Abstract
This article is a response to John Polak's article, entitled, ‘A Comment on Supernak's Critique of Transport Modeling,’ published elsewhere in this issue of TRANSPORTATION. It offers necessary clarifications to the issues discussed in an earlier article in this journal (Supernak, 1983). It also responds to the philosophical issues discussed in Polak's article, such as the nature of transport phenomena, and the role, form and methodology of transport modeling.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkins, S.T., 1986. The Crisis for Transportation Planning Modelling, Paper prepared for the Fifth World Conference on Transport Research, Vancouver, Canada.
Polak, J., 1987. A Comment on Supernak's Critique of Transport Modelling, Transportation, 14: 63–72.
Sayer, R.A., 1982. Explanation in Economic Geography: Abstraction Versus Generalization, Progress in Human Geography 6(a): 68–88.
Supernak, J., 1983. Transportation Modelling: Lessons from the Past and Tasks for the Future, Transportation, 12: 79–90.
Supernak, J., 1984. Disaggregate Models of Mode Choice: An Assessment of Performance and Suggestions for Improvement in J. Volmuler and R. Hamerslag (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, VNU, Science Press, Utrecht.
Supernak, J., 1985. Rationality of Travel Choices: A Discussion Paper, Proceedings of Seminar L, Summer Annual Meeting of PTRC.
Supernak, J., 1986. Disaggregate Models of Mode Choice: Accounting for Utility of Activity, Working Paper 86-2, Department of Civil Engineering, San Diego State University.
Webber, M.J., 1984. Explanation, Prediction and Planning: the Lowry Model, Pion, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Supernak, J., Stevens, W.R. Urban transportation modeling: The discussion continues. Transportation 14, 73–82 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172468
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172468