travel demand management definition

Integrating Operations into Planning and Programming

Communicating tsmo, analysis and performance measurement, regional collaboration and coordination, organizing for operations, mainstreaming tsmo, transportation systems management and operations (tsmo) plans, congestion management process (cmp).

• Regional Concept for Transportation Operations (RCTO)
• How Does TSMO Relate To...
• Brochures and Infographics
• Case Studies and Examples
• Guidance, Primers, and Desk References
• Guides, Reports, and White Papers
• Webinar Archives

Policy and Regulations

• Business Process Frameworks
• Establishing Operations Goals and Objectives
• Setting Operations Objectives
• TSMO Strategies
• Programming and Funding
• Communicating with Decisionmakers
• Communicating with Other Programs
• Analysis and Simulation Tools
• Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Tool for Operations Benefit Cost Analysis
• Performance Measures and System Monitoring
• Operations Data for Planning

How Does TSMO Relate To ...

Performance-based planning, designing for operations, regional its architecture and its strategic plans, systems engineering and its project development.

• Livability, Sustainability and Smart Cities

Traffic Signal Programs

Corridor management, active transportation and demand management, transportation demand management, traffic incident management.

• Travel Time Reliability

All Resources

Resource type, resources helpful to ....

• Metropolitan Planning Organizations
• State Departments of Transportations
• Transit Agencies
• Transportation Decisionmakers
• Local Transportation Agencies
• FHWA and FTA Field Offices

Livability and Sustainability

Reliability.

Home / Transportation Demand Management

Transportation demand management (TDM), or simply demand management, is defined a set of strategies aimed at maximizing traveler choices. Traditionally, TDM has been narrowly defined as commuter ridesharing and its planning application restricted to air quality mitigation (conformity analysis), development mitigation (reducing trip generation rates and parking needs), or efforts to increase multi-modalism in transportation plans. A more contemporary definition of TDM consists of maximizing travel choices, as stated in the definition provided in an FHWA report on TDM:

Managing demand is about providing travelers, regardless of whether they drive alone, with travel choices, such as work location, route, time of travel and mode. In the broadest sense, demand management is defined as providing travelers with effective choices to improve travel reliability. [1]

While transportation systems management and operations is an umbrella term for a set of strategies that includes transportation demand management, it is helpful to focus on specific needs for integrating TDM into existing activities that are carried out under the transportation planning process by States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local agencies. TDM can be effectively integrated into the planning processes at all levels using an objectives-driven, performance-based approach that includes a process for setting specific, measurable objectives for TDM.

OTHER RESOURCES

• Publications and Reference Materials
• Advancing Mode Options in Managed Lane Projects
• Advancing Transportation Demand Management in Resort Towns and Communities
• TSMO and Demand Management

[1] FHWA, Mitigating Traffic Congestion-The Role of Demand-Side Strategies, prepared by ACT, Report No. FHWA-HOP-05-001, October 2004. [ Return to Note 1 ]

• US DOT Home  | 
• FHWA Home   | 
• FHWA Operations Home  | 
• FHWA Planning Home  | 
• FTA Planning and Environment Home  | 
• Privacy Policy  | 

• BRT Planning Guide
• Integration
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

32 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar, in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city. Lewis Mumford, historian, 1895–1990

Transportation Demand Management seeks to do two things: 1) promote efficient travel modes (those that consume less roadway space per passenger-kilometer) to increase the effective capacity of existing infrastructure; and 2) shift travel by inefficient modes to off-peak periods to reduce congestion.

TDM is a general term for strategies that increase overall system efficiency, most often by encouraging a shift from single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to non-SOV modes or by shifting trips out of peak periods. TDM seeks to reduce auto trips—and hopefully overall vehicle kilometers travelled—by increasing travel options, providing incentives and information to encourage and help individuals modify their travel behavior, and/or reducing the physical need to travel through transportation-efficient land uses.

TDM strategies tend to be far more cost-effective in relieving regional congestion compared to expanding roadway and parking infrastructure. In fact, two of the most effective TDM strategies—roadway pricing and parking fees—have the potential to generate significant public-investment revenue while substantially improving “rush hour” traffic flow. In more and more cities and regions, the cost, political liability, and poor past performance of roadway expansion options have also led to increased emphasis on managing demand rather than expanding supply. Traffic congestion is a concern largely for four reasons:

• Time and Money: congestion takes up valuable time and reduces quality of life for everyone involved. As congestion reaches certain levels, the person capacity of the overall transportation network declines sharply, resulting in reduced productivity. The Asian Development Bank estimates that road congestion costs Asian cities between 2 and 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) annually. This is consistent with worldwide trends in other regions. According to Eltis, which works in the field of sustainable urban mobility in Europe to facilitate the exchange of information, knowledge, and experiences, congestion amounts to US$316.6 billion (2 percent of GDP) as a result of delays, fuel use, and the resulting higher transport costs.
• Growth: congestion acts as a limit on future economic expansion. Fear of worsening congestion is one of the most common reasons new development projects fail to gain support, even when they are designed to shift growth from auto-oriented, outer regions to public-transport-rich, walkable city centers.
• Emissions: cars stuck in congestion produce significantly more local pollution and carbon dioxide per mile than free-flowing traffic.
• Mobility: when a freeway is heavily congested at peak times, it may be moving fewer cars than it does in the middle of the night. To keep people, cars, and buses moving, it is important that the street system be managed to avoid instances of severe congestion.

TDM and BRT

BRT, as well as public transport improvements in general, are considered forms of TDM, since they expand access to, and increase the performance of, alternatives to SOV travel. When such capital-intensive TDM investments are made, complementary TDM strategies can play a critical role in maximizing their congestion-relief benefits. These can include moderate-cost strategies such as public transport pass programs, no-cost strategies such as reduced parking requirements, or revenue-positive strategies such as roadway pricing.

From Bogotá to Paris, enhancements to public transport have been most successful when coupled with other TDM elements. Development banks, for this reason, increasingly favor BRT projects that are packaged with a series of TDM strategies designed to shift more travel away from SOVs and onto public transport. The following provides an overview of TDM strategies that can be particularly effective, not only in improving the efficiency of regional transportation systems, but also in enhancing the benefits of BRT and similar public transport investments.

Contributors: Michael Kodransky, ITDP Global

The Practice of Transportation Demand Management

• Transportation demand management
• Further reading

What is transportation demand management, actually?

July 27, 2018

We get it: transportation demand management (TDM) is hard to wrap your head around.

So plain and simple, TDM is using the existing infrastructure in more efficient ways. Like reducing single occupancy vehicle trips and getting people on transit, bikes, or in carpools.

But how does TDM actually do that, you might ask. What are some tangible TDM policies?

We got you covered. These are the top strategies used by TDM and transportation management associations (TMAs) to help people access more transportation options.

(Need help understanding how people make their transportation decisions? Check out our infographics. )

Shifting priority away from driving alone

• High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
• Dedicated bus lanes
• Protected bike lanes
• Dynamic pricing for on-street parking
• Lowering off-street parking minimums for new developments
• Congestion pricing
• Monetary incentives to switch modes
• Bikesharing

Collaborating with employers

• Employee transit benefits and subsidies
• Employer-organized and hosted vanpools and carpools
• Priority parking for carpools
• Employer assisted housing
• Showers, changing rooms, and secure bike parking to help employees bike to work
• Eliminating or reducing free parking
• Flexible work schedules

Improving public transportation

• Simplified fare structure and payment
• Unlimited transit passes
• Accurate real-time arrival information
• Attractive marketing
• Standardized wayfinding

Educating people about their transportation options

• Marketing the benefits of ditching cars
• Bicycling safety classes
• Multimodal awareness events

For more in-depth strategies, check out Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s TDM Encyclopedia . 

Subscribe to Receive Updates on the Latest Mobility Research and Trends

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9 Introduction to Transportation Modeling: Travel Demand Modeling and Data Collection

Chapter overview.

Chapter 9 serves as an introduction to travel demand modeling, a crucial aspect of transportation planning and policy analysis. As explained in previous chapters, the spatial distribution of activities such as employment centers, residential areas, and transportation systems mutually influence each other. The utilization of travel demand forecasting techniques leads to dynamic processes in urban areas. A comprehensive grasp of travel demand modeling is imperative for individuals involved in transportation planning and implementation.

This chapter covers the fundamentals of the traditional four-step travel demand modeling approach. It delves into the necessary procedures for applying the model, including establishing goals and criteria, defining scenarios, developing alternatives, collecting data, and conducting forecasting and evaluation.

Following this chapter, each of the four steps will be discussed in detail in Chapters 10 through 13.

Learning Objectives

• Describe the need for travel demand modeling in urban transportation and relate it to the structure of the four-step model (FSM).
• Summarize each step of FSM and the prerequisites for each in terms of data requirement and model calibration.
• Summarize the available methods for each of the first three steps of FSM and compare their reliability.
• Identify assumptions and limitations of each of the four steps and ways to improve the model.

Introduction

Transportation planning and policy analysis heavily rely on travel demand modeling to assess different policy scenarios and inform decision-making processes. Throughout our discussion, we have primarily explored the connection between urban activities, represented as land uses, and travel demands, represented by improvements and interventions in transportation infrastructure. Figure 9.1 provides a humorous yet insightful depiction of the transportation modeling process. In preceding chapters, we have delved into the relationship between land use and transportation systems, with the houses and factories in the figure symbolizing two crucial inputs into the transportation model: households and jobs. The output of this model comprises transportation plans, encompassing infrastructure enhancements and programs. Chapter 9 delves into a specific model—travel demand modeling. For further insights into transportation planning and programming, readers are encouraged to consult the UTA OERtransport book, “Transportation Planning, Policies, and History.”

Travel demand models forecast how people will travel by processing thousands of individual travel decisions. These decisions are influenced by various factors, including living arrangements, the characteristics of the individual making the trip, available destination options, and choices regarding route and mode of transportation. Mathematical relationships are used to represent human behavior in these decisions based on existing data.

Through a sequential process, transportation modeling provides forecasts to address questions such as:

• What will the future of the area look like?
• What is the estimated population for the forecasting year?
• How are job opportunities distributed by type and category?
• What are the anticipated travel patterns in the future?
• How many trips will people make? ( Trip Generation )
• Where will these trips end? ( Trip Distribution )
• Which transportation mode will be utilized? ( Mode Split )
• What will be the demand for different corridors, highways, and streets? ( Traffic Assignment )
• Lastly, what impact will this modeled travel demand have on our area? (Rahman, 2008).

9.2 Four-step Model

According to the questions above, Transportation modeling consists of two main stages, regarding the questions outlined above. Firstly, addressing the initial four questions involves demographic and land use analysis, which incorporates the community vision collected through citizen engagement and input. Secondly, the process moves on to the four-step travel demand modeling (FSM), which addresses questions 5 through 8. While FSM is generally accurate for aggregate calculations, it may occasionally falter in providing a reliable test for policy scenarios. The limitations of this model will be explored further in this chapter.

In the first stage, we develop an understanding of the study area from demographic information and urban form (land-use distribution pattern). These are important for all the reasons we discussed in this book. For instance, we must obtain the current age structure of the study area, based on which we can forecast future birth rates, death, and migrations  (Beimborn & Kennedy, 1996).

Regarding economic forecasts, we must identify existing and future employment centers since they are the basis of work travel, shopping travel, or other travel purposes. Empirically speaking, employment often grows as the population grows, and the migration rate also depends on a region’s economic growth. A region should be able to generate new employment while sustaining the existing ones based upon past trends and form the basis for judgment for future trends (Mladenovic & Trifunovic, 2014).

After forecasting future population and employment, we must predict where people go (work, shop, school, or other locations). Land-use maps and plans are used in this stage to identify the activity concentrations in the study area. Future urban growth and land use can follow the same trend or change due to several factors, such as the availability of open land for development and local plans and  zoning ordinances (Beimborn & Kennedy, 1996). Figure 9.3 shows different possible land-use patterns frequently seen in American cities.

Land-use pattern can also be forecasted through the integration of land use and transportation as we explored in previous chapters.

Figure 9.3 above shows a simple structure of the second stage of FSM.

Once the number and types of trips are predicted, they are assigned to various destinations and modes. In the final step, these trips are allocated to the transportation network to compute the total demand for each road segment. During this second stage, additional choices such as the time of travel and whether to travel at all can be modeled using choice models (McNally, 2007). Travel forecasting involves simulating human behavior through mathematical series and calculations, capturing the sequence of decisions individuals make within an urban environment.

The first attempt at this type of analysis in the U.S. occurred during the post-war development period, driven by rapid economic growth. The influential study by Mitchell and Rapkin (1954) emphasized the need to establish a connection between travel and activities, highlighting the necessity for a comprehensive framework. Initial development models for trip generation, distribution, and diversion emerged in the 1950s, leading to the application of the four-step travel demand modeling (FSM) approach in a transportation study in the Chicago area. This model was primarily highway-oriented, aiming to compare new facility development and improved traffic engineering. In the 1960s, federal legislation mandated comprehensive and continuous transportation planning, formalizing the use of FSM. During the 1970s, scholars recognized the need to revise the model to address emerging concerns such as environmental issues and the rise of multimodal transportation systems. Consequently, enhancements were made, leading to the development of disaggregate travel demand forecasting and equilibrium assignment methods that complemented FSM. Today, FSM has been instrumental in forecasting travel demand for over 50 years (McNally, 2007; Weiner, 1997).

Initially outlined by Mannheim (1979), the basic structure of FSM was later expanded by Florian, Gaudry, and Lardinois (1988). Figure 9.3 illustrates various influential components of travel demand modeling. In this representation, “T” represents transportation, encompassing all elements related to the transportation system and its services. “A” denotes the activity system, defined according to land-use patterns and socio-demographic conditions. “P” refers to transportation network performance. “D,” which stands for demand, is generated based on the land-use pattern. According to Florian, Gaudry, and Lardinois (1988), “L” and “S” (location and supply procedures) are optional parts of FSM and are rarely integrated into the model.

A crucial aspect of the process involves understanding the input units, which are defined both spatially and temporally. Demand generates person trips, which encompass both time and space (e.g., person trips per household or peak-hour person trips per zone). Performance typically yields a level of service, defined as a link volume capacity ratio (e.g., freeway vehicle trips per hour or boardings per hour for a specific transit route segment). Demand is primarily defined at the zonal level, whereas performance is evaluated at the link level.

It is essential to recognize that travel forecasting models like FSM are continuous processes. Model generation takes time, and changes may occur in the study area during the analysis period.

Before proceeding with the four steps of FSM, defining the study area is crucial. Like most models discussed, FSM uses traffic analysis zones (TAZs) as the geographic unit of analysis. However, a higher number of TAZs generally yield more accurate results. The number of TAZs in the model can vary based on its purpose, data availability, and vintage. These zones are characterized or categorized by factors such as population and employment. For modeling simplicity, FSM assumes that trip-making begins at the center of a zone (zone centroid) and excludes very short trips that start and end within a TAZ, such as those made by bike or on foot.

Furthermore, highway systems and transit systems are considered as networks in the model. Highway or transit line segments are coded as links, while intersections are represented as nodes. Data regarding network conditions, including travel times, speeds, capacity, and directions, are utilized in the travel simulation process. Trips originate from trip generation zones, traverse a network of links and nodes, and conclude at trip attraction zones.

Trip Generation

Trip generation is the first step in the FSM model. This step defines the magnitude of daily travel in the study area for different trip purposes. It will also provide us with an estimate of the total trips to and from each zone, creating a trip production and attraction matrix for each trip’s purpose. Trip purposes are typically categorized as follows:

• Home-based work trips (work trips that begin or end at home),
• Home-based shopping trips,
• Home-based other trips,
• School trips,
• Non-home-based trips (trips that neitherbeginnorendathome),
• Trucktrips,and
• Taxitrips(Ahmed,2012).

Trip attractions are based on the level of employment in a zone. In the trip generation step, the assumptions and limitations are listed below:

• Independent decisions: Travel behavior is affected by many factors generated within a household; the model ignores most of these factors. For example, childcare may force people to change their travel plans.
• Limited trip purposes: This model consists of a limited number of trip purposes for simplicity, giving rise to some model limitations. Take shopping trips, for example; they are all considered in the same weather conditions. Similarly, we generate home-based trips for various purposes (banking, visiting friends, medical reasons, or other purposes), all of which are affected by factors ignored by the model.
• Trip combinations: Travelers are often willing to combine various trips into a chain of short trips. While this behavior creates a complex process, the FSM model treats this complexity in a limited way.
• Feedback, cause, and effect problems: Trip generation often uses factors that are a function of the number of trips. For instance, for shopping trip attractions in the FSM model, we assume they are a retail employment function. However, it is logical to assume how many customers these retail centers attract. Alternatively, we can assume that the number of trips a household makes is affected by the number of private cars they own. Nevertheless, the activity levels of families determine the total number of cars.

As mentioned, trip generation process estimations are done separately for each trip purpose. Equations 1 and 2 show the function of trip generation and attraction:

where Oi and Dj trip are generated and attracted respectively, x refers to socio-economic characteristics, and y refers to land-use properties.

Generally, FSM aggregates different trip purposes previously listed into three categories: home-based work trips (HBW) , home-based other (or non-work) trips (HBO) , and non-home-based trips (NHB) . Trip ends are either the origin (generation) or destination (attraction), and home-end trips comprise most trips in a study area. We can also model trips at different levels, such as zones, households, or person levels (activity-based models). Household-level models are the most common scale for trip productions, and zonal-level models are appropriate for trip attractions (McNally, 2007).

There are three main methods for a trip generation or attraction.

• The first method is multiple regression based on population, jobs, and income variables.
• The second method in this step is experience-based analysis, which can show us the ratio of trips generated frequently.
• The third method is cross-classification . Cross-classification is like the experience-based analysis in that it uses trip rates but in an extended format for different categories of trips (home-based trips or non-home-based trips) and different attributes of households, such as car ownership or income.

Elaborating on the differences between these methods, category analysis models are more common for the trip generation model, while regression models demonstrate better performance for trip attractions (Meyer, 2016). Production models are recognized to be influenced by a range of explanatory and policy-sensitive variables (e.g., car ownership, household income, household size, and the number of workers). However, estimation is more problematic for attraction models because regional travel surveys are at the household level (thus providing more accurate data for production models) and not for nonresidential land uses (which is important for trip attraction). Additionally, estimation can be problematic because explanatory trip attraction variables may usually underperform (McNally, 2007). For these reasons, survey data factoring is required prior to relating sample trips to population-level attraction variables, typically achieved via regression analysis. Table 9.1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of each of these two models.

Trip Distribution

Thus far, the number of trips beginning or ending in a particular zone have been calculated. The second step explores how trips are distributed between zones and how many trips are exchanged between two zones. Imagine a shopping trip. There are multiple options for accessible shopping malls accessible. However, in the end, only one will be selected for the destination. This information is modeled in the second step as a distribution of trips. The second step results are usually a very large Origin-Destination (O-D) matrix for each trip purpose. The O-D matrix can look like the table below (9.2), in which sum of Tij by j shows us the total number of trips attracted in zone J and the sum of Tij by I yield the total number of trips produced in zone I.

Up to this point, we have calculated the number of trips originating from or terminating in a specific zone. The next step involves examining how these trips are distributed across different zones and how many trips are exchanged between pairs of zones. To illustrate, consider a shopping trip: there are various options for reaching shopping malls, but ultimately, only one option is chosen as the destination. This process is modeled in the second step as the distribution of trips. The outcome of this step typically yields a large Origin-Destination (O-D) matrix for each trip purpose. An O-D matrix might resemble the table below (9.2), where the sum of Tij by j indicates the total number of trips attracted to zone J, and the sum of Tij by I represents the total number of trips originating from zone I.

T ij = trips produced at I and attracted at j

P i = total trip production at I

A j = total trip attraction at j

F ij = a calibration term for interchange ij , (friction factor) or travel

time factor ( F ij =C/t ij n )

C= calibration factor for the friction factor

K ij = a socioeconomic adjustment factor for interchange ij

i = origin zone

n = number of zones

Different methods (units) in the gravity model can be used to perform distance measurements. For instance, distance can be represented by time, network distance, or travel costs. For travel costs, auto travel cost is the most common and straightforward way of monetizing distance. A combination of different costs, such as travel time, toll payments, parking payments, etc., can also be used. Alternatively, a composite cost of both car and transit costs can be used (McNally, 2007).

Generalized travel costs can be a function of time divided into different segments. For instance, public transit time can be divided into the following segments: in-vehicle time, walking time, waiting time, interchange time, fare, etc. Since travelers perceive time value differently for each segment (like in-vehicle time vs. waiting time), weights are assigned based on the perceived value of time (VOT). Similarly, car travel costs can be categorized into in-vehicle travel time or distance, parking charge, tolls, etc.

As with the first step in the FSM model, the second step has assumptions and limitations that are briefly explained below.

• Constant trip times: In order to utilize the model for prediction, it assumes that the duration of trips remains constant. This means that travel distances are measured by travel time, and the assumption is that enhancements in the transportation system, which reduce travel times, are counterbalanced by the separation of origins and destinations.
• Automobile travel times to represent distance: We utilize travel time as a proxy for travel distance. In the gravity model, this primarily relies on private car travel time and excludes travel times via other modes like public transit. This leads to a broader distribution of trips.
• Limited consideration of socio-economic and cultural factors: Another drawback of the gravity model is its neglect of certain socio-economic or cultural factors. Essentially, this model relies on trip production and attraction rates along with travel times between them for predictions. Consequently, it may overestimate trip rates between high-income groups and nearby low-income Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). Therefore, incorporating more socio-economic factors into the model would enhance accuracy.
• Feedback issues: The gravity model’s reliance on travel times is heavily influenced by congestion levels on roads. However, measuring congestion proves challenging, as discussed in subsequent sections. Typically, travel times are initially assumed and later verified. If the assumed values deviate from actual values, they require adjustment, and the calculations need to be rerun.

Mode choice

FSM model’s third step is a mode-choice estimation that helps identify what types of transportation travelers use for different trip purposes to offer information about users’ travel behavior. This usually results in generating the share of each transportation mode (in percentages) from the total number of trips in a study area using the utility function (Ahmed, 2012). Performing mode-choice estimations is crucial as it determines the relative attractiveness and usage of various transportation modes, such as public transit, carpooling, or private cars. Modal split analysis helps evaluate improvement programs or proposals (e.g., congestion pricing or parking charges) aimed at enhancing accessibility or service levels. It is essential to identify the factors contributing to the utility and disutility of different modes for different travel demands (Beimborn & Kennedy, 1996). Comparing the disutility of different modes between two points aids in determining mode share. Disutility typically refers to the burdens of making a trip, such as time, costs (fuel, parking, tolls, etc.). Once disutility is modeled for different trip purposes between two points, trips can be assigned to various modes based on their utility. As discussed in Chapter 12, a mode’s advantage in terms of utility over another can result in a higher share of trips using that mode.

The assumptions and limitations for this step are outlined as follows:

• Choices are only affected by travel time and cost: This model assumes that changes in mode choices occur solely if transportation cost or travel time in the transportation network or transit system is altered. For instance, a more convenient transit mode with the same travel time and cost does not affect the model’s results.
• Omitted factors: Certain factors like crime, safety, and security, which are not included in the model, are assumed to have no effect, despite being considered in the calibration process. However, modes with different attributes regarding these omitted factors yield no difference in the results.
• Simplified access times: The model typically overlooks factors related to the quality of access, such as neighborhood safety, walkability, and weather conditions. Consequently, considerations like walkability and the impact of a bike-sharing program on the attractiveness of different modes are not factored into the model.
• Constant weights: The model assumes that the significance of travel time and cost remains constant for all trip purposes. However, given the diverse nature of trip purposes, travelers may prioritize travel time and cost differently depending on the purpose of their trip.

The most common framework for mode choice models is the nested logit model, which can accommodate various explanatory variables. However, before the final step, results need to be aggregated for each zone (Koppelman & Bhat, 2006).

A generalized modal split chart is depicted in Figure 9.5.

In our analysis, we can use binary logit models (dummy variable for dependent variable) if we have two modes of transportation (like private cars and public transit only). A binary logit model in the FSM model shows us if changes in travel costs would occur, such as what portion of trips changes by a specific mode of transport. The mathematical form of this model is:

where: P_ij  1= The proportion of trips between i and j by mode 1 . Tij  1= Trips between i and j by mode 1.

Cij 1= Generalized cost of travel between i and j by mode 1 .

Cij^2= Generalized cost of travel between i and j by mode 2 .

b= Dispersion Parameter measuring sensitivity to cost.

It is also possible to have a hierarchy of transportation modes for using a binary logit model. For instance, we can first conduct the analysis for the private car and public transit and then use the result of public transit to conduct a binary analysis between rail and bus.

Trip assignment

After breaking down trip counts by mode of transportation, we analyze the routes commuters take from their starting point to their destination, especially for private car trips. This process is known as trip assignment and is the most intricate stage within the FSM model. Initially, the minimum path assigns trips for each origin-destination pair based on either travel costs or time. Subsequently, the assigned volume of trips is compared to the capacity of the route to determine if congestion would occur. If congestion does happen (meaning that traffic volume exceeds capacity), the speed of the route needs to be decreased, resulting in increased travel costs or time. When the Volume/Capacity ratio (v/c ratio) changes due to congestion, it can lead to alterations in both speed and the shortest path. This characteristic of the model necessitates an iterative process until equilibrium is achieved.

The process for public transit is similar, but with one distinction: instead of adjusting travel times, headways are adjusted. Headway refers to the time between successive arrivals of a vehicle at a stop. The duration of headways directly impacts the capacity and volume for each transit vehicle. Understanding the concept of equilibrium in the trip assignment step is crucial because it guides the iterative process of the model. The conclusion of this process is marked by equilibrium, a concept known as Wardrop equilibrium. In Wardrop equilibrium, traffic naturally organizes itself in congested networks so that individual commuters do not switch routes to reduce travel time or costs. Additionally, another crucial factor in this step is the time of day.

Like previous steps, the following assumptions and limitations are pertinent to the trip assignment step:

1.    Delays on links: Most traffic assignment models assume that delays occur on the links, not the intersections. For highways with extensive intersections, this can be problematic because intersections involve highly complex movements. Intersections are excessively simplified if the assignment process does not modify control systems to reach an equilibrium.

2.    Points and links are only for trips: This model assumes that all trips begin and finish at a single point in a zone (centroids), and commuters only use the links considered in the model network. However, these points and links can vary in the real world, and other arterials or streets might be used for commutes.

3.    Roadway capacities: In this model, a simple assumption helps determine roadways’ capacity. Capacity is found based on the number of lanes a roadway provides and the type of road (highway or arterial).

4.    Time of the day variations: Traffic volume varies greatly throughout the day and week. In this model, a typical workday of the week is considered and converted to peak hour conditions. A factor used for this step is called the hour adjustment factor. This value is critical because a small number can result in a massive difference in the congestion level forecasted on the model.

5.    Emphasis on peak hour travel: The model forecasts for the peak hour but does not forecast for the rest of the day. The models make forecasts for a typical weekday but neglect specific conditions of that time of the year. After completing the fourth step, precise approximations of travel demand or traffic count on each road are achieved. Further models can be used to simulate transportation’s negative or positive externalities. These externalities include air pollution, updated travel times, delays, congestion, car accidents, toll revenues, etc. These need independent models such as emission rate models (Beimborn & Kennedy, 1996).

The basic equilibrium condition point calculation is an algorithm that involves the computation of minimum paths using an all-or-nothing (AON) assignment model to these paths. However, to reach equilibrium, multiple iterations are needed. In AON, it is assumed that the network is empty, and a free flow is possible. The first iteration of the AON assignment requires loading the traffic by finding the shortest path. Due to congestion and delayed travel times, the

previous shortest paths may no longer be the best minimum path for a pair of O-D. If we observe a notable decrease in travel time or cost in subsequent iterations, then it means the equilibrium point has not been reached, and we must continue the estimation. Typically, the following factors affect private car travel times: distance, free flow speed on links, link capacity, link speed capacity, and speed flow relationship .

The relationship between the traffic flow and travel time equation used in the fourth step is:

t= link travel time per length unit

t 0 =free-flow travel time

v=link flow

c=link capacity

a, b, and n are model (calibrated) parameters

Model improvement

Improvements to FSM continue to generate more accurate results. Since transportation dynamics in urban and regional areas are under the complex influence of various factors, the existing models may not be able to incorporate all of them. These can be employer-based trip reduction programs, walking and biking improvement schemes, a shift in departure (time of the day), or more detailed information on socio-demographic and land-use-related factors. However, incorporating some of these variables is difficult and can require minor or even significant modifications to the model and/or computational capacities or software improvements. The following section identifies some areas believed to improve the FSM model performance and accuracy.

•      Better data: An effective way of improving the model accuracy is to gather a complete dataset that represents the general characteristics of the population and travel pattern. If the data is out- of-date or incomplete, we will get poor results.

•      Better modal split: As you saw in previous sections, the only modes incorporated into the model are private car and public transit trips, while in some cities, a considerable fraction of trips are made by bicycle or by walking. We can improve our models by producing methods to consider these trips in the first and third steps.

•      Auto occupancy: In contemporary transportation planning practices, especially in the US, some new policies are emerging for carpooling. We can calculate auto occupancy rates using different mode types, such as carpooling, sensitive to private car trips’ disutility, parking costs, or introducing a new HOV lane.

•      Time of the day: In this chapter, the FSM framework discussed is oriented toward peak hour (single time of the day) travel patterns. Nonetheless, understanding the nature of congestion in other hours of the day is also helpful for understanding how travelers choose their travel time.

•      A broader trip purpose: Additional trip purposes may provide a better understanding of the

factors affecting different trip purposes and trip-chaining behaviors. We can improve accuracy by having more trip purposes (more disaggregate input and output for the model).

• The concept of access: As discussed, land-use policies that encourage public transit use or create amenities for more convenient walking are not present in the model. Developing factors or indices that reflect such improvements in areas with high demand for non-private vehicles and incorporating them in choice models can be a good improvement.
• Land use feedback: To better understand interactions between land use and travel demand, a land-use simulation model can be added to these steps to determine how a proposed transportation change will lead to a change in land use.
• Intersection delays: As mentioned in the fourth step, intersections in major highways create significant delays. Incorporating models that calculate delays at these intersections, such as stop signs, could be another improvement to the model.

A Simple Example of the FSM model

An example of FSM is provided in this section to illustrate a typical application of this model in the U.S. In the first phase, the specifications about the transportation network and household data are needed. In this hypothetical example, 5 percent of households in each TAZ were sampled and surveyed, which generated 1,955 trips in 200 households. As a hypothetical case study, this sample falls below the standard required for statistical significance but is relevant to demonstrate FSM.

A home interview survey was carried out to gather data from a five percent sample of households in each TAZ. This survey resulted in 1,852 trips from 200 households. It is important to note that the sample size in this example falls below the minimum required for statistical significance, as it is intended for learning purposes only.

Table 9.3 provides network information such as speed limits, number of lanes, and capacity. Table 9.4 displays the total number of households and jobs in three industry sectors for each zone. Additionally, Table 9.5 breaks down the household data into three car ownership groups, which is one of the most significant factors influencing trip making.

In the first step (trip generation), a category model (i.e., cross-classification) helped estimate trips. The sampled population’s sociodemographic and trip data for different purposes helped calculate this estimate. Since research has shown the significant effect of auto ownership on private car trip- making (Ben-Akiva & Lerman, 1974), disaggregating the population based on the number of private cars generates accurate results. Table 9.7 shows the trip-making rate for different income and auto ownership groups.

Also, as mentioned in previous sections, multiple regression estimation analysis can be used to generate the results for the attraction model. Table 9.7 shows the equations for each of the trip purposes.

After estimating production and attraction, the models are used for population data to generate results for the first step. Next, comparing the results of trip production and attraction, we can observe that the total number of trips for each purpose is different. This can be due to using different methods for production and attraction. Since the production method is more reliable, attraction is typically normalized by  production. Also, some external zones in our study area are either attracting trips from our zones or generating them. In this case, another alternative is to extend the boundary of the study area and include more zones.

As mentioned, the total number of trips produced and attracted are different in these results. To address this mismatch, we can use a balance factor to come up with the same trip generation and attraction numbers if we want to keep the number of zones within our study area. Alternatively, we can consider some external stations in addition to designated zones. In this example, using the latter seems more rational because, as we saw in Table 9.4, there are more jobs than the number of households aggregately, and our zone may attract trips from external locations.

For the trip distribution step, we use the gravity model. For internal trips, the gravity model is:

and f(tij) is some function of network level of service (LOS)

To apply the gravity model, we need to calculate the impedance function first, which is represented here by travel cost. Table 9.9 shows the minimum travel path between each pair of zones ( skim tree ) in a matrix format in which each cell represents travel time required to travel between the corresponding row and column of that cell.

Table 9.9-Travel cost table (skim tree)

Note. Table adapted from “The Four-Step Model” by M. McNally, In D. A. Hensher, & K. J. Button (Eds.), Handbook of transport modelling , Volume1, p. 5, Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Copyright 2007 by Emerald Publishing.

With having minimum travel costs between each pair of zones, we can calculate the impedance function for each trip purpose using the formula

Table 9.10 shows the model parameters for calculating the impedance function for different trip purposes:

After calculating the impedance function , we can calculate the result of the trip distribution. This stage generates trip matrices since we calculate trips between each zone pair. These matrices are usually in “Origin-Destination” (OD) format and can be disaggregated by the time of day. Field surveys help us develop a base-year trip distribution for different periods and trip purposes. Later, these empirical results will help forecast trip distribution. When processing the surveys, the proportion of trips from the production zone to the attraction zone (P-A) is also generated. This example can be seen in Table 9.11.  Looking at a specific example, the first row in table is for the 2-hour morning peak commute time period. The table documents that the production to attraction factor for the home-based work trip is 0.3.  Unsurprisingly, the opposite direction, attraction to production zone is 0.0 for this time of day. Additionally, the table shows that the factor for HBO and NHB trips are low but do occur during this time period. This could represent shopping trips or trips to school. Table 9.11 table also contains the information for average occupancy levels of vehicles from surveys. This information can be used to convert person trips to vehicle trips or vice versa.

Table 9.11 Trip distribution rates for different time of the day and trip purposes

The O-D trip table is calculated by adding the  multiplication of the P-to-A factor by corresponding cell of the P-A trip table and adding the corresponding cell of the transposed P-A trip table multiplied by the A-to-P factor. These results, which are the final output of second step, are shown in Table 9.12.

Once the Production-Attraction (P-A) table is transformed into Origin-Destination (O-D) format and the complete O-D matrix is computed, the outcomes will be aggregated for mode choice and traffic assignment modeling. Further elaboration on these two steps will be provided in Chapters 11 and 12.

In this chapter, we provided a comprehensive yet concise overview of four-step travel demand modeling including the process, the interrelationships and input data, modeling part and extraction of outputs. The complex nature of cities and regions in terms of travel behavior, the connection to the built environment and constantly growing nature of urban landscape, necessitate building models that are able to forecast travel patterns for better anticipate and prepare for future conditions from multiple perspectives such as environmental preservation, equitable distribution of benefits, safety, or efficiency planning. As we explored in this book, nearly all the land-use/transportation models embed a transportation demand module or sub model for translating magnitude of activities and interconnections into travel demand such as VMT, ridership, congestion, toll usage, etc. Four-step models can be categorized as gravity-based, equilibrium-based models from the traditional approaches. To improve these models, several new extensions has been developed such as simultaneous mode and destination choice, multimodality (more options for mode choice with utility), or microsimulation models that improve granularity of models by representing individuals or agents rather than zones or neighborhoods.

Travel demand modeling are models that predicts the flow of traffic or travel demand between zones in a city using a sequence of steps.

• Intermodality refers to the concept of utilizing two or more travel modes for a trip such as biking to a transit station and riding the light rail.
• Multimodality is a type of transportation network in which a variety of modes such as public transit, rail, biking networks, etc. are offered.

Zoning ordinances is legal categorization of land use policies that permits or prohibits certain built environment factors such as density.

Volume capacity ratio is ratio that divides the demand on a link by the capacity to determine the level of service.

• Zone centroid is usually the geometric center of a zone in modeling process where all trips originate and end.

Home-based work trips (HBW) are the trips that originates from home location to work location usually in the AM peak.

•  Home-based other (or non-work) trips (HBO) are the trips that originates from home to destinations other than work like shopping or leisure.

Non-home-based trips (NHB) are the trips that neither origin nor the destination are home or they are part of a linked trip.

Cross-classification is a method for trip production estimation that disaggregates trip rates in an extended format for different categories of trips like home-based trips or non-home-based trips and different attributes of households such as car ownership or income.

• Generalized travel costs is a function of time divided into sections such as in vehicle time vs. waiting time or transfer time in a transit trip.

Binary logit models is a type of logit model where the dependent variable can take only a value of 0 or 1.

• Wardrop equilibrium is a state in traffic assignment model where are drivers are reluctant to change their path because the average travel time is at a minimum.

All-or-nothing (AON) assignment model is a model that assumes all trips between two zones uses the shortest path regardless of volume.

Speed flow relationship is a function that determines the speed based on the volume (flow)

skim tree is structure of travel time by defining minimum cost path for each section of a trip.

Key Takeaways

In this chapter, we covered:

• What travel demand modeling is for and what the common methods are to do that.
• How FSM is structured sequentially, what the relationships between different steps are, and what the outputs are.
• What the advantages and disadvantages of different methods and assumptions in each step are.
• What certain data collection and preparation for trip generation and distribution are needed through a hypothetical example.

Prep/quiz/assessments

• What is the need for regular travel demand forecasting, and what are its two major components?
• Describe what data we require for each of the four steps.
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of regression and cross-classification methods for a trip generation?
• What is the most common modeling framework for mode choice, and what result will it provide us?
• What are the main limitations of FSM, and how can they be addressed? Describe the need for travel demand modeling in urban transportation and relate it to the structure of the four-step model (FSM).

Ahmed, B. (2012). The traditional four steps transportation modeling using a simplified transport network: A case study of Dhaka City, Bangladesh. International Journal of Advanced Scientific Engineering and Technological Research ,  1 (1), 19–40. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1418961/

ALMEC, C . (2015). The Project for capacity development on transportation planning and database management in the republic of the Philippines: MMUTIS update and enhancement project (MUCEP) : Project Completion Report . Japan International Cooperation Agency. (JICA) Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) . https://books.google.com/books?id=VajqswEACAAJ .

Beimborn, E., and  Kennedy, R. (1996). Inside the black box: Making transportation models work for livable communities . Washington, DC: Citizens for a Better Environment and the Environmental Defense Fund. https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/755/A-GuideToModeling?bidId

Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1974). Some estimation results of a simultaneous model of auto ownership and mode choice to work.  Transportation ,  3 (4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00167966

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association , 76 (3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766

Florian, M., Gaudry, M., & Lardinois, C. (1988). A two-dimensional framework for the understanding of transportation planning models.  Transportation Research Part B: Methodological ,  22 (6), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-2615(88)90022-7

Hadi, M., Ozen, H., & Shabanian, S. (2012).  Use of dynamic traffic assignment in FSUTMS in support of transportation planning in Florida.  Florida International University Lehman Center for Transportation Research. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/24925

Hansen, W. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25 (2): 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307

Gavu, E. K. (2010).  Network based indicators for prioritising the location of a new urban transport connection: Case study Istanbul, Turkey (Master’s thesis, University of Twente). International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede. http://essay.utwente.nl/90752/1/Emmanuel%20Kofi%20Gavu-22239.pdf

Karner, A., London, J., Rowangould, D., & Manaugh, K. (2020). From transportation equity to transportation justice: Within, through, and beyond the state. Journal of Planning Literature , 35 (4), 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220927691

Kneebone, E., & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America . Brookings Institution Press.

Koppelman, Frank S, and Chandra Bhat. (2006). A self instructing course in mode choice modeling: multinomial and nested logit models. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/COURSES/LM_Draft_060131Final-060630.pdf

‌Manheim, M. L. (1979).  Fundamentals of transportation systems analysis. Volume 1: Basic Concepts . The MIT Press https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262632898/fundamentals-of-transportation-systems-analysis/

McNally, M. G. (2007). The four step model. In D. A. Hensher, & K. J. Button (Eds.), Handbook of transport modelling , Volume1 (pp.35–53). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Meyer, M. D., & Institute Of Transportation Engineers. (2016).  Transportation planning handbook . Wiley.

Mladenovic, M., & Trifunovic, A. (2014). The shortcomings of the conventional four step travel demand forecasting process. Journal of Road and Traffic Engineering , 60 (1), 5–12.

Mitchell, R. B., and C. Rapkin. (1954). Urban traffic: A function of land use . Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/mitc94522

Rahman, M. S. (2008). “ Understanding the linkages of travel behavior with socioeconomic characteristics and spatial Environments in Dhaka City and urban transport policy applications .” Hiroshima: (Master’s thesis, Hiroshima University.) Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation. http://sr-milan.tripod.com/Master_Thesis.pdf

Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2020). The geography of transport systems . London ; New York Routledge.

Shen, Q. (1998). Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design , 25 (3), 345–365.

Sharifiasl, S., Kharel, S., & Pan, Q. (2023). Incorporating job competition and matching to an indicator-based transportation equity analysis for auto and transit in Dallas-Fort Worth Area. Transportation Research Record , 03611981231167424. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231167424

Weiner, Edward. 1997. Urban transportation planning in the United States: An historical overview . US Department of Transportation. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/13691

Xiongbing, J,  Grammenos, F. (2013, May, 21) . Taking the Guesswork out of Designing for Walkability. Planetizen .  https://www.planetizen.com/node/63248

Home-based other (or non-work) trips (HBO) are the trips that originates from home to destinations other than work like shopping or leisure.

gravity model is a type of accessibility measurement in which the employment in destination and population in the origin defines thee degree of accessibility between the two zones.

Impedance function is a function that convert travel costs (usually time or distance) to the level of difficulty of getting from one location to the other.

Transportation Land-Use Modeling & Policy Copyright © by Soheil Sharifi and Qisheng Pan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

What is transportation demand management.

Transportation demand management (or TDM) is the discipline of encouraging and facilitating traveler behavior that makes more efficient use of the transportation network. Ultimately, this means providing people with more choice about how, where, when, and if they travel: giving them more freedom and flexibility in their work hours and location, for instance, or making it more convenient, feasible, and attractive to take transit, ride a bike, or share their trip with other travelers.

Why is transportation demand management important for Colorado?

Population Growth

Colorado's population is projected to increase by over 600,000 residents by 2030. Facilitating more efficient travel choices will be an essential component of the strategy to maintain the reliability of the travel network as it accommodates more travelers.

Public Finance

Colorado cannot afford to “build our way out” of congestion. By making the most of our existing network, we can maximize the impact of tax dollars and reduce future maintenance bills.

Climate Change

While the state has made good progress toward our 2030 GHG targets, additional transportation strategies are needed to close the remaining gap. Emissions-reducing TDM strategies will be needed in addition to zero emission vehicle transitions.

Air Quality

The negative health impacts of vehicle emissions are well documented. TDM can be critical in reducing ozone and criteria pollutants from transportation.

The pandemic, changing workplace attitudes and policies, labor market shortages and recent transportation policy and investment changes present a critical opportunity. 

Landscape of Transportation Demand Management in Colorado

Colorado has a strong tradition of commuter-focused transportation demand management programming, supported by a mixture of regional initiatives - like the Denver Regional Council of Governments' Way to Go Partnership - and programs championed by local governments, transit agencies, and other community and quasi-governmental organizations.

However, many audiences across the state have historically not been part of the conversation, and this has often caused the range of TDM strategies to be constrained by the actors at the table, especially in regard to developing solutions that work for audiences who have not been well-served by traditional TDM efforts - including rural residents, shift workers, caregivers and recreational travelers.

Furthermore, ongoing changes to travel patterns and behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic continue to create fresh challenges for established approaches, and the emergence of new technologies - such as shared micromobility, electric bicycles, and advancements in data analytics - also present invaluable new opportunities for practitioners across the state to tackle varied (and growing) congestion and mobility issues through context-appropriate tools and approaches.

TDM Conference

The Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT) is the premier organization and leading advocate for commuter transportation and transportation demand management (TDM) professionals. With a vision of "A Better Journey for Everyone," ACT strives to create an efficient multimodal transportation system by empowering the people, places, and organizations working to advance TDM in order to improve the quality of life of commuters, enhance the livability of communities, and stimulate economic activity.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Office of Innovative Mobility (OIM) has two TDM funding opportunities under the OIM Grant Program. The OIM Grant Program includes TDM Seed Funding Grants and TDM Innovation Grants.

OIM Grant Program

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Division of Transit and Rail (DTR) is issuing a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and State transit funds including TDM Seed Funding Grants and TMO Support grants.

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program (CMAQ) is designed to assist non-attainment and maintenance areas in attaining the national ambient air quality standards by funding transportation projects and programs that will improve air quality.

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)

The Revitalizing Main Streets Program began as a part of Colorado’s COVID-19  Recovery Plan , with a $30 million allocation from the state legislature in March 2021. In June 2021, Senate Bill 260 provided $85 million in additional funding for the program over the next 10 years. This program is intended to help communities across the state implement transportation-related projects that improve safety and yield long-term benefits to community main streets. When defining a main street, CDOT is aiming to support areas in or adjacent to community-focused, downtowns where people work, dine and shop. These routes help form a specific region’s identity and act as the major economic hub in many towns and cities across Colorado.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is a multimodal transportation agency which supports a wide variety of alternatives to single occupant vehicle use. Phase 1 of this report details a statewide TDM strategy encompassing core strategies, support strategies emerging technologies TDM for specific travel markets and TDM programs. The 2019 Statewide TDM Plan is available upon request.

Email [email protected] for the TDM Plan.

2019 Colorado Transportation Demand Management Plan - an important part of CDOT’s responsibility is to maintain and operate the State Highway System, CDOT is not a highway agency but instead a multimodal transportation agency that supports a wide variety of alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use. Phase 1 of this study was an inventory of existing Colorado TDM programs; phase 2 examines where and how CDOT can use TDM to address near-term mobility needs. This document is available upon request. Please click the button below to request a copy.

Request How to Create a TDM Plan

As part of the CDOT Procedural Directive 1601 approval process for new interchanges or for modification of an existing interchange, applicants will be required to create a Transportation Demand Management Plan. For questions reach out to [email protected] .

Americans’ dependence on cars and trucks as the dominant means of personal transportation is built on a foundation of dispersed and isolated land use patterns and automobile-centric urban street design, both of which have in turn been created by a complex array of policy and investment decisions. Untangling this complex web of rules and regulations requires a systematic approach to updating policy incentives to align with broadly held public goals—for example, the goal of creating transportation systems that provide equitable; affordable; and sustainable access to jobs, education, healthy food, recreation, and community for all. 

The New Transportation Demand Management: An Implementation Guide for City Officials

Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques (2012)

Chapter: chapter 1 - introduction.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 1.1 Background In 1978, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) published NCHRP Report 187: Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters (Sosslau et al., 1978). This report described default parameters, factors, and manual techniques for doing planning analysis. The report and its default data were used widely by the transportation planning profession for almost 20 years. In 1998, drawing on several newer data sources, including the 1990 Census and Nation- wide Personal Transportation Survey, an update to NCHRP Report 187 was published in the form of NCHRP Report 365: Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning (Martin and McGuckin, 1998). Since NCHRP Report 365 was published, significant changes have occurred affecting the complexity, scope, and context of transportation planning. Transportation planning tools have evolved and proliferated, enabling improved and more flexible analyses to support decisions. The demands on trans- portation planning have expanded into special populations and broader issues (e.g., safety, congestion, pricing, air quality, environment, climate change, and freight). In addition, the default data and parameters in NCHRP Report 365 need to be updated to reflect the planning requirements of today and the next 10 years. The objective of this report is to revise and update NCHRP Report 365 to reflect current travel characteristics and to pro- vide guidance on travel demand forecasting procedures and their application for solving common transportation problems. It is written for “modeling practitioners,” who are the public agency and private-sector planners with responsibility for devel- oping, overseeing the development of, evaluating, validating, and implementing travel demand models. This updated report includes the optional use of default parameters and appropriate references to other more sophisticated techniques. The report is intended to allow practitioners to use travel demand fore- casting methods to address the full range of transportation planning issues (e.g., environmental, air quality, freight, multimodal, and other critical concerns). One of the features of this report is the provision of trans- ferable parameters for use when locally specific data are not available for use in model estimation. The parameters pre- sented in this report are also useful to practitioners who are modeling urban areas that have local data but wish to check the reasonableness of model parameters estimated from such data. Additionally, key travel measures, such as average travel times by trip purpose, are provided for use in checking model results. Both the transferable parameters and the travel measures come from two main sources: the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and a database of model documentation for 69 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) assembled for the development of this report. There are two primary ways in which planners can make use of this information: 1. Using transferable parameters in the development of travel model components when local data suitable for model development are insufficient or unavailable; and 2. Checking the reasonableness of model outputs. This report is written at a time of exciting change in the field of travel demand forecasting. The four-step modeling process that has been the paradigm for decades is no longer the only approach used in urban area modeling. Tour- and activity-based models have been and are being developed in several urban areas, including a sizable percentage of the largest areas in the United States. This change has the potential to significantly improve the accuracy and analytical capability of travel demand models. At the same time, the four-step process will continue to be used for many years, especially in the smaller- and medium- sized urban areas for which this report will remain a valuable resource. With that in mind, this report provides information on parameters and modeling techniques consistent with the C h a p t e r 1 Introduction

2four-step process and Chapter 4, which contains the key information on parameters and techniques, is organized con- sistent with the four-step approach. Chapter 6 of this report presents information relevant to advanced modeling practices, including activity-based models and traffic simulation. This report is organized as follows: • Chapter 1—Introduction; • Chapter 2—Planning Applications Context; • Chapter 3—Data Needed for Modeling; • Chapter 4—Model Components: – Vehicle Availability, – Trip Generation, – Trip Distribution, – External Travel, – Mode Choice, – Automobile Occupancy, – Time-of-Day, – Freight/Truck Modeling, – Highway Assignment, and – Transit Assignment; • Chapter 5—Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking; • Chapter 6—Emerging Modeling Practices; and • Chapter 7—Case Studies. This report is not intended to be a comprehensive primer for persons developing a travel model. For more complete information on model development, readers may wish to consult the following sources: • “Introduction to Urban Travel Demand Forecasting” (Federal Highway Administration, 2008); • “Introduction to Travel Demand Forecasting Self- Instructional CD-ROM” (Federal Highway Administra- tion, 2002); • NCHRP Report 365: Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning (Martin and McGuckin, 1998); • An Introduction to Urban Travel Demand Forecasting— A Self-Instructional Text (Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transit Administration, 1977); • FSUTMS Comprehensive Modeling Online Training Workshop (http://www.fsutmsonline.net/online_training/ index.html#w1l3e3); and • Modeling Transport (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 2001). 1.2 Travel Demand Forecasting: Trends and Issues While there are other methods used to estimate travel demand in urban areas, travel demand forecasting and mod- eling remain important tools in the analysis of transportation plans, projects, and policies. Modeling results are useful to those making transportation decisions (and analysts assisting in the decision-making process) in system and facility design and operations and to those developing transportation policy. NCHRP Report 365 (Martin and McGuckin, 1998) pro- vides a brief history of travel demand forecasting through its publication year of 1998; notably, the evolution of the use of models from the evaluation of long-range plans and major transportation investments to a variety of ongoing, every- day transportation planning analyses. Since the publication of NCHRP Report 365, several areas have experienced rapid advances in travel modeling: • The four-step modeling process has seen a number of enhancements. These include the more widespread incor- poration of time-of-day modeling into what had been a process for modeling entire average weekdays; common use of supplementary model steps, such as vehicle availability models; the inclusion of nonmotorized travel in models; and enhancements to procedures for the four main model components (e.g., the use of logit destination choice models for trip distribution). • Data collection techniques have advanced, particularly in the use of new technology such as global positioning systems (GPS) as well as improvements to procedures for performing household travel and transit rider surveys and traffic counts. • A new generation of travel demand modeling software has been developed, which not only takes advantage of modern computing environments but also includes, to various degrees, integration with geographic information systems (GIS). • There has been an increased use of integrated land use- transportation models, in contrast to the use of static land use allocation models. • Tour- and activity-based modeling has been introduced and implemented. • Increasingly, travel demand models have been more directly integrated with traffic simulation models. Most travel demand modeling software vendors have developed traffic simulation packages. At the same time, new transportation planning require- ments have contributed to a number of new uses for models, including: • The analysis of a variety of road pricing options, including toll roads, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, cordon pricing, and congestion pricing that varies by time of day; • The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) user benefits measure for the Section 5309 New Starts program of transit projects, which has led to an increased awareness of model properties that can inadvertently affect ridership forecasts;

3 • The evaluation of alternative land use patterns and their effects on travel demand; and • The need to evaluate (1) the impacts of climate change on transportation supply and demand, (2) the effects of travel on climate and the environment, and (3) energy and air quality impacts. These types of analyses are in addition to several traditional types of analyses for which travel models are still regularly used: • Development of long-range transportation plans; • Highway and transit project evaluation; • Air quality conformity (recently including greenhouse gas emissions analysis); and • Site impact studies for developments. 1.3 Overview of the Four-Step Travel Modeling Process The methods presented in this report follow the conven- tional sequential process for estimating transportation demand that is often called the “four-step” process: • Step 1—Trip Generation (discussed in Section 4.4), • Step 2—Trip Distribution (discussed in Section 4.5), • Step 3—Mode Choice (discussed in Section 4.7), and • Step 4—Assignment (discussed in Sections 4.11 and 4.12). There are other components commonly included in the four-step process, as shown in Figure 1.1 and described in the following paragraphs. The serial nature of the process is not meant to imply that the decisions made by travelers are actually made sequentially rather than simultaneously, nor that the decisions are made in exactly the order implied by the four-step process. For example, the decision of the destination for the trip may follow or be made simultaneously with the choice of mode. Nor is the four-step process meant to imply that the decisions for each trip are made independently of the decisions for other trips. For example, the choice of a mode for a given trip may depend on the choice of mode in the preceding trip. In four-step travel models, the unit of travel is the “trip,” defined as a person or vehicle traveling from an origin to a destination with no intermediate stops. Since people traveling for different reasons behave differently, four-step models segment trips by trip purpose. The number and definition of trip purposes in a model depend on the types of information the model needs to provide for planning analyses, the char- acteristics of the region being modeled, and the availability of data with which to obtain model parameters and the inputs to the model. The minimum number of trip purposes in most models is three: home-based work, home-based nonwork, and nonhome based. In this report, these three trip purposes are referred to as the “classic three” purposes. The purpose of trip generation is to estimate the num- ber of trips of each type that begin or end in each location, based on the amount of activity in an analysis area. In most models, trips are aggregated to a specific unit of geography (e.g., a traffic analysis zone). The estimated number of daily trips will be in the flow unit that is used by the model, which is usually one of the following: vehicle trips; person trips in motorized modes (auto and transit); or person trips by all modes, including both motorized and nonmotorized (walking, bicycling) modes. Trip generation models require some explanatory variables that are related to trip-making behavior and some functions that estimate the number of trips based on these explanatory variables. Typical variables include the number of households classified by characteristics such as number of persons, number of workers, vehicle availability, income level, and employment by type. The output of trip generation is trip productions and attractions by traffic analysis zone and by purpose. Trip distribution addresses the question of how many trips travel between units of geography (e.g., traffic analysis zones). In effect, it links the trip productions and attractions from the trip generation step. Trip distribution requires explanatory variables that are related to the cost (including time) of travel between zones, as well as the amount of trip-making activity in both the origin zone and the destination zone. The outputs of trip distribution are production-attraction zonal trip tables by purpose. Models of external travel estimate the trips that originate or are destined outside the model’s geographic region (the model area). These models include elements of trip generation and distribution, and so the outputs are trip tables represent- ing external travel. Mode choice is the third step in the four-step process. In this step, the trips in the tables output by the trip distri- bution step are split into trips by travel mode. The mode definitions vary depending on the types of transportation options offered in the model’s geographic region and the types of planning analyses required, but they can be generally grouped into auto mobile, transit, and nonmotorized modes. Transit modes may be defined by access mode (walk, auto) and/or by service type (local bus, express bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, etc.). Nonmotorized modes, which are not yet included in some models, especially in smaller urban areas, include walking and bicycling. Auto modes are often defined by occupancy levels (drive alone, shared ride with two occupants, etc.). When auto modes are not modeled separately, automobile occupancy factors are used to convert the auto person trips to vehicle trips prior to assignment. The outputs of the mode choice process include person trip tables by mode and purpose and auto vehicle trip tables.

4Time-of-day modeling is used to divide the daily trips into trips for various time periods, such as morning and afternoon peak periods, mid-day, and evening. This division may occur at any point between trip generation and trip assignment. Most four-step models that include the time-of-day step use fixed factors applied to daily trips by purpose, although more sophisticated time-of-day choice models are sometimes used. While the four-step process focuses on personal travel, commercial vehicle/freight travel is a significant component of travel in most urban areas and must also be considered in the model. While simple factoring methods applied to per- sonal travel trip tables are sometimes used, a better approach is to model such travel separately, creating truck/commercial vehicle trip tables. The final step in the four-step process is trip assignment. This step consists of separate highway and transit assignment processes. The highway assignment process routes vehicle trips from the origin-destination trip tables onto paths along Forecast Year Highway Network Forecast Year Transit Network Forecast Year Socioeconomic DataTrip Generation Model Internal Productions and Attractions by Purpose Trip Distribution Model Mode Choice Model Person and Vehicle Trip Tables by Purpose/Time Period Time of Day Model Person and Vehicle Trip Tables by Mode/Purpose/Time Period Highway Assignment CHECK: Input and output times consistent? Transit Assignment Highway Volumes/ Times by Time Period Transit Volumes/ Times by Time Period Input Data Model Output Model Component Decision Feedback Loop Yes No Truck Trip Generation and Distribution Models Production/Attraction Person Trip Tables by Purpose Truck Vehicle Trip Tables by Purpose Truck Time of Day Model Truck Vehicle Trip Tables by Time Period External Trip Generation and Distribution Models External Vehicle Trip Tables by Time Period Figure 1.1. Four-step modeling process.

5 the highway network, resulting in traffic volumes on network links by time of day and, perhaps, vehicle type. Speed and travel time estimates, which reflect the levels of congestion indicated by link volumes, are also output. The transit assignment process routes trips from the transit trip tables onto individual transit routes and links, resulting in transit line volumes and station/ stop boardings and alightings. Because of the simplification associated with and the resul- tant error introduced by the sequential process, there is some- times “feedback” introduced into the process, as indicated by the upward arrows in Figure 1.1 (Travel Model Improvement Program, 2009). Feedback of travel times is often required, particularly in congested areas (usually these are larger urban areas), where the levels of congestion, especially for forecast scenarios, may be unknown at the beginning of the process. An iterative process using output travel times is used to rerun the input steps until a convergence is reached between input and output times. Because simple iteration (using travel time outputs from one iteration directly as inputs into the next iteration) may not converge quickly (or at all), averaging of results among iterations is often employed. Alternative approaches include the method of successive averages, constant weights applied to each iteration, and the Evans algorithm (Evans, 1976). Although there are a few different methods for implement- ing the iterative feedback process, they do not employ param- eters that are transferable, and so feedback methods are not discussed in this report. However, analysts should be aware that many of the analysis procedures discussed in the report that use travel times as inputs (for example, trip distribution and mode choice) are affected by changes in travel times that may result from the use of feedback methods. 1.4 Summary of Techniques and Parameters Chapter 4 presents information on (1) the analytical tech- niques used in the various components of conventional travel demand models and (2) parameters for these mod- els obtained from typical models around the United States and from the 2009 NHTS. These parameters can be used by analysts for urban areas without sufficient local data to use in estimating model parameters and for areas that have already developed model parameters for reasonableness checking. While it is preferable to use model parameters that are based on local data, this may be impossible due to data or other resource limitations. In such cases, it is common practice to transfer parameters from other applicable models or data sets. Chapter 4 presents parameters that may be used in these cases, along with information about how these parameters can be used, and their limitations. 1.5 Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Another important use of the information in this report will be for model validation and reasonableness checking. There are other recent sources for information on how the general process of model validation can be done. Chapter 5 provides basic guidance on model validation and reasonable- ness checking, with a specific focus on how to use the informa- tion in the report, particularly the information in Chapter 4. It is not intended to duplicate other reference material on validation but, rather, provide an overview on validation consistent with the other sources. 1.6 Advanced Travel Analysis Procedures The techniques and parameters discussed in this report focus on conventional modeling procedures (the four-step process). However, there have been many recent advances in travel modeling methods, and some urban areas, especially larger areas, have started to use more advanced approaches to modeling. Chapter 6 introduces concepts of advanced model- ing procedures, such as activity-based models, dynamic traffic assignment models, and traffic simulation models. It is not intended to provide comprehensive documentation of these advanced models but rather to describe how they work and how they differ from the conventional models discussed in the rest of the report. 1.7 Case Study Applications One of the valuable features in NCHRP Report 365 was the inclusion of a case study to illustrate the application of the parameters and techniques contained in it. In this report, two case studies are presented to illustrate the use of the information in two contexts: one for a smaller urban area and one for a larger urban area with a multimodal travel model. These case studies are presented in Chapter 7. 1.8 Glossary of Terms Used in This Report MPO—Metropolitan Planning Organization, the federally designated entity for transportation planning in an urban area. In most areas, the MPO is responsible for maintaining and running the travel model, although in some places, other agencies, such as the state department of transportation, may have that responsibility. In this report, the term “MPO” is sometimes used to refer to the agency responsible for the model, although it is recognized that, in some areas, this agency is not officially the MPO.

6Model area—The area covered by the travel demand model being referred to. Often, but not always, this is the area under the jurisdiction of the MPO. The boundary of the model area is referred to as the cordon. Trips that cross the cordon are called external trips; modeling of external trips is discussed in Section 4.6. Person trip—A one-way trip made by a person by any mode from an origin to a destination, usually assumed to be without stops. In many models, person trips are the units used in all model steps through mode choice. Person trips are the usual units in transit assignment, but person trips are converted to vehicle trips for highway assignment. Trip attraction—In four-step models, the trip end of a home-based trip that occurs at the nonhome location, or the destination end of a nonhome-based trip. Trip production—In four-step models, the trip end of a home-based trip that occurs at the home, or the origin end of a nonhome-based trip. Vehicle trip—A trip made by a motorized vehicle from an origin to a destination, usually assumed to be without stops. It may be associated with a more-than-one-person trip (for example, in a carpool). Vehicle trips are the usual units in highway assignment, sometimes categorized by the number of passengers per vehicle. In some models, vehicle trips are used as the units of travel throughout the modeling process. Motorized and nonmotorized trips—Motorized trips are the subset of person trips that are made by auto or transit, as opposed to walking or bicycling trips, which are referred to as nonmotorized trips. In-vehicle time—The total time on a person trip that is spent in a vehicle. For auto trips, this is the time spent in the auto and does not include walk access/egress time. For transit trips, this is the time spent in the transit vehicle and does not include walk access/egress time, wait time, or time spent transferring between vehicles. Usually, transit auto access/ egress time is considered in-vehicle time. Out-of-vehicle time—The total time on a person trip that is not spent in a vehicle. For auto trips, this is usually the walk access/egress time. For transit trips, this is the walk access/ egress time, wait time, and time spent transferring between vehicles. In some models, components of out-of-vehicle time are considered separately, while in others, a single out-of- vehicle time variable is used.

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 716: Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques provides guidelines on travel demand forecasting procedures and their application for helping to solve common transportation problems.

The report presents a range of approaches that are designed to allow users to determine the level of detail and sophistication in selecting modeling and analysis techniques based on their situations. The report addresses techniques, optional use of default parameters, and includes references to other more sophisticated techniques.

Errata: Table C.4, Coefficients for Four U.S. Logit Vehicle Availability Models in the print and electronic versions of the publications of NCHRP Report 716 should be replaced with the revised Table C.4 .

NCHRP Report 716 is an update to NCHRP Report 365 : Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning .

In January 2014 TRB released NCHRP Report 735 : Long-Distance and Rural Travel Transferable Parameters for Statewide Travel Forecasting Models , which supplements NCHRP Report 716.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.