Document Open Access Logo

Revealing Differences in Public Transport Share Through District-Wise Comparison and Relating Them to Network Properties

Authors Manuela Canestrini , Ioanna Gogousou , Dimitrios Michail , Ioannis Giannopoulos

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2024.10.pdf
  • Filesize: 5.42 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Manuela Canestrini
  • Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria
Ioanna Gogousou
  • Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria
Dimitrios Michail
  • Harokopio University of Athens, Greece
Ioannis Giannopoulos
  • Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria

Funding

This research was supported by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) under Grant 894026.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Manuela Canestrini, Ioanna Gogousou, Dimitrios Michail, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. Revealing Differences in Public Transport Share Through District-Wise Comparison and Relating Them to Network Properties. In 16th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 315, pp. 10:1-10:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2024.10

Abstract

Sustainable transport is becoming an increasingly pressing issue, with two major pillars being the reduction of car usage and the promotion of public transport. One way to approach both of these pillars is through the large number of daily commute trips in urban areas, and their modal split. Previous research gathered knowledge on influencing factors on the modal split mainly through travel surveys. We take a different approach by analysing the "raw" network and the time-optimised trips on a multi-modal graph. For the case study of Vienna, Austria we investigate how the option to use a private car influences the modal split of routes towards the city centre. Additionally, we compare the modal split across seven inner districts and we relate properties of the public transport network to the respective share of public transport. The results suggest that different districts have varying options of public transport connections towards the city centre, with a share of public transport between about 5% up to a share of 45%. This reveals areas where investments in public transport could reduce commute times to the city centre. Regarding network properties, our findings suggest, that it is not sufficient to analyse the joint public transport network. Instead, individual public transport modalities should be examined. We show that the network length and the direction of the lines towards the city centre influence the proportion of subway and tram in the modal split.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Simulation evaluation
  • General and reference → Experimentation
  • General and reference → Metrics
Keywords
  • Mobility
  • Modal Split
  • Transportation Networks

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Mohammad Ansari Esfeh, S. C. Wirasinghe, Saeid Saidi, and Lina Kattan. Waiting time and headway modelling for urban transit systems – a critical review and proposed approach. Transport Reviews, 41(2):141-163, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1806942.
  2. Martin Bárta. GIS Based Methodology to Analyse the Public Transport Supply-Hungarian Case Studies. Geographica Pannonica, 26(2):92-101, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.5937/gp26-36423.
  3. Joschka Bischoff and Kai Nagel. Integrating explicit parking search into a transport simulation. Procedia Computer Science, 109:881-886, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.414.
  4. Stefan Buchmueller and Ulrich Weidmann. Parameters of pedestrians, pedestrian traffic, and walking facilities. IVT Schriftenreihe, 132, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000047950.
  5. Ralph Buehler and John Pucher. Demand for Public Transport in Germany and the USA: An Analysis of Rider Characteristics. Transport Reviews, 32(5):541-567, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2012.707695.
  6. Martin Bárta. Comparative analysis of the accessibility and connectivity of public transport in the city districts of Krakow. Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 23(3):7-14, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4467/2543859XPKG.20.016.12784.
  7. John Calimente. Rail integrated communities in Tokyo. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(1):19-32, 2012. Publisher: Journal of Transport and Land Use. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26201682.
  8. Alban Caquot. Traffic light management to improve urban traffic. Master’s thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2022. URL: https://oa.upm.es/71316/1/TFM_ALBAN_CAQUOT.pdf.
  9. Cynthia Chen, Hongmian Gong, and Robert Paaswell. Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation, 35:285-299, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9153-5.
  10. Boer Cui, Geneviève Boisjoly, Luis Miranda-Moreno, and Ahmed El-Geneidy. Accessibility matters: Exploring the determinants of public transport mode share across income groups in Canadian cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80:102276, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102276.
  11. Jonas De Vos, Long Cheng, Md Kamruzzaman, and Frank Witlox. The indirect effect of the built environment on travel mode choice: A focus on recent movers. Journal of Transport Geography, 91:102983, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102983.
  12. Edsger W. Dijkstra. A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs. Numerische Mathematik, 1(1):269-271, 1959. Google Scholar
  13. Gamal Eldeeb, Moataz Mohamed, and Antonio Páez. Built for active travel? Investigating the contextual effects of the built environment on transportation mode choice. Journal of Transport Geography, 96:103158, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103158.
  14. Lars Eriksson, Margareta Friman, and Tommy Gärling. Stated reasons for reducing work-commute by car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(6):427-433, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.04.001.
  15. Fernando Fonseca, Elisa Conticelli, George Papageorgiou, Paulo Ribeiro, Mona Jabbari, Simona Tondelli, and Rui Ramos. Levels and Characteristics of Utilitarian Walking in the Central Areas of the Cities of Bologna and Porto. Sustainability, 13(6):3064, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063064.
  16. Qi-Li Gao, Qing-Quan Li, Yan Zhuang, Yang Yue, Zhen-Zhen Liu, Shui-Quan Li, and Daniel Sui. Urban commuting dynamics in response to public transit upgrades: A big data approach. PLOS ONE, 14(10):e0223650, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223650.
  17. Mireia Gascon, Oriol Marquet, Esther Gràcia-Lavedan, Albert Ambròs, Thomas Götschi, Audrey de Nazelle, Luc Int Panis, Regine Gerike, Christian Brand, Evi Dons, et al. What explains public transport use? Evidence from seven European cities. Transport Policy, 99:362-374, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.08.009.
  18. Anna Goodman. Walking, Cycling and Driving to Work in the English and Welsh 2011 Census: Trends, Socio-Eonomic Patterning and Relevance to Travel Behaviour in General. PloS one, 8(8):e71790, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071790.
  19. Jesper Bláfoss Ingvardson and Otto Anker Nielsen. The influence of vicinity to stations, station characteristics and perceived safety on public transport mode choice: a case study from Copenhagen. Public Transport, 14(2):459-480, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-021-00285-x.
  20. Jennifer L. Kent. Driving to save time or saving time to drive? The enduring appeal of the private car. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 65:103-115, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.04.009.
  21. Elena Kondrateva, Alexander Sidorov, and Oleg Saprykin. An isochrones based public transport stops optimization technique. In 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), pages 182-187. IEEE, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/MTITS.2017.8005662.
  22. Alba Kucukali, Rejdi Pjeternikaj, Zeka Egin, and Hysa Artan. Evaluating the pedestrian accessibility to public services using open-source geospatial data and QGIS software. Nova Geodesia, 2(2):42-42, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.55779/ng2242.
  23. Yuan Liao, Jorge Gil, Rafael HM Pereira, Sonia Yeh, and Vilhelm Verendel. Disparities in travel times between car and transit: Spatiotemporal patterns in cities. Scientific Reports, 10(1):4056, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61077-0.
  24. Becky P. Y. Loo, Cynthia Chen, and Eric T. H. Chan. Rail-based transit-oriented development: Lessons from New York City and Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(3):202-212, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.002.
  25. Erik B. Lunke, N. Fearnley, and J. Aarhaug. Public transport competitiveness vs. the car: Impact of relative journey time and service attributes. Research in Transportation Economics, 90:101098, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101098.
  26. Erik Bjørnson Lunke and Øystein Engebretsen. Public Transport Use on Trip Chains: Exploring Various Mode Choice Determinants. Findings, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.74112.
  27. Niall McCarthy. The World’s Top Cities For Sustainable Transport [Digital image]. https://www.statista.com/chart/11658/the-worlds-top-cities-for-sustainable-transport/, 2017.
  28. OpenSourceForEver. Penalty for traffic lights #675, 2021. URL: https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd-resources/pull/675.
  29. Rafael Prieto-Curiel and Juan P Ospina. The ABC of mobility. Environment International, 185:108541, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541.
  30. Lauren Redman, Margareta Friman, Tommy Gärling, and Terry Hartig. Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review. Transport Policy, 25:119-127, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.11.005.
  31. Jean-Paul Rodrigue. The Geography of Transport Systems. Routledge, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346323.
  32. Vladimír Székely and Ján Novotnỳ. Spatial differences in public transport accessibility of district centres in the Prešov region, Slovakia. Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 22(1):31-43, 2019. Google Scholar
  33. Darren Walton and S. Sunseri. Factors Influencing the Decision to Drive or Walk Short Distances to Public Transport Facilities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 4(4):212-226, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310902927040.
  34. Dong Wang and Yan Liu. Factors influencing public transport use: a study of university commuters' travel and mode choice behaviours. In 7th State of Australian Cities Conference, 9-11 December 2015, Gold Coast, Australia, 2015. URL: https://apo.org.au/node/63290.
  35. Donggen Wang and Meng Zhou. The built environment and travel behavior in urban China: A literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52:574-585, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.031.
  36. Jiancheng Weng, Huapeng Shen, Pengfei Lin, Yunqi Jing, and Huimin Qian. Exploring the spatiotemporal relationships between built environment and the public transport competitiveness: A case study from Beijing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 446:141333, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141333.
  37. Chaoying Yin, Xiaoquan Wang, Chunfu Shao, and Jianxiao Ma. Exploring the Relationship between Built Environment and Commuting Mode Choice: Longitudinal Evidence from China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21):14149, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114149.
  38. Wenbin Zha, Yuqi Guo, Bin Li, and Dongmei Liu. Individual travel based transportation mode transfer points analysis and identification. In 2019 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), pages 2997-3002. IEEE, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/CAC48633.2019.8996211.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact