Upload
ltc-csusb
View
267
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Smart Dial-a-Ride for Demand-Responsive Transit
Sponsor: Leonard Transportation Center (CSUSB)
Integration of Bicycling and Walking Facilities into Urban Infrastructure
Sponsor: Mineta Transportation Institute (SJSU)
Cornelius Nuworsoo, Ph.D.Associate Professor
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Smart Dial-A-Ride
Lessons from Senior Mobility Study• Survey of seniors revealed:
• (a) seniors in general would prefer on-demand services as much as, if not more than any other public transportation mode
Lessons from Senior Mobility Study• Survey of seniors revealed:
• (b) seniors with physical limitations would prefer on-demand as much as, if not more than, any other means of travel; (. . . . group may grow with longevity!)
Lessons from Senior Mobility StudyWhy the Preference?• Relatively dispersed pattern of land development in
metropolitan US on-demand services offer . . . • the closest type of public transport service to
the overwhelmingly chosen form of personal transportation, the automobile
The Problem
•Demand-response service is expensive to provide (Rosenbloom, 2003):
•Of all public transit modes in California, dial-a-ride transit was:
• (a) least-used, • (b) least productive• (c) most subsidized
•Subsidy per ride: • dial-a-ride: $2.00 to $10.15 • fixed route: $1.16 to $3.89• (Nuworsoo, 2001, unpublished).
Hierarchies of Transit Operating Ratios -- CA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Single-mode rail Mixed-mode Dial-a-ride
oper
atin
g ra
tio
Ray of Hope!• Some on-demand
operations exhibit comparable levels of efficiency to standard transit!
• How do they do it?<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 >10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MB
Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip ($)
Num
ber o
f Age
ncie
s
<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 >100
10203040506070
DRT
Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip ($)
Num
ber o
f Age
ncie
s
The Need• Need to rethink and revamp operation of on-
demand service . . . .if society is to meet future mobility preferences of very large incoming cohorts of seniors
Hypothesis• An efficient and widely available on-demand system:
• . . . . may be viewed as an advanced form of car (or vehicle) sharing
• . . . . can serve the niche between the private automobile and fixed route service while society attempts to change land use patterns to more compact forms that support additional fixed route service
Project’s Benefits• Develop efficient concept of operations from cases• Develop affordable dispatch assistance tool from
concept• Provide vital senior mobility for expanding cohort• Provide opportunity for wider vehicle sharing and
connections to fixed-route transit and other terminals• Contribute to:
• Promote cost savings (users and govt.)• reduce energy consumption and • reduce air pollution
Bicycling and Walking Facilities
MotivationProblem• Many design guidelines and manuals• Limited work on user preferences of treatments
Therefore• Bicycling and Walking Facility study . . . .• Case study of selected bicycling- & walking-friendly
communities in California : • Davis• Palo Alto • San Luis Obispo
Key LessonsUser Preferences:• Complete network of separated bicycling & walking
facilities that serve desired destinations• Majority of respondents would prefer to bike . . .
• 10 to 20 min for work, school, other business • < 10 min for shopping • > 30 min for recreation
Implication . . . • . . . . . This suggests how far away land use and
activities should be placed from residences and work places to promote bicycling
Key LessonsUser Preferences:• Ratings of factors in decision to cycle or walk . . .
0 1 2 3 4 5
Travel distance
Quality of facilities for cycling or walking
Climate
Difficulty of terrain
Directness of connections to destination
Availability Facilities for Bicycling or walking
Physical ability
Availability of Bicycle Parking at Destination
Availability of Showers at Destination
Key LessonsWorld Trend:• 3-way separation (autos; bicycles; walkers)
Santa Barbara
Project’s Benefits• The product is a guide for local level planning that
addresses . . . . • transferable policies• infrastructure systems • public education • key user preferences
• The guide will help local governments plan for transportation alternatives that can . . . . • promote healthy living, • reduce energy consumption and • reduce environmental pollution
Thanks!
Questions?