2015

Transportation Project

Hashemite University
Students of Project:
1- 1233949
2-
3-
4-

12/17/2015
Civil Engineering Department
 Trip Generation
We drew 4 figures below based on our 40 questionnaires:

1. Households by Automobile Ownership and Income Category:

Auto
Income 0 1 2+
250 (L) 90 10 0
750 (M) 6.25 93.75 0
1250 (H) 0 14.29 85.71

Fig. 1: Households by Automobile Ownership and Income Category.

2. Trips per Household per Day by Auto Ownership and Income Category:

Auto
Income 0 1 2+
250 (L) 3 2 8
750 (M) 3 5.2 8
1250 (H) 3 4.5 7.5

Fig. 2: Trips per Household per Day by Auto Ownership and Income Category.
3. Trips by Purpose and Income Category:

Purpose of trip
Income HBW HBO NHB
250 30.00 10.00 60.00
750 43.75 31.25 25.00
1250 28.57 42.86 28.57

Fig. 3: Trips by Purpose and Income Category.

4. Average Zonal Income versus Households in Income Category:

Average Income Zone = 250X1 + 750X2 + 1250X3 . Eq.1

where X1+X2+X3 = 100%

0 250 500 750 1000 1250

x1 0% 100% 60% 28.5% 10% 0%
x2 0% 0% 30% 43% 30% 0%
x3 0% 0% 10% 28.5% 60% 100%

Fig. 4: Average Zonal Income versus Households in Income Category.

 Cross Classification
In our Case from questionnaire, data was as follows :
No. of Household: 40.
Average monthly income per household: JD 800.

Results from cross classification was as total:

HBW= 73 trips.
HBO= 71 trips.
NHB= 66 trips.

In which:
1- HBW trips were attractive to zones 1 and 3 (85.71% of HBW was for zone3
and 14.29% of HBW was for zone1), and produced from zones 2 and 4
(57.14% of HBW was for zone4 and 42.86% of HBW was for zone2).

2- HBO trips were attractive to zones 2, 3 and 4 (33.33% of HBO was for zone2,
41.67% of HBO was for zone3 and 25% of HBO was for zone4), and
produced from zones 2 and 4 (41.67% of HBO was for zone2 and 58.33% of
HBO was for zone4).

3- NHB trips were attractive to each zone (7.14% of NHB was for zone1, 35.71%
of NHB was for zone2, 14.29% of NHB was for zone3 and 42.86% of NHB
was for zone4), and produced from zones 1, 2 and 3 (21.43% of NHB was for
zone1, 14.29% of NHB was for zone2 and 64.28% of NHB was for zone3).

And this cross-classification tree below shows how we got these results as total:
 40 HH
L M H
NO. OF HH 10 16 14
AUTO 0 1 2+ 0 1 2+ 0 1 2+
NO. OF TRIPS 27 2 0 3 78 0 0 9.00 90.00
TOTAL TRIPS 29 81 99.00
TRIP PURPOSE HBW HBO NHB HBW HBO NHB HBW HBO NHB
NO. OF TRIPS 8.70 2.90 17.40 35.44 25.31 20.25 28.28 42.43 28.28
 Then attraction and production trips for each zone are shown in table below:

Zone 1 2 3 4 Total
Trip productions 14.14 80.73 42.42 72.7 210.00

Trip attractions 15.14 47.23 101.59 46.03 210.00

Trip Distribution
We used Gravity Model for this section, where friction factor was calculated
based on this equation from NCHRP REPORT 365, where we toke average
values that was made for HBW,HBO and NHB :

F = 100 * tij-0.89 * e-t*0.11 .. Eq.2

Where,
t = travel time of trip in min.

This table below shows travel time between zones:

Zone 1 2 3 4
1 - 13 14 15
2 10 - 5.125 8.25
3 12 4.75 - 6
4 16 8 4.9 -
 After computing friction factor for each travel time we got this table by using eq.2:

Time(min) Friction
factor
1 89.58
2 43.30
3 27.04
4 18.75
5 13.77
6 10.49
7 8.19
8 6.52
9 5.26
10 4.29
11 3.53
12 2.93
13 2.44
14 2.05
15 1.72
16 1.46
5.125 13.29
8.25 6.17
4.75 14.82
4.9 14.18

Then we used equation 3 to compute trips between zones

sample of calculation:

21212
12 = 1 [4 ] Eq.3
=2 11

47.232.441
12 = 14.14 [ ]
47.232.441+101.592.051+46.031.721

T12 = 4.05

So we got this table at first iteration:

Zone 1 2 3 4 Computed P Given P
1 0.00 4.05 7.32 2.78 14.14 14.14
2 3.09 0.00 64.15 13.49 80.73 80.73
3 1.53 24.20 0.00 16.69 42.42 42.42
4 0.91 12.64 59.15 0.00 72.70 72.70
Computed A 5.53 40.89 130.61 32.97
Given A 15.14 47.23 101.59 46.03

Because of existing an error of attractions more than 1% then we computed

adjusted attraction factor A as in following eq.:

Ajk = ( 1) Eq.4
(1)
15.14
A1k = 15.14 = 41.48
5.53

After applying eq.4 for all zones we obtained these adjusted attraction trips for
second iteration:

Zone 1 2 3 4
Adjusted A 41.48 54.56 79.02 64.27

Again we computed trips between zones with adjusted A for the second
iteration:

Zone 1 2 3 4 Computed P Given P

1 0.00 4.64 5.65 3.85 14.14 14.14
2 8.84 0.00 52.18 19.70 80.73 80.73
3 3.21 21.38 0.00 17.83 42.42 42.42
4 2.87 16.83 53.01 0.00 72.70 72.70
Computed A 14.92 42.85 110.84 41.39
Given A 15.14 47.23 101.59 46.03

Third iteration:

Zone 1 2 3 4
Adjusted A 42.10 60.14 72.43 71.48
Zone 1 2 3 4 Computed P Given P
1 0.00 4.96 5.02 4.16 14.14 14.14
2 9.20 0.00 49.05 22.47 80.73 80.73
3 2.97 21.43 0.00 18.03 42.42 42.42
4 3.02 19.25 50.43 0.00 72.70 72.70
Computed A 15.19 45.65 104.50 44.66
Given A 15.14 47.23 101.59 46.03

Forth iteration:

Zone 1 2 3 4
Adjusted A 41.98 62.23 70.41 73.67

Zone 1 2 3 4 Computed P Given P

1 0.00 5.08 4.83 4.24 14.14 14.14
2 9.26 0.00 48.10 23.37 80.73 80.73
3 2.87 21.52 0.00 18.03 42.42 42.42
4 3.04 20.13 49.53 0.00 72.70 72.70
Computed A 15.17 46.73 102.47 45.64
Given A 15.14 47.23 101.59 46.03

Fifth iteration:

Zone 1 2 3 4
Adjusted A 41.91 62.90 69.81 74.31

Zone 1 2 3 4 Computed P Given P

1 0.00 5.11 4.77 4.26 14.14 14.14
2 9.27 0.00 47.83 23.63 80.73 80.73
3 2.84 21.56 0.00 18.03 42.42 42.42
4 3.04 20.40 49.25 0.00 72.70 72.70
Computed A 15.15 47.08 101.85 45.92
Given A 15.14 47.23 101.59 46.03

After the fifth iteration we got less than 1% error in attraction trips and that is our
goal.

Modal Split
Using Logit model utility function as follows:
Ui = - 0.025 * (IVTT) 0.05 * (OVTT) + c * (COST)

Where,
IVTT: in-vehicle travel times (in minutes)
OVTT: out-vehicle travel time which includes waiting time until and walking travel
time to vehicle or bus (in minutes).

0.051248
c=
0.3

Where,
AI = average annual households income (in dollars).

In our case average annual households income was JD9600/yr which is

equivalent to $13536/yr

0.051248
C= = - 0.0154
0.313536

After computing utility functions for each pair zones we would put these utilities to
find probabilities of using all of taxi, bus and auto by this probability function:

P(A) =
+ +

Where,
UA, UT and UB: all are utility functions of auto, taxi and bus respectively.

Sample of calculation of probability of using each of auto, bus and taxi between
zones 4 and 3:

Firstly this table is found by taking an average of values from questionnaires:

4-3 & 3-4 Bus Taxi Auto

IVTT 6 4 4.5
OVTT 4 3 2
COST (cents) 28 99 57
 UA = - 0.025*(4.5) - 0.05*(2) 0.0154*(57) = - 1.09
UT = - 0.025*(4) - 0.05*(3) 0.0154*(99) = - 1.78
UB = - 0.025*(6) - 0.05*(4) 0.0154*(28) = - 0.78

1.09
P(A) = = 34.9%
1.09 + 1.78 + 0.78
1.78
P(T) = = 17.5%
1.09 + 1.78 + 0.78

P(B) = 100 - 34.9 - 17.5 = 47.6%

For other Zones after applying utility functions and probability of use each mode
we got:
1- Between zones 3 and 1:

1-3 & 3-1 Bus Taxi Auto

IVTT 15 10 11
OVTT 4 3 2
COST (cents) 71 247 141
Ui -1.6684 -4.2038 -2.5464
P(i) 66.90 5.30 27.80

2- Between zones 2 and 3:

2-3 & 3-2 Bus Taxi Auto

IVTT 6 4 4.5
OVTT 4 3 2
COST (cents) 28 99 57
Ui -0.7812 -1.7746 -1.0903
P(i) 47.52 17.60 34.88

3- Between zones 2 and 4:

4-2 & 2-4 Bus Taxi Auto

IVTT 8 5 6
OVTT 4 3 2
COST (cents) 28 127 71
Ui -0.8312 -2.2308 -1.3434
P(i) 54.18 13.36 32.46
4- Between zones 1 and 4:

1-4 & 4-1 Bus Taxi Auto

IVTT 16 11 12
OVTT 4 3 2
COST (cents) 71 282 152
Ui -1.6934 -4.7678 -2.7408
P(i) 71.58 3.31 25.11

5- Between zones 1 and 2:

1-2 & 2-1 Bus Taxi Auto

IVTT 13 8 9
OVTT 4 3 2
COST (cents) 71 212 127
Ui -1.6184 -3.6148 -2.2808
P(i) 60.55 8.22 31.22