Operationalizing Place Making in a Choice Experiment Context

The ability to interpret and understand public perception of public transit and the built environment that it can create is imperative to the creation of a successful transit system. This research uses stated preference choice surveys in a hypothetical bond referendum to investigate public response to transit systems with particular service and place-making attributes. The survey asks each participant to compare and choose one of two new transit service options or a “none of the above” option. The options are described by six attributes: service type, stop environment, travel time, fare, comfort, and the corresponding increase in taxes. Fitting a conditional logit model to these data allows the quantitative comparison of transit system configurations to ascertain the public's willingness to pay for the specific attributes. This study finds that people place a significant value on the quality of public spaces created by public transit, captured here through the use of digitally rendered built environments that capture several aspects of good public spaces: wide sidewalks, narrow streets, greenery, reduced building setbacks, multistory development, and human activity.

[1]  Gabriela Beirão,et al.  Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study , 2007 .

[2]  Armstrong,et al.  IMPACTS OF COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE AS REFLECTED IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES , 1994 .

[3]  Stephen K. Swallow,et al.  Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques , 1995, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[4]  Óscar Álvarez,et al.  The value of time and transport policies in a parallel road network , 2007 .

[5]  Sergio A. Lugo-Serrato,et al.  Transit Capacity and Quality-of-Service Manual: Applications to Mexican Transit Systems , 2008 .

[6]  Khandker M. Nurul Habib,et al.  Modeling Choice of Residential Location and Home Type:Recent Movers in Austin, Texas , 2008 .

[7]  D. Hensher.  Sustainable Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network-Based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment , 2007 .

[8]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .

[9]  K. Kockelman.  THE EFFECTS OF LOCATION ELEMENTS ON HOME PURCHASE PRICES AND RENTS : Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area , 2012 .

[10]  Dana Marie Bauer,et al.  Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use , 2002, Land Economics.

[11]  J. Preston,et al.  The demand for public transport: The effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership , 2006 .

[12]  A R Danaher.  NEW TRANSIT CAPACITY AND QUALITY OF SERVICE MANUAL , 2000 .

[13]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum , 2006 .

[14]  John M. Rose,et al.  Growing patronage - Challenges and what has been found to work , 2008 .

[15]  Stephen K. Swallow,et al.  Asymmetries in Ordered Strength of Preference Models: Implications of Focus Shift for Discrete-Choice Preference Estimation , 1999 .

[16]  Hugh Gunn,et al.  STATED PREFERENCE ANALYSIS OF VALUES OF TRAVEL TIME IN THE NETHERLANDS , 1990 .

[17]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  Neighborhood impacts on land use change: a multinomial logit model of spatial relationships , 2008 .

[18]  Manuel J. Martinez,et al.  Value of the Facilities and Attributes of New Heavy Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Projects in a Developing City: The Case of Lima, Peru , 2003 .

[19]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Development of Commuter and Non-Commuter Mode Choice Models for the Assessment of New Public Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Case Study , 2007 .

[20]  Christopher E. Ferrell,et al.  TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: EXPERIENCES, CHALLENGES, AND PROSPECTS , 2004 .

[21]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Neighborhood Representation in Residential Location Choice Analysis , 2006 .

[22]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Assessing systematic sources of variation in public transport elasticities: Some comparative warnings , 2008 .

[23]  John M. Rose,et al.  Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .

[24]  Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al.  Who are resource nonusers and what can they tell us about nonuse values? Decomposing user and nonuser willingness to pay for coastal wetland restoration , 2005 .

[25]  Dana Marie Bauer,et al.  Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes , 2003, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[26]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[27]  John M. Rose,et al.  The implications on willingness to pay of a stochastic treatment of attribute processing in stated choice studies , 2007 .

[28]  ECONorthwest,et al.  Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects: A Guidebook for Practitioners , 2002 .

[29]  Michael Duncan,et al.  Transit’s Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial Land Values , 2002 .

[30]  Marco Kouwenhoven,et al.  Value of Reliability of Travellers on the Paris Suburban Railway Network , 2006 .

[31]  D. Hensher,et al.  Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates , 2005 .

[32]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Comprehensive, Unified Framework for Analyzing Spatial Location Choice , 2007 .

[33]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: Evidence from the San Francisco bay area , 2007 .

[34]  Clare Boothe Luce,et al.  Location Choice vis-à-vis Transportation : The Case of Apartment Dwellers , 2006 .

[35]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[36]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  Effects of Location Elements on Home Purchase Prices and Rents in San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[37]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A Self Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial and Nested Logit Models , 2006 .

[38]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Numerical Analysis of Effect of Sampling of Alternatives in Discrete Choice Models , 2004 .

[39]  Bert Van Wee,et al.  Option Value of Public Transport: Methodology for Measurement and Case Study for Regional Rail Links in the Netherlands , 2006 .

[40]  Peter R. Stopher,et al.  Service quality––developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts , 2003 .

[41]  H. Lund.  Reasons for Living in a Transit-Oriented Development, and Associated Transit Use , 2006 .

[42]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Understanding suburban travel demand: Flexible modelling with revealed and stated choice data , 2007 .

[43]  John M. Rose,et al.  Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models , 2008 .

[44]  Paul Ryus,et al.  Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, and Implementing Suburban Transit Services , 2006 .

[45]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus , 2002 .