Advertisement

Spatio-Temporal Variation of Accessibility by Public Transport—The Equity Perspective

  • Marcin StępniakEmail author
  • Sławomir Goliszek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The growth of large, open datasets coupled with an acceleration of technical developments, including GIS solutions, opens the door to new challenges in transport research. One of the emerging fields of research is the temporal dynamics of accessibility. The increase in availability of General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data permits the inclusion of very detailed, schedule-based travel time information. In the study presented we focus on the spatial and temporal variation in accessibility by public transport in the city of Szczecin (Poland). This paper advocates the necessity of incorporating a temporal component in accessibility analysis. We conducted a full day analysis for 1 day using averaged 15-min-long time periods at a very detailed spatial scale (enumeration districts). Based on the calculated origin-destination matrix in 96 time-profiles we calculated the potential accessibility indicator. Then we investigated spatial disparities and their variability during the day-long observation. Apart from the well-known spatial disparities in accessibility level, our findings underline the uncertainty of the accessibility pattern. Moreover, the results show that less accessible areas are also more affected by the daily variation in accessibility level. The findings provide a more realistic insight into accessibility patterns which will be useful for transport planners and policy makers.

Keywords

Accessibility Public transport Open data GTFS Spatial and temporal analysis Szczecin 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Science Centre allocated on the basis of the Decision No. DEC-2013/09/D/HS4/02679.

References

  1. Baradaran S, Ramjerdi F (2001) Performance of accessibility measures in Europe. J Transp Stat 4:31–48Google Scholar
  2. Benenson I, Martens K, Rofé Y et al (2011) Public transport versus private car GIS-based estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. Ann Reg Sci 47:499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bröcker, J. (1989). How to eliminate certain defects of the potential formula. Environ Plan A 21(6):817–830Google Scholar
  4. Chang H-S, Liao C-H (2011) Exploring an integrated method for measuring the relative spatial equity in public facilities in the context of urban parks. Cities 28:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Church A, Frost M, Sullivan K (2000) Transport and social exclusion in London. Transp Policy 7:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Vries JJ, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (2009) Exponential or power distance-decay for commuting? An alternative specification. Environ Plan A 41:461–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delmelle EC, Casas I (2012) Evaluating the spatial equity of bus rapid transit-based accessibility patterns in a developing country: the case of Cali, Colombia. Transp Policy 20:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Geneidy A, Buliung R, Diab E et al (2015) Non-stop equity: assessing daily intersections between transit accessibility and social disparity across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Environ Plan B Plan Des 43:540–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Geneidy A, Levinson D, Diab E, et al (2016) The cost of equity: assessing transit accessibility and social disparity using total travel cost. In: 95th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington DC, USA, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  10. Farber S, Morang MZ, Widener MJ (2014) Temporal variability in transit-based accessibility to supermarkets. Appl Geogr 53:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foth N, Manaugh K, El-Geneidy AM (2013) Towards equitable transit: examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. J Transp Geogr 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fransen K, Neutens T, Farber S et al (2015) Identifying public transport gaps using time-dependent accessibility levels. J Transp Geogr 48:176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frost ME, Spence NA (1995) The rediscovery of accessibility and economic potential: the critical issue of self-potential. Environ Plan A 27:1833–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geurs KT, van Wee B (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J Transp Geogr 12:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geurs KT, De Montis A, Reggiani A (2015) Recent advances and applications in accessibility modelling. Comput Environ Urban Syst 49:82–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golub A, Martens K (2014) Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans. J Transp Geogr 41:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffith D (1982) A generalized Huff model. Geogr Anal 14:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadas Y (2013) Assessing public transport systems connectivity based on Google Transit data. J Transp Geogr 33:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land-use. J Am Inst Plan 25:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huff DL (1963) A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas. Land Econ 39:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. INSPIRE (2007) Directive 2007/2/ EC OF the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007. Establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE)Google Scholar
  22. Jones P, Lucas K (2012) The social consequences of transport decision-making: clarifying concepts, synthesising knowledge and assessing implications. J Transp Geogr 21:4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan S, Popoks D, Prato CG et al (2014) Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision. J Transp Geogr 37:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawabata M (2009) Spatiotemporal dimensions of modal accessibility disparity in Boston and San Francisko. Environ Plan A 41:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krizek KJ, Horning J, El-Geneidy A (2012) Perceptions of accessibility to neighbourhood retail and other public services. In: Geurs KT, Krizek KJ, Reggiani A (eds) Accessibility analysis and transport planning challenges for Europe and North America. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 96–117Google Scholar
  26. Kwan M-P (1998) Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geogr Anal 30:191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Litman T (2002) Evaluating transportation equity. World Transp Policy Pract 8:50–65Google Scholar
  28. Lucas K (2011) Making the connections between transport disadvantage and the social exclusion of low income populations in the Tshwane Region of South Africa. J Transp Geogr 19:1320–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A (2012) Who benefits from new transportation infrastructure? Using accessibility measures to evaluate social equity in public transport provision. In: Geurs KT, Krizek KJ, Reggiani A (eds) Accessibility analysis and transport planning challenges for Europe and North America. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 211–227Google Scholar
  30. Manaugh K, Badami MG, El-Geneidy AM (2015) Integrating social equity into urban transportation planning: a critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North America. Transp Policy 37:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martens K (2012) Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: applying Walzer’s “spheres of justice” to the transport sector. Transp Amst 39:1035–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martens K, Hurvitz E (2011) Distributive impacts of demand-based modelling. Transportmetrica 7:181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martens K, Golub A, Robinson G (2012) A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: implications for transportation planning practice in the United States. Transp Res A Policy Pract 46:684–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martínez LM, Viegas JM (2013) A new approach to modelling distance-decay functions for accessibility assessment in transport studies. J Transp Geogr 26:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nettleton M, Pass DJ, Walters GW et al (2007) Public transport accessibility map of access to general practitioners surgeries in longbridge, Birmingham, UK. J Maps 3:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neutens T, Schwanen T, Witlox F et al (2010) Equity of urban service delivery: a comparison of different accessibility measures. Environ Plan A 42:1613–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Sullivan D, Morrison A, Shearer J (2000) Using desktop GIS for the investigation of accessibility by public transport: an isochrone approach. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Östh J, Reggiani A, Galiazzo G (2014) Novel methods for the estimation of cost–distance decay in potential accessibility models. In: Condeço-Melhorado A, Reggiani A, Gutiérrez J (eds) Accessibility and spatial interaction. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 15–37Google Scholar
  39. Östh J, Reggiani A, Galiazzo G (2015) Spatial economic resilience and accessibility: a joint perspective. Comput Environ Urban Syst 49:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papa E, Silva C, Brömmelstroet M et al (2016) Accessibility instruments for planning practice: a review of European experiences. J Transp Land Use 9:1–20Google Scholar
  41. Preston J, Rajé F (2007) Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. J Transp Geogr 15:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramjerdi F (2006) Equity measures and their performance in transportation. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1983:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reggiani A, Bucci P, Russo G (2011) Accessibility and impedance forms: empirical applications to the german commuting network. Int Reg Sci Rev 34:230–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reyes M, Páez A, Morency C (2014) Walking accessibility to urban parks by children: a case study of Montreal. Landsc Urban Plan 125:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rich DC (1978) Population potential, potential transportation cost and industrial location. Area 10:222–226Google Scholar
  46. Ritsema van Eck J, Burghouwt G, Dijst M (2005) Lifestyles, spatial configurations and quality of life in daily travel: an explorative simulation study. J Transp Geogr 13:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosik P, Stępniak M, Komornicki T (2015) The decade of the big push to roads in Poland: Impact on improvement in accessibility and territorial cohesion from a policy perspective. Transp Policy 37:134–146. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.007
  48. Salonen M, Toivonen T (2013) Modelling travel time in urban networks: comparable measures for private car and public transport. J Transp Geogr 31:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tao S, Rohde D, Corcoran J (2014) Examining the spatial–temporal dynamics of bus passenger travel behaviour using smart card data and the flow-comap. J Transp Geogr 41:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomopoulos N, Grant-Muller S, Tight MR (2009) Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: current practice and a proposed methodology. Eval Program Plan 32:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tobler WR (1970) Computer movie simulating urban growth in Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Urząd Miasta Szczecin (2010) Comprehensive traffic study—Szczecin 2010Google Scholar
  53. Van Wee B (2016) Accessible accessibility research challenges. J Transp Geogr 51:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Wee B, Geurs KT (2011) Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 11:350–367Google Scholar
  55. Willis A, Gjersoe N, Havard C et al (2004) Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: implications for the design and modelling of effective pedestrian environments. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:805–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geography and Spatial OrganizationPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations