Professional Documents
Culture Documents
prepared by
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
1.1 Model Certification Process .........................................................................................
1.2 Datasets Available .........................................................................................................
1.3 Overview of Model Performance and Documentation ...........................................
1
1
2
3
5
5
9
20
29
29
33
35
35
39
39
41
41
42
45
47
47
48
51
55
55
56
57
59
59
59
60
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
ii
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
LIST OF TABLES
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Penalties .................................................................................................................................. 50
5.5
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.1
Volume Over Count Ratios by Facility Type, Area Type and Number of Lanes ........ 61
7.2
7.3
Percent Difference for Daily Volumes (Calculated for Links with Counts) ................. 63
7.4
7.5
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
ii
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1
TAZ Splits...............................................................................................................................
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
Comparison of Hotel-Motel Units Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models ................... 16
2.10 Comparison of Hotel-Motel Units Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years .................... 17
2.11 Comparison of School Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models ................... 18
2.12 Comparison of School Enrollment Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years .................... 18
2.13 Comparison of College Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models ................. 19
2.14 Comparison of College Enrollment Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years .................. 20
2.15 2007 Model Network by Facility Type ............................................................................... 23
2.16 2007 Model Network by Area Type ................................................................................... 25
2.17 2007 Model Network by Number of Lanes ....................................................................... 27
2.18 Screenline Locations ............................................................................................................. 31
3.1
7.1
iii
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
iv
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
1.0 Introduction
As part of Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia (CHCNGA) 2035 Long-Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update, the TransCAD travel demand model was updated and
revalidated to the base year 2007 with a horizon year 2035. The first phase of the LRTP
update includes the development and review of base year 2007 input data and validation of
the model to base year conditions. Subsequent phases of this study include the forecasting
of future year 2035 external trips, the preparation of an existing-plus-committed (E+C)
network, and an evaluation of future travel demand within the CHGNGA Transportation
Planning Organization (TPO) boundary. The TPO boundary includes all of Hamilton
County in Tennessee and portions of Catoosa, Dade, and Walker Counties in Georgia. The
validated 2007 model and CHCNGA 2035 transportation recommendations were utilized in
the development of the CHCNGA Transportation Planning Organizations (TPO) 2035
LRTP. The LRTP was conducted for the TPO housed within the Chattanooga-Hamilton
County Regional Planning Agency (RPA) using a consultant team led by Cambridge
Systematics. Cambridge Systematics developed and validated the base and future year
model, while RPA staff developed the socioeconomic data for input into the travel demand
model.
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
as part of the validation process, they will be documented and submitted for approval at
this time; and
4. Full model documentation report and users guide, along with all TransCAD files, after
the draft LRTP has been documented.
Submittal #1 was submitted and approved by TDOT in September 2008. Subsequently,
Regional Planning Agency (RPA) staff and its consultant, Cambridge Systematics, held a
teleconference with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and TDOT on June
30, 2009 to discuss the draft socioeconomic data and preliminary validation statistics, as
outlined in this submittal.
Submittal #2, which included the 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data, was submitted to
TDOT, GDOT, and the air quality Interagency Consultation Committee (ICC) in July 2009
and approved during the ICC meeting on August 6, 2009.
Preliminary validation statistics were provided to the Interagency Consultation Committee
(ICC) for review in advance of the September 3, 2009 ICC meeting. Submittal #3 was
submitted to TDOT, GDOT, and the ICC on September 28, 2009. Comments were received
by TDOT on October 8, 2009 and addressed via teleconference between TDOT and
Cambridge Systematics on October 12, 2009.
This full report constitutes Submittal #4, provided to TDOT and GDOT for review and
approval in early December 2009.
2009 Used to compare with emissions in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5.
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
2015 Fiscally Constrained LRTP (Tier 1) Includes all nonexempt projects funded for
construction prior to or during year 2015 (Tier 1) of the fiscally constrained LRTP.
2025 E+C Used to determine what congestion would be in the year 2025 if no further
transportation improvements were funded above and beyond what currently is in the
FY 08-11 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Nonexempt (new road or
widening) projects expected to complete construction by the end of calendar year 2011
are included in the E+C transportation network.
2025 Fiscally Constrained LRTP (Tier 2) Includes all nonexempt projects funded for
construction prior to or during year 2025 (Tier 2) of the fiscally constrained LRTP.
2035 E+C Used to determine what congestion would be in the year 2035 if no further
transportation improvements were funded above and beyond what currently is in the
FY 08-11 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Nonexempt (new road or
widening) projects expected to complete construction by the end of calendar year 2011
are included in the E+C transportation network.
2035 Fiscally Constrained LRTP (Tier 3) Includes all nonexempt projects funded for
construction prior to or during year 2035 (Tier 3) of the fiscally constrained LRTP.
The above nine datasets have been provided to TDOT and GDOT as part of this Volume 3
submittal.
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 2.1
Expanded Catoosa
Model
Internal TAZs
415
420
590
External TAZs
30
30
38
Total TAZs
445
450
628
The following criteria were used to determine if a TAZ should be split, when feasible:
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
The following guidelines were used to split the TAZ boundaries, when feasible:
Railroads;
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Variables
The socioeconomic data included in the TransCAD travel demand model can be broken in
to four categories, as follows:
Employment Includes total number of employees and number of employees for each
of the five employment categories:
- Agricultural/mining/construction;
- Manufacturing/transportation;
- Retail;
- Service; and
- Government.
School Enrollment Includes number of grade school students at the location of the
school, number of university students at the location of the university, and total school
enrollment (grade school students plus university students). University student
enrollment includes community, technical, or vocational colleges and universities.
Methodology
The RPA collected the number of building permits issued between 2000 and 2007 for each of
the four counties, geocoded their locations, and added the new building permits to the 2000
households by TAZ to achieve 2007 households. Population for the year 2007 was
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
calculated by applying the persons per household ratio in each of the year 2000 zones to the
total number of households in 2007. If a zone was split, the persons per household ratio
from the parent zone in the year 2000 was applied for each split zone. However, subsequent
logic checks determined that some manual adjustments were necessary in Dade and
Hamilton Counties to reflect more reasonable persons per household ratios and thus, the
overall persons per household ratio for the entire county were applied to those specific
zones. The proportion of the total population attributable to school-age children was
calculated using 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) data for each of the four
counties, with the exception of Dade County, which utilized the same school-aged children
factor in Walker County as ACS data was not available for Dade County. Building permit
data for Hamilton County were acquired from the municipal building permit files, whereas
building permit data for Catoosa and Walker Counties were acquired from The Market
Edge, an information reporting service. Since building permits are not required in Dade
County, electrical inspection records were acquired from the County as proxy for building
permits.
As part of the current 2035 LRTP Update, the RPA evaluated a number of sources for
employment data as there were significant discrepancies in the employment control totals
between the different data sources within the region. After careful review, it was
determined that year 2007 ES202 employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
be used. Previously, as part of the 2030 LRTP Update, RPA staff utilized the employment
control totals from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) while using Dun & Bradstreet
point data to distribute the BEA employment by TAZ. This previous method was used due
to some of the suspect employment numbers in the Dun & Bradstreet data. Since then, it
has been determined that the ES202 employment data is more comparable to other data
sources and the BEA control totals for the year 2000 may have been overestimated. As a
result, when comparing the 2000 employment to the 2007 employment, there is a significant
decrease in employment from the year 2000 to 2007. However, as mentioned above, it is
likely that the 2000 employment was erroneous.
School enrollment data were collected from local school boards, the phone book, Internet,
and applying local knowledge.
The number of hotel-motel units were collected from the Visitors Bureau, in-house
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) file, a field survey, as well as the phone book and the
Internet.
Observations
As indicated in Table 2.2, between the years 2007 and 2035, the Chattanooga region is
expected to grow by approximately 39 percent in population and employment. Since the
number of school-age children is decreasing in the region, school enrollment is only
expected to increase by 16 percent. Although employment decreased from the year 2000 to
2007, as discussed earlier, employment does increase by 39 percent from the year 2007 to
2035, consistent with household and population forecasts. Figure 2.2 compares the regional
10
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
summary of each socioeconomic variable between the years 2007 and 2035. As expected, all
variables increase from the year 2007 and 2035.
Table 2.2
2015
2025
2035
Percent Growth
from 2007 to 2035
Households
178,557
199,570
225,878
252,148
41%
Population
425,724
473,614
533,492
593,335
39%
Employment
218,612
251,377
278,244
305,061
40%
Hotel-Motel Units
9,693
10,274
11,001
11,729
21%
School Enrollment
69,102
72,547
76,851
80,357
16%
College Enrollment
24,459
25,679
27,202
29,520
21%
Variable
500,000
2015
400,000
2025
300,000
2035
200,000
100,000
0
Households
Population
Employment
Hotel-Motel
Units
School
Enrollment
College
Enrollment
Households
Figure 2.3 below compares the number of households between the previous 2030 LRTP
(years 2000 and 2030) and the current 2035 LRTP Update (years 2007 and 2035). With the
exception of the Georgia counties in the year 2030, the households increase for each year.
11
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Growth in Georgia is expected to slow down between the years 2007 and 2035 and it is
expected that 2030 households in Georgia were overestimated during the previous LRTP
update.
157,459
2000
2007
2030
2035
35,136
24,129
20,320
15,275
16,649
12,882
12,528
931
839
760
50,000
1,190
100,000
43,919
150,000
140,707
200,000
124,447
250,000
200,351
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
Note: 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of Catoosa County.
140,707
200,000
150,000
200,806
157,864
250,000
179,351
2007
2015
2025
2035
0
Catoosa
12
Dade
County
Hamilton
Walker
15,275
14,421
13,565
12,882
931
898
866
839
35,136
31,208
27,275
50,000
24,129
100,000
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Population
As indicated in Figure 2.5, population in Hamilton County increases each year, regardless of
which LRTP update. However, Dade County population decreased from the year 2000 to
2007, even though the number of households increased. This is as a result of adjusting the
number of persons per household ratio to more accurately reflect existing conditions in
Dade County, which are more consistent with the other counties in the TPO region. In
addition, it is suspected that the year 2030 population in the Georgia counties was
overestimated during the previous 2030 LRTP as growth is expected to slow down in
Georgia.
400,000
350,000
328,674
450,000
307,897
463,347
500,000
362,330
2000
2007
2030
2035
62,244
52,955
38,575
42,085
32,666
31,749
50,000
2,354
100,000
2,140
2,460
150,000
3,837
200,000
88,058
250,000
114,556
300,000
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
Note: 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of Catoosa County.
13
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
328,674
450,000
400,000
350,000
464,348
415,905
500,000
367,443
Figure 2.6 Comparison of Population Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years
2007
2015
2025
300,000
38,575
34,353
32,666
2,354
2,277
2,202
2,140
50,000
88,058
78,843
100,000
69,616
150,000
62,244
200,000
36,467
2035
250,000
0
Catoosa
Dade
Hamilton
Walker
County
Employment
As mentioned earlier, the source of the employment data has changed since the previous
LRTP and thus, there is a significant reduction in employees from the year 2000 to 2007 due
to suspected overestimation in the year 2000. Year 2007 employment data was based on
ES202 records from the BLS and was supplemented by records from the Chamber of
Commerce, schools, motel in-house records, and job announcements from the newspaper.
Year 2000 data was compiled from the Dun & Bradstreet database and was factored up to
BEA employment control totals. BEA derived the employment data in part from the BLS
data which accounts for about 80 percent of its employment data. The difference between
the BEA data and the BLS data is attributed to BLS only reporting employment covered by
the State UI and UCFE programs while BEA also estimates employment for farms, part-time
employees, private households, schools, religious organizations, railroads, military, and
international organizations. Since BEA data did not include addresses and the 2000
approach would exacerbate errors from misgeocoding and misreporting, the RPA decided
to geocode the BLS data and supplement it with the additional sources mentioned above for
2007 employment.
Figure 2.7 compares the new 2007 and 2035 employment control totals to the old 2000 and
2030 employment control totals. Due to the change in data sources, there are significant
differences between LRTP datasets. However, it is suspected that the new 2007
employment estimates and 2035 forecasts are more accurate.
14
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
250,000
200,000
2000
194,977
300,000
240,320
350,000
274,622
308,469
2007
2030
2035
20,040
56,598
15,284
26,302
8,363
27,904
8,243
195
516
331
50,000
108
100,000
21,465
150,000
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
Note: 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of Catoosa County.
250,000
200,000
276,463
251,404
194,977
300,000
226,326
2007
2015
2025
150,000
2035
8,363
8,326
8,276
8,243
195
165
132
108
20,040
18,349
16,643
50,000
15,284
100,000
0
Catoosa
Dade
Hamilton
Walker
County
15
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Hotel-Motel Units
As demonstrated in Figure 2.9, several hotels were constructed in Hamilton County
between the years 2000 and 2007. The number of hotel-motel units in 2007 actually
surpassed those projected in 2030 as part of the last 2030 LRTP. It is anticipated that the
growth in hotel-motel units in Hamilton County will slow down between 2007 and 2035,
although it will still increase by 22 percent. Similarly, Walker County hotel-motel units
increased in 2007 beyond 2030 forecasted levels. However, it is suspected that the growth in
hotel-motels units in Catoosa County was overestimated for the year 2030 during the
previous LRTP update and it is expected to slow down by the year 2035, as the RPA is
uncertain of future growth in Catoosa County.
10,876
Figure 2.9 Comparison of Hotel-Motel Units Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP
Models
8,885
12,000
2007
2030
2035
4,105
8,000
6,000
2000
6,851
10,000
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
County
Note: 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of Catoosa County.
16
Catoosa
620
1,073
608
570
233
37
18
2,000
200
4,000
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
10,000
10,876
9,453
8,885
12,000
10,164
2007
2015
2025
2035
8,000
6,000
233
221
209
200
620
616
608
2,000
612
4,000
0
Catoosa
Dade
Hamilton
Walker
County
School Enrollment
The number of grade school students in Hamilton County decreased from the year 2000 to
2007 as there were a number of school closings. However, school enrollment is expected to
increase by the year 2035. As demonstrated in Figure 2.11, the growth in school students in
Walker County was faster than expected resulting in far more students in the year 2007 than
originally forecasted by the year 2030 as part of the previous LRTP update. Since the RPA is
uncertain of future long-term growth, there is only a minimal increase in school students
between the years 2007 and 2035 in Walker County. In Catoosa County, it is suspected that
the 2030 forecasted school enrollment may have been slightly overestimated and thus, year
2035 forecasts are slightly lower when compared to the year 2030.
17
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
58,718
2000
2007
2030
50,000
2035
14,770
7,083
7,523
10,000
5,111
3,931
20,000
7,042
30,000
11,225
40,000
14,116
60,000
50,835
54,092
70,000
51,570
Figure 2.11 Comparison of School Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP
Models
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
Note: 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of Catoosa County.
58,718
60,000
53,370
50,835
70,000
56,536
2007
2015
50,000
2025
40,000
0
Catoosa
Dade
Hamilton
County
18
Walker
7,523
7,832
10,000
7,393
7,042
12,484
11,785
20,000
11,225
30,000
14,116
2035
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
College Enrollment
College enrollment in Hamilton County increased by 23 percent between the years 2000 and
2007. However, growth is expected to slow down by the years 2030 and 2035, as indicated
in Figure 2.13. Since the last LRTP update, the TPO TransCAD model was expanded to
include all of Catoosa County. As a result, Harvest Deaf Bible College in Catoosa County is
now included in the model, which accounts for the 27 college students in the year 2007 not
previously in the model. In addition, Covenant College in Dade County was not included
in the previous LRTP update and has since been added to the model.
25,000
20,000
18,780
27,932
25,059
30,000
23,082
2000
2007
2030
2035
15,000
35
27
5,000
1,350
1,553
10,000
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
Note: 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of Catoosa County.
19
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
25,000
27,932
25,670
23,082
30,000
24,233
2007
2015
20,000
2025
2035
15,000
1,553
1,501
1,417
35
30
28
27
5,000
1,350
10,000
0
Catoosa
Dade
Hamilton
Walker
County
20
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
land uses were noted and revised accordingly in the 2007 model. In addition, topography
data was overlayed on top of the 2007 model network to assist with updating the
mountainous area type codes added during the previous model/LRTP update. A complete
list of facility type and area type codes is included in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.
Table 2.3
Code
Description
Interstate
Expressway
Minor Arterial
Collector
Ramp
One-Way
90
99
Table 2.4
Code
Description
Residential
Rural
Urban Undeveloped
Mountainous
Industrial
21
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
22
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
23
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
24
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
25
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
26
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
27
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
28
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
29
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
30
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
31
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
32
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
33
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
34
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
35
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 3.1
Zone 2007
36
Description
IE
EE
800
(I-75 S)
67%
33%
801
69%
31%
802
98%
2%
803
81%
19%
804
GA SR 95
100%
0%
805
Ringgold Road
65%
35%
806
(GA SR 1, U.S. 27 S)
58%
42%
807
100%
0%
808
93%
7%
809
GA SR 193
92%
8%
810
91%
9%
811
97%
3%
812
75%
25%
813
I-59
82%
18%
814
I-24
64%
36%
815
TN SR 134
98%
2%
816
63%
37%
817
98%
2%
818
58%
42%
820
(U.S. 111)
62%
38%
821
2%
98%
822
12%
88%
823
31%
69%
825
TN SR 58
72%
28%
826
66%
34%
827
TN SR 60 Georgetown Road
23%
77%
828
100%
0%
829
(I-75 N)
71%
29%
830
94%
6%
831
McDonald Road
100%
0%
832
100%
0%
833
100%
0%
834
100%
0%
835
95%
5%
836
98%
2%
837
TN SR 2 Varnell Road
94%
6%
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
37
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
38
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
39
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
40
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Trip rates for the four auto availability categories are cross-classified by categories, as
follows:
Auto availability and children per household data were derived from the 2000 Census.
Trip production rates were developed for the following trip purposes:
41
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Trip production rates by purpose are provided in Table 4.1. Trip production rates for hotelmotel units are provided in Table 4.2. Trip attraction rates for HBW, HBSchool, HBShop,
HBSR, HBO, and NHB purposes were borrowed from the Knoxville model as these rates
were more appropriate for use in Chattanooga than the Northeast Florida Regional
Planning Model trip attraction rates used in the previous 2000 model. New trip attraction
rates for the CHCNGA model specific to Chattanooga would have required an employer
survey in addition to the household travel survey. Trip attraction rates for the light-duty
truck, medium-duty truck, and heavy-duty truck trip purposes were derived from the
FHWA Quick Response Freight Manual and did not change since the last 2000 model. Trip
attraction rates are depicted in Table 4.3. Further detail on adjustments made to trip rates
are included in the following section.
The productions and attractions output from the trip generation process are stored by zone
by trip purpose in the TAZ geography file (TAZ_2007.dbd). This same master file includes
the socioeconomic data for each model year. As a result, the number or density of
productions and attractions can be illustrated by TAZ within TransCAD or a GIS.
42
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Knoxville and Chattanooga models. The final Chattanooga 2007 model trip production and
attraction rates are listed below.
Total Employment
Agricultural/Mining/
Construction
Manufacturing/
Transportation
Retail
Service
Government
School Enrollment
Total Population
Total Households
Table 4.1
Home-Based
Work
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Home-Based
School
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.72
0.00
Home-Based
Shop
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.11
0.19
0.00
0.20
Home-Based
Social Recreation
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.06
0.12
0.00
0.12
Home-Based
Other
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.38
0.19
0.35
0.00
0.36
Nonhome-Based
1.54
0.36
0.00
0.00
3.83
0.31
0.64
0.00
0.00
Light-Truck
0.10
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.00
Medium-Truck
0.05
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
Heavy-Truck
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
Special Generators
The addition of special generators is a subjective and iterative process. Ideally, a model
should only have special generators where standard trip rate equations would not calculate
any trips (e.g., recreational areas and group quarters). However, most models also need
special generators to account for locations where trips are significantly under- or overestimated due to the unique nature of the land use (airports, colleges, universities, and
tourist attractions typically fall into this category). Volume-to-count ratios in the areas
surrounding each of these potential special generators were reviewed to determine whether
or not special generators were needed. Special generator trips are derived by manually
calculating trips using special generator trip rates and substituting the manual results for
the machine-generated results.
43
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Although the 2000 TransCAD model included special generators at the airport, the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga State College, and Chester Frost
National Park, no special generators were assumed at the beginning of 2007 model
validation effort. During the validation process, several of the special generators included
in the 2000 model were added back in to the 2007 model, as well as several new special
generators. A complete listing of special generators used in the model is provided in
Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Zone
17a
Description
UTC Dorms
18
UTC Dorms
19
UTC Dorms
48*
UTC Dorms
49
50
135
157
190
197
800
801
805
806a
818
820
822
823
827
829
As noted in Section 3.2, special generator attractions were added to some of the external
stations in an attempt to correct overassignments that were occurring in their vicinity. In
the south of the model, there was major overassignment on several north-south arteries and
the thought was that some of the trips traveling north into Chattanooga should really be
traveling towards Dalton and areas to the South. To correct that, attractions were added to
44
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
some of the external stations, such as I-75 South, to attract trips in that direction. Similarly,
the roads coming off the Cumberland Escarpment (Walden Ridge) into the Tennessee River
Valley and I-75 and SR 60 leading into the Cleveland, Tennessee area received the same
treatment with attractors being placed to pull some trips in that direction, rather than going
into Chattanooga.
Special generators are contained in the special generator input file in the format of number
of productions or attractions by trip purpose by TAZ. The special generators input file is
specific to each year and is titled, year_SPGEN.bin.
Table 4.3
Standards
Unit of Measure
2007
2000
TDOT
FHWA
2.38
2.50
n/a
n/a
9.00
9.44
8.5-10.5
8.0-14.0
3.78
3.78
n/a
3.5-4.0
1.12
0.74
n/a
n/a
0.51
0.73
n/a
n/a
Total Population
425,666
395,061
Total Households
178,905
158,055
Total Employment
218,612
287,918
Table 4.4 demonstrates the average number of trips per household by trip purpose in the
2007 model.
45
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 4.4
Trip Purpose
Home-Based Work
1.37
Home-Based School
0.55
Home-Based Shop
1.05
Home-Based Socrec.
0.64
Home-Based Other
1.87
Non Home-Based
2.75
As indicated in Table 4.5 below, HBW trips represent approximately 16.6 percent of all the
trips generated in the Chattanooga region, slightly below TDOTs target of 18 percent
(excludes commercial vehicle and external trips). Approximately 50 percent of trips in the
Chattanooga region can be attributed to HBSchool, HBShopping, HBSR, and HBO trips
purposes, within TDOTs target of 47 to 54 percent. NHB trips are slightly higher than the
desired range of 22 to 31 percent at 33 percent. Commercial vehicles represent
approximately seven percent of the trips in the 2007 model, a reduction compared to the
2000 model. It must be noted, however, that employment in the 2007 model is lower than
for the 2000 model, contributing to the reduced commercial vehicles, as demonstrated in
technical submittal #2. It should be noted that part of this low-simulation problem is a
function of the household travel survey which has shown somewhat surprising results
based on previous trip rate analyses of the survey data. The TPO intends to conduct a new
household survey when the budget is available so that a new cross classification matrix of
trip rates might be calculated.
Table 4.5
Trip Purpose
46
2007
Home-Based Work
17%
Home-Based School
7%
Home-Based Shop
13%
Home-Based Socrec.
8%
Home-Based Other
23%
Non Home-Based
Total
TDOT Target
17%
18-27%
50%
47-54%
33%
33%
21-31%
100%
100%
100%
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
47
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 5.1
Terminal Times
Terminal Times
Area Types
Residential
Rural
Urban Undeveloped
Mountainous
Industrial
10
Friction Factors
Initially, friction factors from the previous 2000 model, which were borrowed from the
earlier MINUTP model, were used as part of the validation of the 2007 model. However,
upon review of the average trip lengths, it was determined that adjustments to the friction
factors were necessary. As a result, the TPO first developed and calibrated new friction
factors to match the Chattanooga 2002 Household Travel Diary Survey data. However,
48
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
these new friction factors resulted in unsatisfactory results. Average trip lengths were
proving to be shorter than expected and overall validation results were consequently worse.
As a result, the original friction factors from the previous 2000 model were iteratively
adjusted to achieve better trip length distribution characteristics. Several iterative runs were
performed to arrive at the final friction factors used for the remainder of the model
validation runs. The final friction factors (F_FACTORS.bin) are included in the complete
model dataset that is being provided to TDOT and GDOT as part of this submittal.
K-Factors
K-Factors are sometimes used during the validation process to adjust the trip patterns
estimated or predicted by the Gravity Model. K-Factors are typically used at water
crossings and between areas with different socioeconomic characteristics, (e.g., rural verses
urban conditions). Just as was included in the previous 2000 model, K-factors were
necessary between areas north and west of the Tennessee River and areas south and east of
the Tennessee River, as well as between Georgia and Tennessee. However, unlike the
previous model, the K-factors were not directionally skewed to/from Georgia and
Tennessee. K-Factors are stored in a zone-to-zone matrix file (K_FACTORS.mtx) in
TransCAD.
Tables 5.2 and 5.3 demonstrate the number of trips between K-Factor districts for the years
2007 and 2035, respectively.
Table 5.2
North of River
South of River
in Tennessee
Georgia
External
Stations
North of River
295,216
48,598
13,033
54,204
124,147
717,149
115,740
110,646
Georgia
13,969
59,732
187,369
40,186
External Stations
12,768
12,938
9,754
34,391
District
49
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 5.3
District
North of
River
South of River
in Tennessee
Georgia
External
Stations
North of River
412,044
79,091
19,644
77,977
167,164
1,045,880
156,318
163,274
Georgia
16,718
75,241
252,564
55,793
External Stations
18,603
20,753
13,464
48,564
winding, narrow roadway with a steep grade. Other characteristics coded into the
network fail to fully address the hazards of taking this route, which was
dramatically overassigning.
Penalties are stored in a binary file titled
CHATT_TURN_PENALTY.bin.
Table 5.4
Penalties
Roadway
50
Penalty (minutes)
U.S. 27 Bridge
1.35
1.10
Dupont Parkway
0.25
2.00
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
51
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 5.5
2000
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
CTPP
(Hamilton)
CTPP
(Catoosa)
CTPP
(Walker)
FHWA
Target
Home-Based Work
18.26
16.36
21.20
23.70
26.50
11.2-35.4
Home-Based School
13.85
14.48
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.9-15.9
Home-Based Shop
12.84
13.78
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.6-18.7
Home-Based Social
Recreation
13.55
11.38
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.4-17.3
Home-Based Other
12.44
14.41
n/a
n/a
n/a
Nonhome-Based
14.18
15.44
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.1-17.1
Commercial
Vehicles
17.88
19.64
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Light-Truck
17.78
18.79
Medium-Truck
17.20
17.95
Heavy-Truck
20.75
22.17
Internal-External
37.38
41.04
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total
14.53
18.68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Purpose
52
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 5.6
Purpose
2007
2000
Home-Based Work
1.93%
7.04%
Home-Based School
6.63%
11.12%
Home-Based Shop
12.51%
9.93%
Home-Based Social
Recreation
11.98%
21.08%
Home-Based Other
12.96%
11.16%
Nonhome-Based
9.61%
8.02%
Commercial Vehicles
2.77%
3.06%
Light-Truck
2.74%
2.95%
Medium-Truck
3.46%
4.15%
Heavy-Truck
1.27%
1.19%
8.89%
9.18%
Total
53
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
54
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Time-of-Day Assignment.
55
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
from the household travel characteristics survey. The three truck purposes (LDTK, MDTK,
and HDTK) and the Internal-External (IE) trip purpose already are in vehicle trips and are
therefore not converted during mode choice.
Table 6.1
Purpose
Persons/Auto
Home-Based Work
1.12
Home-Based School
1.12
Home-Based Shop
1.48
Home-Based Social/Recreational
1.72
Home-Based Other
1.65
Nonhome-Based
1.68
Auto occupancy rates are only applied when running the General Highway Assignment
option. This model option was used to produce the validation summary statistics found in
Section 7.0 of this report.
SOVs;
The share of SOV and HOV trips were generated from the Chattanooga household travel
diary survey and are provided by trip purpose in Table 6.2 below. An iterative process was
used to adjust the factors during the last model update, as the initial run using the factors
directly from the survey were significantly overestimating the number of trips in the model.
As a result, the factors were adjusted proportionately to achieve the correct number of trips.
The same factors used in the final 2000 model were used in the current 2007 model.
56
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 6.2
Vehicle
Occupancy
HBW
HBSchool
HBShop
HBSR
HBO
NHB
SOV
80.5%
80.0%
41.0%
25.0%
28.7%
26.6%
HOV 2
14.6%
15.0%
44.3%
56.3%
53.5%
46.4%
HOV 3+
4.9%
5.0%
14.8%
18.8%
17.8%
27.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Light-Duty Truck;
Heavy-Duty Truck.
57
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
The time-of-day model is an optional step that can only be applied to the General Highway
Assignment model and is done by checking the a.m. Assignment and/or p.m. Assignment
boxes in the user interface before running the General Highway Assignment.
It should be noted that the time-of-day factors are applied after the trips are assigned and
thus, do not account for diversion in trips as a result of peak hour congestion. Therefore, it
is not a true time-of-day component. The TPO is exploring the possibility of developing a
true time-of-day model for the Chattanooga region that will be validated based on traffic
counts by time-of-day. Since time-of-day models are necessary for transit modeling, it will
likely be a combined model enhancement effort.
Table 6.3
Hour
12:00 to 1:00 a.m.
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
2.3%
7.0%
7.4%
4.7%
5.3%
6.1%
6.9%
6.8%
6.6%
8.0%
7.5%
8.7%
8.1%
5.3%
3.5%
2.6%
1.3%
0.5%
Total
Note: Percent of trips based on trips ending during time period.
58
Percent of Trips
100.0%
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
59
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Volume-to-count ratios by link group (area type, facility type, and number of lanes);
Table 7.1 includes the volume-to-count ratios by facility type, area type, and number of
lanes. Overall, the model is validating at 0.96, within acceptable limits. This also is an
improvement in the overall validation since the 2000 model with a volume-to-count ratio of
0.95. Although the validation of expressways improved in the 2007 model, the validation of
undivided principal arterials, minor arterials, and one-way facilities got worse when
compared to the 2000 model. This can be attributed to the correction in the network coding
in the 2007 model reflecting the 3rd and 4th Street one-way facilities in downtown
Chattanooga. Furthermore, additional network detail was included in some portions of the
model as a result of further TAZ splits, as well as a significant amount of more traffic counts
being provided in the 2007 model. Therefore, although the 2007 model may indicate lower
volume-to-count ratios for some facility type categories, it is likely more accurate than the
2000 model due to the additional traffic counts. In addition, no ramp counts were available
in the 2000 model and have since been added to the 2007 model validating at a 2007 volume-
60
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
to-count ratio of 0.99. Four of the six facility type categories that have targets set by TDOT
are within acceptable limits.
Although no targets have been established to date by TDOT for volume-to-count ratios by
area type, seven of the eight area type categories are validating within +/- 10 percent. In
addition, the new industrial area type category is validating at 0.90. The CBD area in
downtown Chattanooga is validating at 0.74, which has historically validated lower than
other categories in the Chattanooga model. With the exception of one-lane facilities (by
direction), the 2007 model is validating better within each lane category compared to the old
2000 model.
Table 7.1
2000
TDOT Target
1. Interstate
1.02
0.98
+/- 7%
2. Expressway
1.04
0.94
+/- 7%
0.98
0.98
+/- 10%
0.86
0.94
+/- 10%
5. Minor Arterial
0.80
0.88
+/- 15%
6. Collector
0.98
0.98
+/- 25%
7. Ramp
0.99
8. One-Way
0.49
0.71
1. CBD
0.69
0.88
2. CBD Fringe
0.97
0.92
Facility Type
n/a
n/a
Area Type
3. Residential
0.92
0.96
4. OBD
0.95
0.92
5. Rural
1.07
1.10
6. Urban Undeveloped
1.04
1.02
7. Mountainous
1.09
0.95
8. Industrial
0.90
0.88
0.93
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.95
1.03
0.92
Total
0.96
0.95
61
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
The 10 screenlines from the previous model were kept and utilized to assist in model
validation for the 2007 model. Their positions capture all the major traffic flows in the
Chattanooga Region and thus further adjustments and additions were deemed unnecessary.
A map of the screenline locations was provided in Section 2.0 (Figure 2.18). Maps of
volume-to-count ratios on each link in the model with a count are included in Appendix E.
For eight of the 10 screenlines, the volume-to-count ratios fall within the +/- 10 percent
target range of TDOT. Table 7.2 compares the volume-to-count ratio for each screenline in
the 2007 model against the old 2000 model.
Table 7.2
Screenline
2007
2000
1.00
0.97
1.01
0.94
0.88
0.97
0.99
0.91
0.82
0.90
0.93
0.99
1.10
1.09
0.91
1.06
1.06
1.02
10
1.00
1.00
Table 7.3 indicates the percent difference in model volumes and observed counts by volume
group. All volume groups within the 2007 model achieve the established TDOT targets.
62
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Table 7.3
AADT
Chattanooga 2007TransCAD
TDOT Targeta
<1,000
48.90%
+/- 60%
1,000-2,500
19.20%
+/- 47%
2,500-5,000
-2.80%
+/- 36%
5,000-10,000
-10.30%
+/- 29%
10,000-25,000
-8.90%
+/- 25%
25,000-50,000
1.50%
+/- 22%
>50,000
-5.90%
+/- 21%
The correlation coefficient of observed counts to model volumes (R2) is performing well at
0.95, exceeding TDOTs target of 0.88, as demonstrated below in Figure 7.1.
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2007AADT
As indicated in Table 7.4, the overall RMSE for the 2007 model is 34.6 percent, within
acceptable Federal limits. TDOT has established an overall RMSE target of 30 percent.
However, based on discussion with TDOT during the June 30, 2009 teleconference, it was
63
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
determined that 30 percent was just a target and was not required as Federal standards
indicate a RMSE range of 32 to 39 percent is within acceptable limits (according to the
FHWA Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual). Although the previous 2000
model indicated an overall RMSE of 23 percent, it is suspected that it was not as accurate
due to the reduced amount of traffic counts available at that time. All volume groups
within the 2007 model achieved a RMSE value close to or within Federal and/or TDOT
targets.
It should be noted that volume-over-count ratio charts relative accuracy and whether there
is a systemwide under- or over-assignment, whereas RMSE measures assignment accuracy
irrespective of whether these are generally over- or under-assignments. Achieving 0.96 in
the 2007 model instead of 0.95 in the 2000 model is indicative of higher traffic assignments
overall, which might not impact the overall percent error in a positive manner. The 0.96
overall volume/count ratio is reflective of the possibly low simulation of HBW trips,
discussed earlier. Another consideration is that several outlying lower volume roads were
added to the model near the boundary which could potentially negatively affect the 2007
RMSE results in particular.
Table 7.4
2000
TDOT Target
0-4,999
83.70%
73.10%
115.76
45-100
5,000-9,999
46.30%
33.60%
43.14
35-45
10,000-14,999
36.40%
18.10%
28.27
27-35
Count Range
15,000-19,999
25-30
21.70%
20,000-29,999
25.40%
25.38
30,000-39,999
16.90%
40,000-49,999
4.40%
15-27
15-25
12.10%
50,000-59,999
30.25
7.20%
10-20
60,000-69,999
10-19
70,000-79,999
15.50%
n/a
19.20
34.60%
23.40%
30.00%
79,999-89,999
Overall
32-39%
Table 7.5 summarizes the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by model facility type, as well as the
percent of VMT that falls within each model facility type compared to TDOT targets. With
the exception of minor arterials, all of the facility types fall within or close to TDOTs targets
64
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
for percent of VMT by facility type. In addition, the overall ratio of VMT to Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT is 1.06 (excluding external centroid
connectors). While this general VMT distribution might be off for freeways and arterials,
volume-over-count ratios show a favorable validation of these links. As a result, the only
way to better match the VMT distribution would be to worsen the volume-over-count
statistics.
Table 7.5
Facility Type
Interstate
4,228,041 (31.4%)
Expressway
1,496,818 (11.1%)
2,067,224 (15.4%)
TDOT Target
33-38%
27-33%
Principal Arterial Undivided
835,239 (6.2%)
Minor Arterial
1,384,961 (10.3%)
18-22%
Collector
1,465,718 (10.9%)
8-12%
Ramp
215,118
n/a
One-Way
16,672
n/a
External Connectors
921,730
n/a
Centroid Connectors
827,412
n/a
Total
13,458,933
65
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
66
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
The overall 2007 model is validating at an RMSE of 34.6 percent, within acceptable
Federal limits;
The correlation coefficient of observed counts to model volumes (R2) is performing well
at 0.95, exceeding TDOTs target of 0.88;
Average trip lengths increased for some trip purposes and decreased for others,
although HBW trip lengths did improve;
The percent of intrazonal trips attributed to HBW trips are now within a more
reasonable range;
Congested speeds along the interstate and other higher facilities are improved compared
to the 2000 model and observed congested speeds;
Overall, higher facilities are generally comparable to the 2000 model, however, minor
facilities got worse in the 2007 model due to additional traffic count availability and
network detail;
Overall, the 2007 model has more counts with almost 10 percent of the network having
counts. As a result, the 2007 model includes improved accuracy and reliability of the
model statistics;
Employment in the 2007 model is lower than in the 2000 model, resulting in lower
commercial trips; and
As with all models, there is always room for improvement. However, this model should
be sufficient for updating the 2030 LRTP to the year 2035.
67
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
Data Collection
In preparation for the next LRTP Update due for adoption in 2014, the TPO is planning for
multiple data collection and compilation efforts over the next two years. Below are some of
the data collection efforts planned:
68
Socioeconomic Data Once the Census 2010 population and household data is released,
likely in 2012, the TPO will use the data to develop the base year 2010 model
socioeconomic data. In the meantime, the TPO will be providing guidelines to the
counties and municipalities in the TPO region stating what socioeconomic data is
required to assist with compiling the data. Additionally, proprietary employment
datasets for the year 2010 may be evaluated for accuracy to determine the most
appropriate data source for the Chattanooga region. In addition to year 2010, the TPO
will be forecasting socioeconomic data to the horizon year for the next LRTP Update,
likely year 2040.
Traffic Counts During calendar year 2010, the TPO will be identifying and collecting
traffic counts at key locations throughout the TPO to assist with validating the 2010 base
year model as part of the next LRTP update. The traffic counts will be collected by
vehicle class and 15-minute intervals in order to validate trips at the truck level and to
include a new time-of-day component in the model.
On-Board Transit Survey As mentioned earlier, the TPO intends to conduct an onboard transit survey in order to validate a new mode choice/transit component in the
TransCAD travel demand model. The TPO will be designing the sampling plan and
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
survey instrument in the spring/summer of 2010 with the survey being conducted in the
fall of 2010.
Household Travel Diary Survey In 2002, a household travel diary survey was
conducted to determine trip generation rates, average trip lengths, auto occupancy
factors, and other characteristics used in model development and validation. Typically,
household travel diary surveys are conducted every 10 years to accurately reflect travel
characteristics of the region. Pending funding availability, the TPO intends to conduct a
new household travel diary survey in calendar year 2011. The results of the 2011 travel
diary survey will be incorporated into the new 2010 base year model for the next LRTP
update.
Updated trip generation structure based on 2011 household travel diary survey data;
New mode choice/transit component not previously included in the model to be used to
forecast transit ridership;
New time-of-day component used to disaggregate daily trips into three to four time
periods. This will improve the accuracy in calculating air quality emissions and is
typically necessary for transit models; and
Validate truck trips in addition to total trips, whereas in the past, only total trips were
validated.
69
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide
70
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
LRTP ID
I-75
Moore Rd.
SR 153
Chattanooga
Masters Rd.
Hixson Pike
Chattanooga
From
Chapman
Roadway
Jurisdiction
TIP ID
Wilcox
Amnicola Hwy.
Hideaway Ln.
To
0.2
0.5
6.3
3.4
Length
(miles)
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Type of
Project
2000
2001
2001
2002
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
Widen from 2 to 5
lanes
(4 thru lanes)
Widen from 2 to 5
lanes
(4 thru lanes)
2002
2002
2002
2002
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Construction Model
Completion Network
Regionally
Year
Full Description
Year
Exempt? Significant? Modeled?
TN07-LOC01
33041
TN01-MC011
STP-99-2
STP-98-3
21c
21d
58
96
98
111*
642210
650440
107637.02
101432
33015
DOT
PIN
STP-M-9202(52)
107*
102
TIP/STIP
ID
LRTP
ID
Hixson Pike
I-75
I-75
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Catoosa County
Catoosa County
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Ashland Terrace
Ringgold Rd.
SR 146
SR 146
Enterprise Blvd.
SR 317
Connector
(Proposed)
Shallowford Rd.
I-75
SR 8/US 127
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Roadway
Jurisdiction
Norcross Rd.
CR 40
I-75
Lakeview Dr.
Knollwood Drive
Frawley Rd.
SR 3/US 41
I-75
1.3
0.03
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.2
1.1
3.1
1.2
2.4
1.4
0.5
SR 317
To
Lindsay
SR 317
Shallowford Rd.
Hideaway Ln.
US 27
From
Length
(miles)
Full Description
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
New
Construction
Widening
New
Construct new 4-lane roadway from Enterprise
Construction
Pkwy to existing cul-de-sac
Widening
New
Interchange
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Type of
Project
2008
2008
2009
2009
No
No
No
2009
(construction
2009 (remove from
won't be
2009 network for air complete until
quality)
2010)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regionally
Exempt? Significant?
No
2009
2009
2009
Model
Network
Year
2009
(construction
2009 (remove from
won't be
2009 network for air complete until
quality)
2010)
2009
2008
2008
2003
2007
2007
2005
2005
2005
Construction
Completion
Year
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Modeled?
33020
TN01-MC007
101
108
178
170****
142***
141***
140***
139***
138***
137***
136***
135***
134***
133***
132***
131***
130***
129***
128***
126
33027
33045
TN01-MC007
94
108
88
91
33025
33043
17b
21e
e
23
33042
17a
11
10
621530
81908.2
21b
33042
In
FY '08-'11
TIP (Amended
Feb '09)
17a
15
LRTP
ID
TN
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Collegedale
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
((Hamilton
a to Co.)
Co )
Fort Oglethorpe
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Catoosa Co.
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
TN
Chattanooga/
Collegedale
(Hamilton Co.)
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
US 27/Olgiati Bridge
Street O
Street N
Street M
Street L
Street K
Street J
Street I
Street H
Street G
Street F
Street E
Street D
Street C
Street B
Street A
TN
TN
Shallowford Rd.
US 27/I-124
Three Knotch Rd.
SR 320/East Brainerd
Rd.
Enterprise
te p se Parkway
a
ay
Lakeview Dr.
SR 317/Apison Pike
SR 317/Apison Pike
Gadd Rd.
SR 151/Alabama Hwy.
Deitz Rd.
US 27
Shallowford Rd.
I-75
Enterprise Pkwy.
Termini
SR 321
I-75
To
Riverfront Pkwy.
Street N
Enterprise
Boulevard/Discovery
Dr.
Middle Street
Sindey St
Chestnut
Street D
Street D
Street D
Street D
Street F
Street D
Street F
I-24
Street A
Street A
Street A
Gunbarrel Rd.
Enterprise Parkway
Extension
I-24
Boynton Rd.
Hickory
c o y Valley
a ey Road
oad
Page Rd.
SR 321
3rd St.
Norcross Rd.
Holcomb Rd.
Gunbarrel Rd.
North of Tennessee
River Bridge
SR 146/Cloud Springs
Rd.
Manufacturer's Rd.
SR 58
Street N
Middle Street
Broad st.
W 26th st.
Chestnut
Street E
W 28th st.
Street F
Street H
W 28th st.
Broad st
Chestnut
Street E
Street A
Street C
Highway 58
Jenkins Rd.
SR 321
Riverside Drive
SR 153
US 41/Nashville St.
Jenkins Rd.
SR 8/Signal Mountain
Blvd.
Reeds Bridge
Rd./Boynton Rd.
SR 17
SR 317/Bonny Oaks
Drive
SR 317/Apison Pike
From
Road Name
TN
TN
TN
GA
TN
GA
TN
TN
GA
GA
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
State
Fort Oglethorpe
Ringgold (Catoosa
Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga/Colle
gedale
City (County)
Jurisdiction
Widening
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
New Roadway
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
New
e Alignment
g e t
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
New Roadway
(Extension)
Widening
Widening
Widening/
Realignment
Widening
Widening
New
Construction
Widening
Widening
Type of
Project
2.3
Widen from 4 to 6 lanes
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.9
1.5
0.3
0.6
06
0.7
4.0
2.1
0.6
0.2
1.7
2.1
2.7
1.1
1.3
2-lane extension
2.17
4.9
Length
(miles)
Project Description
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
Construction
Completion
Year
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
0 5
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
Model
Network
Year
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
o
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Exempt?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
es
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regionally
Significant?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
es
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Modeled?
TN
TN
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
104
106
116
107
TN
TN
TN
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
71
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
TN
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
64
Yes
TN
33
TN
TN
TN
39
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
20
18
TN
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Yes
15
GA
TN/GA
Ringgold (Catoosa
Co.)
Ringgold
Yes
LRTP
ID
In
FY '08-'11
Jurisdiction
TIP (Amended Feb
City (County)
State
'09)
Hickory Valley Rd
Central Ave.
Jenkins Rd.
Wauhatchie Pike
SR 317/Bonny Oaks
Drive
SR 151/Alabama Hwy.
SR 321 (TN)/SR 151
(GA)/Ooltewah-Ringgold
Rd.
Road Name
Standifer Gap Rd
3rd St.
Lindsay St.
SR 58
Standifer Gap
Banks Rd.
US 11
I-75
McCutcheron Rd.
SR 17
Lee Hwy.
Holcomb Rd.
From
To
Enterprise Parkway
I-24
Hampton St.
Shallowford Rd.
US 41/US 64
SR 321/OoltewahRinggold Rd.
SR 317
I-75
US 41/US 76
US 41/Nashville St.
Termini
Widening
Operational (Center
Turn Lane)
Widening &
Extension
Interchange
Reconstruction
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Type of
Project
From 1 to 2 lanes
Widening of 3rd/4th
from Lindsay St. to
Hampton St. to twoWiden from 4 to 5
lanes to include
center turn lane
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes (already four
lanes either direction
of listed termini
specifically from
Silverdale Road east
to I-75 and from
Preservation Drive
west to SR 17)
Project Description
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes with turn lanes
as needed
1.4
1.9
1.2
2.0
0.7
0.8
1.6
2.8
6.7
1.6
5.1
12.1
1.7
Length
(miles)
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
Model
Network
Year
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Exempt?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regionally
Significant?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Modeled?
East Ridge
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
38
92
81a
73
70
67
63
55
54
East Ridge
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Fort Oglethorpe
35
28b
Rossville
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
24_25
19
13b
13
LRTP
ID
TN
TN
TN
Moore Rd.
SR 58
SR 153
TN
Standifer Gap
TN
SR 153
Dodson Ave.
SR 2/Battlefield Pkwy.
Camp Jordan Pkwy.
Extension
Graysville Road
McFarland Ave.
Amnicola Hwy.
Shallowford Rd
Shallowford Rd.
Road Name
TN
TN
TN
TN
GA
TN
GA
TN
TN
TN
In
Jurisdiction
FY '08-'11
TIP (Amended Feb
'09)
City (County)
State
Chattanooga
(Hamilton Co.)
TN
SR 153
Gunbarrel
Ringgold Rd.
Champion Rd.
SR 319/Hixson Pike
Walker Rd.
Gothard Rd.
Wilcox Blvd.
E Brainard
Chickamauga Ave.
Riverport Rd.
Airport Rd
Airport Rd.
Lee St.
From
SR 312
SR 17/SR 58
Dayton Blvd.
Glass St.
Gunbarrel Rd.
I-75
Dug Road
SR 341
SR 153
Jersey Pike
N Moore Rd
SR 193
To
Hixson Pike
Termini
New Roadway
New Roadway
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
New Roadway
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
New Roadway
Type of
Project
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
New 2-lane facility
(extension)
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
New 4-lane facility
(extension)
New 2-lane facility
(extension)
Project Description
New 2-lane facility
(extension)
Widen from 2-4 lanes
from Airport Rd to
West of SR 153 at
Palmer Rd or TDOT
Bridge Replacement
Project shallowford
RD over SR 153 - 4
lanes
1.2
0.3
0.9
8.7
5.9
1.6
1.5
0.8
2.5
5.0
2.0
6.6
3.3
0.9
0.6
1.0
Length
(miles)
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
Model
Network
Year
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Exempt?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regionally
Significant?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Modeled?
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Memorandum
TO:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Effective March 1, 2008, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) Long Range
Planning Division, Systems Planning and Policy Office, implemented a Division Procedure for the
MPO model approval process. On August 20, 2008, the RPA met with its consultants along
with TDOT, GDOT, and CARTA to discuss the TransCAD modeling efforts for the CHCNGA
2035 LRTP Update. It was agreed at that time that the following four submittals would be
provided to TDOT and GDOT as part of TDOTs model approval process:
1. Outline of the model, planning assumptions to date, and model validation
worksheet template;
2. Year 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data files (TransCAD and GIS) for the TPO
region, including any maps, graphs, charts, or tables developed as part of the RPAs
internal review;
3. Populated validation worksheet upon completion of draft validated model. This
worksheet will include statistics for Trip Generation, Trip Distribution, Mode Choice
(if applicable), and Traffic Assignment. If the assumptions included in submittal #1
change as part of the validation process, they will be documented and submitted for
approval at this time; and
4. Full model documentation report and users guide, along with all TransCAD files,
after the draft LRTP has been documented.
This technical memorandum constitutes Submittal #1 defined above. Below is an outline of
modeling inputs and structure for each step of the traditional four-step modeling process.
Further details addressing each output statistic or map required as a result of the TDOT
Division Procedure are attached, both for the previous 2000 model and what is anticipated as
part of the 2007 model. The attached table also incorporates recommendations from the report
developed by the University of Tennessee, Center for Transportation Research, titled Minimum
2457 Care Drive, Suite 101
Tallahassee, FL 32308
tel 850 219 6388
Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines for State of Tennessee. This report is
also referenced in the TDOT Division Procedure.
1.0 TRIP GENERATION (includes Network data)
1.1 Network Data The base year model network is being updated from year 2000 to 2007.
1.1.1 Network Refinement - Several roads are being added to the model network to
more accurately depict travel patterns and to assist with splitting several of the
larger traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TRIMS and Roadway Characteristics (RC)
data were obtained from TDOT and GDOT, respectively, to assist with reviewing
the link characteristics (facility type and number of lanes) currently in the model
network. In addition, several windshield surveys were conducted to obtain area
type, facility type, and number of lanes data for those roads being added to the
model.
1.1.2 Traffic Counts Daily traffic counts will also be updated in the 2007 network
using available count data from TDOT, GDOT, Hamilton County and the City of
Chattanooga. Count data was not available from Catoosa, Dade, or Walker
Counties. Supplemental 24-hour count data by vehicle classification will be
collected in late September 2008 to supplement model validation efforts and
assist with evaluating existing conditions for the Congestion Management Plan
(CMP).
Transportation Projects Several lists of capacity-adding transportation projects
included in each model year are being or will be developed as part of the LRTP
update process. Each of these project lists will be provided upon completion to
TDOT and GDOT, as well as the entire Interagency Consultation Committee
(ICC). They are as follows:
Year 2007 Projects - Projects that completed construction between the years
2000 and 2007 (currently being developed)
1.2 Socioeconomic Data The Regional Planning Agency (RPA) is currently developing
the 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data for the entire TPO region. Upon completion,
Cambridge Systematics (CS) will conduct a thorough review of the data at the TAZ
level, including the development of population, household, employment, hotel-motel,
and school enrollment density maps. The TransCAD and GIS files, as well as the maps
and any tables, charts, or graphs, will be provided to TDOT and GDOT for review as
part of Submittal #2.
-2-
1.3 TAZ Refinement The RPA is taking this opportunity to refine the TAZ structure in the
current TransCAD model. Many of the TAZs are rather large in the outlying areas.
Additional network detail being added to the model will also effect the TAZ structure,
including external zones.
1.4 Travel Survey Data During the 2030 LRTP Update adopted in 2005, the Chattanooga
Household Travel Diary Survey conducted in 2002 was used to determine trip
production rates for person trips. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Quick
Response Freight Manual (QRFM) was used to supply trip production rates for the
truck trip purposes. Trip attraction rates were borrowed from the Northeast Regional
Planning Model (NERPM) in Jacksonville, FL, as local data was not available. These
same trip production and attraction rates will be used for this model update. Although
the percent split of Internal-External (IE)/External-External (EE) trips at each external
station was developed from the Chattanooga Urban Area Origin-Destination Study
conducted in 2002, it was found that the original MinUTP model had more reasonable
IE/EE splits due to how the O-D study was conducted. With the exception of new
external stations, the updated model as part of the 2035 LRTP Update will use the same
IE/EE splits from the MinUTP model. Any new external stations, which will likely be
minor roads with low traffic counts, will likely assume 100 percent IE trips.
1.5 Trip Generation Method During the 2030 LRTP Update adopted in 2005, the 2002
Chattanooga Household Travel Survey data was evaluated to determine what variables
impact travel patterns the most in the Chattanoga region. As a result, a crossclassification method based on auto availability and children per household was
implemented. This same method will be using during this update.
1.6 Trip Purposes The current TransCAD model includes the following trip purposes,
which will remain the same during this update:
1.7 Special Generators The current TransCAD model includes special generators at the
airport, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga State College, and
-3-
Chester Frost National Park. No special generators will be assumed at the beginning of
2007 model validation effort, however, it is anticipated that some special generators
may eventually be necessary.
2.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
2.1 Friction Factors - The friction factor file used in the new CHCNGA 2000 TransCAD
model is similar to the file used in the CHCNGA 2000 MINUTP model. The key
difference is the number of trip purposes. Since separate friction factors were not
available for the expanded home-based other purposes, the same home-based other
friction factors were used for home-based school, home-based shop, and home-based
social recreation trips. Gamma functions from the Quick Response Freight Manual were
used for truck purposes. These same friction factors will be assumed for the 2007
model and future years. If time permits, the friction factors may be calibrated.
2.2 Terminal Times Terminal times were used in the 2000 model and will also be used in
the 2007 model.
2.3 K-Factors K-Factors were used in the 2000 model.
To improve the
Georgia/Tennessee State Line screenline in the 2000 model, a 0.25 K-Factor was added
from zones in Georgia to zones in Tennessee. To improve the Tennessee River Crossing
screenline, a 0.25 K-Factor was added to zones from the north side of the bridges to the
rest of the model region. No K-Factors will be assumed at the beginning of the 2007
model validation process, however, they may be added if necessary.
3.0 MODE CHOICE
The current TransCAD model for Chattanooga does not include a mode choice/transit
component. Instead, it includes an auto occupancy model that converts person trips to vehicle
trips using auto occupancy factors by trip purpose derived from the 2002 Household Travel
Diary Survey conducted in the Chattanooga region.
Dependent upon available data, the RPA was considering adding a mode choice/transit
pathbuilding component to the TransCAD model as part of the 2035 LRTP Update. However,
since the August 20, 2008 modeling workshop referenced above, it was determined that there is
not enough data currently available to validate a mode choice/transit pathbuilding model. As a
result, the RPA, in coordination with CARTA, is considering conducting an on-board transit
survey in the Spring of 2009 with the intention of building a mode choice model in the Summer
and Fall of 2009. However, it will not be included as part of the 2035 LRTP Update. Therefore,
the current auto occupancy model will remain in place for the 2035 LRTP Update.
4.0 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
4.1 Time-of-Day Currently, the Chattanooga model does not include a true time-of-day
component. Instead, peak hour factors based on the temporal distribution from the
2002 Household Travel Diary Survey are applied to the daily volumes after the
assignment process to achieve AM and PM peak hour volumes. There is the potential
-4-
for adding a true time-of-day component to the Chattanooga 2007 model, but not in
time for the 2035 LRTP Update.
NEXT STEPS
Below is a list of the next information to be provided to TDOT and GDOT for review and
approval upon completion:
List and corresponding map of capacity-adding transportation projects added to the 2000
model to update to 2007
As noted earlier, once the modeling efforts and draft LRTP document have been completed, full
model documentation, including a users guide and all model files, will be provided to TDOT
and GDOT.
As discussed during the modeling workshop held on August 20, 2008, please provide any
comments back to the RPA within 10 days, if not sooner. We thank you in advance for
understanding our time constraints and look forward to coordinating with you throughout the
development of our model and LRTP. If you have any questions about the model, please do not
hesitate to contact Melissa Taylor at the RPA via email at taylor_melissa@mail.chattanooga.gov
or phone at (423) 757-0077.
Attachments:
Table of TDOT Validation Requirements
Empty Validation Worksheet
-5-
Attachment #1
Type of
Submittal
Source of
Requirement
PDF Maps
Validation
Worksheet
TDOT*
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
2000 Model
2007 Model
TDOT*
Will need to
modify TAZ
structure to
account for new
minor roads
added that may
represent external
stations; if so, will
assume 100% IE
split.
TDOT*
QRFM used for truck trip production rates; NERPM for attraction rates
U Tenn**
Files
TDOT*
Excel Table
TDOT*
Text
TDOT*
Determine during
validation
TDOT*
same
TDOT*
same
Text
TDOT*
The MINUTP splits were used as a starting point and were later
modified during the validation process.
The percent IE trips were applied to the 2000 AADT to calculate the
total number of IE trips at each external zone for the TAZ geography
file. The EETRIPS input matrix file is generally the residual left after
estimating IE trips in the TAZ geography file. The percentage of EE
trips was applied to the AADT per external zone and then distributed
from each origin zone to each destination zone using distribution
patterns from the old MINUTP 2000 model EETRIPS file. For external
zones added to the TransCAD model, and not in the MINUTP model,
it was assumed that 100 percent of these trips were EE trips since
these were low volume roadways.
Adding new
external stations;
For external
zones added to
the TransCAD
model, assume
that 100 percent
of these trips are
EE trips since
these were low
volume roadways.
Text
TDOT*
Person trips
Text
TDOT*
Files
Validation
Worksheet
Validation
Worksheet
Validation
Worksheet (add
charts)
Map
TDOT*
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
TDOT*
TDOT*
U Tenn**
U Tenn**
same
Determine during
Yes; Airport, UTC, Chatt State College, Chester Frost National Park
validation
Type of
Submittal
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
TDOT*
TDOT*
TDOT*
TDOT*
2000 Model
Yes. The friction factor file used in the new CHCNGA 2000
TransCAD model is similar to the
file used in the CHCNGA 2000 MINUTP model. The key difference is
the number of trip
purposes. Since separate friction factors were not available for the
expanded home-based
other purposes, the same home-based other friction factors are used
for home-based
school, home-based shop, and home-based social recreation trips.
Also, as discussed,
gamma functions from the Quick Response Freight Manual were
used for truck purposes.
2007 Model
same
Yes
same
Yes; To improve the Georgia/Tennessee State Line screenline in the
CHCNGA 2000 TransCAD model, a 0.25 K-Factor was added from
zones in Georgia to
zones in Tennessee. To improve the Tennessee River Crossing
screenline, a 0.25 K-Factor was added to zones from the north side of Determine during
the bridges to the rest of the model region.
validation
Text (n/a)
TDOT*
n/a
n/a
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
TDOT*
same
Text (n/a)
TDOT*
n/a
n/a
Files
Validation
Worksheet
Validation
Worksheet
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
TDOT*
TDOT*
No
same
TDOT*
same
Source of
Requirement
Table
Validation
Worksheet
Validation
Worksheet (add)
Validation
Worksheet
Validation
Worksheet (add
chart)
Validation
Worksheet (add)
Validation
Worksheet
Validation
Worksheet (add)
Files
PDF of Final
Report
TDOT*
TDOT*
TDOT*
U Tenn**
U Tenn**
U Tenn**
U Tenn**
U Tenn**
U Tenn**
TDOT*
TDOT*
TDOT*
TDOT*
Attachment #2
Commercial Vehicles
Light-Truck
Medium-Truck
Heavy-Truck
Internal-External
External-External
SOV
HOV
Light-Truck
Heavy-Truck
TOTAL
% by Productions
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
*2 FHWA Target
Unit of Measure
Year
2007
2000
2000
#DIV/0!
0.00
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
0
0
0
n/a
8.00 to 10.00
Person Trip/HH
0.00
9.44
7.44
8.50 to 10.50
2.50
9.44
3.78
5.18
0.73
395,061
158,055
287,918
2007
2000
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0
#DIV/0!
0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0
#DIV/0!
0
0
0
0
0
0
Productions
Home-Based Work
Home-Based School
Home-Based Shop
Home-Based Socrec.
Home-Based Other
Non Home-Based
Purpose
2007
Chattanooga 2007 (TransCAD)
Trip Generation
TEMPLATE
9/18/2008
Run#
DATE:
Description:
Productions % by Productions
212,113
12.72%
85,068
5.10%
159,420
9.56%
92,919
5.57%
289,013
17.33%
434,513
26.06%
2000
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Memphis
2.65
8.20
3.09
6.41
0.51
761,346
310,412
457,796
2004
2000
Montgomery*5
2.68
8.64
3.23
4.91
0.66
1,181,701
416,830
604,578
163,330
9.80%
120,286
73.65%
31,580
19.34%
11,464
7.02%
0
230,906
13.85%
30,025
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,667,282
100.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nashville
2.56
8.59
3.36
4.86
0.69
1,206,665
471,298
833,862
2002
Attractions
Unbalanced
2004
2000
Knoxville
2.45
8.40
3.43
5.70
0.60
299,180
111,793
196,799
2000
Savannah
2.53
7.66
3.03
5.54
0.55
232,011
91,834
127,000
2001
TDOT
Target*1
n/a
8.5-10.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
13.00%
3.00%
Memphis
Montgomery
25.15%
16.00%
11.02%
7.17%
39.00%
7.67%
28.10%
18.00%
20.89%
11.00%
8.82%
26.42%
8.79%
39.18%
Nashville
16.79%
2004
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
2.0-2.7
8.0-10.0
3.3-4.0
n/a
n/a
22-31%
47-54%
TDOT
Target *1
18-27%
FHWA
Target*3
n/a
8.0-14.0
3.5-4.0
n/a
n/a
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
12-24%
5-8%
10-20%
9-12%
14-28%
20-33% *4
FHWA
Target *3
= Statistics in green-colored cells will be updated when 2007 validated model is ready.
Home-Based Work
Home-Based School
Home-Based Shop
Home-Based Socrec.
Home-Based Other
Non Home-Based
Commercial Vehicles
Light-Truck
Medium-Truck
Heavy-Truck
TOTAL
Purpose
Intrazonal Travel
Home-Based Work
Home-Based School
Home-Based Shop
Home-Based Socrec.
Home-Based Other
Non Home-Based
Commercial Vehicles
Light-Truck
Medium-Truck
Heavy-Truck
Internal-External
TOTAL
Purpose
2000
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
16.36
14.48
13.78
11.38
14.41
15.44
19.64
18.79
17.95
22.17
41.04
18.68
23.70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2000
CTPP
(Catoosa)
21.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2000
CTPP
(Hamilton)
n/a
n/a
26.50
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2000
CTPP
(Walker)
2000
6
14.37
TDOT
Target*1
8.50
Nashville Knoxville *
19.26
12.05
n/a
6.82
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.48
7.98
12.36
7.14
2002
2007
2000
Chattanooga 2007 (TransCAD)
Chattanooga 2000 (TransCAD)
Two-Digit
Two-Digit
Intrazonal
Intrazonal
Total Trips
Trips
% Intrazonal Total Trips
Trips
% Intrazonal
0
#DIV/0!
14,931
7.04%
0
212,113
0
#DIV/0!
9,459
11.12%
85,068
0
0
#DIV/0!
15,828
9.93%
0
159,420
0
#DIV/0!
19,585
21.08%
92,919
0
0
#DIV/0!
32,266
11.16%
0
289,013
0
#DIV/0!
34,853
8.02%
0
434,513
0
#DIV/0!
4,995
3.06%
163,330
0
0
#DIV/0! 120,286
3,550
2.95%
0
0
#DIV/0! 31,580
1,309
4.15%
0
0
#DIV/0! 11,464
136
1.19%
0
0
#DIV/0!
131,917
9.18%
0
1,436,376
2007
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Trip Distribution
2000
2001
7
3-5%
1-4%
10-12%
3-9%
4-10%
3-7%
5-9%
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
14.36
FHWA
Target*3
27.80
19.80
19.95
16.58
2004
TDOT
Target*1
26-58
n/a
12-35
n/a
9-19
11-19
8-20
6-19
n/a
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
n/a
n/a
8.1-17.1
n/a
10.4-17.3
11.2-35.4
8.9-15.9
8.6-18.7
FHWA
Target*3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CBD
CBD Fringe
Residential
OBD
Rural
Urban Undeveloped
Mountainous
1
2
3
4
5
Interstate
Expressway
Principal Arterial Divided
Principal Arterial Undivided
Minor Arterial
Collector
Ramp
One-Way
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
21%
11
5-20% *
21%
22%
25%
60%
47%
36%
29%
0.00%
>50,000
15-25% *
10
10
20-30% *
22%
25%
0.00%
0.00%
25,000 - 50,000
25-50%
60%
47%
36%
29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
<1,000
1,000 - 2,500
2,500 - 5,000
5,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 25,000
-4.7
0.95
FHWA
3
Target *
-11.8
-8.2
-4.0
-8.4
9.7
1.9
-5.0
-6.8
-1.6
-5.3
-7.8
-29.1
-1.6
-5.6
-2.1
-6.1
-12
-2.2
0.88
0.92
0.96
0.92
1.10
1.02
0.95
0.93
0.98
0.95
0.92
0.71
0.98
0.94
0.98
0.94
0.88
0.98
+/- 7%
+/- 7%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 15%
+/- 25%
n/a
n/a
Guidelines *2
+/- 7%
+/- 7%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 15%
+/- 25%
n/a
n/a
Target *3
FHWA
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 5%
+/- 0%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
New FDOT
New
FDOT
2 8
Guidelines * *
TDOT
Accuracy
1
Level *
TDOT
2000
Volumes Over % Difference
Counts
Accuracy Level *1
0.97
0.94
0.97
0.91
0.90
0.99
1.09
1.06
1.02
1.00
2000
Vol/Count Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Chattanooga 2007
Volumes Over % Difference
Counts
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chattanooga 2007
Total Count
Vol/Count Ratio
Percent Difference for Daily Volumes (calculated for Links with Counts)
TDOT
Chattanooga 2007
New FDOT
1 9
2
AADT
TransCAD
Target * *
Guidelines *
Total
Number
of Lanes
By Direction
Area Type
Facility Type
Total Volume
Screenline
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
FHWA
3
Target *
TransCAD
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Nashville (TransCAD)
Memphis (TransCAD)
Knoxville (TransCAD)
Montgomery (Tranplan)
Savannah (TP+)
TDOT Target *1
New FDOT Guildelines *2
FHWA Target *3 (same as FDOT)
Region
0-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-29,999
30,000-39,999
40,000-49,999
50,000-59,999
60,000-69,999
70,000-79,999
79,999-89,999
Overall
Count Range
23.40%
0.00%
VMT
30.00
19.20
30.25
25.38
TDOT
Target*1
115.76
43.14
28.27
HPMS*12
32-39
10-19
10-20
15-25
45-100
35-45
27-35
25-30
15-27
New FDOT
Guidelines &
Standards*2
2007
0
0
2004
31,796,875
33,316,412
2004
26,881,550
26,980,700
2000
24,159,507
n/a
2000
8,296,866
n/a
2001
5,697,423
5,743,828
+/- 5% difference b/w model and estimate
Year
n/a
21.70%
16.90%
4.40%
7.20%
73.10%
33.60%
18.10%
Chattanooga
2000
TransCAD
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
VMT / Person
0
26.4
24.4
31.7
28.0
24.6
10-16 for small urban area /
17-24 for large urban area
VMT / HH
0
67.5
64.5
77.8
74.2
62.0
30-40 for small urban area /
40-60 for large urban area
FHWA
Target*3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Interstate
Expressway
Principal Arterial Divided
Principal Arterial Undivided
Minor Arterial
Collector
Ramp
One-Way
VMT
Chattanooga 2007
HPMS
% Difference
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0.0%
TDOT Target *1
New FDOT Guildelines *2
FHWA Target *3
(all the same) *13
33-38%
33-38%
27-33%
27-33%
18-22%
8-12%
n/a
n/a
* 13 Targets for medium urban are size (200k - 1M) was chosen for Chattanooga Region.
* 11 Summarized from 10-20% for AADT 50,000 - 65,000, 5-15% for AADT 65,000-75,000, and 5-10% for AADT 75,000+ (FDOT).
* 12 HPMS stands for Highway Performance Monitoring System.
* 10 Summarized from 20-30% for AADT 10,000 - 30,000 and 15-25% for AADT 30,000-50,000 (FDOT)
FHWA and MDOT targets were switched in Table 3 of TDOT guidelines (page 12), thus the original source of FHWA Checking Manual (* 3 ) was referred for confirmation.
* 8 FDOT recommends +/- 5% target for screenlines with greather than 70,000 AADT.
* 9 TDOT guidelines (* 1 ) suggest FHWA target should be selected where both of FHWA and Michigan DOT criteria are available (TDOT guidelines, page15).
* 7 Average Trip Length for Internal-External for Savannah was obtained by averaging 18.4 (IE Truck) and 21.5 (IE Passenger Cars).
* 5 Only vehicle trips available from Montgomery Area MPO (2005) Montgomery Study Area 2030 LRTP.
* 6 Average Trip Length for NHB for Knoxvile was obtained by averaging 7.88(NHB Work) and 6.40 (NHB Others).
* 4 NHB includes combined purposes for NHB Work and NHB Nonwork, where appropriate.
* 2 FSUTMS-Cube Framework Phase II: Model Calibration and Validation Standards Final Report, June 2008
* 3 FHWA Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual
Footnotes
* 1 UTCTR, Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines For State of Tennessee
General Comments/Conclusions:
Facility Type
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Memorandum
TO:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
July 8, 2009
RE:
Model Certification Submittal #2: Draft 2007 & 2035 Socioeconomic Data
Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia 2035 LRTP Update
Effective March 1, 2008, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) Long Range
Planning Division, Systems Planning and Policy Office, implemented a Division Procedure for the
MPO model approval process. On August 20, 2008, the RPA met with its consultants along
with TDOT, GDOT, and CARTA to discuss the TransCAD modeling efforts for the CHCNGA
2035 LRTP Update. It was agreed at that time that the following four submittals would be
provided to TDOT and GDOT as part of TDOTs model approval process:
1. Outline of the model, planning assumptions to date, and model validation
worksheet template;
2. Year 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data files (TransCAD and GIS) for the TPO
region, including any maps, graphs, charts, or tables developed as part of the
RPAs internal review;
3. Populated validation worksheet upon completion of draft validated model. This
worksheet will include statistics for Trip Generation, Trip Distribution, Mode Choice
(if applicable), and Traffic Assignment. If the assumptions included in submittal #1
change as part of the validation process, they will be documented and submitted for
approval at this time; and
4. Full model documentation report and users guide, along with all TransCAD files,
after the draft LRTP has been documented.
This technical memorandum constitutes Submittal #2 defined above. Submittal #1 was
submitted and approved by TDOT in September 2008. Subsequently, Regional Planning
Agency (RPA) staff and its consultant, Cambridge Systematics, held a teleconference with
GDOT and TDOT on June 30, 2009 to discuss the draft socioeconomic data and validation
statistics, as outlined in this submittal. Below is a summary of each socioeconomic variable by
2457 Care Drive, Suite 101
Tallahassee, FL 32308
tel 850 219 6388
County for each base and horizon year, both from the previous 2030 LRTP Update in
comparison to the current 2035 LRTP Update. RPA staff created the socioeconomic data, while
its consultant reviewed the socioeconomic data above and beyond the RPAs internal review.
In addition, several traffic analysis zone (TAZ) splits were made within the TransCAD travel
demand model and are documented below.
1.0 TAZ SPLITS
As part of the previous 2030 LRTP Update, the RPA converted the old MinuTP model to
TransCAD and refined the TAZ structure significantly resulting in 445 total TAZs for the entire
model region. After the 2030 LRTP was adopted, the RPA added more TAZs to Catoosa
County as the remaining sliver of Catoosa County not in the previous model was added for the
purpose of calculating emissions for air quality conformity. This addition resulted in a total of
450 TAZs for the entire model region. As part of this current 2035 LRTP Update, the RPA has
further refined the TAZ structure by splitting internal zones mostly in the outlying regions of
the model and within the downtown area of Chattanooga. Previously, the Enterprise South
Industrial Park (ESIP) area was included within one TAZ. As part of this update, the ESIP TAZ
has been split into eight TAZs based on the ESIP future site plan. In addition to splitting several
internal zones, eight more external zones were added to the current model, as indicated in Table
1 below. All of these TAZ splits have resulted in a current total of 628 TAZs (590 internal + 38
external) in the entire model region, an increase of 178 TAZs, or 40 percent more zones. Maps
illustrating the TAZ splits are attached.
Table 1. Number of TAZs in TransCAD Model
2030 LRTP
Model
Internal TAZs
External TAZs
Total TAZs
415
30
445
Expanded
Catoosa
Model
420
30
450
2035 LRTP
Model
590
38
628
The following criteria were used to determine if a TAZ should be split, when feasible:
The following guidelines were used to split the TAZ boundaries, when feasible:
-2-
Railroads;
-3-
Employment Includes total number of employees and number of employees for each
of the five employment categories:
o
Agricultural/mining/construction;
Manufacturing/transportation;
Retail;
Service; and
Government.
School Enrollment Includes number of grade school students at the location of the
school, number of university students at the location of the university, and total school
enrollment (grade school students plus university students). University student
enrollment includes community, technical, or vocational colleges and universities.
Methodology
The RPA collected the number of building permits issued between 2000 and 2007 for each of the
four counties, geocoded their locations, and added the new building permits to the 2000
households by TAZ to achieve 2007 households. Population for the year 2007 was calculated by
applying the persons per household ratio in each of the year 2000 zones to the total number of
households in 2007. If a zone was split, the persons per household ratio from the parent zone in
the year 2000 was applied for each split zone. However, subsequent logic checks determined
that some manual adjustments were necessary in Dade and Hamilton Counties to reflect more
reasonable persons per household ratios and thus, the overall persons per household ratio for
the entire county were applied to those specific zones. The proportion of the total population
attributable to school-age children was calculated using 2007 American Community Survey
(ACS) data for each of the four counties, with the exception of Dade County, which utilized the
same school-aged children factor in Walker County as ACS data was not available for Dade
County. Building permit data for Hamilton County were acquired from the municipal building
permit files, whereas building permit data for Catoosa and Walker Counties were acquired
from The Market Edge, an information reporting service. Since building permits are not
-4-
required in Dade County, electrical inspection records were acquired from the County as proxy
for building permits.
As part of the current 2035 LRTP Update, the RPA evaluated a number of sources for
employment data as there were significant discrepancies in the employment control totals
between the different data sources within the region. After careful review, it was determined
that year 2007 ES202 employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) be used.
Previously, as part of the 2030 LRTP Update, RPA staff utilized the employment control totals
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) while using Dun & Bradstreet point data to
distribute the BEA employment by TAZ. This previous method was used due to some of the
suspect employment numbers in the Dun & Bradstreet data. Since then, it has been determined
that the ES202 employment data is more comparable to other data sources and the BEA control
totals for the year 2000 may have been overestimated. As a result, when comparing the 2000
employment to the 2007 employment, there is a significant decrease in employment from the
year 2000 to 2007. However, as mentioned above, it is likely that the 2000 employment was
erroneous.
School enrollment data were collected from local school boards, the phone book, internet, and
applying local knowledge.
The number of hotel-motel units were collected from the Visitors Bureau, in-house Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) file, a field survey, as well as the phone book and the internet.
Observations
As indicated in Table 2, between the years 2007 and 2035, the Chattanooga region is expected to
grow by approximately 39 percent in population and employment. Since the number of schoolage children is decreasing in the region, school enrollment is only expected to increase by 16
percent. Although employment decreased from the year 2000 to 2007, as discussed earlier,
employment does increase by 39 percent from the year 2007 to 2035, consistent with household
and population forecasts. Figure 2 compares the regional summary of each socioeconomic
variable between the years 2007 and 2035. As expected, all variables increase from the year 2007
and 2035.
Table 2. Regional Summary of Socioeconomic Data for 2035 LRTP Update
Variable
Households
Population
Employment
Hotel-Motel Units
School Enrollment
College Enrollment
-5-
2007
179,079
427,223
218,430
9,693
69,102
24,459
Total Region
2035
% Growth
252,087
41%
594,203
39%
303,220
39%
11,729
21%
80,353
16%
29,520
21%
600,000
500,000
427,223
400,000
2007
303,220
300,000
2035
252,087
218,430
200,000
179,079
80,353
100,000
69,102
24,459
9,693 11,729
29,520
0
Households
Population
Employment
Hotel-Motel Units
School
Enrollment
College
Enrollment
3.0 HOUSEHOLDS
Table 3 below compares the number of households between the previous 2030 LRTP (years 2000
and 2030) and the current 2035 LRTP Update (years 2007 and 2035). With the exception of the
Georgia counties in the year 2030, the households increase for each year. Growth in Georgia is
expected to slow down between the years 2007 and 2035 and it is expected that 2030 households
in Georgia were overestimated during the previous LRTP update.
Table 3. Comparison of Households Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
County
Households
2000
2007
2030*
2035
Hamilton 124,447 141,229 157,459 200,748
Dade
760
839
1,190
931
Walker
12,528
12,882
16,649
15,272
Catoosa
20,320
24,129
43,919
35,136
GA Total
33,608
37,850
61,758
51,339
Region
158,055 179,079 219,217 252,087
* 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of
Catoosa County
-6-
Households by County
250,000
200,748
200,000
157,459
150,000
141,229
124,447
100,000
50,000
16,649
15,272
12,528 12,882
1,190
760 839
931
43,919
35,136
24,129
20,320
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
2000
2007
2030*
2035
4.0 POPULATION
As indicated in Table 4, population in Hamilton County increases each year, regardless of
which LRTP update. However, Dade County population decreased from the year 2000 to 2007,
even though the number of households increased. This is as a result of adjusting the number of
persons per household ratio to more accurately reflect existing conditions in Dade County,
which are more consistent with the other counties in the TPO region. In addition, it is suspected
that the year 2030 population in the Georgia counties was overestimated during the previous
2030 LRTP as growth is expected to slow down in Georgia.
Table 4. Comparison of Population Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
County
Population
2000
2007
2030*
2035
Hamilton 307,897 330,173 362,330 465,215
Dade
2,460
2,140
3,837
2,354
Walker
31,749
32,666
42,085
38,576
Catoosa
52,955
62,244 114,556
88,058
GA Total
87,164
97,050 160,478 128,988
Region
395,061 427,223 522,808 594,203
* 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of
Catoosa County
-7-
Population by County
500,000
465,215
450,000
400,000
350,000
362,330
330,173
307,897
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
2,460
50,000
42,085
32,666
38,576
31,749
3,837
2,140
114,556
88,058
62,244
52,955
2,354
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
2000
2007
2030*
2035
5.0 EMPLOYMENT
As mentioned earlier, the source of the employment data has changed since the previous LRTP
and thus, there is a significant reduction in employees from the year 2000 to 2007 due to
suspected overestimation in the year 2000. Year 2007 employment data was based on ES202
records from the BLS and was supplemented by records from the Chamber of Commerce,
schools, motel in-house records, and job announcements from the newspaper. Year 2000 data
was compiled from the Dun & Bradstreet database and was factored up to BEA employment
control totals. BEA derived the employment data in part from the BLS data which accounts for
about 80 percent of its employment data. The difference between the BEA data and the BLS
data is attributed to BLS only reporting employment covered by the State UI and UCFE
programs while BEA also estimates employment for farms, part-time employees, private
households, schools, religious organizations, railroads, military, and international
organizations. Since BEA data did not include addresses and the 2000 approach would
exacerbate errors from mis-geocoding and misreporting, the RPA decided to geocode the BLS
data and supplement it with the additional sources mentioned above for 2007 employment.
Table 5 compares the new 2007 and 2035 employment control totals to the old 2000 and 2030
employment control totals. Due to the change in data sources, there are significant differences
between LRTP datasets. However, it is suspected that the new 2007 employment estimates and
2035 forecasts are more accurate.
-8-
Employment
2000
2007
2030*
2035
Hamilton 240,320 194,795 308,469 274,622
Dade
331
108
516
195
Walker
21,465
8,243
27,904
8,363
Catoosa
26,302
15,284
56,598
20,040
GA Total
48,098
23,635
85,018
28,598
Region
288,418 218,430 393,487 303,220
* 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of
Catoosa County
Employment by County
350,000
308,469
300,000
250,000
200,000
274,622
240,320
194,795
150,000
100,000
56,598
50,000
27,904
21,465
8,363
8,243
26,302
15,284
20,040
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
Catoosa
County
2000
2007
2030*
2035
-9-
expected to slow down by the year 2035, as the RPA is uncertain of future growth in Catoosa
County.
Table 6. Comparison of Hotel-Motel Units Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
County
Hotel-Motel Units
2000
2007
2030*
2035
Hamilton
4,105
8,885
6,851
10,876
Dade
0
0
0
0
Walker
18
200
37
233
Catoosa
570
608
1,073
620
GA Total
588
808
1,110
853
Region
4,693
9,693
7,961
11,729
* 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of
Catoosa County
Figure 6. Comparison of Hotel-Motel Units Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
10,000
8,885
8,000
6,851
6,000
4,105
4,000
2,000
0
18
200
37
233
570 608
1,073
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
County
2000
- 10
2007
2030*
2035
Catoosa
620
School Enrollment
2000
2007
2030*
2035
Hamilton
51,570
50,835
54,092
58,715
Dade
0
0
0
0
Walker
3,931
7,042
5,111
7,522
Catoosa
7,083
11,225
14,770
14,116
GA Total
11,014
18,267
19,881
21,638
Region
62,584
69,102
73,973
80,353
* 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of
Catoosa County
Figure 7. Comparison of School Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
58,715
51,570
54,092
50,835
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
14,770
10,000
7,042
3,931
0
7,522
5,111
11,225
7,083
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
County
2000
- 11
2007
2030*
2035
Catoosa
14,116
College Enrollment
2000
2007
2030*
2035
Hamilton
18,780
23,082
25,059
27,932
Dade
0
1,350
0
1,553
Walker
0
0
0
0
Catoosa
0
27
0
35
GA Total
0
1,377
0
1,588
Region
18,780
24,459
25,059
29,520
* 2030 expanded after 2030 LRTP Update to include all of
Catoosa County
Figure 8. Comparison of College Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
27,932
25,059
25,000
20,000
23,082
18,780
15,000
10,000
5,000
1,553
1,350
0
27
0
Hamilton
Dade
Walker
County
2000
- 12
2007
2030*
2035
Catoosa
35
NEXT STEPS
Below is a list of the next information to be provided to TDOT and GDOT for review and
approval upon completion:
As noted earlier, once the modeling efforts and draft LRTP document have been completed, full
model documentation, including a users guide and all model files, will be provided to TDOT
and GDOT.
As discussed during the modeling workshop held on August 20, 2008, please provide any
comments back to the RPA within 10 days, if not sooner. We thank you in advance for
understanding our time constraints and look forward to coordinating with you throughout the
development of our model and LRTP. If you have any questions about the model, please do not
hesitate to contact Melissa Taylor at the RPA via email at taylor_melissa@mail.chattanooga.gov
or phone at (423) 757-0077.
Attachments:
Year 2007 and 2035 Density Maps by Variable
Map of TAZ splits
TAZ boundary shapefile with 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data
- 13
512
511
513
Dade
514
510
352
350
509
351
221
515
354
353
507
508
220
222
516
8
Miles
External Zones
639
398
397
733
725
399
58
209
210
211
59
732
63
206
229
250
259
208
207
232
230
228
252
60
374
737
380
258
204
643
234
65
231
233
188
187
186
255
649
132
191
181
192
198
183 180
182
200
240
241
646
114
179
194
633
632
193
199
178
271
676
627
629
625
163
626
196
268
506
Walker
736
807
408
735
406
405
404
391
389
505
392
390
387 388
393
727
379
423
420
453
747
456
746
454
426
430
429
428 427
422
421
378
377
376
805
457
748
455
452
431
432
425
424
749
459
745
504
768
482
751
450
484
458
750
451
444
740
443
439
440
441
442
738
433
434
752
460
753
503
485
483
481
449
744
486
467
757
462
502
291
290
303
758
474
469
703
473
472
285
305
501
761
762
767
763
765
477
764
712
716
713
475
476
714
307
715
308
693
686
722
520
691
718
288
687
312
683
310
478
306
719
293
694
309
760
470
479
708
709
294
292
696
289
690
723
682
284
688
679
519
695
300
299
280
689
295
697
701
471
468
304
707
704
680
673
698
297
684
Catoosa
756
466
465
759
153
706
302
301
702
296
700
699
705
275
279
668
669
270
681
298
177
269
741
621
623
622
172
436
464
480
754
463
742
755
437
446
448
447
461
743
445
438
435
739
274
161
628
670
278
672
276
671
272
273
666
674
624
634
630
667
197
267
665
265
257
675
195
663
266
664
264
251
243
644
655
249
242
609
645
263
656
184
631
201
239
648
202
238
647
245
244
262
253
Hamilton
261
189
203
237
650
651
246
190
236
247
205
66
260
653
652
235
642
654
248
375
728 729
386
403
394
385
382
381
402
407
395
731
734
373
372
401
383
726
384
396
730
371
219
217
214
62
636
227 635
641
212
640
658
659
660
657
254
661
256
662
819
517
277
678
677
175
131
113
166
133 173 174
54 53
61
185
115 116
57 55 40
165 162
52
603 604
769
724
176 167
31125
134
619
605
51
171
130
117
159 164
1601 17 50
606
170
160
607
112
26
168
8 48 49 69 608
129
602
111
47 70
68 67
56
36 29 16
158 157
110
611
71
135
34
118
73
128
38 37
136
169
109
617
64
33 32 31
72
119
613
108 107
74
155
127
85 84 81
138
156
144
615 612
120
75
78
614
104
616
35
105
618
121 126
86 83 82
139
76
103 106 122
143
125 137
80 79
154
140
101 90
151
123
77
141 142
152
87
100 102
89
124
610
98
91
145 94
147
150
88
148 149
620
99
619
9
93 95
96
218
92
146
30
213
226
225
224
223
216
215
638
370
637
Chattanooga MPO
Counties
Split Taz
Original TAZ
518
822
711
717
286
282
834
525
521
527
522
826
Georgia
Tennessee
Chattanooga MPO
500
528
833
529
526
523
692
685
832
766
710
524
287
283
281
721
720
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Memorandum
TO:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Outline of the model, planning assumptions to date, and model validation worksheet
template;
Year 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data files (TransCAD and GIS) for the TPO region,
including any maps, graphs, charts, or tables developed as part of the RPAs internal
review;
Populated validation worksheet upon completion of draft validated model. This worksheet
will include statistics for Trip Generation, Trip Distribution, Mode Choice (if applicable),
and Traffic Assignment. If the assumptions included in submittal #1 change as part of the
validation process, they will be documented and submitted for approval at this time; and
Full model documentation report and users guide, along with all TransCAD files, after the
draft LRTP has been documented.
w w w. c ams ys. c om
Agency (RPA) staff and its consultant, Cambridge Systematics, held a teleconference with
GDOT and TDOT on June 30, 2009 to discuss the draft socioeconomic data and preliminary
validation statistics, as outlined in this submittal. Submittal #2, which included the 2007 and
2035 socioeconomic data, was submitted to TDOT, GDOT, and the ICC in July 2009 and
approved during the ICC meeting on August 6, 2009. Preliminary validation statistics were
provided to the Interagency Consultation Committee (ICC) for review in advance of the
September 3, 2009 ICC meeting. In addition, this technical memorandum will be discussed at
the October 1, 2009 ICC meeting.
As part of this submittal #3, below is a summary of the year 2007 model network, 2007 model
validation, statistics and observations for each step of the modeling process, a comparison of
model congested speeds to observed speeds, and next steps. In addition, a bullet list summary
of the model validation results and observations is provided at the end of this technical
memorandum. Overall, the 2007 model is performing within acceptable limits with an overall
volume-to-count ratio of 0.96 and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 34.6 percent.
1.0
In order to update the year 2000 model network to the year 2007, a list of capacity-adding
transportation improvements completed between the years 2001 and 2007 was developed and
distributed to the ICC for review and approval. Maps of these projects and the corresponding
list are included in Appendix A. These projects were coded on top of the previously validated
2000 model network to reflect 2007 transportation network conditions.
Maps of the 2007 model network by area type, facility type, and number of lanes also are
included in Appendix B. As part of the 2007 model update, a new area type code representing
industrial land uses were added to the model. This new area type provided the ability to
reduce speeds in areas serving industrial facilities. The TPO conducted a windshield survey in
2008, during which time areas representing industrial land uses were noted and revised
accordingly in the 2007 model. In addition, topography data was overlayed on top of the 2007
model network to assist with updating the mountainous area type codes added during the
previous model/LRTP update.
As part of the 2007 model update and Congestion Management Plan Update, the TPO identified
locations along CMP routes and in the 2007 model where additional counts were needed. The
TPO collected these supplemental counts in 2008 to assist with validation. As a result, year 2007
traffic counts available from TDOT, GDOT, Hamilton County, and the City of Chattanooga
were included in the 2007 traffic count field used to calculate validation statistics. However, a
year 2008 traffic count field was added to the model network to include these supplemental
traffic counts collected in 2008. Since the base year of the model was 2007, these 2008 counts
were not included in the validation statistics. However, they were used to supplement
validation efforts and compare to 2007 traffic counts for accuracy.
-2-
2.0
2.1
External Trips
As noted in technical submittal #2, eight new external stations were added to the 2007 model
above and beyond the 30 external stations included in the previous 2000 model. Year 2007
traffic counts at each of the 38 external stations were utilized to determine the total external
trips. The same percent distribution of external-external (EE), or through trips, versus internalexternal (IE) trips at each of the original 30 external zones used in the 2000 model was used for
the 2007 model. Since the eight new external stations in the 2007 model were located along
minor facilities, it was assumed that 100 percent of the external trips were attributed to IE trips,
or those with one trip end inside the TPO region and one trip end outside the TPO region.
2.2
Trip Generation
Trip production rates utilized in the 2007 model are the same as those utilized in the 2000
model, as trip production rates were developed using local data from the Chattanooga 2002
Household Travel Diary Survey. However, trip attraction rates were modified in the 2007
model as they were borrowed from the Jacksonville, Florida region for the previous 2000 model.
Trip attractions for some purposes, such as Home-Based Work (HBW), differed appreciably
from the trip productions and it was therefore decided to borrow trip attraction rates from the
Knoxville model and adjust where appropriate in an attempt to achieve closer matches.
Utilizing Knoxville trip attraction rates is likely more appropriate for the Chattanooga region
due to potential differences in travel characteristics in the Jacksonville, Florida region. The
Knoxville trip attraction rates documented in the Knoxville Regional Travel Demand Model
Validation Report of March 2004 resulted in some improvement in the unbalanced ratios for
most trip purposes in Chattanooga. Adjustments were necessary to some of the trip attraction
rates as trip purposes did not correlate perfectly between the Knoxville and Chattanooga
models. The final Chattanooga 2007 model trip production and attraction rates are listed below.
-3-
Total
Employment
Agricultural /
Mining /
Construction
Manufacturing /
Transportation
Retail
Service
Government
School
Enrollment
Total
Population
Total
Households
Table 1.
Home-Based Work
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Home-Based School
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.72
0.00
Home-Based Shop
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.11
0.19
0.00
0.20
Home-Based Social
Recreation
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.06
0.12
0.00
0.12
Home-Based Other
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.38
0.19
0.35
0.00
0.36
Nonhome-Based
1.54
0.36
0.00
0.00
3.83
0.31
0.64
0.00
0.00
Light-Truck
0.10
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.00
Medium-Truck
0.05
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
Heavy-Truck
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
As demonstrated in Table 2, there were approximately nine person trips per household in the
Chattanooga region in the 2007 model, within TDOTs target range of 8.5 to 10.5, also
comparing favorably with other cities in the region. Other aggregate trip rates are shown in
Table 2 below.
Table 2.
Standards
Unit of Measure
2007
2000
TDOT
FHWA
2.38
2.50
n/a
n/a
9.00
9.44
8.5-10.5
8.0-14.0
3.78
3.78
n/a
3.5-4.0
1.12
0.74
n/a
n/a
0.51
0.73
n/a
n/a
Total Population
425,666
395,061
Total Households
178,905
158,055
Total Employment
218,612
287,918
-4-
Table 3.
Purpose
2007
2000
TDOT Target
Home-Based Work
13.23%
12.72%
18-27%
Home-Based School
5.31%
5.10%
Home-Based Shop
10.17%
9.56%
Home-Based Social
Recreation
6.22%
5.57%
Home-Based Other
18.10%
17.33%
Nonhome-Based
26.64%
26.06%
Commercial Vehicles
7.38%
9.80%
Light-Truck
72.85%
73.65%
Medium-Truck
19.82%
19.34%
Heavy-Truck
7.33%
7.02%
Internal-External
11.08%
13.85%
External-External
1.86%
Total
2.3
100.00%
47-54%
21-31%
100.00%
Trip Distribution
Initially, friction factors from the previous 2000 model, which were borrowed from the earlier
MINUTP model, were used as part of the validation of the 2007 model. However, upon review
of the average trip lengths, it was determined that adjustments to the friction factors were
necessary. As a result, the TPO first developed and calibrated new friction factors to match the
Chattanooga 2002 Household Travel Diary Survey data. However, these new friction factors
resulted in unsatisfactory results. Average trip lengths were proving to be shorter than
expected and overall validation results were consequently worse. As a result, the original
friction factors from the previous 2000 model were iteratively adjusted to achieve better trip
-5-
length distribution characteristics. Several iterative runs were performed to arrive at the final
friction factors used for the remainder of the model validation runs. The final friction factors
are included in the complete model dataset that is being provided to TDOT and GDOT as part
of this submittal.
Just as was included in the previous 2000 model, K-factors were necessary between areas north
and west of the Tennessee River and areas south and east of the Tennessee River, as well as
between Georgia and Tennessee. However, unlike the previous model, the K-factors were not
directionally skewed to/from Georgia and Tennessee. In addition to the K-factors (0.8 for each),
it was found necessary to add penalties, primarily along the Tennessee River bridges to correct
local imbalances. Table 4 below lists the locations and amount of the penalties.
Table 4.
Penalties
Roadway
Penalty (minutes)
U.S. 27 Bridge
1.35
1.10
Dupont Parkway
0.25
2.00
Table 5 demonstrates the final average trip lengths for each trip purpose in comparison to the
old 2000 model. In addition, year 2007 Home-Based Work (HBW) trip lengths were compared
to those included in the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) for the year 2000 in
Hamilton, Catoosa, and Walker Counties. HBW trip lengths improved in the 2007 model
compared to the 2000 model as they are closer to the CTPP trip lengths. However, the 2007
model HBW trip lengths are still slightly shorter when compared to the CTPP trip lengths. This
is as a result of the daily nature of the model compared to the highly peak hour weighted CTPP
figure. The modest expansion of the model to include all of Catoosa County since the last LRTP
partially explains the reduction in Internal-External trip times. All of the 2007 trip lengths are
within acceptable limits provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). No trip
length targets have been established by TDOT at this time.
The 2007 model validation effort involved significant splitting of zones, particularly towards the
periphery. This reduced the average size of zones. Consequently, as indicated in Table 6, the
percent intrazonal trips fell slightly to below nine percent as compared to above nine percent for
the 2000 model. As expected, given the tendency of individuals to travel further for work
purposes, the percent intrazonal trips for HBW are lower than for other purposes at just under
two percent.
-6-
Table 5.
2000
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
CTPP
(Hamilton)
CTPP
(Catoosa)
CTPP
(Walker)
FHWA
Target
Home-Based Work
18.26
16.36
21.20
23.70
26.50
11.2-35.4
Home-Based School
13.85
14.48
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.9-15.9
Home-Based Shop
12.84
13.78
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.6-18.7
Home-Based Social
Recreation
13.55
11.38
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.4-17.3
Home-Based Other
12.44
14.41
n/a
n/a
n/a
Nonhome-Based
14.18
15.44
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.1-17.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Purpose
Commercial Vehicles
17.88
19.64
Light-Truck
17.78
18.79
Medium-Truck
17.20
17.95
Heavy-Truck
20.75
22.17
Internal-External
37.38
41.04
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total
14.53
18.68
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Table 6.
Purpose
2007
2000
Home-Based Work
1.93%
7.04%
Home-Based School
6.63%
11.12%
Home-Based Shop
12.51%
9.93%
Home-Based Social
Recreation
11.98%
21.08%
Home-Based Other
12.96%
11.16%
Nonhome-Based
9.61%
8.02%
Commercial Vehicles
2.77%
3.06%
Light-Truck
2.74%
2.95%
Medium-Truck
3.46%
4.15%
Heavy-Truck
1.27%
1.19%
8.89%
9.18%
Total
-7-
2.4
Mode Choice
Currently, the Chattanooga TransCAD model does not include a transit network/pathbuilding
component. At the beginning of the 2035 LRTP Update, the RPA intended to add transit to the
TransCAD model contingent upon the availability of existing data to validate the new transit
component. However, upon review of the data, it was determined that an on-board transit
survey was needed in order to validate a new transit model. The RPA will be developing the
survey instrument for the on-board transit survey shortly after the adoption of the 2035 LRTP
Update. Subsequently, the RPA will conduct the on-board survey in the Fall of 2010, in
preparation for the next base year 2010 model for the LRTP Update to be adopted in 2014. The
RPA intends to add the transit network/pathbuilding component to the next generation of the
TransCAD model in time for the next LRTP update. In the interim, the same auto occupancy
model used in the model from the previous 2030 LRTP Update is being used for the current
2035 LRTP Update. Ratios of persons per vehicle were derived from the local household diary
survey conducted in the Chattanooga region in 2002.
2.5
Traffic Assignment
In validating traffic assignment, final outcome of a travel demand model, common performance
metrics include the following:
Volume-to-count ratios by link group (area type, facility type, and number of lanes);
Table 7 includes the volume-to-count ratios by facility type, area type, and number of lanes.
Overall, the model is validating at 0.96, within acceptable limits. This is also an improvement in
the overall validation since the 2000 model with a volume-to-count ratio of 0.95. Although the
validation of expressways improved in the 2007 model, the validation of undivided principal
arterials, minor arterials, and one-way facilities got worse when compared to the 2000 model.
This can be attributed to the correction in the network coding in the 2007 model reflecting the
3rd and 4th Street one-way facilities in downtown Chattanooga. Furthermore, additional
network detail was included in some portions of the model as a result of further TAZ splits, as
well as a significant amount of more traffic counts being provided in the 2007 model. Therefore,
although the 2007 model may indicate lower volume-to-count ratios for some facility type
categories, it is likely more accurate than the 2000 model due to the additional traffic counts. In
addition, no ramp counts were available in the 2000 model and have since been added to the
2007 model validating at a 2007 volume-to-count ratio of 0.99. Four of the six facility type
categories that have targets set by TDOT are within acceptable limits.
-8-
Although no targets have been established to date by TDOT for volume-to-count ratios by area
type, seven of the eight area type categories are validating within +/- 1 ten percent. In addition,
the new industrial area type category is validating at 0.90. The CBD area in downtown
Chattanooga is validating at 0.74, which has historically validated lower than other categories in
the Chattanooga model. With the exception of one lane facilities (by direction), the 2007 model
is validating better within each lane category compared to the old 2000 model.
Table 7.
2000
TDOT Targeta
1. Interstate
1.02
0.98
+/- 7%
2. Expressway
1.04
0.94
+/- 7%
0.98
0.98
+/- 10%
0.86
0.94
+/- 10%
5. Minor Arterial
0.80
0.88
+/- 15%
6. Collector
0.98
0.98
+/- 25%
7. Ramp
0.99
8. One-Way
0.49
0.71
1. CBD
0.69
0.88
2. CBD Fringe
0.97
0.92
3. Residential
0.92
0.96
4. OBD
0.95
0.92
5. Rural
1.07
1.10
6. Urban Undeveloped
1.04
1.02
7. Mountainous
1.09
0.95
8. Industrial
0.90
Facility Type
n/a
Area Type
0.88
0.93
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.95
1.03
0.92
Total
0.96
0.95
-9-
n/a
The 10 screenlines from the previous model were kept and utilized to assist in model validation
for the 2007 model. Their positions capture all the major traffic flows in the Chattanooga
Region and thus further adjustments and additions were deemed unnecessary. A map of the
screenline locations is provided in Appendix C. Maps of volume-to-count ratios on each link in
the model with a count are included in Appendix D. For eight of the 10 screenlines, the
volume-to-count ratios fall within the +/- 10 percent target range of TDOT. Table 8 compares
the volume-to-count ratio for each screenline in the 2007 model against the old 2000 model.
Table 8.
Screenline
2007
2000
1.00
0.97
1.01
0.94
0.88
0.97
0.99
0.91
0.82
0.90
0.93
0.99
1.10
1.09
0.91
1.06
1.06
1.02
10
1.00
1.00
Table 9 indicates the percent difference in model volumes and observed counts by volume
group. All volume groups within the 2007 model achieve the established TDOT targets.
- 10
-
Table 9.
AADT
Chattanooga 2007TransCAD
TDOT Targeta
<1,000
48.90%
+/- 60%
1,000-2,500
19.20%
+/- 47%
2,500-5,000
-2.80%
+/- 36%
5,000-10,000
-10.30%
+/- 29%
10,000-25,000
-8.90%
+/- 25%
25,000-50,000
1.50%
+/- 22%
>50,000
-5.90%
+/- 21%
The correlation coefficient of observed counts to model volumes (R2) is performing well at 0.95,
exceeding TDOTs target of 0.88, as demonstrated below in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
2007 AADT
As indicated in Table 10, the overall RMSE for the 2007 model is 34.6 percent, within acceptable
federal limits. TDOT has established an overall RMSE target of 30 percent. However, based on
discussion with TDOT during the June 30, 2009 teleconference, it was determined that 30
percent was just a target and was not required as federal standards indicate a RMSE range of
32-39 percent is within acceptable limits. Although the previous 2000 model indicated an
overall RMSE of 23 percent, it is suspected that it was not as accurate due to the reduced
- 11
-
amount of traffic counts available at that time. All volume groups within the 2007 model
achieved a RMSE value close to or within federal and/or TDOT targets.
Table 10.
2000
TDOT Target
0-4,999
83.70%
73.10%
115.76
45-100
5,000-9,999
46.30%
33.60%
43.14
35-45
10,000-14,999
36.40%
18.10%
28.27
27-35
Count Range
15,000-19,999
20,000-29,999
25.40%
21.70%
30,000-39,999
16.90%
40,000-49,999
4.40%
12.10%
50,000-59,999
25-30
25.38
15-25
30.25
7.20%
10-20
60,000-69,999
70,000-79,999
15-27
15.50%
n/a
19.20
34.60%
23.40%
30.00%
10-19
79,999-89,999
Overall
32-39%
Table 11 summarizes the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by model facility type, as well as the
percent of VMT that falls within each model facility type compared to TDOT targets. With the
exception of minor arterials, all of the facility types fall within or close to TDOTs targets for
percent of VMT by facility type. In addition, the overall ratio of VMT to Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT is 1.06 (excluding external centroid connectors).
- 12
-
Table 11.
Facility Type
Interstate
4,228,041 (31.4%)
Expressway
1,496,818 (11.1%)
2,067,224 (15.4%)
TDOT Target
33-38%
27-33%
835,239 (6.2%)
Minor Arterial
1,384,961 (10.3%)
18-22%
Collector
1,465,718 (10.9%)
8-12%
Ramp
215,118
n/a
One-Way
16,672
n/a
External Connectors
921,730
n/a
Centroid Connectors
827,412
n/a
Total
2.6
13,458,933
During November 2008, the RPA conducted travel time runs during the AM and PM peak
periods along all routes in their Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The results of these
travel time runs were used to calculate average peak period congested speeds. These observed
speeds were then compared to the daily congested speeds in the model during the 2007 model
validation process. Appendix E includes a map of the observed 2008 AM peak period
congested speeds, as well as a map of the daily congested speeds from the 2007 model. As
expected, the model speeds compared to the observed speeds are slightly different in some
instances since the model speeds are daily and the observed speeds are peak period. However,
there was a significant improvement in congested speeds along interstates in the 2007 model as
they were too low in the 2000 model.
3.0
The overall 2007 model is validating at 34.6 percent, within acceptable federal limits;
The correlation coefficient of observed counts to model volumes (R2) is performing well at
0.95, exceeding TDOTs target of 0.88;
- 13
-
Average trip lengths increased for some trip purposes and decreased for others, although
Home-based Work (HBW) trip lengths did improve;
The percent of intrazonal trips attributed to Home-based Work (HBW) trips are now within
a more reasonable range;
Congested speeds along the interstate and other higher facilities are improved compared to
the 2000 model and observed congested speeds;
Overall, higher facilities are generally comparable to the 2000 model, however, minor
facilities got worse in the 2007 model due to additional traffic count availability and
network detail;
Overall, the 2007 model has more counts with almost 10 percent of the network having
counts. As a result, the 2007 model includes improved accuracy and reliability of the model
statistics;
Employment in the 2007 model is lower than in the 2000 model, resulting in lower
commercial trips; and
As with all models, there is always room for improvement. However, this model should be
sufficient for updating the 2030 LRTP to 2035.
4.0
Several enhancements are planned for the next generation of the Chattanooga travel demand
model to be used for the next LRTP update scheduled for adoption in 2014. These
enhancements, as well as the planned data collection efforts necessary to support these
enhancements, are detailed below.
4.1
Data Collection
In preparation for the next LRTP Update due for adoption in 2014, the RPA is planning for
multiple data collection and compilation efforts over the next two years. Below are some of the
data collection efforts planned:
Socioeconomic Data Once the Census 2010 population and household data is released,
likely in 2012, the RPA will use the data to develop the base year 2010 model socioeconomic
data. In the meantime, the RPA will be providing guidelines to the counties and
municipalities in the TPO region stating what socioeconomic data is required to assist with
compiling the data. Additionally, proprietary employment datasets for the year 2010 may
be evaluated for accuracy to determine the most appropriate data source for the
- 14
-
Chattanooga region. In addition to year 2010, the RPA will be forecasting socioeconomic
data to the horizon year for the next LRTP Update, likely year 2040.
Traffic Counts During calendar year 2010, the RPA will be identifying and collecting
traffic counts at key locations throughout the TPO to assist with validating the 2010 base
year model as part of the next LRTP update. The traffic counts will be collected by vehicle
class and 15-minute intervals in order to validate trips at the truck level and to include a
new time-of-day component in the model.
On-Board Transit Survey As mentioned earlier, the RPA intends to conduct an on-board
transit survey in order to validate a new mode choice/transit component in the TransCAD
travel demand model. The RPA will be designing the sampling plan and survey instrument
in the spring/summer of 2010 with the survey being conducted in the fall of 2010.
Household Travel Diary Survey In 2002, a household travel diary survey was conducted
to determine trip generation rates, average trip lengths, auto occupancy factors, and other
characteristics used in model development and validation. Typically, household travel
diary surveys are conducted every 10 years to accurately reflect travel characteristics of the
region. Pending funding availability, the RPA intends to conduct a new household travel
diary survey in calendar year 2011. The results of the 2011 travel diary survey will be
incorporated into the new 2010 base year model for the next LRTP update.
4.2
The above mentioned data collection efforts will be used to incorporate several enhancements to
the current CHCNGA TPO TransCAD model. These enhancements could potentially include
the following additions to the TransCAD model prior to the next LRTP Update:
- 15
-
Updated trip generation structure based on 2011 household travel diary survey data;
New mode choice/transit component not previously included in the model to be used to
forecast transit ridership;
New nonmotorized component not previously included in the model to be used to forecast
bicycle and pedestrian trips;
New time-of-day component used to disaggregate daily trips into three to four time periods.
This will improve the accuracy in calculating air quality emissions and is typically necessary
for transit models; and
Validate truck trips in addition to total trips, whereas in the past, only total trips were
validated.
5.0
Next Steps
Below is a list of the remaining information to be provided to TDOT and GDOT for review and
approval, once the draft LRTP has been documented:
The 2007 model files are being provided to TDOT and GDOT as part of this technical submittal.
As discussed during the modeling workshop held on August 20, 2008, please provide any
comments back to the RPA within 10 days, if not sooner. We thank you in advance for
understanding our time constraints and look forward to coordinating with you throughout the
development of our model and LRTP. If you have any questions about the model, please do not
hesitate to contact Melissa Taylor at the RPA via e-mail at taylor_melissa@mail.chattanooga.gov
or phone at (423) 757-0077.
Appendices:
Appendix A: Table and Maps of 2007 Network Projects
Appendix B: Maps of 2007 Model Network Area Type, Facility Type, and Number of Lanes
Appendix C: Map of Screenline Locations
Appendix D: Maps of 2007 Volume-to-Count Ratios
Appendix E: Maps of Congested Speeds (Daily Model and Observed Peak-Period)
Appendix F: Year 2007 Validation Worksheets
- 16
-
627*
SR 153
Hixson Pike
Roadway
628*
604*
605*
606*
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
Notes:
* 2025 LRTP
**2015 LRTP
609
609*
A-6
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
I-75
I-75
I-75
Hixson Pike
107*
A-5
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Jurisdiction
8**
TIP ID
A-4
A-3
A-2 620/621*
A-1
Map
ID LRTP ID
New
Interchange at
Mile 9
(Enterprise
South)
SR 317
Shallowford Rd.
Hideaway Ln.
US 27
Lindsay
Moore Rd.
Chapman
I-75
Masters Rd.
From
SR 317
Suck
Su
ck Creek
Creek Rd.
Rd
Wilcox
Amnicola Hwy.
Hideaway Ln.
To
3.1
1.2
2.4
1.4
4
0.5
0.2
0.5
6.3
3.4
Length
(miles)
New
Interchange
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Type of
Project
2001
2002
2003
2005
2005
2005
2007
Widen from 2 to 5
lanes
(4 thru lanes)
Widen from 2 to 5
lanes
(4 thru lanes)
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
Widen from 2 to 6
lanes
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
Widen from 4 to 8
lanes
2007
2001
Widen from 4 to 6
lanes
New Interchange
at Mile 9
(Enterprise South)
2000
Widen from 2 to 4
lanes
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2002
2002
2002
2002
Construction Model
Completion Network
Full Description
Year
Year
Rural
Urban
Undeveloped
Mountainous
Rural
Urban
Undeveloped
Mountainous
County Boundary
MPO Boundary
Water Bodies
Industrial
OBD
OBD
Industrial
CBD Fringe
Residential
Residential
2007 Model
Centroids
CBD
CBD Fringe
CBD
2007 Model
Network
Inset 1
Inset 1
6 Miles
County Boundary
MPO Boundary
Water Bodies
Network Connectors
Oneway
Ramp
Collector
Minor Arterial
Expressway
Interstate
Inset 1
Inset 1
6 Miles
County Boundary
MPO Boundary
Water Bodies
2007 Number
of Lanes (One-Way)
24
153
24
Northgate Mall
27
75
75
Enterprise South
27
Hamilton Place
153
Inset 1
27
Inset 1
75
75
6 Miles
Id
1
4
County Boundary
MPO Boundary
Water Bodies
10 - External Cordon
8 - Ringgold
5 - Missionary Ridge
4 - East-West Downtown
3 - North-South Downtown
10
24
Screenlines
27
153
153
6
153
24
6
75
75
Enterprise South
27
Northgate Mall
27
75
75
10
6 Miles
2008 Average
Observed Speeds
During AM Peak
Period Along
Congestion
Management
Plan (CMP)
Routes
.21
41.1
8/
37
15.01 - 25.00
25.01 - 35.00
35.01 - 45.00
45.01 - 55.00
55.01 - 65.00
> 65
25.01 - 35.00
35.01 - 45.00
45.01 - 55.00
55.01 - 65.00
> 65
County Boundary
MPO Boundary
Water Bodies
< 15
15.01 - 25.00
Southbound and
Westbound Direction
< 15
Northbound and
Eastbound Direction
AM CMP Routes
.83
39.7
2/3
6
Inset 1
Inset 1
6 Miles
County Boundary
MPO Boundary
Water Bodies
> 65.00
55.01 - 65.00
45.01 - 55.00
35.01 - 45.00
25.01 - 35.00
15.01 - 25.00
< 15.00
24
153
153
153
24
75
75
Enterprise South
27
Northgate Mall
27
Inset 1
27
Inset 1
75
75
6 Miles
136,524
7.38%
72.85%
19.82%
7.33%
205,036
11.08%
34,391
1.86%
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
100.00%
1,849,845
99,457
27,060
10,007
Productions % by Productions
244,728
13.23%
98,303
5.31%
188,092
10.17%
115,148
6.22%
334,833
18.10%
492,790
26.64%
Year
2007
2000
2000
*2 FHWA Target
*1 TDOT Target
2.38
9.00
3.78
1.12
0.51
425,666
178,905
218,612
n/a
8.00 to 10.00
Person Trip/HH
9.00
9.44
7.44
8.50 to 10.50
2.50
9.44
3.78
0.74
0.73
395,061
158,055
287,918
2007
2000
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Unit of Measure
Commercial Vehicles
Light-Truck
Medium-Truck
Heavy-Truck
Internal-External
External-External
SOV
HOV
Light-Truck
Heavy-Truck
TOTAL
Home-Based Work
Home-Based School
Home-Based Shop
Home-Based Socrec.
Home-Based Other
Non Home-Based
Purpose
2007
Chattanooga 2007 (TransCAD)
Trip Generation
Productions % by Productions
212,113
12.72%
85,068
5.10%
159,420
9.56%
92,919
5.57%
289,013
17.33%
434,513
26.06%
2000
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
2002
Nashville
2.56
8.59
3.36
0.99
0.69
1,206,665
471,298
833,862
Memphis
2.65
8.20
3.09
1.71
0.51
1,103,539
416,830
533,378
2004
2000
Montgomery*5
2.68
8.64
3.23
0.75
0.66
299,180
111,793
196,799
163,330
9.80%
120,286
73.65%
31,580
19.34%
11,464
7.02%
237,104
230,906
13.85%
30,025
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,592,105
1,667,282
100.00%
99,435
27,064
10,010
136,524
Attractions
111,374
160,925
124,929
74,855
223,357
523,037
Unbalanced
2004
2000
2000
Savannah
2.53
7.66
3.03
1.42
0.55
232,011
91,834
127,000
2001
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
2.0-2.7
8.0-10.0
3.3-4.0
n/a
n/a
TDOT
8.06%
1.19%
Target*1
n/a
8.5-10.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
13.00%
3.00%
Knoxville
2.45
8.40
3.43
5.70
0.60
761,346
310,412
457,796
2000
Memphis
Montgomery Knoxville
25.15%
16.00%
13.09%
11.02%
8.16%
7.17%
39.00%
7.67%
28.10%
37.72%
31.78%
18.00%
20.89%
11.00%
8.82%
26.42%
8.79%
39.18%
Nashville
16.79%
2004
Target*3
n/a
8.0-14.0
3.5-4.0
n/a
n/a
FHWA
22-31%
18-27%
47-54%
Target *1
9/27/2009
As for Run 21a but a few outstanding 2007 SE issues fixed after consulation with Yuen. Some very short network link area types and number of lanes also fixed.
Run# 23
DATE:
Description:
New FDOT
20-33% *4
Guidelines*2
12-24%
5-8%
10-20%
9-12%
14-28%
FHWA
Target *3
2874671
231569
34278
1084215
913665
376294
234650
Run# 23
TEMPLATE
9/27/2009
2000
CTPP
(Walker)
2002
2000
14.37
Purpose
p
Smaller percentage of HBW intrazonal trips due to smaller zone sizes (zone splits)
n/a
n/a
Comments:
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
26.50
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Home-Based Work
Home-Based School
Home-Based Shop
Home-Based Socrec.
Home-Based Other
Non Home-Based
Commercial Vehicles
Light-Truck
Medium-Truck
Heavy-Truck
TOTAL
23.70
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TDOT
Target*1
8.50
Nashville Knoxville *
19.26
12.05
n/a
6.82
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.48
7.98
12.36
7.14
2007
2000
Chattanooga 2007 (TransCAD)
Chattanooga 2000 (TransCAD)
Two-Digit
Two-Digit
Intrazonal
Intrazonal
Total Trips
Trips
% Intrazonal Total Trips
Trips
% Intrazonal
4,730
1.93%
14,931
7.04%
244,728
212,113
6,517
6.63%
9,459
11.12%
98,303
85,068
23,534
12.51%
15,828
9.93%
188,092
159,420
13,795
11.98%
19,585
21.08%
115,148
92,919
43,379
12.96%
32,266
11.16%
334,833
289,013
47,349
9.61%
34,853
8.02%
492,790
434,513
3,786
2.77%
4,995
3.06%
136,524
163,330
2,723
2.74%
3,550
2.95%
99,457
120,286
936
3.46%
1,309
4.15%
27,060
31,580
127
1.27%
136
1.19%
10,007
11,464
143,090
8.89%
131,917
9.18%
1,610,418
1,436,376
Intrazonal Travel
Purpose
CTPP trip lengths longer since they were based on peak period and TransCAD model is daily
2000
CTPP
(Catoosa)
Comments:
2000
CTPP
(Hamilton)
Home-Based Work
Home-Based School
Home-Based Shop
Home-Based Socrec.
Home-Based Other
Non Home-Based
Commercial Vehicles
Light-Truck
Medium-Truck
Heavy-Truck
Internal-External
TOTAL
2000
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
16.36
14.48
13.78
11.38
14.41
15.44
19.64
18.79
17.95
22.17
41.04
18.68
2007
Chattanooga
(TransCAD)
18.26
13.85
12.84
13.55
12.44
14.18
17.88
17.78
17.20
20.75
37.38
14.53
Trip Distribution
DATE:
2000
2001
7
3-5%
1-4%
10-12%
3-9%
4-10%
3-7%
5-9%
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
14.36
FHWA
Target*3
27.80
19.80
19.95
16.58
2004
Page 2 of 4
TDOT
Target*1
26-58
n/a
12-35
n/a
9-19
11-19
8-20
6-19
n/a
New FDOT
Guidelines*2
n/a
n/a
8.1-17.1
n/a
10.4-17.3
11.2-35.4
8.9-15.9
8.6-18.7
FHWA
Target*3
TEMPLATE
9/27/2009
345,072
200,101
58,310
157,697
161,845
186,882
86,810
79,891
335,995
298,244
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CBD
CBD Fringe
Residential
OBD
Rural
Urban Undeveloped
Mountainous
Industrial
1
2
3
4
5
-31%
-3%
-8%
-5%
7%
4%
9%
-10%
10%
-12%
-1%
-2%
3%
-4%
0.69
0.97
0.92
0.95
1.07
1.04
1.09
0 90
0.90
0.88
0.99
0.98
1.03
0.96
Chattanooga 2007
Volumes Over % Difference
Counts
Interstate
1.02
2%
1.04
Expressway
4%
0.98
Principal Arterial Divided
-2%
0.86
Principal Arterial Undivided
-14%
0.80
Minor Arterial
-20%
0.98
Collector
-2%
0.99
Ramp
-1%
0.49
One-Way
-51%
Chattanooga 2007
Total Count
Vol/Count Ratio
343,472
1.00
198,576
1.01
67,059
0.88
158,856
0.99
198,514
0.82
202,070
0.93
79,242
1.10
87,602
0.91
316,594
1.06
298,668
1.00
-5.90%
>50,000
21%
22%
10
5-20% *
11
15-25% *
Page 3 of 4
21%
22%
25%
FHWA
Target *3
60%
47%
36%
29%
-6.8
-1.6
-5.3
-7.8
-4.7
0.93
0.98
0.95
0.92
0.95
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
-11.8
-8.2
-4.0
-8.4
9.7
1.9
-5.0
0.88
0.92
0.96
0.92
1.10
1.02
0.95
10000
TDOT
2000
Volumes Over
% Difference
Counts
Accuracy Level *1
0.98
+/- 7%
-1.6
0.94
+/- 7%
-5.6
0.98
+/- 10%
-2.1
0.94
+/- 10%
-6.1
0.88
+/- 15%
-12
0.98
+/- 25%
-2.2
n/a
0.71
n/a
-29.1
2000
Vol/Count Ratio
0.97
0.94
0.97
0.91
0.90
0.99
1.09
1.06
1.02
1.00
1.50%
25,000 - 50,000
Percent Difference for Daily Volumes (calculated for Links with Counts)
TDOT
New FDOT
Chattanooga 2007
AADT
TransCAD
Target *1 *9
Guidelines *2
48.90%
60%
<1,000
19.20%
47%
1,000 - 2,500
25-50%
-2.80%
36%
2,500 - 5,000
-10.30%
29%
5,000 - 10,000
10
10,000 - 25,000
20-30% *
-8.90%
25%
Total
Number
of Lanes
By Direction
Area Type
Facility Type
Total Volume
Screenline
Run# 23
DATE:
Assigned Volume
20000
2007 AADT
30000
Correlation
50000
FHWA
Target *3
+/- 7%
+/- 7%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 15%
+/- 25%
n/a
n/a
New FDOT
40000
New
FDOT
2 8
Guidelines * *
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 1%
Guidelines *2
+/- 5% (+/- 6%)
+/- 5% (+/- 6%)
+/- 7% (+/- 10%)
+/- 7% (+/- 10%)
n/a
+/- 10% (+/- 15%)
n/a
+/- 15% (+/- 20%)
TDOT
Accuracy
Level *1
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
+/- 10%
60000
70000
FHWA
3
Target *
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
+/- 10-20%
23.40%
34.60%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
90
99
General Comments/Conclusions:
Interstate
Freeway or Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
1 & 11
12
2 & 14
6 & 16
7, 8 & 17
9 & 19
32-39
10-19
10-20
15-25
12
45-100
35-45
27-35
25-30
15-27
New FDOT
Guidelines
&
33-38%
27-33%
18-22%
8-12%
n/a
27.70%
14.50%
17.80%
23.30%
29.50%
Nashville
83.80%
35.30%
VMT / Person
31.6
26.4
24.4
31.7
28.0
24.6
30.00%
Memphis
Overall, reasonable match between Total Model and HPMS VMT. Model VMT by FT differs from ModelVMT
by Func. Class due to exclusion of ramps etc.
Chattanooga 2007
HPMS VMT Func Class VMT % by Class
4,060,922
4,931,266
30.6%
1,213,034
925,618
9.2%
2,408,304
2,682,985
18.2%
3,141,926
2,736,529
23.7%
806,997
969,686
6.1%
1,624,955
986,914
12.3%
13,232,998
13,256,138
0.98 Including external centroid connectors
1.06 Excluding external centroid connectors
TDOT Target *1
New FDOT Guildelines *2
FHWA Target *3
(all the same) *13
18-22%
8-12%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
27-33%
33 38%
33-38%
TDOT Target *1
New FDOT Guildelines *2
FHWA Target *3
(all the same) *13
31.96%
Knoxville
Page 4 of 4
VMT / HH
75.2
67.5
64.5
77.8
74.2
62.0
FHWA
Target*3
Chattanooga 2007
Model VMT
31.4%
4,228,041
, ,
Interstate
Expressway
11.1%
1,496,818
Principal Arterial Divide 2,067,224
15.4%
Principal Arterial Undiv
6.2%
835,239
Minor Arterial
10.3%
1,384,961
Collector
10.9%
1,465,718
Ramp
215,118
One-Way
16,672
External Connectors
921,730
Centroid Connectors
827,412
Total
13,458,933 Including external centroid con
12,537,202 Excluding external centroid connectors
Facility Type
30.00
19.20
30.25
25.38
115.76
43.14
28.27
TDOT
Target*1
HPMS*
Year
VMT
2007
13,458,933 13,256,138
2004
31,796,875 33,316,412
2004
26,881,550 26,980,700
2000
24,159,507
n/a
2000
8,296,866
n/a
2001
5,697,423
5,743,828
+/- 5% difference b/w model and HPMS
estimate
n/a
21.70%
16.90%
4.40%
7.20%
15.50%
12.10%
25.40%
TDOT Target *1
Chattanooga
2000
TransCAD
TransCAD
83.70%
73.10%
46.30%
33.60%
36.40%
18.10%
Region
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Nashville (TransCAD)
Memphis (TransCAD)
Knoxville (TransCAD)
Montgomery (Tranplan)
Savannah (TP+)
Count Range
0-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000-29,999
30,000-39,999
40,000-49,999
50,000-59,999
60,000-69,999
70,000-79,999
79,999-89,999
Overall
Run# 23
TEMPLATE
DATE:
9/27/2009
Traffic Assignment (2nd of 2 pages)
Summarized from 10-20% for AADT 50,000 - 65,000, 5-15% for AADT 65,000-75,000, and 5-10% for AADT 75,000+ (FDOT).
* 13 Targets for medium urban are size (200k - 1M) was chosen for Chattanooga Region.
11
* 10 Summarized from 20-30% for AADT 10,000 - 30,000 and 15-25% for AADT 30,000-50,000 (FDOT)
FHWA and MDOT targets were switched in Table 3 of TDOT guidelines (page 12), thus the original source of FHWA Checking Manual (*
* 9 TDOT guidelines (* 1 ) suggest FHWA target should be selected where both of FHWA and Michigan DOT criteria are available (TDOT guidelines, page15).
* 8 FDOT recommends +/- 5% target for screenlines with greather than 70,000 AADT.
* 7 Average Trip Length for Internal-External for Savannah was obtained by averaging 18.4 (IE Truck) and 21.5 (IE Passenger Cars).
* 6 Average Trip Length for NHB for Knoxvile was obtained by averaging 7.88(NHB Work) and 6.40 (NHB Others).
* 5 Only vehicle trips available from Montgomery Area MPO (2005) Montgomery Study Area 2030 LRTP.
* 4 NHB includes combined purposes for NHB Work and NHB Nonwork, where appropriate.
* 2 FSUTMS-Cube Framework Phase II: Model Calibration and Validation Standards Final Report, June 2008
* 1 UTCTR, Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines For State of Tennessee
Footnotes
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide
With the GISDK Toolbox open , compile the Chattanooga.lst batch file that calls three .rsc script
files to a User Interface file.
Wherever the model directory was copied on your computer or network, change the directories
referred to on the .lst file to ensure the correct files are being used. For example, if the Inputs
folder was placed on the C: then the .lst file should refer to C:\Inputs\New Attributes List File as
the directory for the three .rsc files. This is also the directory location for the .lst file.
You will be asked for a location in which to save the User Interface file. Navigate to the
C:\Program Files\TransCAD directory and save the file as Chattanooga_ui.dbd
-2-
Once the User interface file has been created, proceed to Tools then Setup Add-Ins to bring up
the respective dialog box. Select Add and proceed to enter a description for the Chattanooga
Model. Any meaningful description will suffice. A name like Chattanooga Model Interface
will do. Select the Dialog Box radio button. Enter the value Chattanooga under the Name list
box. This name must match exactly the described dialog box name in the script file. Browse to
the stored location of the compiled User Interface file (C:\Program Files\TransCAD) and open
the Chattanooga_ui.dbd. Click OK.
-3-
The model has now been set up to run on the Users machine. Subsequent
model runs will not require the setup of the Chattanooga User Interface
Add-In.
To run the model, go to Tools then click on Chattanooga Model Interface and click OK. The
model interface dialog box will now be displayed.
-4-
Click on Reset Directories to see the input files for the Chattanooga model. The inputs are now
ready to be selected.
-5-
To run the 2007 Base Year for example, enter the values as illustrated, remembering to use the
base model directory to which you copied all the model files.
The LRTP_Master_Network.dbd file is a master network that includes all model network years.
It is the only file that should be selected within the Network Database window.
The TAZ.dbd file is a master socioeconomic data file that includes all socioeconomic data years
and should be the only file selected within the TAZ Geography window.
The SPGEN.bin file is a master special generators file that includes special generators for each
model year. It is the only file that should be selected within the Special Generators window.
Select the desired socioeconomic data year from the SocEc Year window. Note that
socioeconomic data has been developed for 2002, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2025, and 2035. Any interim
years are automatically interpolated using the interface.
The Chatt_Turn_Penalty.bin files is a master turn penalty file that includes turn penalties for all
model network years. It is the only file that should be selected within the Turn Penalty window.
Select the desired transportation network from the Network Scenario window. The following
network scenarios are available:
o
-6-
2009 Interim Used to compare with emissions in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
PM2.5.
2015 FFP (Financially Feasible Plan or Fiscally Constrained LRTP (Tier 1)) Includes all
nonexempt projects funded for construction prior to or during year 2015 (Tier 1) of the
fiscally constrained LRTP.
2025 FFP (Financially Feasible Plan or Fiscally Constrained LRTP (Tier 2)) Includes all
nonexempt projects funded for construction prior to or during year 2025 (Tier 2) of the
fiscally constrained LRTP.
2035 FFP (Financially Feasible Plan or Fiscally Constrained LRTP (Tier 3)) Includes all
nonexempt projects funded for construction prior to or during year 2035 (Tier 3) of the
fiscally constrained LRTP.
If the user chooses to run the time-of-day assignment to get AM and/or PM peak hour volumes
(time-of-day factors derived from 2002 Chattanooga Household Travel Survey are applied
AFTER assignment), the AM Assignment and/or PM Assignment boxes should be checked.
Once all the desired inputs have been selected, the model can be run all at once by clicking on
Run All (Gen Asgn). This runs the general assignment and does not account for HOV or truckonly lanes. None of the model networks in the fiscally constrained LRTP include projects for
HOV or truck-only lanes and thus, General Assignment can be run on all model networks listed
above. Should a model user decide to test HOV or truck-only lanes, the user should select Run
All (Truck Asgn) or Run All (HOV Asgn).
If the user wants to test each individual model step, the user should click on each individual
model step in the following sequence:
Highway Skims
Trip Generation
Trip Distribution
Mode Split
General Highway Assignment (if no HOV or truck-only lanes)
Truck Only Assignment (if testing truck lanes)
HOV Only Assignment (if testing HOV lanes)
Once the model is run, the assigned volumes are stored in the master network. See the attached
attribute list for a description of each network attribute.
-7-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Input files ................................................................................................................................................ 2
LRTP_NETWORK.DBD ....................................................................................................................... 3
CHATT_TURN_PENALTY.BIN .......................................................................................................... 6
TAZ.DBD ............................................................................................................................................... 7
SPGEN.BIN ......................................................................................................................................... 11
F_FACTORS.DBF ............................................................................................................................... 14
K_FACTORS.MTX ............................................................................................................................. 15
YR_EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL.MTX ................................................................................................. 16
HRLY_CHATT.DBF ........................................................................................................................... 17
STATE{Year}_EMISSIONS_LOOKUP.TXT .................................................................................... 19
3.0 Output Files........................................................................................................................................... 20
LRTP_NETWORK.DBD ..................................................................................................................... 21
HWYDIST1.MTX ................................................................................................................................ 22
HWYTIME1.MTX ............................................................................................................................... 23
TRIPGEN_REPORT.TXT ................................................................................................................... 24
GRAVITY_MODEL_REPORT.TXT .................................................................................................. 25
CGRAV.MTX ...................................................................................................................................... 26
SCREENLINE_REPORT.TXT............................................................................................................ 28
GENERAL_ASSIGN_REPORT.TXT ................................................................................................. 29
MOBILE6_ADJ.CSV........................................................................................................................... 30
{Year}MOBILE6_SUMMARY_REPORT.CSV................................................................................. 31
MOBILE6_REPORT_AQ.CSV ........................................................................................................... 33
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe the input and output files for the Chattanooga 2007
TransCAD model updated as part of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This data
dictionary defines the input network, socioeconomic data, and other files and attributes required
to run the Chattanooga model. Attributes within each of the output files are also defined. The
following are the file formats that are used for inputs, outputs and script compilation.
LRTP_NETWORK.DBD
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY SKIMS
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
Abbreviations:
yr = year
time# = peak hour (AM or PM)
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
*
*
*
*
*
LENGTH
DIR
COUNTY
STATE
AB_LNyr
BA_LNyr
TOT_LNyr
FT_yr
AT_yr
Added Road
Screenline
Inputs:
AB/BA_CNT_yr
*
*
SRCE
HPMS_FCyr
HOV_Only_Lane
lane.
Truck_Only_Lane
lane.
Exec_Area_Type
depending
*
*
Exec_Facility_Type
Exec_AB_Lanes
Exec_BA_Lanes
yr_AADT
*
*
*
*
year_Count
DOT_CNT_FLAG
CITY_CNT_FLAG
CSATD_CNT_FLAG
Outputs:
*
*
*
*
*
*
TerminalTime
AB/BA_FF_Time
AB/BA_Cong_Time
Table_Speed
Model_Speed
AB/BA_Table_HrCap
input
AB/BA_Model_HrCap
*
*
*
*
AB_BA_Model_DlyCap
Alpha
Beta
AB/BA_Model_VMT
AB/BA_Model_VMT_Adj
AB/BA_Daily_EEHT
AB/BA_time#_EEHT
*
*
AB/BA_TOTPASSVEH
AB/BA_time#_PassV
*
*
*
AB/BA_Daily_Allveh
Tot_Daily_Allveh
AB/BA_time#_Allveh
AB/BA_SOV
AB/BA_HOV2
AB/BA_HOV3
AB/BA_ALLHOV
*
*
*
*
*
*
AB/BA_LTTRK
AB/BA_MDTRK
AB/BA_HDTRK
AB/BA_TOTTRK
AB/BA_TOTEE
AB/BA_VoverC
SPECIAL NOTES: The AM and PM values (time#) represent values collected over the peak
hour rather than a 3 or 4 hour peak period. The peak hour values are based on the temporal
distribution of trips from the household travel survey conducted in the Chattanooga region in
2002. These peak hour factors are applied after assignment and thus, do not account for
diversion of trips as a result of congestion. In addition, the 2007 model was validated to the total
trip level, not peak hour or truck trip level.
CHATT_TURN_PENALTY.BIN
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY SKIMS
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
TO_ID
PENALTY
DESCRIPTION
TransCAD link ID from which trips
enduring the penalty pass.
TransCAD link ID to which trips
enduring the penalty proceed.
Value of the penalty in minutes.
TAZ.DBD
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
TRIP GENERATION
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
Master zone data file that includes socioeconomic data for each
model year.
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
ID
*
*
*
*
*
*
Area
COUNTY
STATE
DISTRICT_C
DISTRICT
Total_Households
Total_Population
HotelMotel_Units
School_Age_Children
Total_Employment
Agr/Min/Const
Inputs:
Manu/Trans
Retail
Service
Government
School_Enrollment
College_Enrollment
Total_School_Enrollment
External_Internal
*
*
*
yr_TOTHH
yr_TOTPOP
yr_HOTMOT
yr_TOTEMP
yr_CHILD
employment.
Any edits will be overwritten when
the model is executed.
Working field for zonal
manufacturing and transportation
employment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal retail
employment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal service
employment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal government
employment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal school
enrollment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal college
enrollment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for total school
enrollmment. (school + college) Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.
Working field for zonal externalinternal trips. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Zonal households for scenario year.
Zonal population for scenario year.
Zonal hotel/motel units for scenario
year.
Zonal employment for scenario
year.
Zonal school age children for
scenario year.
yr_AMC
yr_MANTRN
yr_RETAIL
yr_SERV
yr_GOVT
yr_GRSCH
yr_COL
yr_TOTSCH
yr_EXTINT
PERC_#_VEH
Outputs:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
HBWork_p
HBWork_a
HBSchool_p
HBSchool_a
HBShop_p
HBShop_a
HBSocRec_p
HBSocRec_a
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
HBOther_p
HBOther_a
NHB_p
NHB_a
LgtTruck_p
LgtTruck_a
MedTruck_p
MedTruck_a
HvyTruck_p
*
*
*
HvyTruck_a
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
SPECIAL NOTES: The working field variables are populated initially upon running the trip
generation scenario and the values are obtained from the scenario year fields for whichever year
is selected.
10
SPGEN.BIN
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
TRIP GENERATION
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
*
*
ID
yr_HBWork_p
yr_HBWork_a
yr_HBSchool_p
yr_HBSchool_a
yr_HBShop_p
yr_HBShop_a
yr_HBSocRec_p
yr_HBSocRec_a
yr_OTher_p
yr_OTher_a
yr_NHB_p
yr_NHB_a
yr_LightTruck_p
yr_LightTruck_a
yr_MedTruck_p
DESCRIPTION
Zone Number.
Home Based Work special generator
productions for scenario year.
Home Based Work special generator
attractions.
Home Based School special
generator productions.
Home Based School special
generator attractions.
Home Based Shopping special
generator productions.
Home Based Shopping special
generator attractions.
Home Based Social Recreational
special generator productions.
Home Based Social Recreational
special generator attractions.
Home Based Other special generator
productions.
Home Based Other special generator
attractions.
Non Home Based special generator
productions.
Non Home Based special generator
attractions.
Light Truck special generator
productions.
Light Truck special generator
attractions.
Medium Truck special generator
productions.
11
yr_MedTruck_a
yr_HeavTruck_p
yr_HeavTruck_a
HBWork_p
HBWork_a
HBSchool_p
HBSchool_a
HBShop_p
HBShop_a
HBSocRec_p
HBSocRec_a
OTher_p
12
OTher_a
NHB_p
NHB_a
LightTruck_p
LightTruck_a
MedTruck_p
MedTruck_a
HeavTruck_p
HeavTruck_a
SPECIAL NOTES: The working field variables are populated initially upon running the trip
generation scenario and the values are obtained from the scenario year fields for whichever year
is selected. Balncing trip productions with attractions is done after the special generator values
have been included.
13
F_FACTORS.DBF
FILE TYPE:
DBF
MODEL STEP:
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
Model
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
*
*
*
*
*
TIME
HBW_FF
HBSCH_FF
HBSHOP_FF
HBSR_FF
*
*
*
*
*
*
HBOTHER_FF
NHB_FF
LTRUCK_FF
MTRUCK_FF
HTRUCK_FF
INTEXT_FF
SPECIAL NOTES: Users should not edit this file as it will impact model validation.
14
K_FACTORS.MTX
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
TABLE NAME
DESCRIPTION
K-Factor
SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations. Do not edit
this file as it will impact validation.
15
YR_EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL.MTX
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
MODE SPLIT
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
TABLE NAME
DESCRIPTION
YR EE
SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations.
16
HRLY_CHATT.DBF
FILE TYPE:
DBF
MODEL STEP:
MODE SPLIT
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
HOUR
F_FLOW_ALL
F_FLOW_HBW
F_FLOW_HBN
F_FLOW_HBO
F_FLOW_NHB
DEP_ALL
RET_ALL
DEP_HBW
RET_HBW
DEP_HBSC
RET_HBSC
DEP_HBSH
RET_HBSH
DEP_HBSR
RET_HBSR
17
DEP_HBO
RET_HBO
DEP_NHB
RET_NHB
OCCADJ_HBW
OCCADJ_HBN
OCCADJ_HBO
OCCADJ_NHB
OCCADJ_ALL
SPECIAL NOTES:
HBW Home based work.
HBNW Home based non-work.
HBO Home based other.
NHB Non home based.
HBSC - Home based school.
HBSH Home based shopping.
HBSR Home based social recreational.
18
STATE{Year}_EMISSIONS_LOOKUP.TXT
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
PM2.5
NOX
VOC
SPECIAL NOTES: Repeated for arterial, local and freeway ramps (MOBILE6.2 road types).
Values delimited by a comma. For VOC, a placeholder value of 1 has been included as actual
factors for VOC were not obtained from MOBILE 6.2.
19
20
LRTP_NETWORK.DBD
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY SKIMS
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
21
HWYDIST1.MTX
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY SKIMS
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
TABLE NAME
DESCRIPTION
Distance Skim-Length
SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations.
22
HWYTIME1.MTX
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY SKIMS
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
TABLE NAME
DESCRIPTION
Distance Skim-Length
SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations.
23
TRIPGEN_REPORT.TXT
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
TRIP GENERATION
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
24
GRAVITY_MODEL_REPORT.TXT
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
SPECIAL NOTES: Text summary report of average travel times/distnaces by trip purpose, as
well as the number of intrazonal trips.
25
CGRAV.MTX
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
MODE SPLIT
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
TABLE NAME
DESCRIPTION
HBWork
HBSchool
HBShop
HBSocRec
HBOther
NHB
*
*
*
*
LgtTruck
MedTruck
HvyTruck
Ext2Int
I-I:SOVs
I-I:HOV2
I-I:HOV3
I-I:Light_Truck
I-I:Medium_Truck
I-I:Heavy_Truck
vehicle
trip matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
Internal Internal 3 or more person High
Occupancy vehicle trip matrix (#zones by #zones)
core.
Internal Internal Light Truck trip matrix (#zones
by #zones) core.
Internal Internal Medium Truck trip matrix
(#zones by #zones) core.
Internal Internal Heavy Truck trip matrix (#zones
by #zones) core.
26
I-I:Light_Truck
E-E:SOVs
E-E:HOV2
E-E:HOV3
E-E:Light_Truck
E-E:Medium_Truck
E-E:Heavy_Truck
SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations. This trip table
is used in a multi-modal multi-class assignment routine to assign separate categories, such as EE trips, truck trips, etc.
27
SCREENLINE_REPORT.TXT
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
SPECIAL NOTES: Text summary report of total screenline volumes/observed counts and
derived volume-over-count ratios.
28
GENERAL_ASSIGN_REPORT.TXT
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
SPECIAL NOTES: Text summary report of assignment results. Included statistics are volumeover-count ratios, root mean square error (RMSE), vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and vehicle
hours traveled (VHT) by various categories. Categories include facility type, area type, Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) functional classification, number of lanes, and volume
assignment group.
29
MOBILE6_ADJ.CSV
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
Stores HPMS adjustment factors from base year (2007) model run.
DATA FORMAT:
DESCRIPTION
FACTOR
SPECIAL NOTES: The adjustment factors are reported for each of Hamilton, Catoosa, Dade,
and Walker counties by HPMS functional classification.
30
{Year}MOBILE6_SUMMARY_REPORT.CSV
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
*
*
*
YEAR
DESCRIPTION
FUNCTIONAL CLASS(ES)
31
SPECIAL NOTES: The adjustment factors are reported for each of Hamilton, Catoosa, Dade
and Walker counties by HPMS functional classification in sequential order. Please note, the
VOC values are a placeholder until local emission factors are obtained for VOCs through
interagency consultation.
32
MOBILE6_REPORT_AQ.CSV
FILE TYPE:
MODEL STEP:
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
Reports link level emissions output from the air quality post
processor.
DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME
DESCRIPTION
*
*
ID
CNTY
DIR
A/B
*
*
*
MILES
FTYPE
HPMS
*
*
CONGTIME
AUTOLT
*
*
*
*
*
*
MT
HT
COMPVOL
COMPVMT
CONGSPD
PMFAC
NOXFAC
PM25
AB,
0 two way, -1 one way BA)
TransCAD A and B node ID
numbers.
Link distance in miles.
Link facility type 1 9.
Link HPMS functional classification
code (0 18).
Link congested travel time.
Auto and Light Truck assigned
volume.
Medium Truck assigned volume.
Heavy Truck assigned volume.
Total assigned volumes on link.
VMT for all vehicles on link.
Link congested speed.
Particulate matter emission factor
used for specific link. (Obtained
from lookup table for speed, county
and functional class)
Oxides of nitrogen emission factor
used for specific link. (Obtained
from lookup table for speed, county
and functional class)
2.5 micron and greater particulate
33
NOX
34