Deficiencies of Travel‐Forecasting Methods Relative to Mobile Emissions
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 119, Issue 5
Abstract
This paper examines the ability of conventional travel‐forecasting models to respond to forecasting needs created by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and the air‐quality lawsuit brought against the Metropolitian Transportation Commission, San Francisco. Initially, the probable response of travel behavior to the various transportation control measures of the CAAA are reviewed. The ability of the travel‐forecasting models to reflect each of the various responses is examined, concluding that only those transportation‐control measures (TCMs) resulting in a change in travel mode, auto occupancy, or destination can be modeled. Most remaining TCMs require significant model changes. Similarly, with capacity changes, three of the seven potential changes in travel behavior can be modeled, if the models are run through a series of feedback loops. For emissions modeling, the inputs cannot be obtained with the required specificity. Short‐run and longer‐run changes are identified that should be made to current modeling procedures to add further to the abilities of the models to produce good travel forecasts.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“BART in the San Francisco Bay Area.” (1979). Final Report of the BART Impact Program, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Washington, D.C.
2.
Harvey, G., and Deakin, E. (1991). “Transportation planning and air quality,” presented at the National Association of Regional Councils Conference on Transportation Planning and Air Quality, Washington, D.C.
3.
Miller, T. L., Chatterjee, A., Everett, J., and McIlvaine, C. (1991). “Estimation of travel‐related inputs to air quality models,” presented at the National Conference on Transportation Planning and Air Quality, ASCE, Jul.
4.
Orski, C. (1989). “A realistic appraisal of traffic congestion.” Urban Land, 48(10), 34.
5.
Putman, S. H. (1983). Integrated urban models. Pion Ltd., London, England.
6.
Remak, R., and Rosenbloom, S. (1976). “Peak period traffic congestion.” Transportation Research Board Special Report 169, Nat. Academy of Sci., Washington, D.C.
7.
Sherret, A. (1979). “BART's first five years: Transportation and travel impacts.” Interpretive Summary of the Final Report, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Washington, D.C.
8.
Stopher, P. R., and Meyburg, A. H. (1975). Urban transportation modeling and planning, Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass., 220–221.
9.
Stopher, P. R. (1992). “The effects of capacity increases on travel behavior,” presented at the 7th Road Engineering Association of Asia and Australasia Conference, Singapore, Jun.
10.
“Travel model development project phase 2 final report: Volume 1: Summary report.” (1980a). Report to Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
11.
“Travel model development project phase 2 final report: Volume 2: Detailed model descriptions.” (1980b). Report to Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Berkeley, Calif., Jun.
12.
“Travel model development project phase 2 final report: Volume 3: MTCFCAST users guide.” (1980c). Report to Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
13.
Watterson, W. T. (1990). “Adapting and applying existing urban models: DRAM and EMPAL in the Seattle region.” J. Urban and Regional Information Systems Assoc., 2(2), 35–46.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 2, 1992
Published online: Sep 1, 1993
Published in print: Sep 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.