Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Commuter preferences for a first-mile/last-mile microtransit service

in the United States
Tomás Rossetti a ,∗, Andrea Broaddus b , Melissa Ruhl b , Ricardo Daziano c
a Systems Science and Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States of America
b Ford Motor Company, Research & Advanced Engineering, 3251 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States of America
c
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Transportation system models rely heavily upon value of time (VOT) estimates to predict
Microtransit customer behavior. Accurate VOT estimates are particularly vital for planning new services such
Value of travel time savings as on-demand ride hailing or microtransit because customers’ sensitivity to wait time, walk time,
Mixed logit model
and route detour time affects their likelihood of selecting these modes. If an incorrect VOT
Markov chain Monte Carlo
is assumed during service planning, then ridership will be depressed because of a mismatch
between their preferences and how the system is designed. In this paper, we report on the
measurement of VOT for microtransit, a shared first-mile/last-mile mobility service, obtained
using stated preference microdata from four U.S. cities. We found a median in-vehicle VOT
for microtransit of $18.63 (95% CI: $13.39–$24.46) and an access VOT of $75.38 (95% CI:
$59.22–$94.96). The former is practically equal to the VOT we found for respondents’ current
modes ($20.24, 95% CI: $13.71–$26.94). We also found that men, younger riders, the highly
educated, and transit riders are more likely to be interested in microtransit. Since the disutility
of time spent on microtransit is not higher than that of other modes, we believe this new service
has the potential to attract riders, and particularly if the system is designed with low waiting
and walking times.

1. Introduction

The rise of smartphones and on-demand app-enabled ridehailing has ushered in an era of experimentation with shared mobility
services. In particular, cities are exploring how shared mobility, such as microtransit, can improve connections to public transit.
Microtransit is a term used for a range of on-demand services offering shared rides within a service area using vans, minivans
or microbuses (Shaheen et al., 2020, 2017; Lucken et al., 2019; Schwieterman et al., 2018; Westervelt et al., 2018b; Shaheen and
Chan, 2016). It is related to, although not the same as, pooled ridehailing services like UberPool or Shared Lyft. Microtransit has
been usually thought of as part of a transit system to expand access to transit hubs or replace traditional bus lines in sparse areas.
This means that capacity has to be larger and vehicles do not necessarily have to be able to perform single-rider trips. Shared
ridehailing, on the other hand, is a variation of single-rider ridehailing that optimizes existing capacity. This distinction produces
two main differences. First, microtransit tends to operate with larger vehicles. Second, it is usually, though not always, operated by
or coordinated with public transportation agencies. That being said, both services are similar in terms of the routing and matching
technology they use.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ter58@cornell.edu (T. Rossetti).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.11.009
Received 8 March 2022; Received in revised form 12 October 2022; Accepted 7 November 2022
Available online 5 December 2022
0965-8564/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Public transportation agencies are increasingly showing interest in developing microtransit services to augment traditional fixed-
route bus and train services (Lucken et al., 2019; Schwieterman et al., 2018; Westervelt et al., 2018b). Although there are several
microtransit use cases that complement public transit, in this study we focus exclusively on microtransit as a first-mile/last-mile
(FMLM) connection to fixed-route transit (Shaheen et al., 2017; Shaheen and Chan, 2016).
Forecasting demand for new on-demand mobility services such as microtransit is challenging because little is known about
customer needs, preferences, and tolerances for waiting to be picked up and experiencing detours en-route as the microtransit
vehicle picks up other customers. The value of time (VOT) is at the heart of this difficulty. The equivalent monetary value assigned
to a decrease in travel time is directly related to the transportation mode’s comfort and safety, among other components. The greater
perceived convenience of personal cars is why, for example, their VOT is usually lower than for public transportation, walking, and
waiting (Wardman, 2004). Where exactly microtransit lies in this continuum is still not clear.
This study contributes to this research using a survey (𝑁 = 2, 315) designed to assess potential customers’ interest in using a
station-area microtransit service to connect with regional transit at a high-capacity node. It was conducted in the metropolitan areas
of Miami, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., between June and August of 2020. Even though the sample is not
representative, its make-up is not far from each cities’ population. The main component of this survey is a discrete choice experiment
(DCE) where respondents were presented with scenarios offering a ride on a hypothetical microtransit service as an alternative to
their usual commute.
This paper makes several important contributions to the literature. First, it provides a measurement of microtransit values of
time, as well as an assessment of who is more likely to be interested in this new service. Both elements can be used to plan a new
deployment and identify potential markets or consumer segments. Second, the paper shows how flexible Bayesian methodologies
can be leveraged to account for the endogenous relationship between interest in microtransit and propensity to choose it in the
DCEs.
To the best of our knowledge, this survey provides the first stated preference dataset addressing interest, preferences, and value
of travel time savings for microtransit services in the U.S. using a sample that is not based on a university campus. The results
we obtain show that microtransit’s in-vehicle VOT is similar to that of personal cars, and that reductions in access time are highly
valued. This result suggest that microtransit could attract a sizeable number of commuters, which would boost transit usage and
decrease operational costs in suburban areas. This is especially true if microtransit providers can keep walking and waiting times
low.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we review prior studies on the topic of demand estimation for on-
demand microtransit service as a first- and last-mile connector to public transit nodes, and the use of DCEs as an approach to similar
demand estimation problems. Next, we introduce the methods and data, including the survey context and design. Then the survey
results are presented, including descriptive statistics and the estimated discrete choice model. Finally, we discuss how the findings
may be applied to design microtransit services and inform operational service parameters for first-last mile connector services, as
well as set the parameters in a routing algorithm.

2. Literature review

In recent years, a growing number of public transit agencies have experimented with adding flexible on-demand services, or
microtransit, to their suite of fixed route services. These services are usually demand-responsive and carried out in vans or shuttles,
which can serve more riders at once than a shared car while providing a similar level of service as shared ride-hailing. The demand-
responsive component of this service makes it flexible and adaptive to geographic demand patterns and can potentially reduce
walking times for customers.
Some of these public transit agencies’ motivation comes from the need to compete with ridership loss to on-demand ridehail-
ing (e.g., Wang et al., 2019; Narayanan et al., 2020). Most microtransit services have been designed for specific use cases that
supplement the existing transit network and offer better accessibility to underserved communities. A typology of microtransit
service models identifies five primary use cases: first mile/last mile (FMLM), low density, off-peak, medical transportation, and
paratransit (Lucken et al., 2019). Microtransit services may be operated by public transit agencies, either internally or in partnership
with private companies, by private for-profit services open to the public, or by private companies for their employees only (Shaheen
et al., 2017; Lucken and Shaheen, 2021).
Although microtransit deployments in the United States and across the world have been increasing steadily over the years, data
remains sparse and tends to be largely derived from select rider surveys or from post-mortem analyses of unsuccessful deployments.
For example, in an evaluation of a microtransit partnership between Kansas City and the startup Bridj, researchers found that,
despite projections of 200 riders per day, the service only attracted 490 riders over the first six months of operations (Westervelt
et al., 2018a). Likewise, the much-watched Kutsuplus service in Helsinki, Finland, only ever achieved an average of 1.27 rider
occupancy for 9-passenger vehicles (Haglund et al., 2019). Similarly, a survey of thirteen transit agencies in the US who had deployed
microtransit found that these services averaged three passengers per vehicle service hour with a maximum of 4.7 passengers per
hour (Volinski, 2019). The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s microtransit service saw averages of up to 41 riders a day
before the agency determined the service was too costly to continue.
Some deployments have had more success. For example, just 32 km. (20 mi.) north of the Santa Clara pilot, Alameda County’s
AC Transit has made its microtransit permanent after attracting 25,000 riders in the first two years (Westervelt et al., 2018a). In
Texas, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) agency has provided microtransit services through GoLink since 2018 as a point-to-point

2
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

service (Mayaud et al., 2021). This service has been so successful, that DART decided to replace some bus routes with GoLink (DART,
2022).
Microtransit deployments have not been as successful as they could have, in part, due to lack of understanding of customer
tolerances for waiting, walking, and route detours. Riders’ value of time is a key system parameter for planning an attractive and
competitive on-demand service. This value is at the heart of the tradeoff between service level and cost, which in turn directly
impacts profitability and subsidy needs. For example, a microtransit system designed with a high value of time assumption will
operate with fewer stops, more pick-up and drop-off points (PUDOs), and more vehicles (hence lower waiting and walking times).
If an incorrect value of time is assumed during service planning, then ridership will be lower than projected because of a mismatch
between system design and customers’ actual preferences.
There is, unfortunately, practically no empirical evidence from which to estimate the value of time for microtransit in the United
States. For example, Ma et al. (2021) simulated the operation of a microtransit service, but they assumed an exogenous value of time
taken from a mobility survey. Alonso-González et al. (2018) did the same with a Dutch mobility survey. Sun et al. (2020) obtained
the value of time for a shared autonomous vehicle, which likely differs from the value of time of a human-driven van. Finally, some
papers, like the one by Lazarus et al. (2021) or Geržinič et al. (2021), obtained values of time for a shared TNC ride. This value is
probably similar to the one for microtransit, but the fact that such a service involves sharing a car with more than two people may
skew it. Yan et al. (2019) measured the value of time for a microtransit service, but limited its scope to a university campus. We
believe there are transferability issues from such a type of study to a more diverse urban population. The only study we found that
measures value of time in the general population is the one by Alonso-González et al. (2020) in the Netherlands. They found that
microtransit’s in-vehicle value of time is slightly higher than the one for traditional public transportation.
The economic theory behind the value of travel time savings suggests that microtransit’s value of time should be similar to other
modes, and will probably lie somewhere between the values of time of public transit and private cars. As Börjesson and Eliasson
(2012) explain, the value of travel time is ‘‘affected by factors such as the comfort of the [transportation] mode and the productivity
or enjoyability of the trip’’. Microtransit’s value of time may also differ from that of other modes because of the type of customer
it attracts. For example, previous studies have found that riders of different ages and incomes have slightly different values of
time (Fournier and Christofa, 2021). If microtransit attracts a group of riders that is not representative of the population as a whole,
then aggregate values of time will not be an adequate measure for service planning.
This paper is the first, to the best of our knowledge, to provide a measurement of the value of time for a microtransit service
using stated preference data in the United States. We also use this data to understand what kind of customer would be easier to
attract, and how the value of in-vehicle travel compares to waiting and walking times.

3. Survey design and data collection

The following subsections describe, first, the main characteristics of the sample we used, second, their travel behavior patterns,
and third, the discrete choice experiments we presented to them.

3.1. General sample characteristics

We designed a survey to understand people’s preferences for a first-mile/last-mile microtransit service in four cities selected to
represent a range of density levels and transit development in the US: Miami, Florida; Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota; Seattle,
Washington; and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The survey was implemented between June and October 2020 on the
Qualtrics survey platform using an online panel and a cash incentive. The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic delayed the
launch of this survey. However, we eventually decided to disseminate the survey with instructions to specify pre-COVID conditions
and with a new section added on COVID-19 impacts.
The online sampling method we used could induce some bias. As Halse et al. (2022) point out, there is a lower salience of
travel time when respondents are home, which can lead to an underestimation of actual values of time. The pandemic could also
push values of time elicited through SP downward since, during the time we collected data, all cities we targeted had some sort of
stay-at-home measure in place. We did not find evidence of this bias since, as we will discuss in 5.2, our value-of-time estimates
are actually slightly higher than what we expected. In a companion paper (Rossetti et al., 2022), we also found that the pandemic
had little to no effect on the stated preference experiments. This leads us to believe that respondents could, for the most part, put
themselves in the hypothetical scenarios we created. More definitive results, though, should be found using revealed preferences or
on-board interviews.
Potential survey respondents were recruited from a set of ZIP codes that we defined to represent the ‘‘transit shed’’ for each
city, where residents lived within 8 km. (5 mi.) of a mass transit station. Respondents were then selected into the study using a
screening questionnaire where the following criteria had to be met: 18 years of age or older, regular commuters, and gender quotas
that enforced parity. Before data cleaning, 600 respondents were surveyed in each city, totaling 2,400 for the combined sample.
The sample size was defined using the methodology described by de Bekker-Grob et al. (2015). In data cleaning, 85 responses were
flagged due to inconsistencies in their responses and removed from further analysis. The final dataset used for analysis had 2,315
respondents. The spatial distribution of survey respondents in each city is shown in Fig. 1.
Table 1 shows the sample’s sociodemographic characteristics. The sample has a median age of 35 years, which is slightly younger
than the actual population’s age. There are some key differences across cities regarding race or ethnicity. Some cities have a larger
proportion of certain groups, such as Washington, D.C., with Black or African American respondents, or lower proportions, such as
Seattle with Asians. The median yearly household income across the sample is between $35,000 and $60,000 U.S. dollars per year.
Overall, our survey undersampled low-income and high-income households. The sample also had access to more education than the
actual population; most respondents have at least a college degree, and almost a third have a graduate degree.

3
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 1. Residential location of respondents, expressed as percentage of responses out of the city-specific total, by ZIP code and with mass transit stations overlaid.

4
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
Whole sample DC Miami Minneapolis Seattle
(N = 2,315) (N = 578) (N = 568) (N = 591) (N = 578)
Sample Census Sample Census Sample Census Sample Census
Female 56.2% 53.0% 52.5% 64.0% 51.4% 50.7% 50.4% 58.5% 49.9%
Age (median) 35 35 35 to 44 34 45 to 49 35 45 to 49 35 35 to 44
Race or ethnicitya
White 63.6% 59.5% 41.1% 44.7% 64.0% 77.8% 76.7% 69.5% 66.5%
Black 13.5% 23.0% 45.4% 16.5% 21.0% 8.4% 8.8% 6.1% 5.9%
Hispanic 15.1% 9.3% 11.1% 43.2% 45.1% 4.3% 6.1% 8.2% 10.3%
Asian 11.1% 11.1% 4.1% 3.0% 2.5% 8.2% 6.9% 20.8% 14.2%
Other/Two or more 3.2% 4.2% 9.4% 0.5% 12.4% 3.1% 7.5% 4.6% 13.4%
Household income
Less than $15k 3.6% 2.0% 12.3% 5.2% 11.4% 2.7% 6.5% 5.1% 6.3%
$15k–25k 5.1% 4.0% 5.4% 8.4% 9.3% 5.3% 5.7% 3.2% 5.1%
$25k–$35k 6.3% 3.4% 5.5% 8.6% 9.5% 8.0% 6.4% 5.5% 5.5%
$35k–$60k 18.8% 14.9% 12.4% 18.5% 20.5% 22.6% 17.2% 19.2% 15.4%
$60k–$100k 25.5% 26.8% 17.9% 25.7% 21.6% 27.1% 23.4% 22.5% 22.1%
$100k–$150k 18.4% 19.8% 16.4% 15.8% 13.7% 15.6% 19.8% 21.9% 19.8%
$150k–$200k 9.6% 13.5% 10.3% 6.7% 6.1% 8.0% 9.8% 9.7% 10.9%
More than $200k 6.8% 9.3% 19.8% 4.9% 8.0% 4.5% 11.1% 8.2% 14.9%
Not disclosed 5.9% 3.7% 6.2% 6.2% 4.8%
Education
High school or less 22.9% 9.7% 24.7% 13.6% 40.2% 12.9% 26.9% 11.4% 26.3%
Some college 39.3% 18.3% 15.5% 20.7% 26.8% 26.9% 30.2% 25.7% 30.1%
College graduate 25.9% 38.5% 25.3% 37.5% 20.6% 40.5% 28.0% 40.6% 26.8%
Graduate degree 11.8% 33.5% 34.5% 28.1% 12.5% 19.7% 15.0% 22.3% 16.8%

Census data corresponds to point estimates from the 2016–2020 American Community Survey (US Census Bureau, 2020a,b,c,d,e,f).
a Census data report race (only one or two or more) and a Hispanic ethnicity separately. Our survey combined these questions and allowed respondents to choose

more than one.

3.2. Travel behavior

Most of the sample stated they regularly drive to work (Fig. 2), with two-thirds (66.1%) driving daily and 79.7% at least a
few times weekly. The share of regular car commuters was highest in Miami (90.8%) and lowest in Washington, D.C. (66.3%).
Carpooling was comparatively low in all cities, with Seattle respondents reporting the highest carpooling frequency (20.9% at least
a few times a week). Washington DC also had the highest proportion of respondents that used transit or walked at least a few times
a week (38.0% and 23.0% respectively) together with Seattle (31.2% and 28.7% respectively). Miami had the highest number of
individuals using bicycles at least a few times a month compared to other cities (30.2%).
Most respondents had access to at least one car in their household (Table 2) and lived closest to a bus stop. A small group did
not know what kind of transit service was closest. Of those that stated they never use public transportation, most cited long trips
as a deterrent, followed by a poor feeling of comfort and system capillarity.

3.3. Impact of COVID-19

In general, the sample stated that they had been highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In spite of this, we found that
pandemic attitudes barely influenced interest or hypothetical adoption of microtransit in a companion paper. For a more in-depth
discussion of the effect of COVID-19 on the survey, see Rossetti et al. (2022).
In general terms, respondents said the pandemic had impacted their daily lives. Only 15% of them stated that the pandemic had
either been ‘‘Not that disruptive’’ or ‘‘Not disruptive at all’’ (see Fig. 3) We also saw a relatively high economic impact: 15% were
put on temporary leave or lost a job, and 30% lost pay (Fig. 4). In spite of these effects, the majority of respondents were more
concerned about the public health impact of COVID-19 than its economic one (Fig. 5).
Respondents were also much more hesitant to use shared mobility. Across all cities, they indicated a they were much less likely
to use transit or carpool, and at the same time that they were more likely to drive alone (see Fig. 6).

3.4. Interest in microtransit

To prime respondents to the discrete choice experiments, respondents were presented a description of a hypothetical microtransit
service beforehand. It was described as a first-mile/last-mile shuttle connecting to a high-capacity transit node whose fare is the
same as a bus’, using the diagram in Fig. 7 and the description in Fig. 8.
We then described microtransit in more detail and asked respondents how interested they would be in this new service and their
first impressions of it. As Fig. 9 shows, general interest varied considerably across cities. Respondents from Miami and Seattle were
more interested than the ones in Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis. Respondents tended to be more positive when asked about

5
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 2. Stated frequency of different modes for commute trips.

specific aspects of this service. For example, they viewed this service as generally affordable and with good coverage, as shown in
Fig. 10. In spite of that, less than half believed it would be useful for their commutes, which could explain the difference between
these more specific indicators and general interest.

3.5. Discrete choice experiments

To make the discrete choice experiments (DCEs) as simple and real as possible, we decided to design binary scenarios where
respondents had to decide between their current commute and microtransit. Each respondent saw a total of eight DCEs described
by cost, departure and arrival times, and waiting, walking and in-vehicle times.
To obtain a good representation of their current (pre-COVID) commute, we asked respondents to report their usual mode, the
nearest intersection to their home and work locations, and usual time and monetary costs. We also asked respondents to state how
much time they spent per mode and if and how much they paid for parking. This information was then used to calculate a realistic
commute price.1 Respondents were also given the chance to see how this final cost was calculated. Mean and median values for
these costs are shown in Table 2.
While the attributes of the typical commute did not change across DCEs, the ones for microtransit did. To make both modes
comparable, we pivoted microtransit’s attributes off the current commute’s. The values we used are shown in Table 3. Note that
cost was not pivoted, but rather set at $2, $3, or $0, which would mean that microtransit’s fare is integrated into the transit system’s
fare structure. Since we were interested in microtransit as a fist-/last-mile connector, this alternative’s label was ‘‘Microtransit +
Nearest mass transit service’’. An example of a typical scenario presented in the experiments is shown in Fig. 11.
In a small pilot that used an orthogonal design, we realized that people’s commutes varied widely. This meant that, to have a
reasonable pivoted experimental design, we would have to either re-estimate the design after each respondent provided their typical
commute information or assume average values. The former was infeasible due to technical constraints. The latter, unfortunately,

1 We used the following criteria to set prices: a minute of driving costs $0.20 based on the cost of fuel, insurance, depreciation, taxes and maintenance; the

cost of ridehailing is equal to a base fare of $2.00 and a $1.10 cost per minute; contemporaneous transit fares per city; and the cost of parking reported by
respondents.

6
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Table 2
Summary of mobility habits of sample.
Sample DC Miami Minneapolis Seattle
Number of cars in household
Zero 5.5% 9.6% 2.4% 4.0% 5.9%
One 41.8% 49.9% 35.4% 36.3% 45.9%
Two 40.1% 31.6% 47.9% 45.4% 35.2%
Three or more 12.6% 8.9% 14.3% 14.3% 13.1%
Nearest kind of transit
Bus 65.9% 58.1% 66.8% 67.1% 71.6%
Bus Rapid Transit 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 13.6%
Light rail 17.6% 35.6% 22.9% 6.2% 6.0%
Commuter rail 4.0% 2.9% 5.7% 2.7% 4.7%
Does not know 5.4% 3.4% 4.6% 9.4% 4.1%
Reasons not to use transit (only respondents that never use transit)
It doesn’t go where I need to go 36.9% 38.3% 34.4% 39.7% 34.6%
It doesn’t go at the times I need to go 24.9% 18.8% 17.4% 30.5% 30.8%
It’s too expensive 10.1% 10.5% 7.7% 12.6% 9.0%
It’s too crowded 18.9% 18.0% 22.1% 17.6% 17.9%
It takes too long 55.9% 58.6% 54.4% 56.5% 54.5%
I don’t feel safe using it 21.7% 12.8% 21.5% 24.7% 25.0%
I don’t feel comfortable using it 35.5% 26.3% 43.1% 35.1% 34.6%
Mode used during last commute
Drove alone 71.3% 57.6% 78.9% 80.2% 68.3%
Carpool 5.7% 4.3% 4.0% 5.7% 8.8%
Public transportation 22.3% 35.7% 15.8% 14.8% 22.9%
Taxi or ridehailing 3.8% 3.8% 7.0% 0.7% 3.8%
Walked 9.1% 11.6% 4.6% 5.7% 14.7%
Bicycled 0.6% 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.7%
Other 0.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%
Kind of parking used (only respondents that used a car during last commute)
Free parking 69.4% 71.8% 57.7% 78.4% 69.7%
Daily or hourly parking 11.5% 12.5% 13.9% 8.7% 11.5%
Monthly or yearly parking 19.1% 15.7% 28.4% 12.9% 18.8%
Cost of parking (only respondents that paid)
Mean $9.19 $8.79 $11.64 $5.96 $8.45
Median $6.00 $7.50 $11.00 $5.00 $7.50
Total cost of current commute
Mean $7.82 $6.94 $11.50 $5.59 $7.29
Median $5.00 $4.00 $6.00 $4.00 $5.00

Table 3
Levels used in experimental design for microtransit alternatives.
Attribute Levels
Cost $0, $2, $3. Expressed in combination with transit fares as well.
Departure time 0, 5, 10 min before current departure time.
Wait Random between 4 and 12 min.
Walk Random between 4 and 15 min.
Microtransit 15%, 25%, 35% of current in-vehicle time.
Public transportation 50%, 70%, 90% of current in-vehicle time.

produced unbalanced experiments with several levels and number of experiments. We finally decided to use a D-efficient design
assuming a typical commute that takes 30 min and costs $10.00, with randomly set waiting and walking times, and using as priors
the results of the pilot mentioned above. In a second pilot, this approach produced good results.

4. Methods

This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a real-world microtransit pilot by coordinating the
knowledge and capabilities of academia and industry. The results of this phase of the project were intended to show not only
what is microtransit’s value of time, which was later used by the routing algorithm, but also who was the customer base for this
product.
We considered estimating two models to achieve both objectives: one discrete choice model to obtain values of time, and a
structural equation model to identify segments of the population that were more interested in microtransit. Nevertheless, there was
a possibility that early adopters would at the same time be more interested but use it less often, since they tend to have higher
incomes (Zijlstra et al., 2020), which is positively correlated with a higher use of cars over public transportation. We decided,
then, to estimate both models jointly using a hybrid choice model to understand whether the chances of using microtransit in a
hypothetical scenario were correlated with interest. This kind of model has been widely used by academics and, increasingly, by

7
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 3. Level of disruption caused by the pandemic, by city. The survey asked respondents ‘‘How disruptive has the coronavirus pandemic been to you and your
family thus far?’’.

practitioners to understand how attitudes and perceptions are related to travel demand (e.g., Mannering et al., 2019; Circella et al.,
2021; Mishra et al., 2021). We will describe each component in the following paragraphs.

4.1. Mode choice

We used the mixed logit model to analyze responses to the discrete choice experiments. This kind of model is derived from the
random utility maximization theory, which posits that decision-makers face a choice set of alternatives with random utilities, and
that they choose the alternative with the highest utility based on their individual choice preferences. The model also assumes that
preference parameters follow some known continuous and parametric distribution across the population with unknown mean and
variance.
Under these assumptions, respondents’ utilities can be represented by (1), where 𝑢𝑖𝑗𝑡 is the utility derived by individual 𝑖 when
they choose alternative 𝑗 during choice occasion 𝑡, 𝑣 is an index function that relates 𝑗’s attributes and 𝑖’s characteristics, 𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 , with
𝑖’s preference parameters, 𝜷 𝑖 , and 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑡 is a stochastic error component.
( )
𝑢𝑖𝑗𝑡 = 𝑣 𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 ; 𝜷 𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑡 (1)
′
= 𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 𝜷𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑡 (2)

A simple and effective specification for the representative portion of utility is linear, as in (2). When this is the case, willingness-
to-pay estimates can be easily obtained using the ratio of any parameter with cost’s. For instance, if we are interested in 𝑖’s value
of time, we can simply estimate it as 𝜔𝑖,time = 𝛽𝑖,time∕𝜎𝑖 , where 𝜎𝑖 is the cost parameter and 𝛽𝑖,time time’s.
If we assume 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑡 follow an Extreme Value Type I distribution, then the conditional choice probability for alternative 𝑗 given
the random parameters will have a conditional logit kernel, as shown in (3). The joint probability of observing all 𝑇 choices that 𝑖
( )
made, 𝐲𝑖 , is equal to (4), where Pr 𝑦𝑖𝑡 is the probability of observing the actual 𝑡th choice made by 𝑖. Finally, we cannot know the
real value of 𝑖’s taste parameters. Therefore, this probability has to be integrated over their (assumed) distribution 𝑓 with mean 𝝁
and covariance 𝛴.
( )
( ) exp 𝑣 𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 ; 𝜷 𝑖
Pr 𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑡 |𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 ; 𝜷 𝑖 = ∑ ( ) (3)
𝑙∈𝐶𝑖𝑡 exp 𝑣 𝐱𝑖𝑙𝑡 ; 𝜷 𝑖

( ) ∏𝑇
( )
Pr 𝐲𝑖 |𝐱; 𝜷 𝑖 = Pr 𝑦𝑖𝑡 |𝐱𝑖𝑡 ; 𝜷 𝑖 (4)
𝑡=1

8
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 4. Stated economic impact to respondents, by city. The survey asked respondents ‘‘Have any of the following happened to you since March 2020?’’.

Fig. 5. Top concerns related to the pandemic. The survey asked respondents ‘‘Which of the following concerns you the most?’’.

9
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 6. Travel behavior adaptations during the pandemic compared to respondents’ previous behavior. The survey asked respondents ‘‘Compared to your behavior
before the current Covid-19 health crisis, are you currently more or less likely to do the following?’’.

Fig. 7. This diagram illustrating a hypothetical first/last mile microtransit service was shown to respondents prior to questions about their level of interest.

10
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 8. Description provided after the diagram in Fig. 7 that describes microtransit in more detail.

Fig. 9. Interest in microtransit by City.

11
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 10. General views of microtransit.

Fig. 11. Example of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). In this case, the respondent stated they lived closest to a Light rail station, usually took 60 min in
their commute, and usually arrived at 8:00 AM to their destination.

( ) ∏
𝑇
( )
Pr 𝐲𝑖 |𝐱; 𝝁, 𝛴 = Pr 𝑦𝑖𝑡 |𝐱𝑖𝑡 ; 𝜷 ⋅ 𝑓 (𝜷; 𝝁, 𝛴) (5)
∫
𝑡=1

4.2. Interest in microtransit

To measure interest in microtransit, we estimated a latent variable sub-model. The latent variable model has two main
components that rest on a set of assumptions. First, it assumes that individuals have an unobservable (latent) perception of

12
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

microtransit that manifests in observable indicators (i.e., a measurement relation). Second, this model assumes that attitudes
correlate with sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., a structural relation).
The structural relation between microtransit interest, 𝑥∗𝑖 and sociodemographics, is given by (6). We will assume a linear relation
between both, with two separable Normal disturbances: one, 𝜐ℎ𝑖 , accounts for errors during the measurement of 𝑥∗𝑖 through indicator
ℎ, and 𝜉𝑖 accounts for unobserved personal factors that affect interest.

𝑥∗𝑖 = 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 + 𝜐ℎ𝑖 + 𝜉𝑖 (6)

Since we used Likert-style questions to measure interest in microtransit, shown in Figs. 9 and 10, we decided to model the
measurement relations using ordinal probit models. These models assume that if the response to some indicator 𝐼𝑖 is equal to 𝑚,
where 𝑚 can take one of a series of ordered values from 1 to 𝑀, then 𝑖’s latent variable 𝑥∗𝑖 lies between 𝜏𝑚−1 and 𝜏𝑚 , as shown in
(7).
𝐼𝑖 = 𝑚, 1 < ⋯ < 𝑚 < ⋯ < 𝑀 ⇔ 𝜏𝑚−1 < 𝑥∗𝑖 ≤ 𝜏𝑚 (7)
Since 𝜐ℎ𝑖 follows a Normal distribution, the probability that 𝐼𝑖 = 𝑚 is equal to (8). This probability can be expressed as the
difference between to Normal cumulative distribution functions, as shown in (11).
( ) ( )
Pr 𝐼𝑖 = 𝑚 | 𝐱𝑖 , 𝜐ℎ𝑖 , 𝜉𝑖 ; 𝝀, 𝝉 = Pr 𝜏𝑚−1 < 𝑥∗𝑖 ≤ 𝜏𝑚 (8)
( ′
)
= Pr 𝜏𝑚−1 < 𝐱𝑖 𝝀 + 𝜐ℎ𝑖 + 𝜉𝑖 ≤ 𝜏𝑚 (9)
( )
= Pr 𝜏𝑚−1 − 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 − 𝜉𝑖 < 𝜐ℎ𝑖 ≤ 𝜏𝑚 − 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 − 𝜉𝑖 (10)
( ) ( ) ( )
Pr 𝐼𝑖 = 𝑚 | 𝐱𝑖 , 𝜉𝑖 ; 𝝀, 𝝉 = 𝛷 𝜏𝑚 − 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 − 𝜉𝑖 − 𝛷 𝜏𝑚−1 − 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 − 𝜉𝑖 (11)
One latent variable can explain the response to more than one indicator. Assuming individual 𝑖 responded to a total of 𝐻 ordered
indicators, the probability of observing their sequence of indicators 𝐈𝑖 is equal to (12). Parameter 𝜁ℎ is proportional to the strength
of the tie between the latent variable and indicator 𝐼ℎ : A positive value indicates a positive relation between both, a negative value
does the opposite, and a value that is close to or equal to zero indicates that there is no relation between 𝐼ℎ and 𝑥∗ . Since 𝜉𝑖 cannot
be observed, an unconditional probability can be obtained by ‘‘integrating it out’’ of (12), as shown in (13). Note that, in this case,
we must also estimate the variance of 𝜉, represented here by 𝜍.
𝐻 ( (
( ) ∏ ( )) ( ( )))
Pr 𝐈𝑖 |𝐱𝑖 ; 𝝀, 𝜻, 𝝉, 𝜉𝑖 = 𝛷 𝜏𝐼ℎ𝑖 − 𝜁ℎ 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 + 𝜉𝑖 − 𝛷 𝜏𝐼ℎ−1,𝑖 − 𝜁ℎ 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 + 𝜉𝑖 (12)
ℎ=1
𝐻 ( (
( ) ∏ ( )) ( ( )))
Pr 𝐈𝑖 |𝐱𝑖 ; 𝝀, 𝜻, 𝝉, 𝜍 = 𝛷 𝜏𝐼ℎ𝑖 − 𝜁ℎ 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 + 𝜉 − 𝛷 𝜏𝐼ℎ−1,𝑖 − 𝜁ℎ 𝐱𝑖′ 𝝀 + 𝜉 ⋅ 𝜙(𝜉|0, 𝜍) 𝑑𝜉 (13)
∫
ℎ=1

4.3. Joint estimation

Both models can be estimated simultaneously. This provides efficiency gains and allows a relation between mode choice and
interest in microtransit without imposing a directional relation between both.
Since the choice of mode in the series of discrete choice experiments presented to respondent 𝑗 and their selection of psychometric
indicators is independent, the likelihood of observing both sets of variables is simply equal to the total likelihood of the model. If
we assume that the taste parameters of the choice model and the 𝜉 error terms are independent, the resulting parameters of this
model will be the same whether both models are estimated simultaneously or independently.
This assumption is not realistic in many scenarios. In our case, interest in microtransit is almost certainly correlated with the
likelihood of choosing that alternative (more concretely, with microtransit’s alternative-specific constant). We therefore estimated
the joint model represented in (14) where 𝝁 represents the mean of all random components and 𝛴 their covariance. Non-zero
elements on the off-diagonal of 𝛴 will imply a correlation between two random elements, possibly across models.
( ) ( )
𝑖 (𝝁, 𝛴, 𝝀, 𝜻, 𝝉) = Pr 𝐲𝑖 |𝐱𝑖 ; 𝜷 ⋅ Pr 𝐈𝑖 |𝐱𝑖 ; 𝝀, 𝜻, 𝝉, 𝜉 ⋅ 𝑓 (𝜷, 𝜉|𝝁, 𝛴) (14)
∫
The discrete choice literature has often relied on classical or frequentist estimation methods (i.e., maximum likelihood
estimation). We decided to use Bayesian estimation because it is faster and more stable. More specifically, we used the Metropolis–
Hastings algorithm with Normal priors for all random components and a Half-𝑡 prior (Huang and Wand, 2013), also known as
hierarchical Inverse Wishart, for the covariance matrix. Estimation was carried out using Apollo (Hess and Palma, 2019) as a
wrapper for the RSGHB package for R. The generative process can be described by Eqs. (15) through (19), where 𝜿 0 , 𝜦0 , 𝜌𝑘 , and 𝜈
are hyperparameters. For simplicity, we collapsed all random parameters into vector 𝜷.
( )
𝝁|𝜿 0 , 𝜦0 ∼ 𝑁 𝜿 0 , 𝜦0 (15)
( )
𝛾𝑘 |𝜌𝑘 ∼ Gamma ∕2, ∕𝜌𝑘
1 1 2 ∀𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾 (16)
( ( ))
𝜮|𝜈, 𝜸 ∼ Inverse-Wishart 𝜈 + 𝐾 − 1, 2𝜈 diag 𝛾1 , … , 𝛾𝐾 (17)
𝜷 𝑖 |𝝁, 𝜮 ∼ 𝑁 (𝝁, 𝜮) (18)
( )
𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑡 |𝜷 𝑖 , 𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 ∼ MNL 𝜷 𝑖 , 𝐱𝑖𝑗𝑡 (19)

13
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Table 4
Results of hybrid choice model.
Parameter Mean SD
Mean SD Mean SD
Choice model
ASC: Current 0 (fixed)
ASC: Microtransit
Car 1.01 0.0339 3.44 1.32
Transit 0.933 0.0117 Same as above
Other 0.139 0.0316 Same as above
Costa −1.75 0.126 1.85 0.638
Access timea −1.52 0.0743 1.37 0.740
IVTT: Microtransita −2.92 0.141 2.08 0.832
IVTT: Currenta −2.84 0.151 2.08 0.838
Late arrival −0.524 0.0166
LV model: Structural equation
City: Minneapolis 0 (fixed)
City: DC −0.0295 0.0300
City: Seattle 0.404 0.0132
City: Miami 0.406 0.0136
Female −0.162 0.0157
Age (years) −0.0178 0.000938
Race or ethn.: White 0 (fixed)
Race or ethn.: Black 0.337 0.0279
Race or ethn.: Asian −0.297 0.00783
Race or ethn.: Hisp. 0.00370 0.0142
Education: Some college 0.196 0.0119
Education: Graduate deg. 0.525 0.0182
Income: NA −0.313 0.0191
Income: $35k or less 0 (fixed)
Income: $35k to $150k 0.139 0.0154
Income: More than $150k 0.289 0.0117
Household size: 3+ 0.349 0.0141
Usual mode: Transit 0.734 0.0161
Usual mode: Car 0.284 0.0191
N. cars: 0 0 (fixed)
N. cars: 1 0.579 0.0133
N. cars: 2 0.350 0.0140
N. cars: 3 0.0942 0.0175
Error term (𝜉𝑗 ) 0 (fixed) 1.56 0.330
LV model: Measurement equation
‘‘How interested would you be. . . ’’ 1 (fixed)
‘‘It would be useful’’ 0.868 0.0141
‘‘I would feel safe’’ 0.608 0.0163
‘‘I am OK sharing a ride’’ 0.557 0.0106
‘‘It would be affordable’’ 0.517 0.0155
N. individuals 2,315
N. observations 18,520
log-likelihood −19,976.83
Burn-in iterations 3,000,000
Saved iterations 25,000

IVTT: In-vehicle travel time.

a
Parameters of underlying Normal random variables.

5. Results

The following subsections detail different aspects of the discrete choice model we estimated. First, we discuss results regarding
interest in microtransit, and second, the value-of-time estimates we obtained. Table 4 summarizes both results. The chains of all
parameters are in the Appendix, Appendix A.1. Programming scripts will be shared upon request.

5.1. Interest in microtransit

The second portion of Table 4 shows the parameters we obtained for the structural and measurement equations of the latent
variable sub-model.
The latent variable we estimated uses all indicators shown in Figs. 9 and 10. All indicators have a positive correlation with this
latent variable, which means that it describes both interest and advantages of microtransit. The indicators that are more closely
aligned with the latent variable measure both interest and usefulness. They are followed by other aspects of microtransit, such as
safety and affordability. For practical purposes, we will simply call this variable ‘‘Interest’’.

14
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 12. Sample’s median values of time, with 95% credible intervals.

Several sociodemographic variables are correlated with this perception of microtransit. Gender, race or ethnicity, education,
household size, and usual mode were strong predictors of interest. All else equal, respondents that were men, younger, Black or
African American, those with a graduate degree, those that live in larger households, and those that usually use public transit had a
higher average value for Interest. Our finding related to age is consistent with the one found by Macfarlane et al. (2021) in a small
microtransit pilot in Utah.
Many factors may explain these correlations. One of them is general dislike of sharing a vehicle. The literature has shown that
women tend to dislike crowding more than men (Börjesson and Rubensson, 2019; Haywood et al., 2017; Tirachini et al., 2017),
and that something similar happens among older people (Alonso-González et al., 2021; Börjesson and Rubensson, 2019; Tirachini
et al., 2017). That relation between sharing a vehicle and general comfort may partly explain why men and younger respondents
were more interested in microtransit.
Another factor that may be at play is how likely a person is to take up a new product. Studies on early adopters of transportation
services have also identified younger, more educated men are more likely to take up a new mobility service. Those that use public
transportation were also early adopters of these new services in a Dutch survey (Hardman and Tal, 2018; Zijlstra et al., 2020). That
may explain some of the correlations we found.
Respondents from Seattle and Miami were more interested in microtransit than those from Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis
after controlling for relevant demographics. These differences may be related to public transit provision and characteristics of the
built environment specific to each city. During model development we also included the residential density of respondents’ ZIP
codes. The values for these city-specific parameters was very close to zero and had a very high variance, which is why we decided
to remove them to ensure model parsimony. Behaviorally, this finding suggests that a priori interest in microtransit is not correlated
with the kind of neighborhood people live in at the intra-city level, but that there are inter-city differences.

5.2. Choice model

The first portion of Table 4 shows the results we obtained for the choice sub-model. As we explained in the previous section,
utilities are linear, and cost and travel time parameters, as well as the microtransit alternative-specific constant (ASC), are random.
The cost and time parameters follow a negative log-Normal distribution to ensure parameters have the correct sign in terms of
economic theory. The microtransit ASC follows a Normal distribution with one mean per usual mode and the same variance across
all.

15
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 13. Sample of densities of the microtransit specific constant, by mode.

First, Table 4 shows that the random parameters had a relatively high variance. This means that the sample had a considerable
heterogeneity in terms of their preferences. Extreme values for these parameters could also indicate that some respondents showed
a non-compensatory behavior. For instance, if a person always selected the cheapest option, then their cost parameter will be very
low.
Second, we found that, all else equal, car and transit users were equivalently likely to opt for microtransit. Those that used other
modes, such as walking, cycling or carpooling, we less likely to choose it. We believe this may be due to the fact that those people
arrived at less-common modes due to particular circumstances that microtransit will probably be unable to address. We also found
that, on average, the sample preferred alternatives that would get them to their destinations on time, as expected.
A more meaningful interpretation of the results can be obtained by calculating values of time. Since the cost and travel time
parameters follow a log-normal distribution, the distribution of the values of time will also be log-normal. This distribution has a
very heavy tail (for a discussion, see Crastes dit Sourd, 2021), so we will concentrate our analysis on median values. Fig. 12 shows
median values and their credible intervals for values of time (for a description on how uncertainty of central tendency measures
can be accounted for in a Bayesian setting, see Daziano and Achtnicht 2014).
The sample’s median value of in-vehicle travel time was perceived similarly between respondents’ current modes and micro-
transit: $20.24 (95% CI: $13.71-$26.94) and $18.63 (95% CI: $13.39-$24.46). These values are higher than current VOT values
recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation for project evaluation (current recommendation is set at $17.90 in 2019 U.S.
dollars; US Department of Transportation 2021), but close to the value found by Goldszmidt et al. (2020) using revealed-preference
data from Lyft ($19.00). This finding suggests that current guidance may be undervaluing the benefits of time-saving projects. A
more definitive answer could be provided using a representative sample from major metropolitan areas in the country. We also
found that the median rider values their time on their current mode 8.64% higher than on microtransit (95% CI: 1.67%–13.93%).
Walking and waiting was perceived much more onerously that time spent inside a vehicle: half the sample valued their time doing
so by at least $75.38 per hour (95% CI: $59.22-$94.96). This finding shows that a one minute reduction in walking or waiting has
a much larger impact on commuters’ propensity to choose microtransit than an extra one-minute detour. For example, the sample’s
median rider would be willing to accept one more minute of detour to save 4.05 min walking or waiting (95% CI: 3.04–5.02).
The microtransit ASC has a standard deviation that is much larger than all the mode-specific means, which partially accounts
for varying views of microtransit. Fig. 13 shows that the distribution of the ASCs is practically the same for transit and car users,
and users of ‘‘Other’’ modes having a slightly lower propensity to choose microtransit. On top of this, the credible intervals cover

16
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 14. Individual-level posterior medians, with sample-level median and 95% credible intervals.

very large values for the ASCs. This result may reflect non-compensatory decision schemes for some respondents (either always or
never choosing microtransit).
An analysis of individual-level parameters (see Train, 2009, pp. 259–267) have overlapping credible intervals across all main
sociodemographic variables (see Fig. 14). However, value of time medians tend to be higher for respondents from Minneapolis, car
users, non-white respondents, those with a college degree (but not a graduate degree), and those with two or more cars.

17
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. 15. Posterior distribution of the correlation between the microtransit ASC and the latent variable’s error term.

Unlike standard hybrid choice models that introduce the latent variable into the structural equation of utility, in our specification
we rather connect the choice and latent variable sub-models through the correlation term between Interest and the microtransit ASC.
In this way, we allow the data to indicate whether there is any relationship between interest in microtransit and the chances of
choosing it without forcing a relation, which may produce endogeneity issues.
Fig. 15 shows that there is, indeed, a strong positive correlation between both. Across the 25,000 MCMC draws, we found an
average correlation coefficient of 0.706 (95% CI: 0.627–0.772). Note that, although the distribution is somewhat bell-shaped, this
happened only by chance. The posterior distribution is not Normal (see Huang and Wand, 2013, section 3.3).

6. Conclusion

This study reports the results of a behavioral survey that sought to understand commuter interest, preferences, and willingness-to-
pay for a first-mile/last-mile microtransit service. The survey included a set of stated preference experiments offering respondents
a microtransit alternative to their usual reported commute. The data were used to estimate a hybrid discrete choice model that
informs who is interested in microtransit and the value of time for it.
The latent variable component of the hybrid model revealed that sociodemographic characteristics explain much of the varying
levels of interest in microtransit, rather than geographic variables like neighborhood density. The strongest factor on the latent
variable is transit usage, meaning people who usually use transit are the most interested. Education had a large impact, where, all
else equal, people with graduate degrees have a higher interest in microtransit. Women and older respondents generally showed a
lower level of interest. Finally, transit users had a higher interest for this FMLM service.
The literature has reported similar findings regarding early adopters of new transportation services and willingness to share.
For example, Soltani et al. (2021) found that more education, more income, and fewer years of age were correlated with higher
usage and interest in ride-hailing in the city of Adelaide, Australia. A review carried out by Nordhoff et al. (2019) found that men,
younger people, and higher-income individuals tend to be more interested in autonomous vehicles. The same pattern was found
by Prieto et al. (2017) in the case of carsharing schemes in London, Madrid, Paris and Tokyo. Lavieri and Bhat (2019) found that
higher-income individuals and younger people are more likely to share a ride in a hypothetical autonomous vehicle system. Kang
et al. (2021) found that women and older adults were less likely to choose pooled instead of private ride-hailing. These effects,

18
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

though, are either reversed or non-existent in two meta-analyses of carpooling studies with known individuals (Neoh et al., 2017;
Olsson et al., 2019). In other words, our findings is consistent with early adoption and sharing with strangers, but not so with shared
rides with family or friends.
The choice component of the hybrid model found that there were little differences in chances of choosing microtransit as a
function of respondents’ usual mode. Taste parameters behave consistently with previous findings: all else equal, people dislike
pricier and longer rides, and perceive walking and waiting as more taxing than being inside a vehicle. We also found a strong,
positive correlation between the residuals of the ‘‘Interest’’ latent variable and the chances of choosing microtransit.
Median values of in-vehicle travel time were relatively similar across modes: $18.63 per hour for microtransit and $20.24 for
users’ current mode. As we mentioned before, this is in line with the findings of Goldszmidt et al. (2020) using data from Lyft.
However, these values are lower than the ones found using data from highways. For example, findings from specific highways have
found that drivers have a mean value of time between $37.74 and $61.78 in Washington, D.C. Cetin et al. (2021), $53 (Hallenbeck
and Iverson, 2019) and $38 (Brent and Gross, 2018) in Seattle, and $44 in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (Burris and Brady, 2018). Those
results, though, may overestimate population values of time because car drivers tend to have higher salaries than public transit users.
In any case, all these values are higher than current values of time used in the U.S. for project assessment, which suggests that the
benefits of transportation projects that seek to reduce travel times may be undervalued when urban and rural values of time are
aggregated. A more definitive answer could be provided using a representative sample from major cities in the United States.
Access time, as expected, was valued at a considerably higher rate of $75.38 per hour. This finding means that the median rider
found one minute of walking or waiting to be around 4.05 times more taxing than in-vehicle travel. This substitution rate is similar
to the one found by Kolarova and Cherchi (2021) in an autonomous vehicle study in Germany (between 3.36 and 6.06, depending
on the mode considered and type of model), but much higher than the one found by Schmid et al. (2021) in Zurich, where the
values of in-vehicle and walking times were similar, and by Schmid et al. (2019) in Austria, where median substitution rates were
between 1.73 and 1.15. There may be cultural differences at play in these divergent results. While European cities tend to have
better walking infrastructure, many streets in the United States do not even have sidewalks. This may skew the value of walking
time upwards in our study.
Taken altogether, these results suggest that microtransit as a first/last mile connector service to fixed-route public transit has
the potential to attract commuters when designed to minimize access time and prioritize timely operations.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Tomás Rossetti: Conceptualization, Data curation, Data cleaning, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Andrea Broaddus: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing.
Melissa Ruhl: Conceptualization, Data curation, Data cleaning, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. Ricardo
Daziano: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) under the Award Number DE-EE0008464.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United
States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
This research was supported by the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development’s Scholarship Program (ANID) /
Doctorado Becas Chile/2019 / 72200167.

Appendix

A.1. Chains of hybrid choice model

Figs. A.16 through A.19 show the chains of the hybrid choice model. There is an adequate degree of mixing in all chains. The
chains of the measurement equations and covariance terms are particularly well mixed. We were unable to achieve a better mixing
across all parameters by either increasing or decreasing the target acceptance rate. The model we present here is the one with, in
our opinion, the best overall mixing.

19
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. A.16. Hybrid model chains: Choice component.

Fig. A.17. Hybrid model chains: Latent variable structural equation.

20
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Fig. A.18. Hybrid model chains: Latent variable measurement equations.

Fig. A.19. Hybrid model chains: Covariance matrix.

21
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

References

Alonso-González, M.J., Cats, O., van Oort, N., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., Hoogendoorn, S., 2021. What are the determinants of the willingness to share rides in
pooled on-demand services? Transportation 48 (4), 1733–1765.
Alonso-González, M.J., Liu, T., Cats, O., Van Oort, N., Hoogendoorn, S., 2018. The potential of demand-responsive transport as a complement to public transport:
An assessment framework and an empirical evaluation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2672 (8), 879–889.
Alonso-González, M.J., van Oort, N., Cats, O., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., Hoogendoorn, S., 2020. Value of time and reliability for urban pooled on-demand services.
Transp. Res. C 115, 102621.
de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Donkers, B., Jonker, M.F., Stolk, E.A., 2015. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide.
Patient 8 (5), 373–384.
Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., 2012. The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal. Transp. Res. A 46 (4), 673–683.
Börjesson, M., Rubensson, I., 2019. Satisfaction with crowding and other attributes in public transport. Transp. Policy 79, 213–222.
Brent, D.A., Gross, A., 2018. Dynamic road pricing and the value of time and reliability. J. Reg. Sci. 58 (2), 330–349.
Burris, M.W., Brady, J.F., 2018. Unrevealed preferences: Unexpected traveler response to pricing on managed lanes. Transp. Res. Rec. 2672 (5), 23–32.
Cetin, M., Zhu, S., Yang, H., Sahin, O., 2021. Travel patterns of frequent and non-frequent users on I-66 high-occupancy toll lanes and implications for the value
of time estimation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2675 (9), 766–775.
Circella, G., Xiatian, I., Matson, G., Malik, J., Etezady, A., 2021. Panel Study of Emerging Transportation Technologies and Trends in California: Phase 2 Findings.
Tech Report NCST-UCD-RR-21-21, National Center for Sustainable Transportation.
DART, 2022. Welcome Aboard GoLink. DART, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, URL.
Daziano, R.A., Achtnicht, M., 2014. Accounting for uncertainty in willingness to pay for environmental benefits. Energy Econ. 44, 166–177.
Fournier, N., Christofa, E., 2021. On the impact of income, age, and travel distance on the value of time. Transp. Res. Rec. 2675 (3), 122–135.
Geržinič, N., van Oort, N., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., Cats, O., Hoogendoorn, S., 2021. Potential of on-demand services for urban travel. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2107.00882.
Goldszmidt, A., List, J.A., Muir, I., Metcalfe, R.D., Smith, V.K., Wang, J., 2020. The value of time in the United States: Estimates from nationwide natural field
experiments. SSRN Electron. J..
Haglund, N., Mladenović, M.N., Kujala, R., Weckström, C., Saramäki, J., 2019. Where did Kutsuplus drive us? Ex post evaluation of on-demand micro-transit
pilot in the Helsinki capital region. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 32 (November), 100390.
Hallenbeck, M., Iverson, V., 2019. I-405 Express Toll Lanes Usage, Benefits, and Equity. Washington Department of Transportation.
Halse, A.H., Flügel, S., Kouwenhoven, M., de Jong, G., Sundfør, H.B., Hulleberg, N., Jordbakke, G.N., Lindhjem, H., 2022. A minute of your time: The impact
of survey recruitment method and interview location on the value of travel time. Transportation 1–32.
Hardman, S., Tal, G., 2018. Who are the early adopters of fuel cell vehicles? Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (37), 17857–17866.
Haywood, L., Koning, M., Monchambert, G., 2017. Crowding in public transport: Who cares and why? Transp. Res. A 100, 215–227.
Hess, S., Palma, D., 2019. Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application. J. Choice Model. 32,
1–43.
Huang, A., Wand, M.P., 2013. Simple marginally noninformative prior distributions for covariance matrices. Bayesian Anal. 8 (2), 439–452.
Kang, S., Mondal, A., Bhat, A.C., Bhat, C.R., 2021. Pooled versus private ride-hailing: A joint revealed and stated preference analysis recognizing psycho-social
factors. Transp. Res. C 124, 102906.
Kolarova, V., Cherchi, E., 2021. Impact of trust and travel experiences on the value of travel time savings for autonomous driving. Transp. Res. C 131, 103354.
Lavieri, P.S., Bhat, C.R., 2019. Modeling individuals’ willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous vehicle future. Transp. Res. A 124, 242–261.
Lazarus, J.R., Caicedo, J.D., Bayen, A.M., Shaheen, S.A., 2021. To Pool or Not to Pool? Understanding opportunities, challenges, and equity considerations to
expanding the market for pooling. Transp. Res. A 148, 199–222.
Lucken, E., Frick, K.T., Shaheen, S.A., 2019. ‘‘Three PS in a MOD:’’ role for mobility on demand (MOD) public-private partnerships in public transit provision.
Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 32, 100433.
Lucken, E., Shaheen, S., 2021. Incorporating Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) automotive services into public transportation. In:
Handbook of Public Transport Research. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ma, T.-Y., Chow, J.Y., Klein, S., Ma, Z., 2021. A user-operator assignment game with heterogeneous user groups for empirical evaluation of a microtransit service
in Luxembourg. Transp. A 17 (4), 946–973.
Macfarlane, G.S., Hunter, C., Martinez, A., Smith, E., 2021. Rider perceptions of an on-demand microtransit service in Salt Lake County, Utah. Smart Cities 4
(2), 717–727.
Mannering, F., Maness, M., Pinjari, A., Zhang, Y., Alnawmasi, N., Balusu, S., Barbour, N., Behnood, A., Eluru, N., Luong, T., Mishra, D., Sheela, P.V., Tahlyan, D.,
2019. Emerging Econometric and Data Collection Methods for Capturing Attitudinal and Social Factors in Activity, Travel Behavior and Safety Modeling.
Tech Report, Center for Teaching Old Models New Tricks (TOMNET).
Mayaud, J., Ward, F., Andrews, J., 2021. Microtransit has the potential to flip transit on its head. Transp. Res. Rec. 2675 (11), 77–88.
Mishra, S., Golias, M.M., Sharma, I., 2021. The Impacts and Adoption of Connected and Automated Vehicles in Tennessee. Tech Report RES-2019-06, Tennessee
Department of Transportation.
Narayanan, S., Chaniotakis, E., Antoniou, C., 2020. Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review. Transp. Res. C 111, 255–293.
Neoh, J.G., Chipulu, M., Marshall, A., 2017. What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis. Transportation 44 (2), 423–447.
Nordhoff, S., Kyriakidis, M., Van Arem, B., Happee, R., 2019. A multi-level model on automated vehicle acceptance (MAVA): A review-based study. Theoret.
Issues Ergonom. Sci. 20 (6), 682–710.
Olsson, L.E., Maier, R., Friman, M., 2019. Why do they ride with others? Meta-analysis of factors influencing travelers to carpool. Sustainability 11 (8), 2414.
Prieto, M., Baltas, G., Stan, V., 2017. Car sharing adoption intention in urban areas: What are the key sociodemographic drivers? Transp. Res. A 101, 218–227.
Rossetti, T., Ruhl, M., Broaddus, A., Daziano, R., 2022. How do attitudes and impacts of Covid-19 affect demand for microtransit? Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Schmid, B., Jokubauskaite, S., Aschauer, F., Peer, S., Hössinger, R., Gerike, R., Jara-Diaz, S.R., Axhausen, K.W., 2019. A pooled RP/SP mode, route and destination
choice model to investigate mode and user-type effects in the value of travel time savings. Transp. Res. A 124, 262–294.
Schmid, B., Molloy, J., Peer, S., Jokubauskaite, S., Aschauer, F., Hössinger, R., Gerike, R., Jara-Diaz, S.R., Axhausen, K.W., 2021. The value of travel time savings
and the value of leisure in Zurich: Estimation, decomposition and policy implications. Transp. Res. A 150, 186–215.
Schwieterman, J.P., Livingston, M., Van Der Slot, S., 2018. Partners in transit: A review of partnerships between transportation network companies and public
agencies in the United States. DePaul University.
Shaheen, S., Chan, N., 2016. Mobility and the sharing economy: Potential to facilitate the first-and last-mile public transit connections. Built Environ. 42 (4),
573–588.
Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Chan, N., Bansal, A., 2020. Sharing strategies: carsharing, shared micromobility (bikesharing and scooter sharing), transportation network
companies, microtransit, and other innovative mobility modes. In: Transportation, Land Use, and Environmental Planning. Elsevier, pp. 237–262.

22
T. Rossetti et al. Transportation Research Part A 167 (2023) 103549

Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Yelchuru, B., Sarkhili, S., Hamilton, B.A., et al., 2017. Mobility on demand operational concept report. United States. Department of
Transportation. Intelligent Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Soltani, A., Allan, A., Khalaj, F., Pojani, D., Mehdizadeh, M., 2021. Ridesharing in Adelaide: Segmentation of users. J. Transp. Geogr. 92, 103030.
Crastes dit Sourd, R., 2021. A New Shifted Log-Normal Distribution for Mitigating. ‘‘Exploding’’ Implicit Prices in Mixed Multinomial Logit Models. Leeds
University Business School Working Paper, (Forthcoming).
Sun, S., Wong, Y.D., Rau, A., 2020. Economic assessment of a dynamic autonomous road transit system for Singapore. Res. Transp. Econ. 83, 100843.
Tirachini, A., Hurtubia, R., Dekker, T., Daziano, R.A., 2017. Estimation of crowding discomfort in public transport: Results from Santiago de Chile. Transp. Res.
A 103, 311–326, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416308801.
Train, K.E., 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, second ed. Cambridge University Press.
US Census Bureau, 2020a. A01001. Age. Social Explorer.
US Census Bureau, 2020b. A02001. Sex. Social Explorer.
US Census Bureau, 2020c. A03001. Race. Social Explorer.
US Census Bureau, 2020d. A04001. Hispanic or Latino by Race. Social Explorer.
US Census Bureau, 2020e. A12002. Highest Educational Attainment for Population 25 Years and Over. Social Explorer.
US Census Bureau, 2020f. A14001. Household Income (In 2020 Inflation Adjusted Dollars). Social Explorer.
US Department of Transportation, 2021. U.S. Department of Transportation, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-02/
BenefitCostAnalysisGuidance2021.pdf.
Volinski, J., 2019. Microtransit or General Public Demand–Response Transit Services: State of the Practice. TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice, Project J-7, Topic
SB-30.
Wang, Z., Chen, X., Chen, X.M., 2019. Ridesplitting is shaping young people’s travel behavior: Evidence from comparative survey via ride-sourcing platform.
Transp. Res. D 75, 57–71.
Wardman, M., 2004. Public transport values of time. Transp. Policy 11 (4), 363–377.
Westervelt, M., Huang, E., Schank, J., Borgman, N., Fuhrer, T., Peppard, C., Narula-Woods, R., 2018a. UpRouted: Exploring Microtransit in the United States.
Technical Report, Eno Center for Transportation.
Westervelt, M., Huang, E., Schank, J., Borgman, N., Fuhrer, T., Peppard, C., Narula-Woods, R., 2018b. UpRouted: Exploring microtransit in the United States.
Yan, X., Levine, J., Zhao, X., 2019. Integrating ridesourcing services with public transit: An evaluation of traveler responses combining revealed and stated
preference data. Transp. Res. C 105 (January 2018), 683–696.
Zijlstra, T., Durand, A., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., Harms, L., 2020. Early adopters of mobility-as-a-service in the Netherlands. Transp. Policy 97, 197–209.

23