Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

A growing consensus has formed among planners, especially planning scholars, that promoting accessibility is a major policy goal. However, efforts to promote accessibility-based planning face a conceptual impediment: a common assumption that equates the benefits of accessibility to travel cost savings (TCS). Starting from this assumption, many researchers have interpreted the absence of TCS (e.g., savings in commuting costs and reductions in vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) as evidence undermining the rationale for accessibility-promoting strategies such as jobs–housing balance and transit-oriented development (TOD). In this study I challenge these interpretations by suggesting that accessibility improvements can result in not only TCS but also destination utility gains, which means the individual satisfaction from interacting with or choosing desirable destinations. The absence of TCS from accessibility-promoting policies can be explained by accessibility gains manifesting as destination utility gains. To analyze the importance of destination utility gains, I engage with literatures in economic geography and travel behavior and examine some recent urban trends (e.g., the rise of city-to-suburb commuting). I further estimate residential location choice models to test whether households value accessibility beyond the benefit of TCS. Results from the Puget Sound (WA) and Southeast Michigan regions support the hypothesis, demonstrating that destination utility gains shape residential location decisions.

Takeaway for practice

Planners should not automatically interpret the absence of TCS as evidence that accessibility-promoting strategies are not working. To advance accessibility-based planning, planners should start to explore and measure the various forms of destination utility gains. The evaluation framework for land use and transportation policies should shift from being centered on TCS alone to being accessibility based.

中文翻译：

---

迈向基于可访问性的规划

摘要

问题、研究策略和发现

规划者，尤其是规划学者之间形成了越来越多的共识，即促进可达性是一个主要的政策目标。然而，促进基于可达性的规划的努力面临着一个概念上的障碍：一个普遍的假设，即把可达性的好处等同于旅行成本节约 (TCS)。从这个假设出发，许多研究人员将 TCS 的缺失（例如，通勤成本的节省和车辆行驶里程的减少 [VMT]）解释为破坏促进可及性策略的基本原理的证据，例如工作 - 住房平衡和公交导向发展（TOD）。在这项研究中，我提出了可访问性改进不仅可以带来 TCS 还可以带来目的地效用收益来挑战这些解释，这意味着与理想目的地互动或选择理想目的地的个人满意度。可访问性促进政策中缺少 TCS 可以通过表现为目的地效用增益的可访问性增益来解释。为了分析目的地效用收益的重要性，我查阅了经济地理学和旅行行为方面的文献，并研究了一些近期的城市趋势（例如，城市到郊区通勤的兴起）。我进一步估计了住宅区位选择模型，以测试家庭是否重视可及性超出了 TCS 的好处。普吉特海湾 (WA) 和密歇根州东南部地区的结果支持这一假设，表明目的地公用事业收益会影响住宅选址决策。可访问性促进政策中缺少 TCS 可以通过表现为目的地效用增益的可访问性增益来解释。为了分析目的地效用收益的重要性，我查阅了经济地理学和旅行行为方面的文献，并研究了一些近期的城市趋势（例如，城市到郊区通勤的兴起）。我进一步估计了住宅区位选择模型，以测试家庭是否重视可及性超出了 TCS 的好处。普吉特海湾 (WA) 和密歇根州东南部地区的结果支持这一假设，表明目的地公用事业收益会影响住宅选址决策。可访问性促进政策中缺少 TCS 可以通过表现为目的地效用增益的可访问性增益来解释。为了分析目的地效用收益的重要性，我查阅了经济地理学和旅行行为方面的文献，并研究了一些近期的城市趋势（例如，城市到郊区通勤的兴起）。我进一步估计了住宅区位选择模型，以测试家庭是否重视可及性超出了 TCS 的好处。普吉特海湾 (WA) 和密歇根州东南部地区的结果支持这一假设，表明目的地公用事业收益会影响住宅选址决策。城市到郊区通勤的兴起）。我进一步估计了住宅区位选择模型，以测试家庭是否重视可及性超出了 TCS 的好处。普吉特海湾 (WA) 和密歇根州东南部地区的结果支持这一假设，表明目的地公用事业收益会影响住宅选址决策。城市到郊区通勤的兴起）。我进一步估计了住宅区位选择模型，以测试家庭是否重视可及性超出了 TCS 的好处。普吉特海湾 (WA) 和密歇根州东南部地区的结果支持这一假设，表明目的地公用事业收益会影响住宅选址决策。

外卖练习

规划者不应自动将 TCS 的缺失解释为无障碍促进策略不起作用的证据。为了推进基于可达性的规划，规划者应该开始探索和衡量各种形式的目的地效用收益。土地使用和交通政策的评估框架应从仅以 TCS 为中心转向以可达性为基础。