This article empirically tests for positive network effects in transit use by applying a spatial autoregressive logit mode choice model with 1997/98 work trip data from New York City. Positive network effects exist when people prefer to use transit together with other people as a result of social spill-over. Although these network preferences should differ for each person, because of statistical restrictions in the model, individual network preferences cannot be obtained. However, it is possible to derive econometrically a measure of aggregate network preference. This paper can be seen in the wider context of other recent work focusing on the analysis of spatial dependencies and network effects in travel.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anselin, L. (1988) Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2.
Anselin, L. (2002) Spatial regression analysis short course. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
3.
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Boldoc, D., Laferriere, R. and Santarossa, G. (1995) Spatial autoregressive error components in travel flow models: an application to aggregate mode choice, in: L. Anselin and R. J. G. M. Florax (Eds) New Directions in Spatial Econometrics , pp. 96—108. Berlin : Springer Verlag.
5.
Brock, W. and Durlauf, S. (2001) Discrete choice with social interactions, Review of Economic Studies, 68(2), pp. 235—260.
6.
Brock, W. and Durlauf, S. (2002) A multinomialchoice model of neighborhood effects , American Economic Review, 92(2), pp. 298—303.
7.
Fleming, M. (2004) Techniques for estimating spatially dependent discrete choice models, in: L. Anselin,R. Florax and S. Rey (Eds) Advances in Spatial Econometrics, pp. 145—168. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
8.
Goetzke, F. (2003) Are travel demand forecasting models biased because of uncorrected spatial autocorrelation?Paper presented at the North American Meeting of the Regional Science Association International , Philadelphia, PA, November.
9.
Goetzke, F. (2006) Mode choice and social networks: the economics of walking, bicycling and public transit use. Unpublished dissertation essay , West Virginia University.
10.
Green, A. (2005) A hesitant Puerto Rico tries commuting by train , The New York Times, 19 November.
11.
Kain, J.F. (1992) The use of strawmen in the economic evaluation of rail transport projects, American Economic Review, 82(2), pp. 487—493.
12.
LeSage, J.P. and Pace, R.K. (2005) Spatial econometric modeling of origin—destination flows. Paper presented at the 52nd North American Meeting of the Regional Science Association International, La Vegas, November.
13.
LeSage, J.P. and Polasek, W. (2005) Incorporating transportation network structure in spatial econometric models of commodity flows. Unpublished paper, University of Toledo.
14.
McFadden, D. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: P. Zarembka (Ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics, pp. 105—142. New York : Academic Press.
15.
NYMTC (New York Metropolitan Transportation Council) (2004) New York best practice model (BPM) for regional travel demand forecasting (http://www.nymtc.org/project/BPM/model/bpmuserdoc.pdf).
16.
Páez, A. and Scott, D.M. (2005) A discrete choice approach to modeling social influence on individual decision making. Revised version of a presentation at the 51st North American Meeting of the Regional Science Association International, Seattle, WA.
17.
Páez, A. and Scott, D.M. (2007) Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute, Environment and Planning A, 39(3), pp. 647—665.
18.
Pickrell, D.H. (1989) Urban rail transit projects: forecasts vs. actual ridership and costs. US Department of Transportation, Transportation System Center, Cambridge, MA.
19.
Train, K. (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
