NATHAN P. BELZ, M.S., E.I. University of Vermont Transportation Research CenterBurlington, VT 05405-1757Email: nathan.belz@uvm.edu

LISA AULTMAN-HALL, Ph.D.Email: lisa.aultman-hall@uvm.edu

JIM SULLIVAN, M.S., P.E.Email: jlsulliv@uvm.edu

TRANSIT NETWORK EFFICIENCY AND TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE ZONES

Using Technology to Improve Transportation Operations 04.26.2012

TRANSPORTATIONRESEARCH CENTER

MOBILITY. SUSTAINABILITY. LIVABILITY.1

hall@uvm.edu

WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSIT IN RURAL STATES?

(Spatial Constraints: Long Travel Distances & Low Densities)

DISAGGREGATEOBJECTIVEPROCESSSTATEWIDE

3

WHAT ARE THE SHORTFALLS OF PAST SPATIAL RESEARCH?

(Zonal level analysis based on urban focus, assumptions of homogeneity within zones)

4

Single Family PointMulti-Family PointNon-Residential Point

5

Single Family PointMulti-Family PointNon-Residential Point

Single Family PointMulti-Family PointNon-Residential Point

Demand Potential (DP)

Single Family PointMulti-Family PointNon-Residential Point

=

=

Equivalent DP

1 2 3

4 5

Criteria to be a Transit-Supportive Zone1. Centroid must be a local density maximum2. Σ EDP must be greater than or equal to transit viability threshold3. Assumes transit riders are willing to walk one-half mile

Burlington, VT & Surrounding

Montpelier, VT

A

A

B

B

6

1% of land

43% of trips(86% intercity)

21% of VMT

Evaluation of Existing Statewide Rural Transit Network

Use Demand Potential and Existing Fixed-Route Transit to:1. Generate Energy-Efficient Transit Network2. Generate Equitable Transit Networks

• Connectivity “Fairness”• Access to Critical Destinations

4. Compare using Network-Overlap Ratio

7

One of the lowest average population densities in the United States

Served by 11 different transit agencies

Coverage ranges from 8 to 122 miles (average is 74); 1,300 miles total

Reaches 77% of Vermonters

Fixed-Route Transit in Vermont

8

Using Transit-Supportive Zones as origins and destinations

Trip distribution used a Gravity Model

Assignment of Person-Trips on the Road Network

Remove routes with fewer than 11.2 persons per hour

Energy-Efficient Network

9

153 miles less than the existing merged network

Reaches 13 fewer towns than the existing network

Accessible to 75% of Vermonters

Energy-Efficient Network

10

Connectivity “Fairness”

70 miles more than the existing merged network

Reaches 6 more towns than the existing network

Accessible to 79% of Vermonters

Equitable Networks

11

Equitable Networks“Access to Critical Locations”

Ensure access to critical locations for ALL Vermonters

• Seniors with restricted driving• Non-driving adults• School-age children• ¼ mile access distance

Critical locations in the context of equity

• Health care / hospital• Grocery

12

Network-Overlap Ratio

Formulation N-O Ratio = Ln,m / Lm

networks coincide perfectly

networks do not share any links in common.

0 1

Evaluate existing merged and idealized networks of fixed-route transit in Vermont

13

Transit Network Total Miles of Network

% Vermont Towns Reached

(of 255)

% Population Reached

(of 609,000 in 2000)

Population Reached Per Mile

of NetworkN-O

Existing 1,318 44 77 358 --

Energy-Efficient 1,153 39 75 395 0.58

Connectivity-Fairness 1,388 46 79 349 0.58

Access to Critical Locations 2,039 63 90 269 0.64

AGENCY Setting Service Area Type

Network Overlap (EE to Existing)

Network Overlap (ACL to Existing)

Advance Transit (AT) Rural Town 0.09 0.14

Connecticut River Transit (CRT) Rural Valley Region 0.56 0.63

Deerfield Valley Transit Association (DVTA) Rural Valley Region 0.03 0.24

Rural Community Transportation (RCT) Rural Towns (2) 0.27 0.40

Stagecoach Transportation Services (STSI) Rural Valley Region 0.051 0.451

Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Urban County 0.84 0.84

Green Mountain Community Network (GMCN) Urban Town 0.31 0.31

Green Mountain Transit Agency (GMTA) Urban Mountain Region 0.57 0.57

Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD) Urban Valley Region 0.75 0.75

Addison County Transit Resources (ACTR) Urban County 0.71 0.71

Town of Brattleboro Bus Line Urban Town 0.73 0.73

ENTIRE NETWORKS 0.58 0.64

Model transit networks• Spatially-optimal• Equitable-fairness• Equitable-access

CambridgeCambridge

Poultney

Hinesburg

Northfield

Johnson

Putney

Rockingham

Able to identify• Over-served areas• Under-served areas• Shortest-path discrepancies

15

Importance of disaggregate data• Generally much more available for urban areas• Illustrates application of E911 • Identifies need for similar data on national scale• Application as data-driven decision tool

TSZs and Potential Transit Demand• Relatively large proportion of substitutable intercity trips• Not just in the one Vermont MPO

Evaluation of Existing System• Relatively efficient, especially in urban areas• Over and under serviced areas should be assessed• Better metrics for equity and access are needed

16