Identifying the Impacted Area of Congestion Charging Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory
A precise quantitative framework needs to be developed to identify the impacted area of road network by congestion charging. In this paper, a framework is constructed, which includes modeling traffic network based on CPT as a foundation and proposing identifying method on the basis of defining traffic impact threshold. To study the road network performance under congestion charging, a route choice model with an improved reference point is set based on generalized travel cost and a stochastic user equilibrium model based on CPT is adopted. Two indicators, variation of total travel time and the degree of saturation increase, are chosen as determination parameters in identifying method. Finally, a case study shows that the impacted area can be identified quantitatively. This paper puts forward a new thought and quantitative method to analyze the impacted area of traffic management policies.
KeywordsCongestion charging Traffic impact Reference point Route choice Impacted threshold
This research is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China 70901032.
- 1.Ge YE, Stewart K, Sun B et al (2016) Investigating undesired spatial and temporal boundary effects of congestion charging. Transportmetrica B 4(2):1–23Google Scholar
- 2.Guo W, Yao DY, Jian-Ming HU (2006) Study on network performance evaluation modeling under congestion pricing. J Highw Transp Res Dev 01:105–109Google Scholar
- 4.Sabounchi NS, Triantis KP, Sarangi S, Liu S (2014) A framework for evaluating the dynamic impacts of a congestion pricing policy for a transportation socioeconomic system. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 59(1):357–383Google Scholar
- 6.Avineri E, Prashker JN, Avineri E et al (2003) Sensitivity to uncertainty: the need for a paradigm shift. Ann Meet Transp Res Board 11(7):2406–2419Google Scholar
- 8.Jou RC, Chen KH (2013) An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 49(C):123–131Google Scholar