Estimating time dependent O‐D trip tables during peak periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) have been used to alleviate congestion problems arising due to demand during peak periods. The success of ITS strategies relies heavily on two factors: 1) the ability to accurately estimate the temporal and spatial distribution of travel demand on the transportation network during peak periods, and, 2) providing real‐time route guidance to users. This paper addresses the first factor. A model to estimate time dependent origin‐destination (O‐D) trip tables in urban areas during peak periods is proposed. The daily peak travel period is divided into several time slices to facilitate simulation and modeling. In urban areas, a majority of the trips during peak periods are work trips. For illustration purposes, only peak period work trips are considered in this paper. The proposed methodology is based on the arrival pattern of trips at a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and the distribution of their travel times. The travel time matrix for the peak period, the O‐D trip table for the peak period, and the number of trips expected to arrive at each TAZ at different work start times are inputs to the model. The model outputs are O‐D trip tables for each time slice in the peak period. 1995 data for the Las Vegas metropolitan area are considered for testing and validating the model, and its application. The model is reasonably robust, but some lack of precision was observed. This is due to two possible reasons: 1) rounding‐off, and, 2) low ratio of total number of trips to total number of O‐D pair combinations. Hence, an attempt is made to study the effect of increasing this ratio on error estimates. The ratio is increased by multiplying each O‐D pair trip element with a scaling factor. Better estimates were obtained. Computational issues involved with the simulation and modeling process are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".