How far people are willing to walk to public transport? A case study in Munich City Walk21,Vienna 22.10.2015 Rumana Islam Sarker Research Assistant, Institute.

How far people are willing to walk to public transport? A case study in Munich City

Walk21,Vienna22.10.2015

Rumana Islam SarkerResearch Assistant, Institute for Infrastructure Engineering, Unit for Intelligent

Transportation Systems, University of Innsbruck, Austria

Outline of the presentation

• Introduction• Methodology• Characteristics of the respondents• Findings• Conclusion and recommendation

22.10.2015 Rumana Islam SarkerWalk 21, Vienna

Introduction

Source: Werner,2011 SWM/MVG


Introduction

RegionU/S bahn

(Subway/rapid transit)

Tram/Bus

Core zone 600 m 300 m

Area with high density use

600 m 400 m

Area with low-density 1000 m 600 m

Nahverkehrsplan der Landeshauptstadt München, 2005

Wikitravel, 201522.10.2015 Rumana Islam SarkerWalk 21, Vienna

How far people are willing to walk for different local public transport modes?



Introduction

• According to the ‚Local public transport plan for the city of Munich’ it is assumed that :

o Lower urban density leads to bigger catchment area

o People walk farther to a subway/suburban train than to a tram/bus

Are these assumptions true?

What are the reasons which influence the decision of choosing a route?


Methodology

Selection of the station

The whole Munich region is divided into 16 rings and 4 zones which are called MVV (Münchner Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund) region.

Categories (based on the transport lines plan of Munich for MVV area):

•Inner city area

•Residential and Commercial area with different route/mode choice

•Mostly suburban area with least mode of transport

*Transport Lines are written according to MVV network and stations are chosen with the consult of supervisor* Nightlines are excluded from the analysis


Methodology: Data collection process

Intercept survey

Paper based questionnaire First part: Actual and accepted walking time to reach the station The reasons behind the choice of the route Travel purpose and mobility pattern (ticket,driving license,car occupancy) Second part: Socio-demographic questions (age, gender, occupation etc.)22.10.2015 Rumana Islam SarkerWalk 21,

Vienna

Methodology: Data collection plan

• Survey is conducted within the period of April-May 2014 for 180 hours.

•Performance of the survey is planned to conduct from 8:00 am till 18:00 pm with

minimum 3 respondents/hour to achieve the goal of 500 respondents.

Morning Noon Evening

9-11 am 13-15 pm 16-18pm

re-arranged plan: 6 hours/day

•The survey is conducted also in weekends and holidays to monitor different travel patterns and trip purpose.

Data analysis

• All the result is transferred for the analysis to the statistical software ‘SPSS 22’ (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)

•The catchment area analysis is performed with the network analyst tool of ArcGIS 10.1


Characteristics of the respondents


Characteristics of the respondents : By mode

X 30 was taken in to consideration not to compare with other modes but to observe the reception of this new line among the respondents


Findings: Lower urban density leads to a bigger catchment area

Inner city (ex: Sendlinger Tor) Residential/commercial area with different route/mode choice (ex: Neuperlach süd)

Mostly suburban area with least mode of transport (ex: Ismaning)

240 Respondents who provided exact address among 500 respondents are included in this analysis


Findings: Lower urban density leads to a bigger catchment area

Category 1 Category 2

Category 3

•Category 1-Inner city area

•Category 2-Residential and Commercial area with different route/mode choice

•Category 3-Mostly suburban area with least mode of transport

Total respondents= 500


People walk more for subway/suburban train than tram/bus - Conviction or prediction??


Findings: People walk more for subway/suburban train than tram/bus ( actual time)


Findings: People walk more for subway/suburban train than tram/bus ( preferred time)

Respondents would accept to walk considerably longer for Ubahn/Sbahn than bus/tram

Total respondents: Bus= 485, Tram= 459, U bahn= 487, S bahn= 465


Findings: People walk more for subway/suburban train than tram/bus (Statistical test)T-Test for actual walking time(ex: Bus and U bahn)

T-Test for preferred walking time(ex: Bus and S bahn)


How accurately people assume their walking time? Do they over-estimate or under-estimate?

From the difference between the ArcGIS calculated time and self estimated time, it is observed that around 45.4% respondents assumed their walking time nearly accurate, when there is no time difference or only difference of ±1 minute.


How to reach the station? Which route and Why?


What are the Influential factors for route choice?

Reason for route choice Very important(%)

Direct path connection 76

Shortest distance 76

Enjoy walking 46

Shorter waiting time 20

Attractive environment 11

Safety 11

Health 10

Any Other Factors?- Example: High heels

Is there any relation between factors influencing the route choice and the maximum accepted walking time for different mode? How to test??


Conclusion and recommendation

wider approach ( ex: household travel survey )

Some dedicated analysis only for public transport modes can (similar to this study) also be included into future MiD (Mobilität in Deutschland) for Munich city

How these assessments can be incorporated to improve the situation?

How these trends of travel behaviour can be utilize for the betterment of PuT?


How far people are willing to walk to public transport? A case study in Munich City Walk21,Vienna 22.10.2015 Rumana Islam Sarker Research Assistant, Institute.

Documents

mvv area

mode of transport ex

bigger catchment area

transport lines plan

city of munich

local public transport

lower urban density

data collection plan