Dr. David M. Levinson
Persistent link for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11299/179806
Browse
Browsing Dr. David M. Levinson by Type "Report"
Now showing 1 - 13 of 13
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Access Across America: Auto 2015(Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2016-09) Owen, Andrew; Murphy, Brendan; Levinson, DavidAccessibility is the ease of reaching valued destinations. It can be measured across different times of day (accessibility in the morning rush might be lower than the less-congested midday period). It can be measured for each mode (accessibility by walking is usually lower than accessibility by transit, which is usually lower than accessibility by car). There are a variety of ways to measure accessibility, but the number of destinations reachable within a given travel time is the most comprehensible and transparent as well as the most directly comparable across cities. This report focuses on accessibility to jobs by car. Jobs are the most significant nonhome destination, but it is also possible to measure accessibility to other types of destinations. The automobile remains the most widely used mode for commuting trips in the United States. This study estimates the accessibility to jobs by auto for each of the 11 million U.S. census blocks and analyzes these data in the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas. Travel times are calculated using a detailed road network and speed data that reflect typical conditions for an 8 a.m. Wednesday morning departure. Additionally, the accessibility results for 8 a.m. are compared with accessibility results for 4 a.m. to estimate the impact of road and highway congestion on job accessibility. Rankings are determined by a weighted average of accessibility, with a higher weight given to closer, easier-to access jobs. Jobs reachable within 10 minutes are weighted most heavily, and jobs are given decreasing weights as travel time increases up to 60 minutes. The report presents detailed accessibility and congestion impact values for each metropolitan area as well as blocklevel maps that illustrate the spatial patterns of accessibility within each area. It also includes a census tract-level map that shows accessibility patterns at a national scale.Item Access Across America: Transit 2014 Data(2014-12-05) Owen, Andrew; Levinson, David M; aowen@umn.edu; Owen, Andrew; University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Accessibility ObservatoryThis data was created as part of a study that examined the accessibility to jobs by transit in 46 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States. It is the most detailed evaluation to date of access to jobs by transit, and it allows for a direct comparison of the transit accessibility performance of America's largest metropolitan areas.Item Access Across America: Transit 2015(Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2016-12) Owen, Andrew; Murphy, Brendan; Levinson, David M.Accessibility is the ease of reaching valued destinations. It can be measured across different times of day (accessibility in the morning rush might be lower than the less-congested midday period). It can be measured for each mode (accessibility by walking is usually lower than accessibility by transit, which is usually lower than accessibility by car). There are a variety of ways to measure accessibility, but the number of destinations reachable within a given travel time is the most comprehensible and transparent as well as the most directly comparable across cities. This report examines accessibility to jobs by transit in 49 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States. Transit is used for an estimated 5 percent of commuting trips in the United States, making it the second most widely used commute mode after driving. This report complements Access Across America: Auto 2015, a report of job accessibility by auto in 50 metropolitan areas and follows the Access Across America: Transit 2014 report. A separate publication, Access Across America: Transit 2015 Methodology, describes the data and methodology used in this evaluation. Rankings are determined by a weighted average of accessibility, giving a higher weight to closer jobs. Jobs reachable within ten minutes are weighted most heavily, and jobs are given decreasing weight as travel time increases up to 60 minutes.Item Access Across America: Transit 2015 Data(2017-02-02) Owen, Andrew; Levinson, David M; Murphy, Brendan; aowen@umn.edu; Owen, AndrewThese data were created as part of a study that examined the accessibility to jobs by transit in 49 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States. It is the most detailed evaluation to date of access to jobs by transit, and it allows for a direct comparison of the transit accessibility performance of America's largest metropolitan areas. These data are part of a longitudinal study; Access Across America: Transit 2014 data are available at http://hdl.handle.net/11299/168064.Item Access Across America: Transit 2016(Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2017-11) Owen, Andrew; Murphy, Brendan; Levinson, David M.Accessibility is the ease and feasibility of reaching valued destinations. It can be measured for a wide array of transportation modes, to different types of destinations, and at different times of day. There are a variety of ways to measure accessibility, but the number of destinations reachable within a given travel time is the most comprehensible and transparent as well as the most directly comparable across cities. This study estimates the accessibility to jobs by transit and walking for each of the United States’ 11 million census blocks, and analyzes these data in 49 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas. Transit is used for an estimated 5 percent of commuting trips in the United States, making it the second most widely used commute mode after driving. Travel times by transit are calculated using detailed pedestrian networks and full transit schedules for the 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. period. The calculations include all components of a transit journey, including “last-mile” access and egress walking segments and transfers, and account for minute-by-minute variations in service frequency. This report presents detailed accessibility values for each metropolitan area, as well as block-level maps that illustrate the spatial patterns of accessibility within each area. A separate publication, Access Across America: Transit 2016 Methodology, describes the data and methodology used in this evaluation.Item Access Across America: Walk 2014 Data(2015-08-21) Owen, Andrew; Murphy, Brendan; Levinson, David M; aowen@umn.edu; Owen, Andrew; University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Accessibility ObservatoryThese data were created as part of a study that examined the accessibility to jobs by walking in the 53 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States. It is the most detailed evaluation to date of access to jobs by walking, and it allows for a direct comparison of the walking accessibility performance of America's largest metropolitan areas.Item Access Across America: Walking 2014(Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2015-05) Owen, Andrew; Levinson, David; Murphy, BrendanAccessibility is the ease of reaching valued destinations. It can be measured for various transportation modes, to different types of destinations, and at different times of day. There are a variety of ways to define accessibility, but the number of destinations reachable within a given travel time is the most comprehensible and transparent, as well as the most directly comparable across cities. This study estimates the accessibility to jobs by walking in the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States, and is a companion study to our Access Across America: Transit 2014 report. Rankings are determined by a weighted average of accessibility, giving a higher weight to closer jobs. Jobs reachable within ten minutes are weighted most heavily, and jobs are given decreasing weights as travel time increases up to 60 minutes. This report presents detailed accessibility values for each metropolitan area, as well as block-level maps which illustrate the spatial patterns of accessibility within each area. A separate publication, Access Across America: Walking 2014 Methodology, describes the data and methodology used in this evaluation: http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6D598Item Accessibility Evaluation of the Metro Transit A-Line(Accessibility Observatory, University of Minnesota, 2016-06-06) Palmateer, Chelsey; Owen, Andrew; Levinson, David MThis report evaluates the Accessibility of the Metro Transit A-Line arterial bus rapid transit system serving St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is found that overall the A-Line increases accessibility compared to the previous service provided by the local bus, though some areas lose accessibility if they are not near a new A-Line stop.Item Nice Ride Minnesota Program Evaluation Bemidji Bike Rental System(2015-03) Levinson, David M; Schoner, Jessica; Lindsey, GregItem Nice Ride Minnesota Program Evaluation: Minneapolis-St. Paul Bike Share System(2015-05) Schoner, Jessica; Lindsey, Greg; Levinson, David MItem Travels Impacts of Bridge Closures 1: Lafayette Bridge Final Report(2010-09-13) Levinson, David M; Zhu, ShanjiangThis study evaluates traffic reactions to two alternative construction plans of Lafayette Bridge crossing the Mississippi River in downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota. We calibrate a travel demand model previously developed and evaluate network performance in dif- ferent construction phases of the two alternative scenarios. Most significant changes in traffic condition occur during the bridge closure phase of scenario 2. The measur- able impacts of bridge closure on traffic conditions are limited within the region of I-494 and US 61 to the east and I-35E to the west. The increases in freeway traffic are moderate. Most travelers choose to use the arterial bridges as alternative routes. The Robert Street Bridge and the Wabasha Street Bridge will see significant traffic increases. Overall changes in consumer surplus indicate that scenario 2 has a some- what higher user cost ($5,209/day). However, the magnitude of difference in consumer surplus is very small and well within “margin of error”. The ultimate decision needs to consider construction cost savings due to faster construction, and safety issues in addition to changes in user cost.Item Travels Impacts of Bridge Closures 2: Saint Croix River Bridges Final Report(2010-09-13) Levinson, David M; Zhu, ShanjiangThis report is prepared at the request Abby McKenzie and Ed Idzorek of MnDOT to assess the expected traveler impacts of replacing or not replacing the Saint Croix River Bridge in Stillwater, Minnesota. The model that has previously been used to evaluate different Lafayette Bridge replacement scenarios is applied, using the 20 county (“collar counties”) network from the Metropolitan Council and best estimates of 2010 land uses (population and employment). The model evaluates changes in travel cost due to network reconfigurations corresponding to different scenarios. These costs would need to be compared against construction and ongoing operations and maintenance costs, and do not account for factors such as travel time reliability, the value of a redundant network for planned or unplanned closures, or changes in land use. It can be safely assumed that were a wider, faster bridge constructed there would be more development, and thus more travel demand from the Wisconsin side of the Saint Croix River. If no replacement bridge were built, we can assume that less growth (if any) would occur, and cross-river traffic would diminish. This model does not account for changes in land use, as we do not believe this has been accurately forecast for scenarios both with and without the bridge, but does account for changes in demand given the current land use under different network configurations. This is denoted as “Variable Trip Tables” in the report. Compared to the baseline (a replacement 2 lane bridge in the same location) according to the model, Construction Alternative 1, a new 4 lane bridge, produces an economic gain of $1.8 million per year. Compared to that same baseline, Construction Alternative 3, no replacement bridge at all, results in an economic loss on the order of $34.1 million per year according to the model.Item Workshop 3 report: Sustainable funding sources and related cost benefit measurements(2016) Stanley, John; Levinson, David MRecognising that public transport services generally deliver substantial benefits for society but frequently require operating and capital funding support, this Workshop sought to find ways to bridge this benefit/funding gap, particularly through benefit monetization. It elaborated a wide range of benefits from public transport services, to both users and non-users. In regard to non-users, there was a particular focus on the role of public transport in promoting positive external benefits, such as agglomeration economies, and reducing the negative external costs of car use. A number of ways in which the service funding requirement might be reduced by improved system management were considered, such as better fare evasion practices and more effective public private partnerships. A range of funding opportunities was then reviewed, from which two preferred bundles were developed. Value capture was seen as a vital funding opportunity, both for supporting operating funding and capital funding requirements. Funding circumstances that were seen as more properly a governmental responsibility were identified.