Isochrone analysis and assessments of cumulative opportunities are a common way to quantify accessibility. However, different time cut-offs have been used by different researchers, with little investigation into what is the ‘best’ cut-off time. Outstanding questions remain concerning the most effective or predictive cut-off time and the potential implications of choosing one time limit over another. The primary objective of this paper is to explore how different cut-off times affect the calculation of isochrone-based accessibility measurements and their potential to predict travel-mode choice. Fifty dissemination areas (DAs) within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) are selected to test the impact of different isochrone cut-off times in 5-minute intervals for public transit, automobile, and walking accessibility. The relative predictive power of 30- and 45-minute isochrones in modeling mode choice is also examined. This paper finds that different cut-off times do impact the interpretability of accessibility measurements in the isochrone approach, but a defined cut-off time for general use cannot be determined based on the analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChenY.RavulaparthyS.DeutschK.DalalP.YoonS.LeiT.GouliasK.PendyalaR.BhatC.HuH. H.Development of Indicators of Opportunity-Based Accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011, 2255: 58–68.
2.
El-GeneidyA.CerdáA.FischlerR.LukaN.The Use of Accessibility Measures to Evaluate the Impacts of Transportation Plans: An Application in Montréal, Québec. Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Canadian Planning and Policy (supplement), Vol. 20, 2011, pp. 81–104.
3.
OwenA.LevinsonD. M.Modeling the Commute Mode Share of Transit Using Continuous Accessibility to Jobs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 74, 2015, pp. 110–122.
4.
MartensK.Transport Justice: Designing Fair Transportation Systems. Routledge, New York, 2016.
5.
RodrigueJ.-P.ComtoisC.SlackB.The Geography of Transport Systems. Routledge, New York, 2016.
6.
FarberS. Connecting People to Places: Spatiotemporal Analysis of Transit Supply Using Travel Time Cubes. NITC-RR-662. Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC), Portland, OR, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.15760/trec.143.
7.
Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation. Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project: Bypass Element Location (Tier 1) Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2005. www.oregon.gov/odot/regions/pages/region-2-northwest-oregon.aspx. Accessed July 15, 2017.
8.
United States. Federal Transit Administration. Hillsboro Extension of the Westside Corridor Project, Washington County: Environmental Impact Statement, 1994. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100980862. Accessed July 15, 2017.
9.
HansenW. G.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76.
10.
Ben-AkivaM. E.DongX.BowmanJ. L.WalkerJ. L.Moving from Trip-Based to Activity-Based Measures of Accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2006, pp. 163–180.
11.
GeursK. T.Van WeeB.Accessibility Evaluation of Land-use and Transport Strategies: Review and Research Directions. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2004, pp. 127–140.
12.
HarrisonK.Measuring Access to Employment to Guide and Evaluate Public Transit Service Planning in New Orleans. University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations, Vol. 2256, 2016.
13.
SaxeS.MillerE.FarberS.Regional Accessibility and Mode Choice in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area. Presented at World Society of Transport and Land Use Symposium, Brisbane, Australia, July 2017.
FothN.ManaughK.El-GeneidyA.Toward Equitable Transit: Examining Transit Accessibility and Social Need in Toronto, Canada 1996–2006. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 29, 2013, pp. 1–10.
21.
HessD. B.Access to Employment for Adults in Poverty in the Buffalo-Niagara Region. Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 7, 2005, pp. 1177–1200.
22.
HulchanskiJ. D.The Three Cities within Toronto: Income Polarization among Toronto’s Neighbourhoods, 1970–2000. Urban and Community Studies (now Cities Centre) Research Bulletin41, University of Toronto, Toronto, 2007.
Data Management Group. 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey, 2011. Digital Data. University of Toronto Transportation Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
