特大城市地区多式联运旅客行为建模:同步估算框架与顺序估算框架的比较

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Transportation Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1007/s11116-024-10489-2
Ning Huan, Stephane Hess, Toshiyuki Yamamoto, Enjian Yao
{"title":"特大城市地区多式联运旅客行为建模:同步估算框架与顺序估算框架的比较","authors":"Ning Huan, Stephane Hess, Toshiyuki Yamamoto, Enjian Yao","doi":"10.1007/s11116-024-10489-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The sustained expansion of mega-city regions and the development of multimodal transport networks have catalysed intercity mobility, thereby restructuring regional travel demand patterns. This study aims to interpret the behaviour of intermodal travellers in a short-haul intercity context within mega-city regions. A comparative modelling framework, utilising both simultaneous and sequential estimation methods, is proposed based on stated preference survey data collected in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. The simultaneous estimation framework examines the integrated measurement of the perceived utility of multiple stages of travel using cross-nested logit models. In contrast, the sequential estimation framework systematically investigates the bidirectional interactions associated with the intercity mode decision and decisions related to access and egress modes in a stepwise manner. The latter quantifies the accessibility of transport hubs and destinations to assess the implicit cost of feeder trips in the intercity mode decision. It validates the sequential impact on feeder mode choice preferences. In addition to identifying behavioural determinants, the models’ relative performance is assessed regarding behaviour prediction accuracy for diverse groups of travellers categorised by travel purpose, fellow traveller, baggage size, and travel frequency. Statistically, the weighted prediction errors for access, intercity, and egress mode choices are 1.12%, 1.33%, and 0.89% under the simultaneous estimation framework. In contrast, under the sequential estimation framework, these errors are reduced to 0.81%, 0.63%, and 0.50%, respectively. The results suggest the superior applicability of the latter in interpreting intermodal mobility patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":49419,"journal":{"name":"Transportation","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modelling intermodal traveller behaviour in mega-city regions: simultaneous versus sequential estimation frameworks\",\"authors\":\"Ning Huan, Stephane Hess, Toshiyuki Yamamoto, Enjian Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11116-024-10489-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The sustained expansion of mega-city regions and the development of multimodal transport networks have catalysed intercity mobility, thereby restructuring regional travel demand patterns. This study aims to interpret the behaviour of intermodal travellers in a short-haul intercity context within mega-city regions. A comparative modelling framework, utilising both simultaneous and sequential estimation methods, is proposed based on stated preference survey data collected in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. The simultaneous estimation framework examines the integrated measurement of the perceived utility of multiple stages of travel using cross-nested logit models. In contrast, the sequential estimation framework systematically investigates the bidirectional interactions associated with the intercity mode decision and decisions related to access and egress modes in a stepwise manner. The latter quantifies the accessibility of transport hubs and destinations to assess the implicit cost of feeder trips in the intercity mode decision. It validates the sequential impact on feeder mode choice preferences. In addition to identifying behavioural determinants, the models’ relative performance is assessed regarding behaviour prediction accuracy for diverse groups of travellers categorised by travel purpose, fellow traveller, baggage size, and travel frequency. Statistically, the weighted prediction errors for access, intercity, and egress mode choices are 1.12%, 1.33%, and 0.89% under the simultaneous estimation framework. In contrast, under the sequential estimation framework, these errors are reduced to 0.81%, 0.63%, and 0.50%, respectively. The results suggest the superior applicability of the latter in interpreting intermodal mobility patterns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10489-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10489-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

特大城市区域的持续扩张和多式联运网络的发展催化了城际流动,从而改变了区域旅行需求模式。本研究旨在解读特大城市区域内短途城际多式联运旅客的行为。根据在中国京津冀地区收集到的陈述偏好调查数据,提出了一个比较建模框架,同时采用了同步估算和顺序估算两种方法。同步估算框架利用交叉嵌套的 logit 模型对多个旅行阶段的感知效用进行了综合测量。相比之下,顺序估算框架系统地研究了与城际模式决策相关的双向互动,并以逐步的方式研究了与出入口模式相关的决策。后者量化了交通枢纽和目的地的可达性,以评估城际模式决策中支线旅行的隐含成本。它验证了对接驳模式选择偏好的连续影响。除了确定行为决定因素外,还评估了模型的相对性能,即按旅行目的、同行者、行李大小和旅行频率分类的不同旅客群体的行为预测准确性。据统计,在同步估算框架下,对出入境、城际和出口模式选择的加权预测误差分别为 1.12%、1.33% 和 0.89%。相比之下,在顺序估计框架下,这些误差分别降低到 0.81%、0.63% 和 0.50%。结果表明,后者在解释多式联运流动模式方面具有更优越的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Modelling intermodal traveller behaviour in mega-city regions: simultaneous versus sequential estimation frameworks

The sustained expansion of mega-city regions and the development of multimodal transport networks have catalysed intercity mobility, thereby restructuring regional travel demand patterns. This study aims to interpret the behaviour of intermodal travellers in a short-haul intercity context within mega-city regions. A comparative modelling framework, utilising both simultaneous and sequential estimation methods, is proposed based on stated preference survey data collected in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. The simultaneous estimation framework examines the integrated measurement of the perceived utility of multiple stages of travel using cross-nested logit models. In contrast, the sequential estimation framework systematically investigates the bidirectional interactions associated with the intercity mode decision and decisions related to access and egress modes in a stepwise manner. The latter quantifies the accessibility of transport hubs and destinations to assess the implicit cost of feeder trips in the intercity mode decision. It validates the sequential impact on feeder mode choice preferences. In addition to identifying behavioural determinants, the models’ relative performance is assessed regarding behaviour prediction accuracy for diverse groups of travellers categorised by travel purpose, fellow traveller, baggage size, and travel frequency. Statistically, the weighted prediction errors for access, intercity, and egress mode choices are 1.12%, 1.33%, and 0.89% under the simultaneous estimation framework. In contrast, under the sequential estimation framework, these errors are reduced to 0.81%, 0.63%, and 0.50%, respectively. The results suggest the superior applicability of the latter in interpreting intermodal mobility patterns.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transportation
Transportation 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.70%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: In our first issue, published in 1972, we explained that this Journal is intended to promote the free and vigorous exchange of ideas and experience among the worldwide community actively concerned with transportation policy, planning and practice. That continues to be our mission, with a clear focus on topics concerned with research and practice in transportation policy and planning, around the world. These four words, policy and planning, research and practice are our key words. While we have a particular focus on transportation policy analysis and travel behaviour in the context of ground transportation, we willingly consider all good quality papers that are highly relevant to transportation policy, planning and practice with a clear focus on innovation, on extending the international pool of knowledge and understanding. Our interest is not only with transportation policies - and systems and services – but also with their social, economic and environmental impacts, However, papers about the application of established procedures to, or the development of plans or policies for, specific locations are unlikely to prove acceptable unless they report experience which will be of real benefit those working elsewhere. Papers concerned with the engineering, safety and operational management of transportation systems are outside our scope.
期刊最新文献
From trips to stages: a methodology for Generating Stage Information in trip-level Household travel surveys Transit modal complementarity: measuring the access provided by transfers Multifunctional lightweight autonomous vehicles: an agent-based study Policy paradigms as an analytical concept in transport studies research Quantifying the impact of metrorail transport quality factors on overall user satisfaction: a Brazilian case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1