File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Accessibility-based ethics-aware transit design

TitleAccessibility-based ethics-aware transit design
Authors
KeywordsAccessibility
Difference principle
Equity
Ethics
Transit design
Issue Date2023
Citation
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 2023, v. 176, article no. 102816 How to Cite?
AbstractThis study proposes a new strategic transit design methodology that places accessibility and equity at the center of the trade-offs. By guiding transit design with ethical theories, it promises to improve vertical equity. We consider four ethical principles: the utilitarian principle, the sufficient principle, the maximax principle, and the difference principle. As the last three are all related to egalitarianism, the difference principle is selected as the representative. A parsimonious corridor transit design model is developed that differentiates travelers according to their location-based access to opportunities. Its objective is defined by the underlying ethical principle: maximizing the total accessibility for the utilitarian principle and maximizing the accessibility of the most disadvantaged for the difference principle. When transit service is homogeneous everywhere along the corridor, we prove ethical principles make no difference in the optimal design. In response to this finding, spatial supply heterogeneity is introduced into the design models. We then find the egalitarian design has a prominent equity-enhancing effect, whereas the utilitarian design exacerbates inequity, especially when the spatial distribution of opportunities is highly uneven. The results highlight the usefulness of the difference principle, notably its ability to identify the upper limit of equity when the decision is bounded by limited resources or the underlying structure of the problem at hand. However, correcting innate inequality by applying the difference principle may entail interventions that not only appear “discriminatory” but also impose a steep price in the form of lost total accessibility—up to 40% in our numerical experiments.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/351475
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 5.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.660

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDai, Tianxing-
dc.contributor.authorLi, Jiayang-
dc.contributor.authorNie, Yu (Marco)-
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-20T03:56:31Z-
dc.date.available2024-11-20T03:56:31Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.citationTransportation Research Part B: Methodological, 2023, v. 176, article no. 102816-
dc.identifier.issn0191-2615-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/351475-
dc.description.abstractThis study proposes a new strategic transit design methodology that places accessibility and equity at the center of the trade-offs. By guiding transit design with ethical theories, it promises to improve vertical equity. We consider four ethical principles: the utilitarian principle, the sufficient principle, the maximax principle, and the difference principle. As the last three are all related to egalitarianism, the difference principle is selected as the representative. A parsimonious corridor transit design model is developed that differentiates travelers according to their location-based access to opportunities. Its objective is defined by the underlying ethical principle: maximizing the total accessibility for the utilitarian principle and maximizing the accessibility of the most disadvantaged for the difference principle. When transit service is homogeneous everywhere along the corridor, we prove ethical principles make no difference in the optimal design. In response to this finding, spatial supply heterogeneity is introduced into the design models. We then find the egalitarian design has a prominent equity-enhancing effect, whereas the utilitarian design exacerbates inequity, especially when the spatial distribution of opportunities is highly uneven. The results highlight the usefulness of the difference principle, notably its ability to identify the upper limit of equity when the decision is bounded by limited resources or the underlying structure of the problem at hand. However, correcting innate inequality by applying the difference principle may entail interventions that not only appear “discriminatory” but also impose a steep price in the form of lost total accessibility—up to 40% in our numerical experiments.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofTransportation Research Part B: Methodological-
dc.subjectAccessibility-
dc.subjectDifference principle-
dc.subjectEquity-
dc.subjectEthics-
dc.subjectTransit design-
dc.titleAccessibility-based ethics-aware transit design-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.trb.2023.102816-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85170416729-
dc.identifier.volume176-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 102816-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 102816-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats