Easter Seals Project ACTION
Forming Partnerships with Transit - Online course - Feb. 13-Mar. 26. Designed for transit advocates interested in increasing their role in the design and implementation of community transportation services, the course includes four learning modules: Transportation planning, funding, becoming a transit supporter, and strategies.
Partnership for Mobility Management
2012 Mobility Management Conference - May 9-10, 2012, Long Beach, CA. To be held in conjunction with the Bus and Paratransit Conference (details below), this conference features sessions on performance measurement, forming partnerships with different organizations, non-emergency medical transportation and brokerages, customer focus, information technology, and integration of facilities. The Partnership is a collaborative effort of seven national organizations and approximately 300 individual mobility managers and mobility management professionals from around the country.
Community Transportation Association of America
EXPO conference - May 20-25, 2012, Baltimore, Md. This year's EXPO will feature tracks on mobility management, connectivity and livability, transportation operations, and management, as well as separate tracks on transportation for dialysis, veterans and employment. There will also be a two-day Job Access Conference that will focus on transportation partners, namely economic development, workforce development, employers and chambers of commerce; and highlight the many transportation options for students, job seekers, employees and businesses.
American Public Transportation Association
2012 Legislative Conference - March 11-13, 2012, Washington, DC.
Bus & Paratransit Conference - May 6-9, 2012, Long Beach, CA.
Rail Conference - June 3-6, 2012,Dallas, TX
Public Transportation & Universities Conference - June 16-19, 2012, Fargo, ND. This conference explores the unique needs of university communities and the population they serve, including the issues of universal access and land use development.
American Public Works Association
Sustainability in Public Works Conference - June 25-27, 2012, Pittsburgh, PA.
Children’s Health Fund
Instead of traveling to the doctor, a CHF mobile medical clinic goes to children and families. This entertaining video shows what the mobile clinics do and what that means for families.
At the other end of the age spectrum, a travel training program for older people fosters independence. This article, Program takes aim at seniors' bus fears, about a Wisconsin mobility manager who does travel training, and the older people he is training, personalizes the significance of the training and the confidence, and the mobility that using public transportation provides for those with transportation and mobility challenges. The article appeared in the GazetteXtra.com.
Transit Riders by Mode
Minetta Transportation Institute
Understanding Transit Ridership Demand for a Multi-Destination, Multimodal Transit Network in an American Metropolitan Area - Lessons for Increasing Choice Ridership While Maintaining Transit Dependent Ridership explores ridership patterns in the Atlanta area, specifically what bus and rail commuters have in common and what transit variables separate them. Though the report looks at the Atlanta area, the findings seem useful for thinking about transit possibilities and realities in other areas of the country. Here are a few excerpts. Many more details can be found in the report.
Bus riders were overwhelmingly transit-dependent riders, and rail riders included a disproportionate number of choice riders. By and large, rail riders tend to come from zones with high levels of vehicle access and bus riders from zones with low levels of vehicle access. The model results highlight important similarities as well as differences between the two rider groups. In terms of similarities, both bus and rail trips are produced in larger numbers in zones with higher populations and higher population densities, and attracted to destinations with larger numbers of jobs, but generally not areas with the highest densities of employment. Both bus and rail riders are also generally quite sensitive to in-vehicle travel time and transfer time.
In terms of differences between bus and rail riders, bus riders tend to come from zones with lower income, lower vehicle access (as noted above), and higher minority populations. While rail riders also disproportionately come from minority zones, they come from zones with high levels of vehicle access and the income variable is not significant, except in the cases of rail riders destined to more dispersed destinations, who tend to come from zones with lower incomes, but also relatively high levels of vehicle access. Bus riders do not place the same importance on out-of-vehicle travel time to transit as do rail riders ... Rail riders, on the other hand, do place a premium on out-of-vehicle travel time ... This is not surprising given the small number of rail stations and their spatial distribution relative to the patterns of population and employment in Atlanta.
TOD at Destination
The results for the land-use variables also reveal important differences between bus and rail riders as well as insights into the importance of transit-oriented development (TOD). Bus riders in Atlanta are not influenced by the presence of a transit-oriented development at either the origin or destination. The CBD does not emerge as a statistically significant destination for bus riders; indeed, lower density employment clusters emerge as important destinations for these riders. For rail riders, on the other hand, the CBD does emerge as an important travel destination, and two of Atlanta’s TODs (Midtown and North Avenue) emerge as important contributors to rail patronage, in excess of what would otherwise be predicted by the employment levels or densities of these zones.
Length of Wait Time Matters
The variable that had the greatest effect in determining transit ridership was the transit travel time between the origin zone and the destination zone. [T]ransit-dependent ridership, rather than being a fixed amount regardless of service quality, increases tremendously if the transit travel time between origin and destination is reduced.
What we see by looking at the parameters is a model that depicts more affluent, auto- owning riders using transit than does the bus model. The rail riders are willing to use rail transit to get to jobs throughout the region (not just jobs in the CBD), so long as they can walk to jobs once they get off the trains or can easily transfer to frequent buses that do not take long to reach jobs in the vicinity. CBD and TOD at the rail destination (though not at the rail origin) are highly important to potential rail riders.
In-vehicle travel time is relatively less important than out-of-vehicle travel time because trains are relatively fast, and their travel time is not an issue to passengers, in contrast to the depressing effect of slow buses, as shown earlier in the bus models. What really matters, however, are lengthy waits when transferring between trains and buses ... This conclusion is reinforced when we look at the tremendous impact that destination TODs have on multiplying rail ridership in comparison to the insignificant impact that origin TODs have on ridership. Where destination TODs exist, walking to the final destination is relatively short and attractive, and rail ridership to the TOD increases by 500% over what the model otherwise would predict for that zone.