Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478489 [631309]

Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489
Understanding attitudes towards public transport and
private car: A qualitative study
Gabriela Beira ˜o/C3, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4250-465 Porto, Portugal
Available online 8 June 2007
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a qualitative study of public transport users and car users in order to obtain a deeper understanding
of travellers’ attitudes towards transport and to explore perceptions of public transport service quality. The key findings indicate that in
order to increase public transport usage, the service should be designed in a way that accommodates the levels of service required bycustomers and by doing so, attract potential users. Furthermore, the choice of transport is influenced by several factors, such as
individual characteristics and lifestyle, the type of journey, the perceived service performance of each transport mode and situational
variables. This suggests the need for segmentation taking into account travel attitudes and behaviours. Policies which aim to influence carusage should be targeted at the market segments that are most motivated to change and willing to reduce frequency of car use.
r2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Service quality; Travel attitudes; Public transport; Private car; Qualitative research; Portugal.
1. Introduction
In the last decades the levels of mobility have increased
substantially in all European countries ( MOTIF, 1998 ).
This raises concern about increasing car use and theimplications of this in terms of congestion and pollution.Another important feature to be considered in decision-making concerning transport is the current and changing
nature of society and lifestyle patterns which generate
diversified travel needs. Most people are now highlydependent on car travel ( Anable, 2005 ). But, the car is
far more than just a means of transport ( Steg, 2005 ). Other
motives than just its instrumental functions seem to play animportant role, such as feelings of sensation, power,freedom, status and superiority ( Steg, 2005 ). Moreover,
the perceived benefits of cars depend on the lifestyle and
social–spacial relations engaged by the user ( Hiscock et al.,
2002). Some evidence has suggested that some people may
not always drive out of necessity, but also by choice(Handy et al., 2005 ). So it is necessary to promote policies
that can reduce private transport dependence as well as theneed for driving, by providing alternatives to driving. Such
policies might involve an improvement in the publictransport service and promoting a shift to slower modessuch as cycling or walking. Furthermore, it is necessary topromote measures to reduce the attractiveness of car use(Ga¨rling and Schuitema, 2007 ).
Yet it is not expected that the public transport system
would be able to provide a level of service with sufficient
appeal to attract large numbers of car users to switch to
public transport ( Hensher, 1998 ). Policies which aim at
increasing public transport usage should promote itsimage, but at the same time, public transport systems needto become more market-oriented and competitive. Thisrequires an improvement in service quality, which can onlybe achieved by a clear understanding of travel behaviourand consumer needs and expectations. Therefore, it
becomes essential to measure the level of service in order
to identify the potential strengths and weaknesses of publicsystems. This can provide clues to public transportmanagement in the process of evaluating alternative serviceimprovements aimed at enhancing user satisfaction andincreasing market share. However, developing accurateand valid measures of service quality is a complex task,since it deals with perceptions and attitudes. Hence, gainingARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
0967-070X/$ – see front matter r2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.009/C3Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 225081639; fax: +351 225081538.
E-mail address: gbeirao@fe.up.pt (G. Beira ˜o).

a better understanding of consumers’ perceptions of the
quality of the service provided by public transport isimportant.
This paper presents data from a qualitative study
involving public transport users and car users. The research
questions addressed in this study are: What are the maininfluences affecting people’s choice of travel mode? Whatare the attitudes towards transport? How public transportservices are perceived and evaluated? To explore thesequestions, a series of in-depth interviews were conducted inthe region of Porto, Portugal.
The metropolitan area of Porto, the second largest
metropolitan area in Portugal, faces an increase in car use,
like many other big metropolitan areas. In a 10-yearperiod, from 1991 to 2001, car journeys to work or schoolraised from 23% to almost 50% ( INE, 2003 ). Buses are the
most used form of public transport, but the demand tendsto decrease. A new mode of transport, light rail, is beingconstructed in the metropolitan area. Light rail, whichstarted its operation in 2003, offered only two lines at the
time this study was carried out, but more are still under
construction.
2. Literature review
Understanding travel behaviour and the reasons for
choosing one mode of transport over another is an essentialissue. However, travel behaviour is complex. For each
journey, people have the choice between different transport
modes, each one having specific characteristics, advantagesand disadvantages, and costs. Additionally the choice ofone specific transport mode can vary over time and withthe type of journey. Thus, there are many people that useboth public transport and private cars. So, in order toreduce car use it is necessary to understand the underlyingpatterns of travel behaviour. In general, the car is the most
attractive mode of transport. Convenience, speed, comfort
and individual freedom are well-known arguments ( Anable,
2005;Hagman, 2003 ;Jensen, 1999 ). This means that public
transport needs to adjust the service to the attributesrequired by consumers in order to become more attractiveand influence a modal shift ( STIMULUS, 1999 ). Service
quality is perceived as an important determinant of users’travel demand ( Prioni and Hensher, 2000 ).
Yet the measurement of service quality remains a
challenging and important research area with practicalimplications for service providers ( Hensher et al., 2003 ).
Considering public transport, both operators and autho-rities need to understand how consumers evaluate thequality of the service. However, consumer evaluation ofquality is an abstract and elusive concept to measure(Parasuraman et al., 1985 ), complicating the development
of valid and accurate constructs of service quality. It deals
with abstract and intangible attributes, such as safety andcomfort, which are not easily measured.
From the service providers’ perspective it is essential to
identify the most important attributes of service qualitythat are perceived by current and potential users. However,
the specification of a set of relevant attributes is complex(Prioni and Hensher, 2000 ). In addition, it is important to
identify their relative importance to users’ satisfaction. For
instance, research has shown that reliability (being on time)
is a decisive factor ( Bates et al., 2001 ;Edvardsson, 1998 ;
Hensher et al., 2003 ;Ko¨nig, 2002 ). The problem is not so
much having to wait, but the uncertainty of when thetransport will arrive ( Ko¨nig, 2002 ). Likewise attributes like
frequency ( Hensher et al., 2003 ) and comfort ( Friman and
Ga¨rling, 2001 ;Hensher et al., 2003 ) are also highly valued
by consumers, being key elements of consumer satisfaction.
Other attributes found as having a major negative impact
on consumer satisfaction are travel time and fare level(Hensher et al., 2003 ).
Although those attributes are usually considered very
important, others may also have a positive effect onsatisfaction and can represent great potential for improve-ment. For instance, service providers should make avail-able clear and simple information ( Edvardsson, 1998 ;
Friman and Ga ¨rling, 2001 ). Likewise, the driver assumes
an important role in consumer contact ( Edvardsson, 1998 ;
Friman and Ga ¨rling, 2001 ). Aspects related to vehicle
conditions (for instance, cleanliness) are also meaningful tousers ( Swanson et al., 1997 ).
It is important to understand that different user
segments evaluate the same service quality area differently
and their satisfaction will be influenced by different service
attributes ( Andreassen, 1995 ). Also, the needs, beliefs and
expectations of users will vary significantly betweendifferent segments of the market ( Anable, 2005 ;Jensen,
1999;QUATTRO, 1998 ).
Usually the market is segmented according to socio-
demographic variables and transport use (car users andpublic transport users). However, it seems that fewdifferences exist when only socio-demographic segmenta-
tion are taken into consideration ( Anable, 2005 ), or
when groups are segmented according to transport use(STIMULUS, 1999 ). This indicates the need for carefully
identifying new segments of users according to the under-lying psychological constraints, incorporating perceptionsand attitudes. Several studies, using different approachesand techniques have made interesting advances in travelmarket segmentation ( Anable, 2005 ;Jensen, 1999 ;Outwater
et al., 2003 ;STIMULUS, 1999 ).
Also, it is known that travel behaviour is influenced by
the service level of the transport system. However, thisdependence is not directly related to the objective servicelevel, but is influenced by psychological factors ( Fujii and
Kitamura, 2003 ). Psychological factors include percep-
tions, attitudes and habits ( Ajzen, 1991 ;Fujii and
Kitamura, 2003 ). So, changing the psychological factors
may also change travel mode choice, although the level of
service remains the same ( Fujii and Kitamura, 2003 ).
Hence, to attract more users to the public transport
system it is important to know more about the psychologicalfactors that influence mode choice and the measures neededARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 479

to reduce car dependence. A way to enhance that knowledge
is through qualitative methods which can provide valuableinsights into people’s attitudes and perceptions towardstransport. For example, Guiver (2007) conducted focus
groups to discuss bus and car travel, finding that the
respondents used different criteria to evaluate each mode,and viewed them differently depending on whether theywere users or non-users. When talking about bus travel,respondents focused on worst-case scenarios; however, thesewere not used to describe car travel.
Hagman (2003) studied car users and explored how they
perceived the advantages and disadvantages of car use. His
research showed that advantages and disadvantages are
presented differently. Advantages, such as freedom, flex-ibility and saving time are always personal and a result ofpersonal experience, as are some of the disadvantages suchas costs. However, disadvantages concerning environmen-tal impacts are usually presented with references to publicdiscourse. An important aspect of this research is thatalthough respondents seem to agree that car use in general
ought to be reduced due to environmental issues, they do
not think of reducing their own car use. Gardner and
Abraham (2007) conducted semi-structured interviews to
ascertain the reasons for driving to work and identified fivecore motives: journey time concerns, journey based affect,effort minimization, personal space concerns and monetarycosts. However, the underlying desire for control under-pinned many of these motives.
Jensen (1999) conducted 30 in-depth interviews and
identified six mobility types based on behaviour andattitudes: the passionate car drivers, the daily life cardrivers, the leisure time car drivers, the cyclists/publictransport users of heart, the cyclists/public transport usersof convenience and the cyclists/public transport users ofnecessity. This study points out that one strategy alone isnot sufficient to change the transport behaviour of the
population in general. Also, she stated that the expansion
and improvement of the public transport system is notgoing to make car users in general change from driving acar to using public transport.
3. Methodology
Because travel behaviour is complex, a deep under-
standing of people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviour is
needed. Qualitative methods are a powerful tool to explorethose complexities ( Clifton and Handy, 2001 ), since they
allow a grasp of the individual’s own explanations ofbehaviour and attitudes. One of the major trade-offsbetween quantitative methods and qualitative methods is atrade-off between breadth and depth ( Patton, 1990 ).
Quantitative approaches have the advantage of measuring
the reactions of many subjects to a limited set of questions
allowing the comparison and statistical aggregation of thedata. On the other hand, qualitative methods produce awealth of detailed data on a small number of individuals(Patton, 1990 ).In the travel decision-making process emotions play a
role as important as rationality and qualitative researchallows the exploration of emotions and the ‘‘ifs, buts andmaybes’’ of life without the constraints of quantitative
methods ( Grosvenor, 2000 ). Qualitative methods have the
advantage of allowing people to express what is reallyimportant to them in their own words. Most of the researchconducted on mode choices employs researcher-selectedvariables, so tends to focus on just a few attributes. In thisregard, qualitative methods can be a valuable way to allowrespondents to specify which factors are important tothem. Research on travel behaviour using qualitative
methods has provided new insights into this field, allowing
a better understanding of transportation problems ( Clifton
and Handy, 2001 ).
This study was based on 24 in-depth interviews with the
general public, including regular and occasional users ofpublic transport and car users. These qualitative proce-dures enable us to gain insight into the underlyingcustomer evaluations and attitudes towards transport. It
should be noted that the sample is relatively small, thus the
results should not be generalized.
3.1. Sample design and participant selection procedures
The sample was stratified to ensure a balance of public
transport users and car users, taking into account a mix ofages from 18 to 70 and a similar number of male andfemale participants. In addition, the participants had tolive in different geographical locations in the metropolitanarea of Porto, since available transport alternatives and
constraints differ according to the place of residence.
Based on transport usage, three groups were defined a
priori:
(1)Public transport users : those who regularly use public
transport for most of their usu al journeys (7 participants).
(2)Car users : those who always use private cars for all of
their journeys (10 participants).
(3)Both: those who use private cars and occasionally use
public transport for their usual journeys (7 participants).
The in-depth interviews were held in Porto. The selection
of participants was undertaken in a public place called
‘‘Citizen Store’’, which is a one-stop-shop where severalpublic services are grouped and has a broad influx of thepopulation from the whole metropolitan area. Theparticipants were approached by identified staff from thepublic transport operator supporting this study, whoexplained the purpose and sponsors of the research. Aftersome initial qualifying questions, each person was then
asked to participate in the study. The interviews were
conducted in the public transport operator office, which islocated next to ‘‘Citizen Store’’. This procedure wasimplemented to overcome some difficulties found in thescheduling process, particularly to avoid drop outs.ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 480

In this study, 24 in-depth interviews were conducted
with the general public, divided into three groups, asdescribed above. There were slightly more females (14)than males (10) in the sample. The respondents’ age rangedfrom 21 to 69, with an emphasis on younger respondents(seeTable 1 ).
Most of the participants (18) were full-time workers
and a further three were students, two were retiredand only one was unemployed. All levels of education,from elementary school to college graduates, were repre-sented in the sample, 54% having at least some collegeeducation.
Only two participants did not have a driver’s license, and
three did not have access to a car. Most of the respondents
(75%) lived in households that owned two or more cars.
The sample had a higher number of participants living inPorto (10), and the remaining participants lived around themetropolitan area.
The journey to work or school was the regular ride
described by 22 respondents, five of whom travelled bypublic transport while 11 travelled by car. Three respon-dents used either public transport or car, two used both
and only one went by foot. The main mode of public
transport used by the respondents was the bus.
3.2. Interviewing procedures and analysis
The interviews were semi-structured, based on a pre-
defined interview guide, and took 30 min on average. Thefocus was on the process of mode choice for the mostregular journey, and on the influences affecting that choice.
Through the interviews attitudes towards transport were
explored, as well as how people could be attracted to publictransport. Another issue covered was the participants’overall perceptions of public transport services and theirevaluation of different modes. The interviews particularlyaddressed the use of bus and private car, since they are thetwo major choices of transport in the metropolitan areaunder study. Additionally, to investigate the attitude
toward light rail, which is a new mode of transport and
not yet fully operational, participants were asked to statethe strengths and weakness of light rail when compared tobus service and what mode they would prefer if light railwas available to them.In order to gain more background information on the
participants, they were asked to complete a questionnaireat the end of the session, which included some socio-demographic data, such as age, income, occupation,
household characteristics, car ownership and driving
licence.
The in-depth interviews were digitally recorded and fully
transcribed. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo(2.0) was used to facilitate the organization and structuringof the process of coding and categorization and thedevelopment of relationships among concepts.
This qualitative study was based on a ‘‘grounded theory’’
approach ( Glaser and Strauss, 1967 ), which provided an
interactive framework for data analysis. The data wereinitially coded into concepts and ideas emerging from thedata and the literature review. This analytical process wasfurther iteratively refined throughout a systematic compar-ison between the data and the concepts and patternspreviously identified ( Strauss and Corbin, 1998 ). This
process allows the theory to emerge from the data in order
to gain more insight and enhance understanding of the
phenomenon under study. In the first stage the interviewtexts were analysed line by line, and pertinent excerpts wereassigned provisional conceptual codes. The next stageinvolved the search for relationships between conceptuallabels and categories. The goal was to systematicallydevelop and relate categories. In the final stage, categorieswere integrated and refined ( Strauss and Corbin, 1998 ).
Data analysis was structured around factors reflecting
both utilitarian and emotional needs positively andnegatively influencing the choice of transport, since thecombinations of those factors would constrain people’sbehaviour.
4. Results
The interviewees were asked to talk about the different
modes of transport, even if they did not use them, with afocus on bus and private car, as previously mentioned. Thisallowed for a comparative evaluation between modes andthe perceived advantages and disadvantages of each one.Additionally, asking non-users their perceptions’ aboutpublic transport is important in understanding the reasonsfor non-use; how they would feel if they had to use public
transport; and also what would make them switch to
alternative modes.
The results showed that the choice of transport is
influenced by several factors such as the individual’scharacteristics and lifestyle, the type of journey, theperceived service performance of each transport modeand situational variables.
4.1. Respondents’ evaluations of public transport
The advantages and disadvantages of public transport
and private car, most indicated by the participants, arepresented in Table 2 .ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Age range of the respondents
Age group Public transport user Car user Both Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female
18–29 1 2 2 2 7
30–39 2 2 2 1 2 9
40–49 2 1 1 4
50–59 1 1 1 360–70 1 1Total 4 3 4 6 2 5 24G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 481

4.1.1. Travel time
Travel time is simultaneously considered an advantage
and disadvantage of buses and is an important reason formode choice. In areas with exclusive bus lanes, and totravel to the city centre, the bus is considered faster thanthe car, mostly by public transport users. As a female, 43-year-old, public transport user said:
I refuse to go downtown by car! I just refuse to go,
because it is despairing having to park the car, and it
takes too long and the continuous stop and go.
But for journeys across the metropolitan region or in
areas with heavy traffic during rush-hour, using publictransport is perceived as a waste of time by almost all carusers and occasionally public transport users. This also
includes the waiting time, which is perceived as too long,
and a barrier to public transport use. A key aspect for theseparticipants is the lack of control due to the uncertainty ofwhen the bus will arrive and the perception that publictransport is unreliable. Hence, they feel that if they usepublic transport, they will not be able to meet theirschedules:
[waiting] is very annoying, because I don’t have
anything to do, and having to be there y(female, aged
21, occasional public transport user, car owner).
Not knowing what to expect is the thing that worries me
the most. Note that even with all the shortcomings ofthe private car, I know that I leave home, I drive my car,get a place to park and walk a little, but I get there. Iknow I only depend on me! But with public transportno, I never know, it is very difficult to get to my
destination (male, aged 43, occasional public transportuser, car owner).
4.1.2. Cost
Public transport is acknowledged as cheaper than car
even by car users, but it does not appear as a key factor forchanging to public transport, when considered in isolationfrom other factors which restrict that choice. Some carusers recognize that if they used public transport they
would save money:
In fact car is much more expensive (male, aged 43,
occasional public transport user, car owner).
When talking about costs that [using public transport]
would be much cheaper to me (female, aged 39, caruser).
But for public transport users with lower incomes, travel
cost is very important. Yet none of the respondentscomplain about the cost of bus travel. A female, aged 41,non-car owner, user of public transport explained:
I do not have many possessions and the car is a bigger
expense, while the bus pass is thirty and some euros, thecar is a bigger expense.
4.1.3. Not having to drive and opportunity to relax and
socialize in bus travel
The stress of driving associated with traffic congestion is,
for some respondents, a problem and a motivating factorfor using public transport. For them the time spent onpublic transport was an opportunity to relax and read abook or newspaper. However, these perceived advantagesmust be connected with comfort related attributes suchas having a seat on the bus and a pleasant temperature.Some car users, particularly women, would prefer to use
public transport just for the freedom from driving
responsibilities that allows one to relax, but they thinkthat using public transport is not a viable alternative tothem:
I have to drive to work and when I get there I am
nervous due to traffic jams (female, aged 39, car user).
I am sick of having to face traffic in the morning, it tires
me. It would be much more relaxing coming to work bypublic transport and not having to be worried abouttraffic jams yIf I had a public transport I could use, it
would be much more relaxing for me yIt’s much more
relaxing, being on the bus, to be able to take a book andread is much more pleasant than having to drive and payattention (female, aged 33, car user).
Using public transport for some of the respondents is
also seen as an opportunity to talk to other people on thebus or meet their colleagues who also take the same bus, it‘‘is a time to have fun and laugh’’.ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Perceived advantages and disadvantages of buses and private car
Advantages DisadvantagesPublic transport
Cost Waste of time
Less stress Too crowded
No need to drive Lack of comfortBe able to relax Time uncertainty
Be able to rest or read Lack of control
Travel time on bus lanes UnreliabilityLess pollution Long waiting timesTalk to other persons on the vehicle Need of transfers
Traffic
Lack of flexibilityLong walking time
Private car
Freedom/ independence Cost
Ability to go where I want Difficulty of parkingConvenience Cost of parking
Rapidity Stress of driving
Comfort TrafficFlexibility Waste of time in rush-hour trafficKnow what I can expect Pollution
Safety Accidents
Having my own private space IsolationListen to musicG. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 482

4.1.4. Comfort
As mentioned above, having a comfortable journey is
very important for all the respondents. Comfort means softclean seats, a pleasant temperature, preferably having air-
conditioning and not many people on the vehicle. This
aspect is evaluated differently across different groups.Generally, regular public transport users think that the newbuses with air-conditioning and lower floor are ‘‘very goodand very comfortable’’. But the number of people in thevehicle at peak hours is a problem. On the other hand, carusers and occasional public transport users usually seebuses as uncomfortable, too crowded, smelly and airless.
A female, aged 22 and occasional bus user said:
It was too hot, a lot of people inside the bus, I couldn’t
even sit down, and the bus was stopping and going,
stopping and going ywhen I arrived at work I was
tiredy
4.1.5. Lack of information
Several respondents, especially occasional public trans-
port users and car users, mentioned not having enoughinformation regarding the bus routes and timetables; andthinking that the bus system is difficult to use and
information is difficult to access.
For me it’s very confusing [using buses]! But when I
need I ask someone what I need to know: what bus Ishould catch, where it stops and so on (female, aged 21,
occasional bus user and car owner).
I don’t know what bus I should catch [if she had to use abus]! I think I should be better informed (female, aged56, car user).The bus stop should have more information and alsoinside the bus, so people can guide themselves (female,aged 33, car user).
Among bus users the main problem occurred when the
bus company changed timetables or routes and did notprovide enough information to users. The lack of explana-tions from the bus company of why changes were made
and bus users not being informed in advance made them
very upset and unsatisfied with the bus service.
They should have provided more information. I usually
see the papers everyday and didn’t see anything [about
ending a bus route], and then I get to the bus stop, and
that bus disappeared! The bus doesn’t stop thereanymore (male, aged 31, bus user).
4.1.6. Differences in bus performance evaluation
Public transport performance evaluation was not the
same across the different user groups. Public transportusers generally made more positive evaluations of the bus
service than non-users. They claim to be satisfied and that
they like to travel by bus. Although, when talking aboutaspects like the number of people on the bus, being on-time, and waiting time, public transport users were alsodissatisfied. They also think that buses should be morefrequent and the hours of service increased, especially at
night. Several car users think that the ‘‘public transportoffered to them do not have enough quality’’ and that theservice ‘‘does not satisfy’’. Car users feel that public
transport is unreliable, not frequent enough, uncomforta-
ble, overcrowded and the ride is not smooth and safe fromaccidents. These strong negative reactions seemed to oftenarise from previous experiences with public transport andthe opinions of family and friends causing negative word-of-mouth, which appear to discourage subsequent use. Forcar users service quality means:
It’s being at point A and being able to get to point B
comfortably and fast, and by doing so satisfying myneeds. I am here and have the need to get somewhereand I have transport that is comfortable and puts me at
my destination at an acceptable time. Wonderful! (male,
aged 43, occasional public transport user, car owner).Being transported as good as if I go in mine [car](female, aged 47, car user).
4.1.7. Light rail vs. bus
Light rail is perceived as more reliable, comfortable,
frequent, faster and spacious than bus service. Other
intangible attributes also emerged, such as being less stressful
and tiresome, new, attractive, funny, convenient and easy touse. Light rail is also described as the ‘‘ideal service’’ and fora respondent (male, aged 43, occasional public transportuser) will ‘‘beat without any doubt all other transports’’. It isinteresting to note that car users generally made morepositive evaluations of light rail than public transport users.Though public transport users pointed out that the cost of
light rail service was higher than that of the bus.
Not all the respondents have used light rail because it
was not yet available in their area, but some have tried itjust for fun. The attitude towards light rail is highlyfavourable, because it is perceived to offer a higher servicequality in comparison with bus services, especially in termsof reliability and frequency:
The Light Rail! Light Rail! [Referring to the ideal
transport] I have recently commented on it, it’s the mostattractive to me, because it’s silent, fast and much moreefficient! ( y) For me the light rail is much more
advantageous (male, aged 30, car user).
I really liked it [Light rail]! I think light rail is a more funny
transport, I don’t know why (female, aged 56, car user).Light rail is definitely better [than bus], it is prefera-ble!yLight rail would be ideal, mainly because of lack
of traffic and waiting times. It’s a fast service (female,aged 23, car user).
Some of the car users are ‘‘anxious’’ that light rail
become available in their area of residence. They statedthat they would probably use light rail instead of the carfor their usual journeys, when it is available.
I suppose [light rail] is an excellent alternative (male,
aged 44, car user).ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 483

My dream is having light rail available [in my
neighbour] (male, aged 34, car user).
Although this expresses an intention, it is not certain that
this would result in actual behaviour because otherconstraints may overcome this intention.
4.2. Respondents’ evaluations of private car
4.2.1. Travel time
The car was seen as a way to achieve greater freedom
and flexibility and overcome the problems and constraintsassociated with public transport usage. A key factor inrespondents’ choice of the car for the journey to work is thetime taken by public transport when compared to the timetaken by car. As a female, car user (aged 54), who only usespublic transport to get to work when the car is notavailable, explained:
On those days [when she has to use public transport to
work] it is a problem! If I use public transport I won’tget to work on time, or I would have to leave home veryearly, I have to wait 20, 25 minutes yI hate the journey!
4.2.2. Attachment to cars
Some car users, interviewed in this study, have a strong
attachment to their car and it would be very difficult toattract them to the public transport system. They have nointention to ever stop using their car and usually have avery a strong feeling against public transport. They care fortheir car and love to drive it:
I love my truck (female, aged 47, car user).
I love driving my car (male, aged 30, car user).
4.2.3. Dependence on cars
Some respondents feel that it would be very difficult to
live without a car. For them the car is seen as essential,because they feel that there are no viable alternatives andonly the car allows them to have the lifestyle they aspire.
I take my car everywhere (female, aged 21, car user).
The public transport service offered to me doesn’t have
enough quality when compared to the car. To have thesame lifestyle y(female, aged 23, car user).
4.2.4. Car convenience and flexibility
One of the car’s main advantages perceived by the
respondents is convenience, which was very important to
most of the respondents. As a 47-year-old woman and caruser said ‘‘the car is right there at my door, I just take itand go’’. The car gives the perception of freedom, of beingmore in control and being able to keep their personaltimetable and thus enhance autonomy:
I think it is unique; we are in our car and suddenly have
an idea to go somewhere else and just go (female, aged56, car user).The car gives freedom, people can go wherever they
want, and if they don’t want, just don’t go (male, aged31, public transport user, car owner).
Car users think of the car as easier to use: ‘‘it’s there and
I want to go there and quickly I take the car and goanywhere’’. Also as a male, aged 31, said: ‘‘the car is alwaysmore comfortable, we can listen to the radio, it’s our ownspace, it has that advantage’’.
Although traffic is also a problem, some car users
feel that they can change route and avoid traffic.Furthermore, they feel that congestion also affects buses
so they are better of driving and choosing alternative
routes:
Traffic congestion bothers, but it also bothers on the
bus, having traffic jams and between going by bus or
caryI prefer the car, I am alone, listening to the music
I want, with the temperature I want, with the smell Iwant, and not having to be around other people smells(female, aged 36, car user).
4.2.5. Car status
Respondents with low income who had many difficulties
in buying a car are not likely to stop using it, mainlybecause having a car is such an important achievement tothem, as a female car user, aged 47, said:
It’s not by chance that my hands look like this, I made
that sacrifice [of buying a car] many years ago yMy
vehicle is my support y
4.2.6. Differences in car evaluation
Public transport users view the car in a more utilitarian
and functional way: the car is useful at night, for shoppingand for long trips:
The car is not for the city, only for long trips (male, aged
50, non-car owner).
I only use the car at night or for shopping (female, aged
43, car owner).
When talking about car disadvantages, car users men-
tioned cost, traffic congestion, the difficulty and cost ofparking. For some car users cost is the most negative aspect
about using a car, but they seemed to only consider the cost
of fuel and not all the costs associated with owning a car.Although they acknowledge that using public transportwould be cheaper, they apparently do not intend to switchmodes.
4.2.7. Environmental concerns
Only one female car user mentioned environmental
concern about car pollution as a motive that eventuallymight make her switch to public transport:
[What would make you switch to public transport?] Ok,
maybe, if we would talk about nature, the environmentand so on y(female, aged 21).ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 484

Another female car user (aged 47) referred to car
pollution as a negative aspect of her car but only becauseher car was very old, and not as a negative aspect of cars ingeneral. Other respondents as well said that buses are also
responsible for pollution, so they do not feel the need to use
their car less.
4.3. Travel behaviour and future mode choice intentions
InTable 3 , factors contributing and acting as a barrier to
public transport are shown. Several factors of the publictransport service were perceived as barriers to publictransport. This indicates that to attract more people topublic transport, the service must be improved in order to
meet people’s needs. The fact that some car users said they
might use light rail, because it is perceived as much betterthan bus, reinforces this idea.
Other factors will also influence mode choice. For
instance, the type of journey is also relevant when choosinga mode of transport and the importance given to factorsaffecting that journey is different. Travel time is a keyfactor when choosing a mode of transport for work
journeys. If the pressure to be on time does not exist, like
for leisure journeys, the value attached to time is lower.
Some of the respondents were more likely to use
alternatives to the car for regular journeys than others.Two of the key factors are the attitude towards publictransport and attachment to the car. It is clear that some ofthe car users have very low intention to use alternativemodes. When asked what would make her stop using her
car, a female, aged 21, said:
I think nothing!The same participant, when further asked if she would
use public transport if it was improved in order to meet herneeds, said:
No! If I had my car no, because when having my car
available I prefer to go in my ‘‘little’’ car.
However, respondents with more favourable attitudes
towards public transport, less attached to their car andtired of driving, showed high switching behaviour:
I often get really tired of driving the car, and I would
prefer to catch a bus if I had the time (female, aged 39,car user).
Although they want to change, they believe that there
are too many obstacles to travelling by public transport.Some obstacles include the need to take children to school,having to use the car during the day for work-related tripsor not having a viable alternative form of transport. Thisshows that although those individuals make the same travelchoices, their attitudes, motivations and future intentions
are significantly different. This indicates that segmentation
should emphasize attitudes and values and not relyexclusively on socio-demographic variables and transportusage.
5. Discussion of findings5.1. Bus travel
To be able to compete with the car, the bus service must
offer the quality desired by regular and potential users.From the interviews it can be seen that potential userscould be the ones who show less attachment to their car,are often tired of driving and the ones with positiveattitudes to public transport. It is important to understandwhat these individuals want, what are the service attributes
most important to them, and what would make them
switch to using public transport.
Travel time and reliability play a key role and are
determinants of transport mode decisions, though traveltime importance is dependent on the type of journey. Forjourneys related to work/school activities time importanceis much higher. Respondents want to feel in control whentravelling and this means brief waiting times, a fast journey
and reliability. Also, there is a preference for a direct
frequent public transport service. In general, people do notwant to have to change vehicles during their journey, unlessthis is perceived as easy and fast.
Respondents want to have a comfortable relaxed
journey, preferably having a seat on the vehicle, a niceambience free from unpleasant smells, a not too crowdedspace and a smooth ride.
Interesting to note is that none of the respondents
complained about the cost of bus travel and that most ofthe car users admitted that bus travel would be cheaperthan car. This implies that cost is perhaps less importantthan most surveys suggest ( Guiver, 2007 ). Yet respondentsARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Motivations and barriers to public transport use
Motivations BarriersBetter service Not having alternative to car
Be certain that the timetables are
performedLack of direct transport
Direct transport from home to work Lack of availability of buses
More information available and easy tounderstandLong travel time
Save money Buses’ unreliability
Not having a parking space Do not known what to expectMore comfort and air-conditioning onvehiclesNeed for multiple journeys
Contribute to a better environment Poor information
Not frequent enoughBus stop too far
Buses are smelly and crowded
Feeling of personal insecurityHaving to use more than onetransport
Bad waiting conditions
Negative feeling towardspublic transportHabit of drivingG. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 485

with lower income found the new light rail system
expensive.
Some respondents acknowledge that some incidents may
occur, but expect an adequate and fair response from the
bus company. For example, some bus users were very upset
due to not being informed about changes in bus routes.Furthermore, when people talk about bus travel, they tendto focus on the worst performances, which may be moreinfluential than average performances ( Guiver, 2007 ). This
has important implications for bus companies, in that theyshould consider how they treat passengers who for somereason are disappointed with the service offered, a finding
which is consistent with previous research ( Friman et al.,
2001;Friman and Ga ¨rling, 2001 ;Guiver, 2007 ). Also word-
of-mouth advertising plays an important role in promotingbus service ( Ayako and Satoshi, 2007 ) and if people have
positive experiences with the service, they are more likely torecommend it.
Information is another very important factor and the
perceived lack of it can act as a barrier to use public
transport. Some infrequent users and non-users claim to
lack information about the bus system and perceive publictransport as difficult to use. Some car users say they mightuse the bus service if they have more information.Providing greater access to service information and moreinteractive services (e.g., real-time timetable information)may be a way to increase individuals’ perceptions ofcontrol with public transport ( Gardner and Abraham,
2007).
5.2. Light rail travel
It is interesting to note that car users have highly positive
attitude towards light rail because they perceived it to bemuch better than the bus, not only on tangible attributessuch as reliability and comfort but also on intangible
attributes such as transport status and ambience. Never-
theless, this may be due to the novelty of the light railsystem in the Porto region. Public transport users’ views onlight rail were not so enthusiastic, especially the low-income respondents. This could be explained by the highercost of light rail and the fact that the bus service reaches awider area. These respondents want a quality serviceindependently of the transport being used, in line with
evidence that has suggested that for similar service
attributes, rail and bus services have the same ridershipattraction ( Ben-Akiva and Morikawa, 2002 ). However,
from the respondents’ attitudes towards the two modes, itseems that intangible attributes of the rail and bus areperceived to be different which may lead to a preference forlight rail.
5.3. Misperceptions of bus and car travel
Generally, regular bus users have more positive beliefs
about bus service than non-users and perceived fewerbarriers to using buses, which is consistent with the findingsfrom previous studies ( Anderson and Stradling, 2004 ;
Beale and Bonsall, 2006 ;Ibrahim, 2003 ). People who never
use buses or have only used them many years ago have avery negative image of the bus service. This may be due to
their lack of actual knowledge about bus service and how
much they have improved since they have last used them.Also, they may have based their beliefs on opinions givenby others, and on observing, as car users, long queues ofpeople waiting at the bus stop in the rain ( Beale and
Bonsall, 2006 ). This implies the need to change negative
attitudes towards the bus and to overcome perceivedbarriers to bus use. Furthermore, non-users perceptions
may be changed without changing the level of service. Still,
the service must meet the level of service required by non-users in order to alter previous negative perceptions. Thismeans that when implementing marketing initiatives, theactual attractiveness of public transport has to beevaluated. If public transport is not an attractive alter-native to the private car, initiatives that attempt tosuccessfully persuade car drivers to try public transport
will only reinforce the individual’s prior belief that car
transport is better ( Thogersen, 2006 ).
Respondents evaluate bus and car travel using different
criteria, especially those who only use the car. Journey timeby car is perceived to be much less than it may actually be.Car drivers feel more in control inside theirs car and feelthey can avoid traffic by taking alternative routes and thusperceive journey time to be less by car than if they use
public transport. Furthermore, they think public transport
is so unreliable that they would waste a lot of time waitingfor the bus and on the journey. This suggests that publictransport policies, in addition to improving public trans-port reliability and travel times, should also promote publictransport as a more positive experience ( Gardner and
Abraham, 2007 ).
Many of the car users interviewed in this study tend to
underestimate the cost of car travel and only considered
fuel and parking costs. Parking is very important for thosewho work in areas where it is difficult to park or withparking controls. Yet some respondents say that even inthe city centre where it is difficult and costly to park, theycan always find a space to park even in an illegal non-parking zone. This indicates that tightening parkingcontrols could be a way to influence drivers to switch to
public transport as long as an efficient public transport
exists ( Hine and Scott, 2000 ).
5.4. Dependence and attachment on cars
Not all respondents attach the same importance to the
car. Some respondents like the social interaction of publictransport and do not assign a high value to the autonomy,
privacy and comfort of the car. It is interesting to note that,
although these were mainly non-car users, amongst the carusers there were some (especially women) who wereanxious to get out of their cars because they found drivingvery stressful. In contrast, some of the car drivers were veryARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 486

psychologically attached to and dependent on their car and
exhibited deeply negative feelings towards public transport.
It must be acknowledged that some people do not only
drive their car because they need to go somewhere, but also
because they love driving. Perhaps, this is one of the
reasons why attempts to influence car use have not beenvery successful, and it might explain the resistance topolicies aimed at reducing car use ( Steg, 2005 ). It appears
that the amount of travel people demanded is heavilyinfluenced by their attitudes towards travel ( Parkany et al.,
2005), not only for entertainment purposes but also for
work/school-related activities ( Mokhtarian et al., 2001 ).
This implies that policy-makers should understand the role
of subjective characteristics ( Mokhtarian et al., 2001 ) and
consider not only the instrumental motives, but also themany symbolic and affective values of various modes oftransport ( Steg, 2005 ).
Reduction of car use should not be expected simply by
requesting individuals to do it voluntarily ( Tertoolen et al.,
1998). In order to reduce car dependence it is necessary
to promote several measures, such as modifying the
opportunities for travel by improving the availability ofalternative modes; modifying the inclinations and prefer-ences towards travel by alternative modes; and modifyingthe lifestyle patterns that generate obligations to travelfrom current origins to present destinations ( Stradling,
2003).
5.5. Environmental concerns
In this study, environmental concerns about car use did
not seem of importance in the travel mode choices of therespondents. This is consistent with studies which suggestthat although information about the negative environ-mental effects of the car use raises some awareness, it isusually insufficient to change behaviour ( Anable, 2005 ;
Hagman, 2003 ;Tertoolen et al., 1998 ). However, there is
some evidence that the inclusion of environmental concernmeasures provides additional beliefs that can be targeted inorder to change behaviour ( Anable, 2005 ). Advertising
campaigns with the intent of increasing public transportusage should focus on the environmental benefits of usingpublic transport by tailoring public transport as anenvironmental symbol, thus countering the car as a status
symbol ( Golob and Hensher, 1998 ).
5.6. Insights for policy
Evidence suggests that policies should be designed
towards specific target groups ( Anable, 2005 ;Jensen,
1999;Steg, 2005 ). Marketing campaigns should target
individuals that are most motivated to experience public
transport when they need it ( Thogersen, 2006 ). This
suggests the need for segmentation taking into accounttravel attitudes and behaviours. Segmentation’s real valuelies in its ability to be used in the design of achievablestrategies by using the information to guide decisions(Anable, 2005 ). Policies that aim to influence car usage
should be targeted at the market segments that are mostmotivated to change and willing to reduce frequency of caruse. Car users attached to their car and with negative
feelings towards public transport showed no intention to
shift their behaviour and marketing campaigns directed atthis group would probably not be successful. Recentstudies have revealed the importance of individuals’attitudes to the acceptance of transport demand policies(Beale and Bonsall, 2006 ;Thorpe et al., 2000 ). Further-
more, the negative beliefs of individuals with no desireto use a bus are very difficult to overcome ( Beale and
Bonsall, 2006 ).
Recent studies have revealed that experience of public
transport can reduce drivers’ negative perceptions ( Brown
et al., 2003 ;Fujii and Ga ¨rling, 2005 ;Thogersen, 2006 ). To
induce experience among car users, several initiatives canbe used, such as free trips or reduced fare. Fujii and
Kitamura (2003) study the influence of offering a one-
month free bus ticket on drivers’ attitudes towards bus and
it seems to have the potential to change habit, attitude, and
travel mode choice. Another study ( Ayako and Satoshi,
2007) found that the increase in bus use persisted after the
period of free bus tickets. These imply that a marketingtechnique such as offering free bus tickets may be able topromote persistent bus use ( Ayako and Satoshi, 2007 ). Yet
other measures to reduce car use, like economic disin-
centives, do not directly lead to car use reduction, although
it affects the motivation to plan car use reduction
(Jakobsson et al., 2002 ). Therefore, in order to reduce car
dependence, a clear understanding of the nature, extentand causes is needed ( Stradling, 2003 ).
6. Conclusion
This qualitative study has highlighted some key factors
influencing mode choice and the main influences that affect
it positively and negatively, and the need to investigate themotivations and barriers to public transport use. Thesefindings served as the basis for developing a model thatattempts to structure the mode choice process. This modeland the qualitative study were used to design a surveyquestionnaire that was administrated to the general publicin the metropolitan area of Porto.
The key findings indicate that in order to increase public
transport usage, the service should be designed in a waythat accommodates the levels of service required bycustomers and by doing so attract potential users.
Furthermore, attitude towards transport is an important
determinant for mode choice. It is not expected that all carusers, in general, will change from driving a car to usingpublic transport exclusively by improving the public
transport system ( Jensen, 1999 ). But the intention to
switch mode expressed by car users and occasional publictransport users shows that improving the image and levelsof service being offered can attract potential users to thepublic transport service. However, if the public transportARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 487

service is unreliable, has a low frequency or lack of
comfort, people are likely to shift to using cars becausethey do not perceive public transport as a viable alternativeto them.
Finally, it is necessary to understands people’s needs and
expectations and acknowledge that different people havedifferent needs and are motivated by different factors. Thisimplies having detailed knowledge not only of publictransport users but also of non-users. There is a need toidentify the primary reasons for not using public transportand, if possible, remove potential barriers to publictransport usage. For instance, car users have lower
perceptions of public transport than public transport users,
which means that public transport is actually better thanthey think. Thus, one strategy to attract users could be(both) improving public transport image, and providingmore information about the transport system to the groupswith higher switching potential.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the public transport
operator for supporting this research. G Beira ˜o gratefully
acknowledges the Ph.D. fellowship from the PortugueseFoundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under the
Program POCI 2010 and the European Social Fund. The
authors would also like to thank the editor, John Preston,for his constructive comments. An earlier version of thispaper was presented at the 9th International Conference onCompetition and Ownership of Land Passenger Transport(2005).
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211.
Anable, J., 2005. ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’?
Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. TransportPolicy 12 (1), 65–78.
Anderson, S., Stradling, S.G., 2004. Attitudes towards car use and modal
shift in scotland. National Centre for Social Research (Natcen)
Scotland, Transport Research Institute.
Andreassen, T.W., 1995. Dissatisfaction with public services: the case of
public transportation. Journal of Services Marketing 9 (5), 30–41.
Ayako, T., Satoshi, F., 2007. Promoting public transport using marketing
techniques in mobility management and verifying their quantitativeeffects. Transportation 34 (1), 37–49.
Bates, J., Polak, J., Jones, P., Cook, A., 2001. The valuation of reliability
for personal travel. Transportation Research Part E 37 (2–3), 191–229.
Beale, J.R., Bonsall, P.W., 2006. Marketing in the bus industry: a
psychological interpretation of some attitudinal and behavioural
outcomes. Transportation Research Part F.
Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T., 2002. Comparing ridership attraction of
rail and bus. Transport Policy 9 (2), 107–116.
Brown, B.B., Werner, C.M., Kim, N., 2003. Personal and contextual factors
supporting the switch to transit use: evaluating a natural transit
intervention. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 3 (1), 139–160.
Clifton, K.J., Handy, S.L., 2001. Qualitative methods in travel behaviour
research. Paper presented at the International Conference on Trans-
port Survey Quality and Innovation, Kruger National Park, SouthAfrica, August 2001.Edvardsson, B., 1998. Causes of customer dissatisfaction—studies of
public transport by the critical-incident method. Managing ServiceQuality 8 (3), 189–197.
Friman, M., Ga ¨rling, T., 2001. Frequency of negative critical incidents
and satisfaction with public transport services. II. Journal of Retailingand Consumer Services 8 (2), 105–114.
Friman, M., Edvardsson, B., Ga ¨rling, T., 2001. Frequency of negative
critical incidents and satisfaction with public transport services. I.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2), 95–104.
Fujii, S., Ga ¨rling, T., 2005. Temporary structural change: a strategy to
break car-use habit and promote public transport. In: Selected
Proceedings of Traffic and Transportation Psychology 2004.
Fujii, S., Kitamura, R., 2003. What does a one-month free bus ticket do to
habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitudechange. Transportation 30 (1), 81–95.
Gardner, B., Abraham, C., 2007. What drives car use? A grounded theory
analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation ResearchPart F 10 (3), 187–200.
Ga¨rling, T., Schuitema, G., 2007. Travel demand management targeting
reduced private car use: effectiveness, public acceptability and political
feasibility. Journal of Social Issues 63 (1), 139–153.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. Discovery of grounded theory. Aldine,
Chicago, IL.
Golob, T.F., Hensher, D.A., 1998. Greenhouse gas emissions and
australian commuters’ attitudes and behavior concerning abatementpolicies and personal involvement. Transportation Research Part D 3(1), 1–18.
Grosvenor, T., 2000. Qualitative research in the transport sector. Resource
paper for the workshop on qualitative/quantitative methods. Proceed-ings of an International Conference on Transport Survey Quality andInnovation. Grainau, Germany, Transportation Research E-Circular,
Number E-C008, August 2000.
Guiver, J.W., 2007. Modal talk: discourse analysis of how people talk
about bus and car travel. Transportation Research Part A 41 (3),233–248.
Hagman, O., 2003. Mobilizing meanings of mobility: car users’ construc-
tions of the goods and bads of car use. Transportation Research PartD 8 (1), 1–9.
Handy, S., Weston, L., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2005. ‘Driving by choice or
necessity? Transportation Research Part A 39 (2–3), 183–203.
Hensher, D.A., 1998. The imbalance between car and public transport
use in urban Australia: why does it exist? Transport Policy 5 (4),193–204.
Hensher, D.A., Stopher, P., Bullock, P., 2003. Service quality—developing
a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts.Transportation Research Part A 37 (6), 499–517.
Hine, J., Scott, J., 2000. Seamless, accessible travel: users’ views of the
public transport journey and interchange. Transport Policy 7 (3),
217–226.
Hiscock, R., Macintyre, S., Kearns, A., Ellaway, A., 2002. ‘Means of
transport and ontological security: do cars provide psycho-social
benefits to their users? Transportation Research Part D 7 (2), 119–135.
Ibrahim, M.F., 2003. Car ownership and attitudes towards transport
modes for shopping purposes in Singapore. Transportation 30 (4),435–457.
INE 2003. Movimentos pendulares na a ´rea metropolitana do porto
1991–2001, deslocac -o˜es entre o local de reside ˆncia e o local de
trabalho/estudo’. Estatı ´stica, Instituto Nacional de Estatı ´stica.
Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., Ga ¨rling, T., 2002. Effects of economic
disincentives on private car use. Transportation 29 (4), 349–370.
Jensen, M., 1999. Passion and heart in transport—a sociological analysis
on transport behaviour. Transport Policy 6 (1), 19–33.
Ko¨nig, A., 2002. The reliability of the transportation system and its
influence on the choice behaviour. Paper presented at the 2nd Swiss
Transport Research Conference, Monte Verita `
, Ascona, March 2002.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., Redmond, L.S., 2001. Understanding the
demand for travel: it’s not purely ‘derived’. Innovation: The European
Journal of Social Sciences 14 (1), 355–380.ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 488

MOTIF 1998. Market orientated transport in focus. Transport Research
Fourth Framework Programme, Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
Outwater, M.L., Castleberry, S., Shiftan, Y., Ben Akiva, M., Zhou, Y.S.,
Kuppam, A., 2003. Use of structural equation modeling for anattitudinal market segmentation approach to mode choice and
ridership forecasting. Paper presented at the 10th International
Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland,August 2003.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model
of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal ofMarketing 49 (4), 41.
Parkany, E., Gallagher, R., Viveiros, P., 2005. Are attitudes important in
travel choices? Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, January 2005.
Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Prioni, P., Hensher, D.A., 2000. Measuring service quality in scheduled
bus services. Journal of Public Transportation 3 (2), 51–74.
QUATTRO 1998. Quality approach in tendering urban public transport
operations. Transport Research Fourth Framework Programme,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Steg, L., 2005. Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and
affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 39 (2–3), 147–162.
STIMULUS 1999. Segmentation for tran sport in markets using latent user
psychological structures. Transpor t Research Fourth Framework Pro-
gramme, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Stradling, S.G., 2003. Reducing car dependence. In: Hine, J., Preston, J.
(Eds.), Integrated Futures and Transport Choices. Ashgate Publica-tions, Aldershot.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.
Swanson, J., Ampt, L., Jones, P., 1997. Measuring bus passenger
preferences. Traffic Engineering and Control 38 (6), 330–336.
Tertoolen, G., Van Kreveld, D., Verstraten, B., 1998. Psychological
resistance against attempts to reduce private car use. TransportationResearch Part A 32 (3), 171–181.
Thogersen, J., 2006. Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a
stable context: a panel study approach. Transportation Research PartA 40 (8), 621–638.
Thorpe, N., Hills, P., Jaensirisak, S., 2000. Public attitudes to TDM
measures: a comparative study. Transport Policy 7 (4), 243–257.ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Beira ˜o, J.A. Sarsfield Cabral / Transport Policy 14 (2007) 478–489 489