Travel Demand Model - OKI

OKI/MVRPC Travel Demand Model – Version 6.03. Base-Year Truck Model ResultsThe base-year truck model results presented in this section included summaries of county-to-county truckflows, summaries of trip ends by FAZ, link truck volume percentages, trip-length distribution profiles, andcount validations statistics. Together, these statistics portray a truck trip model that produces verycredible truck flow patterns. In addition, the validation statistics indicate that the assigned truck triptables provide an acceptable fit to observed traffic count data.3.1 Truck County-to-County MovementsThe estimated daily truck flows for the 1995 base-year model are shown in Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3,below, summarized by county-to-county and external station movements. In terms of total trucks, theexternal stations and the more urbanized counties produce and attract the most trips. While asubstantial portion of truck movements takes place between Hamilton and Montgomery Counties(Cincinnati and Dayton), it is also apparent that the less-urbanized counties exhibit prevailing flowpatterns that suggest a trade linkage to a primary market area in either Cincinnati or Dayton. Forexample, Warren County’s heaviest flows are to and from Butler and Hamilton Counties. A similarrelationship appears to exist between Miami and Montgomery Counties.The SU truck movements shown in Table 3.2 are characterized by heavier SU flows between O-D pairs inclose proximity, including many intra-county flows. In contrast, SU flows between distant, predominantlyrural counties such as between Dearborn and Miami Counties are non-existent. These patterns areconsistent with the predominant use of SU trucks for local pick up and delivery and short-haul drayageassignments.MU truck movements are dominated by heavy flows between external stations and between FAZs andexternal stations, as shown in Table 3.3. The predominant use of MU trucks for longer-haul, largerfreight shipments is reflected in greater frequencies of trips between distant O-D pairs, even between theless-developed counties at opposite ends of the study area. Intra-county MU truck flows are also shownto be much less frequent, compared with intra-county SU truck movements.Truck Model - Base-Year Truck Model Results 29