A portrait of accessibility change for four US metropolitan areas

Louis A Merlin


Accessibility is a key objective of regional planning, one requiring the coordination of transportation and land use. Several metropolitan planning organizations in the United States and Europe have started to incorporate accessibility metrics into their evaluation of future regional scenarios. This paper describes changes in accessibility to employment by auto and transit for four contrasting metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2010. The effect of changing residential locations, changing employment locations, and changing travel speeds on accessibility change is decomposed and analyzed. Residential locations are generally shifting toward low-accessibility locations, degrading regional accessibility. Shifting employment locations have differential effects across metros, improving the accessibility of central locations in some metros while improving the accessibility of peripheral locations in others. Travel speeds also show strongly contrasting patterns across metros, with speed-related accessibility benefits concentrated in high-density locations for some metros (Chicago), while low-density locations are the primary beneficiary in other metros (Charlotte and St. Louis).


Accessibility; Infill; Speed; Metropolitan Planning; Congestion; Travel Demand Models

Full Text:



Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2004. Census Transportation Planning Package 2000, Part 2: Place of Work.

Cervero, R., 1996. Paradigm shift: From automobility to accessibilty planning, Berkeley: Institute for Urban and Regional Development.

Cervero, R., Rood, T. & Appleyard, B., 1999. Tracking accessibility: employment and housing opportunties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A, 31, pp.1259–1278.

Cervero, R. & Wu, K.L., 1998. Subcentering and commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area 1980-1990. Urban Studies, 35, pp.1059–1076.

Chicago Area Transportation Study, 2000. Destination 2020: 2020 Regional Transportation Plan, 2000 Edition, Chicago, IL: Chicago Area Transportation Study.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2010. Go To 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan - Draft.

East West Gateway Coordinating Council, 2002. Legacy 2025: The Transportation Plan for the Gateway Region, St. Louis, MO: East West Gateway Coordinating Council.

Ewing, R. & Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the built environment -- A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, pp.265–294.

Foth, N., Manaugh, K. & El-Geneidy, A.M., 2013. Towards equitable transit: examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. Journal of transport geography, 29, pp.1–10.

Giuliano, G. & Small, K.A., 1993. Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban Studies, 30, pp.1485–1500.

Giuliano, G. & Small, K.A., 1991. Subcenters in the Los Angeles Region. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21, pp.163–182. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ecn&AN=0254135&site=ehost-livehttp://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505570/description#description.

Glaeser, E.L. & Kahn, M.E., 2004. Sprawl and Urban Growth. In J. V. Henderson & J.-F. Thisse, eds. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Harvard U Tufts U: Elsevier, pp. 2481–2527. Available at: file://c/Users/Louis/Documents/Proposal/Longitudinal Accessibility/Glaeser - Sprawl and Urban Growth.pdf.

Grengs, J. et al., 2010. Intermetropolitan comparison transportation accessibility: Sorting out mobility and proximity in San Fransico and Washington DC. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29, pp.427–443.

Handy, S.L. & Niemeier, D.A., 1997. Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29, pp.1175–1194.

Helling, A., 1998. Changing intra-metropolitan accessibility in the US: Evidence from Atlanta. Progress in Planning, 49, pp.55–103. Available at: file://c/Users/Louis/Documents/Proposal/Longitudinal Accessibility/Helling - Changing intra metropoltian accessibility in the US.pdf.

Krizek, K.J., 2003. Neighborhood services, trip purpose, and tour-based travel. Transportation, 30, pp.387–410. Available at: ://WOS:000184176300002.

Levine, J. et al., 2012. Does accessibility require density or speed? Journal of the American Planning Association, 78, pp.157–172.

Levine, J., Grengs, J. & Shen, Q., 2010. The demographics of transportation accessibility: an intermetropolitan comparison. Transed 2010: 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons.

Levinson, D.M., 2013. Access Across America, Minneapolis: Center for Transportation Studies.

Levinson, D.M., 1998. Accessibility and the journey to work. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(1), pp.11–21.

Levinson, D.M. & Marion, B., 2010. The City is Flatter: Changing Patterns of Job and Labor Access in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, 1995-2005, Citeseer.

Mecklenberg/Union Technical Cooridnating Committeee, 2002. 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg/Union Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Merlin, L. a., 2014. Can the built environment influence nonwork activity participation? An analysis with national data. Transportation. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-014-9554-1 [Accessed December 25, 2014].

Newsom, M. & Gallagher, D.R., 2014. What Comes First in TOD. In American Planning Association. Atlanta, GA.

Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001. Destination 2030: Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Regional Council.

Puget Sound Regional Council, 2008. Vision 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Shrank, D., Lomax, T. & Eisele, B., 2011. 2011 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute.

Weitz, J., 2012. Growth Management in the United States, 2000–2010: A Decennial Review and Synthesis. Journal of Planning Literature, 27, pp.394–433. Available at: http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/27/4/394.abstract.

Weitz, J. & Crawford, T., 2012. Where the jobs are going: Jobs sprawl in US metropolitan regions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78, pp.53–69.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.808