IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa11p541.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation of the spatial impacts of improved connectivity from urban transport investments. A GIS (Geographic Information System) application of the ICON indicator for urban areas

Author

Listed:
  • Hector Tapia
  • Mateu Turró

Abstract

A well-designed urban public transport policy provides significant benefits: reduces congestion and costs, and decreases the number of accidents and environment impacts. Accessibility indicators are used by planners to assess the spatial effects of their proposals and to identify those areas requiring actions to ensure minimum conditions of service. They are also used in decision making on the implementation of new infrastructure projects or improvement of the existing ones. The paper first reviews the ICON indicator, which evaluates the connectivity of a location to the transport networks as a function of the minimum time required to reach the connection nodes of each network and the utility provided in these nodes. In the interurban ICON these networks include roads, railways, ports and airports. ICON is being used in planning and in project appraisal in interurban contexts to quantify in an understandable way the relationship between transport infrastructure and services endowment and variables that are spatially defined. But it has been seldom used in the urban environment context because its particularities introduce important methodological difficulties. The paper presents the adaptation of the ICON indicator to the public transport endowment of urban areas. It includes (a) the definition of a suitable URBan Indicator of CONnectivity (URBICON) providing a quantified spatial measure of connectivity to the transport networks and (b) an analysis of the possible uses of URBICON in regional, urban and transport planning and in project appraisal, through its integration with other spatial information (population, economic activity) and GIS tools. An application to the case of the city of Barcelona is presented, considering the public transport endowment in the year 2004. The URBICON provides an easy way to detect the areas that were poorly covered by the public transport system in 2004. Some of them are already covered by new or improved infrastructures and services and others should be served by 2014. This possibly shows that the zones detected by the URBICON correspond to those where planners have somehow decided to improve public transport services. URBICON thus appears as a powerful quantitative indicator to support urban planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Hector Tapia & Mateu Turró, 2011. "Evaluation of the spatial impacts of improved connectivity from urban transport investments. A GIS (Geographic Information System) application of the ICON indicator for urban areas," ERSA conference papers ersa11p541, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa11p541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa11/e110830aFinal00541.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G H Pirie, 1979. "Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 11(3), pages 299-312, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jen-Jia Lin & Chi-Hau Chen & Tsung-Yu Hsieh, 2016. "Job accessibility and ethnic minority employment in urban and rural areas in Taiwan," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(2), pages 363-382, June.
    2. Jesus Gonzalez-Feliu & Aurélie Mercier, 2013. "A combined people-freight accessibility approach for urban retailing and leisure planning at strategic level," Post-Print halshs-00919537, HAL.
    3. David Levinson & David Giacomin & Antony Badsey-Ellis, 2014. "Accessibility and the choice of network investments in the London Underground," Working Papers 000124, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    4. Dong, Xiaojing & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E. & Bowman, John L. & Walker, Joan L., 2006. "Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 163-180, February.
    5. Ruqin Yang & Yaolin Liu & Yanfang Liu & Hui Liu & Wenxia Gan, 2019. "Comprehensive Public Transport Service Accessibility Index—A New Approach Based on Degree Centrality and Gravity Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Recker, W. W. & Chen, C. & McNally, M. G., 2000. "Measuring the impact of efficient household travel decisions on potential travel time savings and accessibility gains," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1qq2t12b, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Souche-Le Corvec, Stéphanie & Mercier, Aurélie & Ovtracht, Nicolas & Chevallier, Amandine, 2019. "Urban toll and electric vehicles: The winning ticket for Lyon Metropolitan Area (France)," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 17-33.
    8. Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2011. "Place Rank: Valuing Spatial Interactions," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 643-659, December.
    9. Nassir, Neema & Hickman, Mark & Malekzadeh, Ali & Irannezhad, Elnaz, 2016. "A utility-based travel impedance measure for public transit network accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 26-39.
    10. Neutens, Tijs & Delafontaine, Matthias & Scott, Darren M. & De Maeyer, Philippe, 2012. "An analysis of day-to-day variations in individual space–time accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 81-91.
    11. Chang, Stephanie E. & Nojima, Nobuoto, 2001. "Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 475-494, July.
    12. Cheng, Shaowu & Xie, Bing & Bie, Yiming & Zhang, Yaping & Zhang, Shen, 2018. "Measure dynamic individual spatial-temporal accessibility by public transit: Integrating time-table and passenger departure time," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 235-247.
    13. Gonzalez-Feliu, Jesus, 2011. "Freight Distribution Systems with Cross Docking: A Multidisciplinary Analysis," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 51(1).
    14. Ana Condeço-Melhorado & Aura Reggiani & Javier Gutiérrez (ed.), 2014. "Accessibility and Spatial Interaction," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15267.
    15. Cascetta, Ennio & Cartenì, Armando & Montanino, Marcello, 2016. "A behavioral model of accessibility based on the number of available opportunities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 45-58.
    16. Alireza Ermagun & David Levinson, 2015. "Access and Transit System Performance," Working Papers 000129, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    17. Bert van Wee & Caspar Chorus & Karst T. Geurs, 2012. "ICT and accessibility: research synthesis and future perspectives," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 3, pages 37-53, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Martin Andersson & Urban Gråsjö, 2009. "Spatial dependence and the representation of space in empirical models," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 43(1), pages 159-180, March.
    19. Enaux, Christophe & Gerber, Philippe, 2014. "Beliefs about energy, a factor in daily ecological mobility?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 154-162.
    20. Gonzales, Eric Justin, 2011. "Allocation of Space and the Costs of Multimodal Transport in Cities," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7s28n4nj, University of California Transportation Center.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa11p541. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.