294° Chapter8 Travel Demand and Traffic Forecasting Type 4: 0.04 + 0.018(4) + 0.009(40) + 0.163) = 0,952 trips/houschold X 50 households = 476 trips Therefore, there will be a total of $42.15 vehicle-based social/recreational trips. For vehicle-based work trips, there will be 100 generated from type 1 households (1 x 100), 200 from type 2 (1 x 200), 700 from type 3 (2 x 350), and 50 from type 4 (1 x 50), for 2 total of 1050 vehicle-based work trips. Summing the totals for the three trip types gives 2033 peak-hour vehicle-based trips. It should be noted that the trip generation models used in Examples 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 are simplified representations of the actual trip generation decision-making process. First, there are many more traveler and household characteristics that affect trip-generating behavior (age, lifestyles, etc.), and second, the models have no variables to capture the equilibration concept discussed earlier. The equilibration concern is important, because if the highway system is heavily congested, travelers are likely to make fewer peak-hour trips as a result of either canceling trips or postponing them until a less congested time period. Unfortunately, such obvious model defects must often be accepted due to data and resource limitations. 8.4.2 Trip Generation with Count Data Models Although linear regression has been a popular method for estimating trip generation models, there is a problem in that the estimated linear regression models can produce fractions of trips for a given time period. As an example, the model presented in Example 8.2 predicted that the household presented in Example 8.1 with one working member would produce 1.398 peak-hour social/recreational trips during the major holiday. Because fractions of trips are not realistic, a modeling approach that gives the probability of making a nonnegative-integer number of trips (0, 1, 2, 3, . . .) may be more appropriate [Washington et al. 2011]. One such model is the Poisson regression, which can be formulated for trip generation (for a given trip type) as aan P(T)= (8.2) where T, = number of vehicle-based trips of a given type (shopping or social/recreational) made in some specified time period by household i, P(T) = probability of household i making exactly 7; trips (where 7; is a nonnegative integer), € = base of the natural logarithm (e = 2.718), and 4, = Poisson parameter for household i, which is equal to household i's expected number of vehicle-based trips in some specified time period, E[Ti] Poisson regressions are estimated by specifying the Poisson parameter 4 (the expected number of trips of a specific type made by household i over some timeEXAMPLE 8.4 SOLUTION 84 Trip Generation 295 period). The most common relationship between explanatory variables (variables that determine the Poisson parameter) and the Poisson parameter is the log-linear relationship (8.3) where B = vector of estimable coefficients, Z, ~ vector of houschold characteristics determining trip generation, and Other terms are as defined previously. Note that the Poisson parameter 4, (the expected number of trips of a specific type made by household / over some time period) is a real number (with fractions of trips) but when applied in Eq. 8.2 gives the probability of making a specified nonnegative- integer number of trips (7') In Poisson regressions, the coefficient vector B is estimated by maximum- likelihood procedures. A brief description and example of this estimation procedure are presented in Appendix 8B SHOPPING-TRIP GENERATION WITH THE POISSON MODEL, Following Example 8.1, a Poisson regression is estimated for shopping-trip generation during a shopping-trip peak hour. The estimated coefficients are BZ,= -0.35 + 0.03(household size) + 0,004(annual household income in thousands of dollars) = 0.10(employment in the houschold’s neighborhood in hundreds) Given that the household has six members, has an annual income of $50,000, and lives in their new neighborhood with a retail employment of 150, what is the expected number of peak-hour shopping trips and what is the probability that the houschold will not make a peak-hour shopping trip? For the expected number of peak-hour shopping trips (a real number), BUT, Je, = 0% = 830086)4000050-010.9) - 9,887 vehicle tips For the probability of making zero peak-hour shopping trips (a nonnegative integer), Eq. 8.2 is used to give 0.887" 0! P(0)= 412296 Chapter & Travel Demand and Traflic Forecasting 8.5 MODE AND DESTINATION CHOICE 8.5.1 Once the number of trips generated per unit time is known, the next step in the sequential approach to travel demand and traffic forecasting is to determine traveler mode and destination. As was the case with trip generation, trips are classified as work, shopping, and social/recreational. For both shopping and social/recreational trips, a traveler will have the option to choose a mode of travel (automobile, vanpool, or bus) as well as a destination (different shopping centers). In contrast, work trips offer only the mode option, because the choice of work location (destination) is usually a long-term decision that is beyond the time range of most traffic forecasts. Methodological Approach Following recent advances in the travel demand and traffic forecasting field, development of a model for mode/destination choice necessitates the use of some consistent theory of travelers’ decision-making processes. Of the decision-making theories available, one that is based on the microeconomic concept of utility maximization has enjoyed widespread acceptance in mode/destination choice modeling. The basic assumption is that a traveler will select the combination of mode and destination that provides the most utility. The problem then becomes one of developing an expression for the utility provided by various mode and destination alternatives. Because it is unlikely that individual travelers’ utility functions can ever be specified with certainty, the unspecifiable portion is assumed to be random. To illustrate this approach, consider a utility function of the following form: Vin = Prt Zink * Ei (8.4) t where Vin = total utility (specifiable and unspecifiable) provided by mode/destination alternative m to a traveler i, bax = coefficient estimated from traveler survey data for mode/destination alternative m corresponding to mode/destination or traveler characteristic k, Zine ~ ttaveler or mode/destination characteristic & (income, travel time of mode, commercial floor space at destination, etc.) for mode/destination alternative m for traveler i, and fm = unspecifiable portion of the utility of mode/destination altemative m for traveler i, which will be assumed to be random, For notational convenience, define the spec Um = Pvt Zink (8.5) r tble nonrandom portion of utility Vip as With these definitions of utility, the probability that a traveler will choose some altemative, say m, is equal to the probability that the given altemative’s utility is greater than the utility of all other possible alternatives. The probabilistic component arises from the fact that the unspecifiable portion of the utility expression is not known and is assumed to be a random variable. The basic probability statement is8.5 Mode and Destination Choice 297 Py, = prob[U jy, + Ej, > Uy + | for alls #m (8.6) where Poy = probability that traveler i will select alternative m, prob[:] = notation for probability, 5 = notation for available alternatives, and Other terms are as defined previously. With this basic probability and utility expression and an assumed random distribution of the unspecifiable components of utility (€,), a probabilistic choice model can be derived and the coefficients in the utility function (bya’s in Eqs. 8.4 and 8.5) can be estimated with data collected from traveler surveys, along the same lines as for the coefficients in the trip generation models. A popular approach to deriving such a probabilistic choice model is to assume that the random, unspecifiable component of utility (&, in Eq. 8.4) is generalized-extreme-value distributed. With this assumption, a rather lengthy and involved derivation gives rise to the logit model formulation [McFadden 1981], (8.7) where ¢ is the base of the natural logarithm (e = 2.718), The coefficients that comprise the specifiable portion of utility (b,x’s in Eq. 8.5) are estimated by the method of maximum likelihood (see Appendix 8B). For further information on logit model coefficient estimation and _maximum-likelihood estimation techniques, refer to more specialized references [Washington et al. 2011; McFadden 1981]. 8.5.2 Logit Model Applications With the total number of vehicle-based trips made in specific time periods known (from trip generation models), the allocation of trips to vehicle-based modes and likely destinations can be undertaken by applying appropriate logit models. This process is best demonstrated by example. EXAMPLE 8.5 LOGIT MODEL OF WORK-MODE-CHOICE A simple work-mode-choice model is estimated from data in a small urban area to determine the probabilities of individual travelers selecting various modes. The mode choices include automobile drive-alone (DL), automobile shared-ride (SR), and bus (B), and. the utility functions are estimated as, Up, = 2.2 - 0.2(costp:) ~ 0.03(travel timep,) Use = 0.8 - 0.2(costsa) ~ 0.03(travel timese) Us = —0.2(costs) — 0.01 (travel times)298 SOLUTION EXAMPLE 8.6 SOLUTION Travel Demand and Traflic Forecasting where cost is in dollars and time is in minutes. Between a residential area and an industrial complex, 4000 workers (generating vehicle-based trips) depart for work during the peak hour. For all workers, the cost of driving an automobile is $6.00 with a travel time of 20 ‘minutes, and the bus fare is $1.00 with a travel time of 25 minutes. If the shared-ride option always consists of two travelers sharing costs equally, how many workers will take each mode? Note that the utility function coefficients logically indicate that as modal costs and travel times increase, modal utilities decline and, consequently, so do modal selection probabilities (see Eq. 8.7). Substitution of cost and travel time values into the utility expressions gives Ups, = 2.2-0.2(6) - 0.03(20) = 0.4 Usa = 0.8-0.2(3)— 0.03(20) =-0.4 Up = -0.2(1.0) - 0.0125) =-0.45 Substituting these values into Eq, 8.7 yields 04 é 1.492 1.492 Poy = a 0533 PE OTs es AB 1.492+0.67040.638 2.80 0.670 =o82 0.239 "2.80 p, - 288 = 25 0.077 and 0.077x500=38 trips 15.607 013, =0,008 and 0,008%500=4 trips 15.607 EXAMPLE 8.9 FORECASTING SOCIAL/RECREATIONAL MODE/DESTINATION CHOICE Consider the situation described in Example 8.8. A labor dispute results in a bus union slowdown that increases travel times from the origin by 4, 2, and 8 minutes to destinations 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If the total number of trips remains constant, determine the resulting distribution of trips by mode and destination. SOLUTION The mode-destination utilities are computed as Uy = 1.234 (as in Example 8.8) Up, = -0.22(21) + 0.16(12.4) + 0.11(13) = -1.206 Ug = 2.124 (as in Example 8.8) Us = -0.22(10) + 0.16(8.2) + 0.11(9.2) = 0.124 Uz = 0.178 (as in Example 8.8) Ug, = -0.22(32) + 0.16(5.8) + 0.1121) 3.802 Applying Eq. 8.7 with 500 trips gives the following distribution of trips among mode- destination alternatives:2 3 3 8.6 Highway Route Choice and 0,238x500 19 trips and 0,021x500=10 trips and 0.579x500= 290 and 0,078x500 = 39 tri and 0,083x500=41 t and 0.002500 = 1 tr 8.6 HIGHWAY ROUTE CHOICE To summarize, the trip generation and mode-destination choice models give total highway traffic demand between a specified origin (the neighborhood from which trips originate) and a destination (the geographic area to which trips are destined), in terms of vehicles per some time period (usually vehicles per hour). With this information in hand, the final step in the sequential approach to travel demand and traffic forecasting—route choice—can be addressed. The result of the route choice decision will be traffic flow (generally in units of vehicles per hour) on specific highway routes, which is the desired output from the traffic forecasting process. 8.6.1 Highway Performance Functions Route choice presents a classic equilibrium problem, because travelers’ route choice decisions are primarily a function of route travel times, which are determined by traffic flow—itself a product of route choice decisions. This interrelationship between route choice decisions and traffic flow forms the basis of route choice theory and model development. To begin modeling traveler route choice, a mathematical relationship between route travel time and route traffic flow is needed. Such a relationship is commonly referred to as a highway performance function. The most simplistic approach to formalizing this relationship is to assume a linear highway performance function in which travel time increases linearly with flow. An example of such a function is illustrated in Fig. 8.5. In this figure, the free-flow travel time refers to the travel time that a traveler would experience if no other vehicles were present to impede travel speed (as discussed in Chapter 5). This free-flow travel time is generally computed with the assumption that a vehicle travels at the posted speed limit of the route. Although the linear highway performance function has the appeal of simplicity, it is not a particularly realistic representation of the travel time-traffic flow relationship. Recall that Chapter 5 presented a relationship between traffic speed and flow that is parabolic in nature, with significant reductions in travel speed occurring as the traffic flow approaches the roadway’s capacity. This parabolic speed-flow