Uploaded on

Nathan Belz, of the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.

Nathan Belz, of the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Using Technology to Improve Transportation Operations 04.26.2012TRANSIT NETWORK EFFICIENCYAND TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE ZONES NATHAN P. BELZ, M.S., E.I. University of Vermont Transportation Research Center Burlington, VT 05405-1757 Email: nathan.belz@uvm.edu LISA AULTMAN-HALL, Ph.D. Email: lisa.aultman-hall@uvm.edu hall@uvm.edu TRANSPORTATION JIM SULLIVAN, M.S., P.E. RESEARCH CENTER 1 Email: jlsulliv@uvm.edu MOBILITY. SUSTAINABILITY. LIVABILITY.
  • 2. WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSIT IN RURAL STATES? (Spatial Constraints: Long Travel Distances & Low Densities)
  • 4. WHAT ARE THE SHORTFALLS OF PAST SPATIAL RESEARCH?(Zonal level analysis based on urban focus, assumptions of homogeneity within zones) 4
  • 5. Single Family Point Single Family Point Multi-Family Point Multi-Family Point Non-Residential Point Non-Residential Point1 2 3 = = Single Family Point Single Family Point Multi-Family Point Multi-Family Point Non-Residential Point Non-Residential Point 4 Demand Potential (DP) 5 Equivalent DP 5
  • 6. Criteria to be a Transit-Supportive Zone 1. Centroid must be a local density maximum 2. Σ EDP must be greater than or equal to transit viability threshold 3. Assumes transit riders are willing to walk one-half mile A A 1% of land B 43% of trips (86% intercity) 21% of VMT Burlington, VT & Surrounding B Montpelier, VT 6
  • 7. Evaluation of Existing Statewide Rural Transit NetworkUse Demand Potential and Existing Fixed-Route Transit to: 1. Generate Energy-Efficient Transit Network 2. Generate Equitable Transit Networks • Connectivity “Fairness” • Access to Critical Destinations 4. Compare using Network-Overlap Ratio 7
  • 8. Fixed-Route Transit in Vermont  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 8
  • 9. Energy-Efficient Network 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 9
  • 10. Energy-Efficient Network 153 miles less than the existing merged network Reaches 13 fewer towns than the existing network Accessible to 75% of Vermonters 10
  • 11. Equitable Networks Connectivity “Fairness” 70 miles more than the existing merged network Reaches 6 more towns than the existing network Accessible to 79% of Vermonters 11
  • 12. Equitable Networks“Access to Critical Locations”Ensure access to criticallocations for ALL Vermonters • Seniors with restricted driving • Non-driving adults • School-age children • ¼ mile access distanceCritical locations in the contextof equity • Health care / hospital • Grocery 12
  • 13. Network-Overlap RatioEvaluate existing merged and idealized networks of fixed-route transit in Vermont Formulation  N-O Ratio = Ln,m / Lm 0 1 networks do not share any networks coincide links in common. perfectly % Vermont Total Miles Towns Reached % Population PopulationTransit Network of Network Reached Reached Per Mile N-O (of 255) (of 609,000 in 2000) of NetworkExisting 1,318 44 77 358 --Energy-Efficient 1,153 39 75 395 0.58Connectivity- 1,388 46 79 349 0.58FairnessAccess to Critical 2,039 63 90 269 0.64Locations 13
  • 14. AGENCY Setting Service Area Network Overlap Network Overlap Type (EE to Existing) (ACL to Existing)Advance Transit (AT) Rural Town 0.09 0.14Connecticut River Transit (CRT) Rural Valley Region 0.56 0.63Deerfield Valley Transit Association (DVTA) Rural Valley Region 0.03 0.24Rural Community Transportation (RCT) Rural Towns (2) 0.27 0.40Stagecoach Transportation Services (STSI) Rural Valley Region 0.051 0.451Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Urban County 0.84 0.84Green Mountain Community Network (GMCN) Urban Town 0.31 0.31Green Mountain Transit Agency (GMTA) Urban Mountain Region 0.57 0.57Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD) Urban Valley Region 0.75 0.75Addison County Transit Resources (ACTR) Urban County 0.71 0.71Town of Brattleboro Bus Line Urban Town 0.73 0.73ENTIRE NETWORKS 0.58 0.64
  • 15. Cambridge Johnson Hinesburg Model transit networks • Spatially-optimal Northfield • Equitable-fairness • Equitable-access Able to identify Poultney • Over-served areas • Under-served areas • Shortest-path discrepancies Rockingham Putney 15
  • 16. 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 toolTSZs and Potential Transit Demand • Relatively large proportion of substitutable intercity trips • Not just in the one Vermont MPOEvaluation 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