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:基于传统的四步和活动的旅行需求建模比较 - 以佛罗里达州坦帕为例

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:基于活动的交通需求模型已被视为具有较高的保真度和更好的政策敏感性的先进的方法。这项研究旨在比较建模从基于活动的模型(ABM)使用收集在坦帕湾地区与现有的传统的四步模型的旅行日记数据开发成果 - 坦帕湾区域规划模型(TBRPM)的基础上,四个连续的步骤:出行生成,出行分布,模型分裂和跳闸分配。比较结果表明,显着的区别。从旅行日记数据计算出的行程生产率被发现,要么双或四分之一小于TBRPM。在另一方面,从ABM计算出行吸引率的两倍的或十分之一小于TBRPM发现任一以上。从两个模型跳闸分布曲线中发现相似,但走时的峰值不同的是,用10分钟的TBRPM,但对于ABM 15分钟。模式分割的分析表明,该TBRPM可能会低估驱动游和它不能捕获其他替代方式,如出租车和非机动的使用。此外,反弹道导弹被发现能够相比TBRPM,很可能是由于不考虑外部并通过跳闸时重现观测的业务量数较少。比较结果提出可以帮助交通工程师和规划者更好地理解两种模式的优点和缺点,这随后将协助决策者选择适合自己的规划工作更好的建模工具。

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