The passenger capacity utilization of parallel trains on China’s high-speed railway (HSR) varies greatly, which seriously affects the revenue and passenger service quality of railroad companies. One of the key factors contributing to this issue is the uniformity of fares. To address this, China’s railway enterprises are implementing differential pricing reforms for parallel trains. This paper presents a two-step method that combines latent class analysis (LCA) and random parameter logit (RPL) models to estimate the preferences of diverse passengers for parallel trains and quantify them using willingness to pay. To illustrate this, we conducted revealed preference and stated preference questionnaire surveys at Nanning East Railway Station, China, focusing on the Nanning-Guangzhou HSR route. These surveys gathered data on passengers’ personal and travel attributes. LCA was carried out according to passenger attributes, and passengers were divided into three categories according to the goodness-of-fit measures. Through the questionnaire data, the travel time and departure time period of each category of the passenger were converted into costs, and the absolute value of each influencing factor of passengers for parallel trains was obtained. Considering the limited rational choice behavior of passengers, the perceived value of each influencing factor of passengers on parallel trains was calculated through prospect theory. Finally, an RPL model for parallel train choice of heterogeneous passengers was constructed, and the parameters of each category of the passenger were estimated based on the absolute value and perceived value of the influencing factors.
YongboX.JianC.XiaolingL. I. U.Joint Dynamic Pricing for Two Parallel Flights Based on Passenger Choice Behavior. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2008, PP. 46–55.
2.
ChouJ.-S.ChienY.-L.NguyenN.-M.TruongD.-N.Pricing Policy of Floating Ticket Fare for Riding High Speed Rail Based on Time-Space Compression. Transport Policy, Vol. 69, 2018, pp. 179–192.
3.
BreidertC.HahslerM.ReuttererT.A Review of Methods for Measuring Willingness-To-Pay. Innovative Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2006, pp. 8–32.
4.
KarmarkarO. D.JanaA.VelagaN. R.Willingness to Pay for Reduced Travel Time: Case Study of Mumbai - Ahmedabad High Speed Railway. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 12, 2023, p. 100974.
5.
HarveyJ.ThorpeN.CaygillM.NamdeoA.Public Attitudes to and Perceptions of High Speed Rail in the UK. Transport Policy, Vol. 36, 2014, pp. 70–78.
6.
WardmanM.A Review of British Evidence on Time and Service Quality Valuations. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 37, No. 2–3, 2001, pp. 107–128.
7.
ZampariniL.ReggianiA.Meta-Analysis and the Value of Travel Time Savings: A Transatlantic Perspective in Passenger Transport. Networks & Spatial Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2007, pp. 377–396.
8.
CascettaE.CoppolaP.An Elastic Demand Schedule-Based Multimodal Assignment Model for the Simulation of High Speed Rail (HSR) Systems. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Vol. 1, No. 1–2, 2012, pp. 3–27.
9.
VargheseV.JanaA.Impact of ICT on Multitasking During Travel and the Value of Travel Time Savings: Empirical Evidences from Mumbai, India. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 12, 2018, pp. 11–22.
10.
CherchiE.HensherD. A.Workshop Synthesis: Stated Preference Surveys and Experimental Design, an Audit of the Journey so Far and Future Research Perspectives. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 11, 2015, pp. 154–164.
11.
RománC.EspinoR.MartinJ. C.Analyzing Competition between the High Speed Train and Alternative Modes. The Case of the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona Corridor. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2010, pp. 84–108.
12.
YaoE. J.MorikawaT.A Study of on Integrated Intercity Travel Demand Model. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2005, pp. 367–381.
13.
JouR.-C.ChienJ.-Y.WuY.-C.A Study of Passengers’ Willingness to Pay for Business Class Seats of High-Speed Rail in Taiwan. Transportmetrica A-Transport Science, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2013, pp. 223–238.
14.
RománC.MartínJ. C.EspinoR.CherchiE.de Dios OrtúzarJ.RizziL. I.GonzálezR. M.AmadorF. J.Valuation of Travel Time Savings for Intercity Travel: The Madrid-Barcelona Corridor. Transport Policy, Vol. 36, 2014, pp. 105–117.
15.
PutriA. L.WidyastutiH.Study of Willingness to Pay the Jakarta-Bandung Highspeed Train: a Case Study of Argo Parahyangan Train Passangers. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 650, No. 1, 2019, p. 012048.
16.
EldeebG.MohamedM.Quantifying Preference Heterogeneity in Transit Service Desired Quality Using a Latent Class Choice Model. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 139, 2020, pp. 119–133.
17.
EspinoR.MartínJ. C.RománC.Analyzing the Effect of Preference Heterogeneity on Willingness to Pay for Improving Service Quality in an Airline Choice Context. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2008, pp. 593–606.
18.
GunayG.GokasarI.Market Segmentation Analysis for Airport Access Mode Choice Modeling with Mixed Logit. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 91, 2021, p. 102001.
19.
AhmedU.RoordaM. J.Modelling Carrier Type and Vehicle Type Choice of Small and Medium Size Firms. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 160, 2022, 102655.
20.
BasuD.HuntJ. D.Valuing of Attributes Influencing the Attractiveness of Suburban Train Service in Mumbai City: A Stated Preference Approach. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 9, 2012, pp. 1465–1476.
21.
BhatC. R.Quasi-Random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Logit Model. Transportation Research Part B-Methodological, Vol. 35, No. 7, 2001, pp. 677–693.
22.
Ben-AkivaM.McFaddenD.TrainK.WalkerJ.BhatC.BierlaireM.BolducD., et al. Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges. Marketing Letters, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002, pp. 163–175.
23.
BockenholtU.Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Journal of Classification, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2000, pp. 143–145.
24.
HetrakulP.CirilloC.Accommodating Taste Heterogeneity in Railway Passenger Choice Models Based on Internet Booking Data. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 6, 2013, pp. 1–16.
25.
WangY.ShiX.YinJ.NieS.Bioactive Polysaccharide from Edible Dictyophora spp.: Extraction, Purification, Structural Features and Bioactivities. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fibre, Vol. 14, 2018, pp. 25–32.
26.
WenC.-H.LaiS.-C.Latent Class Models of International Air Carrier Choice. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2010, pp. 211–221.
27.
SalasP.De la FuenteR.AstrozaS.CarrascoJ. A.A Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning Classifiers and Discrete Choice Models for Travel Mode Choice in the Presence of Response Heterogeneity. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 193, 2022, 116253.
28.
LiuY.KiangM.BruscoM.A Unified Framework for Market Segmentation and its Applications. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 11, 2012, pp. 10292–10302.
29.
HanY.PereiraF. C.Ben-AkivaM.ZegrasC.A Neural-Embedded Discrete Choice Model: Learning Taste Representation with Strengthened Interpretability. Transportation Research Part B-Methodological, Vol. 163, 2022, pp. 166–186.
30.
RafiqR.McNallyM. G.Heterogeneity in Activity-Travel Patterns of Public Transit Users: An Application of Latent Class Analysis. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 152, 2021, pp. 1–18.
31.
ArunotayanunK.PolakJ. W.Taste Heterogeneity and Market Segmentation in Freight Shippers’ Mode Choice Behaviour. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2011, pp. 138–148.
32.
LiuP.FanW.Exploring Injury Severity in Head-on Crashes Using Latent Class Clustering Analysis and Mixed Logit Model: A Case Study of North Carolina. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 135, 2020, p. 105388.
33.
AvineriE.The Effect of Reference Point on Stochastic Network Equilibrium. Transportation Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2006, pp. 409–420.
34.
ConnorsR. D.SumaleeA.A Network Equilibrium Model with Travellers’ Perception of Stochastic Travel Times. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 43, No.6, 2009, pp. 614–624.
35.
de PalmaA.Ben-AkivaM.BrownstoneD.HoltC.MagnacT.McFaddenD.MoffattP., et al. Risk, Uncertainty and Discrete Choice Models. Marketing Letters, Vol.19, No. 3–4, 2008, pp. 269–285.
36.
SchwanenTEttemaD.Coping with Unreliable Transportation When Collecting Children: Examining Parents’ Behavior with Cumulative Prospect Theory. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2009, pp. 511–525.
37.
CroninJ. J.BradyM. K.HultG. T. M.Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 2, 2000, pp. 193–218.
38.
Shu-hongM. A.ZhouY.ZhangY.Travel Mode Choice Forecasting Based on Nested Logit-Cumulative Prospect Theory Model. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2019, pp. 135–142.
39.
SunY.ShuaiB.HuangW.Study on the Improvement Model of Commuter Passenger Flow Route Selection in Urban Rail Transit. Journal of Transportation Engineering and Information, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2019, pp. 75–81.
40.
WuD.MartinJ. C.Research on Passengers’ Preference for High-Speed Railways (HSRs) and High-Speed Trains (HSTs). Sustainability, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2022, p. 1473.
41.
NuzzoloA.CrisalliU.GangemiF.A Behavioural Choice Model for the Evaluation of Railway Supply and Pricing Policies. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2000, pp. 395–404.
42.
KuhfeldW. F.TobiasR. D.GarrattM.Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1994, pp. 545–557.
43.
RoseJ. M.BliemerM. C. J.Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2009, pp. 587–617.
44.
SmithE. M.Design of Small Sample Home Interview Travel Surveys. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1979.701: 29-35.
45.
EboliL.MazzullaG.A Methodology for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objective Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2011, pp. 172–181.
46.
NesheliM. M.CederA.BrissaudR.Public Transport Service-Quality Elements based on Real-Time Operational Tactics. Transportation, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2017, pp. 957–975.
47.
SamE. F.HamiduO.DanielsS.SERVQUAL Analysis of Public Bus Transport Services in Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana: Core User Perspectives. Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018, pp. 25–31.
48.
RoseJ. M.BliemerM. C. J.Sample Size Requirements for Stated Choice Experiments. Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2013, pp. 1021–1041.
49.
ZhaoP.LiY.LiB.Study on the Train Choice Behavior for High-Speed Railway Passenger Considering the Departure Time Preference. Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2017, pp. 49–54.
50.
TianL.HuangH.XuY.Modeling the Multi-Class Network Equilibrium for Travelers with Heterogeneous Reference Points. Journal of Management Sciences in China, Vol. 17, No. 7, 2014, pp. 1–9.
51.
LeeJ. K.YooK. E.SongK. H.A Study on Travelers’ Transport Mode Choice Behavior Using the Mixed Logit Model: A Case Study of the Seoul-Jeju Route. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 56, 2016, pp. 131–137.
