Journal of Regional and City Planning

vol. 32, no. 2, page. 150-166, August 2021

DOI: 10.5614/jpwk.2021.32.2.4

The Commuting Mode Choice of Students of

Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan1*, Raden Aswin Rahadi1, Annisa Rahmani
Qastharin1, Lidia Mayangsari1, Reza Ashari Nasution1, and Sudarso Kaderi
Wiryono1
[Received: 17 February 2020; 1st revision: 20 September 2020; accepted in final version: 14
June 2021]

Abstract. This research explored the commuting mode preferences of students living near
Institut Teknologi Bandung when a new mode of transportation (i.e., carpool) is introduced to
the selection list. Six alternative modes were presented: minibus, car, motorcycle, car-based
ride-sourcing, motorcycle-based ride-sourcing, and carpool. The data collection process was
conducted using a questionnaire-based stated-preferences survey. It included eight sets of
labeled scenarios with a number of attributes: travel time, travel cost, waiting time, transfer
amount, access and egress time, frequency, congestion time, baggage cost, and parking cost. A
total of 1416 observations were acquired for further analysis. A mixed logit (MXL) model with
random cost parameter and random error components was used. From the MXL results, we
found that travel cost had no significant influence on the selection of commuting mode among
students. This result was unforeseen given the characteristics of Indonesian consumers, who are
notoriously sensitive to price. However, based on the results for several significant attributes of
carpool as well as from the value of travel time savings and demand calculation, we suggest
that carpooling is a valid alternative transport mode for campus commuting. As a pioneer study
on student commuting mode selection, this study provided valid and dependable evidence on
how students around ITB main campus choose their transportation methods.

Keywords. carpool, ITB students, mixed logit, elasticities, value of time.

[Diterima: 17 Februari 2020; perbaikan ke-1: 20 September 2020; disetujui dalam bentuk akhir:
14 Juni 2020]

Abstrak. Penelitian ini mengeksplorasi preferensi moda perjalanan pulang pergi mahasiswa
yang tinggal di dekat Institut Teknologi Bandung ketika moda transportasi baru (yaitu angkutan
bersama) menjadi salah satu pilihan moda. Terdata enam moda alternatif yang disajikan:
angkot, mobil, sepeda motor, taksi daring, ojek daring, dan angkutan bersama. Proses
pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan menggunakan metoda survei stated-preference berbasis
kuesioner. Survei tersebut meliputi delapan skenario berlabel dengan sejumlah atribut: waktu
perjalanan, biaya perjalanan, waktu tunggu, banyaknya perpindahan moda, waktu perjalanan
menuju tempat angkutan umum dan waktu perjalanan menuju tempat tujuan, frekuensi
kedatangan, waktu kemacetan, biaya bagasi, dan biaya parkir. Sebanyak 1416 pengamatan
diperoleh untuk analisis lebih lanjut. Model mixed logit (MXL) dengan parameter biaya acak
dan komponen error acak digunakan. Dari hasil MXL, kami menemukan bahwa biaya

1
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia.
*
Corresponding Author Email: fajar.belgiawan@sbm-itb.ac.id

ISSN 2502-6429 online © 2021 ITB Institute for Research and Community Services
The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 151

perjalanan tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap pemilihan moda perjalanan pulang pergi di
kalangan mahasiswa. Hasil ini tidak terduga mengingat karakteristik konsumen Indonesia yang
terkenal sensitif terhadap harga. Namun, berdasarkan hasil untuk beberapa atribut signifikan
dari angkutan bersama serta dari nilai penghematan waktu perjalanan dan perhitungan
permintaan, kami menyarankan bahwa angkutan bersama adalah moda transportasi alternatif
yang valid untuk komuter kampus. Sebagai studi perintis dalam pemilihan moda perjalanan
pulang pergi mahasiswa, studi ini memberikan bukti yang valid dan dapat diandalkan tentang
bagaimana mahasiswa di sekitar kampus utama ITB memilih metode transportasi mereka.

Keywords. angkutan bersama, mahasiswa ITB, mixed logit, elastisitas, nilai waktu.

Introduction

Bandung Metropolitan Area, with a population of 2.5 million people, is currently the third most
populated city in Indonesia (Bandung, 2017). With a population density of around 15 thousand
per km2, the traffic conditions in the city are inevitably affected, further exacerbated by the
city’s weak public transport networks and services, which encourages travelers to use
motorcycles to reduce travel cost and time (Dharmowijoyo, Susilo & Karlström, 2018). This is
supported by Tarigan et al. (2016), who states that paratransit and private vehicles are the
primary modes of public transport (PT) due to the lack of mass transport modes. The Bandung
City government is currently planning to provide light rail transit (LRT) as an alternative
transport mode to solve the traffic congestion problem (Ramdani, 2018). However, there are
also other transport modes for Bandung citizens besides minibuses and private vehicles, for
example ‘online transportation’ (e.g., Gojek and Grab).

The existence of online transportation influences travel behavior. In the literature on

transportation, besides ‘online transportation’ several other interchangeable terms are used, such
as ‘ride sourcing’ (Rayle, Dai, Chan, Cervero & Shaheen, 2016; Zha, Yin & Yang, 2016),
‘transportation network companies’ (TNC) (Shaheen, Chan & Gaynor, 2016) and ‘ride-hailing’
(Frei, Hyland & Mahmassani, 2017). Throughout this paper, the term ‘ride sourcing’ for any
online transportation is used, since it is the most-used term in top transportation journals (Wang
& Yang, 2019). Several studies indicate that the high demand for this transport mode potentially
reduces private vehicle ownership and usage (Clewlow & Mishra, 2017; Henao & Marshall,
2019; Rayle et al., 2016). Ride sourcing can also threaten the existence of conventional public
transport and taxis (Rayle et al., 2016; Tarabay & Abou-Zeid, 2020). Traffic congestion in
urban areas in Indonesia has worsened in recent years due to increased ownership and use of
private vehicles (Joewono, Tarigan & Susilo, 2016). It has been suggested that the rise of ride
sourcing in metropolitan cities such as Jakarta (Irawan, Belgiawan, Tarigan & Wijanarko, 2019),
Bandung (Nugroho, Zusman & Nakano, 2020), and Yogyakarta (Irawan, Belgiawan, Joewono
& Simanjuntak, 2020) may contribute to this phenomenon. This only further emphasizes the
importance of finding alternative modes of transport that not only reduce traffic congestion but
also appeal to the public the way ride sourcing does. Clewlow & Mishra (2017) found that
adopters of new transport modes tend to be younger, more educated, and live more in urban
areas, which makes students living in large Indonesian cities, in this study Bandung, an ideal
target to test new alternative transport modes.

Belgiawan et al. (2016) have conducted a study among 500 undergraduates in Bandung and
found that factors such as attitude towards cars significantly influence the car ownership
decision. Belgiawan et al. (2017) and Belgiawan et al. (2014) found that apart from attitude,
norm factors (peer effects), particularly from peers and parents, have a significant influence on
152 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

students’ intention to own a car. Based on these studies, it can be understood that in order to
promote a new transport mode or to encourage students to shift to public transportation, we need
to understand what factors significantly influence them to choose a transport mode.

A possible alternative transport mode for students is carpooling (Zhong, Zhang, Nie & Xu,
2020). Zhong et al. (2020) state that carpooling has several advantages, such as reducing vehicle
miles traveled, alleviating traffic congestion, and saving traveler cost. Students carpooling for
campus commuting is not new. It has been successfully implemented on several campuses, for
example at American University Beirut (Danaf, Abou-Zeid & Kaysi, 2014), UCLA (Zhou,
2012), UC Berkeley (Riggs, 2015), University of Western Australia (Shannon et al., 2006),
Özyegin University Istanbul (Göçer & Göçer, 2019), McMaster University (Sweet & Ferguson,
2019), University of the Basque Country (Gurrutxaga, Iturrate, Oses & Garcia, 2017), Oporto
University (Cadima, Silva & Pinho, 2020), University of Auckland (Mohammadzadeh, 2020),
and University of Milan as well as Polytechnic University of Milan (Bruglieri, Ciccarelli,
Colornia & Luè, 2011). Bruglieri et al. (2011) mention that University of Milan and Polytechnic
University of Milan implement PoliUniPool, a university carpool service where one of the
attributes is expected schedule.

A university-based carpool, where the campus provides the carpool service, like in Milan’s case,
may be a suitable solution to reduce congestion in Bandung. It can be tested with the students of
Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), who currently have several commuting alternatives, such as
private car, motorcycle, angkot (paratransit similar to minibuses in Hong Kong), and ride
sourcing (car- and motorcycle-based). Hopefully, new carpool investments can be integrated
into urban development because integration of transport infrastructure and urban development,
particularly in the Global South, is important (Cervero, 2014). Therefore, this research aimed to
understand the commuting mode preferences of students living in boarding houses near ITB
when carpooling for their commute is introduced. ITB has two active campuses: the main
campus is in the heart of Bandung Metropolitan Area, Jalan Ganeca, Dago and the other one is
near the suburban area of Jatinangor, Sumedang. Geographically speaking, as the two campuses
are separated by 38 km, the mode of transportation chosen by students who live and actively
study in Bandung may be different from those in Sumedang. We realize that the further the
distance from ITB, the fewer students live in boarding houses. Therefore, to optimize the
carpool service we focused on students who lived less than 10 km from ITB’s main campus. To
find out the significant attributes and factors that influence students to choose a mode for their
daily commute, including carpooling, we conducted a stated-preference survey (Abou-zeid,
Ben-akiva, Bierlaire, Choudhury & Hess, 2010; Miro, 2016; Wiryono et al., 2018).

The structure of this paper is as follows. After the introduction, we discuss the stated-preference
(SP) method, followed by a discussion of the modeling method used in this study. The next
section gives the model result and discussion. Finally, we conclude the paper and discuss the
limitations of this study.

Stated Preference Survey

Questionnaire Design

A questionnaire was used to collect the data. The questionnaire was divided into two sections.
The first section consisted of an SP survey, using the stated-preference method (Abou-zeid et al.,
2010; Miro, 2016). Six alternative transport modes were offered: minibus, car, motorcycle, car-
based ride sourcing (CBRS), motorcycle-based ride sourcing (MBRS), and carpool (Wiryono
The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 153

et al., 2018). Minibus refers to PT provided by the government, where at most fifteen
passengers can ride in one vehicle. CBRS and MBRS refer to all public transport modes based
on online applications (Grab and Gojek). Carpool refers to a new mode of transportation
introduced for students who commute from home to campus together with other students.

Every transport mode has different attributes, such as travel time, travel cost, waiting time,
transfer amount, access and egress, frequency, congestion time, and parking cost. Travel time is
the amount of time (in minutes) needed to travel from the origin to the destination. Travel cost
refers to the fare for public transport and fuel costs for cars/motorcycles (in IDR 1,000). Other
than car and motorcycle, each transportation mode gives the passenger a different waiting time
(in minutes) before the mode arrives in front of the passenger. Minibuses and shuttles have
several transfers and a different frequency per hour. Congestion time refers to the time spent (in
minutes) during congestion. Access egress time is the amount of time (in minutes) needed for
the passenger to walk from his/her house to the carpool or minibus stop and from the carpool or
minibus stop to the campus. Baggage cost refers to the price necessary for someone to carry a
baggage, which is normally similar to the price of one person to ride a minibus. Finally, parking
cost refers to cost of parking on campus (in IDR 1,000). The complete list can be seen in Table
1.

Table 1. Alternatives, Attributes and Their Values in the SP experiment

Attribute Carpool Minibus Car Motorcycle CBRS MBRS
Travel time (min) 4,5,15,17, 5,6,13 7,8,9,10, 4,5,9 7,8,9,11, 4,5,9
18,19 12 12,17
Travel cost (IDR 1K) 8,10,13 3,4,8 1,2,3 1, 2 12,13,14, 4,7,8
15
Number of transfers 0, 1 0,1,2
Waiting time (min) 5,10 1,2 3,5,7,10 1,3,5
Access and egress time 5,10 4,14
(min)
Frequency (per hour) 2,4,6 13,17
Congestion time (min) 2,4,5 3,4 2,4,5 1,2,3 2,3,4,5 1,2,3
Parking cost (IDR 1K) 3,6,7 2,3
Baggage cost (IDR 1K) 4,8

We developed a number of scenarios, combining each attribute level with an experimental

design. The experimental design was a D-efficient design with 24 choice situations in three
blocks (Bliemer, Rose & Hensher, 2009). Then we created three types of questionnaires, where
each questionnaire had eight scenarios corresponding to the choice situation in each block
(ChoiceMetrics, 2018). In the first section, respondents were given the eight scenarios in which
the same modes had different attributes. In each scenario they had to choose their preferred
transportation mode based on the attributes. The second section of the questionnaire asked about
their socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, monthly income, monthly transport
vehicle ownership, driving license, and commuting distance (in km).

Data Collection

An online survey tool (Google Form) was prepared for collecting the data. Survey links were
distributed across several social media groups (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp)
and our network of students and colleagues. In addition to the online survey, we also conducted
a field survey. The field survey was conducted from July 1, 2018 to July 30, 2018 with the help
154 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

of ten assistants. For the field survey, the research assistants randomly approached students on
ITB campus bringing a tablet computer so that the participants could fill in the online
questionnaire directly. First, the participants were asked a filtering question: whether they lived
near ITB or not. Those who lived less than 10 km from ITB proceeded to fill out the
questionnaire. We provided a gift for those who completed the questionnaire. In total, 177
people (around 0.82% of the total population) participated. Thus, with eight scenarios per
respondent, in total 1416 observations were obtained for the discrete choice model.

Descriptive Statistics

The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 2. The first
two columns present our sample and the percentage of each category of variables. The final two
columns are the total population and its percentage.

Table 2. Socio-demographic Characteristics

Characteristics Category Number Percentage Population Percentage
Age 18 7 3.95% 1,168 5.42%
19 41 23.16% 3,998 18.54%
20 53 29.94% 4,197 19.47%
21 23 12.99% 3,545 16.44%
22 12 6.78% 2,310 10.71%
23 6 3.39% 1,008 4.68%
24 8 4.52% 893 4.14%
25 years old and older 27 15.25% 4,440 20.59%
Gender Male 98 55.4% 12,288 57.00%
Female 79 44.6% 9,271 43.00%
Income IDR 0 – 500,000 21 8.5%
(monthly) IDR 500,000 – 1,000,000 40 16.9%
IDR 1,000,000 – 2,500,000 71 37.3%
IDR 2,500,000 – 5,000,000 35 21.5%
IDR 5,000,000 – 7,500,000 6 5.6%
IDR 7,500,000 – 10,000,000 1 4.0%
More than IDR 10,000,000 3 6.2%
Expenditure for IDR 0 – 500,000 120 67.8%
transport IDR 500,000 – 1,000,000 51 28.8%
(monthly) IDR 1,000,000 – 2,500,000 6 3.4%
Vehicle No vehicle 73 41.2%
ownership Car 46 26.0%
Motorcycle 24 13.6%
Car and motorcycle 34 19.2%
Driving license No driving license 49 27.7%
Car driving license 40 22.6%
Motorcycle driving license 26 14.7%
Both driving licenses 62 35.0%
Commuting Std. Dev:
Commuting distance (km) Mean: 2.9
distance 2.5

We obtained the population data from the ITB administrators. In ITB, the maximum period of
undergraduate study is seven years. Therefore, we categorized the respondents into seven
The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 155

undergraduate years and added one category for graduate students. The graduate students
(master and PhD) belong to the category 25 years old and older. The undergraduate students,
particularly those in the age of 20, dominated our sample with 30%, followed by age 19 (23%).
Our graduate sample was around 15% of the respondents. The next variable was gender. Our
sample was dominated by male students, around 55%. If we look more closely, the male
proportion was almost the same as in the population, around 57%. Similarly, the age proportions
in the sample also matched the population proportion, with some small differences. To reduce
the bias, we weighted the sample according to the population age and gender using post-
stratified weight as was done in Belgiawan et al. (2019).

People older than 20 years are considered adults in most countries. The number of male
respondents was slightly higher than the number of female respondents. Most of the students
had an income per month between IDR 1 M and 2.5 M (equivalent to US$ 73 and 182). Their
monthly expenditure for transport was mostly between IDR 0 and 500 K (equivalent to US$ 0
and 36.5). Most students had no vehicle, nor a driving license for either car or motorcycle. In
the last row of Table 2 we present the commuting distance of the respondents. The average
distance travelled by the respondents was 2.9 km with a standard deviation of 2.5 km. This
means that most of our respondents commuted less than 6.4 km every day.

Non-trading behavior

Non-trading behavior means that whatever the value of the attributes of an alternative choice,
the respondents will not make a trade-off by choosing another mode. The result of the non-
trading behavior can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Non-trading Behavior

Alternative Modes Number of non-trading Percentage
Carpool 0 0.00%
Minibus 1 0.56%
Car 7 3.95%
Motorcycle 35 19.77%
Car-based ride sourcing 1 0.56%
Motorcycle-based ride sourcing 19 10.73%
Total 63 35.59%

In one case, the respondent would use a minibus regardless of the attribute values. Most likely
this is a captive user of public transport. There was the same case for CBRS. Seven people were
non-traders for a car. For motorcycle, private and ride sourcing we can see that they dominate
the non-trading behavior, at almost 35% and 19% respectively. Most motorcyclists being non-
traders shows that these students are captive users of a motorcycle. This finding is similar with a
case study in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, where students tend to use motorcycles often (Herwangi,
Syabri & Kustiwan, 2015). Overall, 35.59% of non-traders is a good sign, since the majority
prefers an alternative because of the attributes and the attribute values.
156 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

Methodology

Mixed Logit Model

The data was analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model (MXL) with error components.
This is a powerful approach, since it can capture the correlation in unobserved variables across
alternatives as well as capture unobserved heterogeneity (Train, 2009). In the MXL model, the
probability of person n choosing an alternative i over set of alternatives j in scenario t
maximizes his/her utility (𝑈𝑖𝑛𝑡 ) as follows:

𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 𝑃𝑟(𝑈𝑖𝑛𝑡 > 𝑈𝑗𝑛𝑡 , ∀𝑗 ∈ 𝐶𝑛𝑡 , 𝑗 ≠ 𝑖) (1)

where 𝐶𝑛𝑡 is the available choice set, where in our case we had six available alternatives. Those
alternatives were: carpool (i = 1), minibus (i = 2), car (i = 3), motorcycle (i = 4), CBRS (i = 5),
and MBRS (i = 6). The utility is then decomposed into a deterministic part (the observed part)
represented by 𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑡 , and a random error (unobserved part) represented by 𝜔𝑖𝑛 and 𝜀𝑖𝑛𝑡 as
follows:

𝑈𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑡 + 𝜔𝑖𝑛 + 𝜀𝑖𝑛𝑡 (2)

The deterministic part of the utility is expressed as follows:

𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 𝛼𝑖 + ∑ 𝛽𝑥𝑘𝑖 𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑡 + 𝛾𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑡 (3)

𝑘

where 𝛽𝑥𝑖𝑘 is an alternative specific parameter of attribute 𝑋𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑘 on the utility of an alternative 𝑖
for person n in scenario 𝑡 . 𝛼𝑖 is an alternative specific constant (ASC). 𝛾𝑛 is the random
parameter for travel cost (represented by 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑡 ), which is assumed to be randomly distributed
in order to capture unobserved taste variation of travel cost across individuals. The formula is
expressed as follows:

𝛾𝑛 = 𝜇𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 + 𝜎𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 Ω𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 Ω𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 ~ 𝑁(0,1) (4)

where, 𝜇𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 and 𝜎𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, for the cost
parameter across the entire sample. 𝛾𝑛 is obtained through simulation by drawing a normal
distribution of Ω𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑛 . 𝜔𝑖𝑛 in represents the random error component specific to person n and
alternative 𝑖. The error components are then obtained by multiplying a standard deviation to be
estimated (𝜎𝜔𝑖𝑛 ) and a random simulated term (Ω𝜔𝑖𝑛 ) following the standard normal distribution
as expressed in Eq. 5:

𝜔𝑖𝑛 = 𝜎𝜔𝑖𝑛 Ω𝜔𝑖𝑛 Ω𝜔𝑖𝑛 ~ 𝑁(0,1) (5)

The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 157

The probability of the MXL choice is then expressed as follows:

exp(𝑈𝑖𝑛𝑡 )
𝑃(𝑦|𝑋, 𝛽, 𝛾, 𝜃, 𝜔, Ω) = ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ( 𝐶𝑛 )
∑𝑗=1 exp(𝑈𝑗𝑛𝑡 )
(6)
𝑓(𝜔1𝑛 )𝑓(𝜔2𝑛 )𝑓(𝜔3𝑛 )𝑓(𝜔4𝑛 )𝑓(𝜔5𝑛 )𝑓(𝜔6𝑛 )𝑓(𝛾𝑞 )
𝑑𝜔1𝑛 𝑑𝜔2𝑛 𝑑𝜔3𝑛 𝑑𝜔4𝑛 𝑑𝜔5𝑛 𝑑𝜔6𝑛 𝑑 𝛾𝑞

where f (.)s is the probability density function of the random terms and the error components are
assumed to be uncorrelated across all alternatives. The log-likelihood with N as the sample size
is then as follows:
𝑁

𝐿𝐿 = ∑ ln 𝑃(𝑦|𝑋, 𝛽, 𝛾, 𝜃, 𝜔, Ω) (7)
𝑛=1

The estimation of the model uses maximum likelihood estimation with python Biogeme
(Bierlaire, 2016) with 1,000 random draws.

Model Result and Discussion

Mixed Logit Model Results

The result of the MXL model can be seen in Table 4. The first six parameters on the left-hand
side is the specific alternative constant, with carpool fixed at 1 as the reference category. A
significant constant with a positive sign means that all else being equal the students are more
likely to choose that alternative rather than carpool. A significant constant with a negative sign
means, ceteris paribus, that the students are less likely to choose that alternative rather than
carpool. Car and CBRS are both negatively significant, which means all else being equal
carpool is more favorable than those two modes.

Carpool travel time was negative significant, as expected, which means that the increase of
carpool travel time will reduce the probability of using a carpool. Conversely, the decrease of
travel time will increase the probability of using a carpool. It may be a good thing for the
campus to plan a time schedule for the carpool. The second significant attribute was access and
egress with a negative value. If a potential passenger reduces the walking time to the carpool
stop, it may increase the probability to choose carpool. This means that the campus needs to
choose the location of the carpool carefully. Frequency of carpool is significant at 10%, which
means that campus needs to consider the number of carpools deployed in one hour. For minibus,
the negative significant attributes were congestion time and baggage cost (the last one
significant at 10%). The longer a minibus is stuck in a congestion, the lower the probability that
students choose minibus. Similarly, the higher the baggage cost, the less likely someone wants
to use a minibus. This may be important information for the government to improve the quality
of minibuses.

Car travel time was significant with a negative sign, similar to motorcycle travel time. This
means that for both private vehicles, the longer the travel time, the less likely it will be that a
student uses a car. Likewise, for ride sourcing, both car-based and motorcycle-based, we can
observe that the parameters were negative significant. For MBRS, the congestion time was
158 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

negative significant at 10%. The longer travel time and congestion time significantly reduces the
utility of online motorcycles, which means that the respondents would choose motorcycle, since
it can travel fast and avoid congestion.

The travel cost parameter was random across individuals. Therefore, in the table we present the
mean and standard deviation, represented respectively by mu and sigma travel cost. A negative
mu was as expected, however, mu was not significant. The standard deviation of cost on the
other hand was significant, which indicates that there was a significant taste heterogeneity of
cost across individuals. Finally, for the error components, all except for carpool were significant.
These results indicate that there is a substantial amount of preference heterogeneity for mode
alternatives with the exception of carpool. The higher coefficient of the motorcycle error
component compared to the rest shows that there was a higher heterogeneity in the unobserved
effects of motorcycle compared to the other alternatives.

Table 4. MXL Model Results

Attributes Estimate Robust t-test Attributes Estimate Robust t-test
Carpool constant 1 NA Car travel time -0.11 -2.02 **
Minibus constant 4.10 1.11 Car congestion time -0.06 -0.50
Car constant -4.11 -2.65 ** Motorcycle travel time -0.34 -6.88 **
Motorcycle constant 0.96 0.70 Motorcycle cong. time 0.04 0.36
CBRS constant -5.10 -3.26 ** CBRS travel time -0.11 -2.34 **
MBRS constant -0.49 -0.40 CBRS wait time -0.04 -0.52
Carpool travel time -0.09 -3.14 ** CBRS cong. time -0.12 -0.29
Carpool transfer -0.13 -0.47 MBRS travel time -0.33 -6.37 **
Carpool wait time -0.03 -0.30 MBRS wait time -0.05 -0.97
Carpool acc. & egg. -0.14 -3.04 ** MBRS cong. time -0.21 -1.92 *
Carpool frequency 0.09 1.87 * Generic parking cost -0.06 -0.62
Carpool cong. time -0.54 -0.33 Mu travel cost -0.03 -0.66
Minibus travel time -0.08 -1.49 Sigma travel cost 0.10 2.39 **
Minibus transfer -0.04 -0.19 Sigma carpool -0.46 -1.12
Minibus wait time 0.05 0.18 Sigma minibus -0.71 -2.71 **
Minibus acc. & egg. -0.02 -0.58 Sigma car 3.06 5.33 **
Minibus frequency -0.14 -1.32 Sigma motorcycle 3.65 10.10 **
Minibus cong. time -0.97 -2.37 ** Sigma CBRS -2.28 -2.78 **
Minibus baggage -0.14 -1.67
* Sigma MBRS **
cost -2.96 -8.89
Model Fit
Number of estimated parameters: 37
Observations: 1416
Init log-likelihood: -2654.46
Final log-likelihood: -1317.43
Likelihood ratio test for the init. model: 2674.05
Rho for the init. model: 0.50
Rho bar for the init. model: 0.49
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%

Value of Travel Time Savings

Another analysis tool that is important for travel demand analysis is the value of travel time
savings (VTTS). VTTS can be used to measure how much money (in this case IDR) a person is
The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 159

willing to pay for a unit reduction in travel time (in minute). The VTTS can be measured with
the following equation:

𝜕𝑉𝑖𝑛 /𝜕𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝛽𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖

𝑉𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑖𝑛 = = 𝑥1,000 (8)
𝜕𝑉𝑖𝑛 /𝜕𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛 𝛾𝑛

where 𝑉𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑖𝑛 is the VTTS for person n choosing alternative i. 𝜕𝑉𝑖𝑛 is the first derivative of the
systematic utility. 𝜕𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑛 is the first derivative of travel time of person n choosing
alternative i. The same can be said for 𝜕𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑞 , which is the first derivative of travel cost.
𝛽𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑖 , and 𝛾𝑛 represent the parameters of travel time and travel cost, respectively. Travel
time is a specific alternative while travel cost is generic. The VTTS for each alternative is
shown in Table 5.

As can be seen in Table 5, the highest VTTS is for motorcycle alternative. A higher VTTS can
be interpreted as a person being willing to pay more in order to gain a 1-minute time reduction
by using an alternative mode. Thus, the respondents preferred to use a motorcycle to reduce
travel time rather than other modes. This was expected, given the traffic conditions near campus.
The low VTTS scores for carpool and minibus are a good sign. If we want to promote these
modes, we need to increase the quality of their services so that there is a possibility of shifting
from motorcycle, the current most popular transport mode, to public transport.

Table 5. Value of Travel Time Savings

Alternatives Value of Travel Time Savings (willingness to pay)
Carpool IDR 3,329 / minute
Minibus IDR 2,778 / minute
Car IDR 3,988 / minute
Motorcycle IDR 12,144 / minute
CBRS IDR 3,955/ minute
MBRS IDR 11,704 /minute

Demand Elasticities

The calculation of aggregate direct point elasticities was conducted to understand the
importance of a particular attribute in determining choice behavior. Direct point elasticity
explains the relationship between percentage changes in the magnitude of an attribute of an
alternative i on the probability of choosing an alternative i, as shown in Eq. 9.

𝜕𝑃𝑖𝑛 𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑛
𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑛 = . = (1 − 𝑃𝑖𝑛 ). 𝛽𝑘 . 𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑛 (9)
𝜕𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑖𝑛

Since our sample proportion did not match the population proportion, we calculated the
aggregate direct point elasticities (𝐸𝑥𝑖 𝑘 ), which account for sampling bias. The formula, adapted
from (Atasoy, Glerum & Bierlaire, 2013), is as follows:

𝑊 ∑𝑁𝑠
𝑛=1 𝑤𝑛 𝑃𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑋𝑘𝑖𝑛
𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑋𝑖 = (10)
𝑘𝑖𝑛 ∑𝑁𝑠
𝑛=1 𝑤𝑛 𝑃𝑖𝑛
160 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

where 𝑤𝑛 stands for the sample weight for a person n from sample 𝑁𝑠 from population 𝑁. With
this sample weight we can make sure that the relative change in an attribute of a chosen
alternative is the same for every individual. The demand elasticity calculation can be seen in
Table 5. For the demand elasticity interpretation score, more than 1 means that the particular
attribute is elastic, otherwise it is inelastic. Elastic means that a 10% increase of a particular
attribute of an alternative’s value corresponds to a 10% reduction or more of probability of a
person choosing that alternative. Similarly, a 10% decrease of the value corresponds to ten
percent or more addition of probability of a person choosing that alternative.

For the demand elasticity calculation, we only took attributes that significantly influenced
choice decision, except for travel cost. The travel cost parameter is a generic parameter, but we
can measure the elasticity of each alternative. We found that for all alternatives travel cost was
inelastic. This means that an increase of 10% in the cost of carpool will only contribute to a
2.7% reduction in the probability of choosing carpool. Apart from cost there were ten significant
attributes: travel time (for carpool, car, motorcycle, and online motorcycle), congestion time (for
minibus and MBRS), access egress and frequency (for carpool) and baggage cost (for minibus).
The demand elasticities for those variables are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Value of Travel Time Savings and Demand Elasticicies

Elasticities Carpool Minibus Car Motorcycle CBRS MBRS
Travel time -0.92 NS -1.08 -1.08 -1.09 -1.33
Travel cost -0.27 -0.14 -0.05 -0.02 -0.37 -0.11
Access egress -1.01 NS NS NS NS NS
Frequency 0.33 NS NS NS NS NS
Congestion time NS -3.10 NS NS NS -0.30
Baggage cost NA -0.59 NA NA NA NA
Note: NA = not applicable; NS = not significant

Carpool travel time is inelastic, which means that an increase of 10% of travel time will only
correspond to a 9.2% reduction in the probability of choosing carpool. This is different from the
other four alternatives, which are elastic, in particular MBRS. This may be a good sign for
carpool since whether the carpool travel time is longer (perhaps due to congestion or picking up
and dropping off people), it does not have much effect on the probability of choosing carpool.
The access egress of carpool is elastic, which means that it is necessary to find proper carpool
stops to reduce the access egress time. The frequency of carpool is inelastic, which means one
additional carpool in one hour will not have much effect on the decision to choose carpool.
Overall, this may be a good sign in view of introducing campus-based carpool, where we need
to make sure that access egress time should be reduced.

Minibus congestion time is elastic, which means an increase of 10% of congestion time of
minibuses will correspond to a 31% decrease of probability of choosing a minibus. This may be
useful information if the government wants minibuses to be better occupied. Baggage, on the
other hand, is inelastic. Travel time of MBRS is elastic, which means that a 10% increase in
travel time will correspond to a 13.3% reduction of choosing MBRS. This makes sense because
people may expect that MBRS can travel faster than other modes. Congestion time for MBRS,
however, is inelastic.
The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 161

Conclusion

Based on our findings, students who live around the ITB main campus do not have high concern
over the travel cost they spend. Out of all six traveling modes provided in this study, carpool
was a more preferred mode than car and CBRS, which is a good sign in view of providing a
carpool service and advocating its usage. There was no significant difference between the
carpool constant and minibus, motorcycle and CBRS, which means that those three alternatives
are as favorable as carpool for commuting.

Using a private car is not actually preferred by the students when they travel to campus.
Therefore, this may offer the local government or public transport providers a good opportunity
to promote carpool services for students who live near campus. This is also supported by the
result of VTTS and access egress time elasticity for carpool. If there is a possibility to introduce
a faster carpool service, there is a possibility that students will shift to using a carpool. Our
result imply that minibus providers should improve their quality of service, especially by
reducing the time minibuses spend in traffic congestion. For CBRS providers our study provides
valuable information and, clearly, they have a large potential market in student commuters.

We realize that this study had shortcomings. We only gathered 177 samples (1416 observations).
More samples are necessary to reduce the amount of non-trading behavior, which was around
35.59% in the current study. Also, the error may be reduced by adding more samples. Besides,
our findings show that students prefer to use a motorcycle for commuting to campus, while from
a safety and security perspective this may be a dangerous choice since there is a higher risk of
being involved in a traffic accident for motorcycles compared to cars (Korlantas, 2018).

The same research approach can be utilized for other major cities in Indonesia with large
university student populations, such as Jakarta, Semarang, Surabaya, Malang, Makassar, Medan,
and Yogyakarta. The idea of transferability of this study is essential to capture the trends toward
the commuting mode preferences of students in those cities. The possibility of constructing a
generic factorial model for Indonesia is higher when the trend has been mapped in order to
improve the commuting mode choice for students. In addition, a future study may include
different target samples for variable representation, for example, housewives and workers. Both
represent roles embedded in our sample, which would contribute to equivalent and comparable
results.

Future research could also be performed by expanding the geographical coverage of our
observation by applying the analysis to major cities in neighboring countries, such as Manila,
Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and Singapore. Different values for traffic congestion, distance, cost,
and other attributes may provide different results.

References

Abou-zeid, M., Ben-akiva, M., Bierlaire, M., Choudhury, C. & Hess, S. (2010). Attitudes and
Value of Time Heterogeneity (E. Van de Voorde & T. Vanelslander, Eds.). Applied
Transport Economics: A Management and Policy Perspective, pp. 523–545. De Boeck
Publishing.
Atasoy, B., Glerum, A. & Bierlaire, M. (2013). Attitudes towards mode choice in Switzerland.
Disp, 49(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2013.827518
Bandung, B. P. S. (2017). Bandung Municipality in figures 2017.
Belgiawan, P. F., Ilahi, A. & Axhausen, K. W. (2019). Influence of pricing on mode choice
162 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

decision in Jakarta: A random regret minimization model. Case Studies on Transport

Policy, 7(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.12.002
Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J.-D., Abou-Zeid, M., Walker, J. & Fujii, S. (2017). Modelling
social norms: Case study of students’ car purchase intentions. Travel Behaviour and
Society, 7, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2016.11.003
Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J.-D., Abou-Zeid, M., Walker, J., Lee, T.-C., Ettema, D. F. &
Fujii, S. (2014). Car ownership motivations among undergraduate students in China,
Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, Netherlands, Taiwan, and USA. Transportation, 41(6), 1227–
1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9548-z
Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J.-D. & Fujii, S. (2016). Understanding car ownership
motivations among Indonesian students. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 10(4), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2014.921846
Bierlaire, M. (2016). PythonBiogeme: a short introduction.
Bliemer, M. C. J., Rose, J. M. & Hensher, D. A. (2009). Efficient stated choice experiments for
estimating nested logit models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 43(1),
19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2008.05.008
Bruglieri, M., Ciccarelli, D., Colornia, A. & Luè, A. (2011). PoliUniPool: A carpooling system
for universities. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 558–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.062
Cadima, C., Silva, C. & Pinho, P. (2020). Changing student mobility behaviour under financial
crisis: Lessons from a case study in the Oporto University. Journal of Transport
Geography, 87, 102800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102800
Cervero, R. (2014). Transport Infrastructure and the Environment in the Global South:
Sustainable Mobility and Urbanism. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah Dan Kota, 25(3), 174–
191. https://doi.org/10.5614/jpwk.2015.25.3.1
ChoiceMetrics. (2018). Ngene 1.2 user manual & reference guide: The Cutting Edge in
Experimental Design. Retrieved from www.choice-metrics.com
Clewlow, R. R. & Mishra, G. S. (2017). Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization,
and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States. Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/82w2z91j
Danaf, M., Abou-Zeid, M. & Kaysi, I. (2014). Modeling travel choices of students at a private,
urban university: Insights and policy implications. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2(3),
142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2014.08.006
Dharmowijoyo, D. B. E., Susilo, Y. O. & Karlström, A. (2018). On complexity and variability
of individuals’ discretionary activities. Transportation, 45(1), 177–204.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9731-5
Frei, C., Hyland, M. & Mahmassani, H. S. (2017). Flexing service schedules: Assessing the
potential for demand-adaptive hybrid transit via a stated preference approach.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 76, 71–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.12.017
Göçer, Ö. & Göçer, K. (2019). The effects of transportation modes on campus use: A case study
of a suburban campus. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(1), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.11.005
Gurrutxaga, I., Iturrate, M., Oses, U. & Garcia, H. (2017). Analysis of the modal choice of
transport at the case of university: Case of University of the Basque Country of San
Sebastian. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 233–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.003
Henao, A. & Marshall, W. E. (2019). The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled.
Transportation, 46(6), 2173–2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9923-2
Herwangi, Y., Syabri, I. & Kustiwan, I. (2015). Peran dan Pola Penggunaan Sepeda Motor Pada
The Commuting Mode Choice of Students 163

Masyarakat Berpendapatan Rendah di Kawasan Perkotaan Yogyakarta. Jurnal

Perencanaan Wilayah Dan Kota, 26(3), 166–176.
https://doi.org/10.5614/jpwk.2015.26.3.2
Irawan, M. Z., Belgiawan, P. F., Joewono, T. B. & Simanjuntak, N. I. M. (2020). Do
motorcycle-based ride-hailing apps threaten bus ridership? A hybrid choice modeling
approach with latent variables. Public Transport, 12(1), 207–231.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00217-w
Irawan, M. Z., Belgiawan, P. F., Tarigan, A. K. M. & Wijanarko, F. (2019). To compete or not
compete: exploring the relationships between motorcycle-based ride-sourcing, motorcycle
taxis, and public transport in the Jakarta metropolitan area. Transportation, (0123456789).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10019-5
Joewono, T. B., Tarigan, A. K. M. & Susilo, Y. O. (2016). Road-based public transportation in
urban areas of Indonesia: What policies do users expect to improve the service quality?
Transport Policy, 49, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.04.009
Korlantas. (2018). Kecelakaan di Indonesia Selama Triwulan Terakhir berdasarkan Jenis
Kendaraan. Korps Lalulintas Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia. Retrieved from
http://korlantas-irsms.info/graph/vehicleTypeData
Miro, F. (2016). Analisis Pilihan Moda Transportasi Umum Rute Padang – Jakarta
Menggunakan Metode Stated Preference. Journal of Regional and City Planning, 27(1),
25–33. https://doi.org/10.5614/jrcp.2016.27.1.3
Mohammadzadeh, M. (2020). Exploring tertiary students’ travel mode choices in Auckland:
Insights and policy implications. Journal of Transport Geography, 87, 102788.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102788
Nugroho, S. B., Zusman, E. & Nakano, R. (2020). Explaining the spread of online taxi services
in Semarang, Bogor and Bandung, Indonesia; a discrete choice analysis. Travel Behaviour
and Society, 20, 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.04.008
Ramdani, D. (2018). Perizinan Rampung, Selangkah Lagi Bandung Punya LRT. Kompas.
Retrieved from https://regional.kompas.com/read/2018/02/12/16490531/perizinan-
rampung-selangkah-lagi-bandung-punya-lrt
Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R. & Shaheen, S. (2016). Just a better taxi? A survey-
based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transport
Policy, 45, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004
Riggs, W. (2015). Testing personalized outreach as an effective TDM measure. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 178–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.012
Shaheen, S. A., Chan, N. D. & Gaynor, T. (2016). Casual carpooling in the San Francisco Bay
Area: Understanding user characteristics, behaviors, and motivations. Transport Policy, 51,
165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.003
Shannon, T., Giles-Corti, B., Pikora, T., Bulsara, M., Shilton, T. & Bull, F. (2006). Active
commuting in a university setting: Assessing commuting habits and potential for modal
change. Transport Policy, 13(3), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.11.002
Sweet, M. N. & Ferguson, M. R. (2019). Parking demand management in a relatively
uncongested university setting. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(2), 453–462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.01.008
Tarabay, R. & Abou-Zeid, M. (2020). Modeling the choice to switch from traditional modes to
ridesourcing services for social/recreational trips in Lebanon. Transportation, 47(4),
1733–1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-09973-x
Tarigan, A. K. M., Sagala, S., Samsura, D. A. A., Fiisabiilillah, D. F., Simarmata, H. A. &
Nababan, M. (2016). Bandung City, Indonesia. Cities, 50, 100–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.09.005
164 Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, et al.

Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. In Discrete Choice Methods
with Simulation. Retrieved from http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511753930
Wang, H. & Yang, H. (2019). Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review. Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological, 129, 122–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2019.07.009
Wiryono, S. K., Majid, R. N., Putri, N. R. R., Belgiawan, P. F., Rahadi, R. A., Qastharin, A. R.,
… Nasution, R. A. (2018). Acceptance of New Transport Modes For Students: A Stated
Preference Approach. Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship (GBSE),
Vol. 4. Retrieved from www.gbse.com.my
Zha, L., Yin, Y. & Yang, H. (2016). Economic analysis of ride-sourcing markets.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 71, 249–266.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.07.010
Zhong, L., Zhang, K., Nie, Y. (Marco) & Xu, J. (2020). Dynamic carpool in morning commute:
Role of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy-toll (HOT) lanes.
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 135, 98–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2020.03.002
Zhou, J. (2012). Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode
choices among university students. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
46(7), 1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.04.001