Spatio-temporal evaluation of transport accessibility of the Istanbul metrobus line

References

• Babalik-Sutcliffe E, Cengiz EC. 2015. Bus rapid transit system in Istanbul: A success story or flawed planning decision? Transport Rev. 35(6):792–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S. 1979. Disaggregate travel and mobility choice models andmeasures of accessibility.In: Hensher D, Stopher P, Croom H, editors. Behavioral travel modeling. London: Croom-Helm; p. 654–679.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat CR, Handy S, Kockelman K, Mahmassani H, Chen Q, Srour I, Weston L. Development of an Urban accessibility index: Literature review, Report 0-4938-1, Prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation, October 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat CR, Srinivasan S, Guo J. 2002. Activity based travel demand analysis for metropolitan areas in Texas: Data sources, sample formation and estimation results, Report 4080-3, prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation.
   Google Scholar
• Chen A, Yang H, Lo HK, Tang WH. 2002. Capacity reliability of a road network: An assessment methodology and numerical results. Transport Res B. 36(3):225–252.
   Google Scholar
• Chen A, Yang C, Kongsomsaksakul S, Lee M. 2007. Network-based accessibility measures for vulnerability analysis of degradable transportation networks. Netw Spat Econ. 7(3):241–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condeço Melhorado AM, Demirel H, Kompil M, Navajas E, Christidis P. 2016. The impact of measuring internal travel distances on self-potentials and accessibility. Eur J Transport Infrastruct Res. 2(6):300–318.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis C, Scheurer J. 2017. Performance measures for public transport accessibility: Learning from international practice. J Transport Land Use. 10(1):93–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly AJ. 1997. Improved methods for trip generation. In: Proceedings of the 25th European Transport Conference, Vol. 2. London: PTRC, pp. 207–222.
   Google Scholar
• Demirel H, Kompil M, Nemry F. 2015. A framework to analyze the vulnerability of European road networks due to Sea-Level Rise (SLR) and sea storm surges. Transport Res A Policy Pract. 81:62–76.
   Google Scholar
• Demirel H, Shoman W. 2017. Spatio-temporal analyses for dynamic urban road network management. Transport Res Proc. 22:519–528. DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.070
   Google Scholar
• Dundon-Smith DM, Gibb RA. 1994. The channel tunnel and regional economic development. J Transport Geograph. 2(3):178–189.
   Google Scholar
• Elvidge CD, Sutton PC, Wagner TW, Urbanization G, Gutman A, Janetos CJ, eds.. 2004. Land change science: Observing, monitoring, and understanding trajectories of change on the earth's surface. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; pp. 315–328.
   Google Scholar
• Engwicht D. 1993. Reclaiming our cities and towns: Better living with less traffic. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. www.newsociety.com.
   Google Scholar
• Ewing R, Cervero R. 2010. Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc. 76(3):265–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan Y, Guthrie AE, Levinson DM. 2012. Impact of light rail implementation on labor market accessibility: A transportation equity perspective. J Transport Land Use. 5(3):28–39.
   Google Scholar
• Fan Y, Guthrie A, Teng R. 2010. Impact of twin cities transitways on regional labor market accessibility: A transportation equity perspective (No. CTS Report 10-06). Minneapolis, MN.
   Google Scholar
• Ford A, Barr S, Dawson R, James P. 2015. Transport accessibility analysis using GIS: Assessing sustainable transport in London. Int J Geo Inform. 4(1):124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foth N, Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A. 2013. Towards equitable transit: Examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006. J Transport Geograph. 29:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller D, Jeffe M, Williamson RA, James D. 2002. Satellite remote sensing and transportation lifelines: Safety and risk analysis along rural southwest roads. In Proceedings of the Pecora 15/Land Satellite Information IV/ISPRS Commission I/FIEOS Conference, Denver, Colo., 10–15 November 2002. Vol. 34, Part 1. International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs KT, de Bok M, Zondag B. 2012. Accessibility benefits of integrated land use and public transport policy plans in the Netherlands. In: Geurs KT, Krizek K, Reggiani A, eds. Accessibility and transport planning: Challenges for Europe and North America. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; pp. 135–153.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs KT, van Eck JR. 2001. Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM) and Urban Research Centre. Bilthoven/Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs KT, Van Wee B. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. J Transport Geograph. 12(2):127–140.
   Google Scholar
• Gjestland A, McArthur D, Osland L, Thorsen I. 2012. A bridge over troubled waters: Valuding the accessibility effects of a new bridge. In Geurs K, Krizek KJ, eds. Accessibility analysis and transport planning, 2. Cheltenham, UK: MPG Books Group; pp. 173–194.
   Google Scholar
• 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 Transport. 26(2):129–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han J, Hayashi Y, Cao X, Imura H. 2009. Evaluating land-use change in rapidly urbanizing China: Case study of Shanghai. J Urban Plann Dev. 135(4):166–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen W. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann. 25(2):73–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horner MW, Wood BS. 2014. Capturing individuals’ food environments using flexible space-time accessibility measures. Appl Geograph. 51:99–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iacono M, Krizek K, El-Geneidy A. 2008. Estimating accurate distance decay functions for multiple modes and different purposes. Twin Cities: Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota; 2008. Access to Destinations: How Close is Close Enough?
   Google Scholar
• ITAR (Istanbul Transport Annual Report) 2016., Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Available at: https://tuhim.ibb.gov.tr/media/2131/imm_transport_report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jensen JR. 2004. Digital change detection Introductory digital image processing: A remote sensing perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; p. 467–494.
   Google Scholar
• Jianghao W, Deng Y, Song C, Tian D. 2016. Measuring time accessibility and its spatial characteristics in the urban areas of Beijing. J Geogr Sci. 26(12):1754–1768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krizek K. 2010. Measuring accessibility: Prescriptions for performance measures of the creative and sustainable city. Int J Sustain Des. 13(1/2):149–160.
   Google Scholar
• Liu S, Zhu X. 2004. An integrated GIS approach to accessibility analysis. Trans GIS. 8(1):45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Merlin LA. 2017. A portrait of accessibility change for four US metropolitan areas. J Transport Land Use. 10(1):309–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris JM, Dumble PL, Wigan MR. 1979. Accessibility indicators in transport planning. Transport Res A. 13(2):91–109.
   Google Scholar
• Mundia CN, Aniya M. 2005. Analysis of land use/cover changes and urban expansion of Nairobi city using remote sensing and GIS. Int J Remote Sens. 26(13):2831–2849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neutens T. 2015. Accessibility, equity and health care: Review and research directions for transport geographers. J Transport Geograph. 43:14–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niedzielski M, Boschmann E. 2014. Travel time and distance as relative accessibility in the journey to work. Ann Assoc Am Geograph. 104(6):1156–1182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw SL, Fang Z, Lu S, Tao R. 2014. Impacts of high speed rail on railroad network accessibility in China. J Transport Geograph. 40:112–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoman W, Algancı U, Demirel H. 2018. A comparative analysis of gridding systems for point based land-use analysis. Geocarto Int. 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2018.1450449
   Google Scholar
• Shoman W, Gülgen F. 2018. Labeling hierarchy for street maps using centrality measures. Cartograph J. 55:68–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stathopoulou M, Cartalis C, Petrakis M. 2007. Integrating corine land cover data and Landsat tm for surface emissivity definition: Application to the urban area of Athens, Greece. Int J Remote Sens. 28(15):3291–3304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenkanen H, Saarsalmi P, Järv O, Salonen M, Toivonen T. 2016. Health research needs more comprehensive accessibility measures: Integrating time and transport modes from open data. Int J Health Geograph. 15:23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachs M, Kumagai TG. 1973. Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio Econ Plann Sci. 7(5):437–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Monzon A, Ciommo FD. 2015. Assessing the accessibility impact of transport policy by a land-use and transport interaction model—The case of Madrid. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 49:126–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JS, Lindsey GH. 2005. Socioeconomic correlates and environmental impacts of urban development in a central Indiana landscape. J Urban Plann Dev. 131(3):159–169. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:3(159)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao J, Shen Y, Ge J, Tateishi R, Tang C, Liang Y, Huang Z. 2006. Evaluating urban expansion and land use change in Shijiazhuang, China, by using GIS and remote sensing. Landsc Urban Plann. 75(1/2):69–80. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan F, Sawaya K, E, Loeffelholz B, Bauer M, E. 2005. Land cover classification and change analysis of the Twin Cities (Minnesota) Metropolitan area by multitemporal Landsat remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ. 98(2/3):317–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Liu S. 2004. Analysis of the impact of the MRT system on accessibility in Singapore using an integrated GIS tool. J Transport Geograph. 12(2):89–101.
   Google Scholar