2010
DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.13.4.2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using GIS for Measuring Transit Stop Accessibility Considering Actual Pedestrian Road Network

Abstract: Abstract

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Iacono et al (2010) noted that difficulties in calculating non-motorized accessibility measures include data quality, zonal structure of transport planning models, and the adequacy of models and travel networks for describing and predicting travel by non-motorized modes. However, recently Foda and Osman (2010) have developed ideal and actual stop-accessibility indices to measure the accessibility of a bus stop considering the actual pedestrian road network and a stop coverage ratio index, while Alam et al (2010) showed that an alternative method for calculating accessibility indices, using a gravity-based measure of accessibility, is more accurate than traditional measures of the proportion of travel zones with a quarter-mile buffer of public transport.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Iacono et al (2010) noted that difficulties in calculating non-motorized accessibility measures include data quality, zonal structure of transport planning models, and the adequacy of models and travel networks for describing and predicting travel by non-motorized modes. However, recently Foda and Osman (2010) have developed ideal and actual stop-accessibility indices to measure the accessibility of a bus stop considering the actual pedestrian road network and a stop coverage ratio index, while Alam et al (2010) showed that an alternative method for calculating accessibility indices, using a gravity-based measure of accessibility, is more accurate than traditional measures of the proportion of travel zones with a quarter-mile buffer of public transport.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is vast literature on the analysis of the effectiveness of public transport networks through spatial coverage methodologies [34][35][36][37][38][39]. However, previous studies have not included the tourist population as an internal variable in their analysis of the effectiveness of public transport at tourist destinations.…”
Section: About the Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The more people that reside and/or are employed in close proximity to a bus stop or station, the greater the likelihood that the service will be used [35,36]. In this sense, several studies have been developed to evaluate the spatial coverage of public transport networks and to assess the distance-measure impacts on the calculation of transport service areas [33,37,38]. Other studies, such as the ones developed by Murray, propose models for identifying inefficiencies in public transport access coverage in order to improve the use of public transport provision [7,39].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This process included determination of the distance from a station that people find acceptable. Literature data point to the distance of up to 400 meters which is usually considered as an appropriate for individual to use public transport stations, particularly in bus traffic (O'Neill et al, 1992;Murray and Wu, 2003;Hurni 2006;Hurni 2007;Kimpel et al, 2007;Gutiérrez and García-Palomares, 2008;Foda and Osman, 2010;Bukhari et al, 2010). Here, it should be explained that the above-mentioned studies consider that an acceptable walking distance is 5-minute walk to the public transport station which corresponds to a distance of 400 meters (according to Tf L, 2010, the average walking speed is 4.8 km/h).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%