Accessibility Planning tools for sustainable and integrated Land Use/Transport (LUT) development: an application to Rome

The paper fits into the themes of sustainable accessibility planning in urban areas, that can be defined as the integration of transport and land use planning to achieve sustainable development. In particular the study proposes a tool to support the choices of activities location, which is based on a new aggregate (zone-specific) indicator: the ‘Marginal Activity Access Cost’, providing estimation in monetary terms of the impacts on mobility and on the environment of locating one new activity in a specific zone of the urban area. The proposed indicator is validated through an application to the urban area of Rome.

Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences

Although a large body of literature has been produced on the theoretical definitions and measurements of accessibility, the extent to which such indicators are used in planning practice is less clear. This research explores the gap between theory and application by seeking to understand what the new wave of accessibility instruments (AIs) prepared for spatial and transport planning practice purports to offer the users of AIs. Starting from the question of how urban and transport planners are designing AIs, the article analyzes and describes the AIs developed over the last decade (mainly in Europe), offering a structured overview and a clear categorization of how accessibility measures can be applied. The paper identifies AI characteristics, and considers their usability, based on AI developer perceptions.

An accessibility planning tool for network transit oriented development : SNAP

In the academic debate regarding the influences between urban form, built environment and travel patterns, a specific idea that has taken hold is that more compact urban development around railway stations, often referred to as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), contributes to the control of vehicle travel and to more sustainable metropolitan systems. According to this general principle this work proposes a GIS accessibility tool for the design of polycentric transit oriented scenario: SNAP - Station Network Accessibility Planning tool. In the first part the state of the art on Transit Oriented Development policies in Europe is presented with a focus on three study cases. In the second part the SNAP tool is described, with remarks to the approach, the methodology and the used indicators. Furthermore the paper discusses an application to the metropolitan area of Naples.

Accessibility Instrument Survey

This chapter presents the main results of the Accessibility Instrument Survey (AIS), collecting basic information on each of the accessibility instruments reviewed in this report (for more detail on these Instruments see Chapter 3). The aim of the survey was to enable quick, objective and comparable overviews of each of the reviewed accessibility instruments. The information collected will enable the categorization of accessibility instruments present in this research, aiming to be a reference for future categorization of accessibility instruments for planning practice. These categories will support the analysis of the coverage of accessibility instruments in this research, i.e., identify how representative this research is across different accessibility instrument types. In addition, these will be used to analyse the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments. Finally, the survey also collects developer’s perceptions on the usefulness of their accessibility instruments in planning practice, enabling the first insight into the main research question of this COST Action, although limited to the developer’s point of view. In summary, the results of the survey will be used for four purposes: Development of an accessibility instrument sheet for each accessibility instrument summarizing its main characteristics (Appendix A); Identify the coverage of accessibility instrument types present in this research (Section 4.3.1) discussing the representativeness of this Action; Provide a glimpse on the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments (Section 4.3.2); Provide a first insight into the perceived usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice from the point of view of the developer (Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3). The next section provides an overview of the Survey describing the information collected. This section also describes the development process of this survey including data collection, dates and means. The results of the survey are analysed in the third section starting with a discussion on the coverage of accessibility instruments reviewed by this research (Section 4.3.1), identifying accessibility measure types which are represented and which are absent. This discussion is accompanied by the presentation of the main categories of accessibility instruments from the perspective of the end user. These categories try to summarize the main concerns planning practitioners are expected to have when searching for an accessibility instrument and is built upon some of the information collected by the survey. Following, the third section also presents a general analysis of the results (Section 4.3.2), focussing on the dominant characteristics of the accessibility instruments reviewed and on the developer’s perception of the usefulness their instrument will have for end users. The section ends with a brief cross analysis of results (Section 4.3.3) trying to identify relationships between accessibility instrument characteristics and perceptions of usefulness by developers. The fourth and last section presents the main conclusions of this study.

Testing a gravity-based accessibility instrument to engage stakeholders into integrated LUT planning

The paper starts from the concern that while there is a large body of literature focusing on the theoretical definitions and measurements of accessibility, the extent to which such measures are used in planning practice is less clear. Previous reviews of accessibility instruments have in fact identified a gap between the clear theoretical assumptions and the infrequent applications of accessibility instruments in spatial and transport planning. In this paper we present the results of a structured-workshop involving private and public stakeholders to test usability of gravity-based accessibility measures (GraBaM) to assess integrated land-use and transport policies. The research is part of the COST Action TU1002 “Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice” during which different accessibility instruments where tested for different case studies. Here we report on the empirical case study of Rome.

Accessibility Instruments In Planning Practice: Bridging The Implementation Gap

Accessibility concepts are increasingly acknowledged as fundamental to understand cities and urban regions. Accordingly, accessibility instruments have been recognised as valuable support tools for land-use and transport planning. However, despite the relatively large number of instruments available in the literature, they are not widely used in planning practice. This paper aims to explore why accessibility instruments are not widely used in planning practice. To this end, we focus our research on perceived user-friendliness and usefulness of accessibility instruments. First, we surveyed some instrument developers, providing an overview of the characteristics of accessibility instruments available and on developers’ perceptions of their user-friendliness in planning practice. Second, we brought together developers and planning practitioners in some local workshops across Europe and Australia, where participants were asked to use insights provided by accessibility instruments for the development of planning strategies. We found that most practitioners are convinced of the usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice, as they generate new and relevant insights for planners. Findings suggest that not only user-friendliness problems but mainly organisational barriers and lack of institutionalisation of accessibility instruments, are the main causes of the implementation gap. Thus user-friendliness improvement may provide limited contributions to the successful implementation of accessibility concepts in planning practice. In fact, there seems to be more to gain from the active and continued engagement of instrument developers with planning practitioners and the institutionalisation of accessibility planning.