Improving the analysis of road pricing acceptability surveys by using hybrid models

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 49, Issue , 2013, Pages 302-316

  Di Ciommo, Floridea ^a   Monzón, Andrés ^a   Fernandez Heredia, Alvaro ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD EUROPEA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Hybrid models; Latent variables; Perception of fairness; Road pricing

Indexed keywords

COSTS; ROADS AND STREETS; TRAFFIC CONTROL; TRANSPORTATION CHARGES;

ACCEPTABILITY; ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS; DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; HYBRID MODEL; INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; LATENT VARIABLE; ROAD PRICING; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS;

SURVEYS;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FREIGHT TRANSPORT; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; ROAD PRICING; ROAD TRANSPORT; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 84874429068     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.007     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Ashok K., Dillon W.R., Yuan S. Extending discrete choice models to incorporate attitudinal and other latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research 2002, 39(1):31-46.
2. Azjen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 1991, 50:179-211.
3. Bamberg S., Rölle D. Determinants of people's acceptability of pricing measures - Replication and extension of a causal model. Acceptability of transport pricing strategies 2003, 235-248. Elsevier Science, Oxford. J. Schade, B. Schlag (Eds.).
4. Ben-Akiva M., Boccarà B. Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 1995, 12:9-24.
5. Ben-Akiva M., Mcfadden D., Train K., Walker J., Bhat C., Bierlaire M., Bolduc D., Boersch-Supan A., Brownstone D., Bunch D.S., Daly A., De Palma A., Gopinath D., Karlstrom A., Munizaga M.A. Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Marketing Letters 2002, 13:163-175.
6. Ben-Akiva M., Bierlaire M., Bolduc D., Walker J. Discrete Choice Analysis 2009, MIT Press, MA, pp. 338-378.
7. Ben-Akiva M., de Palma A., McFadden D., Abou-Zeid M., Chiappori P.A., de Lapparent M., Durlauf S., Fosgerau M., Fukuda D., Hess S., Manski C., Pakes A., Picard N., Walker J. Process and context in choice models. Marketing Letters 2012, 23(2):439-456.
8. Bolduc, D., Alvarez-Daziano, R., 2010. On estimation of hybrid choice models. In: Hess, S., Daly, A. (Eds.), Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-Art and the State-of-Practice. Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modeling Conference, Emerald, England.
9. Bolduc, D., Ben-Akiva, M., Walder, J., Michaud, A., 2005. Hybrid choice models with logit kernel: applicability to large scale models. In: Lee-Gossein, Doherty (Ed.), Integrated Land-use and Transportation Models: Behavioral Foundations. Elsevier.
10. Bolduc D., Boucher N., álvarez-Daziano R. Hybrid choice modeling of new technologies for car choice in Canada. Transportation Research Record 2008, 2082:63-71.
11. Bollen K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables 1989, John Willey and Sons, New York.
12. Cantillo V., Ortúzar J.de D., Williams H.C.W.L. Modeling discrete choices in the presence of inertia and serial correlation. Transportation Science 2007, 41:195-205.
13. Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L. How do individuals adapt their personal travel? Objective and subjective influences on the consideration of travel-related strategies for San Francisco Bay Area commuters. Transport Policy 2005, 12:291-302.
14. Commision of the European Communities (CEC), 2001. White Paper European Transport Policy 2010: Time to Decide. Brussels.
15. Commision of the European Communities (CEC), 2006. Directive 2006/38. Brussels.
16. Commision of the European Communities (CEC), 2008. Proposal 2008/0147 for a Directive of the Heavy Goods Vehicles for the Use of Certain Infrastructures. Brussels.
17. Commision of the European Communities (CEC), 2011. Directive 2011/76. Brussels.
18. Condeço-Melhorado A., Gutiérrez J., García-Palomares J.C. Spatial impacts of road pricing: accessibility, regional spillovers and territorial cohesion. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2011, 45(3):185-203.
19. Correia, G., Abreu e Silva, J., Viegas, J., 2010. Using latent attitudinal variables for measuring carpooling propensity. In: Proceeding of 12th World Conference on Transport Research. Lisbon.
20. De Groot J., Steg L. The role of value orientations in evaluating quality of life consequences of a transport pricing policy. Transportation Research Part D 2006, 11(2):160-165.
21. Di Ciommo, F., Monzón, A., Comendador, J., 2010. Road transport social costs in Spain: a new rationale for pricing policy. In: Selected Proceeding of 12th World Conference of Transport Research, Lisbon. ISBN: #978-989-96986-1-1.
22. Duarte, A., Garcia, C., Limão, S., Polydoropoulou, A., 2009. Experienced and expected happiness in transport mode decision making process. In: Proceeding 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
23. Eriksson L., Garvill J., Nordlund A.M. Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: the importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs. Transportation Research Part A 2008, 42:117-1128.
24. Frey, B.S., 2003. Why are efficient transport policy instruments so seldom used. In: Schade, J., Sclag, B. (Eds.), Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 63-76.
25. Fridstrøm, L., Minken, H., Moilanen, P., Shepherd, S.P., Vold, A., 2000. Economic and Equity Effects of Marginal Cost Pricing in Transportation. VATT Research Report 71, Helsinki, Finland.
26. Fujii S., Gärling T. Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2003, 37:389-402.
27. Gaunt M., Rye T., Allen S. Public acceptability of road user charging: the case of Edinburgh and the 2005 Referendum. Transport Reviews 2007, 27(1):85-102.
28. Golob T.F. Joint models of attitudes and behavior in evaluation of the San Diego I-15 congestion pricing project. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2001, 35:495-514.
29. Heath Y., Gifford R. Extending the theory of planned behavior: predicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2006, 32:2154-2189.
30. Ison S.G., Rye T. Implementing road user charging: the lessons learnt from Hong Kong, Cambridge and Central London. Transport Reviews 2005, 25(4):451-465.
31. Jaensirisak S., Wardman M., May A.D. Explaining variations in public acceptability of road pricing schemes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2005, 39(2):127-153.
32. Jakobsson C., Fujii S., Gärling T. Determinants of private car users' acceptance of road pricing. Transport Policy 2000, 7:153-158.
33. Jones, P., 1998. Urban Road Pricing: Public Acceptability and Barriers to Implementation. In: Button, K.J., Verhoef, E.T. (Eds.), Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and Environment. Edward Elgar, USA.
34. Jones P. Acceptability of transport pricing strategies: Meeting the challenge. Acceptability of transport pricing strategies 2003, 27-62. Elsevier Science, Oxford. J. Schade, B. Schlag (Eds.).
35. Jöreskog K.G. A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1969, 34:183-202.
36. Karash, K.H., Coogan, M.A., Adler, T., Cluett, C., Shaheen, S.A., Azjen, I., Simon, M., 2008. Understanding how Individuals make Travel and Location Decisions: Implications for Public Transportation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
37. Kottenhoff K., Brundell-Freij K. The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - the case of Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:297-305.
38. Link H. Acceptability of the German charging scheme for heavy goods vehicles: empirical evidence from freight company survey. Transport Reviews 2007, 28(2):141-158.
39. Link H., Polak J. Acceptability of transport pricing measures among public and professionals in Europe. Transportation Research Record 2003, 1839:34-44.
40. Litman T. Using road pricing revenue: economic efficiency and equity considerations. Transportation Research Record 1996, 1558:24-28.
41. Mayeres, I., Proost, S., 2002. Reforming Transport Pricing: An Economist's Perspective on Equity, Efficiency and Acceptability. Energy, Transport and Environment. Working Papers Series Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Energy, Transport and Environment.
42. McFadden D. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal Public Economics 1974, 3:303-328.
43. McFadden, D., 1981. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski y, C.F., McFadden, D. (Eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data and Econometric Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
44. MIFO, 2007. Anuario Estadístico 2006. Ministerio de Fomento.
45. Ortúzar J.de D., Willumsen L.G. Modeling Transport 2001, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. third ed.
46. PATS Consortium, 2001. Pricing Acceptability in the Transport Sector. Recommendations on Transport Pricing Strategies. Final Report of the PATS Project, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
47. Pendleton L.H., Shonkwiler J.S. Valuing bundled attributes: a latent characteristics approach. Land Economics 2001, 77:118-129.
48. Pridmore, A., Miola, A., 2011. Public Acceptability of Sustainable Transport Measures, Discussion Paper n. 2011-20, OECD/ITF.
49. Raveau S., Alvarez-Daziano R., Yáñez M.F., Bolduc D., Ortúzar J.de D. Sequential and simultaneous estimation of hybrid discrete choice models: some new findings. Transportation Research Record 2010.
50. Rienstra S.A., Rietveld P., Verhoef E.T. The social support for policy measures in passenger transport. A statistical analysis for the Netherlands. Transportation Research D 1999, 4:181-200.
51. Schade J. European Research Results on Transport Pricing Acceptability. Strategies 2003, 109-123. Acceptability of Transport Pricing, Elsevier, Oxford. J. Schade, B. Schlag (Eds.).
52. Schade J., Baum M. Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing. Transportation Research Part A 2007, 41:42-48.
53. Schade J., Schlag B. Acceptability of urban transport policy strategies. Transportation Research Part F 2006, 6:45-61.
54. Schlag B., Teubel U. Public acceptability of transport pricing. IATSS Research 1997, 21:134-142.
55. Schuitema G., Steg L., Vlek C. Are pricing policies effective to change car use?. IATSS Research 2007, 31(1):21-31.
56. Spearman C. General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychologist 1904, 15:201-293.
57. Swicher, Ungemah, 2006. So do you want to make a HOT Lane? The project manager's guide for an HOV-to-HoT conversion. In: Proceeding of the Transportation Research Board 85th Congress, Washington, DC.
58. Teubel U. The welfare effects and distributional impacts of road user charges on commuters - an empirical analysis of Dresden. International Journal of Transport Economics 2000, 27:231-255.
59. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
60. Tudela, A., Habib, K.M.N., Carrasco, J.A., Osman, A.O., 2011. Incorporating the Explicit Role of Psychological Factors on Mode Choice. A Hybrid Mode Choice Model by using Data from an Innovative Psychometric Survey. Paper Presented at the 2nd International Choice Modelling Conference, Leeds.
61. Ubbels B., Verhoef E. Behavioural responses to road pricing. Empirical results from a survey of Dutch car owners. Transportation Research Record 2006, 1960:159-166.
62. Ungemah D., Collier T. I'll tell you what I think. Transportation Research Record 2007, 1996:66-73.
63. Vassallo, J.M., Solís, C., Pérez-Martínez, P.J., Pérez de Villar, P., 2008. Balance económico: fiscal, social y medioambiental del transporte de mercancías en España, Report Spanish Truking Association (Fundación Corell), Madrid.
64. Verhoef E.T., Nijkamp N., Rietveld P. The social feasibility of road pricing: a case study for the Randstad Area. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1997, 31:255-276.
65. Vredin Johansson M., Heldt T., Johansson P. The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2006, 40:507-525.
66. Vrtic, M., Schuessler, N., Erath, A., Axhausen, K.W., 2007. Design Elements of Road Pricing Schemes and their Acceptability. Transportation Research Board 86th Congress, Washington, DC.
67. Walker, Joan, 2001. Extended discrete choice models: integrated framework, flexible error structures and latent variables. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
68. Winslott-Hiselius L., Brundell-Freij K., Vangland A., Byström C. The development of public attitudes towards the Stockholm congestion trial. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:269-282.
69. Yáñez, M.F., Cherchi, E., Ortúzar, J. de D., Heydecker, B., 2009. Intertia and shock effects on mode choice panel data: Implications of the Transantiago Implementation. In: 12th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Jaipur, India.
70. Yañez M.F., Raveau S., Ortúzar J., de D. Inclusion of latent variables in mixed logit models: modelling and forecasting. Transportation Research Part A 2010, 44:744-753.