The general transit feed specification is becoming a popular data format for the publication of public transport schedules, making possible the collection of a nation-wide public transport schedule dataset, which enables monitoring of transit supply at an up-to-date and more precise level across a country than previously possible. In this paper, we use general transit feed specification data to measure local-scale public transport availability across England based on service frequency and spatial proximity to public transport stops/stations. Moreover, to demonstrate the usefulness of public transport availability measures, we examine inequalities of public transport provision and identify areas at risk of transport poverty across England. Furthermore, we estimate population (number of households) who are likely to suffer from transport poverty, accounting for public transport availability, time-based job accessibility by public transport or walking, household income and car ownership levels. Based on the criteria, we have used to identify public transport risk, we find that investment in the development of public transport services should prioritise West Midlands, East of England, South East and South West as those regions have more households who are likely to suffer from transport poverty. This paper contributes by (1) defining more comprehensive transit availability measures than existing measures at a variety of geography levels and (2) integrating fours aspects (i.e. public transport availability, job accessibility by public transport or walking, household income and car availability) to analyse transport poverty comprehensively.
BadlandHMGarrettNSchofieldGM (2010) How does car parking availability and public transport accessibility influence work-related travel behaviors?Sustainability2(2): 576–590.
2.
BlumenbergEPierceG (2016) The drive to work: The relationship between transportation access, housing assistance, and employment among participants in the welfare to work voucher program. Journal of Planning Education and Research37(1): 66–82.
3.
CurrieG (2010) Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. Journal of Transport Geography18: 31–41.
4.
DelboscACurrieG (2011) Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity. Journal of Transport Geography19(6): 1252–1259.
5.
DuvarciYYigitcanlarTMizokamiS (2015) Transportation disadvantage impedance indexing: A methodological approach to reduce policy shortcomings. Journal of Transport Geography48: 61–75.
6.
EboliLMazzullaG (2012) Performance indicators for an objective measure of public transport service quality. European Transport51: 1–21.
7.
FanYGuthrieALevinsonDM (2010) Impact of light rail implementation on labor market accessibility: A transportation equity perspective. Journal of Transport and Land Use5(3): 28–39.
8.
FarberSFuL (2017) Dynamic public transit accessibility using travel time cubes: Comparing the effects of infrastructure (dis)investments over time. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems62: 30–40.
9.
FransenKNeutensTFarberS, et al. (2015) Identifying public transport gaps using time-dependent accessibility levels. Journal of Transport Geography48: 176–187.
10.
FuLXinY (2007) A new performance index for evaluating transit quality of service. Journal of Public Transportation10(3): 47–69.
11.
GoodmanA (2013) Walking, cycling and driving to work in the English and Welsh 2011 census: Trends, socio-economic patterning and relevance to travel behaviour in general. PLoS ONE8(8): e71790.
HahslerMPiekenbrockMDoranD (2019) Dbscan: Fast density-based clustering with R. Journal of Statistical Software91(1): 1–30.
15.
JaramilloCLizárragaCGrindlayAL (2012) Spatial disparity in transport social needs and public transport provision in Santiago de cali (Colombia). Journal of Transport Geography24: 340–357.
16.
KawabataMShenQ (2006) Job accessibility as an indicator of auto-oriented urban structure: A comparison of Boston and Los Angeles with Tokyo. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33(1): 115–130.
17.
LangfordMHiggsGFryR (2012) Using floating catchment analysis (FCA) techniques to examine intra-urban variations in accessibility to public transport opportunities: The example of Cardiff. Journal of Transport Geography25: 1–14.
18.
LiuSZhuX (2004) Accessibility analyst: An integrated GIS tool for accessibility analysis in urban transportation planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31(1): 105–124.
19.
LovettAHaynesRSunnenbergG, et al. (2002) Car travel time and accessibility by bus to general practitioner services: A study using patient registers and GIS. Social Science & Medicine55: 97–111.
20.
LucasK (2012) Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?Transport Policy20: 105–113.
21.
LucasKMattioliGVerlinghieriE, et al. (2016) Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport169(6): 353–365.
22.
LucasKPhilipsIMulleyC, et al. (2018) Is transport poverty socially or environmentally driven? Comparing the travel behaviours of two low-income populations living in central and peripheral locations in the same city. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice116: 622–634.
23.
MamunMSLownesNE (2011) A composite index of public transit accessibility. Journal of Public Transportation14(2): 69–87.
24.
MatasARaymondJLRoigJL (2009) Car ownership and access to jobs in Spain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice43(6): 607–617.
25.
MattioliGLucasKMarsdenG (2018) Reprint of transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: From analogy to comparison. Transport Policy65: 114–125.
26.
MavoaSWittenKMcCreanorT, et al. (2012) GIS-based destination accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland. Journal of Transport Geography20(1): 15–22.
27.
MinochaISrirajPSMetaxatosP, et al. (2008) Analysis of transit quality of service and employment accessibility for the greater Chicago, Illinois, region. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board2042: 20–29.
28.
MondouV (2001) Daily mobility and adequacy of the urban transportation network a GIS application. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography192: 1–5.
NeutensT (2015) Accessibility, equity and health care: Review and research directions for transport geographers. Journal of Transport Geography43: 14–27.
OwenALevinsonDM (2017) Developing a comprehensive U.S. transit accessibility database. In: ThakuriahPTilahunNZellnerM (eds) Seeing Cities through Big Data. Springer Geography. Cham: Springer.
35.
ParsonsBQuadeDIncJHunter-ZaworskiK (2003) Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. 2nd ed. Transit Cooperative Research Program TCRP. Washington, DC: Kittelson & Associates, KFH Group.
36.
PolzinSPendyalaRNavariS (2002) Development of time-of-day-based transit accessibility analysis tool. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1799: 35–41.
37.
PrestonJRajeF (2007) Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography15(3): 151–160.
38.
PyrialakouVDGkritzaKFrickerJD (2016) Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective. Journal of Transport Geography51: 252–269.
39.
RaeA (2016) The geography of travel to work in England and Wales: Extracts from the 2011 census. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy10(4): 457–473.
40.
Rail Delivery Group (2016) Rail industry data. Available at: www.gbrail.info (accessed January 2016).
41.
RicciardiAMXiaJCurrieG (2015) Exploring public transport equity between separate disadvantaged cohorts: A case study in Perth, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography43: 111–122.
42.
RockSAhernACaulfieldB (2016) The economic boom, bust and transport inequity in suburban Dublin, Ireland. Research in Transportation Economics57: 32–43.
43.
RoodT (1998) The Local Index of Transit Availability: An Implementation Manual. Sacramento, CA: Local Government Commission.
44.
RyusPAusmanJTeafD, et al. (2000) Development of Florida’s transit level-of-service indicator. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1731: 123–129.
45.
SanchezTW (2008) Poverty, policy, and public transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice42: 833–841.
46.
SchwanenTLucasKAkyelkenN, et al. (2015) Rethinking the links between social exclusion and transport disadvantage through the lens of social capital. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice74: 123–135.
47.
SenAMetaxatosPSootS, et al. (1999) Estimation of demand due to welfare reform. Papers in Regional Science78(2): 195–211.
48.
ShirmohammadliALouenCValléD (2016) Exploring mobility equity in a society undergoing changes in travel behavior: A case study of Aachen. Transport Policy46: 32–39.
49.
Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Final report on Transport and Social Exclusion. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
ThakuriahPMetaxatosP (2000) Effect of residential location and transportation on employment opportunities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board1726: 24–32.
WellsKThillJC (2012) Do transit-dependent neighbourhoods receive inferior bus access? A neighbourhood analysis in four US cities. Journal of Urban Affairs34(1): 43–63.
57.
WesselNAllenJFarberS (2017) Constructing a routable retrospective transit timetable from a real-time vehicle location feed and GTFS. Journal of Transport Geography62: 92–97.
58.
WidenerMJFarberSNeutensT, et al. (2015) Spatiotemporal accessibility to supermarkets using public transit: An interaction potential approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of Transport Geography42: 72–83.
59.
WuBHineJ (2003) A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus service accessibility. Transport Policy10(4): 307–320.
60.
XuWADingYZhouJ, et al. (2015) Transit accessibility measures incorporating the temporal dimension. Cities46: 55–66.
61.
YigitcanlarTSipeNEvansR, et al. (2008) A GIS-based land use and public transport accessibility indexing model. Australian Planner44: 30–37.
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.
