open access

Transport Findings launches

| David Levinson

We are pleased to announce the launch of Transport Findings, a new, independent, community-led, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focused on short, clear, and pointed research results. We welcome submissions.

Transport Findings

The launch includes the following articles:

 

You can follow the release of new articles on Twitter and RSS feeds, or check back in on the website from time-to-time

Access to Destinations Data

| David Levinson

Many years ago, we completed a project called Access to Destinations. The data from the project has been sitting on my hard drive for many years. I am happy that some of it is now preserved for posterity and open science by the University of Minnesota Data Conservancy. See:

 

Unfortunately, due to small methodological changes, these data are not directly comparable with more recent outputs, and the 1995 – 2005 data are really not directly comparable with the 2010 data either. It nevertheless might be interesting for selected applications.

The End of Traffic and the Future of Access (Free)

| David Levinson
The End of Traffic and the Future of Access: A Roadmap to the New Transport Landscape. By David M. Levinson and Kevin J. Krizek.
The End of Traffic and the Future of Access: A Roadmap to the New Transport Landscape. By David M. Levinson and Kevin J. Krizek.

We are pleased to announced that you can now download a PDF of The End of Traffic and the Future of Access: A Roadmap to the New Transport Landscape from the University of Sydney eScholarship Repository (Free).

Title: The End of Traffic and the Future of Access: A Roadmap to the New Transport Landscape
Authors: Levinson, David
Krizek, Kevin J.
Keywords: transport
automated vehicles
electrification
futurism
sharing economy
pricing
Issue Date: Oct-2017
Publisher: Network Design Lab
Citation: Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2015). The End of Traffic & the Future of Transport. Network Design Lab.
Abstract: In most industrialized countries, car travel per person has peaked and the automobile regime is showing considering signs of instability. As cities across the globe venture to find the best ways to allow people to get around amidst technological and other changes, many forces are taking hold — all of which suggest a new transport landscape. Our roadmap describes why this landscape is taking shape and prescribes policies informed by contextual awareness, clear thinking, and flexibility.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/18972

If you want other versions, please go here.

Towards a Transport Accessibility Manual

| David Levinson

Transport policy decision follow from application of rules and standards. To the dismay of many in the transport community, these standards often come from another time with different values, including US documents such as:

  • ITE’s Trip Generation Manual
  • AASHTO’s Green Book
  • TRB’s Highway Capacity Manualfinal_cbsa_35620

While those aren’t going to change overnight, new preferences can be documented and embedded if they too become standards.

One of the key problems is what to value when investing in transport or regulating land development. Readers of this blog will likely  prioritize accessibility — the ease of reaching valued destinations. This connects transport and land use, considering both how easy it is to move and where things are located. While many planners know how to measure this, many don’t, and all could benefit from standardizing application to best practice.

To that end, I think we need a working group to develop such a standard, which would clarify topics like how to measure, how to compute, how to present, and what to consider. Let me know if  you are interested, and I will add you to a mailing list to discuss this. I hope there can be a meeting at TRB in DC in January.

Transport Findings: A Prospectus

| David Levinson
I tweeted last weekend
which garnered many likes. But of course Twitter is no place to have a discussion like this. So
This is what I am thinking:
TransportFindings
  1. Journal Name: Transport Findings
  2. Open Access. Flat $50 fee payable on submission (with no guarantee of acceptance) and $50 payable on acceptance. This filters the cranks, covers limited typesetting, article charges, hosting, etc. See Scholastica website  for their costs, (the platform looks good for this) if I read it right, this price would more or less cover fixed costs if we had 50 articles per year. This handbook is also of interest
  3. Maximum word count of 1000 (including References). Maximum Figure count of 3, Table count of 3.
  4. The new journal would not be affiliated with existing journals (this creates confusion on the part of authors and reviewers).
  5. Peer Review by 1 Reviewer drawn from the Editorial Advisory Board. (We add to the EAB if we cannot find someone who can review the article). Everyone who has reviewed in the past 3 years stays on the EAB.  The Review should be done in 1 month. So while the Review is anonymous, the reviewers overall are all known.
  6. Articles must be either New Question, New Method, New Data, or New Finding (i.e. it can almost exactly replicate a previous study and find something different), or some combination of the above.
  7. The acceptance test is whether it satisfies the above and appears scientifically correct (no obvious mistakes/flaws) and replicable, and quality of English.
  8. The journal has Accept/Reject decisions only. (Obviously people can submit again if they want to change the manuscript, however NEW submission, NEW reviewer, NEW fee). Acceptance Letters can add some minor comments. No Revise & Resubmit.
  9. Scope: Findings in the broad field of transport
  10. All data must be publicly available if possible (goes to replicability, caveats for personally identifying information)
  11. No special issues, themes, or anything like that, the journal is basically just a list of peer-reviewed short articles in reverse chronological order.
  12. There is a standard template for article submission, (I would say a web form, but that can’t handle equations, figures, or tables well). something like
TITLE
AUTHORS (NAME, AFFILIATION, CONTACT)
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
1. QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES
2. METHODS AND DATA
3. FINDINGS
REFERENCES
No sections titled: Intro, No Lit Review, No Theory, No Discussion, No Conclusions

Comments on Twitter, I guess.

Now I am not thinking I should run this journal (I already have my hands full), but that it should exist. I am happy to help if someone has the energy to organize it. It should be fairly straight-forward and mostly self-organizing to the point of being self-sustaining, but it does need an initial investment of energy to get there.

Indifference Bands for Route Switching

| David Levinson

Printed, (after more than a year in “online first” purgatory) and now available for FREE Viewing.11116_2016_9699_Fig3_HTML

Abstract: The replacement I-35W bridge in Minneapolis saw less traffic than the original bridge though it provided substantial travel time saving for many travelers. This observation cannot be explained by the classical route choice assumption that travelers always take the shortest path. Accordingly, a boundedly rational route switching model is proposed assuming that travelers will not switch to the new bridge unless travel time saving goes beyond a threshold or “indifference band”. To validate the boundedly rational route switching assumption, route choices of 78 subjects from a GPS travel behavior study were analyzed before and after the addition of the new I-35W bridge. Indifference bands are estimated for both commuters who were previously bridge users and those who never had the experience of using the old bridge. This study offers the first empirical estimation of bounded rationality parameters from GPS data and provides guidelines for traffic assignment.

Keywords:

Bounded rationality, Indifference band, Empirical estimation, GPS study, Route Choice

 

Montgomery County, Maryland Planning Documents

| David Levinson

I worked at the Montgomery County, Maryland Planning Department, and over the years, accumulated a number of reports, which were properly public domain, but not available online in any form that I could find. I had them scanned and OCRed and then uploaded them to archive.org, which is a great institution.

While old planning documents may not stir the heart of everyone, this is good collection from an important agency that once did cutting edge work. It is also far from complete.  So have at it:

  1. Comprehensive Growth Policy Study (1989) (4 Volumes)
  2. General Plan Refinement Goals and Objectives (1992) (3 reports)
  3. Transitway HOV Network Master Plan (5 reports) (1995)
  4. Environmental Guidelines (1993)
  5. 1994 Census Update (1995)
  6. Glenmont Sector Plan Issues Report (1994)
  7. WMATA Development Related Ridership Study II (1989)
  8. Annual Growth Policy 1973-2000 (75 reports)
    1. Collection of Annual Growth Policy and Related Reports from Montgomery County Planning Department – Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, Montgomery County Executive, and Montgomery County Council (1973 – 2000).
      1973_URBAN GROWTH POLICY POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES.pdf
      1974_COUNTY GROWTH POLICY, DIRECTIONS FOR GROWTH POLICY.pdf
      1974_COUNTY GROWTH POLICY.pdf
      1974_Final report of the Advisory Committee on County Growth Policy MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.pdf
      1975_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY APPENDIX, FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.pdf
      1975_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS-SEQUEL NO. 1 ENVIRONMENT  TRANSPORTATION.pdf
      1975_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.pdf
      1976_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FORECAST PEOPLE JOBS  HOUSING.pdf
      1977_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, CARRYING CAPACITY  ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES.pdf
      1978_GROWTH POLICY REPORT, STAGING-TRANSPORTATION.pdf
      1979_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, PLANNING, STAGING  REGULATING.pdf
      1979_TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FIFTH GROWTH POLICY REPORT.pdf
      1980_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, LAND SUPPLY  DEMAND.pdf
      1980_COMPREHENSIVE STAGING PLAN.pdf
      1981_REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING POLICIES.pdf
      1982_ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE.pdf
      1982_REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING POLICIES.pdf
      1983_REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING POLICIES.pdf
      1984_REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING POLICIES, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1986_SHORT TERM TRAFFIC ALLEVIATION POLICY.pdf
      1988_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, COUNTY EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDED.pdf
      1988_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.pdf
      1988_GENERAL PLAN ASSESSMENT STUDY.pdf
      1988_THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND.pdf
      1989_ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS AND STAGING CEILINGS-A.pdf
      1989_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, COUNTY EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDED.pdf
      1989_STATUS OF COUNCIL WORKSESSIONS ON FY 90 AGP.pdf
      1990_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, ADOPTED BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL.pdf
      1990_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, COUNTY EXECUTIVES RECOMMENDED.pdf
      1990_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.pdf
      1990_POLICY AREA RESTRUCTURING.pdf
      1990_RECOMMENDATIONS ON 91-96CIP FROM MNCPPC.pdf
      1990_REPORT OF THE GROWTH ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE.pdf
      1991_ACTION AGENDA.pdf
      1991_ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES STUDY.pdf
      1991_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, COUNTY EXECUTIVES RECOMMENDED.pdf
      1991_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL.pdf
      1991_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1991_ANNUAL GROWTH REPORT, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1992_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, COUNTY EXECUTIVES RECOMMENDED.pdf
      1992_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1992_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL.pdf
      1992_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1992_GERMANTOWN TOWN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STAGING ANALYSIS.pdf
      1992_OPP RECOMMENDED ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY.pdf
      1992_POLICY LEVEL REPORT.pdf
      1993_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1993_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, INCLUDES GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE.pdf
      1993_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1993_NORTH BETHESDA-GARRETT PARK MASTER PLAN, STAGING AMENDMENT TO 1992 MASTER PLAN.pdf
      1994_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY AMMENDMENT, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1994_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1994_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, GROWTH CAPACITY CEILINGS FY94.pdf
      1994_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1994_RESOLUTION TO ADOPT STAGING AMENDMENT TO NORTH BETHESDA-GARRETT PARK MASTER PLAN.pdf
      1994-1995_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVES RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf
      1995 ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY.pdf
      1995_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1995_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1995_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY.pdf
      1995-1997_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY_STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1996_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      1997-1999_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1998_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, AMMENDED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL.pdf
      1998_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, CEILING ELEMENT.pdf
      1999_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1999_TRANSPORTATION POLICY REPORT, STAFF DRAFT.pdf
      1999_TRANSPORTATION POLICY REPORT.pdf
      1999-2001_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, FINAL DRAFT.pdf
      2000_ANNUAL GROWTH POLICY, GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES.pdf
      APF LEGAL CHALLENGE, SCHNEIDER V. MNCPPC AND KETTLER V. MNCPPC.pdf

A random walk down Main Street

| David Levinson

Recently published:Figure_6

ABSTRACT

US suburbs have often been characterized by their relatively low walk accessibility compared to more urban environments, and US urban environments have been characterized by low walk accessibility compared to cities in other countries. Lower overall density in the suburbs implies that activities, if spread out, would have a greater distance between them. But why should activities be spread out instead of developed contiguously? This brief research note builds a positive model for the emergence of contiguous development along “Main Street” to illustrate the trade-offs that result in the built environment we observe. It then suggests some policy interventions to place a “thumb on the scale” to choose which parcels will develop in which sequence to achieve socially preferred outcomes.

A Markov Chain Model of Land Use Change

| David Levinson

Recently published:

Minneapolis Aerial
Minneapolis Aerial

The set of models available to predict land use change in urban regions has become increasingly complex in recent years.  Despite their complexity, the predictive power of these models remains relatively weak.  This paper presents an example of an alternative modeling framework based on the concept of a Markov chain.  The model assumes that land use at any given time, which is viewed as a discrete state, can be considered a function of only its previous state. The probability of transition between each pair of states is recorded as an element of a transition probability matrix.  Assuming that this matrix is stationary over time, it can be used to predict future land use distributions from current data.  To illustrate this process, a Markov chain model is estimated for the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, USA (Twin Cities) metropolitan region.  Using a unique set of historical land use data covering several years between 1958 and 2005, the model is tested using historical data to predict recent conditions, and is then used to forecast the future distribution of land use decades into the future.  We also use the cell-level data set to estimate the fraction of regional land use devoted to transportation facilities, including major highways, airports, and railways. The paper concludes with some comments on the strengths and weaknesses of Markov chains as a land use modeling framework, and suggests some possible extensions of the model.