Transportation-planning researchers have long argued that the end goal of a transportation system is increasing accessibility, or opportunities for individuals to meet their daily needs, but that US practice tends to focus on increasing mobility, or opportunities to travel farther and faster. This study finds evidence that the gap between theory and practice may be closing when it comes to accessibility, but that significant barriers still exist to the wider adoption of the accessibility paradigm among metropolitan planning organisations, the main entities responsible for regional transportation planning in the USA. We measure this gap by creating an accessibility index based on content analysis of a nationally representative sample of 42 US regional transportation plans (RTPs). We then use regression-tree analysis to determine the characteristics of metropolitan areas that are most likely to employ accessibility concepts. Finally, we identify barriers to a wider adoption of the accessibility paradigm. Most RTPs include accessibility-related goals, but few define the term or use accessibility-oriented performance measures. The lack of clarity on accessibility leaves vehicle speed as the fundamental criterion for success in most plans. Our analysis finds that MPOs serving large regions with high per capita income are the most likely to produce plans that focus on accessibility. We argue that such places produce more accessibility-oriented RTPs because they have greater planning capacity and recommend changes to federal planning guidelines that could speed the adoption of the accessibility paradigm in RTPs.
AndersonPLevinsonDParthasarathiP (2013) Accessibility Futures. Transactions in GIS17(5): 683–705.
2.
AthwalN (2010) SB 375: Smart growth savior or just the beginning?Environmental Claims Journal22(2): 112–143.
3.
BadoeDAMillerEJ (2000) Transportation–land-use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment5: 235–263.
4.
BanisterD (2008) The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy15(2): 73–80.
5.
BarbourEDeakinE (2012) Smart growth planning for climate protection: Evaluating California’s Senate Bill 375. Journal of the American Planning Association78(1): 70–86.
6.
BartholomewKEwingR (2009) Land use-transportation scenarios and future vehicle travel and land consumption. Journal of the American Planning Association75(1): 13–27.
7.
BertoliniLle ClercqFStraatemeierT (2008) Urban transportation planning in transition. Transport Policy15(2): 69–72.
8.
Boston Region MPO (2011) Paths to a Sustainable Region 2035: Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region MPO. Boston Region MPO, Boston, MA. September.
9.
BoswellMRGreveAISealeTL (2010) An assessment of the link between greenhouse gas emissions inventories and climate action plans. Journal of the American Planning Association76(4): 451–462.
10.
BrodySD (2003) Are we learning to make better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research23(2): 191–201.
11.
BrodySDGodschalkDRBurbyRJ (2003) Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association69(3): 245–264.
12.
BrodySDHighfieldWCarrascoV (2004) Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landscape and Urban Planning69(1): 33–50.
13.
BurbyRJMayPJ (1998) Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management41(1): 95–110.
14.
CerveroR (1996) Paradigm shift: From automobility to accessibility planning. Working Paper No. 677. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
15.
ChakrabortyAMishraS (2013) Land use and transit ridership connections: Implications for state-level planning agencies. Land Use Policy30(1): 458–469.
16.
ChapmanSWeirD (2008) Accessibility Planning Methods. Report for the NZ Transportation Institute. Research Report no. 363, July. Wellington, New Zealand.
17.
Clarksville Urbanized Area MPO (2014) 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Clarksville Urbanized Area MPO, Clarksville, TN, February.
18.
Collin-LangeVBenediktssonK (2011) Entering the regime of automobility: Car ownership and use by novice drivers in Iceland. Journal of Transport Geography19(4): 851–858.
19.
CradockALTropedPJFieldsB. (2009) Factors associated with federal transportation funding for local pedestrian and bicycle programming and facilities. Journal of Public Health Policy30(Suppl.): S38–S72.
20.
De’athGFabriciusKE (2000) Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecological Society of America81(11): 3178–3192.
21.
El-GeneidyAMLevinsonDM (2006) Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures. Minneapolis, MN. Available at: http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200616.pdf.
22.
EwingR (1993) Transportation service standards – As if people matter. Transportation Research Record1400: 10–17.
23.
EwingR (1996) Beyond Speed: The Next Generation of Transportation Performance Measures. In: PorterDR (ed.) Performance Standards for Growth Management. Chicago: American Planning Association, pp. 31–40.
24.
EwingRCerveroR (2010) Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association76(3): 265–294.
25.
EwingRHamidiSGallivanF. (2014) Structural equation models of VMT growth in US urbanised areas. Urban Studies51(14): 3079–3096.
26.
EwingRProffittD (2016) Improving decision making for transportation capacity expansion: Qualitative analysis of best practices for regional transportation plans. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2568: 1–8. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3141/2568–01.
27.
FerreiraA (2012) Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: A proposal for the improvement of Dutch transport-related cost–benefit analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design39(4): 683–697.
28.
GoetzARDempseyPSLarsonC (2002) Metropolitan planning organizations: Findings and recommendations for improving transportation planning. Publius32(1): 87–105.
29.
GoldmanTGorhamR (2006) Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technology in Society28(1–2): 261–273.
30.
GolubAMartensK (2014) Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans. Journal of Transport Geography41: 10–20.
31.
GrengsJLevineJShenQ. (2010) Intermetropolitan comparison of transportation accessibility: Sorting out mobility and proximity in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Journal of Planning Education and Research29(4): 427–443.
GulhanGCeylanHÖzuysalM. (2013) Impact of utility-based accessibility measures on urban public transportation planning: A case study of Denizli, Turkey. Cities32: 102–112.
34.
HaldenD (2002) Using accessibility measures to integrate land use and transport policy in Edinburgh and the Lothians. Transport Policy9(4): 313–324.
35.
HandySL (2005) Planning for accessibility: In theory and in practice. In: LevinsonDMKrizekKJ (eds) Access to Destinations. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 131–147.
36.
HandySL (2008) Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals. Transport Policy15(2): 113–126.
37.
HandySLNiemeierDA (1997) Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A29(7): 1175–1194.
38.
InnesJEGruberJ (2005) Planning styles in conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Journal of the American Planning Association71(2): 177–188.
39.
Jackson Area MPO (2012) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. Jackson Area MPO, Jackson, MS. December.
40.
KrippendorffK (2013) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
41.
KrizekKJ (2003) Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(3): 270–287.
LandisJRKochGG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33(1): 159–174.
44.
LemonSCRoyJClarkMA. (2003) Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: Methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Annals of Behavioral Medicine26(3): 172–181.
45.
LevineJGrengsJShenQ. (2012) Does accessibility require density or speed? A comparison of fast versus close in getting where you want to go in U.S. metropolitan regions. Journal of the American Planning Association78(2): 157–172.
46.
LewisRZakoR (2017) Assessing State Efforts to Integrate Transportation, Land Use and Climate Change. Report for the National Institute for Transportation and Communities. Report no. NITC-RR-789, January. Portland, OR.
47.
LitmanTA (2009) Transportation cost and benefit analysis. Report, Victoria Transportation Institute, Victoria, BC. Available at: www.vtpi.org/tca.
48.
LitmanT (2013) The new transportation planning paradigm. ITE JournalJune: 20–28.
49.
LohW-L (2011) Classification and regression trees. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery1(February): 14–23. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015807.
50.
MallettWJ (2010) Metropolitan Transportation Planning. Report for the Congressional Research Service. Report no. 7-5700, February. Washington, DC.
51.
MartensK (2015) Accessibility and Potential Mobility as a Guide for Policy Action. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
52.
MartensK (in press) Why accessibility measurement is not merely an option, but an absolute necessity. In: PuntoNHullA (eds) Accessibility Tools and Their Applications. New York and London: Routledge.
53.
McCannBGarlandMTracey-MooneyR. (2000) Driven to Spend: The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, Transportation and Quality of Life. Report for the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood Technology. Available at: www.cnt.org and www.transact.org.
54.
MillerHJ (2005) Place-based versus people-based measures of accessibility. In: LevinsonDMKrizekKJ (eds) Access to Destinations. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, pp. 63–89.
55.
Mobile Area Transportation Study MPO (2012) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, Mobile, AL, March.
56.
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (2012) Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region. Report for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Report No. 20136425, 18July. Washington, DC.
57.
NellesJ (2014) Toothless Tigers in a Metropolitan Revolution: Are Metropolitan Planning Organizations Equally Ineffective?American Political Science Association(APSA) 2014 Annual Meeting Paper. Washington, DC, 28–31 August. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2453250.
58.
NiemeierDAGrattetRBeamishT (2015) ‘Blueprinting’ and climate change: Regional governance and civic participation in land use and transportation planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy33(6): 1600–1617.
59.
Oregon Transportation Commission (2013) Oregon Statewide Transportation Strategy: A 2050 Vision for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Report for the Oregon Transportation Department. Volume 1, 20March. Salem, OR.
60.
PáezAScottDMMorencyC (2012) Measuring accessibility: Positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography25: 141–153.
61.
PeckettHLyonsWM (2012) Evolving role of metropolitan planning organizations in transportation planning for megaregions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (2307): 43–51.
62.
PickrellSNeumannL (2001) Use of performance measures in transportation decision making. In: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Operation: Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, October 29–November 1, 2000. Irvine, CA: Transportation Research Board, pp. 17–33. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/reports/cp_26.pdf.
63.
PorterCDBrownADunphyRT. (2013) Effects of the Built Environment on Transportation: Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Other Factors. Report for the U.S. Department of Energy. Report no. DOE/GO-102013-3703, March. Washington, DC.
64.
RussellMMokhtarianP (2014) How real is a reported desire to travel for its own sake? Exploring the ‘teleportation’ concept in travel behaviour research. Transportation42(2): 333–345.
SalonDSperlingDMeierA. (2010) City carbon budgets: A proposal to align incentives for climate-friendly communities. Energy Policy, 38(4): 2032–2041.
67.
SciaraG-CWachsM (2007) Metropolitan transportation funding: Prospects, progress, and practical considerations. Public Works Management & Policy12(1): 378–394.
68.
South Western Region MPO (2011) Going Forward: South Western Region Long Range Transportation Plan 2011–2040. Report, South Western Region MPO, Stamford, CT, 28April. Available at: http://www.swrpa.org/Files/Transfer.aspx?pid=362.
SullivanEJYehJ (2013) Smart growth: State strategies in managing sprawl. The Urban Lawyer45(2): 349–406.
71.
Transportation Research Board (2010) Highway Capacity Manual 2010. 5th edition.Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
72.
Urban Habitat (2009) Sustainable planning under SB 375: Integrating transportation, housing and land-use. Race, Poverty & The Environment16(2): 62.
WaltersJEwingR (2009) Measuring the benefits of compact development on vehicle miles and Climate Change. Environmental Practice11(3): 196–208.
75.
WhiteMDMarshEE (2006) Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends55(1): 22–45.
76.
YoonSYDeutschKChenY. (2012) Feasibility of using time–space prism to represent available opportunities and choice sets for destination choice models in the context of dynamic urban environments. Transportation39(4): 807–823.
