Transfer penalties: Another look at transit riders' reluctance to transfer

Horowitz, Alan J.; Zlosel, Dennis J.

doi:10.1007/bf00148463

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the TNC users stated they do not use TNCs to connect to public transit out of a preference for not changing modes, and others valued trip planning features and timed transfers. This sentiment is consistent with bus and rail transit riders who prefer to minimize transfers in their own travel, as well as the significant increases to public transit ridership resulting from transit smartphone applications and timed transfers [63,64]. The pricing incentives the TNC users preferred are also similar to incentives that have proven successful with increasing public transit ridership, namely, discounts on bundled rides and mode transfers [65].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Going My Way? Understanding Curb Management and Incentive Policies to Increase Pooling Service Use and Public Transit Linkages in the San Francisco Bay Area

Darling,

Broader,

Cohen

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite lower user costs, only 20% to 40% of transportation network company (TNC) users select a pooled, or shared, ride option. Why are existing TNC users not selecting the pooled option or using TNCs to connect to public transit, and what role do built environment features and incentives play in their decision? This study explores the factors that influence TNC user decisions through a multi-method approach comprising photovoice small group discussions and a workshop. Between March 2021 and May 2021, 15 San Francisco Bay Area TNC users shared photographs they took of TNC pick-up locations through two-to-three-person guided small group discussions. The photos revealed that users prefer waiting in retail or in well-lit, good-visibility locations. Participants’ primary concern was personal safety, particularly female users who may take additional precautions when walking to pick-up locations and waiting for and taking rides. In July 2021, 12 photovoice participants and 5 stakeholders provided feedback on key findings from the photography discussions. The pooling improvement strategies identified include the following: designated TNC stops with lighting and marked pick-up areas; enhanced in-app safety features; TNC partnerships with employers and retailers to incentivize riders; and mode transfer discounts for connecting TNCs to public transit. The findings suggest that safety related to the built environment plays an outsized role in a TNC user’s decision to pool or connect to public transit, and the out-of-vehicle portion of the TNC trip should be equally considered when developing policies to increase pooling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Going My Way? Understanding Curb Management and Incentive Policies to Increase Pooling Service Use and Public Transit Linkages in the San Francisco Bay Area

Darling,

Broader,

Cohen

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Passengers perceive a penalty associated to the fact of transferring, which has been defined by some authors as the disutility of one transfer option compared to a nontransfer alternative [1]. Others see it as an extra cost caused by the additional effort required to make connections [2]. Currie [3] and Iseki and Taylor [4] identified a pure transfer penalty, independent of walking and waiting time, but dependent on other factors such as the availability of adequate information, safety, security, comfort and convenience, familiarity with the public transport (PT) system, and frequency of PT use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stated preference survey for estimating passenger transfer penalties: design and application to Madrid

Jiménez

García-Martínez

Monzón

2017

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Transfers in multimodal urban trips imply a disutility for travellers, who perceive them as a penalty when using public transport. It is therefore important to estimate the utility associated to transfers and the main factors affecting it, to allow policymakers to reduce users' perceived disutility and enhance their intention to use public transport. The aim of this paper is to develop a Stated Preference experiment to estimate the penalty perceived by commuters (workers and students) when making transfers in multimodal urban trips. Method A web-based survey combining a Revealed Preferences and Stated Preferences survey was created using Ngene software, and an efficient design was applied to estimate multinomial logit models. We present here the first stage of the research: the design and results of the pilot survey of commuters travelling by metro or urban bus in the city of Madrid, Spain. Results The findings reveal a pure transfer penalty, independent of in-vehicle time, walking and waiting time and crowding. This pure penalty increases with the number of transfers. Crowded transfers cause a high disutility for commuters, which rises with the number of transfers in the total trip. Conclusions This paper highlights the importance of conducting a pilot survey when designing the final survey.Transfer penalties vary between cities, so pilot studies are encouraged to obtain more accurate results. Further research is needed to consolidate the pilot results with those of a final survey.

show abstract

“…2. We know that transfers are a major constraint on use of public transport (Horowitz andZlosel 1981, Charles River Associates 1989). The act of changing buses or between bus and LRT produces a large penalty that is independent of the amount of time involved in transferring.…”

Section: A Summary Assessment Of Current Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Light rail and bus priority systems: Choice or blind commitment?

Hensher¹,

Waters²

1994

Research in Transportation Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate over light rail transit (LRT) systems is often a confrontation between advocates and opponents of LRT systems. It is difficult to separate real evidence from opinion about LRT. We review evidence and viewpoints about LRT systems in comparison to bus priority systems (BPS), the latter often combined with high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Bus-rail comparisons are difficult because people tend to think of existing bus services which are constrained to share congested roads with cars for most of their routes. But there are a few examples of extensive dedicated busways or HOV lanes, these bus operations are more akin to LRT systems. BPSs are capable of moving comparable volumes of people at less cost than LRT. Where BPS and HOV systems are in use, they appear to move more people than are being moved in established LRT systems. LRT systems may have an advantage in influencing land-use in a way which will promote greater reliance on public transit. But it appears that similar impacts can be achieved by bus-based systems. There is a need for closer study and analysis of busways and HOV lanes. It is also important to recognize that neither BPS nor LRT are likely to have much impact on overall mode split unless substantial steps are taken to discourage single occupant motor vehicles.

show abstract

Transfer penalties: Another look at transit riders' reluctance to transfer

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Going My Way? Understanding Curb Management and Incentive Policies to Increase Pooling Service Use and Public Transit Linkages in the San Francisco Bay Area

Going My Way? Understanding Curb Management and Incentive Policies to Increase Pooling Service Use and Public Transit Linkages in the San Francisco Bay Area

Stated preference survey for estimating passenger transfer penalties: design and application to Madrid

Light rail and bus priority systems: Choice or blind commitment?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About