Social equity is increasingly incorporated as a long-term objective into urban transportation plans. Researchers used accessibility measures to assess equity issues, such as determining the amount of jobs reachable by marginalized groups within a defined travel time threshold and compare these measures across socioeconomic categories. However, allocating public transit resources in an equitable manner is not only related to travel time, but also related to the out-ofpocket cost of transit fares, which can represent a major barrier to accessibility for many disadvantaged groups. Therefore, this research proposes a set of new accessibility measures that incorporates both travel time and transit fares. It then applies those measures to determine whether people residing in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods in Montreal, Canada experience the same levels of transit accessibility as those living in other neighborhoods. Results are presented in terms of regional accessibility and trends by social indicator decile. Travel time accessibility measures estimate a higher number of jobs that can be reached compared to combined travel time and cost measures. However, the degree and impact of these measures varies across the social deciles. Compared to other groups in the region, residents of socially disadvantaged areas have more equitable accessibility to jobs using transit; this is reflected in smaller decreases in accessibility when fare costs are included. Generating new measures of accessibility combining travel time and transit fares provides more accurate measures that can be easily communicated by transportation planners and engineers to policy makers and the public since it translates accessibility measures to a dollar value.
Understanding the impacts of a combination of service improvement strategies on bus running time and passenger's perception. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(3), 614-625.
Research Highlights
1-This article aims to evaluate the impact of implementing a combination of service improvement strategies including using smart card fare collection, introducing limited-stop bus service, implementing reserved bus lanes, using articulated buses, and implementing transit signal priority (TSP).
2-The combination of these strategies has lead to a 10.5% decline in running time along the limited stop service compared to the regular service.
3-Riders are generally satisfied with the service improvements. They tend to overestimate the savings associated with the implementation of this combination of strategies by 3.5 to 6.0 minutes and by 2.5 to 4.1 minutes for both the regular route and the limited stop service, respectively.
4-This study helps transit planners and policy makers better understand the effects of implementing a combination of strategies to improve running time and passenger's perception of satisfaction.
Public transportation systems generate economic benefits that can potentially reduce social disparities between populations when such benefits are distributed evenly within a region. However, the achievement of equity in the allocation of public resources is not easy to accomplish for land use and transportation planning agencies. This research seeks to determine whether people residing in socially disadvantaged areas in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), Canada, experience the same levels of transit accessibility as those living in other areas over the course of a day. Comparisons are presented in terms of regional accessibility, trends by social decile, spatial distribution of accessibility during the day, and travel time impacts. Findings suggest that residents in socially disadvantaged areas have equitable if not better transit accessibility to jobs than socially advantaged groups, and this is reflected in shorter travel times. However, the degree and impact of this advantage varies over the course of the day. Findings from this research can be of interest to transportation planners, engineers, and policy makers as it highlights deficiencies with current equity assessment practices that do not take into account variation in transit services over a 24-h time period.
Transit agencies wishing to offer reliable service with less variability compared to schedules face several challenges, encouraging them to employ various strategies. While previous research has considered the effects of various strategies on running time, there has been little effort to understand their impacts on reliability of service. This article examines the impacts of various improvement strategies, implemented by Société de Transport de Montréal (STM) along one of its heavily utilized bus routes, on running time deviation from schedule, variation in running time, and variation in running time deviation from schedules. These strategies have been implemented at different time points over past 3 years. They include, chronologically ordered, implementation of a smart card fare collection system, operation of a reserved bus lane, introduction of limited-stop bus service, use of articulated buses, and operation of transit signal priority (TSP). This study uses automatic vehicle location (AVL) and automatic passenger count (APC) systems at the bus route segment level of analysis. The introduction of a smart card fare collection system increased bus running time and service variation. Articulated buses, limitedstop bus service and reserved bus lanes have mixed effects on variation in comparison to the running time changes, while TSP did not show an impact on variations in our study. This study offers transit agencies and schedulers a better understanding of the effects of various strategies on different aspects of service variation, which are important components of transit service reliability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.