Browsing by Author "Krizek, Kevin J."

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Access to Destinations: Application of Accessibility Measures for Non-Auto Travel Modes
    (Minnesota Department of Transportation, Research Services Section, 2009-07) Krizek, Kevin J.; Iacono, Michael; El-Geneidy, Ahmed; Liao, Chen Fu; Johns, Robert
    Conventional transportation planning is often focused on improving movement (or mobility)—most often by the automobile. To the extent that accessibility, a well-known concept in the transportation planning field since the 1950s, has been measured or used in transportation planning, such measures have also been auto-based. Broadening the scope of accessibility to include a wide array of destinations and non-auto modes such as walking, cycling, and transit has been previously proposed as a much needed aim among planning initiatives. A central issue is that to date, however, there have been few examples of measures draw from. When it comes to bicycling, walking, and transit measures of accessibility are an endeavor long on rhetoric but short on execution. This report discusses such hurdles, presents alternatives for overcoming them, and demonstrates how accessibility for walking, cycling, and transit—and for different types of destinations—can be reliably measured. We focus on explaining specific features of non-motorized transportation that complicate the development of accessibility measures, and offer solutions that conform to conventional transportation planning practice. In this research project, non-motorized measures of accessibility were developed for the entire seven counties of the Twin Cities (Minnesota, USA) metropolitan area. For purposes of this exposition in this report, we discuss the details of creating such measures using a sample application from Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA to demonstrate proof of concept for the endeavor.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From the Editors
    (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2008) Levinson, David M.; Krizek, Kevin J.
    This article introduces the second issue of Journal of Transport and Land Use (vol. 1, no. 2).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Introducing the Journal of Transport and Land Use
    (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2008) Levinson, David M.; Krizek, Kevin J.; Dijst, Martin J.; Lo, Hong K.; Guo, Jessica Y.
    This article introduces the Journal of Transport and Land Use and its inaugural issue.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    JTLU special issue editorial: Bicycling in changing urban regions
    (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2018) Krizek, Kevin J.; Sharmeen, Fariya; Martens, Karel
    As communities around the globe contemplate the future of their transport portfolio, bicycling's role has increasingly cropped up as a key discussion point. Up until a few years ago, bicycling's value was largely fueled by a loyal advocacy base. Its potential was littered with unsupported claims and bicycling struggled to obtain legitimate status, even as, or precisely because of its status as a "fringe mode." This context has recently changed. Concomitant with—or perhaps prompted by—a rise in (public and policy attention for) bicycling, there has been a rise in research specifically on bicycling. In just a few years, bicycling's stock has risen to be a mode that is commanding attention in cities of all sizes. Furthermore, its role and value are informed by a burgeoning evidence base, increasingly in the form of peer-reviewed work. This evidence base allows, among other things, a more reflective appreciation for bicycling's position in transport systems and for bicycling to be better understood in different geographical contexts.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study, Phase 1
    (Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2007-06) Krizek, Kevin J.; Barnes, Gary; Wilson, Ryan; Johns, Robert; McGinnis, Laurie
    The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP), which is part of the 2005 federal transportation bill known as SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), specifically included $100 million for pilot programs in four communities (Columbia, Missouri; Marin County, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Sheboygan County, Wisconsin) to increase levels of walking and cycling. The NTPP requires FHWA to evaluate the efficacy of these programs. This report describes the efforts to establish baseline before data on the amount of travel by bicycling and walking in the four pilot communities (and in a control site) that will be used for comparison purposes with after data in 2010. The objective of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) is to demonstrate the extent to which bicycling and walking can carry a significant part of the transportation load and represent a major portion of the transportation solution within selected communities. To this end, the baseline survey centers around two primary goals: 1) To measure changes in motor vehicle, nonmotorized transportation, and public transportation use in communities participating in the program and assess how such changes decrease congestion and energy usage, increase the frequency of bicycling and walking, and promote better health and a cleaner environment. 2) To develop a profile of behavior and attitudes in the individual communities that can aid in planning for various walking and cycling infrastructure. This report describes the key features of walking and bicycling behavior as they relate to the stated program objectives. It also provides additional information on walking and bicycling behavior that can serve as further reference points for future comparison. Finally, it furnishes information about attitudes toward nonmotorized transportation-related issues in the program communities. The research team strategically constructed a survey to glean reliable information on the following attributes of walking and cycling: frequencies, distances, purposes, attitudes, barriers, and other related information.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study, Phase 2
    (Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2011-05) Götschi, Thomas; Krizek, Kevin J.; McGinnis, Laurie; Lucke, Jan; Barbeau, Joe
    The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) is a congressionally mandated program (SAFETEA-LU Section 1807) that, since 2006, has provided roughly $25 million each to four communities—Columbia, Missouri; Marin County, California; Minneapolis area, Minnesota; Sheboygan County, Wisconsin—to spur levels of walking and cycling via a variety of planning measures. The University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies is leading the community-wide population surveys for the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP), specifically in phase 2, to measure changes in levels of walking and bicycling as a result of the enhanced conditions for walking and bicycling. To evaluate impacts of the program, two community-wide surveys were conducted before (phase 1: 2006) and after (phase 2: 2010) the pilot program. This report describes the evaluation efforts based on community-wide population surveys. In contrast to project-specific evaluations, community-wide surveys serve the purpose of representatively assessing community-wide levels of nonmotorized travel behavior, which serve as the foundation for subsequent benefit calculations. The survey in phase 1 consisted of a short mail-out questionnaire and a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) among respondents to the short questionnaire. In phase 2 the short questionnaire was integrated in the CATI. The final sample in phase 1 consisted of 1279 complete records and in phase 2 of 1807 complete records. Statistical analysis focused on evaluating differences between phase 1 and phase 2 in the core variables on nonmotorized travel behavior. The detailed analysis did not reveal any consistent or statistically significant differences between phases 1 and 2. It is important to point out that the inability to detect significant patterns of change is not synonymous to no change occurring. The report discusses some of the factors that make this type of research challenging.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Places and Networks: The Changing Landscape of Transportation and Technology Final Summary Report of the STAR–TEA 21 Project
    (University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, 2008-12) Berndt, Mark; Bolan, Richard S.; Burkhard, Richard; Douma, Frank; Duncan, Chandler; Handy, Susan L.; Horan, Thomas A.; Johnson, Andrew; Kaplancali, Ugur; Karamalaputi, Ramachandra; Kokotovich, Adam; Krizek, Kevin J.; Lehnhoff, James; Levinson, David; Li, Yi; Marich, Michael; McCabe, Denise; Munich, Lee W. Jr.; Parthasarathi, Pavithra; Schooley, Benjamin; Sullivan, Colbey; Wilson, Ryan; Xu, Peng; Yerra, Bhanu M.; Zhang, Lei
    Over the past six years, researchers from the University of Minnesota have studied the many ways in which transportation and technology intersect. Our work has explored these intersections from many perspectives, from ways intelligent transportation systems can help police, ambulance, and other public safety providers communicate more accurately and save lives, to the use of agent-based modeling to predict how high-technology workers will influence city form--and therefore, transportation needs--through their choices about work and home location. Two other areas of study are whether and how the Internet will replace travel demand and the potential loss of privacy related to advanced transportation technologies and the public policy issues surrounding privacy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Quantifying the role of disturbances and speeds on separated bicycle facilities
    (Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2016) Bernardi, Silvia; Krizek, Kevin J.; Rupi, Federico
    As cities aim to spur cycling, a key issue revolves around the location and quality of separated bicycle facilities. However, sometimes owing to impedances, these facilities fail to have the desired overall utility for cyclists. This study focuses on the role of non-stationary disturbances, i.e., the presence of users of other modes. The aim is to quantify the effects and frequencies of disturbances on off-street bicycle facilities (from other cyclists and pedestrians) and compare them to disturbances (from motorized vehicles) while cycling in mixed traffic. Using three segments in Bologna, Italy, we measured the frequency, type, and speed reduction attributed to different types of disturbances. We analyzed speed and likelihood of events to calculate a weighted average of the cyclists’ speed for separated bicycling facilities and on the roadway. For two of the segments, weighted speed reductions were minimal. However, in a third segment—one with considerably more disturbances—speed reductions were considerable: 20 percent for the separated facility and 40 percent for the mixed traffic. When married with cycling use patterns along the facilities, the notable speed reductions point to a possible trade-off cyclists make in choosing between different routes. The results help quantify relationships between cyclists and non-stationary disturbances; they also caution transport officials about possible unintended outcomes for separated bicycle facilities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Trails, Lanes, or Traffic: Value of Different Bicycle Facilities Using Adaptive Stated-Preference Survey
    (Elsevier, 2007) Tilahun, Nebiyou J; Levinson, David M; Krizek, Kevin J.
    This study evaluates individual preferences for five different cycling environments by trading off a higher travel time as a cost incurred when choosing a better facility while letting the user have the option of selecting a less attractive facility at a lower travel time. The tradeoff of travel time to amenities of a particular facility informs our understanding of the value attached to different attributes such as bike-lanes, off-road trails, or side-street parking. The facilities considered here are off-road facilities, in-traffic facilities with bike-lane and no side street parking, in-traffic facilities with a bike-lane and side street parking, in-traffic facilities with no bike-lane and no side street parking and in-traffic facilities with no bike-lane but with parking on the side. We find that respondents are willing to travel up to twenty minutes more to switch from an unmarked on-road facility with side parking to an off-road bicycle trail, with smaller changes associated with less dramatic improvements.