Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The tunnel bus in Hong Kong: an analysis of user preferences for a public transportation system Ko, Tin-Ming 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A6_7 K06.pdf [ 5.96MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094463.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094463-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094463-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094463-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094463-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094463-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094463-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094463-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094463.ris

Full Text

THE TUNNEL BUS IN HONG KONG: AN ANALYSIS OF USER PREFERENCES FOR A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM by TIN-MING JKO B.S.Sc.(Hons.), The Chinese U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong' Kong, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1973 {§) Tin-mingj Ko, 1978 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . T i n - m i n g KO S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The F a c u l t y o f G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ABSTRACT The importance of consumer p r e f e r e n c e i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n as a key to the f o r e c a s t i n g of modal c h o i c e has r e c e i v e d a growing r e c o g n i t i o n i n the l a s t ten years among t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e s e a r c h e r s i n North America. Numerous s t u d i e s of consumer a t t i t u d e s toward t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems have been conducted i n order to d i s c l o s e the m o t i v a t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n consumer behavior. In Hong Kong the s i t u a t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t . , In the l a s t decade, s e v e r a l c i t y - w i d e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s t u d i e s have been conducted, w i t h d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of aggregate t r a v e l char-a c t e r i s t i c s such as t r i p purpose, income, and o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t -i o n . Yet, r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about consumer valu e s r e l e v a n t to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n mode s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s . There i s a s c a r c i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t consumer behavior i n t r a n s p o r t , and the r e l a t i v e importance of these f a c t o r s . The need f o r r e s e a r c h designed to f i n d inform-a t i o n which w i l l help f i l l t h i s v o i d of i n f o r m a t i o n i s sub-s t a n t i a l . The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s i s to analyze, by means of an i n t e r v i e w survey, the t r a v e l l i n g behavior of the Tunnel-Bus passengers, and thereby t o e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i v e importance of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s which l e a d to t h e i r mode s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n . I l l Two pieces of analysis have been undertaken. F i r s t , an analysis of the personal, socio-economic and t r i p character-i s t i c s of the passengers i s performed. Secondly, an analysis of the passengers' mode-choice decision i s made. The passen-gers' mode-choice decision i s related to the i r personal, socio-economic and t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In the l i g h t of the findings of these two steps, an appraisal of the predictions of patronage made by the government before the Tunnel Bus was introduced i s undertaken. It i s found that convenience and time-saving are the most important determinants that cause the passengers to use the Tunnel Bus. People are generally w i l l i n g to pay more for a better, faster, more convenient transport mode for th e i r cross-harbor journeys. Their grounds for choice of mode, how-ever, vary with d i f f e r e n t groups of personal, socio-economic and t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as, personal income, sex, t r i p purpose, frequency of use and previous transport mode. The implications of the findings are that more refined estimates of both time and convenience are needed i n the transportation analysis i n Hong Kong, and that modal s p l i t models should be made sensitive to mode convenience, users' age and work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as well as time and cost. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i LIST OF MAPS , i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT -x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Study of Consumer Pre f e r e n c e s i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ...1 1. 2 Background 4 1.3 O r g a n i z a t i o n of Subsequent Chapters 12 CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY 15 2.1 The Research Design 15 2.2 O r g a n i z a t i o n and Method of the Survey 16 2.3 Data A n a l y s i s 22 CHAPTER I I I PATRONAGE CHARACTERISTICS 23 3.1 General Remarks on the Survey R e s u l t s 23 3.2 P e r s o n a l and Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 26 3.3 T r i p C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 29 CHAPTER IV MODE-CHOICE DETERMINANTS 4 0 4.1 The Nature of the Mode-Choice Determinants 4 0 4.2 R e l a t i o n s h i p between Mode-Choice Determinants and Patronage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 55 V CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS 62 5.1 I m p l i c a t i o n f o r Former P r e d i c t i o n s : An A p p r a i s a l of Former P r e d i c t i o n s 62 5.2 P r a c t i c a l and Research I m p l i c a t i o n s 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 68 APPENDIX A PLANNING FOR THE CROSS-HARBOR TUNNEL: MAJOR EVENTS 71 APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE: INTERVIEW FORM AND QUESTIONS 7 5 APPENDIX C STATISTICAL TESTS USED 7 8 v i LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Cross-Harbor Passenger Journeys 1961-1976 9 3.1 T r a f f i c D i s t r i c t s and A r e a l - S t r a t i f i e d Sample S i z e s .24 3.2 D i s t r i b u t i o n Patrons Interviewed by Route 25 3.3A P e r s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Patronage 27 3.3B Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Patronage 28 3.4A O r i g i n and D e s t i n a t i o n of Person T r i p s : Hong Kong I s l a n d t o Kowloon 31 3.4B O r i g i n and D e s t i n a t i o n o f Person T r i p s : Kowloon to Hong Kong I s l a n d 32 3.5 T r i p Purposes of the Patronage 33 3. 6A Frequency Using the Tunnel Bus 34 3.6B Frequency Using Tunnel Bus by T r i p Purpose 35 3.7 T r i p Times 36 3.8 Mode-Link of Person T r i p s 38 4.1 Combination of Reasons f o r Using Tunnel Bus ....41 4.2 Mode-Link of Persons Before and A f t e r Tunnel Bus Was Introduced 44 4.3 Number of T r i p - L e g s Changed by Mode-Choice Determinants 45 4.4 Time Saved by T r i p Times 47 4.5 Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Fare Users Are W i l l i n g to Pay by Number of T r i p - L e g s Changed 51 4.6 Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Fare Users Are W i l l i n g t o Pay v i i by Mode-Choice Determinants 52 4.7 Patronage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s S i g n i f i c a n t l y A s s o c i a t e d w i t h S e l e c t i o n o f Mode-Choice Determinants , 57 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Cross-Harbor Passenger T r a n s p o r t (Annual Volume 1961-1977) ' 13 1.2 R e l a t i v e Importance of F e r r y and Tunnel Bus 14 3.1 Trip-Time Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n 37 3.2 P e r c e i v e d Time-Saving, by T r i p Time 4 8 i x LIST OF MAPS 1 Hong Kong, Kowloon and The New T e r r i t o r i e s 5 2 Tunnel Bus and F e r r y Routes (1976) 11 3 The Study Area and T r a f f i c D i s t r i c t s 19 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank my s u p e r v i s o r , Dr.Michael Paulton f o r h i s comments on the t h e s i s . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank P r o f e s s o r Brahm Wiesman, D i r e c t o r o f the School of Community and Regional P l a n n i n g , f o r h i s continuous encouragement. I am a l s o indebted t o my students i n the Department of Geo-graphy, Hong Kong B a p t i s t C o l l e g e , f o r t h e i r generous help i n the i n t e r v i e w survey and data a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s t h e s i s . F i n a l l y , many other people have f u r n i s h e d a s s i s t a n c e and concerns, and to a l l of them I am very g r a t e f u l . 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Study of Consumer Pref e r e n c e i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n The need f o r the study of consumer p r e f e r e n c e f o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems has r e c e i v e d s u b s t a n t i a l r e c o g n i t i o n i n the l a s t ten years among t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e s e a r c h e r s i n North America. T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n stems i n p a r t from a trend i n mode choice a n a l y s i s t h a t adopts the a b s t r a c t mode concept. Based on a t h e s i s t h a t i t i s the i n t r i n s i c p r o p e r t i e s of a good which g i v e s s a t i s f a c t i o n , not the good per se, the a b s t r a c t mode concept d e f i n e s a t r a n s p o r t mode by i t s perform-ance a t t r i b u t e s and the r e l a t i v e u t i l i t y of these a t t r i b u t e s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l trip-maker. The c h o i c e o f mode i s co n s i d e r e d a f u n c t i o n of these performance a t t r i b u t e s of a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system (Brown,1972:25-26) . A second f a c t o r of importance i s the p e r c e p t i o n of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems as e x i s t i n g w i t h i n a co m p e t i t i v e consumer-oriented market ( G o l o b , e t . a l . , 1972:81). T h i s p e r c e p t i o n p o i n t s out t h a t i f a p u b l i c t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n system i s to be s u c c e s s f u l , i t must be designed to provide s e r v i c e which i s a t t r a c t i v e and co m p e t i t i v e w i t h i n a growing and changing consumer market. Both f a c t o r s have 2 encouraged the use of b e t t e r and more d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n about p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n u s e r s , t h e i r needs and p r e f e r e n c e s . One way to achieve an improvement i n data s e l e c t i o n i s to e v a l u a t e the performance a t t r i b u t e s of e x i s t i n g systems from the user's p o i n t of view (Golob, e t . a l . , 1971:81). These needs and pre-fere n c e s , once determined, can then be used to improve modal s p l i t models. A number of s t u d i e s of consumer a t t i t u d e s toward p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems have been conducted i n North America. The s t u d i e s have concentrated on p a r t i c u l a r m e t r o p o l i t a n areas, and s p e c i f i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system concepts (Navin & Gustafson, 1973:1). Some of the s t u d i e s focused on c o n v e n t i o n a l bus s e r -vice"*", o t h e r s on demand re s p o n s i v e t r a n s i t s , such as d i a l - a -2 bus, and demand j i t n e y . The s t u d i e s examined consumers' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r modes on the b a s i s of t h e i r c o s t , speed, con-venience and s a f e t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t was found t h a t there was a c o n s i s t e n t p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g f o r t r a n s i t a t t r i b u t e s f o r most segments of the American p o p u l a t i o n . Some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , other than c o s t and time, found to be import-ant i n the mode-choice d e c i s i o n of the trip-maker were depend-a b i l i t y , convenience, comfort and f l e x i b i l i t y . For example, McMillan and Assal(1968)and. (1969); Paine, e t . a l . (1967); and Purdue U n i v e r s i t y (1971). For example, Golob, e t . a l . (1971); and Gustafson, e t . a l . (1971). 3 In the case o f Hong Kong, no s i m i l a r s t u d i e s have been documented to date. In the l a s t decade, s e v e r a l c i t y - w i d e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s t u d i e s have been conducted which i n c o r p o r a t e d d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of aggregate t r a v e l behavior. Yet, r e -l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about consumer valu e s r e l e v a n t to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n mode s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s . There i s a s c a r c i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t consumer behavior i n t r a n s p o r t , and the r e l a t i v e importance of these f a c t o r s . Research designed t o f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n which w i l l help f i l l t h i s v o i d i s i n order. The Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e i n Hong Kong p r o v i d e s a l a b o r a t o r y f o r an experimental a n a l y s i s of the mode-choice behavior of the t r a v e l l i n g p u b l i c , f o r the Tunnel Bus i s a new and so f a r very s u c c e s s f u l p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t mode i n Hong Kong. The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s i s to analyze, by means of an i n t e r -view survey, the t r a v e l behavior o f the Tunnel-Bus users; and thereby t o e s t a b l i s h the f a c t o r s or performance a t t r i b u t e s p e r c e i v e d by the users to be important i n determining t h e i r t r a v e l behavior. T h i s study d i f f e r s from the a t t i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s of t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n consumers i n North America i n an important way: The context i n North American s t u d i e s i s one of comp e t i t i o n between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , whereas i n Hong Kong such a context i s not maintained. The reason i s t h a t , u n l i k e the s i t u a t i o n i n North America where people depend h e a v i l y on automobile t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , o n l y a smal l m i n o r i t y of the people i n Hong Kong possesses a car f o r d a i l y use. Most people< 4 are dependent on public transportation. Hence, th i s study deals with competition between two public transportation services and these are the Tunnel Bus and the ferr y . 1.2 Background General Situation Hong Kong i s a small " c i t y - s t a t e " (England, 1976:1) 3 presently ruled by a B r i t i s h c o l o n i a l government . In the course of history, Hong Kong has evolved as one of the most important metropolitan c i t i e s i n East Asia, mainly as a res u l t of the growth of trade and, more recently, of industry. Before 1949 economic a c t i v i t i e s i n Hong Kong were pre-dominantly those of an entrepot. But the i n f l u x of refugees from China after 1946 has changed the si t u a t i o n . Among the refugees were many manufacturers from Shanghai and other Hong Kong i s situated on the southeast coast of China. Its t o t a l land area i s 398.5 sq.miles, comprising three geographic-p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n s : (Map 1) (1) Hong Kong Island and a number of immediately adjacent islands covering 29.2 sq.miles; (2) Kowloon and Stonecutters Island covering 37.5 sq.miles; and (3) New Kowloon and the New T e r r i t o r i e s covering 365.6 sq.miles. The f i r s t two of these d i v i s i o n s were ceded to the B r i t i s h government after the infamous Opium Wars i n 1842 and 1860 respectively and the t h i r d d i v i s i o n was leased to the same government i n 1898 for a period of ninety-nine years. In t h i s thesis, however, these d i v i s i o n s are rearranged to be: (1) Hong Kong Island; (2) Kowloon, including Kowloon and New Kowloon; and (3) the New T e r r i t o r i e s . Hong Kong Island i s separated from the l a s t two by the V i c t o r i a Harbor. PREVIOUSLY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, MAP ON LEAF 5, NOT MICROFILMED. MAP OF HONG KONG, KOWLOON AND THE NEW TERRITORIES. CROWN LANDS & SURVEY OFFICE. 1976 CODE NO. M550376 (PRICE 50 CENTS) COPYRIGHT - HONG KONG GOVERNMENT HONG KONG, CHINA s H O N G K O N G , K O W L O O N A N D T H E N E W T E R R I T O R I E S Crown Lands & Survey Off ice. 1976 Code No.: M550376 Price: 50 Cents © Hong Kong Government 6 c i t i e s . T h e i r s k i l l and c a p i t a l have s t i m u l a t e d the development of an i n d u s t r i a l economy. The export of manufactured goods i n c r e a s e d from 10% of the t o t a l export value ( i n c l u d i n g r e -export) i n 1947 to 75% i n 1961, and s i n c e then i t has never dropped below t h i s percentage. The number of persons employed i n manufacturing i n d u s t r y rose from 512,000 or 43.0% of the c i t y ' s working p o p u l a t i o n i n 1961 to 756,000 or 47.7% i n 1971, r e p r e s e n t i n g a percentage growth i n a b s o l u t e numbers of 47.4 over the decade (Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department, 1972:86). P o p u l a t i o n growth of Hong Kong has been p r o d i g i o u s . In 1945 the p o p u l a t i o n was j u s t over 0.6 m i l l i o n s , but, by the time of the f i r s t post-war census i n 1961, i t had r i s e n t o 3.13 m i l l i o n s . Since then the p o p u l a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d a t an annual r a t e of 2.5% i n the i n t e r - c e n s a l p e r i o d to 1971 and i n t h a t year was 3.94 m i l l i o n s (Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department, 1972:21). Urban growth of Hong Kong has taken p l a c e on both s i d e s of the V i c t o r i a Harbor. A f t e r the War, urban development has been f a s t e r on the Kowloon s i d e because of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a g r e a t e r area of f l a t l a n d . Of the 3.94 m i l l i o n s popul-a t i o n i n 1971, 1.0 m i l l i o n s r e s i d e d i n Hong Kong I s l a n d , 2.2 m i l l i o n s i n Kowloon and 0.67 m i l l i o n i n the New T e r r i t o r i e s . I n t e r n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n With the growth i n p o p u l a t i o n and the r a p i d expansion of i n d u s t r y , the amount of passenger and goods movement i n Hong 7 Kong has gone up by leaps and bounds. P u b l i c t r a n s p o r t i s the dominant means of p e r s o n a l t r a v e l , because l e s s than 6.7% of i t s domestic households own a p r i v a t e car f o r d a i l y use, a c c o r d i n g to the 1971 census (Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department, 1972:208). Subsequent surveys showed t h a t p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t accounted f o r 87% of t o t a l passenger t r i p s as estimated f o r 1974 (Smith and A s s o c i a t e s , 1976:13). T o t a l p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t passenger t r a v e l has i n c r e a s e d s t e a d i l y over the y e a r s , but i t seems t h a t t h i s t r e n d i s now l e v e l l i n g . The reason f o r t h i s l e v e l l i n g c o u l d be t h a t the e x i s t i n g p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t system has reached a s a t u r a t i o n p o i n t . New mass t r a n s p o r t f a c i l i t i e s are needed to c a t e r f o r 4 f u t u r e demands f o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t . As a matter of f a c t , c o n s t r u c t i o n of a c i t y - w i d e mass r a p i d t r a n s i t system was s t a r t e d i n 1975. The number of p r i v a t e v e h i c l e s has a l s o experienced a very r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n r e c e n t y e a r s . P r i v a t e c a r s i n c r e a s e d from 56.9 thousands i n 1966 to 119.3 thousands i n 1974, r e p r e s e n t i n g a growth of 109.6% between these y e a r s . The government, however, i s c l e a r l y i n f a v o r of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t . I t s a c t i o n s i n i n c r e a s i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n and p a r k i n g fees were able to b r i n g the number of p r i v a t e c a r s down a b i t to 114.4 thousands i n 1975. The demand f o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t i s o f t e n d e s c r i b e d as a "7 days a week, 17 hours a day" demand. 8 Cross-Harbor Movement The V i c t o r i a Harbor has made a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the development of Hong Kong both as an entrepot and la t e r as an important commercial and manufacturing center. But i n t e r n a l l y , the harbor creates a break i n the "urban continuum" (Lo, 1971:40) and i s a ba r r i e r to movement. In fact the d i s t r i b u t i o n of population and employment on both sides of the harbor creates a massive demand for t r a v e l across i t . 5 The number of cross-harbor journeys has grown since 1961 (Table 1.1). Although ostensibly cross-harbor passenger journeys constitute only around 20-26% of t o t a l public transport passenger journeys, many of them are multi-modal t r i p s requiring the usage of one or two other public transport modes on one or both sides of the harbor to complete the journeys (Pang, 1972:4). Hence, a good portion of passenger journeys by public transport counted as t r i p s i n Kowloon and Hong Kong Island may actually be part of the cross-harbor journeys. Formerly t r a v e l across the harbor was carr i e d by f e r r i e s run by two companies, the Star Ferry and the Hong Kong and Yau Ma T i Ferry, and on comparatively rare occassions by boats not belonging to these companies. With the increasing sophistication of the economy and a 'The drop i n 1967 was due to a p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l r i o t i n i t i a t e d by the left-wing residents i n Hong Kong. 9 Table 1.1 Cross-Harbor Passenger Journeys 1961-1976 Number of % of T o t a l Pass-Year Journeys('000) enger Journeys Index Number 1961 144,861 16. 2 69 1966 210,239 16. 9 100 1967 200,219 18.9 95 1968 210,588 17.6 100 1969 222,704 18.1 106 1970 230,725 19.8 110 1971 239,894 21.0 114 1972 240,285 22.5 114 1973 242,990 23.9 116 1974 257,236 23.1 122 1975 267,592 22.2 127 1976 283,357 22.2 135 Index number base: 1966=100 Source: Computed from: T r a n s p o r t Department, (1977). 10 continuous growth i n p o p u l a t i o n , the demand f o r a more e f f i c -i e n t c r o s s - h a r b o r l i n k between the two s i d e s has become very p r e s s i n g . To meet t h i s demand, the long-planned Cross-harbor Tunnel was b u i l t . C o n s t r u c t i o n s t a r t e d i n 196 9 and the Tunnel was o f f i c i a l y opened to the p u b l i c on 2 August 1972 . T h i s ended the monopoly of c r o s s - h a r b o r movement by f e r r y . Tunnel Bus T r a f f i c S e r v i c e by Tunnel Bus was s t a r t e d on 5 August 1972, j o i n t -l y by the Kowloon Motor Bus Company and the China Motor Bus 7 Company . The p o p u l a r i t y of the Tunnel Bus grew very r a p i d l y . By 1976, the Tunnel Bus has expanded from t h r e e r o u t e s to nine r o u t e s , s e r v i n g almost a l l major p a r t s of the urban area (Map 2) . Passenger volume on the Tunnel Bus rose c o n s t a n t l y from an annual t o t a l of 46,641,000 i n 1973 to 127,790,000 i n 1977, r e p r e s e n t i n g an i n c r e a s e of 174%. On the other hand, the f e r r y experienced a steady f a l l . By 1976, the f e r r y annual pass-See Appendix A f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the major events of the p l a n n i n g and implementation of the Cross-Harbor Tunnel. These bus companies have had the monopoly of motor bus o p e r a t i o n i n Hong Kong s i n c e 1933. The Kowloon Motor Bus Company operates i n Kowloon, New Kowloon and the New T e r r i t o r i e s , the China Motor Bus Company on Hong Kong I s l a n d . Route numbers: 101,102,103,104,105,106,111,112,113. In a d d i t i o n t o these, there i s a l s o a c r o s s - h a r b o r a i r p o r t coach l i n e and a route number 17 0 running o n l y on Sundays and p u b l i c h o l i d a y s . M A P 2 TUNNEL BUS AND FERRY ROUTES (1976) 12 enger volume had dropped to 169,496,000 from i t s 1971 f i g u r e (that i s , b e f o r e the Tunnel Bus was put i n t o operation) of 239,894,000, r e p r e s e n t i n g a l o s s of 70,398,000, or 29.3% ( F i g . 1 . 1 ) 9 . The r e l a t i v e importance of the Tunnel Bus i n c r o s s - h a r b o r movement has grown r a p i d l y . In 197 3, Tunnel-Bus journeys c o n s t i t u t e d o n l y 19.2% of a l l c r o s s - h a r b o r movement, whereas i n 1977, the f i g u r e rose up to 43.4% ( F i g . 1 . 2 ) . Thus the Tunnel Bus has continued to tap more and more of the f e r r y passenger t r a f f i c as w e l l as g e n e r a t i n g more t r i p s . I t has thereby brought about a d r a s t i c change i n the p a t t e r n of c r o s s - h a r b o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and i n the c r o s s -harbor t r a v e l l i n g behavior of many of the people i n Hong Kong. 1.3 O r g a n i z a t i o n of Subsequent Chapters Chapter I I of t h i s t h e s i s e x p l a i n s the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and methodology adopted. Chapter I I I p r e s e n t s the c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of the Tunnel-Bus u s e r s , Chapter IV analyses the mode-cho i c e determinants of these users and Chapter V p r e s e n t s the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h . F i g u r e s i n t h i s s e c t i o n are computed from Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department, (1973-1978) . Source: C e n s u s . a n d _ S t a t i s t i c s Department. (.1973-7 FIG.1.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FERRY AND TUNNEL BUS 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 Source: Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department (1973-15 CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY 2.1 The Research Design The t h e s i s i s designed t o answer the f o l l o w i n g three q u e s t i o n s : (1) What a t t r i b u t e s of the Tunnel Bus do the users regard as most v a l u a b l e ? (2) What i s the p e r c e i v e d r e l a t i v e importance of these a t t r i b u t e s ? (3) How are p e r s o n a l , socio-economic and t r i p c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of the users r e l a t e d to the p e r c e i v e d import-ance o f these a t t r i b u t e s ? In order to answer these q u e s t i o n s , two p i e c e s of a n a l y s i s have been undertaken. They a r e : (1) An a n a l y s i s of the p e r s o n a l and socio-economic as w e l l as the t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Tunnel-Bus u s e r s . T h i s forms a background to the next step. (2) An attempt to de c i p h e r the f a c t o r s t h a t make the Tunnel Bus so popular, or i n other words, to study why people use the Tunnel Bus i n p r e f e r e n c e t o the f e r r y system. The a n a l y s i s of the mode-choice determinants assumes r a t i o n a l behavior on the p a r t 16 of the Tunnel-Bus users and emphasizes the r e l a t i v e importance of the determinants, the nature o f each of them, and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to u s e r s ' c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . In the l i g h t of the f i n d i n g s of these two ste p s , an a p p r a i s a l of the p r e d i c t i o n s of patronage made bef o r e the Tunnel Bus was put i n t o s e r v i c e i s c a r r i e d out. An attempt i s a l s o made to d i s c e r n the p o s s i b l e sources o f e r r o r s i n the p r e d i c t i o n procedures and assumptions used. The i n f o r m a t i o n needed was c o l l e c t e d p r i m a r i l y from an i n t e r v i e w survey of the Tunnel Bus patrons and s e c o n d a r i l y from s t a t i s t i c a l p u b l i c a t i o n s of the government. 2.2 O r g a n i z a t i o n and Method of the Survey Problem a t the Outset In d e s i g n i n g and conducting the survey of the Tunnel Bus u s e r s , the major problem encountered was a shortage o f manpower. Although the survey were g r a c i o u s l y a s s i s t e d by some t h i r t y students of the Department of Geography, Hong Kong B a p t i s t C o l l e g e ; each of the students, however, c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e o n l y a very l i m i t e d amount of time t o i n t e r v i e w i n g the Tunnel-Bus u s e r s . As a r e s u l t the survey had to be s t r u c t u r e d and conducted so as to take account of the manpower c o n s t r a i n t w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g an ac c e p t a b l e standard of s t a t i s t i c a l accuracy. 17 P i l o t Survey In order to ensure e f f i c i e n t ' use of manpower and the best p o s s i b l e c o l l e c t i o n of r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n a p i l o t survey was conducted i n the f i r s t week of August, 1976. 300 Tunnel-Bus users were i n t e r v i e w e d a t major bus stops s e l e c t e d random-l y i n both Kowloon and Hong Kong I s l a n d . As a r e s u l t of the p i l o t survey, the format of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was completely changed; the number of q u e s t i o n s was reduced; the i n t e r v i e w -i n g method was r e v i s e d ; and a new sampling procedure was e s t a b l i s h e d . On-bus i n t e r v i e w i n g was a l s o attempted but was found i m p r a c t i c a l because most of the time the Tunnel Buses were over-loaded. G e n e r a l l y speaking, the Tunnel-Bus users were reasonably c o o p e r a t i v e . They were, however, r a t h e r i m p r e c i s e and h e s i t a n t toward q u e s t i o n s t h a t r e q u i r e d answers i n q u a n t i t a t i v e terms, such as t r a v e l time and c o s t s . Sampling Methods In d e s i g n i n g the sample s i z e , the mean of the average d a i l y t r a f f i c (ADT) f o r August 1975 (234,355 t r i p s ) and the annual average d a i l y t r a f f i c (AADT) f o r 1975 (235,910 t r i p s ) , were used as frames of r e f e r e n c e . Thus, i t was decided t h a t p o p u l a t i o n the survey was d e a l i n g w i t h , t h a t i s , the number of c r o s s - h a r b o r person t r i p s by Tunnel Bus, numbered about 24 0,000. In view of the time and manpower c o n s t r a i n t s , i t was decided to draw a 1% sample. In a c i t y - w i d e p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t study conducted by Wilbur Smith and A s s o c i a t e s i n 18 1964-65, a 1.5% sample was used f o r the bus survey and was found to be adequate (Dalby, 1965:14). Since the p r e s e n t study i s focused on a more s p e c i f i c type of bus s e r v i c e , i t was concluded t h a t a 1% sample would be reasonable. Hence, the sample s i z e of the i n t e r v i e w survey was predetermined as 2,400 persons. The sample was s t r a t i f i e d by t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t . The f o l l o w i n g steps were taken: (1) Hong Kong was d i v i d e d i n t o t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s , b a s i c -a l l y f o l l o w i n g the scheme l a i d down by the T r a n s p o r t Department (Map2). (2) The number of c r o s s - h a r b o r t r i p ends produced i n each of these t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s was found from a government study of c r o s s - h a r b o r person t r i p s by T.C. Hung (1970). T h i s served as a c r i t e r i o n to d i s t r i b u t e the predetermined sample s i z e to these t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s . (3) T r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s which are not served by the Tunnel Bus were not covered, but people from these d i s t r i c t s who t r a v e l l e d a cross the harbor were i n c l u d e d i n the t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s n e a r e s t to them, which were served by the Tunnel Bus. (4) Hence, the f o l l o w i n g formula was used to determine the sample s i z e s f o r each t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t : 20 TE. ASS, = x TSS l Z/ TE. i = l 1 Where, ASS^ = Sample s i z e f o r t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t i ; TT^ = T r i p ends produced i n t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t i ; n 2? TE.. = T o t a l c r o s s - h a r b o r t r i p ends produced i n i = l 1 a l l t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s ; TSS = T o t a l sample s i z e , t h a t i s , 2,400 persons; i = T r a f f i c d i s t r i c t number; n = T o t a l number of t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s . Date and Du r a t i o n of Survey The i n t e r v i e w survey was c a r r i e d out on weekdays from 21 August to 26 August 197 6 (that i s Monday through F r i d a y ) . A c c o r d i n g t o the 1975 data, the average d a i l y t r a f f i c of Tunnel Bus passenger t r a f f i c f o r August, 234,355 t r i p s , was c l o s e s t to the average of the monthly average d a i l y t r a f f i c f o r t h a t year, 235,985 t r i p s . The d i f f e r e n c e was o n l y 0.7%. Hence i t was conluded t h a t a survey conducted i n August would be s a t i s f a c t o r y . Each of the survey days was d i v i d e d i n t o three time p e r i o d s t o r e p r e s e n t the morning 'work-trip period'"'', the 1 I n Hong Kong, the morning and a f t e r n o o n peak p e r i o d s are not as d i s t i n c t as they are i n most North American c i t i e s . They are, however, a l s o dominated by w o r k - t r i p s . base-day p e r i o d , and the af t e r n o o n 'work-trip p e r i o d ' . They were 7:00-9:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m., and 4:00-6:00 p.m. time p e r i o d s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The higher volume of 'work-trip p e r i o d s ' was o f f s e t by the longer d u r a t i o n of base-day p e r i o d to g i v e a roughly constant sampling p r o p o r t i o n . Interview Method and Venue Per s o n a l i n t e r v i e w i n g was adopted. Tunnel-Bus passengers were i n t e r v i e w e d a t the o r i g i n - e n d s of t h e i r t r i p s . To ensure t h a t ample time f o r the i n t e r v i e w was allowed i n t e r v i e w i n g began w i t h the l a s t person o f a queue a t the Tunnel Bus stops i n each of the t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s a f t e r the departure of a Tunnel Bus. Caution was made to see t h a t passengers w a i t i n g f o r d i f f e r e n t Tunnel r o u t e s were more or l e s s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y i n c l u d e d . However, s i n c e volume data by route were not a v a i l a b l e to us, no p r e c i s e c a l c u l a t i o n was made to s t r a t i f y the sample by r o u t e . The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed to f i n d two major types of data which r e l a t e to the o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h . The f i r s t type o f data covered patronage c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n c l u d -i n g p e r s o n a l , socio-economic and t r i p data. The second type of data concerned the patrons' reasons f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus. The f i r s t two reasons g i v e n were recorded i n order of p r i o r i t y . The answers t o the q u e s t i o n s i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were pre-coded based on the f i n d i n g s o f the p i l o t survey. A copy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the q u e s t i o n s asked are i n c l u d e d i n Appendix B. 2.3 Data A n a l y s i s The s u c c e s s f u l l y completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were e d i t e d , c l a s s i f i e d , coded and card-punched f o r computer a n a l y s i s . C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s of the i n f o r m a t i o n scanned were performed on an IBM 1130 computer a t the Computing Center, Hong Kong B a p t i s t C o l l e g e . Subsequent analyses were done on an IBM 37 0 computer a t the Computer Center, the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, as w e l l as on a t a b l e c a l c u l a t o r . Three s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s were used to t e s t working hypotheses a r i s i n g throughout the a n a l y s i s . They a r e , the 'z' 2 t e s t , the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and the Chi-square t e s t . In a l l the s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s , a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of 0.05 was adopted. See Appendix C f o r a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the b a s i c mechanics of each of these t e s t s . For more d e t a i l e d and a n a l y t i c e x p l a n a t i o n , see Yeomans (1968). 23 CHAPTER I I I PATRONAGE CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 General Remarks on the Survey R e s u l t s The weather was f i n e throughout the survey days and no unusual t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s i n the c i t y were observed. Thus the r e s u l t s of the survey can be c o n s i d e r e d u n d i s t o r t e d by unusual c o n d i t i o n s . A higher number of s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r v i e w s than expected was achieved i n most of the t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s , thus s e c u r i n g the degree of accuracy a n t i c i p a t e d i n choosing the sample s i z e (Table 3.1). An i n t e r v i e w was c o n s i d e r e d usable i f the reason(s) of the user i n t e r v i e w e d f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus c o u l d be determined even when other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the user were m i s s i n g or u n c l e a r . The f i n a l s i z e of the sample was 2,466 persons. The sample c o l l e c t e d a l s o g i v e s a f a i r l y good r e p r e s e n t -a t i o n f o r a l l the Tunnel Bus r o u t e s , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t no s t r a t i f i c a t i o n by route was made (Table 3.2). However, a 1% sample of average d a i l y t r i p s was not achieved. The reason f o r t h i s was t h a t the average d a i l y t r a f f i c f o r August 1976 turned out to be 315,129 t r i p s and the annual average d a i l y t r a f f i c f o r 1976, 311,087 t r i p s , r e p r e s e n t i n g a c o n s i d -24 Table 3.1 T r a f f i c D i s t r i c t s and A r e a l - S t r a t i f i e d Sample S i z e s T r a f f i c D i s t r i c t Cross-harbor t r i p - e n d s A r e a l - S t r a t i f i e d produced('000) sample s i z e s Number Name (1970) Designed Achieved (Hong Kong Island) 1 C e n t r a l 62,197 271 283 2 Sheung Wan 42,168 184 192 3 West 26,622 116 121 4 Mid-Levels 14,639 64 67 5 T a i Hang 10,279 ' 45 47 6 Wan Chai 39,365 171 179 7 Causeway Bay 17,152 •75 78 8 North P o i n t 40,831 178 186 9 . Shau K e i Wan 9,220 40 42 10 Pokfulam 8,430 45 38 11 South 1,940 12 Chai Wan 4,715 21 21 (Kowloon) 13 Tsim Sha T s u i 32,563 142 148 14 Yau Ma T e i 35,414 154 151 15 Monkok 45,207 197 206 16 Homantin 6,702 29 30 17 Hung Horn 31,954 139 145 18 Sham Shui Po 30,754 134 130 19 Sheung Sha Wan 9,419 41 43 20 L a i C h i Kok 6,403 28 20 21 T a i Hang Tung 3,231 14 15 22 Kowloon Tong 6,184 27 28 23 Kowloon C i t y 26,084 117 119 24 North Kowloon Bay 7,898 34 36 25 East Kowloon Bay 31,087 135 141 551,005 2,401 2,466 Taitole 3.2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Patrons Interviewed by Route Number Patrons Interviewed Tunnel Bus Route Number Number % of T o t a l 101 404 16.4 102 395 16.0 103 170 6.9 104 343 13.9 105 313 12.7 106 171 6.9 111 184 7.5 112 286 11.6 113 196 7.9 Route number m i s s i n g 5 0.2 T o t a l 2,466 100.0 e r a b l e i n c r e a s e of 34.5% and 31.9% over the e q u i v a l e n t f i g u r e s f o r 197 5. The sample t h e r e f o r e i s approximately 0.8% of the average d a i l y t r a f f i c of the Tunnel Bus. The d i f f e r e n c e between the planned and achieved sample s i z e s i s however not b i g . Moreover, a comparison of the o r i g i n - d e s t i n a t i o n t a b l e of a more e x t e n s i v e survey of c r o s s - h a r b o r person t r i p s con-ducted by the T r a f f i c and T ransport Survey D i v i s i o n , i n 1970^, r e v e a l s t h a t they were s i m i l a r i n terms of p r i n c i p a l d i r e c t i o n s of movement. T h i s suggests t h a t the sample c o l l e c t e d i s adequate and reasonable. 3.2 P e r s o n a l and Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The p e r s o n a l and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the patronage are t a b u l a t e d i n Table 3.3 A and B. For sex composition, male patrons make up 62.2% of the t o t a l and female patrons r e p r e s e n t 37.7%. The r a t i o between male and female patrons i s t h e r e f o r e 1.65 t o 1.0. For age d i s t r i b u t i o n , the 21-50 age group accounts f o r 79.4% of the patronage. The 21-30 age group r e p r e s e n t s 51.7% and o l d people above 50 years of age c o n s t i t u t e o n l y 4.6%. The survey was requested by the Commissioner f o r T r a n s p o r t i n November, 1969, i n order to e s t a b l i s h the p a t t e r n of c r o s s - h a r b o r person movements and p r o v i d e the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary f o r the d e s i g n of bus r o u t e s t h a t might use the c r o s s - h a r b o r t u n n e l . During the survey, 5 6,559 f e r r y passengers were i n t e r v i e w e d . See Hung (1970). Table 3.3 A Per s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Patronage C a t e g o r i e s Number of Patrons % of T o t a l I. SEX Male Female T o t a l 1,535 931 2,466 62.2 37.8 100.0 II.AGE (Years) 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 and over 348 1,122 417 184 77 24 T o t a l 2,172 No answers: 294 16.0 51.7 19.8 8.5 3.5 .1.1 100.0 Table 3.'3B: ^ Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Patronage C a t e g o r i e s Number of Patrons % of I. OCCUPATION C l e r i c a l 568 26.4 S e r v i c e 307 18.9 F a c t o r y 448 20.8 P r o f e s s i o n a l 220 10.2 Managerial 20 0.9 Student 301 14.0 Housewife 139 6.5 Unemployed 47 2.2 T o t a l 2,150 100.0 No answers: 316 I I . INCOME (HK$) 1 - 500 79 4.3 501 - 1,000 745 40.8 1,001 - 1,500 480 26..3 1,501 - 2,000 151 8.3 2,001 - 2,500 53 2.9 2,501 and more 71 3.9 No F i x e d Income 247 13.5 T o t a l 1,826 100.0 No answers: 64 0 29 The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of o c c u p a t i o n f o r the Tunnel-Bus patronage i s uneven among the c a t e g o r i e s g i v e n . C l e r i c a l (26.4%), f a c t o r y (20.8%), and s e r v i c e (18.9%) workers are the l a r g e s t groups. T h i s r e f l e c t s the not uncommon p r a c t i c e of these c a t e g o r i e s of workers to work a c r o s s , the harbor from t h e i r homes and the d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n housing p o l i c y of the government, which g e n e r a l l y does not take i n t o c o n s i d e r -a t i o n the residence-work p l a c e r e l a t i o n . Less a c t i v e groups i n the p o p u l a t i o n such as housewives and the unemployed form o n l y a s m a l l f r a c t i o n of Tunnel-Bus u s e r s . Many of the i n t e r v i e w e e s d e c l i n e d to respond to the q u e s t i o n on p e r s o n a l monthly income. From the r e p l i e s r e c e i v e d i t can be s a i d t h a t g e n e r a l l y the m a j o r i t y of the 2 patronage has a monthly income between HK$500 and HK$1,500 ; t h i s i s i n accordance w i t h the f i n d i n g s of the o c c u p a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n . Summing up, the survey r e v e a l s t h a t the Tunnel patronage i s predominantly young and e c o n o m i c a l l y a c t i v e , w i t h an average income around HK$1,000. Male users are more numerous than female u s e r s . 3.3 T r i p C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s O r i g i n and D e s t i n a t i o n T r i p ends are found to be concentrated i n t r a f f i c d i s -t r i c t s of l a r g e employment and commercial c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and The o f f i c a l r a t e f o r c o n v e r s i o n i n 19.73. was HK$5.085=US$1.00. From 26 November 1974, Hong Kong d o l l a r f l o a t e d . high p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y . These i n c l u d e the C e n t r a l , Wan Cha Causeway Bay, and North P o i n t on the I s l a n d and Monkok, Sham Shui Po and E a s t Kowloon Bay Area (comprising of Kung Tong, Choi Hung and San Po Kang) i n Kowloon (Table 3.4). Si x p r i n c i p a l d i r e c t i o n s of movement are i d e n t i f i e d . They a r e : (Refer to Map 3 f o r l o c a t i o n s of the o r i g i n and d e s t i n a t i o n t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s ) . (1) C e n t r a l t o Monkok (2) Sheung Wan to E a s t Kowloon Bay Area (3) East Kowloon Bay Area to Wan Chai (4) E a s t Kowloon Bay Area to C e n t r a l (5) Monkok to Causeway Bay (6) C e n t r a l to Monkok Work t r i p s comprise a l i o n ' s share of journeys i n these d i r e c t i o n s . T r i p Purposes 80.1% of the t r i p s are home-based. Work t r i p s form 3 the s i n g l e l a r g e s t group (56.9%) . T h i s f a c t s u b s t a n t i a t e s 'The Comprehensive T r a n s p o r t Study of the c i t y conducted i n 1974 r e v e a l e d t h a t 47.5% of passengers of a l l p u b l i c buses t r a v e l l e d f o r work purposes. S o c i a l t r i p s were o n l y 7.5%; r e c r e a t i o n t r i p s , 4.7% and e d u c a t i o n t r i p s , 23.4% (Smith, 1976:63, Table 4.6). Hence, i t i s obvious t h a t the t r i p -purpose composition of the Tunnel Bus patronage d i f f e r s from t h a t of o v e r a l l bus s e r v i c e i n Hong Kong..On "the other hand, 57.3% o f f e r r y person t r i p s was shown t o be work t r i p s T h i s supports the f i n d i n g of t h i s r e s e a r c h t h a t d a i l y com-muters form the s i n g l e l a r g e s t group of c r o s s - h a r b o r t r a f f i c Table 3.4A O r i g i n and D e s t i n a t i o n of Person T r i p s : Hong Kong I s l a n d to Kowloon O r i g i n T r a f f i c D e s t i n a t i o n T r a f f i c D i s t r i c t s D i s t r i c t s 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 T o t a l 1 1 8 87 22 51 25 4 29 3 23 38 12 23 3 329 2 1 11 56 23 31 27 2 10 5 13 45 24 65 0 313 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 2 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 5 12 5 1 0 37 6 0 8 35 1 28 15 7 20 11 1 23 8 22 0 179 7 0 0 1 7 10 3 1 3 0 3 22 6 0 3 69 8 0 10 35 5 31 26 8 23 0 4 7 1 2 4 156 9 0 1 20 0 7 3 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 42 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 3 0 9 .0. 0 0 0 0 6 0 .0. 0 18 T o t a l 2 41 247 66 174 100 23 90 19 49 157 56 113 12 1149 32 T a b l e 3.4B O r i g i n a n d D e s t i n a t i o n o f P e r s o n T r i p s :  K o w l o o n t o Hong Kong I s l a n d O r i g i n T r a f f i c D e s t i n a t i o n T r a f f i c D i s t r i c t s D i s t r i c t s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 T o t a l 13 6 0 2 3 1 10 7 7 5 1 0 2 44 14 1 3 1 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 13 15 29 7 3 15 11 49 56 36 18 5 0 4 233 16 18 2 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 32 17 53 18 10 . 1 4 44 18 14 7 3 2 2 176 18 36 3 6 4 0 24 30 31 17 0 0 1 152 19 18 1 1 0 1 10 6 8 10 0 0 1 56 20 5 0 0 0 2 0 9 6 5 0 0 3 30 21 19 4 5 1 0 9 3 2 1 0 0 0 44 22 13 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 26 23 41 5 0 3 3 23 16 10 6 0 3 6 116 24 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 25 59 21 18 3 6 63 18 2 0 2 0 0 192 26 4 1 2 1 0 4 1 1 .0. 0 .'. 0 0 14 T o t a l 305 67 48 33 31 251 173 123 70 13 6 19 1139 T o t a l b o t h d i r e c t i o n s No a n s w e r s : 17 8 2288 our e a r l i e r o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t the person t r i p s of the Tunnel Bus o r i g i n a t e and end predominantly i n t r a f f i c d i s t r i c t s o f high employment p o t e n t i a l s and r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t y . In ot h e r words, commuters are the h e a v i e s t u s e r s o f the Tunnel Bus. The next l a r g e s t group i s s o c i a l t r i p s (22.1%). Recreat-i o n , shopping, e d u c a t i o n and other-purpose t r i p s p l a y very minor r o l e s . T h i s suggests t h a t the Tunnel Bus i s l a r g e l y used f o r t r i p purposes w i t h s t r i c t time and p l a c e o b l i g a t i o n s (Table 3.5) Table 3.5 T r i p Purposes of the Patronage Home-based T r i p Purpose Number Work 911 56, .7 (79. . 9%) Study 133 8. .3 (71. .2%) S o c i a l 356 22. .2 (80. ,4%) Shopping 72 4.. 5 (85. ,8%) R e c r e a t i o n 114 7. ,1 (88. 4%) Others 20 1. ,2 (90. 9%) T o t a l 1606 100. 0 No answers: 461 Non-home-based T o t a l Number Q, "5 ' Number % 229 57. 4 1140 56.9 (20.1%) (100.0%) 54 13. •5 187 9.3 (28.8%) (100%) 87 19. 6 443 22.1 (19.6%) (100%) 12 3. 0 84 4.2 (14.2%) (100%) 15 3. 8 129 6.4 (11.6%) (100%) 2 0. 5 22 1.1 (9.1%) (10.0%) 399 100. 0 2005 100.0 34 Frequency Using the Tunnel Bus Over h a l f (51.9%) of the patronage has a h i g h frequency of t r a v e l l i n g on the Tunnel Bus across the harbor. 20.9% of them t r a v e l d a i l y and 31.0% on a l l weekdays (Table 3.6A). Combining the frequency of t r a v e l l i n g and t r i p purposes, we f i n d t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the high-frequency users t r a v e l f o r work purposes (Table 3.6B). No s p e c i a l f e a t u r e i s observed f o r those patrons of medium frequency, however, f o r those who t r a v e l o c c a s i o n a l l y , s o c i a l t r i p s predominated (39.7%). Table 3.6A Frequency Using Tunnel Bus Category Number of Patrons % of T o t a l E v e r y d a y 444 20.9 Weekdays on l y 657 31.0 4-5 days 181 8.5 1-3 days 182 8.6 O c c a s i o n a l 656 31. 0 T o t a l 2120 No answers: 346 100.0 Table 3.6B Frequency Using Tunnel Bus by T r i p Purpose T r i p Purpose Frequency Work Study S o c i a l Shopping Recreation Others T o t a l Using Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Everyday 289 76. .9 • 21 5. .5 45 12. .0 10 2. .7 9 2. .4 2 0. .5 376 100. .0 Weekdays 486 76. .4 83 13, .1 40 6. .3 9 1. .4 18 2. .8 0 0. .0 636 100. .0 only 4 - 5 days 72 40. .4 18 10. .1 68 38. .2 5 2. .8 15 8. .4 0 0. .0 178 99. .9 1 - 3 days 99 56. .6 15 8. .6 43 24. .6 8 4. .6 9 5. .1 1 0. .6 175 100. .1 O c c a s i o n a l 172 28. ,4 46 7. .6 246 40. .6 53 8. .7 71 11. .7 18 3. .0 606 100. .0 T o t a l 1118 183 442 85 122 21 1971 No answers: 495 CO U l 36 T r i p Time The mean t r i p time of the patronage i s 30.8 minutes. The t r i p - t i m e frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 3.7 and F i g . 3.1) skews to the l e f t , forming a peak a t the 21-3 0 minute i n t e r v a l and dropping a b r u p t l y t o the r i g h t from the 51-6 0 minute i n t e r v a l . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t most of the patrons (90.7%) spend l e s s than 50 minutes and h a l f of them (55.2%) spend l e s s than 30 minutes i n t h e i r c r o s s - h a r b o r journeys by Tunnel Bus. Table 3.7 T r i p Times T r i p Times (minutes) Number of Patrons % of 1 20 and under 429 20.6 21-30 721 34. 6 31-40 400 19.2 41-50 341 16.3 51-60 160 7.7 61-70 9 0.4 71-80 11 0.5 81-90 10 0.5 91 and more 5 0.2 T o t a l 2086 100.0 No answers: 38 0 FI6. 3.1 TRIP-TIME FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 800_ 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 o "7" / \ / \ / \ FREQUENCY CURVE FREQUENCY HISTOGRAM 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TRIP TIME CIN MINUTES) 38 Mode Link The m a j o r i t y of t r i p s r e q u i r e o n l y one mechanical t r a n s -p o r t mode, t h a t i s , the Tunnel Bus, and no t r a n s f e r to com-p l e t e . As a matter of f a c t , the number of patrons decreases with the i n c r e a s e of the number of t r i p l e g s per person t r i p . 25.1% use a mechanical t r a n s p o r t mode, e i t h e r a bus or another type of v e h i c l e s , on one s i d e o f the harbor, and onl y 5.3% complete t h e i r journeys w i t h t r a n s f e r to mechanical t r a n s p o r t modes on both s i d e s of the harbor (Table 3.8). Table 3.8 Mode Link o f Person T r i p s Mode Li n k Number of Patrons % o f Walk-Tunnel Bus-Walk 1712 69.4 Walk-Tunnel Bus-Bus 201 8.2 Walk-Tunnel Bus-Others 101 4.1 Bus-Tunnel Bus-Walk 211 8.6 Bus-Tunnel Bus-Bus 61 2.5 Bus-Tunnel Bus-Others 38 1.5 Others-Tunnel Bus-Walk 108 4.4 Others-Tunnel Bus-Bus 20 0.8 Others-Tunnel Bus-Others 14 . 0.6 T o t a l 2466 100.1 Summing up, the r e s u l t s o f the survey show t h a t the Tunnel Bus i s used r e g u l a r l y by d a i l y commuters who g e n e r a l l y spend around 30 minutes on t h e i r journeys. That i s to say, d a i l y commuters are the most dependable users of the Tunnel Bus. The Tunnel Bus proves t o be most a c c e p t a b l e f o r c r o s s - h a r b o r journeys w i t h time and p l a c e r e s t r i c t i o n s . 40 CHAPTER IV MODE-CHOICE DETERMINANTS 4.1 The Nature of the Mode-Choice Determinants R e l a t i v e Importance The two dominant reasons f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus are convenience and time-savings. In other words, convenience and time-savings are the major mode-choice determinants f o r the Tunnel-Bus u s e r s . Counting o n l y the f i r s t reason g i v e n by the people i n t e r -viewed, 51.5% of the users p r e f e r the Tunnel Bus because i t i s more convenient than the f e r r y ; whereas 43.9% p r e f e r the Tunnel Bus because i t i s f a s t e r than going by f e r r y . That i s to say, the people i n t e r v i e w e d p l a c e convenience as s l i g h t l y more important than time r e d u c t i o n i n determining t h e i r use of the Tunnel Bus (Table 4.1). There i s one c a u t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to these two mode-ch o i c e determinants. Since convenience u s u a l l y i n c l u d e s saving of time r e s u l t i n g from r e d u c t i o n of t r a n s f e r r i n g , i t may a l s o be r e f l e c t e d i n the r e d u c t i o n of t r a v e l time. Double counting may be committed when t a k i n g both f a c t o r s i n t o con-s i d e r a t i o n . But, i n t h i s case, o n l y 36.7% of the patronage who c l a i m convenience as the f i r s t reason f o r u s i n g the 41 Table 4.1 Given as F i r s t Given as Second Reason Reason Money- Time- Conven-Saving Saving ience Comfort Others T o t a l Money-Saving Number: (16) 9 7 0 0 32 Row % : 50.0 28.1 21. 9 0 0 100.0 % of T o t a l : 0.7 0.4 0.3 0 0 1.3 Time-saving Number: 22 (696) 354 10 0 1082 Row % : 2.0 64.3 32.7 1.0 0 100.0 % of T o t a l : Q. 9 28.2 14.4 0.4 0 43.9 Convenience Number: 39 466 (752) 14 0 1271 Row % 3.1 36.7 59.2 1.1 0 100.0 % of T o t a l : 1.6 18.9 30.5 0.6 0 51.5 Comfort Number: 0 3 1 (23) 0 27 Row % : 0 11.1 3.7 85.2 0 100. 0 % of T o t a l : 0 0.1 0.04 0.9 0 1.1 Others Number: 0 0 0 0 (54) 54 Row % : 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 % of T o t a l : 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.2 T o t a l Number: 61 478 362 (Column): 24 0 2466 925 Row % : 6.6 51.7 39.1 2.6 0 100. 0 % of Column T o t a l : 2.5 19.4 14.7 1.0 0 *Numbers i n ( ) on the main d i a g o n a l are the numbers of users who gave one s i n g l e reason. Thus, these numbers are not add-ed t o the r e s p e c t i v e column t o t a l s . Tunnel Bus a l s o name time-saving as the second reason; l i k e -wise, o n l y 32.7% of the patronage whose f i r s t reason i s time-saving a l s o have a second reason o f more convenience. These i n d i c a t e t h a t the Tunnel-Bus users do see the two f a c t o r s as two d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s . A very t i n y p r o p o r t i o n of the patronage t r a v e l by Tunnel Bus because i t i s cheapter or more comfortable. The f a c t t h a t as l i t t l e as 1.3% of the patronage name money-saving as the f i r s t reason f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus suggests t h a t the Tunnel Bus may not be a cheap c r o s s - h a r b o r t r a n s p o r t mode and t h a t the patronage are not so c o s t s e n s i t i v e as the government p r e d i c t e d (see Chapter V ) . The nature of each o f the mode-choice determinants i s d i s c u s s e d subsequently. P a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e s w i l l be given to the two predominant ones, t h a t i s , convenience and time-savings. , Convenience Convenience i s the most important mode-choice determin-ant. I t r e f e r s , i n f e r r i n g from our a n a l y s i s , mainly to the avoidance of t r a n s f e r s . T h i s statement i s concluded from the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : F i r s t , among the patrons i n t e r v i e w e d who p r e v i o u s l y c r o s s e d the harbor by f e r r y , 68.8% complete t h e i r journeys by walk-Tunnel Bus-walk l i n k . When they t r a v e l l e d by f e r r y , o n l y 9.4% of these passengers completed t h e i r journeys by walking. T h i s means t h a t 59.4% of the passengers have s h i f t e d from whatever mode l i n k s they used p r e v i o u s l y to walk-Tunnel Bus-walk sequence. They have saved the t r o u b l e of t r a n s f e r -r i n g by s w i t c h i n g t o the Tunnel Bus (Table 4.2) Second, as many as 76.4% of the patronage have had the number of t r i p - l e g s reduced: 28.8% by two v e h i c l e t r i p - l e g s ; 47.6%, one (Table 4.3). I t appears t h a t the patrons who have had the l a r g e r number of t r i p - l e g s reduced have a s l i g h t l y b i g g e r tendency to choose more convenience as t h e i r reason f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s tendency i s examined u s i n g a c h i - s q u a r e t e s t (Table 4.3). T h i r d , f o r t h a t p o r t i o n of the patronage who d i d not c r o s s the harbor b e f o r e the Tunnel Bus was i n s e r v i c e , 77.5% r e q u i r e o n l y the Tunnel Bus to complete t h e i r c r o s s - h a r b o r journey. 2 0.8% of them r e q u i r e one more mechanical t r a n s p o r t mode than the Tunnel Bus and onl y 1.7% need two more to complete t h e i r journeys (Table 4.2) Fourth, f o r the e n t i r e patronage, 69.4% are taken s o l e l y by the Tunnel Bus from t h e i r o r i g i n s d i r e c t l y t o t h e i r des-t i n a t i o n s , 25.3% r e q u i r e another v e h i c l e mode on one s i d e of the harbor, and 5.3% r e q u i r e one on both s i d e s of the harbor to complete the journeys. Time-Savings The second most important mode-choice determinant i s time s a v i n g . 43.9% of the patronage name time-saving as the f i r s t reason f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , when 44 Table 4.2 Mode L i n k of Person T r i p s Before and A f t e r the  Tunnel Bus Was Introduced A f t e r W-T-W W-T-X or X-T-X T o t a l Before x-T-W _ _ _ _ _ A. Those who d i d c r o s s harbor b e f o r e : W-F-W N: 166 43 5 214 R: 77.6 20.1 2.3 100.0 C: 10. 5 7.4 3.8 9.4 CC: 9.7 6.9 3.8 8.7 W-F-X N: 749 202 43 994 or R: 75.4 20.3 4.3 100.0 X-F-W C: 47.6 34.6 33.1 43.4 CC: 43.8 32.5 32.3 40.3 X-F-X N: 659 339 82 1080 R: 61. 0 31.4 7.6 100. 0 C: 41.9 58.0 63.1 47.2 CC: 38.5 54.6 61.7 43.8 Sub- N: 1574 584 130 2288 t o t a l R: 68.8 25.5 5.7 100. 0 C: 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 CC: 91.9 94.0 97.7 92.8 B. Those who d i d not c r o s s harbor b e f o r e : N: 138 37 3 178 R: 77.5 20.8 1.7 100.0 CC: .8.1 6.0 2.3 7.2 Grand- N: 1712 621 133 2466 t o t a l R: 69.4 25.2 5.4 100.0 CC: 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *Keys: W = Walk; X = V e h i c l e modes, i n c l u d i n g buses, t a x i , p u b l i c l i g h t buses and other v e h i c l e s ; T = Tunnel Bus; F = F e r r y . N = Number of user s ; R = Row %; C = % of column s u b - t o t a l ; CC = % of column grand t o t a l Table 4 . 3 Number of T r i p - L e g s Changed by Mode-Choice Determinants Change i n number of Mode-Choice Determinants t r i p - l e g s (separate Money- Time- Conven-v e h i c l e s ) * Saving Saving ience Comfort Others T o t a l 0 7 2 1 0 2 2 0 8 5 4 5 0 +1 0 3 8 4 0 3 5 8 6 - 1 1 5 4 8 7 5 5 6 1 1 1 9 1 0 8 8 - 2 8 2 7 5 3 4 6 5 2 5 6 5 9 *Resulted from s w i t c h i n g from f e r r y t o Tunnel Bus. Mean T r i p - l e g s reduced f o r each person t r i p = 1 . 0 0 9 l e g . Te s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n : H : Mode-choice determinants are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h number a of t r i p - l e g s changed. H q : Mode-choice determinants are independent of number of t r i p - l e g s changed. S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l : 0 . 0 5 Degree of freedom : 1 2 2 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n : Q 0 5 = ^ - L * ^ 2 6 Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d : ^X.2 ( c a i ) = 2 5 . 8 3 9 2 2 S i n c e ft ( c a l . ) > X 0 . 0 5 ' H o i s n o t a c c e P t e d -asked about the amount of time saved, many (46.9%) of t h i s p o r t i o n o f the patronage have no i d e a about i t . T h i s may be due to a complex of f a c t o r s . Many of these patrons j u s t b e l i e v e t h a t going by the Tunnel Bus i s f a s t e r than the f e r r y but have no concrete i d e a about the d i f f e r e n c e i n r e a l terms. T h e i r image of the Tunnel Bus as a f a s t e r mode than the f e r r y may a l s o be i n f l u e n c e d by the d e c i s i o n s of o t h e r s , such as t h e i r f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s or even through the mass media, which c o n s i d e r the Tunnel Bus f a s t e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , based on the f i g u r e s given by the other 53.1% of those who use the Tunnel Bus because i t i s f a s t e r than the f e r r y , the average amount of time saved p e r c e i v e d i s 16.5 minutes. Since the average t r i p time of the pat-ronage (see Chapter I I I ) was c a l c u l a t e d as 30.8 minutes, i t i s t h e r e f o r e i n f e r r e d t h a t on the average, the patronage have saved about one t h i r d of the p r e v i o u s journey time by u s i n g the Tunnel Bus. I n c i d e n t i a l l y , those who responded to t h i s q u e s t i o n f a l l e x c l u s i v e l y i n t o two groups of t r i p times, namely, the 21-30 minute group and the 31-40 minute group. T h i s makes p o s s i b l e a f i n e r a n a l y s i s (Table 4.4). 72.0% of the 21-30 minute group and 75.5% of the 31-40 minute group have saved 11-25 minutes. That i s to say, f o r the 21-30 minute group, the m a j o r i t y have saved 20% to 7 8% of the p r e v i o u s t r a v e l time; and f o r the 31-40 minute group, 26.2% to 59.5%. However, a 'z' t e s t between the s t a t i s t i c a l means of amount of time saved of these two groups of t r i p times i n d i c a t e s t h a t they are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y Table 4.4 Time Saved by T r i p Times T r i p Times ( i n minutes) Time Saved ( i n minutes) 21-30 Number % 31-40 Number % T o t a l Number % 1 - 5 40 10.3 16 8.7 56 9.8 6 - 10 41 10.5 15 8.2 56 9.8 11 - 15 93 23.8 47 25.5 140 24.4 16 - 20 93 23.8 48 26.1 141 24.6 21 - 25 95 24.4 44 23.9 139 24.2 26 - 3 0 16 4.1 10 5.4 26 4.5 31 - 35 10 2.6 3 1.6 13 2.3 36 and more 2 0.5 1 0.5 3 0.5 T o t a l 390 100.0 184 99.9 574 100.1 Mean Time saved: 16.33min. 16. 70 min. 16.50 min>. Standard D e v i a t i o n • 7.41 min. 7. 04 min. Test of D i f f e r e n c e : H a : The means of time saved of the two groups of t r times are not the same. H : The means are the same, o D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = ZQ Q- = + 1.96 z score c a l c u l a t e d = z. , , = -0.578 (cal.) Since z. , . > z n H i s not accepted, ( f o r a (cal . ) ' 0.05 a o n e - t a i l t e s t ) 48 FI6. ^.2 PERCEIVED TIME-SAVING BY TRIP-TIME 100, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 c/> z o g 20 ° 1 0 cc UJ m i o r- - " ^ / \ I \ TRIP TIME=21-30MINS. / \ I I / I / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ _J ; HTRIP TIME=31 -40MINS. i • \ I \ 1 '. \ '. i v \ \ N 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 PERCEIVED TIME-SAVIN6 CIN MINUTES) 49 d i f f e r e n t . In other words, the average time saved ( i n a b s o l u t e terms) i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to t r i p times (Table 4.4 and F i g 4.1). T h i s suggests very c l e a r l y t h a t the source of time-savings i s i n the cr o s s - h a r b o r l e g of the t r i p . Cost Very few people t r a v e l by Tunnel Bus because of lower t r a v e l c o s t s . As a matter of f a c t , the Tunnel Bus i s not a cheap t r a n s p o r t s e r v i c e , compared to the f e r r y , as w e l l as to other buses. T h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d by comparing the t r a v e l c o s t s by Tunnel Bus and by f e r r y on s i x major d i r e c t i o n s of t r a v e l , t h a t i s , major connections of o r i g i n s and d e s t i n a t i o n s ( i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter I I I ) . I t i s found t h a t i n most cases the t o t a l c o s t s of the t r i p by f e r r y w i t h i t s necessary mode l i n k s i s lower than the t r i p by Tunnel Bus alone. The excess amount of money p a i d by the Tunnel-Bus users on these d i r e c t i o n o f t r a v e l ranges from HK$0.2 to HK$0.6 per t r i p . Comfort The Tunnel Bus i s not comfortable. T h i s i s due to poor t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s on the one hand, and h i g h l y congested c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the bus on the o t h e r . The Tunnel Bus has a hi g h d a i l y average occupancy r a t i o n of 8 0% of the maximum c a p a c i t y a t the approaches to the Cross-Harbor Tunnel, and over 100% d u r i n g peak p e r i o d s . 50 Maximum W i l l i n g n e s s to Pay A d d i t i o n a l Fare In g e n e r a l , most (61.2%) of the users i n t e r v i e w e d are w i l l i n g t o pay more to m a i n t a i n the Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e (Table 4.5). A l s o , the g r e a t e r the r e d u c t i o n i n the number of v e h i -c l e s used f o r a t r i p the higher the a d d i t i o n a l f a r e t h a t the Tunnel-Bus users are w i l l i n g t o pay. In order to see whether there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the maximum w i l l i n g n e s s to pay a d d i t i o n a l f a r e among users who use the Tunnel Bus f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons, an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i s performed on the means of maximum a d d i t i o n a l f a r e d i f f e r e n t groups of users are w i l l i n g to pay. The F score computed suggests t h a t there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence i n t h i s r e s p e c t (Table 4.6). I<fe may t h e r e f o r e be i n f e r -red t h a t users w i t h d i f f e r e n t mode-choice determinants gener-a l l y have the same magnitude of maximum w i l l i n g n e s s to pay a d d i t i o n a l f a r e . The Value of Time and Convenience Using the amount of time saved, d i f f e r e n c e i n t r a v e l c o s t s between the Tunnel Bus and the f e r r y , maximum a d d i t i o n a l f a r e the users are w i l l i n g to pay and the number of v e h i c l e t r i p - l e g s reduced, the v a l u e s of time and convenience can be estimated. (1) The Value of Time: The value of time i s estimated based on the f o l l o w i n g Table 4.5 Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Fare Users Are W i l l i n g to Pay by Number of Trip-Legs Changed Change i n Number of Trip-Legs Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Fare Users Are W i l l i n g to Pay (HK$) -2 Number % -1 Number % 0 Number a x> + 1 Number % T o t a l Number % 0 228 34. 6 411 37. 8 199 44.2 49 57.0 887 38.8 0.10 - 0.50 321 48. 7 503 46. 2 192 42.7 30 34. 9 1046 45.8 0.60 - 1,00 79 12. 0 122 11. 2 44 9.8 5 5.8 250 11.1 1.10 - 1.50 0 0. 0 5 0. 5 2 0.4 0 0.0 7 0.3 1.60 - 2.00 11 1. 7 15 1. 4 3 0.7 1 1.2 30 1.3 2.10 - 4.00 20 3. 0 32 2. 9 10 0.2 1 1.2 63 2.8 T o t a l 659 100. 0 1088 100. 0 450 100.0 86 100.1 2283 100.1 No answers: 18 3 52 Table 4.6 Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Fare Users Are W i l l i n g t o Pay by  Mode-Choice Determinants Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Mode-choice Determinants* Fare Users W i l l i n g to Are Pay(HK$) (Number of Money- -Time-Saving Saving Users) Conven-ience Comfort T o t a l 0 11 364 516 8 899 0.10 -0.50 27 409 610 14 1060 0.60 -1.00 5 90 154 4 253 1.10 -1.50 0 3 4 0 7 1.60 -2.00 1 7 22 0 30 2.10 -4.00 3 24 37 0 64 T o t a l 47 897 1343 26 2313 Mean: (HK$) 0.49 0.317 0.345 0.285 Standard D e v i a t i o n (HK$):0.736 0.533 0.559 0.257 Test of D i f f e r e n c e : (By a n a l y s i s o f variance) S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = 0.05 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = F~ n r = 2.60 0 . Oo H ; The means of maximum a d d i t i o n a l f a r e u s ers w i t h a d i f f e r e n t mode-choice determinants are w i l l i n g t o pay are not the same. H : The means are the same, o F score c a l c u l a t e d = F, , . = 2.523 (cal.) Since F. , . ^  F n n i. ( o n e - t a i l ) f o r 3 and co degrees of freedom, H a i s not accepted. *Since o n l y 5 o b s e r v a t i o n s were recorded f o r other mode-choice determinants, they are not i n c l u d e d i n t h i s t e s t . premises: 1 . Tunnel Bus far e (P^) = H K $ 1 . 0 0 2 . Ferry f a r e (P 2) = H K $ 0 . 3 0 3 . Fare f o r connecting mode on one side of the harbor ( P 3 ) = H K $ 0 . 4 0 (This i s the mean of the bus or tram f a r e , H K $ 0 . 3 0 , and the p u b l i c l i g h t bus f a r e , H K $ 0 . 5 0 ) 4 . Average maximum a d d i t i o n a l f a r e users are w i l l i n g to pay (P 4) = H K $ 0 . 3 2 5 . Average amount of time saved (T) = 1 6 . 5 minutes The value of time i s : ( P 1 + V " ( P 2 + P 3 ) —± 1 £ x 60 T = H K $ 2 . 2 5 per hour per person t r i p The value of time per hour per person t r i p f o r the Tunnel-Bus users i s estimated t o be HK$2.25. Since the mean personal income per month f o r the users was found to be HK$1,000 (Chapter I I I ) , the mean wage r a t e per hour of them i s HK$4.81"'". Hence, the personal value of time c a l c u l a t e d This i s derived by d i v i d i n g the mean personal monthly income by an average of 26 x 8 working hours per month. i s about 46.7% of the mean horly wage rate^. The value of time estimated here i s higher than the average value of per-sonal time computed by Freeman, Fox and Associates, that i s , HK$1.15, i n th e i r study of vehicular t o l l s for the Cross-Har-bor Tunnel (as quoted i n Pang, 1970:17), but i s closer to the value of time for a hoverferry route , that i s HK$1.89, computed by a t r a f f i c researcher i n the T r a f f i c and Transport Survey Divi s i o n , Public Works Department (Cheung, 1977:4-10). Therefore, the figure derived here i s considered reasonable. (2) The Value of Convenience: The major problem of quantifying convenience i s the lack of a parameter to measure i t s magnitude. We suggest that the number of vehicle t r i p - l e g s per person t r i p may be used for t h i s purpose. The value of convenience i s estimated based on premises for the estimation of the value of time plus: 6. Average number of vehicle t r i p - l e g s reduced (L) = 1 (see Table 4.3) 7. Average maximum additional fare users whose mode-choice determinant i s convenience are w i l l i n g to pay (P_) = HK$0.35 The Comprehensive Transport Study (Smith and Associates, 1976: 65) found that for the c i t y at large, the time value as per-centage of mean hourly wage rate for work trip-workers was 37%, and 27% for non-work trip-makers, i n 1974. This i s a deluxe ferry route between Kwun Tong i n Kowloon and Central on Hong Kong Island. Its fare i s HK$1.00 per t r i p . 55 Hence, the value of convenience: (P 1 + P 5) - (P 2 + P 3) L = HK$0.65 per t r i p - l e g per person t r i p . The value o f convenience f o r the Tunnel-Bus users i s estimated to be HK$0.65 per v e h i c l e t r i p - l e g per person t r i p . In other words, the users are w i l l i n g to pay HK$0.65 to reduce one v e h i c l e t r i p - l e g perperson t r i p . S i nce t h i s i s a new attempt of e s t i m a t i n g the value of convenience, no comparison can be made wit h other e s t i m a t e s . 4.2 R e l a t i o n s h i p between Mode-Choice Determinants and Patronage In order to see i f patrons w i t h d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have d i f f e r e n t mode-choice determinants, the c h i - s q u a r e t e s t i s a p p l i e d t o t e s t the g e n e r a l hypothesis t h a t : Patrons' mode-choice determinant i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l , socio-economic, or t r i p c h a r a c t -e r i s t i c s . As convenience and time-saving are found to be the pre -dominant mode-choice determinants, o n l y these two determinants are taken i n t o account i n the t e s t s . The patrons' s e l e c t i o n of mode-choice determinants i s found t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h three p e r s o n a l and socio-economic 56 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the patrons and w i t h three o f t h e i r t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These a r e : (1) Personal and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : sex, o c c u p a t i o n and income. (2) T r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : p r e s e n t frequency u s i n g the Tunnel Bus, cro s s - h a r b o r t r a n s p o r t mode b e f o r e the Tunnel Bus was i n t r o d u c e d , and t r i p purpose. Based on the f i n d i n g s of the t e s t s and the perc e n t d i s -t r i b u t i o n of patrons between the two major mode-choice d e t e r -minants as t a b u l a t e d i n Table 4.7 A-F, the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s can be made wit h r e s p e c t to the r e l a t i o n s h i p t e s t e d : (1) Female patrons r a t e higher on the f a c t o r of conven-ience . (2) L i k e w i s e , housewives are very s e n s i t i v e to conven-ience . (3) The hig h income group i s r e l a t i v e l y more convenience c o n s c i o u s . (4) Two extreme groups of patrons, those who use the Tunnel Bus everyday and those who use i t onl y occas-i o n a l l y , are p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned w i t h the f a c t o r of convenience, i n comparison to other groups. (5) Patrons d i v e r t e d from f e r r y r a t e higher on conven-ce; but those who drove a c r o s s the harbor v i a v e h i -c u l a r f e r r y are extremely s e n s i t i v e to time - s a v i n g . T h i s i s probably due to the long w a i t i n g time at the v e h i c u l a r f e r r y p i e r s . (6) Those making study t r i p s are most time c o n s c i o u s . 57 Other t r i p makers are more fond o f convenience. To conclude, the p r i n c i p a l mode-choice determinants, t h a t i s , the grounds f o r u s i n g the Tunnel Bus, are convenience and time-saving. The users are w i l l i n g to pay a higher c o s t f o r a mode wit h higher speed and more convenience. The s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n of the Tunnel-Bus users i s a l s o found to vary w i t h s e v e r a l of t h e i r p e r s o n a l , socio-economic and t r i p c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s i n c l u d i n g sex, occup a t i o n , income, frequency of use, pre v i o u s c r o s s - h a r b o r mode and t r i p purpose. These c h a r a c t -e r i s t i c s should be given p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n i n making p r e d i c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e patronage of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s . Table 4.7 Patronage C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s S i g n i f i c a n t l y A s s o c i a t e d  with S e l e c t i o n of Mode-Choice Determinants Test of A s s o c i a t i o n : G e n e r a l i z e d H : S e l e c t i o n o f mode-choice determinants a by the users i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i r p e r s o n a l , socio-economic, or t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c X. G e n e r a l i z e d H : S e l e c t i o n o f mode-choice determinants o by the users i s independent o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l , socio-economic, or t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c X. S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l : 0.05 Table 4.7 (Continued) A. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c X = Sex Sex Male Female Mode-choice Determinants Time Convenience T o t a l Number % Number % Number 698 47.8 760 383 42.7 513 52.1 1458 100.0 57.3 896 100.0 Degree of freedom = 1 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = ^X^g Q5 2 Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d = ^ Since ft{calt)> fr 2 0 > Q 5 , H Q i s not accepted. = 3.841 , , . = 5.877 (cal.) B. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c X = Personal Monthly Income Mode-choice Determinants Time Convenience T o t a l Monthly Income Number o, "O Number o, *o Number % (HK$) 500 and under 46 62. 2 28 37. 8 74 100. 0 501 - 1,000 324 46. 2 378 53. 8 702 100.0 1,001 - 1,500 243 52. 7 218 47. 3 461 100. 0 1,501 - 2,000 76 51. 7 71 48. 3 147 100.0 2,001 - 2,500 21 40. 4 31 59. 6 52 100.0 2,501 and more 18 27. 3 48 72. 6 66 100.0 No f i x e d income 73 31. 6 158 68. 4 231 100.0 Degree of Freedom = 6 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = = 12.592 yKj0.05 Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d = % ^ , .. , =47.27 (cal.) 2 \ /s,2 Since (cal.) > / 0.05' H 0 ± S n o t a c c e P t e d ' Table 4.7 (Continued) C. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c X = Occupation Mode-choice Determinants Occupation Time Number Q, "5 Convenience Number % T o t a l Number % O f f i c e 2 7 4 4 9 . 5 2 7 9 5 0 . 5 5 5 3 1 0 0 . 0 S e r v i c e 1 8 9 4 9 . 2 1 9 5 5 0 . 8 3 8 4 1 0 0 . 0 F a c t o r y 1 8 1 4 3 . 0 2 4 0 5 7 . 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 . 0 P r o f e s s i o n a l 9 2 4 4 . 4 1 1 5 5 5 . 6 2 0 7 1 0 0 . 0 Managerial 1 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 5 0 . 0 2 0 1 0 0 . 0 Student 1 4 0 4 7 . 8 1 5 3 5 2 . 2 2 9 3 1 0 0 . 0 Housewife 4 5 3 3 . 3 9 0 6 6 . 7 1 3 5 1 0 0 . 0 Unemployed 1 7 4 0 . 5 2 5 5 9 . 5 4 2 1 0 0 . 0 Degree of freedom = 7 2 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = V Q Q - = 1 4 . 0 6 7 2 Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d = ^ ( c a i ) = 1 6 . 8 6 S i n c e fical.) > / 2 0 . 0 5 ' H q i s not accepted. Table 4.7 (Continued) D. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c X = Frequency Using Tunnel Bus Mode-choice Determinants Time Convenience T o t a l Frequency Number o, "O Number *o Number Everyday 177 41. 6 248 58. 4 425 Weekdays onl y 323 50. 3 319 49. 7 642 4 - 5 days 96 53. 6 83 46. 4 179 1 - 3 days 82 48. 8 86 51. 2 168 O c c a s i o n a l 243 42. 5 329 57. 5 572 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 Degree of freedom = 5 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = Y"n n<r = 11.070 (J . (Jo Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d = ^ , = 15.495 ,2 (cal . ) Since ^ 2 ( C A L # ) > ^ Q . O S ' H q i s not accepted, E. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c X = Previous Cross-harbor T r a n s p o r t Mode Mode-choice Determinants P r e v i o u s Time Convenience T o t a l Mode Number % Number % Number % Sta r F e r r y 460 46.1 537 53.9 997 100.0 Yau Ma T i F e r r y 581 44.7 718 55.3 1299 100.0 D r i v i n g v i a V e h i c u l a r F e r r y 24 70.6 10 29.4 34 100.0 Others 20 51.3 19 48.7 39 100.0 Degree of freedom = 3 2 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = (^ Q 0 5 = 7 - 8 1 5 Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d = X , n . = 9.542 ' ( c a l . ) 2 2 S i n c e / (cal.) > / 0.05' H o i s n o t a c c e p t e d . 61 Table 4.7 (Continued) F. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c X = T r i p Purpose T r i p Purpose Mode-choice Determinants Time Convenience T o t a l Number % Number % Number Work 532 4 8.8 559 51.2 1091 100. 0 Study 105 57.4 78 42.6 "183 100.0 S o c i a l 179 42.0 247 58.0 .426 100. 0 Shopping 35 43.8 45 56.2 80 100.0 R e c r e a t i o n 42 35.0 78 65.0 120 100.0 Others 7 33.3 14 .6.6...7 2.1. .1.0.0. 0 Degree of freedom = 5 . . . 2 D e c i s i o n c r i t e r i o n = % n n r = 11.07 A 0 . 05 Chi-square c a l c u l a t e d = fr^ , = 22.355 Since (cal.)y fr ( c a l . ) 0 05' H o ""'S n 0 t a c c e P t e d ' 62 CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS 5.1 I m p l i c a t i o n f o r Former P r e d i c t i o n s : An A p p r a i s a l of Former P r e d i c t i o n s In J u l y 197 2, t h a t i s , about a month b e f o r e the Tunnel Bus was put i n t o s e r v i c e , the T r a f f i c and Tr a n s p o r t Survey D i v i s i o n , P u b l i c Works Department, made s e v e r a l patronage p r e d i c t i o n s f o r the Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e , as i t was then conceived. Three methods of assignment were adopted: (1) Assignment based on t r a v e l time alone; (2) Assignment based on t r a v e l time and convenience; (3) Assignment based t r a v e l time and c o s t . The estimates produced by the t h i r d method of assignment were adopted, without proper e x p l a n a t i o n . The c o n c l u s i o n was th a t the Tunnel Bus would a t t r a c t 22,000 t o 25,000 passengers per day (Pang, 1972:30-31). I t i s not our aim to attempt a thorough e v a l u a t i o n of the e n t i r e e s t i m a t i o n methodology, nor i s i t p o s s i b l e to make a sound q u a n t i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the estimates due to s e v e r a l s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the systems concerned s i n c e the Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e was implemented. The major u n a n t i c i p a t e d changes were: (1) The f a r e on the Hong Kong and Yau Ma T i f e r r y has gone up twice from HK$0.10 f o r the second c l a s s and HK$0.20 f o r the f i r s t c l a s s to a f l a t r a t e o f HK$0.30 (The second c l a s s was a b o l i s h e d ) . The f a r e on the Star F e r r y has a l s o r i s e n from HK$0.10 f o r the second c l a s s t o HK$0.20; and from HK$0.25 f o r the f i r s t c l a s s to HK$0.30. (2) Tunnel Bus routes have expanded from 3 to 9. (3) R e l o c a t i o n of some Tunnel Bus routes and some f e r r y p i e r s . (4) Changes i n t r a v e l time r e l a t i o n s due to i n c r e a s e d c o n g e s t i o n i n road t r a f f i c and a c q u i s i t i o n of new f e r r y boats. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y s e v e r a l sources of e r r o r i n the e s t i m a t i o n assumptions and methodology; and suggest some m o d i f i c a t i o n s f o r improvement, i n the l i g h t of the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h . These are d i s c u s s e d sub-sequently. S e n s i t i v i t y t o Cost S e n s i t i v i t y of the passengers t o t r a v e l c o s t was over-emphasized i n the p r e d i c t i o n s . T h i s i s made e v i d e n t by the f a c t t h a t the estimate of patronage dropped d r a s t i c a l l y (over 80%) between the assignment based on journey time o n l y and the assignment based on time and c o s t (Pang, 1972:27). A l s o , the p r e d i c t i o n s suggested t h a t the f a r e s t r u c t u r e of the Tunnel Bus r e q u i r e d to a t t r a c t a l e v e l of patronage more or l e s s e q u i v a l e n t to the present one would not be compatible with the c o s t of p r o v i d i n g the f a c i l i t y t h a t make the s e r v i c e p o s s i b l e . That i s , the f a r e of the Tunnel Bus would have to be much lower than the present f l a t r a t e of HK$1.00. Th i s i s o b v i o u s l y an over-weighting of the f a c t o r of t r a v e l c o s t (Pang, 1972:1-2). E s t i m a t i o n of Convenience Convenience i s found to be the most important mode-choice determinant i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . However, although the p r e d i c t -i ons d i d r e c o g n i z e t h a t there was a g e n e r a l tendency to a v o i d change of t r a v e l mode wherever p o s s i b l e f o r most of the f e r r y passengers, i t d i d not i n c l u d e the f a c t o r of convenience i n i t s f i n a l e s t i m a t i o n . In an e a r l y stage of the p r e d i c t i o n s , an estimate of the f a c t o r of convenience was made by i n t r o d u c i n g a time p e n a l t y i n f a v o r of the Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e , so t h a t even i f a given t r a v e l time was s l i g h t l y i n f a v o r of the f e r r y , a p r o p o r t i o n of the c r o s s - h a r b o r passenger movements would s t i l l be a t t r a c t e d to the Tunnel Bus. The assignment formula was a d i v e r s i o n curve which p o s t u l a t e d : (Pang, 1972:3-4): (1) Passengers would not use the Tunnel Bus a t a l l i f the journey time by Tunnel Bus was 15 minutes or more g r e a t e r than t h a t by the f a s t e s t a l t e r n a t i v e f e r r y r o u t e . (2) A l l passengers would switch to the Tunnel Bus i f the journey time by Tunnel Bus was f a s t e r than t h a t by the f a s t e s t a l t e r n a t i v e f e r r y r o u t e . (3) A p r o p o r t i o n of passengers would switch to the Tunnel Bus i f i t s journey time was l e s s than 15 minutes g r e a t e r than t h a t by the f a s t e s t a l t e r n a t i v e f e r r y r o u t e . The p r o p o r t i o n decreased w i t h the i n c r e a s e of the d i f f e r e n c e i n journey time. The c r i t i c a l problem w i t h t h i s estimate o f convenience i s t h a t i t does not i n a c t u a l f a c t p r o v i d e a measure of convenience. As a r e s u l t i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o simulate the value of convenience f o r d i f f e r e n t groups of t r a v e l l e r s , which, we have found, i s very important i n p r e d i c t i n g t r a v e l demands. Based on the attempt made i n Chapter IV, we suggest t h a t the magnitude of convenience be measured by the number of v e h i c l e t r i p - l e g s per person t r i p . The b i g g e r the number of t r i p - l e g s per person t r i p , the lower the convenience l e v e l . The v a l u e of convenience i s estimated and expressed as number of d o l l a r s per t r i p - l e g per person t r i p i n r e a l term. When used i n t r a n s p o r t a n a l y s i s , t h i s value serves as a shadow p r i c e of convenience, as there i s no market p r i c e f o r i t . S t r a t i f i c a t i o n of T r a v e l l e r s The p r e d i c t i o n d i d not make any p r o v i s i o n f o r s t r a t i f y i n g the passengers. The present r e s e a r c h has found t h a t the cho i c e of mode of the Tunnel-Bus users v a r i e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t groups of them based on t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l , s o c i o - e c o n -mic and t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e : sex, 66 o c c u p a t i o n , income, frequency of use, pr e v i o u s c r o s s - h a r b o r mode, and t r i p purpose. That i s to say, the a n a l y s i s of t r a v e l demands should take account of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of trip-makers. In p a r t i c u l a r , the m a j o r i t y of passengers f a l l i n t o the 21-30 age group and are a c t i v e members of the work f o r c e . In f u t u r e p r e d i c t i o n p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n should be p a i d t o the motives of t h i s stratum i n choosing between modes. 5.2 P r a c t i c a l and Research I m p l i c a t i o n s With the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e , c r o s s -harbor t r a v e l l e r s i n Hong Kong are faced w i t h a new, f a s t e r , more convenient but more expensive s e r v i c e , and hence new supply c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s study r e v e a l s t h a t a growing number of the t r a v e l l e r s have adopted t h i s new mode of cr o s s - h a r b o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , e i t h e r as passengers d i v e r t e d from the f e r r y system, or as new t r a v e l l e r s , d e s p i t e the higher c o s t s of the Tunnel Bus f o r most of them. The grounds f o r t h e i r c h o ice of mode are p r i m a r i l y convenience and time-saving. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the demand f o r cro s s - h a r b o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s more convenience and time e l a s t i c than i t i s c o s t e l a s t i c , t h a t i s , an i n c r e a s e i n the l e v e l of convenience and/or a r e d u c t i o n i n t r a v e l times would cause one of the competing modes to l o s e passengers t o the other, even i f the r e d u c t i o n i s o f f s e t by a comparable i n c r e a s e i n the f a r e charged.. T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n has two i m p l i c a t i o n s . F i r s t , on the p r a c t i c a l s i d e , i t suggests t h a t any a d d i t i o n a l Tunnel Bus routes which penetrate i n t o p o t e n t i a l demand areas would tend to draw more passengers from the f e r r y and generate more new passengers. S i m i l a r l y , a new t r a n s p o r t mode, p a r t i c u l a r l y the mass t r a n s i t system p r e s e n t l y under c o n s t r u c t i o n , w i t h i t s h i g h l e v e l o f convenience and time a t t r i b u t e s , would have a powerful impact on the c r o s s - h a r b o r mode use. Secondly, on the r e s e a r c h and p l a n n i n g s i d e , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h agree w i t h those of the North American s t u d -i e s c i t e d i n Chapter I and suggest t h a t t r a n s i t demand a n a l y -s i s (or modal s p l i t models) need to be made more s e n s i t i v e to v a r i a b l e other than time and c o s t . Convenience, i t has been suggested, i s more important than the t r a v e l time and c o s t ( c f . Navin and Gustafson, 1973, 1-18). In a d d i t i o n , c e r t a i n groups of the t r a v e l l i n g p u b l i c have i n d i c a t e d t h a t there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r e n c e s f o r some performance a t t r i -butes o f the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system. T h i s suggest t h a t the modal c h o i c e models should a l s o be s e n s i t i v e to the p e r s o n a l , socio-economic and t r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the tr i p - m a k e r s . In t h i s study, such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t cause d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e f e r e n c e s i n c l u d e sex, oc c u p a t i o n , income, frequency of use, p r e v i o u s mode, and t r i p purpose. In other words, i f a p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system should be p e r c e i v e d as e x i s t i n g w i t h i n a c o m p e t i t i v e consumer-oriented market (Chapter I ) , t h i s study i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e are d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t s e r v i c e among s p e c i f i c market segments. 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and A r t i c l e s Abercrombie, P. (1948). P r e l i m i n a r y P lanning Report, Hong  Kong Government P r i n t e r ) . Bressand, A. (1974). P u b l i c T r a nsport and Planning i n Hong Kong. A r e p o r t submitted to the Town Planning Department, French N a t i o n a l School of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , P a r i s . (Mimeographed). Brown, G.R. (1972). An A n a l y s i s of P r e f e r e n c e s f o r System  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o Cause a Mode S h i f t , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research S e r i e s , Report #1, (Vancouver, B.C.: The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia). Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department (1973-1978). Hong Kong  Monthly S t a t i s t i c a l D i g e s t , (Hong Kong: Government P r i n t e r ) . Census and S t a t i s t i c s Department (1972). Kong Kong P o p u l a t i o n  and Housing Census, 1971 — Main Report, (Hong Kong: Government P r i n t e r ) . Cheung, K.F. (1977). Central-Kwun Tong F e r r y Passenger Survey 1977, A Study of the H o v e r f e r r y S e r v i c e and the Value of Time i n T r a v e l l i n g , T e c h n i c a l Report 279, (Hong Kong: T r a f f i c and T r a n s p o r t Survey D i v i s i o n , P u b l i c Works Department). Dalby, E. (1965). The P l a n n i n g of Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Surveys, (Hong Kong: T r a f f i c and T r a n s p o r t Survey D i v i s i o n , P u b l i c Works Department). Dalby, E. (1967). Hong Kong Passenger Transport Survey 1964-66, Hong Kong: Government P r i n t e r ) . Dwyer, D.J. (1971). A s i a n U r b a n i z a t i o n : A Hong Kong Casework, (Hong Kong: U n i v e r s i t y of Hong Kong P r e s s ) . England, J . (1976). Hong Kong: B r i t a i n ' s R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , Fabian Research S e r i e s , #324, (London: Fabian S o c i e t y ) . Freeman, Fox, Wilbur Smith and A s s o c i a t e s (1967). Hong Kong  Mass Tr a n s p o r t Study, (Hong Kong: Government P r i n t e r ) . 69 Freeman, Fox, Wilbur Smith and A s s o c i a t e s (1968). Hong Kong Long Term Road Study, (Hong Kong: Government P r i n t e r ) . Golob, T.F. e t . a l . (1971). "User P r e f e r e n c e s f o r a Demand-Responsive T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System: A Case Study Report", Highway Research Record, 367, pp.20-30. Hung, T.C. (197 0). Cross Harbor Tunnel U t i l i z a t i o n by P u b l i c  T r a n s p o r t S e r v i c e s : Cross Harbor Person T r i p s , T e c h n i c a l Report 46, (Hong Kong: T r a f f i c and T r a n s p o r t Survey D i v i s i o n , P u b l i c Works Department). Intra-Departmental Working P a r t y (1956). Report of the I n t r a - Department Working P a r t y on the Proposed Cross Harbor  Tunnel, (Hong Kong: Government P r i n t e r ) . Leeds, P.F. (1970). " P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t i n Hong Kong , :, J o u r n a l  of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Overseas, 9:4 (October), pp.255-261. Lo, C P . (1972). "A Typology of Hong Kong Census D i s t r i c t : A Study i n Urban S t r u c t u r e " , The J o u r n a l of T r o p i c a l  Geography, 34, pp.34-43. McMillan, R.K. and H. A s s a l (1968). N a t i o n a l Survey of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A t t i t u d e s and Behavior. Phase I Summary Report, N a t i o n a l Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 49, (Washington, D.C: Highway Research Board). McMillan, R.K. and H. A s s a i l (1969). N a t i o n a l Survey of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A t t i t u d e s and Behavior. Phase I I A n a l y s i s  Report, N a t i o n a l Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 82, (Washington, D.C: Highway Research Board). Meyer, J.R. J.F. Kain and M. Wohl (1965). The Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Problem, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP.) Mogridge, M.J.H. (1972). The T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Process-A C r i t i c a l A p p r a i s a l Using a Problem of HK as an Example T e c h n i c a l Report 93, (Hong Kong, T r a f f i c and Tr a n s p o r t Survey D i v i s i o n , P u b l i c Works Department). Nash, A.N. and S.J. H i l l e (1968). " P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s Toward Tr a n s p o r t Modes: A Summary of Two P i l o t S t u d i e s " , Highway Research Record, 233, pp. 12-17. Navin, P.D. and R.L. Gustafson (1973). A t t i t u d e s Toward P u b l i c  T r a n s i t : Some Comparisons, (Warren, Michigan: Research Laboratory, General Motors C o r p o r a t i o n ) . ] 70 Paine, F. e t . a l . (1967). Consumer Conceived A t t r i b u t e s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n : An A t t i t u d e Study. United S t a t e s Government Cleringhouse P u b l i c a t i o n , PB 176 485. Pang, H.C. (197 2). The Cross Harbor Tunnel Bus S e r v i c e s , T e c h n i c a l Report 100, (Hong Kong: T r a f f i c and T r a n s p o r t Survey D i v i s i o n , P u b l i c Works Department). Purdue U n i v e r s i t y (1971). The Greater L a f a y e t t e Area Bus  T r a n s i t Study. P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r : Henneth Heathington. J o i n t Highway Research P r o j e c t . L a f a y e t t e , Indiana. Robson, J . J . (1972). " O v e r a l l P l a n n i n g i n Hong Kong", A s i a  B u i l d i n g and C o n s t r u c t i o n , J u l y , pp.15-19; August, pp.2 9-35; and September, pp.25-33. Smith, Wilbur and A s s o c i a t e s (1976). Hong Kong Comprehensive  T r a n s p o r t Study, (Hong Kong: Wilbur Smith and A s s o c i a t e s ) . T r a n s p o r t Department (1976-1977). S t a t i s t i c a l Reports, (Hong Kong: T r a n s p o r t Department). T r e s s i d e r , J.O. (1961). Hong Kong T r a f f i c Survey 1 9 6 0 : A  A Survey of T r a f f i c i n Hong Kong i n Order to Determine  the Economic F e a s i b i l i t y o f a Cross-Harbor Bridge or  Tunnel, (London: Department of S c i e n t i f i c and I n d u s t r i a l Research, Road Research L a b o r a t o r y ) . V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company L i m i t e d (1961). Report  on a Proposed Road C r o s s i n g of Hong Kong Harbor, Volume I and I I , (Hong Kong: S c o t t and W i l s o n ) . Wain, Barry (1972). "Cure f o r a S p l i t P e r s o n a l i t y " , Far E a s t  Economic Review, 77:32 (5 August), pp.27-29. Yeomans,K.(1968). A p p l i e d S t a t i s t i c s f o r S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t s , (London: Penguin). Newpapers China M a i l , (1954-1965). Hong Kong. Hong Kong Standard, (1954-1977). Hong Kong. South China Morning Post, (1950-1977). Hong Kong. 71 APPENDIX A PLANNING FOR THE CROSS-HARBOR TUNNEL : MAJOR EVENTS The f i r s t recorded p r o p o s a l of a c r o s s - h a r b o r road l i n k was made by Commander Murry Ramsey, the Harbor Master, i n h i s 1920 Annual Report- He proposed a b r i d g e from C e n t r a l on Hong Kong I s l a n d to Tsim Sha T s u i i n Kowloon. His major concern, however, was not w i t h c r o s s - h a r b o r t r a v e l , but r a t h e r with the c l e a r a n c e of the harbor f o r ocean-going s h i p s ( V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company, 1961:2). Since then advocacy of a c r o s s - h a r b o r road l i n k had been heard many times, but no f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o s a l had been o f f e r e d u n t i l 1948, when the P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n n i n g Report by S i r P a t r i c k Abercrombie was p u b l i s h e d . He found t h a t a b r i d g e or a t u n n e l from the c e n t e r of Hong Kong I s l a n d to Tsim Sha T s u i i n Kowloon very important f o r the development of Hong Kong (Abercombie, 1948:14). In June 1950, a government committee was appointed to formulate a long-term p l a n f o r c r o s s - h a r b o r f e r r y s e r v i c e s . The committee recommended the p r o v i s i o n of more passenger and v e h i c u l a r f e r r y as w e l l as a f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the government of Abercombie's concept of a c r o s s - h a r b o r road l i n k . 72 F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the government commissioned i n 1954 Messrs Mott, Hay and Anderson, c o n s u l t i n g engineers of London to r e p o r t on the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n s t r u c t i n g a t o l l t u n n e l a c r o s s the harbor. The c o n s u l t a n t s came up w i t h the suggest-i o n t h a t a two-lane tunnel c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d between the C e n t r a l D i s t r i c t on the i s l a n d and Hunghom i n Kowloon (China M a i l , 18 June 1955). T h i s r a i s e d the i n t e r e s t of a number of l e a d i n g people i n Hong Kong, i n c l u d i n g Mr. Lawrence Kadoorie who l a t e r became one of the c h i e f advocates of the Cross-Harbor Tunnel (South China Morning Post, 17 September 1955). In 1956, the government appointed an Inter-Departmental Committee to c o n s i d e r the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the tunnel p r o p o s a l . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s Committee was r e l e a s e d i n a r e p o r t ( I n t e r -Departmental Committee, 1956). The Committee d i d not c o n s i d e r t h a t s u f f i c i e n t c r o s s - h a r b o r t r a f f i c would use the proposed t u n n e l to repay i t s c o s t and hence, the Committee d i d not recommend the government to p r o v i d e a subsidy f o r the cons-t r u c t i o n of the proposed t u n n e l . However, the Committee recommended t h a t the government should permit commercial i n t e r e s t s which were prepared to undertake the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the proposed t u n n e l to do so. In response to t h i s i n v i t a t i o n , the Harriman R e a l t y Company began d i s c u s s i o n with the government i n 1957. Two years l a t e r , the V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company was formed to promote an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the p r o v i s i o n of a c r o s s - h a r b o r road l i n k ( V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company L i m i t e d , 1961:3). The Company appointed Messrs S c o t t and Wilson, K i r k p a t r i c k and Pa r t n e r s ; and Freeman, Fox and P a r t n e r s as j o i n t engineers to i n v e s t i g a t e f u l l y the f e a s i b i l i t y of a c r o s s - h a r b o r road l i n k (China M a i l , 1 September 1959). The f i n d i n g s o f the j o i n t engineers were p u b l i s h e d i n a two-volume r e p o r t i n 1961 ( V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company L i m i t e d , 1961). The r e p o r t i n c l u d e d the p r e s e n t a t i o n of plans f o r both t u n n e l and b r i d g e which met a l l requirements of the Hong Kong P o r t Committee. On 9 May 1963, the government agreed t o the p r o p o s a l of a c r o s s - h a r b o r t u n n e l f o r Hong Kong i n s t e a d of a b r i d g e , mainly because of p o s s i b l e hazards:of the b r i d g e to a i r c r a f t . In March 1964, a j o i n t statement by the government and the V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company L i m i t e d s a i d t h a t the Company had made a f i r m d e c l a r a t i o n to the government to the e f f e c t t h a t i t was p r e p a r i n g i n p r i n c i p l e , t o proceed with the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t u n n e l on the b a s i s a l r e a d y announced by the government (China M a i l , 31 March 1964). A f t e r a s e r i e s of debates on the Tunnel p r o j e c t , the L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l passed a r e s o l u t i o n of appointment and a f r a n c h i s e was granted to the Cross Harbor Tunnel Company L i m i t e d , newly formed to succed to V i c t o r i a C i t y Development Company L i m i t e d , on 11 June 1967, to b u i l d and operate a f o u r - l a n e c r o s s - h a r b o r tunnel. (South China Morning Post, 24 June 1965). C o n s t r u c t i o n of the tu n n e l s t a r t e d on 1 September 1969 and was completed nine weeks ahead of schedule. The Cross-Harbor Tunnel was o f f i c a l l y d e c l a r e d open on 2 August 1969. With much h e s i t a t i o n and ambiquity of the p r o s p e c t of p a t r o n age (Pang, 197 2), the Tunnel Bus was put i n t o s e r v i c e three days l a t e r (5 August), j o i n t l y by the Kowloon Motor Bus and China Motor Bus Companies. 75 APPENDIX B The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : Interview Form and Questions I. INTERVIEW FORM Hong Kong Tunnel Bus Users Interview Form Bus Number Interviewer Weather Date P e r i o d O r i g i n D e s t i n a -t i o n Sex [^j Age Q Employment Q Income [~j Connecting Transport Mode: Before Boarding A f t e r A l i g h t i n g Q T r i p Purpose | | | T r i p Time | | | Frequency Using [ J Transport Mode Before Q Connecting T r a n s p o r t Mode Before: O r i g i n End Q D e s t i n a t i o n End Q Reasons For Using Tunnel Bus | | | Time-Saved | | | Money Saved | | | Maximum A d d i t i o n a l Fare W i l l i n g to Pay | | | 76 I I . QUESTIONS ASKED Personal and Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1. Would you mind t e l l i n g me how o l d you are? 2. What i s your occupation? 3. Would you mind t e l l i n g me your approximate monthly income? T r i p C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 4. (Origin) Where d i d you s t a r t t h i s t r i p ? 5. Is i t your home, s c h o o l , work p l a c e or other? 6. How d i d you t r a v e l on t h i s t r i p to t h i s bus stop ( i . e . from the o r i g i n ) ? 7. ( I f the answer to #6 i s "by car") What type of v e h i c l e ? 8. (D e s t i n a t i o n ) Where i s the f i n a l d e s t i n a t i o n of your present t r i p ? 9 . Is your d e s t i n a t i o n your home, work p l a c e , s c h o o l or other? 10. How w i l l you t r a v e l t o your d e s t i n a t i o n a f t e r a l i g h t i n g Tunnel Bus? 11. ( i f the answer to #10 i s "by car) What type of v e h i c l e ? 12. What i s the purpose of your t r i p to t h i s d e s t i n a t i o n ? 13. How long w i l l you expect t o complete t h i s journey? 14. Before the Tunnel Bus was i n t r o d u c e d , d i d you c r o s s the harbor? .(If the answer to #14 i s "yes", ask #15-#19; i f i t i s "no", go to #20) 77 15. How d i d you cross the harbor? 16. How d i d you go to the f e r r y p i e r from your o r i g i n ? 17. ( I f the answer to #16 i s "by car") What type of v e h i c l e ? 18. How d i d you go to your d e s t i n a t i o n a f t e r a l i g h t i n g f e r r y ? 19. ( I f the answer to #18 i s "by car") What type of v e h i c l e ? 20. What are your reasons f o r using the Tunnel Bus? 21. (For those who answer " f a s t e r " i n #20) How much f a s t e r ? 22. (For those who answer "cheaper" i n #20) How much cheaper? 23. How o f t e n do you cross the harbor by Tunnel Bus? 24. How much more would you be w i l l i n g to pay f o r the Tunnel Bus s e r v i c e ? APPENDIX C STATISTICAL TESTS USED Three s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t were used to t e s t working hypo^ theses a r i s i n g throughout the a n a l y s i s . They were, the 'z' t e s t , the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and the Chi-square t e s t . A. The 'z 1 Test groups of o b s e r v a t i o n s , x^ and x 2 , are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r -ent or not. The 'z' value i s found from: Where, , x 2 = two means i n q u e s t i o n ; sl ' S2 = standard e r r o r s of the two groups of o b s e r v a t i o n s ; n l ' n 2 = f r e q u e n c i e s of the two groups of o b s e r v a t i o n s . I f the 'z' value c a l c u l a t e d i s l e s s than the 'z' value expected (that i s , the value given i n the normal d e v i a t e t a b l e ) , the d i f f e r e n c e between the means i s s i g n i f i c a n t ; otherwise, i t i s not. The 'z' t e s t i s used t o decide whether the means of two 79 B. The A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e 'As used to t e s t whether a group of means of s e v e r a l (more than two) groups of o b s e r v a t i o n s a re s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . The approach i n v o l v e s comparing (using the F t e s t ) two d i f f e r e n t estimates of the v a r i a n c e of the assumed common normal p o p u l a t i o n s from which the groups of o b s e r v a t i o n s have been drawn. The f i r s t estimate d e a l s w i t h v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h i n the groups (also known as mean square w i t h i n groups). I t i s found from p o o l i n g the group v a r i a n c e s : k mj . — . 2 j = l i = l - J ' J n - k Where, k = number of groups; m = number of o b s e r v a t i o n s i n each group; x. . = ID the i * " * 1 o b s e r v a t i o n i n the j ^ n group; i = j = 1,2,3, k x .= • D th a s p e c i f i c v a l u e i n the j group; x . = • ~\ the mean va l u e of the o b s e r v a t i o n s i n j .th j group. The second estimate of the p o p u l a t i o n v a r i a n c e , which i s i n -dependent of the f i r s t , i s based upon the v a r i a t i o n between the groups (al s o known as mean square between groups): k ,- - .2 y m. (x . - x. .) j = l 0 O ID k - 1 where: n o t a t i o n s same as above. 80 I f the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the p o p u l a t i o n means are equal i s t r ue (that i s , the group means are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f -f e r e n t ) , then the two estimates should d i f f e r o n l y w i t h i n the l i m i t s of random sampling. But i f the means are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , then the estimate from between-group v a r i a t i o n w i l l be i n c r e a s e d , even though the estimate from within-group v a r -i a t i o n w i l l be u n a l t e r e d . A o n e - t a i l F t e s t i s used to compare the e s t i m a t e s : F _ mean square between groups ( c a l c u l a t e d ) •.„• mean square w i t h i n groups Only i f the numerator i s a c t u a l l y g r e a t e r than the denominator, t h a t i s when F, , , . 1, w i l l t here be any evidence V C d l C U l c l t G C l ) a g a i n s t the n u l l h ypothesis and t h e r e f o r e any need to a s c e r t a i n the c r i t i c a l v a lue of F, , , . ,. . ( c a l c u l a t e d ) C. The Chi-Square T e s t The Chi-square t e s t " i s used to see i f there i s a s i g n i f -i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the frequency w i t h which s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s of o b s e r v a t i o n s i n two or more samples occur. The sample f r e -quencies are compared wi t h the f r e q u e n c i e s which would be expected i f the n u l l h ypothesis i s t r u e . The comparison i s 2 achieved by c a l c u l a t i n g the s t a t i s t i c : V 2 _ ^ (O - E ) 2 ' E where, Q _ ^ E Q^QQJ-^Q^ f r e q u e n c i e s ; E = the expected f r e q u e n c i e s . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094463/manifest

Comment

Related Items