TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD

534

Travel Behavior
and
Values

6 reports prepared for the 54th Annual Meeting

of the Transportation Research Board

~0~3
TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH BOARD
NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL
Washington, D. C., 1975
Transportation Research Record 534
Price $3.20
Edited for TRB by Joan B. Silberman
Subject areas
55 traffic measurements
84 urban transportation systems
Transportation Research Board publications are
available by ordering directly from the Board. They
are also obtainable on a regular basis through organiza-
tional or individual supporting membership in the
Board; members or library subscribers are eligible for
substantial discounts. For further information, write
to the Transportation Research Board, National Academy
of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N .W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20418 .
These papers report research work of the authors
that was done at institutions named by the authors. The
papers were offered to the Transportation Research
Board of the National Research Council for publication
and are published here in the interest of the dissemina-
tion of information from research, one of the major
functions of the Transportation Research Board.
Before publication, each paper was reviewed by
members of the TRB committee named as its sponsor
and accepted as objective, useful, and suitable for publi-
cation by the National Research Council. The members
of the review committee were chosen for recognized
scholarly competence and with due consideration for
the balance of disciplines appropriate to the subject con-
cerned.
Responsibility for the publication of these reports
rests with the sponsoring committee. However, the
opinions and conclusions expressed in the reports are
those of the individual au th ors and not necessarily
those of the sponsoring committee, the Transportation
Research Board, or the National Research Council.
Each report is reviewed and processed according to
the procedures established and monitored by the Re-
port Review Committee of the National Academy of
Sciences. Distribution of the report is approved by the
President of the Academy upon satisfactory completion
of the review process.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING IN PUBLICATION DATA

National Research Council. Tr~nsportation Research Board.
Travel behavior and values.
(Transportation research record; 534)
1. Choice of transportation- Congresses. 2. Transportation-Mathematical models-Congresses.
I. Title. II. Series.
TE7.H5 no. 534 [HE336.C5] 380.5'08s [380.5'3) 75-22264
ISBN 0-309-02385-8
CONTENTS
FOREWORD...... . . . . . .. ... ... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS MEASURES
OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IN MODELS OF TRANSPORTATION
BEHAVIOR
Timothy J. Tardiff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BEHAVIORAL MODELING OF
EXPRESS BUS-FRINGE PARKING DECISIONS
F. C. Kavak and M. J. Demetsky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

AGGREGATE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FROM

DISAGGREGATED BEHAVIORAL MODELS
Daniel Mc Fadden and Fred Reid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

ROLE OF WAITING TIME, COMFORT, AND CONVENIENCE IN

MODAL CHOICE FOR WORK TRIP
Staffan Algers, Stein Hansen, and G0ran Tegner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

APPLICATION OF DISAGGREGATE MODAL-CHOICE MODELS

TO TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR URBAN
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Peter S. Liou, Gerald S. Cohen, and David T. Hartgen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES AMONG ESTIMATES

OF THE Vl\LUE OF TIME
Joel M. Guttman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

SPONSORSHIP OF THIS RECORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 69

FOREWORD
The papers in this RECORD represent several important advances in the study of trav-
eler behavior and values. Five of the papers are concerned with behavioral travel de-
mand specifically, and one is concerned with the value of time.
Little work has been done in the past to determine what socioeconomic variables are
most relevant for classifying travelers into homogeneous behavior categories. Many
researchers have assumed that income, because of its demand-constraint coru1otatio11s,
is an important and appropriate variable, although they recognized that to collect data
on it was difficult. Tardiff tests the hypothesis that income is an important descriptor
of travelers by comparing it with three other socioeconomic characteristics: education,
occupation of the head of the household, and occupation of the respondent. He suggests
that income is generally less important than at least one of these other characteristics
and therefore recommends that one of them be used in place of income. However,
Tardiff does indicate some precautions to be taken concerning these conclusions. First,
the variables are defined by grouping, and different groupings may affect the results.
Second, the sample was small and mandated the use of linear additive socioeconomic
characteristics rather than the use of the variables as stratification criteria. Third,
a conventional modal-choice model could not be constructed, and thus the possibility
was removed of confident generalization of the results.
Kavak and Demetsky further add to the growing battery of calibrated modal-choice
models for work trips. Their models are developed for driving to the CBD as an alter-
native to parking in a fringe lot and using an express bus. Their models are based on
the logit technique and include two socioeconomic variables (age and sex), the competi-
tion for an automobile within the household, and relative times and costs. In contrast
to many of the earlier intraurban modal-choice models, Kavak and Demetsky found that
relative times and costs gave optimal explanation of revealed behavior when they were
formulated as differences relative to the average value of each of times and costs for
the trip. The resulting models demonstrated expected elasticities and apparent time
values that conform to other empirical studies. This appears to be the only instance
in which urban-area commuting trips were described best by this form of relative
time or cost variable, although this method has been appropriate for intercity trips.
As behavioral travel demand models constructed with disaggregate data have moved
from the research laboratory to real-world applications, there has been increasing
concern for methods of producing aggregate planning information. McFadden and Reid
point out that interzonal travel demand is, tautologically, the result of aggregating in-
dividual travel decisions for the zonal population. The traditional aggregate models
have not attempted such an aggregation procedure. McFadden and Reid demonstrate
that disaggregate and aggregate models have a common foundation and will be identical
for completely homogeneous zones and that aggregate forecasts may be obtained di-
rectly from a correctly calibrated aggregate model by using zonal means and the intra-
zonal variance-covariance matrix. They also determine the biases that result from
several plausible approaches to obtaining interzonal flows for planning purposes.
These approaches are direct calibration of an aggregate model, use of interzonal flow
data to calibrate a disaggregate model, use of zonal averages for the variables in a
disaggregate model, and use of a mixture of zonal averages and individual values. In
each case, an estimate of the biases is obtained and suggestions are made to provide
consistent estimates of travel volumes.
Algers, Hansen, and Tegner and Liou, Cohen, and Hartgen are concerned with the
operation of disaggregate models in planning situations. Algers, Hansen, and Tegner
use a number of models to investigate the effects of waiting time, comfort, and con-
venience on work-trip mode choices. Specifically, comfort is characterized as the
chances of getting a seat, and convenience as the number of transfers required. In

v
all cases, the analysis is conducted by examining the implied values of the attributes
based on a comparison of relevant coefficients with the cost coefficient and with the
ratio of the travel-time and travel-cost coefficients. Waiting time is analzyed directly
by the input of data on actual waiting times incurred. Transfers and seat availability
are analyzed by constructing models using various dummy variable constructs. The
authors conclude that these variables are all important in the modal-choice decision
and indicate that they have a pronowiced effect on the individual's value of travel time.
This exercise was carried out in the context of the development of planning models for
Stockholm.
Liou, Cohen, and Hartgen compare aggregate and disaggregate modal-choice models
for the same data set. The work, which was done as part of the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Study, compares disaggregate models developed from a 12 percent
subsample of the original household-interview sample and from a conventional aggre-
gate model. The models are developed for four categories of trips and use only two
independent variables, travel-time ratio and trip length (used by the conventional aggre-
gate model). After correction factors for aggregation were applied, the aggregated re-
sults of the disaggregate models were found to be comparable to those of the aggregate
models. Thus, this research documented that disaggregate modal-choice models can
perform as accurately as conventional aggregate models but require a much smaller
data set.
Much work, particularly in Australia and Europe, has been concerned with the de-
velopment of estimates of the value of time. Guttman points out that there are a num-
ber of sources of serious error in estimating values of time, all of which must be
avoided carefully or compensated for if satisfactory values of time are to be obtained.
Several problems are investigated in the paper: accounting for traveler uncer-
tainty in regard to perceptions of alternative times and costs; substitution of times of
day, routes, and modes; effects of comfort differences; and measurement procedures
for important variables in modal- or route-split estimation. Guttman finds that models
can be successfully reformulated to avoid the bias caused by traveler uncertainty, and
other errors can largely be avoided by correct selection of the sample for value-of-
time estimation. Guttman also concludes that measured data are less suitable for
value-of-time estimation than reported data and that the supposed reporting bias ap-
pears less important than has been previously expected. Taking into account these
various error sources, Guttman points out that the value of work-travel time based
on data from Stanford Research Institute should be about $5.17 rather than $2.84,
which was obtained by ignoring these errors.
Much yet remains to be done in all of the areas encompassed by this RECORD. How-
ever, it is clear from these papers that significant steps are being made in many of the
relevant research areas. The papers in this RECORD clearly move disaggregate
models substantially closer to full operation, particularly for the modal-choiee de-
cision, and cast some extremely important highlights on the value of travel times and
other attributes.

- Peter R. Stopher

vi
COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS
MEASURES OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IN
MODELS OF TRANSPORTATION BEHAVIOR
Timothy J. Tardiff,* University of California, Davis

Socioeconomic status is often theorized to be associated with variables

measuring transportation behavior, and, income is the most frequentlyused
measure of socioeconomic status in most transportation studies. However,
sociologists have long hypothesized that othe1· measures of socioeconomic
status, e.g., education or occupation, are more appropriate describers of
individuals or households in certain situations. The purpose of this paper is
to decide on empirical grounds whether income is more appropriate than
some of the other indicators of socioeconomic status in transportation mod-
eling contexts. Data were from a stratified probability sample of 223 house-
holds in the Santa Monica-west Los Angeles, California, area. Income of
the household, education of the respondent, and occupations of the household
head and the respondent were the indicators of socioeconomic status.
Classes of variables measuring transportation behavior (dependent vari-
ables) were trip frequencies and indicators of modal selection. Dependent
variables were used in models that included the indicators of socioeconomic
status as independent variables and in simple two-variable relationships in-
volving these indicators. Regression analysis, correlation analysis, logit
analysis, and simple tests of the significance of differences in means showed
that at least one of the other indicators was more strongly associated with
the dependent variables in almost all cases.

•THE major purpose of this paper is to compare the strengths of the relationships be-
tween several measures of socioeconomic status and variables measuring transporta-
tion behavior. In particular, the relationships involving income, a variable often in-
cluded in transportation models, will be compared to those involving other measures
of socioeconomic status, e.g., education and occupation. Such comparisons will in-
dicate whether these other measures should be included in future transportation studies
in place of, or in addition to, the income variable.

MODELS OF TRANSPORTATION BEHAVIOR

Models of individual (or household) travel behavior include, as the dependent variable,
a measure of transportation behavior such as frequency of travel or chOice of mode.
In addition, the independent variables can be divided into the following classes (not all
classes are necessarily present in a given model): (a) variables that describe the
available transportation systems, (b) variables that describe the individuals (or house-
holds), and (c) variables that are the results of interactions among variables in the
first two classes. Travel time is an example of variables in the first class, age is
an example from the second, and attitudes toward modes are examples of variables
from the third.

*Mr. Tardiff was a graduate student at the University of California, Irvine, when this research was performed.

1
2

The variables in the second class, which includes measures of socioeconomic status,
play a role somewhat different from that of the other variables. Whereas variables in
the other classes often have a definite behavioral interpretation, (e.g., such variables
might represent the decision process involved in the choice of modes), the variables in
the second class have no such interpretation. Consequently, when large samples are
available, such variables are sometimes used to stratify the sample into homogeneous
groups before the models are caUbrated. This strategy is used in place of calib1·ati.ng
a single unstratified model that contains the variables in the second class as additional
linear terms. That is, the strategy of stratification is based on the assumption that
the behavioral determinants of travel are somewhat different for various strata.
Stopher and Lavender (13) have found that stratification did, indeed, offer a closer
fitting model in the caseof modal-choice models. However, whether stratification
is used or not, a variable in the second class must be rather strongly associated with
the dependent variable if it is to be a useful addition to the mod.e l in question.

PREVIOUS USE OF SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

A review of the literature indicates that income has been the measure of socioeconomic
status most often used in transportation studies (8,~ 10,Q,.!_g.. g 15). In a few cases,
education has been used in addition to income (4, 'T).
The income variable is often included under-sfrictly economic assumptions. For
example, Lave (8) included income in his miodel of mode choice under the assumption
that, as income increases, a person's value of time also increases. A second example
is the use of income in models of household trip generation (10, 15). In these studies,
the variable is an indicator of the household resources availablefor travel.
However, sociologists have long recognized that there are other status indicators
on which people in society, or a subset thereof, diffe1·. Among these are education,
occupation, prestige, and interpersonal interactions (3, 5). Often these alternative
measures are used in empirical sociological applications Wlder the assumption that
the noneconomic indicators are more appropl'iate than income for describing individ-
uals or families. Relying on similar sociological arguments, Aldana et al. (1) chose
an occupational indicator rather than income as their measure of socioeconoriiic status.
They asserted that socioeconomic status in a sociological, rather than strictly econom-
ical, sense was the more appropriate describer of households with respect to travel
demand.
Rather than relying on a priori theoretical arguments, one may select the indicators
of socioeconomic status that are most strongly associated with the dependent V'ariable
in question. The empirical section of this paper is concerned with this method of se-
lection; that is, the same data base will be used to test relationships between the alter-
native measures of socioeconomic status and measures of h·anspo1·tation behavio1·.

RESEARCH DESIGN
The data necessary to test the relationships between socioeconomic status and trans-
portation behavior were gathered in November and December 1973 as part of a larger
study on transportation attitudes and behavior (14). A stratified probability sample of
223 households i:n the Santa Monica-west Los Angeles, California, ai·ea was selected.
One member from each household was interviewed. The size of the sample was based
on the fact that, on any variable in a study using a random sample of this size, the prob-
ability of the mean response being within 6.5 percent of the true mean for the entire
population is 95 percent.
The1·e are four possible measures of socioeconomic status available from the ques-
tionnaire used. Household income was measured on a seven-point scale. The highest
grade level completed by the respondent was recorded as the education variable, and
both the occupation of the household head and the respondent's occupation (if different)
were recorded. These were measu1·ed on a seven-point occupational scale developed
 3

by Hollingshead (2). The precise categories used for each variable are given in
Table 1. -
The variables measuring transportation behavior (dependent variables) can be di-
vided into two classes: (a) those measuring monthly frequencies of travel (trip gener-
ation) and {b) those indicating modal selection for particular trips. The variables in
the first class are stratified by the purposes of shopping, visiting, and entertainment-
recreation. In addition, frequencies of travel for any of the preceding three purposes
were used. For each strata of trip purpose, the total frequency of trips as well as the
vehicular frequency was available. Vehicullar frequency is generally the measure of
trip generation used in studies based on origin-destination data. It is a measure that
excludes trips by bicycle and walking.
The second class includes variables indicating the usual modes selected for the
work trip and the most frequent nonwork trip. Although other modes were used, in
the results that follow only the car and bus modes are considered. In addition, whether
an iudividual used the bus at all for any reason in the month (actually, four weeks) pre-
ceding the interview was recorded.
The entire sample was not available for the relationships to be tested here. First,
the seven respondents who failed to answer the income question were excluded from
further analyses. Second, based on the nature of the dependent variable, a different
number of respondents were used to test the relationships involving the various depen-
dent variables. For example, many respondents either did not take a work trip or used
neither the car nor the bus. Similarly, some respondents had to be excluded from tests
of relationships involving the measw·es of travel frequencies because of inconsistencies
in their answers to the relevant questions.

Relationships Involving Socioeconomic Status and Variables

Measuring Travel F1·equencies

Disaggregate models of travel frequencies, i.e., trip-generation models, have gen-

erally used the household as the unit of analysis (6, 15). In these applications, it is
assumed that the household, rather than the individual, is the basic decision-making
unit with respect to travel; however, there are models of travel frequencies that use
the individual as the basic unit, e.g., Lansing's model of long-distance travel (7).
Therefore, the issue of which unit of analysis is more appropriate in disaggregate
models of trip generation has not been definitively resolved. In the present case, the
individual is the basic unit because the sample contained only one respondent per house-
hold.
The models to be tested here are analogous to the models of household trip genera-
tion. In such models, there are variables indicating household needs for travel (num-
ber of persons per household) and variables indicating household resources available
for travel (number of cars per household, income). In the curi·ent applications, be-
cause the individual is the basic unit, the variable indicating the number of persons is
not necessary. The measure of automobile availability will be the ratio of the number
of automobiles in the respondent 1 s household to the number of licensed drivers. That
is, the automobile resources available to the individual are a share of those available
to the entire household. The other measures of socioeconomic status will be tested in
addition to the income variable. The sex of the respondent and an age variable are
also included in the model. (Sex is recorded as males = 1 and females= 2. Age is
measured on a seven-point scale with the following categories: 18 to 24 = 1, 25 to 34 =
2, 35 to 44 = 3, 45 to 54 = 4, 55 to 64 = 5, 65 to 74 = 6, and 75 and over= 7.) The
basic model is represented symbolically as

(1)

where Y is one of the variables (dependent) measuring monthly trip frequencies

Table 1. Variable scales used to measure indicators of socioeconomic status.

Scale Value Category Scale Value Category

Income
1 <$4,000
2 $4,000 to $7,999
3 $8,000 to $11,999
4 $12,000 to $14,999
5 $15,000 to $24,999
6 $25,000 to $50,000
7 >$50,000
Note : The highest grade level completed by the respondent is the edu cation variable.
Occupation
1 Higher executives of larger concerns, proprietors, and
major profe:sslo1mls
Business m:tnRgera, proprietors of medium-sized busi-
nesses, and lessor profes.slonnls
Admtntstrative pentonnel, O\'inere o( emall businesses,
and rntnor pro[cssionals
Cle rici:d and Bnl~ workers, te chnicians, and owners of
little businesses
5 Skilled manual workers
6 Machine operators and semiskilled manual workers
7 Unskilled manual workers

Table 2. Results of multiple regression analysis for total frequency.

AGE SEX C/DL !NC EDU OCl OC2

Con-
Trip Purpose et ant RC S.E. RC S.E. RC S.E. RC S.E. RC S.E. RC ~ S.E. R R' rsi s

Shopping 11.23 -0.27 0.43 +0.49 l.52 +2.44 l.79 -0.14 0.45 0.11 0.01 -0.01
(N = 205) B.23 -0.18 0.45 +0.50 l.52 +2.22 1.78 ~a.11 0.22 0. 12 0.01 0.08
10.37 -0.32 0.44 +0.46 l.52 +2.41 l.78 +0.18 0.41 0.11 0.01 0.01
10.02 -0.41 0.44 +0.02 l.57 +2.40 1.77 .49 0.41 0.14 0.02 0.06
Visiting 20.46 -1.30" 0.41 -2.44 1.41 -0.09 1.77 -0.83b 0.41 0.29 0.08 -0.13
(N = 211) 23.17 -1.54" 0.44 -2.37 1.42 -0.50 I. 76 -0.32 0.21 0.27 0.07 -0.02
17.51 -1.40" 0.42 -2.43 1.43 -0.68 1.76 +0.28 0.52 0.26 0.07 -0.01
17.40 -1.46" 0.42 -2.84 l.47 -0.71 1.75 +0.50 0.38 0.27 0.07 -0.00
Entertainment- 13.73 -1.27" 0.29 -2.40.. l.02 -0.23 1.23 +0.53 0.59 0.36 0.13 0. 12
recreation 8.92 -1.00· 0.30 -2.47b l.00 -0.26 1.21 +0,4:.. J , 15 0.39 0.15 0.27°
(N = 213) 17. 18 -1.10' 0. 30 -2.32b 1.01 -0.09 1.21 -0.69~ 0.27 0.38 0.14 0.24°
16.19 -1.13" 0.30 -2.01' 1.04 +0.05 1.22 -0.50 0.27 0.36 0.13 -0.22°
Shopping1 44. 82 -2.53" 0.74 -4.69 2.63 +0.04 3.20 +0.07 0.77 0.29 0.08 0.01
visiting, or 37.21 -2.19" 0.78 -4. 72 2.61 -0.30 3.16 +0,51 0.38 0.30 0.09 0 . 17d
entertainment- 46.31 -2.39" 0.76 -4.49 ?. . fi~ -0.01 3.15 -0.56 0.71 0.29 a.OB -0.13
recreation 44.51 -2 .62" 0.76 -5.09 2.73 +0.10 3.16 +0.3ti 0.'10 0.29 0.08 -0.07
(N = 197)

Not&: RC is the regression coefficient, A is tht multiple correlation coafficient, A2 is the squared multiple com1lation coefficient, rses is the simple correlation between the dependent variable and the indi·
cator of socioeconomic status, and SE. is the standard error.
'Significant at p <0.01. bSignificant at p <0.05 csignificant at p < O 01 (two-tail test) , dSignificant at p <0.05 !two-tail te~t!

Table 3. Results of multiple regression analysis for vehicular frequency.

AGE SEX C/DL INC EDU OCl OC2

Con-
Trlp Purpose st ant RC S.E . RC S.E . RC S.E. RC S.E . RC S. E. RC S. E. RC S.E. R R' rs cs

Shopping 3.09 -0.21 0.35 +l.85 1.24 +4.41" 1.46 +0.20 0.36 0.23 0.05 0.06
(N = 205) 2.76 -0.16 0.37 +l.81 l.24 +4.48" 1.45 +0.06 0.18 0.23 0.05 0.06
3.48 -0.21 0.3'3 ... 1.79 1 2.4 +4.4!t 1.45 +0.08 0.34 0.23 0.05 -0.00
2.94 -0.31 0.36 +1.37 1.28 +4.56"° 1.44 +U.4ti u.JJ U.25 0.06 0.08
Vioiting 13.86 -0.85' 0.36 -2.13 1.24 +2.01 1.56 -0. 56 0.36 0.26 0.07 -0.08
(N = 211) 15.69 -1.00· 0.38 -2.0B 1.25 +l.74 1.54 -0.21 0.19 0.25 0.06 -0.00
11.93 -0.91' 0.37 -2.12 l.25 +1.61 1.54 +0.17 0.34 0.24 0.06 -0.02
12.07 -0.92' 0.37 -2.25 1.29 +l.58 1.54 +0.17 0.34 0.24 0.06 -0.05
Entertainment • 8.87 -0.96" 0.23 -1.12 0.80 +1.~:i~ U.':i7 +U.1'9 0.2S 0 :.tR 0 . 1~ 0,07
recreation 5.76 -a.so· 0.24 -1.14 0.80 +1.85 0.96 +0.24b 0.12 0.38 0.14 0.23°
(N = 213) 10.58 -0.86' 0.23 -1.05 0.80 +l.94~ 0.96 -0.42' 0.22 0.37 0.14 -0.20°
10.03 -0.87" 0.24 -0.83 0.82 +2.02b 0.96 -0.34 0.22 0.37 0.13 -0.20'
Shopping, 25.49 -1.87" 0.68 -1.40 2.41 +7.0Bb 2.94 +0.10 0.71 0.29 0.09 0.04
visiting, or 22.64 -1.73' 0.72 -1.43 2.41 +6.99b 2.91 +0.20 0,35 0.29 0.09 0. 13
entertainment- 26.76 -1.76b 0.70 -1.25 2.42 +7 .07b 2.90 -0.43 0.65 0.29 0.09 -0.11
recreation 25.50 -1.92" 0.70 -1.62 2.51 +7.J5b 2.90 +0 , 19 0. 65 0.29 0.09 -0.07
(N = 197)

Note : See note, Table 2.

1Significant 11t p <O 01 . bSignificanl at p < 0~05 csignificant at p < 0.01 ~two-tail test) _
 5

stratified by trip purposes, AGE is the age variable, SEX is the sex vru:iable, C/DL is
the automobile availability ratio, and SES is one of the four indicators of socioeconomic
status (INC is the income variable, EDU is the education variable, OCl indicates the
occupation of the household head, and OC2 indicates the occupation of the respondent).
As mentioned earlier, there are four strata of trip purposes (including the stratum
of the variables measuring travel frequencies for any of the three specific purposes)
and two measures of travel frequency, total and vehicular frequency, for each stratum.
For each combination of trip purpose and measure of travel frequency, four versions
of the basic model are tested, i.e., one version for each of the measures of socioeco-
nomic status. The results of the multiple regression analyses are given in Tables 2
and 3.
Before the relative performances of the various indicators of socioeconomic status
are discussed in detail, some general observations are in order. It is apparent from
the results in Tables 2 and 3 that none of the indicators of socioeconomic status are
especially good predictors of travel frequencies for the purposes of shopping and visit-
ing. On the other hand, almost all of the indicators are significantly associated with
the trip·frequencies in the entertainment-recreation stratum. A possible reason for
these variations in explanatory power is that the first two purposes are relatively more
basic, and hence, there may be less systematic variance to be explained. Similarly,
entertainment-recreation travel is relatively more discretionary, and, therefore, there
may be more systematic variance in the dependent variables.
The three independent variables other than the measures of socioeconomic status
follow general patterns throughout the regression analysis. The age variable is in all
cases negatively associated with the dependent variables. In all relationships, exclud-
ing those involving shopping travel, the sex variable is such that women travel less
frequently. Finally, the pattem involving the automobile availability ratio is inter-
esting. When measures of total travel frequency (Table 2) are the dependent variables,
the coefficients of the automobile availability ratio are insignificant and often are in a
direction contrary to intuition. On the other hand, in Table 3, the coefficients of the
automobile availability ratio are much larger and often statistically significant. This
finding appears to indicate that differences in vehicular travel frequencies resulting
from differential automobile availability may be offset by more nonvehicular travel by
those with fewer automobile resources available.
The relative performances of the various indicators of socioeconomic status will
now be observed, and special attention will be focused on the income variable. Only
for the visiting stratwn is the income variable superior to the other indicators. Fur-
ther, for the entertainment-recreation stratum and the stratum containing travel fre-
quencies for any of the three purposes, the income variable appears to be clearly infe-
rior to the other three indicators. This finding is especially important because overall
fit of the models in these last two strata, especially the entertainment-recreation stra-
tum, is better than the fit in the shopping and visiting strata.
An interesting finding is that, in three of the four possible combinations of trip pur-
pose and measure of travel frequency for the last two trip purpose strata, the educa-
tion variable performed the best in terms of yielding the version of the basic model
that explained the most variance. In the case of vehicular travel for any of the three
purposes, although the variable indicating the occupation of the head of the household
yielded a model explaining slightly more variance than that involving education (the dif-
ference in multiple correlation coefficients was indiscernible when the coefficients
were rOWlded to two decimal places), the simple, two-variable correlation between
the dependent variable and the measures of socioeconomic status was highest for the
relationship containing the education variable. Inasmuch as the education variable is
probably easier to measure in terms of definition, operation, and interviewing than
the other three indicators, this particular finding assumes added importance.
6

Relationships Involving Socioeconomic Status and Variables

Indicating Modal Selection

The assumption common to many of the existing models of mode choice is that individ-
uals trade off time savings for increased costs in their selection of modes (!!_, .!!_, 11, 12,
13) .. Such models are calibrated by using statistical techniques appropriate for situa-
tions in which the dependent vai:iable is categoric rather than continuous. The partic -
ular technique that has been used most often is multivariate logit analysis. Based on
this technique, a modal-choice model in which there ai·e two alternative modes might
be

(2)

where

n
L(X) =CONSTANT+ a1ATIME + a2ACOST + L ai+ 2 11 (3)
i=l

where ATIME is the variable comparing the times of the competing modes, ACOST is
the analogous variable involving the costs, 11 are variables describing individuals, and
P(Mode 1) is the probability of selecting the first mode.
The data needed to calib1·ate such models must meet at least two requirements.
First, data on the times and costs for all competing modes must be available. The
present data base includes this information. Second, there must be a method of sep-
arating those who choose among modes from those who are captive to one of the modes,
and therefore are not included in the data used to calibrate the model. In this paper,
the criterion used to separate choosers from captives was whether or not the respon-
dents perceived the existence of a mode that is an alternative to their usual mode.
Unfortunately, when this criterion was applied, only 38 respondents were choosers
between the car and bus for the work trip (34 car users and 4 bus users). Similarly,
there were 41 choosers for the most frequent nonwork trip (33 car users and 8 bus
users). The small number of bus users as well as the small overall number of choosers
prevents the calibration of modal-choice models for these trips.
There are alternative tests that may shed some light on the issue of which indicator
of socioeconomic status is most strongly associated with modal selection. First, for
both the work trip and the most frequent nonwork trip, it is possible to observe the dif-
ferences in means between the car and bus user groups based on the various indicators
of socioeconomic status. In this case, the modal-use groups include both choosers and
captives.
Second, inasmuch as the data indicate whether each respondent used the bus at all in
the month preceding the interview, it is possible to calibrate a modified modal-choice
model by using this information as the dependent variable. Because travel time and
trip costs are trip specific, such information is not available for the model. However,
there are other variables describing the qualities of the competing transportation sys-
tems. These are the distance of the respondent's home from the bus line (in blocks)
and the automobile availability ratio. In addition, age, sex, and one of the variables
indicating socioeconomic status are included in the model, which is represented as

P(Bus Use) = eLIXY(l + eLIXl) (4)

where
 7

Table 4. Differences in means between car- and

bus-user groups based on indicators of
socioeconomic status, work trip, and nonwork
trip.

Item INC EDU OCl OC2

Work trip
Car users ( N = 107)
Mean 3.60 14. 56 3.10 3.27
Standard deviation 1.57 3.36 1.71 1.58
Bus users (N = 7)
Mean 2. 71 12.29 5.29 5. 71
Standard deviation 0.95 3.40 1.70 1.25
z-statistic 2.28' 1.71 -3.30' -4.9lb
Nonwork trip
Car users (N = 173)
Mean 3.52 14.06 3.47 3.94
Standard deviation 2.11 3.55 1.82 1.92
Bus users (N = 14)
Mean 2.36 12. 29 4.86 4.79
Standard deviation 1.55 2.92 1.61 1.48
z-atatistic 2. 61' 2. 14' -3.08' -2.02•

Note: The z-statistic is assumed to be normally distributed and approximates the

student t-statistic for large IN > JO) samples,
•significant at p <0.05 (two-tail test). bSignificant at p < O 01 (two-teil test).

Table 5. Linear function values from modified modal-choice model in which dependent variable is whether or
not bus was used in month (N = 210).

Constant BOIS C/DL SEX AGE INC EDU OCl OC2

LC S. E. LC S.E. LC S.E. LC S.E. LC S.E. LC S.E. LC S.E. LC S.E. LC S.E. p'

-0.77 0.92 +0.20 0, 14 -1.57' 0.48 +0.29 0.38 -0.042 0.11 -0.006 0 .11 0.33
-0.95 1.20 +0. 20 0.14 -1.59' 0.48 +0. 29 0.38 -0.036 0.12 +0.011 0.057 0.33
-1.44 0.92 +0.17 0.14 -1.46' 0.47 +0.24 0.39 -0.083 0.11 +0.22~ 0.10 0.35
-1.04 0. 88 +0.19 0,14 -1.54' 0.47 +0.17 0.40 -0.070 0.11 +0.13 0.10 0.34

Note: p 2 is the logarithm of the likelihood ratio divided by the logarithm function when all coefficients of the independent variables (and the constant) are zero, LC is 1he logarithmic
coefficient, and S,E. is the standard error.
1
Significant at p <O 01. bSignificant at p <O 06.

Table 6. Differences in means between group that did not

use bus in month and group that did.

Item INC EDU OCl OC2

Group that did not use bus (N = 168)

Mean 3.42 13.92 3.39 3.87
Standard deviation 1.68 3.48 I. 78 1.92
Group that did use bus (N = 42)
Mean 3.21 13 ,64 4.29 4. 50
Standard deviation 1.57 3.09 1.90 1.82
z-statistic 0 .76 0.51 -2.78' ·1.98b

Note: See note, Table 4

•sigoificant at p <0,01 ttwo ·tail test), bSignificant at p <0.05 !two-tail tnt)
8

L(X} =CONSTANT+ a 1 AGE a2SEX + aaC/DL + a.,iBDIS + asSES (5)

where P(Bus Use) is the probability of using the bus for any reason in the month, BDIS
is the distance from the respondent's home to the closest bus line, and the other vari-
ables are as defined previously. In addition, the simple differences in means between
user and nonuser groups based on the various indicato1·s or s ocioeconomie status are
given in Tables 4 and 6. The logit values given in Table 5 were obtained by use of
the CLOGIT program written by Daniel McFadden of the University of California, Berke-
ley.
ID two of the three. situations (most frequent nonwork trip and whether or not the
bus was used at all}, the variable indicating the occupation of the household head was
superior to the others. For the work trip, the respondent 's occupation was the best
variable, and the occupation of the household head was next best. Although the income
indicator was superior to the education variable in all three situations, the difference
in means involving income was insignificant in the situation of whether the respondent
used the bus at all. Finally, it should be noted that the variable indicating the occupa-
tion of the household head was superior to the income indicator in all these situations,
and the variable indicating the respondent's occupation was superior in two of the three
situations.
The structure of the modified modal-choice model is interesting. Although the signs
of the coefficients of the independent variables are almost always in the expected direc-
tion (the coefficient of the education variable is an exception), only the coefficient of
the automobile availability ratio is significant in three of the four versions of the model.
In the fourth version, which is the best one, the coefficient of the variable indicating
the occupation of the household head is also significant.
The main conclusion from these exercises is that some of the other indicators of
socioeconomic status were superior to the income indicator in the tests performed.
This finding is consistent with the conclusion that the income indicator was generally
inferior to at least one of the other indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

Before the implications of the results are discussed, it is necessary to mention some
of the features of this study that might affect the generality of the results. First, spe-
cific indicators of socioeconomic status were used in the cases of the income and oc-
cupational variables. It is possible that different scales for these variables might yield
different results. Second, inasmuch as the sample was relatively small, the indicators
of socioeconomic status were used as additional linear terms in the models rather than
as stratification criteria. It is possible that, if a stratification strategy were followed,
the conclusions for the relative effectiveness of the various indicators might be differ-
ent. For example, if the relationships between the indicators of socioeconomic status
and the dependent variables are nonlinear, the stratification strategy might yield re-
sults different from those that are obtained by using the indicators as additional linear
terms. Finally, it was not possible to test the conventional modal-choice modal.
Therefore, one cannot generalize these results for this type of model with much cer-
tainty, and the results of this study must be regarded as suggestive rather than defin-
itive.
On the other hand, the results do have implications for transportation modeling and
surveys. There is some fairly strong evidence that the income variable, which has
been the most frequently used indicator of socioeconomic status in previous transpor-
tation studies, is not as effective as other indicators of socioeconomic status for ex-
plaining transportation behavio1·.
This is even more important in view of the success in obtaining usable responses
in this and previous surveys. Specifically, in the present survey, all respondents
supplied the info1·mation on education and occupation variables; however, about 3 per-
cent of the respondents refused to answer the income question. The refusal rates for
 9

income questions have been even higher in other transportation surveys. For example,
it is possible to calculate the following refusal rates from three other studies: Lave
(8), 7.57 percent; Lisco (9), 17.61 percent; and Stopher (12), 3.87 percent. Therefore,
other indicators might be-more efficient because the chances of obtaining relevant in-
formation about them might be greater than for income.
In light of the greater effectiveness of some of the other indicators of socioeconomic
status in this study, it is recommended that future transportation surveys should con-
tain such indicators in addition to or in place of the income variable to explain travel
behavior. Of course, future research with different scales for these indicators [or
based on a large sample so that (a) the stratification strategy can be tested and (b) con-
ventional modal-choice models can be calibrated] would either strengthen or weaken
the basis for the preceding recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The data used in this paper were collected in a research project supported by funds
from a National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Re-
search in the Social Sciences. In addition, the author would like to thank Gordon J.
Fielding of the University of California, Irvine, for helpful comments on the first
draft of this paper.

REFERENCES
1. E. Aldana, R. de Neufville, and J. H. Stafford. Microanalysis of Urban Travel
Demand. Highway Research Record 446, 1973, pp. 1-11.
2. C. M. Bonjean, R. J. Hill, and D. S. McLemore. Sociological Measurement.
Chandler Publishing Co., San Francisco, 1967, pp. 441-448.
3. R. Brown. Social Psychology. The Free Press, New York, 1965.
4. D. P. Constantine, R. Dobsen, and E. T. Canty. An Investigation of Modal
Choice for Dual Model Transit, People Mover, and Personal Rapid Transit Sys-
tems. Paper presented at International Conference on Dual Mode Transportation,
Washington, D.C., May 1974.
5. J. A. Kahl. The American Class Structure. Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, New
York, 1953.
6. H. Kassoff and H. P. Deutschman. Trip Generation: A Critical Appraisal.
Highway Research Record 297, 1969, pp. 15-30.
7. J. Lansing. The Effects of Migration and Personal Effectiveness on Long-
Distance Travel. Transportation Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec. 1968, pp. 329-338.
8. C. A. Lave. Modal Choice in Urban Transportation: A Behavioral Approach.
Department of Economics, Stanford Univ., PhD dissertation, 1968.
9. T. E. Lisco. The Value of Commuters' Travel Time: A Study in Urban Trans-
portation. Department of Economics, Univ. of Chicago, PhD dissertation, 1967.
10. W. Y. Oi and P. W. Shuldiner. An Analysis of Urban Travel Demands. North~
western Univ. Press, Evanston, 1962.
11. D. A. Quarmby. Choice of Travel Mode for the Journey to Work: Some Findings.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1967, pp. 1-42.
12. P. R. Stopher. Factors Affecting Choice of Mode of Transport. University
College, London, PhD thesis, 1967.
13. P. R. Stopher and J. 0. Lavender. Disaggregate Behavioral Travel Demand
Models: Empirical Tests of Three Hypotheses. Transportation Research Forum,
Vol. 13, 1972, pp. 321-335.
14. T. J. Tardiff. The Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Transportation Attitudes
and Behavior. School of Social Sciences, Univ. of California, Irvine, PhD dis-
sertation, 1974.
15. H. J. Wootton and G. W. Pick. A Model for Trips Generated by Household.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1967, pp. 137-153.
BEHAVIORAL MODELING OF
EXPRESS BUS-FRINGE PARKING DECISIONS
F. C. Kavak, Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Cowicil; and
M. J. Demetsky,
University of Virginia and Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Cowicil
A disaggregate data base was developed to analyze the behavior of com-
muters based on their choice of using fringe parking and riding the express
bus or driving directly tothe central business district. Statisticru summa-
ries of the information obtained were analyzed and interpreted to provide a
basis for selecting explanatory variables and for stratifying mathematical
choice models using the logistic fwiction. It was fowid that separate
models should be calibrated for groups of trip makers according to the ac-
cessibility of the fringe lot to their zone of residence. The models were
then calibrated by using alternative methods for specifying the time and cost
differentials between the options of driving directly to the central business
district and using the bus service. In this respect, models were calculated
to predict the probability of choosing the express bus as a function of the
age and sex of the trip makers, the ratio of automobiles to licensed drivers
for their respective households, and the relative times and costs of the
competing modes. Evaluation criteria, including statistical tests, were
used to select the model strategy that best described the choice situation.
Consequently, a model that related time and cost as the difference between
modes divided by the average of the two proved best. Finally, the models
were used to obtain elasticities of choice with respect to the independent
variables and the value of time, which agreed with the theory and the find-
ings of other studies.
•THE express bus-fringe parking concept is an example of a situation in which area-
wide travel models that represent an arbitrary automobile-transit choice cannot be
directly applied because of the aggregate data base. In such circumstances, the se-
lected transit operation serves only a segment of the travel market along a corridor
of the urban area and provides varying levels of service to different residential zones.
This problem, therefore, provides an opportunity to use disaggregate behavioral mod-
eling concepts to represent travel behavior for a defined subarea. In this respect,
firsthand data can be obtained that clearly relate the available choices.
Accordingly, this paper describes how survey data from a recent fringe parking
project, the Parham Express in Richmond, Virginia, were collected and used to for-
mulate a set of hypotheses for constructing a mathematical model of the choice between
driving to the CBD OJ,' parking at a fringe lot and using the express bus for CBD-destined
work trips. Alternative behavioral models based on the logistic function are then for-
mulated, tested, and evaluated.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The fringe parking facility on Parham Road had 178 parking spaces in July 1973 and is
located about 8. 7 miles (14.0 km) northwest of the downtown area in Richmond, Virginia.
The area surrowiding the facility is mainly residential, and there is access to some
local shopping centers.
The CBD area can be reached either by Interstate 64, which has ramps at Parham
Road and Glenside Drive, or by main arterial routes (Broad Street and Patterson
10
 11

Avenue). Although using the Interstate requires a toll of $0.25, it is generally pre-
ferred to using the arterials so that delays due to traffic congestion can be avoided.
The Parham Express bus, which originates at the fringe lot, provides a nonstop
trip to the CBD, and has 10 bus departures from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. The one-way fare
is $0.50 compared with $0.35 (on the day of survey) for the regular area routes.

DATA

The system and trip-maker {behavioral) data used in this analysis of travel behavior
include

1. System data-highway travel distances; highway travel times; transit costs;

transit running times; and excess times (e.g., transit access from parking lot to des-
tination); and
2. Behavioral data-a bus survey and an automobile survey.

The questionnaire used for the bus survey is shown in Figure 1. It was distributed
on a weekday at the beginning of the bus trip and collected as riders left the bus, or it
was returned by mail. The license numbers of automobile travelers entering the ex-
pressway during the same time period (7 a.m. to 9 a.m.) on the two ramps in the
vicinity of the fringe lot were recorded. Their questionnaires were mailed. The auto-
mobile survey form is shown in Figure 2.
In the bus survey, 302 questionnaires were handed out, and 285 were returned.
After incomplete forms were eliminated, 229 usable responses remained.
Because license numbers of all vehicles entering the freeway could not be recorded,
traffic counters provided a control total for the automobile users that could be associ-
ated with the 302 bus users. Of the 4,030 automobile trips, 1, 165 valid questionnaire
responses, a 28.9 percent sample, were obtained. Of this sample, 381 responses
concerned work trips to the CBD. It was further assumed that the sample was rep-
resentative of the trip end distribution of the total population and, accordingly, the
381 responses represented a 28.9 percent sample of CBD-destined work trips by auto-
mobile.
Because the usable automobile responses made up a 28.9 percent sample, a similar
proportion of bus-user responses was developed so that the data set would be propor-
tionately representative of the automobile and bus populations, as would·be the case
for a home-interview survey. Inasmuch as such a requirement may result in a statis-
tical bias, a program was used to randomly select a 28.9 percent bus sample.
Furthermore, because the model is designed to reflect only real choices, captive
riders were removed from the data set. Individuals were classified as transit captives
if their alternative mode choice was another bus and if they indicated that they could not
have used a household automobile to make the trip. Trip makers were considered to be
captives of the automobile if they needed cars for their jobs or worked at locations in
the CBD that were remote from a transit stop. The development of the data set is
given in Table 1.
The transportation system data were obtained from the transit operator and the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and were supplemented with traf-
fic engineering measurements.

MODEL FOUNDATIONS

The travel survey data were examined by summary statistics and correlation analyses
so that some basic hypotheses could be developed for stratifying the travel market into
homogeneous choice groups and so that explanatory variables for structuring a model
could be specified. The results, combined with information from previous efforts,
were then implemented to derive a modal-choice model.
The potential explanatory variables examined in terms of sample means and
Figure 1. Bus survey questionnaire.
THE FOLL<MING QUESTIONS CCllCERN THE BUS TRIP YOU ARE N<lol MAXING

If possible, plesae fill out thi• queationnaire during this trip

and return it to our personnel who are on board this bus. If this ta rcaOFFICIAL
inconvenient, pleaae fill out this questionnaire at your pleaaure and USE ONLY
return it in the poatage-paid envelope.
l. Whe· did you initially begin your trip?

(specify address - number and street name) IIIIII

2. Was the place you came from: (check one)
home
1ork D
J. Trip purpose . The reason for this trip was: (check one)
~eturn home shopping
work
chool
recreation
other (specify) D
4.

5.
Time you began your trip : A.M.

How did you get to the Parham Road Lot to board this bu1?
__ drove and parked
IIIII
another bus
car passenger-car parked
::::::: dropped off-car not parked
::::::: walked, how many minutes
other (specify) - - -- - - I I II
What time did this bus leave the Parham Road Lot ? _ _ _ _ A.M.
IIIII
6.

7. Where will you get off this bus? (check orie)

8th & Clay Main & 11th
9th & Broad Main & 10th
Broad & 10th Main & 8th
Broad & 12th 7th & Franklin
Broad & 14th
14th & Franklin
14th & Main
7th & Grace
7th & Broad
7th & Clay rn
=
8. How will you get to your destination after leaving this bus? (check
__ walk, how many minutes
another bus
taxi one)
other (specify) - - - - - IIII
9. What is your final destination?

1pecify address (number and street name) or building IIIIII

10 . Time you expect to arrive at your destination: - - - - A.M.

11 . If this bus service were not available, how would you make this trip?
drive a car another bus
IIIII
12 .
ride H a car paasenger
::::::: participate in a carpool
other (specify) - - - - -

If you drove a car or rode ae a c ar pas s enger for this trip in t he

D
past, why did you switch to this bus? -------------~

£3. Do you have any recommendations as to how this bus service could
be improved? - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -

14 . How many licensed drivers reside in your household? (count your-

eelf)

15. How many care are owned by members of your household? - - - - - -

16. Could you have u1ed one of the care to make this trip? __yea __no

17. Pleaae indicate your: Sex : Male Female

Age Group : __ under 16-- 16-24 25-44 45-65 over
65

18. What i• the combined annual income of all members of your household?
_$0-$4000 _$4000-$8000 _$8000-$12000 _over $12000
 Figure 2. Automobile survey questionnaire.

A vehicle registered in your name was observed entering I-64 eastbound

at Glenaide Drive between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Au&11st 21. 1973 • It
would be appreciated if you or the person who drove that vehicle ·on this trip
would answer the following questions and return the queationnaire in the post-
age-paid envelope.

roa OFFICIAL
USE <»!LY

D
Errors in recording license plates do occur. If this form
was sent to you by error, please check here and return__ Other-
wise, please continue.

l. Where did you be~in this trip?

specify address (number and street name}

IIIIII
2. Was the place you came from: (check one)

3.
home
work other (specify)

Trip purpose. The reason for this

D
LP was: (check one)
return home
work
school
__ shopping
re<'-
ot
'on
·ecify}
D
4.

5.
Time you began your trip:

What was your final destination?

/P,M.
IIIII
specify address (number and street name) or building
I - r-
6. Time you reached the above address: A,M./P.M.

7. What was the vehicle parking cost 1 $____ per - - - -

8. After you parked the automobile, how did you get to your final
destination?
walk, how many minutes __ taxi
- - bus other (specify) _ __

9. Do you use your car during the business day? __ yes no

10.

=
Do you usually make this trip: (check one}
alone
carrying passengers, how many? ---:---
within a carpool, how many members (count yourself)? - - - - III!
11. Could you have used the express bus from the Parham Road Lot for
this trip?
yes, but I chose not to b e c a u s e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
no, b e c a u s e . - - : - : - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
not aware of this service D
12. Are there any improvements possible regarding the Parham Express
bus service which would make it acceptable enough to influence
you to use it? __ yes no If yes, what might they be? __

13. How many licensed drivers reside in your household (count your-
self}?-------
14. How many autos are owned bY. members of your household?

15. Please indicate your: Sex: Male Female

Age Group: __under 16 -=._16-24 _25-44 __45-65 _over 65

16. What is the combined annual income of all members of your house-
hold?
_$0-$4000 _$4000-$8000 _$8000-$12000 _over $12000
Table 1. Summary of data set.

Bus Trips Automobile Trips

Item Number Percent Number Percent

Total trips 302 100 4,030 100

Valid questionnaires 229 94 l, 165 29
CBD trips 229 76 381
Choice CBD trips 222 74 223
Number used for model
calibration 87 29 223 29•
111
223 is 29 percent of CBD ·destined and choice automobile trips.

Figure 3. Parham Express market area.

380

) 374
373

-
~·

'··'

,. 367 I
J
 15
correlation analyses were automobile ownership (number of automobiles per number
of licensed drivers), household income, sex, age, travel cost, residence zone, and
travel time. Initially, all variables except automobile ownership and household income
were determined to be significant.

Automobile Ownership

The distribution of automobile ownership for those who drive to the CBD (1.8 automo-
biles per household) does not differ significantly from that of express bus riders (1.9
automobiles per household). However, automobile ownership per se is not sensitive
to the number of household members who have access to cars, i.e., the licensed
drivers. In this respect, the presence of more licensed drivers than automobiles
places a constraint on the availability of cars to household members, and this may
encourage household members to consider alternative modes. Therefore, it washy-
pothesized that, for a given household, the ratio of automobiles owned to the number
of licensed drivers may be a more significant variable than automobile ownership.
This hypothesis was tested by using a chi-square test that showed that the distribution
of the aforementioned ratio for the bus sample was significantly different from that of
the automobile sample at the 0.01 level. Therefore, the ratio of automobiles owned to
the number of licensed drivers for a given household was selected for testing in the
model.

Sex

Female commuters showed a higher propensity to use the express service than did
males. It was assumed that the differing percentages of females in the bus and auto-
mobile populations (41. 7 versus 35.5 percent) warranted that the sex variable be in-
cluded in the model testing.

Household Income

There was almost no difference in the household income distributions of automobile

and transit commuters. Both distributions were characterized by very high percent-
ages at the >$12,000 level and a very low percentage at the <$4,000 level. This vari-
able was therefore excluded from further consideration.

The .data showed that age should be considered for inclusion in the model. Variations
in behavior were observed among the following age groups: 16 to 24 and 45 or over
versus 25 to 44.

Travel Cost

Cost figures for automobile travel were estimated by summing the freeway toll ($0.25),
half of the parking cost, and an assumed out-of-pocket operating cost of $0.04/mile
($0.025/km). (In the case where there were passengers as well, it was assumed that
riders shared the travel cost with the driver.) Transit travel costs consisted of the
$0. 50 fixed fa.re and the cost associated with getting to the lot. A statistical analysis
was carried out to determine whether the distribution of travel cost for the bus popula-
tion was different from that of the automobile population. The travel cost figures for
the automobile sample were greatly dispersed with a standard deviation of $0.296,
whereas the travel cost values for the bus sample varied only slightly from the average
16

(standard deviation = $0.043). The t-tests and F-tests further indicated that both the
mean and the variance of the bus population were significantly different from those of
the automobile population at a 0.01 significance level. Therefore, travel cost was se-
lected as a variable for the modal-choice model.

Location of Residence Zone

The set of zones that made up the market area for the service is shown in Figure 3.
Only 16 zones exhibited substantial trip productions, and four of those 16 had very
low express bus ridership. These observations were assumed to arise from the fol-
lowing factors:

1. These zones were relatively far from the fringe lot.

2. There were two local bus services available, besides the express, to some of
these zones. Therefore, the residential area assumed to make up the market area
for the service consisted of 12 zones that accounted for 78.9 percent of the automobile
trips and 84.2 percent of the express bus trips. Table 2 gives the modal split between
automobile and express service in these selected zones (shown by underlined numbers
in Figure 3).

The effect of accessibility to the fringe lot from the zone of residence was also ex-
amined as an influence on travel behavior. For each zone, minimum time paths to the
CBD and to the lot were plotted. The zones were then grouped into accessibility groups
1, 2, and 3 according to the following criteria:

1. The zone is located adjacent to the zone where the lot is;
2. The zone's minimum time route to the CBD falls close to the fringe lot; or
3. The lot is out of the way of the best route to the CBD from the residential zone.

Analysis of the data showed that accessibility of the fringe lot was highly related to
the transit use in a zone because relatively high split numbers for transit were indi-
cated for zones convenient to the fringe lot. Accordingly, it was concluded that some
measure of the accessibility of the lot from the residence zone should be reflected in
the model.

Travel Time

The survey provided information on the perceived time for each trip, and, because the
engineering data were incomplete, the former was interpreted for use in the models.
A chi-square test was carried out to compare the automobile population with the bus
population in relation to perceived travel time. The test indicated a substantial dif-
ference in distribution at the 0.005 significance level. The results of at-test at the
0.005 significance level further showed that the automobile and bus populations also
differ with regard to mean values of travel time.
Total travel time has been broken into running time and excess time in some cur-
rent research (1, 2). Excess time includes walking, waiting, and transfer time and is
usually weightea by a factor greater than 1. [The Washington model (3) used 2.5.J A
similar approach with varying forms of the time variables was considered in the model
development.
These observations from the survey data provided a set of variables for consider-
ation in the model development.

MODEL APPLICATION

Models were estimated by using logit analysis where the basic form is
 17
e Gfxl
p - - -- {l)
b - 1 + e GCxl

where Pb is the probability of choosing the express bus, and G{x) is a linear function of
explanatory variables for which the parameters can be estimated by the maximum like-
lihood method.
The s-shaped graph of the logit model agrees with the common assumption that the
marginal utility of increments of a commodity, say time difference, is highest in re-
gions where the difference between the two modes is close to zero and, conversely,
approaches zero in regions where the difference is substantial. The logit methodology
can also be conveniently used to derive some important microeconomic properties of
the behavior group, i.e., elasticities and values of time.
The models presented here were calibrated with a computer program devel1Jped by
J . G. Cragg, University of British Columbia, and adapted to the CDC 6400 by Peter R.
Stopher, Northwestern University. Three models were calibrated, all of which in-
cluded the socioeconomic variables cited previously, but they differed from each other
by the nature of the specification of the time and cost measures. A surrogate measure
of the accessibility of the residential zone to the lot was initially entered as a dummy
variable to reflect the three accessibility groups described earlier. The estimated co-
efficient of the accessibility variable was found to be highly significant, and, for prac-
tical reasons, separate models were calibrated for each accessibility level as well as
one model with all the data.
A listing and definition of all of the variables used in developing the models are given
in Table 3. The three types of models presented are referred to by terms indicative
of the manner in which the time and cost measures are treated; they are the difference
model, log-of-ratios models, and relative values models.
The criteria used to evaluate the credibility of the alternative models included the
sign of the coefficients, the significance of the parameters, the probability of choice
at zero difference, and the predictive ability of the models.
The first step is a check on the rational performance of the model. The second
evaluation, which relates the significance of the parameters, uses the t-test and the
chi-square test. The t-test shows the significance of each parameter individually (4),
whereas the chi-square method tests the hypothesis that all coefficients except the con-
stant are equal to zero against the hypothesis that they all do not have zero values (5, 6).
The probability of choice at zero difference given by the model is considered refii"--
tive to the basic premise of the logit model that states that, when the values of the sys-
tem characteristics are equal for the competing modes, the trip maker is indifferent to
either mode. In application, however, this figure is difficult to attain because all fac-
tors influencing travel behavior are not reflected in the model. Accordingly, a slight
bias in favor of the bus mode was envisioned for accessibility group 1, and a high prob-
ability of automobile choice was anticipated for accessibility group 3. The group 2
models were expected to give values close to 0.50 because there appeared to be no
real advantage to either mode for those trip makers.
Finally the ability of the models to predict observed travel behavior was considered.
One way to accomplish this was to compare the expected value of the estimated number
of users with the number of observations from the data set. Here the percentage of
predictive error, e 1 , is defined as

Iact ual number - estimated nwnber

actual number
Ix 100

A further test is suggested by Watson (7) and involves using one-half of the data to
calibrate the models and the other half to study predictions. This prediction error, e2,
is computed in a fashion similar to the way in which e 1 was.
18

Table 2. Modal split between automobile and express

service in origin zones.

Modal Spilt Modal Split

Origin Origin
Zones Automobile Bus Zones Automobile Bus

349 0.93 0.07 361 0.88 0.12

355 0.85 0.15 369 0.66 0.34
356 0. 89 0.11 371 0.66 0.34
357 0. 85 0.15 372 0. 80 0.20
358 0.9 0 0.10 373 0.72 0.28
360 0. 64 0.36 381 0.78 0.22
Note : Average automobile split= 0.80; a\lerage bus split= 0.20.

Table 3. Variables used in models.

Variable Description Symbol

Independent variable
Sex-0 = female; 1 = male X1
Age-0 = (25-44); 1 = otherwise X2
No. household automobiles
No. licensed drivers
Running time difference
"" =(RT, - RT,)
X•
Excess time difference Xs = (ET, - ET,)
Total cost difference x. ~ (C. - c,)
Natural log of ratios of total times X1 c 0o (T,/ T,)
Natural log of ratios of total costs xe c-e. (c,/c,)
Total time difference divided by X9 - T. - Tb
- (T, + T,)/2
average total time c. - c,
Total cost difference divided by x,. = (c. + c,J/2
average total cost
Dependent variable
Automobile transit choice
Calibration
For automobile trips p, = 0
For bus trips p, = 1
Application, probability of bus
choice P,
Note: a= automobile measure; b =bus measure. Accessibility groups 1, 2,
and 3 were also used in model development.

Table 4. Difference model.

Estimated Model Coefficients

Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility

Item Group l Group 2 Group 3 All Data

Independent variable
X1 -1.1080 -1.3083 0. 70169' -0.4901'
X2 1.1720' 0.3846' 1. 5550 1.0520
-2.17 63 -4.3375 -3 .4558 -3.2798
""
X4
Xs
0.1083
0.1530
0.2383
0.3752
0.2326
0.5803
0.1891
0.2262
x. 0.0378 0.0490 0.0591 0.03R9
Constant 2.1544' 4.5191 0.99814' 2.6365
Evaluative measures
x' 23.51 28.77 35. 84 80. 04
e1, percent 0.06 0. 55 0.19 0.28
p, at zero dHference 0.573 0.500 0.251 0.48
e2, percent 8.02

'Indicates that the variable or constant was nonsignif icant at the 0.05 level.
 19
Difference Model

The system characteristics used in the difference model given in Table 4 include the
running time, excess time, and cost differences. The values for the reported mode
(choice) were obtained directly from the survey responses concerning perceived times
and costs, and the measures for the alternative mode were estimated by averaging the
perceived data for each zone. The use of averaged data for the alternate mode pre-
sents potential problems; but, inasmuch as the survey provided no information on the
alternative choice and the available engineering data were incomplete, this was the
only option available.
Estimated coefficients exhibited the expected signs. All of the system variables
were significant at the 0:05 level with the exception of the excess time, which was sig-
nificant at the 0.10 level for group 3. Chi-square tests proved the hypothesis that the
coefficients were significantly different from zero at the 0.005 level. Probabilities of
choice at zero difference were in agreement with the prior assumption (i.e., the bias
of the accessibility groups). The model predicted the original data almost perfectly;
however, the value of ea was the highest among the three models.

Log-of-Ratios Model

The difference model makes the assumption that the modal-choice decision is based
strictly on the absolute values of the differences in times and costs. In this respect,
the model implies that the choice between travel times of 15 and 20 min is equivalent
to a choice between 35 and 40 min when all other variables are kept constant. The
log-of-ratios model given in Table 5 was introduced to correct this fault, and it pre-
dicted two significantly differing transit choice probabilities for the hypothetical travel
times indicated previously (0.214 and 0.430 respectively). The time and cost variables
were calculated by taking the natural logarithm of the ratio of automobile time and cost
to bus time and cost. Also, inasmuch as the automobile data included some observa-
tions in which excess time was equal to zero (i.e., 07!0 = -co), total time figures rather
than a breakdown of running time and excess time were used in this model.
In the log-of-ratios model, all coefficients exhibited the hypothesized signs. All
the system variables were significant at the 0.05 level. Age and sex failed the signif-
icance test for the group 2 and group 3 models respectively. The chi-square test was
satisfactory at the 0 .0 5 significance level. Probabilities of choice at zero difference
were as hypothesized. The model predicted the original data almost perfectly, and the
value of ea was the second best among the three models.

Relative Values Model

A further model form, given in Table 6, was designed to use time and cost differences
relative to total cost and time. However, there was no evidence available to indicate
whether the actual mode taken or the alternate mode was being considered as a base
by the trip makers. Therefore, it was assumed that the average of the total times
from the alternative choices would be suitable.
The general characteristics of this model, although slightly better, were similar
to those of the log-of-ratios model. The values of the estimated coefficients were
within 8 percent of those of the latter model, and similar variables were insignificant.
The relative values model satisfied the expected sign test and had the lowest ea value.
Probabilities of choice at zero difference complied with the hypothesized trend.

Selection of Best Model

After the three alternative models were introduced, the next task was to select a
best model for determining elasticities and values of time. In view of the criteria
20
Table 5. Logarithm-of-ratios model.

Estimated Model Coefficients

Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility

Item Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 All Data

Independent variable
X1 -1.3291 -1.2840 0.8103" -0.5259"
"2 1.1447 0.3235" 1.4357 1.0838
-2.3681 -3.8899 -4.6697 -3.5466
""x, 4.1488
3.3688
10.525
4.4247
8.3734
4.5293
6.4931
3.3654
Xe
Constant 2.3994 4.3030 2.0240" 2. 7782
Evaluative measures
x' 29.60 32.41 35.96 93.7
e1, percent 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.61
Po at zero difference 0.559 0.543 0.245 0.455
e2, percent 3.2

a Indicates that the variable or constant was nonsignificant at the 0.05 level.

Table 6. Relative values model.

Estimated Model Coefficients

Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility

Item Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 All Data

Independent variable
X1 -1.3416 -1.3092 0.8207' -0.5294'
"2 1.1430 0.3443' 1.4384 1.0883
-2.3536 -3.9319 -4. 7517 -3.5738
""""
X10
4.2932
3.3990
10.899
4.7533
8.5377
4. 7783
6.6795
3.5717
Constant 2.3732 4.3230 2.0465' 2. 7839
Evaluative measures
x' 30.05 33.03 36.20 94.8
ei, percent 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.63
Po at zero difference 0.554 0.532 0.236 0.451
e2, percent 1. 59

a Indicates that the variable or constant was nonsignificant at the 0 .05 level .

Table 7. Models ranked by performance and reliability criteria.

Significance Probability
of Individual Chi-Square Expected Prediction at Zero Final
Model Variables Test Sign (e1, e,) Difference Ranking

Relative values 1 OK 1 OK
Log of ratios 2 OK 2 OK
Difference 3 OK 3 OK

Table 8. Aggregate elasticities of choice

probability.

Variable Transit Automobile

Automobile time 2.81 -1.11

Transit time -2.80 1.11
Automobile cost 1.39 -0.55
Transit cost -1.51 0.60
Number of automobiles/
number of licensed
drivers -1.47 0.58
 21

discussed earlier, the models were ranked and the relative values model, as given
in Table 7, was selected as the best. Thus, this model primarily is used in the fol-
lowing microeconomic analyses.

Descriptive Measures of Travel Behavior

The aforementioned models derive basic descriptive measures of the travel behavior
of the sample group, namely, elasticities of choice and the trip maker's value of time.
The elasticity (Em k) is a dimensionless number defined as the relative percentage
change in the probability of the specified choice that results from a 1 percent change
in any explanatory variable. Mathematically, the elasticity of the probability of using
mode m(pm) with respect to a given variable Xk is stated as

ap/pm
Em,k = oX k /X k (2)

With the relative values model, the probability of using the express bus relative to
using all of the system variables and the ratio of the number of automobiles to number
of drivers were elastic. However, automobile choice was elastic only with respect to
time (i.e., Em,k > 1). The elasticities computed for each mode are given in Table 8.
These values can then be applied to estimate the effect of various policy and social
changes on modal choice. For example, the analysis shows that a 1 percent increase
in transit cost will lessen the former probability of using that mode by 1.51 percent.
The value of time is found by calculating the change in cost due to a unit change in
the time variable and by keeping all other variables, including the choice probability,
constant. Accordingly G(x) must remain unchanged if the choice probability remains
constant. Given this fact, it has been shown that(~

(3)

where i =a, b; j =a, b; a= automobile; b =bus; and dC /dTJ =the rate of commodity sub-
stitution and, accordingly, the change in the value of cost of mode i (dC 1 ) for a unit
change in the travel time of mode j(dT J) is the value of travel time.
The value of travel time for the study area was estimated by substituting the appro-
priate terms for each mode in the relationship discussed, which results in four expres-
sions of the value of travel time for average sample values. These four values of time
relate to changes in the cost associated with each of the two competing modes, which
are due to a unit time change in either mode. As Watson (6) argues, it can be assumed
that the trip makers will perceive a change in bus and automobile costs due to a travel
time change for either mode. Therefore, it was assumed that the average of the two
values for each mode would be a reasonable estimate of the value of time for that par-
ticular mode. Under this assumption the values of bus and automobile time were cal-
culated to be $2.10/hour and $2.69/hour respectively. This indicated that bus users
value time differently than automobile users do. Furthermore, the values of travel
time were found to be 39.6 percent and 50.8 percent of the wage rates for the bus and
automobile users respectively.
Inasmuch as travel time was not broken into running and excess time in the relative
values model, the difference model was used to estimate the values of these times
separately. The values obtained were $2.33/hour for the rwming time and $4.55/hour
for the excess time. This amounted to 44 percent and 85.8 percent of the wage rates
respectively. However, the accuracy of these figures may be questionable because the
difference model was comparatively less reliable, as was discussed previously.
22

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Disaggregate behavioral models of the choice between driving to the CBD and using
an express bus-fringe parking service proved highly successful. This conclusion is
based on the statistical tests and other evaluation methodology that showed that models
calibrated with all the survey data closely predicted the observed behavior of the entire
sample and that mOdels calibrated with only half of the data predicted the behavior of
the remainder of the sample. The findings showed that one method of specifying the
system variables of time and cost (the relative values model) performed slightly better
than the other two. This indicates that the better the model represents the way indi-
viduals perceive the differences among the attributes of competing modes, the more
reliable the model becomes. The variations in behavior among trip-maker groups
based on the accessibility of their residence zone to the lot are significant and can be
used to determine the service area for proposed lots. They should also be of use in
the design of feeder lines where they are being considered.
The survey design, by which data were collected directly from travelers on the com-
peting modes, proved adequate for the purposes of developing the model. It is envi-
sioned that the model developed here can be applied in planning new express bus-fringe
parking services with a minimal amount of socioeconomic and system data (Table 9).
Recent origin-destination study data should also satisfy these needs.
The significant variables in the models included sex, age, time, cost, and the ratio
of household automobiles to household drivers, all of which were recommended in the
preliminary analysis of the data. The income variable, which was initially nonsignifi-
cant, was similarly dismissed by t-tests for models in which it was included to test
the prior analysis. This finding is appropriate because this was not an areawide study,
in which income usually becomes appropriate, but it was a study of a relatively homo-
geneous suburban area.
Finally, the models gave the measures for elasticities of choice in relation to the
various independent variables and for the value of time. They were consistent with
theory and the findings in other studies.
The models developed here should be tested to see how well they predict the behav-
ior of trip makers for similar services in other areas. They should also be used in
the planning stages of a proposed project so that their effectiveness as a planning tool
can be evaluated.
A logical extension of binary-choice modeling techniques is to consider the submodal
split of access modes to the express bus such as walking, bicycling, feeder buses,
and kiss and ride. Subsequently, appropriate multimodal techniques should be applied
and tested for their validity relative to that of the binary models.
Improved problem-oriented surveys, such as the one described in this paper, or
origin-destination surveys for a selected subarea should be carried out for similar ser-
vices and should be expanded to include psychological data on trip-maker perceptions

Table 9. Data requirements for model application.

Data Source

Socioeconomic
Numb r.r o r zonnl work trips terminating at destination z<>ne
or iiorvice (e .g., model output, m1mbel' of CBD work trips)' Census or gravity
Zonal distribution of workers by sex Census
Zonal distribution of workers by age Census
Average zonal automobile ratio (number of household auto-
mobiles to number of licensed drivers) Census
Transportation system
Average cost per trip via each alternative Trip assignment model
Average total travel time per trip via each alternativ e Trip assignment model
Zonal classification relative to lot acc essibility (3 groups
in Richmond model) Trip assignment model

• u only the expected proportion of CBD-destined drivers who will change to the bus mode is desired, then this
information is not required.
 23

of comfort, convenience, and other subjective system measures. In addition, the sur-
vey respondents should be asked questions dealing with the competing modes as well
as with their chosen mode. These additional data are necessary to add to the behav-
ioral accuracy of the models.

REFERENCES

1. R. H. Pratt. A utilitarian Theory of Travel Mode Choice. Highway Research

Record 322, 1970, pp. 40-53.
2. R. P. Rassam, R. H. Ellis, and J. C. Bennett. Then-Dimensional Logit Model:
Development and Application. Highway Research Record 369, 1971, pp. 135-147.
3. Development and Calibration of the Washington Mode Choice Models. R. H. Pratt
Associates, Inc., June 1973.
4. J. Kmenta. Elements of Econometrics. Macmillan, 1971, pp. 366-368.
5. H. Theil. Principles of Econometrics. John Wiley and Sons, 1971, pp. 396-397.
6. P. L. Watson. The Value of Time: Behavioral Models of Mode Choice. Lexing-
ton Books, 1974.
7. P. L. Watson. Predictions of Intercity Modal Choice From Disaggregate, Behav-
ioral, Stochastic Models. Highway Research Record 446, 1973, pp. 28-35.
8. J. M. Henderson and R. E. Quandt. Microeconomic Theory, 2nd Ed. McGraw-
Hill, 1971.
AGGREGATE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FROM
DISAGGREGATED BEHAVIORAL MODELS
Daniel McFadden and Fred Reid, University of California, Berkeley

This paper derives an expression for obtaining aggregate (interzonal) travel

forecasts given a probit disaggregate demand model and zonal averages and
intrazonal variances of the independent variables. It also derives expres-
sions for the biases in aggregate model calibrations resulting from zonal
homogeneity assumptions in the variables. The conditions under which
these biases are important are discussed. Expressions are also determined
for obtaining consistent, unbiased estimates for both aggregate and dis-
aggregate models that take into account nonhomogeneous zones and prac-
tical data limitations.

•FORECASTS of aggregate travel demand between zones, determined as a function of

policy instruments, are a basic input to the transportation planning process. Tradi-
tionally, these forecasts have been based on models of aggregate interzonal flows,
calibrated by using zonal average trip attributes and socioeconomic characteristics.
Interzonal travel demand is, tautologically, the result of aggregating individual travel
decisions for the zonal population. Traditional aggregate models do not attempt to
make this connection. By contrast, the recent travel demand literature has empha-
sized the individual decision-making unit and the behavioral foundations of travel de-
mand (1, 2, 4, 8, 9).
Aggregate and disaggregate travel demand models are sometimes viewed by trans-
portation planners as mutually exclusive or competitive approaches to the forecasting
problem. We shall argue that, to the contrary, they are complementary. [A good
analogy can be made between the problem of modeling travel demand and the physical
theory of a perfect gas. The observable macroparameters of a gas, such as pressure
and temperature, are linked by empirical laws such as Boyle's law; however, the be-
havior of individual gas molecules is described by the kinetic theory of gases. If the
gas is in equilibrium, then Boyle's law predicts macrobehavior accurately, and it is
unnecessary to consider the molecular structure of the gas. However, the empirical
laws fail for gases in disequilibrium, and it is necessary to turn to the molecular
theory. This requires the further step of describing the distribution of molecular be-
havior to obtain the desired macroaverages; this is provided by Maxwell statistics.
Equilibrium in the analogy to travel demand is identified with the concept of an identical
choice environment for all individuals in a zone. Aggregate demand models, like the
empirical gas laws, should forecast accurately under this homogeneity condition but
cannot be expected to succeed when zones are heterogeneous. Disaggregated behavioral
models, therefore, should have the properties of implying the aggregate models under
the homogeneity conditions and of forecasting correctly under heterogeneity conditions.
The specification of the distribution of individual behavior in the population (as with
Maxwell statistics applied to gases in disequilibrium) will play a critical role in the
disaggregate travel demand model.] The disaggregate models provide a theoretical
foundation for the aggregate models and provide conditions under which the aggregate
models will give valid forecasts. The aggregate models may provide the most conve-
nient means of forecasting when zonal homogeneity conditions are met.
This paper demonstrates that the aggregate and disaggregate models have a common
foundation and that it may be possible to use a synthesis of the models to facilitate cal-
ibration and improve forecasting accuracy. The following questions are answered:

24
 25
1. Given a correctly calibrated disaggregated behavioral model, how can aggregate
interzonal flows be forecast?
2. What biases are introduced in the calibration of aggregate models when zones
are not homogeneous? How do these biases affect demand forecasts? What correc-
tions can be applied?
3. What biases are introduced in the calibration of disaggregated behavioral models
when some independent variables are approximated by zonal averages? What correc-
tions can be applied?

DISAGGREGATED BEHAVIORAL MODELS

The axioms of disaggregated behavioral demand modeling are that individuals represent
the basic decision-making unit and that each individual will choose one alternative
among those available that he or she finds most desirable or useful. This depends on
the attributes of the alternative and the socioeconomic characteristics of the individual.
For simplicity, we will develop this model and the results only for the classical prob-
lem of modal split for a work trip. The substance of our conclusions continues to hold
for more complex aspects of travel behavior. The full power and generality of the dis-
aggregated approach become apparent primarily in forecasting complex demand sys-
tems.
Suppose an urban area is partitioned into zones, indexed 1, ... , J. Let k =
1, ... , K index the individuals in the population, and let N1J denote the set of indi-
viduals commuting from zone i to zone j . Each individual is assumed to face a binary
modal choice, and a and bare the modes. Now, consider a specific individual k having
a vector of socioeconomic characteristics sk and facing vectors of attributes x•k and xbk
for the two modes. According to the behavioral model, the individual will have a utility
function of u = Uk(x, sk), which summarizes the desirability of a mode with attributes x,
and will choose the alternative that gives the higher utility; i.e., mode a will be chosen
if Uk(x•k, sk) > Uk(xbk, sk). Not all attributes of alternatives and socioeconomic charac-
teristics determining tastes can be measured. Consequently, the utility function of an
individual drawn randomly from the population can be thought of as containing a random
component reflecting his or her unmeasured idiosyncrasies in tastes. We therefore
write the utility function in the form

Uk(x, s) = V(x, s) + Ek(x, s) (1)

where V(x, s) is common to all members of the population and can be interpreted as the
representative utility, and Ek(x, s) is the random component. The condition for mode a
to be chosen by individual k can now be written

(2)

The unmeasured term on the left side of Eq. 2 has a statistical distribution in the
population and a cumulative distribution function G. Consider an individual drawn ran-
domly from the subpopulation who has socioeconomic characteristics sk and who faces
alternative trip attribute vectors x•k and xbk. The probability that this individual will
choose mode a is given by

(3)
26
The methodology of disaggregate behavioral demand analysis is to specify paramet-
ric functional forms for the representative utility function V and the distribution func-
tion G. [In general, the parameters of the distribution function G will be functions of
the measured trip attributes and socioeconomic characteristics of the subpopulation.
We suppress these arguments and later assume G to be independent of these variables.
This is a strong restriction which is inconsistent with some descriptions of the struc-
ture of taste variation in the population. For example, the disaggregated behavioral
model of Quandt (8) is incompatible with this restriction. A more complete discussion
of this specification is given in Domencich and McFadden (4).] Observed choices from
a sample are treated as drawings from binomial distributions, and the probabilities are
given in Eq. 3. Statistical methods such as the maximum likelihood procedure are used
to calibrate the unknown parameters. Following this procedure, we first specify that
the representative utility function be linear in unknown parameters, and the form is

L
V(x, s) = I: f3QZQ(x, s) (4)
l=l

where the ZQ(x, s) are numerical functions. [Numerical functions ZQ can be simple or
complex functions of the trip attributes and socioeconomic characteristics. For ex-
ample, Z 2 may be a trip attribute such as trip cost or on-vehicle time or a transfor-
mation such as the logarithm or square of one of these variables. It may be a dummy
variable that is one for mode a and zero for mode b, which corresponds to a pure mode
preference effect. It may involve interactions of trip attributes and socioeconomic
variables such as trip cost divided by trip time, trip cost divided by wage, or trip
walking time times an index of physical health. It may involve interactions of trip at-
tributes or socioeconomic variables with mode dummy variables, for example, a vari-
able that is income for mode a and zero for mode b or on-vehicle time for mode band
zero for mode a. Because the utility comparison involves only differences of the ZQ
variables, choice will be influenced only by factors that vary between modes. This
means a pure socioeconomic characteristic such as income, unless interacted with a
pure mode preference dummy, will not influence tastes and should not be included as
a Z 2 variable. However, it should be noted that an arbitrary smooth utility function
V(x, s) can be approximated as closely as desired by the form in Eq. 3. An important
class of models will be those in which no pure mode effects appear either singly or in
interactions with other variables. These generic models can be used to forecast new
mode demand.]
Defining z~ = ZQ(xak, sk) - Z2 (xbk, sk) and zk = z~, ... , z~' and letting f3 denote the
column vector of unknown parameters, we rewrite Eq. 3 as

(5)

Equation 5, derived from the behavioral model, has a simple conventional interpreta-
tion. Vector zk measures the differential attributes of the two modes, which are
weighted to account for the effect of measured socioeconomic differences. For ex-
ample, z~ might be the cost of mode a less the cost of mode b, and z~ the on-vehicle
time of mode a less the on-vehicle time of mode b, which is multiplied by the individ-
ual's after-tax wage. The coefficient vector f3 weights the components of zk into a
single measure {3'zk of the differential impedance of the two modes, and G represents
the response curve that gives the proportion of individuals choosing mode a at each
level of relative impedance. To simplify further analysis, we will assume that the
distribution function G is standard normal. This condition allows us to obtain simple
closed formulas but is not critical for our general conclusions. If ~ denotes the cu-
mulative standard normal distribution, Eq. 5 has a final form
 27

(6)

that determines the probability ·of the choice of mode a by an individual drawn randomly
from the subpopulation of individuals facing a vector zk of differential attributes of the
two modes. This form in statistics and transportation demand analysis is known as the
probit model.

AGGREGATE MODAL SPLITS FROM DISAGGREGATED

MODELS

Suppose that the disaggregated behavioral model in Eq. 6 is a correct specification of

the distribution of individual modal choices in the population and that the parameter
vector {3 has been calibrated accurately in a statistical study. We now wish to deter-
mine the aggregate modal split between zones i and j. The formula for this aggregate
is straightforward. Recall that N1 J is the set of individuals k traveling from i to j and
let n 1 J be the nwnber of individuals in this set. Because Pk = «i({3'zk) is our best pre-
diction that an individual with a measured choice environment described by zk will
choose mode a, the best prediction for the aggregate of individuals making the trip is

(7)

Equation 7 is just the expectation of the response probability of the empirical distri-
bution of the vector of the independent variables z. When n 1 J is large, this formula is
closely approximated by the expectation of the response probability of the underlying
distribution of the independent variables. We asswne that the distribution of z for in-
dividuals in N1 J is normal; the mean is z1l and the covariance matrix is A1 J. (This is a
plausible large sample approximation even when the individual observations are clearly
nonnormal, e.g., discrete. It should be noted that some of the conclusions, e.g., the
result concerning the consistency of disaggregated models calibrated from zonal aver-
ages, depend critically on the symmetry of this distribution and would change substan-
tially if the distribution were skewed.} Then, the differential impedance y = {3'z is dis-
tributed normally with mean {3'z 1J and variance a~J = f3' NJ{3. Therefore, the expecta-
tion of the response probability is

(8)

Equation 8 can be simplified further by using the convolution properties of normal

distributions. In general, i.f W1 and W2 are independent normal random variables with
mean u 1 and variance a~ for i = 1, 2, one has W1 - W2 distributed normally with mean
IJ.1 - µ.2 and variance ai + a~, and this implies

(9)
28

Setting w = µ 1 = O, a1 = 1, aa = aq, and µ2 = fj'ziJ, Eq. 9 implies a final form for the
aggregate modal split between zones i and j:

(10)

Equation 10 can also be obtained directly by returning to the condition given in Eq. 2
for an individual to choose mode a. Given tllat V(xa\ sk) - V(xbk, sk) = {3 1 zk, this con-
dition becomes

(11)

The first two terms in Eq. 11 taken together are assumed to have a standard normal
distribution, and fj'zk is assumed to be normal with mean {3'z1 J and variance a=.
There-
fore, the left side of Eq. 11 is normal with mean -fj'-ziJ and variance 1 + a~ 3 • This im-
plies that the probability of the event in Eq. 11 is given by Eq. 10.
By comparing Eqs. 10 and 6 for the individual response probability, one sees that
the components of differential impedance have the same relative weights, given by the
component of (3, but that the effect of the mean differential impedance for the zones is
attenuated by the factor ..j 1 + a;J, which reflects the degree of heterogeneity of the
variables facing the individuals in the zone. If the z ones are homogeneous, so that
each individual has the same socioeconomic characteristics and faces the same trip
attributes yielding a~ 3 = f3' N 3{3 = 0, then the aggregate and disaggregate models co-
incide. This conclusion provides a condition under which the disaggregated model can
be calibrated directly from interzonal data.
Equation 10 provides a method of forecasting interzonal modal splits from a knowl-
edge of the zonal average z1 J of the variables entering differential impedance and of the
intrazonal covariances A1 J of these variables. It is important to note that one does not
require a sample of individuals going from i to j or observations on individual data
points, although an alternative approach to computing the aggregate flows is to use
Eq. 7 directly for a random sample from the population. The zonal means z1J are
often available from transportation surveys; the covariances NJ are usually not re-
ported but could be constructed from the underlying data. The effect of a policy change
can be forecast from Eq. 10, provided the effect of the policy on z13 and A1 J can be de-
termined. The most straightforward case is a policy change that has a homogeneous
impact on the zone, as for example a $0.05 increase in the basic transit fare. This
changes the cost component of zu and leaves N; unchanged. A more complex example
wbuld be an increase in parking charges given that zones are heterogeneous with re-
spect to the availability of free parking to different individuals. This increase would
change the corresponding component of z1J but would also spread the distribution of
parking charges more widely, which would increase the variance of this component in
A13 and possibly also change the covariance of this component and other variables.
Specifying the precise effect of a policy change on NJ may be challenging; various ap-
proximations may become necessary, including the extreme approximation implicit in
conventional aggregate models that NJ is always zero and is therefore unchanged by
policy. The error introduced by this last approximation may be substantial.
An empirical example shows the order of magnitude of the factor ..J 1 +~Jin Eq. 10.
We consider an automobile-bus modal-split model calibrated on 160 individual workers
in the San Francisco Bay area (7, model 1). This model (7) has one pure socioeconomic
variable (income), one pure transportation variable (cost difference), and four mixed
variables defined by the after-tax wage times the time difference for on-vehicle, walk,
initial wait, and transfer wait times. Table 1 gives means and standard errors of the
 29

Table 1. Overall means and standard errors for population sample.

Normalized
Variable Standard Error
Standard Probit of Intrazonal
Number Description Mean Error Coefficient Variances

1 Family income, ~ $10,000/year 8,670 2,238.3 0.0000391 1.46

2 Out-of-pocket cost per round trip", cents 0.88 102.5 -0.00551 6.98
3 On -vehicle time", one way x net wage, -51. 7 65.0 -0.00514 1.40
$ / hour
4 Walk time" x net wage, $/hour -40.2 64.6 -0.000055 5.39
5 Initial wait time• x net wage, $/hour -37 .4 33.2 -0.0103 1.39
6 Transfer wait time• x net wage, $/hour -28.3 42.1 -0.0114 3.32
7 Automobile dummy 1 0.0898

1
For automobile and bus trips.

Table 2. Total correlation matrix.

Variable

variable 2 4 5 6

l 1 0.224 -0.307 -0.372 -0.303 -0.27

2 0.224 1 0.195 -0.294 0.206 0.146
3 -0.307 0.195 1 0.0913 0.518 0.597
~ -0.372 -0.294 0.0913 1 0.0746 0.0597
5 -0.303 0.206 0.518 0.0746 1 0.642
6 -0.27 0.146 0.597 0.0597 0.642 1

Table 3. Average intrazonal covariance matrix as proportion of total

covariance matrix for population sample.

variable

variable 2 4 5 6

1 0.91 -0.332 2.25 0.324 1.19 0.464

2 -0.332 0.136 0.156 -0.173 -0.14 -0.223
3 2.25 0.156 0.652 1.07 0.568 0.191
4 0.324 -0.173 1.07 0.168 0.88 0.756
5 1.19 -0.14 0.568 0.88 0.45 0.4
6 0.464 -0.223 0.191 0.756 0.4 0.26

variables and their probit coefficients (3. Table 2 gives the overall correlation matrix
of these variables. Using the MTC 440 zone network for the San Francisco Bay area,
we grouped the sample into zones. Assuming a common intrazonal covariance matrix
A= A1 J, we obtained the estimate of A (expressed as a proportion of the overall co-
variance matrix), which is gi-ven in Table 3. We note that 91 percent of .iilcome vari-
ation is intrazonal. The percentage is only 13.6 for cost difference variation but is as
high as 65 for one of the variables for mixed wage times cost. For this A matrix,
a~J = {3' A{3 = 0.485 and the factor '11
+ a~J = 1.22. This implies that the elasticity of
any independent variable of aggregate demand for the first mode between zones i and j
will be 82 percent of the average of the corresponding individual demand elasticities
for trips from i to j. [This is a conservative estimate of the bias in typical modal-
split models because (a) the calibration on which our calculation is based underweighs
transit walk time because of a failure to distinguish walk access and automobile access
transit trips and (b) a variety of additional automobile availability and socioeconomic
variables are excluded from the model. Jn each of these cases, the contribution of
intrazonal variance can be expected to be a high proportion of the total.] We conclude
that direct application to aggregate modal splits of elasticities calculated from disag-
gregate models will tend to overestimate the magnitude of demand response, and
30

elasticities calculated from aggregate data will underestimate, on the average, indiv-
idual demand elasticities.
To determine whether the assumption of a common intrazonal matrix A= A1 J was a
good one, we computed the standard errors over the origin-destination pairs in our
sample of the diagonal variance elements in the AiJ· These standard errors divided
by their means (i.e., the diagonal elements of A) are given in Table 1. We conclude
that there is substantial variation in the AiJ over origin-destination pairs and that it
would be a poor practice in applications to assume a common A matrix. Finally, we
note that over half the contribution to the variance a~J = {3A' f3 in our example is con-
tributed by off-diagonal (covariance) terms. Thus, it is not sufficient to look only at
the variance elements of A. Because of the small data base, these conclusions are
necessarily tentative and are intended only to suggest orders of magnitude.
With any sigmoid-shaped choice function, attempts to represent aggregate modal
splits by the disaggregated function with homogeneous zone assumptions will similarly
bias the results. The bias will be toward the extreme possible values of the modal
split-too low for values of Eq. 6 below 0.5, too high above 0.5. Only in the special
cases where zones are homogeneous or where interzonal splits are equal to 0.5 and
their differential impedances are distributed symmetrically about their mean would
there be no bias. The magnitude of the bias found in the example is sufficient to re-
quire that the zone variances be accounted for in the aggregation process.

CALIBRATION OF AGGREGATE MODELS

We next examine the effects of calibrating an aggregate model directly from interzonal
flows when, in fact, individual responses conform to the disaggregate behavioral model
of Eq. 6. The typical aggregate modal-split model assumes that the frequency of choice
of mode a for trips between i and j is given by a function of the differential impedance
of the two modes, and differential impedance is measured in turn by a weighted com-
bination of the zonal average differential attributes of the two modes. Given that the
response curve is normal, this model is

(12)

where 'Y is the vector of unknown parameters weighting the components of differential
trip attributes into a measure of differential impedance. Although Eq. 12 is identical
to Eq. 6 for individual response probability, it would be justified in traditional aggre-
gate demand analysis on the basis of its success as an empirical law rather than on
behavioral grounds. Calibration of the model of Eq. 12 from data on interzonal flows
would typically be done by applying least squares for origin-destination pairs to the
equation

(13)

where w- 1 is the inverse cumulative standard normal distribution, Tj 1 j is an unobserved

error, and P 1 J are the observed frequencies of choice of mode a between zones. Ex-
cept for possible adjustments introduced by use of weighted least squares, the result-
ing estimator is

(14)
 31
Now, suppose that travel demand behavior is in fact determined by the disaggregated
model in Eq. 6. Aside from sampling error, which is inversely proportional to the
number of trips between zones, and which can be ignored when the total number of
trips is large, the observed interzonal modal-split frequencies Pu from Eq. 10 will
satisfy the following:

(15)

or

(16)

If one substitutes Eq. 16 in Eq. 14, the value of .Y converges, with a probability of one
as sample size increases, to

'Y=[.~ziJz!J']- [~.ziJz!Jl/v1 + a~J]f3

1

(17)
1, J 1, J

From Eq. 17 we can draw inferences on the biases introduced in the estimation of 'Y by
the presence of heterogeneity within the zones. First, we note that, in homogeneous
zones where a~ 3 = O, .Y is a consistent estimator of {3. When zones are heterogeneous,
the effect of the term ~ will gene1·ally be to bias the estimates .Y downward in
magnitude. If large magnitu~es of a component of z1 J tend to be associated with large
values of a~ J' the bias in the corresponding coefficient will tend to be larger than for
a coefficient for which the component of ziJ and a~J tends to be uncorrelated. Given that
a~J is a constant a for all zones, Eq. 17 reduces to a si mple expression for the bias
2

y = 1 f3 (18)
~

The magnitudes calculated previously suggest that y will underestimate f3 in magnitude

by 18 percent or more in typical aggregate models.
The seriousness of the bias introduced in the calibration of .Y from interzonal flows
depends on the extent to which these biases introduce errors in demand forecasts.
Consider, first, the relative bias in various components of .Y and take the example of
transit access time versus cost. In a typical transportation study, some zones will be
densely serviced by transit, and this will result in low average transit access time and
a low intrazonal variance for this variable. Other zones will be sparsely serviced, and
this will lead to a high average transit access time and a high variance. This pattern
will substantially bias the coefficient of transit access time; however, transit cost will
be relatively homogeneous within zones, and this will result in less bias for the coef-
ficient of cost. Therefore, the aggregate model will undervalue transit access time
relative to cost and will therefore underpredict the net increase in transit demand,
which would occur because of a policy change increasing the density of transit routes
as well as transit cost.
32
Aside from the distortions introduced by differential biases in parameter estimates,
the forecasting success of the calibrated aggregate model will depend on whether the
policy change wider study affects the intrazonal covariance matrix for the independent
variables. Given that a~J is constant for all zones and that a policy change affects ziJ
but leaves A1 J wichanged, the aggregate model forecasts correctly. Consider, for ex-
ample, a wiiform increase in the base transit fare by comparing Eqs. 6 and 10, in
which 'Y is set equal to the calibrated value from Eq. 18. The aggregate model fore-
casts will err for any policy change that affects NJ; this will be the case particularly
for policies that have a heterogeneous impact within the zone. For example, a policy
change reducing access times by increasing the number of transit stops will reduce
the access-time component in z 1 J and the corresponding variance in NJ. The true re-
sponse given by Eq. 10 Will differ from the response p1·edicted by the calibr ated aggre -
gate m odel by a term r eflecting the effect of this policy on ~J' If the differential im-
pedances are distributed so that the frequency of extreme response probabilities in
favor of transit is lower than that in favor of the alternative mode, the effect of de-
creasing a~J will usually be to decrease transit patronage. As a result, the calibrated
aggregate model will overpredict the rise in transit patronage.
The preceding paragraphs have pointed out that, by using the aggregate model of
Eq. 12, direct calibration and forecasting can result in substantial prediction biases.
This is true except when the zones are homogeneous or when policy change has a ho-
mogeneous effect on the zone, which leaves the covariance matrix of the independent
variables wichanged. However, when consistent estimates of the intrazonal variances
a 1 J are available, the estimator of Eq. 17 can be modified to

(19)

Equati on 19 gives a consis tent estimate of the parameter vector fj. Then, Eq. 10 can
be used with the estimates y ancJ a~J to correctly forecast the effects of policy changes
that are either homogeneous or heterogeneous in their impact on zones.
In practice, it may be feasible to obtain a consistent estimate of the intrazonal co-
variance matrix A1J from external s ources, but it may not be feasible to obtain the
initial consistent estimators of fj necessary to construct estimators of a~J = {3 ' A1 Jfj.
An alternative is to consider the estimator in Eq. 19 as an implicit fwlction of y:

(20)

Solution of this system of equations by iterative methods provides a consistent estima-

tor y* of fj. Given that NJ is wiiform across zones, this equation has the solution

(21)

where

M Z.2. = "z
L#I
1
J z1 J 1
i, j
 33

and

M.y = :E ziJ 1
~- cP1J)
i, j

The difference in the denominator of Eq. 21 is likely to result in rather unsatisfactory

statistical properties of this estimator in small samples. In particular, this estimator
may fail to exist. Equation 21 may provide a useful initial step for iterative solutions
of Eq. 20 for unequal NJ if we initially use some average A of the NJ. We conclude
that an efficient and practical procedure for demand forecasting may be (a) to obtain
consistent estimators of the NJ covariance matrices and the behavioral parameters {3,
(b) to use these estimates to obtain estimates of a~J = {3' A1 Jf3 and ,,/ 1 + a~P (c) to use
interzonal flows in the adjusted aggregate m odel estimator in Eq. 19 to obtain a more
precise estimator of (3, and (d) to use these estimates in Eq. 10 to obtain consistent
forecasts of the effect of a transportation policy.

CALIBRATION OF DISAGGREGATED MODELS WITH

AGGREGATE DATA

Given data for a sample of individuals, which include accurate measurements of the
attributes of the transportation alternatives faced by each person, the disaggregated
model of Eq. 6 can be calibrated by straightforward application of a variety of statis-
tical techniques. These techniques include maximum likelihood procedures and, under
suitable circumstances, minimum chi-square procedures (3, 6). A second approach to
calibration is to use the conclusions of the preceding discussfOn to estimate the behav-
ioral model from zonal data when the intrazonal covariance matrix of the independent
variables is known or can be estimated consistently from external sources.
In practice, a third approach is important. Data on choices, socioeconomic char-
acteristics, and some attributes of alternative trips are collected for a sample of in-
dividuals, and the remaining attributes of trips are measured only by zonal averages.
For example, individual data may be collected on income, age, and travel costs, and
zonal averages obtained from transportation grids may be used for access and on-
vehicle travel times. This introduces a measurement error in the independent vari-
ables, which may bias the estimates obtained by applying the statistical methods or-
dinarily used in calibrating disaggregated models . (The reason calibration of a mixed
model with individual response frequencies and interzonal average explanatory variables
gives consistent estimates and calibration of an aggregate model with zonal average re-
sponse frequencies does not give such estimates is that an arithmetic average of inverse
cumulative normal transformations of frequencies does not equal the inverse cumulative
normal transformation of the arithmetic average of the frequencies. It is this nonlin-
earity of the response curve that makes it nece ssary to distinguish disaggregate and
aggregate models.)
We will now determine the conditions under which biases will occur and derive cor-
rection formulas. The first useful conclusion is that replacing all independent vari-
ables by zonal averages yields consistent estimates of the parameters of the behavioral
model when the usual statistical methods are applied. (This conclusion depends criti-
cally on the assumption that the intrazonal distributions of the independent variables are
not skewed. If, to the contrary, these distributions are skewed, and modes lie between
the zonal mean vectors and the total population mean vector, then the use of zonal aver-
ages introduces a regression-to-the-mean effect, Which generally biases estimates
downward in magnitude.) (Note that individual observations are used as the dependent
variables and, thus, differ from the zonal average frequencies used in the previous
section.) The loss of efficiency in estimation resulting from use of this procedure may
be substantial because not all information is being used. However, in very large
34
samples, this loss may be offset by the saving in cost of providing accurate measures
of the travel attributes for each individual. The second result provides a straightfor-
ward linear transformation of the estimates obtained from the usual statistical proce-
dures, which makes the resulting estimators consistent. These correction formulas
require external estimates of the intrazonal variance of the independent variables.
The behavioral model of Eq. 6 can be written as

(22)

Partition zk = (zl, zU, where z~ is the (possi bly empty) subvector of components that
can be measured for each individual and z~ is the subvector of components that will be
approximated in the estimation process by the zonal averages. Then,

(23)

where (3 is partitioned commensurately. It is convenient to cast the calibration process

into a regression format by assuming there are a large number of individuals of each
type k and that Pk is the response frequency of this homogeneous group. Then,

(24)

where (k are error terms with a zero mean, which converge to zero with a probability
of one as the numbers of members of the groups increase. Suppose now that z~ is re-
placed by the zonal average z1J and apply ordinary least squares to the equation.

(25)

This general estimation procedure is known as Berkson's method, which under a cor-
rect specification of the independent variables provides estimates of the parameters,
which are consistent and equivalent in asymptotically large samples to the maximum
likelihood estimator.
We rewrite Eq. 25 in vector notation as

(26)

where y and ( are column vectors with components yk and (k respectively, and z 1 and
"2"2 are matrices with rows z~' and z~J' respectively.
The ordinary least squares es-
timates from Eq. 26 then satisfy

(27)

But Eq. 24, written in the vector notation used above, is y = z 1 {31 + z 2 {32 + (, and this
implies
 35

(28)

The last term in this expression converges to zero with a probability of one as the num-
ber of individuals of each type becomes large. Then &1 , &.i converge (with a probability
of one) in this limit to values a1, a:i and satisfy

(29)

We will now consider further the structure of the matrices in this expression. De-
fine E to be a square block-diagonal matrix with a block for each zone pair i, j of the
form (1/n 1 J) e 1 Je 1 J ', where e 1 J is a column vector of ones of length n!J. Then, E satis-
fies

Z2 = Ez2 (30)

and

2
E =E

The average of the intrazonal covariance matrices A 1J introduced previously will be

denoted by A and can be defined in terms of the matrix E:

nA =I: n 13 A1J = I: I: (zk - Z1J)(zk - -z1l)'

i, j i, j kE"N 1 J

(31)

Partition

_(An A12)
A - ~1 A22 (32)

commensurately with (z1, Z2). Then, define MkQ from Eq. 31 as

(33)
36

(34)

Equation 29 can be written

(35)

(36)

1
°'1)- _! (M11 M12 + A12)- (0 nA12) (a1)
( a2 (37)
n M21 M22 0 0 a2

Define

(38}

Then, writing out the expression for the inverse of a partitioned matrix, we obtain

1
f31) (°'1) (M.lf(M12 + A12)C- M21 + 111) _1
( R = ,.. - c-1 M21 M11 A12°'2 (39)
1'2 ""2 -

The second term in Eq. 39 reflects the bias in the estimators of the disaggregated
model introduced by using zonal average values for the variables z2. First, we note
that, if the intrazonal correlations of the variables measured by zonal averages are all
zero, i.e., A12 = O, then the usual estimators are consistent, and no correction is nec-
essary. This is true, in particular, if all variables are measured as zonal averages
so that z 1 is empty. Second, we note that the magnitude of the bias is determined by
the degree of intrazonal variability relative to total variability. If, for example,
A12 = 8M12 for some e with O ~ e < 1, then

(40)

where C = M22 - (1 + 8)M21M;fM12 . Third, Eq. 39 provides a correction for the usual
disaggregate estimators, which makes them consistent for this problem. Application
of this correction requires that consistent estimates of A12 be obtained from external
sources. Estimates of A might be obtained from previous transportation surveys or
from more limited data sets when it is possible to limit, a priori, the structure of A.
An example of the latter construction would be an estimate of access-time covariance
with income in each zone based on the geometry of the zone, the location of transit
routes, and census block statistics on income.
 37

SUMMARY

This paper has established links between aggregate travel demand models and disaggre-
gate behavioral models. Equation 10 provides a formula for computing interzonal flows,
given a calibrated disaggregate model, and zonal averages and intrazonal variances for
the independent variables. Biases resulting from direct calibration of an aggregate
model when individual behavior conforms to the disaggregate model are derived. The
implications of these biases for forecasting are discussed. Equation 20 provides a
method for obtaining consistent estimates of the parameters of the disaggregate model
from interzonal flow data. Biases introduced in calibration of disaggregate models
when some independent variables are approximated by zonal averages are also dis-
cussed. It is shown that the use of zonal averages for all independent variables results
in consistent estimates of the parameters of the behavioral model. Equation 39 gives
a formula for correcting the bias in the estimates of the behavioral parameters when
a mix of individual and zonal average variables is used, and an estimate of the intra-
zonal covariance matrix can be obtained from external sources.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research has been supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
This study has not been carried out as part of the research program of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission or the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the views
expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of these agencies.

REFERENCES

1. M. Ben-Akiva. Structure of Travel Demand Models. Transportation Systems

Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1972, unpublished.
2. D. Brand. The State of the Art of Travel Demand Forecasting: A Critical Review.
Harvard Univ., 1972, unpublished.
3. D. Cox. Analysis of Binary Data. Methuen, 1970.
4. T. Domencich and D. McFadden. Urban Travel Demand-A Behavioral Analysis.
North Holland, 1974.
5. T. Lisco. The Value of Commuters' Travel Time-A Study in Urban Transporta-
tion. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Chicago, 1967.
6. D. McFadden. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In
Frontiers of Econometrics (P. Zarembka, ed.), Academic Press. -
7. D. McFadden. The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand. Journal of Public
Economics, 1974.
8. R. Quandt. The Demand for Travel: Theory and Measurement. D. C. Heath
and Company, 1970.
9. P. Stopher and T. Lisco. Modelling Travel Demand: A Disaggregate Behavioral
Approach-Issues and Applications. Proc., Transportation Research Forum,
1970, pp. 195-214.
10. F. Reid. Travel Time Data Base for the BART Impact Study. BART Impact
Program, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Working paper 2-1-74, 1974.
ROLE OF WAITING TIME,
COMFORT, AND CONVENIENCE
IN MODAL CHOICE FOR WORK TRIP
Staffan Algers , Stockholm County Council;
Stein Hansen, Mtfre og Roms dal Regional College, Norway; and
GPran T egner J oint P lanning Board of Stockholm

This paper is concerned with the development and use of a policy-oriented,

disaggregated behavioral choice model for transportation planning prob-
lems and emphaslzes the impacts of changes in tr avel comfo rt, convenienc e,
and waiting times. The econometric method chosen was logit analysis, and,
in that the logit model can be derived from demand or choice, we can inter-
pret logit coefficients as trade-off values. The model is based on survey
data for commuters' work trips in the Stockholm metropolitan area in 1968
and 1971. It contains choice variables, socioeconomic variables, and trans-
portation policy variables. The most important choice variable is "the use
of car for work," which supposedly restricts the possibility for public transit
use. The socioeconomic variable is income. The transportation policy
variables are t r avel time, travel cost, and the chance of getting a seat. A
dummy variable technique is applied to the binary-choice a ppr oach so that
stratification of the choice situation for different types of transit modes
within the same model is possible. This allows for differences among the
various transit modes in relation to comfort. The survey data are subdi-
vided into two income groups to test the hypothesis that the value of time
and comfort depends on the level of income. Results from our research are
of particular interest when suggested changes in public transportation are
compared with each other or with the do-nothing alternative.

•BY MEANS of a questionnaire, the greater Stockholm Labor Force survey of 1968
(AKU-68) presented an excellent opportunity t o analyze the greater Stockholm com-
muting pattern at the disaggregate l evel. T he Stockholm ar ea trans portation study of
1971 (TU-71) gave us an opportunity to further investigate the unexplored field of
evaluation of comfort and convenience at a disaggregate behavioral level. Based on
these surveys, a number of special studies were carried out at the Joint Planning
Board of Stockholm and the Stockholm County Counci.l in 1970 t o 1974 @ ).
This paper is concerned with the application of a disaggregate binary-choice model
for the commuters' modal choices reported in AKU-68 and TU-71 and places special
emphasis on the impacts of changes in travel comfort, convenience, and transit waiting
times.
Our reasons for this choice of emphasis are simple: Research on travel choice
has for the past 10 years been concerned with the value of time savings and estimates
of time and cost elasticities. The role of comfort and convenience was always referred
to as important but rarely was incorporated explicitly as a policy-oriented variable in
econometric models.
The first major contributions to empirically clarify travelers' rankings (and, im-
plicitly, their relative evaluation) of various transportation system improvements were
carried out by sociopsychological research techniques such as paired comparison and
semantic scaling. Studies along these lines strongly suggested that comfort and con-
venience play a major role when travelers evaluate alternative means of travel.

38
 39

Gustafson, Curd, and Golob (7) found that the following characteristics seem to be
more important than lower fares; in order of importance these are

1. Arriving when planned,

2. Having a seat,
3. No transfer trip,
4. Calling without delay,
5. Shelters at pickup,
6. Less waiting time, and
7. Choosing pickup time.

All these factors are concerned with time savings or improvements in comfort and con-
venience. This indicates what variables to concentrate on in trying to divert automobile
users to public transportation, although it should be emphasized that the above ranking
depends on the levels of service experienced by those who were interviewed.
In addition to these empirical findings, theoretical developments took place in dis-
aggregate choice analyses. DeDonnea (5) modeled travel demand so that a value of
time savings would result from an algebraic model of the "economic allocation of time"
as contrasted to preceding theoretical models in this field, in which the time values
derived contained the composite value of the time savings and the corresponding change
in comfort and convenience.
He therefore concluded that an ideal, econometric modal-choice model should ex-
press modal choice as a function of three types of explicatory trans por tation policy
variables (~): (a) the cost of the trip by each mode, (b) the time of the t rip by each
mode, and (c) the objective comfort characteristics of each mode.
Independently, DeSerpa (~) derived similar results. McGillivray (.!E.) used a s imilar
theoretical approach to show the relationship between the modern microeconomics of
choice behavior and the econometric binary-choice models (logit, probit, and linear
probability function). This has been considered the theoretical justification for deriving
money values on nonmarket factors such as time, comfort, and convenience from such
statistical choice models.
Anot her approach or iginally introduced by Luce (12) was fu rther developed by
Marschack (ll), McFadden (ill, and Charles River Associates (4). This showed that
the logit model of choice analysis can be derived from probabilistic utility theory.
One may therefore conclude that applying the logit model to analyze individual travel
choices is compatible with the theory of demand, and trade-off values .may consequently
be derived.
Both the algebraic and the probabilistic point of departure rest on some strong as-
sumptions regarding separability or independence of irrelevant alternatives (g_, i, fil,
but the lack of better alternative means for analyzing our sample data made our choice
of the econometric approach quite easy.

SELECTION OF EXPLANATORY VARIABLES

An econometric study of travel behavior based on a random cross-sectional sample of

individuals can be carried out in two ways :

1. The socioeconomic characteristics that vary between individuals are included ex-
plicitly as variables in the model.
2. The sample is subdivided into categories so that socioeconomic variables are not
needed as explanatory variables of the modal choices.

Both approaches were used in this study, although it is difficult to succeed with
category analyses because the subsamples usually turn out to be too small. Which
approach to use depended on whether the variable in question influenced the traveler's
evaluation of the other variables or whether it influenced the a priori probability to
use a car.
40

The basic issue, however, had to do with the transportation policy variables inas-
much as one aim of the study was to provide public planning officers, politicians, and
transit operators with a firmer knowledge of what public transportation system char-
acteristics to focus on when they suggest urban transportation options in the future.
Travel time, travel costs, and travel comfort and convenience are the major groups
of transportation policy variables. As in many other similar studies, each segment of
travel time and travel cost is identified. But unlike most previous studies in this field
(exceptions include~ lb .!!!., ~. our models also include travel comfort and con-
venience variables, the most important of which seem to be "number of transfers" and
"chance of getting a seat" (7).
The use of each trip segment as a basi.s for separate explanatory variables is well-
founded in modern microeconomic consumer theory (~ .?., ~ and is compatible with the
intuitive policy-oriented segmentation that is relevant to the supply of transportation
services. The travel segments used as explanatory variables not only reflect the trip
segmentation perceived by the travelers; they also reflect the action parameters of
transportation planning authorities.
This raised the question of whether travelers perceive the same variable values as
those measured by traffic engineers. We assumed that no bias of this kind was present;
this assumption was supported by the findings of Lansing and Hendricks (.!Q_) in the
United States, Quarmby (17) in the United Kingdom and by recent findings in Sweden
(1) (Figs. 1 and 2).
- This is an important assumption because both perceived and engineering data had to
be used in the same models as a consequence of the limitations of perceived data for
the travel mode not chosen for the journey to work.
It was also assumed that the travelers in our samples have a good knowledge of the
values of the attribute dimensions of the alternatives available. This was a reasonable
assumption because we were dealing with work trips. This assumption seemed to be
supported by a recent study (1) and TU-71, in which 68 percent of the automobile com-
muters reported that they were conscious of public transit costs and 84 percent were
conscious of the time it took to travel by public transit. Among transit users, similar
percentages were 40 and 76 respectively. Similar results were also derived by Lansing
and Hendricks (10).
Socioeconomic variables are important for making valid predictions for future
situations with significantly different socioeconomic structures within and between the
zones of the study area. In addition to sex, age, and income level, a variable express-
ing the use of the automobile while the respondent was at work was included because
we believe that frequent car use during working hours makes commuting by public transit
less attractive. From AKU-68, we found that about 50 percent of the automobile com-
muters also used their cars during working hours. The frequency of car use during
work time turned out as follows according to TU-71:

Time of Use Percentage of Use

Daily 14
At least once a week 20
At least once a month 11
Only occasionally 20
Never 35
Total 100

A brief definition of the variables and the nature of the data (in parentheses) used in
AKU-68 follow. Both reported and estimated values refer to round trips. Cost and
income are measured in Swedish crowns (Kr).
 41

Figure 1. Perceived versus estimated travel time for automobile and public transit users
in Stockholm .

.Transit travel time

40
+ Auto users Auto travel time
35 0 Tran1it users

30 30

~ 25
·;::
25
Qi
> 20 20
g
al 15 0 I- + 15
>
'iii
e., 10 + 10
Q.

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
estimated travel time

Figure 2. Perceived versus estimated travel time for automobile and public transit users in Uppsala.

Transit travel time

100

90
Auto travel time
80

70 70

GO
~
·;:::

Qi
50 50
g> 40 40
.,
'O
>
'iii 30 30
eQ)
Q.
20 20

10 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

estimated travel time

42

M mode: 0 = t1·ansit, 1 = a utomobile (reported);

T. door-to-door a utomobile travel time, min/ day (r epor ted for automobile
users as perceived data, estimated fo r t ransit us ers as engineering data);
Tt door-to-door transit travel time, min/ day (reported for transit users, esti-
mated for automobile users) ;
Twait
a . = waiting time for automobile, 0 min/ day (estimated);
Twalk
a ~ walking time to automobile, 10 min/ day (estimated);
T~a1t = mor ning plus evening waiting time for transit mode, only waiting time for

firs t t r ansfer measured (estimat ed);

Tw•lk
t = walking t ime to transit (estimated);
TIV line-ha ul time on transit, Tt -Tr 1k -T~· 1 t (estimated);
nvt time in vehicle for automobile, T. -T:•1k (estimated);
c ~ = transit cost/ day (estimated);
CP
ca a utomobile parking costs/day (reported);
CRa = automobile running costs/ day (estimated);
c:
c. automobile cost, + CR (estimated);
NOT number of transfers (reported);
K sex: 0 = male, 1 = female (reported);
A age years (reported);
y individual income/ day (reported); and
uoc use of car during working hours : 0 = if not used, 1 = if used (reported).
Some of the engineering values used need some further comments. Great impor-
tance has been attached to T~ait in previous modal-choice studies because estimated
coefficients indicate a waiting-time value 2 to 3 times that of line-haul or driving time
saved. The number of statistically significant estimates on these coefficients are,
however, rather limited, and they mostly imply a particular arrival behavior, namely
that the average waiting time is half the time interval between two transit modes re-
gardless of the length of this interval.
It seems reasonable to assume that a worker's knowledge of the journey is such that
the assumption mentioned onl y will hold true for t ransit lines with a high frequency,
say 5 min or so between trains (or buses). If int ervals are large r , people will sys-
tematically arrive at the station so that they may avoid long waiting times.
So that the effect of the latter hypothesis on waiting-time values (the role of transit
frequenc y) could be tested, Tr 1t was measured by a formula (16). The waiting time on
each one-wa y t rip was computed as 1. 79 + 0.14 t for 5 ,;; t, where t = minutes between
'trans it arrivals. For t < 5, the one-way waiting time was equal to 1/2t. It is important
to note that T~•it does not include transfer times; only waiting for the first transit mode
is measured by T~· 1 t.
One purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of the assumed waiting behavior
of commuters so that our knowledge of the value of time saved during waiting may be
improved. By a comparison of different assumptions about the arrivals at transit
stations, the differences in empirical results will indicate upper and lower limits on
the value of time saved during travel. The range between these limits will in practice
be a function of the distribution of the transit frequencies on the public transportation
network in the area under investigation. In other words, a highly developed transit
system with high frequencies will probably reveal little variation in the waiting-time
values, whereas a system with low frequencies will imply larger ranges between upper
and lower limits.
T. for transit users was estimated by using origin-destination data and exogenously
computed average link speeds and by assuming the use of the shortest route.
T~•lk was measured for each observation as the walking distance between a home
address and the nearest transit station or bus stop. A similar procedure was applied
at the workplace . A walking s peed of 5 km/ hour was assumed.
C~ was constructed to r eflect the dependence on traffic conditions (peak or off peak)
and individual tax deduction possibilities . By use of the speed-fuel consumption model
of the British Transport and Road Research Laboratory and traffic speed data for
 43

Stockholm, the automobile running costs were estimated at 2.46 Swedish Kr/ 10 km in
peak periods and 2.25 Swedish Kr in off-peak periods. When the automobile was re-
ported to be used for work purposes, the cost for the individual was defined as zero
because of tax deduction allowances.
c: data were basically provided by the survey. For those respondents who answered
that no parking was available, 20 Swedish Kr were coded because this would be the cost
of using a parking lot. Ct was estimated by using the lowest monthly cost alternative.
NOT was derived through the reported work trip composition for transit users and
from the alternative transit arrangement reported by automobile users. Inasmuch as
transfer times were not explicitly recorded, the coefficients of the NOT variable mea-
sured the value of transfer inconvenience.
The 1968 waiting times are estimated by the British formula (16). Because we are
particularly interested in the sensitivity of our conclusions with respect to waiting-
time behavior, the underlying distribution of time intervals between transit arrivals
should be known. A brief definition of the variables in TU-71 follows. The data for
all the variables except UOC were reported by automobile and transit users; UOC was
reported only by car users. Costs are measured in Swedish Kr.

Ta = door-to-door travel time for automobile, min/ day;

T t = door-to-door transit time, min/ day;
Ca = total travel costs for automobile/ day;
ct total travel costs for transit/ day;
NOT number of transfers/ day;
S chances of getting a seat for longer part of trip, yes or no; and
UOC use of car during working hours: 1 =used daily or more than once a week
during working hours, 0 = otherwise.

ANALYSES OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS

In a recent paper (20), we presented a number of highly significant parameter estimates

based on the data sets described. One striking feature of these estimates was the ex-
traordinary high values of time saved while waiting. It was concluded (20) that our
particular formula choice for waiting-time behavior caused high values in comparison
to the waiting-time values revealed in modal-choice studies of other metropolitan areas .
The formula used (20) would have yielded waiting-time values identical to what is
considered normal if the transit system supply were such that all frequencies were 5
min or less. This, however, was not at all the case in Stockholm because 75 percent
of the commuters faced transit frequencies of 7.5 m in or more (Table 1). The larger
the share of commuters is on transit lines with low frequency, the larger the dis-
crepancy will be between the expected waiting-time value according to the formula and
that derived by assuming that all waiting times are equal to one-half of the headway,
which could be considered a random waiting time. The relationships between transit
headway and random waiting time and between transit headway and expected waiting
time are shown in Figure 3.
According to observed waiting times and transit headways in Stockholm in 1971 (~),
there are strong reasons to believe that commuters really become conscious of waiting
time as transit headways are reduced. This applies particularly to those who depend
on transit lines with frequencies of more than 10 min but also to those who depend on
transit lines with frequencies between 5 and 10 min.
Table 2 gives the empirical results of the logit analyses of the 1050 observations in
AKU-68, which show complete automobile availability. The variables are similar to
those used previously. In addition, it should be noted that the waiting-time variable
(from the British formula) is T~•tt, but the traditional waiting-time variable is T~· t (0).
1

The symbol T~ illustrates so-called excess time (not including transfer time) and con-
tains the sum of T~ait(o) and T~• 1 k.
The most striking feature of Table 2 is the drastic change in the waiting-time coef-
ficient when T~ait is replaced by T~• 1 t(O). All the other coefficients remain unchanged
44
Table 1. Distributions of transit frequencies
(AKU-68).

Minutes Between Number of Percentage of

Tran sit Arrivals Obse rvations• Distribution

0 to 2.5 23 2.2
2.5 to 7.5 247 23.5
7.5 to 12.5 459 43. 7
12.5 to 17.5 109 10.4
17 .5 to27 .5 51 4.9
> 17.5 161 15. 3

Note: Table 1 is based on mean morning and evening frequencies.

8
1050 total.

Figure 3. Expected and random waiting times as functions of transit

headway.
WAITING TIME (minutes)

1~

12
RANDOM WAITING TIME
11

10

5
_ _ --
-- .... ....
_.... ..... - EXPECTED
TIME
WAITING

_ - .... ....
j

~
'7~ -- ----
~
~
0 TRIP HEADWAY
4 b 8 10 11 1~ 1& 18 20 22 24 2&

Table 2. Empirical results of AKU observations.

Model

Variable LC I-Value LC I-Value LC I-Value LC I-Value

T~a1l
0.0871 2.74
T:"'' (0) 0.0244 2.55 0.0244 2.55
T~a 1t -0.0076 0.69 -0.0072 0. 64
T: 0.0118 1.81
AT'y 0.0070 1.96 0.0070 1.94 0.0073 2.04 0.0078 2.18
c: -0.1166 10.5 -0.1167 10.4
Ct -c: 0.1012 3.34 0.0998 3.25
tl.C 0.1148 10.9 0.1144 10.9
NOT 0.1870 2.82 0.1871 2.76 0.1979 2.99 0.2147 3.25
uoc 0.6612 3.07 0.6710 3.07 0.6235 3.29 0.6499 3.45
Constant 0.7278 2.80 1.0942 4.15 0.9889 5.38 0.9063 3.71
Note: LC= togit coefficient, t•values indicate level of statistical significance.
 45
with regard to both absolute value and level of statistical significance. The trade-
off values implied by the estimates in Table 2 are given in Table 3.
Tables 2 and 3 give the important role of the assumed arrival behavior of com-
muters at transit stations and the actual intraregional variations in the level of service
of public transit in terms of headways with regard to waiting times.
The explanatory power of the models discussed is not significantly different, but it
should be noted that our initial model (based on the British formula for waiting time)
yields the smallest constant term of the four logit models discussed.
Table 3 gives travel-time values equal to about 20 percent of the gross wage rate
for all four models. This finding is quite compatible with those of similar previous
studies in other urban areas. Assuming traditional waiting-time behavior (models 2
and 3) regardless of transit headways, waiting-time values equal to 3 times the travel-
time values are revealed. This finding is quite compatible with similar previous
studies in other cities.
When the alternative formula for waiting time is introduced (model 1) the Stockholm
waiting-time value becomes 12 times the value of travel time. This is interesting be-
cause this formula seems more compatible with actual travel behavior than the most
commonly used formula.
A similar disaggregate modal-choice model based on commuter behavior was re-
cently carried out in Sweden (AIB-74) (1). In AIB-74, a commuter data sample was
collected from several workplaces. The sample sizes were 220 in Uppsala (32 560
inhabitants), 452 in Vasteds (117 946 inhabitants), and 188 in Stockholm (699 238 in-
habitants) respectively or a total of 860 observations.
The AIB-74 study used the same set of explanatory variables as in our study, with
two exceptions: (a) It also contained the time it took the commuter to walk from where
the automobile was parked to the workplace, and (b) all variables were reported. This
means that the waiting-time variable for transit like all other variables is to be re-
garded as perceived by the commuters. Four geographically different models were
estimated, one for each city, and there was one pooled model. As in our study, the
AIB-74 study produced highly significant parameter values for most of the transporta-
tion policy variables.
If the perceived waiting-time variable were used in the AIB-74 study, the waiting-
time value would become between 7 to 12 times the value of the in-vehicle travel time.
This finding further supports our belief that using half the headway as a definition
of actual waiting time leads to inaccurate waiting-time values. It also supports the
hypothesis that commuters tend to be conscious of waiting time. As a matter of fact,
the value of waiting time saved relative to in-vehicle times seems to be similar in our
study (based on the British formula) and in the AIB-74 study (based on perceived times).
Now one must decide whether the waiting-time value estimated in our study should
be used in other cities instead of waiting-time values equal to three times the travel-
time values. Our findings indicate that this depends on the level of service of the
transit system in terms of the mean intraregional transit frequency and the distribution
of these frequencies.
Our findings further indicate that the relative waiting-time value will never be less
than previous findings (three times the travel-time value). It seems as if previous
studies in other cities have established a lower boundary of waiting-time values rela-
tive to travel-time values for metropolitan areas with high per capita incomes.
Our findings indicate further that this relative waiting-time value will increase
rapidly as the quality of the transit system is lowered in terms of frequency between
departures.
The conclusion is, therefore, that our findings about the commuters' evaluation of
waiting time saved relative to travel time saved are only transferable to another city
if the transit system frequency characteristics are equal and the economic activity
level is the same.
A dummy variable technique was then applied on the binary choices in a way that
made it possible to identify the different types of transit modes within the same model
and consequently to reveal possible differences between the various transit modes with
respect to comfort of the transfer. A variety of binary-choice situations, such as
46

automobile to underground, automobile to bus, automobile to commuter train, automobile to

bus/underground, automobile to bus or train, and automobile to other transit mode com-
binations, were, therefore, simultaneously treated in the choice equation. The coefficients
of the following model were estimated on the AKU-68 modal-choice sample:

L(x, • )
0
p =
l+eL(x,a)

where

+ (aa + beZ + Cs Y + dsX + esQ)NOT

and where

at> be, cs, ds, and es = parameters (i = O, ... , 6);

Z = 1 if transfer is between buses;
Z = O if otherwise;
Y = 1 if transfer is between underground lines;
Y = 0 if otherwise;
X = 1 if transfer is between commuter train and underground;
X = 0 if otherwise;
Q = 1 if transfer is between rail (commuter train or undergound)
and bus; and
Q = 0 if otherwise.

The other variables are as defined previously for AKU-68. If Z=Y=X=Q=O, this refers
to transfers between other combinations of transit modes, such as bus plus rail modes
with transfers or underground plus bus transfers and others. The mean number of
transfers is thus highest for the other combinations, e.g., bus to rail and rail to rail
(Table 4).
By use of the illustrated dummy variable technique, the parameters for the different
types of transfer can be derived as follows. The estimated, traditional policy param-
eters are significant. The transfer dummies are not at all significant, but the approach
indicates one possible way to use data to understand how different transfers are re-
garded by the travelers.
The derived values of travel time and waiting time are equal to those found in model
1 in Table 3. The (highly speculative) transfer-comfort values derived from the esti-
mates in Table 5 are given in Table 6.
Not much can be relied on in Table 6, but it is interesting to note that the two most
significant transfer types, bus to bus and other transit mode combinations, are valued
somewhat higher than the average transfer value (1.85 Swedish Kr) derived above from
the other models. This may indicate that transfer discomfort is regarded as more
onerous for bus modes and mixed bus-rail mode combinations than for pure rail modes.
There are several intuitive explanations that support this. First, transfers between
different bus lines take place at bus stops that have fewer conveniences compared with
commuter train and underground stations that are well-equipped with climate shelter
and other convenience facilities. Second, our values of transfer discomfort reflect
time spent walking to and waiting for transit. As buses in the greater Stockholm area
generally depart less frequently than the underground, the time spent waiting for a
transfer-on the average-is higher for the bus than for the underground. Because of
the mix of buses and cars in the street, buses also tend to give rise to a lower regu-
larity than rail modes on exclusive rights-of-way. This also tends to prolong time
spent waiting for transfers. Third, neither the different bus route schedules nor
Table 3. Trade-off values. Table 4. Structure of transfers (AKU-68).

Trade-Of[ Value• in Model Number of

Number ol Transfers
Variable 4, Type of Transit Transfer Observations (mean value)

Waiting time saved Bus to bus 276 0.77

per hour 51.64 14.65 12 .74 Underground to underground 185 0.32
Excess time saved Rail to rail 117 1.45
per hour 6.22 Bus to rail 200 2.0
Travel time saved Other combinations 272 4.6
per hour 4.15 4.20 3. 80 4.09
Total 1050 2
Each transfer 1.85 1.87 1.72 1.88

' In Swedish Kr.

Table 5. Empirical results from model based on type of Table 6. Transfer comfort values.
transit transfer.

Dummy Parameter Value

Item Variable Estimate I-Value
Cost per Line-Haul Time
Type of transit transfer Transfer per Transfer
Underg round to underground ~+CG 0.0300 0.16 Type of Transit Transfer (Swedish Kr) (min)
Rail to rail as+ d6 0.1009 0.39
Bus to rail a.ti+ es 0.1566 0.92 Underground to underground 0.31 4.4
other combinations ... 0.2091 2.76 Rail to rail
Bus to rail
1.03
1.60
14 .8
23.0
Other variables 3.44 49.5
Bus to bus
T~•1t 0.0786 2 .45 Other transit combinations 2.14 30. 8
T:"-T!" 0. 0068 1.90
Cl-C: 0.0978 3. 24
c: -0.1152 - 10. 38
uoc 0. 6776 3.12
Constant o. 74133 2.83

Table 7. Modal-choice characteristics and income level.

Variable

AT AC NOT uoc Constant Value of

Door-to-Door Value ol
Model LC I-Value LC I-Value LC I-Value LC t-Value LC I-Value Time• Transfer"

Total
sample 0.0084 2.46 0.1136 11.02 0.212 3 3.37 0.6559 3. 54 1.1270 7.00 4.44 1.98
Low
income 0 .0068 1.30 0.1319 8.38 0.2421 2.32 0.1780 3.34 1.4335 6.20 3.10 1.83
High
income 0 .0089 1.93 0.0983 6.83 0 .2359 2. 85 0.6572 2.71 0.7153 3.03 5.45 2.40
Note: LC • logit coefficient. t·values indicate level of statistical significance,
•swedish Kr/hour, hSwedish Kr/transfer.

Table B. Modal choice and seating comfort (TU-71 ). Variable Model 5 Model 6

.:IT 0.0547 (4.25)

S·t.T -0.0235 (1.88)
T, 0.0385 (6.97)
S·T, -0.0111 (3.35)
T. -0.0498 (7.11 )
.:IC 0.1374 (5.50)
c. -0.1020 (3 . 55)
NOT 0.0535 (0.61) 0.1729 (1.74)
uoc 0.9470 (2.43) 1.0216 (2 . 74)
Constant -0.4234 (1.69) 0.4234 (1.20)
Value of time, having a seat 13.62 16.08
Value of time, not having a s e at 23.88 22.63
Value of transfer 0.40 1.70
Value of travel time by car 29.29

Note: Numbers in parentheses are t·values that indicate level of statistical

significance.
48

the locations of bus stops are usually synchronized. Distance and time spent waiting
for transfers tend to increase more for buses.
The transfer value with respect to other mode combinations is our most reliable
transfer value. As this type of transfer mainly refers to the combinations of bus plus
several rail modes or underground plus several bus routes, this comfort value should
be interpreted as reflecting either feeder bus or rail transfers in the outskirts of the
metropolitan region or city bus or rail transfers in the inner city of Stockholm. The
convenience level is generally rather low, especially at the suburban commuter train
and underground stations. The distance and the difference in the physical convenience
level between train station platforms and feeder bus stops are usually considerable.
In 1968, none of the stations was equipped with escalators or elevators.
However, the convenience level of transfers between different underground lines and
between the commuter train and the underground (located in the inner city of Stockholm)
is exceedingly high compared with the other transfers discussed. Transfers between
rail modes always take place across a platform or by elevators or escalators. These
enable commuters to be unaffected by weather, and there are other conveniences such as
kiosks and ~inishops.
Our point estimates given in Tables 5-and 6 are certainly compatible with these
observations, but, because of the extremely low significance levels associated with
these dummy coefficients, further research is needed to provide conclusive evidence
to transit planners.
The AKU-68 data are insufficient for deriving more information through this kind of
transfer differentiation. Consequently, there is an urgent need for research to develop
similar modal-choice models that emphasize differentiating comfort values into dif-
ferent types of transit use.
Effects of income level on trade-off values were also studied. Because of sample
limitations, only two income categories were used: (a) low income (< Swedish Kr 30 000/
year) and (b) high income (>Swedish Kr 30 000/ year). The logit model used for this
purpose was somewhat less detailed than the ones used previously in that total door-
to-door cost and time differences were used. We first estimated the coefficients for
the whole sample (1050 observations) and then estimated for each of the two income
groups. The results are given in Table 7.
Table 7 shows that the statistical level of significance is highly sensitive to sub-
divisions of the sample. The time difference variable of the low-income category is
significant at 80 percent only, which cannot be considered satisfactory. The other
coefficients are significant at 95 percent. Attempts to subdivide further by income led
to completely unsatisfactory results in regard to level of significance.
The conclusion to be drawn from the findings presented in Table 7 is that both value
of time and transfer seem to increase with income. This is quite in line with similar
studies in other cities, although little evidence so far exists in regard to the evaluation
of transfers as a function of income.
The final resuits in this paper are based on the TU-71 data, 352 observations in all.
These data made it possible to test the hypothesis that people who do not have a seat
during the trip value their travel time higher than people who have seats.
Two logit models were used for this purpose. The first (20) contained cost and time
differences (door-to-door) in addition to NOT and UOC. Theother one is somewhat
more general in that door-to-door times and costs enter separately for each mode,
except for the slight modification that public transit costs (Ct) is not included. The
reason for this is that the uniform 50 Swedish Kr/month season ticket applies to the
whole commuting population in the study area and can be considered a constant rather
than a variable.
The seating question is dealt with similarly in both models. A dummy variable, S,
takes the value one if the individual has a seat and zero if otherwise. It is incorporated
in the model by attaching it to the time variable in the following way:

(a1 + a2 • S)T t
 49
or

If a sufficiently large sample were obtained it would have been useful, as an alterna-
tive, to stratify by S to see if there were any variations in values of time when the
stratification procedure was used in contrast to our dummy method. However, limited
sample size made such a stratification unsuccessful in terms of significant coefficients.
The estimates obtained via our two models are given in Table 8.
Our immediate reaction is that model 6 gives more reasonable results than model 5.
The level of significance in model 6 is much better and "the value of having a seat",
which is the difference between the two time values for public transit, seems more
reasonable in model 6. We found the seating value of model 5 somewhat high (20). In
model 6, this value is 65 percent of the same estimate in model 5. -
The absolute level of the time values is extremely high compared to those derived
in AKU-68 and other studies. A 30 percent increase compared with AKU-68 data for
inflationary and real income increases should be expected, but those values given in
Table 8 are just too high to be readily accepted.
The opposite conclusion is to be drawn for the transfer value. Instead of an ex-
pected 30 percent increase, the transfer value is slightly less than those of AKU-68.
The difference is, however, so small that it is tempting to conclude that the result has
added further support to our beliefs about the commuters' willingness to pay to have
one transfer less. This is not incompatible with the findings of Watson (22).

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER

RESEARCH

The analytic approach used in this study has yielded important empirical results.
Most models used are satisfactorily significant. In those models with no category
subdivision, almost every transportation policy parameter is highly significant and
supports the following conclusions.
The travel-time value differs substantially with the type of trip segment. The
models estimated reveal a significantly higher value of the time spent waiting for
transit than of the corresponding line-haul time on transit.
The commuters tend to be conscious of waiting time. When a more realistic as-
sumption about actual waiting time is used instead of half the headway, the waiting-
time value becomes between 7 to 12 times the value of the in-vehicle travel time. Our
findings indicate that the waiting-time value depends on the level of service of the
transit system in terms of transit headway.
The level of the travel-time value also depends to a large extent on the in-vehicle
comfort in terms of seating opportunities. The overall travel-time value decreases
substantially when commuters can enjoy a seat as compared to when they cannot.
A transfer-comfort value is deduced and amounts to about 1.90 Swedish Kr/transfer.
In terms of travel time, the commuter is equally well-off with 1 less transfer and 24
min longer for door-to-door time. This transfer-comfort value tends to be valued as
more onerous for such transfer combinations as bus to bus and bus plus several rail
modes than for an average transfer or transfers between rail or underground modes.
·When the sample is stratified into different categories such as income groups,
travel-time groups, and types of transfers, the level of statistical significance drops
markedly in the subgroups compared to the overall models formulated.
For income groups, the results support the hypothesis that the travel-time or
transfer-comfort value increases with income.
These results may be useful in various transportation planning situations:

1. Derived values of time, comfort, and convenience should be used in benefit-cost

50

analyses of changes in the structural design of the transportation system in urban

regions.
2. Impacts on the modal split, due to changes in transport policy such as fares,
comfort of parking and transit, and policy issues on convenience, can be predicted by
applying this kind of modal-choice model.

The results of this analysis indicate an urgent need for further research and de-
velopment. Existing and future traffic surveys should be better adapted to handle
planning problems that are relevant for policy-making authorities, e.g., by permitting
relevant modal- and traffic-choice analyses in which subdivisions into trip segments,
multiple-choice situations, and different socioeconomic groups are practicably possible.
Inasmuch as one of the comfort and convenience variables estimated in these models
(number of transfers) seems to reflect a rather composite factor of discomfort, it is
necessary to focus more investigations on model components. Among these components,
number of transfers may reflect the time spent walking to a transfer point and waiting-
time discomfort as well as the uncertainty of getting a seat in the vehicle entered at
the transfer point.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to acknowledge the following persons and agencies. Kristina Lennartsson and
Lars Wikstrom of the Department of Planning and Building Control in Stockholm; Ole
Havard Hansen of M~re og Romsdal Regional College; Nils Bruzelius of the Stockholm
County Council; AB Stor-Stockholms Lokaltrafik; the National Central Bureau of Statis-
tics; Ulf Nyberg of the Joint Planning Board of Stockholm; J. G. Cragg of the University
of British Colombia; and David A. Hensher, Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, Melbourne,
Australia. Finally, we wish to thank the Economic Research Fund of the Bank of Nor-
way and the National Swedish Council for Building Research for financial support, which
made our international cooperation much more efficient. The entire responsibility for
the contents including all conclusions derived from the analytic results presented
rests solely on the authors.

REFERENCES

1. The Role of Parking Impedances for the Journey to Work. Allmanna Ingenjt.Jrsbyran
AB (AIB), Stockholm, Sept. 1974.
2. D. Brand. Travel Demand Forecasting: Some Foundations and a Review. HRB
Special Rept. 143, 1973, pp. 239-283.
3. N. Bruzelius. Economic Theories of the Allocation of Time, a Survey. Faculty of
Commerce and Social Science, Univ. of Birmingham, Master's dissertation, 1972•
unpublished.
4. A Disaggregated Behavioral Model of Urban Travel Demand. Charles River
Associates, CRA Rept. 156-2, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.
5. F. X. DeDonnea. The Determinants of Transport Mode Choice in Dutch Cities,
Some Disaggregate Stochastic Models. Rotterdam Univ. Press, 1971.
6. A. C. DeSerpa. A Theory of the Economics of Time. The Economic Journal, 1971.
7. R. L. Gustafson, H. N. Curd, and T. F. Golob. User Preferences for a Demand-
Responsive Transportation System: A Case Study Report. Highway Research
Record 367, 1971, pp. 31-45.
8. S. Hansen. The Structure of Disaggregate Behavioral Choice Models. Resource
paper for EF Conference on Issues in Behavioral Travel Demand and the Valuation
of Travel Time, South Berwick, Maine, 1973.
9. D. A. Hensher and S. J. McLeod. Comfort and Convenience: Theoretical, Con-
ceptual, and Empirical Extensions of Disaggregate Mode Choice Models. Common-
wealth Bureau of Roads, Melbourne, 1974, unpublished.
10. J. B. Lansing and G. Hendricks. How People Perceive the Cost of the Journey to
 51

Work. Highway Research Record 197, 1967, pp. 44-56.

11. C. A. Lave. A Behavioral Approach to Modal Split Forecasting. Transportation
Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1969.
12. R. D. Luce. Individual Choice Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y., 1959.
13. J. Marschack. Binary Choice Constraints and Random Utility Indicators. In
Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences (K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P-:-suppes,
eds.), Stanford Univ. Press, 1959.
14. D. McFadden. The Theory and Measurement of Qualitative Consumer Behavior,
the Case of Urban Travel Demand. BART-Impact Study, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, Working paper 1, 1972.
15. R. G. McGillivray. Mode Split and the Value of Travel Time. Transportation Re-
search, Vol. 6, 1972.
16. C. O'Flaherty and D. 0. Mangan. Bus Passenger Waiting Times in Central Areas.
Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 11, No. 9, London, 1970.
17. D. A. Quarmby. Choice of Travel Mode for the Journey to Work: Some Findings.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1967.
18. P. R. Stopher, B. D. Spear, and P. 0. Sucher. Toward the Development of Mea-
sures of Convenience for Travel Modes. Transportation Research Record 527,
1974, pp. 16-33.
19. G. Tegner. Flirdmedelsvals- och priselasticiteter rnr pendel-resor i Stor-
Stockholm: Nagra resultat av en Hi.rdmedelsvals-modell. Univ. of Gothenburg,
Sweden, 1972.
20. G. Tegner, S. Hansen, and S. Algers. On the Evaluation of Comfort and Conven-
ience in Urban Transportation-A Choice Analytic Approach. Proc., 15th Annual
Meeting, Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1974.
21. Vardagsresandet i Stockholms-regionen. Stockholms l:'l.ns landsting, TU-71, Re-
sultatrapport 1, 1973.
22. P. L. Watson. A Comparison of the Model Structure and Predictive Power of
Aggregate and Disaggregate Models of Inter-City Mode Choice. The Transporta-
tion Center, Northwestern Univ., Oct. 1973.
APPLICATION OF DISAGGREGATE MODAL-CHOICE MODELS
TO TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING FOR URBAN
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Peter S. Liou, Gerald S. Cohen, and David T. Hartgen, Planning and Research Bureau,
New York State Department of Transportation

This paper describes the development and application of disaggregate models

to travel demand forecasting for transit systems in the Niagara Frontier
region in western New York State. In this study, the disaggregate modal-
choice models are developed from trip information from standard home-
interview surveys. The data set used is a 12 percent subsample of the home
interview conducted in 1962 in the Niagara Frontier. Binary logit models
are calibrated for four types of trips, classified by trip purpose and auto-
mobile availability. For each model, the individual's probability of using
transit is related to two system variables: the ratio of transit-to-automobile
travel time and trip length. Aggregated transit-use proportions for the
entire system are then obtained by combining the disaggregate probabilities
with an approximation term, which reflects the within-zone variance of
system characteristics. The prediction performance of the disaggregate
modeling approach is compared to that of the conventional modal-split
model. Results suggest that, by using the same type of information but only
12 percent of the sample, the disaggregate modal-choice method can pro-
duce at least as accurate modal-split predictions as the conventional method.
The paper also describes the procedures necessary to integrate the disag-
gregate modal-choice method into typical urban transportation planning
modeling systems.

•THE simulation package for conventional urban transportation planning is used pri-
marily for forecasting demand for transportation facilities and systems in urban areas.
This package has been applied by New York State Department of Transportation in the
preparation of its long-range systems plans in upstate New York cities. The calibra-
tion process for several of the simulation package models is quite extensive and in-
volves massive amounts of data. Accordingly, each of the urban studies in upstate
New York conducted an extensive survey program as part of its initial activity. Be-
tween 13,000 and 20,000 households were interviewed in each area, and the resulting
travel files contained more than 100,000 trip records.
There is a general feeling on the part of the profession, however, that the use of
such data in these models is inefficient at best and that, as the transportation planning
studies move into the continuing phase, the emphasis of systems planning has shifted
from concentration on urban areawide system plans to more detailed analysis of cor-
ridor locations and questions of modal alternatives within corridors. Furthermore,
a general tightening of the budget has made it infeasible to collect the same amount
of information as was done in the first stages of these studies. These constraints re-
quire, therefore, that new modeling techniques be developed that are capable of
operating at the corridor and systems level and that use much smaller data sets.
The problem is how this may be done within the contexts of the simulation process
described without unduly sacrificing the reliability of travel forecasts.
In the last 2 years, considerable research on disaggregate models has been under-
taken. The most important characteristics of these procedures for our use are that
(a) they operate on considerably fewer data than do conventional modeling procedures

52
 53

and (b) they use specific mathematical fwictional forms from which estimates of travel
demand elasticity may be obtained external to the model. These advantages are ob-
tained by using calibration methods that operate on individual trip records and thereby
use all of the information in travel data sets for model development. Conventional
model calibrations, however, generally aggregate trip information before models are
constructed and thereby lose much of the information.
Use of disaggregate models as part of the repertoire of transportation planning tech-
niques, however, has not followed easily from their theoretical development. Most of
the research on disaggregate models has been confined to the calibration of mathemat-
ical forms from small data sets and to the extension of mathematical model theory.
Much less emphasis has been placed on the use of these tools in transportation system
planning. This is because a typical disaggregate model ideally would require specially
collected or augmented data information, and most state and regional transportation
planning agencies have available to them only conventional home-interview (HI) survey
information. Another problem is that aggregation is generally necessary if these tools
are to be applied to aggregate zone-to-zone flows for computation of modal shares.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The primary objectives of this study of disaggregate models are

1. To develop and implement a small-sample modeling capability within the con-

ventional technical simulation process used by New York State DOT;
2. To demonstrate, with readily obtainable data, the use of disaggregate models
by applying them in real-world planning contexts and at a variety of scales and levels
of detail.
It is hoped that this study may also serve as a link between the theoretical development
of the disaggregate behavioral modeling technique and the conventional urban transpor-
tation planning simulation package currently being used.
This paper concentrates on the calibration and small-sample tests of disaggregate
modal-choice models and on the demonstration of their application in a planning process
for an urban transit system.

MODELS COMPARED
The conventional modal-split procedure used at New York State DOT determines the
zonal percentage of transit use based on the transit-to-automobile service ratio and
the air distance of each zone pair. Four trip categories (by purpose and automo-
bile availability) are used in which the splits are performed within each category (4).
Percentages of zone-to-zone transit use are multiplied by the volume of travel so that
transit and automobile trip volumes can be obtained. Various post-split aggregations,
such as the district-to-district summaries and other relevant information, are also
provided as part of the model output (!, .§_).

Response Surface Technique

Currently, to obtain the zonal transit use percentage, New York State DOT works with
a table "look-up" (e.g., a response surface) that arrays the transit trip percentage by
the air distance and the transit-to-automobile travel-time ratio. Figure 1 shows
the response surfaces for each trip category: long trip, automobile available (LAA);
long trip, no automobile availabl.e (LNAA); short trip, automobile available (SAA); and
short trip, no automobile available (SNAA). Long trips are basically work trips, and
short trips are basically shopping, social, and recreational trips. A more detailed
definition of these trip categories is documented in(~).
Figure 1. Response surfaces.
work; no auto available non ~ worki no atitlo available wortl; auto available non-worki auto ovailablt

11rvtc1 quallt1 (rat IOI of timt via transit to lime via auto)

Figure 2. Niagara Frontier region. Table 1. Subsample distribution.

Trip Transit Transit

Trip Type Records Trips (percent)

LAA 2,576 160 6.21

I LNAA 686 311 45 .34
i SAA
SNAA
6,721
2,933
128
311
1.90
11.29
I Total 12,916 910 7.04
i
® i
@ I

N
@

~ I
I
I
@ @ !
r ·j
I
i
!
@ I
!
I
i
@ l
I
I
j
I
!
 55
The main shortcoming of the response surface method is that a large data set is
required to assure sufficiently stable estimates of the transit proportion in each cell,
especially those near the edges of the surface. The set of response surfaces for the
Niagara Frontier, for instance, were constructed from over 100,000 individual trip
records.

Disaggregate Model Technique

The disaggregate modeling technique has two advantages. First, it requires a much
smaller sample size than aggregated methods. Because the data are treated at the
individual or household level, all of the information contained in each trip record is
fully used when the models are calibrated. Consequently, the disaggregated models
can be estimated on the basis of a small sample and are not restricted to zoning.
The second advantage is that the method deals with the most basic travel unit: the
individual or the household. In other words, although the aggregate method searches
for the associative relationships between travel demand and the various explanatory
variables, the disaggregate method attempts to extract the traveler behavioral pattern
associated with making a trip. Therefore, the resulting models promise transferability,
temporally as well as spatially.
This particular study aims to capitalize mainly on the first advantage of the disag-
gregate modeling approach, the savings in data requirements. (Because of the peculiar
data information used in this paper for model estimation, the estimated models are not
believed to be truly behavioral, and therefore their transferability is questionable.) It
is intended that, instead of relying on the response surfaces that require a large amount
of sample data, we can compute the percentage of zonal transit use by applying a set of
disaggregate modal-choice models, which can be estimated on a much smaller sample.
The disaggregate model form used in this study is the binary logit model; i.e.,

1 (1)
p k : 1 G( X )
+ e

where Pk is the probability that a certain travel mode is chosen by an individual and
G(X) is usually a linear combination of transportation level of service and individual
socioeconomic characteristics.

DATA

The 1962 HI survey for the Buffalo region (Fig. 2) contains 103,328 individual trip
records. Inasmuch as one of the objectives of this study is to determine if one can
feasibly apply disaggregate techniques to the relatively small 1973 update travel sur-
vey collected in the Niagara Frontier, this study uses, as a data base, a subsample of
the 1962 HI survey that has a sample size comparable to that anticipated in the 1973
survey. Accordingly, trip records in the quasirandom 12 percent subsample, con-
taining 12,916 records (Table 1), were drawn from the original file. [A detailed de-
scription of the original sample and the subsample is discussed elsewhere(~).]

APPROACH

For each category of trips, binary logit models (Eq. 1) were developed. So that an
exact comparison between the response surface method and the disaggregate approach
could be made, only two variables, air distance and service ratio, were used in con-
structing the modal-choice models.
As a typical, conventional travel survey, the 1962 HI file contains zone information
56

on trip characteristics. Each traffic zone is represented by a single zonal loading

point, which is usually a major bus terminal in the zone. Consequently, all individuals
who travel between a certain zone pair are assigned to the same transportation level of
service. The actual modal choice of an individual traveler is reported in the survey,
and the dependent variable is 1 if the automobile mode is chosen and zero if otherwise.
Model coefficients are estimated by maximum likelihood estimation. (The computer
program used for model estimation is the PROLO program originally prepared by
Stopher at Northwestern University.)
An important issue is the use of the disaggregate modeling technique as a tool to
predict zone-to-zone modal shares, Vk. Of course, Vk can always be obtained by sum-
ming the individual modal-choice probapilities obtained from the model, i.e., Vk =
:E P 1k, where P 1k is the probability that individual i will choose mode k (Q_). This
all k
procedure becomes cumbersome when a large population is involved. Another sug-
gested method is that Vk be obtained by first estimating the proportion of population
that chooses mode k and then by multiplying this proportion and the total population in
the market segment, i.e., Vk = E(Pk) · V, where E(Pk), the expected value of the prob-
ability of choosing mode k, is the proportion of population that chooses mode k.
Because of the nonlinearity of the logit model, the expected value of the probability
is not equal to the pt•obability of the zonal av1;rages, i.e., E(Pk) I- PlX). Talvltie (8)
has shown mathematically that the value of E(Pk) may be approximated as -

(2)

where Var [G(X)J is the within-zone (or within-interchange) variance of G(X), and its
value depends on the variances and covariances of modal attributes. [Another method
of binary-choice model aggregation is found elsewhere (10).J
The need to aggregate the estimated choice models has been questioned because
zonal values will be used for the explanatory variables and, therefore, the estimated
models will not be disaggregate at the individual level. Instead they will be zonal
models and will not require aggregation for zonal prediction. The other interpretation
is that, even though the individuals are assigned to zonal service levels, the models will
still be estimated on individual records by individually observed modal choices. There-
fore, the models will still be disaggregate at the individual level and, thus, will require
aggregation for zonal prediction. Recent research results indicate that disaggregate
models may .be obtained from a combination of disaggregate and aggregated data if the
variables are not correlated (7). This seems to support the latter interpretation. Jn
this study, both of these interpretations are considered empirically. Prediction results
based on both the nonaggregated and the aggregated estimates are compared.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The choice models in this study are evaluated on reasonableness, statistical indicators,
and performance prediction for transit systems. This will be done by inserting· the
models (i.e., calibrated equations) and other related information into the modal-model
program, by replacing the response surfaces, and by applying the program to zone-to-
zone flows in the Niagara Frontier. Model performance will be tested by the following
methods:

1. Proportion of area-wide transit use.

2. Sum of absolute differences in districts, i.e.,
 57
ED= L ITpredicted - Tobserved ( 1962) I (3)
all
districts

where T is the number of transit trips originating from a certain district.

3. Root deviation square (RDS),

L (Tpredicted - Tabserved )
2 1la
all
districts
RDS = T2
(-:l)
L
all
districts

This also reflects the smoothness of the deviation fluctuation from district to district
over the entire study area.
4. Comparison of predicted and observed transit trips in districts.

RESULTS
The disaggregate method for modal-split prediction is developed over a number of
modeling and trial stages. In each stage, the prediction results were evaluated ac-
cording to the set of criteria established earlier. Logical improvements in the mod-
eling approach were made after each stage, and the revised method was investigated
in the next stage. This process was continued until a method was derived that was
able to predict as accurately as the existing response surface technique and that, at
the same time, was based on sound theory. The approaches taken at the various mod-
eling stages and their prediction performances are described in the following.

12 Percent Method

An initial approach was taken to estimate logit models based on 12,916 trip records.
The coefficients of the four models are given in Table 2.
The coefficients of the service-ratio variable in these models have positive signs,
which are consistent with intuitive reasoning. The model constant is largest for SAA
and smallest for LNAA. This indicates that the travelers are most inclined to use an
automobile for SAA trips and least inclined for LNAA trips. The model constant and
the service-ratio variable are statistically significant at 0.95 level of confidence in all
four models; however, the air-distance variable is not significant in the LAA and
LNAA models.
These models were inserted into the on-line modal model, which was then applied

Table 2. Logit models for 12 percent of sample.

Constant Air Distance Service Ratio

Trip Type LC t-Ratio LC t-Ratio LC t-Ratlo Pseudo R'

LAA 1.655 11.06 -0.077 -0.30 o.548 e.11 0.006

LNAA -0.807 -4 .71 -0.005 -0.14 0.647 7.76 0.107
SAA 3.549 25.94 -0 .042 -1.95 0.206 11.7 0.003
SNAA 1.452 16.56 -0 .038 -2.07 0.302 10.17 0.030
Note: LC'"" logit coefficient.
58

to the Niagara Frontier Transportation Study (NFTS) regional data. [It is assumed for
this test that the probability of transit use for a zone or zone pair is also the proportion
of transit use for the zone pair, (e.g., no aggregation bias).] Whereas the response
surface method overpredicts the number of transit trips by 0 .17 percent of the total
person trips, the 12 percent method underpredicts the number of transit trips by 1.35
percent of the total person trips (Table 3).
This is a considerable discrepancy, considering that the total number of person
trips in this region is in excess of 2 million. The sum of deviations and the RDS also
reveal the relatively poorer prediction performance of the 12 percent method.
The cause of such undesirable performance is that there are interzonal and intra-
zonal groups of trips in this region, and over 8 percent (or""' 1,800) of the trips of the
12 percent sample are intrazonal. For these trips, the values of the air-distance
and service-ratio variables are both assigned values of zero.
Because the response surface method only deals with the average values within each
cell, intrazonal trips do not materially affect its predictive performance. However,
inasmuch as the disaggregate method takes into account each trip record, these trips
must be eliminated before reasonable models can be calibrated.

Disaggregated Interzonal Models

As an extension of these models, the interzonal and intrazonal trips were separated
from the set of trip records of 12 percent of the sample. Furthermore, among the
interzonal trips, those that had a service-ratio index greater than 6.0 were also
sorted out. This is because a relevant choice situation between the two alternative
travel modes is not expected to exist when the transit travel time is more than six
times as much as the automobile travel time.
The remaining 10,004 trips were categorized according to their trip classifications,
and a logit model was estimated for each trip type. The air-distance variable
turned out to be insignificant in all the estimated models. Therefore, a set of models
were reestimated by using only the service-ratio variable. The coefficients of these
models and the statistical indicators are given in Table 4.
The coefficients of the service-ratio variable in these models also have positive
signs. The model constants indicate the same rank order toward choosing the transit
mode as that indicated by the previous models. However, the values of the coefficients
are significantly different in the two sets of models. In particular, the values Qf the
coefficients of the service-ratio variable are 1.2 to 3.3 times greater than the corre-
sponding coefficients in the previous models.
For the intrazonal trips, two constants were used to represent the transit proportion.
For zones in the inner urban area contained within the first four traffic rings, the tran-
sit pr oportion is 3.5 percent. For zones in the outer urban area where there is little
transit service, the transit proportion is 0. 73 percent. These proportions are empir-
ically derived from the 1962 data.
The interzonal models and the constants for intrazonal transit use were inserted into
the modal model, which was again applied to the NFTS regional data. The prediction
is given in Table 3.
The predictive performance
of the disaggregated approach
Table 3. Model performance for response surface, 12 percent, is improved considerably over
disaggregated, and aggregated methods. the 12 percent approach. For
the area-wide transit use, this
Absolute method underestimates the tran-
Transit Error• Sum of
Prediction Method (percent) (percent) Deviation RDS sit usage by 0.84 percent, as
compared to an underestimation
Response surface 7.59 +0.17 24.1 x 10 3 0 .131
12 perc ent of sample 6.07 3
-1.35 63 .3 x 10 0.344 of 1.35 percent by the previous
Disaggregated 6. 58 -0.84
3
31.8 x 10 3 0 .166 approach. Nevertheless, its
Aggregated 7. 53 +0.11 26. 2 x 10 0 .128
predictive ability is still not
8
0bserved area-wide transit use is 7.42 percent. satisfactory when compared with
Table 4. Coefficients for Constant Service Ratio
interzonal logit models.
Trip Type LC t-Ratio LC t-Ratio Pseudo R'

LAA 0.887 5.30 1.000 9.95 0.052

LNAA -1.161 -6.95 0.817 8.31 0.128
SAA 2.140 12.79 0.683 9.17 0.014
SNAA -0.235 -1.72 0.907 14.16 0.112
Note: LC = logit coefficient.

Figure 3. Approach applied to Top No. : observed from HI turv1y

Mlddl1 No.1pr1dicttd by r11pon1t turf~ tecMiqut
district transit trips. Bottom No.: predicted by OQGrttal•d inltnonal rnodtll
ond lntf'OlOtl01 con11on11

152
76
@) 723
355
125 5 60

0
40
@ 53
13
103 37

Figure 4. Disaggregate All Trip Records

method procedure. 12,916

lnlrozonol Tr ips
1,800

Transi t Proport ion Transit Proportion

3.5% .73%
60

that of the response surface method. Further attempts to stratify trips by character-
istics of the trip ends, e.g., urban interchange (trips with one end in Buffalo or Niagara
Falls) and suburban interchanges (the rest of the interzonal trips), yielded, at best,
predictive accuracy similar to that of this approach.

Aggregated Interzonal Models

For the various approaches investigated up to this point, it has been assumed that the
choice models are applicable directly to the zones. Therefore, proportion of transit
use for a certain zone is the same as the disaggregate transit probability at its zonal
means, Pk(X). Results of these attempts show an underestimation of transit use over
the entire region.
As mentioned earlier, another interpretation of these choice models is that they are
disaggregate at the individual level and therefore require aggregation for zonal predic-
tions. In the following tests, an aggregation term is added to the disaggregate proba-
bilities as shown in F,q. 2. The a priori lmowledge of this aggregation term is that, for
noncorrelated explanatory variables, it has a positive value if P.(X) is less than 0.5.
The magnitude of this term depends on Var [G(X)].
The procedures taken in this stage were almost identical to those taken in the last
stage, except that information about Var [ G(X)] and the aggregation term was also
inserted into the modal model. Because the set of estimated choice models contain
only the service-ratio variable, the value of Var [G(X)] is

2
Var [G(X)] = {J, r · Var (X.r) (5)

where Var (X.,) is the within-interchange variance of the service-ratio variable, and
{3,, is its model coefficient.
Two assumptions (or approximations) are made in computing the values of Var (X,r).
The first is that the within-interchange variance of the service-ratio variable is similar
to the between-interchange variance of this variable. Although previous studies (3) in-
dicate that the within-zone variance is greater than the between-zone variance, tills
assumption is necessary because the Niagara Frontier data in zone-to-zone form do
not contain any within-interchange information. The second assumption is that many
zonal interchanges have approximately the same Var (X.r). This assumption simplifies
the prediction process because it would be infeasible, in practice, to compute the vari-
ance for each zone pair. Intuitively, the validity of these two assumptions may be jus-
tified if a single Var [G(X)] is computed for trips of similar service characteristics.
On examination, the urban interchanges (e.g., trips with either origin or destination
in Buffalo or Niagara Fails) and the suburban interchanges (e.g., the rest of the inter-
zonal trips) appeared to be the two trip groups within which trip characteristics are
similar. The means and variances of the service-ratio variable are respectively 1.870
and 1.076 for urban trips and 3.523 and 1.196 for suburban trips.
Consequently, two values of Var [G(X)] are computed, one for urban interchanges
and the other for suburban interchanges. This information and the choice models were
inserted into the modal model. Results of this prediction approach are given in Table 3.

CONCLUSION
The predictive ability of the aggregated approach compares closely with that of the
response surface method. The response surface method overpredicts areawide tran-
sit use by 0 .17 percent; this method overpredicts it by 0 .11 percent. The sum of devi-
ation and the RDS indicators also show the predictive accuracy of this method to be as
good as that of the response surface method.
A comparison of transit trips by origin district is shown in Figure 3. These results
 61
show that the disaggregate method of approach can indeed produce, by using the same
type of information, as plausible predictive results as the response surface method,
but it uses only 12 percent of the original sample. Furthermore, the empirical results
of this study suggest that such modal-choice models require aggregation corrections
for application to the zonal level. ·

USE IN PRACTICE
A number of modeling approaches have been investigated in developing an accurate and
workable disaggregate method for modal-split prediction. The best approach involved
the following procedures:

1. Separate the regional trip records into interzonal trips and intrazonal trips;
2. Use constants to represent proportions of intrazonal transit use for intrazonal
trips;
3. Eliminate those interzonal trips with service ratios greater than 6.0 and develop
logit models by trip classification;
4. Separate the interzonal flows into urban interchanges and suburban interchanges
and compute the variance of the logit model index, G(X), for each type of interchange;
and
5. Insert the constants for intrazonal transit use, the interzonal logit models, and
the values of urban or suburban interchange into the on-line modal model and apply it
to regional flows.

A flow chart of the above disaggregate ~:aodeling procedures is shown in Figure 4.

The information in the boxes is the input for the modal model.

OTHER NEEDED RESEARCH

It has been demonstrated that, based on th, iagara Frontier travel data, the disaggre-
gate technique can be implemented, by using a limited amount of conventional survey
data, to predict modal split at a regional level. Some rough approximations are adopted
through the various parts of this analysis. For instance, during the aggregation of the
zonal disaggregate probabilities, values of the within-interchange variances are approx-
imated by values of the between-interchange variances, and only constants are used to
represent the transit use of intrazonal trips. Therefore, further research is necessary
to determine the true effects of these impurities in the process. Some of these ques-
tions will be answered when the disaggregate method developed in this study is applied
to the data collected from the 1973 HI update survey in the Niagara Frontier. It is
hoped that with the more complete and detailed information in the new survey better
and truly behavioral models will result that are able to address other transportation
service problems such as travel costs, conveniences, and other policy issues.
In the meantime, the immediate concern for transportation planning is whether or
not this disaggregate method can be applied to another urban area or region that has a
different transportation system. Because this method incorporates constants for inter-
zonal trips and because the estimated disaggregate models are not believed to be genu-
inely behavioral, it is doubtful that the constants and the choice models obtained from
the Niagara Frontier data could be directly applied to another location. However, the
methodology developed in this study is expected to be valid for other areas. This, of
course, remains speculative until empirical tests on other data sets are carried out.
The application of the disaggregate modeling technique is by no means limited to
only modal-split forecasting. Recently, multinomial extensions of the logit model
have been applied to directly compute the choice probabilities of other trip decisions
such as destination, travel mode, time of day, and frequency (1, 2). However, demand
forecasting by the disaggregate method for transportation systems has not been applied
in other planning contexts at this point, to our knowledge. Although much has yet to be
62

explored and studied, the current application appears to offer a valid and efficient way
to approach travel demand forecasting for large urban areas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank Antti Talvitie of the University of Oklahoma, Richard Westin of North-
western University, and Patricia L. Milic for their valuable comments. Special thanks
are extended to James McDermott and his staff whose continuous assistance in data
processing is greatly appreciated. The authors alone remain responsible for errors
of fact, concept, or opinion. This research was supported by the Highway Planning
and Research Program of the Federal Highway Administration.

REFERENCES

1. M. E. Ben-Akiva. Structure of Passenger Travel Demand Models. Department

of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, PhD dissertation,
1973.
2. A Disaggregate Behavioral Model of Urban Travel Demand. Charles River Asso-
ciates, Inc., 1972.
3. C. R. Fleet and S. R. Robertson. Trip Generation in the Transportation Planning
Process. Highway Research Record 240, 1968, pp. 11-27.
4. J. R. Hamburg and C. R. Guinne. A Modal-Choice Model-Description of Basic
Concepts. New York State Department of Transportation, Publication TP080807,
1966.
5. P. S. Liou, G. S. Cohen, and D. T. Hartgen. A System Level Planning Applica-
tion of the Disaggregate Modelling Technique: Mode Choice Prediction for the
Niagara Frontier Region. Planning and Research Bureau, New York State De-
partment of Transportation, Preliminary Research Rept. 62, 1974.
6. J. K. Lussi. Example of the Traffic Assignment, Trip Distribution, and Modal-
Choice Processes Used by the Testing Unit. Planning and Research Bureau, New
York State Department of Transportation, PURP No. 1, 1968.
7. D. McFadden and F. Reid. Aggregate Travel Demand Forecasting From Disag-
gregate, Behavioral Models. Department of Economics, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, unpublished paper, 1974.
8. A. P. Talvitie. Aggregate Travel Demand Analysis With Disaggregate or Aggre-
gate Travel Demand Models. Proc., Transportation Research Forum, 1973.
9. P. L. Watson. Predictions of Intercity Modal Choice From Disaggregate, Be-
havioral, Stochastic Models. Highway Research Record 446, 1973, pp. 28-36.
10. R. B. Westin. Predictions From Binary Choice Models. Department of Eco-
nomics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, Ill., unpublished paper.
IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES
AMONG ESTIMATES OF THE VALUE OF TIME
Joel M. Guttman, Department of Economics,
University of Chicago

This paper suggests economic criteria for choosing among estimates of the
value of time. Four assumptions that are implicit in most models of the
value of time are identified and discussed. The accuracy of an estimate of
the value of time depends on whether the data and model underlying the
estimate take into account the unrealistic nature of these assumptions,
either by excluding observations for which the assumptions are especially
incorrect or by modifying the model so that the assumptions may be relaxed.

•TRANSPORTATION economists are faced with a bewildering array of estimates of

the value of time. Hensher (1) presents a table of 28 different studies with estimates
ranging from 14 to 184 percent of the average wage rate in their samples. What ex-
plains this range in estimates of the value of time? What criteria should one use in
determining which estimate is most appropriate for a particular purpose? Such ques-
tions are particularly important to answer, given the sensitivity of estimates of the
benefits of transportation improvements to the values of time underlying them.
This paper suggests some criteria for choosing among alternative estimates of the
value of time, by using economic theory as the basis for such criteria. Four assump-
tions are identified that underlie most modal- and route-split models, from which esti-
mates of the value of time are derived. For each assumption, it is shown what happens
to the estimate if the assumption is unrealistic. How data observations should be
chosen so that each assumption can be approximately correct or, alternatively, how
the modal- or route-split models can be modified so that the assumption can be relaxed
is suggested. These suggestions imply criteria that can be used to decide which esti-
mates of the value of time are most appropriate for a given purpose.
The assumptions discussed in this paper underlie a wide range of modal- or route-
split models based on discriminant, probit, or logit analysis. Such models allpostulate
that a commuter's choice between two modes or routes -of travel depends partly on the
difference in (or ratio of) travel times between the two modes or routes and partly on
the difference in (or ratio of) money cost between the two alternatives. Travelers'
value of time savings, the amount they would pay to save a given amount of time, is
measured by the ratio between the coefficients of these two variables in the discrimi-
nant, logit, or probit equations. The discussion in this paper applies to such models
whether they are formulated in terms of ratios of or differences in time and money
costs. To simplify the exposition, however, I will discuss only differences in time
and money costs.

PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF MODAL CHARACTERISTICS

BY TRAVELERS

The first assumption of modal- or route-split models is that travelers believe they
have perfect information about the characteristics of all alternatives open to them.
As will soon become clear, this assumption can be avoided through a rather unorthodox
specification of the modal- or route-split equation. Nevertheless, it is usually im-
plicit in studies attempting to estimate the value of time. Such studies [with one ex-
ception known to me (~)J implicitly assume that the responsiveness of travelers to

63
64

changes in time and money costs of the alternate mode is independent of the frequency
with which tnvelers make their trips. This assumption would be valid if information
about the alternate mode were free, and required no experience or time-consuming
inquiries. In this case, travelers on their first trip would acquire as much information
as t r avelers who makethe trip everyday. If, however, such information is costly, the
information possessed by each traveler would depend on the benefit of acquiring such
information; this in turn is larger the more often the commuter makes the trip. One
would then expect more frequent travelers to be better informed and, thus, more re-
sponsive to changes in the time and money costs of the alternate mode.
What is the effect of this assumption, if it is not entirely correct? The less frequent
commuters will be less responsive to changes in the differences in time and money
costs so that a sample of a relatively high proportion of less frequent commuters will
yield coefficients that are smaller in absolute value for the two crucial variables, the
differences in time and money costs. If the coefficient on the difference in time cost
(AT) declines in absolute value at a faster rate than the coefficient on the difference in
money cost (AM), the less frequent commuters will appear to have smaller values of
time. An earlier study (2) found that, on the contrary, the coefficient on AM went to
zero at a faster rate so that the less frequent commuters appeared to have higher
values of time. Regardless of which is generally the case, there is no reason to ex-
pect travelers' values of time to differ depending on how often they make a J;Rrticular
trip. Effects such as these are spurious and result from the assumption that ther e is
perfect information when, in fact, travelers' information is imperfect.
This assumption will be roughly correct if all travelers in a sample are daily
travelers. Such commuters would have a large incentive to acquire information about
the alternatives open to them because the benefit of such information would be quite
significant. This suggests one criterion for choosing between estimates of value of
time: If the study asks the individuals in the sample how often they made the trip in
question and then examines only daily commuters, the value of time estimate will be
less biased. Not even among work trips are all travelers daily commuters; therefore,
it is important not t o simply assume the problem is solved in all s tudies concentrating
on work trips . In an earlie r s tudy (2 ) I found t he bias resulting from t his assumption
to be about 50 percent. -
For nonwork trips, it is usually difficult to find individuals who make the trip daily.
As long as a few such individuals can be found, however, it is not necessary to restrict
the sample size so that the bias discussed can be avoided. One can build into the modal-
or route-split equation interaction terms that control the effect of the frequency of the
trip on the coefficients of AT and AM. A simple specification is

L(x) (1)

where F is the frequency with which the individual makes the trip, and L(x) is the logit,
which, in this model, determines the mode choice. The ellipsis represents whatever
other variables, such as driver's income, which seem to be relevant to the mode choice.
This equation would actually be estimated as

L(x) (2)

where F~M and FAT are the interaction terms. The value of time for commuters of
frequency F would then be -(as+ 34F)/(a1 + a2F). By inserting the value of Finto Eq. 2,
which represents daily commuters, one can obtain a more accurate estimate of the
value of time than if the interaction terms were left out and nondaily commuters were
included in the sample. This method has been applied (2) with good results. The
coefficients of the interaction terms and the other variables were statistically significant,
 65

and those of the predicted signs were interesting; plausible estimates of the value of
time resulted. For off-peak work trips, the value of travel time was estimated as ap-
proximately $1.91 per adult per hour, compared with $2.95, which was the value when
the effect of imperfect information was not taken into account.

IDENTICAL LEVELS OF COMFORT BETWEEN MODES

A second assumption of modal-split models is that the two modes have identical levels
of comfort and other intangible characteristics. This assumption is necessary so that
the single value of time derived from such models will make economic sense. To see
this clearly, one must recognize that the value of time savings on any particular mode
is composed of two parts: the opportwiity cost of travel time, which is independent of
the mode chosen, and the utility or disutility of traveling, which is specific to the mode
chosen. The more positive the utility (or less negative the disutility) of traveling is,
the lower the amount a traveler will pay to save travel time will be. Thus, if two modes
have different levels of comfort, they will have different values of time savings. In
this case, to derive one number and call it the value of time between the two modes is
meaningless from an economic point of view. One would be estimating neither the value
of time on one mode nor the value of time on the other mode, but rather a compromise
would be reached between the two. The estimate would be closer to the value of time
on the mode that the majority of the individuals in the sample use. Thus, it would be
inappropriate to use the estimate of the value of time when time savings on the mode
are valued. This is less commonly used in the sample.
There are three ways in which tWs problem can be avoided. The first is to examine
not only choices within a particular mode but also those between two routes or lines of
travel. In this case, the assumption of identical, intangible characteristics will be
roughly correct. The difficulty is that it is often impossible to find a route-split situa-
tion for the mode desired; therefore, one is forced to resort to modal-split situations.
A second alternative is to reformulate the model of the value of time so that the as-
sumption is unnecessary (!). This can be done by considering separately the travel
times of the two modes by estimating different coefficients for the two travel times.
The difficulty here is that the two travel times will be highly correlated with each other,
and this makes estimation extremely difficult. It is not sufficient for one to simply
insert a new variable into the modal-split equation and purport to measure the comfort
level of the mode, for, by doing so, one implicitly assumes that the coefficient on aT
(and thus ~he value of time} is independent of this comfort level. If, however, the
comfort level could be accurately measured (which is doubtful), it would be appropriate
to multiply the difference in this variable by aT and thus capture the effect of differing
comfort levels on the value of time.
The third and most practical alternative is to alter the overall ratio of observations,
e.g., between the two modes, so that most of the observations are on the mode whose
value of time one wants to measure. In this way the resulting estimate will approxi-
mate the desired value of time. This suggests a second question the user of estimates
of the value of time might ask before choosing which estimate to use: On which mode
did the majority of observations appear? The answer will, in general, be crucial to
an intelligent interpretation of the estimate of the value of time.
Note that if the assumption of identical, intangible characteristics is approximately
correct, altering the overall ratio of observations, e.g., betwe.en the two alternative
modes or routes, will leave the estimate of the value of time approximately unchanged.
This fact (2) is convenient for analysts attempting to estimate the value of time because
it means that they need not sample the population being studied s0 that the overall
modal- or route-split ratio exactly equals the ratio in their samples. For large
samples, it is sufficient that each subpopulation is randomly sampled (the two sub-
populations are the groups using each mode); an unrepresentative overall modal-split
ratio will affect only the constant term in the modal-split equation.
66
COMPLETE ACCOUNTING OF ALTERNATIVES
OPEN TO TRAVELERS

The third implicit assumption of modal- and route-split models is that they account
for all alternatives open to travelers. This assumption is especially s uspect during
peak hours when traveling at alternative times rather than on alternative modes be-
comes an important option to the typ 'cal commuter. During peak hours, travel times
change so rapidly that leaving a few minutes earlier or later can significantly affect
the time cost of the trip. When this is true, a change in the difference in travel time
between modes will have a second effect besides the usual one of a substitution between
modes: Substitution will occur between times of travel. If this latter substitution is
not taken into account (and available data generally preclude properly accounting for
it), the coefficient on .:iT will be misleadingly small. It will fail to .reflect the signif-
icant way in which commuters reveal their values of time. The result is tbat the value
of time during peak hours will, 'i n general, be underestimated.
The relevance of this problem is essentially restricted to peak hours. It is also
much less serious for rapid transit than for automobile travel, because variation of
travel times on rapid transit (e.g., subways, not buses) will usually be smaller than
for travel times on the highway. This suggests that samples in which subway or rail-
road users dominate will be less subject to this source of bias. This, of course, is of
little help to those who desire accurate estimates of t he value of time for peak-hour
automobile travel. Unless studies appear that use data broken down by time of day of
trip as well as by the mode or the route and that use sophisticated multinomial choice
models, one must sim,ply keep in mind a possible source for a negative bias in peak-
hour estimates. [Even so, available evidence suggests that the value of time during
peak hours is more than twice the value of time during off-peak hours for the same
type of trip (2). This difference is evidently due to the greater disutility of traveling
dur~ng peak !'lours.]

ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF TRAVELERS'

PERCEPTIONS

The fourth implicit assumption of models attempting to estimate the value of time is
that the differences in (or ratios of) time and money costs in the analyst's data set are
accurate measures of the differences in (or ratios of) time and money costs perceived
by travelers. This is a troublesome assumption because, as was argued earlier,
travelers' information about .:iT and 6.M is imperfect. If either variable changes ob-
jectively and an equal change does not occur in the perceptions of the people in the
sample, these individuals will respond diffeTently from the way they would have
answered had the change been fully perceived. In this case, the response that reflects
the individuals' values of time will be confounded with the response (or lack of it) that
reflects their misinformation. This type of problem can arise with either measured
data, in which .:iT and !SM are measured with engineering estimates, or with reported
data, in which the individuals report .:iT and .:iM. In particular, it is misleading to call
reported data perceived data because the individuals may be misr eporting their per -
ceptions.
This assumption is distinct from the assumption that individuals in the sample think
they have perfect information of .:iT and 6.M (i.e., that they are certain of their percep-
tions). Uncertainty may be present whether or not misperception occurs. Similarly,
misperception may occur whether or not travelers are uncertain.
The problem here is that the travelers' perceptions are not directly observed by
analysts of the value of time. This should not prevent discussing thei.r role in travelers '
behavior- the analysis, after all, rests on the existence of another variable that is not
directly observed: the traveler's value of time. But the fact that one cannot observe
travelers' perceptions makes it difficult to do more than speculate on which data, mea-
sured or reported, are more appropriate for estimating the value of time. Such
speculations are discussed elsewhere (~ ~ i). Here I wish to discuss ways in which
 67

one might empirically determine which data are more appropriate.

The first and most direct way is to see which data better predict, by use of the
same model specification, a given set of mode or route choices. By this criterion, a
previous study (5) indicates that reported data are superior. Further comparisons of
this kind would be most valuable, particularly if they examine the behavior of the same
set of individuals so that strict comparabiility is possible. A second way of empirically
determining which data are more appropriate is (a)tospecifyamodelofeithertravelers'
perceptions or reports and (b) to test the implications of this .model. This was at-
tempted (~ for reported data by assuming that the greater individuals' incentive is to
misreport (justify) their perceptions, the more they will have invested in their choices.
Given this assumption, no support was found for the hypothesis that travelers sys-
tematically misreport their perceptions to justify their choices.
These two sources of evidence, then, both tend to support reported data over mea-
sured data for the purposes of estimating the value of time. Thus, another criterion
for choosing between estimates of the value of time would be that those based on re-
ported data are, in general, more accurate. This result, of course, is subject to
change, given new evidence of the types discussed.

SUMMARY

This paper identified four assumptions implicit in most studies attempting to estimate
the value of time. These assumptions were shown to have important implications for
which data and which model specifications are more appropriate for estimation of the
value of time. In particular, biases tend to result when

1. Nondaily travelers are included in the sample, unless the model is specified to
take account of their uncertainty of mode characteristics;
2. The two modes examined differ significantly in intangible characteristics, unless
this also is properly accounted for in the model;
3. Cross-time substitutions take place, particularly during peak hours; or
4. Significant misperception by travelers occurs when measured data are used.

One can often avoid these biases, and estimates that do so can be distinguished from
those that do not if the sources of these errors are kept in mind.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation. I wish to thank Gary
Becker, Arnold Harberger, Thomas Lisco, Herbert Mohring, Margaret Reid, and the
participants in an Urban Economics Workshop at the University of Chicago for helpful
comments on an earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES

1. D. A. Hensher. The Consumer's Choice Function: A Study of Traveller Behaviour

and Values. School of Economics, Univ. of New South Wales, Australia, PhD
dissertation, 1972.
2. J. Guttman. Avoiding Specification Errors in Estimating the Value of Time.
Transportation, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1975, pp. 19-42.
3. P. L. Watson. Problems Associated With Time and Cost Data Used in Travel Choice
Modeling and Valuation of Time. Highway Research Record 369, 1971, pp. 148-158.
4. D. A. Quarmby. Choice of Mode for the Journey to Work: Some Findings. Journal
of T ransport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, Sept. 1967.
5. T. C. Thomas . The Value of Tim e for Passenger Cars: An Experimental Study of
Comm uters' Values. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif., Final Rept.,
Vol. 2, 1967.
68

6. G. J. Stigler. The Economics of Information. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.

69, June 1961, pp. 213-225.
7. G. S. Becker. A Theory of the Allocation of Time. Economic Journal, Vol. 75,
Sept. 1965, pp. 493-517.
SPONSORSHIP OF THIS RECORD
GROUP 1-TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Charles V. Wootan, Texas A&M University, chairman

TRANSPORTATION FORECASTING SECTION

E. Wilson Campbell, New York State Department of Transportation, chairman

Committee on Traveler Behavior and Values

Peter R. Stopher, Northwestern University, chairman
M. E. Beesley, David E. Bonner, Nils Anders Bruzelius, Melvyn Cheslow, Francois
X. deDonnea, Ricardo Dobson, Stein Hansen, David A. Hensher, Frank S. Koppelman,
Gerald Kraft, Thomas E . Lisco, Benjamin Matalon, Arnim H. Meyburg, Richard M.
Michaels, David R. Miller, Robert E. Paaswell, Eugene D. Perle, Shalom Reichman,
C. J . Ruijoroko, Geoffrey A. C. Searle, Alistair Sherret, Louise Estelle Skinner,
Antti P. Talvitie, George H. Tanner, Peter L. Watson, Edward Weiner

James A. Scott, Transportation Research Board staff

The organizational units and the chairmen and members are as of December 31, 1974.

69