Developing a Comprehensive U.S. Transit Accessibility Database

  • Andrew Owen
  • David M. Levinson
Part of the Springer Geography book series (SPRINGERGEOGR)


This paper discusses the development of a national public transit job accessibility evaluation framework, focusing on lessons learned, data source evaluation and selection, calculation methodology, and examples of accessibility evaluation results. The accessibility evaluation framework described here builds on methods developed in earlier projects, extended for use on a national scale and at the Census block level. Application on a national scale involves assembling and processing a comprehensive national database of public transit network topology and travel times. This database incorporates the computational advancement of calculating accessibility continuously for every minute within a departure time window of interest. This increases computational complexity, but provides a very robust representation of the interaction between transit service frequency and accessibility at multiple departure times.


Accessibility Connectivity Transit 



The project described in this article was sponsored by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies. Many of the employed tools and methodological approaches were developed during earlier projects sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.


  1. Catala M, Downing S, Hayward D (2011) Expanding the Google transit feed specification to support operations and planning. Technical Report BDK85 997-15, Florida Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  2. Delling D, Pajor T, Werneck RF (2014) Round-based public transit routing. Transp Sci 49(3):591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Google, Inc. (2013) General transit feed specification reference. [Online].
  4. Jariyasunant J, Mai E, Sengupta R (2011) Algorithm for finding optimal paths in a public transit network with real-time data. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2256:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Krizek K, El-Geneidy A, Iacono M, Horning J (2007) Refining methods for calculating non-auto travel times. Technical Report 2007-24, Minnesota Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  6. Krizek K, Iacono M, El-Geneidy A, Liao C-F, Johns R (2009) Application of accessibility measures for non-auto travel modes. Technical Report 2009-24, Minnesota Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  7. Levine J, Grengs J, Shen Q, Shen Q (2012) Does accessibility require density or speed? A comparison of fast versus close in getting where you want to go in US metropolitan regions. J Am Plan Assoc 78(2):157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Owen A, Levinson D (2012) Annual accessibility measure for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Technical Report 2012-34, Minnesota Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  9. Owen A, Levinson DM (2015) Modeling the commute mode share of transit using continuous accessibility to jobs. Transp Res A Policy Pract 74:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Puchalsky CM, Joshi D, Scherr W (2012) Development of a regional forecasting model based on Google transit feed. In: 91st annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Wong J (2013) Leveraging the general transit feed specification for efficient transit analysis. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2338:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations