presented to

presented byCambridge Systematics, Inc.

Transportation leadership you can trust.

Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities

14TH TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference

May 7, 2013

Thomas RossiJason LempAnurag Komaduri

Jonathan Ehrlich, Metropolitan Council

2

What This Presentation Is Not

A transferability study

But it does provide some information relevant to people considering transferring activity-based models

3

Houston and Twin Cities Activity-Based Models

Land Use and Demographic Data

Synthetic PopulationGenerator

Highway and Transit Assignment

Highway and Transit Networks

Other Models (Truck, External, Airport)

Activity-Based Model

Components

4

Tour-Level Choices

Long-Term Choices

Stop/Trip-Level Choices

Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow

All Tour Stop Generation & Mode Choice

Tour Generation

Mandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day

Auto Ownership, Work Location, etc.

Daily Activity Pattern(including Work/School Travel)

Fully Joint Travel

Stop (Trip) Level Destination, Time of Day, and Mode Choice

Individual Nonmandatory Travel

School Escorting Model

Joint Tour Destination &Time of Day

Individual Nonmandatory Tour Destination &

Time of Day

5

Houston and Twin CitiesModel Similarities

Same basic structure

Implemented in TourCast and Cube

Estimated from local household survey data

Tour purposes:

WorkSchoolUniversityShopMeal

Personal BusinessSocial/RecreationEscort

6

Houston and Twin CitiesModel Structure Differences

Additional long term model components in Twin Cities model (transit path ownership, MnPass ownership)

Synthetic population generator» Houston – Based on UrbanSim» Twin Cities – PopGen

Differences in exogenous travel models (external, truck, special generator)

7

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

Houston Twin CitiesMetro area population (2011) 6,051,850 3,389,049

Central city population (2011) 2,145,146 387,753 / 288,448

Estimated VMT 160M (2010) 66.5M (2005)

Public transit passengers (2012) 77.6M 81.1MBike tour mode share 0.6% 1.3%

Avg. temperature - Jan. (F) 63 / 43 24 / 8

Avg. temperature - July (F) 94 / 75 83 / 64

Avg. annual snowfall (inches) 0.1 54

8

Tour-Level Choices

Long-Term Choices

Stop/Trip-Level Choices

Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow

All Tour Stop Generation & Mode Choice

Tour Generation

Mandatory Tour Destination &Time of Day

Auto Ownership, Work Location, etc.

Daily Activity Pattern(including Work/School Travel)

Fully Joint Travel

Stop (Trip) Level Destination, Time of Day, and Mode Choice

Individual Nonmandatory Travel

School Escorting Model

Joint Tour Destination &Time of Day

Individual Nonmandatory Tour Destination &

Time of Day

9

Tour Mode Choice ModelTour Purpose Segmentation

Individual work

Individual school/university

Individual non-mandatory (excluding escort purpose)

Individual escort

Individual work-based subtours

Joint non-mandatory tours

10

Tour Mode Choice ModelTour Purpose Segmentation

Individual work

11

Mode Alternatives/Nesting Structure

Root

Drive Alone

Shared Ride 2

Shared Ride 3 Transit

Drive Transit

Walk Transit

Non-Motorized

Walk Bike

12

Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesLevel of Service

Total travel cost (segmented by income level)

In-vehicle time

Out-of-vehicle time (walk access/egress, wait, transfer, auto terminal time)

Travel distance (non-motorized)

13

Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesLand Use/Demographic

Mixed use density

Total employment density

Retail density

Population density

Income

Household size

Number of vehicles

Cars relative to workers/adults

Age level

Gender

Worker status

Student status

14

Work Tour Mode Choice Model VariablesActivity Pattern

Presence of stops on half tour

Number of tours by purpose

Number of stops by purpose (on tour or half tour)

Whether the tour involves school escorting

Arrival and return time periods

15

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

Houston Twin CitiesGeneralized Time (min) -0.0102 -0.0116

Cost ($, by income level) -0.123 to -0.0312 -0.196 to -0.0513

Bike distance (miles) -0.0777 -0.202

Walk distance (miles) -1.18 -0.745

Mixed Use Density (work) (TA) -0.493 0.16

Retail Density (work) (TA) 0.025 0.033

Population Density (work) (DA) -0.0017 0.0028

Employment Density (home) (walk) 0.0535 0.31

Employment Density (work) (walk) 0.0082 0.092

16

Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Person/Household

Houston Twin CitiesWorkers > Cars (TA) 0.3587 -1.59Income < $40K (TA) -1.31 -3.30Zero Cars (TW) 12.2 0.658Workers > Cars, Cars > 0 (TW) 2.92 n/a

Adults > Cars, Workers < Cars, Cars > 0 (TW) 2.35 1.382-Person HH (SR3) -1.47 -1.312-Person HH (SR2) 0.233 -1.43Workers 0.203 n/aZero Cars (SR) 4.99 -2.031 person household (SR) -1.48 -2.883+ person household (DA) -0.719 0.185Workers > Cars, Cars > 0 (TW) -2.38 -2.49

Age < 30 (bike) 1.43 0.84

17

Work Tour Mode Choice ModelEstimated Model Parameters – Person/Household

Houston Twin CitiesArrive 7-9 a.m. (TA) 0.620 0.299Depart 4-6 p.m. (TA) 1.34 0.17Presence of stops (TA) 0.651 0.251Presence of stops (TW) 1.35 0.167

Number of tours (TA, TW) -0.614 -0.611

Presence of stops (walk) -2.00 -1.12

# of Meal Stops half tour 1 (SR3) 2.09 n/a

# of Escort Stops half tour 1 (SR3) 3.68 n/a

# of Escort Stops half tour 1 (SR2) 1.96 n/a

Number of Work Stops (SR) 1.30 n/a

Number of Work Stops (DA) 0.937 n/a

18

What Does It Mean?

Some similarities, some differences

Are some differences due to differences between the cities?» Probably (demographics, bike shares)

Would we get different results if we applied the Houston model to the Twin Cities?» Seems likely, but calibration could change results

Is more research into transferability needed?» Sure!