Urban Development without more Mobility by Car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a Multimodal Urban Region

Abstract

The fundamental dilemma in attempts to make urban development less dependent upon mobility by car is the inability of alternatives to match the quality of accessibility provided by private motorized transport. Failure to recognize this means that bringing about environmentally more sustainable urban mobility patterns is only possible at economic, social, and political costs that are unacceptable in most societies. In this paper we identify and discuss ways out of this dilemma, in the form of solutions that pursue the goal of increasing both sustainability and accessibility. We start by contending that what people ask is not a generic mobility, but rather opportunities to participate in spatially disjointed activities. Accordingly, accessibility should be defined as the amount and the diversity of ‘spatial opportunities’ that can be reached within a certain amount of time. Solutions to the accessibility–sustainability dilemma building upon this perspective (that is, planning concepts, policy measures) have been the object of recent research at the Universiteit van Amsterdam and are discussed and we look for, and find, evidence of the feasibility of these solutions in the actual trends in the Amsterdam urban region. Some policy implications of the findings are discussed.

What Curriculum for Mobility and Transport Studies? A Critical Exploration

“…On the one hand, leading scholars are questioning what the role of mobility in contemporary society is, whether mobility is a good thing, and the extent to which we can afford to continue accepting its negative social and environmental impacts (Bauman, 2007;Ferreira et al, 2012b;Urry 2000Urry , 2008Urry , 2010. On the other hand, mobility is a valued activity and to change people's mobility patterns is a challenging task (Stopher 2004;Tennøy 2010) which requires complex approaches to be successful (Bertolini and le Clercq 2003;Banister 2008;May and Marsden 2010). …”

De planologie van mobiliteit

“…Kansrijk beleid erkent deze afhankelijkheden en dynamiek, en zoekt manieren om die te versterken of juist af te zwakken (bv. Bertolini en Le Clercq, 2003). Het gaat bijvoorbeeld om beleid dat de ontwikkeling van het openbaar-vervoersysteem combineert met de compacte verstedelijking rondom de haltes van dat systeem, en omgekeerd.…”

From integrated aims to fragmented outcomes: urban intensification and transportation planning in the Netherlands

“…Transport and land use influence each other directly and endogenously, but are also affected by exogenous factors such as individual attitudes, socioeconomic and demographic variables, and political preferences (Handy 2002;Krizek and Levinson 2008;Hull 2011). However, there is a broad understanding that a better coordination between transport and land use can contribute to sustainable urban development and lead to more sustainable mobility (Bertolini and le Clercq 2003;Banister 2008;Hull 2011). Some essential relationships are sketched in Figure 1 below (based on Wegener and Fürst 1999;Bertolini 2012).…”

“…The overarching quest for planners is to match the quality of the accessibility of a given location to the sort of activity to be located there (Bertolini and Le Clercq 2003) so people can reach more opportunities with less, or less harmful mobility (Straatemeier 2008). The TLU feedback cycle can be used to plan for accessibility in an integrative way, acknowledging both the role of mobility, as facilitated by transportation networks, and that of proximity, as facilitated by land uses (Handy 2002).…”