This research empirically evaluates the access gap between transit and automobile to examine the extent of auto-access-orientation within and between the 50 American Metropolitan Areas. The Modal Access Gap (MAG) index is calculated over space and travel time to test three hypotheses: (1) MAG is a function of space and travel time, (2) MAG is CBD-centric, and (3) MAG is associated with transit use. Results indicate that (1) MAG merely possesses negative values ranging between −0.98 and −0.79, regardless of the travel-time thresholds or metropolitan areas, and the travel time lag between transit and automobile ranges from 35 minutes in New York to 51 minutes in Riverside for a 60-minute commute, (2) MAG decreases as one moves away from the central area, and (3) a 1% increase in MAG increases transit use by 1.37% on average.
ArellanaJOviedoDGuzmanLA, et al. (2021) Urban transport planning and access inequalities: A tale of two Colombian cities. Research in Transportation Business and Management40: 100554. DOI: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100554
2.
BastiaanssenJJohnsonDLucasK (2021) Does better job accessibility help people gain employment? The role of public transport in Great Britain. Urban Studies59: 34–40. DOI: 10.1177/00420980211012635
3.
Ben-EliaEBenensonI (2019) A spatially-explicit method for analyzing the equity of transit commuters’ accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice120: 31–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.017
4.
BenensonIBen-EliaERoféY, et al. (2017) The benefits of a high-resolution analysis of transit accessibility. International Journal of Geographical Information Science31(2): 213–236. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2016.1191637
5.
BenensonIMartensKRoféY (2010) Measuring the gap between car and transit accessibility: Estimating access using a high-resolution transit network geographic information system. Transportation Research Record2144: 28–35. DOI: 10.3141/2144-04
6.
BlumenbergEHessDB (2003) Measuring the role of transportation in facilitating welfare-to-work transition evidence from three california counties. Transportation Research Record2003: 93–101. DOI: 10.3141/1859-12
7.
ErmagunA (2021) Transit access and urban space-time structure of American cities. Journal of Transport Geography93: 103066. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103066
8.
DeboosereR.El-GeneidyA. M.LevinsonD. (2018) Accessibility-oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography70: 11–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.015
9.
ErmagunATilahunN (2020) Equity of transit accessibility across Chicago. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment86(1). doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102461.
10.
GuanJZhangKShenQ, et al. (2020) Dynamic modal accessibility gap: measurement and application using travel routes data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment81: 102272
11.
HamidiSEwingR (2014) A longitudinal study of changes in urban sprawl between 2000 and 2010 in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning128: 72–82
12.
HessDB (2003) Access to Employment for Adults in Poverty in the Buffalo-Niagara Region
13.
HessDBLombardiPA (2005) Governmental Subsidies for Public Transit. Public Works Management & Policy10(2): 138–156. DOI: 10.1177/1087724X05284965
14.
KangCD (2015) The effects of spatial accessibility and centrality to land use on walking in Seoul, Korea. Cities46: 94–103
15.
KawabataM (2009) Spatiotemporal dimensions of modal accessibility disparity in Boston and San Francisco. Environment and Planning A41(1): 183–198. DOI: 10.1068/a4068
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. DOI: 10.1068/b31144
17.
KawabataMShenQ (2007) Commuting inequality between cars and public transit: The case of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990-2000. Urban Studies44(9): 1759–1780. DOI: 10.1080/00420980701426616
18.
KwanMPWeberJ (2008) Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use–travel interaction. Applied Geography28(2): 110–123.
19.
KwokRCWYehAGO (2004) The use of modal accessibility gap as an indicator for sustainable transport development. Environment and Planning A36(5): 921–936. DOI: 10.1068/a3673
20.
LevinsonDErmagunA (2021) Applications of Access. Sydney: Network Design Lab, The University of Sydney.
21.
MaharjanSTilahunNErmagunA (2022) Spatial equity of modal access gap to multiple destination types across Chicago. Journal of Transport Geography104: 103437. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103437
22.
McMillenDPLesterTW (2003) Evolving subcenters: Employment and population densities in Chicago, 1970-2020. Journal of Housing Economics12(1): 60–81. DOI: 10.1016/S1051-1377(03)00005-6
23.
NakshiPKishore DebnathA (2021) Modal Mismatch and Accessibility Gap in Dhaka using a Time of Day Based Approach. Transportation Research Record2675(3): 379–392. DOI: 10.1177/0361198120972395
24.
NiedzielskiMAKucharskiR (2019) Impact of commuting, time budgets, and activity durations on modal disparity in accessibility to supermarkets. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment75: 106–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.021
25.
OwenALevinsonDM (2015) Modeling the commute mode share of transit using continuous accessibility to jobs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice74: 110–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.002
PereiraR (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(1): 321–332. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.12.005.
29.
ProffittDGBartholomewKEwingR, et at (2019) Accessibility planning in American metropolitan areas: Are we there yet?Urban Studies56(1): 167–192. DOI: 10.1177/0042098017710122
30.
SalonenMToivonenT (2013) Modelling travel time in urban networks: Comparable measures for private car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography31: 143–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.06.011
31.
ShinEJ (2020) Disparities in access to opportunities across neighborhoods types: a case study from the Los Angeles region. Transportation47(2): 475–501. DOI: 10.1007/s11116-018-9862-y
32.
ShenQ (2001) A spatial analysis of job openings and access in a US metropolitan area. Journal of the American Planning Association67(1): 53–68. doi: 10.1080/01944360108976355.
33.
ShillGH (2020) Should law subsidize driving?NYUL Rev95: 498.
34.
TomasielloDBGiannottiMArbexR, et al. (2019) Multi‐temporal transport network models for accessibility studies. Transactions in GIS23(2): 203–223. DOI: 10.1111/tgis.12513
35.
United States Census Bureau (2018) Average Travel Time to Work in the United States by Metro Area.
36.
WalksA (2014) The urban political economy and ecology of automobility: Driving cities, driving inequality, driving politics, Driving Politics. DOI: 10.4324/9781315766188
37.
WidenerMJ (2017) Comparing Measures of Accessibility to Urban Supermarkets for Transit and Auto Users. Professional Geographer69(3): 362–371. 10.1080/00330124.2016.1237293
38.
WuHAvnerPBoisjolyG, et al. (2021) Urban access across the globe: an international comparison of different transport modes. Npj Urban Sustainability1(1): 8171. DOI: 10.1038/s42949-021-00020-2
39.
XiYMillerEJSaxeS (2018) Exploring the impact of different cut-off times on isochrone measurements of accessibility. Transportation Research Record2672(49): 113–124.
40.
YangWChenBYCaoX, et al. (2017) The spatial characteristics and influencing factors of modal accessibility gaps: A case study for Guangzhou, China. Journal of Transport Geography60: 21–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.005
