Circular buffers and isodistances as methods to designate catchment areas for public transport: a comparative analysis

Renata Żochowska; Marcin Jacek Kłos; Piotr Soczówka

doi:10.61089/aot2025.d276x739

Authors

Renata Żochowska Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8087-3113
Marcin Jacek Kłos Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4990-1593
Piotr Soczówka Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-4155

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61089/aot2025.d276x739

Keywords:

accessibility, catchment area, public transport stop, isodistance, circular buffer

Abstract

An important aspect of an efficient transport system in urban areas is to provide passengers with a high level of access to public transport stops. In areas with dense and diverse development, locating such facilities in the transport network is a significant challenge and a complex decision-making problem. Therefore, it is necessary to support it with appropriate analyses before making the final decision. Many approaches in this field require spatial determination of the range of impact in the form of a catchment area, which can be constructed in various ways. Therefore, the study aimed to compare two methods for designating catchment areas of public transport stops in urban locations, i.e., circular buffers and isodistances, to support more informed decisions. The novelty of the approach was to enable a comparison of both approaches at the level of individual stops and the entire network, and the introduction of a way to designate the optimal buffer radius that best approximates the isodistance-based area. A new measure based on the weighted average percentage of area coverage is introduced. Such analysis allows us to use both approaches interchangeably. The analysis was conducted for the public transport stops in a large metropolitan area in southern Poland, GZM Metropolis (Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowska Metropolia), which differed both in terms of their location with respect to the city center and in terms of the structure of the surrounding road and street network adapted to pedestrians. The results of the analysis suggest that the percentage of buffer and isodistance coverage with the same radius sizes and values may range from about 34% to 61%. Based on the performed analysis, the best results of the substitution of the isodistance model with the circular buffer model are obtained if the buffers are 100-200 m smaller than the isodistances. In future work, it is also worth examining the dependence of the values of the analyzed measures for a single public transport stop, as well as the average values for the entire set of stops, on the parameters of the road and street network within the buffer or isodistance.

References

1. Ayvalik, C.K., Jotin Khisty, G., 2002. Heuristic analysis of impacts of commuter rail station consolidation on pedestrian access. Transportation Research Record 47–54. https://doi.org/10.3141/1793-07

2. Balya, M.I., Kumar, R., Gundaliya, P.J., 2018. Bus stop network catchment analysis of integrated feeder service for public bus transit system - A case study of Ahmedabad City. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 7, 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2018.089534

3. Bartosiewicz, B., Wiśniewski, S., 2016. Lokalny transport zbiorowy w Łodzi w świetle badań dostępności. Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG 19, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543859xpkg.16.009.6307

4. Bok, J., Kwon, Y., 2016. Comparable measures of accessibility to public transport using the general transit feed specification. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030224

5. Chen, W., Cheng, L., Chen, X., Chen, J., Cao, M., 2021. Measuring accessibility to health care services for older bus passengers: A finer spatial resolution. Journal of Transport Geography 93, 103068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103068

6. Corazza, M.V., Favaretto, N., 2019. A methodology to evaluate accessibility to bus stops as a contribution to improve sustainability in urban mobility. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030803

7. Danesi, A., Tengattini, S., 2020. Evaluating accessibility of small communities via public transit. Archives of Transport 56, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.5601

8. Daniels, R., Mulley, C., 2013. Explaining walking distance to public transport: The dominance of public transport supply. Journal of Transport and Land Use 6, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v6i2.308

9. Drabicki, A., Kucharski, R., Szarata, A., 2017. Modelling the public transport capacity constraints’ impact on passenger path choices in transit assignment models. Archives of Transport 43, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.4224

10. El-Geneidy, A., Grimsrud, M., Wasfi, R., Tétreault, P., Surprenant-Legault, J., 2014. New evidence on walking distances to transit stops: Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. Transportation 41, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9508-z

11. Eom, J.K., Choi, J., Park, M.S., Heo, T.Y., 2019. Exploring the catchment area of an urban railway station by using transit card data: Case study in Seoul. Cities 95, 102364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.033

12. Fiorio, C. V., Florio, M., Perucca, G., 2013. User satisfaction and the organization of local public transport: Evidence from European cities. Transport Policy 29, 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.06.004

13. Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005

14. Guo, Y., Peeta, S., Somenahalli, S., 2015. The impact of walkable environment on single-family residential property values. Journal of Transport and Land Use 241–261. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.824

15. Gutiérrez, J., García-Palomares, J.C., 2008. Distance-measure impacts on the calculation of transport service areas using GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35, 480–503. https://doi.org/10.1068/b33043

16. Ifeanyi Washington, O., Dillip Kumar, D., Mulemwa, A., 2021. Assessment of Accessibility of Public bus Transportation in Durban by GIS-based Network Analysis. International Journal of Transport Development and Integration 5, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.2495/tdi-v5-n2-175-189

17. Jun, M.J., Choi, K., Jeong, J.E., Kwon, K.H., Kim, H.J., 2015. Land use characteristics of subway catchment areas and their influence on subway ridership in Seoul. Journal of Transport Geography 48, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.08.002

18. Kallel, L., Benaissa, E., Kamoun, H., Benaissa, M., 2019. Berth allocation problem: Formulation and a Tunisian case study. Archives of Transport 51, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6165

19. Kaszczyszyn, P., Sypion-Dutkowska, N., 2019. Walking access to public transportation stops for city residents. A comparison of methods. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143758

20. Kimpel, T.J., Dueker, K.J., El-Geneidy, A.M., 2007. Using GIS to measure the effect of overlapping service areas on passenger boardings at bus stops. URISA Journal 19, 5–11

21. Kłos, M.J., Sierpiński, G., 2021. Building a Model of Integration of Urban Sharing and Public Transport Services. Sustainability 13, 3086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063086

22. Kłos, M.J., Sobota, A., Żochowska, R., Soczówka, P., 2020. Traffic Measurements for Development a Transport Model, in: Scientific And Technical Conference Transport Systems Theory And Practice. pp. 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35543-2_21

23. Kolcsár, R.A., Csikós, N., Szilassi, P., 2021. Testing the limitations of buffer zones and Urban atlas population data in urban green space provision analyses through the case study of Szeged, Hungary. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126942

24. Lahoorpoor, B., Levinson, D.M., 2020. Catchment if you can: The effect of station entrance and exit locations on accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102556

25. Landex, A., Hansen, S., Anderson, J.L.E., 2006. Examination of catchment areas for public transport 1–16.

26. Li, W., Chen, S., Dong, J., Wu, J., 2021. Exploring the spatial variations of transfer distances between dockless bike-sharing systems and metros. Journal of Transport Geography 92, 103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103032

27. Liu, M., Luo, S., 2021. Exploring Equity in Healthcare Services : Spatial Accessibility Changes during Subway Expansion.

28. Loutzenheiser, D.R., 1997. Pedestrian access to transit: Model of walk trips and their design and urban form determinants around bay area rapid transit stations. Transportation Research Record 40–49. https://doi.org/10.3141/1604-06

29. Lunke, E.B., 2022. Modal accessibility disparities and transport poverty in the Oslo region. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103171

30. Maas, S., Nikolaou, P., Attard, M., Dimitriou, L., 2021. Spatial and temporal analysis of shared bicycle use in Limassol, Cyprus. Journal of Transport Geography 93, 103049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103049

31. Macias, K., 2016. Alternative Methods for the Calculation of Pedestrian Catchment Areas for Public Transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2540, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.3141/2540-15

32. Mavoa, S., Witten, K., McCreanor, T., O’Sullivan, D., 2012. GIS based destination accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography 20, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.001

33. Metropolis GZM, 2022. Metropolis GZM [WWW Document]. URL https://metropoliagzm.pl/

34. O’Connor, D., Caulfield, B., 2018. Level of service and the transit neighbourhood - Observations from Dublin city and suburbs. Research in Transportation Economics 69, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.014

35. Oh, J.-S., Smith, C.S., Qatra, R., Al-Akash, M., Communities, T.R.C. for L., Technology, O. of the A.S. for R. and, 2017. Estimating and Enhancing Public Transit Accessibility for People with Mobility Limitations. Transportation Research Center for Livable Communities 29p.

36. Olfindo, R., 2021. Transport accessibility, residential satisfaction, and moving intention in a context of limited travel mode choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 145, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.01.012

37. OpenStreetMap contributors, 2022. Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org

38. Ortega, J., Tóth, J., Péter, T., 2021. Planning a Park and Ride System: A Literature Review. Future Transportation 1, 82–98. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp1010006

39. Pais, F., Sousa, N., Monteiro, J., Coutinho-Rodrigues, J., Natividade-Jesus, E., 2025. Walking to Public Transport: Rethinking Catchment Areas Considering Topography and Surrogate Buffers. ISPRS Int J Geoinf 14, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi14050205

40. Pajares, E., Büttner, B., Jehle, U., Nichols, A., Wulfhorst, G., 2021. Accessibility by proximity: Addressing the lack of interactive accessibility instruments for active mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 93, 103080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103080

41. Panagiotopoulos, G., Kaliampakos, D., 2021. Location quotient-based travel costs for determining accessibility changes. Journal of Transport Geography 91, 102951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102951

42. Pashkevich, A., Kłos, M.J., Jaremski, R., Aristombayeva, M., 2021. Method to Evaluate a Bike-Sharing System Based on Performance Parameters, in: Decision Support Methods in Modern Transportation Systems and Networks. Springer, pp. 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71771-1_7

43. Pot, F.J., van Wee, B., Tillema, T., 2021. Perceived accessibility: What it is and why it differs from calculated accessibility measures based on spatial data. Journal of Transport Geography 94, 103090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103090

44. Qin, J., Liu, Y., Yi, D., Sun, S., Zhang, J., 2020. Spatial accessibility analysis of parks with multiple entrances based on real-time travel: The case study in Beijing. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187618

45. Ryan, J., Pereira, R.H.M., 2021. What are we missing when we measure accessibility? Comparing calculated and self-reported accounts among older people. Journal of Transport Geography 93, 103086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103086

46. Sarjala, S., 2019. Built environment determinants of pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ route choices on commute trips: Applying a new grid-based method for measuring the built environment along the route. Journal of Transport Geography 78, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.004

47. Sawicki, P., Sawicka, H., 2021. Combined optimisation and MCDA based solution of the tram depot location problem. Archives of Transport, 60(4), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.5970

48. Sierpiński, G., Staniek, M., Kłos, M.J., 2020. Decision Making Support for Local Authorities Choosing the Method for Siting of In-City EV Charging Stations. Energies 13, 4682. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184682

49. Singh, S.S., Sarkar, B., 2022. Transport accessibility and affordability as the determinant of non-motorized commuting in rural India. Transport Policy 118, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.01.025

50. Singleton, P.A., Park, K., Lee, D.H., 2021. Varying influences of the built environment on daily and hourly pedestrian crossing volumes at signalized intersections estimated from traffic signal controller event data. Journal of Transport Geography 93, 103067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103067

51. Soczówka, P., Kłos, M.J., Żochowska, R., Sobota, A., 2020. An analysis of the influence of travel time on access time in public transport 108, 133–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2021.111.12

52. Szczepański, E., Jacyna-Gołda, I., Murawski, J., 2014. Genetic algorithms based approach for transhipment hub location in urban areas. Archives of Transport 31, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.5604/08669546.1146989

53. Telega, A., Telega, I., Bieda, A., 2021. Measuring walkability with GIS—methods overview and new approach proposal. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041883

54. The European Commission, 1998. Decision No 2179/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 on the review of the European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development 'Towards sustainability'

55. Tian, Y., Winter, S., Wang, J., 2019. Identifying residential and workplace locations from transit smart card data. Journal of Transport and Land Use 12, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1247

56. Tiznado-Aitken, I., Lucas, K., Muñoz, J.C., Hurtubia, R., 2020. Understanding accessibility through public transport users’ experiences: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Transport Geography 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102857

57. Wang, Z., Chen, F., Xu, T., 2016. Interchange between Metro and Other Modes: Access Distance and Catchment Area. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 142, 04016012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000330

58. Wong, S., 2018. The limitations of using activity space measurements for representing the mobilities of individuals with visual impairment: A mixed methods case study in the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of Transport Geography 66, 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.12.004

59. Woropay, M., Muślewski, Ł., Bojar, P., 2017. Evaluation of operational availability of municipal transport system. Journal of KONES 24, 355–361. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.3224

60. Ye, C., Hu, L., Li, M., 2018. Urban green space accessibility changes in a high-density city: A case study of Macau from 2010 to 2015. Journal of Transport Geography 66, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.009

61. Zannat, K.E., Adnan, M.S.G., Dewan, A., 2020. A GIS-based approach to evaluating environmental influences on active and public transport accessibility of university students. Journal of Urban Management 9, 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2020.06.001

62. Zepp, H., Groß, L., Inostroza, L., 2020. And the winner is? Comparing urban green space provision and accessibility in eight European metropolitan areas using a spatially explicit approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 49, 126603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126603

63. Zhao, F., Chow, L.F., Li, M.T., Ubaka, I., Gan, A., 2003. Forecasting transit walk accessibility: Regression model alternative to buffer method. Transportation Research Record 34–41. https://doi.org/10.3141/1835-05

64. Żochowska, R., Jacyna, M., Kłos, M.J., Soczówka, P., 2021a. A GIS-Based Method of the Assessment of Spatial Integration of Bike-Sharing Stations. Sustainability 13, 3894. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073894

65. Żochowska, R., Kłos, M.J., Soczówka, P., 2021b. Analysis of traffic safety at intersections of roadways and tram tracks. Roads and Bridges - Drogi i Mosty 20, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.7409/rabdim.021.003

66. Zuo, T., Wei, H., Rohne, A., 2018. Determining transit service coverage by non-motorized accessibility to transit: Case study of applying GPS data in Cincinnati metropolitan area. Journal of Transport Geography 67, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.01.002