The effect of individual tolerance threshold of commuting time on commute mode choice: a case study of Kunming, China
J.K. Yang, M. He, M.W. He, W.B. Lv
Pages: 251-264
Abstract:
Commuting tolerance constrains people's choice behavior of residential location, workplace location or travel mode. However, the characteristics of tolerance threshold of commuting time (TTCT) and its impact on commuting mode choice have not received enough attention. To reveal the influence of TTCT on commuting mode choice, the semi-compensatory decision-making mechanism was used to modify the commuting utility function. Based on the multinominal logit model (MNL), the constraint characteristic and heterogeneity characteristic of TTCT were considered, therefore, the constrained multinomial logit model (CMNL) and the mixed piecewise logit model (Mixed-PMNL) were established, respectively. The results of an empirical study of 823 commuters in Kunming, China, showed that: Respondents' TTCT is mainly distributed in 30-50 minutes, with a sample mean of 40 minutes. Respondents' commute mode, workplace location, and educational background have a significant impact on their TTCT. The goodness of fit of the CMNL model is higher than that of the MNL model, indicating that integrating TTCT into the commute utility function could help to improve the fitting effect of the commute mode choice model. Furthermore, the goodness of fit of the Mixed-PMNL model is higher than that of the CMNL model, proving that considering the heterogeneity of TTCT into the utility function could help to improve the explanatory power of the commute mode choice model. The utility loss functions of both CMNL and Mixed-PMNL illustrate the penalty effect of TTCT on commuting utility. When the actual commuting time exceeds TTCT, the commuting utility will lose, and the magnitude of the utility loss of different commute modes are different. The utility loss of active commuting is the most severe, while that of car commuting is the least. The more respondents' acceptable commuting cost, the more likely they are to choose cars to go to work. We conclude that it is necessary to consider the impact of the individual commute tolerance on mode choice when formulating the policy to guide car commuters transfer to active modes.
Keywords: urban transportation; commute mode choice; semi-compensatory decision-making mechanism; commute time tolerance threshold; commute utility
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES