Advertisement

From Transit Systems to Models: Purpose of Modelling

  • Markus FriedrichEmail author
  • Fabien Leurent
  • Irina Jackiva
  • Valentina Fini
  • Sebastián Raveau
Chapter
Part of the Springer Tracts on Transportation and Traffic book series (STTT)

Abstract

From Part I of the book, it will be obvious that public transport plays an essential role in providing mobility to people, especially in dense urban areas. The social welfare generated by good public transport comes at a price, however. Almost all forms require large investments into infrastructure, vehicles and operation. With limited finance, ideal public transport remains a distant goal, and a lot of effort goes into finding an optimal allocation of budget to investment options. The key question for these decisions is: How big is the total benefit of a proposed investment? To answer it, one needs to predict how the potential users will make use of the hypothetical improved public transport. For responsible decision-making, this prediction should be rational, transparent and accountable. It is no surprise therefore that models are typically used to produce the predictions. These models span the whole range of mobility decisions made by individuals, from long term to short term. Passenger route choice, the focus of Part III, accounts for only a part of the complex decision hierarchy. Before zooming into route choice models, this chapter looks at the planning process as a whole, explains the role of models in decision-making and gives an overview of the whole decision hierarchy. The last two sections introduce the general mathematical framework, in which decision models are formulated and set the stage for the description of specific models.

Keywords

Public Transport Mode Choice Prospect Theory Route Choice Travel Demand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriotti GK (2009) Prospect theory multi-agent based simulations for non-rational route choice decision making modelling. PhD thesis, Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Avineri E (2004) A cumulative prospect theory approach to passengers behavior modeling: waiting time paradox revisited. J Intell Transp Syst 8:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avineri E (2009) Nudging travellers to make better choices. In: Proceedings of the international choice modelling conference, Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo JA, Santos Costa MEO, Silvestre Madera JJER, Vieira Martins EQ (1993) An algorithm for the ranking of shortest paths. Eur J Oper Res 69:97–106CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron J (2008) Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates J (2000) History of demand modelling. In: Henscher DA, Button KJ (eds) Hand-book of transport modelling. Elsevier’s Handbooks in TransportGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellman R (1958) On a routing problem. Q Appl Math 16:87–90zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis, theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-Akiva ME, Bergman MJ, Daly AJ, Ramaswamy R (1984) Modeling inter-urban route choice behaviour. In: Volmuller J, Hamerslag R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on transportation and traffic theory, VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 299–330Google Scholar
  11. Beria P, Maltese I, Mariotti I (2012) Multicriteria versus cost benefit analysis: a comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. Eur Trans Res Rev 4:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhat CR (2001) Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp Res B 35:677–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Binetti M, Borri D, Circella G, Mascia M (2005) Does prospect theory improve understanding transit user behavior? In: Proceedings of computers in urban planning and urban management, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Cambridge Systematics (2010) Travel model validation and reasonableness checking manual, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  15. Cantillo V, de Ortuzar JD (2005) A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception. Transp Res B 39:641–657Google Scholar
  16. Cascetta E (2009a) Transportation systems engineering: theory and methods. Kluver Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  17. Cascetta E (2009b) Transportation systems engineering: theory and methods. Kluver Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Cascetta E (2009c) Transportation systems engineering: models and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Cascetta E, Nuzzolo A, Russo F, Vitetta A (1996) A modified logit route choice model overcoming path overlapping problems: specification and some calibration results for interurban networks. In: Lesort JB (ed) Proceedings of the thirteenth international symposium on transportation and traffic theory. Pergamon, Lyon, France, pp 697–711Google Scholar
  20. Ceder A, Chowdhury S, Taghipouran N, Olsen J (2013) Modelling public transport users’ behavior at connection points. Transp Policy 27:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chu C (1989) A paired combinatorial logit model for travel demand analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th world conference on transportation research, Ventura, USA, pp 295–309Google Scholar
  22. COM—The European Commission (2007) Greenbook 2007—towards a new culture for urban mobility. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  23. Daganzo CF (1979) Multinomial probit: the theory and its application to demand forecasting. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. De la Barra T, Pérez B, Anez J (1993) Multidimensional path search and assignment. In: Proceedings of the 21st PTRC summer annual meeting, Manchester, England, pp 307–319Google Scholar
  25. De Ramos GM, Daamen W, Hoogendoorn S (2010) Toward a better understanding of the reference point in a travel behavior context. In: Proceedings of the 11th TRAIL congress, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. De Ramos GM, Daamen W, Hoogendoorn S (2013) Modelling travellers’ heterogeneous route choice behavior as prospect maximizers. J Choice Modell 6:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Ramos GM, Daamen W, Hoogendoorn S (2014) A state-of-the-art review: developments in utility theory, prospect theory, and regret theory to investigate travellers’ behaviour in situations involving travel time uncertainty. Transp Rev: A Transnational Transdisciplinary J 34:46–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Department for Transport (2014) Transport analysis guidance: WebTAG. Department for transport, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. EVA TREN (2008) Improved decision-aid methods and tools to support evaluation of investment for transport and energy networks in Europe. Deliverable 1. Evaluating the state-of-the-art in investment for transport and energy networks. 6th Framework Programme, European UnionGoogle Scholar
  31. Federal Highway Administration (2007) The transportation planning process: key issues. Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program, FHWA-HEP-07-039. FHWA, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. FGSV—Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen-und Verkehrswesen (2001) Leitfaden für Verkehrsplanungen, Köln. FGSV, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedrich M. (1994) Rechnergestütztes Entwurfsverfahren für den ÖPNV im ländlichen Raum (Computer assisted design of public transport systems in rural areas, Dissertation). Schriftenreihe des Lehrstuhls für Verkehrs- und Stadtplanung, Heft 5, Technische Universität München, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  34. Friedrich M (2011) Wie viele? Wohin? Womit? Was können uns Verkehrsnachfragemodelle wirklich sagen? Tagungsbericht Heureka 11. FGSV Verlag, Köln, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Friedrich M (2015) Multimodal transport planning. Lecture notes, Stuttgart University, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  36. Gao S, Frejinger E, Ben-Akiva M (2010) Adaptive route choices in risky traffic networks: a prospect theory approach. Transp Res C 18:727–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gaudry MJI (1980) Dogit and logit models of travel mode choice in Montreal. Canadian J Econ/Revenue Canadienne d’Economique 13:268–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gaudry MJI, Dagenais MG (1979) Heteroscedasticity and the use of Box-Cox transformations. Econ Lett 2:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hadjiconstantinou E, Christofides N (1999) An efficient implementation of an algorithm for finding k-shortest simple paths. Networks 34:88–101CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. HEATCO (2005) Developing harmonised European approaches for transport costing and project assessment. Deliverable 1: current practice in project appraisal in Europe. European 6th Framework Programme, EUGoogle Scholar
  41. Hensher DA (2008) Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice. Res Transp Econ 23:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hinloopen E, Nijkamp P (1990) Qualitative multiple criteria choice analysis. Qual Quant 24:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hjorth K, Fosgerau M (2011) Using prospect theory to investigate the low value of travel time for small time changes. Transp Res B 46:917–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. HMT (2003) Green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. HMSO, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoffman W, Pavley R (1959) A method for the solution of the n-th best path problem. J Assoc Comput Mach 6:506–514CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Huang C. (2013) Examining decision making surrounding the use of managed lines by Katy freeway travellers: a prospect theory approach. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Jou R, Chen K (2013) An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours. Transp Res A 49:123–131Google Scholar
  48. Judge GG, Hill CR, Griffiths WE, Lütkepohl H, Lee T-C (1988) Introduction to the theory and practice of econometrics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2007) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Kalouptsidis N, Psaraki V (2010) Approximations of choice probabilities in mixed logit models. Eur J Oper Res 200:529–535CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Koppelman F, Wen C (1998) Alternative nested logit models: structure, properties and estimation. Transp Res B 32:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Larsen OI, Jansson K, Lang H (2010) On combining discrete choice and assignment models. In: Sumalee et al (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference of Hong Kong society for transportation studies 2010, transportation and urban sustainabilityGoogle Scholar
  53. Litman T (1999) Evaluating public transit benefits and cost. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BCGoogle Scholar
  54. Logan TK, Padgett DK, Thyer BA, Royce D (2006) Program evaluation: an introduction. Thomson Brooks/Cole, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  55. Lohes D (2011) Grundlagen der Straßenverkehrstechnik und Verkehrsplanung, vol 2. Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin, Germany, VerkehrsplanungGoogle Scholar
  56. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods and analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Lyk-Jensen VS (2007) Appraisal methods in the Nordic countries—infrastructure assessment. Report 3, Danish Transport Research Institute for Transport and Energy Ministry, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  58. Manktelow K (2012) Thinking and reasoning. Psychology Press, East SussexGoogle Scholar
  59. Mc Fadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econometrics 15:447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meyer MD, Miller EJ (2001) Urban transportation planning. The McGraw-Hill Companies, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Nijkamp P, Rietveld P, Voogd H (1990) Multi-criteria evaluation in physical planning. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD ECMT (2005) National systems of transport infrastructures planning. ECMT 2004 Round Table 128, ParisGoogle Scholar
  63. Ortuzar J, Willumsen LG (2011a) Modelling transport, 4th edn. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ortuzar J, Willumsen L (2011b) Modelling transport, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Papola A (2003) Some developments on the cross-nested logit model. Transp Res B 38:833–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. PIARC (2004) Economic evaluation methods for road projects in PIARC member countries. PIARCGoogle Scholar
  67. Postorino MN (1993) A comparative analysis of different specifications of modal choice models in an urban area. Eur J Oper Res 71:288–302CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. Prashker JN, Bekhor S (1998) Investigation of stochastic network loading procedures. Transp Res Rec 1645:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prato CG, Bekhor S (2006) Applying branch and bound technique to route choice set generation. Transp Res Rec 1985:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Prochaska J, Di Clemente C (1986) Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Miller W, Heather N (eds) Treating addictive behaviours. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Raveau S, Muñoz JC (2014) Analyzing route choice strategies on transit networks. In: Proceedings of 93rd annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  72. Raveau S, Muñoz JC, De Grange L (2011) A topological route choice model for metro. Transp Res A 45:138–147Google Scholar
  73. Saaty TL (1990) Multi-Criteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  74. Sheffi Y, Powell WB (1982) An algorithm for the equilibrium assignment problem with random link times. Networks 12:191–207CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. Timmermans H (2010) On the (Ir)relevance of prospect theory in modelling uncertainty in travel decisions. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 10:368–384Google Scholar
  76. Train K (2009a) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  77. Train KE (2009b) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. Trochim WM (2006) Research methods knowledge base. Drake University, Des MoinesGoogle Scholar
  79. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  80. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty 5:297–323CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. Van de Kaa EJ (2010) Prospect theory and choice behaviour strategies: review and synthesis of concepts from social and transport sciences. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 10:299–329Google Scholar
  82. Vovsha P (1997a) Application of cross-nested logit model to mode choice in Tel Aviv, Israel, metropolitan area. Transp Res Rec 1607:6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vovsha P (1997b) The cross-nested logit model: application to mode choice in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. Transp Res Rec 1607:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wen CH (2010) Alternative tree structures for estimating nested logit models with mixed preference data. Transportmetrica 6:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wen CH, Koppelman FS (2001) The generalized nested logit model. Transp Res B 35:627–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wholey JS (2004) Handbook of practical program evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  87. Wickens C, Lee J, Liu Y, Becker SEG (2004) An introduction to human factors engineering. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  88. World Bank (1996) Sustainable transport: priorities for policy reform. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  89. Xu H, Zhou J, Xu W (2011) A decision-making rule for modelling travelers’ route choice behaviour based on cumulative prospect theory. Transp Res C 19:218–228CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  90. Yáñez MF, Raveau S, de Ortúzar JD (2010) Inclusion of latent variables in mixed logit models: modelling and forecasting. Transp Res A 44:744–753Google Scholar
  91. Yen JY (1971) Finding the K shortest loopless paths in a network. Manage Sci 17:712–716CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  92. Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage University Papers series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–104. Thousands Oaks, Sage, California, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Friedrich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabien Leurent
    • 2
  • Irina Jackiva
    • 3
  • Valentina Fini
    • 4
  • Sebastián Raveau
    • 5
  1. 1.University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Laboratory on City, Mobility and TransportationUniversity Paris-East, Ecole des Ponts ParisTechChamps-sur-MarneFrance
  3. 3.Transport and Telecommunication InstituteRīgaLatvia
  4. 4.DICEA—Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Edile e AmbientaleSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of Transport Engineering and LogisticsPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileMacul SantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations