Using latent attitudinal variables estimated through a structural equations model for understanding carpooling propensity

Abstract Carpooling systems have never been able to achieve significant reductions in the use of private vehicles. The psychological barriers associated with riding with nonacquaintances and losing the flexibility of using one's private vehicle as a single occupant are often referred to. However, the effect of these issues is hard to determine as they reveal subjective attitudes not easy to quantify. In order to measure these attitudes a survey was conducted in Lisbon (Portugal). In this survey, we collected data for several attitudinal variables and conducted a stated preference experiment comparing driving alone/with family with external carpooling. A simultaneous estimation of the latent attitudinal factors and the probabilities of choice were conducted through a structural equations model. The model results show that attitudes play an important role in the decision to carpool, and they also act as mediators from socio-demographic characteristics. The negative aspects of carpooling may be overcome by the positive aspects; however, our results also stress the difficulties associated with changing from an acquaintance-based carpool to a broader system which may hinder the possibility of expanding the number of carpoolers in big cities.

[1]  Linda Steg,et al.  INSTRUMENTAL-REASONED AND SYMBOLIC-AFFECTIVE MOTIVES FOR USING A MOTOR CAR , 2001 .

[2]  Maria Johansson,et al.  The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice , 2006 .

[3]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  Asymmetries in Attachments to Groups and to their Members: Distinguishing between Common-Identity and Common-Bond Groups , 1994 .

[4]  N. L. Chervany,et al.  Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships , 1998 .

[5]  E. Miller Handbook of Social Psychology , 1946, Mental Health.

[6]  R. C. Hansen,et al.  A car pooling system using heuristic costs , 1975 .

[7]  James M. Cargal Social relations as algebraic relations , 1980, WSC '80.

[8]  P Spaulding,et al.  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS , 1983 .

[9]  D. Kaplan Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions , 2000 .

[10]  D. McFadden The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[11]  John R. Hauser,et al.  DESTINATION CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR NON-GROCERY-SHOPPING TRIPS , 1978 .

[12]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Ride Sharing: Psychological Factors , 1977 .

[13]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice - eScholarship , 2004 .

[14]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language , 1993 .

[15]  Amelia C. Regan,et al.  Trucking industry adoption of information technology: a multivariate discrete choice model , 2002 .

[16]  Da-Jie Lin,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Factors in Estimating the Potential of Ride-sharing for Demand Reduction , 1999 .

[17]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  A Structural Probit Model with Latent Variables , 1979 .

[18]  Douglas M. King,et al.  Fuel saving and ridesharing in the US: Motivations, limitations, and opportunities , 2009 .

[19]  H. Kaiser The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis , 1958 .

[20]  B. Muthén A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators , 1984 .

[21]  Erin A Bard Transit and Carpool Commuting and Household Vehicle Trip Making: Panel Data Analysis , 1996 .

[22]  Michael P. Keane,et al.  A model of health plan choice:: Inferring preferences and perceptions from a combination of revealed preference and attitudinal data , 1998 .

[23]  G. Correia,et al.  Carpooling and carpool clubs: Clarifying concepts and assessing value enhancement possibilities through a Stated Preference web survey in Lisbon, Portugal , 2011 .

[24]  T F Golob,et al.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RIDESHARING INCENTIVES: DISCRETE-CHOICE MODELS OF COMMUTING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. REVISED EDITION , 1991 .

[25]  Suzanne B Kurth,et al.  CAR-POOLING PROGRAMS: SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM? , 1977 .

[26]  J. D. Hunt,et al.  Stated-Preference Examination of Attitudes Toward Carpooling to Work in Calgary , 1997 .

[27]  Donald J Dailey,et al.  Seattle smart traveler: dynamic ridematching on the World Wide Web , 1999 .

[28]  David W. McDonald,et al.  Social matching: A framework and research agenda , 2005, TCHI.

[29]  N. Oppenheim,et al.  CARPOOLING: PROBLEMS AND POTENTIALS , 1979 .

[30]  Thomas F. Golob,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling For Travel Behavior Research , 2001 .

[31]  Philip L Winters,et al.  Impact of Carpooling on Trip-Chaining Behavior and Emission Reductions , 2007 .

[32]  R. Teal Carpooling: Who, how and why☆ , 1987 .

[33]  Franklin Farell Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area: Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system , 2014 .

[34]  E. Ferguson The rise and fall of the American carpool: 1970–1990 , 1997 .

[35]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models , 1999 .

[36]  José Manuel Viegas,et al.  Applying a structured simulation-based methodology to assess carpooling time–space potential , 2010 .

[37]  E. W. Walbridge Real time ridesharing using wireless pocket phones to access the ride matching computer , 1995, Pacific Rim TransTech Conference. 1995 Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference Proceedings. 6th International VNIS. A Ride into the Future.

[38]  Samer Madanat,et al.  ANALYSIS OF STATED ROUTE DIVERSION INTENTIONS UNDER ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS USING LATENT VARIABLE MODELING , 1995 .

[39]  C. Morency The ambivalence of ridesharing , 2007 .

[40]  M. Keane Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior , 1997 .

[41]  Anne R. Kearney,et al.  A Knowledge-Based Intervention for Promoting Carpooling , 1995 .

[42]  Joseph B. Margolin,et al.  INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES OF RIDE SHARING , 1978 .