Advertisement

Greening Demand Chains in Urban Passenger Transport: Emissions Saving from Complex Trip Chains

  • Chinh HoEmail author
  • David A. Hensher
Chapter
  • 2.5k Downloads
Part of the Greening of Industry Networks Studies book series (GINS, volume 4)

Abstract

It is well known that a significant amount to passenger trip activity involves multiple modes, destinations and trip purposes. For example, with multi-worker households, we observe a car commuter taking a child to a child care centre en route to work and also dropping their partner off at another location such as a railway station. This example is one of many trip chain configurations that represent the complexity of travel activity, and which have important implications on how we represent travel demand in transport planning models. What is not well understood is the impact that trip chaining has on greening the demand chain. We are unaware of any studies that have investigated the greening of passenger demand chains associated with the complexity of trip chains. This chapter uses the Sydney Household Travel Survey and an econometric model to identify the impact that the changing nature of trip chains has on CO2 emission. Results suggest that trip chains were stable in Sydney over a period of 15-year from 1997/98 to 2011/12. Emissions saving from chaining multiple activities into a single chain were found to vary between 5 and 19 % depending on whether the mode of travel is car, bus, or train.

Keywords

Trip chains Travel activity CO2 emission Transport modes Tour complexity Green travel demand 

References

  1. Adler, T., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1979). A theoretical and empirical model of trip chaining behavior. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 13, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley, M., & Bowman, J. (2006). SACSIM/05 activity-based travel forecasting model for SACOG: Featuring DAYSIM—the person day activity and travel simulator. Technical memo number 4: Mode choice models. Prepared for Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).Google Scholar
  3. Cicillo, C., & Axhausen, K. (2002) Mode choice of complex tours. Association for European Transport (pp. 9–11). Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  4. Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2011). Exploring the trip chaining behaviour of public transport users in Melbourne. Transport Policy, 18, 204–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, W., Donnelly, R., Vovsha, P., Freedman, J., Ruegg, S., Hicks, J., et al. (2007). Synthesis of first practices and operational research approaches in activity-based travel demand modeling. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 464–488.Google Scholar
  6. Demographia. (2007). Greenhouse gas emission per passenger km: Australia. Available: www.demographia.com/db-australghg.pdf.
  7. Golob, T. F. (1986). A nonlinear canonical correlation analysis of weekly trip chaining behaviour. Transportation Research Part A: General, 20, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hensher, D. A., & Reyes, A. J. (2000). Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport. Transportation, 27, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ho, C., & Mulley, C. (2013a). Multiple purposes at single destination: A key to a better understanding of the relationship between tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 206–219.Google Scholar
  10. Ho, C., & Mulley, C. (2013b). Tour-based mode choice of joint household travel patterns on weekend and weekdays. Transportation, 40, 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krizek, K. J. (2003). Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel. Transportation, 30, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krygsman, S., Arentze, T., & Timmermans, H. (2007). Capturing tour mode and activity choice interdependencies: A co-evolutionary logit modelling approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 913–933.Google Scholar
  13. Levinson, D., & Kumar, A. (1995). Activity, travel, and the allocation of time. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 458–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGuckin, N., Zmud, J., & Nakamoto, Y. (2005). Trip-chaining trends in the United States: Understanding travel behavior for policy making. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1917, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Primerano, F., Taylor, M., Pitaksringkarn, L., & Tisato, P. (2008). Defining and understanding trip chaining behaviour. Transportation, 35, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Strathman, J. G., Dueker, K. J., & Davis, J. S. (1994). Effects of household structure and selected travel characteristics on trip chaining. Transportation, 21, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ye, X., Pendyala, R. M., & Gottardi, G. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 41, 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney Business SchoolThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations