Development of time-of-day-based transit accessibility analysis tool

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 1799, 2002, Pages 35-41

  Polzin, Steven E ^a   Pendyala, Ram M ^a   Navari, Sachin ^a  

^a University of South Florida   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; HIGHWAY PLANNING; RAPID TRANSIT; SPREADSHEETS; TRAFFIC CONTROL;

TIME-OF-DAY-BASED TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS TOOL; TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE SOFTWARE;

TRAFFIC SURVEYS;

EID: 0036945045     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/1799-05     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Schrank, D., and T. Lomax. The 2001 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, May 2001.
2. Longman, P. J. American Gridlock. U.S. News & World Report, May 28, 2001.
3. Transit Level of Service (TLOS) Software User's Guide. Version 3.0. Developed for Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., and URS, Inc., Portland, Oreg., Dec. 2000.
4. TCRP Web Document 6: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. TCRP Project A-15. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1999. nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf.
5. Gould, P. Spatial Diffusion. Association of American Geographers Resource Paper No. 17. Commission on College Geography, Washington, D.C., 1969.
6. Handy, S. L., and D. A. Niemeier. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1175-1194.
7. Niemeier, D. A. Accessibility: An Evaluation Using Consumer Welfare. Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1997, pp. 377-396.
8. Guttierrez, J., A. Monzon, and J. M. Pinero. Accessibility, Network Efficiency, and Transport Infrastructure Planning. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, No. 8, 1998, pp. 1337-1350.
9. Cervero, R., T. Rood, and B. Appleyard. Tracking Accessibility: Employment and Housing Opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 31, No. 7, 1999, pp. 1259-1278.
10. Levinson, D. M. Accessibility and the Journey to Work. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1998, pp. 11-21.
11. Klassen, I. T., and M. Jacobs. Relative Location Value Based on Accessibility: Application of a Useful Concept in Designing Urban Regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1999, pp. 21-35.
12. Schimek, P. Household Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use: How Much Does Residential Density Matter? In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 120-125.
13. Ryan, S., and M. G. McNally. Accessibility of Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Review of Design Concepts, Policies, and Recent Literature. Transportation Research A, Vol. 29A, No. 2, 1995, pp. 87-105.
14. Cervero, R., and K. Kockelman. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199-219.
15. Handy, S. Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Implications for Nonwork Travel. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 58-66.
16. Salomon, I., and P. L. Mokhtarian. What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies? Transportation Research D, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1998, pp. 129-140.
17. Spence, N., and B. Linneker. Evolution of Motorway Network and Changing Levels of Accessibility in Great Britain. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1994, pp. 247-264.
18. Helling, A. Changing Intra-Metropolitan Accessibility in the United States: Evidence from Atlanta. Progress in Planning, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1998, pp. 55-107.
19. Koenig, J. G. Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory and Application. Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980, pp. 145-172.
20. Zakaria, T. Urban Transportation Accessibility Measures: Modifications and Uses. Traffic Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1974, pp. 467-479.
21. Rietveld, P. The Accessibility of Railway Stations: The Role of the Bicycle in The Netherlands. Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2000, pp. 71-75.
22. Azar, K. T., J. Ferreira, and L. Wiggins. Using GIS Tools to Improve Transit Ridership on Routes Serving Large Employment Centers: The Boston South End Medical Case Study. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1994, pp. 205-231.
23. Dallal, E. Public Transport Accessibility. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 21, No. 10, 1980, pp. 494-495.
24. Jordan, C., and S. Nutlet. Rural Accessibility and Public Transport in Northern Ireland. Irish Geography, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1993, pp. 120-132.
25. Sheskin, I. M., and H. G. Eisenstadt. Impact of the Dade County Rapid Transit. Special Transportation Planning and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1982, pp. 173-187.
26. Galindez, A. A., J. F. McLaughlin, C. Beard, and G. S. Spivack. Mobility Analysis of Transit Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1604. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 69-82.
27. Kerrigan, M., and D. Bull. Measuring Accessibility: A Public Transport Accessibility Index. In Environmental Issues: Selected Proceedings of the Seminar B PTRC Summer Annual Meeting. PTRC Education and Research Services, Sept. 1992, pp. 245-256.
28. Wachs, M., and T. G. Kumagai. Physical Accessibility as a Social Indicator. California University, Los Angeles, 1972.
29. Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Analysis Phase III. Technical Report No. 1, Validation of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model Version 3.2. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation District 7, Tampa, 1999.