Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 57
BREAKOUT SESSION
Emerging Modeling Considerations
Sivaramakrishnan Srinivasan, University of Florida
Chandra Bhat, University of Texas at Austin
Jessica Guo, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Arun Kuppam, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Maren Outwater, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Rob Hranac, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
COMPANIONSHIP FOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES: AN assessing demand management actions such as early
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS USING THE AMERICAN release, compressed work weeks, and telecommuting.
TIME USE SURVEY These strategies can alter travel patterns of individuals
not directly impacted by the action. These secondary
Sivaramakrishnan Srinivasan and Chandra Bhat impacts are missed by individual-based models.
· Other practical considerations include the impact
Sivaramakrishnan Srinivasan discussed the use of the of joint activities on travel distances, travel duration, and
Census Bureau's American Time Use Survey (ATUS) to time of travel. Individuals may be more willing to travel
examine joint activity and travel trends. He described longer distances for activities pursued jointly with family
possible impacts of joint activities and travel on travel and friends. These trends have implications for air qual-
demand forecasting models, information on the ATUS ity and congestion. Additional travel for pickup and
concerning joint activities with household and non- drop-off of companions may not be captured effectively
household members, and possible enhancements to the if joint activities are not modeled. Social activities may
modeling process. Volume 2 includes a paper on the not be as flexible as they have traditionally been treated.
topic.1 The following points were covered in his · Further practical considerations include the impli-
presentation. cations of the increasing use of information and commu-
nication technologies, which may influence the
· A number of practical considerations relate to mod- substitution of virtual socializing for social travel and the
eling joint activities and travel. For example, vehicle- facilitation of travel coordination. Interest in modeling
occupancy levels are determined by joint activity-travel travel during weekends and for special events further
decisions and the ability of individuals to synchronize highlights the need for explicitly accommodating joint
their travel. As a result, the modeling of joint activity- activity and travel patterns in travel models.
travel is needed to evaluate the vehicular travel in the sys- · The overall goal of the study is to contribute to the
tem and policies related to high-occupancy vehicle and empirical understanding of activities and travel pursued by
high-occupancy toll lanes, responses to carpooling incen- individuals jointly with household and nonhousehold
tives, and other related programs. It is also needed for members. Study objectives included examining the content
of travel that is pursued jointly, household versus non-
1
household companions for joint episodes, and variations
See Srinivasan, S., and C. R. Bhat. Companionship for Leisure
Activities: An Empirical Analysis Using the American Time Use
by activity type and by day of the week. Three types of
Survey. In Conference Proceedings 42: Innovations in Travel Demand leisure activities were examined and the impacts of demo-
Modeling, Volume 2: Papers, Transportation Research Board of the graphic characteristics, activity episode characteristics, and
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 129136. day of the week on companion choice were assessed.
45
