Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals

Abstract

Trip interchange models and their underlying assumption that relative level of service (LOS) of travel modes is a major determinant of mode choice for the work trip are examined. The investigation is done through a comparative analysis of trip end and trip interchange mode split for work trips in the greater Toronto area (GTA). Two model sets are developed; one includes trip end models and the other includes trip interchange models. The models are developed using a relatively new statistical procedure for nonparametric analysis of data referred to as classification and regression trees. The results show that the explanatory power enjoyed by trip end models is virtually the same as that of trip interchange models. Relative LOS is found to have an insignificant role in explaining heterogeneity in mode split, particularly outside the central business district of the study area. It is recommended that predictions made by trip interchange models of mode shift following changes in LOS attributes be approached with caution. Trip end models, which attribute less significance to relative LOS than trip interchange models and are thus conservative with respect to mode shift, could be considered in planning studies, particularly in areas of low transit use. The interaction between the decisions of residential and employment locations, car ownership, and mode choice is emphasized, and the need for more research to investigate and model such interactions is stressed.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Ben-Akiva M. E. Structure of Passenger Travel Demand Models. In Transportation Research Record 526, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 26–42.
2. Lerman S. R., and Ben-Akiva M. E. Disaggregate Behavioral Model of Automobile Ownership. In Transportation Research Record 569, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 34–55.
3. Lerman S. R. Location, Housing, Car Ownership and Mode to Work: A Joint Choice Model. In Transportation Research Record 610, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 6–11.
4. McFadden D. Qualitative Methods for Analyzing Travel Behavior of Individuals: Some Recent Developments. In Behavioral Travel Modelling (Hensher D. A., and Stopher P. R., eds.), Croom Helm, London, 1979.
5. Ben-Akiva M. E., and Lerman S. R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1984.
6. Ortuzar J. de D., and Willumsen L. G. Modelling Transport. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1990.
7. Kitamura R. A Stratification Analysis of Taste Variations in Work-Trip Mode Choice. Transportation Research, Vol. 15A, No. 6, 1981, pp. 473–485.
8. Nicolaidis G. C., Wachs M., and Golob T. G. Evaluation of Alternative Market Segmentations for Transportation Planning. In Transportation Research Record 649, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 23–31.
9. Wachs M. Forecasts in Urban Transportation Planning: Uses, Methods, and Dilemmas. In Forecasting in the Social and Natural Sciences (Land K. C., and Schneider A. H., eds.), D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1987.
10. Niemeier D. A., and Mannering F. L. Factors Influencing Changes in Mode Choice and Workplace Location: Some Empirical Evidence. Presented at 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1994.
11. Fertal M. J., Weiner E., Balek A. J., and Sevin A. F. Modal Split: Documentation of Nine Methods for Estimating Transit Usage. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1966.
12. Report on Urban Modal Split Models. Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, 1977.
13. Stopher P. R., and Meyburg A. H. Urban Transportation Modeling and Planning. Lexington Books, D.C. Heathand Co., Lexington, Mass., 1975.
14. Meyer M. D., and Miller E. J. Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1984.
15. Breiman L., Friedman J. H., Olshen R. A., and Stone C. J. Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York, 1984.
16. Hensher D. A. Market Segmentation as a Mechanism Allowing for Variability of Traveller Behaviour. Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1976, pp. 257–284.
17. Badoe D. A. An Investigation into the Long Range Transferability of Work-Trip Discrete Mode Choice Models. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto, Canada, 1994.
18. Steinberg D., and Colla P. CART: Tree-Structured Nonparametric Data Analysis, A SYSTAT Companion Product. SYSTAT, Inc., Ill., 1992.
19. Miller E. J., and Cheah L. S. Development of an Operational Peak-Period Work Trip Mode Split Model for Metropolitan Toronto. Volume I: Final Report. Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, University of Toronto Joint Program in Transportation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1991.
20. Miller E. J. Modelling Central Area Work Trip Modal Choice and Parking Demand. City of Toronto Planning and Development Department, University of Toronto Joint Program in Transportation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1992.
21. Morris J. M., Dumble P. L., and Wigan M. R. Accessibility Indicators for Transport Planning. Transportation Research, Vol. 13A, 1979, pp. 91–109.
22. Pirie G. H. Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 11, 1979, pp. 299–312.
23. Jones S. R. Accessibility Measures: A Literature Review. TRRL Laboratory Report 967. Crowthorne, Berkshire, England, 1981.

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: January 1996
Issue published: January 1996

Rights and permissions

© 1996 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Amer S. Shalaby
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 42 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2E4.
Gerald N. Steuart
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 42 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2E4.

Notes

Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Passenger Travel Demand Forecasting.

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: 60

*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: 1

  1. Impact of Transit-Pass Ownership on Daily Number of Trips Made by Urba...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

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