Appendix E Ridership Forecasting Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |1
Introduction This technical appendix covers the preparation of ridership forecasts for the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Gainesville‐Haymarket (G‐H) Alternatives Analysis. It describes the methodology used to develop the forecasts, the input data to the forecasting process, and the forecasting results and subsequent analysis of ridership, as well as how the family of alternatives retained for detailed analysis improve travel conditions and travel choices in the study area markets. In recent guidance on New Starts, FTA has repeatedly emphasized that the ridership forecasts are not “the answer” that solely determines the feasibility of the candidate project; rather, the forecasts must provide a coherent part of the overall “story” of the travel markets under study and how the proposed project impacts those markets, measured primarily through positive change in transit system user benefits (UBs) and new transit riders. Ridership forecasts are an important element of the overall project rating and must be produced and analyzed carefully. Approach to Forecasts of Demand General Overview The most common approach to forecasting demand for an alternatives analysis for a potential transit corridor in a large metropolitan area is to use the regional travel demand model maintained by the area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as the primary tool, or at least as a major starting point. The study team has followed this method and has used a modified and enhanced version of the current approved, calibrated, and validated model set maintained by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) to prepare forecasts for the tested alternatives in the study area. More specifically, the team has applied an enhanced version of the MWCOG model that includes refinements to improve model performance for predicting transit trips. The specific enhancements are discussed in a later section of this document. In reality, the application of the model (the actual model runs) and review and analysis of the data are close to the last steps of the forecasting process. The process before actually executing the model chain is of much greater importance to ensuring the reliability of the subsequent ridership forecasts. The study team must (and has) identified the key travel markets that will be served by the proposed transit investments in the area. The team has learned as much as it can about these key travel markets from the regional demographic forecasts and observed travel data from various sources, including transit ridership surveys conducted by market operators. The model is then re‐validated to the observed transit data in the study area to ensure that it reasonably replicates current conditions before being used for future forecasts. This smaller area validation often requires additional calibration, as large regional models are typically validated to larger geographic areas than the area under study and may not behave as initially anticipated when applied to a specific corridor or market. In parallel with the market analysis and model validation, the team developed the various scenarios to be tested with the model. For most alternatives analysis, the menu of options includes a no‐build or no‐
action scenario, where the only area improvements are those already contained in the most recently approved regional (fiscally) constrained long range plan (CLRP), and a baseline scenario, which represents the maximum service improvements in the area short of initiating a major capital Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |2
investment. In many cases, the baseline is the same as a transportation systems management (TSM) alternative. A series of “build” alternatives that include significant capital investment in the study area are also formulated. Proper development of alternatives includes making sure the proposed operations are correctly represented in the model inputs. Care must be taken in coding the new transit routes in the network, mode‐of‐access links, park and ride facilities, and other supporting data. In addition, the analyst must be certain that the model “understands” the characteristics of the modes being tested; this is particularly true when introducing a new travel mode into an area, or expanding the use of a little‐
used mode or one that is not emphasized in the model set. The model must also understand the interaction between modes in the same travel market, such as how they compete with or complement each other, how they provide different kinds of service to travelers, and other factors. After all this pre‐modeling work, then the model is executed to test the various alternatives and the resulting forecasts are presented and analyzed. Typically, the results for the baseline are compared with the no‐build, and each of the build alternatives are considered against the baseline to isolate the improvements provided by the capital investment in the area and associated service improvements. For New Starts analysis, this phase of developing ridership forecasts also includes identification and analysis of user benefits using FTA’s Summit program. Because the G‐H study area is adjacent to the existing VRE Manassas Line and contains a number of existing bus lines, the study team has access to good information about the existing travel market for transit. However, it is important to note that the Gainesville‐Haymarket (G‐H) area is a separate and distinct travel market in itself. The forecasting results will show that demand for improved transit service in the G‐H market does exist and can be effectively served by several of the alternatives tested in this study. MWCOG Model Set 1 The latest release of the MWCOG model set is Version 2.2; however, because that release occurred during the middle of the G‐H study cycle, some initial tests during the ridership forecasting process used the previous version of the MWCOG model, Version 2.1D#50. In addition, there have been a series of refinements to the MWCOG model to improve its performance in small area studies and producing transit forecasts. These refinements are discussed in the following section. Ultimately, this refined MWCOG Version 2.2 model was used to produce the ridership forecasts for this study; where figures come from tests using other versions of the model it is noted in the text. The MWCOG model has been validated to the year 2005 against regional screenlines and county‐to‐
county flows. It is the approved MPO model and as such is used for regional air quality conformity analysis and as the basis for all project planning studies in Metropolitan Washington. The model has most recently been used or is currently being used as the parent model for enhancements that are then applied to prepare forecasts for various New Starts projects in the region, including the Bi‐County Transitway (“Purple Line”) and Corridor Cities Transitway in Maryland, the light rail study corridors in the District of Columbia, and the Dulles Rail (“Silver Line”) project, Crystal City/Potomac Yards light rail, Columbia Pike transit study, and other VRE improvements in Virginia. 1Elements
of this description are paraphrased from Milone, et al., COG/TPB Travel Forecasting Model,
Version 2.1D#50 User’s Guide., MWCOG (2004).
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |3
Adjustments by AECOM to MWCOG Model Set 2 The model developed by AECOM and applied by the study team to develop forecasts for this study (VRE model) was based on the MWCOG version 2.2 model. The enhancements were built on top of the of the model work previously done for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to support the White House Area Transportation Study, and the alternatives analyses for the Columbia Pike and District of Columbia LRT corridors. The enhanced model uses the standard MWCOG travel demand model inputs (networks, trip tables and highway skims) but has a detailed transit model that applies a nested logit model as a post‐process step. The VRE model adopts the model structure developed for the WHATS project where the transit constants were developed by mode of access and income group where applicable. The VRE model is calibrated to year 2002 transit targets developed using the 2002 Metrorail on‐board survey and 2000 WMATA bus survey which were used for non‐Commuter Rail transit modes such as bus and Metrorail. Information from the recent 2007/2008 Commuter Rail on‐board survey (MARC and VRE) and ridership information from FTA’s National Transit Database (NTD) was utilized to fine‐tune commuter rail calibration targets for the VRE model. Additional model enhancements were made in the VRE model to improve the estimation of the ridership estimates for calibration and validation years. The details are described below: Network related changes •
The headways and running times of Metrorail and Commuter Rail routes for the 2002 and 2008 model transit line files were validated / updated based on the published schedule. •
Regional commuter express buses in the network were coded with restrictions on boarding and alighting. •
The inbound (to the central business district [CBD]) routes were coded so that they allow alighting only once they enter the downtown area. •
The Metrorail station database was updated: Pentagon City station was designated as a mid‐
line park and ride and West Falls Church metro station was designated as an end‐of‐line park and ride station. •
Shadow prices were added to the station database to redistribute the park and ride demand at Metrorail stations. •
Several enhancements were made to the highway networks to facilitate more comprehensive access connectors around the rail stations. Software related changes •
The auto access connector program “autoacc3.exe” was updated with revised back‐tracking restrictions. The back‐tracking restrictions were relaxed slightly to achieve better connectivity and improved assignment of survey based trip tables. •
The auto‐connector program was updated to correct for errors in coding impedance on long kiss‐and‐ride links to Pentagon (slug links). A summary of changes is contained here. For the full explanation, consult Appendix F, the full
memorandum on this topic from AECOM.
2
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |4
•
The program “a1format.exe” was updated to read an additional input file to append the pedestrian environment factor in the master A2Deck file. •
The program “stopsv2.exe” was updated to read the revised transit line coding format. Other changes •
The home based work trip tables were replaced by trip tables generated using CTPP data to adequately represent the work trip attraction patterns of home‐based work (HBW) trips produced in the study market area. •
A new Pedestrian Environment Factor (PEF) was introduced to accommodate the influence of the pedestrian environment on the choice of mode. Comparison of 2008 Model Projections to Observed Transit Use Summary Table 1 below summarizes observed work trips for all travel modes between the project study area and the metropolitan core based on data at the tract and traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level from the year 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and compares those trip volumes with projected work trips for all travel modes from the MWCOG model. Table 2 on the following page summarizes the same data, but for transit trips only and includes the percent transit share. In general, the initial model results are under‐predicting transit use in the study area under current conditions. Table 1: Work Trips (All Modes)
Between Manassas/Gainesville/Haymarket Area and Metropolitan Core
Source
Trips to/from Work
Observed Trips
CTPP 2000 (TAZ level) (x 2.0)
19,750
CTPP 2000 (TAZ level) (x 1.6)
15,800
CTPP 2000 (Tract level) (x 2.0)
20,298
CTPP 2000 (Tract level) (x 1.6)
16,238
Projected Trips (Model Results)
MWCOG 2008 (v2.2)
MWCOG 2005 (v2.1D#50) Model with
AECOM Refinements
MWCOG 2005 (v2.1D#50) model with
AECOM/FHWA 2008 modification
MWCOG 2008 model (v2.2)
(AECOM/FHWA refinements)
Expanded area
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |5
3,168
6,223
10,657
10,625
Table 2 : Transit Trips (Home-Based Work)
Between Manassas/Gainesville/Haymarket area and metropolitan core
Source
CTPP 2000 (Tract level) (x 2.0)
MWCOG Model 2008 (v2.2)
MWCOG 2005 Model (v2.1D#50)
with AECOM refinement
MWCOG 2005 Model (v2.1D#50)
with AECOM/FHWA 2008
modification
MWCOG 2008 model (v2.2)
(AECOM/FHWA refinements)
Expanded area
OmniRide + VRE Boardings 2008
Trips to/from work
1,652
903
Percent Transit
8.1%
28.5%
871
14.0%
1,963
18.4%
3,769
35.5%
5,991
Detailed Analysis The analysis evaluates journey‐to‐work and HBW trips and transit ridership data for the project study area. The first section includes a comparison of CTPP journey‐to‐work trips at both the TAZ and tract levels in 2000 and HBW trip projections generated by a refined MWCOG model for the year 2005. HBW trips as forecast by three versions of the MWCOG model are reported for total trips and for transit trips. These estimates were generated using the following versions of the MWCOG model: • The MWCOG model applied for the year 2008 (Version 2.2) • The MWCOG model with AECOM mode choice enhancements applied for 2005 (Version 2.1D#50) • The MWCOG model with further refinements developed by AECOM as part of the FHWA‐
sponsored TransSims application applied for 2005 (Version 2.1D#50) The second section includes a comparison of actual transit ridership in western Prince William County in 2007 and 2008 and transit ridership projections generated by each application of the MWCOG Model set as outlined above. CTPP (Journey‐to‐Work) Data The CTPP is a special tabulation of the decennial census used to analyze characteristics of work travel, such as trip origin and destination and travel mode. Analysis of the 2000 CTPP data was performed at both the TAZ and tract levels. At the tract level, reliable data are available for all workers; however, for the more disaggregate TAZ geography, data suppression is in place to protect respondent privacy. Therefore, mode share data was used at the tract level only. For this analysis the origin zones encompass a study area that stretches from the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park in Prince William County to Warrenton in Fauquier County, and includes small portions of southern Loudoun and western Fairfax County. The destination zones centered on and around the CBD in the District of Columbia, and included five discrete locations: Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |6
1) City of Alexandria VRE station area (including Old Town Alexandria) 2) The remainder of the City of Alexandria 3) Crystal City VRE station area (including other locations in Arlington County, e.g., Pentagon, Rosslyn) accessible by transferring from VRE to the WMATA Metrorail Blue Line 4) The remainder of Arlington County 5) The District of Columbia. There are slight differences between the TAZ and tract geography. Figures 1 through 4 show the origin and destination areas for the TAZ and tract levels. Figure 1: CTPP TAZs Used to Define Trip Origin Area
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |7
Figure 2: CTPP Tracts Used to Define Trip Origin Area
Figure 3: CTPP TAZs Used to Define Trip Destination Area
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |8
Figure 4: CTPP Tracts Used to Define Trip Destination Area
The analysis of the CTPP data took into account only the total journey‐to‐work trips at the TAZ level (Table 3). At the tract level, the analysis considered both total journey‐to‐work trips and mode share data calculated for all modes and for transit only (Table 4). Since Table 3 and Table 4 show that the number of journey‐to‐work trips from the potential VRE Station Area to the District of Columbia, the City of Alexandria, and Arlington County is similar at both the TAZ level (9,875 trips) and the tract level (10,149 trips), tract level data were used to determine mode share, due to the data suppression issues described above. The overall transit mode share at the tract level is 8.1%. Transit accounts for nearly 10% of HBW trips from the VRE Station Area to the District of Columbia. Transit also accounts for a considerable share of the trips to the Alexandria VRE Station Area (4.6%) and to the Crystal City Station Area (6.5%). Table 3: CTPP 2000 Data (TAZ Level) – Total Journey-to-Work Trips
from VRE Extension Station Area to Major Destinations
Total Workers
Alexandria
(Other)
801
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e |9
Alexandria VRE
Station Area
497
Arlington
(Other)
1,303
Crystal City
Station Area
1,752
District of
Columbia
5,522
Total
9,875
Table 4: CTPP 2000 Data (Tract Level) – Journey-to-Work Total and Transit Trips
Total Workers
All Modes
Transit
Percent Transit
Alexandria
(Other)
757
160
0
0.0%
Alexandria VRE
Station Area
562
433
20
4.6%
Arlington
(Other)
1,191
1,013
47
4.6%
Crystal City
Station Area
1,866
2,611
171
6.5%
District of
Columbia
5,773
5,934
588
9.9%
Total
10,149
10,151
826
8.1%
HBW Trips from the MWCOG Regional Model Estimates of HBW trips using the MWCOG regional model were generated three ways: • The MWCOG model applied for 2008 (Table 5 and Table 6) • The MWCOG model with AECOM mode choice enhancements applied for 2005 (Table 7 and Table 8) • the MWCOG model with further refinements developed by AECOM as part of the FHWA sponsored TransSims application for 2005 (Table 9 and Table 10) The analysis included six production areas in western Prince William County, and six attraction areas in Arlington County, the City of Alexandria, and the District of Columbia. There is a significant disparity between model applications in the estimation of HBW trips from the production zones to the attraction zones: 6,223 in the MWCOG Model with AECOM refinements, and 10,657 in the MWCOG Model with AECOM/FHWA modifications. For both models, the highest volumes of trips originate in Manassas, the Manassas Park area, and Wellington. The DC Core accounts for more than 40% of the trips to the attraction zones in both models. There is also a disparity between the two sets of results in the estimation of HBW transit trips. The MWCOG Model with AECOM refinements results estimate 871 transit trips (14% of total HBW trips for this market, Table 8), with 79.2% of the transit trip attractions in the DC Core. The MWCOG Model with AECOM/FHWA modifications estimates 1,963 HBW transit trips (18.4% of total HBW trips for this market, Table 10), with 66.7% of the transit trip attractions in the DC Core. From/To
Manassas
Manassas Park
Area
Wellington
Nokesville
Gainesville
Haymarket
Total Average
Daily Trips
Table 5: MWCOG Model 2008 Without Refinements
HBW Person Trips (Daily Production-Attraction Format)
Crystal Arlington
Old
Alexandria
DC
DC
City
Other
Town
Other
Core
Other
31
130
71
64
169
26
Total
491
58
210
118
143
278
41
848
36
28
25
9
153
84
157
115
57
58
54
19
62
55
53
38
185
161
238
144
31
19
30
18
524
405
557
343
187
849
377
415
1,175
165
3,168
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 10
Table 6: MWCOG Model 2008 Without Refinements
HBW Transit Trips (Daily Production-Attraction Format)
From/To
Manassas
Manassas Park
Area
Wellington
Nokesville
Gainesville
Haymarket
Total Average
Daily Trips
Crystal
City
10
Arlington
Other
29
Old
Town
21
Alexandria
Other
10
DC
Core
71
DC
Other
7
Total
11
54
29
18
118
9
239
10
7
4
2
35
16
36
23
15
16
21
2
9
7
4
2
80
62
95
54
6
3
6
1
155
111
166
84
44
193
104
50
480
32
903
148
Table 7: MWCOG Model 2005 With AECOM Refinements
HBW Trips (Daily Production-Attraction Format)
From/To
Manassas
Manassas Park
Area
Wellington
Nokesville
Gainesville
Haymarket
Total Average
Daily Trips
Crystal
City
89
Arlington
Other
274
Old
Town
117
Alexandria
Other
132
DC
Core
533
DC
Other
110
1,255
123
68
57
44
38
361
288
141
216
168
155
80
61
59
36
186
89
83
61
49
729
506
306
367
277
149
99
58
66
48
1,703
1,130
706
813
616
419
1,448
508
600
2,718
530
6,223
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 11
Total
Table 8: MWCOG 2005 Model with AECOM Refinements
HBW Transit Trips (Daily Production-Attraction Format)
From/To
Manassas
Manassas Park
Area
Wellington
Nokesville
Gainesville
Haymarket
Total Average
Daily Trips
Crystal
City
34
Arlington
Other
15
Old
Town
6
Alexandria
Other
0
DC
Core
184
DC
Other
0
Total
35
18
16
8
5
14
9
3
6
2
6
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
200
131
59
86
30
1
0
0
0
0
257
159
78
101
37
116
49
14
1
690
1
871
239
Table 9: MWCOG Model with AECOM/FHWA Refinements
Total HBW Trips (Daily Production-Attraction Format)
From/To
Manassas
Manassas Park
Area
Wellington
Nokesville
Gainesville
Haymarket
Total Average
Daily Trips
Crystal
City
305
196
Arlington
Other
369
478
Old
Town
128
137
Alexandria
Other
207
220
DC
Core
718
986
DC
Other
423
257
Total
2,150
2,274
227
163
222
196
1,309
331
226
224
288
1,916
186
52
96
102
701
184
133
130
118
992
883
536
585
671
4,379
319
215
104
42
1,360
2,130
1,325
1,361
1,417
10,657
Regional Total 3.8 Million Trips
Table 10: MWCOG Model with AECOM/FHWA Refinements
HBW Transit Trips (Daily Production-Attraction Format)
From/To
Crystal Arlington
Old
Alexandria
DC
DC
City
Other
Town
Other
Core
Other
Manassas
29
46
33
11
195
106
Manassas Park
9
18
26
16
276
25
Area
Wellington
10
19
31
8
271
34
Nokesville
0
19
17
9
160
20
Gainesville
4
21
37
8
208
9
Haymarket
3
41
40
3
199
2
55
164
184
55
1,309
196
Total Average
Daily Trips
Total
420
370
373
225
287
288
1,963
Comparison The number of trips to and from work computed by doubling the reported CTPP tract level summary is 20,298 (Table 4). This figure is roughly double the largest estimate produced by any of the several Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 12
MWCOG model applications. The largest, the forecast produced with AECOM/FHWA refinements (Table 9), is 10,657 trips. There is also a large disparity in the number of HBW transit trips. Transit accounts for 1,652 (8.1%) HBW trips in the CTPP and 1,963 (18.4%) HBW trips in the MWCOG Model with AECOM/FHWA 2008 refinements. As reported in Table 4, the MWCOG model, with only the basic AECOM refinements predicts 1,963 transit trips (sum of both trips to work and from work) between the Manassas/ Gainesville/Haymarket area and the core areas served by VRE, while the CTPP (assuming all reported trips use transit for travel to and from work) shows 1,652 trips for the same market. Both estimates, however, are significantly lower than the reported 5,991 trips made in this market on VRE and OmniRide on a typical day in 2008 (Table 11). There are several factors that might contribute to the difference in transit trips: • Differences in geographic coverage of the production zones • Differences in the dates of the data – the CTPP uses 2000 Census data, the MWCOG models use 2005 and 2008 data; the areas included in the origin zones experienced significant population growth over that six‐year span • The CTPP definition of mode of travel differs from that used in household surveys and the travel models derived from such surveys. The CTPP does not capture trips taken by individuals who take transit occasionally but who “usually” drive to work Western Prince William County Transit Ridership Analysis of transit ridership in western Prince William County includes existing ridership numbers for 2007 and 2008 (year‐to‐date). Data were obtained from VRE and the Potomac and Rappahannock Transit Commission (PRTC). The analysis also included estimated transit ridership for 2008, based on the MWCOG Mode Choice Model using 2006 data, for the Gainesville, Manassas, and Manassas Park areas. Existing transit ridership The existing transit ridership data includes ridership on five bus lines operated by PRTC: • Manassas OmniRide: provides service between Manassas and the Pentagon and downtown Washington, D.C. • Manassas Direct: provides service between Manassas and the West Falls Church Metro station • Linton Hall Direct: provides service between Gainesville and the West Falls Church Metro station • Manassas and Manassas Park OmniLink lines: provides circulation within western Prince William County. The existing transit ridership data also includes ridership on the VRE Manassas Line, with data on mode of arrival to the VRE stations. For purposes of analysis of the applicability of the travel forecasting models for the VRE Haymarket/Gainesville extension study local OmniLink trips within the Manassas/ Manassas Park area are omitted from comparisons. The existing ridership data show that total average daily bus ridership on the five PRTC lines increased more than 15% from 2007 to 2008, with the VRE Manassas Line registering modest gains (3.5%) as well (Table 11). Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 13
Table 11: Reported Transit Ridership – Western Prince William County
Bus
2007
2008 (YTD)
Manassas OmniRide
562
706
Manassas Direct
419
458
Linton Hall Direct
165
204
Manassas OmniLink
316
349
Manassas Park OmniLink
303
315
1,765
2,031
4,468
4,624
4,291
4,440
Walked
149
155
Bike
19
20
OmniLink
9
9
6,233
6,655
5,614
5,991
Total Average Daily Bus
Ridership
Rail
VRE Manassas Line
(Computed, see note)
Mode of Arrival
(Computed, see note)
Car
Total Average Daily Transit
Ridership
Total Average Daily Transit
Trips to/from Metropolitan
Core (total less OmniLink)
Source: Potomac and Rappahannock Transit Commission (PRTC) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE)
Note: Total average daily transit ridership is the sum of total bus ridership and VRE Manassas Line, less the OmniLink mode of
arrival data, which are omitted to avoid double-counting.
VRE Manassas Line ridership is for the Broad Run, Manassas, and Manassas Park Stations. These figures were based on average
daily ridership for the entire Manassas Line in November 2007. Ridership at the Broad Run, Manassas, and Manassas Park
Stations was computed using a percentage (66.73%) of riders that boarded at these three stations according to the 2007 VRE
Passenger Survey conducted on Nov. 12, 2007.
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 14
The MWCOG model set as modified by AECOM/FHWA estimates significantly fewer transit trips than were recorded by PRTC and VRE in 2008 year‐to‐date (Table 12). Table 12: Estimated HBW Transit Ridership
MWCOG Model with AECOM/FHWA Refinements
Station Area
Riders
Manassas
420
Manassas Park
Area
Wellington
370
373
Nokesville
225
Gainesville
287
Haymarket
288
Total Average
Daily Trips
1,963
Adjustments to Forecasts External‐Internal (X‐I) Transit Trips Surveys conducted by both VRE and PRTC determined the origins and destinations of passengers using each service. These surveys reveal that the vast majority of VRE rail passengers drive to the stations, some from a long distance, while the majority of bus riders, although they may drive to access the bus, live at locations that are quite close to the bus route. The residence location of almost all of those riding PRTC buses are within the area covered by the MWCOG travel demand model, while approximately 10% of rail riders live in areas outside of the MWCOG modeled area. As the forecasts developed from the MWCOG model do not account for trips by transit made by residents of the outer areas, it is appropriate to adjust the 2030 forecasts of VRE ridership upward by 10% to compensate for this discrepancy. Bus trips need not be increased as the current data show that few bus riders are drawn from counties other than Prince William. Year 2008 Underestimation As noted above and in the AECOM documentation of their model enhancements shown in Appendix F, the year 2008 model estimates of VRE ridership fall below the actual observed VRE ridership as reported in the 2007 survey. Comparing the 2008 estimated boardings to the 2007 observed boardings for Broad Run, Manassas, and Manassas Park stations as shown in Table 6 of Appendix F (AECOM November 2008 memo) shows an observed/estimated ratio of 1.215. These end of the line stations are those most likely to be accessed by external travelers and the closest existing stations to the proposed new stations. To compensate for both the X‐I transit trips and the year 2008 underestimation, an adjustment factor of 1.35 was applied for the year 2030 forecasts for all build alternatives. Specifically, HBW commuter rail trips were increased and HBW drive alone trips in the project study area were decreased by the same level so that the total number of regional trips remained constant across all alternatives. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 15
Forecasts of Travel and Mode Use MWCOG Demographic Forecasts Trip making is in large part a function of area population (which generates trip productions) and employment (which generates trip attractions). Accordingly, regional demographic forecasts are one of the key inputs into any travel model, along with a representation of the transportation network and the mathematical equations that form the core of the model itself and how it predicts future travel. Before reviewing the travel demand forecasts it is useful to understand the forecast changes in employment and population within the project study area. The entire MWCOG modeled area covers 20 jurisdictions in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia and is divided into 2,191 TAZs. The project study area contains TAZs in Prince William and Fauquier counties and is shown in Figure 5. For the forecasting analysis, the TAZs have been aggregated into nine origin districts and six destination districts, which are shown in Figure 8. Table 13 shows the forecast change in population and employment from 2008 to the horizon year of 2030 for the study area, by TAZ. Table 14 shows the same information at the district level. The origin study area is forecast to add more than 150,000 people and more than 55,000 jobs by 2030. The location and intensity of growth are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 at the TAZ level, and Figure 9 and Figure 10 at the district level. All data in figures 6 through 10 are from the MWCOG Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecasts, which are the demographic inputs used in both the standard and enhanced Version 2.2 model. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 16
Figure 5: Study Area TAZs
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 17
Table 13: Forecast Change in Population and Employment for TAZs in Market Area
TAZ TAZ Population (2008) TAZ Population (2030) 1926 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 2,687 1,727 1,622 1,170 4,132 1,173 1,463 3,676 1,798 1,496 1,370 7,149 3,286 4,720 0 9,398 10,414 4,644 4,767 10,190 89 5,065 1,707 16 81 81 0 10 37 9,595 5,563 759 6,302 3,642 2,897 2,765 2,617 1,248 4,219 1,257 1,582 4,733 2,613 2,683 1,464 8,213 5,445 5,163 0 11,637 10,716 5,302 5,309 11,507 89 5,301 1,851 16 83 83 0 571 995 12,055 7,588 698 6,661 3,780 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 18
TAZ Population Change (2008 to 2030) 210 1,038 995 78 87 84 119 1,057 815 1,187 94 1,064 2,159 443 0 2,239 302 658 542 1,317 0 236 144 0 2 2 0 561 958 2,460 2,025 ‐61 359 138 TAZ Employees (2008) TAZ Employees (2030) 344 414 149 40 288 111 120 364 877 160 83 1,124 439 809 139 3,093 2,953 5,605 1,716 1,373 5,201 3,827 2,197 36 28 497 2,495 411 2,074 2,616 4,339 2,369 1,419 177 344 2,109 389 40 290 136 176 617 2,154 160 83 1,020 502 1,054 139 3,854 3,079 6,065 1,811 1,436 5,201 4,219 2,300 36 28 497 2,936 823 2,992 4,116 5,530 2,621 1,508 177 TAZ Employee Change (2008 to 2030) 0 1,695 240 0 2 25 56 253 1,277 0 0 ‐104 63 245 0 761 126 460 95 63 0 392 103 0 0 0 441 412 918 1,500 1,191 252 89 0 TAZ TAZ Population (2008) TAZ Population (2030) 1979 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 6,645 277 722 937 1,188 1,644 2,167 862 4,463 1,344 0 22 2,089 391 478 228 314 864 908 3,674 232 522 468 422 211 545 1,462 8,672 9,098 15 0 67 9,779 44 28 743 0 7,115 533 1,426 1,075 1,480 1,672 2,367 909 5,296 1,795 0 22 2,262 581 874 357 533 1,426 1,488 4,399 239 603 552 762 402 651 2,750 12,224 12,034 15 0 1,844 15,032 3,025 590 10,552 2,164 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 19
TAZ Population Change (2008 to 2030) 470 256 704 138 292 28 200 47 833 451 0 0 173 190 396 129 219 562 580 725 7 81 84 340 191 106 1,288 3,552 2,936 0 0 1,777 5,253 2,981 562 9,809 2,164 TAZ Employees (2008) TAZ Employees (2030) 1,749 187 43 82 163 317 102 96 692 18 72 18 190 113 115 12 106 32 311 244 28 58 40 32 18 91 58 345 370 1,033 1,138 4,612 4,674 473 821 2,048 1,968 1,803 187 43 130 168 350 113 214 1,947 18 72 20 262 113 115 12 106 226 379 827 28 59 40 32 18 91 254 464 540 1,625 2,630 10,489 8,423 1,396 1,387 2,517 2,456 TAZ Employee Change (2008 to 2030) 54 0 0 48 5 33 11 118 1,255 0 0 2 72 0 0 0 0 194 68 583 0 1 0 0 0 0 196 119 170 592 1,492 5,877 3,749 923 566 469 488 TAZ TAZ Population (2008) TAZ Population (2030) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 6 1,265 1,346 1,493 299 3,908 1,197 479 59 1,140 955 275 3,880 723 1,148 478 172 4,131 5,451 2,040 6 13 31 4,175 322 375 1,548 389 475 477 554 5,588 2,376 7,998 763 2,354 12,144 616 1,477 1,410 1,640 2,689 4,923 4,101 549 2,635 3,963 1,490 769 7,248 1,471 1,857 1,043 470 5,605 6,726 4,151 71 13 1,316 8,382 338 542 1,728 443 612 718 1,690 10,601 4,527 15,248 1,457 4,487 22,863 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 20
TAZ Population Change (2008 to 2030) 610 212 64 147 2,390 1,015 2,904 70 2,576 2,823 535 494 3,368 748 709 565 298 1,474 1,275 2,111 65 0 1,285 4,207 16 167 180 54 137 241 1,136 5,013 2,151 7,250 694 2,133 10,719 TAZ Employees (2008) TAZ Employees (2030) 1,809 96 195 93 28 322 82 21 722 114 119 19 590 407 561 147 122 115 299 609 66 2 219 332 71 35 107 124 106 46 1,171 476 596 1,787 239 476 15,369 2,707 97 195 103 58 945 157 22 1,516 1,249 1,192 29 1,004 407 2,305 215 782 787 309 609 1,384 2 1,243 952 72 35 109 124 106 46 1,718 686 859 2,576 345 686 22,144 TAZ Employee Change (2008 to 2030) 898 1 0 10 30 623 75 1 794 1,135 1,073 10 414 0 1,744 68 660 672 10 0 1,318 0 1,024 620 1 0 2 0 0 0 547 210 263 789 106 210 6,775 TAZ 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 TOTAL TAZ Population (2008) TAZ Population (2030) 10,017 5,534 6,529 7,844 9,415 17,194 9,597 12,387 14,921 17,929 280,726 432,087 TAZ Population Change (2008 to 2030) 7,177 4,063 5,858 7,077 8,514 151,361 Source: MWCOG Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecasts
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 21
TAZ Employees (2008) TAZ Employees (2030) 2,229 834 1,191 1,550 1,310 8,234 1,202 2,493 2,252 1,890 105,162 161,842 TAZ Employee Change (2008 to 2030) 6,005 368 1,302 702 580 56,680 Figure 6: Forecast Population Change from 2008 to 2030 for Study Area TAZs
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 22
Figure 7: Forecast Change in Employment from 2008 to 2030 for Study Area TAZs
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 23
Table 14: Forecast Change in Population and Employment for Market Area Districts
District District Population (2008) District Population (2030) Gainesville 30,040 57,421 Haymarket 32,939 57,275 Lake Jackson 21,389 23,717 Manassas 37,430 41,765 Manassas 39,504 48,113 Park Area N. Fauquier 53,303 98,361 Nokesville 16,510 23,915 S. Fauquier 17,259 32,850 Wellington 32,352 48,670 TOTAL 280,726 432,087 Source: MWCOG Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecasts Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 24
District Population Change (2008 to 2030) 27,381 24,336 2,328 4,335 District Employees (2008) District Employees (2030) 8,473 4,920 2,039 24,043 14,838 12,242 2,496 25,829 District Employee Change (2008 to 2030) 6,365 7,322 457 1,786 8,609 8,650 10,946 2,296 45,058 7,405 15,591 16,318 151,361 23,197 4,527 2,860 26,453 105,162 39,225 10,165 4,142 41,959 161,842 16,028 5,638 1,282 15,506 56,680 Figure 8: Study Area Districts
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 25
Figure 9: Forecast Population Change from 2008 to 2030 – Study Area Districts
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 26
Figure 10: Forecast Change in Employment from 2008 to 2030 – Study Area Districts
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 27
Trip Distribution The demographic forecasts described in the previous section are the primary inputs to the trip generation step of the model, which identifies the locations of trip origins and destinations. In trip distribution, the origins are connected to destinations to form regional trip tables (origin‐destination matrices). Table 15 and Table 16 show the forecast change in HBW trips from the study area origins to major destinations from 2008 to 2030 by TAZ and district, respectively. Total trips between these areas are forecast to increase from 4,100 in 2008 to 6,590 in 2030. Most of these new trips are destined for the District of Columbia. This distribution was felt to not fully represent the true pattern of work trip destination of person resident in the market area of the VRE line under study. A revised process based on use of the work trip patterns revealed by the 2000 Census Transportation Planning package (CTPP) and used by AECOM in the recent White House Area Transportation Study (WHATS) was applied for this study. The procedures to create CTPP‐based HBW trip tables were originally developed for Los Angeles and then later employed for the WHATS project. A flow chart that displays the step by step process for developing CTPP‐based HBW trip tables for VRE model is shown in Figure 11 and described below: Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 28
Figure 11: Process for Developing CTPP-Based HBW Trip Tables for VRE Model
1. The row and column totals used to FRATAR the MWCOG CTPP tables come from the HBW person trip table produced by the MWCOG 2.2 model at the end trip distribution step of the sixth feedback iteration. Theoretically, the row marginals should match the productions from the trip generation. There may be some differences in the attraction totals due to trip table balancing. The use of marginals from trips table coming out of trip distribution step also permits maintaining trip totals by income level for use in the mode choice procedure (as explained below). Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 29
2. The zonal interchange level income fractions are developed using CTPP table 305 (Journey to work by income) and CTPP part 1 and part 2 data. The flow data from CTPP table 305 is used as a seed matrix. This matrix is smoothed using row sums (productions – CTPP part 1), and column sums (attractions – CTPP part 2) to develop final set of CTPP based income fractions. The income fractions bins correspond to the MWCOG income group definition. The income group definitions are adjusted to Year 1999 for use with CTPP 2000 data. This CTPP based income fractions table is used to split the FRATARed CTPP trip table into four income groups (refer to attached flow chart). The resulting tables are then factored to match the regional total HBW trips by income quartile generated by the MWCOG trip distribution model. This methodology is applied to calibration year 2002, validation year 2008 and application year 2030. The 2030 HBW person trip table developed using this process was used for analysis of all alternatives. Given the nature of the proposed commuter rail service, trip forecasts were made only for home‐based work trips. While it is recognized that there may be some travelers who would use public transit or the VRE rail service for trips of other purposes, we believe the number would be small and are not directly relevant to the purpose and need of the proposed project. Trips for other purposes are omitted from the analysis and for estimation of user benefits. The demographic inputs for both the standard and refined models are the same: the MWCOG Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecasts. Table 15: Home-Based Work Person Trips (Total Daily) from Study Area Origins
to Major Destinations by District (MWCOG v2.2 Standard Model)
2008 District Washington DC 2030 Alexandria Arlington Total Washington DC Alexandria Arlington Total Change in Trips Gainesville 268 107 186 561 669 212 400 1,281 720 Haymarket 162 56 125 343 88 24 68 180 ‐163 Lake Jackson 345 329 227 901 2,132 669 1,235 4,036 3,135 Manassas 195 134 161 490 573 174 315 1,062 572 Manassas Park Area 320 264 270 854 681 270 422 1,373 519 N Fauquier 0 11 8 19 0 1 0 1 ‐18 Nokesville 181 114 114 409 1,043 332 573 1,948 1,539 S Fauquier 0 1 0 1 0 10 10 20 19 Wellington 216 117 189 522 393 143 253 789 267 TOTAL 1,687 1,133 1,280 4,100 5,579 1,835 3,276 10,690 6,590 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 30
Table 16: Home-Based Work Person Trips (Total Daily) from Study Area Origins to Major
Destinations by District Forecast based on refined CTPP trip distribution and AECOM model
2008 District Washington DC 2030 Alexandria Arlington Total Washington DC Alexandria Arlington Total Change in Trips Gainesville 972 331 912 2,215 1,293 668 1,290 3,251 1,036 Haymarket Lake Jackson 798 139 332 1,269 1,059 190 548 1,797 528 1,326 276 797 2,399 1,315 317 774 2,406 7 Manassas 1,078 296 501 1,875 1,078 314 536 1,929 54 Manassas Park Area 1,292 307 758 2,357 1,344 330 912 2,586 228 N Fauquier 1,009 324 669 2,002 1,640 612 1,261 3,513 1,511 Nokesville 786 254 402 1,443 801 373 418 1,591 148 S Fauquier 168 116 154 438 275 227 257 759 321 Wellington 853 196 475 1,524 893 250 570 1,713 189 TOTAL 8,283 2,238 5,001 15,522 9,698 3,280 6,566 19,544 4,022 Alternatives Analyzed Each of the alternatives in Tier 2 was tested using the enhanced MWCOG model – Baseline 1, Baseline 2, and three build alternatives. In the summary tables results for each build alternative are arrayed with 2008 conditions, the results of testing the no‐build scenario, and the two baselines to allow comparison across all conditions. For measures where it is necessary to directly compare a build alternative to a baseline ‐‐ for example, computations of user benefits, new riders, or other metrics where an incremental difference is required ‐‐ the build alternative is always compared against Baseline 2 for the results displayed from this point in the appendix forward. Maps of each alternative may be found in the main document. A brief description of each alternative follows below. The operating assumptions coded in the model for each alternative are shown in Table 17 for the build alternatives and Table 18 for the no‐build and baseline alternatives. Baseline 1: Service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC This option would provide direct bus service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC (Pentagon) via Cushing Park and Ride Lot and the State Department. This option would utilize I‐66 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes where possible. There would be no change in VRE service with this option. Baseline 2: Expanded VRE Service with Connecting Shuttle Bus Service from Haymarket, Gainesville and Sudley Manor The Baseline Scenario would provide feeder shuttle bus service from park and ride lots in Haymarket, Gainesville, and Sudley Manor to Broad Run Station timed to meet expanded VRE service. This expanded VRE service provides two additional AM peak inbound and two additional PM peak outbound trains. This changes the total number of train trips per day from 16 to 20. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 31
Alternative 1B: Service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC This option would provide a new commuter rail service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC that evenly divides the Manassas Line allocation of the VRE system 40 train per day maximum between the existing Manassas Line service from Broad Run to DC and the new service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC. This approach will result in less frequent service for riders from Broad Run but more frequent service (compared to today) east of Manassas on the existing Manassas Line service. This option does not require exceeding the VRE system‐wide maximum of 40 trains per day. Alternative 1C: Service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC This option would provide the same type of new commuter rail service as outlined in Alternative 1B, except that this alternative adds a commuter rail shuttle from Gainesville‐Haymarket to Alexandria. The shuttle, which would operate on a 20 to 30 minute headway to meet scheduled morning and afternoon peak period trains, would offer a two‐seat ride to DC through a transfer at Alexandria to Metrorail service. It would also provide an all‐day reverse commute service from Alexandria to the Manassas and the Gainesville‐Haymarket area. This shuttle service stops just prior to reaching the stretch of VRE service area that is limited to 40 trains per day. This approach will result in less frequent peak period service for riders from Broad Run, but more frequent peak period service (compared to today) east of Manassas on the existing Manassas Line service. It also offers a new all‐day fairly frequent service east of Manassas on the existing line. Alternative 1D: Service from Gainesville‐Haymarket via Broad Run to DC This option would provide a new commuter rail service from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC via Broad Run. Service would originate in Gainesville‐Haymarket, travel south to Manassas then west to Broad Run. At Broad Run, the train would reverse direction and travel into DC making all existing stops. This is an indirect route from Gainesville‐Haymarket to DC, since the service goes through Broad Run to reach DC, but it does provide the same service frequencies for Gainesville‐Haymarket and Broad Run riders. This option reaches, but does not exceed the 40 train per day maximum. This means that there would be a slight improvement in peak period frequency on the existing line from Broad Run to DC. In order to further gauge the market potential for improved transit service in the Gainesville‐Haymarket study area and confirm the model sensitivity to the improved service, two sub‐alternatives were tested that eliminated rail service to Broad Run, coded Manassas as an end‐of‐line station, and provided mainline service with 30 minute headways on the Gainesville‐Haymarket branch (Norfolk Southern ‘B’ Line). One sub‐alternative used Gainesville as the end‐of‐line station, and the other used Haymarket as the end‐of‐line station. Both sub‐alternatives included a station at Sudley Manor. The results of testing these sub‐alternatives are included in Tables 19 through 24 and are shown at the far right of each table as 1H (Haymarket) and 1G (Gainesville).
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 32
Table 17: Operating Assumptions for Build Alternatives
1B ‐ Split the Manassas allocation of the max. 40 trains between G‐H and BR New Commuter Existing Commuter Rail Frequency Runtime Rail Frequency Runtime Origin G‐H Origin Broad Run Destination DC Destination DC AM In 52 89 Out 180 85 In 480 84 AM In 52 75 Out 180 75 In 480 70 480 73 Frequency Runtime OP Out 480 84 OP Out 1C ‐ Split the Manassas allocation of the max. 40 trains between G‐H and BR and add new commuter rail shuttle service (overlay) New Commuter Existing Commuter Rail Frequency Runtime Rail Origin G‐H Destination AM OP Origin DC 60 89 Out 180 85 In 0 0 Out 0 0 AM OP 1D ‐ Existing Manassas allocation of max. 40 trains start at G‐H to Broad Run to DC Modified Commuter Rail Frequency Runtime Origin Intermediate Stop Broad Run Destination DC AM OP G‐H In 25 101 Out 90 101 In 480 96 Out 480 99 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 33
Broad Run Destination In New Commuter Rail Shuttle DC In 30 75 Out 0 0 In 0 0 Out 480 73 Frequency Runtime Origin G‐H Destination Alexandria Stops In 30 59 AM Out 30 66 OP In 30 59 Table 18: Operating Assumptions for No-Build and Baseline Alternatives
Baseline 1 Existing Commuter Rail Frequency Runtime New Bus Service Origin Destination Broad Run DC Origin Destination AM In 30 75 Out 90 75 OP In 180 70 Out 180 73 Frequency Runtime Baseline 2 New Commuter Rail Frequency AM OP Runtime G‐H State Dept / Pentagon In 30 90 Out 90 58 In 180 71 Out 180 52 Frequency Runtime New Bus Service Origin Broad Run Origin G‐H Destination DC Destination Manassas / Broad Run AM In 23 75 AM In Shuttle Shuttle Out 180 75 Out Matches Matches OP In Out No‐
build Existing Commuter Rail 480 70 OP In Rail Rail 240 73 Out Service Service Frequency Runtime Origin Broad Run Destination DC AM In 30 75 Out 90 75 OP In 180 70 Out 180 73 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 34
1. Using HOV lanes 2. No intermediate stops
Notes: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
VRE operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM. This represents a 15‐hour service day. AM peak service operates from 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. PM peak service operates from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. There are no pre‐AM peak or post‐PM peak train starts. During the midday off‐peak service (OP), there is one inbound and on outbound trip. There is one reverse peak trip during both the AM and PM peak service periods. Frequency/Headway is the time between successive arrivals (or departures) of transit vehicles on a given route. Run time is the time in minutes that it takes for the transit vehicle to go from the start to the finish of its route and is a measure of the average speed of the vehicle on that route. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 35
Forecast Results Table 19 shows the forecast HBW peak trips by alternative between the study area and the metropolitan core. Table 20 shows the same data for the entire MWCOG model region. Table 21 shows transit trips only, by production and attraction district. Table 22 shows individual station boardings and alightings by alternative. Overall, Alternative 1C shows the greatest number of transit trips. This result is expected, as the alternative provides the maximum level of transit service east of Manassas and the forecasting model is quite sensitive to service frequency, absent other factors. Alternatives 1C and 1D show increases in transit trips in the study area relative to Baseline 2. At the district level, the primary travel markets served continue to be from the Gainesville‐Haymarket and Manassas areas to Crystal City and the DC Core. This pattern is true even in Alternative 1C, which means that some of those riders may be taking advantage of the increased frequency by using the shuttle and then transferring to Metrorail to reach their final destination. The model’s sensitivity to service frequencies can be seen again in the boardings and alightings. Boardings at the three new rail stations – Haymarket, Gainesville, and Sudley Manor –are virtually nonexistent in the alternatives for which the time between trains would be 50 to 60 minutes. Significant boardings at these stations are projected in those alternatives that provide service to them at least every 30 minutes in the peak hours: Alternatives 1C, 1D, 1H and 1G. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 36
Table 19: Projected Home-Based Work Trips (Peak) between Project Study Area and the Metropolitan Core by Alternative
Baseline 1 NB (30 min for (30 min) rail and bus) ‐ 1C ‐ 30 min Baseline 2 1B ‐ 52 min from BR, 60 from BR (23 min for min from rail with GH plus 30 and GH G‐H feeder (Within 40 min to bus) ‐ trains) Alexandria shuttle 1D ‐ GH to BR to DC (25 min) 1H (30 min 1G (30 min Haymarket‐ Gainesville‐
to‐DC) to‐DC) From W. Prince William & Fauquier to DC Areas 2008 TotTrips 10,625 13,379 13,379 13,379 13,379 13,379 13,379 13,379 13,379 TotAuto 6,034 8,114 8,062 7,650 7,735 7,174 7,554 7,690 7,933 TotTrn 4,590 5,265 5,317 5,729 5,644 6,205 5,824 5,689 5,446 Transit Share Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail WalkAccess All Bus 43.2% 156 73 94 39.4% 250 35 44 34.5% 250 36 44 40.7% 285 28 41 42.2% 272 30 42 46.4% 300 25 39 43.5% 278 29 42 42.5% 259 33 43 40.7% 245 35 44 All Metrorail Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail All Bus 0 4,060 39 78 0 4,400 59 65 0 3,244 316 800 0 4,980 37 61 0 4,901 36 59 0 5,601 17 46 0 5,130 27 57 0 4,952 28 64 0 4,661 37 66 All Metrorail Bus/Metrorail All Bus 41 20 31 322 61 29 223 137 267 225 45 27 232 46 27 129 25 23 201 34 26 249 33 27 285 44 28 All Metrorail 0 4,216 132 203 41 4,592 91.8% 2.9% 4.4% 0.9% 100.0% 0 0 0 88.3% 2.9% 2.6% 6.1% 100.0% 65.7% 9.2% 20.9% 4.2% 100.0% 0 5,211 94 134 249 5,688 91.6% 1.7% 2.4% 4.4% 100.0% 0 3,494 489 1,111 223 5,317 0 5,901 67 108 129 6,205 95.1% 1.1% 1.7% 2.1% 100.0% 0 4,650 155 138 322 5,265 0 5,265 110 129 225 5,729 91.9% 1.9% 2.3% 3.9% 100.0% DriveAccess K&R Access Total Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail All Bus All Metrorail Total Transit Total Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail All Bus All Metrorail Total Transit Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 37
5,173 112 128 232 5,645 91.6% 2.0% 2.3% 4.1% 100.0% 5,408 90 125 201 5,824 92.9% 1.5% 2.1% 3.5% 100.0% 4,906 116 138 285 5,445 90.1% 2.1% 2.5% 5.2% 100.0% Table 20: Projected Home-Based Work Trips (Peak, Regional Totals) by Alternative
Regional 2008 Baseline 1 NB (30 min for (30 min) rail and bus) ‐ 1C ‐ 30 min from BR, Baseline 2 1B ‐ 52 min 60 min (23 min for from BR from GH rail with and GH plus 30 min G‐H feeder (Within 40 to bus) ‐ trains) Alexandria shuttle 1D ‐ GH to BR to DC (25 min) 1H (30 min 1G (30 min Haymarket‐ Gainesville‐
to‐DC) to‐DC) TotTrips 2,856,515 3,595,873 3,595,873 3,595,873 3,595,873 3,595,873 3,595,873 3,595,873 3,595,873 TotAuto 2,341,554 2,990,328 2,990,245 2,989,297 2,989,674 2,988,301 2,989,328 2,989,808 2,990,146 TotTrn 514,961 605,545 605,627 606,577 606,200 607,573 606,546 606,065 605,727 Transit Share Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail WalkAccess All Bus 18.0% 3,467 105,518 132,069 16.8% 4,293 115,908 147,199 16.8% 4,292 115,909 147,199 16.9% 4,581 115,731 147,157 16.9% 4,459 115,811 147,174 16.9% 4,853 115,599 147,123 16.9% 4,507 115,787 147,169 16.9% 4,309 115,903 147,197 16.8% 4,244 115,928 147,203 All Metrorail Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail All Bus 82,076 26,399 15,202 21,494 116,062 30,195 17,361 24,211 116,062 29,011 17,630 24,997 116,018 32,992 17,218 24,195 116,041 31,896 17,266 24,198 116,006 34,985 17,118 24,169 116,027 32,514 17,240 24,195 116,062 30,897 17,321 24,210 116,065 30,348 17,346 24,213 All Metrorail Bus/Metrorail All Bus 88,742 5,948 6,182 100,859 5,901 6,739 100,719 5,984 7,005 99,435 5,848 6,735 100,019 5,864 6,736 98,605 5,807 6,728 99,809 5,847 6,735 100,742 5,869 6,738 100,925 5,884 6,739 All Metrorail 27,868 29,866 126,668 159,745 198,686 514,965 5.8% 24.6% 31.0% 38.6% 100.0% 36,820 36,820 36,737 5.7% 23.0% 29.4% 41.9% 100.0% 5.5% 23.0% 29.6% 41.9% 100.0% 36,818 35,206 139,093 178,145 253,622 606,066 5.8% 23.0% 29.4% 41.8% 100.0% 36,834 33,303 139,523 179,201 253,601 605,628 36,582 39,838 138,524 178,020 251,193 607,575 6.6% 22.8% 29.3% 41.3% 100.0% 36,717 34,488 139,170 178,149 253,741 605,548 36,667 37,573 138,797 178,087 252,120 606,577 6.2% 22.9% 29.4% 41.6% 100.0% DriveAccess K&R Access Total Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail All Bus All Metrorail Total Transit Total Commuter Rail Bus/Metrorail All Bus All Metrorail Total Transit Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 38
36,355 138,941 178,108 252,797 606,201 6.0% 22.9% 29.4% 41.7% 100.0% 37,021 138,874 178,099 252,553 606,547 6.1% 22.9% 29.4% 41.6% 100.0% 34,592 139,158 178,155 253,824 605,729 5.7% 23.0% 29.4% 41.9% 100.0% Table 21: Forecast HBW Transit Trips – District-to-District, Production-Attraction Format
Crystal City 70 71 36 60 85 332 24 35 18 731 Arlington Other 60 80 56 28 11 12 33 12 4 296 Arlington Other 60 81 57 28 11 12 43 20 4 316 Old Town 36 39 15 16 22 206 13 22 1 370 Old Town 36 39 15 16 22 205 13 23 1 370 Alexandria Other DC Core 10 242 13 644 4 349 4 280 5 427 10 606 1 393 1 370 1 53 49 3,364 Alexandria Other DC Core 10 239 13 642 4 320 4 272 5 427 10 571 2 426 2 425 1 53 51 3,375 Crystal City 81 83 41 68 89 383 26 29 20 820 Arlington Other 67 92 64 33 12 14 37 15 4 316 Old Town 41 43 17 18 23 216 16 25 1 370 Alexandria Other DC Core 12 263 15 686 5 368 4 297 5 433 12 648 2 435 2 405 1 54 51 3,375 2030 No‐Build Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Crystal City 70 71 36 60 85 334 21 22 18 717 2030 Baseline 1 Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total 2030 Baseline 2 Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 39
DC Other 133 89 76 38 56 26 13 19 19 469 Total 551 936 536 426 606 1,194 474 446 96 5,265 DC Other 132 89 76 38 56 24 16 25 19 475 Total 547 935 508 418 606 1,154 524 530 96 5,318 DC Other 151 98 85 42 57 30 18 22 21 475 Total 615 1,017 580 462 619 1,303 534 498 101 5,318 2030 1B Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Crystal City 76 78 39 65 91 394 26 27 20 816 2030 1C Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Crystal City 86 89 44 73 98 440 38 49 21 938 2030 1D Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Crystal City 78 79 40 66 92 400 30 38 20 843 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 40
Arlington Other 64 87 60 31 13 14 36 14 4 323 Arlington Other 70 98 68 36 15 16 49 25 4 381 Arlington Other 65 89 61 32 13 14 42 20 4 340 Old Town 39 41 16 17 23 218 15 24 1 394 Old Town 42 43 18 19 23 229 20 35 1 430 Old Town 40 42 16 18 23 219 17 29 1 405 Alexandria Other DC Core 11 254 14 669 5 360 4 291 5 434 12 649 2 439 2 399 1 55 56 3,550 Alexandria Other DC Core 12 272 16 703 5 375 5 304 6 444 14 687 4 515 3 471 1 56 66 3,827 Alexandria Other DC Core 11 257 14 674 5 362 4 293 5 435 12 655 3 484 2 448 1 55 57 3,663 DC Other 143 94 82 40 58 29 17 21 21 505 Total 587 983 562 448 624 1,316 535 487 102 5,644 DC Other 160 102 89 44 60 33 23 29 23 563 Total 642 1,051 599 481 646 1,419 649 612 106 6,205 DC Other 145 95 83 41 58 30 21 26 21 520 Total 596 993 567 454 626 1,330 597 563 102 5,828 2030 1H Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Crystal City 70 71 37 61 87 377 33 42 19 797 Arlington Other 60 81 57 29 12 12 46 23 4 324 Old Town 36 40 15 16 23 217 18 30 1 396 Alexandria Other DC Core 10 243 13 645 4 355 4 282 5 428 11 646 3 505 2 466 1 54 53 3,624 DC Other 133 89 78 38 57 29 23 29 20 496 Total 552 939 546 430 612 1,292 628 592 99 5,690 2030 1G Manassas Manassas Park Wellington Nokesville Lake Jackson Gainesville Haymarket N. Fauquier S. Fauquier Total Crystal City 68 69 36 59 86 365 28 28 19 758 Arlington Other 59 78 55 28 12 12 38 15 4 301 Old Town 35 39 14 16 23 215 15 25 1 383 Alexandria Other DC Core 9 238 13 635 4 350 4 278 5 427 11 635 2 460 2 409 1 53 51 3,485 DC Other 129 87 75 37 56 28 17 22 19 470 Total 538 921 534 422 609 1,266 560 501 97 5,448 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 41
Table 22: Station Boardings and Alightings by Alternative
1B - 52
min from
BR and
GH
(Within
40 trains)
1C - 30
min from
BR, 60
min from
GH plus
30 min to
Alexandria
shuttle
1D - GH
to BR to
DC (25
min)
1H (30
min from
Haymarket
to DC)
Boardings
Alightings
36
36
883
883
620
620
714
714
Boardings
Alightings
6
6
321
321
2
2
127
127
680
680
Boardings
Alightings
20
20
97
97
9
9
413
413
401
401
2008
NB (30
min)
Baseline 1
(30 min for
rail and bus)
Baseline 2
(23 min for
rail with G-H
feeder bus)
1G (30
min from
Gainesville
to DC)
VRE Manassas Inbound/Outbound
Haymarket
Gainesville
Sudley Manor
Prince William County
Broad Run
Boardings
Alightings
873
873
1,152
1,152
704
704
1,337
1,337
11
11
2
2
70
70
Boardings
Alightings
927
927
1,037
1,037
876
876
1,193
1,193
2,565
2,565
2,673
2,673
2,157
2,157
1,404
1,404
1,372
1,372
Boardings
Alightings
582
582
428
428
416
416
548
548
425
425
597
597
433
433
371
371
354
354
Boardings
Alightings
645
645
702
702
702
702
1,091
1,091
900
900
1,505
1,505
947
947
708
708
667
667
Boardings
Alightings
936
936
759
759
759
759
1,241
1,241
1,033
1,033
1,522
1,522
1,094
1,094
764
764
719
719
Boardings
Alightings
447
447
519
519
519
519
862
862
701
701
1,150
1,150
746
746
522
522
501
501
Boardings
Alightings
2,382
2,382
4,764
2,617
2,617
5,234
1,996
1,996
3,992
3,078
3,078
3,992
3,063
3,063
6,126
4,573
4,573
9,146
3,291
3,291
6,582
3,029
3,029
6,058
2,807
2,807
5,614
Boardings
Alightings
2,028
2,028
1,980
1,980
1,980
1,980
3,194
3,194
2,634
2,634
4,177
4,177
2,787
2,787
1,994
1,994
1,887
1,887
Manassas
Manassas Park
Burke Center
Rolling Road
Fairfax County
Backlick Road
Prince William Totals
Fairfax County Totals
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 42
Overall Totals
1C - 30
min from
BR, 60
min from
GH plus
30 min to
Alexandria
shuttle
1D - GH
to BR to
DC (25
min)
1H (30
min from
Haymarket
to DC)
1G (30
min from
Gainesville
to DC)
2008
NB (30
min)
Baseline 1
(30 min for
rail and bus)
Baseline 2
(23 min for
rail with G-H
feeder bus)
1B - 52
min from
BR and
GH
(Within
40 trains)
Boardings
Alightings
4,410
4,410
4,597
4,597
3,976
3,976
6,272
6,272
5,697
5,697
8,750
8,750
6,078
6,078
5,023
5,023
4,694
4,694
Boardings
Alightings
73
73
20
20
17
17
18
18
19
19
18
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
Boardings
Alightings
143
143
51
51
44
44
46
46
48
48
45
45
48
48
49
49
52
52
Boardings
Alightings
53
53
89
89
89
89
85
85
85
85
77
77
85
85
89
89
90
90
Boardings
Alightings
36
36
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Boardings
Alightings
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Boardings
Alightings
53
53
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
53
53
68
68
67
67
68
68
Boardings
Alightings
29
29
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
47
47
58
58
58
58
58
58
Boardings
Alightings
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
BUSES (Boardings/Alightings in PW)
Omni Ride from
Manassas Mall to State
Dept, ending at
Pentagon
Omni Ride from
Manassas Mall to
Pentagon, ending at
State Dept
Omni Ride from Liberia
and Centreville to
Tysons East
Omni Ride from Liberia
and Centreville to
Vienna
Omni Ride from
Pentagon to Manassas
Omni Ride from Tysons
East to Manassas
Omni Ride from
Manassas to Tysons
East
Modified Linton Hall to
Pentagon, ending at
State Dept
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 43
2008
1C - 30
min from
BR, 60
min from
GH plus
30 min to
Alexandria
shuttle
1D - GH
to BR to
DC (25
min)
1H (30
min from
Haymarket
to DC)
1G (30
min from
Gainesville
to DC)
NB (30
min)
Baseline 1
(30 min for
rail and bus)
Baseline 2
(23 min for
rail with G-H
feeder bus)
1B - 52
min from
BR and
GH
(Within
40 trains)
57
57
6
6
36
36
37
37
18
18
26
26
26
26
37
37
Omni Ride from
Dominion Valley Dr to
Tysons East
Boardings
Alightings
Omni Ride from
Haymarket to State
Dept, ending at
Pentagon
Boardings
Alightings
823
823
Shuttle bus from
Haymarket to Broad
Run Station
Boardings
Alightings
143
143
Shuttle bus from
Gainesville to Broad
Run Station
Boardings
Alightings
Shuttle bus from
Sudley Manor to Broad
Run Station
Boardings
Alightings
Overall Totals
12
12
Boardings
Alightings
389
389
367
367
1,129
1,129
489
489
338
338
281
281
326
326
332
332
349
349
Boardings
Alightings
2,771
2,771
2,984
2,984
3,125
3,125
3,567
3,567
3,401
3,401
4,854
4,854
3,617
3,617
3,361
3,361
3,156
3,156
TOTAL STUDY AREA TRANSIT
TRIPS
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 44
Modeled User Benefits User benefits are calculated by processing model results with FTA’s Summit software. Reporting of transit system user benefits for each build alternative is shown as the change relative to Baseline 2. Table 23 shows the user benefits for each alternative for HBW trips only. Table 24 shows the same results for all trip purposes. For trips from the study area to the DC core, only Alternatives 1C and 1D show significant positive modeled user benefits relative to Baseline 2. Table 23: Change in Modeled Transit Trips and Model Produced User Benefits
Compared to Baseline 2 by Alternative
Home-Based Work Trips
HBW (Regional)
Baseline 1*
Baseline 2*
1B
1C
1D
1H
1G
Change in Transit Trips
347
874
-333
845
-49
-470
-745
User Benefits (hours)
729
1,922
-677
1,739
-110
-1,046
-1,673
HBW (from Study Area
to DC Area)
Baseline 1*
Baseline 2*
1B
1C
1D
1H
1G
Change in Transit Trips
317
326
-62
364
82
-5
-197
User Benefits (hours)
684
775
-135
966
213
3
-465
* For Baseline 1 and Baseline 2 the change in Trips and User Benefits are measured compared to the No‐build. Table 24: Change in Transit Trips and User Benefits Compared to Baseline 2 by Alternative
Daily Trips, All Trip Purposes
Daily All Purposes
(Regional)
Baseline 1*
Baseline 2*
1B
1C
1D
1H
1G
Change in Transit Trips
User Benefits (hours)
396
780
930
2,005
-334
-698
2,294
2,596
-58
-118
-494
-1,092
-795
-1,737
Daily All Purposes (from
Study Area to DC Area)
Baseline 1*
Baseline 2*
1B
1C
1D
1H
1G
Change in Transit Trips
364
327
-38
1,099
89
21
-185
User Benefits (hours)
733
782
-121
1,229
225
24
-455
*For Baseline 1 and Baseline 2 the change in Trips and User Benefits are measured compared to the No‐build. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 45
Figure 12: Change in Production End Modeled User Benefits – Baseline 2 vs. No-Build
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 46
Figure 13: Change in Production End Modeled User Benefits – Alternative 1B vs. Baseline 2
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 47
Figure 14: Change in Production End Modeled User Benefits – Alternative 1C vs. Baseline 2
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 48
Figure 15: Change in Production End Modeled User Benefits – Alternative 1D vs. Baseline 2
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 49
Figure 16: Change in Production End Modeled User Benefits – Alternative 1G vs. Baseline 2
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 50
Figure 17: Change in Production End Modeled User Benefits – Alternative 1H vs. Baseline 2
Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 51
Exogenously‐Derived User Benefits As noted previously, the 2030 forecasts for the build alternatives were adjusted upward to account for unmodeled X‐I transit trips and the model’s underestimation of VRE trips for the year 2008. This adjustment means that there should be a corresponding change in user benefits. The adjustments to user benefits were performed exogenous to the model chain and Summit. The process and results are described below: 1. Assume that all added commuter rail riders a. Have shifted from drive alone b. Are high income c. Drive to commuter rail 2. Broad Run station to downtown Washington, D.C. (14th and G Streets, NW) was used as a typical trip (TAZ 2005 to TAZ 31) 3. From the model documentation the utility functions for drive alone and commuter rail were determined: Equation 1: Utility Function for Drive Alone
Udrive alone=‐0.02128*(timeij)‐0.00044*(tollij)‐0.00044*(parkingij) Equation 2: Utility Function for Commuter Rail
Ucommuter rail=‐0.02128*(in‐vehicle timeij)‐0.03192*(drive access timeij)‐0.0532* (walk access timeij+initial wait timeij)‐0.00044*(fareij) Where: Time is the drive alone travel time from i to j Toll is the toll cost for the trip from i to j in 1980 cents Parking is the parking cost for the trip from i to j in 1980 cents In‐vehicle time is the commuter rail in‐vehicle time for the trip from i to j Drive access time is the time to drive to the commuter rail station for the trip from i to j Walk access time is the time to walk from the parking lot at the commuter rail station to the station platform Initial wait time is the time spent waiting at the platform for the train to arrive Fare is the commuter rail fare in 1994 cents 4. The impedances for the typical i‐j pair identified in step 2 were computed for the baseline (drive alone) and build (commuter rail) alternatives 5. The per‐trip user benefits for each alternative were computed for HBW trips using Equation 3 below: Equation 3: Computation of Per-Trip User Benefits
Per Trip User Benefits = (Build Commuter Rail Impedance‐Baseline Drive Alone Impedance)/ Coefficient on In‐Vehicle Travel Time Where: Impedances for commuter rail and drive alone computed in step 4 Coefficient on In‐Vehicle Travel Time = ‐0.02128 Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 52
6. The per‐trip user benefits computed in step 5 were multiplied by the incremental (build minus baseline) number of commuter rail trips added during the trip table adjustments to obtain the added exogenous user benefits. 7. The exogenous user benefits computed in step 6 were added to the user benefits previously computed by Summit. The computation for drive alone impedance is shown in Table 25. The computation for commuter rail impedance is shown in Table 26. Table 25: Impedance Computation for Drive Alone for Generation of Exogenous User Benefits
SOV Time (min)
SOV Toll (1980 cents)
Parking Cost (1980 cents)
Impedance
Price (min)
156
0
502
‐3.54056
166
Table 26: Impedance Computation for Commuter Rail for Generation of Exogenous User Benefits
Commuter Rail In‐Vehicle Time (min) Drive Access Time (min) Walk Access Time (min) Initial Wait Time (min) NB Baseline 1 Baseline 2 Alt 1B Alt 1C Alt 1D 1H 1G 64.98 64.98 64.98 64.86 64.90 65.15 64.75 66.79 11.79 11.79 11.79 11.79 11.79 11.79 11.79 11.79 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 15 15 11.5 13 10 12.5 15 15 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 326 Impedance ‐2.77503 ‐2.77503 ‐2.58883 ‐2.66608 ‐2.50733 ‐2.64565 ‐2.77014 ‐2.81355 Price (min) 130 130 122 125 118 124 130 132 Fare (1994 cents) Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 53
Table 27 shows the exogenous user benefits for the new commuter rail trips following the previously discussed trip table adjustments. Table 28 reproduces a portion of Table 23 and shows the change in model‐derived user benefits for each alternative compared to Baseline 2 for HBW peak period trips. Table 27: Exogenous User Benefits for Adjusted HBW Trips
New Commuter New Trips (Baseline 1 or Baseline 2
Alternative Rail Trips minus NB, or Build minus Baseline 2) Per Trip User Benefits Change in User Benefits (Hours) 2030 NB 968 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2030 Baseline 1 702 ‐266 35.97 ‐159 2030 Baseline 2 1,106 138 44.72 103 2030 1B 1,080 ‐26 41.09 ‐18 2030 1C 1,216 110 48.55 89 2030 1D 1,119 13 42.05 9 2030 1H 1,071 ‐35 36.20 ‐21 2030 1G 1,018 ‐88 34.16 ‐50 Table 28: Change in Modeled Transit Trips and Model Produced User Benefits Compared to
Baseline 2 by Alternative – Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips from Study Area to DC Area*
`
Modeled User Benefits Baseline 1 Baseline 2 1B 1C 1D 1H 1G Change in Transit Trips 317 326 ‐62 364 82 ‐5 ‐197 User Benefits (hours) 684 775 ‐135 966 213 3 ‐465 *Baseline 1 and Baseline 2 compared to no‐build Table 29: Change in Transit Trips and Modeled + Exogenous User Benefits Compared to Baseline 2 by
Alternative – Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips from Study Area to DC Area*
User Benefits (Modeled + Exogenous) Baseline 1 Baseline 2 1B 1C 1D 1H 1G 51
Change in Transit Trips 464 ‐88 474 95 ‐40 ‐285
525
User Benefits (hours) 878 ‐153 1,055 222 ‐18 ‐515
*Baseline 1 and Baseline 2 compared to no‐build The addition of the exogenous user benefits improves the performance of several of the alternatives, but does not change the relative performance of the build alternatives compared against Baseline 2. Alternatives 1C and 1D still have the highest accrued user benefits. Cost per Hour of User Benefit FTA’s New Starts review includes the metric of cost per hour of user benefit using the computation shown in Equation 4 below: Equation 4: Computation of Cost per Hour of User Benefit
Cost per Hour of User Benefit= (Incremental Annualized Capital Cost+Incremental Annual Operating Cost)/Annual User Benefit Hours Where incremental is defined as (Build – Baseline) Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 54
The results of the computation for the build alternatives are shown in Table 30. The arrayed costs are totals for each alternative, while the final row represents the results of applying Equation 4. Because 1H and 1G were primarily tests of model sensitivity, their costs have not been estimated and thus are not included in Table 30. Table 30: Cost per User Benefit Hour for Build Alternatives*
Total Annualized Capital Cost ($2008) Total Annual Operating Cost ($2008) Annual User Benefits (Hours) Cost per Hour of User Benefit Baseline 1 $9,751,928
$24,481,132
133,751
Baseline 2 Alt. 1B Alt. 1C Alt. 1D $9,058,605 $9,183,603 $15,895,306 $12,558,951 $25,522,013 $27,048,450 $44,145,770 $29,961,360 223,856 ‐38,966 269,029 56,638 ‐$42
$95 $140
*Computation based on Equation 4 above where “Baseline” means Baseline 2 Alternative 1C performs the best of the three build alternatives using this measure of effectiveness. New Transit Riders Baseline 1, Baseline 2, and the build alternatives add transit service over the levels in the no‐build. Therefore, in the absence of information supporting a redistribution of transit trips, all transit trips above the no‐build levels are assumed to be “new” transit trips. Table 31 shows these results by alternative. Table 31: Forecast HBW Peak Period New Transit Trips from Study Area to Metropolitan Core by
Alternative
Alternative 2008 Trips New Trips NB 4,590 5,265 Baseline 1 Baseline 2 5,317 5,729 52 464 1B 1C 1D 1H 1G 5,644 6,205 5,824 5,689 5,446 379 940 559 424 181 Comparability with previous studies The study team reviewed the available documentation supporting the Gainesville‐Haymarket ridership forecasts prepared for the VRE Strategic Plan. It is not clear based on the available information how comparable the results from the two studies are, as the difference in model refinements is not fully known. The results shown here are much lower than the estimates for a Gainesville‐Haymarket commuter rail extension in the Strategic Plan; however, that model assumed service beyond the current practical maximum of 40 trains per day on the Manassas Line and negotiation and track improvements would be required to achieve those service levels. Conclusions The forecasting results confirm that demand for improved transit service in the Gainesville‐Haymarket area does exist. Additionally, the results confirm that there must be a high quality of service provided (headways of at least 30 minutes) to best attract new riders. The results are less conclusive as to what travel mode will best serve the market. Both bus and commuter rail appear to be viable options in the corridor, and the study team recommends that at least one bus and one rail alternative be retained for more detailed analysis. Appendix E: Ridership Forecasting May 26, 2009
P a g e | 55