Traffic counts are routinely used to calibrate travel demand models, particularly when the origin-destination (OD) matrix is not observed directly. An important modelling decision is whether to adjust individual OD flows or the parameters of the demand model that generates them. The latter approach uses fewer parameters and preserves a relationship between zonal characteristics and demand, but its accuracy depends on the assumed model structure. We compare three established approaches using the same prior information, traffic counts and equilibrium assignment. They estimate five production-gravity coefficients, origin and destination adjustment factors, or individual OD flows. Synthetic experiments on the Eastern Massachusetts and Chicago Sketch networks allow recovery to be assessed against known demand under different forms of model misspecification. Calibrating the five-coefficient model gives better OD recovery and held-out link-flow prediction when demand follows its assumptions or a two-purpose gravity process. Its advantage declines or reverses when destination choice or production relationships vary across zones. Cellwise adjustment achieves the closest fit to calibration counts in 65 of 66 evaluated conditions, yet it recovers OD demand least accurately of the three approaches in 45 of them. These findings show that model parameterisation matters beyond calibration fit. For transport planning, traffic counts should be used alongside independent evidence on trip production and distribution when selecting and validating a demand model.

翻译：暂无翻译