Accessibility “to” and “through” public transit has been one key transit planning indicator that reflects service quality. Occasionally, transit agencies may consider a fare change to maintain operations or to attract more passengers. However, transit agencies do not usually consider the effect of such fare change on passengers’ accessibility. This paper investigates that effect. A multinomial logit mode choice model is developed to measure the monetary value of transit users’ travel time. Then, the cumulative opportunity measure of accessibility is used to examine the change in job accessibility after a recent transit fare increase in the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. The results show that the loss in job accessibility resulting from transit fare increase is inversely proportional to the length of the trip, given a flat fare structure. The findings of this paper should be kept in mind before a transit agency rethinks transit fare structures. For example, a transit agency could consider applying a zone-based fare structure as opposed to a flat fare structure to ensure better equity for all transit users.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JonesS.Accessibility Measures: A Literature Review. TRRL report. 1981.
2.
ChenA., YangC., KongsomsaksakulS., and LeeM.. Network-Based Accessibility Measures for Vulnerability Analysis of Degradable Transportation Networks. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, pp. 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-006-9012-5.
3.
HandyS. L., and NiemeierD. A.. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1175–1194. https://doi.org/10.1068/a291175.
4.
KoenigJ.-G.Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory and Application. Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980, pp. 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167128.
5.
JourquinB., RietveldP., and WestinK.. Towards Better Performing Transport Networks. Routledge, 2006.
6.
DavanzoE. R. A., and IdrisA. O.. Demand-Sensitive Candidate Route Generation Algorithm. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2541, 2016, pp. 10–17. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2541-02.
7.
BeimbornE., GreenwaldM., and JinX.. Accessibility, Connectivity, and Captivity: Impacts on Transit Choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1835, 2003, pp. 1–9. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1835-01.
8.
HandyS., and CliftonK.. Evaluating Neighborhood Accessibility: Possibilities and Practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 4, No. 2/3, 2001, pp. 67–78.
9.
MurrayA., and WuX.. Accessibility Trade-offs in Public Transit Planning. Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003, pp. 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101090300105.
10.
CerveroR.Accessible Cities and Regions: A Framework for Sustainable Transport and Urbanism in the 21st Century. UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport: A Volvo Center of Excellence, Calif., 2005.
11.
El-GeneidyA., LevinsonD., DiabE., BoisjolyG., VerbichD., and LoongC.. The Cost of Equity: Assessing Transit Accessibility and Social Disparity Using Total Travel Cost. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
12.
FleishmanD., ShawN., JoshiA., FreezeR., and OramR.. TCRP Report 10: Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
13.
SharabyN., and ShiftanY.. The Impact of Fare Integration on Travel Behavior and Transit Ridership. Transport Policy, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.015.
HandyS.Planning for Accessibility: In Theory and in Practice. In Access to Destinations (LevinsonD. M. and KrizekK. J., eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005, pp. 131–147.
16.
CerveroR.Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2002, pp. 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00024-4.
17.
El-GeneidyA. M., and LevinsonD. M.. Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2006.
18.
MosesL. N., and WilliamsonH. F.Jr.Value of Time, Choice of Mode, and the Subsidy Issue in Urban Transportation. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 71, No. 3, 1963, pp. 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/258769.
19.
LamT. C., and SmallK. A.. The Value of Time and Reliability: Measurement from a Value Pricing Experiment. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 37, No. 2/3, 2001, pp. 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00016-8.
20.
IdrisA. O., Nurul HabibK. M., and ShalabyA.. An Investigation on the Performances of Mode Shift Models in Transit Ridership Forecasting. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 78, 2015, pp. 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.012.
21.
IdrisA., HabibK., and ShalabyA.. Dissecting the Role of Transit Service Attributes in Attracting Commuters: Lessons from a Comprehensive Revealed Preference–Stated Preference Study on Commuting Mode-Switching Behavior in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2415, 2014, pp. 107–117. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2415-12.
22.
TruongT. P., and HensherD. A.. Measurement of Travel Time Values and Opportunity Cost from a Discrete-Choice Model. Economic Journal (London), Vol. 95, No. 378, 1985, pp. 438–451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233219.
23.
ZampariniL., and ReggianiA.. Meta-Analysis and the Value of Travel Time Savings: A Transatlantic Perspective in Passenger Transport. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2007, pp. 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-007-9028-5.
24.
Ben-AkivaM., BolducD., and BradleyM.. Estimation of Travel Choice Models with Randomly Distributed Values of Time. Working paper. EconPapers, 1993.
25.
MeyerM., and MillerE.. Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001.
26.
KoppelmanF. S., and BhatC.. A Self-Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial and Nested Logit Models, Vol. 31. FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
27.
Ben-AkivaM., and BierlaireM.. Discrete Choice Methods and Their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions. In Handbook of Transportation Science, Springer, 1999, pp. 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5203-1_2.
28.
Ben-AkivaM., and BoccaraB.. Discrete Choice Models with Latent Choice Sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995, pp. 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00002-J.
29.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and LermanS. R.. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Vol. 9. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
NuworsooC., GolubA., and DeakinE.. Analyzing Equity Impacts of Transit Fare Changes: Case Study of Alameda–Contra Costa Transit, California. Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2009, pp. 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.009.
36.
WangZ., LiX., and ChenF.. Impact Evaluation of a Mass Transit Fare Change on Demand and Revenue Utilizing Smart Card Data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 77, 2015, pp. 213–224. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.018.
RahmanM. N., RuparathnaR., SekhonS., KumarV., Al HashmiM., UmerA., AndradeM. T. B., DyckR., DobersteinC., HewageK., HickyR., IdrisA. O., LiE., CulverK., and SadiqR.. Investigating the Impacts of Urban Densities on City of Kelowna’s GHG Emission Targets. Report submitted to the City of Kelowna, Jan.2016.
IdrisA. O.Modal Shift Forecasting Models for Transit Service Planning. University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2013.
41.
FanW., and MachemehlR.. Bi-Level Optimization Model for Public Transportation Network Redesign Problem: Accounting for Equity Issues. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2263, 2011, pp. 151–162. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2263-17.
42.
VuchicV.Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J., 2005.
43.
van NesR., and BovyP. H. L.. Importance of Objectives in Urban Transit-Network Design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1735, 2000, pp. 25–34. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1735-04.
44.
HadasY., and CederA.. Improving Bus Passenger Transfers on Road Segments Through Online Operational Tactics. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2072, 2008, pp. 101–109. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2072-11.
45.
BowmanL. A., and TurnquistM. A.. Service Frequency, Schedule Reliability and Passenger Wait Times at Transit Stops. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1981, pp. 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-2607(81)90114-X.
