AP-R397-11 Application of Accessibility Measures PDF

AP-R397-11
AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT
Application of Accessibility Measures

Published December 2011
© Austroads Ltd 2011
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of
Austroads.
Application of Accessibilty Measures
ISBN 978-1-921991-14-1
Austroads Project No. NS1586
Austroads Publication No. AP–R397-11
Project Manager
Mark Davies, VicRoads
Prepared by
Dr Ian Espada and Dr James Luk
ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Ltd

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers
should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Sydney 2011
About Austroads
Austroads’ purpose is to:
▪ promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
▪ provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road
transport issues
▪ promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
▪ promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian
Local Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a
Board consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of
each of its eleven member organisations:
▪ Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
▪ Roads Corporation Victoria
▪ Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
▪ Main Roads Western Australia
▪ Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
▪ Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
▪ Department of Lands and Planning Northern Territory
▪ Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
▪ Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
▪ Australian Local Government Association
▪ New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and
others in the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality
information, advice and fostering research in the road transport sector.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope of Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Calibration and Application of Accessibility Metric .................................................... 1
1.1.2 Comparison of Accessibility Metrics ......................................................................... 2
1.2 Contents of this Report .......................................................................................................... 2
2 ARRB ACCESSIBILITY METRIC .......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Definition and Measurement of Accessibility .......................................................................... 3
2.2 Measurement of Accessibility by the AAM ............................................................................. 4
2.3 AAM Deterrence Function ...................................................................................................... 5
2.4 AAM Saturation Function ..................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Limitations of AAM for Health and Community Service ........................................................ 17
3 STRATEGIC ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 18
3.1 Accessibility in Perth ............................................................................................................ 18
3.1.1 Overall Assessment ............................................................................................... 18
3.1.2 Accessibility Maps .................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Accessibility in Melbourne .................................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 Overall Assessment ............................................................................................... 31
3.2.2 Accessibility Maps .................................................................................................. 32
3.3 Impacts of Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 43
3.3.1 Travel Distance and Accessibility ........................................................................... 43
3.3.2 Mode Share and Accessibility ................................................................................ 45
3.3.3 Property Price and Accessibility ............................................................................. 50
4 NEIGHBOURHOOD ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS.............................................................. 54
4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 54
4.2 Joondalup ............................................................................................................................ 56
4.3 Mandurah ............................................................................................................................ 61
4.4 Burwood Heights, City of Whitehorse ................................................................................... 66
5 COMPARISON OF METRICS ............................................................................................. 71
5.1 Koenig Accessibility Metric................................................................................................... 71
5.1.1 Assessment of Accessibility of Melbourne .............................................................. 71
5.1.2 Impact of Eastlink on Accessibility .......................................................................... 73
5.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 75
5.2 LUPTAI ................................................................................................................................ 77
5.2.1 Assessment of Accessibility ................................................................................... 77
5.2.2 Impact of a PT Project on Accessibility ................................................................... 83
5.3 NZTA Accessibility Metric .................................................................................................... 86
5.3.1 Heretaunga Plains.................................................................................................. 87
5.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 99
5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 102
6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 103
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 104
Austroads 2011
— i—
TABLES
Table 1.1: Scope of calibration and application ......................................................................... 1
Table 2.1: Deterrence function parameters ............................................................................... 8
Table 2.2: Saturation function parameters .............................................................................. 12
Table 2.3: Saturation point of the AAM by trip purpose ........................................................... 15
Table 3.1: Accessibility scores in Perth ................................................................................... 18
Table 3.2: Ratio of the average and highest household accessibility score in Perth ................ 20
Table 3.3: Suburbs with high accessibility scores in Perth ...................................................... 22
Table 3.4: Suburbs with low accessibility scores in Perth ........................................................ 22
Table 3.5: Accessibility scores in Melbourne ........................................................................... 31
Table 3.6: Ratio of the average and the highest household accessibility score in
Melbourne .............................................................................................................. 32
Table 3.7: Average PKT model parameters ............................................................................ 44
Table 3.8: Relationship between accessibility and PT, walking and cycling mode
share ...................................................................................................................... 46
Table 3.9: Property price model parameters ........................................................................... 52
Table 4.1: Joondalup study area AAM results ......................................................................... 57
Table 4.2: Mandurah study area AAM results ......................................................................... 62
Table 4.3: Burwood Heights study area AAM results .............................................................. 67
Table 5.1: Average residential unit accessibility score for Heretaunga Plains: AAM
and NAM ................................................................................................................ 88
FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Illustrative example on the calculation of accessibility score by the AAM
methodology ............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.2: AAM deterrence function .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.3: Level of satisfaction of travel time to work ................................................................ 7
Figure 2.4: Car deterrence function ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 2.5: Public transport deterrence function ......................................................................... 9
Figure 2.6: Walk deterrence function........................................................................................ 10
Figure 2.7: Cycle deterrence function ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.8: AAM saturation function ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.9: Work saturation function......................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.10: Primary and secondary school saturation function ................................................. 13
Figure 2.11: Tertiary school saturation function .......................................................................... 14
Figure 2.12: Shopping and recreation saturation function .......................................................... 14
Figure 2.13: Geographical area required to reach saturation point from the CBD and
a suburb in Melbourne............................................................................................ 16
Figure 3.1: Car-based work accessibility score by household percentile (Perth) ...................... 19
Figure 3.2: PT-based work accessibility score by household percentile (Perth)........................ 20
Figure 3.3: Car vs. public transport work accessibility in Perth ................................................. 21
Figure 3.4: Work accessibility in Perth by car and public transport ........................................... 23
Figure 3.5: Work accessibility in Perth by cycle and walk ......................................................... 24
Figure 3.6: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Perth by car and public
transport ................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.7: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Perth by cycle and walk .................. 26
Figure 3.8: Tertiary school accessibility in Perth by car and public transport ............................ 27
Figure 3.9: Tertiary school accessibility in Perth by cycle and walk .......................................... 28
Austroads 2011
— ii —
Figure 3.10: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Perth by car and public
transport ................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3.11: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Perth ....................................................... 30
Figure 3.12: Car vs. public transport work accessibility in Melbourne ......................................... 32
Figure 3.13: Average work accessibility by local government area in Melbourne ....................... 33
Figure 3.14: Average primary and secondary school accessibility by local government
area in Melbourne .................................................................................................. 33
Figure 3.15: Average tertiary school accessibility by local government area in
Melbourne .............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 3.16: Average shopping and recreation accessibility by local government area
in Melbourne .......................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.17: Work accessibility in Melbourne by car and public transport ................................... 35
Figure 3.18: Work accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and walk ................................................. 36
Figure 3.19: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Melbourne by car and
public transport....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.20: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and
walk........................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 3.21: Tertiary school accessibility in Melbourne by car and public transport .................... 39
Figure 3.22: Tertiary school accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and walk .................................. 40
Figure 3.23: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Melbourne by car and public
transport ................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 3.24: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and walk .................. 42
Figure 3.25: Average PKT by zone in Perth: model results vs. data ........................................... 44
Figure 3.26: Average PKT by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data ................................... 45
Figure 3.27: Public transport share by zone in Perth: model results vs. data .............................. 47
Figure 3.28: Walking and cycling share by zone in Perth: model results vs. data ....................... 48
Figure 3.29: Public transport share by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data ..................... 49
Figure 3.30: Walking share by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data ................................. 50
Figure 3.31: Median house and unit/apartment price in Melbourne (2008) ................................. 51
Figure 3.32: House prices by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data ................................... 53
Figure 3.33: Unit and apartment prices by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data ............... 53
Figure 4.1: Location of neighbourhood analysis study areas .................................................... 54
Figure 4.2: High resolution transport network for accessibility study (Mandurah study
area) ...................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.3: Transport network and key attractors in Joondalup study area ............................... 56
Figure 4.4: Public transport accessibility in Joondalup study area, Perth.................................. 58
Figure 4.5: Walking accessibility in Joondalup study area, Perth ............................................. 59
Figure 4.6: Cycle accessibility in Joondalup study area, Perth ................................................. 60
Figure 4.7: Transport network and key attractors in Mandurah study area ............................... 61
Figure 4.8: Public transport accessibility in Mandurah study area, Perth .................................. 63
Figure 4.9: Walking accessibility in Mandurah study area, Perth .............................................. 64
Figure 4.10: Cycle accessibility in Mandurah study area, Perth .................................................. 65
Figure 4.11: Transport network and key attractors in Burwood Heights study area .................... 66
Figure 4.12: Public transport accessibility in Burwood Heights study area, Melbourne ............... 68
Figure 4.13: Walking accessibility in Burwood Heights study area, Melbourne ........................... 69
Figure 4.14: Cycle accessibility in Burwood Heights study area, Melbourne .............................. 70
Figure 5.1: Comparison of work accessibility using KAM and AAM .......................................... 72
Figure 5.2: Rank of zones based on work accessibility using KAM and AAM ........................... 72
Figure 5.3: Relative magnitude of work accessibility using KAM and AAM ............................... 73
Figure 5.4: Change in accessibility due to Eastlink using AAM and KAM ................................. 74
Figure 5.5: Change in accessibility by zone due to Eastlink using AAM and KAM .................... 74
Figure 5.6: One origin – one destination city ............................................................................ 75
Austroads 2011
— iii —
Figure 5.7: Jobs within LGA and average PKT by car in Melbourne ......................................... 76
Figure 5.8: Comparison of the effect of transport impedance on work accessibility
using KAM and AAM .............................................................................................. 76
Figure 5.9: Comparison of the effect of employment on work accessibility using
KAM and AAM........................................................................................................ 77
Figure 5.10: Accessibility of zones by LUPTAI and AAM............................................................ 79
Figure 5.11: Accessibility of zones by rescaled LUPTAI and AAM ............................................. 80
Figure 5.12: Brisbane work PT accessibility: AAM and LUPTAI ................................................. 81
Figure 5.13: Brisbane primary and secondary school PT accessibility: AAM and
LUPTAI .................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 5.14: Brisbane tertiary school PT accessibility: AAM and LUPTAI ................................... 82
Figure 5.15: Brisbane retail PT accessibility: AAM and LUPTAI ................................................. 82
Figure 5.16: Change in work PT accessibility due to project: AAM and LUPTAI ......................... 84
Figure 5.17: Change in primary and secondary school PT accessibility due to project:
AAM and LUPTAI ................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.18: Change in tertiary school PT accessibility due to project: AAM and
LUPTAI .................................................................................................................. 85
Figure 5.19: Change in retail PT accessibility due to project: AAM and LUPTAI......................... 85
Figure 5.20: NAM raw accessibility value by mode .................................................................... 87
Figure 5.21: Impact of transport impedance by PT and cycle in NAM and AAM (work
accessibility) ........................................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.22: NAM and AAM of Residential Unit 44 and 90 ......................................................... 90
Figure 5.23: Difference in valuation of impedance in AAM and NAM for Unit 44 and
Unit 90 ................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 5.24: Primary school accessibility by walk: AAM and NAM ............................................. 92
Figure 5.25: Primary school accessibility by cycle: AAM and NAM............................................. 92
Figure 5.26: Primary school accessibility by PT: AAM and NAM ................................................ 93
Figure 5.27: Secondary school accessibility by walk: AAM and NAM ......................................... 93
Figure 5.28: Secondary school accessibility by cycle: AAM and NAM ........................................ 94
Figure 5.29: Secondary school accessibility by PT: AAM and NAM ........................................... 94
Figure 5.30: Work accessibility by walk: AAM and NAM............................................................. 95
Figure 5.31: Work accessibility by cycle: AAM and NAM............................................................ 95
Figure 5.32: Work accessibility by PT: AAM and NAM ............................................................... 96
Figure 5.33: Work accessibility by car: AAM and NAM ............................................................... 96
Figure 5.34: Primary school accessibility of residential units by mode: NAM and AAM .............. 97
Figure 5.35: Secondary school accessibility of residential units by mode: NAM and
AAM ....................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 5.36: Work accessibility of residential units by mode: NAM and AAM ............................. 99
Figure 5.37: One origin – one destination city ............................................................................ 99
Figure 5.38: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM walk accessibility to transport impedance
(school and work) ................................................................................................. 101
Figure 5.39: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM cycle accessibility to transport impedance
(school and work) ................................................................................................. 101
Figure 5.40: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM PT accessibility to transport impedance
(school and work) ................................................................................................. 101
Figure 5.41: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM car accessibility to transport impedance
(school and work) ................................................................................................. 102
Figure 5.42: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM car accessibility to opportunities at
destination (school and work) ............................................................................... 102
Austroads 2011
— iv —
SUMMARY
Accessibility is broadly defined as the variety of opportunities provided to people through efficient
arrangement of land use and various modes of transport. It measures the ease with which people
are able to find and reach the best suited opportunity, either for work, study and others. It is an
essential metric to assist in land use/transport planning and performance monitoring. This project
contributes to this purpose with the following aims:
▪ calibration and refinement of the accessibility metric proposed in project NS1516 (Austroads
2010)
▪ demonstration of the application of the accessibility metric at the strategic and
neighbourhood level
▪ comparison of the developed accessibility metric with other accessibility metrics.
The accessibility metric or AAM was formulated in this project. The AAM includes four types of
accessibility by mode, including car, public transport, cycle and walk. It also includes accessibility
to four destination types including work, primary and secondary school, tertiary institutions and
shopping and recreation. The AAM was calibrated to Australian metropolitan conditions.
The application of the AAM at the strategic level was conducted on Perth and Melbourne. Baseline
accessibility indicators were established. The baseline indicators can be used to check trends in
accessibility levels over time. Areas of high and low accessibility were identified. Generally, the
CBD and its neighbouring areas were rated to have the best accessibility in the metropolitan.
However areas of good accessibility could be observed in the suburbs, particularly for primary and
secondary school and shopping and recreation.
The relationship of accessibility to travel distance, mode share and land price was also examined
in Perth and Melbourne. The analysis underscored a potential link between accessibility and
tangible benefits to society. Key findings were as follows:
▪ Higher accessibility results in less travel kilometres.
▪ A positive impact of accessibility on mode share is apparent in work trips but a relationship
could not be clearly identified for school and shopping and recreation trips.
▪ There is an indicative relationship between accessibility and property price.
Neighbourhood application of the AAM was demonstrated in three case studies including study
areas in Joondalup (WA), Mandurah (WA) and Burwood Heights, City of Whitehorse (Victoria). The
analysis included public transport, cycle and walk accessibility. It did not cover car accessibility
because there is little variation in travel time by car from within a small area. Key findings were as
follows:
▪ Accessibility levels in the Joondalup study area were similar to the average level in Perth.
▪ The Mandurah study area was assessed to accessibility levels below the Perth average,
except for accessibility to primary and secondary school by public transport and cycle.
▪ The Burwood Heights study area was assessed to have accessibility levels above the
Melbourne average.
Austroads 2011
— v—
The AAM was compared with the Koenig (1974) accessibility metric (KAM), Land Use and Public
Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) of TMR (2010) and NZTA accessibility metric (NAM) (Abley
2010). The comparison of AAM with KAM, LUPTAI and NAM demonstrated a degree of correlation
between metrics which indicates a commonality in the principles adopted by the four metrics. Key
differences are as follows:
▪ AAM results in a more realistic assessment of the hinterland of developments than KAM.
▪ AAM establishes a more realistic benchmark for the scale of opportunities to induce
containment than KAM.
▪ There was a situation where AAM and LUPTAI resulted in diverging accessibility results. This
was attributed to differences in inputs used in the calculations and to some extent the
variations inherent in the random utility theory and Monte Carlo simulation approach of
LUPTAI.
▪ AAM is more applicable to large metropolitan areas than the NAM for employment
accessibility because AAM has the property of diminishing returns for employment whereas
the NAM assumes constant returns for employment.
▪ The AAM and NAM account travel time and opportunities differently. The AAM model forms
and parameters were calibrated using data from Melbourne and Perth, while the NAM was
based on New Zealand conditions.
It is recommended that accessibility be adopted as a performance indicator to assess transport

policies, projects and programs, and to inform land use planning. The endorsement of this report
by Austroads does not imply that each road agency will adopt the AAM. Further research is
needed to harmonise various approaches to accessibility analysis. The following is a list of other
potential research items:
▪ formulate a methodology to compile and develop a database of inputs for accessibility
monitoring
▪ develop metrics for other trip purposes particularly health services
▪ develop a general multimodal accessibility metric to provide guidance on trade-offs between
accessibility by various modes of transport
▪ develop a metric that can examine the effect of large transport price increases and level of
service of transport
▪ develop a general model for various city types
▪ incorporate the effect of competition for opportunities that are considered as private goods
▪ examine further the link between accessibility and benefits to society
▪ explore calibration techniques that do not rely on trip data to check bias in parameters
calibrated from trip data.
Austroads 2011
— vi —
1 INTRODUCTION
are able to find and reach the best suited opportunity, either for work, study and others. The
purpose of Austroads NS1586 is the development of an accessibility assessment framework for
policy analysis and performance monitoring. The metric developed in this project is referred to as
the accessibility metric or AAM. The endorsement of this report by Austroads does not imply that
each road agency will adopt the AAM.
The project has the following objectives.

▪ calibration and refinement of the accessibility metric proposed in Project NS1516 (Austroads
2010)
▪ application of the proposed accessibility metric to case studies in Melbourne and Perth,
including a strategic citywide analysis and a detailed analysis of a small zone or area
▪ comparative analysis with other accessibility metrics.
1.1 Scope of Objectives

1.1.1 Calibration and Application of Accessibility Metric
The project aimed to develop an accessibility metric covering various trip purposes and modes.
Table 1.1 presents the scope of calibration and application of this study. Trip purposes included
are employment, schools, health care, shopping and recreation. Modes covered are car, public
transport, walking and cycling.
The application of the calibrated metric entailed the development of accessibility maps and
accessibility indicators. The calibrated metric was applied at a strategic level and at a
neighbourhood level. Melbourne and Perth were used as subjects for strategic level application.
Three small groups of suburbs were selected as subjects for neighbourhood-level application.
These included selected sites in City of Whitehorse in Victoria, City of Joondalup in WA and City of
Mandurah in WA. In Whitehorse the selected site was Burwood Heights development area and its
surroundings (approximately Burwood and Burwood East). In Joondalup the selected site included
the suburbs of Kinross, Currambine and Joondalup. In Mandurah the selected sites included the
area bounded by Meadow Springs Dr, Lakes Rd and Pinjara Rd. The selected sites for
neighbourhood-level application were based on recommendations of respective local government.
Table 1.1: Scope of calibration and application

Trip purpose Mode Location Level
Employment, school, health care, Car Perth, Melbourne Strategic
shopping and recreation Public transport, walk and cycle Perth, Melbourne Strategic
Selected sites in Whitehorse (Victoria), Neighbourhood
Joondalup (WA), Mandurah (Perth)
Austroads 2011
— 1—
1.1.2 Comparison of Accessibility Metrics

The comparison among metrics aimed to understand how each metric behaves relative to each
other. The metrics selected for the comparative analysis included:
▪ Koenig accessibility metric (referred in this report as KAM)
▪ Land Use and Public Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI)
▪ NZTA accessibility metric (referred in this report as NAM).
1.2 Contents of this Report

The contents of this report are as follows:
▪ Section 2 describes the AAM
▪ Section 3 describes a strategic accessibility analysis using AAM
▪ Section 4 analyses neighbourhood accessibility using AAM
▪ Section 5 compares the AAM with KAM, LUPTAI and NAM
▪ Section 6 provides the conclusions of the study.
Austroads 2011
— 2—
2 ARRB ACCESSIBILITY METRIC

This section describes the ARRB accessibility metric (AAM). The AAM was based on the
accessibility metric formulated in project no. NS1516 (Austroads 2010).
2.1 Definition and Measurement of Accessibility

are able to find and reach the best suited opportunity, either for work, study and others.
Accessibility is a feature of a location and in this study it is specifically defined as a feature of a
residential location. The higher the variety of opportunities from a location, the more valuable the
location will be. This has potentially positive implications for residents as follows:
▪ accessibility could increase land price
▪ accessibility could reduce transport expenditure (including time and cost)
▪ accessibility could improve prospects of finding suitable jobs, school, goods, etc.
Two aspects need to be present to achieve accessibility as follows:

▪ opportunities need to be in close proximity and in sufficient quantity
▪ transport needs to be efficient and effective in connecting people to opportunities.
An accessibility metric quantifies the degree to which the above two aspects are present in a
location. The use of accessibility as a performance indicator extends transport-based performance
indicators such as travel time and connectivity by rewarding high performing transport corridors
that link with destinations of value such as job centres, schools, shopping areas, etc. An
accessibility metric also account for improvements in land use when opportunities are more
equitably distributed and positioned where they could be easily reached by transport.
There are a number of accessibility metrics available and major approaches are described in
Austroads (2010). The measurement of accessibility invariably involves the determination of an
accessibility score from transport impedance and opportunities at destinations. An accessibility
metric thereby requires two inputs as follows:
▪ distribution of opportunities (i.e. location and number of opportunities such as jobs, retail
space, enrolment, etc.)
▪ transport impedance (e.g. cost and time) to reach opportunities from a given location.
Accessibility measurement requires the following fundamental functions:

▪ Deterrence function: a function that decreases the value of opportunities based on the
degree of difficulty of reaching the destination by transport.
▪ Saturation function: a function that decreases the contribution of additional opportunities
based on the concept of decreasing marginal rates of return.
To illustrate the saturation function, consider a case where a grocery store is opened in an area
with no existing grocery store. Contrast it with a case where the new grocery store is opened in an
area with an already existing grocery store. The improvement of accessibility to retail is higher in
the former than in the latter. The saturation function determines the marginal improvement in
accessibility based on the level of opportunities that already are in place.
Austroads 2011
— 3—
All available opportunities are scanned and the deterrence function and the saturation gives an
accessibility score for a particular location. Terminologies and approaches to the treatment of the
deterrence and saturation function differ in various metrics (e.g. see Austroads 2010), but
fundamentally all accessibility metrics follow the same principles.
2.2 Measurement of Accessibility by the AAM

This section describes how the AAM quantifies accessibility. The area to be studied is firstly
subdivided into zones. The definition of zones is arbitrary and the resolution (or size) of the zones
depends on data available and level of detail required. The size of the zones does not affect the
AAM methodology. For example, in this study the zoning systems used were as follows:
▪ traffic zones were used in strategic transport models for strategic applications (e.g. Perth was
divided into 472 zones and Melbourne was divided in 2256 zones)
▪ zones defined by a grid with 100 m spacing were used in neighbourhood applications.
Two key inputs required by the AAM are the opportunities by zone and the transport impedance
matrix. Proxies are used to quantify opportunities. Proxies for opportunities in this study include:
▪ jobs for employment opportunities
▪ enrolment for school opportunities
▪ workers in the retail industry for shopping opportunities
▪ workers in the recreation industry for recreation opportunities.
The transport impedance matrix is a table of generalised transport costs of going from one zone to
another zone. It includes travel time (door-to-door) and cost (e.g. fare, parking, etc.). For this study,
the transport impedance matrix was derived from transport models. Transport impedance is
expressed in terms of equivalent unweighted travel time.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the calculation of an accessibility score using the AAM. Say the accessibility
level of Zone 1 is going to be calculated. Firstly, the weighting factor for all destination zones based
on transport impedance from Zone 1 is determined. In Figure 2.1 the weights of 0.5 and 0.25 are
determined from the transport impedance data and the deterrence function. The number of
opportunities in each destination zone is multiplied by the respective weighting factor and summed
up, i.e. 1000 x 0.5 + 2000 x 0.25 = 1000 in the example. The weighted sum of 1000 is inputted into
the saturation function to determine an accessibility score of 0.6.
Austroads 2011
— 4—
1000 opportunities
30 min → Transport impedance function → weight of 0.5
30 min
45 min
Zone 1
45 min → Transport impedance → weight of 0.25 2000 opportunities
Weighted sum of opportunities = 0.5  1000 jobs + 0.25  2000 jobs = 1000 equivalent opportunities
1000 equivalent opportunities → saturation function → 0.6 accessibility score
Figure 2.1: Illustrative example on the calculation of accessibility score by the AAM methodology
Mathematically, the AAM is expressed as follows (Equation 1):
  1
Ai = s  d (Ci , j )X j 
 j 
where
A = accessibility score of zone i
s( ) = saturation function of weighted opportunities
d( ) = deterrence function of transport impedance (i.e. weights)
Ci,j = transport impedance form zone i to zone j
Xj = opportunities available at zone j.
Details of the deterrence function and the saturation function are in Section 2.3 and Section 2.4
respectively.
2.3 AAM Deterrence Function

The higher the transport impedance the lower the value of the opportunity. The AAM deterrence
function assigns a weighting factor from 0 to 1 to an opportunity based on transport impedance as
shown in Figure 2.2. A weighting factor of 1 is assigned to an opportunity close to the location,
while a weighting close to 0 is assigned when the opportunity is located beyond a threshold (say
60 minutes travel time).
The AAM deterrence function has an S-shaped form. This implies that at low levels of transport
impedance, the effect of transport is marginal. As transport impedance increases the impact of
Austroads 2011
— 5—
1.0 Application of Accessibility Measures
transport increases. At higher transport impedance the weighting factor levels off close to 0. The
0.8 empirical studies on valuation of transport impedance by Redmond and Mokhtarian (2001) in San
Francisco and analysed by Calvert and Avineri (2009) and Young and Morris (1981) in Melbourne
were used as the basis for adopting an S-shaped form for the AAM deterrence function
(Figure 2.3). It is important to note that the AAM deterrence function is a measure of level of
0.6 satisfaction of transport impedance and it is not directly related to the trip length distribution.
1.0  ==20
kappa
alpha 20  = =0.2
= 0.0013
beta 0.2
0.4  ==35
kappa
alpha  = =0.2
= 0.0008
35 beta 0.2
0.8
 = 35  = 0.1
alpha = 35 beta = 0.1
kappa = 0.0006
Weighting factor
0.2
0.6
- 0.4
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

0.2
Weighted sum of opportunities
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Transport impedance,
Transort min
impedance
Figure 2.2: AAM deterrence function
Austroads 2011
— 6—
90
80
70 Car user
Level of satisfaction
Public transport user

60
50
40
30
20
10
-
0 20 40 60 80 100
Travel time to work (min)
Source: Young and Morris (1981).
Figure 2.3: Level of satisfaction of travel time to work
Mathematically the AAM deterrence function is expressed as follows (Equation 2):
exp −  (C −  ) 2
d (C ) = 
1 + exp −  (C −  )
where
 = 1 + exp ( )
exp ( )
 ,  are parameters .
The AAM deterrence function has two parameters that determine the shape of the deterrence
function, i.e.  and . The AAM deterrence functions were calibrated based on the Strategic
Transport Evaluation Model (STEM) database of the Department of Planning and Investment (DPI)
in Western Australia and the Melbourne Integrated Transport Model (MITM) database of the
Department of Transport (DOT) in Victoria. Because of the choice of the calibration data set, the
AAM deterrence function is applicable only to Australian metropolitan conditions.
Austroads 2011
— 7—
The calibration methodology of  and  is in Progress Report 2 of this study (Espada 2010). The
calibrated parameters are summarised in Table 2.1. It also includes the definition of transport
impedance which factors in travel time and associated travel cost. The deterrence functions by
mode and trip purposes are illustrated as follows:
▪ car in Figure 2.4
▪ public transport (PT) in Figure 2.5
▪ walk in Figure 2.6
▪ cycle in Figure 2.7.
The curves illustrate the threshold transport impedance of opportunities or developments, beyond
which their impact to accessibility is diminished.
Table 2.1: Deterrence function parameters

Mode Transport impedance, min Trip purpose Deterrence function
parameters
 
Car C = TT + 3.75  TC Work 25.5 0.14
TT = travel time, min
School – primary and secondary 11.9 0.57
TC = parking + toll, $
School – tertiary 20.0 0.10
Shopping and recreation 16.4 0.54
Public transport C = TT + 3.75  TC Work 46.0 0.07
TT = door to door travel time, min
TC = fare, $
Walk C = travel time, min Work 17.6 0.23
(4.3 km/h walk speed)
Cycle C = travel time, min Work 16.0 0.28
(16 km/h cycle speed)
A generalised deterrence function which is applicable to all trip purposes and mode can be useful
to examine multimodal issues. Moreover, inclusion of level of service (e.g. reliability and on-board
congestion) in the deterrence function can also be useful for policy analysis. Deterrence functions
that can account the impact of significant increases in transport cost, such as fuel price increase is
also beneficial. Further research is required to develop the above deterrence functions.
Austroads 2011
— 8—
1.0 Work
Primary & secondary
Weighting factor, f(c)
0.8
Tertiary
0.6 Shop & recreation
0.4
0.2
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Transport
imepdance,min
min
Figure 2.4: Car deterrence function
1.0
Work
0.8 Primary & secondary

Tertiary
0.4
0.2
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Transport
imepdance, min
min
Figure 2.5: Public transport deterrence function
Austroads 2011
— 9—
1.0 Work
Primary & secondary
0.8
Tertiary
0.4
0.2
-
0 10 20 30 40
Transport
Transportimpedance,
imepdance,min
min
Figure 2.6: Walk deterrence function
1.0 Work
Primary & secondary
0.8
Tertiary
0.4
0.2
-
0 10 20 30 40
Transport imepdance,min
min
Figure 2.7: Cycle deterrence function
Austroads 2011
— 10 —
2.4 AAM Saturation Function

The AAM saturation function sums up the impedance-weighted opportunities from a location and
assigns an accessibility score based on the total. A scoring scale of 0 to 1 is set as shown in
Figure 2.8. An accessibility score of 0 is the lowest accessibility score achievable. This will be the
score when no (or few) opportunities can be easily reached. An accessibility score of 1 is the
highest accessibility score possible. This will be the case when a sufficient number of opportunities
can be easily reached. The saturation function has an increasing form that levels off at a certain
point. This function form has the property of decreasing marginal rate of return. The saturation
function can be considered a utility function. Mathematically the saturation function is expressed as
follows (Equation 3):
  3
1 − exp  −   d (Ci , j )X i , j 
s() =  j 
 
1 + exp  −   d (Ci , j )X i , j 
 j 
where k is a parameter.
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Accessibility score
0.6
0.6
 = 0.0013
kappa = 0.0013
kappa = 0.0013
0.4 0.4  = 0.0008
kappa
kappa ==0.0008
0.0008

kappa ==0.0006
= 0.0006
kappa 0.0006
0.2
0.2
-
- - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Figure 2.8: AAM saturation function
Austroads 2011
— 11 —
The AAM saturation function has one parameter that controls the rate of increase of the
accessibility score based on increases in the weighted sum of opportunities, i.e. . In effect, 
defines a level of weighted sum of opportunities that level off or saturate. The AAM saturation
function was calibrated using the STEM and MITM databases (Espada 2010). Similar to the
deterrence function, the choice of the calibration data set means that the AAM is applicable only to
Australian metropolitan conditions. The calibrated parameters and proxies for opportunities are in
Table 2.2. The same parameters and opportunity proxies are used for car, public transport, walk
and cycle. The harmonised saturation functions for different trip purposes are illustrated as follows:
▪ work in Figure 2.9
▪ primary and secondary school in Figure 2.10
▪ tertiary school in Figure 2.11
▪ shopping and recreation in Figure 2.12.
Table 2.2: Saturation function parameters

Mode Trip purpose Proxy for opportunities Saturation function parameter, 
(x 10 000)
Car, public transport, Work Jobs 0.1
walk and cycle
Primary and secondary school Enrolment 3.33
Tertiary school Enrolment 0.67
Shopping and recreation Retail and recreation workers 3.64
The calibrated saturation functions are applicable only to cities with similar profile as Melbourne
and Perth which were used for calibration. Different saturation function parameters will apply to
regional cities. The AAM saturation function also does not consider competition for opportunities
that are considered as private goods. An example would be jobs and enrolments, where
consumption of the opportunity by an individual excludes the consumption of the same opportunity
by others. In such case, the parameters of the saturation function would differ depending on the
level of competition. Further research to develop a general model would be useful.
The AAM deterrence function and the saturation function were calibrated using trip data. Trip data
includes the combined effects of the deterrence function and the saturation function. It is not
possible to accurately isolate the effects of the deterrence function and the saturation function from
the trip data. Further research is needed to examine the extent of the bias in parameters
associated with the use of trip data in calibration of accessibility metrics.
Austroads 2011
— 12 —
1.0
0.8
Accessibility score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Thousands
Weighted
Weighted sum sum of opportunities,
of opportunities, jobs
retail and recreation workers
Figure 2.9: Work saturation function
1.0
0.8
Accessibility score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Thousands
Weighted sum of opportunities, enrolment
Figure 2.10: Primary and secondary school saturation function
Austroads 2011
— 13 —
1.0
0.8
Accessibility score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Thousands
Weighted sum of opportunities, enrolment
Figure 2.11: Tertiary school saturation function
1.0
0.8
Accessibility score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Thousands
Weighted sum of opportunities, retail and recreation workers
Figure 2.12: Shopping and recreation saturation function
Austroads 2011
— 14 —
The saturation point provides a frame of reference to intuitively understand the effect of the
saturation function. The saturation point is defined as the point wherein accessibility levels exhibit
noticeable decreasing rates of return. The saturation point is arbitrarily defined in this study as the
weighted sum of opportunities that results in an accessibility score of 0.75. The saturation point of
the AAM and qualitative references are in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Saturation point of the AAM by trip purpose

Trip purpose Saturation point Remarks(4)
Work 200 000 jobs 180 000 jobs in Melbourne CBD(1)
Primary and secondary school 6 000 enrolments 1 000 enrolments in Box Hill High School (Victoria)(2)
500 enrolments in Livingstone Primary School (Victoria) (2)
Median LGA enrolment of 19 000 in metropolitan Melbourne(1)
Tertiary school 45 000 enrolment 26 000 enrolments in Monash University (Clayton Campus)(3)
4 400 enrolments in Monash University (Gippsland Campus)(3)
Shopping and recreation 5 500 retail and recreation Large shopping mall has approximately 1 500 to 3 000 retail and
workers recreation workers(1)
Source:
1 MITM database.
2 www.myschool.edu.au, viewed 12 Oct 2010.
3 www.monash.edu.au, viewed 12 Oct 2010.
4 Numbers are approximate.
Figure 2.13 illustrates the geographical area for two selected centroids to reach the saturation point
for various accessibility types excluding the effect of the transport impedance. The centroid on the
left is in the CBD, while the centroid on the right is in Vermont South, a suburb 20 km east of the
CBD. The figure illustrates the smaller geographical scope for a CBD centroid to reach the
saturation point than a suburban centroid. This is a result of higher density of opportunities around
the CBD.
Austroads 2011
— 15 —
CBD: 1.6 km radius Suburb: 11 km radius CBD: 3 km radius Suburb: 4 km radius
(a) 200 000 jobs

(b) 6 000 primary and secondary enrolments
CBD: 1.6 km radius Suburb: 10 km radius
CBD: 1 km radius Suburb: 5 km radius
(c) 45 000 tertiary enrolments (d) 5 500 shopping and recreation workers
Notes:
▪ The effect of transport impedance is excluded.
▪ Suburban zone centroid is in the suburb of Vermont South (20 km east of the CBD).
Figure 2.13: Geographical area required to reach saturation point from the CBD and a suburb in Melbourne
Austroads 2011
— 16 —
2.5 Limitations of AAM for Health and Community Service

The STEM and MITM database did not contain data on health and community service trips. It was
therefore not possible to calibrate the deterrence and saturation functions for health and
community service accessibility. Nonetheless, indicative AAM parameters for health and
community service accessibility can be considered based on assumptions as follows:
▪ Personal business trips and shopping/recreation trips have similar average trip lengths in
Sydney (TDC 2010) therefore the deterrence function for health and community service
accessibility would be similar to the deterrence function for shopping and recreation
(Table 2.1).
▪ The median number of health and community workers in an LGA in Melbourne is 5000. It is
approximated that the saturation function levels off when it reaches 5000 health and
community workers, i.e. saturation point. An indicative estimate for  is 0.0004 using a proxy
of number of health and community service workers for opportunities.
These parameters are only indicative. It is recommended to collect/research suitable data to

calibrate the AAM for health and community services. Accessibility to health and community
services is particularly important for ageing societies, such as in Australia and New Zealand.
Austroads 2011
— 17 —
3 STRATEGIC ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS

The application of the AAM at the strategic level aimed to:
▪ demonstrate accessibility assessment in Perth (Section 3.1) and Melbourne (Section 3.2)
▪ examine the relationship of accessibility to land price, travel distance, and mode share
(Section 3.3).
Accessibility scores were calculated at the zone level and applied to households within the zone.
3.1 Accessibility in Perth

3.1.1 Overall Assessment
The STEM database was used in the calculation of the AAM for Perth. It is important to note that
travel time inputs used are model estimates. It is recommended to validate these estimates where
field measurements are available and adjust if needed for use in accessibility score calculation.
The accessibility scores for an average Perth household by mode and trip purpose are
summarised in Table 3.1. In the Table, the highest and lowest accessibility score recorded are also
shown as reference. These accessibility scores can be used to check trends in accessibility levels
over time.
Table 3.1: Accessibility scores in Perth

Trip purpose Score Mode
Car Public transport Cycle Walk
Work Average 0.68 0.33 0.10 0.01
Highest 0.96 0.92 0.69 0.37
Lowest 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Primary and secondary Average 0.87 0.63 0.35 0.16
school
Highest 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.64
Lowest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tertiary school Average 0.72 0.46 0.11 0.01
Highest 0.98 0.98 0.68 0.65
Lowest 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shopping and Average 0.92 0.58 0.32 0.09
recreation
Highest 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Lowest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Walking and cycling have low accessibility scores compared to car and public transport. This is
expected because of the limited range of non-motorised transport. The impact of improvement of
walking and cycling accessibility however should not be underestimated. A percentage
improvement in walking and cycling accessibility could potentially lead to more benefits than a
similar improvement in car and public transport accessibility. This would be examined in
Section 3.3.
Austroads 2011
— 18 —
For a cross-section analysis, the ratio between the average score and the highest score can be
used to assess accessibility scores as follows:
▪ If the average score for a study area is more than 50% of the highest score then more
households have relatively high accessibility scores than those with low accessibility scores.
▪ If the average for a study area is less than 50% of the highest score then more households
have low accessibility scores than those with high accessibility scores.
It should be noted that this is relative to the area being assessed. If overall accessibility in an area
is low then even above average accessibility scores could still be considered low.
Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 are plots of accessibility scores by household percentile for car work
accessibility and public transport (PT) work accessibility. For car-based work accessibility, the
average score is greater than 50% of the highest score and the distribution of accessibility scores
is favourable. For PT-based work accessibility, the average score is less than 50% of the highest
score and the distribution of accessibility scores and the majority of households have low
accessibility scores.
1.0
Highest score: 0.96
0.9
0.8
0.7
Accessibility score
Average score: 0.68

0.6
0.5
50% of highest score: 0.48
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Household percentile
Figure 3.1: Car-based work accessibility score by household percentile (Perth)
Austroads 2011
— 19 —
1.0
0.9 Highest score: 0.92
0.8
0.7
Accessibility score
0.6
0.5
50% of highest score: 0.46
0.4
0.3 Average score: 0.33
0.2
0.1
-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Household percentile
Figure 3.2: PT-based work accessibility score by household percentile (Perth)
Table 3.2 summarises the ratio of the average and the maximum highest accessibility score in
Perth. The distribution of car accessibility is favourable, while the distribution of public transport
accessibility is fair. On the other hand, good cycle and walk accessibility is limited to a small
percentage of households in Perth. Figure 3.3 plots work accessibility by car and public transport
accessibility of each zone. Most zones have lower PT accessibility score than car accessibility
score.
Table 3.2: Ratio of the average and highest household accessibility score in Perth
Trip purpose Mode
Work 0.71 0.36 0.14 0.03
Primary and secondary school 0.87 0.63 0.38 0.25
Tertiary school 0.73 0.47 0.16 0.02
Shopping and recreation 0.92 0.58 0.32 0.09
Austroads 2011
— 20 —
1.0
Public transport accessibility score
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Car accesssibility score
Figure 3.3: Car vs. public transport work accessibility in Perth
3.1.2 Accessibility Maps

The geographic distribution of households and their accessibility scores are illustrated as follows:
▪ work accessibility by car and public in Figure 3.4 and by cycle and walk in Figure 3.5
▪ primary and secondary school accessibility by car and public transport Figure 3.6 and by
cycle and walk in Figure 3.7
▪ tertiary school accessibility by car and public transport in Figure 3.8 and by cycle and walk in
Figure 3.9
▪ shopping and recreation accessibility by car and public transport in Figure 3.10 and by cycle
and walk in Figure 3.11.
The accessibility scores were calculated by zone. Each dot in the figures represents a cluster of
200 households. The colour of the dot indicates the accessibility score of the zone where the
household cluster resides. The location of the cluster within the zone was randomly generated for
illustration. Zones that have no households are not shown on the maps. Zones with a significant
number of households and low accessibility scores can be identified from the maps as a group of
closely spaced red dots. Examples of suburbs with high and low accessibility scores are shown in
Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively.
Austroads 2011
— 21 —
Table 3.3: Suburbs with high accessibility scores in Perth

Trip purpose Mode
Work ▪ Northbridge ▪ Northbridge ▪ Northbridge ▪ East Perth
▪ Perth ▪ Perth ▪ Perth ▪ Northbridge
▪ West Perth ▪ West Leederville ▪ West Perth ▪ Perth
Primary and secondary school ▪ Leederville ▪ Northbridge ▪ Bateman ▪ Ballajura
▪ Northbridge ▪ Perth ▪ Bull Creek ▪ Champion Lakes
▪ West Perth ▪ West Leederville ▪ Leeming ▪ Warnbro
Tertiary school ▪ East Perth ▪ East Perth ▪ East Victoria Park ▪ Crawley
▪ Northbridge ▪ Perth ▪ Kensington ▪ Murdoch
▪ Perth ▪ West Leederville ▪ Northbridge ▪ Northbridge
Shopping and recreation ▪ East Perth ▪ Northbridge ▪ Northbridge ▪ Hillarys
▪ Perth ▪ Perth ▪ Perth ▪ Wangara
▪ West Leederville ▪ West Leederville ▪ West Perth ▪ Welshpool
Notes:
▪ Includes the top three suburbs.
▪ Excludes suburbs with no households.
Table 3.4: Suburbs with low accessibility scores in Perth

Trip purpose Mode
Work ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont ▪ Eglinton
▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon ▪ Parklands ▪ Greenfields and
▪ Solus ▪ Solus ▪ Stake Hill Barragup
▪ Parklands
Primary and secondary school ▪ Bouvard ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont
▪ Sawyers Valley ▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon
▪ Solus ▪ Nambeelup ▪ Bouvard ▪ Nambeelup
Tertiary school ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont
▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon
▪ Solus ▪ Solus ▪ Solus ▪ Solus
Shopping and recreation ▪ Meelon ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont ▪ Birchmont
▪ Sawyers Valley ▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon ▪ Meelon
▪ Solus ▪ Solus ▪ Solus ▪ Solus
Notes:
▪ Includes the bottom three suburbs.
▪ Excludes suburbs with no households.
Austroads 2011
— 22 —
Public transport
Car
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.85 – 0.9
• 0.85 – 0.95
• 0.45 – 0.65
• 0.7 – 0.85
• 0.25 – 0.45
• 0.5 – 0.7
• 0.1 – 0.25
• 0.3 – 0.5
• 0 – 0.1
• 0 – 0.3
• = 200 households
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
Figure 3.4: Work accessibility in Perth by car and public transport
ACC_PERTH ACC_PERTH
W_car W_PT
0.008130 - 0.298659 0.000030 - 0.084178
0.298660 - 0.534022 0.084179 - 0.242810
0.534023 - 0.708092
Austroads 2011 0.242811 - 0.451557
0.708093 - 0.854053
— 23 — 0.451558 - 0.652515
0.854054 - 0.963547 0.652516 - 0.916702
stz472ll stz472ll
Walk
Cycle Accessibility score
Accessibility score • 0.09 – 0.35
• 0.4 – 0.7 • 0.04 – 0.09
• 0.2 – 0.4 • 0.02 – 0.04
• 0.1 – 0.2 • 0.01 – 0.02
• 0.05 – 0.1 • 0 – 0.01
• 0 – 0.05
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
ACC_PERTH Figure 3.5: Work accessibility in Perth by cycle and walk ACC_PERTH
W_cycle W_walk
0.000110 - 0.038664 0.000000 - 0.007000
0.038665 - 0.089636 0.007001 - 0.016821
0.089637 - 0.180654 0.016822 - 0.036782
Austroads 2011
0.180655 - 0.387103 0.036783 - 0.087242
0.387104 - 0.676731 — 24 — 0.087243 - 0.346980
stz472ll stz472ll
Car Public transport

Accessibility score Accessibility score
• 0.95 – 1.0 • 0.85 – 1.0
• 0.8 – 0.95 • 0.65 – 0.85
• 0.55 – 0.8 • 0.5 – 0.65
• 0.25 – 0.55 • 0.25 – 0.5
• 0 – 0.25 • 0 – 0.25
• = 200 households • = 200 households
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
Figure 3.6: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Perth by car and public transport
ACC_PERTH ACC_PERTH
PS_car PS_PT
0.000001 - 0.252242 0.000000 - 0.240970
0.252243 - 0.560701 0.240971 - 0.475636
0.560702 - 0.799244 0.475637 - 0.675200
Austroads 2011
0.799245 - 0.932351 0.675201 - 0.847371
0.932352 - 0.999997 — 25 — 0.847372 - 0.999986
stz472ll stz472ll
Walk
Cycle Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.4 – 0.65
• 0.6 – 0.95
• 0.25 – 0.4
• 0.4 – 0.6
• 0.15 – 0.25
• 0.25 – 0.4
• 0.05 – 0.15
• 0.1 – 0.25
• 0 – 0.05
• 0 – 0.1
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
Figure 3.7:
ACC_PERTH Primary and secondary school accessibility in Perth by cycle and walk ACC_PERTH
PS_cycle PS_walk
0.000000 - 0.115486 0.000000 - 0.054904
0.115487 - 0.237091 0.054905 - 0.142123
0.237092 - 0.396957 0.142124 - 0.257649
0.396958 - 0.599900
Austroads 2011 0.257650 - 0.411979
0.599901 - 0.931971
— 26 — 0.411980 - 0.640214
stz472ll stz472ll
Public transport
Car
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.8 – 1.0
• 0.9 – 1.0
• 0.6 – 0.8
• 0.8 – 0.9
• 0.35 – 0.6
• 0.6 – 0.8
• 0.15 – 0.35
• 0.35 – 0.6
• 0 – 0.15
• 0 – 0.35
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
Figure
ACC_PERTH 3.8: Tertiary school accessibility in Perth by car and public transport ACC_PERTH
T_car_2 T_PT
0.008922 - 0.348766 0.000000 - 0.144444
0.348767 - 0.615565 0.144445 - 0.352220
0.615566 - 0.795068 0.352221 - 0.576931
0.795069 - 0.903603
Austroads 2011 0.576932 - 0.775308
0.903604 - 0.984356
— 27 — 0.775309 - 0.975625
stz472ll stz472ll
Cycle Walk
• 0.4 – 0.7 • 0.3 – 0.65
• 0.2 – 0.4 • 0.1 – 0.3
• 0.1 – 0.2 • 0.05 – 0.1
• 0.04 – 0.1 • 0.02 – 0.05
• 0 – 0.04 • 0 – 0.02
• = 200 households • = 200 households
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
ACC_PERTH Figure 3.9: Tertiary school accessibility in Perth by cycle and walk ACC_PERTH
T_cycle T_walk
0.000000 - 0.038030 0.000000 - 0.016831
0.038031 - 0.103481 0.016832 - 0.046932
0.103482 - 0.196280 0.046933 - 0.104757
Austroads 2011
0.196281 - 0.419201 0.104758 - 0.275221
0.419202 - 0.684966 — 28 — 0.275222 - 0.651942
stz472ll stz472ll
Car
Public transport
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.95 – 1.0
• 0.85 – 1.0
• 0.8 – 0.95
• 0.6 – 0.85
• 0.5 – 0.8
• 0.4 – 0.6
• 0.2 – 0.5
• 0.2 – 0.4
• 0 – 0.2
• 0 – 0.2
±
0 5 10 20 km 0 5 10
± 20 km
Legend Legend
Figure
ACC_PERTH 3.10: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Perth by car and public transport ACC_PERTH
S_car S_PT
0.000015 - 0.225205 0.000000 - 0.179941
0.225206 - 0.521064 0.179942 - 0.398030
0.521065 - 0.784622
Austroads 2011 0.398031 - 0.621150
0.784623 - 0.942639 0.621151 - 0.854338
0.942640 - 1.000000 — 29 — 0.854339 - 1.000000
stz472ll stz472ll
Walk
Cycle
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.35 – 0.9
• 0.7 – 1.0
• 0.2 – 0.35
• 0.45 – 0.7
• 0.1 – 0.2
• 0.25 – 0.45
• 0.05 – 0.1
• 0.1 – 0.25
• 0 – 0.05
• 0 – 0.1
±
0 5 10 20 km
±
0 5 10 20 km
Legend Legend
ACC_PERTH Figure 3.11: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Perth ACC_PERTH
S_cycle S_walk
0.000000 - 0.109118 0.000000 - 0.040513
0.109119 - 0.249963 0.040514 - 0.094856
0.249964 - 0.436139 0.094857 - 0.175684
Austroads 2011
0.436140 - 0.682279 0.175685 - 0.347883
0.682280 - 0.998836 — 30 — 0.347884 - 0.875500
stz472ll stz472ll
3.2 Accessibility in Melbourne

3.2.1 Overall Assessment
The MITM database was used in the calculation of the AAM for Melbourne. Travel time inputs used
are model estimates. It is recommended to validate these estimates where field measurements are
available and adjust if needed for use in accessibility score calculation. The accessibility scores for
an average Melbourne household by mode and trip purpose are summarised in Table 3.5. In the
table, the highest and lowest accessibility score recorded is also shown as reference. These
accessibility scores can be used to check trends in accessibility levels over time.
Walking and cycling accessibility are lower than car and public transport accessibility due to their
limited range. As mentioned, the impact of walking and cycling accessibility should not be
discounted because the potential impact of improvement in walking and cycling accessibility could
be proportionately greater than improvement in car and public transport accessibility. This would
be further examined in Section 3.3.
Table 3.5: Accessibility scores in Melbourne

Trip purpose Score Mode
Work Average 0.77 0.53 0.17 0.02
Highest 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.65
Lowest 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Primary and secondary Average 0.93 0.68 0.45 0.11
school
Highest 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.68
Lowest 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tertiary school Average 0.85 0.74 0.22 0.03
Highest 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Lowest 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shopping and Average 0.96 0.66 0.47 0.11
recreation
Highest 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lowest 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
Similar to the Perth case study (Section 3.1.1), the ratio of the average and the maximum highest
score was used to assess the distribution of accessibility in Melbourne. As mentioned earlier, this
assessment s relative to the area being assessed. If overall accessibility in an area is low then
even above average accessibility could be considered low. The results are shown in Table 3.6.
The distribution of car accessibility is favourable. The distribution of public transport accessibility is
likewise favourable but at a lower level than car accessibility. Distribution of cycle accessibility is
fair for primary and secondary school and shopping and recreation. Good work and tertiary school
accessibility by cycle is limited to a small percentage of households in Melbourne. Moreover, good
walk accessibility is also limited to a small percentage of households in Melbourne. Figure 3.12
plots work accessibility by car and public transport accessibility of each zone. Most zones have
lower PT accessibility than car accessibility score.
Austroads 2011
— 31 —
Table 3.6: Ratio of the average and the highest household accessibility score in Melbourne
Trip purpose Mode
Work 0.77 0.53 0.17 0.03
Primary and secondary school 0.93 0.68 0.46 0.17
Tertiary school 0.85 0.74 0.22 0.03
Shopping and recreation 0.96 0.66 0.47 0.11
1.0
Public transport accessibility score
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Car accesssibility score
Figure 3.12: Car vs. public transport work accessibility in Melbourne
3.2.2 Accessibility Maps

The geographic distribution of households and their accessibility scores are illustrated as follows:
▪ work accessibility by car and public transport in Figure 3.17 and by cycle and walk in
Figure 3.18
▪ primary and secondary school accessibility by car and public transport in Figure 3.19 and by
cycle and walk in Figure 3.20
▪ tertiary school accessibility by car and public transport in Figure 3.21 and by cycle and walk
in Figure 3.22
▪ shopping and recreation accessibility by car and public transport in Figure 3.23 and by cycle
and walk in Figure 3.24.
Zones with a high number of households and low accessibility scores can be identified from the
maps as a group of closely spaced red dots. Average household accessibility scores by local
government areas are illustrated in Figure 3.13, Figure 3.14, Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16.
Austroads 2011
— 32 —
Average household accessibility score Average household accessibility score
-
-
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Stonnington Melbourne
Glen Eira Yarra
Boroondara Port Phillip
PT
Car
Port Phillip Stonnington
Walk
Cycle
Yarra Glen Eira
Melbourne Boroondara
Bayside Moreland
Whitehorse Moonee Valley
Moreland Maribyrnong
Moonee Valley Monash
Monash Whitehorse
Greater Dandenong Darebin
Darebin Bayside
Maribyrnong Greater Dandenong
Banyule Kingston
— 33 —
Maroondah Maroondah
Frankston Hobsons Bay
Austroads 2011
Brimbank Banyule
Kingston Manningham
Whittlesea Brimbank
Knox Knox
Manningham Frankston
Casey Whittlesea
Wyndham Hume
Hobsons Bay Casey
Hume Wyndham
Figure 3.13: Average work accessibility by local government area in Melbourne
Melton Yarra Ranges

PT
Yarra Ranges Melton

Car
Walk
Cycle
Nillumbik Nillumbik
Figure 3.14: Average primary and secondary school accessibility by local government area in Melbourne
Mornington Peninsula Cardinia
Cardinia Mornington Peninsula
Average household accessibility score Average household accessibility score
-
-
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Melbourne Melbourne
Yarra Yarra
Stonnington Stonnington
Port Phillip Boroondara
Glen Eira Glen Eira
Maribyrnong Port Phillip
Boroondara Maribyrnong
Whitehorse Whitehorse
Moonee Valley Darebin
Monash Monash
Darebin Moreland
Moreland Moonee Valley
Bayside Greater Dandenong
Maroondah Bayside
Kingston Kingston
— 34 —
Greater Dandenong Banyule
Banyule Hobsons Bay
Austroads 2011
Knox Brimbank
Frankston Maroondah
Manningham Manningham
Hobsons Bay Whittlesea
Brimbank Knox
Whittlesea Hume
Wyndham Frankston
Casey Wyndham
Hume Casey
Yarra Ranges Nillumbik
Figure 3.15: Average tertiary school accessibility by local government area in Melbourne
Mornington Peninsula Melton
PT
Car
Walk
Cycle
Figure 3.16: Average shopping and recreation accessibility by local government area in Melbourne
Nillumbik Yarra Ranges
PT
Car
Melton Cardinia
Walk
Cycle
Cardinia Mornington Peninsula

± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0 10 20 km
Car
Public transport
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.9 – 1.0
• 0.85 – 1.0
• 0.75 – 0.9
• 0.65 – 0.85
• 0.55 – 0.75
• 0.45 – 0.65
• 0.35 – 0.55
• 0.2 – 0.45
Legend • 0 – 0.35 Legend
• 0 – 0.2
Acc_HH Acc_HH
HBW_car HBW_PT
0.036477 - 0.342845
Figure 3.17: Work accessibility in Melbourne by car and public transport 0.000065 - 0.205002
0.342846 - 0.566316 0.205003 - 0.433269
0.566317 - 0.750764
0.433270 - 0.667618
0.750765 - 0.901248
0.667619 - 0.872051
0.901249 - 0.999552
0.872052 - 0.999424
Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55 Austroads 2011 Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55
— 35 —
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0 10 20 km
Cycle Walk
• 0.65 – 0.95 • 0.3 – 0.6
• 0.35 – 0.65 • 0.1 – 0.3
• 0.15 – 0.35 • 0.05 – 0.1
• 0.07 – 0.15 • 0.02 – 0.05
Legend
• 0 – 0.07 • 0 – 0.02
Acc_HH Legend
HBW_cycle
0.000447 - 0.071024 Figure 3.18: Work accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and walk Acc_HH
0.071025 - 0.159146
HBW_walk
0.000071 - 0.015016
0.159147 - 0.336356
0.015017 - 0.044921
0.336357 - 0.658377
0.658378 - 0.961726 0.044922 - 0.102528
Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55 Austroads 2011 0.102529 - 0.278433

0.278434 - 0.624605
— 36 — Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0 10 20 km
Car
Public transport
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.95 – 1.0
• 0.9 – 1.0
• 0.85 – 0.95
• 0.7 – 0.9
• 0.7 – 0.85
• 0.5 – 0.7
• 0.35 – 0.7
Legend • 0.25 – 0.5
• 0 – 0.35
Acc_HH Legend • 0 – 0.25
HBEPS_car
Acc_HH
0.034235 - 0.376014
HBEPS_PT
Figure 3.19: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Melbourne by car and public
0.376015 - 0.694983 transport
0.000013 - 0.261723
0.694984 - 0.868955
0.261724 - 0.520692
0.868956 - 0.955994
0.520693 - 0.728201
0.955995 - 0.999993
0.728202 - 0.904814
Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55
0.904815 - 1.000000
Austroads 2011
— 37 —
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
Cycle Walk
• 0.7 – 1.0 • 0.35 – 0.7
• 0.5 – 0.7 • 0.2 – 0.35
• 0.35 – 0.5 • 0.12 – 0.2
• 0.2 – 0.35 • 0.05 – 0.12
Legend
• 0 – 0.2 Legend • 0 – 0.05
Acc_HH
Acc_HH
HBEPS_cycl
HBEPS_walk
Figure 3.20: Primary and secondary school accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and
0.000000 - 0.187991 walk
0.000000 - 0.049568
0.187992 - 0.361124
0.049569 - 0.126402
0.361125 - 0.525330
0.126403 - 0.220679
0.525331 - 0.701754
0.220680 - 0.364663
0.701755 - 0.982687
Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55 Austroads 2011 0.364664 - 0.683673
— 38 —
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0 10 20 km
Car
Public transport
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.9 – 1.0
• 0.9 – 1.0
• 0.8 – 0.9
• 0.75 – 0.9
• 0.6 – 0.8
• 0.5 – 0.75
• 0.3 – 0.6
• 0.25 – 0.5
Legend • 0 – 0.3 Legend
Acc_HH • 0 – 0.25
Acc_HH
HBET_car_v
HBET_PT
0.023215 - 0.320511
Figure 3.21: Tertiary school accessibility in Melbourne by car and public transport
0.320512 - 0.588346
0.000000 - 0.253929
0.253930 - 0.530658
0.588347 - 0.773809
0.530659 - 0.747757
0.773810 - 0.921789
0.747758 - 0.914356
0.921790 - 0.999999
0.914357 - 1.000000
Austroads 2011 Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55
— 39 —
± 10 5 0 10 20 km
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
Cycle Walk
• 0.75 – 1.0 • 0.65 – 1.0
• 0.5 – 0.75 • 0.3 – 0.65
• 0.3 – 0.5 • 0.12 – 0.3
• 0.1 – 0.3 • 0.03 – 0.12
Legend
• 0 – 0.1 • 0 – 0.03
Legend Acc_HH
Acc_HH HBET_walk
HBET_cycle Figure 3.22: Tertiary school accessibility in Melbourne by cycle and walk 0.000000 - 0.035375
0.000000 - 0.094345 0.035376 - 0.126949
0.094346 - 0.277779 0.126950 - 0.286867
0.277780 - 0.491214 0.286868 - 0.639645
0.491215 - 0.765521 0.639646 - 0.985287
0.765522 - 0.999590 Austroads 2011 Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55
— 40 —
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
Car
Public transport
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
• 0.95 – 1.0
• 0.9 – 1.0
• 0.85 – 0.95
• 0.7 – 0.9
• 0.7 – 0.85
• 0.5 – 0.7
• 0.45 – 0.7
• 0.25 – 0.5
• 0 – 0.45
Legend Legend • 0 – 0.25
Acc_HH Acc_HH
HBSR_car HBSR_PT
Figure 3.23: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Melbourne by car and public transport
0.074805 - 0.434172 0.000159 - 0.235926
0.434173 - 0.708456 0.235927 - 0.469133
0.708457 - 0.866993 0.469134 - 0.701687
0.866994 - 0.963971 0.701688 - 0.902348
0.963972 - 1.000000
Austroads 2011 0.902349 - 1.000000
— 41 —
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
± 10 5 0
10 20 km
Cycle Walk
• 0.85 – 1.0 • 0.6 – 1.0
• 0.6 – 0.85 • 0.35 – 0.6
• 0.4 – 0.6 • 0.2 – 0.35
• 0.2 – 0.4 • 0.1 – 0.2
• 0 – 0.2 • 0 – 0. 1
Legend Legend
Acc_HH Acc_HH
Figure 3.24: Shopping and recreation accessibility in Melbourne by cycleHBSR_Walk
and walk
HBSR_cycle
0.000001 - 0.078611
0.000616 - 0.193331
0.078612 - 0.183265
0.193332 - 0.394816
0.183266 - 0.339569
0.394817 - 0.617488
0.339570 - 0.614967
0.617489 - 0.838982 Austroads 2011
0.614968 - 0.998371
0.838983 - 1.000000
Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55 — 42 — Zones_2253_region_GDA94z55
3.3 Impacts of Accessibility

Accessibility is an abstract concept and a better understanding of how it relates to tangible aspects
of society is useful. This section aims to determine the impacts of accessibility on three indicators,
as follows:
▪ travel distance
▪ mode share
▪ land price.
3.3.1 Travel Distance and Accessibility

Travel distance has a direct impact on energy consumption and pollution in the transport sector
and has implications for transport congestion as well. The connection between accessibility scores
calculated by the AAM and travel distance is examined in this section. A model relating average
passenger-km travelled (PKT) for all modes by zone and the accessibility scores for all modes was
formulated by ARRB, as follows (Equation 4).
AP =  exp (car Acar +  PT APT + cycle Acycle +  walk Awalk ) 4
where
AP = average PKT of a zone for all modes
Acar = car accessibility score of zone
APT = public transport accessibility score of zone
Acycle = cycle accessibility score of zone
Awalk = walk accessibility score of zone
 , car ,  PT , cycle ,  walk = are parameters calibrated using AAM scores.
The PKT model was calibrated by trip purpose for Perth and Melbourne using the STEM and MITM
databases. The calibration results are in Table 3.7. Scatter graphs are in Figure 3.25 for Perth and
Figure 3.26 for Melbourne. The average PKT model has good correlation with the data, with the
correlation coefficient, R2, ranging from 0.48 to 0.89. From the analysis, it can be said that on
average, zones with high accessibility scores have less average PKT. It was also noted that walk
and cycle accessibility have a higher impact on travel kilometres than car and public transport
accessibility.
Austroads 2011
— 43 —
Table 3.7: Average PKT model parameters

Trip purpose City Parameter
Constant,  Car, car PT, PT Cycle, cycle Walk, walk
Work Perth 30.2 -0.9 -0.1 -1.1 -2.1
Melbourne 38.5 -0.8 -0.2 Not used(2) -1.6
Primary and secondary Perth 12.1 -0.6 -0.03(1) -0.9 -1.3
school
Melbourne 13.0 -0.5 -0.3 Not used -1.3
Tertiary school Perth 21.8 -0.7 -0.3(1) -1.1 -2.5
Shopping and Perth 10.0 -0.6 -0.03(1) -0.8 -1.5
recreation
1 Not significant at 90% confidence level.
2 Cycle origin-destination data is not available from MITM. The calculation of average PKT only includes car, PT and walk. For consistency, cycle accessibility was
not used as an explanatory variable.
35 20
Average PKT by zone (model), km
30
15
25
20
R2 = 0.89 10
15
R2 = 0.57
10
5
5
- -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 - 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average PKT by zone (data), km Average PKT by zone (data), km
(a) Work (b) Primary and secondary school
25 8
20
6
15 R2 = 0.48
4
10
R2 = 0.51
2
5
- -
- 10 20 30 40 50 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(c) Tertiary school (d) Shopping and recreation
Figure 3.25: Average PKT by zone in Perth: model results vs. data
Austroads 2011
— 44 —
45 18

40 16
35 14
30 12
25 10
20 8
R2 = 0.73 R2 = 0.60
15 6
10 4
5 2
- -
- 10 20 30 40 50 60 - 5 10 15 20 25 30
70 16

60 14
12
50
10
40
8
30 R2 = 0.49
R2 = 0.77 6
20
4
10 2
- -
- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 - 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 3.26: Average PKT by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data
3.3.2 Mode Share and Accessibility

Promotion of public transport, walking and cycling is a ubiquitous theme in urban and transport
policy. It is therefore useful to examine the relationship between accessibility scores calculated by
the AAM and mode share of public transport, walking and cycling. For this purpose, the ARRB
team formulated a simple mode share model. The model assumes that that mode share is
proportional to the accessibility score of a mode compared to the accessibility score of all other
modes. For example, the mode share of public transport was calculated as follows (Equation 5):
APT 5
MS PT =
Acar + APT + Acycle + Awalk
where
MS PT = share of public transport
Acar = car accessibility score of zone
APT = public transport accessibility score of zone
Austroads 2011
— 45 —
Acycle = cycle accessibility score of zone
Awalk = walk accessibility score of zone.
Mode shares estimated by the model were compared with mode shares determined from the MITM
and STEM databases. The correlation between the two is indicative of the relationship of
accessibility and mode share. Figure 3.27 and Figure 3.28 compare model estimates and data for
public transport and combined walking and cycling in Perth. Figure 3.29 and Figure 3.30 compare
model estimates and data for public transport and walking for Melbourne. The MITM database
does not have information on cycling in Melbourne. R2 of trend lines are shown in the figures.
The results are summarised in Table 3.8. A positive impact of accessibility on mode share is
apparent in work trips but could not be clearly identified for school and shopping and recreation
trips. It is possible that there are other factors that are stronger determinants of mode share than
accessibility for school and shopping and recreation trips.
Table 3.8: Relationship between accessibility and PT, walking and cycling mode share
Trip purpose City Public transport Walking and cycling (Perth)
Walking (Melbourne)
R2 Relationship of accessibility to R2 Relationship of accessibility
public transport share to walking and cycling share
Work Perth 0.56 Weak to strong(1) and positive(2) 0.63 Strong and positive
Melbourne 0.32 0.89
Primary and secondary Perth 0.04 Very weak but positive 0.42 Very weak to weak but positive
school
Melbourne 0.12 0.17
Tertiary school Perth 0.00 Very weak but positive 0.14 Weak to strong but positive
Melbourne 0.16 0.54
Shopping and Perth 0.13 Very weak but positive 0.08 Very weak but positive
recreation
Melbourne 0.20 0.22
1 Degree of relationship was assessed as follows: strong when R2 = 0.5 to 1; weak when R2 = 0.25 to 0.5; and, very weak when R2 = 0 to 0.25.
2 Positive relationship means that higher accessibility scores by a mode would increase its mode share. A negative influence would have an opposite effect.
Austroads 2011
— 46 —
60% 60%
Mode share by zone (model)

50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20% R2 = 0.04

R2 = 0.56
10% 10%
0% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Mode share by zone (data) Mode share by zone (data)
60% 60%

50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
R2 = 0.00 R2 = 0.13
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Figure 3.27: Public transport share by zone in Perth: model results vs. data
Austroads 2011
— 47 —
30% 40%
R2 = 0.63

30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
R2 = 0.42
0% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
30% 40%

30%
20%
R2 = 0.14 20%
10%
10%
R2 = 0.08
0% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 3.28: Walking and cycling share by zone in Perth: model results vs. data
Austroads 2011
— 48 —
80% 80%

60% 60%
40% 40%
R2 = 0.32 R2 = 0.12
20% 20%
0% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
80% 40%

60% 30%
40% 20%
R2 = 0.20
20% 10%
R2 = 0.16
0% 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 3.29: Public transport share by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data
Austroads 2011
— 49 —
40% 40%

30% 30%
R2 = 0.17
20% 20%
10% 10%
R2 = 0.89
0% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
40% 40%

30% 30%
20% 20%
2
R = 0.54
10% 10%
R2 = 0.22
0% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 3.30: Walking share by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data
3.3.3 Property Price and Accessibility

It is commonly acknowledged that accessibility enhances property value. El-Geneidy and Levinson
(2006) concluded that measures of accessibility have a statistically significant effect on home sale
prices, based on their study of accessibility and house prices in the Twin Cities Region in
Minnesota, USA. In this section, the relationship between property price and accessibility scores
was investigated using empirical data from Melbourne. Property price for Melbourne was from the
Department of Sustainability and Environment (2010). Figure 3.31 illustrates property prices for
houses and units/apartments in Melbourne in 2008.
Austroads 2011
— 50 —
◼ no data ◼ no data
◼ < $400 000 ◼ < $260 000
◼ $400 000 – $600 000 ◼ $260 000 – $330 000
◼ $600 000 – $900 000 ◼ $330 000 – $400 000
◼ > $ 900 000 ◼ > $ 400 000
(b) unit/apartment
(a) house
Source: Based on Department of Sustainability and Environment (2010) data.
Figure 3.31: Median house and unit/apartment price in Melbourne (2008)
The analysis used a simple property price model below. Two models were developed – one model
for house prices and another for units and apartment prices. Median prices were for the period
2007, 2008 and 2009 (Equation 6).
(
P = ln  0 +  car Aˆcar +  PT Aˆ PT +  WC AˆWC ) 6
where
P = median property price of zone, in $m
Âcar = average car accessibility score for four trip purposes of zone
Âcar = (A work
car + Acar
primary and secondaryeducation
+ Acar
tertiary education
+ Acar
shoppingand recreation
4 )
ÂPT = average PT accessibility score for four trip purposes of zone
ÂWC = (Aˆwalk )
+ Aˆcycle 2
Âwalk = average walk accessibility score for four trip purposes of zone
Âcycle = average cycle accessibility score for four trip purposes of zone
 0 ,  car ,  PT ,  WC are parameters calibrated using AAM scores.
Austroads 2011
— 51 —
The above model assumes that property price is a function of accessibility alone. This is a
restrictive assumption because there are other factors that can also influence property prices. For
example, El-Geneidy and Levinson (2006) incorporated 23 explanatory variables in their analysis
of accessibility and property price. A more comprehensive database that includes these other
factors was not available for this study. The findings in this section are therefore considered to be
only indicative of the relationship between accessibility and property price. A more comprehensive
analysis is recommended
Table 3.9 shows the calibration results. Scatter graphs of modelled property price and property
price data are in Figure 3.32 for house prices and Figure 3.33 for apartment and unit prices. Both
models have moderate but positive correlation with the data with R2 values of 0.34 to 0.37.
Accessibility scores as explanatory variables were found to be statistically significant, with the
exception of car accessibility in the house price model. It can be therefore said that accessibility
appears to have a positive impact on property price. It is also noted that walk and cycle
accessibility have a stronger impact to property price than car and public transport accessibility.
Table 3.9: Property price model parameters

Parameter House price model Units and apartment model
Constant term, 0 1.25 (t-stat = 25.1) 1.24 (t-stat = 120.1)
Car accessibility parameter, car 0.03 (t-stat = 0.4)(1) 0.04 (t-stat = 2.5)
PT accessibility parameter, PT 0.22 (t-stat = 4.0) 0.11 (t-stat = 9.5)
Walk and cycling accessibility parameter, WC 1.94 (t-stat = 16.8) 0.27 (t-stat = 11.1)
1 Not significant at 95% confidence level. The rest of the parameters are significant at the 95% confidence level.
In summary, it was determined that good accessibility appears to result in lower travel kilometers,
higher mode share for public transport, walking and cycling and higher property prices. The effect
of accessibility on mode share however is clearly apparent only in work trips but not for school,
shopping and recreation trips.
Austroads 2011
— 52 —
Median price in zone, ($’000) (model)

1,200
Median price in zone, $ (model)
Thousands
1,000
800
600
400
R2 = 0.37
200
-
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Thousands
MedianMedian
price inprice
zone,in($’000)
zone, $(data)
(data)
Figure 3.32: House prices by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data
500
Median price in zone, ($’000) (model)
Median price in zone, $ (model)
Thousands
400
300
200
R2 = 0.34
100
-
- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Thousands
Median priceprice
Median in zone, ($’000)
in zone, (data)
$ (data)
Figure 3.33: Unit and apartment prices by zone in Melbourne: model results vs. data
Austroads 2011
— 53 —
4 NEIGHBOURHOOD ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS

This section demonstrates the application of the AAM for neighbourhood planning. The study areas
are in the City of Joondalup (Perth), City of Mandurah (Perth) and the City of Whitehorse
(Melbourne). The study areas are located as shown in Figure 4.1 and defined as follows:
▪ Joondalup study area: suburbs of Kinross, Currambine and Joondalup
▪ Mandurah study area: area bounded by Meadow Springs Dr, Lakes Rd and Pinjara Rd
▪ Whitehorse study area: Burwood Heights development area and its surroundings bounded
by Station St, Highbury Rd, Blackburn Rd and Canterbury Rd.
GIS data was provided by respective local government agencies for the application of the AAM.
Neighbourhood analysis covers public transport, cycling and walking. Neighbourhood analysis did
not cover car-based accessibility because there is little variation in travel time by car from within a
small area. Therefore accessibility by car does not vary notably within a small area and is best
determined from the strategic level analysis.
Joondalup
(25 km from CBD)
Burwood Heights
(15 km from CBD)
Mandurah
(60 km from CBD)
(a) Perth (b) Melbourne
Figure 4.1: Location of neighbourhood analysis study areas
4.1 Methodology
Application at the neighbourhood level requires a high resolution transport impedance matrix and
database of opportunities. These are not readily available and therefore need to be developed in
this study. The study area was subdivided into 100 m x 100 m cells. Each cell was connected to a
walking and public transport network. A walking network was created from the road centreline data.
The walking network represents sidewalks and crossings. Off-road paths were added as well.
Public transport corridors were also added including stations. Figure 4.2 illustrates the cells and the
walking and public transport network for Mandurah study area as an example.
Austroads 2011
— 54 —
459
1.15 2 1.18
4578
1.17
4593
332 2.19
01
07
2.15
1 3
33
58
2.16 32
4587
3.14 3.15 3.16 328 3.18 7 3.21
316 08
7 332
3.19 8
58
5778
8
5771
4.14 4.17 4.19 4.20 554.22 4.23 4.24
2
246
5806
3204
95 3340
317
5.14 5.19 5.20 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29
5611
12
2494 5651
5620
5 5.21
0
44 562
59
5.165.17 5.22 5.24
6.13 6.1422
41
6.16 6.17 6.226.23 6.24 09 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29
3840
59
50
3237
47
22
324 12
5430 6.20
2516
30 6.21
32
58
7.13 7.14 7.17 5441 7.20 7.21 7.23 7.24 7.25 7.26 7.27 7.28 7.29
2
505
5
7.22
07
3 2 18
3864 7.18
1 9
25
38
21
21
5815735
6
83 169 17
592
8.128.13 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.29
32
34
32
7
590
3880
57
4635
252
18
9.119.12 9.16 9.18 9.19 9.21 9.22 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.29 9.31
57
59
05 3886 072
5680
6
9.23
32
4642 4515
26 42
5818 822
5914
3271 4833
23
10.11 10.19 10.2110.22
07
10.2310.24 10.2510.26 10.29 10.30 10.31
00
10.20 0 2
57
62
5729
207
17
4773
16
10.28
5
25
50
11.10 11.11
163 1 94 20 69 11.26 11.27 11.28 11.29 11.30 11.31
2088 2094 2092 4
3 674 1526 11.19 11.2311.24 11.25 9 8
3 3979 3988
12
5917
152
9
12.10 12.18 2752 12.19
479112.21 12.2312.24 12.25 12.29 12.30
58
47 2764882
57
26 1577
64
153996
8 12.28
4559
39
24
4548 12.22
1
12.27
50
1957
85
15 39
01
23
13.09 13.13 13.162 13.2313.24 13.25 13.29 13.30
86
53
3 66
58
2687
13
57
13.22
01 58
30
36
5
13.14 13.15 13.21
46
87
2720
14.14 14.1513 3390
89
19
6
0
14.0814.09 14.17 14.22 14.2314.24 14.29 14.30
12
3 479
8
15
142015541543
59
15
5
60
14.10 24 14.18
38
188
95 28
2137 347
4117 4115
1963
44
133748
15.08 214 15.22 15.23 7 15.29 15.30 15.31
71
15.25
5 5 4 489
18 26
34
23
212
12
29 26 8
15.21
59
15.19 15.24
054653
51
21
37
16.0316.04 16.0516.06 16.0716.08 24 1496 16.21 16.22 16.23
34 19 16.30 16.31
12
35
585 5841
46 1902
15 84
12
0
4651
5 16.20
3
7
576 139 16.17 16.18 16.26

37
1308
3459
1509
19 1970
3454
17.01 17.02
5146 6 17.06 17.07 90 1 17.11 13 17 183 17.18 17.2017.21 17.22 17.23 17.31 17.32
26
45
36
1322 6
37
16 507 4128
5073
17.05
19 1921
17.30
5151
28
95
27
6
17.16
82
2115 1170 378
18.09 18 0
18
75
18.01 18.0218.03 18.04 1183 1185 11 4 31
1138
69
18.06 0 329 95 18.17 6
4182
1153 4875 37 9
60
4198
3
4238
51
1157 3673
19 18
18.29 40
9
6
5147 558
18.05 18.07 18.18 18.19 3

1 8 82
8
99 53 19.31
111
10
19.19 4
265 69
1407
63 6
19.01 19.0319.04 5 19.05 19.11 1123
1849
19.18
36 52
374 730
3
4135
5851
35
4677
5343 1 5739 19.17
37
12
429
6 5749
14
265 11
19.14 19.22 19.28
6 84
8
10
2
1
131 20.10 1877 335 34
20
20.01 20.02 20.17 20.19 43 20.25 20.28
6
3700
19
20.30
1
3763
1103 37
40
139
55
4
9 0
4
35 20.18 2
1
11 2 6
685 1
145 141 14
66
11
354 7
680
20.23
48
690 14 71
1096 2163 21.1821.19 3020
40
5
21.02 21.08 21.16 21.22 21.29 21.30
763 3024
2660
20
376 767 1100
471
2281
978
1081 21.15 21.21 49
78 21.28
20
21.03 21.0421.05 387 1086 1 21.26
389
46722.15 2196 292 1 3041 22.22 22.23 30 22.26
656
7
5854
5 362
22.0322.04 22.05 22.28 22.29
412 418 417 410 86 2 9 498
718
429 43 22.1622.17 35 5218 22.24 2

444 442 440 438 1072 3 23.15 2208 23.205 36
00
1820
23.05 23.23 23.24 23.2623.27 23.29
78
1077 7 11 23.28
16
35
20
22
483 478 489 487 485 1052
29
29
1057
994
231 5857
697
20
01
727
24.04 518 516 513 24.1024.11 1042 10 2 5 3 24.22 24.24 24.26 24.27 24.28
2679
79 24.21 35
2391
7
20
46 18 24.25
51
307 29 9
5310
24.09 9 3094 24.18 24.23
3069 61
545
7
1007
97
13
43
2352
25.12 31 07
05
34
25.04 25.06 25.09 25.17 25.27 25.28
11
19
1861 83 3118 236
616
44
51
25.05 523 25.08 526
20
6 3123 1 43
26.04 26.05 57 948 5878 46
783 780 785 781 808
03
5 83 26.13 26.15
26.23 26.27
775
0 26.26
20
28 4377
7
4443 5884
01
81 26.16 26.24
41
861 586
27.04 27.05 27.06 27.07 27.10 27.11 4 8 27.14 919 926 446 589727.26
45
11 910 1 27.22 5899
27
46
27.12 27.23
48
692 930
81 28.15 93 2
20
28.12 28.17 28.21 28.23 28.24 28.25 28.26
81
11
6 9
82
5
28.13 28.22
49 9
1
10
20 44
29.14 29.20 29.21 29.22 29.23 29.24 29.25 29.26
75
30
1
352 29.19
58
29
29.15 283
66 35 348 30.21 30.22 30.23 30.24 30.25
58 6
58
3552
4
355
30.19
31.14 33 31.19 31.21 31.22 31.23 31.24
58
48 336
4
6 0
335
20
32.14 32.15 32.16 32.1832.19 32.20 32.21 32.22

32.17
Figure 4.2: High resolution transport network for accessibility study (Mandurah study area)
Transport impedance was then estimated using a shortest path search algorithm developed by the
ARRB team. To connect to zones that are outside the study area, exit points were established
along the boundary of the study area. Travel time from within the study area to the exit point was
calculated using the shortest path algorithm. The travel time from the exit point to zones outside
the study area was determined from the travel time estimates of strategic models (i.e. STEM or
MITM). For this study, individual public transport routes, i.e. information on transfer points and
frequency, were not considered. As a result, there are limitations on estimation of waiting and
transfer time, which was assumed to be uniform and constant. The analysis therefore did not
consider levels of service in public transport and is based only on the geographic scope of public
transport. These simplifying assumptions suffice for the purpose of demonstration. With further
resources, individual routes can be encoded to improve estimates of public transport travel time.
The location of key attractors such as schools, retail and employment areas were available in the
GIS database provided by the three LGAs. The 100 m x 100 m cells were overlaid on the map of
key attractors and cells that fall on a school, retail area or employment area were marked.
The number of opportunities (e.g. enrolment and jobs) by traffic zones in the MITM and STEM
database was used as the control total. The number of opportunities in a traffic zone was equally
distributed to cells that fall in the traffic zone and marked correspondingly to the type of
opportunity. Distribution of the control total by floor area would have been a better approach;
however the floor area could not be determined from the GIS maps. Instead, land area was used.
Austroads 2011
— 55 —
4.2 Joondalup
The study area for the City of Joondalup included the suburbs of Kinross, Currambine and
Joondalup. The transport network and the location of key attractors in the study area are shown in
Figure 4.3.
(a) Employment
(b) Primary and secondary schools
(c) Tertiary schools (d) Shopping and recreation
Figure 4.3: Transport network and key attractors in Joondalup study area
Table 4.1 summarises the AAM for the study area. This is compared with Perth’s average values.
An assessment was made based on how the study area compared with Perth’s average values.
Overall, it was determined that accessibility in the study area was close to the norm in Perth. To be
at par or better with the norm in Perth in specific aspects, the study area needs improvement in
accessibility to work by cycle, accessibility to primary and secondary school by walking and
accessibility to shopping and recreation by walking.
Accessibility maps of the Joondalup study area, highlighting locations with low accessibility are as
follows:
▪ accessibility by public transport: Figure 4.4
▪ accessibility by walking: Figure 4.5
▪ accessibility by cycle: Figure 4.6.
Austroads 2011
— 56 —
Table 4.1: Joondalup study area AAM results

Trip purpose Accessibility score Mode
Public transport Walk Cycle
Work Study area 0.31 0.01 0.07
Perth average 0.33 0.01 0.10
Assessment Average Average Below average
Primary and secondary Study area 0.87 0.04 0.47
school
Assessment Above average Below average Above average
Tertiary school Study area 0.59 0.05 0.23
Assessment Above average Above average Above average
Shopping and recreation Study area 0.69 0.03 0.33
Assessment Above average Below average Average
Note:
Assessment was based on the following:
▪ within 15% of Perth average: average
▪ less than 15% of Perth average: below average
▪ greater than 15% of Perth average: above average.
Austroads 2011
— 57 —

◼ 0.1 – 0.2 ◼ 0.55 – 0.7
◼ 0.2 – 0.35 ◼ 0.7 – 0.8
◼ 0.35 – 0.45 ◼ 0.8 – 0.85
◼ 0.45 – 0.55 ◼ 0.85 – 0.95
◼ 0.55 – 0.7 100 m x 100 m grid ◼ 0.95 – 1.0 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend
Legend
(a) Work TrainLine
(b) Primary & secondary school
TrainLine
FOOTPATHS_Culdesacs_BU
BR_ONE
BR_ONE
Joon_7Sep_v3
A_Emp Joon_7Sep_v3
0.110677 - 0.200000 A_Pri_Sec
0.200001 - 0.350000 0.560495 - 0.727273
0.350001 - 0.450000 0.727274 - 0.807641
0.450001 - 0.550000 0.807642 - 0.875828
0.550001 - 0.700000 0.875829 - 0.942239

0.942240 - 0.999641

◼ 0.35 – 0.45 ◼ 0.25 – 0.5
◼ 0.45 – 0.55 ◼ 0.5 – 0.6
◼ 0.55 – 0.6 ◼ 0.6 – 0.75
◼ 0.6 – 0.7 ◼ 0.75 – 0.85
◼ 0.7 – 0.85 100 m x 100 m grid ◼ 0.85 – 1.0 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend Legend
TrainLine TrainLine
FOOTPATHS_Culdesacs_BU FOOTPATHS_Culdesacs_BU
(c) Tertiary school
BR_ONE (d) Retail & recreationBR_ONE
Joon_7Sep_v3 Joon_7Sep_v3
A_Tertiary A_Ret_Rec
0.332871 - 0.466836 0.264589 - 0.484298
Note: Blue lines are public transport lines. 0.466837 - 0.545895 0.484299 - 0.604839
0.545896 - 0.623161 0.604840 - 0.725488
Figure 4.4: Public 0.623162
transport accessibility in Joondalup study area, Perth
- 0.708166 0.725489 - 0.849202
0.708167 - 0.859118 0.849203 - 0.993469
Austroads 2011
— 58 —
◼ 0– 0.005 ◼ 0.– 0.02
◼ 0.005– 0.013 ◼ 0.02– 0.06
◼ 0.013– 0.022 ◼ 0.06– 0.12
◼ 0.022 – 0.03 ◼ 0.12 – 0.2
◼ 003. – 0.004 100 m x 100 m grid ◼ 0.2 – 0.33 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend Legend
TrainLine TrainLine
FOOTPATHS_Culdesacs_BU FOOTPATHS_Culdesacs_BU
BR_ONE
(a) Work (b) Primary & secondary school
BR_ONE
Joon_7Sep_v3 Joon_7Sep_v3
WA_Emp WA_Pri_Sec
0.000039 - 0.005126 0.000000 - 0.022365
0.005127 - 0.013178 0.022366 - 0.062404
0.013179 - 0.022415 0.062405 - 0.125576
0.022416 - 0.031063 0.125577 - 0.204473
0.031064 - 0.040539 0.204474 - 0.336951

◼ 0 – 0.03 ◼ 0 – 0.02
◼ 0.03 – 0.09 ◼ 0.02 – 0.08
◼ 0.09 – 0.17 ◼ 0.08 – 0.16
◼ 0.17 – 0.25 ◼ 0.16 – 0.26
◼ 0.25 – 0.35 100 m x 100 m grid Legend ◼ 0.26 – 0.42 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend
TrainLine
TrainLine
BR_ONE
BR_ONE
Joon_7Sep_v3
(c) Tertiary school
WA_Tertiar (d) Retail & recreation
Joon_7Sep_v3
WA_Retail
0.000000 - 0.029313
0.000000 - 0.024861
0.029314 - 0.094028
0.024862 - 0.079726
0.094029 - 0.171550
Figure 4.5: Walking accessibility in Joondalup study area, Perth
0.171551 - 0.251488
0.079727 - 0.161240
0.161241 - 0.265020
0.251489 - 0.348715
0.265021 - 0.423919
Austroads 2011
— 59 —

◼ 0.02 – 0.04 ◼ 0.1 – 0.3
◼ 0.04 – 0.06 ◼ 0.3 – 0.4
◼ 0.06 – 0.08 ◼ 0.4 – 0.5
◼ 0.08 – 0.09 ◼ 0.5 – 0.6
◼ 0.09 – 0.1 100 m x 100 m grid Legend ◼ 0.6 – 0.8 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend
TrainLine
TrainLine
BR_ONE
(a) Work Joon_7Sep_v3 (b) Primary & secondary school
BR_ONE
Joon_7Sep_v3
CA_Emp
CA_Pri_Sec
0.022721 - 0.043257
0.119020 - 0.302910
0.043258 - 0.062491
0.302911 - 0.391778
0.062492 - 0.077878
0.391779 - 0.499315
0.077879 - 0.092052
0.499316 - 0.628370
0.092053 - 0.104510
0.628371 - 0.824535
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
◼ 0.02 – 0.08
◼ 0.005 – 0.08
◼ 0.08 – 0.15
◼ 0.08 – 0.2
◼ 0.15 – 0.25
◼ 0.2 – 0.35
◼ 0.25– 0.35
◼ 0.35 – 0.5
◼ 0.35 – 0.45 100 m x 100 m gridLegend
TrainLine ◼ 0.5 – 0.7 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend
TrainLine
BR_ONE
Joon_7Sep_v3
BR_ONE
CA_Tertiar
(c) Tertiary school0.017334 - 0.076296 (d) Retail & recreation
Joon_7Sep_v3
CA_Retail
0.076297 - 0.159457
0.005013 - 0.080014
0.159458 - 0.248095
0.080015 - 0.205677
0.248096 - 0.352384
Figure 4.6: Cycle accessibility
0.352385 - 0.432595 in Joondalup study area, Perth 0.205678 - 0.357990
0.357991 - 0.513445
0.513446 - 0.680440
Austroads 2011
— 60 —
4.3 Mandurah
The study area in the City of Mandurah is bounded by Meadow Springs Dr, Lakes Rd and Pinjara
Rd. The transport network and the location of key attractors in the study area are shown in
Figure 4.7.
Low density
employment
(a) Employment
(b) Primary and secondary schools
Figure 4.7: Transport network and key attractors in Mandurah study area
The summary of AAM scores for the study area is in Table 4.2. Perth’s average values are
compared with those of the study area.
Austroads 2011
— 61 —
Table 4.2: Mandurah study area AAM results

Perth 0.33 0.01 0.10
Assessment Below average Below average Below average
school
Perth 0.63 0.16 0.35
Assessment Average Below average Average
Perth 0.46 0.01 0.11
Perth 0.58 0.09 0.32
Note:
▪ within 15% of Perth average: average
▪ less than 15% of Perth average: below average
▪ greater than 15% of Perth average: above average.
Overall, the Mandurah study area was assessed to have problems in accessibility. It is below
average in almost all aspects reviewed, except accessibility to primary and secondary school by
public transport and cycle.
Accessibility maps of the Mandurah study area, highlighting locations with low accessibility are as
follows:
Austroads 2011
— 62 —

◼ 0.15 – 0.04 ◼ 0.2 – 0.4
◼ 0.04 – 0.055 ◼ 0.4 – 0.55
◼ 0.055 – 0.07 ◼ 0.55 – 0.65
◼ 0.07 – 0.08 ◼ 0.65 – 0.75
◼ 0.08 – 0.14 ◼ 0.75 – 0.85
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend Legend
(a) Work Train_Line_Mandurah
(b) Primary & secondary school Train_Line_Mandurah
BR_Links_RouteIDs Mandurah_Routes_ONE_Clean2
Footpaths_withBusStopSplitsBU Footpaths_withBusStopSplitsBU
Internal_zones_v2 Internal_zones_v2
A_Att_jobs A_Att_PriS
Accessibility score 0.015583 - 0.038583 Accessibility score 0.189783 - 0.416589
◼ 0.025 – 0.07 ◼ 0.04 – 0.2

0.038584 - 0.055230 0.416590 - 0.544881
0.055231 - 0.070355 0.544882 - 0.642629
◼ 0.07 – 0.095 0.070356 - 0.088214

◼ 0.2 – 0.35 0.642630 - 0.722379
0.088215 - 0.143216 0.722380 - 0.873675
◼ 0.095 – 0.12 ◼ 0.35 – 0.425
◼ 0.12 – 0.15 ◼ 0.425– 0.5
◼ 0.15 – 0.25 ◼ 0.5 – 0.65
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
(c) Tertiary school Legend (d) Retail & recreation

Train_Line_Mandurah Legend
Mandurah_Routes_ONE_Clean2
Train_Line_Mandurah
Note: Blue lines are public transport lines. Footpaths_withBusStopSplitsBU
Internal_zones_v2 Footpaths_withBusStopSplitsBU
Figure 4.8: Public transport accessibility in Mandurah study area, Perth

A_Att_Ter
0.024189 - 0.069662
Internal_zones_v2
A_Att_Ret_
0.069663 - 0.094841
0.038517 - 0.193602
0.094842 - 0.120751
0.193603 - 0.326782
0.120752 - 0.152741
0.326783 - 0.422057
0.152742 - 0.245140
0.422058 - 0.516723
0.516724 - 0.640070
Austroads 2011
— 63 —
Accessibility score
Accessibility score
◼ 0 – 0.015
◼ 0 – 0.002
◼ 0.015 – 0.05
◼ 0.002 – 0.004
◼ 0.05 – 0.1
◼ 0.004 – 0.008
◼ 0.1 – 0.15
◼ 0.008– 0.012
◼ 0.15 – 0.25
◼ 0.012 – 0. 017
100 m x 100 m grid
100 m x 100 m grid
(a) Work Legend (b) Primary & secondary schoolLegend

Train_Line_Mandurah Train_Line_Mandurah
Mandurah_Routes_ONE_Clean2 Mandurah_Routes_ONE_Clean2
Internal_zones_v2 Accessibility score Internal_zones_v2

Accessibility score WA_Att_job WA_Att_Pri
0.000018 - 0.001982
◼ 0 – 0.015 0.000000 - 0.014991
◼ 0 – 0.005 0.001983 - 0.004403
◼ 0.015 – 0.05 0.014992 - 0.047614
◼ 0.005 – 0.015 0.004404 - 0.007666 0.047615 - 0.098338
0.007667 - 0.012126 ◼ 0.05 – 0.1 0.098339 - 0.164440
◼ 0.015 – 0.035 0.012127 - 0.017519 0.164441 - 0.253704

◼ 0.1 – 0.15
◼ 0.035 – 0.05
◼ 0.15 – 0.25
◼ 0.05 – 0.075
100 m x 100 m grid
100 m x 100 m grid
(c) Tertiary school Legend (d) Retail & recreation Legend

Figure 4.9: Walking accessibility in Mandurah study area, Perth

WA_Att_Ter WA_Att_Ret
0.000000 - 0.014647
0.000000 - 0.004682
0.014648 - 0.046155
0.004683 - 0.016427
0.046156 - 0.097437
0.016428 - 0.032664
0.097438 - 0.159996
0.032665 - 0.054137
0.159997 - 0.238062
0.054138 - 0.072207
Austroads 2011
— 64 —

◼ 0.015 – 0.02 ◼ 0.025 – 0.15
◼ 0.02– 0.03 ◼ 0.15 – 0.25
◼ 0.03 – 0.035 ◼ 0.25 – 0.3
◼ 0.035 – 0.45 ◼ 0.3 – 0.4
◼ 0.045 – 0.05 ◼ 0.4 – 0.55
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid

Legend Legend
CA_Att_job CA_Att_Pri
0.013121 - 0.022287 0.028953 - 0.135829
Accessibility score 0.022288 - 0.029617

0.029618 - 0.036468 Accessibility score 0.135830 - 0.224766
0.224767 - 0.306136
◼ 0 – 0.01 0.036469 - 0.043164
◼ 0 – 0.07 0.306137 - 0.392920
0.043165 - 0.049248
0.392921 - 0.530763
◼ 0.01 – 0.025 ◼ 0.07 – 0.15
◼ 0.025 – 0.04 ◼ 0.15 – 0.3
◼ 0.04 – 0.06 ◼ 0.3 – 0.4
◼ 0.06 – 0.07 ◼ 0.4 – 0.6
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
(c) Tertiary school

Legend (d) Retail & recreation
Legend
Train_Line_Mandurah
Train_Line_Mandurah
Figure 4.10: Cycle accessibility in Mandurah study area, Perth
Footpaths_withBusStopSplitsBU
Footpaths_withBusStopSplitsBU
CA_Att_Ter
CA_Att_Ret
0.000776 - 0.011816
0.002440 - 0.073565
0.011817 - 0.025087
0.073566 - 0.172113
0.025088 - 0.039768
0.172114 - 0.280857
0.039769 - 0.056661
0.280858 - 0.416027
0.056662 - 0.072207
0.416028 - 0.559550
Austroads 2011
— 65 —
4.4 Burwood Heights, City of Whitehorse

The study area in the City of Whitehorse includes Burwood Heights development area plus
abutting areas. The transport network and the location of key attractors in the study area are
shown in Figure 4.11.
(a) Employment (b) Primary and secondary schools
Figure 4.11: Transport network and key attractors in Burwood Heights study area
Table 4.3 summarises the AAM scores of the study area. Melbourne’s average scores are included
in table for comparison.
Austroads 2011
— 66 —
Table 4.3: Burwood Heights study area AAM results

Melbourne average 0.53 0.02 0.17
Assessment Above average Average Above average
school
Assessment Above average Above average Above average
Note:
▪ within 15% of Melbourne average: average
▪ less than 15% of Melbourne average: below average
▪ greater than 15% of Melbourne average: above average.
Overall it was judged that the study area has above average accessibility levels. Improvement in
accessibility to primary and secondary school by walk and shopping and recreation by walk is
recommendable.
Accessibility maps of the Burwood Heights study area, highlighting locations with low accessibility
are as follows:
Austroads 2011
— 67 —

◼ 0.5 – 0.65 ◼ 0.97 – 0.98
◼ 0.65 – 0.7 ◼ 0.98 – 0.99
◼ 0.7 – 0.75 ◼ 0.99 – 0.995
◼ 0.75 – 0.8 ◼ 0.995– 0.997
◼ 0.8 – 0.9 ◼ 0.997 – 1.0
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
(a) Work Legend (b) Primary & secondaryLegend

school
ALL_BusRoutes ALL_BusRoutes
Accessibility score Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors

Accessibility score Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors
acc_cells_v2 acc_cells_v2
◼ 0.9 – 0.95 A_Att_jobs ◼ 0.75 – 0.83 A_Att_PriS
0.972965 - 0.984000
◼ 0.95 – 0.97 ◼ 0.83 – 0.87
0.507611 - 0.641597
0.641598 - 0.713761 0.984001 - 0.990928
◼ 0.97 – 0.98 0.713762 - 0.768424 ◼ 0.87 – 0.91 0.990929 - 0.995165
0.768425 - 0.817474 0.995166 - 0.997838

◼ 0.98 – 0.99 0.817475 - 0.902409 ◼ 0.91 – 0.94 0.997839 - 0.999981
◼ 0.99 – 1.0 ◼ 0.94 – 0.99

100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
(c) Tertiary school (d) Retail & recreation

Legend
Legend
ALL_BusRoutes
ALL_BusRoutes
Note: Blue lines are public transport lines. Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors
Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors
acc_cells_v2
acc_cells_v2
Figure 4.12: PublicA_Att_Ter
transport accessibility in Burwood Heights study area, Melbourne
A_Att_Ret_
0.759286 - 0.832924
0.925909 - 0.948275
0.832925 - 0.876168
0.948276 - 0.969020
0.876169 - 0.912539
0.969021 - 0.982695
0.912540 - 0.943114
0.982696 - 0.991329
0.943115 - 0.989540
0.991330 - 0.998375
Austroads 2011
— 68 —

◼ 0.005 – 0.01 ◼ 0 – 0.025
◼ 0.01– 0.015 ◼ 0.025 – 0.06
◼ 0.015 – 0.02 ◼ 0.06 – 0.11
◼ 0.02– 0.025 ◼ 0.11 – 0.17
◼ 0.025 – 0.03 ◼ 0.17 – 0.25
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend
ALL_BusRoutes
Legend
Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors ALL_BusRoutes
Accessibility score acc_cells_v2 Accessibility score Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors
WA_Att_job acc_cells_v2
◼ 0 – 0.03 0.005589 - 0.011613
◼ 0 – 0.012 WA_Att_Pri
◼ 0.03 – 0.12 ◼ 0.012 – 0.025

0.011614 - 0.015006 0.000277 - 0.025006
0.015007 - 0.018992 0.025007 - 0.061842
◼ 0.12 – 0.25 0.018993 - 0.024270 ◼ 0.025 – 0.04 0.061843 - 0.112879
0.024271 - 0.031801 0.112880 - 0.174129

◼ 0.25 – 0.35 ◼ 0.04 – 0.055 0.174130 - 0.245649
◼ 0.35 – 0.5 ◼ 0.055 – 0.08

100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
Legend Legend
Figure 4.13: Walking accessibility in Burwood Heights study area, Melbourne ALL_BusRoutes
ALL_BusRoutes
WA_Att_Ter WA_Att_Ret
0.001315 - 0.012224
0.000110 - 0.034571
0.012225 - 0.024678
0.034572 - 0.120435
0.024679 - 0.037291
0.120436 - 0.235166
0.037292 - 0.055235
0.235167 - 0.371997
0.055236 - 0.084076
0.371998 - 0.503205
Austroads 2011
— 69 —

◼ 0.25 – 0.28 ◼ 0.6 – 0.72
◼ 0.28 – 0.3 ◼ 0.72 – 0.8
◼ 0.3 – 0.31 ◼ 0.8 – 0.85
◼ 0.31 – 0.33 ◼ 0.85 – 0.9
◼ 0.33 – 0.35 ◼ 0.9 – 0.97
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid
(b) Primary & secondary school

(a) Work
Legend Legend
Accessibility score ALL_BusRoutes Accessibility score ALL_BusRoutes
◼ 0.5 – 0.6 Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors

◼ 0.3 – 0.4 Footpaths_Tracks_PTconnectors
◼ 0.6 – 0.7 CA_Att_job ◼ 0.4 – 0.5 CA_Att_Pri
0.246854 - 0.281539 0.600061 - 0.723787
◼ 0.7 – 0.75 0.281540 - 0.295872 ◼ 0.5 – 0.55 0.723788 - 0.795703
◼ 0.75 – 0.8 0.295873 - 0.310094

◼ 0.55 – 0.65 0.795704 - 0.848336
0.310095 - 0.327488 0.848337 - 0.899993
◼ 0.8 – 0.9 0.327489 - 0.343290 ◼ 0.65 – 0.8 0.899994 - 0.970026
100 m x 100 m grid 100 m x 100 m grid

Legend
Legend
ALL_BusRoutes
Figure 4.14: Cycle accessibility in Burwood Heights study area, Melbourne

ALL_BusRoutes
acc_cells_v2
acc_cells_v2
CA_Att_Ter
CA_Att_Ret
0.536906 - 0.620079
0.307929 - 0.429435
0.620080 - 0.691979
0.429436 - 0.493273
0.691980 - 0.760857
0.493274 - 0.566522
0.760858 - 0.818205
0.566523 - 0.652295
0.818206 - 0.872471
0.652296 - 0.804760
Austroads 2011
— 70 —
5 COMPARISON OF METRICS
This section examines the differences between AAM and three other accessibility metrics as
follows:
▪ Koenig accessibility metric (KAM): Section 5.1
▪ LUPTAI: Section 5.2
▪ NZTA accessibility metric (NAM): Section 5.3.
5.1 Koenig Accessibility Metric

This section compares the AAM and the Koenig accessibility metric (Koenig 1974) or KAM which is
based on utility theory. KAM is formulated as follows (Equation 7).
  7
ln   X j exp (− Ci , j )
1
Ai =
  j 
where
 = distribution on parameter of a gravity model with a distribution on function

g (Ci , j ) = exp (− Ci , j ) .
The KAM utilises only one parameter () which is derived from a gravity model with an exponential
distribution function. It was calibrated using the Perth and Melbourne data and determined to be
0.07 by the ARRB team.
The comparison uses work accessibility by car in Melbourne as the case study. The three types of
comparison were conducted as follows.
▪ accessibility level assessment of Melbourne (Section 5.1.1)
▪ change in accessibility levels in Melbourne due to Eastlink (Section 5.1.2)
▪ sensitivity analysis (Section 5.1.3).
One difficulty in comparing AAM and KAM is that the units are different. The same problem exists
in comparing AAM with LUPTAI and NAM. In this report, metrics were sometimes rescaled using
the lowest and highest accessibility levels as reference points such that its values range from 0 to
1 similar to AAM for the purpose of comparison.
5.1.1 Assessment of Accessibility of Melbourne

Figure 5.1 compares accessibility maps calculated using AAM and KAM. Figure 5.2 is a scatter
plot of the ranking of each zone as calculated by the two metrics. There is a close correlation in the
ranking of zones. Figure 5.3 plots the scale or magnitude of accessibility levels for zones ranked
from highest to lowest accessibility level. On the macroscopic level, there appears to be no
appreciable difference between the two metrics. The differences of the two metrics are examined
in more detail in Section 5.1.3.
Austroads 2011
— 71 —
(a) AAM (b) KAM

◼ 0.0 - 0.2 ◼ 135 - 148
◼ 0.2 - 0.4 ◼ 148 - 161
◼ 0.4 - 0.6 ◼ 161 - 174
◼ 0.6 - 0.8 ◼ 174 - 187
◼ 0.8 - 1.0 ◼ 187 - 200
Figure 5.1: Comparison of work accessibility using KAM and AAM
2500
Zone rank based on Koenig metric
2000
Rank of zone by KAM
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Zone rank based
Rank ofon NS1586
zone metric
by AAM
Figure 5.2: Rank of zones based on work accessibility using KAM and AAM
Austroads 2011
— 72 —
1.0 200 1.0
0.9
190
0.8
0.75
180
KAM score – rescaled
0.7
NS1586 accessibility
KAMaccessibility
0.6
AAM score
score
170
0.50
Koenig
KAM 0.5
160
Koenig
0.4
NS1586
AAM
0.25 150 0.3
0.2
140
0.1
0.0
130 -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Zone
(from highest to lowest accessibility based on NS1586 metric)
Zones, sorted from highest to lowest AAM score
Figure 5.3: Relative magnitude of work accessibility using KAM and AAM
5.1.2 Impact of Eastlink on Accessibility

An assessment was conducted with and without Eastlink and of the effect of Eastlink on
accessibility to work by car. Eastlink is a 39 km expressway running on a north-south orientation on
the eastern region of Melbourne. According to the MITM database, Eastlink mostly improved car
travel time but there are some zone pairs that experience increased travel time. Therefore
accessibility levels in some zones were negatively impacted based on the travel time calculated by
the MITM model.
Changes in accessibility as a result of Eastlink are plotted in Figure 5.4. The impact of Eastlink on
accessibility based on AAM and KAM are similar. The zones that benefited most from Eastlink are
zones along the Eastlink corridor. Figure 5.5 is a scatter plot of the change in accessibility level
due to Eastlink using the two metrics. There is a close correlation, indicating that the two metrics
show similar impacts of Eastlink on accessibility.
Austroads 2011
— 73 —
◼ negative to zero ◼ negative to zero

◼ 0.00 - 0.05 ◼0-3
◼ 0.05 - 0.10 ◼3-6
◼ 0.10 - 0.15 ◼6-9
◼ 0.2 and above ◼ 9 and above
(a) AAM (b) KAM
Figure 5.4: Change in accessibility due to Eastlink using AAM and KAM
14
metric
by zone
12
Koenig
10
score
using
8
in KAM
accessibility
6
Change inChange
-
-0.10 - 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
-2
Change in acessibility using NS1586 metric
Change in AAM score by zone
Figure 5.5: Change in accessibility by zone due to Eastlink using AAM and KAM
Austroads 2011
— 74 —
5.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis

To compare the AAM and KAM more closely, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. A simple case
of a one origin-one destination city was used as shown in Figure 5.6. Based on this simple case,
accessibility levels are measured using the AAM and the KAM under varying levels of transport
impedance and employment level. The comparison is illustrated in Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9.
Transport impedance
Origin Destination
(all employment is here)
Figure 5.6: One origin – one destination city
Figure 5.8 illustrates the impact on accessibility of a destination with 200 000 jobs given varying
levels of transport impedance. The KAM continues to assign a notable impact to the destination
when it is more than 60 min from the origin. The impact of the destination only becomes near zero
when it is at least 200 min or 3 h 20 min away from the origin. The AAM assigns a near zero
accessibility impact beyond 60 min. The two metrics suggest very different sizes of hinterlands for
the destination. A hinterland is defined as the geographical area serviced by a particular land
development. The difference in the hinterland defined by AAM and KAM could influence policy
analysis. The AAM hinterland was judged to be a more reasonable guide than KAM based on the
following:
▪ 97% of car work trips in Perth and 90% of car work trips in Melbourne are within 1 h.
▪ The studies by Morris and Young (1981) and Redmond and Mokhtarian (2001) indicate that
the level of satisfaction of travel time is very low beyond 50 min of commuting time.
Figure 5.9 illustrates the impact of the destination 10 min away from the origin given varying levels
of jobs available at the destination. The KAM saturates more quickly than the AAM. According to
the KAM, accessibility would be close to maximum when jobs at the destination reach 30 000. The
AAM accessibility metric requires more than 180 000 jobs at the destination to achieve a
reasonably high level of accessibility, say AAM = 0.75.
The two metrics would have different guidance on the satellite town development. In the case of
KAM, a satellite town with 30 000 jobs would be enough to induce containment i.e. people will be
able to find suitable employment within the satellite town. On the other hand the AAM suggests it
requires a far bigger employment pool of 180 000 to induce containment. Figure 5.7 shows the
number of jobs within an LGA and their corresponding average PKT by car in Melbourne. The
typical number of jobs in a suburban LGA is approximately 50 000 and the average PKT is around
20 km. Monash is the suburban LGA with the highest number of jobs within its borders, i.e.
100 000 jobs, and it has an average PKT of 15 km. Melbourne LGA contains 350 000 jobs and the
average PKT is about 8 km. LGAs near the Melbourne LGA also have low average PKT. Given
that containment is not apparent in the suburban LGAs, a satellite town would require a higher
number of jobs than 50 000 to induce containment. The number of jobs needed to induce
containment appears to be between 100 000 and 350 000. It was therefore judged that the AAM
guidance on the saturation of opportunities for employment is more realistic than that of KAM.
It is noted that different  parameter in KAM can be used, which can potentially improve KAM. This
will however only change its effect on transport impedance but not on the number of opportunities.
Austroads 2011
— 75 —
400,000 40
350,000 35
300,000 30
Jobs within LGA
250,000
Ave PKT 25
Jobs within LGA
Average PKT
200,000 20
150,000 15
100,000 10
50,000 5
- 0
Melbourne
Port Phillip
Maribyrnong
Yarra
Stonnington
Boroondara
Glen Eira
Kingston
Darebin
Moreland
Monash
Whitehorse
Moonee Valley
Bayside
Banyule
Greater Dandenong
Manningham
Hobsons Bay
Whittlesea
Brimbank
Knox
Maroondah
Hume
Casey
Frankston
Wyndham
Mornington Peninsula
Yarra Ranges
Melton
Cardinia
Nillumbik
Figure 5.7: Jobs within LGA and average PKT by car in Melbourne
200 0.80
180
160
0.60
140 KAM
AAM score
KAM score
120 AAM
100 0.40
80
60
0.20
40
20
0 -
0 50 100 150 200 250
Travel time, min
Note: Assuming constant 200 000 jobs at destination.
Figure 5.8: Comparison of the effect of transport impedance on work accessibility using KAM and AAM
Austroads 2011
— 76 —
200 1.0
180
160 0.8
140
KAM score
AAM score
KAM
120 0.6
AAM
100
80 0.4
60
40 0.2
20
- -
0 100 200 300 400 500
Thousands
Jobs at destination
Note: Assuming constant 10 min transport impedance between origin and destination.
Figure 5.9: Comparison of the effect of employment on work accessibility using KAM and AAM
5.2 LUPTAI
The Land Use and Public Transport Accessibility Index (LUPTAI) package was developed by the
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland as a user friendly software that provides a
measure of transport accessibility for planners (TMR 2010). It does this by evaluating how easy it
is for people to access key activities such as employment, retail, health, school and recreation from
their homes via the public transport and walking network. The LUPTAI methodology is based on
random utility and Monte Carlo simulation, which randomises choice sets in order to derive the
expected utility of the destination type.
The LUPTAI tool assists planners to respond to the challenges of urban growth by comparing
effectiveness of variables including changes to residential population density, different land uses
and improvements in public transport infrastructure, services, and frequencies. For communities
throughout Queensland this means greater choice in accessing the people, places and things that
are important to them.
5.2.1 Assessment of Accessibility

LUPTAI and AAM scores were calculated for Brisbane and compared. The calculation of AAM
scores was based on the 1515 traffic zones of the Brisbane Strategic Transport Model (BSTM).
LUPTAI is based on a network of nodes and the zonal values for LUPTAI are the average of all
nodes in the zone. Moreover, LUPTAI employs its own model to calculate its travel time inputs
which is different from BSTM.
Austroads 2011
— 77 —
LUPTAI calculates accessibility scores separately for primary and secondary school, while AAM
calculates a combined score. The average LUPTAI score for primary and secondary school was
used in the comparison. LUPTAI calculates retail accessibility only, while AAM includes retail and
recreation. For this comparison to be consistent, AAM scores were calculated for retail only.
The following figures compare public transport accessibility maps developed using AAM and
LUPTAI:
▪ work accessibility: Figure 5.12
▪ primary and secondary school accessibility: Figure 5.13
▪ tertiary school accessibility: Figure 5.14
▪ retail accessibility: Figure 5.15.
AAM and LUPTAI results are further compared using scatter graphs in Figure 5.10. The patterns of
high and low accessibility scores are broadly similar.
LUPTAI has a minimum and maximum value of 0 and 120. LUPTAI values were rescaled such that
a LUPTAI score of 0 and 120 would have a value of 1 and 0 respectively, similar to AAM (note that
AAM and LUPTAI are inversely proportional). Scatter graphs comparing the rescaled LUPTAI and
AAM are illustrated in Figure 5.11. The figures demonstrate that it is possible to estimate LUPTAI
scores from AAM scores using a logarithmic function. There is therefore a surprisingly neat
relationship between AAM and LUPTAI. The correlation is however not perfect. Factors that can
cause noise in the correlation between AAM and LUPTAI are as follows:
▪ there is a difference in zoning system where AAM was calculated using zone-based data
from BSTM while LUPTAI used nodes which are finer than zones
▪ the Monte Carlo simulation used by of LUPTAI utilises random variables
▪ travel time matrix inputs are not the same where AAM uses data from the BSTM and LUPTAI
utilises its own model
▪ BSTM travel time inputs used in AAM calculations utilise service headways whereas LUPTAI
uses a timetable
▪ difference in methodologies.
Austroads 2011
— 78 —
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
AAM
AAM
R2 = 0.66
0.4 0.4
R2 = 0.84
0.2 0.2
- -
- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
LUPTAI, min LUPTAI, min
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
AAM
AAM
R2 = 0.65 R2 = 0.77
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
- -
- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
LUPTAI, min LUPTAI, min
(c) Tertiary school (d) Retail
Figure 5.10: Accessibility of zones by LUPTAI and AAM
Austroads 2011
— 79 —
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
LUPTAI rescaled
LUPTAI rescaled
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
y = 0.13Ln(x) + 0.91 y = 0.10Ln(x) + 0.92
R2 = 0.84 R2 = 0.66
0.2 0.2
- -
- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
AAM AAM
1.0 1.0
y = 0.0957Ln(x) + 0.8483
R2 = 0.6498
0.8 0.8
LUPTAI rescaled
LUPTAI rescaled
0.6 0.6
y = 0.12Ln(x) + 0.92
R2 = 0.77
0.4 0.4
y = 0.10Ln(x) + 0.85
R2 = 0.65
0.2 0.2
- -
- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
AAM AAM
(c) Tertiary school (d) Retail
Figure 5.11: Accessibility of zones by rescaled LUPTAI and AAM
Austroads 2011
— 80 —
0 5 10 20 30 0 5 10 20 30
km km
± ±
◼ 0 – 0.2 ◼ 86 – 120
◼ 0.2 – 0.45 ◼ 48 – 86
◼ 0.45 – 0.7 ◼ 28 – 48
◼ 0.7 – 0.85 (a) AAM ◼ 17 – 28 (b) LUPTAI
Legend Legend
◼ 0.85 – 1.0 Summary_Bri ◼ 2 – 17 min Summary_Bri
A_w_base L_w_base
0.000508 - 0.191758 86.619367 - 120.000000
Figure 5.12: Brisbane work PT accessibility: AAM and LUPTAI
0.191759 - 0.441400 48.720385 - 86.619366
0.441401 - 0.680974 28.433528 - 48.720384
0.680975 - 0.862296 17.109151 - 28.433527
0 5 10
0.862297 - 0.992027 20 30 0 5 10
2.307345 - 17.109150 20 30
km km
± ±
◼ 0 – 0.25 ◼ 75 – 120
◼ 0.25 – 0.55 ◼ 42 – 75
◼ 0.55 – 0.75 ◼ 24 – 42
◼ 0.75 – 0.95 ◼ 15 – 24
◼ 0.95 – 1.0 (a) AAM
Legend ◼ 6 – 15 min (b) LUPTAI
Legend
Summary_Bri Summary_Bri
A_ps_base L_ps_base
Figure 5.13: Brisbane
0.000000 - 0.248934 primary and secondary school PT accessibility: AAM- 120.000000
75.857059 and LUPTAI
0.248935 - 0.536483 42.942997 - 75.857058
0.536484 - 0.758923 24.619804 - 42.942996
0.758924 - 0.933054 15.508217 - 24.619803
0.933055 - 1.000000 6.651239 - 15.508216
Austroads 2011
— 81 —
0 5 10 20 30 0 5 10 20 30
km km
± ±
◼ 0 – 0.2 ◼ 90 – 120
◼ 0.2 – 0.45 ◼ 54 – 90
◼ 0.45 – 0.7 ◼ 32 – 54
◼ 0.7 – 0.85 ◼ 18 – 32
(a) AAM (b) LUPTAI
◼ 0.85 – 1.0 Legend ◼ 3 – 18 min Legend
A_tt_base L_tt_base
Figure 5.14: Brisbane tertiary school PT accessibility: AAM and
0.000000 - 0.199831 LUPTAI
90.834359 - 120.000000
0.199832 - 0.452761 54.196621 - 90.834358
0.452762 - 0.691789 32.052764 - 54.196620
0 5 10
0.691790 - 0.874852 20 30 0 5 10
18.837894 - 32.052763 20 30
0.874853 - 0.993194 km 3.287959 - 18.837893 km
± ±
◼ 0 – 0.2 ◼ 78 – 120
◼ 0.2 – 0.5 ◼ 44 – 78
◼ 0.5 – 0.7 ◼ 25 – 44
◼ 0.7 – 0.9 (a)Legend
AAM ◼ 14 – 25 Legend
(b) LUPTAI
◼ 0.9 – 1.0 ◼ 2 – 14 min
A_s_base L_r_base
0.000547 - 0.215039 78.374193 - 120.000000
0.215040 - 0.493232 44.893989 - 78.374192
Figure 5.15: Brisbane retail PT accessibility: AAM and LUPTAI
0.493233 - 0.710754 25.261091 - 44.893988
0.710755 - 0.894892 14.334559 - 25.261090
0.894893 - 1.000000 2.206505 - 14.334558
Austroads 2011
— 82 —
5.2.2 Impact of a PT Project on Accessibility

Two public transport networks were assumed. The base case is the 2009 public transport network.
A project case was also assumed wherein the Bowen Hills to Darra services were extended to
Springfield Central via Richlands, Elen Grove and Springfield Lakes Railway Stations. Door-to-door
travel time by public transport determined by BSTM was used in the AAM calculations. LUPTAI
employed its own model to determine travel time inputs. Land use was assumed to be constant.
Accessibility scores were recalculated based on improved travel time as a result of the project. The
difference between the base case and the project case was determined for each zone and plotted
as follows:
▪ change in work accessibility: Figure 5.16
▪ change in primary and secondary school accessibility: Figure 5.17
▪ change in tertiary school accessibility: Figure 5.18
▪ change in retail accessibility: Figure 5.19.
A difference between the two metrics was noted is in the case of changes in work and retail
accessibility due to the project. LUPTAI recorded reductions in accessibility levels around the
Darra and Chelmer stations (Figure 5.16 and Figure 5.19). Meanwhile AAM recorded
improvements in accessibility levels. According to TMR (2010), the main causes of degradation of
LUPTAI scores around Darra and Chelmer stations are as follows:
▪ small changes in the service timetable can make small changes in interchanges and
penalties leading to localised effects
▪ the random variables used in the Monte Carlo approach means that there is some natural
variation in comparisons.
The majority of the changes in accessibility would arise from changes to the service timetable and
frequency. The frequency of trains passing through both the Darra and Chelmer stations would
have altered slightly.
Austroads 2011
— 83 —
◼ 0 – 0.002 ◼ -0.5 – -0.25

◼ 0.002 – 0.01 ◼ -0.25 – -0.05
◼ 0.01 – 0.04 ◼ -0.05 – 0.1
◼ 0.04 – 0.17 ◼ 0.1 – 0.5
◼ 0.17 – 0.5 ◼ 0.5 – 1.0
0 2 4 8
± 12 0 2 4 8
± 12
km km
Legend Legend
(a) AAM (b) LUPTAI
LinksBase_polyline LinksBase_polyline
LinksProject_polyline LinksProject_polyline
Notes: A_w_diff2 / none l_diff_w / none
AAM: Change in accessibility = accessibility score- 0.002541615
0.000000000 with project – accessibility score without project. -0.543395996 - -0.258924991
-0.258924990 - -0.054453999
LUPTAI: Change in accessibility = (accessibility score with project – accessibility score without project) x -1, note that high
0.002541616 - 0.010980409
scores indicate poor accessibility (in min).
-0.054453998 - 0.108324997
0.010980410 - 0.044516214
Figure0.044516215
5.16: Change
- 0.168169047
in work PT accessibility due to project: AAM 0.108324998
and LUPTAI - 0.492740005
0.492740006 - 1.00942004
0.168169048 - 0.492031551
◼ 0 – 0.005 ◼ -0.01 – 0.02

◼ 0.005 – 0.016 ◼ 0.02 – 0.08
◼ 0.016 – 0.04 ◼ 0.08 – 0.17
◼ 0.04 – 0.09 ◼ 0.17 – 0.24
◼ 0.09 – 0.28 ◼ 0.24 – 0.53
0 2 4 8
± 12 0 2 4 8
± 12
km km
(a) AAM
Legend (b) LUPTAI
Legend
LinksBase_polyline LinksBase_polyline
Figure 5.17: Change in primary and secondary school PT accessibility due l_diff_ps
A_ps_diff2 / none
to project: AAM and LUPTAI
0.000000000 - 0.005144848 -0.010752 - 0.023675
0.005144849 - 0.016727913 0.023676 - 0.078787
0.016727914 - 0.039647035 0.078788 - 0.170525
0.039647036 - 0.091573171 0.170526 - 0.247942
0.091573172 - 0.280723449 0.247943 - 0.537092
Austroads 2011
— 84 —
◼ 0 – 0.004 ◼ -0.08 – 0.04

◼ 0.004 – 0.01 ◼ 0.04 – 0.19
◼ 0.01 – 0.06 ◼ 0.19 – 0.63
◼ 0.06 – 0.18 ◼ 0.63 – 2.1
◼ 0.18 – 0.54 ◼ 2.1 – 3.1
0 2 4 8
±12 0 2 4 8
±
12
km km
Legend Legend
(a) AAM (b) LUPTAI LinksBase_polyline
LinksBase_polyline
FigureA_tt_diff2
5.18: Change
/ none in tertiary school PT accessibility due to project: AAM and LUPTAI
l_diff_tt
0.000000000 - 0.003758724 -0.085160 - 0.038821
0.003758725 - 0.013198304 0.038822 - 0.190754
0.013198305 - 0.062727603 0.190755 - 0.631398
◼ 0 – 0.009 0.062727604 - 0.178192662 ◼ -0.2 – -0.12 0.631399 - 2.102350
0.178192663 - 0.547984632 2.102351 - 3.105000

◼ 0.009 – 0.035 ◼ -0.12 – -0.03
◼ 0.035 – 0.09 ◼ -0.03 – 0.09
◼ 0.09 – 0.3 ◼ 0.09 – 0.3
◼ 0.3 – 0.6 ◼ 0.3 – 0.8
0 2 4 8
±12 0 2 4 8
±
12
km km
Legend Legend
(a) AAM
LinksBase_polyline (b) LUPTAI LinksBase_polyline
Figure0.000000000
A_r_diff2 / none
5.19: -Change
0.008961392
in retail PT accessibility due to project: AAM and LUPTAI
l_diff_s / none
-0.213863000 - -0.123205997
0.008961393 - 0.035240925 -0.123205996 - -0.034954999
0.035240926 - 0.091310893 -0.034954998 - 0.093805999
0.091310894 - 0.305634423 0.093806000 - 0.347342998
0.305634424 - 0.622208936 0.347342999 - 0.815809011
Austroads 2011
— 85 —
5.3 NZTA Accessibility Metric

This section examines the NZTA accessibility metric, referred in this report as NAM. NAM was
developed to assess changes in neighbourhood accessibility as part of an urban design
assessment (Abley 2010). It is also a step towards measuring one of the five transport objectives
of the New Zealand Transport Strategy to ‘improve access and mobility’. Developing a consistent
way of measuring accessibility is considered a first step towards improving access and mobility.
The methodology was developed for NZTA by Abley Transportation Consultants.
Origin locations from which accessibility is measured can range from individual households to
census mesh blocks (aggregations of roughly 120 properties). Although computationally taxing,
measuring accessibility from individual household locations provides higher definition results,
especially for walking and public transport. The use of census mesh blocks is considered the
maximum aggregation level that still provides useful results.
The NZTA accessibility methodology is based on journeys to eight core activities:

▪ doctors
▪ hospitals
▪ primary schools
▪ secondary schools
▪ further education
▪ convenience stores (including dairies and petrol stations)
▪ supermarkets
▪ places of employment.
The first seven of the core activities are ‘consumed’ activities, whilst a place of employment is
considered a ‘supplied’ activity. There is an important distinction when calculating accessibility
indices for consumed activities and supplied activities. The destinations can be customised and the
accessibility to any destination can be calculated for a particular accessibility project.
The NAM methodology is based on four transport modes – car, cycling, walking and public
transport. Accessibility is calculated by mode based on travel along the shortest path.
Before accessibility calculations are generated, a travel time matrix is developed. A ‘raw
accessibility value’, or RAV, is determined for each destination relative to an origin based on the
time it takes from an origin to a destination. The RAV is determined by a deterrence function which
is a negative exponential function of travel time. The NAM deterrence function for PT, walk, cycle
and car are illustrated in Figure 5.20.
Austroads 2011
— 86 —
1.0
0.8
Raw accessibility value
PT
Walk
0.6 Cycle
Car
0.4
0.2
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
travese route
Minutes to traverse route
Figure 5.20: NAM raw accessibility value by mode
The RAV for all destinations from an origin is combined to come up with an accessibility score. The
method of combining RAV considers that accessibility to a destination is of a certain value, but the
extra marginal value provided by additional opportunities decreases. Therefore, the accessibility
values for each origin-destination journey are weighted using a decreasing function. The RAV of
the closest destination has a weight of 1. The second closest destination adds only half its RAV.
The third closest destination adds only a third of RAV. Each destination adds only 1/n of its RAV,
where n is its rank. This methodology to combine RAV is applied for all ‘consumed’ activities which
includes all destination types, except employment.
Access to employment, a ‘supplied’ activity, is considered to have a special level of service as the
activities vary substantially between each instance of the activity. For employment, RAVs are
added without the use of weights as is undertaken in ‘consumed’ activities.
The weighted RAV in NAM is based on similar principles as the AAM. The difference is in the
choice of model forms and parameters. The unweighted RAV in NAM is different to AAM. The
unweighted RAV increases at a uniform rate thereby assuming that the saturation of opportunities
is never reached, i.e. constant returns. On the hand, the AAM assumes that accessibility will not
increase much when enough opportunities are available, i.e. decreasing returns.
5.3.1 Heretaunga Plains

This section compares NAM and AAM. NAM and AAM can only be compared using similar
destination types such as primary and secondary schools and work centres. In the case of primary
and secondary school accessibility, NAM uses school units as input while AAM uses enrolment.
For the purpose of comparison, an enrolment of 500 and 1000 was assumed for a primary school
and secondary school respectively. Average enrolment estimates were confirmed by NZTA to be
representative of New Zealand conditions. Furthermore, since AAM combines primary and
secondary school, the AAM used in this comparison was disaggregated to primary and secondary
Austroads 2011
— 87 —
school. This was done by utilising a  of 0.00067 instead of 0.00033 as prescribed in Table 2.2.
This is based on an assumption that the saturation point of 6000 combined enrolments for primary
and secondary school enrolments can be disaggregated into 3000 primary school enrolments and
3000 secondary school enrolments.
The comparison was based on a case study of Heretaunga Plains, Hawkes Bay. Table 5.1
summarises the average residential unit AAM and NAM score in the study area.
Table 5.1: Average residential unit accessibility score for Heretaunga Plains: AAM and NAM
Trip purpose Mode AAM score NAM score
Primary school Walk 0.29 0.79
Cycle 0.69 2.15
PT 0.99 1.75
Car 1.00 2.65
Secondary school Walk 0.15 0.35
Cycle 0.54 1.40
PT 0.94 1.07
Car 0.99 2.11
Work Walk 0.004 458
Cycle 0.04 5 889
PT 0.08 5 630
Car 0.20 16 684
A difference between AAM and NAM is that cycle accessibility in NAM is higher than PT
accessibility. In the case of AAM, PT accessibility is higher than cycle accessibility. The difference
can be explained by how AAM and NAM value the impact of transport impedance for cycle and PT.
In NAM, the curve for PT is above the cycle curve and the difference between the two is small as
shown in Figure 5.21. Accessibility by PT is constrained to destinations near PT stations while
cycle is flexible and can access any destination that is not easily reached by PT. Since PT and
cycle have more or less the same travel speed, the NAM score for an average residential unit in
Heretaunga Plains is higher by cycle than by PT.
In AAM, the curve for PT is also above cycle, but the difference between the two increases after
10 min travel time as shown in Figure 5.21. AAM considers that cycle has a limited geographic
range, perhaps constrained by the physical ability of the cyclist. Thereby, even with cycle’s
advantage of flexibility, its limited range resulted in lower accessibility scores than for PT.
Austroads 2011
— 88 —
1.0 1.0
PT - NAM
Cycle - NAM
NAM raw accessibility value
0.8 PT - AAM 0.8
AAM weighting factor

Cycle - AAM
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
- -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Travel time, min
Figure 5.21: Impact of transport impedance by PT and cycle in NAM and AAM (work accessibility)
The following compares the distribution of accessibility scores by AAM and NAM in Heretaunga
Plains:
▪ primary school by walk, cycle and PT in Figure 5.24 – Figure 5.26
▪ secondary school by walk, cycle and PT in Figure 5.27 – Figure 5.29
▪ work accessibility by walk, cycle, PT and car in Figure 5.30 – Figure 5.33.
AAM and NAM maps appear very similar. The scatter plot of NAM against AAM scores are
illustrated as follows:
▪ primary school by walk, cycle and PT in Figure 5.34
▪ secondary school by walk, cycle and PT in Figure 5.35
▪ work accessibility by walk, cycle, PT and car in Figure 5.36.
A clear pattern can be seen from the scatter plots indicating that there is a good correlation
between AAM and NAM. This is indicative that both metrics are conceptually equivalent. However,
there are differences, in particular, walk accessibility to secondary schools in cases identified by
dotted circle ‘A’ in Figure 5.35 (a). For some residential units, the relative accessibility score in
AAM and NAM are different. A unit with relatively higher accessibility score in AAM recorded a
relatively lower accessibility score in NAM. This difference between the two metrics was traced to
the difference in the shape of the deterrence functions used. This can be better explained using the
example residential units, i.e. residential unit 44 and 90, below.
Austroads 2011
— 89 —
In the estimation of accessibility to secondary schools by walking, the NAM calculation was
constrained to only the two closest secondary schools. To be consistent, AAM was also
constrained to the two closest schools. In the case of Unit 44, the two closest schools were 4.4 min
and 20.8 min away. For Unit 90 the two closest schools were 7.5 min and 17 min away
(Figure 5.22).
School A School A
Residential Residential
unit unit 7.5 min
4.4 min
NAM =0.75 NAM =0.61
44 AAM = 0.33 90 AAM = 0.35
20.8 min
17 min
School B School B
NAM of residential unit 44 > NAM of residential unit 90

AAM of residential unit 44 < AAM of residential unit 90
Figure 5.22: NAM and AAM of Residential Unit 44 and 90
The exponential function used as the deterrence function in NAM slopes down quickly and the
slope becomes gradual at higher levels of transport impedance. In effect, there is a significant drop
in the raw accessibility value for School A being 4.4 min away to School A being 7.5 min away as
shown in Figure 5.23(b). On the other hand, there is relatively little benefit for School B being
17 min away compared with being 20.8 min away. The net effect is that accessibility for Unit 44 is
higher than that for Unit 90 using NAM.
The S-shaped deterrence function used in AAM behaves differently. The slope is gradual at low
levels of transport impedance, reflecting a level of indifference to transport impedance to a certain
extent. The slope then increases as the impact of transport impedance increases, indicating that
people are more sensitive to higher levels of transport impedance. At even higher levels of
transport impedance people become insensitive to transport impedance because it starts to
exceed the maximum feasible level. Any improvement beyond the maximum level will not affect
people’s perception of accessibility. In other words, if it is 5 km away by walking, it might as well be
10 km away because almost nobody will walk 5 km anyway.
The S-shaped deterrence function used in AAM results in a relatively small drop in the weighting
factor for School A being 4.4 min away to School A being 7.5 min away as shown in Figure 5.23(a).
On the other hand there is a higher gain for School B being 17 min away compared with being
20.8 min away. The net effect is that accessibility for Unit 90 is higher than that for Unit 44. In this
case, AAM draws a different conclusion to NAM.
Austroads 2011
— 90 —
1.0
DA School A
School A Unit 90
Unit 44
0.8
AAM weighting factor
0.6
DA < DB
0.4
School B
Unit 90 School B
Unit 44
0.2
DB
-
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
Travel time, min
(a) AAM
1.0
School A
0.8 Unit 44
NAM raw accessibility value
DA School A
0.6
Unit 90
0.4
School B
DA > DB Unit 90 School B
Unit 44
0.2
DB
-
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
Travel time, min
(b) NAM
Figure 5.23: Difference in valuation of impedance in AAM and NAM for Unit 44 and Unit 90
Austroads 2011
— 91 —
0 175 350 700 m
0 175 350 700 m
± ±
⚫ 0.27 – 0.51
⚫ 0.02 – 0.15
⚫ 0.51 – 0.69
⚫ 0.15 – 0.24
⚫ 0.69 – 0.86
⚫ 0.24 – 0.31
⚫ 0.86 – 1.03
⚫ 0.31 – 0.38
⚫ 1.03 – 1.37
⚫ 0.38 – 0.45
Legend
Acc2
(b) NAM
Legend
(a) AAM WK_PriIn_3
Acc2
0.271002 - 0.512783
Pri_WK
0.512784 - 0.695101
0.025459 - 0.152887
0.695102 - 0.860762
0.152888 - 0.239746
0.239747 - 0.313484
Figure 5.24: Primary school accessibility by walk: AAM and NAM 0.860763 - 1.037162
1.037163 - 1.371862
0.313485 - 0.382359
0.382360 - 0.451303
0 175 350 700 m 0 175 350 700 m
± ±
⚫ 0.43 – 0.53 ⚫ 1.72 – 1.95

⚫ 0.53 – 0.62 ⚫ 1.95 – 2.09
⚫ 0.62 – 0.71 ⚫ 2.09 – 2.19
⚫ 0.71 – 0.79 ⚫ 2.19 – 2.28
⚫ 0.79 – 0.88 ⚫ 2.28 – 2.43
Legend (a) AAM Legend (b) NAM

Acc2 Acc2
Pri_CY CY_PriIn_3
0.430987 - 0.531022 1.723326 - 1.951446
0.531023 - 0.624168 Figure 5.25: Primary school accessibility by cycle:
1.951447 -AAM
2.095587 and NAM
0.624169 - 0.711888 2.095588 - 2.193352
0.711889 - 0.789464 2.193353 - 2.288557
0.789465 - 0.879311 2.288558 - 2.438664
Austroads 2011
— 92 —
0 175 350 700 m 0 175 350 700 m
± ±
⚫ 0.956 – 0.969
⚫ 1.19 – 1.43
⚫ 0.969 – 0.978
⚫ 1.43 – 1.60
⚫ 0.978 – 0.985
⚫ 1.60 – 1.74
⚫ 0.985 – 0.988
⚫ 1.74 – 1.88
⚫ 0.988 – 0.993
⚫ 1.88 – 2.13
Legend (a) AAM Legend (b) NAM
Acc2 Acc2
Pri_PT PT_PriIn_3
0.956074 - 0.969504 1.197407 - 1.433739
0.969505 - 0.978720 Figure 5.26: Primary school accessibility by PT: AAM
1.433740 and NAM
- 1.602151
0.978721 - 0.985298 1.602152 - 1.744649
0.985299 - 0.988512 1.744650 - 1.884086
0.988513 - 0.993110 1.884087 - 2.131803
0 175 350 700 m 0 175 350 700 m
± ±
⚫ 0.0 – 0.04 ⚫ 0.05 – 0.17

⚫ 0.04 – 0.1 ⚫ 0.17 – 0.31
⚫ 0.1 – 0.18 ⚫ 0.31 – 0.47
⚫ 0.18 – 0.27 ⚫ 0.47 – 0.67
⚫ 0.27 – 0.41 ⚫ 0.67 – 1.05
Legend Legend
Acc2 (a) AAM Acc2 (b) NAM
Sec_WK WK_Secon_3
0.000012 - 0.040305 0.051309 - 0.176165
0.040306 - 0.107108 0.176166 - 0.313447
0.107109 - 0.183892 Figure 5.27: Secondary school accessibility by walk: AAM and NAM 0.313448 - 0.475593
0.183893 - 0.270586 0.475594 - 0.677555
0.270587 - 0.418610 0.677556 - 1.051644
Austroads 2011
— 93 —
0 175 350 700 m

0 175 350 700 m
± ±
⚫ 1.03 – 1.21
⚫ 0.23 – 0.36
⚫ 1.21 – 1.34
⚫ 0.36 – 0.46
⚫ 1.34 – 1.45
⚫ 0.46 – 0.56
⚫ 1.45 – 1.56
⚫ 0.56 – 0.62
⚫ 1.56 – 1.72
⚫ 0.62 – 0.74
Legend
Legend (a) AAM Acc2
(b) NAM
Acc2 CY_Secon_3
Sec_CY 1.036707 - 1.219074
0.231614 - 0.362074
Figure 5.28: Secondary school accessibility by cycle: AAM and NAM

1.219075 - 1.348821
0.362075 - 0.469603
1.348822 - 1.455202
0.469604 - 0.562058
1.455203 - 1.565661
0.562059 - 0.622826
1.565662 - 1.724362
0.622827 - 0.739840
0 175 350 700 m

0 175 350 700 m
± ±
⚫ 0.83 – 0.89 ⚫ 0.64 – 0.86

⚫ 0.89 – 0.92 ⚫ 0.86 – 1.04
⚫ 0.92 – 0.94 ⚫ 1.04 – 1.18
⚫ 0.94 – 0.95 ⚫ 1.18 – 1.33
⚫ 0.95 – 0.97 ⚫ 1.33 – 1.55
Legend (a) AAM (b) NAM
Legend
Acc2
Sec_PT Acc2
0.838676 - 0.893011 PT_Secon_3
0.893012 - 0.923043 Figure 5.29: Secondary school accessibility by PT: AAM and NAM
0.644760 - 0.865578
0.865579 - 1.042974
0.923044 - 0.939531
0.939532 - 0.952119 1.042975 - 1.180827
0.952120 - 0.975585 1.180828 - 1.332961

1.332962 - 1.550046
Austroads 2011
— 94 —
0 175
±
350 700 m
0 175
±
350 700 m
⚫ 0.0009 – 0.003 ⚫ 124– 281

⚫ 0.003 – 0.004 ⚫ 281 – 401
⚫ 0.004 – 0.006 ⚫ 401 – 0.006
⚫ 0.006 – 0.008 ⚫ 0.006 – 0.008
⚫ 0.008 – 0.01 ⚫ 0.008 – 0.01
(a) AAM (b) NAM

Legend
Legend
Acc_work
Acc_WK
Figure 5.30: Work accessibility by walk: AAM and NAM
Acc_work
WK_Work__3
0.000973 - 0.002653
124.604509 - 281.784127
0.002654 - 0.003997
281.784128 - 401.928605
0.003998 - 0.005519
401.928606 - 527.765818
± ±
0.005520 - 0.007714
527.765819 - 695.331484
0.007715 - 0.011758
695.331485 - 1036.454841
0 175 350 700 m 0 175 350 700 m
⚫ 0.036 – 0.040 ⚫ 5133 – 5555

⚫ 0.040 – 0.043 ⚫ 5555 – 5840
⚫ 0.043 – 0.046 ⚫ 5840 – 6144
⚫ 0.046 – 0.049 ⚫ 6144 – 6498
⚫ 0.049 – 0.055 ⚫ 6498 – 7097
Legend
(a) AAM Legend
(b) NAM
Acc_work Acc_work
Acc_CY CY_Work__3
Figure 5.31: Work accessibility by cycle: AAM and NAM

0.036382 - 0.040630 5133.545995 - 5551.179668
0.040631 - 0.043677 5551.179669 - 5840.742471
0.043678 - 0.046571 5840.742472 - 6144.765658
0.046572 - 0.049817 6144.765659 - 6498.662796
0.049818 - 0.055275 6498.662797 - 7097.479484
Austroads 2011
— 95 —
0 175
±
350 700 m
0 175
±
350 700 m
⚫ 0.061 – 0.07 ⚫ 3663 – 4669

⚫ 0.07 – 0.08 ⚫ 4669 – 5318
⚫ 0.08 – 0.085 ⚫ 5318 – 5724
⚫ 0.085 – 0.09 ⚫ 5724 – 6168
⚫ 0.09 – 0.1 ⚫ 6168 – 7109
(a) AAM (b) NAM

Legend
Legend
Acc_work
Acc_PT
Figure 5.32: Work accessibility by PT: AAM and NAM
Acc_work
PT_Work__3
0.061310 - 0.073554
3663.248403 - 4669.502020
0.073555 - 0.081035
4669.502021 - 5318.455246
0.081036 - 0.085233
5318.455247 - 5724.082076
±
0.085234 - 0.089369
5724.082077 - 6168.885978
±
0.089370 - 0.097150
6168.885979 - 7109.212100
0 175 350 700 m

0 175 350 700 m
⚫ 0193 – 0.196
⚫ 15748 – 16217
⚫ 0.196 – 0.198
⚫ 16217 – 16548
⚫ 0.198 – 0.199
⚫ 16548 – 16925
⚫ 0.199 – 0.200
⚫ 16925 – 17499
⚫ 0.200 – 0.210
⚫ 17499 – 18593
(a) AAM (b) NAM
Legend
Legend
Acc_work
Acc_work Figure 5.33: Work accessibility by car: AAM and PV_Work__3
NAM
Acc_PV 15748.523052 - 16217.154034
0.193096 - 0.196073
16217.154035 - 16548.304453
0.196074 - 0.197878
16548.304454 - 16925.676994
0.197879 - 0.199754
16925.676995 - 17499.296056
0.199755 - 0.201998
17499.296057 - 18593.088495
0.201999 - 0.206379
Austroads 2011
— 96 —
1.5 2.8
1.2 2.4
2.0
NAM score
NAM score
0.9
1.6
0.6 1.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.0 0.0
- 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
AAM score AAM score
(a) Walk (b) Cycle
2.4
2.0
1.6
NAM score
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00
AAM score
(c) PT
Figure 5.34: Primary school accessibility of residential units by mode: NAM and AAM
Austroads 2011
— 97 —
1.2 2.1
1.8
0.9
1.5
A
NAM score
NAM score
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.3 0.6
0.3
0.0 0.0
- 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
AAM score AAM score
(a) Walk (b) Cycle
1.8
1.5
1.2
NAM score
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
AAM score
(c) PT
Figure 5.35: Secondary school accessibility of residential units by mode: NAM and AAM
Austroads 2011
— 98 —
1200
8000
1000 7000
800 6000
NAM score
NAM score
5000
600
4000
400 3000
200 2000
1000
0
0
- 0.005 0.010 0.015
- 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
AAM score
AAM score
(a) Walk (b) Cycle
8000 19000
7000 18500
6000 18000
NAM score
5000 NAM score 17500

4000
17000
3000
2000 16500
1000 16000
0 15500
- 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21
AAM score AAM score
(c) PT (d) Car
Figure 5.36: Work accessibility of residential units by mode: NAM and AAM
5.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis

AAM and NAM are further compared in this section by sensitivity analysis. A one origin – one
destination city is used (Figure 5.37).
Transport impedance
Origin Destination
(all facilities are here)
Figure 5.37: One origin – one destination city
Sensitivity to transport impedance was examined by assuming one secondary school with 1000
enrolments and one work centre with 20 000 jobs at the destination. AAM uses different functions
for work and school, while NAM uses only one deterrence function for work and school. Transport
impedance was varied and changes in accessibility score were recorded and illustrated as follows:
▪ walk accessibility: Figure 5.38
▪ cycle accessibility: Figure 5.39
▪ PT accessibility: Figure 5.40
▪ car accessibility: Figure 5.41.
Austroads 2011
— 99 —
The transport impedance from origin to destination was varied and Figure 5.38(a). The hinterland
varies for different transport modes. As earlier mentioned, a hinterland is the geographical area
serviced by a particular land development. Observations are as follows:
▪ The hinterland of a work place by walk and cycle are similar for AAM and NAM, but for a
school AAM has a 10~15 min smaller hinterland than NAM.
▪ The hinterland of a school by PT is similar for AAM and NAM, but for a work place the
hinterland given by AAM is 20 min greater than NAM.
▪ The hinterland of a school by car for AAM is smaller than NAM by 20 min, but the hinterland
of a work place for AAM is 10 min greater than NAM.
AAM and NAM will therefore assess differently the extent of impacts of land use development and
transport improvement.
Sensitivity to opportunities at the destination was also examined. The transport impedance to the
destination was fixed at 10 min. The number of opportunities at the destination was varied and the
change in accessibility score recorded and illustrated in Figure 5.42. Observations are as follows:
▪ For school accessibility, AAM estimates that accessibility needs of a resident at the origin will
be satisfied with five schools (i.e. saturation point = 5 schools). NAM estimates a much
higher number of school requirement of 10 schools.
▪ For work, AAM estimates that accessibility needs at origin will be mostly satisfied with
180 000 jobs at destination. On the other hand, NAM reckons that additional jobs will
contribute a consistent improvement in accessibility (i.e. no saturation point).
In planning, NAM will therefore suggest more schools than AAM to fully meet accessibility needs.
In work place distribution, NAM will tend to suggest creating new work places around areas with
the highest population density, such as the CBD. Overall improvement in accessibility will be
maximised in places with the greatest population regardless of currently existing jobs in the area.
In AAM this will not necessarily be the case. If there are already significant numbers of jobs in the
CBD, the optimal location may be in an area outside the CBD with high population but with low job
opportunities.
Austroads 2011
— 100 —
1.20 0.35 25,000 0.12
1.00 NAM: Walk (school) 0.30 NAM: Walk (work) 0.10

20,000
AAM: Walk (school) AAM: Walk (work)
0.25
0.80 0.08
NAM score
NAM score
AAM score
AAM score
0.20 15,000
0.60 0.06
0.15 10,000
0.40 0.04
0.10
5,000
0.20 0.05 0.02
- - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Transport impedance, min Transport impedance, min
(a) School (b) Work
Figure 5.38: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM walk accessibility to transport impedance (school and work)
1.20 0.35 25,000 0.12
1.00 NAM: Cycle (school) 0.30 NAM: Cycle (work) 0.10

20,000
AAM: Cycle (school) AAM: Cycle (work)
0.25
0.80 0.08
NAM score
NAM score
AAM score
AAM score
0.20 15,000
0.60 0.06
0.15 10,000
0.40 0.04
0.10
5,000
0.20 0.05 0.02
- - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(a) School (b) Work
Figure 5.39: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM cycle accessibility to transport impedance (school and work)
1.20 0.35 25,000 0.12
1.00 NAM: PT (school) 0.30 NAM: PT (work) 0.10

20,000
AAM: PT (school) AAM: PT (work)
0.25
0.80 0.08
NAM score
NAM score
AAM score
AAM score
0.20 15,000
0.60 0.06
0.15
10,000
0.40 0.04
0.10
5,000
0.20 0.05 0.02
- - - -
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) School (b) Work
Figure 5.40: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM PT accessibility to transport impedance (school and work)
Austroads 2011
— 101 —
1.20 0.35 25,000 0.12
1.00 NAM: Car (school) 0.30

NAM: Car (work) 0.10
20,000
AAM: Car (school) AAM: Car (work)
0.25
0.80 0.08
NAM score
AAM score
NAM score
AAM score
0.20 15,000
0.60 0.06
0.15
10,000
0.40 0.04
0.10
0.20 5,000
0.05 0.02
- - - -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) School (b) Work
Figure 5.41: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM car accessibility to transport impedance (school and work)
1.8 1.0 300,000 1.0

1.6
250,000
1.4 0.8 0.8
1.2 200,000
NAM score
NAM score
AAM score
AAM score
0.6 0.6
1.0
NAM: Car (school) 150,000
0.8
AAM: Car (school) 0.4 0.4
0.6 100,000 NAM: Car (work)
AAM: Car (work)
0.4 0.2 0.2
50,000
0.2
- - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Secondary schools at destination Jobs at destination (thousands)
(a) School (b) Work
Figure 5.42: Sensitivity of NAM and AAM car accessibility to opportunities at destination (school and work)
5.4 Summary
The comparison of AAM with KAM, LUPTAI and NAM demonstrated a degree of correlation
between metrics which underlines the common principles adopted by the four metrics. Key
differences are as follows:
▪ AAM results in a more realistic assessment of the hinterland of developments than KAM.
▪ AAM establishes a more realistic benchmark for the scale of opportunities to induce
containment than KAM.
▪ There was a situation where AAM and LUPTAI resulted in diverging accessibility results. This
was attributed to differences in inputs used in the calculations and to some extent the
variations inherent in the random utility theory and Monte Carlo simulation approach of
LUPTAI.
▪ AAM is more applicable to large metropolitan areas than the NAM for employment
accessibility because AAM has the property of diminishing returns for employment whereas
the NAM has assumes constant returns for employment.
▪ The AAM and NAM account travel time and opportunities differently. The AAM model forms
and parameters were calibrated using data from Melbourne and Perth, while the NAM was
based on New Zealand conditions.
Austroads 2011
— 102 —
6 CONCLUSIONS
This project has laid down a framework for accessibility monitoring and policy analysis. The ARRB
accessibility metric (AAM) was developed in this study. It covers accessibility by four mode types
including car, public transport, cycle and walk. It also includes four different types of destination
including work, primary and secondary school, tertiary school, and retail and recreation. The AAM
was calibrated to Australian metropolitan conditions.
Case studies on strategic application of AAM were conducted in Perth and Melbourne. Baseline
accessibility indicators were established. Areas of high and low accessibility were identified. The
relationship of accessibility as defined by AAM to travel distance, mode share and land price was
examined in Perth and Melbourne. The findings underscored a potential link between accessibility
and tangible benefits to society.
Three case studies on the application of the AAM at the neighbourhood level were conducted.
These include study areas in Joondalup (WA), Mandurah (WA) and Burwood Heights, City of
Whitehorse (Victoria). The analysis included public transport, cycle and walk accessibility. It did not
cover car accessibility because there is little variation in travel time by car from within a small area.
The case studies demonstrated the utility of the AAM to assess accessibility on a neighbourhood
scale by identifying aspects of accessibility the needs improvement.
The AAM was compared with three other accessibility metrics – the KAM, LUPTAI and NAM. The
comparisons demonstrated a broad correlation between metrics which highlighted the similar
principles employed in the four metrics. Comparisons at a finer scale revealed differences in the
metrics. The difference arose from various aspects including difference in formulations, inputs,
applicability, and calculation techniques.
It is recommended that accessibility be adopted as a performance indicator to assess transport

policies, projects and programs, and to inform land use planning. The endorsement of this report
by Austroads does not imply that each road agency will adopt the AAM. Further research is
needed to harmonise various approaches to accessibility analysis. The following is a list of other
potential research items:
▪ formulate a methodology to compile and develop a database of inputs for accessibility
monitoring
▪ develop metrics for other trip purposes particularly health services
▪ develop a general multimodal accessibility metric to provide guidance on trade-offs between
accessibility by various modes of transport
▪ develop a metric that can examine the effect of large transport price increases and level of
service of transport
▪ develop a general model for various city types
▪ incorporate the effect of competition for opportunities that are considered as private goods
▪ examine further the link between accessibility and benefits to society
▪ explore calibration techniques that do not rely on trip data to check bias in parameters
calibrated from trip data.
Austroads 2011
— 103 —
REFERENCES
Abley, S 2010, Technical description of NZTA accessibility metric for Austroads NS1586, prepared for NZTA,
report 3852, Abley Transportation Consultants Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Austroads 2010, Development of accessibility measures, IR-182/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Calvert, T & Avineri, I 2009, ‘Who wants to commute and why?’, International conference on travel behaviour
research, 12th, 2009, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, Arizona State University, School of Sustainable
Engineering and the Built Environment, Tempe Arizona USA, pp. 20.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2010, A guide to property values, ISSN 1329-6744, Land
Victoria, Melbourne, Vic.
El-Geneidy, AM & Levinson, DM 2006, Access to destinations: development of accessibility measures, report
MN/RC-2006-16, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Espada, I 2010, Application of accessibility measures progress report 2: model calibration and preliminary
application results, prepared for Austroads, report no. NS1586-5, ARRB Group Ltd, Vermont South,
Vic.
Koenig, JG 1974, ‘A theory of urban accessibility: a new working tool for the urban planner’, English
translation of ‘La theorie de l’accessibilite urbaine, un novel outil au service de l’amenageur’ Revue
Generale des Routes et des Aerodromes, no. 499, June, pp. 67-68.
Redmond, LS & Mokhtarian PL 2001, ‘The positive utility of the commute: modelling ideal commute time and
relative desired commute amount’, Transportation, 28, No. 2, pp. 179-205.
Transport and Main Roads 2010, LUPTAI: material prepared for Austroads NS1586, TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Transport Data Centre 2010, 2008/2009 Household travel survey, report ISBN 978-0-7313-2846-8, Bureau
of Transport Statistics, Sydney, NSW.
Young, W & Morris J 1981, ‘Evaluation by individuals of their travel time to work’, Transportation research
record, 794, pp. 51-59.
Austroads 2011
— 104 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, December 2011, Application of Accessibility Measures, Sydney,

A4, pp.110. AP-R397-11.
Keywords:
Accessibility, performance monitoring, ARRB accessibility metric, AAM,

deterrence function, saturation function, Perth, Melbourne, Joondalup,
Mandurah, Burwood Heights, travel distance, mode share, land price, Koenig,
LUPTAI, NZTA accessibility metric.
Abstract:
This project aims to contribute to the use of accessibility as a network

performance metric. The ARRB accessibility metric or AAM was formulated.
AAM includes accessibility to various destination types including work, school
and retail & recreation. It covers accessibility by car, public transport, cycle and
walk. Case studies on the strategic application of AAM were conducted using
Perth and Melbourne data. The relationship of AAM scores with travel distance,
mode share and land price was analysed. Joondalup (WA), Mandurah (WA)
and Burwood Heights, City of Whitehorse (Victoria) were assessed using AAM
as demonstration of the application of the AAM at the neighbourhood level.
Accessibility levels in the three study areas were compared with the
metropolitan average. The AAM was compared with three metrics: Koenig
accessibility metric, LUPTAI and NZTA accessibility metric.

AP-R397-11 Application of Accessibility Measures PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-R397-11 Application of Accessibility Measures PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-R397-11

AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT

Application of Accessibility Measures

Published December 2011

© Austroads Ltd 2011

Application of Accessibilty Measures

Austroads Project No. NS1586

Austroads Publication No. AP–R397-11

Published by Austroads Ltd

It is recommended that accessibility be adopted as a performance indicator to assess transport

The project has the following objectives.

1.1 Scope of Objectives

Table 1.1: Scope of calibration and application

1.1.2 Comparison of Accessibility Metrics

1.2 Contents of this Report

2 ARRB ACCESSIBILITY METRIC

2.1 Definition and Measurement of Accessibility

Two aspects need to be present to achieve accessibility as follows:

Accessibility measurement requires the following fundamental functions:

2.2 Measurement of Accessibility by the AAM

45 min → Transport impedance → weight of 0.25 2000 opportunities

1000 equivalent opportunities → saturation function → 0.6 accessibility score

Mathematically, the AAM is expressed as follows (Equation 1):

A = accessibility score of zone i

s( ) = saturation function of weighted opportunities

d( ) = deterrence function of transport impedance (i.e. weights)

Ci,j = transport impedance form zone i to zone j

Xj = opportunities available at zone j.

2.3 AAM Deterrence Function

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Figure 2.2: AAM deterrence function

Public transport user

Source: Young and Morris (1981).

Figure 2.3: Level of satisfaction of travel time to work

Mathematically the AAM deterrence function is expressed as follows (Equation 2):

Table 2.1: Deterrence function parameters

0.6 Shop & recreation

Figure 2.4: Car deterrence function

0.8 Primary & secondary

Figure 2.5: Public transport deterrence function

Figure 2.6: Walk deterrence function

Figure 2.7: Cycle deterrence function

2.4 AAM Saturation Function

Table 2.2: Saturation function parameters

Figure 2.9: Work saturation function

Weighted sum of opportunities, enrolment

Figure 2.10: Primary and secondary school saturation function

Weighted sum of opportunities, enrolment

Figure 2.11: Tertiary school saturation function

Weighted sum of opportunities, retail and recreation workers

Figure 2.12: Shopping and recreation saturation function

Table 2.3: Saturation point of the AAM by trip purpose

CBD: 1.6 km radius Suburb: 11 km radius CBD: 3 km radius Suburb: 4 km radius

(a) 200 000 jobs

CBD: 1.6 km radius Suburb: 10 km radius

CBD: 1 km radius Suburb: 5 km radius

2.5 Limitations of AAM for Health and Community Service

These parameters are only indicative. It is recommended to collect/research suitable data to

3 STRATEGIC ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS

3.1 Accessibility in Perth

Table 3.1: Accessibility scores in Perth

Average score: 0.68

Figure 3.1: Car-based work accessibility score by household percentile (Perth)