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

Abstract

This research compares two location-based methods of evaluating public transport accessibility and applies them in Helsinki. After discussing a series of methodological aspects, the authors calculate the Structural Accessibility Layer (SAL) public transport indicator and the Public Transport and Walking Accessibility Index (PTWAI) for a grid with 8,325 zones, comparable in size to the smallest census unit. Both methods are operational for urban planners and policy makers interested in a relatively straightforward way of quantifying the accessibility of sustainable transport modes such as public transport. The results display similar accessibility patterns when moving from larger to smaller isochrones (60 to 38 min). However, the findings are inconclusive between SAL and PTWAI: SAL (38 min) displays good accessibility by public transport (more than 94 % of the population living within two-thirds of the metropolitan area has very high and high access to public transport), but PTWAI indicates that 35 % of the population, primarily households with children (43 %), experience low and very low access. The contrasting results are mainly due to the derivation of the two indicators and have considerable implications for policy making. The findings of this research imply that PTWAI is preferable to planning assessments regarding public transport, given its relatively richer content. However, for multi-mode-based accessibility categorization, SAL appears more appropriate. It is the analyst's role to understand the objective and contents of each index and choose the tool fit for their purpose. Then, a judgement should be made on the trade-off between the Appl. Spatial Analysis (2017)

A living room in the city: the place of public space in the everyday lives of Middle Eastern women in Greater Brisbane

“…This statement is confirmed by many quantitative (see Pasaogullari and Doratli 2004, Lotfi and Koohsari 2009, Bisht, Mishra et al 2010, Páez, Scott et al 2012, Albacete, Olaru et al 2017) and qualitative studies (Rahder and McLean 2013, Johnson and Miles 2014, Wagner and Peters 2014, Currie 2017 and also by the findings of the present research suggest that for a public space to be fully functional and considered a successful urban space, necessities must be located in the centre of its constituency, in a walkable distance, and/or are visible. In this regard, it is easy to have access to, and through, a 'good' public space as it is visible both from a distance away and up close (Whyte 1988).…”

Accessibility Changes: Analysis of the Integrated Public Transport System of Bogotá

“…Many studies and publications about accessibility measures reflect a wealth of approaches and diversity of methods that adapt to different contexts and availability of information [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. From an economic perspective, accessibility is considered an important competiveness factor that may explain greater economic growth [11].…”

Mapping Urban Accessibility in Data Scarce Contexts Using Space Syntax and Location-Based Methods

“…Location-based methods are widely used in research and practice (Koenig 1980;Wegener and Fürst 2004;Handy and Niemeier 1997;Geurs and Van Wee 2004;Albacete et al 2015). They aim to analyse accessibility considering four components (Geurs and van Eck 2001, page 35): (1) mobility infrastructure (i.e.…”

“…Two conceptions of urban accessibility can be distinguished. Geographic accessibility is the most common one and is defined as the opportunity at origin to reach a destination, or vice-versa, given the impedance between both locations (Curl et al 2011;Handy and Niemeier 1997;Batty 2009;Geurs and Van Wee 2004;Ingram 1971;Albacete et al 2015). The combined effect of land use distribution and infrastructure components at a given location determines geographic accessibility (Geurs and van Eck 2001).…”