Responses to Transit Information among Car-drivers: Regret-based Models and Simulations
Abstract
This article investigates the use and effects of transit information among car drivers that consider transit as a mode-option in their choice set. It does so by first presenting a theoretical model of travel information use and effect, based on the integration of notions of Bayesian updating into a regret-based framework of travel choice. Subsequently, numerical simulation of the model provides insights into the mechanisms behind information use and effect in a mode-choice context where a traveler has both car– as well as transit-options in their choice set, and prefers traveling by car over riding by transit. These simulations show that the perceived value of acquiring transit information is limited by a number of factors. Furthermore they demonstrate that, even in the case where transit information is acquired, and the message is favorable to transit, its impact on mode choices will also be limited. Given these results for non-habitual car-drivers, it is suggested that for car-drivers in general (thus including the large share of habitual drivers), conservative estimates regarding the impact of transit information provision on modal shift would be realistic.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Models that explicitly consider risk-seeking vs. risk-avoiding behaviour, such as prospect and regret theory, have been explored recently in travel behaviour research.
“Models, which do explicitly consider risk-seeking vs. risk-avoiding behaviour, such as prospect and regret theory, have been explored recently in travel behaviour research”
From Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and prospects (2014) · cites this paper as Chorus, Molin, Van Wee, Arentze, & Timmermans, 2006
Cites
Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232669 · Cited by 4,042 · see citing works
de Vries, P., Midden, C., & Bouwhuis, D. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00039-9 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and prospects
Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2014) · International Journal of Urban Sciences · doi:10.1080/12265934.2013.835118 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chorus, C. G., Molin, E. J. E., Van Wee, B., Arentze, T. A., & Timmermans, H. J. P.
- Affiliations
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Chorus, Caspar G.
- Venue
- Transportation Planning and Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 249-271
- ISSN
- 0308-1060 (ISSN-L)
- 1029-0354
- OpenAlex
- W2049156178
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 7.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transportation Planning and Technology (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Federal Transit Administration
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
- Keywords
- public transport information, car drivers, mode choice, Bayesian updating, information use, modal shift
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review