You are on page 1of 246

Volume 3

Travel Demand Model Documentation


and Users Guide
February 16, 2010

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

2.0 Data Development and Review .........................................................................................


2.1 Traffic Analysis Zones ..................................................................................................
2.2 Socioeconomic Data ......................................................................................................
2.3 Updating Highway Network to 2007 Conditions ....................................................
2.4 Traffic Count Data.........................................................................................................
2.5 Screenline Locations .....................................................................................................
2.6 Travel Surveys ...............................................................................................................

5
5
9
20
29
29
33

3.0 External Trips ........................................................................................................................


3.1 External Model ..............................................................................................................
3.2 External Validation Adjustments ................................................................................
3.3 External Validation Results .........................................................................................

35
35
39
39

4.0 Trip Generation.....................................................................................................................


4.1 Trip Generation Process ...............................................................................................
4.2 Trip Generation Validation Adjustments ..................................................................
4.3 Trip Generation Validation Results ............................................................................

41
41
42
45

5.0 Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................................


5.1 Trip Distribution Model Structure ..............................................................................
5.2 Trip Distribution Model Development and Validation ...........................................
5.3 Trip Distribution Model Results .................................................................................

47
47
48
51

6.0 Mode Choice ..........................................................................................................................


6.1 Mode Choice Model Structure for General Highway Assignment........................
6.2 Mode Choice Model Structure for Exclusive HOV or Truck Lanes.......................
6.3 Mode Choice Model Structure for Time-of-Day Model ..........................................

55
55
56
57

7.0 Highway Assignment ..........................................................................................................


7.1 Highway Assignment Model Structure .....................................................................
7.2 Development and Validation of Highway Assignment Model ..............................
7.3 Highway Assignment Validation Results .................................................................

59
59
59
60

8.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 67


8.1 Summary of 2007 Model Validation Observations .................................................. 67
8.2 Future Model Enhancements....................................................................................... 68

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


Appendix A: Network Project Lists
Appendix B: Technical Memorandum #1
Appendix C: Technical Memorandum #2
Appendix D: Technical Memorandum #3
Appendix E: 2007 Volume-to-Count Ratios
Appendix F: Users Guide

ii

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

LIST OF TABLES
2.1

Number of TAZs in TransCAD Model ..............................................................................

2.2

Regional Summary of Socioeconomic Data for 2035 LRTP Update............................... 11

2.3

Facility Type Codes............................................................................................................... 21

2.4

Area Type Codes ................................................................................................................... 21

3.1

Internal-External (IE) and External-External (EE) Percentage Splits ............................. 36

4.1

New Chattanooga Trip Production and Attraction Rates ............................................... 43

4.2

Special Generator Locations ................................................................................................ 44

4.3

Aggregate Trip Rates ............................................................................................................ 45

4.4

2007 Trips per Household by Trip Purpose ...................................................................... 46

4.5

Percent of Trips by Purpose................................................................................................. 46

5.1

Terminal Times ...................................................................................................................... 48

5.2

2007 Trips Between K-Factor Districts ............................................................................... 49

5.3

2035 Trips Between K-Factor Districts ............................................................................... 50

5.4

Penalties .................................................................................................................................. 50

5.5

Average Trip Length (in Minutes) ...................................................................................... 52

5.6

Intrazonal Trips by Trip Purpose........................................................................................ 53

6.1

Auto Occupancy Rates ......................................................................................................... 56

6.2

Vehicle Occupancy Allocation by Trip Purpose ............................................................... 57

6.3

Temporal Distribution of Trips ........................................................................................... 58

7.1

Volume Over Count Ratios by Facility Type, Area Type and Number of Lanes ........ 61

7.2

Comparison of Volume-to-Count Ratios by Screenline................................................... 62

7.3

Percent Difference for Daily Volumes (Calculated for Links with Counts) ................. 63

7.4

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) by Volume Group ....................................................... 64

7.5

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Model Facility Type ............................................................... 65

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ii

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

LIST OF FIGURES
2.1

TAZ Splits...............................................................................................................................

2.2

Regional Summary of Socioeconomic Data for 2035 LRTP Update............................... 11

2.3

Comparison of Households Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models .............................. 12

2.4

Comparison of Households Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years ............................... 12

2.5

Comparison of Population Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models ................................ 13

2.6

Comparison of Population Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years ................................. 14

2.7

Comparison of Employees Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models ................................ 15

2.8

Comparison of Employment Between All 2035 LRTP Model Years.............................. 15

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

External Station Locations ................................................................................................... 37

7.1

Correlation of Assigned Versus Observed Volumes ....................................................... 63

iii

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

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.

1.1 Model Certification Process


The base year 2007 Chattanooga-North Georgia travel demand forecasting model uses
procedures and model accuracy requirements consistent with state and national standards.
National standards are documented in the Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking
Manual coauthored by Cambridge Systematics for the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). 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 TPO 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 TPOs 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

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.

1.2 Datasets Available


Several datasets were created for the purpose of developing the 2035 LRTP, as well as for
demonstrating air quality conformity for Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Air quality emissions
are documented in the Conformity Determination Report (CDR) which constitutes
Volume 2 of the three-volume LRTP series. Transportation projects included in each of the
model networks are listed in Appendix A of this document. The following model datasets
are available:

2002 Used for air quality baseline emissions.

2007 Base year validated model.

2009 Used to compare with emissions in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5.

2015 Existing-Plus-Committed (E+C) Used to determine what congestion would be in


the year 2015 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.

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.

1.3 Overview of Model Performance and Documentation


This technical report, which constitutes Volume 3 of the three-volume LRTP series, provides
detailed information on the development and validation of the TransCAD travel demand
model. Section 2.0 describes the data development and review process, including traffic
analysis zones (TAZs) and highway network information. Section 3.0 describes the
estimation of base year external trips. Section 4.0 provides information on the trip
generation model while Section 5.0 explains the trip distribution model. Section 6.0
describes the mode choice model while Section 7.0 provides information on the highway
assignment model. The report concludes with a summary and discussion of next steps and
future model enhancements in Section 8.0. Section 8.0 also includes a summary bullet list of
the overall model performance. 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.

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

2.0 Data Development and Review


Section 2.0 describes in detail the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure, socioeconomic data,
highway network, traffic count data, screenline locations, and travel surveys.

2.1 Traffic Analysis Zones


As part of the previous 2030 LRTP Update, the TPO 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 TPO 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 TPO 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 2.1 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 2.1

Number of TAZs in TransCAD Model

2030 LRTP Model

Expanded Catoosa
Model

2035 LRTP 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:

Greater than 15,000 productions per TAZ in 2030;

Irregular shaped or large sized TAZs;

Major existing or planned roads bisecting TAZ; and

Potential special generator located in TAZ (i.e., isolated TN Aquarium).

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:

Existing and future roadways;

Existing and future land use;

Railroads;

Water bodies; and

Census block group boundaries.

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Figure 2.1 TAZ Splits

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

2.2 Socioeconomic Data


RPA staff developed the 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data as part of the ChattanoogaHamilton County/North Georgia 2035 LRTP Update. Historically, the Coosa Valley
Regional Development Center (RDC) has developed the socioeconomic data for the Georgia
portion of the TPO. However, development of the socioeconomic data for the Georgia side
has since become the responsibility of the TPO due to funding limitations. Year 2015 and
2025 socioeconomic data used to develop the Tier 1 and 2 models, respectively, were
interpolated using 2007 and 2025 socioeconomic data and then adjusted in the Enterprise
South area to reflect build-out of the Volkswagen manufacturing plant by model year 2015.
Since model years 2002 and 2009 are used for air quality conformity purposes only, they are
documented in the Conformity Determination Report constituting Volume 2 of the threevolume LRTP series.

Variables
The socioeconomic data included in the TransCAD travel demand model can be broken in
to four categories, as follows:

Household Data Includes total population, school-age children (population between


ages 3 and 18), and total housing units.

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.

Hotel-Motel Units Includes number of hotel-motel units.

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

Regional Summary of Socioeconomic Data for 2035 LRTP


Update
Total Region
2007

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

Figure 2.2 Regional Summary of Socioeconomic Data for 2035 LRTP


Update
700,000
600,000
2007

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

Figure 2.3 Comparison of Households 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.

140,707

200,000
150,000

200,806

157,864

250,000

179,351

Figure 2.4 Comparison of Households Between All 2035 LRTP Model


Years

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

Figure 2.5 Comparison of Population Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP


Models

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

Figure 2.7 Comparison of Employees Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP


Models

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

Figure 2.8 Comparison of Employment Between All 2035 LRTP Model


Years

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

Figure 2.10 Comparison of Hotel-Motel Units Between All 2035 LRTP


Model Years

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

Figure 2.12 Comparison of School Enrollment Between All 2035 LRTP


Model Years

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

Figure 2.13 Comparison of College Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035


LRTP Models

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

Figure 2.14 Comparison of College Enrollment Between All 2035 LRTP


Model Years

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

2.3 Updating Highway Network to 2007 Conditions


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.
In addition, several roads were 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) in the model network. To supplement this information, several windshield surveys
were conducted to obtain area type, facility type, and number of lanes data for those roads
being added to the model.
Maps of the 2007 model network by area type, facility type, and number of lanes are
provided in Figures 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17 below. 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

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

Facility Type Codes

Code

Description

Interstate

Expressway

Principal Arterial, Divided

Principal Arterial, Undivided

Minor Arterial

Collector

Ramp

One-Way

90

External Centroid Connector

99

Internal Centroid Connector

Table 2.4

Area Type Codes

Code

Description

Central Business District (CBD)

Central Business District Fringe

Residential

Outlying Business District

Rural

Urban Undeveloped

Mountainous

Industrial

21

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

22

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Figure 2.15 2007 Model Network by Facility Type

23

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

24

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Figure 2.16 2007 Model Network by Area Type

25

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

26

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Figure 2.17 2007 Model Network by Number of Lanes

27

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

28

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

2.4 Traffic Count Data


The validation of any travel demand model relies upon the existence of extensive base year
traffic count data. Volume-to-count ratios generated by the model are used to measure the
ability of a travel demand highway assignment model to simulate known traffic conditions.
Traffic counts are needed for a variety of different roadway categories distributed
throughout the study area in order to validate highway assignment performance among
screenlines, facility types, area types, and lane configurations.
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.

2.5 Screenline Locations


Screenlines are drawn across the model network throughout various parts of the study area
to summarize traffic volumes in subareas and along major corridors. These screenlines are
used to report an aggregate volume-to-count ratio for all of the links that comprise any
given screenline. This allows for measurement of travel flows between subareas of the
study area. Screenlines typically follow natural features, major transportation facilities, or
political boundaries. Also, screenlines can be used to cordon off certain portions of the
study area in order to measure the flows into and out of those areas (such as measuring the
flow of travel demand into and out of central business districts (CBDs) or the external model
boundary).
As part of the previous 2030 LRTP update, 10 screenlines were identified and added to the
TransCAD model network. These screenlines were checked to ensure that their orientation
coincided with traffic count locations. Included in these 10 screenlines is an external cordon
line that measures behavior of the external model. Also included is a partial cordon line
around downtown Chattanooga and a variety of cut lines to allow for more detail in
observing trip flow behaviors. The model network includes a field to indicate screenline
codes one through 10, which are illustrated in Figure 2.19.

29

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

30

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Figure 2.18 Screenline Locations

31

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

32

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

2.6 Travel Surveys


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. The same rates and parameters derived from the 2002
household travel diary survey for the last model update were used for the 2007 model
update as part of this 2035 LRTP. 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.

External Origin and Destination Survey


In 2002, a roadside origin-destination intercept survey designed to obtain characteristics of
travelers entering, exiting, and passing through the region from locations outside the
CHCNGA study area was conducted. During the last 2030 LRTP Update, it was determined
that the results from the 2002 external origin and destination survey were biased. It was
determined that the percentage of through trips were not reliable as the interstate surveys
were conducted on ramps at interchanges and rest areas. Vehicles were not pulled off to the
side of the road on the mainline interstate segments where most External-External (EE) trips
occur. The vehicles that were surveyed already were stopping at the interchange or rest area.
Therefore, the results provide a significant bias towards Internal-External (IE) trips and EE
trips were thus underestimated. The percent IE/EE splits from the origin and destination
survey were subsequently compared to the old 2000 MINUTP model and it was determined
that the old 2000 MINUTP model percent splits appeared more reasonable. The MINUTP
splits were used as a starting point for the previous 2000 model validation conducted in 2005
and were later modified during the 2000 model validation process.
As a result, the 2002 roadside origin-destination intercept survey was not used within the
TransCAD model for this current 2035 LRTP Update,. With the exception of new external
stations, the updated model as part of this 2035 LRTP Update used the same IE/EE splits
from the last model. Any new external stations, which are minor roads with low traffic
counts, assumed 100 percent IE trips. However, the TPO intends to conduct a new external
origin and destination survey during the fall of 2010. In the meantime, the TPO will be
designing the sampling plan and survey instrument. The results of the 2010 external origin
and destination survey will be used to validate the external model for the 2010 base year
validation as part of the next LRTP update.

33

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

34

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

3.0 External Trips


3.1 External Model
Initial development of an external model requires that external trips be divided into at least
two categories: internal to external (IE) trips and external to external (EE) trips. IE trips are
those trips that either have an origin outside of the study area and a destination within the
study area or vice versa. EE trips have both an origin and a destination outside of the study
area, but pass through the study area. EE trips are preloaded in the CHCNGA model, as it is
not usually expected that EE trips will reroute due to congestion. This is because EE trips
generally consist of long-distance travelers not familiar with the local street system. There are
two input files that describe external trips in the model. These are the TAZ geography file and
the EE trips matrix file.
Although the TAZ geography input file is part of the trip generation process, it is integral to
generating the IE trips for the external model. As noted in Section 2.6, the percent IE/EE splits
for each external zone were initially derived from the old MINUTP 2000 external model and
refined during the last model update. The percent IE trips were applied to the 2007 AADT to
calculate the total number of IE trips at each external zone for the TAZ geography file.
The EE trips input matrix file (year_EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL.mtx) is generally the residual
left after estimating IE trips in the TAZ geography file (TAZ_2007.dbd). 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 2000 model EE trips file.
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 internal-external (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.
It should be noted that traffic counts for the external stations were coded in to the adjacent
link to the external centroid connector in the model network so that the correct area type,
facility type, and number of lanes is associated with the link.
Table 3.1 below demonstrates the percentage of IE and EE trips at each of the 38 external
stations in the 2007 model.

35

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Table 3.1

Internal-External (IE) and External-External (EE) Percentage


Splits
Percent Split

Zone 2007

36

Description

IE

EE

800

(I-75 S)

67%

33%

801

(US-41 Chattanooga Road)

69%

31%

802

Old Ringgold Road

98%

2%

803

(GA SR 151 Alabama Highway)

81%

19%

804

GA SR 95

100%

0%

805

Ringgold Road

65%

35%

806

(GA SR 1, U.S. 27 S)

58%

42%

807

Straight Gut Rd.

100%

0%

808

(GA SR 341 Cove Road)

93%

7%

809

GA SR 193

92%

8%

810

Lula Lake Road

91%

9%

811

(GA SR 157/ 189 Lookout Mountain Scenic Highway)

97%

3%

812

(GA SR 58 , U.S. 11, Birmingham Pike)

75%

25%

813

I-59

82%

18%

814

I-24

64%

36%

815

TN SR 134

98%

2%

816

U.S. 64, U.S. 72, U.S. 41, TN SR 2

63%

37%

817

TN SR 27 Suck Creek Road

98%

2%

818

(TN SR 8, U.S. 127 Taft Highway)

58%

42%

820

(U.S. 111)

62%

38%

821

Retro Hughes Road

2%

98%

822

(TN SR 309 Leggett Road)

12%

88%

823

(TN SR 29, U.S. 27 N, Rhea Co. Highway)

31%

69%

825

TN SR 58

72%

28%

826

Old State Highway 58

66%

34%

827

TN SR 60 Georgetown Road

23%

77%

828

TN SR 312 Harrison Pike

100%

0%

829

(I-75 N)

71%

29%

830

(U.S. 11, U.S. 64, SR 2 S. Lee Highway)

94%

6%

831

McDonald Road

100%

0%

832

Old Alabama Road SW

100%

0%

833

Candies Creek Road SW

100%

0%

834

Tunnel Hill Road

100%

0%

835

TN SR 317 Weatherly Switch Trail SW

95%

5%

836

Bill Stewart Road

98%

2%

837

TN SR 2 Varnell Road

94%

6%

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Figure 3.1 External Station Locations

37

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

38

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

3.2 External Validation Adjustments


Validation adjustments to the external model consisted of modifying the TAZ geography
and EE trips files. Several iterations of the external model were executed in order to balance
volumes at the external stations in such a manner so the addition of IE and EE trips matched
the total AADT of each external station.
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 trying to go north into Chattanooga should really be headed towards
Dalton and areas to the South. To correct that, attractions were added to some of the
external stations, such as I-75 South, to pull the 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.

3.3 External Validation Results


Model validation results are described later in Section 7.0 on the highway assignment. In
particular, a review of the external cordon line and other screenlines close to the model
boundary indicate a reasonable match of external travel movements. The external cordon
line achieves a volume-over-count ratio of 1.00.

39

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

40

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

4.0 Trip Generation


Just as with the previous 2000 model, the CHCNGA 2007 model uses a cross-classification
trip generation process for trip productions along with trip rate equations for trip
attractions. Trip productions and attractions are generated by zone using trip production
rates derived from the Chattanooga household travel survey and trip attraction rates
borrowed from the Knoxville household travel survey. This section discusses the Trip
Generation model step.

4.1 Trip Generation Process


During the previous 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 cross-classification method based on auto
availability and children per household was implemented. This same method was used
during this 2035 LRTP update. Other potential explanatory variables from the survey, such
as household size and income, were evaluated. However, trip rate matrices derived from
these variables showed inconsistent patterns. Therefore, both the CHCNGA 2000 and 2007
models used trip rates developed for the four following auto availability categories:

Zero autos per household;

One auto per household;

Two autos per household; and

Three or more autos per household.

Trip rates for the four auto availability categories are cross-classified by categories, as
follows:

Zero children per household;

One child per household; and

Two or more children per household.

Auto availability and children per household data were derived from the 2000 Census.
Trip production rates were developed for the following trip purposes:

Home-Based Work (HBW);

Home-Based School (HBSchool);

Home-Based Shop (HBShop);

41

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Home-Based Social/Recreation (HBSR);

Home-Based Other (HBO); and

Nonhome Based (NHB).

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.

4.2 Trip Generation Validation Adjustments


Adjustments were made to the trip attraction rates and special generators in order to
validate the trip generation step in the travel demand model. Further detail is provided
below.

Trip Attraction Rates


As noted above, trip production rates utilized in the 2007 model are the same as those
utilized in the 2000 model. 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 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 were based on their household travel survey using
regression analysis. Using the Knoxville attraction rates 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

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

New Chattanooga Trip Production and Attraction Rates

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

Special Generator Locations

Zone
17a

Description
UTC Dorms

18

UTC Dorms

19

UTC Dorms

48*

UTC Dorms

49

UTC Dorms and students

50

UTC Dorms and students

135
157

Lovell Field (CHA) Chattanooga Metro Airport


a

190

Newly added Hamilton Place Mall


Chattanooga State College

197

Chester Frost Park

800

I-75 South External Station

801

U.S. 41/Chattanooga Road External Station

805

Ringgold Road External Station

806a

GA SR 1/U.S. 27 South External Station

818

TN SR 8/U.S. 127/Taft Highway External Station

820

U.S. 111 External Station

822

TN SR 309/Leggett Road External Station

823

TN SR 29/U.S. 27/N. Rhea Co. Hwy. External Station

827

TN SR 60/Georgetown Road External Station

829

I-75 North External Station

Indicates new special generator added to 2007 model.

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.

4.3 Trip Generation Validation Results


Table 4.3 provides comparisons of aggregate trips per household, person, and employee,
along with persons per household between the CHCNGA 2007 TransCAD model and the
previous 2000 model. 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.

Table 4.3

Aggregate Trip Rates


Chattanooga

Standards

Unit of Measure

2007

2000

TDOT

FHWA

Persons per Household

2.38

2.50

n/a

n/a

Internal Trips per


Household

9.00

9.44

8.5-10.5

8.0-14.0

Internal Trips per Person

3.78

3.78

n/a

3.5-4.0

HBW Trips per Employee

1.12

0.74

n/a

n/a

Employees per Person

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

2007 Trips per Household by Trip Purpose

Trip Purpose

2007 Trips Per Household

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

Percent of Trips by Purpose


Percent Trips

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

5.0 Trip Distribution


Trip Distribution models link trip productions and attractions between pairs of TAZs.
These interchanges are typically calculated through application of a Gravity Model. Gravity
Models distribute trips among zones directly proportional to the relative attractiveness of
each individual zone and inversely proportional to the friction between zones (i.e.,
distance). The result is a matrix of person trips that is later balanced in order to be defined
in terms of origins and destinations (as opposed to productions and attractions). Resulting
person trip matrices are processed later in the model chain during mode choice to convert
these to balanced vehicle trips.

5.1 Trip Distribution Model Structure


The trip distribution step of the model estimates or predicts the spatial pattern of trips
between origin and destination zone pairs. The general distribution process includes the
building of highway networks and travel-time skims as well as application of the Gravity
Model. This includes updating the travel-time skims with intrazonal and terminal times,
distributing trips between zones using a Gravity Model, and producing a set of congested
highway skims. The primary input data used for trip distribution is the friction factor
(F_FACTORS.bin) file. This file is used by the Gravity Model to measure the effects of
spatial separation between zones for the purpose of trip distribution. It is generally
assumed that trips are less likely to be allocated to destinations with greater travel times if
alternative destinations with lesser travel times and similar attractiveness are available.
Friction factors from the previous CHCNGA 2000 model were used as a starting point for
the new CHCNGA 2007 TransCAD model. They were further modified during the model
validation process as discussed in Section 5.2.
Intrazonal times represent the travel time within or across a zone. These times are
calculated as one-half the travel time from one zone to the nearest adjacent zone. Terminal
times represent the time involved at either end of a trip to travel from an origin to a vehicle
or from the vehicle to a final destination. More specifically, this accounts for the time
necessary to walk to or from the vehicle used for any given trip. Table 5.1 lists the terminal
times by area type used in the CHCNGA 2007 TransCAD model. Terminal times inside the
study area are typically greatest in central business districts.

47

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Table 5.1

Terminal Times

Terminal Times

Area Types

Area Type Descriptions

Central Business District (CBD)

Central Business District (CBD) Fringe

Residential

Outlying Business District

Rural

Urban Undeveloped

Mountainous

Industrial

10

External Centroid Connector

5.2 Trip Distribution Model Development and Validation


Validation of the CHCNGA 2007 trip distribution model primarily involved modification of
the highway network, friction factors, and K-factors. Evaluation of the trip distribution
model was accomplished by comparing statistics for average trip length and the percentage
of intrazonal trips between the CHCNGA 2007 model and other comparable models in the
southeast, including the previous CHCNGA 2000 model.

Network Link Attributes


As part of the model validation process, the TPO conducted an in depth review of the
highway network, particularly in downtown Chattanooga and in the Enterprise South
Industrial Park. Network characteristics were updated to more accurately reflect the
conditions of the roadway system in the CHCNGA study area for the year 2007. In addition
to updating existing roadway characteristics, the TPO added a new area type (8-Industrial).
Field review also resulted in some changes to network characteristics. The master network,
which includes all network years, is titled LRTP_MASTER_NETWORK.dbd.

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

2007 Trips Between K-Factor Districts


2007 K-Factor District Trip Interchanges

North of River

South of River
in Tennessee

Georgia

External
Stations

North of River

295,216

48,598

13,033

54,204

South of River in Tennessee

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

2035 Trips Between K-Factor Districts


2035 K-Factor District Trip Interchanges

District

North of
River

South of River
in Tennessee

Georgia

External
Stations

North of River

412,044

79,091

19,644

77,977

South of River in Tennessee

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

Penalties and Prohibitors


A turn penalty and/or prohibitor file allows for the adjustment of travel times on specific
links by either inducing a time penalty to pass from one link to another or prohibiting the
movement all together. Prohibitors are typically confined to ramp intersections. However,
since interstates and expressways are dual-line coded in the model network, the need for
turn prohibitors at interchanges is eliminated. As a result, no prohibitors were included in
the CHCNGA 2007 TransCAD model. Furthermore, K-factor and speed adjustments
provided satisfactory distribution results without requiring travel-time penalties.
However, it was found necessary to add penalties, primarily along the Tennessee River
bridges, to correct local imbalances. Table 5.4 below lists the locations and amount of the
penalties. In addition, there is a penalty along Mountain Creek Road, as this corridor is a

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

N. Market Street Bridge

1.10

Dupont Parkway

0.25

Mountain Creek Road

2.00

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

5.3 Trip Distribution Model Results


The two fundamental Gravity Model checks discussed in this section are the average trip
length by purpose and the percentage of intrazonal trips. An analysis of volume-to-count
summaries along screenlines also can be helpful in establishing the accuracy of trip
distribution. However, as screenline summaries apply more significantly to the analysis of
traffic assignment, these will be discussed later in Section 7.0.

Average Trip Length by Purpose


Table 5.5 demonstrates the final average trip lengths for each trip purpose in comparison to
the old 2000 model. In addition, year 2007 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 hourweighted 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.

51

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Table 5.5

Average Trip Length (in Minutes)


2007

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

Intrazonal Trip Distribution


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 5.6, 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. Providing the percent of intrazonal trips by
purpose assists with assessing zone size and the attenuation of trips.

52

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

Table 5.6

Intrazonal Trips by Trip Purpose


Chattanooga (TransCAD) Percent Intrazonal

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

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

54

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

6.0 Mode Choice


Currently, the Chattanooga TransCAD model does not include a transit network/
pathbuilding component. At the beginning of the 2035 LRTP Update, the TPO 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
TPO will be developing the survey instrument for the on-board transit survey shortly after
the adoption of the 2035 LRTP Update. Subsequently, the TPO 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 TPO 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. These persons per vehicle ratios by trip purpose were used to convert person trips to
vehicle trips.
Although the current model does not include a transit network, it does include a vehicle
occupancy allocation component that disaggregates vehicle trips by single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) categories. Trips also are allocated by
truck categories. This is useful in evaluating HOV lanes or truck-exclusive lanes.
This section of the report describes the different mode choice structures used to generate the
three types of trip tables for input into their respective assignment processes, as follows:

General Highway Assignment;

Exclusive HOV or Truck Lane Assignment; and

Time-of-Day Assignment.

Each of the three mode choice processes are detailed below.

6.1 Mode Choice Model Structure for General Highway


Assignment
The CHCNGA 2007 model was validated using the General Highway Assignment process.
The CHCNGA 2007 mode choice model first balances the External-External (EE) trip table
and then adds these preloaded EE trips to the trip table, including all of the other trip
purposes. The six internal passenger vehicle trip purposes (HBW, HBSchool, HBShop,
HBSR, HBO, and NHB) are then converted from person trips to vehicle trips using the auto
occupancy rates included in Table 6.1. Auto occupancy rates were calculated by purpose

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

Auto Occupancy Rates

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.

6.2 Mode Choice Model Structure for Exclusive HOV or Truck


Lanes
As noted earlier, a vehicle occupancy allocation component is included in the mode choice
model in order to evaluate the impact of exclusive HOV or truck lanes. This component
disaggregates vehicle trips into the following three categories:

SOVs;

HOVs with two persons per vehicle; and

HOVs with three or more persons per vehicle.

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 Allocation by Trip Purpose


Trip Purpose

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

Based on the Chattanooga external origin/destination survey, approximately 39 percent of


external trips were allocated to SOV trips, 24 percent to HOV2 (two persons/vehicle) trips,
and 23 percent to HOV3 (three or more persons/vehicle) trips. The remaining 14 percent of
external trips were allocated to truck purposes.
Trips also are allocated by truck categories, as described earlier in this report. These trips
already are in vehicle trip equivalents so vehicle occupancy conversions are not needed:

Light-Duty Truck;

Medium-Duty Truck; and

Heavy-Duty Truck.

Based on the Chattanooga external origin/destination survey, approximately five percent of


external trips were allocated to light-duty truck trips, five percent to medium-duty truck
trips, and four percent to heavy-duty truck trips. The share of truck and SOV/HOV trips
are only applied when running the HOV Only or Truck Only Assignment processes.

6.3 Mode Choice Model Structure for Time-of-Day Model


Once all trip purposes are converted to vehicle trips, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip tables can
be generated using the peak hour factors derived from the household travel diary survey.
As part of the evaluation of the household travel survey, the percent of trips that occur
within each hour of the day (peak hour factors) were calculated and are depicted in
Table 6.3. The a.m. peak hour occurs between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., as the highest percent
of trips in the morning occurs during that hour in Chattanooga, at approximately 7.4
percent. The p.m. peak hour occurs between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., as the highest percent
of trips in the afternoon occurs during that hour, at approximately 8.7 percent.

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

Temporal Distribution of Trips

Hour
12:00 to 1:00 a.m.

0.4%

1:00 to 2:00 a.m.

0.1%

2:00 to 3:00 a.m.

0.2%

3:00 to 4:00 a.m.

0.0%

4:00 to 5:00 a.m.

0.1%

5:00 to 6:00 a.m.

0.5%

6:00 to 7:00 a.m.

2.3%

7:00 to 8:00 a.m.

7.0%

8:00 to 9:00 a.m.

7.4%

9:00 to 10:00 a.m.

4.7%

10:00 to 11:00 a.m.

5.3%

11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

6.1%

12:00 to 1:00 p.m.

6.9%

1:00 to 2:00 p.m.

6.8%

2:00 to 3:00 p.m.

6.6%

3:00 to 4:00 p.m.

8.0%

4:00 to 5:00 p.m.

7.5%

5:00 to 6:00 p.m.

8.7%

6:00 to 7:00 p.m.

8.1%

7:00 to 8:00 p.m.

5.3%

8:00 to 9:00 p.m.

3.5%

9:00 to 10:00 p.m.

2.6%

10:00 to 11:00 p.m.

1.3%

11:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.

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

7.0 Highway Assignment


The purpose of highway assignment models is to load vehicle trips onto the highway
network. This results in traffic estimates on individual links that ultimately attempt to
simulate general vehicular travel throughout the study area. Supplemental assignment
processes were generated for simulating HOV and truck exclusive facilities, and time-of-day
simulations.
Validation of the highway assignment involved iterative modifications to centroid locations,
verification of counts, and adjustment of speeds, capacities, K-Factors and other parameters
related to trip distribution. A number of key evaluation statistics are generated during the
assignment phase of the model. Volume-to-count ratios are compared by area type, facility
type, laneage, and screenlines. Along with these statistics, the root mean squared error
(RMSE) was generated by volume group.
This section describes validation of the highway assignment model. It includes an overview
of the model structure, development and adjustment of model parameters, and a review of
model results.

7.1 Highway Assignment Model Structure


Trips are loaded onto the network by means of an iterative equilibrium highway load
program based on an all-or-nothing capacity restrained assignment. A total of 11 iterations
are conducted during base year model execution (maximum iterations are set to 15) and the
convergence parameter is set to 0.001. A series of statistical summaries are subsequently
generated as a result of code added to the model script to report validation statistics. The
supplemental exclusive lane assignment model is used to test scenarios where selected
vehicle classes (e.g., single-occupant autos) are restricted from using selected lanes and
ramps (e.g., HOV lanes). The time-of-day assignment model is used to obtain assignment
volumes for specific time periods. These supplemental models are not normally executed
when conducting a general traffic assignment where only total daily traffic volumes are
desired.

7.2 Development and Validation of Highway Assignment Model


In total, 23 major model runs were executed in order to validate the CHCNGA 2000
TransCAD model. In addition, several model runs were made inbetween major model runs
to iterate minor adjustments. Model validation was accomplished by minimizing the
difference between model simulated volumes and observed counts for the year 2007 on
network links throughout the study area. As many count locations were accounted for as

59

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

possible in order to ensure a wide range of coverage geographically as well as to incorporate


as many examples of facilities and land uses located within the study area.
Adjustments were made to key elements in the modeling process to achieve this validation.
After each run, a summary of the results was compiled and analyzed in order to identify
areas for improvement in the model and successful strategies toward validation.
Appropriate changes consistent with the discoveries revealed during analysis were then
implemented and subsequent runs were executed. This iterative process was continued
until validation was achieved.
Changes made to the model during highway assignment validation consisted mainly of
iterative adjustments to speeds and highway network editing, including adjustment of
centroids and centroid connectors. Other adjustments discussed elsewhere in this report
also impacted highway assignment results.

7.3 Highway Assignment Validation Results


In validating traffic assignment, final outcome of a travel demand model, common
performance metrics include the following:

Systemwide volume-to-count ratio;

Volume-to-count ratios by link group (area type, facility type, and number of lanes);

Volume-to-count ratios along screenlines;

Percent difference in model volumes and counts by volume group;

Systemwide coefficient of determination between assigned volumes and counts;

Systemwide percent root mean square error; and

Percent root mean square error by volume group.

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

Volume Over Count Ratios by Facility Type, Area Type and


Number of Lanes
Chattanooga Volume/Count Ratio
2007

2000

TDOT Target

1. Interstate

1.02

0.98

+/- 7%

2. Expressway

1.04

0.94

+/- 7%

3. Principal Arterial Divided

0.98

0.98

+/- 10%

4. Principal Arterial Undivided

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

Number of Lanes by Direction


1

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

Comparison of Volume-to-Count Ratios by Screenline


Chattanooga Volume/Count Ratio

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

Percent Difference for Daily Volumes (Calculated for Links


with Counts)

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.

Figure 7.1 Correlation of Assigned Versus Observed Volumes


AssignedVolume
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0

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

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) by Volume Group


Chattanooga TransCAD
2007

2000

TDOT Target

FHWA and New


FDOT Guidelines
and Standards

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

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Model Facility Type

Facility Type

Chattanooga 2007 Model VMT

Interstate

4,228,041 (31.4%)

Expressway

1,496,818 (11.1%)

Principal Arterial Divided

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

Comparison to Observed Speeds


During November 2008, the TPO conducted travel time runs during the a.m. and p.m. peakperiods 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 D includes a map of the observed 2008 a.m. peakperiod 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.

65

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

66

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

8.0 Summary and Conclusions


Section 8.0 provides a bullet list summary of the 2007 model validation observations, as well
as details on future model enhancements and data collection efforts planned by the TPO.

8.1 Summary of 2007 Model Validation Observations


Below is a summary of 2007 model validation observations:

The overall 2007 model is validating at an RMSE of 34.6 percent, within acceptable
Federal limits;

The 2007 model is validating at a systemwide volume-to-count ratio of 0.96, within


acceptable limits and improved since the 2000 model;

The correlation coefficient of observed counts to model volumes (R2) is performing well
at 0.95, exceeding TDOTs target of 0.88;

Eight of 10 screenlines are validating within acceptable limits;

The overall ratio of model VMT to HPMS VMT is 1.06;

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

8.2 Future Model Enhancements


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.

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.

External Origin and Destination Survey In 2002, a roadside origin-destination


intercept survey designed to obtain characteristics of travelers entering, exiting, and
passing through the region from locations outside the CHCNGA study area was
conducted. During the last 2030 LRTP Update, it was determined that the results from
the 2002 external origin and destination survey were biased. As a result, during the last
2030 LRTP Update, as well as this current 2035 LRTP Update, the 2002 roadside origindestination intercept survey was not used within the TransCAD model. Therefore, the
TPO intends to conduct a new external origin and destination survey during the fall of
2010. In the meantime, the TPO will be designing the sampling plan and survey
instrument. The results of the 2010 external origin and destination survey will be used
to validate the external model for the 2010 base year validation as part of the next LRTP
update.

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.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts If a nonmotorized component is added to the travel


demand model prior to validating the 2010 base year model for the next LRTP Update,
the TPO will collect bicycle and pedestrian counts. Currently, the TPO owns three
bicycle and pedestrian counters and has begun collecting counts in key locations.

Travel Demand Model Enhancements


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:

Updated external model based on 2010 external data;

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.

69

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation and Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

70

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

Appendix A: Network Project Lists

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

LRTP ID

I-75

Moore Rd.

SR 153

Chattanooga

Masters Rd.

STP-M-9202(51) Chattanooga Shallowford Rd.

Hixson Pike

Chattanooga

From

Chapman

Roadway

Jurisdiction

STP-M-9202(50) Chattanooga Shallowford Rd.

TIP ID

2002 Model Network Projects (Since 2000)

Wilcox

Noah Reid Rd.

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

TN01-MC002 (TN)/ 101029 (TN)/


STP-99-1 (GA)
650430 (GA)
STP-M-9202 (36)/
TN01-MC006
101557

STP-M-9202(52)

107*

102

TIP/STIP
ID

LRTP
ID

2009 Model Network Projects (Since 2002)

Hixson Pike

I-75

I-75

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

East Ridge (TN)/Catoosa


County (GA)

Catoosa County

Catoosa County

Chattanooga
Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Ashland Terrace

Ringgold Rd.

SR 146

SR 146

Enterprise Blvd.
SR 317
Connector
(Proposed)
Shallowford Rd.

3rd St./4th St.

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

Apison Pike @ Old Lee Hwy.


West of Center St.

I-75 Enterprise South


Interchange
Standifer Gap

1.3

0.03

0.6

1.3

0.6
1.2

1.1

Enterprise South Blvd. cul-desac

Enterprise Pkwy. Fork

3.1

1.2

2.4

1.4

0.5

1.1 mile south of SR 2/US 11

SR 317

Dallas Hollow Rd.

Suck Creek Rd.

To

Broad St./Georgia Ave.

Lindsay

New Interchange at Mile 9


(Enterprise South)

SR 317

Shallowford Rd.

Hideaway Ln.

US 27

From

Length
(miles)

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

New Interchange at Mile 9 (Enterprise South)

Widen from 4 to 8 lanes

Widen from 4 to 6 lanes

Widen from 2 to 6 lanes

Widen from 4 to 6 lanes

Full Description

Widening

Widening

Widening

Widening

New
Construction
Widening

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Widen from 2 to 5 lanes (4 through lanes)

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including bridge


reconstruction

New 4-lane facility


Widening from 2 to 5 lanes (4 thru lanes)

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

2007 & 2009

2007 & 2009

2007 & 2009

2007 & 2009

2007 & 2009

2007 & 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

SIA Road for VW


(Industrial Access Rd.)

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

Hickory Valley Rd.

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

Central Ave. Extension

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

East of Graysville Rd.

I-24
Boynton Rd.

Hickory
c o y Valley
a ey Road
oad
Page Rd.

SR 321

Old Lee Hwy.

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.

Bel Air Rd.

East Brainerd Rd.


1 mile south of Highway
58
Cross St.
South of Tennessee
River
SR 2

SR 321

Riverside Drive

SR 153

US 41/Nashville St.

Jenkins Rd.
SR 8/Signal Mountain
Blvd.
Reeds Bridge
Rd./Boynton Rd.

Enterprise Pkwy./I-75 Enterprise Blvd./Pkwy.


Interchange
Fork
1.1 Mi south of SR
0.2 Mi north of SR 2/US
2/US 11
11

Old Lee Hwy.

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

2015 Model Network Projects (Since 2009)

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

New two lane road

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

Industrial access road for


Volkswagen

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane collector road

New two lane collector road

New two lane collector road

New two lane road

New two lane road

New two lane road

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes


Widening from 2 to 5 lanes (4 thru
lanes)

Widen from 4 to 8 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

2-lane extension

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes


Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with turn
lanes as needed

Widen from 4 to 8 lanes

Widen from 4 to 8 lanes


Widening from 2 to 5 lanes (4 thru
lanes)

Construct new 4-lane roadway


(Enterprise Pkwy.) from Enterprise
Pkwy./I-75 Interchange to
Enterprise Blvd./Pkwy. Fork

2.17

4.9

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)
Widen from 2 to 4 lanes

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

2011 E+C &


2015
2011 E+C &
2015
2011 E+C &
2015

2011 E+C &


2015
2011 E+C &
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)

2025 Model Network Projects (Since 2015)

Hickory Valley Rd

Central Ave.

3rd St./4th St.

Mahan Gap Rd./SR 312


I-75 northbound to I-24
westbound lane
extension

Jenkins Rd.

East Brainerd Rd.

Wauhatchie Pike

Snow Hill Rd.

US 11/US 64/Lee Hwy.

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.

Beyond Belvoir Road


Overpass

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.

Snow Hill Rd.

Shallowford Rd.

US 41/US 64
SR 321/OoltewahRinggold Rd.

SR 312/Mahan Gap 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

Dupont Pkwy. Extension

Goodwin Rd. Extension

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.

Central Ave. Extension

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

2035 Model Network Projects (Since 2025)

SR 153

Gunbarrel

Ringgold Rd.

Champion Rd.

SR 319/Hixson Pike

Walker Rd.

Gothard Rd.

Wilcox Blvd.

Camp Jordan Rd.

South Cedar Ln.

E Brainard

Chickamauga Ave.

Riverport Rd.

Airport Rd

Airport Rd.

Lee St.

From

SR 312

SR 17/SR 58

Bill Reed Rd.

Dayton Blvd.

Glass St.

Gunbarrel Rd.

I-75

Dug Road

SR 341

SR 153

Jersey Pike

N Moore Rd

SR 193

To

Hixson Pike

Hamilton Place Blvd.

North Terrace Rd.

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)

Widen from 2 to 4 lane


Widen from 4 to 6
lanes

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

Appendix B: Technical Memorandum #1

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Memorandum
TO:

Bob Rock, TDOT


Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT
Tyrhonda Edwards, GDOT

CC:

Angie Midgett, TDOT

FROM:

Melissa Taylor, CHCNGA TPO


Keli Paul, AICP, Cambridge Systematics

DATE:

September 18, 2008

RE:

Model Certification Submittal #1: Outline of TransCAD Model Assumptions


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 #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

www .ca msys .co m

fax 850 219 6389

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)

Existing-Plus-Committed (E+C) Projects - Projects that are expected to


complete construction between the years 2008 and 2011 (i.e. those in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)) (currently being developed)

Year 2035 Financially Feasible Plan Projects Projects funded in LRTP

Year 2025 Funded Projects Interim year 2025 funded projects

Year 2015 Funded Projects Interim year 2015 funded projects

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:

Home-Based Work (HBW)

Home-Based School (HBSchool)

Home-Based Shop (HBShop)

Home-Based Social/Recreation (HBSR)

Home-Based Other (HBO)

Non-Home Based (NHB)

Light-Duty Truck (LDTK)

Medium-Duty Trucks (MDTK)

Heavy-Duty Trucks (HDTK)

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:

2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data (currently expected in November 2008)

List and corresponding map of capacity-adding transportation projects added to the 2000
model to update to 2007

Populated validation worksheet once validation complete

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

Model Validation Documentation Requirements


Specified in TDOT Division Procedure: MPO Model Approval
and
Minimum Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Guidelines for State of Tennessee,
University of Tennessee, Center for Transportation Research

Attachment #1: MPO Model Certification Requirements


CHCNGA 2035 LRTP
TDOT's MPO Model Approval Requirements
(Effective 3/1/08)
Socioeconomic Data
TAZ Maps with corresponding existing and future
SE data, including external stations
Person trips/household by purpose
Travel Survey Data

Source, year, and type of travel survey


information

If no survey, provide source of trip data


Network Data
Provide files (networks, turn
penalties/prohibitors, speed/cap, FT codes)
Table of significant projects added to network by
model year
Explanation of how MPO dealing with crossborder traffic
Trip Generation

Description of trip generation method (P/A, O/D,


Special Generators; Cross-Class, Regression, or
Discrete Choice)

Description of trip purposes

Description of how EE and EI trips addressed


Whether trip rates developed for vehicle and/or
person trips
Special generators (how and where)
Trip Distribution
Files (friction factors, terminal time, and Kfactors)
Trip length by trip purpose for base and future
year
Comparison of HBW mean trip length compared
to Census JTW mean trip length
Trip Length Frequency Distribution (TLFD) by
Trip Purpose Compared to Census JTW and
Household Travel Survey (Charts)
Area-to-Area Flow of Trips

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*

Household travel diary survey (2002) used to determine trip


generation rates, average trip lengths, auto occupancy factors, and
other characteristics used in 2000 model development and validation.
Percent IE/EE splits were calculated from the Chattanooga Urban
Area Origin-Destination Study conducted in 2002. However, it was
determined that these percentages were not reliable as the interstate
surveys were conducted on ramps at interchanges and rest areas.
Vehicles were not pulled off to the side of the road on the mainline
interstate segments where most EE trips occur. The vehicles that
were surveyed were already stopping at the interchange or rest area.
Therefore, the results provide a significant bias towards IE trips and
EE trips are underestimated. The percent IE/EE splits from the origin
and destination survey were subsequently compared to the old 2000
MINUTP model and it was determined that the old 2000 MINUTP
model percent splits appeared more reasonable.

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*

K-factor and screenline at state line

Determine during
validation

TDOT*

Cross-Classification method based on auto availability and children


per household; Trip production rates for HBW, HBSCHOOL,
HBSHOP, HBSR, HBO, and NHB calculated using 2002 HH Travel
Diary Survey; Truck production rates from QRFM; Attraction rates
from NERPM; Special generators included

same

TDOT*

HBW, HBSCHOOL, HBSHOP, HBSR, HBO, NHB, LTTK, MDTK,


HDTK

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

Attachment #1: MPO Model Certification Requirements


CHCNGA 2035 LRTP
TDOT's MPO Model Approval Requirements
(Effective 3/1/08)

Were friction factors in gravity model kept


constant between base and future years?

Were terminal times used?

Were K-factors used and if so, what was the


basis?
Mode Split
Description of mode split and choice analysis
method (i.e. nested logit?)
Were vehicle occupancy factors by trip purpose
used to convert person trips to vehicle trips?
Were they kept constant between years?
Source?
What network model coding logic was used to
code access to transit in the network?
Trip Assignment
Files (loaded network, summary table including
estimated link vols & costs, text file with user
inputs and model outputs)
Comparison of screenline vols with counts (2
N/S, 2 EW)
Comparison of cutline, screenline, and cordon
line vols with counts

Type of
Submittal

Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)
Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)

Text (overview
provided in
Submittal #1)

Percent Difference in Peak Hour Volume by FT


Percent RMSE by Link Volume Group
Scatter Plot of Assigned vs. Observed Link
Traffic Volume
Correlate coefficient by link volumes
Overall Performance
VMT, VHT, and average speed for entire system
and by FT
VMT per capita (VMT/population)
Final Files (complete datasets)
Final Documentation (complete model
validation report, including user's guide)

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*

Yes; Yes; Source is HH Travel Survey

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*

Peak hour factors applied to achieve temporal distribution based on


2002 Household Travel Diary Survey

same

Was time-of-day assignment performed? If so,


details.
If no time-of-day assignment, how were 24-hour
vols converted to peak hour vols? What
Text (overview
conversion factors used? Relationship between
provided in
peak hour & 24-hour vol?
Submittal #1)
Validation
Fraction of total VMT assigned to IZ and centroid
connector trips? Is it reasonable?
Worksheet (add)
Traffic counts on 10% of regionwide highway
segments by functional calss (freeways and
principal arterials at a minimum & screenlines)
Percent Differences in Daily Volume by FT and
screenline

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

Model Validation Worksheets


(Template Not Populated with 2007 Statistics)

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

*2 New FDOT Guidelines

Person Trips / Household


Region
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Chattanooga (MINUTP)
*1 TDOT Target

Persons per Household


Internal Trips per Household
Internal Trips per Person
Internal Trips per Employee
Employees per Person
Total Population
Total Households
Total Employment

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)

Aggregate Trip Rates & Socioeconomic Summaries

#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)

Comparison of Total Trips by Purpose

Trip Generation

TEMPLATE
9/18/2008

Chattanooga 2007 MODEL VALIDATION SUMMARY

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

Average Trip Length (in Minutes)

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

Memphis Montgomery Savannah *


19.00
19.90
19.80
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.30
n/a
15.10
13.90
n/a
n/a
13.40
17.40
15.40
13.20
16.70
13.40
17.20
15.80

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%

* FHWA Target: R more than 0.88

* New FDOT Target: N/A

Coefficient of Determination R (Correlation Coefficient of Actual Counts and Model Volumes)


1
2
* TDOT Target: R more than 0.88

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 *

+/- 5% (+/- 6%)


+/- 5% (+/- 6%)
+/- 7% (+/- 10%)
+/- 7% (+/- 10%)
n/a
+/- 10% (+/- 15%)
n/a
+/- 15% (+/- 20%)

1 Central City Partial Cordon


2 Tennessee River Crossing
3 North-South Downtown
4 East-West Downtown
5 Missionary Ridge
6 South Chickamauga Creek
7 North-South North Hamilton Co.
8 Ringgold
9 TN/GA State Line
10 External Cordon Line

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

Volumes Over Counts

Total Volume

Screenline

Daily Traffic on Screenlines

Traffic Assignment (1st of 3 pages)

+/- 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

Vehicle Miles Traveled

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%

Root Mean Square Error


Chattanooga 2007

Traffic Assignment (2nd of 3 pages)

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

VMT by Functional Classification

Traffic Assignment (Last of 3 pages)

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

Appendix C: Technical Memorandum #2

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Memorandum
TO:

Bob Rock, TDOT


Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT
Tim Kassa, GDOT

CC:

Chattanooga Interagency Consultation Committee (ICC)

FROM:

Melissa Taylor, CHCNGA TPO


Yuen Lee, Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA)
Keli Paul, AICP, Cambridge Systematics

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

www .ca msys .co m

fax 850 219 6389

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:

Greater than 15,000 productions per TAZ in 2030;

Irregular shaped or large sized TAZs;

Major existing or planned roads bisecting TAZ; and

Potential special generator located in TAZ (i.e. isolated TN Aquarium).

The following guidelines were used to split the TAZ boundaries, when feasible:

-2-

Existing and future roadways;

Existing and future land use;

Railroads;

Water bodies; and

Census block group boundaries.

Figure 1. TAZ Splits

-3-

2.0 SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC DATA


RPA staff developed the 2007 and 2035 socioeconomic data as part of the ChattanoogaHamilton County/North Georgia 2035 LRTP Update. Historically, the Coosa Valley Regional
Development Center (RDC) has developed the socioeconomic data for the Georgia portion of
the TPO. However, development of the socioeconomic data for the Georgia side has since
become the responsibility of the TPO due to funding limitations.
Variables
The socioeconomic data included in the TransCAD travel demand model can be broken in to
four categories, as follows:

Household Data Includes total population, school-age children (population between


ages 3 and 18), and total housing units.

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.

Hotel-Motel Units Includes number of hotel-motel units.

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%

Figure 2. Regional Summary of Socioeconomic Data for 2035 LRTP Update


Regional Summary
700,000
594,203

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-

Figure 3. Comparison of Households Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models

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-

Figure 4. Comparison of Population Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models

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-

Table 5. Comparison of Employees Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models


County

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

Figure 5. Comparison of Employees Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models

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

331 108 516 195

26,302
15,284

20,040

0
Hamilton

Dade

Walker

Catoosa

County
2000

2007

2030*

2035

6.0 HOTEL-MOTEL UNITS


As demonstrated in Table 6, 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

-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

Hotel Motel Units by County


12,000
10,876

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

7.0 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 Table 7, 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.
Table 7. Comparison of School Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
County

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

School Enrollment by County


70,000
60,000

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

8.0 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
Table 8. 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.
Table 8. Comparison of College Enrollment Between 2030 and 2035 LRTP Models
County

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

College Enrollment by County


30,000

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:

List and corresponding map of capacity-adding transportation projects added to the


2000 model to update to 2007; and

Populated validation worksheet once validation complete.

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

Revized TAZ Structure for 2007 Model

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

Appendix D: Technical Memorandum #3

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Memorandum
TO:

Bob Rock, TDOT


Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT
Tim Kassa, GDOT

CC:

Chattanooga Interagency Consultation Committee (ICC)

FROM:

Melissa Taylor, CHCNGA TPO


Keli Paul, AICP, Cambridge Systematics
Sheldon Harrison, Cambridge Systematics

DATE:

September 28, 2009

RE:

Model Certification Submittal #3: Draft 2007 TransCAD Model Validation


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:

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.

This technical memorandum constitutes Submittal #3 defined above. Submittal #1 was


submitted and approved by TDOT in September 2008. Subsequently, Regional Planning
2 4 5 7 Ca r e Dr i v e , S u it e 1 0 1
Tallahassee, FL 32308
tel 850 219 6388

w w w. c ams ys. c om

fax 850 219 6389

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

Year 2007 Model Network

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

Year 2007 Model Validation

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

New Chattanooga Trip Production and Attraction Rates

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.

Aggregate Trip rates


Chattanooga

Standards

Unit of Measure

2007

2000

TDOT

FHWA

Persons per Household

2.38

2.50

n/a

n/a

Internal Trips per Household

9.00

9.44

8.5-10.5

8.0-14.0

Internal Trips per Person

3.78

3.78

n/a

3.5-4.0

HBW Trips per Employee

1.12

0.74

n/a

n/a

Employees per Person

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-

As indicated in Table 3 below, Home-Based Work (HBW) trips represent approximately 13


percent of all the trips generated in the Chattanooga region, slightly below TDOTs target of 18
percent. Approximately 40 percent of trips in the Chattanooga region can be attributed to
Home-Based School, Shopping, Social Recreation, and Other trips purposes. This is comparable
to Nashville, Tennessee and Montgomery, Alabama at approximately 39 percent. NonhomeBased (NHB) trips are within the desired range of 22 to 31 percent at 27 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.

Table 3.

Percent of Trips by Purpose


Chattanooga

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

N. Market Street Bridge

1.10

Dupont Parkway

0.25

Mountain Creek Road

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.

Average Trip Length (in Minutes)


2007

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.

Intrazonal Trips by Trip Purpose


Chattanooga (TransCAD) Percent Intrazonal

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:

Systemwide volume-to-count ratio;

Volume-to-count ratios by link group (area type, facility type, and number of lanes);

Volume-to-count ratios along screenlines;

Percent difference in model volumes and counts by volume group;

Systemwide coefficient of determination between assigned volumes and counts;

Systemwide percent root mean square error; and

Percent root mean square error by volume group.

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.

Volume Over Count Ratios by Facility Type, Area Type and


Number of Lanes

Chattanooga Volume/Count Ratio


2007

2000

TDOT Targeta

1. Interstate

1.02

0.98

+/- 7%

2. Expressway

1.04

0.94

+/- 7%

3. Principal Arterial Divided

0.98

0.98

+/- 10%

4. Principal Arterial Undivided

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

Number of Lanes by Direction


1

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.

Comparison of Volume-to-Count Ratios by Screenline


Chattanooga Volume/Count Ratio

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.

Percent Difference for Daily Volumes (Calculated for Links with


Counts)

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.

Correlation of Assigned Versus Observed Volumes

70000

2007 Assigned Volumes

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.

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) by Volume Group


Chattanooga TransCAD
2007

2000

TDOT Target

FHWA & New


FDOT Guidelines
and Standards

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.

Vehicle Miles Traveled by Model Facility Type

Facility Type

Chattanooga 2007 Model VMT

Interstate

4,228,041 (31.4%)

Expressway

1,496,818 (11.1%)

Principal Arterial Divided

2,067,224 (15.4%)

Principal Arterial Undivided

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

Comparison to Observed Speeds

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

Summary of 2007 Model Validation Observations

The overall 2007 model is validating at 34.6 percent, within acceptable federal limits;

The 2007 model is validating at a systemwide volume-to-count ratio of 0.96, within


acceptable limits and improved since the 2000 model;

The correlation coefficient of observed counts to model volumes (R2) is performing well at
0.95, exceeding TDOTs target of 0.88;

Eight of ten screenlines are validating within acceptable limits;

- 13
-

The overall ratio of model VMT to HPMS VMT is 1.06;

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

Future Model Enhancements

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.

External Origin and Destination Survey In 2002, a roadside origin-destination intercept


survey designed to obtain characteristics of travelers entering, exiting, and passing through
the region from locations outside the CHCNGA study area was conducted. During the last
2030 LRTP Update, it was determined that the results from the 2002 external origin and
destination survey were biased. As a result, during the last 2030 LRTP Update, as well as
this current 2035 LRTP Update, the 2002 roadside origin-destination intercept survey was
not used within the TransCAD model. Therefore, the RPA intends to conduct a new
external origin and destination survey during the fall of 2010. In the meantime, the RPA
will be designing the sampling plan and survey instrument. The results of the 2010 external
origin and destination survey will be used to validate the external model for the 2010 base
year validation as part of the next LRTP update.

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.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts If a nonmotorized component is added to the travel


demand model prior to validating the 2010 base year model for the next LRTP Update, the
RPA will collect bicycle and pedestrian counts. Currently, the RPA owns three bicycle and
pedestrian counters and has begun collecting counts in key locations.

4.2

Travel Demand Model Enhancements

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:

Updated external model based on 2010 external data;

- 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:

Full model documentation report and users guide; and

All TransCAD files (future years).

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

State PI# 33015 Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

I-75

I-75

I-75

Hixson Pike

Chattanooga SR 8/US 127

STP-M-9202(52) Chattanooga 3rd St./4th St.

107*

A-5

STP-M-9202(50) Chattanooga Shallowford Rd.

Chattanooga

Chattanooga

Jurisdiction

STP-M-9202(51) Chattanooga Shallowford Rd.

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

1.1 mile south of SR 2/US 11

SR 317

Dallas Hollow Rd.

Suck
Su
ck Creek
Creek Rd.
Rd

Broad St./Georgia Ave.

Wilcox

Noah Reid Rd.

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

NON-EXCEMPT PROJECTS TO INCLUDE IN CHCNGA TPO 2007 TRANSCAD MODEL NETWORK


(Projects Constructed Between 2001 and 2007)

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

2007 Area Type

2007 Transcad Model


Area Type

Inset 1

Inset 1

6 Miles

County Boundary

MPO Boundary

Water Bodies

Network Connectors

Oneway

Ramp

Collector

Minor Arterial

Principal Arterial, Undivided

Principal Arterial, Divided

Expressway

Interstate

2007 Facility Type

2007 Model Network

2007 Transcad Model


Facility Type

Inset 1

Inset 1

6 Miles

County Boundary

MPO Boundary

Water Bodies

2007 Number
of Lanes (One-Way)

2007 Model Network

24

2007 Transcad Model


Number of Lanes
(One - Way)

153

24

Northgate Mall

27

75

75

Enterprise South

27

Hamilton Place

153

National Military Park

Inset 1

27

Inset 1

75

75

6 Miles

Id

1
4

County Boundary

MPO Boundary

Water Bodies

10 - External Cordon

9 - Tennessee/Georgia State Line

8 - Ringgold

7 - North-South North Hamilton County

6 - South Chickamauga Creek

5 - Missionary Ridge

4 - East-West Downtown

3 - North-South Downtown

2 - Tennessee River Crossing

1 - Central City Partial Cordon

10

24

2007 Transcad Model


Screenlines

Screenlines

27

153

153

6
153

24

6
75

75

Enterprise South

27

Chat tanooga Airport


Hamilton Place

Northgate Mall

27

National Military Park

75

75

10

6 Miles

*See note below

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

2007 Model Network

< 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

Congested Speed (MPH)

2007 Model Network

24

153

153

153

24

75

75

Enterprise South

27

Chat tanooga Airport


Hamilton Place

Northgate Mall

27

National Military Park

Inset 1

27

2007 Transcad Model


Daily Congested Speeds

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

Person Trips / Household


Region
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Chattanooga (TransCAD)
Chattanooga (MINUTP)

*2 FHWA Target

*2 New FDOT Guidelines

*1 TDOT Target

2.38
9.00
3.78
1.12
0.51
425,666
178,905
218,612

Persons per Household


Internal Trips per Household
Internal Trips per Person
HBW Trips per Employee
Employees per Person
Total Population
Total Households
Total Employment

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

Aggregate Trip Rates & Socioeconomic Summaries

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)

Comparison of Total Trips by Purpose

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.

Chattanooga 2007 MODEL VALIDATION SUMMARY

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

Average Trip Length (in Minutes)

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

Memphis Montgomery Savannah *


19.00
19.90
19.80
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.30
n/a
15.10
13.90
n/a
n/a
13.40
17.40
15.40
13.20
16.70
13.40
17.20
15.80

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% *

* FHWA Target: R more than 0.88

* New FDOT Target: N/A

1 Central City Partial Cordon


2 Tennessee River Crossing
3 North-South Downtown
4 East-West Downtown
5 Missionary Ridge
6 South Chickamauga Creek
7 North-South North Hamilton Co.
8 Ringgold
9 TN/GA State Line
10 External Cordon Line

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

Coefficient of Determination R 2 (Correlation Coefficient of Actual Counts and Model Volumes)


2
0.95 *1 TDOT Target: R 2 more than 0.88
R

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

Volumes Over Counts

Total Volume

Screenline

Daily Traffic on Screenlines

Traffic Assignment (1st of 2 pages)

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:

Overall Model VMT/HPMS VMT

Interstate
Freeway or Expressway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local

HPMS Codes / Functional Class

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

10-16 for small urban area /


17-24 for large urban area

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

30-40 for small urban area /


40-60 for large urban area

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

VMT by Functional Classification

Facility Type

VMT by Model 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%

FHWA Target *3 (same as FDOT)

New FDOT Guildelines *2

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+)

Vehicle Miles Traveled

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

Root Mean Square Error


Chattanooga 2007

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).

* 14 VMT represents facilities greater than local.

* 13 Targets for medium urban are size (200k - 1M) was chosen for Chattanooga Region.

* 12 HPMS stands for Highway Performance Monitoring System.

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 (*

) was referred for confirmation.

* 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.

* 3 FHWA Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual

* 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

Appendix E: 2007 Volume-to-Count Ratios

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

Appendix F: Users Guide

Chattanooga TPO 2035 LRTP Volume 3: Travel Demand Model Documentation & Users Guide

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Installing the Chattanooga TransCAD Model for the First Time


Upon opening the TransCAD 5.0 environment the following quick start dialog box will appear.
Click on the Cancel button. You may also want to check the Use startup action without Quick
Start checkbox as well to prevent future displays of this box.

Proceed to Tools then GIS Developers Kit on the Menu.

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

2002 AQ Used for air quality baseline emissions.

2007 Base Base year validated model.

-6-

2009 Interim Used to compare with emissions in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
PM2.5.

2011 E+C (Existing-Plus-Committed) Used to determine what congestion would be 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.

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-

Chattanooga Year 2007 Model


DATA DICTIONARY
Developed as Part of 2035 LRTP Update

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.

CSV Tabular format readable in Excel (comma separated values).


DBF Database format readable by a variety of software programs.
MTX TransCAD format matrix file in which several sub matrix cores can be placed.
NET TransCAD binary network database.
TXT ASCII text file.
RSC TransCAD GISDK text script file.
LST TransCAD GISDK text list batch run file.
DBD TransCAD geographic file.
BIN TransCAD binary data file.

Files are listed in order by:

HIGHWAY SKIMS - Highway network and path building.


TRIP GENERATION Trip generation and external-external trips.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution and congested skims.
MODE SPLIT Mode choice and auto occupancy.
HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT Highway assignment.

2.0 Input files


The following are the input files used to run the Chattanooga model.They represent the zone
data, network data, and required files in trip distribution, such as K-factor matrices, friction
factors, daily adjustment factors, and external-external matrices. Additionally, the Mobile6.2
emissions factor lookup files are necessary to calculate emissions in the air quality post
processor .

LRTP_NETWORK.DBD
FILE TYPE:

TransCAD Geographic File DBD

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY SKIMS

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Line geographic file used to create TransCAD model network.

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

Link Length in miles.


One way or two-way link flag.
Link County.
Link State.
Number of lanes in AB direction for year
and scenario if applicable (i.e. FFP =
financially feasible plan, EC =
Existing-Plus-Committed).
Number of lanes in BA direction for year
and
scenario if applicable (i.e. FFP = financially
feasible plan, EC = Existing-PlusCommitted).
Total lanes for year and scenario if
applicable
(i.e. FFP = financially feasible plan, EC =
Existing-Plus-Committed).
Facility type for year and scenario if
applicable (i.e. FFP = financially feasible
plan, EC = Existing-Plus-Committed).
Area type for year and scenario if
applicable (i.e. FFP = financially feasible
plan, EC = Existing-Plus-Committed).
Road added in 2007 model network
compared to 2000.
Screenline flag.

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

Directional link counts for 2007, 2008 or


2009.
Source of count data.
HPMS functional class for 1990, 2000 and
2007
Flag to indicate link is an exclusive HOV
Flag to indicate link is an exclusive truck
Working area type field populated
on scenario year specified. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is executed.
Working facility type field populated
depending on scenario year specified. Any
edits will be overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working AB direction lane field populated
depending on scenario year specified. Any
edits will be overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working BA direction lane field populated
depending on scenario year specified. Any
edits will be overwritten when the model is
executed.
Annual average daily traffic (2007, 2008 or
2009).
Link count (2007, 2008 or 2009).
DOT count source flag.
City count source flag.
TPO 2008 source count flag.

Outputs:
*
*
*
*
*
*

TerminalTime
AB/BA_FF_Time
AB/BA_Cong_Time
Table_Speed
Model_Speed
AB/BA_Table_HrCap
input

AB/BA_Model_HrCap

Terminal times for link.


Directional free flow travel times.
Directional congested travel times.
Free-flow speeds from input lookup table.
Congested speeds following assignment.
Directional hourly capacities from
lookup table.
Directional hourly capacities for model
execution.

*
*
*
*

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

Directional daily capacities for model.


BPR delay function alpha parameter.
BPR delay function beta parameter.
Directional link vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)
Directional link VMT adjusted with HPMS
factors for air quality purposes.
Directional external-external heavy truck
trips.
Directional external-external heavy truck
trips (AM or PM).
Directional total passenger vehicle volumes.
Directional passenger vehicle volumes (AM
or PM)
Directional daily vehicle volumes.
Total daily vehicle volumes.
Directional peak hour vehicle volumes (AM
or PM)
Directional single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
volumes.
Directional 2 person high occupany vehicle
(HOV) vehicle volumes.
Directional 3 person+ HOV vehicle
volumes.
Directional 2 or more person HOV vehicle
volumes (all HOV).
Directional light-duty truck volumes.
Directional medium-duty truck volumes.
Directional heavy-duty duty truck volumes.
Directional total truck volume.
Directional total external-external volume.
Directional volume-over-capacity ratios.

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:

TransCAD Binary (BIN)

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY SKIMS

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Contains link penalty data.

DATA FORMAT:

VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME


FROM_ID

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.

SPECIAL NOTES: If PENALTY is 0, the movement is prohibited.

TAZ.DBD
FILE TYPE:

TransCAD Geographic File DBD

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

Zone ID number. (Centroid or


External Station)
Zone area in square miles.
Zone County.
Zone State.
RPA Planning District ID number.
RPA Planning District description.
Working field for total zonal
households. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for total zonal
population. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal hotel/motel
units. Any edits will be overwritten
when the model is executed.
Working field for zonal school age
children. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for total zonal
employment. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working field for zonal agricultural,
mining and construction

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

Zonal agricultural, mining and


construction employment for
scenario year.
Zonal manufacturing and
transportation employment for
scenario year.
Zonal retail employment for scenario
year.
Zonal service employment for
scenario year.
Zonal government employment for
scenario year.
Zonal grade school enrollment for
scenario year.
Zonal college enrollment for
scenario year.
Zonal total school enrollment ( grade
school + college) for scenario year.
Zonal external to internal trips for
scenario year.
Percent (0, 1, 2 or 3+) vehicle
households in zone.

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

Home Based Work productions.


Home Based Work attractions.
Home Based School productions.
Home Based School attractions.
Home Based Shopping productions.
Home Based Shopping attractions.
Home Based Social/Recreational
Work productions.
Home Based Social/Recreational
Work attractions.
Home Based Other productions.
Home Based Other attractions.
Non Home Based productions.
Non Home Based attractions.
Light Truck productions.
Light Truck attractions.
Medium Truck productions.
Medium Truck attractions.
Heavy Truck productions.

*
*
*

HvyTruck_a
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE

Heavy Truck attractions.


Latitude in decimal degrees.
Longitude in decimal degrees.

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:

TransCAD Binary (BIN)

MODEL STEP:

TRIP GENERATION

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Special generator data for trip generation

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

Medium Truck special generator


attractions.
Heavy Truck special generator
productions.
Heavy Truck special generator
attractions.
Working variable for Home Based
Work special generator productions.
Any edits will be overwritten
when the model is executed.
Working variable for Home Based
Work special generator attractions.
Any edits will be overwritten
when the model is executed.
Working variable for Home Based
School special generator
productions. Any edits will be
overwritten
when the model is executed.
Working variable for Home Based
School special generator attractions.
Any edits will be overwritten
when the model is executed.
Working variable for Home Based
Shopping special generator
productions. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working variable for Home Based
Shopping special generator
attractions. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working variable for Home Based
Social Recreational special generator
productions. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working variable for Home Based
Social Recreational special generator
attractions. Any edits will be
overwritten when the model is
executed.
Working variable for Home Based

12

OTher_a

NHB_p

NHB_a

LightTruck_p

LightTruck_a

MedTruck_p

MedTruck_a

HeavTruck_p

HeavTruck_a

Other. Any edits will be overwritten


when the model is executed.
special generator productions.
Working variable for Home Based
Other special generator attractions.
Any edits will be overwritten when
the model is executed.
Working variable for Non Home
Based special generator productions.
Any edits will be overwritten when
the model is executed.
Working variable for Non Home
Based special generator attractions.
Any edits will be overwritten when
the model is executed.
Working variable for Light Truck
special generator productions. Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.
Working variable for Light Truck
special generator attractions. Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.
Working variable for Medium Truck
special generator productions. Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.
Working variable for Medium Truck
special generator attractions. Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.
Working variable for Heavy Truck
special generator productions. Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.
Working variable for Heavy Truck
special generator attractions. Any
edits will be overwritten when the
model is executed.

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

Friction factors by trip purpose by travel time for input to Gravity

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

Skimmed network travel time.


Home-based Work Friction Factors.
Home-based School Friction Factors.
Home-based Shopping Friction Factors.
Home-based Social/Recreational Friction
Factors.
Home-based Other Friction Factors.
Non Home-Based Friction Factors.
Light Truck Friction Factors.
Medium Truck Friction Factors.
Heavy Truck Friction Factors.
Internal-External Friction Factors.

SPECIAL NOTES: Users should not edit this file as it will impact model validation.

14

K_FACTORS.MTX
FILE TYPE:

TransCAD Matrix File (MTX)

MODEL STEP:

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

K-Factor trip table used to assist with validating the trip


distribution step.

DATA FORMAT:

TABLE NAME

DESCRIPTION

K-Factor

K-factor matrix core. (#zones by #zones)

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:

TransCAD Matrix File (MTX)

MODEL STEP:

MODE SPLIT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

External-external trip table

DATA FORMAT:

TABLE NAME

DESCRIPTION

YR EE

External matrix (#zones by #zones) core for year.

SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations.

16

HRLY_CHATT.DBF
FILE TYPE:

DBF

MODEL STEP:

MODE SPLIT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Daily-to-hourly lookup table by occupancy level.

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

Hour of the day from 0 to 23 (i.e. 0 = 12-1


AM)
Percentage of daily origin-destination (O-D)
trips that occur during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBW O-D trips that
occur during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBNW O-D trips that
occur during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBO O-D trips that
occur during the hour.
Percentage of daily NHB O-D trips that
occur during the hour.
Percentage of daily P-A trips that depart
during the hour.
Percentage of daily P-A trips that return
during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBW P-A trips that
depart during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBW P-A trips that
return during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBSC P-A trips that
depart during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBSC P-A trips that
return during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBSH P-A trips that
depart during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBSH P-A trips that
return during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBSR P-A trips that
depart during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBSR P-A trips that

17

DEP_HBO

RET_HBO

DEP_NHB

RET_NHB

OCCADJ_HBW

OCCADJ_HBN

OCCADJ_HBO

OCCADJ_NHB

OCCADJ_ALL

return during the hour.


Percentage of daily HBO P-A trips that
depart during the hour.
Percentage of daily HBO P-A trips that
return during the hour.
Percentage of daily NHB P-A trips that
depart during the hour.
Percentage of daily NHB P-A trips that
return during the hour.
Absolute hourly vehicle adjustment factor
for HBW trips.
Absolute hourly vehicle adjustment factor
for HBNW trips.
Absolute hourly vehicle adjustment factor
for HBO trips.
Absolute hourly vehicle adjustment factor
for NHB trips.
Absolute hourly vehicle adjustment factor
for all trip types.

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:

Comma delimited text file.

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Emissions factor lookup table from Mobile6.2 for each state by


model scenario year.

DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME

DESCRIPTION

PM2.5

NOX

VOC

Particulate matter (2.5 micron) emissions


factor for freeways in grams.
Oxides of Nitrogen emissions factor for
for freeways in grams.
Volatile Organic Compounds (Non-methane
hydrocarbon) emissions factor for freeways
in grams.

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

3.0 Output Files


The following are the output files produced from the Chattanooga model. They primarily
represent the output reporting text files, the emission factor summary and other related air
quality files. Please note that the assignment outputs are stored directly in the TransCAD
geographic network line input file and thus a separate output network is not created. A copy of
the network file is, however, automatically copied in to the OUT directory.

20

LRTP_NETWORK.DBD
FILE TYPE:

TransCAD Geographic File DBD

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY SKIMS

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Line geographic file used to create TransCAD model network.

The LRTP_NETWORK.DBD is a master transportation network that includes both the


input and output network attributes. See the LRTP_NETWORK.DBD file in the Input
Files section for specific data format.

21

HWYDIST1.MTX
FILE TYPE:

TransCAD Matrix File (MTX)

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY SKIMS

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Interzonal and intrazonal network skim distance (distance between


each pair of zones).

DATA FORMAT:

TABLE NAME

DESCRIPTION

Distance Skim-Length

Matrix (#zones by #zones) core.

SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations.

22

HWYTIME1.MTX
FILE TYPE:

TransCAD Matrix File (MTX)

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY SKIMS

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Interzonal and intrazonal network skim travel time (time in


minutes between each pair of zones).

DATA FORMAT:

TABLE NAME

DESCRIPTION

Distance Skim-Length

Matrix (#zones by #zones) core.

SPECIAL NOTES: #Zones represent total of internal zones and external stations.

23

TRIPGEN_REPORT.TXT
FILE TYPE:

ASCII text file (TXT)

MODEL STEP:

TRIP GENERATION

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Summary of trip generation.

DATA FORMAT:

SPECIAL NOTES: Text summary table of trip productions and balanced/unbalanced


attractions by trip purpose. Included are the special generator trips, summary population, and
household trip data.

24

GRAVITY_MODEL_REPORT.TXT
FILE TYPE:

ASCII text file (TXT)

MODEL STEP:

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Summary of trip distribution.

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:

TransCAD Matrix File (MTX)

MODEL STEP:

MODE SPLIT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Final trip table to be used for assignment.

DATA FORMAT:
TABLE NAME

DESCRIPTION

HBWork

HBSchool

HBShop

HBSocRec

HBOther

NHB

*
*
*
*

LgtTruck
MedTruck
HvyTruck
Ext2Int

I-I:SOVs

I-I:HOV2

Home Based Work trip matrix (#zones by #zones)


core.
Home Based School trip matrix (#zones by #zones)
core.
Home Baesd Shopping trip matrix (#zones by
#zones) core.
Home Based Social Recreational trip matrix
(#zones by #zones) core.
Home Baes Other trip matrix (#zones by #zones)
core.
Non Home Based trip matrix (#zones by #zones)
core.
Light Truck trip matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
Medium Truck trip matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
Heavy Truck trip matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
External to Internal trip matrix (#zones by #zones)
core.
Internal Internal Single Occupancy vehicle trip
matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
Internal Internal 2 person High Occupancy

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

Internal Internal Light Truck trip matrix (#zones


by #zones) core.
External External Single Occupancy vehicle trip
matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
External External 2 person High Occupancy
vehicle trip matrix (#zones by #zones) core.
External External 3 or more person High
Occupancy vehicle trip matrix (#zones by #zones)
core.
External External Light Truck trip matrix (#zones
by #zones) core.
External External Medium Truck trip matrix
(#zones by #zones) core.
External External Heavy Truck trip matrix
(#zones by #zones) core.

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:

ASCII text file (TXT)

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Summary of screenline validation statistics.

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:

ASCII text file (TXT)

MODEL STEP:

HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Summary of trip assignment results.

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:

CSV (Comma Delimited)

MODEL STEP:

AIR QUALITY POST PROCESSOR IN HIGHWAY


ASSIGNMENT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Stores HPMS adjustment factors from base year (2007) model run.

DATA FORMAT:

VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME

DESCRIPTION

FACTOR

HPMS adjustment factor by county


and HPMS functional class code.

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:

CSV (Comma Delimited)

MODEL STEP:

AIR QUALITY POST PROCESSOR IN HIGHWAY


ASSIGNMENT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Reports air quality post processor summary emissions information


by county and HPMS Federal Functional Classification.

DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME

DESCRIPTION

*
*
*

YEAR
DESCRIPTION
FUNCTIONAL CLASS(ES)

DAILY MODEL VMT

DAILY MODEL VHT

DAILY MODEL PM2.5(grams)

DAILY MODEL Nox (grams)

DAILY MODEL VOC (grams)

MODEL AVG SPEED

DAILY 2007 HPMS

2007 HPMS ADJ FACTOR

DAILY ADJ. MODEL PM2.5(grams)

Model Run Year


HPMS Functional Class description.
HPMS Functional Class code. (0, 1,
2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and
19)
Daily vehicle miles traveled from
model for county and fucntional
class.
Daily vehicle hours traveled from
model for county and functional
class.
Daily 2.5 micron and greater
particulate matter in grams for
county and functional class.
Daily Oxides of Nitrogen emissions
in grams for county and functional
class.
Daily Volatile Organic Compound
(Non-methane hydrocarbon)
emissions in grams for county and
functional class.
Average speed by county and
functional class in miles per hour.
Daily HPMS reported volumes by
county and functional class
HPMS adjustment factor to align
HPMS volumes with model
volumes.
Daily 2.5 micron and greater

31

DAILY ADJ. MODEL NOx (grams)

DAILY ADJ. MODEL VOC (grams)

particulate matter in grams for


county and functional class adjusted
by HPMS factor.
Daily Oxides of Nitrogen emissions
in grams for county and functional
class adjusted by HPMS factor.
Daily Volatile Organic Compound
(Non-methane hydrocarbon)
emissions in grams for county and
functional class adjusted by HPMS
factor.

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:

CSV (Comma Delimited)

MODEL STEP:

AIR QUALITY POST PROCESSOR IN HIGHWAY


ASSIGNMENT

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Reports link level emissions output from the air quality post
processor.

DATA FORMAT:
VARIABLE (FIELD) NAME

DESCRIPTION

*
*

ID
CNTY

DIR

TransCAD link ID number.


County ID (47-Catoosa, 65Hamilton,83-Dade and 295-Walker)
Link directionality. (1 one way

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

matter emissions on link in grams.


Oxides of nitrogen emissions on link
in grams.

34

You might also like