Work-from-home model predicts whether a worker is home-based-worker or not. A home-based worker does not have an out-of-home work location. The regional travel survey 2011 is used to estimate the model. The model was calibrated to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 1 year share of workforce usually working from home. Table 3-1 shows the comparison between the target and model values.
Table 3-1. Work-From-Home Comparison
| Target Work-From-Home | 7.3% |
| Model Work-From-Home | 7.4% |
The work destination choice model predicts the usual work location for all workers in the population. The model uses size terms to capture the number and type of jobs available in a zone, as well as the employment-related “attractiveness” of a zone. Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 show the county-to-county worker flows in calibration targets and from model estimation, respectively. Table 3-4 shows the difference between model values and target worker flows.
Table 3-2. Calibration Target Worker Flows
| County | Barrow | Bartow | Carroll | Cherokee | Clayton | Cobb | Coweta | Dawson | DeKalb | Douglas | Fayette | Forsyth | Fulton | Gwinnett | Hall | Henry | Newton | Paulding | Rockdale | Spalding | Walton | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrow | 31% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 6% | 44% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 3% | 100% |
| Bartow | 0% | 62% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 24% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Carroll | 0% | 0% | 72% | 0% | 1% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Cherokee | 0% | 2% | 0% | 37% | 1% | 26% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 25% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Clayton | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 43% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 8% | 1% | 4% | 0% | 29% | 3% | 0% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Cobb | 0% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 60% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 26% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Coweta | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 7% | 2% | 44% | 0% | 3% | 1% | 15% | 0% | 22% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Dawson | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 42% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 22% | 16% | 5% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| DeKalb | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 48% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 34% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Douglas | 0% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 3% | 17% | 1% | 0% | 5% | 39% | 1% | 0% | 26% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Fayette | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11% | 4% | 3% | 0% | 4% | 1% | 49% | 0% | 24% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Forsyth | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 0% | 1% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 36% | 38% | 11% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Fulton | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 72% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Gwinnett | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 19% | 58% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Hall | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 3% | 13% | 77% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Henry | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 18% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 22% | 2% | 0% | 38% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Newton | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11% | 6% | 0% | 3% | 38% | 0% | 19% | 1% | 3% | 100% |
| Paulding | 0% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 36% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 18% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 27% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Rockdale | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 19% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 20% | 6% | 0% | 3% | 6% | 0% | 40% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Spalding | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 8% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 7% | 0% | 6% | 2% | 0% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 58% | 0% | 100% |
| Walton | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 28% | 1% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 7% | 0% | 37% | 100% |
Table 3-3. Model Worker Flows
| County | Barrow | Bartow | Carroll | Cherokee | Clayton | Cobb | Coweta | Dawson | DeKalb | Douglas | Fayette | Forsyth | Fulton | Gwinnett | Hall | Henry | Newton | Paulding | Rockdale | Spalding | Walton | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrow | 32% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 1% |
| Bartow | 0% | 60% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
| Carroll | 0% | 0% | 69% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% |
| Cherokee | 0% | 6% | 0% | 34% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% |
| Clayton | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 43% | 1% | 6% | 0% | 4% | 3% | 10% | 0% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 15% | 4% | 1% | 5% | 8% | 1% | 5% |
| Cobb | 1% | 21% | 6% | 27% | 4% | 58% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 16% | 4% | 4% | 6% | 3% | 1% | 3% | 1% | 33% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 13% |
| Coweta | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 45% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
| Dawson | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 39% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| DeKalb | 5% | 1% | 1% | 3% | 9% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 47% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 10% | 13% | 2% | 11% | 12% | 3% | 17% | 2% | 9% | 12% |
| Douglas | 0% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 37% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% |
| Fayette | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 49% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 0% | 2% |
| Forsyth | 2% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 35% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 3% |
| Fulton | 6% | 7% | 9% | 24% | 32% | 26% | 18% | 16% | 37% | 29% | 21% | 35% | 72% | 18% | 5% | 20% | 10% | 16% | 17% | 8% | 6% | 32% |
| Gwinnett | 41% | 1% | 0% | 4% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 6% | 6% | 1% | 1% | 11% | 4% | 57% | 13% | 2% | 6% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 25% | 13% |
| Hall | 6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6% | 0% | 3% | 74% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 3% |
| Henry | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 35% | 6% | 0% | 5% | 13% | 1% | 2% |
| Newton | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 38% | 0% | 6% | 0% | 7% | 1% |
| Paulding | 0% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 26% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
| Rockdale | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 3% | 17% | 0% | 37% | 1% | 6% | 1% |
| Spalding | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 57% | 0% | 1% |
| Walton | 5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 37% | 1% |
Table 3-4. Worker Flows Percentage Difference (Model - Calibration Targets)
| County | Barrow | Bartow | Carroll | Cherokee | Clayton | Cobb | Coweta | Dawson | DeKalb | Douglas | Fayette | Forsyth | Fulton | Gwinnett | Hall | Henry | Newton | Paulding | Rockdale | Spalding | Walton | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrow | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% |
| Bartow | 0% | -2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Carroll | 0% | 0% | -3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Cherokee | 0% | 2% | 0% | -3% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Clayton | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | -3% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Cobb | 0% | -2% | -1% | 1% | 0% | -2% | 1% | 2% | 0% | -1% | -1% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | -3% | 1% | 0% | -1% | -1% |
| Coweta | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Dawson | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| DeKalb | -1% | 1% | -1% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | -1% | -2% | -1% | 0% | -2% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 2% | -3% | 0% | -2% | 1% | 0% | -1% |
| Douglas | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | -2% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Fayette | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Forsyth | 1% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
| Fulton | 1% | 1% | 2% | -1% | 3% | 0% | -4% | -1% | 3% | 2% | -4% | -2% | 0% | -2% | 2% | -2% | -1% | -2% | -3% | 2% | -3% | -1% |
| Gwinnett | -4% | 0% | -1% | 1% | -1% | 0% | -1% | 2% | -2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | -2% | -3% | -1% |
| Hall | -1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | -3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Henry | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -2% | 4% | 0% | 2% | -2% | 1% | 0% |
| Newton | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | -1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0% |
| Paulding | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Rockdale | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | -2% | 0% | -2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Spalding | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | 0% | 0% |
| Walton | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
A comparison of observed and estimated distance trip frequency is shown in Figure 3-1. Only the workers who do not work-from-home and who have a work location outside of the home TAZ are included in the comparison. Table 3-5 shows the mean work location distance for different segment of workers. The table shows reasonable match between the survey targets and the models outputs.
Figure 3-1. Work Location Distance Summary
Table 3-5. Average Target and Model Work Distance (Miles)
| Segment | Target Distance | Model Distance |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | 14.40 | 14.09 |
| By Person Type | ||
| Full-time worker | 15.43 | 15.36 |
| Part-time worker | 9.24 | 9.19 |
| University student | 12.50 | 12.38 |
| Student of driving age | 6.84 | 6.56 |
| By Household Income Category | ||
| Income $0 to $10k | 10.60 | 10.65 |
| Income $10k to $20k | 10.88 | 10.41 |
| Income $20k to $30k | 12.14 | 12.01 |
| Income $30k to $50k | 13.64 | 13.26 |
| Income $50k to $100k | 15.14 | 14.77 |
| Income over $100k | 15.18 | 14.89 |
| By TAZ Type | ||
| Others | 8.10 | 10.68 |
| Suburb and Exurb | 13.70 | 15.39 |
| Rural | 19.08 | 19.93 |
Two school location choice models are applied in CT-RAMP, one for K-12 students and one for college students. The K-12 school destination choice model predicts the usual school location for all grade-level students. The college destination choice model predicts the school location for college students, and accounts for the updated university location choice model. Table 3-6 below shows the mean distance and percentage intrazonal for different student types.
Table 3-6. Average School Distance and Intrazonal Percentage
| Person Type | Target | Model | Target | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| University student | 11.23 | 11.70 | 11.7% | 11.5% |
| Student of driving age | 5.03 | 5.00 | 4.9% | 5.0% |
| Student of non-driving age | 4.02 | 4.01 | 10.9% | 11.2% |
| Child too young for school | 3.98 | 3.97 | 11.1% | 11.1% |
The auto-ownership model forecasts the total number of vehicles available in a household. Calibration is conducted based on the number of workers in the household and the household income category. Table 3-7 presents a comparison of the percentage of households with varying numbers of vehicles across different worker categories, contrasting the model output after calibration with the calibration targets.
Table 3-7. Auto Ownership by Worker
| Number of Workers | Target | Model | Target | Model | Target | Model | Target | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 Worker | 15.3% | 15.2% | 46.0% | 45.3% | 28.4% | 28.6% | 10.3% | 11.0% |
| 1 Worker | 4.9% | 4.7% | 47.7% | 46.6% | 33.9% | 34.3% | 13.6% | 14.4% |
| 2 Workers | 1.7% | 2.1% | 10.0% | 10.2% | 58.5% | 57.5% | 29.9% | 30.1% |
| 3+ Workers | 2.3% | 2.1% | 5.8% | 7.0% | 17.7% | 17.1% | 74.2% | 73.8% |
| Total | 5.8% | 5.6% | 32.4% | 32.1% | 39.2% | 39.7% | 22.6% | 22.6% |
Table 3-8 shows the comparison of auto ownership results between model and calibration targets with respect to household income.
Table 3-8: Auto Ownership by Household Income
| Household Income | Target | Model | Target | Model | Target | Model | Target | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income $0 to $10k | 26.9% | 24.7% | 49.9% | 45.6% | 17.3% | 22.3% | 5.9% | 7.4% |
| Income $10k to $20k | 22.2% | 18.9% | 54.5% | 52.0% | 18.3% | 23.0% | 5.0% | 6.0% |
| Income $20k to $30k | 12.1% | 9.4% | 55.4% | 50.5% | 24.7% | 29.3% | 7.8% | 10.8% |
| Income $30k to $50k | 5.5% | 3.1% | 49.0% | 43.8% | 33.5% | 37.8% | 12.1% | 15.3% |
| Income $50k to $100k | 2.4% | 1.2% | 31.3% | 27.0% | 43.8% | 45.9% | 22.5% | 25.9% |
| Income greater than $100k | 1.0% | 0.5% | 12.1% | 9.5% | 49.0% | 49.4% | 37.9% | 40.6% |
| Total | 5.8% | 5.6% | 32.4% | 32.1% | 39.2% | 39.7% | 22.6% | 22.6% |