Skip to main content

[]

Intended for healthcare professionals
Skip to main content
Restricted access
Research article
First published online August 22, 2023

Improved Random Walk Method Verified in a Large-Scale Urban Network for the Sampling of Alternatives in Route Choice Modeling

Abstract

The first stage in route choice modeling is the generation of the route choice sets, which directly affects the accuracy of model estimation. The random walk method proposed by Frejinger et al. for this purpose has the advantage of directly calculating the probabilities of paths chosen. However, its application has seldom been seen in a large-scale network of a real large city in the literature. To fill this gap, the performance of the random walk algorithm is examined on a real network in Shanghai, China. It is found that it cannot avoid loops and frequently produces overlong alternative paths. By locating the root cause, an improved random walk algorithm is proposed in this paper. The idea of the new algorithm is to change the value of the shape parameters. Instead of a fixed value in Frejinger et al.’s method, the shape parameter in this approach is dynamically changing, controlled by the allowable probability difference and generalized minimum cost. The algorithm is validated in a large-scale network using real travel survey data. The results of the empirical analysis suggest that the proposed random walk algorithm has a significant improvement with respect to the number and length of generated alternative paths compared to those from the original algorithm. This study's primary contribution is to significantly improve the adaptability of the random walk method in large-scale road networks, which is crucial for improving the accuracy of route choice models and understanding of route choice behaviors.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Horowitz J. L. Modeling the Choice of Choice Set in Discrete-Choice Random-Utility Models. Environment Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 23, 1991, pp. 1237–1246.
2. Hoffman W., Pavley R. A Method for the Solution of the Nth Best Path Problem. Journal of the ACM, Vol. 6, 1959, pp. 506–514.
3. Yen J. Y. Finding the K Shortest Loopless Paths in a Network. Management Science, Vol. 17, 1971, pp. 712–716.
4. Lombard K., Church R. L. The Gateway Shortest Path Problem: Generating Alternative Routes for a Corridor Location Problem. Geographical Systems, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 25–45.
5. Ben-Akiva M., Bergman M., Daly A. J., Ramaswamy R. Modelling Inter Urban Route Choice Behaviour. Papers Presented at Ninth International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Delft, the Netherlands, July 11–13, 1984.
6. Azevedo J., Costa M. E. O. S., Madeira J. J. E. S., Martins E. Q. V. An Algorithm for the Ranking of Shortest Paths. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 69, 1993, pp. 97–106.
7. Prato C. G., Bekhor S. Applying Branch-and-Bound Technique to Route Choice Set Generation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2006. 1985: 19–28.
8. De La Barra T., Perez B., Anez J. Multidimensional Path Search and Assignment. Proc., 21st PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Manchester, Manchester, 1993.
9. Ruphail N., Ranjithan S., ElDessouki W., Smith T., Brill E. A Decision Support System for Dynamic Pre-Trip Route Planning. Applications of Advanced Technologies in Transportation Engineering. Proc., 4th International Conference, Capri, Italy, June 27–30, 1995, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 325–329.
10. Friedrich M., Hofsaess I., Wekeck S. Timetable-Based Transit Assignment Using Branch and Bound Techniques. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001. 1752: 100–107.
11. Sevtsuk A., Basu R., Li X., Kalvo R. A Big Data Approach to Understanding Pedestrian Route Choice Preferences: Evidence from San Francisco. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 25, 2021, pp. 41–51.
12. Frejinger E., Bierlaire M., Ben-Akiva M. Sampling of Alternatives for Route Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 43, 2009, pp. 984–994.
13. Bekhor S., Ben-Akiva M. E., Ramming M. S. Evaluation of Choice Set Generation Algorithms for Route Choice Models. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 144, 2006, pp. 235–247.
14. Ramming M. S. Network Knowledge and Route Choice. Unpublished PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001.
15. Bovy P. H., Fiorenzo-Catalano S. Stochastic Route Choice Set Generation: Behavioral and Probabilistic Foundations. Transportmetrica, Vol. 3, 2007, pp. 173–189.
16. Nielsen O. A. A Stochastic Transit Assignment Model Considering Differences in Passengers Utility Functions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 377–402.
17. Bierlaire M., Frejinger E. Route Choice Models with Subpath Components. Proc., 5th Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, 2005.
18. Frejinger E., Bierlaire M. Capturing Correlation with Subnetworks in Route Choice Models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 363–378.
19. Ton D., Duives D., Cats O., Hoogendoorn S. Evaluating a Data-Driven Approach for Choice Set Identification Using GPS Bicycle Route Choice Data from Amsterdam. Travel Behaviour Society, Vol. 13, 2018, pp. 105–117.
20. Broach J., Gliebe J., Dill J. Calibrated Labeling Method for Generating Bicyclist Route Choice Sets Incorporating Unbiased Attribute Variation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010. 2197: 89–97.
21. Prato C. G., Bekhor S. Modeling Route Choice Behavior: How Relevant is the Composition of Choice Set? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2003: 64–73.
22. Ghanayim M., Bekhor S. Modelling Bicycle Route Choice Using Data from a GPS-Assisted Household Survey. European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2018, pp. 158–177.
23. Rieser-Schüssler N., Balmer M., Axhausen K. W. Route Choice Sets for Very High-Resolution Data. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, Vol. 9, 2013, pp. 825–845.
24. Dhakar N. S., Srinivasan S. Route Choice Modeling Using GPS-Based Travel Surveys. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2014. 2413: 65–73.
25. Flötteröd G., Bierlaire M. Metropolis–Hastings Sampling of Paths. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 48, 2013, pp. 53–66.
26. Kaplan S., Prato C. G. Closing the Gap Between Behavior and Models in Route Choice: The Role of Spatiotemporal Constraints and Latent Traits in Choice Set Formation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology Behaviour, Vol. 15, 2012, pp. 9–24.
27. Yamamoto T., Takamura S., Morikawa T. Structured Random Walk Parameter for Heterogeneity in Trip Distance on Modeling Pedestrian Route Choice Behavior at Downtown Area. Travel Behaviour Society, Vol. 11, 2018, pp. 93–100.
28. Li D., Miwa T., Xu C., Li Z. Non-Linear Fixed and Multi-Level Random Effects of Origin–Destination Specific Attributes on Route Choice Behaviour. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 13, 2019, pp. 654–660.
29. Bovy P. H. On Modelling Route Choice Sets in Transportation Networks: A Synthesis. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, 2009, pp. 43–68.
30. Geweke J., Keane M., Runkle D. Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model. The Review of Economics Statistics, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1994, pp. 609–632.
31. Kumaraswamy P. A Generalized Probability Density Function for Double-Bounded Random Processes. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 46, 1980, pp. 79–88.
32. Small K. A. A Discrete Choice Model for Ordered Alternatives. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Vol. 55, No. 2, 1987, pp. 409–424.
33. Hillel T., Bierlaire M., Elshafie M. Z., Jin Y. A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Classification Methodologies for Modelling Passenger Mode Choice. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 38, 2021, p. 100221.
34. Decrop A. Destination Choice Sets: An Inductive Longitudinal Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, 2010, pp. 93–115.
35. Cascetta E., Nuzzolo A., Russo F., Vitetta A. A Modified Logit Route Choice Model Overcoming Path Overlapping Problems. Specification and Some Calibration Results for Interurban Networks. Proc., Transportation and Traffic Theory. Proceedings of The 13th International Symposium On Transportation And Traffic Theory, Lyon, France, July 24–26, 1996.
36. Fosgerau M., Frejinger E., Karlstrom A. A Link Based Network Route Choice Model with Unrestricted Choice Set. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 56, 2013, pp. 70–80.
37. Tan R., Adnan M., Lee D.-H., Ben-Akiva M. E. New Path Size Formulation in Path Size Logit for Route Choice Modeling in Public Transport Networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2538: 11–18.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
Email Article Link
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: August 22, 2023
Issue published: May 2024

Keywords

  1. large-scale networks
  2. random walk
  3. shape parameter
  4. alternative paths
  5. route choice models

Rights and permissions

© National Academy of Sciences: Transportation Research Board 2023.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Xin Guan
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of the Ministry of Education, College of Transportation Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Xin Ye
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of the Ministry of Education, College of Transportation Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Ke Wang
Center for Supernetworks Research, Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China
Khandker Nurul Habib
Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Notes

Author Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: X. Ye; data collection: X. Guan; analysis and interpretation of results: X. Guan, K. Wang; draft manuscript preparation: X. Guan, K. Nurul Habib. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

View All Journal Metrics

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 111

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Full Text

View Full Text