IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gbl/wpaper/2016-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating travel mode choice, including rail in regional area, based on a new family of regression models

Author

Listed:
  • Bouscasse, H.
  • Joly, I.
  • Peyhardi, J.

Abstract

In this paper, we model mode choice with the new specification of generalized linear models proposed by Peyardi et al. (2015). In logit models used by economists, the link function can be decomposed into the reference ratio of probabilities and a cumulative distribution function (cdf). Alternative cdfs (Student, Cauchy, Gumbel, Gompertz, Laplace, Normal) can be used. These cdfs differ in their symmetry (symetric or asymetric distributions) and in their tails (heavy or thin tails), each allowing a different distribution of behaviors. We test the statistic and economic implications of changing the cdf. First, we investigate the goodness-of-fit indicators (AIC, BIC, Mc-Fadden R2). Then, we compare estimated parameters in terms of sign and significativity. And finally, we look at behavioural outputs such as value of time and demand elasticities. We use a recent stated preferences survey conducted by the author in the Rhône-Alpes Région (France). Its specificity is to specifically address the question of mode choice (rail, coach and car) in a regional context. Attributes include travel time, cost and comfort. We also investigate the cross effect of travel time and comfort. Comparisons between cdfs are made on the basis of three models, including only attributes variables or only individual variables or both. Our results show that the different cdfs provide quite similar results. But, in our estimations, the logistic cdf never ranks among the best options. In terms of significance and sign of coefficients, parameters' estimation are globally the same even if some special features can be noticed. Looking at time equivalence of comfort, we notice that in the model without individual variables, the cdf has a major influence on outputs. In particular, the Student cdf provides very consistent results while some other cdfs (e.g. Gompertz, Logistic, Normal) are extreme.

Suggested Citation

  • Bouscasse, H. & Joly, I. & Peyhardi, J., 2016. "Estimating travel mode choice, including rail in regional area, based on a new family of regression models," Working Papers 2016-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
  • Handle: RePEc:gbl:wpaper:2016-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gael.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/sites/gael/files/doc-recherche/WP/A2016/gael2016-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lyons, Glenn & Jain , Juliet & Susilo , Yusak O. & Atkins, Steve, 2013. "Comparing rail passengers’ travel time use in Great Britain between 2004 and 2010," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:17, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    2. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    3. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    4. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    5. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    6. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    7. Abrantes, Pedro A.L. & Wardman, Mark R., 2011. "Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17, January.
    8. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2002. "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 107-116, April.
    9. Iragaël Joly & Stéphanie Vincent-Geslin, 2016. "Intensive travel time: an obligation or a choice?," Post-Print halshs-01309467, HAL.
    10. Arentze, Theo A. & Molin, Eric J.E., 2013. "Travelers’ preferences in multimodal networks: Design and results of a comprehensive series of choice experiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-28.
    11. Glenn Lyons & Juliet Jain & Yusak Susilo & Stephen Atkins, 2013. "Comparing Rail Passengers' Travel Time Use in Great Britain Between 2004 and 2010," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 560-579, November.
    12. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2009. "Efficient design for willingness to pay in choice experiments: evidence from the field," 2009 Conference, August 27-28, 2009, Nelson, New Zealand 97156, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage & Jordan Louviere, 2005. "Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 349-362, April.
    14. J. Peyhardi & C. Trottier & Y. Guédon, 2015. "A new specification of generalized linear models for categorical responses," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 102(4), pages 889-906.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Bouscasse, Hélène & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2019. "Perceived comfort and values of travel time savings in the Rhône-Alpes Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 370-387.
    3. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    4. Shamshiripour, Ali & Rahimi, Ehsan & (Kouros) Mohammadian, Abolfazl & Auld, Joshua, 2020. "Investigating the influence of latent lifestyles on productive travels: Insights into designing autonomous transit system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 469-484.
    5. Christos Makriyannis & Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2022. "Do numerical probabilities promote informed stated preference responses under inherent uncertainty? Insight from a coastal adaptation choice experiment," Working Papers 2022-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    6. Jinsoo Hwang & Seong Ok Lyu & Sun-Bai Cho, 2019. "In-Flight Casinos, Is It Really a Nonsensical Idea? An Exploratory Approach Using Different Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    8. Ricardo A. Daziano, 2022. "A choice experiment assessment of stated early response to COVID-19 vaccines in the USA," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 417-437, December.
    10. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    11. Junyi Shen & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2007. "Does energy efficiency label alter consumers f purchase decision? A latent class approach on Shanghai data," OSIPP Discussion Paper 07E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    12. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Bansal, Prateek & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2018. "Comparison of parametric and semiparametric representations of unobserved preference heterogeneity in logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 97-113.
    14. Junyi Shen & Yusuke Sakata & Yoshizo Hashimoto, 2006. "A Comparison between Latent Class Model and Mixed Logit Model for Transport Mode Choice: Evidences from Two Datasets of Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 06-05, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    15. Lagerkvist, C.J. & Edenbrandt, A.K. & Tibbelin, I. & Wahlstedt, Y., 2020. "Preferences for sustainable and responsible equity funds - A choice experiment with Swedish private investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    16. Rahmani, Djamel & Loureiro, Maria L., 2019. "Assessing drivers’ preferences for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) in Spain," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 89-97.
    17. Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2020. "Public perspective on the environmental impacts of sea sand mining: Evidence from a choice experiment in South Korea," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Damien Jourdain1,2,3 & Juliette Lairez4,5 & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(4), pages 417-437.
    19. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & François Affholder, 2020. "Farmers’ preference for cropping systems and the development of sustainable intensification: a choice experiment approach," Post-Print hal-02995632, HAL.
    20. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    LOGIT MODEL; REFERENCE MODELS; VALUE OF TIME; ELASTICITIES; MODE CHOICE;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gbl:wpaper:2016-04. 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: Adrien Hervouet (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inragfr.html .

    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.