report name campo mode choice model: calibration ... · pdf filecampo mode choice model:...

. Report Name

Task Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Alliance Transportation Group Parsons Brinckerhoff

Sept. 2012

CAMPO Mode Choice Model: Calibration/Validation Report

Table of Contents

C A M P O M O D E C H O I C E M O D E L

Page i

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 1

1.2 Traffic Analysis Zones ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Auto Ownership Model and Market Segmentation .................................................. 4

2.0 NETWORK AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE PREPARATION ............................................... 5

2.2 Revisions in Transit Skim Process .......................................................................... 5

2.3 Path Building Process and Parameters ................................................................... 6

3.0 CAMPO MODEL CHANGES .......................................................................................... 8

3.2 Auto Ownership ...................................................................................................... 8 3.3 IPF Market Segmentation ..................................................................................... 11 3.4 Person Trip Matrix Modification ............................................................................. 12

4.0 TRANSIT ON-BOARD SURVEY ASSIGNMENT .......................................................... 13

4.2 Description of Methodology................................................................................... 14

4.3 Recommended Model Improvements and Result Analysis ................................... 14 4.3.1 Network Improvements ............................................................................. 14 4.3.2 Mode Choice Improvements ...................................................................... 14

4.3.3 Final Survey Trip Table Assignment .......................................................... 14

5.0 CALIBRATION TARGET VALUE DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 19

5.2 Data Sources ........................................................................................................ 19 5.3 On-Board Survey Data Preparations and Procedures ........................................... 19

5.3.1 Survey Expansion ..................................................................................... 19

5.3.2 Survey Processing .................................................................................... 22 5.3.3 Imputed Values ......................................................................................... 26

5.3.4 Missing San Marcos Survey Data .............................................................. 28 5.4 CAMPO Home-Interview Survey Preparations and Procedures ............................ 31 5.5 Building Mode Choice Targets .............................................................................. 32

5.5.1 2005 and 2010 Aggregate Targets ............................................................ 32 5.5.2 2005 and 2010 District-Level Mode Choice Targets .................................. 34

6.0 NESTED LOGIT MODEL DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 35

6.2 Model Structure Overview ..................................................................................... 35 6.3 Asserted Model Coefficient Values ....................................................................... 37

7.0 2005 MODEL CALIBRATION ....................................................................................... 39

7.2 Basic Calibration of Constants .............................................................................. 39

7.2.1 Primary Transit Mode Constants ............................................................... 39 7.2.2 Equivalent In-Vehicle Minutes of Time/Expected Ranges .......................... 40

7.3 Aggregate Trip Level Comparisons ....................................................................... 40 7.4 District Level Comparisons ................................................................................... 41 7.5 Introduction of Attraction End Constants ............................................................... 43

7.6 District Level Observations by Purpose................................................................. 43

8.0 2010 MODEL CALIBRATION ....................................................................................... 44

8.2 Basic Calibration of Constants .............................................................................. 44 8.2.1 Primary Transit Mode Constants ............................................................... 44 8.2.2 Equivalent In-Vehicle Minutes of Time/Expected Ranges .......................... 45

8.3 Aggregate Trip Level Comparisons ....................................................................... 45

Table of Contents


Page ii

8.4 District Level Comparisons ................................................................................... 46 8.5 Introduction of Attraction End Constants ............................................................... 48 8.6 District Level Observations by Purpose................................................................. 48

8.7 “Soft” Calibration and Final Constants .................................................................. 48

9.0 MODEL VALIDATION AND SENSITIVITY TEST.......................................................... 51

9.2 Year 2005 Bus Boarding Comparisons ................................................................. 51 9.3 Year 2010 Boarding Comparisons ........................................................................ 53 9.4 Sensitivity Test ...................................................................................................... 56

10.0 SUMMIT IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 57

10.1 SUMMIT Input Preparation ................................................................................... 57

10.2 Running SUMMIT Program ................................................................................... 58

11.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 60

APPENDICES........................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX A: AUTO OWNERSHIP MODEL .......................................................................... 62

APPENDIX B: DISTRICT LEVEL COMPARISON BY PURPOSE ........................................... 67

Table of Contents


Page iii

List of Tables Table 1-1: CAMPO Model Zone Structure ............................................................................................................ 2

Table 1-2: Market Stratification ............................................................................................................................ 4

Table 2-1: Transit Skim Modal Hierarchy .............................................................................................................. 5

Table 2-2: List of Parameters for Transit Network Settings .................................................................................. 7

Table 3-1: Land Use Form and Accessibility Measures ........................................................................................ 9

Table 3-2: Auto Ownership Coefficients .............................................................................................................. 11

Table 3-3: Target Percentage of Trip Productions at District Level .................................................................... 13

Table 4-1: Year 2005 Transit On-Board Survey–Observed vs. Assigned Volumes ............................................ 15

Table 4-2: Year 2010 Transit On-Board Survey–Observed vs. Assigned Volumes ............................................ 17

Table 5-1: Survey Sources + 2006 Household Survey ....................................................................................... 19

Table 5-2: 2011 Rail Survey Boardings and 2010 On-Board Survey Records ................................................... 21

Table 5-3: Number of On-Board Survey Trips .................................................................................................... 22

Table 5-4: 2005 On-board Survey Trip Purpose coding .................................................................................... 22

Table 5-5: 2010 On-board Survey Trip Purpose coding ..................................................................................... 23

Table 5-6: Dropped On-Board Survey Records by reason ................................................................................ 26

Table 5-7: District Level Distribution of San Marcos Survey Data, Local Bus Trips, assumed HBEduc2 purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Table 5-8: Mapping of CAMPO Trip Table Purposes to Mode Choice Purposes .............................................. 33

Table 5-9: Year 2005 Target Mode Share ......................................................................................................... 34

Table 5-10: Year 2010 Target Mode Share ....................................................................................................... 34

Table 7-1: Primary Transit Mode Constants by Purpose, 2005 Calibration ........................................................ 39

Table 7-2: Equivalent Minutes of In-vehicle Time for the Primary Modes by Purpose, 2005 Calibration ........... 40

Table 7-3: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Work, 2005 Calibration ................................... 42

Table 7-4: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Other, 2005 Calibration ................................... 42

Table 7-5: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Non Segmented Purposes, 2005 Calibration ....................... 42

Table 7-6: Attraction End Constants by Purpose, 2005 Calibration .................................................................... 43

Table 8-1: Primary Transit Mode Constants by Purpose, 2010 Calibration ........................................................ 45

Table 8-2: Equivalent Minutes of In-vehicle Time for the Primary Modes by Purpose, 2010 Calibration ........... 45

Table 8-3: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Work, 2010 Calibration ................................... 47

Table 8-4: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Other, 2010 Calibration ................................... 47

Table 8-5: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Non Segmented Purposes, 2010 Calibration ....................... 47

Table 8-6: Attraction End Constants by Purpose, 2010 Calibration .................................................................... 48

Table 8-7: Alternative Specific Constant by Mode by Purpose, 2010 Soft Calibration ....................................... 49

Table 8-8: Equivalent Minutes of In-vehicle Time by Mode by Purpose, 2010 Soft Calibration .......................... 49

Table 8-9: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Work, 2010 Soft Calibration ............................ 50

Table 8-10: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Other, 2010 Soft Calibration ......................... 50

Table 8-11: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Non Segmented Purposes, 2010 Soft Calibration .............. 50

Table 9-1: Year 2005 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Route, Estimated vs. Observed ......................................... 51

Table 9-2: Year 2005 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Mode .................................................................................. 53

Table 9-3: Year 2010 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Route, Estimated vs. Observed ......................................... 53

Table 9-4: Year 2010 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Mode .................................................................................. 55

Table 9-5: Sensitivity Test ................................................................................................................................... 56

Table 10-1: SUMMIT Segments .......................................................................................................................... 59

Table A-1: Observed Household Frequencies ................................................................................................... 62

Table of Contents


Page iv

List of Figures Figure 1-1: CAMPO TAZs and Districts ............................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-2: CAMPO TAZs and Districts, Downtown Detail .................................................................................. 4

Figure 5-1: Zones where UT Shuttle Intrazonals were adjusted ........................................................................ 25

Figure 5-2: On-board Survey Imputed Values ................................................................................................... 28

Figure 5-3: Approach to Development of Mode Choice Targets ......................................................................... 33

Figure 6-1: Updated and Original Mode Choice Model Structure ....................................................................... 36

Figure 6-2: Asserted Mode Choice Coefficients .................................................................................................. 38

Figure 10-1: Parameter File ................................................................................................................................ 57

Figure 10-2: Mode Choice Model Settings .......................................................................................................... 58

1.0 – Introduction and Overview


Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This report describes the underlying theory and basis for the updated structure and formulation of the mode choice model component, a central element of the CAMPO Transportation Model. A companion document, the CAMPO Planning Model Application User’s Guide, contains detailed information on the program and set-ups required to run the mode choice model set. These documents can be used together to gain a full understanding of the mode choice model. The need to refine and update the existing mode choice model has been motivated primarily by the desire to ensure that the CAMPO mode choice model is consistent with general good practice guidelines, and more importantly, represents best practice for New Starts ridership forecasting. The foundation for model development, calibration, and validation is the 2005 and 2010 on-board survey of bus and rail ridership coupled with the 2006 Household Travel Survey, providing information on the travel patterns of Austin, TX area transit riders. In addition, CAMPO maintains and collects a wealth of boarding level information that was used in the modeling effort. This report is intended to provide a summary of the technical work accomplished in developing the revised and updated mode choice model. The rest of this section provides background on the geography (zones and district system) and market segmentation. Section 2 discusses the networks and level of service data preparation, while Section 3 documents related changes to the model in support of mode choice changes. Section 4 summarizes the comparison of on board survey data to observed ridership. The development of mode choice calibration targets is noted in section 5, with a description of the mode choice model functional form and asserted coefficients in Section 6. The 2005 and 2010 calibration and validation of the mode choice constants are discussed in Section 7 and 8. Further validation of assigned estimated transit trips relative to observed values and a sensitivity test result are discussed in Section 9. Section 10 presents the implementation of SUMMIT program. The report closes with a summary and conclusions in Section 11.

1.2 Traffic Analysis Zones

The CAMPO model zones are shown in Table 1-1 and graphically in Figure 1-1. They cover the five county model regions: Travis, Williamson, Hays, Bastrop and Caldwell. Districts were developed to assist in the calibration of the mode choice updates. These are also shown in Figure 1-2. Downtown Austin was disaggregated into 3 districts, CBD core (District 24), UT campus (District 23), and the Inner Loop (District 1).



Page 2

Table 1-1: CAMPO Model Zone Structure

District

Number District Name County Number of

Zones

0 External 49

1 Inner Loop Travis 203

2 SW Austin Travis 74

3 Lake Travis Travis 49

4 NW Austin Travis 63

5 Leander Travis 15

6 Round Rock Williamson 137

7 Georgetown Williamson 43

8 Manor Travis 92

9 Del Valle Travis 62

10 Hays Hays 68

11 San Marcos Hays 127

12 Wimberley Hays 56

13 Florence Williamson 33

14 Granger Williamson 41

15 Hutto Williamson 43

16 Taylor Williamson 56

17 Elgin Bastrop 52

18 Bastrop Bastrop 28

19 Smithville Bastrop 47

20 Lockhart Caldwell 39

21 Luling Caldwell 37

22 Gonzales Caldwell 16

23 UT Austin Travis 5

24 CBD Travis 27

Total 1462



Page 3

Figure 1-1: CAMPO TAZs and Districts

Note: district boundaries are noted by colors



Page 4

Figure 1-2: CAMPO TAZs and Districts, Downtown Detail

1.3 Auto Ownership Model and Market Segmentation

To capture ridership behavior that varies by income and auto sufficiency, the model travelers were stratified into the following 5 market segments. Changes were made to the CAMPO model in order to implement this socio-economic market stratification. Those changes are discussed in Section 3.

Table 1-2: Market Stratification

Group Auto Sufficiency Definition

1 0-Car - All Incomes

2 Cars < Workers - Low Income (<$60K)

3 Cars < Workers - High Income

4 Cars >= Workers - Low Income

5 Cars >=Workers - High Income

2.0 – Network and Level-of-Service Preparation


Page 5

2.0 NETWORK AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE PREPARATION

The CAMPO travel model highway and transit networks form the basis for all transportation demand analysis. Transit network coding is the process of simulating the transit service as inputs for the travel forecasting model. This section identifies several key network issues (primarily transit network) in support of the mode choice calibration effort. Specifically, we went through a complete overhaul of the transit skim procedure. Previous transit skim procedure does not consider the hierarchical nature of various transit modes therefore undermines the competitive nature among transit modes. The newly implemented transit skim is based on the modal hierarchy as shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Transit Skim Modal Hierarchy

Skim Matrix Structure

Local

Bus UT

Shuttle PM1 Express

Bus PM2 Commuter-

rail

Mo

de

Local Bus X X X X X

UT Shuttle X

Premium Mode 1 X X X X

Express Bus X

Premium Mode 2 X

Commuter-rail X

There are a total of seven types of transit services. Among them, five are operating since 2010. There are two placeholders in the model settings: one is premium mode 1 and the other is premium mode 2. These two placeholders are designed for future new transit services whose characteristics are substantially different from the current available ones, namely, bus rapid transit operating on fixed guide way or in mixed traffic. There are also other changes in transit skim procedure mainly to better reflect the reality of transit network. The issues include the following:

• Local bus, express bus, and shuttle bus drive-access issues

• Allowance of casual park-and-ride at rail stations

• Fare

2.2 Revisions in Transit Skim Process

Local Bus/Express Bus Park-and-ride Assumptions The 2005 and 2010 transit on-board surveys show that there is a significant fraction of drive-access bus trips that did not occur near the park-and-ride facilities. This happened possibly because some drive-access bus riders used street parking while other riders were dropped off at stations without park-and-ride facilities. The issue is particularly severe for local bus and UT shuttle bus riders. This is possible because user characteristics are different among local bus/UT shuttle bus riders and express bus riders. The system has



Page 6

many more local bus/UT shuttle bus routes than express bus routes. And many park-and-ride facilities are located in the vicinity of express bus routes. The data suggests that express bus riders with drive access are more likely to park and ride at parking facilities near the stations, while local bus and UT shuttle bus riders who drove to the stations are not restricted near park-and-ride facilities. Thus, to reflect the reality and to accommodate the issue, we broadened the drive access feature for local bus and UT shuttle bus, allowing all local bus/UT shuttle bus stations accessible by driving with a maximum of 10 minutes drive time. For express bus skim, the drive access is limited near park-and-ride facilities with a maximum drive time of 30 minutes. Rail Station Park-and-ride Assumptions The rail onboard survey data indicates the similar drive-access issue with commuter-rail. Similarly, we modified the transit skim procedure for commuter-rail by allowing all commuter-rail stations drive-accessible. Fare Assumptions The fare coded in the transit route system in CAMPO model is cash fare rather than average fare. This does not take into account the number of discounts for certain eligible passengers (elderly/disabled/student, etc.). A bus rider may purchase a monthly pass or a daily pass that can be used for many trips. These discounts might lead to changes in behavior. Another important feature in Austin’s transit system is that UT students ride bus for free. Given the large student population and significant fraction of student riders, the impact of free ride cannot be ignored. Ideally, the model could implement zero transit fare by identifying student demographics. The transit trips made by UT students are free. However, the model does not have a demographic module segmenting student population. Instead, CAMPO model has a trip purpose designated to UT trips. To reflect the policy of zero bus fare for UT students, the fare for UT trips is all zero.

2.3 Path Building Process and Parameters

CAMPO model is built on TransCAD platform. We use TransCAD’s Pathfinder module for transit skim process. As introduced previously, there are seven types of transit service. The modal hierarchy for transit path building is shown in Table 2-1. The modal hierarchy provides the foundation to virtually define transit modes. Furthermore, the module offers a flexible platform for users to define a variety of parameters of transit network settings. These parameters are used to reflect local characteristics of transit network and to better capture the transit path finding behavior of transit riders. The key transit network setting parameters are summarized in Table 2-2.



Page 7

Table 2-2: List of Parameters for Transit Network Settings

Transit Network Setting Parameters

Local Bus

UT Shuttle Bus

Express Bus

Commuter-rail

Premium Mode 1

Premium Mode 2

Weight

Initial Wait Time 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Transfer Wait Time 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Transfer Time 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Access/Egress Walk Time 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Non-Transit Drive Time 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Transit IVTT 1 1 1 1 1 1

Combination Factor 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Maximum Access Walk Time 30 30 30 30 30 30

Maximum Egress Walk Time 30 30 30 30 30 30

Maximum Access Drive Time 10 10 30 30 30 30

Maximum Number of Transfers 3 3 3 3 3 3

3.0 – CAMPO MODEL CHANGES


Page 8

3.0 CAMPO MODEL CHANGES

Several upgrades were made to the CAMPO model to support the improved mode choice model and its segmentation. This includes an auto-ownership model and trip segmentation by markets.

3.2 Auto Ownership

The auto ownership model was updated to include land use form and accessibility measures; making it more sensitive to land use policies. The full auto ownership model functional form and estimation are discussed below with some detailed information on survey data and measures provided in Appendix A. To estimate the model, the CAMPO 2006 Household-Interview survey was used with a relatively small sample of 1,499 households. The survey observations were joined with multiple TAZ-based measures of housing type, mixed density, density, and accessibility. Table 3-1 shows a complete list and definitions of all the TAZ measures considered during model estimation. The accessibility measures (auto, transit and non-motorized) as well as mixed density measures are shown graphically for the multi-county region in Appendix A Figures A-1 through A-4. A review of the sampled households by auto availability as well as the relevant household attributes (Appendix A, Table A-1) revealed that the accessibility to employment and housing decreases steadily with distance from the CBD. The transit and non-motorized accessibilities are also higher in the core, but more focused along transit lines and denser urban nodes beyond. The accessibility (transit and drive) and mixed density variables proved to be the strongest indicators for this region. All the housing type, accessibility, and mixed density variables were highly correlated.



Page 9

Table 3-1: Land Use Form and Accessibility Measures

Measure Description & Formulas

Housing Type A TAZ indicator to replace disaggregate measure from the survey. (Based on 2005 ACS PUMS)

Share of Single Family Homes

Single family unit = 1 unit de/attached, mobile home, Boat, RV, van, etc.; Other = 2 or more units

Design Measures** The only available urban design indicator is the number of intersections, calculated using the CAMPO model network.

Mix employment, household & intersection density

Ln {[Int*(Emp*a) * (HH*b)] /[Int + (Emp*a) + (HH*b)]},

where: Int= No. local intersections within 1/2 mile of centroid Emp= Employment within 1/2 mile of centroid HH= Households within 1/2 mile of centroid a= average Int / average Emp b= average Int / average HH

Intersection density 3-way + 4-way intersections / Area Street density Total street length in 1/2 mile radius

Connectivity index Proportion of 4-way intersections

Mixed Density Measures The only available urban design indicator is the number of intersections, calculated using the Tele Atlas street network.

Mix employment and household (or population) density

Ln {[Int*(Emp*a) * (HH*b)] /[(Emp*a) + (HH*b)]},

where: Emp= Employment within 1/2 mile of centroid HH= Households within 1/2 mile of centroid (Or Pop= population within 1/2 mile of centroid) a= average Int / average Emp b= average Int / average HH (or Pop)

Accessibility Measures Accessibility variables are proportional to the number of opportunities (such as jobs or retail opportunities) that can be reached by auto, transit or walk means.

Accessibility Logsum

( )

+∗−= ∑

q

qpqp EmpTimeLnLogsum )ln(025.0exp

Where Timepq is Drive Alone time or total transit time, including a weight of 2 on all out-of-vehicle time components.

Transit accessibility to Jobs** Employment within x minutes of transit (walk access), where x is a category 0-30mins, 30-60mins etc.

Non-motorized accessibility**

Employment within a 10 minute walk

( )

+∗−= ∑

q

qpqp )Empln(cetanDis.expLnWalkAcc 02

* A “design” measure was not used as the CAMPO network did not contain sufficient detail on intersections, streets, and connectivity for all TAZs. ** These alternative land use variables were tried but not used in the final estimation.

The CAMPO auto ownership model predicts the number of households with 0, 1, 2 or more available vehicles. The model was estimated in a multinomial logit form using the ALOGIT



Page 10

software. As is customary, the model was estimated using household survey records, and then applied at the aggregate, TAZ level. The utility (��) of having (a) autos available for a household of type (h) located in zone (z) is given by

�� = � +�� × � � + �� × �� + �� ×��

All household attributes, listed below, are entered in the utility function as indicator variables; the density and accessibility terms are all linear in the parameters. The following variables were examined, proved to be significant in the utility functions, and were selected for the final model:

• Household Variables (� �)

• Household size – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more persons

• Household income o Income1 (less than $20,000) o Income2 ($20,000-$35,000) o Income3 ($35,000-$50,000) o Income4 ($50,000-$75,000) o Income5 ($75,000 or more)

• Number of workers in household – 0, 1, 2 or more workers

• Difference in Drive relative to Transit accessibility (��)

• Mixed employment and population density (��)

Table 3-2 shows the final auto availability model estimation results. All variables show expected, logical signs, and all are significant at 95% confidence. Auto ownership increases with household size, household income and the number of workers in the household. It decreases with increasing transit accessibility to employment, and also decreases with increasing mixed density. Many of the candidate density and design variables showed logical, statistically significant effects on their own, but they tended to be correlated with each other. The mixed density measure was preferred over non-motorized accessibility because it is easiest to forecast and responds to changes in residential and employment density, as well as urban form density. It also remained significant when the multi-family housing variable was added.



Page 11

Table 3-2: Auto Ownership Coefficients

Auto Ownership Choice

0 Car 1 Cars

Coeff. t-stat Coeff. t-stat

Household Income

Inc3 -0.771 -1.40 -0.396 -1.65

Inc4 -2.693 -2.19 -0.784 -3.33

Inc5 -1.120 -5.32

Household Size 2 Person HH -3.093 -6.39 -3.093 -6.39

3 Person HH -3.274 -3.95 -3.216 -11.47

4-5 Person HH -3.681 -4.04 -3.359 -12.20

Workers in HH 1 Worker HH -1.274 -3.37 0.162 0.76

2+ Workers HH -4.481 -2.54 -1.355 -4.83

% TAZ Multi-Family Housing 1.228 2.57 1.228 2.57

Mixed Total Emp & HH Density 0.213 1.47 0.070 1.13

Transit-Drive Alone Logsum 0.049 0.92 0.036 1.36

Constant -0.594 -0.54 1.819 3.78

Observations: 1497 Final log likelihood (zero): -1636 Final log likelihood (constants): -1120 Rho-Squared (zero): 0.6212 Rho-Squared (constants): 0.4467

The model was implemented and tested in the CAMPO GISDK code. The auto ownership model required two new TAZ attributes which now reside in the CAMPO TAZ file:

• IsCBD: 1 = yes, this zone is in the Central Business District (CBD), or 0 = no, this zone is not in the CBD. Adding a "YR" designation for consistency was discussed but not implemented. CBD is District 24 as noted in section 1

• PctMF – Percent of Zone that is Multi-Family housing versus other types, using 2005 ACS PUMS. This is currently held constant over time.

3.3 IPF Market Segmentation

A three-dimensional matrix balancing program was added to provide the number of households in each combination of income (low, low-medium, medium, medium-high, or high), number of



Page 12

workers (0, 1 or 2), and number of autos (0, 1 or 2) within each TAZ. The procedure used a seed matrix from 2005 ACS PUMS with marginals from the CAMPO TAZ socio-economic data (for income and number of workers) and the results of the CAMPO auto ownership model (for number of autos). The households were then aggregated into one of the five market segments (Table 1-2) represented by income (low or high) and auto sufficiency (number of workers in relation to number of autos), for use in the mode choice model.

This java procedure was implemented pre-mode choice. The following marginals (or control totals) were used in the IPF process: (by zone)

• Total Households by income group

• Total Households by number of workers (from Trip Generation model) and

• Total Households by auto ownership groups (from Auto Ownership model)

A cross-tabulation from the 2005 ACS PUMS, shown in Table 3-3 was used as the seed table in the IPF process.

The result of the IPF process is the proportion of households in each market segment by zone. These percentages are then used to segment the trips within each trip purpose to each market. For example, if a particular TAZ has 20% of households in each auto-sufficiency category, then the HBW and the HBO trip tables are segmented the same way. Trip rate factors are applied to these proportions to ensure consistency with the calibration target values.

3.4 Person Trip Matrix Modification

The person trip tables obtained through trip distribution module are one of the inputs for mode choice module. However, while carefully examining on-board survey records to develop mode share targets, we found that, for college trips (HBEduc2 and HBUniversity trips), the trip table from trip distribution module does not have sufficient number of trips to even match the on-board survey observations alone for certain district, possibly because the HBEduc2 trip production is based on the usual household demographics but the geographic location of college student residency is not taken into account. The project team tried to recover an old data set with student residential information and corresponding geographic file without success. With no reliable student residential information available, we developed an alternate person trip table for HBEduc2 trips, based on trip distribution results and on-board survey trip trends at district level. The basic assumption, without detailed college student residential information, is that the marginal distribution observed in on-board survey reflects the trend for overall college trips including vehicle trips. For example, the on-board survey shows that about 62% of the HBEduc2 trips are produced from District 1 while the trip table obtained through trip distribution module suggests a much lower percentage. We assume, in terms of university trips, the patterns observed in on-board survey are representative for the entire university trips. Therefore, a proportional fitting at district level is added to the post-trip distribution to maintain the trip fractions that are produced in each district. The target district row marginals are shown in Table 3-3 while attraction totals at zonal level are unchanged. In the future, trip production may be improved

4.0 – Transit On-Board Survey Assignment


Page 13

with more accurate college student demographic information and this proportional fitting process can be removed.

Table 3-3: Target Percentage of Trip Productions at District Level

District HBEduc2 HBUniv

1 62.86% 79.28% 2 1.43% 1.81% 3 0.11% 0.14% 4 3.64% 4.59% 5 0.03% 0.04% 6 0.87% 1.10% 7 0.16% 0.20% 8 0.68% 0.86% 9 0.52% 0.65%

10 0.01% 0.01% 11 18.83% 0.00% 12 1.88% 0.00% 13 0.05% 0.06% 14 0.00% 0.00% 15 0.00% 0.00% 16 0.01% 0.01% 17 0.00% 0.00% 18 0.00% 0.00% 19 0.00% 0.00% 20 0.00% 0.00% 21 0.00% 0.00% 22 0.00% 0.00% 23 5.12% 6.46% 24 3.80% 4.79%

4.0 TRANSIT ON-BOARD SURVEY ASSIGNMENT

This section summarizes the model enhancements resulting from assigning trip tables developed from the on board survey and comparing the assignment results to observed data. This exercise was done prior to mode choice model calibration to ensure that network assumptions and transit path parameters such as walk access distance, transit speeds, etc. are accurately represented in the model and that travelers can be properly assigned to transit routes. The next section provides an overview of the methodology discusses results from the assignments and summarizes the recommended model improvements that resulted directly from this work.



Page 14

4.2 Description of Methodology

The methodology for refining/evaluating the model assumptions and parameters from the survey trip table assignments can be summarized in three steps:

• Perform survey trip table assignments

• Check for any unassigned trips and revise transit networks/assumptions, etc.

• Compare assigned volumes with observed data and tweak transit path parameters/control totals

The above steps are performed iteratively until the assigned volumes matched reasonably well with observed boardings.

4.3 Recommended Model Improvements and Result Analysis

The analysis based on observed transit trip table assignments led to some key model enhancements, which can be grouped into three categories – network, survey control totals, and mode choice model refinements. The remainder of this section discusses these enhancements. The final observed transit trip table assignment results are also presented.

4.3.1 Network Improvements

Unassigned trips from the survey trip table suggested that the search radius for finding walk to transit trips needed to be increased from 0.7 miles to 1.5 miles to properly represent observed walking behavior in the model. Transit network building procedures were updated to reflect this change (please see section 2.3 for more details). Additional checks were incorporated to make sure walk to transit connectors were built for all TAZs with transit service.

4.3.2 Mode Choice Improvements

The station access procedures in mode choice were updated to allow both walk and bus access to rail stations. In the earlier mode choice model, only one of the two was allowed. Additional walk-to-station skim data were added (as discussed in section 3.7) as a requirement to the model to ensure that that all available choices were properly represented in the model.

4.3.3 Final Survey Trip Table Assignment

Table 4-1 present the results from the final survey trip table assignments. The comparison shows that the changes to the model transit parameters resulted in significant improvements to the transit path building.



Page 15

Table 4-1: Year 2005 Transit On-Board Survey–Observed vs. Assigned Volumes

Route_Name CM_Name Jurisdict Observed Assigned

ROUTE 001 N Lamar / S Congress CMTA 12846 22344

ROUTE 002 Rosewood CMTA 1568 799

ROUTE 003 Burnet / Manchaca CMTA 4766 6640

ROUTE 004 Montopolis CMTA 1527 2273

ROUTE 005 Woodrow CMTA 1994 2499

ROUTE 006 East 12Th / Enfield CMTA 1257 2523

ROUTE 007 Duval / Riverside CMTA 2839 2246

ROUTE 009 Enfield / Travis Heights CMTA 204 442

ROUTE 010 S 1St CMTA 3112 4181

ROUTE 014 Travis Heights CMTA 396 232

ROUTE 015 Red River / Westgate CMTA 2943 2818

ROUTE 016 S 5Th / Red River CMTA 1776 1182

ROUTE 017 Johnston / Lake Austin CMTA 3554 3149

ROUTE 018 ML King CMTA 839 1097

ROUTE 019 Bull Creek CMTA 810 1620

ROUTE 020 Manor Road / Dove Springs CMTA 2572 3784

ROUTE 021 Exposition CMTA 808 961

ROUTE 022 Chicon CMTA 686 769

ROUTE 023 Johnny Morris CMTA 264 421

ROUTE 026 Woodrow / Riverside CMTA 2315 953

ROUTE 027 Duval / Dove Springs CMTA 4999 3834

ROUTE 029 Barton Hills CMTA 221 601

ROUTE 30 Barton Creek CMTA 743 504

ROUTE 037 S 5Th / Colony Park CMTA 2736 3184

ROUTE 100 Airport Flyer CMTA 417 300

ROUTE 101 N Lamar / S Congress Ltd CMTA 1737 420

ROUTE 103 Manchaca Flyer CMTA 143 690

ROUTE 110 South Central Flyer CMTA 104 460

ROUTE 127 Dove Springs Flyer CMTA 42 186

ROUTE 137 Colony Park Flyer CMTA 283 53

ROUTE 171 Oak Hill Flyer CMTA 225 844

ROUTE 174 North Burnet Limited CMTA 410 274

ROUTE 214 Lago Vista Flexible Service CMTA 24 242

ROUTE 240 Parkfield CMTA 576 985

ROUTE 242 Metric CMTA 1780 1874

ROUTE 252 Buckingham / Slaughter CMTA 276 83

ROUTE 300 Govalle CMTA 6636 5422

ROUTE 311 Stassney CMTA 1560 756

ROUTE 320 St Johns CMTA 1937 1490

ROUTE 325 Rundberg CMTA 2398 2077

ROUTE 328 Ben White CMTA 905 1193

ROUTE 331 Oltorf CMTA 2973 2308

ROUTE 333 William Cannon / Onion Creek CMTA 2048 2703

ROUTE 338 Lamar / 45Th CMTA 1402 1241



Page 16


ROUTE 339 Koenig / Walnut Creek CMTA 1278 2358

ROUTE 350 Airport / Anderson CMTA 2545 2028

ROUTE 383 Research CMTA 1207 1493

ROUTE 392 Braker CMTA 489 1423

411 E-Bus / Riverside CMTA 0 2117

412 E-Bus / Main Campus CMTA 0 446

424 Sunrise/3M/Northwest Park/Ride CMTA 0 67

440 Tech Ridge Circulator CMTA 0 35

ROUTE 450 Orange Dillo CMTA 822 569

ROUTE 451 Silver Dillo CMTA 916 1164

ROUTE 455 Red Dillo CMTA 1025 594

ROUTE 456 Gold Dillo CMTA 1031 869

ROUTE 462 Blue Dillo CMTA 156 345

ROUTE 463 Starlight Dillo CMTA 318 220

470 Tour The Town CMTA 0 484

481 Night Owl North CMTA 103 2513

482 Night Owl East CMTA 16 215

483 Night Owl Southeast CMTA 51 144

484 Night Owl Lamar / South First CMTA 0 406

485 Night Owl Cameron CMTA 0 197

486 Night Owl Dove Springs CMTA 0 185

490 HEB Shuttle CMTA 0 1

640 Forty Acres Forty Acres UT-SHUTTLE 5885 3256

641 Disch Falk Disch Falk UT-SHUTTLE 2385 358

642 West Campus West Campus UT-SHUTTLE 5544 4485

651 Cameron Road Cameron Road UT-SHUTTLE 1153 1383

653 Red River Red River UT-SHUTTLE 2402 1848

656 IF Intramural Fields UT-SHUTTLE 4930 5317

661 Far West Far West UT-SHUTTLE 3802 3780

662 Enfield Rd Enfield Road UT-SHUTTLE 1082 1726

663 Lake Austin Lake Austin UT-SHUTTLE 1178 1884

670 Crossing Place Crossing Place UT-SHUTTLE 0 672

671 N Riverside North Riverside UT-SHUTTLE 2319 5740

672 Lakeshore S Lakeshore Blvd UT-SHUTTLE 1450 1313

673 UT Shuttle Parker Lane UT-SHUTTLE 322 1031

674 Burton Dr Burton Drive UT-SHUTTLE 1632 3936

675 UT Shuttle Wickersham Lane UT-SHUTTLE 1835 4284

ROUTE 721 Hy#3 Uhland Road CW San Marcos 58 0

ROUTE 723 Hy#5 Conway San Marcos 60 0

ROUTE 724 Hy#1 Bishop St CW San Marcos 31 0

ROUTE 725 Hy#6 Medical Center San Marcos 47 0

ROUTE 726 Hy#7 Outlet Malls San Marcos 49 0

ROUTE 727 Hy#8 Hunter Road San Marcos 48 0

935 Tech Ridge Express Tech Ridge Express CMTA 345 731

982 Pavilion Express Pavilion Express CMTA 779 863

983 N US 183 Express US 183 Express CMTA 614 537



Page 17


984 Northwest Dir I35 Northwest Express CMTA 147 178

986 Leander Dir I 35 Leander Direct CMTA 130 7

987 Leander Express Leander Express CMTA 337 1363

990 Northeast Express Northeast Express CMTA 13 84

ROUTE 652 PRC Pickle Research Center UT-SHUTTLE 0 48

Total 134250 155353

Table 4-2: Year 2010 Transit On-Board Survey–Observed vs. Assigned Volumes

Route_Name CM_Name Jurisdict Observed On

ROUTE 001 N Lamar / S Congress CMTA 13643 20909

ROUTE 002 Rosewood CMTA 1258 578

ROUTE 003 Burnet / Manchaca CMTA 4429 6952

ROUTE 004 Montopolis CMTA 1650 1365

ROUTE 005 Woodrow CMTA 2236 3621

ROUTE 006 East 12Th / Enfield CMTA 1093 2307

ROUTE 007 Duval / Riverside CMTA 6700 7709

ROUTE 009 Enfield / Travis Heights CMTA 703 1050

ROUTE 010 S 1St CMTA 4556 6458

ROUTE 017 Johnston / Lake Austin CMTA 2715 1696

ROUTE 018 ML King CMTA 597 945

ROUTE 019 Bull Creek CMTA 578 1032

ROUTE 020 Manor Road / Dove Springs CMTA 4027 4837

ROUTE 021 Exposition CMTA 726 804

ROUTE 022 Chicon CMTA 648 540

ROUTE 023 Johnny Morris CMTA 160 370

ROUTE 029 Barton Hills CMTA 196 561

ROUTE 030 Barton Creek Square CMTA 616 617

ROUTE 037 S 5Th / Colony Park CMTA 2583 2066

ROUTE 100 Airport Flyer CMTA 416 353

ROUTE 101 N Lamar / S Congress Ltd CMTA 2802 1195

ROUTE 103 Manchaca Flyer CMTA 143 288

ROUTE 110 South Central Flyer CMTA 143 472

ROUTE 122 Sunset / 3M Company CMTA 5 545

ROUTE 127 Dove Springs Flyer CMTA 38 239

ROUTE 135 Dell Limited CMTA 26 121

ROUTE 137 Colony Park Flyer CMTA 216 38

ROUTE 142 Metric Flyer CMTA 265 1654

ROUTE 151 Allandale CMTA 15 0

ROUTE 161 Dellwood CMTA 37 1

ROUTE 171 Oak Hill Flyer CMTA 282 764

ROUTE 174 North Burnet Limited CMTA 353 474

ROUTE 201 Southpark Meadows CMTA 257 372

ROUTE 214 Lago Vista Flexible Service CMTA 80 103

ROUTE 240 Parkfield CMTA 355 564



Page 18

Route_Name CM_Name Jurisdict Observed On

ROUTE 243 Wells Branch CMTA 386 394

ROUTE 300 Govalle CMTA 5206 5411

ROUTE 311 Stassney CMTA 1327 1080

ROUTE 320 St Johns CMTA 1963 981

ROUTE 325 Rundberg CMTA 1803 1336

ROUTE 328 Ben White CMTA 757 1286

ROUTE 331 Oltorf CMTA 2662 2079

ROUTE 333 William Cannon / Onion Creek CMTA 1644 2207

ROUTE 338 Lamar / 45Th CMTA 1384 825

ROUTE 339 Koenig / Walnut Creek CMTA 1239 1820

ROUTE 350 Airport / Anderson CMTA 2710 1910

ROUTE 383 Research CMTA 1107 1579

ROUTE 392 Braker CMTA 614 1459

481 Night Owl North CMTA 132 2221

482 Night Owl East CMTA 24 127

483 Night Owl Southeast CMTA 53 109

484 Night Owl Lamar / South First CMTA 50 237

485 Night Owl Cameron CMTA 55 122

486 Night Owl Dove Springs CMTA 67 353

490 HEB Shuttle CMTA 82 15

640 Forty Acres Forty Acres UT-SHUTTLE 5673 2390

641 Disch Falk 2010 Disch Falk UT-SHUTTLE 1938 472

642 West Campus West Campus UT-SHUTTLE 5174 6105

651 Cameron Road Cameron Road UT-SHUTTLE 788 1035

653 Red River Red River UT-SHUTTLE 1995 1650

656 IF Intramural Fields UT-SHUTTLE 4121 3770

661 Far West Far West UT-SHUTTLE 4229 4466

662 Enfield Rd Enfield Road UT-SHUTTLE 736 862

663 Lake Austin Lake Austin UT-SHUTTLE 1240 1736

670 Crossing Place Crossing Place UT-SHUTTLE 2915 196

671 N Rrside North Riverside UT-SHUTTLE 2281 5385

672 Lakeshore S Lakeshore Blvd UT-SHUTTLE 1177 1596

675 UT Shuttle Wickersham Lane UT-SHUTTLE 1370 3515

935 Tech R X Tech Ridge Express CMTA 387 556

982 Pavilion Express Pavilion Express CMTA 996 868

983 US 183 Exp US 183 Express CMTA 589 304

984 Northwest Dir Northwest Express CMTA 123 101

986 Leander Leander Direct CMTA 90 70

987 Lnder/NWX Leander Express CMTA 374 337

990 Northeast Exp Northeast Express CMTA 36 138

ROUTE 1080 Bastrop Commuter Bastrop 0

ROUTE 1082 Interurban Coach A SanMarcos/Geo 23

ROUTE 1083 Interurban Coach B Lib Hill/Geor 51

ROUTE 652 PRC Pickle Research Center UT-SHUTTLE 419 11

LEADT CR Leander / Downtown CR CMTA 0

Total 116263 132786

5.0 – Calibration Target Value Development


March 2012 Page 19

5.0 CALIBRATION TARGET VALUE DEVELOPMENT

In order for a mode choice model to accurately reflect observed travel patterns, the model must be calibrated to observed conditions. The calibration process consists of adjusting constant terms in the mode choice utility equations to better match observed data referred to as calibration target values. The CAMPO mode choice calibration process works by matching trips by trip purpose to calibration target values within five market segments. All work trips assume peak period and non-work trips assume off-peak period.

5.2 Data Sources

The calibration target values are primarily derived from on-board and household travel survey information in the Austin region. Error! Reference source not found. lists each of the travel surveys with the number of observations. The 2006 Household survey is a Home-Interview survey where each member of a household is asked to report all activities and trips taken over the course of a single day. The other surveys are transit on-board surveys. The rail survey was done in 2010, soon after the 2010 opening of the commuter-rail line. The surveys ask travelers about the transit trip they are currently making. Each of the on-board surveys used a very similar survey instrument.

Table 5-1: Survey Sources + 2006 Household Survey

Survey Name Dates Surveyed Survey (Boardings/Survey) Daily Boardings

2005 Bus Feb-June 2010 33,539 (4.0) 135,335

2010 Bus Feb-May 2010 12,668 (9.1) 115,543

2010 Rail April-May 2010 (4 days) 400 (4.4) 1,755 (2011)

2006 HH Interview

2006 1,499 (1142 HHs/survey) N/A

5.3 On-Board Survey Data Preparations and Procedures

The on-board surveys, 2005 and 2010 bus and 2010 rail, provided key calibration target values for riders using transit. The survey processing is described in this section.

5.3.1 Survey Expansion

One of the first steps is to expand the various surveys to the number of unlinked trips or boardings that the observations represent. The 2005 and 2010 bus surveys were expanded at the time of the survey. For the 2010 rail survey the observations were expanded to match system-wide totals as reported by Capital Metro for the rail system in 2011. Expanding the survey to a year later than the survey date is not ideal, but allows the survey to represent a more stable ridership estimate, after the period of variability that occurs at the opening of any new transit service. The process for developing the rail weights is detailed below.



Page 20

• Identified rail boarding station code. Using Question 1, “starting location” a new field was coded with specific station names.

• Obtained Capital Metro ridership data. The 2010 survey records were expanded to match rail boardings for an average weekday based on 3 months of ridership data, April-May-June 2011 (see Table 5-2). Thus the 2010 survey was expanded to 2011.

• Calculated Rail Weights by station, direction (north or southbound), and time of day (AM and PM peaks only for Rail). Where there were non-zero survey records but no completed samples, or when there were zero boardings but completed samples, stops were aggregated, as noted below. Resulting weights, after accounting for these limited data issues, ranged from 0.06 to 14 (a weight below 1 implies that boardings are less than surveyed records). These initial rail weights were later updated when a significant number of intrazonal rail survey records had to be dropped. An enhanced weight was calculated by auto-sufficiency/income market segmentation, trip purpose, and access mode.

• Due to limited survey data, the following stations were aggregated:

NB-AM: Leander & Lakeline Stations NB-PM: Leander & Lakeline Stations NB-AM: Kramer & Crestview Stations SB-AM: Plazo & Downtown Stations SB-PM: Plazo & Downtown NB-Midday: Leander, Lakeline, Howard, Kramer, Crestview, Highland, MLK Stations

• There were no midday southbound surveys despite expected daily boardings of 190 and no midday northbound surveys outside of downtown stations. We expanded the observed 28 surveys to represent the total midday ridership (in both directions). This midday expansion method thus matches midday ridership, but not by direction. This limits confidence in the midday rail ridership patterns and attributes, but midday ridership is only a small portion of overall rail trips.



March 2012 Page 21

Table 5-2: 2011 Rail Survey Boardings and 2010 On-Board Survey Records

April

2011

May

2011

June

2011 Average

April

2011

May

2011

June

2011 Average

April

2011

May

2011

June

2011 Average

1 LEANDER AM-NB 1 0 0 0 9 MIDDAY-NB 0 0 0 - 0 PM-NB 3 4 5 4 0

2 LAKELINE AM-NB 1 1 1 1 7 MIDDAY-NB 0 0 0 0 0 PM-NB 6 6 5 6 1

3 HOWARD AM-NB 3 3 2 3 10 MIDDAY-NB 5 7 5 6 0 PM-NB 19 18 18 19 4

4 KRAMER AM-NB 3 3 3 3 3 MIDDAY-NB 9 6 10 9 0 PM-NB 49 52 51 50 12

5 CRESTVIEW AM-NB 10 11 10 10 0 MIDDAY-NB 13 5 7 8 0 PM-NB 23 24 26 24 13

6 HIGHLAND AM-NB 10 10 8 10 6 MIDDAY-NB 10 10 15 12 0 PM-NB 39 42 42 41 9

7 MLK AM-NB 19 17 16 17 4 MIDDAY-NB 27 21 30 26 4 PM-NB 101 91 95 96 7

8 PLAZO SALTILLO AM-NB 9 11 13 11 7 MIDDAY-NB 14 13 14 14 1 PM-NB 29 26 24 26 6

9 DOWNTOWN AM-NB 23 26 26 25 13 MIDDAY-NB 86 74 94 84 23 PM-NB 351 335 337 341 62

1 LEANDER AM-SB 149 164 161 158 48 MIDDAY-SB 0 0 0 0 0 PM-SB 12 10 13 12 13

2 LAKELINE AM-SB 207 193 187 196 37 MIDDAY-SB 109 78 119 102 0 PM-SB 33 28 35 32 8

3 HOWARD AM-SB 143 139 136 139 22 MIDDAY-SB 29 34 42 35 0 PM-SB 21 20 23 21 11

4 KRAMER AM-SB 40 37 46 41 8 MIDDAY-SB 22 20 22 21 0 PM-SB 45 45 44 45 13

5 CRESTVIEW AM-SB 24 19 21 21 11 MIDDAY-SB 14 15 14 14 0 PM-SB 11 8 9 10 5

6 HIGHLAND AM-SB 13 11 10 12 3 MIDDAY-SB 7 7 7 7 0 PM-SB 10 7 7 8 3

7 MLK AM-SB 8 6 7 7 1 MIDDAY-SB 6 5 6 6 0 PM-SB 4 3 4 4 3

8 PLAZO SALTILLO AM-SB 3 2 2 2 2 MIDDAY-SB 5 3 7 5 0 PM-SB 6 6 6 6 2

9 DOWNTOWN AM-SB 0 0 1 0 4 MIDDAY-SB 0 0 0 0 0 PM-SB 1 0 0 0 4

Boardings On-board

Survey

(2010)

Boardings On-board

Survey

(2010)

Time Period/

Direction

Time Period/

Direction

Boardings On-board

Survey

(2010)Station Name

Time Period/

Direction



Page 22

During survey processing noted in section 5.2.2, several records had to be dropped for insufficient information. As a result, a weight correction was applied to account for these dropped records and to ensure that the weighted survey represented full ridership. A correction factor, a ratio of the original weight to the after-drops weight by route, was calculated and applied to the weight and linked trip factor, as noted in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3: Number of On-Board Survey Trips

2005 Bus On-Board Boardings (Unlinked Trips) Linked Trips

Full-Corrected 135,637 117,483

Full (pre drops) 135,335 117,945

After drops 102,036 89,085

2010 Bus On-Board


Full (pre drops) 115,543 101,259

After drops 91,478 100,758

2010 Rail On-Board


Full (pre drops) 1,737 1,737

After drops 1,755 1,755

5.3.2 Survey Processing

Once the surveys are expanded the next step is to “process” the survey; this means combining the different surveys into a common format and then performing the following procedure:

• Put the observations into production/attraction format. This processing step reverses the direction of the trips where the home end is the destination of the trip.

• Determine the trip purpose. Based on survey responses to ‘Origin/Destination activity,’ observations were coded as shown in Table 5-4 and 5-5. ‘Univ’ purpose, representing UT post-secondary trips, were split from the broader post-secondary Education trips (Educ2+Univ), when the attraction zone fell in the UT district (TAZs 361,362,363,385). Home-to-Home trips were dropped. Trip purposes were collapsed, as needed to match the updated CAMPO trip purposes (HBNW-Retail and HBNW-Other combined into HBNW).

Table 5-4: 2005 On-board Survey Trip Purpose coding

2005 Bus On-board Survey q6 Home Work College-UT College-OtherSchool-K12 Shopping Medical Personal/RecreationalOther

q2 1 2 3 3* 4 5 6 7 8

Home 1 DROP HBW HBNW-Univ HBNW-Educ2 HBNW-Educ1 HBNW-Retail HBNW-Other HBNW-Other HBNW-Other

Work 2 HBW NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work

College/University-UT Austin 3 HBNW-Univ NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

College/University-Other 3* HBNW-Educ2 NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

School-K12 4 HBNW-Educ1 NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Shopping 5 HBNW-Retail NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Medical 6 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Personal/Recreational 7 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Other 8 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

* Split UT from other College/University based on destination in UT zones:



March 2012 Page 23

Table 5-5: 2010 On-board Survey Trip Purpose coding

• Determine the primary trip mode. For transit observations, the trip mode is the mode highest in the mode hierarchy. The hierarchy from lowest to highest is local bus, UT Shuttle, BRT, Express Bus, urban rail (see Figure 2-1).

• Market Segmentation: Trips were classified based on auto sufficiency (autos relative to workers) and household income to match the market segmentation noted earlier in Table 1-2. High income was assumed for incomes reported over $60,000, roughly splitting the survey records in half.

• Determine access and egress modes. Access and egress modes are determined with respect to production/attraction format. Walk, bike, and other were combined into a generic “walk” access. Missing access modes were also assigned to walk access. For transfers, given that the survey did not ask how they got to the first bus used, it was walk access was assumed for very first bus. Access information can be more accurately collected in the future on-board surveys by asking for the access mode to the first bus/rail instead of access mode to the surveyed route.

• Match trip end location to districts. These are used in the development of observed district-to-district flow matrix.

• Limit time periods. To match the CAMPO model, only weekday survey records were used and the time periods were adjusted to match CAMPO model periods (rather than the time periods used to weight the survey), AM peak, PM Peak and off-peak.

2010 BUS+RAIL On-Board Surveys q6 Home Work College-Other College-UT Shopping Medical Pers/Rec School-K12 Airport Other All other

q2 1 2 3 4* 5 6 7 8 11 12 99

Home 1 DROP HBW HBNW-Univ HBNW-Univ HBNW-Retail HBNW-Other HBNW-Other HBNW-Educ1 HBNW-Other HBNW-Other HBNW-Other

Work 2 HBW NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work NHB-Work

College (NotUT) 3 HBNW-Educ2 NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

The University of Texas 4* HBNW-Univ NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Shopping 5 HBNW-Retail NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Medical 6 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Personal/Recreational 7 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

School-K12 8 HBNW-Educ1 NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Airport 11 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

Other 12 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

All other 99 HBNW-Other NHB-Work NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other NHB-Other

* Split UT from other College/University based on destination in UT zones:



Page 24

• Calculated a linked trip factor for bus records. The number of transfers on the primary trip mode is used to convert the unlinked or boarding expansion factor into a linked or trip expansion factor, as shown in formula below. Note, the original survey weight is the same as the Linked Trip factor for Rail, since no transfers are assumed in the single rail line. Direction of service was not considered, and as mentioned previously only weekday trips were assumed.

Weight p,r = Boardings p,r / SurveyCount p,r Linked Trip Factori = Weighti/(1+Transfersi)

Where: p = time period r = route i = survey record

• Removed most Bus Intrazonal trips. Intrazonal trips are assumed to be unlikely for typical bus and rail service given spacing of stops and fare structure. As such, they were dropped from all modes except for UT Shuttle. UT Shuttle has frequent stops in the compact campus area and operates on a student/faculty pass system that makes short trips seem less expensive. As such, a significant number of intrazonals were identified in the survey records in zones adjacent to UT Shuttle routes. To account for this in the mode choice model, the number of UT Shuttle intrazonals by zone, as a share of total intrazonals of all modes in that zone (from the CAMPO model trip table), were defined as walk-access-UT Shuttle trips. This was only done in the zones adjacent to the UT Campus as noted in Figure 5-1. Because the factor is comprised of 2 data sources (survey record numerator, CAMPO model trip table denominator), some inconsistencies were noted, such as intrazonals observed where the trip table showed none. Despite these limitations, the adjustment was limited to removing a share of the trip table intrazonals ranging from 0 to 100%. This did not significantly impact the number of intrazonal trips in the mode choice model overall, and intrazonals are not assigned in the model.



March 2012 Page 25

Figure 5-1: Zones where UT Shuttle Intrazonals were adjusted

• Rail Survey Intrazonals. A full 22% of records (29% weighted trips) in the 2010 rail survey were intrazonal trips. All other attributes outside of the origin/destination zones in these records looked reasonable despite an origin and destination geocoded to the same zone. For example, with miscoded intrazonals you might expect the ‘purpose from’ and ‘purpose to’ be identical, but they are not. Thus an error may have occurred in the completion of the survey itself or in the geocoding step. As a result, these trips were included in the aggregate mode choice calibration targets (where no zone data was required), but excluded from the district-to-district flow targets. As a result of dropping so many trips, a more elaborate expansion method (based on market segmentation, purpose, and access mode) was used to expand rail trip table records, as noted in Section 5.2.1.

• Discarded 2005 Bus survey records. Nearly half of the 2005 Bus survey records had to be dropped (46% final after all drops vs. original daily weight) due to missing data



Page 26

in identifying trip purpose and demographic info (particularly income) needed for imputing the number of workers.

Once the survey records were processed they were examined to see if they had the information necessary for the development of observed trip tables. Usable records must contain all of the following key data:

• Origin/destination locations

• Origin/destination activity

• Time period

• Household income level

• Workers per household (missing from the survey and imputed as discussed in Section 5.2.3)

• Both trip ends inside the model area

• No intrazonal trips (except for UT Shuttle, as noted above) Records with the key data were used to build observed trip transit trip tables for use during calibration and validation. The proportion of original on-board survey records dropped by reason is shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6: Dropped On-Board Survey Records by reason

Drop Reason 2005Bus 2010Bus 2010Rail Imputation (Workers + 2005 Bus Income) 6% 1% 0% Bad Trip Purpose 11% 2% 0% Bad Access mode 0% 0% 11% Intrazonal 28% 24% 22%

TOTAL 46% 27% 33%

5.3.3 Imputed Values

In early conversations with FTA, the lack of worker data in the on-board survey was noted. It was agreed that this important variable should be added, imputed from the remaining survey attributes. Thus, the number of workers per household was imputed in order to utilize the desired auto-sufficiency-based market segmentation strategy for mode choice. We imputed the number of workers for each of the on-board survey records (2005 Bus, 2010 Bus, 2010 Rail). Additionally, the low response to the household income question in the 2005 Bus survey led to imputing this attribute as well, rather than drop a significant number of records lacking this value. The workers imputation method used for all surveys relies upon a 4-dimentional cross tabulation of the 2005 ACS PUMS data for the region: a 3-dimensional distribution of households by auto ownership level (0,1,2+), income group (0-20K, 20-35K, 35-50K, 50-75K, 75K+) household size (1,2,3,4,5+ persons), and number of workers (0,1, 2+). The Consumer Price Index was used to account for inflation between the 2005 PUMS and the 2010 Bus and Rail incomes. The survey added a new field “EstimWorkers” (0,1,2+) based



March 2012 Page 27

on a lookup table share contingent on each record’s household size, income, and number of autos. For each survey record with a given auto ownership and income level, a simple set of probabilities based upon the PUMS-based lookup table was calculated. So for example, if the proportions are 20% 0-workers, 30% 1-worker, and 50% 2+ workers, three identical survey trip records with the 0-worker record having 20% of the unlinked weight, 1-workers having 30% of the weight, and 2+ workers having 50% of the weight were created. As such the resulting survey data file has three times as many records. All the attributes would be the same for the three rows, except the “weight” field, which would be split (3 rows still sum to current value) based on the lookup table share. As long as two of the three fields were provided in the survey record, the joint distribution was collapsed to generate all missing fields (including workers). So for example, if income and household size are available, but not autos, then the joint distribution was used to generate distributions of both workers and autos. Records with less than 2 of the 3 fields were dropped. For the 2005 Bus Survey, the income imputation method was used to fill in income values for those records that lacked this data. Similar to the worker imputation, 15 rows (5 income category by 3 number of workers category) for each current record was created. All the attributes would be the same for the 15 rows, except for the income, number of workers and the survey weight. The lookup table was based on the 2010 Bus Survey, after initial estimates using the 2005 ACS PUMS (used in imputing workers per household) resulted in an income mix that was too high. As shown in Figure 5-2, the resulting income and worker distributions show a reasonable outcome from imputation. The observed household size and autos per household from the survey are typically larger than Census, as would be expected. The observed household income from the 2010 Bus and 2010 Rail surveys are also lower than Census, particularly for Bus, consistent with expectations; the imputed 2005 Bus income values also seem reasonable. The key objective, workers per household imputation, is also lower than census, reflecting the smaller household size and lower incomes.



Page 28

Figure 5-2: On-board Survey Imputed Values

5.3.4 Missing San Marcos Survey Data

Within the Austin region, the bus surveys covered the bulk of the key bus routes. The one exception was for shuttles run by CARTS linking downtown with the San Marcos campus area, representing over 16,000 daily riders. Ridership for these routes was obtained for 2005 and 2011 from the Texas State/San Marcos/BobCat Tram CARTS (20,675 in 2005, 17,703 in 2011). Attributes on transfer frequency and access mode were assumed to match that of the UT Shuttle survey records. At this point, lacking only the trip purpose and the origin/destination TAZs, these trips were added to the aggregate mode choice targets as HB Educ2 trips for local bus. Because of the lack of Origin/Destination data, they could not be included in the district-to-district mode choice travel pattern matrices. Table 5-7 provides a summary of the assumed attributes of these trips. To match observed district flow tables, a constant of -99.99 was added to trips within district 11, the location of the San Marcos campus. This essentially blocked any local Educ2 trips from occurring in the San Marcos area.



March 2012 Page 29

Table 5-7: District Level Distribution of San Marcos Survey Data, Local Bus Trips, assumed HBEduc2 purpose

Assumed San Marcos Trips 2010 Local Bus 2005 Local Bus

K&R PNR Walk/Bike K&R PNR Walk/Bike

0-Car - All Incomes - - 4,737 - 21 3,188

Cars < Workers - Low Income 9 122 516 10 76 568

Cars < Workers - High Income - - 204 - - 35

Cars >= Workers - Low Income 174 999 8,285 178 2,720 12,225

Cars >=Workers - High Income - 339 1,557 - 37 794

184 1,460 15,299 188 2,855 16,810

16,943 19,853



March 2012 Page 31

5.4 CAMPO Home-Interview Survey Preparations and Procedures

In addition to on-board surveys, another key element of the mode choice calibration target values is the 2006 CAMPO Home-Interview Survey. The 2006 Austin household survey obtained data and information on 1,499 households randomly selected in the 5 county Austin study area (Travis, Williamson, Hays, Caldwell, and Bastrop). The data processing, cleaning and expansion of the survey was completed by Texas Transportation Institute at the Texas A&M University. The following processing was done to the 2006 Home-Interview Survey, prior to use in the mode choice targets:

• Trip Linking – A two-step process of trip linking was completed in the Austin Household-Interview Survey. The purpose and assumptions are noted below:

o Primary Linking sets the purpose for change mode or serve passenger wherever possible. Assumptions: For serve-passenger (i.e., chauffeur) trips; search for a joint trip (2 separate trips within 15 minutes of each other) and if found, use that person’s trip-end purpose and label as a chauffeur trip. For a passenger trip to be used in the mode re-designation the passenger trip end must match location for joint trip within 100 feet and the served passenger person number must match person number listed as for joint trip designation. For change mode trips, change primary mode only when lower priority mode was above 80% of trip time. (451 or 3.10% of trips were linked out)

o Secondary Linking is based on intermediate stop and trip diversion. Assumptions: Intermediate stop can be no longer than 5 minutes duration. Diversion to the intermediate stop was limited to no more than 1 mile to qualify for linking. (106 or 0.76% of trips were linked out)

• Production & Attraction format – Surveys collect trip information in origin-destination format (the direction the trip actually occurred), however in modeling, we want to distinguish the production and attraction end of the trip, regardless of the direction. To put the data in Production & Attraction (P&A) format, for any trip with one end at home, home is assigned as the production and the other trip end is the attraction. All other trips retain the origin & destination as the P&A, respectively. Access and egress time and mode also use the P&A format.

• HBUniv and HBEduc2 were distinguished based on the following UT destination zones: 361,362,363,385

• Market Segmentation: Stratified per Table 1-2 segments based on autos, workers and HHincome fields. $60K break between Low and High income (48-52% weighted survey), consistent with on-board survey segmentation.

• Survey Expansion Weights. A combined household and person-based survey expansion weight was used. The person-weights correct for age and gender (factors ranging from 0.3 to 3.4). 1

1 Transmittal Memo for Austin 2006 Travel Survey Data, from David F. Pearson/TTI to TXDOT. (May 14, 2007)


M E T R O M O D E C H O I C E M O D E L

Page 32

• Mode and vehicle occupancy. Motorcycle (mode 16) was assumed to be ‘drive alone’ mode. Adjustments were made for shared ride vehicle occupancy by purpose from the household survey. Only the driver household survey record was used, and replicated for all passengers based on occupancy, thereby avoiding double counting.

• Dropped

o zero car households that indicated driving alone

o Incomplete/bad trip and Intrazonals trips were dropped from the survey.

o To not overlap the on-board survey data, trips of the following transit modes were dropped along with incomplete answers: NA, cargo modes 8-11, Taxi mode 14; passenger modes 3,5,7, bus mode 12 (kept School bus).

• HHSurvey Oddities. No zero car HHs were in 2 or 3+ shared ride trips for all education purposes (Educ1, Educ2, Univ). This was double-checked and verified so a zero was retained in the mode choice calibration targets.

The auto and non-motorized trips from the 2006 Home-Interview Survey was utilized in the Calibration Target Values. The transit portion of the home-interview survey was replaced by the On-Board Surveys discussed in the previous sections. This was done because of the relatively few transit samples in the Home-Interview survey. Once the transit trips were included the auto trips were scaled back proportionately maintaining the control totals of expanded trips from the Home-Interview survey.

In addition, a school bus factor was calculated for Educ1 trips (no market segmentation). 18.35% of all Educ1 trips used School Bus. Use of school bus for other purposes (3% of school bus use) was ignored.

5.5 Building Mode Choice Targets

The survey data was assembled with the CAMPO model trip table totals to generate aggregate targets and district flow matrices for both 2005 and 2010 for use in mode choice calibration. The steps used in this process are noted below.

5.5.1 2005 and 2010 Aggregate Targets

The expanded transit on-board survey linked trips (Section 5.2) was used directly to represent all transit trips by primary mode (Express Bus, Local Bus, UT Shuttle, Commuter-rail), by access mode (Walk, PNR, KNR), and by purpose. The Rail mode only occurred in the 2010 targets. Two purposes (HBW, HBNW) were segmented by auto sufficiency and income (Table 1-2). Total auto and non-motorized trips minus the transit trips from the CAMPO Trip Table trips by purpose gave total non-transit trips. These were allocated to auto and non-motorized modes based on the shares in the 2006 Household-Interview Survey (Section 5.3). The 2006 Household-Interview survey patterns were used for both 2005 and 2010 targets.



March 2012 Page 33

Figure 5-3: Approach to Development of Mode Choice Targets

Table 5-8 below shows the mapping of CAMPO model trip table purposes to purposes used in the mode choice model.

Table 5-8: Mapping of CAMPO Trip Table Purposes to Mode Choice Purposes

MC purpose CAMPO Trip Table Purposes

HBW

HBW-Direct

HBW-Complex

HBW-Strategic

HBNW

HBNW-Retail

HBNW-Other

NW-Airport

HBEduc1 HBNW-Educ1

HBEduc2 HBNW-Educ2

HBUniv HBNW-Univ

NHBW NHB-Work

NHBO NHB-Other

Drop NHB-Work-DA, NHB-Work-NDA, NHB-EX, TRTX, EXLOA, EXLOT, AUTO,TRUCK

As noted in Section 5.2.2, UT Shuttle intrazonals were allowed for both aggregate mode choice targets and district flow matrices. All other intrazonals were dropped. As noted earlier, some rail intrazonals were reasonable despite the geocode, and were thus included in the aggregate (aspatial) targets. Trends between 2005 and 2010 mode choice targets were reviewed. It was noted that although most trip purposes and overall trips grow by 17% over the period, HB-Univ trips are constant, and Educ2 trips grow at twice the rate, 32%. The trip generation model produces total university trips, HBEdu2 and HB-Univ, which is 122,520 for year 2005


M E T R O M O D E C H O I C E M O D E L

Page 34

and 143,688 for year 2010, a 17% increase. HB-Univ trip purpose is the subset of these trips attracted to UT zones. The TAZ layer shows that special generator measures (university enrollment) for Educ2 attractions to these four zones are the same for year 2005 and 2010. This is consistent with UT-Austin’s flat enrollment (2001 is 50, 616, and 51,195 for 2010-2011). Thus Educ2 trips absorbed the full growth over the time period. Table 5-9 and Table 5-10 present the target mode share for year 2005 and year 2010.

Table 5-9: Year 2005 Target Mode Share

Trip Purpose SOV HOV2 HOV3 Transit Non-

Motorized Total

HBW 81.91% 8.58% 3.26% 3.43% 2.83% 100%

HBNW-

Other-Retail 43.14% 30.43% 21.35% 1.51% 3.57% 100%

HBEdu1 19.04% 38.08% 38.56% 0.41% 3.91% 100%

HBEdu2 35.87% 1.95% 4.03% 56.18% 1.97% 100%

HBUniversity 29.41% 31.14% 0.00% 37.80% 1.65% 100%

NHBW 67.07% 15.30% 15.00% 1.24% 1.39% 100%

NHBO 30.27% 27.66% 37.55% 1.28% 3.24% 100%

Table 5-10: Year 2010 Target Mode Share

Trip Purpose SOV HOV2 HOV3 Transit Non-

Motorized Total

HBW 86.24% 7.64% 0.78% 2.49% 2.86% 100%

HBNW-

Other-Retail 43.62% 37.36% 14.28% 1.17% 3.58% 100%

HBEdu1 20.29% 52.57% 23.01% 0.20% 3.92% 100%

HBEdu2 52.40% 2.84% 5.88% 35.99% 2.88% 100%

HBUniversity 42.02% 17.58% 6.88% 31.71% 1.81% 100%

NHBW 78.45% 15.10% 4.13% 0.93% 1.39% 100%

NHBO 29.66% 42.04% 23.89% 1.17% 3.24% 100%

5.5.2 2005 and 2010 District-Level Mode Choice Targets

The weighted records from the on-board surveys were used to build flows of transit ridership between districts within the model area (Figure 1-2) for 2005 and 2010. These targets were disaggregated by purpose and mode.

6.0 – Nested Logit Model Description


March 2012

6.0 NESTED LOGIT MODEL DESCRIPTION

Mode Choice models are mathematical expressions which are used to estimate the modal shares of the travel market given the time and cost characteristics of the various competing modes, the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the urban residents, and the un-included attributes of the modes represented in the model. Mode choice models are designed to be an integral link in the travel demand chain, with possible feedback mechanisms to a number of related model components -- auto ownership, trip generation, trip distribution, and (modal) trip assignment.

6.2 Model Structure Overview

The mode choice model structure used in the CAMPO regional mode choice model update was a nested logit mode choice model. Figure 6-1 illustrates the differences between the original and updated mode choice model structures. Auto and Transit are now at the same nest level as the Non-Motorized mode in the new structure. Additionally, the Commuter-rail mode was expanded to 2 modes, characterized as Premium Service Modes 1 and 2. The second PM2 mode is reserved for future Bus Rapid Transit alternative testing.



Page 36

Figure 6-1: Updated and Original Mode Choice Model Structure

UPDATED:

ORIGINAL:



March 2012

Traditionally, a larger number of trip purposes are maintained in the trip generation and trip distribution models then collapsed in mode choice. Common practice has been to compress the subset of non-work purposes into a single purpose, resulting in three basic purposes for mode choice modeling -- Home-Based Work, Home-Based Non-Work, and Non-Home Based. This simplification stems from the notion that household and individual travel behavior properties, as translated into elasticities, are relatively similar when considering the choice of mode. A final element with regard to market segmentation is the stratification of alternative specific constants by an indicator of wealth or socio-economic status. Historically, either auto ownership or income has been used for this purpose. For this effort, an auto sufficiency by income measure was used (see section on Auto Ownership model for more information).

At the upper level of the nesting structure is the private automobile, public transit, and non-motorized modes. In the non-motorized nest, direct walk and bicycle are represented. The auto mode nest addresses auto occupancy choice (drive-alone and up to 3+ person carpools). Toll nests under each of these three options remain from the original model but the LogSum coefficients are set to 0 nullifying these choice nests. The CAMPO model explicitly considers six primary transit modes at the lower level of the transit nest. Local and Express Bus, UT Shuttle service, Commuter-rail, and two future premium transit services (attributes yet to be determined). The decision was made to use a nesting structure where mode of access was the primary decision before choosing a transit mode. This reflects the constraints of the rider’s access modes, which have been found to best represent the behavior in regions with less established transit services, where most riders are captive.

6.3 Asserted Model Coefficient Values

Early in the model development effort a decision was made to focus on careful model calibration and validation, rather than investing in a large model estimation effort that would not yield usable results. Furthermore, mode choice model estimation, calibration, and validation experiences over the last ten years has helped to establish a set of reasonable and logical ranges for all key model variables. These ranges include both the absolute value of the coefficient as well as the relationships between variables. All of the coefficient values shown in the following sections were based upon previous model estimation efforts in the region, and modified as appropriate to be representative of good practice across the country.



Page 38

Figure 6-2: Asserted Mode Choice Coefficients

The values of all final CAMPO mode choice parameters (and list of dropped parameters) are provided in Appendix B. Several parameters were found to be unnecessary and dropped, as they either used the discarded direct and complex trip purpose distinction or served to over-specify the model. Additionally, some original parameters were stratified by income/auto-sufficiency market segments (Table 1-2). Other parameters representing the inactive toll nest and future modal options (Premium Mode 2) remain in the model with a value of 0.

Austin Asserted Mode Choice Model Coefficient Values

Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio

In-Vehicle Time -0.02500 -0.01500 -0.01500 -0.02500 -0.02000 -0.02000

Commuter Rail -0.02000 0.8 -0.01200 0.8 -0.01200 0.8 -0.02000 0.8 -0.01600 0.8 -0.01600 0.8

1st Wait < 5.0 Minutes -0.05625 2.25 -0.03375 2.25 -0.03375 2.25 -0.05625 2.25 -0.04300 2.15 -0.04300 2.15

1st Wait > 5.0 Minutes -0.02500 1.00 -0.01500 1.00 -0.01500 1.00 -0.02500 1.00 -0.02000 1.00 -0.02000 1.00

Transfer Wait -0.06250 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.06250 2.50 -0.05000 2.50 -0.05000 2.50

Number of Transfers Calib Calib Calib Calib Calib Calib

Cost Coefficient(s) $66,850 $12.86 -0.00175 $5.14 -0.00292 $5.14 -0.00187 $6.43 -0.00187 $6.43

0-Car - All Income Levels $21,235 -0.36732 $4.08 -0.55098 $1.63 -0.18000 -0.29000 -0.19000 -0.19000

Autos < Workers - Low Income $32,201 -0.24223 $6.19 -0.36334 $2.48

Autos < Workers - High Income $91,664 -0.08509 $17.63 -0.12764 $7.05

Autos >= Workers - Low Income $26,129 -0.29852 $5.02 -0.44778 $2.01

Autos >= Workers - High Income $109,513 -0.07122 $21.06 -0.10684 $8.42

Drive Access In-Vehicle Time -0.05625 2.25 -0.03375 2.25 -0.03375 2.25 -0.05625 2.25 -0.04300 2.15 -0.04300 2.15

Highway Terminal Time -0.06250 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.06250 2.50 -0.05000 2.50 -0.05000 2.50

General Walk < 1.0 Mile -0.06250 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.06250 2.50 -0.05000 2.50 -0.05000 2.50

Walk Mode Time < 1.0 -0.06250 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.06250 2.50 -0.05000 2.50 -0.05000 2.50

Walk Mode Time > 1.0 -0.09375 3.75 -0.05625 3.75 -0.05625 3.75 -0.09375 3.75 -0.07500 3.75 -0.07500 3.75

Bike Time Time < 1.0 -0.06250 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.03750 2.50 -0.06250 2.50 -0.05000 2.50 -0.05000 2.50

Bike Time Time > 1.0 -0.09375 3.75 -0.05625 3.75 -0.05625 3.75 -0.09375 3.75 -0.07500 3.75 -0.07500 3.75

Walk & Bike Threshold Distance (miles) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Primary Mode LogSum 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000

Submode LogSum 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000

Access Mode LogSum 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION Home-Based Work Home-Based Other Non-Home OtherHome-Based School Home-Based Univ/Educ2 Non-Home Work

7.0 – 2005 Model Calibration


March 2012

7.0 2005 MODEL CALIBRATION

The calibration work of the CAMPO mode choice model started in year 2005 and then was moved to year 2010, which is defined as “base year” of the model. Calibration in multiple years was possible due to on-board survey data available in both years. The calibration of the year 2005 model provided insights and confidence in the final calibration of the year 2010 model. Rail was only an available choice in 2010.

7.2 Basic Calibration of Constants

Model calibration is the process of establishing proper values for the alternative specific constants. A critical part of this process is to verify that the calibrated constants tell a coherent and plausible story about travel behavior, and not just reproduce the base year model shares. The identification of constants must follow from a good understanding of the expected effect of non-included attributes, and the calibrated values must be logical and consistent with best practices. The target values are stratified by market, represented by 5 groups of auto sufficiency and income (prior Table 1-2). The constants for primary transit modes are identical across all groups. During the process of calibration, the observed value is compared against the estimated value by market and by access mode: walk access, park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride.

7.2.1 Primary Transit Mode Constants

Table 7-1 shows the primary transit mode constants by each purpose. As expected, most constants are positive while both the constants of UT shuttle and express bus are negative for the Home-Based Work and the Home-Based Other purpose.

Table 7-1: Primary Transit Mode Constants by Purpose, 2005 Calibration

UT

Shuttle Express

Bus

Home-Based Work (1.30230) (0.48302)

Home-Based Other (1.28415) (0.05261)

Home-Based Education 1 0.40548 1.19201

Home-Based University 10.85169 (0.29111)


Non-Home Based Work (0.49952) 0.53143

Non-Home Based Other 0.28460 0.39830



Page 40

7.2.2 Equivalent In-Vehicle Minutes of Time/Expected Ranges

Table 7-2 shows the equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time associated with each of the alternative specific constants for the major transit modes in the Austin region. The UT Shuttle constants of the secondary education purposes (Home-Based University and Home-Based Education 2) are over 400 minutes. This revealed a problem in the gravity-based trip distribution model which did not produce a trip table where college student residential locations were sufficiently accessible by transit, relative to the use observed in the on-board survey. In 2010 year calibration, an alternate trip table was developed for these trips, as discussed in Section 3.3. The UT Shuttle constant for Home-Based Work and Home-Based Other are also large, over -50 minutes. This is attributed to being unable to restrict non UT students from riding the shuttle, particularly given its free fare for students and staff. For the express bus constants, the 79.5 minutes of the Home-Based Education 1 purpose is also very high. This is a very small number of trips, and thus difficult to capture in an on-board survey.

Table 7-2: Equivalent Minutes of In-vehicle Time for the Primary Modes by Purpose, 2005 Calibration

UT

Shuttle Express

Bus

Home-Based Work (52.1) (19.3)

Home-Based Other (85.6) (3.5)


Home-Based University 434.1 (11.6)


Non-Home Based Work (25.0) 26.6

Non-Home Based Other 14.2 19.9

7.3 Aggregate Trip Level Comparisons

Tables 7-3 to 7-5 show the comparison between the observed and estimated transit trips by purpose. In the table park-n-ride and kiss-n-ride access modes are aggregated into the drive access mode. For the Home-Based-Work and Home-Based-Other purposes, the comparison is stratified by auto-sufficiency market segments. The mode choice model matches the observed data very well at the access mode level and auto-sufficiency market level. The largest difference is within one percent. For the remaining purposes that are not stratified by auto-sufficiency market, the match between observed and estimated transit trips is sufficient. At the access mode level, the percent difference is high for the secondary education purposes (Home-Based University and Home-Based Education 2) which is a result of the trip distribution problem in the person trip tables as noted in Section 7.1.



March 2012

7.4 District Level Comparisons

Given that the equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time was reasonable and the aggregate trip level comparisons by auto-sufficiency market and access mode matched the observed within 1%, the next logical step was to compare the travel markets served by each of the transit modes. This was done by comparing the observed transit trip matrices created from the on-board survey to those estimated by the model. For this comparison, the region was subdivided into 24 districts and the estimated district-to-district flows were subtracted from the observed district-to-district flows, by trip purpose and for each of the transit modes. Figure 1-1 previously displayed the 24 districts in the region and provides a spatial map for the district level comparison table. Downtown Austin was disaggregated into 3 districts: CBD Core (District 23); UT Campus (District 24), and the Rest of Downtown (District 1). Appendix Table B-1 through B-3 provide the estimated minus observed district-to-district daily transit trips, aggregated across all purposes. Further observations by purpose are noted in Section 7.5.



Page 42

Table 7-3: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Work, 2005 Calibration

Auto-Sufficiency Group

Observed Estimated Abs Difference Pct Difference

Walk Drive Total Walk Drive Total Walk Drive Total Walk Drive Total

No Autos 16,108 343 16,450 15963 341.6 16,305 -144 -1 -145 -0.9% -0.3% -0.9%

Fewer Autos than Workers - Low Income 1,087 130 1,217 1080.6 129.6 1,210 -7 -1 -7 -0.6% -0.4% -0.6%

Fewer Autos than Workers - High Income 252 27 279 251.8 27.1 279 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

More Autos than Workers - Low Income 12,152 1,976 14,128 12128 1972.4 14,101 -23 -4 -27 -0.2% -0.2% -0.2%

More Autos than Workers - High Income 1,290 505 1,795 1294.5 506.7 1,801 4 2 6 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

TOTAL 30,888 2,981 33,869 30,719 2,977 33,696 -170 -3 -173 -0.6% -0.1% -0.5%

Table 7-4: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Other, 2005 Calibration




No Autos 14,002 190 14,192 13991 189.7 14,180 -12 0 -12 -0.1% 0.0% -0.1%

Fewer Autos than Workers - Low Income 855 47 903 854.7 47.5 902 -1 0 0 -0.1% 0.2% 0.0%

Fewer Autos than Workers - High Income 84 9 92 83.9 8.5 92 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

More Autos than Workers - Low Income 9,401 429 9,829 9397.8 428.2 9,826 -3 0 -3 0.0% -0.1% 0.0%

More Autos than Workers - High Income 390 67 458 390.5 67.3 458 0 0 0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 24,732 741 25,474 24,718 741 25,459 -15 0 -15 -0.1% 0.0% -0.1%

Table 7-5: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Non Segmented Purposes, 2005 Calibration




Home-Based Education 1 2,047 351 2,398 2048.2 350.1 2,398 1 -1 0 0.0% -0.1% 0.0%

Home-Based University 18,560 2,351 20,910 17700 3221.2 20,921 -860 871 11 -4.6% 37.0% 0.1%

Home-Based Education 2 15,560 2,337 17,897 15377 2544.1 17,921 -183 207 24 -1.2% 8.9% 0.1%

Non-Home Based Work 5,391 432 5,822 5390.9 431.6 5,823 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-Home Based Other 9,617 955 10,572 9656.4 957 10,613 39 2 41 0.4% 0.2% 0.4%



March 2012 Page 43

7.5 Introduction of Attraction End Constants

The initial district level comparisons revealed that the pattern of trips attracted to the CBD Core and the UT Campus Districts tended to be under-estimated while the trips attracted to the rest of the CBD Downtown District tended to be over-estimated. The solution to this problem was to apply a (destination) attraction end constants to the districts of CBD Core and UT Campus for the trip purposes that displayed this under-estimation pattern. Table 7-6 below lists the attraction end constants by purpose.

Table 7-6: Attraction End Constants by Purpose, 2005 Calibration

CBD Core UT Campus

Home-Based Work 0.40920 0.08870

Home-Based Other 0.26190 1.27970

Home-Based Education 1

Home-Based University

Home-Based Education 2 0.61745

Non-Home Based Work 0.32875 0.42340

Non-Home Based Other 1.92595

In addition to the attraction end constants, a special district 11 to district 11 constant (of value -99.99) is applied to three purposes: Home-Based Work, Home-Based Other and Home-Based Education 2. This constant restricts intra-zonal transit trips from occurring in district 11. This was needed because the San Marcos Bus service, which primarily serves the San Marcos Campus in district 11, was not included in the 2005 on-board survey. Thus the observed transit trip tables showed zero transit trips within district 11. Because intrazonal trips are not assigned and therefore are irrelevant to the transit assignment results and because the observed trip table had no intrazonal trips in District 11, the constant was added to discourage those trips.

7.6 District Level Observations by Purpose

Appendix Table B-1 through B-3 shows the final difference (estimated minus observed) of the district-to-district flows, aggregated across all purposes and modes in a single table. Overall, the observed transit trips and estimated transit trips match quite well at the district level. Some patterns are noted and addressed further in the year 2010 calibration: Despite the Attraction End constants, the trips attracted to downtown (districts 1, 23, 240 including the UT Austin Campus (23) are still under-estimated. However, there is no need to further adjust the attraction end constants until the overall under-estimation issue is addressed, which was done in the year 2010 calibration.



Page 44

8.0 2010 MODEL CALIBRATION

The final mode choice model alternative specific constants are based on the year 2010 calibration effort, building off the lessons learned from the year 2005 calibration. Some changes occurred to transit services between 2005 and 2010, including the opening of the Capital Metro Rail (Commuter-rail) in March 2010, the restructuring of Express Bus service and system-wide fare increase. An important focus of the 2010 calibration effort was the Commuter-rail mode for which new observed on-board survey data was available. The other trends/changes in the transit service are noted below:

• Bus Ridership Decline. A 15% decline in bus ridership from 2005 to 2010 was confirmed by Capital Metro. The ridership drop was attributed to a fare increase ($0.75 from $0.50 for past 20 years) and service differences between 2005 and 2010, including a large route realignment to drop paired and low ridership routes.

• Express Bus Restructuring. For year 2005, there were a total of 154 bus routes (local and express bus) in service. For year 2010 there were a total of 147 routes. So when combined, the off-peak period in year 2010 has slightly less bus service.

8.2 Basic Calibration of Constants

As with year 2005 Calibration, model calibration is the process of establishing proper values for the alternative specific constants. A critical part of this process is to verify that the calibrated constants tell a coherent and plausible story about travel behavior, and not just reproduce the base year model shares. The identification of constants must follow from a good understanding of the expected effect of non-included attributes, and the calibrated values must be logical and consistent with best practices. The target values are stratified by market, represented by 5 groups of auto sufficiency and income (prior Table 1-2). The constants of primary transit modes are identical across groups. During the process of calibration, the observed value is compared against the estimated value by market and by access mode: walk access, park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride.

8.2.1 Primary Transit Mode Constants

Table 8-1 shows the primary transit mode constants by purpose. As expected most of the constants are positive, with the major exception being UT Shuttle. As with year 2005 calibration, this can be explained by the inability of the model to restrict UT shuttle riders to University of Texas students, staff and faculty, who can ride for free. The Commuter-rail constant of the Home-Based Education 1 purpose is negative 12.25, the smallest value allowed for a constant set by the calibration program. This is because there are no observed commuter-rail trips for this purpose. As with the express bus trips for this purpose in the 2005 calibration, education 1 trips on these modes are few and thus hard to capture in the on-board survey.



March 2012

Table 8-1: Primary Transit Mode Constants by Purpose, 2010 Calibration

UT Shuttle Express Bus Commuter-

rail

Home-Based Work (1.78476) 0.02014 (0.17162)

Home-Based Other (1.36831) 0.67039 4.24279

Home-Based Education 1 (2.04540) 1.55106 (12.25000)

Home-Based University 1.36999 0.88164 1.30133

Home-Based Education 2 1.39646 0.45715 0.67315

Non-Home Based Work (0.45981) 1.55574 2.22431

Non-Home Based Other (0.15060) 1.09239 4.82931

8.2.2 Equivalent In-Vehicle Minutes of Time/Expected Ranges

Table 8-2 shows the equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time for the primary modes by purpose. In the year 2005 calibration Home-Based Education 2 and Home-Based University purposes constant for UT Shuttle were very large (over 400 minutes). In the 2010 calibration, an alternate person trip tables for Educ2 purpose (see Section 3.3) was used. This addressed limitations with the gravity-based trip distribution in locating college students in transit-accessible areas, relative to observations of transit use observed in the on-board survey of both years. As a result of using the alternate trip table, the UT constants in the year 2010 calibration decreased significantly to a much more reasonable 50-60 minutes.

Table 8-2: Equivalent Minutes of In-vehicle Time for the Primary Modes by Purpose, 2010 Calibration

UT Shuttle Express Bus Commuter-

rail

Home-Based Work (71.4) 0.8 (6.9)

Home-Based Other (91.2) 44.7 282.9

Home-Based Education 1 (136.4) 103.4 (816.7)



Non-Home Based Work (23.0) 77.8 111.2

Non-Home Based Other (7.5) 54.6 241.5

8.3 Aggregate Trip Level Comparisons

Tables 8-3 thru 8-5 compare observed and estimated aggregated transit trips by auto-sufficiency market segment (where applicable) and access mode for each purpose. The mode choice model matches the observed data very well at each level except for the Home-Based Work purpose. For the No Autos market of the Home-Based Work purpose, the estimated transit trips are 11 percent below the observed values, which lead to a 4.8 percent under-estimation of the purpose overall. As seen in the secondary education trips,



Page 46

this is attributed to the limitations of the gravity-based trip distribution model. In this case, the gravity model is not split by auto-sufficiency and sensitive only to travel time accessibilities, making it unable to match the no-auto trips to transit-accessible locations. A destination choice model that is segmented and responsive to mode choice logsums, an aggregate measure of all modes, would be expected to fare much better on both of these issues.

8.4 District Level Comparisons

As was done in the year 2005 calibration, the aggregate trip level comparisons by purpose and mode were followed by a comparison of district-to-district level trip flows. The district definition is the same as used in the year 2005 calibration. The Commuter-rail trips are added into the total transit trips for the comparison. Appendix Table B-4 through B-27 provides the estimated minus observed district-to-district daily transit trips, for each purpose and aggregated across all purposes. Further observations by purpose and mode are noted in Section 8.5.



March 2012 Page 47

Table 8-3: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Work, 2010 Calibration

Income Level



No Autos 12,800 387 13,187 11,959 500 12,459 -841 113 -728 -6.6% 29.1% -5.5%

Fewer Autos than Workers - Low Income 1,167 188 1,355 1,167 188 1,355 0 0 0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Fewer Autos than Workers - High Income 407 91 499 407 91 498 0 0 0 -0.1% 0.0% -0.1%

More Autos than Workers - Low Income 9,592 1,564 11,157 9,596 1,565 11,161 4 1 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

More Autos than Workers - High Income 2,496 1,241 3,737 2,494 1,240 3,734 -2 -1 -3 -0.1% -0.1% -0.1%

TOTAL 26,463 3,471 29,934 25,624 3,584 29,208 -839 113 -726 -3.2% 3.2% -2.4%

Table 8-4: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Other, 2010 Calibration

Income Level



No Autos 13,291 366 13,657 13,299 366 13,665 7 0 8 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Fewer Autos than Workers - Low Income 673 21 694 673 21 694 0 0 0 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

Fewer Autos than Workers - High Income 222 19 241 222 19 241 0 0 0 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%

More Autos than Workers - Low Income 5,710 508 6,218 5,710 508 6,217 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

More Autos than Workers - High Income 1,440 137 1,577 1,440 137 1,577 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 21,336 1,051 22,387 21,343 1,051 22,394 7 0 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Table 8-5: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Non Segmented Purposes, 2010 Calibration

Income Level



Home-Based Education 1 1,330 74 1,404 1,330 74 1,404 0 0 0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Home-Based University 16,002 1,540 17,542 16,020 1,540 17,560 18 0 18 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Home-Based Education 2 13,550 1,311 14,861 13,635 1,314 14,949 85 3 88 0.6% 0.2% 0.6%

Non-Home Based Work 4,452 464 4,916 4,452 464 4,916 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-Home Based Other 10,331 821 11,153 10,432 829 11,260 100 7 107 1.0% 0.9% 1.0%



Page 48

8.5 Introduction of Attraction End Constants

As with the year 2005 calibration, the initial 2010 calibration district level comparison demonstrated that the trips attracted to downtown were under-estimated: District 1, District 2 and the CBD Core District. Therefore, attraction end constants are applied to match the observed and estimated transit trips at the district level. Table 8-6 includes the attraction end constants by purpose for the 2010 calibration.

Table 8-6: Attraction End Constants by Purpose, 2010 Calibration

Inner

Loop SW

Austin CBD

Core

Home-Based Work 0.363228 1.352345 1.35965

Home-Based Other 0.031 0.26865 1.72046

Home-Based Education 1

Home-Based University


Non-Home Based Work 0.457425 1.25375 1.630925

Non-Home Based Other 0.36747 0.4055 1.867235

8.6 District Level Observations by Purpose

Table B-6 in Appendix B shows the final difference (estimated minus observed) of the district-to-district flows, aggregated across all purposes and modes in a single table. Tables by purpose are included for year 2010 calibration in Appendix B. Overall, the observed transit trips and estimated transit trips match quite well on the district level. The attractions to District 1 inner loop and district 23 UT Austin are under-estimated while the attractions to District 24 CBD are over-estimated. When aggregating the three downtown districts, the difference is close to zero.

8.7 “Soft” Calibration and Final Constants

The transit mode constants calibrated in the 2010 model were not used directly in the model. This is because the equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time of some purposes for the same mode have a value that is very different from the other purposes, are counter intuitive, or do not fall within the expected range of values. To correct some of this variability and bring the constants to within the expected range, a “soft” calibration was undertaken. Soft calibration is the process that smoothes out those values to produce the same total number of trips by that primary mode, but which adjusts the number of trips per mode for each specific purpose. The idea is that values of time should be consistent for similar purposes; so while it makes sense that time spent on a local bus getting to “work” is more valuable than time getting to some ‘other” location, it is difficult to argue that a transit rider sees one value of time on the bus for a non-home-based “work” trip versus a



March 2012

non-home-based “other” trip. This iterative process of smoothing the constants was applied to the three primary transit modes: Express Bus, UT Shuttle and Commuter-rail. Table 8-7 shows the final alternative specific constants by purpose and major mode.

Table 8-7: Alternative Specific Constant by Mode by Purpose, 2010 Soft Calibration

UT

Shuttle Express

Bus Commuter-

rail

Home-Based Work (2.00000) 0.22500 0.17500

Home-Based Other (1.20000) 0.13500 0.10500

Home-Based Education 1 (1.20000) 0.13500 0.10500





Error! Reference source not found. displays the final equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time by purpose and major mode. As expected the associated equivalent minutes of time are higher for the rail modes than the bus modes. In general the equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time is constant across purposes, with the main exception being that of the peak home-based work trip purpose, and the urban rail mode which was held constant and not “smoothed.” Table 8-9 through Table 8-11 present the number of transit trips after soft calibration.

Table 8-8: Equivalent Minutes of In-vehicle Time by Mode by Purpose, 2010 Soft Calibration

UT

Shuttle Express

Bus Commuter-

rail

Home-Based Work (80.0) 9.0 7.0

Home-Based Other (80.0) 9.0 7.0

Home-Based Education 1 (80.0) 9.0 7.0







Page 50

Table 8-9: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Work, 2010 Soft Calibration

Income Level

Observed Estimated

Walk Drive Total Walk Drive Total

No Autos 12,800 387 13,187 12197 675 12872

Fewer Autos than Workers - Low Income 1,167 188 1,355 1210 307 1517

Fewer Autos than Workers - High Income 407 91 499 431 150 581

More Autos than Workers - Low Income 9,592 1,564 11,157 10029 2571 12600

More Autos than Workers - High Income 2,496 1,241 3,737 2583 2055 4638

TOTAL 26,463 3,471 29,934 26,449 5759 32208

Table 8-10: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Home-Based Other, 2010 Soft Calibration

Income Level

Observed Estimated


No Autos 13,291 366 13,657 13,309 386 13,695

Fewer Autos than Workers - Low Income 673 21 694 672 20 691

Fewer Autos than Workers - High Income 222 19 241 219 18 237

More Autos than Workers - Low Income 5,710 508 6,218 5,787 502 6,289

More Autos than Workers - High Income 1,440 137 1,577 1,416 132 1,548

TOTAL 21,336 1,051 22,387 21,403 1,058 22,387

Table 8-11: Observed vs. Estimated Transit Trips, Non Segmented Purposes, 2010 Soft Calibration

Income Level

Observed Estimated


Home-Based Education 1 1,330 74 1,404 1,330 75 1,405

Home-Based University 16,002 1,540 17,542 11626 1099 12725

Home-Based Education 2 13,550 1,311 14,861 11114 1033 12147

Non-Home Based Work 4,452 464 4,916 6560 764 7324

Non-Home Based Other 10,331 821 11,153 14115 1279 15394

Total 45665 4210 49875 44745 4250 48994

9.0 – Model Validation AND SENSITIVITY TEST


Page 51

9.0 MODEL VALIDATION AND SENSITIVITY TEST

The 2010 mode choice model calibration provides satisfactory results based on market segments and mode share. We then conducted a transit assignment exercise to further examine the robustness of transit network, pathfinder skim process, and the nested logit model as a whole.

9.2 Year 2005 Bus Boarding Comparisons

The following tables (Table 9-1 through Table 9-1) present transit assignment results by route and by mode. Mode code 1 is local bus, 2 for shuttle bus, and 3 for express bus.

Table 9-1: Year 2005 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Route, Estimated vs. Observed

Route_Name CM_Name MODE TOTALBOARDINGS Observed

ROUTE 001 N Lamar / S Congress 1 17757 12846

ROUTE 002 Rosewood 1 510 1568

ROUTE 003 Burnet / Manchaca 1 11229 4765

ROUTE 004 Montopolis 1 958 1527

ROUTE 005 Woodrow 1 894 1994

ROUTE 006 East 12Th / Enfield 1 1053 1257

ROUTE 007 Duval / Riverside 1 1061 2838

ROUTE 009 Enfield / Travis Heights 1 1453 204

ROUTE 010 S 1St 1 3230 3112

ROUTE 014 Travis Heights 1 288 397

ROUTE 015 Red River / Westgate 1 2215 2943

ROUTE 016 S 5Th / Red River 1 700 1776

ROUTE 017 Johnston / Lake Austin 1 1657 3682

ROUTE 018 ML King 1 524 839

ROUTE 019 Bull Creek 1 2313 810

ROUTE 020 Manor Road / Dove Springs 1 1744 2572

ROUTE 021 Exposition 1 1271 808

ROUTE 022 Chicon 1 558 686

ROUTE 023 Johnny Morris 1 39 264

ROUTE 026 Woodrow / Riverside 1 450 2316

ROUTE 027 Duval / Dove Springs 1 3157 4999

ROUTE 029 Barton Hills 1 573 221

ROUTE 30 Barton Creek 1 1353 743

ROUTE 037 S 5Th / Colony Park 1 1761 2736

ROUTE 100 Airport Flyer 3 77 417

ROUTE 101 N Lamar / S Congress Ltd 3 189 1736

ROUTE 103 Manchaca Flyer 3 77 144

ROUTE 110 South Central Flyer 3 118 105

ROUTE 127 Dove Springs Flyer 3 100 42

ROUTE 137 Colony Park Flyer 3 49 283

ROUTE 171 Oak Hill Flyer 3 2177 224



Page 52


ROUTE 174 North Burnet Limited 3 559 410

ROUTE 214 Lago Vista Flexible Service 1 21 0

ROUTE 240 Parkfield 1 1132 576

ROUTE 242 Metric 1 2731 1787

ROUTE 252 Buckingham / Slaughter 1 16 277

ROUTE 300 Govalle 1 3956 6636

ROUTE 311 Stassney 1 1114 1561

ROUTE 320 St Johns 1 775 1938

ROUTE 325 Rundberg 1 1842 2398

ROUTE 328 Ben White 1 1200 904

ROUTE 331 Oltorf 1 1432 2973

ROUTE 333 William Cannon / Onion Creek 1 1997 2048

ROUTE 338 Lamar / 45Th 1 1093 1402

ROUTE 339 Koenig / Walnut Creek 1 2569 1278

ROUTE 350 Airport / Anderson 1 936 2553

ROUTE 383 Research 1 2969 1207

ROUTE 392 Braker 1 2046 489

411 E-Bus / Riverside 1 2504 0

412 E-Bus / Main Campus 1 663 0

424 Sunrise/3M/NW Park/Ride 1 19 0

440 Tech Ridge Circulator 1 111 0

ROUTE 450 Orange Dillo 1 88 821

ROUTE 451 Silver Dillo 1 853 916

ROUTE 455 Red Dillo 1 551 1025

ROUTE 456 Gold Dillo 1 522 1031

ROUTE 462 Blue Dillo 1 451 156

ROUTE 463 Starlight Dillo 1 294 0

470 Tour The Town 1 69 0

481 Night Owl North 1 332 103

482 Night Owl East 1 4 17

483 Night Owl Southeast 1 7 52

484 Night Owl Lamar / South First 1 136 0

485 Night Owl Cameron 1 20 0

486 Night Owl Dove Springs 1 33 0

490 HEB Shuttle 1 0 0

640 Forty Acres Forty Acres 2 3156 5885

641 Disch Falk Disch Falk 2 1177 2385

642 West Campus West Campus 2 860 5544

651 Cameron Road Cameron Road 2 5368 1153

653 Red River Red River 2 1623 2402

656 IF Intramural Fields 2 4795 4930

661 Far West Far West 2 2418 3802

662 Enfield Rd Enfield Road 2 1837 1083

663 Lake Austin Lake Austin 2 4648 1178

670 Crossing Place Crossing Place 2 3497 4170

671 N Riverside North Riverside 2 747 2320

672 Lakeshore S Lakeshore Blvd 2 1974 1449



Page 53


673 UT Shuttle Parker Lane 2 5189 323

674 Burton Dr Burton Drive 2 2018 1632

675 UT Shuttle Wickersham Lane 2 1642 1835

ROUTE 721 Hy#3 Uhland Road CW 1 6 0

ROUTE 723 Hy#5 Conway 1 10 0

ROUTE 724 Hy#1 Bishop St CW 1 9 0

ROUTE 725 Hy#6 Medical Center 1 19 0

ROUTE 726 Hy#7 Outlet Malls 1 5 0

ROUTE 727 Hy#8 Hunter Road 1 38 0

935 Tech Ridge Express Tech Ridge Express 3 603 345

982 Pavilion Express Pavilion Express 3 1634 779

983 N US 183 Express US 183 Express 3 293 614

984 Northwest Dir I35 Northwest Express 3 65 147

986 Leander Dir I 35 Leander Direct 3 30 131

987 Leander Express Leander Express 3 1134 338

990 Northeast Express Northeast Express 3 91 0

ROUTE 652 PRC Pickle Research Center 2 1738 397

Total Total 140814 134250

Table 9-2: Year 2005 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Mode

Mode TotalBoardings Observed % Difference

Local Bus 90929 88050 3.3%

Shuttle Bus 42688 40487 5.4%

Express Bus 7197 5713 26.0%

Total 140814 134250 4.9%

9.3 Year 2010 Boarding Comparisons

Table 9-1 and Table 9-1 present transit assignment results by route and by mode for year 2010. Mode code 1 is local bus, 2 for shuttle bus, 3 for express bus, and 4 for commuter-rail.

Table 9-3: Year 2010 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Route, Estimated vs. Observed


ROUTE 001 N Lamar / S Congress 1 18142 13643

ROUTE 002 Rosewood 1 445 1258

ROUTE 003 Burnet / Manchaca 1 8941 4429

ROUTE 004 Montopolis 1 1764 1650

ROUTE 005 Woodrow 1 1273 2236

ROUTE 006 East 12Th / Enfield 1 860 1093

ROUTE 007 Duval / Riverside 1 4151 6700

ROUTE 009 Enfield / Travis Heights 1 1576 703



Page 54


ROUTE 010 S 1St 1 5344 4556

ROUTE 017 Johnston / Lake Austin 1 1800 2715

ROUTE 018 ML King 1 395 597

ROUTE 019 Bull Creek 1 1421 578

ROUTE 020 Manor Road / Dove Springs 1 3575 4027

ROUTE 021 Exposition 1 922 726

ROUTE 022 Chicon 1 442 648

ROUTE 023 Johnny Morris 1 29 160

ROUTE 029 Barton Hills 1 428 196

ROUTE 030 Barton Creek Square 1 1226 616

ROUTE 037 S 5Th / Colony Park 1 1339 2583

ROUTE 100 Airport Flyer 3 84 416

ROUTE 101 N Lamar / S Congress Ltd 3 595 2802

ROUTE 103 Manchaca Flyer 3 110 143

ROUTE 110 South Central Flyer 3 87 143

ROUTE 122 Sunset / 3M Company 1 207 5

ROUTE 127 Dove Springs Flyer 3 114 38

ROUTE 135 Dell Limited 3 156 26

ROUTE 137 Colony Park Flyer 3 14 216

ROUTE 142 Metric Flyer 3 1204 265

ROUTE 151 Allandale 3 44 15

ROUTE 161 Dellwood 3 2 37

ROUTE 171 Oak Hill Flyer 3 2462 282

ROUTE 174 North Burnet Limited 3 185 353

ROUTE 201 Southpark Meadows 1 62 257

ROUTE 214 Lago Vista Flexible Service 1 17 80

ROUTE 240 Parkfield 1 659 355

ROUTE 243 Wells Branch 1 716 386

ROUTE 300 Govalle 1 2796 5206

ROUTE 311 Stassney 1 875 1327

ROUTE 320 St Johns 1 648 1963

ROUTE 325 Rundberg 1 995 1803

ROUTE 328 Ben White 1 940 757

ROUTE 331 Oltorf 1 1014 2662

ROUTE 333 William Cannon / Onion Creek 1 1498 1644

ROUTE 338 Lamar / 45Th 1 849 1384

ROUTE 339 Koenig / Walnut Creek 1 1751 1239

ROUTE 350 Airport / Anderson 1 695 2710

ROUTE 383 Research 1 2372 1107

ROUTE 392 Braker 1 1361 614

481 Night Owl North 1 202 132

482 Night Owl East 1 9 24

483 Night Owl Southeast 1 7 53

484 Night Owl Lamar / South First 1 107 50

485 Night Owl Cameron 1 24 55

486 Night Owl Dove Springs 1 3 67



Page 55


490 HEB Shuttle 1 0 82

640 Forty Acres Forty Acres 2 779 5673

641 Disch Falk Disch Falk 2 1765 1938

642 West Campus West Campus 2 3749 5174

651 Cameron Road Cameron Road 2 4662 788

653 Red River Red River 2 1309 1995

656 IF Intramural Fields 2 4859 4121

661 Far West Far West 2 1816 4229

662 Enfield Rd Enfield Road 2 1688 736

663 Lake Austin Lake Austin 2 6958 1240

670 Crossing Place Crossing Place 2 489 2915

671 N Rrside North Riverside 2 1616 2281

672 Lakeshore S Lakeshore Blvd 2 4175 1177

675 UT Shuttle Wickersham Lane 2 2099 1370

935 Tech R X Tech Ridge Express 3 143 387

982 Pavilion Xpress Pavilion Express 3 1541 996

983 US 183 Exp US 183 Express 3 138 589

984 Northwest Dir Northwest Express 3 13 123

986 Leander Leander Direct 3 7 90

987 Lnder/NWX Leander Express 3 74 374

990 Northeast Exp Northeast Express 3 49 36

ROUTE 1080 Bastrop Commuter 3 53 0

ROUTE 1082 Interurban Coach A 3 70 0

ROUTE 1083 Interurban Coach B 3 1 0

ROUTE 652 PRC Pickle Research Center 2 1209 419

LEADT CR Leander / Downtown CR 4 1846 1800

Total 118045 116263

Table 9-4: Year 2010 CAMPO Daily Boardings by Mode

Mode TotalBoardings Observed %

Difference

Local Bus 71884 73076 1.6%

Shuttle Bus 37172 34058 9.1%

Express Bus 7144 7330 2.5%

Commuter-rail 1846 1800 2.5%

Total 118045 116263 1.5%

The total ridership shows that the estimated boarding totals match the observed ridership closely by mode. At route level, the model consistently over-estimated ridership for route 1, which is a major south-north route going through the University of Texas at Austin and Austin Community College campuses. On the other hand, express route 101 shares the same alignment as route 1. If we combine the two routes, we have a total estimate of



Page 56

18737 vs. an observed total ridership of 16445. The difference is about 15% which is far better than 30% for route 1 alone.

9.4 Sensitivity Test

To ensure that the mode choice model performs reasonably in response to the level of service variable changes, we conducted a sensitivity test to exam the impact of LOS changes. Our test is based on a hypothetic premium route going through north Austin area. The results are presented in Table 9-1. The results show that the changes in fare result in the biggest ridership change. With headways for peak and off-peak period at 10 and 15 minutes respectively, fare change from $0.50 to $1.51 leads to ridership change from more than nine thousand to a little over four thousand. The results also show that more frequent service attracts more riders and adding park-and-ride facility at end stations and a major station leads to 50% increase in ridership. Overall, the mode performance is robust and reasonable.

Table 9-5: Sensitivity Test

RUN Name Description Peak Hdwy

OffPeak Hdwy

Fare PNR Riders in 1000

15MinConst 15-minute more attractive of

premium mode to local bus 10 30 1.51

1.6

10MinOP18 10-minute headway for both peak

and off-peak period 10 10 1.51

3.5

10-50Cents 10-minute headway with 50-cent

fare 10 10 0.5

8.4

15-50Cents 10/15 headways with 50-cent fare 10 15 0.5

6.3

PNR Three PNR node added near end

stations 10 15 0.5 Yes 9.4

FreeFlow With PNR nodes and alignment

links with free flow speed 10 15 0.5 Yes 9.6

75Cents With all the previous changes

except fare is 75 cents 10 15 0.75 Yes 7.9

1dollar With all the previous changes

except fare is 1 dollar 10 15 1 Yes 6.5

151Cents With all the previous changes

except fare is 1.51 dollars 10 15 1.51 Yes 4.3

10.0 – SUMMIT IMPLEMENTATION


Page 57

10.0 SUMMIT IMPLEMENTATION

SUMMIT is a user-benefit analysis tool provided by FTA. The program is widely used in the transit community for alternative analysis. The program converts both cost and time savings into travel time measures based on value-of-time implied in the mode choice model. The implementation of SUMMIT function in our study includes two steps: the preparation of SUMMIT input files and running the SUMMIT program for evaluation. The details are presented in the following sections.

10.1 SUMMIT Input Preparation

TransCAD, the GIS platform of CAMPO travel demand model system, has a built-in module to run SUMMIT program. The SUMMIT inputs are two sets of matrices: one for base scenario and the other for the alternative scenario. Each set includes 15 matrices: five for HBW trip market segments, five for HBNW trip market segments, and each for HBNW_Edu1, HBNW_Edu2, HBNW_Uni, NHBWork, NHBOther trip purposes. Each matrix has six cores which are required input for SUMMIT program. These six cores are: total person trips, exponential non-transit utility, percentage of can-walk fraction, can-walk trips, percentage of must-drive fraction, and must-drive trips. We have embedded a SUMMIT input preparation procedure in the mode choice model. In mode choice coefficient file (parameters.bin in \\Scenario\\Mode Choice\\StaticFiles\\

folder), there is a variable called “writeSummit”, as shown in Figure 10-1. It is a binary variable. Value 1 indicates the model will prepare SUMMIT input matrices and 0 otherwise.

Figure 10-1: Parameter File



Page 58

When the value of writeSummit is 1, the mode choice model executes the nested logit models as well as creates SUMMIT input matrices. All these SUMMIT matrices have the same names as mode choice output with _summit at the end. The SUMMIT program compares two alternative scenarios given the condition that all other variables hold constant, i.e., the two scenarios have exact the same OD matrix inputs. For consistence reason, we recommend to prepare input files in the following steps:

1. Run full model run using base scenario transit route system. 2. Once the full model run finishes, run a single stage mode choice model with

writeSummit variable valued to 1 for all trip purposes in parameters.bin file. 3. Under the scenario folder, make a copy of folder //Mode Choice and folder

//ScenarioInputs. Rename the copied folders as //Mode Choice0 and //ScenarioInputs0. Those are corresponding input/output files for base scenario.

4. Update transit route system in the folder //ScenarioInputs for the alternative run. 5. Run a single stage mode choice model with writeSummit variable value to 1 for

all trip purposes in parameters.bin file and change the mode choice model settings to run transit skim and mode choice only, as shown in Figure 10-2.

Figure 10-2: Mode Choice Model Settings

This process creates two sets of SUMMIT input files. The input files for base scenario is stored in folder //Mode Choice0 and the input files for alternative scenario is saved in folder //Mode Choice.

10.2 Running SUMMIT Program

We have implemented a new macro to call SUMMIT program once the input files are prepared. A new item “Summit” is added to model menu “CAMPO Model”. By clicking Summit, a series of dialogue boxes will pop up, asking for folder options: first choose SUMMIT input matrix folder for base scenario, then choose input matrix folder for alternative scenario, and last choose an output folder to store SUMMIT output files. The



Page 59

dialogue box will also ask for TAZ file based on which SUMMIT program will run. The user needs to define SUMMIT district in field “SMTDIST” and SUMMIT district name in filed “SMTDName”. The macro then will point SUMMIT program to the corresponding input files and calculate user benefit values and save the output in the output folder. The corresponding market segments are shown in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1: SUMMIT Segments

SUMMIT Segment Mode Choice Market

Segment

Segment 1 HBNW_Edu1

Segment 2 HBNW_Univ

Segment 3 HBNW_Edu2

Segment 4 NHBWork

Segment 5 NHBOther

Segment 6 HBW_NoAuto

Segment 7 HBW_FewAutoHighInc

Segment 8 HBW_FewAutoLowInc

Segment 9 HBW_MoreAutoHighInc

Segment 10 HBW_MoreAutoLowInc

Segment 11 HBNW_NoAuto

Segment 12 HBNW_FewAutoHighInc

Segment 13 HBNW_FewAutoLowInc

Segment 14 HBNW_MoreAutoHighInc

Segment 15 HBNW_MoreAutoLowInc

The macro was developed in transCAD 5.0. It also runs well in the newer transCAD 6.0. The advantage of running it in transCAD 6.0 is that the newly implemented transCAD 6.0 saves thematic map settings for SUMMIT output so the SUMMIT results can be easily displayed.

11.0 – SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


Page 60

11.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We calibrated and validated mode choice model for year 2005 and year 2010. Year 2010 calibration yields better results than year 2005 calibration in terms of mode share comparison and district-level trip flows. We did not find significant deviation between year 2005 and year 2010 on-board surveys in terms of rider demographics and mode of access. However, future transit on-board survey can be improved by asking riders their mode of access to the first transit route not the surveyed route. Both year 2005 and year 2010 on-board surveys did not ask the correct mode of access question and we have to impute a large fraction survey participants’ mode of access.

Through the calibration we found that it is necessary to investigate trip generation procedure for college trips in the future. Currently the college trips (HBNW_Edu2 and HBNW_Univ trips) are produced through cross-classification of household size, income, and number of workers. The on-board survey indicates that college trips are highly concentrated in apartment complexes, for example, in far west and riverside area. We adjusted UT trip patterns and it yields considerably improved results and we believe it is worthwhile to investigate the issue in the future.

0 – APPENDICES


Page 61

APPENDICES

0 – APPENDIX A: Auto Ownership Model


Page 62

APPENDIX A: AUTO OWNERSHIP MODEL

Table A-1: Observed Household Frequencies

Count Percent Auto Availability

Zero vehicle 48 3% One 414 33% Two or more 1,037 63%

Household Size One person 279 29% Two 517 31% Three 274 15% Four 238 16% five or more 191 9%

Household workers Zero workers 398 18% One 529 43% Two or more 572 39%

Household income (2005$)

0 - $20K 281 16% $20K- $35K 312 16% $35K - $50K 308 15% $50K - $75K 251 19% $75K or more 347 34%

Type of housing unit Single family detached 1,276 78% Other 220 22% Refused 3 0%

Percent: based on HHExpFactor (not HHExpFactor*PersonAdjustmentFactor) “Single family detached” also includes mobile home and other, but not condo, duplex, or apartments.



Page 63

Figure A-1: Auto Accessibility (peak period)



Page 64

Figure A-2: Transit Accessibility (peak period, walk access)



Page 65

Figure A-3: Non-motorized Accessibility (bike and walk, peak period)



Page 66

Figure A-4: Mixed Density (employment and population)

0 – APPENDIX B: District Level Comparison by Purpose


Page 67

APPENDIX B: DISTRICT LEVEL COMPARISON BY PURPOSE

Table B-1: 2005 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-All Purposes

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 32,531 1,847 600 2,651 108 214 300 937 1,363 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,080 12,085 73,723

2 SW Austin 2,378 2,037 354 314 0 9 42 105 735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 671 2,056 8,701

3 Lake Travis 347 78 134 14 0 0 3 6 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 213 850

4 NW Austin 3,492 192 43 2,059 13 179 32 324 144 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 799 1,225 8,510

5 Leander 70 0 0 38 0 10 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 132

6 Round Rock 459 14 0 150 0 121 0 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 295 1,136

7 Georgetown 304 26 3 0 10 0 5 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 111 536

8 Manor 1,516 37 6 480 0 9 0 201 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 904 3,424

9 Del Valle 1,258 791 117 134 0 0 96 96 701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 717 4,210

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

16 Taylor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 37

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 2,324 78 29 64 37 0 27 29 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,848 921 7,429

24 CBD 3,360 377 54 140 0 48 179 118 261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 879 1,926 7,347

Total 48,043 5,478 1,342 6,053 169 589 685 1,835 3,424 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,926 20,490 116,046



Page 68

Table B-2: 2005 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily-All Purposes

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 31,414 1,911 169 4,041 0 171 0 1,676 988 1 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,715 11,903 69,086

2 SW Austin 3,243 1,785 123 140 0 6 0 51 329 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,294 1,392 8,471

3 Lake Travis 102 58 10 5 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 58 273

4 NW Austin 4,353 98 8 4,672 0 247 0 670 46 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,320 1,106 13,529

5 Leander 7 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 29

6 Round Rock 376 10 1 525 0 295 0 23 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 151 1,550

7 Georgetown 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

8 Manor 1,198 20 1 518 0 11 0 303 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 383 2,963

9 Del Valle 1,753 454 19 78 0 2 0 40 371 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 988 664 4,428

10 Hays 19 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22 159

11 San Marcos 40 8 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 4 791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 31 894

12 Wimberley 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 13

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 9

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

17 Elgin 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 3 11 79

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 183 0 0 0 0 0 196

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 4,106 155 16 303 0 13 0 136 74 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,723 1,739 10,283

24 CBD 1,711 113 7 103 0 7 0 47 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,213 1,568 4,823

Total 48,343 4,624 357 10,404 1 765 0 2,963 1,895 6 1,178 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 232 0 0 0 26,976 19,046 116,810



Page 69

Table B-3: 2005 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-All Purposes

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 31,414 1,911 169 4,041 0 171 0 1,676 988 1 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,715 11,903 69,086

2 SW Austin 3,243 1,785 123 140 0 6 0 51 329 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,294 1,392 8,471

3 Lake Travis 102 58 10 5 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 58 273

4 NW Austin 4,353 98 8 4,672 0 247 0 670 46 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,320 1,106 13,529

5 Leander 7 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 29

6 Round Rock 376 10 1 525 0 295 0 23 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 151 1,550

7 Georgetown 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

8 Manor 1,198 20 1 518 0 11 0 303 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 383 2,963

9 Del Valle 1,753 454 19 78 0 2 0 40 371 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 988 664 4,428

10 Hays 19 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22 159

11 San Marcos 40 8 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 4 791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 31 894

12 Wimberley 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 13

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 9

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

17 Elgin 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 3 11 79

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 183 0 0 0 0 0 196

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 4,106 155 16 303 0 13 0 136 74 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,723 1,739 10,283

24 CBD 1,711 113 7 103 0 7 0 47 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,213 1,568 4,823

Total 48,343 4,624 357 10,404 1 765 0 2,963 1,895 6 1,178 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 232 0 0 0 26,976 19,046 116,810



Page 70

Table B-4: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-All Purposes

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 26,005 2,468 99 2,821 36 151 106 842 989 0 0 0 85 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,999 9,130 59,809

2 SW Austin 2,821 1,513 76 438 0 16 25 146 377 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 626 2,090 8,140

3 Lake Travis 109 22 30 29 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 55 294

4 NW Austin 3,290 370 13 2,037 16 127 14 533 150 0 0 0 28 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,330 1,386 9,344

5 Leander 40 0 0 32 2 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 74 192

6 Round Rock 611 43 17 418 2 164 10 25 27 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 627 2,164

7 Georgetown 66 0 3 34 0 20 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 38 221

8 Manor 1,139 97 0 395 0 23 3 389 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 371 521 2,966

9 Del Valle 1,360 880 6 205 3 4 0 86 507 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 797 4,132

10 Hays 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4 29

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 36 2 0 12 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 73 152

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 111

16 Taylor 12 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 34

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 1,848 118 0 274 0 41 2 150 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,923 948 6,363

24 CBD 2,657 477 8 458 0 47 9 149 258 0 0 0 27 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,606 2,203 7,919

Total 40,011 5,994 253 7,154 68 625 177 2,317 2,482 0 0 0 145 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24,487 17,972 101,871



Page 71

Table B-5: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily-All Purposes

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 24,193 2,010 127 3,013 0 184 2 894 591 1 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16,791 12,894 61,297

2 SW Austin 2,191 2,206 111 118 0 9 0 49 295 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 446 2,015 7,563

3 Lake Travis 128 98 9 7 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 127 417

4 NW Austin 3,323 149 11 2,907 0 340 3 496 41 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 827 1,625 9,728

5 Leander 21 1 0 11 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 75

6 Round Rock 630 32 1 504 0 399 3 41 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 486 2,260

7 Georgetown 46 3 0 24 0 10 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 49 155

8 Manor 825 34 1 335 0 21 1 188 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 511 2,096

9 Del Valle 732 449 12 36 0 3 0 19 202 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 739 2,389

10 Hays 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 109

11 San Marcos 42 19 0 3 0 0 0 2 7 3 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 49 176

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

13 Florence 14 0 0 9 0 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 54

14 Granger 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8

15 Hutto 14 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 47

16 Taylor 6 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15

17 Elgin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 3 30

18 Bastrop 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 8

19 Smithvil le 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 125 0 0 0 2 14 161

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 2,385 123 7 239 0 8 0 63 39 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,729 1,219 6,874

24 CBD 2,612 252 12 164 0 10 0 54 62 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,067 2,797 8,091

Total 37,202 5,396 294 7,385 1 1,011 12 1,821 1,269 6 981 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 153 0 0 0 23,394 22,637 101,571



Page 72

Table B-6: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-All Purposes

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop (1,812) (458) 28 192 (36) 33 (104) 52 (398) 1 601 0 (85) 0 (85) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 (208) 3,764 1,488 2%

2 SW Austin (630) 693 35 (320) 0 (7) (25) (97) (82) 0 118 0 0 0 (11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (180) (75) (577) -7%

3 Lake Travis 19 76 (21) (22) 0 0 0 2 (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (8) 72 123 42%

4 NW Austin 33 (221) (2) 870 (16) 213 (11) (37) (109) 0 9 0 (28) 0 (54) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (503) 239 384 4%

5 Leander (19) 1 0 (21) (2) (15) 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (8) (54) (117) -61%

6 Round Rock 19 (11) (16) 86 (2) 235 (7) 16 (21) 0 3 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (73) (141) 96 4%

7 Georgetown (20) 3 (3) (10) 0 (10) 0 3 (1) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (44) 11 (66) -30%

8 Manor (314) (63) 1 (60) 0 (2) (2) (201) (22) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (208) (10) (870) -29%

9 Del Valle (628) (431) 6 (169) (3) (1) 0 (67) (305) 0 45 0 (2) 0 (22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (111) (58) (1,743) -42%

10 Hays 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (11) 32 80 276%

11 San Marcos 42 19 0 3 0 0 0 2 7 3 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 49 176 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

13 Florence (22) (2) 0 (3) (9) 4 (5) 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (13) (57) (98) -64%

14 Granger 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0%

15 Hutto 3 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 (73) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (10) (64) -58%

16 Taylor (6) 0 0 (1) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (18) 4 (19) -56%

17 Elgin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 3 30 0%

18 Bastrop 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 8 0%

19 Smithville 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 125 0 0 0 2 14 161 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin 537 5 7 (35) 0 (33) (2) (87) (21) 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (194) 271 511 8%

24 CBD (45) (225) 4 (294) 0 (37) (9) (95) (196) 0 58 0 (27) 0 (17) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 461 594 172 2%

Total (2,809) (598) 41 231 (67) 386 (165) (496) (1,213) 6 981 0 (145) 0 (187) 0 7 0 153 0 0 0 (1,093) 4,665 (300) 0%

-7% -10% 16% 3% -99% 62% -93% -21% -49% 0% 0% 0% -100% 0% -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -4% 26% 0%



Page 73

Table B-7: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBW Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 6,860 989 36 1,223 1 105 39 302 305 0 0 0 20 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,053 3,614 14,554

2 SW Austin 1,057 573 37 170 0 16 9 56 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 1,258 3,432

3 Lake Travis 49 0 16 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 45 118

4 NW Austin 1,259 215 5 701 0 55 0 134 59 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 828 3,522

5 Leander 10 0 0 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 39 85

6 Round Rock 269 9 17 180 0 100 7 8 25 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 548 1,233

7 Georgetown 39 0 0 15 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 99

8 Manor 300 40 0 162 0 17 1 129 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 246 1,002

9 Del Valle 437 292 0 132 3 4 0 42 145 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 497 1,589

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 22 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 40 82

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27

16 Taylor 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 18

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 233 50 0 29 0 2 2 47 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 172 631

24 CBD 907 152 5 262 0 26 6 40 57 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 783 2,392

Total 11,443 2,320 118 2,917 15 339 64 757 745 0 0 0 35 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,908 8,106 28,786



Page 74

Table B-8: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBW Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 5,842 685 62 911 0 84 2 438 259 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 862 5,677 14,842

2 SW Austin 1,147 866 48 85 0 7 0 35 113 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 1,418 3,947

3 Lake Travis 76 45 5 6 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 98 256

4 NW Austin 1,580 95 8 1,054 0 112 3 219 28 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 1,143 4,463

5 Leander 14 1 0 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 46

6 Round Rock 435 28 1 225 0 85 3 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 428 1,328

7 Georgetown 33 3 0 18 0 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 46 119

8 Manor 368 22 1 134 0 9 1 65 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 346 1,029

9 Del Val le 317 172 5 20 0 2 0 12 52 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 468 1,114

10 Hays 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 29 68

11 San Marcos 39 16 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 48 125

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 10 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 36

14 Granger 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5

15 Hutto 13 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 43

16 Taylor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

17 Elgin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 14

18 Bastrop 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5

19 Smithvil le 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 33 0 0 0 2 14 65

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 268 23 2 37 0 3 0 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 267 681

24 CBD 364 46 5 40 0 3 0 20 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 465 1,018

Total 10,533 2,013 137 2,550 0 314 12 848 506 4 67 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 43 0 0 0 1,670 10,508 29,207



Page 75

Table B-9: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBW Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop (1,018) (304) 26 (312) (1) (21) (37) 136 (46) 1 22 0 (20) 0 (11) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 (191) 2,063 288 2%

2 SW Austin 90 293 11 (85) 0 (9) (9) (21) 39 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 160 515 15%

3 Lake Travis 27 45 (11) 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 53 138 117%

4 NW Austin 321 (120) 3 353 0 57 3 85 (31) 0 3 0 0 0 (11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (33) 315 941 27%

5 Leander 4 1 0 (22) (2) 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4) (21) (39) -46%

6 Round Rock 166 19 (16) 45 0 (15) (4) 21 (20) 0 0 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 (120) 95 8%

7 Georgetown (6) 3 0 3 0 (10) 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 15 20 20%

8 Manor 68 (18) 1 (28) 0 (8) 0 (64) (14) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (18) 100 27 3%

9 Del Valle (120) (120) 5 (112) (3) (2) 0 (30) (93) 0 5 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 (29) (475) -30%

10 Hays 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 29 68 0%

11 San Marcos 39 16 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 48 125 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

13 Florence (12) 0 0 (1) (9) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (25) (46) -56%

14 Granger 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0%

15 Hutto 10 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 (22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 16 59%

16 Taylor 1 0 0 (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (14) 2 (15) -83%

17 Elgin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 14 0%

18 Bastrop 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 0%

19 Smithvi lle 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 33 0 0 0 2 14 65 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin 35 (27) 2 8 0 1 (2) (28) (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (5) 95 50 8%

24 CBD (543) (106) 0 (222) 0 (23) (6) (20) (38) 0 1 0 (10) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (87) (318) (1,374) -57%

Total (910) (307) 19 (367) (15) (25) (52) 91 (239) 4 67 0 (35) 0 (21) 0 1 0 43 0 0 0 (238) 2,402 421 1%

-8% -13% 16% -13% -100% -7% -81% 12% -32% 0% 0% 0% -100% 0% -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -12% 30% 1%



Page 76

Table B-10: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-NHBW Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 954 216 7 139 0 15 0 24 45 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 523 2,170

2 SW Austin 133 22 0 4 0 0 4 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 77 373

3 Lake Travis 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 18

4 NW Austin 134 22 0 95 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 50 369

5 Leander 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

6 Round Rock 4 6 0 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 35

7 Georgetown 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 20

8 Manor 45 0 0 14 0 0 2 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22 122

9 Del Valle 109 52 0 16 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 236

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 200 57 0 26 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 67 639

24 CBD 315 139 0 69 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 327 1,056

Total 1,906 515 7 394 2 35 6 97 108 0 0 0 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 874 1,104 5,073



Page 77

Table B-11: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily-NHBW Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 914 150 3 79 0 7 0 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303 627 2,125

2 SW Austin 81 175 3 3 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 60 350

3 Lake Travis 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 26

4 NW Austin 144 7 0 121 0 17 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 48 377

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

6 Round Rock 25 1 0 20 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 105

7 Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

8 Manor 49 2 0 14 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 17 101

9 Del Valle 39 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 31 124

10 Hays 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

11 San Marcos 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 93 11 0 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 100 388

24 CBD 377 66 1 22 0 2 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 600 1,284

Total 1,729 462 7 265 0 69 0 60 44 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 749 1,500 4,897



Page 78

Table B-12: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-NHBW Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop (40) (66) (4) (60) 0 (8) 0 3 (29) 0 0 0 0 0 (12) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 104 (45) -2%

2 SW Austin (52) 153 3 (1) 0 0 (4) (19) (10) 0 0 0 0 0 (11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (63) (17) (23) -6%

3 Lake Travis (3) 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (8) 4 8 44%

4 NW Austin 10 (15) 0 26 0 17 0 (7) 1 0 0 0 (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (15) (2) 8 2%

5 Leander (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) -50%

6 Round Rock 21 (5) 0 8 (2) 38 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 70 200%

7 Georgetown (1) 0 0 (15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4) (19) -95%

8 Manor 4 2 0 0 0 1 (2) (26) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (5) (21) -17%

9 Del Valle (70) (16) 0 (15) 0 0 0 0 (37) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 (112) -47%

10 Hays 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (14) 0 (11) -79%

11 San Marcos 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

13 Florence 0 0 0 (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4) -100%

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (14) (14) -100%

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

19 Smithvi lle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin (107) (46) 0 (20) 0 (10) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (108) 33 (251) -39%

24 CBD 62 (73) 1 (47) 0 (6) 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 273 228 22%

Total (177) (53) 0 (129) (2) 34 (6) (37) (64) 0 1 0 (3) 0 (23) 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 (125) 396 (176) -3%

-9% -10% 0% -33% -100% 97% -100% -38% -59% 0% 0% 0% -100% 0% -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -14% 36% -3%



Page 79

Table B-13: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBO Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 6,437 837 48 742 14 15 43 381 408 0 0 0 51 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 2,249 11,994

2 SW Austin 1,032 636 39 185 0 0 12 61 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 509 2,711

3 Lake Travis 21 17 0 9 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 64

4 NW Austin 1,044 89 8 865 0 20 14 262 50 0 0 0 22 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 322 2,915

5 Leander 7 0 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 66

6 Round Rock 134 0 0 111 0 39 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 37 333

7 Georgetown 4 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

8 Manor 481 35 0 167 0 6 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 151 1,055

9 Del Valle 608 370 6 49 0 0 0 36 205 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 164 1,523

10 Hays 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 25

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59

16 Taylor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 294 8 0 72 0 2 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 114 867

24 CBD 515 63 3 40 0 7 0 79 41 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 441 1,350

Total 10,605 2,057 106 2,243 14 113 69 1,032 977 0 0 0 73 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,527 4,047 22,991



Page 80

Table B-14: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBO Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 6,523 737 56 699 0 71 0 338 267 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 697 3,172 12,566

2 SW Austin 705 788 52 26 0 2 0 12 126 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 417 2,204

3 Lake Travis 31 25 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 86

4 NW Austin 1,146 41 3 1,021 0 165 0 220 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 336 3,026

5 Leander 7 0 0 5 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27

6 Round Rock 103 3 0 134 0 159 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 36 457

7 Georgetown 12 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 28

8 Manor 269 9 0 128 0 8 0 73 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 118 639

9 Del Valle 255 181 6 14 0 1 0 6 81 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 185 758

10 Hays 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 32

11 San Marcos 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

13 Florence 4 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13

14 Granger 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

15 Hutto 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

16 Taylor 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 11

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 47

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 836 59 5 65 0 5 0 39 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 347 1,631

24 CBD 415 53 4 23 0 3 0 13 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 252 834

Total 10,319 1,904 131 2,132 1 436 0 714 539 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 57 0 0 0 1,218 4,900 22,395



Page 81

Table B-15: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBO Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 86 (100) 8 (43) (14) 56 (43) (43) (141) 0 7 0 (51) 0 (55) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (14) 923 572 5%

2 SW Austin (327) 152 13 (159) 0 2 (12) (49) (83) 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 (92) (507) -19%

3 Lake Travis 10 8 3 (8) 0 0 0 0 (9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 22 34%

4 NW Austin 102 (48) (5) 156 0 145 (14) (42) (39) 0 0 0 (22) 0 (43) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (95) 14 111 4%

5 Leander 0 0 0 3 0 (10) 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (31) (39) -59%

6 Round Rock (31) 3 0 23 0 120 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 (1) 124 37%

7 Georgetown 8 0 (3) 4 0 5 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 17 155%

8 Manor (212) (26) 0 (39) 0 2 0 (91) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (21) (33) (416) -39%

9 Del Val le (353) (189) 0 (35) 0 1 0 (30) (124) 0 3 0 0 0 (11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (49) 21 (765) -50%

10 Hays (5) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 20 167%

11 San Marcos 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

13 Florence (4) 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (16) (12) -48%

14 Granger 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0%

15 Hutto (7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (51) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (56) -95%

16 Taylor 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 233%

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 11 0%

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0%

19 Smithvi lle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 47 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0%

21 Lul ing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin 542 51 5 (7) 0 3 0 (4) 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (88) 233 764 88%

24 CBD (100) (10) 1 (17) 0 (4) 0 (66) (23) 0 1 0 0 0 (17) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (94) (189) (516) -38%

Total (286) (153) 25 (111) (13) 323 (69) (318) (438) 2 40 0 (73) 0 (125) 0 3 0 57 0 0 0 (309) 853 (596) -3%

-3% -7% 24% -5% -93% 286% -100% -31% -45% 0% 0% 0% -100% 0% -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -20% 21% -3%



Page 82

Table B-16: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBEduc1 Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 457 103 0 63 8 0 0 23 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 25 736

2 SW Austin 63 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 179

3 Lake Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 NW Austin 19 25 0 76 0 4 0 7 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 183

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Round Rock 2 0 0 36 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40

7 Georgetown 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

8 Manor 58 0 0 3 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84

9 Del Valle 17 47 0 1 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 99

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49

24 CBD 13 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21

Total 673 189 0 183 8 4 3 66 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 101 1,398



Page 83

Table B-17: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily- HBEduc1 Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 604 19 0 29 0 0 0 28 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 716

2 SW Austin 59 133 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 219

3 Lake Travis 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

4 NW Austin 71 0 0 104 0 6 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Round Rock 4 0 0 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28

7 Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 Manor 28 0 0 18 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64

9 Del Val le 32 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 101

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 12

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

24 CBD 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17

Total 816 175 3 158 0 25 0 63 83 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 4 21 1,404



Page 84

Table B-18: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily- HBEduc1 Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 147 (84) 0 (34) (8) 0 0 5 (28) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (11) (9) (20) -3%

2 SW Austin (4) 121 2 0 0 0 0 0 (29) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) (50) 40 22%

3 Lake Travis 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0%

4 NW Austin 52 (25) 0 28 0 2 0 8 (29) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (21) 15 8%

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

6 Round Rock 2 0 0 (30) 0 18 (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (12) -30%

7 Georgetown (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (5) -100%

8 Manor (30) 0 0 15 0 0 0 (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (20) -24%

9 Del Valle 15 (26) 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) 2 2%

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

13 Florence (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) -100%

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0%

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 12 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin (34) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (14) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (48) -98%

24 CBD 2 (3) 0 (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (4) -19%

Total 143 (14) 3 (25) (8) 21 (3) (3) (69) 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 (15) (80) 6 0%

21% -7% 0% -14% -100% 525% -100% -5% -45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -79% -79% 0%



Page 85

Table B-19: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBEduc2 Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 8,539 212 0 285 13 11 9 56 104 0 0 0 9 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,933 11,177

2 SW Austin 306 166 0 36 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 604

3 Lake Travis 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16

4 NW Austin 506 9 0 178 0 11 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 849

5 Leander 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11

6 Round Rock 171 0 0 74 0 15 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 309

7 Georgetown 14 0 0 2 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

8 Manor 91 22 0 9 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 162

9 Del Valle 75 28 0 7 0 0 0 8 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 239

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 3 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 498 0 0 23 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 678

24 CBD 333 2 0 24 0 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 695

Total 10,554 439 0 641 13 48 20 101 204 0 0 0 9 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,747 14,783



Page 86

Table B-20: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily- HBEduc2 Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 7,697 280 0 1,106 0 0 0 0 0 0 572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,076 11,730

2 SW Austin 40 59 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 211

3 Lake Travis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

4 NW Austin 94 1 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 422

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Round Rock 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30

7 Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

8 Manor 13 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 26

9 Del Val le 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 57

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 984 22 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 1,487

24 CBD 589 29 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 934

Total 9,437 394 0 1,594 0 0 0 0 0 0 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,650 14,907



Page 87

Table B-21: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily- HBEduc2 Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop (842) 68 0 821 (13) (11) (9) (56) (104) 0 572 0 (9) 0 (7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 553 5%

2 SW Austin (266) (107) 0 (35) 0 0 0 (4) (8) 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (70) (393) -65%

3 Lake Travis (12) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4) (14) -88%

4 NW Austin (412) (8) 0 122 0 (11) 0 (13) (4) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (109) (427) -50%

5 Leander (6) 0 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (11) -100%

6 Round Rock (167) 0 0 (54) 0 (15) 0 (10) 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (37) (279) -90%

7 Georgetown (14) 0 0 (2) 0 (6) (3) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (23) -92%

8 Manor (78) (22) 0 (1) 0 0 0 (7) (6) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (24) (136) -84%

9 Del Valle (62) (26) 0 (7) 0 0 0 (8) (30) 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (86) (182) -76%

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

13 Florence (3) 0 0 (2) 0 0 (5) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (5) -56%

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (11) (11) -100%

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin 486 22 0 98 0 0 0 (3) (14) 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 809 119%

24 CBD 256 27 0 13 0 (6) (3) 0 (40) 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (65) 239 34%

Total (1,117) (45) 0 953 (13) (48) (20) (101) (204) 0 832 0 (9) 0 (7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (97) 124 1%

-11% -10% 0% 149% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% 0% 0% 0% -100% 0% -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -4% 1%



Page 88

Table B-22: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-HBUniv Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,749 0 13,749

2 SW Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258 0 258

3 Lake Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25

4 NW Austin 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 799 0 805

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4

6 Round Rock 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 148

7 Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 54

8 Manor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 196

9 Del Val le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 0 141

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,263 0 1,263

24 CBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867 0 867

Total 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,509 0 17,526



Page 89

Table B-23: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily- HBUniv Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,048 0 14,048

2 SW Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 112

3 Lake Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

4 NW Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 433 0 433

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Round Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33

7 Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

8 Manor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31

9 Del Val le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 36

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,683 0 1,683

24 CBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,166 0 1,166

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,551 0 17,551



Page 90

Table B-24: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily- HBUniv Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 299 2%

2 SW Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (146) 0 (146) -57%

3 Lake Travis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (23) 0 (23) -92%

4 NW Austin (6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (366) 0 (372) -46%

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4) 0 (4) -100%

6 Round Rock (11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (105) 0 (115) -78%

7 Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (51) 0 (51) -94%

8 Manor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (165) 0 (165) -84%

9 Del Valle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (105) 0 (105) -74%

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) 0 (3) -100%

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (11) 0 (11) -100%

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0%

16 Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4) 0 (4) -100%

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

19 Smithvil le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 420 0 420 33%

24 CBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 299 34%

Total (17) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 25 0%

-100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



Page 91

Table B-25: 2010 Calibration Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily-NHBO Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 2,758 111 8 369 0 5 15 56 85 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,234 786 5,429

2 SW Austin 230 104 0 43 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 109 583

3 Lake Travis 18 5 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53

4 NW Austin 322 10 0 122 16 37 0 98 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 35 701

5 Leander 15 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

6 Round Rock 20 28 0 5 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 66

7 Georgetown 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7

8 Manor 164 0 0 40 0 0 0 32 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 75 345

9 Del Val le 114 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 26 305

10 Hays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 18

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Smithvi lle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 588 3 0 124 0 27 0 43 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 988 456 2,236

24 CBD 574 118 0 58 0 0 0 30 120 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256 363 1,538

Total 4,813 474 22 776 16 86 15 264 296 0 0 0 25 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,650 1,867 11,314



Page 92

Table B-26: 2010 Calibration Estimated Transit Trips by District, Daily- NHBO Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop 2,613 139 6 189 0 22 0 63 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 877 1,326 5,270

2 SW Austin 159 185 6 3 0 0 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 103 520

3 Lake Travis 13 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 41

4 NW Austin 288 5 0 307 0 40 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 77 809

5 Leander 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

6 Round Rock 59 0 0 99 0 97 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 279

7 Georgetown 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

8 Manor 98 1 0 33 0 3 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 27 206

9 Del Val le 76 37 1 1 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 49 199

10 Hays 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Florence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Taylor 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

19 Smithvi lle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 26

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 UT Austin 203 8 0 10 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 575 201 1,003

24 CBD 852 58 2 42 0 2 0 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 596 1,255 2,838

Total 4,368 448 16 686 0 167 0 136 97 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 2,202 3,058 11,210



Page 93

Table B-27: 2010 Calibration Estimated minus Observed Transit Trips by District, Daily- NHBO Purpose

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOTAL

1 Inner Loop (145) 28 (2) (180) 0 17 (15) 7 (50) 0 0 0 (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (357) 540 (159) -3%

2 SW Austin (71) 81 6 (40) 0 0 0 (4) 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (38) (6) (63) -11%

3 Lake Travis (5) 8 (13) (15) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 (12) -23%

4 NW Austin (34) (5) 0 185 (16) 3 0 (68) (7) 0 0 0 (3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 42 108 15%

5 Leander (15) 0 0 0 0 (8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (23) -96%

6 Round Rock 39 (28) 0 94 0 89 0 2 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11 213 323%

7 Georgetown (2) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) (3) (5) -71%

8 Manor (66) 1 0 (7) 0 3 0 (9) (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (8) (48) (139) -40%

9 Del Valle (38) (54) 1 1 0 0 0 1 (37) 0 0 0 0 0 (11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 23 (106) -35%

10 Hays 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0%

11 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

12 Wimberley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

13 Florence 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (16) (17) -94%

14 Granger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

15 Hutto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

16 Taylor (8) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7) -78%

17 Elgin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0%

18 Bastrop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

19 Smithville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 26 0%

20 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%

21 Luling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

22 Gonzales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

23 UT Austin (385) 5 0 (114) 0 (27) 0 (39) (6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (413) (255) (1,233) -55%

24 CBD 278 (60) 2 (16) 0 2 0 (16) (104) 0 0 0 (17) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 340 892 1,300 85%

Total (445) (26) (6) (90) (16) 81 (15) (128) (199) 0 2 0 (25) 0 (11) 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 (448) 1,191 (104) -1%

-9% -5% -27% -12% -100% 94% -100% -48% -67% 0% 0% 0% -100% 0% -100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -17% 64% -1%

report name campo mode choice model: calibration ... · pdf filecampo mode choice model:...

Documents