IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transp/v38y2015i5p517-533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of traditional four-step and activity-based travel demand modeling: a case study of Tampa, Florida

Author

Listed:
  • Zhong
  • Shan
  • Du
  • Lu

Abstract

Activity-based travel demand modeling (ABTDM) has often been viewed as an advanced approach, due to its higher fidelity and better policy sensitivity. However, a review of the literature indicates that no study has been undertaken to investigate quantitatively the differences and accuracy between an ABTDM approach and a traditional four-step travel demand model. In this paper we provide a comparative analysis against each step -- trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and network assignment -- between an ABTDM developed using travel diary data from the Tampa Bay Region in Florida and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM), an existing traditional four-step model for the same area. Results show salient differences between the TBRPM and the ABTDM, in terms of modeling performance and accuracy, in each of the four steps. For example, trip production rates calculated from the travel diary data are found to be either double or a quarter less than those used in the TBRPM. On the other hand, trip attraction rates computed from activity-based travel simulations are found to be either more than double or one tenth less than those used in the TBRPM. The trip distribution curves from the two models are similar, but both average and peak trip lengths of the two are significantly different. Mode split analyses show that the TBRPM may underestimate driving trips and fail to capture any usage of alternative modes, such as taxi and nonmotorized (e.g., walking and bicycling) modes. In addition, the ABTDMs are found to be less capable of reproducing observed traffic counts when compared to the TBRPM, most likely due to not considering external and through trips. The comparative results presented can help transportation engineers and planners better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of model and this should assist decision-makers in choosing a better modeling tool for their planning initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhong & Shan & Du & Lu, 2015. "A comparative analysis of traditional four-step and activity-based travel demand modeling: a case study of Tampa, Florida," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(5), pages 517-533, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:transp:v:38:y:2015:i:5:p:517-533
    DOI: 10.1080/03081060.2015.1039232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03081060.2015.1039232
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03081060.2015.1039232?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ming Zhong & Qi Tang & Xiaofeng Ma & John Douglas Hunt, 2019. "Scissors Difference of Socioeconomics, Travel and Space Consumption Behavior of Rural and Urban Households and Its Impact on Modeling Accuracy and Data Requirements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:transp:v:38:y:2015:i:5:p:517-533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GTPT20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.