planning model is described for the Washington, D.C., region that is based on the metropolitan planning organization's travel demand model structure and model networks but is estimated from more recent 2000 census data, better matches suburban transit ridership, is sensitive to land use effects, and is less costly to use. Similar transit sketch models could be developed and applied in other regions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual. Travel Model Improvement Program, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997.
2.
Report on Findings of the Second Peer Review Panel for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Transportation Model Improvement Program, 2004.
3.
EwingR. and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–114.
4.
VellingaM. L.Blueprint for a Valley. Planning, May 2004, pp. 13–17.
5.
System Planning for Quality Transit Projects. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Planning Association, San Francisco, Calif., March 2005.
6.
Report on Findings of the Third Peer Review Panel for the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). Transportation Model Improvement Program, 2004.
7.
PrattR. H., Texas Transportation Institute, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., SG Associates, Inc., and McCollom Management Consulting, Inc. TCRP Project B-12: Travelers Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., March 2000.
8.
ThompsonG. L.Achieving Suburban Transit Potential: Sacramento Revisited. In Transportation Research Record 1571, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 151–160.
FlyvbjergB.Skamris HomM. K. and BuhlS. L.. How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 2, Spring 2005, pp. 131–146.
11.
MarshallN. and BallardK.. New Distribution and Mode Choice Models for Chicago. Presented at 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.
12.
MarshallN. and GradyB.. Travel Demand Modeling for Regional Visioning and Scenario Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1921, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 44–52.
13.
Mode Choice Model Documentation. In Integrated Regional Model Project. Denver Regional Council on Governments, Denver, Colo., Dec. 2004, pp. 10–11.
14.
Revised Departmental Guidance: Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis. U.S. Department of Transportation, Feb. 2003.
15.
CerveroR.Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework. Transportation Research D, Vol. 7, 2002, pp. 265–284.
16.
CerveroR. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Planning Association, San Francisco, Calif., 2005.
17.
COG/TPB Travel Forecasting Model, Version 2.1. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Sept. 17, 2004.
18.
Breakthrough Technologies Institute and Environmental Defense. Changing Lanes: Linking Bus Rapid Transit and High Occupancy Toll Networks in Northern Virginia. Sept. 21, 2005. www.gobrt.org/BRT-HOTFinalReport.pdf. Accessed Sept. 25, 2006.
