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

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.

[1]  Gordon Pirie,et al.  Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal , 1979 .

[2]  J. M. Morris,et al.  Accessibility indicators for transport planning , 1979 .

[3]  D. McFadden,et al.  URBAN TRAVEL DEMAND - A BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS , 1977 .

[4]  S. Danziger,et al.  Proximity and opportunity: How residence and race affect the employment of welfare recipients , 2002 .

[5]  Maria Manta Conroy,et al.  Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure , 1977 .

[6]  Q. Shen Location Characteristics of Inner-City Neighborhoods and Employment Accessibility of Low-Wage Workers , 1998 .

[7]  Leon N. Moses,et al.  Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science. , 1961 .

[8]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility , 2006 .

[9]  S. Hanson,et al.  Accessibility and Intraurban Travel , 1987 .

[10]  Zhong-Ren Peng,et al.  Transit Mobility, Jobs Access and Low-income Labour Participation in US Metropolitan Areas , 2004 .

[11]  Brian D. Taylor,et al.  Spatial Mismatch or Automobile Mismatch? An Examination of Race, Residence and Commuting in US Metropolitan Areas , 1994 .

[12]  Bhuiyan Monwar Alam,et al.  Transit Accessibility to Jobs and Employment Prospects of Welfare Recipients without Cars , 2009 .

[13]  S. Raphael The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis and Black Youth Joblessness: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area* , 1998 .

[14]  David S. Sawicki,et al.  Developing Transportation Alternatives for Welfare Recipients Moving to Work , 2000 .

[15]  William L. Garrison,et al.  Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science , 1962 .

[16]  L Bach,et al.  The Problem of Aggregation and Distance for Analyses of Accessibility and Access Opportunity in Location-Allocation Models , 1981 .

[17]  Gregory L. Thompson,et al.  Identifying Gainers and Losers from Transit Service Change: A Method Applied to Sacramento , 1998 .

[18]  Mizuki Kawabata,et al.  Job Access and Employment among Low-Skilled Autoless Workers in US Metropolitan Areas , 2003 .

[19]  Qing Shen,et al.  A Spatial Analysis of Job Openings and Access in a U.S. Metropolitan Area , 2001 .

[20]  Thomas W Sanchez A TRANSIT ACCESS ANALYSIS OF TANF RECIPIENTS IN PORTLAND, OREGON , 1999 .

[21]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  Disaggregate Travel and Mobility-Choice Models and Measures of Accessibility , 2022, Behavioural Travel Modelling.

[22]  Thomas W Sanchez,et al.  Residential location, transportation, and welfare‐to‐work in the United States: A case study of Milwaukee , 2005 .

[23]  W. G. Hansen How Accessibility Shapes Land Use , 1959 .

[24]  Gregory L. Thompson Achieving Suburban Transit Potential: Sacramento Revisited , 1997 .

[25]  T Zakaria URBAN TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES: MODIFICATIONS AND USES , 1974 .

[26]  H Neuburger,et al.  USER BENEFIT IN THE EVALUATION OF TRANSPORT AND LAND USE PLANS , 1971 .

[27]  Gregory L. Thompson New Insights into the Value of Transit: Modeling Inferences from Dade County , 2001 .

[28]  Thomas W. Sanchez,et al.  The Connection Between Public Transit and Employment , 1999 .

[29]  Laura Leete,et al.  Public Housing Assistance, Public Transportation, and the Welfare-to-Work Transition , 2003 .

[30]  David L. Sjoquist,et al.  Job Accessibility and Racial Differences in Youth Employment Rates , 1990 .

[31]  Debbie A. Niemeier,et al.  Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives , 1997 .

[32]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[33]  D. R. Ingram The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form , 1971 .

[34]  Dong Liu,et al.  Accesibility measures of U.S. metropolitan areas , 1993 .