The bicycle is often understood as a disjointed 'feeder' mode that provides access to public transport. We argue that combined use of the bicycle and public transport should be understood in a broader perspective, especially where bicycles link to higher speed and higher capacity public transport, such as the train. Cycling and public transport can have a symbiotic relationship forming a hybrid, distinct transport mode, which should be reflected in transport planning. The bicycle is as a way to soften the rigid nature of public transport and thus accommodate diverse individual travel needs and situations. Public transport can be seen as a means to dramatically extend cycling's speed and spatial reach. We combine a system perspective with conceptual analysis to explore how, why and when this reconsideration is important. We use the Netherlands as illustrative case because of the relative maturity of its bicycle-train connections. The case shows that the synergy between rather opposite yet highly complementary aspects, high speed of the train, high accessibility of the bicycle and flexibility in combining both sub-modes, are the fundamental characteristics to understand the functioning of this system in a wider spatial context. In our conclusion we propose a research agenda, to further explore the relevance of this system for land-use and transport planning and distil wider implications for the international debate.

Planning support systems (PSSs) are intended to facilitate relevant steps in planning processes; however, the academic evaluation of PSSs reveals many bottlenecks precluding a widespread use of these systems. A central weakness is the lack of communication between PSS developers (focusing on technical issues) and potential PSS users. Other academic fields such as knowledge management and technological innovation recognised similar bottlenecks years ago. On the basis of methods proposed in these fields, a new process architecture for the development of a PSS is proposed. Through a dialogue in which PSS developers and potential users discuss and use the PSS, existing tools, instruments, and models are refined and improved to be more useful to their potential users. The focus shifts away from the development of a technically more sophisticated support system, towards a process of PSS development which is intertwined with the planning process itself. This process architecture is called mediated planning support (MPS). We explore what can be learned from other academic domains and enquire about the applicability of these findings to PSS development. In Amsterdam the Department of Transport wanted to transform their transportation model into a land-use and transport PSS and their work illustrates how such a process architecture can link PSS developers and users in planning practice. We discuss the concepts behind MPS and use the case of Amsterdam to visualise its workings, lastly offering hypotheses on the method and suggestions for further research.

Academic discussions on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as an appraisal instrument for integrated land use and transportation plans tend to focus on its technical aspects. However, many issues of CBA also arise from process related matters, especially when assessing integrated plans. Using an inductive research design, we explored how these process related issues play out in Dutch planning practices. In two applied research techniques, focus group sessions and open in depth interviews, we focused on process related issues as perceived by CBA participants ranging from plan makers to CBA testers. This article presents the different perceptions of issues in CBA processes. Through these collected perspectives, we found that these issues are multi-layered and present a number of fundamental dilemmas. After relating our empirical data to theory, we conclude that the biggest challenge lies in decreasing the level of mistrust and communication deficits revealed between plan owners and CBA calculators and their respective frames of thinking when assessing complex integrated land use and transportation plans.

Abstract: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. IntroductionAccessibility instruments (AIs) are a type of planning support system (PSS) designed to support integrated land-use transport analysis and planning through providing explicit knowledge on the accessibility of land uses by different modes of transport at various geographical scales. They measure, interpret and/or model accessibility and are developed to support the many research tasks involved in planning practice (analysis, design support, evaluation, monitoring, etc.). Although there exists an extensive literature on the analysis and the classification of accessibility measures and indicators incorporated in these AIs (Geurs and van Eck 2001;Geurs and van Wee 2004), less attention has been paid to the planning issues that they seek to support or to their usability and employability for the various planning goals in actual practice. This research aims to fill this gap and provide insights on the two following research questions: How has the new wave of accessibility instruments (AIs) prepared for spatial and transport-planning practice been designed? What is the usability of these planning instruments as perceived by their developers? To provide an answer to these questions, the paper draws on the outcomes of , accessibility analysis and instruments offer a highly suitable framework to support the development of combined land-use and transport strategies, so as to achieve the coordination and synergy required to attain city sustainability goals (Holden 2012;Stead, Geerlings, and Meijers 2004). Indeed, a focus on accessibility makes the overall goal of the land-use and transport system explicit and offers a direct link between the characteristics of flows (i.e., speeds and travel time) and the characteristic of places (i.e., the number of relevant activities in a given area). Because of these features, it represents a potentially powerful approach that planning practitioners can employ to develop and test effective strategies for sustainable cities (Straatemeier 2008), and that could act as good accelerators for a better coordination between urban and transport planning.The second reason for focusing on AIs, and in particular on their usability in planning practice, is that although both the...

No abstract

Planning Support Systems (PSS) can provide important and much needed knowledge and support in strategy-making processes, by bringing explicit information to daily planning practices. However, as decades of academic studies show, their use is riddled with barriers and bottlenecks. Academic studies generated insight in these bottlenecks and identified a number of directions to bridge the implementation gap. Most notably, the transparency, flexibility and interactivity of PSS needed to be enhanced to align the instruments more with the dynamic characteristics of urban strategy-making processes. However, PSS developers do not seek instrumental use only; they seek to increase the quality of planning through this use. Accordingly, academic analysis should go beyond the user-friendliness of the PSS themselves. There are a number of studies that focus on the relations between PSS and planning quality. This paper aims to construct links between these studies of usefulness and the body of knowledge on user-friendliness. To do so, it operationalizes the characteristics of user-friendliness and the potential added value that PSS have on the qualities of planning (specifically the strategy-making phases). Consequently, the relations between these concepts are further explored. Five experiments measured user-friendliness and usefulness indicators of different PSS and explored the relations between these two concepts. The findings indicate high userfriendliness across the board, while usefulness was only found in very limited cases and for very limited dimensions (notably Insight and Consensus). The correlations between the perceived user-friendliness and usefulness on different planning qualities reveal that for the self-reported Enthusiasm of participants all user-friendliness indicators have a positive effect. For perceived gains in Insight, only Credibility and Clarity of output have a significant positive effect.

No abstract

With its high cycling mode share, the Netherlands is often seen as a best practice for cycling policies. However, there is little insight into the drivers behind this phenomenon, specifically which policy interventions increased cycling rates and which did not. The knowledge gap on the effectiveness of cycling policies seriously limits the potential for learning from the Dutch experience. This paper will address this gap, by exploring the performance of Dutch cycling policies in 22 mediumsized cities since 2000. First, the existing ideas regarding the effectiveness of cycling policy are reviewed. These insights structure the exploration of data from Statistics Netherlands and the Dutch Cyclists' Union, complemented with a survey of local policy-makers by means of an explorative data-mining methodology called rough set analysis. Our findings support the following hypotheses regarding the performance of cycling policy in Dutch cities: first of all, the way cycling policy is implemented seems important: setting measurable and verifiable goals, following through with most of the proposed policy interventions, allowing for experimental measures to be explored and showing strong leadership. Second, providing adequate cycling infrastructure and decreasing the attractiveness of car use (e.g. by increasing parking tariffs and increasing the area of paid on-street car parking) seem to be key drivers. Finally, we found that external circumstances, such as demographic trends, seem to influence cycling policy outcomes. Future research is needed to test these hypotheses.