4797
URBAN GONDOLAS IN ILE-DE-FRANCE:
FORECASTING TRAFFIC ON A NEW
MODE
Anne-Eole Meret-Conti, Laurence Debrincat (STIF)
Marco Kouwenhoven, Cyrille Dupré-Gazave, Eric Kroes (Significance)
1- Context
The cable A project
2- Methodology
A study in three phases: interviews, SP
survey and data analysis/modelling
3- Perceptions
Cluster profiles of opinions towards gondola lift:
pros and cons
4- Route choice parameters
Model estimation and route choice parameters
for urban gondola lift in Ile-de-France
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
A gondola lift project in the suburbs southeast of Paris
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
Cable A key dates
2008
Local actors consider a gondola lift project on the Créteil-Villeneuve-StGeorges territory. The project line is called TELEVAL.
2012-2013
2015-2016
2016
>2016
STIF carries out a territorial diagnosis on mobility needs: the gondola lift
is considered suitable given the stakes.
This study: Perceptions of gondola lift in Ile-de-France and route
choice parameters.
The decision process for public transport project has officially
started – STIF validates results of the preliminary studies.
Decision process continues...
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
A study in three phases
September 2015
Phase 1: 20 openended interviews
• Aims: establish advantages and disadvantages of gondola lift
• 20 interviews of 2h with different segments of people
November 2015 – March 2016
Phase 2: SP survey
with 1353 inhabitants
of Ile-de-France
• Questionnaire: socio-demographics, perceptions, SP survey
• Recruitment: local recruitment (37%) and internet panel (63%)
• Population: ≥15 years, living in Paris conurbation (+cable A area)
March & April 2016
Phase 3: data analysis
and modelling
• Descriptive statistics
• Data clustering on perceptions/opinions: profiles
• SP modelling: utility coefficients, elimination optimism bias,
route choice parameters
1. Context
2. Methodology
4. Route choice
parameters
3. Perceptions
SP Survey: three experiments
3 different SP experiments, each consisting of 7 choices between two transit routes.
Stated Choice
Context
Travel time
Service frequency
Level of crowding
SP 1
SP 2
SP 3
Gondola A
versus
Gondola B
Gondola A
versus
Bus
Public Transport
chain with Gondola
versus
Public Transport
chain without
Gondola








1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
PT Chains with Gondola:
•
•
•
•
Gondola lift + Metro
Gondola lift + RER
Gondola lift + Bus
Gondola lift + Tramway
PT Chains without Gondola:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bus
Bus + Metro
Bus + RER
Bus + Bus
Metro
Metro + RER
Tram
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
A positive image of the gondola lift – as long as
security standards are high
Cable A is partially located in an urban area stated “potentially unsafe” by
its inhabitants.
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
Statements on gondola lift: agreement and division
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
Statements on gondola lift: agreement and division
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
Four profiles
Profile 1: Afraid of the unknown
and attracted to novelty
Profile 3: Indirect profit
They expect the system to be reliable and
attractive, but they fear the unknown (heights,
being isolated in a cabin).
They are distinguished by a low transit mode
share. They hope the gondola lift, which they
consider efficient, will reduce road congestion
(modal shift, and replacement of bus lines) and,
in this way, improve their travels.
Profile 2: Vacation in the city
Profile 4: Fear of unreliability
They appreciate the gondola lift they know
from their holidays, but consider it quite unfit
for urban trips.
They are mainly concerned by incidents and
operating breakdown – as the system is new,
they fear it will be off regularly and they will be
penalized in their daily trips.
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
4. Route choice
parameters
Stated-preferences modelling process
Step 1a: Naive models
For each experiment: first model including all parameters
Step 1b: Best models
For each experiment: estimate best possible model
Step 2a:
Generalisation
Combined model based on all three experiments together
Step 2b: Bias
reduction
Bias reduction: by excluding non-traders and correcting
answers of people recruited through the internet panel
Step 3: Route choice
parameters
Route choice parameter: estimation of parameters using both
generalised model (after bias reduction) and ANTONIN 3 specs.
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
Route choice parameters
1 min. Gondola time =
1 min. Bus time
Crowding factor Gondola
1.31 (multiplier)
Boarding penalty Gondola
3.9 min. Bus time
Transfer penalty Gondola
Metro
4.9 min. Bus time
Train
4.9 min. Bus time
Bus
4.1 min. Bus time
Tramway
4.4 min. Bus time
4. Route choice
parameters
1. Context
2. Methodology
3. Perceptions
Follow-up
Public consultation
Aims:
• Line characteristics are
understood by all
• Advantage/disadvantages
of the gondola lift are
presented correctly
Project CBA
•
•
Route choice parameters
included in ANTONIN 3
forecasting model
Used to estimate traffic
and to evaluate costs and
benefits of the project
STIF strategy on urban
gondola lift projects
4. Route choice
parameters
Thank you for you attention.
Any question ?
[email protected]
[email protected]