, 38:605 | Cite as

Characteristics of premium transit services that affect mode choice

TCRP H-37 summary of phase 1
  • Maren L. OutwaterEmail author
  • Greg Spitz
  • John Lobb
  • Margaret Campbell
  • Bhargava Sana
  • Ram Pendyala
  • William Woodford


This research seeks to improve the understanding of the full range of determinants for mode choice behavior and to offer practical solutions to practitioners on representing and distinguishing these characteristics in travel demand forecasting models. The principal findings were that the representation of awareness of transit services is significantly different than the underlying assumption of mode choice and forecasting models that there is perfect awareness and consideration of all modes. Furthermore, inclusion of non-traditional transit attributes and attitudes can improve mode choice models and reduce bias constants. Additional methods and analyses are necessary to bring these results into practice. The work is being conducted in two phases. This paper documents the results of Phase I, which included data collection for one case study city (Salt Lake City), research and analysis of non-traditional transit attributes in mode choice models, awareness of transit services, and recommendations for bringing these analyses into practice. Phase II will include data collection for two additional case study cities (Chicago and Charlotte) with minor modifications based on limitations identified in Phase I, additional analyses where Phase I results indicated a need, and a demonstration of the research in practice for at least one case study city.


Mode choice models Premium transit services Stated preference Transit awareness and familiarity Transit service attributes Traveler attitudes 



The research described in this paper is being performed under TCRP Project H-37 by Resource Systems Group, Inc., with assistance from AECOM, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Arizona State University and University of Texas. John Lobb of Resource Systems Group was the Principal Investigator for the project, in close partnership with Greg Spitz, Thomas Adler and Maren Outwater of Resource Systems Group. Maren Outwater, John Lobb, Margaret Campbell, and Frances Niles were the primary authors of this paper. Thomas Adler and Resource Systems Group personnel (Frances Niles, Greg Spitz, John Lobb and Margaret Campbell) provided the resources and expertise for designing and conducting the onsite survey in Salt Lake City as well as much of the analysis. Jevan Stubits, Resource Systems Group, did a thorough and thoughtful literature review. David Schmidt, Lakshmi Vana and Bill Woodford, AECOM, provided insights and modeling expertise on the awareness and choice consideration data. Ram Pendyala and Bhargava Sana, from Arizona State University, were responsible for the nested logit-modeling of the stated preference data. Margaret Campbell, Resource Systems Group performed the Maximum Difference Scaling modeling that was linked to the stated preference models. Bill Davidson of Parsons Brinckerhoff provided invaluable assistance in reviewing the stated preference models. The guidance of Dianne Schwager, the TCRP Program Office for the project, and the Project Panel has been appreciated.


  1. AECOM Consult, Inc.: JFK-Lower Manhattan AA commuter model enhancements for MTA regional transit forecasting model. In: PowerPoint Presentation (2006a)Google Scholar
  2. AECOM Consult, Inc.: Chicago Transit Authority Circle Line Alternatives Analysis and Metra New Starts Corridor Alternatives Analyses. Prepared for the Chicago Transit Authority and Metra, Chicago (2006b)Google Scholar
  3. AECOM Consult, Inc.: New York City Transit-BRT Phase 2 Travel Demand Framework and Forecasting Approach—Estimating Induced Riders and Diversions from Other Modes (2007)Google Scholar
  4. AECOM Consult, Inc.: Southeast Florida Regional Planning Model Coefficients and Constants File, Version 6.5 Finalized (2008)Google Scholar
  5. Barta, F., Brog, W., Erl, E.: Individualized marketing for public transportation fostering light-rail systems. In: Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  6. Chicago Transit Authority: Seatless Bus Experiment: Customer Preferences and Customer Observations. Prepared by Market Research Department (2008)Google Scholar
  7. Douglas, N., Karpouzis, K.: Valuing rail service quality attributes through rating surveys. In: 29th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Gold Coast. (2006). Cited September 4, 2008
  8. Federal Transit Administration: Discussion Piece #16: Calibration and Validation of Travel Models for New Starts Forecasting. (2006). Cited February 24, 2010
  9. Gould, J., Zhou, J.: A Social Experiment to Encourage Drive-Alone Commuters to “Try-Transit”. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  10. Hensher, D.A., Stopher, P., Bullock, P.: Service quality—developing a service index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transp Res 37A(6), 419–517 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. Kittleson and Associates, Inc, Hebert S. Levinson Transportation Consultants, DMJM + Harris: Bus rapid transit practitioner’s guide. In: TCRP Report 118, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Koppelman, F.S., Bhat, C.: A Self Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial And Nested Logit Models. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration,   (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Li, Y.-W.: Evaluating the urban commute experience: a time perception approach. Journal of Public Transp 6(4), 41–67 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. Litman, T.: Valuing transit service quality improvements: Considering comfort and convenience in transport project evaluation. Research Report, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada, (2007). Cited January 2, 2008
  15. Northwest Research Group, Inc.: Chicago Transit Authority 2003 Customer Satisfaction Survey 29. Final Report. Chicago Regional Transportation Authority (2004)Google Scholar
  16. Pepper, J., Spitz, G., Adler, T.: Customers’ perspectives on using multilevel coaches to increase rail system capacity. In: Presented at the Transportation Research Board’s 82nd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Resource Systems Group, Inc.: JFK-Lower Manhattan AA Air Passenger Airport Access Mode Choice Modeling. Technical Report (2006)Google Scholar
  18. Spitz, G.M., Greene, E.R., Adler, T.J., Dallison, R.: Qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying transit stations. In Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Swanson, J., Ampt, L., Jones, P.: Measuring bus passenger preferences. Traffic Eng and Control 38(6), 330–336 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. The Kenney Group: RTD—FasTracks Survey of Denver Metro Residents. Regional Transportation District of Denver, CO. (2007). Cited September 13, 2008
  21. Wirthlin Worldwide, CandN, F.J.: Enhancing the Visibility and Image of Transit in the United States and Canada. TCRP Report 63, Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  22. Woodford, W.: Pathbuilder calibration with data on ridership patterns. In: Presentation at the 2007 Travel Forecasting for New Starts Workshop (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maren L. Outwater
    • 1
    Email author
  • Greg Spitz
    • 1
  • John Lobb
    • 1
  • Margaret Campbell
    • 1
  • Bhargava Sana
    • 1
  • Ram Pendyala
    • 2
  • William Woodford
    • 3
  1. 1.Resource Systems GroupWhite River JunctionUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.AECOMArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations