1. presented to presented by Cambridge 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 Rossi Jason Lemp Anurag 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 2

3. Houston and Twin Cities Activity-Based Models 3 Land Use and Demographic Data Synthetic Population Generator 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 4 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 Cities Model Similarities Same basic structure Implemented in TourCast and Cube Estimated from local household survey data Tour purposes: 5 Work School University Shop Meal Personal Business Social/Recreation Escort

6. Houston and Twin Cities Model 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) 6

7. A Tale of Three Cities (Two of Which Are Twins) HoustonTwin Cities Metro area population (2011)6,051,8503,389,049 Central city population (2011)2,145,146387,753 / 288,448 Estimated VMT160M (2010)66.5M (2005) Public transit passengers (2012) 77.6M81.1M Bike tour mode share0.6%1.3% Avg. temperature - Jan. (F)63 / 4324 / 8 Avg. temperature - July (F)94 / 7583 / 64 Avg. annual snowfall (inches)0.154 7

8. Tour-Level Choices Long-Term Choices Stop/Trip-Level Choices Houston/Twin Cities Model System Flow 8 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 Model Tour Purpose Segmentation Individual work Individual school/university Individual non-mandatory (excluding escort purpose) Individual escort Individual work-based subtours Joint non-mandatory tours 9

10. Tour Mode Choice Model Tour Purpose Segmentation Individual work 10

11. Mode Alternatives/Nesting Structure 11 Root Drive Alone Shared Ride 2 Shared Ride 3 Transit Drive Transit Walk Transit Non- Motorized WalkBike

12. Work Tour Mode Choice Model Variables Level 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) 12

13. Work Tour Mode Choice Model Variables Land 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 13

14. Work Tour Mode Choice Model Variables Activity 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 14

15. Work Tour Mode Choice Model Estimated Model Parameters – Level of Service/Land Use HoustonTwin Cities Generalized 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)-0.4930.16 Retail Density (work) (TA)0.0250.033 Population Density (work) (DA)-0.00170.0028 Employment Density (home) (walk)0.05350.31 Employment Density (work) (walk)0.00820.092 15

16. Work Tour Mode Choice Model Estimated Model Parameters – Person/Household HoustonTwin Cities Workers > Cars (TA)0.3587-1.59 Income < $40K (TA)-1.31-3.30 Zero Cars (TW)12.20.658 Workers > Cars, Cars > 0 (TW)2.92n/a Adults > Cars, Workers 0 (TW)2.351.38 2-Person HH (SR3)-1.47-1.31 2-Person HH (SR2)0.233-1.43 Workers0.203n/a Zero Cars (SR)4.99-2.03 1 person household (SR)-1.48-2.88 3+ person household (DA)-0.7190.185 Workers > Cars, Cars > 0 (TW)-2.38-2.49 Age < 30 (bike)1.430.84 16

17. Work Tour Mode Choice Model Estimated Model Parameters – Person/Household HoustonTwin Cities Arrive 7-9 a.m. (TA) 0.6200.299 Depart 4-6 p.m. (TA) 1.340.17 Presence of stops (TA) 0.6510.251 Presence of stops (TW)1.350.167 Number of tours (TA, TW)-0.614-0.611 Presence of stops (walk)-2.00-1.12 # of Meal Stops half tour 1 (SR3)2.09n/a # of Escort Stops half tour 1 (SR3)3.68n/a # of Escort Stops half tour 1 (SR2)1.96n/a Number of Work Stops (SR)1.30n/a Number of Work Stops (DA)0.937n/a 17

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! 18