Transportation Research Record 1707

Paper No. 00 - 0910

37

Trip Length Distributions in

Commodity-Based and Trip-Based
Freight Demand Modeling
Investigation of Relationships
Jos Holgun-Veras and Ellen Thorson
Commodity-based and vehicle-trip-based freight demand modeling is
discussed. The characteristics of the trip length distributions (TLDs) are
examined, defined in terms of tons, as required in commodity-based
modeling, and in vehicle trips, as required in trip-based modeling. With
data used from a major transportation study in Guatemala, the TLDs
are estimated for both tons and vehicle trips. The analysis revealed that
(a) the shape of the TLDs depends upon the type of movements being
considered; (b) TLDs defined in terms of tonnage differ significantly
from those defined in terms of vehicle trips; (c) TLDs for different types
of vehicles, transporting similar commodities, reflect the range of use of
each type of vehicle; (d ) though tons TLDs and vehicle TLDs are different, the relationship between them seems to follow a systematic pattern
that, if successfully identified, would enable transportation planners to
estimate one type of TLD given the other; and (e) major freight generators affect the shape of the TLDs, so complementary models may be
needed to provide meaningful depictions of freight movements.

The transportation modeling process uses demand models to forecast,

in combination with network models to analyze supply. For the most
part, the evolving transportation modeling paradigms have focused on
passenger transportation while paying little or no attention to freight.
This is because passenger issues traditionally have been assigned the
highest priorities, effectively reducing the amount of resources and
attention allocated to freight transportation research and education.
An appropriate consideration of freight transportation issues is
important, both in modeling and policy making, because in addition
to making significant contributions to the economy, truck freight
transportation generates externalitiesthat is, pollution (1). For that
reason, an increasing number of planning studies are focusing on
(a) defining the role of advanced technologies to enhance system productivity and efficiency (e.g., 2,3); (b) defining traffic control strategies aimed at ameliorating the negative environmental impacts of
truck traffic upon local communities (e.g., 4); and/or (c) estimating
future freight supply and demand to estimate future needs (e.g., 5).
The latter type of analysis faces significant limitations because (a) the
bulk of transportation demand models have been developed for passenger transportation, not freight; and (b) transportation planning
agencies usually do not have the specialized staff required to deal with
freight issues nor do they assign freight transportation a high priority.
The most significant hurdle to including freight transportation in
the transportation modeling process is that most of the demand foreThe City College of New York, 135th Street and Convent Avenue, Building Y-220,
New York, NY 10031.

cast methodologies have been developed for passenger trips, not

freight trips. This methodological void usually is filled by simplistic approaches such as assuming that freight trips follow the same
behavioral mechanisms as passenger trips, which is an implicit
assumption when truck traffic is estimated as a function of passengercar traffic. Although the error introduced by this assumption may
not have major consequences for small urban areas where the number of freight trips is relatively small, it cannot be used in large metropolitan areas such as New York City where freight-related trips
are a major contributor to urban congestion, and freight-specific
transportation policies are warranted.
The complexity of modeling freight demand arises from a combination of factors. First and foremost, multiple dimensions are to be
considered (6). Whereas in passenger transportation there is only one
unit of demandthat is, the passenger, who for the most part happens
to be the decision makerin freight transportation there are multiple
dimensions (volume, weight, and trips) under the control of a number
of decision makers (drivers, dispatchers, freight forwarders) who
interact in a rather dynamic environment. Also, a significant portion
of freight demand is discretionary in nature. In this context, a relatively small number of companies have control over a significant
number of freight movements. Integrating their behavior into planning models is rather challenging because the dynamics of their
decision-making process, marked by their commercially sensitive
nature, are not part of the public domain.
The significant differences in time value, or opportunity costs,
exhibited by cargoes also are cited as a major factor in determining
the complexity of modeling freight (7). Whereas the passengers time
value ranges within the same order of magnitude, cargo time value
determined by opportunity costsexhibits a much wider range.
Cargoes opportunity costs are determined by a combination of the
intrinsic cargo value (determined by market value and replacement
costs) and the logistic cargo value (a function of the importance of
the cargo for the production system at a given moment in time and
inventory levels). At one end, low-priority cargoes may have intrinsic cargo values as low as $9/ton (gypsum); and at the other, highpriority cargoes have intrinsic cargo values that frequently exceed
$500,000/ton (e.g., computer chips) (8). These figures would
increase significantly once the logistic cargo value is factored in.
The multiple dimensions that could be used for freight demand
modeling (i.e., weight, trips, and volume) have given rise to two
major modeling platforms: commodity-based and trip-based modeling. Different modeling approaches can be used on each of these
platforms. The most widely used options include (a) variants of the

38

Paper No. 00 - 0910

Transportation Research Record 1707

Four Steps Model, (b) direct demand models, and (c) input-output
models. Table 1 summarizes the major combinations, according to
the principal authors experience. As can be seen, approaches such
as developing regression models of truck traffic as a function of
passenger-car traffic have been purposely left out of the figure because
they have very little behavioral and economic support, regardless of
their statistical significance.
In addition to the modeling approaches depicted in Table 1, there
are methodologies that attempt to synthesize (estimate) freight origindestination matrices from secondary data, such as traffic counts, and
screen counts (9, 10). However promising, these methodologies are
out of the scope of this paper because they do not attempt to explain
the fundamental mechanisms of freight demand, their main focus
being on the estimation of origin-destination matrices consistent with
traffic counts or other secondary data.
This paper analyzes variants of the Four Steps Model applied to
both commodity-based and trip-based platforms. More specifically,
the paper analyzes the characteristics of the trip length distributions
(TLDs) used in these platforms. The paper has three major sections,
in addition to the introduction. In the section on commodity-based
versus trip-based models, the major modeling platforms are briefly
described, discussing advantages and disadvantages and the potential
benefits that could be derived from their integration. The case-study
section discusses the TLDs obtained from a recent origin-destination
survey conducted as part of a major modeling project in Guatemala
City. This project was selected as the case study because (a) the data
were collected using state-of-the-art questionnaires; (b) the sample
was expanded with proper consideration of double counting of trips;
and (c) the sample contains a mix of intercity and urban trips, which
enables the comparison of the TLDs from these different environments. The findings extracted from this analysis are, for the most
part, of general applicability and are presented in the conclusions
section. These conclusions will assist freight modelers in producing
meaningful models of freight demand.
COMMODITY-BASED MODELS VERSUS
TRIP-BASED MODELS
Commodity-Based Models
Commodity-based models focus on modeling the amount of freight
measured in tons, or any comparable unit of weight. It is widely
accepted that the focus on the cargoes enables commodity-based
TABLE 1

models to capture more accurately the fundamental economic mechanisms driving freight movements, which largely are determined by
the cargoes attributes (e.g., shape, unit weight). In general terms, the
components of the modeling process are those depicted in Figure 1
(built upon Ogden, 6).
The commodity generation models estimate the total number of
tons produced and attracted by each of the individual zones comprising the study area. The commodity distribution phase estimates
the number of tons moving between each origin-destination pair, and
it usually is undertaken with the help of gravity models (simply or
doubly constrained) or any other form of spatial interaction models,
such as intervening opportunity models. The mode-split component,
intended to estimate the number of tons moved by each of the available modes, usually is done with discrete choice models or panel
data from a group of business representatives (as in Cross Harbor
Freight Movement Major Investment Study, 5), or both. Once the
origin-destination matrices for each mode have been estimated,
vehicle-loading models estimate the corresponding number of vehicle trips. Finally, the vehicle trips estimated in the previous step
are assigned to the different networks, thus completing the demand
estimation process.
The aforementioned process is believed to have the potential for
capturing the fundamental mechanisms of the freight demand process,
though some issues deserve further discussion:
Empty trips. Since commodity-based models focus on the actual
cargoes being transported, there is no clear way to model empty
trips, which by different estimates may represent between 15 and
50 percent of the total trips in specific corridors (11). Modeling
empty trips is quite challenging because they are determined by the
logistics of the freight movements in the area (something the transportation modelers do not have access to), and for that reason, it usually is very difficult to establish a cause-effect relationship between
empty trips and commodity flows or any other attributes of the transportation zones. In some cases, practitioners have opted to consider
empty trips as another commodity. However pragmatic, this approach
neglects the interrelationship among empty trips, commodity flows,
and the logistics of freight movements, and it does not ensure compatibility between the total number of loaded trips and the total
number of empties.
Needed commodity flows. Another obvious disadvantage is that
commodity-based approaches require commodity flows, estimated
through expensive and time-consuming origin-destination surveys,
such as the commodity flow surveys conducted by the U.S. Cen-

Modeling Platforms and Approaches Most Frequently Used (I-O = Input-Output)

Holgun-Veras and Thorson

Paper No. 00 - 0910

FIGURE 1

Model components of commodity-based Four Steps approach.

sus Bureau (12); although in the United States an increasing number of transportation planning agencies are relying on proprietary
freight demand databases. These databases are assembled by private companies from waybill samples and complemented with
small origin-destination surveys.
Trip-Based Models
Trip-based models, as the name implies, focus on modeling vehicle
trips. As can be seen in Figure 2, they only have three components: trip
generation (to estimate the number of vehicle trips produced and
attracted by each zone), trip distribution (to estimate the number of
vehicle trips between each origin-destination pair), and traffic assignment (to estimate the traffic in the network). Since the focus is on
vehicle trips, which presupposes that the mode selection and the
vehicle selections already were done, trip-based models do not need
mode-split or vehicle-loading models.
Trip-based models have some advantages. First and foremost, they
focus on a unit (the vehicle trip) for which there is a significant
amount of data in the form of traffic counts, screen counts, and so
forth. Furthermore, an increasing number of intelligent transportation systems applications are able to track the movements of vehicles
through, at least, segments of the highway networks, thus increasingly becoming an important source of traffic data. Second, since the
focus is on the vehicle trip, considering empty trips does not present
any major problem.

FIGURE 2

39

Trip-based models have some disadvantages, however. First, they

are of questionable applicability to situations in which multiple freight
transportation modes are to be considered. Second, since the vehicle
tripthe focus of trip-based modelsis in itself the result of a mode
choice and vehicle selection processes (which have not been taken
explicitly into account), the identification and modeling of the economic and behavioral mechanisms determining freight demand
become more difficult, because those mechanisms are associated
with the actual commodities being transported.
As can be seen, neither commodity-based nor trip-based modeling
is able to capture the full complexity of freight movements. The former is expected to capture more accurately the fundamental mechanisms driving freight demand, though it fails to properly consider
empty trips; whereas the latter is able to use readily available data,
including empty trips, but it may not be able to fully capture the
mechanisms driving freight demand (which are conditioned by the
commodities attributes).
This is because by focusing on either the commodities or the vehicle trips, the analysis takes into account only one dimension of freight
demand. In an ideal world, the ultimate freight demand model would
be able to properly take into account the three main dimensions:
weight, volume, and vehicle trips. An enhanced representation of
freight movements could be achieved if, at least, two of these dimensions were jointly modeled. This quest provides the rationale for
the study of the relationship between vehicle TLDs and tons TLDs.
Should it be feasible to develop approximation functions to estimate
vehicle TLDs from tons TLDs, or more appropriately to develop

Model components of trip-based Four Steps approach.

40

Paper No. 00 - 0910

Transportation Research Record 1707

models of empty trips as a function of commodity flows, it would be

possible to create freight demand models able to take advantage of
the best features of both commodity-based and trip-based modeling.
ROLE OF THE TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION
As indicated in Table 1, regardless of the platform being used (i.e.,
commodity- or trip-based), the bulk of areawide studies rely on spatial interaction models, either gravity models or intervening opportunity models. A fundamental input to these models is the trip length
distribution, or related parameters, which describe the way in which
freight demand decreases along a given impedance variable (e.g., distance, travel time, generalized cost). The negative relationship between demand and the impedance variable is required by postulates
of economic rationalitythat is, the consumption of normal goods
decreases with price.
The TLD, as traditionally defined in passenger transportation modeling, is nothing more than a representation of the frequency of trips
(or tons) made for various intervals of the impedance variable. The
calibration of the trip distribution models entails ensuring that the
modeled TLD resembles the observed TLD (13).
In freight demand modeling, the TLD can be defined in terms of
(a) the weight of the commodities being transported, referred to as
tonnage (or tons) TLDs; and (b) the number of vehicle trips, referred
to as vehicle TLDs. Commodity-based models use tonnage TLDs
(usually by commodity group), whereas trip-based models use vehicle TLDs (usually by type of vehicle) in their respective trip distribution models. This ensures consistency with the previous step of
trip generation modeling. Should an origin-destination sample be
available (as in this project), tons TLDs and vehicle TLDs could
be estimated for various commodity groups and/or types of vehicle,
enabling comparison and analysis. The distinction between vehicle
TLDs and tons TLDs is important because, as shall be seen later, they
are significantly different.

FIGURE 3

Vehicle and tonnage TLDs.

The main objectives of this paper are (a) to examine the characteristics of vehicle and tonnage TLDs, (b) to identify the typical problems found when dealing with TLDs, and (c) to study the relationships
between commodity-based TLDs and trip-based TLDs. This analysis
sheds light into the nature of real-life TLDs and provides invaluable
lessons for modeling purposes.
CASE STUDY
The data used in this paper were part of a freight origin-destination
survey conducted in the demand-modeling process for a major highway project in Guatemala City. Roadside interviews were complemented by classified traffic counts to expand the sample according
to time of day and type of vehicle. The origin-destination questionnaire included questions about the time of the interview, vehicle type,
origin, destination, commodity type, and shipment size, among
others. The questionnaire was administered by the staff of Ingenieros
Consultores de Centro Amrica. The sample, comprised of 5,276
observations, was expanded by time of day and type of vehicle and
processed to eliminate double counting of trips. The overall expansion
factor was 6.476.
Due to the nature of the project under analysis, a bypass road on the
outskirts of Guatemala City, and the location of the survey stations,
the sample includes a mix of intercity and urban freight movements.
Out of a total of 34,986 trips/day, pickup trucks carried 59.47 percent;
large two-axle trucks, 23.77 percent; semitrailers, 10.40 percent; and
the other truck types captured the rest. The total tonnage is distributed
as follows: pickups, 9.54 percent; large two-axle trucks, 33.79 percent;
semitrailers, 46.41 percent; with the other types capturing the rest.
The TLDs for the entire data set, shown in Figure 3, were analyzed
first and found to have some interesting features: (a) the vehicle TLD
for total trips is a weighted combination of the empty-vehicles TLD
and the loaded-vehicles TLD, as expected; (b) the tons TLD is significantly different from the vehicle TLDs; (c) the differences bet-

Holgun-Veras and Thorson

Paper No. 00 - 0910

ween the TLDs disappear with increasing values of distance; and

(d) the TLDs are (statistically speaking) multimodal. As shown later,
the first mode (around 30 km) corresponds to the mode of internal
trips, while the second mode (around 60 km) corresponds to the mode
of intercity trips.
The statistical multimodality of the TLDs reflects the nature of the
trips being considered and the associated land use characteristics. To

FIGURE 4

41

examine this hypothesis, the TLDs were obtained for two trip types:
(a) internal-internal trips, that is, origin and destination inside the
study area, shown in Figure 4a; and (b) their complement (externalexternal, external-internal, and internal-external), mostly intercity
trips, shown in Figure 4b.
As can be seen, the TLDs depicted in Figure 4a (internal trips) are
significantly different from those depicted in Figure 4b. First, the

TLDs for the entire sample: (a) internal trips; (b) intercity trips.

42

Paper No. 00 - 0910

internal TLDs are smoother than the intercity TLDs. This arises
because origins and destinations in the study area (predominantly
urban and suburban) are located in a continuum of distances, whereas
origins and destinations for intercity trips do not occupy the full range
of distances because of terrain and the location of other cities. Second,
intercity TLDs are more likely to be affected by the existence of
special land uses such as marine ports and major agricultural areas,
which tend to produce spikes (modes) on the TLDs. For example, in
Figure 4b, the relatively high percentage of movements taking place
between 300 and 350 km is explained by the freight flows between
Puerto Barrios (the main Guatemalan port) and Guatemala City. This
phenomenon is discussed later.
The statistical multimodality of the TLDs is more than a statistical curiosity. First, systematic (not random) multimodality is not
consistent with rational economic behavior because it implies that
demand increases with cost (the exception is the ascending branch
of the first mode, which usually is explained by intermodal or intervehicle competition, or both). Thus, when systematic multimodality is identified (e.g., port flows in Figure 4b), complementary
models should be used to represent those flows separately. Second,
from the practical standpoint, unimodal impedance functions, such
as the ones in the commercial demand modeling software, are not
able to adequately represent TLDs such as the ones depicted in
Figure 4b. This situation poses a problem to practitioners calibrating
trip distribution models.
In the following sections, both tons TLDs and vehicle TLDs are
estimated according to types of vehicle and to commodity groups.
This will provide the basis for the analysis and identification of the
characteristics associated with the corresponding TLDs.

Observed Characteristics of Vehicle TLDs and

Tons TLDs by Type of Vehicle
This section analyzes the TLDs for different types of vehicles. For the
sake of brevity, the analysis focuses only on two cases: pickup trucks
and semitrailers, shown in Figures 5 and 6. As can be seen, the TLDs
are significantly different with shapes and ranges that are conditioned
by the vehicle size, reflecting various ranges of use. These results
confirm long-held assumptions that the TLDs depend upon the type
of vehicle and the corresponding carrying capacity. This clearly indicates that trucking companies perceive the different types of vehicles
as having a range of optimal use, which, in turn, is reflected in the
corresponding TLDs. This assumption is supported by Figures 7a, b,
and c, which show the percentage of tons transported, at various
distance intervals, by specific groups of vehicles.
The TLDs for semitrailers shown in Figure 6b exhibit a peak
around 330 km, which corresponds to flows to and from Puerto Barrios. However, the TLDs for pickup trucks do not exhibit such
behavior (see Figure 5b), because they are not used to serve the port.
This indicates that major generators produce differential impacts
upon vehicle classes, the magnitude of which depends upon the type
of vehicle serving the generators.

Observed Characteristics of Vehicle TLDs and

Tons TLDs by Commodity Group
This section analyzes the TLDs for the main commodity groups captured in the origin-destination survey. The tonnage distribution transported by the different types of vehicles includes (a) construction

Transportation Research Record 1707

materials, 30.37 percent; (b) manufactured products, 15.03 percent;

(c) mineral fuels, 6.67 percent; (d) fruits and vegetables, 5.96 percent;
(e) cereals, 4.79 percent; ( f ) others, 4.40 percent; (g) electrical equipment, 3.92 percent; (h) beverages, 3.24 percent; (i) miscellaneous
metal articles, 2.27 percent; and ( j) textiles, 2.02 percent. The analysis focuses on a selected number of commodity groups. Figure 8
shows the TLDs for mineral fuels, and Figure 9 shows them for fruits
and vegetables. The TLDs shown correspond to the types of vehicle
used to transport these cargoes (vehicles with less than 2 percent were
not considered) as well as the total tons TLD.
Interestingly, while the total tons TLD for the entire commodity
group reflects the geographic distribution of economic activities
(e.g., production, consumption), the tons TLDs for each of the vehicle types reflect the intervehicle competition discussed in the previous section. The vehicle TLDs are similar to the total tons TLD
only in cases, such as the one depicted in Figure 8b, in which one
type of vehicle dominates the market.
As discussed before, major generators have an impact upon the
TLDs. The peak in Figure 8b, taking place around 310 km, corresponds to the flow of fuel being transported by semitrailers between
Puerto Barrios and Guatemala City. The uniqueness of the economic
mechanisms explaining this relationship necessitates the use of
complementary models able to capture the fundamental elements of
this process.

Major Freight Generators

As indicated before, the existence of major freight generatorsin
this case, a major porthas an impact upon both tons TLDs and
vehicle TLDs. In order to illustrate the nature of this impact, gamma
functions were estimated for two different cases: with port flows (all
flows) and without port flows. Gamma functions were selected
because they frequently are used in trip distribution modeling. The
original tons TLDs and the corresponding gamma functions are
depicted in Figure 10. As can be seen, the inclusion of the port flows
in the tons TLD skews the gamma function to the right, shifting its
mode from 100 km to 180 km.

CONCLUSIONS
This research conducted an in-depth review of the major modeling
platforms for freight movements: commodity-based and vehicle-tripbased modeling. It is found that these platforms represent unidimensional views of a phenomenon that, in essence, is multidimensional
in naturea full depiction of freight flows entails joint consideration
of cargoes weight and volume as well as vehicle trips.
Both commodity-based and vehicle-trip-based models encounter
challenges that are difficult to overcome. Commodity-based modeling is not able to adequately model empty trips, although it has
the potential to capture the mechanisms driving freight demand.
Trip-based modeling, though able to consider empty trips, is limited in
its ability to fully capture the fundamental mechanisms conditioning
freight demand, which are determined by the cargoes attributes
(which are not explicitly modeled). This situation suggests that
integrating both commodity-based and trip-based modeling would
provide an enhanced understanding of freight movements. Such
integration, at the trip distribution stage, requires an understanding of the relationship between tons TLDs and vehicle TLDs. This
quest provided the rationale for this paper.

Holgun-Veras and Thorson

FIGURE 5

Paper No. 00 - 0910

43

TLDs for pickup trucks: (a) internal trips; (b) intercity trips.

This paper focused on the relationship between tons TLDs and

vehicle TLDs. It was found that the shape of the TLDs is conditioned, to a great extent, by the environment in which the freight
movements take place. Freight movements taking place in urban
and suburban areas, as a consequence of the relatively homogeneous land use (from the standpoint of freight demand), lead to
TLDs that are smooth and relatively unimodal. At the other end of
the spectrum, freight movements in intercity travel lead to TLDs
that are (statistically) multimodal and conditioned by major freight

generators, such as ports. These major generators have the potential

to significantly alter the shape of the TLDs, and they may require
complementary models to fully represent their fundamental economic
relationships.
The TLDs of different vehicles reflect the range of use of each type
of vehicle. This means that each type of vehicle tends to dominate the
range of distance at which its relative performance is better.
The TLDs, regardless of being defined in terms of tons or vehicle
trips, are significantly different. Nevertheless, the tons TLDs and

FIGURE 6

TLDs for semitrailers: (a) internal trips; (b) intercity trips.

FIGURE 7 Vehicle shares by distance intervals: (a) pickups and small trucks;
( b) large two- and three-axle trucks; (c) semitrailers.

FIGURE 8

Tons TLDs for mineral fuels: (a) internal trips; (b) intercity trips.

Holgun-Veras and Thorson

FIGURE 9

Paper No. 00 - 0910

Tons TLDs for fruits and vegetables: (a) internal trips; (b) intercity trips.

47

48

Paper No. 00 - 0910

FIGURE 10

Transportation Research Record 1707

Tons TLDs with and without port flows.

vehicle TLDs tend to exhibit a fairly consistent behavior with respect

to each other. In all cases, the difference between them tends to increase with distance up to a point, and then it consistently decreases
until becoming indistinguishable in the upper range of distances. This
feature may be exploited by developing approximation functions
between vehicle TLDs and tons TLDs. If such approximation functions are successfully calibrated, this will enable the practitioner
to exploit the best features of commodity-based and truck trip
modeling.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of Ingenieros Consultores de Centro Amrica and its president, Jorge Erdgmenger, during the data collection component of this research. This
research was partially supported by the University Transportation
Research Center and its director, Robert Paaswell. This support is
both acknowledged and appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Small, K., C. Winston, and C. Evans. Road Work: A New Highway Pricing and Investment Policy. The Brookings Institution, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
2. Holgun-Veras, J., and C. M. Walton. The Role of Information Technology on the Implementation of Priority Systems for Intermodal Containers. Proc., Third Annual World Congress on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, Orlando, Fla., 1996.

3. Regan, A. C., H. S. Mahmassani, and P. Jaillet. Improving Efficiency

of Commercial Vehicle Operations Using Real-Time Information:
Potential Uses and Assignment Strategies. In Transportation Research
Record 1493, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1995, pp. 188198.
4. Holgun-Veras, J., V. Ochieng, P. Kinney, and T. S. Lena. Exploratory
Analysis of the Impacts of Truck Activity upon Local Communities.
Research in progress funded by the New York City Department of
Health.
5. Cross Harbor Freight Movement Major Investment Study. New York
City Economic Development Corporation, 1998.
6. Ogden, K. W. Urban Goods Movement. ISBN 1-85742-029-2. Ashgate
Publishing Limited, England, 1992.
7. NCHRP Report 388: A Guidebook for Forecasting Freight Transportation Demand. TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1997.
8. Holgun-Veras, J., and S. Jara-Daz. Optimal Space Allocation and Pricing for Priority Service at Container Ports. Transportation Research B,
Vol. 33, No. 2, 1999, pp. 81106.
9. Tamin, O. Z., and L. G. Willumsen. Freight Demand Model Estimation
from Traffic Counts. In Simplified Transport Demand Modeling (J. de
Dios Ortzar, ed.), PTRC, London, 1992.
10. List, G. F., and M. A. Turnquist. Estimating Truck Travel Patterns in
Urban Areas. In Transportation Research Record 1430, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 19.
11. Holgun-Veras, J. Desarrollo de un Modelo para Cuantificar la Oferta
Vehicular del Transporte de Carga. Master thesis. Universidad Central
de Venezuela, July 1984.
12. Commodity Flow Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993 and 1997.
13. Ortzar, J. D., and L. G. Willumsen. Modelling Transport, 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Freight Transportation
Planning and Logistics.