Trip distribution laws are basic for the travel demand characterization
needed in transport and urban planning. Several approaches have been considered
in the last years. One of them is the so-called gravity law, in which the
number of trips is assumed to be related to the population at origin and
destination and to decrease with the distance. The mathematical expression of
this law resembles Newton's law of gravity, which explains its name. Another
popular approach is inspired by the theory of intervening opportunities which
argues that the distance has no effect on the destination choice, playing only
the role of a surrogate for the number of intervening opportunities between
them. In this paper, we perform a thorough comparison between these two
approaches in their ability at estimating commuting flows by testing them
against empirical trip data at different scales and coming from different
countries. Different versions of the gravity and the intervening opportunities
laws, including the recently proposed radiation law, are used to estimate the
probability that an individual has to commute from one unit to another, called
trip distribution law. Based on these probability distribution laws, the
commuting networks are simulated with different trip distribution models. We
show that the gravity law performs better than the intervening opportunities
laws to estimate the commuting flows, to preserve the structure of the network
and to fit the commuting distance distribution although it fails at predicting
commuting flows at large distances. Finally, we show that the different
approaches can be used in the absence of detailed data for calibration since
their only parameter depends only on the scale of the geographic unit.Comment: 15 pages, 10 figure