Section 3.1 Work-From-Home Model

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%

Section 3.2 Work Location Model

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%

Work Location Distance Summary

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

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

Section 3.3 School Location Model

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

Distance
% Intrazonal
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%

Section 3.4 Auto Ownership Model


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

Zero Auto
One Auto
Two Auto
Three+ Auto
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

Zero Auto
One Auto
Two Auto
Three+ Auto
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%




Atlanta Regional Commission, 2026