Accessible accessibility research challenges

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 51, Issue , 2016, Pages 9-16

  van Wee, Bert ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Evaluation; Future research; Indicators

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; RESEARCH; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; TRANSPORTATION POLICY; TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM;

EID: 84947094068     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.018     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Albalate D., Bel G., Fageda X. Competition and cooperation between high-speed rail and air transportation services in Europe. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 42(1):166-174.
2. Bohte W., Maat K., Quak W. A method for deriving trip destinations and modes for GPS-based travel surveys. Res. Urban. Ser. 2008, 1:129-145.
3. Borodako K., Rudnicki M. Transport accessibility in business travel - a case study of central and east European cities. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16(2):137-145.
4. Boussauw K., van Meeteren M., Witlox F. Short trips and central places: the home-school distances in the Flemish primary education system (Belgium). Appl. Geogr. 2014, 53:311-322.
5. Bowen J.T. Moving places: the geography of warehousing in the US. J. Transp. Geogr. 2008, 16(6):379-387.
6. Bristow A., Nellthorp J. Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):51-60.
7. Cheng Y.-H., Chen S.Y. Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public transportation systems. Transp. Res. A 2015, 77(July):386-403.
8. Chorus C.G., Timmermans H.J.P. Measuring user benefits of changes in the transport system when traveler awareness is limited. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2009, 43(5):536-547.
9. De Jong, G., Daly, A., Pieters, M. & T. van der Hoorn, T. (2007). The logsum as an evaluation measure: review of the literature and new results. Transp. Res. A 41(9) 874-889.
10. Dobruszkes F., Dehon C., Givoni M. Does European high-speed rail affect the current level of air services? An EU-wide analysis. Transp. Res. A 2014, 69:461-475.
11. El-Geneidy, Levinson D. Place rank: valuing spatial interactions. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2011, 11(4):643-659.
12. Fan Y., Guthrie A., Levinson Impact of light-rail implementation on labor market accessibility: a transportation equity perspective. J. Transp. Land Use 2012, 5(3):28-39.
13. Farber S., Neutens T., Miller H.J., Li X. The social interaction potential of metropolitan regions: a time-geographic measurement approach using joint accessibility. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2013, 103(3):483-504.
14. Forsyth A., Krizek K.J. Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the evidence to assist planners. Built Environ. 2010, 36(4):429-446.
15. Foth N., Manaugh K., El-Geneidy A.M. Towards equitable transit: examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996-2006. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 29:1-10.
16. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 2004, 12(2):127-140.
17. Geurs K., Haaijer R., Van Wee B. Option value of public transport: methodology for measurement and case study for regional rail links in the Netherlands. Transp. Rev. 2006, 26(5):613-643.
18. Geurs K.T., van Wee B., Rietveld P. Accessibility appraisal of integrated land-use-transport strategies: methodology and case study for the Netherlands Randstad area. Environ. Plan. B 2006, 33(5):639-660.
19. Geurs K.T., van Wee B., Rietveld B. The logsum as an accessibility measure: a discussion 2015, (submitted for publication).
20. Golub A., Martens K. Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 41(December 2014):10-20.
21. Gonzalez-Feliu J., Salanova Grau J.-M., Beziat A. A location-based accessibility analysis to estimate the suitability of urban consolidation facilities. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2014, 18(2):166-185.
22. Goodwin P., Van Dender K. 'Peak car' - themes and issues. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33(3):243-254.
23. Grant-Muller S.M., MacKie P., Nellthorp J., Pearman A. Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state-of-the-art revisited. Transp. Rev. 2001, 21(2):237-261.
24. Grengs J. Job accessibility and the modal mismatch in Detroit. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18(1):42-54.
25. Grengs J. Equity and the social distribution of job accessibility in Detroit. Environ. Plan. B 2012, 39(5):785-800.
26. Grengs J. Nonwork accessibility as a social equity indicator. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2015, 9(1):1-14.
27. Gunn H. Spatial and temporal transferability of relationships between travel demand, trip cost and travel time. Transp. Res. E 2001, 37(2-3):163-189.
28. Halpern N., Bråthen S. Impact of airports on regional accessibility and social development. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19(6):1145-1154.
29. Handy S.L., Niemeier D.A. Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ. Plan. A 1997, 29:1175-1194.
30. Hansen W.G. How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1959, 25(1):73-76.
31. Hawelka B., Sitko I., Beinat E., Sobolevsky S., Kazakopoulos P., Ratti C. Geo-located Twitter as proxy for global mobility patterns. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2014, 41(3):260-271.
32. Hayashi Y., Morisugi H. International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal. Transp. Policy 2000, 7(1):73-88.
33. Krizek K.J., Johnson P.J. Proximity to trails and retail: effects on urban cycling and walking. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2006, 72(1):33-42.
34. Kwan M.-P. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geogr. Anal. 1998, 30:191-216.
35. Laird J., Geurs K., Nash C. Option and non-use values and rail project appraisal. Transp. Policy 2009, 16(4):173-182.
36. Lee J.Y., Kwan M.-P. Visualisation of socio-spatial isolation based on human activity patterns and social networks in space-time. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2011, 102(4):468-485.
37. Levine J., Frank L.D. Transportation and land-use preferences and residents' neighborhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region. Transportation 2007, 34(2):255-274.
38. Lin J.-J., Fu C.-Y. The opening of direct flights across the Taiwan strait: the impact on the global role of Taiwan's international airport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 39(July 2014):179-186.
39. Linneker B.J., Spence N.A. Accessibility measures compared in an analysis of the impact of the M25 London Orbital Motorway on Britain. Environ. Plan. A 1992, 24:1137-1154.
40. Lucas K., van Wee B., Maat K. A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation 2015, (in press).
41. Lundberg B., Weber J. Non-motorized transport and university populations: an analysis of connectivity and network perceptions. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 39:165-178.
42. Lyons G., Jain J., Holley D. The use of travel time by rail passengers in Great Britain. Transp. Res. A 2006, 41(1):107-120.
43. Macharis C., Turcksin L., Lebeau K. Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decis. Support. Syst. 2012, 54(1):610-620.
44. Manaugh K., El-Geneidy A.M. Does distance matter? Exploring the links among values, motivations, home location, and satisfaction in walking trips. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2013, 50(April 2013):198-208.
45. Mokhtarian P.L. Telecommunications and travel: the case for complementarity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2003, 6(2):43-57.
46. Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I. Modelling the desire to telecommute: the importance of attitudinal factors in behavioural models. Transp. Res. A 1997, 31(1):35-50.
47. Mokhtarian P.L., Salomon I. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transp. Res. A 2001, 35(8):695-719.
48. Moniruzzaman M., Páez A., Morency C. Compliance potential mapping: a tool to assess potential contributions of walking towards physical activity guidelines. BMC Public Health 2014, 14(1). (article 511).
49. Neil Z. Evolution of the business air travel network in the US from 1993 to 2011: a descriptive analysis using AIRNET A Research. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2013, 9(December 2013):5-11.
50. Neutens T., Schwanen T., Witlox F., Maeyer P.D. My space or your space? Towards a measure of joint accessibility. Environ. Urban Syst. 2008, 32(5):331-342.
51. Neutens T., Schwanen T., Witlox F., de Maeyer P. Equity of urban service delivery: a comparison of different accessibility measures. Environ. Plan. A 2010, 42(7):1613-1635.
52. Ory D.T., Mokhtarian P.L., Redmond L.S., Salomon I., Collantes G.O., Choo S. When is commuting desirable to the individual?. Growth Chang. 2004, 35(3):334-359.
53. Owen A., Levinson D., Murphy B. Access Across America: Walking 2014. Final Report 2014, Accessibility Observatory, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geo- Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, (http://ao.umn.edu/research/america/walking/2014/documents/CTS15-03.pdf).
54. Özcan I.C. A community evaluation of essential air services. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2014, 36(April 2014):110-119.
55. Páez A. Network accessibility and the spatial distribution of economic activity in eastern Asia. Urban Stud. 2004, 41(11):2211-2230.
56. Páez A. A review of approaches for measuring and planning accessibility across social groups in urban areas. Working paper, version July-August 2013 2013.
57. Páez A., Scott D.M., Morency C. Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 25:141-153.
58. Páez A., Mercado R.G., Farber S., Morency C., Roorda M. Relative accessibility deprivation indicators for urban settings: Definitions and application to food deserts in Montreal, Source of the Document. Urban Stud. 2010, 47(7):1415-1438.
59. Redmond L.S., Mokhtarian P.L. Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute. Transportation 2001, 28(2):179-205.
60. Redondi R., Malighetti P., Paleari S. European connectivity: the role played by small airports. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 29(May 2013):86-94.
61. Reggiani A., Nijkamp P., Lanzi D. Transport resilience and vulnerability: the role of connectivity. Transp. Res. A 2015, 81(November):4-15.
62. Ryerson M.S., Kim H. Integrating airline operational practices into passenger airline hub definition. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 31(July 2013):84-93.
63. Tavasszy L., de Jong G. Modelling Freight Transport 2013, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
64. Thill J.C., Kim M. Trip making, induced travel demand, and accessibility. J. Geogr. Syst. 2005, 7:229-248.
65. Thomopoulos N., Grant-Muller S., Tight M.R. Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: current practice and a proposed methodology. Eval. Program. Plan. 2009, 32(4):351-359.
66. Tillema T., Verhoef E., van Wee B., van Amelsfort D. Evaluating the effects of urban congestion pricing: geographical accessibility versus social surplus. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2011, 34(7):669-689.
67. Van Wee B. ICT As a Pain Killer 2011, Public Transport International, (No 2- March/April 2011, 60).
68. Van Wee B. Transport and Ethics. Ethics and the Evaluation of Transport Policies and Projects 2011, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
69. Van Wee B., Geurs K.T. Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations. EJTIR 2011, 11(4):350-367.
70. Van Wee B., Liao F. Accessibility measures for robustness of the transport system. Paper Presented at the International Workshop on 'Low-carbon Cities: Land Use and Transportation Intervention' at Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, China, June 12-13, 2014 2014.
71. Van Wee B., Geurs K., Chorus C. Information, communication, travel behavior and accessibility. J. Transp. Land Use 2013, 6(3):1-16.
72. Widener M.J., Farber S., Neutens T., Horner M. Spatiotemporal accessibility to supermarkets using public transit: an interaction potential approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 42(January 2015):72-83.
73. Witlox F. Beyond the data smog?. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35(3):245-249.