Section 3 - Tour Models Calibration
Section 3.5 Coordinated Daily Activity Pattern Model
The Coordinated Daily Activity Pattern model determines the daily activity pattern (DAP) type of each household member. The model assigns one of the three daily activity patterns to each household member - mandatory (M), non-mandatory (N) or home (H). The percentage of persons with different CDAP are compared between calibration targets and model values in Table 3-9a and Table 3-9b.
Table 3-9a. CDAP Target Shares by Person Type
| Person Type | M | N | H |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time worker | 74% | 13% | 13% |
| Part-time worker | 49% | 36% | 15% |
| College student | 59% | 22% | 20% |
| Non-working adult | 0% | 63% | 37% |
| Non-working senior | 0% | 55% | 45% |
| Driving-age student | 80% | 8% | 12% |
| Non-driving student | 83% | 9% | 8% |
| Pre-school | 40% | 33% | 27% |
Table 3-9b. DAP Model Shares by Person Type
| Person Type | M | N | H |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time worker | 74% | 13% | 13% |
| Part-time worker | 49% | 35% | 16% |
| College student | 58% | 22% | 20% |
| Non-working adult | 0% | 63% | 37% |
| Non-working senior | 0% | 55% | 45% |
| Driving-age student | 80% | 9% | 11% |
| Non-driving student | 82% | 10% | 7% |
| Pre-school | 40% | 34% | 26% |
Section 3.6 Tour Frequency Models
The tour frequency models determine the number of tours for each activity purpose. The models are segmented by person type and separate models are estimated for mandatory tours, individual non-mandatory tours and joint non-mandatory tours. The next three sections describe the calibration results for these three models.
Mandatory Tour Frequency
The mandatory tour frequency model is applied to those persons in the population assigned a mandatory daily activity pattern. This model generates, at a minimum, one mandatory tour per person with the different alternatives being one work tour, one school tour, two work tours, two school tours, and one work tour plus one school tour. The alternative specific constants for this model are segmented along person types. The model results match the survey results closely in Table 3-10a and Table 3-10b.
Table 3-10a. Survey Mandatory Tour Frequency by Person Type
| Person type | 1 Work Tour | 2 Work Tours | 1 School Tour | 2 School Tours | Work and School Tours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time worker | 96.1% | 4.0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Part-time worker | 93.7% | 5.8% | 0.1% | 0% | 0.4% |
| University student | 51.0% | 1.4% | 41.0% | 1.2% | 5.4% |
| Driving-age student | 2.9% | 0.2% | 91.4% | 3.0% | 2.6% |
| Non-driving student | 0% | 0% | 98.6% | 1.4% | 0% |
| Pre-school | 0% | 0% | 99.5% | 0.5% | 0% |
| Total | 58.4% | 2.6% | 37.7% | 0.7% | 0.6% |
Table 3-10b. Model Mandatory Tour Frequency by Person Type
| Person type | 1 Work Tour | 2 Work Tours | 1 School Tour | 2 School Tours | Work and School Tours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time worker | 96.0% | 4.0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Part-time worker | 94.5% | 5.5% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| College student | 28.5% | 1.2% | 61.9% | 5.4% | 3.1% |
| Driving-age student | 0% | 0% | 92.7% | 4.1% | 3.2% |
| Non-driving student | 0% | 0% | 98.4% | 1.6% | 0% |
| Pre-school | 0% | 0% | 100.0% | 0% | 0% |
| Total | 58.0% | 2.6% | 38.1% | 0.9% | 0.4% |
Individual Non-Mandatory Tour Frequency
The individual non-mandatory tour frequency model predicts the number of non-mandatory tours by tour purpose for each household member who has been assigned a mandatory or a non-mandatory daily activity pattern. As with the mandatory tour frequency model, this model is also segmented by person type. It is a two-stage model. First, by tour purpose, it predicts the total number of tours undertaken by the person on a restricted alternative set. The alternatives are 0, 1 and 2+ for escorting tours and 0 and 1+ for shopping, maintenance, eating out, visiting and other discretionary tours. Second, the model uses observed probability distributions to assign 0, 1 or 2 tours conditional on the tour purpose, person type, whether or not the person has a mandatory tour and whether or not the person has a joint tour in her/his activity pattern. This approach reduces the large number of potential alternatives significantly. Model calibration was performed on the model that predicts the choice among the restricted set of alternatives. It was found that once this model predicted tour frequency shares reasonably close to the observed ones, the observed probability distributions ensured the correct match to the overall number. The base alternative for calibrating the non-mandatory tour frequency model is the 0 (zero) frequency alternative for each tour purpose. In addition to calibrating to the number of tours by purpose, additional calibration was performed to ensure that the total number of tours by person type matches the observed distributions. To this effect, alternative specific constants were added to the model, respectively for 1, 2 and 3+ tours across all purposes. This calibration was performed simultaneously with the tour frequency by tour purpose calibration. across all purposes. The results of this calibration are presented below in Table 3-11a and Table 3-11b.
Table 3-11a: Calibration Targets of Non-Mandatory Tour Frequency by Person Type
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time worker | 89% | 10% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 92% | 6% | 2% | 92% | 7% | 1% | 89% | 10% | 1% | 98% | 2% | 0% |
| Part-time worker | 80% | 18% | 2% | 93% | 6% | 0% | 83% | 11% | 6% | 83% | 16% | 1% | 78% | 20% | 1% | 94% | 6% | 0% |
| College student | 90% | 9% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 90% | 7% | 3% | 87% | 11% | 1% | 84% | 14% | 1% | 94% | 6% | 0% |
| Non-working adult | 80% | 18% | 2% | 92% | 8% | 0% | 77% | 12% | 11% | 65% | 31% | 3% | 57% | 38% | 4% | 91% | 9% | 0% |
| Non-working senior | 81% | 18% | 2% | 92% | 8% | 0% | 87% | 8% | 5% | 68% | 28% | 4% | 54% | 42% | 4% | 92% | 8% | 0% |
| Driving-age student | 88% | 12% | 1% | 96% | 4% | 0% | 96% | 4% | 0% | 94% | 6% | 0% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 94% | 6% | 0% |
| Non-driving student | 80% | 19% | 1% | 97% | 3% | 0% | 93% | 6% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 97% | 3% | 0% |
| Pre-school | 83% | 15% | 2% | 96% | 4% | 0% | 80% | 16% | 4% | 91% | 8% | 1% | 84% | 15% | 1% | 93% | 7% | 0% |
| Total | 85% | 14% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 88% | 8% | 4% | 87% | 12% | 1% | 83% | 16% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% |
Table 3-11b: Model Estimates of Non-Mandatory Tour Frequency by Person Type
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time worker | 89% | 11% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 91% | 7% | 2% | 91% | 8% | 1% | 89% | 10% | 1% | 97% | 3% | 0% |
| Part-time worker | 79% | 18% | 2% | 94% | 6% | 0% | 84% | 10% | 6% | 82% | 16% | 2% | 78% | 18% | 4% | 94% | 5% | 1% |
| College student | 89% | 10% | 0% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 90% | 7% | 3% | 87% | 12% | 0% | 85% | 15% | 1% | 94% | 6% | 0% |
| Non-working adult | 80% | 19% | 1% | 93% | 7% | 0% | 77% | 12% | 11% | 65% | 32% | 4% | 57% | 39% | 4% | 91% | 8% | 0% |
| Non-working senior | 81% | 18% | 2% | 92% | 8% | 0% | 87% | 8% | 5% | 67% | 29% | 4% | 54% | 38% | 7% | 91% | 8% | 1% |
| Driving-age student | 88% | 12% | 1% | 96% | 4% | 0% | 96% | 3% | 1% | 93% | 6% | 1% | 94% | 5% | 0% | 94% | 6% | 1% |
| Non-driving student | 80% | 17% | 3% | 98% | 2% | 0% | 92% | 7% | 1% | 94% | 6% | 0% | 94% | 6% | 0% | 97% | 2% | 0% |
| Pre-school | 83% | 16% | 1% | 96% | 4% | 0% | 80% | 15% | 4% | 88% | 11% | 1% | 84% | 15% | 1% | 92% | 7% | 0% |
| Total | 85% | 14% | 1% | 95% | 5% | 0% | 88% | 8% | 4% | 86% | 13% | 1% | 82% | 16% | 2% | 95% | 4% | 0% |
Joint Tour Frequency
The joint tour frequency models are applied to determine the total number of joint tours undertaken by the household. The model uses tour frequency (0, 1 and 2+) and purpose combinations as the alternatives. The calibration result is shown in Table 3.12. The model output matches the calibration target closely for each alternative.
Table 3-12. Percentage of Households with 0, 1, and 2+ Joint Tours
| Tour Frequency and Purpose | Target | Model |
|---|---|---|
| No joint tours | 75.4% | 75.5% |
| 1 discretionary tour | 5.6% | 6.0% |
| 1 eating-out tour | 2.6% | 2.4% |
| 1 maintenance tour | 4.1% | 4.0% |
| 1 shopping tour | 5.8% | 5.6% |
| 1 social/visit tour | 0.0% | 0.4% |
| Two or more joint tours | 6.5% | 6.1% |
Section 3.7 Tour Time of Day Choice Models
The tour time-of-day choice model simultaneously predicts the tour start and tour end times. In the ARC ABM, the tour start and end times are represented with a resolution of 30 minutes, or 48 time-bins per day. The model is segmented by tour purpose. While models for some tour purposes were estimated jointly, the calibration was performed separately by tour purpose. Alternative specific constants were adjusted for each time-bins for each tour purpose. Figure 3-2a through Figure 3-2j compare the calibration targets and the model predicted temporal profiles of tours by purpose.
Figure 3-2a. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Work Tours)
Figure 3-2b. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (University Tours)
Figure 3-2c. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (School Tours)
Figure 3-2d. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Escort Tours)
Figure 3-7e. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Shopping Tours)
Figure 3-2f. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Maintenance Tours)
Figure 3-2g. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Eat-Out Tours)
Figure 3-2h. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Social/Visit Tours)
Figure 3-2i. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (Discretionary Tours)
Figure 3-2j. Departure and Arrival Times and Duration (At Work Sub Tours)
Section 3.8 Non-Mandatory Tour Primary Destination Choice
The non-mandatory tour primary destination choice model determines the location of the tour primary destination for each of the six non-mandatory tour purposes. Size terms for non-mandatory tours were not revised during this calibration. During the 2024 calibration effort, the models were calibrated to targets from the 2011 ARC Household Travel Survey expanded to the 2020 base year conditions. Summaries of the tour length frequency distributions and average tour length were developed for both model estimated and observed data. The calibration was done with the aim of matching the shape of the observed tour length frequency curves (the distance between the tour origin and primary destination). All models required additional adjustments to the bin specific constants in order to better match observed tour length frequency distributions. Figure 3-3a through Figure 3-3g compare the calibration targets and the model predicted tour length frequency distribution by purpose.
Figure 3-3a. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (Escort Tours)
Figure 3-3b. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (Shopping Tours)
Figure 3-3c. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (Eat-Out Tours)
Figure 3-3d. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (Maintenance Tours)
Figure 3-3e. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (Social/Visit Tours)
Figure 3-3f. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (Discretionary Tours)
Figure 3-3g. Tour Length Frequency Distribution (At-Work Tours)