Moving Into Practice by JD Hunt, University of Calgary PROCESSUS Second International Colloquium Toronto ON, Canada June 2005

Moving Into Practice

by

JD Hunt, University of Calgary

PROCESSUS Second International Colloquium

Toronto ON, CanadaJune 2005

Overview• Introduction

• Topic: Taking PROCESSUS results into practice

• Motivations• Examples

• Commercial Movement Micro-simulation• Stop Duration Modelling• Growing Tours and Hybrid Tours• PECAS Theoretical Structure

• Conclusions

Introduction

• How PROCESSUS work has moved into practice (PRACTUS?)

• Holy Grail: Theoretical advances that• Have practical implications• Make things easier• Increase fidelity and accuracy

Introduction• Practical interaction important

• Have potential impacts• Directed to specific problems• Scheduling discipline• Funding and data collection• Engineering is Applied Science

Introduction• Practical interaction important -

essential• Have potential impacts• Directed to specific problems• Scheduling discipline• Funding and data collection• Engineering is Applied Science

Examples• Commercial Movement Micro-simulation

Calgary, Ohio, Los Angeles

• Stop Duration ModellingCalgary, Edmonton

• Growing Tours and Hybrid ToursCalgary, Edmonton

• PECAS Theoretical Structure• Integrated and Connected Spatial Economics• Behavioural Space Development

Oregon, Sacramento, Edmonton, Baltimore, Alberta, Ohio

Examples• Commercial Movement Micro-

simulationCalgary, Ohio, Los Angeles



• PECAS Theoretical Structure• Integrated and Connected Spatial Economics• Behavioural Space Development


Commercial Vehicle Movements

• Vehicles operated for commercial purposes• As opposed to household, personal

movements• Includes ‘non-commercial’ non-household

purposes (government, not-for-profit)• Comprise 10-15% of total urban traffic

Some Examples

Commercial• Hauling freight for

a company• Service workers

visiting clients• Sales meetings• Mail• Delivering parcels

Personal• Travel to work• Travel to school• Shopping• Leisure trips• Social visits

Data

• 2001 Commercial Movement Study • All commercial movements

• Not just freight• Not just trucks

• 3,100 establishments in Calgary• 4,300 establishments in Edmonton• 24 hour stop diary• Firmographics

• Employment structure• Vehicle fleet

Tour-based Micro-simulation

• Considers tours rather than individual trips• Micro-simulation of each tour

Establishment

Client

ClientClient

Client

Establishment

Client

ClientClient

Client

Tour-based Micro-simulation

• Considers tours rather than individual trips• Micro-simulation of each tour• Uses additional information for decisions

• Full-tour conditions• Location of establishment (tour-base)• Work-shift influences• Simulates each trip as tour progresses

• Closer to reality• A number of clients scattered throughout city• Efficient businesses will service them in tours

Micro-simulation Process

Tour Generation

Tour Start

Vehicle and Tour Purpose

Next Stop Purpose

Next Stop Location

Stop Duration

Iterative

Establishment

Client

ClientClient

Client

Lunch

Return toEstablishment

Other

Goods / Service

Stop DurationPrivate Service - Service - Light

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1


Start Time

Next Stop Purpose Return

ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour

Next Stop Is AtEstablishment

Location

Next Stop Location

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location

• Tour starting in zone 340 (Central Industrial) AM Peak

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle & Tour


Location

Next Stop Location


• Light vehicle; service tour

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 7:22 AM

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 7:22 AM• Service stop

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 9:48 AM• Service, 211 (Stampede)

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 9:48 AM• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service stopStop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 11:21 AM• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 11:21 AM• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other stop

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 12:13 PM• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other, 2205 (Marathon

rest.)

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location



• Current time: 12:13 PM• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other, 2205 (Marathon

rest.)• Service stop

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location


• Light vehicle; service tour• Current time: 4:20 PM

• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other, 2205 (Marathon rest.)• Service, 2312 (North Hill

Mall)

Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location


• Light vehicle; service tour• Current time: 4:20 PM

• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other, 2205 (Marathon rest.)• Service, 2312 (North Hill Mall)• Return to establishmentStop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location


• Light vehicle; service tour• Current time:

• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other, 2205 (Marathon rest.)• Service, 2312 (North Hill Mall)• Return to establishment, 340Stop Duration


Start Time


ServiceGoodsOther

Tour Generation

Vehicle and Tour


Location

Next Stop Location


• Light vehicle; service tour• Current time:

• Service, 211 (Stampede)• Service, 209 (Apartment)• Other, 2205 (Marathon rest.)• Service, 2312 (North Hill Mall) • Return to establishment, 340

• Tour starting in zone 2604 (NW residential)

Stop Duration

OperationPTM

(EMME/2)

Commercial Movements

Model (micro-simulation)

Updated travel times

Run of model Run of process

Updated commercial

vehicle trip tables

Updated personal trip

tables

Base Information

Re-assignment of trip tables

Model network loading of light vehicle flows

Model network loading of heavy vehicle flows

• less in CBD;• more in

industrial areas• little on non-

truck routes

Results

• Being used for practical policy analysis

• A number of demonstration policy tests considered here

• Five scenarios:• Base case• Increased cost of travel (per km)• Increased travel time• Removed truck route restrictions• Instituted large toll for stops in CBD

VKT proportion of base

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

Increasedcost

Increasedtime

No truckroutes

Toll Base'

Truck Routes Removed Scenario vs. Base Case

97%

98%

99%

100%

101%

102%

103%

Tours Trips TotalVKT

Truck Routes Removed Scenario vs. Base Case

97%

98%

99%

100%

101%

102%

103%

Tours Trips TotalVKT

LightVKT

MediumVKT

HeavyVKT

Calgary Conclusions

• Tour-based micro-simulation approach used here• Successful• Provides direct representation of trip-chaining

impacts• Includes service delivery• Well beyond ‘freight only’ and ‘large heavy

vehicle’ limitations• Useful planning tool for

• Including commercial movements and their impacts on system

• Assessing impacts of transportation policy and infrastructure development on commercial sectors

Calgary Acknowledgements

• Funding• City of Calgary• City of Edmonton• Province of Alberta• SSHRC - MCRI

• Participation• Kevin Stefan, Karen Tsang• Ali Farhan, Dianne Atkins, Paul McMillan• Alan Brownlee, Bob Ishani, Ian Bakker, John Abraham

Examples• Commercial Movement Micro-simulation

Calgary, Ohio, Los Angeles



• PECAS Theoretical Structure• Integrated and Connected Spatial

Economics• Behavioural Space Development


P roduction

E xchange

C onsumption

A llocation

S ystem

year t year t+1

region-wideeconomic

activity

activityinteractions

commercial movements

householdtravel

transportnetworks

transport times

and costs

space developmentspace

prices

activity locations and interactions

trip patterns

activity quantities

activity benefits

transport policy

economic trends

economic policy

land use policy

space changes

region-wideeconomic

activity

activityinteractions

commercial movements

householdtravel

transportnetworks

activity locations and interactions

trip patterns

activity quantities

Economic ModelEconomic Model

PECASPECAS

Travel ModelTravel Model

transport impacts

land consumption activity

benefits

$

$ $$$

$ $

$ $$ $

$$$ $ $

$ $ $$

Pro

du

cin

g S

ec

tors

Goods, Services, Labour and SpaceC

on

su

min

g S

ect

ors

$$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$$ $

$

$$$

$

$

Ec

on

om

ic F

low

s

totalconsumption

totalproduction

totalproduction

totalproduction

buying allocationbuying allocationprocessprocess

commodityflows

exchangezone

exchangezone

exchangezone

selling allocationselling allocationprocessprocess

Economic Interactions:Production - Exchange - Consumption

totalconsumption

totalproduction

totalproduction

totalproduction

buying allocationbuying allocationprocessprocess

commodityflows

exchangezone

exchangezone

exchangezone

selling allocationselling allocationprocessprocess

Economic Interactions:Production - Exchange - Consumption

‘Integrated’ and ‘Connected’

composite utility of technology for activity a at an activity location zone z:

Location Specific Utility of Technology

CUTecha,z = ( 1/ p,a ) · ln ( pP exp ( p,a · UTecha,z,p ) )

with:

UTecha,z,p = prod,a· UProda,p,z + cons,a· UConsc,p,z + UTechRefa,p

UConsa,p,z = cC Ra,c,p · r,a,c,p · CUBuyc,a,z

UProda,p,z = cC Ma,c,p · m,a,c,p · CUSellc,a,z

-combines vector of accessibilities into single – SINGLE – ‘composite utility of technology’ value,- each accessibility in vector associated with a given commodity produced or consumed, combination consistent with technology

composite utility of technology for activity a at an activity location zone z:

Location Specific Utility of Technology

CUTecha,z = ( 1/ p,a ) · ln ( pP exp ( p,a · UTecha,z,p ) )

with:

UTecha,z,p = prod,a· UProda,p,z + cons,a· UConsc,p,z + UTechRefa,p

UConsa,p,z = cC Ra,c,p · r,a,c,p · CUBuyc,a,z

UProda,p,z = cC Ma,c,p · m,a,c,p · CUSellc,a,z

-combines vector of accessibilities into single – SINGLE – ‘composite utility of technology’ value,- each accessibility in vector associated with a given commodity produced or consumed, combination consistent with technology

Examples in OregonInitial Model Application

US 97

US 385

New Eastern Oregon Freeway• Land use growth/shift resulting from new freeway

US 97

US 385


US 97

US 385


* Medium and high crack density

Local Bridges

State Bridges

Ford’s Bridge

Cole’s Bridge

Sauvie Island Bridge

McKenzie/Willamette River Bridges

Weight Limited BridgeCracked Bridge

Oregon Bridge Options Study• Economic Equity Impacts• Broadened Policy Discussion

Oregon Bridge Options Study

Regional Production Relative to Current Mobility Option

Oregon Bridge Options Study

Resulting Staged Approach

Willamette Valley Forum (Oregon)

Clark Co.WA

Corvallis

Portland Metro

Eugene-Springfield

Salem-Keizer

Albany

<Empty Picture>

Clark Co.WA

Corvallis

Portland Metro

Eugene-Springfield

Salem-Keizer

Albany

<Empty Picture>

Clark Co.WA

Corvallis

Portland Metro

Eugene-Springfield

Salem-Keizer

Albany

<Empty Picture>

Highway Expansion High Speed Transit VMT Tax

Clark Co.WA

Corvallis

Portland Metro

Eugene-Springfield

Salem-Keizer

Albany

<Empty Picture>

Less Land Supply

HH Growth Compared to Reference Case

Many Less Than RC

Same as RC

Many More Than RC

• Compared land use forecasts under various policies• Collaborative visioning

Oregon Acknowledgements

• Funding• State of Oregon• United States Federal Highway Administration

• Participation• John Abraham• Rick Donnelly, Tara Weidner, Christi Willisden,

Jim Hicks, Carl Batten, Pat Costinett, Susan Hendricks, Bill Davidson, Tim Heier, Joel Freedman, Larry Conrad, Tracey Lauritsen, Paul Waddell

• Bill Upton, Brian Gregor

Conclusions

• PROCESSUS is contributing to PRACTICE

• Some theoretical advances with large practical implications• Large infrastructure investments• Some Holy Grails• Investment that pays off in future

• Still too much reliance on choice models• More simple rule-based systems• Faster computations• Emergent behaviour• Role for PROCESSUS

Documents

Moving Into Practice by JD Hunt, University of Calgary PROCESSUS Second International Colloquium Toronto ON, Canada June 2005