Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations

1. Developing ITS to Serve Diverse Populations Advanced Transportation Technologies Seminar September 12, 2006

2. Presentation Overview • Background, definitions • I-394 MnPASS Evaluation • ATIS • Advanced Transit Information Systems • Carsharing • Community Based Transit (CBT)

3. History • Latest in several “Guidestar”-funded projects • Past projects have focused on analysis and evaluation of technology applications: • Telework and other tele-applications • Sustainable Transportation • Emergency Management Systems (EMS)

4. Meaning of “Diverse” • 3 perspectives • Diversity of trip type • Diversity of trip mode • Diversity of person • This project especially considers: Serving those that do not rely on a single occupant vehicle as their primary transport mode

5. I-394 MnPASS Attitudinal Evaluation

6. I-394 MnPASS Attitudinal Evaluation • 3 wave panel survey • Coordinated with Value Pricing Outreach projects from MnDOT and FHWA • Conducted under subcontract with NuStats

7. I-394 MnPASS Attitudinal Evaluation • Primary objectives: • Attitudes and awareness • Overall • Equity • Technology • Changes in travel behavior

8. Attitudinal Panel Survey Design I-394 MnPASS Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Spring 2006 Fall 2004 Summer 2005 Fall 2005

9. Panel Survey

10. Trips by Account Zip Code

11. Overall attitudes What do you think of allowing single drivers to use the carpool lanes by paying a toll?

12. Fall 05 Satisfaction MnPASS Elements

13. Spring 06 Satisfaction MnPASS Elements

14. Equity: MnPASS Acceptance “Good Idea” by Income

15. Equity: MnPASS Acceptance “Good Idea” by Usual Mode Transit:49% SOV: 65% HOV: 60%

16. Technology:Satisfaction with Operational Elements- Fall 05

17. Technology:Satisfaction with Operational Elements- Spring 06

18. Travel Behavior:Usual Travel Mode Now consider all trips you made in both directions. On how many of those trips did you… I-394 Panelists I-35W Panelists

19. ATIS Evaluation Claremont Graduate School

20. ATIS School of Information Systems and Technology • Provides an assortment of traffic information services • Provide route-guidance and destination information • Provides information for transit planning (mta.net, metrotransit.org)

21. Research Questions School of Information Systems and Technology What are citizens’ assessment of government-led online transit planning (ATIS) services? • To what extent is this assessment comprised of satisfaction, frustration, confidence and pleasantness of the online experience? • To what extent does this assessment vary as a function of system’s perceived utility, reliability, efficiency, customization and flexibility? • How well does an evaluation-metric explain satisfaction with e-service?

22. School of Information Systems and Technology Survey and Focus Groups • Online transit planning websites • Los Angeles MTA (www.mta.net) • Minneapolis / St. Paul Metro Area (www.metrotransit.org) • Online survey • Overall response (n=401) • LA: n=155 • MN: n=246 • Focus groups • Discussions with MN and LA users (n=30) • LA: n=8 • MN: n=22

23. School of Information Systems and Technology Online Survey • Designed to collect reactions after respondents used the websites • Reactions were gathered based on scenarios that were presented to respondents • Extended trip duration, beginning at A, going to B, then going to C.

24. School of Information Systems and Technology LA Responses Los Angeles (n = 155) • Profile • Age group of 18-44 years (57.4%) • With a Bachelors degree (70%) • Employed (FT or PT, 69%) • White / Caucasian (72.3%) • Male or Female (55% to 45%) • Household income < 75000 • Has access to vehicle (71%) • Matured user of computers (6-15 years – 57.5%) • Matured user of the Internet (6-10 years – 57%) • Uses public transportation “Less than once a month” • Uses public transportation for • Recreation or Work (36%) • Eventuality – “Car needs repair or is in shop” (27%)

25. School of Information Systems and Technology MN Responses Minneapolis Responses (n = 246) • Profile • Age group of 18-44 years (70%) • With a Bachelors degree (71.1%) • Employed (FT or PT, 64%) • White / Caucasian (85%) • Female (58% to 38%) • Household income < 75000 (70%) • Has access to vehicle (42.7%) • Matured user of computers (6-15 years – 78%) • Matured user of the Internet (6-10 years – 60%) • 48% use public transportation “5 or more times a week” • 44% planned their trip “At least Once a Week” • Uses public transportation for • Work or school (64%)

26. School of Information Systems and Technology Focus Group Findings • General Usability • Good way to plan trips • LA users thought that the MTA website is unable to plan complex trips • MN users commented on the inability to plan suburban trips

27. School of Information Systems and Technology Focus Group Findings • Emotional Dimensions • MN users were extremely satisfied on “impromptu” usage of the website • MN users felt an immediate sense of confidence in using the website • LA users noted the lack of integrated information services in case of multi-modal trips • In both cases, “matured” users felt that specific bus stops, which they knew, did not exist on the website

28. School of Information Systems and Technology Focus Group Findings • Suggested Improvements • Need for providing dynamic information • Based on real-time changes in stops or other facilities such as shelters • LA users felt that more visual information needs to be provided • MN users felt there is a need for better geographical information • They currently use other options such as Yahoo! Maps, Mapquest or Google Earth

29. School of Information Systems and Technology Focus Group Findings • Likely Use of e-Services • E-Gov ATIS service options were considered better than other services such as public libraries • Customization in terms of storing trips for future planning of the trips

30. School of Information Systems and Technology Directions and Implications • Considering Transit Planning as E-Gov • Focus on end-to-end service, especially by regular users • Understand and attend to frustration elements • Think about Mapquest (and Expedia) as setting the standard for online trip planning • Consider broader away of search/response options, across modes.

31. Carsharing James Andrew

32. Carsharing Fits Research Interest • Application of technology • Creates opportunity to bring transportation benefits to “non-traditional” populations • New innovation that raises as many policy questions as technological questions

33. What Carsharing Is NOT • Car Pooling • Ridesharing • Slugging • Informal • Communism

34. What Carsharing IS • One membership organization • Several paying members • One or more cars located in a convenient location • Members pay per use of car

35. Carsharing • Research in conjunction with hOurCar • Carsharing in other locations • Market for car sharing in TCMA • Develop a model that extends carsharing to “transportation disadvantaged” • “time-banking” • JARC

37. Carsharing Time-banking model • Car sharing currently appeals to middle income • As car sharing shifts private auto costs from fixed to variable, it presents a lower cost opportunity for private auto use • Fixed costs of carsharing still higher than transit, walking or bicycling • CSO’s cannot afford to unilaterally drop these

38. Carsharing • Time Banking model addresses the issue by creating opportunities for partnerships, cross-subsidies and limiting subsidized use • Partner • Transit agency, which increases / preserves ridership • 8 – 10 transit rides = one hour carsharing use

39. Carsharing • Cross-subsidization • Location in mixed income neighborhoods • Increased CS visibility • Link with transit creates additional incentive for higher income residents to join

40. Carsharing • Application of Time-banking to Twin Cities Neighborhoods • Analyzed: • Population • Poverty rate (proxy for mixed income) • Work location (proxy for transit potential) • Current transit share in mode split

41. Task 2: Carsharing • Application of Time-banking to Twin Cities Neighborhoods • Most likely areas: • Uptown • Marcy-Holmes • Loring Park • University of Minnesota

42. Uptown Area (thermals)

43. Marcy-Holmes Area (thermals)

44. Loring Park Area (thermals)

45. University of MN Area (thermals)

46. Task 2: Carsharing • Additional work needed: • Financial questions: • How much subsidy per user required? • How much subsidy covered by transit agency? • How much subsidy covered by cross-subsidy? • What is optimal mix of regular and low-income users? Of regular and subsidized uses? • How to market? • Develop on-the-ground demonstration

47. Community-Based Transit Gary Barnes, Heather Dolphin

48. Survey background • Earlier research identified two beliefs that were widely held but not formally documented as far as we could tell • Large numbers of privately held vehicles • Many vehicles used very little • The notion that the system is inefficient or needs to be better “coordinated” relies to some extent on these two beliefs • ITS: could technology help coordination?

49. Survey objectives • Measure of how widespread specialized transportation is and who is involved • Better understanding of two key questions • Vehicle inventory • Vehicle usage (or lack thereof) • Organizational models for specialized transportation provision

50. Methodology summary • Identify all organizations that might have an interest in transportation • Screened with large mailing of short pre-survey, then full survey to some pre-survey respondents • Divided respondents into providers, arrangers, those that do both, and those that are not involved