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

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

3. 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

4. Meaning of Accessibility Individual Public Agencies (Mn/DOT)

5. Meaning of Accessibility JobsSchoolsParksShopping Automobile Transit Bicycling Walking JobsSchoolsParksShopping Automobile Transit Bicycling Walking JobsSchoolsParksShopping Automobile Transit Bicycling Walking 2005 1995 2000

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

7. Data Sources

8. Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Jobs)

9. Cumulative Opportunity 20 Min (Jobs)

10. Cumulative Opportunity 30 Min (Jobs)

11. Cumulative Opportunity 40 Min (Jobs)

12. Cumulative Opportunity 50 Min (Jobs)

13. Cumulative Opportunity 60 Min (Jobs)

14. Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Retail Jobs)

15. Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Non-Retail Jobs)

16. Gravity-based Measure

18. Place Rank

19. Gravity-Based

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

21. Comparative Analysis Place Rank for resident workers Place Rank for jobs Place rank for resident workers 1.0000.752 Place rank for jobs 0.7521.000 Gravity-based measure for jobs 0.4310.572 Gravity-based for resident workers 0.4250.415

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

23. Accessibility and Home Sale Price

25. Accessibility Over Time

26. Cumulative Opportunity to jobs Cumulative Opportunity to residents 30 Min45 Min60 Min30 Min45 Min60 Min Mid Point139,739292,954351,715225,703468,155524,716 t Stat4.45618.690118.6124.70118.371180.762

27. Accessibility to Jobs (Auto 1990)

28. Accessibility to Jobs (Auto 2000)

29. Accessibility to Jobs (Transit 1990)

30. Accessibility to Jobs (Transit 2000)

31. Accessibility Jobs Over Time (Auto 2000-1990)

32. Accessibility Residents Over Time (Auto 2000-1990)

33. 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)

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

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

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

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

38. 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

39. 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”

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

41. Case Study Measuring Accessibility to Jobs Measuring Accessibility to Resident Workers

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

43. Data Sources

44. 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

45. Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Jobs)

46. Cumulative Opportunity 20 Min (Jobs)

47. Cumulative Opportunity 30 Min (Jobs)

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

49. Gravity-based Measure (Jobs)

50. Gravity-based Measure (Workers)

51. Cumulative Opportunity 10 Min (Jobs) NE X US

52. Gravity-based (Jobs) NE X US

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

54. Place Rank Example A C B D 500 200 800 1600 Number of Resident Workers in Each Zone

55. Place Rank Example A C B D 700 500 1100 800 Number of Jobs in Each Zone

56. Place Rank Example 100300 400200 100200 300 100 A C B D 200 100 500 600

57. Place Rank Example (Original Data) ABCD A200100300100 B 3000 C00600200 D 0400500 Total Workers by Origin5002001600800 Total Jobs by Destination7005008001100 Power of a single link (P i1 )1.42.50.51.375

58. Place Rank Example (First Iteration) ABCD A280250150137.5 B1402501500 C00300275 D2800200687.5 Total Workers by Origin5002001600800 Total Jobs by Destination817.55405751167.5 Power of a single link (P i1 )1.632.70.361.45

59. Place Rank Example Zone Place rank A 848 B 524 C 493 D 1233 100300 400200 100200 300 100 A C B D 200 100 500 600 Stability reached after 19 iterations

60. Place Rank (Jobs)

61. Gravity-based (Jobs)

62. Place Rank (Jobs) NE X US

63. Gravity-based (Jobs) NE X US

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

65. Correlation Matrix Place Rank for resident workers Place Rank for jobs Place rank for resident workers 1.0000.752 Place rank for jobs 0.7521.000 Gravity-based measure for jobs 0.4310.572 Gravity-based for resident workers 0.4250.415

66. Correlation

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

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

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