Accessibility is an important metric in regional transportation and land use planning and as a component in equity analyses. Accessibility in the San Francisco Bay Area of California was characterized with a new multimodal network accessibility tool, UrbanAccess. Accessibility was measured with open pedestrian and operational schedule transit network data at the Census block level across a large metropolitan extent. In addition, a framework was developed to assess changes in accessibility that resulted from alternative transit network structures. Results indicated that accessibility to jobs in the Bay Area was relatively high by walking and by taking transit. However, accessibility varied significantly by annual household income and geography. Disparities in job accessibility were most pronounced between Census blocks that were in poverty and Census blocks that were not in poverty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HansenW. G.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307.
2.
BadoeD. A., and MillerE. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X.
3.
HandyS.Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Nonwork Travel. Transportation Research Record, No. 1400, 1993, pp. 58–66.
4.
KawabataM., and ShenQ.. Commuting Inequality Between Cars and Public Transit: The Case of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990–2000. Urban Studies, Vol. 44, No. 9, 2007, pp. 1759–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426616.
FanY., GuthrieA., and LevinsonD. 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. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v5i3.240.
7.
CerveroR., and WuK.-L.. Polycentrism, Commuting, and Residential Location in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 5, 1997, pp. 865–886. https://doi.org/10.1068/a290865.
8.
FrankL. 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.
9.
WellsK., and ThillJ.-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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00575.x.
10.
GarrettM., and TaylorB.. Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transit. Berkeley Planning Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1999, pp. 6–27.
11.
MartensK., GolubA., and RobinsonG.. A Justice-Theoretic Approach to the Distribution of Transportation Benefits: Implications for Transportation Planning Practice in the United States. Transportation Research Part A, Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2012, pp. 684–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.01.004.
TomerA., KneeboneE., PuentesR., and BerubeA.. Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 2011.
14.
GeursK. T., and Ritsema van EckJ. R.. Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. Evaluation of Accessibility Impacts of Land-Use Transportation Scenarios, and Related Social and Economic Impact. Publication 408505 006. Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, 2001.
15.
ForkenbrockD. J., BenshoffS., and WeisbrodG. E.. NCHRP Web Document 31: Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
16.
HansonS., and GiulianoG.. The Geography of Urban Transportation. The Guilford Press, New York, 2004.
17.
SalonenM., and ToivonenT.. Modelling Travel Time in Urban Networks: Comparable Measures for Private Car and Public Transport. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 31, 2013, pp. 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.011.
18.
LeiT. L., and ChurchR. L.. Mapping Transit-Based Access: Integrating GIS, Routes, and Schedules. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010, pp. 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810902835404.
19.
MartínezL., and ViegasJ.. 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. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/2115-16.
20.
Aultman-HallL., RoordaM., and BaetzB. W.. Using GIS for Evaluation of Neighborhood Pedestrian Accessibility. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 123, No. 1, 1997, pp. 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1997)123:1(10).
21.
PolzinS., PendyalaR., and NavariS.. 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.
22.
de Abreu e SilvaJ., and GouliasK. G.. Structural Equations Model of Land Use Patterns, Location Choice, and Travel Behavior: Seattle, Washington, Compared with Lisbon, Portugal. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2135, 2009, pp. 106–113. https://doi.org/10.3141/2135-13.
23.
ChenY., RavulaparthyS., DeutschK., DalalP., YoonS. Y., LeiT., GouliasK., PendyalaR., BhatC., and HuH.-H.. Development of Indicators of Opportunity-Based Accessibility. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
24.
HuntJ. D., KrigerD. S., and MillerE. J.. Current Operational Urban Land-Use–Transport Modelling Frameworks: A Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2005, pp. 329–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164052000336470.
25.
WachsM., CoveL. L., DeanT. B., DresserG. B., EashR. W., JohnsonR. A., MillerE. J., MorrisM. R., PrattR. H., PurrisC. L., RousseauG., TischerM. L., WalkerR. E., and WilliamsJ. M.. Special Report 288: Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
26.
LoweK.Bypassing Equity? Transit Investment and Regional Transportation Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2014, pp. 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13519474.
27.
ManaughK., BadamiM. G., and El-GeneidyA. M.. Integrating Social Equity into Urban Transportation Planning: A Critical Evaluation of Equity Objectives and Measures in Transportation Plans in North America. Transport Policy, Vol. 37, 2015, pp. 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.013.
28.
HandyS.Regional Transportation Planning in the U.S.: 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.006.
29.
GolubA., RobinsonG., and NeeB.. 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. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v0i0.352.
30.
DeakinE.Equity and Environmental Justice in Sustainable Transportation: Toward a Research Agenda. Publication No. 805. University of California Transportation Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2007.
31.
SchafranA.Origins of an Urban Crisis: The Restructuring of the San Francisco Bay Area and the Geography of Foreclosure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2013, pp. 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01150.x.
32.
Center for Neighborhood Technology. Bay Area Housing and Transportation Affordability: A Closer Look. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2009.
33.
RivasplataC., IsekiH., and SmithA.. Transit Coordination in the U.S.: A Survey of Current Practice. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012, pp. 53–73. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.15.1.4.
BlanchardS. D., and WaddellP.. UrbanAccess: Generalized Methodology for Measuring Regional Accessibility with an Integrated Pedestrian and Transit Network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, forthcoming.
YeX., KonduriK., PendyalaR. M., SanaB., and WaddellP.. Methodology to Match Distributions of Both Household and Person Attributes in Generation of Synthetic Populations. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
GeisbergerR., SandersP., SchultesD., and DellingD.. Contraction Hierarchies: Faster and Simpler Hierarchical Routing in Road Networks. In Experimental Algorithms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5038 (McGeochC. C., ed.), Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008, pp. 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68552-4_24.
43.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Draft Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis: Appendix A. Detailed Methodology. Oakland, Calif., 2013.
44.
BoschmannE. E.Job Access, Location Decision, and the Working Poor: A Qualitative Study in the Columbus, Ohio, Metropolitan Area. Geoforum, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2011, pp. 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.06.005.
45.
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area 2013–2040. Oakland, Calif., 2013.
