Transit accessibility, land development and socioeconomic priority: A typology of planned station catchment areas in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
Steven Farber
University of Toronto
Maria Grandez
University of Toronto
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2017.980
Keywords: Transit, Accessibility, Land Development, Equity
Abstract
The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area is in the process of implementing a wide array of transit expansion projects. Despite being an important evaluator of transit efficacy, accessibility is not a typical variable included in the business cases of the local planning authorities. We address this shortcoming by computing current and future accessibility scores for each proposed transit route and station. Our results are compared against measures of availability of developable land within station catchment areas and the socioeconomic priority of populations residing within catchment areas. A typology of station types is produced via a multi-criteria analysis, and this is further used to assess the efficacy of the transit plans in meeting the redevelopment and intensification goals and social priorities in the region. We are able to conclude that significant mismatches between accessibility and developable land exist. Furthermore, there is a lack of alignment between accessibility and socioeconomic priority; however, where these two criteria align, risks of redevelopment-based gentrification are low, due to the unavailability of readily developable land in these station catchment areas.References
Badoe, D. A., & Miller, E. J. (2000). Transportation–land-use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 5(4), 235–263.
doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00036-X
Calvo, F., de Oña, J., & Arán, F. (2013). Impact of the Madrid subway on population settlement and land use. Land Use Policy, 31, 627–639. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.008
Cascetta, E., Cartenì, A., & Montanino, M. (2013). A new measure of accessibility based on perceived opportunities. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 87, 117–132. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.598
Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2002). Transit’s value-added effects: Light and commuter rail services and commercial land values. Transportation Research Record, 1805, 8–15. doi:10.3141/1805-02
Currie, G. (2010). Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 31–41.
El-Geneidy, A., & Levinson, D. M. (2006). Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures (Mn/DOT 2006-16). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11299/638
Farber, S., & Fu, L. (2017). Dynamic public transit accessibility using travel time cubes: Comparing the effects of infrastructure (dis)investments over time. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 62, 30–40.
Farber, S., Morang, M. Z., & Widener, M. J. (2014). Temporal variability in transit-based accessibility to supermarkets. Applied Geography, 53, 149–159. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.012
Foth, N., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2013). Toward equitable transit: Examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. Journal of Transport Geography, 29, 1–10.
Fransen, K., Neutens, T., Farber, S., De Maeyer, P., Deruyter, G., & Witlox, F. (2015). Identifying public transport gaps using time-dependent accessibility levels. Journal of Transport Geography, 48, 176–187. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.09.008
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.
Giuliano, G. (2004). Land-use impacts of transportation investments. In S. Hanson & G. Giuliano (Eds.), The geography of urban transportation (3 ed., pp. 237–273). New York: Guilford Press.
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. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76. doi:10.1080/01944365908978307
Hertel, S., Keil, R., & Collens, M. (2015). Switching Tracks: Toward transit equity in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Toronto: City Institute at York University.
Hulchanski, J. D. (2010). The three cities within Toronto: Income polarization among Toronto’s neighborhoods, 1970-2005 (Report No. 0772714789). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Hurst, N. B., & West, S. E. (2014). Public transit and urban redevelopment: The effect of light rail transit on land use in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 46, 57–72. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2014.02.002
Jiang, H., & Levinson, D. M. (2016). Accessibility and the evaluation of investments on the Beijing subway. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1), 395–408.
Kramer, A., Borjian, S., Camargo, F., Graovac, A., & Falconer, R. (2017). Accessibility planning for social equity: An analysis of current and future transit networks in the Toronto region. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2005). Access to destinations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lorinc, J. (2012, November 23). Down (but not out). Mount Dennis area pins hopes on Metrolinx. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com
Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2011). Who benefits from new transportation infrastructure? Using accessibility measures to evaluate social equity in transit provision. In K. Geurs, K. Krizek, & A. Reggiani (Eds.), For Accessibility and planning: Challenges for Europe and North America. London, UK: Edward Elgar.
Metrolinx. (2008). The Big Move. Toronto: Metrolinx. Retrieved from http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/en/default.aspx
Metrolinx. (2013). The Big Move Baseline Monitoring Report. Toronto: Metrolinx. Retrieved from http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/en/default.aspx
Metrolinx. (2015). Smart Commute: Commuter Attitudes Survey Report. Toronto: Metrolinx. Retrieved from http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/en/default.aspx
Ministry of Infrastructure. (2006). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Toronto: Ministry of Infrastructure.
Openshaw, S., & Taylor, P. J. (1979). A million or so correlation coefficients: Three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. Statistical applications in the spatial sciences, 21, 127–144.
Owen, A., & Levinson, D. M. (2015). Modeling the commute mode share of transit using continuous accessibility to jobs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74(0), 110–122. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.002
Páez, A., Mercado, R. G., Farber, S., Morency, C., & Roorda, M. J. (2010). Relative accessibility deprivation indicators for urban settings: Definitions and applications to food deserts in Montreal. Urban Studies, 47, 1415–1438.
Paperny, A. M. (2012, February 11). The poor in Toronto: They’re working but not getting any richer. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Perlman, M. J., & Brown, S. R. (2013, August 13). New Yorkers have longest commute times in the U.S.: report. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com
Sorensen, A., & Hess, P. M. (2015). Choices for Scarborough: Transit, walking, and intensification in Toronto’s inner suburbs. Toronto: University of Toronto Scarborough. Retrieved from http://uttri.utoronto.ca/
Vessali, K. V. (1996). Land-use impacts of rapid transit: A review of the empirical literature. Berkeley Planning Journal, 11(1), 71–105.
Wegener, M., & Fuerst, F. (1999). Land-use transport interaction: State of the art. Report 2a of the project TRANSLAND (Integration of Transport and Land Use Planning) of the 4th RTD Framework Programme of the European Commisison. Germany: University of Dortmund. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434678
