See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333433882

Connectivity, Accessibility, and Mobility Relationships in the Context of Low-

Volume Road Networks

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · September 2019
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119854091

CITATIONS READS

0 649

5 authors, including:

Samuel Labi Asif Faiz

Purdue University Faiz and Associates, LLC, Arlington VA
266 PUBLICATIONS   2,145 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   338 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tariq Usman Saeed Bortiorkor Nii Tsui Alabi

Purdue University Purdue University
47 PUBLICATIONS   246 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles View project

Multimodal Transport Infrastructures and Operations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wubeshet Woldemariam on 15 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–11
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Connectivity, Accessibility, and Mobility Transportation Research Board 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Relationships in the Context of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119854091

Low-Volume Road Networks journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Samuel Labi1,2, Asif Faiz3, Tariq Usman Saeed1,2,

Bortiorkor Nii Tsui Alabi1,2,4, and Wubeshet Woldemariam5

Abstract
The concepts of connectivity, accessibility, and mobility (CAM) are key measures of transport network performance that
have been discussed extensively in the literature. However, there has been little work that discussed the relationships
among these concepts. A clear discourse on these concepts and their interrelationships can help agencies carry out more
objective evaluations of projects that seek to improve at least one of these measures of transportation performance. This
paper presents three alternative perspectives (models) of the CAM relationship: the nested, snowman, and three-way
overlapping models. The paper also presents, for project appraisal purposes, two alternative ways of classifying the three
CAM concepts. The first is based on the three concepts in their basic forms; the second considers some variation of
these concepts in addition to aspects of the network topology, operational performance, road condition, and socioeco-
nomic characteristics of the project’s area of influence. The conceptual framework outlined in this paper contributes
towards a holistic approach to the appraisal of low-volume road projects, programs, or existing networks based on their
impact on overall CAM.

Transport literature is replete with a wide variety of defi-
nitions for connectivity, accessibility, and mobility
(CAM), and therefore there seems to exist a need to
streamline the definitions of these concepts. Transport
planners could benefit not only from such clear defini-
tions but also from the relationships between them and
the different ways of classifying such relationships. This
paper first presents definitions for the three concepts of
CAM. Then, based on these definitions, the paper pre-
sents three alternative perspectives (models) of the CAM
relationship: the nested, snowman, and three-way over-
lapping models. Finally, the paper discusses two alterna-
tive schemes for classifying the three CAM concepts.
The first scheme considers the three concepts only, and
the second scheme considers some combination of these
concepts in addition to aspects of the network topology,
operational performance, road condition, and socioeco-
nomic (TOCS) characteristics of the area of influence of
the road. For each scheme, the paper suggests examples
of performance measures for project or program apprai-
sal purposes.
Definitions of the Three CAM Concepts
Connectivity
Connectivity can be loosely described as a measure of
the availability of guideway facilities between specified
points on a network. In its most pure definition, connec-
tivity is expressed only with reference to the network
topology, and several purely topological (PT) measures
of network connectivity have been proposed in the litera-
ture. Examples include:
1
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
2
USDOT Center for Connected and Automated Transportation, Purdue
Research Park, West Lafayette, IN
3
Faiz and Associates, LLC, Arlington, VA
4
Aviation and Transportation Technology, Polytechnic Institute, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN
5
Department of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Purdue University
Northwest, Hammond, IN
Corresponding Author:
Address correspondence to Samuel Labi: labi@purdue.edu
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
 the alpha index (the ratio between the actual num-
ber of circuits in the network and the maximum
number of circuits [1]);
 the beta index (the ratio between number of links
and of nodes [1–3]);
 the gamma index (the ratio between the actual
number of links in the network and the maximum
possible number of links [4]);
 cyclomatic number (the maximum number of
independent cycles in a network [2, 5]);
network dispersion (the total length associated
with traversing a node to every other node in a
network);
 network diameter (length of the longest path
between an origin and destination pair [1, 2]);
 the cyclomatic number (maximum number of
independent cycles of the graph);
 diameter (the length of the longest path between
an origin and destination pair);
 the Shimbel Distance (the sum of the number of
links in the shortest path between a node and all
other nodes in the transportation network [6]);
 and the total impedance associated with a specific
classic network tour (such as the traveling
salesperson).
Network connectivity has been found to affect road user
delay (7), tourism (8), and economic development (9).
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, on its website,
discussed several options for defining connectivity (10).
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) stated
that ‘‘A well-connected transportation network reduces
the distances traveled to reach destinations, increases the
options for routes of travel’’ (11). From the perspective of
several highway agencies and international development
organizations, including the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank, transport connectivity remains an
important measure of network performance (11–18).
Accessibility
Researchers have long recognized the difficulty in defin-
ing and measuring accessibility (19). Silva and Larsson
identified several challenges facing accessibility planning
and research, including conceptual ambiguity of accessi-
bility measures in planning practice (20). A number of
efforts have been made to address this lacuna in the state
of practice. Inayathusein introduced various indicators
of accessibility in the urban context and examined their
merits and demerits (21). Hansen defined accessibility as
‘‘the potential for interaction’’ (22). Litman defined
accessibility as ‘‘people’s ability to reach goods, services
and activities’’ (23). Handy and Niemeier stated that
accessibility is a measure of the ease by which
socioeconomic facilities can be reached with respect to
the cost of doing so, with reference to travel distance, or
conversely, as the number of destinations reachable
within a specified travel distance (24). These facilities
include marketplaces, schools, farms, and other essential
or social services (25). Di Ciommo defined an ‘‘inaccessi-
bility index’’ and showed how it could be used as a basis
for assessing the needs of specific populations for new or
improved transport networks (26). Tal and Handy
argued that accessibility is a function of network connec-
tivity (proximity to destinations and the directness of
routes to those destinations) (19). Faiz and Carnemark
stated that the impact of new or improved road links can
be measured with reference to their ‘‘area of influence,’’
that is, the area affected by the incremental change in
accessibility to social services (27). According to Venter,
accessibility had been suggested in the 1950s as a viable
performance measure for transportation planning but
only caught on in the 1970s when the focus of transport
planning shifted from ‘‘addressing traffic congestion’’ to
‘‘providing accessibility’’ (28). When that happened,
accessibility began to be viewed as a more balanced, hol-
istic concept that focused on the system as a whole,
rather than on individual aspects of the transport system
only, therefore supporting an integrated and holistic view
of transportation and land use systems (29). The FHWA
has long espoused the use of accessibility as an evalua-
tion criterion in testing alternative transportation sys-
tems (30). Stating that accessibility is the ultimate goal of
most transport activity and thus the most appropriate
measure of transport performance, Litman argued that
mobility is a subset of accessibility and that the factors
that affect accessibility include mobility (physical move-
ment) and transport system connectivity (23).
Mobility
Mobility is a measure of the ease or speed by which avail-
able facilities provide connections among specified points
on the network (31). It is possible to have a network that
has high connectivity and accessibility (or a corridor that
makes a large contribution to connectivity or accessibil-
ity) but low mobility because the roads are in poor condi-
tion or because of congestion problems. Mobility is an
inverse function of the impedance to the ease of travel,
for example, the time and costs associated with the travel.
Mobility is high when travel time, travel cost and incon-
venience, and travel time reliability are low. Generally,
travel speed is used as an indicator of mobility. Also, a
TRB panel suggested that mobility indicators could
include travel time, travel time reliability, and the eco-
nomic costs of travel (32). In certain cases, traffic flow or
throughput can be used to measure mobility. Also, the
concept of guideway capacity is strongly linked with
Labi et al
mobility. In the context of highways, for example, the
factors that influence capacity (lane and shoulder widths,
weather conditions, heterogeneity of the traffic stream,
roadside obstacles) also affect mobility. Transportation
investments that promote general mobility include
truck-only lanes and climbing lanes at high-speed roads,
channelization at urban streets, and bypass lanes at rural
two-lane roads. Mobility can also be influenced by trans-
port policy (e.g., speed limits and oversize/overweight
restrictions). Further, there may be equity issues associated
with mobility, as the transportation system may not be
equipped with facilities that promote mobility for certain
demographics such as the elderly, the disabled, and the
infirm (33).
General Discussion
Macdonald and Grieco stated that understanding the
impact of developments associated with transportation
and communications infrastructure systems must be pre-
ceded by an investigation of the CAM relationships (34).
A few studies have analyzed the relationships between at
least two of these three general concepts or measures of
network performance. The nature of these relationships
includes the effect of any one of these concepts on the
other, the definition of one concept to include at least
one of the others as a subset, and the combined interac-
tion of any two or all three concepts to influence some
transportation outcome. For example, Ubilla-Bravo,
recognizing the gap in geography literature with regard
to the matters of accessibility and geographical connec-
tivity in rural areas, developed equations to measure
these network performance concepts (35). Adeniyi (36)
examined the combined impact of rural road connectivity
and accessibility on farming activities, and Papaioannou
and Martinez (37) examined how the interplay of accessi-
bility and connectivity influences the mode choice of indi-
viduals. Chen et al. (38) used spatiotemporal techniques
to study connectivity and accessibility in a region, and
Cheng and Chen (39) assessed the overall perception of
public transport system performance based on the acces-
sibility, mobility, and connectivity that they provide.
Furthermore, Alstadt et al. assessed the impact of trans-
portation access and connectivity on the local economy
(9). The State of Virginia, in its Long-Range Multimodal
Transportation Plan, discussed major initiatives to help
fill mobility gaps, support more effective connectivity,
and ensure greater accessibility to activities and locations
(15).
In addition, several studies have attempted to make
explicit the distinction between accessibility, mobility,
and connectivity. In their early studies at the World
Bank, Faiz and Carnemark found that improved
3
accessibility is synonymous with a reduction in the fric-
tion of space and may be defined either with reference to
a distance or a travel time measure (27). They used this
as a basis to determine the area of influence of a road
with reference to improved accessibility to specific ser-
vices such as markets, schools, and hospitals. Tal and
Handy recognized the difficulty in defining and measur-
ing accessibility and stated that the distinction between
connectivity and accessibility measures is sometimes hard
to discern (19). Nevertheless, they stated that accessibility
is a function of both proximity (what is located where,
how close one entity is to another) and connectivity (a
measure of the quantity of the connections in the net-
work and thus the directness and multiplicity of routes
through the network). Pronello offered an interesting
insight with regard to the difference between accessibility
and connectivity: although connectivity can remain
unchanged, accessibility can change because the users
and the ease of travel can change (40). An example of
poor accessibility but good connectivity is a well-
designed network of roads with little access to socioeco-
nomic centers that are located far from the links or nodes
and can only be reached through long or poor-condition
access roads. These access roads may not even appear on
formal transcriptions of the network because of their
inferior geometric or pavement standards (in extreme
cases, a walk trail for humans). With regard to accessibil-
ity and mobility, Barter stated that ‘‘understanding the
distinction between accessibility and mobility is a critical
aspect in creating a sound and sustainable transportation
policy’’ (41). Alba noted that ‘‘although they are similar
in some ways accessibility and mobility are different con-
cepts’’ (42). Inayathusein stated that the Transport for
London organization uses the term ‘‘connectivity’’ to
describe network measures that may be referred to as
‘‘accessibility’’ elsewhere (21). He added that these indica-
tors collectively describe the extent to which users are
able to access the transport system and travel freely
between locations to access jobs and services. At a 2002
TRB workshop, Randall Halvorson of the Minnesota
DOT, suggested that measuring mobility could include
elements of the infrastructure and of accessibility, and
Alan Pisarski stated that in measuring mobility, it is
essential to consider elements of accessibility, for exam-
ple, the percentage of travel opportunities within a speci-
fied threshold distance (32).
Using at least two of the three CAM concepts of net-
work performance for appraisal, Scott et al. (43) and
Sullivan et al. (44) developed methods for identifying crit-
ical links in a network and for evaluating the perfor-
mance of the entire network. El Rashidy argued that
physical connectivity is a subset of the attributes that
influence mobility (45). Novak et al. showed how road
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 1. Models for describing the relationships among CAM:
(a) nested model; (b) snowman model; and (c) three-way
overlapping model. Solid line represents connectivity; dashed line
represents mobility; and dotted line represents accessibility.
investments could be evaluated and prioritized based on
network attributes (46). Faiz reviewed the relationships
between rural connectivity, poverty reduction, crisis man-
agement, and livability in the context of low-volume
roads (47). Salemink and Strijker acknowledged the ben-
efits of accessibility and connectivity in remote rural
areas and examined ways to sustain these two concepts
of network performance in such areas (48). Schade et al.
examined the connectivity and accessibility offered by
existing transport infrastructure in a few European coun-
tries (49).
CAM Relationship Models
This paper posits that there are at least three ways to
describe the interrelationships among the CAM con-
cepts. This is presented for purposes of discussion only,
and the models may be viewed as mutually exclusive.
Therefore, their implications need not be consistent
with each other. Naturally, the nature of such a rela-
tionship depends on how each of these concepts is
defined. Therefore, the relationship models offered
here are based on the definitions provided in the previ-
ous section of this paper. Figure 1 presents a nested
model for the CAM relationships, a snowman model,
and a three-way overlapping model.
The Nested Model
The nested model (Figure 1a), suggests that high connec-
tivity is a prerequisite for high accessibility, and also that
high accessibility is a prerequisite for high mobility. This
means that it is not possible to have high mobility with-
out high accessibility. This may be true for a network but
not necessarily true for a corridor. For a specific corri-
dor, the level of mobility is generally inversely related to
the level of accessibility. In Figure 1a, point a represents
a road segment that provides high levels of CAM; point
b represents a road segment or network that provides
high levels of connectivity and accessibility but poor
mobility. For example, an excellent network of roads
with pavements in extremely poor condition or when
demand far exceeds capacity. Point c represents a road
network that is well-connected but provides little or no
accessibility or mobility. An example is a well-connected
road rural network that cannot be accessed directly by
residents because the network nodes (intersections and
interchanges) are not located at any population center or
socioeconomic center (as is often the case), or instances
where there are few good access roads from the popula-
tion centers to the transport network nodes or links.
The Snowman Model
The snowman model (Figure 1b) considers accessibility
as the only performance concept that overlaps with the
other two concepts of mobility and connectivity. This
model suggests that there could be high mobility with
poor accessibility (point d), high accessibility and high
mobility (point r), high accessibility with poor mobility
(points f and e), high connectivity but poor accessibility
and mobility (point g), and low CAM (point h).
The Three-Way Overlapping Model
This model (Figure 1c) suggests that there could be high
connectivity but poor accessibility and mobility (point i),
high connectivity and accessibility but poor mobility
(point j), and high connectivity and mobility but poor
accessibility (point m). In addition, there could be high
accessibility but poor connectivity and mobility (point k)
and high accessibility and mobility but poor connectivity
(point n). Then there could be high mobility (for the
Labi et al
existing link connection only) but poor connectivity and
accessibility (point p). Finally, for all three, there could
be poor levels (point q) or high levels (point l).
The Basic Classification
The basic classification refers here to the different ways
to group some aspects of the three concepts of network
performance considered in this paper (CAM). Examples
of these aspects, which we refer to as performance mea-
sures, are provided. The term ‘‘network’’ is used to refer
to any road, road surface type (e.g., paved roads only),
or roads that share some unique operational characteris-
tic, for example, perennially passable roads.
Topological Connectivity Only
This category of network performance addresses only the
topological performance of the network. For some of
these measures of network connectivity, a higher value
indicates a higher level of network connectivity; transport
investments that increase these values are generally given
higher priority. Connectivity-only performance measures
are useful in transport network planning in regions where
mobility and access are of relatively minor or nonim-
mediate concern compared with topological connectivity.
Therefore, they are particularly appropriate when the
transport agency is carrying out transport investment
appraisal at sparsely populated and underdeveloped
regions where the goal is to provide an initial network to
attract or spur socioeconomic activity and development.
Examples are as follows:
 The percentage of nodes, that is, villages or towns
(all or those of some specified attribute) that can
be reached from each node. This performance
measure is used with the recognition that certain
parts of the network may be unconnected some or
all of the time (e.g., towns and villages may be cut
off from the network because of a rockslide).
 The percentage of nodes of a given size or kind
that have a threshold number of links incident to
it. This measure is important from the perspective
of operationally resilient networks that seek to
provide some redundancy in case the primary link
to some node is disabled.
 The percentage of nodes to which at least one link
of the network is incident.
 The distance between any two nodes in the net-
work that are farthest away from each other.
In these cases, only the topology (and not any socioe-
conomic attribute) is of interest.
5
Topological Connectivity + Accessibility-Related
Measures
The performance measures in this category combine
topological considerations with concepts of accessibility.
Examples are as follows:
 Sum of shortest distances (of all nodes) to a socio-
economic center of activity such as a marketplace,
school, or hospital.
 The maximum or average of the shortest distances
(of all nodes) to a socioeconomic center.
If these measures are used for project appraisal, then
the projects that minimize these values are generally
given higher priority. That is, higher investment priority
is given to the project that yields the least sum of shortest
paths (minimum of the sum of distances [MINI-SUM]),
the least of the longest shortest path (minimum of the
maximum distances [MINI-MAX]), or the smallest aver-
age of shortest paths (minimum of the average distances
[MINI-AVE]). In the context of topology and accessibil-
ity only, a traditional measure of connectivity is the iota
index, which is not PT because it considers the nodal
functions and is represented by the ratio between the
entire network size and its weighted nodes (1). It is calcu-
lated as:
i = M=nw
where
i = iota index,
M = total network mileage, and
nW = sum of network’s nodes weighted by their
function.
The iota index considers the functions of each node
(in the context of this paper, the relative socioeconomic
importance of the towns and villages (nodes)). For exam-
ple, there could be different weights (importance)
attached to various nodes based on population, or num-
ber, or size of schools, hospitals, or markets.
Topological Connectivity + Mobility-Related
Measures
For investment situations in which the issue is to enhance
transport connectivity but also to facilitate the use of the
network (higher speeds, shorter travel times on the links),
the measure of connectivity must address not only the
topology but also the mobility associated with the net-
work links. One way to do this is to use the topological
performance measures in which link impedance is
expressed not as a distance but as travel time. Another
way is to combine topology and mobility concepts as
shown below:
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
(a) From a given reference node, what percentage of
nodes can be reached within a time threshold?
(b) Can a Traveling Saleman Path (TSP) or Chinese
Postman Path (CPP) tour be realized within a
time threshold?
(c) The maximum, sum, or average travel time for
all origin–destination (O-D) pairs, or from a ref-
erence node to all other nodes.
An advantage of the topological connectivity +
mobility-related measures is that they consider the con-
cept of travel time and therefore go beyond the mere
availability of a topological connection and include the
link traffic volumes, capacities, and other link features
that impede or facilitate link travel. Admittedly, there
exist several regions in many countries where mere topo-
logical connectivity is what the communities seek (at
least to start with), and consequently, speedy travel
remains a luxury. For such communities, using travel
time as the appraisal criterion could lead to inappropri-
ate investments.
Topological Connectivity + Accessibility-Related +
Mobility-Related Measures
In certain cases, the transport agency has interests that
include network topology, access to socioeconomic cen-
ters, and mobility. In this situation, the measure of con-
nectivity for the project appraisal must address all three
concerns. This can be done in one of two ways: the first
is to combine some indicator of accessibility with some
topological performance measure that expresses link
impedance not as a distance but as travel time (i.e., use
the PT performance measure discussed in the section on
topological connectivity only, but with travel time, not
distance). The second is to combine topology, accessibil-
ity, and mobility performance as listed below:
(a) From a given reference node, what percentage of
socioeconomic center nodes can be reached
within a specific time threshold?
(b) Can a TSP or CPP tour, starting from or ending
at a node representing a specific socio-economic
center, be carried out within a specific time
threshold?
(c) The total cost (time) of a TSP or CPP tour start-
ing from or ending at a given socioeconomic cen-
ter node.
(d) What percentage of shortest paths between
nodes of a given type (e.g., residential clusters)
and nodes of another type (e.g., socioeconomic
centers) can be traced within a given time
threshold?
(e) The maximum, sum, or average travel time from
a socioeconomic center to all other nodes.
Performance measures (a), (d), and (e) are relevant
when the socioeconomic center provides a service that
requires community residents to travel to that center; (c)
and (d) are relevant when the socioeconomic center pro-
vides a service that involves travel on the entire network
to serve entities located at the nodes and links (e.g.,
house-to-house delivery, collection, or inspection).
The advantage of the topological connectivity +
accessibility-related + mobility-related measures is that
they consider a relatively wide range of concerns and
may be more appropriate for project appraisal in regions
that have all these concerns. A variant of performance
measure (d) is ‘‘The percentage of available socioeco-
nomic centers (of a given kind) that can be reached from
each node (town or village) within a specified time
threshold.’’
The Classification Involving TOCS
Measures
This classification is based on each or a combination of
the following network-related criteria:
 Topological characteristics.
 Operational performance (such as travel delay
encountered by users).
 Physical condition (such as paved/unpaved,
roughness, road class, and so forth).
 Attributes of the human-made environment (such
as the spatial distribution of population and socio-
economic facilities).
Connectivity-Only Measures
This category addresses only the topological perfor-
mance of the network. This was discussed in the section
on topological connectivity only.
Purely Operational Performance Measures
Transportation investments can be evaluated from the
perspective of the extent to which they enhance the
operational performance, for example, reduce the travel
time of road users. Such travel time reduction can be esti-
mated from a static perspective or using a dynamic traffic
assignment (50). Unlike its static counterpart, dynamic
assignment (DA) recognizes that a change in the travel
time of one link not only affects that link but causes a
redistribution of traffic at all other links; therefore, the
Labi et al
travel time at all the other links may increase, decrease,
or remain the same. Static assignment is relatively simple
and may suffice for planning purposes. On the other
hand, DA is more complex but relatively more represen-
tative of actual post-investment traffic patterns. DA
requires more detailed input data for the analysis, such
as the post-investment capacity and the available mode
choices or changes thereof (50, 51). DA may be carried
out under the assumptions of the user or system equili-
brium. In certain cases, a correction is made to account
for the reduced travel time causing induced demand and
demand shifts to the new or improved link, and possibly
resulting in higher travel times than anticipated.
Proponents of the sole use of this performance mea-
sure for assessing the impacts of transport projects on
connectivity may argue that only the end result (that is,
travel time) is important, and there is no need to include
as a measure of performance the topological attributes
that merely serve as inputs for the traffic assignment.
Opponents may contend that travel time is appropriate
mostly at urban networks, for assessing investments asso-
ciated with the network operations, and not for longer
term region-wide planning.
Topological + Operational Performance Measures
This category of connectivity performance measures is
based on the network topological characteristics and
operational performance. This is applicable when the
transport agency is interested primarily in the network
topology and mobility. In this case, the measure of con-
nectivity to be used in the project appraisal must address
these two concerns. This can be done in one of two ways:
first, use the purely topological performance measure but
using distance with travel time; second, combine some
indicator of mobility with some topological performance
measure. Examples include the following:
(a) The total travel time associated with all O-D
pairs or a selected set of O-D pairs (such as
nodes of a certain topological attribute such as
leaf nodes or nodes of a certain specified degree;
for example, the total travel time for all O-D
pairs that are towns exceeding 100,000 popula-
tion and to which a certain minimum number [4]
of road links are incident).
(b) From a given reference node, what percentage
of all other nodes can be reached within a spe-
cific time threshold, for example, from the capi-
tal of the jurisdiction, what fraction of all towns
and villages can be reached within an hour by
vehicle?
(c) The total travel time of a TSP or CPP tour start-
ing from or ending at a given node, for example,
7
how long it takes to visit all nodes (towns and vil-
lages) in the region using these tours.
(d) The maximum, sum, or average travel time from
a socioeconomic center to all other nodes. For
example, the average time taken from all nodes
to reach the node with the only medical facility
in the network.
A transport investment can affect any of the above
performance measures. As such, when the transport
agency is concerned about connectivity related to the
network topology and the road operational performance,
the above performance measures can be used for the
appraisal.
Topological + Road Condition Measures
In this category of connectivity performance measures,
the network topological characteristics and the physical
condition are considered. The physical condition may
pertain to the pavement quality (such as surface rough-
ness, paved/unpaved status), geometric rating (such as
sufficiency of horizontal and vertical curves, lane or
shoulder widths), or safety audit rating (occurrence den-
sity and intensity of number of hazardous features
including sharp curves, excessive grades, weak bridges).
Examples of connectivity measures related to topology
and road condition include the following:
(a) The average pavement condition, geometric rat-
ing, or safety rating associated with all links or a
selected set of links (e.g., links of a certain topo-
logical attribute such as those incident on leaf
nodes or those incident on nodes of a certain
minimum degree).
(b) From a given reference node, what percentage
(or how many) of all other nodes can be reached
using only links of a certain minimum road per-
formance (pavement quality, geometric rating,
or safety rating).
(c) The feasibility of carrying out a TSP or CPP on
only the links that meet certain minimum stan-
dards as stated in (b) above.
(d) The total distance associated with a TSP or CPP
tour on a subnetwork that meets certain mini-
mum standards as stated in (b) above.
(e) The total length of all shortest paths for all O-D
paths on only the links that meet certain mini-
mum standards as stated in (b) above.
(f) What percentage of O-D pairs can a path be
traced on only the links that meet certain mini-
mum condition standards as stated in (b) above?
(g) The maximum, sum, or average travel time from
a reference node to all other nodes on only the
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
links that meet certain minimum condition stan-
dards as stated in (b) above.
The use of topological + road condition measures is
often considered justifiable when mere connectivity may
not be enough, and the quality of the links must meet
certain standards before the network can really be of use
to the community. For example, there seems to be little
use in having well-connected roads with gravel surface if
these roads are unpassable in the rainy season.
Opponents of this category of connectivity performance
measures are likely to argue that the notion of connectiv-
ity must be viewed separately from that of road condi-
tion. In other words, after connectivity has been
provided, it is the responsibility of a specific agency or
department to provide the needed quality of pavement,
geometrics, and safety environment, and therefore the
absence of these conditions should not diminish any
claim that the network is connected.
Topological + Socioeconomic Measures
The connectivity measures that are related to the social
or economic resources in a region include:
(a) The number of socioeconomic centers that are
within a minimum specified distance from any
node or link on the network.
(b) The number or percentage of socioeconomic
centers that are located at preferred nodes (a
preferred node may be one that has a certain
topological advantage such as a certain mini-
mum number of incident links or a node that is
not a leaf).
(c) The possibility of achieving TSP or CPP starting
from a specific socioeconomic center.
(d) The total distance associated with a TSP or CPP
tour starting from a specific socioeconomic
center.
(e) The total length of all shortest paths for all O-D
paths with the origin or destination as a socioe-
conomic center.
(f) The maximum, sum, or average values of short-
est distances from a socioeconomic center to all
other nodes.
Topological + Road Condition + Socioeconomic
Measures
This category of connectivity performance measures con-
siders three criteria: the network topological characteris-
tics, the network condition, and the socioeconomy of a
region. Examples include the following:
(a) From any socioeconomic center, what percent-
age of all other nodes can be reached using only
links of a certain minimum standard related to
pavement quality, geometric rating, or safety
rating?
(b) The possibility of a TSP or CPP starting from or
ending at a socioeconomic center on only the
links that meet certain minimum standards as
stated in (a) above.
(c) The total distance associated with a TSP or CPP
starting from or ending at a socioeconomic cen-
ter on a subnetwork that meets certain minimum
standards as stated in (a) above.
(d) The total length of all shortest paths for all O-D
paths (starting from or ending at a socioeco-
nomic center) on only the links that meet certain
minimum standards as stated in (a) above.
(e) What percentage of O-D pairs (starting or ending
at a socioeconomic center) can a path be traced
on only the links that meet certain minimum con-
dition standards?
(f) The maximum, sum, or average distance from a
socioeconomic center to all other nodes on only
the links that meet certain minimum standards as
stated in (a) above.
TOCS Measures
This category of connectivity performance measures con-
siders all four criteria: the network topological character-
istics, operational performance, condition or physical
level of service, and the socioeconomy of a region.
Examples of TOCS measures include the following:
(a) From any socioeconomic center, what percent-
age (or how many) of all other nodes can be
reached using only links of a certain minimum
standard of road condition (pavement quality,
geometric rating, or safety rating) and within a
specified travel time period?
(b) The possibility of achieving a TSP or CPP tour
starting from or ending at a socioeconomic cen-
ter on only the links that meet certain minimum
standards as stated in (a) above, within a speci-
fied total period of the tour travel time.
(c) The total travel time associated with a TSP or
CPP tour starting from or ending at a socioeco-
nomic center on a subnetwork that meets certain
minimum standards as stated in (a) above.
(d) The total travel time of all shortest paths, with
reference to travel time, for all O-D paths (start-
ing from or ending at a socioeconomic center)
on only the links that meet certain minimum
standards as stated in (a) above.
Labi et al
(e) What percentage of O-D pairs (starting from or
ending at a socioeconomic center) can a path be
traced on only the links that meet certain mini-
mum standards as stated above, and within a
specified travel time period?
(f) The maximum, sum, or average travel time from
a socioeconomic center to all other nodes on only
the links that meet certain minimum standards.
Future Work
This paper can be extended in the future to make contri-
butions to both the state of the art and the state of prac-
tice. Future studies on transportation investments
(comparing or prioritizing different infrastructure proj-
ects or the feasibility of prospective or existing projects)
could address the investment impacts in terms of the
increased (or in some cases, deceased) CAM of a given
parent network. Future work can include the develop-
ment of decision support systems based partly on the
concepts discussed in this paper. The traditional portfo-
lio of investment appraisal criteria includes the impacts
related to emissions, land use, economic development,
economic efficiency, and so forth. Different projects have
different impacts on network CAM. Therefore, the con-
cepts in this paper can further enrich the traditional port-
folio of criteria for investment evaluation and
prioritization.
Concluding Remarks
The concepts of CAM have long been considered key
measures of transport performance and have been dis-
cussed separately in the literature. However, there has
been little work that has discussed the relationships
among these concepts. It can be expected that a clear dis-
cussion of these concepts and their interrelationships can
help highway agencies carry out more objective evalua-
tions of projects that seek to improve at least one of these
measures of transportation network performance. This
paper first presents definitions for the three concepts.
Then, based on these definitions, the paper presents three
alternative perspectives (models) of the CAM relation-
ship: the nested, snowman, and three-way overlapping
models. The paper presents two alternative ways of clas-
sifying the three concepts for appraisal purposes. The
first is based on the three concepts in their basic forms;
and the second considers some variation of these con-
cepts in addition to aspects of the network TOCS charac-
teristics of the area served by the network. For each of
the two classifications, examples of performance mea-
sures are suggested for purposes of ex poste or ex ante
appraisals of transport projects or programs. Hopefully,
this discussion has thrown some light on these concepts
9
for consideration as part of well-rounded appraisals of
low-volume roads based on their overall CAM relation-
ships. The paper discussed CAM and the concepts’ asso-
ciated performance measures. This sets the stage for their
consideration in network planning, prioritization, deci-
sion making, and eventual implementation. Therefore, it
can serve as a useful basis for political decision makers as
they determine how their jurisdictions establish perfor-
mance measures for future projects or to assess existing
networks. For these and other stakeholders and decision
makers, it is hoped that this paper provides a clear plat-
form to make these assessments and, ultimately, to make
informed decisions designed to influence at least one of
these three concepts of transport network performance.
Acknowledgments
The research idea that led to this article, was generated by Dr.
Asif Faiz. The research work was supported by Faiz and
Associates, LLC, to whom the authors are grateful.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally to each part of the study,
reviewed the results, and approved the final version of the
manuscript.
References
1. Kansky, J. Structure of Transportation Networks: Relation-
ships between Network Geometry and Regional Characteris-
tics. PhD dissertation. University of Chicago, pp. 6–33.
2. Gattuso, D., and E. Miriello. Compared Analysis of Metro
Networks Supported by Graph Theory. Network and Spa-
tial Economics, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2005, pp. 395–414.
3. Montana DOT. Montana Transportation and Land Use
Traffic Analysis Tools – Sketch Planning: What are Con-
nectivity Measures? 2017. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/
toolkit/m1/tatools/tlut/cat.shtml.
4. Xie, F., and D. Levinson. Measuring the Structure of
Road Networks. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 3,
2007, pp. 336–356.
5. Bon, R. Allometry in Topologic Structure of Transporta-
tion Networks. Quality and Quantity, Vol. 13, 1979,
pp. 307–326.
6. Shimbel, A. Structural Parameters of Communication Net-
works. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, Vol. 15,
No. 4, 1953, pp. 501–507.
7. Kumar, R., P. Paridaa, E. Madhu, and A. Bharat Kumar.
Does Connectivity Index of Transport Network have
Impact on Delay for Driver? Transportation Research Pro-
cedia, Vol. 25, 2017, pp. 4988–5002.
8. Olawale, T. N., and K. I. Adesina. An Assessment of the
Relationship between Road Network Connectivity and
Tourist Patronage in Lokoja, Kogi State. Journal of Natu-
ral Sciences Research, Vol. 3, No. 9, 2013, pp. 1–11.
9. Alstadt, B., G. Weisbrod, and D. Cutler. Relationship of
Transportation Access and Connectivity to Local
10
Economic Outcomes: Statistical Analysis. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2012. 2297: 154–162.
10. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Connectivity. 2018.
https://transportation.ky.gov/Congestion-Toolbox/Pages/
Connectivity.aspx.
11. Promoting Connectivity. U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Washington, D.C., 2018. https://www.transportation.
gov/mission/health/promoting-connectivity
12. Transport Connectivity Sector Project. ADB Project 37266-
012. Technical Assistance, Financed by the Japan Special
Fund to the Kingdom of Nepal, Asian Development Bank,
2004.
13. Ceder, A., Y. Net, and C. Coriat. Measuring Public Trans-
port Connectivity Performance Applied in Auckland.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2009. 2111: 139–147.
14. Woollett, N., P. Knight, and R. Redfern. The Importance
of Transport Connectivity in Supporting Regional Eco-
nomic Development. Proc., 2009 European Transport Con-
ference, Association for European Transport, London, UK,
2009.
15. Virginia’s Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan
2007-2035 Mobility, Accessibility, and Connectivity. Virgi-
nia Department of Transportation, 2009.
16. Arvis, J. F., and B. Shepherd. Global Connectivity and
Export Performance, Economic Premise. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C., 2013. www.worldbank.org/economic
premise.
17. The World Bank Implementation Status & Results Report,
Transport Connectivity and Asset Management Project. The
World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2017.
18. The Russian Federation: An Exploratory Assessment of
Transport Connectivity. The World Bank Group, Washing-
ton, D.C., 2017.
19. Tal, G., and S. Handy. Measuring Non-Motorized Accessi-
bility and Connectivity in a Robust Pedestrian Network.
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of Califor-
nia-Davis, 2011.
20. Silva, C., and A. Larsson. Challenges for Accessibility Plan-
ning and Research in the Context of Sustainable Mobility.
International Transport Forum, Paris, 2018.
21. Inayathusein, A. London’s Accessibility Indicators:
Strengths, Weaknesses, Challenges. Discussion Paper Inter-
national Transport Forum and OECD, Paris, 2018.
22. Hansen, W. G. How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Jour-
nal of American Planning Association, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959,
pp. 73–85.
23. Litman, T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning:
Measuring People’s Ability to Reach Desired Goods and
Activities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2018.
24. Handy, S. L., and D. A. Niemeier. Measuring Accessibility:
An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment
and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 7, No. 29, 1997,
pp. 1175–1194.
25. Carnemark, C., J. Biderman, and D. Bovet. The Economic
Analysis of Rural Road Projects. World Bank Staff Work-
ing Paper 241. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1976.
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
26. Di Ciommo, F. How the Inaccessibility Index Can Improve
Transport Planning and Investment. Discussion Paper Inter-
national Transport Forum and OECD, Paris, 2018.
27. Faiz, A., and C. Carnemark. Area of Influence and Geo-
metric Configuration of Low Volume Rural Roads. World
Bank Staff Working Paper, World Bank, Washington,
D.C., 1976.
28. Venter, C. Developing a Common Narrative on Urban
Accessibility: A Transportation Perspective. Moving to
Access, Brookings Institution, New York, 2016.
29. Cervero, R. Accessible Cities and Regions: A Framework
for Sustainable Transport and Urbanism in the 21st Century.
Center for Future Urban Transport, Berkeley, CA, 2005.
30. Accessibility as an Evaluation Criterion in Testing Alterna-
tive Transportation Systems. Highway Planning Technical
Report 28. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C., 1972.
31. Sinha, K., and S. Labi. Transportation Decision Making.
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2007. https://online
library.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470168073.
32. National Reseach Council. Chapter 3 – Mobility Indica-
tors. In Key Transportation Indicators: Summary of a
Workshop (J. Norwood and J. Casey, eds.), Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, 2002.
33. Prohaska, T., L. Anderson, S. Hooker, S. Hughes, and
B. Belza. Mobility and Aging: Transference to Transporta-
tion. Journal of Aging Research, Vol. 2011, 2011, p. 3.
https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/392751.
34. Macdonald, K., and M. Grieco. Accessibility, Mobility
and Connectivity: The Changing Frontiers of Everyday
Routine. Mobilities, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100601106153.
35. Ubilla-Bravo, G. Accessibility and Geographical Connec-
tivity in Rural Areas. Geography Papers, Vol. 63, 2017, pp.
299271–218991. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/geografia/2017/
293271.
36. Adeniyi, A. Graph Measurement of Road Network Con-
nectivity & Accessibility on Farming Activities in Akoko
South-West Local Government Area of Ondo- State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Innovation and Applied
Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2014, pp. 1258–1265.
37. Papaioannou, D., and L. M. Martinez. The Role of Acces-
sibility and Connectivity in Mode Choice. Transportation
Research Procedia, Vol. 10, 2015, pp. 831–839.
38. Chen, S., C. Claramunt, and C. Ray. A Spatio-Temporal
Modelling Approach for the Study of the Connectivity and
Accessibility of the Guangzhou Metropolitan Network.
Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 36, 2014, pp. 12–23.
39. Cheng, Y. H., and S. Y. Chen. Perceived Accessibility,
Mobility, and Connectivity of Public Transportation Sys-
tems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
Vol. 77, 2015, pp. 386–403.
40. Pronello, C. Accessibility and Connectivity. Presented at
Transition towards Sustainable and Livable Urban Futures
Workshop, European Parliament, Brussels, September 29–
30, 2015. https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/app/uploads/2017/03/
Accessibility-and-Connectivity-Presentation-Cristina-Pronello.
pdf.
 Labi et al
41. Barter, P. Distinguishing between Accessibility and Mobility.
2018. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/sustran/access-mobility.
html.
42. Alba, C. A. Transportation Accessibility. University of Wis-
consin-Milwaukee, 2003.
43. Scott, M., C. Novak, L. Aultman-Hall, and F. Guo. Net-
work Robustness Index: A New Method for Identifying
Critical Links and Evaluating the Performance of Trans-
portation Networks. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.
14, 2006, pp. 215–227.
44. Sullivan, J. L., D. C. Novak, L. Aultman-Hall, and
D. M. Scott. Identifying Critical Road Segments and Mea-
suring System-Wide Robustness in Transportation Net-
works with Isolating Links. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2010, pp. 323–336.
45. El Rashidy, R. A. H. The Resilience of Road Transport Net-
works Redundancy, Vulnerability and Mobility Characteris-
tics. PhD dissertation. University of Leeds, UK, 2014.
46. Novak, C., L. Sullivan, and M. Scott. A Network-Based
Approach for Evaluating and Ranking Transportation
Roadway Projects. Applied Geography, Vol. 34, 2012,
pp. 498–506.
47. Faiz, A. Transportation Circular E-C167: The Promise of
Rural Roads: Review of the Role of Low-Volume Roads In
Rural Connectivity, Poverty Reduction, Crisis Management,
and Livability. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012. http://onli-
nepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec167.pdf.
View publication stats
11
48. Salemink, K., and D. Strijker. Policy Briefing – Sustaining
Accessibility and Connectivity in Remote Rural Areas:
Transnational Issues from ITRACT. Faculty of Spatial
Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, 2015.
49. Schade, W., W. Rothengatter, and S. Mader. Connectivity
and Accessibility of Transport Infrastructure in Central and
Eastern European EU Member States: In-Depth Analysis.
Directorate-General for Internal Policies Policy Depart-
ment B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Transport and
Tourism, European Parliament, 2016.
50. Chiu, Y., J. Bottom, M. Mahut, A. Paz, R. Balakrishna,
T. Waller, and J. Hicks. Transportation Research Circular
E-C153: Dynamic Traffic Assignment: A Primer. Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2011. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onli-
nepubs/circulars/ec153.pdf.
51. Dafermos, S. C., and F. T. Sparrow. The Traffic Assign-
ment Problem for a General Network. Journal of Research
of the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 73B, 1969,
pp. 91–118.
The Standing Committee on Low-Volume Roads (AFB30) peer-
reviewed this paper (19-06187).
The contents of this paper do not constitute a standard, specifica-
tion, or regulation.