CH2M Innovation fund project (2014) KD

Innovation Fund Research
Application of Accessibility Planning
to a North American City
Prepared for
[Draft] Internal Document
30 January 2014
Building 304 Bridgewater Place 2nd Floor Suite
Warrington, WA3 6XG
+44 (0) 1925 867 500
+44 (0) 1925 867 600

APPLICATION OF ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING TO A NORTH AMERICAN CITY: 1/27/2014APPLICATION OF ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING TO A NORTH AMERICAN CITY:
04/05/2017 III
Contents
Section Page
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Aims and Objectives......................................................................................................................... 1
Defining connectivity ....................................................................................................................... 1
Report structure............................................................................................................................... 1
Connectivity Planning in the UK..........................................................................................................1
History of Accessibility Planning ...................................................................................................... 1
Accession.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Example applications outside the UK..................................................................................................3
City of Ottawa..................................................................................................................... 3
North America..................................................................................................................... 3
European research.............................................................................................................. 4
Introducing Solaris (UK) and other connectivity tools..........................................................................4
Solaris IT infrastructure and setup................................................................................................... 5
Set Up ............................................................................................................................... 5
Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 5
Solaris as a connectivity tool............................................................................................................ 6
Accession.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Adapting Solaris to other geographical areas ......................................................................................7
General Transit Feed Specification.................................................................................................. 7
Road data......................................................................................................................................... 8
Addresses, Destinations and demographic data ............................................................................. 8
Adapting Accession to other geographical areas .................................................................................8
Case Study: Applying Solaris to the City of Ottawa..............................................................................8
The Ottawa Transit Network ..............................................................................................................8
Ottawa connectivity analysis 2013 ................................................................................................10
Connectivity to Colleges / Universities.............................................................................11
Connectivity to High Schools ............................................................................................11
Connectivity to Medical Clinics.........................................................................................13
Connectivity to Shopping Centres ....................................................................................14
Connectivity to Supermarkets ..........................................................................................15
Connectivity to Hospitals..................................................................................................16
Ottawa connectivity analysis 2018 ................................................................................................21
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................32
Recommendations...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Section Page
APPLICATION OF ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING TO A NORTH AMERICAN CITY: 1/27/2014 IV
Tables
1 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest College / University ................................................10
2 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest High School in the weekday morning peak............10
3 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Medical Clinic weekday daytime............................12
4 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Shopping Centre weekday daytime .......................13
5 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Supermarket weekday daytime .............................14
6 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest General Hospital weekday periods ........................15
7 Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest General Hospital weekend periods........................16
8 Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekday 2013.........................................21
9 Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekend 2013 ........................................22
10 Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekday 2018.........................................22
11 Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekend 2018 ........................................22
12 Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekday 2013 to 2018 ...........................22
13 Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekend 2013 to 2018...........................23
Figures
1 Travel time isochrones (circa) 1900 Manchester, UK.......................................................................2
2 Solaris generated transit routes, City of Manchester, UK................................................................4
3 Solaris time period set up (Excel).....................................................................................................5
4 Solaris parameter set up (Excel).......................................................................................................5
5 Solaris parameter set up (Excel).......................................................................................................5
6 Solaris generated travel time isochrones City Centre Leeds, UK .....................................................6
7 Transit Network (extent) 2013 Ottawa ............................................................................................8
8 Transit Network (detail) 2013 Ottawa..............................................................................................9
9 City of Ottawa Destinations .............................................................................................................9
10 Connectivity to nearest College / University in the weekday morning peak.................................11
11 Connectivity to nearest College / University in the weekday daytime..........................................11
12 Connectivity to nearest High School in the weekday morning peak..............................................12
13 Connectivity to nearest Medical Clinic weekday daytime .............................................................13
14 Connectivity to nearest Shopping Centre weekday daytime.........................................................14
15 Connectivity to nearest Supermarket weekday daytime...............................................................15
16 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital weekday morning peak................................................16
17 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital weekday daytime.........................................................17
18 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital weekday afternoon peak.............................................17
19 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital weekday evening .........................................................18
20 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Saturday daytime.........................................................18
21 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Saturday evening .........................................................19
22 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Sunday daytime ...........................................................19
23 Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Sunday evening............................................................20
24 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday morning peak.......................................24
25 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday daytime................................................25
26 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday evening peak........................................26
27 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday evening peak........................................27
28 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the Saturday daytime................................................28
29 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the Saturday evening ................................................29
30 Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the Sunday daytime ..................................................30

CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Section Page
APPLICATION OF ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING TO A NORTH AMERICAN CITY: 1/27/2014 V

APPLICATION OF ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING TO A NORTH AMERICAN CITY: 1/27/2014 1
Application of Accessibility Planning to a North
American City
Introduction
In May 2013 a successful application was made for TBG Innovation for research funding. The aim of the
research being to test the application of bespoke transit connectivity software (Solaris), which has been
developed for UK clients, to an example area in North America. Note, from this point forward in the report
transit connectivity is referred to as ‘connectivity’.
Aims and Objectives
The aim of the research is to promote Solaris as a worldwide tool in Transportation Planning, highlighting its
application and uses.
The objective of this research is to explore whether Solaris could be adapted for areas outside the UK, and, if
successful, how it could be applied. Both elements are linked to the availability of data, primarily transit
scheduling, where people live and where they would like to travel to.
Defining connectivity
Connectivity, at a high level, is defined as the measurement of connecting people to a place via transit services
(bus, train, metro). Measurement being units of actual travel time or opportunity, this is explored in more
detail later in this report. To note, in the UK this form of measurement is termed ‘Accessibility Planning’,
however, in other parts of the world it is recognised that accessibility planning refers to the planning of transit
services for those with disabilities.
In the United Kingdom research (by the Social Exclusion Unit, and discussed later in this report) has shown
there is a key link between reducing inequality in our society through the provision of transit services and the
location of employment and services. The work undertaken by the Unit had led to the adoption of connectivity
planning in UK policy, which aims to promote social inclusion by helping people from disadvantaged groups
or areas access jobs and essential services (Department for Transport, UK, 2005).
Report structure
The following report details the research completed, which includes:
A. An introduction to the connectivity Planning in the UK;
B. Examples of application outside of the UK;
C. Introducing Solaris and other tools (Accession);
D. Adapting Solaris to a geographical areas outside of the UK;
E. Case Study: Applying Solaris to the City of Ottawa; and
F. Comparison of Solaris to other tools (Accession).
The report addresses, in turn, each of the bullet points above.
Connectivity Planning in the UK
History of Accessibility Planning
Connectivity analysis is not a recent concept to the Transport Planner, as maps recently on display at the
John Ryland Library (University of Manchester) demonstrated. One such map, see Figure 1, for example
displayed an early example of one such analysis, drawn circa 1900, the map shows a hand drawn travel time
isochrones radiating from the City Centre of Manchester.

APPLICATION OF ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING TO A NORTH AMERICAN CITY
FIGURE 1
Travel time isochrones (circa) 1900 Manchester, UK
However, only in the last decade has it re-emerged as an important decision making tool in UK policy
that assists in transit network design through encouraging improved the links between transport, people
and destinations. The driver behind recent advancements was the 2003 report by the Social Exclusion
Unit (SEU) ‘Making the Connections’; the SEU, set up in 1997 by the Prime Minister, was an intra-
governmental group working across the traditional Central Government departments to tackle social
exclusion.
The reports key finding was that to reduce inequality in our society then the planning and provision of
transit services should be done in conjunction with the planning of jobs and locations of key services
(including health, education and fresh food). The work done by the Unit led to the adoption of
accessibility planning in UK policy, this being through the Local Transport Plan, where each Local
Authority in England plan strategically for transport in their area. To enable Local Authorities to meet
their obligations in the Local Transport Plan, the Department for Transport commissioned the
development of Accession software and this was released in 2004.
History of Connectivity at Halcrow and now CH%M Hill
Connectivity planning and analysis is considered a core strength of the Transport Planning team, we
numerous research papers produced for journals and conference.
One of the earliest known papers was by completed by Dix M, Cross S and Read P in 1998, examining
accessibility as part of parking standards in High Wycombe, presenting work at conference in 1998
(Association of European Transport), see http://abstracts.aetransport.org/paper/index/id/722/confid/4.
More examples of our research and conference papers include Nettleton, M., Pass, D. J., Walters, G. W.
and White, R. C. 2007. Public Transport Accessibility Map of access to General Practioners Surgeries in
Longbridge. Journal of Maps, v2007: 64–75. doi:10.4113/jom.2007.70.
Keith Drew, Halcrow Group Ltd and Martin Rowe 2009, Worcestershire County Council, City of
Worcester Area Accessibility Audit: An Example of Applying GIS Techniques to Explore Accessibility Using
Traditional Transport Modelling Perceptions (Transport Practioners Meeting, 2011, University of
Reading)
Keith Drew, Halcrow Group Ltd and Martin Rowe 2009, Worcestershire County Council (2010), Applying
accessibility measures to assess a transport intervention strategy: A Case Study of Bromsgrove, Journal
of Maps v2010
<http://www.halcrow.com/Documents/transport_planning/Halcrow_analyse_accessibility_impacts_of
_passenger_transport_interventions.pdf>

Keith Drew, Andrew Walmsley, Halcrow Group Ltd, 2011, Data, data, data: Unlocking the potential of open
data in transport planning: focus on innovative PT network analysis and accessibility planning’ (Transport
Practioners Meeting, 2011, Liverpool John Moores University)
Accession
Accession is described by its developers as the ‘first software package to fully address all aspects of travel
time and cost mapping using digital road networks and public transport timetable data” (Citilabs, 2009).
Accession was developed by MVA consultants in preparation on LTP2 completion (developed according to
UK Department for Transport’s specifications) and is now owned and distributed by Citilabs. More detail on
Accession is provided later in this report.
Example applications outside the UK
City of Ottawa
The City of Ottawa are the first municipal authority in North America to use Accession, and from desktop
research the only authority in North America to undertake UK style connectivity analysis. Their work is in its
infancy and Accession was bought in order to assess impacts of transit service changes up to 2018, which
includes a new light rail line (Confederation line). Following discussions within the authority, as part of this
research we have partnered with them to produce a case study to compare the transit network of 2013 to
2018. More details can be found in the case study later in this report.
North America
An academic search of connectivity projects over the last ten-fifteen years, set in North America, shows a
number of projects mirroring projects undertaken in the UK; in terms of being able to access employment,
schools and leisure facilities by modes of transport and in most of these studies there was a deep emphasis
on the need of equity of service/facility distribution.
Where the research has examined public transport accessibility it has been based on transport assessment
zones (TAZs), which are outputs from transport planning models. For other modes of accessibility (car and
walk) the research studies have been based on C++ programming or other GIS software (ArcView).
Research by Badoe and Miller, 2000, give the overarching global accessibility issue faced that:
“Over the last two decades there has been increased concern in metropolitan regions with the decline in air
quality, increased congestion in both urban and suburban areas, and negative impacts to the natural
environment resulting from last development patterns overwhelmingly favourable to the automobile”.
Handy, 2002, states that “the concept of accessibility has been coined in the transportation planning field
for almost 40 years. Improving accessibility is a common element in the goals section in almost all
transportation plans in the US”.
Of the research conducted for this study, the closest match of a UK style accessibility audit was undertaken
by El-Genidy and Levinson (2006) which looked at access to employment and how opportunity changes over
time (1990 to 2000) in the Minneapolis City area (incorporating the Twin City region). The study uses
common accessibility indicators such as gravity-based measures, as developed by Hansen, 1959, together
with cumulative measures.
Sanchez, 1999, also discusses the role of public transport accessibility to combat the issue of employment
in the cities of Portland, OR, and Atlanta, GA. Sanchez argues that little research has been carried out on
public transport access and instead focus only on the automobile and people with jobs and as such ignore
those who are unemployed and by default have no car.
Research by Talen, 2001, discusses the link between school location, access and opportunity, and the
importance of school quality with that of social, political and economic life. The author discusses the massive
geographical changes in US schools over the last several decades in terms of locations and that the
geographical implications of consolidation have been ignored. The author adds (pg. 465) that in “terms of
literature on access, scant research is devoted to school locations” and that the study of school accessibility
is important for three reasons:

• the basic question of fairness;
• social equity; and;
• student performance.
Nicholls, 2001, discusses the ever increasing use of GIS of government agencies to enhance the planning
and management of facilities; and in particularly for access to leisure supports the use of GIS to provide
leisure service agencies with opportunities to enhance the planning and management of facilities.
However the author highlights that little research of spatial nature of access and equity has been
undertaken with GIS and proposes a method to improve simple methods of using a geometric
perspectives (straight-line distances).
European research
The research exercise has also shown a number of recent pieces of research undertaken in Europe; with
Vandenbulckle, Steenberghen and Thomas, 2008, discuss the use of accessibility as a tool of land use and
transport planning in Belgium; Lopez, Sanchez and Vicente, 2006, using GIS based accessibility indicators
in Madrid; and Vega and Reynolds-Feighan, 2009, undertaking an accessibility based project in Dublin.
Halden (2005) states that in Europe accessibility is measured at one of three main geographical levels:
• Local accessibility to facilities in the neighbourhood;
• Regional accessibility often for cities and their hinterlands; and
• Interregional accessibility to measure connectedness of a region or country.
Introducing Solaris (UK) and other connectivity tools
Solaris is a transit tool, developed by the author of this research, initially in 2011, and has been used
across the UK for project work. The tool is based upon Open Data (free of data license restrictions) with
the initial purpose to provide a cost-effective automated tool, which can quickly draw a transit networks
for any part of Great Britain. The key element of this being the incorporation of road / rail lines allowing
networks to be drawn to a detailed level.
An example is shown in Figure 2, showing bus routes through Manchester City Centre. Overall, the entire
bus network for Greater Manchester was created in little under half a day (computer time), whereas in
the past the process would have taken weeks to create.

FIGURE 2
Solaris generated transit routes, City of Manchester, UK
Solaris was developed based upon:
• National Public Transport Data Repository (NPTDR), which contains transit data for all of Great Britain, all
free and all available to use without restriction.
• OS Meridien2 (released under the OS OpenData™
initiative)
• UK Census data
Solaris IT infrastructure and setup
At the cornerstone of ‘Solaris’ is an Excel / GIS tool, based upon Visual Basic and MapBasic programming
scripts.
Set Up
The first stage is the generation of the base transit files (importing the transit network raw data), which at
a high level involves manipulating the NPTDR data into rows of Origin – Destination rows (PT node to PT
node), which is completed using a MapBasic program.
The second stage is then to generate for each unique origin-destination (stop to stop movement) the
quickest route between them. This is again done using a MapBasic program which includes a routing
algorithm, the network based upon OS Meridien2.
Analysis
Network analysis is set up using an Excel interface, where through the interface, routes can be quickly
switched ‘on’ / ‘off’, minimum frequency of service and time-periods set (a facility relevant in the UK with
many Transport Authorities juggling subsidies bus networks for efficiency savings). Intelligence is gathered
by weaving data in from a third open data source (zip code data matched to demographic data).
Solaris also has the capability to provide connectivity analysis, calculating door to door journey times, split
by elements, of walking to the bus stop; waiting for the bus; in-vehicle travelling time; any
interchange/interchange and egress. Set up again done using Excel interface. Through this interface, the
user is able to specify up to 18 time periods and over 500 destinations (see Figures 3 and 4).

FIGURE 3
Solaris time period set up (Excel)
Enter the time period of travel (24
hour)
Day of
Week
Interchange
?
Include
Rail?
Include
LRT?
Start End
700 900 Monday Yes No No
FIGURE 4
Solaris destination set up (Excel)
Name of
destination
Enter the coordinates for your destination Category of
destinationX Coordinate Y Coordinate
Destination1 385000 450000 Hospital
Destination2 390000 445000 School
In addition the set up screen allows the user to specify a number of calculation parameters, shown in
Figure 5.
FIGURE 5
Solaris parameter set up (Excel)
Parameters for calculations (travel time)
Maximum distance from origin to first stop (kilometres) 0.5
Maximum distance from last stop to destination (kilometres) 0.5
Inbound time (algorithm setting) (Min/Max/Average) Average
Walk time (to/from stop algorithm setting) (Min/Max/Average) Average
Walk time (weighting) (factor) 1
Maximum wait time (minutes) 5
Wait time (weighting) (factor) 1
Interchange distance (maximum allowed) 0.4
Interchange minimum time allowed (Minutes) 5
Interchange penalty (minutes) 0
Straight Line factor 1.2
Maximum interchange wait time (minutes) 15
Solaris as a connectivity tool
The accessibility-planning section of the tool has been developed to:
• Build a picture of travel times temporally by day;
• Allow users to specify perception weightings (to walk and wait time, plus interchange penalties);
• Restrict calculated access time to either direct or direct plus one interchange journeys only; and;
• Create, in GIS, direct or direct plus one interchange route networks, so that the user has information on how
access is possible (including frequency of service).
Temporal accessibility allows the creation of accessibility maps for one destination over a 24-hour period
(set at 15 minutes, 30 minutes or hourly time-periods). The purpose of these maps is to build a picture for a
full day. A practical use of this being hospital appointments, which could be set according to when is best to
travel for the patient.
By allowing the user to set perception weightings, as per traditional transport models, it allows accessibility
to take into consideration impediments to travel (excessive walk distance, wait times and interchange).
Further refinement could be made using Open Data from the UK Police Forces could be added as a
perception of crime (Disclaimer: the merits of doing this are open to debate and not one the author is
opening).
By restricting access to only direct journeys, or direct plus one interchange journey, it gives a more realistic
view on accessibility levels. Existing accessibility tools do not restrict levels of interchange. Overall, the

accessibility tool within ‘Solaris’ could be considered less of a black box with the above considerations, albeit
restricted to one destination.
Figure 6 shows an example output from Solaris showing travel times to Leeds City Centre from the
surrounding areas.
FIGURE 6
Solaris generated travel time isochrones City Centre Leeds, UK
Accession
Accession is described by its developers as the ‘first software package to fully address all aspects of travel
time and cost mapping using digital road networks and public transport timetable data” (Citilabs, 2009).
Accession was developed by MVA consultants in preparation on LTP2 completion (developed according to
UK Department for Transport’s specifications) and is now owned and distributed by Citilabs.
Accession is the market leader in the UK for connectivity analysis, until December 2013 it was the only
available tool on the open market (Solaris being solely developed in-house). Accession works via a bespoke
interface, utilising a GIS system (Geomedia) and editing features within the tool. All set ups and edits are
done via the Accession interface, however under pinning Accession is an MS Access database.
Adapting Solaris to other geographical areas
Adapting the tool to non-UK areas, in principal, is a relatively simple process; requiring changes to the
MapBasic script only to allow for areas outside the UK (i.e. changing the projection settings). However, the
more complex and key element of adaption relates to the inputs to the tool, in particular transit data (stop
data, scheduling information, etc.) and road/fixed line data.
In partnership with the City of Ottawa transit agency (OC Transpo) input data has been sourced, and is
discussed below, this data has been subsequently used within the case study
General Transit Feed Specification
General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) is a common format for public transportation schedules,
composing as a number of text files including data on stops, routes and trips. “Feeds” are made available
by the transit agencies for publishing to Google Maps/Transit for example, and allows developers “to write
applications that consume that data in an interoperable way”.

Take up of GTFS format in the UK is limited to a single transit agency (Transport for Greater Manchester),
however take up in other regions is high, particular in North America. One reason for low take up in the
UK is due to other data formats existing (ATCO CIF and TransXchange).
Overall, over 700 (722 according to www.gtfs-data-exchange.com) transit agencies publish data in GTFS
format.
As part of this research, development tasks have been undertaken to translate GTFS data (for the City of
Ottawa) into a format that can be read into Solaris.
Road data
In the UK, the Open Data initiative (since 2011) has provided access to OS Meridian 2 data, providing a
consistent road dataset across Great Britain. It is unknown if similar setups are available in other countries;
however open data initiatives are prevalent at agency transit level, particularly in North America, including
the City of Ottawa.
Addresses, Destinations and demographic data
Similar to road data, access to data in the UK relating to addresses, destinations and demographic data is
consistent and provided via the Open Data initiative. Address data is provided through OS Code Point
Open (zip code centroids); destination data through the data.gov.uk portal; while demographic data is
provided through the UK Census portal (Neighbourhood Statistics).
Outside of the UK, again open data initiatives are prevalent at agency transit level, particularly in North
America, including the City of Ottawa.
Adapting Accession to other geographical areas
Adapting Accession to a non-UK area is considered, and proven to be, more complex than Solaris
particularly importing transit schedule data.
Accession has a host of import facilities for Public Transport but these are to UK data standard settings. A
worked through example in 2011, to enable calculations for a non-UK area, required GTFS data to be
manipulated within the MS Access database underpinning Accession. This led to a workable system, albeit
unstable at times. The alternative, and even more long winded option, would be to code in all public
transport services and timetables manually, which would be time and, subsequently, cost consuming.
It should be noted though that the City of Ottawa in 2012 was provided within a working Accession
program with GTFS data already translated within the software.
Case Study: Applying Solaris to the City of Ottawa
The following section explores the Ottawa transit network, showing the mapped routes, generated using
Solaris, frequency analysis and accessibility travel times to a range of destinations (including healthcare,
education and retail).
The Ottawa Transit Network
Generating the Ottawa transit network was the core technical task of this project.
In brief, using the GTFS data feed for Ottawa was manipulated in MS Access to generate a text file of the
transit schedule on a stop basis. This data was further manipulated in GIS software to route the network
through a bespoke network (based upon road data, together with transit and rail lines).
Note: the road network was sourced from the City of Ottawa (http://data.ottawa.ca/en). Transit data for
most, if not all, North America is available.
Figures 7 and 8 show the extent of Ottawa Transit network in 2013, routes are defined against the road
network, transit routes and rail lines. These outputs were generated using Solaris.
The generated network from Solaris was checked with OC Transpo (Program Manager, Transit Operational
Planning) with the following comments

“I’ve checked the polylines out they look great.”
“Out of curiosity, from the GTFS data, how did you draw the routes so accurately?”
Road data was sourced from the City of Ottawa (Open Data license) with transit routes drawn separately.
FIGURE 7
Transit Network (extent) 2013 Ottawa

FIGURE 8
Transit Network (detail) 2013 Ottawa
Ottawa connectivity analysis %234
In the following section connectivity calculations are presented and analysed, with travel times
calculated to a range of destinations (sourced from ??) including:
• Colleges/University (in the weekday morning and daytime);
• High Schools (in the weekday morning);
• Hospitals (range of time periods, all days of week);
• Medical Clinics (in the weekday daytime);
• Shopping Centres (in the weekday daytime); and
• Supermarkets (in the weekday daytime).
FIGURE 9
City of Ottawa Destinations

In addition analysis has been undertaken to calculate accessibility to Parliament and University of Ottawa
areas, comparing the 2013 network to the 2018 network.
The following destinations analyse travel times to various destinations based upon a single time period,
using direct transit services only. The selected destinations compare to services/facilities that are considered
impact in typical UK analysis.
Note: population is based upon Census 2011 and has been derived from Census Tract, disaggregated by
address location information. Total population (878,873 people) is based upon all Census Tracts where
connectivity to a selected destination has been considered.
Connectivity to Colleges / Universities
Table 1, together with Figures 10 and 11, show levels of connectivity to the nearest College / University in
the Ottawa area. Overall, around 50 percent of the population are within 30 minutes of a nearest College /
University in the weekday morning peak, with 15 percent having a connectivity time of over 60 minutes (this
includes proportion of population without direct access to a College or University).
In the weekday daytime period the percentage of people within 30 minutes falls slightly to 45%. However
40 percent of the population in this time period now fall into the greater than 60 minutes category;
comparing Figures 10 and 11 shows to reductions in connectivity to the south-west and north-east of the
study area.
TABLE 1
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest College / University
Travel time Morning Peak Daytime
Population % Population %
0<10 89,595 10% 80,011 9%
10<20 180,886 21% 158,142 18%
20<30 185,209 21% 145,589 17%
30<40 145,115 17% 85,984 10%
40<50 87,601 10% 46,064 5%
50<60 59,111 7% 11,844 1%
over 60 131,356 15% 351,238 40%
Connectivity to High Schools
Table 2 and Figure 11 show levels of connectivity to the nearest High School in the Ottawa area. Overall,
50 percent of the general population live within 10 minutes of a High School, with 89 percent within 30
minutes. 10 percent of the population are live in excess of 60 minutes or do not have access to a direct
transit service to the nearest High School.
TABLE 2
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest High School
Travel time Morning Peak
Population %
0<10 437,861 50%
10<20 288,389 33%
20<30 54,602 6%
30<40 5,981 1%
40<50 3,069 0%
50<60 1,625 0%
over 60 87,346 10%

FIGURE 10
Connectivity to nearest College / University in the weekday morning peak (7am to 9am)
FIGURE 11
Connectivity to nearest College / University in the weekday daytime (1pm to 2pm)

FIGURE 12
Connectivity to nearest High School in the weekday morning peak (7am to 9am)
Connectivity to Medical Clinics
Table 3 and Figure 12 show levels of connectivity to the nearest medical clinic in the Ottawa area.
Nearly 80 percent of the population are within 30 minutes of a Medical Clinic by a direct transit service;
around 20 percent live in excess of 60 minutes or do not have a direct service,.
TABLE 3
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Medical Clinic
Travel time Daytime
Population %
0<10 290,125 33%
10<20 320,384 36%
20<30 80,711 9%
30<40 19,354 2%
40<50 1,573 0%
50<60 - 0%
over 60 166,726 19%

FIGURE 13
Connectivity to nearest Medical Clinic in the weekday daytime (12pm to 2pm)
Connectivity to Shopping Centres
Table 4 and Figure 13 show levels of connectivity to the nearest medical clinic in the Ottawa area. Similar
to High Schools and Medical Clinics a high percent of the population are within 30 minutes transit time of
a nearest shopping centre (84 percent), with 13 percent not having a direct transit service or have travel
times in excess of 60 minutes.
TABLE 4
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Shopping Centre
Travel time Daytime
Population %
0<10 300,877 34%
10<20 350,686 40%
20<30 88,579 10%
30<40 16,849 2%
40<50 4,559 1%
50<60 - 0%
over 60 117,323 13%

FIGURE 14
Connectivity to nearest Shopping Centre in the weekday daytime (12pm to 2pm)
Connectivity to Supermarkets
Table 5 and Figure 14 show levels of connectivity to the nearest medical clinic in the Ottawa area. Over
80 percent of the population is within 20 minutes of a nearest supermarket via a direct transit service,
with over 90 percent within 30 minutes. A small percentage of people (6 percent) have no service or
have in excess of 60 minutes travel time.
TABLE 5
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Supermarket
Travel time Daytime
Population %
0<10 343,156 42%
10<20 342,447 42%
20<30 67,051 8%
30<40 9,088 1%
40<50 30 0%
50<60 4 0%
over 60 48,803 6%

FIGURE 15
Connectivity to nearest Supermarket in the weekday daytime (12pm to 2pm)
Connectivity to Hospitals
In addition to calculating connectivity to the above destinations, a more detailed assessment has been
undertaken to understand connectivity to general admission hospitals in Ottawa, over a range of time
periods and days of week. Table 6 to 7, together with Figures 15 to 22 show connectivity over weekday,
Saturday and Sunday time periods.
Note: for this example the general hospitals are considered to be Montfort Hospital, The Ottawa Hospital
(various locations) and Queensway Carleton Hospital.
Overall, in the weekday morning peak around 45 percent are within 30 minutes of a nearest hospital and
66 percent within 60 minutes; this compares to 35 to 39 percent within 30 minutes and 47 to 53 percent
within 60 minutes.
Comparing figures 15 to 22 fluctuations in transit times is associated with changing travel times around
the periphery of the study area to the north-west and south west.
TABLE 6
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Hospital: Weekday
Travel time Morning Peak Daytime Afternoon Peak Evening
Population % Population % Population % Population %
0<10 33,518 4% 22,922 3% 35,948 4% 18,100 2%
10<20 180,332 21% 128,997 15% 164,551 19% 137,263 16%
20<30 168,535 19% 177,829 20% 135,607 15% 188,537 21%
30<40 82,687 9% 73,522 8% 51,857 6% 61,493 7%
40<50 81,662 9% 26,189 3% 21,517 2% 25,406 3%
50<60 37,618 4% 40,213 5% 27,621 3% 18,756 2%
over 60 294,521 34% 409,201 47% 441,772 50% 429,318 49%

TABLE 7
Population Analysis: Connectivity to nearest Hospital: Weekend
Travel time Saturday Daytime Saturday Evening Sunday Daytime Sunday Evening
Population % Population % Population % Population %
0<10 16,526 2% 14,440 2% 17,155 2% 13,528 2%
10<20 134,234 15% 121,338 14% 138,506 16% 115,285 13%
20<30 182,509 21% 171,480 20% 170,047 19% 171,543 20%
30<40 62,431 7% 57,642 7% 62,452 7% 53,529 6%
40<50 24,738 3% 32,017 4% 16,798 2% 33,104 4%
50<60 26,806 3% 16,131 2% 22,435 3% 22,377 3%
over 60 431,629.42 49% 465,824.39 53% 451,479.39 51% 469,507.58 53%
FIGURE 16
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital in the weekday morning peak (7am to 9am)

FIGURE 17
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital in the weekday daytime (12pm to 2pm)
FIGURE 18
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital in the weekday afternoon peak (4pm to 6pm)

FIGURE 19
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital in the weekday evening (7pm to 9pm)
FIGURE 20
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Saturday daytime (12pm to 2pm)

FIGURE 21
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Saturday evening (7pm to 9pm)
FIGURE 22
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Sunday daytime (12pm to 2pm)

FIGURE 23
Connectivity to nearest General Hospital Sunday evening (7pm to 9pm)
Ottawa connectivity analysis %236
Ottawa is currently undertaking its largest infrastructure project in the history of the City, the building
of the Confederation Light Rail Transit (LRT) line, costing around two billion dollars. The Confederation
line is being constructed to run from Tunney's Pasture station in the west to Blair Road at Highway 174
in the east (Blair station), a distance of 12.5 kilometres including a tunnel running under Queen Street
in the central business district.
Figure 23 below the LRT route together with associated stops. Typically the route runs along the
existing transit way for rapid transit (bus) services from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair, running through
Downtown Ottawa. Existing bus services along this route are planned to be transformed to become
feeder services to the LRT route.

FIGURE 23
Confederation Line (to be opened 2018)
The LRT line, which will operate at a frequency of every 3 minutes, has been coded into the Solaris model,
together with associated modifications to the existing 2013 transit services.
Analysis is presented showing the impact of the LRT line connecting the Parliament area (which will be
served by the LRT line) in 2018 to the wider areas of Ottawa across all days of week and time periods.
Tables 8 to 13, together with Figures 24 to 30 show connectivity over weekday, Saturday and Sunday time
periods to Parliament area.
Over all time periods, between 17 percent and 20 percent of the study area are within 30 minutes travel
time of the Parliament area. However, within 60 minutes the analysis shows 75% of the study area is within
60 minutes in the weekday morning peak, reducing to 41 to 46 percent in all other time periods.
Amending the transit network, by adding the LRT network (Confederation Line) and amending bus transit
services that currently run along the soon to be converted dedicated transit way (from Tunneys Pasture to
Blair), tests suggests that the new transit network has the potential to have positive impact on connectivity
(reducing journey times). In this case analysis shows to the Parliament area that journey times are improved
and more people are within travel periods (see Tables 12 and 13).
TABLE 8
Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekday 2013
Travel time
(minutes)
Morning Peak Daytime Afternoon Peak Evening
Total % Total % Total %l Total %
10 14,234 1.6% 12,512 1.4% 13,614 1.5% 11,513 1.3%
20 80,870 9.2% 73,164 8.3% 76,057 8.7% 78,024 8.9%
30 175,530 20.0% 168,972 19.2% 153,112 17.4% 174,147 19.8%
40 342,334 39.0% 275,956 31.4% 256,055 29.1% 280,652 31.9%
50 553,340 63.0% 366,505 41.7% 350,090 39.8% 352,656 40.1%
60 652,873 74.3% 405,349 46.1% 411,421 46.8% 377,195 42.9%
Over 60 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0%

TABLE 9
Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekend 2013
TABLE 10
Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekday 2018
Travel time
(minutes)
Total % Total % Total % Total %
10 35,591 4.0% 30,101 3.4% 31,578 3.6% 35,743 4.1%
20 127,501 14.5% 117,006 13.3% 112,257 12.8% 126,597 14.4%
30 256,435 29.2% 221,182 25.2% 205,496 23.4% 220,827 25.1%
40 495,597 56.4% 334,441 38.1% 335,509 38.2% 345,133 39.3%
50 673,712 76.7% 457,396 52.0% 442,640 50.4% 467,464 53.2%
60 725,495 82.5% 503,875 57.3% 499,762 56.9% 509,976 58.0%
Over 60 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0%
TABLE 11
Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekend 2018
Travel time
(minutes)
Saturday Daytime Saturday Evening Area Sunday Daytime
Total % Total % Total %
10 24,725 2.8% 24,913 2.8% 27,874 3.2%
20 121,177 13.8% 118,240 13.5% 120,052 13.7%
30 218,239 24.8% 217,251 24.7% 216,273 24.6%
40 332,898 37.9% 329,655 37.5% 330,910 37.7%
50 447,774 50.9% 425,747 48.4% 441,625 50.2%
60 495,209 56.3% 478,778 54.5% 489,923 55.7%
Over 60 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0%
TABLE 12
Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekday 2013 to 2018
Travel time
(minutes)
Total % Total % Total % Total %
10 21,357 2% 17,589 2% 17,964 2% 24,230 3%
20 46,631 5% 43,842 5% 36,200 4% 48,573 6%
30 80,905 9% 52,210 6% 52,383 6% 46,680 5%
40 153,263 17% 58,485 7% 79,454 9% 64,481 7%
50 120,372 14% 90,891 10% 92,551 11% 114,808 13%
60 72,622 8% 98,526 11% 88,341 10% 132,781 15%
Travel time
(minutes)
Saturday Daytime Saturday Evening Sunday Daytime
Total % Total % Total %
10 10,197 1.2% 10,233 1.2% 11,885 1.4%
20 74,151 8.4% 65,727 7.5% 71,386 8.1%
30 170,626 19.4% 163,438 18.6% 166,478 18.9%
40 277,363 31.6% 262,803 29.9% 276,414 31.5%
50 350,935 39.9% 323,132 36.8% 348,310 39.6%
60 388,308 44.2% 360,652 41.0% 375,843 42.8%
Over 60 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0% 878,873 100.0%

TABLE 13
Population Analysis: Connectivity to Parliament Area: Weekend 2013 to 2018
Travel time
(minutes)
Saturday Daytime Saturday Evening Sunday Daytime
Population % of total Population % of total Population % of total
10 14,528 2% 14,680 2% 15,989 2%
20 47,026 5% 52,514 6% 48,666 6%
30 47,613 5% 53,812 6% 49,795 6%
40 55,535 6% 66,852 8% 54,496 6%
50 96,839 11% 102,615 12% 93,316 11%
60 106,901 12% 118,126 13% 114,081 13%

FIGURE 24
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday morning peak (7am to 9am)

FIGURE 25
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday daytime (12pm to 2pm)

FIGURE 26
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday afternoon peak (4pm to 6pm)

FIGURE 27
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area in the weekday evening (7pm to 9pm)

FIGURE 28
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area Saturday daytime (12pm to 2pm)

FIGURE 29
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area Saturday evening (7pm to 9pm)

FIGURE 30
Connectivity to nearest Parliament area Sunday daytime (12pm to 2pm)

Conclusion
The aim of the research is to promote Solaris as a worldwide tool in Transportation Planning, highlighting
its application and uses and the case study focused on the City of Ottawa shows that this aim has been
achieved.
Completing this research however has involved the overcoming of a number of barriers, some of which
were known and part of the research, others not; however the research has been successfully
concluded in that Solaris has been applied to an area outside of the UK, demonstrated via the case
study based upon the City of Ottawa.
Barriers that were known and formed part of the research was:
• Collecting data that could be feed into Solaris, particularly transit data schedules;
• Creating tools that could take schedule data and manipulate it into the correct format; and
• Developing calculations that would test the calculation process.
One of the key elements of this study was the manipulation of GTFS (transit schedule) data for the City of
Ottawa, involving the development of a relational database (using MS Access). As GTFS data was an
unknown data source at the time, developing the database was complex; however a clear process has
been developed and can be applied to other areas (GTFS being an Open and worldwide dataset).
Another core task was the collection of road and rail network data to create the routing networks. The
City of Ottawa is a keen exponent of Open Data and freely offers such data (<http://data.ottawa.ca/>)
through an Open License. This data compendium also makes available address data (for trip origins) and
destination data, all of which was crucial to the Case Study.
In addition to offering a rich vein of data, the City of Ottawa also presents an interesting study area due
to its $2 billion investment in a LRT line (Confederation Line) from Tunneys Pasture to Blair, which is due
to open in 2018. OC Transpo, who provide transit services in Ottawa, purchased Accession software to
test the impact of the LRT network however its application and use has been limited due to the intricacies
of creating ‘future’ networks (in the absence of any standard import files). Using Solaris it was possible to
create this network comparatively easily and test.
The Case Study in itself provides some interesting pointers to the transit network in Ottawa accessing
destinations of education, health and shopping, in addition to central areas of Ottawa (Parliament area).
It was also unknown until close to completing that the Ottawa bus system is the biggest in the world
(source: OC Transpo website), testing the parameters of the tool (MapInfo file size limits).
Next steps
Following discussions with the Innovation Fund review team it is hoped a plan for taking this forward can
be developed.
One step is to share this paper and associated presentation with colleagues in Transportation to gather
their opinion and to develop an action plan.
Since the development of Solaris a number of projects have been suggested outside of the UK as possible
projects (Australia and Kula Lumpur) however nothing has developed, in part due to Solaris not being
translated outside the UK before now.
As for any tool, there are areas of improvement and there is a requirement to improve calculation times
and processes.

CH2M Innovation fund project (2014) KD

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to CH2M Innovation fund project (2014) KD

Similar to CH2M Innovation fund project (2014) KD (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CH2M Innovation fund project (2014) KD