1 / 18

Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities

Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities. 14TH TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference. May 7, 2013. Thomas Rossi Jason Lemp Anurag Komaduri Jonathan Ehrlich, Metropolitan Council. What This Presentation Is Not. A transferability study

xenon
Download Presentation

Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities 14TH TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference May 7, 2013 Thomas RossiJason LempAnuragKomaduriJonathan Ehrlich, Metropolitan Council

  2. What This Presentation Is Not • A transferability study • But it does provide some information relevant to people considering transferring activity-based models

  3. Houston and Twin Cities Activity-Based Models Synthetic PopulationGenerator Highway and Transit Networks Activity-Based Model Components Land Use and Demographic Data Other Models (Truck, External, Airport) Highway and Transit Assignment

  4. Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow Long-Term Choices Auto Ownership, Work Location, etc. Tour Generation Individual Nonmandatory Travel School Escorting Model Daily Activity Pattern(including Work/School Travel) Fully Joint Travel Tour-Level Choices Individual Nonmandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day Joint Tour Destination &Time of Day Mandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day All Tour Stop Generation & Mode Choice Stop/Trip-Level Choices Stop (Trip) Level Destination, Time of Day, and Mode Choice

  5. Houston and Twin CitiesModel Similarities • Same basic structure • Implemented in TourCast and Cube • Estimated from local household survey data • Tour purposes: Work School University Shop Meal Personal Business Social/Recreation Escort

  6. Houston and Twin CitiesModel Structure Differences • Additional long term model components in Twin Cities model (transit path ownership, MnPass ownership) • Synthetic population generator • Houston – Based on UrbanSim • Twin Cities – PopGen • Differences in exogenous travel models (external, truck, special generator)

  7. A Tale of Three Cities(Two of Which Are Twins)

  8. Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow Long-Term Choices Auto Ownership, Work Location, etc. Tour Generation Individual Nonmandatory Travel School Escorting Model Daily Activity Pattern(including Work/School Travel) Fully Joint Travel Tour-Level Choices Individual Nonmandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day Joint Tour Destination &Time of Day Mandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day All Tour Stop Generation & Mode Choice Stop/Trip-Level Choices Stop (Trip) Level Destination, Time of Day, and Mode Choice

  9. Tour Mode Choice ModelTour Purpose Segmentation • Individual work • Individual school/university • Individual non-mandatory (excluding escort purpose) • Individual escort • Individual work-based subtours • Joint non-mandatory tours

  10. Tour Mode Choice ModelTour Purpose Segmentation • Individual work

  11. Mode Alternatives/Nesting Structure

  12. Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesLevel of Service • Total travel cost (segmented by income level) • In-vehicle time • Out-of-vehicle time (walk access/egress, wait, transfer, auto terminal time) • Travel distance (non-motorized)

  13. Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesLand Use/Demographic • Mixed use density • Total employment density • Retail density • Population density • Income • Household size • Number of vehicles • Cars relative to workers/adults • Age level • Gender • Worker status • Student status

  14. Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesActivity Pattern • Presence of stops on half tour • Number of tours by purpose • Number of stops by purpose (on tour or half tour) • Whether the tour involves school escorting • Arrival and return time periods

  15. Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Level of Service/Land Use

  16. Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Person/Household

  17. Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Person/Household

  18. What Does It Mean? • Some similarities, some differences • Are some differences due to differences between the cities? • Probably (demographics, bike shares) • Would we get different results if we applied the Houston model to the Twin Cities? • Seems likely, but calibration could change results • Is more research into transferability needed? • Sure!

More Related