Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 79–90 | Cite as

Transportation modeling: Lessons from the past and tasks for the future

  • Janusz Supernak
Article

Abstract

In spite of the recent progress made in household activity analysis and travel budget studies, urban transportation modeling still remains a “not-too-well developed” research field. There are conflicting theories, analysis units are not uniform, terms are not precisely defined, basic studies of sub-systems involved are not yet completed, and many models lack behavioral background as well as basic attributes such as simplicity, sensitivity, compatibility, transferability and forecasting ability.

Gaps in methodology may be partially responsible for this situation. There is an urgent need for simple, yet not primitive, easily applicable urban transportation models which can respond to the technical needs of planners and engineers. Lessons from the past, as well as experiences from other disciplines, suggest that future research should concentrate on: (1) new, “unconventional” approaches based on systematic, basic studies of all sub-systems involved; (2) proper definition and stratification of an analysis unit; (3) revision and unification of definitions, classifications, etc., in order to improve the behavioral background of the models; (4) dynamic rather than static approaches, able to describe feedbacks between transportation and land-use as well as between transportation demand and supply; (5) interrelations between subsequent sub-models, particularly between car availability, trip generation and modal split; (6) developing models which are not only sensitive to transportation policies but also to other local policies (e.g. land use, city development, social, etc.).

Keywords

Transportation Stratification Basic Attribute Activity Analysis Research Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ben-Akiva, M. E. and Lerman, S. R. (1976). “A Behavioral Analysis of Automobile Ownership and Modes of Travel”, U.S. DOT Report OS-30056.Google Scholar
  2. Brög, W. (1982a). “The Application of the Situational Approach to Depict a Model of Personal Long Distance Travel”, Paper at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Brög, W. (1982b). “The Subjective Perception of Car Costs”, Paper at the 61st T.R.B Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Burnett, P. (1981). “New Methods of Data Analysis for Inductive Travel Behavior Modeling”, Paper at the International Conference on Travel Demand Analysis: Activity-Based and Other New Approaches, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  5. Damm, D. (1980). “Interdependencies in Activity Behavior”, T.R.R. 750.Google Scholar
  6. Golob, T. F. and Richardson, A. J. (1981). “Non-compensatory and discontinuous constructs in travel-behavior model”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  7. Goodwin, P. W. and Mogridge, M. J. H. (1979). “Hypothesis for a Fully Dynamic Model of Car Ownership”, TSU paper Rn/105, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Hanson, S. and Huff, J. O. (1982). “Assessing Day-to-Day Variability in Complex Travel Patterns”, Paper at the 61st T.R.B. Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Hartgen, D. T. (1981). “Uncertainty in the application of travel-behavior models”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  10. Henscher, D. A. (1981). “Two contentions related to conceptual context in behavioral travel modeling”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  11. Herz, R. (1982). “The Influence of Environmental Factors on Daily Behavior”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 14..Google Scholar
  12. Herz, R. K. (1981). “Stability, Variability and Flexibility in Everyday Behavior”, Paper at the International Conference on Travel Demand Analysis: Activity-Based and Other New Approaches, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  13. Horowitz, J. L. (1981). “Sources of error and uncertainty in behavioral travel-demand models”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, P. (1981). “Activity approaches to understanding travel behavior”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds., New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  15. Kitamura, R., Kostyniuk, L. P. and Uyeno, M. J. (1981). “Basic Properties of Urban Time-Space Paths”, Empirical Tests, T.R.R. 794.Google Scholar
  16. Koppelman, F. S. and Wilmot, C. G. (1982). “Transferability Analysis of Disaggregate Choice Models”, Paper at the T.R.B. Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Kutter, E. (1981). “Some remarks on activity-pattern analysis in transportation planning”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Paaswell, R. E. (1981). “Travel and activity needs of the mobility limited”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  19. Root, G. S. and Recker, W. W. (1981). “Toward a Dynamic Model of Industrial Activity Pattern Formulation”, Paper at the International Conference on Travel Demand Analysis, Activity-Based and Other New Approaches, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  20. Spear, B. D. (1981). “Travel-behavior research: the need and potential for policy relevance”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  21. Stopher, P. R., Meyburg, A. H. and Brög, (1981). “Travel-behavior research: summary of conference findings and recommendations”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  22. Supernak, J. (1981a). “Travel Time Budget: A Critique”, Paper at the International Conference on Travel Demand Analysis: Activity-Based and Other New Approaches, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  23. Supernak, J. (1981b). “Transferability of the Person Category Trip Generation Model”, Paper at the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  24. Talvitie, A. P. (1981). “Inaccurate or incomplete data as a source of uncertainty in econometric or attitudinal models of travel behavior”, in P. R. Stopher, A. H. Meyburg and W. Brög, eds. New Horizons in Travel-Behavior Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  25. Williams, H. C. W. L. (1981). “The Use of Microsimulation in Travel-Activity Analysis”, Paper at the International Conference on Travel Demand Analysis: Activity-Based and Other New Approaches, Oxford University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishers B.V 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janusz Supernak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations