Measuring Rural Transit Availability Nicholas E. Lownes, Ph.D. 18th National Rural and Intercity Bus Transportation Conference October 21, 2008

Motivation Rural transit service presents several difficulties: CT has significant rural population Theoretical treatments of rural transit availability may miss important nuance Fixed-route measures miss important aspects Invite input:

Fixed-Route Availability Studied a circulator route design in Austin, TX (not rural) Under idealized conditions, definition of accessibility and opportunity cost of no access impacted results significantly.

User-Focused Station UT

Operator-Focused Station UT

Balanced Station UT

Accessibility Perspectives Characterization depends on perspective & purpose Accessibility –Restricted Budget – Best service within restrictive budget constraints –Social Benefit or Inducing Demand– Maximizing accessibility/coverage

Walking Threshold Sensitivity

Availability Measures Fixed-route Measures Spatial Measures –Local Index of Transit Accessibility (LITA): Developers seeking to improve real estate investments –Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM): Transit planners & managers

Availability Measures Spatiotemporal Measures –Transit Level of Service (TLOS): Transit planners & managers Track boarding opportunities (spatial coverage) over time Demand variability throughout day Utility Measures –TxDOT Transit Accessibility Measure (TAM) Function of origin, destination, demographics, trip purpose

Opportunity Cost Back of the envelope –Cost of maintaining single-car vs. two- car household ≈ $6000 (fuel at $2.75 per gallon –Function of: proximity to transit (3/4 mile), Driving less Walking more Owning fewer cars From: Bailey, L. Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil. ICF International, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 35 pp, (2007).

Opportunity Cost Sensitivity

Opportunity Cost Econometric Analyses –Both SP/RP modeling and analysis –Relative WTP for features of transit service –Elasticity of transit –Value of travel time savings

Rural Transit Availability TCQSM offers methods for estimating rural transit LOS, incorporating availability Rural areas will fall below density threshold for transit-supportive areas in fixed-route calculations

Demand Responsive Availability Treated separately in TCQSM – a much different service Availability a function of: –Response time –Trip availability/connectivity –Hours and days of service –Reliability –Quality of service w.r.t. time, comfort

Rural Transit Availability Rural populations differ from urban counterparts –Demographically –More vulnerable to energy price fluctuations –Equity issues What’s missing: Information Penetration –No doubt this is a topic rural operators have thought about considerably (there was a session at this conference)

Rural Transit Availability Can we consider transit service available if people are unaware? Rural demographics may impact: –Internet usage –Attitudes toward transit How can we incorporate these ideas in an availability measure?

Our work in CT Phase I: Analysis of Availability Measures –Consistency –Parameters of Interest –Appropriate Response Variable Propensity to ride Spatial Coverage O-D coverage Temporal Coverage Service hours

Work in CT Phase II: Expanding to Rural Markets How do we integrate rural markets? –Park and ride express coverage? –DRT – ridership and/or LOS –Information penetration What are the best practices for communicating and how do we include in Connecticut?

Acknowledgement Partially sponsored by the Connecticut Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 08-5

Thank you Source: Ideas, comments, questions: