IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v9y2002i2p107-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus

Author

Listed:
  • Ben-Akiva, Moshe
  • Morikawa, Takayuki

Abstract

The objective of this study is to analyze whether or not there is evidence indicating a significant preference for rail travel over bus, and, if such a preference exists, to learn about the characteristics that affect it and cause it to vary from one situation to another. After a brief review of existing literature, models of choice among alternative travel modes are estimated using revealed preference data and stated preference data. The main conclusion of the study is that there is no evident preference for rail travel over bus when quantifiable service characteristics such as travel time and cost are equal, but a bias does arise when rail travel offers a higher quality service. The investigation of the impact of different service characteristics using more advanced demand estimation techniques is suggested as a topic for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2002. "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 107-116, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:9:y:2002:i:2:p:107-116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(02)00009-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    2. Mackett, Roger L. & Edwards, Marion, 1998. "The impact of new urban public transport systems: will the expectations be met?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 231-245, May.
    3. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    4. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    2. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    3. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    4. Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese C. & Jakus, Paul M., 2002. "Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 185-197, December.
    5. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    6. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    8. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    9. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    10. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    11. Thijs Brouwer & Fabio Galeotti & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Teaching Norms: Direct Evidence of Parental Transmission," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(650), pages 872-887.
    12. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    14. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    15. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.
    16. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    17. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    18. Kockelman, Kara M. & Podgorski, Kaethe & Bina, Michelle & Gadda, Shashank, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and Other Transportation Policies: The Texas Perspective," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 48(3).
    19. Delle Site, Paolo & Kilani, Karim & Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & de Palma, André, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-106.
    20. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.

    More about this item

    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:trapol:v:9:y:2002:i:2:p:107-116. 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/30473/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.