Bibliography and Technical Appendices to Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 71-96
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 71... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 71 TECHNICAL APPENDIX: ICLV AND HYBRID MODEL DEVELOPMENT This technical appendix provides a full description of the NCRRP ICLV/Hybrid Model summarized in Chapter 5 of NCRRP Report 4. This text was significant shortened for use in Chapter 5 and this version should be used by those wanting a more complete description of the model.
|
From page 72... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 72 Survey Work and Data Processing The survey work comprised an online stated preference questionnaire that was designed to reduce respondent burden and increase respondent participation (Dillman)
|
From page 73... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 73 Model Specification Separate models were estimated for four different segments: β’ work, composed of business and attending a conference, with a total of 1,043 respondents; β’ vacation, with a total of 2,062 individuals; β’ visiting friends and relatives (VFR) , with a total of 2,724 individuals; and β’ other purposes, with a total of 735 individuals.
|
From page 74... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 74 Latent Attitudes The latent attitude specification used in these models follows on from earlier factor analysis work carried out on the same data. In particular, we define four latent variables πΌπΌππ, with l=1,β¦,L, where L=4.
|
From page 75... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 75 β’ employment: dummy for respondents who are not employed, interacted with the constant for non-car modes (employed as base) ; β’ households with fewer cars than adults: dummy interacted with the car constant (one or fewer cars per adult)
|
From page 76... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 76 This brings us to an important point. The specification of an alternative specific constant (except for bus)
|
From page 77... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 77 πΏπΏππ = β« β« β« β π§π§πΌπΌππππ,ππ β π§π§ πΌπΌππ,ππ4 ππ=1 πΌπΌ ππ=1πΏπΏπ½π½πΌπΌ β πΏπΏπΌπΌπ π ,ππ12π π =1 ππ(πΌπΌ)
|
From page 78... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 78 of explaining mode choices for intercity travel, especially after accounting for random heterogeneity and the role of attitudes. (These measures are unadjusted for the number of parameters as it is not immediately clear how many degrees of freedom should be used, but with the overall data size, any adjustment would have a very minor impact only.)
|
From page 79... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 79 β’ Having more vehicles than licenses in a household increases the probability of traveling by car for work trips. β’ Compared to respondents with a graduate degree, those without are: o more likely to use bus on VFR and other trips; and o more likely to use air on VFR trips than those with a degree β’ Compared to respondents in firm employment, those not are: o more likely to travel by bus for work reasons; o less likely to travel by air for other reasons.
|
From page 80... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 80 Attitude Toward Information Technology The results in Table 3 relate to the latent attitude toward information technology, where this was only included for VFR and other purposes after no impact on mode choice behavior was found for work and vacation. This may be seen as surprising for work especially, but could be the result of a relatively homogeneous group of work travelers, who all have a heightened use of information technology, making it hard to find an impact on mode choice.
|
From page 81... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 81 put into the context that the impact is even more negative on car and air, showing simply that these respondents are more likely to choose bus than others, which is a reasonable result. Strength of Impact of Latent Attitudes A key aspect of our modeling approach was to include pure random heterogeneity not linked to the latent attitudes in addition to that attributed to the latent attitudes.
|
From page 82... ...
Technical Appendix: The ICLV/Hybrid Model Development 82 There is debate in the academic literature about endogeneity and causality in hybrid choice models. For example, there is concern about assuming that attitudes toward urbanism increase by 10%, as it is hard to tell whether an urban attitude is developed which causes the choice in mode or if by choosing a particular mode it affects your attitude toward urbanism due to "cognitive dissonance," meaning the way we rationalize our decisions.
|
From page 83... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 83 TABLE 1 Attitudinal Indicators car attitude "Rather than owning a car, I would prefer to borrow, share, or rent a car just for when I need it" "I love the freedom and independence I get from owning one or more cars" "I feel I am less dependent on cars than my parents are/were" technology attitude "It would be important to me to receive e-mail or text message updates about my bus or train trip" "Being able to freely perform tasks, including using a laptop, tablet, or smartphone is important to me" Respondent owns smart technology (at least one smartphone, tablet, GPS device or laptop) urbanism attitude "I enjoy being out and about and observing people" "I like to live in a neighborhood where I can walk to a commercial or village center" "If everyone works together, we could improve the environment and future for the earth" privacy attitude "The idea of being on a train or a bus with people I do not know is uncomfortable" "I don't mind traveling with people I do not know" "The thought of sharing a car with others for such a trip seems unpleasant to me"
|
From page 84... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 84 TABLE 2 Model Fit Statistics, VTT Measures at Income of $125k per Year, Impact of Explanatory Variables and Mode Constants WORK VACATION VFR OTHER Respondents 1,043 2,062 2,724 735 Log-likelihood (total) -15,827.00 -30,867.10 -48,659.70 -20,354.90 Log-likelihood (choice)
|
From page 85... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 85 cost ππππππππ(βπ½π½) (income reporters)
|
From page 86... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 86 distance under 200 miles -1.3584 -3.38 -1.5424 -2.65 -1.6538 -4.78 -1.5062 -3.17 distance over 400 miles 2.2162 2.29 2.1668 4.46 1.0978 2.51 0.5217 0.63 frequency of service 0.0325 1.41 0.1325 4.07 West coast -2.8008 -3.70 rail constant πππΏπΏππ mean 2.4121 4.09 0.7658 1.71 2.6482 7.44 1.8148 2.95 πππΏπΏππ standard deviation 1.6040 8.78 -0.4448 -1.94 0.9862 5.55 1.6237 7.28 πΎπΎππ female 0.1405 0.88 ππππ overnight trip -0.5962 -1.67 three or more nights away -1.6014 -3.74 one other person in party -1.6532 -4.14 -0.5459 -2.79 two or more other people in party -2.2215 -5.56 -1.1882 -6.10 West coast -0.5172 -1.06 -0.7450 -2.09
|
From page 87... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 87 TABLE 3 Formation and role of attitudes ATTITUDE TOWARDS CARS WORK VACATION VFR OTHER est t-rat est t-rat est t-rat est t-rat πΎπΎππ female -0.2193 -3.44 -0.1639 -2.68 -0.2075 -2.32 aged under 35 0.5038 1.95 0.2325 1.63 0.9432 5.73 aged between 45 and 54 -0.3996 -2.15 -0.4035 -4.44 -0.3929 -5.24 aged between 55 and 64 -0.5256 -2.95 -0.5740 -5.11 -0.7531 -9.27 aged 65 and over -0.5715 -2.78 -0.7918 -7.03 -0.8867 -8.34 -0.2905 -2.02 not a graduate -0.2466 -2.25 -0.1382 -2.11 -0.3530 -3.25 not employed 0.1972 2.69 ππππ,ππ impact on utility of car -1.4274 -3.82 -0.9658 -6.25 -2.1502 -9.76 -2.0074 -7.58 impact on utility of air -0.4972 -1.04 -1.0998 -5.76 impact on utility of rail -0.7620 -5.99 "Rather than owning a car, I would prefer to borrow, share, or rent a car just for when I need it" ππππ,π π 1.4209 9.12 1.2817 14.91 1.2889 18.06 1.0385 7.92 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -2.8212 -10.56 -2.7423 -18.40 -2.9712 -21.67 -2.1196 -13.10 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -1.3212 -5.41 -1.2173 -9.63 -1.4694 -12.83 -0.5597 -4.32 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -0.5792 -2.43 -0.4568 -3.75 -0.6748 -6.29 0.1011 0.82 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 0.3791 1.58 0.5171 4.26 0.2937 2.89 1.1651 8.78 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 0.9369 3.84 1.2863 10.26 0.9754 9.54 1.6324 11.50 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 2.2262 8.45 2.3445 16.61 2.1557 19.65 2.6352 14.60 "I love the freedom and independence I get from owning one or more cars" ππππ,π π -1.3647 -9.39 -1.1748 -14.04 -1.2836 -15.55 -1.7967 -9.37 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -3.7261 -13.07 -3.7698 -20.90 -3.5752 -23.40 -4.5916 -11.88 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -3.1936 -12.17 -3.0738 -20.21 -2.6962 -21.75 -3.9447 -11.60 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -2.5118 -10.22 -2.5962 -18.68 -2.2404 -19.84 -3.3174 -11.33 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -1.5595 -6.89 -1.5760 -13.04 -1.2376 -12.38 -2.0700 -9.30 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 -0.2125 -0.96 -0.3931 -3.51 -0.1820 -1.91 -0.8658 -4.65 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 1.5275 6.32 1.4001 11.39 1.5926 14.90 1.0509 5.72 "I feel I am less dependent on cars than ππππ,π π 1.7313 9.32 1.8284 14.11 1.6630 17.02 1.7576 9.45 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -2.0500 -6.42 -1.8646 -9.44 -2.1162 -15.12 -1.0587 -5.42
|
From page 88... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 88 My parents are/were" π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -0.3465 -1.19 -0.2243 -1.31 -0.4727 -3.85 0.4023 2.21 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 0.5098 1.78 0.6788 4.02 0.4302 3.51 1.2695 6.84 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 1.2436 4.34 1.4735 8.68 1.2988 10.15 2.0399 9.72 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 2.1221 7.20 2.4754 13.77 2.2659 16.15 2.8938 11.60 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 3.1273 9.95 3.8838 17.54 3.4159 20.15 4.0424 12.39 ATTITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WORK VACATION VFR OTHER est t-rat est t-rat πΎπΎππ female 0.1741 2.63 aged between 45 and 54 -0.2133 -2.65 -0.1977 -1.42 aged between 55 and 64 -0.5013 -5.18 -0.4943 -3.73 aged 65 and over -0.8184 -7.41 -0.8722 -5.09 not a graduate -0.0956 -1.32 not employed -0.1308 -1.72 ππππ,ππ impact on utility of car -0.5772 -2.12 -1.2915 -6.74 impact on utility of air 2.1968 9.15 "It would be important to me to receive e-mail or text message updates about my bus or train trip" ππππ,π π 1.3723 11.70 1.0909 7.85 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -4.9150 -23.08 -4.3277 -14.93 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -3.7676 -21.39 -3.3221 -13.66 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -3.2105 -19.94 -2.8478 -13.17 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -1.8515 -14.02 -1.5464 -8.79 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 -0.3459 -3.09 -0.2304 -1.50 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 1.6264 13.24 1.5908 9.93 "Being able to freely perform tasks, including using a laptop, tablet, or smartphone is important to me" ππππ,π π 1.3627 12.48 1.3074 8.91 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -5.2905 -23.71 -5.5909 -12.86 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -3.9949 -21.85 -4.0694 -13.36 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -3.2259 -19.88 -3.0776 -11.87 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -1.8991 -14.29 -1.7347 -8.22 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 -0.5586 -4.88 -0.5008 -2.80 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 1.3549 11.65 1.2747 7.22 ATTITUDE TOWARD URBANISM WORK VACATION VFR OTHER est t-rat
|
From page 89... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 89 πΎπΎππ female 0.3617 3.26 not a graduate -0.2253 -2.06 ππππ,ππ impact on utility of air 1.2629 4.83 impact on utility of rail 0.5292 2.99 "I enjoy being out and about and observing people" ππππ,π π 1.1813 8.48 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -5.0410 -13.48 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -4.1311 -15.44 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -3.1033 -14.95 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -2.0236 -12.96 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 -0.4778 -3.83 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 1.5659 11.01 "I like to live in a neighborhood where I can walk to a commercial or village center" ππππ,π π 0.9229 7.45 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -3.8221 -15.60 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -2.8778 -15.58 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -2.0316 -13.82 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -1.2632 -9.88 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 -0.0810 -0.74 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 1.3224 11.05 "If everyone works together, we could improve the environment and future for the earth" ππππ,π π 1.4226 7.59 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -4.8139 -12.74 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -4.1706 -14.31 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -3.7071 -14.05 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -2.7650 -12.87 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 -1.3056 -8.08 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 0.6032 4.05 ATTITUDE TOWARDS PRIVACY WORK VACATION VFR OTHER est t-rat est t-rat est t-rat est t-rat πΎπΎππ female 0.2065 1.86 aged between 55 and 64 0.2962 2.62 0.1913 2.20 0.2462 1.49 aged 65 and over 0.5004 3.19 0.4041 4.00 0.3524 4.60 0.5450 3.50 not a graduate -0.5850 -4.36 -0.3099 -4.40 -0.1688 -2.53
|
From page 90... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 90 not employed -0.0865 -1.10 -0.1947 -2.91 -0.4732 -3.60 ππππ,ππ impact on utility of car -1.1976 -6.25 -0.7277 -4.73 -1.6770 -6.45 impact on utility of air -1.0411 -4.89 -0.5819 -2.65 -2.5531 -7.65 impact on utility of rail 1.4259 7.33 -0.5487 -2.14 "The idea of being on a train or a bus with people I do not know is uncomfortable" ππππ,π π -1.4550 -7.93 -1.7859 -14.49 -1.7989 -15.61 -1.6129 -8.51 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -2.2301 -12.06 -2.7850 -18.98 -2.4584 -21.02 -2.7330 -10.88 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -0.1512 -1.28 -0.4803 -4.94 -0.1746 -2.24 -0.5418 -2.76 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 0.6267 5.29 0.5066 5.02 0.8564 10.30 0.4542 2.36 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 1.7855 11.97 1.7337 14.03 2.0993 19.87 1.6867 8.04 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 2.9063 14.87 3.0485 19.66 3.4794 24.39 3.1367 12.38 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 4.2639 15.24 4.5268 21.51 4.6240 25.56 4.1860 13.49 "I don't mind traveling with people I do not know" ππππ,π π 1.0128 8.13 1.1832 13.65 1.4419 15.93 1.5671 8.32 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -3.5739 -18.10 -3.6891 -24.50 -3.9863 -27.70 -3.9006 -12.29 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -2.5355 -17.32 -2.3661 -22.08 -2.8443 -26.27 -2.6732 -10.86 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -1.5207 -13.28 -1.3536 -15.46 -1.7684 -20.36 -1.5305 -7.53 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 -0.5239 -5.48 -0.2703 -3.65 -0.6019 -8.55 -0.2730 -1.50 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 0.4945 5.23 0.8456 11.27 0.6204 8.93 1.0450 5.46 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 2.4524 16.64 2.9431 25.26 2.8805 26.80 3.2882 12.50 "The thought of sharing a car with others for such a trip seems unpleasant to me" ππππ,π π -0.5084 -5.49 -0.6565 -9.51 -0.6797 -10.95 -0.5455 -4.56 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,1 -2.6219 -20.85 -2.5018 -28.28 -2.4289 -32.24 -2.3753 -15.92 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,2 -1.2451 -15.02 -1.1030 -18.16 -1.0356 -20.53 -0.8579 -8.49 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,3 -0.5286 -7.13 -0.3937 -7.03 -0.3023 -6.47 -0.2227 -2.32 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,4 0.3628 4.93 0.4967 8.76 0.6163 12.76 0.7708 7.99 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,5 1.2602 14.81 1.3513 20.62 1.5306 26.78 1.6225 14.54 π‘π‘πΌπΌππ,6 2.6287 21.14 2.6230 28.08 2.8671 33.24 3.0780 17.28
|
From page 91... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 91 TABLE 4 Different Sources of Random Heterogeneity in Mode Constants (Share of Variance) WORK VACATION VFR OTHER ca r pure random variation 0.80 0.76 0.45 0.41 car attitude 0.20 0.09 0.47 0.28 information technology attitude 0.03 0.12 privacy attitude 0.15 0.05 0.19 ai r pure random variation 0.91 0.81 0.77 0.14 car attitude 0.09 0.18 information technology attitude 0.32 urbanism 0.11 privacy attitude 0.19 0.05 0.43 ra il pure random variation 0.56 1.00 0.63 0.82 car attitude 0.37 urbanism 0.09 privacy attitude 0.44 0.09
|
From page 92... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 92 TABLE 5 Comparison of Direct and Indirect Impact of Socio-Demographics (Impacts of Socio-Demographics on Modal Constants) WORK VACATION VFR OTHER direct through LV direct through LV direct through LV direct through LV CA R female -0.78 -0.21 -0.35 -0.25 -1.41 -0.07 aged under 35 0.72 -0.85 0.22 1.89 age between 45 and 54 -0.57 -0.39 -0.97 -0.26 aged between 55 and 64 -0.75 -0.33 -1.91 -0.23 aged 65 and over -0.82 -0.28 -2.12 -0.80 no graduate degree -0.35 -0.37 -1.61 -0.48 -1.03 -0.71 not in employment -0.91 -0.10 0.21 -0.79 AI R female -0.78 1.36 -0.35 -0.18 -1.41 0.98 aged under 35 0.25 -0.85 age between 45 and 54 -0.20 -0.43 -0.43 aged between 55 and 64 -0.26 0.20 -0.58 -0.83 -0.46 aged 65 and over -0.28 0.42 -0.90 -0.77 -0.52 no graduate degree -0.12 -0.32 -0.58 -0.25 -1.03 -0.28 not in employment -0.91 -0.09 0.10 -1.27 -1.21 RA IL female -0.78 0.14 -0.35 -0.12 -1.41 0.30 aged under 35 -0.85 age between 45 and 54 -0.30 aged between 55 and 64 0.42 -0.57 0.14 aged 65 and over 0.71 -0.68 0.30 no graduate degree -0.83 -1.61 -0.11 -1.03 -0.12 not in employment -0.91 0.15 -0.26
|
From page 93... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 93 TABLE 6 How Demographics affect the share of Rail Trips in the Model % change in rail trips Anti-car Pro Pro Urbanism Less concerned privacy All at once Technology Shift female to male attitude 2.30% -0.41% -0.30% -0.40% 1.20% Shift male to female attitude -1.80% 0.30% 0.20% 0.40% -1.00% Shift age groups to under 35 attitude 17.95% 2.50% 0.00% -3.40% 16.40% Shift under 35 to 35-44 attitude -1.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -1.70% Shift age groups to over 65 attitude -11.90% -3.40% 0.00% 10.40% -5.70% Shift no college to college attitude 1.20% 0.10% 0.10% 2.70% 4.20% Shift college to no college attitude -3.60% -0.30% -0.20% -7.50% -11.40% Shift no job to employed attitude -0.60% 0.20% 0.00% 1.30% 0.90% Shift employed to no job attitude 1.20% -0.40% 0.00% -2.50% -1.70%
|
From page 94... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 94 REFERENCES Abou-Zeid, M., Ben-Akiva, M., Bierlaire, M., Choudhury, C
|
From page 95... ...
Technical Appendix: ICLV/Hybrid Choice Model Development 95 Glerum, A., Atasoy, B and Bierlaire, M
|
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.