Where are public transit needed - Examining potential demand for public transit for commuting trips

Abstract This study investigates the potential demand for public transit for commuting trips – a rarely explored perspective for the study of public transit systems. Potential demand for public transit refers to the kind of demand that is not explicitly expressed or realized but will be present if condition permits (i.e. when public transit facility is accessible). In this study, potential demand is surrogated by the proportion of people who may potentially use public transit as primary transportation mode, once public the transit facility becomes available and accessible to these people. A Need Index is introduced to measure the relative magnitude of potential demand. Multiple regression is employed to identify predictive variables for the share of public transportation for work trips. Given the predictive variables, two independent methods are developed to examine potential demands across the space. One method is the abovementioned Need Index method and the other is a data mining approach. The Need Index is mathematically modeled which computes a numeric measure for each spatial unit. The second method uses self-organizing maps (SOM) to find clusters in the high-dimensional vector space of the predictive variables. The study then presents a cross-examination analysis between the results from two methods. An empirical study of Atlanta, Georgia is carried out. In the case study, The United States Census Transportation Planning Package 2000 data at the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) level are used. Existing transit network data are prepared and preprocessed in GIS for spatial analysis. The results of both methods are compared and displayed in GIS for visual examination of spatial distribution of the potential demands. A critique on the comparison of advantages and shortcomings between both methods is provided. It shows that the need index is superior due to its simplicity and its higher level of measurement of potential demands.

[1]  Alan T. Murray.  Strategic analysis of public transport coverage , 2001 .

[2]  Vukan R Vuchic,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF MAGLEV TECHNOLOGY AND ITS COMPARISON WITH HIGH SPEED RAIL , 2002 .

[3]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Optimizing Public Transit Quality and System Access: The Multiple-Route, Maximal Covering/Shortest-Path Problem , 2005 .

[4]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Strategic route extension in transit networks , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Kumares C. Sinha,et al.  SUSTAINABILITY AND URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION , 2003 .

[6]  Steven E Polzin,et al.  TRANSPORTATION/LAND-USE RELATIONSHIP: PUBLIC TRANSIT'S IMPACT ON LAND USE , 1999 .

[7]  C. Kennedy.  A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area , 2002 .

[8]  M. Cropper,et al.  The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States , 2005, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[9]  M. Kuby,et al.  Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States , 2004 .

[10]  Alan T. Murray.  Geography in Coverage Modeling: Exploiting Spatial Structure to Address Complementary Partial Service of Areas , 2005 .

[11]  M. V. Velzen,et al.  Self-organizing maps , 2007 .

[12]  Lars Lundqvist,et al.  Dynamic allocation of urban space , 1975 .

[13]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[14]  D. Schrank,et al.  THE 2004 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT , 2002 .

[15]  M. Cropper,et al.  The Impact of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States , 2003 .

[16]  Dušan Teodorović,et al.  Schedule synchronization in public transit using the fuzzy ant system , 2005 .

[17]  Joseph Ferreira,et al.  INTEGRATING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTO TRANSIT RIDERSHIP FORECAST MODELS , 1995 .

[18]  Evelyn Blumenberg,et al.  How Welfare Recipients Travel on Public Transit, and Their Accessibility to Employment Outside Large Urban Centers , 2003 .

[19]  Samuel Kaski,et al.  Self organization of a massive document collection , 2000, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst..

[20]  D F Howard.  URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT , 1976 .

[21]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Equity in Regional Service Provision , 2001 .

[22]  C. Perrins,et al.  THE MARKETS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT : THE POOR AND THE TRANSPORT DISADVANTAGED , 1989 .

[23]  M. Batty,et al.  Geometric accessibility and geographic information: extending desktop GIS to space syntax , 1999, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems.

[24]  André de Palma,et al.  Policy insights from the urban road pricing case studies , 2006 .

[25]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Measuring Space‐Time Accessibility Benefits within Transportation Networks: Basic Theory and Computational Procedures , 1999 .

[26]  Kenneth A. Small,et al.  Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations , 2003 .

[27]  J. Harford.  Congestion, pollution, and benefit-to-cost ratios of US public transit systems , 2006 .

[28]  J Pucher.  RENAISSANCE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN THE UNITED STATES , 2002 .