Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Takayuki Morikawa. "Estimation of switching models.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimation on Stated-Preference Experiments Constructed from Revealed-Preference Choices Paper by Wilson and Train Comments by K. D. Boyer.
Advertisements

The ISA for Physics What you need to revise.
In Portland, Oregon TRB Planning Applications Conference Reno, Nevada Mark Bradley Research & Consulting.
1 Inter-Temporal and Inter-Regional Analysis of Household Car and Motorcycle Ownership Behaviours in Asian Big Cities Nobuhiro Sanko, Hiroaki Maesoba,
DEVELOPMENT OF MODE CHOICE MODEL FOR WORK TRIPS IN GAZA CITY State of Palestine Ministry of Transport Sadi I. S. AL-Raee EuroMed Regional Transport Project:
1 ESTIMATION OF DRIVERS ROUTE CHOICE USING MULTI-PERIOD MULTINOMIAL CHOICE MODELS Stephen Clark and Dr Richard Batley Institute for Transport Studies University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Justifying Rail Bias Factor for Houston METRO’s Transit Model Presentation by Vijay Mahal, HDR Inc Vincent Sanders, Houston METRO May 18, 2009 TRB Applications.
USING SUMMIT FOR TRANSIT AND MODEL ANALYSIS AMPO TRAVEL MODEL WORK GROUP October 23, 2006.
Norman Washington Garrick CE 2710 Spring 2014 Lecture 07
Time of day choice models The “weakest link” in our current methods(?) Change the use of network models… Run static assignments for more periods of the.
Modal Split Analysis.
Session 11: Model Calibration, Validation, and Reasonableness Checks
QUALITATIVE AND LIMITED DEPENDENT VARIABLE MODELS.
CEE 320 Fall 2008 Trip Generation and Mode Choice CEE 320 Anne Goodchild.
So far, we have considered regression models with dummy variables of independent variables. In this lecture, we will study regression models whose dependent.
Discrete Choice Models for Modal Split Overview. Outline n General procedure for model application n Basic assumptions in Random Utility Model n Uncertainty.
Topic 3: Regression.
Domestic Tourism Destination Choices- A Choice Modelling Analysis Assignment 3 Group 3 Hari Hara Sharan Nagalur Subraveti Kasun Dilhara Wimalasena Kento.
Lec 11 TD-Part 4: & 5.5.1, H/O pp.491: Mode Usage (modal split) and Intro to trip assignment Understand why modal split needs to be done (5.4.3)
Measuing Preferences, Establishing Values, The Empirical Basis for Understanding Behavior David Levinson.
InMoSion: Science Shop for Innovative Mobility Solutions for Mobility Challenged Europeans 3rd INTERNATIONAL MEETING ANKARA, TURKEY Partnering: Civil Engineering.
MODELS OF QUALITATIVE CHOICE by Bambang Juanda.  Models in which the dependent variable involves two ore more qualitative choices.  Valuable for the.
Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies
Forecast Accuracy and Model Choice Keith Ord Georgetown University.
The First International Transport Forum, May , Leipzig INDUCING TRANSPORT MODE CHOICE BEHAVIORIAL CHANGES IN KOREA: A Quantitative Analysis.
Transit Estimation and Mode Split CE 451/551 Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 7.
Calibration Guidelines 1. Start simple, add complexity carefully 2. Use a broad range of information 3. Be well-posed & be comprehensive 4. Include diverse.
Off-farm labour participation of farmers and spouses Alessandro Corsi University of Turin.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Vamsee Modugula Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May.
1 The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14 th 2008.
Everyday travel mode choice and its determinants: trip attributes and lifestyle Markéta Braun Kohlová Faculty of Social.
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lecture 18: Demand Forecasting.
Importance of Modeling Bicycle Ownership at Individual Level to Predict Travel Mode Share May 18, 2015 Nazneen Ferdous and John Gliebe, RSG Richard Walker,
1/54: Topic 5.1 – Modeling Stated Preference Data Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Ranking and Rating Data in Joint RP/SP Estimation by JD Hunt, University of Calgary M Zhong, University of Calgary PROCESSUS Second International Colloquium.
Behavioral Modeling for Design, Planning, and Policy Analysis Joan Walker Behavior Measurement and Change Seminar October UC Berkeley.
Appropriate Use of Constant Sum Data Joel Huber-Duke University Eric Bradlow-Wharton School Sawtooth Software Conference September 2001.
The Annual Meeting of the RSAI – The Israeli Branch, Tel-Aviv University, January 10, 2010 Development and estimation of a semi- compensatory residential.
Basic Business Statistics
A Moment of Time: Reliability in Route Choice using Stated Preference David M. Levinson Nebiyou Y. Tilahun Department of Civil Engineering University of.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Presented to MTF Transit Committee presented by David Schmitt, AICP November 20, 2008 FSUTMS Transit Model Application.
1 Components of the Deterministic Portion of the Utility “Deterministic -- Observable -- Systematic” portion of the utility!  Mathematical function of.
SHRPII C04: TEG Meeting, Washington, DC - January 14, 2010 Results today based primarily on three data sources… Seattle 2006 household travel survey (RP)
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LUAS ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR Mr. Hazael Brown Dr. Aoife Ahern Dr. Margaret O’Mahony.
7.4 DV’s and Groups Often it is desirous to know if two different groups follow the same or different regression functions -One way to test this is to.
May 2009TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference 1 PATHBUILDER TESTS USING 2007 DALLAS ON-BOARD SURVEY Hua Yang, Arash Mirzaei, Kathleen.
Meeghat Habibian Analysis of Travel Choice Transportation Demand Analysis Lecture note.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to Florida Transit Modeling Workshop presented by Thomas Rossi Cambridge Systematics, Inc. April 8,
1 MGT 511: Hypothesis Testing and Regression Lecture 8: Framework for Multiple Regression Analysis K. Sudhir Yale SOM-EMBA.
Copyright © 2010, All rights reserved eStudy.us Changing Long Distance Michael Roberson Feb. 27, 2012.
1/53: Topic 3.1 – Models for Ordered Choices Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA William.
3. Transportation demand The discrete good case Theory.
6. Ordered Choice Models. Ordered Choices Ordered Discrete Outcomes E.g.: Taste test, credit rating, course grade, preference scale Underlying random.
ILUTE A Tour-Based Mode Choice Model Incorporating Inter-Personal Interactions Within the Household Matthew J. Roorda Eric J. Miller UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO.
[Part 5] 1/43 Discrete Choice Modeling Ordered Choice Models Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Hua Yang Arash Mirzaei Zhen Ding North Central Texas Council of Governments Travel Model Development and Data Management.
Lec. 19 – Hypothesis Testing: The Null and Types of Error.
Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle Facilities Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Approaches Kevin J. Krizek Assistant Professor Director, Active.
Measurement Chapter 6. Measuring Variables Measurement Classifying units of analysis by categories to represent variable concepts.
Transportation Planning Asian Institute of Technology
Using Latent Variable Models in Survey Research Roger E. Millsap Arizona State University Contact: (480)
Mr. Hazael Brown Dr. Margaret O’Mahony
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Mathematical Modelling of Pedestrian Route Choices in Urban Areas Using Revealed Preference GPS Data Eka Hintaran ATKINS European Transport Conference.
A Logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data
Discrete Choice Modeling
Presentation transcript:

Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Takayuki Morikawa. "Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions." Transportation Research Part A: General 24.6 (1990): Claudio Feliciani Fujita Kazuyuki He Le Wang Yanjun

Paper’s Objective: Relation with our project: Find an efficient method to predict switching behavior. In particular analyze the case in which a new metro line is opened and try to predict its share by combining revealed preferences (RP) and stated intentions (SI) data. This paper deals with the opening of a new metro line in Yokohama in march 1985 and predicting the market share of that line. In our project we are considering the introduction of a bus line during the Tokyo Olympics and we are trying to find out the optimal parameters’ combination (cost, time,…). 1. Introduction 2

Revealed Preference (RP) theory (by Paul Samuelson, 1938): Stated Intentions (or Preferences) (SI): Someone’s preferences can be revealed by analyzing his/her behavior under different circumstances. Preferences are directly obtained by asking people what they would prefer and analyzing the results. Pro: people behavior is analyzed in natural environment. Contra: for behaviors not implicit in the data analyzed, making forecasts may result difficult. Pro: options to be analyzed are directly used in the survey. Contra: responses may yield significant bias as decision-making protocol generating SI may differ from the one actually used Introduction

Revealed Preference model (actual travel behavior – process generating RP data): Stated Intentions model (consider alternative not currently available, switch or not?): Random utility function: Choice indicator: Theory; combining RP and SI models Utility function: Stated intention response:

Theory; combining RP and SI models Combining random components: Log-likelihood function: binary choice probability (binary logit used here)

Surveyed in order to investigate the ridership of a new subway line, which opened in March, 1985 in Yokohama, Japan. The before survey (3 month before opening); questions: Regularly used transit route from home to work/school; Alternative transit route; Intentions of using the new subway line. The after survey (6 months after opening); questions: Route from home to work using the new subway line; Route for the same trip without using the new subway line; Satisfaction level with the service of both routes Description of the data

Before data summary Before survey: 564 respondents 70% valid However, for data analysis only individuals whose principal commuting mode is rail for both regular and alternative route selected: 107 respondents

Estimation with RP data – Theory

9 Bus dummy (busdum) = Bike dummy (bikedum) = Car dummy (cardum) = Walk time (walkt) = walking time (in minutes) Access in-vehicle time (accivt) = in-vehicle time of access trip (minutes) Number of transfers (xfern) = number of transfers “Base” access mode is “walk”. Regular and alternative routes use rail commuter mode: Total travel time or cost had no significant coefficient; Commuting cost usually covered by employer. Socioeconomic variables had non-significant coefficients Estimation with RP data – Explanatory variables

Estimation with SI data

Estimation with RP + SI data Revealed Preference Model specifications: Stated Intentions Model specifications:

Estimation with RP + SI data For the SI model, choice probability is given by (scale parameter is used here): Remember that we assumed:

Estimation with RP + SI data Log-likelihood function for the RP + SI model is given by:

RP modelSI modelRP+SI model Bus dummy-2.99 (-2.99)-1.57 (-1.78)-2.54 (-2.81) Bike dummy-5.77 (-4.37)-2.89 (-3.21)-5.73 (-4.55) Car dummy-8.48 (-5.84)-8.81 (-6.21) Walk time (-3.59) (-3.31) (-4.27) Access in-vehicle time (0.16) (-2.22) (-1.63) Number of transfers-1.12 (-2.73)-1.32 (-2.65)-1.69 (-4.31) Subway route constant0.974 (1.67)1.22 (2.25) μ0.559 (3.21) L(0) N Before data results

Statistical test

After data summary After survey: 1201 respondents 80.7% valid However, by selecting only rail users: 428 observations From those, by selecting subway route users: 254 respondents. Ambiguity in the way question was asked may have caused significant errors.

After modelBefore+After model Bus dummy (-1.02)-2.00 (-2.53) Bike dummy (Before)-5.42 (-4.80) Bike dummy (After)0.228 (0.41) (0.04) Car dummy-1.79 (-1.06)-8.37 (-6.16) Walk time (-5.09) (-4.40) Access in-vehicle time (Before) (-1.78) Access in-vehicle time (After) (-3.87) (-3.47) Number of transfers (-3.89)-2.03 (-5.41) Subway route constant (Before)1.45 (2.94) Subway route constant (After) (-0.36) (-1.41) μ1 μ (3.39) (3.88) L(0) N After data results

Prediction test Market share of the subway route given by: To obtain the “observed” market share after data used. Prediction of the market share made by using before data. Log-likelihood computed to check for goodness-of-fit.

ModelLog-likelihoodPredicted share of subway route (observed share = 59.35) After model % RP model % SI model % SI model* % RP+SI combined model % RP+SI combined model* % Prediction test – Results SI bias adjusted (*) obtained by omitting the subway constant. May lead to an overstatement of the subway route usage. Correction of the bias required to reduce overstatement. After data reveled that captive travelers do not use subway for different reasons. Unfamiliarity, disliking or habitual usage of non-subway routes. Bias adjusted SI model had closest prediction and best goodness-of-fit. If over overestimation can be corrected, SI data can lead to good prediction.

Combining the stated intention data with the RP data increased the accuracy of parameter estimates of the model; a statistical test showed that the model for the stated intention data, if properly scaled, had the same coefficients as the RP model; the stated intention data contained more random noise; and the utility threshold value for switching routes estimated from the stated intentions was negative, implying that the respondents overstated their switching to the new alternative Conclusions

21 End of the presentation. Thank you for your attention. Questions?