search

Triangle-Modeling-and-Analytics / TRMG2

The second generation of the Triangle Regional Model
https://triangle-modeling-and-analytics.github.io/TRMG2/
MIT License
11 stars 4 forks source link

Congested VMT Summary Files Discrepancy #375

Open Flatiron87 opened 6 months ago

Flatiron87 commented 6 months ago

In the summary file Congested_VMT_by_MPO, when you add the congested VMT by period to get a daily congested VMT, you get 5,072,996. However, in the VMT_Delay_by_MPO, the Total_CgVMT_Daily is 1,012,660. In both files, the Total VMT is correct. image

Flatiron87 commented 6 months ago

It appears that the VOC threshold for the _summaries\roadway_tables\Congested_VMT_by_MPO file (congested VMT by period and summed to daily) is calculated using a VoC>.75 whereas the _summaries\VMT_Delay\Total_CgVMT_Daily (Total_CgVMT_Daily) uses a VoC D>1.0. Why don't we use the same threshold to report congested VMT for both reports.

lfhuntsinger commented 6 months ago

@dkyleward, I assigned this to you. This does look like a possible error. If that's not the case, let's be sure to document the logic for the difference. Thanks!

dkyleward commented 1 month ago

@Si-Shi and @lfhuntsinger I've reviewed this, and we just need a decision on what the cutoff should be. My (older) macro used 0.75, which is what I use across multiple models to designate a link as congestion. The second macro is Si's, which uses 1.0. My recommendation is to use .75 in both, however either is fine depending on what the region wants. We just want them to be the same.

Si-Shi commented 1 month ago

Thanks for bringing this up! We will discuss it at the tech team meeting and let the team decide.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:12 PM Kyle Ward @.***> wrote:

Assigned #375 https://github.com/Triangle-Modeling-and-Analytics/TRMG2/issues/375 to @Si-Shi https://github.com/Si-Shi.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Triangle-Modeling-and-Analytics/TRMG2/issues/375#event-13730053817, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC6SZSI3LUN77IM2XIHRAPTZPJ3BBAVCNFSM6AAAAABL3CMF5SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV45UABCJFZXG5LFIV3GK3TUJZXXI2LGNFRWC5DJN5XDWMJTG4ZTAMBVGM4DCNY . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: <Triangle-Modeling-and-Analytics/TRMG2/issue/375/issue_event/13730053817@ github.com>

Flatiron87 commented 1 month ago

My suggestion is to use .75 across the board. As long as it is documented and consistent. Mike

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, 2:12 PM Kyle Ward @.***> wrote:

@Si-Shi https://github.com/Si-Shi and @lfhuntsinger https://github.com/lfhuntsinger I've reviewed this, and we just need a decision on what the cutoff should be. My (older) macro used 0.75, which is what I use across multiple models to designate a link as congestion. The second macro is Si's, which uses 1.0. My recommendation is to use .75 in both, however either is fine depending on what the region wants. We just want them to be the same.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Triangle-Modeling-and-Analytics/TRMG2/issues/375#issuecomment-2263671875, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQ52VKPI7I7YKQH4YCUR2WTZPJ3ARAVCNFSM6AAAAABL3CMF5SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENRTGY3TCOBXGU . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>