The Puget Sound Transportation Panel

  • Elaine Murakami
  • Cyrus Ulberg
Part of the Transportation Research, Economics and Policy book series (TRES)

Abstract

The Puget Sound Transportation Panel (PSTP) is the first general-purpose transportation panel survey in the United States. It was initiated in 1989 and continued through 1993. The panel is choice-based, stratified by three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and carpool. Wave 1 of the panel began with 1,713 households; through refreshment, the panel continued for its duration with approximately the same number of households. This chapter summarizes the panel’s survey methods, sample stratification, data collection, costs, participant incentives, and attrition. Data from the first two waves of the panel are used to illustrate how panels can capture dynamic relationships between changes in household location, work location and travel characteristics. The chapter includes a summary of papers prepared by other researchers with data from the PSTP, including use in travel behavior models, development of compensatory techniques for attrition in choice-based samples, and analysis of the role of perceptions on travel behavior outcomes.

Keywords

Transportation Research Panel Member Mode Choice Residential Location Panel Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baanders, B. and K. Siaotman. (1983) A panel for longitudinal research into travel behavior, in S. Carpenter and P. Jones, eds., Recent Advances in Travel Demand Analysis. Gower, Hants, England, 450–464.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, J. (1992) An Application of Multiple Response Conjoint Analysis to Regional Urban Transportation. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Chung, J-H and K.G. Gouuas. (1995) Sample selection bias with multiple selection rules: Application with residential relocation, attrition and activity participation in the Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Transportation Research Record 1493, 128–135.Google Scholar
  4. Coe, R.D. (1982) A preliminary empirical examination of the dynamics of welfare use. In Five Thousand American Families - Patterns of Economic Progress, Vol. IX. D.H. Hill, M.S. Hill and J.M. Morgan, eds., Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, G.J., F.T. Juster, and J.N. Morgan. (1987) The role of panel studies in research on economic behavior. Transportation Research, 21A, 249–263.Google Scholar
  6. Gensch, D.H. and P.T. Torres. (1980) Perceived-difference segmentation model for mass transit marketing. Transportation Research Record 765, 16–22.Google Scholar
  7. Giuliano, G. and T.F. Golob. (1990) Using longitudinal methods for analysis of a short-term demonstration project. Transportation, 17, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golob, T.F. (1989) The causal influences of income and car ownership on trip generation by mode. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 23, 141–162.Google Scholar
  9. Gowon, T.F. (1990) Structural equation modeling of the dynamics of travel choice dynamics. In P. Jones, ed., Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis, Gower Publishing Co., Brookfield, Vermont, 343–383.Google Scholar
  10. Golds, T.F. and R. Doason (1974) Assessment of preferences and perceptions toward attributes of transportation alternatives. In Behavioral Demand Modeling and Valuation of Travel Time. Special Report 149, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Goloe, T.F., R. Kitamura and Janusz Slpernak. (1997) A panel-based evaluation of the San Diego I-15 carpool lanes project. Chapter Four in this volume.Google Scholar
  12. Goloa, T.F. and H.J. Meurs. (1986) Biases in response over time in a seven-day travel diary. Transportation, 13, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gouts, T.F. and W.W. Recker. (1987) Dynamic analyses of complex travel behaviour using a subsample of the Dutch National Mobility Panel. In Analyses of Panel Data: Proceedings of the Round Table Conference on the Longitudinal Travel Study,Projectbureau for Integrated Traffic and Transportation Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  14. Goloa, T.F. and L. vAN Wissen. (1989) A joint household travel distance generation and car ownership model. Transportation Research 23B (6), 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, P.B. (1986) A panel analysis of changes in car ownership and bus use. Traffic Engineering & Control, 27 (10), 519–525.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, P.B. (1989) Family changes and public transport use, 1984–1987: A dynamic analysis using panel data. Transportation, 16, 121–154.Google Scholar
  17. Hensher, D.A. (1985) Longitudinal surveys in transport: An assessment. In E. Ampt, A.J. Richardson, and W. Brog, eds. New Survey Methods in Transport, VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Hensher, D.A. (1986) Dimensions of automobile demand: An overview of an Australian research project. Environment & Planning A, 18, 1, 339–1, 374.Google Scholar
  19. Hensher, D.A. (1987) Issues in the pre-analysis of panel data. Transportation Research, 21A (4/5), 287–302.Google Scholar
  20. Hensher, D.A., N.C. Smith, F.M. Milthorpe, and P.O. Barnard. (1991) Dimensions of Automobile Demand: A Longitudinal Study of Automobile Ownership and Use. (Studies in Regional Science and Urban Economics, Volume 22 ), North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Hni, M.S. (1982) Some dynamic aspects of poverty. In Five Thousand American Families - Patterns of Economic Progress, Vol. IX. D.H. Hill, M.S. Hill and J.M. Morgan, eds., Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  22. Krramuita, R. (1988) Life-style and travel demand. In A Look Ahead: Year 2010. Special Report 220, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 49–89.Google Scholar
  23. Krramura, R. (1987) A panel analysis of changes in car ownership and mode use. In Analyses of Panel Data: Proceedings of the Round Table Conference on the Longitudinal Travel Study Projectbureau for Integrated Traffic and Transportation Studies, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Kitamura, R. (1989) A causal analysis of car ownership and transit use. Transportation, 16 (2), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krramura, R. and P.H.L. Bovy. (1987) Analysis of attrition biases and trip reporting errors for panel data. Transportation Research, 21A, 287–302.Google Scholar
  26. Kitamura, R. and D.S. Bunch. (1990) Heterogeneity and state dependence in household car ownership: A panel analysis using ordered-response probit models with error components. In M. Koshi, ed., Transportation and Traffic Theory, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Koenig, B.E., D.K. Henderson and P.L. Mokhtarian. (1996) The travel and emissions impacts of telecommuting for the State of California Telecommuting Pilot Project. Transportation Research, 21A, 287–302.Google Scholar
  28. Koppelman, F.S. and E.I. Pas (1980) Travel-choice behavior models of perceptions, feelings, preferences and choice. Transportation Research Record 765, 26–33.Google Scholar
  29. Lidman, R.M. and G.C. Weeks. (1989) The Washington State Family Income Study. Presentation at the Puget Sound Research Forum, 1989. Washington State Institute for Public Policy Research, Olympia.Google Scholar
  30. Mannering, F., E. Murakami and S.-G. Kart. (1994) Temporal stability of travelers’ activity choice and home-stay duration: Some empirical evidence. Transportation, 21, 371–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murakami, E. and W.T. Watterson (1990) Developing a household travel survey for the Puget Sound Region. Transportation Research Record 1285, 40–48.Google Scholar
  32. Murakami, E., and W.T. Watterson (1992) The Puget Sound Transportation Panel after two waves. Transportation, 19, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murakami, E., and W.T. Watterson (1991) Attrition and Replacement Issues in the Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  34. Pendyala, R.M., K.G. Goulias and R. Krramutta. (1991) Impact of telecommuting on spatial and temporal patterns of household travel. Transportation, 18, 383–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pendyala, R.M., K.G. Goulias, R. Krramura, and E. Murakami. (1993) Development of weights for a choice-based panel survey sample with attrition. Transportation Research, 27A, 477–492.Google Scholar
  36. Stopher, P. (1992) Use of an activity-based diary to collect household travel data. Transportation, 19, 159–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ulberg, C. (1991) Perceptions of Travel Modes and Measured Travel Behavior: Initial Findings from the Puget Sound Transportation Panel. Paper prepared for the 6th International Conference on Travel Behaviour, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  38. van Wissen, L.J.G. and H.J. Meurs (1989) The Dutch mobility panel: Experiences and issues. Transportation 16, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Murakami
    • 1
  • Cyrus Ulberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of TransportationUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of Public AffairsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations