Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 166 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode Maren Outwater Bhargav Sana Nazneen Ferdous Bill Woodford RSG White River Junction, VT a n d John Lobb Canaan, NH i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Dave Schmitt Jeff Roux AECOM Arlington, VA Chandra Bhat Raghu Sidharthan UnivERSity Of tExAS Austin, TX Ram Pendyala ARizOnA StAtE UnivERSity Tempe, AZ a n d Stephane Hess UnivERSity Of LEEdS Leeds, United Kingdom

TCRP REPORT 166 Project H-37 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-28395-3 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Admin istration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activ ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without com pensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Maren Outwater, P.E., of RSG was the Principal Investigator for the project, working in close partner- ship with John Lobb, who was the Principal Investigator for Phase 1 and who led the implementation in Phase 2. RSG personnel Greg Spitz, Margaret Campbell, Jevan Stubits, and Frances Niles provided the resources and expertise for designing and conducting the surveys in Salt Lake City, Chicago, and Charlotte. Dr. Chandra Bhat and Raghu Sidharthan from the University of Texas at Austin were respon- sible for the awareness and consideration models using independent bivariate binary probit methods and mode choice models using joint revealed preference-stated preference choice methods. Dr. Stephane Hess, a visiting scientist from the University of Leeds, developed integrated choice latent variable models of awareness, consideration, and mode choice. David Schmitt, Lakshmi Vana, Jeff Roux, and Amir Shahpar, of AECOM, provided insights and modeling expertise on the initial awareness and consideration data, and on the evaluation of travel times. Ram Pendyala, Arizona State University, was responsible for the factor analysis of the traveler attitudinal data and the original mode choice models for Salt Lake City. Bhargav Sana, from RSG, tested and implemented the path choice models in Salt Lake City, and sup- ported the development of the original mode choice models for Salt Lake City. Nazneen Ferdous and Margaret Campbell, RSG, performed the maximum difference scaling (MaxDiff) that was linked to the stated preference models. Bill Woodford and Thomas Adler, RSG, led the evaluation of transit networks and provided senior technical advice throughout the project. Bill Davidson, Parsons Brinckerhoff, pro- vided a review of the stated preference models. Special thanks goes to James Ryan of the Federal Transit Administration, whose contributions greatly benefited the translation of the complex modeling features into relevant key findings. CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 166 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Dianne S. Schwager, Senior Program Officer Jeffrey Oser, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Assistant Editor TCRP PROJECT H-37 PANEL Field of Policy and Planning Jennifer A. John, John/Parker Consulting, LLC, Tigard, OR (Chair) Mick Crandall, Utah Transit, Salt Lake City, UT Tom W. Marchwinski, New Jersey Transit Authority, Newark, NJ Ronald Milone, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC Michael R. Morris, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, TX David Ory, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA Thomas Rossi, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, MA Franklin L. Spielberg, Falls Church, VA M. Nazrul Islam, FTA Liaison James Ryan, FTA Liaison Kimberly Fisher, TRB Liaison

TCRP Report 166: Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode provides a concise presentation of the research on key factors—beyond travel time and cost—that affect travelers’ choice of premium transit services. The report is supported by 10 technical appendices that present the detailed research results. The audiences for this research include both travel modelers and transit planners seeking to improve transit fore- casting methods at metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Traditionally, travel models use travel time and cost to assess the usefulness of each mode of transportation to make a particular trip. Other factors that affect the selection of mode are accounted for using a single constant term that represents other attributes. In many cases, these attributes represent conditions that may not be the same for all trips. Travel forecasting models would benefit by incorporating an expanded list of non-traditional attri- butes so that the probability of using transit to make a trip is more specifically related to the characteristics of a potential transit journey. Potential non-traditional transit characteristics include on-board and station amenities, reliability, span of service, and service visibility/ branding. These characteristics are not typically directly considered in travel forecasting models. This research sought to improve the understanding of the full range of determinants for transit travel behavior and to offer practical solutions to practitioners seeking to represent and distinguish transit characteristics in travel forecasting models. The key findings of this research include the value of non-traditional transit service attributes on travelers’ choice of mode, in particular the influence of awareness and consideration of transit service on modal alternatives, and the importance of traveler attitudes toward both awareness and consideration of transit and on the choice of transit or auto in mode choice. The appendices present detailed research results including a state-of-the-practice litera- ture review, survey instruments, models estimated by the research team, model testing, and model implementation and calibration results. The models demonstrate an approach for including non-traditional transit service attributes in the representation of both transit sup- ply (networks) and demand (mode choice models), reducing the magnitude of the modal specific constant term while maintaining the ability of the model to forecast ridership on specific transit services. The testing conducted in this project included replacing transit access and service modes, such as drive to light rail or walk to local bus, as alternatives in the mode choice model with transit alternatives defined by the elements of the path, such as a short walk to transit path, a no-transfer path, or a premium service path. F O R E W O R D By Dianne S. Schwager Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

1 Summary 5 Chapter 1 Introduction 5 Motivation for the Project 5 Literature and Practice Reviews 6 Research Process 7 Structure of this Report 8 Chapter 2 Important Non-Traditional Transit Attributes 9 Effects on the Attractiveness of Transit 9 Key Findings 9 Research Methods 11 Research Results 12 Effects on Awareness and Consideration of Transit Options 13 Key Findings 14 Research Methods 15 Research Results 17 The Role of Traveler Attitudes 17 Key Findings 17 Research Methods 20 Research Results 20 Summary of Key Findings 22 Chapter 3 Implementation in Travel Models 22 Results of Implementation Testing 23 Implementation Methods 26 Implementation Outcomes 30 Lessons Learned 31 Chapter 4 What’s Next? 32 Glossary 35 References A-1 Appendix A Literature and Practice Reviews B-1 Appendix B Survey Questionnaires C-1 Appendix C Detailed Survey Results D-1 Appendix D Transit Service Attribute Models E-1 Appendix E Multinomial Logit Models for Mode Choice F-1 Appendix F Awareness and Consideration Models C O N T E N T S

G-1 Appendix G Factor Analysis for Traveler Attitudes H-1 Appendix H Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Models I-1 Appendix I Transit Travel Time Analysis J-1 Appendix J Model Implementation and Calibration Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.