Individual utility-based path suggestions in transit trip planners

Agostino Nuzzolo; Antonio Comi

Individual utility-based path suggestions in transit trip planners

View Fulltext

Author(s): Agostino Nuzzolo ¹ and Antonio Comi ¹
- Affiliations: 1: Department of Enterprise Engineering, Tor Vergata University of Rome, viale del Politecnico 1, Rome, Italy
Source: Volume 10, Issue 4, May 2016, p. 219 – 226
DOI: 10.1049/iet-its.2015.0138 , Print ISSN 1751-956X, Online ISSN 1751-9578

Received 03/07/2015, Accepted 07/12/2015, Revised 12/11/2015, Published 01/05/2016

The opportunities offered by telematics development and the features required by travellers moving on more complex multimodal transit networks push to investigate new methods for generating path advice in transit trip planners. First, the study focuses on characteristics and limits of the methods used by current trip planners for path generation and then analyses the new methods applied by a new generation of trip planners (most at the prototypical developing stage). These methods use a group or, better, an individual traveller utility function, which allows personal preferences to be pointed out. As the individual utility functions in the transport modelling literature has been largely neglected, the second part of the study reports the state-of-the-art and some theoretical considerations on individual path utility function modelling, and recalls the approaches developed for including individual utility in new trip planners. Further, the results of individual utility function estimations, using surveys relative to the city of Rome, are presented and some aspects of the utility function calibration, including the info provider learning process of traveller preferences, are explored. The analyses show a significant improvement in using individual functions for path advice and a substantial influence of network complexity on the learning process.

References

1. 1)
  - 19. Ortúzar, J., de, D.: ‘Estimating individual preferences with flexible discrete-choice-models’, Food Quality Preference, 2010, 21, pp. 262–269 (doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.09.006).
2. 2)
  - 45. Prato, C.G.: ‘Route choice modeling: past, present and future research directions’, J. Choice Model., 2009, 2, (1), pp. 65–100 (doi: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70005-8).
3. 3)
  - 25. Pihlens, D.A., Louviere, J.J.: ‘How indecisiveness in choice behaviour affects the magnitude of parameter estimates obtained in discrete choice models’. Proc. ANZMAC Conf., Wellington, New Zealand, 2004.
4. 4)
  - 9. Muovi-Roma (2015). http://www.muovi.roma.it. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
5. 5)
  - 3. Peng, Z.R., Huang, R.: ‘Design and development of interactive trip planning for web-based transit information systems’, Transp. Res. C, 2000, 8, (5), pp. 409–425 (doi: 10.1016/S0968-090X(00)00016-4).
6. 6)
  - 38. Frischknecht, B.D., Eckert, C., Geweke, J., et al: ‘A simple method for estimating preference parameters for individuals’, Int. J. Res. Market., 2014, pp. 35–48 (doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.07.005).
7. 7)
  - 26. Finn, A., Louviere, J.J.: ‘Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety’, J. Public Policy Mark., 1992, 11, (1), pp. 12–25.
8. 8)
  - 34. Nuzzolo, A., Crisalli, U., Comi, A., et al: ‘Individual behavioural models for personal transit pre-trip planners’, Transp. Res. Proc., 2015, 5, pp. 30–43 (doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.01.015).
9. 9)
  - 7. Moovit (2015). http://www.moovitapp.com. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
10. 10)
  - 15. Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: ‘Estimating individual level discrete choice models and welfare measures using best worst choice experiments and sequential best worst MNL. http://www.censoc.uts.edu.au/, 2008.
11. 11)
  - 13. Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A., Crisalli, , et al: ‘An advanced pre-trip planner with personalized information on transit networks with ATIS’. IEEE Proc. of the 16th Int. IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems: Intelligent Transportation Systems for all Modes, ITSC, art 6728546, 2013, pp. 2146–2151, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2013.6728546.
12. 12)
  - 30. Ebling, C., Frischknecht, B., Louviere, J.J.: ‘Keep it simple: Easy ways to estimate choice models for single consumers’. Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conf. 2010, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2010.
13. 13)
  - 31. Arentze, T.A.: ‘Adaptive, personalized travel information systems: A Bayesian method to learn users’ personal preferences in multi-modal transport networks’. Proc. of Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, USA, 2013.
14. 14)
  - 4. Sun, D.J., Peng, Z.R., Chen, X., et al: ‘Development of web-based transit trip planning system based on service-oriented architecture’, Transp. Res. Record, J. Transp. Res. Board, 2011, 2217, pp. 87–94 (doi: 10.3141/2217-11).
15. 15)
  - 1. Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A., Rosati, L.: ‘New methods of trip planning for travelers of Advanced Public Transport’. IEEE Proc. 18th Int. IEEE Conf. Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC, 2015, pp. 13–18, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2015.10.
16. 16)
  - 6. Google Transit (2014). Google Transit. http://www.maps.google.it. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
17. 17)
  - 18. Train, K.E.: ‘Discrete choice methods with simulation’ (University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
18. 18)
  - 5. Citymapper. http://www.citymapper.com, Retrieved October 5, 2015.
19. 19)
  - 14. Dumont, J., Giergiczny, M., Hess, S.: ‘Individual level models vs sample level models: contrasts and mutual benefits’, Transp. A, Transp. Sci., 2015, 11, (6), pp. 465–483.
20. 20)
  - 16. Revelt, D., Train, K.: ‘Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level’, Rev. Econom. Stat., 1998, 80, pp. 1–11 (doi: 10.1162/003465398557735).
21. 21)
  - 11. Bovy, P.H.L.: ‘On modelling route choice sets in transportation networks: a synthesis’, Transp. Rev., Transnatl. Transdisciplinary J., 2009, 29, (1), pp. 43–68 (doi: 10.1080/01441640802078673).
22. 22)
  - 35. de Jong, J., Daly, A., Pieters, M., et al: ‘A model for time of day and mode choice using error components logit’, Transp. Res. E, 2003, 39, pp. 245–268 (doi: 10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00037-6).
23. 23)
  - 8. Lazio-Mobility (2015). http://www.laziomobility.it. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
24. 24)
  - 10. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R.: ‘Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand’ (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1985).
25. 25)
  - 24. Greene, P.: ‘Iteratively reweighted least squares for maximum likelihood estimation, and some robust and resistant alternatives’, J. R. Stat. Soc., 1984, 46, (2), pp. 149–192.
26. 26)
  - 36. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H.: ‘The mixed logit model: the state of practice’ (Transportation 30, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), pp. 133–176.
27. 27)
  - 2. Ma, X., Wu, Y.J., Wang, Y., et al: ‘Mining smart card data for transit riders’ travel patterns’, Transp. Res. C, 2013, 36, pp. 1–12 (doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2013.07.010).
28. 28)
  - 33. Cantarella, G.E., de Luca, S.: ‘Multilayer feedforward networks for transportation mode choice analysis: an analysis and a comparison with random utility models’, Transp. Res. C, 2005, 13, pp. 121–155 (doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2005.04.002).
29. 29)
  - 20. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A.: ‘A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit’, Transp. Res. B, 2003, 37, (8), pp. 681–698 (doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2).
30. 30)
  - 28. Marley, A.A.J., Louviere, J.J.: ‘Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices’, J. Math. Psychol., 2005, 49, pp. 464–480 (doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2005.05.003).
31. 31)
  - 17. Cantillo, V., Ortúzar, J., de, D., et al: ‘Modelling discrete choices in the presence of inertia and serial correlation’, Transp. Sci., 2007, 41, pp. 195–205 (doi: 10.1287/trsc.1060.0178).
32. 32)
  - 23. Chapman, R.G.: ‘An approach to estimating logit models of a single decision maker's choice behavior’, Adv. Consumer Res., 1984, 11, pp. 656–661.
33. 33)
  - 27. Louviere, J., Street, D., Burgess, L., et al: ‘Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information’, J. Choice Model., 2008, 1, (1), pp. 128–163 (doi: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70025-3).
34. 34)
  - 37. Hess, S., Rose, J.M.: ‘Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data’, Transp. Res. B, 2009, 43, pp. 708–719 (doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2009.01.007).
35. 35)
  - 21. Hess, S., Ben-Akiva, M.: ‘Advantages of latent class over continuous mixture of Logit models’. Proc. AET Conf., London, 2014.
36. 36)
  - 32. Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A.: ‘Advanced Public Transport Systems and ITS: New Tools for Operations Control and Traveler Advising’. IEEE Proc. 17th Int. IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2014, pp. 2549–2555, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958098.
37. 37)
  - 29. Marshall, D., Chan, S., Curry, J.: ‘A head-to-head comparison of the traditional (top-down) approach to choice modeling with a proposed bottom-up approach’. 2010 Sawtooth Software Conf., Newport Beach, CA, 2011, pp. 309–319.
38. 38)
  - 22. Ortuzar, J., de, D., Willumsen, L.G.: ‘Modelling transport’ (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2011).

Login

Not registered yet?

Share

Tools

Login to add to favourites

Key

Individual utility-based path suggestions in transit trip planners

References

Related content