TRANSIT RELIABILITY & ACCESS TO TRANSIT

A C ROSS -C ITY C OMPARISON

5 April 2012 Jason White

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

1

INTRODUCTION
There are a number of transit performance measures that are used to determine the reliability of a particular transit system. While many agencies are tempted to view reliability from an agency’s perspective (OC Transpo, 2010), others define it from the user’s perspective (Translink, 2004). Generally speaking, the agency perspective can be very introspective, but may miss the bigger picture: near-perfect on-time performance on a poorly designed system may still result in poor travel time reliability for the user. Guidelines for the measurement of transit service quality and reliability generally focus on the user (Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2003). Transit reliability affects not only the total amount of time spent in transit, but also the amount of time spent waiting at a stop (Watkins & Rutherford, 2011). Unreliable service will force many users to arrive at their initial stop earlier, wait longer, and suffer inconsistent arrival times at their destination. This may have the unfortunate consequence of causing many people to stop considering transit as a viable transportation method. This paper will explore some of the identified factors influencing transit reliability, including transit stop density and system coverage, and present a novel comparative analysis of transit stop location data for 10 major Canadian transit systems.

FACTORS AFFECTING TRANSIT RELIABILITY
According to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) (Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2003), the following factors have been identified as affecting transit reliability: • • • vehicle and maintenance quality; vehicle and staff availability; operator driving skills;

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White • • • schedule achievability; route length; and number of stops.

2

These factors are under the control or influence of the transit service provider. Indeed, many of them are enumerated in service quality guidelines for many transit agencies (OC Transpo, 2010), (Translink, 2004). The first three of these factors relate to the management of the fleet and staff of the transit agency, and can only be adjusted over the long term, and likely at significant expense. The last three factors are a function of the service definition, and can be adjusted in a relatively short time span, and at a relatively low cost. In 2010, a study by El-Geneidy et al. studied the effects of a variety of potential factors on run time, run time deviation, and headway deviation using Automated Vehicular Location (AVL) data from Metro Transit in Minneapolis, Minnesota (El-Geneidy A. M., 2011). The most influential factors having a negative impact on run time deviation included direction, peak times of day, ramp usage, and the number of stops. The first of these three factors are, for the most part, beyond the influence of the transit agency. Service must be provided in all directions and during peak hours, and some passengers will require the use of ramps. The number of stops however, is both a significant factor and within the agency’s control. This study showed that for each scheduled stop, run time deviation rose 0.9%, and for each actual stop made, run time deviation rose 1.0%. A case study by Mazloumi et al. also sought to identify the factors influencing travel time reliability (Mazloumi, 2008). They found that the three factors having the most negative influence on travel time reliability were route segment length, number of traffic signals, and number of scheduled stops. They concluded that each additional kilometre of route length increased travel time

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

3

variability by 17%, and each additional stop per kilometre of route increased variability by nearly 5%. These studies use AVL data to show the effects at a vehicular level, but not the influence felt by a rider. Riders often are forced to transfer one or more times to reach their destination. If a transit user has a 5-minute transfer window to make a connection to another route operating with a 20 minute headway, the effect of a 6 minute delay on the first vehicle is a 20 minute delay in their expected arrival time. Therefore, travel time reliability at the vehicular level can have a magnified effect on the transit user.

TRANSIT STOP PLACEMENT
Each additional stop along a transit route has been shown to increase travel time variability at the vehicular level. This would suggest that optimal stop placement, and potentially stop consolidation, would have a positive effect on transit reliability. Taken to the extreme, this would lead to transit systems with routes of two stops: a beginning and an end. However, transit reliability is not the only important factor; it must be balanced with other issues, including availability and pedestrian access. It is an industry standard that transit users should be required to walk to more than 400 m from their place of residence or work to a transit stop, or 800m to a railway or busway station (Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2003). These distances correspond to approximately 5- and 10-minute walks, at a brisk walking speed of 5 km/h. These standards set a lower bound on the number of stops along a route. Proper stop spacing will involve balancing between having too many stops, leading to reduced on-time performance and a poor perception of transit reliability, and too few stops, leading to poor utilization and access. Many transit service providers in Canada publish accessibility guidelines and standards to which they attempt to adhere. A list of some representative guidelines is presented below.

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

4

Transit Agency OC Transpo

Calgary Transit Edmonton Transit System Translink

Stated Goals 95% of Urban Transit Area households & workplaces within 5-minute walk 400 m walking distance 400 m walking distance (residential) 90% of all residents in areas with >= 15 residents per hectare within 450 m of stop Minimum stop spacing on bus routes: 250 m

Reference (OC Transpo, 2010)

(Calgary Transit, 2009) (City of Edmonton, 2009) (Translink, 2004)

Table 1 - Transit Stop Placement Standards

Within these guidelines, only one defines both minimum walking distance and minimum stop spacing. These contradictory guidelines reflect the contradictory effects of transit stops on system performance: increasing the number of stops sacrifices reliability for accessibility, and vice versa. Without this second, opposing guideline, transit agencies may be unable to withstand the public pressure of increasing the availability of the transit system, at the expense of travel time reliability. The TCQSM defines a technique for determining transit coverage at a system level (Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2003). Their methodology can be used at the route or system level, and can be summarized as: 1. Define the Transit Supportive Areas (TSAs) 2. Draw 400 m and 800 m buffers around each transit stop and station, respectively 3. Measure the total area within both a buffer and TSA 4. Divide this area by the total area of all TSAs In defining the concept of a TSA, the TCQSM relies on earlier research by Pushkarev and Zupan. This book analyzed the supply-side and demand-side characteristics of transit agencies, particularly in the Tri-State area (Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977). Using a particular finding indicating the minimum population density required to support bus service with a 60 minute headway, the TCQSM defines a

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

5

TSA as an area having greater than 4.5 households per net acre. This is approximated as 3.0 households per gross acre, or 7.5 units per gross hectare. However, the empirical data used in Pushkarev and Zupan is limited, due to the early nature of the work, and it is by now severely out of date. The transit cost estimates, pricing structures, municipal funding levels, environmental attitudes of the public, fuel prices, and automobile ownership costs have all significantly changed since publication, not to mention the availability of data and raw computing power, and the analysis is overdue to be refreshed. El-Geneidy et al. (El-Geneidy A. M., 2010) provided a fresh look at these maximum allowable walking distances currently used throughout industry. Using detailed customer surveys and transit data from the Montreal transit authorities, El-Geneidy found the 85th percentile of distance walked was approximately 600 m, considerably more than the 400 m standard. They also found there were a number of factors affecting the maximum walking distance, some of which are under the agency’s control, and recommended this distance not be simply treated as a given static number. Foda and Osman examined the apparent contradiction between the stated goal of transit stop accessibility (5 minutes walking distance or less), and the methodology used to assess this goal (400 m aerial distance or less) (Foda & Osman, 2010). They examined the transit system access for a portion of the city of Alexandria, Egypt, and found that a simple buffer-based analysis, as outlined in the TCQSM, overstated the total coverage, as measured by street kilometres, by 51%. The TCQSM does note this contradiction, and proposes the use of a corrective factor for use with various street layout architectures. A paper by Murray and Wu proposes a methodology for determining optimal stop placement (Murray & Wu, Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning, 2003). Given a set number of stop pairs that are to be maintained, the distance that transit users must walk is weighted by location demand, and the result is minimized using the Distance Constrained p-Median Problem (DCPMP).

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

6

This approach provides theoretical background to what has been done manually by transit agencies for decades, but does not give any measure of service coverage redundancy. A measure of service coverage redundancy was given in an earlier paper (Murray, Strategic analysis of public transport coverage, 2001). Using a Location Set Covering Problem approach, Murray found that, in Brisbane, Australia, approximately 84.5% of all stops did not provide additional coverage area as defined by the 400 m aerial distance standard. The paper noted that in some areas, a higher density of stop coverage may be warranted depending on demand, a claim backed up by El-Geneidy (El-Geneidy A. M., 2010). Some of the questions that arise from an examination of this research, and that this paper will attempt to address, include: • • • Is the 400 m walking distance standard being met in today’s transit agencies? Is the 400 m standard an appropriate distance? Can we identify areas suitable for stop consolidation or other transit system rearchitecture, to better optimize transit reliability versus accessibility?

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

7

TRANSIT STOP ANALYSIS
Insights into vehicular travel time are growing easier, particularly as the complementary trends of Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) technology and Open Data policy adoption are accelerating with municipal transit authorities. AVL enables both real-time reporting and archived analysis of public transit service at the stop, run, route, and system levels. In the last 10 years, North American transit agencies using AVL technology have tripled (American Public Transportation Association , 2011), and several large municipal governments in Canada have adopted Open Data policies, enabling unfettered, even real-time access to this data. This paper aims to provide a comparative view of the relative transit coverage of 10 of the largest Canadian transit agencies. In so doing, it will compare the transit coverage of each system to each other and, where possible, to their stated goals, using a methodology adapted from the TCQSM. Finally, this study will provide a relative measure of redundancy for each system, in an effort to quantify the amount of potential stop consolidation.

DEFINITIONS
Transit-supportive areas (TSAs), or the regions capable of supporting a minimum of 60-minute service, were defined as regions with a residential population density greater than 7.5 households per gross hectare (Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2003). This paper is limited to the service coverage of residential areas supportive of transit, and does not include areas that could be included due to a sufficient employment density. For regular stops, the definition of the service coverage area was defined as 400 m walking distance, using the pedestrian-accessible road network. The 400 m Euclidean distance used in the TCQSM is, by necessity, an overestimation of the actual coverage area, if 400 m walking distance is

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

8

assumed. Since this is in fact the standard most agencies use, the Euclidean distance was not used. For stations, the service coverage area was defined as 800 m, similar to the TCQSM. The transit agencies included in this study were selected from the largest municipalities in Canada by population (Statistics Canada, 2012). Only those agencies providing their public transit information freely were included in this study. The agencies included were: • • • • • • • • • • OC Transpo (Ottawa, ON) Toronto Transit Commission (Toronto, ON) Calgary Transit (Calgary, AB) Edmonton Transit System (Edmonton, AB) Winnipeg Transit (Winnipeg, MB) Translink (Vancouver, BC) Hamilton Street Railway (Hamilton, ON) Reséau de Transport de la Capitale (Québec, QC) Société de Transport de Laval (Laval, QC) Halifax Metro Transit (Halifax, NS)

DATA SOURCES
Complete road networks for the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and Nova Scotia were downloaded from GeoBase. This data is provided free of charge by the Canadian government. Census information from the 2011 Canadian Census was downloaded, at the Dissemination Block level (Statistics Canada, 2012). This data provides basic population and household counts, typically in a geographical boundary including only a few dozen to a few hundred households. The cartographic boundary file, defining a geospatial boundary for each Dissemination Block while

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

9

excluding inland waters, was also downloaded (Statistics Canada, 2011). These files are also provided free of charge by the Canadian government under the Statistics Canada Open License Agreement. Each of the 10 transit agencies in this study provided their transit data freely to the public on their web sites. These data files, each in the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format, provide detailed schedule information for each agency. For this study, only the geospatial coordinates of the stops were used. No analysis was undertaken to ensure the stops were in active use.

ANALYTICAL ENVIRONMENT
All analysis and reporting was done on a common Windows 7 PC, using SQL Server 2008 R2 and SQL Server Report Builder 3.0. Custom importation, compilation, and analysis applications were developed using C#.NET 4.0 in Visual Studio 2010. A custom application was written to read the appropriate information from the geospatial GML files, extract the relevant information, including road segment identifiers, names, and geospatial data, and upload this data to a single database. The application was modified to import the cartographic boundary file for the census Dissemination Blocks into the same database. The population, dwelling counts, and other information were also imported from a standard CSV file into the database. Finally, the stop data, including geospatial coordinates, was imported from each GTFS file into the same database.

ANALYSIS
A custom application was developed to calculate the coverage of each stop, for each agency. The algorithm followed is best described using an example. In this example, the dot represents a single

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

10

stop, while the arrows represent pedestrian-accessible street segments. Segments have a start point and end point, represented by the arrow. Segments may consist of multiple straight subsegments, but end at all intersections. The numbers represent the relative length of the street segments.

1
0.2

2.5 1.5 4

2

Figure 1 - Example Street Layout

First, the stop is projected onto the nearest street segment. This is necessary since the street data represents the course of the street centre, and does not include its width. As a result, the stop coordinates rarely, if ever, lie directly on the street line. This stop point may occur in the middle of a line segment, or at a corner between two sub-segments. The minimum distance to the street segment is calculated; in this case it is 0.2. This distance is added to the minimum walking distance from the projected point to both the beginning and end of this street segment, providing a walking distance from the stop to the startpoint and endpoint, respectively. For each endpoint of this segment, a recursive algorithm is then followed to identify all the street segments or portions of street segments within the defined maximum walking range. The output of this algorithm on the above example is given below. Segment StartDistance EndDistance A 2.7 1.2 B 2.7 3.2 C 1.2 3.2 D 4.2 2.7
Table 2 - Results of Coverage Calculation

This algorithm was run for each transit agency, and the aggregated coverage data for all combined stops were then stored in the database for inspection and analysis.

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

11

RESULTS
The potential for over-estimation of service coverage using the traditional buffer-based method, as described in the TCQSM, is significant. By ignoring the physical layout of the pedestrian-accessible road network, including barriers such as highways and buildings, the traditional buffering-based method of calculating the total area has the potential to identify large areas that are not within range of transit as having suitable coverage, or even redundant coverage. Therefore, this issue must be resolved before identifying areas potentially suitable for stop consolidation. Instead of comparing service areas, as in the TCQSM, we compare street lengths. Since residents typically reside at or near a street, this gives us an equivalent measure. Using the service coverage for OC Transpo in Ottawa, we find that a total of 1642 km of streets are within walking distance of a stop. If, however, we use the traditional buffer-based analysis, the length is 2163 km, or an overestimation of nearly 32%. As in Foda et al., the overestimation is both expected and significant, but the values are quite different. This may be due to differences in the nature of the street layouts studied, or perhaps due to a difference in methodology. We can visualize this effect most clearly with the use of a specific example. In Figure 2 below, we see the pedestrian-accessible streets of census tract 5050044.00, in Ottawa. The green circles represent Euclidean buffers of 400 m around bus stops, and the red circles represent buffers of 800m around bus stations. Figure 3 shows the same tract, but with only those portions of streets within the defined walking distance of transit stops or stations.

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

12

Figure 2 - Street Network with Stop Buffers

Figure 3 - Covered Street Network with Stop Buffers

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

13

In Figure 3 above, the circles representing the stops and stations remain, but the street segments not within the defined walking distance of a stop or station have been removed. In particular, the 417 highway bordering the tract on the southeast corner has restricted pedestrian access from street segments that are within 400 m of a bus stop located on the other side of the highway. Using this defined methodology, the service coverage of each system was performed at the Dissemination Block level. The results are summarized below. Transit Agency OC Transpo Toronto Transit Commission Calgary Transit Edmonton Transit System Winnipeg Transit Translink Hamilton Street Railway Reséau de Transport de la Capitale Société de Transport de Laval Halifax Metro Transit City Ottawa, ON Toronto, ON Calgary, AB Edmonton, AB Winnipeg, MB Vancouver, BC Hamilton, ON Québec, QC Laval, QC Halifax, NS % Coverage of TSAs 83.3% 74.6% 77.1% 86.4% 77.8% 63.2% 74.8% 82.6% 80.1% 79.1%

Table 3 - % TSA Coverage by Agency

The detailed results for each transit agency were then plotted, using a dark-to-light colour scheme to represent poor to full transit coverage for each Dissemination Area, which are one hierarchy level above Dissemination Blocks. These maps provide highly local insights into both the demand for transit and the transit coverage provided, and are found in the Appendix of this paper. Most transit agencies studied here seem to agree, at least on paper, with the 400 m walking distance maximum that has become an industry standard. However, we see that only Edmonton appears to approach this standard. This suggests that transit agencies may be overestimating or overstating their level of service coverage. The results for Translink are particularly surprising. Translink’s service standards, updated in 2004, vary slightly from the standard used for this study, but not significantly. They define a TSA as an area with a minimum of 15 residents per hectare, which is actually a lower population density

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

14

than the 7.5 dwellings per hectare minimum standard used in this study, given the 2.6 residents per household shown by 2006 Census data for Vancouver (Statistics Canada, 2010). For example, OC Transpo claims to meet its goal of 95% (OC Transpo, 2010). If the everyday experiences of transit users do not line up with expectations set by the transit agencies, this could result in disappointment and distrust of the agency’s claims by the public. While OC Transpo had a higher coverage than average in this comparison, it does not approach the 95% figure as claimed. These results also show that the 400 m standard, while not being met, may not be an appropriate standard in the first place. As shown by El-Geneidy et al., it appears that many transit users appear to be comfortable with walking distances greater than 400 m, as this is not a standard being as widely met as many have assumed. This is an area worth further study. As an alternative to this area- or length- based analysis using TSA data only, we can examine each transit area in its entirety, using a “percent population” analysis instead. With this methodology, we use lengths of covered street segments in all Dissemination Blocks, regardless of population density, but weighted by the population of the block. This measure emphasizes efficiencies realized by ensuring high coverage of densely populated areas. Transit Agency OC Transpo Toronto Transit Commission Calgary Transit Edmonton Transit System Winnipeg Transit Translink Hamilton Street Railway Reséau de Transport de la Capitale Société de Transport de Laval Halifax Metro Transit City Ottawa, ON Toronto, ON Calgary, AB Edmonton, AB Winnipeg, MB Vancouver, BC Hamilton, ON Québec, QC Laval, QC Halifax, NS % Coverage by Population 77.4% 80.3% 77.0% 86.6% 70.4% 67.0% 71.3% 81.1% 79.1% 60.6%

Table 4 - % Population Coverage by Agency

The most notable result from this approach is the precipitous decline in the coverage of Halifax Metro Transit, using this measure as compared to the TSA-based approach. The significant drop,

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

15

from 79.1% to 60.6%, is not shown by the other transit agencies in this study. This may show that Halifax Metro Transit has a higher priority for coverage of areas of lower population density than found elsewhere, such as in suburbs or rural areas. Halifax Metro Transit may be overemphasizing suburban coverage at the expense of urban coverage, and may have opportunities for consolidation in the suburban areas. Finally, in an attempt to provide a relative measure of coverage efficiency or redundancy, we can calculate the minimum number of stops that would be required to provide the same total area within TSAs in each region. To begin, we have the total length of streets or street portions within walking distance of a transit stop, as well as the total length of all streets, contained within each Dissemination Block. By multiplying the quotient of these two lengths by the area of the Dissemination Block, we obtain an approximation of the area required to provide the requisite coverage. Then, we divide this total required area with the area covered by a single stop, approximated by a single cell in a hexagonal tessellation, each hexagon having a side length of 400 m. This is done to approximate the minimal overlap required to ensure 100% coverage of a larger area by a set of circles. This minimum number of stops is compared to the actual number of stops, and divided to calculate an aerial efficiency. Agency OC Transpo Toronto Transit Commission Calgary Transit Edmonton Transit System Winnipeg Transit Translink Hamilton Street Railway Reséau de Transport de la Capitale Société de Transport de Laval Halifax Metro Transit City Ottawa, ON Toronto, ON Calgary, AB Edmonton, AB Winnipeg, MB Vancouver, BC Hamilton, ON Québec, QC Laval, QC Halifax, NS Coverage Area (km2) 122.9 256.9 172.1 131.0 102.4 237.6 62.7 85.5 61.7 42.3 Minimum # Stops 592 1237 829 631 493 1144 302 412 297 204 Actual # Stops 6078 10957 5753 6059 5045 8714 2356 4574 2734 2404 Stop Efficiency 9.7% 11.3% 14.4% 10.4% 9.8% 13.1% 12.8% 9.0% 10.9% 8.4%

Table 5 - Stop Efficiency by Agency

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

16

These efficiency calculations are purely theoretical, naturally, and are largely affected by street layouts, population densities, and traffic patterns, all of which are outside the control of a transit provider. They do, however, provide a comparative basis to compare the relative spatial efficiency of each transit provider’s access coverage. Using these results, we see that Halifax Metro Transit has the lowest stop efficiency of the 10 agencies studied. This aligns well with the earlier observation that the urban population was not being efficiently served, and there is some potential for stop consolidation or route reconfiguration in the suburban areas. Vancouver’s Translink has a relatively high efficiency rating here, which is consistent with the earlier finding that Translink had the lowest stop coverage, despite their official high standards. Less coverage leads to less overlap between stops, which naturally leads to higher stop efficiency. As compared to the other transit systems, Translink does not appear to be a good candidate for stop consolidation, at least not from this system-level view. Calgary Transit’s stop efficiency is surprisingly high, given the average performance seen in the earlier coverage indicators. This may be reflective of the particular population density patterns seen in Calgary, or it could be due to a location-optimal design on the part of the transit planners there. On the other hand, this study did not consider employment-intensive regions of the cities, so it could be to an over-representation of residential transit service over employment-based service. Additional research in this area is warranted.

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

17

CONCLUSIONS
As expected, for each city in this analysis with a stated transit stop coverage goal, the goal far exceeded the resultant coverage. When comparing Euclidean versus walking distance coverage, this study found a significant level of overestimation in Ottawa, 32%, as was also found in Alexandria by Foda & Osman. This is an intuitive result, but the size of the overestimation is important, and the discrepancy between the two studies has not been fully explored. Further, with the exception of Vacouver’s Translink, each city in the analysis had similar levels of stop coverage. That is, each city had similarly “poor” coverage, roughly in the 75% to 85% range, when claims of 95% are being made. This suggests that the current level of coverage in most cities is, in fact, sufficient, and 400 m is not the correct walking distance to be used. Selection of a more appropriate walking distance, coupled with correct measurement of said distance, could lead to a more optimal stop placement analysis. The cross-agency comparison leads to some interesting findings. Translink appears to have made different choices than other agencies in the study with regards its priorities involving stop coverage, funding, and route efficiencies. Further analysis is warranted to determine the effects of these choices on the perceptions of transit reliability and quality of service by the residents. Also, Halifax Metro Agency has average coverage of its TSAs, but does significantly poorer when all areas are considered, weighted by population. This shows there are significant sections of the population that are currently underserved by access to transit, using the 400 m standard. There is insufficient information in this analysis to determine the cause of this low service standard, but it is cause for further investigation. Finally, the stop efficiency comparison shows there are remarkably different situations between Halifax Metro Agency and Calgary Transit, even though both scored comparably even on the initial

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

18

stop coverage measure. Calgary Transit has a clearly higher stop efficiency measure, which would lead to higher transit time reliability for a similar level of stop coverage. This is worth further investigation to determine the cause of Calgary Transit’s stop efficiency measure, for the benefit of the other transit agencies in the study. In conclusion, we can see that the 400 m walking distance standard often found throughout the transit industry is not currently being met. Instead, most agencies appear to be approximating this with a 400 m aerial distance. Since there is no logical reason to base accessibility standards on aerial distances when the overestimation of accessibility as a result of this standard is so high, one must assume that as a network design parameter, it is likely suboptimal. As found in other studies, this design characteristic of modern transit systems needs to be rethought. The proposed methodology for identifying areas suitable for stop consolidation or system rearchitecture remains a proposal, with no confirmation from this study. However, it appears to be largely consistent with the earlier, more recognized findings, and is deserving of further exploration.

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

i

APPENDIX

Figure 4 - OC Transpo Stop Coverage

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

ii

Figure 5 - Toronto Transit Commission Stop Coverage

Figure 6 - Calgary Transit Stop Coverage

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

iii

Figure 7 - Edmonton Transit System Stop Coverage

Figure 8 - Winnipeg Transit Stop Coverage

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

iv

Figure 9 - Translink Stop Coverage

Figure 10 - Hamilton Street Railway Stop Coverage

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

v

Figure 11 - Réseau de transport de la Capitale Stop Coverage

Figure 12 - Société de transport de Laval Stop Coverage

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

vi

Figure 13 - Halifax Metro Transit Stop Coverage

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

vii

BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Public Transportation Association . (2011, April). 2011 Public Transportation Fact Book. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from apta.com: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/APTA_2011_Fact_Book.pdf Base Mapping & Cadastre, GeoBC, British Columbia, Canada. (2011, March 31). National Road Network British Columbia (BC), Edition 8.0. Retrieved March 2012, from Geobase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/download.do?produit=nrn&items=official%2fnrn_rrn%2fbc %2fnrn_rrn_bc_gml_en.zip&protocol=http Calgary Transit. (2012, March). Calgary Transit GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from Calgary Online: https://cityonline.calgary.ca/Pages/Product.aspx?category=PDCTransportation&cat=CITYonlineDe fault&id=PDC0-99999-99999-00501-P Calgary Transit. (2009). Delivering Quality Transit Service. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from CalgaryTransit.com: www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Delivering_Quality_Transit_Service.pdf City of Edmonton. (2009, August 17). City Policy C539. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from Edmonton.ca: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/C539.pdf City of Edmonton. (2012, March). Edmonton Transit Services GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from edmonton.ca: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/ets-data-for-developers.aspx City of Halifax. (2012, March). Halifax Metro Transit GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from halifax.ca: http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/googletransitfeed/google_transit.zip City of Hamilton. (2012, March). Hamilton Street Railway GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from hamilton.ca: http://www.hamilton.ca/ProjectsInitiatives/OpenData/ Direction générale de l'information géographique, Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF), Québec. (2011, November 30). National Road Network Québec (QC), Edition 5.0. Retrieved March 2012, from Geobase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/download.do?produit=nrn&items=official%2fnrn_rrn%2fqc %2fnrn_rrn_qc_gml_en.zip&protocol=http El-Geneidy, A. M. (2011). Analyzing transit service reliability using detailed data from automatic vehicular locator systems. Journal of Advanced Transportation , 66-79. El-Geneidy, A. M. (2010). Pedestrian Access to Transit: Identifying Redundancies and Gaps Using a Variable Service Area Analysis. TRB 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Foda, M. A., & Osman, A. O. (2010). Using GIS for Measuring Transit Stop Accessibility Considering Actual Pedestrian Road Network. Journal of Public Transportation , 23-40.

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White

viii

Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Mapping Information Branch, Centre for Topographic Information - Sherbrooke. (2011, August 5). National Road Network Manitoba (MB), Edition 4.2. Retrieved March 2012, from Geobase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/download.do?produit=nrn&items=official%2fnrn_rrn%2fmb %2fnrn_rrn_mb_gml_en.zip&protocol=http Government of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. (2011, August 5). National Road Network Ontario (ON), Edition 7.0. Retrieved March 2012, from Geobase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/download.do?produit=nrn&items=official%2fnrn_rrn%2fon %2fnrn_rrn_on_gml_en.zip&protocol=http Highway Geomatics Section (HGS), Alberta Transportation. (2011, April 6). National Road Network Alberta (AB), Edition 8.0. Retrieved March 2012, from Geobase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/download.do?produit=nrn&items=official%2fnrn_rrn%2fab %2fnrn_rrn_ab_gml_en.zip&protocol=http Mazloumi, E. e. (2008). Causes of travel time unreliability - a Melbourne case study. Australasian Transport Research Forum , 195-202. Murray, A. T. (2001). Strategic analysis of public transport coverage. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences , 175-188. Murray, A. T., & Wu, X. (2003). Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning. Journal of Geographical Systems , 93-107. OC Transpo. (2010). OC Transpo 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from OCTranspo.com: http://www.octranspo1.com/images/files/reports/2010_annual_report.pdf OC Transpo. (2012, March). OC Transpo GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from OCTranspo.com: http://www.octranspo1.com/files/google_transit.zip Pushkarev, B. S., & Zupan, J. M. (1977). Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Don Mills: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. Réseau de transport de la Capitale. (2012, March). RTC GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from RTCquebec.ca: http://www.rtcquebec.ca/donneesouvertes/googletransit.zip Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, Registry and Information Management Services, Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre. (2012, April 4). National Road Network Nova Scotio (NS), Edition 9.0. Retrieved March 2012, from Geobase: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/download.do?produit=nrn&items=official%2fnrn_rrn%2fns %2fnrn_rrn_ns_gml_en.zip&protocol=http Société de transport de Laval. (2012, March). STL GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from stl.laval.qc.ca: http://www.stl.laval.qc.ca/opendata/GTF_STL.zip

Transit Reliability & Access to Transit: A Cross-City Comparison Jason White Statistics Canada. (2011, November). Dissemination Block Boundary File, 2011 Census. Retrieved March 2012, from Statistics Canada: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2011/geo/bound-limit/bound-limit-eng.cfm Statistics Canada. (2012, February). Geographic Attribute File, 2011 Census. Retrieved March 2012, from Statistics Canada: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/geo/ref/atteng.cfm

ix

Statistics Canada. (2012, Jan 18). Population and dwelling counts, for Canada and census subdivisions (municipalities), 2011 and 2006 censuses. Retrieved March 2012, from Statistics Canada: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/TableTableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=301&S=3&O=D Statistics Canada. (2010, January 6). Population and dwelling counts, for census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2006 and 2001 censuses. Retrieved March 2012, from Statistics Canada: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=201&S=3&O=D&RPP=150 Toronto Transit Commission. (2012, March). TTC GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from Toronto.ca/open: http://opendata.toronto.ca/TTC/routes/OpenData_TTC_Schedules.zip Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2003). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Kittelson & Associates. Translink. (2012, March). Translink GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from Translink.ca: http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Developer-Resources/GTFS-Data.aspx Translink. (2004, June). Translink Service Guidelines. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from Translink.ca: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/plans/transit_service_guideline/transit%20 services%20guidelines%20public%20summary.ashx Watkins, K. E., & Rutherford, G. S. (2011). Measurement and Evaluation of Transit Travel Time Reliability. Seattle: Transportation Northwest. Winnipeg Transit. (2012, March). Winnipeg Transit GTFS Feed. Retrieved March 2012, from Winnipeg Transit: http://gtfs.winnipegtransit.com/google_transit.zip