IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v137y2020icp131-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of transfer for bus users: The case of Gran Canaria

Author

Listed:
  • Espino, Raquel
  • Román, Concepción

Abstract

This paper analyses travelers’ preferences for the main attributes defining public bus transport services when evaluating connecting versus direct services in the island of Gran Canaria (Spain). The information is gathered through a Stated Preference experiment for bus users who make a transfer during their journey. In order to study the preference heterogeneity mixed logit and latent class models are estimated. The preference heterogeneity identified is different according to the estimated model. For Mixed Logit model, it is defined by type of transfer interacting with the transfer waiting time and for mandatory trips interacting with in-vehicle travel time. For Latent Class model, this preference heterogeneity is identified by three classes where the perception of the modal attributes is different in each class and non-compensatory behavior is identified. Moreover, the transfer waiting time is significant in all three classes. Thus, the results depend on the estimated model and a comparison is made with those results. The findings obtained seem to indicate that the improvement opportunities for transport systems should focus on the reduction in the transfer cost with the exception of individuals of class 2 and the improvement in the level-of-service.

Suggested Citation

  • Espino, Raquel & Román, Concepción, 2020. "Valuation of transfer for bus users: The case of Gran Canaria," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 131-144.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:137:y:2020:i:c:p:131-144
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856420305796
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.003?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. Wardman, Mark, 0. "A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 107-128, April.
    2. Espino, Raquel & de Dios Ortúzar, Juan & Román, Concepción, 2007. "Understanding suburban travel demand: Flexible modelling with revealed and stated choice data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 899-912, December.
    3. Navarrete, Francisca Javiera & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2013. "Subjective valuation of the transit transfer experience: The case of Santiago de Chile," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 138-147.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    5. Schakenbos, Rik & Paix, Lissy La & Nijenstein, Sandra & Geurs, Karst T., 2016. "Valuation of a transfer in a multimodal public transport trip," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 72-81.
    6. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    7. 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.
    8. Garcia-Martinez, Andres & Cascajo, Rocio & Jara-Diaz, Sergio R. & Chowdhury, Subeh & Monzon, Andres, 2018. "Transfer penalties in multimodal public transport networks," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 52-66.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Hine, J. & Scott, J., 2000. "Seamless, accessible travel: users' views of the public transport journey and interchange," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 217-226, July.
    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 9780521747387.
    13. Paulley, Neil & Balcombe, Richard & Mackett, Roger & Titheridge, Helena & Preston, John & Wardman, Mark & Shires, Jeremy & White, Peter, 2006. "The demand for public transport: The effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 295-306, July.
    14. Armstrong, Paula & Garrido, Rodrigo & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 0. "Confidence intervals to bound the value of time," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 143-161, April.
    15. Sharaby, Nir & Shiftan, Yoram, 2012. "The impact of fare integration on travel behavior and transit ridership," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 63-70.
    16. Chowdhury, Subeh & Ceder, Avishai (Avi), 2016. "Users’ willingness to ride an integrated public-transport service: A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 183-195.
    17. Moshe Ben-Akiva & Joffre Swait, 1986. "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 133-136, May.
    18. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    19. Guo, Zhan & Wilson, Nigel H.M., 2011. "Assessing the cost of transfer inconvenience in public transport systems: A case study of the London Underground," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 91-104, February.
    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. Wu, Pan & Xu, Lunhui & Zhong, Lingshu & Gao, Kun & Qu, Xiaobo & Pei, Mingyang, 2022. "Revealing the determinants of the intermodal transfer ratio between metro and bus systems considering spatial variations," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    3. Romero, Fernando & Gomez, Juan & Paez, Antonio & Vassallo, José Manuel, 2020. "Toll roads vs. Public transportation: A study on the acceptance of congestion-calming measures in Madrid," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 319-342.
    4. Pan Wu & Jinlong Li & Yuzhuang Pian & Xiaochen Li & Zilin Huang & Lunhui Xu & Guilin Li & Ruonan Li, 2022. "How Determinants Affect Transfer Ridership between Metro and Bus Systems: A Multivariate Generalized Poisson Regression Analysis Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-31, August.

    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. 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.
    2. Schakenbos, Rik & Paix, Lissy La & Nijenstein, Sandra & Geurs, Karst T., 2016. "Valuation of a transfer in a multimodal public transport trip," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 72-81.
    3. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    4. Junyi Shen & Yusuke Sakata & Yoshizo Hashimoto, 2006. "A Comparison between Latent Class Model and Mixed Logit Model for Transport Mode Choice: Evidences from Two Datasets of Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 06-05, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    5. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    8. Daniele Pacifico, 2013. "On the role of unobserved preference heterogeneity in discrete choice models of labour supply," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 929-963, October.
    9. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    11. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    12. Z. Eylem Gevrek & Ayse Uyduranoglu, 2015. "Public Preferences for Carbon Tax Attributes," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2015-15, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    13. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    14. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    15. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensification attributes in maize production: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    16. Yang, Chih-Wen & Sung, Yen-Ching, 2010. "Constructing a mixed-logit model with market positioning to analyze the effects of new mode introduction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 175-182.
    17. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    18. 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).
    19. Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2012. "Dissecting preference heterogeneity in consumer stated choices," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 331-339.
    20. Daniele Pacifico, 2014. "On the role of unobserved preference Heterogeneity in discrete choice Models of labour supply," Working Papers 6, Department of the Treasury, Ministry of the Economy and of Finance.

    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:transa:v:137:y:2020:i:c:p:131-144. 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/547/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.