Accessibility Based Planning

1
Accessibility Based Planning
More Opportunities with Less Mobility
Ron Bos, MSc
Consultant strategic planning Goudappel Coffeng
ISOCARP Congress, Perm, 12-09-2012
0. Summary
2
Aim of research
create better understanding between urban planning
and infrastructure planning
Focus
focus on facilitating multidisciplinal planning processes
Study
case of Almere, fast growing city in Netherlands
Methodology
4-step process model
3
What trends do we see in
Dutch urban planning?
1
1. Trends in urban planning
4
1. Trends in urban planning
5
Daily Urban System of commuters to Nijmegen
infrastructure issues have become more relevant on a large scale
1. Trends in urban planning
6
1990
1950
1970
2010
infrastructure planning has become more integrated with urban planning
1. Trends in urban planning
7
the planning process has become more complex as
more different stakeholders are being involved
1. Trends in urban planning
8
1970
2010
continual improvement of technical instruments and data collection
9
Why create a common
planning language?
2
1. Trends in urban planning
10
Urban and mobility planning has become more complex on many
aspects, such as scale enlargement, stakeholder participation
and technical improvements of data and instruments.
The emerging urban transportation planning is therefore much
more multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary than its past counterpart.
Therefore sectoral approaches alone are not suitable enough
anymore. A more integrated and social approach is needed.
11
A new approach on
accessibility
3
2. Creating a common planning language
Transport planning
12
Spatial planning
2. Creating a common planning language
13
‘We need accessibility,
not mobility!’
The accessibility paradox:
mobility ≠ accessibility
14
2. Creating a common planning language
15
Accessibility planning
What development opportunities
does the network have?
Transport planning
‘How to get the network facilitate
urban development?
Spatial planning
Where can we situate new
spatial developments?’
2. Creating a common planning language
Mobility based planning
The amount of travel time lost as
a result of traffic congestion.
16
Accessibility based planning
The amount of jobs people can
access within a certain time.
2. Creating a common planning language
17
Mobility based planning
Accessibility based planning
Evaluation: Transport model
Strategy: Accessibility mapping
Re-active to urban development
Pro-active to urban development
Calculate effects of land-use plans
Discuss locations for new development
18
Accessibility based planning
in practice
Casestudy: Almere 2030
4
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
19
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
20
Main%research%ques-on:%
How$to$align$spa-al$extensions$with$
infrastructural$improvements?$
Improving*network*posi0on*or*exis0ng*connec0ons?*
Speed*more*important*then*network*capacity?*
Where*to*locate*new*transit*nodes*or*exits?*
*
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
21
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
22
Step 1: Translating social goals into accessibility criteria
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
23
Step 2: Assess the current quality of accessibility
Car
Public Transport
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
24
Step 3: Designing strategies and identifying strategic choices
%
%
%
%%%%%%%
%
%%Interregional%connec-vity %
%%Faster%highways,$few%exits %
%%Faster%railroad,%few%sta-ons%
%vs
$vs
%vs$
%Metropolitan%connec-vity%
%Slower%highways,%many%exits%
%Slower%railroads,%many%sta-ons%
3. Accessibility based planning in practice
25
Step 4: Evaluating developments strategies
%
%
%
%%%%%%%
%
%%Interregional%connec-vity %
%%Faster%highways,$few%exits %
%%Faster%railroad,%few%sta-ons%
%vs
$vs
%vs$
%Metropolitan%connec-vity%
%Slower%highways,%many%exits%
%Slower%railroads,%many%sta-ons%
26
Conclusions
5
4. Conclusions
27
!  Urban and mobility planning has become more complex on
many aspects, such as scale enlargement, stakeholder
participation and technical improvements.
!  The emerging urban transportation planning is therefore much
more multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary than its past
counterpart. Therefore sectoral approaches alone are not
suitable enough anymore. A more integrated and social
approach is needed.
!  We define accessibility in a different way, such as the amount of
services and jobs people can access within a certain travel time.
Using this definition, accessibility does not relate to the qualities
of the transport system, but also to the qualities of the land use
system.
4. Conclusions
28
!  Accessibility maps create a common language between urban
planners and traffic planners, often leading to interesting new
insights and mutual understanding.
!  Planning instruments are useful tools to provide information
within planning processes, but, technical improvement is not the
only solution. Letting stakeholders choose their own criteria
makes instruments more valuable as information connects
better to their own perception.
!  It is recommended to facilitate the planning process with
workshops. The four-step cyclic process makes a good
framework.
4. Conclusions
29
www.bereikbaarheidskaart.nl