Transportation

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 119–125 | Cite as

Defining domains for models of travel demand

  • Ian G. Heggie
  • Peter M. Jones
Article

Abstract

Travel demand models implicitly assume that people respond to changes in a continuous way. This is in contrast to the physical sciences, where discontinuous response is a common phenomenon and is embodied in such concepts as sub-critical and supercritical states.

Recent studies have shown that responses to transport policies differ in degree and kind according to the nature and severity of the stimulus and the types of people affected. Response patterns may be categorised by the extent to which they involve adjustments to spatio-temporal or inter-personal linkages. This paper identifies four response domains, with a further distinction between permissive and forced changes.

Most travel demand models are designed to operate within an independent, forced (and to a less extent independent permissive) domain and their forecasts become unreliable when responses lie outside that domain. Conversely, a model designed for a more complex domain is unnecessarily cumbersome where simpler responses apply. This paper describes the types of model which are appropriate for each domain and discusses how the effects of a policy may be assigned to the correct domain(s).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banister, D. J. (1978). “Decision-making, habit formation and a heuristic modal split model based on these concepts,” Transportation 7: 5–18.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, M. E., Lerman, S. R. and Manheim, M. C. (1976). “Disaggregate models: an overview of some recent research results and practical application,” P.T.R.C. Summer Annual Meeting, Warwick.Google Scholar
  3. Department of the Environment (1974). ldFormby bus feeder service to the local railway station,” Bus Demonstration Project, Summary Report No. 6. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  4. Dix, M. C. (1978). “A qualitative study of the travel decision process,” (unpublished draft chapter in a book on household travel behaviour). Oxford University Transport Studies Unit.Google Scholar
  5. Domencich, T. A. and McFadden, D. (1975). Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Gilbert, G., Peterson, G. L. and Schofer, J. L. (1972). “Markov renewal model of linked trip behaviour,” Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, TE3: 691–704.Google Scholar
  7. Gwilliam, K. M. and Banister, D. J. (1977). “Patterns of car usage and restraint modelling,” Transportation 6: 345–363.Google Scholar
  8. Heggie, I. G. (1976). “A pilot survey of urban travel behaviour,” Working Paper No. 21, Oxford University Transport Studies Unit.Google Scholar
  9. Heggie, I. G. (1977). “Consumer response to public transport improvements and car restraint: some practical findings,” Policy and Politics 5, No. 4: 47–69.Google Scholar
  10. Heggie, I. G. (1978). “Putting behaviour into behavioural models of travel choice,“ Journal of the Operational Research Society 29: 541–550.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, P. M. (1977a). “Assessing policy impacts using the Household Activity-Travel Simulator,” Working Paper No. 18, Oxford University Transport Studies Unit.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, P. M. (1977b). “Travel as a manifestation of activity choice: trip generation re-interpreted,” Chapter 4, in: P. Bonsall, Q. Dalvi, and P. J. Hills (eds), Urban Transportation Planning. Tunbridge Wells: Abacus.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, P. M. (1978). “New approaches to understanding travel behaviour: the human activity approach,” in: D. A. Hensher, P. R. Stopher (eds), Behavioural Travel Modelling (in press). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, T. S. M. (1975). “Young children and their daily school journey: a survey in Oxfordshire,” Technical Report, Department of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  15. Martin and Voorhees Associates (1977). “The ‘HATS’ technique: an exploratory study,” (unpublished). Martin and Voorhees Associates, London.Google Scholar
  16. Mukherjee, M. (1978). “Modal choice for the journey to school in the Leeds District,” Universities Transport Studies Group, Annual Conference, London.Google Scholar
  17. Murchland, J. D. (1977). “Annotated bibliography on the validation of transportation models,” (unpublished). Transport Studies Group, University College, London.Google Scholar
  18. Rigby, J. P. and Hyde, P. J. (1977). “Journeys to school: a survey of secondary schools in Berkshire and Surrey,” Laboratory Report 776, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England.Google Scholar
  19. Senior, M. L. and Williams, H. C. W. L. (1977). “Model-based transport policy assessment: 1. The use of alternative forecasting models,” Traffic Engineering and Control 18: 402–406.Google Scholar
  20. Shapcott, M. and Steadman, P. (1977). “A study of the introduction of flexible working hours in Reading,” (unpublished). The Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  21. Stopher, P. R. and Meyburg, A. H. (1975). Urban Transportation Modelling and Planning. London: Lexington.Google Scholar
  22. Vincent, R. A. and Layfield, R. E. (1977). “Nottingham zones and collar study — overall assessment,” Laboratory Report 805, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian G. Heggie
    • 1
  • Peter M. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Transport Studies UnitOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations