maarten kroesen section transport and logistics (tlo)
DESCRIPTION
Modeling the behavioral determinants of travel behavior: an application of latent transition analysis. Maarten Kroesen Section Transport and Logistics (TLO). Transportation: a mixed blessing. Sustainable mobility. Two types of questions. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Modeling the behavioral determinants of travel behavior: an application of
latent transition analysis
Maarten KroesenSection Transport and Logistics (TLO)
2
Transportation: a mixed blessing
3
Sustainable mobility
4
• What determines people’s mode choice? (cost, travel time, flexibility, income, attitudes)
• What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?
If better PT generates travel (instead of substituting car travel) better PT is of little use…
Two types of questions
5
What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?Golob, T. F. and Meurs, H. (1987) A structural model of temporal change in multi-modal travel demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21, 391-400.
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
6
What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?Golob, T. F. and Meurs, H. (1987) A structural model of temporal change in multi-modal travel demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21, 391-400.
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
Insights:• Travel behavior is generally inert
++
++
++
7
What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?Golob, T. F. and Meurs, H. (1987) A structural model of temporal change in multi-modal travel demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21, 391-400.
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
Insights:• Travel behavior is generally inert• Car demand is affected by bicycle
demand, but not by PT demand
++
++
++
-
8
What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?Golob, T. F. and Meurs, H. (1987) A structural model of temporal change in multi-modal travel demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21, 391-400.
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
Insights:• Travel behavior is generally inert• Car demand is affected by bicycle
demand, but not by PT demand• Bicycle demand is affected by car
and PT demand
++
++
++
-
-
-
9
What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?Golob, T. F. and Meurs, H. (1987) A structural model of temporal change in multi-modal travel demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21, 391-400.
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
Insights:• Travel behavior is generally inert• Car demand is affected by bicycle
demand, but not by PT demand• Bicycle demand is affected by car
and PT demand• PT demand is not affected by car or
bicycle demand
++
++
++
-
-
-
10
What are the patterns of substitution / complementarity between modes?Golob, T. F. and Meurs, H. (1987) A structural model of temporal change in multi-modal travel demand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 21, 391-400.
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
Questions:• No direct effect between PT and car
use, but maybe cycling aids in the transition from car to PT?
• Which kind of transitions can be identified?
• Which travel patterns can be identified?
• What is the influence of external conditions/events on transition behavior (e.g. sex, age, moving house)?
++
++
++
-
-
-
11
An alternative conceptualization
Travel behavio
r pattern
s
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
e
e
e
Travel behavio
r pattern
s
SexAge
Moved house
Year 2Year 1 A B CTravel pattern A Paa Pab PacTravel pattern B Pba Pbb PbcTravel pattern C Pca Pcb Pcc
Matrix of transition probabilities
LCM LCM
Latent transition model
Data• The Dutch mobility panel • 10 bi-annual waves (March and September)
from 1984 to 1989• 3500-4000 individuals per wave• Analysis was based on 6 March waves• Data were pooled into 2 waves• N=5,314
12
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6x1 x2 x3 x4
y1 y2 y3z1 z2 z3 z4
Wave 1 Wave 2
x1 x2y1 y2z2 z3
13
Descriptivestatistics
Variable Wave 1 Wave 2Weekly trips by car Mean (SD) 7.2 (9.5) 7.1 (9.3)Weekly trips by bicycle Mean (SD) 7.5 (8.6) 7.0 (8.4)Weekly trips by public transport Mean (SD) 1.4 (3.4) 1.3 (3.2)
Sex (%) Male 50 50Female 50 50
Age Mean (SD) 37.3 (17.1)
38.3 (17.1)
Education level (%)High school / vocational education 79 78Higher education 20 21
Income (%)0 - 15,000 guilders 53 4915,000 - 34,000 guilders 37 37>34,000 guilders 5 7Missing 6 7
Occupational status (%)
Works in government 12 13Works in company or self-employed 29 30Student 22 21Works in household 22 21Retiree 7 8Other 8 8Missing 0 0
City type (%)Small city 76 77Big city (Amsterdam or Rotterdam) 24 23
Car license holder (%) No 40 38Yes 60 62
Number of cars in household (%)
0 20 201 66 652 or more 14 16
Train season-ticket holder (%) No 96 97Yes 4 3
Moved house (%) No 87 Yes 13
14
Distributions (N=5,314)
Trips by car Trips by bicycle Trips by PT
Count variables integer and positive
Latent class model
Travel behavio
r pattern
s
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1
e
e
e
LCM
Count data assume that LC represents a mixture of Poisson distributions (i.e. each class is associated with a different Poisson mean for each indicator),
such that the associations between the residuals equal 0 (assumption of conditional independence, similar to FA)
00
0
16
Finding the optimal number of classes Bivariate residuals
N=5,314Number
of classes
LL L² df p-value%
Reduction in L2 (H0)
car-bicycl
ecar-
publicbicycle-public
Wave 1
1-
8735112356
3 5311 0.00 0.007919.
7 2587.8 125.1
2-
58949 66757 5300 0.00 0.46 14.8 10.4 1061.4
3-
49385 47629 5289 0.00 0.61 48.7 0.0 68.2
4-
44381 37621 5278 0.00 0.70 0.1 1.7 17.4
5-
41069 30998 5267 0.00 0.75 2.1 1.6 1.5
6-
39637 28135 5256 0.00 0.77 1.2 0.0 1.2
7-
38417 25693 5245 0.00 0.79 3.8 41.8 1.5
8-
37515 23891 5234 0.00 0.81 7.6 37.5 0.2
9-
36738 22336 5223 0.00 0.82 6.4 0.1 0.1
10-
36024 20909 5212 0.00 0.83 0.7 0.1 0.6
Wave 2
1-
8554712049
3 5311 0.00 0.007676.
2 2679.8 63.1
2-
57616 64631 5300 0.00 0.46 3.9 16.4 958.6
3-
48310 46018 5289 0.00 0.62 15.1 0.5 45.3
4-
43811 37020 5278 0.00 0.69 2.3 5.2 0.7
5-
40457 30313 5267 0.00 0.75 0.1 1.6 3.3
6-
39127 27653 5256 0.00 0.77 1.1 0.3 12.9
7-
37974 25346 5245 0.00 0.79 1.7 13.0 11.2
8-
36985 23368 5234 0.00 0.81 0.0 9.8 1.1
9-
36266 21930 5223 0.00 0.82 0.1 0.6 1.5
10-
35564 20527 5212 0.00 0.83 3.3 0.2 1.2
<3.84 n.s.
17
N=5,314 Class 1 2 3 4 5Class size (%) 28 28 18 16 11
IndicatorsCar trip rate Poisson
mean 0.2 18.6 0.9 11.1 1.0
Bicycle trip rate Poisson mean 17.1 0.6 1.3 11.2 5.3
Public transport trip rate
Poisson mean 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 9.5
5-class solution: indicator profiles
18
Latent class model with covariates
Travel behavio
r pattern
s
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1
e
e
e
SexAge
Moved house
LCM
Multinomial logit (MNL) model
19
N=5,314 (wave 1) Class 1 2 3 4 5Class size (%) 28 28 18 16 11
IndicatorsCar trip rate Mean 0.2 18.6 0.9 11.1 1.0
Bicycle trip rate Mean 17.1 0.6 1.3 11.2 5.3Public transport trip rate Mean 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 9.5Active covariates Sex (%) Male 44 69 30 56 47
Female 56 31 70 44 53Age Mean 27.6 40.8 46.5 39.4 34.6Moved house (%) No 87 87 89 86 89
Yes 13 13 11 15 11Inactive covariates
Education level (%)High school / vocational education 84 74 89 69 78Higher education 15 25 9 31 22
Income (%)0 - 15,000 guilders 76 24 66 42 5915,000 - 34,000 guilders 16 60 26 48 31>34,000 guilders 1 11 2 6 4Missing 8 5 7 3 6
Occupational status (%)
Works in government 7 18 5 21 12Works in company or self-employed 14 50 16 35 22Student 53 3 10 6 39Works in household 18 12 44 25 13Retiree 3 8 13 6 8Other 5 9 12 6 6
Community type (%)Small city 79 80 71 83 59Big city (Amsterdam or Rotterdam) 21 21 29 17 41
Car license (%) No 76 2 57 4 69Yes 24 98 43 96 31
Number of cars in household (%)
0 32 1 28 4 481 58 72 62 86 452 or more 10 27 10 10 7
Train season ticket (%)
No 98 99 97 99 79Yes 2 1 3 1 21
Latent classprofiles
20
21
Latent transition model with covariates
Travel behavio
r pattern
s
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Car use
Bicycle use
Public transport
use
Year1 Year2
e
e
e
e
e
e
Travel behavio
r pattern
s
SexAge
Moved house
MNL model
22
Wave 2Wave 1 Parameter SB SC LT JCB PT (ref.) Intercept -2.16 (-
6.03)-0.96 (-
3.27)-1.98 (-
7.11)-2.88 (-
5.26) 0
Strict bicycle user
Slope 4.60 (10.12) 1.33 (2.01) 2.94 (4.79) 4.79 (6.35) 0
Sex (female) -0.31 (-1.33)
-1.72 (-3.58) 0.01 (0.02) -0.23 (-
0.66) 0
Age (standardized) 0.23 (1.17) -0.42 (-0.42) 0.88 (4.23) -0.14 (-
0.31) 0
Age2 0.22 (1.24) -1.66 (-2.16)
-0.03 (-0.13)
-1.30 (-3.13) 0
Moved house (yes) 0.05 (0.16) 1.23 (2.51) 0.46 (1.13) 0.51 (1.17) 0
Strict car user
Slope 1.59 (3.28) 4.69 (10.57) 2.95 (5.17) 4.77 (7.22) 0
Sex (female) 0.93 (1.39) 0.16 (0.34) 1.21 (2.39) 0.77 (1.54) 0Age (standardized) -0.21 (-
0.34) 0.78 (2.08) 1.13 (2.64) 0.64 (1.62) 0
Age2 0.22 (0.35) -0.17 (-0.38)
-0.15 (-0.32)
-0.08 (-0.17) 0
Moved house (yes) 0.03 (0.04) -0.49 (-1.00)
-0.86 (-1.44)
-0.12 (-0.23) 0
Light traveler
Slope 2.58 (5.82) 3.02 (6.56) 4.48 (8.41) 3.70 (5.18) 0Sex (female) 0.15 (0.33) -1.16 (-
2.50) 0.00 (0.00) -0.63 (-1.14) 0
Age (standardized) -0.15 (-0.70) 0.64 (3.04) 1.07 (5.32) 0.97 (3.17) 0
Age2 0.10 (0.59) -0.47 (-2.69)
-0.22 (-1.50)
-1.30 (-2.28) 0
Moved house (yes) 0.19 (0.32) 0.57 (0.92) -0.04 (-0.07)
-0.86 (-0.93) 0
Joint car and bicycle user
Slope 3.74 (5.59) 4.24 (6.35) 4.26 (5.25) 7.74 (9.75) 0Sex (female) 0.04 (0.07) -0.84 (-
1.37) 0.19 (0.28) -0.63 (-1.06) 0
Age (standardized) 0.88 (1.62) 1.30 (2.63) 2.01 (3.24) 1.57 (3.26) 0Age2 -0.78 (-
1.36)-1.15 (-
2.90)-0.97 (-
2.68)-1.15 (-
3.22) 0
Moved house (yes) -0.94 (-1.32)
-0.86 (-1.23)
-0.95 (-1.12)
-0.99 (-1.47) 0
Public transport user
Slope (ref.) 0 0 0 0 0Sex (female) 0.10 (0.35) -0.76 (-
1.99) 0.60 (1.79) 0.64 (1.03) 0
Age (standardized) -0.68 (-3.50) 0.08 (0.28) 0.26 (1.68) -0.67 (-
1.09) 0
Age2 0.05 (0.29) -0.98 (-2.80)
-0.11 (-0.84)
-1.22 (-2.38) 0
Moved house (yes) 0.93 (2.43) -0.76 (-0.97) 0.24 (0.48) 0.73 (1.00) 0
23
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07Strict car user 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.10 0.02Light traveler 0.14 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.05Joint car and bicycle user 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.02Public transport user 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.65
Matrix of transition probabilities
24
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07Strict car user 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.10 0.02Light traveler 0.14 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.05Joint car and bicycle user 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.02Public transport user 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.65
Matrix of transition probabilities
Single mode users more inert than multi-modal users
25
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07Strict car user 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.10 0.02Light traveler 0.14 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.05Joint car and bicycle user 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.02Public transport user 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.65
Matrix of transition probabilities
Very few transition between single-modal user patterns,the joint car+bicycle patterns acts as an intermediate step
26
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07Strict car user 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.10 0.02Light traveler 0.14 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.05Joint car and bicycle user 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.02Public transport user 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.65
Matrix of transition probabilities
Strict car users have the same probability of moving towards the PT profileas joint car+bicycle users
27
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07Strict car user 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.10 0.02Light traveler 0.14 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.05Joint car and bicycle user 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.02Public transport user 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.65
Matrix of transition probabilities
However, there is relatively much movement between the PT profile and the strict bicycle profile
28
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07Strict car user 0.02 0.78 0.09 0.10 0.02Light traveler 0.14 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.05Joint car and bicycle user 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.02Public transport user 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.65
Matrix of transition probabilities
This is for the sample as a whole, but that are significant interactions!Solution: compute matrix for different subgroups
29
Wave 2
Young (Mean - SD = 20.2)
Middle-aged (Mean=37.3)
Old (Mean + SD = 54.4)
SB SC LT JCB PT SB SC LT JCB PT SB SC LT JCB PT
Wave 1
DidNotMoveHouse
Male
SB 0.79
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.62 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.75 0.0
10.18
0.02
0.04
SC 0.03
0.79
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.01 0.84 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.8
30.08
0.07
0.01
LT 0.28
0.24
0.34
0.04
0.10
0.08 0.27 0.46 0.15 0.04 0.05 0.2
00.66
0.07
0.02
JCB 0.16
0.24
0.02
0.52
0.06
0.07 0.23 0.03 0.66 0.01 0.05 0.1
90.06
0.70
0.00
PT 0.16
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.67
0.07 0.23 0.08 0.03 0.59 0.04 0.1
10.12
0.01
0.72
Female
SB 0.78
0.01
0.07
0.05
0.09
0.62 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.69 0.0
00.23
0.02
0.05
SC 0.06
0.67
0.09
0.14
0.04
0.02 0.71 0.14 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.6
80.19
0.11
0.01
LT 0.37
0.09
0.40
0.03
0.12
0.12 0.11 0.61 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.0
80.79
0.04
0.03
JCB 0.27
0.17
0.03
0.44
0.10
0.13 0.18 0.06 0.62 0.01 0.10 0.1
40.12
0.64
0.01
PT 0.17
0.04
0.11
0.04
0.64
0.08 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.60 0.05 0.0
50.20
0.01
0.69
MovedHouse
Male
SB 0.70
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.46 0.24 0.11 0.15 0.04 0.67 0.0
30.24
0.03
0.04
SC 0.05
0.73
0.02
0.12
0.07
0.01 0.81 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.8
10.06
0.10
0.02
LT 0.28
0.35
0.27
0.01
0.08
0.09 0.43 0.39 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.3
20.58
0.03
0.02
JCB 0.15
0.24
0.02
0.45
0.14
0.07 0.25 0.03 0.63 0.01 0.06 0.2
00.06
0.67
0.01
PT 0.33
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.54
0.16 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.57 0.11 0.0
50.14
0.01
0.69
Female
SB 0.72
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.52 0.07 0.17 0.18 0.06 0.61 0.0
10.30
0.03
0.04
SC 0.09
0.61
0.06
0.19
0.05
0.03 0.69 0.09 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.6
80.13
0.16
0.01
LT 0.41
0.14
0.34
0.01
0.10
0.15 0.20 0.57 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.1
30.75
0.02
0.03
JCB 0.23
0.16
0.03
0.36
0.22
0.13 0.19 0.06 0.59 0.02 0.10 0.1
50.12
0.62
0.02
PT 0.33
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.49
0.17 0.04 0.16 0.11 0.51 0.11 0.0
20.23
0.02
0.62
30
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.75 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.04Strict car user 0.00 0.83 0.08 0.07 0.01Light traveler 0.05 0.20 0.66 0.07 0.02Joint car and bicycle user 0.05 0.19 0.06 0.70 0.00Public transport user 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.72
Old men who did not move house
(N=5,314) Wave 2Wave 1 SB SC LT JCB PTStrict bicycle user 0.72 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.08Strict car user 0.09 0.61 0.06 0.19 0.05Light traveler 0.41 0.14 0.34 0.01 0.10Joint car and bicycle user 0.23 0.16 0.03 0.36 0.22Public transport user 0.33 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.49
Young women who did move house
31
Conclusions• People’s travel behavior can be condensed into
five clusters.• The clusters point to different patterns of
complementarity and substitution between the modes.
• The research shows that multimodal users are more likely to switch than single-mode users.
• Younger people are generally less inert than older people
• People’s travel behavior becomes more in flux after a move
• For younger people it holds that the bicycle may aid in the transition from a car to PT profile.
32
Reflection and future research
• LTA modeling requires (very) large sample sizes• Data in this study are old (25 years)• Explore influence of built environment / level of
service• Explore influence of other life events (children,
divorce, death of a family member, job change)• Explore influence of attitudes / lifestyle• Explore two-way interactions