Analysis of Factors Influencing Travel Mode Choice in LA County

Presented by Runlin Cai, CAUPD Affiliate

Issue: What determines travel mode choiceTransit mode share in LA county was 3% in

2000. (Source: SCAG Year 2000 Post-Census Regional Travel Survey Report)There are numerous factors influencing

travel mode choice, including socioeconomic, urban form, transport system, policy, etc.

My work is focusing on urban form and transport supply, especially difference between transit and roadway

Outline

Urban Form FactorsTravel Demand SideTransport Supply SideTravel Mode ChoiceConclusion

Range and UnitAnalysis Range: Los Angeles CountyAnalysis unit: Census Tracts

Urban Form FactorsPopulation: 9.8 millionMean Density: 2,419/sq.miles

Urban Form Factors

Transport Supply SideTransit Network

5 urban rail linesRapid linesLocal linesCom circle lines

Transport Supply SideTransit Network

5.2 million population (53%) covered in 0.5 mile buffers

Transport Supply SideUrban Rail Network

5 urban rail linesMainly covered

Downtown and southern area

Only 74 thousand people (7%) around 0.5 mile distance to rail stations

Transport Supply SideRoad Network

Freeways covering almost everywhere4.7 million population (48%) within 1 mile

distance to freeway

Transport Supply SideVehicles used in Commuting

High car ownership and using, while relatively low near rail station area

Travel Demand SideTrip-to-Work Time

Mostly over 20 minutes and more

Trip-to-Work DensityHigh density along corridors

Travel Mode ChoiceTrip-to-Work Mode

Driving: most area exceeding 70%

The farther travel distance is, the more likely to choose driving

Due to the travel time cost

Travel Mode ChoiceTrip-to-Work

ModePublic Transport:

mostly lower than 5 percent

Areas near rail lines have higher transit share

Urban Rail EffectMode Share around

Rail StationsOverall daily

boarding passengers up to 266,000

Transit mode share much higher than other areas

Urban Rail EffectMode Share around

Rail StationsAverage boardings

# of every station exceeds 3,500

Average transit share of nearby census track exceeds 13%

Aver ageShar e of Rai l Tr avel i ng Near St at i on

7065605550454035302520151050

Pec_PT

757065605550454035302520151050

13. 087 13. 087

Aver ageRai l St at i on Boar di ngs

706050403020100

Boardings

16, 00015, 00014, 00013, 00012, 00011, 00010, 0009, 0008, 0007, 0006, 0005, 0004, 0003, 0002, 0001, 000

0

3, 647. 669 3, 647. 669

Different Effect in Transit and FreewayTime Contour Comparison

In the same time period, travelers would reach 2 times wide area by driving as by transit

Example: SingaporePublic transit share up to 60%Population density up to 15,000 persons/sq.mileMost HDB apartments within 0.5mile to rail

stationsRail lines cover population of 50%

Conclusion based on factors analysisLonger travel due to low density sprawling makes

people prefer drivingLow level and insufficient transit network makes

people unwilling to travel by transit Urban rail transit would be better solution to

attract travelers to take transit, and thus protecting environment and alleviating congestion

Skills Used Map inset Clip Graduated symbol Charts images Geometry calculation Creating indices Spatial join Field calculating & statistics Merge Attribute selection Buffering of points and lines Project define Feature to lines Network Analysis (service area) Modeling

Model Used

Metadata

Thank you