Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 2081–2102 | Cite as

Incorporating features of autonomous vehicles in activity-based travel demand model for Columbus, OH

  • Gaurav VyasEmail author
  • Pooneh Famili
  • Peter Vovsha
  • Daniel Fay
  • Ashish Kulshrestha
  • Greg Giaimo
  • Rebekah Anderson
Article
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) could change travel patterns of the population significantly and with the rapid improvements in AV technology, transportation planners should address AV impacts in regional plans and project evaluations for the mid-term and long-term horizons (10–15 years and beyond). There are multiple travel model components from demand generation to network assignments that need to be modified, updated, or added to fully capture the potential impacts of AVs on regional travel patterns. This paper describes how the features of AVs were incorporated in the regional Activity-Based travel demand Model developed for Columbus, OH, metropolitan region. The model modifications included multiple adjustments to the travel demand sub-models, network assignments, as well as an addition of a new sub-model for vehicle routing and parking that addresses such new phenomenon as empty AV relocation trips. Due to many factors of uncertainty associated with AVs, a scenario-based approach was adopted for evaluation of the potential impacts of AVs on the travel patterns. The emphasis of the scenario analysis was on multiple dimensions of travel behavior in addition to such aggregate regional measures as VMT, etc. The paper presents an analysis of potential impacts of AVs on accessibility measures, activity participation, tour formation, and mode choice. The scenario analysis applied to the Columbus region showed overall logical potential impacts of AVs with many insights useful for transportation planning.

Keywords

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) Activity-based travel model (ABM) Actvity-based model Empty trips Scenario analysis 

Notes

Author contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: GV, PF, PV, DF, AK, GG; data collection: GG, RA; analysis and interpretation of results: GV, PF, PV; draft manuscript preparation: GV, PF, PV. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors would like to thank Christi Byrd for her valuable contribution to this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Azevedo, L., Marczuk, K., Raveau, S., Soh, H., Adnan, M., Basak, K., Loganathan, H., Deshmunkh, N., Lee, D., Frazzoli, E., Ben-Akiva, M.: Microsimulation of demand and supply of autonomous mobility on-demand. Transp. Res. Rec. 2564, 21–30 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2564-03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierstedt, J., Gooze, A., Gray, C., Peterman, J., Raykin, L., Walters, J.: Effects of next-generation vehicles on travel demand and highway capacity. Fehr Peers Res. Initiat. (2014)Google Scholar
  3. Bowman, J.L., Bradley, M.A.: Disaggregate treatment of purpose, time of day and location in an activity-based regional travel forecasting model. In: Presented at the 2005 European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France (2005)Google Scholar
  4. Childress, S., Nichols, B., Charlton, B., Coe, S.: Using an activity-based model to explore the potential impacts of automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Rec. 2493, 99–106 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2493-11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Das, S., Sekar, A., Chen, R., Kim, H.C., Wallington, T.J., Williams, E.: Impacts of autonomous vehicles on consumers time-use patterns. Challenge 8(2), 32 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3390/challe8020032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson, P., Spinoulas, A.: Driving alone versus riding together-how shared autonomous vehicles can change the way we drive. In: Presented at AITPM, Sydney (2016)Google Scholar
  7. Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B.: Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 12(2), 127–140 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gucwa, M.: Mobility and energy impacts of automated cars. In: Proceedings of the Automated Vehicles Symposium, San Francisco (2014)Google Scholar
  9. Gupta, S., Vovsha, P., Livshits, V., Maneva, P., Jeon, K.: Incorporation of escorting children to school in modeling individual daily activity patterns of the household members. Transp. Res. Rec. 2429, 20–29 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2429-03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harper, C., Hendrickson, C., Mangones, S., Samaras, C.: Estimating potential increases in travel with autonomous vehicles for the non-driving, elderly and people with travel-restrictive medical conditions. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 72, 1–9 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hyland, M.F., Mahmassani, H.S.: Sharing is caring: dynamic autonomous vehicle fleet operations under demand surges. In: Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2018)Google Scholar
  12. Javanmardi, M., Auld, J., Verbas, O.: Analyzing intra-household fully autonomous vehicle sharing. In: Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2018)Google Scholar
  13. Lavasani, M., Jin, X., Du, Y.: Market penetration model for autonomous vehicles based on previous technology adoption experiences. Transp. Res. Rec. 2597, 64–74 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2597-09 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, M.W., Boyles, D.S.: Effects of autonomous vehicles ownership on trip, mode, and route choice. In: Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  15. Milakis, D., van Arem, B., van Wee, B.: Policy and society related implications of automated driving: a review of literature and directions for future research. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. Technol. Plan. Oper. 21(4), 324–348 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2017.1291351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paleti, R., Vovsha, P., Vyas, G., Anderson, R., Giaimo, G.: Activity sequencing, location, and formation of individual non-mandatory tours: application to the activity-based models for Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland, OH. Transportation 44(3), 615–640 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9671-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Talebpour, A., Mahmassani, H.S.: Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and throughput. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 71, 143–163 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Truong, L.T., De Gruyter, C., Currie, G., Delbose, A.: Estimating the trip generation impacts of autonomous vehicles on car travel in Victoria, Australia. Transportation 44(6), 1279–1292 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9802-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vovsha, P., Hicks, J., Vyas, G., Livshits, V., Jeon, K.: Combinatorial tour mode choice. In: Presented at 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2018)Google Scholar
  20. Xu, X., Zockaie, A., Mahmassani, H.S., Halat, H., Verbas, O., Hyland, H., Vovsha, P., Hicks, J.: Schedule consistency for daily activity chains in integrated activity-based dynamic multi-modal network assignment. Transp. Res. Rec. 2664, 11–22 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2664-02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INROWestmountCanada
  2. 2.WSP USA Inc.New YorkUSA
  3. 3.WSP USA Inc.San JoseUSA
  4. 4.Ohio Department of TransportationColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations