Like other developed countries, Australia is experiencing considerable growth in air travel demand. This growth is putting tremendous pressure on airports to improve the capacity and level of service of access and egress modes. The main goal of this study was to develop a robust mode choice model for passengers’ access to airports, in the context of Brisbane, Australia. The novelty of this study includes (1) the use of recent techniques to combine passengers’ revealed and stated preferences for mode of access to airports and (2) the development of both traditional multinomial logit (MNL) as well as mixed logit (MXL) models using these data. The data were collected from 1,435 passengers through an online survey of both revealed and stated preferences, with the stated preferences pivoting on their most recent trip to Brisbane Airport. With these data, access mode choice models were estimated. MNL and MXL models were estimated that directly considered the effects of passenger mode choice inertia as well as novel passenger-specific characteristics. These factors had a large, statistically significant effect on the estimated models. The benefit of the MXL model was shown in the results, as the passengers’ value of time from the MXL model was A$105.15/h, which was strikingly lower than the MNL-estimated value of time. In addition, there were notably high direct elasticities for bus and shuttle with respect to travel time, and for car and taxi with respect to travel cost.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GokasarI.GunayG.Mode Choice Behavior Modeling of Ground Access to Airports: A Case Study in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 59, 2017, pp. 1–7.
2.
FrancisG.HumphreysI.IsonS.Airports’ Perspectives on the Growth of Low-Cost Airlines and the Remodeling of the Airport–Airline Relationship. Tourism Management, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2004, pp. 507–514.
3.
de JuniacA.IATA Annual Review 2018. Presented at 74th Annual General Meeting, Sydney, 2018.
4.
BITRE. Air Passenger Movements Through Capital and Non-capital City Airports to 2030–31. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, 2012.
5.
PostorinoM. N.MantecchiniL.A Systematic Approach to Assess the Effectiveness of Airport Noise Mitigation Strategies. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 50, 2016, pp. 71–82.
6.
HumphreysI.IsonS.Changing Airport Employee Travel Behaviour: The Role of Airport Surface Access Strategies. Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2005, pp. 1–9.
7.
CooganM. A.ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
MiyoshiC.MasonK. J.The Damage Cost of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Produced by Passengers on Airport Surface Access: The Case of Manchester Airport. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 28, 2013, pp. 137–143.
10.
Ricondo & Associates, DMR Consulting, and Resource Systems Group. ACRP Report 34: Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
11.
RicardD. M.ACRP Synthesis 36: Exploring Airport Employee Commute and Parking Strategies. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
12.
Castillo-ManzanoJ. I.The City-Airport Connection in the Low-Cost Carrier Era: Implications for Urban Transport Planning. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 295–298.
13.
TamM. L.LamW. H.LoH. P.The Impact of Travel Time Reliability and Perceived Service Quality on Airport Ground Access Mode Choice. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2011, pp. 49–69.
14.
HessS.RyleyT.DavisonL.AdlerT.Improving the Quality of Demand Forecasts through Cross Nested Logit: A Stated Choice Case Study of Airport, Airline and Access Mode Choice. Transportmetrica, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2011, pp. 358–384.
15.
OrthH.FreiO.WeidmannU.Effects of Non-Aeronautical Activities at Airports on the Public Transport Access System: A Case Study of Zurich Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 42, 2015, pp. 37–46.
16.
RohH. J.Mode Choice Behavior of Various Airport User Groups for Ground Airport Access. The Open Transportation Journal, Vol. 7, 2013, pp. 43–55.
17.
ChangY. C.Factors Affecting Airport Access Mode Choice for Elderly Air Passengers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 57, 2013, pp. 105–112.
18.
HarveyG.ACCESS: Models of Airport Access and Airport Choice for the San Francisco Bay Region. Report prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Berkeley, CA, 1988.
19.
RezaeestakhruieH.KalantariN.BabaeiM.Modeling Framework for Airport Access Mode Choice Behavior Considering the Effect of Meeters and Greeters. Presented at 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2013.
20.
ChebliH.MahmassaniH. S.Air Travelers’ Stated Preferences towards New Airport Landside Access Mode Services. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2003.
21.
JouR. C.HensherD. A.HsuT. L.Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Behavior after the Introduction of a New Mode: A Case Study of Taoyuan International Airport in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2011, pp. 371–381.
BITRE. Airport Traffic Data. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, 2019.
24.
RoseJ. M.BliemerM. C.Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs. Transport Reviews, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2009, pp. 587–617.
25.
BliemerM. C.CollinsA. T.On Determining Priors for the Generation of Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs. Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 21, 2016, pp. 10–14.
TrainK.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.
31.
MorikawaT.Correcting State Dependence and Serial Correlation in the RP/SP Combined Estimation Method. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 153–165.
32.
AilawadiK. L.GedenkK.NeslinS. A.Heterogeneity and Purchase Event Feedback in Choice Models: An Empirical Analysis with Implications for Model Building. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1999, pp. 177–198.
33.
BhatC. R.CastelarS.A Unified Mixed Logit Framework for Modeling Revealed and Stated Preferences: Formulation and Application to Congestion Pricing Analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 36, No. 7, 2002, pp. 593–616.
34.
CantilloV.OrtúzarJ. D. D.WilliamsH. C. W. L.Modeling Discrete Choices in the Presence of Inertia and Serial Correlation. Transportation Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 195–205.
35.
CherchiE.CirilloC.Understanding Variability, Habit and the Effect of Long Period Activity Plan in Modal Choices: A Day to Day, Week to Week Analysis on Panel Data. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1245–1262.
36.
BierlaireM.PythonBiogeme: A Short Introduction. Report TRANSPOR 160706. Series on Biogeme, Transport and Mobility Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, 2016.
37.
VaccaA.PratoC. G.MeloniI.Should I Stay or Should I Go? Investigating Route Switching Behavior from Revealed Preferences Data. Transportation, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2019, pp. 75–93.
38.
SchrobbackP.IrannezhadE.PratoC. G.Investigating the Demand for Coastal Non-Bulk Freight Shipping in Queensland. Presented at 98th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2019.
AlhusseinS. N.Analysis of Ground Access Modes Choice King Khaled International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1361–1367.
41.
PelsE.NijkampP.RietveldP.Access to and Competition Between Airports: A Case Study for the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2003, pp. 71–83.
42.
JehanfoS.DissanayakeD.Modelling Surface Access Mode Choice of Air Passengers. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport, Vol. 162, No. 2, 2009, pp. 87–95.
