Pedestrian and transit accessibility on a micro level: Results and challenges
Michael A.B. van Eggermond
Singapore ETH Centre
Alex Erath
Singapore ETH Centre
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.677
Keywords: Pedestrian accessibility, transit accessibility, network generation, object-fine, micro-level
Abstract
In this paper, we connect two notions of accessibility that are more often than not considered separately: pedestrian accessibility and transit accessibility. We move away from the notion of zonal accessibility and measure fine-grained accessibility using door-to-door travel times. Two pedestrian networks are compared to a baseline scenario considering Euclidean distances for a large metropolitan area in which each individual building is considered as an activity opportunity. It is shown that pedestrian accessibility to jobs differs when pedestrian distances are approximated with different networks that are more representative of reality. Stop-to-stop public transport travel times are extracted from an agent-based simulation of public transport smart card data. The effect of less-than-optimal connections from transit to the pedestrian network, a local measurement, can be seen when calculating the accessibility to all destinations in the city. We suggest moving away from Euclidean-based distance analyses. Limitations can be found in the data available; the connection of buildings to the network becomes important, as does the inclusion of pedestrian crossings. For an inclusive accessibility measure, it will be necessary to calculate generalized costs for pedestrians and generate different pedestrian networks that reflect the limitations of different user groups.References
Ballester, M. G., Pérez, M. R., & Stuiver, J. (2011). Automatic Pedestrian Network Generation.
In AGILE 2011.
Bhat, C. R., Handy, S. L., Kockelman, K., Mahmassani, H. S., Gopal, A., Srour, I. M., & We-
ston, L. (2002). Development of an Urban Accessibility Index: Formulations, Aggregation,
and Application. Working Paper Report 7-4938-4, University of Texas Austin, Austin.
Borgers, A., Kemperman, A., & Timmermans, H. J. (2009). Modeling pedestrian movements
in shopping streets. In H. J. P. Timmermans (Ed.) Pedestrian Movement, chap. 5. Emerald
Group Publishing.
Byrd, A. (2012). Visualizing urban accessibility with OpenTripPlanner Analyst.
URL http://opentripplanner.com/
Chakirov, A., & Erath, A. (2012). Activity identification and primary location modelling based
on smart card payment data for public transport. In IATBR (Ed.) 13th International Confer-
ence on Travel Behaviour Research (IATBR). Toronto.
Choi, C. C., & Toh, R. (2010). Household interview surveys from 1997 to 2008: A decade of
changing travel behaviours. Journeys, 5(May 2010), 52–61.
Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2010). Planning for sustainable accessibility: Developing tools to
aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in Planning, 74(2), 53–106.
Erath, A., Fourie, P. J., van Eggermond, M. A. B., Ordóñez Medina, S. A., Chakirov, A., &
Axhausen, K. W. (2012). Large-scale agent-based transport travel demand model for Singa-
pore. In IATBR (Ed.) 13th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research (IATBR).
Toronto.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294.
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strate-
gies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140.
Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science
Association, 24(1), 7–21.
Handy, S. L., & Clifton, K. J. (2001a). Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: Possibilities and
practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, (pp. 67–78).
Handy, S. L., & Clifton, K. J. (2001b). Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile
travel. Transportation, 28(4), 317–346.
Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and
alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175–1194.
Hansen, W. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 25(2), 73–76.
Helbing, D., Farkás, I. J., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Crowd disasters and simulation of panic situa-
tions. In A. Bunde, J. Kropp, & H.-J. Schellnhuber (Eds.) The Science of Disasters. Climate
Disruptions, Heart Attacks, and Market Crashes, (pp. 334–354). Berlin: Springer.
Helbing, D., & Molnár, P. (1995). Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical Review
E, 51(5), 4282–4286.
Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., Schaap, N., & van de Waard, J. (2012). Policy Perspective on Acces-
sibility Measures : Assessment Framework and its Implications. In TRB (Ed.) 91st Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board.
Iacono, M., Krizek, K. J., & El-Geneidy, A. (2010). Measuring non-motorized accessibility:
issues, alternatives, and execution. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 133–140.
Karimi, H. a., & Kasemsuppakorn, P. (2012). Pedestrian network map generation approaches
and recommendation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, (April
, 1–16.
Kim, J., yong Park, S., Bang, Y., & Yu, K. (2009). Automatic derivation of a pedestrian network
based on existing spatial data sets. In ASPRS /MAPPS 2009 Fall Conference.
Kukla, R., Willis, A., & Kerridge, J. (2003). Application of context-mediated behavior to a
multi-agent pedestrian flow model (PEDFLOW). In TRB 2003.
Lee, B. H. Y., & Waddell, P. A. (2010). Reexamining the influence of work and nonwork
accessibility on residential location choices with a microanalytic framework. Environment
and Planning A, 42(4), 913–930.
Martínez, L. M., & Viegas, J. M. (2013). A new approach to modelling distance-decay functions
for accessibility assessment in transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 26, 87–96.
Molin, E. J. E., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2003). Accessibility considerations in residential
choice decisions: Accumulated evidence from the Benelux. In TRB (Ed.) 82nd Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board.
Ordóñez Medina, S. A., & Erath, A. (2013). Estimating Dynamic Workplace Capacities by
Means of Public Transport Smart Card Data and Household Travel Survey in Singapore.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2344, 20–
Páez, A., Moniruzzaman, M., Bourbonnais, P.-L., & Morency, C. (2013). Developing a web-
based accessibility calculator prototype for the Greater Montreal Area. Transportation Re-
search Part A: Policy and Practice, 58, 103–115.
Parker, J. S., & Vanderslice, E. (2011). Pedestrian Network Analysis. In Walk21 Vancouver,
Reducing Road Dangers. Walk 21.
Penn, A., & Turner, A. (2001). Space Syntax Based Agent Simulation. In 1st International
Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics.
Schelhorn, T., O’Sullivan, D., Haklay, M., & Thurstain-Goodwin, M. (1999). Streets: An
agent-based pedestrian model.
Speck, J. (2012). Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step At A Time. New
York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Streetdirectory Pte Ltd (2013). Streetdirectory.
URL http://www.streetdirectory.com.sg/
Y.F. Tang, M., & S.C. Pun-Cheng, L. (2004). Algorithmic development of an optimal path
computation model based on topographic map features. In ISPRS 2004.
