Application of Cross-Nested Logit Model to Mode Choice in Tel Aviv, Israel, Metropolitan Area

Abstract

Currently, modal split modeling is done mainly by means of disaggregated mode choice models. The almost absolute dominance of multinomial and nested logit models over other mode choice models among applied transportation modelers is attributable to their theoretical soundness, to their simple and understandable analytical structure, and to the calibration procedures that have been developed. Typical urban transport systems, however, are characterized by a variety of modes including private (automobile), public transit (bus, suburban rail, light rail, and subway), and various combinations of these. Analysis reveals that the nested logit model based on the assumption of groupwise similarities among modes is not a suitable modeling tool in such situations. A cross-nested model that is derived from the generalized extreme value class and that can be thought of as a generalization of the nested logit model is proposed. The model takes into account the cross similarities between different pure and combined modes. The cross-nested structure allows for the introduction of the differentiated measurement of pairwise similarities among modes as opposed to the inflexible groupwise similarities permitted by the nested logit model. The proposed model is described, and it is compared with alternative modeling constructs.

Modelling the spatial interactions between workplace and residential location

“…According to Bierlaire (2006) there have been various formulations of the CNL model presented in the literature such as proposed by Small (1987) or Vovsha (1997). However the most general were those presented by Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire (1999) and Wen and Koppelman (2001).…”

A joint model for vehicle type and fuel type choice: evidence from a cross-nested logit study

“…is both a correlation between alternatives A and B, and between alternatives A and C, but no correlation between alternatives B and C. The CNL model has its origins in the work of McFadden (1988), while the first use of the term cross-nested logit is usually attributed to Vovsha (1997 Papola (2004), and Wen & Koppelman (2001). The differences between the models arise primarily from the specification of the allocation parameters and the conditions associated with these parameters.…”

Airline customer loyalty through analysis of stated preference

“…This assumption for the distribution of residuals is rather simplistic, once they depend on the hypothesis of independence and homoscedasticity of the residues (Ben-Akiva et al, 2003). A series of models with more flexible structures has been proposed to allow the estimation of models with correlation between alternatives and structures, variations of MNL, as Hierarchical logit models (Williams, 1977) and cross-nested logit (Vovsha, 1997). The traditional way to capture heterogeneity of preferences in discrete choice models has been the inclusion of systematic variations of preferences (Train, 2009;Ortúzar and Willumsen, 2011).…”