National Academies Press: OpenBook

Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer (2014)

Chapter: Front Matter

Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R8
Page ix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R9
Page x
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R10
Page xi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R11
Page xii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R12
Page xiii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R13
Page xiv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R14
Page xv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R15
Page xvi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R16
Page xvii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R17
Page xviii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22357.
×
Page R18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Activity-Based Travel Demand Models A Primer S2-C46-RR-1 S H R P 2 TR B A ctivity-B ased Travel D em and M odels: A P rim er 029353 SHRP2 Activity-Based Final with No Mailer.indd 1 2/13/15 1:16 PM

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2015 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Vice Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia (Past Chair, 2013) Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, University of Arizona, Tempe John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California Chris T. Hendrickson, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Providence Joan McDonald, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany Abbas Mohaddes, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, California Donald A. Osterberg, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor, University of Texas, Austin (Past Chair, 2012) Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing (Past Chair, 2014) Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, Texas Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames Phillip A. Washington, General Manager, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, Colorado EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thomas P. Bostick (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Timothy P. Butters, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Alison Jane Conway, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, New York, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council T. F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Therese W. McMillan, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Michael P. Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Paul F. Zukunft, Adm., U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security * Membership as of February 2015. TRB OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM 2* Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation MEMBERS H. Norman Abramson, Executive Vice President (retired), Southwest Research Institute Alan C. Clark, MPO Director, Houston–Galveston Area Council Frank L. Danchetz, Vice President, ARCADIS-US, Inc. (deceased January 2015) Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation Stanley Gee, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation Mary L. Klein, President and CEO, NatureServe Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation John R. Njord, Executive Director (retired), Utah Department of Transportation Charles F. Potts, Chief Executive Officer, Heritage Construction and Materials Ananth K. Prasad, Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation Gerald M. Ross, Chief Engineer (retired), Georgia Department of Transportation George E. Schoener, Executive Director, I-95 Corridor Coalition Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Frederick “Bud” Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials LIAISONS Ken Jacoby, Communications and Outreach Team Director, Office of Corporate Research, Technology, and Innovation Management, Federal Highway Administration Tony Kane, Director, Engineering and Technical Services, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Jeffrey F. Paniati, Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration John Pearson, Program Director, Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, Canada Michael F. Trentacoste, Associate Administrator, Research, Development, and Technology, Federal Highway Administration * Membership as of January 2015. CAPACITY TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE* Chair: Mark Van Port Fleet, Director, Bureau of Highway Development, Michigan Department of Transportation MEMBERS Kome Ajise, Program Manager, Public-Private Partnership Program, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Michael Bruff, Manager, Transportation Planning Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation Jacquelyn D. Grimshaw, Vice President for Policy, Center for Neighborhood Technology Kris Hoellen, Director, Conservation Leadership Network, The Conservation Fund Carolyn H. Ismart, Florida Department of Transportation (retired) Randy Iwasaki, Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Thomas J. Kane, Thomas J. Kane Consulting Keith L. Killough, Assistant Director, Travel Demand Modeling and Analysis, Multimodal Planning Division, Arizona Department of Transportation T. Keith Lawton, Principal, Keith Lawton Consulting, Inc. Debra Nelson, Strategic Policy Advisor, New York State Department of Transportation Bob Romig, State Transportation Development Administrator, Florida Department of Transportation Joseph L. Schofer, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering and Associate Dean, McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, Northwestern University Barry Seymour, Executive Director, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Brian J. Smith, Washington State Department of Transportation John V. Thomas, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency Gary Toth, Director, Project for Public Spaces Jeff Welch, Director, Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Doug Woodall, State Director, Turnpike Planning and Development, Texas Turnpike Authority Division, Texas Department of Transportation AASHTO LIAISONS Janet P. Oakley, Director, Policy and Government Relations, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Matthew Hardy, Program Director, Planning and Policy, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials FHWA LIAISONS James Cheatham, Director, Office of Planning, Office of Planning HEPP-1, Federal Highway Administration Gary A. Jensen, Team Leader, Byways, TCSP & Delta Programs, Office of Human Environment HEPH-30, Federal Highway Administration Spencer Stevens, Community Planner, Office of Planning Oversight and Stewardship, Federal Highway Administration *Membership as of February 2013. 029353 SHRP2 Activity-Based Final with No Mailer.indd 2 2/13/15 1:16 PM

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Joe Castiglione, Mark Bradley, and John Gliebe Resource Systems Group, Inc. White River Junction, Vermont TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer SHRP 2 Report S2-C46-RR-1

SUBSCRIBER CATEGORIES Highways Pedestrians and Bicyclists Planning and Forecasting Public Transportation

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates mul- tiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the high- way research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, pub- lished in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Cen- tury (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time-constrained, management-driven program designed to complement ex- isting highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on ap- plied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behav- ior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to re- duce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobil- ity, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Trans- portation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Ad- ministration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sci- ences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-C46-RR-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27399-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014959819 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from pub- lishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educa- tional and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report num- bers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to moni- tor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical commit- tee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the re- search and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the pro- gram sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not en- dorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufac turers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essen tial to the object of the report. SHRP 2 REPORTS Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202.334.3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advis- ing the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the ser- vices of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sci- ences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sci- ences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, inter- disciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, sci- entists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies, including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety Jared Cazel, Editorial Assistant JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

vii This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. This project was managed by Jo Allen Gause, SHRP 2 Senior Program Offi cer, Capacity. The research reported was performed by Resource Systems Group, Inc. Joe Castiglione was the principal investigator, and the other authors were Mark Bradley and John Gliebe, all of RSG. Technical guidance and review was provided by John Bowman, Yi-Chang Chiu, Mark Hickman, and Karthink Konduri, University of Connecticut; Michael Mahut, INRO Corporation; and Eric Miller. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix FOREWORD This publication is a guide for practitioners that describes activity-based travel demand model concepts and the practical considerations associated with implementing them. Activity-based travel demand models portray how people plan and schedule their daily travel. This type of model more closely replicates actual traveler decisions than tradi- tional travel demand models and thus may provide better forecasts of future travel patterns. The guide is composed of two parts. Part 1 is intended to help managers, planners, and hands-on practitioners and modelers make informed decisions about activity-based model development and application. Part 2 examines the practical issues that trans- portation agencies face in migrating from traditional to “advanced” travel demand models, in which activity-based models are linked with regional-scale dynamic net- work assignments. Transportation decision makers confront diffi cult questions about how local and regional transportation will perform years into the future. Travel models are created to support decision making by providing information about the impacts of alternative transportation and land use policies, as well as demographic and economic trends. A wide array of travel models is used in transportation planning, from simple sketch- planning models that produce rough “order of magnitude” information to trip-based travel models that use individual person trips as the fundamental unit of analysis. Trip- based travel models, often referred to as 4-step models, have been used for decades to support regional, subregional, and project-level transportation analysis and decision making. Activity-based models share a number of similarities with traditional trip-based models. However, activity-based models incorporate some signifi cant advances over 4-step trip-based models. These advances include the explicit representation of real- Jo Allen Gause SHRP 2 Senior Program Offi cer, Capacity

xistic constraints of time and space, as well as the linkages among activities and travel both for an individual person and across multiple people in a household. Many transportation agencies are considering moving forward with new activity-based models. The skills required to build, test, and implement an activity- based model, however, are limited to a relatively small number of departments of transportation and metropolitan transportation agencies. The first part of this guide is intended as a resource to answer management and implementation questions such as • Do I need an activity-based model? • What resources do I need to start building an activity-based model? • How long does activity-based model development take? • How can I get a model that runs in a decent amount of time? Part 1 of the guide addresses three audiences: • Chapter 1 is for managers and directors who make decisions about which models an agency will use. • Chapter 2 provides modeling and planning managers with a technical road map for developing an activity-based model. • Chapter 3 is for hands-on practitioners or modelers and focuses on concepts and algorithms for activity-based models. The second part of the guide discusses potential benefits and issues in adopting integrated dynamic model systems in which activity-based model systems are linked with regional-scale dynamic network assignment models. Developing and applying advanced integrated dynamic models is an area of emerging research and practice. Part 2 also describes four regional integrated dynamic model system development efforts that are currently under way.

xi CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PART 1: ACTIVITY-BASED TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS: A PRIMER 3 CHAPTER 1 Moving to Activity-Based Travel Demand Models 5 1.1 Why Do We Model Travel? 5 1.2 What Is a Travel Model? 5 1.2.1 Sketch-planning models 5 1.2.2 Strategic-planning models 6 1.2.3 Trip-based models 6 1.2.4 Activity-based models 6 1.3 How Do We Use Travel Models? 7 1.4 Why Use an Activity-Based Travel Model? 7 1.5 Activity-Based Travel Models 8 1.5.1 Activity-based travel model defi nition 8 1.5.2 Defi ciencies of trip-based models 8 1.5.2.1 Independence assumptions 8 1.5.2.2 Aggregation bias 9 1.5.3 Activity-based model features 9 1.5.3.1 Individual travelers 9 1.5.3.2 Interrelated decision making 9

xii 1.5.3.3 Detailed information 11 1.5.3.4 Integrated travel demand model system 12 1.5.4 Development considerations 12 1.5.4.1 Data 12 1.5.4.2 Staff and consultant requirements 13 1.5.4.3 Costs and schedule 13 1.5.4.4 Model run times 14 1.5.4.5 Stakeholder acceptance 14 1.5.5 Integration with other models 14 1.5.6 Application stories 15 1.5.6.1 Congestion pricing 15 1.5.6.2 Environment, climate change, and air quality 15 1.5.6.3 Regional Transportation Plans 16 CHAPTER 2 Technical Road Map for Developing an Activity-Based Model System 17 2.1 Development Process 17 2.1.1 Approaches 17 2.1.1.1 Upfront development 17 2.1.1.2 Incremental implementation 18 2.1.1.3 Transfer-and-refine implementation 18 2.1.1.4 Stakeholder acceptance 18 2.1.2 Design 19 2.1.2.1 Analysis needs 19 2.1.2.2 Cost 19 2.1.2.3 Schedule 19 2.1.3 Data development 20 2.1.3.1 Household survey 20 2.1.3.2 Land use 21 2.1.3.3 Demographic 21 2.1.3.4 Network 22 2.1.3.5 Calibration and validation 23 2.1.3.6 Data challenges 23 2.1.4 Implementation 23 2.1.4.1 Component design 23 2.1.4.2 Estimation 24 2.1.4.3 Software development 25 2.1.4.4 Transferability 25 2.1.4.5 Convergence and equilibration 25 2.1.4.6 Calibration and validation 25 2.1.4.7 Auxiliary demand 26 2.1.5 Application and Maintenance 26

xiii 2.2 Design 26 2.2.1 Policy and investment analysis needs 26 2.2.2 Design considerations 28 2.2.2.1 Resolution and detail 28 2.2.2.1.1 Representation of space and accessibility 28 2.2.2.1.2 Representation of time 29 2.2.2.1.3 Market segmentation 30 2.2.2.2 Subcomponents 31 2.2.2.2.1 Population synthesis 33 2.2.2.2.2 Long-term models 34 2.2.2.2.3 Mobility models (medium term) 35 2.2.2.2.4 Daily models (short term) 35 2.2.2.3 Accessibility measures 39 2.2.3 Other model component design considerations 41 2.2.3.1 Synthetic population characteristics 41 2.2.3.2 Network assignment model design considerations 41 2.2.3.2.1 Policy analysis needs and consistency with other model components 41 2.2.3.2.2 Types of network assignment models 43 2.2.3.2.3 Modes 44 2.2.3.2.4 Network performances measures 44 2.2.3.3 Land use model design considerations 44 2.2.3.3.1 Policy analysis needs 45 2.2.3.3.2 Consistency with other model system components 45 2.2.4 Model integration considerations 45 2.2.4.1 Activity-based model components linkages 46 2.2.4.2 Activity-based model–network assignment model linkage 46 2.2.4.3 Activity-based/network assignment model–land use model linkage 46 2.2.5 Performance metrics 47 2.2.5.1 Activity-based model 47 2.2.5.2 Network assignment model 48 2.2.5.3 Reporting and visualization 48 2.2.5.4 Uncertainty analysis 48 2.3 Data Development 49 2.3.1 Activity-based model 49 2.3.1.1 Survey 49 2.3.1.2 Employment and land use 49 2.3.1.3 Synthetic populations and demographic 50 2.3.1.4 Network performance indicators 50 2.3.1.5 Calibration and validation 51 2.3.1.6 Base year versus forecast year 51

xiv 2.3.2 Network assignment model 51 2.4 Implementation 51 2.4.1 Estimation 51 2.4.1.1 Data requirements and prep 52 2.4.1.2 Model design and testing 53 2.4.2 Software development 53 2.4.2.1 Components 54 2.4.2.2 Process flow 54 2.4.3 Transferability 54 2.4.4 Synthetic population 55 2.4.4.1 Design and controls 55 2.4.4.1.1 Marginals 55 2.4.4.1.2 Samples 55 2.4.5 Feedback, convergence, equilibration 56 2.4.5.1 Network assignment model convergence 56 2.4.5.2 Linked activity-based network assignment model system convergence 56 2.4.6 Integration with auxiliary model components 56 2.4.6.1 Internal-external and external-external travel 57 2.4.6.2 Freight and commercial vehicles 57 2.4.6.3 Special purpose models 57 2.4.7 Calibration and validation 58 2.4.7.1 Activity-based model 58 2.4.7.1.1 Components 58 2.4.7.1.2 Model system 59 2.4.7.2 Network assignment model 59 2.4.7.2.1 Static network assignment 59 2.4.7.2.2 Dynamic network assignment 59 2.4.7.3 Sensitivity testing 60 2.4.8 Application 60 2.4.8.1 Hardware and software 60 2.4.8.1.1 Configuration options 61 2.4.8.1.2 Flexibility and extensibility 61 2.4.8.1.3 Run times 61 2.4.8.1.4 Software transferability 62 2.4.8.2 Data extraction, analysis, and interpretation 62 2.4.8.3 Simulation variation 62 2.4.8.4 Reasonableness checks 63 2.4.8.5 Logging and archiving 64 2.5 Administration and Maintenance 64 2.5.1 Inputs 64 2.5.2 Computing platform 64 2.5.3 Licensing 65 2.5.4 Schedule 65

xv 2.5.5 Personnel 66 2.5.5.1 Staff skills and training 66 2.5.5.2 Development 66 2.5.5.3 Application and maintenance 67 2.5.5.4 In-house versus consultant expertise 67 2.5.6 Funding 67 CHAPTER 3 Activity-Based Model Concepts and Algorithms (For Modelers) 69 3.1 Foundations 69 3.1.1 Demand models and supply models 69 3.1.2 Aggregate versus disaggregate 69 3.1.3 Discrete choice models 70 3.1.3.1 Choice horizons 71 3.1.3.2 Joint and conditional choices 72 3.1.3.3 Utility maximization 73 3.1.3.4 Random utility theory 73 3.1.3.5 Utility expressions and choice probabilities 74 3.1.3.6 Nested models and composite utilities (logsums) 74 3.1.3.7 The importance of choice sets 75 3.1.3.8 Other considerations 76 3.1.4 Activity pattern structure 76 3.1.4.1 Activities versus trips 77 3.1.4.2 Tours and half-tours 77 3.1.4.3 Primary stops on tours 77 3.1.4.4 Intermediate stops on tours 78 3.1.4.5 Work-based tours (or subtours) 78 3.1.5 Activity types 78 3.1.5.1 Mandatory, maintenance, discretionary, at-home activities 79 3.1.5.2 Independent, joint, and escort trips 79 3.1.6 Daily activity patterns 81 3.1.7 Implementation framework 82 3.1.8 Disaggregation 83 3.1.8.1 Logit models and aggregation bias 83 3.1.8.2 Computational efficiency of disaggregate data structures 84 3.1.8.3 Monte Carlo simulation 85 3.1.8.4 Simulation variance 86 3.1.8.5 Convergence and equilibration 87

xvi 3.2 Design 89 3.2.1 Spatial scale 89 3.2.1.1 Zones 90 3.2.1.2 Microzones 91 3.2.1.3 Parcels 91 3.2.2 Temporal scale and scheduling 91 3.2.2.1 Temporal scale 92 3.2.2.2 Activity scheduling 92 3.2.2.3 Time constraints and time windows 93 3.2.2.4 Sensitivities 93 3.2.2.5 Linkages with other models 93 3.2.3 Sociodemographics and population synthesis 94 3.2.3.1 Sociodemographics 94 3.2.3.2 Market segmentation 94 3.2.3.3 Synthetic population 94 3.2.4 Long-term and mobility choices 95 3.2.5 Activity purposes and joint travel 95 3.2.6 Travel modes 96 3.2.6.1 Accessibilities 97 3.3 Components 100 3.3.1 Population synthesis 101 3.3.1.1 Purpose 101 3.3.1.2 Design 101 3.3.1.3 Implementation 102 3.3.2 Long-term models 103 3.3.2.1 Usual location 104 3.3.2.2 Auto availability 105 3.3.2.3 Other long-term models 106 3.3.3 Day-pattern and tour- and trip-level models 107 3.3.3.1 Day-pattern and tour generation 108 3.3.3.2 Scheduling 110 3.3.3.3 Location 113 3.3.3.4 Mode 115 3.3.4 Component linkages 116 3.3.5 Execution sequencing 117 REFERENCES for Part 1 121

Next: Report Contents »
Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-C46-RR-1: Activity-Based Travel Demand Models: A Primer explores ways to inform policymakers’ decisions about developing and using activity-based travel demand models to better understand how people plan and schedule their daily travel.

The document is composed of two parts. The first part provides an overview of activity-based model development and application. The second part discusses issues in linking activity-based models to dynamic network assignment models.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!