Do Transit-Dependent Neighborhoods Receive Inferior Bus Access? A Neighborhood Analysis in Four U.S. Cities

REFERENCES

• Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression:A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 37–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Public Transportation Association (2007). A profile of public transportation passenger demographics and travel characteristics reported in on-board surveys. Washington, DC: American Public Transportation Association.
   Google Scholar
• American Public Transportation Association (2008a). 2008 public transportation factbook (59th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Transportation Association.
   Google Scholar
• American Public Transportation Association (2008b). Public transportation: Benefits for the 21st century. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/twenty_first_century.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• Antunes, G. E., & Plumlee, J. P. (1977). The distribution of an urban public service. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 12(3), 313–331.
   Google Scholar
• Benn, H. (1995). Synthesis of transit practice 10: Bus route evaluation standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat, C. R., Guo, J. Y., Sen, S., & Weston, L. (2005). Measuring access to public transportation services: Review of customer-oriented transit performance measures and methods of transit submarket identification. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. Report No. 0–5178-1.
   Google Scholar
• Bolotin, F. N., & Cingranelli, D. L. (1983). Equity and urban policy: The underclass hypothesis revisited. The Journal of Politics, 45, 210–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, J., & Jacobs, D. (1982). The intracity distribution of services: A multivariate analysis. The American Political Science Review, 76, 371–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnett, A.D. (1981). The distribution of local political outputs and outcomes in British and North American cities. InA. D. Burnett & P. J. Taylor (Eds.), Political studies from spatial perspectives: Anglo-American essays on political geography. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000). Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy, 7, 195–205.
   Google Scholar
• Cingranelli, D. L. (1981). Race, politics, and elites: Testing alternative models of municipal service distribution. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 664–692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, G. (2004) Gap analysis of public transport needs—Measuring spatial distribution of public transport needs and identifying gaps in the quality of public transport provision. Transportation Research Record, 1895, 137–146.
   Google Scholar
• Currie, G. (2010). Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 31–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, G., Enright, D., Hoey, C., & Paterson, D. (2003). Quantitative approaches to needs based assessment of public transport services—The Hobart transport needs gap study. Paper presented at the 26th Australian Transport Research Forum.
   Google Scholar
• Dalvi, M. Q., & Martin, K. M. (1976). The measurement of accessibility: Some preliminary results. Transportation, 5, 17–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deka, D. (2004). Social and environmental justice issues in urban transportation. InS. Hanson & G. Giuliano (Eds.), The geography of urban transportation (3rd ed., pp. 332–355). New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., Evans, R., & Sipe, N. (2006). Investigating the social dimensions of transport disadvantage I. Towards new concepts and methods. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), 433–453.
   Google Scholar
• Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., Evans, R., & Sipe, N. (2007). Investigating the social dimensions of transport disadvantage II: From concepts to methods through an empirical case study. Urban Policy and Research, 25(1), 63–89.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, K. A. (1997). The political economy of special-purpose government: American governance and public policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, M., & Taylor, B. (1999). Reconsidering social equity in public transit. Berkeley Planning Journal, 13, 6–27.
   Google Scholar
• Giuliano, G. (2005). Low income, public transit, and mobility. Transportation Research Record, 1927, 63–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. L., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Racial segregation. InA. Berube, B. Katz, & R. E. Lang. (Eds.), Redefining urban and suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grengs, J. (2001). Does public transit counteract the segregation of carless households Transportation Research Record, 1753, 3–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measure accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1175–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hine, J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). Better for everyone? Travel experiences and transport exclusion. Urban Studies, 38(2), 319–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge, D. C. (1985). My fair share: Equity issues in urban transportation. InS. Hanson (Ed.) The geography of urban transportation (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D. (1981). Party and bureaucracy: The influence of intermediary groups on urban public service delivery. The American Political Science Review, 75(3), 688–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., Greenberg, S. R., Kaufman, C., & Drew, J. (1978). Service delivery rules and the distribution of local government services: Three Detroit bureaucracies. The Journal of Politics, 40(2), 332–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., & Kaufman, C. (1974). The distribution of urban public services. Administration & Society, 6(3), 337–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10, 207–219.
   Google Scholar
• Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Urbitran, Inc., LKC Consulting Services, Inc., MORPACE International, Inc., Queensland University of Technology, & Nakanishi, Y. (2003). A guidebook for developing a transit performance-measurement system. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby, A. (1982). The politics of location. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Klem, L. (1995). Path analysis. InL. Grimm & P. Arnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, D. H., & Wrightston, M. T. (1987). Inequality in the delivery of urban services: A reconsideration of the Chicago parks. The Journal of Politics, 49(1), 80–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laswell, H. D. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: World Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, F., Meltsner, A. J., & Wildavsky, A. (1974). Urban outcomes. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lineberry, R. L. (1975). Equality, public policy and public services: The underclass hypothesis and the limits to equality. Politics and Policy, 4, 67–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lineberry, R. L. (1977). Equality and urban policy: The distribution of municipal public services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lineberry, R. L., & Welch, R. E. J. (1974). Who gets what: Measuring the distribution of urban public services. Social Science Quarterly, 54(4), 700–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, T. (2003). Social inclusion as a transport planning issue in Canada. Paper presented at the April 4, 2003 Transport and Social Exclusion G7 Comparison Seminar, London.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, J. R. (2006). Ethnic diversity grows, neighborhood integration lags. InA. Berube, B. Katz, & R. E. Lang (Eds.), Redefining urban and suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miranda, R. A., & Tunyavong, I. (1994). Patterned inequality? Reexamining the role of distributive politics in urban service delivery. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 29(4), 509–534.
   Google Scholar
• Mladenka, K. R. (1978). Organizational rules, service equality and distributional decisions in urban politics. Social Science Quarterly, 59(1), 192–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mladenka, K. R. (1980). The urban bureaucracy and the Chicago political machine: Who gets what and the limits to political control. The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 991–998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mladenka, K. R. (1989). The distribution of an urban public service: The changing role of race and politics. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24(4), 556–583.
   Google Scholar
• Mladenka, K. R., & Hill, K. Q. (1977). The distribution of benefits in an urban environment: Parks and libraries in Houston. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 13(1), 73–94.
   Google Scholar
• Mladenka, K. R., & Hill, K. Q. (1978). The distribution of urban police services. The Journal of Politics, 40(1), 112–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. (1991). Politics and the theory of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, J. M., Dumble, P. L., & Wigan, M. R. (1978). Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transportation Research A, 13A, 91–109.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, A. T. (2001). Strategic analysis of public transport coverage. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35, 175–188.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, A. T., Davis, R., Stimson, R. J., & Ferreira, L. (1998). Public transportation access. Transportation Research D, 3(5), 319–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyerges, T. L. (1995). Geographical information system support for urban/regional transportation analysis. InS. Hanson (Ed.), The geography of urban transportation. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pacione, M. (1990). Urban problems: An applied urban analysis. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Polzin, S. E., & Maggio, E. (2007). Public transit in America: Analysis of access using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Report No. NCTR 576–02, FDOT BD-549–30. Tampa: Center for Urban Transportation Research.
   Google Scholar
• Pucher, J. (1981). Equity in transit finance: Distribution of transit subsidy benefits and costs among income classes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47(4), 387–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucher, J. (1982). Discrimination in mass transit. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(3), 315–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucher, J., Evans, T., & Wenger, J. (1998). Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS. Transportation Quarterly, 52(3), 15–33.
   Google Scholar
• Rich, R. C. (1979). Neglected issues in the study of urban service distributions: A research agenda. Urban Studies, 16, 143–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rood, T. (1998). The local index of transit availability: An implementation manual. Sacramento, CA: Local Government Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Salon, D. (2006). Cars and the city? A model of the determinants of auto ownership and use for commuting in New York City with endogenous choice of residential location. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, Albany, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Spielman, S., & Thill, J.-C. (2008). Social area analysis, data mining, and GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 110–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, J., & Lucas, K. (2008). Social exclusion: What can public transport offer? Research in Transportation Economics, 22, 36-40.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, J., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009). The usefulness of social exclusion to inform social policy in transport. Transport Policy, 16, 90–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, C. N. (1980). Systematic power in community decision making: A restatement of stratification theory. The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 978–990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svara, J. H. (1998). The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 51–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (1997). The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography, 18(6), 521–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 30, 595–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thill, J.-C. (2000). Geographic information systems for transportation in perspective. InJ.-C. Thill (Ed.), Geographic information systems in transportation research (pp. 3–12). New York: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Geographic areas reference manual. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/garm.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wachs, M., & Taylor, B. D. (1998). Can transportation strategies help meet the welfare challenge? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 15–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, B. M., & Hine, J. P. (2003). A PTAL approach to measuring changes in bus service accessibility. Transport Policy, 10, 307–320.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar