IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v46y2015icp1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying resident preferences for bus-based and rail-based investments as a complementary buy in perspective to inform project planning prioritisation

Author

Listed:
  • Hensher, David A.
  • Ho, Chinh
  • Mulley, Corinne

Abstract

Much of the debate associated with the development of new public transport infrastructure appears to have an emotional bias with communities in favour of one mode, especially rail. This, in turn, carries much sway at the political level as if there is no budget constraint or consideration of value for money and coverage. This paper presents a stated choice experiment to investigate this context as two unlabelled options described by 20 potential drivers of community preferences for improved public transport. Each choice scenario is conditioned on a given route length but with different costs, reflecting different modal investment options for the same route length. To establish whether a modal bias exists within and between geographical jurisdictions, the choice scenario is followed by a labelling of each investment option to reveal whether the option is bus rapid transit (BRT) or light rail transit (LRT). Data from all eight capital cities of Australia, collected in mid-2014, form the empirical setting. Mixed logit random regret models provide new evidence on the nature and extent of community modal bias in this choice setting. The paper also proposes a complementary tool to benefit-cost analysis that uses the residence preferences model to show, through scenario analysis, the potential gains in public support for BRT over LRT. The results suggest that BRT should be in the mix of candidate projects if more than one mode is considered and not ignored, as is so often the case in developed economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying resident preferences for bus-based and rail-based investments as a complementary buy in perspective to inform project planning prioritisation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.05.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692315000770
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.05.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Redman, Lauren & Friman, Margareta & Gärling, Tommy & Hartig, Terry, 2013. "Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 119-127.
    3. dell'Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel & Cecín, Patricia, 2010. "Modelling user perception of bus transit quality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 388-397, November.
    4. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    5. Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2008. "A Stated Preference Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in Public Transport," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 509-523, February.
    6. Chorus, Caspar G. & Arentze, Theo A. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2008. "A Random Regret-Minimization model of travel choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Wright, C. & Egan, J., 2000. "De-marketing the car," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 287-294, October.
    8. Currie, Graham & Wallis, Ian, 2008. "Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesis of evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 419-429.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    10. Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, G., 2008. "Willingness-to-pay of public transport users for improvement in service quality," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 38, pages 107-118.
    11. Stradling, Stephen G. & Anable, Jillian & Carreno, Michael, 2007. "Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 98-106, January.
    12. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2002. "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 107-116, April.
    13. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng & Mulley, Corinne, 2014. "Drivers of bus rapid transit systems – Influences on patronage and service frequency," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 159-165.
    14. Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo, 2007. "Quality and public transport service contracts," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 36, pages 92-106.
    15. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2015. "Modal image: candidate drivers of preference differences for BRT and LRT," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 7-23, January.
    16. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 428-443, June.
    17. Schwanen, Tim & Banister, David & Anable, Jillian, 2012. "Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 522-532.
    18. David A. Hensher & Corinne Mulley & John M. Rose, 2015. "Understanding the Relationship between Voting Preferences for Public Transport and Perceptions and Preferences for Bus Rapid Transit Versus Light Rail," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(2), pages 236-260, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diogo Da Fonseca-Soares & Josicleda Domiciano Galvinicio & Sayonara Andrade Eliziário & Angel Fermin Ramos-Ridao, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Trends and Characteristics of Railway Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Love, Peter E.D. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic & Welde, Morten & Odeck, James, 2017. "Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 27-39.
    3. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    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. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying preferences for public transport investments under a constrained budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-46.
    2. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley, 2015. "Modal image: candidate drivers of preference differences for BRT and LRT," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 7-23, January.
    3. Epstein, Bryan & Givoni, Moshe, 2016. "Analyzing the gap between the QOS demanded by PT users and QOS supplied by service operators," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 622-637.
    4. Juan de Oña & Rocio de Oña, 2015. "Quality of Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 605-622, August.
    5. Nkurunziza, Alphonse & Zuidgeest, Mark & Brussel, Mark & Van den Bosch, Frans, 2012. "Spatial variation of transit service quality preferences in Dar-es-Salaam," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 12-21.
    6. Mulley, Corinne & Ho, Chinh & Ho, Loan & Hensher, David & Rose, John, 2018. "Will bus travellers walk further for a more frequent service? An international study using a stated preference approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 88-97.
    7. Caspar G. Chorus & Sander Cranenburgh, 2018. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence—commentary," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 247-256, January.
    8. Wan, Dan & Kamga, Camille & Liu, Jun & Sugiura, Aaron & Beaton, Eric B., 2016. "Rider perception of a “light” Bus Rapid Transit system - The New York City Select Bus Service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 41-55.
    9. Hernandez, Sara & Monzon, Andres & de Oña, Rocío, 2016. "Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 31-43.
    10. Aydin, Nezir & Celik, Erkan & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2015. "A hierarchical customer satisfaction framework for evaluating rail transit systems of Istanbul," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 61-81.
    11. Juan Oña & Rocío Oña & Griselda López, 2016. "Transit service quality analysis using cluster analysis and decision trees: a step forward to personalized marketing in public transportation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 725-747, September.
    12. Andisheh Ranjbari & Yi-Chang Chiu & Mark Hickman, 2017. "Exploring factors affecting demand for possible future intercity transit options," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 463-481, July.
    13. Aydin, Nezir, 2017. "A fuzzy-based multi-dimensional and multi-period service quality evaluation outline for rail transit systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 87-98.
    14. Machado-León, José Luis & de Oña, Rocío & Baouni, Tahar & de Oña, Juan, 2017. "Railway transit services in Algiers: priority improvement actions based on users perceptions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 175-185.
    15. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "How to better represent preferences in choice models: The contributions to preference heterogeneity attributable to the presence of process heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 218-248.
    16. Zhang, Chunqin & Liu, Yong & Lu, Weite & Xiao, Guangnian, 2019. "Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese public transport service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 149-164.
    17. Rubén Cordera & Soledad Nogués & Esther González-González & Luigi dell’Olio, 2019. "Intra-Urban Spatial Disparities in User Satisfaction with Public Transport Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-22, October.
    18. Rahman, Farzana & Das, Tanmay & Hadiuzzaman, Md & Hossain, Sanjana, 2016. "Perceived service quality of paratransit in developing countries: A structural equation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 23-38.
    19. Sarker, Rumana Islam & Kaplan, Sigal & Mailer, Markus & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2019. "Applying affective event theory to explain transit users’ reactions to service disruptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 593-605.
    20. Toşa, Cristian & Sato, Hitomi & Morikawa, Takayuki & Miwa, Tomio, 2018. "Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 78-93.

    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:jotrge:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:1-9. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    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.