Transit Mode Selection Tool Development: Phase 2 (Transit Planning Organization Survey)Carly Queen | B.S.M.E. 2009, Master of City and Regional Planning Candidate 2016, M.S.-C.E. Candidate 2016 | Georgia Institute of Technology

Advisors: Dr. Kari E. Watkins, P.E. and Dr. Catherine Ross

Respondents• 56 of 113 invited Transit Agencies in the U.S. and Puerto Rico (49.56% response rate)

• 66 of 140 invited Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the U.S. and Puerto Rico

(47.14% response rate)

• Survey sent to top-ranking organization leaders• Many Executive Directors, General Managers, and CEOs completed the survey

• Others delegated the task to transportation planning officials

• A majority of respondents had been with their current organization for 9 or more years

Transit Mode Familiarity

Existing Modes Considered Modes Selected Modes

Mode Succession

Factors Considered

Demand (2)

Appropriateness of

Technology (1)

Cost effectiveness (1)

FRA Compliance (1)

Land-use Allocation (1)

Livability and

Accessibility (1)

Proven Technology and

Market (1)

Ridership, Past Plans, and

Affordable Housing (1)

Air Quality and Visual

Factors (1)

Environmental Justice (1)

Land-use Allocation (1)

Congestion and Pavement Condition (1)

Estimated Ridership (1)Market Potential (1)

Service Requirements (1)Vehicle Battery Capacity (1)

Equity (2)

Congestion Mitigation (1)

Demographics (1)

Equal Justice (1)

Health and ADA

Accessibility (1)

• Economic factors, followed by performance

factors, were ranked as more important in

mode selection. • Costs were the most important

economic factors, followed by

availability of funding, economic

development, and jobs access.

• Capacity was the most important

performance factor, followed by speed.

• Social and environmental factors were

ranked as less important in mode selection. • Reliability was the most important social

factor, followed by safety, accessibility,

and community views.

• Emissions was the most important

environmental factor.

Bus

Funitel0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5Agencie

s Consi

deri

ng M

ode

Familiarity (1 = Not Familiar, 5 = Very Familiar)

Familiarity vs. Consideration by Mode

Bus

Funitel0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5

Agencie

s Sele

cti

ng M

ode

Familiarity (1 = Not Familiar, 5 = Very Familiar)

Familiarity vs. Selection by Mode

• About 27% of respondents reported involvement in mode succession

activities in the last 10 years.

• Most mode succession activities reported involved switching from

regular bus service to:• Bus Rapid Transit (9)

• Light Rail (7)

• Aerial Tramway (1)

• Hybrid Rail (1)

• Monorail / Automated Guideway (1)

This research is funded through an Eisenhower Graduate Fellowship, as well as support from

the National Center for Transportation Systems Productivity and Management (NCTSPM) and

the Urban Transportation Information Lab (UTIL) at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Thanks also to my advisors:Dr. Kari Watkins, P.E., Assistant Professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Dr. Catherine Ross, Harry West Professor in the School of City and Regional Planning and

Director of the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development

Mode

Considered

/ Existing

Selected /

Considered

Selected /

Existing

Aerial Tramway 2.00 0.25 0.50

Bus 0.99 0.83 0.82

Bus Rapid Transit 2.56 0.67 1.72

Cable Car 0.00 - 0.00

Commuter Bus 1.06 0.53 0.56

Commuter Rail 1.78 0.68 1.22

Demand Response 0.70 0.52 0.36

Ferryboat 0.65 0.54 0.35

Funitel - 0.00 -

Gondola - 0.00 -

Heavy Rail 1.31 0.53 0.69

Hybrid Rail 4.00 0.50 2.00

Inclined Plane 0.00 - 0.00

Jitney 2.00 1.00 2.00

Light Rail 2.22 0.57 1.26

Maglev - 0.00 -

Monorail / Automated Guideway 1.57 0.18 0.29

Publico 1.00 1.00 1.00

Streetcar Rail 2.55 0.43 1.10

Taxi 0.40 0.40 0.16

Trolleybus 1.20 0.44 0.53

Vanpool 0.74 0.41 0.30

Water Bus 1.33 0.50 0.67

Water Taxi 3.33 0.50 1.67

Mode

(Existing,

Considered) /

Existing

(Not Existing,

Considered) /

Not Existing

Existing,

Considered

Existing, Not

Considered

Existing,

Selected

Existing, Not

Selected Not Existing

Not Existing,

Considered

Not Existing,

Not

Considered

Not Existing,

Selected

Not Existing,

Not Selected

Aerial Tramway 0.50 0.02 1 1 1 0 125 3 122 0 3

Bus 0.86 0.33 78 13 67 11 36 12 24 8 4

Bus Rapid Transit 0.91 0.56 29 3 29 0 95 53 42 26 27

Cable Car 0.00 0.00 0 1 0 0 126 0 126 0 0

Commuter Bus 0.73 0.23 38 14 22 16 75 17 58 7 10

Commuter Rail 0.91 0.29 29 3 25 4 95 28 67 14 14

Demand Response 0.60 0.16 46 31 25 21 50 8 42 3 5

Ferryboat 0.50 0.03 10 10 6 4 107 3 104 1 2

Funitel - 0.01 0 0 0 0 127 1 126 0 1

Gondola - 0.03 0 0 0 0 127 4 123 0 4

Heavy Rail 0.69 0.07 9 4 7 2 114 8 106 2 6

Hybrid Rail 1.00 0.05 2 0 2 0 125 6 119 2 4

Inclined Plane 0.00 0.00 0 2 0 0 125 0 125 0 0

Jitney 0.00 0.02 0 1 0 0 126 2 124 2 0

Light Rail 0.96 0.28 22 1 20 2 104 29 75 9 20

Maglev - 0.05 0 0 0 0 127 6 121 0 6

Monorail / Automated Guideway 0.71 0.05 5 2 2 3 120 6 114 0 6

Publico 1.00 0.00 1 0 1 0 126 0 126 0 0

Streetcar Rail 0.85 0.32 17 3 13 4 107 34 73 9 25

Taxi 0.20 0.05 5 20 0 5 102 5 97 4 1

Trolleybus 0.67 0.07 10 5 5 5 112 8 104 3 5

Vanpool 0.48 0.17 24 26 9 15 77 13 64 6 7

Water Bus 1.00 0.01 3 0 2 1 124 1 123 0 1

Water Taxi 0.67 0.06 2 1 0 2 124 8 116 5 3

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

Mode Consideration and Selection when Mode is Existing vs. Not Existing (Proportion of Instances Considered)

(Existing, Considered) / Considered (Not Existing, Considered) / Considered

(Existing, Selected) / Considered (Not Existing, Selected) / Considered

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mode Consideration and Selection when Mode is Existing vs. Not Existing

Existing, Considered Not Existing, Considered Existing, Selected Not Existing, Selected