IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v129y2019icp123-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Train path congestion management: Using hybrid auctions for decentralized railway capacity allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Stojadinović, Nikola
  • Bošković, Branislav
  • Trifunović, Dejan
  • Janković, Slađana

Abstract

Despite the entry of new competitors into the railway market in European countries, the capacity allocation mechanism still relies on the same service priority criteria as before the adoption of 91/440/EEC Directive. Without the implementation of a market-based mechanism or criteria, the current administrative approach of network capacity allocation inhibits further development of competition and especially freight railway transport. In this paper, the application of auctions is limited to a part of railway infrastructure. In view of the specificities of the railway sector and the nature of infrastructure capacity, the following question can be raised: Are there auction mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of collusion and at the same time achieve a high degree of efficiency of capacity allocation? In such a context, this article considers the implementation of hybrid auctions for the purpose of train path allocation. In order to facilitate the implementation of various types of auctions in allocation procedure on railways, this paper develops and models an algorithm for iterative train paths allocation. With the proposed algorithm, the auction outcomes have been determined in a simulation with the objective of comparing the performances of hybrid (two-phase) auctions: Anglo-Dutch and second-price Amsterdam auction with some well-known standard-type auctions: English and sealed-bid first-price auction. The results indicate that hybrid auctions are a better choice in European conditions when railway undertakers are asymmetric, especially if there is a threat of collusion. These results could help an IMs to decide which type of auction mechanism to choose for the railway capacity allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Stojadinović, Nikola & Bošković, Branislav & Trifunović, Dejan & Janković, Slađana, 2019. "Train path congestion management: Using hybrid auctions for decentralized railway capacity allocation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 123-139.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:123-139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.08.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417310996
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.08.013?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. Brunner, Christoph & Hu, Audrey & Oechssler, Jörg, 2014. "Premium auctions and risk preferences: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 467-484.
    2. Peter Cramton, 2013. "Spectrum Auction Design," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(2), pages 161-190, March.
    3. Brewer, Paul J. & Plott, Charles R., 1996. "A binary conflict ascending price (BICAP) mechanism for the decentralized allocation of the right to use railroad tracks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 857-886, October.
    4. Harrod, Steven, 2013. "Auction pricing of network access for North American railways," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 176-189.
    5. Pertuiset, Thomas & Santos, Georgina, 2014. "Primary auction of slots at European airports," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 66-71.
    6. Jan K. Brueckner, 2008. "Slot-Based Approaches to Airport Congestion Management," CESifo Working Paper Series 2302, CESifo.
    7. Gertjan Driessen & Mark Lijesen & Machiel Mulder, 2006. "The impact of competition on productive efficiency in European railways," CPB Discussion Paper 71, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. Stern, J. & Turvey, R., 2003. "Auctions of capacity in network industries," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, March.
    9. Link, Heike, 2016. "A Two-Stage Efficiency Analysis of Rail Passenger Franchising in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 76-92.
    10. Sentance, A., 2003. "Airport slot auctions: desirable or feasible?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 53-57, March.
    11. Maldoom, D., 2003. "Auctioning capacity at airports," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 47-51, March.
    12. Klemperer, Paul, 2002. "How (not) to run auctions: The European 3G telecom auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 829-845, May.
    13. R. Borndörfer & M. Grötschel & S. Lukac & K. Mitusch & T. Schlechte & S. Schultz & A. Tanner, 2006. "An Auction Approach to Railway Slot Allocation," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 7(2), pages 163-197, June.
    14. Preston, John, 2016. "Deja Vu all over again? Rail franchising in Britain," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 107-115.
    15. Gunnar Isacsson & Jan-Eric Nilsson, 2003. "An Experimental Comparison of Track Allocation Mechanisms in the Railway Industry," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 37(3), pages 353-381, September.
    16. Levin, Dan & Ye, Lixin, 2008. "Hybrid auctions revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 591-594, June.
    17. Hu, Audrey & Offerman, Theo & Zou, Liang, 2011. "Premium auctions and risk preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2420-2439.
    18. Paul Klemperer, 2004. "Auctions: Theory and Practice," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number auction1.
    19. Basso, Leonardo J. & Zhang, Anming, 2010. "Pricing vs. slot policies when airport profits matter," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 381-391, March.
    20. Lalive, Rafael & Schmutzler, Armin, 2011. "Auctions vs Negotiations in Public Procurement: Which Works Better?," CEPR Discussion Papers 8538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    21. Affuso, Luisa, 2003. "Auctions of rail capacity?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 43-46, March.
    22. Paul Klemperer, 2004. "Auctions: Theory and Practice," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number auction1.
    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. Jacquillat, Alexandre & Vaze, Vikrant & Wang, Weilong, 2022. "Primary versus secondary infrastructure capacity allocation mechanisms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(2), pages 668-687.

    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. Dejan Trifunovic, 2019. "Heuristic and Equilibrium Strategies in Premium Auctions," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 9411761, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    2. Estrella Alonso & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2020. "Mixed Mechanisms for Auctioning Ranked Items," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    4. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    5. Soumyakanti Chakraborty & Anup K. Sen & Amitava Bagchi, 2015. "Addressing the valuation problem in multi-round combinatorial auctions," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1145-1160, October.
    6. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2009. "Bidding Behaviour in Multi-Unit Auctions - An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 855-882, April.
    7. Fanzeres, Bruno & Ahmed, Shabbir & Street, Alexandre, 2019. "Robust strategic bidding in auction-based markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1158-1172.
    8. Ning Sun & Zaifu Yang, 2014. "An Efficient and Incentive Compatible Dynamic Auction for Multiple Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(2), pages 422-466.
    9. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    10. Justus Haucap, 2020. "Nobelpreis für Robert Wilson und Paul Milgrom: Zwei Ökonomen, die echte Märkte schufen [Nobel Prize for Robert Wilson and Paul Milgrom: Two Economists who Created Real Markets]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 100(12), pages 969-975, December.
    11. Perennes, Patricia, 2014. "Use of combinatorial auctions in the railway industry: Can the “invisible hand” draw the railway timetable?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 175-187.
    12. Ferrara, Gerardo & Li, Xin, 2017. "Central counterparty auction design," Bank of England working papers 669, Bank of England.
    13. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    14. Sun, Ning & Yang, Zaifu, 2016. "An Efficient and Strategy-Proof Double-Track Auction for Substitutes and Complements," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 523, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    15. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    16. Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Qiu, Chun & He, Yongfu, 2009. "Empirical Testing of the Reference-Price Effect of Buy-Now Prices in Internet Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 211-221.
    17. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.
    18. Zhen Li & Ching-Chung Kuo, 2013. "Design of discrete Dutch auctions with an uncertain number of bidders," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 255-272, December.
    19. Gerard van der Laan & Zaifu Yang, 2016. "An ascending multi-item auction with financially constrained bidders," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 109-149, December.
    20. Stoneham, Gary & O'Keefe, Andrew & Eigenraam, Mark & Bain, David, 2012. "Creating physical environmental asset accounts from markets for ecosystem conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 114-122.

    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:transa:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:123-139. 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/547/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.