Sensitivity analysis of the combined travel demand model with applications

The conventional sequential four-step procedure of travel demand forecasting has been widely adopted by practitioners. However, it suffers from inconsistent consideration of travel times and congestion effects in various steps of the procedure. A combined travel demand model overcomes the problems associated with the sequential four-step procedure by integrating travel-destination-mode-route choice together. In this paper, a standard sensitivity analysis for non-linear programming is employed for conducting the sensitivity analysis of the combined travel demand model. Explicit expressions of the derivatives of model variables with respect to perturbations of input variables and parameters of the combined travel demand model are developed. These derivatives could be used to assess changes in solution variables and various system performance measures when the network characteristics are changed slightly. To gain insight into the usefulness of the sensitivity expressions, five applications, such as identification of critical parameters, paradox analysis, access control, destination choice, and error and uncertainty analysis, are presented with numerical results.

[1]  David Boyce,et al.  Is the sequential travel forecasting paradigm counterproductive , 2002 .

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

[3]  Anthony V. Fiacco,et al.  Nonlinear programming;: Sequential unconstrained minimization techniques , 1968 .

[4]  Hai Yang,et al.  Sensitivity analysis for the elastic-demand network equilibrium problem with applications , 1997 .

[5]  Kenneth Button,et al.  Environmental Externalities and Transport Policy , 1990 .

[6]  Carlos F. Daganzo,et al.  On Stochastic Models of Traffic Assignment , 1977 .

[7]  A. Nagurney.  Congested urban transportation networks and emission paradoxes , 2000 .

[8]  C. Fisk.  More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem , 1979 .

[9]  J. D. Murchland,et al.  Braess's paradox of traffic flow , 1970 .

[10]  Hai Yang,et al.  Models and algorithms for road network design: a review and some new developments , 1998 .

[11]  Ziyou Gao,et al.  An improved origin-based algorithm for solving the combined distribution and assignment problem , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  Thomas L. Magnanti,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Variational Inequalities , 1992, Math. Oper. Res..

[13]  Alain L. Kornhauser,et al.  A quantitative analysis of synchronous vs. quasi-synchronous network operations of automated transit systems , 1975 .

[14]  Suzanne P. Evans,et al.  DERIVATION AND ANALYSIS OF SOME MODELS FOR COMBINING TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT , 1976 .

[15]  S. D. Clark,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of the probit-based stochastic user equilibrium model , 2002 .

[16]  Craig R. Rindt,et al.  The Activity-Based Approach , 2008 .

[17]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[18]  Haijun Huang,et al.  A combined trip distribution and assignment model for multiple user classes , 1992 .

[19]  Eric I. Pas,et al.  Braess' paradox: Some new insights , 1997 .

[20]  Terry L. Friesz,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Equilibrium Network Flow , 1988, Transp. Sci..

[21]  Richard Steinberg,et al.  The Prevalence of Paradoxes in Transportation Equilibrium Problems , 1988, Transp. Sci..

[22]  Zhong Zhou,et al.  Production, Manufacturing and Logistics Alternative Formulations of a Combined Trip Generation, Trip Distribution, Modal Split, and Trip Assignment Model , 2022 .

[23]  Norbert Oppenheim.  Equilibrium trip distribution/assignment with variable destination costs , 1993 .

[24]  E L Glover,et al.  MOBILE 4 EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS AND INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE BENEFITS FOR PASSENGER CARS , 1989 .

[25]  Hai Yang,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of Stochastic User Equilibrium Flows in a Bi-Modal Network with Application to Optimal Pricing , 2005 .

[26]  Dietrich Braess,et al.  Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung , 1968, Unternehmensforschung.

[27]  Arthur E. McGarity,et al.  Design And Operation Of Civil And Environmental Engineering Systems , 1997 .

[28]  Jiang Qian Ying,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Stochastic User Equilibrium Network Flows - A Dual Approach , 2001, Transp. Sci..

[29]  David E. Boyce,et al.  Origin-based algorithms for combined travel forecasting models , 2003 .

[30]  Haijun Huang,et al.  Modified Evans' algorithms for solving the combined trip distribution and assignment problem , 1992 .

[31]  Carlos F. Daganzo,et al.  Another “paradox” of traffic flow , 1978 .

[32]  A. Nagurney,et al.  ON SOME TRAFFIC EQUILIBRIUM THEORY PARADOXES , 1984 .

[33]  William H. K. Lam,et al.  Maximum car ownership under constraints of road capacity and parking space , 2000 .

[34]  Hillel Bar-Gera,et al.  Multiclass Combined Models for Urban Travel Forecasting , 2004 .

[35]  Stephen D. Clark,et al.  Probit-Based Sensitivity Analysis for General Traffic Networks , 2000 .

[36]  Michael G. McNally,et al.  The Four Step Model , 2007 .

[37]  Anna Nagurney,et al.  STABILITY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE GENERAL NETWORK EQUILIBRIUM-TRAVEL CHOICE MODEL , 1984 .

[38]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.