Random Utility Theory

  • Ennio Cascetta
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 49)


In Chapter 1 it was stated that transport demand flows result from the aggregation of individual trips. Each trip is the result of several choices made by the users: travelers in passenger transportation or operators (manufacturers, shippers, carriers) in goods transport. Some traveler choices are made infrequently, such as where to reside and work and whether to own a vehicle or not. Other choices are made for each trip, these include whether to make a trip for a certain purpose at what time to what destination, with what mode, using what route. Each choice context, defined by available alternatives, evaluation factors and decision procedures, is usually known as a “choice dimension”. Also, in most cases, choices concerning transport demand are made among a finite number of discrete alternatives.


Intermediate Node Generalize Extreme Value Choice Probability Systematic Utility Multinomial Logit Model 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. [109]
    Domencich T. A., and D. McFadden (1975). Urban travel demand: a behavioural analysis. American Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  2. [258]
    Williams H.C.W.L. (1977). On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit Environment and Planning A: 285–344.Google Scholar
  3. [179]
    Manski C. (1977). The structure of random utility models Theory and Decision 8: 229–254.Google Scholar
  4. [180]
    Manski C.F., and D. McFadden (1981). Alternative estimators and sample designs for discrete choice analysis. in Structural Analysis of discrete data with Econometric Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  5. [19]
    Ben-Akiva M., and S. Lerman (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  6. [259]
    Williams H.C.W.L., and J. de D. Ortùzar (1982). Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-specification of travel demand models. Transportation Research 16B: 167–219.Google Scholar
  7. [144]
    Horowitz J.L. (1985). Travel and location behaviour: state of the art and research opportunities Transportation Research 19A: 441–454.Google Scholar
  8. [11]
    Bath C. (1997). Recent Methodological Advances Relevant to Activity and Travel Behavior Analysis. Proceedings of the V III IATBR conference, Resource papers, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  9. [102]
    Daly A.J., and S. Zachary (1978), Improved multiple choice models. in D.A. Hensher and M.Q. Dalvi (eds.), Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, Westmead.Google Scholar
  10. [99]
    Daganzo C.F., and M. Kusnic (1992). Another look at the nested logit model. Technical Report UCB-ITS-RTR 92–2, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  11. [186]
    McFadden, D. (1978). Modeling the choice of residential location. in A.K.(ed.), Spatial interaction theory and residential location: 75–96, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. [238]
    Small, and K. (1987). A discrete choice model for ordered alternatives Econometrica 55: 409–424.Google Scholar
  13. [247]
    Vovsha P. (1997). The Cross-Nested Logit Model: Application to Mode Choice in the Tel-Aviv Metropolitan Area Proceedings of the 76`h TRB Meeting.Google Scholar
  14. [248]
    Vovsha P. S. Bekor (1998). The link-Nested Logit Model of Route Choice: Overcoming the Route Overlapping Problem Proceedings of the 77th TRB Meeting.Google Scholar
  15. [69]
    Cascetta E., and A. Papola (2000). Implicit availability/perception models for the simulation of travel demand Transportation Research C, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. [17]
    Ben-Akiva M., and B. Francois (1983). p Homogeneous Generalized Extreme Value Model. Working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  17. [218]
    Papola A. (1996). I modelli di Valore Estremo Generalizzato (GEV) per la simulazione della domanda di trasporto. Internal report. Department of Transportation Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”.Google Scholar
  18. [97]
    Daganzo C.F. (1979). Multinomial probit: the theory and its application to demand forecasting. Academic press, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [95]
    Dafermos S.C. (1982). The general multimodal network equilibrium problem with elastic demand Networks 12: 57–72.Google Scholar
  20. [161]
    Langdon M.G. (1984). Improved algorithms for estimating choice probabilities in the multinomial probit model Transportation Science 18: 267–299.Google Scholar
  21. [26]
    Ben-Akiva, M., and M. Bierlaire (1999). Discrete choice methods and their application to short term travel decisions. Handbook of Transportation Science, R.W. Hall ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers: 5–33.Google Scholar
  22. [216]
    Ortuzar D., and L.G. Willumsen (1994). Modelling Transport John Wiley and Sons, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  23. [18]
    Ben-Akiva M., and D. Bolduc (1996). Multinomial Probit with a Logit Kernel and a General Parametric Specification of the Covariance Structure. Working Paper, Department of Economics, MIT, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
  24. [35]
    Bolduc, D., B. Fortin, and M.A. Fournier (1996). “The Impact of Incentive Policies to Influence Practice Location of General Practitioners: A Multinomial Probit Analysis”, Journal of Labor Economics 14: 703–732.Google Scholar
  25. [16]
    Ben-Akiva M., and B. Boccara (1995). Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12: 9–24.Google Scholar
  26. [68]
    Cascetta E., and A. Papota (2000). A joint mode-run choice model to simulate the schedule influence at a regional level. Proceedings of the 9th IATBR conference, Sidney, Australia.Google Scholar
  27. [97]
    Daganzo C.F. (1979). Multinomial probit: the theory and its application to demand forecasting. Academic press, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [49]
    Cantarella G.E. (1997). A General Fixed-Point Approach to Multi-Mode Multi-User Equilibrium Assignment with Elastic Demand Transportation Science 31: 107–128.Google Scholar
  29. [159]
    Koppelman F.S. (1989). Multidimensional Model System for Intercity Travel Choice Behaviour Transportation Research Records 1241: 1–8.Google Scholar
  30. [20]
    Ben-Akiva M., and T. Atherton (1977). Methodology for Short-Range Travel Demand Predictions Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 11: 224–261.Google Scholar
  31. [252]
    Watanatada T., and M. Ben-Akiva (1979). Forecasting urban travel demand for quick policy analysis with disaggregate choice model: a Monte-Carlo simulation approach. Transportation Research 13A: 241–248.Google Scholar
  32. [130]
    Gunn H., J. and J.J. Bates (1982). Statistical aspects of travel demand modelling. Transportation Research 16A: 371–382.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ennio Cascetta
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dei Trasporti “Luigi Tocchetti”Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations