A multitude of alternatives characterize the choice set in many activity and travel choice contexts. Analysts generally sample alternatives from the choice set in such situations because estimating models from the full choice set can be very expensive or even prohibitive. Numerical experiments were undertaken to examine the effect of the sample size of alternatives on model performance for both a multinomial logit model (for which consistency with a subset of alternatives is guaranteed) and a mixed multinomial logit model (for which no consistency result holds).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SwaitJ.Choice Set Generation Within the Generalized Extreme Value Family of Discrete Choice Models. Transportation Research, Vol. 35B, No. 7, 2001, pp. 643–666.
2.
BasarG., and BhatC. R.. A Parameterized Consideration Set Model for Airport Choice: An Application to the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research B, forthcoming (2004).
3.
GuoJ. Y., and BhatC. R.. Residential Location Choice Modeling: A Multinomial Logit Approach. Technical Paper. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 2001.
4.
SermonsM. W., and KoppelmanF. S.. Representing Differences Between Female and Male Commute Behavior in Residential Location Choice Models. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2001, pp. 101–110.
5.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and BowmanJ. L.. Integration of an Activity-Based Model System and a Residential Location Model. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1131–1153.
6.
BekhorS., Ben-AkivaM. E., and RammingM. S.. Adaptation of Logit Kernel to Route Choice Situation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 78–85.
7.
WaddellP.Accessibility and Residential Location: The Interaction of Workplace, Residential Mobility, Tenure, and Location Choices. Presented at Lincoln Land Institute TRED Conference, 1996, www.odot.state.or.us/tddtpau/papers/urbansim/tred96b.pdf.
8.
SchlichR., SimmaA., and AxhausenK. W.. Destination Choice Modeling for Different Leisure Activities. Proc., 2nd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, March2002.
9.
PozsgayM. A., and BhatC. R.. Destination Choice Modeling for Home-Based Recreational Trips: Analysis and Implications for Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Planning. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1777, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 47–54.
10.
BhatC., GovindarajanA., and PulugurthaV.. Disaggregate Attraction-End Choice Modeling: Formulation and Empirical Analysis. In Transportation Research Record 1645, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 60–68.
11.
McFaddenD.Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. In Transportation Research Record 673, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978, pp. 72–77.
12.
BhatC. R., and GuoJ. Y.. A Mixed Spatially Correlated Model: Formulation and Application to Residential Choice Modeling. Transportation Research, Vol. 38B, No. 2, 2004, pp. 147–168.
13.
TrainK.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
14.
BhatC. R.Simulation Estimation of Mixed Discrete Choice Models Using Randomized and Scrambled Halton Sequences. Transportation Research, Vol. 37B, No. 9, 2003, pp. 837–855.
