STUDY OF AIRPORT ACCESS M O D E CHOICE

By Greig Harvey 1
(Reviewed b y the Air Transport Division)

ABSTRACT: This paper reports on an investigation of air traveler behavior in

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

choosing a mode of access to the airport. Data from a 1980 survey of departing
air passengers in the San Francisco Bay Area were used to study the charac-
teristics of access mode choice for local residents. Separate models were de-
veloped for business and non-business travel. The analysis demonstrates that
air travelers are highly sensitive to access travel time, and become more so with
increasing flight time. Price sensitivities are about the same as for conventional
work trip mode choice. Values of time for airport access appear considerably
higher than commonly is assumed in transport project evaluation, suggesting
that substantial investments in airport access improvements might be justified.

INTRODUCTION

Ground access poses a number of problems for the airport planner.

While parking and related services are a lucrative source of operating
revenue, inadequate access facilities can limit airport capacity, access traffic
can be a harmful externality to the surrounding community, and access
time can be a source of aggravation for travelers. To the extent that trav-
elers view ease of access as a characteristic of the airport, it may affect
the choice of departure (or arrival) airport when options are available.
To the extent that travelers perceive access as an integral part of the total
air trip, the quality of access may influence the demand for air travel.
Thus, airport access is an important attribute of the product that is de-
livered by airports and airlines, and knowledge about access behavior
should inform air transportation planning and management.
This paper addresses one aspect of airport access behavior: the choice
of mode for trips to the airport by departing passengers. It uses available
data and well-known statistical tools to examine the effects of personal
and transportation system characteristics on the observed mode choices
of a sample of air travelers. The major sections of the paper summarize
key assumptions, review earlier studies of access mode choice, describe
the data, present model estimation results, and discuss some implica-
tions for airport access policy.

BASIC CONCEPTS

An airline trip is considered to result from a set of choices made by a

party of air travelers, where a party is defined as one or more individuals
who jointly plan and execute an air journey. The choices include: whether
or not to make an air trip; the destination of the air trip; time-of-day to
travel; airline; airport; location of departure for airport; fare category;
'Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 94305.
Note.—Discussion open until February 1, 1987. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
November 19, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engi-
neering, Vol. 112, No. 5, September, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/86/0005-0525/
$01.00. Paper No. 20913.
525

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 mode of access; and parking option (for auto access modes). In this pa-
per, the choice of access mode is treated as a "lower-level" decision that
the traveling party considers in light of fixed assumptions about trip tim-
ing, airline, airport, point of departure, and so on. Given appropriate
data, this assumption is well suited to application of the multinomial
logit (MNL) choice model.
Multinomial logit is a convenient statistical tool for inferring the rel-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ative importance of factors that underlie choice. The logit equation gives
the probability P that a decision-maker i will choose one alternative ;',
given a "utility" U for each alternative from the set of available alter-
natives N:

exp (U[i,iY)

£exp(U[U])
k=X
Most logit estimation software requires that U[i,j] be linear in param-
eters:
U[i,j] = b0 + h * Xitz',/] + ... + bm * Xm[i,j] (2)
in which m is the number of variables in the utility equation, the X's
are variables that capture relevant attributes (of both the decision-maker
and the alternative), and the b's are parameters to be estimated (see Kan-
afani 1983, Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985, and Manski and McFadden 1981,
for discussions of multinomial logit at different levels of notational com-
plexity).
The logit model reflects a strong assumption about independence among
choice alternatives. Alternatives should represent distinct options. In light
of this, five basic types of airport access service were defined:
Drive.—The resident traveling party drives a vehicle to the airport and
leaves it parked in a lot (on or off the airport) for the duration of the
trip. The non-resident traveling party drives a rental car and returns it
at or near the airport.
Dropoff.—A family member, friend, or associate drives the passenger
to the airport and then removes the vehicle from the airport vicinity.
Transit.—The passenger rides conventional public transit to the air-
port.
Airporter.—The passenger rides a scheduled, dedicated access service
to the airport.
Taxi.—The passenger rides a taxi or similar personalized service to the
airport.
An important question is whether the alternatives are truly indepen-
dent of each other. For example, drive, dropoff, and taxi would appear
to offer a similar quality of service (i.e., direct, on-highway travel with
the comfort levels of the private auto). They are distinguished mainly
by cost and by the degree of involvement required of non-air travelers.
The traveler may perceive a higher-level choice of mode, such as "pri-
vate" versus "collective," followed by a lower-level choice among the
private options (followed by parking and other even lower-level choices).
A similar nesting may be postulated for the "collective" modes. Such a
structure can be studied using nested multinomial logit analysis. While

526

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 the models developed here conform to the simple, non-hierarchical choice
structure, development of a more complex nested model would be a
worthwhile extension of the present work.
For access mode choice, significant differences in behavior may occur
along at least two dimensions:

1. Residents versus Non-Residents.—Residents of a region have access

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to more complete information than non-residents about the available mode

options. This information differential may mean that certain character-
istics of modes, such as temporal patterns of congestion, simply do not
influence the decisions of nonresidents to the same degree as residents.
2. Business versus Non-Business Travelers.—Business travelers may be
relatively insensitive to cost because they often do not pay their own
travel expenses. Conversely, businessmen often function under tight time
constraints, making them relatively more sensitive to travel time.

There is some possibility that the determinants of choice will differ in

each case, suggesting the development of distinct models for: resident
business travelers; resident non-business travelers; non-resident busi-
ness travelers; and non-resident non-business travelers. The first two
categories are analyzed in this paper. Resource and time limits pre-
cluded the development of a satisfactory data set for non-residents. Hence,
the validity of separating business from non-business travelers can be
examined explicitly, but a similar examination of the resident/non-res-
ident dichotomy is left for future work.

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF AIRPORT ACCESS BEHAVIOR

The transportation literature provides some evidence on factors af-

fecting the demand for access services. While much of this evidence is
anecdotal, it suggests that time, cost, and convenience all play important
roles in determining the market for an access service.
There exist a few published examples of choice models for airport ac-
cess. One early study analyzed airport access in the Baltimore-Wash-
ington region. Logit models were developed using survey data collected
from air travelers in 1966 (Rassam, Ellis, and Bennett 1970). The models
were calibrated on aggregate shares between three airports and 78 zones
in the region. Due to data limitations, residents could not be distin-
guished from non-residents and dropoff had to be combined with drive-
and-park into a generic "private auto" mode. Nevertheless, the study
showed that the split among modes of access could be explained by time
and cost differences. It also showed that business travelers were as sen-
sitive to cost as non-business travelers, and that both time and cost sen-
sitivities were substantially higher for trips to the airport than for trips
from the airport. This was attributed to the pressure of departure sched-
ules.
A more sophisticated logit analysis was conducted for the Massachu-
setts Port Authority (Massport) by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CSI).
About 6,000 enplaning passengers were surveyed in the spring of 1979.
CSI developed logit models of airport access behavior for residents and
non-residents undertaking business and non-business travel, and tested
527

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 ground access policies (unpublished memorandum, W. Jessiman and J.
MacMann, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1981). The
CSI/Massport model structure resembles the non-hierarchical one pro-
posed here, except that submodels for choice of parking area and for
choice of rental car vendor were included. In addition to the obvious
time and cost variables, the CSI/Massport models included auto own-
ership, income, number of pieces of luggage, number of traveling com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

panions, and number of children in the family, to account for apparent

differences in behavior related to personal characteristics.
The models yielded extremely high values of time ($30-$100/hr, de-
pending on the specific subsample); also, time elasticities generally were
much higher than typical values for other urban mode choices, such as
for work or shopping trips (personal communication, J. MacMann, Cam-
bridge Systematics, Inc., 1981). Some elevation of value of time had been
expected, due to the predominance of high income travelers, but the
estimated magnitudes were concluded to be far enough from conven-
tional values to require corroboration.

THE BAY AREA AIRPORT ACCESS SAMPLE

A sample was extracted from air passenger survey data collected by

the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in August
1980 (MTC 1981). The survey had been administered to outbound pas-
sengers in the departure lounges of all three major Bay Area airports:
San Francisco International (SFO), Oakland International (OAK), and San
Jose Municipal (SJC).
The survey file from MTC yielded about 2,800 raw observations for
Bay Area residents. Cases with missing data (especially origin ad-
dresses) were removed and those remaining were checked for incon-
sistencies. About 1,850 observations survived this culling. An analysis
of the excluded observations did not reveal any systematic pattern likely
to bias the estimation results.
Two types of supplementary data also were assembled. Travel char-
acteristics to each airport from all possible origin zones were extracted
from the MTC regional model system data base. Air service character-
istics at each airport were obtained from the Official Airline Guide (OAG)
for the applicable period in August, 1980.
The survey allowed eight trip-purpose responses. Two categories clearly
represent business travelers ("business" and "convention") and two clearly
represent non-business travelers ("vacation" and "visiting"). The re-
maining purposes ("school," "emergency," "military," and "other") were
included in the non-business subsample. Of the total, 772 observations
were business travelers and 1,083 were non-business travelers.
The survey included seventeen possible access modes. These were as-
signed as appropriate to the five choice alternatives. The resulting mode
shares by trip purpose are shown in Fig. 1. As might be expected, busi-
ness travelers are more likely than non-business travelers to drive alone
(51% versus 27%) or take a taxi (8% versus 4%). Non-business travelers,
on the other hand, are more likely than business travelers to be dropped
off (56% versus 31%) or to take transit (5.4% versus 3%).
528

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Drive Dropoff Transit Alrpcrter Taxi

^^^ Access Mode
1//I Business l \ \ l Persons)

FIG. 1 .—Airport Access Mode Shares

One reason for the popularity of auto access is the general affluence
of resident air travelers. Income for the resident sample is high, espe-
cially for business travelers. Nearly 85% of the business group indicated
household incomes in excess of the Bay Area median (roughly $22,000).
Nearly 50% indicated incomes in excess of $40,000. In addition, 75% re-
ported multiple auto ownership in the household. Fewer than 1% were
without an auto. The overall picture is of an affluent and highly mobile
business sample. Such individuals tend to place a premium on time and
to have few constraints on auto use.
Non-business travelers were less affluent than business travelers. About
60% reported incomes above the median, indicating a distribution closer
to the population as a whole. This could help to explain the relative
unpopularity of drive and taxi among non-business travelers: lower in-
comes logically would be associated with greater cost sensitivities and
drive and taxi are the most expensive access modes.
Trip duration is another factor that may contribute to mode share dif-
ferences between business and non-business travelers. The largest single
cost component for the drive mode is parking, which varies directly with
the number of days the traveler leaves the region. Business travelers
make shorter trips on the average than non-business travelers. The re-
sulting cost differential could explain much of the attraction of dropoff
in non-business travel.
Among the items in the 1980 Bay Area survey, other possible influ-
ences on access mode choice include sex of traveler (women may prefer
more secure modes), number of pieces of luggage (curbside dropoff is
the easiest way of handling multiple bags), and the type of location left
for the airport (a dropoff by family members is easier if the trip starts
at home). Together with time and cost, these factors will be examined
in the following two sections.

529

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 MODE CHOICE FOR RESIDENT BUSINESS TRAVELERS

Basic Specification
Table 1 outlines the specification for model Bl, a basic model for busi-
ness travelers. Cols. 3 - 7 define the five utility equations. For example,
from Eq. 2 and Col. 5 of Table 1, the utility for transit is:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

U[TR] = b3 + b5* TT[TR] + b6 * AACC[TR]

+ b7* Cst[TR] + b9* Lug[TR] (3)

The model was estimated using a logit analysis package developed by

the author (Harvey, 1985). The estimation results are s h o w n in Table 2.
These will be discussed in three variable groups: level-of-service (time
and cost), traveler characteristics, and constant terms. Details on the def-
inition of time and cost variables are provided in Appendix I.

TABLE 1.—Definition of Model B1

Variable Mode
Number Name Drive Dropoff Transit Airporter Taxi
(1) (2) (3) (4) . (5) (6) (7)
1 Dum(DA) 1 0 0 0 0
2 Dum(DR) 0 1 0 0 0
3 Dum(TR) 0 0 1 0 0
4 Dum(AP) 0 0 0 1 0
5 TT TT(DA) TT(DR) TT(TR) TT(AP) TT(TX)
6 AACC(TR) 0 0 AACC(TR) 0 0
7 Cst Cst(DA) Cst(DR) Cst(TR) Cst(AP) Cst(TX)
8 Time(DR) 0 Time(DR) 0 0 0
9 Lug(TR) 0 0 Lug(TR) 0 0
10 HS > 1(DR) 0 HS > 1(DR) 0 0 0
11 Home(DR) 0 Home(DR) 0 0 0
Note: Definitions for abbreviations used in Table 1:
DA—the drive alternative;
DR—the dropoff alternative;
TR—the transit alternative;
AP—the airporter alternative;
TX—the taxi alternative;
Dum(DA)—A constant term in the drive utility equation;
Dum(DR)—A constant term in the dropoff utility equation;
Dum(TR)—A constant term in the transit utility equation;
Dum(AP)—A constant term in the airporter utility equation;
TT—The travel time for each mode (minutes);
AACC(TR)—A constant for auto access to transit;
Cst—The travel cost (including parking) for each mode (cents);
Time(DR)—The travel time for passengers in the dropoff mode;
Lug(TR)—Pieces of luggage per person for transit;
HS > 1(DR)—A constant in dropoff for household size > 1;
Home(DR)—A constant in dropoff for trips beginning at home.

530

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 Level-of-Service
Travel Time.—In conventional urban travel analysis, it is common to
distinguish at least two types of travel time: in-vehicle and out-of-ve-
hicle. The latter category includes walk times and wait times. Travelers
are expected to be more sensitive to out-of-vehicle time, because waiting
entails few external stimuli to hide the lack of spatial progress toward
the destination, and because walking requires considerable physical ef-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fort.

TABLE 2.—Mode! Estimation Results for the Business Subsample

Variable Model B1 Model B2
(1) (2) (3)
Dum(DA) 1.44 1.36
(9.69) , (9.02)
Dum(DR) 0.158 -0.086
(0.52) (-0.27)
Dum(TR) -1.17 -1.43
(-3.37) (-3.97)
Dum(AP) 0.662 0.571
(2.51) (2.13)
TT -0.069
(-3.73)
TT(Short) -0.0493
(-2.52)
TT(Long) -0.0987
(-3.41)
AACC(TR) -1.42 -1.36
(-2.30) (-2.20)
Cst -0.000995
(-8.52)
Cst(Short) -0.001444
(-7.31)
Cst(Long) -0.000897
(-7.20)
Time(DR) -0.0159 -0.0148
(-4.81) (-4.40)
Lug(TR) -0.473 -0.456
(-1.03) (-1.00)
HS > 1(DR) 0.489 0.506
(2.02) (2.08)
Home(DR) 0.794 0.806
(4.35) (4.40)
Overall Statistics
Observations 772 —
L° -1,122 —
Le -859.3 —
L* -771.4 -765.0
Percent "Right" 64.8 65.5
Rhobar-squared 0.308 0.313
Note: Estimated t in parenthesis.

531

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 Preliminary models (not shown here) were estimated with separate in-
vehicle and out-of-vehicle time coefficients, in which all elements of walk
and wait time were aggregated into a single out-of-vehicle time variable
for each mode. In no case did the two coefficients differ significantly,
so the two time categories were treated as one for the remainder of the
analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The time coefficient was assumed to be the same in all five utility
equations. The estimated value is —0.069. Typical coefficients from ur-
ban work mode choice models range between -0.02 and -0.08 (Harvey
1979, page A-5; Manheim 1979, page 445). While out-of-vehicle time
components often produce coefficients of this magnitude, -0.069 is a
large value for a total travel time that is dominated by in-vehicle time.
Elasticities provide a useful way of thinking about time sensitivity. The
general formula for direct elasticity in the logit model is:
e[i,j,k] = (1 - p[i,j]) * M Xft (4)
in which e = elasticity of the modal probability for traveler i and alter-
native ;' with respect to variable k; p = decision-maker's base probability
for mode j;b = coefficient for variable k; and X = decision-maker's base
value for variable k. The elasticity thus depends on the exact circum-
stances of each traveler, and aggregate demand elasticity can be evalu-
ated only by repeating the elasticity calculation for a sample of travelers.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the elasticity for specific values
of p and X.
For example, from the city of San Francisco to SFO, the travel time is
about 20 min and the airporter share of business travel is about 0.15. At
these values, the elasticity of airporter probability with respect to travel
time would be about —1.17. From Marin County (north of the Golden
Gate Bridge) to SFO, the airporter share is about 0.2 and airporter time
is about 40 minutes, yielding an elasticity of -2.21.
High travel-time sensitivity among air travelers could result from sev-
eral factors. An absolute deadline such as the flight departure is not
common in other aspects of urban travel. Few white collar workers are
penalized for occasional tardiness, for example. It may be that the in-
convenience (and outright cost) of late arrival at the airport is sufficient
to raise the significance of travel time. It also may be that in the context
of a long, often strenuous air journey, the access trip is viewed as one
segment where time can be saved through judicious choice of mode.
Finally, it could be argued that travel time sensitivities in other (non-
airport access) mode choice models are remarkably low. These low time
coefficients may reflect long-term location trade-offs, auto ownership ad-
justments, or internal household time allocation decisions that constrain
or attenuate mode choice behavior to make it seem less sensitive to time
differences among the modes. Since households are unlikely to rear-
range their residential and employment circumstances for improved air-
port access, the full effect of the access time trade-off appears in the form
of larger access mode choice coefficients.
Auto Access to Transit.—The MTC data included information about
whether households in a zone were close enough to walk to the nearest
transit line. If not, auto access to transit was assumed. However, there
is evidence that once an auto is required, transit loses favor because to
532

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 some degree a competing mode—drive or dropoff—already is in use.
To capture this effect, a dummy variable (AACC) was included in the
transit utility whenever the MTC data indicated auto access. As ex-
pected, the estimated coefficient of AACC was negative and large (-1.42).
Using the time coefficient (-0.069), this implies that a requirement for
auto access to transit has the same negative effect on transit utility as
an additional 20 minutes of travel time.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Travel Cost.—The basis of cost sensitivity is not the same for all busi-
ness travelers. Self-employed business travelers might be expected to
behave much like non-business travelers, reacting to cost as an expen-
diture of personal income. Other business travelers might be expected
to respond according to the accounting rules of their organizations. Since
some accounting rules are expressed as upper limits on categories of
expense, this might lead to a non-linear cost response. On the other
hand, a differential in cost below the expense limit might be available
as an "income supplement." This would lead to a degree of sensitivity
across the full range of costs. Finally, regardless of organizational fac-
tors, some business travelers would minimize costs as a matter of prin-
ciple.
Because the data were not available for exploring these hypotheses
individually, a single cost coefficient was used. The estimated value in
model Bl is -0.000995. This compares favorably with typical cost coef-
ficients from work mode choice models. Such models often use a cost
variable normalized by income (e.g., cost, in cents, divided by annual
household income, in dollars). A typical cost/income coefficient is about
-50. Taking into account the high average income of the business sam-
ple, this shows that cost sensitivity for business access travelers is about
the same magnitude as cost sensitivity for weekday work travelers at
comparable income levels.
Elasticities are helpful in thinking about the reasonableness of the cost
coefficient. For example, recent ridership data for the primary airporter
service between San Francisco and SFO indicate a fare elasticity of about
—0.35 (personal communication, R. Epifanio, San Francisco International
Airport, 1985). At the airporter share among San Francisco to SFO busi-
ness travelers (0.15) and for the base fare at the time of the increase
($4.25), the elasticity would have been -0.36 according to Eq. 4. While
this type of comparison must be approached with caution (because Eq.
4 does not give a true aggregate elasticity), the implication is that model
Bl accurately captures cost sensitivity (at least for an important subset
of the business sample).
Cost and time coefficients together indicate the value of time for air-
port access. In model Bl, bs/b7 = 69.3 is the value of time in cents/min
(equivalent to $41.61 in dollars/hr). This falls within the range reported
by CSI/Massport, and is quite high in comparison with typical values
of time in urban travel.
Other researchers have noted high values of time in air transportation.
Mohring argued that value of time for business travel should be exactly
the wage rate (Mohring 1976, page 58). More recently, Winston (1985)
reported values of time for inter-city travel about 50% higher than the
wage rate. There are a number of reasons why this might occur. While
it is true that salaried employees do not suffer a direct loss of income
533

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 from time spent traveling, many are judged in terms of tasks accom-
plished rather than time on the job. Marginal time is important because
it can make the difference between noteworthy performance and aver-
age performance. In addition, professionals often have secondary earn-
ing potential at rates well above the average hourly salary of their pri-
mary jobs (even after accounting for marginal tax rates), and travel time
may be perceived as a direct loss of supplementary income. One could
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

also advance an argument based on the physical and psychological stress

of air travel. Seating discomfort, queuing at terminals, ozone exposure,
jet lag, safety concerns, and other aspects of air travel tire and build
anxiety in the passenger. Travelers may require an additional period of
.recovery time for each hour of air travel time. All of these factors could
lead to a perception that access travel time is worth purchasing back at
a cost in excess of average salary.
Dropoff Passenger Time.—Distance to the airport could influence the at-
tractiveness of the dropoff alternative relative to other options that do
not take the time of a non-air traveler. To capture this effect, the round
trip in-vehicle time of one non-air traveler was included in the dropoff
utility. The estimated coefficient, -0.0159, is somewhat less than typical
time coefficients in work mode choice models. Interpretation is compli-
cated by the possibility that some non-air travelers will be friends or
family members who actually derive pleasure from accompanying the
air traveler to the airport, while others will be associates on work time.
Nevertheless, the result indicates a definite decline in the attractiveness
of passenger dropoff for long access trips.

Traveler Characteristics
Luggage.—Luggage was thought to be a deterrent to the use of transit,
because provisions for handling and storing it on the typical transit ve-
hicle are poor. A dummy variable was included in the transit utility when
the number of pieces of luggage per party member exceeded 1.0, yield-
ing a coefficient of —0.473. With the cost coefficient, this implies a value
of $4.75 placed on the average amount of extra luggage, suggesting that
business travelers would be willing to pay for luggage handling during
the transit trip.
Household Size.—The composition of a traveler's household could have
a strong effect on airport access, with increased likelihood of dropoff if
there is another person in the household to perform the task. To capture
some of the effect of household composition, a variable was constructed
for air travelers from households with two or more people (i.e., 1 = yes
and 0 = no) and was placed in the dropoff utility. The estimated coef-
ficient was 0.489, indicating an effect that is equivalent to $4.91 in cost
savings or to 7.1 minutes in travel time savings. Thus, in comparison
with other factors, living in a single person household is only a mod-
erate deterrent to dropoff for business travelers.
Departure from Home.—The location of departure for the airport is as-
sumed to result from a prior choice that does not depend on the choice
of access mode. However, the departure location could make a signifi-
cant difference in the attractiveness of access modes. Some of this dif-
ference is captured in time and cost variables, but the effect of leaving
from home on dropoff attractiveness must be represented separately. A
534

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 dummy variable was constructed for air travelers from households with
two or more members who left from home (1 = yes, 0 = no). The es-
timated coefficient was 0.794, indicating a stronger effect than house-
hold size alone. However, interpretation of this coefficient must be tem-
pered by an awareness that for some travelers departure location is chosen
simultaneously with mode (hence, a decision to depart from home may
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

indicate a simultaneous decision to use the dropoff mode).

Constant Terms
Constant terms were included in four of the five utility equations (a
fifth constant would be redundant). The constant captures the average
effect of factors that are not represented in the explicit variables of the
utility. It also compensates for sampling and measurement errors. The
presence of a full set of constants in a logit model reduces the chance
of bias in other coefficients due to data problems. But the multiple roles
of the constant make it difficult to interpret estimated values.
According to estimated constants for model Bl, relative to dropoff and
taxi, drive appears to have attractiveness that is not represented in the
explicit variables of the model. The same is true, to a lesser degree, for
airporter. One example of such an omitted attribute is travel time vari-
ability, which travelers dislike but which does not appear in typical travel
time data.

Statistical Performance
The test statistic for an individual logit coefficient converges asymp-
totically on the t distribution. For the sample sizes reported here, it is
acceptable to use confidence intervals based on the standard normal dis-
tribution. Thus, a test statistic greater than |1.96| indicates 95% confi-
dence that the coefficient is different from zero.
By this criterion, the drop'off constant and the luggage per person vari-
able do not differ significantly from zero (t values for model Bl are listed
in Table 2). In the case of the dropoff constant (t = 0.52), this means
simply that dropoff is adequately distinguished from taxi by the current
specification (since taxi is the base mode in the constant definitions). The
luggage coefficient is significant with only 70% confidence (t = -1.03).
In light of the small number of transit riders in the sample, this might
be considered high enough to support retention of the variable on a
priori grounds.
A logit model can be tested by comparing it with a simpler version
estimated on the same sample. The model to be tested must include all
of the variables found in the simpler model. The log likelihood from
each model is used to construct a test statistic that has a Chi-squared
distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the num-
ber of coefficients. This statistic is:
-2* (U-LB) (5)
in which LA is the log likelihood from the simpler model and LB is the
log likelihood from the more complex model. Eq. 5 commonly is called
the "likelihood ratio statistic."
A useful basis for comparison is a version of the model that contains
535

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 only constant terms. The likelihood ratio test then measures the ability
of the remaining variables to explain choice. Using U (the likelihood with
constants only) and L* (the likelihood for the full model), the test sta-
tistic for model Bl is 175.8 with 7 degrees of freedom. The Chi-squared
(0.01) value is 18.48, indicating that the non-constant terms in Bl have
substantial explanatory power.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Other Hypotheses for Business Travelers

The Effect of Income on Cost Sensitivity

Model Bl shows that cost is a significant factor for business travelers,
even though the cost of travel may be a compensated business expense.
Given the existence of a relationship between cost and mode choice, it
is logical to ask whether the income of the traveler affects the degree of
sensitivity to cost.
The effect of income on cost sensitivity was tested by specifying a model
with three different cost variables: one for household incomes below
$25,000, one for household incomes between $25,000 and $40,000, and
one for household incomes above $40,000. The non-cost coefficients were
within 0.1% of the model Bl coefficients. The cost coefficients differed
somewhat, but not in the expected way (see Table 3). The log likelihood
increased only to -770.4. The likelihood test statistic (using model Bl
as the base) was 2.0, as compared with a Chi-squared (0.01) value of
9.21 for two degrees of freedom. This indicates no significant increase
in explanatory power from the two additional cost variables.

Sex-Based Differences
Two hypotheses about the sex of the traveler were tested:

1. In a household with one car and two or more persons, a woman

would have a different likelihood of choosing the drive mode than a
man.
2. Women might be more attracted to dropoff and taxi as secure modes
(i.e., where they are accompanied to the airport and do not spend time
alone at transit stops or in parking structures).

The coefficients in both cases (tested separately as additions to model

Bl) were completely insignificant (t < |0.2|), suggesting that sex may not
influence business travel decisions.

Length of Flight
Perception of access time and cost is not necessarily the same under

TABLE 3.—Cost Coefficients by Income Level for the Business Model

Income range Coefficient Estimated t Value of time ($)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
<25K -0.001037 -5.29 39.92
25K-40K -0.001201 -5.70 34.47
>40K -0.000905 -6.66 45,75

536

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 TABLE 4.—t Statistics for Coefficient Differences in Model B2
Variable Coefficient difference Estimated t
(D (2) (3)
TT 0.0494 1.74
Cst 0.000547 2.75
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

all travel conditions. In particular, time and cost sensitivity may vary
with the overall length of the air journey. This hypothesis was tested
by creating two sets of level-of-service variables—one for short-haul trips
(air time < = 120 min) and one for long-haul trips (air time > 120 min).
The results (model B2) are shown in Table 2.
A substantial difference between short and long air trips is indicated
by model B2. The likelihood test statistic against model Bl (12.8) is sig-
nificant at the 0.01 level. The effect of the time variable is larger for long-
haul travelers, possibly due to the importance of timely arrival. The ef-
fect of the cost variable is smaller for long haul, indicating that a given
increment of cost appears less important when the total trip cost is high.
t statistics on the individual coefficient pairs are both significant at the
90% level. The implied values of time are $20.48 for short-haul trips and
$66.02 for long-haul trips, obviously a large difference. On the basis of
these results, one can conclude that access mode choice behavior for
short-haul air travel is similar to conventional work mode choice, and
that long-haul air travel embodies characteristics which sharply elevate
the importance of travel time in access behavior.

MODE CHOICE FOR RESIDENT NON-BUSINESS TRAVELERS

Basic Specification
A parallel analysis was conducted for resident non-business travel. The
results for model NB1 are shown in Table 5. This model resembles model
Bl (Table 2), but the estimated coefficients reveal many differences in
behavior between business and non-business travelers. Time appears less
onerous for non-business travel. Its coefficient is about 0.6 of the busi-
ness coefficient (i.e., versus model Bl). Cost appears more significant
for non-business travel, by a factor of about 1.2. The implied value of
time is $19.61/hr, a figure that is more in line with typical urban mode
choice values.
The auto access to transit coefficient is smaller than in the business
model by a factor of 3.7. It may be that auto access to transit is less
adverse for non-business travel because less value is placed on the time
of the non-air-traveler performing the dropoff. In fact, round trip time
for the non-air traveler was included in an earlier version of model NB1,
where it proved insignificant (|f| < 0.2). This suggests that most non-air
travelers providing dropoff are family members or friends for whom the
dropoff time is offset by the social value of seeing-off the traveling party.
Luggage appears to be a larger factor in transit attractiveness for non-
business travel. The coefficient is -1.36, and the implicit price of extra
luggage is $11.17, roughly 2.4 times the value in the business model.
The coefficient has a much better t statistic (-3.71), though the standard
537

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 TABLE 5.—Model Estimation Results for the Non-Business Subsample
Variable Model NB1 Model NB2
(1) (2) (3)
Dum(DA) 2.03 2.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(11.49) (11.35)
Dum(DR) 0.323 0.086
(1.38) (0.36)
Dum(TR) 0.088 -0.146
(0.31) (-0.50)
Dum(AP) 1.38 1.40
(5.72) . (5.72)
TT -0.0398
(-3.27)
TT(Short) -0.0238
(-1.91)
TT(Long) -0.0841
(-4.14)
AACC(TR) -0.388 -0.388
(-1.20) (-1.18)
Cst -0.001218
(-9.38)
Cst(Low, Short) ' -0.002006
(-8.74)
Cst(Low, Long) -0.001116
(-5.53)
Cst(Mid, Short) -0.001367
(-4.92)
Cst(Mid, Long) -0.001331
(-4.70)
Cst(High, Short) -0.000742
(-3.59)
Cst(High, Long) -0.000773
(-3.84)
Lug(TR) -1.36 -1.34
(-3.71) (-3.55)
HS > 1(DR) 1.33 1.51
(7.88) (8.55)
Fem(DR,TX) 0.647 0.643
(4.77) (4.68)
Overall Statistics
Observations 1,083
L" -1,555
Lc -1,155
L* -1,018 -997.3
Percent "Right" 65.9 66.1
Rhobar-squared 0.342 0.353
Note: Estimated t in parenthesis.

538

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 error is nearly identical. The magnitude of the coefficient suggests that
some type of luggage handling would increase the attractiveness of transit
substantially.
Household size also appears to be a much more important factor for
non-business travelers. Living in a household with two or more mem-
bers has the same effect on dropoff attractiveness as would a $10.92 cost
savings. In essence, the dropoff mode is strongly preferred by multiple-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

member households, possibly because it maintains contact among

household members until the last moment.
Security was represented as a dummy variable (0,1) in the dropoff and
taxi utilities, set to one if the traveler was a woman and to zero other-
wise. The magnitude of the coefficient (0.647) indicates that women are
somewhat more likely to take secure modes. This result does not seem
to be attributable to internal household automobile allocation patterns
that give the male preferential access to the car, because in a separate
test a dummy for women in the drive mode had a very small coefficient
and a poor t statistic. However, it is likely that the value of the security
coefficient would be highly situation-dependent, varying with the layout
of parking facilities, with the character of surrounding communities, with
the safety record of local transit services, and so on. Estimation of sep-
arate security coefficients for each airport thus would be a useful exten-
sion of the present work.
Finally, the constant terms in model NB1 indicate that drive and air-
porter have a degree of attractiveness relative to dropoff, transit, and
taxi that is not represented in the variables of the model.

Other Hypotheses for Non-Business Travelers

Cost sensitivity for non-business travelers should drop as income in-
creases, because trip expenses are primarily a personal responsibility.
This hypothesis was tested by inserting a separate cost coefficient for
each of three income categories. The non-cost coefficients were the same
(i.e., within 0.1%) as in model NB1. The cost coefficients differed in the
expected way and are shown in Table 6. The log likelihood increased to
-1,008. The likelihood ratio statistic (using model NB1 as the base) was
20, as compared with a Chi-squared (0.01) value of 9.21 for two degrees
of freedom. Thus, a segmented cost variable adds substantially to the
explanatory power of the non-business model.
The t statistics for two-way comparisons of the cost coefficients were
computed, using asymptotic covariances available from the logit esti-
mation outputs. The largest t value was 4.45 for the difference between
coefficients 1 and 3. The value for the difference between coefficients 1

TABLE 6.—Cost Coefficients by Income Level for the Non-Business Model

Income range Coefficient Estimated t Value of time ($)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
<25K -0.001595 -9.10 14.97
25K-40K -0.001331 -6.29 17.94
>40K -0.000723 -4.75 33.03

539

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 TABLE 7.—Values of Time for Model NB2
Income ($)
Length of flight Low Medium High
(D (2) (3) (4)
Short-haul 7.12 10.45 19.25
45.22 37.91 65.28
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Long-haul

and 2 was 1.02. Hence, the overall influence of income on cost sensitiv-
ity is strong, but the low and medium income ranges are not well dis-
tinguished at the current sample size.
Variation in time and cost sensitivity with length of flight was tested
in the same manner as for business travelers. The results appear in Table
5. Note that the income gradations in the cost variable have been main-
tained. The model yields a likelihood ratio statistic of 41.4 (using model
NBl as the base), compared with a Chi-squared (0.01) value of 16.81 for
6 degrees-of-freedom. Thus, the explanatory power of the short-haul/
long-haul split is quite good.
The individual coefficients show that differences in time sensitivity for
all travelers and in cost sensitivity for low income travelers are especially
strong, but that a difference in cost sensitivity for medium and high
incomes does not appear to exist. The implied values of time for model
NB2 are shown in Table 7. The income effect is as expected for short-
haul, but for long-haul produces the lowest value of time in the middle
income range. This could be correct if many long-haul trips by low in-
come travelers are paid for by others (i.e., with cost sensitivities based
on higher incomes).
One additional hypothesis was tested on the non-business sample. It
seemed possible that unexplained factors would vary among the three
airports in the region, due to differences in comfort, in convenience, in
reliability, and in other attributes that were not well-captured in the ex-
plicit variables. This was tested by estimating a separate set of constant
terms for each airport, without changing the rest of the specification.
Because OAK and SJC did not have enough non-auto users to support
their own transit and airporter constants, a specification was estimated
with separate constants for drive and dropoff only. The log likelihood
for this model was -986.4, yielding a test statistic equal to 21.8 (with
model NB2 as the base) as compared with a Chi-squared (0.01) value of
13.28 for 4 degrees-of-freedom. The full set of constant terms is shown
in Table 8. These constants are close to the original values for model

TABLE 8.—Airport-Specific Constant Terms for the Non-Business Model

Mode
Airport DA DR TR AP
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SFO 1.76 -0.118 -0.237 1.22
OAK 1.95 -0.216 -0.237 1.22
SJC 3.11 1.40 -0.237 1.22

540

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 NB2 at SFO and OAK, while they differ significantly at SJC. In essence,
auto modes are strongly preferred at San Jose. This perhaps reflects the
general spatial and activity pattern of Santa Clara County, which re-
mains heavily auto oriented despite the recent development of an ex-
tensive bus system.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CONCLUSION

Summary
This paper has presented an analysis of airport access mode choice for
residents of the San Francisco Bay Area. The major technical results can
be summarized as follows:
1. As one would expect, travel time and travel cost are strong ex-
planatory variables in airport access mode choice.
2. Business travelers are considerably more sensitive to airport access
time than to other types of travel time. Non-business travelers also ex-
hibit high time sensitivity, but not as high as business travelers.
3. Both business and non-business travelers become more sensitive to
access time as the length of the airline flight increases. Thus, quality of
access service is particularly important to long-haul travelers.
4. In general, the cost sensitivity of the non-business traveler de-
creases with increasing income. One exception is the category of long-
haul, low income travelers, whose insensitivity to cost may reflect a sub-
sidy for travel (e.g., from parents) or a high ratio of assets to income
(e.g., retirees).
5. Business travelers are somewhat less sensitive to cost than non-
business travelers, and income does not appear to be an important factor
in their cost sensitivity. This indicates that the basis of business cost
sensitivity is external to the individual, e.g., it may derive from the ac-
counting rules that apply to most salaried workers.
6. For most air travelers, the value of time is at least as high as the
average wage or salary; in many cases, it appears to be much higher.
7. Extra luggage (i.e., more than one piece per person) substantially
reduces the attractiveness of transit. Transit users probably would be
willing to pay for a baggage handling service, if that were technically
and economically feasible.
8. Among non-business travelers, women exhibit a clear preference
for modes that offer door-to-door escorted service (i.e., dropoff and taxi).
Policy Implications
These results carry a number of implications for airport access policy.
Because of the high time sensitivity of the air traveler, auto modes (in-
cluding taxi) will tend to dominate the residential airport access market.
However, transit services might achieve significant market shares in sev-
eral ways. They could attempt to provide superior travel times, which
is possible if improved technology and highway congestion allow transit
to achieve higher line haul speeds. Parking prices could be used to in-
crease the cost of auto travel, although the surcharges required to bring
about a significant diversion are quite large. For example, according to
the coefficients of model Bl (Table 2), the cost of auto would have to
541

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 exceed the cost of transit by nearly $14.00 to compensate for a 20 minute
travel time differential. Since parking cost is proportional to time out of
the region, one might expect transit and airporter to be more competitive
for long air trips. But travelers seem to prefer to shift from drive to drop-
off in response to higher cost. The best potential market for transit and
airporter service is among air travelers leaving the region for a long pe-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

riod who originate some distance from the airport (i.e., when both auto
operating costs and the time commitment of a non-air-traveler for drop-
off become large).
Another policy implication concerns the complexity of the airport ac-
cess market. The models show that mode choice behavior varies with
distance from the airport, with length of stay away from the region, with
flight time, with trip purpose, with household income, and so on. In
effect, there are many separate markets for airport access service, each
with a different mode choice decision calculus. Planning for improved
airport access will be most successful when it accounts for the needs
and responses of each important market segment.
A third implication concerns the effect of flight length on travel time
sensitivity. In multiple airport systems, airport planners often assume
that long-haul flights can be assigned to remote airports. Yet, if access
time is substantially more valuable for long-haul air travel, users might
derive considerable benefit from a reassignment of long-haul flights to
close-in airports.
A fourth implication concerns the cost effectiveness of transportation
investments to serve airport access. High values of time indicate that
some infrastructure improvements might be justifiable on the basis of
airport access time benefits. For example, a savings of 10 min for each
of 4,000,000 air passengers would be worth about $28,000,000 at the av-
erage business values of time ($.693/min). To illustrate the level of in-
vestment this might imply, $28,000,000 in benefits each year would cover
roughly a $230,000,000 construction expenditure (at 10% interest with a
30-yr payout). There may well be this sort of investment potential at
many major airports, e.g., for short transit extensions, for intermodal
transfer facilities, for improved freeway access and egress, or for modest
capacity improvements on the urban highway network in the vicinity of
the airport. Even for something as simple as an internal shuttle bus, air
travelers may be willing to pay for better service than airports now pro-
vide.

Applications
The models developed here can be used to study the effects of pro-
posed airport access policies. A simple approach is to employ the logit
elasticity (Eq. 4) to address specific questions about well defined mar-
kets. For example, to obtain an estimate of the price elasticity in a ho-
mogeneous market, one would substitute the base share and the base
price from that market, together with the appropriate cost coefficient,
into Eq. 4.
A more sophisticated approach is necessary for dealing with detailed
policies and complex markets (and for developing more accurate elas-
ticity estimates in simple cases). Ideally, one would obtain a sample of
542

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 air travelers for the desired study area, prepared as the estimation data
were for this paper. Logit models (e.g., model B2 and model NB2) then
would be selected and a computer program written to calculate the modal
probabilities for each observation and to summarize the results for the
sample as a whole (this technique is sometimes called "sample enu-
meration"). A policy could be evaluated by representing it through
changes in the variables for each observation. The resulting differences
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in overall shares would indicate the effect of the proposed policy. This
process sounds tedious, but the software can be designed to automate
most of the tasks associated with repeated policy tests. And once a pro-
gram is written it can be adapted to different model formulations or geo-
graphic areas with modest reprogramming (see Harvey 1979).
With caution, logit models can be transferred in time or to other geo-
graphic settings. While it is best to reestimate models on local and cur-
rent data whenever possible, transferred models can be adequate if the
constant terms are properly adjusted and no other option is available.
Techniques for partial reestimation are documented in the literature (see
Koppelman and Wilmot 1982).

Extensions
The results of this study could be enhanced in several ways:

1. Repeat the analysis for non-residents.

2. Explore more sophisticated structural hypotheses. For example, the
present data set could be used to conduct a study of sub-mode, mode,
time-of-day, airline, and airport choice.
3. Develop a prototype computer package for planning applications.
This would make it easier to test the performance of the models in track-
ing the effects of actual transportation system changes, and would be
of use to airport planners.
4. Estimate the same (or similar) models on data for other areas and
time periods. This would provide evidence on the generalizability of the
findings reported here.
5. Estimate similar models on more detailed data, such as a larger
sample with adequate representation of less-used modes and with trip
data coded from the actual origin locations rather than from the zone
centroids. This would afford an opportunity to specify time variables
(among others) more carefully (especially the individual out-of-vehicle
time components). It also would allow a more fine-grained identification
of distinct sub-markets.
6. Design and conduct special studies of air travelers to develop a bet-
ter understanding of their access decision processes, of the basis for their
high time sensitivity, and of the relationship between airport access and
the demand for air travel.

This agenda for research on airport access has a high potential payoff.
Not only does the level of satisfaction with air transportation as a mode
of inter-city travel depend in part on the quality of airport access, but
improvements in knowledge about traveler behavior can help public and
private organizations to address access problems more quickly and ef-
fectively.
543

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation

under grant CEE 83-07967. All errors and omissions are the responsi-
bility of the writer.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPENDIX I.—DEFINITIONS OF TRAVEL TIME AND COST

Travel Time
For the drive, dropoff, and taxi alternatives, the MTC highway travel
time from the origin zone to the airport was used (including interzonal \
and "terminal" times). Travelers with flight times on weekdays between
7 and 10 AM or 4 and 7 PM were assigned times from the peak-hour
tables. All others were assigned times from the off-peak tables.
For the drive and dropoff modes, out-of-vehicle time was defined as
the time to get from the appropriate parking option to the terminal. Field
measurements were made to determine these times. For taxi, no out-of-
vehicle time was included because most taxi services can be relied upon
to make a pickup within several minutes of the specified time.
In-vehicle time for transit was taken from the appropriate peak- or off-
peak MTC file. Where the data indicated auto access to transit, highway
travel time to the transit stop was added to the transit in-vehicle time.
Out-of-vehicle time for transit was defined as the sum of walk, first wait,
and transfer wait times as supplied in the MTC data.
Airporter travel times were the most difficult to define. The pickup
locations for airporter-type services operating in August 1980 first were
determined. Travel time from the pickup point to the airport was as-
sumed to equal the scheduled time published by the operator. Several
airporter options then were set up for each air party. One was defined
as conventional transit to the zone of the nearest airporter stop. All times
for the airporter and transit portions of the trip were added to give a
gross estimate of trip time. Another option involved only the San Fran-
cisco Airporter, assuming that each traveling party from the North or
East Bay could take conventional transit to the SFO Airporter. This op-
tion was excluded for San Mateo and Santa Clara county origin locations
(i.e., in the direction away from the SFO Airporter base). Again, all times
were added to yield a total trip time. The final option was defined as
auto access to the nearest airporter stop (available if household auto
ownership was greater than zero). In this case, total travel time included
auto time from the origin zone to the airporter stop zone, along with
the published airporter time to the airport and a brief wait at the air-
porter stop to reflect the out-of-vehicle time.
Airporter options which could not deliver the passenger to the airport
within 75 min of flight time were dropped. Among the remaining op-
tions, the one with the lowest total travel time was assumed to represent
the airporter alternative for the air party under consideration.

Travel Cost
For the drive alternative, costs included tolls, operating costs at 10
cents/mile, and one-half of the parking charges in a composite facility
544

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.

 for the duration of the airline trip. For traveling parties larger than one
person, total cost w a s divided by party size. The value for auto per-mile
operating cost was based on 1980 gasoline cost and on the average Bay
Area vehicle fleet miles/gal, multiplied b y 1.85 (a value developed in
previous Bay Area studies to account for short-term maintenance costs)
and r o u n d e d to the nearest integer value. The composite parking cost
was computed as a weighted average based o n the usage of parking
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

among drivers in the sample. The parking cost was divided in half be-
cause the model addresses only half of the access travel implied by a
drive trip to the airport (the other half of parking cost would apply to
the return trip from the airport).
Costs for the dropoff alternative included tolls and operating costs for
a trip to the airport and back to the origin zone, as well as one hour of
parking in the short-term facility. Again, total costs were divided by the
number of travelers in the party. Costs for the transit alternative were
taken directly from the MTC data, with an increment for auto access to
transit (divided among party members). Costs for the airporter alter-
native were based o n t h e published fare for t h e best airporter option,
with added amounts for non-walk access m o d e s (taken from the appro-
priate MTC level-of-service tables a n d calculated as for t h e previous
modes). Costs for the taxi alternative were based on mileage rates for
services operating from t h e origin zone. Total fare w a s divided b y t h e
party size.

APPENDIX II.—REFERENCES

Ben-Akiva, M. E., and Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory and
application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Harvey, G. (1979). STEP—short-range transportation evaluation program: description
and user's guide. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Metrocenter, Oak-
land, Calif.
Harvey, G. (1985). "MicroLOGIT—A multinomial LOGIT estimation program for
microcomputer applications." Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford Univ., Stanford,
Calif.
Kanafani, A. (1983). Transportation demand analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
New York, N.Y.
Koppelman, F. S., and Wilmot, C. G. (1982). "Transferability analysis of disag-
gregate choice models." Transportation Research Record, 895, 18-32.
Manheim, M. L. (1979). Fundamentals of transportation systems analysis. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Manski, C. F., and McFadden, D., Eds. (1981). Structural analysis of discrete data
with econometric applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (1981). "San Francisco Bay Area 1980
air passenger survey." Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Metrocenter,
Oakland, Calif.
Mohring, H. (1976). Transportation Economics. Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.
Rassam, P. R., Ellis, R. H., and Bennett, J. C. (1970). The N-dimensional logit model:
development and application. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Washington, D.C.
Winston, C. (1985). "Conceptual developments in the economics of transporta-
tion: an interpretive survey." Journal of Economic Literature, 23, 57-94.

545

J. Transp. Eng. 1986.112:525-545.