Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing co-modality in urban transit systems from a passengers’ perspective

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Co-modality is a concept based on a unified network system which will ensure the effective and sustainable utilization of all transportation modes. However, the application of co-modality as a measure of evaluating public transit system performance is recent and has been predominantly used in freight transport systems. This study proposes a novel approach by using co-modality as a key performance indicator to characterize public transit systems for passengers. This paper examines a new data set to evaluate transit systems from a user perspective. The data is gathered from an Application Programming Interface (API) which pulls from the real-time General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). Data was collected over 24 h to explore 4320 transit trips and 69,120 attributes for a single origin–destination pair. Co-modality is used to understand how dozens of transit routes and schedules will best serve transit users. A detailed analysis of trips involving multiple transit segments is conducted to understand how varying headways influence the overall trip travel time. The main conclusion for this paper is that a user perspective is necessary to understand co-modality across public transit systems. Some of the metrics identified in this paper, such as percent of trip spent walking, will be useful in assessing last-mile portions of travel across multiple trips. A better understanding of transit service to travelers by the transit system as a whole will help to improve transportation in dense urban areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adebisi O (1986) A Mathematical model for headway variance of fixed-route buses. Transp Res Part B Methodol 20:59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antrim A, Barbeau SJ (2013) The many uses of GTFS data–opening the door to transit and multimodal applications. 4. Location-Aware Information Systems Laboratory at the University of South Florida

  • Bamberg S, Ajzen I, Schmidt P (2003) Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: the roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 25:175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beirão G, Sarsfield Cabral JA (2007) Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: a qualitative study. Transp Policy 14:478–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstad CJ, Gamble A, Hagman O, Polk M, Garling T (2011) Affective-symbolic and instrumental-independence psychological motives mediating effects of socio-demographic variables on daily car use. J Transp Geogr 19:33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertini RL, El-Geneidy A (2003) Using archived data to generate transit performance measures. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1841:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehler R, Pucher J (2012) Demand for public transport in Germany and the USA: an analysis of rider characteristics. Transp Rev 32:541–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascajo R, Monzon A (2014) Assessment of innovative measures implemented in European bus systems using key performance indicators. Public Transp 6:257–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006) Keep Europe Moving: Sustainable mobility for Our Continent: Mid-term review of the European Commission's 2001 Transport White Paper. Italy: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://www.lu.lv/materiali/biblioteka/es/pilnieteksti/transports/Keep%20Europe%20moving.%20Sustainable%20mobility%20for%20our%20continent.pdf. Accessed Mar 2018

  • de Stasio C, Fiorello D, Maffii S (2011) Public transport accessibility through co-modality: are interconnectivity indicators good enough? Res Transp Bus Manag 2:48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhingra C (2011) Measuring public transport performance: lessons for developing countries. Eschborn: Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document # 9

  • Dodson J, Mees P, Stone J, Burke M (2011) The principles of public transport network planning: a review of the emerging literature with select examples. Griffith University, Urban Research Program

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson J, Lindberg G, Mellin A, Vierth I (2010) Co-modality—the socio-economic effects of longer and/or heavier vehicles for land-based freight transport. In: 12th World Conference on Transport Research Society, Portugal

  • FDOT (2014) Best practices in evaluating transit performance: final report. Florida Department of Transportation. Freight Logistics and Passenger Operations, Transit Office. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/content/transit/pages/bestpracticesinevaluatingtransitperformancefinalreport.pdf?sfvrsn=48878730_0. Accessed May 2018

  • Felsburg Holt and Ullevig (2012) Establishing a framework for transit and rail performance measures. division of transit and rail—Colorado Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.codot.gov/programs/transitandrail/resource-materials-new/fhu-s-performance-measures-report. Accessed Apr 2018

  • Fielding GJ, Glauthier RE, Lave CA (1978) Performance indicators for transit management. Transportation 7:365–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärling T, Schuitema G (2007) Travel demand management targeting reduced private car use: effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility. J Soc Issues 63:139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannopoulos GA (2008) The application of co-modality in Greece: a critical appraisal of progress in the development of co-modal freight centres and logistics services. Trans Stud Rev 15:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google Inc. General transit feed specification reference. https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference/. Accessed Jan 2018

  • Greene DL, Wegener M (1997) Sustainable transport. J Transp Geogr 5:177–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güner S, Coşkun E (2016) Determining the best performing benchmarks for transit routes with a multi-objective model: the implementation and a critique of the two-model approach. Public Transp 8:205–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson G, Kwong P, Adkins H (1991) Regularity indices for evaluating transit performance. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1297:3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren J (2007) Meta-analysis of public transport demand. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 41:1021–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson C, Fujii S, Gärling T (2000) Determinants of private car users’ acceptance of road pricing. Transp Policy 7:153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeribi K, Zgaya H, Zoghlami N, Hammadi S (2011) Distributed architecture for a co-modal transport system. (pp. 2797–2802). Anchorage, AK: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

  • Joshi S (2019) Using automated passenger counter data to understand ridership change on a zonal basis. A Doctoral Dissertation Presented to the Academic Faculty. Georgia Institute of Technology. https://hdl.handle.net/1853/61305. Accessed June 2019

  • Karlaftis MG, McCarthy PS (1997) Subsidy and public transit performance: a factor analytic approach. Transportation 24:253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao C-F, Liu HX (2010) Development of data-processing framework for transit performance analysis. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2143:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray AT (2003) A coverage model for improving public transit system. Ann Oper Res 123:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2003) Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J Environ Psychol 23:339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh S, Wang X (2018) Urban rail transit provides the necessary access to a metropolitan area: a case study of Portland, Oregon, USA. Urban Rail Transit 4(4):234–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redman L, Friman M, Garling T, Hartig T (2013) Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: a research review. Transp Policy 25:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodier C, Issac E (2016) Transit performance measures in California. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronald N, Yang J, Thompson RG (2016) Exploring co-modality using on-demand transport systems. Transp Res Procedia 12:203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth M (2010) How Google and Portland’s TriMet Set the Standard for Open Transit Data. https://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/05/how-google-and-portlands-trimet-set-the-standard-for-open-transit-data/. Accessed Feb 2018

  • Ryus P, Connor M, Corbett S, Rodenstein A, Wargelin L, Ferreira L, Blume K (2003) TCRP Report 88: A guidebook for developing a transit performance-measurement system. Transportation Research Board of the National Academeis.

  • Schweiger CL (2003) TCRP synthesis 48: real-time bus arrival information systems: a synthesis of transit practice. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemiatycki M (2006) Implications of private-public partnerships on the development of urban public transit infrastructure: the case of Vancouver, Canada. J Plann Educ Res 26:137–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sindakis S, Depeige A, Anoyrkat E (2015) Customer-centered knowledge management: challenges and implications for knowledge-based innovation in the public transport sector. J Knowl Manag 19(5):559–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2015-0046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talukder M, Hainen A, Remias SM, Bullock DM (2018) Route-based mobility performance metrics using probe vehicle travel times. Adv Transp Stud Int J Sect B 96:135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor B (2005) The world is your JavaScript-enabled oyster. https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/world-is-your-javascript-enabled_29.html. Accessed Jan 2018

  • Tertoolen G, Van Kreveld D, Verstraten B (1998) Psychological resistance against attempts to reduce private car use. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 32:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran K-D, Bhaskar A, Bunker J, Lee B (2017) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) based transit routes. In: 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board

  • Trompet M, Liu X, Graham DJ (2011) Development of key performance indicator to compare regularity of service between urban bus operators. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2216:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lierop D, Maat K, El-Geneidy A (2017) Talking TOD: learning about transit-oriented development in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 10(1):49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente P, Reis E (2016) Profiling public transport users through perceptions about public transport providers and satisfaction with the public transport service. Public Transp 8:387–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viggiano C, Koutsopoulos HN, Wilson NH, Attanucci J (2017) Journey-based characterization of multi-modal public transportation networks. Public Transp 9:437–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang F, Xu Y (2011) Estimating O-D travel time matrix by google maps API: implementation, advantages, and implications. Ann GIS 17(4):199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following describes each author’s contribution to this paper. N. Islam, M. Talukder and A. Hainen developed the concept. N. Islam, M. Talukder, and T. Atkison helped with data collection. Analysis and result interpretation have been done by N. Islam and A. Hainen. N. Islam, M. Talukder and A. Hainen have prepared the draft manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Alabama, Box 870289, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0289, USA

    Naima Islam, Md Abu Sufian Talukder, Alex Hainen & Travis Atkison

Authors
  1. Naima Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Md Abu Sufian Talukder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex Hainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Travis Atkison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naima Islam.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Islam, N., Talukder, M.A.S., Hainen, A. et al. Characterizing co-modality in urban transit systems from a passengers’ perspective. Public Transp 12, 405–430 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-020-00228-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-020-00228-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation