Provision of real-time passenger information (RTPI) increasingly is becoming a fundamental element of the service offered by transit agencies. RTPI changes how travelers perceive public transport services and can have a remarkable influence on travel choices and, consequently, system performance. Such consequences depend on the objectives pursued by the riders and the characteristics of the transit service. The existing knowledge about transit RTPI is extended by studying the decision-making process of bus passengers in the presence of multichannel descriptive and prescriptive real-time information. The use of different kinds of information, decision-making objectives, travel choices, and their associations (which define classes of travel choice behavior) was investigated by conducting a survey of passengers on Lothian Buses in Edinburgh, Scotland. Descriptive RTPI also was accessed before traveling and influenced decisions about route choice above all. The analysis demonstrated that RTPI was associated with more flexible behavior and that classes of behavior were well defined. Results emphasize the importance to transit agencies of providing RTPI that is tailored to customers. The development of models including the effects of RTPI is recommended to assess its impact on system performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanisterD.The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm. Transport Policy, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2008, pp. 73–80.
2.
ChamL., DaridoG., JacksonD., LaverR., and SchneckD.. Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems Return-on-Investment Study.FTA, Washington, D.C., 2006.
3.
PolitisI., PapaioannouP., BasbasS., and DimitriadisN.. Evaluation of a Bus Passenger Information System from the Users' Point of View in the City of Thessaloniki, Greece. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2010, pp. 249–255.
4.
GärlingT., and AxhausenK. W.. Introduction: Habitual Travel Choice. Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2003, pp. 1–11.
5.
TaylorB. D., MillerD., IsekiH., and FinkC.. Nature and/or Nurture? Analyzing the Determinants of Transit Ridership Across US Urbanized Areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2009, pp. 60–77.
6.
TangL., and ThakuriahP.. Ridership Effects of Real-Time Bus Information System: A Case Study in the City of Chicago. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 22, 2012, pp. 146–161.
7.
BrakewoodC.Quantifying the Impact of Real-Time Information on Transit Ridership.Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2014.
8.
KimJ.-K., LeeB., and OhS.Passenger Choice Models for Analysis of Impacts of Real-Time Bus Information on Crowdedness. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2112, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 119–126.
9.
NyblomÅ.Making Plans or “Just Thinking About the Trip”? Understanding People's Travel Planning in Practice. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 35, 2014, pp. 30–39.
10.
PayneJ. W., BettmanJ. R., and JohnsonE. J.. The Adaptive Decision Maker.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1993.
11.
ChorusC. G., ArentzeT. A., MolinE. J. E., TimmermansH. J. P., and Van WeeB.. The Value of Travel Information: Decision Strategy-Specific Conceptualizations and Numerical Examples. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2006, pp. 504–519.
12.
LappinJ. E.What Have We Learned About Advanced Traveler Information Systems and Customer Satisfaction? In What Have We Learned About Intelligent Transportation Systems?Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 65–86.
13.
Multisystems, Inc. TCRP Report 92: Strategies for Improved Traveler Information.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
14.
FujiiS., and KitamuraR.. Anticipated Travel Time, Information Acquisition, and Actual Experience: Hanshin Expressway Route Closure, Osaka-Sakai, Japan. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1725, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 79–85.
15.
ToledoT., and BeinhakerR.. Evaluation of the Potential Benefits of Advanced Traveler Information Systems. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2006, pp. 173–183.
16.
DziekanK., and KottenhoffK.. Dynamic At-Stop Real-Time Information Displays for Public Transport: Effects on Customers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2007, pp. 489–501.
17.
DziekanK., and VermeulenA.. Psychological Effects of and Design Preferences for Real-Time Information Displays. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1–19.
18.
CaulfieldB., and O'MahonyM.. A Stated Preference Analysis of Real-Time Public Transit Stop Information. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2009, pp. 1–20.
19.
WatkinsK. E., FerrisB., BorningA., RutherfordG. S., and LaytonD.. Where Is My Bus? Impact of Mobile Real-Time Information on the Perceived and Actual Wait Time of Transit Riders. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45, No. 8, 2011, pp. 839–848.
20.
ZhangF., ShenQ., and CliftonK. J.. Examination of Traveler Responses to Real-Time Information About Bus Arrivals Using Panel 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. 107–115.
21.
DziekanK.Customer Perceptions and Behavioural Responses to IT-Based Public Transport Information: Literature Review and What the Experts Say.KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
22.
PoonJ. F., and StopherP. R.. Investigating the Effects of Different Types of Travel Information on Travellers' Learning in a Public Transport Setting Using An Experimental Approach. Presented at Australasian Transport Research Forum 2011, Sept. 28–30, Adelaide, South Australia.
23.
Ben-EliaE., Di PaceR., BifulcoG. N., and ShiftanY.. The Impact of Travel Information's Accuracy on Route Choice. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 26, 2013, pp. 146–159.
24.
HickmanM. D., and WilsonN. H. M.. Passenger Travel Time and Path Choice Implications of Real-Time Transit Information. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1995, pp. 211–226.
25.
GentileG., NguyenS., and PallottinoS.. Route Choice on Transit Networks with Online Information at Stops. Transportation Science, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005, pp. 289–297.
26.
CoppolaP., and RosatiL.. Simulation-Based Evaluation of Advanced Public Transportation Information Systems (APTIS). In Schedule-Based Modeling of Transportation Networks (NuzzoloA., and WilsonN. H. M., eds.). Springer, Boston, Mass., 2009.
27.
NoekelK., KleinS., and WekeckS.. Choice Set Structuring in Frequency-Based Transit Assignment. Presented at European Transport Conference 2008, Oct. 6–8, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.
28.
NökelK., and WekeckS.. Boarding and Alighting in Frequency-Based Transit Assignment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2111, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 60–67.
29.
CatsO., BurghoutW., ToledoT., and KoutsopoulosH. N.. Modeling Real-Time Transit Information and Its Impacts on Travelers' Decisions. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
30.
FonzoneA., and SchmöckerJ.-D.. Effects of Transit Real-Time Information Usage Strategies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2417, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 121–129.
31.
CascettaE.Transportation Systems Analysis: Models and Applications, 2nd ed.Springer, New York, 2009.
32.
Edinburgh City Council. Edinburgh by Numbers 2013/14. Edinburgh, Scotland, 2014.
33.
ChriquiC, and RobillardP.. Common Bus Lines. Transportation Science, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1975, pp. 115–121.
34.
Census 2011—Transport and Travel. Edinburgh City Council, Scotland, 2013.
35.
OlivierJ., and BellM. L.. Effect Sizes for 2×2 Contingency Tables. PLOS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2013, p. e58777.
