Sensitivity Analysis of Welfare, Equity, and Acceptability Level of Transport Policies

  • R. Connors
  • M. Patriksson
  • C. Rydergren
  • A. Sumalee
  • D. Watling
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 130)


Transport planners face a major challenge to devise policies to meet multiple expectations and objectives. While we know that transport networks are complex, multi-modal, and spatially distributed systems, there is now a long history of mathematical tools which assist planners in understanding travel movements. However, the objectives that they are asked to achieve do not always admit such a quantification, and so there is a potential mismatch between seemingly qualitatively driven objectives and quantitatively expressed models of the transport system. In the present chapter we address this mismatch, by focusing on three objectives that we believe represent the typical interests of a planner. These are namely: is the policy economically justifiable (efficient), is it “fair” (equitable), and is it justifiable to a democratic society (acceptable)? We provide mathematical representations of these three objectives and link them to mathematical theory of transport networks, in which we may explore the sensitivity of travel behaviour (and hence the objectives) to various multi-modal transport policies. The detailed steps for representing the policy objectives and sensitivities in the network are set out, and the results of a case study reported in which road tolls, road capacities, and bus fares are the policy variables. Overall, the chapter sets out a systematic method for planners to choose between multi-modal policies based on these three objectives.


Urban traffic travel mode and route choice modelling Combined network equilibrium model Welfare Equitability and acceptability measures Entropy Sensitivity analysis 



This research is funded by Volvo Research Foundation, Volvo Educational Foundation, and Dr Pehr G. Gyllenhammar Research Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Abrahamsson, T., Lundqvist, L.: Formulation and estimation of combined network equilibrium models with applications to Stockholm. Transp. Sci. 33, 80–100 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of inequality. J. Econ. Theory 2, 244–263 (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, A.B.: The Economics of Inequality. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beckmann, M., McGuire, C.B., Winsten, C.B.: Studied in the Economics of Transportation. Yale University Press, New Haven (1956)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cowell, F.A.: Measures of distributional change: an axiomatic approach. Rev. Econ. Stud. 52, 135–151 (1985)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cowell, F.A.: Measuring Inequality. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalton, H.: The measurement of the inequality of incomes. Econ. J. 30, 348–361 (1920)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Dios Ortúzar, J., Willumsen, L.G.: Modelling Transport, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans, S.P.: Derivation and analysis of some models for combining trip distribution and assignment. Transp. Res. 10, 37–57 (1976)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandez, E., De Cea, J., Florian, M., Cabrera, E.: Network equilibrium models with combined modes. Transp. Sci. 28, 182–192 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Florian, M.: A traffic equilibrium model of travel by car and public transit modes. Transp. Sci. 2, 166–179 (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Florian, M., Nguyen, S.: A combined trip distribution modal split and trip assignment model. Transp. Res. 12, 241–246 (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Florian, M., Nguyen, S., Ferland, J.: On the combined distribution—assignment of traffic. Transp. Sci. 9, 43–53 (1975); Erratum Transp. Sci. 9, 173 (1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Florian, M., Wu, J.-H., He, S.: A multi-class multi-mode variable demand network equilibrium model with hierarchical logot structures. In: Gendreau, M., Marcotte, P. (eds.) Transportation and Network Analysis: Current Trends. Applied Optimization, vol. 63, pp. 237–243. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hudson, J., Jones, P.: The importance of the “ethical voter”: an estimate of “altruism”. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 10, 499–509 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaensirisak, S., May, A.D., Wardman, M.: Acceptability of road user charging: the influence of selfish and social perspectives. In: Schade, J., Schlag, B. (eds.) Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies, pp. 203–218. Elsevier, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaensirisak, S., Wardman, M., May, A.D.: Explaining variations in public acceptability of road pricing schemes. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 39(Part 2), 127–153 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Josefsson, M., Patriksson, M.: Sensitivity analysis of separable traffic equilibrium equilibria with application to bilevel optimization in network design. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 41(1), 4–31 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolm, S.C.: Public economics. In: International Economic Association Conference on Public Economics, Biarritz, Proceedings, Economie Publique The Optimal Production of Social Justice, pp. 109–177. McMillan, CNRS, Paris (1969)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langmyhr, T.: Managing equity: the case of road pricing. Transp. Policy 4(1), 25–39 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsson, T., Patriksson, M.: Simplicial decomposition with disaggregated representation for the traffic assignment problem. Transp. Sci. 26, 4–17 (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Margolis, H.: Dual utilities and rational choice. In: Mansbridge, J.J. (ed.) Beyond Self-Interest, pp. 239–253. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mueller, D.C.: Rational egoism versus adaptive egoism as fundamental postulate for a descriptive theory of human behaviour. Public Choice 51, 3–23 (1986)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patriksson, M.: Sensitivity analysis of traffic equilibria. Transp. Sci. 38, 258–281 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patriksson, M., Rockafellar, R.T.: Sensitivity analysis of aggregated variational inequality problems, with application to traffic equilibria. Transp. Sci. 37, 56–68 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pigou, A.F.: The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London (1912)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sen, A.K.: On Economic Inequality. Oxford University Press, London (1973)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Theil, H.: Economics and Information Theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1967)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong, K.I., Wong, S.C., Wu, J.-H., Yang, H., Lam, W.H.K.: A combined distribution, hierarchical mode choice, and assignment model with multiple user and mode classes. In: Lee, D.-H., Boyce, D.E. (eds.) Urban and Regional Transportation Modeling: Essays in Honor of David Boyce, pp. 25–42. Edward Elgar, Northhampton (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Connors
    • 1
  • M. Patriksson
    • 2
  • C. Rydergren
    • 3
  • A. Sumalee
    • 4
  • D. Watling
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesLeeds UniversityLeedsEngland
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Science and TechnologyLinköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden
  4. 4.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKing Mongkut’s Institute of Technology LadkrabangBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations