Advanced Activity-Based Models in Context of Planning Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Travel demand modeling today is undergoing a transition from the conventional four-step models to a new generation of advanced activity-based models. The new generation of travel models is characterized by such distinctive features as the use of tours instead of trips as the base unit of travel, the generation of travel in the framework of daily activity agendas of individuals, and the use of fully disaggregate microsimulation techniques instead of the aggregate zonal calculations. Although the theoretical advantages of activity-based models—in particular, behavioral realism and consistency across all travel dimensions—are well known, the practical advantages in the context of planning decisions have rarely been discussed and documented. Experiences to date are summarized for application of activity-based models for various planning purposes in metropolitan regions of New York City; Columbus, Ohio; Atlanta, Georgia; San Francisco, California; and Montreal, Canada. The focus is on the practical planning questions and policies that were analyzed with these models and their relative strengths and advanced features compared with the four-step models. The planning questions and policies include congestion pricing schemes, high-occupancy-vehicle facilities, parking policy, testing impacts of demographic scenarios, and so on. It is shown that activity-based models are capable of treating these planning and policy issues at the level at which four-step models become inadequate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".