• 제목/요약/키워드: Induced Highway Travel Demand

검색결과 4건 처리시간 0.016초

도로교통의 유발통행수요 추정에 관한 연구 (Estimation of Induced Highway Travel Demand)

  • 이규진;최기주
    • 대한교통학회지
    • /
    • 제24권7호
    • /
    • pp.91-100
    • /
    • 2006
  • 도로개선사업의 타당성 분석을 위해 장래 수요추정은 필수적이며, 이는 사업 여부를 결정하는데 있어서 핵심적 사안이 되지만 현재 장래 수요추정에 적용되는 4단계 수요예측모형은 장래 고정된 기종점통행량을 이용하여 경로 전환된 통행량에 대해서만 분석할 뿐, 교통시스템의 향상으로 인해 추가로 발생되는 수요(유발통행수요-Induced Highway Travel Demand 또는 잠재수요-Latent Demand)는 충분히 고려되지 않고 있어 정확성에 대한 의심의 여지가 있다. 이에 본 연구는 교통수요가 결정되는 원리와 유사한 경제학 이론을 적용한 유발통행수요 추정모형과 광범위한 분석에 적용할 수 있는 유발통행수요 추정프로그램(I.D.A)을 개발하였다. 본 연구에서 구축된 모형을 통해 서울시 강변북로 일부구간의 도로개선에 따른 유발통행수요를 추정한 결과. 추정된 유발통행수요는 경로전환수요의 15% 정도인 것으로 분석되었다. 본 연구를 통해 유발통행수요가 존재할 것으로 확신되는 사업에 대한 유발통행수요를 계량적으로 추정하여 도로개선의 타당성분석결과에 대한 신뢰성을 보다 향상시킬 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.

도로환경개선과 집합적 개념의 유발통행수요와의 관련성 규명 및 수요탄력성 추정(수도권을 중심으로) (Relation between Highway Improvement and Induced Travel Demand, and Estimate the Demand Elasticity (A Seoul Metropolitan Area Case))

  • 이규진;최기주;심상우;김상수
    • 대한교통학회지
    • /
    • 제24권4호
    • /
    • pp.7-17
    • /
    • 2006
  • 현재 교통수요예측 기법은 주로 외생적인 변수에 의해 추정된 종속적 차원의 수요만을 고려할 뿐 도로의 개선으로 인해 새롭게 유발/생성되는 수요(유발통행수요)는 충분히 고려되지 않고 있으며. 관련 연구도 국내에서는 아직 미미한 실정이다 본 연구는 이와 같은 유발통행수요 추정 앞서 필요한 연구로 도로의 개선과 집합적 개념의 유발통행수요와의 관련성을 검증하고 차후 유발통행수요 추정에 적용될 수 있는 현실적인 수요탄력성 원단위를 수도권의 각 지역과 통행목적별로 추정하는데 그 목적이 있다 이를 위해 2002년 서울시 가구통행실태조사 자료와 네트워크 자료를 이용하여 단위통행시간에 대한 수요탄력성 원단위를 지역별로 산출하였고 지역별로 산출된 수요탄력성은 서울시 -0.582, 인천시 -0.597, 경기도 -0.559로 1995년 NPTS 자료로 산출된 수요탄력성 $-0.3{\sim}-0.5$보다 조금 높게 나타났다 본 분석 결과를 통해 우리나라의 통행자가 미국 통행자보다 통행시간에 대해 더 탄력적이며 도로의 개선으로 인해 유발될 수 있는 수요가 더 많은 것으로 나타났다. 추가적으로 거시적 관점에서 교통관리방안과 교통정책을 고찰해 볼 수 있는 요일별/연령별 수요탄력성 원단위를 산출하여 그 의미에 대해서 살펴보았다.

도로사업 예비 타당성조사에서 통행시간을 이용한 영향권 설정기법의 개발 (Development of Method to Define Influence Area using Travel Time on the Feasibility Study)

  • 김강수;오동규;정성봉
    • 대한교통학회지
    • /
    • 제23권8호
    • /
    • pp.139-145
    • /
    • 2005
  • 영향권은 도로시설물 건설 이후에 통행패턴이 현저하게 변화되는 지역을 의미한다. 영향권은 교통수요 예측이나 경제성 분석시 공간적 범위를 결정하는 중요한 기준이 된다. 그러나 현존하는 영향권 설정 방법(O/D를 이용한 방법, 교통량의 변화를 이용하는 방법, 교통량의 변화율을 이용하는 방법)들은 영향권 설정에 대한 일정한 기준이 없어 분석가의 판단에 따라 임의로 영향권이 좌우되는 한계가 있다. 본 논문에서는 현재 사용되고 있는 영향권 설정방법을 분석하고, 통행시간을 이용한 영향권 설정방법을 새로이 제시하였다. 통행시간을 이용한 영향권 설정방법은 죤간 통행시간자료를 바탕으로 사업지역 죤 발생량을 기준으로 95%의 교통량이 통행하는 지역 중 통행시간의 95%에 해당하는 영역까지를 영향권으로 설정하는 방법이다. 또한 이 방법을 통해 영향권 설정에 대한 일정한 기준을 제시하였다.

한정된 O-D조사자료를 이용한 주 전체의 트럭교통예측방법 개발 (DEVELOPMENT OF STATEWIDE TRUCK TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHOD BY USING LIMITED O-D SURVEY DATA)

  • 박만배
    • 대한교통학회:학술대회논문집
    • /
    • 대한교통학회 1995년도 제27회 학술발표회
    • /
    • pp.101-113
    • /
    • 1995
  • The objective of this research is to test the feasibility of developing a statewide truck traffic forecasting methodology for Wisconsin by using Origin-Destination surveys, traffic counts, classification counts, and other data that are routinely collected by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Development of a feasible model will permit estimation of future truck traffic for every major link in the network. This will provide the basis for improved estimation of future pavement deterioration. Pavement damage rises exponentially as axle weight increases, and trucks are responsible for most of the traffic-induced damage to pavement. Consequently, forecasts of truck traffic are critical to pavement management systems. The pavement Management Decision Supporting System (PMDSS) prepared by WisDOT in May 1990 combines pavement inventory and performance data with a knowledge base consisting of rules for evaluation, problem identification and rehabilitation recommendation. Without a r.easonable truck traffic forecasting methodology, PMDSS is not able to project pavement performance trends in order to make assessment and recommendations in the future years. However, none of WisDOT's existing forecasting methodologies has been designed specifically for predicting truck movements on a statewide highway network. For this research, the Origin-Destination survey data avaiiable from WisDOT, including two stateline areas, one county, and five cities, are analyzed and the zone-to'||'&'||'not;zone truck trip tables are developed. The resulting Origin-Destination Trip Length Frequency (00 TLF) distributions by trip type are applied to the Gravity Model (GM) for comparison with comparable TLFs from the GM. The gravity model is calibrated to obtain friction factor curves for the three trip types, Internal-Internal (I-I), Internal-External (I-E), and External-External (E-E). ~oth "macro-scale" calibration and "micro-scale" calibration are performed. The comparison of the statewide GM TLF with the 00 TLF for the macro-scale calibration does not provide suitable results because the available 00 survey data do not represent an unbiased sample of statewide truck trips. For the "micro-scale" calibration, "partial" GM trip tables that correspond to the 00 survey trip tables are extracted from the full statewide GM trip table. These "partial" GM trip tables are then merged and a partial GM TLF is created. The GM friction factor curves are adjusted until the partial GM TLF matches the 00 TLF. Three friction factor curves, one for each trip type, resulting from the micro-scale calibration produce a reasonable GM truck trip model. A key methodological issue for GM. calibration involves the use of multiple friction factor curves versus a single friction factor curve for each trip type in order to estimate truck trips with reasonable accuracy. A single friction factor curve for each of the three trip types was found to reproduce the 00 TLFs from the calibration data base. Given the very limited trip generation data available for this research, additional refinement of the gravity model using multiple mction factor curves for each trip type was not warranted. In the traditional urban transportation planning studies, the zonal trip productions and attractions and region-wide OD TLFs are available. However, for this research, the information available for the development .of the GM model is limited to Ground Counts (GC) and a limited set ofOD TLFs. The GM is calibrated using the limited OD data, but the OD data are not adequate to obtain good estimates of truck trip productions and attractions .. Consequently, zonal productions and attractions are estimated using zonal population as a first approximation. Then, Selected Link based (SELINK) analyses are used to adjust the productions and attractions and possibly recalibrate the GM. The SELINK adjustment process involves identifying the origins and destinations of all truck trips that are assigned to a specified "selected link" as the result of a standard traffic assignment. A link adjustment factor is computed as the ratio of the actual volume for the link (ground count) to the total assigned volume. This link adjustment factor is then applied to all of the origin and destination zones of the trips using that "selected link". Selected link based analyses are conducted by using both 16 selected links and 32 selected links. The result of SELINK analysis by u~ing 32 selected links provides the least %RMSE in the screenline volume analysis. In addition, the stability of the GM truck estimating model is preserved by using 32 selected links with three SELINK adjustments, that is, the GM remains calibrated despite substantial changes in the input productions and attractions. The coverage of zones provided by 32 selected links is satisfactory. Increasing the number of repetitions beyond four is not reasonable because the stability of GM model in reproducing the OD TLF reaches its limits. The total volume of truck traffic captured by 32 selected links is 107% of total trip productions. But more importantly, ~ELINK adjustment factors for all of the zones can be computed. Evaluation of the travel demand model resulting from the SELINK adjustments is conducted by using screenline volume analysis, functional class and route specific volume analysis, area specific volume analysis, production and attraction analysis, and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) analysis. Screenline volume analysis by using four screenlines with 28 check points are used for evaluation of the adequacy of the overall model. The total trucks crossing the screenlines are compared to the ground count totals. L V/GC ratios of 0.958 by using 32 selected links and 1.001 by using 16 selected links are obtained. The %RM:SE for the four screenlines is inversely proportional to the average ground count totals by screenline .. The magnitude of %RM:SE for the four screenlines resulting from the fourth and last GM run by using 32 and 16 selected links is 22% and 31 % respectively. These results are similar to the overall %RMSE achieved for the 32 and 16 selected links themselves of 19% and 33% respectively. This implies that the SELINICanalysis results are reasonable for all sections of the state.Functional class and route specific volume analysis is possible by using the available 154 classification count check points. The truck traffic crossing the Interstate highways (ISH) with 37 check points, the US highways (USH) with 50 check points, and the State highways (STH) with 67 check points is compared to the actual ground count totals. The magnitude of the overall link volume to ground count ratio by route does not provide any specific pattern of over or underestimate. However, the %R11SE for the ISH shows the least value while that for the STH shows the largest value. This pattern is consistent with the screenline analysis and the overall relationship between %RMSE and ground count volume groups. Area specific volume analysis provides another broad statewide measure of the performance of the overall model. The truck traffic in the North area with 26 check points, the West area with 36 check points, the East area with 29 check points, and the South area with 64 check points are compared to the actual ground count totals. The four areas show similar results. No specific patterns in the L V/GC ratio by area are found. In addition, the %RMSE is computed for each of the four areas. The %RMSEs for the North, West, East, and South areas are 92%, 49%, 27%, and 35% respectively, whereas, the average ground counts are 481, 1383, 1532, and 3154 respectively. As for the screenline and volume range analyses, the %RMSE is inversely related to average link volume. 'The SELINK adjustments of productions and attractions resulted in a very substantial reduction in the total in-state zonal productions and attractions. The initial in-state zonal trip generation model can now be revised with a new trip production's trip rate (total adjusted productions/total population) and a new trip attraction's trip rate. Revised zonal production and attraction adjustment factors can then be developed that only reflect the impact of the SELINK adjustments that cause mcreases or , decreases from the revised zonal estimate of productions and attractions. Analysis of the revised production adjustment factors is conducted by plotting the factors on the state map. The east area of the state including the counties of Brown, Outagamie, Shawano, Wmnebago, Fond du Lac, Marathon shows comparatively large values of the revised adjustment factors. Overall, both small and large values of the revised adjustment factors are scattered around Wisconsin. This suggests that more independent variables beyond just 226; population are needed for the development of the heavy truck trip generation model. More independent variables including zonal employment data (office employees and manufacturing employees) by industry type, zonal private trucks 226; owned and zonal income data which are not available currently should be considered. A plot of frequency distribution of the in-state zones as a function of the revised production and attraction adjustment factors shows the overall " adjustment resulting from the SELINK analysis process. Overall, the revised SELINK adjustments show that the productions for many zones are reduced by, a factor of 0.5 to 0.8 while the productions for ~ relatively few zones are increased by factors from 1.1 to 4 with most of the factors in the 3.0 range. No obvious explanation for the frequency distribution could be found. The revised SELINK adjustments overall appear to be reasonable. The heavy truck VMT analysis is conducted by comparing the 1990 heavy truck VMT that is forecasted by the GM truck forecasting model, 2.975 billions, with the WisDOT computed data. This gives an estimate that is 18.3% less than the WisDOT computation of 3.642 billions of VMT. The WisDOT estimates are based on the sampling the link volumes for USH, 8TH, and CTH. This implies potential error in sampling the average link volume. The WisDOT estimate of heavy truck VMT cannot be tabulated by the three trip types, I-I, I-E ('||'&'||'pound;-I), and E-E. In contrast, the GM forecasting model shows that the proportion ofE-E VMT out of total VMT is 21.24%. In addition, tabulation of heavy truck VMT by route functional class shows that the proportion of truck traffic traversing the freeways and expressways is 76.5%. Only 14.1% of total freeway truck traffic is I-I trips, while 80% of total collector truck traffic is I-I trips. This implies that freeways are traversed mainly by I-E and E-E truck traffic while collectors are used mainly by I-I truck traffic. Other tabulations such as average heavy truck speed by trip type, average travel distance by trip type and the VMT distribution by trip type, route functional class and travel speed are useful information for highway planners to understand the characteristics of statewide heavy truck trip patternS. Heavy truck volumes for the target year 2010 are forecasted by using the GM truck forecasting model. Four scenarios are used. Fo~ better forecasting, ground count- based segment adjustment factors are developed and applied. ISH 90 '||'&'||' 94 and USH 41 are used as example routes. The forecasting results by using the ground count-based segment adjustment factors are satisfactory for long range planning purposes, but additional ground counts would be useful for USH 41. Sensitivity analysis provides estimates of the impacts of the alternative growth rates including information about changes in the trip types using key routes. The network'||'&'||'not;based GMcan easily model scenarios with different rates of growth in rural versus . . urban areas, small versus large cities, and in-state zones versus external stations. cities, and in-state zones versus external stations.

  • PDF