2010
DOI: 10.1177/0739456x10363278
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intermetropolitan Comparison of Transportation Accessibility: Sorting Out Mobility and Proximity in San Francisco and Washington, D.C

Abstract: Both mobility and proximity influence transportation accessibility, but they exist in tension with each other. To understand the region-level trade-off between mobility and proximity requires intermetropolitan comparisons of accessibility. With a focus on the two metropolitan cases of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., we first describe a method for comparing regional accessibility and then explain a method that separates out the effects of mobility and proximity on regional accessibility. We find that the Sa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

1
36
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(26 reference statements)
1
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A large number of studies have dwelled on mode-specific or relative accessibility measures: Blumenberg and Ong 2001, Hess 2005, Martin et al 2008, Kawabata 2009, Grengs et al 2010, Benenson et al 2011, Mavoa et al 2012, Ferguson et al 2013, Mao and Nekorchuk 2013, Salonen and Toivonen 2013. Not surprisingly, most of the aforementioned studies often find significantly lower transit accessibility compared to the private car.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A large number of studies have dwelled on mode-specific or relative accessibility measures: Blumenberg and Ong 2001, Hess 2005, Martin et al 2008, Kawabata 2009, Grengs et al 2010, Benenson et al 2011, Mavoa et al 2012, Ferguson et al 2013, Mao and Nekorchuk 2013, Salonen and Toivonen 2013. Not surprisingly, most of the aforementioned studies often find significantly lower transit accessibility compared to the private car.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Modeling this human-centered view of accessibility is not easy due to both data availability and computing limitations. Thus, the vast majority of previous studies measure accessibility aggregately at a rather coarse and granular scale of municipalities (Ivan et al 2013); counties (Karner and Niemeier 2013), regular 1 km 2 grid (Papa and Bertolini 2015), neighborhoods (Witten et al 2011), and, most often, at a scale of traffic analysis zones (TAZs) (Black and Conroy 1977, Shen 1998, Haas et al 2008, Bhandari et al 2009, Lao and Liu 2009, Grengs et al 2010, Rashidi and Mohammadian 2011, Burkey 2012, Ferguson et al 2013, Foth et al 2013, Kaplan et al 2014, Widener et al 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A ccessibility has become an increasingly important indicator of the efficiency and equity of transportation investment and land-use decisions (Cervero, Rood, and Appleyard 1995;Handy 2002;Boschmann and Kwan 2010;Grengs et al 2010;Páez, Scott, and Morency 2012). In the United States, many long-range transportation plans and studies have used accessibility as a performance indicator (Grengs et al 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the United States, many long-range transportation plans and studies have used accessibility as a performance indicator (Grengs et al 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As planning for accessibility is seen to have more sustainable outcomes, measures of accessibility are gaining popularity as comprehensive performance measures of the interaction between land use and transportation systems (El-Geneidy and Levinson 2006;Grengs, Levine et al 2010). By favouring shorter travel distances and active modes of transportation, and by influencing household location choices, accessibility can also be used as a sustainability indicator and as a goal in land-use planning.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%