• 대한교통학회지
• /
• 제33권2호
• /
• pp.113-124
• /
• 2015

한국교통연구원에서 2010년 가구통행실태조사 자료를 기초로 구축한 신규 KTDB 여객자료는 대도시권 모두에 대해 PA개념을 기반으로 통행생성과 통행유인의 통행발생량과 교통존 간의 통행량 자료를 처음으로 제공하였다. 따라서, 신규 KTDB를 활용한 장래 수요예측의 분석방법은 변화된 자료형태에 적합한 PA개념의 분석방법이 적용되어야 한다. 본 연구에서는 교통정책 분석 시 반영하게 되는 장래 개발사업에 대한 통행발생량 예측과 통행분포패턴 예측 분석에 있어 PA개념의 분석 절차를 정형화할 수 있는 방법을 명확하게 제시하고, 또한 과거의 OD기반의 분석방법이 적용될 경우 그 분석결과가 PA기반의 분석방법의 결과와 다르게 나올 수 있음을 단순 예제를 통해 증명하였다. 이와 같은 분석결과의 차이는 교통정책의 의사결정에 있어 신규 KTDB 여객자료를 활용하면서 과거의 OD기반의 분석방법이 적용될 경우 정책결정에 왜곡을 가져올 수 있음을 의미하는 것이므로, 신규 자료에 대해 적합한 분석방법이 적용되어야 함을 본 연구는 강조하였다. 또한 본 연구는 신규 KTDB 여객자료에 PA기반 분석방법이 올바로 응용 적용될 수 있도록 조속히 실무분석가들에게 분석방법 지침과 기술 보급이 필요함을 주장하였다.

• 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.

• 대한교통학회지
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.35-47
• /
• 2005

버스 대중교통은 정해진 노선, 운행시간표에 의해 정류장을 경유하여 운행하므로 버스 노선망 설계 문제(BTRNDP: Bus Transit Route Network Design Problem)는 승용차위주의 가로망 설계 문제와 다른 접근방법이 요구된다. 버스 노선망 설계 문제의 적용모형은 설계방법의 역사적발전과정에 따라 매뉴얼 및 지침, 시장분석기법, 시스템해석모형, 휴리스틱모형, 하이브리드모형, 경험기반모형, 시뮬레이션모형, 수리최적화모형 등 크게 8가지 분류할 수 있다. BTRNDP는 이용자비용과 운영자비용의 조합인 총비용을 최소화하는 목적함수를 획득하기 위한 일련의 현실적 제약조건하에서 버스노선집합과 배차횟수를 결정하는 문제이다. BTRNDP는 조합최적화문제로 일반적 수리최적화문제로 가능해 공간을 정의하는 것이 어렵기 때문에 모든 가능해로 구성된 큰 탐색공간으로부터 최적해를 탐색해야하는 NP-Hard라는 특성을 가진다. BTRNDP의 목적함수는 이용자와 운영자관점을 모두 고려한 다목적함수(Multi-Objective Function)를 이용하며 수요는 고정수요를 이용하였으나 최근에는 가변수요를 고려한 방법론이 연구되고 있다. 해알고리즘으로 최적 버스 노선망을 구성하게 될 모든 가능한 후보노선집합(Candidate Route Set)을 생성하고 노선집합의 최적조합을 찾는 메타휴리스틱(Meta-heuristic) 알고리즘을 이용하여 전역최적 노선집합을 찾는 방법이 적용되고 있다. 최적 버스 노선망의 배차횟수를 결정하기 위해서 대중교통 통행배분모형이 필요한데 BTRNDP에 적용되는 통행배분모형은 다중경로 통행배분모형이 주로 활용되었다. 국내외 BTRNDP를 고찰한 결과 주요 시사점으로는 BTRNDP에서 가장 중요한 고려사항은 세분화된 버스정류장 기반 기종점통행량 구축, 버스 노선망 평가 모형 및 대중교통 통행 배분모형의 개발, 탐색 해알고리즘의 개발 등의 향후 연구내용이 포함될 수 있다.