1 / 34

Policy In Motion: Route360

"Explore how Policy In Motion introduces Route360, a unified transportation platform for citizens to compare options. Learn about Route360's features, benefits, and implementation plan. Discover its potential to transform city transport and meet citizen needs efficiently."

axl
Télécharger la présentation

Policy In Motion: Route360

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Policy In Motion: Route360 Bryce Adams, Elizabeth Joseph, Julie Lindsey, Charles E. Maddox, Lauren Waters 1

  2. Agenda • The Challenge • The Solution: Route360 • How Does It Work? • Will It Work? • How Do We Get There? • Conclusion • Questions and Answers 2

  3. The Challenge Citizens Cannot compare transportation alternatives using a unified platform City Cannot analyze citizens’ transportation preferences and needs 3

  4. 4

  5. 5

  6. 6

  7. 7

  8. 8

  9. 9

  10. 10

  11. 11

  12. 12

  13. 13

  14. The Challenge Citizens Cannot compare transportation alternatives using a unified platform City Cannot analyze citizens’ transportation preferences and needs 14

  15. The Solution: Route360 Citizens City 15

  16. - 16

  17. How Does Route360 Work? • Pulls information from transportation vendors • Compiles and provides data on: • Trip time • Total cost • Environmental impact • Real-time arrival information • Parking availability • Special event road closures • Collects data on user preferences 17

  18. Research Support 18

  19. The Benefits of Route360 19

  20. How Do We Get There? “Route360: How Austin Gets Around” 20

  21. How Do We Get There? Expenses Revenues Projected Revenue Alternatives Fully funded by the City Public-Private partnerships • Tiered implementation • Phase I: $113,000 • Phase II: $68,000 • Phase III: $58,000 • Projected Expenses • Personnel • App Creation • Marketing 21

  22. How Do We Get There? 22

  23. How Do We Get There? • April 2013: Create City of Austin planning committee. • Summer 2013: Host stakeholder meetings. Open app design competition. • August 2013: Close design competition. Award contract. • January 2014: Begin beta testing. Kick off marketing campaign. • March 2014: Finalize implementation. Rollout app to the entire City of Austin. 23

  24. Conclusion 24

  25. Questions & Answers 25

  26. Works Cited • Dziekan, K. & Kottenhoff, K. (2007). “Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transopt: Effects on customers,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 41(6), p. 489-501. • Ferris, B., Watkins, K., & Borning, K. (2010). “OneBusAway: Results from providing real-time travel information for public transit,” CHI 2010: Bikes & Buses. • Ferris, B. (2011). “OneBusAway: Improving the usability of public transit,” ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. • Watkins, K.E., Ferris, B., Borning, A., Rutherford, G.S., Layton, D. (2011). “Where is my bus? Impact of real-time information on the perceived and actual wait time of transit riders.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 45(8), p. 839-848. • Zhang, F., Shen, Q., & Clifton, K.J. (2008). “Examination of traveler response to real-time information about bus arrivals using panel data,” Transportation Research Record, 2082, p. 107-115. • Tang, L. & Thakuriah, P.V. (2012). “Ridership effect of real-time bus information system: A case study in the City of Chicago,” Transportation Research Part C, 22, p. 146-161. • Budic, I.Z.D. (1994). “Effectiveness of geographic information systems in local planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), p. 244-263. • Johnston, R.A. & de la Barra, T. (2000). “Comprehensive regional modeling for long-range planning: linking integrated urban models and geographic information systems,” Transportation Resarch Part A: Policy & Practice, 34(2), p. 125-136. • Barry, J.J. et. al. (2002). “Origin and estimation in New York City with automated fare system data,” Planning and Administration, 1817, p. 183-187. 26

  27. Proposed Budget 27

  28. 28

  29. 29

  30. 30

  31. 31

  32. OneBusAway (King Co.) • New interface for existing real-time bus arrival information • Launched summer 2008, steadily increasing use since then • Survey of users (n = 488) recruited through notices • More male & young than general ridership, self-reported • Similar income levels, represents 10% of daily user base • 92% somewhat or much more satisfied with public transit • Cited certainty, ease, and flexibility in comments • Age significantly negatively correlated with satisfaction • 91% reported shorter wait times • 78% said they were more likely to walk to a different route • Statistically significant increase in feelings of safety 32

  33. ShuttleTrac (UMD) • Interface for real-time university shuttle arrival information • Installed summer 2006, implemented spring 2007 • Pre- (n=1679) and Post- (n=1306) launch surveys targeting entire student body • Post survey began only two weeks after launch • Statistically significant improvement in: • Overall satisfaction • Feeling of security at night • Improved perception of on-time performance • No effect on self-reported shuttle trips • Suggests stop location and route changes to increase ridership 33

  34. Bus Tracker (Chicago) • Staggered launches of real-time bus information service • Implemented August 2006 to May 2009 • Longitudinal study over 2002-10, controlling for outside factors • Implementation of Bus Tracker on a route led to: • Statistically significant increase in ridership • An extra 126 rides per day or a ~2% increase • Greater increases in later implementations could signify: • Cumulative effect • More connectivity along later routes 34

More Related