Measuring Rural Transit Availability

Nicholas E. Lownes, Ph.D.18th National Rural and Intercity Bus

Transportation Conference

October 21, 2008

Motivation

• Rural transit service presents several difficulties: CT has significant rural population

• Theoretical treatments of rural transit availability may miss important nuance

• Fixed-route measures miss important aspects

• Invite input: nlownes@engr.uconn.edu

Fixed-Route Availability

• Studied a circulator route design in Austin, TX (not rural)

• Under idealized conditions, definition of accessibility and opportunity cost of no access impacted results significantly.

User-Focused

Station

UT

Operator-Focused

Station

UT

Balanced

Station

UT

Accessibility Perspectives

• Characterization depends on perspective & purpose

• Accessibility– Restricted Budget – Best service within

restrictive budget constraints– Social Benefit or Inducing Demand–

Maximizing accessibility/coverage

Walking Threshold Sensitivity

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000

User Cost

Ope

rato

r Cos

t

Threshold = 1/ 4 mile

Threshold = 3/ 8 mile

Threshold = 1/ 2 mile

Availability Measures

• Fixed-route Measures• Spatial Measures– Local Index of Transit Accessibility

(LITA): Developers seeking to improve real estate investments

– Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM): Transit planners & managers

Availability Measures

• Spatiotemporal Measures– Transit Level of Service (TLOS): Transit

planners & managers• Track boarding opportunities (spatial coverage) over

time• Demand variability throughout day

• Utility Measures– TxDOT Transit Accessibility Measure (TAM)

• Function of origin, destination, demographics, trip purpose

Opportunity Cost

• Back of the envelope– Cost of maintaining single-car vs. two-

car household ≈ $6000 (fuel at $2.75 per gallon

– Function of: • proximity to transit (3/4 mile), • Driving less• Walking more• Owning fewer cars

From: Bailey, L. Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil. ICF International, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 35 pp, (2007).

Opportunity Cost Sensitivity

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000

User Cost

Ope

rato

r Cos

t

Unserved Demand Cost < $4K

Unserved Demand Cost $4K - $7K

Unserved Demand Cost > $7K

Opportunity Cost

• Econometric Analyses– Both SP/RP modeling and analysis– Relative WTP for features of transit

service– Elasticity of transit– Value of travel time savings

Rural Transit Availability

• TCQSM offers methods for estimating rural transit LOS, incorporating availability

• Rural areas will fall below density threshold for transit-supportive areas in fixed-route calculations

Demand Responsive Availability

• Treated separately in TCQSM – a much different service

• Availability a function of:– Response time– Trip availability/connectivity– Hours and days of service– Reliability– Quality of service w.r.t. time, comfort

Rural Transit Availability

Rural populations differ from urban counterparts– Demographically– More vulnerable to energy price fluctuations– Equity issues

• What’s missing: Information Penetration– No doubt this is a topic rural operators have

thought about considerably (there was a session at this conference)

Rural Transit Availability

• Can we consider transit service available if people are unaware?

• Rural demographics may impact:– Internet usage– Attitudes toward transit

• How can we incorporate these ideas in an availability measure?

Our work in CT

• Phase I: Analysis of Availability Measures– Consistency– Parameters of Interest– Appropriate Response Variable

• Propensity to ride• Spatial Coverage• O-D coverage• Temporal Coverage• Service hours

Work in CT

• Phase II: Expanding to Rural Markets• How do we integrate rural markets?– Park and ride express coverage?– DRT – ridership and/or LOS– Information penetration

• What are the best practices for communicating and how do we include in Connecticut?

Acknowledgement

• Partially sponsored by the Connecticut Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 08-5

Thank you

Source: www.fta.dot.gov/about/about_FTA_2449.html/

Ideas, comments, questions: nlownes@engr.uconn.edu