Public Transit Itinerary Choice Analysis Considering Various Incentives

Abstract

Previous research on public transport user preferences has primarily focused on mode choice, transfer penalties, and preferences related to service qualities. Individuals are generally found to not like waiting, transfers, or overcrowding. However, from an operation perspective, it could be important to convince users to change to a different itinerary to reduce overcrowding, which can cause problems such as bunching. This would most likely require convincing the user to voluntarily accept a longer wait or to take a different route potentially with a transfer. One means of doing so might be through incentives or offering a shared taxi. Incentivizing transit users to switch to a less-crowded itinerary, which could potentially be a way to manage bus overcrowding, is not well-studied. Through a discrete choice experiment, this study thus filled this research gap by testing people’s willingness to change routes or to take a shared taxi in exchange for one of three distinct types of incentives. A mixed binary logit model and a mixed nested logit model were used to investigate how different factors influence public transit user itinerary choice behavior. The results suggested that some people would be willing to change to the proposed alternative. Heterogeneity within the responses was seen as transit users were found to have distinct preferences for different incentives, and the value of the incentives influenced users differently. Our models and results could be helpful for public transit agencies to improve efficiency and reduce costs by better balancing the travel demand.

Keywords

planning and analysis traveler behavior and values behavior analysis preference survey data analysis public transportation public transportation marketing and fare policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

De Vos

Waygood

E. O. D.

Letarte

Modeling the Desire for Using Public Transport. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 19, No. 2019, 2020, pp. 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.12.005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.12.005.

Gao

Sun

Incorporating Inertia in Mode Choice and Influential Factors of Car Stickiness: Implications for Shifts to Public Transit. Promet–Traffic & Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2018, pp. 293–303. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v30i3.2507.

Grison

Gyselinck

Burkhardt

J. M.

Exploring Factors Related to Users’ Experience of Public Transport Route Choice: Influence of Context and Users Profiles. Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2016, pp. 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0359-6.

Pan

Waygood

E. O. D.

Patterson

Would You Wait? Bus Choice Behavior Analysis Considering Various Incentives. Transportation Research Record, 2022. 2676(7): 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221076843.

Arentze

T. A.

Molin

E. J.

Travelers’ Preferences in Multimodal Networks: Design and Results of a Comprehensive Series of Choice Experiments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 58, 2013, pp. 15–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.005.

Frei

Hyland

Mahmassani

H. S.

Flexing Service Schedules: Assessing the Potential for Demand-Adaptive Hybrid Transit Via a Stated Preference Approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 76, 2017, pp. 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.12.017.

Mulley

Hensher

Rose

Will Bus Travellers Walk Further for a More Frequent Service? An International Study using a Stated Preference Approach. Transport Policy, Vol. 69, 2018, pp. 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.06.002.

Lindenberg

Steg

Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2007, pp. 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x.

Daziano

Waygood

E. O.

Patterson

Feinberg

Wang

Reframing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information Presentation on the Environmental Protection Agency’s New-Vehicle Labels to Increase Willingness to Pay. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 279, 2021, p. 123669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123669.

10.

Gaker

Vautin

Vij

Walker

J. L.

The Power and Value of Green in Promoting Sustainable Transport Behavior. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2011, p. 034010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034010.

11.

Eluru

Chakour

El-Geneidy

A. M.

Travel Mode Choice and Transit Route Choice Behavior in Montreal: Insights from McGill University Members Commute Patterns. Public Transport, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2012, pp. 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-012-0056-2.

12.

Grison

Burkhardt

J. M.

Gyselinck

How Do Users Choose Their Routes in Public Transport? The Effect of Individual Profile and Contextual Factors. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 51, 2017, pp. 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.08.011.

13.

Raveau

Guo

Muñoz

J. C.

Wilson

N. H.

A Behavioural Comparison of Route Choice on Metro Networks: Time, Transfers, Crowding, Topology and Socio-Demographics. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2014, pp. 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.05.010.

14.

Guo

Mind the Map! The Impact of Transit Maps on Path Choice in Public Transit. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45, No. 7, 2011, pp. 625–639. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.04.001.

15.

Raveau

Muñoz

J. C.

de Grange

A Topological Route Choice Model for Metro. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2011, pp. 138–147. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585641000162X.

16.

Jánošíkova

Slavík

Koháni

Estimation of a Route Choice Model for Urban Public Transport Using Smart Card Data. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 37, No. 7, 2014, pp. 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2014.935570.

17.

Chowdhury

Ceder

Sachdeva

The Effects of Planned and Unplanned Transfers on Public Transport Users’ Perception of Transfer Routes. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2014, pp. 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2013.851511.

18.

Ettema

Knockaert

Verhoef

Using Incentives as Traffic Management Tool: Empirical Results of the “Peak Avoidance” Experiment. Transportation Letters, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, pp. 39–51. https://doi.org/10.3328/TL.2010.02.01.39-51.

19.

Arian

Ermagun

Zhu

Chiu

Y. C.

An Empirical Investigation of the Reward Incentive and Trip Purposes on Departure Time Behavior Change. Advances in Transport Policy and Planning, Vol. 1, 2018, pp. 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2018.07.001.

20.

Louviere

Hensher

Swait

Stated Choice Methods: Analysis And Application. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

21.

Ben-Akiva

M. E.

Lerman

S. R.

Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, vol. 9. MIT Press, Massachusetts, 1985.

22.

Bierlaire, M. A Short Introduction to PandasBiogeme. Technical report TRANSP-OR 200605. Transport and Mobility Laboratory, ENAC, EPFL, 2020

23.

Basnak

Giesen

Muñoz

J. C.

Estimation of Crowding Factors for Public Transport During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Santiago, Chile. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 159, 2022, pp. 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.011.