This paper investigates the potential effects that an aging "baby boomer" generation will have on gasoline use through their vehicle choice decisions. The study uses stated preference data for both conventional and alternative fuel vehicles, and measures the impact of age of survey respondent on the perceived value of vehicle characteristics such as fuel economy, performance, and body style (e.g., car vs. truck). The results suggest the possibility that average fleet fuel economy may improve in the next few years, if survey preferences translate to actual purchase behavior. No clear implications can be drawn regarding the demand for alternative fuel vehicles.
BeggsS.D.CardellN.S. (1979). “Choice of Smallest Car by Multi-Vehicle Households and the Demand for Electric Vehicles.” Transportation Research 14A: 389-404.
2.
BeggsS.D.CardellN.S.HausmanJ. (1981). “Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars.” The Journal of Econometrics XT. 1-1.
3.
BrownstoneD.TrainK. (1998). “Forecasting New Product Penetration with Flexible Substitution Patterns.” Journal of Econometrics, forthcoming.
4.
BrownstoneD.BunchD.A.TrainK. (1998). “Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles.” Working Paper, University of California, Irvine.
5.
BrownstoneD.BunchD.A.GolobT.F.RenW. (1996). “A Personal Vehicle Transactions Choice Model for Use in Forecasting Demand for Future Alternative-Fuel Vehicles.” Research in Transportation Economics4: 87-129.
6.
BunchD.S.BradleyM.GolobT.F.KitamuraR.OcchiuzzoG.P. (1993). “Demand for Clean-Fuel Personal Vehicles in California: A Discrete-Choice Stated Preference Study.” Transportation Research27A (3): 237-53.
7.
GolobT.F.BunchD.S.BrownstoneDavid (1997). “A Vehicle Use Forecasting Model Based on Revealed and Stated Vehicle Type Choice and Utilisation Data.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy31(1): 69-92.
8.
GoldbergP.K. (1998). “The Effects of the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards in the U.S.” Journal of Industrial Economics46 (1): 1-33.
9.
GoldbergP.K. (1995). “Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry.” Econometrica65 (4): 891-951.
10.
GreeningL.A.JengH.T. (1994). “Lifecycle Analysis of Gasoline Expenditure Patterns.” Energy Economics16 (3): 217-28.
11.
GreeningL.A.JengH.T.FormbyJ.P.ChengD.C. (1995). “Use of Region, Life-Cycle and Role Variables in the Short-Run Estimation of the Demand for Gasoline and Miles Travelled.” Applied Economics27: 643-56.
12.
HensherD.A.Le PlastrierV. (1985). “Towards a Dynamic Discrete Choice Model of Household Automobile Fleet Size and Composition.” Transportation Research19B: 481-95.
13.
KavalecC. (1996). CALCARS: The California Conventional and Alternative Fuel Response Simulator-A Vehicle Demand/Choice Model for California, Staff Report #P500-96-003, Sacramento: California Energy Commission.
14.
LaveC.A.BradleyJ. (1980). “Market Share of Imported Cars: A Model of Geographic and Demographic Determinants.” Transportation Research14A: 379-87.
15.
LaveC.A.TrainK. (1979). “A Disaggregate Model of Auto-Type Choice.” Transportation Research13A: 1-1.
16.
ManneringF.L.WinstonC. (1985). “A Dynamic Empirical Analysis of Household Vehicle Ownership and Utilization.” Rand Journal of Economics16 (2): 215-236.
17.
ManskiC.F.ShermanL. (1980). “An Empirical Analysis of Household Choice Among Motor Vehicles.” Transportation Research14A: 349-66.
18.
McFaddenD.TrainK. (1997). “Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
19.
ReveltD.TrainK. (1998). “Incentives for Appliance Efficiency in a Competitive Energy Environment: Random Parameters Logit Models of Households’ Choices.” Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.
20.
TrainK. (1986). Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press.
21.
YamasakiE.TominagaN. (1997). “Evolution of an Aging Society and Effect on Residential Energy Demand.” Energy Policy25 (11): 903-12.
