Technical Appendix to Air Demand in a Dynamic Competitive Context with the Automobile (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 109-120
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 110... ...
110 CHOICE MODEL The choice model explains the preferences expressed by respondents between car and air in the stated choice survey. The choice model explains the deterministic component of utility of a given mode i for respondent n in choice situation t as: π , , πΏ π½ , π₯ , , π πΌ In this expression, πΏ is a mode specific constant (normalized to zero for car)
|
From page 111... ...
111 LV1: Auto Orientation Our first latent construct is used to explain the answers to three separate attitudinal statements. Below, we show the estimates for the π parameters (measuring the impact of the latent variable on the indicator)
|
From page 112... ...
112 LV2: Values Information/Technology Our second latent construct is used to explain the answers to two separate attitudinal statements. This LV was only included in the leisure model, due to insignificant effect when tested in the business model.
|
From page 113... ...
113 LV3: Multiday Trips Unpleasant Our third latent construct is used to explain the answers to three separate attitudinal statements. The positive signs of the π show that a higher value for this LV means stronger agreement with the attitudinal statement, identifying this LV indicating aversion to multiday car trips.
|
From page 114... ...
114 LV4: Car Stress Our fourth latent construct is used to explain the answers to two separate attitudinal statements. The positive signs of the π show that a higher value for this LV means stronger agreement with the attitudinal statement, identifying this LV as an anti-car LV.
|
From page 115... ...
115 LV5: Airport Stress Our fifth and final latent construct is used to explain the answers to three separate attitudinal statements. The positive signs of the π show that a higher value for this LV means stronger agreement with the attitudinal statement, identifying this LV as an anti-air travel LV.
|
From page 116... ...
116 IMPACT OF LVS ON UTILITIES IN CHOICE MODEL We next look at the impact of the five LVs on the mode specific utilities in the choice model. Each time, the π for air is normalized to zero, meaning that we see the impact on car relative to air.
|
From page 117... ...
117 The model also includes shifts on the air constant for all the large departure airports included in the study. These are best understood regionally, as there are slightly different factors affecting each region.
|
From page 118... ...
118 ESTIMATES RELATING TO EXPLANATORY VARIABLES We finally look at the parameters explaining the sensitivities to the explanatory variables, namely costs, access time, in-vehicle time, frequency as well as direct or indirect flight itineraries and whether or not autonomous vehicles were used for the driving trip. All cost and time coefficients are negative, indicating that increased cost or time to a travel option would be a deterrent to that option.
|
From page 119... ...
119 IMPLIED MONETARY VALUATIONS While not a core focus of this study, one way to evaluate the sensitivities that are estimated in the model is to calculate the marginal rates of substitution for different attributes of interest. In basic economic theory, the marginal rate of substitution is the amount of one good (e.g., money)
|
From page 120... ...
120 WILLINGNESS TO PAY BUSINESS LEISURE WTP for one additional flight per day for connecting flights as base freq of 20 $1.15 $0.81 WTP for direct vs 1 stop $143.15 $76.85 WTP for direct vs 2 stops $220.54 $99.87 .
|
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.