This paper presents a multicriteria suitability analysis framework to aid municipal governments in efforts to determine optimal siting of mobility hubs in their jurisdictions. Mobility hubs are agglomerations of transportation modes that concentrate emerging shared mobility services in well-defined locations, delivering several benefits to users. These benefits include primarily increased connectivity among modes and augmentation of public transit with improved first- and last-mile connections. The framework was applied to a case study in Oakland, California. The presented methodology has the potential for broader use by transportation planners and policy makers to advance various qualitative values in their practice, including equity and resiliency, and can quantitatively inform geographic, values-oriented outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WachsM.Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 2003.
2.
LitmanT.Evaluating Transportation Equity: Methods for Incorporating Distributional Impacts into Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2005.
3.
KaufmanS., QingC., LevensonN., and HansonM.. Transportation During and After Hurricane Sandy. Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, New York, 2012.
4.
The Geography of Urban Transportation (HansonS. and GiulianoG., eds.). Guilford Press, New York, 2004.
HenryL., and MarshD. L.. Intermodal Surface Public Transport Hubs: Harnessing Synergy for Success in America’s Urban and Intercity Travel. Presented at 2008 American Public Transportation Association Bus and Paratransit Conference, Austin, Tex., 2008.
8.
ShaheenS., and ChristensenM.. Shared-Use Mobility Summit: Retrospective from North America’s First Gathering on Shared-Use Mobility. Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Berkeley, Calif., 2013.
9.
ShaheenS., StockerA., and BhattacharyyaA.. Transportation Research Circular 210: Multimobility and Sharing Economy: Shaping the Future Market Through Policy and Research. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/23571.
10.
ShaheenS., CohenA., and ZohdyI.. Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. Publication FHWA-HOP-16-022. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016.
11.
Metrolinx. Mobility Hubs: Development of a Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Green Paper 2. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
XiangW.-N., and WhitleyD. L.. Weighting Land Suitability Factors by the PLUS Method. Environment and Planning. B: Planning and Design, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1994, pp. 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1068/b210273.
15.
JiangH., and EastmanJ. R.. Application of Fuzzy Measures in Multi-Criteria Evaluation in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000, pp. 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/136588100240903.
16.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
17.
TongD., LinW.-H., MackJ., and MuellerD.. Accessibility-Based Multicriteria Analysis for Facility Siting. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2174, 2010, pp. 128–137. https://doi.org/10.3141/2174-17.
18.
BrunnerI., KimK., and YamashitaE.. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems to Identify Optimal Transit Alignments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2215, 2011, pp. 59–66. https://doi.org/10.3141/2215-06.
19.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, 2001, pp. 87–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/1780-10.
20.
MoudonA. V., and LeeC.. Walking and Bicycling: An Evaluation of Environmental Audit Instruments. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2003, pp. 21–37. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-18.1.21.
21.
Giles-CortiB., BroomhallM. H., KnuimanM., CollinsC., DouglasK., NgK., LangeA., and DonovanR. J.. Increasing Walking: How Important Is Distance to, Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space?American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018.
22.
BesserL. M., and DannenbergA. L.. Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2005, pp. 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.010.
23.
BrownB. B., YamadaI., SmithK. R., ZickC. D., Kowaleski-JonesL., and FanJ. X.. Mixed Land Use and Walkability: Variations in Land Use Measures and Relationships with BMI, Overweight, and Obesity. Health and Place, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2009, pp. 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.008.
24.
CerinE., LeslieE., du ToitL., OwenN., and FrankL. D.. Destinations That Matter: Associations with Walking for Transport. Health and Place, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2007, pp. 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.11.002.
25.
BuckC., PohlabelnH., HuybrechtsI., De BourdeaudhuijI., PitsiladisY., ReischL., and PigeotI.. Development and Application of a Moveability Index to Quantify Possibilities for Physical Activity in the Built Environment of Children. Health and Place, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.011.
26.
CerveroR., and DuncanM.. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, 2003, pp. 1478–1483. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1478.
27.
DuncanD. T., AldstadtJ., WhalenJ., MellyS. J., and GortmakerS. L.. Validation of Walk Score for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8, No. 11, 2011, pp. 4160–4179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8114160.
28.
KwanM.-P.Interactive Geovisualization of Activity-Travel Patterns Using Three-Dimensional Geographical Information Systems: A Methodological Exploration with a Large Data Set. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 8, No. 1–6, 2000, pp. 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(00)00017-6.
29.
MesserL. C., LaraiaB. A., KaufmanJ. S., EysterJ., HolzmanC., CulhaneJ., EloI., BurkeJ. G., and O’CampoP.. The Development of a Standardized Neighborhood Deprivation Index. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 83, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1041–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9094-x.
30.
Center for Neighborhood Technology. Bay Area Housing and Transportation Affordability: A Closer Look. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2009.
31.
WellsK., and ThillJ.-C.. Do Transit-Dependent Neighborhoods Receive Inferior Bus Access? A Neighborhood Analysis in Four U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2012, pp. 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00575.x.
32.
PrelogR.Equity of Access to Bicycle Infrastructure. League of American Bicyclists, Washington, D.C., 2015.
33.
DelboscA., and CurrieG.. Using Lorenz Curves to Assess Public Transport Equity. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1252–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.02.008.
34.
MurrayA. T., and DavisR.. Equity in Regional Service Provision. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2001, pp. 557–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4146.00233.
35.
MooreT., and ThorsnesP.. The Transportation/Land Use Connection. Publication PAS 448/449. American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., 1994.
36.
HandyS.Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?International Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017604273626.
37.
ChatmanD. G., et al.TCRP Report 167: Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success. Volume 1: Handbook, Volume 2: Research Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014.
Regional Resilience Initiative: Policy Agenda for Recovery. Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, Calif., 2013.
44.
City of Oakland Energy and Climate Action Plan. ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability, Denver, Colo., and CirclePoint, Oakland, Calif., 2012.
45.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766.
46.
Equity Analysis Report: Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2009.
47.
Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535 (De Leon). California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, Calif., 2014.
