1 / 16

WP 2 “Automobile”

COST action 355 WATCH. WP 2 “Automobile” The relationship between the specific (dis)utility and the frequency of driving a car Marco Diana Politecnico di Torino, ITALY FUNDP, Namur, 2 nd December 2004. Transport planning models.

sierra
Download Presentation

WP 2 “Automobile”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. COST action 355 WATCH WP 2 “Automobile” The relationship between the specific (dis)utility and the frequency of driving a car Marco Diana Politecnico di Torino, ITALY FUNDP, Namur, 2nd December 2004

  2. Transport planning models • Trip-based models: trips and traffic flows are at the core of the modelling effort (4 steps…) • Activity-based models: transport demand is derived from underlying activity patterns however… • A too rigid interpretation of the “activity-based paradigm” seems not appropriate: • (Individual) travel time budgets • “Irrational” travel behaviours and choices • Telework-commute trips complementarity • Research work by Mokhtarian et al. (2001)

  3. Mohktarian (2001b) Mohktarian (2001a) Gaia (2003): Teleportation test Some results from previous researches

  4. Research objective Primary utility = portion of the total utility not dependent on the fact of leaving a place to reach another place • Final goal: the assessment of the influence of the primary utility of travel (if any) on travel behaviour, against the influence of the derived utility • Milestones of our research: • Endogenous variable: car driving frequency • Data source: NTAUS (2002) • Considering mode-related primary utility

  5. Methodological challenges • We face a serious measurement problem: primary and derived utility are often confounded by respondents • Idea: to focus on the presence of reported difficulties and limiting behaviours while driving • Assumption: the above affects the primary more than the derived utility of travel • Limitation: the method works only in presence of difficulties and limiting behaviours

  6. Case study: the NTAUS dataset • In 2002, the National Transportation Availability and Use Survey (NTAUS) has been carried out in the U.S. • 5019 completed surveys (about half with persons with disabilities) • Not a classical mobility survey. Covered topics: • Trip frequencies per mode • Household vehicles ownership and use • Experiences, opinions and difficulties related to the use of different transport modes

  7. Exploratory factorial analyses Literature search Statistical confir-mation Methodological steps • Define a suitable measurement model for the “primary utility” construct • Define causal interrelationships between: • Socioeconomic variables • Primary utility • Driving frequency Simultaneous estimation of the measurement and of the structural models through a structural equation modelling technique

  8. EFA for the measurement model (1/2) Driving-related fitness: “The following is worse/same/better than 5 years ago:” • ……………………….…….. 0.504 • ……………………………………….. 0.655 • ……………………………………………….. 0.573 • …………………………………………. 0.755 • ………………… 0.750 • ……………………………………. 0.685 Driving-related fitness: “The following is worse/same/better than 5 years ago:” • Eyesight or night vision • Attention span • Hearing • Coordination • Reaction time to brake or swerve • Depth perception

  9. EFA for the measurement model (2/2) Driving self-limitations: “Do you usually…” • ……………………………….……. 0.533 • ……………………………………………. 0.673 • ………………………………..….….. 0.616 • ……………………….. 0.696 • …………………………… 0.650 • ……………………. 0.371 • ……………………………………………. 0.371 • ………………………………… 0.615 • …… 0.690 • ……………………. 0.679 Driving self-limitations: “Do you usually…” • Drive less than you used to • Avoid driving at night • Drive less in bad weather • Avoid high-speed roads and highways • Avoid busy roads and intersections • Drive slower than the posted speed limits • Avoid left-hand turns • Avoid driving during rush hour • Avoid driving on unfamiliar roads or to unfamiliar places • Avoid driving distances of over 100 miles

  10. Rationale of the structural model • General model structure: research on the relationships between socioeconomic characteristics, attitudes, perceptions and choice • Socioeconomic variables influence primary utility and driving frequency; primary utility also influences driving frequency • No feedback loops are modeled at this stage (hierarchical and recursive model)

  11. Gender Age Number of household vehicles Income: • Less than $15,000 • $15,000 – $50,000 • Over $50,000 Presence of modified vehicles Household kind: • Lives alone • Lives with spouse • Lives with kids • Lives with parents • Lives with others Driving-related fitness Physical impairments: • None • Mild • Moderate • Severe Driving self-limitations Needs help to travel Unavailable transport Structural model path diagram Driving frequency

  12. Estimation results: direct effects

  13. Total effects on driving frequency

  14. Gender Age Number of household vehicles Income: • Less than $15,000 • $15,000 – $50,000 • Over $50,000 Presence of modified vehicles Household kind: • Lives alone • Lives with spouse • Lives with kids • Lives with parents • Lives with others Overfitting model Physical impairments: • None • Mild • Moderate • Severe Needs help to travel Unavailable transport Not considering the primary utility Driving frequency

  15. Conclusions and future work • The importance of the primary utility of travel seems confirmed within the selected framework • Case study: to combine specific information on primary utility with a classical mobility survey dataset • Measurement model: to define constructs for people that do not report difficulties or limiting behaviors • Structural model: to have a better representation of cognitive processes (feedback from driving frequency)

  16. Thank you The relationship between the specific (dis)utility and the frequency of driving a car Research carried out in collaboration with INRETS – DEST To be presented at: 84th TRB Annual Meeting Washington, D.C., 9-13 January 2005 Marco Diana marco.diana@polito.it

More Related