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

Zhong, Shan, Du and Lu

Transportation Planning and Technology, 2015, vol. 38, issue 5, 517-533

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.

Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03081060.2015.1039232 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:transp:v:38:y:2015:i:5:p:517-533

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/GTPT20

DOI: 10.1080/03081060.2015.1039232

Access Statistics for this article

Transportation Planning and Technology is currently edited by Dr. David Gillingwater

More articles in Transportation Planning and Technology from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().