Built site for gh-pages

.nojekyll

@@ -1 +1 @@
-f34de4d8
+edbb9788

qmd/2_transit.html

@@ -205,29 +205,28 @@ <h1 class="title"><span id="sec-transit" class="quarto-section-identifier"><span
 
 
 <!-- Include at the start of every doc -->
-<p>The second scenario updates the transit network (frontrunner).</p>
 <p>The FrontRunner is a commuter rail line between Provo and Ogden, Utah, with several stops in-between. Currently, there is only one set of tracks for much of the line, and train crossings are only possible near stations. Because of this, headways are quite large, with trains running every half-hour in peak periods and hourly in off-peak periods. Additionally, trains occasionally need to wait for each other in order to cross paths.</p>
-<p>There is a planned improvement to the FrontRunner that would “double-track” the entire route, allowing trains to pass each other at any point. This would allow for much smaller headways, which are currently planned at 15 and 30 minutes for peak and off-peak periods respectively. The improvement would also partially electrify the FrontRunner, allowing for faster travel speeds, and extend the track farther south with additional stops.</p>
-<p>Data comes from the WFRC 2050 build plan. Includes new stations, new headways, and faster speeds.</p>
-<p>With the proposed double-tracking and potential electric updates to FrontRunner, there is a potential to cut headways in half and increase train speeds. Both the increased speed and shorter headways are modeled in this scenario. The BYU team adjusted the FrontRunner headways from 30 to 15 minutes in peak, and 60 to 30 minutes off-peak. Additionally, the proposed 2050 FrontRunner network is used, which includes higher speeds due in part to electrification of the corridor. This network also adds additional stations in Vineyard, Springville, Spanish Fork, and Payson. No other modifications were made to the Base 2019 scenario; for example, a revised bus service network serving the Springville station is not included.</p>
-<p>Show map of changes.</p>
+<p>There is a planned improvement to the FrontRunner that would “double-track” the entire route, allowing trains to pass each other at any point. This would allow for much smaller headways, which are currently planned at 15 and 30 minutes for peak and off-peak periods respectively (half of the current headways). The improvement would also partially electrify the FrontRunner, allowing for faster travel speeds, and extend the track farther south with additional stops.</p>
+<p>This scenario models these planned improvements to the FrontRunner. The scenario adjusts the headways to 15/30 minutes for peak/off-peak service, increases travel speeds, and adds additional stops in Vineyard, Springville, Spanish Fork, and Payson. <a href="#fig-frontrunner-map" class="quarto-xref">Figure&nbsp;<span>5.1</span></a> shows the FrontRunner network with the modeled changes. No other modifications were made to the baseline scenario; for example, a revised bus service network serving the Springville station is not included.</p>
 <div class="cell">
 <div class="cell-output-display">
-<div>
-<figure class="figure">
-<p><img src="2_transit_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-2-1.png" class="img-fluid figure-img" width="672"></p>
+<div id="fig-frontrunner-map" class="quarto-figure quarto-figure-center quarto-float anchored">
+<figure class="quarto-float quarto-float-fig figure">
+<div aria-describedby="fig-frontrunner-map-caption-0ceaefa1-69ba-4598-a22c-09a6ac19f8ca">
+<img src="2_transit_files/figure-html/fig-frontrunner-map-1.png" class="img-fluid figure-img" width="672">
+</div>
+<figcaption class="quarto-float-caption-bottom quarto-float-caption quarto-float-fig" id="fig-frontrunner-map-caption-0ceaefa1-69ba-4598-a22c-09a6ac19f8ca">
+Figure&nbsp;5.1: frontrunner map
+</figcaption>
 </figure>
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 <section id="scenario-creation" class="level2" data-number="5.1">
 <h2 data-number="5.1" class="anchored" data-anchor-id="scenario-creation"><span class="header-section-number">5.1</span> Scenario Creation</h2>
-<p>WFRC model needs three adjustments: edit the headways, point the model to the new frontrunner network (which includes speeds), and add park-and-ride option at new station locations in highway? network.</p>
-<p>To model this scenario in the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) model, we simply needed to add the new stations and adjust the headway and speed inputs. Since transit is a direct input in the WFRC model, we accessed and updated the file that stores the FrontRunner headway and node data. We changed the headways from 60 minutes during off-peak and 30 minutes during peak times to 30 minutes during off-peak and 15 minutes during peak times. In the same file, we added the extra nodes corresponding to the nodes on the extended rail line in the network file. In the network file, each node on the rail line that is a train station is flagged as a place to park and ride, and, because there were new stations added, we had to flag the new stations’ nodes as places to park and ride. The last thing we did was change the posted speed of each link to the speeds that WFRC had predicted for a partially electrified train system. After changing the speeds, headways, and train stations, we ran the model.</p>
-<p>The WFRC/MAG model contains data on transit headways (including FrontRunner). The BYU team will change this data from 30-minute to 15-minute peak headways and 60-minute to 30-minute off-peak headways. To increase the speed, the team will modify the model to use the predicted speeds after electrification instead of the base year speeds. The 2050 transit networks from the WFRC/MAG model appear to have these changes made, and so the team will use these speed values for the FrontRunner. These networks will be paired with the 2019 socioeconomic scenario for comparison with the base scenario.</p>
-<p>The output of the WFRC/MAG model for this scenario will contain new transit network skims. These updated skims will be used in ActivitySim instead of the baseline scenario skims. Because the mode share of transit is relatively low, it is not expected that the highway travel times will be affected very much by this change, and so the baseline highway skims will remain fixed. No other changes to ActivitySim are necessary to model this scenario.</p>
-<p>Asim just needs new skims, gotten from the new WFRC scenario.</p>
-<p>In the WFRC model, this change was relatively easy to implement. The headways are stored in the input data and are easily modified, and the 2050 network is already built in to the model for future-year analysis. Including network assignment is outside the scope of this research, and the BYU implementation of ActivitySim uses the same skim files that the WFRC demand model uses. In this case, the team used the new congested network skims from the WFRC transit scenario to feed the ActivitySim demand model representing this scenario. This is the only change needed for this scenario.</p>
+<p>In the WFRC model, this change is relatively easy to implement. The headways are stored directly in the input data and are easily modified, and a year-2050 network with increased speeds and additional stations is already built into the model for future-year analysis. The only additional change needed was to turn on the “park and ride” flag in the highway network at each new station. Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC)</p>
+<!-- The WFRC/MAG model contains data on transit headways (including FrontRunner). The BYU team will change this data from 30-minute to 15-minute peak headways and 60-minute to 30-minute off-peak headways. To increase the speed, the team will modify the model to use the predicted speeds after electrification instead of the base year speeds. The 2050 transit networks from the WFRC/MAG model appear to have these changes made, and so the team will use these speed values for the FrontRunner. These networks will be paired with the 2019 socioeconomic scenario for comparison with the base scenario. -->
+<p>To implement this scenario in ActivitySim, only updated travel skims are needed. As in the baseline scenario, the updated transit skims output from the WFRC model’s network assignment in this model scenario are taken directly as inputs to ActivitySim. Because the mode share of transit is relatively low, it is not expected that the highway travel times will be affected very much by this change, and so the highway skims from the baseline scenario are used directly and not updated for this scenario. No other changes to ActivitySim are necessary to model this scenario. <!-- No other changes are needed to ActivitySim for this model scenario. --></p>
 </section>
 <section id="scenario-analysis" class="level2" data-number="5.2">
 <h2 data-number="5.2" class="anchored" data-anchor-id="scenario-analysis"><span class="header-section-number">5.2</span> Scenario Analysis</h2>