IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ortrsc/v54y2020i1p42-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stable Day-to-Day Dynamics for Departure Time Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Wen-Long Jin

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, California 92697)

Abstract

All existing day-to-day dynamics of departure time choice at a single bottleneck are unstable, and this has led to doubt over the existence of a stable user equilibrium in the real world. However, empirical observations and our personal driving experience suggest stable stationary congestion patterns during a peak period. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile the discrepancy by presenting a stable day-to-day dynamical system for drivers’ departure time choice at a single bottleneck. In our model, the decision variable in the execution stage is still drivers’ departure times on the next day, but in the planning stage before the execution stage, drivers determine their departure times in order to arrive at the destination at better times with lower scheduling costs. We first define within-day traffic dynamics with the point queue model, costs, the departure time user equilibrium (DTUE), and the arrival time user equilibrium (ATUE). We then identify three behavioral principles in the planning stage: (i) drivers choose their departure and arrival times in a backward fashion (backward choice principle); (ii) after choosing the arrival times, they update their departure times to balance the total costs (cost-balancing principle); (iii) they choose their arrival times to reduce their scheduling costs or gain their scheduling payoffs (scheduling cost–reducing or scheduling payoff–gaining principle). In this sense, drivers’ departure and arrival time choices are driven by their scheduling payoff choice. With a single tube or imaginary road model, we convert the nonlocal day-to-day arrival time shifting problem to a local scheduling payoff shifting problem. After introducing a new variable for the imaginary density, we apply the Lighthill–Whitham–Richards (LWR) model to describe the day-to-day dynamics of scheduling payoff choice and present splitting and cost-balancing schemes to determine arrival and departure flow rates accordingly. We define the scheduling payoff user equilibrium (SPUE) as the stationary state of the LWR model, formulate a new optimization problem for the SPUE, and prove the global stability of the SPUE and, therefore, ATUE and DTUE by using Lyapunov’s second method in which the objective function in the optimization formulation is the potential function. We also develop the corresponding discrete models for numerical solutions and use one numerical example to demonstrate the effectiveness and stability of the new day-to-day dynamical model. Different from existing ones, the new adjustment mechanism leads to stable day-to-day departure time choice dynamics by guaranteeing that drivers have better choices of departure/arrival times with larger scheduling payoffs on the next day, and such better choices are not over-chosen because of the constraint imposed by the single tube’s cross-section area, which is equal to the jam density in the LWR model. This study is the first step for understanding stable day-to-day dynamics for departure time choice, and many follow-up studies are possible and warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen-Long Jin, 2020. "Stable Day-to-Day Dynamics for Departure Time Choice," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 42-61, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ortrsc:v:54:y:2020:i:1:p:42-61
    DOI: 10.1287/trsc.2019.0919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2019.0919
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/trsc.2019.0919?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Lindsey, 2004. "Existence, Uniqueness, and Trip Cost Function Properties of User Equilibrium in the Bottleneck Model with Multiple User Classes," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 293-314, August.
    2. Terry L. Friesz & David Bernstein & Nihal J. Mehta & Roger L. Tobin & Saiid Ganjalizadeh, 1994. "Day-To-Day Dynamic Network Disequilibria and Idealized Traveler Information Systems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 1120-1136, December.
    3. Hani Mahmassani & Robert Herman, 1984. "Dynamic User Equilibrium Departure Time and Route Choice on Idealized Traffic Arterials," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 362-384, November.
    4. Jin, Wen-Long, 2012. "The traffic statics problem in a road network," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1360-1373.
    5. Chris Hendrickson & George Kocur, 1981. "Schedule Delay and Departure Time Decisions in a Deterministic Model," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 62-77, February.
    6. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Cyna, Michèle & de Palma, André, 1984. "Dynamic model of peak period congestion," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 18(4-5), pages 339-355.
    7. Daganzo, Carlos F., 1995. "The cell transmission model, part II: Network traffic," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 79-93, April.
    8. Akamatsu, Takashi & Wada, Kentaro & Hayashi, Shunsuke, 2015. "The corridor problem with discrete multiple bottlenecks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P3), pages 808-829.
    9. Jin, Wen-Long, 2007. "A dynamical system model of the traffic assignment problem," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 32-48, January.
    10. Vickrey, William S, 1969. "Congestion Theory and Transport Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 251-260, May.
    11. Kenneth Small, 2015. "The Bottleneck Model: An Assessment and Interpretation," Working Papers 141506, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    12. Michael J. Smith, 1984. "The Stability of a Dynamic Model of Traffic Assignment---An Application of a Method of Lyapunov," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 245-252, August.
    13. Anna Nagurney & Ding Zhang, 1997. "Projected Dynamical Systems in the Formulation, Stability Analysis, and Computation of Fixed-Demand Traffic Network Equilibria," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 147-158, May.
    14. Paul I. Richards, 1956. "Shock Waves on the Highway," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 42-51, February.
    15. Terry L. Friesz & David Bernstein & Tony E. Smith & Roger L. Tobin & B. W. Wie, 1993. "A Variational Inequality Formulation of the Dynamic Network User Equilibrium Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 179-191, February.
    16. Carlos F. Daganzo, 1985. "The Uniqueness of a Time-dependent Equilibrium Distribution of Arrivals at a Single Bottleneck," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 29-37, February.
    17. D. Zhang & A. Nagurney, 1997. "Formulation, Stability, and Computation of Traffic Network Equilibria as Projected Dynamical Systems," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 417-444, May.
    18. Yang, Fan & Zhang, Ding, 2009. "Day-to-day stationary link flow pattern," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 119-126, January.
    19. Small, Kenneth A, 1992. "Trip Scheduling in Urban Transportation Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 482-486, May.
    20. Small, Kenneth A., 2015. "The bottleneck model: An assessment and interpretation," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 110-117.
    21. Horowitz, Joel L., 1984. "The stability of stochastic equilibrium in a two-link transportation network," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 13-28, February.
    22. W.L. Jin & L. Chen & Elbridge Gerry Puckett, 2009. "Supply-demand Diagrams and a New Framework for Analyzing the Inhomogeneous Lighthill-Whitham-Richards Model," Springer Books, in: William H. K. Lam & S. C. Wong & Hong K. Lo (ed.), Transportation and Traffic Theory 2009: Golden Jubilee, chapter 0, pages 603-635, Springer.
    23. Szeto, W. Y. & Lo, Hong K., 2004. "A cell-based simultaneous route and departure time choice model with elastic demand," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 593-612, August.
    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. Jin, Wen-Long, 2021. "Stable local dynamics for day-to-day departure time choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 463-479.
    2. Li, Pengbo & Tian, Lijun & Xiao, Feng & Zhu, Hongwei, 2022. "Can day-to-day dynamic model be solved analytically? New insights on portraying equilibrium and accommodating autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 374-395.

    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. Ren-Yong Guo & Hai Yang & Hai-Jun Huang, 2018. "Are We Really Solving the Dynamic Traffic Equilibrium Problem with a Departure Time Choice?," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 603-620, June.
    2. Li, Zhi-Chun & Huang, Hai-Jun & Yang, Hai, 2020. "Fifty years of the bottleneck model: A bibliometric review and future research directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 311-342.
    3. Ren-Yong Guo & Hai Yang & Hai-Jun Huang & Zhijia Tan, 2016. "Day-to-Day Flow Dynamics and Congestion Control," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 982-997, August.
    4. Qixiu Cheng & Zhiyuan Liu & Feifei Liu & Ruo Jia, 2017. "Urban dynamic congestion pricing: an overview and emerging research needs," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(0), pages 3-18, August.
    5. Wang, Guanfeng & Jia, Hongfei & Feng, Tao & Tian, Jingjing & Wu, Ruiyi & Gao, Heyao & Liu, Chao, 2024. "Modelling the dual dynamic traffic flow evolution with information perception differences between human-driven vehicles and connected autonomous vehicles," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 640(C).
    6. Guo, Ren-Yong & Yang, Hai & Huang, Hai-Jun & Li, Xinwei, 2018. "Day-to-day departure time choice under bounded rationality in the bottleneck model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 117(PB), pages 832-849.
    7. Iryo, Takamasa, 2019. "Instability of departure time choice problem: A case with replicator dynamics," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 353-364.
    8. Ye, Hongbo & Xiao, Feng & Yang, Hai, 2021. "Day-to-day dynamics with advanced traveler information," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 23-44.
    9. Han, Linghui & Wang, David Z.W. & Lo, Hong K. & Zhu, Chengjuan & Cai, Xingju, 2017. "Discrete-time day-to-day dynamic congestion pricing scheme considering multiple equilibria," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-16.
    10. Feng Xiao & Minyu Shen & Zhengtian Xu & Ruijie Li & Hai Yang & Yafeng Yin, 2019. "Day-to-Day Flow Dynamics for Stochastic User Equilibrium and a General Lyapunov Function," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 683-694, May.
    11. Jiayang Li & Zhaoran Wang & Yu Marco Nie, 2023. "Wardrop Equilibrium Can Be Boundedly Rational: A New Behavioral Theory of Route Choice," Papers 2304.02500, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    12. Zhu, Zheng & Li, Xinwei & Liu, Wei & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Day-to-day evolution of departure time choice in stochastic capacity bottleneck models with bounded rationality and various information perceptions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 168-192.
    13. Kumar, Amit & Peeta, Srinivas, 2015. "A day-to-day dynamical model for the evolution of path flows under disequilibrium of traffic networks with fixed demand," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 235-256.
    14. Amirgholy, Mahyar & Gao, H. Oliver, 2017. "Modeling the dynamics of congestion in large urban networks using the macroscopic fundamental diagram: User equilibrium, system optimum, and pricing strategies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 215-237.
    15. Jin, Wen-Long, 2007. "A dynamical system model of the traffic assignment problem," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 32-48, January.
    16. Ren-Yong Guo & Hai-Jun Huang & Hai Yang, 2019. "Tradable Credit Scheme for Control of Evolutionary Traffic Flows to System Optimum: Model and its Convergence," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 833-868, September.
    17. Minyu Shen & Feng Xiao & Weihua Gu & Hongbo Ye, 2024. "Cognitive Hierarchy in Day-to-day Network Flow Dynamics," Papers 2409.11908, arXiv.org.
    18. 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.
    19. Cantelmo, Guido & Viti, Francesco, 2019. "Incorporating activity duration and scheduling utility into equilibrium-based Dynamic Traffic Assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 365-390.
    20. Robin Lindsey, 2004. "Existence, Uniqueness, and Trip Cost Function Properties of User Equilibrium in the Bottleneck Model with Multiple User Classes," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 293-314, August.

    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:inm:ortrsc:v:54:y:2020:i:1:p:42-61. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.