Comparison Between Gravity and Destination Choice Models for Trip Distribution in Maryland

Gravity models have been widely used in the trip distribution stage of travel demand models over decades. Recent advancements in research suggest that the destination choice model is a preferred trip distribution method rather than the gravity model. In this paper, a comparison of destination choice model and gravity model is presented using a real case study applied within the Maryland Statewide Transportation Model. The gravity model is formulated as a function of travel time and origin-destination’s production-attraction ability and the destination choice model is based upon the utility maximization principle. Household Travel Survey data collected in the Baltimore-Washington region is used to estimate and calibrate the parameters of both models. Considering the wide spectrum of diversity in growth pattern in the Baltimore-Washington survey data, the study area is divided into eight regions to reflect region specific travel behavior. From the result, it is found that a destination choice model better replicates the observed trip length and origin-destination matrix for home based work (HBW) trips. In contrast, the gravity model does not succeed in accurately estimating trip attractions when compared to the survey data. The result shows that a destination choice model performs better than a gravity model in this a statewide model. This research can be used as a tool to assist in choosing a trip distribution method for travel demand modeling.

[1]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Handbook of Transport Modelling , 2000 .

[2]  J. Horowitz,et al.  TRAVEL-TIME CONSTRAINTS ON DESTINATION-CHOICE SETS. , 2010 .

[3]  A. Woodside,et al.  A General Model Of Traveler Destination Choice , 1989 .

[4]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  EMPIRICAL TEST OF A CONSTRAINED CHOICE DISCRETE MODEL : MODE CHOICE IN SAO PAULO, BRAZIL , 1987 .

[5]  Fang Zhao,et al.  Development and Evaluation of Aggregate Destination Choice Models for Trip Distribution in Florida , 2005 .

[6]  Walter Isard,et al.  A simple rationale for gravity model type behavior , 1975 .

[7]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Destination Choice Modeling for Home-Based Recreational Trips: Analysis and Implications for Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Planning , 2001 .

[8]  Jessica Y Guo,et al.  Destination Choice Model Incorporating Choice Set Formation , 2008 .

[9]  M. Vrtic.  Two-dimensionally constrained disaggregate trip generation, distribution and mode choice model , 2007 .

[10]  Xin Ye,et al.  Synthetic Environment to Evaluate Alternative Trip Distribution Models , 2012 .

[11]  Andrea Papola,et al.  Alternative approaches to trip distribution modelling: A retrospective review and suggestions for combining different approaches , 2007 .

[12]  James E. Anderson.  A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation , 1979 .

[13]  Martti Luoma,et al.  The parameters of the gravity model are changing – how and why? , 1999 .

[14]  A. W. Evans.  Some properties of trip distribution methods , 1970 .

[15]  A. Fotheringham,et al.  Modelling Hierarchical Destination Choice , 1986 .

[16]  Francesco Russo,et al.  A modelling system to link end-consumers and distribution logistics , 2004 .

[17]  Hamid Seddighi,et al.  A model of tourism destination choice: a theoretical and empirical analysis. , 2002 .

[18]  S. P. Evans,et al.  A three-dimensional furness procedure for calibrating gravity models , 1974 .

[19]  David E. Boyce,et al.  Enhanced Destination Choice Models Incorporating Agglomeration Related to Trip Chaining While Controlling for Spatial Competition , 2009 .

[20]  David M Levinson,et al.  A Multi-Modal Trip Distribution Model , 2008 .

[21]  A. H. Soliman,et al.  The reliability of using the gravity model for forecasting trip distribution , 1987 .

[22]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  Some Theoretical Aspects of Destination Choice and Their Relevance to Production-Constrained Gravity Models , 1983 .

[23]  K. Haynes,et al.  Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models , 1985 .

[24]  Andrea Papola,et al.  Random utility models with implicit availability/perception of choice alternatives for the simulation of travel demand , 2001 .

[25]  Alan Wilson,et al.  A statistical theory of spatial distribution models , 1967 .

[26]  L. Grange,et al.  A Consolidated Model of Trip Distribution , 2010 .

[27]  Andrea Papola,et al.  A Trip Distribution Model Involving Spatial and Dominance Attributes , 2008, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[28]  Seongkil Cho,et al.  A comparative study of aggregate and disaggregate gravity models using Seoul metropolitan subway trip data , 2009 .

[29]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Disaggregate Attraction-End Choice Modeling: Formulation and Empirical Analysis , 1998 .

[30]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  A New Set of Spatial-Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations † , 1983 .

[31]  Jean-Claude Thill,et al.  Choice set formation for destination choice modelling , 1992 .

[32]  N. F. Stewart,et al.  The Gravity Model in Transportation Analysis - Theory and Extensions , 1990 .