Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 271-301
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 271... ...
G-1 A p p e n d i x G Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes Contents G-1 Overview G-2 Salt Lake City Analysis G-14 Chicago and Charlotte Analysis G-20 Results Overview The survey that was administered to respondents in Chicago and Charlotte included numerous attitudinal questions that were aimed at obtaining information about how travelers viewed or valued different modes of transportation and the amenities/services that they provide. In addition to socioeconomic and demographic variables, as well as a host of service attributes, it is possible that attitudinal variables also play an important role in shaping traveler choices and preferences.
|
From page 272... ...
G-2 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode The survey that was administered in Salt Lake City had fewer attitudinal questions, and respondents were identified as either transit or non-transit users. Respondents were put under the category of transit users if they had used public transit at least once in the past year.
|
From page 273... ...
FIGURE G-1. Inclination factors and mode shares for transit users.
|
From page 274... ...
G-4 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode respondents who felt that better service would lead to useful destinations being accessible by transit (FIGURE G-2)
|
From page 275... ...
FIGURE G-2. Service factors and mode shares for transit users.
|
From page 276... ...
FIGURE G-3. Inclination factors and mode shares by non-transit user.
|
From page 277... ...
FIGURE G-4. Discomfort factor and mode shares by non-transit users.
|
From page 278... ...
G-8 Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode FIGURE G-5. Inconvenience factors for non-transit users.
|
From page 279... ...
FIGURE G-6. Discomfort factor for non-transit choosers.
|
From page 280... ...
G-10 Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode FIGURE G-7. Inconvenience factor for non-transit choosers.
|
From page 281... ...
FIGURE G-7. (Continued)
|
From page 282... ...
G-12 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode Least Preferred Mode Shares Age also does not statistically affect least preferred mode shares (FIGURE G-8) for respondents who did not have an auto available; but for respondents who did have an auto available, auto preference was less for the middle age group (ages 35 to 64 years)
|
From page 284... ...
G-14 Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode FIGURE G-9. Least preferred mode shares by income.
|
From page 285... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-15 FIGURE G-11. Modal shares by factor score quartiles -- pro-car attitudinal factor.
|
From page 286... ...
G-16 Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode FIGURE G-12. Modal shares by factor score quartiles -- consciousness attitudinal factor.
|
From page 287... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-17 FIGURE G-13. Modal shares by factor score quartiles -- low transit comfort level attitudinal factor.
|
From page 288... ...
G-18 Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode FIGURE G-14. Modal shares by factor score quartiles -- pro-transit attitudinal factor.
|
From page 289... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-19 FIGURE G-15. Modal shares by factor score quartiles -- transit averse attitudinal factor.
|
From page 290... ...
G-20 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode such as Charlotte. As a result, the relationship between this factor and mode choice is more tenuous in Chicago.
|
From page 291... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-21 choice model specification and estimation efforts. The pro-car, transit averse, and low transit comfort attitudes tend to favor auto modes, and the pro-transit and Consciousness attitudes tend to favor transit modes, but to varying degrees depending on the attitudinal factor.
|
From page 292... ...
G-22 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode The rotated factor matrix for Charlotte is shown in TABLE G-2, while that for Chicago is shown in TABLE G-3. The interpretation of the factor names is as follows: PCA: pro-car attitude Cons: consciousness LTCL: low transit comfort level PTA: pro-transit attitude TAv: transit averse TABLE G-2.
|
From page 293... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-23 TABLE G-2. (Continued)
|
From page 294... ...
G-24 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode TABLE G-3. Rotated factor matrix for Chicago.
|
From page 295... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-25 Respondents' Agreement with Attitudinal Statements Factor Pr o Ca r A tu de Pr o Tr an sit A tu de Tr an sit Av er se Lo w Tr an sit Co m fo rt Le ve l Co ns ci ou sn es s I have to drive to get to transit anyway, so I may as well just drive my car the whole way. 0.480 -0.414 0.145 0.256 Getting to and from transit stations/stops is not pedestrian friendly and is very unpleasant.
|
From page 296... ...
G-26 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode factors versus the percent of variance explained is one that the analyst must make from a qualitative interpretive standpoint while considering the values of the two goodness-of-fit statistics.
|
From page 297... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-27 descriptive statistics presented in Appendix C, 35% of respondents in Charlotte never used any transit; the corresponding percentage for Chicago respondents is less than one-half of that figure at just 14%. The mode splits in Appendix C also support the notion that respondents in Chicago are likely to be more transit-oriented; in a transit-oriented survey of the nature administered in this project, a factor that captures attitudes toward transit is likely to explain more of the variance in the attitudinal variables for respondents with greater awareness and usage of transit.
|
From page 298... ...
G-28 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode generally to make sense. These factors were cross-tabulated with choices made in the stated preference experiments to understand how individual attitudes about transit or auto correlate with stated mode preferences in the SP experiments.
|
From page 299... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-29 Factor 2: Inconvenience Factor Travel time too long Doesn't fit my schedule Less reliable than driving Too difficult to get to transit station/stop Transit doesn't go where I need to go It would require too many transfers to make the trip Analysis of Factor Scores by Mode TABLE G-6 (Charlotte) and TABLE G-7 (Chicago)
|
From page 300... ...
G-30 Characteristics of premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode In Charlotte (TABLE G-6) , it is found that the mean factor scores vary across modal segments in an intuitive way: For the pro-car attitude factor, the automobile mode segment of the respondents has the highest mean value, while the CATS express bus segment has the lowest value.
|
From page 301... ...
Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes G-31 TABLE G-7. Comparison of mean factor scores across modal segments for Chicago.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.