Developing its to serve diverse populations
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 62

Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 50 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations

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 evaluation

I-394 MnPASS Attitudinal Evaluation


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


Panel survey

Panel Survey


Trips by account zip code

Trips by Account Zip Code


Overall attitudes

Overall attitudes

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


Fall 05 satisfaction mnpass elements

Fall 05 Satisfaction MnPASS Elements


Spring 06 satisfaction mnpass elements

Spring 06 Satisfaction MnPASS Elements


Equity mnpass acceptance good idea by income

Equity: MnPASS Acceptance “Good Idea” by Income


Equity mnpass acceptance good idea by usual mode

Equity: MnPASS Acceptance “Good Idea” by Usual Mode

Transit:49%

SOV: 65%

HOV: 60%


Technology satisfaction with operational elements fall 05

Technology:Satisfaction with Operational Elements- Fall 05


Technology satisfaction with operational elements spring 06

Technology:Satisfaction with Operational Elements- Spring 06


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


Developing its to serve diverse populations

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


Developing its to serve diverse populations

Uptown Area (thermals)


Developing its to serve diverse populations

Marcy-Holmes Area (thermals)


Developing its to serve diverse populations

Loring Park Area (thermals)


Developing its to serve diverse populations

University of MN Area (thermals)


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!


  • Login