IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v163y2022icp1-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive design and profit sharing in multi-modal transportation networks

Author

Listed:
  • Deng, Yuntian
  • Shao, Shiping
  • Mittal, Archak
  • Twumasi-Boakye, Richard
  • Fishelson, James
  • Gupta, Abhishek
  • Shroff, Ness B.

Abstract

We consider the situation where multiple transportation service providers cooperate to offer an integrated multi-modal platform to enhance the convenience to the passengers through ease in multi-modal journey planning, payment, and first and last mile connectivity. This market structure allows the multi-modal platform to coordinate profits across modes and also provide incentives to the passengers. Accordingly, in this paper, we use cooperative game theory coupled with the hyperpath-based stochastic user equilibrium framework to study such a market. We assume that the platform sets incentives (price discount or excess charge on passengers) along every edge in the transportation network. We derive the continuity and monotonicity properties of the equilibrium flow with respect to the incentives along every edge. The optimal incentives that maximize the profit of the platform are obtained through a two time-scale stochastic approximation algorithm. We use the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution to design a fair profit sharing scheme among the service providers. We show that the profit for each service provider increases after cooperation on such a platform. Finally, we complement the theoretical results through two numerical simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Deng, Yuntian & Shao, Shiping & Mittal, Archak & Twumasi-Boakye, Richard & Fishelson, James & Gupta, Abhishek & Shroff, Ness B., 2022. "Incentive design and profit sharing in multi-modal transportation networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-21.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:163:y:2022:i:c:p:1-21
    DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2022.06.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261522001096
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.trb.2022.06.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    2. Lozano, Angélica & Storchi, Giovanni, 2002. "Shortest viable hyperpath in multimodal networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 853-874, December.
    3. Giulio Erberto Cantarella, 1997. "A General Fixed-Point Approach to Multimode Multi-User Equilibrium Assignment with Elastic Demand," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 107-128, May.
    4. Yuanyuan Zhang & Yuming Zhang, 2018. "Exploring the Relationship between Ridesharing and Public Transit Use in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Hymel, Kent M. & Small, Kenneth A. & Dender, Kurt Van, 2010. "Induced demand and rebound effects in road transport," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1220-1241, December.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    7. Ziliaskopoulos, Athanasios & Wardell, Whitney, 2000. "An intermodal optimum path algorithm for multimodal networks with dynamic arc travel times and switching delays," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 486-502, September.
    8. Okada, Akira, 2010. "The Nash bargaining solution in general n-person cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2356-2379, November.
    9. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, September.
    10. Herve Moulin, 2004. "Fair Division and Collective Welfare," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262633116, April.
    11. Kenneth Button, 2016. "Public--private partnerships: a review of economic considerations with particular reference to transportation projects," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 136-161, March.
    12. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    13. ALONSO RAPOSO Maria & CIUFFO Biagio & ARDENTE Fulvio & AURAMBOUT Jean Philippe & Gianmarco BALDINI & Robert BRAUN & Panayotis CHRISTIDIS & Aris Christodoulou & Amandine DUBOZ & Sofia FELICI & Jaime FE, 2019. "The future of road transport," JRC Research Reports JRC116644, Joint Research Centre.
    14. Agatz, Niels & Erera, Alan & Savelsbergh, Martin & Wang, Xing, 2012. "Optimization for dynamic ride-sharing: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 295-303.
    15. Hai Yang, 1999. "System Optimum, Stochastic User Equilibrium, and Optimal Link Tolls," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 354-360, November.
    16. Liu, Wei & Geroliminis, Nikolas, 2017. "Doubly dynamics for multi-modal networks with park-and-ride and adaptive pricing," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 162-179.
    17. Shaheen, Susan & Cohen, Adam, 2020. "Chapter 3 - Mobility on demand (MOD) and mobility as a service (MaaS): early understanding of shared mobility impacts and public transit partnerships," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5030f0cd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    18. Richa Agarwal & Özlem Ergun, 2010. "Network Design and Allocation Mechanisms for Carrier Alliances in Liner Shipping," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1726-1742, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Csilla Bartucz & László Buics & Edit Süle, 2023. "Lack of Collaboration on the CEP Market and the Underlying Reasons—A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2013. "Eliciting information from a committee," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(5), pages 2049-2067.
    2. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Twofold optimality of the relative utilitarian bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 79-92, January.
    3. Venkat Venkatasubramanian & Yu Luo, 2018. "How much income inequality is fair? Nash bargaining solution and its connection to entropy," Papers 1806.05262, arXiv.org.
    4. Erel Segal-Halevi & Balázs R. Sziklai, 2019. "Monotonicity and competitive equilibrium in cake-cutting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 363-401, September.
    5. Chun, So Yeon & Kleywegt, Anton J & Shapiro, Alexander, 2011. "Revenue management in resource exchange seller alliances," MPRA Paper 34657, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. So Yeon Chun & Anton J. Kleywegt & Alexander Shapiro, 2017. "When Friends Become Competitors: The Design of Resource Exchange Alliances," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(7), pages 2127-2145, July.
    7. Liu, Jiaguo & Wang, Junjin, 2019. "Carrier alliance incentive analysis and coordination in a maritime transport chain based on service competition," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 333-355.
    8. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    9. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    10. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    11. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    12. Joalland, Olivier & Pereau, Jean-Christophe & Rambonilaza, Tina, 2019. "Bargaining local compensation payments for the installation of new power transmission lines," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 75-85.
    13. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    14. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    15. Gerald Schneider & Daniel Finke & Stefanie Bailer, 2010. "Bargaining Power in the European Union: An Evaluation of Competing Game‐Theoretic Models," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 85-103, February.
    16. Saglam, Ismail, 2016. "An Alternative Characterization for Iterated Kalai-Smorodinsky-Nash Compromise," MPRA Paper 73564, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    18. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Roemer, John E., 2012. "A common ground for resource and welfare egalitarianism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 832-841.
    19. Nejat Anbarci & Ching-jen Sun, 2011. "Distributive justice and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(3), pages 453-470, September.
    20. Bossert, Walter & Peters, Hans, 2000. "Multi-attribute decision-making in individual and social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 327-339, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:163:y:2022:i:c:p:1-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.