1. Systems Analysis Group A PPLICATION E XPERIENCE OF A N EW T OUR F ORMATION P ROCEDURE IN T HE MAG A CTIVITY -B ASED M ODEL Binny Paul, James Hicks, Peter Vovsha (Parsons Brinckerhoff) Vladimir Livshits, Kyunghwi Jeon (MAG) TPAC 2015

2. Systems Analysis Group Background & Motivation By definition – central unit of analysis for ABMs are “activities” Tour and trips emerge from activity participation and corresponding time-space constraints Most ABMs in research/practice treat “tours” as central unit of analysis Tours are generated initially, location and mode are modeled first for the primary destination and details of stops are added later Not behaviorally appealing New tour formation procedure - Latest version of CT-RAMP Implemented for the Phoenix ABM (MAG) and Ohio 3C (MORPC, NOACA, OKI) TPAC 2015

3. Systems Analysis Group Modeling Approach 1.Generation and scheduling of prioritized activities and associated tour skeletons 2.Formation of individual day segments 3.Allocation of other activities to day segments 4.Tour formation based on temporal, sequential and location preferences TPAC 2015

4. Systems Analysis Group Activities Prioritized Special events, mandatory, school escorting & joint Fixed location, pre-determined schedule Individual non-mandatory activities Flexible schedule & location TPAC 2015

5. Systems Analysis Group Day Segments & Allocation Prioritized activities & tours: Form pegs in the daily schedule Pegs divide the day into 3 distinctive segments: Type 1: portion between prioritized tours Type 2: outbound/inbound legs of prioritized tours Type 3: At-work TPAC 2015

6. Systems Analysis Group Day Segments TPAC 2015 Daily TimeLine HH [0][6] 0-11-22-33-44-6 Type 1 Day Segments [1][2][3][4] DOMandatoryPUJoint

7. Systems Analysis Group Day Segments cont.. TPAC 2015 HDOMandatoryPUJointH Daily TimeLine [0][1][2][3][4] DOOutbound LegInbound Leg Type 2: t2_1oType 2: t2_1i

8. Systems Analysis Group Day Segment cont.. TPAC 2015 HDOMandatoryPUJointH Daily TimeLine [0][1][2][3][4] Business Chain : B-W-B WPOutbound LegInbound LegB2B1 Type 2: t2_2oType 2: t2_2iType 3: t3_221b, t3_221w, t3_221a

9. Systems Analysis Group Allocation Modeled person allocates non-mandatory activities to the available day segments Example - 1 workplace activity & 1 individual shopping activity TPAC 2015 HHWHH Work Tour/Mandatory Peg Outbound LegInbound Leg Day Schedule Available Day Segments for allocation of shopping activity 1 st Type 1 Segment 2 nd Type 1 Segment Type 2 segment Type 3 segment

10. Systems Analysis Group Activity Allocation to Day Segments TPAC 2015 Factors governing segment choice Sequencing relative to pegs Work flexibility Preference or Convenience Time window availability Clustering of activities Schedule Constraints Accessibility to attractions from the peg anchor points Spatial Accessibilities

11. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Implemented for each day segment separately Entire day integrity is ensured by allocation model Type 1: Generates home-based tours. Single activity – single destination tour Type 2: Single activity w/o prioritized activity – additional stop on existing tour Type 3: Single activity w/o prioritized activity – separate at-work subtour TPAC 2015

12. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation cont.. Multiple activities – 3 decisions are modeled: 1.Sequencing of activities (along with prioritized activities for type 2 & 3 segments) 2.Location of activities 3.Tour structure – single or multiple tours/additional stops at home TPAC 2015

13. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Model Simultaneous model for sequence, location and tour structure of activities Tour frequency and stop frequency emerge from modeled choices Rank Ordered Logit based framework Choice set: union of location alternatives for all activities with option for tour break at home TPAC 2015

14. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Example 1 shopping (S) and 1 maintenance (M) activity allocated to a Type 1 segment Possible tour formation scenarios: TPAC 2015 HSMH HMSH HSMHH HMSHH Single Tour Two Tours

15. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Choice Sequence TPAC 2015 H S1 M2 S2 S3 M1 M3

16. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Choice Sequence (2) TPAC 2015 H H S3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 H H H

17. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Choice Sequence (3) TPAC 2015 H H S3 M2 H HS3 M2 HH Shopping (3 rd location) before maintenance (2 nd location) & Two Tours

18. Systems Analysis Group Tour Formation Model Components TPAC 2015 Sampling of Alternatives Utility Components Time-Space Constraints Activity Sequence Activity Clustering Location Size Variables Impedance Tour Break at Home

19. Systems Analysis Group Utility Components & Underlying Behavioral Factors Activity Sequence Certain activities tend to be early/later than others Activity Clustering Certain activities tend to be implemented back to back Location Size Variables Zones with more attractions are visited more frequently Impedance All else being equal, travelers minimize time Tour Break at Home Stop at home is convenient if does not result in a big detour TPAC 2015

20. Systems Analysis Group Model Application Examples Applied to randomly chosen sample of 4,400 HHs from the synthetic population Compared to 4,400 HHs available from NHTS 2008 TPAC 2015

21. Systems Analysis Group Model Application: Non-Mandatory Tour Frequency TPAC 2015 Workers & University Students (>1 Non-mandatory Tours versus mandatory peg)

22. Systems Analysis Group Model Application: Pair-wise Activity Sequencing (Type 1) TPAC 2015 Earlier Activity Purpose Later Activity Purpose school escort non-sch escort shopmain eat out breakfast eat out lunch eat out dinner visitingdisc school escort non-school escort 51.1%46.2%36.4%46.7%67.9%60.8%44.1% shop 48.9% 36.0%11.2%49.4%84.5%59.2%37.8% maintenance 53.8%64.0% 29.0%61.3%90.4%69.2%52.7% eat out breakfast 63.6%88.8%71.0% 100.0% 95.0%76.9% eat out lunch 53.3%50.6%38.7%0.0% 100.0%69.8%44.7% eat out dinner 32.1%15.5%9.6%0.0% 35.5%23.7% visiting 39.2%40.8%30.8%5.0%30.2%64.5% 47.9% discretionary 55.9%62.2%47.3%23.1%55.3%76.3%52.1% Earlier Activity Purpose Later Activity Purpose school escort non-sch esc shopmain eat out breakfast eat out lunch eat out dinner visitingdisc school escort non-school escort 43.2%46.2%50.0%58.6%57.7%72.3%56.2% shop 56.8% 52.2%57.8%70.5%75.0%84.8%60.2% maintenance 53.8%47.8% 42.3%68.8%85.7%78.5%61.2% eat out breakfast 50.0%42.2%57.7% 100.0% 80.0%62.2% eat out lunch 41.4%29.5%31.2%0.0% 100.0%70.1%45.0% eat out dinner 42.3%25.0%14.3%0.0% 38.1%13.9% visiting 27.7%15.2%21.5%20.0%29.9%61.9% 26.3% discretionary 43.8%39.8%38.8%37.8%55.0%86.1%73.7% Survey Model

23. Systems Analysis Group Example of Sequencing Priority TPAC 2015

24. Systems Analysis Group Model Application: Activity Clustering TPAC 2015 SurveyModel ActivityTotal # pairsClustered PairsTotal # pairsClustered Pairs School Escort00.0%0 Other Escort6750.7%5560.0% Shopping4461.4%785.7% Maintenance3551.4%1172.7% Breakfast00.0%0 Lunch00.0%1 Dinner8100.0%00.0% Visiting1266.7%2680.8% Discretionary5574.5%14675.3% Activities in Type 1 Segments after Mandatory Peg

25. Systems Analysis Group Model Application: Average Tour Distance TPAC 2015 Average Round Dist (miles) Person Type# DestinationsSurveyModel Workers & University Students 1 11.38.0 2 18.613.0 3 23.618.0 4+ 35.825.0 Non-workers & Retirees 1 8.58.0 2 15.013.0 3 21.019.0 4+ 30.728.0 Children 1 8.67.0 2 15.213.0 3 18.117.0 4+ 29.717.0 Individual Non-Mandatory Tours – Type I Day Segment

26. Systems Analysis Group Conclusions “activity” is the basic unit of analysis in ABMs Travel is outcome of necessity to partake in activities under spatial and temporal constraints Modeling framework – accounts for major decision parameters in a coherent way Important effects like trip chaining and activity sequencing are captured Behaviorally realistic design ensures higher sensitivity towards policies but further testing is planned TPAC 2015

27. Systems Analysis Group Thank You! TPAC 2015