The Impact of Modal Split Ratios of Urban Public Space Trips on the Accessibility Level of Urban Public Spaces

Abstract

The continuity of urban activity is determined by a number of variables. One of the elements is the continuity of well-managed transportation systems, therefore sustainable transporta-tion systems are becoming an important part of long-term urban development. Squares, as is well known, are the central and common focus of social activity in urban and public spaces. City squares function as social areas that are well-organized and demand continual active access via various modes of transportation. This article attempts to identify the variables that come to the fore by presenting the legitimate distribution favored by visitors to The Historical Peninsula's Eminönü, Çemberlitaş, Sirkeci, Beyazıt, and Sultanahmet Squares in a specific manner. Its goal was to verify the aspects that influence these squares' accessibility levels in terms of walking, private automobiles, and public transportation. The marginal effect coeffi-cient estimates for these factors are 36.71 percent, 52.47 percent, and 38.02 percent, respec-tively, according to the findings of the multinominal logistic regression model. The location of home, monthly transportation cost, and age are the leading factors in shaping the rates of walking, private vehicle, and public transportation use. The least effective elements determin-ing the relevant modal split trends were the monthly transportation cost and education level, in contrast to the frequent conditions that happen in developed cities.

Keywords

• Urban Transportation
• Types of Transportation
• Multinominal Logistic Regression Model
• Istanbul
• Historical Peninsula

Ulaşımdaki Türel Dağılımın Kamusal Alanlara Erişimdeki Etkisi

Abstract

Kentsel faaliyetlerin sürekliliği, iyi yönlendirilmiş ulaşım sistemleri tarafından sağlanmakta ve sürdürülebilir ulaşım sistemleri sürdürülebilir kentsel gelişmenin önemli bir bileşeni haline gelmektedir. Kentsel kamusal alanlar, toplumsal yaşamın odak noktası olan meydanları içermektedir. Kent meydanları, iyi entegre edilmiş ve farklı ulaşım türleri ile etkin erişim gerektiren sosyal yaşamın odak noktaları olarak hizmet vermektedir. Bu noktadan hareketle bu makale, İstanbul'un Tarihi Yarımada’sında yer alan Eminönü, Çemberlitaş, Sirkeci, Beyazıt ve Sultanahmet Meydanları’na gelen ziyaretçilerin ulaşımda tercih ettikleri türel dağılımların şekillenmesinde öne çıkan değişkenleri tespit etmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu şekilde, bu meydanların erişilebilirlik seviyelerini yürüme, özel motorlu taşıt ve toplu taşıma açısından doğrulamayı hedeflemiştir. Çok terimli lojistik bağlanım modelinin bulgularına göre, yürüme, özel araç ve toplu taşıma kullanma oranlarının şekillenmesinde sırasıyla evin konumu, aylık ulaşım maliyeti ve yaş önde gelen değişkenler olurken, söz konusu değişkenlere yönelik tekil etki katsayı tahminleri ise %36,71, %52,47 ve %38.02 çıkmıştır. Gelişmiş ülkelerin kentlerinde olan yaygın olan durumların aksine, ilgili kentsel ulaşımdaki türel seçimleri İstanbul’da şekillendiren en az etkili parametreler, aylık ulaşım maliyeti ve eğitim düzeyi olmuştur.

Keywords

• Kent İçi Ulaşım
• Ulaşım Türleri
• Çok Terimli Lojistik Bağlanım Modeli
• İstanbul
• Tarihi Yarımada

References

1. Abbasgil, E. (1994). İstanbul’daki toplu taşımacılık kapsamında raylı sistemlerin değerlendirmesi-Esenler-Aksaray hızlı tramvay örneği, İstanbul Üniversitesi, S.B.E, İstanbul.
2. Al-Salih, W. Q., Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2021). Linking mode choice with travel behavior by using logit model based on utility function. Sustainability. 13, 4332. doi: 10.3390/su13084332
3. Ayataç, H. (2018). Aktif kamusal yaşam ve aktif kamusal mekanlar, Şehir Toplum, No. 11, Ekim 2018, s. 29–40, ISSN: 2564-7067
4. Azak, S. N., Beli̇r, O. (2020). Yaşlı bireylerin kent mekânlarını kullanım analizleri: Heybeliada’da bir inceleme. Modular Journal. 3 (1), 20–38
5. Berrigan, D., Troiano, R. P. (2002). The Association between urban form and physical activity in U.S. adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine (23), 74 79. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00476-2
6. Bhat, C., Handy, S., Kockelman, K., Mahmassani, H., Chen, Q., Srour, I., Weston, L. (2001). Assessment of accessibility measure (Research Report No. 7-4938). Texas Department of Transportation, Texas, U.S.A.
7. Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) (2006). CRPD: The Convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations.
8. Böcker, L., Amen, P., Helbich, M. (2016). Elderly travel frequencies and transport mode choices in Greater Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Transportation 44:831–852. doi:10.1007/s11116-016-9680-z

9. Brookfield, K., Tilley, S. (2016). Using virtual street audits to understand the walkability of older adults’ route choices by gender and age. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (13), 1061. doi:10.3390/ijerph13111061
10. Calthorpe Associates. (2011). Transit-oriented development design guidelines. San Diego: Calthorpe Associates.
11. Cassas, I. (2007). Social exclusion and the disabled: an accessibility approach. Prof. Geogr. 59 (4), 463–477. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00635.x
12. Djurhuus, S., Sten Hansen, H., Aadahl, M., Glümer, C. (2016). Building a multimodal network and determining individual accessibility by public transportation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2016, volume 43, 210–227. doi:10.1177/0265813515602594
13. Doratli, N., Pasaogullari, N. (2004). Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities, 225 232. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.03.003
14. Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G. (2008). A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31:5, 509-523. doi: 10.1080/03081060802364471
15. Engwicht D. (1993). Reclaiming our cities and towns: better living with less traffic. Philadelphia: New Society Publishing.
16. Erkip, F. (Beler) (1997). The distribution of urban public services: The case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14, 353-361. doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(97)00026-7
17. Evcil, N. (2010). Designers' attitudes towards disabled people and the compliance of public open places: The case of Istanbul. European Planning Studies. 18:11, 1863–1880. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2010.512178
18. Fougeyrollas, P., Noreau, L., Bergeron, H., Cloutier, R., Dion, S-A., St-Michel, G. (1998). Social consequences of long-term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. v21 n2 p127-41 Jun 1998. doi: 10.1097/00004356-199806000-00002
19. Gašparović, S. (2014). Impact of transport disadvantage on education of high school population of the City of Zagreb. ICTTE Belgrade 2014-International Conference on Traffic and Transport Engineering. 2014
20. Geurs, K. T., Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography. 12(2), 127–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
21. Gharebaghi, A., Mostafavi, M. (2018). The role of social factors in the accessibility of urban areas for people with motor disabilities. International Journal of Geo-Information. doi:10.3390/ijgi7040131
22. Golan, Y., Handerson, J. (2019). Gendered walkability: building a daytime walkability index for women. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 501 5 26. doi:10.5198/jtlu.2019.1472
23. Hamamcioglu C., Yenen Z. (2009). İstanbul Tarihi Yarımada’da ulaşım ağı ve kentsel hizmet alanlarının yerseçimi etkileşimi. Megaron; 4(3):175–190.
24. Hansen W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 25:2, 73–76. doi: 10.1080/01944365908978307
25. Hill, R. (1998). What sample size is "enough" in internet. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 6(3-4):3.
26. Hogg, R. V., Tanis, E., Zimmerman, D. (2014). Probability and statistical inference (Vol. 9th ed.). Pearson.
27. Holloway, C., (1998). The business of tourism. Fifth Edition, Longman Publishing. New York.
28. Joyce, M., Dunn, R. (2009). A proposed methodology for measuring public transport accessibility to employment sites in the Auckland CBD. Proceedings of the 32nd Australasian transport research forum.
29. Kashfi, S., Bunker, J. M., Yigitcanlar, T. (2016). Modelling and analyzing effects of complex seasonality and weather on an area's daily transit ridership rate. Journal of Transport Geography 54:310–324. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.06.018
30. Knupter, S. M., Pokotilo, V., Woetzel, J. (2018). Elements of success: Urban transportation systems of 24 global cities. McKinsey Company.
31. Krambeck, H. V. (2006). The global walkability index (GWI) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT Libraries.
32. Lethbridge, J. (2008). Public transport poor choices: the limits of competitive markets in the provision of essential services to low-income consumers. PSIRU, Greenwich, London, UK, pp. 151–178.
33. Levinson, D. (1998). Accessibility and the journey to work. Journal of Transport Geography 6, 11–21. doi:10.1016/S0966-6923(97)00036-7
34. Liao, B. B. (2020). How does walkability change behavior? A comparison between different age groups in the Netherlands. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 540. doi:10.3390/ijerph17020540
35. Litman, T. (2021). Evaluating accessibility for transport planning: measuring people's ability to reach desired services and activities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
36. Liu, C. P. (2017). Understanding the factors influencing public transport mode choice in Taiwan. Doctoral thesis, UCL (University College London).
37. Lo, R. H. (2009). Walkability: What is it? Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 2(2), 145–166. doi:10.1080/17549170903092867
38. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Newbold, K. B., Scott, D.M., Spinney, J.E.L., Kanaroglou, P., Pa´ez, A. (2005). Travel behavior within Canada’s older population: a cohort analysis. J. Transport Geogr. 13, 340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo. 2004.07.007
40. Nguyen, H. T. A., Chikaraishi, M., Fujiwara, A., Zhang, J. (2017). Mediation effects of income on travel mode choice: analysis of short-distance trips based on path analysis with multiple discrete outcomes. Transportation Research Record 2664 (1), 23–30. doi:10.3141/2664-03
41. Pa´ez, A., Scott, D., Potoglou, D., Kanaroglou P., Newbold K. B. (2007). Elderly mobility: demographic and spatial analysis of trip making in the Hamilton CMA, Canada. Urban Studies. Vol. 44, No. 1, 123–146, January 2007. doi:10.1080/00420980601023885
42. Preston, J., Raje, F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion Journal of Transport Geography. 15 (2007) 151–160. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.05.002
43. Pouya, S., Sekman, B. (2019). Kullanım sürecinde değerlendirilmesi, Malatya kent meydanları örneği, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2020;17(2):189-197. doi: 10.25308/aduziraat.701680
44. Rahman, K. A. (2018). Analyzing the level of accessibility of public urban green spaces to different socially vulnerable groups of people. Sustainability (10), 3917. doi:10.3390/su10113917
45. Rivas, M. E., Serebrisky, T., Suárez-Alemán, A. (2018). How affordable is transportation in Latin America and the Caribbean? Technical Note No. IDB-TN-1588, Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. doi: 10.18235/0001530
46. Scheepers, E., Wendel-Vos, W., van Kempen, E., Panis, L. I., Maas, J., Stipdonk, H., Schuit, J. (2013). Personal and environmental characteristics associated with choice of active transport modes versus car use for different trip purposes of trips up to 7.5 kilometers in the Netherlands. Plos One. 8(9), 1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073105
47. Schmöcker, J. D., Quddus, M. A., Noland, R. B., Bell, M. (2008). Mode choice of older and disabled people: A case study of shopping trips in London. Journal of Transport Geography, 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.07.002
48. Southworth M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 131 (4), 246–257. doi:10.1061/0733-9488(2005)131:4(246)
49. Stjernborg, V. (2019). Accessibility for all in public transport and the overlooked (social) dimension—a case study of Stockholm. Sustainability. 11, 4902. doi:10.3390/su11184902
50. Stjernborg, V.; Mattisson, O. (2016). The role of public transport in society—a case study of general policy documents in Sweden. Sustainability. 8, 1120. doi:10.3390/su8111120
51. Stojanovski, T. (2019). Urban design and public transportation – public spaces, visual proximity and transit-oriented development (TOD). Journal of Urban Design. 1–21. doi:10.1080/13574809.2019.1592665
52. Talavera-Garcia, R. (2012). Improving pedestrian accessibility to public space through space syntax analysis. 8th Space Syntax Symposıum, Santiago, Chile.
53. TÜİK, (2020). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçları, Haziran 2020, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Tümertekin, E. (1987). Ulaşım coğrafyası İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yay. No: 2053, Coğrafya Enstitüsü Yay. No: 85.
54. UN. (2019). The Global Goals-For Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.globalgoals.org/11-sustainable-cities-and-communities
55. Verseckienė, A., Meškauskas V., Batarlienė N. (2016). Urban public transport accessibility for people with movement disorders: The case study of Vilnius. Procedia Engineering (134), 48–56.
56. Wahyuni E. S., Murti, B., Joebagio, H. (2016). Public transport accessibility for people with disabilities. Journal of Health Policy and Management 01(01):1–7. doi:10.26911/thejhpm.2016.01.01.01
57. Wilson, C. R., Voorhis, V., Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 3(2):48; 2007.
58. Wu J., Liao H. (2020). Weather, travel mode choice, and impacts on subway ridership in Beijing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice Volume 135, May 2020, Pages 264–279. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.020