Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring factors affecting demand for possible future intercity transit options

  • Case Study and Applications
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increased intercity travel and consequent freeway congestion have made intercity transportation a big concern for planners and decision makers. Common rail-based solutions require high capital costs, and most existing modes face trade-offs between mobility and accessibility. An alternate solution could be High Speed Bus Transit (HSBT), an innovative intercity transit service proposed by the authors, that has high cruising speed on a freeway-dedicated lane and multiple terminals in the urban area. This paper is focused on modeling the mode choice behavior of individuals and identifying the significant factors influencing people’s choice of intercity travel mode. Furthermore, the feasibility and potential market of the proposed HSBT is also studied in competition with other intercity travel options such as drive, rail, regular bus and a demand-responsive shuttle service. To collect the data, an interactive stated preference survey was employed that estimates the respondent-specific attribute values in a real-time manner, customized to the individual information provided by the respondents. Such a process helps to present a choice set that reflects each individual’s travel context more realistically. The collected data showed that a transportation option with the characteristics of HSBT, that provides a fast, reliable, accessible, frequent and safe intercity travel, has the potential to take up a considerable market share, even larger than driving. Having applied a discrete choice model, the significant factors influencing the choice preference were recognized and the analysis results provided insightful findings toward intercity mode choice behavior and improving intercity transit services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basu D, Hunt JD (2012) Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: a stated preference approach. Trans Res A: Policy Pract 46(9):1465–1476

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates J (1982) Stated preference technique for the analysis of transportation behavior. In: Proceedings of world conference of transportation research, Hamburg, pp 252–265

  • Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T (2002) Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Trans Policy 9(2):107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F (1992) Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 24(2):149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyond Traffic: 2045 Final Report (2017) US Department of Transportation

  • Collins EM (2013) The curbside bus industry: a new era of bus travel. Master Thesis, University of Delaware

  • Correia GA, Viegas JM (2011) Carpooling and carpool clubs: clarifying concepts and assessing value enhancement possibilities through a stated preference web survey in Lisbon, Portugal. Trans Res A: Policy Pract 45(2):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers L, Cools M, Tormans H, Lateur PJ, Janssens D, Wets G (2012) Identifying the determinants of light rail mode choice for medium- and long-distance trips. Trans Res Rec: J Trans Res Board 2275(1):30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards M, Mackett RL (1996) Developing new urban public transport systems: an irrational decision-making process. Trans Policy 3(4):225–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getting there greener-The guide to your lower-carbon vacation (2008) Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS Publications, Cambridge

  • Givoni M, Rietveld P (2007) The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel. Trans Policy 14(5):357–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Waters WG (1994) Light rail and bus priority systems: choice or blind commitment? Res Trans Econ 3:139–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Li Z, Mulley C (2014) Drivers of bus rapid transit systems—influences on patronage and service frequency. Res Trans Econ 48:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Mulley C, Rose JM (2015) Understanding the relationship between voting preferences for public transport and perceptions and preferences for bus rapid transit versus light rail. J Trans Econ Policy 49(2):236–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine J, Scott J (2000) Seamless, accessible travel: users’ views of the public transport journey and interchange. Trans Policy 7(3):217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hole AR (2004) Forecasting the demand for an employee park and ride service using commuters’ stated choices. Trans Policy 11(4):355–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppelman FS, Bhat C (2006) A self instructing course in mode choice modeling: multinomial and nested logit models. US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1988) Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mackett RL, Edwards M (1998) The impact of new urban public transport systems: will the expectations be met? Trans Res A: Policy Pract 32(4):231–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) Commuter rail strategic plan (2008) URS Corporation, Phoenix, AZ

  • Meyer MD, Miller EJ (2001) Urban transportation planning: a decision-oriented approach. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Outwater ML, Spitz G, Lobb J, Campbell M, Sana B, Pendyala R, Woodford W (2011) Characteristics of premium transit services that affect mode choice: TCRP H-37 summary of phase 1. Transportation 38(4):605–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passenger Rail Corridor Study: Tucson to Phoenix—Shaping the vision (2014) Arizona Department of Transportation

  • Passenger Rail Study: Tucson to Phoenix (2015) Arizona Department of Transportation. http://azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PassengerRail. Accessed May 2015

  • Ranjbari A, Chiu YC, Hickman M (2016) Flexpress: a flexible and express intercity transit service. In: Proceedings of ASCE international conference on transportation and development, Houston, pp 513–524

  • Rietveld P (2000) The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the bicycle in The Netherlands. Trans Res D: Trans Environ 5(1):71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider J, Dutzik T, Unrein S, DE Brown (2012) Connecting Phoenix and Tucson: the benefits of intercity rail in the sun corridor. Frontier Group & Arizona PIRG Education Fund, Phoenix

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwieterman JP, Fischer L (2010) The intercity bus: America’s fastest growing transportation mode—2010 update on scheduled bus service. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, DePaul University, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwieterman JP, Antolin B, Kohls J et al (2014) Motoring into the mainstream: intercity bus service in the United States—2013 year-in-review. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, DePaul University, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiftan Y, Vary D, Geyer D (2006) Demand for park shuttle services: a stated-preference approach. J Trans Geogr 14(1):52–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Superbus Project (2014) http://superbusproject.com. Accessed July 2014

  • Vuchic VR (1991) Point of view: urban rail transit systems—recognizing the value of rail transit. Trans Res News 156:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuchic VR, Stanger RM (1973) Lindenwold rail line and Shirley busway: a comparison. Highw Res Rec 459:13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Woldeamanuel M (2012) Evaluating the competitiveness of intercity buses in terms of sustainability indicators. J Public Trans 15(3):77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worldwide W, CandN FJ (2000) TCRP Report 63: enhancing the visibility and image of transit in the United States and Canada. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board. National Academy Press, Washington

  • Yannes CD, Lownes NE, Garrick NW, Johnston RJ (2010) Operationalizing place making in a choice experiment context. Trans Res Rec: J Trans Res Board 2144(1):121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University of Arizona ATLAS (Advanced Traffic and Logistics Algorithms and Systems) research center for funding support. We are also grateful to the University of Arizona and Arizona State University students who helped with the data collection process and made this research possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, 1209 E 2nd St., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Andisheh Ranjbari & Yi-Chang Chiu

  2. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Mark Hickman

Authors
  1. Andisheh Ranjbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Chang Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Hickman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andisheh Ranjbari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ranjbari, A., Chiu, YC. & Hickman, M. Exploring factors affecting demand for possible future intercity transit options. Public Transp 9, 463–481 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0161-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0161-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation