Transportation

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 593–625

A joint model for vehicle type and fuel type choice: evidence from a cross-nested logit study

  • Stephane Hess
  • Mark Fowler
  • Thomas Adler
  • Aniss Bahreinian
Article
  • 608 Downloads

Abstract

In the face of growing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, there is increasing interest in forecasting the likely demand for alternative fuel vehicles. This paper presents an analysis carried out on stated preference survey data on California consumer responses to a joint vehicle type choice and fuel type choice experiment. Our study recognises the fact that this choice process potentially involves high correlations that an analyst may not be able to adequately represent in the modelled utility components. We further hypothesise that a cross-nested logit structure can capture more of the correlation patterns than the standard nested logit model structure in such a multi-dimensional choice process. Our empirical analysis and a brief forecasting exercise produce evidence to support these assertions. The implications of these findings extend beyond the context of the demand for alternative fuel vehicles to the analysis of multi-dimensional choice processes in general. Finally, an extension verifies that further gains can be made by using mixed GEV structures, allowing for random heterogeneity in addition to the flexible correlation structures.

Keywords

Cross-nested logit Vehicle type choice Fuel type choice Alternative fuel Stated preference 

References

  1. Adler, T., Wargelin, L., Kostyniuk, L., Kavalec, C., Occhiuzzo, G.: Experimental assessment of incentives for alternate fuel vehicles. Presented at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, Washington, DC, January 2004Google Scholar
  2. Batley, R., Toner, J.: Elimination-by-aspects and advanced logit models of stated preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, October 2003Google Scholar
  3. Batley, R., Toner, J., Knight, M.: A mixed logit model of UK household demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 31(1), 55–77 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva, M., Bierlaire, M.: Discrete choice methods and their applications to short term travel decisions. In: Hall, R. (ed) Handbook of Transportation Science, chapter 2, pp. 5–34. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  5. Bierlaire, M.: A theoretical analysis of the cross-nested logit model. Ann. Oper. Res. 144, 287–300 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierlaire, M.: An introduction to BIOGEME Version 1.4. biogeme.ep.ch (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Bowman, J.L.: Logit kernel (or mixed logit) models for large multidimensional choice problems: identification and estimation. Paper presented at the 83rd annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Bunch, D.S., Bradley, M., Golob, T.F., Kitamura, R., Occhiuzzo, G.P.: Demand for clean fueled vehicles in California: a discrete choice, stated preference survey. Transp. Res. Part A 27A, 237–253 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. Daly, A.J., Hess, S.: Simple approaches for random utility modelling with panel data. Paper presented at the European transport conference, Glasgow, October 2010Google Scholar
  10. Daly, A., Zachary, S.: Improved multiple choice models. In: Hensher, D., Dalvi, M. (eds.) Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, Sussex (1978)Google Scholar
  11. Daly, A.J., Hess, S., Train, K.E.: Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficients models. Transportation (2011a, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  12. Daly, A.J., Hess, S., de Jong, G.: Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates. Transp. Res. Part B (2011b, accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  13. Erath, A., Axhausen, K.W.: Long Term Fuel Price Elasticity: Effects on Mobility Tool Ownership and Residential Location Choice, Final Report to BFE and BAFU, IVT. ETH Zurich, Zurich (2010)Google Scholar
  14. Fowler, M., Adler, T.: Transportation fuel demand forecast household and commercial fleet survey task 8 report: logistic regression analysis and results. Report for the California Energy Commission (2009)Google Scholar
  15. Golob, T., Brownstone, D., Bunch, D., Kitamura, R.: Forecasting electric vehicle ownership and use in the California South Coast Air Basin. Report to the Southern California Edison Company (1995)Google Scholar
  16. Greene, D.L.: TAFV Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Choice Model Documentation. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hess, S., Polak, J.W.: Exploring the potential for cross-nesting structures in airport-choice analysis: a case-study of the Greater London area. Transp. Res. Part E 42, 63–81 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess, S., Bierlaire, M., Polak, J.W.: Capturing taste heterogeneity and correlation structure with Mixed GEV models. In: Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 4, pp. 55–76. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht (2005a)Google Scholar
  19. Hess, S., Bierlaire, M., Polak, J.W.: Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models. Transp. Res. Part A 39(2–3), 221–236 (2005b)Google Scholar
  20. Kavalec, C.: CALCARS: The California Conventional and Alternative Fuel Response Simulator, A Nested Multinomial Vehicle Choice and Demand Model. California Energy Commission, Sacramento (1996)Google Scholar
  21. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D.: Stated Choice Methods—Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics, pp. 105–142. Academic Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  23. McFadden, D.: Modeling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist, A., Lundqvist, L., Snickars, F., Weibull, J. (eds.) Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, pp. 75–96. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  24. McFadden, D., Train, K.: Mixed MNL Models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econom. 15, 447–470 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papola, A.: Some developments on the cross nested logit model. Transp. Res. Part B 38, 833–851 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spissu, E., Pinjari, A., Pendyala, R., Bhat, C.: A copula-based joint multinomial discrete-continuous model of vehicle type choice and miles of travel. Transportation 36(4), 403–422 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tompkins, M., Bunch, D., Santini, D., Bradley, M., Vyas, A., Poyer, D.: Determinants of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Choice in the Continental United States, TRR 1641, pp. 130–138 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. Train, K.: California Personal Vehicle Energy Demand Model. California Energy Commission, Sacramento (1983)Google Scholar
  29. Train, K.E.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vovsha, P.: Application of a cross-nested logit model to mode choice in Tel Aviv, Israel, Metropolitan Area. Transp. Res. Rec. 1607, 6–15 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vovsha, P., Bekhor, S.: The link-nested logit model of route choice: overcoming the route overlapping problem. Transp. Res. Rec. 1645, 133–142 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker, J.: Extended discrete choice models: integrated framework, flexible error structures, and latent variables. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA (2001)Google Scholar
  33. Walker, J.: Mixed logit (or logit kernel) model: dispelling misconceptions of identification. Transp. Res. Rec. 1805, 86–98 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walker, J., Ben-Akiva, M., Bolduc, D.: Identification of the Logit Kernel (or Mixed Logit) Model. Working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  35. Wen, C.-H., Koppelman, F.S.: The generalized nested logit model. Transp. Res. Part B 35(7), 627–641 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, H.: On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefits. Environ. Plan. A 9, 285–344 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephane Hess
    • 1
  • Mark Fowler
    • 2
  • Thomas Adler
    • 3
  • Aniss Bahreinian
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Resource Systems GroupBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Resource Systems GroupBurlingtonUSA
  4. 4.California Energy CommissionSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations