Urban Form and Accessibility: Social, Economic, and Environment Impacts 9780128198223, 9780128198230

Citation preview

Urban Form and Accessibility

This page intentionally left blank

Urban Form and Accessibility Social, Economic, and Environment Impacts

Edited by Corinne Mulley Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia

John D. Nelson Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia

Elsevier Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-12-819822-3 For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Brian Romer Editorial Project Manager: Kristi Anderson Production Project Manager: Swapna Srinivasan Cover Designer: Mark Rogers Typeset by SPi Global, India

Contents Contributors About the authors Acknowledgment

1

Introduction

xiii xvii xxix

1

Corinne Mulley and John D. Nelson 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

2

Urban form and accessibility The book’s chapters The influence of COVID-19 Future research Concluding remarks References

Cities, their form, and accessibility

1 2 7 9 10 11

13

Mark W. Horner 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

3

Why cities? Travel modes and cities What is accessibility? Accessibility, land use, and transportation connections Urban sprawl: The challenges of suburbs What is transit-oriented development? Future research and challenges in accessibility: Autonomous vehicles Accessibility going forward References

Sustainable transport planning and residential segregation at the city scale

13 14 14 16 18 19 20 21 22

27

Duncan A. Smith and Joana Barros 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Introduction Compact cities, gentrification, and residential segregation Densification and sustainable travel in London London’s housing affordability crisis and residential segregation 3.4.1 Housing tenure and occupational class

27 28 29 33 38 v

vi Contents 3.5

3.6

4

Planning policy interventions for a more equitable compact city 3.5.1 Public transport affordability measures 3.5.2 Affordable housing delivery 3.5.3 Orbital public transport development Conclusions References

Governance, mobility, and the urban form

39 39 40 40 41 43

45

Wijnand Veeneman 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

5

Introduction What is governance? Agency and its distribution Markets and government Centralized versus decentralized Coordination in fragmentation Conclusion References

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions of urban space allocation in a Nordic governance context

45 46 49 51 55 56 57 59

63

Milosˇ N. Mladenovic and Dominic Stead 5.1 5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

Introduction Scenarios on emerging mobility technologies and implications for urban space allocation 5.2.1 Business as usual (BAU) 5.2.2 Technology+ non-shared (T) 5.2.3 Technology+ shared (T+) 5.2.4 Technology+ shared+infrastructure/policy (T ++) Methodology 5.3.1 Methodological framework 5.3.2 Otaniemi case description Results 5.4.1 PESTLE analysis 5.4.2 Resulting scenarios 5.4.3 Focus group discussion with transport planners Discussion of envisioning results and governance implications 5.5.1 The complexity of implications from and for emerging technology 5.5.2 Networked and responsible governing of the technological emergence Conclusion Acknowledgments References

63 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 68 69 69 71 73 74 74 75 78 79 80

Contents vii

6

Urban form and travel behavior: The interplay with residential self-selection and residential dissonance

83

Veronique Van Acker 6.1 6.2

87 88 93 103 103 104

Making place in the car-dependent city

107

6.3

6.4 6.5

7

83 84 84 85 86 86

Introduction Background 6.2.1 Residential self-selection 6.2.2 Residential dissonance Research design 6.3.1 Data set 6.3.2 Dependent variables: Public transport and bike use 6.3.3 Key independent variables Results Conclusions Acknowledgments References

Courtney Babb 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

7.5

8

Introduction Situating place in utopian visions of the city Making place: From street protests to placemaking Place and placemaking in three urban contexts 7.4.1 Mixed-use streets 7.4.2 Transit stations 7.4.3 Neighborhoods Conclusion References

Active accessibility and transit-oriented development: Connecting two sides of the same coin

107 108 111 112 113 114 115 117 119

123

David S. Vale 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

8.5

Introduction Station areas and active accessibility 8.2.1 Active accessibility measures TOD, active accessibility, and autonomous individuals Integration of PT and active travel in Lisbon 8.4.1 Bicycle and rail integration 8.4.2 Shared mobility services and rail Conclusion References

123 125 126 127 129 130 131 134 137

viii Contents

9

Urban form and walkable environments

141

Danielle Sinnett and Katie Williams 9.1 9.2

9.3

10

Introduction Relationships between the walking environment and walking, health and well-being 9.2.1 Relationship between urban form and walking 9.2.2 Importance of perceptions of neighborhood quality and safety 9.2.3 Walkability, and health and well-being outcomes Discussion and conclusion References

The potential for telecommuting to offer sustainable and resilient accessibility

141 143 143 148 150 151 154

157

Hannah Budnitz, Emmanouil Tranos, and Lee Chapman 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5

11

Introduction Telecommuting in time and space Broadband as an access alternative Telecommuting capability and consequences for nonwork activities Conclusion References

School location, urban structure, and accessibility

157 159 161 164 167 168

173

Yiping Yan and Matthew Burke 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

12

Introduction Education policies and their effects on school geographies New research findings on the effects of private schools Implications for policy and practice References

Built environment and health

173 175 179 182 184

187

Rania Wasfi and Yan Kestens 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4

Introduction What is the built environment and urban form? Links between urban changes and the role of “place” in public health Theoretical frameworks, pathways, and relationships between built environment characteristics and health 12.4.1 Theoretical frameworks 12.4.2 Causal pathways and relationships between built environment characteristics and health

187 188 189 190 190 192

Contents

12.5

12.6

12.7

13

Empirical findings linking built environment to health 12.5.1 Built environment and travel behavior 12.5.2 Built environment and physical activity 12.5.3 Built environment, exposure to food environments, diet, and obesity Methodological challenges and developments 12.6.1 Limits of residential-based exposure methods and new approaches 12.6.2 Causal pathways, estimation biases, and critics of lack of causal inference 12.6.3 The importance of natural experiments Conclusion References

Transport, access, and health

ix 194 194 195 196 197 197 198 199 199 200

207

Jennifer Kent 13.1 13.2

13.3

13.4

14

Introduction How does transport influence health? 13.2.1 Transport-related collisions and injuries 13.2.2 Transport and climate change 13.2.3 Transport and respiratory illness 13.2.4 Transport and physical activity 13.2.5 Transport, stress, and community 13.2.6 Travel time and health 13.2.7 Transport and equity 13.2.8 An alternative view on the links between the private car and health 13.2.9 So, what is a healthy transport system? Urban form for healthy transport 13.3.1 Healthy urban fabrics 13.3.2 Taming private car fabrics for healthier transport networks Conclusion References

Public transport equity outcomes through the lens of urban form

207 207 208 208 209 209 210 211 211 212 212 213 213 215 219 219

223

` ve Boisjoly and Ahmed El-Geneidy Genevie 14.1 14.2

Introduction Urban form, public transport, and social equity 14.2.1 Postwar urban structure, public transport, and poverty 14.2.2 Public transport, employment, and social inclusion 14.2.3 Urban sprawl and forced car ownership

223 224 224 224 227

x Contents 14.3 14.4

14.5

15

Principles behind transport equity Measuring public transport equity 14.4.1 What is measured? 14.4.2 How is equity assessed? Conclusion References

Urban expansion and mobility on the periphery in the global South

227 229 229 231 237 238

243

Christoffel Venter, Anjali Mahendra, and Nahungu Lionjanga 15.1 15.2

15.3 15.4

15.5

16

Introduction Urban expansion in the global South 15.2.1 New analysis of upward and outward growth patterns in cities 15.2.2 Key drivers of peripheralization Impacts of unmanaged urban expansion on mobility and access Diversity and mobility at the Gauteng periphery 15.4.1 Context of the Gauteng city region 15.4.2 Characterizing the periphery 15.4.3 Car use on the periphery: The costs of being forced to drive? Conclusions Acknowledgments References

Who gains in a distance-based public transport fare scheme? Accessibility, urban form, and equity implications in Santiago, Chile

243 244 244 247 249 250 250 254 258 260 261 261

265

Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken, Juan Carlos Mun˜oz, and Ricardo Hurtubia 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4

16.5 16.6

Introduction Accessibility, affordability, urban form, and equity: A brief review focusing on Latin American settings Case study setting of Santiago, Chile Methods 16.4.1 Who benefits from a distance-based fare scheme? 16.4.2 How much does a distance-based fare affect the accessibility levels? Findings Discussion and further research References

265 266 269 272 272 273 274 280 284

Contents

17

Urban form and public transport design

xi

289

Seungjae Lee and Madiha Bencekri 17.1 17.2

17.3

17.4

18

Background Urban form and public transport 17.2.1 Urban form 17.2.2 Connections between urban form and transport 17.2.3 Transport and urban streets 17.2.4 Transport design revolution Public transport design 17.3.1 Introduction 17.3.2 Public transport network design 17.3.3 Sustainable public transport design Conclusion References

Innovative financial mechanisms for transport infrastructure in time of crisis: The case of London Crossrail

289 290 290 290 293 294 296 296 298 300 301 302

307

Luca Cocconcelli and Francesca Medda 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5

19

Introduction Literature review The Crossrail case study London Crossrail case study: BRS progressive scheme and revenue municipal bond savings Conclusions References

Dispersion of agglomeration through high-speed rail in China

307 309 311 313 323 324

327

Wanli Fang, Yunhan Zheng, Mi Diao, and Jinhua Zhao 19.1 19.2 19.3

19.4

19.5

Introduction Literature review Data and methods 19.3.1 Parameters and data 19.3.2 Model specification Estimation results 19.4.1 Economic effect estimation of HSR from 2001 to 2010 19.4.2 Economic effect estimation of HSR from 2012 to 2015 Conclusions References

327 328 333 333 335 341 341 351 353 355

xii Contents

20

City logistics and the urban environment

359

Michael G.H. Bell 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9

21

Introduction Link and place Urban consolidation centers and microhubs Omnichannel retail Construction logistics Co-modality The circular economy and reverse logistics Sustainable city logistics Conclusions Acknowledgments References

Accessibility, land use models, and modeling

359 361 364 365 367 369 370 372 375 376 376

379

Daniel Engelberg, He He, Diem-Trinh Le, and P. Christopher Zegras 21.1 21.2

21.3 21.4 21.5

21.6

Index

Introduction Accessibility 21.2.1 Dimensions of accessibility measures 21.2.2 Types of accessibility measures 21.2.3 Accessibility and urban form Accessibility in model integration: A brief history Methods Findings 21.5.1 State-of-the-art 21.5.2 State-of-the-practice Conclusions References

379 380 380 381 385 385 387 398 398 400 403 404 411

Contributors Numbers in parenthesis indicate the pages on which the authors’ contributions begin

Courtney Babb (107), School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia Joana Barros (27), Department of Geography, Birkbeck, London, United Kingdom Michael G.H. Bell (359), Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia Madiha Bencekri (289), University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea Genevie`ve Boisjoly (223), Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada Hannah Budnitz (157), Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Matthew Burke (173), Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Lee Chapman (157), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom Luca Cocconcelli (307), University College London, London, United Kingdom Mi Diao (327), College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai, China Ahmed El-Geneidy (223), School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada Daniel Engelberg (379), Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States Wanli Fang (327), World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States He He (379), Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States Mark W. Horner (13), Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States Ricardo Hurtubia (265), Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics; Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, School of Architecture; CEDEUS – Center for Sustainable Urban Development, Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Jennifer Kent (207), School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia

xiii

xiv Contributors  Yan Kestens (187), Ecole de Sante Publique de l’Universite de Montreal (ESPUM); Centre de recherche du CHUM (CRCHUM), Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada Diem-Trinh Le (379), SMART, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Singapore Seungjae Lee (289), University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea Nahungu Lionjanga (243), Research Institute for Innovation and Sustainability, Pretoria, South Africa Anjali Mahendra (243), WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, Washington, DC, United States Francesca Medda (307), University College London, London, United Kingdom Milosˇ N. Mladenovic (63), Aalto University, Espoo, Finland Corinne Mulley (1), Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia Juan Carlos Mun˜oz (265), Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics; CEDEUS – Center for Sustainable Urban Development, Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Santiago, Chile John D. Nelson (1), Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia Danielle Sinnett (141), Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom Duncan A. Smith (27), Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, United Kingdom Dominic Stead (63), Aalto University, Espoo, Finland Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken (265), Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics; CEDEUS – Center for Sustainable Urban Development, Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Emmanouil Tranos (157), University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom David S. Vale (123), Lisbon School of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Veronique Van Acker (83), Urban Development and Mobility Department, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER), Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg; Department of Geography, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium Wijnand Veeneman (45), Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands Christoffel Venter (243), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa  Rania Wasfi (187), Ecole de Sante Publique de l’Universite de Montreal (ESPUM); Centre de recherche du CHUM (CRCHUM), Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada Katie Williams (141), Professor Emerita, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom

Contributors xv

Yiping Yan (173), Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia P. Christopher Zegras (379), Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States Jinhua Zhao (327), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States Yunhan Zheng (327), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States

This page intentionally left blank

About the authors Courtney Babb is a Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning at the School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University. His research focuses on the intersection between place, mobility and institutions including property rights and public space, placemaking practices, children’s mobility and well-being, geographies of smart urbanism, and institutions for walking and cycling. His teaching areas include urban regeneration, governance in urban development, and transport planning. The projects he is involved in often cross-boundaries between teaching, research, and advocacy. Joana Barros is a Senior Lecturer in Geographic Information Science at the Geography Department, Birkbeck, University of London. Her research focuses on the use of geospatial data and geotechnologies to improve our understanding of social inequalities in urban space and on the development of tools to inform and guide practitioners in the development of urban policies and interventions. She has expertise in segregation, urban growth and change, housing, and transport. She is interested in comparative studies and has worked on a variety of urban contexts, including Latin America, United Kingdom, and China. Her current projects include SIMETRI (JPI-Urban/ESRC), which explores polycentric urban development and housing in the Pearl River Delta Megacity Region, China; and RESOLUTION (ESRC), a comparative study of transport accessibility and residential segregation in the metropolitan regions of London, United Kingdom, and Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil. Michael Bell is a Professor of Ports and Maritime Logistics in the Institute of Transport and Logistics, at the University of Sydney Business School. Prior to this, for 10 years, he was the Professor of Transport Operations at Imperial College London and for the final 5 years, at Imperial, he was the Founding Director of the Port Operations Research and Technology Centre (PORTeC). He graduated from Cambridge University with a BA in Economics and obtained an MSc in Transportation and a PhD on Freight Distribution from Leeds University. His research and teaching interests span ports and maritime logistics, city logistics, transport network modeling, traffic engineering, and intelligent transport systems. Madiha Bencekri is a PhD candidate in the Transportation Engineering Department, and Research Fellow at the Transportation Planning Lab, at the University of Seoul. She obtained her Master’s degree in “Urban and Regional Development” from the University of Seoul in 2017, and her Telecom

xvii

xviii About the authors

Engineering degree at the National Institute of Post and Telecommunication (Rabat, Morocco) in 2010. She has worked as a government officer at Casablanca Transportation Authority and Casablanca Regional Government. Genevie`ve Boisjoly is an Associate Professor at the Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering at Polytechnique Montreal. She has a multidisciplinary background, having completed a Bachelor of Engineering, a master in sustainability science, and a PhD in urban planning, policy and design. Her work thereby focuses on integrating the land use, transport, and user perspectives to support more effective and equitable mobility systems. Hannah Budnitz is a Research Associate in Urban Mobility at the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford. She completed her doctoral studies at the University of Birmingham, where she researched the relationship between travel choices, internet accessibility and extreme weather, and the opportunities that trends in improving ICT and increasing space-time flexibility of work and travel offer for more resilient responses to transport disruption. Prior to starting her doctoral studies, Hannah worked as a transport planner in the United Kingdom for first Arup, then Reading Borough Council. She also holds a BA in Urban Studies from Columbia University and an MSc in City and Regional Planning from Cardiff University. Matthew Burke is an Associate Professor and the Transport Academic Partnership Chair at the Cities Research Institute at Griffith University, Australia. He coordinates the Institute’s transport research team, which mostly undertakes industry engaged research. Matthew’s team is presently working on research collaborations with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane City Council and the City of Gold Coast, including on active transport and public transport planning. Lee Chapman is a Professor of Climate Resilience at the University of Birmingham. His primary research interest concerns the impact of weather and climate on the built environment with a particular interest in urban climatology and infrastructure. During a 20-year academic career, he has amassed over 90 refereed journal articles published (or in press) in international peer reviewed journals. The outlets for publication reflect the interdisciplinary nature of his work, spanning many different titles across engineering, physics, computer science, and physical geography. Prof. Chapman has a keen interest in Knowledge Exchange and has worked on a number on infrastructure related innovation projects, mostly focused on improving the resilience of transport systems to weather events. Luca Cocconcelli is an Industrial Professor at the Institute of Finance and Technology (UCL) where he teaches Big Data in Quantitative Finance. Luca holds a PhD in Applied Finance from University College London and an MSc in Statistics from University of Bologna. He is a Data Analytics Manager at the London Clearing House (Part of London Stock Exchange Group) where he covers Equity and Fixed Income in the Risk & Innovation team. Luca has worked in M&G Investments in Risk Modelling and Analytics for Equity in

About the authors

xix

the Portfolio Construction and Risk division and as a quant risk analyst in a boutique Investment Management (Massena Investment Management). Luca spent 7 years in academia and developed a number of collaborations with international institutions such as the European Investment Bank, World Bank and European Commission. Mi Diao is a Senior Research Fellow in the Institute of Real Estate and Urban Studies at National University of Singapore (NUS). Prior to this position, he was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Real Estate at NUS. Mi Diao received his PhD in Urban and Regional Planning and Master in City Planning from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States, and Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Architecture from Tsinghua University, China. At the nexus of urban planning, urban economics, and urban technology, Mi Diao applies urban economics theories, emerging big data, and new analytics in tackling urban challenges. His research spans big data analytics, travel behavior and transportation policy, spatial analysis and modeling, real estate and housing policy, and urban and regional economics. Daniel L. Engelberg is at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), at MIT. He is interested in how planners can help communities prepare land use and transportation plans under deep uncertainty. He is interested in spanning the gap between technical approaches supporting adaptive planning and actual planning moments as they play out on the ground. Before joining DUSP, he gained experience in exploratory scenario planning at the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland and now his research has turned toward adaptive methods and computational tools for uncertainty. Moving forward, he intends to link the two as well as examining how decision-makers account for uncertainty in their actions. Additional research interests include socioenvironmental synthesis, urban systems modeling, regional land use planning, and urban transportation systems. Daniel possesses a Masters in Community Planning from the University of Maryland and a Bachelors of Arts in Mathematics from Bates College. Ahmed El-Geneidy is a full professor at the School of Urban Planning, McGill University. He is also chair of the World Society of Transport and Land Use Research. His research interests include land use and transport planning, public transport operations and planning, travel behavior analysis including both motorized (car and public) and nonmotorized (walking and cycling) modes of transportation, travel behavior of disadvantaged populations (seniors and people with disabilities) and measurements of accessibility and mobility in urban contexts. Wanli Fang is an Urban Economist at the World Bank Group. She currently manages several urban development and infrastructure investment projects in China. She has 12 years of experience in urban development, particularly with respect to transit-oriented development (TOD), smart cities, socialeconomic impacts evaluation, spatial analysis, green industrial zone development, land value capture and municipal finance, and so on. Prior to the World Bank,

xx About the authors

she was an Economist at the World Resources Institute based in Washington DC, where she conducted policy research to support sustainable cities initiatives in major emerging economies. Before moving to DC, she was a lecturer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a part-time policy researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. She holds a PhD in urban and regional economics from MIT, United States, and an MS and a BE degree in City Planning from Peking University, PR China. He He is a PhD Candidate at MIT. His research explores the links between accessibility and the broader urban system. In particular, he is interested in agglomeration forces and economies, transportation and land use as facilitators for urban economic development, and how urban modeling can be used to shed light on these topics. Prior to his PhD, he worked as a transportation consultant with the World Bank, where he conducted accessibility analyses in data-poor developing contexts including Haiti and Tanzania. He also worked for IBI Group to improve their use of data analytics for transportation, for example, for the 2015 Toronto Pan Am Games. He grew up in Copenhagen, Denmark, before moving to Canada where he completed a Bachelor of Applied Science in Engineering Science at the University of Toronto. He also received a Master of Science in Transportation at MIT. Mark W. Horner is a Professor of Geography and Associate Dean for Research in the College of Social Sciences and Public Policy at The Florida State University. His research focuses on issues of accessibility and developing understandings of the interrelationships between people’s life needs, urban form, and transportation systems. He is particularly interested in applications dealing with commuting, health and medical services, and emergency management. His research has been funded by a number of agencies in the United States including the National Science Foundation, US Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Transportation. Mark has served the transport community as chair of Transportation Research Board standing Committee ADD20, Social and Economic Factors of Transportation. He also serves on the editorial boards of several international journals and is an associate editor for Transportation (Springer) and Transportation Research Record. Ricardo Hurtubia is an Assistant Professor at Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, with a dual appointment to the School of Architecture and the Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics. He is also a researcher at the Centre for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS) and the Complex Engineering Systems Institute (ISCI). His research is focused on location choice models, integrated transport and land use models, accessibility indicators as tools for project and policy evaluation and the use of discrete choice models to analyze and improve the design of public spaces and infrastructure through the understanding of user behavior. Jennifer Kent is a Robinson Fellow in the Urban and Regional Planning Program at the Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning. Jennifer’s research interests are at the intersections between urban planning, transport and

About the authors

xxi

human health. She specializes in combining quantitative and qualitative data with understandings from policy science to trace the practical, cultural, and political barriers to healthy cities. Key issues examined to date include the links between health and higher density living, the interpretation of health evidence into urban planning policy, the health impact of extended commute times, and cultural and structural barriers to sustainable transport use. Her findings are policy relevant and have been incorporated into State and Federal urban planning agendas. She publishes regularly in highly ranked scholarly journals across the fields of urban planning, public health and transport and her work is widely cited within these disciplines. Yan Kestens is a CIHR Applied Public Health Chair in Urban Interventions and Population Health and associate professor at Ecole de Sante Publique de l’Universite de Montreal. He holds a PhD is Urban Planning and a Master’s in Geography from Universite de Laval, Quebec. His research focuses on improving our understanding of how urban change influences population health, considering converging objectives of sustainability, improved quality of life and reduced health inequalities. Yan develops new tools to collect and analyze spatial data and processes, including wearable sensors, and map-based online questionnaires. Diem-Trinh Le is a Research Scientist at the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), where she leads a project on studying the impacts of autonomous vehicles for urban planning and transport policies in Singapore, using microsimulation approach. Her research interests also include travel behavior, senior mobility, emerging technology and alternative transport modes. Prior to joining SMART, Diem had worked as a researcher and/or lecturer at the Technical University of Munich, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore and Hue College of Economics. She received the Bachelor of Economics degree from the Hue College of Economics (Vietnam), the Master degree in Tourism Management from the Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand), and the PhD degree in management/economics (Dr. Rer. Pol) from the Technical University of Munich, Germany. Seungjae Lee is a Professor of Transport Planning in the University of Seoul. He obtained his PhD in Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University College London in 1994, and worked as a Research Fellow in Department of Statistical Science, University College London, and then Korea Transport Institute before joining the University of Seoul. He founded and served International Journal of Transportation as an Editor-in-Chief (ESCI). He has also served on several editorial boards of SCI/SSCI journals such as Journal of Advanced Transportation, Transportmetrica, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, and Proceedings of Municipal Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineering among others. Nahungu Lionjanga is a strategy and innovation consultant at the Research Institute for Innovation and Sustainability (RIIS). Her work at RIIS is focused on enabling the modernization of industries through the development and

xxii About the authors

management of regional and/or industry-wide innovation ecosystems. She holds a master’s degree in Transportation Engineering from the University of Pretoria. Her dissertation explored public transport accessibility in the City of Johannesburg, with keen interest in the accessibility afforded to low income households, and how it impacts their quality of life. Since completing her Master’s, she has continued to support research in transport accessibility. She is passionate about transport engineering and the opportunity it presents to play an integral role in advancing society. Anjali Mahendra is Director of Research at the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. She leads the research agenda, guiding the Ross Center’s worldwide team in conducting innovative and actionoriented research. Her expertise is in urban transport and land use strategies, their public health impacts, their regional economic development and equity impacts, and methodologies to estimate their impacts on emissions. She is currently leading the World Resources Report, “Towards a More Equal City,” a flagship research series at WRI that investigates how rapidly growing cities in the global south can achieve equitable access to core urban services. As part of this, she authored papers on high priority strategies to manage urban expansion and improve access to opportunities for all urban residents. Francesca Romana Medda is a Professor of Applied Economics and Finance at the University College London (UCL). She is the Director of the UCL Institute of Finance and Technology dedicated to innovative finance and technology. Since 2012 she has served as economic adviser to the UK Ministry of Environment and Agriculture (Defra) and in 2014 at the Ministry of Finance (HM Treasury). She is Vice-President of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Her work is published in leading academic and practitioner journals. She has worked and works actively with the private and public sector including The European Investment Bank, The World Bank, UNESCO, UNHabitat, WILLIS Re, HALCROW, and UITP. She has held several grants, two of which pertain to the application of complexity analysis in the real world, co-Investigator in the £6.2m EPSRC Programme Grant “Liveable Cities” and the £5.8m grant “New Business for Infrastructure Investments”. Milosˇ N. Mladenovic is an Assistant Professor at the Spatial Planning and Transportation Engineering Group, Aalto University, Finland. In addition, he has held a visiting research position at the Spatial Planning and Strategy chair, Delft University of Technology. His current research interests include assessment of emerging mobility technologies and development of decision-support methods. His teaching experience includes a range of courses in transport systems policy, planning, modeling, management, and design. Milosˇ is currently finishing his engagement within the European Commission expert group advising on specific ethical issues raised by driverless mobility and is an editorial board member of the European Transport Research Review. Finally, he has been the organizing chair for the Aalto University Summer School on Transportation since 2015.

About the authors

xxiii

Corinne Mulley was the inaugural Chair of Public Transport at the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney. She is now Professor Emerita at the University of Sydney and an Honorary Professor at Aberdeen University. Corinne is a transport economist and is active in transport research at the interface of transport policy and economics, in particular on issues relating to public transport. She has provided both practical and strategic advice on transport evaluation, including economic impact analysis, benchmarking, rural transport issues, and public transport management. Corinne’s research is motivated by a need to provide evidence for policy initiatives and she has been involved in such research at local, state/regional, national/federal, and European levels. Juan Carlos Mun˜oz is a Professor at the Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics of the Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, where he is the Director of the multidisciplinary Centre of Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS). He has a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. His areas of interest are public transport, logistics, transport networks, and traffic flow theory. Juan Carlos has been Director of the Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence, a member of the Board of Metro of Santiago and of Valparaiso in Chile, and a frequent advisor to the government on public transport issues. John D. Nelson is the Chair in Public Transport at the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS), University of Sydney which he joined in 2019 from the University of Aberdeen where he was Sixth Century Chair in Transport Studies and Director of the Centre for Transport Research. Before moving to Aberdeen in 2007 he was Professor of Public Transport Systems at Newcastle University, United Kingdom. John is particularly interested in the application and evaluation of new technologies to improve transport systems (with a particular focus on public transport and shared transport solutions) as well as the policy frameworks and regulatory regimes necessary to achieve sustainable mobility. He is Series Editor for Routledge’s Transport and Mobility and Transport and Society book series and recently edited a special issue on the future of public transport for Research in Transportation Business and Management. Danielle Sinnett is an Associate Professor of Green Infrastructure and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments at the University of the West of England, Bristol. She is an environmental scientist with over 15 years’ research experience in green infrastructure and brownfield land. Her research has primarily focused on the establishment of green infrastructure in urban areas including how this relates to walking environments, and health and wellbeing outcomes. Duncan A. Smith is a Lecturer in GIS and Visualization at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis University College London. His research interests are in urban planning, transport sustainability, spatial analysis, and cartography; and he has previously worked in transport consultancy and for the Greater London Authority. Current research projects include the ESRC SIMETRI grant,

xxiv About the authors

exploring polycentric urban development and housing in the Pearl River Delta Megacity Region, China; and the ESRC RESOLUTION grant, investigating transport accessibility and residential segregation in the city regions of London, United Kingdom, and Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil. Duncan’s research has been published in several international journals, including Environment and Planning, The Journal of Transport Geography, and Computers Environment and Urban Systems. Duncan lives in London where he supports the promotion of cycling, and efforts to reduce housing and transport inequalities. Dominic Stead is Professor of Land Use and Transport Planning at Aalto University, Finland. His research focuses on policy-making processes and governance arrangements. Dominic has previously worked at Delft University of Technology, University College London, and the University of the West of England. He has been guest professor at the University of Malta (2017), Friedrich-Alexander Universita¨t (2016) and HafenCity Universita¨t (2010). He is a member of five editorial boards of international peer-reviewed journals: European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, European Planning Studies, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Planning Practice and Research, and Urban Policy and Research. Naomi Stein is a Principal at EBP US. She works with communities to incorporate economics into the transportation and infrastructure planning and investment process. She is a leader in the applied practice of transit economics and prioritization in the United States. Her experience includes co-authoring guidance for the American Public Transportation Association on transit economic evaluation, as well as documenting best practice in the same for the Transportation Research Board. She has assessed the economic role of transit and analyzed the benefits and impacts of future transit investment scenarios for regions across the United States, including in Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, and Georgia. Naomi is the Principal Investigator on a current national research project on improving prioritization methods for public transportation investments. Prior to joining EBP, she was a researcher in the Regional Transportation Planning & High-Speed Rail Research Group at MIT. Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken is a Transport Engineer and PhD candidate from the Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile. His doctoral research is associated with the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CEDEUS) and the Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence. He has been part of a multidisciplinary research team at the Laboratory for Social Change, and he was a Visiting Postgraduate Researcher at the Institute for Transport Studies at University of Leeds. His research interests are focused on the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to address issues of sustainable transport, equity, gender, accessibility, affordability, poverty, and transport justice. Emmanouil Tranos is a Reader in Quantitative Human Geography at the University of Bristol. His research focuses on the spatiality of the digital economy and he has published on issues related to the geography of the internet

About the authors

xxv

infrastructure, the economic impacts that such digital infrastructure can generate on cities and regions and the position of cities within spatial, complex networks. He has a strong interest and expertise in the use of new sources of big data, such as data from mobile phone operators, to better understand the complexities of cities and urban systems. Recently, his research explores the geography of the creation of online content and its interrelation with cities and the spatial structure using web data and digital archives. David S. Vale is assistant professor at the Lisbon School of Architecture, University of Lisbon, teaching courses such as Urban Geography, Road Systems and Transportation, and Geographic Information Systems. His research is focused on the integration of land use and transportation, and on the integration of different transport modes, with a special focus on Transit-oriented development and Active Mobility. He also analyses and develops walking, cycling, and multimodal accessibility indicators, and evaluates the relationship between the built environment with active travel, physical activity, and health. Veronique Van Acker currently works as a researcher at LISER, Urban Development and Mobility department. She is also a Guest Professor in Spatial Analysis at Ghent University, Department of Geography. Veronique does research on the interaction between the built environment and travel behavior. Her research topics include, among others, the importance of soft factors such as lifestyles and attitudes, behavioral change toward sustainable mobility, travel satisfaction and well-being, peak car and differences between generations, acceptance, use and spatial/social impacts of new mobility technologies. Christoffel Venter is Associate Professor in Civil Engineering and a researcher at the Centre for Transport Development at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. His research and teaching interests center on the planning, design, and operations of multimodal transport systems in countries of the global South, with a specific focus on how to balance equity and sustainability concerns in highly unequal societies. He has authored numerous scholarly papers and reports, with some of his recent work examining accessibility metrics for equitable transport planning. Wijnand Veeneman is Associate Professor of governance of infrastructures at Delft University of Technology and scientific director of Next Generation Infrastructure, a knowledge platform of six major Dutch infrastructure managers. In this latter role, he oversees projects with more than 25 PhDs and Postdocs. Although trained as a spatial scientist, Wijnand currently leads a group of 45 researchers at Delft University of Technology, working on the governance of infrastructure systems. His own research focuses on understanding the performance of mobility systems under a wide variety of governance designs, throughout the world. That research focuses on understanding how these governance designs condition possible solutions for the large challenges to our current societies. It reaches from understanding contracting and management of transport infrastructures and services to regulatory choices for technology

xxvi About the authors

and service development. He has been an adviser to the national and regional governments on numerous occasions relating to public transport and mobility. Rania Wasfi is a Research Fellow with a multidisciplinary training in population health, geography, and urban planning. She has a postdoctoral training in population health from Ecole de Sante Publique de l’Universite de Montreal and the Centre de recherche du CHUM (CRCHUM), a PhD in Geography from McGill University, and a Master’s in Urban and Regional Planning from Portland State University, Oregon. Her research focuses on the geo-social determinants of health and the role of active transportation in the production of health and well-being. Rania uses advanced statistical methods to understand how environmental factors—such as a neighborhood’s physical characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics, and transportation systems—influence travel behavior, physical activity and body weight, using longitudinal and crosssectional datasets. Katie Williams is an Emerita Professor, an urban theorist, planner, and urban designer. She specializes in sustainable urban environments, particularly sustainable urban form, land reuse, and neighborhood design (in relation to sustainable behaviors and climate change adaptation). Yiping Yan is a PhD Candidate in the School of Environment and Science at Griffith University, Australia. After completing a first-class honors degree in civil engineering at Griffith, her PhD research is now exploring the effects of improved market segmentation in mode choice modeling. Yiping has a work placement with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads during her candidature, where she is actively working to improve their models. She has recently been invited to undertake a research fellowship at Tongji University in Shanghai, China, as part of her PhD program. P. Christopher Zegras is Professor of Mobility and Urban Planning and Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), at MIT. He serves on the Executive Board of the BRT + Centre of Excellence. From 2015–20 he was the Lead Principal Investigator for the Future Urban Mobility research group, sponsored by the Singapore MIT Alliance for Research and Technology. His research spans interrelated areas critical to tackling metropolitan mobility challenges: human behavior, digital transformation, and strategic planning techniques and technologies. Prior to becoming a Professor, he worked for the International Institute for Energy Conservation in Washington, DC, and Santiago de Chile and for MIT’s Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. Zegras holds a BA in Economics and Spanish from Tufts University, a Master in City Planning and a Master of Science in Transportation from MIT and a PhD in Urban and Regional Planning, also from MIT. Jinhua Zhao is the Edward and Joyce Linde Associate Professor of City and Transportation Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Prof. Zhao brings behavioral science and transportation technology together to shape travel behavior, design mobility systems, and reform urban policies. He develops methods to sense, predict, nudge and regulate travel behavior,

About the authors

xxvii

and designs multimodal mobility system that integrates autonomous vehicles, shared mobility, and public transport. Prof. Zhao sees transportation as a language to describe a person, characterize a city, and understand an institution. Prof. Zhao leads long-term research collaborations between MIT and major transportation authorities and operators worldwide including London, Chicago, and Hong Kong. Prof. Zhao directs the JTL Urban Mobility Lab and the Transit Lab at MIT. Yunhan Zheng is a second-year student in the Master of City Planning and Master of Science in Transportation dual-degree program at MIT having graduated from Peking University with a dual-degree in Urban Management and Economics. Her current research focuses on China’s unique transportation policies and their social-economic implications, which includes measuring policy leakage of Beijing’s car ownership restriction in neighboring cities and studying the policy formulation process of autonomous vehicles policies in China. Before coming to MIT, she conducted research delineating the information dissemination pattern in Beijing’s real estate market in support of building a more complete and integrated Chinese housing information dissemination system.

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgment This book would not have been possible without the interest of Brian Romer of Elsevier who encouraged us to submit this proposal as the first in a series promoting research and ideas in Innovative and Sustainable Transport and Mobility. The support of Ali Afzal-Khan in the early stages and Kristi Anderson as we moved to publication, in their smoothing of the editorial and production process, is greatly appreciated. Creating this book has enriched our understanding of the links between urban form and accessibility, and we thank our authors who have contributed their knowledge so willingly in their chapters. We also express our thanks to our authors, without exception, for responding quickly to our many questions. Apart from the authors, we have been supported by a long list of individuals who helped us in the background and, although not individually named, they must know that we appreciate their help. A special mention and huge thanks to Andre Pinto who turned the author’s final manuscripts into a consistent and coherent set of chapters, keeping us on the straight and narrow in the process: we could not have done this without him. Finally, we acknowledge the way in which the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney and its Director, David Hensher, provided us with an environment that allowed this book to flourish. Our aspiration for this book is to provide an evidence base for the creation of desirable urban forms with levels of accessibility, providing an equitable outcome for all citizens. Although transport and land use planners will inevitably face challenges in the future in this respect, we hope this book will contribute to better understanding and underpin developments contributing sustainable outcomes. Finally, we acknowledge that in a book of this size, constraints on space do not allow an exhaustive coverage of all the issues we wanted. However, we hope the book will be judged on what we have chosen to include while recognizing that we will, of course, be criticized for what is left out.

xxix

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Introduction Corinne Mulley and John D. Nelson Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia

1.1

Urban form and accessibility

Urban form describes the spatial configuration of a city or urban area’s physical characteristics. As a result, researchers tend to conflate the term “urban form” to mean all aspects of the built environment, embodying as it does the street layout, the location of buildings, and the use of space within the urban area. Accessibility as a concept describes the ease of reaching destinations where activities are located and demanded by citizens. These characterizations of urban form and accessibility illustrate why they are inextricably linked, and their exploration lies at the intersection of transport and urban economics in the study of transport and land use. Perhaps more separately than together, urban form and accessibility have been studied for more than a century. Theories of urban form originate with the landmark work of Johann-Heinrich von Thunen, published first in 1826 (von Thunen, 1826), who identified the relationship between urban form and city size as being dependent on transport costs, an early measure of accessibility. These early theories of central place formation lacked micro-economic foundations which have been provided by what have been called “new economic geography” models that investigate in more detail how urban areas work. Alongside this is the research area looking at where residents and firms locate, building on the seminal work of Hotelling (1929), which are significantly affected by transport costs and transport accessibility. Classic papers in these areas are included in Mulley (2012). Accessibility measurement has also attracted significant research effort. Building on the work of Hansen (1959), methodologies and applications and the inherent difficulties of such developments are expertly synthesized by Miller (2018) who concludes that there is still a lack of robust identification of appropriate standards for levels of accessibility and for methods of providing a monetary valuation of accessibility benefits. A more in-depth evaluation of the state-of-the-art in accessibility modeling is provided by Malekzadeh and Chung (2020) in terms of system accessibility, system-facilitated accessibility, Urban Form and Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00023-7 Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1

2 Urban form and accessibility

and access to destinations and by Shi, Blainey, Sun, and Jing (2020) who provide a quantitative overview of the last two decades of accessibility related publications. In contrast to the research on urban form or on accessibility, this book provides multiple insights and support to the policy area of transport and land use. As a whole, the book provides a focus on the ability of transport policy and land use policy to deliver not only the preferred urban form but an urban form with a level of accessibility for citizens to access the destinations of choice. This unique approach synthesizes cutting edge research to policy development which in many places has only relatively recently acted on the joint impacts of transport on land use and land use on transport,. This is in recognition of the importance of transport departments, and planning departments that “talk” to each other at every level of policy development. Each chapter provides an evidence base to move toward more sustainable urban forms with better accessibility for citizens and thus talks to one or more of the three pillars of sustainability, recognizing the complex and dynamic interactions between economic, environmental and social goals to ensure a more balanced and equitable outcome for the movement of both people and goods. Although not constrained by sections, the book starts from the more general and works toward the specific. The opening chapter examines the links between urban form and accessibility whilst the second draws on this to explore the implications for sustainable planning in urban areas. The next group of chapters looks at the impact of governance (Chapters 4 and 5) and this is followed by a number of chapters broadly investigating urban form and accessibility in the context of travel behavior (Chapters 6–11 and 21). The next groups of chapters look at more specific areas: health (Chapters 12 and 13), equity (Chapters 14–16), and public transport network planning (Chapters 17–19). The final chapter distinguishes this book from many others by including an in-depth consideration of the role of logistics in the determination of sustainable urban form. Each of these chapter groupings is now considered in more depth.

1.2 The book’s chapters Scene setting is undertaken in Chapters 2 and 3. Horner, in Chapter 2, takes a spatial approach to the link between urban form and accessibility first asking the question “Why cities?”, before addressing the role of accessibility in determining how cities develop and the relevance of transport in this. Sustainability is challenged by suburban development which is often predicated on the personal ownership of a car and Horner investigates how transit-oriented development (TOD) is one response to this challenge. In looking to the future, suburban sprawl might also be ameliorated by a growth in autonomous vehicles but this is far from certain at this stage. Smith and Barros build on the ideas of Horner in Chapter 3, identifying how mixed land use developments have been central to policies for improving urban transport sustainability for several decades. The

Introduction Chapter

1

3

chapter then focuses on the way in which these policies succeed at improving sustainability at the city level but are associated with equity challenges, particularly in respect of pushing lower income groups out of the inner cities to the more peripheral areas where accessibility is lower. Using London as an example, Smith and Barros explore residential socioeconomic change to provide the evidence base to underpin policy that could alter the highly centralized pattern of transport accessibility emerging from successful compact city and TOD policies implemented to revive inner cities through city level planning for sustainability. The impact of governance is explored in Chapters 4 and 5. Veeneman (Chapter 4) addresses the issue of governance, mobility, and the urban form making the point that governance is important because it establishes the rule sets that let stakeholders decide together on the solutions to implement. For mobility and the urban form, these rule sets condition the development of the city of tomorrow. Chapter 4 introduces a number of elements of the rule sets, such as the distribution of agency, the role of market and governmental players, centralized and more decentralized stakeholders, and the role of governance in coordinating a diverse set of needs of many different stakeholders. It concludes that a number of the current problems and future solutions of the modern city can be addressed by fine-tuning the governance toward a more inclusive rule set. Complementing this chapter, Mladenovic and Stead in Chapter 5 highlight the important role of governance in the context of an urban mobility landscape, which is impacted by a multitude of emerging technologies. Writing in a Nordic governance context, the chapter explores plausible future changes in urban space allocation from the combined emergence of mobility services and vehicle automation. Scenario analysis is used to highlight the importance of mobility service models, governance approach, and changes in the mobility culture. Chapter 5 concludes with a discussion of the wider implications for steering governance and innovation processes, thereby highlighting the complexity of political conflicts between urban space allocation and technological development. Chapter 6 is the first of a series of contributions which address travel behavior and the implications for urban form and accessibility. Van Acker notes that many studies have tried to quantify the impact of urban form on travel behavior by studying the influence of spatial characteristics such as density, land use mixing, and accessibility of the residential neighborhood. Using data from an online survey in Greater Sydney, Australia, she shows that the urban form does have an impact on travel behavior, especially public transport use. Furthermore, different aspects of residential dissonance (the consequence of not being able to live in your preferred neighborhood) indicate how the urban form might have a more pronounced impact, especially for dissonant residents whose actual neighborhood is better than expected. In Chapter 7 the focus turns to placemaking in the car-dependent city. Babb notes that planners and architects have long-used utopian visions of city form to help plan and protect quality places from impacts of motorized transportation, yet many cities have become increasingly

4 Urban form and accessibility

car-dependent. In contrast to the scale of these utopian visions the practice of placemaking (i.e., incremental and small-scale interventions in cities that aim to improve the quality, equity, and ecological sustainability of urban places) has emerged as a bottom-up led way of reasserting the value of place in cardependent cities. The chapter explores examples of placemaking in three prototypical urban places that have been shaped by car-dependency: mixed use streets, transit stations, and neighborhoods. Closely related to these examples of placemaking is the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD), designed as a key policy to decrease car dependency. However, Vale, in Chapter 8, argues that the synergistic relationship of TOD with active accessibility is less often considered despite the way a public transport trip necessarily starts and/or ends with an active travel trip. He suggests that active accessibility needs to go alongside TOD to achieve the desired travel pattern. By analyzing the potential number of residents and workers served by an integration of rail-based public transport, active modes, and shared mobility services in Lisbon, Vale concludes that increasing active accessibility together with TOD might constitute an affordable low-tech solution with potential to increase public transport accessibility and decrease car usage. Sinnett and Williams consider the relationship between urban form and walkable environments in Chapter 9. Walking strategies are becoming common in major cities worldwide, so it is important that those involved with planning, designing and managing urban environments have a clear understanding of the range of features available to facilitate greater levels of walking. Urban form characteristics such as medium-high densities, land use mix and connectivity are associated with greater levels of utility walking, and aspects of street design such as green infrastructure, lighting, and pedestrian facilities appear to be more important for leisure walking. Walkable environments are also directly associated with a range of positive health and well-being outcomes. The theme of telecommuting and its ability to offer sustainable and resilient accessibility to work activities is examined by Budnitz et al. in Chapter 10. Noting that telecommuting does not automatically result in more sustainable travel patterns or resilient choices, they argue that the impacts of telecommuting on travel behavior and resilient accessibility is mediated by socioeconomic and geographic characteristics, and may be boosted by more consideration of the location and accessibility of nonwork activities and more proactive planning for online access. By considering telecommuting as a social practice, rather than an individual choice, this chapter reflects on the contribution that telecommuting might make on sustainable, resilient accessibility. Yan and Burke’s contribution (Chapter 11) explores the relationship between school location, urban structure, and accessibility. From a premise that education policy in North America, Asia, Australasia, and Europe is reshaping the geography of schools as public (state) school catchments are being “unlocked,” government subsidies to private schools are increasing their share of enrolments, and state education departments are no longer building small neighborhood primary schools. They argue that this has implications in terms of the types of schools

Introduction Chapter

1

5

built, where they are located, and urban form surrounding them. The chapter draws on a study of school travel behavior in South East Queensland (SEQ) in Australia to show how these changes are reshaping the accessibility of schools for SEQ households and influencing school travel behavior. Toward the end of the book, Chapter 21 is inextricably linked to travel behavior since the purpose of land use transportation models is to encompass travel behavior in their workings so that future policies can be evidence based. With this in mind, Chapter 21 examines the state-of-the-art and -practice of land use-transportation interaction (LUTI) models from an accessibility perspective. By an updated review of recent LUTI model studies, Engelberg et al. place a particular emphasis on the use of accessibility as an indicator and as a means for integrating LUTI model systems. There is speculation on how accessibility can and/or should be utilized, accounting for relevant technological changes and social dynamics. It is asserted that the next generation of LUTI models should adopt disaggregate activity-based accessibility measures to better capture how individual choices aggregate to system behavior. This is particularly timely considering the accelerating changes in communications, mobility technologies, activity patterns, time routines, and other factors that may influence how individuals, firms, and households function, and desire to function, in modern metropolises. Chapters 12 and 13 address the connections between urban form, accessibility, and health. Wasfi and Kastens in Chapter 12 identify how much of health data is spatially patterned and how this is discussed not only in theoretical modeling but also in empirical studies. They identify how the built environment influences travel behavior, how it can affect the propensity and magnitude of physical activity and underpin the growing obesity observed in many developed countries’ urban areas. Importantly the very mobility that accessibility in urban areas enables brings challenges to understand the health impacts observed in cities because studies often only focus on a single area. Wasfi and Kastens identify the limitations of much exposure-based research and discuss the important role that natural experiments can play (of which the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is, of course, an unwelcome example). Kent, in Chapter 13, looks more directly at the impact of transport accessibility on health outcomes. After discussing the direct health disbenefits of traveling, including the impacts of transport emissions and accidents, she identifies the less well-known health consequences of exclusion from jobs, access to family and friends and other facilities which are dependent on good transport accessibility. This contrasts with the positive impacts on health that come from good transport accessibility to the facilities that allow citizens to be integrated into society. Kent shows how private car use mediates these associations and how private car use must be “tamed” with policies to promote more active travel with greater flexibility and autonomy that now, together with an understanding of the impact of different urban forms, facilitate the development of the concept of a healthy transport system. The next group of chapters (Chapters 14–16) most directly consider the impact of accessibility on equity. Boisjoly and El-Geneidy take a user-based

6 Urban form and accessibility

perspective to look at the direct equity outcomes of different urban forms on public transport service provision. As with Kent (Chapter 13), Boisjoly and El-Geneidy look at the consequences of urban form on social equity but extend their examination to how accessibility in this context might be measured so that policies might be made to integrate equity goals in planning and ameliorate poor accessibility. Measurement is not, of course, that easy and needs to investigate both horizontal and vertical equity aspects. The chapter reiterates the conclusions of Miller (2018) that more research is needed on what level of accessibility might be acceptable, but advances the idea that thresholds and targets, to date little used, might be a way forward to implement better equity in public transport provision. Venter et al. in Chapter 15 look at how transport challenges are exacerbated through greater urbanization leading to expansion of cities of the global South with increasing low density sprawl at the periphery and an often weakened urban core. They examine the drivers of growth and in particular the incentives for greater peripheralization of cities. This is complemented by a demonstration of how accessibility mapping can be used to identify important issues relating to migration, social deprivation, travel burdens and car use differ in the peripheral areas, as compared to other areas. Venter et al. use accessibility mapping to underpin suggestions for better management of urban expansion and, in particular, to recognize the adverse effect that local factors at the neighborhood level might have on city level mediations to improve accessibility. The final chapter of this group focuses on public transport fare equity in the context of Santiago de Chile. Although identified as a developed country, Chile has significant income inequality and Santiago de Chile, in common with other Latin American cities, shows deep sociospatial inequalities and urban segregation. Tiznado-Aitken et al. provide an overview of the relationship between urban form and accessibility in a Latin-American context before turning to the issue of public transport fare equity and how this might be identified in principle. Santiago de Chile is typical of many Latin American cities where segregation gives rise to variations in transport-related benefits which in Santiago has led to wealthier segments benefiting from significantly more investment than deprived areas. The chapter provides an in-depth evaluation of the fare system put in place after the significant changes to the public transport system implemented in 2007 when a flat fare system was introduced. Although theory suggests that a distance-based fare system might be more progressive than a flat fare, Tiznado-Aitken et al. show that, because of Santiago de Chile’s urban form and pattern of residential location, the current flat fare system provides greater equity with wealthier dwellers making relatively short journeys as they live in increasingly mixed land use, which cross subsidies the longer journeys made by poorer households who make longer journeys to access, usually, work destinations. This chapter shows the importance of not assuming a “one size fits all” approach to accessibility and equity issues. The influence of public transport network planning on urban form is the subject of three chapters. In Chapter 17, Lee and Bencekri address urban form

Introduction Chapter

1

7

and public transport design. Urban form is strongly related to public transport design; for example, sprawl has induced longer commuting times and increased traffic emissions while compact development strengthens public transport, and thereby reduces traffic congestion, emissions, and other social costs. The interdependent relationship between urban form and public transport is explained while exploring the role of streets and the impact of urban form evolution on transport infrastructure design and modes. Public transport guidelines, which emphasize the existing relationship with urban forms, and aim at enhancing public transport service and increasing its sustainability, are also discussed. Chapter 18 by Cocconcelli and Medda emphasizes that accessibility is at the core of the economic and social development of cities and requires substantial investment in urban transport systems. Many cities are suffering from reduced finance, particularly in times of austerity and now in the presence of COVID-19. This chapter analyses the combination of Land Value Finance and Municipal Revenue Bonds as a mechanism to raise financial resources to fund transport investment using London’s Crossrail extension as a case study. The question of whether high-speed rail (HSR) will bring the expected wider economic impacts is explored in Chapter 19 by Fang et al. Taking the case of HSR in China, the chapter assesses how HSR has reshaped intercity accessibility patterns, analyses the productivity impact and the agglomeration forces arising from HSR construction, studies the spatial variation of the corresponding economic effects, and develops a time and space model verifying the exogeneity variation of cities’ accessibility with respect to surrounding economic mass. The chapter shows the necessity of facilitating the integration of wider economic impacts into the decision-making process of China’s extensive HSR investments. In contrast to a predominant focus on passenger transport, Chapter 20 considers the nature of city logistics and the urban built environment. Bell’s contribution begins with a review of recent trends in urban design and traffic engineering for the implications for city logistics. Measures to improve the streetscape and air quality are favoring the greater use of electric vehicles. The role of urban consolidation centers to transfer inbound cargo from large vehicles to smaller, quieter, “greener” vehicles for intracity pickup and delivery is described. The emergence of omnichannel retail is changing shopping behavior and widening the range of last mile delivery options. Changes in practice in construction logistics, the significant benefits offered to city logistics by public transport and the advantages for city logistics of a move to a more circular economy are also identified.

1.3

The influence of COVID-19

The chapters in this book were commissioned before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the world and its landscape have changed dramatically since then. At the time of writing, the magnitude of COVID-19’s impact is still

8 Urban form and accessibility

unknown and an added complication is the incidence of unpredictable second waves which hamper recovery. It is clear that some of the content covered by this book is not particularly sensitive to the presence and outcome of the pandemic whilst other parts are, and in the paragraphs below a number of observations are offered. One would not expect the contemporary city with all of its complexity to be unaffected by the pandemic. A common response has been the adoption of “social distancing” policies which, as Horner (Chapter 2) notes, drastically cuts people’s accessibility. Furthermore, COVID-19 and social distancing raises many new accessibility questions which have no particular time horizon in terms of their resolution. These include impacts arising from changes in personal accessibility to opportunities through to how the shutdown of national economies will alter the urban landscape. Certainly the current economic climate remains exceptionally challenging and this will have significant impact on investment in transport infrastructure. This is a point made by Cocconcelli and Medda in Chapter 18 who focus on how to raise complementary financial resources. There may be some optimism to be found when considering responses to COVID-19 and its possible impact on urban form from a governance perspective because the effects on the city are dependent on the response of the stakeholders. Good governance based around an understanding of the rule sets that govern the decision-making on urban development as articulated by Veeneman in Chapter 4 will aid recovery. It is perhaps from a travel behavior perspective that the greatest impacts can be expected. With the ebb and flow of infections, it is possible to discern a recalibration of the notion of “place” in cities. This is manifested through increasing concentration on the local neighborhood and is closely tied in with the rapid shift to working from home and renaissance of telecommuting (discussed later). As a result the activity of placemaking (explored by Babb in Chapter 7) promises to play an important role in the on-going crisis and post-pandemic world. The use of temporary barriers to repurpose road space for bicycles and pedestrians has been widely deployed and after seeing the benefits of these temporary approaches in supporting alternative modes of accessibility, some cities are providing substantial funding to ensure these changes remain as road traffic levels approach pre-COVID-19 levels. A greater focus on urban form and walkable environments has arisen in part from the reminder that many neighborhoods do not provide the facilities needed within walking distances. High quality places that encourage walking must be prioritized, not least to support social distancing, to ensure resilience to future challenges. This is a theme addressed by Sinnett and Williams in Chapter 9. The widespread shift to working from home is an impact of COVID-19 has resonated with many households and it has been reported that 88% of business organizations globally mandated or encouraged all their employees to work from home as the virus started to spread at exponential rates. Budnitz et al. explore the accessibility issues of telecommuting in Chapter 10. Although a return to the levels of telecommuting seen before the pandemic is unlikely,

Introduction Chapter

1

9

the experience of telecommuting during the pandemic may have resulted in different meanings for different groups dependent on characteristics such as gender, household configuration (e.g., young children at home), and underlying health conditions. The experience is also likely to have altered the way that work and nonwork practices are bundled, further underlining the value of easy access to local nonwork activities and services. How the accelerated trend toward more virtual accessibility as a consequence of COVID-19 may have accelerated the long-term consequences on the value of proximity is difficult to know. This raises the question as to what role location will play as accessibility possibilities increasingly digitalize. To answer this question will in part require the enhancement of LUTI models (the subject of Chapter 21) to explicitly account for relevant technological changes and social dynamics. These are among the important areas of further research which are discussed in the next section.

1.4

Future research

This section captures key common threads of future research and does not intend to duplicate that which authors have included in their chapters. These common themes show how interconnected urban form and accessibility are and that policy to achieve the desired urban form and acceptable levels of accessibility is truly multidimensional and must pay attention to many different aspects to avoid falling foul of “unexpected” consequences of improving the lot of some citizens at the expense of other, perhaps more vulnerable, sections of the community. Whilst Chapters 14 (Public transport equity outcomes through the lens of urban form), Chapter 15 (Urban expansion and mobility on the periphery in the global South), and Chapter 16 (Who gains in a distance-based public transport fare scheme? Accessibility, urban form and equity implications in Santiago de Chile) look at equity specifically, it is a common theme of all chapters that interlinked decisions on levels of accessibility which both determine and influence urban form can have profound equity implications. Horner (Chapter 2) comments on the importance of ensuring policy intending to improve accessibility for some does not have the unintended consequence of impinging on the accessibility of others. Smith and Barros emphasize how it is vital to disaggregate accessibility analyses by income or other socioeconomic variables if the equity issue is to be understood. Boisjoly and El-Geneidy suggest the implementation of equity targets to be included in planning processes so that equity identification is transparent to users, planners, and policy makers. In terms of telecommuting, the pandemic has also shown the importance of future research into the equity implications and economic resilience of those who cannot work online, not only due to the nature of their work but also due to a lack of competences and materials. The issue of equity, how it is identified and how to ensure greater equity in accessibility in urban areas is clearly a policy imperative to understand.

10 Urban form and accessibility

Greater dialogue and more disaggregate analysis should underpin policy and planning if the desired urban form and levels of accessibility are to be attained. Wasfi and Kastens argue that more interdisciplinary discussion and collaborations are needed to implement a “Health in All Policies” approach. In the context of the specific case of HSR and agglomeration economies in China (Chapter 19), Fang et al. suggest that using disaggregate data would provide a better framework for ex ante analyses for proposed regional transport infrastructure investment, or to evaluate the impacts of different investment alternatives. Policy makers and planners must be careful to avoid a “one size fits all” approach and be aware that what works in one place may not be suitable elsewhere. Kent (Chapter 13) makes the point that context is key when planning urban form for Health. Tiznado-Aitken et al. in Chapter 16 show that, although the “theory” might predict a public transport flat fare as regressive, the urban form of Santiago de Chile makes it better than the distance-based alternative. This is also true of understanding the mobility of edge communities, as discussed in Chapter 15 (Venter, Mahendra, and Lionjanga). Finally, but not least, future research must recognize that the starting position of the urban form is formative in how the urban form may develop. Older cities in this context have a steeper curve to navigate, for example, as streets are redesigned for acceptable distance for access and egress for public transport. Or as Bell aptly comments (in Chapter 20), that whilst the forces for change currently at work in city logistics on urban form are complex, in part because some of the changes at work in city logistics are the result of constraints imposed by the existing built environment, any long-term shift away from public transport as a result of the pandemic could open up new opportunities for co-modal freight solutions.

1.5 Concluding remarks This carefully selected collection of chapters provides insight into the multidimensional quality of the links between urban form and accessibility. Moving from a current urban form to one which is more desirable involves a deep understanding of the issues highlighted in this book and a determination to move forward to extend accessibility and to promote equity. As noted at the outset, the chapters provide a synthesis of cutting edge research of transport and land use issues so as to offer an evidence base for combining transport and land use policy to achieve desired urban form and better accessibility for all citizens. This objective is in many respects made even more challenging by the COVID-19 pandemic and yet the reflections on this, for example, around the role of good governance and the resurgence of active travel, along with the suggestions for further research offered by the chapter authors, confirm that urban form and accessibility will remain a vital field of study.

Introduction Chapter

1

11

References Hansen, S. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57. https://doi. org/10.2307/2224214. Malekzadeh, A., & Chung, E. (2020). A review of transit accessibility models: Challenges in developing transit accessibility models. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 14(10), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2019.1625087. Miller, E. J. (2018). Accessibility: Measurement and application in transportation planning. Transport Reviews, 38(5), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1492778. Mulley, C. (2012). Urban form and transport accessibility (classics in transport and environmental valuation). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shi, Y., Blainey, S., Sun, C., & Jing, P. (2020). A literature review on accessibility using bibliometric analysis techniques. Journal of Transport Geography, 87, 102810. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102810. von Thunen, J. H. (1826). Der isolierte Staat. translated to English by Wartenberg, C. 1966 In Von Thunen’s “Isolated state”: an English edition Pergamon Press.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

Cities, their form, and accessibility Mark W. Horner Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States

2.1

Why cities?

Cities represent complex structures of human innovation and interaction. They contain a host of spatially diverse and unevenly distributed economic, social, and environmentally oriented opportunities. People choose to live in cities due to a high density of available nearby activities and the relative ease of reaching these destinations given a highly developed transportation infrastructure. The typical urban resident could walk outside their residence, select from multiple transportation options, including continuing walking, and reach a basket of opportunities ranging from restaurants and grocery stores, to parks, museums, and other entertainment locations within a close proximity. Contrast this with the suite of options available to people living in less dense suburban areas and rural areas, and it is quickly observed that the transportation options are fewer; the available opportunities are diminished and more spatially dispersed. This high level of accessibility in cities is costly to people in terms of greater housing costs, transportation costs, and overall monies necessary to sustain daily life. Rural areas offer different sets of amenities, but compared with their urban counterparts, high levels of accessibility are not one of those benefits. People may move to rural areas for peace, seclusion, and a greater connection with nature; reasons not often cited for people’s migration to cities. This chapter focuses on the contemporary city in the abstract, emphasizing how accessibility is manifested by virtue of examining its two key components, namely, the urban structure and transportation systems. Then, attention is turned to various considerations in the accessibility-shaping characteristics of modern cities, which is followed by discussion of selected areas for future potential accessibility research.

Urban Form and Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00001-8 Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

13

14 Urban form and accessibility

2.2 Travel modes and cities Any modern city has a range of transportation modes present to help people accomplish their mobility goals (Tirachini & Hensher, 2012). Transportation modes mean the methods by which people may reach a given destination, and cities are replete with options, again owing to their overall attractiveness as places to live. How a city goes about planning its transportation system therefore can have direct impacts on the choices that are available to people, and ultimately will shape how people travel (Guo, Agrawal, & Dill, 2011). In this way, cities have an interest in promoting policies that reduce congestion and effectively “speed up” the transportation system in an effort to maximize throughput. Of course, they must do this in the face of limited financial resources, whereas being mindful of increasing concerns about environmental and social sustainability. Modern cities are typically characterized by robust public transportation systems. These feats of infrastructure minimally blend fixed-route buses with smaller forms of dedicated public transport vehicles (e.g., demand-responsive transport for the disabled) to provide a public service to carless and other households with limited choices. In bigger cities, far more public transport options become available such as streetcar and various forms of subway and/or rail. The viability of public transport options are further extended by the availability of phone-based app rideshare providers. As cities grow larger in terms of their population and building footprints and develop greater density overall, there is a wider range and scope of land uses to support the development of truly integrated multimodal transportation systems.

2.3 What is accessibility? The concept of accessibility can be applied to any number of situations and analytical contexts. Some research has looked at accessibility issues in rural areas, with an eye toward delineating the paucity of resources or the difficulties of reaching places due to lack of transportation infrastructure (Farrington & Farrington, 2005; Velaga, Beecroft, Nelson, Corsar, & Edwards, 2012). Other research has investigated accessibility concerns in an urban context, looking at how food resources are best reached (Horner & Wood, 2014). So, while the focus here is on the latter case of cities, it is important to remember that basic notions of accessibility are pliable and may inform any number of research questions or geographies (Ghorbanzadeh, Kim, Ozguven, & Horner, 2020) (see also Chapter 14). Foundational models of accessibility stress two factors in measuring the ease of reaching “opportunities,” broadly defined. The first factor is movement, or transportation. Simply put, when something can be reached faster, given some time budget available for participating in an activity, this is considered a positive in accessibility measurement (Taaffe, Gauthier, & O’Kelly, 1996;

Cities, their form, and accessibility Chapter

2

15

Widener, Farber, Neutens, & Horner, 2015). Different modes of transportation offer different enhancements to accessibility. A fixed-route bus is a relatively inexpensive way to travel from a monetary standpoint (Innocenti, Lattarulo, & Pazienza, 2013), but many avoid this mode due to its higher travel times between desired destinations. As such, many forego public transport and enhance their accessibility by securing private vehicles, or by using taxi/shared ride services (Garrett & Taylor, 1999). Urban rail can also be an attractive transportation option, but often the limited nature of rail’s footprint in cities means undertaking multimodal trips that may end up using larger shares of one’s time than desired. This has the result of diminishing one’s accessibility. The second component of general accessibility is that there are opportunities at the locations a person might want to visit (Geurs & Ritsema van Eck, 2001; O’Kelly & Horner, 2003; Scott & Horner, 2008; Taaffe et al., 1996; Wang, Kwan, & Hu, 2020). Opportunities could be anything from medical services to retail outlets, or from grocery stores to recreational activities and greenspaces (Coutts, Horner, & Chapin, 2010). Sometimes, these opportunities are conceptualized simply as points on a map to be counted up if someone can reach them within a fixed amount of transport cost; and other times they are tracked in a more sophisticated fashion by accounting for their size, diversity of offerings, capacity of service, opening hours, and other factors. For example, in an accessibility assessment of food shopping opportunities, it would be possible to control for the opening hours of the stores, and their mix of healthy food options if this were of interest to the analyst (Horner & Wood, 2014). Although definitions and applications vary, contemporary views on accessibility generally see the concept from one of two interrelated perspectives (Horner & Downs, 2014; Miller, 2005). From the perspective of the individual or a person-based view of accessibility, there is necessarily a concern with the activities and opportunities that a given person can reach. In making these assessments, the specific constraints and limitations of individuals come into play as they are intertwined with the transportation system itself. For example, what modes of transportation are available to the individual? This question depends not only on the infrastructure provided by the city but also the individual’s own personal financial resources, among other factors. As a second example, suppose one asks about the hours for which a given opportunity is open and available to provide services, such as financial business (Neutens, Delafontaine, Schwanen, & Van de Weghe, 2012). Here the person must work within the constraints posed by the nature of the business itself, and it can be imagined that opening hours would matter more or less depending on an individual’s control over their own time. A self-employed individual may have more time flexibility than someone who works shifts (Hawthorne & Kwan, 2013). And of course, whether the individual has any personal limitations such as the need to care for children, or a disability, would be relevant in affecting the amount of time that they can reasonably spend outside of the home (Scheiner & Holz-Rau, 2017). When these and other similar considerations are taken into account, they

16 Urban form and accessibility

then are the accessibility benefits that accrue to individuals by virtue of their interactions with the transportation system, and their ability to use it. Pivoting to a second perspective on accessibility, the accessibility benefits that accrue if measured at a given place can also be considered (Hansen, 1959). To conceptualize this view, imagine two urban neighborhoods, and their relative accessibility to the healthcare opportunities around them. If, when comparing the two neighborhoods, one was found to be more served by primary care physicians than the other, then that neighborhood might be determined as having more accessible to health care than the other (Ghorbanzadeh et al., 2020; Horner, Duncan, Wood, Valdez-Torres, & Stansbury, 2015). The basis for these calculations and assessments can become very detailed, but at a high level, aggregate geographies tend to be the units of analysis as opposed to individuals (Taaffe et al., 1996). Transportation systems come into play with these assessments as well, but because trips are not being approached on an individualized basis, fairly broad assumptions are made about how a person living in a particular place might reach a given opportunity using the transportation system. This is done in the name of standardization to facilitate comparison (O’Kelly & Horner, 2003). It is relevant to ask whether the place-based and individualized views of accessibility substantially different from each other. On the one hand the answer to this question is an emphatic “yes.” Individualized views of accessibility can be traced back to the literature on what is known as “Time Geography” (Hagerstrand, 1975) and some very good summaries of that body of work can be found elsewhere (Neutens, Schwanen, & Witlox, 2011). The humanistic nature of individual accessibility assessments can make generalization difficult if the focus is on describing the peculiarities of many people’s specific situations. And in contrast, place-based accessibility has roots in early forms of spatial interaction models from geography and their extensions that were used to assess a place’s “market potential” (Taaffe et al., 1996). In this way, place-based accessibility is borne out of aggregate metrication of a geography’s proximity to a set of resources, such as a neighborhood’s proximity to health care. However, both perspectives are valuable in the context of understanding cities as they not only allow us to track the individual’s plight in their environment but also allow us to make comparative assessments of how accessibility varies across cities’ internal elements (Horner & Downs, 2014). In effect, people can be compared as well as places, which are both necessary tasks in urban accessibility assessments (Curl, Nelson, & Anable, 2015).

2.4 Accessibility, land use, and transportation connections At an abstract level, just because an individual lives very close to several grocery stores and may have a lot of free time on their hands does not mean they will necessarily visit the closest one, go grocery shopping all that frequently, or make any other trips for food with any predicted regularity (Khattak &

Cities, their form, and accessibility Chapter

2

17

Rodriguez, 2005; Lu & Pas, 1999). Similarly, a person with limited shopping opportunities and free time may make more trips for food than would be otherwise expected. Perhaps, it is unsurprising then that one of the most intensely studied aspects of accessibility is whether the configuration of land uses influences people’s travel outcomes (Boarnet & Crane, 2001; Handy, Cao, & Mokhtarian, 2005; Mouratidis, Ettema, & Næss, 2019). By land uses, this term refers to the type of opportunity or activity at a given location. At a very elemental level, it seems as though relationships should be generally the case. Thinking spatially, if, for example, people’s jobs are perfectly interspersed with their residences in very mixed used development within a finite area, and then opportunities are created for them to work locally. However, cities are more complicated than simply land use and proximity, as people’s choices, preferences, and life constraints enter the picture to ultimately shape their travel outcomes (Wallner, Kriglstein, Chung, & Kashfi, 2018). Some travel is discretionary in the sense that it can be put off, altered to construct chains of destinations in the interest of saving time, or avoided altogether. Certain types of shopping trips may be discretionary in this way, whereas trips for work or picking up a child from school would be required for certain individuals. Within the realm of nondiscretionary travel, trips for work purposes, or commutes, have received a great deal of attention as most people have, during the last few decades, needed to leave the home to gainfully participate in the workforce (Cass & Faulconbridge, 2016; Schleith & Horner, 2014). And although teleworking and other factors have moderated the growth in commuting in recent years, morning and evening peak period congestion result due to flows to and from workplaces. It is because of this regularity and predictability of travel that researchers have spent a lot of effort probing the extent to which land use configurations explain cities’ commuting patterns. That is, can cities be arranged in such a way that specific commuting outcomes emerge as a result? (Horner, 2004; Zhou & Murphy, 2019). As this question has numerous policy implications, a key theme is the question of whether more compact or dense cities where perhaps workers and their job locations were more interspersed result in more efficient commuting outcomes. Are more compact cities also more efficient in terms of their transportation choices? There is some evidence to suggest that this is the case (Schleith, Widener, & Kim, 2016), as ultimately the sense is that people might change their residential and/or work locations over time to minimize the amount of travel that they undertake. When this is done in the aggregate, then potential commuting savings occur. Of course many other factors are theorized to possibly affect residential location choice, with even the prevalence of social contacts perhaps having some bearing (Guidon, Wicki, Bernauer, & Axhausen, 2019). In practice, however, achieving more mixed-use development (Rabianski, Gibler, Tidwell, & Clements, 2009) has been a moving target and in fact a challenge to planning and governance. In the United States where planning and zoning regulations do not necessarily consider the broader transportation

18 Urban form and accessibility

accessibility implications of specific site designs, the arguments for mixed use development are diminished, as the transportation benefits of a particular coordinated configuration of land uses are not immediately apparent, and the dominant approach of individualized decision-making prevails (Bourne, 1976). In contrast, there has been a greater level of interest in European cities during the past decades in achieving more compact cities with a number of regions, reflecting differences in the broader political climates (Westerink et al., 2013).

2.5 Urban sprawl: The challenges of suburbs It is easy to appreciate the seeming dichotomy between rural areas that are accessibility-challenged on the one hand, and cities with their high levels of accessibility to offer their residents, on the other. But urbanization is very much along a gradient and there are many land use patterns that do not fit these extremes. One of the more vexing types of spatial structure is that of suburban development, and related forms of urban sprawl (Bhatta, Saraswati, & Bandyopadhyay, 2010; Brueckner, 2000). Although definitions of urban sprawl abound, there is generally agreement that sprawl is lower density consumption of land often emphasizing larger lot size residential development and stripcenter retail businesses, whereas offering some of the amenities and proximity to opportunities in nearby cities ( Jaeger, Bertiller, Schwick, Cavens, & Kienast, 2010; Song & Knaap, 2004). Sprawling suburbs seem to occupy a potential “sweet spot” in the range of possible attractive places to live and work, but the difficulty they pose is that their accessibility is largely achieved by people using the private automobile almost exclusively. With destinations more spread out over the landscape, public transport is not really able to offer viable solutions for most of the potential trips in these areas, and auto use is extremely high. Population density is typically such that rail and other “fast” forms of public transport are not viable, and as such, fixed route buses struggle to keep up with the transportation needs of people whose daily activity spaces are complex and geographically spread out. Mandatory activities such as food shopping are not necessarily in a walking distance of residences, and moreover suburban locations may not have the pedestrian infrastructure in place to support many of these types of trips at a basic level. For those reasons, the accessibility people achieve in suburbs comes at a higher cost in terms of more private automobile congestion which, in turn, means more vehicle emissions and gridlock. There is political debate as to investing transportation funding dollars in maintaining surface roads, thereby enhancing capacity and throughput, as opposed to building stronger mass transit. Moreover, suburban areas can be exclusionary in that households must have the resources to be able to afford the higher transportation costs associated with the automobiles necessary to participate in the workforce. Over the long term, one solution to sprawl’s impacts on transportation systems is simply more infill development that will help these areas move toward

Cities, their form, and accessibility Chapter

2

19

the density levels of larger cities ( Johnston, Schwartz, & Tracy, 1984; Kim & Larsen, 2017; Puustinen, Pennanen, Falkenbach, & Viitanen, 2018). Although new development and infrastructure cannot be placed just anywhere due to existing planning and zoning regulations coupled with transportation infrastructure and other constraints, it is possible to envision suburban areas growing into denser landscapes with “smarter” arrangements of land uses and more mixing of activities, which is a characteristic that is often absent from traditional sprawling locales. The result of successive careful decisions made about how places repurpose vacant retail buildings, locate new government services, and improve transportation infrastructure can begin to foster accessibility gains that are achieved by nonautomobile travel. Diversifying the range of viable transportation modes is a step in the right direction but it clearly is an on-going debate about whether a particular area can support highly varied transportation infrastructure (Rahimi-Golkhandan, Garvin, & Brown, 2019). Part of the difficulty involves envisioning how places could develop into landscapes resembling more traditional urban areas and the overall sequencing of how transportation infrastructure investments should be coordinated with development changes.

2.6

What is transit-oriented development?

One potential approach to bringing coordination to land use, transportation, and accessibility goals per the prior section has centered on the idea of transitoriented development (TOD). TOD as a concept integrates access to a major public transport system, say at a planned rail station, and seeks to foster a range of residential, employment, and retail land uses and opportunities within close proximity of that area (Houston, Boarnet, Ferguson, & Spears, 2015; Rabianski et al., 2009; Wood, Horner, Duncan, & Valdez-Torres, 2016) (see also Chapter 8). The idea is that some people’s potential life needs would be able to be met by making shorter trips to proximal opportunities; perhaps for the purposes of buying groceries, finding entertainment, or shopping. The desire would be that a high percentage of people’s needs might be met within a 0.25-mile radius of the public transport focal point. At this particular distance, destinations can be reached with a short walk or bike ride. And when longer trips are needed to visit destinations outside the immediate TOD, people could access the public transport system present at their local stop(s) and expand their accessibility options to farther places throughout the region. From a marketing perspective, the TOD concept could appeal to those people who want to limit their amount of automobile transportation, and in some cases avoid car ownership altogether. The concept might work particularly well when linked to rail transportation, which is nominally a faster mode of public transport than buses. On thinking about the types of people who might be interested in TOD, and given that TOD would offer residential opportunities, one particular demographic group that could potentially benefit from a TOD lifestyle are retired and aging populations (Boschmann & Brady, 2013). These are groups who,

20 Urban form and accessibility

as they age, struggle to maintain the levels of accessibility of their younger counterparts. For example, as people age they may feel less comfortable driving alone, particularly after dark. And beyond a certain age, people may not feel safe driving very much at all, reaching a point of driving cessation (Adler & Rottunda, 2006; Rosenbloom, 2009). TOD would solve many of these transportation problems by putting a range of opportunities in close proximity to older people, without them having need for a car as trips would mostly be made by walking. For longer trips, access to the public transport system would play a large role in fulfilling these needs. Of course, this lifestyle may be quite different to what many older adults are presently accustomed to, as single family suburban developments and 24-h access and use of a car are norms for many. As such TOD highlights a very interesting dynamic at the intersection of accessibility, urban form, and cities. That is, is it possible to effectively improve on the accessibility of individuals and at the same time create a more environmentally and socially sustainable urban landscape and transportation system? The challenge going forward with this line of thinking is that this type of landscape and lifestyle situation may be very different from peoples’ past experiences and whether it will be more widely accepted and implemented is a future unknown.

2.7 Future research and challenges in accessibility: Autonomous vehicles Accessibility from any location comes at a cost, and a key cost is transportation measured usually in units of time. What if the amount of time could be optimally minimized between any two locations and no wasted effort were expended on transportation? This would not mean that 30-min trips are now made instantaneously, but rather that these trips are made in a shorter possible time frame, say 25 min, complying with all speed and other regulations. How could this be achieved? The technology of self-driving or autonomous vehicles promises to facilitate this future scenario (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). Although there are many years still to go to have a fully automated personal transportation system, autonomous vehicle technology has proven viable over the past 5 years or so. As autonomous vehicle testing continues throughout the world, and as more technology features become added to standard vehicles, the future of driving will be much more efficient than it is today. First, it could be more relaxing; as time spent in a vehicle could be devoted to activities other than driving itself. The act of driving would be relegated to a machine that coordinated with other machines to bring about optimal traffic flows that minimized congestion. Commutes may automatically become more enjoyable and less stressful. In considering this future scenario, one observation is that not everyone will need their own car. If cars are able to drive themselves, they could essentially “float,” waiting to pick up people who summon them from a smartphone or other comparable device. Fleets of self-driving cars could operate in this

Cities, their form, and accessibility Chapter

2

21

manner, and respond to transportation demand on a real-time basis, similar to present-day taxis. This scenario represents a dramatic departure from today’s norms of many people owning or aspiring to buy their own car; keeping vehicles in garages or other storage facilities, and the lengths to which cities will go to provide parking for cars. Focusing on the latter of these changes, increases to automation of the transportation fleet should portend structural land use transformations beginning with the basic notion of no longer needing to provide significant levels of parking at destinations (Crute, Riggs, Chapin, & Stevens, 2018). Thinking about shopping malls, or linear strip retail centers, for example, these particular land uses typically bring about images of massive parking lots and provisions for vehicles (Zhang, Guhathakurta, Fang, & Zhang, 2015). The question is will all of these facilities be needed in cities as movement continues on toward automation? The likely answer is no, with areas previously paved for parking being imagined as being redeveloped into other uses. After all, parking lots are already in very good locations that are accessible to other opportunities. If some of these spaces are redeveloped, they can have a synergistic effect on the development at large. Cars would still need access and egress to facilities, and this might be best accomplished with dedicated drop-off and pick-up lanes (Crute et al., 2018). These lanes would be proximal to building structures and allow people to easily access activities without the need to worry about where to park their cars. Of course, this future scenario depends on closer to full levels of automation, and there remains a great deal of uncertainty with respect to that time horizon, and how society will get there.

2.8

Accessibility going forward

Accessibility remains a central focus of interdisciplinary inquiry at the nexus of transportation, urban studies, planning, engineering, geography, and other related fields. Cities are brilliant amalgamations of human innovation, effort, and design, with their form and function fitting hand-in-glove. New technologies on the horizon will unfold in unpredictable ways, though it is clear that meeting the need for the human desire of mobility and the ability to reach destinations will remain a key concern. Simply put, where things are, matter, and the density and diversity of land uses and infrastructures afforded by cities theoretically allows their residents the highest possible levels of accessibility achievable on the planet. Diverse mixes of land use serviced by multiple transportation options are what is necessary for optimal accessibility to be realized. Challenges abound however with regards to preserving and extending high levels of accessibility to cities, their people, and the areas beyond. First, even within cities, accessibility is by no means uniform; neighborhoods develop in myriad ways stemming from different historical antecedents and contexts, as are transportation infrastructure investments uneven. Historically in the United States, there are examples of highway construction negatively impacting and disrupting minority neighborhoods, such as the Overtown neighborhood in

22 Urban form and accessibility

Southeast Florida during the 1950s and 1960s (Dluhy, Revell, & Wong, 2002). These projects may provide increased accessibility to the areas around the neighborhood while severely negatively impacting the people of the neighborhood itself. Thus planned accessibility enhancements must recognize the potential for unevenness and work to distribute benefits broadly, and minimally impact existing communities. Accessibility research should continue to examine transportation systems in the context of their urban forms and people they are intended to serve and empower, and look to develop ways of improving mobility conditions for all. At the time of this writing in the year 2020, the world is grappling with the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. And although countries are dealing with the problem in a number of different ways, a commonality has been the adoption of “social distancing” policies across most places. Social distancing asks people to restrict their out of home activities in the name of slowing the virus’ spread, as no vaccine or effective treatment currently exists. It is noted that social distancing as a public policy drastically cuts people’s accessibility. Accessing certain destinations becomes restricted by regulation. Awareness of COVID-19 also changes people’s willingness to travel out of the home for fear of possibly falling ill to the virus themselves. The COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing raises many new accessibility questions having no particular time horizon in terms of their resolution. For example, will people feel safe traveling using mass transit? To what extent will accessibility levels change as many “bricks and mortar” stores may fall to bankruptcy during the “closing” of major world economies? Accessibility is dependent on opportunities, and how will the massive shutdown of national economies alter the urban landscape? Will the economic pain be broadly felt, or will poorer already distressed neighborhoods suffer disproportionately? There are many questions for which there are no immediate answers, and only hope that science and new research can solve some of these difficult problems. Cities are where these complicated and challenging issues will play out.

References Adler, G., & Rottunda, S. (2006). Older adults’ perspectives on driving cessation. Journal of Aging Studies, 20(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2005.09.003. Bhatta, B., Saraswati, S., & Bandyopadhyay, D. (2010). Urban sprawl measurement from remote sensing data. Applied Geography, 30(4), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010. 02.002. Boarnet, M., & Crane, R. (2001). The influence of land use on travel behavior: Specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35(9), 823–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(00)00019-7. Boschmann, E. E., & Brady, S. A. (2013). Travel behaviors, sustainable mobility, and transitoriented developments: A travel counts analysis of older adults in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. Journal of Transport Geography, 33(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2013.09.001.

Cities, their form, and accessibility Chapter

2

23

Bourne, L. S. (1976). Urban structure and land use decisions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66(4), 531–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1976.tb01108.x. Brueckner, J. K. (2000). Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001700761012710. Cass, N., & Faulconbridge, J. (2016). Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from theories of social practice. Transport Policy, 45, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015. 08.002. Coutts, C., Horner, M., & Chapin, T. (2010). Using geographical information system to model the effects of green space accessibility on mortality in Florida. Geocarto International, 25(6), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2010.505302. Crute, J., Riggs, W., Chapin, T., & Stevens, L. (2018). Planning for autonomous mobility. PAS Report 592. American Planning Association. Curl, A., Nelson, J. D., & Anable, J. (2015). Same question, different answer: A comparison of GISbased journey time accessibility with self-reported measures from the English National Travel Survey. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 86–97. Dluhy, M., Revell, K., & Wong, S. (2002). Creating a positive future for a minority community: Transportation and urban renewal politics in Miami. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00115. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003. Farrington, J., & Farrington, C. (2005). Rural accessibility, social inclusion and social justice: Towards conceptualisation. Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.10.002. Garrett, M., & Taylor, B. (1999). Reconsidering social equity in public transit. Berkeley Planning Journal, 13(1), 21. Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transportation scenarios, and related social and economic impact. RIVM rapport 408505006 RIVM. Ghorbanzadeh, M., Kim, K., Ozguven, E. E., & Horner, M. W. (2020). A comparative analysis of transportation-based accessibility to mental health services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 81, 102278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102278. Guidon, S., Wicki, M., Bernauer, T., & Axhausen, K. (2019). The social aspect of residential location choice: On the trade-off between proximity to social contacts and commuting. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 333–340. Guo, Z., Agrawal, A. W., & Dill, J. (2011). Are land use planning and congestion pricing mutually supportive? Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), 232–250. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01944363.2011.592129. Hagerstrand, T. (1975). Space-time and human conditions. In A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, & F. Snickars (Eds.), Dynamic allocation of urban space (pp. 3–12). Saxon House. Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. (2005). Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 10(6), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.05.002. Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307. Hawthorne, T. L., & Kwan, M.-P. (2013). Exploring the unequal landscapes of healthcare accessibility in lower-income urban neighborhoods through qualitative inquiry. Geoforum, 50, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.08.002.

24 Urban form and accessibility Horner, M. W. (2004). Spatial dimensions of urban commuting: A review of major issues and their implications for future geographic research. The Professional Geographer, 56(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.2004.05602002.x. Horner, M. W., & Downs, J. A. (2014). Integrating people and place: A density-based measure for assessing accessibility to opportunities. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(2), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v7i2.417. Horner, M. W., Duncan, M. D., Wood, B. S., Valdez-Torres, Y., & Stansbury, C. (2015). Do aging populations have differential accessibility to activities? Analyzing the spatial structure of social, professional, and business opportunities. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2(3), 182–191. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2015.03.002. Horner, M. W., & Wood, B. S. (2014). Capturing individuals’ food environments using flexible space-time accessibility measures. Applied Geography, 51(0), 99–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.03.007. Houston, D., Boarnet, M. G., Ferguson, G., & Spears, S. (2015). Can compact rail transit corridors transform the automobile city? Planning for more sustainable travel in Los Angeles. Urban Studies, 52(5), 938–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014529344. Innocenti, A., Lattarulo, P., & Pazienza, M. G. (2013). Car stickiness: Heuristics and biases in travel choice. Transport Policy, 25, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.11.004. Jaeger, J. A. G., Bertiller, R., Schwick, C., Cavens, D., & Kienast, F. (2010). Urban permeation of landscapes and sprawl per capita: New measures of urban sprawl. Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.010. Johnston, R. A., Schwartz, S. I., & Tracy, S. (1984). Growth phasing and resistance to infill development in Sacramento County. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368408976775. Khattak, A. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.009. Kim, J., & Larsen, K. (2017). Can new urbanism infill development contribute to social sustainability? The case of Orlando, Florida. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3843–3862. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098016670557. Lu, X., & Pas, E. I. (1999). Socio-demographics, activity participation and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09658564(98)00020-2. Miller, H. J. (2005). Place-based versus people-based accessibility. In M. L. David, & J. K. Kevin (Eds.), Access to destinations (pp. 63–89). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/9780080460550-004. Mouratidis, K., Ettema, D., & Næss, P. (2019). Urban form, travel behavior, and travel satisfaction. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 129, 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tra.2019.09.002. Neutens, T., Delafontaine, M., Schwanen, T., & Van de Weghe, N. (2012). The relationship between opening hours and accessibility of public service delivery. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.004. Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., & Witlox, F. (2011). The prism of everyday life: Towards a new research agenda for time geography. Transport Reviews, 31(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01441647.2010.484153. O’Kelly, M. E., & Horner, M. W. (2003). Aggregate accessibility to population at the county level: U.S. 1940–2000. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s101090300101.

Cities, their form, and accessibility Chapter

2

25

Puustinen, T., Pennanen, K., Falkenbach, H., & Viitanen, K. (2018). The distribution of perceived advantages and disadvantages of infill development among owners of a commonhold and its’ implications. Land Use Policy, 75, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.051. Rabianski, J., Gibler, K., Tidwell, O. A., & Clements, J. S., III. (2009). Mixed-use development: A call for research. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 17(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.5555/ reli.17.2.0450tr86hk446127. Rahimi-Golkhandan, A., Garvin, M. J., & Brown, B. L. (2019). Characterizing and measuring transportation infrastructure diversity through linkages with ecological stability theory. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 128, 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tra.2019.07.013. Rosenbloom, S. (2009). Meeting transportation needs in an aging-friendly community. Generations, 33(2), 33–43. http://generations.metapress.com/content/R626136001668863. Scheiner, J., & Holz-Rau, C. (2017). Women’s complex daily lives: A gendered look at trip chaining and activity pattern entropy in Germany. Transportation, 44(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11116-015-9627-9. Schleith, D., & Horner, M. W. (2014). Commuting, job clusters, and travel burdens: Analysis of spatially and socioeconomically disaggregated longitudinal employer–household dynamics data. Transportation Research Record, 2452(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.3141/2452-03. Schleith, D., Widener, M., & Kim, C. (2016). An examination of the jobs-housing balance of different categories of workers across 26 metropolitan regions. Journal of Transport Geography, 57, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.10.008. Scott, D., & Horner, M. (2008). Examining the role of urban form in shaping people’s accessibility to opportunities: An exploratory spatial data analysis [accessibility, urban structure, activities, exclusion]. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1(2), 89–119. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu. v1i2.25. Song, Y., & Knaap, G.-J. (2004). Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01944360408976371. Taaffe, E. J., Gauthier, H. L., & O’Kelly, M. E. (1996). Geography of transportation. Simon & Schuster. Tirachini, A., & Hensher, D. A. (2012). Multimodal transport pricing: First best, second best and extensions to non-motorized transport. Transport Reviews, 32(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01441647.2011.635318. Velaga, N. R., Beecroft, M., Nelson, J. D., Corsar, D., & Edwards, P. (2012). Transport poverty meets the digital divide: Accessibility and connectivity in rural communities. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.005. Wallner, G., Kriglstein, S., Chung, E., & Kashfi, S. A. (2018). Visualisation of trip chaining behaviour and mode choice using household travel survey data. Public Transport, 10(3), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-018-0183-5. Wang, H., Kwan, M.-P., & Hu, M. (2020). Social exclusion and accessibility among low- and nonlow-income groups: A case study of Nanjing, China. Cities, 101, 102684. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102684. Westerink, J., Haase, D., Bauer, A., Ravetz, J., Jarrige, F., & Aalbers, C. B. (2013). Dealing with sustainability trade-offs of the compact city in peri-urban planning across European city regions. European Planning Studies, 21(4), 473–497. Widener, M. J., Farber, S., Neutens, T., & Horner, M. (2015). Spatiotemporal accessibility to supermarkets using public transit: An interaction potential approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of Transport Geography, 42, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.11.004.

26 Urban form and accessibility Wood, B. S., Horner, M. W., Duncan, M., & Valdez-Torres, Y. (2016). Aging populations and transit-oriented development: Socioeconomic, demographic, and neighborhood trends from 2000 and 2010. Transportation Research Record, 2598(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.3141/ 2598-09. Zhang, W., Guhathakurta, S., Fang, J., & Zhang, G. (2015). Exploring the impact of shared autonomous vehicles on urban parking demand: An agent-based simulation approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 19, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.07.006. Zhou, J., & Murphy, E. (2019). Day-to-day variation in excess commuting: An exploratory study of Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2018.11.014.

Chapter 3

Sustainable transport planning and residential segregation at the city scale Duncan A. Smitha and Joana Barrosb a

Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, United Kingdom, bDepartment of Geography, Birkbeck, London, United Kingdom

3.1

Introduction

Planning at the city level seeks to enable a prosperous, equitable, and sustainable city for residents through guiding the location of urban services and the development of housing, transport, and other urban infrastructure. Accessibility analysis provides a vital perspective for measuring the ease by which residents can reach urban services and facilities by different travel modes, and so is a means of quantifying how effectively the spatial structure of cities meets residents’ typical needs in terms of transport costs (Geurs & Van Wee, 2004; Handy & Niemeier, 1997). A range of different trip types can be considered in accessibility analysis, from school trips, to grocery shopping, to journey-to-work. Similarly, accessibility by different modes is an important perspective as the advantages of different modes (and likely travel behavior) can be analyzed. Planning has for several decades been focused on shifting travel away from environmentally damaging car dependence, toward more sustainable and healthy public transport and active travel modes, and accessibility analysis can support these goals. This chapter focusses on journey-to-work accessibility in the particular case study of Greater London. In recent decades, London has pursued a development strategy based on densification and public transport development on a largely monocentric model. This compact city planning approach has been at the core of sustainable urban planning in many global cities for decades, and it is therefore important to understand its successes and limitations. This chapter is less directly relevant to cities with more polycentric and low density urban forms, where compact city ideas are more difficult to apply. Nevertheless, the trends identified, particularly in relation to transit accessibility and gentrification, are Urban Form and Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00010-9 Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

27

28

Urban form and accessibility

relevant to many diverse cities experiencing housing affordability challenges in relation to developing new public transport infrastructure.

3.2 Compact cities, gentrification, and residential segregation Compact city and transit-oriented development (TOD) policies of promoting public transport and active travel through integrating urban development around public transport stops, became mainstream planning policy in Europe and North America in the 1990s and early 2000s (Burton, Jenks, & Williams, 2003; Cervero, 1998; Urban Task Force, 2003), and remain core concepts in sustainable urban transport planning at the city level. The degree to which these policies have been adopted varies considerably both internationally (Burgess, 2002) and within counties. More transit-oriented cities, which typically experienced growth around rail and street-car/tram networks in the early 20th century, inherited a high-density public transport core, and therefore compact city policies are largely complementary to their existing urban structures. Indeed, some European cities invested and improved their public transport and active travel networks throughout the mid-20th century and have a long history of TOD. However, TOD is far from universal, and arguably most urban development in recent decades remains much closer to the car-oriented lower density forms of modernist planners. Development in the world’s most rapidly expanding regions, such as China and Latin America, incorporates a variety of forms, with car-dependent urban districts developed in parallel with impressive large investments in metro networks and bus rapid transit systems (Fjellstrom, 2010; Mejı´a-Dugand, Hjelm, Baas, & Rı´os, 2013). Although it is possible to adapt a car-oriented city to more public transport-oriented forms, see for example, recent development in Los Angeles (Nahlik & Chester, 2014), it is highly challenging in terms of the extensive fixed capital sunk into in automobile infrastructure and in overcoming established cultures of car dependence (Newman & Kenworthy, 2015). Compact city planning is generally most successful where densification works in tandem with economic and demographic trends. The substantial growth of knowledge economy industries in many cities, from finance and business services to technology and creative industries, has boosted economic agglomeration incentives for high-density inner-city development, and has transformed inner-city fortunes, particularly for those cities that have established senior positions in global business networks (Hall, 1999; Taylor, Derudder, Faulconbridge, Hoyler, & Ni, 2014). The growth of service industries has been matched demographically with the growth of knowledge economy residents, many of whom have embraced inner-city life, alongside public transport and active travel patterns. This pattern of substantial inner-city growth matches recent trends in large European cities, such as Paris, Berlin, and London; and some (but not all) major North American cities, such as New York, Toronto, San Francisco, and Chicago.

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

29

These global cities have pursued compact city policies to varying degrees in recent decades. The success of these policies can be assessed quantitatively in terms of metrics such as employment and population growth in public transport accessible locations, and the proportion of trips taken by public transport services and active travel modes. By these measures compact city policies have had notable successes, particularly in larger global cities. Taking the example of London, the case study used in this chapter, Inner London gained 1.4 million residents between 1991 and 2020. The total number of trips on London’s metro and bus networks nearly doubled during the same period, whereas the number of car trips fell marginally in absolute terms (Transport for London, 2016). This represents a substantial transformation of London toward a public transport and active travel led city (as it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries), and a largely successful series of results for the compact city policies implemented. This assessment is however selective, as it overlooks what has in many cases become the most pressing urban planning challenge for public transportoriented cities, the challenge of housing inequalities. The processes that have revived inner-cities, with jobs and affluent residents moving to public transport accessible inner-city locations, has seen widespread inner-city gentrification, rapid real estate price inflation and severe problems of housing affordability (Ehrenhalt, 2012; Florida, 2017). Additionally, recent decades have also seen a continuing period of neoliberal policies in housing and local government, with continuing flows of international capital investment in real estate. The net result of these trends is that accessible inner-city locations are increasingly too expensive for households on moderate and low incomes in many cities. This risks creating a segregated compact city where public transport and sustainable travel options are limited to wealthy populations. Inner cities have traditionally housed working class neighborhoods close to employment opportunities. This is particularly the case for industrial cities and port cities that fit traditional monocentric urban models, where lower income groups are concentrated in smaller inner-city housing closer to CBDs, whereas more affluent groups favor larger suburban housing (Alonso, 1964; Anas, Arnott, & Small, 1998). London shares this traditional structure. If it is the case that increasingly affluent and elite urban cores characterize compact cities, then this presents significant planning challenges requiring greater understanding of the equity dimensions of compact city policies. Different sustainable planning solutions may be required to avoid further trends toward segregated compact cities.

3.3

Densification and sustainable travel in London

In this section, the changing structure of London toward a more compact city in recent decades is reviewed, in terms of population change, overall travel mode distribution and the geography of accessibility by different travel modes.

30

Urban form and accessibility

After several decades of decline associated with deindustrialization from the 1940s onwards, London’s population began to pick up again in the 1990s. Population loss was overwhelmingly in Inner London, as shown in Fig. 3.1. Business service growth from the 1980s onwards began to reverse this trend of inner-city decline, and London gained two million residents between 1990 and 2015, with substantial growth in both Inner and Outer London. The boundaries of Inner and Outer London are shown in Fig. 3.3. The revival of London as a more sustainable public transport city has required a major overhaul of public transport networks, with widespread investment in rail, metro, and bus services. This revival began in piecemeal fashion in the 1990s with investments such as the Jubilee Line Extension ( Jones, 2015), and then much more comprehensively from 2000 onwards after the creation of an elected London Mayor and devolution of planning and transport powers (Rode, 2019). The overall impact on travel behavior is summarized in Fig. 3.2, with the number of public transport journey stages nearly doubling between 1996 and 2018 (although peaking in 2015); and private car journey stages marginally declining in absolute terms. The massive increase in public transport trips has created peak-time overcrowding problems, despite significant capacity increases. The increase in walking and cycling trips has been much more modest during this period. Although London is largely monocentric in terms of employment agglomerations, there is an extensive network of local high streets for shopping and services reachable on foot and by bike across the city. Improving active travel infrastructure has been a focus of more recent London planning policy, including developing a network of segregated cycle lanes and improving the pedestrian environment. Accessibility measures provide a geographical perspective on travel opportunities by different modes (Geurs & Van Wee, 2004), and accessibility 10 London total

1939 - 8.6m

9

Population (millions)

8 7 6

Outer London

5 4

Inner London

3 2 1 0 1801

1821

1841

1861

1881

1901

1921

1939

1961

1981

2001

2021

FIG. 3.1 Inner and Outer London Historic population change. (Data from Greater London Authority (2014). Population by borough 1939 to 2039. https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/populationchange-1939-2015)

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

31

FIG. 3.2 Aggregate journey stages in Greater London by mode 1996–2018. (Data from Transport for London. (2019). Travel in London report 12. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-londonreport-12.pdf.)

analysis can be used to understand current travel patterns in London (see also Chapter 14). The number of potential jobs that can be reached in 60 min’ travel time by multimodal public transport is shown in Fig. 3.3. This has been calculated using comprehensive public transport timetable data and network analysis, based on weekday rail, metro, and bus services and ability to interchange between these on foot (Smith et al., 2020). Trips to and from the wider region beyond the GLA boundary are also included in the model. The strength of jobs accessibility across Inner London is clearly highlighted, with millions of jobs reachable within the typical commute time of 60 min. This high level of accessibility declines substantially in Outer London to approximately half a million total jobs. There are some exceptions in Outer London town centers, such as Croydon in South London, which are discussed later. This accessibility pattern is closely linked to the radial geography of rail and metro services that define London’s public transport network. Accessibility can also be summarized statistically as shown in Fig. 3.4. This displays the same jobs accessibility measure for several different travel modes (car, multimodal public transport, bus only, and walking) as a distribution for Inner London and Outer London residents. Public transport is highly competitive with car travel in Inner London (note this measure is based on travel time and does not include money costs such as parking charges and the congestion charge; therefore, Inner London car accessibility is overestimated), whereas in Outer London this advantage switches to private travel in many locations. Therefore

32

Urban form and accessibility

FIG. 3.3 Total jobs accessible in 60 min public transport (all modes) commute 2011.

FIG. 3.4 Inner and Outer London residents’ distribution of total jobs accessible in 60 min commute by main modes.

inner-city residents have many more options to reach job opportunities by sustainable public transport modes compared with residents in Outer London. Inner-city residents also have much better jobs accessibility for shorter distance bus and walking trips: typically, three or four times better accessibility by these modes.

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

33

3.4 London’s housing affordability crisis and residential segregation London’s substantial economic and population growth in the past two decades has occurred in tandem with large house prices increases. Average house prices in London in the past 20 years have more than tripled, as shown in Fig. 3.5, with an even higher quadrupling of average prices in Inner London. Several recent studies confirm that the largest house price rises have been in Inner London (Hamnett & Reades, 2019; Travers, Sims, & Bosetti, 2016), translating into wealth benefits for owner occupiers and increased costs for renters. Inner East London has seen the highest increases, connected to public transport improvements and rapid gentrification. These increases have resulted in severe housing affordability problems across London, both for renters and for buyers, particularly first-time buyer households looking to get their first mortgage. Housing affordability for first time buyers is shown in Fig. 3.6 where average house prices are now nine times the ratio of average earnings in London as a whole, whereas the situation in Inner London is even worse than the overall London average. This severe situation of housing unaffordability has inevitably translated into the spatial segregation of households by income in the most expensive areas, particularly as gentrification of Inner London has been on-going for many decades (Davidson & Lees, 2005; Hamnett, 2003). The residential pattern of

FIG. 3.5 Average house price growth by London Boroughs, 2000–19.

34

Urban form and accessibility

FIG. 3.6 Average house price to earnings ratio for first time buyers in London and the United Kingdom. (Data from Nationwide House Price Index.)

income groups can be summarized by mapping the three most affluent occupational classes in London (Managers, Professionals, and Associate Professionals), as shown in Fig. 3.7 for 2011. Although the United Kingdom census does not directly record income, using the census Standard Occupational Class data is the closest substitute available (Smith et al., 2020). The dominance of higher income professional classes in Inner London is clear, and their concentration in two radial corridors running north west and south west from the city center. Concentrations of households on moderate and low incomes are restricted to small areas of Inner London (mostly in Inner East London) as well as several larger areas of Outer London, particularly Outer East London along the Thames, and Outer West London around Heathrow Airport. Furthermore, this situation is continuing to evolve, and data analysis from more recent population surveys points to continuing increases in the proportion of affluent classes in Inner London in the years since the 2011 census. The Inner London working population belonging to the three most affluent professional classes increased from 55% in 2006 to 61% in 2016 (Smith et al., 2020), and there is little to suggest this trend will have slowed in more recent years. Accessibility measures can be used to summarize how London’s divided residential geography impacts the ease of reaching opportunities by public transport. The same jobs accessibility measure presented in Fig. 3.3 can be disaggregated according to the residential geography of different occupational classes in London. Results for Greater London are presented in Figs. 3.8 and 3.9. Note these cumulative accessibility measures are sensitive to the time threshold used. For an analysis of multiple thresholds see Smith et al. (2020).

FIG. 3.7 Professional classes (Manag., Prof., and Assoc. Prof.) residential percentage 2011. (Data from Census 2011. Office for National Statistics. (2016). 2011 census aggregate data. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011.)

FIG. 3.8 GLA 60 min cumulative accessibility to employment by occupational class: absolute results.

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

37

FIG. 3.9 GLA 60 min cumulative accessibility to employment by occupational class: percentage differences in SOC mode means from overall mode means.

The first clear result from Fig. 3.8 is that variation within the occupational classes is high, as there remains a presence of all the occupational classes in all Inner and Outer London boroughs in 2011, despite the segregation occurring in Inner London highlighted above. The high intragroup variation is combined with considerable differences in mean and median accessibilities between groups. Differences between groups can be shown more clearly by plotting percentage differences in the mean occupational class accessibilities as shown in Fig. 3.9. The mean values in Fig. 3.9 are normalized against averages for the entire working population, and the normalization is mode-specific. Hence the absolute mode differences seen in Fig. 3.8 are normalized in Fig. 3.9. There is a clear pattern with accessibility advantages for the inner city focused Management, Professional and Associate Professional groups, and below average accessibility for all other occupational classes. Percentage differences between means are lowest for car accessibility, and highest for the more local bus and walk modes. The consistently higher bus and walking accessibility for professional classes is a concerning result from an equity perspective, as these are the most affordable sustainable travel choices. Lower income groups are the most frequent bus and walking commuters in Greater London: in 2011 lower income groups were twice as likely to walk and three times as likely to take the bus to work than professional classes, with the bus being the most popular public transport option (Smith et al., 2020). The prospect of lower income groups being pushed out of the inner city presents a particular accessibility challenge for these groups, as accessibility to jobs and services by

38

Urban form and accessibility

slower more affordable modes such as bus and walking falls dramatically outside of inner-city locations.

3.4.1 Housing tenure and occupational class Housing affordability challenges in London are impacting both the private rental and owner-occupied sectors in London. Lower income groups are increasingly restricted to social housing in the more expensive areas of London. This means that housing tenure is an important aspect of changing residential patterns. Inequalities in owner occupation and private renting can to a degree be offset by the social renting sector, which provides discounted rents and secure tenancies to low income households. Social housing has, however, been in decline for decades in London in the face of privatization policies from national and local government (Watt, 2009). Household tenure data for occupational classes in Inner London is shown in Table 3.1. Ownership rates for professional classes are at 46%–55%, whereas this falls to 21%–28% for lower income classes. Social renting comprises 38%–46% of households for the four lowest income classes. These data highlight just how significant this sector remains in Inner London for lower income

TABLE 3.1 Household housing tenure by occupational class, metro region, and Inner GLA 2011. Inner London Owner occupied

Private renting

Social renting

Manag.

54.5

35.9

9.6

Prof.

51.7

37.3

11.0

Assoc. Prof.

45.9

41.9

12.3

Admin.

42.2

30.7

27.1

Skilled

37.3

33.5

29.1

OtherServ

27.5

27.0

45.5

Sales

24.8

37.4

37.8

Process

35.0

23.3

41.8

Element

20.7

36.6

42.7

All

42.7

35.6

21.7

Data from Census 2011. Office for National Statistics. (2016). 2011 census aggregate data. https:// www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011.

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

39

classes. It is the most prevalent inner-city tenure for these groups despite declining supply in recent decades.

3.5 Planning policy interventions for a more equitable compact city The previous sections have described a pattern in London of a gentrifying inner city, rapid house price increases concentrated in the inner city, subsequent residential segregation by income, and inequalities in accessibility to jobs as a result of this on-going residential segregation. This emerging structure is underpinned by several powerful socioeconomic trends, including business service agglomeration in Inner London, and the attraction of affluent groups to inner-city living. It is also linked to the radial nature of public transport networks in London, a structure which has effectively existed for over a century, and been further reinforced by recent public transport developments. These are not socioeconomic trends that planners can easily alter, and infrastructure geographies are of course huge fixed capital investments. Nevertheless, there are a series of measures city planners can use to try and minimize the challenge of increasingly unequal compact cities, several of which are already being implemented in London. These measures relate to public transport affordability; affordable housing delivery; and upgrading orbital public transport services.

3.5.1

Public transport affordability measures

Given that lower income groups are increasingly resident in Outer London, the affordability of longer distance public transport options becomes increasingly important for these residents. Traditionally, bus trips have been the more affordable slower public transport option in London, and the bus remains the most popular public transport choice for lower income groups. Yet, while the bus can provide high levels of accessibility in high density Inner London, it is far less competitive in Outer London where trip distances are longer, densities are lower, and services are fewer. Earlier accessibility analysis (Fig. 3.4) indicated accessibility to jobs is typically four times higher for Inner London residents compared with Outer London. Underground (metro) and regional rail affordability are increasingly important where less affluent populations are located in Outer London and the wider region. Recent policies from the current Mayor of London have been encouraging is this regard. Underground fares have been capped for the past 4 years (Khan, 2016), and there is a commitment to continue this cap for the next mayoral term. A new “hopper fare” allowing bus interchanges on a single ticket was introduced in 2018 to facilitate longer distance bus trips without fare increases. Transport for London is also trying to further integrate public transport services by lobbying central government for control of more of Greater London’s commuter rail network. Privatization of these rail services in the 1990s has led over

40

Urban form and accessibility

time to substantial price increases, and bringing these back under a single operator would allow more standardized fares and consideration of equity impacts. These public transport affordability measures are all appropriate policies from an equity perspective. There are questions over whether the fare cap can be maintained given extensive budgetary problems for Transport for London. Expanding discounted public transport passes for low income groups may be necessary for targeting public transport discounts without undermining the feasibility of overall public transport funding for the city.

3.5.2 Affordable housing delivery The earlier housing tenure analysis pointed to the important role of social housing in maintaining a mix of income groups in Inner London where house prices have near quadrupled in the past 20 years. Owner occupation in Inner London is now completely unaffordable for majority of the population, and increasingly this is also the case for some parts of Outer London. The logical planning response is therefore to expand the delivery of social housing and other affordable housing tenures, particularly in locations near public transport stations in line with compact city policy aims. This has, however, not been achieved in London in the recent years following the financial crisis beginning in 2008. Social housing delivery in London collapsed from 2012 onwards to less than half the levels of delivery in the early 2000s (Mayor of London, 2019). The reasons for this fall are as much political as economic, with austerity budget cuts limiting the ability of local authorities to be proactive in housing markets, and both central government and the former conservative Mayor of London against social housing expansion in principle. The net result has been for new development to focus on private owner occupation and renting, and for affordable housing delivery to be reduced and watered down. The most recent London Plan is ambitious in aiming for total net completions of housing units in London to rise to 65,000, including 25,000 affordable units (Mayor of London, 2019). This requires a substantial change in the development patterns that occurred between 2012 and 2018. Furthermore the number of major brownfield sites in Inner London is now far lower following decades of inner-city development; so much of the new development will need to focus on Outer London centers, as discussed in the next section.

3.5.3 Orbital public transport development London’s radial public transport networks have effectively locked-in inner-city advantages. Although this structure is largely inherited from previous development eras, new rail infrastructure and services has reinforced this radial pattern, including current major investment such as Crossrail, Thames Link and the various Underground and Docklands Light Rail upgrades implemented (see also Chapter 18). Although many of these developments have had positive equity

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

41

impacts, such as significant improvements in East London public transport accessibility with Underground and DLR upgrades, and forthcoming Crossrail, they have done so through an overall model of radial connections. Orbital public transport networks offer a different approach aimed at upgrading accessibility in subcenters beyond the inner city. London has undergone some orbital public transport investment, most substantially with the Overground services, and at a more limited scale with the South London tram. The Overground integrates a mix of legacy rail services, offering orbital services at the fringe of Inner London (Sims, Roberts, & Wilson, 2016). It also includes more limited services to larger Outer London centers such as Croydon in South London, Wembley, in North-West London, and Tottenham in North London. It can be seen earlier in Fig. 3.3 that public transport accessibility varies considerably in Outer London, and that centers with rail and Overground services, such as Croydon and Wembley, score relatively well in accessibility terms. These major development sites are priority locations for affordable housing development in recent London plans. This prioritization of major Outer London centers is a feasible approach for developing affordable housing with good public transport accessibility. There is also considerably more brownfield land available for development in these locations, though providing extra public transport capacity can be challenging. Increasing densities and improved accessibility in major Outer London centers should also increase the potential for the revival of these locations as employment clusters. Aside from Heathrow, Outer London has generally weakened as a location for business services because of losses of back office and light industrial activities, and there is now the opportunity for increasing their competitiveness in terms of connectivity and improved public realm. Paris makes an interesting comparison for London in terms of its strategic planning approach to regional centers and orbital public transport services. Paris has a long history of housing lower income populations outside of the inner city, and subsequently has experienced long-term challenges of social and racial segregation. Planners have chosen to invest in major regional rail upgrades in recent decades, including a radical improvement of orbital regional metro services, as a solution to addressing regional accessibility inequalities (Desjardins & Drevelle, 2014).

3.6

Conclusions

Compact city and transit-oriented development policies have been implemented in many cities for the past two decades. These policies have had notable successes in reviving inner cities, boosting numbers of jobs and residents living in public transport accessible districts, and achieving modal shifts to more sustainable public transport and active travel modes. These policies have been particularly successful in larger global cities experiencing business service growth

42

Urban form and accessibility

which has incentivized higher density agglomerations in inner cities. This agglomeration trend has generally occurred alongside inner-city gentrification, with affluent workers in these growing knowledge economy industries favoring more public transport accessible residential locations and increasing house prices. This presents a significant planning challenge for cities where the success of compact city development is creating an increasingly affluent inner city and/or subcenters that price out moderate and lower income residents to more peripheral residential locations with restricted public transport options. This chapter has analyzed residential patterns of occupational classes in Greater London, highlighting the huge prices rises and increasingly affluent nature of Inner London. Lower income groups have declined proportionally in Inner London and are now more likely to live in Outer London. Accessibility analysis has shown that the historic radial structure of London’s public transport networks is still dominant, resulting in considerable public transport advantages for residents in the inner city, with accessibility much lower in Outer London. This accessibility differential is particularly the case for more affordable sustainable travel options, including bus travel and active travel options, presenting a significant equity challenge going forward. Policy measures to mitigate an increasingly unequal compact city include ensuring public transport fares affordability; delivering affordable housing in accessible locations and prioritizing public transport for more peripheral lower income centers. These strategies are relevant for many cities that are experiencing similar inner city or subcenter housing affordability challenges to London. London has had some successes in minimizing public transport fares increases and implementing limited orbital public transport improvements. The recent record on affordable housing delivery is however poor, particularly in terms of the most secure social housing tenure. The most recent London Plan has set ambitious new targets for affordable housing delivery, including at major Outer London town centers. A substantial improvement in the record on delivering affordable housing is required to avoid a continuing pattern of segregating public transport and active travel opportunities by income in Greater London. Future research needs to analyze and understand these on-going changes in the socioeconomic geography of cities, and how housing affordability and residential segregation are linked to accessibility inequalities at the city region level. Accessibility is both a contributing factor in the spatial advantages that underlie gentrification processes, and a means of measuring important outcomes of residential segregation processes. For the purposes of using accessibility measures in equity studies, it is vital to disaggregate accessibility analyses by income or other socioeconomic variables. Recent studies are making progress in disaggregate analysis (Geurs, Dentinho, & Patuelli, 2016; Pereira, 2018). There is also significant scope for more comparative studies to better understand the extent to which accessibility inequality challenges are shared between cities. In particular, it would be useful to study cities implementing more ambitious solutions in terms of new affordable housing delivery and orbital transport and assess their impacts.

Sustainable transport planning Chapter

3

43

References Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use. Harvard University Press. Anas, A., Arnott, R., & Small, K. A. (1998). Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1426–1464. Burgess, R. (2002). The compact city debate: A global perspective. In Compact cities (pp. 21–36). Routledge. Burton, E., Jenks, M., & Williams, K. (2003). The compact city: A sustainable urban form?. Routledge. Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis: A global inquiry. Island press. Davidson, M., & Lees, L. (2005). New-build ‘gentrification’ and London’s riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 37(7), 1165–1190. https://doi.org/ 10.1068/a3739. Desjardins, X., & Drevelle, M. (2014). Trends in the social disparities in access to jobs by train in the Paris region since 1975. Town Planning Review, 85(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.3828/ tpr.2014.10. Ehrenhalt, A. (2012). The great inversion and the future of the American city. Vintage. Fjellstrom, K. (2010). Bus rapid transit in China. Built Environment, 36(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/ 10.2148/benv.36.3.363. Florida, R. (2017). The new urban crisis: Gentrification, housing bubbles, growing inequality, and what we can do about it. Oneworld Publications. Geurs, K. T., Dentinho, T., & Patuelli, R. (2016). Accessibility, equity and efficiency. Part 1: Introduction. In Accessibility, equity and efficiency. Challenges for transport and public services Edward Elgar. Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140. Hall, P. (1999). The future of cities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 23(3), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(99)00014-9. Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of Inner London, 1961-2001. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2401–2426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000136138. Hamnett, C., & Reades, J. (2019). Mind the gap: Implications of overseas investment for regional house price divergence in Britain. Housing Studies, 34(3), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02673037.2018.1444151. Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175–1194. Jones, P. (2015). Assessing the wider impacts of the Jubilee Line Extension in East London. In Handbook on transport and development Edward Elgar Publishing. Khan, S. (2016). Sadiq Khan for London: A manifesto for all Londoners. London: The Labour Party. Mayor of London. (2019). Housing in London. Greater London Authority. https://data.london.gov. uk/dataset/housing-london. Mejı´a-Dugand, S., Hjelm, O., Baas, L., & Rı´os, R. A. (2013). Lessons from the spread of bus rapid transit in Latin America. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2012.11.028. Nahlik, M. J., & Chester, M. V. (2014). Transit-oriented smart growth can reduce life-cycle environmental impacts and household costs in Los Angeles. Transport Policy, 35, 21–30. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.004. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2015). The end of automobile dependence. Springer. Pereira, R. H. M. (2018). Transport legacy of mega-events and the redistribution of accessibility to urban destinations. Cities. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.013.

44

Urban form and accessibility

Rode, P. (2019). Urban planning and transport policy integration: The role of governance hierarchies and networks in London and Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07352166.2016.1271663. Sims, S., Roberts, J., & Wilson, B. (2016). Turning South London Orange: Reforming suburban rail to support London’s next wave of growth. Centre for London. https://www.centreforlondon.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Turning_South_London_Orange.pdf. Smith, D. A., Shen, Y., Barros, J., Zhong, C., Batty, M., & Giannotti, M. (2020). A compact city for the wealthy? Employment accessibility inequalities between occupational classes in the London metropolitan region 2011. Journal of Transport Geography, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2020.102767. Taylor, P. J., Derudder, B., Faulconbridge, J., Hoyler, M., & Ni, P. (2014). Advanced producer service firms as strategic networks, global cities as strategic places. Economic Geography, 90(3), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12040. Transport for London. (2016). Travel in London Report 9. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-londonreport-9.pdf. Travers, T., Sims, S., & Bosetti, N. (2016). Housing and inequality in London. Centre for London. Urban Task Force. (2003). Towards an urban renaissance. Routledge. Watt, P. (2009). Housing stock transfers, regeneration and state-led gentrification in London. Urban Policy and Research, 27(3), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140903154147.

Chapter 4

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Wijnand Veeneman Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

4.1

Introduction

In the literature on urban form, many geographers explain the form based on arguments that led a particular urban shape to manifest itself in a certain time period. The way London stretches over the landscape was largely dependent on the sprawl of the city with growing wealth allowing for larger houses and new housing development being possible because of the expansion of rail services in the late 19th and early 20th century. So the parallel development of economy and mobility led to a certain urban form. For a city like Houston or Dallas, the same is true but in a different way. The city grew at a later stage in time, the second half of the 20th century, which led to a more car-oriented sprawl. A city like Copenhagen was developed along the lines of the existing railway tracks and as such developed like a finger city. A city like Beijing is developing its metro throughout the metropolitan area, hence allowing for the massive scale of the city in its current form. It is understood how specific elements of the urban are the outcome of a specific policy. For example, the dense urban centers of many European cities are the direct consequence of the investment in walls defending the city from the outside world. And Hausmann gave Paris its boulevards to provide the French army with easy access to the city. Downtown Dallas or Houston gets its checkerboard of parking lot and high rise so as to have enough parking capacity available for the city. A great deal of literature illustrates the link between an economic or mobility trend, a policy, and the outcome in terms of the urban form. All these examples explain the outcome through trend and policy and make it logical that the urban form exists the way it exists. However, there is an important aspect that is overlooked. The trend does not shape the policy, but merely evokes action, either way strengthening or countering it. The trend evokes a policy shaping the city, creating opportunities for choice, and that choice is made in a certain Urban Form and Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00008-0 Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

45

46 Urban form and accessibility

way, in a certain institutional context though a certain process. Consequently the governance of a city shapes the choice and as such the shape of the city. Briefly the role of private developers and their influence in the development of London mattered. The role of the federal government in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s mattered. The strong position of the Chinese national government matters. Thus the relationship between governance and urban form is less direct than between policy and urban form; it is an additional step in the understanding of a complex causal chain. In other words, it is easier to see how a policy shaped the urban form than how the governance shaped the policy that shaped the city. Thus the causality is less direct and how governance drives policy making is less easy to frame. However, key proposition of this chapter is that governance does matter, particularly when you want to shape the future of the city in the long term. A centralist national government builds different cities than a loose group of municipalities does. The form of Brasilia, Canberra, and Washington illustrate this point. But exactly how this relation between governance and urban form works is still not very developed and an exploration of this is the basis of this chapter. This chapter provides a definition of governance that could help further shape the field. It presents governance as rule sets and focuses on a number of key aspects in those rules: funding and agency, markets and government, centralized and decentralized decision-making, the role of knowledge in that decision-making, and coordination over all these different stakeholders. The next section defines governance for this chapter, within the broader context of governance literature. After that, the concept of agency and the role of funding in distributing agency are introduced. This is followed by a discussion of the role of markets and governments in governance and a section on centralized and decentralized governance and the role in shaping the urban form. The chapter concludes with a view on how the rule sets play a major role in coordinating between a multitude of stakeholders, in what is mostly a fragmented landscape of interests and issues.

4.2 What is governance? Governance is defined in a wide variety of ways and is also a concept that has a changing meaning over time (Bevir, 2012). In the public administration literature, governance has become the concept that illustrates how governing developed in many countries to be less hierarchical and more inclusive toward various stakeholders. The definition for the purpose of this chapter takes one step back. Governance in this chapter consists of the rule sets that structure decision-making for the coordination between varieties of stakeholders, in this case on urban form and mobility. Mobility is included because of its direct relation with urban form. Referring to the discussion in public administration mentioned earlier, over the past decades rule sets have developed in many countries to be oriented toward the inclusion of stakeholders, with growing attention

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

47

for securing the interests of vulnerable stakeholders and for more participative decision-making. Rules for decision-making are varied and dynamic, and it is helpful to define a relevant difference between rule sets considering the different timescales they have in terms of change (Koppenjan & Groenewegen, 2005; Williamson, 2000). A culture can be seen as a first level of rule sets conditioning decision-making, with a slow pace of change. When deciding about key mechanisms that form the city, the deeply felt beliefs of the population are setting the scene, often in an obfuscated way that only becomes clear in a more deliberate international comparison. When a country can be seen as a having an individualistic culture, the values and interests of those producing, owning, and operating individual private transport will be secured in the process. Other countries can be seen as having a more collective culture, and decision-making on mobility and urban development could have a bias toward more collective mobility solutions and more dense urban environments (Bohren, 2009). That variety in cultures should be taken into account when considering the other levels discussed below, those of legal institutions, arrangements and process rules, as the rule sets do not exist independently of each other. In an urban context, Neill (2003) shows that bidirectional links between place and cultural identity do exist when looking at Berlin, Detroit, and Belfast. Although here the focus is on how decision rules as set in culture drive what the city becomes, Neill makes the essential point that the city also makes the culture that functions as a tacit rule set for those developing the city. This mutual interdependency between form and rule set also holds for a second level of rule sets; the legal institutions, with a somewhat faster pace of change. Legal frameworks on decision-making about the city and mobility have a clear impact on the decisions made. Laws are the general basis making specific legal entities responsible and providing them with agency for policies on, among others, mobility and urban development. For example, is there a legal basis for a metropolitan authority, or does the city consists of many smaller municipalities without metropolitan jurisdiction? Or does the country allow cities to raise taxes or is that done on a national level? Is there a detailed structured decision-making process linking policy choices on a national level to those on an urban level or are these processes relatively unconnected? Is the law aimed at appointing clear authority in the field of urban development and mobility or is it spreading agency to stakeholders that are (possible) affected? And so on. The common factor is that the institutions are generic: they apply to all stakeholders in the jurisdiction to which those legal institutions belong. To be clear, in the context of this chapter the discussion is about rule sets (or governance) that structure decision-making, not about specific rules on urban form or mobility. So, a specific legal requirement on road design or housing regulations is not the legal institutions this chapter is concerned with. But if road extensions require a specific process for developing and funding the intervention such as consultation of the inhabitants of the area or requiring private

48 Urban form and accessibility

funding, then this is within scope. Again, governance is defined as the rule set for decision-making between actors for intervening into the spatial system (e.g., how actors should decide on infrastructure development or urban extensions), not the rule set defining a specific urban or mobility regulation (like building codes for houses or infrastructure). Or in other words, this chapter is concerned with process and decision-making. To be even more precise, the two, distribution of agency and regulation of solutions, are related. Any specific regulation focusing on mobility or urban planning is the result of a certain distribution of agency between actors. In addition, any regulated solution distributes agency between actors in a certain way, as many interventions have a link with specific actors. When a jurisdiction has a policy to improve their highway system, the consequence is that actors related to that solution will get more influence in the broader governance in that jurisdiction. And it is likely that the actors in favor of highway development had agency when that option was considered. However, primary focus here is on how the rule sets directly distribute agency over specific actors. Legal institutions bind all the stakeholders in the jurisdiction to that rule set. This is not the case for the third rule set, which consists of arrangements between specific stakeholders, again with a shorter time scale of change. A local government may have contracts with project developers. Or a metropolitan authority might have a contract with a public transport operator. These arrangements are generally bilateral rule sets, between two stakeholders. Other examples of arrangements that can have a strong effect on mobility and urban form are employee contracts, building licenses, and land leases. These arrangements have a much wider variety and only directly affect the behavior of the stakeholders bilaterally involved in the arrangement. Finally, decision-making processes themselves have rules. Who can be involved, when will a decision be made, what is actually considered, are specific analyses required for the decision-making? Those rules can be ordained in legal requirements or contractual arrangements. However, they can also just be the rules set for one particular process itself. As it is the last level, it allows to illustrate well how the levels mentioned above all condition the levels mentioned after. Culture influences what is put in law in two distinct ways. Strong cultural rules do not need to be secured in law. However, weaker cultural rule sets that are challenged often do find their place in the legal institutions. In addition a legal rule set for decision-making does not have to find its way into a contract; it is already secured. Further, what is in a contract does not have to be a separate rule for decision-making. Looking from this perspective, the historic path of decision-making rule sets drives who is making what decision about the city and about mobility. As such, the rule sets throughout history determine the values of which stakeholders are the ones most strongly secured into the city’s fabric. The urban form can be seen as the sum of the way in which these historic rule sets have given agency to

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

49

specific stakeholders and how that agency drove the development of a certain city. From the ancient city walls built on the first taxes by the first rulers of the town, to the motorways allowing cars to cross through the metropolis; all are memorials to rule sets for decision-making at a certain moment in time. Although culture is important, how that culture is translated into urban form through more specific and observable decision rule sets between key stakeholders is the focus of this chapter rather than looking at the direct effect of culture on urban form in terms of demand for specific solutions. For example, in some countries individual wealth and freedom are the key cultural elements which translate in demand for specific type of housing and individual mobility. In other countries the culture is more collective, with more focus on public transport and shared space. Cultural change is a long process with little potential for purposeful intervention and decision-process rules are mostly conditioned by the legal institutions and arrangements. So, for the remainder of this chapter the emphasis is on two middle layers mentioned earlier, legal institutions and contractual arrangements between stakeholders, since understanding how governance on those levels leads to what urban form could help us redesign governance in a way that brings a desired future closer. Lessons from these middle layers can be translated into changing the existing rule sets to make the city a better place in the long run. The remaining sections will look at some key concepts in governance: the concept of agency, agency for public and private actors, agency at centralized and decentralized public actors, and coordination between stakeholders.

4.3

Agency and its distribution

A key part of the legal framework is providing the key stakeholders in the development of the city with agency. That agency for urban development resides in the hands of governments. In cities, space is contested with many potential users competing for the limited room available, and consequently there is a need for authority on the use of space. They have a role overseeing property rights (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992), but often their role is stronger. This role allows governments to avoid the tragedy of the commons, where the overall outcome of stakeholders acting in their own interest leads to a negative outcome for all. Most legal frameworks position that responsibility for the development of the city at the government, for example, through zoning laws. Governments also generally have responsibility for infrastructure development. Because of the monopolistic character of many infrastructures, government plays a role in avoiding private monopolies on infrastructures. And with that role in creating open and public infrastructure, most governments accept also a role in regulating the use of that infrastructure for the societal benefit, in a process of formulation and securing of public values (Veeneman, Dicke, & De Bruijne, 2009).

50 Urban form and accessibility

In other words, when a government builds a road, the task of keeping it safe and sustainablea follows from that. For the urban form, key areas in which society may ask governments to secure public values are mobility and housing. With a principal role for public actors, there is generally also a major role for private actors, a factor discussed in more detail later. A key factor in the agency, next to positioning of the formal responsibility, is the funding. A specific jurisdiction may have a legal responsibility in a certain area, but a lack of funding reduces the capability of the government in that jurisdiction to intervene and secure public values. To illustrate, for the United States, the OECD (2020) estimates that approximately 57% of the tax revenues in 2017 is allocated through the federal government in Washington, DC, for a population of 328 million. In Europe, only approximately 3% of total tax revenue is spent from the supranational level of European Union government in Brussels, for a population of the same order of magnitude, approximately 513 million. Clearly the centrality of funding is putting agency at a higher governmental level in the federal United States then in the cooperative European Union. A strong level of agency for jurisdictions with a large geographical scale can have a powerful effect on the urban form. In the United States, the development of the national highway plan brought the highways to city centers. In addition, at a metropolitan level, the regulation of parking around high-rise buildings in the downtown areas made sense in the 1970s (Shoup, 2018). When looking at outcomes at the level of the geographically smaller perspective of the downtown areas itself, for example in cities like Dallas and Houston, it proves hard to see the rationale of high land value commercial buildings alternating with low land value parking lots. One could argue, looking to other US cities, that if the central business districts would have had more agencies, probably this would not have happened. In the same way, federal housing regulations in the 1950s had a strong influence on the urban sprawl and the use of the cul-de-sac in the suburban developments (Southworth & Ben-Joseph, 1995; see also Chapter 2). When looking at France, the role of agency becomes clear when considering the resurgence of trams in the French cities. France has a highly centralized government (OECD, 2020). This means the city level is dependent for a large part of its funding on transfers from that national government. The national government has to deal with many more municipalities, which made it harder to let the transfers come with policy influence (Ziv & Napol
eon, 1981). There were just too many municipalities to have an effective influence. This led the national government to choose to use the transfers to enlarge the scale of jurisdictions. Municipalities were incentivized to start cooperation with each other and, if a. These two are just examples often mentioned in the context of road infrastructure and car mobility. Economic literature talks about these secondary effects as negative externalities; objective external costs to be internalized in the price of the use of the system. Governance literature talks about public values, to be defined in the interplay between government and civilians, accepting the inevitability of subjectivity, with a far wider possible set of instruments to secure those values.

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

51

they did, the national government allowed them to levy a tax on employers in the jurisdiction to provide mobility services. The larger the cooperation, the larger the percentage of tax they could ask of the total sum. From 1975 onwards, this led to a growing number of transport authorities in urban areas. Together with an on-going decentralization, reaching its peak in 2014 through the law MAPTAM (Michel-Clupot & Rouot, 2018), these changes in governance helped the development of tramways in France, as a means of strengthening the urban centers of cities like Lyon, Bordeaux, and Toulouse. In many of these cities the urban center experienced resurgence after decades of downward economic development. So the stakeholder holding the strongest agency, through legal responsibility and the ability to fund, can be expected to have the strongest influence over the development of the city. This is somewhat of a simplification of the relation between governance and urban form and development because, as noted earlier, the historic governance and development over time sets the city in stone and conditions future development, such as the dense-walled urban centers mentioned before (Dings, 2009). And an existing culture can secure a certain set of values in all stakeholders, independent of which stakeholder has the most agencies at that time. Car culture is strong in the many cities in the United States, even though many governments are seeking ways to reduce the car dependency of those cities ( Jakle & Sculle, 2004). In addition a rule set might exist but stakeholders could choose to not comply and with limited agency to those working within the rule, its influence is limited. In the development of Rio de Janeiro, the role of the governmental actors only goes so far to explain the way that the favelas have formed that city’s fabric (dos Santos, 2007). Moreover the rule set might have a lot of checks and balances built in, with formal agency placed on one stakeholder, conditioned by the rules in the involvement of specific other stakeholders. While the municipal government was making plans to make the city more car friendly, in line with the federal developments in the United States described earlier, the inhabitants of Amsterdam instead halted that development of their city to make for a more bicycle friendly design of the city and its infrastructure (Brommelstroet, 2017). Many other factors influence how the governance of mobility and urban development is reflected in infrastructure and the related urban form. For the purpose of this chapter, three more factors of the rule sets are explored: the way rule sets distribute power over markets and governments, larger and smaller jurisdictions, and the role of governance in coordinating between the various needs of stakeholders.

4.4

Markets and government

Governments, or more specifically public actors, play a key role in developing the fabric of the city. They generally have the agency to change the city. They are the key actor developing the legal framework. They do not operate in

52 Urban form and accessibility

isolation but receive their agency from, and pass their power to, other stakeholders, primarily those active in the market of urban development: private companies and citizens. But, as Savitch (2014, p. 7) identifies, “when the tallies are in, public actors stand as the most compelling force in controlling and directing the flow of capital” in urban development. Many modern cities rely on investments of the private sector to develop housing, places to work and sometimes infrastructure (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014). In turn, that private sector developing the land depends on citizens to actually buy the housing they have been developing. Or they depend on companies to locate there and on people to work. As such there is an intricate interplay and dependency between private and public parties on the one hand and citizens, both in their role of citizens and in their role as consumers. That interplay between public and private is different in different countries and times. In different eras and places, the governmental role can be seen as more facilitating private enterprise or more as a planner with a great deal of control on execution. In the relation with mobility and urban form, Japan provides a good example of how mobility in private hands can shape a city. With high densities, cities in Japan are highly dependent on the railways. Most of these railway companies are privately owned (Saito, 1997). These companies allow for urban high densities having a major effect on urban form. But they also directly intervene through the development of real estate in a way that supports the use of rail. For example, by the development of malls, stadiums, and amusement parks in those locations that attract traffic against the normal peak directions. Another example might be the development of London (Galviz, 2013) where the interplay between private companies developed the underground out to the countryside and private property developers established the extensions of the city in the 30 years around the turn of the 20th century (see also Chapter 3). In those years the network grew through several private companies investing in services. In contrast, in Paris the government planned an integrated system, working in close cooperation with private companies executing the plan. Here the system was more focused on providing services for the existing city, rather than on the extension (Hall, 2013). A further interesting and more recent link between private and public stakeholders is the development of mobility solutions for the city and the role that private partners have in the decision-making on those systems. A growing part of the decision-making for the private sector is presented in the literature as public private partnerships. A standard approach has been that the private sector provides the technological solutions, infrastructure, and vehicles, constructing the system, whereas operation was carried out by public operators. Throughout the world, from the 1980s, public operation has been reconsidered and private sector operations became more prevalent. Sometimes operation was packaged with design and construction of the systems, which is where the term public private partnerships are generally used, like in Sydney (Watson, 2003) and Los Angeles (Winarko, 2019). During the same period, the role of private actors in

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

53

urban planning grew in many cities, as Simpson and Chapman (1999) describe for Edinburgh and Prague, and Yunda and Sletto (2020) for Bogota. Including urban development, as in the Japanese and London examples mentioned above brings the private influence on the urban development even further. A specific example of the interplay between urban development and mobility solutions is the Ørestad development in the eastern parts of Copenhagen. The area was redeveloped, using value capture, with private developers offering development of real estate around the key stations of the future metro, and the revenues of those developments used to fund the metro system (Wei & Mogharabi, 2013). As local governments are generally the principal agents when it comes to urban development, the role of the private sector on the influencing urban form through mobility solutions is generally highly conditioned. In that regard, there is always an interplay between private and public partners in different distributions of agency between them. So, governments, primarily the local governments, play a major role in the development of the form of the city, as the governance in most countries provides them with that agency. As development generally includes private actors, in the development of both real estate and mobility services, the way that relation is shaped can have a major impact on the way the city is developed. A legal framework provides the generic backdrop for that relation, however, single purpose rule sets in these cases are generally developed arrangements; defining the relation between the private and the public actors for the duration of that contract. As Hirschorn & Veeneman, (2021) shows the key governance mechanism that is introduced with the private sector is the inclusion of competition. Generally, competition is thought of as occurring between private companies, however, there is also competition between public actors. Wu, Xu, and Yeh (2006) show how these categories of private and public collapse somewhat when looking at a country like China, as competitiveness between regions and departments is a key mechanism within public governance. Competition in the governance of urban form comes in three ways. 1. Private-private: publicly conditioned and sometimes organized competition between private actors, for example, private developers developing houses in the housing market or bidding to develop a specific area:  Open market, with general regulation from government and private companies competing primarily for customers, like house owners (van Twist & Veeneman, 1999, chap. 1);  Controlled markets, with controlled market access, for example, with private actors competing between them for the development of certain area or lots (van Twist & Veeneman, 1999, chap. 1). 2. Public-public: competition between public actors, for example, when municipalities are bidding with tax breaks for the opening of head offices and the arrival of new employment;

54 Urban form and accessibility

 Level competition, different levels of government competing for agency on a specific topic, like mobility or urban development with more centralized or decentralized agency (Veeneman et al., 2015; Veeneman & Mulley, 2018; Yang, Veeneman, de Jong, & Song, 2020);  Jurisdiction competition, different jurisdictions on the same level competing, for example, for new business or housing development (Flynn, Yu, Feindt, & Chen, 2016, or Thornley & Newman, 1996);  Policy competition, departments within a jurisdiction, for example, on mobility and urban development competing for the funding of policies (Yang, Veeneman, & De Jong, 2018);  Value competition, with representatives of different value preferences competing, for example, through elections (Veeneman et al., 2009). 3. Public-private: regulatory changes in which governments yield or claim control over specific policy area, for example, with the focus on new public management on privatization and deregulation of mobility and urban development markets (Hood, 1991). The way that governments organize competition between private sector actors is a key factor in the development of the urban form, especially in the scale of the development. Governance can be set up in a way that the market is very open with easy access to the market, which can allow multiple smaller players to the market to create diversity, within a mainly infrastructural framework provided by government. When attempting to understand older city centers, they are generally the product of this approach, with limited urban planning and limited agency of governments, and more mutual coordination mechanisms (Smith, 2007). However, strong private players could also be cornering that relatively open market and pushing out smaller players, creating monopolistic private positions in the development, something seen in, for example, the new developments in cities like Lagos, Nigeria (Ilesanmi, 2012), leading to gated developments, separated from the existing urban fabric. In many countries the private sector is more regulated through zoning and land-use policies. That strong regulation can actually be used to allow smaller players into the market or on the other side of the spectrum, to focus on largescale developments building complete and coordinated neighborhoods, often with private developers executing the projects. An example of the former is the reduced zoning approaches that several governments are using to create diverse new neighborhoods, like the Oosterwold area in Almere, the Netherlands (Cozzolino, Buitelaar, Moroni, & Sorel, 2017). The latter can be seen as an approach widely spread across the world, with strong public control on planning and private companies building the real estate (e.g., Singapore in Barter & Dotson, 2013). These examples show how governance can weave public and private together in land-use planning and development and how that can have a strong impact on the urban form, driving uniformity or diversity, stronger or weaker coordination in development of infrastructure and real estate, denser and more spread development, and so on.

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

55

The next section discusses more on the way in which more or less centralized governance forms with rule sets that provide more agencies to central governments versus those that provide agency to more decentralized governments.

4.5

Centralized versus decentralized

In a unitary state, like France, the United Kingdom, or the Netherlands, the idea is that local government policy is highly conditioned by the central, national government. This is in contrast to more federal governments, like Australia, the United States, and Germany, where in principle the role of the federal government is somewhat more limited. In most countries, the role of local governments in land use planning is large compared with other policy areas (OECD, 2017). The effect of a stronger or looser control on urban planning by more central governments can influence urban form. In the literature many examples are available showing the effect of a more centralized government. Hall and Tewdwr-Jones (2019) show the role of the French centralized government in bringing cities large integrated development projects, like Euralille. In that context, this chapter already discussed the role of the French national government in providing agency to metropolitan governments, triggering a trend of downtown redevelopments, including tramways. From the United States, two examples in the literature illustrate how specific policies on safety and capacity can have direct effects on the development of the city. Southworth and Ben-Joseph (1995) show how national regulations on road safety are a major factor in the role that grids and cul-de-sacs have on the urban form in the United States. Jakle and Sculle (2004) show how strict federal parking regulation, demanding specific capacities for parking around high-rise and large residential building led to the checkerboard development of US cities with buildings alternating with parking spaces even in high density areas, also already discussed in more detail above. Garmendia, Ribalaygua, and Uren˜a (2012) show how the different perspectives between national level and metropolitan level have been shaping cities in China. The national government is developing a high-speed rail network. Bringing those services into the metropolitan centers proved to be particularly difficult, especially retrofitting it into the existing urban fabric. Also the governance of the expansion, the rule set, did not bring together national rail stakeholders and local governments. As the national government wanted to roll out the highspeed-rail network at a rapid pace, it chose on several occasions to develop a new business district outside the city centers, influencing and disintegrating the development of the cities. As Veeneman and Mulley (2018) and the examples discussed earlier show that there is a link between the way that agency is distributed between levels of government, the mobility solutions chosen and, as a consequence, the way in which the urban form is developing. They show that national governments have a focus more on infrastructures and the flow of traffic. This is their natural focus, fitting the scale of their jurisdiction. On the other hand, local governments have

56 Urban form and accessibility

a focus more on place. As such this allows them to look at their jurisdiction in the form of place making (see Chapter 7), rather than facilitating flow. Moreover, Korthals Altes (2002) shows how, in a Dutch context, that while national governments are strong in regulating separate policy areas, such as mobility, housing, and sustainability, local government can create integrated development plans. That means that having strong centralized agency on urban development will condition the possibilities of local governments with little regards to the inherent trade-offs. Centralized rule sets generally regulate various aspects in a highly fragmented manner; separate rules on emissions, on safety, on health, on markets, on financing, on decision-making, and so on. A national government is simply at a disadvantage in dealing with trade-offs at an urban level as they are not involved in the development of the solutions to the city that have to provide trade-offs. As a consequence, developing integrated solutions that deal with the trade-offs in a way that suits the city is often more difficult in a context of more centralized agency. In other words, centralized governance, at jurisdictional levels of larger geographical scales, is almost always more fragmented in various policy areas and related to different public values. In addition, it is more flow oriented and less aimed at integrated development. As stated before, local governments always play an important role in urban development; however, the rule sets that give agency to more centralized levels will condition their options substantially. The picture that emerges from the literature is that if agency is highly centralized, this can have a strong effect on the way that urban development takes place, with a stronger focus on infrastructure and flow (both car and public transport) and less on integrated development.

4.6 Coordination in fragmentation This chapter has defined governance as the rule sets for decision-making. A key role of those rule sets is to secure the involvement of specific stakeholders in the population in the decision-making process. The quality of (the development of) the urban form can be looked at from different perspectives. A key distinction already discussed is whether the urban form is conducive to flows of traffic or more aimed at “great places to be.” And, urban environments that provide both well are even better. This is a simplified perspective on a much bigger issue in decision-making: many more stakeholders have a stake in urban development and want all kind of things from that urban space. Urban space which provides well for a wide variety of needs is better than a space that provides for only a limited set of needs, and yet still many of the stakeholders having those needs are not represented in the decision making. The rule set does not provide them with agency. This means that the decision-making on urban development (and the consequential urban form) has to coordinate between those needs. The rule sets often do just that: they are set up participatively, so stakeholders can bring in their

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

57

needs at an early stage (Newman, 2005 or Callanan, 2005). This kind of approach is seen in the governance of many cities, with an archetypal example in Curitiba (Iraza´bal, 2017). Having a participative focus is a development that is not necessarily compatible with the more exclusionary approaches discussed earlier, with private players playing a role of growing importance (Hohn & Neuer, 2006). As commercial players also are key to successful urban development, governance can be designed for inclusive decision-making, dealing with this first key fragmentation. A second key fragmentation in the field of urban development, as discussed earlier, is that between urban development on the one hand and infrastructure and mobility on the other. Stakeholders in these two camps, both on the private side and on the public side, are often operating in different areas. Decisionmaking processes are not integrated or coupled, leading to poorly integrated solutions (Bertolini, 2012). Hirschhorn, Veeneman, and van de Velde (2018) show how a wide variety of experts consider that link very important. Again, governance can be developed to condition decision-making on both sides for the coordination to be taken seriously. This could also be done through policy packaging (Wenban-Smith, 2008), where policies in both fields are developed with the dependencies between the different fields in mind. Yang, Veeneman, and De Jong (2020) shows how complex coordination is at implementation, even when the governments in the city have agreed to better coordinate their policies. The rule sets are generally not very conducive to more integrated approaches, with funding and responsibility often highly fragmented. Governance is there to coordinate between the different interests of many different stakeholders and to realize a decision-making process between them, that coordinates between their needs. This purpose of governance, its integrative quality, is often overlooked by those implementing singular policies and ignoring the effects these have on other policy makers, and those people working and living in the results of this disjointed outcome of well-intended urban interventions.

4.7

Conclusion

The urban form is in constant flux. There is no obvious golden bullet for what particular form is good for the city, for any city. However, a city being better for more people is a robust measure of quality for any city. Governance can help to move in that direction. Effective governance coordinates the various needs and requirements of stakeholders. It does that through mature institutions pointing the long-term development of the urban form toward the attractive cities of tomorrow. It enables it dynamically, by not focusing on the latest and greatest in mobility and urbanity, but by on-going broad and effective involvement of the stakeholders.

58 Urban form and accessibility

In addition, governance of the urban form has developed into a fragmented landscape. Several examples in this chapter show how separate interventions, often from higher levels of government, force solutions onto the city that create unattractive urban spaces. More integral and inclusive governance in needed. As argued earlier, this means a relatively high level of agency at a decentralized level. On more centralized levels, standards and infrastructures can be provided. However, on a decentralized level, agency needs to be available for a rekindling of local integral urban development, based on those standards and linked to those infrastructure systems. This chapter has provided several examples of how policies were implemented in a city with little regard for that bigger picture and this is where the governance failed. As stated earlier, the rule sets that have been discussed can be captured on four levels: culture, legal institutions, contractual arrangements, and process rules. Tomorrow, policy makers can start with opening up their policy processes to stakeholders through more inclusive rule sets and give people a place at the table when considering and designing interventions in urban form or infrastructures. In contractual arrangements, those initiating urban policies can require project developers to open up their design processes for various stakeholders and consequently build more integrated solutions. In legal institutions, many countries already have legal frameworks on urban form that move toward allowing stakeholder participation, but this could go further. In the present situation, governance in legal frameworks that have a direct effect on urban form is still mostly taking a singular perspective, and that limits the potential for integrative solutions at the urban level. This could be improved. Finally, at the level of culture, it might be that many integrative and attractive examples of urban development trigger a deep embeddedness of the way in which the needs of all have to be met by a city. This is a cultural shift worth looking forward to. In terms of research this field is also still rather fragmented. On the one hand, governance literature focusses on key values of governance itself, like inclusivity or legitimacy, and how those can be secured through governance solutions. On the other hand, literature looks at urban form and mobility-related policies and their effect on key values in those areas, from capacity of infrastructures to livability of the city, and much more. However, these two do not exist in real life as separate entities: governance influences policy influences outcome. Understanding this suggests that slightly more complex causal chains are needed. This chapter sets a first step into the development of this line of research but there are avenues within this for further research. It is obvious that in a world looking for answers to a pandemic such as COVID-19 has triggered, the effects on the city are dependent on the response of the stakeholders. It might be that the city becomes a less attractive proposition for many, as they dislike the densities and the possible effect on their health. However, if the rule sets that govern the decision-making on urban development stay the same, it is highly likely that this impact will be limited. For a

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

59

perspective on the long-term effect, it could be a sound strategy to see how governance is changing and agency shifting, and not just at the market preferences of the future inhabitants of the city.

References Barter, P., & Dotson, E. (2013). Urban transport institutions and governance and integrated land use and transport, Singapore. In Case study prepared for global report on human settlements. Bertolini, L. (2012). Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. disP—The Planning Review, 48(1), 16–26. Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Bohren, L. (2009). Car culture and decision-making: Choice and climate change. In S. A. Crate, & M. Nuttall (Eds.), Anthropology and climate change: From encounters to actions (pp. 370–379). New York: Routledge. Brommelstroet, M. (2017). 30. Cycling is an acquired skill. In Urban Europe: Fifty tales of the city (pp. 243–250). Amsterdam University Press. Callanan, M. (2005). Institutionalizing participation and governance? New participative structures in local government in Ireland. Public Administration, 83(4), 909–929. Cozzolino, S., Buitelaar, E., Moroni, S., & Sorel, N. (2017). Experimenting in urban self-organization: Framework-rules and emerging orders in Oosterwold. Cosmos+Taxis, 4(2), 49–59. Dings, M. (2009). Design and politics (no. 1). 010 Publishers. dos Santos, M. C. R. (2007). Of shacks, houses and fortresses: An ethnography of favela consolidation in Rio de Janeiro. The University of Chicago. Flynn, A., Yu, L., Feindt, P., & Chen, C. (2016). Eco-cities, governance and sustainable lifestyles: The case of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City. Habitat International, 53, 78–86. Galviz, C. L. (2013). Metropolitan railways: Urban form and the public benefit in London and Paris c. 1850–1880. The London Journal, 38(3), 184–202. Garmendia, M., Ribalaygua, C., & Uren˜a, J. M. (2012). High speed rail: Implication for cities. Cities, 29, S26–S31. Hall, P. (2013). Underground as city maker: London versus Paris, 1863–2013. The London Journal, 38(3), 177–183. Hall, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2019). Urban and regional planning. Routledge. Heurkens, E., & Hobma, F. (2014). Private sector-led urban development projects: Comparative insights from planning practices in the Netherlands and the UK. Planning Practice and Research, 29(4), 350–369. Hirschhorn, F., Veeneman, W., & van de Velde, D. (2018). Inventory and rating of performance indicators and organisational features in metropolitan public transport: A worldwide Delphi survey. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 144–156. Hirschorn, F., & Veeneman, W. (2021). Public transport governance. In C. Mulley, J. D. Nelson, & S. Ison (Eds.), Handbook of Public Transport. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. Hohn, U., & Neuer, B. (2006). New urban governance: Institutional change and consequences for urban development. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 291–298. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Ilesanmi, A. (2012). The roots and fruits of gated communities in Lagos, Nigeria: Social sustainability or segregation. In Proc. sustainable futures: Architecture and urbanism in the Global South, Kampala (pp. 27–30).

60 Urban form and accessibility Iraza´bal, C. (2017). City making and urban governance in the Americas: Curitiba and Portland. Routledge. Jakle, J. A., & Sculle, K. A. (2004). Lots of parking: Land use in a car culture. University of Virginia Press. Koppenjan, J., & Groenewegen, J. (2005). Institutional design for complex technological systems. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 5(3), 240–257. Korthals Altes, W. K. (2002). Local government and the decentralisation of urban regeneration policies in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 39(8), 1439–1452. Michel-Clupot, M., & Rouot, S. (2018). Loi MAPTAM et pratiques manag
eriales de communication financie`re: quelles valeurs publiques pour l’action territoriale de demain? Management and Avenir, 3, 145–162. Neill, W. (2003). Urban planning and cultural identity. Vol. 6. Routledge. Newman, J. (2005). Participative governance and the remaking of the public sphere. In Remaking governance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere (pp. 119–138). Bristol University Press. OECD. (2017). The governance of land use in OECD countries. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2020). Revenue statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/revenuestatistics-2019_0bbc27da-en (Accessed 1 June 2020). Saito, T. (1997). Japanese private railway companies and their business diversification. Japan Railway & Transport Review, 10(January), 2–9. Savitch, H. V. (2014). Post-industrial cities: Politics and planning in New York, Paris, and London. Princeton University Press. Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262. Shoup, D. (2018). Parking and the city. Routledge. Simpson, F., & Chapman, M. (1999). Comparison of urban governance and planning policy: East looking west. Cities, 16(5), 353–364. Smith, M. E. (2007). Form and meaning in the earliest cities: A new approach to ancient urban planning. Journal of Planning History, 6(1), 3–47. Southworth, M., & Ben-Joseph, E. (1995). Street standards and the shaping of suburbia. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 65–81. Thornley, A., & Newman, P. (1996). International competition, urban governance and planning projects: Malm€ o, Birmingham and Lille. European Planning Studies, 4(5), 579–593. van Twist, M., & Veeneman, W. (1999). Marktwerking op weg; Over Concurrentiebevordering in Infrastructuurgebonden Sectoren. Delft: Uitgeverij LEMMA (in Dutch). Veeneman, W., Augustin, K., Enoch, M., d’Arcier, B. F., Malpezzi, S., & Wijmenga, N. (2015). Austerity in public transport in Europe: The influence of governance. Research in Transportation Economics, 51, 31–39. Veeneman, W., Dicke, W., & De Bruijne, M. (2009). From clouds to hailstorms: A policy and administrative science perspective on safeguarding public values in networked infrastructures. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(5), 414–434. Veeneman, W., & Mulley, C. (2018). Multi-level governance in public transport: Governmental layering and its influence on public transport service solutions. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 430–437. Watson, D. (2003). The rise and rise of public private partnerships: Challenges for public accountability. Australian Accounting Review, 13(31), 2–14. Wei, H., & Mogharabi, A. (2013). Key issues in integrating new town development into urban transportation planning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 2846–2857. Wenban-Smith, A. (2008). Transport and urban spatial policy. The Town Planning Review, 79(4), vii–xiv.

Governance, mobility, and the urban form Chapter

4

61

Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613. Winarko, S. P. (2019). Impact of train station on commercial property values: Using Los Angeles metro as a case study (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University. Wu, F., Xu, J., & Yeh, A. G. O. (2006). Urban development in post-reform China: State, market, and space. Routledge. Yang, W., Veeneman, W., & De Jong, M. (2018). Transport demand management policy integration in Chinese cities: A proposed analysis of its effects. Energies, 11(5), 1126. Yang, W., Veeneman, W., & De Jong, M. (2020). Policy packaging in Amsterdam, Edinburgh, and Lisbon, challenged to integrative mobility policies. Research in Transportation Economics (in press). Yang, W., Veeneman, W., de Jong, M., & Song, Y. (2020). Integrated transport management: Lessons from a Chinese city. Research in Transportation Economics, 100918. Yunda, J. G., & Sletto, B. (2020). Densification, private sector-led development, and social polarization in the global south: Lessons from a century of zoning in Bogota´. Cities, 97, 102550. Ziv, J. C., & Napol
eon, C. (1981). Le transport urbain: un enjeu pour les villes. Dunod.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 5

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions of urban space allocation in a Nordic governance context Milosˇ N. Mladenovi
c and Dominic Stead Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

5.1

Introduction

The urban mobility landscape is currently undergoing an uncertain transition involving multiple emerging technologies, such as self-driving vehicles (SDV) (Blyth, Mladenovic, Nardi, Ekbia, & Su, 2016), on-demand microtransit (Haglund, Mladenovi
c, Kujala, Weckstr€ om, & Saram€aki, 2019), and mobilityas-a-service (MaaS) (Pangbourne, Mladenovi
c, Stead, & Milakis, 2020). However, there are also other societal trends shaping this transition, such as the healthy, inclusive and sustainable cities movement, the digital and sharing economy, as well as the return to urban living and reduced car use by younger generations. Stemming from the fact that emerging technologies often develop through convergence and nonlinear dynamics with many interdependencies between built and digital environments, there is a need to understand potential combined implications from emerging mobility technologies on urban space allocation. Such understanding of the implications for urban space allocation can enable further deliberation about emerging governance and policy levers (Milakis, Snelder, van Arem, van Wee, & de Almeida Correia, 2017; Mladenovi
c, 2019; Stead & Vaddadi, 2019). Understanding these multidimensional uncertainties requires an understanding of the relationship between digital technology, built environment and human behavior (Cavoli, Phillips, Cohen, & Jones, 2017; Litman, 2019; Mladenovi
c, 2019; Stead, 2016). However, little research has been done to develop future alternatives that assume a combination of technological development and infrastructures or policies, as well as providing enough detail to understand a multitude of implications for urban form. In addition, this research is timely considering previous contributions do not have much focus on the Nordic region, so there is potential benefit Urban Form and Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00017-1 Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

63

64

Urban form and accessibility

in exploring possible and desirable futures in this democratic and geographic context. In particular, this chapter explores the case of Finland where there are a range of on-going developments of various mobility concepts which build on wider societal initiatives in digitalization. This chapter aims to explore plausible future changes in space allocation from a qualitative perspective while taking account of the wider social and technological transitions in mobility, and ultimately providing recommendations for governance, policy, and planning actions. The centerpieces of technological aspects are rubber-tyred and road-based SDVs and emerging urban mobility services. With the aim of adding more detail to technological, infrastructural, and policy aspects in relation to previous research, this envisioning exercise draws from operating design domain (ODD) and local service scenario (LSS) concepts used in vehicle automation. To enable divergent envisioning as an approach to structuring the anticipation process, the intuitive logics scenario analysis method is applied to neighborhood level planning in Helsinki Capital Region (HCR), Finland. This chapter is divided into five main parts. The first part provides a short overview of previous envisioning studies focused on emerging mobility technologies, clarifying further the knowledge gaps. The second part presents the methodological steps and case context. The third part includes the elaboration of envisioning results. The fourth part discusses the policy and governance implications, while highlighting potential points of political conflicts between urban space allocation and technological development. The fifth part concludes with a summary of findings and recommendations for future research directions.

5.2 Scenarios on emerging mobility technologies and implications for urban space allocation A small number of recent studies have focused on the development of mobility services (Enoch et al., 2020; Jittrapirom, Marchau, Heijden, & Meurs, 2018). Whilst these limited studies have taken an in-depth perspective on the development of urban mobility services, including public transport, they do not provide extensive consideration of urban form implications. In contrast a larger number of studies involving scenario-building exercises have been carried out in recent years to understand a range of possible impacts of SDVs (Meyboom, 2018). These studies include assumptions such as where and when SDVs will be allowed to drive in the city, whether SDVs can be operated alongside human-driven vehicles (or segregated), how car users (of both conventional and automated vehicles) will respond to the introduction of SDVs, whether SDVs will be primarily used as private or shared vehicles, and the degree of safety and security they manage to achieve (Stead & Vaddadi, 2019). While many of these primarily focus on the technical aspects of their introduction, relatively few studies consider the potential impact of AVs on the spatial

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

65

development of cities. To date, research has been concerned with quantitative estimations from the introduction of shared/automated/electric vehicles based on simulations of hypothetical and real cities (Zakharenko, 2016). For example, these studies have concluded that parking demand could be substantially reduced under certain circumstances, such as a high deployment rate of shared automated vehicles and extensive reliance on public transport (Boesch, Ciari, & Axhausen, 2016; Chen, Kockelman, & Hanna, 2016; Fagnant & Kockelman, 2014, 2018; International Transport, 2015; Spieser et al., 2014; Zhang, Guhathakurta, Fang, & Zhang, 2015 and Milakis et al., 2017 for a review of relevant literature). However, research so far has focused on a dominantly quantitative approach for exploring future scenarios and is not sufficient given the high degrees of uncertainty associated with emerging technologies. In addition, in most studies, issues of urban form are mainly discussed as assumptions used to construct scenarios rather than being outputs or results from the scenarios, and most studies devote more attention to the small-scale impacts of SDVs on urban form (e.g., parking spaces and carriageway dimensions) rather than the larger scale impacts (e.g., suburbanization and the reallocation of developments to other parts of the city). In their review of recent scenario studies concerning the introduction of SDVs and the relation with urban form and structure, Stead and Vaddadi (2019) distinguish between four main types of scenarios (in a global North context) according to their scope and content:

5.2.1

Business as usual (BAU)

These reference scenarios assume the continuation of one or more current trends (in mobility, urban development and/or demographics), without the introduction of SDVs. The business as usual (BAU) scenarios largely assumes that current trends, attitudes and priorities remain largely unchanged in the future. These trends refer amongst other things to changes in technology, economics, demographics, and politics. The underlying assumptions here are that technological innovations are not taken up to any great extent, particularly due to the high cost of the necessary infrastructure. Significant technological development does take place and is mainly restricted to efficiency gains in specific areas (Heinrichs, 2016). The scenarios generally assume that car ownership and travel gradually increase (Fulton, Mason, & Meroux, 2017).

5.2.2

Technology+ non-shared (T)

The technology and non-shared (T) scenarios assume the introduction of AVs which are either solely or predominantly individually owned and used. These scenarios assume a gradual roll-out of SDVs and relatively widespread adoption from around 2020, and a rapid growth around 2025. A continuation of existing trends is assumed for vehicle sharing, public transport use, and urban planning

66

Urban form and accessibility

(Bouton, Knupfer, Mihov, & Swartz, 2015; Fulton et al., 2017; R€oehrleef, Deutsch, & Ackermann, 2015). Meanwhile, vehicle ownership does not change significantly as individuals continue to be attached to the ownership of their own cars (Corwin, Vitale, Kelly, & Cathles, 2015; Gruel & Stanford, 2016; Thakur, Kinghorn, & Grace, 2016).

5.2.3 Technology+shared (T+) The technology and shared transport (T +) scenarios assume a future state where SDVs are fully developed, (predominantly) shared, and the current mobility trends have changed and evolved along with the technology. Various mobility models such as ride sharing platforms, mobility on demand systems and car sharing platforms are expected to operate in cities. Almost all the literature reviewed contains one or more scenarios of this type.

5.2.4 Technology+shared + infrastructure/policy (T++) The technology, shared and infrastructure/policy (T++) scenarios assume the introduction of SDVs, which are solely or predominantly shared in conjunction with supportive policies and/or infrastructures to actively promote the uptake and use of SDVs. In these scenarios, shared automated mobility is combined with substantial policy support for electrification, automation, shared-use mobility and urban planning to promote walking, cycling, and public transport use. These scenarios do not explicitly include the use of technologies to reduce the need to travel such as home-working, remote medical care and e-government services. Although these technologies can potentially affect the uptake and use of SDVs, it is important to recognize that there are often rebound or unintended effects of such technology on travel demand (Biswanger, 2001).

5.3 Methodology 5.3.1 Methodological framework The methodological framework of this chapter centers on scenario planning as a foresight-oriented approach where alternative scenarios are developed for a desired time horizon from the present situation. The methodological approach for scenario planning used in this project sits within the “Intuitive Logics School” (Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, & Van Der Heijden, 2005), in that the focus is on the insights and learning that arise from the process. The resulting four scenarios are qualitative narratives rather than quantifiable matrices of future conditions that could be retrospectively verified. The term scenario is used here as a hypothetical future purposefully built to highlight the policy dilemmas and societal tensions to be expected as the subject under analysis—full automation of road transport—transitions from being a theoretical

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

67

speculation to becoming a daily reality which individuals can (or have to) directly experience. In accordance with the typologies of scenario building, a mix of exploratory (to think the unthinkable) and backcasting (to identify the critical decisions) approaches (Banister & Hickman, 2013; Stead & Banister, 2003; Sustar, Mladenovi
c, & Givoni, 2020) are used. Scenario planning is adopted because of the complexity of the context, the wide range of potential future developments and the diversity of participant perspectives included in technological transitions processes. As part of the methodological framework, the first step in the process were workshops using PESTLE analysis which allows key factors and driving forces influencing technological transition to be explored (Beecroft & Pangbourne, 2015). The PESTLE technique has its origins in strategic business planning (Fleisher & Bensoussan, 2003), and the approach requires factors to be categorized as political (P), economic (E), social (S), technological (T), legislative (L), and environmental (E). As widely used techniques in a business environment, the expectation is that this method would be accessible to participants with a minimum of experience. Although the boundaries between these categories are porous, the method is both accessible to participants and useful in generating novel conceptions of possible futures and ordering contributions in a participatory setting. Two PESTLE workshops were organized involving a total of over 80 participants. The participants included young and senior practitioners in the field of transport and spatial planning, from Finland and abroad, recruited online. The participants came from a range of educational background, mainly in engineering but other disciplines were represented, such as planning, geography, and social sciences. This diversity of backgrounds provided for a diversity of perspectives during the exploration exercise. In the next methodological phase, the driving forces were assessed regarding the magnitude of their impact and the uncertainty of their future state. At this stage a scenario matrix was developed, describing extreme but plausible future states of urban space allocation. In addition to the four extreme scenarios presented in the scenario matrix (described in the results section below), exploration of possible future states includes identification of causal processes and decision points leading to those future states. As the last phase of the methodological process, the developed scenarios were presented and discussed in a focus group with five Helsinki Region Transport planners. This focus group discussion was used to validate the scenario design, as well as to reflect potential governance and policy responses. The complete envisioning process described earlier focuses on the Otaniemi urban area in the HCR. During the PESTLE workshop process, participants were presented with a limited level of details for the future of Otaniemi, to avoid prescriptive constraining of the exploration process. For validation purposes, participants’ prior knowledge of the plans for Otaniemi was tested, ensuring the minimization of bias. The focus on Otaniemi relates to the concept of ODD, which can be defined as operating conditions under which an automated

68

Urban form and accessibility

driving system is designed to function, including such aspects as environmental, geographical, time-of-day restrictions, and presence or absence of certain traffic or roadway characteristics. In addition, the concept of LSS enables us to expand the reflection beyond the aspects considered in ODD, to include service design, with such aspects as scheduling, routing, and pricing. Thus the initial vision description included the following aspects: l l l l l l

Integrated land use, transport, and energy infrastructure planning Self-driving electric shuttles with fixed and on-demand routes Proximity to high capacity transport nodes (i.e., metro) Emphasis on street design for walking and biking Restricting car access through parking management Public transport and pricing policy

5.3.2 Otaniemi case description The Otaniemi neighborhood was selected as a representative area for assessing the futures in the HCR. Otaniemi is in the process of densification and diversification of land use, exemplifying the increasing urbanization across the HCR, as Finland is now catching up in the rate of urbanization in comparison to other Nordic countries. By 2050, the HCR is predicted to have a population of 2 million residents (compared with  1.5 million at present), thus having a third of Finland’s population. It is estimated that those residents will make 2.8 trips/day on average. The current mode split in HCR is 39% of car trips, 22% of public transport trips, 29% of walking trips, 9% of cycling trips, and 1% of other. In contrast, the recently completed Helsinki Region Land Use, Housing and Transport Plan (MAL 2019) has ambitious 2030 targets, such as reducing greenhouse gas emission from transport by 50% against 2005 levels, improving labor force accessibility by 10% from the current level, decreasing social segregation, and reducing the share of car trips to 30% in total. To achieve these targets, urban growth in the HCR is directed to the existing built environment and to the areas that are competitive in terms of public transport (see also Chapter 17). Thus new development is located in areas of relatively high accessibility, enabling infill development, whereas securing the quality of the living environment and large number of green connections (Fig. 5.1). Major transport investments are made in rail and cycling infrastructure, while road transport is developed with a focus on freight and public transport. The densification of the Otaniemi area relies on the fact that the metro line has been extended westwards, as part of the larger public transport network overhaul toward a trunk-feeder system (Weckstr€ om, Kujala, Mladenovi
c, & Saram€aki, 2019). In addition, plans for Otaniemi include an introduction of a light rail line, which should further improve labor accessibility (see also Chapter 14). The current parking supply is a mix of private and public facilities, both on-street and off-street, and frequently including user and time restrictions. Parking policy is currently in transition towards both

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

69

FIG. 5.1 Otaniemi area built environment. (Source: Open Street Map.)

supply and demand control mechanisms, such as a higher degree of parking space centralization, reducing parking minimums, and introducing parking pricing. However, as can be seen from Fig. 5.1, the area still has plenty of distributed parking areas. Finally, from the perspective of policy and planning processes, Otaniemi is a good representative example as there are several layers of actors intersecting their domains of responsibilities, from private landowners, through city and regional spatial planning organizations, to national transport planning and other diverse stakeholders, such as various tech companies located in this area.

5.4 5.4.1

Results PESTLE analysis

The PESTLE analysis identified that the largest magnitude of uncertainty is around aspects related to mobility service models. For example, parking could

70

Urban form and accessibility

be potentially integrated into MaaS user packages, with a potential that parking pricing can be based on total trip length, time of day, route, vehicle type, residence, or to include a certain amount of parking credits provided by the city without pricing. Moreover, the development of MaaS user packages might need to address the question of integration between public and private parking facilities. In particular, there are four groups of technological and design factors affecting mobility service models. The first group include various aspects of usage schemes, such as pricing of SDV usage, which could vary based on user type, time, or with further advancements in carbon credits or mobility credits. Regarding user type, there has been discussion about pricing in relation to frequency of use or users capabilities, including dedicating special access to people with mobility impairment, elderly or children. Furthermore, usage schemes have been associated with fare integration and ticketing technology in the whole HSL region, as well as with travel information systems. The second group of factors relates to SDV route plans, which could vary between on-demand and fixed schedule operation, with several options for route alignment (e.g., circular clockwise, circular counter-clockwise, and diagonal), and stop locations and spacing in relation to trunk line proximity and land use, as well as driving range and charging requirements for electric SDVs. In this domain, drawing from previous examples of automation in rail transport, the discussion included a possibility to keep the human operator, as all driver’s tasks will not completely disappear (e.g., disruptions due to extreme weather periods or suicide attempt), and some new tasks might appear as well. The third group of factors identified in this methodological step relates to various aspects of business model, contracting, and operation. Various schemes for system ownership have been discussed in the workshops, including various options for sharing capital and operating costs across a diverse set of actors (e.g., SDV manufacturer, city, HSL, neighborhood association). In relation to this, aspects of advertising and savings in operating costs have been contrasted with insurance schemes and amortization costs, implying potential changes for the contracting models for service operators. The current high SDV purchase price and uncertain maintenance costs (i.e., technology deterioration curves) have been underlined as one of the major challenges in developing sustainable business models. As the fourth group of factors, a range of technical and system architecture aspects have been discussed in PESTLE workshops. These include path dependence from existing automotive standards, which could affect the interior of the vehicle through seat arrangement, or enable/prevent the use of in-vehicle cameras for emergencies. Moreover, there is a range of other infrastructural aspects, such as communication and charging infrastructure, which could affect the possibilities for stop design (e.g., closed stops), terminal space locations for parking or charging, and other general possibilities for vehicle-togrid technology. In addition to these aspects, there is a set of sociocultural driving forces that have been identified in this methodological step. An important aspect that has

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

71

been underlined in the PESTLE workshops is the presence of the technical university (Aalto University), as many Otaniemi residents are students. Such a group tends to belong to the early adopters and creative class, with positive attitudes toward technological innovations. On the other hand, the same engineering (i.e., Teekkari) culture could also exemplify those societal aspects that would resist the technology, as it is associated with practical jokes that could stop SDVs, or conflict with the existing preferences for walking and cycling in Otaniemi. Further aspects of identity and image could relate to strengthening the brand of the new university (Aalto University is the rebranded former Helsinki University of Technology), while also improving the image of the public transport service. In contrast, some aspects of car driving as a culture could be an obstacle to reducing SDV ownership, such as long-distance family travel to remote parts of Finland for vacation in the summer cottages. Similarly, SDV users would need to adjust to a strange feeling of not being in charge of the vehicle, not being afraid of cyber security threats, or reactions of other vehicles around SDV, while also potentially gaining from added comfort in cold or rain conditions. Many workshop participants raised an important value of proximity to nature and its preservation, as crucial for accepting the technology. In particular, service design should be following the lines of clean technology, not requiring the further destruction of green areas in Otaniemi, while also reducing total energy consumption, in addition to emissions. Finally, job loss or shift discussions were also included in the workshops, raising the question of potential balance in jobs lost from driving to jobs gained to cleaning and maintenance of automated shuttles and remote vehicle operation.

5.4.2

Resulting scenarios

The main axes of the scenario matrix are the planning approach and service model (Fig. 5.2), while sociocultural forces have been taken as a third dimension for providing exploratory depth. These axes provide a useful degree of differentiation between the scenario quadrants, especially as transport is a domain where governance and social norms have a particular impact. In addition, as observed during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, sharing of mobility services is one of the highly uncertain future aspects. Scenarios one and four represent a small deviation from the current urbanization trajectory, whereas scenarios two and three represent direct opposites, with two being a radical path breaking scenario, and three being a radical lock-in.

5.4.2.1 Scenario 1: Concentrated-dispersed land use In this scenario, the service model emphasizes individual, private, SDV use which goes hand in hand with no societal learning of sharing. Such sociocultural forces might be underpinned with such considerations as private property and privacy. In the same context, policy and governance attempts to take proactive,

72

Urban form and accessibility

FIG. 5.2 Scenario matrix. (Source: Authors’ own work.)

strategic actions to steer the urban development. However, the level of transport demand is not reduced, thus failing to achieve fast enough transition toward desired sustainability targets.

5.4.2.2 Scenario 2: TOD utopia In this scenario, the service model emphasizes shared SDV use, meaning a significant shift in sociocultural forces. In addition, policy and governance takes a range of proactive, strategic, actions. Thus new services are not only supported by the public sector, but they are driven by the visions for sustainable cities and mobility. Such involvement included a range of existing policy levers and physical/digital infrastructure, while also enabling new governance levers. The level of transport demand is reduced and shifted to active modes, resulting in densified urban environment, including also adequate street infrastructure for the combination of new mobility services. 5.4.2.3 Scenario 3: Status quo lock-in In this scenario, the service model remains focused on individual SDV use, accompanied by the lack of behavioral or cultural change. The governance approach is not able to establish long-term visions but spends most of its attention reactively dealing with immediate challenges, such as safety and liability. The result is a lack of any path breaking activities, but rather an even further

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

73

increase in transport demand, and incoherence in urban form development, leading to significant failure in achieving sustainability targets.

5.4.2.4 Scenario 4: Dispersed-concentrated land use In this scenario, service model emphasizes shared SDV use, which is largely driven by the commercial actors, focusing on the personal data as an important asset. In contrast, the public sector has failed to take the lead in development quickly enough, mostly taking reactive actions, such as creating legislation to open further the mobility sector for commercial service offerings. Hand in hand with such development, the trajectory of urban form has not focused on further organized densification and design. As a result, the level of transport demand is not reduced or shifted to active modes, thus failing to achieve fast enough transition toward desired sustainability targets. 5.4.3

Focus group discussion with transport planners

The focus group verified the four scenarios and concluded that scenario two (TOD utopia) is the one mostly in line with the proactive approach outlined in the MAL 2019 plan. In addition to the existing plethora of transport policy measures that are already implemented or evaluated by the Helsinki Region Transport, focus group discussion has highlighted several aspects to consider about data and algorithm governance as an emerging policy lever in the context of urban mobility technologies. One aspect is specifying data collection practices, following the informed consent principle from European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which includes describing to the user what is being collected and how it will be used. In addition, discussion brought up a need to evolve consent agreements, including summaries and searching capability, while specifying the level of aggregation and anonymization. The second aspect brought in the discussion includes the development of data sharing specifications, both from and to technology providers, developing data-for-data principle. For example, Helsinki Region Transport could share data on the infrastructural condition, traffic and public transport operations, and data from passenger surveys and trip planner. In return, technology providers could share data on routing, temporal distribution of pickup and drop-off points, pricing, and distribution of user profiles and their satisfaction. Furthermore, there should be development of specifications for access control rules over time, level of aggregation and responsibilities for actors involved in second-hand data use, and options for data removal or return to the users. In addition to the set of questions relating to privacy protection, discussion also highlighted the need for developing governance approaches for service and algorithm development. Such rules would include digitally defining access points, preferred routes, speed limits, designated or forbidden pick-up and drop-off locations, and operating design domain area boundary per time and

74

Urban form and accessibility

space. Moreover, governance should respond to technological development by expanding the design criteria, such as those that would be contrasted to operating efficiency, such as carbon emission and health effects. For expanding the design criteria a conclusion was that it is essential to place users at the center of this development, by actively involving them in open innovation processes, such as defining service offering and restrictions and defining performance measures for short- and long-term deployment of technology. Finally a conclusion from the discussion was that a wider set of ownership, financing, and taxation models should be evaluated, including both street and service infrastructure.

5.5 Discussion of envisioning results and governance implications 5.5.1 The complexity of implications from and for emerging technology Similar to previous studies (Papa & Ferreira, 2018), this research also identifies an imminent political conflict between allocation of limited urban space and unguided technological development, especially given the diversity of needs of various social groups and the importance of walking and cycling for transition to sustainable mobility systems. If the trend is kept unguided, there is a threat of technological determinism (Mladenovi
c, Stead, Milakis, Pangbourne, & Givoni, 2020), where technological opportunity is not used for supporting the wider systemic transition of the mobility system toward sustainability, but the existing mobility system is further locked into an unsustainable trajectory, thus limiting the opportunities for responsiveness and divergent visions of mobility futures. Here, it is important to underline that urban form and mobility directly pertain to human experience in the everyday life, shaping behavior and values, with direct consequences for well-being (Mladenovi
c, Lehtinen, Soh, & Martens, 2019). In this complex setting, urban space allocation requires trade-offs between multiple conflicting goals, such as safety, physical activity, emissions, and energy consumption. Focus on one objective only (e.g., safety), simplifies the actual challenges of urban space allocation, and will thus result in societally suboptimal and unfair outcomes. In relation to previous studies, even if urban form is one of the central aspects, the complexity remains a challenge (i.e., multitude of factors, interdependence, feedback loops, and uncertain effects) (Blyth et al., 2016; Cohen-Blankshtain & Rotem-Mindali, 2016). Previously most developed (T ++) scenarios include supportive policies and/or infrastructures to actively promote the uptake and use of SDVs. In these scenarios, shared automated mobility is combined with substantial policy support for electrification, automation, shared-use mobility and urban planning to promote walking, cycling, and public transport use. Nonetheless, there is an argument for the need to expand

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

75

the lens to the multitude of factors and implications around urban mobility futures. Fig. 5.3 includes a nonexhaustive summary of the implications identified during workshops, scenario building, and focus group discussion. The left side of the figure includes dominantly infrastructural, technical, and institutional aspects, while the right side includes dominantly behavioral and values aspects. Even if nonexhaustive, this list of factors shows that understanding of implications and possible response levers has to go beyond those outlined in the literature so far, and beyond the conventional transport or spatial policy and planning measures.

5.5.2 Networked and responsible governing of the technological emergence Given the challenge of the irreducibly complex and dynamic system of urban form and mobility, a legitimate question to ask is whether the contemporary political conflict around urban form is a sign of a larger social justice challenge. And what are the essential aspects of responsible and coordinated governance that should be developed in the transition process? In general, having in mind potential windows of opportunity for fostering emerging innovations, Nordic innovation-friendly governance needs to have a systemic approach, capable of dealing with risks and ethical dilemmas, while achieving solutions to pressing societal challenges around environmental and social sustainability. However, decision-making in this domain of emerging mobility technologies faces a classic Collingridge double-bind dilemma. This dilemma contrasts the early stage of development, when change is easy but there is uncertainty about consequences, with the later stages of technological maturity, associated with a lock-in when the technology has become societally embedded (Genus & Stirling, 2018). This dilemma is at the core of challenges for steering development of an emerging technology, highlighting the need for governing responsible innovation processes that would avoid different types of technological determinism and lock-in. On the contrary, when emerging in the context of an institutional void, technologies also challenge the institutional landscape, structures, and patterns of interaction among actors in unanticipated ways, resulting in redistribution of roles, responsibilities, and power in hybrid institutional networks. Here a general set of guiding principles can be outlined, drawing from the responsible innovation concept (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013): 1. Anticipation—higher use of foresight not forecast methods, with higher degree of speculation about technological options beyond the path dependence from the existing system. 2. Reflection—opening up uncertainties, risks, assumptions, and speculating about unknown unknowns, including undesirable futures where society should not end up.

FIG. 5.3 Multitude of implications around urban form, land use, and emerging mobility technologies. (Source: Authors’ own work.)

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

77

3. Deliberation—opening up visions, questions and dilemmas for collective and participatory deliberation processes with a wider range of stakeholders and the wide public. 4. Responsiveness—developing adaptive governance capacity by understanding the missing actors or relations between actors, as well as their developing roles and responsibilities. Despite the fact that delayed urbanization across the HCR introduces challenges, this is also an opportunity for a proactive approach, relying on a deeper and more ethical understanding of social aspects of mobility technology. Such a proactive approach will inevitable need development of collaboration practices between a wide set of inter-administrative (involving different ministries and levels of governance) and cross-sectoral (public, private, and civil sector) network of actors that can develop comprehensive and fair policies, taking into account the ultimate goal of transition towards sustainable society. In the Nordic context, it is especially important that city and regional level authorities receive support from the national and EU level, while also advancing existing good practice of public engagement in urban planning. If the lack of active public participation in public experiments continues, unique opportunities for educational and co-creation activities will be lost, failing to develop a diverse set of requirements and avoid algorithmic bias (e.g., differential service provision and discrimination of certain user groups) in implementing these emerging technologies in urban areas. In addition, networks of actors will have to negotiate about ownership and business models, including defining financial flows for infrastructural investments, as well as insurance and taxation. Given a high emphasis on experimentation processes in the Nordic governance system, there is a need to elaborate data sharing and algorithmic responsibilities for different actors. In addition to ensuring essential safety requirements during experiments, it is important to establish an independent auditing authority for digital forensics to systematically analyze prior examples of algorithmic bias invention and reproduction, and continuously develop knowledge applicable for standards and recommendations that can be communicated back to technology developers. In addition, defining rules for multi-actor data exchange in experimentation processes should consider benefits from combination and exchange of data, as well as aim to protect user privacy, especially for the collection of georeferenced data. Here a basis is already established by EU-level GDPR but will still need to elaborated in the particular governance practice. Reflecting further on the governance approach, attention cannot be focused on economic benefits only (Mladenovi
c et al., 2020). Specifically, urban space for active and collective transport modes cannot be sacrificed for the sake of more individual vehicle-based modes, as this will conflict directly with both climate and well-being related goals. The principles of responsible governance of technology would suggest that the timetable for implementing these emerging technologies is not locked-in from the beginning, where the end date of

78

Urban form and accessibility

technological options is chosen first and then the rest of the society is fitted to technology. Rather, decision processes should start with participatory development of the vision of a desired mobility system first, and then proceed into deciding what kind of technology and where it is needed to support that vision. The essential question then is - what are the challenges with the current mobility system that we cannot solve with already available policy or infrastructural measures, and that can only be addressed with the emerging technologies? For example, parking reform makes sense today, even without vehicle automation, as already argued by Guerra and Morris (2018). Similarly, there is plenty of opportunity for considering automation of urban rail (i.e., tram, light rail, commuter rail, and metro), even if these modes have their own specific features. In addition a question that must be clearly asked is—what are the user groups that exactly need further advancements in automation and digitalization of urban mobility technology? With these questions in mind, and given the already wide set of planning and policy measures available, it is essential to conduct an analysis of investment priorities, where investment into emerging technologies is one of the alternatives. So far, there is little evidence that investments into automation and digitalization are cost-effective measures for addressing climate and well-being goals, especially considering a range of spatial context and urgency to aid less fortunate groups of people. Finally, there is an important question remaining unaddressed—shall investments into emerging technologies for deployment in the Nordic context be decoupled from investments for deployment in specific international markets? This might be a necessary compromise if economic growth from innovation remains equally important to addressing environmental and social sustainability questions. Such an approach would eventually lead to specific visions of emerging technologies suitable for the Nordic context. At the same time, the approach would avoid colonization of those visions by imagined forms of social life and order (i.e., imaginaries) from other global regions investing heavily into SDV development (Mladenovi
c et al., 2020).

5.6 Conclusion The landscape of urban mobility is currently transitioning through a period of major uncertainties, largely driven by a multitude of emerging technologies. Such technologies include connected and self-driving vehicles, mobility-as-a-service, and shared micromobility, as part of larger societal trends of rapid digitalization and automation. Considering this context, this chapter has presented research which aimed to unpack the complexity of multiple factors related to urban space allocation, and to provide reflection on the governance implications for these dynamic and converging technologies. In contrast to previous studies, the scenario-based methodology centers on the concepts of operating design domain and local service scenario. These concepts enable consideration of more specific

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

79

aspects beyond the generic assumptions such as automation levels or vehicle sharing while they also enable consideration of convergence for multiple technologies. Consequently the use of such concepts provides a higher resolution of details concerning the built environment, technology, institutions, and societal change, thereby illustrating the complexity of the challenge at hand. Even if this multitude of factors can seem overwhelming for decision-making, hiding away the complexity and uncertainty may only lead to even greater challenges later. This research also underlines the need for developing innovation-friendly forms of policy and governance if smart mobility technologies and services are to contribute to the ongoing transition toward a more sustainable urban form and mobility system in the Nordic countries such as Finland. In contrast to previous research in this domain, such a governance approach cannot remain siloed within the conventional urban and transport policy measures. Even if these measures are important components of policy-packaging efforts, this research has identified the need for developing data and algorithm governance levers, including alternative organizational structures. Such aspects include developing of data collection and sharing regulation for networks of actors across sectors, as well independent bodies for auditing of algorithms for potential bias. Consequently the greatest innovation needed is not actually about the hardware/software/ services but about the responsible innovation process itself. Such an approach has to be distinguished from conventional approaches to automation and digitalization in other domains not pertaining to everyday urban life, having implications for built environment, and consequently for environmental sustainability and well-being. Here the Nordic countries have an opportunity to lead the change in recognizing in practice that technological development is not solely a technical but ultimately a political choice. If these countries are to continue their transition of urban form development, there is a need for leading by example of how social innovation and welfare can go hand in hand. With this in mind, future research activities should work more closely with the local organizations to aid their responsiveness to emerging and converging mobility technology. Such cocreation activities should also be accompanied with further development of complexity mapping methods. The former offers opportunities for widening citizen participation and opening up the number of factors taken into consideration. The latter provides a means of systematically analyzing the factors under consideration.

Acknowledgments This research has been funded by the Climate KIC project SELF-DRIVEN AREAS, the FINEST Twins Centre of Excellence (H2020 grant 856602), and VN TEAS project LIIKE-PALO. The authors acknowledge the discussions about this study with Dimitris Milakis, Kate Pangbourne, and Moshe Givoni. In addition, the authors acknowledge the help of Otso Helenius in generating Fig. 5.1.

80

Urban form and accessibility

References Banister, D., & Hickman, R. (2013). Transport futures: Thinking the unthinkable. Transport Policy, 29, 283–293. Beecroft, M., & Pangbourne, K. (2015). Future prospects for personal security in travel by public transport. Transportation Planning and Technology, 38(1), 131–148. Biswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: What about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics, 36(1), 119–132. Blyth, P. L., Mladenovic, M. N., Nardi, B. A., Ekbia, H. R., & Su, N. M. (2016). Expanding the design horizon for self-driving vehicles: Distributing benefits and burdens. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 35(3), 44–49. Boesch, P. M., Ciari, F., & Axhausen, K. W. (2016). Autonomous vehicle fleet sizes required to serve different levels of demand. Transportation Research Record, 2542(1), 111–119. Bouton, S., Knupfer, S. M., Mihov, I., & Swartz, S. (2015). Urban mobility at a tipping point. McKinsey and Company. Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795–812. Cavoli, C., Phillips, B., Cohen, T., & Jones, P. (2017). Social and behavioural questions associated with automated vehicles: A literature review. UCL Transport Institute. Chen, T. D., Kockelman, K. M., & Hanna, J. P. (2016). Operations of a shared, autonomous, electric vehicle fleet: Implications of vehicle & charging infrastructure decisions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94, 243–254. Cohen-Blankshtain, G., & Rotem-Mindali, O. (2016). Key research themes on ICT and sustainable urban mobility. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(1), 9–17. Corwin, S., Vitale, J., Kelly, E., & Cathles, E. (2015). The future of mobility. How transportation technology and social trends are creating a new business ecosystem. Deloitte: University Press. Enoch, M. P., Cross, R., Potter, N., Davidson, C., Taylor, S., Brown, R., et al. (2020). Future local passenger transport system scenarios and implications for policy and practice. Transport Policy, 90, 52–67. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2014). The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 40, 1–13. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2018). Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas. Transportation, 45(1), 143–158. Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2003). Strategic and competitive analysis: methods and techniques for analyzing business competition (p. 457). Prentice Hall. Fulton, L., Mason, J., & Meroux, D. (2017). Three revolutions in urban transportation: How to achieve the full potential of vehicle electrification, automation, and shared mobility in urban transportation systems around the world by 2050 (No. STEPS-2050). UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Report to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, University of California, Davis (CA). Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2018). Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation. Research Policy, 47(1), 61–69. Gruel, W., & Stanford, J. M. (2016). Assessing the long-term effects of autonomous vehicles: A speculative approach. Transportation Research Procedia, 13, 18–29. Guerra, E., & Morris, E. A. (2018). Cities, automation, and the self-parking elephant in the room. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(2), 291–297.

Emerging mobility technologies and transitions Chapter

5

81

Haglund, N., Mladenovi
c, M. N., Kujala, R., Weckstr€om, C., & Saram€aki, J. (2019). Where did Kutsuplus drive us? Ex post evaluation of on-demand micro-transit pilot in the Helsinki capital region. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 32, 100390. Heinrichs, D. (2016). Autonomous driving and urban land use. In Autonomous driving (pp. 213–231). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. International Transport, Forum. (2015). Urban mobility system upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic Corporate partnership board report. Paris: ITF. Jittrapirom, P., Marchau, V., van der Heijden, R., & Meurs, H. (2018). Future implementation of Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Results of an international Delphi study. Travel Behaviour and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.12.004. Litman, T. (2019). Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Implications for transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Meyboom, A. (2018). Driverless urban futures: A speculative atlas for autonomous vehicles. Routledge. Milakis, D., Snelder, M., van Arem, B., van Wee, B., & de Almeida Correia, G. H. (2017). Development and transport implications of automated vehicles in the Netherlands: Scenarios for 2030 and 2050. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 17(1), 63–85. Mladenovi
c, M. N. (2019). How should we drive self-driving vehicles? Anticipation and collective imagination in planning mobility futures. In The governance of smart transportation systems (pp. 103–122). Cham: Springer. Mladenovi
c, M. N., Lehtinen, S., Soh, E., & Martens, K. (2019). Emerging urban mobility technologies through the lens of everyday urban aesthetics: Case of self-driving vehicle. Essays in Philosophy, 20(2). 1526-0569. Mladenovi
c, M. N., Stead, D., Milakis, D., Pangbourne, K., & Givoni, M. (2020). Governance cultures and socio-technical imaginaries of self-driving technology: Comparative analysis of Finland, UK and Germany. In Advances in transport policy and planning. Pangbourne, K., Mladenovi
c, M. N., Stead, D., & Milakis, D. (2020). Questioning Mobility as a Service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, 35–49. Papa, E., & Ferreira, A. (2018). Sustainable accessibility and the implementation of automated vehicles: Identifying critical decisions. Urban Science, 2(1), 5. R€ oehrleef, M., Deutsch, V., & Ackermann, T. (2015). Scenarios for autonomous vehiclesopportunities and risks for transport companies. Position Paper. Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen e.V. (VDV). Spieser, K., Treleaven, K., Zhang, R., Frazzoli, E., Morton, D., & Pavone, M. (2014). Toward a systematic approach to the design and evaluation of automated mobility-on-demand systems: A case study in Singapore. In Road vehicle automation (pp. 229–245). Cham: Springer. Stead, D. (2016). Identifying key research themes for sustainable urban mobility. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(1), 1–8. Stead, D., & Banister, D. (2003). Transport policy scenario-building. Transportation Planning and Technology, 26(6), 513–536. Stead, D., & Vaddadi, B. (2019). Automated vehicles and how they may affect urban form: A review of recent scenario studies. Cities, 92, 125–133. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. Sustar, H., Mladenovi
c, M. N., & Givoni, M. (2020). The landscape of envisioning and speculative design methods for sustainable mobility futures. Sustainability, 12(6), 1–24.

82

Urban form and accessibility

Thakur, P., Kinghorn, R., & Grace, R. (2016). Urban form and function in the autonomous era. In Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 38th, 2016, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Weckstr€ om, C., Kujala, R., Mladenovi
c, M. N., & Saram€aki, J. (2019). Assessment of large-scale transitions in public transport networks using open timetable data: Case of Helsinki metro extension. Journal of Transport Geography, 79, 102470. Zakharenko, R. (2016). Self-driving cars will change cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 61, 26–37. Zhang, W., Guhathakurta, S., Fang, J., & Zhang, G. (2015). Exploring the impact of shared autonomous vehicles on urban parking demand: An agent-based simulation approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 19, 34–45.

Chapter 6

Urban form and travel behavior: The interplay with residential self-selection and residential dissonance Veronique Van Ackera,b a

Urban Development and Mobility Department, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER), Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg, bDepartment of Geography, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium

6.1

Introduction

Residents of densely built-up, mixed land use and accessible neighborhoods are believed to travel shorter distance, drive less, use public transport more frequently, and cycle and walk more often. This suggests a clear interaction between urban form and travel behavior. However, an underlying process of residential self-selection can also explain this interaction between urban form and travel behavior. Residential self-selection is where a person chooses a residential location based on their travel abilities, needs, and preferences (Litman, 2020). For example, somebody who prefers using public transport will try to choose a residential location with good public transport accessibility. If this is the case, it is not public transport accessibility as an urban form characteristic that results in more public transport usage. It is that the higher public transport usage is the result of a fundamental preference for public transport that determines residential location choices. This issue of residential self-selection thus relates to a question of spuriousness. Observed associations between urban form and travel behavior could reflect a true impact of urban form on travel behavior, but it could also reflect a spurious association due to the simultaneous influence of travel preferences on both residential location choices (and as such urban form) and travel behavior (Cao, Mokhtarian, & Handy, 2009). However, less obvious and well documented are the mobility consequences in case someone is not able to live in the preferred residential neighborhood. This is the problem of residential dissonance. Preferred travel modes of dissonant residents may not Urban Form and Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819822-3.00002-X Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

83

84 Urban form and accessibility

be ideally available in their actual neighborhood. The aim of this chapter is to provide a better understanding of the impacts of urban form effects on travel behavior by taking into account of the influences of residential self-selection and residential dissonance. Consequently, this chapter will account for heterogeneity in individuals’ responses to the urban form and its impact on travel behavior by using data from a retrospective survey on urban form and travel behavior in the Greater Metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia.

6.2 Background A long-standing tradition now exists in research on the interaction between urban form and travel behavior. It was first articulated by Mitchell and Rapkin (1954) and remains heavily researched today. Literature reviews like Ewing and Cervero (2001, 2010) or Handy (2002, 2005) summarize how various spatial characteristics can impact on travel behavior. Ewing and Cervero (2010) identified that high density, compact, and mixed use urban development are more conducive to sustainable travel behavior, with shorter travel distances and a lower share of motorized modes of travel (see also Chapter 9). Since the early 2000s, some researchers started to investigate the causal influence of urban form on travel behavior in the context of “residential self-selection.”

6.2.1 Residential self-selection Bagley and Mokhtarian (2002) were one of the first to signal the question of “residential self-selection.” Using data from San Francisco, they analyzed the effect of residential location type on travel demand in terms of travelled distance by mode. Attitudinal and lifestyle variables were found to have a much greater impact on travel demand when compared with residential location type. This finding suggested that the commonly observed association between urban form and travel behavior in previous studies is not one of direct causality but rather one of correlation with other variables. Cao, Handy, and Mokhtarian (2006) studied residential self-selection more in-depth in relation to walking. Based on a study for Austin, Texas, they identified that individuals with a positive attitude toward walking are also more likely to live in neighborhoods conducive to walking. After accounting for this self-selection factor, they also found several neighborhood characteristics to be associated with walking frequency. Residential self-selection thus accounts for some but not all the variation in walking, and urban form still matters to some extent. This is also the general conclusion of a literature review by Cao et al. (2009): the majority of studies still find a significant influence of the urban form after residential self-selection is accounted for. Naess (2009) argues that residential selfselection is in itself a good example of why urban form still matters to travel behavior. Otherwise people, who, for example, prefer to travel by nonmotorized modes, might as well reside in nonurban neighborhoods far away from the

Urban form and travel behavior Chapter

6

85

preferred public transport opportunities or destinations to which they want to have easy access. His claim was evidenced by findings from qualitative interviews in the metropolitan areas of Copenhagen, Denmark, and Hangzhou, China. These findings illustrated that travel attitudes are not always antecedents to choices of residential locations. Travel attitudes can also be shaped by living in and experiencing a certain residential location (Lin, Wang, & Guan, 2017). This led Naess to say that transport-related residential self-selection is an exaggerated problem or a “tempest in a teapot” (Naess, 2014). Consequently the existence of residential self-selection does not mean that urban form is irrelevant. Policies aiming to change travel behavior by changing urban forms are thus still useful. Nevertheless, residential self-selection should be accounted for in analyses that want to produce valid estimates of the effect of urban planning policies on travel behavior (Cao, 2015a). Ignoring self-selection in empirical studies likely results in a misspecification of the urban form impact on travel behavior (Manaugh & El-Geneidy, 2015). Most studies have pointed out that the influence of urban form on travel behavior might be exaggerated unless residential self-selection is controlled (Bohte, Maat, & van Wee, 2009; Van Acker & Witlox, 2010), whereas a few studies found an underestimation (Pinjari, Eluru, Bhat, Pendyala, & Spissu, 2008). Thus understanding how travel attitudes and residential preferences interact with urban form to influence travel behavior remains important to enable a more accurate assessment of the impact of urban planning policies on travel (Cao et al., 2009).

6.2.2

Residential dissonance

Although some people might be able to self-select themselves into their preferred residential neighborhood others may not be able to do so for many reasons. In one neighborhood, this creates a distinction between consonant residents (whose actual residential location matches their preferred one) and dissonant residents (with a mismatch between the actual and preferred residential location). Distinguishing between consonant and dissonant residents in empirical studies might result in a better identification of urban form impacts versus residential self-selection impacts (Bohte et al., 2009). Schwanen and Mokhtarian (2005) were one of the first to study the effects of residential dissonance on travel behavior among residents of one urban and two suburban neighborhoods in San Francisco Bay Area. They found small differences in descriptive statistics of distance travelled overall and distance travelled by mode between consonant and dissonant residents of these neighborhoods. Nevertheless, effect of residential dissonance on distance travelled was found significant even after accounting for numerous other factors like travel attitudes and personality. Especially the weekly distance travelled overall and the distance travelled by car was found to be shortest among consonant urbanites and longest among consonant and dissonant suburbanites pooled together, with dissonant urbanities falling in between these extremes. The reverse pattern was

86 Urban form and accessibility

found for distances travelled by rail and bus. This shows how dissonant suburbanites are least capable of realizing their preferred type of travel. Urban form characteristics of their suburban neighborhood imply large distances to potential destinations and the neighborhood lacks adequate public transport services. Consequently, they have almost no other option but to take their car, even though they would rather not. The situation is quite different in a West-European region like Flanders, Belgium, where there are regulations requiring 90% of all residents—not only in urban areas—to have a bus stop at a maximum of 750 m distance from their residence. De Vos, Derudder, Van Acker, and Witlox (2012) illustrated that such regulations might explain why dissonant suburbanites are still able to use their preferred means of transport, such as alternatives to car like public transport, and this to a larger extent compared with dissonant urbanites. Dissonant urbanites are not able to travel by car as much as they desire, probably because of problems of congestion and limited parking in urban areas. Cao (2015b) found something similar for residents of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, US, with a preference for commuting by public transport. Urban consonants had the highest propensity to commute by public transport, followed by suburban dissonants, urban dissonants, and then suburban consonants. The same order has been found by Kamruzzaman, Baker, Washington, and Turrell (2013) for residents in transit-oriented developments (TOD) in Brisbane, Australia. In summary, it thus seems that consonant residents are always at the two extremes of travel behavior (e.g., highest public transport among consonant urbanities and lowest for consonant suburbanites), whereas dissonant residents fall between these extremes. The ranking of dissonant urbanites versus dissonant suburbanites depends on the local context, and the relative impacts of urban form impacts and attitudinal impacts. It also shows the importance of accounting for individuals’ heterogenous responses to urban form elements (Cao, 2015b).

6.3 Research design 6.3.1 Data set For this study, data from a 2016 Internet survey was used on urban form and travel behavior with respondents from the Greater Metropolitan area of Sydney, NSW, Australia. Respondents were recruited from an online consumer panel (www.lightspeedgmi.com), using appropriate quota criteria for gender, income, and age. The sample was limited to employed people only because it was important that the respondents had choice over their residential location. The sample consisted of 515 respondents of which 473 were from Greater Sydney. After further data cleaning the final sample for this study was further restricted to 469 respondents (Table 6.1). The sample is somewhat older than the average in Greater Sydney and has smaller households with fewer children.

Urban form and travel behavior Chapter

6

87

TABLE 6.1 Sample descriptive statistics (N 5469). Sample Frequency

Mean

Greater Sydney population Frequency

Mean

Individual characteristics Gender (female)

53.3%

Average age

50.7% 45 years

36 years

Education No qualifications

1.50%

Secondary school

16.0%

Tertiary (e.g., TAFE)

30.3%

Undergraduate

16.8%

Graduate

22.6%

Postgraduate

12.8%

Employment type Full time

69.5%

62.0%

Part time

30.5%

30.1%

Household characteristics Household size

2.6

2.8

No. Registered vehicles

1.6

1.7

No. Children Actual, or topical scores above 0.25

6.4

Results

This section reports the results of two logistic regressions (one for PT use, and one for bike use), measuring the effect of urban form while also accounting for residential self-selection and residential dissonance. Given the high share of zeros, PT and bike use were recoded into two binary variablesa. For each of these two dependent variables, five different logistic regressions were estimated starting with a base model with only socioeconomic and demographic variables, a second model adding urban form variables, a third model accounting for residential self-selection as well, a fourth adding the overall residential dissonance variable, and a fifth model adding topic-specific variables instead of the overall residential dissonance variables. Tables 6.5 and 6.6 summarize the results for PT use and bike use, respectively. This analysis is primarily interested in the effect of the urban form (models 2–4). Depending on which model, different aspects of the urban form appear to have a significant effect on PT use. When not accounting for residential selfselection or residential dissonance, model 2 in Table 6.5 illustrates how higher population density and better street connectivity is associated with more PT use (although for street connectivity this effect is only significant at a P-value slightly higher than 0.10). Higher population density and better street connectivity (in terms of more 3 + way intersections and less culs-de-sac) are typical for an urban residential neighborhood, and the result is thus as expected. The effects a

PT and bike use are count variables having only positive integer values. A Poisson regression could be used to predict such type of dependent variables if the mean and variance of the variable are identical. This is however not the case here: the mean of PT use respectively bike use is considerably lower than its variance suggesting a negative binomial regression should be used instead. Moreover, PT and bike use have a high share of zeros (46.9%, and 74.1%, respectively). A zero-inflated model was used to account for the high share of zeros and estimated two equations simultaneously, one for the count model and one for the excess zeros. The results of the count model were disappointing with many insignificant relationships although the excess zeros model provided significant relationships which look quite similar to those of the logistic regression. It was therefore decided to limit the discussion in this chapter to the results of the logistic regressions rather than the more complicated zeroinflated model estimation.

TABLE 6.5 Logistic regression results of PT use. MODEL 1

MODEL 2

MODEL 3

MODEL 4

MODEL 5

B

Exp(B)

Sig.

B

Exp(B)

Sig.

B

Exp(B)

Sig.

B

Exp(B)

Sig.

B

Exp(B)

Sig.

1.949

7.023

0.000

1.822

6.184

0.001

1.234

3.436

0.040

1.242

3.464

0.044

1.547

4.696

0.025

Age

0.040

0.961

0.000

0.042

0.959

0.000

0.026

0.974

0.004

0.027

0.974

0.004

0.025

0.975

0.008

Male

0.302

1.353

0.186

0.317

1.373

0.183

0.118

1.125

0.642

0.120

1.127

0.639

0.145

1.156

Constant SED variables

Education

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.010

0.578 0.024

Education, secondary or lower (ref.) Education, tertiairy or undergraduate

0.788

2.198

0.011

0.776

2.172

0.016

0.517

1.678

0.137

0.517

1.677

0.138

0.465

1.592

0.189

Education, graduate or higher

1.499

4.478

0.000

1.387

4.001

0.000

1.072

2.921

0.004

1.071

2.918

0.004

0.980

2.664

0.009

Yearly household income

0.001

0.003

0.007

0.007

0.005

Income, below median (ref.) Income, median ($60,000–$ 124,999)

0.675

0.509

0.021

0.676

0.509

0.028

0.613

0.542

0.058

0.612

0.542

0.059

0.613

0.542

0.065

Income, above median

0.300

1.349

0.295

0.257

1.293

0.391

0.309

1.362

0.329

0.312

1.366

0.329

0.369

1.447

0.252

Presence of children