An analysis of Metro ridership at the station-to-station level in Seoul

While most aggregate studies of transit ridership are conducted at either the stop or the route level, the present study focused on factors affecting Metro ridership in the Seoul metropolitan area at the station-to-station level. The station-to-station analysis made it possible to distinguish the effect of origin factors on Metro ridership from that of destination factors and to cut down the errors caused by the aggregation of travel impedance-related variables. After adopting two types of direct-demand patronage forecasting models, the multiplicative model and the Poisson regression model, the former was found to be superior to the latter because it clearly identified the negative influences of competing modes on Metro ridership. Such results are rarely found with aggregate level analyses. Moreover, the importance of built environment in explaining Metro demand was confirmed by separating built environment variables for origin and destination stations and by differentiating ridership by the time of day. For morning peak hours, the population-related variables of the origin stations played a key role in accounting for Metro ridership, while employment-related variables prevailed in destination stations. In evening peak hours, both employment- and population-related variables were significant in accounting for the Metro ridership at the destination station. This showed that a significant number of people in the Seoul metropolitan area appear to take various non-home-based trips after work, which is consistent with the results from direct household travel surveys.

[1]  Zhong-ren Peng,et al.  A simultaneous route-level transit patronage model: demand, supply, and inter-route relationship , 1997 .

[2]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels , 2007 .

[3]  Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson,et al.  Analysis of light rail rider travel behavior: Impacts of individual, built environment, and crime characteristics on transit access , 2007 .

[4]  Xiaobai Angela Yao,et al.  Where are public transit needed - Examining potential demand for public transit for commuting trips , 2007, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[5]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis: Text and Readings , 1979 .

[6]  Xuehao Chu,et al.  Transit Ridership Models at the Stop Level , 2004 .

[7]  Mark Wardman,et al.  INTER-URBAN RAIL DEMAND, ELASTICITIES AND COMPETITION IN GREAT BRITAIN: EVIDENCE FROM DIRECT DEMAND MODELS , 1997 .

[8]  R. Ewing,et al.  Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change , 2008 .

[9]  John Stillwell,et al.  Migration models: macro and micro approaches. , 1992 .

[10]  Brian Canepa,et al.  Bursting the Bubble , 2007 .

[11]  Marc Schlossberg,et al.  Comparing Transit-Oriented Development Sites by Walkability Indicators , 2004 .

[12]  Russell L. Ivy,et al.  The Restructuring of Air Transport Linkages in the New Europe* , 1995, The Professional Geographer.

[13]  Elisabeth M. Hamin,et al.  Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia , 2009 .

[14]  Daniel K Boyle.  Fixed-Route Transit Ridership Forecasting and Service Planning Methods , 2006 .

[15]  A. Khattak,et al.  Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA , 2005 .

[16]  Lester B. Lave.  THE DEMAND FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION , 1972 .

[17]  M. Kuby,et al.  Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States , 2004 .

[18]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[19]  Robert Cervero,et al.  Rail + Property Development: A model of sustainable transit finance and urbanism , 2008 .

[20]  R. Cervero,et al.  TRAVEL DEMAND AND THE 3DS: DENSITY, DIVERSITY, AND DESIGN , 1997 .

[21]  Luis Ferreira,et al.  PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS , 1998 .

[22]  Ann Forsyth,et al.  The built environment, walking, and physical activity: Is the environment more important to some people than others? , 2009 .

[23]  D. Rodriguez,et al.  The relationship between urban form and station boardings for Bogotá's BRT , 2008 .

[24]  Gregory L. Thompson.  Achieving Suburban Transit Potential: Sacramento Revisited , 1997 .

[25]  S. O’sullivan,et al.  Walking Distances to and from Light-Rail Transit Stations , 1996 .

[26]  G S Rutherford,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF POPULATION DENSITY AND INCOME ON PER CAPITA TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN WESTERN AMERICAN CITIES , 1990 .

[27]  Keemin Sohn,et al.  Separation of car-dependent commuters from normal-choice riders in mode-choice analysis , 2009 .

[28]  R. Cervero.  Alternative Approaches to Modeling the Travel-Demand Impacts of Smart Growth , 2006 .

[29]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of Northern California , 2009 .

[30]  Keemin Sohn,et al.  Factors generating boardings at Metro stations in the Seoul metropolitan area , 2010 .

[31]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[32]  B. Taylor,et al.  The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature , 2003 .

[33]  Xuehao Chu,et al.  RIDERSHIP MODELS AT THE STOP LEVEL , 2004 .

[34]  Keemin Sohn,et al.  Zonal centrality measures and the neighborhood effect , 2010 .