Transport Data Analysis and Modeling Methodologies

Similar documents
Queensland University of Technology Transport Data Analysis and Modeling Methodologies

Fast Lanes Study Phase III Telephone Survey Results

RECOMMENDED CITATION: Pew Research Center, July, 2015, Growing Public Support for U.S. Ties with Cuba - And an End to the Trade Embargo

RECOMMENDED CITATION: Pew Research Center, January, 2015, Most Support Stronger U.S. Ties With Cuba

Arlington County Board Meeting Project Briefing. October 20, 2015

SURVEY OF U3A MEMBERS (PART 1)

Managed Lane Choices by Carpools Comprised of Family Members Compared to Non-Family Members

JATA Market Research Study Passenger Survey Results

Seattle Southside Digital Media Conversion Study. Prepared by

HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES/CHESAPEAKE BEACH CONSULTING Study # page 1

Memorandum. Roger Millar, Secretary of Transportation. Date: April 5, Interstate 90 Operations and Mercer Island Mobility

CORNWALL VISITOR FREQUENCY SURVEY

Analysis of Mode Switching Behavior of PUP Main Campus Students to Pasig River Ferry Service

Baggage Fees User Guide and Codebook. Angus Reid Institute

Copyright 2017 Curacao Tourist Board

Juneau Household Waterfront Opinion Survey

McLean Citizens Association Transportation Committee Project Briefing

IPSOS / REUTERS POLL DATA Prepared by Ipsos Public Affairs

Slugging in Houston Casual Carpool Passenger Characteristics

Outreach: Terrestrial Invasive Species And Recreational Pathways S U S A N B U R K S M N D N R I N V A S I V E S P P P R O G C O O R D

Thai Airline Passengers' Opinion and Awareness on Airline Safety Instruction Card

Study on Hotel Management Graduates Perceptions and Preferences of Jobs in Hotel Industry in Chennai City

1987 SUMMER USE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA STATE PARK VISITORS

Word Count: 3,565 Number of Tables: 4 Number of Figures: 6 Number of Photographs: 0. Word Limit: 7,500 Tables/Figures Word Count = 2,250

Statistical Evaluation of Seasonal Effects to Income, Sales and Work- Ocupation of Farmers, the Apples Case in Prizren and Korça Regions

PUBLIC OPPOSED TO GAMING S EXPANSION AND DIVIDED OVER REVENUE SHARING WITH AC

Survey of Cuban-Americans:

Why choose the new I-35W Mississippi River Bridge?

Public Information Meetings. October 5, 6, 7, and 15, 2015

PREFERENCES FOR NIGERIAN DOMESTIC PASSENGER AIRLINE INDUSTRY: A CONJOINT ANALYSIS

Modeling Airline Fares

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2002 COMMUTE PROFILE

Tourism Impacts and Second Home Development in Coastal Counties: A Sustainable Approach

ARRIVAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PASSENGERS INTENDING TO USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT

A Tour Across America s Managed Lanes Mike Heiligenstein, Executive Director Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority

Q1 Does your household have access to a car or other vehicle that is running, licensed, and insured?

Transportation Research Forum

HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES/PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES Study # page 1

Economic Impact of Rock Climbing in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests

Deer, People and Parks

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2005 Rappahannock -Rapidan Market Survey. Southeastern Institute of Research 149,100. Rappahannock- Rapidan Regional Commission region.

Community Feedback and Survey Participation Topic: ACCESS Paratransit Services

WinterCityYXE Survey Report April 2018

Appendix to. Utility in WTP space: a tool to address. confounding random scale effects in. destination choice to the Alps

Airspace Complexity Measurement: An Air Traffic Control Simulation Analysis

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Travel Decision Survey 2012

CITY MANAGER S OFFICE CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WASHINGTON 9611 SE 36 th Street Mercer Island, WA (206)

Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the Interstate 405 Improvement Project Between State Route 55 and Interstate 605.

Travel Decision Survey Summary Report. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

Passenger-Only Ferry Service Between Vashon Island and Seattle, Washington

State of the Casino Visitor in America

Problem Set 3 Environmental Valuation

Swaziland. HDI values and rank changes in the 2013 Human Development Report

Data Appendix Latin America and the Caribbean

Comments on Notice of Proposed Amendment to Policy Statement U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE & CONTACTS DEMOGRAPHICS TRAVEL BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS MODAL STATISTICS TOURISM TRANSPORTATION FINANCING

Division of Governmental Studies and Services. Final Report. Washington State Outdoor Recreation Survey Report

Events Tasmania Research Program Hobart Baroque Festival


Visitor Market Research. The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership 1

6/28/11 TELEPHONE (n=400, RDD) AND ON-LINE (n=6,294) SURVEY RESULTS

Cedar Rapids Area Convention and Visitors Bureau Visitor Study

Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum Visitors Summer 2008 Summary of Findings

CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS IN EXAMINATION OF REASONS FOR FLIGHT SCHEDULE PERTURBATIONS

Data Appendix Mexico Latin America and the Caribbean

Irish Fair of Minnesota: 2017 Attendee Profile

Data Appendix Japan Asia

Multimodal Planning Studies

Tourism Impacts and Second Home Development in Pender County: A Sustainable Approach

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

A summary report on what the community told us

Key Findings from a Survey of Arizona Voters August Lori Weigel Dave Metz

2009 Advertising Effectiveness Study

Christmas - spending plans, religious significance and shifting summer holidays to February

Florida Voters Consider Manatee Protection

AUSTRALIA S CORAL COAST 2017 FACTSHEET. Produced Tourism WA - Strategy and Research

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GRAZUTE REGIONAL PARK

U.S. Travel Association Polling Presentation

Oregon 2009 Visitor Report June, 2010

Salt Lake Downtown Alliance. June 2018

Evaluation of High-Occupancy-Vehicle

Oregon 2011 Visitor Final Report

*Please note all questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Measurement of the Economic Vitality of The Blue Ridge National Heritage Area

A stated preference survey for airport choice modeling.

Guaranteed Ride Home Customer Satisfaction Survey

The Essential Report. 25 February MELBOURNE SYDNEY BRISBANE ADELAIDE BRUSSELS

Home Values near Apache Junction, AZ

Smart Commute Action Plan for The Middle School

Americans Favor New Approach to Cuba: Lift the Travel Ban, Establish Diplomatic Relations

Polling brief: Australia Day

Tourism Industry Council Tasmania Community Survey 2018 Research Report. May 2018

Schedule Compression by Fair Allocation Methods

Oregon 2011 Regional Visitor Report The Eastern Region

Time Benefits of Free-Flight for a Commercial Aircraft

By Prapimporn Rathakette, Research Assistant

DELAWARE RESIDENTS OPINIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE

An-Najah National University

Transcription:

Transport Data Analysis and Modeling Methodologies Lab Session #15a (Ordered Discrete Data With a Multivariate Binary Probit Model) Based on Example 14.1 A survey of 250 commuters was in the Seattle metropolitan area (this sample is reduced from the 322 given in the book due to the elimination of some missing data). The survey's intent was to gather information on commuters' opinions of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (lanes that are restricted for use by vehicles with 2 or more occupants). The variables available from this survey are given on the attached table. Among the questions asked, commuters were asked whether they agreed with the following statements: 1. HOV lanes save all commuters time (variable number x27 in the data table) 2. Existing HOV lanes are being adequately used. (variable number x28 in the data table) 3. HOV lanes should be open to all vehicles, regardless of vehicle occupancy level (variable number x29 in the table). 4. Converting some regular lanes to HOV lanes is a good idea (variable number x30 in the data table). 5. Converting some regular lanes to HOV lanes is a good idea only if it is done before traffic congestion becomes serious (variable number x31 in the data table). The question provided ordered responses of; strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, agree strongly. But suppose we are interested in whether respondents disagree or not, so that we have just two outcomes: disagree (disagree or strongly disagree) or do not disagree (neutral, agree, agree strongly). With this, note that these five questions are obviously interrelated. To understand the factors determining these five commuter opinions, a multivariate binary probit model of these survey questions is appropriate (with the original data recoded to disagree/do-not-disagree as described above). Your task is to estimate a multivariate model of the five response variables mentioned above. 1. The results of your best model specification. 2. A discussion of the logical process that led you to the selection of your final specification (discuss the theory behind the inclusion of your selected variables). Include t-statistics and justify the sign of your variables.

Variables available for your specification are (in file Ex14-1.txt): Variable Number x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 Explanation Usual mode of travel: 0 if drive alone, 1 if two person carpool, 2 if three or more person carpool, 3 if vanpool, 4 if bus, 5 if bicycle or walk, 6 if motorcycle, 7 if other Have used HOV lanes: 1 if yes, 0 if no If used HOV lanes, what mode is most often used: 0 in a bus, 1 in two person carpool, 2 in three or more person carpool, 3 in vanpool, 4 alone in vehicle, 5 on motorcycle Sometimes eligible for HOV lane use but do not use: 1 if yes, 0 if no Reason for not using HOV lanes when eligible: 0 if slower than regular lanes, 1 if too much trouble to change lanes, 2 if HOV lanes are not safe, 3 if traffic moves fast enough, 4 if forget to use HOV lanes, 5 if other x6 Usual mode of travel one year ago: 0 if drive alone, 1 if two person carpool, 2 if three or more person carpool, 3 if vanpool, 4 if bus, 5 if bicycle or walk, 6 if motorcycle, 7 if other x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 Commuted to work in Seattle a year ago: 1 if yes, 0 if no Have flexible work start times: 1 if yes, 0 if no Changed departure times to work in the last year: 1 if yes, 0 if no On average, number of minutes leaving earlier for work relative to last year On average, number of minutes leaving later for work relative to last year If changed departure times to work in the last year, reason why: 0 if change in travel mode, 1 if increasing traffic congestion, 2 if change in work start time, 3 if presence of HOV lanes, 4 if change in residence, 5 if change in lifestyle, 6 if other Changed route to work in the last year: 1 if yes, 0 if no If changed route to work in the last year, reason why: 0 if change in travel mode, 1 if increasing traffic congestion, 2 if change in work start time, 3 if presence of HOV lanes, 4 if change in residence, 5 if change in lifestyle, 6 if other Usually commute to or from work on Interstate 90: 1 if yes, 0 if no

x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 Usually commuted to or from work on Interstate 90 last year: 1 if yes, 0 if no On your past five commutes to work, how often have you used HOV lanes On your past five commutes to work, how often did you drive alone On your past five commutes to work, how often did you carpool with one other person On your past five commutes to work, how often did you carpool with two or more people On your past five commutes to work, how often did you take a vanpool On your past five commutes to work, how often did you take a bus On your past five commutes to work, how often did you bicycle or walk On your past five commutes to work, how often did you take a motorcycle On your past five commutes to work, how often did you take a mode other than those listed in variables 18 through 24 On your past five commutes to work, how often have you changed route or departure time HOV lanes save all commuters time: 0 if strongly disagree, 1 if disagree, 2 if neutral, 3 if agree, 4 if agree strongly Existing HOV lanes are being adequately used: 0 if strongly disagree, 1 if disagree, 2 if neutral, 3 if agree, 4 if agree strongly x29 HOV lanes should be open to all traffic: 0 if strongly disagree, 1 if disagree, 2 if neutral, 3 if agree, 4 if agree strongly x30 x31 x32 x33 Converting some regular lanes to HOV lanes is a good idea: 0 if strongly disagree, 1 if disagree, 2 if neutral, 3 if agree, 4 if agree strongly Converting some regular lanes to HOV lanes is a good idea only if it is done before traffic congestion becomes serious: 0 if strongly disagree, 1 if disagree, 2 if neutral, 3 if agree, 4 if agree strongly Gender: 1 if male, 0 if female Age in years: 0 if under 21, 1 if 22 to 30, 2 if 31 to 40, 3 if 41 to 50, 4 if 51 to 64, 5 if 65 or greater

x34 Annual household income (US dollars per year): 0 if no income, 1 if 1 to 9,999, 2 if 10,000 to 19,999, 3 if 20,000 to 29,999, 4 if 30,000 to 39,999, 5 if 40,000 to 49,999, 6 if 50,000 to 74,999, 7 if 75,000 to 100,000, 8 if over 100,000 x35 Highest level of education: 0 if did not finish high school, 1 if high school, 2 if community college or trade school, 3 if college/university, 4 if post college graduate degree x36 x37 x38 x39 x40 x41 x42 Number of household members Number of adults in household (aged 16 or more) Number of household members working outside the home Number of licensed motor vehicles in the household Postal zip code of work place Postal zip code of home Type of survey comment left by respondent regarding opinions on HOV lanes: 0 if no comment on HOV lanes, 1 if comment not in favor of HOV lanes, 2 comment positive toward HOV lanes but critical of HOV lane policies, 3 comment positive toward HOV lanes, 4 neutral HOV lane comment read;nvar=42;nobs=250;file=d:\old_drive_d\new_laptop\ce697n-disk\surveys-l-bp.csv$ create;if(x1=0)dalone=1$ create;if(x33>3&x32=1)oldmen=1$ create;if(x35>2)college=1$ RECODE;x27;0,1=1;2,3,4=0$ RECODE;x28;0,1=1;2,3,4=0$ RECODE;x29;0,1=1;2,3,4=0$ RECODE;x30;0,1=1;2,3,4=0$ RECODE;x31;0,1=1;2,3,4=0$ --> mprobit;lhs=x27,x28,x29,x30,x31 ;eq1=one,dalone,oldmen ;eq2=one,dalone,oldmen ;eq3=one,dalone,x8,oldmen ;eq4=one,dalone,x37 ;eq5=one,oldmen,college ;marginal effects$ Normal exit from iterations. Exit status=0. +---------------------------------------------+ Multivariate Probit Model: 5 equations. Maximum Likelihood Estimates Model estimated: Feb 18, 2015 at 10:51:20AM. Dependent variable MVProbit Weighting variable None

Number of observations 250 Iterations completed 35 Log likelihood function -688.7882 Number of parameters 26 Info. Criterion: AIC = 5.71831 Finite Sample: AIC = 5.74349 Info. Criterion: BIC = 6.08454 Info. Criterion:HQIC = 5.86570 Replications for simulated probs. = 100 +---------------------------------------------+ +--------+--------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+ Variable Coefficient Standard Error b/st.er. P[ Z >z] Mean of X +--------+--------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+ ---------+Index function for X27 Constant -.32157777.19026314-1.690.0910 DALONE.47332787.21173995 2.235.0254.77200000 OLDMEN -.15607381.24811487 -.629.5293.13600000 ---------+Index function for X28 Constant -.01099928.18750087 -.059.9532 DALONE.63190760.21443448 2.947.0032.77200000 OLDMEN.42116517.26681884 1.578.1145.13600000 ---------+Index function for X29 Constant.89729463.22564543 3.977.0001 DALONE -.93431181.24224050-3.857.0001.77200000 X8 -.00037643.00062377 -.603.5462-11.5120000 OLDMEN -.35167770.24867900-1.414.1573.13600000 ---------+Index function for X30 Constant -.34260970.28486650-1.203.2291 DALONE.66066409.22129438 2.985.0028.77200000 X37 -.12221300.09606297-1.272.2033 2.16000000 ---------+Index function for X31 Constant -.08184549.16687673 -.490.6238 OLDMEN.33819408.23984110 1.410.1585.13600000 COLLEGE -.28439965.18246065-1.559.1191.78400000 ---------+Correlation coefficients R(01,02).65146405.08010881 8.132.0000 R(01,03) -.68827485.07439357-9.252.0000 R(02,03) -.68014504.08069851-8.428.0000 R(01,04).49820795.09007825 5.531.0000 R(02,04).48659862.09765957 4.983.0000 R(03,04) -.51128771.09012354-5.673.0000 R(01,05).45454172.09626375 4.722.0000 R(02,05).33275375.11143455 2.986.0028 R(03,05) -.27543541.10974492-2.510.0121 R(04,05).63744041.07616090 8.370.0000 +--------------------------------------------+ Partials of E[y1 other vars=1,x] wrt X Computed at the means of all RHS vars. Conditional mean is Prob[X27 =1] given X28 through X31 all equal 1.000. Estimate of conditional mean =.54350 +--------------------------------------------+ --------+--------+--------------------------------------------+-------- Mean of ------- Coefficient in Equation ------------ Marginal Variable Variable X27 X28 X29 X30 X31 Effect --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- ONE 1.00000 -.32158 -.01100.89729 -.34261 -.08185.00000 DALONE.77200.47333.63191 -.93431.66066.00000 -.03988 OLDMEN.13600 -.15607.42117 -.35168.00000.33819 -.20510 X8-11.5120.00000.00000 -.00038.00000.00000 -.00009 X37 2.16000.00000.00000.00000 -.12221.00000.00385 COLLEGE.78400.00000.00000.00000.00000 -.28440.01394 --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------