Joint Models for Consideration of Public Transit and Mode Choice for Work Commute

Transportation in Developing Economies - Tập 6 - Trang 1-14 - 2020
Ganesh Ambi Ramakrishnan1, Karthik K. Srinivasan1, Surya Pavan Pynda1
1Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

Tóm tắt

The mode share of public transit has been decreasing in many Indian cities, while the ownership and usage of personal vehicles continue to grow. It is important to understand the reason behind this decline in transit ridership and frame policies to reverse this trend. Traditional mode choice models assume that all the modes are considered in the choice set while making a decision, which may not be realistic due to the following reasons. Individuals may not consider some modes due to the unavailability, lack of information, or infeasibility, or incompatibility with their travel and activity patterns. By ignoring this consideration process and assuming that all modes are available can lead to mis-specified models and erroneous policy evaluations. Thus, it is important to model both consideration and mode choice outcomes jointly. Accordingly, the main objective of this paper is to develop a joint model for three inter-related choice dimensions: (1) the consideration of bus, (2) the consideration of train, and (3) the primary mode for the home to work commute. These models are estimated using data from a sample of workers in Chennai city and the key explanatory variables influencing them are investigated. A positive correlation between the consideration of bus and train is found. The results also show that consideration of public transport modes influences the mode choice as expected. Furthermore, the coefficient of (log of) consideration probability on choice utility is significantly different from one (an assumption in many implicit availability/perception models). Also, some of the factors affected both the consideration and choice decisions, thus providing evidence that there is a partial (not complete) mediation effect of consideration on choice. Comparison with alternative models shows that neglecting these effects of consideration on choice can lead to biased coefficients, erroneous inferences, and poor model fit. The degree of vehicle availability and accessibility to transit stations exhibit varied effects in the choice of bus and train modes. In addition, their influence differs between the consideration and choice stages. The findings from this study could help decision-makers in developing separate policies for augmenting the consideration of public transit versus those that aim to retain or increase market shares.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Shocker AD, Ben-akiva M, Boccara B, Nedungadi P, Letters SM, Making CD, Behavior C, Ben-akiva M (1991) Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice : issues, models, and suggestions. Market Lett 2(3):181–197

Nedungadi P (1990) Recall and consumer consideration sets: influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. J Consum Res 17(3):263–276. https://doi.org/10.1086/208556

Manski CF (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theor Decis 8(3):229–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133443

Cascetta E, Papola A (2001) Random utility models with implicit availability/perception of choice alternatives for the simulation of travel demand. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 9(4):249–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(00)00036-X

Gadepalli R, Tiwari G, Bolia N (2018) Role of user’s socio-economic and travel characteristics in mode choice between city bus and informal transit services: lessons from household surveys in Visakhapatnam, India. J Transp Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.08.017

Bhat CR (1997) Work travel mode choice and number of non-work commute stops. Transp Res Part B Methodol 31(1):41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(96)00016-1

Portoghese A, Spissu E, Bhat CR, Eluru N, Meloni I (2011) A copula-based joint model of commute mode choice and number of non-work stops during the commute. Int J Transp Econ 38(3):337–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9153-5

Paleti R (2015) Implicit choice set generation in discrete choice models: application to household auto ownership decisions. Transp Res Part B Methodol 80:132–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2015.06.015

Swait J, Ben-Akiva ME (1987) Incorporating random constraints in discrete choice set generation. Transp Res Part B 21B(2):91–102

Calastri C, Hess S, Choudhury C, Daly A, Gabrielli L (2019) Mode choice with latent availability and consideration: theory and a case study. Transp Res Part B Methodol 123:374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.06.016

Enam A (2010) Developing a comprehensive mode choice model to capture the preferences for mass rapid transit in Dhaka. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh

Mark JIG, Marcel GD (1979) The dogit model. Transp Res Part B Methodol 13B(2):105–111

da Sanches SP, de Arruda FS (2002) Incorporating nonmotorized modes in a mode choice model. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 1818(1):89–93. https://doi.org/10.3141/1818-14

Srinivasan KK, Pradhan GN, Naidu GM (2007) Commute mode choice in a developing country. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2038(1):53–61. https://doi.org/10.3141/2038-07

Rashedi Z, Habib KN (2019) A semi-compensatory choice model with probabilistic choice set: combining implicit choice set within probabilistic choice set formation. In: 98th Annual Meeting of TRB. Washington DC, p 25

Kunhikrishnan P, Srinivasan KK (2017) Choice set variability and contextual heterogeneity in work trip mode choice in Chennai City. Transp Lett 11(4):174–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2017.1299396

Swait J (2001) A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs. Transp Res Part B Methodol 35(10):903–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00030-8

Castro M, Martínez F, Munizaga MA (2013) Estimation of a constrained multinomial logit model. Transportation 40(3):563–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9435-4

Martínez F, Aguila F, Hurtubia R (2009) The constrained multinomial logit: a semi-compensatory choice model. Transp Res Part B Methodol 43(3):365–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2008.06.006

Sana B, Outwater M, Ferdous N, Woodford B, Lobb J (2011) Characteristics of premium transit services that affect choice of mode. The National Academies Press, Washington

Tirachini A, Hensher DA, Rose JM (2013) Crowding in public transport systems: effects on users, operation and implications for the estimation of demand. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 53:36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.06.005

Manoj K, Vikas A (2016) Public Transport service quality and passenger satisfaction: a case of UPSRTC, Agra, India. Pacif Bus Rev Int 8(11):82–92

Srinivasan S, Rogers P (2005) Travel behavior of low-income residents: studying two contrasting locations in the city of Chennai, India. J Transp Geogr 13(3):265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.07.008

Srinivasan KK, Bhargavi P (2007) Longer-term changes in mode choice decisions in chennai: a comparison between cross-sectional and dynamic models. Transportation 34(3):355–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9116-x

Suman HK, Bolia NB, Tiwari G (2017) Comparing public bus transport service attributes in Delhi and Mumbai: policy implications for improving bus services in Delhi. Transp Policy 56(March):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.002

Advani M, Tiwari G (2005) Evaluation of public transport systems: case study of Delhi Metro. In: START-2005 Conference held at IIT Kharagpur, India, No. 2003, pp 1–8

Maitra B, Dandapat S, Chintakayala P (2015) Differences between the perceptions of captive and choice riders toward bus service attributes and the need for segmentation of bus services in Urban India. J Urban Plan Dev 141(2):04014018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000205

Das S, Pandit D (2015) Determination of level-of-service scale values for quantitative bus transit service attributes based on user perception. Transportmetr A Transp Sci 11(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2014.910563

Tiwari G, Jain D, Rao KR (2016) Impact of public transport and non-motorized transport infrastructure on travel mode shares, energy, emissions and safety: case of Indian cities. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 44:277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.11.004

Ashalatha R, Manju VS, Zacharia AB (2012) mode choice behavior of commuters in Thiruvananthapuram City. J Transp Eng 139(5):494–502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)te.1943-5436.0000533

Das S, Pandit D (2016) Methodology to determine service delivery levels for public transportation. Transp Plan Technol 39(2):195–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2015.1127541

Schwanen T, Mokhtarian PL (2005) What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? J Transp Geogr 13(1):83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.11.001

Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. 1–2. https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/Tamilnadu.html. Accessed 23 May 2019

Associates W (2010) Chennai Comprehensive Transportation Study. Chennai, India

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Transportation in Developing Economies

Tập 6

1-14

Thông tin tác giả