Transportation disadvantaged (TD) populations, which include elderly people, people with disabilities, and people who do not own a vehicle, face mobility challenges because alternative transportation services are limited. To identify specific transportation service gaps for TD populations, an assessment of both transportation demand and transportation accessibility is necessary. Previous studies have focused on a single aspect of transportation accessibility or on studying geographic transportation gaps at the state or county level. This study develops a methodology aimed at identifying TD populations with major gaps in alternative transportation services. Using spatial overlays and network analysis, we develop a model for calculating transportation supply through a comprehensive transportation accessibility measure that considers relevant trip destinations and three alternative transportation services: public transportation, on-demand services, and taxi services. Gaps in service are identified by overlaying the TD population demand volume with transportation accessibility. The resulting supply–demand matrix highlights transportation deficient areas and populations, based on overlays of high demand and low supply. We apply this methodology to Alachua County, Florida. Results expose areas of deficiency, some in unexpected places. The findings highlight the need to assess alternative transportation for TD populations, to determine gaps to be addressed to improve TD populations’ mobility and reduce personal auto trips and related traffic injuries. This method can guide policy makers in fostering equitable transportation provision across users.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al MamunS.LownesN.Measuring Service Gaps. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2217: 153–161.
2.
CurrieG.Gap Analysis of Public Transport Needs—Measuring Spatial Distribution of Public Transport Needs and Identifying Gaps in the Quality of Public Transport Provision. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2004. 1895: 137–146.
3.
CurrieG.Quantifying Spatial Gaps in Public Transport Supply Based on Social Needs. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2010, pp. 31–41.
4.
CurrieG.DelboscA.Exploring Public Transport Usage Trends in an Ageing Population. Transportation, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2010, pp. 151–164.
5.
MorrisJ. M.DumbleP. L.WiganM. R.Accessibility Indicators for Transport Planning. Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1979, pp. 91–109.
6.
WangG.ZhongY.TeoC.-P.LiuQ.Flow-Based Accessibility Measurement: The Place Rank Approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 56, 2015, pp. 335–345.
7.
HansenW. G.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76.
8.
YoshidaN.DeichmannU.Measurement of Accessibility and Its Applications. Journal of Infrastructure Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1–16.
9.
MillerH. J.Place-Based Versus People-Based Accessibility. In Levinson, D. M. and Krizek, K. J.(Eds.), Access to Destinations, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005, pp. 63–89.
10.
MetzD. H.Mobility of Older People and their Quality of Life. Transport Policy, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2000, pp. 149–152.
11.
GolobT. F.HensherD. A.The Trip Chaining Activity of Sydney Residents: A Cross-Section Assessment by Age Group with a Focus on Seniors. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2007, pp. 298–312.
12.
SchmöckerJ.-D.QuddusM. A.NolandR. B.BellM. G. H.Mode Choice of Older and Disabled People: A Case Study of Shopping Trips in London. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2008, pp. 257–267.
13.
BroomeK.WorrallL.FlemingJ.BoldyD.Evaluation of Flexible Route Bus Transport for Older People. Transport Policy, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 85–91.
14.
MercadoR.PáezA.NewboldK. B.Transport Policy and the Provision of Mobility Options in an Aging Society: A Case Study of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2010, pp. 649–661.
15.
de BoerE. Introducing and Sustaining Accessible Transport: Social and Physical Challenges. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2004. 1885: 15–20.
16.
RyeT.ScotneyD.The Factors Influencing Future Concessionary Bus Patronage in Scotland and their Implications for Elsewhere. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2004, pp. 133–140.
17.
BanisterD.BowlingA.Quality of Life for the Elderly: The Transport Dimension. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2004, pp. 105–115.
18.
CheungC. L.AgrawalA. W.TTSAT: A New Approach to Mapping Transit Accessibility. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010, p. 55.
19.
PolzinS. E.PendyalaR. M.NavariS.Development of Time-of-Day-Based Transit Accessibility Analysis Tool. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002. 1799: 35–41.
20.
NeutensT.DelafontaineM.ScottD. M.De MaeyerP.A GIS-Based Method to Identify Spatiotemporal Gaps in Public Service Delivery. Applied Geography, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2012, pp. 253–264.
21.
SchoonJ. G.Accessibility Indices: Pilot Study and Potential Use in Strategic Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1999. 1685: 29–38.
22.
DelboscA.CurrieG.Using Lorenz Curves to Assess Public Transport Equity. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1252–1259.
23.
HessD. B.Walking to the Bus: Perceived Versus Actual Walking Distance to Bus Stops for Older Adults. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2012, pp. 247–266.
24.
LubinA.DekaD.Role of Public Transportation as Job Access Mode. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2277: 90–97.
25.
SteffenT. M.HackerT. A.MollingerL.Age- and Gender-Related Test Performance in Community-Dwelling Elderly People: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and Gait Speeds. Physical Therapy, Vol. 82, No. 2, 2002, pp. 128–137.
26.
CerveroR.Paratransit in America: Redefining Mass Transportation. Praeger, Westport, Conn., 1997.
27.
BearseP.GurmuS.RapaportC.SternS.Paratransit Demand of Disabled People. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 38, No. 9, 2004, pp. 809–831.
28.
FranklinJ. P.NiemeierD. A.Discrete Choice Elasticities for Elderly and Disabled Travelers between Fixed-Route Transit and Paratransit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1998. 1623: 31–36.
29.
CaseC.HawthorneT. L.Served or Unserved? A Site Suitability Analysis of Social Services in Atlanta, Georgia using Geographic Information Systems. Applied Geography, Vol. 38, 2013, pp. 96–106.
30.
SathisanS.SrinivasanN.Evaluation of Accessibility of Urban Transportation Networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1998. 1617: 78–83.
31.
TongD.LinW.-H.MackJ.MuellerD.Accessibility-Based Multicriteria Analysis for Facility Siting. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010. 2174: 128–137.
32.
CarrB. G.Access to Emergency Care in the United States. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2009, pp. 261–269.
Florida Department of Transportation. 2009 National Household Travel Survey Florida Data Analysis. Trends and Conditions Report. Florida Department of Transportation, 2013.
35.
YangH.WongS. C.A Network Model of Urban Taxi Services. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1998, pp. 235–246.
36.
Van MeterE.LawsonA. B.ColabianchiN.NicholsM.HibbertJ.PorterD.LieseA. D.Spatial Accessibility and Availability Measures and Statistical Properties in the Food Environment. Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, pp. 35–47.
37.
BarnesT. L.ColabianchiN.HibbertJ. D.PorterD. E.LawsonA. B.LieseA. D.Scale Effects in Food Environment Research: Implications from Assessing Socioeconomic Dimensions of Supermarket Accessibility in an Eight-County Region of South Carolina. Applied Geography, Vol. 68, 2016, pp. 20–27.
38.
JaramilloC.LizárragaC.GrindlayA. L.Spatial Disparity in Transport Social Needs and Public Transport Provision in Santiago De Cali (Colombia). Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 24, 2012, pp. 340–357.
39.
BazI.GeymenA.ErS. N.Development and Application of GIS-Based analysis/synthesis Modeling Techniques for Urban Planning of Istanbul Metropolitan Area. Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2009, pp. 128–140.
40.
MattsonJ.GodavarthyR.HoughJ.Method for Estimating Statewide Transit Needs and Investment Priorities for Rural and Small Urban Areas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2543: 25–33.
41.
HandyS. L.NiemeierD. A.Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1175–1194.
42.
LeistnerD. L.SteinerR. L.Uber for Seniors? Exploring Transportation Options for the Future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2660: 22–29.
