İSTANBUL TOPLU TAŞIMA SİSTEM ALGISININ MEVCUT VE SANAL TERCİHLER ÇERÇEVESİNDE LOJİT MODEL İLE İNCELENMESİ

Year 2021, Volume: 20 Issue: 39, 96 - 111, 28.06.2021

Mahmut Esad Ergin , Hüseyin Onur Tezcan

Abstract

Kişilerin bütün bir ulaştırma sistemi algılarının yanı sıra, toplu taşıma türünü seçip seçmeme durumu kişinin toplu taşıma sistem algısı ile ilgilidir. Bu çalışmayla, kullanıcıların toplu taşıma sisteminin hangi özelliklerini nasıl algıladıkları, tür seçiminde hangi özelliğin daha etken olduğu ikili lojit modeliyle açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Bireylerin toplu taşıma sistemi algısının, sosyo-ekonomik ve ulaştırma türlerine ait özelliklerle birlikte, toplu taşımanın hizmet kalitesi ile ilgili çeşitli kriterler açısından nasıl etkilendiği incelenmiştir. Söz konusu toplu taşıma sistem algısı mal ve can güvenliği, kalabalıklık, stres, gerginlik ve motivasyon kaybı ve yorgunluk olmak üzere dört grupta incelenmiştir. Sonuçta, kullanıcıların genel olarak sistemin Mal ve Can Güvenliği kapsamında yeterli olmadığı, stres ve gerginliğin en fazla etki ettiği yolculuk türünün ev-iş yolculukları olduğu gibi değerlendirmelerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

Toplu taşıma sistem algısı, Algı analizi, İkili Lojit ModeL, Ödeme isteği analizi

INVESTIGATION OF THE ISTANBUL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERCEPTION WITH THE LOGIT MODEL WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF REVEALED AND STATED PREFERENCES

Abstract

Besides users’ perception of a whole transportation system, the situation of whether the users choose the mode of public transportation or not is related to their perception of the public transportation system. In this study, it has been tried to explain which features of the public transportation system perceived by users and how, and which variable is more effective in choosing the type of transportation by using binary logit model. The mentioned public transport system perception has been examined in four groups as property and life safety, crowding, stress, tension and loss of motivation and fatigue. As a result, it has been evaluated that the users are generally not satisfied within the scope of the property and life safety of the public transport system, and it is revealed that the most impacted type of trip by stress and tension is home-based trips.

Keywords

Public transport user perception, perception analysis, Binary logit model, Willingness to pay analysis

References

• Demographia, (2020), Demographia World Urban Areas: 16th Annual Edition June 2020., 05.11.2020, http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf.
• Del Castillo, J.M., Benitez, F.G., (2012), “A Methodology for Modeling and Identifying Users Satisfaction Issues in Public Transport Systems Based on Users Surveys”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 1104-1114.
• Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., Cecin, P., (2010), “Modelling User Perception of Bus Transit Quality”, Transport Policy, 17, 388-397.
• Dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., Cecin, P., (2011), “The Quality of Service Desired by Public Transport User”, Transport Policy, 18, 217-227.
• Domencich, T.A., McFadden, D., (1975), Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
• Friman, M., (2004), Implementing Quality Improvements in Public Transport, Journal of Public Transportation, 7(4), 49-65.
• Horowitz, J.L., Koppelman, F.S., Lerman, S.R., (1986), “A Self – Instructing Course in Disaggregate Mode Choice Modelling”, Federal Transit Administration, Washington. Lall, S.V., Selad, H., Shalizi, H., (2006), “Rural-Urban Migration in Developing Countries: A Survey of Theoretical Predictions and Empirical Findings”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3915.
• Lancaster, K.J., (1966), “A New Approach to Consumer Theory”, Journal of Political Economy, 14(2), 132-57.
• Li, Z., Hensher, D.A., (2011), “Crowding and Public Transport: A Review of Willingness to Pay Evidence and Its Relevance in Project Appraisal”, Transport Policy, 18, 880-887.
• Marans, R.W., (2012), “Quality of Urban Life Studies: An Overview and Implications for Environment-Behavior Research”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 9-22.
• Ortuzar, J.D., Willumsen, L.G., (2011) “Modelling Transport: 4th Edition”, John Wiley & Sons, UK.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUIK), (2020), 05.11.2020, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/tr/main-category-sub-categories-sub-components2/.
• United Nations, (2018), World Organization Prospect. 05.11.2020, https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf.
• Wener, R.E., Evans, G.W., (2010), ”Comparing Stress of Car and Train Commuters”, Transportation Research Part F, 14, 111-116.
• Williams, H.C.W.L., (1977). “On The Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit”, Environment and Planning A, 9(3), 285-344.
• Williams, H.C.W.L., (1981). “Travel Demand Forecasting: an Overview of Theoretical Development. In D.J. Banister and P.G. Hall (eds.)”, Transport and Public Policy Planning, Londra.