A significant responsibility of officials involved in transportation planning is ensuring people’s accessibility to multimodal facilities. This challenging task depends on the available transportation infrastructure as well as the overall population, traffic, roadway, and regional characteristics. Such planning takes on additional complexity when aging populations are considered because any extra time that they incur in reaching these facilities can be especially confounding in light of their potential health and other safety concerns. As such, there is a need for transportation plans to have a multimodal transportation assessment component that specifically focuses on the accessibility of aging people to critical facilities. To accomplish this goal, this paper describes a geographic information systems–based methodology for measuring the aging population–focused accessibility to multimodal facilities in Florida. Spatially detailed population block- and county-based accessibility scores are calculated with respect to key intermodal facility types (airports, bus stations, and railway and ferry stations) and visually assessed by geographic information system maps. The knowledge obtained from this accessibility analysis can successfully contribute to the development of more reliable aging population–focused multimodal transportation plans, as the analysis points to specific areas where accessibility could be improved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
U.S. Census Bureau Website. www.census.gov. Accessed June 7, 2015.
2.
LinI. F., and BrownS. L.. Unmarried Boomers Confront Old Age: A National Portrait. Gerontologist, Vol. 52, 2012, pp. 153–165.
3.
OmerI.Evaluating Accessibility Using House-Level Data: A Spatial Equity Perspective. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems, Vol. 30, 2006, pp. 254–274.
4.
ChangH. S., and LiaoC. H.. Exploring an Integrated Method for Measuring the Relative Spatial Equity in Public Facilities in the Context of Urban Parks. Cities, Vol. 28, 2011, pp. 361–371.
5.
TsouK. W., HungY. T., and ChangY. L.. An Accessibility-Based Integrated Measure of Relative Spatial Equity in Urban Public Facilities. Cities, Vol. 22, 2005, pp. 424–435.
6.
LitmanT.Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility, and Accessibility. ITE Journal, Vol. 73, No. 10, 2003, pp. 28–32.
7.
YaoX., and ThillJ. C.. How Far Is Too Far? A Statistical Approach to Context-Contingent Proximity Modeling. Transactions in GIS, Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 157–178.
8.
O’SullivanD., MorrisonA., and ShearerJ.. Using Desktop GIS for the Investigation of Accessibility by Public Transport: An Isochrone Approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 14, 2000, pp. 85–104.
9.
IslamM. S., and AktarS.. Measuring Physical Accessibility to Health Facilities—A Case Study on Khulna City. World Health and Population, Vol. 12, 2011, pp. 33–41.
10.
WidenerM. J., StevenF., TijsN., and MarkW. H.. Using Urban Commuting Data to Calculate a Spatiotemporal Accessibility Measure for Food Environment Studies. Health and Place, Vol. 21, 2013, pp. 1–9.
11.
WidenerM. J., StevenF., TijsN., and MarkW. H.. Spatiotemporal Accessibility to Supermarkets Using Public Transit: An Interaction Potential Approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 42, 2015, pp. 72–83.
12.
HornerM. W., MichaelD. D., BrittanyS. W., YazminV.-T., and ChrisS.. Do Aging Populations Have Differential Accessibility to Activities? Analyzing the Spatial Structure of Social, Professional, and Business Opportunities. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2015, pp. 182–191.
13.
MetzD. H.Mobility of Older People and Their Quality of Life. Transport Policy, Vol. 7, 2000, pp. 149–152.
14.
RosenbloomS.The Mobility Needs of Older Americans: Implications for Transportation Reauthorization. The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform, July2003, pp. 1–20.
15.
RosenbergM., and EverittJ.. Planning for Aging Populations: Inside or Outside the Walls. Progress in Planning, Vol. 56, 2001, pp. 119–168.
16.
PaezA., MercadoR. G., FarberS., MorencyC., and RoordaM.. Accessibility to Health Care Facilities in Montreal Island: An Application of Relative Accessibility Indicators from the Perspective of Senior and Non-Senior Residents. International Journal of Health Geographics, Vol. 9, 2010.
17.
LoveD., and LindquistP.. The Geographical Accessibility of Hospitals to the Aged: A Geographic Information Systems Analysis Within Illinois. Health Services Research, Vol. 29, 1995, pp. 629–651.
18.
MowenA., Orsega-SmithE., PayneL., AinsworthB., and GodbeyG.. The Role of Park Proximity and Social Support in Shaping Park Visitation, Physical Activity, and Perceived Health Among Older Adults. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 4, 2007, pp. 167–179.
19.
OzguvenE. E., HornerM. W., KocatepeA., MarcelinJ. M., AbdelrazigY., SandoT., and MosesR.. Metadata-Based Needs Assessment for Emergency Transportation Operations with a Focus on an Aging Population: A Case Study in Florida. Transport Reviews, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2016, pp. 383–412.
20.
SalibaD., BuchananJ., and KingtonR. S.. Function and Response of Nursing Facilities During Community Disaster. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94, 2004, pp. 1436–1441.
21.
Long-Term Care Services in the United States: 2013 Overview National Center for Health Statistics, Series 3, No. 37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
McguireL. C., FordE. S., and OkoroC.. Natural Disasters and Older US Adults with Disabilities: Implications for Evacuation. Disasters, Vol. 31, 2007, pp. 49–56.
24.
FernandezL. S., ByardD., LinC.-C., BensonS., and BarberaJ. A.. Frail Elderly as Disaster Victims: Emergency Management Strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Vol. 17, 2002, pp. 67–74.
25.
HajibabaiL., and OuyangY.. Integrated Planning of Supply Chain Networks and Multimodal Transportation Infrastructure Expansion: Model Development and Application to the Biofuel Industry. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 28, 2013, pp. 247–259.
26.
RondinelliD., and BerryM.. Multimodal Transportation, Logistics, and the Environment: Managing Interactions in a Global Economy. European Management Journal, Vol. 18, 2000, pp. 398–410.
27.
LimH., and ThillJ. C.. Intermodal Freight Transportation and Regional Accessibility in the United States. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 2006–2025.
28.
LingaitieneO.A Mathematical Model of Selecting Transport Facilities for Multimodal Freight Transportation. Transport, Vol. 23, 2008, pp. 10–15.
29.
WarsingD. P., SouzaG. C., and GreisN. P.. Determining the Value of Dedicated Multimodal Cargo Facilities in a Multi-Region Distribution Network. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 133, 2001, pp. 81–93.
30.
BeutheM., JourquinB., GeertsJ. F., and Ndjang’HaC. Koul À. Freight Transportation Demand Elasticities: A Geographic Multimodal Transportation Network Analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 37, 2001, pp. 253–266.
31.
ReisV., MeierJ. F., PaceG., and PalacinR.. Rail and Multimodal Transport. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 41, 2013, pp. 17–30.
32.
ArnoldP., PeetersD., and ThomasI.. Modelling a Rail/Road Intermodal Transportation System. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 40, 2004, pp. 255–270.
33.
ModestiP., and SciomachenA.. A Utility Measure for Finding Multiobjective Shortest Paths in Urban Multimodal Transportation Networks. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 111, 1998, pp. 495–508.
