4.7 Article

Potential impacts of bike-and-ride on job accessibility and spatial equity in Sao Paulo, Brazil

Journal

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE
Volume 121, Issue -, Pages 386-400

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.01.022

Keywords

Bike-and-ride; Potential accessibility; Cycling; Inequality; Cluster analysis; Gini coefficient

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [485-14-038]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior -Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  3. CAPES [1577479]
  4. CNPq [310908/2017-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines the potential of the bicycle, as an access mode for transit trips, to reduce spatiotemporal inequalities in job accessibility in the megacity of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Three temporally dynamic potential job accessibility models are developed, (i) a GTFS-based (General Transit Feed Specification) walk-and-ride model, (ii) an integrated GTFS-based bike-and-ride model that incorporates topography constraints, the availability of dedicated cycling infrastructure, waiting times at intersections and car traffic levels, and (iii) a car model that accounts for congestion using TomTom speed profiles. Cluster analysis is then used to analyze the geographic distribution of the associated improvements. The results show that bike-and-ride has the potential to substantially increase job accessibility in the different areas of the city, but does not result in a more equal spatial distribution of job accessibility, as measured by Gini coefficients. Most of the improvements are centered in middle to high income areas with good accessibility. Peripheral areas, that tend to be the poorest and have the lowest accessibility by transit, improve the least. The inclusion of the bicycle is not enough to counteract all of the other forces causing low job accessibility in these areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available