Demand for bus and Rail Analyzing a corridor with a similar Level Of Service 5 th Israeli-British/Irish Workshop in Regional Science April, 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Transportation Systems. PARTIII: TRAVELER TRANSPORTATION.
Advertisements

Mass Transit OSullivan Chapter 11. Outline of the Chapter Analyze some empirical facts about public transit in the United States Analyze the commuters.
1 The travel demand effects induced by a new transport system: the Torino metro Torino, 17 Aprile 2008 Prof. Cristina Pronello Team: Cristina Pronello,
Abstract The SEPTA Regional Rail system serves as an important network for the Philadelphia region, moving many commuters during the peak hours on suburb-to-city.
FirstClassPartnerships, Inc. (FCP), a well-respected leader in transportation planning, was contracted by the Ministry of Transportation.
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines Work Group Meeting presented by Christopher Wornum Cambridge.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Elizabeth Sall Maren Outwater Cambridge Systematics,
Justifying Rail Bias Factor for Houston METRO’s Transit Model Presentation by Vijay Mahal, HDR Inc Vincent Sanders, Houston METRO May 18, 2009 TRB Applications.
GREATER NEW YORK A GREENER Travel Demand Modeling for analysis of Congestion Mitigation policies October 24, 2007.
An Approach for Base Transit Trip Matrix Development: Sound Transit EMME/2 Model Experience Sujay Davuluri Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., Seattle October,
The Current State and Future of the Regional Multi-Modal Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Route Design Unit 4: Service Planning & Network Design.
Session 11: Model Calibration, Validation, and Reasonableness Checks
Three Phases of Commuting Trip 1.Collection Phase – the trip from home to the main travel vehicle Cost: a.basically zero for automobile b.time costs and.
Cheryl Thole, Jennifer Flynn CUTR/NBRTI, Senior Research Associates Transit in GIS Conference September 14, 2011 St. Petersburg, Florida.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Understanding Changes in Ridership Unit 7: Forecasting & Encouraging Ridership.
The Potential BRT in Asia
InMoSion: Science Shop for Innovative Mobility Solutions for Mobility Challenged Europeans 3rd INTERNATIONAL MEETING ANKARA, TURKEY Partnering: Civil Engineering.
Modelling Service Quality for Public Transport Contracts: Assessing Users’ Perceptions Gabriela Beirão José Sarsfield Cabral 9th Conference on Competition.
THE PLANET99 MODEL DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTING TOOL FOR RAIL OPERATORS 8th EUROPEAN EMME/2 USERS CONFERENCE Jeremy Douch GIBB Transport Planning May.
BETTER AIR QUALITY 2004 SPECIFIC TRANSPORT MEASURES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS IN HYDERABAD, INDIA Yash Sachdeva, RITES Ltd Viresh Goel, RITES Ltd D.S.Chari,
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP OF THE HOUSATONIC RAILROAD STUDY Presented by Julie Pokela, Ph.D. August, 2010.
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE from Passenger Perspective or… I n t e r m o d a l i t y from Passenger Perspective or… PhD Thesis EUROCONTROL Experimental.
Alasdair Cain & Jennifer Flynn National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Mark McCourt &
1 Research go bus Impact Study TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Atlantic City, May 2015.
The First International Transport Forum, May , Leipzig INDUCING TRANSPORT MODE CHOICE BEHAVIORIAL CHANGES IN KOREA: A Quantitative Analysis.
Transit Estimation and Mode Split CE 451/551 Source: NHI course on Travel Demand Forecasting (152054A) Session 7.
A COMPARISON OF TRIPS TO SCHOOLS IN SUBURBAN BANGKOK Nattapol PIYAEISARAKUL King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi and Associate Professor Viroat.
1 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Customer Satisfaction Measurement FY 2006 Q3 Comparison April 28, 2006.
A New Policy Sensitive Travel Demand Model for Tel Aviv Yoram Shiftan Transportation Research Institute Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Introduction Nablus is the largest city in the West Bank after Jerusalem. 150,000 inhabitants live in Nablus. Nablus has the largest university in the.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to TRB Planning Applications Conference presented by Vamsee Modugula Cambridge Systematics, Inc. May.
Mark Phillips BSDA/Metro Long-Range Planner. The Foundation: Moving Transit Forward.
Welcome to the TSIP Project Webinar Planning Technical Working Group 28 July – 3:30 pm.
Presented by Runlin Cai, CAUPD Affiliate. Issue: What determines travel mode choice Transit mode share in LA county was 3% in (Source: SCAG Year.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Service Planning & Standards Unit 4: Service Planning & Network Design.
1 The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14 th 2008.
Characteristics of Weekend Travel in the City of Calgary: Towards a Model of Weekend Travel Demand JD Hunt, University of Calgary DM Atkins, City of Calgary.
23e Congrès mondial de la Route - Paris 2007 Public Transport in Gauteng Province: Order out of Chaos Prof Nevhutanda Alfred Department of Transport(South.
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lecture 18: Demand Forecasting.
On-Board Transit Survey Presentation to TCC Dec. 13, 2002 Heather Alhadeff, AICP
Olympic Transportation Planning For London 2012 A Peak Flow And Modal Share Analysis For Rail Usage At The Stratford Regional Station.
Wigan Key Centre Analysis 1 This PowerPoint presentation has been created to accompany GMTU Report 1001 – GMATS Wigan Key Centre report Whereas report.
Prague Integrated Transport (PID).  Prague - area 496 km 2 population 1.2 mil. distance of the city boundary from the centre is 10 km to the north, 18.
Cal y Mayor y Asociados, S.C. Atizapan – El Rosario Light Rail Transit Demand Study October th International EMME/2 UGM.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Timetabling Components Unit 5: Staff & Fleet Scheduling.
Joint Development of Land Use and Light Rail Stations The Case of Tel Aviv Regional Science Association International -The Israeli Section Daniel Shefer,
2004 State of the Commute Survey: Assessing the Impacts of Regional Transportation Demand Management National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board.
FDOT Transit Office Modeling Initiatives The Transit Office has undertaken a number of initiatives in collaboration with the Systems Planning Office and.
1. Variety of modes (types) of transport (public and private) 2. Density of transport networks more nodes and.
Transit Quality of Service Applications Comprehensive Planning November 2, 2007 Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office.
Planning Applications Conference, Reno, NV, May Impact of Crowding on Rail Ridership: Sydney Metro Experience and Forecasting Approach William Davidson,
1 Mountain Metropolitan Transit Sustainability Committee March 20, 2009 Presented By: Sherre Ritenour & Tim McKinney.
How far people are willing to walk to public transport? A case study in Munich City Walk21,Vienna Rumana Islam Sarker Research Assistant, Institute.
Presentation For Incorporation of Pricing in the Time-of-Day Model “Express Travel Choices Study” for the Southern California Association of Governments.
TRANSMILENIO ENRIQUE LILLO EMME/2 UGM May Bogotá n 7 million people n Mean annual population growth of 4,5 % over the last 10 years n 25 % of Colombian.
Materials developed by K. Watkins, J. LaMondia and C. Brakewood Frequency Determination Unit 5: Staff & Fleet Scheduling.
12/08/ J/ESD.204J1 Real-Time Control Strategies for Rail Transit Outline: Problem Description and Motivation Model Formulation Model Application.
December 4, 2008 Preserving the American Dream 1 1 Faster by Bus By Gabriel Roth.
Transit Choices BaltimoreLink Ad-hoc Committee Meeting January 12, 2016.
Impacts of Free Public Transport – An Evaluation Framework Oded Cats Yusak Susilo Jonas Eliasson.
Shlomo Bekhor Transportation Research Institute Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Monitoring and analysis of travel speeds on the national road.
Metrô Rio & SuperVia March Location BRASIL Rio de Janeiro Rio Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region - Population: 11,6 million - Counties: %
Transportation Planning Asian Institute of Technology
EUROPEAN FORUM FOR GEOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS KRAKOW CONFERENCE October, Krakow, Poland Travel Behaviour in Pristina City Author 1: Naim Kelmendi.
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MAJOR IN TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING JOHN IVAN P. GUEVARRA.
Analysis of light rail rider travel behavior: Impacts of individual, built environment and crime characteristics on transit access. Paper by S. Kim, G.F.
Karen Tsang Bureau of Transport Statistics Department of Transport
Chattanooga Transportation Data Collection Review
Presentation transcript:

Demand for bus and Rail Analyzing a corridor with a similar Level Of Service 5 th Israeli-British/Irish Workshop in Regional Science April, 2007

The Question Does the higher demand for Rail transit compares to Bus transit is a result of differences in Level Of Service variables or of the Passenger attitude toward the transit technology? The problem Lack of transit corridors where both transit modes are operated in a similar level of service.

Presentation Outline Description of the selected corridor Description of transit Level Of Sercive in the selected corridor Transit mode split in the selected corridor Passengers survey conducted in the selected corridor Survey results and conclusions

The corridor – Haifa – Tel Aviv Tel Aviv metropolitan area : North section Maximum distance between modes is less than 2 km

The corridor – Stations and route Similar service areas for both transit modes Rail: Serves exclusively the Binyamina area Bus: A broader alighting service in Tel Aviv

Level of service – Survey Limitations Congestion at sections of Bus route between 7-9 am Straight rail service was not taken into account

Daily Departures T ravel Cost (in INS) Similar travel cost Similar number of departures, rail frequency is a bit higher in Rush hours Level of service – Cost and Headway

Travel time comparison* *Rail – Taken from timetable *Bus – Time taken on vehicle In vehicle travel time difference is no more than12 min Level of service – In vehicle travel time

BusRail Privacy advantage Wider seats and tables Level of service – Comfort

Mode split – Rail and Bus Source: Israel railways counts at Hof Hakarmel st., Survey counts on Buses

The survey – Rationality Comparison between travel habits in two transit modes which supply similar level of service

Conducted at the intermodal station in Hof Hakarmel between 9-15  Bus: At the waiting area  Rail: At the platform Questionnaires were given for all waiting passengers (ap. 5 min needed to fill up the questionnaire) Passengers that arrive in the last minutes are not included in the survey Total collected:  Rail: 101 questionnaires  Bus: 107 questionnaires The survey – Data collecting

3 parts: 1.Trip charasteristics (13 questions) 2. Passenger characteristics (12 questions) 3. Passengers Attitude (5 questions) The survey – The questionnaire

Results – Passenger characteristics Number of vehicles per Household Income Rail passengers belong to a higher socioeconomic group compare to bus passengers

Access mode Availability of private car Results – Travel characteristics Private car is a dominant mode as an access mode for rail Availability of private car is greater for rail passengers

Results – Total travel time compares to the another mode Large share of rail passengers doesn’t save time when using rail mode Bus passengersRail passengers

Results – Rail used where bus should have been preferred Herzeliya industry areaNeve tzedek 500 m 1000 m 2500 m 500 m Large share of rail passengers (42%) doesn’t save time when using rail mode

Results – Passengers attitude Reason for choosing the mode Satisfaction by mode Comfort and time cost are the main reasons for using rail mode Large share of bus free riders

Conclusions Mismatch in the level of service and mode choice Rail attracts higher income passengers Large share of rail passengers don’t save time by using rail service Comfort is the main reason for preferring the rail

Future research The validity of the assumption that rail level of service embedded in bus will attract the same number of passengers is questionable The effect of subjective (psychological) factors on the feeling of comfort on bus vs. rail should be investigated