Structural accessibility for mobility management

Progress in Planning

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-49

  Silva, Cecília ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Design support tool; Integrated approach; Structural accessibility; Urban policy

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; INTEGRATED APPROACH; LAND USE PLANNING; MANAGEMENT; MOBILITY; SUSTAINABILITY; TRANSPORTATION POLICY; URBAN DESIGN; URBAN POLICY;

EID: 84873968971     PISSN: 03059006     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2012.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Acker V., Witlox F., Wee B. The effects of the land use system on travel behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. Transportation Planning and Technology 2007, 30(4):331-353.
2. Andersson D., Shyr O., Fu J. Does high-speed rail accessibility influence residential property prices? Hedonic estimates from southern Taiwan. Journal of Transport Geography 2010, 18:166-174.
3. Banister D. Transport planning 1994, E&FN Spon, London.
4. Banister D. Reducing the need to travel through planning. Town Planning Reviews 1994, 65(4):349-354.
5. Bertolini L., Clercq F., Kapoen L. Sustainable accessibility: A conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy 2005, 12(3):207-220.
6. Boarnet M., Chalermpong S. New highways, house prices, and urban development: A case study of toll roads in Orange County, CA. Housing Policy Debate 2001, 12(3):575-605.
7. Boarnet M., Crane R. The influence of land use on travel behavior: Specification and estimation strategies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2001, 35(9):823-845.
8. Boarnet M., Crane R. Travel by design 2001, Oxford University Press, New York.
9. Boarnet, M. & Haughwout, A. (2000). Do highways matter? Evidence and policy implications of highways' influence on metropolitan development. Discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution Centre on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
10. Boarnet M., Sarmiento S. Can land-use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies 1998, 35(7):1155-1169.
11. Brömmelstroet M. Desired characteristics of expert knowledge to support the integration of land use and transport planning. Proceeding of the Bijdrage aan het Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 2007 2007.
12. Calthrop E., Proost S., van Dender K. Parking policies and road pricing. Urban Studies 2000, 37(1):63-76.
13. Cameron I., Lyons T., Kenworthy J. Trends in vehicle kilometres of travel in world cities, 1960-1990: Underlying drivers and policy responses. Transport Policy 2004, 11:287-298.
14. Cardoso, N. & Silva, P. (1997). O sistema de transportes na área Metropolitana do Porto. Estatísticas e Estudos Regionais 14. INE.
15. Cervero R. Planned communities, self-containment and commuting - A cross-national perspective. Urban Studies 1995, 32(7):1135-1161.
16. Cervero R. Built environments and mode choice: Toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2002, 7:265-284.
17. Cervero R. Growing smart by linking transportation and land use: Perspectives from California. Built Environment 2003, 29(1):66-78.
18. Cervero R., Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 1997, 2(3):199-219.
19. Cervero R., Landis J. The transportation-land use connection still maters. Access 1995, 7:2-10.
20. Chatman D. Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity and price effects on household non-work travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2008, 42(7):1008-1030.
21. Chen C., McKnight C. Does the built environment make a difference? Additional evidence from the daily activity and travel behavior of homemakers living in New York City and suburbs. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(5):380-395.
22. Chen C., Gong H., Paaswell R. Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: Additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation 2008, 35(3):285-299.
23. Chin A., Smith P. Automobile ownership and government policy: The economics of Singapore's vehicle quota scheme. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 1997, 31(2):129-140.
24. Christaller, W. (1933). Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Jena: Gustav Fischer. English translation (1966). Central places in Southern Germany (C. W. Baskin, Tran.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25. Chu S. Auctioning rights to vehicle ownership: Singapore's experience with sealed-bid tenders. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2002, 36(6):555-561.
26. CMP Transportes e Mobilidade. Síntese Final 2003, CMP, Porto.
27. Coevering P., Schwanen T. Re-evaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North-America. Transport Policy 2006, 13(4):229-239.
28. Cullinane S. Hong Kong's low car dependence: Lessons and prospects. Transport Policy 2003, 11:25-35.
29. DANTE Consortium. (1998). DANTE - Designs to Avoid the Need to Travel in Europe. Project Funded by the European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the 4th Framework Programme.
30. Davison L., Knowles R. Bus quality partnerships, modal shift and traffic decongestion. Journal of Transport Geography 2006, 14(2):177-194.
31. DGAP Dados de Emprego na administração pública em 1999 1999, DGAP, Lisboa.
32. DGEEP Quadros de Pessoal 2004 2004, DGEEP, Lisboa.
33. Dziekan K., Kottenhoff K. Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transport: Effects on customers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2007, 41(6):489-501.
34. EC Cidades para Bicicletas, Cidades de Futuro 2000, European Commission, Belgium.
35. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record 2001, 1780:87-114.
36. Ewing R., Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association 2010, 76(3):265-294.
37. Expert Group on the Urban Environment Sustainable European Cities 1996, European Commission.
38. Fujii S., Kitamura R. What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Transportation 2003, 30(1):81-95.
39. Gärling T., Eeka D., Loukopoulosa P., Fujii S., Johansson-Stenmand O., Kitamurac R., et al. A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use. Transport Policy 2002, 9(1):59-70.
40. Geertman S. Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2006, 33:863-880.
41. Geurs K., Eck J. Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use-transport scenarios, and related social and economic impacts 2001, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven.
42. Geurs K., Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 2004, 12:127-140.
43. GIASE Recenseamento Escolar 06/07. Gabinete de Avaliação e Informação do Sistema Educativo 2006, Ministério da Educação.
44. Giuliano G. Research policy and review 27. New directions for understanding transportation and land use. Environment and Planning A 1989, 21:145-159.
45. Giuliano G. The weakening transport-land use connection. Access 1995, 6:3-11.
46. Giuliano G., Dargay J. Car ownership, travel and land use: A comparison of the US and Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2006, 40(2):106-124.
47. Giuliano G., Narayan D. Another look at travel patterns and urban form: The US and Great Britain. Urban Studies 2003, 40(11):2295-2312.
48. Halden D. Using accessibility measures to integrate land use and transport policy in Edinburgh and the Lothians. Transport Policy 2002, 9:313-324.
49. Halden D., McGuigan D., Nisbet A., McKinnon A. Accessibility: Review of measuring techniques and their application 2000, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
50. Handy S. Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 1996, 1(2):151-165.
51. Handy S., Clifton K. Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 2001, 28(4):317-346.
52. Handy S., Niemeier D. Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A 1997, 29(7.):1175-1194.
53. Hoetjes P. Planning as a design science - Design science as a methodology. Proceeding of the AESOP 2007 2007.
54. Holl A. Manufacturing location and impacts of road transport infrastructure: Empirical evidence from Spain. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2004, 34:341-363.
55. INE Recenseamento Geral da População 1991 1991, INE, Lisboa.
56. INE Inquérito à Mobilidade da População Residente 2000 2000, INE, Lisboa.
57. INE Recenseamento Geral da População 2001 2001, INE, Lisboa.
58. Ingram D. Concept of accessibility - Search for an operational form. Regional Studies 1971, 5(2.):101-107.
59. ISIS Outline of concept. Deliverable 1 of the European Project TRANSLAND 1999, European Commission.
60. Kenworthy J., Laube F. Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: An international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 1999, 33:691-723.
61. Kenyon S., Lyons G. The value of integrated multimodal traveller information and its potential contribution to modal change. Transportation Research Part F - Traffic psychology and behaviour 2003, 6(1):1-21.
62. Kitamura R., Fujii S., Pas E. Time-use data, analysis and modeling: Toward the next generation of transportation planning methodologies. Transport Policy 1997, 4(4):225-235.
63. Kockelman, K., Siethoff, B., Walton, M., & Mahmassani, H. (2002). Research on relationships between transportation infrastructure & increase in vehicle miles travelled: The effects of highway capacity expansion on land development. Final technical report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas, Austin.
64. Lopes A. Desenvolvimento Regional 1980, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa.
65. Lösch, A. (1940). Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft. Jena: G. Fischer. English translation (of the 2nd rev. ed.) (1954). The economics of location. New Haven: Yale University Press.
66. Mageean J., Nelson J. The evaluation of demand responsive transport services in Europe. Journal of Transport Geography 2003, 11(4):255-270.
67. Makrí M. Accessibility indices. A tool for comprehensive land-use planning. Proceedings of the TLEnet 5th workshop 2001.
68. Marshall S., Banister D. Travel reduction strategies: Intentions and outcomes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2000, 34(5):321-338.
69. Martens M., Eijkelenbergh P. Assessment of integrated land use and transport planning strategies. Deliverable 2 of the European project TRANSPLUS - Transport planning, land use and sustainability 2002, European Commission, Brussels.
70. Meyer M. Demand management as an element of transportation policy: Using carrots and sticks to influence travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 1999, 33(7-8):575-599.
71. Milakis D., Vlastos T., Barbopoulos N. Relationships between urban form and travel behaviour in Athens, Greece. A comparison with Western European and North American Results. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 2008, 8(3):201-215.
72. Mokhtarian P., Salomon I. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2001, 35(8):695-719.
73. Næss P. Residential location affects travel behaviour - But how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan area. Progress in Planning 2005, 63:167-257.
74. Næss P. Urban structure matters. Residential location, car dependence and travel behaviour 2006, Taylor & Francis Ltd., Abington.
75. Newman P., Kenworthy J. Sustainable urban form: The big picture. Achieving Sustainable urban form 2000, 109-120. Routledge, New York. K. Williams, E. Burton, M. Jenks (Eds.).
76. Pagliara F., Papa E. Urban rail systems investments: An analysis of the impacts on property values and residents' location. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19:200-211.
77. Parkhurst G. Influence of bus-based park and ride facilities on users' car traffic. Transport Policy 2000, 7:159-172.
78. Parthasarathi P., Levinson M., Karamalaputi R. Induced demand: A microscopic perspective. Urban Studies 2003, 40(7):1335-1351.
79. Paulley N. Recent studies on key issues in road pricing. Transport Policy 2002, 9(3):175-177.
80. Pinho P., Silva C., Næss P., Sousa F., Reis J., Giulietti F., et al. MOPUS - Mobility Patterns and Urban Structure 2010, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto. http://citta.fe.up.pt/publications/scientific-reports/mobility-patterns-and-urban-strcture-mopus/at_download/file.
81. Raux C., Souche S. The acceptability of urban road pricing - A theoretical analysis applied to experience in Lyon. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2004, 38:191-215.
82. Root A. Can travel vouchers encourage more sustainable travel?. Transport Policy 2001, 8(2):107-114.
83. Rose G., Marfurtb H. Travel behaviour change impacts of a major ride to work day event. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2007, 41(4):351-364.
84. Rye T. Travel plans: Do they work?. Transport Policy 2002, 9(4):287-298.
85. Schwanen T., Dijst M., Dieleman F. Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: The Netherlands experience. Urban Studies 2004, 41(3):579-603.
86. Shepherd S. Towards marginal cost pricing: A comparison of alternative pricing systems. Transportation 2003, 30(4):411-433.
87. Silva, C. (2004). Interchange in public transport service: Necessary or misjudged problem? MSc dissertation by the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Oporto, Oporto.
88. Silva, C. (2008). Comparative accessibility for mobility management - The structural accessibility layer. PhD thesis, Oporto University, Portugal.
89. Silva, C., Reis, J., & Pinho, P. How urban structure constrains sustainable mobility choices: Comparison of Copenhagen and Oporto. Environment and Planning B, in press.
90. Simmonds D., Coombe D. The transport implications of alternative urban forms. Achieving sustainable urban form 2000, 121-130. Routledge, New York. K. Williams, E. Burton, M. Jenks (Eds.).
91. Stanilov K. Accessibility and land use: The case of suburban Seattle, 1960-1990. Regional Studies 2003, 37(8):783-794.
92. Stead D. Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2001, 28:499-528.
93. Stead D. Transport and land-use planning policy: Really joint up?. International Social Science Journal 2003, 55(2):333-347.
94. Stead D., Williams J., Titheridge H. Land use, transport and people: Identifying the connections. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form 2000, 174-186. Routledge, New York. K. Williams, E. Burton, M. Jenks (Eds.).
95. Straatemeier T. Accessibility: An interesting concept to address strategic planning issues in the Amsterdam region?. Proceeding of the AMIDSt: Transportation planning a policy design challenge 2006.
96. Straatemeier T., Bertolini L. Joint accessibility design: A framework developed for and with practitioners to stimulate the integration of regional land-use and transport strategies in the Netherlands. Proceeding of the TRB 2008 2008.
97. Thøgersen J., Møller B. Breaking car use habits: The effectiveness of a free one-month travelcard. Transportation 2008, 35(3):329-345.
98. Thorpe N., Hillsa P., Jaensirisak S. Public attitudes to TDM measures: A comparative study. Transport Policy 2000, 7(4):243-257.
99. Van U., Senior M. The contribution of mixed land use to sustainable travel in cities. Achieving sustainable urban form 2000, 139-148. Routledge, New York. K. Williams, E. Burton, M. Jenks (Eds.).
100. Viegas J. Making urban road pricing acceptable and effective: Searching for quality and equity in urban mobility. Transport Policy 2001, 8(4):289-294.
101. Van der Valk A., Faludi A. Growth regions and the future of Dutch planning doctrine. Sustainable Development and Urban Form 1992, 122-137. Pion. M. Breheny (Ed.).
102. Von Thünen J. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nazionalökonomie, Hamburg. English version (1966) 1826, The Isolated State, Oxford, Pergamon.
103. Vonk G., Geertman S., Schot P. Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A 2005, 37:909-924.
104. Vonk G., Geertman S., Schot P. A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A 2007, 39:1699-1714.
105. Vuk G. Transport impacts of the Copenhagen Metro. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13(3):223-233.
106. Wee B. Land use and transport: Research and policy challenges. Journal of Transport Geography 2002, 10(4):259-271.
107. Wegner M., Fürst F. Land-use transport interaction: State of the art. Deliverable 2a of the European Project TRANSLAND 1999, European Commission.
108. Weisbrod, G., Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. (1978). Tradeoffs in residential location decisions: Transportation versus other factors. Original version, September 1978; later published in Transportation Policy and Decision-Making, 1(1), 1980.
109. Willigers J., Wee B. High-speed rail and office location choices. A stated choice experiment for the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19:745-754.