Advertisement

Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 643–659 | Cite as

Place Rank: Valuing Spatial Interactions

  • Ahmed El-Geneidy
  • David Levinson
Article

Abstract

Accessibility measures the potential of opportunities for interaction. This paper proposes and explores a new flow-based measure, “place rank” using origin-destination information. Both impedance and value of opportunities are embedded in the dataset that includes the origin and destination of each person within the studied region. Individuals contribute to the place rank at their destination (work) zone with a power that depends on the attractiveness of the zone of origin. In this paper we demonstrate this place rank measure for three activities (Jobs, Resident Workers, and Health Services) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan region and Jobs in Montréal, Canada. We compare place rank to traditional measures of accessibility. Since place rank is based on actual choices of origins and destinations it is a measure of realized rather than potential opportunities, and so unlike accessibility measures. Also it does not require the knowledge of travel time between all origins and destinations.

Keywords

Accessibility Mobility Gravity based Cumulative opportunity Land use Place rank PageRank 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as part of the Access to Destinations project. The authors would like to thank Mark Filipi, Transportation Forecast/Analyst at the Metropolitan Council, for providing the travel time matrix and other data used in the study. Also thanks are given to Kris Nelson and Jeffrey Matson for providing the LEHD data used in the analysis. The authors would like to thank Assumpta Cerda for her help in generating the Montréal measures. Also thanks should be given to Mr. Pierre Tremblay from MTQ who provided the travel time data. Thanks to Daniel Bergeron from the AMT for providing the Montréal OD survey used in generating the impedance factors for gravity and inverse balancing factor measures for the Montréal case study. The Montréal case study was part of a bigger project funded by the Ministry of Transport of Quebec. The authors would like to especially thank Mohamed Mokbel, Assistant Professor Computer Science Department, University of Minnesota for his help in programming the place rank measure. Finally, the authors would like to thank Aura Reggiani, Juan Carlos Martin, and the anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Agence métropolitaine de transport (2003) Enquête origine-destination. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  2. Axhausen K (2008) Accessibility: long term perspectives. J transp. land use 1(2):5–22Google Scholar
  3. Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Networks 30(1–7):107–117Google Scholar
  4. Coffey W, Shearmur R (2001) The identification of employment centres in Canadian metropolitan areas: the example of Montreal, 1996. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, vol 45. Wiley Online Library, pp 371–386Google Scholar
  5. Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (2008) Les municipalités en chiffres. http://www.cmm.qc.ca/index.php?id=267. Accessed October 2010
  6. El-Geneidy A, Levinson D (2006) Access to destinations: development of accessibility measures. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  7. Filipi M (2005) Travel time for the twin cities region. Electrnic database of the Twin Cities travel demand model.Google Scholar
  8. Geurs K, van Eck J (2003) Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: the implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands. Environ Plann B Plann Des 30(1):69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geurs K, van Wee B (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J Transp Geogr 12(2):127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Handy S (2002) Accessibility- vs. mobility-enhancing strategies for addressing automobile dependence in the US. paper presented at the European Conference of Ministers of Transport May 2002Google Scholar
  11. Handy S, Niemeier DA (1997) Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Plann A 29(7):1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen W (1959) How accessibility shape land use. J Am Inst Plann 25(2):73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iacono M, Krizek K, El-Geneidy A (2010) Measuring non-motorized accessibility: issues, alternatives, and execution. J Transp Geogr 18(1):133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang B (2009) Ranking spaces for predicting human movement in an urban environment. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23:823–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. LEHD (2003) Longitudinal employer household dynamics. Technical report, US Census Bureau, LEHD Program, Suitland, MDGoogle Scholar
  16. Levinson D (1998) Accessibility and the journey to work. J Transp Geogr 6(1):11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthews K, Buchan K, Sibbald A, Craw, S (2006) Combining deliberative and computer-based methods for multi-objective land-use planning. Agric Syst 87(1):18–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ottensmann J, Lindsey G (2008) A use-based measure of accessibility to linear features to predict urban trail use. J transp. land use 1(1):41–63Google Scholar
  19. Pirie G (1979) Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal. Environ Plann A 11(3):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schoenfelder S, Axhausen K (2010) Urban rhythms and travel behaviour: spatial and temporal phenomena of daily travel. Ashgate Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  21. Schrank D, Lomax T (2005) The 2005 urban mobility report. Technical report, Texas Transportation InstituteGoogle Scholar
  22. Scott D, Horner M (2008) The role of urban form in shaping access to opportunities. J transp. land use 1(2):89–119Google Scholar
  23. Shen Q (1998) Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environ Plann B Plann Des 25(3):345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Statistics Canada (2009) Population of census metropolitan areas (2006 Census boundaries). http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm. Accessed October 2010
  25. Van Wee B, Hagoort M, Annema J (2001) Accessibility measures with competition. J Transp Geogr 9(3):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vickerman RW (1974) Accessibility, attraction and potential: a review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environ Plann A 6:675–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wachs M, Kumagai T (1973) Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socioecon Plan Sc 7:327–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson A (1971) A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments. Environ Plan 3(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu S, Levinson D (2010) People don’t take the shortest path. Working Papers, Nexus Research Group, University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Urban PlanningMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations