Efficient transportation for Vermont : optimal statewide transit networks.

Sullivan, Jim; Aultman-Hall, Lisa, 1968-; Watts, Richard; Belz, Nathan · 2011 · ROSA P / University of Vermont. Transportation Research Center

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report from the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center addresses the challenge of designing efficient and equitable statewide transit networks for rural Vermont. The study was motivated by the need to improve transportation system robustness, energy efficiency, and equity, particularly given the state’s reliance on automobiles and the difficulties of providing transit in dispersed rural areas. The primary objective was to develop alternative "optimal" idealized transit network designs based on competing motivations of efficiency and equity, and to compare these hypothetical networks against the existing fixed-route bus service provided by 12 regional agencies. The researchers employed a spatial analysis methodology using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the Vermont E911 database, which contains point locations for every structure in the state. They defined "Transit-Supportive Zones" (TSZs) based on residential and employment densities, assuming a threshold of seven equivalent housing units per acre and a maximum acceptable walking distance of half a mile to a transit stop. Using a bi-proportional gravity model, they estimated transit-supportive demand potential and assigned this demand to the state road network. Three hypothetical networks were constructed: an Energy-Efficient (E-E) network, which included only routes with sufficient ridership (minimum 11.2 passengers per vehicle) to be more energy-efficient than private cars; a Connectivity-Fairness (C-F) network, which added links to ensure all towns were connected to the statewide system; and an Access-to-Critical-Locations (ACL) network, which ensured all healthcare facilities were within a quarter-mile walk of transit. The findings reveal significant trade-offs between efficiency and equity. The existing network covers over 1,300 miles, reaches 112 of 255 towns, and serves 77% of the population. The E-E network was substantially smaller, covering 153 fewer miles than the existing network, reaching 13 fewer towns, and serving 75% of the population, as it excluded low-density routes. The C-F network, designed for uniform connectivity, added 70 miles over the existing network, reached 6 additional towns, and served 79% of the population. The ACL network, prioritizing access to healthcare for non-drivers, was the largest, adding over 700 miles to the existing network, reaching 49 additional towns, and serving 90% of Vermonters. The study also analyzed the spatial overlap between these networks using a "coincidence ratio" and examined the relative location of existing park-and-ride facilities. The significance of this work lies in its demonstration that no single network design satisfies all goals of efficiency, connectivity, and equity simultaneously. The report concludes that while energy efficiency requires concentrating service in high-density areas, equity demands broader coverage to support non-drivers and ensure statewide connectivity. These findings provide a quantitative basis for policymakers to evaluate the costs and benefits of different transit strategies, highlighting that current ridership levels in many rural services fall short of the thresholds needed for net environmental benefits, and that service design must balance these competing priorities.

Key finding

The energy-efficient transit network required 153 fewer miles of road coverage than the existing system, whereas the access-to-critical-locations network required over 700 additional miles to ensure health care access for 90 percent of Vermonters.

Methodology

modeling

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• exposure measurement