Evaluating Transport User Benefits: Adjustment of Logsum Difference for Constrained Travel Demand Models
Abstract
Transport user benefits are of great importance in cost–benefit analysis when transport projects are appraised. Generally, these benefits have the greatest effect on the results of cost–benefit analyses. It is common to adopt the consumer surplus for calculating transport user benefits. The consumer surplus measure is based on the underlying demand model and follows from the integration of the demand curve. If the popular logit model is used for forecasting travel demand, a consumer surplus measure takes a closed form that is easy to calculate. Furthermore, in cost–benefit analyses the change in consumer surplus between an initial and final state is needed; the change can be easily derived by the difference of the logsums of the two states. This logsum approach is proven and correct for travel demand models based on the logit model without multiple constraints. However, for travel demand models dealing with two or more sets of constraints, the logsum approach fails. In this paper, a mathematical approach is described for a transport user benefits measure that corresponds to the consumer surplus and is universal for all travel demand models with constraints. The measure for a doubly constrained trip distribution is derived. The applicability of the derived approach is shown by a simple example.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Varian H. R. Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd ed. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1992.
2. Williams H. C. W. L. On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit. Environment and Planning, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1977, pp. 285–344.
3. De Jong G., Daly A., Pieters M., and van der Hoorn T. The Logsum as an Evaluation Measure: Review of the Literature and New Results. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 9, 2007, pp. 874–889.
4. McFadden D. Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (Manski C. F. and McFadden D., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 198–272.
5. Zhao Y., Kockelman K., and Karlström A. Welfare Calculations in Discrete Choice Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Error Term Correlation with Finite Populations. Transport Policy, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2012, pp. 76–84.
6. Lohse D., Teichert H., Dugge B., and Bachner G. Ermittlung von Verkehrsströmen mit n-linearen Gleichungssystemen unter Beachtung von Nebenbedingungen einschließlich Parameterschätzung (Verkehrsnachfragemodellierung: Erzeugung, Verteilung, Aufteilung). Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Verkehrsplanung und Straßenverkehr, H. 5, Fakultät Verkehrswissenschaften, “Friedrich List,” Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, 1997.
7. Vrtic M., Fröhlich P., Schüssler N., Axhausen K. W., Lohse D., Schiller C., and Teichert H. Two-Dimensionally Constrained Disaggregate Trip Generation, Distribution and Mode Choice Model: Theory and Application for a Swiss National Model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 9, 2007, pp. 857–873.
8. Wilson A. G. A Statistical Theory of Spatial Distribution Models. Transportation Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1967, pp. 253–269.
9. Furness K. P. Time Function Iteration. Traffic Engineering Control, Vol. 7, No. 7, 1965, pp. 458–460.
10. Anas A. Discrete Choice Theory, Information Theory, and the Multinomial Logit and Gravity Models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1983, pp. 13–23.
11. Erlander S., and Stewart N. F. The Gravity Model in Transportation Analysis: Theory and Extensions. VSP BV, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1990.
12. Ben-Akiva M., and Lerman S. R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
13. Neuburger H., and Wilcox J. The Economic Appraisal of Land-Use Plans. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1976, pp. 227–236.
14. Winkler C. Transport User Benefits Calculation with the “Rule of a Half” for Travel Demand Models with Constraints. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 49, 2015, pp. 36–42.
15. Ma S., Kockelman K. M., and Fagnant D. J. Welfare Analysis Using Logsum Differences Versus Rule of Half: Series of Case Studies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2530, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 73–83.
16. Small K. A., and Rosen H. S. Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models. Econometrica, Vol. 49, No. 1, 1981, pp. 105–130.
17. McFadden D. Computing Willingness-to-Pay in Random Utility Models. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1995.
18. Karlström A., and Morey E. R. Calculating the Exact Compensating Variation in Logit and Nested-Logit Models with Income Effects: Theory, Intuition, Implementation and Application. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, New Orleans, La., 2001.
19. Dagsvik J., and Karlström A. Compensated Variation in Random Utility Models That Are Nonlinear in Income. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2005, pp. 57–76.
20. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
21. Williams H. C. W. L. Travel Demand Models, Duality Relations, and User Benefit Analysis. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1976, pp. 147–166.
22. Martínez F. J., and Araya C. A. A Note on Trip Benefits in Spatial Interaction Models. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2000, pp. 789–796.
23. Geurs K., Zondag B., De Jong G., and de Bok M. Accessibility Appraisal of Land-Use–Transport Policy Strategies: More Than Just Adding Up Travel-Time Savings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 15, No. 7, 2010, pp. 382–393.
24. Chiang A. C., and Wainwright K. Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Boston, Mass., 2005.
25. Merziger G., Mühlbach G., Wille D., and Wirth T. Formeln + Hilfen zur Höheren Mathematik, 3rd ed. Binomi Verlag, Springer, 1999.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2016
Issue published: January 2016
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 56
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 4
- Estimating the Benefits of Korea’s Intercity Rail Speed Increase Proje...
- Traffic and Welfare Impacts of Credit-Based Congestion Pricing Applica...
- Is it Necessary to Relax the IID Assumptions in the Logsum-Based Acces...
- Operationalizing a spatial differentiation of trip generation rates us...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
