You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Confirm distance units (miles or metres) (specifically affects output plots) (looks like conversion to km here)
Explore why the distances for trips appear larger in 2-15km range in AcBM comapred to NTS. Two factors:
Interzone short distance trips, the route taken (especially for PT but also for car generally) will not be direct. A factor can be applied (see paper) with Minkowski distance (e.g. apply factor of 1.54 to estimated travel times based on Euclidean distances). Could also include a decay for this factor since longer distances may be expected to be more direct.
Intrazone trips have an assumption of distance in proportion to area. Explore if the effect is larger for larger OAs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hussein-Mahfouz
changed the title
Checking and validating assumptions
Checking and validating travel distance assumptions
Dec 13, 2024
Assigning feasible zones for secondary locations is based on PAM here. The logic for secondary location in PAM is described in this notebook, and they use a combination of diversion factor, attraction of zone, and leg ratio. This approach does not guarantee finding a solution that matches the reported distance, as this is actually a difficult problem - you are constrained by fixed primary locations on either side. We should be aware of this when validating our results.
Potential future implementations (low priority):
consider secondary location assignment when choosing primary zones (i.e we have a set of feasible primary zones, and we choose one that best fits our secondary zone constraints, but that is a very difficult problem and would require a rewrite of the pipeline workflow).
From discussion with @Hussein-Mahfouz :
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: