Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two Cities

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!