Modelling the dynamics of bus use in a changing travel environment using panel data

Transportation

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 487-509

  Chatterjee, Kiron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dynamics; Initial conditions; Panel data; State dependence; Travel mode choice; Unobserved heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

INITIAL CONDITIONS; PANEL DATA; STATE DEPENDENCE; TRAVEL MODE CHOICE; UNOBSERVED HETEROGENEITY;

DYNAMICS; SURVEYS;

RAPID TRANSIT;

BUS TRANSPORT; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FORECASTING METHOD; MODELING; PANEL DATA; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 79954597518     PISSN: 00494488     EISSN: 15729435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-010-9312-y     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Arulampalam, W., Stewart, M. B.: Simplified implementation of the Heckman estimator of the dynamic probit model and a comparison with alternative estimators. Warwick Economic Research Paper Series No. 884, Department of Economics, University of Warwick. http://econpapers. repec. org/paper/wrkwarwec/884. htm (2008). Accessed 12 April 2010.
2. Bhat, C. R.: Incorporating observed and unobserved heterogeneity in urban work travel mode choice modelling. Transp. Sci. 34(2), 228-238 (2000).
3. Bradley, M.: A practical comparison of modeling approaches for panel data. In: Golob, T. F., Kitamura, R., Long, L. (eds.) Panels for Transportation Planning, pp. 281-304. Kluwer, Boston (1997).
4. Cantillo, V., Ortúzar, J. d. D., Williams, H. C. W. L.: Modelling discrete choices in the presence of inertia and serial correlation. Transp. Sci. 41(2), 195-205 (2007).
5. Chatterjee, K., Ma, K.: Time taken for residents to adopt a new public transport service: examining heterogeneity through duration modelling. Transportation 36(1), 1-25 (2009).
6. Dargay, J., Hanly, M.: Volatility of car ownership, commuting mode and time in the UK. Transp. Res. Part A 41(10), 934-948 (2007).
7. Golob, T.: Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B 37(1), 1-25 (2003).
8. Golob, T., Kitamura, R., Supernak, J.: A panel-based evaluation of the San Diego I-15 Carpool Lanes project. In: Golob, T. F., Kitamura, R., Long, L. (eds.) Panels for Transportation Planning, pp. 97-128. Kluwer, Boston (1997).
9. Goodwin, P. B.: The end of equilibrium. In: Garling, T., Laitila, T., Westin, K. (eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling, pp. 103-132. Elsevier, Oxford (1998).
10. Greene, W. H.: LIMDEP Version 8. 0: Econometric Modelling Guide, vol. 2. Econometric Software, Plainview (2002).
11. Grilliches, Z.: Distributed lags: a survey. Econometrica 35, 16-49 (1967).
12. Heckman, J. J.: Statistical models for discrete panel data. In: Manski, C. F., McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, pp. 114-178. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981a).
13. Heckman, J. J.: The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process. In: Manski, C. F., McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, pp. 179-195. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981b).
14. Hensher, D. A.: The timing of change: discrete and continuous time panels in transportation. In: Golob, T. F., Kitamura, R., Long, L. (eds.) Panels for Transportation Planning, pp. 305-319. Kluwer, Boston (1997).
15. Hsiao, C.: Analysis of Panel Data, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003).
16. Kitamura, R.: Longitudinal methods. In: Hensher, D. A., Button, K. J. (eds.) Handbook of Transport Modelling, pp. 113-129. Elsevier, Oxford (2000).
17. Kitamura, R.: A dynamic model system of car ownership, trip generation and mode split: model development and simulation experiment. Transportation 36(6), 711-732 (2009).
18. Kitamura, R., Bunch, D. S.: Heterogeneity and state dependence in household car ownership: a panel analysis using ordered-response probit models with error components. In: Koshi, M. (ed.) Transportation and Traffic Theory, pp. 477-496. Elsevier, Oxford (1990).
19. Mundlak, Y.: On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46, 69-85 (1978).
20. Orme, C. D.: Two-step inference in dynamic non-linear panel data models. Manuscript, School of Economic Studies, University of Manchester. http://personalpages. manchester. ac. uk/staff/chris. orme/ (2001). Accessed 12 April 2010.
21. Ramadurai, G., Srinivasan, K. K.: Dynamics and variability in within-day mode choice decisions: role of state dependence, habit persistence, and unobserved heterogeneity. Transp. Res. Rec. 1977, 43-52 (2006).
22. Roy, R., Chintagunta, P. K., Haldar, S.: A framework for investigating habits, "the hand of the past", and heterogeneity in dynamic brand choice. Mark. Sci. 15(3), 280-299 (1996).
23. Srinivasan, K. K., Bhargavi, P.: Longer-term changes in mode choice decisions in Chennai: a comparison between cross-sectional and dynamic model. Transportation 34(3), 355-374 (2007).
24. Woldeamanuel, M. G., Cyganski, R., Schulz, A., Justen, A.: Variation of households' car ownership across time: application of a panel data model. Transportation 36(4), 371-387 (2009).
25. Wooldridge, J. W.: Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, non-linear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. J. Appl. Econom. 20, 39-54 (2005).
26. Yanez, M. F., Ortúzar, J. d. D.: Modelling choice in a changing environment: assessing the shock effects of a new transport system. Paper presented at first international choice modelling conference, Harrogate, UK, 30 March-1 April 2009.
27. Yanez, M. F., Mansilla, P., Ortúzar, J. d. D.: The Santiago Panel: measuring the effects of implementing Transantiago. Transportation 37(1), 125-149 (2010).