IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v104y2017icp150-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping transit accessibility: Possibilities for public participation

Author

Listed:
  • Stewart, Anson F.

Abstract

The value of accessibility concepts is well-established in transportation literature, but so is the low adoption of accessibility-based instruments by practitioners. Based on the premise that leveraging accessibility concepts to address public involvement challenges could promote their adoption in planning practice, this research investigates mechanisms to promote social learning among participants in public workshops. Potential mechanisms of learning include specific tool-based interactions and how such interactions reinforce structures of learning such as alignment and imagination. This paper details iterative testing of these mechanisms with a tool called CoAXs (short for Collaborative ACCESSibility-based stakeholder engagement system), through focus groups and exploratory workshops. A mixed-methods analysis of the workshops supports the expectation that alignment and imagination correlate positively with social learning, as measured by reported learning and dialog quality. Specific interactions with the accessibility-based features of CoAXs in turn correlate positively with alignment and imagination, at individual and group levels of analysis. These findings, while not robustly generalizable, suggest that effective targeted stakeholder engagement for public transport can be structured around collaborative accessibility mapping. Adoption for broader public participation requires further development, especially the incorporation of actual day-to-day experiences such as unreliable operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Stewart, Anson F., 2017. "Mapping transit accessibility: Possibilities for public participation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 150-166.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:150-166
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417303002
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    2. Welch, Timothy F. & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2013. "A measure of equity for public transit connectivity," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 29-41.
    3. Kevin Manaugh & Ahmed El- Geneidy, 2012. "Who benefits from new transportation infrastructure? Using accessibility measures to evaluate social equity in public transport provision," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 12, pages 211-227, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Páez, Antonio & Moniruzzaman, Md. & Bourbonnais, Pierre-Leo & Morency, Catherine, 2013. "Developing a web-based accessibility calculator prototype for the Greater Montreal Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 103-115.
    5. Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Gschwender, Antonio, 2008. "Transantiago: A tale of two cities," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 45-53, January.
    6. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Pieter M Schrijnen, 2010. "From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support: A Structured Dialogue to Overcome the Implementation Gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(1), pages 3-20, February.
    7. Marco te Brömmelstroet & Carey Curtis & Anders Larsson & Dimitris Milakis, 2016. "Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 1175-1196, June.
    8. Patricia C Melo & Daniel J Graham & David Levinson & Sarah Aarabi, 2017. "Agglomeration, accessibility and productivity: Evidence for large metropolitan areas in the US," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(1), pages 179-195, January.
    9. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(3), pages 444-463, May.
    10. Thomas Straatemeier & Luca Bertolini & Marco te Brömmelstroet & Perry Hoetjes, 2010. "An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(4), pages 578-591, August.
    11. Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), 2012. "Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14718.
    12. Stewart, Anson F. & Zegras, P. Christopher, 2016. "CoAXs: A Collaborative Accessibility-based Stakeholder Engagement System for communicating transport impacts," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 423-433.
    13. S L Handy & D A Niemeier, 1997. "Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1175-1194, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weckström, Christoffer & Kujala, Rainer & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Saramäki, Jari, 2019. "Assessment of large-scale transitions in public transport networks using open timetable data: case of Helsinki metro extension," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Allen, Jeff & Farber, Steven, 2019. "A measure of competitive access to destinations for comparing across multiple study regions," SocArXiv 8yf7q, Center for Open Science.
    3. Vecchio, Giovanni, 2020. "Microstories of everyday mobilities and opportunities in Bogotá: A tool for bringing capabilities into urban mobility planning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Yenisetty, Pavan Teja & Bahadure, Pankaj, 2021. "Assessing accessibility to ASFs from bus stops using distance measures: Case of two Indian cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Guo, Jing & Brakewood, Candace, 2024. "Analysis of spatiotemporal transit accessibility and transit inequity of essential services in low-density cities, a case study of Nashville, TN," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Arbex, Renato & Cunha, Claudio B., 2020. "Estimating the influence of crowding and travel time variability on accessibility to jobs in a large public transport network using smart card big data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Kinigadner, Julia & Büttner, Benjamin, 2021. "How accessibility instruments contribute to a low carbon mobility transition: Lessons from planning practice in the Munich region," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 157-167.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Papa, Enrica & Coppola, Pierluigi & Angiello, Gennaro & Carpentieri, Gerardo, 2017. "The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 108-120.
    2. Boisjoly, Geneviève & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M., 2017. "The insider: A planners' perspective on accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 33-43.
    3. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    4. Stewart, Anson F. & Zegras, P. Christopher, 2016. "CoAXs: A Collaborative Accessibility-based Stakeholder Engagement System for communicating transport impacts," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 423-433.
    5. Boisjoly, Geneviève & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2016. "Daily fluctuations in transit and job availability: A comparative assessment of time-sensitive accessibility measures," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 73-81.
    6. Silva, Cecília & Bertolini, Luca & te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Milakis, Dimitris & Papa, Enrica, 2017. "Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 135-145.
    7. Rahimi-Golkhandan, Armin & Garvin, Michael J. & Brown, Bryan L., 2019. "Characterizing and measuring transportation infrastructure diversity through linkages with ecological stability theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 114-130.
    8. José Manuel Naranjo Gómez, 2016. "Impacts on the Social Cohesion of Mainland Spain’s Future Motorway and High-Speed Rail Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    9. Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani, 2012. "Accessibility analysis and transport planning: an introduction," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 1, pages 1-12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Nesbitt, Joshua & Daley, Rebekah & Najnin, Arfanara & Litman, Todd & Tiwari, Surya Prasad, 2016. "A multi-dimensional view of transport-related social exclusion: A comparative study of Greater Perth and Sydney," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 205-221.
    11. Wulfhorst, Gebhard & Büttner, Benjamin & Ji, Chenyi, 2017. "The TUM Accessibility Atlas as a tool for supporting policies of sustainable mobility in metropolitan regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 121-136.
    12. Pyrialakou, V. Dimitra & Gkritza, Konstantina & Fricker, Jon D., 2016. "Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 252-269.
    13. Pereira, Rafael H.M., 2019. "Future accessibility impacts of transport policy scenarios: Equity and sensitivity to travel time thresholds for Bus Rapid Transit expansion in Rio de Janeiro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 321-332.
    14. Beria, Paolo & Debernardi, Andrea & Ferrara, Emanuele, 2017. "Measuring the long-distance accessibility of Italian cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 66-79.
    15. Golub, Aaron & Martens, Karel, 2014. "Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 10-20.
    16. Allen, Jeff & Farber, Steven, 2019. "A measure of competitive access to destinations for comparing across multiple study regions," SocArXiv 8yf7q, Center for Open Science.
    17. Kim, Hyojin & Sultana, Selima, 2015. "The impacts of high-speed rail extensions on accessibility and spatial equity changes in South Korea from 2004 to 2018," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 48-61.
    18. Stępniak, Marcin & Pritchard, John P. & Geurs, Karst T. & Goliszek, Sławomir, 2019. "The impact of temporal resolution on public transport accessibility measurement: Review and case study in Poland," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 8-24.
    19. Echaniz, Eneko & Cordera, Rubén & Rodriguez, Andrés & Nogués, Soledad & Coppola, Pierlugi & dell’Olio, Luigi, 2022. "Spatial and temporal variation of user satisfaction in public transport systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 88-97.
    20. Kim, Hyun & Lee, Keumsook & Park, Jong Soo & Song, Yena, 2018. "Transit network expansion and accessibility implications: A case study of Gwangju metropolitan area, South Korea," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 544-553.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:150-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.