MIT1_201JF08_lec08

MIT1_201JF08_lec08 - Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 1 John Attanucci Lecture 8 ASSESSING THE TRANSFER PENALTY: A GIS-BASED DISAGGREGATE MODELING APPROACH Outline Objectives Prior Research Modeling Approach Data Issues Model Specifications Analysis and Interpretation Conclusions Source: Guo, Z and N.H.M. Wilson, "Assessment of the Transfer Penalty for Transit Trips: A GIS-based Disaggregate Modeling Approach." Transportation Research Record 1872, pp 10-18 (2004). Guo, Z., "Transfers and Path Choice in Urban Public transport Systems." PhD Dissertation (MIT, 2008). Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 2 John Attanucci Lecture 8 TRANSFERS ARE IMPORTANT TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT Transfers are endemic in public transport -- transfer: change of vehicle -- public transport is unable to provide door-to-door service Transfers are prevalent in major public transport networks -- share of transfer trips in public transport Boston: 43% (CTPS 1991) London: 50% (LATS 2001) New York: 33% (NYMTC 1997/98) Chicago: 50%* (Crockett 2002 ) Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 3 John Attanucci Lecture 8 TRANSFERS ARE NOT WELL ANALYZED Understanding of the behavior is limited -- how are transfers perceived by passengers? -- how do transfers affect the performance of public transport? Analysis methods are primitive -- lack of detail to improve understanding and applications Applications are sporadic and limited -- timed transfer: focuses on transfer waiting time -- under-evaluate the impact of transfers and the benefit of transfer- related investments Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 4 John Attanucci Lecture 8 OBJECTIVES Improve our understanding of how transfers affect behavior Estimate the impact of each variable characterizing a transfer Identify transfer attributes which can be improved cost-effectively PREVIOUS TRANSFER PENALTY RESULTS Previous Studies Variables in the Transfer Types Transfer Penalty Utility Function (Model Structure) Equivalence Alger et al, 1971 Walking time to stop Subway-to-Subway 4.4 minutes in-vehicle time Stockholm Initial waiting time Rail-to-Rail 14.8 minutes in-vehicle time Transit in-vehicle time Bus-to-Rail 23.0 minutes in-vehicle time Transit cost Bus-to-Bus 49.5 minutes in-vehicle time Han, 1987 Initial waiting time Bus-to-Bus 30 minutes in-vehicle time Taipei, Taiwan Walking time to stop (Path Choice) 10 minutes initial wait time In-vehicle time 5 minutes walk time Bus fare Transfer constant Hunt , 1990 Transfer Constant Bus-to-Light Rail 17.9 minutes in-vehicle time Edmonton, Canada Walking distance (Path Choice) Total in-vehicle time Waiting time Number of transfers Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 5 John Attanucci Lecture 8 PREVIOUS TRANSFER PENALTY RESULTS (cont'd) Previous Studies Variables in the Transfer Types Transfer Penalty Utility Function (Model Structure) Equivalence Liu, 1997 Transfer Constant Auto-to-Rail 15 minutes in-vehicle time New Jersey, NJ In-vehicle time Rail-to-Rail 1.4 minutes in-vehicle time Out-of-vehicle time...
View Full Document

Page1 / 28

MIT1_201JF08_lec08 - Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2008 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online