An exploratory analysis about the effect on route choice of heterogeneity in driver familiarity with origin–destination (O-D) pairs was carried out. This analysis was based on probe data collected by private vehicles in Toyota, Japan. The hypothesis test results showed that route choice behavior changed in relation to the level of familiarity with O-D pairs. Two specifications of choice models were proposed to consider the effect of familiarity. The estimation results showed that the models that considered familiarity fit the data better and suggested that trips between more familiar O-D pairs had larger error variances and less sensitivity to explanatory variables. The estimated models were applied to a specific choice situation, and the prediction results showed the potential biases introduced by not considering the heterogeneity in the familiarity with O-D pairs. In addition, when traveling between more familiar O-D pairs, drivers were less sensitive to the intersection count than to the free travel time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PratoC. G.Route Choice Modeling: Past, Present and Future Research Directions. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2009, pp. 65–100.
2.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and LermanS. R.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Vol. 9.Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, 1985.
3.
AvineriE.A Cumulative Prospect Theory Approach to Passengers Behavior Modeling: Waiting Time Paradox Revisited. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2004, pp. 195–204.
4.
BogersE. A. I., VitiF., and HoogendoornS. P.Joint Modeling of Advanced Travel Information Service, Habit, and Learning Impacts on Route Choice by Laboratory Simulator Experiments. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 189–197.
5.
AvineriE., and PrashkerJ. N.Violations of Expected Utility Theory in Route-Choice Stated Preferences: Certainty Effect and Inflation of Small Probabilities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 222–229.
6.
XuH., ZhouJ., and XuW.A Decision-Making Rule for Modeling Travelers' Route Choice Behavior Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2011, pp. 218–228.
7.
GaoS., FrejingerE., and Ben-AkivaM.Adaptive Route Choices in Risky Traffic Networks: A Prospect Theory Approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2010, pp. 727–740.
8.
ChorusC. G.Regret Theory-Based Route Choices and Traffic Equilibria. Transportmetrica, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2012, pp. 291–305.
9.
MadanatS. M., YangC. Y. D., and Ying-MingY.Analysis of Stated Route Diversion Intentions Under Advanced Traveler Information Systems Using Latent Variable Modeling. In Transportation Research Record 1485, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 10–17.
10.
ParkanyE., DuJ., Aultman-HallL., and GallagherR.Modeling Stated and Revealed Route Choice: Consideration of Consistency, Diversion, and Attitudinal Variables. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1985, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 29–39.
11.
PapinskiD., ScottD. M., and DohertyS. T.Exploring the Route Choice Decision-Making Process: A Comparison of Planned and Observed Routes Obtained Using Person-Based GPS. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009, pp. 347–358.
12.
PratoC. G., BekhorS., and PronelloC.Latent Variables and Route Choice Behavior. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2012, pp. 299–319.
13.
HensherD. A.Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems, Vol. 5.Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom, 2004.
14.
GolledgeR. G., and GarlingT.Spatial Behavior in Transportation Modeling and Planning.University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 2001.
15.
AllenG. L.Spatial Abilities, Cognitive Maps, and Wayfinding. In Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes (GolledgeR. G., ed.), John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md., 1999, pp. 46–80.
16.
LotanT.Effects of Familiarity on Route Choice Behavior in the Presence of Information. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 5, No. 3-4, 1997, pp. 225–243.
17.
RammingM. S.Network Knowledge and Route Choice.Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2001.
18.
AdlerJ. L., and McNallyM. G.In-Laboratory Experiments to Investigate Driver Behavior Under Advanced Traveler Information Systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1994, pp. 149–164.
19.
MorikawaT., and MiwaT.Preliminary Analysis on Dynamic Route Choice Behavior: Using Probe–Vehicle Data. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2006, pp. 140–163.
20.
YamamotoT., TakamuraS., and MorikawaT.Analysis of Mode and Walk-Route Choice in a Downtown Area Considering Heterogeneity in Trip Distance. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
21.
BierlaireM., and FrejingerE.Route Choice Modeling with Network-Free Data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2008, pp. 187–198.
22.
BekhorS., Ben-AkivaM. E., and RammingM. S.Evaluation of Choice Set Generation Algorithms for Route Choice Models. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 144, No. 1, 2006, pp. 235–247.
23.
BovyP. H. L.On Modelling Route Choice Sets in Transportation Networks: A Synthesis. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2009, pp. 43–68.
24.
FrejingerE., BierlaireM., and Ben-AkivaM.Sampling of Alternatives for Route Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 43, No. 10, 2009, pp. 984–994.
25.
McFaddenD.Modeling the Choice of Residential Location.Discussion Paper No. 477. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, New Haven, Conn., 1977.
26.
SwaitJ., and LouviereJ.The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1993, pp. 305–314.
27.
BhatC. R.Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Urban Work Travel Mode Choice Modeling. Transportation Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2000, pp. 228–238.
28.
BhatC. R.Accommodating Variations in Responsiveness to Level-of-Service Measures in Travel Mode Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 32, No. 7, 1998, pp. 495–507.
29.
Ben-AkivaM., and BowmanJ. L.Activity Based Travel Demand Model Systems. Equilibrium and Advanced Transportation Modeling, 1998, pp. 27–46.
