Final Analytical Comparison of Aggregate and Disaggregate Mode Choice Models Transferability
AbstractTransportation models as tools for transportation planning are critical to such related decisions. Considering the high cost of calibrating and validating such models, effective alternatives are highly sought for; one such alternative being the use of models calibrated for other cities. This calls for transferability analysis which has not been the subject of many researches. Due to criticality of aggregate and disaggregate data in transportation models, this paper tries to compare transferability of models calibrated with data of both groups. Mode choice models for daily work trips in two real-sized cities of Qazvin and Shiraz are analyzed. Models are calibrated employing multinomial logit structure with four modes of private car, taxi, bus, and 2-wheelers. In order to increase reliability of results, the top five best models are selected for each city-data category to be transferred. Based on transferability test statistics, transfer index, and goodness-of-fit of transfer models, aggregate models are not transferable and their results are deceptive. Transferability measures of these models are not in acceptable range; whereas transferability of disaggregate models have relative proper response. According to transfer index and goodness-of-fit of origin models operate similar to destination models. However transferability test statistics rejects the assumption of equality coefficients in both cities models. Using personal variables helps to effectively transfer origin models in addition to improve them.
- Galbraith, R. A. & Hensher, D. A. (1982) “Intra-metropolitan transferability of mode choice models”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 16.- Golob, T. F., Canty, E. T. & Gustafon, R. L. (1972) “Classification of metropolitan areas for the study of new system of arterial transportation”, General Motors Research Laboratories.- Karasmaa, N. (2001) “The spatial transferability of the Helsinki metropolitan area mode choice models”, Proceedings of the 9th WCTR, Seoul.- Karasmaa. N. (2003), “The Transferability of travel demand models”, Ph.D. disserttation, Helsinki University of Technology.- Koppelman, F. S. and Wilmot, C. G. (1982) “Transferability analysis of disaggregate choice models”. Transportation Research Record No 895, pp.18–24.- Lawrence, C. & Demetsky, J. (1980) “Transferability of trip generation models”, Transportation Research Record No 751.- National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Transportation Research Board (2012), Report 716.- Ortuzar , J. de. D. & Willumsen L. (2002), “Modelling transport”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex.- Ou, F. L. & Yu, J. C. (1982) “Effect of urban character on transferability of demand models”, Transportation Research Record No 874.- Santoso, D. & Sunokawa, T. K. (2005) “Transferability and updating of mode choice model in developing countries”, Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 28.- Santoso, D. & Sunokawa, T. K. (2009) “Economic perspective of transferability of mode choice models”, Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8.- Sikder, S., Pinjari, A., Srinivasan, S. & Nowrouzian, R. (2011) “Spatial transferability of travel forecasting models”, 4th Innovations in Travel Modeling (ITM) Conference, Tampa, Florida.- Wilmot, C. G. and Stopher, P. R. (2001) “Transferability of transportation planning data”. Transportation Research Record No.1768, pp. 36-43.