This paper investigates the hypothesis that willingness to pay for managed lanes (MLs) changes through time in the aftermath of the opening and operation of a facility. Using a quasi-panel of stated preference surveys, the authors found that the estimates of the value of travel time reliability were almost as high as the value of travel time savings in regular travel situations and were almost twice as high in urgent situations 2 years after the opening and operation of MLs. These results indicate that the presentation of reliability information affects the valuation of travel time savings estimated from stated preference surveys.
GhoshA.Valuing Time and Reliability: Commuters' Mode Choice from a Real Time Congestion Pricing Experiment. PhD dissertation. University of California, Irvine, 2001.
4.
BrownstoneD., GhoshA., GolobT. F., KazimiC., and Van AmelsfortD.Drivers' Willingness-to-Pay to Reduce Travel Time: Evidence from the San Diego I-15 Congestion Pricing Project. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2003, pp. 373–387.
5.
BrownstoneD., and SmallK. A.Valuing Time and Reliability: Assessing the Evidence from Road Pricing Demonstrations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2005, pp. 279–293.
6.
SmallK. A., WinstonC., and YanJ.Uncovering the Distribution of Motorists' Preferences for Travel Time and Reliability. Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 4, 2005, pp. 1367–1382.
7.
ChoY., GoelR., GuptaP., BogonkoG., and BurrisM. W.What Are I-394 HOT Lane Drivers Paying for? Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
8.
DevarasettyP. C., BurrisM., and ShawW. D.Do Travelers Pay for Managed-Lane Travel as They Claimed They Would? Before-and-After Study of Travelers on Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2297, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 56–65.
9.
PatilS., BurrisM., and ShawW. D.Travel Using Managed Lanes: An Application of a Stated Choice Model for Houston, Texas. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2011, pp. 595–603.
10.
DevarasettyP. C., BurrisM., and ShawW. D.The Value of Travel Time and Reliability: Evidence from a Stated Preference Survey and Actual Usage. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 8, 2012, pp. 1227–1240.
11.
PatilS., BurrisM., ShawW. D., and ConcasS.Variation in the Value of Travel Time Savings and Its Impact on the Benefits of Managed Lanes. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2011, pp. 547–567.
12.
RosenbaumP. R., and RubinD. B.The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, Vol. 70, No. 1, 1983, pp. 41–55.
13.
HeinrichC., MaffioliA., and VasquezG.A Primer for Applying Propensity-Score Matching.Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C., 2010.
14.
FunderburgR. G., NixonH., BoarnetM. G., and FergusonG.New Highways and Land Use Change: Results from a Quasi-Experimental Research Design. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010, pp. 76–98.
15.
ConcasS.Accessibility and Housing Price Resilience: Evidence from Limited-Access Roadways. Presented at 2012 Annual Kuhmo Nectar Conference of the International Travel Economics Association, Berlin, 2012.
16.
MingK., and RosenbaumP. R.A Note on Optimal Matching with Variable Controls Using the Assignment Algorithm. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2001, pp. 455–463.
17.
RosenbaumP.Observational Studies, 2nd ed. Springer Verlag, New York, 2002.
18.
BierlaireM., and FetiarisonM.Estimation of Discrete Choice Models: Extending Biogeme. Presented at 9th Swiss Transport Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, Sept. 9–11, 2009.
19.
BrownstoneD., and TrainK.Forecasting New Product Penetration with Flexible Substitution Patterns. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 89, No. 1-2, 1999, pp. 109–129.
20.
Ben-AkivaM., BolducD., and WalkerJ.Specification, Identification, and Estimation of the Logit Kernel (or Continuous Mixed Logit) Model. Working paper. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2001.
21.
GreeneW. H., and HensherD. A.Heteroscedastic Control for Random Coefficients and Error Components in Mixed Logit. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2007, pp. 610–623.
22.
SwaitJ., and LouviereJ.The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Use of Multinomial Logit Models. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1993, pp. 305–314.
23.
BrownstoneD., BunchD. S., and TrainK.Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2000, pp. 315–338.
24.
TrainK.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2009.
25.
BierlaireM.Biogeme: A Free Package for the Estimation of Discrete Choice Models. Presented at 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland, March 19–21, 2003.
26.
HessS., TrainK., and PolakJ.On the Use of Modified Latin Hyper-cube Sampling (MLHS) Method in the Estimation of Mixed Logit Model for Vehicle Choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2006, pp. 147–163.
