Modelling departure time and mode choice
As a result of increasing road congestion and road pricing, modelling the temporal response of travellers to transport policy interventions has rapidly emerged as a major issue in many practical transport planning studies. A substantial body of research is therefore being carried out to understand the complexities involved in modelling time of day choice. These models are contributing substantially to our understanding of how travellers make time-of-day decisions (Hess et al, 2004; de Jong et al, 2003). These models, however, tend to be far too complex and far too data intensive to be of use for application in large-scale modelling forecasting systems, where socio-economic detail is limited and detailed scheduling information is rarely available. Moreover, model systems making use of the some of the latest analytical structures, such as Mixed Logit, are generally inapplicable in practical planning, since they rely on computer-intensive simulation in application just as well as in estimation. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to describe the development of time-period choice models which are suitable for application in large-scale modelling forecasting systems. Large-scale practical planning models often rely on systems of nested logit models, which can incorporate many of the most important interactions that are present in the complex models but which have low enough run-times to allow them to be used for practical planning. In these systems, temporal choice is represented as the choice between a finite set of discrete alternatives, represented by mutually exclusive time-periods that are obtained by aggregation of the actual observed continuous time values. The issues that face modellers are then: -how should the time periods be defined, and in particular how long should they be? -how should the choices of time periods be related to each other, e.g. is the elasticity for shorter shifts greater than for longer shifts? -how should time period choice be placed in the model system relative to other choices, such as that of the mode of travel? These questions cannot be answered on a purely theoretical basis but require the analysis of empirical data. However, there is not a great deal of data available on the relevant choices. The time period models described in the paper are developed from three related stated preference (SP) studies undertaken over the past decade in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Because of the complications involved with using advanced models in large-scale modelling forecasting systems, the model structures are limited to nested logit models. Two different tree structures are explored in the analysis, nesting mode above time period choice or time period choice above mode. The analysis examines how these structures differ by data set, purpose of travel and time period specification. Three time period specifications were tested, dividing the 24-hour day into: -twenty-four 1-hour periods; -five coarse time-periods; -sixteen 15-minute morning-peak periods, and two coarse pre-peak and post-peak periods. In each case, the time periods are used to define both the outbound and the return trip timings. The analysis shows that, with a few exceptions, the nested models outperform the basic Multinomial Logit structures, which operate under the assumption of equal substitution patterns across alternatives. With a single exception, the nested models in turn show higher substitution between alternative time periods than between alternative modes, showing that, for all the time period lengths studied, travellers are more sensitive to transport levels of service in their choice of departure time than in choice of mode. The advantages of the nesting structures are especially pronounced in the 1-hour and 15-minute models, while, in the coarse time-period models, the MNL model often remains the preferred structure; this is a clear effect of the broader time-periods, and the consequently lower substitution between time-periods.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.ersa.org
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bhat, Chandra R. & Steed, Jennifer L., 2002. "A continuous-time model of departure time choice for urban shopping trips," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 207-224, March.
- Daniel McFadden, 1977. "Modelling the Choice of Residential Location," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 477, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Vickrey, William S, 1969. "Congestion Theory and Transport Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 251-60, May.
- Small, Kenneth A, 1987. "A Discrete Choice Model for Ordered Alternatives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 409-24, March.
- Wang, James Jixian, 1996. "Timing utility of daily activities and its impact on travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 189-206, May.
- Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Analysis of travel mode and departure time choice for urban shopping trips," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 361-371, August.
- de Jong, Gerard & Daly, Andrew & Pieters, Marits & Vellay, Carine & Bradley, Mark & Hofman, Frank, 2003. "A model for time of day and mode choice using error components logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 245-268, May.
- Small, Kenneth A, 1982. "The Scheduling of Consumer Activities: Work Trips," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 467-79, June.
- Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
- H C W L Williams, 1977. "On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 9(3), pages 285-344, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.