Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Relation Between Station Area Design Parameters and Transit Usage for Urban Rail Systems in Ankara, Turkey

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban rail transit (URT) systems are particularly favoured by planners due to their potential in attracting car users. However, a URT investment must be complemented by land-use characteristics at macroscale (whole city) and design parameters at microscale (vicinity of the station). Despite the common referencing to key concepts (i.e. density, diversity and connectivity), the variability in their definitions and scales causes ambiguity in the determination of their quantified impact on URT ridership. Furthermore, their impact may be different in developing countries, where more mesoscale (corridor-based) effects are expected in the early stages of the URT network. This study aimed to evaluate mathematically the impact of eight selected station design and public transit supply variables on ridership, based on data collected at 14 stations of two existing rail system corridors, both metro (M1) and light rail transit (A1) lines in Ankara, Turkey. Principal component analysis (PCA) indicated three major groups of parameters: (1) land use, (2) public transit supply and (3) connectivity around stations. In single-variable regression models, density and diversity were not found to be statistically significant factors despite the commonly accepted conceptual relation to ridership. A multiple regression model with bus frequency and density (R2 = 0.902) explained the ridership in Ankara URT systems more significantly at its early development stage. There was a significant difference between developed factor relations for both M1 and A1 lines, suggesting that mesolevel impacts should be considered in the evaluation of URT systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cervero R (2002) Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transp Res D 7(4):265–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stead D, Banister D (2001) Influencing mobility outside transport policy. Innovation 14(4):315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610120106129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. May AD (2013) Urban transport and sustainability: the key challenges. Int J Sustain Transp 7(3):170–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Loo BPY, Chen C, Chan ETH (2010) Rail-based transit-oriented development: lessons from New York City and Hong Kong. Landsc Urban Plan 97(3):202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stefancic G, Saric S, Spudic R (2014) Correlation between land use and urban public transport: case study of Zagreb. Promet Traffic Transp 26(2):179–184. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v26i2.1471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu S, Yao E, Li B (2019) Exploring urban rail transit station-level ridership growth with network expansion. Transp Res D Transp Environ 73:391–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gutiérrez J, Cardozo OD, García-Palomares JC (2011) Transit ridership forecasting at station level: an approach based on distance decay weighted regression. J Transp Geogr 19(6):1081–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sung H, Oh JT (2011) Transit-oriented development in a high-density city: identifying its association with transit ridership in Seoul. Korea Cities 28(1):70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sung H, Choi K, Lee S, Cheon S (2014) Exploring the impacts of land use by service coverage and station-level accessibility on rail transit ridership. J Transp Geogr 36:134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.03.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li S, Lyu D, Huang G, Zhang X, Gao F, Chen Y, Liu X (2020) Spatially varying impacts of built environment factors on rail transit ridership at station level: a case study in Guangzhou. China J Transp Geogr 82:102631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Özgür Ö (2011) Performance analysis of rail transit investments in Turkey: Istanbul, Ankara. Izmir Bursa Transp Policy 18(1):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Li X, Alam KM, Wang S (2018) Trend analysis of Pakistan railways based on industry life cycle theory. J Adv Transp. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2670346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ankara Greater Municipality. Operated rail system lines. https://www.ego.gov.tr/en/sayfa/1075/rayli-sistem. Accessed 14 June 2019

  14. Boarnet M, Crane R (2001) The influence of land use on travel behavior: specification and estimation strategies. Transp Res A Pol 35:823–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cervero R, Murakami J (2009) Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions. Urban Stud 46(10):2019–2043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009339431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Litman T (2005) Impacts of rail transit on the performance of a transportation system. Transp Res Rec 1930(1):23–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105193000103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Salzberg A, Mehndiratta S, Liu Z (2012) Urban rail development in china: the challenges ahead. Transp Res Rec 2275(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.3141/2275-06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jaroszynski M, Brown J (2014) Do light rail transit planning decisions affect metropolitan transit performance? An examination of eight U.S. Metropolitan Areas with LRT transit backbones. Transp Res Rec 2419:50–62. https://doi.org/10.3141/2419-06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Villwock-Witte N, van Grol L (2015) Case study of transit–bicycle integration: openbaar vervoer-fiets (public transport–bike) (OV-Fiets). Transp Res Rec 2534(1):10–15. https://doi.org/10.3141/2534-02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin JJ, Shin TY (2008) Does transit-oriented development affect metro ridership? Evidence from Taipei. Taiwan Transp Res Rec 2063(1):149–158. https://doi.org/10.3141/2063-18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lane C, DiCarlantonio M, Usvyat L (2006) Sketch models to forecast commuter and light rail ridership: update to TCRP report 16. Transp Res Rec 1986(11):198–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106198600124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuby M, Barranda A, Upchurch C (2004) Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States. Transp Res A Policy Pract 38(3):223–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2003.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu C, Erdogan S, Ma T, Ducca FW (2016) How to increase rail ridership in Maryland: direct ridership models for policy guidance. J Urban Plan Dev 142(4):04016017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal component analysis. Springer series in statistics, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nawrocki J, Nakagawa D, Matsunaka R, Oba T (2014) Measuring walkability and its effect on light rail usage: a comparative study of the USA and Japan. Urban Transp XX 138:305. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT140261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brons M, Givoni M, Rietveld P (2009) Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transp Res A Policy Pract 43(2):136–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Newman PWG, Kenworthy JR (1996) The land use-transport connection. Land Use Policy 13(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design. Transp Res D 2(3):199–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? J Am Plan Assoc 63(1):95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jabareen YR (2006) Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts. J Plan Educ Res 26(1):38–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Litman T, Steele R (2017) Land use impacts on transport. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chow ASY (2014) Urban design, transport sustainability and residents’ perceived sustainability: a case study of transit-oriented development in Hong Kong. J Comp Asian Dev 13(1):73–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15339114.2014.892818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Regional Transportation District (RTD) Transit Access Committee (2009) RTD Transit Access Guidelines. https://www3.drcog.org/documents/archive/RTD_Transit_Access_Guidelines_Final.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2019

  34. Gulhan G, Ceylan H, Baskan O, Ceylan H (2014) Using potential accessibility measure for urban public transportation planning: a case study of Denizli, Turkey. Promet Traffic Transp 26(2):129–137. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v26i2.1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Song Y, Knaap GJ (2004) Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on sprawl? J Am Plan Assoc 70(2):210–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dill J (2004) Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. In: 83rd annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DC, pp 11–15.

  37. Southworth M (2005) Designing the Walkable City. J Urban Plan Dev 131(4):246–257. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rodrigue JP, Comtois C, Slack B (2016) The geography of transport systems. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Litman T (2003) Measuring transportation: traffic, mobility and accessibility. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE J 73(10):28

    Google Scholar 

  40. Litman T (2008) Evaluating accessibility for transportation planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ozbil A, Peponis J, Bafna S (2009) The effects of street configuration on transit ridership. In: 7th international space syntax symposium. KTH School of Architecture and the Build Environment, Stockholm

  42. Van Nes A, Stolk E (2012) Degrees of sustainable location of railway stations: integrating space syntax and node place value model on railway stations in the province of North Holland's strategic plan for 2010–2040. In: Proceedings of the 8th international space syntax symposium, 3–6 Jan 2012, Santiago de Chile, Chile.

  43. Bertolini L (1999) Spatial development patterns and public transport: the application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Plan Pract Res 14(2):199–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459915724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39:31–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express great thanks to Ankara Greater Municipality for sharing the rail system ridership data with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry for European Union Affairs, Ankara, Turkey

    Özge Özgür-Cevher

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey

    Oruc Altintasi

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, METU, Ankara, Turkey

    Hediye Tuydes-Yaman

Authors
  1. Özge Özgür-Cevher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oruc Altintasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hediye Tuydes-Yaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oruc Altintasi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özgür-Cevher, Ö., Altintasi, O. & Tuydes-Yaman, H. Evaluating the Relation Between Station Area Design Parameters and Transit Usage for Urban Rail Systems in Ankara, Turkey. Int J Civ Eng 18, 951–966 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-020-00506-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-020-00506-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation