Modelling route choice of Dutch cyclists using smartphone data
Silvia Bernardi
University of Bologna
Lissy La Paix-Puello
University of Twente
Karst Geurs
University of Twente
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1143
Keywords: bike, cycling, GPS data, route choice, choice set
Abstract
This paper analyzes the GPS traces recorded by cyclists in the framework of the Mobile Mobility Panel throughout the Netherlands. The objective of this paper is to analyze bicycle route choice via network attributes and trip length over a sequence of trips by approximately 280 bicycle users, who were asked to register their trips by means of a specific smartphone application. Approximately 3,500 bike trips were recorded throughout the Netherlands over a four-week period in 2014. The bike trips have been matched to a specific bicycle network built and updated by a Dutch cyclists’ union. Route choice models were estimated, using both the binomial logit model and the mixed multinomial logit model with Path-size logit model formulation. The chosen alternatives were part of the choice set for the mixed multinomial logit model. Also, the shortest route was generated for each origin-destination pair. The results show that trip lengths and trip distribution over time reveal a population sample much used to cycling, frequently and over long distances. Furthermore, when considering the composition of chosen routes in terms of link type, the usage of cycleway links is frequent. For repeated trips, the shortest route option tends to be chosen more; frequent cyclists, on systematic trips, tend to optimize their trip and prefer the shortest routes. This is even truer for males and for non-leisure trips. The estimated probabilities for both multinomial and binomial models show that the binomial model tends to overestimate the probabilities of choosing the shortest route. This result is stronger in non-leisure trips, where people tend to choose a more personalized route, instead of the shortest. This research contributes to the generation of a more efficient distribution of bicycle trips over the network. Future research can more specifically address the intrapersonal variation in route—destination choice given the availability of longitudinal data.References
Aultman-Hall, L., Hall, F., & Baetz, B. (1997). Analysis of bicycle commuter routes using geographic information systems: Implications for bicycle planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1578 (1), 102–110.
Axhausen, K. W., & Smith, R. L. (1986). Bicyclist link evaluation: A stated preference approach. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1085, 7–25.
Bekhor, S., Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Ramming, M. S. (2006). Evaluation of choice set generation algorithms for route choice models. Annals of Operations Research, 144, 235–247.
Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Bierlaire, M. (1999). Discrete choice methods and their applications to short-term travel decisions. Handbook of Transportation Science, 5–34.
Bierlaire, M. (2003). BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland.
Bliemer, M. C. J., & Bovy, P. H. L. (2008). Impact of route choice set on route choice probabilities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2076, 10–19.
Bovy, P. H. L., & Fiorenzo-Catalano, S. (2007). Stochastic route choice set generation: behavioral and probabilistic foundations. Transportmetrica, 3, 173–189.
Broach, J., Gliebe, J. G., & Dill, J. L. (2010). Calibrated labeling method for generating bicyclist route choice sets incorporating unbiased attribute variation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2197, 89–97.
Broach, J., Dill, J., & Gliebe, J. (2012). Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transportation Research Part A, 46, 1730–1740.
Fietsersbond. (2015). Fietsersbond routeplanner. Retrieved from http://www.fietsersbond.nl/fietsrouteplanner/
Geurs, K. T., Thomas, T., Bijlsma, M., & Douhou, S. (2015). Automatic trip and mode detection with MoveSmarter: First results from the Dutch Mobile Mobility Panel. Transportation Research Procedia, 11, 247–262.
Halldórsdóttir, K., Riesler- Schüssler, N., Axhausen, K. W., Nielsen, O. A., & Prato, C. G. (2014). Efficiency of choice set generation methods for bicycle routes. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 14(4), 332–348.
Hood, J., Sall, E., & Charlton, B. (2011). A GPS-based bicycle route choice model for San Francisco, California. Transportation Letters: The International Journal of Transport Research, 3, 63–75.
Howard, C., & Burns, E. K. (2001). Cycling to work in Phoenix: Route choice, travel behavior, and commuter characteristics. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1773, 39–46.
Hunt, J. D., & Abraham, J. E. (2007). Influences on bicycle use. Transportation, 34, 453–470.
Krizek, K. J. (2006). Two approaches to valuing some of bicycle facilities’ presumed benefits. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 309–320.
Landis, B. W., Vattikuti, V. R, & Brannick, M. T. (1997). Real-time human perceptions: Toward a bicycle level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1578, 119–126.
Marchal, F, Hackney, J. K., & Axhausen, K. W. (2005). Efficient map matching of large Global Positioning System data sets: Test on speed-monitoring experiment in Zurich. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1935, 93–100.
Menghini, G., Carrasco, N., Schüssler, N., & Axhausen, K. W. (2010). Route choice of cyclists in Zurich. Transportation Research Part A, 44, 754–765.
Nielsen, O. A. (2000) A stochastic transit assignment model considering differences in passengers utility functions. Transportation Research Part B, 34, 377–402.
Open Street Map (2015). Retrieved from https://www.openstreetmap.org/
Prato, C. G., & Bekhor, S. (2006). Applying branch-and-bound technique to route choice set generation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1985, 19–28.
Prato, C. G., & Bekhor, S. (2007). Modeling route choice behavior: How relevant is the composition of choice set? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2003, 64–73.
Rieser-Schüssler, N., Balmer, M. & Axhausen, K. W. (2012) Route choice sets for very high-resolution data. Transportmetrica, 9, 825–845.
Schüssler, N., & Axhausen, K. W. (2009). Processing GPS raw data without additional information. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2105, 28–36.
Sener, I. N., Eluru, N., & Bhat, C. R. (2009). An analysis of bicycle route choice preferences in Texas, US. Transportation, 36, 511–539.
Stinson, M. A., & Bhat, C. R. (2003). Commuter bicyclist route choice: Analysis using a stated preference survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828, 107–115.
Thomas, T., Geurs, K., Koolwaaij, J. & Bijlsma, M. (2015). Automatic trip and mode detection with Move Smarter: Results from the Dutch Mobile Mobility Panel. Transportation Research Procedia, 11, 247–262.
Tilahun, N. Y., Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2007). Trails, lanes, or traffic: Valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. In Transportation Research Part A, 41, 287–301.
Train, K. E. (1986) Qualitative choice analysis: Theory, econometrics, and an application to automobile demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmermann, M., Mai, T., & Frejinger, E. Bike route choice modeling using GPS data without choice sets of paths. Transportation Research Part C, 75, 83–196.
