For Model Users Group June 10, 2011 Kyeil Kim, Ph.D., PTP Atlanta Regional Commission.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
THURSTON REGION MULTIMODAL TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL IMPLEMENTATION IN EMME/2 - Presentation at the 15th International EMME/2 Users Group Conference.
Advertisements

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES ATHENS 2004 ATTIKO METRO S.A. Anna Anastasaki.
Denver’s Activity-Based Model Project: Status Report Erik Sabina, P.E., DRCOG Thomas Rossi, Principal, Cambridge Systematics TRB Transportation Planning.
SUZANNE CHILDRESS, ERIK SABINA, DAVID KURTH, TOM ROSSI, JENNIFER MALM DRCOG Focus Activity-Based Model Calibration/Validation Innovations in Travel Modeling.
The transition to activity-based models in the U.S. Mark Bradley Bradley Research & Consulting Santa Barbara, CA.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS TWO Denver Regional Council of Governments June 30, 2011.
Norman Washington Garrick CE 2710 Spring 2014 Lecture 07
The Current State and Future of the Regional Multi-Modal Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation leadership you can trust. Comparison of Activity-Based Model Parameters Between Two.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS THREE Denver Regional Council of Governments July 7, 2011.
Time of day choice models The “weakest link” in our current methods(?) Change the use of network models… Run static assignments for more periods of the.
Activity-Based Model For Atlanta (Day 1) by Guy Rousseau, Atlanta Regional Commission Based on the CT-RAMP (Coordinated Travel – Regional Activity- based.
Session 11: Model Calibration, Validation, and Reasonableness Checks
Sequential Demand Forecasting Models CTC-340. Travel Behavior 1. Decision to travel for a given purpose –People don’t travel without reason 2. The choice.
Norman W. Garrick CTUP. Norman W. Garrick Transportation Forecasting What is it? Transportation Forecasting is used to estimate the number of travelers.
InMoSion: Science Shop for Innovative Mobility Solutions for Mobility Challenged Europeans 3rd INTERNATIONAL MEETING ANKARA, TURKEY Partnering: Civil Engineering.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW Denver Regional Council of Governments June 24, 2011.
San Francisco Bay Area Activity-Based Models Specification & Training Study Chuck Purvis Metropolitan Transportation Commission Oakland, California Workshop.
Building and Learning Activity-Based Models Erik Sabina Jennifer Malm Jennifer Malm Suzanne Childress John Bowman DeVon Culbertson.
Model Task Force Meeting November 29, 2007 Activity-based Modeling from an Academic Perspective Transportation Research Center (TRC) Dept. of Civil & Coastal.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS FIVE Denver Regional Council of Governments July27, 2011.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco DTA Project: Model Integration Options Greg Erhardt DTA Peer Review Panel Meeting July 25 th,
2010 Travel Behavior Inventory Mn/DOT TDMCC- Jonathan Ehrlich October 14, 2010.
Problem Statement and Motivation Key Achievements and Future Goals Technical Approach Kouros Mohammadian, PhD and Yongping Zhang (PhD Candidate), CME,
Presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Comprehensive Validation of Activity-Based Models Experiences from Houston-Galveston Area Council’s.
BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MODEL ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE RED LINE PROJECT AMPO TRAVEL MODEL WORK GROUP March 20, 2006.
Transit Estimation and Mode Split CE 451/551 Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 7.
1 A Model of Within-Households Travel Activity Decisions Capturing Interactions Between Household Heads Renni Anggraini, Dr.Theo Arentze, Prof.H.J.P. Timmermans.
In this presentation, we will: 1.Describe each step the Compass model and show comparable steps in the IRM. Compass = What,, Where, How IRM= Who, What,
ARC ABM Visualization & Reporting ARC – Nov 12, 2010 Activity-Based Model (Java, Cube) Activity-Based Model (Java, Cube) Database (SQL Server) Visualization.
June 15, 2010 For the Missoula Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Modeling
A New Policy Sensitive Travel Demand Model for Tel Aviv Yoram Shiftan Transportation Research Institute Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Act Now: An Incremental Implementation of an Activity-Based Model System in Puget Sound Presented to: 12th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications.
DVRPC TMIP Peer Review TIM 2 Model Oct. 29 th, 2014.
1 Activity Based Models Review Thomas Rossi Krishnan Viswanathan Cambridge Systematics Inc. Model Task Force Data Committee October 17, 2008.
Utilizing Advanced Practice Methods to Improve Travel Model Resolution and Address Sustainability Bhupendra Patel, Ph.D., Senior Transportation Modeler.
September, 2012An Activity Based Model for a Regional City1.
Modeling in the “Real World” John Britting Wasatch Front Regional Council April 19, 2005.
Comparing a Household Activity-Based Model with a Person Activity-Based Model 14th TRB Conference on Transportation Planning Applications May 5-9, 2013,
14 th TRB National Planning Applications Conference May 5-9, 2013, Columbus, Ohio Rosella Picado Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Vladimir Livshits, Petya Maneva, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Phoenix, AZ Peter Vovsha, Surabhi Gupta, Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York, NY.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY San Francisco’s Dynamic Traffic Assignment Model Background SFCTA DTA Model Peer Review Panel Meeting July.
Norman W. Garrick Transportation Forecasting What is it? Transportation Forecasting is used to estimate the number of travelers or vehicles that will use.
Guy Rousseau, Modeling Manager, Atlanta Regional Commission Atlanta Travel Forecasting Methods: Traditional Trip-Based & Activity-Based Model AMPO Travel.
Activity-Based Modeling How does it work?. CT-RAMP model Coordinated Travel – Regional Activity Based Modeling Platform (CT-RAMP) for the Atlanta Region.
Evaluating Transportation Impacts of Forecast Demographic Scenarios Using Population Synthesis and Data Simulation Joshua Auld Kouros Mohammadian Taha.
FDOT Transit Office Modeling Initiatives The Transit Office has undertaken a number of initiatives in collaboration with the Systems Planning Office and.
Dowling Associates, Inc. 19 th International EMME/2 Users’ Conference – 21 October 2005 Derivation of Travel Demand Elasticities from a Tour-Based Microsimulation.
Presented to Model Task Force Model Advancement Committee presented by Thomas Rossi Krishnan Viswanathan Cambridge Systematics Inc. Date November 24, 2008.
Application of an Activity-based Model for a Toll Road Study in Chicago Matt Stratton Parsons Brinckerhoff May 19, 2015.
Presented to Time of Day Subcommittee May 9, 2011 Time of Day Modeling in FSUTMS.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to 12th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference presented by Arun Kuppam, Cambridge.
Comparison of an ABTM and a 4-Step Model as a Tool for Transportation Planning TRB Transportation Planning Application Conference May 8, 2007.
Methodological Considerations for Integrating Dynamic Traffic Assignment with Activity-Based Models Ramachandran Balakrishna Daniel Morgan Srinivasan Sundaram.
Estimation of a Weekend Location Choice Model for Calgary KJ Stefan, City of Calgary JDP McMillan, City of Calgary CR Blaschuk, City of Calgary JD Hunt,
Presented to Time of Day Panel presented by Krishnan Viswanathan, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Jason Lemp, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Thomas Rossi, Cambridge.
Systems Analysis Group One ABM for Four Cities: Experience of ABM Estimation on a Pooled Dataset of Multiple Surveys Surabhi Gupta, Peter Vovsha, Gaurav.
Florida’s First Eco-Sustainable City. 80,000+ Residential Units 10 million s.f. Non-Residential 20 Schools International Clean Technology Center Multi-Modal.
FOCUS MODEL OVERVIEW CLASS FOUR Denver Regional Council of Governments July 7, 2011.
Impact of Aging Population on Regional Travel Patterns: The San Diego Experience 14th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference, Columbus.
Activity Based Modeling: A Brief Introduction Mike Neidhart, PhD, AICP Volusia County MPO Florida Model Task Force Meeting November 29, 2007.
Urban Planning Group Implementation of a Model of Dynamic Activity- Travel Rescheduling Decisions: An Agent-Based Micro-Simulation Framework Theo Arentze,
ILUTE A Tour-Based Mode Choice Model Incorporating Inter-Personal Interactions Within the Household Matthew J. Roorda Eric J. Miller UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO.
Responses to Gas Prices in Knoxville, TN Vince Bernardin, Jr., Ph.D. Vince Bernardin, Jr., Ph.D. Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates Mike Conger, P.E.
Presented to Toll Modeling Panel presented by Krishnan Viswanathan, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.. September 16, 2010 Time of Day in FSUTMS.
Systems Analysis Group TPAC, 2015 Application Experience of Multiple Discrete Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Model for Activity Duration and Trip Departure.
Aktivitetsbaseret modellering af transportefterspørgsel
Steps Closer to ABM: Example from Jerusalem
Travel Demand Forecasting: Mode Choice
Norman Washington Garrick CE 2710 Spring 2016 Lecture 07
Presentation transcript:

For Model Users Group June 10, 2011 Kyeil Kim, Ph.D., PTP Atlanta Regional Commission

Today’s Menu Overall features of ARC’s Activity-Based Model (ABM) ABM Visualization Software, ABMVIZ Quality Assurance/Quality Control of ABM

Daily Travel Trip-Based Model - Home-Work: 2 trips - Work-Eat: 2 trips - Home-Gym: 2 trips Activity-Based Model - Follows daily activity patterns (departure time, duration, location, frequency, mode)

What is Activity-Based Model? ABM aims at predicting which activities are conducted where, when, for how long, with whom, the transportation mode involved and ideally also the implied route decisions Disaggregate, Micro-simulation, Behavioral, Tour- based ABM reflects the scheduling of activities in time and space

Structure of ARC Models: TBM vs. ABM Trip GenerationTrip DistributionMode Choice Route Choice Long-Term Choices Daily Activity Patterns Tour Mode Choice/Stop Trip Mode Choice Synthetic Population Trip-Based Model Activity-Based Model DemandSupply

Population Synthesizer Generates synthetic population to represent actual households and population Base year Input: Census data (marginal distributions of various household control variables), PUMS Control variables: householder age, HH size, HH income, presence of children in HH, number of workers in HH Joint distribution through Frata PUMS 5% sample as seed matrix, control totals from Census Draws from PUMS households from the joint distribution 1 record/hh and 1 record/person

Population Synthesizer (cont’d) Forecast year Input: ARC lane-use forecast, PUMS Control variables: HH size, HH income, householder’ age, number of workers in HH Joint distribution through Frata Base year distribution as seed matrix, control totals from land-use forecasts Draws from PUMS households from the joint distribution 1 record/hh and 1 record/person

Structure of ARC Models: TBM vs. ABM Trip GenerationTrip DistributionMode Choice Route Choice Long-Term Choices Daily Activity Patterns Tour Mode Choice/Stop Trip Mode Choice Synthetic Population Trip-Based Model Activity-Based Model DemandSupply

Long-Term Choices Mandatory activity location choice Work/school/university locations for the synthesized population Work location choice for workers Grade school for persons age 5-12 University for university students Multinomial logit: [subzones]=[person characteristics, size terms, mc logsums, distance, etc.] Car ownership model Number of vehicles owned by each household Multinomial logit: [# cars]=[hh size, income, parking cost, mc logsums, etc.]

Structure of ARC Models: TBM vs. ABM Trip GenerationTrip DistributionMode Choice Route Choice Long-Term Choices Daily Activity Patterns Tour Mode Choice/Stop Trip Mode Choice Synthetic Population Trip-Based Model Activity-Based Model DemandSupply

Coordinated Daily Activity Pattern Generates personal DAPs and individual tours by purpose for all synthesized population DAPs Mandatory, Non-mandatory & At-home patterns Decision-making unit: Households Multinomial logit: [# DAPs]=[person/hh characteristics, accessibility measures, intra-household interaction terms, etc.] 363 alternatives: 3 (1-p hh), 9 (2-p hh), 27 (3-p hh), 81 (4-p hh), 243 (5-p hh)

Tour Models Predicts the number and purpose of tours for each person, destinations, and time-of-day choices Four different tours Individual Mandatory Joint Non-Mandatory Individual Non-Mandatory At-Work Sub-Tours Residual Time

Individual Mandatory Tour Tour Frequency Number and purpose of tours for each person Multinomial logit: [# of work/school tour]=[hh composition, income, car ownership, location of work/school activities, accessibility, etc.] Tour Time-of-Day Select the combinations of tour departure/arrival time Multinomial logit: [combination of tour departure/arrival hours]=[household and personal characteristics, network LOS variables, etc.] Alternatives: 190 combinations of tour departure hour and arrival hour back at home

Joint Non-Mandatory Tour Joint tours by household members after mandatory tours have been generated and scheduled Joint Tour Frequency Generates the number/purposes of joint tours Multinomial logit: [0, 1 or 2 tours by purpose]=[household variables, accessibility, overlapping time windows, etc.] Joint Tour Composition Determines the person types participating in the tour Multinomial logit: [combination of adults & children]=[household characteristics, purpose of joint tour, overlapping time windows]

Joint Non-Mandatory Tour (cont’d) Joint Tour Primary Destination Choice Location of the tour primary destination Multinomial logit: [subzones]=[household/person characteristics, tour purpose, size variables, mc logsum, distance, etc.] Joint Tour Time-of-Day Choice Tour departure time from home and arrival time back at home Multinomial logit: [combination of tour departure/arrival hours]=[household and personal characteristics, network LOS variables, etc.] Alternatives: 190 combinations of tour departure hour and arrival hour back at home

Other Tours Individual Non-Mandatory Tour Tour Frequency Tour Primary Destination Choice Tour Time-of-Day Choice At-Work Sub-Tour Tour Frequency Tour Primary Destination Choice Tour Time-of-Day Choice

Structure of ARC Models: TBM vs. ABM Trip GenerationTrip DistributionMode Choice Route Choice Long-Term Choices Daily Activity Patterns Tour Mode Choice/Stop Trip Mode Choice Synthetic Population Trip-Based Model Activity-Based Model DemandSupply

Tour Mode Choice Tour mode choice: main tour mode used from origin to primary destination and back Two-level mode choice in ARC ABM Tour mode level (upper-level choice) Trip mode level (lower-level choice conditional on the upper-level)

Tour Mode Choice (cont’d) Tour MC models Work, University, K-12, Non-mandatory, At-work 12 Alternatives Nested logit: [tour mode]=[household and personal characteristics, urban form variables, network LOS variables, etc.] Use the round-trip LOS between the tour anchor location and the primary destination

Intermediate Stop Models Stop Frequency Model Number of intermediate stops on the way to/from the primary destination by tour purpose Multinomial logit: [# of stops]=[household and personal characteristics, tour duration, tour distance, accessibility, etc.] Stop Location Choice Model Location of stops along the tour other than the primary destination Multinomial logit: [Subzones]=[mc logsum, distance, size variables, etc.]

Structure of ARC Models: TBM vs. ABM Trip GenerationTrip DistributionMode Choice Route Choice Long-Term Choices Daily Activity Patterns Tour Mode Choice/Stop Trip Mode Choice Synthetic Population Trip-Based Model Activity-Based Model DemandSupply

Trip Mode Choice Determines the mode for each trip along the tour Constrained by the main tour mode Correspondence rules to determine which trip modes are available for which tour modes E.g., drive-alone pay trip is only available for drive-alone pay tour E.g., transit tours can include auto shared-ride trips for particular legs

Structure of ARC Models: TBM vs. ABM Trip GenerationTrip DistributionMode Choice Route Choice Long-Term Choices Daily Activity Patterns Tour Mode Choice/Stop Trip Mode Choice Synthetic Population Trip-Based Model Activity-Based Model DemandSupply

Route Choice Same routine as the trip-based model Multimodal User Equilibrium Time-of-Day Assignment Bi-Conjugate Frank-Wolfe for both TBM and ABM, departing from the traditional Frank-Wolfe

Run Environment Java-Package Cube/TP+ Three 64-bit Windows machines Each machine with 32GB of RAM Base year run: approx. 30 hours 2040 run: approx. 50 hours

Visualization Model generates huge database Model visualization system, ABMVIZ Primary starting point for most model analysis questions Interactive/dynamic visualization of model estimates/results Some unique visualization types Tables, Bar Charts/Maps Time Use Tour Tracing Tree Map Radar Charts

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality Assurance (QA): a systematic review process by personnel not directly involved in model development Quality Control (QC): a technical routine to control quality of the model performed in model development Full understanding of the models’ capabilities/limits ARC initiated internal a year-long QA/QC process for both ABM and TBM New QA/QC guidelines

QA/QC Overall processes Reasonableness checking for EVERY modeling step Temporal validation between base and forecast years Comparability between ABM and TBM Components Modeling flows/Scripts Socioeconomic data Transportation network data External trips Trip generation, Trip distribution, Mode choice, & Traffic assignment

QA/QC (cont’d) Tools SQL Express Management Studio STATA ABMVIZ Custom scripts Voyager/TP+ R Our brain

Thank You!