Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Transportation Crossroads:  Influence of Urban Area Form and  Demographic Composition on Mass Transit   Parfait Gasana Uni...
Research Question  <ul><li>How do urban area form and demographic composition affect mass transit use  (particularly motor...
Background and Research Context <ul><li>Economic Restructuring: Shift from Manufacturing to  </li></ul><ul><li>Services </...
Research Methods <ul><li>Unit of Analysis: Urbanized Area (UZAs) (No. = 360) </li></ul><ul><li>y i  {per capita trips, mil...
Demographic Variables (Source: U.S. Census) Age Young Age (0-25)  0.37 Working Age (26-64)  0.51 Old Age (65 – up)  0.13 H...
Descriptive Statistics
Population Trends
Density Trends
OLS Regression Per Capita Transit Trips 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 |  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  No...
Median Regression Per Capita Transit Trips 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 |  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  Coef.  Coef. ...
Significant Levels * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Panel Regression Mass Transit Ridership, 2000-2007 |  Random Effects  |  Per Capita Trips  Per Capita Miles  No.  |   2606...
 
Findings <ul><li>Mass Transit does not exist in a vacuum but responds to External Factors </li></ul><ul><li>Ridership corr...
Policy Implications   <ul><li>Transportation Planners collaborate with Urban Planners, Local Businesses, and Public Offici...
Acknowledgments <ul><li>UNC-CH: Jim Johnson, Saraswata Chaudhuri, Daniel Rodriguez, Sociology Honors Seminar;  </li></ul><...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Influence of Demographics and Urban Form on Mass Transit Use

519 views

Published on

thesis illustrates transportation patterns in the wake of economic restructuring (shift to services) and decentralization of metropolitan areas

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Influence of Demographics and Urban Form on Mass Transit Use

  1. 1. Transportation Crossroads: Influence of Urban Area Form and Demographic Composition on Mass Transit Parfait Gasana University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Southern Sociological Society Meeting April 1-4, 2009 New Orleans, LA Images of Jefferson City, MO bus (http://www.jeffcitymo.org); Houston rail system (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/); New York subway (http://www.inhabitat.com)
  2. 2. Research Question <ul><li>How do urban area form and demographic composition affect mass transit use (particularly motor bus, light/heavy rail systems) ? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Background and Research Context <ul><li>Economic Restructuring: Shift from Manufacturing to </li></ul><ul><li>Services </li></ul><ul><li>Urban Policy: Highways, Housing, Land-Use Zones </li></ul><ul><li>Demographics: Aging, Single Households, Minorities, </li></ul><ul><li>Low-Skilled vs. Professional Workers </li></ul><ul><li>Outcomes: Automobile Reliance, Transit Scarcity, and </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure, Environment, Energy, & Equity Issues </li></ul>
  4. 4. Research Methods <ul><li>Unit of Analysis: Urbanized Area (UZAs) (No. = 360) </li></ul><ul><li>y i {per capita trips, miles} = β 0 + β 1i {demographic variables} + β 2i {urban characteristics} + </li></ul><ul><li>β 3i {dollar amts.} + µ i </li></ul><ul><li>Dep. Vars. = {per capita trips, miles} </li></ul><ul><li>(from National Transit Database, 2000-2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Indep. Vars. = {demographic variables, urban area </li></ul><ul><li>characteristics, dollar amounts} </li></ul><ul><li>(from U.S. Census, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Estimation Models: OLS, Median Regression, and Panel </li></ul><ul><li>Regression (FE & RE) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Demographic Variables (Source: U.S. Census) Age Young Age (0-25) 0.37 Working Age (26-64) 0.51 Old Age (65 – up) 0.13 Household Size One 0.27 Two or Three 0.49 Four or more 0.24 Commute Times Low (0-14 min.) 0.39 Middle (15-29 min.) 0.13 High (30-44min) 0.08 Really High (45-90 min.) 0.02 Race White 0.73 Non-white 0.27 Education No H.S. Educ 0.18 H.S. Educ. 0.28 Some College 0.29 BA Educ. 0.16 Prof. Educ. 0.09 Region Northeast 0.14 South 0.23 West 0.25 Midwest 0.39 Poverty Pct. 0.13 Occupation White-Collared 0.33 Service Sales 0.43 Blue-Collared 0.23 Car Ownership 0.63 Urban Area Characteristics Urban Area Characteristics Population Central Place Density City Age UA Population / State Road Sources U.S. Census U.S. Census MSN Encarta FHWA, USDOT Dollar Figures Log of Home Value Log of Govt. Fund Log of Gas Prices U.S. Census National Transit Database EIA, Dept. of Energy
  6. 6. Descriptive Statistics
  7. 7. Population Trends
  8. 8. Density Trends
  9. 9. OLS Regression Per Capita Transit Trips 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 | Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. No. | 336 350 355 365 367 370 Adj. R-sq | 0.469 0.470 0.479 0.495 0.405 0.464 ------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Old Age | 92.72 93.95 86.08 112.7* -1.106 141.0** Prof Educ Lvl | 170.5* 146.8* 164.0** 164.9** 279.9*** 157.1** Household 1 | 158.4* 158.5* 156.5* 148.9* -166.3 176.0** Household 4+ | 121.6 126.4* 124.3* 119.9* -88.50 148.0** Blue-Collar Occup. | 123.0* 88.64 117.4* 112.6* 139.0 111.6* Low Commute | -28.89 -29.32 -29.86 -32.49* 64.35** -30.75* Northeast | -10.61* -8.915* -9.016* -8.761* -2.108 -6.813* UA Population | 0.910 1.290 1.820* 2.317** -0.129 -0.472 Cntrl Pl. Dens. | 4.835*** 4.000*** 3.653*** 3.074*** 1.823 1.791* Log Govt. Fund | -0.809 -0.483 -0.608 -0.845 6.469*** 1.140 Log Gas Prices | 77.15 47.43 58.81* 92.00* 61.76 136.8*** UA Pop. /State Rd. | 0.119*** 0.122*** 0.130*** 0.139*** 0.127*** 0.0423*** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Omitted category: working age (25-65), h.s. education level, households of 2 and 3, white-collared occup., medium commute (15-44min.), midwest * - significant at 0.05 level ** - significant at 0.01 level
  10. 10. Median Regression Per Capita Transit Trips 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 | Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. No. | 336 350 355 365 367 370 Pseudo R-sq. | 0.2797 0.2785 0.2875 0.2779 0.2769 0.2779 ------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Old Age | 35.85 33.57*** 32.58 65.13* 60.55 90.33*** Pct. Poverty | 32.61 22.75*** 38.40** 31.81 21.03 8.080 Car Ownership | -14.95 -25.96*** -24.38*** -31.77* -16.58 -27.91* Prof Educ Lvl | 86.04** 125.1*** 113.9*** 110.9*** 160.0** 75.39** Household 1 | 48.43 19.25 53.74** 53.79 21.26 56.35* Blue-Collared | 18.66 23.06** 32.66* 10.06 34.43 -0.704 Low Commute | -13.12 -14.83*** -14.47*** -17.96* 7.609 -20.79** Northeast | -5.234* -4.256*** -5.056*** -5.258** -6.717* -2.458 West | -0.961 -0.987*** -1.029** -1.719* -1.711 -0.239 Population | 2.911*** 3.344*** 3.426*** 3.818*** 1.735* 4.501*** Cntrl Pl. Dens | 1.882*** 1.760*** 1.823*** 1.435*** 1.799* 1.111*** Log Home Value | -3.570 -5.530*** -5.296** -2.889 2.748 -2.685 Log Govt. Fund | 0.686 0.732*** 0.620** 0.352 2.355*** 0.670* Log Gas Price | 57.13** 31.88*** 43.10*** 61.83** 63.39 65.09*** UA Pop / State Rd. | 0.153*** 0.152*** 0.160*** 0.167*** 0.139*** 0.0429*** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Omitted category: working age (25-65), h.s. education level, households of 2 and 3, white-collared occup., medium commute (15-44min.), midwest * - significant at 0.05 level ** - significant at 0.01 level
  11. 11. Significant Levels * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
  12. 12. Panel Regression Mass Transit Ridership, 2000-2007 | Random Effects | Per Capita Trips Per Capita Miles No. | 2606 2606 -------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Old Age | 96.47* 196.5 Car Ownership | -55.96** -150.6 Prof Educ Level | 184.8*** 273.1 Household 1 | 39.57 1051.6** Household 4+ | 69.70 886.7** Northeast | -7.357* -11.30 UA Population | 2.071** 8.435 Cntrl Pl. Dens | 2.557*** 6.268 Log Govt. Fund | 1.671*** 7.011*** Log Gas Prices | 3.843*** 31.40*** City Age | -0.00113 -0.249* Urban Pop/ State Rd. | 0.0267*** 0.156** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Omitted category: working age (25-65), h.s. education level, households of 2 and 3, white-collared occup., medium commute (15-44min.), midwest * - significant at 0.05 level ** - significant at 0.01 level
  13. 14. Findings <ul><li>Mass Transit does not exist in a vacuum but responds to External Factors </li></ul><ul><li>Ridership correlates to Urban Area Characteristics and Demographic Composition </li></ul><ul><li>Key Predictors: HH Size, Car Ownership, Educ. Level, Commute Times, Pop., Density, Govt. Funds, Gas Prices, Public Road Miles </li></ul>
  14. 15. Policy Implications <ul><li>Transportation Planners collaborate with Urban Planners, Local Businesses, and Public Officials </li></ul><ul><li>Install and revitalize transit systems by key variables (pop., density, region) </li></ul><ul><li>Incentivize specific groups (i.e. employment subsidies, tax rebates) </li></ul>
  15. 16. Acknowledgments <ul><li>UNC-CH: Jim Johnson, Saraswata Chaudhuri, Daniel Rodriguez, Sociology Honors Seminar; </li></ul><ul><li>Urban Institute: Kim Rueben, Brett Theodos, Lynette Rawlings </li></ul><ul><li>Ford Foundation, UNC-CH Office of Undergraduate Research, Dept. of City and Regional Planning </li></ul>

×