LTC, Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference, 11/04/2011, Cornelius Nuworsoo

Smart Dial-a-Ride for Demand-Responsive Transit

Sponsor: Leonard Transportation Center (CSUSB)

Integration of Bicycling and Walking Facilities into Urban Infrastructure

Sponsor: Mineta Transportation Institute (SJSU)

Cornelius Nuworsoo, Ph.D.Associate Professor

Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Smart Dial-A-Ride

Lessons from Senior Mobility Study• Survey of seniors revealed:

• (a) seniors in general would prefer on-demand services as much as, if not more than any other public transportation mode

Lessons from Senior Mobility Study• Survey of seniors revealed:

• (b) seniors with physical limitations would prefer on-demand as much as, if not more than, any other means of travel; (. . . . group may grow with longevity!)

Lessons from Senior Mobility StudyWhy the Preference?• Relatively dispersed pattern of land development in

metropolitan US on-demand services offer . . . • the closest type of public transport service to

the overwhelmingly chosen form of personal transportation, the automobile

The Problem

•Demand-response service is expensive to provide (Rosenbloom, 2003):

•Of all public transit modes in California, dial-a-ride transit was:

• (a) least-used, • (b) least productive• (c) most subsidized

•Subsidy per ride: • dial-a-ride: $2.00 to $10.15 • fixed route: $1.16 to $3.89• (Nuworsoo, 2001, unpublished).

Hierarchies of Transit Operating Ratios -- CA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Single-mode rail Mixed-mode Dial-a-ride

oper

atin

g ra

tio

Ray of Hope!• Some on-demand

operations exhibit comparable levels of efficiency to standard transit!

• How do they do it?<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 >10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MB

Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip ($)

Num

ber o

f Age

ncie

s

<2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 >100

10203040506070

DRT

Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip ($)

Num

ber o

f Age

ncie

s

The Need• Need to rethink and revamp operation of on-

demand service . . . .if society is to meet future mobility preferences of very large incoming cohorts of seniors

Hypothesis• An efficient and widely available on-demand system:

• . . . . may be viewed as an advanced form of car (or vehicle) sharing

• . . . . can serve the niche between the private automobile and fixed route service while society attempts to change land use patterns to more compact forms that support additional fixed route service

Project’s Benefits• Develop efficient concept of operations from cases• Develop affordable dispatch assistance tool from

concept• Provide vital senior mobility for expanding cohort• Provide opportunity for wider vehicle sharing and

connections to fixed-route transit and other terminals• Contribute to:

• Promote cost savings (users and govt.)• reduce energy consumption and • reduce air pollution

Bicycling and Walking Facilities

MotivationProblem• Many design guidelines and manuals• Limited work on user preferences of treatments

Therefore• Bicycling and Walking Facility study . . . .• Case study of selected bicycling- & walking-friendly

communities in California : • Davis• Palo Alto • San Luis Obispo

Key LessonsUser Preferences:• Complete network of separated bicycling & walking

facilities that serve desired destinations• Majority of respondents would prefer to bike . . .

• 10 to 20 min for work, school, other business • < 10 min for shopping • > 30 min for recreation

Implication . . . • . . . . . This suggests how far away land use and

activities should be placed from residences and work places to promote bicycling

Key LessonsUser Preferences:• Ratings of factors in decision to cycle or walk . . .

0 1 2 3 4 5

Travel distance

Quality of facilities for cycling or walking

Climate

Difficulty of terrain

Directness of connections to destination

Availability Facilities for Bicycling or walking

Physical ability

Availability of Bicycle Parking at Destination

Availability of Showers at Destination

Key LessonsWorld Trend:• 3-way separation (autos; bicycles; walkers)

Santa Barbara

Project’s Benefits• The product is a guide for local level planning that

addresses . . . . • transferable policies• infrastructure systems • public education • key user preferences

• The guide will help local governments plan for transportation alternatives that can . . . . • promote healthy living, • reduce energy consumption and • reduce environmental pollution

Thanks!

Questions?