Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007."— Presentation transcript:

1 Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007

2 Acknowledgments ABTM Model (Daysim) Designers, Architects –John Bowman, Ph.D –Mark Bradley Application and Shell Program Developers –John Gibb, DKS Associates Parcel Data Production Process –Steve Hossack, SACOG

3 Overview Background on Models Validation Performance Measures

4 Sacramento Facts 2.1 million people Nearly 1 million jobs State capitol Unique geography: –To West: SF Bay Delta (San Francisco=90 miles) –To East: Sierra Nevada Mountains –To North, South: Sacramento, San Joaquin Valleys –Rivers!

5 Sacramento Facts (cont’d) Growing –20,000 dwellings / year since Yr. 2000 –50,000 people / year since Yr. 2000 –Since 1997: 3 new cities formed, more on the way… SACOG –MPO for part or all of 6 counties + cities within –Board=31 elected officials from 28 jurisdictions Current work transit share –3% for region –20% for jobs in CBD –+/- 1% for jobs elsewhere

6 SACOG Models: SACMET SACMET = Traditional 4-step model –HH’s cross classified (P x W x I) –4 home-based purposes –2 non-home-based (but still household-generated) purposes –7 modes incl. bike, walk –Commercial vehicle “purpose” –Mode/destination choice for HBW –Gravity distribution for else –Fixed time-of-travel factors –Conventional assignments –Runs = 6 hours on good PC

7 SACOG Models: SACSIM SACSIM = ABTM –Synthetic population (controls = P x W x I, Age, …) –7 activity types (work, school, escort, shop, pers.bus., meal, soc/rec.) –7 modes incl. bike, walk –Long term choice (auto ownership, work location) –Day pattern (#’s, types of tours, 0/1 stops per tour, etc) –“Short term” choice models (i/m stops and locations, tour/trip mode, times of travel, etc.)

8 SACOG Models: SACSIM (cont’d) Population, employment and some transport variables input at “parcel/point” level of detail (650k non-empty parcels) Proximity measures = combination TAZ-to-TAZ skims + parcel-to-parcel orthogonal distances Shorter trips more parcel-to- parcel, longer trips more TAZ- to-TAZ

9 SACOG Models: SACSIM (cont’d) Major SACSIM operational components –DAYSIM = stand-alone ABTM program, handles household- generated, I-I travel only –TP+ application handles rest: I-X, X-I, X-X Commercial vehicles Airport passenger Skims going into DAYSIM Reads DAYSIM outputs, creates assignable (TAZ-to-TAZ) trip tables Iteration / conversion looping and sampling Runs = 12 – 20 hours on good PC

10 Validation VARIABLESACMETSACSIM Auto Ownership (vs. Census) # 0 - Auto HH / RAD1.111.00 (RMSE)61%38% Vehicle Assignment (Yr.2000 Counts) Daily Link Volumes0.970.94 (RMSE)33%34% AM (3hrs)0.970.91 (RMSE)33%36% Midday (5 hrs)0.91 (RMSE)24%31% PM (3 hrs)0.991.11 (RMSE)25%34% Evening (13 hrs)0.770.92 (RMSE)38%34% Transit Assignment (vs. 2005 O.B. Survey…) tba

11 Census Worker Flows SACMET

12 Census Worker Flows SACSIM

13 Validation (cont’d) Key differences –Lots more to calibrate/validate w/ SACSIM Population characteristics Travel behavior by person type Time of travel –Observed data feels even more inadequate than before –More “natural” solutions to odd/errant outputs

14 Performance Measures Household-Generated VMT –The number of vehicle miles a household requires to perform their daily activities –Developed during Blueprint planning process –Decreases in HH VMT for: Mixed use (shortening trips) Density (more non-motorized) Mode shift

15 HH VMT for “Sample” Family…

16 Trip Shortening…

17 Mode Shift…

18 Perf. Measures (cont’d) PERF. MEASURE SACMET (w/o 4Ds)SACSIM VMT / HH 20055046 to 48 20354541 to 45 Change- 10%-5% to -10% Transit Shares (of HH-Generated) HBW Trips 20053.4%2.7% 20354.4%4.7 to 5.8% Change29%+74 to +111% All Trips 20051.1%1.0% 20351.6%1.9 to 2.6% Change45%+73% to +163% Non-Motorized Shares (of HH-Generated) 20056.0%6.8% 20356.0%7.1% Change--+ 4%

19 Given Similarity in Result, Why Bother? Parcel input data eliminates some TAZ aggregation “bias” ABTM + synthetic population accounts for demographics more directly Potential for tying travel more directly to: –Land use –Demographics –EJ analysis

20 VMT / HH by Density w/in ¼ Mi. of HH

21

22

23


Download ppt "Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google