Measuring Walkability in the Vicinity of Suburban Train Stations

1.0 Introduction

Research has indicated a challenge in the process of improving transit walkability or accessibility. The vast research has resulted in various perspectives on the topic and a lot of subjective and objective factors that influence the variables. In this case, factors differ based on the differences in the variables being measured, including the scope of the study, city level, neighborhood, or street level. Murray (2001) has proposed that transit accessibility is a subject of discussion in diverse settings without an agreement or a generally agreed clear-cut formulation which could be accepted as the most acceptable definition of the concept. Therefore, failure to have a consensus in definition has been the area of conflict in the understanding, from the perspective of train operation as well as city planning. On the other hand, research has greatly overlooked the conflict in defining train station walkability for the purpose of coming up with a description of what it should look like. After all, whether there is an agreement or not, city planning must take into consideration this important aspect.

While that is the case, a definition is generally critical for such a study. Such a definition is obtained through thorough review of the current literature on transit walkability in line with the perspective of the current study. Thus, a review of literature is critical to establish the different views and indicators that have been suggested by previous researchers. The importance of a research on the measures of transit accessibility is critical as it offers the indication of convenience for the pedestrians as well as the relationship between the public transport and walking (Murray 2001). Based on the current literature, it is possible to identify the most critical elements in the measurement based on the above theoretical framework.

• Transit Quality Measuring
  • Introduction

All European nations have witnessed a considerable increase in the levels of mobility in the past few decades (Motif 2000). The reality is a cause for concern relating to the increase in the use of cars and the ramifications the change has on congestion and pollution. Gazibara (2010) showed that quality of service is momentous to the future public transport. A summation of the study indicated that globally, two out of three people will reside in the cities, a reality that will create both opportunities and setbacks due to the increase in the pressure on resources, roads becoming more congested, motivating transportation levels that are not sustainable, and an increase in emissions. From the same perspective, Eboli and Mazzulla (2010) proposed the importance of a public transport system that is highly market-oriented and competitive. To reach there, it is critical to have improved quality of service, which should be understood as train station hub level.

Consequently, it is necessary to gauge the service level for the purpose of identifying the possible strengths as well as weaknesses in the public transport system. From an objective viewpoint, the aim of public transport management in the evaluation of service improvement alternatives at transit service level is to increase market share and enhance user satisfaction (Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral 2007). Hence, decision makers have an important role in identifying the important attributes of quality in transit services with considerable impact on the level of perception of quality by diverse users and the choices they indicate (Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral 2007; Eboli and Mazzulla 2007).

Eboli & Mazzulla (2008) proposes the necessity of promoting measures method in the evaluation of the alternative approaches of improving service, particularly those geared towards a reduction in reliance on private transport and provide incentives for greater use of public transport. However, it is necessary to note that this might not be an easy task because of the resistance from the users to opt for public transport. Various methods of evaluation of the level of public transport use are applied in research and practice. The differences are greatly as a result of the differences in the disciplinary backgrounds of the analysts, as opposed to the purposeful selection of using the most suitable working methodology within a particular context.

In relation to this point, two diverse streams of research are evident. The first is from the point of view of civil engineers and transport planners, whose interest is mostly on the technical performance of the system (Edvardsson 1998). They tend to focus more on the differing and wide-ranging impact underlying an investment in public transport systems. The approach results in a description of a series of performance indicators given that the extremely flexible approach makes it possible for joint consideration of heterogeneous data; for instance, commercial speed, public subsidies, and reduction in the pollutant emissions (Edwards et al. 2013). The method often involves mathematical models, often revealing a straightforward view of the problem.

The second option involves the use of a service quality measure based on a description of diverse elements of the transit services. Some of the transit performance measures used includes the passenger, agency, and community viewpoint. From the perspective of the passenger, the focus is on perception of the service as shown by the individual passengers. From the agency outlook, the focus is on transit performance from the point of view of the transit agency in a business observation. Measures of transit from the community’s perspective measure the role of transit in fulfilling the objectives of the general community. Some of the measures used in this case are the effect of a transit service on various elements of a community, including the property values, employment, or economic growth. It also comprises the measures of the contribution of the transit to community mobility as well as measures of the impact of transit on the environment (Transportation Research Board 2003b).

1.1.2 Service Quality

Within the context of public transit, the concept of service quality is described as the measure of the effectiveness in the delivery of services that is in line with the expectations of the customer (Transportation Research Board 1999, Eboli and Mazzulla 2008). From the perspective of the service provider, the concept reflects the measure of effectiveness in the delivery of quality matching the targeted quality. On the contrary, from the perspective of the customer, it is the gauge of the effectiveness of the perceived quality in line with the quality that is desired (Transportation Research Board 2003; Nathanail 2008).

However, measuring quality has remained a challenge, and hence a very critical area necessitating further research with real implications for the providers of service within the transport sector (Hensher, Stopher, & Bullock 2003). Both operators and authorities in consideration of the public transport should comprehend the way customers assess the quality in the services they consume. Nonetheless, it is plausible to understand that the evaluation of service quality by the consumers is an abstract and elusive idea (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry 1985). Thus, measurement of the concept makes it challenging in developing accurate and valid constructs relating to service quality. It works with nonrepresentational and insubstantial attributes, like safety and comfort, which are immeasurable.

From the point of view of the service providers, it is critical to point out the most significant properties of service quality as considered by the real and potential users. Thus, it will be possible to appeal to more users of the transport system. Nonetheless, it is challenging to identify the set of vital attributes (Prioni and Hensher 2003). Additionally, the identification of their relative significance to the satisfaction of the users is critical. For example, past research has indicated that reliability is a crucial factor (Edvardsson, 1998; Disney 1999; Bates et al. 2001; König 2002; Hensher, Stopher & Bullock 2003). The issue is not necessarily having to wait, but whether the transport will take place (König 2002). In addition, properties such as frequency (Hensher, Stopher & Bullock 2003) and comfort (Disney 1999; Hensher, Stopher & Bullock 2003; Friman & Gärling 2001) are also exceedingly esteemed by the consumers, being the main aspects of consumer satisfaction. Other properties revealed to have negative implications on the satisfaction of the user include travel time and fare level.

1.1.3    Service Frequency

The frequency of the service is another very decisive factor, which is the measure of how frequently transit services are offered. The factor informs the decision on whether to use the transport because more frequent services reflect the shortness of the time of waiting. It also informs on whether one will get or miss the mode of transport. On the other hand, it informs the flexibility of the customer in the choice of the time to travel (Transportation Research Board 2003a). Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou (2008) established that the frequency of service is a critical factor across all service providers. Eboli and Mazzulla (2008) also found out that service frequency is the property with the most weight on the general service provision in the transport system. The service frequency indicator can be calculated as the average of the amount of runs scheduled for every hour in a day. It was suggested that levels-of-service is a function of the average headways amongst vehicles expressed in minutes (Transportation Research Board 2003b). According to Friman and Fellesson (2009), the vehicle-km per inhabitant’s aggregate measure is an indicator of the service frequency as well as coverage.

The number of hours in a day indicates the span of service as provided. However, the hours of service are not constant as they can depend on the day of the week or weekends, by the route taken, as well as stops assumed. Thus, the calculation of the indicator can be taken as the average value of the overall hours spent per day in diverse periods of a year and/or for varied routes/stops. The convenience in using the transport can be determined by the length of the service per day and restrict the kinds of trips that the operators can use the service. In TCRP Report 100, the reported level-of-service thresholds can be used as the targeted value for the span of service (Transportation Research Board 2003b). The factor indicates the possibility of the user getting to use the service.

• Service Reliability

The reliability of the service is the most researched factor in the decision to use transit services. Turnquist and Blume (1980) describe reliability in transit service as “the ability of the transit system to adhere to schedule or maintain regular headways and a consistent travel time” (Turnquist and Blume 1980, p. 26). Strathman et al. (1999) and Krizek (2000) have contended that reliability is predominantly associated with the adherence to the schedule. Beirao and Sarsfield-Cabral (2007) is also in agreement with the claim that a lack of control because of the uncertainty of the arrival of the vehicle renders the services unreliable. In fact, undependable service leads to extra travel as well as waiting time for the users (Wilson et al. 1992; Strathman et al. 2003). Unreliability of service can lead to loss of customers, while more customers can be attracted by improvement in service reliability (El-Geneidy et al. 2007). Eboli and Mazzulla (2010) confirm that reliability in service provision is among the most critical service aspects of the user. A study carried out by Wachs (1976) provides evidence of the reality that reliability or variance in travel time is among the most critical elements underlying attitude towards modes of transportation. It also showed that the time that one spends waiting, walking, changing modes, or parking is considered arduous compared to the time one spends board.

Public transit agencies have developed multiple indicators for measuring reliability of service. However, the most used three measures are headway regularity, on-time performance, and running time adherence (Transportation Research Board 2003a; Litman et al. 2008). The evaluation of on-time performance can be achieved through consideration of the percentage of transit vehicles that depart from or arrive to a particular place in a timely manner. The calculation of the indicator is normally taking it as the ration of the amount of runs coming on time to the amount of total runs. As an indicator, 0n-time performance, as is introduced by Nakanishi (1997) as the proportion of trips that depart from all scheduled time locations, eliminating terminals, between 0 and 5 minutes following the departure time as scheduled, and proposed in TCRP Report 100 (Transportation Research Board 2003b). Nonetheless, it is proposed by TCRP Synthesis 10 to take into consideration on-time the runs ending to 1 minute early as well as up to 5 minutes late (Transportation Research Board 1995a) and the Italian legislation (DPCM 30.12.1998).

Transit service scheduling, among the main activities for transit operations as well as service planning, is viewed  as the best solution for the coordination of transit passenger demands as well as alleviation of congestion of the road traffic (De Palma and Lindsey 2001; Ceder 2003; Zhao and Zeng 2008; Chen et al. 2010). The reason behind this is due to the reality that scheduling of services has a momentous impact on activity and travel choices of the passenger and vice versa. A transit service timetable that is well-organized does not just improve the use of efficiency of the vehicles, but also plays a role in improving litheness in scheduling the activities of the passengers. It also allows success in decision making on the side of the passenger as relates to what service to use.

• Stations Characteristics

Characteristics of the stations are critical to decisions made by the passengers to use the transit services. The stations are constructed with the role of providing service to the passengers. The station building is not necessarily the station itself. In fact, the station is basically the entire facility providing the passengers with access to the trains from specific locations. Indeed, it comprises the platforms, tracks, and habitually also, a subway, train shed, among others. On the other hand, the building is the particular and well-defined aspect of the station, which is a part of the station in general (Chen et al. 2010). In most cases, the station is normally neglected regardless the reality that it is the most immediate point of contact with the passengers. The stations should be well designed and maintained to appeal to the customers.

The stations are the points of stopping for the trains to collect or drop the passengers. Thus, given their role in the immediate contact with the passengers, it should be viewed as “shop window” for the provided services. Therefore, it ought to be designed in such a manner that it is appealing to the eyes of the passenger, convenient, and comfortable. It should also be well-organized in layout and operations (De Palma and Lindsey 2001). In essence, the management and maintenance of the stations should be such that it has safety in its operation.

It is plausible to note that the architecture of the railway station is not simply the station building architecture. The architecture comprises the distinct platforms’ and canopies’ design or the train shed, that is, the entire platforms’ and tracks’ canopy, if any. In addition, shelters can have an implication on the typical façade of the station. The accessories required for the architecture are dependent on the various kinds of external influence which might be constant or vary in time (De Palma and Lindsey 2001). The station facilities imply the distinct waiting areas, ticket offices, locations for short-time waits, points for refreshment, shops, and stores, as well as other supplementary commercial facilities.

The current study is aimed at introducing the methodology for the categorization of a railway station. Thus, the results should indicate the recommendations for the most favorable railway station or in sub-area, the stop equipment. Zhao et al. (2003) indicated that the stations are an important point of arrival as well as departure for different kinds of travelers, including the business class and the visitors. Hence the environment of the station is critical, and its quality informs the overall perception of the users. A well designed, high-quality station can be a critical part in improving the overall image of the location being served, rendering it more eye-catching for the users.

The stations have the important purpose of providing access to the connectivity offered by the transit services. Delivered adequate connectivity as well as capacity, stations can provide adequate support for the growth of the economy by playing a role of accommodating the increase in demand for travel and limiting the use of private transport. Particularly, they can be part of support for the lofty density development within the surrounding area of the station and can additionally allow a city or town to achieve sustainable growth.  The land surrounding the station is a natural central point for more growth because of the inherent accessibility advantage as well as related economic feasibility (Wilson & Nuzzolo 2008). Some of the stations have facility catering for the needs beyond the facility to the general community. Given that the stations are viewed as destinations, they provide quality leisure and retail opportunities.

In the UK, development of stations has not always been at par with the passengers’ demands and the modern towns as well as the needs of the cities. The result is possibly that the development of the stations may have constrained the development of the economy. The reality follows the connection between the poor conditions of the stations and the surrounding area’s economy that is critical and mutually reinforcing (Wilson & Nuzzolo 2008). The stations can constrain physical access regarding the way the tracks are aligned, restricting access through the station itself. The same problem can be due to the availability of fenced-off areas and at-grade car parks that can create physical barriers. Under the conditions, the station becomes greatly isolated from the central area business such as hotels, offices, and higher value retailing.

An environment that is poor in quality has the potential of discouraging investment within the station and in the surrounding area. In the event that the buildings and facilities of the station are not in good condition and the surrounding environment if poor, there is an inadequate incentive for developers as they provide an image of little return for their investment.

The Department of Transport carried out a study in Scotland that revealed over 30 distinct service characteristics that ranged from service punctuality and reliability to the stations’ cleanliness. The features were viewed as being vital to the users and create displeasure if they are not achieved (Sanko & Shoji 2009). After all, the needs of the patients are the most critical at all times.

• Feeder Transit Availability

Through regular system, accessibility of a mass transportation has an important role to play in increased ridership. The entry and outlet trips using the main transit system are important if formal mode access to the feeder is absent (Satiennam, Fukuda & Oshima 2006). There are various forms of mass transit systems in the modern world, including Commuter Rail and Light Rail Transit. The modes are primarily different based on the cost, capacity, as well as the technology used in their design and use. There are other factors such as extent of right-of-way, distance between stops, operational systems, and guidance processes. Research has indicated that it is possible and at low cost to achieve reliable public transport (Sallis 2009; Sallis, Millstein & Carlson 2011). Nonetheless, the expected targets have not been achieved through the available public transportation systems. In fact, the reason for the below standard performance is the increase in motorization as well as poor land planning (Akkarapol et al., 2009). Other factors contributing to dismal performance include substandard connection to other modes, higher fares, and challenges related to accessibility.

At times, other incumbent have been eliminated as critical ways of achieving economies of scale as well as economic sustainability. Extremely atomized quasi-informal paratransit feeder services still typify BRT stations in places such as Bangkok, Jakarta, Delhi, and Lagos (Carvero 2007). These systems have been both beneficial and also with some pitfalls in terms of the conditions of the systems and the potential to meet the needs of the users.

In different cities, access to the system is dependent upon the characteristics of the transportation system as well as the cities network, the location of the stations, parking facilities, the land planning in the areas surrounding the station, and the walking environment about the stations (Supaporn et al. 2013). Nonetheless, in most cities, the access and the egress regions are important because of the failure to have an effective feeder service. Principle modes generally used by the passengers in accessing the station comprise auto access, that is, driving or being dropped by a car, using paratransit service, riding feeder buses, and non-auto access. The modes have some advantages and disadvantages (see Table 2) (Supaporn et al. 2013). On the other hand, walking and cycling ought to be balanced with auto access for the purpose of creating a multi-modal transport system (Replogle 1992).

The current study focuses on the importance of systematic feeder services as opposed to the traditional public transit modes. Access to the main system will be improved using the regular feeder service and in the end, increase the ridership by moving the passengers to the public transport as opposed to private. The study examines the availability and quality of the feeders in relation to the attributes of the services as opposed to BRTS (Replogle 1992). The design of the feeder service is also proposed with the use of the gravity model by proposing a specific impedance value within the local area setting.

Some populations can be deprived of being in the proximity of the feeder stations because of an inadequate number of feeder stops. In fact, this becomes a critical factor behind the low general accessibility to the main transit stop. Instinctively, the accessibility of the transit line is informed by the closeness to the feeder by the users. There is a need for a higher number of feeder stops if the capacity to serve more users is to be achieved. Nonetheless, the upsurge could also lead to increased travel periods for the shuttles and eventually would decrease accessibility to the main transit line (Walks 2014). In turn, the most favorable number of stops will be needed, with every stop having its particular population or demand which the shuttle should serve. Indeed, this is another reality that will be investigated in the current study.

There is a common belief by the officials that the current public buses are as good in serving the users as the feeders. Thus, the absence or presence of the transit stop close to the passenger and destination is an important element in the choice of the means to utilize (feeder). Without the availability of a stop, the other elements of the public transportation are not important for the particular trip (Vimal et al., 2013). Consequently, the current evaluation is founded on the analysis of stop coverage/service area. A transit stop is the service area, which is the area that the person can have access to or reach to get the bus on foot. The transit stop’s spatial location is critical to the understanding of the connection between the station of the train and the use of bus feeder.

It is possible to develop the optimal public transport system with well-designed plan of the city, incorporating effective strategies for land use, with road networks, and public transits (Satiennam et al. 2006). Such a situation indicates the enhancement of the transportation facility like with novel public transport systems. In fact, this kind of planning renders an option for the commuters to have adequate access to their destinations. Regions that are densely populated necessitate highly regular and dependable public transit facilities with the aim of supporting the needs for mobility of the users. The system can be achieved by the transport authorities as well as other stakeholders within the transport sector through provision of effective transport systems mostly using bus which can be accessed by as many passengers as possible. The primary rationale for using the bus is due to the fact that it is normally considered the highly visible kind of transport. It also has the capacity to serve as a large part of the population amid low cost in operating and maintenance. At the community level in the US, the bus is commonly used form of transport (Akkarapol & Fumihiko 2009). In addition, the bus also makes up the greatest share in ridership counts when compared to other forms of transit in the country.

• Built Environment
  • Macro-Built Environment

2.1.1 Density. The characteristic limits for medium dense neighborhoods are 25 to 60 residential units for every hectare, while for the highly dense communities the typical units are more than 60 residences for every hectare (Udell et al. 2014). Areas with a block of two-to-four storey structures with staircases rather than elevators can have a density range of 45 to 175 residences for every hectare (Udell et al. 2014). A study carried out in Australia indicated that areas with six-storey structures constitute a compact urban neighborhood, which is suitable for walking, active, and pleasant (National Heart Foundation of Australia 2009). Ideally, density should have positive impacts on building form and housing layout (UN Habitat, 2012). The ideal density is one that boosts the numbers of travelers boarding and making trips using public transport. Some researchers have proposed employment and residential density limits that are necessary for the provision of quality and efficient transit services (Newman & Kenworthy 1989; Niemira 2007).

Residential densities of more than 12 but less than 16 individuals in every acre are the most suitable for urban areas primarily served by public transport (Newman & Kenworthy 1989). A study of the Seattle metropolitan area revealed that an employment density of between 50 and 75 workers for every acre significantly increased the work trips made using public transport (Frank & Pivo 1994). The research indicates the possibility of effective public service within residential areas.

The appropriate density is one that lowers the operating costs incurred by transit providers, leading to low transport service costs for the passengers (UN Habitat 2012). From this point of view, researchers opt for high density over low density due to the fact that transport networks located in very dense cities tend to shorten the length of every trip as well as the time spent making it. Consequently, transit operators can maintain the same number and quality of services with the least fleet size and driver hours (Parsons & Quade 1996). In fact, this highlights the optimal kind of public transportation.

2.1.2 Mix land use/ diversity. Diversity, as it relates to land use, continues drawing the attention of transport and land use planners as an influential determinant of travel behavior, including the choice of transport mode and distance covered, and the life quality of people and neighborhoods (Zhang 2004). Increased cycling and pedestrian activity can boost human health, minimize the adverse consequences of pollution from transportation modes, and enhance neighborhood interaction (Wilson et al. 2012). Consequently, the goal of combining land uses has become an explicit feature of transportation plans and design models like transit-oriented development, New Urbanism, the Compact City, and Smart Growth that seek to create walking and cycling-friendly environments while reducing automobile reliance (Manaugh & Kreider 2013). New Urbanism, for example, advocates for the creation of compact American neighborhoods through mixed land use, in addition to, pedestrian amenities and grid-oriented street patterns (Cervero & Radisch 1996). In fact, the mixed land use is one of the ten smartest growth principles (Cervero & Radisch 1996). Diversity is worth studying because it is perceived as one of the solutions to land fragmentation in urban areas (Grant 2002; Coupland 1997). The results are critical given the increase congestion in the transit system today.

Regarding diversity, ideal communities should have a vast range of education, employment, retail, banking services, fitness facilities, recreational opportunities, and regional transit networks within comfortable cycling or walking distances (Davidson 1994; Boarnet & Sarmiento 1998; Smith, Brown and Yamada 2008). Housing types, commercial, institutional, and civic facilities, as well as, public spaces ought to be diverse and affordable to users of all ages (Giles-Corti & King 2009). One study, for instance, found that communities boosted the mobility of elderly residents with different land uses, increased road connectivity, and improved access to transit stations, as well as, numerous open and green recreational sites (Li et al. 2008). Walking and cycling space was linked with positive perceptions of physical activity among elderly persons while the dense presence of parks contributed to increased park visits (Kemperman & Timmermans 2009). Similarly, destination clusters, grocery outlets, retail chains, and restaurants, were found to boost walking behaviors of older adults (Berke et al., 2007; Satariano, Ivey, & Kurtovich 2010). Diversity is appropriate when different land uses are co-located in a manner that facilitates sustainable transport forms such as, mass transit, cycling, and walking, and enhances neighborhood amenity (Handy, Boarnet, & Ewing 2002; Boslaugh et al. 2004; Foster & Giles-Corti 2008). The studies have focused on the criticality of diversity in understanding optimal public transit.

Reference List

Akkarapol, T, & Fumihiko NTO, 2009. Influences of Paratransit as A Feeder of Mass Transit System in Developing Countries Based on Commuter Satisfaction, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8

Bates, J., Polak, J., Jones, P. & Cook, A, 2001. The valuation of reliability for personal travel. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 37(2/3), pp. 191–229.

Beirão G, & Sarsfield-Cabral JA, 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study . Transport Policy 14(6), pp. 478 – 489

Berke, E, Koepsell, T, Moudon, A, Hoskins, R & Larson, E 2007. ‘Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 97(1), pp. 486-492.

Boarnet, M, & Sarmiento, S, 1998. ‘Can Land-use Policy Really Affect Travel Behaviour?’ A Study of the Link between Non- work Travel and Land-use Characteristics’, Urban Studies, vol. 35(1), pp.1155-1169.

Boslaugh, S, Luke, D, Brownson, R, Naleid, K & Kreuter, M 2004. ‘Perceptions of neighborhood environment for physical activity: Is it “who you are” or “where you live”?’ Journal of Urban Health, vol. 81(4), pp. 671-681.

Ceder, A, 2003. Public transport timetabling and vehicle scheduling. In: Lam, W.H.K., Bell, M.G.H., (eds.) Advanced Modeling for Transit Operations and Service Planning, pp. 31–57. Pergamon, Oxford

Cervero, R, & Radisch, C, 1996. ‘Travel Choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighbourhoods’ Transport Policy, 3(3), pp.127-141.

Cervero, R, 2007. ‘Transit-oriented development’s ridership bonus: a product of self-selection and public policies’, Environment and Planning, 39(9), pp. 2068–2085

Cheng, C & Agrawal, A 2010, ‘TTSAT: a new approach to mapping transit accessibility’, Journal of Public Transportation, 13(1), pp.55–72.

Coupland, A, 1997, Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development, E & FN Spon, London

Davidson, D, 1994, Corporate Amenities, Trip Chaining and Transportation Demand Management, FTA-TTS-10, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

De Palma, A., & Lindsey, R. 2001. Optimal timetables for public transportation. Transp. Res. Part B 35(8), 789–813

Disney, J, 1999. Customer satisfaction and loyalty: the critical elements of service quality. Total Quality Management, 10(4/5), pp. 491–497

Eboli, L, Mazzulla, G. 2010 . How to capture the passengers’ point of view on a transit service through rating and choice options. Transport Review 30, pp. 435 – 450 .

Eboli, L. & Mazzulla, G. 2007. Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit. Journal of Public Transportation, 10, pp. 21-34.

Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. 2008. “An SP Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in Public Transport”, Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (5), pp. 509-523.

Eboli, Laura, and Gabriella Mazzulla. 2008. “A Stated Preference Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in Public Transport,” Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (5), pp. 509–523. doi:10. 1080/03081060802364471.

Edvardsson, B., 1998. Causes of customer dissatisfaction – Studies of public transport by the critical-incident method. Managing Service Quality, 8(3), pp. 189–197.

Edwards, N., Hooper, P., Trapp, G., Bull, F., Boruff, B. and Giles-Corti, B. 2013. ‘Development of a Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool (POSDAT): A remote sensing approach’, Applied Geography, 38, pp. 22-30.

El-Geneidy A , Horning J , Krizek KJ . 2007. Using archived ITS data to improve transit performance and management. Final report. Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services Section.

Foster, S & Giles-Corti, B 2008, ‘The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: an exploration of inconsistent findings’, Preventive Medicine, 47(3), pp. 241-51

Frank, L & Pivo, G 1994, ‘Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking’, Transportation Research Record, 1466(1), pp. 44-52

Friman, M. & Gärling, T., 2001. Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction with public transport services. II. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(2), pp. 105–114

Gazibara I, Goodman J, Madden P, 2010, “Megacities on the move”, report by Forum for the Future. retrieved from http://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/project/downloads/megacitiesfullreport.pdf

Giles-Corti, B & King, A 2009. ‘Creating active environments across the life course: “thinking outside the square”, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(2), pp. 109-13

Grant, J 2002. ‘Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 68(1), pp. 71 – 84

Greenwald, M. J. 2006. The Relationship Between Land Use And Intrazonal Trip Making Behaviors: Evidence And Implications. Transportation Research Part D: Transport And Environment, 11, pp. 432-446.

Handy, S, Boarnet, M, Ewing, R & Killingsworth, R 2002. ‘How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 23, Suppl. 2, pp. 64-73.

Hengky, T 2012. Cycling infrastructure as a first mile solution for mass transit access in Singapore: a study of MRT ridership in Singapore towns. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kemperman, A & Timmermans, H 2009. ‘Influences of built environment on walking and cycling by latent segments of aging population’, Transportation Research Record, vol. 2134(1), pp.1-9.

König, A, 2002. The reliability of the transportation system and its influence on the choice behaviour. Paper presented at the 2nd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verità, Ascona, March 20-22

Krizek, K 2000, ‘Pretest-Posttest Strategy for Researching Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form and Travel Behavior’, Transportation Research Record, 1722(1), pp. 48-55.

Li, F, Harmer, P, Cardinal, B, Bosworth, M, Acock, A, Johnson-Shelton, D & Moore, J 2008. ‘Built environment, adiposity, and physical activity in adults aged 50-75’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(1), pp. 38-46.

Litman, T, 2008. Valuing transit service quality improvements. Journal of Public Transportation 11, pp. 43-63.

Manaugh, K & Kreider, T 2013, ‘What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for measuring land use mix’, The Journal of Transport and Land Use, vol.6, no.1, pp. 63-72

Marshall, S, 2005. Streets & Patterns, Spon Press, New York

Motif, 2000. Market Orientated Transport in Focus. Transport Research Fourth Framework Programme, Urban Transport, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Murray, A 2001. ‘Strategic analysis of public transport coverage’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(1) pp. 175–188

Nathanail, E. 2008. “Measuring the Quality of Service for Passengers on the Hellenic Railways.” Tra

National Heart Foundation of Australia 2009. Position statement: the built environment and walking, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne

Newman, P & Kenworthy, J 1989. Cities and automobile dependence: a sourcebook, Gower Technical, Brookfield.

Newman, P & Kenworthy, J 1999. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence, Island Press, Washington D.C.

Niemira, M 2007, ‘The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-use Development: Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey’, Research Review, 4(1), pp. 53-56.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), pp. 41–50

Parsons, B, Quade, D, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. & Calthorpe Associates 1996. Transit, Urban Form and the Built Environment: A Summary of Knowledge, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington D.C.

Prioni, P. & Hensher, D.A., 2000. Measuring service quality in scheduled bus services. Journal of Public Transportation, 3(2), pp. 51–74

Replogle, M.A. and Mundial, B., 1992. Non-motorized vehicles in Asian cities.

Sallis, J 2009. ‘Measuring physical activity environments: a brief history’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4) Suppl, pp. S86–92

Sallis, J, Millstein, R & Carlson, J 2011, ‘Community Design for Physical Activity’, in Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-being, and Sustainability, eds A Dannenberg, H Frumkin & R Jackson, Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 33-49.

Sanko, N & Shoji, K 2009. “Analysis on the structural characteristics of the station catchment area in Japan’, 11th Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Satariano, W, Ivey, S, Kurtovich, E, Kealey, M, Hubbard, A, Bayles, C, Bryant, L, Hunter, R & Prohaska, T 2010. ‘Lower-body function, neighborhoods, and walking in an older population’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(4), pp. 419-28.

Satiennam, T., Fukuda, A., Oshima R., 2006. A Study on the Introduction of Bus Rapid Transit System in Asian Developing Cities: A Case Study on Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Project, Journal of International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 30(2), pp. 59-69.

Smith, K, Brown, B, Yamada, I, Kowaleski-Brown, L, Zick, C & Fan, J 2008. ‘Walkability and Body Mass Index: Density, Design, and New Diversity Measures’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(1), pp. 237-244.

Strathman JG , Kimpel TJ , Callas S . 2003 . Headway deviation effects on bus passenger loads: Analysis of Tri-Met’s archived AVL-APC Data . Portland , OR : Center for Urban Studies.

Strathman, J. G., K. J. Dueker, et al. 1999). “Automated Bus Dispatching, Operations Control, and Service Reliability.” Transportation Research Record 1666, pp. 28-36.

Supaporn, K., L., Salila, T., Supanita, M., 2013. Improving Access to a Mass Transit Station in Suburb of Bangkok, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 9.

Transportation Research Board, 2003a. “A guidebook for developing a transit performance measurement system”, TCRP Report 88, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board 2003b. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Transportation Research Board 2007. Elements Needed to Create High Ridership Transit Systems, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 1999. A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Turnquist, M. and Blume, S,1980. “Evaluating potential effectiveness of headway control strategies for transit systems.” Transportation Research Record 746, pp. 25-29.

Udell, T, Daley, M, Johnson, B & Tolley, R 2014. Does density matter? The role of density in creating walkable neighbourhoods, National Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne

UN Habitat 2012, Urban Patterns for a Green Economy: Leveraging density, UN Habitat, Nairobi.

Vimal, G., B.L.Swami, M. P., P. K., 2013. Availability and Accessibility Assessment of Public Transit System in Jaipur City, International Journal of Transportation Engineering, 1(2), pp. 81-91

Wachs M . 1976. Consumer attitudes towards transit service: An interpretive review . Journal of American Planning Association 42(1), pp. 96 – 104.

Walks, A, 2014. The Urban Political Economy and Ecology of Automobility, Routledge, New York/London

Wilson N, Nelson D, Palmere A, Grayson TH, & Cederquist C, 1992. Service quality monitoring for high frequency transit lines . Transportation Research Record 1349, pp. 3 – 11 .

Wilson, J, Kelly, C, Schootman, M, Baker, E, Banerjee, A, Clennin, M, and Miller, D, 2012. ‘Assessing the Built Environment Using Omnidirectional Imagery’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(2), pp. 193–199.

Wilson, N & Nuzzolo, A 2008. Schedule-Based Modeling of Transportation Networks: Theory and applications, Springer, New York

Zhao, F, Li, M, Chow, L, Gan, A & Shen, L 2003. ‘Forecasting transit walk accessibility: regression model alternative to buffer method’, Transportation, 1835, pp. 34–41.

Zhao, F, & Zeng, X.G, 2008. Optimization of transit route network, vehicle headways and timetables for large-scale transit networks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186(2), pp. 841–855