A comprehensive continuous-time framework is proposed for representation and analysis of the activity travel choices of nonworkers. An econometric formulation is also presented for one component of the comprehensive framework that focuses on the organization of activities in the nonworker’s daily activity travel pattern. In conclusion, an empirical analysis using activity travel data from the 1990 San Francisco Bay Area travel diary survey is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BhatC. R., and SinghS. K.A Comprehensive Daily Activity Travel Generation Model System for Workers. Transportation Research, Vol. 34A, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1–22.
2.
HamedM. M., and ManneringF. L.Modeling Travelers’ Postwork Activity Involvement: Toward a New Methodology. Transportation Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1993, pp. 381–394.
3.
DammD.Interdependencies in Activity Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 750, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 33–40.
4.
StrathmanJ. G., DuekerK. J., and DavisJ. S.Effects of Household Structure and Selected Travel Characteristics on Trip Chaining. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 23–45.
5.
BiancoM. J., and LawsonC.Trip-Chaining, Childcare and Personal Safety: Critical Issues in Women’s Travel Behavior. In Proc., Second National Conference on Women’s Travel Issues, Baltimore, Md., Oct.1996.
6.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and BowmanJ. L.Activity-Based Disaggregate Travel Demand Model System with Daily Activity Schedules. Presented at EIRASS Conference on Activity-Based Approaches: Activity Scheduling and the Analysis of Activity Patterns, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1995.
7.
KitamuraR., and FujiiS.Two Computational Process Models of Activity Travel Behavior. In Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling (GarlingT., LaitilaT., and WestinK., eds.), Elsevier Science, Oxford, England, 1998.
8.
ClarkeM. I.Activity Modeling: A Research Tool or a Practical Planning Technique? In Behavioral Research for Transport Policy, VNU Science Press, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1986.
9.
ReckerW. W., McNallyM. G., and RootG. S.A Model of Complex Travel Behavior: Part I. Theoretical Development. Transportation Research, Vol. 20A, 1986, pp. 307–318.
10.
ReckerW. W., McNallyM. G. and RootG. S.A Model of Complex Travel Behavior: Part II. An Operational Model. Transportation Research, 20A, 1986, pp. 319–330.
11.
GarlingT., BrannasK., GarvilJ., GolledgeR. G., GopalS., HolmE., and LindbergE.Household Activity Scheduling. In Transport Policy, Management & Technology Towards 2001: Selected Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Transport Research, Western Periodicals, Ventura, Calif., Vol. 4, 1989.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
BhatC. R., and KoppelmanF. S.Activity-Based Modeling of Travel Demand. In The Handbook of Transportation Science (HallR., ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Mass., 1999.
15.
WenC., and KoppelmanF. S.A Conceptual and Methodological Framework for the Generation of Activity Travel Patterns. Transportation, Vol. 27, 2000, pp. 5–23.
16.
GliebeJ. P., and KoppelmanF. S.A Model of Joint-Activity Participation. Presented at the 2000 International Association for Travel Behavior Research (IATBR) Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, July2000.
17.
GolobT. F., and McNallyM. G.A Model of Activity Participation and Travel Interaction Between Household Heads. Transportation Research, Vol. 31B, 1997, pp. 177–194.
18.
McConnellK. A., and BhatC. R.Who Gets to Take the Car Today and Pick Up a Quart of Milk on the Way Home?: A Choice Analysis of Households in the San Francisco Bay Area. Presented at the 2000 Fall INFORMS Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, Nov. 2000.
19.
BhatC. R., and KoppelmanF. S.A Conceptual Framework of Individual Activity Program Generation. Transportation Research, Vol. 27A, No. 6, 1993, pp. 433–446.
20.
MaJ., and GouliasK. G.Application of Poisson Regression Models to Activity Frequency Analysis and Prediction. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 86–94.
21.
KitamuraR., and KermanshahM.Identifying Time and History Dependencies of Activity Choice. In Transportation Research Record 944, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 22–30.
22.
KitamuraR., and KermanshahM.Sequential Model of Interdependent Activity and Destination Choices. In Transportation Research Record 987, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 81–89.
23.
MisraR., and BhatC.Activity-Travel Patterns of Nonworkers in the San Francisco Bay Area: Exploratory Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1718, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 43–51.
24.
MisraR.Toward a Comprehensive Representation and Analysis Framework for Nonworker Activity Travel Pattern Modeling. Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, 1999.
25.
LockwoodP. B., and DemetskyM. J.Nonwork Travel: A Study of Changing Behavior. Presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1994.
26.
HausmanJ., and McFaddenD.Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica, Vol. 52, 1984, pp. 1219–1240.
27.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and LermanS. R.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
