comparison of activity-based model parameters between two cities
DESCRIPTION
Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities. 14TH TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference. May 7, 2013. Thomas Rossi Jason Lemp Anurag Komaduri Jonathan Ehrlich, Metropolitan Council. What This Presentation Is Not. A transferability study - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
presented to
presented byCambridge Systematics, Inc.
Transportation leadership you can trust.
Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities
14TH TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference
May 7, 2013
Thomas RossiJason LempAnurag Komaduri
Jonathan Ehrlich, Metropolitan Council
2
What This Presentation Is Not
A transferability study
But it does provide some information relevant to people considering transferring activity-based models
3
Houston and Twin Cities Activity-Based Models
Land Use and Demographic Data
Synthetic PopulationGenerator
Highway and Transit Assignment
Highway and Transit Networks
Other Models (Truck, External, Airport)
Activity-Based Model
Components
4
Tour-Level Choices
Long-Term Choices
Stop/Trip-Level Choices
Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow
All Tour Stop Generation & Mode Choice
Tour Generation
Mandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day
Auto Ownership, Work Location, etc.
Daily Activity Pattern(including Work/School Travel)
Fully Joint Travel
Stop (Trip) Level Destination, Time of Day, and Mode Choice
Individual Nonmandatory Travel
School Escorting Model
Joint Tour Destination &Time of Day
Individual Nonmandatory Tour Destination &
Time of Day
5
Houston and Twin CitiesModel Similarities
Same basic structure
Implemented in TourCast and Cube
Estimated from local household survey data
Tour purposes:
WorkSchoolUniversityShopMeal
Personal BusinessSocial/RecreationEscort
6
Houston and Twin CitiesModel Structure Differences
Additional long term model components in Twin Cities model (transit path ownership, MnPass ownership)
Synthetic population generator» Houston – Based on UrbanSim» Twin Cities – PopGen
Differences in exogenous travel models (external, truck, special generator)
7
A Tale of Three Cities(Two of Which Are Twins)
Houston Twin CitiesMetro area population (2011) 6,051,850 3,389,049
Central city population (2011) 2,145,146 387,753 / 288,448
Estimated VMT 160M (2010) 66.5M (2005)
Public transit passengers (2012) 77.6M 81.1MBike tour mode share 0.6% 1.3%
Avg. temperature - Jan. (F) 63 / 43 24 / 8
Avg. temperature - July (F) 94 / 75 83 / 64
Avg. annual snowfall (inches) 0.1 54
8
Tour-Level Choices
Long-Term Choices
Stop/Trip-Level Choices
Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow
All Tour Stop Generation & Mode Choice
Tour Generation
Mandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day
Auto Ownership, Work Location, etc.
Daily Activity Pattern(including Work/School Travel)
Fully Joint Travel
Stop (Trip) Level Destination, Time of Day, and Mode Choice
Individual Nonmandatory Travel
School Escorting Model
Joint Tour Destination &Time of Day
Individual Nonmandatory Tour Destination &
Time of Day
9
Tour Mode Choice ModelTour Purpose Segmentation
Individual work
Individual school/university
Individual non-mandatory (excluding escort purpose)
Individual escort
Individual work-based subtours
Joint non-mandatory tours
10
Tour Mode Choice ModelTour Purpose Segmentation
Individual work
11
Mode Alternatives/Nesting Structure
Root
Drive Alone
Shared Ride 2
Shared Ride 3 Transit
Drive Transit
Walk Transit
Non-Motorized
Walk Bike
12
Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesLevel of Service
Total travel cost (segmented by income level)
In-vehicle time
Out-of-vehicle time (walk access/egress, wait, transfer, auto terminal time)
Travel distance (non-motorized)
13
Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesLand Use/Demographic
Mixed use density
Total employment density
Retail density
Population density
Income
Household size
Number of vehicles
Cars relative to workers/adults
Age level
Gender
Worker status
Student status
14
Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesActivity Pattern
Presence of stops on half tour
Number of tours by purpose
Number of stops by purpose (on tour or half tour)
Whether the tour involves school escorting
Arrival and return time periods
15
Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Level of Service/Land Use
Houston Twin CitiesGeneralized Time (min) -0.0102 -0.0116
Cost ($, by income level) -0.123 to -0.0312 -0.196 to -0.0513
Bike distance (miles) -0.0777 -0.202
Walk distance (miles) -1.18 -0.745
Mixed Use Density (work) (TA) -0.493 0.16
Retail Density (work) (TA) 0.025 0.033
Population Density (work) (DA) -0.0017 0.0028
Employment Density (home) (walk) 0.0535 0.31
Employment Density (work) (walk) 0.0082 0.092
16
Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Person/Household
Houston Twin CitiesWorkers > Cars (TA) 0.3587 -1.59Income < $40K (TA) -1.31 -3.30Zero Cars (TW) 12.2 0.658Workers > Cars, Cars > 0 (TW) 2.92 n/a
Adults > Cars, Workers < Cars, Cars > 0 (TW) 2.35 1.382-Person HH (SR3) -1.47 -1.312-Person HH (SR2) 0.233 -1.43Workers 0.203 n/aZero Cars (SR) 4.99 -2.031 person household (SR) -1.48 -2.883+ person household (DA) -0.719 0.185Workers > Cars, Cars > 0 (TW) -2.38 -2.49
Age < 30 (bike) 1.43 0.84
17
Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Person/Household
Houston Twin CitiesArrive 7-9 a.m. (TA) 0.620 0.299Depart 4-6 p.m. (TA) 1.34 0.17Presence of stops (TA) 0.651 0.251Presence of stops (TW) 1.35 0.167
Number of tours (TA, TW) -0.614 -0.611
Presence of stops (walk) -2.00 -1.12
# of Meal Stops half tour 1 (SR3) 2.09 n/a
# of Escort Stops half tour 1 (SR3) 3.68 n/a
# of Escort Stops half tour 1 (SR2) 1.96 n/a
Number of Work Stops (SR) 1.30 n/a
Number of Work Stops (DA) 0.937 n/a
18
What Does It Mean?
Some similarities, some differences
Are some differences due to differences between the cities?» Probably (demographics, bike shares)
Would we get different results if we applied the Houston model to the Twin Cities?» Seems likely, but calibration could change results
Is more research into transferability needed?» Sure!