The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit
Abstract
This paper examines a variety of issues within the context of two main themes: the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures which are mutually consistent within a theory of rational choice; and a consideration of the structure of models which are representations of the trip decision process over several dimensions: location, mode, and route. Random utility theory is invoked to explore both the role and properties of composite costs or index prices in the ‘recursive’ approach to the structuring of travel choice models, and their significance in the economic evaluation problem. It is shown that the specification of these costs must be made very precisely, with respect to the demand model form chosen, in order to retain the underlying assumption that the traveller is an optimal decisionmaker. It is argued that the structure of ‘simultaneous’ models currently in use is inconsistent with the form of utility function assumed to generate those models. Furthermore, it is shown that the ‘simultaneous’ and ‘recursive’ forms are special cases of a more general choice model structure which takes specific account of correlation or ‘commonality’ of trip attributes. A number of applications are discussed in which consistent demand models and perceived user benefit measures are constructed. These include the formation of strategic transport planning models and of models for mixed-mode, multimode, and multiroute systems. The formalism allows definitive answers to be given to a number of problems of current interest in transportation planning, which have been incorrectly or incompletely treated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A statistical theory of spatial distribution models
Wilson, A. G. (1967) · Transportation Research · doi:10.1016/0041-1647(67)90035-4 · Cited by 1,127
Cited by
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784
Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products
McFadden, D. (1980) · The Journal of Business · doi:10.1086/296093 · Cited by 766
Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling: Retrospect and Prospect. 城市和区域建模中的熵:回顾与展望
Wilson, A. (2010) · Geographical Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.2010.00799.x · Cited by 147
Manca, F., Sivakumar, A., & Polak, J. W. (2019) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2019.02.010 · Cited by 78
Nahmias-Biran, B.-H., Oke, J. B., Kumar, N., Lima Azevedo, C., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2021) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-020-10106-y · Cited by 77
Deep Choice Model Using Pointer Networks for Airline Itinerary Prediction
Mottini, A., & Acuna-Agost, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098005 · Cited by 37
Diminishing effects of location? Some evidence from Swiss municipalities, 1950–2000
Portnov, B. A., Axhausen, K. W., Tschopp, M., & Schwartz, M. (2011) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.017 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, H. C. W. L.
- Venue
- Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1977-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 285-344
- ISSN
- 0308-518X (ISSN-L)
- 1472-3409
- OpenAlex
- W2066531726
- Cited by
- 1,030
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 120.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.