The objective of this paper is to develop an analytical model to analyze the mobility behavior of a target population and to minimize the disparities. The analysis is conducted using household travel survey data collected from 7993 residents of five boroughs of New York City, where citizens with mobility impairments are considered as our target population. The study starts by quantifying the existing gap in the patterns of the mobility-impaired individuals and the base population followed by the generation of new activities in the agenda of the target population using the patterns of their nearest neighbors in the base population. Activities are generated based on copula sampling method. Attributes of activities forming the new agenda of the target population are the inputs that will be used for the design of an optimum ridesharing system. By integrating probabilistic models with the existing routing models, we develop a methodology to identify the optimum fleet size, optimum route, and optimum schedule such that all requests of the physically impaired travelers are fulfilled within a reasonable wait time for ride requesters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KoppaR.DaviesB.RodriguezK.Barriers to Use of Transportation Alternatives by People with Disabilities. Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System, Southwest Region, College Station, TX, 1998.
2.
PyrialakouV. D.GkritzaK.FrickerJ. D.Accessibility, Mobility, and Realized Travel Behavior: Assessing Transport Disadvantage from a Policy Perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 51, 2016, pp. 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.001.
FarberS.O’KellyM.MillerH. J.NeutensT.Measuring Segregation Using Patterns of Daily Travel Behavior: A Social Interaction Based Model of Exposure. Journal of Transport Geography. Vol. 49, 2015, pp. 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.009.
5.
NæssP.VogelN.Sustainable Urban Development and the Multi-Level Transition Perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 4, 2012, pp. 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.07.001.
6.
HongJ.ShenQ.ZhangL.How Do Built-Environment Factors Affect Travel Behavior? A Spatial Analysis at Different Geographic Scales. Transportation, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2014, pp. 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9462-9.
7.
NewsomeT.WalcottH. W. A.SmithP. D.Urban Activity Spaces: Illustrations and Application of a Conceptual Model for Integrating the Time and Space Dimensions. Transportation, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1998, pp. 357–377. https://doi.org/1005082827030.
8.
LenntorpB.Paths in Space–Time Environment, a Time Geographic Study of Possibilities of Individuals. Lund Studies in Geography. Department of Geography, The Royal University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1976.
9.
KimH.KwanM. P.Space-Time Accessibility Measures: A Geo-Computational Algorithm with a Focus on the Feasible Opportunity Set and Possible Activity Duration. Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2003, pp. 71–91.
10.
KwanM. P.GIS Methods in Time-Geographic Research: Geocomputation and Geovisualization of Human Activity Patterns. Geografiska Annaler: Series B Human Geography, Vol. 86, No. 4, 2004, pp. 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00167.x.
11.
XiaoN.KwanM. P.GoodchildM. F.ShekharS.Geographic Information Science. Proc., 7th International Conference, GIScience, Columbus, OH, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33024-7.
12.
LiR.TongD.Constructing Human Activity Spaces: A New Approach Incorporating Complex Urban Activity-Travel. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 56, 2016, pp. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.013.
13.
Le PriolE.AllahviranlooM.A Methodology on Quantifying Spatial-Temporal Disparities in Travel Behavior of Mobility-Impaired Travelers with Non-Disabled Travelers: Case Studies of London and New York. Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 5, 2017, p. 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.05.315.
14.
NavarroJ.SpizzichinoF.On the Relationships between Copulas of Order Statistics and Marginal Distributions. Statistics and Probability Letters, Vol. 80, No. 5–6, 2010, pp. 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2009.11.025.
15.
GrälerB.PebesmaE.The Pair-Copula Construction for Spatial Data: A New Approach to Model Spatial Dependency. Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 7, 2011, pp. 206–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.07.036.
16.
DowdK.Copulas in Macroeconomics. Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1–26.
17.
ZilkoA. A.KurowickaD.GoverdeR. M., Modeling Railway Disruption Lengths with Copula Bayesian Networks. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 68, 2016, pp. 350–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.04.018.
18.
ZouY.ZhangY.A Copula Based Approach to Accommodate the Dependence among Microscopic Traffic Variables. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 70, 2016, pp. 53–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.11.003.
19.
BallM. O.GoldenB. L.AssadA. A.BodinL. D.Planning for Truck Fleet Size in the Presence of a Common-Carrier Option. Decision Science, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1983, pp. 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1983.tb00172.x.
BeaujonG. J.TurnquistM. A.A Model for Fleet-Sizing and Vehicle Allocation. Transportation Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1991, pp. 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.25.1.19.
22.
SayarshadH. R.GhoseiriK.A Simulated Annealing Approach for the Multi-Periodic Rail-Car Fleet-Sizing Problem. Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2009, pp. 1789–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2008.05.004.
23.
RopkeS.CordeauJ.-F.Branch-and-Cut-and-Price for the Pickup and Delivery Problem with Time Windows. Transportation Science, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2016, pp. 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1090.0272.
24.
SextonT. R.BodinL. D.Optimizing Single Vehicle Many-To-Many Operations With Desired Delivery Times: I. Scheduling. Transportation Science, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1985, pp. 378–410. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.19.4.378.
25.
SextonT. R.BodinL. D.Optimizing Single Vehicle Many-to-Many Operations with Desired Delivery Times: II. Routing. Transportation Science, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1985, pp. 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.19.4.411.
26.
SextonT. R.ChoiY. M.Pickup and Delivery of Partial Loads with “Soft” Time Windows. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 3–4, 1986, pp. 369–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01966324.1986.10737200.
27.
DianaM.DessoukyM. M.XiaN.A Model for the Fleet-Sizing of Demand Responsive Transportation Services with Time Windows. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 40, No. 8, 2006, pp. 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2005.09.005.
28.
SolomonM. M.Algorithms for the Vehicle Routing and Scheduling Problem with Time Window Constraints. Operations Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1987, pp. 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.35.2.254.
2010–2011 Regional Household Travel Survey. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Newark, NJ, 2013.
