1. background examining daily commuting...

3
25/10/13 1 EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING PATTERNS USING GIS Bart Dewulf 25/10/’13 Dewulf Bart 1,2,3 , Tijs Neutens 1,2 , Mario Vanlommel 1,4 , Steven Logghe 4 , Philippe De Maeyer 1 , Yves De Weerdt 3 , Nico Van de Weghe 1 1 Department of Geography, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, S8, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium 2 Research Foundation Flanders, Egmontstraat 5, B-1000, Brussels, Belgium 3 VITO, Boeretang 200, B-2400, Mol, Belgium 4 BeMobile, Technologiepark 12b, B-9052, Ghent, Belgium 1. Background Flanders At the heart of Europe Polycentric structure (Brussels, Antwerp) Large traffic pressure " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Köln Bern Lyon Paris Berlin Bremen London Dublin Torino Milano Hamburg München Bordeaux København Antwerpen Bruxelles Amsterdam Rotterdam Luxembourg ± " Large cities Flanders Countries 1. Background 80% of passenger trips (car, bus, train, tram, metro) by car Congestion time loss Air pollution High fuel costs Brussels and Antwerp Top 2 congested cities in the world (OECD, 2013) 2. Objectives Examine daily commuting patterns in Flanders Where is congestion a major problem? Travel times with public transport Comparison of car and public transport where is public transport a decent alternative? 3. Data and methods Flanders Data available per Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) " " " " " " " " " " " " " GENK GENT AALST BRUGGE LEUVEN HASSELT OOSTENDE KORTRIJK TURNHOUT MECHELEN ROESELARE ANTWERPEN SINT-NIKLAAS ± " Large cities Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) Brussels 3. Data and methods Origin-destination matrices between all TAZs Number of simulated commuting trips (Multi Modal Model) Actual travel times with floating car data (BeMobile) Car off-peak, car on-peak, public transport TAZ1 TAZ2 - Number of trips - Travel time TAZ3 - Number of trips - Travel time - Number of trips - Travel time

Upload: others

Post on 21-May-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1. Background EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING …cartogis.ugent.be/mobileghent/sites/default/files/slides...25/10/13 1 EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING PATTERNS USING GIS 25/10/’13 Bart Dewulf

25/10/13  

1  

EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING PATTERNS USING GIS

Bart Dewulf 25/10/’13

Dewulf Bart1,2,3, Tijs Neutens1,2, Mario Vanlommel1,4, Steven Logghe4, Philippe De Maeyer1, Yves De Weerdt3, Nico Van de Weghe1

  1Department of Geography, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, S8, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium

2Research Foundation Flanders, Egmontstraat 5, B-1000, Brussels, Belgium 3VITO, Boeretang 200, B-2400, Mol, Belgium

4BeMobile, Technologiepark 12b, B-9052, Ghent, Belgium

1. Background

¨  Flanders ¤ At the heart of Europe ¤ Polycentric structure (Brussels, Antwerp) à Large traffic pressure

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

Oslo

Köln

Roma

Bern

Lyon

Paris

BerlinBremen

London

Dublin

Torino

Monaco

Milano

Madrid

Hamburg

München

Bordeaux

København

AntwerpenBruxelles

AmsterdamRotterdam

Marseille

Barcelona

Luxembourg

San Marino

±" Large cities

Flanders

Countries

1. Background

¨  80% of passenger trips (car, bus, train, tram, metro) by car ¤ Congestion à time loss ¤ Air pollution ¤ High fuel costs

¨  Brussels and Antwerp ¤ Top 2 congested cities in the world

(OECD, 2013)

2. Objectives

¨  Examine daily commuting patterns in Flanders

¤ Where is congestion a major problem? ¤ Travel times with public transport ¤ Comparison of car and public transport à where is

public transport a decent alternative?

3. Data and methods

¨  Flanders ¤ Data available per Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

GENK

GENT

AALST

BRUGGE

LEUVENHASSELT

OOSTENDE

KORTRIJK

TURNHOUT

MECHELEN

ROESELARE

ANTWERPEN

SINT-NIKLAAS

±" Large cities

Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs)

Brussels

3. Data and methods

¨  Origin-destination matrices between all TAZs ¤ Number of simulated commuting trips (Multi Modal Model) ¤ Actual travel times with floating car data (BeMobile)

n Car off-peak, car on-peak, public transport

TAZ1

TAZ2

-  Number of trips -  Travel time

TAZ3 -  Number of trips -  Travel time

-  Number of trips -  Travel time

Page 2: 1. Background EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING …cartogis.ugent.be/mobileghent/sites/default/files/slides...25/10/13 1 EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING PATTERNS USING GIS 25/10/’13 Bart Dewulf

25/10/13  

2  

3. Data and methods

¨  GIS ¤ Spatial analysis of car congestion and potential time

gain with public transport

¨  Circular statistics ¤ Circular mean ¤  Index of circular spread

¨  Two scale levels ¤ Flanders ¤ Large cities

4. Results – Flanders

¨  Commuting directions

4. Results – Flanders

¨  Average time per departing commuting trip

!"#$%&#!!"#$!!"#!!"#$ = !! .!!!!!!

!!!!!!

! 4. Results – Flanders

¨  Relative time loss in congestion Relative!time!loss!per!trip!"#$%&'("# = !

!"#$!"!!"#$ − !"#$!""!!"#$!"#$!""!!"#$ !

4. Results – Flanders

¨  Relative time loss with public transport

Relative!time!loss!per!trip!"#$%&!!"#$%&'"! = !!"#$!"#$%&!!"#$%&'"! − !"#$!"!!"#$

!"#$!"!!"#$ !

4. Results – Large cities

¨  More in detail for 13 large cities à radar charts

0"

500"

1000"

1500"

2000"

2500"

3000"

3500"

4000"

4500"

5000"0(5"

5(10" 10(15"15(20"20(25"

25(30"30(35"

35(40"40(45"

45(50"

50(55"

55(60"

60(65"

65(70"

70(75"

75(80"

80(85"

85(90"

90(95"

95(100"

100(105"

105(110"

110(115"

115(120"

120(125"

125(130"

130(135"

135(140"140(145"

145(150"150(155"

155(160"160(165"

165(170"170(175"175(180"180(185"

185(190"190(195"195(200"200(205"

205(210"210(215"

215(220"220(225"

225(230"

230(235"

235(240"

240(245"

245(250"

250(255"

255(260"

260(265"

265(270"

270(275"

275(280"

280(285"

285(290"

290(295"

295(300"

300(305"

305(310"

310(315"

315(320"320(325"

325(330"330(335"

335(340"340(345"

345(350"350(355"355(360"

TotRi2en"

WoWeRi2en"

0"

500"

1000"

1500"

2000"

2500"0&5"

5&10" 10&15"15&20"20&25"

25&30"30&35"

35&40"40&45"

45&50"

50&55"

55&60"

60&65"

65&70"

70&75"

75&80"

80&85"

85&90"

90&95"

95&100"

100&105"

105&110"

110&115"

115&120"

120&125"

125&130"

130&135"

135&140"140&145"

145&150"150&155"

155&160"160&165"

165&170"170&175"175&180"180&185"

185&190"190&195"195&200"200&205"

205&210"210&215"

215&220"220&225"

225&230"

230&235"

235&240"

240&245"

245&250"

250&255"

255&260"

260&265"

265&270"

270&275"

275&280"

280&285"

285&290"

290&295"

295&300"

300&305"

305&310"

310&315"

315&320"320&325"

325&330"330&335"

335&340"340&345"

345&350"350&355"355&360"

TotRi2en"

WoWeRi2en"

Ghent as origin Ghent as destination

Brussels

Antwerp

Number of trips

Total

Commuting Total

Commuting

Ghent

Ghent

Page 3: 1. Background EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING …cartogis.ugent.be/mobileghent/sites/default/files/slides...25/10/13 1 EXAMINING DAILY COMMUTING PATTERNS USING GIS 25/10/’13 Bart Dewulf

25/10/13  

3  

4. Results – Large cities

¨  Average time per trip

0"

500"

1000"

1500"

2000"

2500"

3000"

3500"

4000"

4500"0(5"

5(10" 10(15"15(20"20(25"

25(30"30(35"

35(40"40(45"

45(50"

50(55"

55(60"

60(65"

65(70"

70(75"

75(80"

80(85"

85(90"

90(95"

95(100"

100(105"

105(110"

110(115"

115(120"

120(125"

125(130"

130(135"

135(140"140(145"

145(150"150(155"

155(160"160(165"

165(170"170(175"175(180"180(185"

185(190"190(195"195(200"200(205"

205(210"210(215"

215(220"220(225"

225(230"

230(235"

235(240"

240(245"

245(250"

250(255"

255(260"

260(265"

265(270"

270(275"

275(280"

280(285"

285(290"

290(295"

295(300"

300(305"

305(310"

310(315"

315(320"320(325"

325(330"330(335"

335(340"340(345"

345(350"350(355"355(360"

WoWeDalSec"

WoWeSpitsSec"

Ghent as origin

Brussels Off-peak On-peak

!"#$%&#!!"#$!!"#!!"#$ = !! .!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!with!!!=!destination!TAZs,!!! !=!travel!time!to!TAZ!!,!!!=!number!of!trips!from!origin!TAZ!to!TAZ!!.!

Antwerp

Ghent

4. Results – Large cities

¨  Time loss ¤ Relative time loss in congestion and with public transport

0"

0,05"

0,1"

0,15"

0,2"

0,25"

0,3"

0,35"

0,4"

0,45"0)5"

5)10"10)15"15)20"20)25"25)30"

30)35"35)40"

40)45"45)50"

50)55"55)60"60)65"

65)70"

70)75"

75)80"

80)85"

85)90"

90)95"

95)100"

100)105"

105)110"

110)115"

115)120"

120)125"125)130"

130)135"135)140"

140)145"145)150"

150)155"155)160"

160)165"165)170"170)175"175)180"180)185"

185)190"190)195"195)200"200)205"205)210"

210)215"215)220"

220)225"225)230"

230)235"235)240"

240)245"

245)250"

250)255"

255)260"

260)265"

265)270"

270)275"

275)280"

280)285"

285)290"

290)295"

295)300"

300)305"305)310"

310)315"315)320"

320)325"325)330"

330)335"335)340"

340)345"345)350"350)355"355)360"

WoWeVerliesRelat,

WoWeVerliesRelat"

0"

0,5"

1"

1,5"

2"

2,5"

3"

3,5"

4"

4,5"0)5"

5)10"10)15"15)20"20)25"25)30"

30)35"35)40"

40)45"45)50"

50)55"55)60"60)65"

65)70"

70)75"

75)80"

80)85"

85)90"

90)95"

95)100"

100)105"

105)110"

110)115"

115)120"

120)125"125)130"

130)135"135)140"

140)145"145)150"

150)155"155)160"

160)165"165)170"170)175"175)180"180)185"

185)190"190)195"195)200"200)205"205)210"

210)215"215)220"

220)225"225)230"

230)235"235)240"

240)245"

245)250"

250)255"

255)260"

260)265"

265)270"

270)275"

275)280"

280)285"

285)290"

290)295"

295)300"

300)305"305)310"

310)315"315)320"

320)325"325)330"

330)335"335)340"

340)345"345)350"350)355"355)360"

WoWeVerliesOV*

WoWeVerliesOV"

Ghent as origin, congestion time loss Ghent as origin, public transport time loss

Brussels Brussels

Antwerp Antwerp

Relative!time!loss!per!trip!"#$%&'("# = !!"#$!"!!"#$ − !"#$!""!!"#$

!"#$!""!!"#$ !

Relative!time!loss!per!trip!"#$%&!!"#$%&'"! = !!"#$!"#$%&!!"#$%&'"! − !"#$!"!!"#$

!"#$!"!!"#$ !

Ghent Ghent

5. Conclusion

¨  Combination of simulated commuting trips and accurate travel times à detailed view

¨  Congestion ¤ Brussels and Antwerp ¤ Highways to these cities

¨  Public transport as alternative ¤ Mainly to Brussels and Antwerp!

6. Strengths

¨  Policy makers: where action needs to be taken

¨  Traditionally: on what road segments congestion occurs ¤ Now: from which areas people experience most time loss

6. Strengths

¨  Previous literature: focus on potential accessibility (e.g. to jobs), without commuting flows and travel times ¤ Now: modeled commuting flows + accurate travel times

¨  Travel times: often freeflow data ¤ Floating car data: very accurate ¤ Off-peak, on-peak à congestion

¨  Combination with public transport data THANK YOU