This study identifies the determinants of commuter’s perception and shift behaviour towards new-age transport services. Convenience is an essential determinant in influencing consumer preferences. Multiple factors such as accessibility, convenience, cost of transport, number of transfers during the journey and waiting time are a few salient variables that influence the commuter’s shift to a new transport mode. Responses from ongoing commuters were collected by using a structured questionnaire from the users and non-users of the metro. The collected data were analysed. The study reveals that categorical variables such as age, gender and occupation have some degree of influence in commuters’ shift behaviour towards new-age transport services. The study will provide insights to formulate a future strategy to improve the acceptance of new-age transportation.
AsensioJ. (2002). Transport mode choice by commuters to Barcelona’s CBD. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1881–1895. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098022000003000
2.
Ben-AkivaM., & MorikawaT. (2002). Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Transport Policy, 9(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0967-070x(02)00009-4
3.
de OñaJ., de OñaR., EboliL., ForcinitiC., & MazzullaG. (2016) Transit passengers’ behavioral intentions: The influence of service quality and customer satisfaction. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 12(5), 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2016.1146365
4.
DonaldI. J., CooperS. R., & ConchieS. M. (2014). An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 39–48.
5.
GavanasN., PolitisI., DovasK., LianakisE. (2012). Is a new metro line a mean for sustainable mobility among commuters? The case of Thessaloniki city. Transport Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
6.
HansonS. (1980). The importance of the multi-purpose journey to work in urban travel behavior. Transportation, 9(3), 229–248.
7.
HensherD. A., RoseJ. M., & CollinsA. T. (2011). Identifying commuter preferences for existing modes and a proposed Metro in Sydney, Australia with special reference to crowding. Public Transport, 3, 109–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-010-0035-4
8.
JainS., AggarwalP., KumarP., SinghalS., & SharmaP. (2014). Identifying public preferences using multi-criteria decision making for assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study of Delhi. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.03.007
9.
JainD., & SinghS. (2021). Adaptation of trips by metro rail users at two stations in extreme weather conditions: Delhi. Urban Climate, 36, 100766.
10.
LinD., AllanA., & CuiJ. (2016). Exploring differences in commuting behaviour among various income groups during polycentric urban development in China: New evidence and its implications. Sustainability, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111188
11.
MayoF. L., & TaboadaE. B. (2020). Ranking factors affecting public transport mode choice of commuters in an urban city of a developing country using analytic hierarchy process: The case of Metro Cebu, Philippines. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 4, 100078.
NordfjærnT., ŞimşekoğluÖ., LindH. B., JorgensenS. H., & RundmoT. (2014). Transport priorities, risk perception and worry associated with mode use and preferences among Norwegian commuters. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 72, 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.028
14.
PapaioannouP., & PolitisI. (2019). Applying behavior change theory to predict travel behavior of university commuters. In The practice of spatial analysis (pp. 219–251). Springer.
15.
RandheerK., Al-MotawaA. A., & VijayP. J. (2011). Measuring commuters’ perception on service quality using SERVQUAL in public transportation. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3(1), 21.
16.
RastogiR. (2010). Willingness to shift to walking or bicycling to access suburban rail: Case study of Mumbai, India. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(1).
17.
SadhukhanS., BanerjeeU. K., & MaitraB. (2016). Commuters’ willingness-to-pay for improvement of transfer facilities in and around metro stations: A case study in Kolkata. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 43–58.
18.
SchwanenT., DielemanF. M., & DijstM. (2004). The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands: A multilevel approach. Growth and Change, 35(3), 304–333.
19.
SohoniA. V., ThomasM., & RaoK. K. (2017). Mode shift behavior of commuters due to the introduction of new rail transit mode. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 2603–2618.
20.
St-LouisE., ManaughK., van LieropD., & El-GeneidyA. (2014). The happy commuter: A comparison of commuter satisfaction across modes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 26, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.07.004
21.
ToşaC., SatoH., MorikawaT., & MiwaT. (2018). Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Journal of Transport Geography, 68, 78–93.
22.
TyrinopoulosY., & AntoniouC. (2020). Review of factors affecting transportation systems adoption and satisfaction. In AntoniouC., EfthymiouD., & ChaniotakisE. (Eds.), Demand for emerging transportation systems (pp. 11–36). Elsevier.
23.
WangY., LiL., WangZ., LvT., & WangL. (2013). Mode shift behavior impacts from the introduction of metro service: Case study of Xi’an, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 139(3).
24.
ZhangZ., FujiiH., & ManagiS. (2014). How does commuting behavior change due to incentives? An empirical study of the Beijing subway system. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.02.009
