IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00405501.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Transit Capacity and Users Choice: AnExperiment on Downs-Thomson Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Laurent Denant-Boemont

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Sabrina Hammiche

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

We study the Downs-Thomson paradox, a situation where an additional road capacity can cause an overall increase in transport generalized cost and therefore a decrease in welfare for transport users. To this end, we build an experiment based on a double market-entry game (DMEG) where users have to choose between road and public transit after that the operator has choosen public transit capacity. The optimal strategy for operator is to minimize capacity, and the equilibrium for users depend on the endogeneous public transit capacity compared to exogeneous road capacity. The most important result is that we observe the Downs-Thomson paradox empirically in the laboratory: An increase in road capacity causes shift from road to rail and, at the end, increases total travel costs. But the contrary is not true: A decrease in road capacity does not cause lower total travel costs, which is in contradiction with our theoretical model. Results also show that the capacity chosen by operator di§ers from Nash prediction, levels being signiÖcantly higher than those predicted by our model. Moreover, users coordinate remarkably well on Nash equilibrium entry rate while capacity has been chosen by operator.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurent Denant-Boemont & Sabrina Hammiche, 2009. "Public Transit Capacity and Users Choice: AnExperiment on Downs-Thomson Paradox," Working Papers halshs-00405501, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00405501
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00405501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00405501/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kreps, David M. & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 245-252, August.
    2. Mohring, Herbert, 1972. "Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus Transportation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 591-604, September.
    3. Gary-Bobo, Robert J., 1990. "On the existence of equilibrium points in a class of asymmetric market entry games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 239-246, September.
    4. Anthony Ziegelmeyer & Frédéric Koessler & Kene Boun My & Laurent Denant-Boèmont, 2008. "Road Traffic Congestion and Public Information: An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 42(1), pages 43-82, January.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    6. Duffy, John & Hopkins, Ed, 2005. "Learning, information, and sorting in market entry games: theory and evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 31-62, April.
    7. Selten, R. & Chmura, T. & Pitz, T. & Kube, S. & Schreckenberg, M., 2007. "Commuters route choice behaviour," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 394-406, February.
    8. Richard Arnott & André de Palma & Robin Lindsey, 1993. "Properties of Dynamic Traffic Equilibrium Involving Bottlenecks, Including a Paradox and Metering," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 148-160, May.
    9. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon, 2008. "Reciprocity in Ultimatum and Dictator Games: An Introduction," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 46, pages 411-416, Elsevier.
    10. Andersson, Ola & Holm, Håkan J., 2010. "Endogenous communication and tacit coordination in market entry games: An explorative experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 477-495, September.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    12. Erev, Ido & Rapoport, Amnon, 1998. "Coordination, "Magic," and Reinforcement Learning in a Market Entry Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 146-175, May.
    13. Mogridge, Martin J H, 1997. "The self-defeating nature of urban road capacity policy : A review of theories, disputes and available evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 5-23, January.
    14. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    15. Dan Lovallo & Colin Camerer, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March.
    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. Zhang, Fangni & Yang, Hai & Liu, Wei, 2014. "The Downs–Thomson Paradox with responsive transit service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 244-263.

    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. Collins, Sean M. & James, Duncan & Servátka, Maroš & Woods, Daniel, 2017. "Price-setting and attainment of equilibrium: Posted offers versus an administered price," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 277-293.
    2. Kirman, Alan P. & Laisney, François & Pezanis-Christou, Paul, 2018. "Exploration vs exploitation, impulse balance equilibrium, and a specification test for the El Farol bar problem," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-038, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Alan Kirman & François Laisney & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2023. "Relaxing the symmetry assumption in participation games: a specification test for cluster-heterogeneity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 850-878, September.
    4. Lindner, Florian, 2014. "Decision time and steps of reasoning in a competitive market entry game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 7-11.
    5. Louis, Philippos & Troumpounis, Orestis & Tsakas, Nikolas & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2022. "Coordination with preferences over the coalition size," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 105-123.
    6. Brandts, Jordi & Yao, Lan, 2010. "Ambiguous Information and Market Entry: An Experimental Study," MPRA Paper 25276, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Antonio J. Morales & Javier Rodero-Cosano, 2023. "Forward induction and market entry with an endogenous outside option," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 365-383, August.
    8. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Manzoni, Elena & Nagel, Rosemarie, 2019. "Belief-dependent preferences and reputation: Experimental analysis of a repeated trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 341-360.
    9. Linde, Jona & Sonnemans, Joep & Tuinstra, Jan, 2014. "Strategies and evolution in the minority game: A multi-round strategy experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 77-95.
    10. Giovanna Devetag & Francesca Pancotto & Thomas Brenner, 2011. "The Minority Game Unpacked: Coordination and Competition in a Team-based Experiment," LEM Papers Series 2011/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Xiao Han & Yun Yu & Bin Jia & Zi‐You Gao & Rui Jiang & H. Michael Zhang, 2021. "Coordination Behavior in Mode Choice: Laboratory Study of Equilibrium Transformation and Selection," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3635-3656, October.
    12. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2016. "Bargaining in the Absence of Property Rights: An Experiment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 477-495.
    13. Nicholas Janusch & Stephan Kroll & Christopher Goemans & Todd L. Cherry & Steffen Kallbekken, 2021. "Learning to accept welfare-enhancing policies: an experimental investigation of congestion pricing," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 59-86, March.
    14. Christiane Bradler, 2009. "Social Preferences under Risk - An Experimental Analysis," Jena Economics Research Papers 2009-022, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    15. Chidambaram, Bhuvanachithra & Janssen, Marco A. & Rommel, Jens & Zikos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Commuters’ mode choice as a coordination problem: A framed field experiment on traffic policy in Hyderabad, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-22.
    16. Erlei, Mathias & Reinhold, Christian, 2016. "Contracts as reference points—The role of reciprocity effects and signaling effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 133-145.
    17. Thorsten Chmura & Werner Güth, 2011. "The Minority of Three-Game: An Experimental and Theoretical Analysis," Games, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-22, September.
    18. Abbink, Klaus & Bolton, Gary E. & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & Tang, Fang-Fang, 2001. "Adaptive Learning versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele K. & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2012. "Competition fosters trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 195-209.
    20. Willemien Kets, 2007. "The minority game: An economics perspective," Papers 0706.4432, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    traffic equilibrium; public transit; experimental economics; market entry game; équilibre de trafic; transport public; congestion; économie expérimental; jeu d'entrée de marché;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-00405501. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.