This work is motivated by the high rate of private car use by commuters in Australian cities. Considering the various benefits of public transport (PT), it is imperative to analyze the shortcomings of the PT networks in comparison to car travel. For this purpose, this work focuses on analyzing the travel time difference between PT and car journeys. This paper presents a methodology to analyze the relative mobility of a PT network in comparison to car travel. The key component of this methodology is the use of two complementary relative mobility metrics that are developed to determine the portions of PT journeys that are inefficient (time-wise) in comparison to car trips. The first metric is the point-to-point relative mobility used to perform spatial distribution analysis, and the second is the PT line relative mobility that evaluates the performance of the PT routes. A demonstration of the methodology is presented by using a case study from Melbourne (Australia). The results of the case study show some inefficient segments of the PT services in several areas, and within the Port Melbourne area in particular. Therefore, this information can be used to assist decision makers to prioritize PT improvements to encourage mode shifts to PT.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. A Dozen Facts About Transport in Australia. Information Sheet 75. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, BITRE, Canberra, Australia, 2016.
4.
WuH.LevinsonD.Access Across Australia. Technical Report. Transport Lab, University of Sydney, 2018.
5.
Infrastructure Victoria. An Assessment of Australia’s Future Infrastructure Needs. Infrastructure Victoria, 2019.
6.
WhitzmanC.MaratheR.ThompsonJ.Tertiary Students’ Public Transport Safety in Melbourne, Australia. Research Report. University of Melbourne, 2019.
7.
AftabuzzamanM.CurrieG.SarviM.Evaluating the Congestion Relief Impacts of Public Transport in Monetary Terms. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.13.1.1.
8.
Nguyen-PhuocD. Q.YoungW.CurrieG.De GuyterC.Traffic Congestion Relief Associated with Public Transport: State-Of-The-Art. Public Transport, Vol. 12, 2020, pp. 455–481.
9.
TitosG.LyamaniH.DrinovecL.OlmoF.MočnikG.Alados-ArboledasL.Evaluation of the Impact of Transportation Changes on Air Quality. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 114, 2015, pp. 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.05.027.
10.
BasagañaX.Triguero-MasM.AgisD.PérezN.RecheC.AlastueyA.QuerolX.Effect of Public Transport Strikes on Air Pollution Levels in Barcelona (Spain). Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 610–611, 2018, pp. 1076–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.263.
11.
ArundelJ.LoweM.HooperP.RobertsR.RozekJ.HiggsC.Giles-CortiB.Creating Liveable Cities in Australia. Centre for Urban Research (CUR) RMIT University, 2017.
12.
BrownV.BarrA.ScheurerJ.MagnusA.Zapata-DiomediB.BentleyR.Better Transport Accessibility, Better Health: A Health Economic Impact Assessment Study for Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 16, No. 89, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0853-y.
13.
BenensonI.MartensK.RoféY.KwartlerA.Public Transport Versus Private Car GIS-Based Estimation of Accessibility Applied to the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area. The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2011, pp. 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-010-0392-6.
14.
MartensK.Justice in Transport As Justice in Accessibility: Applying Walzer’s ‘Spheres of Justice’ to the Transport Sector. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1035–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9388-7.
15.
HansenW.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76.
16.
MillerE. J.Accessibility: Measurement and Application in Transportation Planning. Transport Reviews, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2018, pp. 551–555.
17.
HandyS.NiemeierD.Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1175–1194.
18.
HandyS.Accessibility-vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the US. Proc., European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Brussels, 2002.
19.
El-GeneidyA.LevinsonD.Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures. Report No. MN/RC-2006-16. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2006.
20.
MillerH. J.Modelling Accessibility Using Space-Time Prism Concepts Within Geographical Information System. International Journal of Geographical Information System, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1991, pp. 287–301.
21.
EspadaI.LukJ.Development of An Accessibility Metric and Its Application to Melbourne. Road & Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2011, p. 55.
22.
MavoaS.WittenK.McCreanorT.O’SullivanD.GIS Based Destination Accessibility via Public Transit and Walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 20, 2012, pp. 15–22.
23.
SaghapourT.MoridpourS.ThompsonR.Public Transport Accessibility in Metropolitan Areas: A New Approach Incorporating Population Density. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 54, 2016, pp. 273–285.
24.
AlbaceteX.OlaruD.PaülV.BiermannS.Measuring the Accessibility of Public Transport: A Critical Comparison Between Methods in Helsinki. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, Vol. 10, 2017, pp. 161–188.
25.
EspadaI.LukJ.Application of Accessibility Measures. Austroads, Sydney, NSW, 2011.
26.
LitmanT.Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning. Technical Report. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2021.
27.
KoenigJ.Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory and Application. Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980, pp. 145–172.
28.
BhatC. R.GuoJ. Y.SenS.WestonL.Measuring Access to Public Transportation Services: Review of Customer-Oriented Transit Performance Measures and Methods of Transit Submarket Identification. FHWA/TX08/0-5178-1. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, 2005.
29.
SalonenM.ToivonenT.Modelling Travel Time in Urban Networks: Comparable Measures for Private Car and Public Transport. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 31, 2013, pp. 143–153.
30.
FransenK.NeutensT.FarberS.De MaeyerP.DeruyterG.WitloxF.Identifying Public Transport Gaps Using Time-Dependent Accessibility Levels. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 48, 2015, pp. 176–187.
31.
NassirN.HickmanM.MalekzadehA.IrannezhadE.A Utility-Based Travel Impedance Measure for Public Transit Network Accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 88, 2016, pp. 26–39.
32.
FayyazS. K.LiuX.PorterR. J.Dynamic Transit Accessibility and Transit Gap Causality Analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 59, 2017, pp. 27–39.
33.
LevineJ.GrengsJ.MerlinL. A.From Mobility to Accessibility. Cornell University Press, 2019.
34.
StępniakM.PritchardJ. P.GeursK. T., and G. S. The Impact of Temporal Resolution on Public Transport Accessibilitymeasurement: Review and Case Study in Poland. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 75, 2019, pp. 8–24.
35.
MurphyB.OwenA.Temporal Sampling and Service Frequency Harmonics in Transit Accessibility Evaluation. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2019, pp. 893–913.
36.
FarberS.MorangM. Z.WidenerM. J.Temporal Variability in Transit-Based Accessibility to Supermarkets. Applied Geography, Vol. 53, 2014, pp. 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.012.
37.
LiaoY.GilJ.PereiraR. H. M.YehS.VerendelV.Disparities in Travel Times Between Car and Transit: Spatiotemporal Patterns in Cities. Scientific Reports, Vol. 10, No. 4056, 2020, pp. 1–12.
38.
WeiR.LiuX.MuY.WangL.GolubA.FarberS.Evaluating Public Transit Services for Operational Efficiency and Access Equity. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 65, 2017, pp. 70–79.
39.
KarnerA.Assessing Public Transit Service Equity Using Route-Level Accessibility Measures and Public Data. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 67, 2018, pp. 24–32.
40.
NassirN.HickmanM.MalekzadehA.IrannezhadE.Modeling Transit Passenger Choices of Access Stop. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2493: 70–77.
41.
MacQueenJ.Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. Proc., Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Oakland, CA, Vol. 1, 1967, pp. 281–297.
42.
WesselN.FarberS.On the Accuracy of Schedule-Based GTFS for Measuring Accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2019, pp. 475–500.
GolubA.MartensK.Using Principles of Justice to Assess the Modal Equity of Regional Transportation Plans. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 41, 2014, pp. 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.07.014.
45.
FarberS.FuL.Dynamic Public Transit Accessibility Using Travel Time Cubes: Comparing the Effects of Infrastructure (Dis)Investments Over Time. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 62, 2017, pp. 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.10.005.
ErlanderS.Accessibility, Entropy and the Distribution and Assignment of Traffic. Transportation Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1977, pp. 149–153.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
