Building Sustainable and Connected Communities by Addressing Public Transportation’s First-Mile Problem: Insights from a Stated Preference Survey in El Paso, Texas
Abstract
:1. Introduction and Literature Review
1.1. Struggling Public Transportation Despite Its Multi-Faceted Benefits
1.2. Pilot Programs to Address the First-Mile Problem
2. Methodology
2.1. Study Community and Current Transit Options
2.2. Survey Design
2.3. Data Collection/Measures
2.4. Analytical Methods
2.4.1. Survey Responses and Data Cleaning
2.4.2. Variables and Summary Statistics
2.4.3. Modeling Considerations
- i is a participant identification number;
- represents the trip purpose: work, errand, leisure, exercise, other, and overall;
- represents the type of transit: all transit (, BRT (, and regular bus ();
- is the participant’s baseline number of transit trips;
- is the participant’s number of transit trips after the free shuttle service is introduced.
- represents a vector of socio-demographic variables for participant i;
- represents a vector of built-environment variables for participant i;
- are vectors of coefficients to be estimated;
- is the constant term;
- is the error term.
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Transit Trips
3.2. Changes in Transit Trips Due to a “Hypothetical” Shuttle Service between Homes and Transit Stops
3.3. Factors That Influence the Changes
4. Discussion
4.1. Tremendous Latent Demand for Transit
4.2. BRT vs. Regular Bus
4.2.1. Much Higher Demand for BRT
4.2.2. Feeling Safe Matters More for the Regular Bus Than for BRT
4.2.3. Shuttle Catchment Area for BRT and Regular Bus
4.3. Various Socio-Demographic Factors Matter for Transit Trip Making
4.4. Family Errands
4.5. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Miller, P.; de Barros, A.G.; Kattan, L.; Wirasinghe, S.C. Public transportation and sustainability: A review. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.B.; Werner, C.M. Before and After a New Light Rail Stop: Resident Attitudes, Travel Behavior, and Obesity. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2008, 75, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Zhong, H.; Boarnet, M.G. Effects of new transit lines on commuting: Evidence from restricted-use Census Bureau microdata. Appl. Geogr. 2024, 164, 103202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beaudoin, J.; Farzin, Y.H.; Lin Lawell, C.Y.C. Public transit investment and sustainable transportation: A review of studies of transit’s impact on traffic congestion and air quality. Sustain. Transp. 2015, 52, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.L. Subways, strikes, and slowdowns: The impacts of public transit on traffic congestion. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 2763–2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winston, C.; Maheshri, V. On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems. J. Urban Econ. 2007, 62, 362–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen-Phuoc, D.Q.; Young, W.; Currie, G.; De Gruyter, C. Traffic congestion relief associated with public transport: State-of-the-art. Public Transp. 2020, 12, 455–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bikis, A.; Pandey, D. Air Quality at Public Transportation Stations/Stops: Contribution of Light Rail Transit to Reduce Air Pollution. Aerosol Sci. Eng. 2022, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalive, R.; Luechinger, S.; Schmutzler, A. Does Supporting Passenger Railways Reduce Road Traffic Externalities? Center for Economic and Policy Research: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- American Public Transportation Association. 2022 Public Transportation Fact Book; American Public Transportation Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Bastiaanssen, J.; Johnson, D.; Lucas, K. Does better job accessibility help people gain employment? The role of public transport in Great Britain. Urban Stud. 2022, 59, 301–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boarnet, M.G.; Giuliano, G.; Hou, Y.; Shin, E.J. First/last mile transit access as an equity planning issue. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 296–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foth, N.; Manaugh, K.; El-Geneidy, A.M. Towards equitable transit: Examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erica, R.; Emilie, C.; Frank, J.v.L.; Mauricio, A. Public transport policy, social engagement and mental health in older age: A quasi-experimental evaluation of free bus passes in England. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2018, 72, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hybel, J.; Mulalic, I. Transportation and quality of life: Evidence from Denmark. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 157, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Lee, C.; Zhong, S.; Xu, M.; Towne Jr, S.D.; Zhu, X.; Lee, S.; Wang, S.; Aldrete, R.; Garcia, E.B. Examining the impacts of public transit on healthy aging through a natural experiment: Study protocols and lessons learned from the Active El Paso project. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1132190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Li, W.; Lownes, N.; Zhang, C. Estimating the Impacts of Proximity to Public Transportation on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Analysis for Hartford and Stamford Areas, Connecticut. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siripanich, A.; Rashidi, T.H.; Moylan, E. Interaction of Public Transport Accessibility and Residential Property Values Using Smart Card Data. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baum-Snow, N.; Kahn, M.E. The effects of new public projects to expand urban rail transit. J. Public Econ. 2000, 77, 241–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau QuickFacts; United States Census Bureau: Suitland-Silver Hill, MD, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- American Public Transportation Association. 2021 Public Transportation Fact Book. Available online: https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-2021-Fact-Book.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Abdullah, M.; Ali, N.; Dias, C.; Campisi, T.; Javid, M.A. Exploring the Traveler’s Intentions to Use Public Transport during the COVID-19 Pandemic While Complying with Precautionary Measures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, J.; Zhong, S.; Towne, S.D.; Lee, C.; Ory, M.G.; Li, W. Perceived risks of transit use during COVID-19: Correlates and strategies from a case study in El Paso, Texas. J. Transp. Health 2022, 27, 101491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federal Transit Administration. The National Transit Database; Federal Transit Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Ahangari, S.; Chavis, C.; Jeihani, M. Public transit ridership analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Metro and COVID-19: Steps We’ve Taken; Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, J.; Bernardes, S.D.; Bian, Z.; Ozbay, K.; Iyer, S. Initial impacts of COVID-19 on transportation systems: A case study of the US epicenter, the New York metropolitan area. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.01168. [Google Scholar]
- Qi, Y.; Liu, J.; Tao, T.; Zhao, Q. Impacts of COVID-19 on public transit ridership. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2023, 12, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basu, R.; Ferreira, J. Sustainable mobility in auto-dominated Metro Boston: Challenges and opportunities post-COVID-19. Transp. Policy 2021, 103, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirachini, A.; Cats, O. COVID-19 and Public Transportation: Current Assessment, Prospects, and Research Needs. J. Public Transp. 2020, 22, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhardt, G.D.; Hoque, J.M.; Goyal, V.; Berrebi, S.; Brakewood, C.; Watkins, K.E. Why has public transit ridership declined in the United States? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 161, 68–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Lee, B. What’s eating public transit in the United States? Reasons for declining transit ridership in the 2010s. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 157, 126–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M.; Lättman, K. Accessibility barriers and perceived accessibility: Implications for public transport. Urban Sci. 2021, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiznado-Aitken, I.; Lucas, K.; Muñoz, J.C.; Hurtubia, R. Understanding accessibility through public transport users’ experiences: A mixed methods approach. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 88, 102857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kåresdotter, E.; Page, J.; Mörtberg, U.; Näsström, H.; Kalantari, Z. First mile/last mile problems in smart and sustainable cities: A case study in Stockholm County. J. Urban Technol. 2022, 29, 115–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesh, M.C. Innovative concepts in first-last mile connections to public transportation. In Urban Public Transportation Systems 2013; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2013; pp. 63–74. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.; Wang, H.; Meng, Q. Solving the first-mile ridesharing problem using autonomous vehicles. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 35, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohiuddin, H. Planning for the first and last mile: A review of practices at selected transit agencies in the United States. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, J. Integrating shared autonomous vehicle in public transportation system: A supply-side simulation of the first-mile service in Singapore. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 113, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, T.; Wei, H.; Chen, N.; Zhang, C. First-and-last mile solution via bicycling to improving transit accessibility and advancing transportation equity. Cities 2020, 99, 102614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, G.; Chen, L.; Chen, X.; Jiang, C.; Ni, A.; Zhang, C.; Zong, F. A hybrid visualization model for knowledge mapping: Scientometrics, SAOM, and SAO. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2023. early access. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Wang, Z.; Hua, Q.; Shang, W.-L.; Luo, Q.; Yu, K. AI-empowered speed extraction via port-like videos for vehicular trajectory analysis. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022, 24, 4541–4552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usman, M.; Li, W.; Bian, J.; Chen, A.; Ye, X.; Li, X.; Dadashova, B.; Lee, C.; Lee, K.; Rathinam, S. Small and rural towns’ perception of autonomous vehicles: Insights from a survey in Texas. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2023, 47, 200–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, H.; Li, W.; Boarnet, M.G. A two-dimensional propensity score matching method for longitudinal quasi-experimental studies: A focus on travel behavior and the built environment. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2021, 48, 2110–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Erdogan, S.; Ma, T.; Ducca, F.W. How to increase rail ridership in Maryland: Direct ridership models for policy guidance. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2016, 142, 04016017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salter, B.; Alexander, S. Getting There: The Effect of First and Last Mile Infrastructure and Services on Rail Ridership. Transp. Res. Rec. 2022, 2676, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, T.; Wei, H.; Chen, N. Promote transit via hardening first-and-last-mile accessibility: Learned from modeling commuters’ transit use. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 86, 102446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, T.; Liu, C.; Erdoğan, S. Bicycle sharing and public transit: Does capital bikeshare affect metrorail ridership in Washington, DC? Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2534, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, T.; Knaap, G.-J. Estimating the impacts of capital bikeshare on metrorail ridership in the Washington metropolitan area. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Public Transportation Association. First Last/Mile Solutions. Available online: https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/mobility-innovation-hub/first-last-mile-solutions/ (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Marshall, A. Transit Agencies Turn to Uber for the Last Mile. WIRED 2019-06-29 2019. Available online: https://www.wired.com/story/transit-agencies-turn-uber-last-mile/ (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Bay Area Rapid Transit. Carpool to Dublin/Pleasanton BART with Scoop and Get Guaranteed Parking | Bay Area Rapid Transit. Available online: https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2017/news20170117 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Said, C. On-Demand Shuttles to Serve Apple Hometown’S ‘Transit Desert’. San Francisco Chronicle 2019-10-07 2019. Available online: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/On-demand-shuttles-to-serve-Apple-hometown-s-14494083.php (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Hymon, S. Metro Launches Partnership with Via for On-Demand Rides at Three Stations. LA Metro 2019-01-28 2019. Available online: https://thesource.metro.net/2019/01/28/metro-launches-partnership-with-via-for-on-demand-rides-at-three-stations/ (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Dilks, S.-J. King County Metro Chooses via as TransitTech Provider for Greater Seattle’s Future of Interconnected On-Demand Public Transit. Available online: https://ridewithvia.com/news/king-county-metro-chooses-via-as-transittech-provider-for-greater-seattles-future-of-interconnected-on-demand-public-transit (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- King, S. New Cap Metro Pickup Service Offers Rides For Austin Residents Who Aren’t On Bus Lines. Available online: https://www.kut.org/transportation/2019-08-20/new-cap-metro-pickup-service-offers-rides-for-austin-residents-who-arent-on-bus-lines (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Musulin, K. Uber Enters First SaaS Partnership in Marin County, CA. Available online: https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/uber-enters-first-saas-partnership-in-marin-county-ca/580102/ (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- MassTransitMag. New DART GoLink Zones Begin Service. Available online: https://www.masstransitmag.com/alt-mobility/shared-mobility/car-sharing/press-release/21249097/dallas-area-rapid-transit-dart-new-dart-golink-zones-begin-service (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- RideKC. IRIS: On-Demand Transit in KCMO | Rider Guide | RideKC. Available online: https://ridekc.org/rider-guide/iris (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- US Census Bureau. 2014–2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Available online: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/table-and-geography-changes/2018/5-year.html (accessed on 1 December 2023).
- Johnston, R.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Adamowicz, W.; Bennett, J.; Brouwer, R.; Cameron, T.A.; Hanemann, W.M.; Hanley, N.; Ryan, M.; Scarpa, R. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 4, 319–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, J. Forecasting traffic on STOL. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1973, 24, 561–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.; Beavers, L.; Norman, K.; Stetzer, F. Theory, Methodology, and Findings in Mode Choice Behavior; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Hensher, D.A. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: The state of practice. Transportation 1994, 21, 107–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroes, E.P.; Sheldon, R.J. Stated preference methods: An introduction. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 1988, 22, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
- DeShazo, J.; Fermo, G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collia, D.V.; Sharp, J.; Giesbrecht, L. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey: A look into the travel patterns of older Americans. J. Saf. Res. 2003, 34, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potoglou, D.; Kanaroglou, P.S. Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2007, 12, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spears, S.; Houston, D.; Boarnet, M.G. Illuminating the unseen in transit use: A framework for examining the effect of attitudes and perceptions on travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 58, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattson, J.W. Travel Behavior and Mobility of Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Evidence from the National Household Travel Survey; Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute: Fargo, ND, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Pinjari, A.R.; Pendyala, R.M.; Bhat, C.R.; Waddell, P.A. Modeling the choice continuum: An integrated model of residential location, auto ownership, bicycle ownership, and commute tour mode choice decisions. Transportation 2011, 38, 933–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Rosenheim, N.P.; Dong, H.; Boarnet, M.; Zhong, H. Rail Transit and Economic Growth: Documenting Evidences from a Panel Data Analysis of Eighteen Metropolitan Areas in the United States; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, L.; Sze, N.; Liu, P.; Haggart, A.G. Effect of environmental awareness on electric bicycle users’ mode choices. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 82, 102320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbloom, S. Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; Volume 28. [Google Scholar]
- Carr, L.J.; Dunsiger, S.I.; Marcus, B.H. Walk score™ as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2010, 39, 460–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, C.M.; Ram, Y. Walk score® and its potential contribution to the study of active transport and walkability: A critical and systematic review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winters, M.; Teschke, K.; Brauer, M.; Fuller, D. Bike Score®: Associations between urban bikeability and cycling behavior in 24 cities. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duncan, D.T.; Aldstadt, J.; Whalen, J.; Melly, S.J. Validation of Walk Scores and Transit Scores for estimating neighborhood walkability and transit availability: A small-area analysis. GeoJournal 2013, 78, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Joh, K. Exploring the synergistic economic benefit of enhancing neighbourhood bikeability and public transit accessibility based on real estate sale transactions. Urban Stud. 2017, 54, 3480–3499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuby, M.; Barranda, A.; Upchurch, C. Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2004, 38, 223–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez, J.; Cardozo, O.D.; García-Palomares, J.C. Transit ridership forecasting at station level: An approach based on distance-decay weighted regression. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1081–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagel, C.L.; Carlson, N.E.; Bosworth, M.; Michael, Y.L. The relation between neighborhood built environment and walking activity among older adults. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 168, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, P.M.; Moudon, A.V.; Matlick, J.M. Pedestrian safety and transit corridors. J. Public Transp. 2004, 7, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Weather Service. El Paso’s 100 Degree Days FAQ. Available online: https://www.weather.gov/epz/elpaso_100_degree_page#:~:text=From%201887%20through%20December%2031,or%20Triple%20Digits%20Per%20Year (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Alawadi, K.; Hernandez Striedinger, V.; Maghelal, P.; Khanal, A. Assessing walkability in hot arid regions: The case of downtown Abu Dhabi. Urban Des. Int. 2021, 27, 211–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K.; Farb, A.; Chen, S. First-/last-mile experience matters: The influence of the built environment on satisfaction and loyalty among public transit riders. Transp. Policy 2021, 112, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, C.; Gong, H.; Wang, F. A solution for the last mile problem of the Beijing rapid transit network: Local shuttle bus system. In Proceedings of the 2010 18th International Conference on Geoinformatics, Beijing, China, 18–20 June 2010; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Gelbal, S.Y.; Aksun-Guvenc, B.; Guvenc, L. Smartshuttle: Model based design and evaluation of automated on-demand shuttles for solving the first-mile and last-mile problem in a smart city. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2012.12431. [Google Scholar]
- Jarzab, J.T.; Lightbody, J.; Maeda, E. Characteristics of bus rapid transit projects: An overview. J. Public Transp. 2002, 5, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarrete-Hernandez, P.; Zegras, P.C. Mind the perception gap: The impact of bus rapid transit infrastructure on travelers’ perceptions of affective subjective well-being. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2023, 172, 103670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, J.; Li, W.; Lee, C. Current practices and emerging trends of transit apps for fixed-route bus services in the US. J. Public Transp. 2023, 25, 100052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, J.; Li, W.; Zhong, S.; Lee, C.; Foster, M.; Ye, X. The end-user benefits of smartphone transit apps: A systematic literature review. Transp. Rev. 2022, 42, 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; Lange, P., Kruglanski, A., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2012; pp. 438–459. [Google Scholar]
- Steinmetz, H.; Knappstein, M.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P.; Kabst, R. How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? Z. Psychol. 2016, 224, 216–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friman, M.; Huck, J.; Olsson, L.E. Transtheoretical model of change during travel behavior interventions: An integrative review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamed, M.M.; Olaywah, H.H. Travel-related decisions by bus, servis taxi, and private car commuters in the city of Amman, Jordan. Cities 2000, 17, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anto, E.O.; Owiredu, W.; Adua, E.; Obirikorang, C.; Fondjo, L.A.; Annani-Akollor, M.E.; Acheampong, E.; Asamoah, E.A.; Roberts, P.; Wang, W. Prevalence and lifestyle-related risk factors of obesity and unrecognized hypertension among bus drivers in Ghana. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, Y.; Lee, S.; Park, A.H.; Lee, C. COVID-19 impacts on non-work travel patterns: A place-based investigation using smartphone mobility data. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2023, 50, 642–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grengs, J. The abandoned social goals of public transit in the neoliberal city of the USA. City 2005, 9, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Corte, K.; Cairns, J.; Grieve, R. Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias. Health Econ. 2021, 30, 1095–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, M.D.; Determann, D.; Petrou, S.; Moro, D.; de Bekker-Grob, E.W. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014, 32, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year of Launch | City or Region Served | Main Partners Involved | Description of Service |
---|---|---|---|
2015 | Salem, OR | Cherriots, Salem-Keizer Transit | Shuttles connect riders to regular fixed routes or deliver them to their destinations within a zone [50]. |
2016 | Pinellas County, FL | PSTA, Uber, Lyft, United Taxi | Direct Connect provides subsidized Uber and Lyft rides for passengers traveling to and from 800 feet of several locations [51]. |
2016 | Hillsborough County, FL | HART, Transdev | Users can travel up to 3 miles to or from some major bus stations [50]. |
2016 | Centennial, CO | City of Centennial, CH2M, DSTMA, etc. | Public-private partnership to offer a free Lyft Line (carpooling) ride to and from an LRT station [50]. |
2017 | San Francisco, CA | BART, SCOOP | Carpooling BART users receive priority parking at BART stations [52]. |
2018 | Phoenix, AZ | Valley Metro, Waymo | First-and-last-mile connections to transit stops, centers, and park-and-rides [50]. |
2019 | Dayton, OH | Greater Dayton RTA, Spin | Integrated shared bikes and scooters with public transit [50]. |
2019 | Fort Worth, TX | Trinity Metro, Via | Introduced ZIPZONE, an on-demand rideshare to connect to transit stations [50]. |
2019 | Cupertino, CA | City of Cupertino, Via | Shuttle service connecting users to the CalTrain station [53]. |
2019 | Los Angeles, CA | LA Metro, Via | Shared shuttle service to and from three Metro stations [54]. |
2019 | Seattle, WA | King County Metro, Via | Service connects users to buses and trains or community hubs [55]. |
2019 | Sacramento, CA | SacRT, JUMP | Charging bays inside LRT stations allow commuters to park and charge e-bikes [50]. |
2019 | Austin, TX | CapMetro, Via | The new service called Pickup offered a first-and-last-mile service across certain zones [56]. |
2020 | Marin County, CA | Marin Transit, TAM, Uber | Users receive Uber ride vouchers for trips to/from certain major bus stops, rail stations, and ferry terminals [57]. |
2021 | Dallas, TX | DART | On-demand trips to/from bus/train stations and other destinations [58]. |
2023 | Kansas City, MO | City of KC, zTrip, KCATA | Users can request pick-ups and drop-offs in locations within one-quarter mile of their request [59]. |
Domain | Variable Definition | Study Sample | El Paso Population (2018–2019) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean/Count | St. Dev./% | Min | Max | Mean/% | ||
Socio-Demographic | Binary: 1 = Existing transit user | 237 | 22.4% | 0 | 1 | 1.7% |
Binary: 1 = Household income ≥ USD 50,000 | 288 | 27.3% | 0 | 1 | 46.0% | |
Binary: 1 = Employed for wages | 614 | 58.1% | 0 | 1 | 58.0% | |
Binary: 1 = Household has at least one automobile | 979 | 92.7% | 0 | 1 | 92.4% | |
Binary: 1 = Has a bachelor’s degree | 348 | 33.0% | 0 | 1 | 24.7% | |
Binary: 1 = Has at least one child under 18 | 553 | 52.4% | 0 | 1 | 38.4% | |
Binary: 1 = 65 years or older | 82 | 7.8% | 0 | 1 | 12.4% | |
Binary: 1 = Male | 396 | 37.5% | 0 | 1 | 48.9% | |
Binary: 1 = Hispanic/Latino | 843 | 79.8% | 0 | 1 | 80.9% | |
Binary: 1 = Feeling safe while riding the bus | 730 | 69.1% | 0 | 1 | N/A | |
Built-Environment | Walk score (0–100) | 45.6 | 20.0 | 0 | 96 | 40 |
Transit score (0–100) | 31.4 | 7.9 | 0 | 59 | 28 | |
Bike score (0–100) | 42 | 10.7 | 1 | 75 | 42 | |
Walking route to nearest transit stop: Percentage of sidewalk (0–100) | 79.1 | 26.1 | 0 | 100 | N/A | |
Walking route to nearest transit stop: Percentage of tree canopy cover (0–100) | 3.2 | 3 | 0 | 34 | N/A | |
Binary: 1 = Network distance to nearest transit stop [0.25, 0.5) mile | 242 | 22.9% | 0 | 1 | N/A | |
Binary: 1 = Network distance to nearest transit stop [0.5, 1) mile | 35 | 3.31% | 0 | 1 | N/A | |
Binary: 1 = Network distance to nearest transit stop ≥ 1 mile | 16 | 1.52% | 0 | 1 | N/A |
Trip Type | Trip Purpose | Mean | St. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRT + Regular Bus Trips | All purpose | 1.649 | 5.228 | 0 (N = 819, 77.6%) | 75 |
Work | 0.605 | 2.292 | 0 (N = 931, 88.2%) | 30 | |
Errands | 0.565 | 1.870 | 0 (N = 890, 84.3%) | 30 | |
Leisure | 0.308 | 1.469 | 0 (N = 950, 90.0%) | 30 | |
Sport | 0.086 | 0.651 | 0 (N = 1020, 96.6%) | 15 | |
Other purpose | 0.084 | 0.788 | 0 (N = 1033, 97.8%) | 15 | |
BRT Trips Only | All purpose | 0.401 | 2.692 | 0 (N = 963, 91.2%) | 70 |
Work | 0.144 | 0.900 | 0 (N = 1008, 95.5%) | 14 | |
Errands | 0.112 | 0.677 | 0 (N = 1001, 94.8%) | 14 | |
Leisure | 0.081 | 0.625 | 0 (N = 1016, 96.2%) | 14 | |
Sport | 0.034 | 0.470 | 0 (N = 1040, 98.5%) | 14 | |
Other purpose | 0.030 | 0.490 | 0 (N = 1047, 99.2%) | 14 | |
Regular Bus Trips Only | All purpose | 1.248 | 3.896 | 0 (N = 841, 79.6%) | 60 |
Work | 0.461 | 1.897 | 0 (N = 945, 89.5%) | 30 | |
Errands | 0.454 | 1.607 | 0 (N = 903, 85.5%) | 30 | |
Leisure | 0.227 | 1.159 | 0 (N = 961, 91.0%) | 28 | |
Sport | 0.052 | 0.382 | 0 (N = 1027, 97.3%) | 7 | |
Other purpose | 0.054 | 0.489 | 0 (N = 1033, 97.8%) | 8 |
Trip Type | Trip Purpose | Mean | St. Dev. | % Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
Change in BRT + Regular Bus Trips | All purpose | 7.7273 | 11.0665 | 469% |
Work | 3.0256 | 5.6364 | 500% | |
Errands | 1.9384 | 3.5341 | 343% | |
Leisure | 1.6392 | 3.0648 | 533% | |
Sport | 0.9347 | 2.3428 | 1084% | |
Other purpose | 0.1894 | 1.0341 | 225% | |
Change in BRT Trips Only | All Purpose | 4.7225 | 6.9212 | 1179% |
Work | 1.8636 | 3.4892 | 1295% | |
Errands | 1.1752 | 2.1447 | 1052% | |
Leisure | 0.9688 | 1.8616 | 1203% | |
Sport | 0.5919 | 1.5647 | 1736% | |
Other purpose | 0.1231 | 0.7194 | 406% | |
Change in Regular Bus Trips Only | All purpose | 3.0047 | 5.794 | 241% |
Work | 1.1619 | 3.0019 | 252% | |
Errands | 0.7633 | 1.9600 | 168% | |
Leisure | 0.6705 | 1.5942 | 295% | |
Sport | 0.3428 | 1.1270 | 658% | |
Other purpose | 0.0663 | 0.4763 | 123% |
Exp. Var. | All Purpose | Work | Errand | Leisure | Sport |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Binary: 1 = Existing transit user | 3.8810 *** | 1.0710 * | 0.9633 ** | 1.1760 *** | 0.4491 * |
(1.0763) | (0.4872) | (0.3705) | (0.3415) | (0.2209) | |
Binary: 1 = Household income ≥ USD 50,000 | −0.2327 | 0.1160 | −0.3515 | −0.0067 | 0.0330 |
(0.8543) | (0.4507) | (0.2513) | (0.2559) | (0.1965) | |
Binary: 1 = Employed for wages | 1.7247 * | 2.1549 *** | −0.1919 | −0.0733 | −0.1870 |
(0.7248) | (0.3601) | (0.2372) | (0.2111) | (0.1628) | |
Binary: 1 = Household has at least one automobile | 3.4468 * | 1.2068 | 0.7172 | 1.2013 ** | 0.3465 |
(1.4481) | (0.6308) | (0.5269) | (0.4037) | (0.3389) | |
Binary: 1 = Has a bachelor’s degree | 0.4214 | 0.1709 | 0.0173 | 0.0789 | 0.2032 |
(0.7580) | (0.3902) | (0.2332) | (0.2212) | (0.1788) | |
Binary: 1 = Has at least one child < 18 | 0.9018 | −0.0984 | 0.6914 ** | 0.0945 | 0.0685 |
(0.7376) | (0.3770) | (0.2312) | (0.2005) | (0.1547) | |
Binary: 1 = 65 years or older | −2.0977 * | −0.9615 * | 0.0007 | −0.7544 ** | −0.4249 * |
(0.9189) | (0.4499) | (0.4233) | (0.2464) | (0.2118) | |
Binary: 1 = Male | −0.1308 | −0.0412 | −0.2827 | −0.0709 | 0.1742 |
(0.7333) | (0.3794) | (0.2281) | (0.1972) | (0.1616) | |
Binary: 1 = Hispanic/Latino | 2.6403 *** | 1.3174 *** | 0.3890 | 0.3107 | 0.5916 *** |
(0.6930) | (0.3575) | (0.2476) | (0.2155) | (0.1411) | |
Binary: 1 = Feeling safe while riding the bus | 1.4176 | 0.3609 | 0.3811 | 0.4252 * | 0.3251 * |
(0.7440) | (0.3843) | (0.2329) | (0.2000) | (0.1424) | |
Walk score (0–100) | 0.0269 | 0.0015 | −0.0004 | 0.0077 | 0.0124 * |
(0.0251) | (0.0138) | (0.0084) | (0.0071) | (0.0049) | |
Transit score (0–100) | 0.0065 | −0.0018 | 0.0140 | −0.0024 | 0.0035 |
(0.0546) | (0.0289) | (0.0164) | (0.0144) | (0.0132) | |
Bike score (0–100) | −0.0101 | 0.0393 | −0.0143 | −0.0130 | −0.0178 * |
(0.0416) | (0.0253) | (0.0135) | (0.0112) | (0.0074) | |
Percentage of sidewalk (0–100) in walking route to transit | −0.0092 | −0.0095 | −0.0028 | 0.0018 | 0.0015 |
(0.0133) | (0.0065) | (0.0047) | (0.0034) | (0.0029) | |
Percentage of tree cover (0–100) in walking route to transit | 0.1204 | 0.0530 | 0.0040 | 0.0202 | 0.0276 |
(0.1348) | (0.0706) | (0.0453) | (0.0318) | (0.0310) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit [0.25, 0.5) mile | 0.5655 | 0.5506 | −0.2326 | 0.0373 | 0.1831 |
(0.8835) | (0.4625) | (0.2635) | (0.2442) | (0.1854) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit [0.5, 1) mile | 1.0270 | 0.9028 | −0.7827 | 0.3098 | 0.4315 |
(1.9505) | (0.8930) | (0.5677) | (0.5293) | (0.3966) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit ≥ 1 mile | −2.2105 | 0.0899 | −1.2315 ** | −0.4873 | −0.5306 * |
(1.5499) | (1.0200) | (0.4361) | (0.5238) | (0.2535) | |
Constant | −1.5606 | −2.0751 | 0.9213 | −0.1760 | −0.4043 |
(2.6186) | (1.2889) | (0.8954) | (0.7159) | (0.5130) |
Exp. Var. | All Purpose | Work | Errand | Leisure | Sport |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Binary: 1 = Existing transit user | 3.2471 *** | 1.0831 ** | 0.8289 *** | 0.8283 *** | 0.3550 * |
(0.7036) | (0.3287) | (0.2242) | (0.2133) | (0.1553) | |
Binary: 1 = Household income ≥ USD 50,000 | −0.4909 | −0.1166 | −0.2459 | −0.0022 | −0.1093 |
(0.5309) | (0.2813) | (0.1555) | (0.1690) | (0.1216) | |
Binary: 1 = Employed for wages | 0.9534 * | 1.1522 *** | −0.1542 | −0.0049 | −0.0726 |
(0.4648) | (0.2294) | (0.1516) | (0.1308) | (0.1051) | |
Binary: 1 = Household has at least one automobile | 2.5975 ** | 1.1819 ** | 0.4704 | 0.7359 ** | 0.2741 |
(0.9205) | (0.3918) | (0.3129) | (0.2602) | (0.2165) | |
Binary: 1 = Has a bachelor’s degree | 0.7046 | 0.3530 | 0.1051 | 0.0695 | 0.2256 |
(0.4954) | (0.2539) | (0.1478) | (0.1411) | (0.1244) | |
Binary: 1 = Has at least one child < 18 | 0.3648 | −0.1395 | 0.3709 ** | 0.0291 | 0.0244 |
(0.4419) | (0.2298) | (0.1381) | (0.1208) | (0.1018) | |
Binary: 1 = 65 years or older | −1.6277 ** | −0.7479 * | −0.1908 | −0.4068 * | −0.2939 |
(0.5999) | (0.2941) | (0.2272) | (0.1610) | (0.1515) | |
Binary: 1 = Male | −0.1896 | −0.1956 | −0.1464 | −0.0027 | 0.1107 |
(0.4540) | (0.2270) | (0.1371) | (0.1260) | (0.1058) | |
Binary: 1 = Hispanic/Latino | 1.2677 ** | 0.6648 ** | 0.1720 | 0.1265 | 0.2925 ** |
(0.4525) | (0.2264) | (0.1479) | (0.1504) | (0.1076) | |
Binary: 1 = Feeling safe while riding the bus | 0.6301 | 0.1932 | 0.1694 | 0.1695 | 0.1560 |
(0.4507) | (0.2275) | (0.1398) | (0.1218) | (0.0979) | |
Walk score (0–100) | 0.0038 | −0.0099 | −0.0009 | 0.0044 | 0.0071 * |
(0.0168) | (0.0093) | (0.0057) | (0.0042) | (0.0035) | |
Transit score (0–100) | 0.0213 | 0.0096 | 0.0125 | 0.0029 | 0.0009 |
(0.0341) | (0.0178) | (0.0105) | (0.0089) | (0.0089) | |
Bike score (0–100) | 0.0039 | 0.0295 | −0.0070 | −0.0065 | −0.0102 |
(0.0284) | (0.0169) | (0.0103) | (0.0074) | (0.0059) | |
Percentage of sidewalk (0–100) in walking route to transit | −0.0046 | −0.0042 | −0.0010 | 0.0009 | 0.0006 |
(0.0078) | (0.0040) | (0.0026) | (0.0021) | (0.0021) | |
Percentage of tree cover (0–100) in walking route to transit | 0.0212 | 0.0068 | −0.0050 | 0.0002 | 0.0117 |
(0.0765) | (0.0393) | (0.0307) | (0.0189) | (0.0202) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit [0.25, 0.5) mile | 0.2378 | 0.2875 | −0.1177 | −0.0057 | 0.0624 |
(0.5026) | (0.2676) | (0.1533) | (0.1358) | (0.1133) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit [0.5, 1) mile | 1.5240 | 0.7632 | −0.2158 | 0.4480 | 0.3763 |
(1.6238) | (0.6709) | (0.4268) | (0.4137) | (0.3795) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit ≥1 mile | −1.0378 | 0.3704 | −0.7266 * | −0.1862 | −0.4092 ** |
(1.1650) | (0.8671) | (0.2962) | (0.3137) | (0.1560) | |
Constant. | −1.3045 | −1.5608 | 0.3795 | −0.2176 | −0.1485 |
(1.6504) | (0.8299) | (0.5288) | (0.4391) | (0.3671) |
Exp. Var. | All Purpose | Work | Errand | Leisure | Sport |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Binary: 1 = Existing transit user | 0.6339 | −0.0121 | 0.1344 | 0.3477 | 0.0940 |
(0.5820) | (0.2764) | (0.2242) | (0.1826) | (0.1035) | |
Binary: 1 = Household income ≥ USD 50,000 | 0.2582 | 0.2326 | −0.1055 | −0.0045 | 0.1424 |
(0.4324) | (0.2299) | (0.1270) | (0.1247) | (0.1002) | |
Binary: 1 = Employed for wages | 0.7712 * | 1.0028 *** | −0.0378 | −0.0684 | −0.1144 |
(0.3809) | (0.1938) | (0.1258) | (0.1108) | (0.0803) | |
Binary: 1 = Household has at least one automobile | 0.8492 | 0.0249 | 0.2468 | 0.4654 * | 0.0724 |
(0.8949) | (0.3815) | (0.3486) | (0.2358) | (0.1861) | |
Binary: 1 = Has a bachelor’s degree | −0.2832 | −0.1821 | −0.0878 | 0.0095 | −0.0224 |
(0.3869) | (0.1963) | (0.1237) | (0.1154) | (0.0837) | |
Binary: 1 = Has at least one child < 18 | 0.5370 | 0.0410 | 0.3205 ** | 0.0654 | 0.0441 |
(0.3819) | (0.1986) | (0.1226) | (0.1027) | (0.0734) | |
Binary: 1 = 65 years or older | −0.4700 | −0.2136 | 0.1915 | −0.3476 ** | −0.1310 |
(0.5153) | (0.2498) | (0.3013) | (0.1299) | (0.1053) | |
Binary: 1 = Male | 0.0587 | 0.1544 | −0.1363 | −0.0682 | 0.0636 |
(0.3821) | (0.2037) | (0.1280) | (0.0994) | (0.0790) | |
Binary: 1 = Hispanic/Latino | 1.3726 *** | 0.6527 *** | 0.2170 | 0.1843 | 0.2991 *** |
(0.3668) | (0.1886) | (0.1342) | (0.1047) | (0.0622) | |
Binary: 1 = Feeling safe while riding the bus | 0.7875 * | 0.1677 | 0.2117 | 0.2557 * | 0.1691 ** |
(0.3699) | (0.1975) | (0.1178) | (0.0991) | (0.0646) | |
Walk score (0–100) | 0.0231 | 0.0115 | 0.0005 | 0.0033 | 0.0053 * |
(0.0135) | (0.0075) | (0.0046) | (0.0037) | (0.0024) | |
Transit score (0–100) | −0.0147 | −0.0113 | 0.0016 | −0.0053 | 0.0026 |
(0.0290) | (0.0157) | (0.0089) | (0.0077) | (0.0060) | |
Bike score (0–100) | −0.0140 | 0.0098 | −0.0073 | −0.0065 | −0.0076 * |
(0.0216) | (0.0134) | (0.0067) | (0.0053) | (0.0033) | |
Percentage of sidewalk (0–100) in walking route transit | −0.0046 | −0.0053 | −0.0019 | 0.0010 | 0.0009 |
(0.0074) | (0.0036) | (0.0026) | (0.0020) | (0.0013) | |
Percentage of tree cover (0–100) in walking route transit | 0.0991 | 0.0462 | 0.0090 | 0.0200 | 0.0159 |
(0.0738) | (0.0376) | (0.0225) | (0.0180) | (0.0146) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit [0.25, 0.5] mile | 0.3277 | 0.2631 | −0.1149 | 0.0430 | 0.1206 |
(0.4598) | (0.2421) | (0.1409) | (0.1314) | (0.0927) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit [0.5, 1] mile | −0.4970 | 0.1397 | −0.5669 * | −0.1382 | 0.0553 |
(0.8540) | (0.4266) | (0.2492) | (0.2140) | (0.1517) | |
Binary: 1 = Distance to nearest transit ≥ 1 mile | −1.1727 | −0.2806 | −0.5049 * | −0.3011 | −0.1213 |
(0.6967) | (0.3905) | (0.2174) | (0.2532) | (0.1212) | |
Constant. | −0.2561 | −0.5143 | 0.5418 | 0.0417 | −0.2558 |
(1.5393) | (0.7424) | (0.5613) | (0.3919) | (0.2511) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, W.; Lee, C.; Towne, S.D., Jr.; Zhong, S.; Bian, J.; Lee, H.; Lee, S.; Zhu, X.; Noh, Y.; Song, Y.; et al. Building Sustainable and Connected Communities by Addressing Public Transportation’s First-Mile Problem: Insights from a Stated Preference Survey in El Paso, Texas. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051783
Li W, Lee C, Towne SD Jr., Zhong S, Bian J, Lee H, Lee S, Zhu X, Noh Y, Song Y, et al. Building Sustainable and Connected Communities by Addressing Public Transportation’s First-Mile Problem: Insights from a Stated Preference Survey in El Paso, Texas. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051783
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Wei, Chanam Lee, Samuel D. Towne, Jr., Sinan Zhong, Jiahe Bian, Hanwool Lee, Sungmin Lee, Xuemei Zhu, Youngre Noh, Yang Song, and et al. 2024. "Building Sustainable and Connected Communities by Addressing Public Transportation’s First-Mile Problem: Insights from a Stated Preference Survey in El Paso, Texas" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051783