Published
2022-10-11
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Anson Stewart, P. Christopher Zegras
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Interactive mapping for public transit planning: Comparing accessibility and travel-time framings
Anson Stewart
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3862-1393
P. Christopher Zegras
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2022.1760
Keywords: accessibility, transportation planning, public transit
Abstract
As transport planners increasingly frame project impacts in accessibility terms, it is worth considering how this foundational land-use transport interaction concept can shape stakeholder attitudes. In this paper, we test whether framing the benefits of public transit projects in terms of increased accessibility better fosters enthusiasm among advocates, as compared to framing benefits in terms of travel-time savings. We test two versions of an interactive mapping tool in small workshops examining upgraded bus services. One version shows isochrones and accessibility indicators, and the other shows paths and travel time indicators. Results from pre- and post-surveys suggest that framing impacts in accessibility terms may encourage broader thinking and stronger dialog than framing impacts in time-savings terms. In particular, the accessibility version seems to mitigate skepticism and car users’ predispositions against upgrading bus service. An unexpected result is that many workshop participants report decreased overall enthusiasm for the bus upgrades after using either version of the tool. This disappointment may stem from an unrealistic baseline, which assumes perfect schedule adherence not aligned with lived experiences. Future research should consider tools that help stakeholders understand and deliberate about actual service and network-level reliability, and testing such tools with wider audiences.
Author Biographies
Anson Stewart, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Research Scientist, Department of Urban Studies and Planning
P. Christopher Zegras, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Professor of Mobility and Urban Planning
Department Head, Department of Urban Studies and Planning
References
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
Boisjoly, G., & El-geneidy, A. M. (2017). How to get there? A critical assessment of accessibility objectives and indicators in metropolitan transportation plans. Transport Policy, 55, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.011
Brooke, J. (n.d.). SUS—A quick and dirty usability scale. Retrieved from http://www.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.doc
Champlin, C., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Pelzer, P. (2018). Tables , tablets and flexibility: Evaluating planning support system performance under different conditions of use. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 12, 467–491.
Conway, M. W., Byrd, A., & van der Linden, M. (2017). Evidence-based transit and land use sketch planning using interactive accessibility methods on combined schedule and headway-based networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2653, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.3141/2653-06
Conway, M. W., Byrd, A., & Van Eggermond, M. (2018). Accounting for uncertainty and variation in accessibility metrics for public transport sketch planning. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11(1), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1074
Curl, A., Nelson, J. D., & Anable, J. (2011). Does accessibility planning address what matters? A review of current practice and practitioner perspectives. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 2(March), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.07.001
Curl, A., Nelson, J. D., & Anable, J. (2015). Same question, different answer: A comparison of GIS-based journey time accessibility with self-reported measures from the National Travel Survey in England. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.10.006
Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2010). Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning, 74, 53–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2010.05.001
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005
Goodspeed, R., Riseng, C., Wehrly, K., Yin, W., Mason, L., & Schoenfeldt, B. (2016). Applying design thinking methods to ecosystem management tools: Creating the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Explorer. Marine Policy, 69, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.017
Handy, S. (2020). Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83(April), 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319
Handy, S., & Niemeier, D. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175–1194. https://doi.org/10.1068/a291175
Hart, N., & Belcher, J. (2016). Prioritization of dedicated bus lanes. Boston, MA: MassDOT. Retrieved from https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/49/Docs/BusLane20160513 .pdf
Karner, A., London, J., Rowangould, D., & Manaugh, K. (2020). From transportation equity to transportation justice: Within, through, and beyond the state. Journal of Planning Literature, 35(4), 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220927691
Martens, K., & Ciommo, F. Di. (2017). Travel time savings, accessibility gains and equity effects in cost – benefit analysis. Transport Reviews, 37(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1276642
Miller, E. J. (2018). Accessibility: Measurement and application in transportation planning. Transport Reviews, 38(5), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1492778
Moser, S. (2009). Making a difference on the ground: The challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of decision support, Climatic Change, 95, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9539-1
Papa, E., Silva, C., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Hull, A. (2016). Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(3), 1–20.
Silva, C., Bertolini, L., te Brömmelstroet, M., Milakis, D., & Papa, E. (2017). Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap. Transport Policy, 53(July 2015), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.09.006
Stewart, A. F. (2017). Mapping transit accessibility: Possibilities for public participation. Transportation Research Part A, 104, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.015
Stewart, A. F., & Zegras, P. C. (2016). CoAXs: A collaborative accessibility-based stakeholder engagement system for communicating transport impacts. Research in Transportation Economics, 59, 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.07.016
Stewart, A. F., Zegras, P. C., Tinn, P., & Rosenblum, J. L. (2018). Tangible tools for public transportation planning: Public involvement and learning for bus rapid transit corridor design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(8), 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118797462
Straatemeier, T., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Joint accessibility design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2077, 1–8.
te Brömmelstroet, M. (2017). Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 104, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.011
Waddell, P. (2011). Integrated land use and transportation planning and modelling: Addressing challenges in research and practice. Transport Reviews, 31(2), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.525671
Wessel, N., & Farber, S. (2019). On the accuracy of schedule-based GTFS for measuring accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 475–500.
Zegras, C. (2011). Mainstreaming sustainable urban transport: Putting the pieces together. In H. Dimitriou & R. Gakenheimer (Eds.), Urban transport in the developing world: A handbook of policy and practice (pp. 548–588). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
