A Practical Comparison of Modeling Approaches for Panel Data

  • Mark Bradley
Part of the Transportation Research, Economics and Policy book series (TRES)


In contrast to cross-sectional data, panel data provide us with the ability to directly observe and model changes in behavior resulting from changes in causal variables. Explicitly modeling change should allow more accurate predictions, at least for the short term. Model estimation using panel data, however, requires us to sort out various types of within-person and cross-sectional effects, both observed and unobserved. This chapter begins with a discussion of the types of variables one might expect and their treatment in model estimation. Although quite complex statistical methods are required to isolate all types of cross-sectional and dynamic effects in panel data, a number of relatively simple model forms can be used to incorporate at least some aspects of dynamic transitions in choice behavior. These simple dynamic models are compared to their static counterparts in the context of a commuter “before and after” panel study in the Netherlands. The models are compared in terms of the estimation results and, more importantly, in terms of the predictions they provide in a dynamic application framework. The chapter thus provides an illustration and discussion of the use of dynamic panel models in forecasting, an issue which is rarely treated in the practical literature.


Travel Time Panel Data Mode Choice Rail Line Nest 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.


  1. Baanders, A., de Boer, R.H. and Kroes, E.P. (1989). Impact of a new railway line on travel patterns: The Flevo line in the Netherlands. PTRC 17th Summer Annual Meeting; Proceedings of Seminar D; Brighton.Google Scholar
  2. Chamberlain, G. (1982). Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Review of Economic Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Daly, A. (1987). Estimation of ‘tree’ logit models, Transportation Research. 21 (B) 251–267.Google Scholar
  4. Daganzo, C.F. and Sheffi, Y. (1982) Multinomial probit models with time-series data: Unifying state dependence and serial correlation models. Environment and Planning A. 14, 1377–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forrester, J.W. (1968). Principles of Systems. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Ramer, R., Kroes, E. and de Bout, R. (1992). Some mode choice models for panel data. PfRC 20th Summer Annual Meeting; Proceedings of Seminar E; Manchester.Google Scholar
  7. Heckman, J.J. (1981). Statistical models for discrete panel data. in Manski and McFadden (eds.). Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications; MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, L. and Hensher, D. (1982). Ap plication of multinomial probit to a two-period panel data set. Transportation Research 16A (5).Google Scholar
  9. Krramuna, R. and Bunch, D. (1989). Heterogeneity and state dependence in household car ownership: A panel analysis using ordered-response probit models with error components. Research Report of Transportation Research Group, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  10. Meurs, H. (1991). A Panel Data Analysis of Travel Demand. Doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  11. Ortuzar, J. de D. and Achonno, F.J. (1985). A pseudo-panel discrete model choice model: preliminary findings. PTRC 13th Summer Annual Meeting; Proceedings of Seminar L; Brighton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Bradley
    • 1
  1. 1.Mark Bradley Research & ConsultingFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations