Heterogeneity based Mode Choice Behaviour for Introduction of Sustainable Intermediate Public Transport (IPT) Modes

Saurabh Kumar, Sanjeev Sinha


Intermediate public transport (IPT) supplements the public transport system by providing first and last-mile connectivity to commuters. A feeder service based on sustainable intermediate public transportation can be made attractive by improving its mobility, accessibility, convenience, and comfort for its users. Sustainable IPT modes have a lower impact on the environment and can cater to the current and future needs of transportation. In this study, commuters' choice responses were collected using a stated preference survey instrument, and the database was analyzed using a Random Parameter Logit (RPL) model. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with respondents who were approached at random. A different combination of values from the levels of attributes was used to create choice scenarios for each IPT mode. Different types of IPT modes were identified in the study act as feeder services, which was used to find their utility functions using a random parameter logit model. The random parameter logit model with heterogeneity was used to evaluate the impacts of different socioeconomic and trip features on mean estimations. The utility function was used to find willingness to pay (WTP) for different attributes of an IPT mode to assess the relative value of these attributes. It was observed that WTP values also varied between different levels, which were based on their "monthly income level", "trip purpose", and "fare". "High income level" commuters have a higher WTP for travel time, frequency, and comfort improvements. On the other hand, the "work trip" and "high travel fare" levels of commuters have higher WTP for travel time, frequency, and safety improvements. According to the findings of the study, sustainable IPT modes with high quality of service are recommended because of commuters' willingness to pay for improved safety and comfort. The results so obtained can also be used for a better understanding of the travel behaviour analysis of various IPT modes.


Doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-03-09

Full Text: PDF


Mode Choice Model; Random Parameter Logit Model (RPL); Feeder Service; Willingness to Pay; Stated Preference.


Sinha, S., Sadhukhan, S., & Kumar, S. (2018). An Assessment of Level of Importance and Satisfaction of Auto Rickshaw Users in Mid- Sized City in India. In Urban Transition Sitges, Barcelona, Spain.

Sinha, S., Sadhukhan, S., Kumar, S., Bandhyopadhyaya, R., & Shrivastava, R. (2017). User's assessment of Auto Rickshaw: A Paratransit mode for mid-sized city in India. 12th International Conference of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Ho-Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Sivaraman, M. (2015). Intermediate Para-Transit (IPT) systems: A case of private players in a sector of government monopoly. In Centre for Public Policy Research. Centre for Public Policy Research. Available online: https://www.cppr.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Intermediate-Para-Transit-Study.pdf (accessed on January 2022).

Mani, A., Pai, M., & Aggarwal, R. (2012). Sustainable urban transport policy in India focus on autorickshaw sector. Transportation Research Record, 2317, 104–110. doi:10.3141/2317-13.

Balya, M. I., & Kumar, R. (2017). Walking Feeder Mode Services Choice Analysis for Integration of Bus Rapid Transit System: a Case Study. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 7(4), 487–497. doi:10.7708/ijtte.2017.7(4).07.

Shimazaki, T., & Rahman, M. (1996). Physical characteristics of paratransit in developing countries of Asia. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 30(2), 5–24. doi:10.1002/atr.5670300203.

Priye, S., & Manoj, M. (2020). Exploring usage patterns and safety perceptions of the users of electric three-wheeled paratransit in Patna, India. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8(1), 39–48. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2020.01.001.

Hilling, D. (2003). Transport and Developing Countries. Transport and Developing Countries. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203436936.

Ansari, M. W., & Sinha, S. (2020). Comparative assessment of service quality of IPT modes in Urban India. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 8(6), 1436–1450. doi:10.13189/cea.2020.080626.

Kumar, S., & Sinha, S. (2021). Willingness to pay for improvement in service quality of intermediate public transport (IPT) modes. Civil Engineering Journal, 7(5), 866–879. doi:10.28991/cej-2021-03091696.

Ponodath, D. S., George, K., & Jacob, G. S. (2018). An Assessment of the Intermediate Public Transport ( IPT ) Sector in India An Assessment of the Intermediate Public Transport ( IPT ) Sector India Centre for Public Policy Research lic Policy Research (Issue August). Centre for Public Policy Research, Kerala India. Available online: https://www.cppr.in/wp-content/uploads/CPPR_An-Assessment-of-the-Intermediate-Public-Transport-IPT-Sector-in-India.pdf (accessed on Jan. 2021).

Bachok, S., & Zin, S. H. M. M. (2017). Feeder mode choice selection behavioural modelling: The case of KTM Komuter, Kuala Lumpur. Planning Malaysia, 15(1), 65–80. doi:10.21837/pmjournal.v15.i6.223.

Das, S. S., Maitra, B., & Boltze, M. (2012). Planning of fixed-route fixed-schedule feeder service to bus stops in rural India. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 138(10), 1274–1281. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000419.

Balya, M. I., & Kumar, R. (2017). Feeder mode choice analysis for public bus transit system: A case study. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 6(3), 177–192. doi:10.1504/WRITR.2017.086233.

Zhu, Z., Guo, X., Zeng, J., & Zhang, S. (2017). Route Design Model of Feeder Bus Service for Urban Rail Transit Stations. In Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2017. doi:10.1155/2017/1090457.

Chandra, S., Bari, M. E., Devarasetty, P. C., & Vadali, S. (2013). Accessibility evaluations of feeder transit services. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 52, 47–63. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.05.001.

Sekhar Das, S., & Maitra, B. (2019). Two-stage choice-based demand model for rural feeder service to the bus stop. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 15(2), 573–585. doi:10.1080/23249935.2018.1517134.

Tabassum, S., Tanaka, S., Nakamura, F., & Ryo, A. (2017). Feeder Network Design for Mass Transit System in Developing Countries (Case study of Lahore, Pakistan). Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 3129–3146. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.343.

Verma, A., & Dhingra, S. L. (2006). Developing Integrated Schedules for Urban Rail and Feeder Bus Operation. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132(3), 138–146. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2006)132:3(138).

Shanmugam, L., & Ramasamy, M. (2021). Study on mode choice using nested logit models in travel towards Chennai metropolitan city. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. doi:10.1007/s12652-020-02868-1.

Sadhukhan, S., Banerjee, U. K., & Maitra, B. (2016). Commuters’ willingness-to-pay for improvement of transfer facilities in and around metro stations – A case study in Kolkata. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 43–58. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.07.004.

Dandapat, S., & Maitra, B. (2020). Preference heterogeneity in trip makers’ perception and policy Issues: A study with reference to bus services in Kolkata. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8(4), 1504–1517. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2020.11.001.

Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. In Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610356.

Chintakayala, P. K., & Maitra, B. (2010). Modeling Generalized Cost of Travel and Its Application for Improvement of Taxies in Kolkata. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(1), 42–49. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9488(2010)136:1(42).

Shahikhaneh, A., Azari, K. A., & Aghayan, I. (2020). Modeling the Transport Mode Choice Behavior of Motorcyclists. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology - Transactions of Civil Engineering, 44(1), 175–184. doi:10.1007/s40996-019-00236-4.

Meena, S., Patil, G. R., & Mondal, A. (2019). Understanding mode choice decisions for shopping mall trips in metro cities of developing countries. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64, 133–146. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.05.002.

Givoni, M., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel. Transport Policy, 14(5), 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.004.

Azimi, G., Rahimi, A., Lee, M., & Jin, X. (2021). Mode choice behavior for access and egress connection to transit services. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 10(2), 136–155. doi:10.1016/j.ijtst.2020.11.004.

Hensher, D. A., & Rose, J. M. (2007). Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(5), 428–443. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.006.

Weng, J., Tu, Q., Yuan, R., Lin, P., & Chen, Z. (2018). Modeling Mode Choice Behaviors for Public Transport Commuters in Beijing. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(3), 05018013. doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000459.

Zhou, F., Zheng, Z., Whitehead, J., Washington, S., Perrons, R. K., & Page, L. (2020). Preference heterogeneity in mode choice for car-sharing and shared automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132(December 2019), 633–650. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.004.

Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., Cecín, P., & dell’Olio, F. (2011). Willingness to pay for improving service quality in a multimodal area. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(6), 1060–1070. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2011.06.004.

Greene, W. H., Hensher, D. A., & Rose, J. (2006). Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 40(1), 75–92. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2005.01.005.

Phanikumar, C. V., & Maitra, B. (2007). Willingness-to-pay and preference heterogeneity for rural bus attributes. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 133(1), 62–69. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2007)133:1(62).

Israel Schwarzlose, A. A., Mjelde, J. W., Dudensing, R. M., Jin, Y., Cherrington, L. K., & Chen, J. (2014). Willingness to pay for public transportation options for improving the quality of life of the rural elderly. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61(2014), 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.009.

Satishkumar, B., Maitra, B., & Das, S. S. (2018). Temporal shift in willingness-to-pay for rural feeder service to bus stop. Travel Behaviour and Society, 12(July 2017), 102–107. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2018.02.004.

Das, S. S., Maitra, B., & Boltze, M. (2009). Valuing travel attributes of rural feeder service to bus stop: Comparison of different logit model specifications. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 135(6), 330–337. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2009)135:6(330).

Majumdar, B. B., & Mitra, S. (2017). Valuing Factors Influencing Bicycle Route Choice Using a Stated-Preference Survey. In Journal of Urban Planning and Development (Vol. 143, Issue 3, p. 04017001). doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000380.

Maitra, B., Ghosh, S., Das, S. S., & Boltze, M. (2013). Effect of model specification on valuation of travel attributes: a case study of rural feeder service to bus stop. Journal of Transport Literature, 7(2), 8–28. doi:10.1590/s2238-10312013000200002.

Balakrishnan, S., & Karuppanagounder, K. (2021). Accommodating the Heterogeneity in Traveller’s Responsiveness in Safe Route Choice Experiment-Study from India. European Transport/Trasporti Europei, 81(81), 1–16. doi:10.48295/et.2021.81.10.

National Institute of Technology Patna. (2018). Comprehensive Mobility Plan, Patna, India. Available online: http://www.nitp.ac.in/uploads/EOI-CMP5a82b8d7f1a04.docx (accessed on December 2021).

UDHD. (2016). Patna Master Plan 2031, Town and Country Planning Organization. Urban Development & Housing Department Patna, Bihar, India. Available online: http://udhd.bihar.gov.in/PMP2031/data/pmp-2031-report.pdf (accessed on January 2022).

Mahadevia, D., & Advani, D. (2016). Gender differentials in travel pattern – The case of a mid-sized city, Rajkot, India. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 292–302. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.01.002.

Patna Road Map. (2021). Available online: https://www.mapsofindia.com/ (accessed on December 2021).

Hazra, T., Goel, S., & Maitra, B. (2013). Willingness-to-pay for solid waste management service attributes: Kolkata Municipal Corporation area, India, as a case study. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 12(4), 406–421. doi:10.1504/IJEWM.2013.056627.

Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation, 30(2), 133-176. doi:10.1023/A:1022558715350.

Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., & Adamowicz, W. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753831

Greene, W. H. (2010). NLOGIT Version 4.0 - Student Reference Guide, Econometric Software, Inc. New York City, United States.

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-03-09


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Saurabh Kumar

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.