A recent project addressed how travelers would react to fuel prices rising above the high levels that were reached in mid 2008. Study participants were recruited during phone interviews, in the course of which trips made on a specified day were recorded. On the basis of one of those trips and the respondents’ possession of mobility tools, stated preference (SP) experiments were constructed. The first part consisted of a mode choice situation under modified price (and travel time) settings (tactical decisions). The second part focused on long-term (strategic) choices between the current and an alternative fleet, including a redistribution of yearly mileage. From the SP data, multinomial logit models for mode and fleet choice were estimated. The mode choice models were estimated by using income- and distance-dependent nonlinear utility functions and separately for the various trip purposes (as was the practice in earlier Swiss studies on similar topics) and controlled for all relevant trip characteristics. The models for mobility tool ownership, which were formulated by using a new approach, aimed to yield trade-offs between the various attributes of the offered fleets and to forecast the distribution of annual transit passes under modified settings. The findings suggest that inertia is present in both mode choice and mobility tool ownership. Elasticities do not change much from previous studies, where more-conservative price increases were assumed. Transit pass ownership is expected to grow only when increasing fuel prices coincide with stable public transport fares.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WeisC., and AxhausenK. W.Benzinpreis und Bahnnutzung.IVT, ETH Zürich, 2009.
2.
VrticM., and FröhlichP.Was Beeinflusst die Wahl der Verkehrsmittel?Der Nahverkehr, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2006, pp. 52–57.
3.
AxhausenK. W., HessS., KoenigA., AbayG., BatesJ. J., and BierlaireM.Income and Distance Elasticities of Values of Travel Time Savings: New Swiss Results. Transport Policy, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2008, pp. 173–185.
4.
AxhausenK. W., HessS., KoenigA., BatesJ., and BierlaireM.State-of-the-Art Estimates of Swiss Value of Travel Time Savings. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2007.
5.
HessS., ErathA., and AxhausenK. W.Estimated Value of Savings in Travel Time in Switzerland: Analysis of Pooled Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2082, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 43–55.
6.
Zeitkosten im Personenverkehr: Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen im Strassen-verkehr.Swiss Association of Road and Transportation Experts (VSS), Zürich, 2007.
7.
FangH. F.A Discrete-Continuous Model of Households’ Vehicle Choice and Usage, with an Application to the Effects of Residential Density. Transportation Research B, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2008, pp. 736–758.
8.
De JongG., FoxJ., DalyA., PietersM., and SmitR.Comparison of Car Ownership Models. Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2004, pp. 379–408.
9.
BaranziniA., NetoD., and WeberS.Elasticité-prix de la Demande d'Essence en Suisse.CRAG, HEC Geneva, and LEA, University of Geneva, 2009.
10.
PageM., WhelanG., and DalyA.Modelling the Factors Which Influence New Car Purchasing. Presented at European Transport Conference, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
11.
ScottD. M., and AxhausenK. W.Household Mobility Tool Ownership: Modeling Interactions Between Cars and Season Tickets. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2006, pp. 311–328.
12.
VrticM., SchuesslerN., ErathA., and AxhausenK. W.Route, Mode, and Departure Time Choice Behaviour in the Presence of Mobility Pricing. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
13.
VrticM., SchuesslerN., ErathA., and AxhausenK. W.Design Elements of Road Pricing Schemes and Their Acceptability. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
14.
AxhausenK. W., SimmaA., and GolobT.Pre-commitment and Usage: Cars, Season-Tickets and Travel. European Research in Regional Science, Vol. 11, 2001, pp. 101–110.
15.
ChatterjeeK., and LyonsG.Coping with a Crisis: Lessons from the Events of a Year Ago. Presented at European Transport Conference, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2001.
16.
PolakJ. W., NolandR. B., BellM. G. H., ThorpeN., and WofindenD.What Happens when the Pumps Run Dry? Experience from the 2000 Fuel Protest and Its Policy Implications. Presented at European Transport Conference, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2001.
17.
NolandR. B., PolakJ. W., and BellM. G. H.Expected Disruption and Flexibility of Vehicle Users to Fuel Shortages. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.
18.
Kontinuierliche Erhebung Personenverkehr.Swiss Federal Railways, Bern, Switzerland, 2001.
19.
LouvièreJ. J., HensherD. A., and SwaitJ.Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications in Marketing, Transportation and Environmental Valuation.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
20.
AlgersS., LindqvistJ., DillenJ., and WildertS.The National Swedish Value of Time Study. Presented at PTRC European Transportation Forum, Warwick, United Kingdom, 1995.
21.
KurriJ., and PursulaM.Finnish Preliminary Value of Time Studies.Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute and Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board, Linköping, Sweden, 1995.
22.
RamjerdiF., RandL., SaestermoI., and SaelensmindeK.The Norwegian Value of Time Study.Norwegian Centre for Transport Research, Oslo, Norway, 1997.
23.
JovivicG., and HansenC. O.A Passenger Travel Demand Model for Copenhagen. Transportation Research A, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2003, pp. 333–349.
24.
VrticM., and AxhausenK. W.Impact of Tilting Trains in Switzerland: Route Choice Model of Regional and Long-Distance Public Transport Trips. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
25.
VrticM., and AxhausenK. W.Forecast Based on Different Data Types: A Before and After Study. Presented at 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey, 2004.
26.
ArendtM., and VrticM.Nationales Personenverkehrsmodell des Bundes als verkehrsplanerische Grundlage. In Jahrbuch 2005/2006 Schweizerische Verkehrswirtschaft (BiegerT., LässerC., and MaggiR., eds.), SVWG, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2006, pp. 145–166.
27.
RoseJ. M., BliemerM. C. J., HensherD. A., and CollinsA. T.Designing Efficient Stated Choice Experiments in the Presence of Reference Alternatives. Transportation Research B, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2008, pp. 395–406.
28.
AxhausenK. W., and WeisC.Predicting Response Rate: A Natural Experiment. Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs- und Raumplanung, No. 549, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, Swiss Federal Institute for Technology, Zurich, 2009.
29.
Van de KaaE. J.Assessment of the Value of Travel Time from Stated Choice Surveys: The Impact of Lexicographic Answering. Presented at European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France, 2006.
30.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office and Swiss Federal Office of Spatial Development.Mobilität in der Schweiz: Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2005 zum Verkehrsverhalten.Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Bern, Switzerland, 2007.
31.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS. R.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
32.
TrainK. E.Discrete Choice Models with Simulation.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
33.
BierlaireM.BIOGEME: A Free Package for the Estimation of Discrete Choice Models. Presented at 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verità, Switzerland, 2003.
34.
Bierlaire, M. An Introduction to BIOGEME 1.8.Transport and Mobility Laboratory, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.http://biogeme.epfl.ch. Accessed July 3, 2009.
35.
MackieP., WardmanM., FowkesA. S., WhelanG., NellthorpJ., and BatesJ. J.Values of Travel Time Savings in the UK.Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2003.
