Both mobility and proximity influence transportation accessibility, but they exist in tension with each other. To understand the region-level trade-off between mobility and proximity requires intermetropolitan comparisons of accessibility. With a focus on the two metropolitan cases of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., we first describe a method for comparing regional accessibility and then explain a method that separates out the effects of mobility and proximity on regional accessibility. We find that the San Francisco region enjoys an accessibility advantage over Washington largely because of faster highway speeds but that central Washington offers an advantage in proximity.
Apparicio, P., and A. Seguin.2005. Measuring the accessibility of services and facilities for residents of public housing in Montreal. Urban Studies43 (1): 187-211.
2.
Ben-Akiva, M., and S.R. Lerman.1979. Disaggregate travel and mobility-choice models and measures of accessibility. In Behavioural travel modelling, ed. D. A. Hensher and P. R. Stopher, 654-79. London: Croom Helm.
3.
Cervero, Robert.1996. Paradigm shift: From automobility to accessibility planning. Working Paper 677, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
4.
Cervero, R., T. Rood, and B. Appleyard.1999. Tracking accessibility: Employment and housing opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A31:1259-78.
5.
Cervero, Robert, and Kang-Li Wu.1997. Polycentrism, commuting, and residential location in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A29:865-86.
6.
Claritas, Inc.2002. Claritas business-facts methodology. Ithaca, NY: Claritas, Inc.
7.
Dunphy, Robert T.1982. Defining regional employment centers in an urban area . Transportation Research Record861:13-15.
8.
Dunphy, Robert T.1997. Moving beyond gridlock: Traffic and development . Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute .
9.
Edwards, John D., Jr., ed. 1992. Transportation planning handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
10.
Ettema, D., and H. Timmermans.2005. Space-time accessibility under conditions of uncertain travel times: Theory and numerical simulations. Geographical Analysis39 (2): 217-40.
Ewing, Reid.1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 107-26.
13.
Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervero.2001. Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record1780:87-114.
14.
Fotheringham, A. Stewart, and Morton E. O’Kelly.1989. Spatial interaction models: Formulations and applications. Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Kluwer Academic.
15.
Galster, George, Royce Hanson, Michael R. Ratcliffe, Harold Wolman, Stephen Coleman, and Jason Freihage.2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate12 (4): 681-717.
16.
Garreau, Joel.1991. Edge city: Life on the new frontier. New York: Doubleday.
17.
Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew Kahn, and Chenghuan Chu .2001. Job sprawl: Employment locations in U.S. metropolitan areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
Grengs, Joe.2010. Job accessibility and the modal mismatch in Detroit . Journal of Transport Geography18:42-54.
19.
Grunwald, Michael.2006. D.C.’s fear of heights. Washington Post, July 2, p. BO2.
20.
Hägerstrand, T.1970. What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science24 (1): 7-24.
21.
Handy, Susan.1993. Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for nonwork travel. Transportation Research Record1400:58-66.
22.
Handy, S.L., and D.A. Niemeier.1997. Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A29:1175-94.
23.
Hansen, Walter G.1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25 (2): 73-76.
24.
Isard, Walter.1960. Methods of regional analysis: An introduction to regional science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
25.
Kawabata, Mizuki.2003. Job access and employment among low-skilled autoless workers in US metropolitan areas. Environment and Planning A35 (9): 1651-68.
26.
Kwan, M., and J. Weber.2008. Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Applied Geography28 (2): 110-23.
27.
Lang, Robert E.2003. Edgeless cities: Exploring the elusive metropolis . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
28.
Lee, Bumsoo.2007. "Edge" or "edgeless" cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000. Journal of Regional Science47 (3): 479-515.
29.
Levine, Jonathan, Aseem Inam, Richard Werbel, and Gwo-Wei Torng .2002. Land use and transportation alternatives: Constraint or expansion of household choice?San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University.
30.
Martin, J.C., and A. Reggiani.2007. Recent methodological developments to measure spatial interaction: Synthetic accessibility indices applied to high-speed train investments. Transportation Reviews27 (5): 551-71.
31.
Meyer, Michael D., and Eric J. Miller.2001. Urban transportation planning: A decision oriented approach . 2nd ed. New York : McGraw-Hill.
32.
Morlok, Edward K.1978. Introduction to transportation engineering and planning . New York: McGraw-Hill .
33.
Schrank, David, and Tim Lomax.2007. The 2007 urban mobility report. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute.
34.
Sheppard, Eric.1984. The distance-decay gravity model debate. In Spatial statistics and models, ed. G. L. Gaile and C. J. Willmott.Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
35.
Shen, Qing.1998. Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environment and Planning B25:345-65.
36.
Shen, Qing.2001. A spatial analysis of job openings and access in a U.S. metropolitan area. Journal of the American Planning Association67 (1): 53-68.
37.
Stopher, Peter R., and Arnim H. Meyburg.1975. Urban transportation modeling and planning. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
38.
Torrens, Paul M., and Marina Alberti.2000. Measuring sprawl. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Working Paper no. 27, University College London.
39.
Transportation Research Board.1994. Highway capacity manual. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
Transportation Research Board.1995. Expanding metropolitan highways: Implications for air quality and energy use. Special Report 245. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41.
Transportation Research Board.1998. Travel estimation techniques for urban planning. NCHRP Report 365 . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
42.
U.S. Census Bureau.2002a. 2000 census of population and housing, summary file 1, United States, technical documentation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
43.
U.S. Census Bureau.2002b. 2000 census of population and housing, summary file 3, United States, technical documentation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
44.
U.S. Department of Transportation.2002a. Highway statistics 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
45.
U.S. Department of Transportation.2002b. National transportation statistics 2002. Washington, DC : Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
46.
U.S. Department of Transportation.2004. 2001 National Household Travel Survey user’s guide, version 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
47.
Wachs, M., and J.G. Koenig.1979. Behavioural modelling, accessibility, mobility and travel need. In Behavioural travel modelling, ed. D. A. Hensher and P. R. Stopher, 698-710. London: Croom Helm .
48.
Wilson, A.G.1971. A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments. Environment and Planning A3 (1): 1-32.
