Securing sufficient accessibility with public transport is essential for reducing private car commuting. While most studies of transport accessibility are based on travel times, other quality factors such as the perceived disadvantage of congestion and service frequency are also of importance for transport mode choice. In this study, we use generalized journey times to calculate accessibility and public transport competitiveness, allowing us to account for other characteristics of commute trips than just travel time. We use detailed trip data to calculate generalized journey times to typical employment areas in thirteen urban regions in Norway. The results show that public transport services compete better with the car in the largest cities. Specifically, public transport is competitive for access to central employment areas but less so for less central employment areas. In the smaller cities, the private car is the most competitive mode on most commute trips. With detailed travel data, the method developed in this study can be replicated in other contexts to provide a more holistic measure of accessibility than traditional methods.
AlonsoW (1964) Location and Land Use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
ArbexRCunhaCB (2020) Estimating the influence of crowding and travel time variability on accessibility to jobs in a large public transport network using smart card big data. Journal of Transport Geography85: 102671.
3.
BalcombeRMackettRPaulleyN, et al. (2004) The Demand for Public Transport: A Practical Guide (No. TRL593). London, UK: Transportation Research Laboratory.
4.
BanisterD (2011) Cities, mobility and climate change. Journal of Transport Geography19(6): 1538–1546.
5.
BaraklianosIBouzouinaLBonnelP, et al. (2020) Does the accessibility measure influence the results of residential location choice modelling?Transportation47(3): 1147–1176.
6.
CerveroR (2002) Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment7(4): 265–284.
7.
ChristiansenP (2018) Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice118: 305–318.
8.
CuiBBoisjolyGEl-GeneidyA, et al. (2019) Accessibility and the journey to work through the lens of equity. Journal of Transport Geography74: 269–277.
9.
DalviMQMartinKM (1976) The measurement of accessibility: Some preliminary results. Transportation5(1): 17–42.
10.
DongXBen-AkivaMEBowmanJL, et al. (2006) Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice40(2): 163–180.
11.
EngebretsenØChristiansenPStrandA (2017) Bergen light rail–Effects on travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography62: 111121.
12.
EngebretsenØNæssPStrandA (2018) Residential location, workplace location and car driving in four Norwegian cities. European Planning Studies26(10): 2036–2057.
13.
European Commission (2004) Reclaiming City Streets for People: Chaos or Quality of Life?Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
14.
Eurostat (2016) Urban Europe: Statistics on Cities, Towns and Suburbs. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
15.
EwingRCerveroR (2010) Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association76(3): 265–294.
16.
FearnleyNAarhaugJFlügelS, et al. (2015) Measuring the Patronage Impact of Soft Quality Factors in Urban Public Transport.
17.
FearnleyNCurrieGFlügelS, et al. (2018) Competition and substitution between public transport modes. Research in Transportation Economics69: 51–58.
18.
FearnleyNFlügelSKilliM, et al. (2017) Triggers of urban passenger mode shift–state of the art and model evidence. Transportation Research Procedia26: 62–80.
19.
FlügelSFearnleyNTonerJ (2018) What Factors Affect Cross-Modal Substitution? - Evidences from the Oslo Area, in Transport and the City. WIT Press.
20.
FlügelSHalseAHHullebergN, et al. (2020) Value of Travel Time and Related Factors: Technical Report, the Norwegian Valuation Study 2018-2020. Institute of Transport Economics. https://trid.trb.org/view/1714634
GolubAMartensK (2014) Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans. Journal of Transport Geography41: 10–20.
23.
GundersenFLangelandOAarhaugJ (2017) Work place location, transport and urban competitiveness: the Oslo case. Transportation Research Procedia26: 196–206.
24.
HandySLNiemeierDA (1997) Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space29(7): 1175–1194.
25.
HansenWG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25(2): 73–76.
ITF (2019) Benchmarking Accessibility in Cities: Measuring the Impact of Proximity and Transport Performance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
28.
JangSLeeS (2020) Study of the regional accessibility calculation by income class based on utility-based accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography84: 102697.
29.
KainJF (1968) Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics82(2): 175.
30.
KwanM-P (1998) Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis30(3): 191–216.
31.
LättmanKFrimanMOlssonLE (2016) Perceived accessibility of public transport as a potential indicator of social inclusion. Social Inclusion4(3): 36–45.
32.
LevinsonDKingD (2020) Transport Access Manual: A Guide for Measuring Connection between People and Places. Committee of the Transport Access Manual, University of Sydney. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/23733
LevinsonDMWuH (2020) Towards a general theory of access. Journal of Transport and Land Use13(1): 129–158.
35.
LiaoYGilJPereiraR H M, et al. (2020) Disparities in travel times between car and transit: spatiotemporal patterns in cities. Scientific Reports10(1): 4056.
36.
van LieropDEl-GeneidyA (2016) Enjoying loyalty: The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in public transit. Research in Transportation Economics59: 50–59.
37.
LiuZPogonyiCGrahamD (2020) Using Google Maps to Calculate Generalised Cost and Accessibility for London: A New Methodology. https://trid.trb.org/view/1771061
38.
LunkeE B (2020) Commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. Journal of Transport & Health16: 100842.
39.
LunkeEBFearnleyNAarhaugJ (2021a) Commute trips in Norwegian cities: data combining trip characteristics and revealed mode choice. Data in Brief38: 107319. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107319
40.
LunkeEBFearnleyNAarhaugJ (2021b) Public transport competitiveness vs. the car: impact of relative journey time and service attributes. Research in Transportation Economics: 101098. DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101098
41.
MacfarlaneGSBoydNTaylorJE, et al. (2021) Modeling the impacts of park access on health outcomes: a utility-based accessibility approach. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(8): 2289–2306.
42.
Ministry of Environment (2012) Norsk Klimapolitikk. Report No. 21 (2011–2012) (White Paper), Vol. 21, 14.
43.
MokhtarianPLChenC (2004) TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice38(9): 643–675.
44.
OwenAMurphyB (2019) Access Across America: Transit 2019. Accessibility Observatory: University of Minnesota. CTS 20-09 172.
45.
PaulleyNBalcombeRMackettR, et al. (2006) The demand for public transport: the effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transport Policy13(4): 295–306.
46.
PereiraRHM (2019) Future accessibility impacts of transport policy scenarios: equity and sensitivity to travel time thresholds for bus rapid transit expansion in Rio de Janeiro. Journal of Transport Geography74: 321–332.
47.
PereiraRHMBragaCKVSerraB, et al. (2019) Socio-spatial inequalities in access to opportunities in Brazilian cities [Desigualdades socioespaciais de acesso a oportunidades nas cidades Brasileiras]. IPEA report 2535 58.
48.
RedmanLFrimanMGärlingT, et al. (2013) Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: a research review. Transport Policy25: 119–127.
49.
SalonenMToivonenT (2013) Modelling travel time in urban networks: comparable measures for private car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography31: 143–153.
50.
SamstadHRamjerdiFVeistenK, et al. (2010) Value of Time, Safety and Environment in Norwegian Passenger Transport - Summary Report. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics.
51.
SmithDAShenYBarrosJ, et al. (2020) A compact city for the wealthy? Employment accessibility inequalities between occupational classes in the London metropolitan region 2011. Journal of Transport Geography86: 102767.
SweetMNChenM (2011) Does regional travel time unreliability influence mode choice?Transportation38(4): 625–642.
54.
TønnesenA (2015) Policy packages and state engagement: comparing car-use reduction policy in two Norwegian cities. Journal of Transport Geography46: 89–98.
55.
van ExelNJARietveldP (2010) Perceptions of public transport travel time and their effect on choice-sets among car drivers. Journal of Transport and Land Use2(3/4): 75–86.
56.
WangFXuY (2011) Estimating O–D travel time matrix by google maps API: implementation, advantages, and implications. Annals of GIS17(4): 199–209.
57.
WanvikTIHaarstadH (2021) Populism, instability, and rupture in sustainability transformations. Annals of the American Association of Geographers111(7): 1–16.
58.
WardmanMTonerJFearnleyN, et al. (2018) Review and meta-analysis of inter-modal cross-elasticity evidence. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice118: 662–681.
59.
WuHAvnerPBoisjolyG, et al. (2021) Urban access across the globe: an international comparison of different transport modes. npj Urban Sustainability1(1): 1–9.
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.
