Although stated preference or conjoint-based models have recently found ample application in the transportation literature, there have been no attempts to use this modeling approach to develop an activity-based model of transport demand. The development of such a model, called COBRA, is discussed. The model examines individuals’ choices on activity engagement, scheduling, and stop pattern formation. The model is calibrated using experimental design data collected to examine the potential effects of several policies recently proposed in the Netherlands. The modeling results indicate that although people prefer activity schedules involving fewer home-based tours, they do not prefer the combination of all individual trips into a single home-based tour. Furthermore, it is found that individuals will change their activity engagement patterns only if government policies induce substantial changes in individuals’ time availability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HamedM. M., and MannerF. L.. Modeling Travelers’ Postwork Activity Involvement: Towards a New Methodology. Transportation Science, Vol. 27, 1993, pp. 381–394.
2.
EttemaD., BorgersA., and TimmermansH.. Competing Risk Hazard Model of Activity Choice, Timing, Sequencing, and Duration. In Transportation Research Record 1493, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 101–109.
3.
BhatC. R.A Generalized Multiple Durations Proportional Hazard Model with an Application to Activity Behavior During the Evening Work-to-Home Commute. Transportation Research B, Vol. 30, 1996, pp. 465–480.
4.
Van der HoornA. I. J. M.An Empirical Model of Travel and Activity Choice: A Case Study for the Netherlands. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1983.
5.
Ben-AkivaM., and BowmanJ.. Activity-Based Disaggregate Travel Demand Model System with Daily Activity Schedules. Presented at Workshop on Activity Analysis, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1995.
6.
WenC.-H., and KoppelmanF. S.. Integrated Model System of Stop Generation and Tour Formation for Analysis of Activity and Travel Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 136–144.
7.
GärlingT., BrannasK., GarvillJ., GolledgeR. G., GopalS., HolmE., and LindbergE.. Household Activity Scheduling. Presented at 5th World Conference on Transportation Research, Yokohama, Japan, 1989.
8.
EttemaD., BorgersA., and TimmermansH.. Simulation Model of Activity Scheduling Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 1–11.
9.
KitamuraR., PasE. I., LulaC. V., LawtonT. K., and BensonP. E.. The Sequenced Activity Mobility Simulator (SAMS): An Integrated Approach to Modeling Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality. Transportation, Vol. 23, 1996, pp. 267–291.
10.
ArentzeT. A., HofmanF., JohC.-H., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Experiences with Developing ALBATROSS: A Learning-Based Transportation Oriented Simulation System. In Verkehr und Mobilität (BeckmannK. J., ed.), Aachen, Germany, 1998, pp. 61–70.
11.
BunchD. S., BradleyM., GolobT. F., KitamuraR., and OcchiuzzoG. P.. Demand for Clean-Fuel Vehicles in California: A Discrete Choice Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research A, Vol. 27, 1993, pp. 237–253.
12.
FowkesT., and WardmanM.. The Design of Stated Preference Travel Choice Experiments. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 27–45.
13.
HensherD. A., BarnardP. O., et al. The Role of Stated Preference Methods in Studies of Travel. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 45–59.
14.
HensherD. A.Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 107–133.
15.
KhattakA. J., KoppelmanF. S., and SchoferJ. L.. Stated Preferences for Investigating Commuters’ Diversion Propensity. Transportation, Vol. 20, 1993, pp. 107–127.
16.
PolakJ., and JonesP.. The Acquisition of Pre-Trip Information: A Stated Preference Approach. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 179–198.
17.
BradleyM. A., and DalyA. J.. Estimation of Logit Choice Models Using Mixed Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Information. Proc., 6th International Conference on Travel Behaviour, Quebec, Canada, 1991, pp. 116–133.
18.
MorikawaT., Ben-AkivaM., and YamadaK.. Forecasting Intercity Rail Ridership Using Revealed Preference and Stated Preference Data. In Transportation Research Record 1328, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 30–35.
19.
OppewalH., and TimmermansH. J. P.. Context Effects and Decompositional Choice Modeling. Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 70, 1991, pp. 113–131.
20.
TimmermansH. J. P., and van der WaerdenP. J. H. J.. Modeling Sequential Choice Processes: The Case of Two-Stop Trip Chaining. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 1483–1490.
21.
Lee-GosselinM. E. H.Scope and Potential of Interactive Stated Response Data Collection Methods. In Conference Proceedings 10: Conference on Household Travel Surveys: New Concepts and Research Needs, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 115–133.
22.
DohertyS. T., and AxhausenK. W.. The Development of a Unified Modeling Framework for the Household Activity-Travel Scheduling Process. In Verkehr und Mobilität (BeckmannK. J., ed.), Aachen, Germany, 1998, pp. 45–59.
23.
DohertyS. T., and MillerE. J.. Tracing the Household Activity Scheduling Process Using a One-Week Computer-Based Survey. Presented at 8th Meeting of the International Association for Travel Behavior Research, Austin, Tex., Sept. 21–25, 1997.
