Empirical analysis of the impact of security perception on intercity mode choice: A panel rank-ordered mixed logit model

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 1942, 2006, Pages 9-15

  Srinivasan, Sivaramakrishnan ^a   Bhat, Chandra R ^b   Holguin Veras, Jose ^c  

^a University of Florida   (United States)

^b The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^c RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR TRANSPORTATION; DATA ACQUISITION; DECISION MAKING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

AIRLINE SECURITY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; INTERCITY TRAVEL DECISIONS; SECURITY PERCEPTION;

SECURITY SYSTEMS;

EID: 33749319422     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/1942-02     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Kuppam, A. R., R. M. Pendyala, and S. Rahman. Analysis of the Role of Traveler Attitudes and Perceptions in Explaining Mode-Choice Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1676, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 68-76.
2. Liu, R., and G. Li. Subjective Values of Safety and Security. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
3. Guzhva, V. S., and N. Pagiavlas. U.S. Commercial Airline Performance After September 11, 2001: Decomposing the Effect of Terrorist Attack from Macroeconomic Influences. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2004, pp. 327-332.
4. Rossiter, A., and M. Dresner. The Impact of the September 11th Security Fee and Passenger Wait Time on Traffic Diversion and Highway Fatalities. Journal of Air Transport Management, No. 10, 2004, pp. 227-232.
5. Gigerenzer, G. Dread Risk, September 11, and Fatal Traffic Accidents. Psychological Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004, pp. 286-287.
6. Lee, J.-H., K.-S. Chon, and C. Park. Accommodating Heterogeneity and Heteroskedasticity in Intercity Travel Model Choice Model: Formulation and Application to Honam, South Korea, High-Speed Rail Demand Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1898, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 69-78.
7. Limtanakool, N., T. Schwanen, and M. Dijst. The Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics, Land Use, and Travel Time Considerations on Mode Choice for Long-Distance Trips. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
8. Carlsson, F. The Demand for Intercity Public Transport: The Case of Business Passengers. Applied Economics, Vol. 35, 2003, pp. 41-50.
9. Bhat, C. R. Accommodating Variations in Responsiveness to Level-of-Service Measures in Travel Mode Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 32, No. 7, 1998, pp. 495-507.
10. Bhat, C. R. Covariance Heterogeneity in Nested Logit Models: Econometric Structure and Application to Intercity Travel. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1997, pp. 11-21.
11. Bhat, C. R. A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value Model of Intercity Travel Mode Choice. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1995, pp. 471-483.
12. Forinash, C. V., and F. S. Koppelman. Application and Interpretation of Nested Logit Models of Intercity Mode Choice. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 98-106.
13. Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, UK, 2003.
14. Bhat, C. R., and S. Castelar. A Unified Mixed Logit Framework for Modeling Revealed and Stated Preferences: Formulation and Application to Congestion Pricing Analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2002, pp. 593-616.
15. Hensher, D. A. Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 107-133.
16. Beggs, S., S. Cardell, and J. Hausman. Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1981, pp. 1-20.
17. Chapman, R. G., and R. Staelin. Exploiting Rank-Ordered Choice Set Data Within Stochastic Utility Model. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1982, pp. 288-301.
18. Hausman, J. A., and P. A. Ruud. Specifying and Testing Econometric Models for Rank-Ordered Data. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 34, 1987, pp. 83-104.
19. Ben-Akiva, M., T. Morikawa, and F. Shirioshi. Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1991, pp. 253-268.
20. Bradley, M., and A. Daly. Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Test for Rank-Order and Fatigue Effects in Stated Preference Data. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 167-184.
21. Odeck, J. Ranking of Regional Road Investment in Norway: Does Socioeconomic Analysis Matter? Transportation, Vol. 23, 1996, pp. 123-140.
22. Fridstrom, L., and R. Elvik. The Barely Revealed Preference Behind Road Investment Priorities. Public Choice, Vol. 92, 1997, pp. 145-168.
23. Hunt, J. D. Stated Preference Analysis of Sensitivities to Elements of Transportation and Urban Form. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 76-86.
24. Layton, D. F. Random Coefficients Models for Stated Preference Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 40, 2000, pp. 21-36.
25. Calfee, J., C. Winston, and R. Stempsski. Econometric Issues in Estimating Consumer Preferences from Stated Preference Data: A Case Study of the Value of Automobile Travel Time. Review of Econometrics and Statistics, Vol. 83, No. 4, 2001, pp. 699-707.
26. Bhat, C. R. A Quasi-Random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Model. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 35, 2001, pp. 677-693.
27. Holguin-Veras, J., R. E. Paaswell, and A. Yali. Impacts of Extreme Events on Intercity Passenger Travel Behavior: The September 11th Experience. In Impacts of and Human Response to the September 11, 2001 Disasters: What Research Tells Us. Special Publication 39. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, forthcoming.
28. Cohen, S., and G. M. Williamson. Perceived Stress in a Probability Sample for the United States. In The Social Psychology of Health, S. Spacapan and S. Oskamp (eds.), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif., 1988, pp. 31-67.