Project Meeting 2019.03.08
- We fixed all the verification table issues and re-traced a HH to confirm the fixes
- TM1 style shadow pricing looking better, see plots below, but still not converging as fast as TM1, why?
- Daysim style shadow pricing needed some fixing as well (after reviewing the code and discussing with Mark), which we are still working on, see #250. We also updated the expression file as a result.
- Updated the example to use ctramp method and more efficient damping factor of 0.7
- Size term by iteration for zone 1 work low income segment below
| zone 1, work_low, sp iteration | ctramp | daysim |
|---|---|---|
| target | 3657 | 3657 |
| 1 | 2490 | 0 |
| 2 | 2625 | 0 |
| 3 | 2824 | 0 |
| 4 | 2860 | 0 |
| 5 | 3069 | 0 |
| 6 | 3132 | 0 |
| 7 | 3123 | 0 |
| 8 | 3188 | 0 |
| 9 | 3249 | 0 |
| 10 | 3346 | 0 |
- Implemented mode choice logsums for mandatory tour time-of-day choice as part of the verification/clean-up
- Now working on a 10% sample run of the subsequent submodels, but ran into tour mode choice sampling and logsums not being implemented for escort tours. Should we go ahead and implement?
- We plan to continue to trace calculations expression-by-expression to ctramp and to add expressions to force choices for the trace household to match TM1 so we can compare utilities
- c=ct-ramp multiplicative method, d=daysim additive method
- We've spent about $145k of the $210k budget to date, ~$65k remaining
- Our progress report is really starting to look complete
- As we discussed at TRB, we prioritized verification over support for two zone system and assistance to ARC/SANDAG. These tasks were budgeted at $80k total so we're now into those budgets. Should we continue to reallocate the budget for verification?
- The updated DBE GFE looked good to AMPO