TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 AURORA BLVD., CUBAO, QUEZON CITY

CE408
Transportation Engineering

FINAL PROJECT
PLANNING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES OF
SAPIAN, PANITAN, PANAY, AND CITY OF ROXAS, PROVINCE OF CAPIZ

Sabado, Shiela
Sidro, Keith
Sumilang, Carla
Tabuzo, John Jake
Villanueva, Jeremiah

Engr. Hernando E. Gozon Jr.

October 15, 2018

1
Date: October 15, 2018

Technogical Institute of the Philippines

Address: 938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City

Attention : MR. HERNANDO E. GOZON JR.

Faculty – Civil Engineering Program

Subject : Planning of Transportation System for the municipalities of Sapian,

Panitan, Panay, and city of Roxas, province of Capiz
Gentleman:

Asa requirement in completing the course CE 408 Transportation Engineering, we are

submitting herein our report on “Planning of Transportation System for the municipalities
of Sapian, Panitan, Panay, and city of Roxas, province of Capiz”.

”.

This report consists of:

- Narrative Report
- Data Gathering
- Analysis of Data
- Plots, Plans, Diagrams, Graphs, Vicinity Map

Respectfully submitted by:

Sabado, Shiela
Sidro, Keith
Sumilang, Carla
Tabuzo, John Jake
Villanueva, Jeremiah

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to acknowledge Engr. Hernando E. Gozon Jr. for giving us the
knowledge about trip generation and trip distribution which we apply in making this
report and also to his guidance in order for us to complete this subject matter.

Of course, we would like to thank our parents for giving us patience and financial
support in doing this report.

We also like to acknowledge the help of the sites that we used to gather data
most especially,www.wikipedia.com; www.NSO.gov.ph; http://capiz.gov.ph/home/cities-
and-municipalities/.

And also, to our dear institution, Technological Institute of the Philippines for
letting us do our report inside the campus.

Lastly, we would like to acknowledge printing shop for printing and binding our
final manuscript.

3
 ABSTRACT

Background. One of the common problems in the Philippines today is the

congestion of traffic in different highways and roads around the country especially in

urban areas due to the lack of roads and inappropriate width of road versus the traffic

volume of vehicle in some areas, so this is a timely study to propose and create a new

transportation system in the municipality of Roxas City.

The main purpose of this study is to create and design a system of roads that will

decrease the congestion of traffic, decrease the accident or incident in the populated

areas, and decrease the travel time and travel distance in the town proper of Roxas

City.

Our team’s task is to design a transportation system and compute for trip

distribution, trip generation, and mode choice of the system based on the American

Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) requirements and

standards such as minimum radius to obtain also the minimum length if curves and the

minimum stopping sight distance to obtain also the minimum length of curve due to

many considerations.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE 1
COVERING LETTER 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3
ABSTRACT 6-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
INTRODUCTION 6
CHAPTER 1 – NARRATIVE REPORT 8 - 20
CHAPTER 2 – TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS 21 - 33
CHAPTER 3 – TRIP DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 34 - 53
CHAPTER 4 – MODE CHOICE 54 - 67
CHAPTER 5 – TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS 68 – 80
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION 81
CHAPTER 7 – REFERENCE 82

5
Introduction
Transport and traffic are of essential importance for the economic and social

functioning of modern societies. One way or another, 10 to 20 per cent of national time

and economic activity is linked to transport.

From an historic perspective, administrative and military purposes led to

extensive transport and traffic facilities. The gradual specialization in the production of

specific goods subsequently led to the emergence of important trading routes. This kind

of specialization continues to this day and leads to the transportation of raw materials

and workers over ever-longer distances. There has been a dramatic increase in the

transportation of goods and people over the last century and a half. In the cities,

primitive forms of public transport existed from 1840, but the introduction of the

automobile created a huge breakthrough starting around 1890. Motorized transport

enabled the spatial separation of daily activities such as living, working, shopping and

social-recreational activities.

The strong growth in transport and traffic has created a number of serious

problems. Congestion jeopardizes the accessibility of important economic and social

centers. The human environment is affected by interference, especially from motorized

traffic. Traffic accidents cause human suffering and social disruption. Transport

emissions harm the natural environment.

Governments are now faced with the problem of developing policies that

safeguard the economic and social advantages of transportation, but that also minimize

the harmful effects of transportation. The multitude of interactions between the various

6
components of transportation systems and the society in which they are imbedded

makes for extremely complex political deliberations.

To get an idea of the relationship between the various aspects of the transport

system and the way in which policies can influence this system, we begin this chapter

with a system description of the policy areas that relate to traffic and transport. The

system description was formulated by Egeteren van de Riet within the framework of the

Questa project. This project was instigated to provide back up for the formulation of a

traffic- and transport policy for The Netherlands. In this chapter we shall illustrate how

the system diagram that evolved from the Questa project also helped formulate the

Mobilite its plan Vlaanderen (Mobility Plan Flanders)

The terms transport and traffic will be frequently used in the coming text. There is

an important difference between these two concepts. Transport refers to the transfer of

goods and people from trip, i.e. the linking of a certain origin to a destination. The

transport of goods and people requires vehicles and infrastructure. The word traffic is

used to describe the actual movement of vehicles across the infrastructure.

7
 CHAPTER 1
NARRATIVE REPORT
PROBLEM LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION

PROVINCE OF CAPIZ

Capiz (Capiznon: Kapuoran nang Capiz; Hiligaynon: Kapuoran sang Capiz;

Filipino: Lalawigan ng Capiz) is a province located in the region of Western Visayas in

the central section of the Philippines. Its capital is the City of Roxas and is located at the

northeastern portion of Panay Island, bordering Aklan to the north, Antique to the west,

and Iloilo to the south. Capiz faces the Sibuyan Sea to the north.

8
 Capiz is known for the Placuna placenta oyster shell that has the same name

locally and is used for decoration and making lampshades, trays, window and doors.

Likewise, the province is known as the "Seafood Capital of the Philippines" and was

among the top 15 most frequently visited places in the Philippines. Capiz is the site of

the famous coral-stone Santa Monica Church in the town of Pan-ay, home to the largest

Catholic Church bell in Asia. The bell was made from 70 sacks of gold and silver coins

donated by the townsfolk. Measuring seven feet in diameter, five feet in height and

weighing 10,400 kilograms or just over 10 metric tons, the Pan-ay bell is popular among

tourists visiting Capiz.

HISTORY
The account of early Spanish explorers about Capiz and its people was traced

back in the year 1566 when the Spaniards set foot in the mouth of Banica river. Early

settlements were seen in the town of Pan-ay which the town originally called "Bamban"

which was changed by the early Spaniards to "Panay", a word which means "mouth of

the river." This is also the location of a fortress built by Juan de la Isla in late 1570. The

Paseo de Evangelizacion 1566 can be found in the town plaza and was erected through

the efforts of Rev. Msgr. Benjamin F. Advincula.

When the Spaniards led by Miguel López de Legazpi came to Panay from Cebu

in 1569, they found people with tattoos, and so they called the island Isla de los

Pintados.[5] How the island itself came to be called Panay is uncertain. The Aeta called

it Aninipay, after a plant that abounded in the island. Legend has it that López de

Legazpi and his men, in search of food, exclaimed upon the island, pan hay en esta

isla!. They established their first settlement on the island at the mouth of the Banica

9
River and called it Pan-ay. This was the second Spanish settlement in the Philippines,

following San Miguel, Cebu. Unknown to many, Calle Revolución in Panay town is the

second oldest street in the Philippines after Calle Colon in Cebu City, Central Visayas.

Later in 1569, Captain Diego de Artieda, who was sent by Legazpi, landed in the

Town of Panay and proclaimed it as the capital of the province. Later, the Spaniards

moved the capital to its present site upon discovering the town of Capiz (not the

province, and now Roxas City) which was near the sea and provided docking facilities.

The province was created a separate encomienda and was later organized into a

politico-military unit in 1716. The American takeover of the Philippines resulted in the

establishment of a civil government in Capiz on April 15, 1901 by virtue of Act 115.[6]

In 1942, the province was occupied by Japanese troops and was later liberated

by the joint Filipino and American troops with Capiznon guerrillas in 1945.

Capiz and Aklan were united under one province until 25 April 1956, when

President Ramon Magsaysay signed into law Republic Act 1414 separating the two

entities.

10
PROVINCE OF CAPIZ (POPULATION: 2015 - 761,384 CENSUS)
Province of Capiz is politically subdivided into 473 barangays.
Municipality of Cuartero: (Barangay)  Poblacion Ilawod
 Poblacion Ilaya
 Agcabugao
 Quinabcaban
 Agdahon
 Quinayuya
 Agnaga
 San Agustin (Ilas Norte)
 Angub
 Balingasag Municipality of Dumalag: (Barangay)
 Bito-on Ilawod
 Bito-on Ilaya  Concepcion
 Bun-od  Consolacion
 Carataya  Dolores
 Lunayan  Duran
 Mahunodhunod  San Agustin
 Maindang  San Jose
 Mainit  San Martin
 Malagab-i  San Miguel
 Nagba  San Rafael
 Poblacion Ilawod  San Roque
 Poblacion Ilaya  Santa Carmen
 Poblacion Takas  Santa Cruz
 Puti-an  Santa Monica
 San Antonio  Santa Rita
 Sinabsaban  Santa Teresa
 Mahabang Sapa  Santo Angel
 Santo Niño
Municipality of Dao: (Barangay)  Santo Rosario
 Poblacion
 Aganan
 Agtambi Municipality of Dumarao: (Barangay)
 Agtanguay
 Balucuan  Agbatuan
 Bita  Aglalana
 Centro  Aglanot
 Daplas  Agsirab
 Duyoc  Alipasiawan
 Ilas Sur  Astorga
 Lacaron  Bayog
 Malonoy  Bungsuan
 Manhoy  Calapawan
 Mapulang Bato  Codingle
 Matagnop  Cubi
 Nasunogan  Dacuton

11
 Dangula  Aglibacao
 Gibato  Agloloway
 Guinotos  Bayebaye
 Jambad  Caridad
 Janguslob  Esperanza
 Lawaan  Fe
 Malonoy  Ganzon
 Nagsulang  Guintas
 Ongol Ilawod  Igang
 Ongol Ilaya  Jaena Norte
 Poblacion Ilawod  Jaena Sur
 Poblacion Ilaya  Jagnaya
 Sagrada Familia  Lapaz
 Salcedo  Linambasan
 San Juan  Lucero
 Sibariwan  Maantol
 Tamulalod  Masgrau
 Taslan  Milan
 Tina  Molet
 Tinaytayan  Pangabat
 Traciano / Agsalay  Pangabuan
 Pasol-o
Municipality of Ivisan: (Barangay)  Poblacion
 Agmalobo  San Jose
 Agustin Navarra (Agumang - ang)  San Juan
 Balaring  San Vicente
 Basiao  Santo Rosario
 Cabugao Municipality of Maayon: (Barangay)
 Cudian
 Ilaya-Ivisan (Yabton)  Aglimocon
 Malocloc Norte  Alasaging
 Malocloc Sur (Mahayag)  Alayunan
 Matnog  Balighot
 Mianay  Batabat
 Ondoy  Bongbongan
 Poblacion Norte  Cabungahan
 Poblacion Sur  Canapian
 Santa Cruz  Carataya
 Duluan
Municipality of Jamindan: (Barangay)  East Villaflores
 Agambulong  Fernandez
 Agbun-od  Guinbi-alan
 Agcagay  Indayagan

12
 Jebaca  Poblacion Tabuc
 Maalan  Sinondojan
 Manayupit  Tugas
 New Guia  Tumalalud
 Quevedo (Ngalan)
 Old Guia Municipality of Panay: (Barangay)
 Palaguian  Agbalo
 Parallan  Agbanban
 Piña  Agojo
 Poblacion Ilawod  Anhawon
 Poblacion Ilaya  Bagacay
 Poblacion Tabuc  Bago Chiquito
 Quinabonglan  Bago Grande
 Quinat-uyan  Bahit
 Salgan  Bantique
 Tapulang  Bato
 Tuburan  Binangig
 West Villaflores  Binantuan
Municipality of Mambusao:  Bonga
(Barangay)  Buntod
 Butacal
 Atiplo  Cabugao Este
 Balat-an  Cabugao Oeste
 Balit  Calapawan
 Batiano  Calitan
 Bating  Candual
 Bato Bato  Cogon
 Baye  Daga
 Bergante  Ilamnay
 Bunga  Jamul-awon
 Bula  Lanipga
 Bungsi  Lat-asan
 Burias  Libon
 Caidquid  Linao
 Cala-agus  Linateran
 Libo-o  Lomboy
 Manibad  Lus-onan
 Maralag  Magubilan
 Najus-an  Navitas
 Pangpang Norte  Pawa
 Pangpang Sur  Pili
 Pinay  Poblacion Ilawod
 Poblacion Proper  Poblacion Ilaya

13
 Poblacion Tabuc  Natividad
 Talasa  Olalo
 Tanza Norte  Poblacion
 Tanza Sur  Rosario
 Tico  San Antonio
 San Blas
Municipality of Panitan: (Barangay)  San Esteban
 Agbabadiang  San Fernando
 Agkilo  San Nicolas
 Agloway  San Pedro
 Ambilay  San Ramon
 Bahit  San Silvestre
 Balatucan  Sinamongan
 Banga-an  Santa Fe
 Cabugao  Tabun-acan
 Cabangahan  Yating
 Cadio Municipality of Pontevedra:
 Cala-an (Barangay)
 Capagao
 Cogon  Agbanog
 Conciencia  Agdalipe
 Enseñagan  Ameligan
 Intampilan  Bailan
 Pasugue  Banate
 Poblacion Ilawod  Bantigue
 Poblacion Ilaya  Binuntucan
 Quios  Cabugao
 Salocon  Gabuc (Caugiat)
 Tabuc Norte  Guba
 Tabuc Sur  Hipona
 Timpas  Intungcan
 Tincupon  Jolongajog
 Tinigban  Lantangan
 Linampongan
Municipality of Pilar: (Barangay)  Malag-it
 Balogo  Manapao
 Binaobawan  Ilawod (Poblacion)
 Blasco  Ilaya (Poblacion)
 Casanayan  Rizal
 Cayus  San Pedro
 Dayhagan  Solo
 Dulangan  Sublangon
 Monteflor  Tabuc

14
 Tacas  Barangay 11
 Yatingan  Barra
 Bato
Municipality of President Roxas:  Baybay
(Barangay)  Bolo
 Aranguel  Cabugao
 Badiangon  Cagay
 Bayuyan  Cogon
 Cabugcabug  Culajao
 Carmencita  Culasi
 Cubay  Dumolog
 Culilang  Dayao
 Goce  Dinginan
 Hanglid  Gabu-an
 Ibaca  Inzo Arnaldo Village (Cadimahan)
 Madulano  Jumaguicjic
 Manoling  Lanot
 Marita  Lawa-an
 Pandan  Li-ong
 Pantalan  Libas
 Pinamihagan  Loctugan
 Poblacion  Lonoy
 Pondol  Milibili
 Quiajo  Mongpong
 Sangkal  Olotayan
 Santo Niño  Punta Cogon
 Vizcaya  Punta Tabuc
 San Jose
ROXAS CITY: (Barangay)  Sibaguan
 Talon
 Adlawan  Tanque
 Bago  Tanza
 Balijuagan  Tiza
 Banica
 Barangay 1 Municipality of Sapian : (Barangay)
 Barangay 2
 Barangay 3  Agsilab
 Barangay 4  Agtatacay Norte
 Barangay 5  Agtatacay Sur
 Barangay 6  Bilao
 Barangay 7  Damayan
 Barangay 8  Dapdapan
 Barangay 9  Lonoy
 Barangay 10  Majanlud

15
 Maninang  Da-an Banwa
 Poblacion  Da-an Norte
 Da-an Sur
Municipality of Sigma: (Barangay)  Garcia
 Acbo  Gebio-an
 Amaga  Hilwan
 Balucuan  Initan
 Bangonbangon  Katipunan
 Capuyhan  Lagdungan
 Cogon  Lahug
 Dayhagon  Libertad
 Guintas  Mabini
 Malapad Cogon  Maliao
 Mangoso  Malitbog
 Mansacul  Minan
 Matangcong  Nayawan
 Matinabus  Poblacion
 Mianay  Rizal Norte
 Oyong  Rizal Sur
 Pagbunitan  Roosevelt
 Parian  Roxas
 Pinamalatican  Salong
 Poblacion Norte  San Antonio
 Poblacion Sur  San Francisco
 Tawog  San Jose
 San Julian
Municipality of Tapaz: (Barangay)  San Miguel Ilawod
 San Miguel Ilaya
 Abangay  San Nicolas
 Acuña  San Pedro
 Agcococ  San Roque
 Aglinab  San Vicente
 Aglupacan  Santa Ana
 Agpalali  Santa Petronila
 Apero  Senonod
 Artuz  Siya
 Bag-Ong Barrio  Switch
 Bato-bato  Tabon
 Buri  Tacayan
 Camburanan  Taft
 Candelaria  Taganghin
 Carida  Taslan
 Cristina  Wright

16
SAPIAN (POPULATION: 25,821 - 2015 CENSUS)
Sapian, officially the Municipality of Sapian, (Hiligaynon: Banwa sang Sapian;

Aklanon: Banwa it Sapian; Filipino: Bayan ng Sapian), and sometimes spelled Sapi-an,

is a 4th class municipality in the province of Capiz, Philippines. According to the 2015

census, it has a population of 25,821 people. It is 27 kilometres (17 mi) from Roxas City,

the provincial capital.

Sapian Bay which is situated in the northern part of the municipality is

geographically joined with Capiz Bay. The 30 km² Sapian and Capiz shallow sea bays

has extensive intertidal mudflats, sandy beaches, mangrove swamps, estuaries of

several small rivers, and associated coastal lagoons and marshes. Sapian Bay which

opens up to the Sibuyan Sea is a source of livelihood for many Sapianons. Marine

produce from Sapian Bay include green mussels "tahong", oyster "talaba", lobster and

different species of fish,and clams. Many lands near sea water were developed into

17
fishponds that produce milkfish (bangus), prawns and crabs. Carpets of rice fields, trees

and flowers can be seen as one travels through Sapian along the national road which

connect Roxas City to Iloilo and Aklan.

The ricefield along the national road are slowly disappearing to give way to

housing developments. Sapian's main agricultural produce are rice and coconuts.

Sapian is politically subdivided into 10 barangays. [2]

 Agsilab  Dapdapan
 Agtatacay Norte  Lonoy
 Agtatacay Sur  Majanlud
 Bilao  Maninang
 Damayan  Poblacion

PANITAN (POPULATION: 40,289- 2015 CENSUS)

Panitan, officially the Municipality of Panitan, is a 3rd class municipality in the

province of Capiz, Philippines. According to the 2015 census, it has a population of

40,289 people.

Pronounced as Panit-an, it is 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) from Roxas City.

Panitan is politically subdivided into 26 barangays.

 Agbabadiang  Conciencia
 Agkilo  Enseñagan
 Agloway  Intampilan
 Ambilay  Pasugue
 Bahit  Poblacion Ilawod
 Balatucan  Poblacion Ilaya
 Banga-an  Quios
 Cabugao  Salocon
 Cabangahan  Tabuc Norte
 Cadio  Tabuc Sur
 Cala-an  Timpas
 Capagao  Tincupon
 Cogon  Tinigban

PANAY (POPULATION: 45,846 - 2015 CENSUS)

18
 Panay, officially the Municipality of Panay, is a 3rd class municipality in the province

of Capiz, Philippines. According to the 2015 census, it has a population of 46,114

people. Pronounced as Pan-ay, it used to be the Capital of Capiz Province. Panay is 8

kilometres (5.0 mi) east from Roxas City. Pan-ay is the site of the famous coral-stone

Sta. Monica Church, home to the largest Catholic Church bell in Asia.

Panay is politically subdivided into 42 barangays. 

 Agbalo  Daga
 Agbanban  Ilamnay
 Agojo  Jamul-awon
 Anhawon  Lanipga
 Bagacay  Lat-asan
 Bago Chiquito  Libon
 Bago Grande  Linao
 Bahit  Linateran
 Bantique  Lomboy
 Bato  Lus-onan
 Binangig  Magubilan
 Binantuan  Navitas
 Bonga  Pawa
 Buntod  Pili
 Butacal  Poblacion Ilawod
 Cabugao Este  Poblacion Ilaya
 Cabugao Oeste  Poblacion Tabuc
 Calapawan  Talasa
 Calitan  Tanza Norte
 Candual  Tanza Sur
 Cogon  Tico

19
 CHAPTER 2
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
Trip generation is the first step in the conventional four-step transportation

forecasting process (followed by trip distribution, mode choice, and route assignment),

widely used for forecasting travel demands. It predicts the number of trips originating in

or destined for a particular traffic analysis zone.

Typically, trip generation analysis focuses on residences, and residential trip

generation is thought of as a function of the social and economic attributes

of households. At the level of the traffic analysis zone, residential land uses "produce" or

generate trips. Traffic analysis zones are also destinations of trips, trip attractors. The

analysis of attractors focuses on nonresidential land uses.

20
 A forecasting activity, such as one based on the concept of economic base

analysis, provides aggregate measures of population and activity growth. Forecasting

distributes forecast changes in activities in a disaggregate-spatial manner among

zones. The next step in the transportation planning process addresses the question of

the frequency of origins and destinations of trips in each zone: for short, trip generation.

The first zonal trip generation (and its inverse, attraction) analysis in

the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) followed the “decay of activity intensity

with distance from the central (CBD)” thinking current at the time. Data from extensive

surveys were arrayed and interpreted on a-distance-from-CBD scale. For example, a

commercial land use in ring 0 (the CBD and vicinity) was found to generate 728 vehicle

trips per day in 1956. That same land use in ring 5 (about 17 km (11 mi) from the CBD)

generated about 150 trips per day.

The case of trip destinations will illustrate use of the concept of activity decline

with intensity (as measured by distance from CBD) worked. Destination data are

arrayed:

Table: Trip Destinations per unit (Acre) of Land

Ring Manufacturing Commercial Open Space etc.

0 X1m X1c etc.

. . . .

. . . .

7 x7m x7c etc.

21
 The land use analysis provides information on how land uses will change from an

initial year (say t = 0) to some forecast year (say t = 20). Suppose we are examining a

zone. We take the mix of land uses projected, say, for year t = 20 and apply the trip

destination rates for the ring in which the zone is located. That is, there will this many

acres of commercial land use, that many acres of public open space, etc., in the zone.

The acres of each use type are multiplied by the ring specific destination rates. The

result is summed to yield the zone’s trip destinations. It is to be noted that the CATS

assumed that trip destination rates would not change over time.

Later Analysis

As was true for land use analysis, the approach developed at CATS was

considerably modified in later studies. The conventional four-step paradigm evolved as

follows: Types of trips are considered. Home-based (residential) trips are divided into

work and other, with major attention given to work trips. Movement associated with the

home end of a trip is called trip production, whether the trip is leaving or coming to the

home. Non-home-based or non-residential trips are those a home base is not involved.

In this case, the term production is given to the origin of a trip and the term attraction

refers to the destination of the trip.

Residential trip generation analysis is often undertaken using statistical

regression. Person, transit, walking, and auto trips per unit of time are regressed on

variables thought to be explanatory, such as: household size, number of workers in the

22
household, persons in an age group, type of residence (single family, apartment, etc.),

and so on. Usually, measures on five to seven independent variables are available;

additive causality is assumed.

Usually also, regressions are made at the aggregate/zone level. Variability

among households within a zone isn’t measured when data are aggregated. High

correlation coefficients are found when regressions are run on aggregate data, say,

about 0.90, but lower coefficients, say, about 0.25, are found when regressions are

made on observation units such as households. In short, there is much variability that is

hidden by aggregation.

Sometimes cross-classification techniques are applied to residential trip

generation problems. The CATS procedure described above is a cross-classification

procedure.

Classification techniques are often used for non-residential trip generation. First,

the type of land use is a factor influencing travel, it is regarded as a causal factor. A list

of land uses and associated trip rates illustrated a simple version of the use of this

technique:

Table: Trips per day

Land Use Type Trips

Department Store X

Grocery Store Y

etc.

23
 Such a list can be improved by adding information. Large, medium, and small

might be defined for each activity and rates given by size. Number of employees might

be used: for example, <10, 10-20, etc. Also, floor space is used to refine estimates.

In other cases, regressions, usually of the form trip rate = f(number of

employees, floor area of establishment), are made for land use types.

Special treatment is often given major trip generators: large shopping centers,

airports, large manufacturing plants, and recreation facilities.

The theoretical work related to trip generation analysis is grouped under the

rubric travel demand theory, which treats trip generation-attraction, as well

as mode choice, route selection, and other topics.

ITE Trip Generation procedures

The Institute of Transportation Engineers's Trip Generation informational report

provides trip generation rates for numerous land use and building types. The planner

can add local adjustment factors and treat mixes of uses with ease. Ongoing work is

adding to the stockpile of numbers; over 4000 studies were aggregated for the current

edition.

ITE Procedures estimate the number of trips entering or exiting a site at a given

time (sometimes the number entering and exiting combined is estimated). ITE Rates are

functions of type of development, and square footage, number of gas pumps, number of

24
dwelling units, or other standard measurable things, usually produced in site plans.

They are typically of the form

OR .

They do not consider location, competitors, complements, the cost of

transportation, or many other obviously likely important factors. They are often

estimated based on very few observations (a non-statistically significant sample). Many

localities require their use to ensure adequate public facilities for growth management

and subdivision approval.

Roxas City

Population = 102,806 persons

Households = 66,517 HH

Average Person / HH = 4

n = 12

Member
HH Size 1 2 3 4
3 1 3 3
Trips/day 2 3 3 4
2 4 5 7
Y 7 8 11 14

REGRESSION METHOOD

y = bx + a
x = household

25
n = number of household survey
n = 12

Σx = (3x3) + (3x2) + (3x3) + (3x4)

Σx = 30

Σy = 7 + 8 + 11 + 14
Σy = 40
Σxy= (1x3) + (1x2) + (1x2) + (2x1) + (2x3) + (2x4) + (3x3) + (3x3) + (3x5) + (4x3) + (4x4)
+ (4x7)
Σxy = 112

Σx2 = 3(1) 2 + 3(2) 2 + 3(3) 2 + 3(4) 2

Σx2 = 90

b=

b = 0.8

Y= =

Y = 3.33

X= =

X = 2.50
a = 3.33 – 1.30(2.50)

26
a = 1.33
y = 0.8x + 1.33
y = 0.8(4) + 1.33
y = 4.53 trips/day/HH

y’ = 4.53(66,517)
y’ = 301,322.01 trips/day/barangays

Sapian, Capiz
Population = 83, 466 persons
Housholds = 10881.5 HH
Average Person / HH = 4
n = 12

Member
HH Size 1 2 3 4
1 2 1 4
Trips/day 3 3 3 3
2 4 3 6
Y 6 9 7 13

REGRESSION METHOOD

y = bx + a

27
x = household

n = number of household survey

n = 12
Σx = (3x1) + (3x2) + (3x3) + (3x4)
Σx = 30

Σy = 6 + 9 + 7 + 13
Σy = 35
Σxy= (1x1) + (1x3) + (1x2) + (2x2) + (2x3) + (2x4) + (3x1) + (3x3) + (3x3) + (4x4) + (4x3)
+ (4x6)
Σxy = 97

Σx2 = 3(1) 2 + 3(2) 2 + 3(3) 2 + 3(4) 2

Σx2 = 90

b=

b = 0.63

Y= =

Y = 2.92

28
X= =

X = 2.50

a = 2.92 – 0.63(2.50)
a = 1.345

y = 0.63x + 1.345
y = 0.63(4) + 1.345
y = 3.865 trips/day/HH
y’ = 3.865(10881.5)
y’ = 42056.9975 trips/day/barangays

Panitan, Capiz
Population = 110,706 persons
Housholds = 7222.75 HH
Average Person / HH = 4
n = 12

Member
HH Size 1 2 3 4
2 1 5 6
Trips/day 2 3 3 6
2 4 5 7
Y 6 8 13 19

REGRESSION METHOOD

29
y = bx + a
x = household

n = number of household survey

n = 12
Σx = (3x1) + (3x2) + (3x3) + (3x4)
Σx = 30

Σy = 6 + 8 + 13 + 19
Σy = 46
Σxy= (2x3) + (1x2) + (1x2) + (2x1) + (2x3) + (2x4) + (3x5) + (3x3) + (3x5) + (4x6) + (4x6)
+ (4x7)
Σxy = 141

Σx2 = 3(1) 2 + 3(2) 2 + 3(3) 2 + 3(4) 2

Σx2 = 90

b=

b = 1.73

Y= =

Y = 3.83

30
X= =

X = 2.50

a = 3.83 – 1.73(2.50)
a = -0.495

y = 1.533x + (-0.495)
y = 1.533(4) + (-0.495)
y = 5.637 trips/day/HH

y’ = 5.637(7222.75)
y’ = 40714.64 trips/day/barangay
Panay, Capiz

Population = 45, 846 persons

Housholds = 18,722.5 HH
Average Person / HH = 4
n = 12

Member
HH Size 1 2 3 4
3 2 5 6
Trips/day 2 3 2 4
2 2 3 4
Y 7 7 10 14

REGRESSION METHOOD

31
y = bx + a
x = household

n = number of household survey

n = 12
Σx = (3x1) + (3x2) + (3x3) + (3x4)
Σx = 30
Σy = 7 + 7 + 10 +14
Σy = 38
Σxy= (3x2) + (1x2) + (1x2) + (2x2) + (2x3) + (2x2) + (3x5) + (3x2) + (3x3) + (4x6) + (4x4)
+ (4x4)
Σxy = 110

Σx2 = 3(1) 2 + 3(2) 2 + 3(3) 2 + 3(4) 2

Σx2 = 90

b=

b=1

Y= =

Y = 3.167

32
X= =

X = 2.50

a = 3.167 – 1(2.50)
a = 0.667

y = 1x + 0.667
y = 1(4) + 0.667
y = 4.667 trips/day/HH
y’ = 4.667(18722.5)
y’ = 87,377.91 trips/day/barangay

CHAPTER 3

TRIP DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Trip distribution (or destination choice or zonal interchange analysis), is the

second component (after trip generation, but before mode choice and route assignment)

in the traditional four-step transportation forecasting model. This step matches trip

makers’ origins and destinations to develop a “trip table”, a matrix that displays the

number of trips going from each origin to each destination. Historically, this component

has been the least developed component of the transportation planning model.

Table: Illustrative trip table

33
 Origin \ Destination 1 2 3 Z

1 T11 T12 T13 T1Z

2 T21

3 T31

Z TZ1 TZZ

Where: T ij = trips from origin i to destination j. Note that the practical value of

trips on the diagonal, e.g. from zone 1 to zone 1, is zero since no intra-zonal trip occurs.

Work trip distribution is the way that travel demand models understand how

people take jobs. There are trip distribution models for other (non-work) activities, which

follow the same structure.

History

Over the years, modelers have used several different formulations of trip

distribution. The first was the Fratar or Growth model (which did not differentiate trips by

purpose). This structure extrapolated a base year trip table to the future based on

growth, but took no account of changing spatial accessibility due to increased supply or

changes in travel patterns and congestion. (Simple Growth factor model, Furness Model

and Detroit model are models developed at the same time period)

The next models developed were the gravity model and the intervening

opportunities model. The most widely used formulation is still the gravity model.

34
 While studying traffic in Baltimore, Maryland, Alan Voorhees developed a

mathematical formula to predict traffic patterns based on land use. This formula has

been instrumental in the design of numerous transportation and public works projects

around the world. He wrote "A General Theory of Traffic Movement," (Voorhees, 1956)

which applied the gravity model to trip distribution, which translates trips generated in an

area to a matrix that identifies the number of trips from each origin to each destination,

which can then be loaded onto the network.

Evaluation of several model forms in the 1960s concluded that "the gravity model

and intervening opportunity model proved of about equal reliability and utility in

simulating the 1948 and 1955 trip distribution for Washington, D.C." (Heanue and Pyers

1966). The Fratar model was shown to have weakness in areas experiencing land use

changes. As comparisons between the models showed that either could be calibrated

equally well to match observed conditions, because of computational ease, gravity

models became more widely spread than intervening opportunities models. Some

theoretical problems with the intervening opportunities model were discussed by

Whitaker and West (1968) concerning its inability to account for all trips generated in a

zone which makes it more difficult to calibrate, although techniques for dealing with the

limitations have been developed by Ruiter (1967).

With the development of logit and other discrete choice techniques, new,

demographically disaggregate approaches to travel demand were attempted. By

including variables other than travel time in determining the probability of making a trip,

it is expected to have a better prediction of travel behavior. The logit model and gravity

model have been shown by Wilson (1967) to be of essentially the same form as used in

35
statistical mechanics, the entropy maximization model. The application of these models

differs in concept in that the gravity model uses impedance by travel time, perhaps

stratified by socioeconomic variables, in determining the probability of trip making, while

a discrete choice approach brings those variables inside the utility or impedance

function. Discrete choice models require more information to estimate and more

computational time.

Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985) have developed combination destination choice

and mode choice models using a logit formulation for work and non-work trips. Because

of computational intensity, these formulations tended to aggregate traffic zones into

larger districts or rings in estimation. In current application, some models, including for

instance the transportation planning model used in Portland, Oregon, use a logit

formulation for destination choice. Allen (1984) used utilities from a logit based mode

choice model in determining composite impedance for trip distribution. However, that

approach, using mode choice log-sums implies that destination choice depends on the

same variables as mode choice. Levinson and Kumar (1995) employ mode choice

probabilities as a weighting factor and develop a specific impedance function or “f-

curve” for each mode for work and non-work trip purposes.

Mathematics

At this point in the transportation planning process, the information for zonal

interchange analysis is organized in an origin-destination table. On the left is listed trips

produced in each zone. Along the top are listed the zones, and for each zone we list its

attraction. The table is n x n, where n = the number of zones.

36
 Each cell in our table is to contain the number of trips from zone i to zone j. We

do not have these within-cell numbers yet, although we have the row and column totals.

With data organized this way, our task is to fill in the cells for tables headed t = 1

through say t = n.

Actually, from home interview travel survey data and attraction analysis we have

the cell information for t = 1. The data are a sample, so we generalize the sample to the

universe. The techniques used for zonal interchange analysis explore the empirical rule

that fits the t = 1 data. That rule is then used to generate cell data for t = 2, t = 3, t = 4,

etc., to t = n.

The first technique developed to model zonal interchange involves a model such

as this:

Where:

: trips from i to j.
: trips from i, as per our generation analysis
: trips attracted to j, as per our generation analysis
: travel cost friction factor, say =
: Calibration parameter

37
 Zone i generates T i trips; how many will go to zone j? That depends on the

attractiveness of j compared to the attractiveness of all places; attractiveness is

tempered by the distance a zone is from zone i. We compute the fraction comparing j to

all places and multiply T ;i by it.

The rule is often of a gravity form:

where:

 : populations of i and j

 : parameters

But in the zonal interchange mode, we use numbers related to trip origins (T ;i)

and trip destinations (T ;j) rather than populations.

There are lots of model forms because we may use weights and special

calibration parameters, e.g., one could write say:

or

where:

a, b, c, d are parameters
38
 : travel cost (e.g. distance, money, time)

: inbound trips, destinations

: outbound trips, origin

Gravity model

The gravity model illustrates the macroscopic relationships between places (say

homes and workplaces). It has long been posited that the interaction between two

locations declines with increasing (distance, time, and cost) between them, but is

positively associated with the amount of activity at each location (Isard, 1956). In

analogy with physics, Reilly (1929) formulated Reilly's law of retail gravitation, and J. Q.

Stewart (1948) formulated definitions of demographic gravitation, force, energy, and

potential, now called accessibility (Hansen, 1959). The distance decay factor of

1/distance has been updated to a more comprehensive function of generalized cost,

which is not necessarily linear - a negative exponential tends to be the preferred form.

In analogy with Newton’s law of gravity, a gravity model is often used in transportation

planning. The gravity model has been corroborated many times as a basic underlying

39
aggregate relationship (Scott 1988, Cervero 1989, Levinson and Kumar 1995). The rate

of decline of the interaction (called alternatively, the impedance or friction factor, or the

utility or propensity function) has to be empirically measured, and varies by context.

Limiting the usefulness of the gravity model is its aggregate nature. Though policy also

operates at an aggregate level, more accurate analyses will retain the most detailed

level of information as long as possible. While the gravity model is very successful in

explaining the choice of a large number of individuals, the choice of any given individual

varies greatly from the predicted value. As applied in an urban travel demand context,

the disutilities are primarily time, distance, and cost, although discrete choice models

with the application of more expansive utility expressions are sometimes used, as is

stratification by income or vehicle ownership.

Mathematically, the gravity model often takes the form:

Where

= Trips between origin i and destination j

= Trips originating at i
= Trips destined for j
= travel cost between i and j
= balancing factors solved iteratively. See Iterative proportional fitting.

40
 = distance decay factor, as in the accessibility model

It is doubly constrained, in the sense that for any i the total number of trips

from i predicted by the model always (mechanically, for any parameter values) equals

the real total number of trips from i. Similarly, the total number of trips to j predicted by

the model equals the real total number of trips to j, for any j.

Entropy analysis

Wilson (1970) gives us another way to think about zonal interchange problem.

This section treats Wilson’s methodology to give a grasp of central ideas.

To start, consider some trips where we have seven people in origin zones commuting to seven

jobs in destination zones. One configuration of such trips will be:

Table: Configuration of trips

Zone 1 2 3

1 2 1 1

2 0 2 1

where 0! = 1.

41
 That configuration can appear in 1,260 ways. We have calculated the number of

ways that configuration of trips might have occurred, and to explain the calculation, let’s

recall those coin tossing experiments talked about so much in elementary statistics.

The number of ways a two-sided coin can come up is , where n is the number

of times we toss the coin. If we toss the coin once, it can come up heads or

tails, . If we toss it twice, it can come up HH, HT, TH, or TT, 4 ways, and .

To ask the specific question about, say, four coins coming up all heads, we

calculate .Two heads and two tails would be . We are

solving the equation:

important point is that as n gets larger, our distribution gets more and more peaked, and

it is more and more reasonable to think of a most likely state.

However, the notion of most likely state comes not from this thinking; it comes

from statistical mechanics, a field well known to Wilson and not so well known to

transportation planners. The result from statistical mechanics is that a descending

series is most likely. Think about the way the energy from lights in the classroom is

affecting the air in the classroom. If the effect resulted in an ascending series, many of

the atoms and molecules would be affected a lot and a few would be affected a little.

The descending series would have a lot affected not at all or not much and only a few

affected very much. We could take a given level of energy and compute excitation levels

in ascending and descending series. Using the formula above, we would compute the

42
ways particular series could occur, and we would concluded that descending series

dominate.

That is more-or-less Boltzmann's Law,

That is, the particles at any particular excitation level j will be a negative

exponential function of the particles in the ground state, p 0, the excitation level, e j, and

a parameter , which is a function of the (average) energy available to the particles

in the system.

The two paragraphs above have to do with ensemble methods of calculation

developed by Gibbs, a topic well beyond the reach of these notes.

Returning to our O-D matrix, note that we have not used as much information as we would have

from an O and D survey and from our earlier work on trip generation. For the same travel pattern in the

O-D matrix used before, we would have row and column totals, i.e.:

Table: Illustrative O-D Matrix with row and column totals

Zone 1 2 3

Zone Ti \Tj 2 3 2

1 4 2 1 1

2 3 0 2 1

Consider the way the four folks might travel, 4!/(2!1!1!) = 12; consider three folks,

3!/(0!2!1!) = 3. All travel can be combined in 12*3 = 36 ways. The possible configuration

of trips is, thus, seen to be much constrained by the column and row totals.

43
 We put this point together with the earlier work with our matrix and the notion of

most likely state to say that we want to

subject to

where:

and this is the problem that we have solved above.

Wilson adds another consideration; he constrains the system to the amount of

energy available (i.e., money), and we have the additional constraint,

where C is the quantity of resources available and is the travel cost

from i to j.

The discussion thus far contains the central ideas in Wilson’s work, but we are

not yet to the place where the reader will recognize the model as it is formulated by

Wilson.

First, writing the function to be maximized using Lagrangian multipliers, we

have:

44
where are the Lagrange multipliers, having an energy sense.

Second, it is convenient to maximize the natural log (ln) rather than w(Tij), for

then we may use Stirling's approximation.

so

Third, evaluating the maximum, we have

with solution

Finally, substituting this value of back into our constraint equations, we have:

and, taking the constant multiples outside of the summation sign

45
Let

we have

which says that the most probable distribution of trips has a gravity model form, is

proportional to trip origins and destinations. A i, B j, and ensure constraints are met.

Turning now to computation, we have a large problem. First, we do not know the

value of C, which earlier on we said had to do with the money available, it was a cost

constraint. Consequently, we have to set to different values and then find the best set

of values for and . We know what means – the greater the value of , the less

the cost of average distance traveled. (Compare in Boltzmann's Law noted earlier.)

Second, the values of and depend on each other. So for each value of , we

must use an iterative solution. There are computer programs to do this.

Wilson's method has been applied to the Lowry model

GRAVITY MODEL METHOD

FORMULA:

Tij future = Pi( )

46
P – Production – Origin
A – Attraction – Destination

Zone 1 2 3 4
1 1 2 3 5
2 6 2 7 7
3 4 4 8 6
4 8 5 1 3

Time(min) Fij
1 82
2 52
3 50
4 41
5 39
6 26
7 20
8 13

GIVEN:

Zone 1 2 3 4 P
1 T11 T12 T13 T14 190
2 T21 T22 T23 T24 250
3 T31 T32 T33 T32 350
4 T41 T42 T43 T44 220
A 320 270 180 240 1010

47
SOLUTION:

T11 = 190( )

T11= 85

T12 = 190( )

T12 = 46

T13 = 190( )

T13 = 29

T14 = 190( )

T14 = 30

T21 = 250( )

T21 = 68

T22 = 250( )

T22 = 114

T23 = 250( )

T23 = 29

48
T24 = 250( )

T24 = 39

T31 = 350( )

T31 = 140

T32 = 350( )

T32 = 118

T33 = 350( )

T33 = 25

T34 = 350( )

T34 = 67

T41 = 220( )

T41 = 22

T42 = 220( )

T42 = 56

T43 = 220( )

T43 = 78

T44 = 220( )

49
T44 = 64

Zone 1 2 3 4 P
1 85 46 29 30 190
2 68 114 29 39 250
3 140 118 25 67 350
4 22 56 78 64 220
A 315 334 161 200 1010

CORRECTION:

Aj =

A1 = = 325

A2 = = 218

A3 = = 201

A2 = = 288

T11 = 190( )

T11= 85

50
T12 = 190( )

T12 = 36

T13 = 190( )

T13 = 32

T14 = 190( )

T14 = 36

T21 = 250( )

T21 = 71

T22 = 250( )

T22 = 96

T23 = 250( )

T23 = 34

T24 = 250( )

51
T24 = 49

T31 = 350( )

T31 = 144

T32 = 350( )

T32 = 97

T33 = 350( )

T33 = 28

T34 = 350( )

T34 = 81

T41 = 350( )

T41 = 21

T42 = 350( )

T42 = 43

T43 = 350( )

T43 = 83

52
T44 = 350( )

T44 = 73

TRIP MATRIX:

Zone 1 2 3 4 P
1 85 37 32 36 190
2 71 96 34 49 250
3 143 94 31 82 350
4 21 43 83 73 220
A 320 270 180 240 1010

53
 CHAPTER 4
MODE CHOICE

Mode choice analysis is the third step in the conventional four-

step transportation forecasting model. The steps, in order, are trip generation, trip

distribution, mode choice analysis, and route assignment. Trip distribution's zonal

interchange analysis yields a set of origin destination tables that tells where the trips will

be made. Mode choice analysis allows the modeler to determine what mode of

transport will be used, and what modal share results.

The early transportation planning model developed by the Chicago Area

Transportation Study (CATS) focused on transit. It wanted to know how much travel

would continue by transit. The CATS divided transit trips into two classes: trips to

the Central Business District, or CBD (mainly by subway/elevated transit, express

buses, and commuter trains) and other (mainly on the local bus system). For the latter,

increases in auto ownership and use were a trade-off against bus use; trend data were

used. CBD travel was analyzed using historic mode choice data together with

projections of CBD land uses. Somewhat similar techniques were used in many studies.

Two decades after CATS, for example, the London study followed essentially the same

procedure, but in this case, researchers first divided trips into those made in the inner

part of the city and those in the outer part. This procedure was followed because it was

thought that income (resulting in the purchase and use of automobiles) drove mode

choice.

54
Diversion curve techniques

The CATS had diversion curve techniques available and used them for some

tasks. At first, the CATS studied the diversion of auto traffic from streets and arterial

roads to proposed expressways. Diversion curves were also used for bypasses built

around cities to find out what percent of traffic would use the bypass. The mode choice

version of diversion curve analysis proceeds this way: one forms a ratio, say:

where:

cm = travel time by mode m and

R is empirical data in the form:

55
 Given the R that we have calculated, the graph tells us the percent of users in

the market that will choose transit. A variation on the technique is to use costs rather

than time in the diversion ratio. The decision to use a time or cost ratio turns on the

problem at hand. Transit agencies developed diversion curves for different kinds of

situations, so variables like income and population density entered implicitly.

Diversion curves are based on empirical observations, and their improvement

has resulted from better (more and more pointed) data. Curves are available for many

markets. It is not difficult to obtain data and array results. Expansion of transit has

motivated data development by operators and planners. Yacov Zahavi’s UMOT studies,

discussed earlier, contain many examples of diversion curves.

In a sense, diversion curve analysis is expert system analysis. Planners could

"eyeball" neighborhoods and estimate transit ridership by routes and time of day.

Instead, diversion is observed empirically and charts drawn.

56
Disaggregate travel demand models

Travel demand theory was introduced in the appendix on traffic generation. The

core of the field is the set of models developed following work by Stan Warner in 1962

(Strategic Choice of Mode in Urban Travel: A Study of Binary Choice). Using data from

the CATS, Warner investigated classification techniques using models from biology and

psychology. Building from Warner and other early investigators, disaggregate demand

models emerged. Analysis is disaggregate in that individuals are the basic units of

observation, yet aggregate because models yield a single set of parameters describing

the choice behavior of the population. Behavior enters because the theory made use of

consumer behavior concepts from economics and parts of choice behavior concepts

from psychology. Researchers at the University of California,

Berkeley (especially Daniel McFadden, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his

efforts) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Moshe Ben-Akiva) (and in MIT

associated consulting firms, especially Cambridge Systematics) developed what has

become known as choice models, direct demand models (DDM), Random Utility Models

(RUM) or, in its most used form, the multinomial logit model (MNL).

Choice models have attracted a lot of attention and work; the Proceedings of

the International Association for Travel Behavior Research chronicles the evolution of

the models. The models are treated in modern transportation planning and

transportation engineering textbooks.

One reason for rapid model development was a felt need. Systems were being

proposed (especially transit systems) where no empirical experience of the type used in

57
diversion curves was available. Choice models permit comparison of more than two

alternatives and the importance of attributes of alternatives. There was the general

desire for an analysis technique that depended less on aggregate analysis and with a

greater behavioral content. And there was attraction, too, because choice models have

logical and behavioral roots extended back to the 1920s as well as roots in Kelvin

Lancaster’s consumer behavior theory, in utility theory, and in

modern statistical methods.

Psychological roots

Early psychology work involved the typical experiment: Here are two objects with

weights, w1 andw2, which is heavier? The finding from such an experiment would be that

the greater the difference in weight, the greater the probability of choosing correctly.

Graphs similar to the one on the right result.

Louis Leon Thurstone proposed (in the 1920s) that perceived weight,

w = v + e,

58
where v is the true weight and e is random with

E(e) = 0.

The assumption that e is normally and identically distributed (NID) yields the

binary probit model.

Econometric formulation

Economists deal with utility rather than physical weights, and say that

observed utility = mean utility + random term.

The characteristics of the object, x, must be considered, so we have

u(x) = v(x) + e(x).

If we follow Thurston's assumption, we again have a probit model.

An alternative is to assume that the error terms are independently and identically

distributed with a Weibull, Gumbel Type I, or double exponential distribution. (They are

much the same, and differ slightly in their tails (thicker) from the normal distribution).

This yields the multinomial logit model (MNL). Daniel McFadden argued that the Weibull

had desirable properties compared to other distributions that might be used. Among

other things, the error terms are normally and identically distributed. The logit model is

simply a log ratio of the probability of choosing a mode to the probability of not choosing

a mode

59
 Observe the mathematical similarity between the logit model and the S-curves

we estimated earlier, although here share increases with utility rather than time. With a

choice model we are explaining the share of travelers using a mode (or the probability

that an individual traveler uses a mode multiplied by the number of travelers).

The comparison with S-curves is suggestive that modes (or technologies) get

adopted as their utility increases, which happens over time for several reasons. First,

because the utility itself is a function of network effects, the more users, the more

valuable the service, higher the utility associated with joining the network. Second

because utility increases as user costs drop, which happens when fixed costs can be

spread over more users (another network effect). Third technological advances, which

occur over time and as the number of users increases, drive down relative cost.

An illustration of a utility expression is given:

where

Pi = Probability of choosing mode i.

PA = Probability of taking auto

cA,cT = cost of auto, transit

tA,tT = travel time of auto, transit

I = income

N = Number of travelers

With algebra, the model can be translated to its most widely used form:

60
 It is fair to make two conflicting statements about the estimation and use of this

model:

1. it's a "house of cards", and used by a technically competent and thoughtful

analyst, it's useful.

The "house of cards" problem largely arises from the utility theory basis of the

model specification. Broadly, utility theory assumes that (1) users and suppliers have

perfect information about the market; (2) they have deterministic functions (faced with

the same options, they will always make the same choices); and (3) switching between

alternatives is costless. These assumptions don’t fit very well with what is known about

behavior. Furthermore, the aggregation of utility across the population is impossible

since there is no universal utility scale.

Suppose an option has a net utility ujk (option k, person j). We can imagine that

having a systematic part vjk that is a function of the characteristics of an object and

person j, plus a random part ejk, which represents tastes, observational errors and a

bunch of other things (it gets murky here). (An object such as a vehicle does not have

utility, it is characteristics of a vehicle that have utility.) The introduction of e lets us do

some aggregation. As noted above, we think of observable utility as being a function:

61
where each variable represents a characteristic of the auto trip. The value β0 is termed

an alternative specific constant. Most modelers say it represents characteristics left out

of the equation (e.g., the political correctness of a mode, if I take transit I feel morally

righteous, so β0 may be negative for the automobile), but it includes whatever is needed

to make error terms NID.

An illustration of a utility expression is given:

MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL METHOD:

Tij(Total) =

Given:

Zone

Car 30 - - 18 4
Jeep 20 50 3 6 -
Bus 12 10 2 4 -
an 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.10

Zone 1 2 3 4 P
1 85 37 32 36 190
2 71 96 34 49 250
3 143 94 31 82 350
62
4 21 43 83 73 220
A 320 270 180 240 1010
 Zone

Car 30 - - 18 4
Jeep 20 50 3 6 -
Bus 12 10 2 4 -
an 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.10

Zone

Car 30 - - 18 4
Jeep 20 50 3 6 -
Bus 12 10 2 4 -
an 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.10

Solution:

C11(CAR) = 0.03(20) + 0.04(0) + (0.06)(0) + (0.10)(18) + (0.10)(4)

C11CAR) = 2.80

C11(JEEP) = 0.03(30) + 0.04(5) + (0.06)(3) + (0.10)(6) + (0.10)(0)

C11(JEEP) = 1.88

C11(BUS) = 0.03(12) + 0.04(10) + (0.06)(2) + (0.10)(4) + (0.10)(0)

C11(BUS) = 1.28

TTotal(CAR) =(1010) = 125 trips/day

63
TTotal(JEEP) =(1010) = 314 trips/day

TTotal(BUS) =(1010) = 571 trips/day

T11(CAR) =(85) = 11 trips/day

T11(JEEP) =(85) = 26 trips/day

T11(BUS) =(85) = 48 trips/day

T12(CAR) =(37) = 5 trips/day

T12(JEEP) =(37) = 11 trips/day

T12(BUS) =(37) = 21 trips/day

T13(CAR) =(32) = 4 trips/day

T13(JEEP) =(32) = 10 trips/day

T13(BUS) =(32) = 18 trips/day

64
T14(CAR) =(36) = 5 trips/day

T14(JEEP) =(36) = 11 trips/day

T14(BUS) =(36) = 20 trips/day

T21(CAR) =(71) = 9 trips/day

T21(JEEP) =(71) = 22 trips/day

T21(BUS) =(71) = 40 trips/day

T22(CAR) =(96) = 12 trips/day

T22(JEEP) =(96) = 30 trips/day

T22(BUS) =(96) = 54 trips/day

T23(CAR) =(34) = 4 trips/day

T23(JEEP) =(34) = 11 trips/day

65
T23(BUS) =(34) = 19 trips/day

T24(CAR) =(85) = 6 trips/day

T24(JEEP) =(85) = 15 trips/day

T24(BUS) =(85) = 28 trips/day

T31(CAR) =(85) = 18 trips/day

T31(JEEP) =(85) = 44 trips/day

T31(BUS) =(85) = 81 trips/day

T32(CAR) =(94) = 12 trips/day

T32(JEEP) =(94) = 29 trips/day

T32(BUS) =(94) = 53 trips/day

T33(CAR) =(31) = 4 trips/day

66
T33(JEEP) =(31) = 9 trips/day

T33(BUS) =(31) = 18 trips/day

T34(CAR) =(82) = 10 trips/day

T34(JEEP) =(82) = 26 trips/day

T34(BUS) =(82) = 46 trips/day

T41(CAR) =(21) = 3 trips/day

T41(JEEP) =(21) = 6 trips/day

T41(BUS) =(21) = 12 trips/day

T42(CAR) =(43) = 6 trips/day

T42(JEEP) =(43) = 13 trips/day

T42(BUS) =(43) = 24 trips/day

67
T43(CAR) =(83) = 10 trips/day

T43(JEEP) =(83) = 26 trips/day

T43(BUS) =(83) = 47 trips/day

T44(CAR) =(73) = 9 trips/day

T44(JEEP) =(73) = 23 trips/day

T44(BUS) =(73) = 41 trips/day

CHAPTER 5

68
 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS

Traffic assignment analysis concerns the selection of routes (alternative called

paths) between origins and destinations in transportation networks. It is the fourth step

in the conventional transportation forecasting model, following trip generation, trip

distribution, and mode choice. The zonal interchange analysis of trip distribution

provides origin-destination trip tables. Mode choice analysis tells which travelers will use

which mode. To determine facility needs and costs and benefits, we need to know the

number of travelers on each route and link of the network (a route is simply a chain of

links between an origin and destination). We need to undertake traffic (or trip)

assignment. Suppose there is a network of highways and transit systems and a

proposed addition. We first want to know the present pattern of traffic delay and then

what would happen if the addition were made.

Long Standing Techinique

Concerns the selection of routes (alternative called paths) between origins and

destinations in transportation networks. It is the fourth step in the

conventional transportation forecasting model, following trip generation, trip distribution,

and mode choice. The zonal interchange analysis of trip distribution provides origin-

destination trip tables. Mode choice analysis tells which travelers will use which mode.

To determine facility needs and costs and benefits, we need to know the number of

travelers on each route and link of the network (a route is simply a chain of links

between an origin and destination). We need to undertake traffic (or trip) assignment.

Suppose there is a network of highways and transit systems and a proposed addition.

69
We first want to know the present pattern of traffic delay and then what would happen if

the addition were made.

Route assignment, route choice, or traffic assignment concerns the selection of routes

(alternative called paths) between origins and destinations in transportation networks. It

is the fourth step in the conventional transportation forecasting model, following trip

generation, trip distribution, and mode choice. The zonal interchange analysis of trip

distribution provides origin-destination trip tables. Mode choice analysis tells which

travelers will use which mode. We need to undertake traffic (or trip) assignment.

Suppose there is a network of highways and transit systems and a proposed addition.

We first want to know the present pattern of traffic delay and then what would happen if

the addition were made.

Heuristic Procedure

To take account of the effect of traffic loading on travel times and traffic equilibria,

several heuristic calculation procedures were developed. One heuristic proceeds

incrementally. The traffic to be assigned is divided into parts (usually 4). Assign the first

part of the traffic. Compute new travel times and assign the next part of the traffic. The

last step is repeated until all the traffic is assigned. The CATS used a variation on this; it

assigned row by row in the O-D table.

The heuristic included in the FHWA collection of computer programs proceeds another

way.

 0. Start by loading all traffic using an all or nothing procedure.

 1. Compute the resulting travel times and reassign traffic.

70
 2. Now, begin to reassign using weights. Compute the weighted travel times in

the previous two loadings and use those for the next assignment. The latest iteration

gets a weight of 0.25 and the previous gets a weight of 0.75.

 3. Continue.

These procedures seem to work “pretty well,” but they are not exact.

Frank-Wolfe algorithm

Dafermos (1968) applied the Frank-Wolfe algorithm (1956, Florian 1976), which

can be used to deal with the traffic equilibrium problem. Suppose we are considering a

highway network. For each link there is a function stating the relationship between

resistance and volume of traffic. The Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) developed a link

(arc) congestion (or volume-delay, or link performance) function, which we will

term Sa(va)

 ta = free flow travel time on link a per unit of time

 va = volume of traffic on link a per unit of time (somewhat more accurately: flow

attempting to use link a).

 ca = capacity of link a per unit of time

 Sa(va) is the average travel time for a vehicle on link a

71
There are other congestion functions. The CATS has long used a function different from

that used by the BPR, but there seems to be little difference between results when the

CATS and BPR functions are compared.

Equilibrium Assignment

To assign traffic to paths and links we have to have rules, and there are the well-

known Wardrop equilibrium (1952) conditions. The essence of these is that travelers will

strive to find the shortest (least resistance) path from origin to destination, and network

equilibrium occurs when no traveler can decrease travel effort by shifting to a new path.

These are termed user optimal conditions, for no user will gain from changing travel

paths once the system is in equilibrium.

The user optimum equilibrium can be found by solving the following nonlinear

programming problem

where is the number of vehicles on path r from origin i to destination j. So constraint (2)

says that all travel must take place –i = 1 ... n; j = 1 ... n

72
 = 1 if link a is on path r from i to j ; zero otherwise. So constraint (1) sums traffic on

each link. There is a constraint for each link on the network. Constraint (3) assures no

negative traffic.

Integrating Travel Choice

The urban transportation planning model evolved as a set of steps to be

followed, and models evolved for use in each step. Sometimes there were steps within

steps, as was the case for the first statement of the Lowry model. In some cases, it has

been noted that steps can be integrated. More generally, the steps abstract from

decisions that may be made simultaneously, and it would be desirable to better replicate

that in the analysis.

Disaggregate demand models were first developed to treat the mode choice

problem. That problem assumes that one has decided to take a trip, where that trip will

go, and at what time the trip will be made. They have been used to treat the implied

broader context. Typically, a nested model will be developed, say, starting with the

probability of a trip being made, then examining the choice among places, and then

mode choice. The time of travel is a bit harder to treat.

Wilson’s doubly constrained entropy model has been the point of departure for

efforts at the aggregate level. That model contains the constraint

73
 where the are the link travel costs, refers to traffic on a link, and C is a resource

constraint to be sized when fitting the model with data. Instead of using that form of the

constraint, the monotonically increasing resistance function used in traffic assignment

can be used. The result determines zone-to-zone movements and assigns traffic to

networks, and that makes much sense from the way one would imagine the system

works – zone-to-zone traffic depends on the resistance occasioned by congestion.

Alternatively, the link resistance function may be included in the objective

function (and the total cost function eliminated from the constraints).

A generalized disaggregate choice approach has evolved as has a generalized

aggregate approach. The large question is that of the relations between them. When we

use a macro model, we would like to know the disaggregate behavior it represents. If

we are doing a micro analysis, we would like to know the aggregate implications of the

analysis.

Wilson derives a gravity-like model with weighted parameters that say something

about the attractiveness of origins and destinations. Without too much math we can

write probability of choice statements based on attractiveness, and these take a form

similar to some varieties of disaggregate demand models.

Integrating Travel Demands with Traffic Assignment

It has long been recognized that travel demand is influenced by network supply.

The example of a new bridge opening where none was before inducing additional traffic

has been noted for centuries. Much research has gone into developing methods for

74
allowing the forecasting system to directly account for this phenomenon. Evans (1974)

published a doctoral dissertation on a mathematically rigorous combination of the

gravity distribution model with the equilibrium assignment model. The earliest citation of

this integration is the work of Irwin and Von Cube, as related by Florian et al. (1975),

who comment on the work of Evans:

"The work of Evans resembles somewhat the algorithms developed by Irwin and

Von Cube [“Capacity Restraint in Multi-Travel Mode Assignment Programs” H.R.B.

Bulletin 347 (1962)] for a transportation study of Toronto, Canada. Their work allows for

feedback between congested assignment and trip distribution, although they apply

sequential procedures. Starting from an initial solution of the distribution problem, the

interzonal trips are assigned to the initial shortest routes. For successive iterations, new

shortest routes are computed, and their lengths are used as access times for input the

distribution model. The new interzonal flows are then assigned in some proportion to the

routes already found. The procedure is stopped when the interzonal times for

successive iteration are quasi-equal."

Florian et al. proposed a somewhat different method for solving the combined

distribution assignment, applying directly the Frank-Wolfe algorithm. Boyce et al. (1988)

summarize the research on Network Equilibrium Problems, including the assignment

with elastic demand.

75
Discussion

A three link problem cannot be solved graphically, and most transportation

network problems involve a large numbers of nodes and links. Eash et al., for instance,

studied the road net on DuPage County where there were about 30,000 one-way links

and 9,500 nodes. Because problems are large, an algorithm is needed to solve the

assignment problem, and the Frank-Wolfe algorithm (modified a bit since first published)

is used. Start with an all or nothing assignment, and then follow the rule developed by

Frank-Wolfe to iterate toward the minimum value of the objective function. (The

algorithm applies successive feasible solutions to achieve convergence to the optimal

solution. It uses an efficient search procedure to move the calculation rapidly toward the

optimal solution.) Travel times correspond to the dual variables in this programming

problem.

It is interesting that the Frank-Wolfe algorithm was available in 1956. Its application was

developed in 1968, and it took almost another two decades before the first equilibrium

assignment algorithm was embedded in commonly used transportation planning

software (Emme and Emme/2, developed by Florian and others in Montreal). We would

not want to draw any general conclusion from the slow application observation, mainly

because we can find counter examples about the pace and pattern of technique

development. For example, the simplex method for the solution of linear programming

problems was worked out and widely applied prior to the development of much of

programming theory.

The problem statement and algorithm have general applications across civil engineering

-– hydraulics, structures, and construction. (See Hendrickson and Janson 1984).

76
Solution
All or Nothing:
Given:

Zone 1 2 3 4 5 P
1 - 85 37 32 36 190
2 71 - 96 34 49 250
3 143 94 - 31 82 350
4 21 43 83 - 73 220
5 57 45 110 68 - 280
A 292 267 326 165 240 1290
Solution:

From To Travel Time(MIN) Vehicle/Day Link

2 45 85 1-2
3 48 37 1-3
1
4 53 32 1-4
5 22 36 1-5
1 45 71 2-1
3 15 96 2-3
2
4 Link 30 Time 34 2-4
5 1-2 34 45 49 2-5
1 48 143 3-1
2-1 48
2 15 94 3-2
3 1-3 15 48
4 31 3-4
5 3-1 26 53 82 3-5
1 1-4 53 53 21 4-1
4
2 4-1 30 22 43 4-2
3 1-5 15 22 83 4-3
5 39 73 4-5
5-1 15
1 22 57 5-1
2-3 34 30
2 45 5-2
5 2-4 26 34
3 110 5-3
4 2-5 39 15 68 5-4
3-2 15
3-4 26
3-5 30
4-2 15
4-3 39
4-5 77 34
5-2 34
5-3 26
5-4 39
78
Ideal Model

79
Alternative 1

80
Alternative 2

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

81
 This chapter presented a recently developed design methodology for

transportation networks. The method can be used for the design of road networks and

public transport networks. Interaction between both types of networks is implicit in the

method.

The approach used in the methodology is conceptually very simple. It begins with

the formulation of a settlement hierarchy. This is followed by the design of an ideal

network that links the settlements with one another. Finally the draft network is

compared with the existing network. All this is, in principle, carried out according to a

top-down sequence from high to low scale level, with feedback where needed.

In order to apply the design methodology, design parameters are used in the

various design stages, such as the criteria for the settlement hierarchy, the distances

between access points, design speeds and so on. This systematic approach clearly

identifies the introduced parameters. Further research is needed to define the optimal

value of these parameters since their influence on the eventual design is of crucial

importance.

CHAPTER 7
Reference

82
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capiz#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capiz#Administrative Divisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxas,_Capiz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panitan,_Capiz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay,_Capiz

http://capiz.gov.ph/

http://www.roxascity.gov.ph/
Black, Alan (1995). Urban Mass Transportation Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Girnau, G., A. Müller-Hellmann & F. Blennemann (2000). Stadtbahnen in Deutschland -

Light Rail in Germany. Köln, Germany: Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen.

Girnau, G., A. Müller-Hellmann & F. Blennemann (1997). Zukunftsfähige Mobilität -

Sustainable Mobility; ÖPNV in Deutschland - Public Transport in Germany. Köln,
Germany: Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen.

Gray, George & Lester Hoel, eds. (1991). Public Transportation: Planning, Operation
and Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Müller-Hellmann, A., M. Schmidt & R. Pütz. (1999). Linienbusse - Line-Service Buses.

Köln, Germany: Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen.

Newman, Peter & Jeffrey Kenworthy (1998). Sustainability and Cities. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Union Internationale des Transports Publics (UITP) (1995). Public Transport: The
Challenge. Brussels, Belgium: UITP.

83