Public transportation investment is made primarily because of its potential social and economic benefits. Properly identifying and measuring these benefits has been the central concern in rail transit investment. The social aspects of the benefits, however, have not been well examined. In this research on the potential benefits of Tren Urbano (a new rail transit system proposed in San Juan, Puerto Rico), accessibility measures are utilized as a key analytical tool. An analysis of Tren Urbano’s effects on employment accessibility in the region is presented. The results show that there is a need for lower-income workers to improve their accessibility to jobs. Tren Urbano will enhance employment accessibility at the regional level and for all income groups as well. The results also reveal spatial inequity in the distribution of the potential benefits, even though the eventual outcome will be dependent on the actual distribution of ridership. Efforts should be made to channel the potential benefits of transportation investment toward socially targeted populations. Integrating the rail system with other transit modes and formulating favorable land use policies are critical to enhance accessibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Tren Urbano Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, and Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works/Highway and Transportation Authority, San Juan, 1995.
2.
BeimbornE., HorowitzA., SchuetzJ., and GongZ.. Measurement of Transit Benefits. Research Report. Center for Urban Transportation Studies, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, 1993.
3.
LeeD. B., and YujnovskyO.. Transportation and Land Use: Research Design for the Analysis of BART Impacts. Working Paper 148 BART 2.University of California at Berkeley, 1971.
4.
Al-MosaindM. A., DuekerK. J., and StrathmanJ. G.. Light-Rail Transit Stations and Property Values: A Hedonic Price Approach. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 90–94.
5.
BernickM., and CerveroR.. Transit-Based Residential Development in the United States: A Review of Recent Experiences. Working Paper 611.University of California at Berkeley, 1994.
6.
CerveroR.Rail Transit and Joint Development—Land Market Impacts in Washington, D.C. and Atlanta. Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1994, pp. 83–94.
7.
KnightR. L., and TryggL. L.. Evidence of Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit Systems. Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1977, pp. 231–247.
8.
NuwirthR.Economic Impacts of Transit on Cities. In Transportation Research Record 1274, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 142–149.
9.
ShawJ.Transit-Based Housing and Residential Satisfaction: Review of the Literature and Methodological Approach. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 82–89.
10.
CerveroR.Transit Villages: From Idea to Implementation. Access, Vol. 5, 1994, pp. 8–13.
11.
NelsonA. C.Social Benefit of Transit—Case Study of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. In Transportation Research Record 1576, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 125–131.
12.
KockelmanK. M.Travel Behavior as a Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing and Land Use Balance: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Working Paper.University of California at Berkeley, 1997.
13.
RammingM. S.A Consumption-Based Accessibility Index of Transportation and Land Use. MST thesis.Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994.
14.
DavidsonK. B.Accessibility in Transport/Land Use Modeling and Assessment. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 9, 1977, pp. 1401–1416.
15.
PaaswellR. E., et al.An Analysis of Rapid Transit Investment—The Buffalo Experience. Final Report. Research Foundation of the State University of New York, 1981.
16.
ShenQ.Location Characteristics of Inner-City Neighborhoods and Employment Accessibility of Low-Wage Workers. Environment and Planning B, 1998(forthcoming).
17.
HansonS.Dimensions of the Urban Transportation Problem. In The Geography of Urban Transportation (HansonS., ed.). The Guilford Press, New York, 1986.
18.
HandyS.Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Nonwork Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58–66.
19.
AllenW. B., LiuD., and SingerS.. Accessibility Measures of U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Transportation Research B, Vol. 27B, No. 6, 1993, pp. 439–449.
20.
HansenW. G.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, 1959, pp. 73–76.
21.
IngramD. R.The Concept of Accessibility: A Search for an Operational Form. Regional Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1971, pp. 101–107.
22.
KoenigJ. G.Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory and Application. Transportation, Vol. 9, 1980, pp. 145–172.
23.
MorrisJ. M., DumbleP. L., and WiganM. R.. Accessibility Indicators for Transportation Planning. Transportation Research A, Vol. 13, 1979, pp. 91–109.
24.
MoseleyM. J.Accessibility: The Rural Challenge. Cambridge University Press, London, 1979.
25.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS. R.. Disaggregate Travel and Mobility Choice Models and Measures of Accessibility. In Proc., 3rd International Conference on Behavioral Travel Modeling, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977.
26.
BlackJ., and ConroyM.. Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 9, 1977, pp. 1013–1031.
27.
BurnsL. D.Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1979.
28.
WachsM., and KumagaiM. G.. Physical Accessibility as a Social Indicator. Social Economic Planning Science, Vol. 7, 1973, pp. 437–456.
29.
WeibullJ. W.An Axiomatic Approach to the Measurement of Accessibility. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 6, 1976, pp. 357–379.
30.
HandyS. L., and NiemeierD. A.. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, 1997, pp. 1175–1194.
31.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Regional Transportation Plan—San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1993.
32.
WilsonA. G.A Family of Spatial Interaction Models, and Associated Developments. Environment and Planning, Vol. 3, 1971, pp. 1–32.
