LUMA-GIS Thesis nr 37 GEOGRAPHIC ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MILAN Alessandro De Martino 2014 Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science Centre for Geographical Information Systems Lund University Sölvegatan 12 S-223 62 Lund Sweden Alessandro De Martino (2014). Geographic accessibility analysis and evaluation of potential changes to the public transportation system. Master degree thesis, 30 credits in Master in Geographical Information Sciences Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Science, Lund University ii Geographic accessibility analysis and evaluation of potential changes to the public transportation system Alessandro De Martino Master thesis, 30 credits, in Geographical Information Sciences Supervisor: Lars Harrie Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Sciences Lund University iii iv Abstract In a society which aims to make a major step in the direction of sustainability, it appears necessary to promote efficient alternative modes of travel able to contrast the automobile-dominated urban travel markets. In this study, potential changes to the surface public transportation system in the City of Milan are evaluated. Surface public transportation system can be considered unattractive because of its lack of efficiency. One of the possible reasons that the service is not efficient is the stop spacing. Stop spacing is a significant part of the public transport service design as it affects passengers’ walking time and the operating speed of a route, which affects both transit time and operating costs. A densely spaced public transport station obviously improves the geographic coverage and the accessibility, but also increases in-vehicle time and supply costs. On the other side, eliminating service stops speeds up the system and reduces the operating costs. In the study new stop spacing models are evaluated with the purpose to get the service more efficient increasing the distance between the stops. Working on a broad scale, the model has been created for three different scenarios, with a target distance between the stops set to 400, 500 and 600 meters. Results indicate that eliminating some surface public transport stops (an average of 1.7, 2.5 and 3.4 stops per route for the three model scenarios) could reduce the travel time by, respectively, 3.0%, 4.4% and 5.7%. Results also indicate that the travel time could decrease more in an optimal situation, with traffic light priority and public transport fast tracks for public transport vehicles. The operating costs analyses show that the three different scenarios could reduce the annual cost per km till about 2%. In the study, the analyses made on the mobility demand and on the accessibility were used to evaluate the effects of potential changes to the surface public transport stop spacing system. In particular, the model has positive results on the accessibility, since the accessibility level is lowered just by 1.0%, 1.5% and 1.9% of the cells. The model also has positive results on the mobility. In particular, the analysis made on the mobility demand shows that the travel time averagely decreases for the three scenarios by 1.6%, 1.9% and 2.2%. The transportation time decreases by 2.0%, 3.7% and 5.0% and the pedestrian time changes by - 0.4%, +2.8% and +5.2%. The pedestrian time is balanced by a more efficient surface public transport system. v Acknowledgements First of all I would like to thank my supervisor Lars Harrie for all the helpful comments, guidance and time he gave towards the thesis. I would also like to thank Lund University for the opportunity given to me to pursue this program in my respective field of study and all the teachers from LUMA-GIS program. I am really grateful for this very valuable experience. I am also thankful to my external supervisor from Italy, Luca Tosi, and to all the people from AMAT who helped and supported me. Finally, I would like to say a special thank you to all my family and friends for the continuous love and support. vi Table of contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem statement ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Aim .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Disposition ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Limitation ................................................................................................................................................ 3 2 Related work .................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Mobility Demand ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) ...................................................................................... 7 2.4 Stop spacing policies ............................................................................................................................. 10 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 12 4 Study area ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 5 Mobility demand analysis .............................................................................................................................. 18 5.1 Data........................................................................................................................................................ 18 5.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 19 5.3 Result ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 26 6 Accessibility analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 27 6.1 Data........................................................................................................................................................ 27 6.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 27 6.3 Result ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 6.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 30 7 Integrating accessibility, population and business activities......................................................................... 32 7.1 Data........................................................................................................................................................ 32 7.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 32 7.3 Result ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 vii 7.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 36 8 Stops spacing model ...................................................................................................................................... 38 8.1 Current situation and data ...................................................................................................................... 38 8.2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 39 8.3 Result ..................................................................................................................................................... 44 8.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 48 9 Stop spacing model impact on mobility and accessibility ............................................................................. 50 9.1 Data.......................................................................................................................................................