northwest florida regional planning model county...regional planning council data, florida...

Florida Department of

TRANSPORTATION

Northwest Florida Regional Planning Model

2010 Model Validation Report

FDOT Office District Three Planning Office

Authors

Daniel Beaty Allison Deffenbaugh

Date of Publication

March 2015

March 2015

Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 3 1.1. Model Development Background 3 1.2. Report Organization 5

2. Trip Generation 6 2.1. External Trips 7 2.2. Socio-Economic Data Development 12 2.3. Model Parameters 17 2.4. Model Results 25

3. Highway Network 26 3.1. Network Development 27 3.2. Network Parameters 27 3.3. Model Results 27

4. Trip Distribution 28 4.1. Model Development 28 4.2. Model Parameters 29 4.3. Model Results 30

5. Mode Choice 31 5.1. Model Parameters 31

6. Trip Assignment 33 6.1. Model Development 33 6.2. Model Results 34

7. Model Evaluation 37 7.1. Final Model Validation Results 37 7.2. Summary and Conclusions 39

Appendices 40

Appendix A. EETRIPS yya.DBF 41

Appendix B. INTEXT yya.DBF 44

Appendix C. Distribution Trip Length Outputs 45

Appendix D. Highway Network Variable Names and Description 54

Tables Table 1. Traffic Count Information 10 Table 2. External-External and Internal-External Trips 11 Table 3. Year 2010 ZDATA1 File Data Sources and Methodology 14 Table 4. Summary of Dwelling Unit and Population Data 15 Table 5. Year 2010 ZDATA1 File Data Sources and Methodology 17 Table 6. Summary of Employment Data 17 Table 7. FATPO Trip Production Rates 19 Table 8. Okaloosa-Walton TPO and Rural Trip Production Rates 20

March 2015

Table 9. Bay County TPO and Rural Trip Production Rates 21 Table 10. NWFRPM Model Trip Attraction Rates 22 Table 11. NWFRPM Model Dwelling Unit Rates 22 Table 12. FATPO Model Dwelling Unit Rates 23 Table 13. Special Generator Trips 24 Table 14. Aggregate Trip Rate Comparison 25 Table 15. Summary of Trips by Purpose 25 Table 16. Gamma Function Coefficients for Friction Factors 30 Table 17. Trip Distribution Statistics 30 Table 18. Summary of Auto Occupancy Rates: Region, State, and Nation 32 Table 19. Adopted Auto Occupancy Rates 32 Table 20. Traffic Assignment Statistics 34 Table 21. NWFRPM Screenlines Volume over Count Ratios 35 Table 22. Region-wide Root Mean Square Error 38 Table 23. Florida Alabama TPO Sub-Area Assignment Statistics 38 Table 24. Bay County TPO Sub-Area Assignment Statistics 38 Table 25. Okaloosa Walton TPO Sub-Area Assignment Statistics 39

Figures Figure 1. North West Florida Regional Planning Model Study Area 4 Figure 2. Model Main Flowchart 5 Figure 3. Trip Generation Model Flowchart 7 Figure 4. External Zones 8 Figure 5. Highway Network Model Flowchart 26 Figure 6. Trip Distribution Step Flowchart 28 Figure 7. Mode Choice Flowchart 31 Figure 8. Highway Assignment Flowchart 33 Figure 9. Model Evaluation Flowchart 37

March 2015 3

1. Introduction

1.1. Model Development Background The Northwest Florida Regional Planning Model (NWFRPM) has been in different development stages for the last few years. Originally it was thought that the model would be best used to support FDOT projects in areas in District Three that were not included in the existing Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) travel demand models. Over time the focus has expanded and currently the model will be used as a replacement for the Urban Area Models that are contained in it as well as for use in projects that are regional and span more than one urban area or that are included in one or more urban area model and parts of the rural areas adjacent to those models.

The West Florida Regional Planning Council (WFRPC) area comprises three major urbanized areas and a number of rural Counties which are increasingly under development pressure and it became very clear that a regional planning tool is needed. Florida-Alabama Transportation Planning Organization (FATPO) includes Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties as well as a portion of Baldwin County in Alabama, the Okaloosa-Walton Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), and Bay County TPO are the three metropolitan planning organizations within this Regional Council. The three rural counties of the WFRPC are: Holmes, Walton, and Washington.

In addition to the Regional Council area there are other Counties within the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 3 that need to be included because they are the subject of transportation planning efforts by the FDOT District 3, the Counties and other local governments, and other organizations like Opportunity Florida (a coalition of public-private stakeholders) and Northwest Florida Corridor Transportation Authority (an organization that includes eight coastal Counties from Escambia to Wakulla), which are both working towards transportation improvements in the Florida Panhandle. These other Counties include Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Franklin and Wakulla.

Figure 1 shows the area included in the North West Florida Regional Planning Model.

This report documents the model validation for the selected base year (year 2010) implemented using the latest Cube platform (developed with 100% Cube Voyager scripting language) and adopted FSUTMS (Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure) procedures.

The emphasis was on minimizing model development costs so that use of existing, readily available data, was an imperative for the project. Other than traffic counts routinely collected by FDOT, no other transportation surveys were implemented. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data and other FDOT readily available data sources such as InfoGroup employment data and the Florida Statewide Model (provided by FDOT’s District 3 and Central Office Systems Planning Office), West Florida Regional Planning Council data, Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Florida Department of Education, and college and university were the sources of raw data for this effort.

All parameters used by existing TPO models in trip generation, mode choice, other path building variables/values (such as terminal times), and toll rates, were implemented without any change to avoid additional parameter development and research costs. Existing local TPOs models were obtained from the WFRPC and FDOT.

March 2015 4

Figure 1. North West Florida Regional Planning Model Study Area

March 2015 5

1.2. Report Organization This report documents the socio-economic data, highway network, and model validation following the same order as the actual model flow steps:

Trip generation or “Trip Gen” – includes all internal and external trip generation sub-models and

procedures

Highway network or “Network” – series of links and nodes that represents the roadway system

Trip distribution or “Distribution” – a gravity model with a friction factor model

Mode choice or “Mode” – converts person trips to auto trips and “production-attraction” tables to

“origin-destination” tables

Highway Assignment or “Assignment” – applies volume delay functions to perform a system

equilibrium assignment

Model evaluation or “HEVAL” – generates assignment statistics for the whole region and by

urbanized/rural areas

Each of these sections has a description of the model step as it was implemented in Cube, including any issues or challenges faced when it was developed, the parameters description, and the model results in either table statistics or graphic format or both, as appropriate. Figure 2 shows the application manager model main flowchart.

The model evaluation in the last section provides a summary of the validation statistics, including a comparison with existing TPO model statistics, as well as recommendations for future model improvements.

The appendices at the end provide additional information on key input files as well as outputs. A list with all roadway link attributes that includes a brief description of each one of them is also included at the end.

Figure 2. Model Main Flowchart

March 2015 6

2. Trip Generation

Trip generation models are used to estimate the number of trip productions and trip attractions at each traffic analysis zone (TAZ). Trip productions generally reflect the home end of a trip while trip attractions typically occur at the work, shop, recreational, or school end of the trip.

Early on in the process a decision was made, after consultation with FDOT District Three staff, to use the existing MPO trip rates to validate the NWFRPM trip generation model. This decision was made in order to reduce development costs and to advance the goal of using the NWFRP model as a replacement to the individual MPO models. A set of parameters was developed and used for areas outside of the MPO model boundaries.

This section of the report describes validation of the trip generation model, including an overview of model structure, the development of model parameters and a summary of model results. Trip generation model performance was assessed based on a review of trip productions by purpose and aggregate trip rates as well as similar statistics from the MPO models in District Three.

All trip generation sub-models are included under this general step. The trip generation sub-models flowchart is shown in Figure 2 below. External trips were manually developed based on existing traffic counts and the distribution of Florida Statewide Model external trips. Each of the urban/rural areas within the study area are treated separately within the model to keep their parameters independent of each other, which in turn allow for greater flexibility for future improvements or additions to the model.

Data inputs are formatted the same as traditional FSUTMS ascii files. ZDATA1.YYA, ZDATA2.YYA, DUWEIGHT.SYN, PRATES.TXT, ARATES.TXT to make it easier for first time CUBE VOYAGER users within the study area. The scripts then convert the text files into database (dBASE IV, *.dbf) format for internal use.

March 2015 7

Figure 3. Trip Generation Model Flowchart

2.1. External Trips External trips consist of two components: external-to-external (EE) trips and internal-to-external (IE) trips. EE trips have both trips ends outside of the study area while IE trips have one trip end within the study area and the other trip end outside of the study area.

The first step in developing the external module was to estimate total external trips at each external zone, based on available 2010 traffic counts provided by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Next, total external trips were split into EE and IE components based on the proportion of EE and IE trip in the 2006 validated model, which was based on information from the 2000 Florida Statewide model and US Census Journey to Work data. The EE trips were placed in the EETRIPS_yya.DBF file and the IE trips were entered in the INTEXT_yya.DBF file.

2.1.1. External Model Structure The NWFRPM Cube-Voyager module called “Trip Gen” includes internal trip generation, and also estimates external-external trips previously contained in the FSUTMS TRANPLAN “EXT” module. The “Trip Gen”

March 2015 8

module is used to build an EE trip matrix through the use of an input file EETRIPS_yya.DBF (Appendix A). The EETRIPS matrix contains a series of origin and destination zones with their respective estimate of through trips. IE trips are generated based on input of the INTEXT_yya.DBF file (Appendix B). It should be noted that data contained in the EETRIPS and INTEXT files are usually based on estimates provided from roadside interview origin-destination (O-D) surveys, however O-D surveys were unavailable for this model validation effort. Therefore, a methodology was needed to develop this dataset. The description of the methodology follows in the next paragraphs.

2.1.2. External Model Trip Development and Validation The external trips used in the NWFRPM were developed using the year 2006 NWFRPM and 2010 counts obtained from the 2010 FDOT DVD. The EE trips were updated for each external zone in the NWFRPM. The proportions in the 2006 EE and IE trip files were applied to the new 2010 stations. For locations that did not have a year 2010 traffic count available, the 2006 annual average daily traffic (AADT) was held constant and used to estimate the year 2010 AADT value for that external zone location. Figure 4 depicts the location of all external zones in relation to the roadway system.

Figure 4. External Zones

2.1.3. Assessment of Data Sources Since O-D survey data was unavailable for this model validation effort, two primary sources were reviewed in order to develop an estimate of external trips. The first source used was the FDOT 2010 Traffic Information DVD.

Table 1 gives a detailed description of each external zone and the corresponding estimates of the year 2010 Peak Season Weekday Average Daily Traffic (PSWADT). The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) year 2010 counts obtained from the 2010 FDOT DVD were adjusted using the appropriate MOCF to determine the PSWADT.

The second data source used was the EE/IE split percentages from the year 2006 NWFRPM validated model, which was based on information from the 2000 Florida Statewide model and US Census Journey to Work data. This was the primary source used to estimate EE/IE percentages for the 2010 NWFRPM because of the lack of O-D survey data. Initially, all the EE and IE trips were entered into the

March 2015 9

EETRIPS_yya.DBF and INTEXT_yya.DBF files. Adjustments to the files were made based on volume-to-count ratios at the external zones, in preliminary model runs. Table 2 shows a summary of all External trips (E-E & I-E).

2.1.4. External Model Result The performance of the external model was evaluated in the following manner. First, a new screenline # 98, forming a cordon around the study area, was added in the highway network. The volume/count ratio on screenline 98 was analyzed and was found to be performing within acceptable range. A more in depth discussion of volume/count ratios can be found in Sections 6 and 7 of this report.

March 2015 10

Table 1. Traffic Count Information

External Zone FDOT Count

Station # Station Location

2-Way PSWADT

1851 480461 SR292 AT THE ALABAMA LINE 14,880

1852 480325 US-98, 0.992 MILES EAST OF ALABAMA STATE LINE 10,753

1853 480048 US 90, 1.0 MI E OF PERDIDO RIVER BRIDGE 4,583

1854 480156 I-10,1.5 MI WEST OF US-90 31,524

1855 480501 C-184 300 FT SOUTH WEST OF C-97 2,976

1856 480243 SR 97, 1.3 MILES SOUTH OF STATE LINE 5,547

1857 480003 SR 95(US29)150'SOUTH OF ALABAMA STATE LINE 9,696

1858 580194 SR89 300'SOUTH OF AL-FL STATE LINE 1,213

1859 580109 SR 87 500' NORTH OF SR 4 2,328

1860 580097 C-191 300'SOUTH OF SR 4 1,164

1861 570001 SR 189 300'NORTH OF C180(LG. RUSSELL ROAD) 1,932

1862 570051 SR 85 SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF LAUREL HILL 3,404

1863 600131 SR 85 AT THE FLORIDA/ALABAMA STATE LINE 3,496

1864 600346 SR-187/US-331, MP-21.569, AT ALABAMA STATE LINE 3,898

1865 600244 C-181 300'WEST OF SR 83 460

1866 600243 SR83 300'NORTH OF C-181 1,150

1867 520001 SR81 300' NORTH OF SR 2 AT ROYALS CROSSROADS 903

1868 520077 C185 300'SOUTH OF ALABAMA STATE LINE 1,425

1869 520114 C177A 300'NORTH OF SR 2 618

1870 520196 C179 300'NORTH OF SR 2 5,225

1871 520016 SR 79 300' NORTH OF SR 2 2,945

1872 520041 C171 300' NORTH OF SR 2 1,520

1873 530247 SR 77, 0.345 MILES SOUTH OF PRIMROSE LANE 3,245

1874 530050 US 231 2.0 MILES N OF CAMPBELLTON AT STATE LINE 11,568

1875 530161 SR 71, 1.15 MI. NORTH OF SR2, MALONE 1,520

1876 530311 C164 300' NORTH OF SR 2 855

1877 530248 SR 2, 575' WEST OF EDEN ROAD 1,819

1878 531701 SR 10(US90), 1.65 MI. EAST OF C286, SNEADS 7,505

1879 532008 SR 8(I10)1 MILE WEST OF C286 OVERPASS 16,284

1880 470173 SR-20, 0.6 MI. EAST OF SR-71,CALHOUN CO. 8,000

1881 490244 SR 65, 1.2 MILES SOUTH OF LIBERTY COUNTY 584

1882 491603 C67 NORTH CITY LIMIT OF CARRABELLE 1,260

1883 590032 C375 2.00 MILES NORTHWEST OF SOPCHOPPY 460

1884 N/A

0

1885 590252 SR 267, 150' SOUTH OF FORREST ROAD #313 1,098

1886 590213 CR 373 300' NORTH OF SR 267 3,036

1887 590296 US-319, 3 MILES SOUTH OFSR-267 (BLOXHAM CUTOFF) 14,212

1888 590025 C-61 AT WAKULLA/LEON COUNTY LINE 3,864

1889 590212 SR 363 .400 MILE NORTH OF SR 267 5,888

1890 N/A

0

1891 1891 SR 30(US98)EAST END OF ST. MARKS RIVER BRIDGE 1,794

Source: 2010 FDOT Traffic Information DVD

March 2015 11

Table 2. External-External and Internal-External Trips

External Zone

Count Station #

Station Location Percent EE Trips

Percent IE Trips

EE Trips

IE Trips

1851 480461 SR292 AT THE ALABAMA LINE 5.40% 94.60% 804 14,076

1852 480325 US-98, 0.992 MILES EAST OF ALABAMA STATE LINE 0.39% 99.61% 42 10,711

1853 480048 US 90, 1.0 MI E OF PERDIDO RIVER BRIDGE 0.55% 99.45% 25 4,558

1854 480156 I-10,1.5 MI WEST OF US-90 12.11% 87.89% 3,817 27,707

1855 480501 C-184 300 FT SOUTH WEST OF C-97 0.00% 100.00% 0 2,976

1856 480243 SR 97, 1.3 MILES SOUTH OF STATE LINE 1.16% 98.84% 64 5,483

1857 480003 SR 95(US29)150'SOUTH OF ALABAMA STATE LINE 2.63% 97.37% 255 9,441

1858 580194 SR89 300'SOUTH OF AL-FL STATE LINE 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,213

1859 580109 SR 87 500' NORTH OF SR 4 4.34% 95.66% 101 2,227

1860 580097 C-191 300'SOUTH OF SR 4 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,164

1861 570001 SR 189 300'NORTH OF C180(LG. RUSSELL ROAD) 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,932

1862 570051 SR 85 SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF LAUREL HILL 0.00% 100.00% 0 3,404

1863 600131 SR 85 AT THE FLORIDA/ALABAMA STATE LINE 0.00% 100.00% 0 3,496

1864 600346 SR-187/US-331, MP-21.569, AT ALABAMA STATE LINE 0.00% 100.00% 0 3,898

1865 600244 C-181 300'WEST OF SR 83 0.00% 100.00% 0 460

1866 600243 SR83 300'NORTH OF C-181 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,150

1867 520001 SR81 300' NORTH OF SR 2 AT ROYALS CROSSROADS 0.00% 100.00% 0 903

1868 520077 C185 300'SOUTH OF ALABAMA STATE LINE 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,425

1869 520114 C177A 300'NORTH OF SR 2 0.00% 100.00% 0 618

1870 520196 C179 300'NORTH OF SR 2 0.58% 99.42% 30 5,195

1871 520016 SR 79 300' NORTH OF SR 2 0.10% 99.90% 3 2,942

1872 520041 C171 300' NORTH OF SR 2 0.12% 99.88% 2 1,518

1873 530247 SR 77, 0.345 MILES SOUTH OF PRIMROSE LANE 0.11% 99.89% 4 3,241

1874 530050 US 231 2.0 MILES N OF CAMPBELLTON AT STATE LINE 15.74% 84.26% 1,821 9,747

1875 530161 SR 71, 1.15 MI. NORTH OF SR2, MALONE 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,520

1876 530311 C164 300' NORTH OF SR 2 0.00% 100.00% 0 855

1877 530248 SR 2, 575' WEST OF EDEN ROAD 3.22% 96.78% 59 1,760

1878 531701 SR 10(US90), 1.65 MI. EAST OF C286, SNEADS 2.37% 97.63% 178 7,327

1879 532008 SR 8(I10)1 MILE WEST OF C286 OVERPASS 7.63% 92.37% 1,243 15,041

1880 470173 SR-20, 0.6 MI. EAST OF SR-71,CALHOUN CO. 0.00% 100.00% 0 8,000

1881 490244 SR 65, 1.2 MILES SOUTH OF LIBERTY COUNTY 0.59% 99.41% 3 581

1882 491603 C67 NORTH CITY LIMIT OF CARRABELLE 1.00% 99.00% 13 1,247

1883 590032 C375 2.00 MILES NORTHWEST OF SOPCHOPPY 0.16% 99.84% 1 459

1884 N/A

0.00% 100.00% 0 0

1885 590252 SR 267, 150' SOUTH OF FORREST ROAD #313 0.00% 100.00% 0 1,098

1886 590213 CR 373 300' NORTH OF SR 267 0.00% 100.00% 0 3,036

1887 590296 US-319, 3 MILES SOUTH OFSR-267 (BLOXHAM CUTOFF) 0.00% 100.00% 0 14,212

1888 590025 C-61 AT WAKULLA/LEON COUNTY LINE 0.00% 100.00% 0 3,864

1889 590212 SR 363 .400 MILE NORTH OF SR 267 2.00% 98.00% 118 5,770

1890 N/A

0.85% 99.15% 0 0

1891 1891 SR 30(US98)EAST END OF ST. MARKS RIVER BRIDGE 6.01% 93.99% 108 1,686

Source: Atkins Calculations

March 2015 12

2.2. Socio-Economic Data Development One of the most essential data development tasks, during any model validation, is the preparation of socio-economic data for input to the travel demand forecasting models. Errors in the socioeconomic data can directly influence the accuracy of the four step modeling process of trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment. If the socioeconomic data are not precise, trips will be generated inaccurately and these errors will "over-flow" through the other modeling steps.

Socio-economic data for the base year 2010 was developed for this model. A number of sources were utilized in this effort. They included the following:

U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 – 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimates

Census Transportation Planning Products (CTTP) Five Year American Community Survey (ACS)

2006 – 2010 Special Tabulations

InfoGroup

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations (FDBPR)

Florida Department of Education (FDOE)

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)

This section of the report provides a description of the process used to develop the base year 2010 ZDATA1 and ZDATA2 data sets.

2.2.1. ZDATA1 The FSUTMS ZDATA1 file contains socio-economic data used to generate trip productions, such as dwelling units, population, vehicle availability, vacancy rates, and hotel-motel data. While the primary source of this data has typically been the U.S. Census, the 2010 U.S. Census did not provide data on the units in a structure (which is necessary to determine single family and multi-family data) or vehicle availability. Therefore the 2006 – 2010 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates and the Census Transportation Planning Products Five Year American Community Survey data, obtained from FDOT Central Office Systems Planning, formed the basis for these 2010 estimates. Additionally, this data is available at an aggregated summary level larger than most of the NWFRPM TAZs. Therefore it was a more complicated process to apportion the data to the NWFRPM TAZs then when using the more detailed Census block data.

Specifically, the single family and multi-family dwelling unit and population estimates were developed from the 2006 – 2010 ACS Five Year Estimates and the single family and multi-family percent vehicle availability, vacant units, and vacant and non-permanent units were developed from the CTPP Five Year ACS 2006 – 2010 Special Tabulations.

The 2006 – 2010 ACS Five Year Estimates were available at the Census Tract summary level. After calculating the dwelling unit and population estimates for each Census Tract, the data was applied from the Census Tracts to the NWFRPM. If a NWFRPM TAZ is located in more than one Census Tract, both Census Tracts were identified and the proportion of land area in each Tract was estimated. Census Tracts are typically larger than the NWFRPM TAZs, so the data associated with each Census Tract must be divided among all of the NWFRPM TAZs located within the same Census Tract. Three ways to divide the single family and multi-family dwelling unit and population data among the NWFRPM TAZs were identified:

1. Proportion data equally among the NWFRPM TAZs in a Census Tract 2. Proportion data based on land area of the NWFRPM TAZs in a Census Tract 3. Proportion data based on the NWFRPM TAZs 2006 single family and multi-family dwelling unit and

population data

Analysis determined the most accurate way to divide Census Tract data among the NWFRPM TAZs is to proportion the 2010 data based on the data used in the 2006 NWFRPM. After applying the data from the Census Tracts to the NWFRPM TAZs, the single family and multi-family dwelling unit and population totals in

March 2015 13

the NWFRPM TAZs were compared to the original 2006 – 2010 ACS Five Year Estimate totals to ensure the correct distribution.

The CTPP Five Year ACS Survey 2006 – 2010 Special Tabulation data were available at the CTTP TAZ summary level. From this data the single family and multi-family dwelling unit percent vehicle availability, vacant units, and vacant and non-permanent units was calculated. After determining these percentages for each CTTP TAZ, the data was applied from the CTPP TAZ to the NWFRPM TAZs. The CTPP TAZs were developed from the Florida Statewide Model and therefore do not have the same boundaries as the TAZs used in the NWFRPM. To accomplish this, for each NWFRPM TAZ the CTPP TAZ it is primarily located in was identified. For each NWFRPM TAZ only one CTPP TAZ was identified and the calculated percentage applied.

Another complication of the CTTP data is that the percent vacant (non-seasonal) dwelling units were not available with variables detailing whether these vacant (non-seasonal) units were in a single family or multi-family structure. Therefore, the calculated percentage of vacant (non-seasonal) dwelling units was applied to both single family and multi-family dwelling units. However, the percent of vacant and seasonal dwelling units were available with variables detailing if the units were in a single family or multi-family structure. But to ensure a necessary consistency with the percentages developed for single family and multi-family vacant (non-seasonal) dwelling units, this data was not used and the calculated percentage was also applied to both single family and multi-family vacant and vacant non-permanent dwelling units.

Hotel-Motel data were obtained from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (FDBPR). A 2010 database of hotels and motels in the counties included in the NWFRPM provided information on the name, physical location, and number of rooms for each hotel and motel. The records were geo-coded to the physical location of the business place and assigned a NWRRPM TAZ based on this geo-coded location. Following this initial NWFRPM TAZ assignment the hotel and motel records were verified to ensure proper geo-coding to the appropriate NWFRPM TAZ. Along NWFRPM TAZ boundaries the geo-coded location and the actual physical location of the business place were manually compared. This was completed by comparing the business name and address to the physical location of the business according to the following data sources: Google and Bing maps, county property appraiser’s databases, and business websites. If the geo-coded location of the hotel or motel was found to be incorrect, it was manually assigned to the accurate NWFRPM TAZ. The total number of rooms in each NWFRPM TAZ was calculated by summing the number of rooms for all hotels and motels located within a NWFRPM TAZ.

Table 3 shows the sources and methodology used to develop the ZDATA1 variables. Table 4 provides a summary of the permanent population data from this model.

March 2015 14

Table 3. Year 2010 ZDATA1 File Data Sources and Methodology

Variable Source Method

Dwelling Units

(Single and Multi-Family)

2006 – 2010 ACS Five Year Estimates, Table B25024 – Units

in Structure

Allocated single family and multi-family dwelling units from the

Census Tract level to the NWFRPM TAZs

Population


2006 – 2010 ACS Five Year Estimates, Table B25033 – Total Population in Occupied Housing

Units

Allocated single family and multi-family population from the Census Tract level to the NWFRPM TAZs

Vehicle Availability


CTTP Five-Year ACS 2006 – 2010 Special Tabulations, Table A111200 – Vehicles Available by

Units in Structure

Calculated single family and multi-family percent vehicle availability for the CTTP TAZs and allocated the percentages from the CTTP

TAZs to the NWFRPM TAZs

Percent Vacant Units


CTTP Five-Year ACS 2006 – 2010 Special Tabulations, Table

A110105 – Vacancy Status

Calculated percent vacant units for the CTTP TAZs and allocated the percentages from the CTTP TAZs

to the NWFRPM TAZs

Percent Vacant & Seasonal Units


CTTP Five-Year ACS 2006 – 2010 Special Tabulations, Table

A110105 – Vacancy Status

Calculated percent vacant and seasonal units for the CTTP TAZs

and allocated the percentages from the CTTP TAZs to the

NWFRPM TAZs

Hotel / Motel Hotel / Motel database from

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Geo-coded physical addresses from the database and aggregated

to NWFRPM TAZs

Source: Atkins

March 2015 15

Table 4. Summary of Dwelling Unit and Population Data

County 2010 Single Family Units 2010 Multi-Family Units 2010 Total Units

Bay 52,079 46,124 98,203

Calhoun 3,545 2,343 5,888

Escambia 90,029 45,878 135,907

Franklin 5,496 3,085 8,581

Gulf 5,680 3,267 8,947

Holmes 5,330 3,237 8,567

Jackson 13,403 7,464 20,867

Okaloosa 55,935 35,653 91,588

Santa Rosa 46,952 15,954 62,906

Wakulla 7,466 5,127 12,593

Walton 25,276 18,367 43,643

Washington 6,625 4,000 10,625

Total 317,816 190,499 508,315

County 2010 Single Family

Population 2010 Multi-Family

Population 2010 Total Population

Bay 111,492 50,614 162,106

Calhoun 7,947 4,433 12,380

Escambia 215,265 60,866 276,131

Franklin 6,344 3,926 10,270

Gulf 8,962 4,350 13,312

Holmes 12,946 5,404 18,350

Jackson 25,164 13,131 38,295

Okaloosa 141,121 35,663 176,784

Santa Rosa 117,879 26,363 144,242

Wakulla 16,131 10,362 26,493

Walton 34,906 15,816 50,722

Washington 14,668 8,055 22,723

Total 712,825 238,983 951,808

Sources: Atkins, 2006 – 2010 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates

2.2.2. ZDATA2 The FSUTMS ZDATA2 file contains socio-economic data used to generate trip attractions, such as employment and school enrollment. ZDATA2 also includes information on parking costs used by the mode choice model. Since the NWFRP Model is a highway only model, no parking costs estimates were developed.

March 2015 16

ZDATA2 estimates were developed based on data obtained from the 2010 InfoGroup employment dataset which was acquired from FDOT District 3 and the Florida Department of Education (FDOE)

The October 2010 InfoGroup dataset details the businesses operating in the State of Florida and was procured on behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the primary purpose of obtaining employment data by industry category by place of employment. These employment data records were obtained from FDOT Central Office Systems Planning as purchased from InfoGroup and geo-coded to the physical location of the business place.

Each employment record in the counties included in the NWFRPM was assigned a NWFRPM TAZ based on the geo-coded location. Following this initial NWFRPM TAZ assignment the employment records were verified to ensure proper geo-coding to the appropriate NWFRPM TAZ. Along NWFRPM TAZ boundaries the geo-coded location and the actual physical location of the business place were manually compared. This was completed by utilizing relevant InfoGroup data variables to identify the actual physical location of the business place with the following data sources: Google and Bing maps, county property appraisers’ databases, the Better Business Bureau, and business websites. If the geo-coded location of the actual physical location of the business was found incorrect, it was manually assigned to the accurate NWFRPM TAZ.

The InfoGroup dataset also provides information on the category of the primary business conducted at the location and the number of employees at the business location. The category of business—industrial, commercial, or service—is identified by the SIC Code. The number of employees for each of these three industry categories was calculated by summing the employees for all business operating in a NWFRPM TAZ.

To determine school enrollment a database of 2010-2011 school year enrollments for all public schools and 2011-2012 school year enrollments for all private schools in the counties included in the NWFRPM was acquired from the Florida Department of Education. This database includes information on the school name, physical location, and total membership for each school. The 2011-2012 school year enrollment totals for the private schools were adjusted to 2010-2011 school year totals based on private school control totals for each county.

The records were then geo-coded to the physical location of the school and each record was assigned a NWRRPM TAZ based on this geo-coded location. As with the employment data, following this initial NWFRPM TAZ assignment the school records were verified to ensure proper geo-coding to the appropriate NWFRPM TAZ. Along NWFRPM TAZ boundaries the geo-coded location and the actual physical location of the school were manually compared. This was completed by comparing the school name and address to the physical location of the school according to the following data sources: Google and Bing maps, county property appraiser’s databases, and school websites. If the geo-coded location of the school was found to be incorrect, it was manually assigned to the accurate NWFRPM TAZ. The total school enrollment for each NWFRPM TAZ was calculated by summing the membership for all schools located within a NWFRPM TAZ.

Table 5 shows the sources and methodology used to develop the ZDATA2 variables. Table 6 provides a summary of employment totals from this model and InfoGroup dataset.

March 2015 17

Table 5. Year 2010 ZDATA1 File Data Sources and Methodology

Variable Source Method

Employment October 2010 InfoGroup dataset

Verified employment record geo-locations and aggregated number of employees by industry category

to NWFRPM TAZs

School Enrollment Public and Private School

Database from Florida Department of Education

Geo-coded addresses from the database and aggregated

enrollment totals to NWFRPM TAZs

Source: Atkins

Table 6. Summary of Employment Data

County 2010 Industrial Employment

2010 Commercial Employment

2010 Service Employment

2010 Total Employment

Bay 10,451 25,226 48,484 84,161

Calhoun 619 984 2,683 4,286

Escambia 18,862 40,461 112,811 172,134

Franklin 422 1,398 3,857 5,677

Gulf 788 1,347 3,819 5,954

Holmes 517 725 3,315 4,557

Jackson 1,484 4,054 12,286 17,824

Okaloosa 10,360 26,948 54,182 91,490

Santa Rosa 4,812 10,880 21,900 37,592

Wakulla 1,006 1,766 4,208 6,980

Walton 5,016 8,995 16,565 30,576

Washington 1,539 1,435 4,628 7,602

Total 55,876 124,219 288,738 468,833

Sources: Atkins, October 2010 InfoGroup

2.3. Model Parameters Several parameters are required in the trip generation module. They include: Trip production rates, trip attraction rates, dwelling unit rates, and sometimes special generators file (ZDATA3 in traditional FSUTMS, now called SPGEN_YYA.DBF). This section will describe the methodology used to develop these model parameters.

March 2015 18

2.3.1. Trip Generation Rates As explained earlier in this document, it was decided that the trip generation rates for each of the individual TPO areas would be used instead of developing new trip rates. It was also decided that one set of trip generation rates would be developed for all the other areas of the model. Because this model was developed in the FSUTMS Voyager platform and currently all the trip generation files are in an ascii file format, it was necessary to convert those files to a format compatible to Voyager. This was accomplished in the Voyager trip generation model stream through the use of a script that did the following:

Created two text files from the GRATES.SYN file containing trip production and trip attraction rates respectively

Converted the two text files into two .dbf files

As previously stated, the NWFRPM encompasses three TPO regions. They include:

Florida Alabama Transportation Planning Organization (FATPO)

Okaloosa-Walton Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)

Bay County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)

The FATPO trip generation rates are a combination of the standard FSUTMS rates and the NERPM 1998 rates. The Okaloosa-Walton TPO trip generation rates are the FSUTMS standard rates from Model Update Task B. The Bay County TPO trip rates were developed in 1980, using a synthesis of survey data from the 1960’s and 1970’s. All other areas in the NWFRPM used the standard FSUTMS trip production and attraction rates. Tables 7 through 11 depict the trip production and attraction rates used for the model validation in the Voyager compatible format. In these tables, the column labeled “PRI” is just a variable that summarizes the combination of person per household class plus the auto ownership class and type of housing. All other variables are defined at each table footnote.

March 2015 19

Table 7. FATPO Trip Production Rates

PRI PERHH AUTHH TYPHH PRAT_HBW PRAT_HBSH PRAT_HBSR PRAT_HBO

111 1 1 1 0.34 0.28 0.06 0.08

211 2 1 1 0.68 0.57 0.14 0.58

311 3 1 1 1.02 0.85 0.34 1.85

411 4 1 1 1.36 1.13 0.85 4.19

511 5 1 1 1.70 1.41 2.11 7.91

121 1 2 1 0.36 0.32 0.40 0.43

221 2 2 1 1.07 0.95 0.58 1.38

321 3 2 1 1.49 1.31 0.85 2.72

421 4 2 1 1.78 1.57 1.24 4.41

521 5 2 1 2.01 1.77 1.81 6.42

131 1 3 1 1.10 0.33 0.67 0.33

231 2 3 1 1.81 0.96 0.88 1.18

331 3 3 1 2.23 1.32 1.16 2.50

431 4 3 1 2.52 1.58 1.54 4.26

531 5 3 1 2.75 1.78 2.03 6.45

112 1 1 2 0.11 0.42 0.13 0.18

212 2 1 2 0.67 0.63 0.21 0.91

312 3 1 2 0.99 0.76 0.36 2.38

412 4 1 2 1.23 0.85 0.61 4.70

512 5 1 2 1.41 0.91 1.03 7.97

122 1 2 2 0.40 0.71 0.49 0.38

222 2 2 2 0.96 0.92 0.63 1.34

322 3 2 2 1.28 1.05 0.81 2.83

422 4 2 2 1.52 1.14 1.04 4.80

522 5 2 2 1.70 1.20 1.34 7.22

132 1 3 2 1.32 0.45 0.55 0.62

232 2 3 2 1.88 0.62 0.69 1.70

332 3 3 2 2.20 0.71 0.87 3.06

432 4 3 2 2.44 0.78 1.10 4.65

532 5 3 2 2.62 0.84 1.39 6.42

113 1 1 3 0.95 0.30 0.60 0.50

213 2 1 3 0.65 1.30 1.65 1.20

313 3 1 3 0.45 2.00 2.70 2.10

413 4 1 3 0.35 2.50 3.90 3.30

513 5 1 3 0.35 2.90 5.90 4.40

123 1 2 3 0.95 0.30 0.60 0.50

223 2 2 3 0.65 1.30 1.65 1.20

323 3 2 3 0.45 2.00 2.70 2.10

423 4 2 3 0.35 2.50 3.90 3.30

523 5 2 3 0.35 2.90 5.90 4.40

133 1 3 3 0.95 0.30 0.60 0.50

233 2 3 3 0.65 1.30 1.65 1.20

333 3 3 3 0.45 2.00 2.70 2.10

433 4 3 3 0.35 2.50 3.90 3.30

533 5 3 3 0.35 2.90 5.90 4.40

Note: PERHH= person in Household. AUTHH= auto per household. TYPHH= type of household PRAT_HBW= home-based work trip production rate PRAT_HBSH= home-based shopping trip production rate PRAT_HBSR= home based social recreational trip production rate PRAT_HBO= home based other trip production rate

March 2015 20

Table 8. Okaloosa-Walton TPO and Rural Trip Production Rates


111 1 1 1 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.20

112 1 1 2 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.25

113 1 1 3 0.25 0.30 0.60 0.50

121 1 2 1 0.50 0.80 0.65 0.60

122 1 2 2 0.45 0.50 0.65 0.80

123 1 2 3 0.25 0.30 0.60 0.50

131 1 3 1 1.05 0.90 0.85 0.70

132 1 3 2 1.20 0.65 0.75 0.95

133 1 3 3 0.25 0.30 0.60 0.50

211 2 1 1 0.80 0.35 0.25 0.30

212 2 1 2 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.45

213 2 1 3 0.20 1.30 1.65 1.20

221 2 2 1 1.10 1.05 0.85 1.10

222 2 2 2 0.65 1.25 1.05 1.20

223 2 2 3 0.20 1.30 1.65 1.20

231 2 3 1 2.00 1.25 1.05 1.20

232 2 3 2 1.55 1.40 1.20 1.50

233 2 3 3 0.20 1.30 1.65 1.20

311 3 1 1 1.15 0.40 0.30 0.55

312 3 1 2 0.55 0.40 0.40 0.70

313 3 1 3 0.15 2.00 2.70 2.10

321 3 2 1 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.85

322 3 2 2 0.90 1.50 1.45 1.60

323 3 2 3 0.15 2.00 2.70 2.10

331 3 3 1 2.45 1.45 1.30 2.20

332 3 3 2 1.85 1.65 1.65 2.30

333 3 3 3 0.15 2.00 2.70 2.10

411 4 1 1 1.40 0.45 0.40 1.00

412 4 1 2 0.80 0.45 0.45 1.10

413 4 1 3 0.10 2.50 3.90 3.30

421 4 2 1 1.75 1.30 1.35 2.75

422 4 2 2 1.00 1.65 1.90 2.10

423 4 2 3 0.10 2.50 3.90 3.30

431 4 3 1 2.60 1.60 1.65 3.55

432 4 3 2 2.05 1.85 2.20 3.40

433 4 3 3 0.10 2.50 3.90 3.30

511 5 1 1 1.55 0.45 0.45 1.60

512 5 1 2 1.00 0.45 0.55 1.70

513 5 1 3 0.10 2.90 5.90 4.40

521 5 2 1 1.90 1.30 1.70 3.95

522 5 2 2 1.10 1.70 2.65 3.00

523 5 2 3 0.10 2.90 5.90 4.40

531 5 3 1 2.65 1.70 2.10 5.35

532 5 3 2 2.15 1.95 3.05 4.65

533 5 3 3 0.10 2.90 5.90 4.40


March 2015 21

Table 9. Bay County TPO and Rural Trip Production Rates


111 1 1 1 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.15

112 1 1 2 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.60

113 1 1 3 0.95 0.30 0.60 1.15

121 1 2 1 0.90 0.80 0.65 0.80

122 1 2 2 0.70 0.50 0.65 1.45

123 1 2 3 0.95 0.30 0.60 1.15

131 1 3 1 1.80 0.90 0.85 1.00

132 1 3 2 1.25 0.65 0.75 1.55

133 1 3 3 0.95 0.30 0.60 1.15

211 2 1 1 0.85 0.35 0.25 0.50

212 2 1 2 0.70 0.35 0.35 1.00

213 2 1 3 0.65 1.30 1.65 2.50

221 2 2 1 1.55 1.05 0.85 1.50

222 2 2 2 1.15 1.25 1.05 2.45

223 2 2 3 0.65 1.30 1.65 2.50

231 2 3 1 2.25 1.25 1.05 1.85

232 2 3 2 1.65 1.40 1.20 2.90

233 2 3 3 0.65 1.30 1.65 2.50

311 3 1 1 1.20 0.40 0.30 1.05

312 3 1 2 1.00 0.40 0.40 1.55

313 3 1 3 0.45 2.00 2.70 3.95

321 3 2 1 1.85 1.20 1.10 2.45

322 3 2 2 1.45 1.50 1.45 3.45

323 3 2 3 0.45 2.00 2.70 3.95

331 3 3 1 2.50 1.45 1.30 3.15

332 3 3 2 1.95 1.65 1.65 4.25

333 3 3 3 0.45 2.00 2.70 3.95

411 4 1 1 1.50 0.45 0.40 1.90

412 4 1 2 1.25 0.45 0.45 2.45

413 4 1 3 0.35 2.50 3.90 5.40

421 4 2 1 1.95 1.30 1.35 3.40

422 4 2 2 1.70 1.65 1.90 4.70

423 4 2 3 0.35 2.50 3.90 5.40

431 4 3 1 2.70 1.60 1.65 4.65

432 4 3 2 2.15 1.85 2.20 5.70

433 4 3 3 0.35 2.50 3.90 5.40

511 5 1 1 1.65 0.45 0.45 3.40

512 5 1 2 1.45 0.45 0.55 3.80

513 5 1 3 0.35 2.90 5.90 7.20

521 5 2 1 2.00 1.30 1.70 5.45

522 5 2 2 1.90 1.70 2.65 6.25

523 5 2 3 0.35 2.90 5.90 7.20

531 5 3 1 2.80 1.70 2.10 7.40

532 5 3 2 2.35 1.95 3.05 7.60

533 5 3 3 0.35 2.90 5.90 7.20


March 2015 22

Table 10. NWFRPM Model Trip Attraction Rates

PURP ARAT_IEMP ARAT_CEMP ARAT_SEMP ARAT_TEMP ARAT_TOTDU ARAT_SENR

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00

2 0.00 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 0.00 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.50 0.00

4 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.20 1.30

5 0.00 2.90 1.40 0.00 0.30 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.30 0.00

2.3.2. Dwelling Unit (DU) Weights A set of standard FSUTMS dwelling unit weights with the exception of the FATPO model area were used for the model validation. The FATPO model area uses a set of DU weights originally developed for the Capital Area Transportation Planning Agency (CRTPA) model. Tables 11 and 12 depict the DU weights used in this model validation.

Table 11. NWFRPM Model Dwelling Unit Rates

SIZERANGE PCT1PER PCT2PER PCT3PER PCT4PER PCT5PER

1.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 0.76 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.00

3.00 0.59 0.34 0.05 0.01 0.01

4.00 0.45 0.42 0.07 0.03 0.03

5.00 0.32 0.50 0.09 0.05 0.04

6.00 0.28 0.44 0.13 0.08 0.07

7.00 0.22 0.40 0.17 0.11 0.10

8.00 0.18 0.37 0.18 0.13 0.14

9.00 0.13 0.34 0.18 0.16 0.19

10.00 0.12 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.24

11.00 0.08 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.28

12.00 0.05 0.20 0.19 0.23 0.33

13.00 0.04 0.16 0.17 0.24 0.39

14.00 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.21 0.48

15.00 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.54

16.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.74

17.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.93

March 2015 23

Table 12. FATPO Model Dwelling Unit Rates

SIZERANGE PCT1PER PCT2PER PCT3PER PCT4PER PCT5PER

1.00 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 0.76 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.00

3.00 0.59 0.34 0.05 0.01 0.01

4.00 0.46 0.34 0.11 0.06 0.03

5.00 0.33 0.38 0.17 0.09 0.03

6.00 0.25 0.35 0.19 0.13 0.08

7.00 0.22 0.33 0.19 0.16 0.10

8.00 0.15 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.11

9.00 0.13 0.34 0.18 0.16 0.19

10.00 0.12 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.24

11.00 0.08 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.28

12.00 0.05 0.20 0.19 0.23 0.33

13.00 0.04 0.16 0.17 0.24 0.39

14.00 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.21 0.48

15.00 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.54

16.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.74

17.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.93

2.3.3. Special Generators SPGEN_10B.DBF (ZDATA3) Special generators are certain land use activities such as recreational areas, colleges/universities, military bases, and shopping malls. It is desirable to keep the use of special generators to a minimum during model validation. Such applications deviate from trip generation procedures used in other TAZs and may create complications during future year model applications.

Therefore, initial model runs were conducted without ZDATA3 adjustments. After running the model from trip generation through trip assignment, it was noticed that the military bases, with the exception of Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola and “NAS Mainside”, were attracting a considerably lower number of trips than the 2010 traffic counts indicated. The recreational areas, shopping centers, and colleges were all attracting considerably fewer trips than traffic counts indicated.

ZDATA3 adjustments were then made for the areas mentioned above using the 2010 NWFRPM Zdata3 file, which is called “spgen_10b.dbf”. The number of trip productions and/or attractions to these special generators was either increased or decreased based on the circumstances. The model was run again from trip generation through trip assignment and resulted in volume/count ratios that were within acceptable ranges. Table 13 provides a summary of special generator trips used in the validated 2010 NWFRPM.

March 2015 24

Table 13. Special Generator Trips

TAZ DESCRIPTION TRIPS PERCENTAGES BY PURPOSE (PRODUCTION AND ATTRACTION)

PRODUCTIONS ATTRACTIONS HBWP HBSHP HBSRP HBOP NHBP HBWA HBSHA HBSRA HBOA NHBA

107 PJC West 0 12500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 14 0

108 Corry Field Group Quarters 25000 0 55 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

174 Pensacola Airport 35000 40000 0 0 0 0 100 25 0 25 25 25

209 NAS Mainside 0 12500 55 15 15 15 0 100 0 0 0 0

220 Saufley Field 5000 5000 55 0 15 15 15 80 0 0 0 20

234 Johnson Beach 0 4500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 20 0

254 UWF Group Quarters 22000 0 0 20 20 60 0 0 0 0 0 0

268 Fort Pickens 0 13500 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 20 0

472 Whiting Field 0 5200 55 0 15 15 15 55 0 15 15 15

503 PJC Milton 0 8000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 14 0

487 Santa Rosa Island 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 20 0

843 Okaloosa Correctional 0 21000 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100

698 Eglin AFB 0 20000 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 50

844 Okaloosa Regional Airport 15000 25000 0 0 0 0 100 25 0 25 25 25

699 Eglin AFB 20000 5000 40 20 20 20 0 30 0 15 40 15

696 Eglin AFB 0 1200 30 15 10 40 5 20 5 20 35 20

669 Hurlburt Field 25000 25000 20 20 15 30 15 20 20 15 30 15

1351 Gulf Coast Community College 0 4800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0

1305 Tyndall AFB 10000 15000 70 0 0 0 30 60 0 10 20 10

1310 St. Andrews State Park 10000 25000 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 70 0 30

209 Naval Air Station Pensacola 0 20000 0 20 20 60 0 50 0 30 0 20

1826 LEON CO. TAZ 0 650 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1827 LEON CO. TAZ 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1828 LEON CO. TAZ 0 830 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1829 LEON CO. TAZ 0 2400 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1830 LEON CO. TAZ 0 7900 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1831 LEON CO. TAZ 0 2300 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1832 LEON CO. TAZ 0 4700 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1833 LEON CO. TAZ 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 25 0

1891 JEFFERSON CO. TAZ 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

1671 ST. GEORGE ISLAND, FRANKLIN CO 2000 2000 30 30 0 30 10 20 0 50 0 30

1628 ST. JOSEPH PENINSULA, GULF CO 500 2000 30 30 0 30 10 20 0 50 0 30

1692 ALLIGATOR POINT, FRANKLIN CO. 500 100 30 30 0 30 10 20 0 50 0 30

1552 I10 JACKSON COUNTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100

698 Eglin AFB 5000 15000 30 20 20 20 10 25 0 0 25 50

713 Eglin AFB 5000 10000 30 20 20 20 10 25 0 0 25 50

713 Eglin AFB 0 5000 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 25 25

761 Destin-Ft.Walton Beach Airport 25000 25000 0 0 0 0 100 25 0 25 25 25

705 Ft. Walton Beach Park 10000 15000 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 70 0 30

768 HENDERSON BEACH PARK 15000 15000 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 70 0 30

1186 PANAMA CITY-BAY CO.AIRPORT 10000 10000 0 0 0 0 100 25 0 25 25 25

971 Grayton Beach Park - Seaside 10000 15000 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 50

949 DESTIN COMMONS (Outlets, mall) 20000 25000 0 70 30 0 0 30 50 20 0 0

1806 ST MARKS 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 50 0 30

1743 Wakulla Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 50 0 30

661 Santa Rosa Mall, Mary Esther 15000 25000 0 70 30 0 0 30 50 20 0 0

March 2015 25

2.4. Model Results Validation of the 2010 NWFRP model was evaluated based on comparisons of aggregate trip rates and trips by purpose against the other FDOT District 3 MPO models. Aggregate trip rates included the total number of study area trips per person, dwelling unit, and employee. Comparisons of trips by purpose included the number of productions, percent of productions, and unbalanced attractions for each purpose. Evaluations of balanced versus unbalanced trip attractions were also used in assessing model performance.

2.4.1. Aggregate Trip Rates Table 14 shows a summary the aggregate trip rates. The total number of trips per dwelling unit (or household) was higher than rates for the other models (CRTPA, Panama City, FATPO and Okaloosa-Walton) used in the comparison. Trips per person were about average compared to the other models used in the comparison. Trips per employee were also higher than all of the other models except the FATPO model that has the highest value.

Table 14. Aggregate Trip Rate Comparison

Unit of Measure 2010 NWFRPM 2006 NWFRPM 2010 CRTPA

Model 2007 CRTPA

Model

Person per Household 2.44 2.48 2.46 2.23

Internal Trips per Household 9.46 9.87 9.96 8.79

Internal Trips per Person 4.64 3.97 4.04 3.95

Internal Trips per Employee 9.34 8.86 8.30 7.62

2.4.2. Percent of Trips by Purpose The percent of trips by purpose did not differ significantly from the other models used in the comparison. Home-based work, home-based shop, home-based social/recreation, home-based other, non-home-based, and truck-taxi represented about the same proportion of trips found in all of the other models.

The percentage of internal-external trips was lower than those found in all of the other models, which is to be expected due to the extended geographic coverage of NWFRPM. Table 15 shows a summary of trips by purpose.

Table 15. Summary of Trips by Purpose

Trip Purpose 2010 CRTPA 2007 CRTPA 2010 NWFRPM 2006 NWFRPM

% by Productions % by Productions % by Productions % by Productions

Home-Based Work 14% 14% 17% 17%

Home-Based Shop 11% 11% 12% 12%

Home-Based Soc-Rec 7% 7% 12% 12%

Home-Based Other 30% 29% 23% 23%

Non-Home Based 23% 24% 23% 23%

Truck-Taxi 8% 8% 8% 8%

Internal-External 7% 7% 4% 4%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

March 2015 26

3. Highway Network

The FSUTMS highway network coding standards including the area type and facility type conventions, VFACTORS, and SPDCAP default values were all included as well as location and districts attributes to identify areas within existing travel demand models. Traffic count information and screenlines were also added for validation purposes. In addition to the inclusion of all these attributes, highway paths are built in as well as turning movement prohibitors and penalties as they are currently used in the TPO’s models. Figure 5 displays the highway network step configuration.

The highway network was prepared for the base year 2010 condition for the 12 counties in the NWFRPM area. Verification of network characteristics was subsequently completed through use of maps, network plots, and field data inventory.

Figure 5. Highway Network Model Flowchart

March 2015 27

3.1. Network Development The highway network was developed for the base year of 2010. The 2006 validated network was used as the basis for the network and was updated to reflect any improvements made to the highway network between 2006 and 2010. These improvements were identified from the various TPO’s Transportation Improvement Programs and the FDOT 5-Year Work Program. The expanded network is based upon Census TigerLine files, aerial photography, and local knowledge.

3.2. Network Parameters Standard two-digit FSUTMS area types and facility types were used in coding the NWFRPM 2010 network. Area type and facility type coding found in the various TPO’s current networks were compared for consistency against the NWFRPM 2010 network prior to the start of the validation process. Additional review and refinement of highway network coding took place during the validation process.

County codes (CO_CODE) and traffic count stations were added to the network attributes so that the traffic counts and model output conversion factors (MOCF) can be automatically read from the traffic counts database (2010 traffic counts.dbf), which makes it easier to switch from annual average daily traffic (AADT) to peak season week average daily traffic (PSWADT) and vice versa for the model’s traffic volume outputs.

3.3. Model Results The highway network has 11,055 nodes and 26,560 links, of which 2,356 have traffic counts. More details are presented in the assignment section.

March 2015 28

4. Trip Distribution

This is a critical component of the regional model because it creates the trip tables that are later assigned to the highway network. It is a challenge to validate as well since the only data sources for its development were parameters and statistics from other geographies in and out of the State of Florida. The sub-programs within the distribution step are depicted in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6. Trip Distribution Step Flowchart

4.1. Model Development As it is adopted by the FSUTMS procedures, a gravity model is used to estimate the number of trip ends produced at each traffic analysis zone, per trip purpose, that is being attracted by all or parts of the other TAZs in the network. It is also necessary to have some measure of the spatial separation of the TAZs or travel impedances, which is usually measured in time units, distance or costs.

March 2015 29

The trip generation step of the model created zonal records for all trip productions and attractions. The network step produced the travel path skim matrices based on travel time and cost, as well as distances, including terminal times, intra-zonal times, time penalties and turning movement prohibitors. In addition to all of these inputs, a travel function must be incorporated to replicate drivers’ behavior, for the different trip purposes, known as the friction factor.

Friction factors are derived from travel characteristics surveys and they generally follow well studied curves’ shapes; i.e., empirical values taken from surveys can be represented by mathematical functions that replicate the trip length distribution and the average trip lengths by purpose. The trip length distribution curve shows a few motorized trips for short distances, followed by higher number of trips for medium trip durations and then decreasing number of trips as time and/or distance increases. These curves can be different for different trip purposes, as it is the case for home-based work trips which usually have a longer commute time than a trip to the grocery store.

Lacking any kind of survey for the whole region under study, one proven way to develop these friction factors is the “gamma function”, which is recommended by the Transportation Research Board publication NCHRP Report 365 – Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1998). As a reference, this is the same function that was used in the development of the Florida Statewide model. The gamma function is represented by the following equation:

𝐹𝑖𝑗 = 𝑎 × 𝑡𝑖𝑗𝑏 × 𝑒𝑐 × 𝑡𝑖𝑗

Where:

Fij = friction factor between origin TAZ “i” and destination TAZ “j” a = a constant scaling factor coefficient that does not affect the shape of the distribution b and c = model coefficients, usually a negative value, calibrated for the different trip purposes. tij = time or most appropriately, generalized cost of travel between “i” and “j” t = same as above e = the base of the natural logarithms

The gamma function is used to generate a lookup table that is then used by the gravity model.

After a few model validation runs it was apparent that additional restrictions needed to be in place to avoid the gravity model mathematical design to distribute trips based on the internal TAZs attractiveness (measured by among other things, by the total trip attractions). For example, it is not realistic that trips produced in Franklin County external zones would be attracted to the Naval Air Station TAZ in Pensacola just because it has a huge employment base. The mathematical model should be additionally restricted by a maximum distance parameter so that it does not encourage travel between zones that are too far apart for specific trip purposes. IE trips showed that behavior so that a skim matrix based on this maximum distance parameter was created and a different friction factor for short distances IE trips was implemented. Again, the Florida Statewide model was used as a reference, since it applies similar procedures for path building and trip distribution.

4.2. Model Parameters Two sets of friction factors were created as discussed in the previous paragraph to differentiate short distance trips from long distance trips: The FF-SHORTDIST.CSV AND THE FF-LONGDIST.CSV, respectively; however a maximum time limit of 150 minutes for trip distribution was also included. A summary of the gamma function coefficients, by trip purpose, is shown in Table 16.

The maximum number of iterations was set to MAXITERS=50 for the gravity model as well as a maximum RMSE of MAXRMSE=2; this latter value was set very low to insure that the iteration ran up to the maximum value of 50, since it was determined from the first few validation runs that low number of iterations were not

March 2015 30

generating consistent results and a fixed low MAXRMSE was forcing different validation runs to reach the same number of iterations.

Table 16. Gamma Function Coefficients for Friction Factors

Trip Purpose a b c

HBW 28,507 -0.020 -0.123

HBSH 139,173 -1.285 -.0.094

HBSR 139,173 -1.285 -.0.094

HBO 139,173 -1.285 -.0.094

NHB 219,113 -1.332 -0.100

TT 219,113 -1.332 -0.100

IE 1,000,000 -4.346 0.000

Sources: NCHRP Report 365 and Florida Statewide model scripts

4.3. Model Results Two basic results are expected from the trip distribution step in terms of the validation effort: 1. trip length averages that are reasonable when compared among trip purposes within the region and also across other urban areas outside the region; 2. the trip length distribution curves should be comparable to other urban areas travel demand model outputs.

Table 17 shows that the average trip lengths are very reasonable and even similar to other travel demand models within the region, as well as nationwide statistics. The IE trips are showing an average trip length of 75.6 minutes, which is understandable considering the geography that this model encompasses (approximately a flat rectangular shape of about 180 miles long by 50 miles wide), definitely a bigger area and hence longer distances to travel than other models within the region.

Intra-zonal trips are also summarized in Table 17 and the statistics are very similar to other models in the area.

Trip length distribution curves are presented in Appendix C. Their distribution is fairly similar to the expected shapes from nationally recognized publications such as NCHRP Report 365 and two US DOT Federal Highway Administration publications on the subject entitled Calibration and Adjustment of System Planning Models, December 1990 and Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual February 1997.

Table 17. Trip Distribution Statistics

Trip Purpose 2010 NWFRPM

Model 2006 NWFRPM

Model 2010 CRTPA Model 2007 CRTPA Model

Home-Based Work 19.86 21.14 20.14 20.51

Home-Based Shop 18.32 19.51 16.90 17.55

Home-Based Soc-Rec 17.65 18.39 18.35 18.95

Home-Based Other 16.98 18.06 17.33 18.03

Non-Home Based 13.76 13.62 16.98 16.72

Truck-Taxi 14.46 14.50 16.74 16.67

Internal-External 74.77 75.61 54.50 54.54

Total 23.68 25.83 21.50 23.26

March 2015 31

5. Mode Choice

This step, in this “highway only” model, includes the conversion of person-trips to auto-trips and switching from production-attraction (P/A) trip tables to origin-destination (O/D) trip tables making them ready for assignment. External trips, already in “auto-trips” mode were also added to the internal trips before the P/A matrices conversion to O/D matrices took place.

Figure 7 shows the corresponding flowchart for this step.

Figure 7. Mode Choice Flowchart

5.1. Model Parameters Auto occupancy rates from existing travel demand models within the region were adopted for use. A review of the auto occupancy rates was made to select the rural values, which generated the following summary of accepted values at the region, state and nation level as presented in Table 18. The Federal Highway Administration’s National Household Transportation Survey, 2001 provides good insight into national averages, but the FDOT Systems Planning Office recommendation for Florida’s rural areas was adopted, as

March 2015 32

more appropriate to local conditions. A summary of adopted values for the NWFRPM is presented in Table 19.

Table 18. Summary of Auto Occupancy Rates: Region, State, and Nation

Trip Purpose FATPO Bay TPO OK-WAL

TPO

Florida Statewide

Model NCHRP 356 Florida Rural NHTS Rural

HBW 1.13 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.08 1.10

HBSH 1.41 1.43 1.50 1.80 1.44 1.88 1.80

HBSR 1.63 1.43 1.50 1.94 1.66 1.74 1.89

HBO 1.59 1.43 1.49 1.70 1.67 1.70 1.76

NHB 1.49 1.12 1.43 1.71 1.66 1.34 1.66

Sources: Existing TPOs within the NWFRPM are area model parameters and FDOT Systems Planning Office

Table 19. Adopted Auto Occupancy Rates

Sub-Area District HBW HBSH HBSR HBO NHB

FATPO 1 1.13 1.41 1.63 1.59 1.49

Okaloosa County 2 1.09 1.50 1.50 1.49 1.43

Walton County 3 1.09 1.50 1.50 1.49 1.43

Bay TPO 4 1.10 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.12

Rural 5 1.08 1.88 1.74 1.70 1.34

March 2015 33

6. Trip Assignment

Equilibrium assignment using a modified BPR (from the old Bureau of Public Roads) volume delay function is used as it is the standard FSUTMS procedure. The VFACTORS file includes the modified parameters used in the BPR function. These parameters were included in the network’s links in the Highway Network step. Figure 8 below shows the model flowchart.

Figure 8. Highway Assignment Flowchart

6.1. Model Development The generalized cost used for path and assignment calculations is travel time and the cost of tolls converted to time equivalent units using the variable “ctoll”, which was adopted from the existing models. Only a few toll bridges are currently in place in the region.

However, the capability is there to apply different toll rates and toll payment schemes (conventional tolls or open road tolling, including electronic toll collection systems) for future toll projects in the region. Turning

March 2015 34

movement prohibitors and a few remaining penalties from existing travel demand models are also included in the path building process in assignment.

The lack of portions of highway network north of Wakulla and Franklin Counties created a disproportionate number of trips to/from these counties loading on US 98, since this facility is the only east-west connector for those areas. In the north-east end of the NWFRPM study area, a decision was made (by FDOT) not to include (for now) roadways within Leon and Gadsden Counties, which are part of the Capital Region Transportation Planning Area (CRTPA) and Liberty County. The trip tables created by the trip generation and distribution steps are still matching productions and attractions in these two counties using paths that go through US 98. Trips at the external stations at Franklin and Wakulla Counties have, in reality, better access to the north and west through SR 20, I-10, and US 90 and they are already accounted for by the external trips’ tables (IE and EE trips), so it was necessary to avoid “double counting” these trips, and hence an exclusionary assignment attribute (INTEXT) was set up in the network for just this trip purpose (IE trips), and calibrated through the validation runs.

6.2. Model Results The overall regional statistics shown in Table 20 demonstrates how each facility type and area types are performing in terms of volumes over counts. Some expressways (FT -16), some undivided facilities without turn bays (FT=36), some local collectors (FT = 45 & FT =46), downtown areas, beach residential areas (AT = 10s & 34) and rural undeveloped areas (AT =52) are the only facility/area types that are not performing as expected. The overall volume over count ratio of V/C = 1.00 implies a good fit-assignment and it is well within the ±5% recommended by FDOT.

Table 20. Traffic Assignment Statistics

Facility Type Model / Count VMT Area Type Model / Count VMT

Freeway 0.99 CBD 0.88

Divided Arterial 1.02 Fringe 1.05

Undivided Arterial 1.03 Residential 0.97

Collectors 0.97 OBD 0.95

One-way / Frontage 1.19 Rural 1.14

Total 0.99 Total 0.99

A number of screenlines and cutlines were established to evaluate model performance at different locations/sub-areas of the NWFRPM. Table 21 summarizes the results.

Additional statistics are discussed in the next section 7.

March 2015 35

Table 21. NWFRPM Screenlines Volume over Count Ratios

Screenline Number

Total Volume Total Count Volume to Count Ratio

1 222,954 207,043 1.08

2 256,855 253,168 1.01

3 628,926 1,452,069 0.43

4 127,245 156,484 0.81

5 85,729 108,768 0.79

6 178,632 150,706 1.19

7 146,315 143,576 1.02

8 310,998 344,994 0.9

9 93,368 103,788 0.9

10 53,524 55,410 0.97

11 164,444 143,252 1.15

12 189,055 167,794 1.13

13 94,866 82,542 1.15

17 5,473 7,318 0.75

19 4,964 5,110 0.97

21 41,232 50,158 0.82

22 38,111 46,834 0.81

23 23,238 26,540 0.88

24 33,628 44,724 0.75

25 48,688 51,444 0.95

26 36,532 47,836 0.76

27 34,032 43,404 0.78

28 75,568 79,382 0.95

29 73,032 65,042 1.12

30 80,315 76,844 1.05

31 40,086 41,136 0.97

32 123,874 93,404 1.33

33 23,559 17,114 1.38

34 60,375 64,948 0.93

35 83,275 64,892 1.28

36 42,140 34,416 1.22

37 17,063 18,660 0.91

38 19,988 24,500 0.82

39 14,718 7,262 2.03

40 15,671 10,544 1.49

41 8,290 7,392 1.12

42 5,680 5,434 1.05

March 2015 36

43 9,836 6,804 1.45

44 27,904 31,712 0.88

51 92,402 80,942 1.14

52 32,988 26,770 1.23

53 127,269 111,812 1.14

54 98,497 91,862 1.07

55 94,170 98,508 0.96

56 62,263 67,604 0.92

57 46,740 43,646 1.07

58 65,423 66,916 0.98

59 39,414 39,612 1

60 59,834 57,504 1.04

61 117,699 102,484 1.15

62 58,644 68,218 0.86

63 31,435 34,444 0.91

71 28,436 25,080 1.13

72 33,654 17,212 1.96

75 67,876 56,942 1.19

76 20,570 15,170 1.36

79 56,602 52,820 1.07

80 30,903 41,458 0.75

81 25,056 31,180 0.8

84 20,034 20,980 0.95

87 8,950 13,606 0.66

88 17,032 14,504 1.17

91 14,678 18,812 0.78

92 7,724 10,002 0.77

95 11,536 14,190 0.81

96 11,478 18,372 0.62

98 186,620 187,936 0.99

99 10,413,511 10,525,219 0.99

100 15,421,621 16,296,253 0.95

March 2015 37

7. Model Evaluation

The final step in the model flow, as designed for the NWFRPM, is an evaluation of the assignment process by area type/facility type/number of lanes characteristics by sub area within the region. The root mean square error statistics (RMSE) are also presented in this section.

The corresponding flowchart is presented in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9. Model Evaluation Flowchart

7.1. Final Model Validation Results Volume over count ratios, presented in the previous section, showed a general good fit performance and within an accepted range. Table 22 demonstrates very good behavior of the model in terms of another critical statistic, the root mean square error or RMSE. After run # 5 of the series of validation runs, with the only exception of very low counts group (AADT less than 5,000 vehicles), all other volume groups are within the accepted range. At run # 12 all volume groups were performing within the acceptable accuracy range.

March 2015 38

Table 22. Region-wide Root Mean Square Error

Volume Group AADT Percent RSME Allowable RSME

1 1 – 5,000 69.55 45 – 55 %

2 5,000 – 10,000 30.86 35 – 45 %

3 10,000 – 20,000 22.63 27 – 35 %

4 20,000 – 30,000 16.88 24 – 27 %

5 30,000 – 40,000 39.79 22 – 24 %

9 70,000 – 80,000 87.29 16 – 17 %

Total 71.49 32 – 39 %

The following Tables 23, 24 and 25 are summaries of the validation statistics for the urbanized areas within the NWFRPM. These tables provide VMT, VHT and V/C values for the existing facility types/area types by number of lanes, as well as RMSE values for the volume groups currently in each area. The same statistics from the existing travel demand model for those same geographies are also provided side by side.

It can be concluded that the NWFRM is performing as well as the existing individual urbanized areas’ models, or better in some specific statistics. The only exception to this should be noted in the overall V/C ratio for the Okaloosa-Walton (OK-WAL) model, which the NWFRPM under-assigned below the accepted range. The existing OK-WAL model however does include significant time penalties around Ft. Walton Beach, Destin, and Niceville to achieve better validation results than the NWFRPM. This was done possibly to overcome the lack of good socio-economic data in this area that this regional model development effort also encountered, as discussed in section 2, Trip Generation.

Table 23. Florida Alabama TPO Sub-Area Assignment Statistics






One-way / Frontage 1.19 Rural 1.12


Table 24. Bay County TPO Sub-Area Assignment Statistics


Freeway 0 CBD 1.42




One-way / Frontage 0 Rural 1.27


March 2015 39

Table 25. Okaloosa Walton TPO Sub-Area Assignment Statistics






One-way / Frontage 0 Rural 1.11


7.2. Summary and Conclusions The NWFRPM, as it was validated, is suited for any planning application at the regional and metropolitan area level. As detailed in the previous section, the validation statistics by sub-area are also good enough to justify the use of the regional model for sub-area planning applications.

Care should be taken when using the model as the socioeconomic data development relied heavily on factoring and proportioning and there was a lack of traffic counts for the base year. Corridor or sub area validation is highly recommended when using the model.

Future development in rural areas and areas surrounding existing cities and communities might require further detailed geography in terms of traffic analysis zones and highway network. The main interest being in to develop good consistency in model geographies across all future years to improve the overall usefulness of the model as a planning tool.

A regional travel characteristics study was not available for this model validation and it should be considered in the future to improve the calibration of trip generation parameters, friction factors, and a better understanding of origin-destination patterns for short and long trips within the region as well as through it. Two socio economic sets of data are a challenge in this region: 1.Employment data due to the presence of military bases throughout the region from Pensacola to Panama City are not accurate due to understandable national security issues and 2. occupancy rate of dwelling units is hard to evaluate in resort/beach communities, which in turn creates a seasonal population that is usually mis-represented. These two issues will probably need an additional consideration when designing the first update of this model in the future.

Appendices

March 2015 41

Appendix A. EETRIPS yya.DBF

ORZ DSZ AUTO_TRIPS

1851 1878 5

1851 1879 799

1851 1884 0

1852 1878 9

1852 1879 33

1853 1878 4

1853 1879 21

1854 1857 90

1854 1874 2

1854 1878 34

1854 1879 3692

1855 1879 0

1856 1857 64

1857 1854 90

1857 1856 64

1857 1858 0

1857 1859 101

1857 1860 0

1858 1857 0

1858 1879 0

1859 1857 101

1860 1857 0

1860 1879 0

1861 1879 0

1862 1879 0

1863 1879 0

1864 1879 0

1865 1879 0

1866 1879 0

1867 1879 0

1868 1879 0

1869 1879 0

1870 1879 0

1871 1879 0

1872 1879 0

1873 1879 0

1874 1854 2

March 2015 42

1874 1878 681

1874 1879 1138

1875 1878 0

1875 1880 0

1876 1878 0

1876 1879 0

1876 1880 0

1877 1878 11

1877 1879 48

1877 1880 0

1878 1851 5

1878 1852 9

1878 1853 4

1878 1854 34

1878 1874 681

1878 1875 0

1878 1876 0

1878 1877 11

1879 1851 799

1879 1852 33

1879 1853 21

1879 1854 3692

1879 1855 0

1879 1858 0

1879 1860 0

1879 1861 0

1879 1862 0

1879 1863 0

1879 1864 0

1879 1865 0

1879 1866 0

1879 1867 0

1879 1868 0

1879 1869 0

1879 1870 0

1879 1871 0

1879 1872 0

1879 1873 0

1879 1874 1138

1879 1876 0

1879 1877 48

March 2015 43

1879 1880 0

1879 1881 0

1879 1882 0

1879 1883 0

1879 1887 0

1879 1888 0

1879 1890 0

1880 1875 0

1880 1876 0

1880 1877 0

1881 1879 0

1882 1879 0

1883 1879 0

1884 1851 0

1885 1886 0

1885 1891 0

1886 1885 0

1887 1879 0

1888 1879 0

1889 1891 118

1890 1879 0

1891 1885 0

1891 1889 118

March 2015 44

Appendix B. INTEXT yya.DBF

ZONE IE_PROD

1851 14075

1852 6700

1853 4800

1854 27707

1855 2976

1856 5750

1857 10040

1858 1270

1859 2226

1860 1164

1861 2250

1862 3404

1863 4100

1864 4650

1865 540

1866 1350

1867 990

1868 1575

1869 680

1870 422

1871 3192

1872 1668

1873 3566

1874 11747

1875 1695

1876 950

1877 1760

1878 5200

1879 6800

1880 9500

1881 825

1882 1800

1883 1500

1884 0

1885 1618

1886 4486

1887 18512

1888 6700

1889 7670

1890 0

1891 1896

March 2015 45

Appendix C. Distribution Trip Length Outputs

Page 196 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBW TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=1 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ---------------------------------------------------- 1 - 3 30 93.41 0.0 0.0 | 3 - 5 2,362 8,843.89 1.2 1.2 |= 5 - 7 7,773 36,526.48 5.0 6.2 |==== 7 - 9 14,150 55,535.87 7.6 13.8 |======= 9 - 11 18,283 69,100.77 9.4 23.2 |========= 11 - 13 19,224 77,115.99 10.5 33.7 |========== 13 - 15 18,561 67,936.99 9.3 42.9 |========= 15 - 17 16,598 62,026.78 8.4 51.4 |======== 17 - 19 15,631 52,756.93 7.2 58.6 |======= 19 - 21 14,331 43,485.92 5.9 64.5 |===== 21 - 23 13,984 38,781.07 5.3 69.8 |===== 23 - 25 13,902 33,030.74 4.5 74.3 |==== 25 - 27 14,010 29,850.36 4.1 78.3 |==== 27 - 29 14,495 25,864.66 3.5 81.8 |=== 29 - 31 14,728 20,774.32 2.8 84.7 |== 31 - 33 14,820 18,419.76 2.5 87.2 |== 33 - 35 14,576 15,161.15 2.1 89.3 |== 35 - 37 13,898 13,113.91 1.8 91.0 |= 37 - 39 12,844 10,118.92 1.4 92.4 |= 39 - 41 12,517 8,746.70 1.2 93.6 |= 41 - 43 11,728 7,396.65 1.0 94.6 |= 43 - 45 11,559 6,316.67 0.9 95.5 | 45 - 47 12,135 5,476.34 0.7 96.2 | 47 - 49 13,377 4,821.80 0.7 96.9 | 49 - 51 13,973 3,937.37 0.5 97.4 | 51 - 53 14,707 3,114.15 0.4 97.8 | 53 - 55 14,780 2,763.61 0.4 98.2 | 55 - 57 15,405 2,217.23 0.3 98.5 | 57 - 59 16,695 2,048.53 0.3 98.8 | 59 - 61 19,125 1,671.11 0.2 99.0 | 61 - 63 22,845 1,461.40 0.2 99.2 | 63 - 65 24,816 1,062.33 0.1 99.4 | 65 - 67 26,491 964.26 0.1 99.5 | 67 - 69 26,073 682.98 0.1 99.6 | 69 - 71 24,992 547.03 0.1 99.7 | 71 - 73 24,338 472.34 0.1 99.7 | 73 - 75 24,564 364.28 0.0 99.8 | 75 - 77 24,793 320.67 0.0 99.8 | 77 - 79 24,156 262.69 0.0 99.9 | 79 - 81 24,212 206.28 0.0 99.9 | 81 - 83 24,921 159.01 0.0 99.9 | 83 - 85 25,033 133.20 0.0 99.9 | 85 - 87 24,023 119.77 0.0 99.9 | 87 - 89 23,068 81.20 0.0 100.0 | 89 - 91 21,520 69.33 0.0 100.0 | 91 - 93 20,396 54.31 0.0 100.0 | 93 - 95 20,628 39.21 0.0 100.0 |

March 2015 46

Page 197 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBW TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=1 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ---------------------------------------------------- 95 - 97 21,573 35.08 0.0 100.0 | 97 - 99 22,081 29.40 0.0 100.0 | 99 - 100 10,753 12.77 0.0 100.0 | 100+ 1,105,358 91.55 0.0 100.0 | ------------------------------------------ Total Obs = 1,976,835 Total Sum = 734,217.21 Mean = 19.86 @I=J = 33,228.35 Page 198 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBSH TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=2 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ----------------------------------------------------- 1 - 3 26 127.84 0.0 0.0 | 3 - 5 2,085 13,092.42 2.4 2.4 |== 5 - 7 7,013 49,026.46 9.0 11.5 |========= 7 - 9 12,952 57,427.10 10.6 22.1 |========== 9 - 11 16,646 61,804.66 11.4 33.5 |=========== 11 - 13 17,557 63,008.42 11.6 45.1 |=========== 13 - 15 17,069 47,347.55 8.7 53.8 |======== 15 - 17 15,154 37,280.93 6.9 60.7 |====== 17 - 19 14,172 31,234.45 5.8 66.5 |===== 19 - 21 12,872 23,521.72 4.3 70.8 |==== 21 - 23 12,453 21,532.98 4.0 74.8 |=== 23 - 25 12,298 20,019.46 3.7 78.5 |=== 25 - 27 12,322 14,590.23 2.7 81.1 |== 27 - 29 12,821 14,591.40 2.7 83.8 |== 29 - 31 13,040 12,479.34 2.3 86.1 |== 31 - 33 13,140 11,096.64 2.0 88.2 |== 33 - 35 12,857 9,153.13 1.7 89.9 |= 35 - 37 12,152 7,327.04 1.4 91.2 |= 37 - 39 11,176 6,187.67 1.1 92.4 |= 39 - 41 10,830 5,434.34 1.0 93.4 |= 41 - 43 10,185 4,540.12 0.8 94.2 | 43 - 45 10,009 4,090.84 0.8 95.0 | 45 - 47 10,604 3,796.24 0.7 95.7 | 47 - 49 11,624 3,070.84 0.6 96.2 | 49 - 51 12,116 2,643.81 0.5 96.7 | 51 - 53 12,706 2,408.77 0.4 97.2 | 53 - 55 12,817 2,134.09 0.4 97.6 | 55 - 57 13,367 1,730.14 0.3 97.9 | 57 - 59 14,455 1,582.49 0.3 98.2 | 59 - 61 16,584 1,318.85 0.2 98.4 | 61 - 63 19,749 1,220.41 0.2 98.6 | 63 - 65 21,529 1,010.77 0.2 98.8 | 65 - 67 23,103 925.21 0.2 99.0 |

March 2015 47

67 - 69 22,948 655.97 0.1 99.1 | 69 - 71 22,017 595.30 0.1 99.2 | 71 - 73 21,417 563.87 0.1 99.3 | 73 - 75 21,455 472.55 0.1 99.4 | 75 - 77 21,516 518.70 0.1 99.5 | 77 - 79 20,831 398.81 0.1 99.6 | 79 - 81 20,912 372.73 0.1 99.6 | 81 - 83 21,456 290.62 0.1 99.7 | 83 - 85 21,623 283.14 0.1 99.8 | 85 - 87 20,674 238.29 0.0 99.8 | 87 - 89 19,761 208.48 0.0 99.8 | 89 - 91 18,438 161.65 0.0 99.9 | 91 - 93 17,573 137.33 0.0 99.9 | 93 - 95 17,652 91.63 0.0 99.9 | Page 199 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBSH TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=2 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ----------------------------------------------------- 95 - 97 18,425 106.25 0.0 99.9 | 97 - 99 18,891 76.41 0.0 99.9 | 99 - 100 9,095 42.64 0.0 100.0 | 100+ 911,188 263.26 0.0 100.0 | ---------------------------------------- Total Obs = 1,673,355 Total Sum = 542,234 Mean = 18.32 @I=J = 36,485.8 Page 200 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBSR TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=3 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ----------------------------------------------------- 1 - 3 30 158.98 0.0 0.0 | 3 - 5 2,381 14,254.44 2.7 2.7 |== 5 - 7 7,843 44,466.61 8.3 11.0 |======== 7 - 9 14,268 61,412.39 11.5 22.6 |=========== 9 - 11 18,488 60,470.66 11.3 33.9 |=========== 11 - 13 19,437 62,682.28 11.8 45.7 |=========== 13 - 15 18,846 49,173.84 9.2 54.9 |========= 15 - 17 16,875 38,785.21 7.3 62.2 |======= 17 - 19 15,942 33,087.78 6.2 68.4 |====== 19 - 21 14,602 24,948.70 4.7 73.1 |==== 21 - 23 14,287 22,740.43 4.3 77.3 |==== 23 - 25 14,218 18,954.83 3.6 80.9 |=== 25 - 27 14,272 16,401.45 3.1 84.0 |=== 27 - 29 14,827 13,569.68 2.5 86.5 |== 29 - 31 15,024 10,866.89 2.0 88.6 |==

March 2015 48

31 - 33 15,151 9,290.17 1.7 90.3 |= 33 - 35 14,898 7,710.53 1.4 91.7 |= 35 - 37 14,237 6,314.39 1.2 92.9 |= 37 - 39 13,196 5,088.74 1.0 93.9 | 39 - 41 12,873 4,514.79 0.8 94.7 | 41 - 43 12,123 3,666.27 0.7 95.4 | 43 - 45 12,002 3,248.63 0.6 96.0 | 45 - 47 12,537 2,914.96 0.5 96.6 | 47 - 49 13,800 2,623.45 0.5 97.1 | 49 - 51 14,461 2,139.96 0.4 97.5 | 51 - 53 15,276 1,826.59 0.3 97.8 | 53 - 55 15,355 1,533.67 0.3 98.1 | 55 - 57 16,034 1,309.77 0.2 98.3 | 57 - 59 17,308 1,215.50 0.2 98.6 | 59 - 61 19,801 992.89 0.2 98.8 | 61 - 63 23,493 1,006.32 0.2 98.9 | 63 - 65 25,463 704.91 0.1 99.1 | 65 - 67 27,159 675.48 0.1 99.2 | 67 - 69 26,755 508.98 0.1 99.3 | 69 - 71 25,660 462.45 0.1 99.4 | 71 - 73 25,021 390.62 0.1 99.5 | 73 - 75 25,266 330.38 0.1 99.5 | 75 - 77 25,556 315.57 0.1 99.6 | 77 - 79 25,012 267.00 0.1 99.6 | 79 - 81 25,034 240.91 0.0 99.7 | 81 - 83 25,764 211.52 0.0 99.7 | 83 - 85 25,847 196.67 0.0 99.8 | 85 - 87 24,874 141.95 0.0 99.8 | 87 - 89 23,861 145.57 0.0 99.8 | 89 - 91 22,286 113.95 0.0 99.8 | 91 - 93 20,983 74.39 0.0 99.8 | 93 - 95 21,243 80.36 0.0 99.9 | Page 201 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBSR TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=3 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ----------------------------------------------------- 95 - 97 22,200 61.07 0.0 99.9 | 97 - 99 22,730 68.13 0.0 99.9 | 99 - 100 11,088 22.80 0.0 99.9 | 100+ 1,157,073 606.25 0.1 100.0 | ------------------------------------------ Total Obs = 2,052,760 Total Sum = 532,989.78 Mean = 17.65 @I=J = 39,267.29

March 2015 49

Page 202 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBO TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=4 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ---------------------------------------------------- 1 - 3 30 288.41 0.0 0.0 | 3 - 5 2,381 29,350.27 2.9 2.9 |== 5 - 7 7,843 87,145.95 8.5 11.5 |======== 7 - 9 14,265 115,981.11 11.4 22.8 |=========== 9 - 11 18,487 119,384.20 11.7 34.5 |=========== 11 - 13 19,440 118,859.14 11.7 46.2 |=========== 13 - 15 18,825 93,145.38 9.1 55.3 |========= 15 - 17 16,869 78,033.38 7.7 63.0 |======= 17 - 19 15,950 65,360.54 6.4 69.4 |====== 19 - 21 14,619 48,330.12 4.7 74.1 |==== 21 - 23 14,328 42,856.20 4.2 78.4 |==== 23 - 25 14,258 37,116.16 3.6 82.0 |=== 25 - 27 14,319 32,350.61 3.2 85.2 |=== 27 - 29 14,860 25,047.38 2.5 87.6 |== 29 - 31 15,064 19,323.50 1.9 89.5 |= 31 - 33 15,181 17,838.41 1.7 91.3 |= 33 - 35 14,920 13,876.81 1.4 92.6 |= 35 - 37 14,260 13,516.65 1.3 94.0 |= 37 - 39 13,222 9,605.64 0.9 94.9 | 39 - 41 12,909 8,536.83 0.8 95.7 | 41 - 43 12,151 6,755.17 0.7 96.4 | 43 - 45 12,022 5,975.73 0.6 97.0 | 45 - 47 12,555 5,056.70 0.5 97.5 | 47 - 49 13,824 4,568.44 0.4 97.9 | 49 - 51 14,476 3,763.42 0.4 98.3 | 51 - 53 15,287 3,039.01 0.3 98.6 | 53 - 55 15,380 2,611.18 0.3 98.9 | 55 - 57 16,049 1,982.46 0.2 99.0 | 57 - 59 17,324 1,747.42 0.2 99.2 | 59 - 61 19,816 1,383.25 0.1 99.4 | 61 - 63 23,491 1,283.46 0.1 99.5 | 63 - 65 25,470 881.33 0.1 99.6 | 65 - 67 27,159 849.91 0.1 99.7 | 67 - 69 26,734 578.37 0.1 99.7 | 69 - 71 25,629 565.68 0.1 99.8 | 71 - 73 24,979 451.40 0.0 99.8 | 73 - 75 25,238 335.20 0.0 99.8 | 75 - 77 25,522 293.86 0.0 99.9 | 77 - 79 24,973 243.92 0.0 99.9 | 79 - 81 25,009 205.23 0.0 99.9 | 81 - 83 25,761 163.31 0.0 99.9 | 83 - 85 25,834 130.44 0.0 99.9 | 85 - 87 24,863 106.28 0.0 100.0 | 87 - 89 23,838 85.08 0.0 100.0 | 89 - 91 22,256 63.83 0.0 100.0 | 91 - 93 20,967 55.16 0.0 100.0 | 93 - 95 21,235 50.12 0.0 100.0 | Page 203 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins ---------------------------------

March 2015 50

FREQUENCY (Iter=50) HBO TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=4 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ---------------------------------------------------- 95 - 97 22,192 35.17 0.0 100.0 | 97 - 99 22,727 31.48 0.0 100.0 | 99 - 100 11,089 15.02 0.0 100.0 | 100+ 1,166,722 139.01 0.0 100.0 | ------------------------------------------- Total Obs = 2,062,602 Total Sum = 1,019,392.73 Mean = 16.98 @I=J = 64,162.67 Page 204 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) NHB TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=5 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ---------------------------------------------------- 1 - 3 32 351.13 0.0 0.0 | 3 - 5 2,481 35,755.57 3.6 3.6 |=== 5 - 7 8,309 133,323.80 13.3 16.9 |============= 7 - 9 15,227 149,427.62 14.9 31.9 |============== 9 - 11 20,011 142,094.06 14.2 46.1 |============== 11 - 13 20,801 140,428.94 14.0 60.1 |============== 13 - 15 20,104 91,409.58 9.1 69.3 |========= 15 - 17 17,896 70,297.31 7.0 76.3 |======= 17 - 19 16,777 49,930.92 5.0 81.3 |==== 19 - 21 15,327 36,094.31 3.6 84.9 |=== 21 - 23 14,924 30,608.11 3.1 88.0 |=== 23 - 25 14,799 23,385.76 2.3 90.3 |== 25 - 27 14,860 21,817.83 2.2 92.5 |== 27 - 29 15,432 16,846.13 1.7 94.2 |= 29 - 31 15,621 11,532.35 1.2 95.3 |= 31 - 33 15,782 9,856.54 1.0 96.3 | 33 - 35 15,478 7,593.91 0.8 97.1 | 35 - 37 14,844 5,727.50 0.6 97.7 | 37 - 39 13,728 4,487.54 0.4 98.1 | 39 - 41 13,362 3,737.97 0.4 98.5 | 41 - 43 12,518 2,782.85 0.3 98.8 | 43 - 45 12,461 2,300.44 0.2 99.0 | 45 - 47 13,029 2,014.69 0.2 99.2 | 47 - 49 14,380 1,548.15 0.2 99.3 | 49 - 51 15,123 1,249.65 0.1 99.5 | 51 - 53 16,104 1,021.38 0.1 99.6 | 53 - 55 16,087 796.03 0.1 99.7 | 55 - 57 16,771 612.09 0.1 99.7 | 57 - 59 18,166 512.33 0.1 99.8 | 59 - 61 20,924 427.52 0.0 99.8 | 61 - 63 24,967 346.11 0.0 99.8 | 63 - 65 27,052 273.02 0.0 99.9 | 65 - 67 28,905 268.35 0.0 99.9 | 67 - 69 28,402 176.82 0.0 99.9 | 69 - 71 27,128 154.77 0.0 99.9 | 71 - 73 26,217 127.16 0.0 99.9 | 73 - 75 26,370 102.31 0.0 100.0 |

March 2015 51

75 - 77 26,665 83.23 0.0 100.0 | 77 - 79 26,138 69.89 0.0 100.0 | 79 - 81 26,104 55.48 0.0 100.0 | 81 - 83 26,916 44.90 0.0 100.0 | 83 - 85 26,959 35.30 0.0 100.0 | 85 - 87 25,972 30.81 0.0 100.0 | 87 - 89 24,828 22.31 0.0 100.0 | 89 - 91 23,220 15.93 0.0 100.0 | 91 - 93 21,809 13.26 0.0 100.0 | 93 - 95 22,126 13.92 0.0 100.0 | Page 205 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) NHB TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=5 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct ---------------------------------------------------- 95 - 97 23,190 8.68 0.0 100.0 | 97 - 99 23,733 7.31 0.0 100.0 | 99 - 100 11,575 3.10 0.0 100.0 | 100+ 1,196,348 28.14 0.0 100.0 | ------------------------------------------- Total Obs = 2,135,982 Total Sum = 999,852.8 Mean = 13.76 @I=J = 135,895.35 Page 206 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) TT TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=6 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct --------------------------------------------------- 1 - 3 32 130.14 0.0 0.0 | 3 - 5 2,481 13,710.32 3.8 3.8 |=== 5 - 7 8,304 41,350.84 11.4 15.2 |=========== 7 - 9 15,213 48,839.22 13.4 28.6 |============= 9 - 11 19,991 49,006.08 13.5 42.1 |============= 11 - 13 20,787 50,263.55 13.8 55.9 |============= 13 - 15 20,026 34,864.46 9.6 65.5 |========= 15 - 17 17,844 25,956.43 7.1 72.7 |======= 17 - 19 16,737 20,985.73 5.8 78.4 |===== 19 - 21 15,296 15,222.46 4.2 82.6 |==== 21 - 23 14,907 12,609.77 3.5 86.1 |=== 23 - 25 14,790 10,066.75 2.8 88.9 |== 25 - 27 14,839 9,096.19 2.5 91.4 |== 27 - 29 15,422 6,712.10 1.8 93.2 |= 29 - 31 15,600 4,712.24 1.3 94.5 |= 31 - 33 15,767 4,076.35 1.1 95.6 |= 33 - 35 15,447 3,174.99 0.9 96.5 | 35 - 37 14,804 2,551.81 0.7 97.2 | 37 - 39 13,708 1,963.16 0.5 97.8 |

March 2015 52

39 - 41 13,340 1,582.33 0.4 98.2 | 41 - 43 12,494 1,225.46 0.3 98.5 | 43 - 45 12,443 1,006.87 0.3 98.8 | 45 - 47 13,019 853.15 0.2 99.0 | 47 - 49 14,374 706.43 0.2 99.2 | 49 - 51 15,104 544.78 0.1 99.4 | 51 - 53 16,091 440.11 0.1 99.5 | 53 - 55 16,071 338.11 0.1 99.6 | 55 - 57 16,761 263.51 0.1 99.7 | 57 - 59 18,150 228.66 0.1 99.7 | 59 - 61 20,897 190.79 0.1 99.8 | 61 - 63 24,935 150.54 0.0 99.8 | 63 - 65 27,004 121.71 0.0 99.9 | 65 - 67 28,858 114.35 0.0 99.9 | 67 - 69 28,329 76.01 0.0 99.9 | 69 - 71 27,023 63.40 0.0 99.9 | 71 - 73 26,070 55.25 0.0 99.9 | 73 - 75 26,258 42.85 0.0 100.0 | 75 - 77 26,537 34.85 0.0 100.0 | 77 - 79 26,010 29.72 0.0 100.0 | 79 - 81 26,014 22.44 0.0 100.0 | 81 - 83 26,838 17.60 0.0 100.0 | 83 - 85 26,896 14.63 0.0 100.0 | 85 - 87 25,892 11.18 0.0 100.0 | 87 - 89 24,742 8.75 0.0 100.0 | 89 - 91 23,142 6.73 0.0 100.0 | 91 - 93 21,761 5.28 0.0 100.0 | 93 - 95 22,085 4.25 0.0 100.0 | Page 207 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) TT TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=6 RANGE=1,100,2 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct --------------------------------------------------- 95 - 97 23,155 3.61 0.0 100.0 | 97 - 99 23,697 2.87 0.0 100.0 | 99 - 100 11,563 1.21 0.0 100.0 | 100+ 1,194,052 9.33 0.0 100.0 | ------------------------------------------ Total Obs = 2,131,600 Total Sum = 363,469.35 Mean = 14.46 @I=J = 40,580.23 Page 208 (VOYAGER DISTRIBUTION) Atkins --------------------------------- FREQUENCY (Iter=50) IE TRIP LENGTH FREQUENCY NWFRPM BASEMW=20 VALUEMW=7 RANGE=1,150,5 MW[20] Accum >= - < Obs Sum Pct Pct --------------------------------------------------- 6 - 11 47 4,788.69 2.6 2.6 |==

March 2015 53

11 - 16 73 2,367.11 1.3 3.8 |= 16 - 21 158 7,659.12 4.1 7.9 |==== 21 - 26 287 7,083.94 3.8 11.7 |=== 26 - 31 424 5,666.55 3.0 14.7 |=== 31 - 36 626 8,778.14 4.7 19.4 |==== 36 - 41 795 13,048.71 6.9 26.3 |====== 41 - 46 758 15,966.66 8.5 34.8 |======== 46 - 51 679 6,526.56 3.5 38.3 |=== 51 - 56 632 6,264.59 3.3 41.6 |=== 56 - 61 751 6,652.20 3.5 45.2 |=== 61 - 66 742 4,568.76 2.4 47.6 |== 66 - 71 860 3,606.58 1.9 49.5 |= 71 - 76 1,079 4,159.55 2.2 51.7 |== 76 - 81 1,090 4,626.97 2.5 54.2 |== 81 - 86 1,484 7,375.54 3.9 58.1 |=== 86 - 91 1,303 4,119.74 2.2 60.3 |== 91 - 96 1,289 6,844.98 3.6 64.0 |=== 96 - 101 1,591 7,751.85 4.1 68.1 |==== 101 - 106 1,732 5,280.56 2.8 70.9 |== 106 - 111 1,662 10,173.20 5.4 76.3 |===== 111 - 116 1,639 8,396.08 4.5 80.8 |==== 116 - 121 1,444 7,615.98 4.1 84.9 |==== 121 - 126 1,142 5,588.52 3.0 87.8 |== 126 - 131 915 4,391.90 2.3 90.2 |== 131 - 136 913 4,451.29 2.4 92.5 |== 136 - 141 585 3,208.04 1.7 94.3 |= 141 - 146 392 4,915.70 2.6 96.9 |== 146 - 150 272 5,876.50 3.1 100.0 |=== 150+ -- -- -- 100.0 | ------------------------------------- Total Obs = 25,364 Total Sum = 187,754 Mean = 74.77 @I=J = 0

March 2015 54

Appendix D. Highway Network Variable Names and Description

Name Description

AX / BX Table text X coordinate for A or B node

AY / BY Y coordinate for A or B node

A A node number

B B node number

TOLL Tolled link indicator (0 = no tolls; ≠ 0 tolled link)

PLAZADESC Location of the toll plaza, if TOLL ≠ 0

CARTOLL Car toll rate (in dollars), from original tolllinks.yya file

DISTANCE Link Distance in miles

AREA_TYPE FSUTMS 2-digit area type

FACILITY_TYPE FSUTMS 2-digit facility type

SCREELINE Screenline number

NUM_LANES Directional number of lanes

LOCATION 1 = Escambia County; 2 = Santa Rosa County; 3 = Okaloosa County4 = Walton County;

5 = Bay County; 0 = All other (rural) Counties

INTEXT Variable used to flag internal-external trips on links

SFCAT FDOT traffic database seasonal factor category

CO_CODE FDOT traffic database County code number

SPEED Free flow speed from SPDCAP table

FFTIME Free-flow time calculated from speed and distance, plus toll equivalent (on tolled links)

NEWSITE_ID FDOT traffic count station including County code and site ID number

PKSEAS_COUNT Peak season daily traffic count volume

MOCF Model output conversion factor (to switch from PSWADT to AADT and viceversa)

TOLL_DEC Variable to identify toll deceleration lanes on links

TOLL_ACC Variable to identify toll acceleration lanes on links

PSWADT Peak season week average daily traffic

AADT Annual average daily traffic

CGSPEED Congested speed

CGTIME Congested time

VMT Vehicle miles of travel using link traffic volume and distance in miles

VHT Vehicle hours of travel using link traffic volume and time in hours

CNT_VMT Vehicle miles of travel using link traffic counts and distance in miles (links w/ counts only)

CNT_VHT Vehicle hours of travel using link traffic counts and time in hours (links w/counts only)

VOL_COUNT Ratio of traffic volume to traffic counts (links w/counts only)

DAILYCAPE Link capacity using spdcap daily equivalent capacity

DAILYCAPC Link capacity using spdcap daily equivalent capacity factored by FSUTMS "uroad" factor

VOL_CAPE Ratio of traffic volume to DAILYCAPE

VOL_CAPC Ratio of traffic volume to DAILYCAPC

northwest florida regional planning model county...regional planning council data, florida...

Documents