The trouble with intercity travel demand models

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 1895, 2004, Pages 94-101

  Miller, Eric J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; MARKETING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; URBAN PLANNING;

INTERCITY CORRIDOR ORIENTATION; INTERCITY MODELS; LINE-HAUL MODES; TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS;

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 17444363019     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/1895-13     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Northeast Corridor Transportation Project. Northeast Corridor Transportation Project Report. NECTP 209, PD 190 929. Office of High-Speed Ground Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1970.
2. Intercity Passenger Transport Study. Canadian Transport Commission Research Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1970.
3. Meyer, M. D., and E. J. Miller. Urban Transportation Planning, A Decision-Oriented Approach, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001.
4. Ben-Akiva, M., and S. R. Lerman. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Predict Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
5. Rice, R. G., E. J. Miller, G. N. Steuart, R. Ridout, and M. Brown. Review and Development of Intercity Passenger Travel Demand Models. Research Report 77. University of Toronto-York University Joint Program in Transportation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1981.
6. Khan, A. M. Towards the Development of Innovative Models of Intercity Travel Demand. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1985, pp. 297-316.
7. Koppelman, F. S. Multidimensional Model System for Intercity Travel Choice Behavior. In Transportation Research Record 1241, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 1-8.
8. Miller, E. J., and K. S. Fan. Travel Demand Behaviour: Survey of Intercity Mode-Split Models in Canada and Elsewhere. In Directions: The Final Report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation. Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1992, pp. 1, 503-1, 596.
9. Forinash, C. V., and F. S. Koppelman. Application and Interpretation of Nested Logit Models of Intercity Mode Choice. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 98-106.
10. Koppelman, F. S., and C-H Wen. The Paired Combinatorial Logit Model: Properties, Estimation and Application. Transportation Research B, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2000, pp. 75-89.
11. Walker, J. Extended Discrete Choice Models: Integrated Framework, Flexible Error Structures and Latent Variables. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 2001.
12. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Travel Survey Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1996.
13. Hunt, J. D., and R. Donnelly. TLUMIP 2 Model Overview. Proc., 3rd Oregon Symposium on Integrated Land Use and Transport Models, Portland, 2002.
14. Koppelman, F. S., and M. Hirsh. Intercity Passenger Decision Making: Conceptual Structure and Data Implications. In Transportation Research Record 1085, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 70-75.
15. Sonesson, T. Estimating the Demand for Intercity Travel: Economic-Theoretical Perspectives on Common Models and a New Approach to the Estimation of Demand Relationships. Ph.D. thesis. Economics Institute, Linkoeping University, Linkoeping, Sweden, 1998.
16. Hugoson, P. Interregional Business Travel and the Economics of Business Interaction. Ph.D. thesis. Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden, 2002.
17. Bhat, C. Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model with an Application to Intercity Travel. Transportation Science, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1997, pp. 34-48.