Estimating Transit Accessibility with an Alternative Method: Evidence from Broward County,Florida

Abstract

Scientists have attempted to measure accessibility in several ways—the gravity-based measure being the most widely used. A typical gravity-based model estimates accessibility on a zonal basis as being a function of the sum of total opportunities weighted by the distance, time, and cost needed to travel from the origin zone to those dispersed opportunities. The model includes a parameter that represents the distance–decay relationship and takes an exponential form. Unfortunately, most scientists have arbitrarily chosen the value of the distance–decay parameter instead of estimating it from field survey data. Also, a typical model does not have any parameter attached to the socioeconomic variables. This study uses distance–decay parameters estimated with the use of survey data in Sacramento County, California, to estimate transit accessibility to jobs in Broward County, Florida. Assuming that transferability of distance–decay parameters is possible from one geographic area to another, it then explores such transferability of parameters from Sacramento County to Broward County by analyzing the spatial distribution of transit accessibility and compares the effectiveness of estimated transit accessibility with the traditional transit accessibility measure—proportion of a geographic unit covered by 1/4-mi buffer from a transit route. Results indicate that accessibility indices estimated by using the method presented in this paper reflect what one would expect in reality—much better than what a simple 1/4-mi transit buffer would produce. The paper explores the fact that the distance–decay parameters estimated in one geographic unit are transferable to another. It advances knowledge of the accessibility measuring method that would help solve long-standing debate on what parameters to use for distance–decay and socioeconomic variables going into the accessibility model. Future research needs to focus on validating such transferability of distance–decay parameters from one study area to another.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bach

The Problem of Aggregation and Distance for Analyses of Accessibility and Access Opportunity in Location–Allocation Models. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 13, No. 8, 1981, pp. 955–978.

Pirie

G. H.

Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1979, pp. 299–312.

Hanson

The Context of Urban Travel: Concepts and Recent Trends. In The Geography of Urban Transportation ( Hanson

, and Giuliano

, eds.), Guilford Press, New York, 2004.

Ingram

D. R.

A Concept of Accessibility: A Search for an Optimal Form. Regional Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1971, pp. 101–107.

Morris

J. M.

, Dumble

P. L.

, and Wigan

M. R.

Accessibility Indicators for Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1979, pp. 91–109.

Zakaria

Urban Transportation Accessibility Measures: Modifications and Uses. Traffic Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1974, pp. 467–479.

Hansen

W. G.

How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76.

Hanson

, and Schwab

Accessibility and Intraurban Travel. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1987, pp. 735–748.

Black

, and Conroy

Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 9, No. 9, 1977, pp. 1013–1031.

10.

Martin

K. M.

, and Dalvi

M. Q.

The Comparison of Accessibility by Public and Private Transport. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 17, 1976, pp. 509–513.

11.

Allen

W. B.

, Liu

, and Singer

Accessibility Measures of U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 27, No. 6, 1993, pp. 439–449.

12.

Dong

, Ben-Akiva

M. E.

, Bowman

J. L.

, and Walker

J. L.

Moving from Trip-Based to Activity-Based Measures of Accessibility. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2006, pp. 163–180.

13.

Gurmu

, Ihlanfeldt

, and Smith

W. J.

Job Accessibility and Employment for TANF Cases: Panel Data Evidence. Working paper. DeVoe Moore Center, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla., 2005.

14.

Sanchez

T. W.

The Connection Between Public Transit and Employment: The Cases of Portland and Atlanta. Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 65, No. 3, 1999, pp. 284–296.

15.

Sawicki

D. S.

, and Moody

Developing Transportation Alternatives for Welfare Recipients Moving to Work. Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2000, pp. 306–318.

16.

Ihlanfeldt

, and Sjoquist

Job Accessibility and Racial Differences in Youth Employment Rates. American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 1, 1990, pp. 267–276.

17.

Taylor

, and Ong

Spatial Mismatch or Automobile Mismatch? An Examination of Race, Residence, and Commuting in the U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Urban Studies, Vol. 32, No. 9, 1995, pp. 1453–1474.

18.

Sanchez

T. W.

Transit Access Analysis of Welfare Recipients in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1999, pp. 61–73.

19.

Bania

, Coulton

, and Leete

Public Housing Assistance, Public Transportation, and the Welfare-to-Work Transition. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2003, pp. 7–44.

20.

Handy

S. L.

, and Niemeier

D. A.

Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1175–1194.

21.

Ben-Akiva

, and Lerman

S. R.

Disaggregate Travel and Mobility Choice Models and Measures of Accessibility. Presented at 3rd International Conference on Behavioral Travel Modeling, Australia, 1977.

22.

Domencich

, and McFadden

Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1975.

23.

Neuburger

User Benefit in the Evaluation of Transport and Land Use Plans. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1971, pp. 52–75.

24.

Ben-Akiva

, and Lerman

S. R.

Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.

25.

Alam

B. M.

Transit Accessibility to Jobs and Employment Prospects of Welfare Recipients Without Cars: A Study of Broward County, Florida, Using Geographic Information Systems and Econometric Model. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2110, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 78–86.

26.

Shen

Location Characteristics of Inner-City Neighborhoods and Employment Accessibility of Low-Wage Workers. Environment and Planning Part B, Vol. 25, No. 3, 1998, pp. 345–365.

27.

Shen

, and Sanchez

T. W.

Residential Location, Transportation, and Welfare-to-Work in the United States: A Case Study of Milwaukee. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 16, No. 3/4, 2005, pp. 393–431.

28.

Thompson

G. L.

Achieving Suburban Transit Potential: Sacramento Revisited. In Transportation Research Record 1571, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 151–160.

29.

Thompson

G. L.

New Insights into the Value of Transit: Modeling Inferences from Dade County. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1753, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 52–58.

30.

Isard

Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science. Technology Press of MIT, New York, 1960.

31.

Thompson

G. L.

Identifying Gainers and Losers from Transit Service Change: A Method Applied to Sacramento. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol., 17, No. 2, 1998, pp. 125–136.

32.

Raphael

The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis and Black Youth Joblessness: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1998, pp. 79–111.

33.

Allard

, and Danziger

Proximity and Opportunity: How Residence and Race Affect the Employment of Welfare Recipients. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2003, pp. 675–700.

34.

Kawabata

Job Access and Employment Among Low-Skilled Auto-less Workers in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Environment and Planning Part A, Vol. 35, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1651–1668.

35.

Sanchez

T. W.

, Shen

, and Peng

Transit Mobility, Job Access and Low-Income Labor Participation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 7, 2004, pp. 1313–1331.

36.

Shen

A Spatial Analysis of Job Openings and Access in a U.S. Metropolitan Area. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2001, pp. 53–68.

37.

Horowitz

A. J.

Appendix A, Default Parameters. In Reference Manual, Quick Response System II for Windows Version 4. AJH Associates, Milwaukee, Wis., 1995.

38.

Analyzing Transit Options for Small Urban Communities—Analysis Methods. Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1979.