Incorporating Driver Behaviors in Network Design Problems: Challenges and Opportunities

References

• Allais, M. (1979). The so-called allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty. In M. Allais and O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses and the allais paradox (pp. 437–681). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Avineri, E. (2006). The effect of reference point on stochastic network equilibrium. Transportation Science, 40(4), 409–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avineri, E., & Bovy, P. H. (2008). Identification of parameters for a prospect theory model for travel choice analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2082(1), 141–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avineri, E., & Prashker, J. N. (2004). Violations of expected utility theory in route-choice stated preferences: Certainty effect and inflation of small probabilities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1894(1), 222–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avineri, E., & Prashker, J. N. (2005). Sensitivity to travel time variability: travelers learning perspective. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 13(2), 157–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., & Prashker, J. (2001). Stochastic user equilibrium formulation for generalized nested logit model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1752(1), 84–90.
   Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., Chorus, C., & Toledo, T. (2012). Stochastic user equilibrium for route choice model based on random regret minimization. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2284(1), 100–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva, M., & Bierlaire, M. (1999). Discrete choice methods and their applications to short-term travel decisions. In R. Hall (Ed.), Handbook of transportation science, (pp. 5–34). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Elia, E., Di Pace, R., Bifulco, G. N., & Shiftan, Y. (2013a). The impact of travel informations accuracy on route-choice. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 26, 146–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Elia, E., Erev, I., & Shiftan, Y. (2008). The combined effect of information and experience on drivers route-choice behavior. Transportation, 35(2), 165–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Elia, E., Ishaq, R., & Shiftan, Y. (2013b). “If only I had taken the other road … ”: Regret, risk and reinforced learning in informed route-choice. Transportation, 40(2), 269–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bliemer, M. C., Raadsen, M. P., Smits, E.-S., Zhou, B., & Bell, M. G. (2014). Quasi-dynamic traffic assignment with residual point queues incorporating a first order node model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 68, 363–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braess, D., Nagurney, A., & Wakolbinger, T. (2005). On a paradox of traffic planning. Transportation Science, 39(4), 446–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cascetta, E., Nuzzolo, A., Russo, F., & Vitetta, A. (1996). A modified logit route choice model over- coming path overlapping problems: Specification and some calibration results for interurban networks. Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on transportation and traffic theory. Pergamon Lyon, France, pp. 697–711.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo, E., Menéndez, J. M., Jiménez, P., & Rivas, A. (2008). Closed form expressions for choice probabilities in the Weibull case. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(4), 373–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, M.-S., & Chen, H.-K. (2000). A fuzzy user-optimal route choice problem using a link-based fuzzy variational inequality formulation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(2), 339–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, M., Bernstein, D. H., & Spasovic, L. N. (2004). Toll-design problem with stochastic route choice. Environment and Planning B, 31, 731–742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, A., Pravinvongvuth, S., Xu, X., Ryu, S., & Chootinan, P. (2012). Examining the scaling effect and overlapping problem in logit-based stochastic user equilibrium models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(8), 1343–1358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, X. M., Zhang, L., He, X., Xiong, C., & Li, Z. (2014). Surrogate-based optimization of expensive- to-evaluate objective for optimal highway toll charges in transportation network. Computer- Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(5), 359–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu, Y.-C., Zhou, L., & Song, H. (2010). Development and calibration of the anisotropic mesoscopic simulation model for uninterrupted flow facilities. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(1), 152–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. (2012a). Random regret minimization: an overview of model properties and empirical evidence. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 75–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. G. (2012b). Regret theory-based route choices and traffic equilibria. Transportmetrica, 8(4), 291–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. G. (2014). A generalized random regret minimization model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 68, 224–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. G., Arentze, T. A., & Timmermans, H. J. (2008). A random regret-minimization model of travel choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(1), 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. G., & Bierlaire, M. (2013). An empirical comparison of travel choice models that capture preferences for compromise alternatives. Transportation, 40(3), 549–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. G., Rose, J. M., & Hensher, D. A. (2013). Regret minimization or utility maximization: it depends on the attribute. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(1), 154–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chorus, C. (2010). A new model of random regret minimization. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(2), 181–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, C. A. (1989). Paired combinatorial logit model for travel demand analysis. Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Transportation Research, vol. 4. Ventura, CA, pp. 295–309.
   Google Scholar
• Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 669–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connors, R. D., & Sumalee, A. (2009). A network equilibrium model with travellers’ perception of stochastic travel times. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 43(6), 614–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, G. A. (1994). Exact local solution of the continuous network design problem via stochastic user equilibrium assignment. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 28(1), 61–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di, X., He, X., Guo, X., & Liu, H. X. (2014). Braess paradox under the boundedly rational user equilibria. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 67, 86–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di, X., Liu, H. X., Pang, J.-S., & Ban, X. J. (2013). Boundedly rational user equilibria (BRUE): Mathematical formulation and solution sets. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 57, 300–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erev, I., & Barron, G. (2005). On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychological Review, 112(4), 912–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisk, C. (1980). Some developments in equilibrium traffic assignment. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 14(3), 243–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, S. (2005). Optimal adaptive routing and traffic assignment in stochastic time-dependent networks (PhD thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Gao, S., Frejinger, E., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2008). Adaptive route choice models in stochastic time- dependent networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2085(1), 136–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, S., Frejinger, E., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2010). Adaptive route choices in risky traffic networks: A prospect theory approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 18(5), 727–740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, X. (2013). Toll sequence operation to realize target flow pattern under bounded rationality. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 56, 203–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, X., & Liu, H. X. (2011). Bounded rationality and irreversible network change. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45(10), 1606–1618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, K., Szeto, W., & Friesz, T. L. (2014). Formulation, existence, and computation of simultaneous route-and-departure choice bounded rationality dynamic user equilibrium with fixed or endogenous user tolerance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.1211.
   Google Scholar
• Han, S. (2003). Dynamic traffic modelling and dynamic stochastic user equilibrium assignment for general road networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(3), 225–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hearn, D. W., & Ramana, M. V. (1998). Solving congestion toll pricing models. In P. Marcotte and S. Nguyen (Eds.), Equilibrium and advanced transportation modelling (pp. 109–124). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Henn, V. (2000). Fuzzy route choice model for traffic assignment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 116(1), 77–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henn, V. (2003). Route choice making under uncertainty: A fuzzy logic based approach. In J. Verdegay (Ed.), Fuzzy sets-based heuristics for optimization (pp. 277–292). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Henn, V., & Ottomanelli, M. (2006). Handling uncertainty in route choice models: From probabilistic to possibilistic approaches. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(3), 1526–1538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. (2014). Attribute processing as a behavioural strategy in choice making. In S. Hess and A. Daly (Ed.), Handbook of choice modelling (pp. 268–289). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., Greene, W. H., & Li, Z. (2011). Embedding risk attitude and decision weights in non-linear logit to accommodate time variability in the value of expected travel time savings. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45(7), 954–972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., & Li, Z. (2012). Valuing travel time variability within a rank-dependent utility framework and an investigation of unobserved taste heterogeneity. Journal of Transport Eco- nomics and Policy (JTEP), 46(2), 293–312.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., Li, Z., & Ho, C. (2015). The role of source preference and subjective probability in valuing expected travel time savings. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2(1), 42–54.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., Li, Z., & Rose, J. M. (2013a). Accommodating risk in the valuation of expected travel time savings. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 47(2), 206–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Collins, A. T. (2013b). Understanding buy-in for risky prospects: incorporating degree of belief into the ex-ante assessment of support for alternative road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 47(3), 453–473.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A. (2013). A mixed random utilityrandom regret model linking the choice of decision rule to latent character traits. Journal of Choice Modelling, 9, 27–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A., & Daly, A. (2012). Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies. Transportation, 39(3), 565–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, L. J., & Nelson, B. L. (2009). A brief introduction to optimization via simulation. Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 75–85.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, J. L. (1984). The stability of stochastic equilibrium in a two-link transportation network. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 18(1), 13–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, T.-Y., & Mahmassani, H. S. (1997). Day-to-day evolution of network flows under real-time information and reactive signal control. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 5(1), 51–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayakrishnan, R., Mahmassani, H. S., & Hu, T.-Y. (1994). An evaluation tool for advanced traffic information and management systems in urban networks. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 129–147.
   Google Scholar
• Jha, M., Madanat, S., & Peeta, S. (1998). Perception updating and day-to-day travel choice dynamics in traffic networks with information provision. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 6(3), 189–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jou, R.-C., & Chen, K.-H. (2013). An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 123–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econo- metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitthamkesorn, S., & Chen, A. (2013). A path-size weibit stochastic user equilibrium model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 80, 608–632.
   Google Scholar
• Koppelman, F. S., & C.-H. Wen. (2000). The paired combinatorial logit model: properties, estimation and application. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 34(2), 75–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leong, W., & Hensher, D. A. (2015). Contrasts of relative advantage maximisation with random utility maximisation and regret minimisation. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 49(1), 167–186.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Z., & Hensher, D. (2011). Prospect theoretic contributions in understanding traveller behaviour: A review and some comments. Transport Reviews, 31(1), 97–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Z., Tirachini, A., & Hensher, D. A. (2012). Embedding risk attitudes in a scheduling model: application to the study of commuting departure time. Transportation Science, 46(2), 170–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, Y., & Heydecker, B. (2005). Dynamic departure time and stochastic user equilibrium assign- ment. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39(2), 97–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, Y., Heydecker, B. G., & Lee, S. (2005). A continuous network design model in stochastic user equilibrium based on sensitivity analysis. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 39(1), 63–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Z., Wang, S., & Meng, Q. (2014). Toll pricing framework under logit-based stochastic user equilibrium constraints. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 48(8), 1121–1137.
   Google Scholar
• Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92, 805–824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotan, T., & Koutsopoulos, H. N. (1993). Models for route choice behavior in the presence of information using concepts from fuzzy set theory and approximate reasoning. Transportation, 20(2), 129–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou, Y., Yin, Y., & Lawphongpanich, S. (2010). Robust congestion pricing under boundedly rational user equilibrium. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(1), 15–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X., Gao, S., & Ben-Elia, E. (2011). Information impacts on route choice and learning behavior in a congested network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2243(1), 89–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmassani, H. S., & Chang, G.-L. (1987). On boundedly rational user equilibrium in transportation systems. Transportation Science, 21(2), 89–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmassani, H. S., & Liu, Y.-H. (1999). Dynamics of commuting decision behaviour under advanced traveller information systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 7(2), 91–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Moraes Ramos, G., Daamen, W., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2013). Modelling travellers’ heterogeneous route choice behaviour as prospect maximizers. Journal of Choice Modelling, 6, 17–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murat, Y. S., & Uludag, N. (2008). Route choice modelling in urban transportation networks using fuzzy logic and logistic regression methods. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 67(1), 19–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama, S., Kitamura, R., & Fujii, S. (2001). Drivers’ route choice rules and network behavior: Do drivers become rational and homogeneous through learning? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1752(1), 62–68.
   Google Scholar
• Prashker, J. N., & Bekhor, S. (2000). Congestion, stochastic, and similarity effects in stochastic: User-equilibrium models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1733(1), 80–87.
   Google Scholar
• Prashker, J. N., & Bekhor, S. (2004). Route choice models used in the stochastic user equilibrium problem: A review. Transport Reviews, 24(4), 437–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prato, C. G. (2009). Route choice modeling: Past, present and future research directions. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2(1), 65–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quattrone, A., & Vitetta, A. (2011). Random and fuzzy utility models for road route choice. Trans- portation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 1126–1139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Queipo, N. V., Haftka, R. T., Shyy, W., Goel, T., Vaidyanathan, R., & Kevin Tucker, P. (2005). Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 41(1), 1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramazani, H., Shafahi, Y., & Seyedabrishami, S. (2011). A fuzzy traffic assignment algorithm based on driver perceived travel time of network links. Scientia Iranica, 18(2), 190–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos, G. M., Daamen, W., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2014). A state-of-the-art review: Developments in utility theory, prospect theory and regret theory to investigate travellers’ behaviour in situations involving travel time uncertainty. Transport Reviews, 34(1), 46–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridwan, M. (2004). Fuzzy preference based traffic assignment problem. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 12(3), 209–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanen, T., & Ettema, D. (2009). Coping with unreliable transportation when collecting children: examining parents’ behavior with cumulative prospect theory. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(5), 511–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senbil, M., & Kitamura, R. (2004). Reference points in commuter departure time choice: A prospect of theoretic test of alternative decision frames. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8(1), 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Sheffi, Y. (1985). Urban transportation networks: Equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szeto, W., & Lo, H. K. (2006). Dynamic traffic assignment: Properties and extensions. Transport- metrica, 2(1), 31–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, Y., & Gao, S. (2015). An exploratory study of instance-based learning for network route choice. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting. 15-5503.
   Google Scholar
• Teodorović, D., & Kikuchi, S. (1990). Transportation route choice model using fuzzy inference technique. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis, IEEE, College Park, Maryland, USA, pp. 140–145.
   Google Scholar
• Teodorović, D., Vukanović, S., & Obradović, K. (1998). Modeling route choice with advanced traveler information by fuzzy logic. Transportation Planning and Technology, 22(1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, L.-J., Huang, H.-J., & Gao, Z.-Y. (2012). A cumulative perceived value-based dynamic user equilibrium model considering the travelers’ risk evaluation on arrival time. Networks and Spatial Economics, 12(4), 589–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchida, K., Sumalee, A., Watling, D., & Connors, R. (2007). A study on network design problems for multi-modal networks by probit-based stochastic user equilibrium. Networks and Spatial Economics, 7(3), 213–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uuniversity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vovsha, P. (1997). Application of cross-nested logit model to mode choice in Tel Aviv, Israel, metropolitan area. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1607(1), 6–15.
   Google Scholar
• Vythoulkas, P. C., & Koutsopoulos, H. N. (2003). Modeling discrete choice behavior using concepts from fuzzy set theory, approximate reasoning and neural networks. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 11(1), 51–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H.-F., & Liao, H.-L. (1999). User equilibrium in traffic assignment problem with fuzzy N–A incidence matrix. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 107(3), 245–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen, C.-H., & Koppelman, F. S. (2001). The generalized nested logit model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 35(7), 627–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J., Sun, H., Wang, D. Z., Zhong, M., Han, L., & Gao, Z. (2013). Bounded-rationality based day-to-day evolution model for travel behavior analysis of urban railway network. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 31, 73–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong, C., & Zhang, L. (2013). Positive model of departure time choice under road pricing and uncertainty. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2345(1), 117–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, H., Lou, Y., Yin, Y., & Zhou, J. (2011a). A prospect-based user equilibrium model with endoge- nous reference points and its application in congestion pricing. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45(2), 311–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, H., Zhou, J., & Xu, W. (2011b). A decision-making rule for modeling travelers’ route choice behavior based on cumulative prospect theory. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(2), 218–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, H. (1999). System optimum, stochastic user equilibrium, and optimal link tolls. Transportation Science, 33(4), 354–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. (2006a). Agent-based behavioral model of spatial learning and route choice. Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting. 06-2577.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. (2006b). Search, information, learning, and knowledge in travel decision-making [PhD thesis]. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. (2007). Developing a positive approach to travel demand forecasting: Theory and model. Traffic and Transportation Theory, 17, 136–150.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. (2011). Behavioral foundation of route choice and traffic assignment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2254(1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, Z., Chen, A., & Bekhor, S. (2012). C-logit stochastic user equilibrium model: Formulations and solution algorithm. Transportmetrica, 8(1), 17–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, S., & Levinson, D. (2010). Do people use the shortest path? An empirical test of Wardrop's first principle. Paper presented at the 91th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 8, Washington.
   Google Scholar