Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 985–1002 | Cite as

The analysis of dynamic travel mode choice: a heterogeneous hidden Markov approach

  • Chenfeng Xiong
  • Xiqun Chen
  • Xiang He
  • Wei Guo
  • Lei Zhang
Article

Abstract

Discrete choices are often analyzed statically. The limitations of static models become more obvious when employing them in more long-term travel demand forecasting. The research gap lies in a theoretical model which is dynamically formulated, and in readily available longitudinal data sources. To address this, a heterogeneous hidden Markov modeling approach (HMM) is proposed in this paper to model dynamic discrete choices. Both longitudinal and cross-sectional heterogeneity are considered. The approach is demonstrated on a travel mode choice application using ten-wave Puget Sound Transport Panel data coupled with some other supplementary data sources. Results indicate that travelers’ long-term life-cycle stages have an enduring impact when shifted to different mode choice states, wherein sensitivities to travel time and cost vary. Empirical results are put in line with static discrete choice models. The paper demonstrates that the family of HMM models provide the best fitting model. The dynamic model has superior explanatory power in fitting longitudinal data and thus shall provide more accurate estimates for planning and policy analyses. The proposed approach can be generalized to study other short/mid-term travel behavior. The estimated model can be easily calibrated and transferred for applications elsewhere.

Keywords

Dynamic mode choice Hidden Markov Transition matrix Heterogeneous 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is financially supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award, “Reliability as an Emergent Property of Transportation Networks”, and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Exploratory Advanced Research Program. The authors are grateful to Neil Kilgren and Carol Naito affiliated with Puget Sound Regional Council for kindly provide Puget Sound Transportation Panel data and supplemented Puget Sound regional planning skimming matrices. The authors would like to thank Chen Dong affiliated with the Department of Mathematics, Univ. of Maryland, for his advice in addressing various hidden Markov model estimation issues. The opinions in this paper do not necessarily reflect the official views of NSF or FHWA. They assume no liability for the content or use of this paper. The authors are solely responsible for all statements in this paper.

References

  1. Arentze, T.A., Timmermans, H.J.: A learning-based transportation oriented simulation system. Transp. Res. Part B 38(7), 613–633 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, M.: Planning and Action in a Model of Choice. Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-Art and the State-of-Practice. Emerald, Bingley (2010)Google Scholar
  3. Cherchi, E., Guevara, C.A.: A monte carlo experiment to analyze the curse of dimensionality in estimating random coefficients models with a full variance-covariance matrix. Transp. Res. Part B 46(2), 321–332 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choudhury, C.F., Ben-Akiva, M., Abou-Zeid, M.: Dynamic latent plan models. J. Choice Model. 3(2), 50–70 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cirillo, C., Axhausen, K.W.: Mode Choice of Complex Tours: A Panel Analysis. ETH, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Institut für Verkehrsplanung, Transporttechnik, Strassen-und Eisenbahnbau IVT (2002)Google Scholar
  6. Cirillo, C., Axhausen, K.W.: Dynamic model of activity-type choice and scheduling. Transportation 37(1), 15–38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gill, J.: Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2002)Google Scholar
  8. Goulias, K.G.: Longitudinal analysis of activity and travel pattern dynamics using generalized mixed markov latent class models. Transp. Res. Part B 33(8), 535–558 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hess, S., Train, K.E.: Recovery of inter-and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models. Transp. Res. Part B 45(7), 973–990 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kitamura, R.: Panel analysis in transportation planning: an overview. Transp. Res. Part A 24(6), 401–415 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koppelman, F.S.: Predicting transit ridership in response to transit service changes. J. Transp. Eng. 109(4), 548–564 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McFadden, D., Train, K.: Mixed mnl models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 15(5), 447–470 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Netzer, O., Lattin, J.M., Srinivasan, V.: A hidden markov model of customer relationship dynamics. Mark. Sci. 27(2), 185–204 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pas, E.I., Koppelman, F.S.: An examination of the determinants of day-to-day variability in individuals’ urban travel behavior. Transportation 14(1), 3–20 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paulssen, M., Temme, D., Vij, A., Walker, J.L.: Values, attitudes and travel behavior: a hierarchical latent variable mixed logit model of travel mode choice. Transportation 41, 1–16 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. Pendyala, R., Kitamura, R., Prasuna Reddy, D.: Application of an activity-based travel-demand model incorporating a rule-based algorithm. Environ. Plan. B 25, 753–772 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pendyala, R., Pas, E.: Multi-day and multi-period data for travel demand analysis and modeling. Technical report (2000)Google Scholar
  18. Pendyala, R. M.: Challenges and opportunities in advancing activity-based approaches for travel demand analysis. In: The Expanding Sphere of Travel Behavior Research: Selected Papers from the 11th Conference of the International Association for Travel Behavior Research: Selected Papers from the 11th Conference of the International Association for Travel Behavior Research, p. 303. Emerald Group PublishingGoogle Scholar
  19. Pendyala, R.M., Kitamura, R., Kikuchi, A., Yamamoto, T., Fujii, S.: Florida activity mobility simulator: overview and preliminary validation results. Transp. Res. Rec. 1921(1), 123–130 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramadurai, G., Srinivasan, K.K.: Dynamics and variability in within-day mode choice decisions: role of state dependence, habit persistence, and unobserved heterogeneity. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977(1), 43–52 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scott, S.L.: Bayesian methods for hidden Markov models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 97(457), 337–352 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, T., Vounatsou, P.: Estimation of infection and recovery rates for highly polymorphic parasites when detectability is imperfect, using hidden markov models. Stat. Med. 22(10), 1709–1724 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Srinivasan, K.K., Bhargavi, P.: Longer-term changes in mode choice decisions in chennai: a comparison between cross-sectional and dynamic models. Transportation 34(3), 355–374 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vij, A.: Incorporating the Influence of Latent Modal Preferences in Travel Demand Models. University of California Transportation, Berkley (2013)Google Scholar
  25. Vij, A., Carrel, A., Walker, J.L.: Incorporating the influence of latent modal preferences on travel mode choice behavior. Transp. Res. Part A 54, 164–178 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. Walker, J.L.: Extended Discrete Choice Models: Integrated Framework, Flexible Error Structures, and Latent Variables. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2001)Google Scholar
  27. Xiong, C., Zhang, L.: Positive model of departure time choice under road pricing and uncertainty. Transp. Res. Rec. 2345(1), 117–125 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiong, C., Zhang, L.: Dynamic travel mode searching and switching analysis considering hidden modal preference and behavioral decision processes. In: Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Number 14-4710Google Scholar
  29. Xiong, C., Chen, X., He, X., Lin, X., Zhang, L.: Agent-based en-route diversion: Dynamic behavioral responses and network performance represented by macroscopic fundamental diagrams. Transp. Res. Part C. (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2015.04.008

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chenfeng Xiong
    • 1
  • Xiqun Chen
    • 2
  • Xiang He
    • 3
  • Wei Guo
    • 4
  • Lei Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.College of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureZhejiang UniversityHangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.International Aviation Division, Institute of Air TransportChina Academy of Civil Aviation Science and TechnologyBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Office of the Chief EconomistWorld BankWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations