Modelling travel time in urban networks: comparable measures for private car and public transport

Analysing the accessibility disparity between different travel modes is recognised as an efficient way to assess the environmental and social sustainability of transport and land use arrangements. Travel times by different travel modes form an essential part of such an analysis. This paper aims to assess the comparability of different methods for calculating travel time by different travel modes. First, we briefly review the methods used in previous studies and identify different typical approaches, which we then compare. We use three computational models respectively for car and public transport (PT), implemented in our case study area, the capital region of Finland. In the car models, (1) the simple model ignores congestion and parking in travel time calculation; (2) the intermediate car model accounts for congestion but ignores parking; and (3) the more advanced car model takes into account all parts of the journey, including congestion and parking. For PT, (1) the simple model accounts for transit routes but ignores schedules; (2) the intermediate model incorporates schedule data in a simplistic way; and (3) the more advanced model adopts a door-to-door approach where true schedules (incl. congestion) and realistic route combinations are accounted for. Our results show that absolute differences in car and PT travel times are notable in the Greater Helsinki area, no matter which models are used for comparison. Modal travel time disparity appears smallest in the city centre area. We conclude that using conceptually corresponding models for car and PT travel time calculations is the key to achieving a reliable analysis of modal accessibility disparity. A door-to-door approach in travel time calculations (adopted in the most advanced models) also makes the results truly comparable in absolute terms. Finally, the more advanced the applied methods are, the more data hungry the analysis is. Here, recent developments in open data policies among urban transport data producers become very helpful.

[1]  Handong Wang,et al.  Dynamic accessibility mapping using floating car data: a network-constrained density estimation approach , 2011 .

[2]  A. Yeh,et al.  The Use of Modal Accessibility Gap as an Indicator for Sustainable Transport Development , 2000 .

[3]  Mizuki Kawabata,et al.  Spatiotemporal Dimensions of Modal Accessibility Disparity in Boston and San Francisco , 2009 .

[4]  David J. Martin,et al.  Increasing the sophistication of access measurement in a rural healthcare study. , 2002, Health & place.

[5]  Pierre Filion,et al.  Balancing Concentration and Dispersion? Public Policy and Urban Structure in Toronto , 2000 .

[6]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward , 2005 .

[7]  I. Benenson,et al.  Public transport versus private car GIS-based estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area , 2011 .

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

[9]  Harri Antikainen,et al.  Using GIS tools to estimate CO2 emissions related to the accessibility of large retail stores in the Oulu region, Finland , 2011 .

[10]  Xuan Zhu,et al.  Accessibility Analyst: An Integrated GIS Tool for Accessibility Analysis in Urban Transportation Planning , 2004 .

[11]  Antonio Páez,et al.  Accessibility to transit, by transit, and mode share: application of a logistic model with spatial filters , 2012 .

[12]  D. B. Hess Access to Employment for Adults in Poverty in the Buffalo-Niagara Region , 2005 .

[13]  D. Fone,et al.  Equity of access to tertiary hospitals in Wales: a travel time analysis. , 2003, Journal of public health medicine.

[14]  Randall Young,et al.  Time and Distance Barriers to Mammography Facilities in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area , 2011, Journal of Community Health.

[15]  Qing Shen,et al.  Commuting Inequality between Cars and Public Transit: The Case of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990-2000 , 2007 .

[16]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Mapping transit‐based access: integrating GIS, routes and schedules , 2010, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Harold S. Luft,et al.  Correlation of Travel Time on Roads versus Straight Line Distance , 1995, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[18]  Ahmed El-Geneidy,et al.  Travel mode choice and transit route choice behavior in Montreal: insights from McGill University members commute patterns , 2012, Public Transp..

[19]  T. Toivonen,et al.  Modelling the potential effect of shared bicycles on public transport travel times in Greater Helsinki: An open data approach☆ , 2013 .

[20]  P. Vakkari,et al.  Perceived outcomes of public libraries , 2012 .

[21]  Robin Haynes,et al.  Car travel time and accessibility by bus to general practitioner services: a study using patient registers and GIS. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[22]  D. Levinson Accessibility and the Journey to Work , 1998 .

[23]  L. Svenson,et al.  Estimating the effect of turn penalties and traffic congestion on measuring spatial accessibility to primary health care , 2013 .

[24]  Kevin A. Henry,et al.  A Nationwide Comparison of Driving Distance Versus Straight-Line Distance to Hospitals , 2012, The Professional geographer : the journal of the Association of American Geographers.

[25]  Elldér Erik,et al.  Featured Graphic. Spatial Inequality and Workplace Accessibility: The Case of a Major Hospital in Göteborg, Sweden , 2012 .

[26]  Paul A. Zandbergen,et al.  High-resolution spatio-temporal modeling of public transit accessibility , 2012 .

[27]  David J. Martin,et al.  Taking the Bus: Incorporating Public Transport Timetable Data into Health Care Accessibility Modelling , 2008 .

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

[29]  Alastair M. Morrison,et al.  Using desktop GIS for the investigation of accessibility by public transport: an isochrone approach , 2000, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Stefan Coe,et al.  Erratum to: Urban growth patterns and growth management boundaries in the Central Puget Sound, Washington, 1986–2007 , 2011, Urban Ecosystems.

[31]  L. Frank,et al.  Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice , 2007 .

[32]  G. Petschel-Held,et al.  Urban Sprawl in Europe , 2007 .

[33]  Paulo Pinho,et al.  The Structural Accessibility Layer (SAL): Revealing how Urban Structure Constrains Travel Choice , 2010 .

[34]  S. Mavoa,et al.  GIS based destination accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland, New Zealand , 2012 .