developing its to serve diverse populations
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 62

Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 75 Views
  • Uploaded on

Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations. Advanced Transportation Technologies Seminar September 12, 2006. Presentation Overview. Background, definitions I-394 MnPASS Evaluation ATIS Advanced Transit Information Systems Carsharing Community Based Transit (CBT). History.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations' - major


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
developing its to serve diverse populations

Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations

Advanced Transportation Technologies Seminar

September 12, 2006

presentation overview
Presentation Overview
  • Background, definitions
  • I-394 MnPASS Evaluation
  • ATIS
    • Advanced Transit Information Systems
  • Carsharing
  • Community Based Transit (CBT)
history
History
  • Latest in several “Guidestar”-funded projects
  • Past projects have focused on analysis and evaluation of technology applications:
    • Telework and other tele-applications
    • Sustainable Transportation
    • Emergency Management Systems (EMS)
meaning of diverse
Meaning of “Diverse”
  • 3 perspectives
    • Diversity of trip type
    • Diversity of trip mode
    • Diversity of person
  • This project especially considers: Serving those that do not rely on a single occupant vehicle as their primary transport mode
i 394 mnpass attitudinal evaluation1
I-394 MnPASS Attitudinal Evaluation
  • 3 wave panel survey
  • Coordinated with Value Pricing Outreach projects from MnDOT and FHWA
  • Conducted under subcontract with NuStats
i 394 mnpass attitudinal evaluation2
I-394 MnPASS Attitudinal Evaluation
  • Primary objectives:
    • Attitudes and awareness
      • Overall
      • Equity
      • Technology
    • Changes in travel behavior
attitudinal panel survey design
Attitudinal Panel Survey Design

I-394 MnPASS

Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

Spring 2006

Fall 2004

Summer 2005

Fall 2005

overall attitudes
Overall attitudes

What do you think of allowing single drivers to use the carpool lanes by paying a toll?

travel behavior usual travel mode
Travel Behavior:Usual Travel Mode

Now consider all trips you made in both directions. On how many of those trips did you…

I-394 Panelists

I-35W Panelists

atis evaluation

ATIS Evaluation

Claremont Graduate School

slide20
ATIS

School of Information Systems and Technology

  • Provides an assortment of traffic information services
  • Provide route-guidance and destination information
  • Provides information for transit planning (mta.net, metrotransit.org)
research questions
Research Questions

School of Information Systems and Technology

What are citizens’ assessment of government-led online transit planning (ATIS) services?

  • To what extent is this assessment comprised of satisfaction, frustration, confidence and pleasantness of the online experience?
  • To what extent does this assessment vary as a function of system’s perceived utility, reliability, efficiency, customization and flexibility?
  • How well does an evaluation-metric explain satisfaction with e-service?
survey and focus groups

School of Information Systems and Technology

Survey and Focus Groups
  • Online transit planning websites
    • Los Angeles MTA (www.mta.net)
    • Minneapolis / St. Paul Metro Area (www.metrotransit.org)
  • Online survey
    • Overall response (n=401)
    • LA: n=155
    • MN: n=246
  • Focus groups
    • Discussions with MN and LA users (n=30)
    • LA: n=8
    • MN: n=22
online survey

School of Information Systems and Technology

Online Survey
  • Designed to collect reactions after respondents used the websites
  • Reactions were gathered based on scenarios that were presented to respondents
    • Extended trip duration, beginning at A, going to B, then going to C.
la responses

School of Information Systems and Technology

LA Responses

Los Angeles (n = 155)

  • Profile
    • Age group of 18-44 years (57.4%)
    • With a Bachelors degree (70%)
    • Employed (FT or PT, 69%)
    • White / Caucasian (72.3%)
    • Male or Female (55% to 45%)
    • Household income < 75000
    • Has access to vehicle (71%)
  • Matured user of computers (6-15 years – 57.5%)
  • Matured user of the Internet (6-10 years – 57%)
  • Uses public transportation “Less than once a month”
  • Uses public transportation for
    • Recreation or Work (36%)
    • Eventuality – “Car needs repair or is in shop” (27%)
mn responses

School of Information Systems and Technology

MN Responses

Minneapolis Responses (n = 246)

  • Profile
    • Age group of 18-44 years (70%)
    • With a Bachelors degree (71.1%)
    • Employed (FT or PT, 64%)
    • White / Caucasian (85%)
    • Female (58% to 38%)
    • Household income < 75000 (70%)
    • Has access to vehicle (42.7%)
  • Matured user of computers (6-15 years – 78%)
  • Matured user of the Internet (6-10 years – 60%)
  • 48% use public transportation “5 or more times a week”
  • 44% planned their trip “At least Once a Week”
  • Uses public transportation for
    • Work or school (64%)
focus group findings

School of Information Systems and Technology

Focus Group Findings
  • General Usability
    • Good way to plan trips
    • LA users thought that the MTA website is unable to plan complex trips
    • MN users commented on the inability to plan suburban trips
focus group findings1

School of Information Systems and Technology

Focus Group Findings
  • Emotional Dimensions
    • MN users were extremely satisfied on “impromptu” usage of the website
    • MN users felt an immediate sense of confidence in using the website
    • LA users noted the lack of integrated information services in case of multi-modal trips
    • In both cases, “matured” users felt that specific bus stops, which they knew, did not exist on the website
focus group findings2

School of Information Systems and Technology

Focus Group Findings
  • Suggested Improvements
    • Need for providing dynamic information
      • Based on real-time changes in stops or other facilities such as shelters
    • LA users felt that more visual information needs to be provided
    • MN users felt there is a need for better geographical information
      • They currently use other options such as Yahoo! Maps, Mapquest or Google Earth
focus group findings3

School of Information Systems and Technology

Focus Group Findings
  • Likely Use of e-Services
    • E-Gov ATIS service options were considered better than other services such as public libraries
    • Customization in terms of storing trips for future planning of the trips
directions and implications

School of Information Systems and Technology

Directions and Implications
  • Considering Transit Planning as E-Gov
    • Focus on end-to-end service, especially by regular users
    • Understand and attend to frustration elements
    • Think about Mapquest (and Expedia) as setting the standard for online trip planning
    • Consider broader away of search/response options, across modes.
carsharing

Carsharing

James Andrew

carsharing fits research interest
Carsharing Fits Research Interest
  • Application of technology
  • Creates opportunity to bring transportation benefits to “non-traditional” populations
  • New innovation that raises as many policy questions as technological questions
what carsharing is not
What Carsharing Is NOT
  • Car Pooling
  • Ridesharing
  • Slugging
  • Informal
  • Communism
what carsharing is
What Carsharing IS
  • One membership organization
  • Several paying members
  • One or more cars located in a convenient location
  • Members pay per use of car
carsharing1
Carsharing
  • Research in conjunction with hOurCar
  • Carsharing in other locations
  • Market for car sharing in TCMA
  • Develop a model that extends carsharing to “transportation disadvantaged”
    • “time-banking”
    • JARC
carsharing2
Carsharing

Time-banking model

  • Car sharing currently appeals to middle income
  • As car sharing shifts private auto costs from fixed to variable, it presents a lower cost opportunity for private auto use
  • Fixed costs of carsharing still higher than transit, walking or bicycling
  • CSO’s cannot afford to unilaterally drop these
carsharing3
Carsharing
  • Time Banking model addresses the issue by creating opportunities for partnerships, cross-subsidies and limiting subsidized use
  • Partner
    • Transit agency, which increases / preserves ridership
    • 8 – 10 transit rides = one hour carsharing use
carsharing4
Carsharing
  • Cross-subsidization
    • Location in mixed income neighborhoods
    • Increased CS visibility
    • Link with transit creates additional incentive for higher income residents to join
carsharing5
Carsharing
  • Application of Time-banking to Twin Cities Neighborhoods
  • Analyzed:
    • Population
    • Poverty rate (proxy for mixed income)
    • Work location (proxy for transit potential)
    • Current transit share in mode split
task 2 carsharing
Task 2: Carsharing
  • Application of Time-banking to Twin Cities Neighborhoods
  • Most likely areas:
    • Uptown
    • Marcy-Holmes
    • Loring Park
    • University of Minnesota
task 2 carsharing1
Task 2: Carsharing
  • Additional work needed:
    • Financial questions:
      • How much subsidy per user required?
      • How much subsidy covered by transit agency?
      • How much subsidy covered by cross-subsidy?
      • What is optimal mix of regular and low-income users? Of regular and subsidized uses?
    • How to market?
    • Develop on-the-ground demonstration
community based transit

Community-Based Transit

Gary Barnes, Heather Dolphin

survey background
Survey background
  • Earlier research identified two beliefs that were widely held but not formally documented as far as we could tell
    • Large numbers of privately held vehicles
    • Many vehicles used very little
  • The notion that the system is inefficient or needs to be better “coordinated” relies to some extent on these two beliefs
  • ITS: could technology help coordination?
survey objectives
Survey objectives
  • Measure of how widespread specialized transportation is and who is involved
  • Better understanding of two key questions
    • Vehicle inventory
    • Vehicle usage (or lack thereof)
  • Organizational models for specialized transportation provision
methodology summary
Methodology summary
  • Identify all organizations that might have an interest in transportation
  • Screened with large mailing of short pre-survey, then full survey to some pre-survey respondents
  • Divided respondents into providers, arrangers, those that do both, and those that are not involved
two surveys
Two surveys
  • Pre-survey
    • Objectives: learn about the number and types of organizations involved in transportation, identify potential subjects for full survey
    • Sent out 5683, got back 1517
  • Full Survey
    • Objectives: More detail about transportation activities, learn how to develop more focused future surveys
    • Sent out 958, got back 454
types of organizations
Types of organizations
  • We discovered that answers varied greatly by organization type
  • We divided organizations into five types based on their answers to an open-ended question about their mission:
    • School districts (7.5% of total)
    • Transit and paratransit agencies (4.5%)
    • General social service (41%)
    • Housing services/assisted living (30%)
    • Churches and worship-based (17%)
transportation involvement

School

Transit

Social

Housing

Church

Provide

47%

70%

12%

20%

11%

Arrange

24%

6%

26%

25%

36%

Both

28%

24%

22%

28%

4%

Not involved

0%

0%

40%

27%

49%

Transportation involvement
total number of vehicles

1

2 to 5

6 to 10

11 to 20

> 20

Unknown

Church

5

3

4

1

2

Housing

29

22

6

2

4

17

School

4

1

11

4

1

Social

16

31

13

13

13

11

Transit

5

12

3

9

6

3

(Entries show number of organizations in each category)

Total number of vehicles
passengers per week per vehicle

<3

3 to 10

10 to 50

50 to 100

>100

Unknown

Church

3

5

4

3

Housing

12

24

16

1

2

25

School

1

7

4

6

3

Social

11

19

31

14

3

19

Transit

3

6

8

3

13

5

(Entries show number of organizations in each category)

Passengers per week per vehicle
opinions on resource adequacy

Not enough vehicles

Just enough vehicles

More than enough vehicles

Enough vehicles, not enough money

Church

8%

58%

25%

8%

Housing

25%

39%

22%

14%

School

19%

67%

5%

10%

Social

27%

45%

9%

21%

Transit

18%

41%

12%

32%

Opinions on resource adequacy
interest in collaboration providers vs arrangers

Not interested

Somewhat interested

Very interested

Aware of restrictions

Count

Church

50 / 29%

33 / 63%

17 / 8%

42 / 0%

12 / 24

Housing

43 / 18%

38 / 53%

12 / 30%

33 / 22%

69 / 80

School

57 / 40%

24 / 47%

19 / 13%

67 / 25%

21 / 15

Social

22 / 12%

41 / 39%

36 / 49%

47 / 34%

85 / 106

Transit

15 / 36%

35 / 18%

41 / 45%

24 / 58%

34 / 11

Interest in collaboration – providers vs. arrangers
key conclusions
Key conclusions
  • There are likely more than 3000 organizations in Minnesota providing transportation at least occasionally
    • The vast majority of these are social service and housing agencies outside of the specialized transportation system
    • A large fraction of organizations both provide and arrange transportation depending on circumstances
    • Many organizational models for providing and arranging
  • Evidence on whether vehicles are underused is mixed, need to know more about vehicle purpose
  • Some interest in collaboration, but barriers exist
most cited types of barriers
Most cited types of barriers
  • Insurance restrictions on who can drive vehicle or who can be transported
  • Legal constraints on how organization can operate vehicles (especially schools, transit agencies)
  • Desire to avoid being subjected to new/additional regulatory structures
legislative approaches
Legislative Approaches
  • Broad mandate for coordination of services
    • Comprehensive plans
    • Technical assistance
  • Coordination Council
    • Inter-agency communication
    • Some unification of standards
  • Consolidation of activities
    • Unified standards and procedures
    • Centralized funding disbursement
    • Centralized decision-making authority
minnesota
MINNESOTA
  • Generalized statutory provisions
    • promote, support and facilitate coordination of those services with other special services and with regular transportation
  • Transportation Coordination Advisory Council?
  • Current legislation creating “working group” for coordination of services for individuals with disabilities
questions

Questions?

Thank you!

ad