ACCESS TO DESTINATION: DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES Ahmed M. El-Geneidy David M. Levinson University of Minnesota

Access to Destinations How is the transportation system changing in the Twin Cities region and what can be done about it?

Project Goal Develop a methodology for measuring accessibility in the Twin Cities region –Task 1: Conduct literature review –Task 2: Define performance measures for accessibility –Task 3: Illustrate range of performance measures for “proof of concept” –Task 4: Prepare the final report

Meaning of Accessibility Individual Public Agencies (Mn/DOT)

Meaning of Accessibility JobsSchoolsParksShopping Automobile Transit Bicycling Walking JobsSchoolsParksShopping Automobile Transit Bicycling Walking JobsSchoolsParksShopping Automobile Transit Bicycling Walking

Measures of Accessibility Cumulative Opportunity Measure Gravity-based Measure Place Rank Measure

Data Sources

Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 20 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 30 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 40 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 50 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 60 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Retail Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Non-Retail Jobs)

Gravity-based Measure

Place Rank

Gravity-Based

Place Rank (color) & Gravity- based (height) Accessibility Measures

Comparative Analysis Place Rank for resident workers Place Rank for jobs Place rank for resident workers Place rank for jobs Gravity-based measure for jobs Gravity-based for resident workers

Effects of Accessibility Individual –Home sale value Public Agencies (Mn/DOT) –Accessibility over time versus congestion

Accessibility and Home Sale Price

Accessibility Over Time

Cumulative Opportunity to jobs Cumulative Opportunity to residents 30 Min45 Min60 Min30 Min45 Min60 Min Mid Point139,739292,954351,715225,703468,155524,716 t Stat

Accessibility to Jobs (Auto 1990)

Accessibility to Jobs (Auto 2000)

Accessibility to Jobs (Transit 1990)

Accessibility to Jobs (Transit 2000)

Accessibility Jobs Over Time (Auto )

Accessibility Residents Over Time (Auto )

Accessibility versus Congestion Delay per passenger during AM peak –19 hours (1990) –43 hours (2000) Accessibility to residents from downtown Minneapolis –1,870,534 (1990) –2,207,639 (2000)

Conclusion Accessibility Measures –Cumulative Opportunity –Gravity-Based –Place Rank Effects of Accessibility Accessibility Over Time

Thank You Ahmed M. El-Geneidy David M. Levinson University of Minnesota ACCESS TO DESTINATION: DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES

Development of Accessibility Measures NE X US Ahmed M. El-Geneidy David M. Levinson University of Minnesota TAP Meeting 7/12/2005

Access to Destinations How is the transportation system changing in the Twin Cities region and what can be done about it?

Access to Destinations To improve understanding of travel on the current transportation infrastructure To develop measures of accessibility using travel and land use data, showing how accessibility has changed from 1990 to 2000 Using these new tools and information, to assess how our existing transportation and land use system meets alternative policy goals

Project Goal Develop a methodology for measuring accessibility in the Twin Cities region –Task 1: Conduct literature review –Task 2: Define performance measures for accessibility –Task 3: Illustrate range of performance measures for “proof of concept”

Accessibility Measures Cumulative Opportunity Measure Gravity-based Measure Place Rank Measure

Case Study Measuring Accessibility to Jobs Measuring Accessibility to Resident Workers

Data Travel time information Number of resident workers Number of jobs Origin and destination matrix

Data Sources

Cumulative Opportunity Measure Counts the number of opportunities within a given travel time 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 45, 50 & 60 minutes of travel time from origins

Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 20 Min (Jobs)

Cumulative Opportunity 30 Min (Jobs)

Gravity-based Measure Opportunities (number of jobs) Impedance (travel time, distance, or cost)

Gravity-based Measure (Jobs)

Gravity-based Measure (Workers)

Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Jobs) NE X US

Gravity-based (Jobs) NE X US

Gravity-based (height) and Cumulative opportunity (color) combined (Jobs) NE X US

Place Rank Example A C B D Number of Resident Workers in Each Zone

Place Rank Example A C B D Number of Jobs in Each Zone

Place Rank Example A C B D

Place Rank Example (Original Data) ABCD A B 3000 C D Total Workers by Origin Total Jobs by Destination Power of a single link (P i1 )

Place Rank Example (First Iteration) ABCD A B C D Total Workers by Origin Total Jobs by Destination Power of a single link (P i1 )

Place Rank Example Zone Place rank A 848 B 524 C 493 D A C B D Stability reached after 19 iterations

Place Rank (Jobs)

Gravity-based (Jobs)

Place Rank (Jobs) NE X US

Gravity-based (Jobs) NE X US

Gravity-based (Height) and Place rank (Color) NE X US

Correlation Matrix Place Rank for resident workers Place Rank for jobs Place rank for resident workers Place rank for jobs Gravity-based measure for jobs Gravity-based for resident workers

Correlation

Conclusion Comparing Gravity-based to Cumulative Opportunity Comparing Gravity-based to Place Rank Advantages of Place Rank

Future Research Refine Place Rank measure Apply the Place Rank to a different level of analysis

Development of Accessibility Measures Ahmed M. El-Geneidy David M. Levinson University of Minnesota NE X US