Open sebhoerl opened 2 years ago
Hi @sebhoerl,
Maybe we have the same problem in Lyon.
We match very well the global modal shares. But, we are not able to reproduce the car modal share for long distances.
In Nantes there was more of a problem that there was a "gap" in medium-distance trips. But sure, it may also be related to car availability.
lambdaCostEuclideanDistance
in the model? Basically, it defines how much cost makes a difference for longer distances, and depending on your PT cost model (maybe fixed price?) PT may become "unfairly" expensiveOk, I see. For this result, we have used the MATSim standard version. Indeed, I am now doing this representation. I will share the result soon.
Ah ok, I think with the available parameters in standard MATSim, I think it will be difficult to model the PT trajectory ("first increasing, then reaching a tip, and decreasing again")
Yes, it's ! I'm trying to play with the ASC of PT and car. But, there is no major improvement.
Here are the car availability maps from the survey and the synpop respectively
There is a slight variation in the household motorization rate in peripheral areas between the survey and the synthetic population. But I don't think that's the only reason for the decrease in car use for a long-distance trips.
Hello,
After playing with the PT parameters waitingPt and utilityOfLineSwitch, we succeed in reproducing the modal shares of the car and the PT for long distances.
Great :)
For some scenarios (Nantes, for instance), we see that exact distance-based mode shares are hard to obtain if households in rural areas get too little car availability. The process should be improved to better represent car availability spatially to be able to work better with urban-rural continuum cases.