Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 369–397 | Cite as

Generating complete all-day activity plans with genetic algorithms

  • David Charypar
  • Kai NagelEmail author
Article

Abstract

Activity-based demand generation contructs complete all-day activity plans for each member of a population, and derives transportation demand from the fact that consecutive activities at different locations need to be connected by travel. Besides many other advantages, activity-based demand generation also fits well into the paradigm of multi-agent simulation, where each traveler is kept as an individual throughout the whole modeling process. In this paper, we present a new approach to the problem, which uses genetic algorithms (GA). Our GA keeps, for each member of the population, several instances of possible all-day activity plans in memory. Those plans are modified by mutation and crossover, while ‘bad’ instances are eventually discarded. Any GA needs a fitness function to evaluate the performance of each instance. For all-day activity plans, it makes sense to use a utility function to obtain such a fitness. In consequence, a significant part of the paper is spent discussing such a utility function. In addition, the paper shows the performance of the algorithm to a few selected problems, including very busy and rather non-busy days.

Keywords

activity generation genetic algorithms location choice multi-agent traffic simulation utility functions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham J & Hunt J (2002) Spatial Market Representations: Concepts and Application to Integrated Planning Models. Presented at the 49th annual North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association International, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  2. Arentze T, Hofman F, van Mourik H & Timmermans H (2000) ALBATROSS: A Multi-agent Rule-based Model of Activity Pattern Decisions. Paper 00-0022, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  3. Arentze T & Timmermans H (2003) Representing mental maps and cognitive learning in micro-simulation models of activity-travel choice dynamics’. In: Proceedings of the meeting of the International Association for Travel Behavior Research (IATBR). Lucerne, Switzerland. See www.ivt.baum.ethz.ch.Google Scholar
  4. Arnott, R, Palma, AD, Lindsey, R 1993A structural model of peak-period congestion: A traffic bottleneck with elastic demandThe American Economic Review83161Google Scholar
  5. Beckman, RJ, Baggerly, KA, McKay, MD 1996Creating synthetic base-line populationsTransportion Research Part A–Policy and Practice30415429Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Akiva, M, Lerman, SR 1985Discrete Choice AnalysisThe MIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhat C, Guo J, Srinivasan S Sivakumar A forthcoming. A comprehensive econometric microsimulator for daily activity-travel patterns. Transportation Research Record. Also see www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/FULL_REPORTS.htm.Google Scholar
  8. Bowman, JL 1998The Day Activity Schedule Approach to Travel Demand AnalysisMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MAPh.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowman J, Bradley M, Shiftan Y, Lawton T & Ben-Akiva M (1999) Demonstration of an activity-based model for Portland. In: World Transport Research: Selected Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Transport Research 1998, Vol. 3. (pp. 171–184.) Oxford: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  10. Cascetta, E 1989A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networksTransportation Research B23B117Google Scholar
  11. Doherty ST & Axhausen KW (1998) The development of a unified modelling framework for the household activity-travel scheduling process. In: Verkehr und Mobilität, Vol. 66 of ‘‘Stadt Region Land’’, OPTchapter = , OPTtype = , address = Technical University, Aachen, Germany, OPTedition = , OPTmonth = , OPTpages = , OPTnote = , OPTannote =. Institut für Stadtbauwesen.Google Scholar
  12. DYNASMART (www page: accessed 2003). See www.dynasmart.com and dynamictrafficassignment.org.Google Scholar
  13. EIRASS’04 (2004) Workshop on Progress in Activity-based Analysis. Maastricht, NL. Google Scholar
  14. IATBR’03 (2003) Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Association for Travel Behavior Research (IATBR)’. Lucerne, Switzerland: See http://www.ivt.baum.ethz.ch/allgemein/iatbr2003.html. Google Scholar
  15. Jara-Diaz et al. (2003) Modelling activity duration and travel choice from a common microeconomic framework. In: Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Association for Travel Behavior Research (IATBR). Lucerne, Switzerland. See www.ivt.baum.ethz. ch. Google Scholar
  16. Kaufsfman DE, Wunderlich KE & Smith RL (1991) An Iterative Routing/Assignment Method for Anticipatory Real-Time Route Guidance. Technical Report IVHS Technical Report 91–02, University of Michigan, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, Ann Arbor MI 48109.Google Scholar
  17. Kistler D (2004) Mental Maps for Mobility Simulations of Agents. Master’s thesis, ETH Zurich. Google Scholar
  18. Kitamura R (1996) Applications of models of activity behavior for activity based demand forecasting. In: TMIP (Travel Model Improvement Program) Activity-based Travel Forecasting Conference. See http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/abtf/Google Scholar
  19. Marchal F & Nagel K (2005) Modelling Location Choice of secondary Activities with a Social Network of Cooperative Agents. Paper, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  20. MATSIM (www page: accessed 2004), MultiAgent Transportation SIMulation. See www.matsim.org.Google Scholar
  21. Meister K, Frick M & Axhausen K (2004) A GA-based Household Scheduler. Arbeitsbericht Verkehrs- und Raumplanung 241, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. See www.ivt.baug.ethz.ch. Submitted to TRB’05. Google Scholar
  22. Miller, E, Roorda, M 2003A prototype model of household activity/travel schedulingTransportation Research Record1831114121Google Scholar
  23. Nagel, K, Barrett, C 1997Using microsimulation feedback for trip adaptation for realistic traffic in DallasInternational Journal of Modern Physics C8505526Google Scholar
  24. Pendyala R accessed (2004) Phased Implementation of a Multimodal Activity-Based Travel Demand Modeling System in Florida. See www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_PTO.htm. Project number 0510812 (BA496).Google Scholar
  25. Recker, W 1995The household activity pattern problem: General formulation and solutionTransportation Research B296177Google Scholar
  26. TRANSIMS (www page: accessed 2004) TRansportation ANalysis and SIMulation System. transims.tsasa.lanl.gov. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Land and Sea Transport SystemsBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations