_quarto.yml

project:
  type: book
  execute-dir: project

execute:
  echo: false
  warning: false
  message: false
  # cache: refresh
  cache: true
  freeze: auto
pdf-engine: lualatex

layout: fancy, twoside, masters
department: Civil and Construction Engineering
student: Hayden Atchley
chair: Gregory S. Macfarlane
committee:
  - Grant G. Schultz
  - Gustavious P. Williams

# Title with custom formatting for fancy title page
customtitle: |
  | A Comparative Illustration of
  | Trip- and Activity-Based
  | Modeling Techniques
book:
  output-file: "A_Comparative_Illustration_of_Trip-_and_Activity-Based_Modeling_Techniuqes"
  title: |
    | A Comparative Illustration of Trip- and
    | Activity-Based Modeling Techniques
  author:
    - name: Hayden Atchley
      email: satchley@byu.edu
      orcid: 0000-0002-0815-3488
      affiliations:
        - ref: byucce
    - name: Kamryn Mansfield
      email: kamrynwm@student.byu.edu
      orcid:
      affiliations:
        - ref: byucce
    - name: Gregory S. Macfarlane
      email: gregmacfarlane@byu.edu
      orcid: 0000-0003-3999-7584
      affiliations:
        - ref: byucce
  date: "27 May 2024"
  date-format: D MMMM YYYY
  chapters:
    - index.qmd
    - qmd/lit-review.qmd
    - qmd/methods.qmd
    - qmd/1_land_use.qmd
    - qmd/2_transit.qmd
    - qmd/3_wfh.qmd
    - qmd/conclusions.qmd
    - qmd/references.qmd
  abstract: >-
    Activity-based travel demand models are generally considered superior to their trip-based counterparts, as activity-based models (ABMs) explicitly model individuals in contrast to the aggregate nature of trip-based models.
    There have been a number of comparisons between trip- and activity-based models, but these comparisons focus almost exclusively on the technical ability of the two model types, while not considering the practical benefits an ABM may or may not have to a transportation agency.
    This research performs a more holistic comparison between trip- and activity-based models, focused specifically on the practical differences between model types, both in terms of usability and capability for complex analysis.
    We use the existing Wasatch Front model as a representative trip-based model, and an ActivitySim implementation in the same area as a representative ABM.
    We create three hypothetical scenarios in both models: a change in land use, an improvement to commuter rail service, and an increase in remote work.
    We discuss the process of creating each scenario in both models, and perform several example analyses with each scenario and model.
    We find that many commonly-cited reasons for the lack of ABM adoption may not be as applicable as previously thought.
    ABMs are often considered more complicated than trip-based models, requiring more data and computational resources.
    While ABMs do require more input data, we found that in our case the complexity of the model and the computational resources required were similar between model types.
    Additionally, the ABM allows for much more intuitive and straightforward interpretation of results.

keywords:
  - travel demand model
  - activity-based model
  - ActivitySim
acknowledgments: >-
  I would like to acknowledge the Utah Department of Transportation for providing funding for this research.
  Additionally, I would like to thank the modeling teams at the Utah Department of Transportation, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland Association of Governments, and Fehr & Peers for their help and input at several stages of this project.
  I would specifically like to thank Chad Worthen and Chris Day at Wasatch Front Regional Council for answering my questions about their travel demand model.
  I would also like to thank my peers in the BYU transportation lab for their friendship and support, and especially for their help dealing with miscellaneous issues that arose throughout this project.
  Lastly, I would like to especially thank my graduate advisor, Greg Macfarlane, for his support and encouragement.

affiliations:
  - id: byucce
    name: Civil and Construction Engineering Department, Brigham Young University
    address: 430 EB
    city: Provo
    state: UT
    postal-code: 84602

format:
  # html:
  #   theme: cosmo
  trb-pdf:
    top-level-division: "section"
  byu-thesis-pdf:
    keep-tex: true
    highlight-style: arrow
    include-in-header:
      - style/latex_preamble.tex
    #   - style/tt_preamble.tex
    dpi: 900
    fig-dpi: 900
    mainfont: Gentium Book Basic
    sansfont: Alte Haas Grotesk
    monofont: SauceCodePro NF
    fig-width: 5
    fig-height: 5
    # out-width: 100%
    # out-height: 100%
    fig-format: png
  # html:
  #   theme: cosmo
  # docx:
  #   reference-doc: style/udot_template.docx
fig-align: center
number-depth: 2
toc-depth: 2
bibliography:
  - bib/references.bib
  - bib/packages.bib
csl: style/asce.csl

filters:
  - acronyms

acronyms:
  loa_title: ""
  insert_loa: false
  insert_links: false
  include_unused: true
  loa_header_classes:
    - unnumbered
  sorting: "alphabetical"
  non_existing: "??"
  style: "long-short"
  on_duplicate: "error"
  fromfile:
    - _acronyms.yml