C60

‫
ا زه
ا او ادي‬
AL-AZHAR ENGINEERING
ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
December 21 - 23, 2010
Code : C 60
ANALYSIS OF TRAVELERS' DEPARTURE TIME CHOICE BEHAVIOR

AND TRAVEL TIME UNCERTAINTY RECOGNITION
Amr M. Wahaballa1, Fumitaka Kurauchi2, Akiyoshi Takagi2, Ayman M. Othman3
1
Dept of Civil Eng., Gifu Univ. / PhD researcher, South Valley Univ., Egypt.
2
Dept of Civil Eng., Gifu Univ.
3
Dept of Civil Eng., Faculty of Eng., South Valley Univ., Egypt.
ABSTRACT
The effects of travel time and its reliability have been addressed in a variety of papers. The aim of
this paper is to analyze travelers’ behavior toward travel time reliability based on their actual
departure time choice behavior and to illustrate how travelers recognize travel time uncertainty of
road networks to evaluate the effects of a new expressway on an existing expressway. Electronic
Toll Collection (ETC) data was used to observe the behavior of most frequent travelers who
changed their departure time toward improving travel time reliability for the morning commuting
peak period. Using t-statistical test we can determine whether traveler changed his/her departure
time significantly or not. The analysis shows that 56% of all travelers traveled through the section
either from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC, the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto-Higashi IC, or
the section from Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC were changed their departure time significantly which
means that about 63% of all trips performed during the years 2007 and 2008 has been changed.
The travel time and travel time reliability can be captured by a number of measures, therefore, the
change in the mean, median, variance, standard deviation, the difference between 90th and 50th
percentiles, and buffer time of the actual travel time distributions for each IC pair are calculated.
Based on empirical comparison of consistency among these different measurements of travel
time and its reliability, we found that the difference in mean and median of travel time can
represent the change in travel time on both of the three ICs, and standard deviation, and variance
can be used to quantify travel time reliability. On the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto-
Higashi IC, all measures reflect a very different representation of the travel time reliability;
therefore, it is difficult to draw a significant conclusion due to large disagreement and confusion
between all reliability measures.
© 2010 Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS : Travel time, Travel time reliability, Travel time uncertainty, Departure
time choice behavior.
Al-Azhar University Engineering Journal, JAUES

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010
686
1- INTRODUCTION
Travel time uncertainty constitutes an important part of travelers’ travel choice behavior.
Travelers have to choose departure time based on certain criteria (e.g., travel time, reliability,
cost, comfort, etc). In this paper, following to previous empirical studies, we consider that travel
time and travel time reliability are the most important attributes in travelers’ departure time
choice behavior. Van Zuylen (2004) concluded that it is essential to correctly capture traveler’s
perception and valuation of reliability in order to make a correct assessment of gains that can be
achieved by improving reliability. Brownstone et.al.(2005) concluded that clearly the way
travelers respond to travel time and travel time reliability, and how they acquire information
about the random draw they are about to experience, is complex but, is important in
understanding many policy issues facing transportation planners.
Because about 80% of cars in Japan are now equipped with Electronic Toll Collection(ETC)
devices, it is now possible to acquire actual travel time and entry time information for individual
traveler based on his/her ETC card data. By regarding the entry time of individual to the highway
as departure time, this paper provides analysis of traveler’s departure time choice and evaluates
how they recognize travel time reliability based on their actual departure time choice behavior.
The effect of improvements in the travel time reliability after opening a new expressway is also
discussed. The analysis performed is based on the observed rather than on the model-forecasted
data. We are encouraged by the possibility of evaluating improvements in the travel time
reliability which depends primarily upon data of departure time and travel time showing more
precisely the uncertainty that is experienced by the individual at the time of decision-making. Our
analysis is based on the assumption that travelers’ behavior due to reliability improvement is
related to their change in departure time. While those travelers had to make a large number
consecutive departure time choices, it is assumed that they could learn about the travel time
variations of each route, without being told in advance what the actual distributions was.
2- STUDY SITE AND DATA DESCRIPTION

The aim of this section is to illustrate how travelers recognize travel time uncertainty of road
networks to evaluate the effects of a new intercity expressway on an existing expressway. The
Meishin expressway, Japan, was selected for this study. We focused our attention on three
interchange (IC) pairs on the Meishin expressway that have almost the same length. The next
section analyses departure time choice behavior of most frequent travelers traveled through these
sections.
2-1 STUDY SITE

Part of the Meishin Expressway, a major intercity expressway connecting Nagoya, Kyoto, Osaka,
and Kobe, was selected for the test network. A new expressway (The Shin-Meishin Expressway)
has operated between Kameyama IC and Kusatsu IC since February 23, 2008. As shown in Fig-1,
the Shin-Meishin Expressway connects Kameyama IC on the Higashi (East) Meihan Expressway
and Kusatsu IC on the Meishin Expressway to provide an alternate to users traveling from
locations east of Toyokawa IC to locations west of Seta IC. It is natural to expect that changes in
driver behavior such as frequency of expressway use or route choice or departure time choice
might occur. We selected three sections of almost the same length; the section from Oyamazaki
IC to Ibaraki IC, the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto-Higashi IC, and the section from
Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC. Figure-1 illustrates the sections evaluated to achieve the aim of this
study, together with the network including the new Shin-Meishin expressway. The next section
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

687
analyzes departure time choice behavior of most frequent travelers traveled from Oyamazaki to
Ibaraki, from Oyamazaki to Kyoto-Higashi, and from Ishiyama to Ogura as a result of
constructing the new expressway.
Fig.1. Study site
2-2 DATA DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION

We are encouraged by the possibility of measuring the effect of improvements in the travel time
reliability which depends primarily upon data of departure time and travel time showing more
precisely the uncertainty that is experienced by the individual at the time of decision-making. The
analysis performed is based on the observed rather than on the model-forecasted data. Two main
sources of data are used; ETC data to calculate the actual average departure time, and loop
detector data to calculate travel time and reliability indices (related to departure time in which
they occurred) the following subsections illustrate these two datasets:
2-2-1 ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION (ETC) DATA

About 85% of trips on highway are now made by cars with electronic toll collection (ETC)
devices in Japan. Therefore, it is now possible to acquire travel time data and departure time
information for a certain traveler based on his/her ETC card data. A large volume of ETC data
obtained from West Nippon Expressway Company, were available for calculating the average,
median travel time and several indices representing travel time reliability. ETC data observed on
Meishin Expressway in the year before the opening of new Shin-Meishin expressway (2007) and
the year after opening it (2008) was used. The data for the period from January, 1st, 2008 to
February 23rd, 2008 are excluded from 2008 data because the new Shin-Meishin expressway was
not in operation during this period. Most frequent travelers used the selected IC pairs during that
period represent the departure time choice behavior of all car drivers using this road due to their
experience about the travel time variations of each route. Therefore, their departure time choice
behavior has to be representative for the departure time choice behavior of all car drivers using
this road. Their behavior was analyzed to observe changing their departure time toward
improving travel time reliability for the morning commuting peak period.
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

688
The ETC individual data contains the date, hour, and minute of entering and exiting each gate,
the code of the entry road and IC and the exit road and IC, the renumbered identification number
of the traveler performing the trip, the fares paid or exception if it is found, and other
information. We can distinguish car type either private or corporate. The former is our focus to
analyze individual behavior of travelers since the other may be restricted by several factors in the
case of the official cars owned by companies or organizations and commercial cars.
Travel time calculated from ETC data may be influenced by traffic accidents, road maintenance,
repaving, and time spent at service areas (SA) and parking areas (PA) (Yamazaki et al., 2009).
Therefore, for the pure evaluation of travel time and its reliability under normal traffic conditions
based on the concept of travel time reliability, it is preferable calculating average departure time
from ETC data while, travel time and reliability indices can be estimated using the loop detector
data.
2-2-2 LOOP DETECTOR DATA

Measuring reliability requires substantial numbers of observations of speeds across days for any
given time of day. These measurements can be provided by loop detectors embedded in the
roadway, which measure the density of vehicles and time between them. These observations can
be converted to speeds then, can be represented as travel times. On the Meishin Expressway, loop
detectors are equipped almost every 2km in the urban areas and at least one detector between ICs
in the rural areas. Travel time and reliability indices were calculated from loop detector data for
each 5 minutes interval using time-slice method. Time-slice travel time is defined as the
progressive sum of section travel times. For an expressway route consisting of n sections, its
travel time at time interval te, TT(te), is calculated as follows (Wang, and Nakamura, 2003):
n
TT (te ) = ∑Ti (tei )
i =1
Where: Ti(tei) is the travel time of the ith section in the route at time interval tei, which is the
time interval that the vehicles arriving the route entry during te are estimated to exit the link i.
The raw data observed from ETC were aggregated into 5 minutes intervals to match departure
time of a certain traveler at a certain time with the average 5 minutes interval travel time
calculated from loop detector data using time-slice method. Since this study focuses on the value
of travel time reliability, we only use weekday data since the value of travel time reliability may
decrease during leisure time.
3- EMPIRICAL ILLUSTRATION OF TRAVELERS’ BEHAVIOR

This section provides particularly useful opportunities for analyzing travelers’ behavior toward
reliability based on their actual departure time choice behavior. We discuss how the departure
time changed as a result of the uncertainty in travel time and the effect of improvements in the
travel time reliability after opening the new expressway. The three selected sections are analyzed
based on actual travelers’ behavior for the morning commuting peak period (7 am, and 8 am).
Most frequent travelers used these routes during that period were analyzed to observe changing
their departure time toward improving travel time reliability for the morning commuting peak
period.
3-1 SELECTION OF STUDIED TRAVELERS

To catch the most frequent travelers used each of the three IC pairs, the travelers selected to study
their behavior were who made at least two trips per month in 2007 and 2008. Departure time
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

689
choice behavior was analyzed for 150 travelers who traveled on these ICs during the year 2007
and 2008 achieved a total number of trips of 31422. Table1 shows the total number of selected
travelers use each IC pair and the corresponding number of trips done during the morning
commuting peak period (7 am, and 8 am). While those travelers had to make a large number
consecutive departure time choices, it is assumed that they could learn, without being told in
advance what the actual distributions are. As those drivers used the studied sections frequently,
their departure time choice behavior have the potential to be quite representative for the departure
time choice behavior of all car drivers using this road.
Table 1: The total number of travelers use each IC pair
Number of selected Number of trips

IC Pair Length (km)
travelers 2007 2008
Oyamazaki to Ibaraki 16.1 43 4568 3914
Oyamazaki to Kyoto
16.2 38 3373 3032
Higashi
Ishiyama to Ogura 16.1 69 8857 7678
Percent to the total trips 53% 47%
3-2 DEPARTURE TIME CHOICE BEHAVIOR

Tables from 2 to 4 show the mean departure time in 2007 and 2008 for the selected travelers on
each IC pair and the deference in mean departure time between the two years. In the tables, the
negative sign in difference of departure time means that the traveler departs in 2008 earlier than
in 2007. To test statistically significant difference in the mean departure time between 2007 and
2008, the most common statistical test (t-test) was used. Using t-test we can determine whether
two samples are likely to have come from the same two underlying populations that have the
same mean. Assuming the two samples have unequal variances, hypothesized mean difference=0,
and α=0.05 we can capture the statistical significance between the mean departure time in the two
years. If P-value in the table is less than 0.05, the hypothesis can be rejected by the 5 %
significance. Table 5 summarizes the result of statistical test. The analysis shows that 56% of all
travelers traveled through the three selected IC pairs were changed their departure time
significantly in about 63% of all trips performed during the years 2007 and 2008 (19676 out of
31422 trips). On the section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC departure time changed in 57% of
all trips (4874 out of 8482 trips) by 49% of drivers using this section (21 out of 43 travelers)
more than a half of them (52%) depart earlier. Therefore we can conclude that different travelers
have different preferences about when they would depart, one who has a high sensitivity to
arriving late based on the penalty of lateness or others with flexible work hours and have more
opportunity to advance their careers by spending time at the office and/or being punctual when
they have appointments, might prefer to travel earlier adding margin time to increase the
probability of arriving on-time. On the other hand, other people who didn’t change their
departure time or depart later than expected departure may be less sensitive to arriving late or
may be have changed their work time during this period.
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

690
Table 2: Travelers departure time choice behavior on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC
Number of
Dept. Time (minutes) ∆µ Dept.
Serial Traveler ID trips P-value
Time
2007 2008 2007 2008
C1610100000024 86.2784 -
1 79 103 29.13592 2.11E-122
42 8 57.14255868
C1712400000066 79.4456 -
2 92 80 59.98765 3.89E-07
15 5 19.45799785
C1806200000576 26.9190 -
3 170 111 9.711712 1.99E-45
82 8 17.20736343
C1707100000596 67.3888 -
4 162 161 53.42857 1.12E-19
70 9 13.96031746
C1703300000734 95.2368 -
5 38 137 84.10949 9.18E-04
24 4 11.12735305
C1802100000224
6 31 22 20.0000 10.5000 -9.50000000 5.33E-02
90
C1704100000340 -
7 33 76 38.0303 30.86842 3.30E-03
40 7.161881978
C1602300000279 25.9698 -
8 232 186 19.96757 2.50E-15
91 3 6.002260019
C1810300000751 36.0909 -
9 33 27 30.37037 6.61E-02
83 1 5.720538721
C1708400000451 39.5353 -
10 99 20 33.85 9.72E-02
21 5 5.685353535
C1704100000340 37.8484 -
11 66 41 32.31707 6.11E-03
39 8 5.531411678
C1609300000081 49.8630 -
12 73 43 44.60465 6.67E-02
28 1 5.258362536
C1806400000071 18.1351 -
13 111 44 13.25 7.68E-04
48 4 4.885135135
C1601100000261 83.7457 -
14 59 70 79.58571 1.45E-01
12 6 4.160048426
C1512200000048 -
15 20 183 24.75 21.11475 9.28E-02
13 3.635245902
C1712100000530 28.7567 -
16 37 39 25.12821 5.22E-02
43 6 3.628551629
C1901300000167 21.4843 -
17 128 57 18.61404 7.22E-02
10 8 2.870339912
C1707400000526 22.7727 -
18 44 20 20.25 1.16E-01
73 3 2.522727273
C1701200000093 68.2685 -
19 108 91 65.78022 2.36E-01
65 2 2.488298738
C1510300000032
34.7422 -
20 45 226 197 32.48469 2.40E-05
2 2.257528345
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

691
C1807400000393 23.7120 -
21 231 200 22.02513 4.93E-04
53 4 1.686916257
C1906200000568 25.1538 -
22 52 83 23.51807 1.07E-01
90 5 1.635773865
C1903200000674 84.3695 -
23 46 120 83.59167 3.41E-01
79 7 0.777898551
C1601400000116 34.4364 -
24 181 162 33.66049 1.94E-01
47 6 0.775970261
C1510200000044 106.818 -
25 154 81 106.284 2.90E-01
10 2 0.534231201
C1601300000096 29.8544 -
26 268 244 29.56557 3.16E-01
44 8 0.288903841
C1801100000617 -
27 60 57 89 88.91228 4.89E-01
55 0.087719298
C1603200000093 15.4615
28 39 53 16.54717 1.08563135 3.83E-01
17 4
C1710400000332 50.2193
29 155 110 51.38182 1.162463343 1.80E-01
28 5
C1702100000036
30 125 78 12.368 13.73077 1.362769231 1.67E-01
84
C1710200000346 29.2019
31 200 175 31.37143 2.169458128 1.44E-02
43 7
C1712200000995 68.3365
32 104 67 71 2.663461538 2.53E-01
37 4
C1711100001054 22.9888
33 180 89 25.83146 2.842633859 2.12E-04
61 3
C1701200000039
34 201 172 12.1393 15.45349 3.31418489 7.00E-19
73
C1812100000512 47.2812
35 32 35 50.88571 3.604464286 2.89E-01
68 5
C1810100000825
36 82 26 41 44.64286 3.642857143 1.51E-02
40
C1712300000481 39.6318
37 220 169 44.49412 4.862299465 1.36E-09
92 2
C1708200000670 11.5555
38 63 35 16.91429 5.358730159 1.13E-01
48 6
C1602200000172 34.6956
39 46 62 41.98413 7.28847481 6.75E-04
62 5
C1812200000326 62.8148
40 54 78 72.84615 10.03133903 1.25E-06
73 1
C1602100000136 35.6351
41 75 57 53.56897 17.93383038 1.79E-22
23 4
C1507100001973 63.5079
42 126 28 92.96429 29.45634921 4.99E-06
62 4
C1707200000826 34.5454
43 33 25 77.8 43.25454545 4.02E-07
31 5
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010
692
Table 3: Travelers departure time choice behavior on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto-Higashi IC
Number of
Time
2007 2008 2007 2008
C1507100001694 11.217391 8.80094786 3.12991E-
1 253 211 -2.41644
00 3 7 07
C1709200000774 26.821576 19.6274509 2.98213E-
2 241 204 -7.19413
19 8 8 14
C1704400000323 107.49473 102.863905 2.15368E-
3 190 169 -4.63083
25 7 3 06
C1705100000448 15.804511 19.7105263 0.0725396
4 133 152 3.906015
54 3 2 09
C1908300000642 50.472222 0.2365438
5 72 144 49.875 -0.59722
13 2 68
C1608300000151 57.912280 58.6277372 0.0855489
6 171 137 0.715457
80 7 3 98
C1809100000434 40.021276 53.2706766 0.0014875
7 47 133 13.2494
00 6 9 27
C1708100000599 78.6324786 0.0520884
8 125 117 77.216 1.416479
92 3 58
C1907100000178 82.416666 78.9913793 0.0154672
9 72 116 -3.42529
56 7 1 9
C1712300000295 84.480874 83.2692307 0.3096080
10 183 104 -1.21164
98 3 7 04
C1805100000277 69.7087378 1.24965E-
11 99 103 65.040404 4.668334
96 6 05
C1907400000702 72.666666 1.35044E-
12 42 100 82.54 9.873333
44 7 09
C1507100003184 53.736263 0.2007793
13 91 86 49.6744186 -4.06185
98 7 91
C1608400000087 67.7974683 4.19478E-
14 70 79 92 -24.2025
66 5 07
C1804200000240 54.297297 58.9324324 0.2277113
15 37 74 4.635135
89 3 3 4
C1901200000169 75.787878 76.3714285 0.2203405
16 66 70 0.58355
58 8 7 88
C1902400000095 15.231578 16.2352941 0.3482348
17 95 68 1.003715
85 9 2 25
C1906400000315 49.451612 49.8656716 0.4392749
18 93 67 0.414059
50 9 4 34
C1812300000400 35.340909 32.0158730 0.1799651
19 44 63 -3.32504
12 1 2 04
C1804100000481
82.452830 79.4032258 4.17374E-
20 59 106 62 -3.0496
2 1 07
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

693
C1611400000075 39.378378 28.4590163 0.0284176

21 37 61 -10.9194
60 4 9 27
C1710300000956 73.327586 0.1638328
22 58 60 75.1 1.772414
24 2 71
C1707100000485 108.33593 110.596491 0.0298286
23 128 57 2.260554
91 8 2 27
C1908300000351 55.523809 78.2321428 3.45184E-
24 42 56 22.70833
62 5 6 18
C1907100000789 82.782608 87.4545454 0.0909387
25 46 55 4.671937
28 7 5 66
C1803100000178 29.506329 48.2978723 0.0004494
26 79 47 18.79154
19 1 4 29
C1812300000663 25.1702127 0.3073725
27 40 47 27.325 -2.15479
57 7 96
C1708300000195 46.577464 47.5652173 0.4336537
28 71 46 0.987753
55 8 9 79
C1808300000927 64.5777777 0.4113450
29 50 45 63.56 1.017778
28 8 97
C1801200000605 70.422018 90.2682926 3.31703E-
30 109 41 19.84627
17 3 8 08
C1905300000854 73.666666 0.3448734
31 33 40 70.1 -3.56667
05 7 24
C1906100000426 38.752577 38.7368421 0.4979868
32 97 38 -0.01574
20 3 1 5
C1907200000130 95.351351 106.105263 2.39105E-
33 37 38 10.75391
89 4 2 05
C1707100000159 63.6470588 0.0653182
34 25 34 68.12 -4.47294
44 2 91
C1712400000712 5.6917293 0.0160043
35 133 32 13.90625 8.214521
96 2 6
C1709400000358 40.724137 43.1538461 0.3547356
36 29 26 2.429708
00 9 5 33
C1511100000217 68.198019 5.6276E-
37 101 25 77.44 9.24198
34 8 09
C1511200000021 89.785714 0.0017159
38 28 25 74.76 -15.0257
13 3 59
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

694
Table 4: Travelers departure time choice behavior on the section from Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC
Number of
Time
2007 2008 2007 2008
C19093000003290 69.677419 68.7542372 0.3530014
1 31 236 -0.92318
7 4 9 71
C18013000008803 48.678414 51.6497695
2 227 224 2.971355 1.4994E-10
0 1 9
C17084000001768 89.532319 84.0313901 1.16252E-
3 263 223 -5.50093
1 4 3 09
C17063000008854 22.945783 22.7345971 0.3814197
4 166 211 -0.21119
6 1 6 7
C19013000005885 80.477178 51.8405797
5 242 208 -28.6366 4.3193E-40
7 4 1
C16023000001534 71.220779 70.3609756 0.0486111
6 231 205 -0.8598
0 2 1 43
C16112000001887 83.006711 63.6699507 3.36271E-
7 149 203 -19.3368
1 4 4 22
C17111000009753 45.546218 42.9545454 0.0002632
8 239 198 -2.59167
4 5 5 33
C17103000003707 82.864734 81.7875647 0.0603352
9 207 193 -1.07717
7 3 7 64
C17053000002564 25.043715 26.9947916 0.1227030
10 183 192 1.951076
3 8 7 45
C17011000001644 56.300448 1.69777E-
11 223 191 57.7591623 1.458714
1 4 09
C17122000003017 85.683417 82.9476439 0.0255575
12 199 191 -2.73577
6 1 8 92
C16043000004722 56.7819148 3.39859E-
13 88 188 53.375 3.406915
4 9 05
C19033000002779 92.887640 87.0478723 5.87617E-
14 89 188 -5.83977
0 4 4 17
C17061000006724 50.574074 51.5846994 0.0043335
15 216 183 1.010625
6 1 5 16
C17073000012766 111.79888 110.373626 0.0018873
16 179 182 -1.42526
0 3 4 48
C18013000006736 95.346820 91.5474860 0.0038011
17 173 181 -3.79933
2 8 3 29
C15071000024254 40.229591 43.3555555 2.77929E-
18 196 180 3.125964
6 8 6 06
C17123000005757 20.317391 25.4237288 4.21169E-
19 230 177 5.106338
6 3 1 50
C15102000000430
83.449664 83.6590909 0.3219109
20 6 149 176 0.209426
4 1 24
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

695
C17033000005993 32.843373 34.2873563 0.0956754

21 83 174 1.443983
5 5 2 66
C15071000026896 83.803921 9.68652E-
22 204 169 72.0295858 -11.7743
3 6 17
C16074000001519 64.120535 62.9757575 0.1600107
23 224 165 -1.14478
4 7 8 66
C17034000008112 27.609756 26.9358974 0.0808753
24 205 156 -0.67386
4 1 4 27
C18082000014402 60.958715 61.7516339 0.1575140
25 218 153 0.792918
2 6 9 23
C17042000001454 26.181818 7.91148E-
26 99 151 41.1192053 14.93739
6 2 14
C17081000006858 12.349397 15.8333333 0.0006682
27 166 144 3.483936
6 6 3 18
C18021000002375 107.10791 88.9856115 4.27164E-
28 139 139 -18.1223
5 4 1 15
C18071000006263 43.201058 50.6449275 3.07885E-
29 189 138 7.443869
1 2 4 17
C18034000006334 33.844155 40.9696969 0.0032763
30 77 132 7.125541
2 8 7 07
C16033000003520 43.984962 38.0645161
31 133 126 -5.92045 1.2836E-43
9 4 3
C17082000002772 61.290155 58.4444444 9.22268E-
32 193 126 -2.84571
4 4 4 11
C17042000003320 25.376712 28.3145161 1.01531E-
33 146 124 2.937804
9 3 3 10
C16071000000900 12.146341 0.0243803
34 123 113 10.5840708 -1.56227
9 5 27
C19101000007863 15.878787 19.3240740 2.24462E-
35 66 108 3.445286
4 9 7 05
C17093000004522 77.2222222
36 104 99 66 11.22222 3.6492E-08
1 2
C17052000009244 68.398058 70.7954545 0.1072799
37 103 88 2.397396
4 3 5 63
C18062000005268 70.273809 68.3095238 0.0751399
38 84 84 -1.96429
9 5 1 86
C18111000005741 34.113821 33.1794871 0.2812447
39 123 78 -0.93433
7 1 8 17
C17061000007983 61.972602 68.4545454 0.0834171
40 73 77 6.481943
8 7 5 16
C19093000013736 8.13513513 0.0117334
41 37 74 4.2972973 3.837838
7 5 42
C18081000009670 45.443396 41.9863013 0.0083489
42 106 73 -3.45709
4 2 7 44
C17063000003811 62.717948 60.5797101 0.0007257
43 39 69 -2.13824
0 7 4 96
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010
696
C17014000003810 0.4884467
44 46 64 16.173913 16.265625 0.091712
6 23
C17111000005327 9.9841269 8.11864406 0.2725975
45 63 59 -1.86548
6 8 8 5
C16031000003601 60.796296 73.6078431 0.0253850
46 54 51 12.81155
6 3 4 04
C17072000006168 17.9166666 6.83009E-
47 50 48 35.22 -17.3033
5 7 11
C17122000004841 2.27977E-
48 40 47 24.325 51 26.675
9 05
C17041000025275 93.7674418 0.1434063
49 50 45 89.82 3.947442
1 6 08
C18113000009484 52.944444 60.4545454 6.36687E-
50 239 44 7.510101
9 4 5 08
C18123000003153 113.08333 114.681818 0.1255892
51 36 44 1.598485
4 3 2 47
C15124000002884 48.147727 0.0002961
52 88 42 57.5 9.352273
0 3 23
C17053000004559 39.351351 36.8048780 0.0047163
53 111 41 -2.54647
5 4 5 71
C17081000003142 78.018181 77.9756097 0.4803934
54 55 41 -0.04257
1 8 6 6
C17111000002924 61.482758 46.5128205 3.28848E-
55 145 39 -14.9699
1 6 1 06
C17072000006628 78.294117 84.6842105 4.10782E-
56 34 38 6.390093
2 6 3 07
C19023000006351 53.672413 77.9473684 6.31913E-
57 58 38 24.27495
6 8 2 06
C17052000003823 68.975490 69.5135135 0.1945935
58 204 37 0.538023
6 2 1 47
C16013000000555 103.02666 109.428571 0.0084707
59 75 35 6.401905
3 7 4 97
C17113000005774 37.885245 31.0285714 0.0927663
60 61 35 -6.85667
2 9 3 04
C19094000001264 45.105263 58.6666666 0.0001467
61 38 33 13.5614
8 2 7 64
C16023000000067 38.120481 67.0967741 6.18405E-
62 166 31 28.97629
0 9 9 07
C18013000008142 22.142857 26.6774193 0.1010282
63 77 31 4.534562
5 1 5 47
C17111000008812 41.076923 14.6785714 0.0002392
64 26 28 -26.3984
0 1 3 72
C18033000011664 63.761904 59.6071428 0.0260188
65 42 28 -4.15476
4 8 6 29
C17062000005703 74.894736 74.9565217 0.4900277
66 38 23 0.061785
4 8 4 35
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010
697
C17112000000403 14.3478260 1.24056E-

67 225 23 17.76 -3.41217
7 9 10
C18022000008557 36.618784 39.3636363 0.3134757
68 181 22 2.744852
9 5 6 08
C18082000012716 42.439024 45.7142857 0.1830190
69 41 21 3.275261
2 4 1 08
Table 5: The rates of travelers changed their departure time significantly from 2007 to 2008
Changed departure time

Total Depart earlier
Total significantly
Numbe
Numb Numbe
IC Pair r of Number
er of r of Percen Number Number
traveler of Percent
trips traveler t of trips of trips
s travelers
s
Oyamazaki
43 8482 21 49% 4874 11 52% 2776
to Ibaraki
Oyamazaki
to Kyoto 38 6405 18 47% 3373 8 44% 1924
Higashi
Ishiyama to
69 16535 45 65% 11429 22 49% 6101
Ogura
All 150 31422 84 56% 19676 41 49% 10801
4- TRAVEL TIME UNCERTAINTY RECOGNITION

In this section, following to previous empirical studies, we consider that travel time and travel
time reliability are the most important attributes in travelers’ departure time choice behavior. This
section discusses how travelers recognize travel time reliability based on their actual departure
time choice behavior as a result of the uncertainty that is experienced by the individual and the
reaction of improvements in the travel time reliability after opening the new expressway.
4-1 DEFINITIONS OF TRAVEL TIME AND UNCERTAINTY

Previous studies investigate the properties of equilibrium where the travel time distribution is
dependent on the individual departure time choices and where individuals apply scheduling
considerations (Vickrey, 1969; Arnott et al., 1993). We are concerned with the reaction to
changes in the distribution of the travel time. The value of a change in the mean travel time is just
the value of time, which is a concept with a long history in economics (Becker, 1965; Beesley,
1965; Johnson, 1966; DeSerpa, 1971) and there is a large literature on its measurement. The
travel time and uncertainty can be captured by a number of measures, the previous studies have
derived empirical values for the parameters of the mean-variance approach and the scheduling
approach based on traveler’s individual perception. These valuation methods are hardly used due
to the lack of knowledge on how to predict and value travel time variability and the lack of
appropriate data. As an alternative, the value of time has been studied as the change in the mean
of travel time distribution while the value of reliability was based on the value of the change in
the variance, standard deviation or the range between quantiles of travel time distribution. For
example, Brownstone et.al.(2005) concluded that reliability can be fruitfully modeled as a
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

698
property of the upper tail of the travel time distribution across days and he studied the difference
between the 90th and 50th percentile travel times. Such a measure should be closely related to the
chance of being substantially later than expected. Other researches (e.g. Bogers et al., 2008)
strongly argue there does not exist one best measure, because what can be regarded as ‘best’ may
be application or special context or is contingent upon the goal that has to be reached. In a recent
contribution (Van Lint et al., 2007) show that the choice of reliability measures strongly
determines the outcome. Furthermore, Van Zuylen (2004) elaborates on the financial implications
of using various measures for the valuation of reliability. He shows that the impact of reducing
the probability of very long travel times can be very different from the impact of reducing all
possible travel times by 10 percent. Therefore, it is essential to use measures that correctly
capture traveler’s perception and valuation of reliability in order to make a correct assessment of
gains that can be achieved by improving reliability.
4-2 SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES

A conscious choice has to be made when choosing for a particular reliability measure. Therefore,
we calculated the change in the mean, median, variance, standard deviation, the difference
between 90th and 50th percentiles, and buffer time. From the actual travel time distributions for
each IC pair for each traveler, the indices are calculated for the morning commuting peak period
(7 am, and 8 am) during 2007 and 2008. Finally, the mean of all these individual values was
computed representing travel time and its reliability for the selected IC pairs. Tables 6 through 8
introduce travel time distribution parameters for each traveler individually for the three selected
IC pairs in the year before and after the opening of new expressway. Table 9 summarizes the
average of all these individual values computed for each year on each IC pair. Without having
discussed yet which reliability measure is best, it may become immediately clear from tables 6
through 8 that there are the agreement and disagreement among the reliability measures in
representing the difference between the two years. If the values of any measures are extremely
different from the values of other reliability measures, it can be considered as an indication of
invalidity of these. This assumption can be checked using exclusive analysis of tables 6 to 8 and
from the difference between the average of all these individual values which representing travel
time and its reliability for the selected IC pairs and summarized in table 9.
The difference between measures in 2008 and 2007 data represents the change in travel time and
its reliability on each IC pair due to the opening of the new expressway. Positive sign points that
the value of mean travel time or any other measure increased in 2008 compared to 2007 which
means that reliability getting worse; otherwise, negative signs indicate reliability improvement.
Based on the sign of the difference between measures in 2008 and 2007 data, it is simply
implying the change in situation. Tables 6 to 8 introduce travel time distribution parameters for
each traveler individually for the selected sections and the shaded areas represent measures which
are contrary to others. Therefore, for each IC pair the shaded areas indicated the deficiency of the
measure. The performance on most measures is relatively similar while a small number of
observations are disagreed (see shaded areas in ∆ (µ) and ∆50% columns). It is clear from tables
that the mean and the median of travel time distribution can represent the change in travel time on
all three ICs. Table 6 shows that less than 10% of measures challenged the others which means
that these measures can accurately represents the change in travel time and its reliability on the
section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC. Oppositely, Table 7 shows that most of measures
reflect a very different representation of the travel time reliability. Table 8 shows that the
difference between 90th and 50th percentiles disagrees with the other measures which means that
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

699
this measure can not accurately represents the change in travel time reliability on the section from
Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC. Furthermore, Table 9a, b, and c summarizes the average values of all
travelers for each measure on the three IC pairs. It concretes the previous idea and recommend
excluding the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto-Higashi IC from this study due to large
disagreement between all reliability measures.
Figure 2, 3, and 4 show the change in travel time and reliability for the selected IC pairs based on
actual travelers’ behavior for the morning commuting peak period (7 am, and 8 am) during 2007
and 2008 using different measures. It clearly reflects the agreement and disagreement between
them. In sum, it is concluded from tables 6 through 9 and figures 2 through 4 that travel time
reliability decreased on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC. Also, travel time reliability
getting worse on the section from Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC after opening new expressway. For
the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto-Higashi IC, it is difficult to draw a significant
conclusion due to large disagreement and confusion between all reliability measures.
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

700
Table 6: Travel time reliability indices on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC
∆ (µ) ∆50% ∆σ
∆ Variance ∆ (90% -50%) ∆(95% - µ)
Serial Traveler ID (minute (minut (minute
(minutes) (minutes) (minutes)
s) es) s)
C161010000002
1 0.60 0.435 0.92 0.704 0.319 2.711
442
C171240000006
2 2.20 0.465 1.66 1.090 1.012 -0.192
615
C180620000057
3 0.53 0.505 -0.66 -0.257 0.531 0.808
682
C170710000059
4 0.38 0.41 -3.25 -1.134 0.762 1.075
670
C170330000073
5 0.33 0.34 -0.94 -0.406 0.915 1.389
424
C180210000022
6 0.33 0.435 -0.95 -0.561 0.225 0.723
490
C170410000034
7 0.43 0.445 0.35 0.394 0.117 0.193
040
C160230000027
8 0.62 0.42 1.29 0.906 0.878 1.095
991
C181030000075
9 0.54 0.54 0.22 0.277 0.198 0.627
183
C170840000045
10 1.61 0.64 5.51 2.0899 2.02 3.456
121
C170410000034
11 0.75 0.41 1.02 0.794 1.202 1.720
039
C160930000008
12 0.60 0.505 0.73 0.591 0.568 1.193
128
C180640000007
13 1.31 0.72 3.77 1.703 0.774 1.835
148
C160110000026
14 0.64 0.445 1.16 0.872 1.113 2.9
112
C151220000004
15 0.46 0.29 1.02 0.797 0.585 1.007
813
C171210000053
16 0.65 0.47 0.57 0.572 0.254 1.023
043
C190130000016
17 0.48 0.47 -0.87 -0.341 0.89 0.871
710
C170740000052
18 0.50 0.48 0.09 0.137 0.126 0.075
673
C170120000009
19 0.75 0.47 1.73 1.066 0.928 2.454
365
C151030000003
20 0.64 0.49 0.83 0.470 0.371 0.923
245
21 C180740000039 0.53 0.455 -0.23 -0.103 0.625 1.023
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

701
353
C190620000056
22 0.44 0.365 0.38 0.396 0.196 0.930
890
C190320000067
23 0.38 0.3 0.47 0.386 0.378 0.973
479
C160140000011
24 0.57 0.455 0.89 0.505 0.663 0.914
647
C151020000004
25 0.54 0.345 1.30 0.644 0.684 1.575
410
C160130000009
26 0.58 0.465 -0.19 -0.086 0.816 0.939
644
C180110000061
27 0.64 0.445 1.99 1.091 0.909 0.819
755
C160320000009
28 0.73 0.42 0.84 0.740 0.388 1.966
317
C171040000033
29 0.56 0.5 -2.21 -0.812 1.07 1.291
228
C170210000003
30 0.76 0.455 2.01 1.114 0.923 1.014
684
C171020000034
31 0.63 0.45 0.93 0.552 1.002 0.979
643
C171220000099
32 0.84 0.565 0.97 0.651 0.999 2.051
537
C171110000105
33 0.96 0.5 2.19 1.236 1.182 2.554
461
C170120000003
34 0.66 0.49 1.05 0.719 0.903 0.906
973
C181210000051
35 0.58 0.355 1.19 0.883 1.162 1.280
268
C181010000082
36 0.53 0.55 0.15 0.205 0.028 0.286
540
C171230000048
37 0.53 0.53 -0.98 -0.458 1.06 2.277
192
C170820000067
38 0.43 0.38 0.25 0.307 0.55 0.939
048
C160220000017
39 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.508 0.154 0.105
262
C181220000032
40 0.37 0.41 0.36 0.406 0.054 0.119
673
C160210000013
41 0.62 0.485 1.62 0.928 0.288 0.759
623
C150710000197
42 0.92 0.52 3.69 1.575 0.958 1.011
362
C170720000082
43 0.37 0.45 -0.03 -0.062 -0.064 -0.106
631
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

702
Table 7: Travel time reliability indices on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto- Higashi IC
∆ (µ) ∆50% ∆σ
∆ Variance ∆ (90% -50%) ∆(95% - µ)
Serial Traveler ID (minut (minut (minute
(minutes) (minutes) (minutes)
es) es) s)
C150710000169
1 0.179 0.165 -0.113 -0.087 0.23 0.158
400
C170920000077
2 0.275 0.28 -0.206 -0.130 0.25 0.490
419
C170440000032
3 0.507 0.265 0.412 0.143 1.336 3.583
325
C170510000044
4 0.218 0.16 1.636 0.724 0.109 0.444
854
C190830000064
5 0.220 0.195 0.081 0.037 0.084 0.322
213
C160830000015
6 0.447 0.28 1.641 0.538 0.39 2.145
180
C180910000043
7 0.653 0.21 3.859 1.722 0.9 1.762
400
C170810000059
8 0.319 0.2 0.136 0.063 0.438 1.455
992
C190710000017
9 0.150 0.095 -3.450 -1.186 0.225 -1.837
856
C171230000029
10 0.528 0.25 -1.384 -0.363 1.026 1.962
598
C180510000027
11 0.324 0.17 0.675 0.288 0.309 2.056
796
C190740000070
12 0.801 0.3 3.078 1.227 2.472 4.275
244
C150710000318
13 0.294 0.32 -0.500 -0.217 0.35 0.706
498
C160840000008
14 0.630 0.19 -1.610 -0.426 2.056 2.619
766
C180420000024
15 0.437 0.22 2.067 0.617 1.247 1.654
089
C190120000016
16 0.384 0.205 0.670 0.450 0.532 1.101
958
C190240000009
17 0.206 0.21 -0.033 -0.028 0.044 0.545
585
C190640000031
18 -0.066 0.19 -4.936 -1.597 -1.142 -1.373
550
C181230000040
19 0.376 0.27 0.587 0.393 0.08 1.595
012
C180410000048
20 -0.077 0.1 -2.400 -0.940 0.079 -1.379
159
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

703
C161140000007
21 0.299 0.175 0.338 0.374 0.404 0.734
560
C171030000095
22 0.597 0.32 0.655 0.379 1.45 1.366
624
C170710000048
23 0.469 0.18 1.112 0.387 0.891 3.455
591
C190830000035
24 0.489 0.14 1.493 1.043 0.358 1.763
162
C190710000078
25 0.277 0.17 -5.464 -1.529 0.934 -2.120
928
C180310000017
26 0.397 0.305 0.403 0.275 0.059 1.474
819
C181230000066
27 0.057 0.13 -0.572 -0.404 0.169 -0.654
357
C170830000019
28 0.154 0.185 -2.322 -0.642 0.94 -0.023
555
C180830000092
29 0.674 0.23 3.043 1.267 1.102 3.586
728
C180120000060
30 0.598 0.28 -0.813 -0.256 0.708 0.031
517
C190530000085
31 -0.528 0.115 -7.208 -2.494 -0.422 -2.081
405
C190610000042
32 -0.253 -0.015 -1.763 -0.789 -1.489 -0.869
620
C190720000013
33 0.186 0.22 -3.116 -0.661 2.936 2.710
089
C170710000015
34 0.220 0.04 -0.235 -0.093 1.022 1.118
944
C171240000071
35 0.269 0.165 0.395 0.405 0.04 -0.171
296
C170940000035
36 0.013 0.115 -0.022 -0.042 -0.37 -0.300
800
C151110000021
37 0.358 0.2 -0.177 -0.053 2.218 0.399
734
C151120000002
38 0.445 0.25 0.710 0.237 0.539 3.559
113
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

704
Table 8: Travel time reliability indices on the section from Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC
∆ (µ) ∆50% ∆σ ∆(95% -

Seria ∆ Variance ∆ (90% -50%)
Traveler ID (minut (minut (minute µ)
l (minutes) (minutes)
es) es) s) (minutes)
C19093000003290
1 0.117 0.03 0.133 0.249 0.223 0.328
7
C18013000008803
2 0.222 0.14 0.187 0.293 0.13 0.325
0
C17084000001768
3 0.183 0.16 0.131 0.224 0.034 0.192
1
C17063000008854
4 0.189 0.1 0.073 0.149 0.288 0.351
6
C19013000005885
5 0.256 0.17 0.177 0.281 0.23 0.386
7
C16023000001534
6 0.228 0.17 0.180 0.285 0.083 0.284
0
C16112000001887
7 0.176 0.11 0.162 0.270 0.159 0.249
1
C17111000009753
8 0.190 0.14 0.129 0.224 0.094 0.235
4
C17103000003707
9 0.205 0.19 0.050 0.106 0.049 0.168
7
C17053000002564
10 0.155 0.07 0.143 0.237 0.27 0.339
3
C17011000001644
11 0.261 0.19 0.141 0.235 0.308 0.430
1
C17122000003017
12 0.153 0.145 0.032 0.067 -0.016 0.208
6
C16043000004722
13 0.200 0.155 0.106 0.208 0.085 0.277
4
C19033000002779
14 0.146 0.14 0.792 0.743 0.132 0.392
0
C17061000006724
15 0.248 0.17 0.213 0.321 0.26 0.460
6
C17073000012766
16 0.171 0.11 1.073 0.862 0.417 0.473
0
C18013000006736
17 0.183 0.15 1.011 0.825 0.259 0.316
2
C15071000024254
18 0.193 0.1 0.198 0.317 0.298 0.420
6
C17123000005757
19 0.166 0.09 0.148 0.214 0.118 0.303
6
C15102000000430
20 0.135 0.17 0.820 0.758 0.004 0.273
6
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

705
C17033000005993
21 0.136 0.065 0.143 0.229 0.187 0.315
5
C15071000026896
22 0.145 0.09 0.056 0.115 0.054 0.215
3
C16074000001519
23 0.168 0.11 0.150 0.236 0.124 0.157
4
C17034000008112
24 0.141 0.125 0.037 0.082 0.074 0.224
4
C18082000014402
25 0.270 0.18 0.371 0.451 0.116 0.310
2
C17042000001454
26 0.113 0.08 0.089 0.186 0.093 0.218
6
C17081000006858
27 0.100 0.06 0.053 0.108 0.2 0.266
6
C18021000002375
28 0.081 0.095 1.061 0.843 0.145 0.200
5
C18071000006263
29 0.247 0.135 0.229 0.347 0.375 0.418
1
C18034000006334
30 0.161 0.12 0.057 0.116 0.132 0.389
2
C16033000003520
31 0.197 0.12 0.076 0.161 0.23 0.300
9
C17082000002772
32 0.279 0.205 0.154 0.250 0.303 0.231
4
C17042000003320
33 0.162 0.135 0.058 0.108 0.076 0.264
9
C16071000000900
34 0.224 0.08 0.357 0.472 0.136 0.714
9
C19101000007863
35 0.328 0.16 0.308 0.423 0.487 0.954
4
C17093000004522
36 0.100 0.13 -0.015 -0.042 -0.055 -0.106
1
C17052000009244
37 0.295 0.15 0.322 0.407 0.238 0.565
4
C18062000005268
38 0.141 0.135 0.030 0.054 0.017 0.284
9
C18111000005741
39 0.238 0.11 0.259 0.381 0.445 0.406
7
C17061000007983
40 0.238 0.1 0.380 0.449 0.2 0.247
8
C19093000013736
41 0.074 0.05 0.045 0.114 0.091 0.290
7
C18081000009670
42 0.201 0.17 0.061 0.134 0.247 0.313
4
43 C17063000003811 0.210 0.16 0.228 0.299 -0.05 0.257
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010
706
0
C17014000003810
44 0.117 0.08 0.183 0.246 -0.03 -0.059
6
C17111000005327
45 0.226 0.115 0.260 0.370 0.258 0.387
6
C16031000003601
46 0.495 0.14 0.887 0.786 1.558 2.077
6
C17072000006168
47 0.292 0.205 0.347 0.429 0.215 0.120
5
C17122000004841
48 0.091 -0.01 0.156 0.224 -0.127 0.141
9
C17041000025275
49 0.198 0.18 0.050 0.097 -0.049 0.116
1
C18113000009484
50 0.341 0.16 0.434 0.510 0.503 0.670
9
C18123000003153
51 0.085 0.085 -0.002 -0.003 0.024 -0.024
4
C15124000002884
52 0.168 0.11 0.076 0.155 0.074 0.217
0
C17053000004559
53 0.134 0.06 0.045 0.108 0.257 0.409
5
C17081000003142
54 0.275 0.245 0.050 0.109 0.169 0.158
1
C17111000002924
55 0.371 0.27 0.055 0.114 0.3 0.271
1
C17072000006628
56 0.194 0.16 0.013 0.035 0.096 0.166
2
C19023000006351
57 0.186 0.125 0.067 0.135 0.045 0.006
6
C17052000003823
58 0.246 0.2 0.017 0.037 0.249 0.188
6
C16013000000555
59 0.290 0.265 0.028 0.056 0.151 0.139
3
C17113000005774
60 0.240 0.215 0.027 0.065 0.13 0.180
2
C19094000001264
61 0.264 0.17 0.100 0.203 0.483 0.514
8
C16023000000067
62 0.185 0.025 0.144 0.237 0.514 0.331
0
C18013000008142
63 0.228 0.045 0.111 0.215 0.501 0.434
5
C17111000008812
64 0.222 0.15 0.047 0.099 0.052 0.283
0
C18033000011664
65 0.099 0.06 -0.017 -0.045 0.011 0.036
4
66 C17062000005703 0.219 0.18 0.131 0.231 -0.05 0.607
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010
707
4
C17112000000403
67 0.517 0.6 0.179 0.292 0.132 0.191
7
C18022000008557
68 0.523 0.49 0.109 0.204 0.167 0.077
9
C18082000012716
69 0.001 0.015 -0.00894 -0.028 -0.095 -0.103
2
Table 9-a: Travel time distribution parameters on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC
Mean
Varianc Standard
Data Travel 50% 90% -50% 95% -µ
e Deviation
Time(µ)
0.33
2007 10.877 10.817 0.533 0.555 0.385
2008 11.529 11.277 1.262 1.045 0.998 1.559
Difference 0.652 0.46 0.729 0.490 0.668 1.174
Table 9-b: Travel time distribution parameters on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto- Higashi IC
Mean
Standard
Data Travel 50% Variance 90% -50% 95% -µ
Deviation
Time(µ)
11.73
2007 11.961 1.999 1.219 0.542 1.263
3
11.93
2008 12.264 1.648 1.183 1.134 2.217
0
Difference 0.303 0.197 -0.351 -0.04 0.592 0.954
Table 9-c: Travel time distribution parameters on the section from Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC
Mean
Standard
Data Travel 50% Variance 90% -50% 95% -µ
Deviation
Time(µ)
10.35
2007 10.363 0.034 0.183 0.213 0.273
8
10.50
2008 10.569 0.236 0.439 0.399 0.582
0
Difference 0.206 0.142 0.201 0.256 0.186 0.309
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

708
Fig. 2. Travel time reliability indices on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Ibaraki IC
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

709
Fig. 3. Travel time reliability indices on the section from Oyamazaki IC to Kyoto- Higashi IC
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

710
Fig. 4. Travel time reliability indices on the section from Ishiyama IC to Ogura IC
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

711
5-CONCLUSION
ETC and loop detector data provides particularly useful opportunities for analyzing travelers’
behavior toward reliability based on their actual departure time choice behavior as a result of the
uncertainty that is experienced by individuals after opening the new expressway. The
combination between these two datasets help for more accurate determination of actual departure
time and actual average travel time and travel time reliability. The analysis shows that 56% of all
travelers were changed their departure time significantly half of them shifted earlier. It is
assumed that the selected travelers could learn about the travel time variations of each route,
without being told in advance what the actual distributions was. Therefore, their departure time
choice behavior have the potential to be quite representative for the departure time choice
behavior of all car drivers using this road. To quantify travel time and travel time reliability, it is
proved that the mean and the median of travel time can accurately represent travel time, and
standard deviation, and variance can be used to quantify travel time reliability. Following to
previous empirical studies, it is concluded that the best measure may be application or special
context or is contingent upon the goal that has to be reached.
REFERENCES
1. Arnott, R.A., de Palma, A., Lindsey, R., 1993. A structural model of peak-period congestion:
a traffic bottleneck with elastic demand. American Economic Review 83 (1), 161–179.
2. Becker, G.S., 1965. A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal 75 (299), 493–517.
3. Beesley, M.E., 1965. The value of time spent in travelling: some new evidence. Economica
32 (126), 174-185.
4. Bogers, EA.I., Van Lint, J.W.C., Van Zuylen, H.J, 2008. Travel time reliability: effective
measures from a behavioral point of view. TRB 87th, 13-17.
5. Brownstone, D. and Small, K.A., 2005.Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence
from road pricing demonstrations. Transportation Research Part A 39, 279-293.
6. DeSerpa, A.C., 1971. A theory of the economics of time. The Economic Journal 81 (324),
828-845.
7. Johnson, M.B., 1966. Travel time and the price of leisure. Western Economic Journal 4 (2),
135-145.
8. Van Lint, J.W.C. and H.J. Van Zuylen, Travel Time Reliability on Freeways: Different
Measures give Different Answers. Submitted to Transportation Research A, 2007.
9. Van Zuylen, H.J., 2004. The effect of irregularity of travel times on route and departure time
choice. 2nd International Symposium on Transportation Network Reliability (INSTR).
10. Vickrey, W.S., 1969. Congestion theory and transport investment. American Economic
Review 59 (2), 251–261.
11. Wang, R., Goto, M., Nakamura, H., 2003.Validation of an improved method to estimate
expressway travel time by the combination of detector and probe data. Journal of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 2003-214.
12. Yamazaki, H., Uno, N., Kurauchi, F., 2009. A level of service evaluation based on travel time
reliability using ETC data.
Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

712

C60

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

C60

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

 ‫

ANALYSIS OF TRAVELERS' DEPARTURE TIME CHOICE BEHAVIOR

Al-Azhar University Engineering Journal, JAUES

2- STUDY SITE AND DATA DESCRIPTION

2-1 STUDY SITE

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Fig.1. Study site

2-2 DATA DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION

2-2-1 ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION (ETC) DATA

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

2-2-2 LOOP DETECTOR DATA

3- EMPIRICAL ILLUSTRATION OF TRAVELERS’ BEHAVIOR

3-1 SELECTION OF STUDIED TRAVELERS

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Table 1: The total number of travelers use each IC pair

Number of selected Number of trips

3-2 DEPARTURE TIME CHOICE BEHAVIOR

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

C1611400000075 39.378378 28.4590163 0.0284176

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

C17033000005993 32.843373 34.2873563 0.0956754

C17112000000403 14.3478260 1.24056E-

Changed departure time

4- TRAVEL TIME UNCERTAINTY RECOGNITION

4-1 DEFINITIONS OF TRAVEL TIME AND UNCERTAINTY

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

4-2 SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

∆ (µ) ∆50% ∆σ ∆(95% -

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

Vol. 5, No.1, Dec. 2010

S-ar putea să vă placă și

‫