A comparative study on sampling strategies for truck destination choice model: case of Seoul Metropolitan Area

One of the major issues when applying truck destination choice models with a large number of alternatives is how to sample a set of non-chosen traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to construct a destination choice set. Despite the large number of studies applying various sampling strategies, the question remains as to what are optimal strategies in model development. This study examined how the sampling strategies affect the performances of truck destination choice models. Two sampling methods (simple random sampling and stratified importance sampling) and four different sample sizes were tested using the truck trip data of Korea. For stratified importance sampling, Moran's I statistics were used to divide the entire study area into multiple strata, and Neyman allocationwas used to determine the appropriate number of samples for each stratum. The truck trip productionswere distributed by aMonteCarlo simulation, and twomeasurements of effectiveness (MOEs), average trip length (ATL) and trip length distribution (TLD), were used to evaluate and compare the performance of the destination choice models with respect to the sampling strategy. The results showed that the models using stratified importance sampling with smaller sample sizes performed better than others.

[1]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Modelling the Choice of Residential Location , 1977 .

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

[3]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Comprehensive, Unified Framework for Analyzing Spatial Location Choice , 2007 .

[4]  Stephen Greaves,et al.  Guidelines for samplers: measuring a change in behaviour from before and after surveys , 2007 .

[5]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models , 2001 .

[6]  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 .

[7]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Sampling of alternatives in Multivariate Extreme Value (MEV) models , 2013 .

[8]  José Holguín-Veras,et al.  Investigation of Attributes Determining Trip Chaining Behavior in Hybrid Microsimulation Urban Freight Models , 2008 .

[9]  Michael S. Rosenberg,et al.  The bearing correlogram: A new method of analyzing directional spatial autocorrelation , 2010 .

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

[11]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Numerical Analysis of Effect of Sampling of Alternatives in Discrete Choice Models , 2004 .

[12]  Dongjoo Park,et al.  Modeling Courier Vehicles’ Travel Behavior , 2014 .

[13]  Chris Brunsdon,et al.  Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships , 2002 .

[14]  John Douglas Hunt,et al.  Tour-based microsimulation of urban commercial movements , 2007 .

[15]  Fang Zhao,et al.  Geographically Stratified Importance Sampling for the Calibration of Aggregated Destination Choice Models for Trip Distribution , 2005 .

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

[17]  Dongjoo Park,et al.  Genetic Algorithm-Based Approach for Estimating Commodity OD Matrix , 2014, Wirel. Pers. Commun..

[18]  Eric J. Miller,et al.  Effects of Transportation Infrastructure and Location on Residential Real Estate Values: Application of Spatial Autoregressive Techniques , 2000 .

[19]  Paul Waddell,et al.  Residential mobility and location choice: a nested logit model with sampling of alternatives , 2010 .