Upload
chaitanya-dara
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
1/25
1
Discrete Choice Models in Transport:
An application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife corridor
Jos Mara Grisola Santos
Universidad de Las Palmas de GC
Departamento de Anlisis Econmico Aplicado
Universidad de Las Palmas de GC
Campus Universitario de Tafira Baja
35017 Las Palmas de GC
Telfono: 928458195Fax: 928458183
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Discrete choice models analyse individuals decisions when they face choices among several
alternatives. In the last decades these models have shown a notable improvement, with applications to
a wide variety of fields, especially in transport. This work uses discrete choice models to analyse thecorridor between two islands, Gran Canaria and Tenerife. This corridor, with more than two million of
annual trips, constitutes the most important transport demand of Canary Island and one of the most
important of Spain.
Between these two islands there are four available modes (plane, ferry, fast ferry and slow ferry) and,
over this scenario, a survey of Stated and Revealed Preferences (SP and RP) is carried out. Data is
used to estimate logit models and mixed logit models obtaining different values of time. Mixed Logit
is the most advance model of discrete choice. It gives a wide flexibility to the researcher and allows
for individual parameter estimation.
Results are able to reproduce partially, previous value of time estimated in the same market. The highvalue of time obtained, compared with the wage rate, suggest a re-valuation of public investment
assessments. In addition, the results permits understand recent changes in this market thanks to the
transference from in-vehicle time to access time, which is less valuable for travellers.
Keywords: Value of time, mixed logit (ML), discrete choice analysis, transport demand.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
2/25
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Canary Island has a population near of two million of inhabitants, 85% of those are concentrated in
Gran Canaria and Tenerife. The distance between these islands is around 300 kilometres, and due to its
economic importance, this is the most transited corridor of the island. Transport facilities in both
islands are modern and well developed. In maritime transport there are two routes: direct trip from Las
Palmas (in the north-east) to Tenerife or, much shorter, from Agaete which is situated in northwest of
Gran Canaria.
With 1.410.642 passengers trips in 2001, traffic between these islands has increased significantly
from 1993. Essentially, there are three modes and four companies:
Plane: there is a public air company,Binter.
JetFoil: served by a public enterprise Transmediterranea.
Ferry: there are three companies and two routes:
a) Route A, is the longest route, and goes from the main port of Las Palmas to Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Takes about 3 hours and 30minutes. Ferry Transmediterranea andferry Armas use this route1.
b) Route B, which goes from Agaete to Santa Cruz de Tenerife. It takes one hour. The only operator is
Ferry Fred Olsen. An important part of travellers use their cars to drive from Las Palmas to Agaete.
The company also offers a free bus service. Furthermore, it is a sort ofmixed service car/bus-ferry.
Thanks to the liberalisation of the market, Ferry Fred Olsen started to offers its service in 1993. Theshorted trip and the flexibility of use the cars (also available in ferry Armas from Las Palmas) led this
company to a success. In terms of the whole market a notable increasing of trips and drop of prices
was observed: the new offer not only attracted passengers from other companies but expanded demand
in near of half million new passengers2.
Table 1.1: Modal split in 2001
Company Market shared
Ferry Fred Olsen 42.50%
Jet Foil 24.78%
Plane 24.26%Ferry Armas 8.46%
Source: Transport operators
Table 1.1 shows the current modal split. It is noticeable that Fred Olsen is the leader of market with
42,50% of all trips. Before its service started, the plane and jet foil shared the market with near to 50%
each.
1 Transmediterranea ferry occupies a marginal position between the two ferries. Less than ten passengers perday are transported everyday because it is devoted to freight transport. In order to simplify the exposition wewill not mention again ferry Transmediterranea, although it was considered during the survey in terms of
design (in the questions asked to respondents) but for budget reasons we refused to include its passengers . Itmust take into account that this work analyses only passengers demand and not freight transport.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
3/25
3
The availability of car in the complete trip makes this mode more attractive. The strong value of car
availability could explain the success of the new mode. Moreover, it seems that travellers prefer make
part of the stretch (Las Palmas to Agaete) in car than take a ferry straight from Las Palmas. The
particular perception of costs for car users is behind this behaviour.
In this work, an inter-island route in Canary Island will be analysed using discrete choice analysis.
This is a traffic corridor with a particular high density where 3 modes and 4 companies are competing.
Also is a very dynamic market, which has suffered sharp transformations in recent years due to the
liberalisation of maritime transports in the UE.
Our objective is model this demand and obtain and a variety of attribute values, specially the value of
time. With this purpose, a survey was carry out using stated preference and revealed preference
techniques in its design.
This paper is structured as follow: first, there is a brief revision of the theoretical issues that support
this work. The next section is devoted to the design of questionnaire. The fourth part is the stage of
modelling, where is specified the models to be used in the following part. The fifth section shows the
results in terms of value of time and the final section are the conclusions.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section introduces the theoretical framework that supports the work, that is, the Random Utility
Theory. The purpose of this theory is modelling choices of individuals in different contexts. In
transport, we are interested in model the rational process of choice a mode j within a choice set ofAj
alternatives. Theory of Random Utility (see, for instance Ben-Akiva, 1985) postulates that the utility
function of an optionj for an individual n is determined by
jn jn jnU V = + (2.1)
In equation (2.1) we can distinguish a deterministic part called Vjn and a random component jn.
Residuals are identical and independent and identically distributed (IID). They represent both the
idiosyncrasies and specific preferences of each individual and the measurement errors. The
deterministic component, Vjq is a function of level of attributes of existing options x pondered by
coefficients . Thus,
=K
jkqKjjqV (2.2)
2 The interested reader about the effect of this liberalisation can read De Rus (1997)
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
4/25
4
Give this framework, theory says that individual will select the alternative which maximise his utility.
Hence, individual q will select alternativej if:
,( )
jn in iU U A A q (2.3)
This leads to:
jn in iq jqV V (2.4)
Depending of distributions of disturbances two types of models arise: ifin is assumed to be normally
distributed a model probit is obtained. Under the assumption of logistically distributed disturbances
(Gumbel distribution) is obtained the logit model. The former is more complex and the later, simpler
and easier to use. We will use a logit in this work.
There are several kinds of logit models. Here, we will develop two of the most popular specifications:
Multinomial Logit Model (MNL) and Hierarchical Logit Model (HL). In MNL model if residuals are
distributed IID Gumbel it can be proved (Ortzar and Willunsen, 2001) that the probability that
individual q chose alternative i equals:
exp( )
exp( )j
iniq
jn
A Aq
VP
V
=
(2.5)
Where is a parameter related to the common standard deviation of the Gumbel distribution. In
practise, it cannot be estimated separately from parameters k. If there is correlation between
alternatives (i.e. some alternatives are more similar than others) or taste variation among individuals,
the MNL is not appropriate. In these cases is more adequate using HL. In a HL model the utility of the
composite alternatives is represented by:
zEMUVI += (2.6)
Again, (2.6) has two components. The first term, EMU, is the expected maximum utility of the
alternatives of the nest. EMU is derived from the following expression:
=j
j)Wexp(logEMU (2.7)
In (2.7) Wjis the utility function of alternative j where all common attributes z of the nest have been
taking out. Thus, the second term z is the vector of common attributes of the nest and parameters .The estimation process of these models focuses in obtaining estimation of the parameters *k in the
utility function (2.2). The method used is maximisation of likelihood (ML). Since we observe choices
from individuals, consider for example that individual 1 selects alternative 2, and individuals 2 selects
alternative 4, and so on. The Likelihood function is the result of the product of each probability. Thus,
"322412 PPP)(L = (2.8)
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
5/25
5
Hence, it is necessary to find a specification, which can be maximised. After several transformations
(see Ortuzar and Willunsen, 2001) and taking logarithms it is possible to obtain the log of likelihood
(2.8) which is the function to be maximised.
=q j
jqjq Plogg)(Llog (2.9)
Once the set of *k parameters have been estimated, the next step is use the (2.5) to obtain
probabilities of each alternative. In the case of HL it will be necessary to calculate first the marginal
probability of each option inside the nest and, after that, multiply for the probability of the nest.
Despite of its popularity MNL has many shortcomings due to the fact of its assumptions. On of the
most important disadvantages is the well kwon paradox pointed out by Debreu (1960) of red bus/ blue
bus: if there is a new model introduced in the market, the ratio of probabilities of previous models
does not change. Also, MNL is not able to represent the variety of tastes of consumers because it
assumes a fixed structure of parameters. In addition, MNL presents problems of estimation in case of
repeated choices which is the case of SP.
Mixed Logit (ML) is a more general model which avoids all problems we have explained of logit and
probit. Thus, ML contains a wide flexibility due to the fact that parameters vary among costumers. An
excellent explanation of this model is found it in Train (2003). Earlier applications can be found in
Ben-Akiva et al (1993) but it was recently, with the advances in software for simulation, when ML has
become in the most popular model for discrete choices.
ML is a general model: modeller does not know nand so, the probability that individual n chooses
option j is a conditional probability in . Assuming that = b
)()( bPPP njnj == (2.10)
Conditional probability Pnj is just the simple logit. In the case of fixed parameters, ML collapses into
MNL. Ifn is a discrete variable, Pnj would be the sum of all probabilities conditioned to each n
weighted with every probabilityn=bm. This is called the latent classes model:
=
=M
m
nnjmnj PsP1
)(. (2.11)
If we considern continuous, it is necessary to use an integral where probability is weighted with a
density function f() which is the most used expression of ML and the one we developed in this
article.
dfe
eP
j
xb
xb
njnim
nim
)('
'
= (2.12)
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
6/25
6
Now, the modeller has to estimate two sets of parameters: mean b and co-variance matrix W. Bothe
can be denominated . Since the researcher can select whatever distribution for these parameters, the
distribution selection is one of the most relevant issues in the estimation procedure. Most popular
distributions are fixed, normal (which allows for a complete variation in the parameters), uniform,
triangular and lognormal. This last distribution might be a solution for incorrect sign in those
parameters whose signs are previously known. However, lognormal distribution also produces
difficulties in the estimation (Hensher and Green, 2003).
There are two procedures for estimation in ML: classis and Bayesian:
Classic estimation, which is used in this paper, consists in a maximisation of a log likelihood using
simulation procedures. In a first stage the method involves the following steps: (1)Given , take draws
from the distribution f(/) (2) Calculate simple logit Lni for each draw (3)After several repetitions
average the results. This average is a unbiased estimator ofPni
=
=R
r
r
nini LR
P1
)(1
(2.13)
These simulated probabilities are inserted in the log likelihood function
= =
=N
n
J
i
njnnj PLdSLL1 1
(2.14)
Maximising (2.14) estimatoris obtained.
Bayesian estimation does not need to maximise any function. Its results are based in Bayes theorem
which postulates a relationship between a prior distribution (a previous knowledge about the
phenomena) and a posterior distribution. This relationship will be proportional like:
)()/()()/( kYLYLYk = (2.15)
Where k() is a prior distribution; k(|Y) is the posterior distribution; L(Y) is the probability to obtain
the observed choices in the sample and L(Y/) is the probability of these choices conditional on .
Then, it is possible to derive:
)(
)()/()/(
YL
kYLYk
= (2.16)
From (2.16) the researcher will have to estimate which can be expressed as the mean of posterior
distribution
= dk )( (2.17)
3. DATA ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONARY DESIGN
In this section we describe the process of data collection and the design of the questionnaire and SP.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
7/25
7
In the design of questionnaire, around 30 questions were included in the questionnaires. These
questions were about origin and destination, frequency and motive of trip, costs of current mode,
perceived times and costs of other modes available, an SP exercise and, finally, socio-economic
questions as age, sex, household size and composition, job and income level. A survey of 420
travellers were carried out with this survey.
Regarding to SP, a ranking design was chosen for this work for operational reasons. Main issues to
consider in the SP design are the levels of attributes, and structure of competition. By considering
these issues, a master plan for number and levels of attributes is designed. In this early stage we collect
basic information about the primary attributes of every mode in order to determine the relevant
attributes in each mode Table 3.1 shows the relevant information.
Table 3.1: current level of attributes in all modes
Ferry Armas Ferry FO Jet Foil Plane
Time (minutes) 210 60 80 30
Average fare 9.3 18 47 40
Frequency 2 per day 4 per day 3 per day Hourly
Accessibility
(from city)In the city
40 by car
60 by busIn the city 20 by car
Modes may be classified into two groups. Modes with car availability, given by Ferries, that are
relatively slow but have the advantage to carry your own car to reach your final destinations. And
Modes without car availability, that are faster and comfortable. Ideal for business travellers who want
a day trip. Jet Foil has the advantage to departure from the port of the city whereas the plane travellers
have to move to the airport situated 20 minutes by car from the capital. However, frequency of the
plane is much higher, almost hourly and the trip last only 30 minutes. In Jet Foil there are two classes
but the plane only has a unique class. Thus, the relevant attributes in the SP experiment could be:
Ferry Armas: fare, time and car availability. Ferry FO: fare, time, car availability and comfort. Jet
Foil: fare, time, comfort (two classes) and frequency. Aeroplane: fare, time and frequency.
Another issue to be taken into account, is the structure of competition. For car travellers competition
takes place between both ferries; although at the same time Ferry Fred Olsen dispute market with
jetfoil and even with aeroplane. On the other hand, business travellers may decide between plane and
jetfoil. As a consequence, we consider that there will be four kind of comparison in the SP exercise: a)
Ferry Armas vs. ferry FO, b) Ferry FO vs. Jetfoil. c) Ferry FO vs. Plane d) Plane vs. Jet foil
The design should be completed determining the type of plan that we are going to use. In order to
simplify we will use a model in differences for costs but not for time because of the particularity of
each mode.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
8/25
8
a) SP Armas-Fred Olsen: There are four attributes: cost difference, time Armas, time Fred Olsen and
Class Fred Olsen. Two attributes with three levels of variation and class with two. According with
Kocur et Al (1982) the suitable master plan is 36 with 9 test required.
b) SPFRED OLSEN-JET FOIL: There are five attributes: cost difference, time jetfoil, time Fred Olsen,
Class Fred Olsen and class jetfoil. Two attributes with three levels of variation and two other with two.
Thus, master plan 45a with 16 test required.
c) SP FRED OLSEN-PLANE: There are five attributes: cost difference, time plane, time Fred Olsen,
Class Fred Olsen and frequency aeroplane. Two attributes with three levels of variation and two other
with two. Thus, master plan 45a with 16 test required.
d) SPJET FOIL-PLANE: There are five attributes: cost difference, time jetfoil, time plane, class jetfoil
and frequency plane. Two attributes with three levels of variation and two others with two. Therefore,
the suitable master plan is 45a with 16 test required.
At the beginning three attributes were used for all designs except jet foil-plane: fare, travel time and
class. For jetfoil and plane travellers, fare, travel time and frequency were tested. Three levels were
chosen for the relevant attributes (fare and travel time) and two for the others. However, after
respondents did not pay attention to class, this attribute was rule out.
Table 5.20 shows all types of SP survey that were tested and their sample size.
Table 3.2: Types of SP
Model Type of SP comparision N
1 FFO-CAR versus FA-CAR 295
2 FFO-CAR versus JF 209
3 FFO versus JF 952
4 FFO versus PLANE 109
5 FFO versus FA 371
6 PLANE versus JF 614
Total SP observations 2,250
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
In this section we will explain the stage of modelling. Regarding to MNL models, the entire analysis
has been affected by the low quality of data in terms of waiting time. The majority of models provided
coefficients of waiting time with counterintuitive signs. In addition, some specifications with specific
coefficient in-vehicle-time, did not worked correctly due to the parameter of jet foil. The solution
found was merging waiting and access time in a new variable called acwtime which is shown in the
right side of table 4.1
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
9/25
9
N1: nest of
fast modes
Figure 1 shows the design used for HL model: one nest for fast modes and the other three models
hanging separately from the root. This is a rational design, which shows that fast ferry is not sharing
many things with Ferry Armas.
Figure 1: HL structure
To asses among models several test where implemented:
Test for significance of parametert.
Test of to tell between a model restricted and more general models. In this case it is used the
Likelihood Radio Test (Ortuzar y Willunsem, 2001): { })()(2**
ll r
In l*(r) is the final likelihood of the restricted model and l*(r) is the same value in the model with
specific variables.
Statistic is a measure of fit for the whole model, which is the result of)0(
)(1
L
L =
WhereL() represents the likelihood of the model andL(0) is the likelihood considering a model using
only zeros. Although the statistic gives clear assessment when it is close to boundaries 0 and 1, it does
not have an unambiguous interpretation for intermediate values (see Ortzar, 1997).
For this reason it is convenient to use the other statistic)(
)(1
CL
L =
The level of likelihood obtained is another way to test the goodness of a model.
4.1Assessing among RP models
Thus, at first general models will be compared. Then, models using socioeconomic variables will be
shown.
Mode 2:
Jet Foil
Mode 3:
Fast Ferry
Mode 4:
FerryMode 1: Plane
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
10/25
10
General models (no socioeconomic variables)
Table 4.1: general models MNL and HLModels without wtime Models with acwtime
simple F/S A/M simple F/S A/M A/M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 HLFare -.1316E-01
(-2.9)-.1115E-01
(2.4)-.5477E-02
(-1.2)-.2465E-02
(-.5)-.1125E-01
(-2.5)-.978E-02
(-2.1)-.4591E-02
(-1.0)-.3441E-02
(-.7)
Wtime -.3570E-02
(-.5)
Acctime -.9868E-02
(-3.6)
-.1093E-01
(-3.8)-.1548E-01
-.2340E-02
(-3.2)
Acwtime -.1295E-02
(-.6)
-.2468E-02
(-1.2)
-.2444E-02
(-1.2)
-.2517E-02
(-1.2)
-.4011E-02
(-.9)
Ivtime-.1716E-02
-.2580E-02
(-2.5)
-.1162E-02
(-1.1)
IvtimeA -.5249E-01
(-5.9)
-.4008E-01
(-5.1)
-.4369E-01
(-6.0)
IvtimeF -.131E-01
(-2.2)
-.8602E-02
(-1.5)
IvtimeS -.2267E-02(-2.1)
-.1438E-02(-1.4)
IvtimeM -.4206E-02
(-3.6)
-.2591E-02
(-2.4)
-.3184E-02
(-1.4)
Asc2
.5549
(4.4)
1.240
(3.3)
-.1241
(-.7)
.8657E-01
(.6)
.5994
(4.6)
1.060
(2.8)
.1240
(.8)
theta .8359
(1.7)
(0) .0565 .0613 .1041 .0861 .0388 .0410 .0722 .0716 (C) .0266 .0316 .0758 .0572 .0084 .0107 .0428 .0422Final L -378.4521 -376.5178 -359.3287 -366.5547 -385.5406 -384.6440 -372.1390 -372.3872
Table 4.1 shows an overall view of the RP models without socioeconomic variables. The goodness of
fit is certainty poor in all of them. Taking into account this default, the best model seems model 3.
Also, models 4 and 7 offer one of the best statistics. Model 4 has serious problems of significance in
four parameters. HL also presents problems of significance in fare and acwtime. It is useful to split up
these models into two categories: those which divide ivtime between plane and maritime modes and
those with consider fast and slow modes. In the first category, the best model is 3. However, this
model has the shortcoming that it was built without waiting time. Alternatively model 7 may represent
well this group. Into the group of Fast/slow coefficient of ivtime, model 2 performs reasonably better
than 6.
On the other hand, it is useful to test the attribute significance. Models 2 and 3 are extended versions
of the more restricted model 1. In the other group, models 6, 7 and HL are general forms of 5. The test
of LR described above reports the following values:
Table 4.2: LR tests
LR>2
R G LR
Yes 2 3.86
Yes1
3 38.24
No 6 1.79
Yes 7 26.80
Yes
5
HL 26.30
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
11/25
11
As we can see in table 4.1 all models pass the test except model 6. One 6 has been rejected, it seems
that model 7 is more appropriate than HL since this model does not have significant coefficients. In
the family of non-waiting time models, 3 seems the strongest. Nevertheless, it could be convenient to
choose 2 because this model has an interesting specification for ivtime. Otherwise, we would not any
model that reports information about fast and slow modes.
Models with socioeconomic variables
Table 4.3: models RP with economic variables: income and work
8a 8b:Subsamples of income 9a 9bMODEL
Income
dummiesLow inc medium High inc Workers W paid trip
fare-.5535E-02
(-1.2)
-.1683E-01
(-2.0)
-.1261E-01
(-2.7)
-.5622E-02
(-.4)
-.5999E-02
(-.6)
-.2369E-01
(-2.4)
acctime -.7070E-02(-1.6) -.8578E-02(-3.2) -.2305E-01(-1.7) -7557E-03(-.2)
acwtime-.2228E-03
(-.1)
-.4073E-02
(-1.0)
ivtime-.4345E-02
(-2.0)
-.1449E-02
(-1.3)
-.1091E-01
(-1.7)
-.1277E-01
(-4.0)
ivtimeA-.4234E-01
(-5.2)
-.6027E-01
(-4.4)
ivtimeM-.2512E-02
(-2.4)-.1599E-01
(-4.7)
faremed.3309E-01
(2.4)
farehigh.5834E-02
(.4)
Asc2.1137
(.7)
-.1750
(-.6)
.3057
(2.1)
1.592
(3.7)
.5764
(2.0)
1.454
(5.5)
(0) .0461 .0389 .0360 .3345 .2329 .2019 (C) .0740 .0203 .0257 -.0128 .0518 -.0048
In order to facilitate the exposition, models have been split up into two groups: those that include
economic variables, like income and work, and those, which include social variables like sex and age.
Table 4.3 shows models of this category. In 8a incomes dummies have the expected sign. However
they are larger than fare and, as a consequence, they cannot be used to obtain segments of value of
time. In addition, it seems thatfarehigh is not significant. Also asc and acwtime posses low tvalues. In
addition, the whole model looks too weak taking into account the low values of tests (0) y(C).
Inside model 8a we have three simple models of sub samples of income. The level of income
increases, the parameter of costs decreases and the opposite in case of acctime. Furthermore the
internal coherent is hold. However, in terms of ivtime, this parameter is slightly smaller in medium
level. The three models show a poor goodness of fit except the model of high income, which in fact, is
the best of this table. For all this reasons, it seems that this system of three sub samples could produce
better results than the dummies of income. Nevertheless it is important to note that these models have
been estimated without waiting time and this is a significant lack of information.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
12/25
12
Table 4.4: Social and other variables: frequency, age, and sex
10 11: age 12:SexMODEL
Freq dummy 11a: dummy 11b: young 12b: male 12b: female
fare -.2620E-03(.0)
-.3569E-01(-2.4)
-.4448E-01(-2.1)
-.4000E-02(-.6)
-.1980E-01(-1.8)
acctime-.1560E-01
(-1.6)-.1280E-01
(-2.2)-.1443E-02
(-.6)
ivtime-.1537E-02
(-.8)
-.1377E-01
(-2.0)
Acwtime-.1959E-01
(-3.6)
-.5671E-04
(.0)
IvtimeA-.5661E-01
(-4.5)
-.3854E-01
(-3.4)
-.4420E-01
(-1.7)
IvtimeM-.2452E-02
(-1.5)
-.779E-02
(-1.9)
-.6401E-02
(-1.9)
Timefreq-.8875E-02
(-2.3)
agefare.3514E-01
(2.4)
Asc2 -.2148(-.9) .2257(1.0) -.8256E-01(-.2) .5839(2.6) .3637(1.2)
(0) .1268 .0804 .1506 .0661 .0702
(C) .1013 .0535 .1333 -.0013 .0847
Models 9a and 9b provide parameters of a subsample of workers and, within this group, a sub sample
of paid workers. It could be interesting tries to compare this model with model 7. Parameters offare,
acwtime and ivtimeA are larger in this model. It has a hard interpretation because most of workers have
their ticket paid. The model looks weak in terms of significance offare and acwtime. Despite of this, it
has one of the highest (0) the statistic (C) shows a low value (as in all of them, in fact). The last
model contains respondents with paid tickets. Surprisingly they show more sensitivity towards costs
than the equivalent model of general table, model 1. It may reflect the lack of real decision in their
choice set.
In table 4.4 the rest of MNL models have been grouped. On the left, there is a model that tries to
reflect the behaviour of frequent travellers. The effect of this variable has been concentrated in the
dummy variable called timefreq. This dummy is 1 when the respondent is a traveller in this route at
least one per week, and 0 otherwise. The effect is an increase in the parameter of time. This outcome
reflects the facts that frequent travellers demand faster trips because this activity is an important
proportion of their available time per week. Unfortunately, the model has an important shortcoming in
the non-significance offare. In contrast, it looks an acceptable goodness of fit within this group of
models.
Models 11a and 11b try to model variable age. Which is better? The goodness of fit is much better in
11b. In addition, 11b does not have problems of significance with important parameters. On the
contrary, 11a has a serious problem of significance in acwtime and offers worse statistics (0) and
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
13/25
13
(C). However, the problem of 11b is that, it has not equivalent for the other two subsamples of age.
These models did not report correct signs and were rejected. As a consequence, to study the effect of
age in the entire sample it will be necessary to use 11a.
Variable Sex is modelled in the last two models. These models are the result of two subsamples using
the simplest specification: without waiting time. Female seems more sensitive towards costs and less
sensitive in terms of access time. In contrast, situation is the inverse in ivtime that affects more on
females than males. Males are less concerned about access than women, but females feel less affected
by travel conditions and duration of trip. Goodness of fit is poor in both models and, in addition,
acctime is not significant in 12b.
In table 4.5 can be see general models of SP: one model represent each SP exercise. In terms of
significance of parameters, model 1 posses the highest t ratios. In contrast, model 4 shows weak
parameters oftime JFand the intercept. The same problem is found in asc of model 5. According with
ttest this variable should be eliminated. In terms of goodness of fit, model 3 has the best performance
with a 0.3542 of (0) and the next in this ranking would be model 6 with .3142 of this statistic.
However if we consider the most rigorous test of(C) the best model is model 5.
It is worthy to aware that model 3 represents one of the hybrid cases (combination of car-ferry against
jet foil) and has provided satisfactory results. In addition, Fred Olsen versus plane, which at firstseems unrealistic, appears robust as well. On the other hand, model 6 is the result of the most
important exercise of SP and seems robust in terms of goodness of fit and significance of parameters.
Table 4.5: general models of SPFFO FA
(cars)FFO-FA
FFO-JF
(car in FFO)FFO-JF FFO-P P-JF
MODEL
1 2 3 4 5 6
Fare-.5647E-01
(-6.2)
-.1250
(-6.6)
-.1745E-01
(-1.4)
-.5649E-01
(-5.4)
-.8286E-01
(-4.7)
-.5745E-01
(-6.5)
Time-.1576E-01
(-6.7)
-.5197E-02
(-1.1)
-.3748E-01
(-1.9)
-.1598E-01
(-1.3)
-.1614E-01
(-2.4)
Time JF-.2067E-01
(-2.6)
Time FFO-.1245E-01
(-.6)
Head-.2912E-02
(-1.7)
Asc1.727
(2.6)
1.146
(4.3)
-.4036
(-.2)
-.2698
(-.4)
(0) .1614 .2397 .3542 .3091 .2979 .3142
(C) .1285 .2318 .0335 .0591 .2977 .1620
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
14/25
14
Table 4.6: Sp models with socio-economic variables and subsamplesType of
SPFFO-FA (car) FFO-JF JF-Plane
Model1b
FA users
1c
FFO users
4b
JF users
6b
P users
6c
JF users
6d
income d
6e
paid
6f
Non paid
fare-.1028
(-2.6)
-.2981E-01
(-3.1)
-.6016E-01
(-3.4)
-.4885E-01
(-3.1)
-.5840E-01
(-9.3)
-.5821E-01
(-5.8)
-.4363E-01
(-3.6)
-.6786E-01
(-5.8)
time-.1838E-01
(-1.8)
-.9552E-02
(-3.4)
-.2365E-01
(-4.1)
-.3539E-02
(-.6)
-.2466E-01
(-8.4)
-.1174E-01
(-1.4)
-.1773E-01
(-3.2)
-.2720E-01
(-5.0)
fareinc.7701E-02
(.4)
asc .4497E-01
(.1)
.5911
(1.8)
(0) .1614 .0669 .3186 .1637 .3019 .3153 .1884 .3584 (C) .1285 .0449 .0590 .1637 .1591 .1634 .1106 .2019
In table 4.6 it is shown the rest of models produced in SP. It is difficult, may be impossible, make
comparisons among models, which came from different SP exercise, because they will have different
type of errors. It may be guess that the most cost preference travellers are the FA users. Results seem
confirm this idea. In fact, its parameter of fare is really large, reflecting this special sensitivity towards
fare. In the other extreme, inside the same SP, are situated FFO users with a parameter of fare 34 times
smaller. However, in terms of time parameter results are the opposite that expected because time
parameter in FA users is slightly bigger than FFO users.
It is possible to compare time coefficient of 4b with the general model 4 in table above. It seems that,
inside this SP, jet foil users shows more sensitivity on time than FFO users. This is a logic outcome.
Nevertheless, inside the SP6, plane-jet foil, JF users posses the higher time parameter. Regarding with
paid and non-paid users it seems that, as we expect, non-paid users are more cost sensitive.In terms of
coefficients, model 6b seems to be too weak: time is not significant and there are only two parameters
in the model. Also asc in model 4b is not significant at all; moreover, this parameter has problems of
correlation with time. The ranking of goodness of fit is head by 6f, model that shows extraordinary
robustness. It may confirm the hypothesis of consider paid users as a captive.
4.2 Mixed Logit results
Table 4.7:ML for 4 normal distributions
Parameters Estimates Standard Errors
Fare -0.00998501 0.007096580.01315751 0.01570268
Access time 0.00910062 0.003926410.00021131 0.00086644
Waiting time -0.01906961 0.007577720.01920147 0.01771682
In-vehicle time -0.00229251 0.00129467
0.00020438 0.00008634Function value: -455.61034710
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
15/25
15
ML yields two statistics for each parameter: mean and standard deviation. On of the most important
issues of modelling here is the correct choice of parameter distribution. In this work, we faced a sign
problem with waiting time which has been solved merging waiting and access time in case of MNL
models.
Using ML, we have allowed all parameters vary with many combination of distribution and the sign
problem was reported in most of them. Log normal distribution is an option for this cases but, as it has
been reported it leads to flat log likelihood function where is difficult to achieve the maximum.
Finally, the only option to obtain correct signs for all parameters was fixed waiting time and allow the
others coefficients to vary according to a normal distribution; despite of the fact that log likelihood
function offers an slightly higher value, this seem the best model. Results are shown in table 4.8
Table 4.8: ML for 4 normal and one fixed variable
Parameters Estimates Standard Errors
fare -0.01259882 0.00275809-0.00464131 0.00457605
Access time -0.00398426 0.00504412
0.01073593 0.00408301
Waiting time -0.01754933 0.00000000
In-vehicle time -0.00108957 0.000915540.00007157 0.00003850
Function value: -457.33207865
Individual parameters
ML is completed estimating individual parameters. Using the results of model ML1 individualparameters were estimated, considering waiting time a fixed coefficient and furthermore, it will be the
same for all costumers. It is useful show individual parameters in an histogram shape, which allows
for all interpretations. Thus figures 2, 3 and 4 shows histogram for access time, fare and in-vehicle
time, respectively.
Figure 2: Histogram for access time
,50,38
,25,13
0,00-,13
-,25-,38
-,50-,63
-,75-,88
400
300
200
100
0
Desv. tp. = ,06
Media = -,05
N = 420,00
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
16/25
16
Figure 2: Histogram of fare
,200,175
,150,125
,100,075
,050,025
,000-,025
-,050
-,075
-,100
-,125
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Desv. tp. = ,04
Media = -,040
N = 420,00
Figure 3: histogram of in-vehicle time
,75,63
,50,38
,25,13
0,00
-,13
-,25
-,38
-,50
-,63
-,75
-,88
-1,00
500
400
300
200
100
0
Desv. tp. = ,09
Media = -,01
N = 420,00
First of all, these histograms do not show the expected normal shape which could be the result of the
limited sample. However, it seems too concentrated around the average, especially in the case of in-
vehicle time. One important issue related to individual parameters is the question of the number of
individuals who has the correct sign in their coefficients. The next table 4.9 summarises this problem
It seems that Fare is the variable which contains more individuals who report counterintuitive signs.
This level of estimation has the advantage that we can detect and remove those individuals with
problematic estimation from the sample.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
17/25
17
Table 4.9: individuals with wrong sign
individuals
with wrong sign (per cent)
Access time 45 (10%)
Fare 75 (17%)
In-vehicle time 57 (13%)
5. RESULTS
5.1 Value of time in RP models
Within these models we have split up between models with and without socioeconomic variables.
Models without SE variables
Table 5.1: value of time of all models
Models without wtime Models with acwtime
simple F/S A/M simple F/S A/M A/M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 HL
Wtime1.45E+00
(0.52)
Acctime7.50E-01
(2.64)
9.80E-01
(2.06)
2.83E+00
(3.17)
9.49E-01
(4.98)
Acwtime5.25E-01
(0.2)
2.19E-01
(0.23)
2.50E-01
(1.03)
5.48E-01
(0.41)
1.17E+00
(0.69)
Ivtime1.30E-01
(2.63)1.05E+00
(0.6)1.03E-01
(0.14)
IvtimeA9.58E+00
(10.5)8.73E+00
(8.27)1.27E+01
(8.84)
IvtimeF1.17E+00
(1.82)8.80E-01
(0.23)
IvtimeS2.03E-01
(0.4)
1.47E-01
(0.25)
5.64E-01
(0.63)
IvtimeM7.68E-01
(0.97)
9.25E-01
(0.68)
Table 5.1 shows values of different kinds of time in euros per minute. Eventually, it has been
calculated values of time for all modes of table 5.35. Our purpose was to use only these models that
reported the best goodness of fit according with the discussion in previous section. However, due to
the lack of reasonable results, it was necessary to extend calculations to all models. In fact, table 5.1
shows 7 unacceptable values that we reject totally. The rest of values have been grouped in table 5.2.
Values of access and regress time (VAT) are situated between 45 and 58.8 per hour. The aggregate
of this time plus waiting time (VAWT) is valued in a range between 13.1 and 32.9 per hour. Value
of time in vehicle (VIT) is found between 7.8 and 6.18 per hour. However, if we split up this VIT
into VIT of fast and slow modes, VIT change completely.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
18/25
18
Taking averages, we see that VAT is the highest, followed by IVT of fast modes. Next is the IVT of
maritime modes with an average of 50.79 per hour, then VAWT with 23.13, IVT of slow modes
with 18.28 and the generic IVT with 6.99 per hour.
Table 5.2: value of time for RP models (t ratio)Value of time per minute Value of time in per hour Average
Acctime 0.98(2.06) 0.949(4.98) 0.75(2.64) 58.8 56.9 45 53.58
Acwtime 0.54(0.41) 0.52(0.2) 0.25(1.03) 0.21(0.23) 32.9 31.5 15 13.1 23.13
Ivtime 0.13(2.63) 0.10(0.14) 7.8 6.18 6.99
IvtimeF 0.88(0.23) 52.8 52.8
IvtimeS 0.56(0.63) 0.20(0.4) 0.14(0.25) 33.8 12.2 8.82 18.28
IvtimeM 0.82(0.68) 0.76(0.97) 55.5 46.1 50.79
Are these values reasonable? First, it is useful to wonder about the internal coherence of these values.
The intuition would allow us to establish a ranking like: VAWT>VAT>VIT. This coherence is hold.
Nevertheless, VAT, which does not contain waiting time, is smaller than VAWT. On the other hand, it
is reasonable to expect that faster modes had larger VIT than slower modes as we have obtained in this
work. On the other hand, in terms of t ratio, these results seem poor. Only 4 pass the test and three of
them are the VAT.
Models with SE variables
Table 5.3 illustrates values of time according to income groups, and susample of workers. Again, the
problem here is the lack of realism: these figures represent euros per minute and, at least four of them
(underlined) are too large. It seems that the whole sample has a bias towards large values of time or
reduced parameters of fare. Only two of these VT pass clearly the ttest.
Table 5.3: values of time according with economic variables
8b:Subsamples of income 9a 9bMODEL
Low inc Medium High inc Workers W paid trip
acctime4.20E-01
(0.51)
6.80E-01
(1.5)
4.10E+00
(1.48)
3.19E-02
(.0)
acwtime6.79E-01
(0.34)
ivtime2.58E-01
(0.36)
1.15E-01
(0.19)
1.94E+00
(0.79)
5.39E-01
(1.57)
ivtimeA1.00E+01
(6.04)
ivtimeM2.67E+00
(1.73)
Tables 5.4 and 5.5 show values of times and compare them with the average of the whole sample.
Some values are extremely large as VAT of high-income segment. In addition, all VT for workers
must be rejected. Throughout the income segments, VT reveals an internal logic in VAT. However,
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
19/25
19
IVT decreases up to 5.9 and, even in the highest group is smaller than the lowest. Despite of this lack
of coherence, these values are probably the most reasonable of the table. Actually, the problem is the
VIT of low-income segment: it looks too high, but the other two figures seem rational.
Table 5.4: value of time for segments of income
Value of time in per hour
low Medium high Workers paid Whole sample
Acctime 25.2 40.8 246 1.91 53.58
Ivtime 15.5 6.9 11.6 32.3 6.99
VAT-average -28.38 -12.78 192.42 -51.67
VIT-average 8.51 0 4.61 25.31
Table 5.5: value of time of workers
Value of time in per hourWorkers Whole sample VT-average
acwtime 40.7 23.13 16.87
Ivtime A 600 -
IvtimeM 160 50.79 109.21
Finally, we would need to calculate value of time according the rest of RP models. Table 5.6 illustrates
the results of these models. Model 10, which tried to represent the effect of frequency, is weighed
down by its lack of significance in cost parameter. Consequently, results are enormous and they must
be rejected. Table 5.6 shows only segmentation of sex and age. Figures show VT in euros per minute
and per hour.
Table 5.6: value of time for different types of travelers
Value of time in per minute (t ratio) Vot in per hourMODEL
11: age 12:Sex age sex
Under 30 Over 30 12b: male 12b: female < 30 >30 male Fem
acctime 0.0159(0) 3.20 (1.55) 0.072(0.9) 0.954 192 4.32
ivtime 0.1(0.6) 0.38(0.26) 0.69(0.05) 22.8 41.4
IvtimeA 1.08(2) 70(0.02) 64.8 4,200
IvtimeM 0.21(0.14) 14.2(5) 12.6 252
First, it is clear that age is an incremental factor of willingness to pay. It is rational expect this result;
however, except figures remarked in bold, these VT are extremely big. The only possible conclusion is
that, in fact, there is a substantial difference between these kinds of travellers and that age is an
important explanatory variable in the model. On the other hand, only two VT pass the t test.
With reference to sex, it seems that male are more concerned about travel to access and regress and
female are more aware about the length of trip in vehicle. It is possible that this outcome reflect the
fact that females are more worried about safety and also, it may be possible that they feel more
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
20/25
20
affected by travel conditions. Figures of female seem reasonable, but, once again, it is necessary to
reject VAT of male.
5.2 Value of time of SP models
Table 5.7: value of time in SP models (t ratio)
Value of time in per minute
MODELFFO FA
(cars)FFO-FA
FFO-JF
(car in FFO)FFO-JF FFO-P P-JF
Time 0.27 (3.32) 0.41 (0.04) 2.15 (2.47) 0.19 (0.23) 0.28(0.65)
Time JF 0.36 (-0.8)
TimeFFO 0.22 (0.12)
Head 0.05(0)
Value of time in per hour
Time 16.7 2.49 129 11.6 16.9
Time JF 22
Time FO 13.2Head 3.04
Table 5.7 shows VT calculated from SP models. Unlike the RP, these figures seem realistic, except
VT in FFO-JF (with car), which is too high. Taking out this case, VT is situated in a range from 2.49
and 16.9 per hour. Value of time from P-JF is the highest as we could expect and, VT from ferries is
the lowest which is a rational result. Car market is a different case because is affected by the massive
presence of transport workers but its VT remains reasonable. Moreover, table 5.7 shows a VT in JF
almost two times value of time in FFO. This result is fairly balanced. In addition, value of head is five
times VT. This seems a rational relation. However, t ratio only is acceptable in two VT.
Tables 5.8 and 5.9 show VT in SP for different types of travellers. All results seem rational. In FFO-
FA it is logic to find a higher VT in FFO users. In addition, VT of JF users is higher than the other two
and fairly close to figure in table 6.9. Results show a sort of coherence inside the whole set of SP
exercise. In JF-Plane SP we find that JF users have much higher VT than plane travelers. This latter
relation does not seem realistic. On the other hand, there is not too much difference between low and
high income and VT of paid and non-paid are practically the same. In terms of significance, except JFusers in table 6.9 there are not VT with enough tratio.
Table 5.8: VT of SP for different types of users (t ratio)
Type of SP FFO-FA (car) FFO-JF
Model FA users FFO users JF users
VT per minute 0.17(0.74) 0.32(1.7) 0.39(1.05)
VT per hour 13.32 19.2 23.4
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
21/25
21
Table 6.9: VT in SP for different types of users within JF-Plane (t ratio)
JF-Plane
P users JF users Low inc H inc paid Non paid
VT per minute 0.072(0.4) 0.42(2.83) 0.202(0.27) 0.232(0) 0.40(0.9) 0.40(1.78)
VT per hour 4.2 25.2 12.2 13.92 24.36 24.06
5.3 Comparison of results
It may useful to evaluate these results with the values of time reported by Ortzar and Gonzalez
(2001). It will be indispensable to update those results since they are based on data gathered in 1992.
Therefore figures will be converted from pesetas to euros3. Table 5.10 shows this transformation. It
was consider an average of annual inflation rate of 3% for these 10 years.
Table 5.10: Updating VT from Ortzar and Gonzalez.
VT 1992 Updated results
Low 630 (1.99) 888.67 5.34Medium 794 (3.64) 1120.01 6.73
Income
High 1,809 (1.45) 2551.77 15.33
Aeroplane 1,360 (9.45) 1918.41 11.52JF 1,466 (9.03) 2067.93 12.42
mode
Ferry 256 (2.57) 361.11 2.17
Table 5.11: comparisons of VT
SPVT Ortuzar FFO-FA
(car) FFO-JF JF-P FFO-JF
RP
Low income 5.34 13.92 15.5
Medium income 6.73 6.9
High income 15.33 24.36 11.6
Airplane 11.52 4.2
Jet foil 12.42 23.4 25.2 22
Ferry A 2.17 13.32
Ferry FO4 - 19.2 13.2
In terms of significance of parameters, it is obvious that our results are inferior; it is more interesting
to concentrate in the level of VT estimated. IVT of RP has been taken for this comparison.
Surprisingly many figures seem to find the same pattern. Medium and high income of Ortzar survey
are close to those equivalent values calculated in this work. In fact, VT in medium income is almost
exactly the same figure. VT from this work seems higher in all types except the strange VT in
airplane. VT in JF is situated in a narrow range of 22-25.2 in SP; nevertheless, the same figure in
Ortuzars work is a half.
3
1 =166.386 pesetas4 It must take into account, as we have already said, that this mode did not exist at the time that Ortuzar andGonzalezs survey.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
22/25
22
5.4 Value of time in individual level
Since we have estimated individual parameters is it possible to obtain value of time for each
individual. We will follow the same procedure that we used when we showed individuals parameters,
displaying these value of time using histograms. Thus, figures 4 and 5 represents histograms of value
of time for access and in-vehicle time respectively.
Value of access time is clearly concentrated around 35 euros per hour. Numbers of counterintuitive
cases raise calculating value of time, since this is the ratio between time and fare coefficient. However
most of cases are under the positive part of the distribution. Value of in-vehicle time reaches an
average of 77,95 euros per hour, also very concentrated around the average. It might be convenient
compare these results with the average wage paid in the Canary Economy in 20025
which was 11.8
euros per hour. Thus, Value of access time represents almost three times the medium wage and value
of in-vehicle time is up to seven time this figure.
Figure 4: value of access time
1750,0
1250,0
750,0
250,0
-250,0
-750,0
-1250,0
-1750,0
-2250,0
-2750,0
-3250,0
-3750,0
-4250,0
400
300
200
100
0
Desv. tp. = 413,19
Media = 35,0
N = 420,00
5 Source: Canary Institute of Statistics. This figure is the wage in service sector which is the most important inthis economy.
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
23/25
23
Figure 5: the value of in-vehicle time
550,0
450,0
350,0
250,0
150,0
50,0-50,0
-150,0
-250,0
-350,0
-450,0
-550,0
400
300
200
100
0
Desv. tp. = 77,95
Media = 6,6
N = 421,00
It is known that hour-wage is usually considered a proxy of value of time and it is used in most of
public investment analysis. The findings of this article could suggest that this mean could not be
appropriate. Also, it could show the highest cost of travelling between islands considering the fact of
these high fares compared with the actual length of trips.
In addition, it is interesting to see that in-vehicle value of time represents seven times the value of
access time. Therefore, costumers will be willing to accept transferences from in-vehicle time to
access time and this is exactly what has happened in this market with the strongest competitor FFO.
This ferry relocated the port to a closer point to Tenerife, transferring part of trip costs to travellers
who prefer face this longer access if it means a shorter trip.
6. CONCLUSIONS
We have analysed an inter-island corridor served by three modes and two routes. Using a survey with
RP and SP we have developed several MNL, HL and ML models. Several values of time have been
reported using these models. The main conclusions of this work could be the following:
Among the simplest models the best specification seems to be an MNL model with specific
coefficients for plane and maritime modes. Also the HL model was able to describe the natural
connection between jetfoil and aeroplane. On the other hand, SP exercises provided robust models
although applied in pairs of competition. ML has shown powerful features, especially in the ability to
avoid estimation problems with counterintuitive signs. These problems were controlled using a
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
24/25
24
combination of normal and fixed variables. Also, individual estimation could be used to detect and, in
case, remove from the sample those individuals who report wrong parameters. This deep level of
estimation has an enormous potential.
The work provided a wide variety of values of time. From RP we found a value of access, regress and
waiting time of 23.13 per hour, a value of in-vehicle-time of 6.99 per hour. Also value of in-
vehicle time reported for fast and slow modes were 52.8 and 18.28 respectively. SP models
generated more reasonable values, although not better in statistical terms. Value in vehicle time for JF
was 25 and 13.2 for ferry Fred Olsen. Also, values reported for medium and high income were
fairly plausible: 6.9 and 11.6 . Other specifications proved positive relationship between age and
willingness to pay, highest value of time for females in vehicle time and highest value of time for
frequent travellers.
Results were compared with updated empirical evidence in the same market and some coincidences
were found. The closest values of time were VT per medium and high-income segment. For modes,
our values of in-vehicle-time were larger; nevertheless we coincided in founding jetfoil with the
highest value of in-vehicle-time.
Broadly speaking, values of time obtained are higher than averaged wage paid in this economy.
Taking into account that this statistic is used in investment projects, it might suggest a re-estimation of
this procedure. In addition these high value of time could be consider an estimation of high travelling
costs between two islands with large population density: to certain extend they could express an
unsatisfied demand.
On the other hand, comparing access value of time and in-vehicle time, could be interpreted the recent
evolution of this market. In effect, in-vehicle VT is seven times larger than access VT which could
suggest a potential improvement transferring time from in-vehicle time to access time, which is
exactly what has happened in this market with FFO: this company relocated the departure place to acloser point to Tenerife, reducing in-vehicle time and enlarging access time for users. The massive
answer from travellers, willing to accept this exchange, is coherent with the results showed in this
work.
REFERENCES
Ben-Akiva, M. and Steven R. Lerman (1985),Discrete Choice Analysis. The MIT press.
Ben-Akiva, M; D. Bolduc, and Bradley (1993), Estimation of travel model choice models with
randomly distributed values of time. Transportation Research Record1413, 88-97
7/30/2019 Discrete Choice Models in Transport. - An Application to Gran Canaria- Tenerife Corridor
25/25
Bradley M.A. and Kroes E. P. (1990), Simultaneous analysis of SP and RP information. Hague
Consulting Group. PTRC, 18th
summer annual meeting. Vol P335.
De Rus, G. (1997), How competition delivers positive results in transport: a case study. Viewpoint.
The World Bank Group. Note n 136.
Debreu, G. (1960) Review of R. D. Luce individual choice behaviour. American Economic Review
50, 186-188
Hague Consulting Group, Alogit Users Guide (1992)
Hensher D. y W. H. Greene (2003), The mixed logit model: the satet of practise. Transportation. N 30, pp133-176
Kocur, G, T. Alder, W. Hyman and B. Aunet (1982), Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct
utility assessment. Resource Policy Center. US Department of Transportation. Urban Mass
Transportation Administration.
Louviere, J., D. Hensher and J. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application.
Cambridge University Press.
Louviere, J.J., D.H. Henley, G. Woodworth, R. J. Meyer, I.P. Levin, J.W. Stoner, D. Curry and D. A.
Anderson (1980): Laboratory Simulation versus Revealed Preference Methods for Estimating Travel
Demand Models. Transportation Research Record, vol 890, pp. 11-17.
Mitchell, R. C. And R. T. Carson (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation
method. Resources for the future. Washington.
Ortuzar and Garrido (2000), An aplication to ordinal probit to SP rating data. In Stated Preference
Modelling Techniques. Edited by Juan de D. Ortuzar. PTRC.
Ortuzar and Willunsem, (2001) Modelling Transport. Third edition. Wiley editors.
Ortuzar, J de D (2002), Inter-Island Travel Demand Response with Discrete Choice Models. Journal
of Transport Economics and Policy, volume 36, part 1, January 2002, pp. 115-138
Ortuzar, J. de D. (1997),Modelos de demanda de Transporte. Edited by Universidad Catolica de Chile
(in Spanish)
Train K. (2003),Discrete Choice Models with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.
Wardmand, M. (1988), A comparison of revealed and stated preference models of travel behaviour.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22(1): 71-92