Binary Choice of Urban Transport Mode in the San Francisco Bay Region
旧金山湾区城市交通方式的二元选择AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要明确研究自驾与公共交通之间的二元选择，并推导和比较选择弹性，直接对应离散选择模型。
反馈分类问题正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
关注这篇论文的作者
旧金山湾区城市交通方式的二元选择
- 研究问题
- 在旧金山湾区的城市出行中，时间与货币成本如何影响自驾和公共交通之间的二元选择？当某种方式在两类成本上均较低时，是否会被选择？
- 方法与思路
- 作者以受限消费者选择模型描述自驾与公交选择，采用判别分类分析，并合并家庭出行访谈与区际时间、费用数据，按出行目的分组。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，时间与费用均占优的选择假说在数据范围内近似成立，并给出判别模型的效用解释、选择弹性推导及按出行目的的比较。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对样本如何保证两种方式均可选择、三种判别模型的统计假设，以及无差异面解释和弹性计算如何支持政策变化分析。
- 阅读边界
- 摘要未报告样本规模、弹性数值或具体统计检验；其政策分析依赖模型，不能仅凭观察性出行选择确认时间与费用的因果效应。
原文摘要
This empirical study presents an analysis of mode choice for selected urban trips in the San Francisco Bay area. The economic model is a restricted consumer choice model, where the mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive choice is between auto driver and transit passenger. The main testable hypothesis is that, in the absence of knowledge about the value a traveler attaches to his time, if a choice exists and if a mode is cheaper than the alternative in terms of both time and money, it should be chosen. The hypothesis was subjected to empirical analysis and, within the limits of the data, appeared to be a good approximation to reality. The statistical model used to further investigate the data was discrimination-classification analysis. The discriminant function can be interpreted as an indifference hypersurface of the indirect or constrained utility function. The statistical theory underlying the three versions of the model used is presented along with a derivation of the elasticity of choice. The data were a subset of the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission origin and destination home interview data merged with interzonal travel times and costs of both modes. Trips were stratified by purpose. Elasticities were calculated and compared both within a purpose by different variables and between purposes for each variable. Some potential policy changes were treated in the context of the model and compared with results of other studies.