Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 226, Issue 1, pp 51–68 | Cite as

Fair ticket pricing in public transport as a constrained cost allocation game

Article
  • 315 Downloads

Abstract

Ticket pricing in public transport usually takes a welfare maximization point of view. Such an approach, however, does not consider fairness in the sense that users of a shared infrastructure should pay for the costs that they generate. We propose an ansatz to determine fair ticket prices that combines concepts from cooperative game theory and linear and integer programming. The ticket pricing problem is considered to be a constrained cost allocation game, which is a generalization of cost allocation games that allows to deal with constraints on output prices and on the formation of coalitions. An application to pricing railway tickets for the intercity network of the Netherlands is presented. The results demonstrate that the fairness of prices can be improved substantially in this way.

Keywords

Constrained cost allocation games \(f\)-Nucleolus (f, r)-Least core  Fair ticket prices 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C90 91A80 91-08 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the paper. The work of Nam-Dũng Hoàng is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED).

References

  1. Borndörfer, R., & Hoang, N.-D. (2012). Determining fair ticket prices in public transport by solving a cost allocation problem. In H. G. Bock, X. P. Hoang, R. Rannacher, & J. P. Schlöder (Eds.), Modeling, simulation and optimization of complex processes (pp. 53–63). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borndörfer, R., Neumann, M., & Pfetsch, M. E. (2006). Optimal fares for public transport. In: Operations Research Proceedings 2005, pp. 591–596.Google Scholar
  3. Borndörfer, R., Neumann, M., & Pfetsch, M. E. (2008). Models for fare planning in public transport, Technical Report, ZIB Report 08–16, Zuse-Institut Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Bussieck, M. R. (1998). Optimal lines in public rail transport, Ph.D. thesis. TU Braunschweig.Google Scholar
  5. Danna, E., Rothberg, E., & Le Pape, C. (2005). Exploring relaxation induced neighborhoods to improve MIP solutions. Mathematical Programming Series A, 102, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engevall, S., Göthe-Lundgren, M., & Värbrand, P. (1998). The traveling salesman game: An application of cost allocation in a gas and oil company. Annals of Operations Research, 82, 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Faigle, U., Kern, W., & Paulusma, D. (2000). Note on the computational complexity of least core concepts for min-cost spanning tree games. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 52, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gately, D. (1974). Sharing the gains from regional cooperation: A game theoretic application to planning investment in electric power. International Economic Review, 15, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hallefjord, Å., Helming, R., & Jørnsten, K. (1995). Computing the nucleolus when the characteristic function is given implicitly: A constraint generation approach. International Journal of Game Theory, 24, 357–372.Google Scholar
  10. Hoang, N. D. (2010). Algorithmic cost allocation game: Theory and applications, Ph.D. thesis. TU Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. Littlechild, S., & Thompson, G. (1977). Aircraft landing fees: A game theory approach. Bell Journal of Economics, 8, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maschler, M., Potters, J., & Tijs, S. (1992). The general nucleolus and the reduced game property. International Journal of Game Theory, 21, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Straffin, P., & Heaney, J. (1981). Game theory and the tennessee valley authority. International Journal of Game Theory, 10, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Young, H. P. (1994). Cost allocation. In R. J. Aumann & S. Hart (Eds.), Handbook of Game Theory (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Young, H. P., Okada, N., & Hashimoto, T. (1982). Cost allocation in water resources development. Water Resources Research, 18, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zuse Institute BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics, Mechanics, and InformaticsVietnam National UniversityHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations