## 5 Results and Discussion
### Results from Integrated Consideration and Footfall Model
#### 5.2.1 Omitted Variable Bias and Fit Loss Due to Linearity and Normality Assumptions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Linear Model Without**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Linear Model Without**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Linear Model with**} \\  & **Consideration Effect** & **Consideration Effect** & **Consideration Effect** & **Consideration Effect** \\ \hline
**Variables** & **Coef** & **t-Stat** & **Coef** & **t-Stat** & **Coef** & **t-Stat** \\ \hline
**Effect of consideration probability** & & & & & & \\ \hline Average probability of considering train & - & - & - & - & 5.44 & 2.85 \\ \hline
**Transit operating characteristics** & & & & & & \\ \hline Normalized peak frequency of buses in the & \(-16.19\) & \(-3.74\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-3.81\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-4.15\) \\ buffer area & \(-449.90\) & \(-6.92\) & \(-4.91\) & \(-8.22\) & \(-3.77\) & \(-6.86\) \\ Hourly headway of metro & \(-9.33\) & \(-7.42\) & \(-0.24\) & \(-21.18\) & \(-0.25\) & \(-21.31\) \\ Average travel cost per km by metro & \(-71.60\) & \(-3.26\) & \(-1.17\) & \(-5.78\) & \(-0.74\) & \(-5.18\) \\ Average travel cost per km by bus & \(-3.09\) & \(-0.18\) & \(0.39\) & \(2.47\) & \(0.66\) & \(3.74\) \\ \hline
**Multimodal Integration** & & & & & & \\ \hline More than 1 route passing through the & \(153.40\) & \(2.47\) & \(0.84\) & \(1.47\) & \(1.13\) & \(2.18\) \\ station (ability to transfer) & \(174.50\) & \(4.85\) & \(2.04\) & \(61.17\) & \(2.64\) & \(8.00\) \\ Route terminates at the station & \(505.40\) & \(8.87\) & \(6.08\) & \(11.63\) & \(4.71\) & \(9.05\) \\ Population in the buffer area of & \(4.70\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.68\) & \(1.08\times 10^{-4}\) & \(6.71\) & \(6.87\times 10^{-5}\) & \(4.19\) \\ Uniformoid hubs & \(-13.05\) & \(-4.13\) & \(-0.18\) & \(-6.29\) & \(-0.11\) & \(-4.44\) \\ Proportion of primary roads in the vicinity & \(10.64\) & \(2.45\) & \(0.06\) & \(1.59\) & \(0.10\) & \(1.94\) \\ \hline
**First- and last-mile connectivity and walkability** & & & & & & \\ \hline No. of parking areas in the vicinity & \(21.01\) & \(3.37\) & \(0.14\) & \(2.40\) & \(0.24\) & \(4.53\) \\ Cycle-for-hire facility available in the & \(54.87\) & \(1.49\) & \(1.14\) & \(3.39\) & \(0.23\) & \(0.78\) \\ metro station & \(-8.05\) & \(-3.89\) & \(-0.09\) & \(-4.59\) & \(-0.02\) & \(-1.47\) \\ Out-of-vehicle travel time & \(-13.05\) & \(-4.13\) & \(-0.18\) & \(-6.29\) & \(-0.11\) & \(-4.44\) \\ Proportion of respondents near line 2 who & \(236.40\) & \(2.57\) & \(4.53\) & \(5.36\) & \(3.71\) & \(5.12\) \\ feel that the footpath is good and usable & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Socio-demographics** & & & & & & \\ \hline Share of low personal mobility users & \(-154.00\) & \(-1.24\) & \(-1.64\) & \(-1.44\) & \(-2.57\) & \(-3.98\) \\ among those who considered train & \(347.70\) & \(1.60\) & \(8.04\) & \(4.03\) & \(2.12\) & \(2.03\) \\ Share of females among those who & \(87.84\) & \(0.89\) & \(0.24\) & \(0.26\) & \(1.03\) & \(1.39\) \\ considered train & \(2.44\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.78\) & \(5.77\times 10^{-5}\) & \(4.58\) & \(3.19\times 10^{-5}\) & \(2.68\) \\ Population value is missing & \(-18.98\) & \(-0.20\) & \(1.56\) & \(1.77\) & \(-1.16\) & \(-1.57\) \\ Average household income of the & \(-0.01\) & \(-3.25\) & \(-9.18\times 10^{-5}\) & \(-4.47\) & \(-1.10\times 10^{-4}\) & \(-4.24\) \\ respondents in the buffer area & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Summary statistics** & & & & & & \\ \hline Number of observations & \(636.00\) & \(636.00\) & \(636.00\) & \(636.00\) \\ R\({}^{2}\) in transformed scale (R\({}^{2}\) in reverse & & \(0.666\) (0.666) & \(0.829\) (0.748) & \(0.830\) (0.750) \\ transformed scale) & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._hand, to encourage the HPM segment to use trains more frequently, policies to overcome inertia or loyalty to motorized vehicles may be desirable. The AM peak and PM peak show significantly higher coefficients compared to off-peak periods (1.83 and 2.04 vs. \(-\)2.80), which is expected.