IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v40y2013i6p1133-1157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hubris or humility? Accuracy issues for the next 50 years of travel demand modeling

Author

Listed:
  • David Hartgen

Abstract

This study reviews the 50-year history of travel demand forecasting models, concentrating on their accuracy and relevance for public decision-making. Only a few studies of model accuracy have been performed, but they find that the likely inaccuracy in the 20-year forecast of major road projects is ±30 % at minimum, with some estimates as high as ±40–50 % over even shorter time horizons. There is a significant tendency to over-estimate traffic and underestimate costs, particularly for toll roads. Forecasts of transit costs and ridership are even more uncertain and also significantly optimistic. The greatest knowledge gap in US travel demand modeling is the unknown accuracy of US urban road traffic forecasts. Modeling weaknesses leading to these problems (non-behavioral content, inaccuracy of inputs and key assumptions, policy insensitivity, and excessive complexity) are identified. In addition, the institutional and political environments that encourage optimism bias and low risk assessment in forecasts are also reviewed. Major institutional factors, particularly low local funding matches and competitive grants, confound scenario modeling efforts and dampen the hope that technical modeling improvements alone can improve forecasting accuracy. The fundamental problems are not technical but institutional: high non-local funding shares for large projects warp local perceptions of project benefit versus costs, leading to both input errors and political pressure to fund projects. To deal with these issues, the paper outlines two different approaches. The first, termed ‘hubris’, proposes a multi-decade effort to substantially improve model forecasting accuracy over time by monitoring performance and improving data, methods and understanding of travel, but also by deliberately modifying the institutional arrangements that lead to optimism bias. The second, termed ‘humility’, proposes to openly quantify and recognize the inherent uncertainty in travel demand forecasts and deliberately reduce their influence on project decision-making. However to be successful either approach would require monitoring and reporting accuracy, standards for modeling and forecasting, greater model transparency, educational initiatives, coordinated research, strengthened ethics and reduction of non-local funding ratios so that localities have more at stake. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • David Hartgen, 2013. "Hubris or humility? Accuracy issues for the next 50 years of travel demand modeling," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1133-1157, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:6:p:1133-1157
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-013-9497-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-013-9497-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-013-9497-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alec Shuldiner & Paul Shuldiner, 2013. "The measure of all things: reflections on changing conceptions of the individual in travel demand modeling," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1117-1131, November.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2009. "Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built--and what we can do about it," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 25(3), pages 344-367, Autumn.
    3. Robert Bain, 2009. "Error and optimism bias in toll road traffic forecasts," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 469-482, September.
    4. Mackie, Peter & Preston, John, 1998. "Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, January.
    5. Joshua Auld & Lei Zhang, 2013. "Inter-personal interactions and constraints in travel behavior within households and social networks," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 751-754, July.
    6. Martin Wachs, 2013. "Turning cities inside out: transportation and the resurgence of downtowns in North America," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1159-1172, November.
    7. David E. Boyce & Huw C. W. L. Williams, 2005. "Urban Travel Forecasting in the USA and UK," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Aura Reggiani & Laurie A. Schintler (ed.), Methods and Models in Transport and Telecommunications, chapter 3, pages 25-44, Springer.
    8. Aura Reggiani & Laurie A. Schintler (ed.), 2005. "Methods and Models in Transport and Telecommunications," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-540-28550-2, Fall.
    9. Gerard Jong & Andrew Daly & Marits Pieters & Stephen Miller & Ronald Plasmeijer & Frank Hofman, 2007. "Uncertainty in traffic forecasts: literature review and new results for The Netherlands," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 375-395, July.
    10. Keith Bartholomew, 2007. "Land use-transportation scenario planning: promise and reality," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 397-412, July.
    11. Aura Reggiani & Laurie A. Schintler, 2005. "Introduction: Cross Atlantic Perspectives in Methods and Models Analysing Transport and Telecommunications," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Aura Reggiani & Laurie A. Schintler (ed.), Methods and Models in Transport and Telecommunications, chapter 1, pages 1-8, Springer.
    12. Yong Zhao & Kara Maria Kockelman, 2002. "The propagation of uncertainty through travel demand models: An exploratory analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 36(1), pages 145-163.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. West, Jens & Börjesson, Maria & Engelson, Leonid, 2016. "Accuracy of the Gothenburg congestion charges forecast," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 266-277.
    2. Metz, David, 2021. "Economic benefits of road widening: Discrepancy between outturn and forecast," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 312-319.
    3. Walker, Joan L. & Chatman, Daniel & Daziano, Ricardo & Erhardt, Gregory & Gao, Song & Mahmassani, Hani & Ory, David & Sall, Elizabeth & Bhat, Chandra & Chim, Nicholas & Daniels, Clint & Gardner, Brian, 2019. "Advancing the Science of Travel Demand Forecasting," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt0v1906ts, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    4. West , Jens & Börjesson , Maria & Engelson , Leonid, 2016. "Forecasting effects of congestion charges," Working papers in Transport Economics 2016:9, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    5. Hoque, Jawad Mahmud & Erhardt, Gregory D. & Schmitt, David & Chen, Mei & Wachs, Martin, 2021. "Estimating the uncertainty of traffic forecasts from their historical accuracy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 339-349.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andersson, Matts & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Validation of aggregate reference forecasts for passenger transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 101-118.
    2. Xu, Xiangdong & Chen, Anthony & Wong, S.C. & Cheng, Lin, 2015. "Selection bias in build-operate-transfer transportation project appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 245-251.
    3. Andersson, Matts & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Validation of reference forecasts for passenger transport," Working papers in Transport Economics 2016:15, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI), revised 07 Jul 2016.
    4. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2014. "Is CBA Ranking of Transport Investments Robust?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 48(2), pages 189-204, May.
    5. Paul Timms, 2008. "Transport models, philosophy and language," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 395-410, May.
    6. Börjesson, Maria & Jonsson, R. Daniel & Berglund, Svante & Almström, Peter, 2014. "Land-use impacts in transport appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 82-91.
    7. Westin, Jonas & de Jong, Gerard & Vierth, Inge & Krüger, Niclas & Karlsson, Rune & Johansson, Magnus, 2015. "Baserunning - analyzing the sensitivity and economies of scale of the Swedish national freight model system using stochastic production-consumption-matrices," Working papers in Transport Economics 2015:10, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI), revised 15 Sep 2016.
    8. David Boyce, 2007. "Forecasting Travel on Congested Urban Transportation Networks: Review and Prospects for Network Equilibrium Models," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 99-128, June.
    9. Reggiani, Aura & Rietveld, Piet, 2010. "Networks, commuting and spatial structures: An introduction," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 2(3), pages 1-4.
    10. Hoque, Jawad Mahmud & Erhardt, Gregory D. & Schmitt, David & Chen, Mei & Wachs, Martin, 2021. "Estimating the uncertainty of traffic forecasts from their historical accuracy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 339-349.
    11. Aguas, Oriana & Bachmann, Chris, 2022. "Assessing the effects of input uncertainties on the outputs of a freight demand model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Sanko, Nobuhiro & Morikawa, Takayuki & Nagamatsu, Yoshitaka, 2013. "Post-project evaluation of travel demand forecasts: Implications from the case of a Japanese railway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 209-218.
    13. Parthasarathi, Pavithra & Levinson, David, 2010. "Post-construction evaluation of traffic forecast accuracy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 428-443, November.
    14. Nicolaisen, Morten Skou & Næss, Petter, 2015. "Roads to nowhere: The accuracy of travel demand forecasts for do-nothing alternatives," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 57-63.
    15. de Palma, André & Kilani, Moez & Lindsey, Robin, 2008. "The merits of separating cars and trucks," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 340-361, September.
    16. Anna Matas & Josep-Lluis Raymond & Adriana Ruiz, 2012. "Traffic forecasts under uncertainty and capacity constraints," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    18. Nobuhiro Sanko, 2017. "Temporal transferability: trade-off between data newness and the number of observations for forecasting travel demand," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1403-1420, November.
    19. Steininger, Bertram & Groth, Martin & Weber, Birgitte, 2020. "Cost overruns and delays in infrastructure projects: the case of Stuttgart 21," Working Paper Series 20/11, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Real Estate and Construction Management & Banking and Finance.
    20. West, Jens & Börjesson, Maria & Engelson, Leonid, 2016. "Accuracy of the Gothenburg congestion charges forecast," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 266-277.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:6:p:1133-1157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.