In this paper an estimation is made of a joint household-level model of the number of vehicles owned by a household, the vehicle type choice of each vehicle, the annual mileage on each vehicle, and the individual assigned as the primary driver for each vehicle. A version of the proposed model system currently serves as the engine for a household vehicle composition and evolution simulator, which itself has been embedded in the larger Simulator of Activities, Greenhouse Emissions, Energy, Networks, and Travel (SimAGENT), an activity-based travel and emissions forecasting system for the Southern California Association of Governments planning region.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Report on the Environment: Science Report (SAB Review Report). Report EPA/600/R-07/045. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.
2.
SchrankD., LomaxT., and TurnerS.Urban Mobility Report 2010.Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, 2010.
TrainK.E., and WinstonC.Vehicle Choice Behavior and the Declining Market Share of U.S. Automakers. International Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2007, pp. 1469–1496.
5.
SpissuE., PinjariA.R., PendyalaR.M., and BhatC. R.A Copula-Based Joint Multinomial Discrete-Continuous Model of Vehicle Type Choice and Miles of Travel. Transportation, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2009, pp. 403–422.
6.
ChooS., and MokhtarianP. L.What Type of Vehicle Do People Drive? The Role of Attitude and Lifestyle in Influencing Vehicle Type Choice. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2004, pp. 201–222.
7.
ManneringF., and WinstonC.A Dynamic Empirical Analysis of Household Vehicle Ownership and Utilization. Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1985, pp. 15–236.
8.
WestS.Distributional Effects of Alternative Vehicle Pollution Control Policies. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 88, No. 3/4, 2004, pp. 735–757.
9.
BrownstoneD., and FangH.Vehicle Ownership and Utilization Choice Model with Endogenous Resident Density. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
10.
FengY., FullertonD., and GanL.Vehicle Choices, Miles Driven, and Pollution Policies.NBER Working Paper No. 11553. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., 2005.
11.
FangH. A.A Discrete-Continuous Model of Households’ Vehicle Choice and Usage, with an Application to the Effects of Residential Density. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2008, pp. 736–758.
12.
BhatC.R., and SenS.Household Vehicle Type Holdings and Usage: An Application of the Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Model. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2006, pp. 35–53.
13.
BhatC.R., SenS., and EluruN.The Impact of Demographics, Built Environment Attributes, Vehicle Characteristics, and Gasoline Prices on Household Vehicle Holdings and Use. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1–18.
14.
BentoA.M., GoulderL.H., JacobsenM.R., and von HaefenR.H.Distributional and Efficiency Impacts of Increased U.S. Gasoline Taxes. American Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 3, 2009, pp. 667–699.
15.
GouliasK.G., BhatC.R., PendyalaR.M., ChenY., PaletiR., KonduriK.C., LeiT., YoonS.Y., HuangG., and HuH.-H.Simulator of Activities, Greenhouse Emissions, Networks, and Travel (SimAGENT) in Southern California. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
16.
HilbrechtM., ShawS.M., JohnsonL.C., and AndreyJ.I'm Home for the Kids: Contradictory Implications for Work–Life Balance of Tele-working Mothers. Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2008, pp. 454–476.
17.
BhatC. R.The Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value (MDCEV) Model: Role of Utility Function Parameters, Identification Considerations, and Model Extensions. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008, pp. 274–303.
18.
PinjariA. R.Generalized Extreme Value (GEV)-Based Error Structures for Multiple Discrete-Continuous Choice Models. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2011, pp. 474–489.
19.
PaletiR., EluruN., BhatC.R., PendyalaR.M., AdlerT.J., and GouliasK. G.Design of Comprehensive Microsimulator of Household Vehicle Fleet Composition, Utilization, and Evolution. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2254, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 44–57.
20.
WalshM.Gendering Mobility: Women, Work and Automobility in the United States. History, Vol. 93, No. 311, 2008, pp. 376–395.
21.
KitamuraR., GolobT.F., YamamotoT., and WuG.Accessibility and Auto Use in a Motorized Metropolis. Presented at 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
22.
CaoX., MokhtarianP.L., and HandyS. L.Neighborhood Design and Vehicle Type Choice: Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006, pp. 133–145.
23.
OngP., and LeeC.Spatial Pattern of Vehicle Ownership by Vintage. University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 2007.
24.
YurkoA.From Consumer Incomes to Car Ages: How the Distribution of Income Affects the Distribution of Vehicle Vintages.MPRA Paper No. 8849. University Library of Munich, Germany, 2008.
25.
ChaoL., and ShenQ.An Empirical Analysis of the Influence of Urban Form on Household Travel and Energy Consumption. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 35, No. 5, 2011, pp. 347–357.
26.
ZolnikE. J.The Effect of Sprawl on Private-Vehicle Commuting Outcomes. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 43, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1875–1893.
27.
PinjariA.R., and BhatC. R.Computationally Efficient Forecasting Procedures for Kuhn–Tucker Consumer Demand Model Systems: Application to Residential Energy Consumption Analysis.Technical paper. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, 2011.
