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 62
P R O C E S S I N G T H E D E N V E R T R AV E L S U RV E Y 51
For destination n in tour m
1st: Out of model area? 2nd: Primary workplace? 3rd: Other type of
Place Then primary for m Then primary for m place?
Activity 1st: Work? 2nd: School? 3rd: Other
Then primary for m Then primary for m activity?
Longest duration?
Time
Primary for m
FIGURE 2 Primary destination decision tree.
As Table 1 shows, only 17% of trips are HBW trips,
DATA AND RESULTS while in Table 2, 33% of tours are work tours. This dis-
crepancy suggests that work remains an important driver
The data from this survey first were used in a trip-based of travel, even though the number of HBW trips is rela-
format for the refresh phase and will again be used in a tively small due to trip chaining. This observation is sup-
tour-based format for the update phase. Of particular ported by Table 3, which shows that only half of all trips
interest to practitioners deliberating a switch from a trip- on work tours would be coded with an HBW purpose
based to a tour-based model is how the same data com- while the other half would be HBNW or NHB trips.
pare when coded in the two formats. A selection of such School tours account for another 16% of all tours, and
comparisons is included here. Table 1 shows basic statis- when viewed together, these two mandatory activities
tics associated with the trip records, and Table 2 shows are central to almost half of all tours.
those same statistics associated with the tour records. Useful information comes from examining the distri-
Table 3 compares the trip purpose to the primary pur- bution of NHB trips across various tour purposes, as
pose of the tour for each trip record. As discussed later, shown in Table 3. NHB trips account for between 15%
these data can provide important insights into the areas and 39% of the trips in each tour purpose. Having a
of travel behavior when a trip-based model and a tour- meaningful purpose associated with these NHB trips is
based model might provide differing results.
TABLE 1 Basic Trip Statistics
Expanded % % with %
Trip Purpose Trips Expanded Trips Trips/Person Trips/Household 3+ Trips % Shared Ride Transit
HBW 1,505,685 17 0.8 1.7 26 9.1 5.1
HBNW 4,444,067 51 2.2 5.1 43 53.6 1.5
NHB 2,788,283 32 1.4 3.2 88 42.2 1.3
Total 8,738,035 100 4.4 10.1 55 42.3 2.1
HBW = home-based work; HBNW = home-based nonwork; NHB = non-home-based.
TABLE 2 Basic Tour Statistics
Expanded % % with %
Trip Purpose Tours Expanded Tours Tours/Person Tours/Household 3+ Trips % Shared Ride Transit
Work 1,060,271 33 0.5 1.2 44 8.1 5.3
School 514,967 16 0.3 0.6 29 44.9 4.7
Shopping 386,200 12 0.2 0.4 49 42.7 0.9
Socialrecreational 291,877 9 0.1 0.3 39 58.5 3.1
Drop off and pick up 268,781 8 0.1 0.3 19 32.2 0.0
Other 701,429 22 0.4 0.8 36 50.5 1.5
Total 3,223,525 100 1.6 3.7 38 33.9 3.2
