Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 33–60 | Cite as

Modeling Mode and Route Similarities in Network Equilibrium Problem with Go-Green Modes

  • Songyot Kitthamkesorn
  • Anthony Chen
  • Xiangdong Xu
  • Seungkyu Ryu


Environmental sustainability is a common requirement on the development of various real-world systems, especially on road transportation systems. Motorized vehicles generate a large amount of harmful emissions, which have adverse effects to the environment and human health. Environmental sustainability requires more promotions of ‘go-green’ transportation modes such as public transit and bicycle to realize the increasing travel demands while keeping the environmental expenses low. In this paper, we make use of recent advances in discrete choice modeling to develop equivalent mathematical programming formulations for the combined modal split and traffic assignment (CMSTA) problem that explicitly considers mode and route similarities under congested networks. Specifically, a nested logit model is adopted to model the modal split problem by accounting for mode similarity among the available modes, and a cross-nested logit model is used to account for route overlapping in the traffic assignment problem. This new CMSTA model has the potential to enhance the behavioral modeling of travelers’ mode shift between private motorized mode and ‘go-green’ modes as well as their mode-specific route choices, and to assist in quantitatively evaluating the effectiveness of different ‘go-green’ promotion policies.


Nested logit Cross-nested logit Mathematical programming formulation Combined modal split and traffic assignment problem 


  1. Abdulaal M, LeBlanc LJ (1979) Methods for combining modal split and equilibrium assignment models. Transp Sci 13(4):292–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekhor S, Prashker JN (1999) Formulations of extended logit stochastic user equilibrium assignments. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Jerusalem, Israel, 351–372Google Scholar
  3. Bekhor S, Toledo T, Reznikova L (2008) A path-based algorithm for the cross-nested logit stochastic user equilibrium. J Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 24(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce D, Bar-Gera H (2004) Multiclass combined models for urban travel forecasting. Netw Spat Econ 4(1):115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyce D (2007) Forecasting travel on congested urban transportation networks: review and prospects for network equilibrium models. Netw Spat Econ 7(2):99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briceño L, Cominetti R, Cortés C, Martínez FJ (2008) An integrated behavioral model of land-use and transport system: an extended network equilibrium approach. Netw Spat Econ 8(2–3):201–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Button K (1990) Environmental externalities and transport policy. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 6(2):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cacciola RR, Sarva M, Polosa R (2002) Adverse respiratory effects and allergic susceptibility in relation to particulate air pollution: flirting with disaster. Allergy 57:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caliper Corporation (2004) TransCAD demand modeling manuals. Caliper Corporation, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappiello A (2002) Modelling traffic flow emissions. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen A, Kasikitwiwat P (2011) Modeling network capacity flexibility of transportation networks. Transp Res A 45(2):105–117Google Scholar
  13. Chen A, Kasikitwiwat P, Yang C (2013) Alternate capacity reliability measures for transportation networks. J Adv Transp 47(1):79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen A, Lee D-H, Jayakrishnan R (2002) Computational study of state-of-the-art path-based traffic assignment algorithms. Math Comput Simul 59(6):509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen A, Lo HK, Yang H (2001) A self-adaptive projection and contraction algorithm for the traffic equilibrium problem with path-specific costs. Eur J Oper Res 135(1):27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen A, Oh J, Park D, Recker W (2010) Solving the bicriteria traffic equilibrium problem with variable demand and nonlinear path costs. Appl Math Comput 217(7):3020–3031Google Scholar
  17. Chen A, Yang C, Kongsomsaksakul S, Lee M (2007) Network-based accessibility measures for vulnerability analysis of degradable transportation networks. Netw Spat Econ 7(3):241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen A, Zhou Z, Ryu S (2011) Modeling physical and environmental side constraints in traffic equilibrium problem. Int J Sustain Transp 5(3):172–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen A, Zhou Z, Xu X (2012) A self-adaptive gradient projection algorithm for the nonadditive traffic equilibrium problem. Comp Oper Res 39(2):127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Grange L, Fernández E, de Cea J, Irrazábal M (2010) Combined model calibration and spatial aggregation. Netw Spat Econ 10(4):551–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dissanayake D, Morikawa T (2005) Household travel behavior in developing countries: nested logit model of vehicle ownership, mode choice and trip chaining. Transp Res Rec 1805:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez E, Cea JD, Florian M, Cabrera E (1994) Network equilibrium models with combined modes. Transp Sci 28(3):182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Florian M, Nguyen S (1978) A combined trip distribution, modal split and trip assignment model. Transp Res 12(4):241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Florian M (1977) A traffic equilibrium model of travel by car and public transit modes. Transp Sci 11(2):166–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García R, Marín A (2005) Network equilibrium models with combined modes: models and solution algorithms. Transp Res B 39(3):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasan MK, Dashti HM (2007) A multiclass simultaneous transportation equilibrium model. Netw Spat Econ 7(3):197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997) Available at Accessed 5 July 2012
  28. Liu HX, He X, He B (2009) Method of successive weighted averages (MSWA) and self-regulated averaging schemes for solving stochastic user equilibrium problem. Netw Spat Econ 9(4):485–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lo HK, Chen A (2000) Traffic equilibrium problem with route-specific costs: formulation and algorithms. Transp Res B 34(6):493–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maher M (1992) SAM—a stochastic assignment model. In: Griffiths JD (ed) Mathematics in transport planning and control. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Marzano V, Papola A (2008) On the covariance structure of the cross-nested logit model. Transp Res B 42(2):83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meng Q, Liu Z (2012) Impact analysis of cordon-based congestion pricing on mode-split for a bimodal transportation network. Transp Res C 21(1):134–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielsen OA, Daly A, Frederiksen RD (2002) A stochastic route choice model for car travellers in the Copenhagen region. Netw Spat Econ 2(4):327–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oppenheim N (1995) Urban travel demand modeling. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosa A, Maher MJ (2002) Algorithms for solving the probit path-based stochastic user equilibrium traffic assignment problem with one or more user classes. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Australia, 371–392Google Scholar
  36. Sheffi Y (1985) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheffi Y, Powell WB (1982) An algorithm for the equilibrium assignment problem with random link times. Networks 12(2):191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siefel JD, de Cea J, Fernandez JE, Rodriguez RE, Boyce D (2006) Comparisons of urban travel forecasts prepared with the sequential procedure and a combined model. Netw Spat Econ 6(2):135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szeto WY, Jaber X, Wong SC (2012) Road network equilibrium approaches to environmental sustainability. Transp Rev 32(4):491–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. The Economist (1996) Living with the car, June 22, 3–18Google Scholar
  41. The Economist (1997) Living with the car, December 26, 21–23Google Scholar
  42. Thobani M (1984) A nested logit model of travel mode to work and auto ownership. J Urban Econ 15(3):287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Train K (1980) A structured logit model of auto ownership and mode choice. Rev Econ Stud 47(2):357–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uchida K, Sumalee A, Watling D, Connors R (2007) A study on network design problems for multi-modal networks by probit-based stochastic user equilibrium. Netw Spat Econ 7(3):213–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vovsha P, Bekhor S (1998) The link-nested logit model of route choice: overcoming the route overlapping problem. Transp Res Rec 1645:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallace CE, Courage KG, Hadi MA, Gan AG (1998) TRANSYT-7F user’s guide. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu ZX, Lam WHK (2003) Combined modal split and stochastic assignment model for congested networks with motorized and nonmotorized transport modes. Transp Res Rec 1831:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang H, Huang HJ (2005) Mathematical and economic theory of road pricing. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhou Z, Chen A, Wong SC (2009) Alternative formulations of a combined trip generation, trip distribution, modal split, and traffic assignment model. Eur J Oper Res 198(1):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Songyot Kitthamkesorn
    • 1
  • Anthony Chen
    • 1
  • Xiangdong Xu
    • 2
  • Seungkyu Ryu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyClear Water BayHong Kong

Personalised recommendations