Collaborate or Compete? Time-Varying Incentives versus Tolling in Parallel Bottleneck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incentive-based traffic demand management (IBTDM) schemes redistribute traffic demand across space and time. The relationship between IBTDM and traditional tolling programs impacts financial sustainability and decision making of both programs. This study aims to examine if an IBTDM and a tolling program can coexist and should collaborate or compete to establish a financially sustainable mobility ecosystem. We investigate a duopoly case with an IBTDM and a tolling program in a parallel bottleneck model with fixed demand. It is assumed that the IBTDM program has a user acquisition cost and is constrained by a total budget. Then, the collaboration and competition cases between two programs are investigated, respectively. We found that both programs can attract substantial amounts of commuters and thus can coexist with each other, while the IBTDM program could attract more commuters. Overall, the tolling agency will not cooperate with the IBTDM company if its goal is to raise revenue. Additionally, the IBTDM company held an advantage as it can determine an optimal incentive scheme with incomplete information when competing. This study fills the knowledge gap on the coexistence of incentive and tolling programs, which helps to optimize the profiles of incentive and tolling, as well as to make strategic decisions on competition and cooperation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".