UrbanAccess: Generalized Methodology for Measuring Regional Accessibility with an Integrated Pedestrian and Transit Network

Abstract

Measures of accessibility have long been an important metric in regional transportation planning and modeling. However, new methods are needed to provide computationally efficient, multiscale, free, transparent, and customizable tools that harness open and disparate sources of transportation network data at fine spatial resolution over large geographic extents. This research presents a new open source tool, UrbanAccess, which uses a generalized and scalable methodology to measure transit accessibility with a multimodal network comprising both pedestrian and operational schedule transit networks at a fine spatial scale over large metropolitan extents. A typical use for this tool is illustrated in a case study that characterizes regional transit accessibility in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hansen

W. G.

How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307.

Hanson

, and Giuliano

. The Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press, New York, 2004.

Badoe

D. A.

, and Miller

E. J.

. Transportation–Land-Use Interaction: Empirical Findings in North America, and Their Implications for Modeling. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2000, pp. 235–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X.

Handy

Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Nonwork Travel. Transportation Research Record, No. 1400, 1993, pp. 58–66.

Kawabata

, and Shen

. Commuting Inequality Between Cars and Public Transit: The Case of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990–2000. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), Vol. 44, No. 9, 2007, pp. 1759–1780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426616.

Polzin

Transportation/Land-Use Relationship: Public Transit’s Impact on Land Use. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 125, No. 4, 1999, pp. 135–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1999)125:4(135).

Fan

, Guthrie

, and Levinson

D. M.

. Impact of Light Rail Implementation on Labor Market Accessibility: A Transportation Equity Perspective. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2012, pp. 28–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v5i3.240.

Cervero

, and Wu

K.-L.

. Polycentrism, Commuting, and Residential Location in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 5, 1997, pp. 865–886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a290865.

Frank

L. D.

Land Use and Transportation Interaction Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000, pp. 6–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073945600128992564.

10.

Golub

, Robinson

, and Nee

. Making Accessibility Analyses Accessible: A Tool to Facilitate the Public Review of the Effects of Regional Transportation Plans on Accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2013, pp. 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v0i0.352.

11.

Handy

Regional Transportation Planning in the US: An Examination of Changes in Technical Aspects of the Planning Process in Response to Changing Goals. Transport Policy, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2008, pp. 113–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.006.

12.

Abreu e Silva

, and Goulias

K. G.

. A Structural Equations Model of Land Use Patterns, Location Choice, and Travel Behavior in Seattle and Comparison with Lisbon. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2135, 2009, pp. 106–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2135-13.

13.

Chen

, Ravulaparthy

, Deutsch

, Dalal

, Yoon

S. Y.

, Lei

, Goulias

, Pendyala

, Bhat

, and Hu

H.-H.

. Development of Opportunity-Based Accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2255, 2011, pp. 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2255-07.

14.

Hunt

J. D.

, Kriger

D. S.

, and Miller

E. J.

. Current Operational Urban Land-Use–Transport Modelling Frameworks: A Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2005, pp. 329–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144164052000336470.

15.

Wachs

, Cove

L. L.

, Dean

T. B.

, Dresser

G. B.

, Eash

R. W.

, Johnson

R. A.

, Miller

E. J.

, Morris

M. R.

, Pratt

R. H.

, Purris

C. L.

, Rousseau

, Tischer

M. L.

, Walker

R. E.

, and Williams

J. M.

. Special Report 288: Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2007.

16.

Krizek

K. J.

, Iacono

, El-Geneidy

, Liao

C. F.

, and Johns

. Access to Destinations: Application of Accessibility Measures for Non-Auto Travel Modes. MN/RC 2009-24. Research Services Section, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, 2009.

17.

Krizek

K. J.

Operationalizing Neighborhood Accessibility for Land Use-Travel Behavior Research and Regional Modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2003, pp. 270–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X02250315.

18.

Walk Score Methodology White Paper. Walk Score, Seattle, Wash., 2011.

19.

Waddell

UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 68, No. 3, 2002, pp. 297–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976274.

20.

Mavoa

, Witten

, McCreanor

, and O’Sullivan

. GIS Based Destination Accessibility via Public Transit and Walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2012, pp. 15–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.001.

21.

Puchalsky

C. M.

, Joshi

, and Scherr

. Development of a Regional Forecasting Model Based on Google Transit Feed. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.

22.

Wells

, and Thill

J.-C.

. Do Transit-Dependent Neighborhoods Receive Inferior Bus Access? A Neighborhood Analysis in Four U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2012, pp. 43–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00575.x.

23.

Salonen

, and Toivonen

. Modelling Travel Time in Urban Networks: Comparable Measures for Private Car and Public Transport. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 31, 2013, pp. 143–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.011.

24.

Lei

T. L.

, and Church

R. L.

. Mapping Transit-Based Access: Integrating GIS, Routes and Schedules. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010, pp. 283–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658810902835404.

25.

Martínez

, and Viegas

. Effects of Transportation Accessibility on Residential Property Values: Hedonic Price Model in the Lisbon, Portugal, Metropolitan Area. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2115, 2009, pp. 127–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2115-16.

26.

Aultman-Hall

, Roorda

, and Baetz

B. W.

. Using GIS for Evaluation of Neighborhood Pedestrian Accessibility. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 123, No. 1, 1997, pp. 10–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1997)123:1(10).

27.

Gan

, Liu

, and Ubaka

. Florida Transit Geographic Information System (FTGIS). In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on GIS in Transit, National Center for Transit Research, Tampa, Fla., 2005.

28.

Polzin

, Pendyala

, and Navari

. Development of Time-of-Day-Based Transit Accessibility Analysis Tool. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1799, 2002, pp. 35–41.

29.

Liu

, and Zhu

. Accessibility Analyst: An Integrated GIS Tool for Accessibility Analysis in Urban Transportation Planning. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2004, pp. 105–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b305.

30.

Hillman

, and Pool

. GIS-Based Innovations for Modelling Public Transport Accessibility. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 38, No. 10, 1997, pp. 554–559.

31.

Kwan

M.-P.

Space-Time and Integral Measures of Individual Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using a Point-Based Framework. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1998, pp. 191–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x.

32.

Barthélemy

Spatial Networks. Physics Reports, Vol. 499, No. 1–3, 2011, pp. 1–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2010.11.002.

33.

Barrat

, Barthelemy

, Pastor-Satorras

, and Vespignani

. The Architecture of Complex Weighted Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 101, No. 11, 2004, pp. 3747–3752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400087101.

34.

Fortin

, Morency

, and Trépanier

. Innovative Use of GTFS Data for Transit Network Analysis Using a Graph-Oriented Method. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.

35.

Cervero

Accessible Cities and Regions: A Framework for Sustainable Transport and Urbanism in the 21st Century. UCB-ITS-VWP-2005-3. UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport, Berkeley, Calif., 2005.

36.

Martin

, Jordan

, and Roderick

. Taking the Bus: Incorporating Public Transport Timetable Data into Health Care Accessibility Modelling. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 40, No. 10, 2008, pp. 2510–2525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a4024.

37.

Transportation-Land Use Analysis. Conveyal. http://conveyal.com/projects/analyst/. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

38.

open-transit-indicators. World Bank, Washington, D.C. https://github.com/WorldBank-Transport/open-transit-indicators. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

39.

Bhat

C. R.

, Bricka

, La Mondia

, Kapur

, Guo

J. Y.

, and Sen

. Metropolitan Area Transit Accessibility Analysis Tool. 0-5178-P3. University of Texas at Austin, 2006.

40.

The Noblis Open Source Accessibility Toolkit. Noblis. http://www.noblis.org/noblis-media/3eee10c2-d6dc-47bc-8813-2a2277907abb. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

41.

GeoTrellis Transit. Azavea. http://transit.geotrellis.com. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

42.

Remix: Transit Planning for the 21st Century. Remix. http://getremix.com/. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

43.

GTFS Data Exchange. www.gtfs-data-exchange.com. Accessed Sept. 6, 2015.

44.

List of Public Transit Agencies on City-Go-Round. http://www.citygoround.org/agencies/. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

45.

Addie

J.-P. D

. Metropolitics in Motion: The Dynamics of Transportation and State Reterritorialization in the Chicago and Toronto City-Regions. Urban Geography, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2013, pp. 188–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.778651.

46.

Lowe

Bypassing Equity? Transit Investment and Regional Transportation Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2014, pp. 30–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13519474.

47.

Rivasplata

, Iseki

, and Smith

. Transit Coordination in the US: A Survey of Current Practice. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012, pp. 53–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.15.1.4.

48.

McHugh

Pioneering Open Data Standards: The GTFS Story. In Beyond Transparency: Open Data and the Future of Civic Innovation, Code for America, 2013, pp. 125–135.

49.

Google Developers: Transit. https://developers.google.com/transit. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

50.

OpenStreetMap. https://www.openstreetmap.org. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

51.

Zielstra

, and Hochmair

. Comparative Study of Pedestrian Accessibility to Transit Stations Using Free and Proprietary Network Data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2217, 2011, pp. 145–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2217-18.

52.

Mapzen. Transitland. https://transit.land. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

53.

Public Transit Feeds from Around the World. TransitFeeds. http://transitfeeds.com. Accessed July 15, 2016.

54.

The National Transit Map. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. http://gis.rita.dot.gov/Transit. Accessed March 8, 2016.

55.

Overpass API. http://overpass-api.de. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

56.

Taylor

B. D.

, and Fink

C. N. Y.

. The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature. University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 2003.

57.

Ford

A. C.

, Barr

S. L.

, Dawson

R. J.

, and James

. Transport Accessibility Analysis Using GIS: Assessing Sustainable Transport in London. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2015, pp. 124–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4010124.

58.

Foti

, and Waddell

. A Generalized Computational Framework for Accessibility: From the Pedestrian to the Metropolitan Scale, 2014. https://github.com/fscottfoti/dissertation/blob/master/networks/Foti%20and%20Waddell%20-%20Accessibility%20Framework.pdf?raw=true. Accessed Feb. 26, 2016.

59.

Pandana. https://github.com/UDST/pandana. Accessed Aug. 1, 2016.

60.

Geisberger

, Sanders

, Schultes

, and Delling

. Contraction Hierarchies: Faster and Simpler Hierarchical Routing in Road Networks. In Experimental Algorithms, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008, pp. 319–333.

61.

UrbanSim, Inc. http://www.urbansim.com. Accessed Aug. 1, 2016.