Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1169–1194 | Cite as

Indifference bands for boundedly rational route switching

  • Xuan Di
  • Henry X. Liu
  • Shanjiang Zhu
  • David M. Levinson
Article

Abstract

The replacement I-35W bridge in Minneapolis saw less traffic than the original bridge though it provided substantial travel time saving for many travelers. This observation cannot be explained by the classical route choice assumption that travelers always take the shortest path. Accordingly, a boundedly rational route switching model is proposed assuming that travelers will not switch to the new bridge unless travel time saving goes beyond a threshold or “indifference band”. Indifference bands are assumed to follow lognormal distribution and are estimated in two specifications: the first one assumes every driver’s indifference band is drawn from a population indifference band and the second one assumes that the mean of drivers’ indifference bands is a function of their own characteristics. Route choices of 78 subjects from a GPS travel behavior study were analyzed before and after the addition of the new I-35W bridge to estimate parameters. This study provides insights into empirical analysis of bounded rationality and sheds light on indifference band estimation using empirical data.

Keywords

Bounded rationality Indifference band Empirical estimation GPS study Route choice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous referees for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions on the earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Bekhor, S., Ben-Akiva, M.E., Ramming, M.S.: Evaluation of choice set generation algorithms for route choice models. Ann. Oper. Res. 144(1), 235–247 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B.: Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. Int. J. Res. Mark. 12(1), 9–24 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Akiva, M., Bolduc, D.: Multinomial probit with a logit kernel and a general parametric specification of the covariance structure. D’epartement d’economique, Universit’e laval with Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1996)Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva, M., Ramming, S.: Lecture notes: discrete choice models of traveler behavior in networks. Prepared for Advanced Methods for Planning and Management of Transportation Networks, Capri, Italy, 25 (1998a)Google Scholar
  5. Cantillo, V., Heydecker, B., de Dios Ortúzar, J.: A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values. Transp. Res. Part B 40(9), 807–825 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantillo, V., Ortúzar, J.D.D., Williams, J.: Modeling discrete choices in the presence of inertia and serial correlation. Transp. Sci. 41(2), 195–205 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrion, C., Levinson, D. Route choice dynamics after a link restoration. In: Presented at Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  8. Cascetta, E.: A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networks. Transp. Res. Part B 23(1), 1–17 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cascetta, E., Nuzzolo, A., Russo, F., Vitetta, A.: A modified logit route choice model overcoming path overlapping problems: specification and some calibration results for interurban networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on transportation and traffic theory. pp. 697–711 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. Clark, A.J.: The mode of action of drugs on cells (1933)Google Scholar
  11. Cox, C.: Threshold dose-response models in toxicology. Biometrics 43, 511–523 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daganzo, C.F., Bouthelier, F., Sheffi, Y.: Multinomial probit and qualitative choice: a computationally efficient algorithm. Trans. Sci. 11(4), 338–358 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danczyk, A., Di, X., Liu, H., Levinson, D.: Unexpected cause, unexpected effect: Empirical observations of twin cities traffic behavior after the I-35W Bridge collapse and reopening. Transp. Policy (2015) (submitted)Google Scholar
  14. Di, X., He, X., Guo, X., Liu, H.X.: Braess paradox under the boundedly rational user equilibria. Transp. Res. Part B 67, 86–108 (2014b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di, X., Liu, H.X.: Boundedly rational route choice behavior: a review of models and methodologies. Transp. Res. Part B 85, 142–179 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di, X., Liu, H.X., Ban, X.J.: Second best toll pricing within the framework of bounded rationality. Transp. Res. Part B 83, 74–90 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di, X., Liu, H.X., Pang, J.-S., Ban, X.J.: Boundedly rational user equilibria (BRUE): mathematical formulation and solution sets. Transp. Res. Part B 57, 300–313 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di, X., Liu, H.X., Pang, B., Jeff, X., Yu, Jeong, Whon.: On the stability of a boundedly rational day-to-day dynamic. Netw. Spat. Econ. 15(3), 537–557 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di, X.: Boundedly rational user equilibrium: models and applications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota (2014a)Google Scholar
  20. Guilford, J.P.: Psychometric Methods (1954)Google Scholar
  21. Guo, X., Liu, H.X.: Bounded rationality and irreversible network change. Transp. Res. Part B 45(10), 1606–1618 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hemmingsen, A.M.: The accuracy of insulin assay on white mice. Q. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 6, 39–80 (1933)Google Scholar
  23. Hosmer, Jr., David, W., Lemeshow, S., Sturdivant, R.X., vol. 398. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu, T.Y., Mahmassani, H.S.: Day-to-day evolution of network flows under real-time information and reactive signal control. Transp. Res. Part C 5(1), 51–69 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jan, O., Horowitz, A.J., Peng, Z.-R.: Using global positioning system data to understand variations in path choice. Transp. Res. Rec. 1725(1), 37–44 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jayakrishnan, R., Mahmassani, H.S., Hu, T.Y.: An evaluation tool for advanced traffic information and management systems in urban networks. Transp. Res. Part C 2(3), 129–147 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jha, M., Madanat, S., Peeta, S.: Perception updating and day-to-day travel choice dynamics in traffic networks with information provision. Transp. Res. Part C 6(3), 189–212 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jotisankasa, A., Polak, J.W.: Framework for travel time learning and behavioral adaptation in route and departure time choice. Transp. Res. Rec. 1985(1), 231–240 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaplan, S., Shiftan, Y., Bekhor, S.: Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 46(2), 291–304 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaplan, S., Shiftan, Y., Bekhor, S.: Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model incorporating multinomial and ordered-response thresholds. pp. 11–15 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. Krishnan, K.S.: Incorporating thresholds of indifference in probabilistic choice models. Manag. Sci. 23(11), 1224–1233 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levinson, D., Zhu, S.: The hierarchy of roads, the locality of traffic, and governance. Transp. Policy 19(1), 147–154 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lioukas, S.K.: Thresholds and transitivity in stochastic consumer choice: a multinomial logit analysis. Manag. Sci. 30(1), 110–122 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahmassani, H.S., Chang, G.L.: On boundedly rational user equilibrium in transportation systems. Transp. Sci. 21(2), 89–99 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahmassani, H.S., Jayakrishnan, R.: System performance and user response under real-time information in a congested traffic corridor. Transp. Res. Part A 25(5), 293–307 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mahmassani, H.S., Jou, R.C.: Transferring insights into commuter behavior dynamics from laboratory experiments to field surveys. Transp. Res. Part A 34(4), 243–260 (2000)Google Scholar
  37. Mahmassani, H.S., Liu, Y.H.: Dynamics of commuting decision behaviour under advanced traveller information systems. Transp. Res. Part C 7(2–3), 91–107 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martínez, F., Aguila, F., Hurtubia, R.: The constrained multinomial logit: a semi-compensatory choice model. Transp. Res. Part B 43(3), 365–377 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morikawa, T., Miwa, T., Kurauchi, S., Yamamoto, T., Kobayashi, K.: Driver’s route choice behavior and its implications on network simulation and traffic assignment. Simulation Approaches in Transportation Analysis, pp. 341–369 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. Prato, C., Bekhor, S.: Applying branch-and-bound technique to route choice set generation. Transp. Res. Rec. 1985(1), 19–28 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramming, M.S.: Network knowledge and route choice. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Technology, MA (2001a)Google Scholar
  42. Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.: Models of bounded rationality under certainty, p. 1. Bounded Rational Choice Behaviour, Applications in Transport (2015)Google Scholar
  43. Recker, W.W., Golob, T.F.: A non-compensatory model of transportation behavior based on sequential consideration of attributes. Transp. Res. Part B 13(4), 269–280 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ridwan, M.: Fuzzy preference based traffic assignment problem. Transp. Res. Part C 12(3), 209–233 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69(1), 99–118 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, H.A.: Models of man: social and rational; mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting (1957)Google Scholar
  47. Srinivasan, K.K., Mahmassani, H.S.: Role of congestion and information in trip-makers’ dynamic decision processes: experimental investigation. Transp. Res. Rec. 1676(1), 44–52 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swait, J.: A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs. Transp. Res. Part B 35(10), 903–928 (2001b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swait, J., Ben-Akiva, M.: Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation. Transp. Res. Part B 21(2), 91–102 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tang, W., Levinson, D.: An empirical study of the deviation between actual and shortest travel time paths. In: Presented at the Transportation Research Board Conference, January 2016, Washington (2015)Google Scholar
  51. Vovsha, P., Bekhor, S.: Link-nested logit model of route choice: overcoming route overlapping problem. Transp. Res. Rec. 1645(1), 133–142 (1998b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yanmaz-Tuzel, O., Ozbay, K.: Modeling learning impacts on day-to-day travel choice. In: Transportation and Traffic Theory. pp. 387–401 (2009)Google Scholar
  53. Zhu, S.: Do people use the shortest path? an empirical test of wardrops first principle. PLoS One 10(8), e0134322 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhu, S., Levinson, D., Liu, H.X., Harder, K.: The traffic and behavioral effects of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse. Transp. Res. Part A 44(10), 771–784 (2010)Google Scholar
  55. Zhu, S.: The roads taken: theory and evidence on route choice in the wake of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse and reconstruction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota (2011)Google Scholar
  56. Zhu, S., Levinson, D.M., Disruptions to transportation networks: a review. In: Network Reliability in Practice. pp. 5–20 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuan Di
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henry X. Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shanjiang Zhu
    • 3
  • David M. Levinson
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.University of Michigan Transportation Research InstituteAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil Environmental and Infrastructure EngineeringGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations