IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v94y2022ics0739885921001475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers oriented investments in transit service quality improvements: The best bang for your buck

Author

Listed:
  • Eldeeb, Gamal
  • Mohamed, Moataz

Abstract

Targeted transit quality improvement is essential to maintain ridership and attract car users. However, there remain the question about what are the best investments to increase the likelihood of transit utilization. This study aims at unveiling the broad-spectrum of transit users' preferences as well as their willingness to pay (WTP) for six service attributes. The study employed multinomial logit (MNL) interaction models and a random parameter logit (RPL) model to unveil preference heterogeneity in a choice experiment. The results revealed significant heterogeneity on customers' preferences and WTP towards service improvements due to variations in customers’ socioeconomic characteristics, travel behaviour and attitudes. For instance, females are willing to pay more to reduce service headway and the number of transfers, while males would pay more for at-stop real-time information provision. In a nutshell, effective transit quality improvements cannot ignore such heterogeneity, and should be tailored based on the targeted user type.

Suggested Citation

  • Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2022. "Consumers oriented investments in transit service quality improvements: The best bang for your buck," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:94:y:2022:i:c:s0739885921001475
    DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885921001475
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101175?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan de O~na & Esperanza Est'evez & Rocio de O~na, 2021. "Public transport users versus private vehicle users: differences about quality of service, satisfaction and attitudes toward public transport in Madrid (Spain)," Papers 2103.14762, arXiv.org.
    2. Fu, Xue-mei & Zhang, Jiang-hua & Chan, Felix T.S., 2018. "Determinants of loyalty to public transit: A model integrating Satisfaction-Loyalty Theory and Expectation-Confirmation Theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 476-490.
    3. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    4. Bellizzi, Maria Grazia & dell'Olio, Luigi & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2020. "Heterogeneity in desired bus service quality from users’ and potential users’ perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 365-377.
    5. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    6. Gamal Eldeeb & Moataz Mohamed, 2020. "Understanding the Transit Market: A Persona-Based Approach for Preferences Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Susilo, Yusak O. & Cats, Oded, 2014. "Exploring key determinants of travel satisfaction for multi-modal trips by different traveler groups," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 366-380.
    8. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2013. "Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of bus services," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 4-23, February.
    9. Abenoza, Roberto F. & Cats, Oded & Susilo, Yusak O., 2017. "Travel satisfaction with public transport: Determinants, user classes, regional disparities and their evolution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 64-84.
    10. Grisé, Emily & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2018. "Where is the happy transit rider? Evaluating satisfaction with regional rail service using a spatial segmentation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 84-96.
    11. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    13. Eboli, Laura & Forciniti, Carmen & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2018. "Spatial variation of the perceived transit service quality at rail stations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 67-83.
    14. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    15. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz & Páez, Antonio, 2021. "Built for active travel? Investigating the contextual effects of the built environment on transportation mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Allen, Jaime & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2018. "Modelling service-specific and global transit satisfaction under travel and user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 509-528.
    17. dell'Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel & Cecin, Patricia, 2011. "The quality of service desired by public transport users," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 217-227, January.
    18. Mahmood Mahmoodi Nesheli & Avishai (Avi) Ceder & Robin Brissaud, 2017. "Public transport service-quality elements based on real-time operational tactics," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 957-975, September.
    19. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2016. "Measuring the influence of bus service quality on the perception of users," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 284-299, April.
    20. Cynthia Jacques & Kevin Manaugh & Ahmed El-Geneidy, 2013. "Rescuing the captive [mode] user: an alternative approach to transport market segmentation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 625-645, May.
    21. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    22. Li, Linbo & Bai, Yufang & Song, Ziqi & Chen, Anthony & Wu, Bing, 2018. "Public transportation competitiveness analysis based on current passenger loyalty," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 213-226.
    23. Lai, Wen-Tai & Chen, Ching-Fu, 2011. "Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers--The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 318-325, March.
    24. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    25. Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, G., 2008. "Willingness-to-pay of public transport users for improvement in service quality," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 38, pages 107-118.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Das, Deepjyoti & Bhaduri, Eeshan & Velaga, Nagendra R., 2023. "Modeling commuters’ preference towards sharing paratransit services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 132-149.
    2. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2024. "Acceptability of transportation demand management policy packages considering interactions and socio-economic heterogeneity," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    2. Gamal Eldeeb & Moataz Mohamed, 2020. "Understanding the Transit Market: A Persona-Based Approach for Preferences Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Eldeeb, Gamal & Sears, Sean & Mohamed, Moataz, 2023. "What do users want from transit? Qualitative analysis of current and potential users' perceptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Juan de Oña, 2022. "Service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions towards public transport from the point of view of private vehicle users," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 237-269, February.
    5. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Luo, Shuli & He, Sylvia Y. & Grant-Muller, Susan & Song, Linqi, 2023. "Influential factors in customer satisfaction of transit services: Using crowdsourced data to capture the heterogeneity across individuals, space and time," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 173-183.
    7. de Oña, Juan & Estévez, Esperanza & de Oña, Rocío, 2021. "How does private vehicle users perceive the public transport service quality in large metropolitan areas? A European comparison," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 173-188.
    8. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    9. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Cordera, Rubén & Luigi dell’Olio, & Sipone, Silvia & Moura, José Luis, 2024. "Modeling airport choice for a multi-airport area using a random parameter logit model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Abenoza, Roberto F. & Ettema, Dick F. & Susilo, Yusak O., 2018. "Do accessibility, vulnerability, opportunity, and travel characteristics have uniform impacts on the traveler’s experience?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 38-51.
    13. Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2014. "Investigating the heterogeneity of bus users' preferences through discrete choice modelling," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 695-710, December.
    14. Beeramoole, Prithvi Bhat & Arteaga, Cristian & Pinz, Alban & Haque, Md Mazharul & Paz, Alexander, 2023. "Extensive hypothesis testing for estimation of mixed-Logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    15. Seong Ok Lyu, 2021. "Applying discrete choice models to understand sport tourists’ heterogeneous preferences for Winter Olympic travel products," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(3), pages 482-499, May.
    16. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2018. "Individual-specific point and interval conditional estimates of latent class logit parameters," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 50-61.
    18. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    19. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    20. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stated preference experiment; Willingness to pay; Preference heterogeneity; Service quality improvement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General
    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning
    • R48 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government Pricing and Policy
    • R49 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:94:y:2022:i:c:s0739885921001475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620614/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.