*4.5. Probability and Elasticity*

Figure 1 shows the variability in the MaaS preference probability with specification I for scenarios 1 (black line), 2 (red line), and 3 (blue line) and subscenarios A (continuous line), B (dotted line), and C (pointed line). The long-distance scenarios (1 and 2) are reported in Figure 1a while the medium-distance scenario (3) is reported in Figure 1b.

**Figure 1.** MaaS choice preference (%) with calibration model I: (**a**) scenarios A and B (long distance) and (**b**) scenario C (short distance).

The MaaS preference probability increased with travel time in the current alternative (negative value of the time parameter in the current alternative's utility) and decreased with increasing bundle cost (negative value of the parameter of cost in the MaaS alternative). The MaaS preference probabilities had similar values for scenarios 1 and 2 with the same travel time. Scenario 3 had a shorter travel time and had lower preference than scenarios 1 and 2. This result provided information on users and how they behave similarly for short and long distances in the absence of additional parking costs in the presented scenario. The elasticity values evaluated as the ratio between the percentage change of the probability and the percentage change of time were approximately 0.65 for scenario 1, 0.15 for scenario 2, and 0.75 for scenario 3.

In the case of the cost of parking, the behavior was different. In fact, for scenario 2, compared to scenarios 1 and 3, the probability of preference for the MaaS scenario started from higher values for low time values and grew less rapidly. The probability had a narrow range of variation compared to other scenarios with fixed travel times. The cost of additional parking greatly favored preference for the MaaS scenario.
