A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9535-0617
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-9238
Abstract Social cost-benefit analysis is often used to analyse transport investments, and can also be used for transport operation planning and capacity allocation. If it is to be used for resolving capacity conflicts, however, it is important to know whether transit agencies' timetable requests are consistent with the cost-benefit framework, which is based on passenger preferences. We show how a public transport agency's implicit valuations of waiting time and crowding can be estimated by analysing timetables, apply the method to commuter train timetables in Stockholm, and compare the implicit valuations to the corresponding passenger valuations in the official Swedish cost-benefit analysis guidelines. The results suggest that the agency puts a slightly lower value on waiting time and crowding than the passenger valuations codified in the official guidelines. We discuss possible reasons for this and implications for using cost-benefit analysis for capacity allocation. We also find that optimal frequencies are more sensitive to the waiting time valuation than to that of crowding.
Highlights Optimal service frequencies for commuter trains based on social cost-benefit analysis. Public transport agencies' implicit valuation of waiting time and in-vehicle crowding. Passengers' stated preferences versus public transit agencies' implicit valuations. Effects of heterogeneous in-vehicle crowding and/or passenger demand on optimal frequency.
Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9535-0617
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-9238
Abstract Social cost-benefit analysis is often used to analyse transport investments, and can also be used for transport operation planning and capacity allocation. If it is to be used for resolving capacity conflicts, however, it is important to know whether transit agencies' timetable requests are consistent with the cost-benefit framework, which is based on passenger preferences. We show how a public transport agency's implicit valuations of waiting time and crowding can be estimated by analysing timetables, apply the method to commuter train timetables in Stockholm, and compare the implicit valuations to the corresponding passenger valuations in the official Swedish cost-benefit analysis guidelines. The results suggest that the agency puts a slightly lower value on waiting time and crowding than the passenger valuations codified in the official guidelines. We discuss possible reasons for this and implications for using cost-benefit analysis for capacity allocation. We also find that optimal frequencies are more sensitive to the waiting time valuation than to that of crowding.
Highlights Optimal service frequencies for commuter trains based on social cost-benefit analysis. Public transport agencies' implicit valuation of waiting time and in-vehicle crowding. Passengers' stated preferences versus public transit agencies' implicit valuations. Effects of heterogeneous in-vehicle crowding and/or passenger demand on optimal frequency.
Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9535-0617
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-9238
Abstract Social cost-benefit analysis is often used to analyse transport investments, and can also be used for transport operation planning and capacity allocation. If it is to be used for resolving capacity conflicts, however, it is important to know whether transit agencies' timetable requests are consistent with the cost-benefit framework, which is based on passenger preferences. We show how a public transport agency's implicit valuations of waiting time and crowding can be estimated by analysing timetables, apply the method to commuter train timetables in Stockholm, and compare the implicit valuations to the corresponding passenger valuations in the official Swedish cost-benefit analysis guidelines. The results suggest that the agency puts a slightly lower value on waiting time and crowding than the passenger valuations codified in the official guidelines. We discuss possible reasons for this and implications for using cost-benefit analysis for capacity allocation. We also find that optimal frequencies are more sensitive to the waiting time valuation than to that of crowding.
Highlights Optimal service frequencies for commuter trains based on social cost-benefit analysis. Public transport agencies' implicit valuation of waiting time and in-vehicle crowding. Passengers' stated preferences versus public transit agencies' implicit valuations. Effects of heterogeneous in-vehicle crowding and/or passenger demand on optimal frequency.
Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?
Ait Ali, Abderrahman (author) / Eliasson, Jonas (author) / Warg, Jennifer (author)
Transport Policy ; 116 ; 188-198
2021-11-25
11 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Passengers’ valuations of train seating layout, position and occupancy
| Elsevier | 2015
MAS-based Model for Evaluating Train Timetables to Minimise the Waiting Time
| Online Contents | 2019
MAS-based Model for Evaluating Train Timetables to Minimise the Waiting Time
| Springer Verlag | 2019