Theorizing relationship between

transfer facility attributes (connectivity)

and travel behavior

30 April 2007
Submitted for Presentation at the
11th World Conference on Transportation Research

by
Hiroyuki Iseki*
Assistant Professor of Geography and Planning
University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, OH 43606
419.530.2545
hiseki@UTNet.UToledo.Edu
www.geography.utoledo.edu/
and
Brian D. Taylor
Associate Professor of Urban Planning
UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies
3250 Public Policy Building
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656
310.903.3228
btaylor@ucla.edu
www.its.ucla.edu
* = corresponding author

Abstract
Walking from origins to transit stops, transferring between transit lines, and walking from transit
stops to destinations all add to the burden of transit travel, sometimes to a very large degree.
Transfers in particular can be stressful and/or time-consuming for travelers, discouraging transit
use. As such, transit facilities that reduce the burdens of walking, waiting, and transferring can
substantially increase transit system effectiveness and use. In this paper, we argue that both
transit planning research and practice frequently lack a clear conceptual framework relating
transit transfers with what we know about travel behavior. Therefore, we draw on the concepts
of transfer penalties and value of time in the literature to develop a framework that situates
transfer penalties within the total travel generalized costs of a transit trip. For example, value of
time is important in relating actual time of waiting and walking to perceived time. We also draw
on research to classify factors most important to users perspectives and travel behavior
transfer costs, time scheduling, and five transfer facility attributes: 1) access, 2) connection and
reliability, 3) information, 4) amenities, and 5) security and safety. Using this framework, we
seek to explicitly relate improvements of transfer facilities with components of transfer penalties
and changes in travel behavior (through a reduction in transfer penalties). We conclude that the
employment of such a framework can help practitioners better apply the most effective
improvements to transit stops and transfer facilities.
Key words: transfer facilities, travel behavior, generalized costs, transfer penalties, value of time

1. INTRODUCTION
In contrast to the door-to-door flexibility of trips made by foot, bicycle, and automobile,
traveling by fixed-route public transit requires one to walk (or bicycle or drive) to stops and
stations, wait for a bus or train, frequently transfer from one vehicle or mode to another en route,
and then walk to a final destination. Put simply, access to, between, and among stops and
stations is central to transit travel. It follows, then, that reducing the burden of walking, waiting,
and transferring can substantially increase the attractiveness of public transit; the lower these
burdens are, the higher a systems connectivity. Unfortunately, walk, wait, and transfer burdens
often receive less attention from transit system managers than the in-vehicle travel experience.
While this division of attention is perhaps understandable acquiring, maintaining, and, in
particular, operating vehicles is, after all, the core mission of any transit system opportunities
to increase connectivity and, in turn, ridership may be quite large.
But transit system connectivity can be an elusive concept. How does one define, measure,
and evaluate connectivity? Although the importance of transit transfer connectivity has been
recognized for several decades, surprisingly little of what researchers have learned about out-ofvehicle travel behavior today explicitly informs transit planning practice. In particular, many
past studies of transit stops, stations, and transfer facilities have failed to consider the relative
importance (both positive and negative) of a wide array of out-of-vehicle trip attributes, or
whether these attributes influence ridership independently, or only in concert with other factors.
Collectively, the current literature is also notable for its descriptive, largely atheoretical character.
Largely absent is a theoretical framework for how improvements of stops, stations, and transfer
facilities affect peoples travel behavior and, in turn, overall transit ridership. This lack of causal
clarity in the research on transit stops, stations, and transfer facilities is an enormous drawback
that this paper seeks to address.
In this paper, we explore the various attributes of transit stops, stations, and transfer facilities
in order to determine which factors tend to be the most important in determining travel choices
and behavior, in particular a mode choice. This information helps us develop a method to
systematically evaluate the performance of connectivity at transit stops, stations, and transfer
facilities.
Following this introduction, we offer some background on transit system connectivity and
transfer facilities. In the third section, we explore the concepts of transfer penalties and value of
time in the literature, and introduce a framework that situates transfer penalties within the total
travel generalized costs of a transit trip. This allows us to develop a framework to relate
improvements of transit facilities to travel behavior. In particular, we emphasize the difference
between actual and perceived waiting/walking time. In the fourth section, we provide a
conceptual framework for evaluating the total generalized cost of transferring, in which we
clearly show connection between improvements at transfer facilities with components of transfer
penalties. We identify the classification of factors particularly important from users
perspectives, which consist of transfer costs, time scheduling, and five evaluation criteria of
transfer facilities: 1) access, 2) connection and reliability, 3) information, 4) amenities, and 5)
security and safety. By making a clear connection between transit stop, station, and transfer
facility improvements, perceptions of transfer penalties, and travel behavior, we hope to make it
easier for the planners and operators of transit systems to increase connectivity at transfer
facilities and boost transit patronage. Finally, the paper concludes with an agenda for further
1

research on transfer connectivity and discusses the limitations to increasing ridership through
improved connectivity.

2. BACKGROUND
The importance of transit system connectivity has been recognized for a long time. The
Committee on Intermodal Transfer Facilities of the Transportation Research Board in 1974
emphasized the importance of identifying factors to measure and be used to optimize total
transportation network effectiveness:
The intermodal transfer facility determines total transportation network
effectiveness. As a connecting node, the facility integrates the various
transportation modes to maximize the number of users. A poor connector would
discourage potential users or cause them to be diverted to other modes. Poor
transportation system operating practices sometimes introduce crowding and
delay, which can be attributed wrongly to inadequacy of the transfer facility.
There is a need to establish factors that optimize total transportation network
effectiveness. More information is required on the effect of system operating
practices on modal transfer efficiency and space use, and procedures should be
developed to improve efficiency and reduce space requirements, passenger
inconvenience, and delay (Committee on Intermodal Transfer Facilities, 1974).
Despite the long-established recognition of its importance, efforts to improve connectivity at
transit transfer facilities have often proven less effective than expected. First, as noted above,
both practitioners and researchers have tended to pay more attention to quantity and quality of
transit vehicle services (in-vehicle travel), probably because of their more intuitively obvious
connections to ridership. Second, because transfer facilities vary in size, modes served, location,
and amenities, it is hard to comprehensively analyze transfer facilities using uniform criteria
(ITE Technical Council Committee 5C-1A, 1992). Third, most previous studies of transit stops,
stations, and transfer facilities have typically compiled laundry lists of positive and negative
attributes, but have largely failed to consider the relative importance of each of these attributes,
or whether they influence ridership differently alone or in concert with other factors (Rabinowitz
et al., 1989, Fruin, 1985, Kittelson & Associates, 2003, Vuchic and Kikuchi, 1974, Evans, 2004).
As a result, we know little about which attributes of transfer facilities are most important, under
which circumstances, and in what combinations. Finally, most of the literature on transfer
facilities lacks a research-based framework for how improvements of transfer facilities affect
peoples travel behavior and, in turn, the overall ridership in the transit system. This lack of
causal clarity in the research on transit transfer facilities is a significant limitation to improving
practice (Liu et al., 1997).

3. A FRAMEWORK FOR INCORPORATING TRANSFER PENALTIES INTO THE

TOTAL GENERALIZED COST OF TRANSIT TRIPS
Understanding what affects the transfer penalty can have significant
implications for a transit authority. It can help identify which types of
improvement to the system can most cost-effectively reduce this penalty, thus
2

attracting new customers, and helping determine the value of improvements to

key transfer facilities (Guo and Wilson, 2004).
The concept of transfer penalty represents generalized costsincluding monetary costs, time,
labor, discomfort, inconvenience, etc.involved in transferring from one vehicle to another
between the same mode (e.g. bus to bus) or different transportation modes (e.g. bus to train, walk
to bus, etc.) is well-established theory in the travel behavior literature (Ortuzar and Willumsen,
2004). In transportation scholarship, the term transfer penalties is used in two ways. In the
broader definition, transfer penalties are used to represent all of the monetary, time, and labor
expenditures involved in waiting and walking, experiencing discomfort, worrying about safety,
and any other inconvenience and emotional stress involved in transferring, and thus can
generally be viewed as an impedance to travel (Liu et al., 1997).1 Viewed more narrowly,
transfer penalties are the impedance in transferring, excluding easily quantified factors, such as
waiting time, walking time, and transfer fares. In other words, a narrow definition of transfer
penalties considers costs beyond the monetary and time costs associated with transferring (Liu et
al., 1997).
Example: Transfer Penalties Incurred During a Typical Transit Trip
Drawing from Currie (Currie, 2005), a one-way transit trip typically consists of the following
attributes:2
1) access by walking from a trip origin to a bus stop (8 minutes),
2) wait at a bus stop (4 minutes),
3) travel in vehicle from a bus stop to a rail station (20 minutes),
4) transfer from a bus stop to a rail station, involving walking (6 minutes), waiting (10
minutes), and other transfer penalties,
5) travel in vehicle from a rail station to another (30 minutes), and
6) walk from a rail station to a trip destination (6 minutes).
Converting all time, fare, and qualities of travel into comparable costs, the computation of the
total generalized cost (TGC) for this trip is:
TGC = {(Walkt * Walkw) + (Waitt * Waitw) + (IVTt * IVTw)
+ (NT * TPb) + MSCm} * VOT + Fare

----- Eq. (1)

Where:
Walkt: time in minutes walking to and from the transit service
Walkw: passenger valuation of walk time to and from transit stops
Waitt: time waiting for transit vehicle to arrive at the transit stop
1

Other attributes of transfers are: seamlessness, flexibility, safety, security, comfort, convenience of both
transferring and taking care of errands (e.g. buying a cup of coffee, magazine, and newspaper), ease of payment,
ease of vehicle access/egress, in-vehicle time, seat availability, staff friendliness/helpfulness, familiarity of
service, ease of comprehension, ease of finding out information, and image of public transport.
The times listed for each trip component are examples only. Liu, Pendyala, and Polzin (1997) also state
that a typical transit user in New York-New Jersey area in their study would walk to a transit station, board a
bus or the subway system, make one or more transfers, and finally walk to the destination.

Waitw: passenger valuation of wait time at transit stops

IVTt:

travel time in transit vehicles

IVTw: passenger valuation of in-vehicle travel time

NT:

number of transfers

TPb:

transfer penalty, including transfer walking and waiting in a broader sense3

MSCm: mode specific constant for transit mode m

VOT: value of travel time
Fare: average fare per trip
Given both our broad and narrow definitions transfer penalties, we can further decompose TPb:
TPb = (Walktt * Walkw) + (Waittt * Waitw) + TPn

----- Eq.(2)

Where:
Walktt: time in minutes walking to make a transfer
Waittt: time waiting for transit vehicle to make a transfer
TPn:

transfer penalty, including transfer walking and waiting (using the narrow
definition)

In Eq. (2), different valuations of time for different trip attributes are weighted differently.
These weights can be interpreted as the differences between actual travel time and travel time
burden perceived by a traveler. In choosing a travel mode, travelers make decisions based on the
perceived total generalized cost of taking a trip by various modes, which can depend
substantially on their perceptions of travel (including transfer) attributes, such as time, labor,
comfort, and safety.
Table 1 lists example time and monetary costs associated with the components of the typical
transit trip above. Walking in Eq. (1) is further divided into different segments of a walk trip: 1)
ingress, 2) transfer, and 3) egress. Our example includes two kinds of waiting time: 1) waiting at
a bus stop for the initial segment of trip and 2) waiting to transfer. It also has two types of invehicle time and two types of fares, one for the bus and another for the train.4
[Table 1 Typical Transit Trip and Its Associated Time and Costs]
We assume here that the monetary value of in-vehicle travel time is $7.50 per hourhalf of a
wage rate of $15 per hour. Drawing from Wardman (2001), we use an average valuation of
walking time, waiting time, and other transfer penalties. The monetary values of walking time,
waiting time, and other transfer penalties are computed to be $12.45 per hour, $11.03 per hour,
and $2.20 per transfer respectively, based on our assumptions drawn from the literature.
In this example, transfer penalties, including transfer, walking, and waiting time, account for
30 percent of the total generalized cost of the trip, but only 19 percent of the actual travel time.
In the fourth column, which assumes that people can transfer without waiting, the total travel
3

Note: TPn and TPb are equivalent to Interchange I and Interchange II respectively in Wardmans study
(2001).

This example does not include mode specific constant in Eq. (1).

cost decreases by 10 percent. In the fifth column, which assumes no walking in order to transfer,
the total travel cost decreases by 7 percent. In the sixth column, which assumes no waiting or
walking time (for example, a timed-transfer across a platform), the total travel costs decrease
significantly, by 17 percent. The proportion of total costs associated with transfer penalties can
in this example be reduced from 30 percent to 15 percent in the ideal case where transit users
transfer with neither waiting nor (essentially) walking. As this example shows, a significant
portion of the total generalized cost of a trip can be attributed to transfer penalties, which can be
reduced significantly through timed-transfers that do not require travelers to wait or walk long
distances.
Actual Time, Perceived Time, and Valuation of Time
[T]ime spent waiting, especially the traveler-perceived uncertainty in waiting,
intuitively plays an important role in determining travelers perception of
transportation service quality, and, therefore, is an important determinant of
transitcustomer satisfaction (Reed, 1995).
In the above example, we assume that weights (or valuation of time) for different trip attributes
are constant. In a sense, such weights reflect the differences between actual travel time and the
time perceived by travelers. Numerous studies, for example, have found that a typical travelers
perceived burden of time spent waiting is often greater than his or her actual waiting time
(Moreau, 1992, Hess et al., 2005). People, in other words, perceive time differently depending
on the circumstances. Although actual waiting time is determined by the difference in arrival
time of a user and a vehicle at a boarding location, perceived waiting time can be substantially
longer depending on waiting conditions in terms of vehicle arrival time uncertainty, comfort,
security, and safety, and thus the generalized cost of waiting can greatly increase beyond the cost
of actual waiting time. Among these attributes, safety and security are particularly important,
since they can (for a terrified passenger) increase perceived waiting costs infinitely. According
to a survey by Horowitz (Horowitz and Thompson, 1995), the first priority at transit transfer
facilities should be security and safety. Travelers consider safety and security to be so essential
that many will not make a transit trip if they feel unsafe (Shayer, 2004, ITE Technical Council
Committee 5C-1A, 1992).
Perceived walking distance and time can also be substantially longer than actual walking
distance and time. Physical conditions and adequate information are both important in
determining both actual and perceived walking distance and time. The shortest walking time is
determined by the most direct path and a travelers walking speed. When a traveler is familiar
with a facility, walking paths can be direct and walking times minimized. However, unfamiliar
facilities and/or poor information lead to wandering, stress, and uncertainty about how to make
a transfer, where to transfer, on which corner or bus stop or platform to wait, and so forth
(Reynolds and Hixson, 1992). Thus, the layout and information at transfer stops and stations can
significantly influence the perceived transfer experience as well as actual walking distance/time
and waiting time, and both affect the likelihood of using transit in the future.
Differences in actual and perceived travel, waiting, and transfer times can be viewed as
different valuation of time for different activities. Value of time is another important concept in
travel behavior, particularly regarding mode choice, and has been examined extensively over the
years in the transportation research. Value of time is used to convert actual time into a monetary

value of generalized costs. Table 2 summarizes valuations of waiting time, walking time,
transferring time, and transfer penalties relative to in-vehicle time found in the literature.
[Table 2 Overall time valuations]
Put simply, transit riders are very sensitive to out-of-vehicle time, particularly waiting time
(Cervero, 1990). A common rule of thumb is that walking and waiting time are considered twice
as onerous as in-vehicle time for non-business trips. This general rule is supported by several
studies reviewed by Wardman (2001) though he finds that the relative value of walking, waiting,
and in-vehicle time can vary considerably depending on conditions (MVA Consultancy, 1987,
Bruzelius, 1979, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1980). Reed (1995) reports that
travelers perceive waiting time as 1.5 to up to 12 times as burdensome as in-vehicle time. A few
studies report a higher value for waiting time than for walking time (Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, 1980, Steer Davies Gleave, 1997). Several studies, including those
reviewed by Bly, Webster, and Pounds (1980), show 2 to 3 times as much disutility of walking
time as that of in-vehicle time. Recent modeling studies find that the value of walking time,
compared to in-vehicle time, ranges between 2.0 and 4.52.58 in Houston (Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., 1998), 2.13 in Cleveland (Barton-Ashman Associates,
1993), 4.0 to 4.36 in Minneapolis-St. Paul (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., 1993),
and 3.41 in Chicago (for both bus and rapid transit) (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas
Inc., 1999).
While all research on the subject finds higher burdens for walking, waiting, and transferring
than for in-vehicle time, some have found somewhat lower differentials. For example, the
average values of walking time, waiting time, combined walking and waiting time were found to
be 1.66, 1.47, and 1.46 respectively in Wardmans review and meta-analysis of British studies of
transit travel times and service quality conducted between 1980 to 1996 (Table 2) (Wardman,
2001). In the U.S. cases, Kim (1998) reports differentials of 1.25 to 2.46 for various types of
out-of-vehicle time for work trips, and 2.67 for non-work trips in Portland, Oregon. In its review
of travel demand modeling studies in the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000)
also reports a perceived out-of-vehicle to in-vehicle time burden differential of 2.12, which
ranges from an average of 2.72 for urban areas under 750,000 to roughly 2.0 for larger cities,
and from average of 2.48 in the 1990s to about 2.0 in earlier years.
The perceived burden of short versus long walks and waits does not vary linearly. In
Minneapolis-St. Paul, the observed burden of waits over 7.5 minutes varies significantly by trip
type (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., 1993). The travel time of trips made in the
course of business tend to be valued more highly than for other sorts of trips (Wardman, 2001).
Wardman (1998) suggests that employers willingness to pay for taxis to save time is evidence of
the high value of time placed on business-related travel. In addition, waiting in congested
conditions, unacceptably long waits, and walking up more than a few stairs have all been shown
to have higher than average burdens for most travelers (London Transport, 1996).
Waiting time is also perceived as especially burdensome when travelers have to wait in
unpleasant or threatening environments, such as in cold, hot, or rainy weather, in an unsafe or
insecure location, or when there is a great deal of uncertainty about the transit service. In
addition, there are more nuanced conditions in which perceived time/costs vary from actual
time/costs. People tend to overestimate the time, and hence burden, of inactive, unfulfilled time
termed time drag and underestimate the duration of engaging activities (Moreau, 1992). In

the case of transit, time drag arises when travelers think time spent for waiting is unproductive
and/or burdensomewhen people are prevented by waiting from activity engagement, are
anxious about whether they will arrive at their destination on time, are not informed about delays
of arrival or departure, or are traveling alone (Hess et al., 2005, Moreau, 1992, Reed, 1995).
The value of waiting time also varies by whether travelers are forced to wait against their
will. Hess, Brown, and Shoup (2005) examined value of waiting time in a natural experiment
where students could choose to pay 75 cents to ride an arriving Green bus, to ride for free on a
Blue bus due to arrive a few minutes later. They found that waiting time estimated by the
students who chose to wait for the free Blue bus was only 19 percent greater than the actual
time, while people who chose to pay the fare and ride the first arriving bus estimated the wait for
the free Blue bus to be 91 percent greater than the actual time.5 Such results reveal the
potential benefits of reducing both headways and/or traveler uncertainty regarding arrival times.
As these examples suggest, transit riders are far more sensitive to unexpected or
unpredictable delays, than to expected and predictable waits (Evans, 2004). Unexpected vehicle
arrival time has been estimated to double the perceived burden of waiting time (Webster, 1977).
A study in New Zealand found that the value of unexpected delay was 8 times greater than access
walk time for rail users (TTRL & EC 1996). In addition, a study in Minneapolis-St. Paul found
that commuters who know the transit schedule and who adjust their bus stop arrival times
accordingly, do not view waits less than 8 minutes to be onerous at all, in dramatic contrast to
people who make such trips less frequently (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc.,
1993).
Wardman (2001) finds that headways (which measure the time between vehicle arrivals and
are thus related to average wait times) importantly affect the perceived burden of waiting. On
heavily patronized routes with frequent service, the observed values of wait times can actually be
below in-vehicle time (0.80) (perhaps due to on-vehicle crowding on heavily patronized lines),
but much higher (1.6) when arrival times are uncertain. When service is unreliable, travelers
must arrive at stops earlier to reduce the risk of missing the service (Wardman, 2001).
Valuation of Transfer Penalties
Giventhemuchhigherweightstravelersassigntowalking,waiting,andtransferring,especially
inconditionsofriskand/oruncertainty,whatcanbedonetomaketransittravelmoreseamless
andlessburdensometoreducewaiting,walking,andtransferpenalties? Interchange,
according to Wardman refers to a transfer between trains, and has three possible measures.
Interchange I, in Wardmans parlance, refers to an interchange penalty reflecting the disutility of
making a transfer, but excluding the disutility of time spent for waiting or walking for a transfer.6
The average value of Interchange I, according to Wardman, is about 18 minutes of in-vehicle
time, reflecting both travelers unfamiliarity with a given transfer and the risks associated with
lower service frequencies (Wardman, 2001). Wardmans Interchange II includes Interchange I
penalties, plus a premium valuation of waiting and walking time. The value of Interchange II is
approximately 35 minutes. Using the value of walking and waiting time of approximately 1.6
times in-vehicle time and the value of Interchange I, Wardman concludes that the value of
Interchange II is both consistent and plausible. Finally, Interchange III represents the
5

By choosing to pay 75 cents to avoid an average of 5.3 minutes of additional waiting, Brown, Hess, and
Shop estimated the value of waiting time for this group of students to be $8.50 per hour.
This is transfer penalties in a narrow sense discussed earlier.

combination of the pure interchange penalty and the connection time and has a value of 33,
which, while very large, is lower than what Wardman expected. Thus, in the studies reviewed by
Wardman (2001), transfer penalties are substantially more burdensome than both wait/walk time
and in-vehicle time. While Wardmans nomenclature is perhaps awkward, the point is clear:
travelers strongly dislike transferring, and some aspects of transferring (e.g. uncertainty, fear) are
substantially more burdensome than others (such as walking and waiting).
Transfer penalties also vary by mode (Currie, 2005, Liu et al., 1997). Table 3 presents
transfer penalties collectively estimated in six separate studies, all using discrete choice models
reviewed by Guo and Willson (2004).7 Algers, Hansen, and Tegner (1975) find a large variation
of transfer penalty for different combinations of transit modes. The estimated transfer penalty
between subways (equivalent to 4.4 minutes of in-vehicle time) was the lowest, followed by
penalty between any two forms of rail transit (14.8 minutes in-vehicle time). Estimated transfer
penalties are higher for buses, probably due to both an increased number of street crossings and
the higher likelihood of poorly signed, poorly protected stops. Transfers between bus and rail
and between buses are estimated to be 23 minutes and 49.5 minutes of in-vehicle time
respectively. The smaller transfer penalties for subway transfers probably reflect short walking
distance, shorter average headways, and more protected transfer environments.
[Table3ValuationofTransferPenalties]
A study by Han (1987) finds average transfer penalties equal to approximately 30 minutes invehicle time, about the same magnitude estimated for Interchange III by Wardman in his review
(2001). Han estimated bus-to-bus penalties of about 10 minutes of in-vehicle time for the initial
bus stop wait time, and 5 minutes walk time. Similarly, Hunt estimated bus-to-light rail transfer
penalties to be 17.9 minutes (1990). Liu, Pendyala, and Polzin (1997) examined transfer
penalties and their effects on mode choice using stated preference data; they estimated transfer
penalties between automobiles and rail (15 minutes) to be substantially higher than between two
trains (5 minutes). Liu, Pendyala, and Polzin speculate that the much higher intermodal transfer
penalty is likely due to the fact that a transfer from automobile to a train is more cumbersome:
the traveler must find a parking spot, traverse the parking lot, find the proper platform, and then
wait for the train. A similar study by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) estimates
transfer penalties of 12 to 15 minutes in-vehicle time for transfers among all types of modes
(1997).8 While, collectively, these studies all find substantial penalties associated with
transferring, the variance of these penalty estimates is substantial. While this is surely due in
part to different types of data analyzed and methods used, it more likely reflects the enormous
variance in the transfer experience from city to city, mode to mode, line to line, and trip to trip.
While these studies give a general idea of the valuation of transfer penalties on public transit
in general, they do not offer much insight into how the variation in conditions at transfer
facilities/locations affects transfer penalties. For example, it is likely that transfer penalties vary
substantially among stops and stations within the transit system. To address this point, Guo and
Wilson (2004) conducted a substantially more detailed study of transfer penalties than had
previously been conducted, parsing transferring time into walking time, waiting time, other
7
8

Given the varying data sources used in these studies, the results are not directly comparable.
It is not clear to us why Wardman, Hine, and Sradling (2001) estimate smaller transfer penalties in their
stated preference survey study of Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland: 4.5 minutes in-vehicle time for bus-tobus transfers, 8.3 minutes for auto-to-bus transfers, and 8 minutes for rail-to-rail transfers.

transfer penalties, and the need to use stairs and escalators at different transfer stations in the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) subway system (Table 4).
[Table 4 Estimated Subway-to-Subway Transfer Penalties at MBTA]
Guo and Wilson develop different models (labeled B, C, and D in Table 4) using different
variables to estimate the penalties of different components of transfers, compared to walking
time savings between a subway station and a final destination. They estimate overall transfer
penalties of 4.8 to 9.7 minutes of walking time saving depending on the station analyzed (Model
B). When they parsed transfers into walking time, waiting time, level changes (escalator, etc.),
and other transfer penalties for all stations (Model C), the total transfer penalty is estimated to
range from 4.3 to 15.2 minutes of walking time saving, depending on the station. Their results
also suggest that the range of transfer penalties perceived by travelers varies more for off-peak
trips than for peak trips, probably reflecting the greater variation in the value of time perceived
by off-peak travelers compared to peak travelers (Model D). When the estimated value in Table
4 is converted to a relative unit of in-vehicle travel time, the value of transfer penalties ranges
from 1.6 to 31.8, and falls within the range of values in the past studies that estimated the value
at a particular transfer facility or for the entire system. In addition, walking time for transferring
was valued at 3.1 to 4.5 times more than walking time savings off the transit system, while
transfer waiting time was found less important than walking time savings (relative value of 0.5 to
0.9). In short, transit travelers dont like to wait for buses or trains, and they like transferring
among buses and trains even less.

4. FACTORS INFLUENCING TRANSFER PENALTIES

This review of the perceived burdens of waiting time, walking time, and transferring suggests
that three broad categories of factors contributed to transfer penalties: (1) operational factors,
such as headways, reliability, on-time performance of service, and availability of adequate
information, (2) physical environmental factors at facilities related to safety, security, comfort,
and convenience, and (3) passenger options, such as whether they are forced to wait or whether
they can be productive while waiting.
Given this, transit managers can take various measures to lower the burden (or generalized
cost) of waiting, walking, and transferring by addressing perceived waiting time, perceived
walking time, transfer burdens, and fares paid. Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework for
determining the generalized cost of transferring in the overall context of transit travel. Perceived
waiting and walking time are determined by actual time plus the weights users assign to waiting
and walking, which vary, among other things, by the attributes, conditions, and environments of
transfer facilities. We can group these factors into four groups: (1) the monetary cost of a
transfer (transfer fare), (2) factors that affect the actual transfer time and distance, 3) factors that
influence peoples perception of waiting and walking (e.g. the weights users assign to waiting
and walking), and (4) other factors that affect perceptions of transferring that are not taken into
account in the first three groups.
[Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for Determining the Cost of Total Transfer Penalties]
The list below Figure 1 identifies the principal categories of factors that can be changed
and/or improved to reduce transfer burdenstransfer fare, time schedule and operation, and

attributes of transfer facilitiesand their relation to the grouping of factors affecting different
components of the transferring cost. We discuss each of these categories below.
Transfer fares
In the context of the total costs of a transit trip, the penalty of a transfer fare, which is often free,
and usually low for most intra-urban transit services, is typically relatively small. For short trips,
however, transfer fares can be relatively large on a per-mile-traveled basis, and may
disproportionally affect the burden of short trips with transfers.
Service schedules
Service frequency, schedule adherence, and schedule information (both posted and real time)
affect both actual and perceived waiting time. Obviously, increasing service frequency reducing
average waiting and transferring times (Evans, 2004). Poor coordination between lines, modes,
and systems and lack of schedule adherence can significantly increase transfer wait times
(Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002); not surprisingly, improved coordination has been shown to
increase transfer rates (Evans, 2004, Abkowitz, 1987) In an English study, for example, better
coordination of timed transfers between lines doubled the rate of passenger transfers (Tebb,
1977).
As noted above, frequent service can substantially (and nonlinearly) reduce the perceived
burden of waiting. And frequent, reliable service has been shown to substantially reduce transfer
burdens because travelers can count on short average wait times and can reliably time their
arrival at stops and stations to minimize waiting (Reed, 1995, Evans, 2004).
Clearly presented, easy-to-remember schedules reduce the perceived burden of transit travel
(Pratt and Bevis, 1977), although no careful empirical studies have yet to be conducted on this.
Webster and Bly (1980) present anecdotal evidence that ridership increases when bus arrival
schedules are set at simple clockface times, such as 10, 30, or 50 minutes after each hour.
Clockface scheduling was one of many service changes made by Omnitrans in Riverside,
California where ridership increased by 20.4 percent between 1995 and 1996.
Transfer facilities
Physical attributes of transfer facilities can potentially affect walking time, walking effort,
waiting time, waiting effort, convenience, comfort, safety, and indeed many other components of
transfer burdens. Guo and Wilson (2004) found that transfer penalties were lower where
escalators allowed passengers to change levels at transfer stations. In general, passenger
friendly and user friendly transfer facility attributes (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002) can be
grouped into five categories described below.
First, facility design can affect access by defining the distance between alighting and
boarding locations, improving off-vehicle passenger flow, and providing clear and
comprehensible directions. Perimeter-oriented bus depots, for example, have been shown to
increase transfer walk distances and inhibit pedestrian flows (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002).
Further, confusing or incomplete signage, or poorly located ticket machines and information
kiosks can significantly increase both the actual and perceived distances walked in transfer
facilities.
Connection and reliability are determined by time schedules and schedule adherence, and
have been repeatedly shown to strongly influence transfer burdens and transit use. Complete,

10

concise, and easy-to-understand information has been shown to reduce the actual (by reducing
wandering) and perceived burden of transferring, especially for new or occasional transit users
(Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002).
Amenities, such as benches, shades, water fountains, and rest rooms, affect comfort and
convenience while passengers are waiting and transferring. Through increased comfort and
convenience, these amenities can affect perception of waiting and walking time as well as other
burdens of transferring.
Lastly, security and safety also influence perception of waiting, walking, and transfer
burdens. Safety and security can be a deal breaker; levels of perceived risk exceed thresholds
over which travelers will no longer consider traveling by transit, and will instead travel by other
modes or forgo the trip entirely.
Thus, we can systematically link various transit stop and station attributes to travel behavior
by using a transfer penalties framework. These five types of stop and station attributes, plus
wait, walk and transfer time and fares can all increase or decrease the perceived burdens of
transit travel. Unfortunately, few studies have systematically examined these factors and,
importantly, their relative importance, so it remains difficult to make any statement on how
important improvements of transfer facilities are in increasing ridership compared to other
measures that transit agencies can take.
The valuation of wait and walk time and transferring varies significantly in the literature.
But regardless of such variation, the research is clear that improving conditions for waiting,
walking, and transferring at transfer facilities (e.g. protection from weather, lighting, next bus
information, shorter headways, etc.) can significantly influence the perceived burden of transit
travel, oftentimes more than improvements to in-vehicle travel times. Table 5 shows how much
the total generalized cost of a typical transit trip can vary when the valuation of wait and walk
time and other transfer penalties change with conditions at transfer facilities. The fourth
column, as previously shown in Table 1, uses the middle range of values of wait and walk time
and transferring found in the literature. The second column assumes the worst case of
conditions for the burden of transferring, and applies the highest values of weights for walking
(2.72), waiting (4.36), and transfer penalties (121.05) found in the literature.9 In this worst
case, the total cost reaches $35.21, which is $17.34 higher than the typical case, primarily due
to a very high cost of other transfer penalties.
[Table 5 An Example of Variation of Transit Trip Costs by Difference Weights of Walk and Wait
time and Transferring]
In contrast, when transit agencies successfully improve conditions at transfer facilities for
walking, waiting, and transferring, they can substantially lower the values of transferring and
therefore reduce the total perceived cost of a trip. The fifth column shows such a best case, for
which the lowest weights found in the literature are appliedwalking (1.47), waiting (1.25), and
transfer penalties (1.60). In this case, the total cost of a trip is $15.46, which is $2.42 lower than
the typical case.
This savings of $2.42 per transfer may seem small, but if transit agencies were to gain an
equivalent savings for a given transit trip by reducing in-vehicle travel time, the required
9

We do not apply the confidence intervals of values in Wardmans review since they would give us negative
values on the lower end

11

increase in travel speeds would need to be very large. The sixth column in Table 5 shows the
case in which the savings of $2.42 is achieved through reducing the costs of in-vehicle time from
$6.25 to $3.83, or 39 percent; this translates into in-vehicle travel time reduction from 50
minutes to 31 minutes which would require a truly remarkable 63 percent increase in average
travel speed. As this example suggests, shaving perceived times off of waiting and transferring
may be the cost-effective low-hanging-fruit in improving transit service because all transfers are
not created equal.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, we have drawn from the travel behavior literature to propose a transfer penalties
framework within total travel costs of transit trips and value of time in order to more
systematically evaluate how attributes of transit wait/walk times and transfers influence peoples
travel behavior. In doing so, we suggest a classification of factors related to out-of-vehicle travel
time to show which aspect of transfer penalties would likely be affected by improvements to
transit service, stops, and stations. In this framework, we also offer a theoretical basis for
developing methods to systematically evaluate the connectivity performance of transit stops and
stations. Using this conceptual framework, we can systematically implement improvements to
both the operation and physical environment of transit stops and stations to reduce the total
generalized cost of transit trips. Finally, and more substantively, we argue from this review that
the merits of focusing more on improving perceived out-of-vehicle travel times are compelling,
and that the potential to cost-effectively increase transit use may be substantial.
Our travel behavior framework suggests that there are three areas where transit agencies can
reduce wait/walk/transfer burdens: (1) transfer fares, (2) operational aspects of service that
influence transfers, such as headways and on-time arrival, and (3) the physical attributes of stops
and stations, such as transfer walking distance, lighting, seating, signage at stops and stations,
streamlining pedestrian flows at crowded stations, protection from the elements, and visibility.
In particular, the literature suggests that improved schedule-adherence (or on-time performance)
is one of the most effective ways that transit systems can reduce wait/walk/transfer burdens and
cost-effectively increase ridership.
While there is a substantial body of research on how walking and waiting affect transit
patronage, the research on the physical aspects of transit stops and stations tends to be far less
rigorous, more anecdotal, and more descriptive. More careful empirical research in this area is
clearly needed, particularly regarding the relative importance of various attributes of transit stops
and stations though its unlikely that physical improvements to transit facilities, no matter how
adroit, could have the same magnitude of effects on transfer penalties and, hence, ridership as
service improvements like reduced headways or improved schedule adherence. Transit patrons
hate to wait, and dislike transferring even more; transit planners would be well-advised to always
keep this in mind.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study has been supported by grants from the California Department of Transportation.
Special thanks to Mark Miller and Adina Ringler for comments and editing assistance. Any
errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors and not of the funding agencies.

12

REFERENCES
Abkowitz, M. D. (1987) 'Operational feasibility of timed transfer in transit systems', Journal of
transportation engineering, 113, pp. 168-177.
Algers, S., Hansen, S. and Tegner, G. (1975) 'Role of Waiting time, comfort, and convenience in
model choice for work trip', Transportation Research Record, 534, pp. 38-51.
Barton-Ashman Associates, I. (1993) 'Estimation, Calibration, and Validation of the Houston
Mode Choice Model. Technical Report', Prepared for Metropolitan Transit Authority of
Harris County, Houston, TX.
Bly, P. H., Webster, F. V. and Pounds, S. (1980) 'Subsidisation of urban public transport',
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Eng.
Bruzelius, N. (1979) The value of travel time : theory and measurement, Croom Helm, London.
Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) (1997) 'Transfer penalties in urban mode choice
modeling', Report prepared for the travel model improvement program, FTS, U.S.
Department of Transportation,
Cervero, R. (1990) 'Transit pricing research : a review and synthesis', pp. 117-139.
Committee on Intermodal Transfer Facilities, T. R. B. (1974) 'Intermodal Transfer Facilities
Research Needs', Transportation Research Record, 505, pp. 43-46.
Currie, G. (2005) 'The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit', Journal of Public
Transportation, 8, pp. 41-55.
Evans, J. E. (2004) 'Chapter 9 - Transit Scheduling and Frequency', in TCRP Report 95: Traveler
Response to Transportation System Changes, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., pp. 41.
Fruin, J. J. (1985) 'Passenger Information Systems for Transit Transfer Facilities', Synthesis of
Transit Practice, 7, (U.S.), N. C. T. R. D. P., Transportation Research Board National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Guo, Z. and Wilson, N. H. M. (2004) 'Assessment of the Transfer Penalty for Transit Trips:
Geographic Information System-Based Disaggregate Modeling Approach',
Transportation Research Record, 1872, pp. 10-18.
Han, A. F. (1987) 'Assessment of Transfer Penalty to Bus Riders in Taipei: A Disaggregate
Demand Modeling Approach', Transportation research record, 1139, pp. 8-14.
Hess, D., Brown, J. and Shoup, D. (2005) 'Waiting for the Bus', Journal of Public
Transportation, 7, pp. 67-84.
Horowitz, A. J. and Thompson, N. A. (1995) 'Generic objectives for evaluation of intermodal
passenger transfer facilities', Transportation research record, 1503, pp. 104-110.
Hunt, J. D. (1990) 'A logit model of public transportation route choice', ITE Journal, 60, pp. 2630.
ITE Technical Council Committee 5C-1A (1992) 'The Location and Design of Bus Transfer
Facilities', ITE Journal, pp. 33-37.
Kim, K. H. (1998) 'Technical Specifications for the March 1998 Travel Demand Model', Metro
Transportation Department, Portland, OR.

13

Kittelson & Associates, I., et al., (2003) 'Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual - 2nd
Edition - Part 3 Quality of Service and Part 7 Stop, Station, and Terminal Capacity', in
TCRP Report 100, (Ed, Board, T. R.), National Academic Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.
Liu, R., Pendyala, R. M. and Polzin, S. (1997) 'Assessment of intermodal transfer penalties using
stated preference data', Transportation research record, 1607, pp. 74-80.
London Transport (1996) 'The value of time', Research Note M(96)01, London.
Moreau, A. (1992) 'Public transport waiting times as experienced by customers : marketing
research involving the Grenoble system', Public transport international, 41, pp. 52-68.
MVA Consultancy, I. U. o. L., TSU University of Oxford (1987) 'Value of travel time savings',
Policy Journals, Newbury, Berks.
Ortuzar, J. d. D. and Willumsen, L. G. (2004) Introduction in Modeling Transport, Third Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, LTD., West Sussex, England.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (2002) PB Network, Vol. 52.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc. (1993) 'Calibration of the Mode Choice Models
for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Region', Prepared for the Metropolitan Council,
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc. (1998) 'Cleveland Regional Travel Demand
Forecasting Model Documentation Report', Prepared for the Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority and the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency,
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc. (1999) 'Travel Demand Model Development
Methodology Report', North Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
(METRA),
Pratt, R. H. and Bevis, H. W. (1977) 'An Initial Chicago North Suburban Transit Improvement
Program 1971-1975 - Vol. I: Report and Exhibits - Vol. II: Technical Supplement', Urban
Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Rabinowitz, H. Z., Beimborn, E. A., Lindquist, P. S. and Opper, D. M. (1989) 'Market Based
Transit Facility Design', U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Reed, T. B. (1995) 'Reduction in the burden of waiting for public transit due to real-time
schedule information : a conjoint analysis study', Vehicle Navigation and Information
Systems Conference (6th : 1995 : Seattle, Wash.). Piscataway, N.J., pp. 83-89.
Reynolds, M. M. and Hixson, C. D. (1992) 'Transit vehicle meets system : a method for
measuring transfer times between transit routes', Transportation research record, 1349,
pp. 35-41.
Shayer, Y. (2004) 'Intermodal Transfer Comparison between the User and the Supplier Points of
View', Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., pp. 21.
Steer Davies Gleave (1997) 'Transport quality and vlues of travel time.' Prepared for TRENEN II
STRAN, Trinity College Dublin,
Tebb, R. G. P. (1977) 'Passenger Resistance to a Rural Bus - Bus Interchange', Transport and
Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1980) 'The Demand for Public Transport.' Report of
the International Collaborative Study of the Factors Affecting Public Transport
Patronage, Crowthorne, Berkshire.

14

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) 'COMMUTER Model Coefficients', Washington,

D.C.
Vuchic, V. R. and Kikuchi, S. (1974) 'Design of Outlying Rapid Transit Station Areas',
Transportation Research Record, 505, pp. 1-12.
Wardman, M. (1998) 'The value of travel time : a review of British evidence', Journal of
transport economics and policy, 32, pp. 285-316.
Wardman, M. (2001) 'A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations',
Transportation research. Part E, Logistics and transportation review, 37E, pp. 107-128.
Wardman, M., Hine, J. and Stradling, S. (2001) 'Interchange and travel choice volume 1',
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit,
Webster, F. V. (1977) 'Some implication of the results of elasticity determinations', TRRL
Supplementary Report, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
Webster, F. V. and Bly, P. H. (1980) 'The Demand for Public Transport', Transport and Road
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England.

15

List of Tables
Table 1 Typical Transit Trip and Its Associated Time and Costs
Table 2 Overall Time Valuations
Table 3 Valuation of Transfer Penalties
Table 4 Estimated Subway-to-Subway Transfer Penalties at MBTA
Table 5 An Example of Variation of Transit Trip Costs by Difference Weights of Walk and Wait
Time and Transferring
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for Determining the Generalized Cost of Transferring

16

Table 1. An Example Transit Trip and Its Associated Time and Monetary Costs
Typical

No transfer
waiting

No trasfer
walking

Time (min.)
8
4
20

Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

No trasfer
walking &
waiting
Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

6
10
30
6
84

$1.25
$1.84
$2.20
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$17.87
30%

$1.25
$0.00
$2.20
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$16.04
10%
21%

$0.00
$1.84
$2.20
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$16.63
7%
24%

$0.00
$0.00
$2.20
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$14.79
17%
15%

Weight
Hour
Wage
2.00
$15
In-vehicle travel
1.00
$7.50
1.66
Walking**
$12.45
1.47
Waiting**
$11.03
17.61
Other transfer penalties**
*: Other transfer penalties is computed as 17.6 minutes of in-vehicle time.
**: The ratio relative to in-vehicle time is taken from Wardman (2001).

Minute
$0.25
$0.13
$0.21
$0.18
-

One Transfer
$2.20

Access by walk from trip origin to bus stop

Wait at a bus stop
Bus fare ($1.35)
Travel in vehicle from a bus stop to a rail station
Transfer Penalities
Transfer from a bus stop to a rail station: walking
waiting
Other transfer penalties*
Travel in vehicle from rail station to another
Train fare ($1.35)
Egress from a rail station to a trip destination
Total
Reduction in total costs
% of transfer penalties in TOC

17

Table 2 Overall Time Valuations (relative to in-vehicle time = 1.0)

Study

Location/
Type

Factor

Mean

S.D.

Obs.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade

and Douglas Inc. (1998)

Houston

Wait time

2.58

Barton-Ashman Associates
(1993)

Cleveland

Wait time

2.13

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade

and Douglas Inc. (1993)

MinneapolisSt. Paul

Wait time (first 7.5

minutes)

4.00-4.36

Wait time (over 7.5

minutes)

0.88-10.78

Transfer wait time

1.58-4.36
3.41

1.25-2.46

2.67

Transfer penalty (extra)

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
and Douglas Inc. (1999)

Chicago

Wait time

Kim (1998)

Portland

Various out-of-vehicle
time, work trips
Out-of-vehicle time,
non-work trips

17.27-121.05

US Environmental Protect
Agency (2000)

Review of 50
US studies

Walk time

2.0-2.72

Wardman (2001)

Review of
British studies
from 1980 to
1996

Walk time

1.66

0.71

140

Wait time

1.47

0.52

34

Walk and wait time

1.46

0.79

64

Headway

0.80

0.46

145

Interchange I

17.61

10.93

Interchange II

34.59

25.88

16

Interchange III

33.08

22.73

23

18

Table 3 Valuation of Transfer Penalties

Variables in the Utility
Function

Studies
Alger et al, 1971
Stockholm

Han, 1987
Taipei, Taiwan

Hunt, 1990
Edmonton, Canada

Liu, Pendyala, and Polzin,

1997
New Jersey, NJ

CTPS, 1997
Boston, MA

Wardman, Hine and

Stradling, 2001
Edinburgh, Glasgow, UK
Guo and Wilson, 2003

Walking time to stop

Initial waiting time
Transit in-vehicle time
Transit cost
Initial waiting time
Walking time to stop
In-vehicle time
Bus fare
Transfer constant
Transfer constant
Walking distance
Total in-vehicle time
Waiting time
Number of transfers
Transfer constant
In-vehicle time
Out-of-vehicle time
One way cost
Number of transfers
Transfer constant
In-vehicle time
Walking time
Initial waiting time
Transfer waiting time
Out-of-vehicle time
Transit fare
Utility function not
specified
Details in Table 6

Transfer Types
(Modal Structure)

Transfer Penalty
Equivalence *

Subway-to-Subway
Rail-to-Rail
Bus-to-Rail
Bus-to-Bus
Bus-to-Bus
(Path choice)

4.4
14.8
23
49.5
30
10 IWT
5 WT

Bus-to-Light Rail
(Path choice)

17.9

Auto-to-Rail
Rail-to-Rail
(Modal choice)

15
5**

All modes combined

(Path and Mode
Choice)

12 to 15

Bus-to-Bus
Auto-to-Bus
Rail-to-Rail
Subway-to-Subway

4.5
8.3
8
1.6 to 31.8

*: minutes in-vehicle time except IWT (initial wait time) and WT (walk time)
**: Guo and Wilson had a value of 1.4, but it is corrected by checking the original article
by Liu, Pendyala, and Polzin (1997)
Source: (Guo and Wilson, 2004)

19

Table 4 Estimated Subway-to-Subway Transfer Penalties at MBTA

Variable number and name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Transfer constant
Walking time
In-vehicle time
Transfer walking time
Transfer waiting time
Assisted level change
Station dummies
Pedestrian environment dummies

Underlying factors
included in the model

Range of the penalty

Model B: 7

4.8 - 9.7 WT

Model C: 1, 4, 5, 6

4.3 - 15.2 WT

Model D: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7

4.4 - 19.4 WT (peak)

2.3 - 21.4 WT (off-peak)

Note: WT means walking time. Source: (Guo and Wilson, 2004)

20

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for Determining the Generalized Cost of Transferring

Comfort
Safety, security
Whether or not to use time productively
Whether or not to be forced to wait
Unacceptable conditions
Amount of time to wait
Type of trip
Modes of transfer
Schedule
Reliability, Ontime
performance

Waiting
Weight

Cost of
Transfer

Influence
Convert

Physical distance between points of

alighting and boarding
Walking speed Control of Flow
Familiarity of facility Information

Actual
Waiting
Time

Actual
Walking
Time

Perceived
Waiting
Time

Perceived
Walking
Time

Waiting
Cost

Walking
Cost

Generalized Cost of
Transferring (Transfer
Penalties, Broad Sense)

Easiness to find the

direction
Easiness of walking
Control of flow,
conditions of facility

Walking
Weight

Cost of Transfer
Penalty (narrow
sense)

Safety, security BE
Assist for changing levels
Built Environment (BE)
Convenience Amenities
Comfort Amenities

Factors affecting: 1) monetary cost2) actual3) perception

of4) other penaltiesTimeDistanceWaitingWalkingTransfer fareOTime schedule and operationVehicle
schedulingOReliability/On-time performanceOOReal-time schedule informationOOTransfer
Facilities1) AccessOO2) Connection and reliabilityOO3) InformationOOOO4) AmenitiesOOO5)
Security and safetyOOO

21

Table 5 An Example of Variation of Transit Trip Costs by Difference Weights of Walk and
Wait Time and Transferring
Worst Case
Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

Typical
Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

Best Case
Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$2.50

Speed Imp.
Cost
$1.66
$0.74
$1.35
$1.53

$2.04
$5.45
$15.13
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$22.62
$6.25
$2.70
$35.21
$17.34

$1.25
$1.84
$2.20
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$5.28
$6.25
$2.70
$17.87
-

$1.10
$1.56
$0.20
$3.75
$1.35
$1.25
$2.87
$6.25
$2.70
$15.46
-$2.42

$1.25
$1.84
$2.20
$2.30
$1.35
$1.25
$5.28
$3.83
$2.70
$15.46
-$2.42

Weight
Weight
Weight
Wage
2.00
2.00
2.00
In-vehicle travel
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.72
1.66
1.47
Walking**
4.36
1.47
1.25
Waiting**
121.05
17.61
1.60
Other transfer penalties**
*: In-vehicle travel time changes by the higher travel speed assumed in the "Speed Imp." column.
**: The range of ratio relative to in-vehicle time is taken from the literature review in Table 2 and 3.

Weight
2.00
1.00
1.66
1.47
17.61

Access by walk from trip origin to bus stop

Wait at a bus stop
Bus fare ($1.35)
Travel in vehicle from a bus stop to a rail station*
Transfer Penalties
Transfer from a bus stop to a rail station: walking
waiting
Other transfer penalties
Travel in vehicle from rail station to another*
Train fare ($1.35)
Egress from a rail station to a trip destination
Subtotal: Transfer Penalties
Subtotal: In vehicle time
Subtotal: Fares
Total
Difference in total costs

Time (min.)
8
4
20 / 12.3
6
10
30 / 18.4
6
34
50 / 30.7
84

22