Allowing for Heterogeneity in the Consideration of Airport Access Modes: The Case of Bari Airport

Mode choice models traditionally assume that all objectively available alternatives are considered. This might not always be a reasonable assumption, even when the number of alternatives is limited. Consideration of alternatives, like many other aspects of the decision-making process, cannot be observed by the analyst, and can only be imperfectly measured. As part of a stated choice survey aimed at unveiling air passengers’ preferences for access modes to Bari International Airport in Italy, we collected a wide set of indicators that either directly or indirectly measure respondents’ consideration of the public transport alternatives. In our access mode choice model, consideration of public transport services was treated as a latent variable, and entered the utility function for this mode through a “discounting” factor. The proposed integrated choice and latent variable approach allows the analyst not only to overcome potential endogeneity and measurement error issues associated with the indicators, but also makes the model suitable for forecasting. As a result of accounting for consideration effects, we observed an improvement in fit that also held in a validation sample; moreover, the effects of policy changes aimed at improving the modal share of public transport were considerably reduced.

[1]  John M. Rose,et al.  The influence of alternative acceptability, Attribute thresholds and choice response certainty on automobile purchase preferences , 2012 .

[2]  Mark Hansen,et al.  Improvements to Airport Ground Access and Behavior of Multiple Airport System: BART Extension to San Francisco International Airport , 1996 .

[3]  J. Ortúzar,et al.  A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception , 2005 .

[4]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges , 2002 .

[5]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[6]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Making use of respondent reported processing information to understand attribute importance: a latent variable scaling approach , 2013 .

[7]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Behavior After the Introduction of a New Mode: a Case Study of Taoyuan International Airport in Taiwan , 2011 .

[8]  W. Lam,et al.  MODELING AIR PASSENGER TRAVEL BEHAVIOR ON AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS MODE CHOICES , 2008 .

[9]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Exploring the potential for cross-nesting structures in airport-choice analysis: A case-study of the Greater London area , 2006 .

[10]  Julian Arellana,et al.  Incentivizing alternative fuel vehicles: the influence of transport policies, attitudes and perceptions , 2018 .

[11]  Leigh Fisher Associates Strategies for Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports , 2002 .

[12]  Greig Harvey,et al.  Study of Airport Access Mode Choice , 1986 .

[13]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Access to and Competition Between Airports: A Case Study for the San Francisco Bay Area , 2003 .

[14]  Joffre Swait,et al.  A NON-COMPENSATORY CHOICE MODEL INCORPORATING ATTRIBUTE CUTOFFS , 2001 .

[15]  F. Martínez,et al.  The constrained multinomial logit: A semi-compensatory choice model , 2009 .

[16]  Peter Vovsha,et al.  Air Passenger Preferences for Choice of Airport and Ground Access Mode in the New York City Metropolitan Region , 2008 .

[17]  M. Bierlaire,et al.  Sampling of Alternatives for Route Choice Modeling , 2009 .

[18]  Chinh Q. Ho,et al.  The role of perceived acceptability of alternatives in identifying and assessing choice set processing strategies in stated choice settings: The case of road pricing reform , 2015 .

[19]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Hybrid Choice Models with Logit Kernel: Applicability to Large Scale Models1 , 2005 .

[20]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful , 2016 .

[21]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Airport and Airline Choice in a Multiple Airport Region: An Empirical Analysis for the San Francisco Bay Area , 2001 .

[22]  Matthew A Coogan Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation , 2008 .

[23]  Dimitrios A Tsamboulas,et al.  Modeling airport employees commuting mode choice , 2011 .

[24]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay Area , 2004 .

[25]  Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al.  Hybrid discrete choice models: Gained insights versus increasing effort. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

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

[27]  Andrea Papola,et al.  Random utility models with implicit availability/perception of choice alternatives for the simulation of travel demand , 2001 .

[28]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Hybrid Choice Models with Logit Kernel , 2005 .

[29]  Leigh Fisher Associates Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports , 2000 .

[30]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  EMPIRICAL TEST OF A CONSTRAINED CHOICE DISCRETE MODEL : MODE CHOICE IN SAO PAULO, BRAZIL , 1987 .

[31]  M. Hansen,et al.  Improvements to Airport Ground Access and Behavior of Multiple Airport System: BART Extension to San Francisco International Airport , 1996 .

[32]  S. Hess,et al.  Understanding the formation and influence of attitudes in patients' treatment choices for lower back pain: testing the benefits of a hybrid choice model approach. , 2014, Social science & medicine.

[33]  William H. K. Lam,et al.  The Impact of Travel Time Reliability and Perceived Service Quality on Airport Ground Access Mode Choice , 2011 .

[34]  Saad N. Alhussein Analysis of ground access modes choice King Khaled International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , 2011 .

[35]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete choice models with latent choice sets , 1995 .