首页> 外文会议>International conference on transportation information and safety >Comparison Between Traditional Four-Step Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling - A Case Study Of Tampa, Florida
【24h】

Comparison Between Traditional Four-Step Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling - A Case Study Of Tampa, Florida

机译:传统的四步和基于活动的旅行需求建模的比较-以佛罗里达州坦帕市为例

获取原文

摘要

The activity-based travel demand model has been viewed as an advanced approach with higher fidelity and better policy sensitivity. This study aims to compare modeling results from an activity-based model (ABM) developed using the travel diary data collected in the Tampa Bay Region with an existing traditional four-step model - the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM), based on the four sequential steps: trip generation, trip distribution, model split, and trip assignment. The comparison results show salient differences. Trip production rates calculated from the travel diary data are found to be either double of or a quarter less than the TBRPM. On the other hand, trip attraction rates computed from ABM are found either more than double of or one tenth less than TBRPM. The trip distribution curves from the two models are found similar, but the peaking of travel time is different, with 10 min for the TBRPM, but 15 min for the ABM. Mode split analyses show that the TBRPM may underestimate the driving trips and it cannot capture the usage of other alternative modes, such as taxi and non-motorized. In addition, the ABMs are found to be less capable of reproducing observed traffic counts when compared to the TBRPM, most likely due to not considering the external and through trips. The comparison results presented can help transportation engineers and planners better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of models and this will subsequently assist decision-makers to choose a better modeling tool for their planning initiatives.
机译:基于活动的旅行需求模型已被视为具有更高保真度和更好的政策敏感性的高级方法。这项研究旨在将基于活动模型(ABM)的建模结果进行比较,该模型是使用坦帕湾地区收集的旅行日记数据与现有的传统四步模型-坦帕湾区域规划模型(TBRPM)建立的,基于四个连续步骤:行程生成,行程分配,模型拆分和行程分配。比较结果显示出显着差异。根据旅行日记数据计算得出的旅行生产率是TBRPM的两倍或四分之一。另一方面,从ABM计算得出的旅行吸引力是TBRPM的两倍以上或十分之一。发现两个模型的行程分布曲线相似,但是行程时间的峰值不同,TBRPM为10分钟,而ABM为15分钟。模式拆分分析表明,TBBRM可能低估了驾驶旅行,并且无法捕获其他替代模式的使用,例如出租车和非机动车。此外,与TBRPM相比,发现ABM的能力更小,无法重现观察到的流量计数,这很可能是由于未考虑外部旅行和直通旅行。提出的比较结果可以帮助运输工程师和规划人员更好地了解这两种模型的优缺点,这随后将帮助决策者为他们的计划活动选择更好的建模工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号