Policy makers and planners evaluate the implementation of the urban public transport (UPT) planning studies in terms of some objective measures such as load factor, mean volume per trip, capacity usage ratio and total capacity. In some cases, improving these measures may lead an unforeseen decrease on accessibility to the opportunities in terms of UPT users. Thus, this study aims to evaluate Potential Accessibility (PA) as an efficiency measure in decision stage of UPT planning. It widely depends on fieldwork, surveys, data inventories and existing plans. In this context, a comprehensive UPT planning has been carried out through VISUM traffic simulation software by taking the PA into account, and a four-step UPT planning procedure has been proposed. The results showed that PA may alternatively be used as an evaluation instrument in decision stage of UPT planning while the objective measures are insufficient to represent the effectiveness of alternative scenarios.
Cirillo C, Eboli L, Mazzulla G. On the Asymmetric User Perception of Transit Service Quality. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. 2011;5(4):216-232.
Rienstra SA, Vleugel JM. Options For Sustainable Passenger Transport: An Assessment of Policy Choices. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Serie Research Memoranda. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie; 1995.
Deakin E. Sustainable Development and Sustainable Transportation: Strategies for Economic Prosperity, Environmental Quality, and Equity. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, IURD Working Paper Series; 2001.
Florida Department of Transportation Research Center. Best Practices in Transit Service Planning. Project #BD549-38 Final Report; 2009.
Friman M. Implementing Quality Improvements in Public Transport. Journal of Public Transportation. 2004;7(4):49–65.
Beirão G, Sarsfield-Cabral JA. Understanding Attitudes Towards Public Transport and Private Car: A Qualitative Study. Transport Policy. 2007;14(6):478–489.
Tyrinopoulos Y, Antoniou C. Public Transit User Satisfaction: Variability and Policy Implications. Transport Policy. 2008;15(4):260–272.
Iseki H, Taylor BD. Style Versus Service? An Analysis of User Perceptions of Transit Stops and Stations in Los Angeles. Proceedings of the 87th Annual Meeting of the TRB, Washington DC, January 13–17, 2008.
Nurul-Habib KM, Kattan L, Islaam T. Why Do the People Use Transit? A Model for Explanation of Personal Attitude Towards Transit Service Quality. Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the TRB, Washington D.C., January 11–15, 2009.
Eboli L, Mazzulla G. Performance Indicators for an Objective Measure of Public Transport Service Quality. European Transport. 2012;(51). 21 p.
Transportation Research Board. A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. TCRP Report 47. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1999a.
Transportation Research Board. A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System. TCRP Report 88. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2003a.
Transportation Research Board. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. TCRP Report 100. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2003b.
Bertini RL, El-Geneidy A. Using Archived Data to Generate Transit Performance Measures. Proceedings of the 82th TRB Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 12–16 January, 2003.
Eboli L, Mazzulla G. A Methodology for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objective Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View. Transport Policy. 2011;18(1):172-181.
Santos BJ. A Qualidade No Serviço de Transporte Público Urbano [in Portuguese]. Arquivo; 2000.
Sampaio BR, Lima Neto O, Sampaio Y. Efficiency Analysis of Public Transport Systems: Lessons for Institutional Planning. ANTP Proceedings, Brazil; 2005.
Hansen WG. How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1959;25:73–76.
Geurs KT, Van Wee B. Accessibility Evaluation of Land-use and Transport Strategies: Review and Research Directions. Journal of Transport Geography. 2004;12(2):127–140.
Cerna A, Cerny J, Pribly V. Bus Route Design in Small Demand Areas. Transport. 2011;26(3):248-254.
Mavoa S, Witten K, McCreanor T, O’Sullivan D. GIS Based Destination Accessibility via Public Transit and Walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography. 2012;20(1):15–22.
Hsiao S, Lu J, Sterling J, Weatherford M. Use of Geographic Information System for Analysis of Transit Pedestrian Access. Transportation Research Record. 1997;(1604):50-59.
Lovett A, Haynes R, Sunnenberg G, Gale S. Car Travel Time and Accessibility by Bus to General Practitioner Services: A Study Using Patient Registers and GIS. Social Science & Medicine. 2002;55(1):97–111.
Zhao F, Chow L, Li M, Gan A, Ubaka I. Forecasting Transit Walk Accessibility: Regression Model Alternative to Buffer Method. Transportation Research Record. 2003;(1835):34–41.
Furth PG, Mekuria MC, San Clemente JL. Parcel-level Modeling to Analyze Transit Stop Location Changes. Journal of Public Transportation. 2007;10(2):73–91.
Kimpel TJ, Duecker KJ, El-Geneidy AM. Using GIS to Measure the Effects of Service Area and Frequency on Passenger Boardings at Bus Stops. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association. 2007;19(1):5–11.
Gutierrez J, Garcia-Palomares JC. Distance-measure Impacts on the Calculation of Transport Service Areas Using GIS. Environment and Planning. 2008;35(3):480–503.
Biba S, Curtin KM, Manca G. A New Method for Determining the Population with Walking Access to Transit. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2010;24(3):347–364.
Currie G. Quantifying Spatial Gaps in Public Transport Supply Based on Social Needs. Journal of Transport Geography. 2010;18(1):31–41.
Lei TL, Church RL: Mapping Transit-based Access: Integrating GIS, Routes and Schedules. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2010;24(2):283–304.
VISUM 11.52 - Fundamentals: VISUM PTV Traffic Mobility Logistics. PTV AG; 2011.
Transportation Research Board. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Part 2. Washington DC: Texas Transportation Institute; 1999b.
Ceder A. Urban Transit Scheduling: Framework, Review, and Examples. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 2002;128(4):225–244.
Stewart JQ. Empirical Mathematical Rules Concerning the Distribution and Equilibrium of Population. Geographical Review. 1947;37(3):461–485.
Vickerman RW. Accessibility, Attraction, and Potential: A Review of Some Concepts and Their Use in Determining Mobility. Environment and Planning A. 1974;6(6):675-691.
Geurs KT, Ritsema Van Eck JR. Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. RIVM Report 408505006; 2001.
Koenig JG. Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory and Applications. Transportation. 1980;9(2):145–172.
Gulhan G, Ceylan H, Ozuysal M, Ceylan H. Impact of utility-based accessibility measures on urban public transportation planning: A case study of Denizli, Turkey. Cities. 2013;32:102–112.
Municipality of Denizli: Denizli Intercity and Immediate Surroundings Transportation Master Plan and Process Management [in Turkish]. 1st Phase Final Report; 2010.
Alonso B, Moura JL, Olio L, Ibeas A. Bus Stop Location Under Different Levels of Network Congestion and Elastic Demand. Transport. 2011;26(2):141–148.
Ceder A. Public Transit Planning and Operation: Theory, Modeling and Practice. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinmann; 2007.
Ceylan H, Murat YŞ, Haldenbilen S, Cengiz O. Genetic Algorithm Approach to Evaluate Bus and Paratransit Public Transport in Urban Areas. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), July 4-8, Istanbul, Turkey; 2004.
Murray AT, Davis R, Stimson R, Ferreira L. Public Transportation Access. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 1998;3(5):319–328.
Gulhan G, Ceylan H, Haldenbilen S, Ceylan H, Baskan O. Investigating the relationship between accessibility and land use in urban areas [in Turkish]. Proceedings of the 8th Transportation Congress, October 1-2, Istanbul, Turkey; 2009.
Wang YG, Zhang CB, Cao Y, Liu BH. Access for performance of transportation planning and operations: case study in Beijing metropolitan region. Journal of Applied Research and Technology. 2012;10(4):491–504.
Rubulotta E, Ignaccolo M, Inturri G, Rofe Y. Accessibility and centrality for sustainable mobility: regional planning case study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 2013;139(2):115–132.
Holst O. Accessibility as the objective of public transportation planning: an integrated transportation and land use model. European Journal of Operational Research. 1979;3(4):267–282. perational Research. 1979;3(4):267–282.
Guest Editor: Eleonora Papadimitriou, PhD
Editors: Dario Babić, PhD; Marko Matulin, PhD; Marko Ševrović, PhD.
The mission of our journal is to provide high quality communication of research results, which is crucial for the effectiveness of scientific research, the promotion of scientific information, new ideas, and original research in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
1848-4069
0353-5320
Proud publisher
Accelerating Discoveries in Traffic Science |
2024 © Promet - Traffic&Transportation journal
