Calculating Benefits of Infrastructural Measures
AbstractThe paper continues the ongoing discussion about the concept of accessibility and its applicability to infrastructural appraisal. David Metz states that travel time savings disappear in a long term perspective and to empirically untested â€šÃ„Ãºconstant travel time budgetâ€šÃ„Ã¹ literature. Metz therefore concludes that it is inadequate to measure the benefits of an infrastructural investment by means of travel time savings only. Further it is noted that the inadequacy results from longer term decisions â€šÃ„Ã¬ such as location choice â€šÃ„Ã¬ which arise in the long run. These longer term decisions should therefore be included in the modeling of transport â€šÃ„Ã¬ or better of the comprehensive economic â€šÃ„Ã¬ systems for public infrastructure appraisal respectively. Some authors hint at the possibility to measure consumer surplus applying the concept of the expected maximum utility (EMU). If we accept this argument the question arises to what extent we produce errors with â€šÃ„Ãºshort termâ€šÃ„Ã¹ models. To examine this issue we implement a proof of concept model with the purpose to simulate long term equilibrium with different decision possibilities in a minimal urban system. We use random utility maximisation and discrete choice theory with an agent-based modelling approach to respect the discrete nature, consistency with discrete choice theory and to what seems to many to be the way forward in the field. We simulate equilibrium conditions letting the agents chose their commuting situation allowing for different combinations of decision dimensions. The results show that improving accessibility results in an increasing and expected demand for more peripheral locations. Thus we conclude that profiteers of infrastructural measures are property owners whose properties get higher accessibility. Concerning the utility indicators we find that EMU is more consistent. Further we note substantial differences when applying different decision spaces. The appropriateness of using travel time savings as indicator for utility gains very much depends on considered time horizons because trade-offs between utility out of short- and long-term decisions is likely to occur. In case of assessing long time periods we should operate with models incorporating long-term decisions such as location choice. This is a strong argument in favor of LUTI-models.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa10p1354.
Date of creation: Sep 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
Web page: http://www.ersa.org
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kenneth Train, 2003.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Online economics textbooks,
SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, Spring.
- Small, Kenneth A, 1982. "The Scheduling of Consumer Activities: Work Trips," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 467-79, June.
- Janson, Bruce N., 1991. "Dynamic traffic assignment for urban road networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(2-3), pages 143-161.
- Robert Axelrod, 1997. "Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 97-05-048, Santa Fe Institute.
- Fernandez L., J. Enrique & Friesz, Terry L., 1983. "Equilibrium predictions in transportation markets: The state of the art," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 155-172, April.
- Schelling, Thomas C, 1969. "Models of Segregation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 488-93, May.
- Nigel Gilbert & Pietro Terna, 2000. "How to build and use agent-based models in social science," Mind and Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 1(1), pages 57-72, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.