Does Accessibility Planning address what matters? A review of current practice and practitioner perspectives

Abstract

Abstract"Accessibility" has become commonplace in transport planning and as such there is a plethora of interpretations of what accessibility means, what constitutes a good measure of accessibility, and how this might be applied in practice. This paper presents an overview of approaches to measuring accessibility and presents a case study of Accessibility Planning in England -one approach to formalising the concept of accessibility. Results of semi-structured interviews with local authority officers are discussed to establish whether current approaches allow their desired outcomes to be met. This approach demonstrates where there might be gaps between measured or modelled accessibility and the perceptions of the individuals. Findings suggest that while the process is deemed useful in raising the profile of accessibility issues, measures of accessibility do not necessarily easily translate into quantifying benefits of those improvements that are perceived by practitioners to improve accessibility and reduce transport disadvantage.

Measuring the Accessibility of Public Transport: A Critical Comparison Between Methods in Helsinki

“…According to Curl et al (2011), location-based accessibility measures are the most commonly used, because they are easier to assess and communicate and are less data hungry; thus, researchers typically deem them appropriate for informing and monitoring the achievement of transport planning goals. Moreover, the other measures have some limitations that are absent in location-based measures: infrastructure-based measures are not sufficient for analysing the spatial distribution of opportunities, and utility-based and person-based accessibility measures are costly in terms of data requirements and difficult to interpret.…”

“…On the one hand, Geurs and van Wee (2004) propose an objective evaluation, based on changes in the service level of the transport modes, to assess demand and competition between opportunities and adaptability to the individual needs, abilities and opportunities. The authors' objective evaluation follows the trend proposed by Vickerman (1974), Wachs (1978), Badland et al (2009), Curl et al (2011 and Aditjandra et al (2013), who are not in favour of the use of Boutcome indicators^reflecting the behaviour of the population (e.g., current travel times) because they are based on the population's learning/adaptability to the current network conditions. On the other hand, Handy and Niemeier (1997) and Bertolini et al (2005) consider the subjective perception as a key element for the evaluation of accessibility.…”

“…This highlights the need for accessibility measures to account for the individual/ personal component, as recommended by Kwan and Weber (2003) and Curl et al (2011). Individual perception of accessibility (Curl et al 2011;Stanley and VellaBrodrick 2009), heterogeneity in individual circumstances (Kwan and Weber 2003), and soft barriers (Hine and Mitchell 2001;Lucas 2006) have been shown to have a relevant role in accessibility.…”

“…However, Mavoa et al (2012) suggest that there is no effective comparison among these methods. Similarly, Curl et al (2011) point out the lack of performance-based assessments indicating the actual usability of these various methods. Previous research includes limited examples of comparisons between methods (e.g., qualitative reviews, (Lei and Church 2010); differences between normative and positive implementations of accessibility indicators, (Páez et al 2012); the effect of geographical context and scale, (Kwan 1998;Kim and Kwan 2003), but to our knowledge, no research investigated specific quantitative comparisons of different methods and measurements.…”

Working with the daily variation in infrastructure performance on territorial accessibility. The cases of Madrid and Barcelona

“…Reggiani [18]; Bruisman and Rietveld [7]; Handy and Niemeier [19]; Geurs and van Wee [4]; Curl, Nelson and Anable [20]; and Paez, Scott and Morency [21].…”