Prof. dr. Karst Geurs, Centre for Transport Studies ...

18-2-2021 Presentatietitel: aanpassen via

Beeld, Koptekst en voettekst

1

Transport, accessibility and equity

Prof. dr. Karst Geurs, Centre for Transport Studies, University of

Twente, the Netherlands

2

Contents

Measuring accessibility - different approaches

Measuring equity

A comparative study on accessibility and equity: Netherlands

Randstad area, London and Sao Paulo

Conclusions

3

What is accessibility?

“Accessibility is a slippery notion… one of those common terms that

everyone uses until faced with the problem of defining and measuring

it” (Peter Gould, 1969)

4

Definition of accessibility:(Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and

research directions. Journal of Transport geography 12, 127-140)

Fundamentally, accessibility should relate to the role of transport in

society; to provide individuals the opportunity to participate in

activities in different locations.

Definition (passenger travel) “the extent to which land-use and

transport systems enable (groups of) individuals to reach activities

or destinations by means of a (combination of) transport mode(s)

(at various times of the day)”.

5(Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport geography 12, 127-140)

(Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research

directions. Journal of Transport geography 12, 127-140)

6

Part 2: Four main perspectives on accessibility

1. Infrastructure-based measures (transport planner’s perspective)

2. Location-based measures (urban planner’s perspective)

3. Person-based measures (time-space geography)

4. Utility-based measures (economist’s perspective)

7

Perspective 1: infrastructure-based measures

Describe the performance of transport networks in terms of

congestion, travel times, travel costs, etc.

Standard input for economic appraisal of transport investments

Easy to understand but a partial measure of accessibility

8

Location-based accessility measures

Accessibility not only depends on quality of transport measures but

also on spatial distribution of activities

Many different types :

Travel time isochrones

Cumulative opportunities/contour measures

Potential accessibility

Potential accessibility including competition effects

9

Time isochrone/cumulative opportunities:

Amsterdam, car, morning peak hour, 2008

Pro’s: easy to compute and understand, land use component included

Con’s: arbitrary choice of maximum travel time; assumes all activies are

equally important (weak link with travel behaviour)

Source: Goudappel Coffeng

Jobs

x1000

10

Potential accessibility measureHansen, W.G., 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of

American Institute of Planners 25, pp. 73-76

n

j

c

jiijeDA

1

Potential job accessibility by car, 2014, various times of

the day (based on TomTom data)Moya-Gómez, B., & Geurs, K. T. (2018). The spatial–temporal dynamics in job accessibility by car in the

Netherlands during the crisis. Regional Studies, 1-12. doi:10.1080/00343404.2018.1538554

11

12

Shen index: potential accessibility with

competition

Shen, Q. (1998). Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage

workers. Environment and Planning B: Planning & design, 25(3), 345-365.

13

Location-based measures

Pro’s:

includes land-use component; applicable in transport, land-use

and integrated land-use/transport policy appraisal

Mismatch between demand and supply of opportunities can be

included

Con’s:

Different measures are possible with different levels of

complexity

Measures based on distance decay have no meaning in terms

of costs or benefits or activity values

Choice of distance decay function large impact on the outcome

14

Perspective 3: “Person-based” accessibility measures

• Analysis of accessibility at the individual level;

• Accessibility depends on individual constraints (activity scheduling),

temporal constraints (opening hours of shops), spatial contraints

(travel budget)

Comprehensive but complex in terms of data need, complexity and

difficult to operationalise

15

Perspective 4: Utility-based measures

Benefits that people derive from access to spatially distributed

activities

Can be derived from standard transport modes (double

constrained transport model or discrete choice models)

Not often used in practical applications.

Summary

4 components: transport, land use, individual and temporal

components

4 perspectives: infrastructure-based, location-based, person-based

and utility-based accessibility measures

In practice: accessibility measures focus on one or two components

of accessibility ; trade off between rigour and relevance in practice

16

Measuring transport equity

Many different approaches to measuring transport equity

Outcome /result equity

Vertical equity (differences across population segments)

Horizontal equity (differences within population segments)

Spatial equity (differences between areas)

Social equity (differences by needs)

Income equity (differences between income groups)

Several statistical indicators: Gini index, Palma ratio, Atkinson

index, Theil index etc.

Equity of opportunity

Fairness / social justice; provision of a basic minimum allocation

to all individuals.

17

• Lorenz curve: visualizing the distribution

of income (or wealth) within an economy

• GINI: equal to the area below the line of

perfect equality (0.5 by definition) minus

the area below the Lorenz curve, divided

by the area below the line of perfect

equality (A/A+B).

• Between 0 (perfectly equal) and 1

(inequal)- > the smaller the index, the

larger the inquality

• Disadvantage: dominated by middle-

income groups; not very sensitive to

extreme income inequalities

GINI INDEX

18

- The ratio of national income shares of the top 10% of households

(richest) to the bottom 40 (poorest). The larger the ratio, the

greater the inequality.

- Here: ratio of average accessibility weighted by population for the

zones belonging to Decile 10 (with monthly expenditure as income

proxy) and for those belonging to Deciles 1 to 4.

(Guzman, L. A., & Oviedo, D. (2018). Accessibility, affordability and equity: Assessing

‘pro-poor’ public transport subsidies in Bogotá. Transport Policy, 68, 37-51)

MEASURING TRANSPORT EQUITY – PALMA RATIO

19

20

MORE INFO: HTTPS://WWW.ASTRIDROJECT.COM/

21

THE NETHERLANDS RANDSTAD AREA VS SAO PAULO

Randstad: polynuclear structure;

low incomes in urban centres

high incomes in suburbs (but mixing as well)

Sao Paulo: monocentric: low incomes

in periphery, high incomes in center

• Two accessibility indicators: Potential Accessibility and Shen

index (jobs per resident)

• Shen index: intramodal and multimodal

• Two equity indicators: GINI index and Palma ratio (based on

income deciles)

• Two ways of averaging: area/zone based and inhabitants per

area/zone

= 2*3*2=12 possible combinations

MEASURING ACCESSIBILITY AND EQUITY

22

Pritchard, J. P., Tomasiello, D., Gianotti, M., & Geurs, K. T. (2019). An international comparison of

temporal and spatial inequalities in job accessibility – London, Sao Paulo and the Netherlands

Randstad Area Transport Findings.

23Pritchard, J. P., Tomasiello, D., Gianotti, M., & Geurs, K. T. (2019). An international comparison of temporal and spatial inequalities

in job accessibility – London, Sao Paulo and the Netherlands Randstad Area Transport Findings.

Car: 409 jobs per resident

Transit: 144 jobs per resident





Sao Paulo: high job accessibility

by car and public transport

24

Pritchard, J. P., Tomasiello, D., Gianotti, M., &

Geurs, K. T. (2019). An international comparison

of temporal and spatial inequalities in job

accessibility – London, Sao Paulo and the

Netherlands Randstad Area Transport Findings.

0.81

0.70

0.620.18

0.15

0.090.81

0.70

0.620.58

0.71

0.76

Shen index (job/worker ratio)

POTENTIAL JOB ACCESSIBILITY – PERSON AVERAGED

GINI AND PALMA RATIO

25

NL-Randstad:

GINI car: 0.41

GINI PT: 0.43

London:

GINI car: 0.41

GINI PT: 0.49

Sao Paulo

Gini car: 0.62

GINI PT: 0.61

Palma ratio car: 1.15

Palma ratio PT: 0.96





• Randstad is the most

equal, Sao Paulo

most unequal

• Differences in PALMA

ratio much larger than

GINI

• In NL PT accessibility

is more unequal than

car according to GINI,

more equal according

to Palma ratio – low

incomes have good

PT accessibility

• Definition and operationalisation of accessibility strongly affects

the conclusions: different measures may give very different

conclusions

• Case study:

• Sao Paulo and London have high levels of potential job

accessibility by car and public transport per resident..

• but less jobs per worker (concentration of jobs increase job

competition)

• Thus: use multiple accessibility indicators

26

CONCLUSIONS ON ACCESSIBILITY

• Conclusions on equity also depend on the indicator chosen

(here: GINI and Palma)

• Equity indicators are heavily influenced by choice of

accessibility indicator

• Average equity indicators depend on by how average

values are weighted (area, population)

• Thus: use multiple equity indicators

CONCLUSIONS ON EQUITY

27

Coll

ege

verpl

28

More information:

[email protected]

https://people.utwente.nl/k.t.geurs

Prof. dr. Karst Geurs, Centre for Transport Studies ...

Documents

Transcript of Prof. dr. Karst Geurs, Centre for Transport Studies ...