Development of Time-of-Day–Based Transit Accessibility Analysis Tool

Abstract

The measurement of transit accessibility and availability is important both for forecasting transit ridership and for planning and evaluating transit service. When measuring transit accessibility, both spatial and temporal dimensions of demand and supply are important considerations. Between these two dimensions, the temporal dimension has lagged behind the spatial dimension with respect to its explicit recognition and incorporation in transit accessibility measurement. A transit accessibility measurement tool has been developed that explicitly considers two facets of the time dimension. Considered first is the supply side of the time dimension by incorporating the span and headway of service and the willingness to wait to determine the actual time duration when service is truly available to potential riders. Next considered is the demand side of the time dimension by incorporating the time-of-day distribution of travel demand to determine the relative value of the transit service provided in each time period of the day. The tool measures transit availability with regard to the daily trips per capita in each zone that is exposed to transit service. The flexible spreadsheet-based tool can be easily and quickly applied at the local level in support of service planning and service delivery analysis. The application of the tool is demonstrated with a simple numerical illustration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schrank

, and Lomax

. The 2001 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, May 2001.

Longman

P. J.

American Gridlock. U.S. News & World Report, May 28, 2001.

Transit Level of Service (TLOS) Software User’s Guide. Version 3.0. Developed for Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., and URS, Inc., Portland, Oreg., Dec. 2000.

TCRP Web Document 6: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. TCRP Project A-15. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1999. nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf.

Gould

Spatial Diffusion. Association of American Geographers Resource Paper No. 17. Commission on College Geography, Washington, D.C., 1969.

Handy

S. L.

, and Niemeier

D. A.

. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1175–1194.

Niemeier

D. A.

Accessibility: An Evaluation Using Consumer Welfare. Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1997, pp. 377–396.

Gutierrez

, Monzon

, and Pinero

J. M.

. Accessibility, Network Efficiency, and Transport Infrastructure Planning. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, No. 8, 1998, pp. 1337–1350.

Cervero

, Rood

, and Appleyard

. Tracking Accessibility: Employment and Housing Opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 31, No. 7, 1999, pp. 1259–1278.

10.

Levinson

D. M.

Accessibility and the Journey to Work. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1998, pp. 11–21.

11.

Klaasen

I. T.

, and Jacobs

. Relative Location Value Based on Accessibility: Application of a Useful Concept in Designing Urban Regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1999, pp. 21–35.

12.

Schimek

Household Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: How Much Does Residential Density Matter? In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 120–125.

13.

Ryan

, and McNally

M. G.

. Accessibility of Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Review of Design Concepts, Policies, and Recent Literature. Transportation Research A, Vol. 29A, No. 2, 1995, pp. 87–105.

14.

Cervero

, and Kockelman

. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219.

15.

Handy

Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Non-work Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58–66.

16.

Salomon

, and Mokhtarian

P. L.

. What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies? Transportation Research D, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1998, pp. 129–140.

17.

Spence

, and Linneker

. Evolution of Motorway Network and Changing Levels of Accessibility in Great Britain. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1994, pp. 247–264.

18.

Helling

Changing Intra-Metropolitan Accessibility in the United States: Evidence from Atlanta. Progress in Planning, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1998, pp. 55–107.

19.

Koenig

J. G.

Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory and Application. Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980, pp. 145–172.

20.

Zakaria

Urban Transportation Accessibility Measures: Modifications and Uses. Traffic Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1974, pp. 467–479.

21.

Rietveld

The Accessibility of Railway Stations: The Role of the Bicycle in The Netherlands. Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2000, pp. 71–75.

22.

Azar

K. T.

, Ferreira

, and Wiggins

. Using GIS Tools to Improve Transit Ridership on Routes Serving Large Employment Centers: The Boston South End Medical Case Study. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1994, pp. 205–231.

23.

Dallal

Public Transport Accessibility. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 21, No. 10, 1980, pp. 494–495.

24.

Jordan

, and Nutlet

. Rural Accessibility and Public Transport in Northern Ireland. Irish Geography, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1993, pp. 120–132.

25.

Sheskin

I. M.

, and Eisenstadt

H. G.

. Impact of the Dade County Rapid Transit. Special Transportation Planning and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1982, pp. 173–187.

26.

Galindez

A. A.

, McLaughlin

J. F.

, Beard

, and Spivack

G. S.

. Mobility Analysis of Transit Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1604, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 69–82.

27.

Kerrigan

, and Bull

. Measuring Accessibility: A Public Transport Accessibility Index. In Environmental Issues: Selected Proceedings of the Seminar B PTRC Summer Annual Meeting. PTRC Education and Research Services, Sept. 1992, pp. 245–256.

28.

Wachs

, and Kumagai

T. G.

. Physical Accessibility as a Social Indicator. California University, Los Angeles, 1972.

29.

Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Analysis Phase III. Technical Report No. 1, Validation of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model Version 3.2. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation District 7, Tampa, 1999.