Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2011

Differences in Travel Behavior and Demand Potential of Tram-and Bus-Based Neighborhoods: Evidence from a Cluster Analysis

Abstract

One of the most contentious issues in public transport planning is whether passengers react differently to rail-based public transport and to bus-based public transport. A key problem is the difficulty in comparing the two modes. Specifically, rail-based modes are often built in higher-density environments that have higher latent public transport demand. Bus routes rarely offer the same service qualities (travel speed, service frequency) as rail service does. An approach that uses cluster analysis of public transport services as a basis for further comparison can account for these evaluated methodological shortcomings. This approach provides the opportunity to compare bus and rail under similar conditions. The authors describe the cluster analysis in which bus and rail transport in Zurich and Berne, Switzerland, were compared. The research considered several public transport qualities regarding travel time, frequency, and number of lines between bus and tram service to a particular stop. Where equivalent service qualities were provided, no significant higher effect existed in tram-based clusters compared with bus-based clusters. Nevertheless, demand potential (defined as numbers of residents and jobs) differed between clusters.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Megel K. Schienenbonus: Nur ein Mythos? Bus Oder Bahn im Regionalverkehr—Schemata und Präferenzen. Der Nahverkehr, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2001, pp. 20–23.
2. Vuchic V. Urban Public Transport—Operations, Planning and Economics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2005.
3. Scherer M. Is Light Rail More Attractive to Users Than Bus Transit? Arguments Based on Cognition and Rational Choice. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2144, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 11–19.
4. Hensher D. A Bus-Based Transitway or Light Rail? Continuing the Saga on Choice Versus Blind Commitment. Road Transport Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1999, pp. 3–20.
5. Hass-Klau C., Crampton G., and Benjari R. Economic Impact of Light Rail. Environmental and Transport Planning, Brighton, United Kingdom, 2004.
6. Hass-Klau C., Crampton G., and Ferlic A. The Effect of Public Transport Investment on Car Ownership—The Results for 17 Urban Areas in France, Germany, UK, and North America. Environmental and Transport Planning, Brighton, United Kingdom, 2007.
7. Land Value and Public Transport. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, RICS Policy Unit, London, Oct. 2002.
8. Axhausen K. W., Haupt T., Fell B., and Heidl U. Searching for the Rail Bonus: Results from a Panel SP/RP Study. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2001, pp. 353–369.
9. Ben-Akiva M., and Morikawa T. Comparing Ridership Attraction of Rail and Bus. Transport Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2002, pp. 107–116.
10. Johnson D., Abrantes P., Wardman M., Chadwick N., and Albanese L. Analysis of Quantitative Research on Quality Attributes for Trams. Proc. European Transport Conference, Leeuwenhorst, Netherlands, Association for European Transport, London, 2009.
11. Kottenhoff K., and Lindh C. The Value and Effects of Introducing High Standard Train and Bus Concepts in Blekinge, Sweden. Transport Policy, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1996, pp. 235–241.
12. Kasch R., and Vogts G. Schienenbonus: Es Bleiben Fragen—Führen nur die Geänderten Rahmenbedingungen zu Steigenden Fahrgastzahlen? Der Nahverkehr, Vol. 3, 2002, pp. 39–43.
13. Arrington G. B., and Cervero R. TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
14. Groneck C. Französische Planungsleitbilder für Strassenbahnsysteme im Vergleich zu Deutschland. PhD thesis. Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany, 2007.
15. Fielding G. J., Brenner M. E., and Faust K. Typology for bus transit. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1985, pp. 269–278.
16. Karlaftis M. G., and McCarthy P. Cost Structures of Public Transit Systems: A Panel Data Analysis. Transportation Research E, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2002, pp. 1–18.
17. Backhaus K., Erichson B., Plinke W., and Weiber R. Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Springer, Berlin, 2000.
18. Rand W. M. Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 66, No. 336, 1971, pp. 846–850.
19. Mardia K. V., Kent J. T., and Bibby J. M. Multivariate Analysis. Academic Press, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1979.
20. Janssen J., and Laatz W. Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS. Springer, Berlin, 2010.
21. Ketchen D. J., and Shook C. L. The Application of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management Research: An Analysis and Critique. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1996, pp. 441–458.
22. Stadt Zürich. Essential Zurich. www.stadt-zuerich.ch/prd/de/index/statistik/in_kuerze.html. Accessed June 12, 2010.
23. Statistikdienste Bern. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Bern. http://www.bern.ch/leben_in_bern/stadt/statistik/publikationen/jahrbuch. Accessed June 12, 2010.
24. Cain A., Flynn J., McCourt M., and Reyes T. Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit. Report FTA-FL-26-7109.2009.3. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009.
25. Hinweise zur Schätzung des Verkehrsaufkommens von Gebietstypen, Forschungsgesellschaft für Strassen- und Verkehrswesen, Cologne, Germany, 2007.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2011
Issue published: January 2011

Rights and permissions

© 2011 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Milena Scherer
Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, HIL F 13.3, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 15, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland.
Ulrich Weidmann
Institute for Transport Planning and Systems, ETH Zurich, HIL F 13.3, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 15, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 70

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 2

  1. Streetcar Development in China: The Motivations Behind
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Modeling and Simulation of the Future Impacts of Urban Land Use Change...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub