1. Mobilityscope: Interactive optimization to deliver better active transportation
K. Shankari, UC Berkeley
Sara Barz, City of Oakland
Add logos
June 14, 2016

2. Sustainable transportation planning has a data problem
Data on people is limited
Census: every 10 years; ACS: updates every year
Only commutes to work
Only primary mode (bike -> bus -> bike) => bus
Household Travel Survey: All trips across a wide variety of modes
Expensive, so infrequent and small
Self-reported
Project/Plan Specific Surveys
Traffic counts are primary, track vehicles, not people
End to end data is missing (last mile problem)
Data is siloed - no holistic view across modes
Active transportation => person with clipboard
No data on perceptions - e.g safety
Last SF Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS) was in ...
2000
Tracks travel volume (huge emphasis) and not trips
Condense 2&3

3. How we want to improve transportation planning in the City of Oakland
Eugene Chan via Flickr
Better Data: Opportunity for the City to intercept travelers with focused questions at the right time and place
Better Plans: Ability for the City to create plans and projects that can be efficiently tested and evaluated
Competitive Projects: Advatage to craft more competitive grant applications with better data
Targeted Projects: Opportunity to target investments in the right of way according to demand by mode user group and to reward specific modes, like walking and biking
Creating a Department of Transportation
Flickr photo:
Better plans, more fundable projects
Better qualitative and quantitative data
Targeted projects
Competitive Projects
Flickr photo:
Traffic Counts & ACS data
Telegraph protected bike lane
ATP demands data on users as well as user growth projections

4. Potential: Agile transportation system
Waterfall -> agile
Waterfall originally from Civil Engineering
Still in Civil Engineering – 5 year plans, implement, population does what it does, re-measurement super later
Very hard to estimate cause and effect
Close the loop, can now enable cause and effect
Collect passive data using smartphones, augment with qualitative data from users on safe/suck + targeted surveys
Compare against goals
Controller makes change, see if it works, if so, do more, if not, try something else
closing the loop engages residents, creates community & enhance satisfaction. moves sustainable communities forward.
Build cities based on what people actually do rather than a model of what they should do
Active transportation - time scales are short by planning standards. Small targeted changes can have big impact.

5. What makes this Mobilityscope system different?
User centric versus City centric
Making it possible for planners to use all this cool

6. Evaluation No comparable open data at scale!
That’s why we are building this!
Trip data: Existing data collection
Comparison with regional model
Spot checks on specific corridors
User initiated qualitative data: Feedback on stress hotspots compared to regional stress estimates based on GIS and land use
Survey data: Compare response rate to existing postcard based mechanism
Design
Survey data
Prioritization
Evaluation
Trip data
Qualitative data
Very hard to evaluate. Three data sources, used in various parts of the agile transportation cycle.
Largely compare against existing methods although existing methods have known limitations as described earlier.

7. End to end system

8. Deployment plan

9. K. Shankari | shankari@eecs.berkeley.edu
Sara Barz |