The development of modeling systems for activity-based travel demand ushers in a new era in transportation demand forecasting and planning. A comprehensive multimodal activity-based system for forecasting travel demand was developed for implementation in Florida and resulted in the Florida Activity Mobility Simulator (FAMOS). Two main modules compose the FAMOS microsimulation model system for modeling activity–travel patterns of individuals: the Household Attributes Generation System and the Prism-Constrained Activity–Travel Simulator. FAMOS was developed and estimated with household activity and travel data collected in southeast Florida in 2000. Results of the model development effort are promising and demonstrate the applicability of activity-based model systems in travel demand forecasting. An overview of the model system, a description of its features and capabilities, and preliminary validation results are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AxhausenK. W., and GärlingT.. Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis: Conceptual Frameworks, Models, and Research Problems.Transport Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1992, pp. 323–341.
2.
GouliasK. G. (ed.). Transportation Systems Planning: Methods and Applications.CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 2003.
3.
ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.. Albatross 2.0: A Learning-Based Transportation Oriented Simulation System.European Institute of Retailing and Services Studies, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, 2005.
4.
BhatC. R., GuoJ. Y., SrinivasanS., and SivakumarA.. Comprehensive Econometric Microsimulator for Daily Activity–Travel Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 57–66.
5.
KitamuraR., ChenC., and PendyalaR. M.. Generation of Synthetic Daily Activity–Travel Patterns. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 154–162.
6.
KitamuraR., ChenC., PendyalaR. M., and NarayananR.. Microsimulation of Activity–Travel Patterns for Travel Demand Forecasting.Transportation, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2000, pp. 25–51.
7.
PendyalaR. M., KitamuraR., and ReddyD. V. G. P.. Application of an Activity-Based Travel Demand Model Incorporating a Rule-Based Algorithm.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 25, 1998, pp. 753–772.
8.
VovshaP. S.Lessons Learned from Applications of Activity-Based Approaches. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
9.
MillerE. J.Microsimulation. In Transportation Systems Planning: Methods and Applications (GouliasK. G., ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 2003, pp. 12-1–12-22.
10.
KitamuraR., YamamotoT., KishizawaK., and PendyalaR. M.. Stochastic Frontier Models of Prism Vertices. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 18–26.
11.
PendyalaR. M., YamamotoT., and KitamuraR.. On the Formulation of Time–Space Prisms to Model Constraints on Personal Activity–Travel Engagement.Transportation, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002, pp. 73–94.
12.
GärlingT., EekD., LoukopoulosP., FujiiS., Johansson-StenmanO., KitamuraR., PendyalaR. M., and VilhelmsonB.. A Conceptual Analysis of the Impact of Travel Demand Management on Private Car Use.Transport Policy, Vol. 9, 2002, pp. 59–70.
13.
PendyalaR. M., KitamuraR., ChenC., and PasE. I.. An Activity-Based Microsimulation Analysis of Transportation Control Measures.Transport Policy, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1997, pp. 183–192.
14.
KitamuraR., FujiiS., YamamotoT., and KikuchiA.. Application of PCATS/DEBNetS to Regional Planning and Policy Analysis: MicroSimulation Studies for the Cities of Osaka and Kyoto, Japan. In Proc., Seminar F, European Transport Conference, PTRC Education and Research Services Ltd., London, 2000, pp. 199–210.
15.
BeckmanR. J., BaggerlyK. A., and McKayM. D.. Creating Synthetic Baseline Populations.Transportation Research A, Vol. 30, 1996, pp. 415–429.
16.
HägerstrandT.What About People in Regional Science?Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 24, 1970, pp. 7–21.
17.
YamamotoT., KitamuraR., and PendyalaR. M.. Comparative Analysis of Time–Space Prism Vertices for Out-of-Home Activity Engagement on Working and Non-Working Days.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2004, pp. 235–250.
18.
YamamotoT., KitamuraR., and KishizawaK.. Sampling Alternatives From a Colossal Choice Set: An Application of the MCMC Algorithm. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 53–61.
19.
GangradeS., KasturiranganK., and PendyalaR. M.. A Coast-to-Coast Comparison of Time Use and Activity Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 34–42.
20.
GangradeS., PendyalaR. M., and McCulloughR. G.. Nested Logit Model of Commuters’ Activity Schedules.Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 5, No. 2–3, 2002, pp. 19–36.
21.
SchmidtP., and WitteA.. Predicting Criminal Recidivism Using Split Population Survival Time Models.Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 40, 1989, pp. 141–159.
22.
KasturiranganK., PendyalaR. M., and KoppelmanF. S.. Role of History in Modeling Daily Activity Frequency and Duration for Commuters. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1807, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 129–136.
23.
ArentzeT., BorgersA., HofmanF., FujiiS., JohC., KikuchiA., KitamuraR., TimmermansH., and van der WaerdenP.. Rule-Based Versus Utility Maximizing Models of Activity–Travel Patterns: A Comparison of Empirical Performance. In Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge (HensherD., ed.). Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom, 2001, pp. 569–584.
24.
PendyalaR. M., and BhatC. R.. An Exploration of the Relationship Between Timing and Duration of Maintenance Activities.Transportation, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2004, pp. 429–456.
25.
TringidesC., YeX., and PendyalaR. M.. Departure Time Choice and Mode Choice for Nonwork Trips: Alternative Formulations of Joint Model Systems. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1898, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 1–9.
26.
YeX., PendyalaR. M., and GottardiG.. An Exploration of the Relationship Between Mode Choice and Complexity of Trip Chaining Patterns. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
27.
VovshaP., PetersonE., and DonnellyR. M.. Explicit Modeling of Joint Travel by Household Members: Statistical Evidence and Applied Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 1–10.
28.
PendyalaR. M., and MekaS.. Modeling Time and Task Allocation Among Household Members for Simulating Household Activity Travel Patterns. In Traffic and Transportation Studies: Proc., 3rd International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies (WangK. C. P., XiaoG., NieL., and YangH., eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 2002, pp. 738–745.
